Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00267)

Leon wrote: <<As long as we continue to believe that 
Maya is an illusion, without understanding what that 
illusion really is and how it comes about -- we can keep 
on speculating until the cows come home -- and never 
reach the definite answer that will enable us to 
consciously step across the barrier between spirit and 
matter at will, as well as be in total control of both our 
inner and outer selves. However, nobody ever said 
enlightenment can come about by a definitive 
understanding of the metaphysical laws of nature, by 
themselves. >>

All words are what? Exoteric, aren't they? So, as I see 
it, what matters is how we interpret each other's words. 
While I can choose to think that I can read between the 
lines of your posts, Leon, (at least in some speculative 
way of mine), and so "make sense" out of them (though 
I might be inclined questioning them, as well), that 
doesn't necessarily mean at all that your "intended 
meaning," in terms of your "inner perspective" (say?), is 
particularly in line with my "sense making." So I often 
tend to wind up questioning, speculating, wondering 
what you might really mean, especially as the subject 
matter on these lists often tends to be difficult or 
impossible to pin down with words alone.

Those are some of the thoughts that came to mind while 
and after reading your May 30 post. On the 
questioning side, I tend to wonder how you might be 
handling broader meanings and applications for the 
word "speculation,"for example ... It's just a word, after 
all, eh? How we interpret it "in context" is what 
matters, don't you think? Sorry if my sense of "in 
context" re "speculation" (eg) as expressed in my posts 
doesn't tally with your sense making, Leon. ^:-)

<<we are mayavic beings living in and considering 
(sometimes) a mayavic reality that has a predictable 
changeability and must obey specific laws of nature 
that cannot be speculated upon -- but merely studied to 
understand the rules of such existence and how it 
comes about, starting from zero, expanding into infinity, 
and following specific and logical laws of involution 
and evolution. Since the entire system is based on 
those laws, the only speculating we can do is to 
consider several possible alternative theories, and then 
test them logically and experimentally (both 
subjectively and objectively) until we find one that 
satisfies all conditions of reality. When that is done, we 
can then be definite in explaining this reality on all 
levels of its understanding with respect to our 
consciousness of it. Didn't HPB do just that for us? >>

Yes, but she also made it clear enough to me that those 
"laws" represent the exoteric version which, in effect, is 
a blind, among other things, so ... I don't know what 
you might "really mean" by those words in that 
paragraph, Leon, but ... While exoterizing seems to me 
to have many obvious "introductory" uses (the quotes 
as per the various kinds of "introductories"), doesn't 
that still leave open the question of whatever might 
follow and transcend such introductory fare? 

And since anything that anybody may have to say (for 
beginners or advanced students of Theosophy) can only 
be exoteric---regardless of how "esoteric sounding" it 
may seem---seems to me that there might be those who 
might inadvertently mislead people by a kind of "over 
exoteric" approach, (in a sense!?), which might give the 
impression (as in "the study of Theosophy") that 
"some" exoterics need not be "read between the lines as 
much," say, or need not be allowed to represent the 
unrepresentable as much (as if "as much" were 
determinable by some special exoteric understanding of 
certain "laws" that can somehow---magically?---make it 
possible for one to transcend exoterics with exoterics). 
What happened to the kind of esoteric/experiential that 
can not be exoterized any which way, regardless of any 
amount of study of any laws, alone? 

I think I'm quibbling about word choices, and since I 
have trouble enough myself trying to get much of 
anything across on these lists, well ... look who's 
talking, eh. ^:-)

Speculatively,
Mauri