Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00058)

Hey Mauri,

Maybe you should have some patience, before you start worrying about whether 
I'm going to answer your letters of not. I hate to confuse you further, but 
since you insist on crossing over to both Bn-study and theos-talk, let me set 
the record straight. 

Leon is actually an abbreviation of Leonardo (my given name) -- which was 
hung on me by the doctor who made out my birth certificate, and which followed me 
through school and business. (Wm., Chas., Jms., Les., they could handle, but 
Leon. threw them for a loop). However, everyone knows me personally as Lenny 
or Len. I've also been called Leo and Lee by some of my acquaintances, 
especially those that come from Europe or the Far East. (Since I have no personal 
ego left anymore, I couldn't care less what anyone calls me. :-)

As for Lenny on Bn-study, that's because most of the founders and charter 
members of that forum came from the New York ULT Lodge where they all know me 
personally. In personal letters to friends and family, I use Len. In the 
science and other forums that link to my web sites, I use Leon or LHM. (This was 
because the moderator of the Journal of Consciousness Study online forum is named 
Len Maurer, and I didn't want to confuse them.) 

So, there you have it, and now you can stop speculating on names (and 
hopefully, on everything else -- since I'm getting bored with all this nonsense.) 

Best wishes,
LHM, a.k.a. Lenny, Leon, Len, Lee, Leo, "fast Lenny" or "the flash" (in my 
gang and army days -- because I was never in any rush to volunteer for anything. 
;-)

In a message dated 11/05/03 3:28:11 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>The following post wasn't signed, but I'm
>guessing it might be from Leon. Of course I
>might be wrong about that, among other things!
>
><<Mauri, On behalf of everyone on this forum
>whose mailboxes are already cluttered with
>much nonsense, I wish to thank you for your
>pointless comments and further ramblings.
>However, since you still insist on spilling
>out a lot of unrelated words reflecting
>disconnected and vague thoughts that
>apparently refer to my theory of ABC,
>confusedly and unexplainably conflated with
>string, relativity, quantum, theosophy and
>other "more or less mayavic" (whatever that
>means) theories -- I won't take the trouble
>to answer your profound lack of
>understanding, questions, or conclusions. (At
>least, not at this time.:-)
>Wondering why? <\^:-[> >>>
>
>Thanks, Leon, that's more like it! But that
>post from that Lenny guy that appeared on
>bn-study had me concerned (as per my
>explanation meant for bn-study, but which
>explanation/post seems not to have gotten
>past the list owner, apparently ...). In case
>you missed it, Leon (I sent it to Lenny
>privately, as well), here's my response to
>that post of Lenny's that appeared on
>bn-study (I hope Lenny doesn't mind my
>quoting him on this list):
>
>Lenny wrote: <<Yes, to put any idea or
>concept into words, pictures, or symbols
>automatically makes it "exoteric.">>
>
>I tend to agree ...
>
><<But, without such outer descriptive
>versions of fundamental truth, or Gupta
>Vidya, how else are we to get even an inkling
>of what the underlying inner
>esoteric truth actually is? Didn't HPB say
>that we each have to arrive at those
>esoteric ideas in our own higher mind, all by
>ourselves -- through "self
>determined and self devised study and effort"?>>
>
>I tend to agree in a sense ...
>
> <<Doesn't that imply deep study of all the
>occult literature and equally deep
>contemplation of the "models" presented
>exoterically? Isn't that what Jnana Yoga is
>all about? And, isn't that why she wrote the
>Secret Doctrine in exoteric
>terms? (Are there any other?)>>
>
>I tend to agree IN A SENSE ...
>
><<So, why can't that exoteric "proof making"
>(once one understands exactly what it refers
>to and represents, and can picture it in
>one's higher mind) "lead
>to some kind of more transcendental
>understanding about reality"?>>>
>
>I tend to agree, but only "in a sense ..."
>
><< And, then, once we find such esoteric
>truth within ourselves, how can we tell it to
>others, other than "exoterically" in
>descriptive models and formulas they might be
>able to understand?>>
>
>I tend to agree "in a sense ..."
>
><< Or, do you think that HPB, WQJ, and others
>who have tried to explain the fundamental
>nature of reality in whatever manner they
>could (considering their level of
>understanding, and that of those whom they
>were talking to) and related to the science
>and philosophy of their age -- were wasting
>their time and energies? Isn't it obvious
>that even the Buddha could only explain the
>true nature of reality in exoteric terms
>equal to the understanding of those he spoke
>to? And, does that mean we have to ignore
>all the millions of words and symbols that
>were spewed out since by others trying to
>explain the meaning behind all the words and
>symbols he used? Is there anything being done
>wrong, then, by those today who are
>continuing to try to explain esoteric truths
>using the language, symbols and formulas
>related to the modern science of this age?
>Does not the synthesis of quantum and
>relativity theories through the "proofs" of
>Superstring/M-brane theories (much beyond the
>"5 proofs" of simple string theory) --
>coupled with the ABC theory, which bridges
>all that to mind, consciousness and
>perception and relates it to the theosophical
>ideas of the seven fold nature of Man
>(resulting in a true exoteric "Theory of
>Everything") -- lead many more of us even
>closer to those
>esoteric truths than ever before possible in
>any previous age? Questioningly, Lenny>>
>
>Lenny, while I tend to agree (if "in a sense
>...") with everything you said in that post,
>I can't help thinking about some of the posts
>I read from Leon ... ^:-/ ... I guess I just
>miss those challenging exchanges I
>occasionally had with that Leon guy that got
>me speculating about a few things. Anyway,
>you two guys seem to have a lot in common, to
>an extent, apparently, but ... Lenny, I
>wonder if I might kindly ask you for a small
>favor (maybe not so small?)? Could you, by
>any chance, read some of Leon's posts
>(unless, of course, you already happen to be
>familiar enough with them) and then maybe
>sort of try to follow his general approach
>when, if, you ever think of responding to a
>post of mine again? I hope I'm not asking
>for anything too unreasonable. It's just
>that I hate it when I find myself repeating
>that "I tend to agree" over and over again.
>Doesn't that bother you? Repeating that "in
>a sense" qualifier over and over just seems
>about more than I can handle.
>
>^:-/ ...
>Mauri
>
>PS Or maybe this letter got too personal or
>something to get past Reed, so I figure I
>might as well send it to you sort of
>privately, as well ...
>============
>
>PS (Theos Talk) Looks like Dallas and John
>also saw that Elegant Universe documentary on
>TV. Did you miss it, Leon? Lenny?
>
>PPS If you're reading this, Lenny, have a
>nice day. Leon ... ^:-/ ...
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>