Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00061)

Dallas wrote: <<make it simple. If the 7 Principles of Man is 
correct, then, at the core of our being -- the MONAD -- 
ATMA/BUDDHI is all the possible esotericism any one 
would want.>>

I thought that we sort of established that the "atma-buddhi 
monad" was kind of "APPARENTLY esoteric," in a sense, 
comparatively, exoterically speaking . . . but surely there's "a 
more relevant issue" about the meaning of "esoteric" that 
might interest some Theosophists, as per, for example, on 
Theos-1, Re to Mauri - Esoteric, Mon, 05 Aug 2002 07:49:33 
-. Here's an excerpts from that post by Gerald:

<<The (false) teaching that some kind of esoteric knowledge 
exists in Shambabala or somewhere, carefully guarded over 
by mysterious Adepts, is a pernicious one that Theosophists, 
magicians, New-Agers, and occultists alike are prone to.
Truth is found by looking within oneself, not by looking for 
some book or ancient text.>>>>

I suspect that some texts might often appeal to those who 
might have a problem with some "more relevant" way of 
"looking within themself." Not that there's anything wrong 
with exoteric studies, particularly . . . but/"but" . . . I suspect 
that people in general tend to have a certain sense of 
"essential relevance" (say?), in various/interpretive ways, 
that's basically "experientially based" (whether it's perceived 
so or not?) in the sense that only the reality of direct 
experience "will do" re such as "spirituality" re such as 
atma/buddhi, monadic, Monad, (precisely because such 
concepts are "too esoteric" and too "far out" to "understand 
about" other then by direct experience) . . . 

So, in a sense, that kind of perceived "relevance" isn't (as I 
see it) "particularly related" to the kind of mindset that's 
generally associated with (?) words such as <<all the possible 
esotericism any one would want.>> since (while the 
"amount" of "esotericism" "re" such as atma-buddhi is not 
likely generally in question?) the "esoteric," itself, in the 
sense of actual/experienctial as in "mystical," is not possible 
to even describe with words (as we seem to have been rather 
repeatedly told!?)---though some words "ABOUT" ways and 
means, models, Theosophies, etc. (re "exoteric aspects") 
might be seen as "helpful" in some sense (which kind of 
"help" is, really, as I see it, rather intermediary/exoteric, and, 
often (?), tends to get "somewhat far too intermediary," in a 
way, to the extent that some students might tend to get turned 
off by what they might see as contradictory fare?) . . . 

After all, there wuld SEEM to be (?) some people (even 
"students"?) out there who might have a "thing" about things 
that don't "SEEM" to fit . . . So, in the interest of "perceived 
applicability," one might . . . whatever . . . 

Speculatively,
Mauri