Theos-Talk Archives (November 2003 Message tt00140)

In a message dated 11/08/03 4:26:12 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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.

When we talk about the fundamental "nature" of "who we are" (our real self or 
higher ego) "reincarnation," "manvantara," "karma," etc. -- we are 
considering "esoteric" things or ideas that are essentially, absolute -- since they are 
immutable aspects of universal evolution based on fundamental Law (ref: 2nd 
fundamental principle). Therefore, such "absolutes" cannot "tend to vary" or be 
subject to change over periods of time (other than the change of state or 
cyclic phenomena of the illusory conditioned reality they experience as they 
manifest out of their unconditioned reality or noumena). In other words, these 
ideas are the fundamental basis of theosophy that must precede any discussion 
relegated to the metaphysics of their manifestation. I hope this ends the 
confusion of conflating absolute or esoteric absolute realities with the exoteric 
explanation of their illusory change of condition. I suppose that is what you 
mean by agreeing "in a sense." 

>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 ...

The only thing that I would expect you to respond to is what any particular 
person said in reference to the context of the question you had asked, rather 
than be concerned with speculations about the name or character of the sender. 
In the present case, the letter was in a forum that is moderated and has a 
certain agenda -- which precludes any personal references. The fact that you 
bring them into a theosophical conversation is probably why your response was 
rejected by that forum (but which can be talked about on this unmoderated 
list.:-) 

><<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).

There you go doing it again. Loosely conflating different categories with one 
another. Theories are not labels. And, if such theories are valid as such, 
they must deal with concepts that can be argued, falsified or proven either 
scientifically or logically. Since, ABC refers to the evolution of the manifest 
universe it must be exoteric in its explanations, and 
>
>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 ...).

The five proofs of string theory have already been boiled down to one proof 
-- since they each saw the same thing from different points of view. That's 
the nature of string theory's multidimensional mathematics before they added 
superstring and M-brane theories to it. But, that's too deep to discuss with 
you here. In any event, the only dog chasing his tail around here seems to be 
you spinning back and forth between empty words like esoteric and exoteric. 

><<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.

Did you? 

><<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.

Are your sure? Or, is that another speculation? 

><<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 ...

Happy to hear it. But, I wonder in what 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.

I'm beginning to wonder what's on the other side of that leaf? Repeating 
words with and without quotes makes very little sense to me. So, being totally 
confused about what you just said, I have no comment.

>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).

Ditto.

>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.

Glad to hear it. Might make sense, in a sense. (Even though I can't follow 
it, since I got bogged down in "mayavic logic out of dependent arisings" that 
IS essentially simplistic/mayavistic ???) As far as I know, there are either 
real things or unreal things. What are "Realer things"? 

>So what's wrong with regarding make it easier to understand. "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 ...

That's what we have been saying all along about models that try to explain 
"theosophy" in simpler, scientifically oriented language and images that make it 
easier for people to understand who get bogged down in the complexities of 
the SD's metaphysics. How else can we transcend remnants of karma if we don't 
understand its fundamental roots? HPB wasn't talking to people who already 
know and understand the fundamental causes of reincarnation and karma and how 
they relate to their present conditions of life. Neither am I when I present a 
model that clarifies the metaphysics behind those concepts. 

><<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.

That's good for you. But, I don't think it's so good to confuse others -- 
(who may think you know what you are talking about since your writing is so 
convoluted and full of authentic sounding jargon) -- with "speculations with lots 
of reservations" that never come to any useful conclusions pertinent to what 
they are studying or interested in knowing. 

><<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 ... ^:-/ ...

All that does is get them spinning in the opposite direction and crashing 
into themselves. (That is, if they are dumb enough to take what you say seriously 
in the first place.) 

><<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.

The above statement is a perfect example of this circular illogic -- so I 
don't know why I am even bothering to comment on any of it.:-) Guess i have 
nothing better to do tonight -- and the TV movies are all old hat. 

><<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 ...

Of course not. (Whatever you're talking about...?)

><<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 ...

Hopeless... I'm caught up in your assumptuous "karmic connections" that are 
esoteric/exoteric, mayavic/unrealer, and maybe... Not that... 

I quit -- before it gets me too...

Loony

>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>