Theos-Talk Archives (December 2002 Message tt00601)

Leon wrote: <<three objects of the Theosophical Movement...
Namely, To form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of 
Humanity, without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or 
color; The study of ancient and modern religions, philosophies 
and sciences, and the demonstration of the importance of such 
study, and; The investigation of the unexplained laws of
nature and the psychical powers latent in man. >>

Reading that, it occurred to me that, while those objects seem 
commendable enough, isn't there another, relevant enough 
aspect of, or reason for, Theosophy that might be worth 
mentioning, as per such as the cultivation of "spirituality" 
(sorry, I can't seem to help sticking those quotes on that word, 
weeing as it's been banged around so much, in my opinion) 
along with an understanding about maya, esoteric/exoteric, etc, 
in order to transcend karma, reincarnation, duality ... By 
"spirituality" I'm referring to something like "a sense of 
transcendence" by way of "the sensing of dualistic limits," say, 
that one might acquire as a result of one's intuitive sense about 
the mayavic/dualistic nature of ordinary/mainstream reality ... 
Although there would seem to be various "follow-up aspects" of 
"spirituality" in relation to manas in relation to buddhi in 
relation to atma, etc ... and whatever ...

Or is there a preference or tendency among many Theosophists 
to ignore those aspects of Theosophics that have to do with its 
(rather apparent?) esoteric roots, in favor of, say, scientizings, 
literal studies, exoterics, etc, as if such hinayanics could be 
somehow made to meaningfully enough shore up Theosophics 
("in the meanwhile," say?) ... Not that I'm saying that there's 
anything particularly surprising about the prevalence of such ... 
'anics, but/"but"... After all, (one might suppose quite 
pointedly?), if manas can't extend itself beyond karma, well ... 
^:-) ... Or ... Not that ...

I wonder if there are a number of people who have taken up an 
interest in Theosophy because of some kind of impression that, 
(unlike Mahayanics and its confusing "emptiness" that seems, in 
simplistic terms, nihilistic?), Theosophy might seem as if it 
offers a much more "understandable," ego-friendlier, more 
sensible, more logical, (even somewhat scientific?), approach 
toward . . . whatever ...

The longer I think about that, and the longer I think about the 
posts of people like Dallas, Leon, etc., ("etc" who?" uh ...) the 
more apparent it would seem to me that there would seem to be 
a split among those who have taken an interest in Theosophy; 
that split apparently/theoretically (as I see it) consisting of two 
poles of, say, "Theosophic evaluation" (with variations in 
between, of course?):

On the one hand there would seem to be the literalists and 
die-hard promoters of all kinds of mainstream exoteric versions, 
and, (going to the other extreme, skipping past the middle) there 
would seem to be those who ... well, three dots might be 
suggestion enough about that "other extreme" (no pun 
intended) ... (Not that I'm claiming any kind of "k/Knowing" 
about those dots for myself, seeing as I'm obviously a fairly new 
student of Theosophy, and a speculator, to boot!)

In other words, seems to me as if the general perception (there 
being plenty of exceptions?) re Theosophy, today, might be 
leaning toward the kind of approach and mentality that 's being 
represented by Leon and Dallas in their posts ... IMHSO, while 
such posts might be seen to have much commendable content, 
(in terms of various rather overt exoterics, from my speculative 
point of view ...), at the same time the "deeper" meaning of 
Theosophy would seem to be ... well, if it's not really trampled 
on, for the most part (?), it at least seems, from my present, 
speculative perspective, overlooked ... Overlooked how? I 
offered some speculation about that in my recent posts to Leon, 
and in my posts on Theos-1, but if they don't explain enough, 
well . . . that's as far as my current speculations seem to take me 
... Yes, I know that I have a serious enough problem explaining 
about my speculations around here. What can I say? 

But, not to worry (?), one can always comfort oneself by 
claiming that "it's all karma, after all" (?) ... or whatever ...
Personally, I suspect that "karma" ought to not be taken for 
granted that way, or any which way ... So ...

In other words, (I did it again?), seems as if (in a sense?) I'm 
back to where I started from ... ^:-) ... How did that happen ... 
If I remember correctly, I started out this post wanting to chew 
out ... well, wanting to point out a few things, but now, after all 
that, seems as if I'm saying that everything and everybody is 
somewhow "basically okay," after all, since ... what with ... 
well, I don't know ... Gee, no wonder some people go sit in 
remote caves to meditate?

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS ... ^:-) ...

PPS That's my symbol for a confused guy scratching his head