Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00637)

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 ...