Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00316)

Leon wrote: <<Mauri, Since you mentioned (one of :-) my 
names, I feel I should try to respond. But, even if I understood 
what your questions or speculations referred to, I couldn't 
comment on them coherently since I am not familiar with the 
new language you are using to state them. Please explain your 
last sentence in plain English, and quote the letter you are 
responding to (no need to attribute the author). >>

Okay. My last sentence was:

<<I wonder if "lower" and "higher" might, alternately, (or
"Alternately," from a "Higher" perspective) be seen as somewhat
equally mayavic, (ie, as essentially mayavic as the
dualistic/multiplistic "free will" of "ordinary reality"), along with
a conditioned or worldview-related "contrast"
("interpretive"/karmic variant) that might be theoretically known
as "unfree will" (?)... so that a "r/Realer " question about "higher
free will" (if such a question might evolve from whatever
essentially speculative/"intuitive," modelistic, or Theosophic
sources?) might concern the transcendence of such essentially
dualistic/karmic dream-reality, (if "dualistic" with
interpretive/multiplistic variables, as per Leon), as by was of, eg,
whatever apparent bridging effects, models, interpretive/karmic
tendencies such as Theosophy ... ?>>

In other words, (and this issue, that might be seen as sort of 
"esoteric/exoteric," seems to come up often enough on these 
lists?), while "essentially dualistic/multiplistic reality" (where the 
quotes refer to the essentially interpretive, or karmic/mayavic 
nature of that kind of "reality," if in whatever "established" 
format; and where the quotes on "essentially" are meant to alert 
the reader to the "interpretive nature" of such "reality," in the 
sense that "essentially interpretive" is meant as 
"karmic/mayavic") ... so: from the beginning: In other words, 
while "esentially dualistic reality" would appear to support and 
supply much material for the primary means by which humans, 
in general, cope on this plane, wouldn't it be in the interests of 
those who would transcend karma, or those who would even 
think about transcending karma, to at least "allow for," say, (in 
whatever inerpretive/individualistic manner that might seem 
relevant), alternate, or "Alternate," thoughts and worldviews: (in 
the sense that) such as might be seen to be offered when literal 
(or dualistic/multiplistic, exoteric, karmic/mayavic, mainstream) 
interpretations (of Theosophy, say) are considered "primarily" 
(say?) as clues (in need of reading between the lines) about what 
is really (or "Really") going on ... ?

For example, "free will" might be seen (possibly?) from a 
fundamentally different pespective if one were to realize 
something about the mayavic nature of a "free" that can only 
exist ("essentially," "in exoterics") in contrast to its opposite ...
so, 
(when writing that reply to a post that appeared July 29 on BN 
Study, for example), I was hoping to convey something, 
somehow, about transcending such a 
dualistic/multiplistic/mayavic reality---not that exoterics, in any 
shape or form, can directly enough even as much as point to the 
kind of experiential/Occult "esoterics" that would appear to be 
"hinted at" by that kind "transcending" (so, in other words, I 
suspect that I might be kind of between a rock and hard place 
when even as much as trying to "hint at" such transcending ... ^:-/ 
... )

<<Also quote the "per Leon" statements you are referring to. >>

I wrote: << (if "dualistic" with interpretive/multiplistic variables, 
as per Leon) >> That was in reference to what seem to me to be 
your "interpretive variables" (apparent thought patterns, ABC's, 
etc) about "the nature of reality/truth." Somewhere along the 
line I seem to have picked up the impression that you might tend 
to see your "interpetive variables" as being "multiplistic" rather 
than (as per my "apparent interpretive tendency," or choice of 
words) "essentially dualistic," within certain kinds of "relevant 
contexts" such as might be evoked by such as "transcending 
karma." To me, that apparent preference on your part, Leon, 
(which "apparent" is, of course, so much speculation on my part, 
after all!), seems, in a sense, interesting: I keep wondering if 
your involvements (thought patterns, ABC's) with "apparent 
multiplicity" (in a sense!) might have in some way "complicated" 
your approach to life, in general, to the extent that you might 
have trouble, in a sense, stopping or slowing down your "sense of 
priorities," so that you might often tend to find yourself (maybe?) 
having a somewhat "more primary preference," (as in "the study 
of Theosophy") for various "apparent multiplistics," or "scientific 
multiplistic," in favor of what might be seen (?) as somewhat 
"more reduced" and basic (or "b/Basic") apparent dualistics;" 
not that the multiplistics of "scientific approaches" (with or 
without quotes) don't have current-worldview relevance, but ... I 
keep wondering if your basic (apparent to me) interpretive 
preference might tend to manifest in terms of (an assigning of), 1, 
a "basic duality" (in a sense?) to "apparent multiplicity," (in 
senses that might be seen as "relevant enough"?), or, 2, do you 
have a "basic tendency" to get so involved in the apparent 
(interpetive/karmic) multiplicity of life, in general, that the 
"duality" of "ordinary reality" (ie, in interpretive/basic, 
life-evaluative terms) might be put on some kind of back burner, 
maybe, (if not substantially overlooked, maybe?), possibly in the 
form of an apparent (ie, interpretive/karmic) multiplicity (ie, not 
that a preference for "dualistic essentials" in "basic 
life-evaluative or theoretical terms" isn't interpretive/karmic, 
"anyway," but/"but"...).

<<It would also be helpful if you could furnish definitions or (in 
context) references for all words placed in quotes or separated by 
slashes. Thanks. Leon>>

Among other things, I often tend to use quotes on these lists to 
alert the reader that the standard definition (of "interpretive", 
"essentially," etc) is offered, (if somewhat speculatively, by me), 
with an intended/interpretive or alternate "contextual variant" 
that, in my intended to-be-read-between-the-lines context 
(whether or not I manage to convey my "intended meaning," just 
then), the standard meaning is "contextually offered" from a 
supplemental, or "possibly alternate," (if speculative), 
perspective. But I often skip the quotes, anyway, leaving the 
reader to see, or not see, that I used invisible quotes, thinking 
that the reader might, or might not, read between the lines (ie, not 
that quotes are all that crucial or necessary, after all, in a sense, 
but ... or "but" ...).

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Anybody here watch "Taken" TV? Any thoughts?