Theos-Talk Archives (August 2001 Message tt00281)

Tuesday, August 28, 2001

Dear Friends:

Re: Esoteric, Occult, etc….

All you need to do if you desire to discover what is “esoteric” is to
patiently go through The SECRET DOCTRINE and ISIS UNVEILED and look for
statements like: “The esoteric philosophy states…” “Occultism teaches…..”
etc.

But I say if you don’t have a basic concept of hat theosophy is and teaches
even this culling of statements will do not do any one much good.

What do you do when you get a new idea? Do you think it over and see if it
has some commonsense and logic inherent in it ?

Best wishes,

Dal

=============================

-----Original Message-----
From: m [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 4:15 PM
To: Theosophy Study List
Subject: ULT/esoteric/exoteric


<<<DALLASF: I PRESENT WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THEOSOPHY (HOPING THAT I
HAVE NOT DISTORTED IT).. But in case I may have, I always recommend that
others go to the texts from which I learned and check them out
INDEPENDENTLY.>>>
<<<MAURI: Again: Dallas is talking as if there's no
interpretation involved when checking texts! >>>
<<<JERRY: Dallas and I went around the barn on this one some time ago.
According to Richard Taylor (who was in ULT), ULT folks are
incapable of assuming that many interpretations of the
Theosophical core teachings are possible. Based on many
conversations with Dallas, Leon, and other ULT folks, I agree with
Rich. I have met many Christian fundamentalists who are just like
this, so it (ie fundamentalism) is apparently a mind-set that can be
found in any religion (and to them Theosophy is indeed a
religion). So, arguing over interpretation is pretty much a waste of
time - after all, to accept the possibility of many interpretations has
to allow for "my" interpretation and "your" interpretation which
leads down the slippery slope toward "I may be wrong" which, of
course, can't be so (but this is so unconscious that I am sure that
are unaware of it).>>>
======================
MAURI: Isn't there some kind of acknowledgment among ULT'ers that the
esoteric aspects of Theosophy are not only alive and well, on a regular
basis, but are basically inseparable from any kind of serious study of
Theosophy? Could it be that ULT'ers as a group have somewhat primarily
"opted to focus" (as per their interpretations?) on the exoteric aspects of
the "original Theosophical texts"? If so, I wonder if that decision might
have been arrived at by a careful consultation/interpretation, first, of
those "original texts," or could it have been a basically independent
decision?
Is there something in those "original Theosophical texts" that clearly
enough outlines how Theosophy might be meaningfully studied by way of
VARIOUS perspectives/interpretations, since we're all different in terms of
the way we "understand/interpret Theosophy"? That difference in
people/interpretations would seem to me to be particularly topical and
noticeable in any kind of attempts at in-depth Theosophical assessment,
especially because, as I see it, "in depth" means that esoteric aspects
cannot be excluded. Or maybe there's a branch of ULT that might be
interpretively focussed on "exoteric Theosophy" (for comparative newbies,
like me, say?), and another branch or "understanding" that might be focussed
on some kind of interpretive "combining of exoteric/esoteric"?
Possibly ULT'ers might point out that esoterics are not excluded, but my
question is, how is that "not excluded" specifically interpreted? That is,
where in the "original texts" (Dallas/anybody, do you happen to know?) would
we find SPECIFIC information about SPECIFIC ways in which SPECIFIC esoteric
aspects of Theosophy might be SPECIFICALLY studied, and what might be the
SPECIFIC prerequisites for such SPECIFIC studies?
As a comparative newbie, I might be inclined to begin answering that
question with, for example: The "esoteric aspects of Theosophy" would seem
to be so involved, inter-dimensional and transcendent that the
interpretations of the "original texts" with those aspects in mind might
often result in interpretive results that might not necessarily "APPEAR to
be" particularly supportive of "apparent-original-text" meaning: which in
turn might mean that students of Theosophy might often find themselves
dealing with the differences of their interpretations:
Meaning (for example?) that "a realistic assessment" of the "original texts"
might be found to have an unavoidable relationship with the Theosophical
aspect of "Oneness" that might be seen as a "Binding Force" in the creation
of "workable" middle grounds that would "meaningfully-enough address"
various interpretive variations (without becoming counter-productive):
Would the "spiritual"/esoteric/occult "benefits" arising from certain
"selfless" forms of altruism become more and more evident ESPECIALLY if that
"selflessness" is traceable to involvements that tend to be "largely
esoterically related" (or "more spiritual," say?) than "mostly exoteric"?
In other words, as I tend to see it, "altruism and selflessness" as
interpreted in "basically exoteric terms," as compared to
more-spiritual/esoteric interpretations, might often be seen or sensed to be
somewhat less convincing by people in general.
I'm wondering if "specific esoterics" might be so "personally relevant" (and
thereby vague) in essence that no amount of "helpful comments" about them
might amount to anything more than vague generalizations from the
perspective of many people. If ULT'ers tend to believe in the basic meaning
of that statement (?), could that be the primary reason why they might have
opted to primarily focus (?) on the more "generally understandable"/exoteric
aspects of Theosophy, in the hope that at least "something" might be
accomplished (in the process tending to exclude "interpretive esoterics" for
the most part, or entirely?)? Something like that?
One might ask: "What are 'interpretive esoterics,' specifically?" Being a
comparative newbie, I might tend to respond with, for example:
In order for the esoteric aspects (in terms of "comparatively realistic
Theosophy") to have meaningful "realistic relevance" to oneself (in as much
as that might the only kind of relevance that many of us might call
"significant enough"?), there might be a need to deal with one's
individualistic "interpretive aspects" to such an extent/manner that, as one
reads/interprets the "original texts" in keeping with one's "starting
notions" (at whatever level) about the nature of "reality and truth," one
might be inclined to continually re-interpret and re-assess one's "starting
notions" about that "reality and truth" as one studies the texts (which
texts might tend to become more and more evident as "clues to meaning beyond
dualistic words"), along with one's evolving "starting notions" about that
"reality and truth," in terms of whatever one may interpret as relating to
those thematic combinations:
All of which would obviously (?) tend to lead to ongoing dualistic questions
and interpretations as if without end . . . but is that not also part of a
generally progressive s/Self processing phase for all students of Theosophy,
and one that might, at some point, for some, suddenly tip the scale in favor
of some "greater realization," possibly?
And from the perspective of many students of Theosophy, possibly, that
somewhat compromising "something that might be accomplished" by the ULT
might seem "highly worthwhile," in some way, (possibly?). So surely such
interpretive "worthwhileness" might also be interpreted by those many
students as having some kind of esoteric significance, pending "one's own"
interpretation, meditation, realization?
Or do ULT'ers "generally prefer" to exclude "esoteric interpretations" from
all or most Theosophical discussions? Or do they "generally prefer" to
exclude "esoteric interpretations" just in their writings? Or do ULT'ers
"generally prefer" to only think about "esoteric interpretations" in terms
of how they might relate to their own situations and values in the privacy
of their own minds?
Not that there would seem to be (admittedly, apparently, generally
speaking?) much that can be said in terms of "esoteric interpretations" in
generally understandable language. But if "esoteric aspects" are
representative of an essential and fundamental facet of "reality and truth"
(if "esoteric aspects" underlie "exoteric reality" or "regular reality")
then how are we to meaningfully study Theosophy, while still in "regular
reality," if such "esoteric aspects" are not also addressed in some way,
however haltingly?
Speculatively,
Mauri
PS And, about that "binding force": I guess I can say,
May The Force be with you!
---
You are currently subscribed to theos-l as: dalval14@earthlink.net
List URL - http://list.vnet.net/?enter=theos-l
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-theos-l-14759P@list.vnet.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]