Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00077)

Joe wrote (re defining "exoteric/esoteric"): <<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...>>

I don't see why something that's "not been revealed to the 
world" should be "esoteric" only on those grounds (not that 
you meant that, Joe?), since, as I see it, lots of essentially 
mundane things (things conforming to essentially 
dualistic/aggregatory or "exoteric" logic and karma) are, 
theoretically, waiting in the wings, ready to be discovered in 
some "exoteric" manner.

I'm tending to define "esoteric" in two ways:

1. "esoteric" as in such as some "out of the ordinary" context, 
that, in essence, can, theoretically, logically (in terms of 
"ordinary" or essentially dualistic/aggregatory logic) be 
"revealed to the world" and thereby thereafter represented in 
its mundane sense, (ie, in which case that "esoteric" then 
becomes "exoteric").

2. "esoteric" as in that which cannot be communicated by way 
of any "exoteric" language or means whatsoever, in as much 
as, or in the sense that that "esoteric" can, potentially, only be 
experienced directly/individually (ie, even though some 
versionized or interpretive or "exoteric" translations---as per 
such as "Theosophic models," eg--- might be seen to, in effect, 
"apparently survive" such esoteric experiences as if "in 
memory."

In other words, as I see it, if the contextual sense in which the 
words "exoteric" and "esoteric" are used is not made clear 
enough, then (you guessed it?) some misunderstandings might 
tend to arise. Not that I've been clear enough in MY 
"contextual senses," in my posts, in general, obviously enough.

<<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>.

Joe, one might wonder (among other things?) about which kind 
of "esoteric" that might be in reference to? And what kinds of 
"consquences" did you have in mind, there, Joe, as a result of 
what kind of "use" of what kind of "knowledge that is esoteric" 
in what sense? Or is it a secret or "too esoteric," (in some "too 
esoteric sense"?) to be reavealed to speculators like me? And 
who are you referring to, there, Joe? Could there be a chance 
that you might be suggesting (possibly?) that even such 
speculators as myself might some day (if not sooner?) reap 
some of those "consequences," unless ... or what? And unless 
what? I'm thinking, wondering: if we disagree about the 
meaning of "esoteric," (as we might, possibly---not to mention 
whatever else?), could that be an indication that I might come 
to suffer from some kind of "consequences"? Should I put on 
knee pads and a helmet? Or what?

In light of such speculative possibilities, on my part, and even 
though I haven't directly experienced anything "esoteric" in 
any kind of occultish sense, I wonder if I should consider 
myself safe from such "consequences." What do you think, 
Joe?

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS Gerald, if you're reading this, I hope you have taken 
appropriate precautions with knee pads, helmet, etc, or 
whatever, just in case, seeing as ... ? ^:-/