Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00640)

Well, Mauri, I guess you've said it all. (And that could go for the both of 
us. :)

I'll be fading out of all these forums soon, since I've just about polished 
up my ABC theory for use in the Sci-fi movie series I'm writing, along with my 
memoirs -- and going back to doing whatever is necessary -- which I guess, in 
your lingo, might be 'just being,' maybe ... or whatever. </:-)>>>>>>>>>

Good luck with your novel. 

Leonardo 


In a message dated 04/20/04 11:24:32 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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 ...
>