Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00192)

What? What? What did you say? Would you mind repeating that again in plain 
English and tell us what it has to do with discussing theosophy? Did you 
read my letter and "hear" what was said? 

I don't think I asked you to explain your communication problem. I thought I 
carefully explained to you what it was and what to do to correct it. 

Judging by this response, it appears, you don't listen much. Too bad. 

With hope, 

Leon 

P.S. BTW, what makes you think you have the knowledge of theosophy, to make 
us think you are a Zen Master who can give us a nudge or two to make his 
students stay focussed on what he is teaching them? I thought that applied only to 
meditation practices. What has that to do with philosophy or theosophy that 
is discussed among those of like mind? Couldn't it be that all your "nudges" 
have done so far is make everyone think you are just a disruptive gadfly who 
intentionally like to throw people off their tracks into speculative confusion 
-- maybe just so he won't feel so lonely? :-)

In a message dated 10/18/03 1:21:14 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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
>