Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00092)

LHM wrote: <<Theosophy (or a rose) by any 
other name would still smell (and
speak) the same. Maybe, that was the point I 
tried to make to Mauri in a kind
of roundabout way -- by showing that whatever 
we call ourselves, or who we
are, has nothing to do with the things or 
ideas we are talking about. >>

In a sense, I tend to agree, I think I know 
what you mean, but I tend to disagree in the 
sense that, over a period of time, 
reincarnations, manvantaras, etc, the nature 
of "who we are" might tend to vary, generally 
speaking, I suspect, and that, along with 
those variations "the things or ideas we are 
talking about" might also change.

If you, LHM, sign off a particular post as 
"Lenny," and if I happen to find that post 
somewhat more agreeable to my speculative 
tendencies (as compared to some other posts 
from a
"Leon,"---though I might suspect they're the 
"same person") then why shouldn't I respond 
to "THAT particular Lenny," maybe even 
pointing out some differences I might tend to 
see between "that Lenny's" and "some other 
Leon's" posts? If we wanted to, we could all 
send in different kinds of wordings under 
different pseudonyms, motivations, 
perspectives, etc, so ...

<<And, labeling a theosophical theory, or 
concept as esoteric or exoteric, karmic or 
mayavic, or as said by someone in particular, 
has nothing to do with the meaning or 
usefulness (or lack of both) of what has been 
presented or is in discussion. >>

I tend to agree in a sense, but I also tend 
to think, speculate that all words, 
equations, models, worldviews, ABC's, 
Theosophies, etc, are, in a sense, labels 
that people in general use in various kinds 
of efforts to communicate; and I tend to see 
such labels of all kinds as being essentially 
karmic, mayavic dependent arisings that one 
might want to transcend at some point, rather 
than wanting to go on "proving" them or 
"proving about" them in relation to whatever 
other labels, motives, worldviews, etc, for 
which one might have some kind of mayavic, 
karmically influenced "preference for" (ie, 
as if one were a dog chasing its tail in 
endless circles).

I wonder if that kind of chasing after 
"proofs" within "ordinary reality" has an 
essentially circular, never ending aspect to 
it, in that, as far as I know, there's 
already 5 equational proofs by way of "string 
theory" about the compatibility (in whatever 
apparent/interpretive terms) between 
relativity and quantum mechanics (ie, one 
might wonder if such proof making might be 
found to be never ending, circular, 
comparable to a dog chasing its tail ...).

<<Being obsessed with considering labels as 
being important, does nothing more
than foul up the atmosphere of serious 
inquiry, and divert peoples minds from
the really important ideas that need to be 
explored in much greater depth.>>

I think I just responded to that.

<<What else is the value of these open forums 
that are based on particular
theme's? If we want to increase our 
knowledge through any dialogue, isn't it
better to present a direct opinion backed up 
by some sort of logic, whether right
or wrong, so we can hear what the other guy 
has to say from his point of view? >>

I think I already responded to that.

<<the rambling in circular redundancies and 
speculative confusion does nothing to add to 
our understanding of the true nature of 
reality, or get us any closer to self 
realization...>>

I tend to agree, in a sense ...

<<I do take Mauri seriously, by trying to get 
him to come to some definite conclusions...>>

I have lots of "definite conclusions (in 
quotes!)," L, but seem to have trouble with 
certain kinds of unqualified definite 
conclusions in general, in that the latter 
never seem to be "definite enough, in a 
sense." I figure that might be partly why I 
have an interest in the Esoteric Tradition. 
Which interest, incidentally, seems to have a 
couple of aspects that come to mind, for a 
start: "definite" and definite, so I might 
add: "qualified" and qualified, "speculative" 
and speculative; ie, since I tend to see 
myself as being in an "essentially dualistic" 
world, seems to me that I tend to have two 
basic choice-poles by way of: reserved, or 
not- or less-reserved 'opinions/"opinions,"' 
which process, in practice, seems to often 
amount to a kind of speculative rambling in 
circles on these list because, thinking that 
"students of Theosophy ought to know better," 
I tend to wind up, apparently, offering 
various interpretive samples (by way of my 
"reserved/speculative self") to the extent 
that no matter how many or whatever kinds of 
qualifiers and explanations I come up with, 
as long as I refuse to follow enough of 
generally accepted 
standards/definitions/values (about whatever) 
past a certain point, or "past a certain 
point," in a sense, then of course I don't 
make sense in "essentially dualistic terms," 
not that I "make sense" in "some other kinds 
of terms" because my reason for not making 
sense (in a sense) is, in a sense, not 
related to "essential dualistics," so, sorry, 
but the various theoretical, idealistic 
"sensible" explanations aren't possible, 
apparently (as far as I can see), other than 
"sort of indirectly," so that one might be 
often seen to generally wind up babbling 
nonsense, in effect, in a sense. No wonder 
I'm trying to turn over some kind of newer 
leaf. No promises, though.

In other words, I tend to suspect that people 
who cultivate "conclusions" and "proofs" 
without, in effect, "enough basic reserve," 
without "enough qualifiers," (which 
qualifiers might, "in a sense," 
"alternatively," be represented by quotes, 
caps, italics, etc), then such people, I tend 
to suspect, might be somewhat prone to a form 
of circular reasoning in as much as they 
might, in effect, "really believe" (ie, per 
whatever karmic influence), that they might, 
at some point, arrive at some kind of "theory 
of everything" (ie, as I currently tend to 
see it, such people, scientists, etc, are, in 
effect, chasing their own tail).

Not that I'm trying to denigrate certain 
kinds of "scientific advances towards a 
theory of everything." I'm just wondering if 
there are scientists or people out there who 
might "understand" something about the basics 
of dependent arisings, because I suspect that 
once a certain kind of "understanding" (note 
quotes) sets in, sort of intuitively, then, I 
suspect, the circular, never ending (mayavic) 
logic out of dependent arisings might be seen 
in it's essential simplicity/mayavicity and 
might then be given a rest, for a change, in 
favor of "Realer things" that might be 
experienced once mayavic things are transcended.

So what's wrong with regarding "Theosophy," 
eg, as an introductory medium or crutch or 
flashlight that might be partly used, in some 
cases, until one has transcended remnants of 
karma ...

<<As for the intrinsic value of Mauri's 
views, I don't think I have any thoughts 
about that, since, judging from Mauri's 
speculations and qualifiers, I don't see that 
he has any definite or particular views...>>

Apparently, as I see it, if I didn't have any 
definite and particular views in the kind of 
karmic terms that, apparently, got me here in 
the first place, then I might be on some 
"higher plane," I guess. So seems I'm 
thinking that the next best thing is to at 
least speculate with lots of reservations, 
and, at the same time, try to negotiate some 
kind of "middle way," or plank (no matter how 
"narrow" it may be, or seem), so as avoid 
getting in too much more trouble and karma.

<<Which, in a way, is good -- since it leaves 
him open to accept or reject any view he 
chooses... Which is also bad -- since it 
leaves him (and anyone who tries to follow 
his ramblings) spinning in circles? >>

Yes, spinning in cicles is spinning in 
circles ... but I thought students of 
Theosophy and the Esoteric Tradition might 
have some interest in transcending such 
spinning, so I thought if I offered some 
qualifiers, caps and quotes here and there, 
then, maybe ... ^:-/ ...

<<the greatest gift I could ever get is for 
someone to "prove" or show me, beyond a 
shadow of a doubt, where I may be wrong. >>

I suspect that what we "ordinarily" think of 
as "karma" doesn't "work that way, exactly," 
in the sense that, as I see it, "proving" is 
"karmic," and "karma" is "essentially 
circular," so ... ^:-/ ... so I tend to 
suspect that you, L, might be barking up the 
wrong tree, in a sense, to an extent, maybe, 
whenever you look for proof "beyond a shadow 
of a doubt," unless you're "knowingly" 
restricting such proof making to the realm of 
dependent arisings---where all such shadows 
and proofs have their mayavic reality.

<<Although it can become a drag after a 
while, there's always hope that we all might 
learn something new.>>

No end of "new" around here, eh, apparently? 
So? Well, not that ...

<<maybe we all have a karmic connection.>>

L, I'm tending to assume that you might be 
referring to "karmic connection" in ... I 
wonder how I ought to try expressing myself 
here ... ^:-/ ... How about: I'm tending to 
assume that you might be referring to "karmic 
connection" in exoteric terms, not that ... 
Sorry, I think I tried that already often 
enough. Didn't seem to work too well ... 
^:-/ ... Not that ...

Speculatively,
Mauri