Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00102)

Joe wrote: <<Your usages of "esoteric" do a good job of 
explaining both contexts. That's why I qualified the statement 
with "by exercise of Buddhi." On one hand, there are esoteric 
things which are simply incommunicable by exoteric means, and 
there are esoteric things which are communicable, and are only 
esoteric by their not being revealed, and yes, much esoteric 
knowledge (as certainly modern science can attest to) can be 
gained by exoteric means...with questionable results.>>

That reminds me of Jung, (quoted from "The Portable Jung," 
pages 6, 7):

<<If, therefore, we ask ourselves the unavoidable question, "Why 
does man, in obvious contrast to the animal world, have problems 
at all?" we run into that inextricable tangle of thoughts which 
many thousands of incisive minds have woven in the course of 
the centuries. I shall not perform the labours of a Sisyphus upon 
this masterpiece of con­fusion, but will try to present quite simply 
my contribution toward man's attempt to answer this basic 
question.

There are no problems without consciousness. We must 
therefore put the question in another way and ask, "How does 
consciousness arise in the first place?" Nobody can say with 
certainty; but we can observe small children in the process of 
becoming conscious. Every parent can see it if he pays attention. 
And what we see is this: when the child recognizes someone or 
something—when he "knows" a person or a thing—then we feel 
that the child has con­sciousness. That, no doubt, is also why in 
Paradise it was the tree of knowledge which bore such fateful 
fruit.

But what is recognition or "knowledge" in this sense? We speak 
of "knowing" something when we succeed in linking a new 
perception to an already existing context, in such a way that we 
hold in consciousness not only the perception but parts of this 
context as well. "Knowing" is hascil, therefore, upon the 
perceived connection between psychic contents. We can have no 
knowledge of a content that in not connected with anything, and 
we cannot even be conscious of it should our consciousness still 
be on this low iniliiil level. Accordingly the first stage of 
conscious­ness which we can observe consists in the mere 
connection between two or more psychic contents. At this level, 
consciousness is merely sporadic, being limited to the 
percep­tion of a few connections, and the content is not 
remem­bered later on. It is a fact that in the early years of life 
there is no continuous memory; at most there are islands of 
consciousness which are like single lamps or lighted objects in 
the far-flung darkness. But these islands of mem­ory are not the 
same as those earliest connections which are merely perceived; 
they contain a new, very important series of contents belonging 
to the perceiving subject him­self, the so-called ego. This series, 
like the initial series of contents, is at first merely perceived, and 
for this reason the child logically begins by speaking of itself 
objectively, in the third person. Only later, when the 
ego-contents— the so-called ego-complex—have acquired an 
energy of their own (very likely as a result of training and 
practice) does the feeling of subjectivity or "I-ness" arise. This 
may well be the moment when the child begins to speak of it­self 
in the first person. The continuity of memory prob­ably begins at 
this stage. Essentially, therefore, it would be a continuity of 
ego-memories.>>
==============end of quote

Joe:<<As a specific example regarding esoteric knowledge of the 
latter type, there are functions and results of yoga practice that 
relate to specific practices, astrology, for example, where one 
may deduce certain puzzles, such as the timing of rounds and 
races, which is specifically mentioned in the Mahatma Letters 
(see Letter 23B, pg. 146, 3rd Ed. see also W.Q. Judge "Yoga 
Aphorisms of Patanjali", Section 3, Vibhuti Pada, #16)...I would 
ask what the consequences of such information, and the 
methodology for obtaining such would be if given to the public at 
large? Personally, I would not want the karma of revealing such 
information to the world, nor would I think it very safe for it an 
individual to be known to possess such knowledge.>>

Thankfully, then, I'm in the dark about how I could even 
accidentally draw such, or any, "consequences" worth 
mentioning (especially if, as you seem to be pointing out in your 
PS, knee pads and helmet might not be enough)? Or is there 
such a thing as being "thankfully in the dark," in realer terms, 
when it comes to "consequences" in general? Maybe it depends 
on how we define "realer," and whether or not we might even as 
much particularly want to define much about "realer"? Not that 
we might not tend to gravitate to our "own" sense of realer, but 
...

Speculatively,
Mauri

PS In case you haven't noticed, Joe, I make up my own words 
(like "realer"), as I go along. :-) No offense meant. Not to 
mention those words that might've slipped through on account of 
being, say, thankfully in the dark.