Theos-Talk Archives (March 2005 Message tt00207)

samblo@cs.com wrote:

<<Mauri, No, it was not remote viewing, 
the individual was in a state of altered
consciousness >>> cut

Thanks for that, John. I'm in the 
process of trying to get the ebook from 
that store/publisher link you sent. Did 
you meet that "boy" with the blue eyes 
in South America who said he was from 
Canada? I'm tending to guess that he 
might've mysteriously vanished at some 
point? Did he?

The problem (in a sense ...) that I have 
tended to find with a lot of books "like 
that" (though they all might be 
different enough ...) seems to me to be 
that, in a sense, they all have in 
common a way of leaving the reader 
hanging, wondering "what really 
happened" (per whatever interpretive 
preference). It's as if the 
"phenomena," or whatever you want to 
call it, is unable to connect with the 
"common man," leaving people with their 
mouths open and more or less ready to 
accept some "more mainstream" 
interpretation about "what really 
happened," as in the case of the crop 
circles, eg.

I tend to find Theosophical modeling a 
help, though, in that, provided one 
reads between the lines, (of one's 
modeling or whatever), then things in 
general might at least seem to get into 
some sort of "more realistic 
perspective," in a sense, seems to me. 
For example, where apparent anomolies 
and such are concerned (I'm tempted to 
call them "anomolollies," as I suspect 
that there are no "real anomolies," but 
only mayavic/karmic appearances): I 
suspect that such things are the 
"logical outcome," in a sense, of what 
Gerald Schueler has called "outliers" 
(if I remember correctly), where a 
generally accepted worldview is, 
basically, half-baked (or less than that 
...). Not that I remember Gerald using 
"half-baked." But, to me, Theosophy has 
the answer, in a sense: karma/maya, 
making for all sorts of loops after 
itself in the way of "interpretations," 
(which are really, as I tend to see it, 
interpretations of interpretations of 
interpretations of interpretations, etc, 
etc, in that they are (or might be seen 
as ...) dependent/conditional arisings 
that have no Intrinsic Reality beyond 
their essential dependence on the kind 
of dualistic phenomena/maya that we have 
"karmically" come to know as "reality."
Not that reality isn't reality, 
but/"but" ... In other words, the 
Esoteric/Wisdom Tradition and Theosophy 
are not, as I tend to see it, flat and 
literal: by which I'm trying to say, I 
think, that they are, like everything 
else, "exoteric versions," and therefore 
can be misleading as to what is really 
going on.

Speculatively,
Mauri