re contrasts, Bill, BAG, "broader perspectives"? and ...
Jan 13, 2003 07:18 AM
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
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>>
<< 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 ... ?
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application