Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00181)

Leon wrote: << Yes, but the only esoteric tradition 
we know and slant our discussion toward
is what was taught by the Masters. However, this 
teaching is now exoteric, since it was written down in 
the SD. >>

Okay ... since it was written down or spoken down ...

<<The only thing that can be esoteric, then, is what 
we understand about it from the standpoint of our 
intuition -- which could never be put into words.>>

But if one defines "esoteric" as "direct experience of," 
then ... And intuition might be seen as a form of 
speculativeness, say ... Not that many of us humans 
have many alternatives, so it seems to me that we're 
often kind of stuck with whatever we "intuit" about
what we might generally tend to call "esoteric topics."

<<All we can do is use metaphors to try and explain 
such abstract truths. The wind tunnel model is one of 
those metaphors that relates to understanding what 
the purpose is of modeling with respect to the 
physical level of reality. All that my model of 
"universal reality" does (going several levels beyond 
the physical) is try to scientifically (in direct geometric 
language) explain the metaphysical relationships and 
linkages between awareness-will-mind-memory-space 
and brain/body. But, it can never explain the esoteric 
nature of the experience of those levels of 
consciousness, or of, awareness, thought, intuition,
enlightenment, etc. -- which must forever remain 
esoteric. However, the model makes it easier to 
examine the metaphysical truths of theosophy and
understand the unity of all things in the universe that 
enables us to be convinced that such intuition or 
enlightenment is possible of attainment. >>

Okay ...

<< The only way we can understand those esoteric 
aspects of reality, is to examine them in the light of a 
correct (scientifically sound) model of fundamental 
reality.>>

Leon, I'm beginning to wonder if you might be kinda 
yanking on my chain, or something, with word 
choices like that (not that I might not have been 
yanking on your chain, and whatever else, long 
enough, but ... )? In other words, could it be that you 
really know better, (as per that previous paragraph?), 
but that you might feel that there's no such thing as 
too much discussion about the "differences between 
exoteric and esoteric" (as if such "differences" could 
be at least "hinted at," if nothing much else) ... I'm not 
really asking about that, here, exactly, so much as sort 
of venting some of my speculativeness about it, as 
usual. Not that I "know" anything, ANYway, of 
course, let alone "Know," so ... Gee. ^:-)

Anyway (sorry about that, I sort of "couldn't help it," 
seeing as you seem to be so often cornering with 
"certain kinds" of comments...), but as for more of my 
speculation (you might've suspected that I wasn't 
going to be exactly sparing with it?): I tend to think 
that "understanding esoteric aspects of reality" might 
be essentially experiential "and/or" "related to 
intuition" to the extent that, if one is not karmically 
"ready" to "understand" (or at least to intuit---or 
"intuit"---if by way of one's essentially interpretive 
exoteric/karmic tendencies) "about esoteric topics" 
(by way of whatever karmic translations) then no 
amount of exoteric scientizing or modeling on this 
plane will not (oops, I meant "might not," "basically," 
I think) "might not" make a "real enough" difference 
other than as per whatever linking (or "aha") 
experiences they may have by way of one's karma. So 
... ^:-) .... But linking seems, generally speaking, 
(obviously enough?), kind of like "good karma," so 
you might have a point there, Leon, in a way ... ^:-) ... 
And sorry about not using enough of ... whatever, and 
too many of ... this and that.

<<Karma is nothing more than the scientifically 
consistent action (cause-effect) of the cyclic laws
of energy (action=reaction, harmonic progressions, 
resonance, induction, etc.) that govern the formation 
(out of the zero-point spinergy) of the seven fold 
nature of conditioned existence on which the forms of 
our physical world are holographically modulated -- 
which is Maya (Illusion, because these forms change 
from moment to moment and point to point in time 
and space). Understand that (after experiencing the 
ultimate reality that the model represents) and you 
will fully realize, and scientifically understand, the
esoteric meaning of "karma" and "maya" -- so you can 
explain it to others without confusing them with 
mystical or supernatural vagaries or poorly defined 
foreign words.>>

Occurs to me that I might've had such word-choices 
in mind at some point in this or some other life, 
maybe, and so (according to ...) it might be that I'm 
getting back some of what I've been sowing, or 
something like that ...

<<The difference between exoteric Buddhism and 
exoteric theosophy, is that; Buddhists accept the 
meaning of those terms blindly, because "Buddha 
taught it" --while theosophists experience the reality 
of karma and Maya directly through a perfect 
understanding of the metaphysical reality explained 
in Cosmogenesis (and clarified by my ABC model 
which is in exact conformance with the formerly 
esoteric (secret) doctrine). Best wishes, LHM>>>

Don't you mean "some Buddhists" and "some 
Theosophists," maybe ... ?

Speculatively, and with best wishes,
Mauri