Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00257)

Daniel wrote: <<Well, Mauri, it is 
always possible to try to interpret 
these statements as somehow
symbolic. But why not take them at
face value? Why MUST they have some 
symbolic meaning? I think if you 
carefully collate these kind of 
statements by Bailey that it is fairly 
obvious that she was writing about what 
she believed was real physical and 
literal events. And it would appear
that most of her students have taken 
these statements in that way.
Following your lead, then one might 
suggest that Bailey's Master DK was not 
really a physical Tibetan Master but 
was a symbolic representation of ...... 
blah, blah, blah. One can very easily 
lose oneself in a morass of such vague 
speculation and fuzzy thinking. If one 
prefers to do that, fine. Daniel>>

Yes, we all seem to be free to make 
various interpretations, among them 
interpretations involving whatever kinds 
of mixes of "possible symbolic" meanings 
along with "possible literal" meanings 
re such as might be found in AB's 
writings, eg. I tend to suspect that 
how we each bring such interpretative 
mixes into whatever kinds of "real 
enough" relevance within our own lives 
might, in general, tend to "matter most" 
for "better or worse," resulting in 
whatever other "interpretive mixes" 
resulting in whatever other interpretive 
mixes, etc, etc, until we begin to sense 
the Maya in such approaches toward what 
is really going on. I seem to see "real 
enough relevance," in a sense (which 
"sense" seems to be impossible for me to 
put into words), in what I've been 
calling "just being," but Leon, eg, per 
his recent response, seems to feel that 
my "just being" isn't amounting to much, 
even though I have nowhere attempted to 
describe my "just being" more 
specifically. I'm tending to assume that 
Leon might've made that assesment on the 
basis of how my posts, in general, have 
come across to him. Sorry about that 
Leon, etc. I tend to suspect our various 
karmic tendencies and biases might tend 
to be, in general, individualistic to 
the point that, sooner or later, we 
might all tend to be somewhat 
individually faced with somewhat keyish 
choices about how we interpret 
reality/truth on this plane and 
elsewhere. So I don't see much point in 
offering much in the way of "more 
specific" comments about what I might 
see as my interpretive/karmic tendencies 
re AB, eg (ie, not that I haven't 
offered some such comments, already). 
Seems that, basically, I'm trying to 
keep some kind of lid on things, in 
keeping with my attempts to turn over 
some kind of "newer leaf," not that my 
lids don't have holes in them, as it's 
turning out, obviously enough. I seem to 
have decided not to jump into just any 
kind of "for" or "against" AB camp ... 
although, come to think of it, I 
might've already displayed some of my 
karmic tendencies, not too long ago, in 
connection with that other AB. Hmm ...

^:-/ ...
Mauri