Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00079)

Uh huh. Maybe, you hit the nail on the head. At least as deep as you seem 
to be able to go when discussing theosophy. But, I still don't know exactly 
what you are driving at. Whatever it is, I assume you are right. But then, you 
may be wrong. What more can I say?

Wonderingly,
Leo


In a message dated 11/06/03 7:52:20 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>L wrote: <<M, Haven't the faintest idea what
>you are talking about. And, getting tired of
>rereading old mail over and over again. So,
>would appreciate getting a direct question
>about any of the "issues" you might have
>brought up in any of your posts -- so I can
>give them a direct answer.>>
>
>Seems we might define "direct" somewhat
>differently in that where I seem to ... On
>second thought, no point in offering more
>confusing qualifiers, at least not until ...
>^:-/ ... I seem to recall having offered some
>comments already about "strings" in relation
>to Theosophy, among other things, all of
>which, to me, seemed "direct enough," in a
>sense (mostly "in agreement in a sense" with
>many of your wordings).
>
>But, in case you're in the mood for some more
>confusing qualifiers that might not have
>enough "directness" in them to your liking:
>
>I wonder if the nature of "atma-buddhi" might
>be kind of dependent, like everything else in
>this "ordinary reality," on the "exoteric
>reality" of "karma/maya," by which I'm saying
>(or "my karma might be saying," I'm
>speculating) that all karmic notions (and
>some "less karmic" notions, as well, maybe
>...) about the nature of "atma-buddhi" might
>be inherently mayavic and basically
>impermanent in as much as they are karmic in
>their exoteric ("essentially dualistic")
>aspects ... And so if "karma" (where the
>quotes refer to a basically interpretive, or
>"karmic/mayavic" nature of that word) ... and
>so if "karma" per whatever
>"individualistic/collective"
>interpretive/intermediary variation has
>outlined or realized or made real whatever
>model or world view ("in one's life"), then,
>(obviously?), such appearances and worlds and
>worldviews are really engaging one's present
>attention in terms of reality in as much as
>if one has no other recourse to anything
>"higher"---which "higher" one might, (eg...),
>Theosophically model in terms of such as
>"atma-buddhi" and "Monad," not that such
>modeling isn't relevant enough and real
>enough in terms of one's reality or "only
>available reality."
>
>In other words, "as I currently tend to see
>it," the Esoteric Tradition is all about
>cultivating a meaningful or "meaningful
>enough" "middle way" (or Theosophy, eg)
>between what is "more" and "less" real/"real"
>in the most apparently
>p/Profoundest/r/Realest/t/Truest sense.
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri