theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World re Leon and "direct enough"

Nov 06, 2003 11:15 PM
by leonmaurer


Uh huh. Maybe, you hit the nail on the head. At least as deep as you seem 
to be able to go when discussing theosophy. But, I still don't know exactly 
what you are driving at. Whatever it is, I assume you are right. But then, you 
may be wrong. What more can I say?

Wonderingly,
Leo


In a message dated 11/06/03 7:52:20 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>L wrote: <<M, Haven't the faintest idea what
>you are talking about. And, getting tired of
>rereading old mail over and over again. So,
>would appreciate getting a direct question
>about any of the "issues" you might have
>brought up in any of your posts -- so I can
>give them a direct answer.>>
>
>Seems we might define "direct" somewhat
>differently in that where I seem to ... On
>second thought, no point in offering more
>confusing qualifiers, at least not until ...
>^:-/ ... I seem to recall having offered some
>comments already about "strings" in relation
>to Theosophy, among other things, all of
>which, to me, seemed "direct enough," in a
>sense (mostly "in agreement in a sense" with
>many of your wordings).
>
>But, in case you're in the mood for some more
>confusing qualifiers that might not have
>enough "directness" in them to your liking:
>
>I wonder if the nature of "atma-buddhi" might
>be kind of dependent, like everything else in
>this "ordinary reality," on the "exoteric
>reality" of "karma/maya," by which I'm saying
>(or "my karma might be saying," I'm
>speculating) that all karmic notions (and
>some "less karmic" notions, as well, maybe
>...) about the nature of "atma-buddhi" might
>be inherently mayavic and basically
>impermanent in as much as they are karmic in
>their exoteric ("essentially dualistic")
>aspects ... And so if "karma" (where the
>quotes refer to a basically interpretive, or
>"karmic/mayavic" nature of that word) ... and
>so if "karma" per whatever
>"individualistic/collective"
>interpretive/intermediary variation has
>outlined or realized or made real whatever
>model or world view ("in one's life"), then,
>(obviously?), such appearances and worlds and
>worldviews are really engaging one's present
>attention in terms of reality in as much as
>if one has no other recourse to anything
>"higher"---which "higher" one might, (eg...),
>Theosophically model in terms of such as
>"atma-buddhi" and "Monad," not that such
>modeling isn't relevant enough and real
>enough in terms of one's reality or "only
>available reality."
>
>In other words, "as I currently tend to see
>it," the Esoteric Tradition is all about
>cultivating a meaningful or "meaningful
>enough" "middle way" (or Theosophy, eg)
>between what is "more" and "less" real/"real"
>in the most apparently
>p/Profoundest/r/Realest/t/Truest sense.
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri



[Back to Top]


Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application