Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00053)

Aug 14, Dallas wrote (in part): <<Law WILL ALWAYS
RULE OVER ALL. >>

That was in response to my <<re "LAWS," 
Dallas,Theosophy>> post of the previous day.

Dallas, your response tends to suggest to me that either 
you don't want to address the issue I was trying to bring 
up in my post, or that I might have failed to get that issue 
across to you. Yes, laws are laws, I agree with you there, 
but that wasn't the issue I was trying to get across to you.

Anyway, as you might've noticed, (or might not have 
noticed?), I've been trying to exoterize (ie, versionize, or 
what might be generally known as "explain," in terms of 
offering what seem to me to be "possibly relevant clues, "if 
in my speculative/interpretive terms) about what might be 
called "transcending exoterics," in a Theosophic context.

Do you see, or not see, Dallas, that there's a sense in 
which such as "universal laws" are "exoteric," and another 
sense (that might be called, say, an 
esoteric/experiential/occultish sense?) in which exoterics, 
or exoteric reality (ie, laws, boats, planes, Mack trucks, 
brick walls, mosquitos, planets, manasic/karmic/mayavic 
logic) is "essentially limited" (in a karmic/mayavic sense) 
to within an "exoteric context" (ie, a karmic/mayavic 
context) so that a context that's (at least?) "substantially 
less" karmic/mayavic (an "esoteric context," in a sense) 
can't be referred to (obviously enough?) in exoteric terms 
whenever "esoteric" is meant to be distinguished from 
"exoteric" within communications (such as Theosophics?) 
that (theoretically?) allow for such distinguishing, in 
keeping with the "understood" ground rules of such 
communications (as per the Esoteric Tradition, not that 
"understood" is always "understood enough," obviously 
enough---apparently?---but ...);

and so it would seem to me that "exoterics" might be, (in 
some cases, per some people?), found to be mayavic, 
somewhat lacking in essential reality/truth (from an 
esoteric perspective) meaning, seems to me, that there 
might be some people who might have notions about 
transcending such "exoterics," especially when such 
transcending might be seen as feasible, reasonable, 
karmically applicable, etc, in whatever individualistic 
sense (a sense that may not be always apparent enough or 
not "exoteric enough," or not "esoteric 
enough---depending on one's perspective--- to some 
others).

But your response, Dallas, tended to suggest to me that 
maybe you don't agree with me that some people might 
see some kind of wisdom in transcending the "exoterics" 
of dualistic/karmic/mayvic reality, in that could it be that 
your definition of wisdom might be (?) restricted to 
"exoteric reality" in the sense that (?) your intuitiveness 
might not allow for anything but literal/fundamentalistic 
or mainstream views somewhat exclusively, maybe (?), 
and could it be that you might tend to not allow (in 
general/particular?) for an intuitiveness that might lead to 
such as "thinking for oneself" with a view toward 
achieving enlightenment (ie, "non-exoteric" enlightenment 
in the sense of an enlightenment that transcends the 
"exoterics" of "essentially dualistic" reality/logic/laws)? 
Or do you feel, Dallas, that one's enlightenment ought to 
be exoteric. dualistic/aggregatory/karmic/mayavic? 

I'm defining both "exoteric" and "esoteric" as being 
descriptive of basically realized/experiential "aspects of 
reality," while allowing for an "esoteric that transcends" 
current/apparent (whatever they may be) concepts and 
reality/truth. But maybe the word "transcends" doesn't 
tell you enough about the sense in which "there might be" 
(or "is," apparently, according to my interpretation of the 
Esoteric Tradition) a "transcential difference" (in a 
sense?) between "ordinary reality" (of "exoterics," 
karma/maya/dualistics) and ... whatever it is that the 
Esoteric Tradition refers to as "non-dualistic" Reality. 

Best wishes,
Mauri