Theos-Talk Archives (December 2003 Message tt00401)

Mauri, Actually, I really have no clear idea of what you are talking about. 
(Although, I have a faint idea of what you are driving at, since my 
scientifically logical way may not be the way for everyone.) But, if you like to ramble 
in circles, conflate the study of metaphysics with the practice of yoga, 
pejoratively label esoteric things as exoteric (and vice-versa), and speculate 
without any definite direction or conclusion, along with plenty of inconclusive 
ifs, ands, ors, buts, sos, and maybes... I guess the answer to it all is -- 
different strokes for different folks. 

So, I guess my kind of folks who need some definite directions of thought, 
along with positive symbology and metaphors to clarify their non mystical 
understanding of the true nature of reality (which has nothing to do with their 
practice of meditation other than give them some pointed ideas and concepts to 
meditate on) as well as give them the logical and scientific basis that could 
help reinforce their conviction of karma and reincarnation and other 
theosophical truths -- are just not your kind of folks. But, I'm glad you tend to agree 
with my general direction of thought, even if "to an extent" (to what extent?) 
and "in a sense" (in what sense?). Or, maybe we should just leave the 
spinning to the zero-point and let it go at that. :-)

In any event, good luck with your speculations and "just be" meditations, and 
I hope (if you can stop circling) you find that straight and narrow path to 
enlightenment and self realization someday -- so that, besides clearing up the 
cobwebs in your own mind, you can show some of your kind of folks how they, 
too, can get there. :-)

In the meantime, have a Happy New Year, </:-)>

LHM

In a message dated 12/28/03 11:41:48 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: <<Yes, the "causative" planes 
>cannot be literally pictured or schemed by 
>drawings or mental concepts limited to the 
>"effective" planes we can observe through 
>our physical senses. However, such 
>images can be symbolically or figuratively 
>interpreted in our higher intuitive mind 
>so as to comprehend, analogously, the 
>actual interplay and correlation of 
>positive and negative forces between all 
>the planes and within each adjacent field 
>of consciousness. This true intuitive 
>comprehension is made possible because 
>their basic field forms -- (while in 
>different hidden hyperspace dimensions 
>that are coadunate but not consubstantial, 
>yet still relatively "physical" or 
>material) -- are always spherical.>>
>
>I tend to agree, to an extent, in a sense, 
>and suspect that there might be a kind of 
>sphericality of reasoning that people, in 
>general, might be prone to, in as much as 
>their approach toward "defining Reality" 
>might tend to be kind of "exoteric," 
>dependent on descriptions and essentially 
>dualistic logic. Not that I'm quibbling 
>about anything much, here, exactly (or am 
>I ^:-/...) Helpful models can, of course, 
>be seen as helpful models, seems to me, 
>for a start. And of course I'm not saying 
>that my speculations, in general, don't 
>tend to be, or can't be seen as, 
>"essentially spherical." But I think what 
>I MIGHT be saying (sorry about my 
>speculative uncertainties) is that there 
>might be a kind of dividing line, or 
>crossroads, in one's "Theosophical 
>studies," say, that one might, at some 
>point, come to, and find oneself deciding 
>between some "comparatively more-direct 
>route," such as might be seen by way of a 
>certain kind of "just being" meditation, 
>or taking some "comparatively more 
>exoteric route" that might be seen (by 
>some, maybe?) as somewhat more theoretical 
>("more exoteric") than "more direct," 
>comparatively speaking---ie, not that 
>Paths, and one's approaches toward Path 
>making, aren't largely, (if not quite 
>"essentially," maybe, in a sense?), 
>exoteric, for the most part, (or "large 
>part"?), maybe, in most cases, (ie, in 
>terms of: aside from whatever 
>occultish/esoteric experiences), seems to 
>me, but I seem to suspect that some 
>approaches might be seen, by some, as 
>somewhat "more direct" than others, maybe.
>
><<However, such images can be symbolically 
>or figuratively interpreted in our higher 
>intuitive mind so as to comprehend, 
>analogously, the actual interplay and 
>correlation of positive and negative 
>forces between all the planes and within 
>each adjacent field of consciousness. >>
>
>That may work for you, Leon, and for so 
>many other people, in some way, but 
>doesn't seem to do much for me, 
>"apparently" (not that ...), when I 
>compare that kind of approach to the kind 
>of "just being" that I've been referring 
>to (or "think I've been referring to," at 
>any rate ...) On the other hand, if one 
>sees whatever "more scientific" approach 
>toward "defining Reality" as in keeping 
>with "the language of the age"... I guess 
>that kind of thing might be seen as being 
>part of a "karmic influence," maybe, among 
>other things, so ...
>
>I guess what I might be saying, among 
>other things, might be to the effect that 
>there might be seen to be what might be 
>called "a cultural preference" (say?) 
>towards making things as complicated and 
>"scientific" as possible, (apparently?), 
>among a fairly large number of people. 
>It's as if people in general might be 
>saying that things, in general, and 
>especially in certain areas of "defined 
>reality," might not be seen as "real 
>enough" without complexity, or without 
>some kind of "long way around" when it 
>comes to "defining" (even without quotes 
>or "too many qualifiers," I guess) certain 
>kinds of things "realistically enough."
>
>I'm tempted to go on limb here to predict 
>that, even in "science," (sorry about the 
>quotes, but I never could figure out what 
>that word might mean "specifically 
>enough,' for some reason; not that ...) 
>... anyway, I'm tempted to go on limb to 
>predict that "even in science" there might 
>come a time when some of the most 
>"scientific" of theories and methods might 
>be seen to be all too unnecessarily 
>complicated and failure prone. Not that 
>complications and failures don't create 
>lots and lots of jobs, of course, (as in 
>the auto, airline, space exploration and 
>military industries, eg), on the other 
>hand, so ...
>
>w/Whatever,
>Mauri
>
>PS Sorry about the circularity, etc, of 
>my reasoning.