Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00268)

Monday, April 22, 2002


Dear Mauri:

I do not have time to go over long matters that have been covered
a dozen times. Regardless of what we might think is beneath THE
WORDS, let's take them on their face value.

The difference between exoteric and esoteric is that the esoteric
is based on strict lines of brotherhood and universality -- it is
impersonal, generous and charitable.

There can be no personal bias of any kind in true Theosophical
Esotericism.

Now if you are unfamiliar with the doctrines and tenets of
theosophy you will be at a distinct disadvantage. You will not
have the vocabulary to use.

Let us say in general that esotericism is a thorough knowledge of
the 3 FUNDAMENTALS and the 7 principles in Man and Nature --
their correlations and interactions. Nature is the Universe and
there is positively NO Personal GOD in it or outside it. Our
Universe is entirely run under Law. Man as a spiritual being is
an immortal and reincarnation is the process of becoming wiser
through experience.

The end goal for all these immortals -- that we are -- is a
cooperative and full knowledge of all that can be learned in
Nature ( the Universe). It has been called the goal of SUBLIME
PERFECTION.

Now as far as I can see there is little to argue about these
statements. Of course they may not appeal to all, but the
alternatives are chaotic and meaningless.



Hope this is of help,

Best wishes as always,

Dallas

-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri [mailto:mhart@idirect.ca]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 2:05 PM
To:
Subject: re to Dallas, and . . .

re:
RE: re Dallas's "adequate studies," and . . . ? A
CHALENBGE
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:52:47 -0700
From: <dalval14@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: "Theosophy Study List"
<theos-l@list.vnet.net>

Hi Dallas,

Since I have kind of suspected for some time now that my attempts
to be
"more specific" in "my way"---with you and with most people,
apparently---have kind of led, apparently, to a few
"difficulties," (to
say the least?), I'm changing my tactics, for a change. I've
decided
that, instead of trying to be "more specific," as usual, in this
post,
I'm going to see if I can be a little more, say, "conventional
sounding," for a change. Not that I expect to be "communicating
better," exactly, "but" . . .

So in my "more conventional" and "clearly less-specific" way, I'd
like
to offer some comments in response to that post from you, Dallas
(while
using just quotes that have far more obviously
regular/conventional
implicit meaning, among other things):

I suppose you have found out over the years, Dallas, (as I have),
that
some people tend to have certain difficulties with more
meaningfully
communicating about certain kinds of key issues, concepts,
philosophies,
metaphysics, etc---such as might be found in various Theosophic
contexts, especially as might concern various interpretive
aspects of
"esoteric/exoteric." (And could the reader kindly note that I
chose
"more meaningfully," and which is without quotes, instead of my
usual,
quoted "more specifically"!)

So instead of launching myself into one of my regular "defining
modes"
(so as to be"more meaningful"---not to mention that m-s thing)
about my
intended meaning of "more meaningful," for a start, I will just
write as
clearly and conventionally as I can in this post.

Dallas, I tend to find much in your post that speaks to me
(while
reading between the lines) about the apparent differences we
humans tend
to see about the "realistic meaning" of such as
"esoteric/exoteric." I
think that at one point you wrote to the effect that we all have
our own
Paths to deal with, and I agree with you there. Apparently my
Path, as
I see it, and your Path, as you see it, Dallas, have something
to do
with how we interpret/communicate about esoteric/exoteric
issues.
Which would seem to suggest that certain kinds of communications
between
us might be somewhat, well, curtaily? And, as I see it, you seem
to be
suggesting as much in your latest post to me, Apr 20.

CUT