[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re exoteric/esoteric, Leon and ...

Apr 20, 2004 08:23 PM
by Mauri

Leon wrote (Apr 20/04): <<
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...>>

Nice to hear from this particular Leon once in a while! Of course that other Leon's post are more of a challenge for me, true, but ... Yes, Leon you seem to be making relevant points there, apparently. But inasmuchasif one's "just being" transcends interpretations (including interpretive/exoteric notions about clarity) how could one be "caught in a dualistic illusion"...

<<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.:-) >>

^:-/ ... How one defines some of those words, like "speculating," "interpretation," "progress," "indecision," "Master," might be somewhat relevant here, don't you think ...

<<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?>>

I'm begining to think that people who ask such questions wouldn't understand the answers. But seems to me that there are those who have made an attempt to be somewhat applicable, nevertheless, a case in point being the efforts of those who brought Theosophy to the West, eg.

<<<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. :-) One persons "clarity" might be another persons "confusion.">>

Seems like a relevant point.

<<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.>>

Interpretation is everything, the way I see it (sort of "up to a point," at any rate). Seems as if I may never succeed in "successfully enough" communicating with you and so many other people.

<<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...>>

Seems like it. Seems as if my "deninite conclusions" might be somewhat different from your "definite conclusions"...

<<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. 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?>>

Excellent considerations, in their way. I see "getting into conversations" with whoever as a reference re how one can be "more applicable," which, in turn, as I see it, brings in all sorts of issues that, in my opinion, can often get somewhat tangential, to say the least, so ... But my interest in Theosophy seems to be somewhat "more direct," in a way, and "just being" comes to mind. But then if one doesn't have an innate/intuitive understanding about how "just being" can relate to life, in general, and Theosophy, in particular, I don't see how I can "directly enough" explain and make up for such a lack,(ie, because explaining is not where it's at, and experiencing is).

<<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 >>>>

Yes I know. That's why I've been participating mostly on the Theosophy Study List.

<<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." </:-)> >>>>>>>>>>

I was thinking more in terms how some of your posts seem to come across to me as if they might've been written by some different L person.

<<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. >>

I seem to be getting lots of "decent and productive dialogue" on Theosophy Study List. Anyway, nice to hear from you ... er, Lenny, and Leon and ... Incidentally, I read Dan Brown's DAVINCI CODE and am working on an outline for a new novel (about esoteric topics/characters). Have you read DaVinci Code? In a sense, it's kind of simplistic, but, in a sense ... Of course, on the other hand, one person's "in a sense" could be another person's whatever, so, what can I say ...

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application