Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00181)

Mauri,

Apparently, you seem to continually denigrate my direct philosophical and 
scientific approach to theosophical metaphysics (that cannot be labeled as either 
exoteric or esoteric) directed to thoughtful students of theosophy interested 
in its relationship to modern science -- as an attempt to clarify its reality 
through use of logical progressions of its involution and evolution leading 
to geometric models that assist in visualization of the fundamental unity of 
its multidimensionality that bridges the absolute with the relative as well as 
connects Spirit to Matter... 

And, since I generally respond to letters that refer to me or my ideas, 
whether positively or negatively -- I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I 
think you have very effectively proven (with the below letter as an example) 
that you have apparently, whether intentionally or unintentionally, added 
obfuscation as well as ambiguity, irrationality, and diversion to your previous 
attempts at confusion. 

One good example is your conflation of "exoteric" and "esoteric" (among many 
other opposites) by sometimes placing them together in the same sentence 
separated by a slash, and when used separately, never explaining what you mean by 
them, or what reference such ambiguities or diversions have to understanding 
theosophy? This obfuscation includes your use of incomplete sentences beginning 
or ending with meaningless, disconnected words and combinations of words, 
such as "but/but," "whatever," "so...," etc. ... Not to mention the coining of 
meaningless words such as "exotericising," "scientizing," and the like. 

In any event, as hard as I try, I never seem to find any definitive ideas in 
what you ramble on about that make any sense from a theosophical point of view 
-- which is generally logical and definite and either adds to our knowledge 
or poses direct questions that engender direct answers from those who might 
know what they are talking about -- ostensibly, for the benefit of those who wish 
to learn. I hope you are one of them, and not a gadfly whose intent is to 
confuse the serious theosophical students among us.

I also hope you will think about this, and in the future try to make your 
comments or questions to those trying to help us learn theosophy by either 
quoting the Masters or original teachers, interpreting them in the "language of this 
age" as best you can, or asking pertinent questions that lead us toward 
thinking about them so that we may find the answers for ourselves. In addition, I 
don't think most of us have any interest in your personal confusion or 
speculations that seem to lead nowhere.

So, maybe it would be a good idea for you (since you say you are trying to 
communicate) to start thinking clearly about what positive thoughts or ideas you 
would like to convey, or questions you would like to ask, and begin learning 
how to write them, without equivocation, in clear and direct English that 
everyone can understand. Maybe, then, instead of being hit with sticks or verbal 
barbs, you might be able to carry on an intelligent dialogue with us.:-)

Incidentally, It may be okay, sometimes, to take a humorous view of certain 
ideas and comments by others -- but not so when the responses appear smart 
alecky, or when they appear to denigrate the authors or the serious ideas and 
questions they are presenting. Remember, as Eldon pointed out, this is a public 
forum and everyone can read and make judgments about the letters we each write, 
no matter to whom they are directed.

I hope you take all this as being well meant in your own best interests, and 
not as any personal affront. 

Best wishes,

Leon

In a message dated 10/16/03 12:47:22 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>10/15, Dallas wrote (at least on BN-Study, 
>for a start, apparently ...): <<Where does 
>duality come from?>>
>
>Maybe from a kind of falling asleep, in a 
>sense, I'm guessing.
>
><<What is its purpose? Is it possible we can 
>perceive that besides duality there has to be 
>a third and independent "power to perceive," 
>both, or am I wrong?>>
>
>I don't know, but, seeing as "exoterizing" is 
>popular around here, I'm wondering if I 
>should respond to that with something like: 
>Hmm ... there seem to be so many models of 
>reality, at least in "exoteric terms" (with 
>or without quotes, I suppose).
>
><<Is in Nature or solely in Man ? What is its 
>purpose? Has it any relation to the Mind and 
>thinking? Can "SPIRIT" think of , or 
>understand "MATTER,?" and vice versa? Is the 
>function of the mind to be able to identify 
>and reflect on both? Does the Metaphysical 
>concept of an ABSOLUTE BACKGROUND (as a 
>starting point, no matter how long ago) make 
>sense? Would "manifestation" in general, be a 
>division of that "ONE?" Possibly, might it be 
>the source for the contrasting duality: 
>SPIRIT and MATTER ? If so, then how do we, as 
>free, creative, and independent thinkers and
>"speculators" get to live and think about 
>such things? Why are we alive? What are our 
>functions and duties, or are there none? Now 
>what about time? When did this begin? And 
>was indefinable "duration" before that ? Are 
>we not somewhere in the middle of an on-going 
>study of "things as they are?" And while 
>studying and discovering, do we not also live 
>our lives? Why? Are we supposed to find 
>answers? Is this an insolvable puzzle? Great
>thinkers have found and presented all kinds 
>of answers. How can we learn enough to rate 
>them on logic, and value? Or are we endlessly 
>to speculate in a closed loop? How did we 
>ever get there? Do we make the "loop" or are 
>we trapped? What tools, if any, have we got 
>to get out of such a trap (if we recognize it?).
>If present differences and examples of 
>duality and conflict and misunderstandings 
>exist, how do you think they began? Are we 
>to do anything about them (for ourselves, at 
>least)?
>Why should we accept anyone's point of view 
>if we cannot prove it for ourselves? -- even, 
>what the Buddha is reputed to have said? By 
>the way, logically, (to me) duality cannot 
>exist with a single source. Add 1 + 2 and 
>you get 3. If you assume the 1 is not 
>manifesting, but an "eternal background"
>that does not participate actively in 
>"manifestation" (as THEOSOPHY does), then 2 
> and 3 are by themselves, and they are 
>unable to describe each other. In duality, 
>there is no perspective. Geometrically, if 
>try to place 2 parallel lines together, they 
>never meet but go on indefinitely in time and 
>space. But that is not the case, lines cross 
>each other all the time. Only an eternal and 
>endless
>parallelism would exist. Right ? Does this 
>generate the logical necessity for a 3 ? 
>As an independent, free, and self-knowing 
>reference point. Is our "mind" this " 3 " ?
>In which case we have 4 : 1 = ABSOLUTE,, 
>2 = SPIRIT, 3 = MATTER, and 4 = MIND (in 
>the way I think of these, and without further
>definitions).Is this possibly correct and 
>agreeable? Same with esoteric and exoteric. 
>When invisible thought is made visible
>by words or sounds to another, then it 
>becomes exoteric -- no longer 
>"self-contained," but exposed to review and 
>criticism or help in
>improving it. Can you help? Best wishes,
>Dallas>>
>-----------
>
>Seems that there are so many exoteric 
>thoughts on this plane. I wonder if 
>"exoteric" should occasionally be offered in 
>italics, or with quotes, especially in a 
>"Theosophic context, because, (apparently?), 
>the nature of a certain kind of "exoteric" 
>doesn't seem (?) to go over too well in a 
>number of cases (apparently?), in that its 
>"meaningful contrast," say, in a sense, or 
>"esoteric," doesn't seem to go over too well 
>either, in a number of cases (apparently?), 
>so ... ^:-/ ...
>
>Speculatively, AND with best wishes,
>Mauri
>
>PS Dallas, ever thought about spending some 
>time at a Zen monastery? I wonder how a Zen 
>master might react to all those questions you 
>posed in that post. I'm guessing you might 
>get hit with a stick, or something like that. 
> No wonder HPB introduced Theosophy to the 
>West, eh? That is, at least Theosophy, as 
>brough to us by HPB, is "more exoteric," in a 
> sense, in that it might (she might've 
>thought?) have a somewhat better chance of 
>appealing to the "western" general tendency 
>of scientizing and modeling in "exoteric 
>terms," eh (as per Leon, eg, as I see it)... 
> Well, not that my offered quotes are all 
>that necessary, exactly, but/"but" ... some 
>of us poor scnooks are trying to 
>"communicate," as they say, so ... ^:-/ ...
>