Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00185)

Hi Mauri and all of you,

Theosophy as such being a wisdom teaching - do communicate by several
methods and not only one --- i.e. the one preferred by the EGO.

If some readers just don't like Mauri's writings it is their problem - if
they anyway continue to read these writings.

But Mauri could consider making a greater biodiversity or variety in his
writings so to speak - and thereby - he will certainly be more helpful - to
himself - and most likely also to other readers.

Just a view...

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 7:37 PM
Subject: Theos-World re communications, Leon, etc


>
>
> Leon wrote: <<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.>>
>
> Okay, I'll try to explain about my
> communication problem, as I see it. Firstly,
> as I see it, there might be a somewhat
> general perception out there, I suspect ...
> or a not-so-general perception that---how can
> I put it---there might be (for some of
> people?) two somewhat basic routes, in a
> sense, that our communications may generally
> take (or, at any rate, in some cases, I suspect):
>
> 1. communications, or attempts at
> communication, that have to do with various
> generally established feliefs within
> "ordinary reality" or within the mainstream
> culture, community, and
>
> 2. attempts at communication about such as
> what HPB called "the soul of things" (in
> quotes) that have to do with such as
> esoteric/occult, the Esoteric Tradition,
> Theosophy, nonduality, "exoteric" with
> respect to "esoteric," etc
>
> Seems to me that even HPB claimed to not be
> able to convey anything more than an
> "exoteric version" of what she called
> Theosophy. So if there's a somewhat general
> tendency on this list, eg, to model,
> interpret, scientize, and "exoterize" (in
> effect) HPB's words about Theosophy without
> what I tend to see as due regard for "that
> which cannot be explained in essentially
> dualistic terms," than ... what can I say ...
> ^:-/ ... But, then, true enough, we all tend
> to have our own sense of "due regard," so ...
>
> I might add that I haven't meant to rudely
> step on anybody's toes, exactly, on these
> lists, thought I might've somewhat
> intentionally, occasionally, (or more than
> occasionally?), meant to sort of kindly nudge
> ... well, not so much toes as ... Okay, I
> think I got it: those Zen books I used to
> read probably got me going: maybe I've been
> thinking, more or less all along, that, in
> light of the density of things, in general,
> (this is a rather dense world, isn't it,
> after all?)that maybe if I were to try a kind
> of speculative Zen-like approach on these
> lists, then maybe I might make some kind of
> "dent" (note quotes) that might, in turn,
> lead to some kind of "understanding" (note
> quotes) beyond just an understanding (note no
> quotes) ... But, as it is, (you guessed it?),
> my dents so often seem to be lacking in
> quotes, as it were, so ... ^:-/ ...
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>