Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00191)

>Would you not agree that that which is public knowledge is, by default,
>exoteric?
>

For the most part, yes. But even some "public" knowledge is
esoteric because it has to be experienced to be understood.
I can tell you all about a mystical experience, but if you never
had one, you won't know what I am talking about. This is also
true of emptiness which has to be experienced.


>
>Are you suggesting HPB only knew or had access to the "lowest" (?) Buddhist
>scriptures?
>

Either that, or she decided only to discuss the lowest in her writings.


>We know virtually nothing about the real/inner Olcott, BTW.  Because a man
>does not speak Chinese we should not *assume* he knows nothing of China.
>

I generally judge people by their writings. His are very exoteric and
largely Theravadin. If he was initiated, he kept it to himself.


>>  Most of her teaching was directed toward the masses
>
>We are the "masses". Theosophy was/is directed toward Humanity as a whole :
>the practical realization of Universal Brotherhood.
>

Agreed.


>> and only her Voice contains any real esotericism.
>
>It "contains" as much "esotericism" as we can, or can not, discern; as does
>"The Secret Doctrine".  It is, maybe, pertinent to recall that 'The Voice
of
>the Silence' is "Dedicated to the few".  It gives (or witholds) as the case
>may be.
>

No, it doesn't. Its all fairly easy esoteric material, at least by today's
standards. She never mentions emptiness or non-duality. Try reading
a Dzogchen text and see the difference.


>>  Probably the
>> single most
>> important teaching in all Buddhism is emptiness, and this HPB never
>> discusses. .
>
>Study "The Secret Doctrine" where you will discover countless pointers to
>*so-called* "emptiness" as it is meant to be understood.
>
>Best wishes,
>Paul.
>

Gee, thanks for the great tip!  I have studied the SD for over 30 years
and somehow must have missed it.

Jerry S.