Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00031)

Mauri, I suppose you may be right, speculatively, or esoterically. However, 
on second thought (and maybe third) perhaps, you could be wrong... That is, 
if I read you correctly through all those exotericized duality's and mayavic 
blinds that you surround the esoteric (if not also mayavically exoteric) 
truths you are apparently/possibly/effectively talking about. But, then who 
am I to say, since I'm part of the dualistic illusion that you allude this 
entire world reality is (which I assume you are, too)... If that makes any 
realistically non dualistic or non mayavic, monistic sense -- or rings a 
bell. Although, I'm afraid only HPB knew how to do that -- both effectively 
and affectively (according to WQJ, as Dallas recently pointed out.) Nothing 
speculative about that, I'm sure.

So, since my thinking machine, or Manas is also a mayavic projection of such 
an all encompassing dualistic reality (or meaningless unreality) -- it beats 
me what you actually mean by what you are saying. Maybe some of the "guys" 
here (if they are not figments of our mayavic/dualistic imaginations) -- or 
other guys on one of the other mayavically exoterical (or perhaps I should 
say, "exoterized") theosophy lists, who seem to understand you, can 
straighten me out. Since, from a non-mayavic, non-dualistic point of view, I 
can only realistically, if not mayavically/dualistically understand things if 
they are kept as simple as ABC -- so long as the duality of my mayavic Manas 
isn't called into question. I'm very sensitive about that -- since my 
dualistic opinions about myself sometimes get tangled up in Maya and I get 
blinded by my own fallibility. Hope you (or that mayavic/apparent version of 
you) understands what I'm talking about. (Looking at it from my higher non 
mayavic/monistic self, I'm not so sure I do. ;-) But, then my higher self 
may be mayavic from your (whatever "you" we are talking about) points of, 
view, and what it/we/I understand(s) might be mere dualistic nonsense -- 
conjecturally, that is (If not speculatively). That should be pretty clear, 
if not fogged up by mayavic/dualistic thinking, that is... I wonder? <\^:]>

Best regards, and Happy New Year -- (or whatever, if that's a Maya), 

LHM
P.S. This note played hell with my spell check dictionary. I don't know if it 
will ever recover (mayavically/dualistically speaking, that is... :-)

In a message dated 01/01/03 12:01:59 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon, guys, I've had some "second thoughts," 
>speculations about what might be called attempts to 
>explain about "what is really going on" in "reality." In 
>other words, I'm referring to "attempts to explain" as in: 
>to "exoterize" in dualistic/mainstream (if mayavic) 
>"somewhat-understandable" terms.
>
>Considering that HPB used blinds in the attempt to bring 
>certain teachings to a "more understandable" level (ie, 
>like all of us, in her writings/teachings she had to resort to 
>the use of the exoteric/dualistic medium of thought/reality 
>that comprises our mainstream worldview, obviously 
>enough?), and so, if those blinds could be seen for what 
>they really were, essentially: symptomatic of the 
>contraints and guidelines of the kind of apparent 
>every-day reality that manas is basically grounded in 
>(which, as I see it, is mayavic duality), then (of course?) 
>by that kind of extension, inter-connection ANY 
>explanation about "essential or esoteric Theosophy" (as I 
>see it) tends to get (is?) compromised by that kind of 
>medium of expression, and so in that sense would tend to 
>be ("is," "essentially"?) a blind, in a core sense, in its 
>entirety.
>
>In other words, if, in this world, the ONLY POSSIBLE 
>way to present or or think about any kind of Theosophic 
>view is by way of concessions to the mayavic principles 
>involved within this duality world, then ... Doesn't that 
>kind of scenario ring a bell? 
>
>In other words, Leon, while your ABC's, etc, may elicit 
>much adulation from various sources, for various reasons, 
>I don't see any way how the "you of your ABC's" (that 
>mayavic/apparent "version of you") can transcend that 
>dualistic/mayavic medium for as long as "you" (a karmic 
>variable appearing to be "you") continue to use that "you 
>of your ABC's" medium of expression/reality that you're 
>confined to (or "prefer" to be confined to?) within this 
>duality world.
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri