Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00325)

Hey Bill,

You wrote: <<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.">>
then Bill went on with: <<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.>>

First, I'd like to rewrite/respeculate 
that paragraph of mine:

Seems to me, based on my tentative 
interpretation of Theosophy/HBP, that 
there might be some kind of Abyss-like 
reality between "ordinary," essentially 
dualistic reality and the Reality that's 
Nondualistic in an 
occult/esoteric/experiential sense.

Yes, I think I'm saying that I might 
have some sort of "intellectual 
speculation" about what in Theosophy 
might be known, by some, as "Abyss." I 
don't seem to have any particular 
memory, apparently, of having 
experienced that kind of Abyss. And I'm 
not suggesting that, though I don't 
remember that experience, I might have 
nevertheless experienced or "sensed" it 
particularly or remotely. Also I'm not 
ironing out the "possibility" that I 
might have experienced ... something ... 
^:-/ ... Not that I'm saying ... Oh, gee 
... ^:-/ ...

<<I appreciate your ability to sense
the abyss,>>

Seems to me that my speculative 
tendencies might generally tend to 
modify my "ability to sense" much of 
anything I can think of or sense. That 
is, if one cultivates "sensing" in 
"essentially speculative terms" along 
with whatever "direct/directer" 
experiences ... (a "pregnant pause" 
might be order here, maybe?) ... then 
wouln't that kind of "sensing" and/or 
"experiencing" tend to get kind of 
swampy, among other things, at times, 
maybe, as in my case, or wouldn't that 
kind of thing at least tend to seem 
swampy, confusing, vague, etc, at times, 
in some sense ... Not that I haven't 
been known to speculate myself into 
swampy things and situations and not 
that I haven't got myself into swampy 
exchanges, at times, as with Leon, eg, 
because of not being able to anticipate, 
speculate, know, sense something or other.

<<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. :)>>

"Real dialogue"? For me, as it seems to 
be turning out, that kind of dialogue 
seems to be kind of speculative, so ... 
^:-/ ...

<<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?>>

Oh, I think I got your drift, maybe ... 
My speculative answer: some things, 
like "Abysses" and "Theosophies" and 
"models" are, or can be seen as, 
"exoteric," (ie, seen as essentially 
dualistic, karmic, mayavic), while some 
"things" (ie, in "exoteric terms") might 
be seen as esoteric/experiential, so ... 
Did that "explantion" make any "sense"? 
That is, while "explanations" and 
"senses" can only be written down in 
"exoteric terms," one might occasionally 
tend to assume (...) that there may be 
those, here and there, who might sort of 
"read between the lines," maybe ...

<<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.>>

Seems like a perceptive/relevant 
comment, there, re that "refusal," if 
that might be seen as an aspect of 
"refusalistic modeling," sort of ... I 
don't know, "really enough," if that 
kind of thinking might've been part of 
what you might've had in mind by 
"refusal." I tried to "explain" about 
"exoteric/esoteric" in that last 
paragraph. Yes, I tend to find Leon's 
ABC's helpful. But, the way I tend to 
see it, just because I might tend to 
find his modeling helpful, or Gerald's 
modeling helpful, doesn't have to mean 
(I suspect) that I can't offer some 
commentary about such things in a way 
that's meant to be read between the 
lines. For some time I have speculated 
that Leon either has trouble reading 
between certain kinds of lines, or 
doesn't want to, or ... ^:-/ ... Am I 
"capable of reading between Leon's 
lines," or your lines, or lines in 
general? Well, I guess we're all 
"capable" of such things in our own ways 
(whatever that might mean). So I'm 
tending to think that if we were to calm 
down and sort of respect each other's 
"apparently honest efforts"... But, 
then, how is one to define "apparently 
honest efforts," anyway ... I thought my 
efforts have been "apparently honest," 
sort of, if somewhat "speculatively" so, 
but I think you, Bill, might have an 
idea about what's been happening to them 
on this list, and on bn-study, over the 
years. Thanks to Gerald, though, on 
Theosopy Study List, I've been sort of 
maintaining what I might have left of my 
Theosophicy/speculative approach/path. 
Well, maybe I exaggerated a little. ^:-)

M<< Can't seem to stop speculating, for 
some reason<<

<< sounds like a disease. Why can't you 
stop? What is the reason?>>

The "can't seem to stop" was kind of 
tongue in cheek, I thought. 
"Speculating" is, I'm speculating, just 
"one of my modes," so I don't seem to be 
too worried about "stopping" as long as 
I think have a chance to speculate that 
I might have chance to ... uh, sort of 
"just be" (ie, "without speculating," 
strangely enough). I guess I'm tending 
to suggest that there might be two kinds 
of things in this world: 1. 
speculation, and 2."just being" (ie, at 
least in "exoteric terms," eh ... but 
reading between the lines, there, might 
help, somewhat, maybe, if one wanted to 
"make some kind of sense" of such 
classifications ... ^:-/ ...)

Speculatively, (as opposed to "just 
beingly"),
Mauri