Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00298)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: "theos-talk" <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:37 AM
Subject: Theos-World re Bill's modeling, r/Reality


> Bill wrote: <<Is it possible that the
> above statements represent your personal
> "model" for r/Reality?>>
>
> I suspect that we all tend to have
> models or worldviews because we all tend
> to see such things as "relevant," or
> "karmic," or ... Those might be seen as
> "our coping mechanisms," eg ... So
> whatever I'm writing down here might be
> seen in terms of "my way of coping,
> because of so and so, and so and so, and
> so and so, and so and so, and so and so,
> etc." Does that kind of speculative
> coping make a "worldview"? Maybe, in
> some sense---and not that coping and
> reality-making and modeling and
> Theosophizing can't be seen as helpful
> in some ways (obviously enough?) ...
> ^:-/ ... So what're you asking, there,
> Bill, more specifically (if I didn't
> answer your question, misunderstood your
> question, got sidetracked, or ...)?
>
Mauri, you have switched lists and horses. You begin your post by quoting
me making reference to statements of yours which you don't include. In a
previous post with the subject "multidimensional models, Esoteric Tradition"
you said:
> >But I suspect
> > that, at a certain point, one has to
> > transcend essentially dualistic models
> > of reality, no matter how
> > "multidimentional" they may be seen to
> > be. Seems to me, based on my
> > interpretation of Theosophy/HBP, that
> > there's an Abyss between essentially
> dualistic reality and the Reality that's
> > experiential and nondualistic.

Mauri, what you call "coping" is just modelling. In the above statement
you state that you have an "interpretation of Theosophy/HPB, that there's an
Abyss between essentially dualistic reality and the Reality that's
Experiential and nondualistic." My apologies for repeating what you said
again, but you now write as though you may have forgotten exactly what it
was you did say. What you have done is dared to have an "interpretation".
In this sense you and Leon are the same person. The difference is that Leon
recognizes his ABC model as an "interpretation". You tend to want respond
to every post with meandering speculation that "proves" that the writer
cannot really know anything about Real Reality. Perhaps it is a point that
needs to be made repeatedly, but you could do that with the sentence "No one
can really know anything about Real Reality!!!" Feel free to respond to
this post in such a way if it pleases you. I agree with you.
The underlayment seems to be that while we agree that Real knowledge is
impossible, we continue to act and write and argue as though it were. This
seems to irk you.
Get over it. :)

> <<I appreciate your ability to sense
> the abyss,>>
>
> You do? In that case you might be
> interested in buying some nice swampy
> property in Florida, as well, maybe ...? :-)

Mauri, we might also pay attention to the application of humor to extricate
ourselves from difficult logic traps. In the original quote from you (which
you did not see the need to include in this post) you clearly state:
>>Seems to me, based on my
> > interpretation of Theosophy/HBP, that
> > there's an Abyss between essentially
> dualistic reality and the Reality that's
> > experiential and nondualistic.

Either you sense the abyss enough to talk about it or you don't. Since you
talk about the abyss, you must have some sense of it -- even if that sense
is only intellectual speculation. Your choice of the old "swamp in
Florida" sidestep is interesting and probably worthy of some speculation on
my part. If I told you that I was a millionaire many times over because I
buy swampland, drain and develop the property, and resell it for huge
profits, would that make your attempt at humor any less a side step? :)

>
> <<but don't we risk everything when
> we label it the "Abyss" and speak of
> transcending or crossing over it?>>
>
> Who is "we," one might ask, among other
> things ...

You must know President Clinton. He did not know the definition of "it".
Until we get past these two-letter words any real dialogue is going to be
difficult. :)


As far as I can figure, or
> speculate, I don't seem to have any
> particularly current preference for
> thinking in terms of <<risk everything
> when we label it the "Abyss" and speak
> of transcending or crossing over it?>>

Well Mauri, you said:
> >But I suspect
> > that, at a certain point, one has to
> > transcend essentially dualistic models
> > of reality, no matter how
> > "multidimentional" they may be seen to
> > be. Seems to me, based on my
> > interpretation of Theosophy/HBP, that
> > there's an Abyss between essentially
> dualistic reality and the Reality that's
> > experiential and nondualistic.

How is one to experience the nondualistic Reality beyond the Abyss if the
Abyss is not transcended or crossed over? Either your model of Reality as
"experiential and nondualistic" is accurate or it is not. It was you who
labeled that which surrounds Reality as the Abyss. Maybe you forgot?

> in that my "just being" doesn't seem to
> leave much room for such things. Are you
> saying, Bill, that your "just being"
> leaves room for such things? Of course,
> on the other hand, if I were standing
> right at the very edge of the Grand
> Canyon ... (not that I have any
> particular interest in standing at the
> edge of the Grand Canyon, either, before
> or after it might get filled in with
> whatever).

Very nice. We (you (Mauri) and I (Bill), and maybe some others as well)
often pull seemingly insignificant bits of information from here and there
together to create a more full pitcher :) (the proper word is "picture" and
the play on words was intended).


But, "seriously," I think I
> might see some of your "intended" point,
> maybe, in some sense: that seemed like
> a "good" question, basically, in a
> sense. I don't really know, but I think
> I might have sort of answered your
> question in terms of what my current
> views might tend to be. Sorry about the
> vagueness, though. Not being much of a
> k/Knower ... ^:-/ ...

Well its a start anyway.

>
> <<How certain are we that we have
> actually experienced that Reality that
> is nondualistic? If we have
> experienced It then how could such an
> experience be nondualistic since right
> away we are faced with "us" the
> experiencer and "It" the experienced?>>
>
> I'm tending to guess that we might not
> "remember" some of, or some aspects of,
> such experiences, (or the causal plane,
> eg?), other than "interpretively," or
> by way of a karmic emphasis or
> influence, for the most part, or ...
>
Modeling is one way to help us "interpretively". Sure, we should not
mistake the model for the Reality that is beyond the Abyss to which you
referred. (I don't need to requote it here do I? :)) Neither, Mauri,
should we mistake the refusal of models for the Reality beyond the Abyss.
For all we Really Know, Leon's ABC model may be exactly the way it is.

> <<If we have not experienced It in the
> same sense that one might experience
> the flavor of a rainbow, then how can we
> be expected to relate to It other than
> through the intellectual faculty of
> thought which uses words, definitions,
> and models to express itself?>>
>
> That's the kind of thing I meant to get
> across, I think ...

Yes, I thought that was what your constant speculation was driving at. It
is a place that we can run to at the end of every encounter. The corollary
is that even if we have experienced what we think is "It" in the same sense
that one might experience the taste of color, we still are left with our
intellectual thinking faculty to try and express through words, definitions,
& models, our experience of It. Another way to express such an experience
might be to silently love others unconditionally & universally, but it seems
that many of us (you & me & un-named others) might find it easier and more
pleasing to talk using words, definitions, & models.


>
> <<I admire your ability to constantly
> remind us that we don't Really know
> anything about Real Reality.>>
>
> You seem to have just displayed that
> ability with that sentence, as well,
> don't you think?

Yes, quite purposefully.
>
> << Perhaps we each should be on guard in
> our own way not to let ourselves slip
> into a mode of thinking whereby we might
> become convinced through some skillful
> use of words like esoteric and
> dualistic that we somehow know something
> about Real Reality.>>
>
> Another goodish point, there, I think,
> Bill, which reminds me about my profound
> experience a few years back when I
> realized, all of a sudden, that I don't
know anything. Seems that that
> experience was so profound that I've
> been speculating ever since. Can't seem
> to stop speculating, for some reason;
> well, except sort of partly stopping
> some of my speculations, apparently,
> when I'm sort of "just being," sort of
> ... ^:-/ ...
>

"Can't seem to stop speculating, for some reason" sounds like a disease.
Why can't you stop?
What is the reason?


> <<Of course in writing this I am
> defining what could be viewed as my own
> personal "model" of r/Reality as well.>>
>
> Yeah, well ...

Exactly.

>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
>
regards,
Bill
>
>