Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00075)

It would seem that the explanation is pretty simple.

If something is in the public domain, and requires no exercise of 
buddhi, then it is pretty safe to say that it is exoteric. If an 
element of "knowledge" is gained through intuiting a truth that has 
not been revealed to the world then it is esoteric...

As a thought here...there are very heavy karmic responsibilities that 
comes when one comes across knowledge that is "esoteric". You are 
responsible for the consequences that results from its use. 

Joe

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> 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