Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00679)

Leon, since this post didn't seem to be 
accepted on that other list, Mar 24, I'm 
posting it here:

Leon wrote: <<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." >>

When Gerald (on Theosophy Study List) 
brought up the word "clarity" in 
reference to "just being," that rang a 
bell for me, seems I'd been maintaining 
a kind of "clarity" while "just being," 
apparently. Not that my "just being" 
has amounted to much, apparently, 
but/"but"... Besides, if my "just being" 
ever "amounts to much" (ie, in 
dualistic/exotericy terms), seems to me 
that I might decide that then it 
couldn't be "just being," "so much," 
anyway, at least "not enoughedly," (in a 
sense, maybe ...), so ...

And I'm wondering if your words "clarity 
of mind" might be misleading to some 
people in as much as if one interprets 
"clarity" re "just being" as being 
"mind" related in some kind of "ordinary 
(essentially dualistic) sense," in that, 
as I tend to see it, "ordinary mind" is 
something that one might want to 
transcend when "just being." When one 
transcends "mind," "old age," "fear," 
and various dualistic or "essentially 
dualistic" ("exoteric") notions, then 
how could one be "prone to dangers"... 
^:-/ ... I thought "dangers" were, are, 
how can I put it, basically dualistic, 
exotericy things--- not that I have 
transcended duality, myself, apparently, 
(believe it or not) but/"but"... ^:-)...

<<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.>>

Seems to me that some things can't be 
explained in so many words, but can only 
be experienced or "known about 
more-directly." "Just being" seems to 
be one of those things. Leon, (mind if I 
call you "Leon," instead of "Lenny"... 
unless, of course, you're not Leon ... 
not that you might not be "Lenny," but 
... ^:-) ... anyway, Leon (I hope I got 
the "right kind of Leon," here), you 
keep referring to "Master teacher of 
occultism" and such in a few posts. 
That's nice, but how we define/interpret 
such teachers is where it's at, isn't it 
... The sense in which comments are 
basically meant (by teachers or 
whoever), seems to me, might often tend 
to be missing some keyish element/s in 
as much as if the commentator, eg, 
failed to be "applicable enough" in 
whatever "related sense" (as in my case 
re "just being," eg, apparently) and/or 
if some interpretations of comments go 
off on tangents that are seen (by 
whoever) as "less relevant" for whatever 
reason---such exchanges of ideas 
possibly tending to lead to another, if 
somewhat "apparently related," 
discussion, maybe, as per this post, eg, 
seems to me, so what can I say ... ^:-/ ...

For anybody out there to have some kind 
of "more realistic" idea about what I 
mean by "just being," or what somebody 
else means by "just being," that anybody 
would have to BE that "just being" 
person in question, seems to me. Short 
of that, we could have some kind of 
conversation, I suppose, and we could 
"try to be applicable," say ... Not that 
I'm saying our conversations so far have 
all gone over like lead balloons 
(although ...). Well, things might be 
worse, don't you think, Leon ... Or do 
you think things are worse enough 
already ... Or worse than that ... ^:- 
... Not that ... Anyway, I think I'm 
trying to say that in as much as I am 
not you, Leon, or not you, general 
reader, my speculative comments on 
these lists might generally tend to be 
missing info and whatever, and maybe 
even missing some keyish info, 
occasionally, so ... what can I say ...

<<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"?>>

One person's "clarity" seems to be 
another person's ... whatever ...

<<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>>

Leon, if you don't have a clue how 
"clarity" might relate to "just being" 
... what can I say, other than you might 
want to see how "far" you can "just be," 
and then see how "far" you can "do that" 
while maintaing some "clarity" (the 
quotes refer to "in a sense" which, 
apparently, I can't explain "applicably 
enough") ... Of course that kind of 
wording can be misleading, so ... But I 
think you said something like 
"self-devised/determined efforts," if I 
remember correctly, so ... Not that the 
"self" part is all that related to "just 
being," among other things, but ... And 
not that ... ^:-/ ... You can tell me 
I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that 
some things, like "just being" and 
"clarity," among other things, can't be 
explained too well by anybody. An 
explanation that I seem to like for 
"just being" (which might not suit your 
"scientific" approach, I suspect) is: 
"just being." Maybe if Mr. Spock could 
hook us up, or something ... but, in the 
meanwhile ... ^:-/ ...

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Sorry didn't get around to editing 
this post much. Not that ... ^:-/ ...