Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00043)

Dallas wrote: <<Hence it has to be impersonal to all 
beings. The same fundamental LAWS apply universally 
to all regardless of how they attempt to "name" GOD.>>

But how is one to interpret "LAWS" in a context that 
doesn't lend itself to exoterics other than in whatever 
karmic/interpretive/mayavic sense, in that, while there 
maybe no shortage of exoteric laws, and while there may 
be those who can apply some of those laws in various 
individually relevant/interpretive ways (ie, find them 
helpful), still those kinds of laws are, in as much as they're 
exoteric, essentially mayavic, aren't they? Not that you 
didn't know that, already, Dallas? And maybe you knew 
that those laws (in as much as they're essentially mayavic) 
represent a form of interpretive, apparent applicability, or 
path relevance, and so are not related to anything Realer 
than that, implying (the way I see it) that those who want 
to find out what is really going on would have to 
transcend the exoteric laws of karmic/mayavic reality in 
some way. 

In other words, if a student of Theosophy, eg, can't 
conceive of the need to transcend their exoteric studies, 
then, as I see it, that student would be missing a keyish 
point of Theosophy and the Esoteric Tradition---not that 
literal exoteric studies don't have any kind of Theosophic 
value, in some sense (one might assume, depending on ... 
?), but/"but" ...

Since I'm still at the exoteric stage, myself, I don't seem to 
have enough clues about what exactly it might take, in my 
case, to transcend karmic laws. Not that I'm suffering 
from a shortage of speculative ideas, and not that I 
haven't studied Theosophy and the Esoteric Tradition. 
You, on the other hand, Dallas ... ? I guess we all tend to 
cultivate whatever forms of "studies" (in a broader sense) 
that seem most relevant to us.

Speculatively,
Mauri