Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00015)

Hi all of you,

My views are only views:

Maybe this will help some of the readers:

"All that can be acquired by instinct and by the use of the concrete mind
functioning through the physical brain can be considered as dealing with
that which we call exoteric. It is thus evident how the range of fact will
differ according to:

The age of the soul.
Experience developed and used.
Condition of the brain and the physical body.
Circumstances and environment.
As time progresses and man reaches a fair state of evolution, mind is more
rapidly developed, and a new factor comes gradually into play. Little by
little the intuition, or the transcendental mind, begins to function, and
eventually supersedes the lower or concrete mind..."

"...As we consider these points, it will become apparent that the esoteric
aspects of knowledge are really those zones of consciousness which are not
yet conquered, and brought within the radius of control of the indwelling
Entity."

--- and ---


" In the Secret Doctrine we are told that there are seven branches of
knowledge mentioned in the Puranas. - S. D., I, 192.

Correspondences can here be worked out in connection with:

The seven Rays, the Lords of Sacrifice, Love and Knowledge.
The seven states of consciousness.
The seven states of matter or planes.
The seven types of forces.
The seven Initiations and many other septenates.
The Gnosis, the hidden Knowledge, is the seventh Principle, the six schools
of Indian philosophy are the six principles - S. D., I, 299.

These six schools are:

The school of Logic - Proof of right perception.
The atomic school - System of particulars. Elements. Alchemy and chemistry.
The Sankhya school - System of numbers. The materialistic school. The theory
of the seven states of matter or prakriti.
The school of Yoga - Union. The rule of daily life. Mysticism.
The school of Ceremonial Ritual. - Religion. Worship of the devas or Gods.
The Vedanta school - Has to do with non-duality. Deal with the relation of
Atma in man to the Logos.
The Gnosis or hidden knowledge is the same as Atma vidya, or Theosophy, and
includes the other six."





No need for naming the author i think. The texts should speak for it self -
else it is not valid.


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>; "Theosophy Study List"
<theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:37 AM
Subject: Theos-World trying to define "exoteric/esoteric"


> 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
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>