Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00087)

Aug 19 '03

Dear Peter,

* Esoteric is quite transcendent but as it is not recoded it
belongs to the Buddhi-manasic level of perception.
*
* If recorded it is limited and perhpas becomes distorted. It is
an expression of Law as I see it.

Our perception of it is always interior to each of us. It is
like the symbol H P B traced after her initials in the 1st Vol of
The SECRET DOCTRINE book she dedicated to Bertram K. The
universal vision of MANAS united to Buddhi and Atma.

Interpretations, if arguable are thus possibly deficient.





-----Original Message-----
From: peter.m [mailto:snowlion@btopenworld.com]
Sent:	Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:04 AM
To:	study@blavatsky.net
Subject:	[bn-study] RE: re "LAWS," Dallas,Theosophy

Hi Mauri and Dallas,

P

Mauri, I was wondering how you might distinguish exoteric laws
from esoteric laws? For me it raises the question what *is* a
law in Nature? What is its source?

Or (and?) are you suggesting that all interpretations are
exoteric?


Dallas, you wrote:
DTB

"Once before that the ESOTERIC was always concealed and never
revealed. It is like the UNKNOWN GOD. Everything else is
exoteric, written, discussed, analyzed, etc..."

P
I wonder about the definitions we make of the terms exoteric and
esoteric in terms of whether we perhaps generalise these
definitions too much.

Apparently the Adepts have their own esoteric records which
include some kind of script.

Dtb	they speak of the LIPIKA and their records in the Akasa.
Also of the secret sacerdotal Language SENZAR; now still used
apparently. as H P B had some sheets in it. But not known to
ethnologists.

P
I also found myself recognising that something may be revealed by
one soul to another at a certain stage of development with the
instruction, intimation or hint that it should not be passed on.



P	Is that not a tradition of the INTUITIONS in the MYSTERIES ?



Likewise 'nature' sometimes reveals some universal truth, or
aspect of such, to an individual who may use his/her own counsel
as to whether it is appropriate to relay on to others. Does
such 'knowledge' become exoteric by virtue of it being revealed
to that particular individual (or perhaps even a group)? If that
is the case then the accumulated knowledge of the Adepts passed
on (revealed) to them originally by the Dhyanis is also
exoteric - because revealed and no longer 'hidden' from them.
Presumably there are 'higher'/'deeper' levels of understanding
and being that are beyond particular grades of Adeptship? But
that would not make their current 'knowing' exoteric - or would
it, in relation to those higher grades?


DTB	I would agree with you that Those who feel the need to
explain (as to Sinnett) Their relations have to put it in terms
we can understand. Actually don't you think thought
transference when needed is surer and more accurate -- also still
exoteric ?



I wonder that the majority of the 'truths' in nature are not
*hidden* from
us, but that we are simply too blind, ignorant (or undeveloped)
to see them?

DTB	Theosophy and its wisdom ought to urge us to sharpen up. We
can do it. ATMA-BUDDHI MANAS our MONAD is quite able to do that
but it has to purify the "personality" and its dense sheaths --
we have, in other words, to undo our errors. Much a some don't
like the word "morals and Ethics" are the only way -- in short,
live and practice BROTHERHOOD.

Another thought occurs to me -- perhaps unpleasant. If one
applies rigorously harmlessness in one's personal life, one might
become a "Pratyekha Buddha." Selfishly Wise and then one might
accept Nirvana for long ages. But then Karma operates at the
appropriate time to return such Nirvanees to the main-stream of
living (see SECRET DOCTRINE II 79-80, 94-5, 109-10, etc...)
They (we perhaps) have to learn to be unselfishly benevolent to
become true Buddhas and Dhyanis. (see also VOICE OF THE SILENCE
pp. 47 -- end page of THE TWO PATHS footnote, and pp. 74-79 end
of the SEVEN PORTALS. Including footnotes.).


Best wishes,

Dallas


Regards,

Peter

====================================


-----Original Message-----
From: Mauri
Sent: 13 August 2003 22:08
To: study@blavatsky.net
Subject: [bn-study] re "LAWS," Dallas,Theosophy

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