Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00256)

In a message dated 03/10/03 12:01:18 AM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon wrote: 
>
><<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."

Intuition has nothing to do with speculation. To intuit is to know the 
actual reality of what any group of words mean. That is, having a direct 
comprehension of a fundamental truth. Or, as the dictionary defines it, "The 
act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; 
immediate cognition." If you study the SD you will find that in many cases, 
where HPB gives out the esoteric teachings in rather obscure terms (from an 
exoteric literal standpoint) -- she says, "The intuitive student will know 
what this means." (That is why she said to "read between the lines and in 
and around the words.") Thus, "esoteric" refers to the fundamental "occult" 
truths of theosophy -- not to their literal interpretation, nor to reasonable 
or unreasonable speculations about them. 

If you truly intuit the esoteric meaning of an exoteric statement, then you 
become consciously knowledgeable of a fundamental reality. Speculation is 
only useful when you are testing out alternative interpretations for yourself 
-- before you intuit the actual reality (which in most cases can only be put 
down in vague words that can only symbolize the true nature of what one can 
picture in the mind and comprehend through the "inner" senses)... As they 
say, one must "feel it in the heart." 

No amount of words can explain that esoteric, and completely subjective 
experience. Each time one does so, however, is another "initiation" on the 
path to one's individual enlightenment. Thus, our inner knowledge -- which 
we can't talk about -- comes as a series of plateaus... Each, an awakening at 
a higher level... Until full enlightenment is achieved. 

Unfortunately, many students reach the first or second plateau, think they 
have comprehended it all, and stop their searching to start preaching or 
teaching what they know. That's why some people who say they are gurus, and 
think they know how to help others to find themselves or achieve some sort of 
effectiveness as a group brotherhood, sometimes reach no higher than the 
lower self that is caught up in the astral or the lower mental planes. It's 
easy to form a group of lesser knowledgeable people around such a self 
professed guru. But, the possibility of arriving at any sort of higher 
wisdom, realization of self and enlightenment, or effectiveness in helping 
and teaching others, is pretty remote. 

So, if one constantly refers to the teachings and asks the right questions, 
there's no need to be stuck at any level of esoteric knowledge. But, none of 
it can come without serious self devised and self determined study and effort 
-- each time anyone thinks they have all the answers -- at whatever plateau 
they are on. 

Only after one reaches the highest level, can they turn around and speak 
directly using the proper words to answer anyone's questions at any level of 
their understanding. That's why, the entire Secret Doctrine takes so many 
millions of words on thousands of pages to explain to everyone at every 
level. And, why so "many are called but so few are chosen." 

Therefore, unless one has already been on the path in previous lifetimes, and 
one's karma warrants it -- to get all the way through to the top is very 
tough going, and requires deep concentrated study and practice, for a long, 
long time. So, wherever you are, keep on plugging. 

(snip)...

><< 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. ^:-)

The esoteric is the actual fundamental truth (known by the "insiders") that 
underlies the exoteric interpretations of that truth given out for the 
"outsiders." Outsiders, meaning the ordinary members of a cult, sect, or 
religion who are not yet ready to understand or be trusted with the esoteric 
knowledge for various reasons. 

That's why HPB (as well as the Buddha) had to hide the esoteric truths behind 
exoteric "blinds" (or misdirection's) in their "public" teaching. 
Fortunately, that didn't cover the truth up entirely, but told just enough 
for those students, who were ready (or initiated), to intuit the underlying 
meanings. 

Unlike the Buddha, however, who gave his esoteric truths directly to his 
trusted (initiated) disciples -- HPB, who was writing publicly for the yet 
uninitiated, put many "clues" in the SD (along with their blinds) that had to 
be coupled with other clues in Isis Unveiled, as well as tested against the 
three fundamental principles. It's an ancient occult teaching that "intuition 
must be tempered by reason."

Unfortunately, in some of the original scriptures (where the difference 
between esoteric and exoteric was not very great) -- which were later 
doctored even further by the power or money hungry priests -- some of those 
blinds turned into downright misleading lies. So, there's nothing like 
getting the original teachings directly from the horses mouth. That allows us 
to apply our intuition and our reason simultaneously -- with good assurance 
that what we come up with is as close to the truth as one can get. Although, 
until we actually experience it, it remains nothing more than a speculation. 
And, exoteric at that, if you try to explain it to others. :-)

>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.

So, you do understand what I meant, after all. Sure, one's karma has to do 
with whether or not one is ready to receive the esoteric truths. But One can 
change karma by an act of will or an inner vow. For example, the Tibetan 
Saint, Milarepa, was -- as the result of all his past karma -- an evil 
Magician, thief and mass murderer in his early days. But, when, in mid-life, 
he realized his errors and decided to seek enlightenment, he went through a 
long and arduous search to find a guru, and when he finally did, he studied 
and practiced with much personal suffering until he found the ultimate truth, 
became enlightened, and eventually a great leader and teacher. All that was 
his karma. But, by finding his conscience and choosing to initiate himself 
and suffer his punishment by spending many years or laborious torture as a 
slave to his guru, Tilopa -- and, with a willingness to face a horrible death 
-- he was finally able to completely transcend his bad karma. He is 
considered by Tibetans, as the only Buddhist Master to have achieved 
enlightenment in one lifetime. The only reason he could have had to endure 
this, was that he "intuited" the esoteric truth that awakened his conscience, 
and knew he had to spend years of suffering to compensate for and balance out 
all his past bad karma, along with continuous silent inner meditation and 
constant self questioning -- until he found his real "Master" within his own 
self. And, then went on to become Abbot of the Monastery -- spending the rest 
of his life healing, helping, and teaching others to find their 
enlightenment. 

By the way (not to think that I've been jerking your chain too hard :-) if we 
want to get down to it, my theory of ABC could be considered as nothing more 
than a speculation. But, for me, eventually, it became more and more a 
reality -- since it answers all of the hard questions of science that no 
other scientific theory can answer. And, to boot, it's also entirely 
consistent with theosophical metaphysics as taught in the SD. That's what 
the scientific side of the theosophical synthesis is all about. Once you have 
that, the rest is easy to derive -- so long as you keep in mind the 
fundamental principles. Can't stress how important they are as a reference 
point for all further speculation -- until you arrive at an unassailable 
truth, and create in yourself a firm conviction that eliminates all the false 
presumptions. 

><<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 ...

Could be. Glad to hear it. But, I've assumed as much from all the 
questioning speculations you've been spilling out (and is why I have 
responded to them by sometimes jerking your chain a bit with tongue in cheek 
</:^)> 

So why not stop spinning your wheels, and start looking inward to find out 
what you have to do and what you have to learn to become released from your 
karma... And begin thinking about the esoteric actualities as well as finding 
the words to speak about them directly in proper relation to the exoteric 
world, as well as posing the right questions that might lead toward higher 
plateaus of learning and self awareness. Or do you want to go on scratching 
your head till the cows come home? :-)

> <<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 ... ?

You've got it.

Hopefully -- with respeculation... maybe... But? <\^:~)>

Best wishes,

Leon

>Speculatively, and with best wishes,
>Mauri