Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00598)

March 25th 2004

Re: re Mauri's "just being"


Dear Lenny:


Your 3 "dangers" (from a "wise man") --

May we not say on these three: --


1.	FEAR	-- arises from ignorance. Cure: find out or get
detailed proofs. Our tools are the straight logic based on universal
principles that any one can verify and use. I find that few among us
has a firm grasp of those. We all tend (and I do so, too) to wander off
into side-lines, where we have some kind of personal interest or
prejudice. The problem is then, to identify and get rid of any kind of
personal bias, isn't it ? 


2.	OLD AGE -- This cannot be undone (except by extreme effort and
firm, continuous discipline of thought) in any one "life". 


But if THEOSOPHY is true, then the INDIVIDUALITY being immortal and
timeless has a permanent record in itself (Akasic vesture or, the Higher
Astral ?) where all knowledge acquired becomes wisdom because it is
supported by universal experience -- as it is already present and to be
found in the UNIVERSAL MIND or MAHAT -- One of the 3 aspects of the
ABSOLUTE / PARABRAHM. [ Possibly, one might hazard the expressions:
ATMAN - MAHAT - KARMA for these three ? ]


3	CLARITY OF MIND	Depends on our control and suppression of
emotional thought (LOWER MANASIC and KAMIC influenced thinking -- based
on selfishness and focussed on this life only ?) As I see it, the main
"fight" in our mind natures is to learn to distinguish our BUDDHI
(Intuitional processes) from our emotional thinking or Lower Manas, the
instinctual and Kamic-mind -- Lower Manas. This may prove to be
difficult to see. However one could consult HPB in The KEY TO THEOSOPHY
(p. 135) TRANSACTIONS OF THE BLAVATSKY LODGE. (Pp 93-7).


May we not say: Then that we need to secure from THEOSOPHY and from
mutual investigation a strong and impartial, impersonal assurance of the
True SELF within -- someone referred to is recently as the "inner GOD" 

Best wishes,



Dallas


==============================

-----Original Message-----
From: LeonMaurer@aol.com [mailto:LeonMaurer@aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 2:45 AM
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] Re: re Leon re "just being" and ...


In a message dated 03/24/04 11:40:51 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>
>Leon wrote: <<Maybe you could say what 
>"just being" means? But, if "just 
>being" means (as
>you make it appear) to exist without any 
>thought or aimlessly like a vegetable -- 
>without any self control or mindful 
>attention -- then it surely is a waste 
>of time for anyone who might wish to 
>engage in such a non-yogic state or
>non-practice.>>
>
>They seem like relevant points to keep 
>in mind about "just being." But if one 
>maintains clarity while "just being"...

Be nice to know what such "clarity" means to you, and how one
"maintains" it? 
I heard it said by a Master teacher of occultism that the three great 
dangers for the student are "fear," "old age," and "clarity of mind."
Another said 
that to learn the mysteries and understand the realities leading to the 
attainment of self realization or enlightenment, one must use self
devised and self 
determined effort -- and, there are many dangers and traps along the way
that 
one has overcome with great discrimination. Another said that there is
a 
"culture of concentration" that has to be practiced continuously to
protect oneself 
from such dangers. In those lights, "just being" (as you apparently
imply 
that it covers none of that) seems to be a pointless waste of time. In
any 
event, how can aimless speculations and rambling thoughts be considered
"clarity"? 
Or, does clarity, as you define it, just mean transparent empty
headedness 
and being completely detached and out of control of one's life and one's

thoughts? Could that be what the Master meant by "clarity" (of mind)
being a "great 
danger" to the aspiring student? And, isn't that what we all are on
this and 
any other theosophical forum? 

> <<Perhaps, if you could tell us what 
>the purpose of such a life serves, for 
>either the self or for others, then 
>perhaps we might be able to have an
>intelligent discussion about it...>>
>
>"Such a life"... ^:-/ ... As far as I 
>can see, "just being" is more about 
>enlightenment and less about "such a 
>life," basically, although ... Not that 
>there might not be various "life 
>related" offshoots and whatever that 
>might be found as a result of "just 
>being"... As for "intelligent 
>discussions"... Hmm ... ^:-/ ... Not 
>that ... !

What does "just being" have to do with enlightenment? I'm sure, its a
life, 
but what kind of life is it? And, what is the nature of its supposed 
"offshoots" and how do they "relate"? Well, if you can't answer those
questions, and 
if the idea of "intelligent discussion" about all this puts you in such
a funk 
-- maybe we are the one's that should be scratching our heads wondering
what 
you are doing on this forum. ^:-{ (Unless, you're just one of those guys
who 
likes to throw pebbles in a pond and watch the ripples shake the frogs
off the 
water lily leaves. :-) 

CUT