Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00062)

Leon, etc, wrote: <<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. :-) >>

L, If you had an idea that I probably knew 
(or "surely knew") that all those names you 
have used that start with L were all the same 
guy, then, (one might wonder ...), why not 
address the issues I brought up in my posts 
(which I pasted at the bottom of this post, 
again), rather than go on as if I were just 
confused about which name is which (not that 
you haven't told me often enough about how 
confuing my posts are, but ...) ... At any 
rate, regardless of how any one particular 
L-named guy from your direction comes through 
to me, or got through to me, from my 
speculative perspective, that post from Lenny 
did seem "more agreeable" to me, in a sense, 
than some/many of Leon's posts. So, in a 
sense, I was kind of kidding and serious at 
the same time, regardless of how it all 
seemed to you, L. As ususal, though, seems I 
might've used "excessive" qualifiers or 
whatever in those posts that I'm pasting here 
again:

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
===========