Theos-Talk Archives (September 2003 Message tt00183)

Yesterday, somebody wrote, on BN Study:

<< >>

Surely not ... But maybe there's some kind 
of what might be called a purposeful 
blandness, (comparatively speaking, in 
whatever sense ...), as in whatever "ULT 
context" ...

A while back, Dallas wrote to me: "No more 
what-ifs." Apparently my "what-ifs" and 
speculations (ie, my attempts to think for 
myself ) ought to have been, (according to 
Dallas?), eliminated or toned down 
(strategically, largely or entirely?) in 
favor of whatever might've been, apparently, 
a more faith-based (or Liberal Catholic, in a 
sense, maybe?) approach to the study of 
Theosophy? At least that's been partly the 
impression that Dallas has been giving me.

The only kind of what might be called a 
"faith-based approach" that might make 
"enough sense" to me has been one that might 
arise from whatever basically inner resource 
of mine. In other words, if, for whatever 
apparent reason, I feel the need to "think 
for myself" in whatever sense that my karma 
might present for me as being "applicable 
enough," then, "for better or worse," I may, 
or may not, follow through with such an 
approach. In any case, I feel that sooner or 
later we all face our karma, in whatever 
sense or context, (whether we see it as 
"bland," or otherwise).

But what if one were to think in terms of 
some kind of Theosophically applicable 
Zen-like sense/approach to an apparent 
"blandness" or a "minimizing of personality 
traits" in a ULT context? I'm wondering if 
something like that, in some sense/context, 
might be found to be relevant enough (ie, how 
such applicabillity might be variously, 
individually interpreted is beyond me, of 
course). And I wonder if a certain amount of 
some kind of what might be called 
"blandness" or "minimizing of personality 
traits" might not be a bad idea in a "Lodge" 
context, generally speaking, if it can be 
kept within some kind of "reasonable 
guidelines"---ie, even though we all might 
tend to interpret "reasonable guidelines" 
somewhat differently in practice, often enough?

Apparently my "reasonable guidelines" might 
somewhat generally tend to differ from 
Dallas's. But, then, apparently, my 
"reasonable guidelines" seem to somewhat 
differ from those of lots of people, so ... 
hee hee. For all I really know, my 
"reasonable guidelines" might differ so much, 
in so many places, that this post might not 
even get posted on BN Study (among other 
things ...), so ... hee hee.

Still, I have often found much useful info in 
Dallas's posts, and am thankful for Dallas's 
efforts. "Bland anonymity" doesn't bother me 
much, really---not that I would call Dallas's 
or ULT's efforts "bland," exactly, or devoid 
of personality traits
(if in spite of their best efforts at ... 
whatever).

But I tend to wonder if People in the West 
(as opposed to the mysterious East) might 
generally tend to find the appeal of their 
Thesophical studies decrease in proportion to 
the extent of perceived blandness in the 
various Theosophic presentations. Didn't HPB 
offer a "more colorful" model of Reality in 
such a way as to promote a larger interest in 
the West, specifically (in that, apparently, 
many in the West tend to find Zen, for 
example, too bland and too devoid of color 
and personality?)?

Speculatively,
Mauri