Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00604)

In a message dated 03/28/04 1:05:18 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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 ...

Clarity in this sense refers only to "clarity of mind." It does not mean 
emptiness of mind -- which you imply by your "just being." Nor does it refer to 
clarity of spirit which Gerald may be referring to. Apparently, both you and 
he did not understand the reason why the master said that "clarity of mind" is 
a danger to be avoided. The questions one must ask when considering the words 
of a Master are; Danger to whom? Danger to what purpose? In this case the 
Master was talking to a student who came to him to learn the way of the mystic, 
the way to enlightenment, or perhaps, the way to become a healer or shaman. 
In effect, that would be to achieve clarity or purity of soul or self. In all 
such cases clarity of mind, or the thought that one sees things in one's mind 
clearly, and that what one sees is infallibly true, is the danger that will 
prevent him/her from achieving any of those states of higher knowledge and 
wisdom. Remember, to be useful in this world as well as on the higher planes, one 
must have both in equal measure. And, when one has reached the higher 
subjective state, the mind that can only think about the lower objective knowledge 
(which is always based on an illusion of reality that's not its true nature) -- 
is of no use whatsoever (except when one has to act on the worldly plane). In 
this case, our discussion only refers to that higher state, and the dangers 
one must overcome to attain it.

>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"... ^:-)...

One is "prone to dangers" only when one does NOT transcend those things. How 
can we transcend mind if we think it is seeing things clearly? Therefore one 
who thinks he has clarity of mind, is caught in a dualistic illusion, and 
whatever practices he is doing toward attaining self realization, will fail... Just 
as it will, if he thinks he is getting old and may die. As for fear, that 
too will cause one's efforts to fail. (Old age and fear can only come from 
false identification of the body with the self.) Thus, the master was talking to 
a Chela and was warning him of the dangers along the path from those 
"exoteric/dualistic" things that get in the way of true knowledge and wisdom. Krishna 
made all that perfectly clear in the Bhagavad Gita. So, clarity of expression, 
such as Krishna's or the Masters advice or warnings is no danger at all. 

><<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 ... ^:-/ ...

The only thing that may be missing when a Master talks to a prospective 
student -- is the attention and concentration of the student on what he is saying, 
and his understanding of how it applies to what he came to ask the Master to 
help him do in the first place. If the student is ready to travel the path to 
enlightenment, and is prepared to apply his self determined and self devised 
effort to overcome the obstacles along the way, he will interpret the meaning 
correctly. In this case, all that speculating about the interpretation can do, 
is prevent any further progress on the path. If you were that student, you 
would still be wallowing in your indecision after the Master kicked you out the 
door.:-) 

>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 ...

Just say that you haven't the faintest idea what we are talking about, and 
that we haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. You are right, 
your conversation does seem to be missing info -- whether "keyish" (whatever 
that means) or not. The answer to that would be for you to ask us to explain a 
bit deeper whatever you are interested in? And we should ask you what does that 
"just being" mean? How do you practice it? And what is its purpose? Maybe 
then, your conversation with us will stop "going over like a lead balloon." 
As far as these conversations with you go, mutual understanding seems to be 
separated by a sea of aimless speculation, undefined words with multiple 
meanings, and useless self deprecation. So, things are bad enough not to wish them to 
get any worse. :-)
>
><<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 ...

One persons "clarity" might be another persons "confusion." And in the 
present case of talking about progress on the path, both of them are hindrances (or 
dangers, if you will). To talk about "just being" with all those 
indeterminate "whatever's," "not that's," "but, 'but's'," head scratches, etc., doesn't 
make for any sort of cogent communication about the theosophical discussions or 
comments I or anyone else make on these forums, does it. Is it any wonder 
that you don't seem to be making much progress in coming to any definite 
conclusions about theosophy or any other esoteric subjects we like to talk about 
here... The assumption being that everyone is a student of theosophy, and wishes 
to learn more about it, or help others learn what they may know. 
>
> <<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 ... ^:-/ ...

Maybe one should just get back to understanding the fundamental truths and 
focus on them in an intuitive meditative mode while trying to eliminate the 
modification of the lower mind (i.e., the false "clarity of mind" that comes from 
unconscious thoughts based on previously conditioned wrong views). Study of 
the subjects discussed by Dallas in his recent letter on "DIVINE, SPIRITUAL, 
WILL -- can it be detected ?" might help.

Of course, if you continue to speculate, you'll "Just be" whatever you are 
making yourself out to be. Maybe, just a guy who likes to talk about 
inconclusive speculation -- so long as he doesn't have to take a stand -- since he can't 
come to any conclusions without getting caught in the middle between esoteric 
and exoteric. :-) Of course if you consider the meaning of "speculate" is, 
"to use the powers of the mind" or "meditating on a subject" that's one thing. 
And, if so, you'll have to start showing us, by getting to the point without 
all the indeterminateness. If, on the other hand, you use it as meaning; "to 
draw inferences without sufficient evidence" -- that's not so useful for 
getting into conversations with theosophists, philosophers or scientists, is it? 
So, if that's the case, don't expect too many people interested in those realms 
of thought to get in any conversations with you -- or your letters to get 
though any such discussion group that is monitored for content. 

Thoughtfully,
Lenny 
P.S. Since most of my personal theosophical friends are on BN-Study, that's 
the name they (and all my other personal friends and family) know me by. Other 
groups know me by several other names. Leon is simply an abbreviation of 
Leonardo I got stuck with when the doctor abbreviated my name on the birth 
certificate (although I'm sometimes called Len by business and professional 
associates). I answer to all of them. (I've also been called a lot of other names -- 
which I don't answer to:-) But, "what's in a name? A rose (or skunk) by any 
other name would still smell the same." </:-)>

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

P.P.S. Maybe you should edit your mind first, make a decision of what you 
think is right and say it. But if you can't think that way, then maybe you 
should just put everything you say in the form of a question. Then, Maybe, someone 
will answer or question you, and a decent and productive dialogue might get 
underway between you and us someday.