Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00008)

Lenny (one of Leons relations?) wrote: <<Yep Mauri. I think we 
are seeing things the same way, more or less, -- but. we don't seem 
to talk about it the same way. :-) >>

^:-) ...

<<Actually, there is both a heart doctrine and a head doctrine. 
While they must go together to make us knowledgeable, wise and 
effective theosophists, we certainly can talk about them 
separately, as the occasion calls for... Much like the scientific 
metaphysics in the SD is talked about separately from the yoga
or spiritual practices in the Voice of the Silence. And, even in 
the SD, there is a separation, sometimes, from the pure science or 
metaphysics of Cosmogenesis and the thoughtless or willful, 
heartfelt or intellectual actions of the hierarchy of Dhyan 
Chohans, etc. >>

I thought the "Dhyan Chohans" were like "Higher Selves," or 
something like that, so if you're saying that they can be 
"thoughtless," one might wonder in what sense/perspective that 
kind of "thoughtless" might apply, or seem to apply from an 
exoteric perspective ...

<<Be assured that when I "intellectualize" or "scientize" (as you 
call it), or logically present the scientific basis of universal 
involution and evolution (that is consistent with what we can 
learn about the cutting edges of contemporary science) or talk 
about consciousness, compassion, and responsibility, as the 
circumstances may be -- I always consider them in context with 
each other and test their consistency with each other. >>

OK ...

<<As it is, I find that there is a serious lack of understanding, 
among most students of theosophy, about the aims and purposes 
of the "Theosophical Movement," the "Three Fundamental
Principles," and particularly, the second principle that considers 
basic scientific and metaphysical laws that empower and link the 
first and last principle, explains the logical mechanisms of karma 
and reincarnation -- as well as justifies the cyclic Movement 
itself. So, when I talk about such laws and their causes
and effects, I tend to concentrate on making them understood 
from both an intellectual as well as an intuitive point of view -- 
without bringing in the more or less goody goody emotional 
romanticism that the Heart Doctrine generates in some people. 
On the other hand, when I talk about the Heart Doctrine, I like
to be sure that the fundamental metaphysics that underlies and 
governs it, is also understood. That's why theosophy is so 
difficult to teach orally or in writing, but easy to learn solely 
through serious self devised and self determined intellectual and 
intuitive study of the Metaphysics of the Secret Doctrine
(plus consistent interpretations such as ABC, esoteric writings of 
HPB, WQJ, all the great Sages, etc.) along with the full time 
practice of the theosophical Yoga of compassion and altruism as 
taught in the Voice of the Silence (with the help of Patanjali's 
Yoga sutras, Tao Te Ching, I-Ching, Bhagavad Gita,
etc.). Along with all this, one must ask serious questions and not 
be satisfied with the answers until every angle is covered, and 
then personally confirmed. >>

Here's where we might tend to go off on different tangents. I'm 
referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of 
fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or 
karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") 
are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied 
with any answer, in principle, in a sense, regardless of how many 
exoteric angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do 
not, "personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing 
"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality." Not 
that ...

<< Speculatively, it appears to me that the difference between us, 
apparently, is that you like to speculate in your writing about 
things you are not too sure you know in their entirety, and I can 
only write about things that I already know or ask direct 
questions about what I don't know. >>

I repeat: Here's where we might tend to go off on different 
tangents. I'm referring to that last sentence. I seem to be kind of 
fundamentally stacked up so that, as far as exoterics (or 
karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic "logic of ordinary reality") 
are concerned, I don't seem to want to be particularly satisfied 
with any answer, in principle, regardless of how many exoteric 
angles were taken into account in its creation, as I do not, 
"personally," (ie, exoterically), find more than passing 
"every-angle" satisfaction in the "logic of ordinary reality."

On the other hand, if I were to acquire more of some kind of 
experiential/Occult/esoteric k/Knowledge (ie, by way of direct 
enough means) my speculative ways might be somewhat 
modified, possibly, for all I know.

<<Of course, if I can't prove for myself that the answer is 
absolutely true, it remains in the area of speculation -- until I 
do... Then, I can write about it with a clear conscience.>>

I suspect that, in exoterics, such as "absolutely true" may have 
have whatever kind of "true enough" relevance, from whatever 
perspective, or established perspective, but/"but"... The quoted 
"but" refers to my sense that "answers" in exoterics are limited, 
mayavic, conditional, etc, and so might lead, in some cases, for 
some people (?), towards considerations, or theoretical/intuitive 
"buts" that might be brought about by thoughts about, or 
intuitive allowances made for, transcending such realities, 
answers, proofs, "absolute truths," "clear consciencenesses," 
limits, karma, maya---in cases where the topic of such 
transcending (if not the transcending itself, in experiential terms) 
might be considered (by some?) somewhat relevant.

<<(Even though it may be paradoxical, there is such a thing as
"absolute truth" -- although one can hardly speak about it -- but 
only infer it.) The idea is to test the knowledge by seeing if I can 
describe it in such a clear manner that no one can refute it 
through science, mathematics, or logic.>>

I tend to agree that there are relative "absolute truths"
in various karmic settings. Some examples: brick walls, Mack 
trucks, fundamentalists, mosquitos, etc, etc. 

<<(Although, some have tried, and usually end up calling me 
names -- or scratching their head. :-) >>

^:-) ...

<<Another thing I like to do (actually in a spirit of fun, 
sometimes) is exposing the wrong views of people who think they 
have all the answers. >>

Me too, in my way, I guess.

<<In that sense, I am "dangerous" as someone recently pointed 
out. >>

In my case, though, seeing as most people seem to have long ago 
given up trying to decipher what I'm saying, in the first place ... 
and I have a hard time seeing how the rest could regard my posts 
to be anything like dangerous.

<<But, that is only to those who try to pull the wool over other's 
eyes, use gossip, false accusations, and personal innuendoes to 
make their points, or unjustifiably attack, disparage, or discredit 
my friends, associates, or teachers. (Note the trinities, which 
confirms what I said in my last letter about duality's being 
incomplete considerations. ;)>>

"Trinities," I suspect, is part of exoterics (no matter how 
relevantly, realistically, etc), so ... That is, not that ...

<< <'/:o)> >>

^:-) One might wonder what happened to your nose, there ... ?
. 
Speculatively, 
Mauri