Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00234)

Bill wrote: <<Perhaps you can help me to explain how 
theosophy can identify with Master's of Wisdom at 
succeeding levels of mastery, each level deferring to those
higher, i.e., the chiefs have their chiefs who have their 
chiefs, and still not acknowledge an Alpha and Omega?>>

Bill, I tend to feel very helpless about "helping" you 
(whatever that means) or anybody with such things, 
(especially as I'm just a speculator, as I see it, basically), 
but seems to me that your wording in this and some of 
your posts suggests that you have intuited/reasoned 
toward some kind of "essence of the matter," so what else 
can we humans do when looking for essential, deeper, or 
"esoteric" meaning ...

<<Many men throughout history and in the present day 
have testified to an experience of the Godhead that 
transcends the intellect.>>

I suspect that many have testified from many perspectives, 
by way of many kinds of karmic tendencies, influences 
about ... whatever. But of course (?) "Godhead" 
(whatever that means) might be, or might seem, (in many 
cases?), much in keeping with a certain kind of 
transcendental/esoteric experience? If one's karmic 
tendency results in "an experience of Godhead," well, 
then, isn't that the "reality" of one's karmic tendency to 
reify ... I suspect that we all tend to color our "mystical 
experiences" in keeping with our karma.

<<Always, such testimony fails to transmit the essence of 
the experience, but the failure seems one of 
communication rather than essential substance.>>

I suspect that the "essence of the experience" is rather 
immersed, colored by one's karma, so that those with 
different enough karmic paths might find such accounts 
puzzling ... Seems to me that how we each define (or 
"tend to define," in my case--he he) "essential substance" 
in that context might relate back to the nature of our 
karma ... Besides, "essential substance," to me, sounds 
kind of reific, in a sense, so ... Not that reifying isn't useful, 
in some ways, in many ways, in many cases,
maybe, depending on ... 

<<We might try to avoid requiring that theosophy's 
exoteric language be used to represent the essence of the 
theosophical experience anymore than the exoteric 
terminology of any other system represents the essence of 
that system.>>

I tend to think that "exoteric language" is all there is 
within the exoteric/dualistic/multiplistic worldview. My 
use of "esoteric" has a couple of variations, at least: 1. 
"comparatively": ie, interpretively, as per an individual or 
group, and 2. to indicate the experiential, itself, as opposed 
to the literal, discriptive.

<<What we might hope to do is compare and contrast the 
essence of these various systems as best we can, seeking 
for a mutual understanding among men of good will.>>

Sounds "good," relevant ... Don't forget the women, eh?
They're men too, aren't they ... ?

<<While no one here can be expected to defend exoteric 
christianity and its various components, >>

Oh, I don't know ... Seems to me that various religions 
have various kinds of real-enough relevance in various 
ways for various people by way of various karmic factors 
and various reifying tendencies, so ... I was kind of hoping 
that Theosophists might not want to hit anybody over the 
head with their Theosophic hammers too much, seeing as 
... what with Theosophy being so confusing, and all, to 
some people (many people, in a sense?) ... Of course, in 
my case, (thankfully!), what with my posts being so 
confusing and speculative and all, I don't see how I have 
to worry about hitting anybody over the head with MY 
ramblings. Hee hee. 

<<one might reasonably ask about the "essence" of 
christianity in the same sense that one asks about the 
"essence" of theosophy>>

Okay.

<< Is an experience of the "essence" an individual 
experience that changes one's consciousness of being?>>

What do you think? Might be?

<<Is it strictly an intellectual accomplishment, or
does the soul make a joyful noise?>>

You seem to be cluing in on something? But watch out for 
those karmic tendencies, I'd say (in a sense ...) ...

<<Is the "essence" a strictly theosophical experience or 
can other men from diverse histories with differenct 
terminologys experience it too?>>

Seems as if you might be cluing in on or referring to 
something that might have importantance/relevance, there, 
in some way ... What comes to mind is that at least 
Theosophy, as I tend to see it, as it's presented by way of 
HPB, etc, seems to have so much of the kind of 
"encompassing deeper meaning" that has, within a broader 
Theosophic context, inclusion, consideration, validation of 
all religions in their essence, yet how that essence is 
interpreted by way of various karmic tendencies and 
"religious perspectives" is, of course (?), another matter, 
that's reflective of various biases: seems that we all have 
our own various preferences, karmic tendencies? Still, 
having said all that, I don't think that I'd want to go on 
discussion list that's all about "a broader perspective," say, 
that, to me, seems counter to Theosophic principles. I 
have found it difficult enough speculating on a list that 
seems generally in keeping with my essential values. So 
when, from time to time, somebody pops up on this list 
and seems as if they MIGHT be undermining what I see as 
essential Theosophy ... well ... ^:-) ... I might get kind of 
stuck between laughing and crying ... Of course, on the 
other hand, if one can hold on to ones horses, and 
maintain a detached/objective perspective, with one's 
"broader perspective" firmly enough in view, (sort of?), 
one might be (ought to be?) able to weather lots of things 
... ? Maybe ... ?

Speculatively,
Mauri