Theos-Talk Archives (January 1999 Message tt00194)

> >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.

What is "emptiness"?  "Space is neither a 'limitless' void, nor a
'conditioned' fulness,' but both . . ." (SD, I, 8).  Is this your
"emptiness"?

> >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.

It is said Guatama Shakyamuni (Buddha) left no writtings.

> >> 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.

Of course.  After all, there is so much more real/difficult "esoteric
material" about these days (what with it being the Kali Yuga)!!

Besides, it is doubtless "fairly easy esoteric material" to those who
under-stand it, in its Wholeness.  A bit like the folk we hear about
ocassionaly who have read (!) "The Secret Doctrine" and have since - in
their great progress and knowledge - moved on to 'higher' things.

> >>  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.

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

That much is obvious. . . . . missing IT.  Join the club:-)

Best wishes,
Paul.