Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00014)

Leo (a relative of Leon, I think) wrote: <<Mauri, referring to 
your comments below, I don't think I can respond to your 
statements or questions in any reasonable way, since I still don't 
know what you mean by "exoterics" and how you distinguish it 
from "esoterics." >>

If I could I would point out the differences between esoteric and 
exoteric, but since one (exoteric) is relatable or meaningful of 
understandable (quotes optional, of course) in some 
dualistic/multiplistic manner, and the other ("esoteric" in the 
esoteric/Occult/experiential sense) isn't, how can anybody 
successfully enough, these days, (for the most part, generally 
speaking?), point out "meaningful enough" differences between 
those two ("esoteric/exoteric") in any kind of "ordinarily 
understandable logic," eh ... That's why I occasionally use 
'but/"but's'", eg, trying to (apparently in vain?) suggest that 
"ordinary logic" is to be supplemented (at least per my 
speculative perspective, tentative intention) by way of whatever 
basically (apparently/interpretively) "less-logical," "intuitive 
preference" (say?) one might imagine as being in conrast to the 
unquoted, regular but, (ie, I'm assuming that some people (such 
as students of Theosophy) might at least "allow for" preferences 
or esoteric/Occult/experiential, Basically Alternative views that 
cannot be passed on in any language, in as much as such 
"views" are acknowledged as not describable in the 
logic/language of "ordinary reality," and can only be 
experienced. Which part of that explanation wasn't clear 
enough? "Exoteric" is whatever is "understandable" in terms of 
whatever language/knowledge, while "esoteric" is not 
"understandable" in the logic of "ordinary reality" in as much as 
it's whatever can only be directly experienced: For example, how 
would you describe a particular color to a congenitally blind 
person (to whom colors would be esoteric, in a sense, at least 
theoretically)? Or how would you describe a concert to a 
congenitally deaf person (to whom sounds would be esoteric, in a 
sense, at least theoretically)? Though one might wonder (?) if 
the congenitally blind/deaf might intuit/imagine colors and 
sounds, in some way, maybe ...

In other words, seems to me that when we scientize, 
philosophize, intellectualize, Theosophize, modellize, etc, we 
humans might be generally, on average, kind of stuck within 
certain collective/individualistic guidelines, or within the 
generally accepted worldview that we like to think that we 
"know about" (at least in karmic/mayavic dualistic/multiplistic 
terms, as per a Broader, or a Mahayanic---or even Nihayanic?--- 
Theosophic view?); so, the way I tend to see it, students of 
Theosophy ought to know better, to some extent, to know that 
there's a "basically alternate," esoteric view, (that can't be 
explained about any which way, in that it can only be directly 
experienced---or would you prefer to super-size "basically 
alternate" with caps, maybe?) offering a bridge, of sorts (in some 
cases?), towards transcending karmic/mayavic worldviews.

How can anybody fail to see the "sense" (in a sense!?) I'm 
making here!? That is, I may not be making "enough sense" (to 
say the least, among other things?) conventionally enough, (not 
to mention unconventional conventionalism), but/"but"...

<<Things, ideas, or concepts are either true or not, real or not and 
should be considered in those lights regardless of the levels of 
reality we assign them to, or the framework of reality they occur 
in.>>

If you mean that in conventional terms, I might tend to agree, in 
some sense, depending on ... whatever; but/"but"... And I've been 
under the impression that this might be a sort of Theosophical 
list, so ... On the other hand---or same hand, really---some 
exoteric things, concepts, truths, realitities may be seen (as by 
students of Theosophy) as having Path-related significance, in 
whatever individualistic/collective sense, which significance 
might be seen, of course, as a "good" thing. I'm not quibbling 
about that. Apparently we all need whatever kinds of stepping 
stones that seem to make sense to us. But/"but," at the same 
time, wouldn't students of Theosophy have some interest in 
aspects of their studies that they can only, theoretically, assign to 
an esoteric/experiential Reality that they cannot relate to 
because they haven't experienced it (where the quoted "but" 
refers to an acknowledged form of "experiencing" thats of a 
Fundamentally different order of reality that transcends karma, a 
Higher reality or Being that's "realizable/experientiable only after 
Enlightenment, or at least after some kind of partial 
enlightenment---that "but" being, in that sense, an undefinable 
"but" that, in that sense--as I tend to see it---could do with some 
way of distinguishing it from the regular, potentially definable 
buts of "ordinary logic.")

<<As I said before, I don't find it easy to understand the mixing 
of categories that you engage in by separating with slashes, 
loaded (but undefined) words having different subtleties of 
meaning. In other words, your remarks and comments are not 
specific enough for me to relate any definite thoughts or ideas 
with them. >>

In my last spiel I went at some length about that kind of thing, 
and attempted some more specifying today, I think, so, what can 
I say. I tried, I think.

<<As for Dhyan Chohans, they are the builders of the Cosmos 
and the guides of its evolution, yet still conditioned beings, and 
are of different degrees of involution as well as wisdom, 
themselves. Thus, they can be thoughtless or thoughtful, and 
either act correctly (with or without thought) or incorrectly make 
mistakes through wrong thought -- as per the "fallen angels" 
spoken of by Blavatsky. (It's also obvious, according to 
fundamental laws of karma, that there cannot be any "being" or 
"entity" in the universe that doesn't have both a lower and a 
higher nature linked by a form of mind, or instinct if you like, 
that governs its outward actions.) However, since this goes into 
the realm of a much deeper study of occultism than we can easily 
discuss in this forum, I don't think I can say much more about 
it... And, particularly, since it's irrelevant in light of the context
of 
my original comments about separation of the head and heart 
doctrines or of metaphysics and yoga (while considering their 
interdependence) for purposes of study or practice. >>

Apparently you (Leon), in your way, know more about them 
DC's then me. I wonder what Gerald, Dallas, and other's might 
have to say about what might be called "thoughtless aspects" (ie, 
from our limited/karmic exoteric perspective, at any rate, eh) that 
might be seen as "attributable to some DC's natures." But/"but" 
... I keep wondering if there might be a but/"but" in there, in 
some sense, somewhere, maybe, that, if we knew more about it (if 
by way of whatever undescribable esoteric experience), might 
offer us a somewhat "more meaningful" perspective, or feeling, or 
something, in some sense, maybe, about what might seem to be 
some form of "thoughtlessness" from the perspective of "ordinary 
logic."

<<Regarding the question about my nose. That :o) makeup only 
appears when I've just finished doing a bit of clowning. ??>>

Oh, okay. I was speculating that you might've been hitting the 
bottle a few times, lately, and ... 

Speculatively,
Mauri