Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00475)

There's been some comments on some related 
lists lately about what might be meant, 
"more-specifically," by "self," in a Theosophical 
context. I posted an earlier version of the following on another list.

Surely we all know (or do we?) that, in a Theosophic context, the
definition of "self" is rather 
transcendent, or "far reaching," in some 
significant enough sense---even in speculative, 
interpretive, dualistic terms, I suspect . . . Well, "self" MIGHT be so
(transcendent, far-reaching) for SOME of us, maybe, surely! Surely?

So what's wrong with the use of "self" in explanations 
that were (apparently, or rather OBVIOUSLY, after all, 
eh?) meant to be the simplistic/exoteric versions of . . . whatever?

I thought we were "studying Theosophy" in order to get 
some kind of "Broader Handle" on what's regularly 
known ("simplistically," of course, when "regularly 
known"!) as "self," so . . . in the meanwhile, as long as we continue
to cultivate, say, a "Broader" meaning for "self," "consciousness,"
"awareness," etc, then maybe we might . . . well, whatever we "might," 
"whenever" . . . And, incidentally, when I say 
"Broader," I don't mean "fatter." How about 
"Broader" in a certain kind of "Skinnier sense" . . . in a sense? No? 
Well, how about "Broader" in an 
"esoteric sense"? Does that sound a little better, 
maybe? Not that I know, of course, what "esoteric 
sense" "really means." But I SUSPECT that, "more 
relevantly" (whatever "more relevantly" "really 
means"), one might ask oneself that question, at some 
point, in some way, maybe. Well, not that I really 
know exactly "WHY" . . . But, then, I thought that part of Theosophy
was/is (?) all about cultivating some 
kind of "more meaningful meaning" in a sense that 
might/would (?) include some kind of significant (if 
"interpretive," in dualistic terms) "esoteric aspects" 
(whatever those are "more specifically"). 

After all that, I hope I didn't get back to where we 
started from. Surely not?

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS . . . hmm . . . Rereading the preceding, it occurred to me that some
people MIGHT find some kind of 
irreverent humour in it, maybe. But, could the reader 
kindly be assured that, in spite of whatever interpretive humour they
might come across in this or any of my posts, my intended "serious
aspects/versions" (though they may be interpretive, speculative, and
whatever else) in all or most (by far) of my posts (as I see them) are,
nevertheless, intact, (ie, "assuredly"). But if the reader insists on
a too one-sided interpretation, (of this or any of my posts, or
anybody's posts, books, articles, etc) of course they do so at their own
expense. A wise man might've said, (at some point, maybe?): Things are
not what they seem! Or something like that?