Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00284)

Mauri, I knew my rhetorical question (which was based on exactly the way you 
used those combinations of opposite words, and required no answer) would lead 
to the same sort of long winded, rambling, and indecipherable speculative 
explanations that I was talking about before (and still having a few chuckles over 
:-). 

But enough is enough, and I haven't the time or the inclination to keep on 
feeding you straight lines, and getting back the same sort of stuff that 
apparently does nothing to increase my, or anyone else's I assume, understanding of 
theosophy. 

So, fun aside, unless you want to take up my suggestions, I think I'll go on 
making more enlightening use of my online time and get back to my 
"scientizing" and "geometrizing" (a la Blavatsky) -- for them that needs the kind of 
mental clarity and precision of thought that such logical explanation and modeling 
of theosophical metaphysics might engender. But, then, I'm content to reach 
the few that are so inclined, and make no apology for the apparent complexity 
and hidden simplicity of that which I speak of. Incidentally, the articles on 
Attention, Contemplation, and Concentration posted recently by Dallas, might 
be very useful in pointing out the value of such methods of study. It pays to 
also remember what WQJ said about always tempering our intuition with our 
reason... And, what Patanjali said about avoiding speculations that lead one into 
the realm of fantasy -- where it's easy to get bogged down or lost in (mental 
or astral) space. 

So, on to the music of the sphere's... But, it's been fun chatting with you 
down here on the ground -- where "the world's a stage," as Shakespeare said, 
and all of us are acting in the roles they each set for themselves. :-) 

Best wishes,

Leon

In a message dated 10/21/03 5:28:40 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>Leon, you asked: <<< How can the words 
>exoteric and esoteric be joined together to 
>make a single adjective ("exoteric/esoteric") 
>describing "theosophical discussions," when 
>the meanings of these individual words are 
>essentially opposites? Besides, the only 
>person here that appears interested in 
>considering either of them, in combination or 
>otherwise, seems to be you. (And, now me, 
>since I got caught in your net of circular 
>reasoning -- that always seems to lead 
>nowhere -- at least in relation to theosophy, 
>or the subject of any discussion here.:-) 
> >>
>
>Leon, "describing Theosophical discussions" 
>doesn't seem to be in keeping with the kind 
>of wording I might want to use in relation to 
>what I had in mind by "exoteric/esoteric." 
>As for your "leading somewhere or nowhere" in 
>terms of my "intended meaning," I'm offering 
>the following by way of my HSO (no relation 
>to Ford, incidentally---need I add, since you 
>seem to have a tendency to find humour in 
>some of my qualifiers.):
>
>And, mind you (if I may offer a brief aside 
>here before I go on to that 
>"exoteric/esoteric" topic?), those various 
>helpful comments from you and others in 
>regard to my "excessive" qualifiers, and 
>whatever, have been taken under advisement at 
>this end, or head, believe it or not (though 
>somewhat speculatively---alas, need I 
>repeat?---seeing as---unlike some?---my 
>general belief system seems---by way of my 
>speculative mien, at any rate---kind of 
>limited to what might be described as the 
>mayavic dependent arisings of karma, so ... 
>^:-/ ...
>
>I seem to recall that you, Leon, might've at 
>some point more or less stated, or hinted, 
>that you don't see much, any, or enough 
>worth-while general relevance in the terms 
>"exoteric" and "esoteric," (except, maybe, in 
>some kind of highly qualified contexts, 
>possibly?) ... In any case, I tend to agree 
>with a kind of "gist" of meaning in terms of 
>as that kind of thing might be somewhat 
>generally understood---although, in relation 
>to, say, Theosophics, as I "tend to see it," 
>well ...
>
>On second thought (would one prefer a new 
>paragraph, as well, maybe ...), it has 
>occurred to me that, just possibly, there 
>might be, somewhat broadly speaking (or, say, 
>as per a kind of "middle way," in a sense 
>...) ... (and seeing as I might be seen to be 
>on record as having claimed to have turned 
>over some kind of new leaf with respect to 
>my tendency to "over qualify" my intended 
>meanings, I might be well advised, I suspect, 
>to see if I can skip over to some kind of 
>"less qualified" version that might, still, 
>somehow, rather magically---ie, even with my 
>hands tied, in effect---get some or "enough" 
>of my intended meaning across, just possibly) 
>... so it's occurred to me that there might 
>be a kind of "middle way" approach, or 
>mentality, that might, to some extent, (as 
>among students of Theosophy, say ...) kind of 
> help to generate some kind of state of mind 
>that, in turn (if not "directly enough"), 
>lead to some kind of appreciation of what 
>might be described (by some?) as a kind of 
>transcendental meaning of the words 
>"exoteric" and "esoteric"---but of course if 
>"transcendental meanings" of the kind I am 
>trying to described here are not much 
>appreciated on this list, well ... then I 
>might be barking up the wrong tree, again, 
>possibly ...?
>
>So, "exoteric," as I see it, in relation to 
>the likes of "t/Theosophics," in general: 
>might have to do with that which can be 
>verified WITH RESPECT TO that which, as per 
>the Esoteric Tradition, say, might be 
>described as a medium of reality known as 
>"karmic," or which (medium of reality) might 
>be seen to be in keeping with dependent 
>arisings and, therefore, in as much as such a 
>medium of reality is seen to have nothing 
>more in the way of intrinsic reality (ie, 
>aside from such as the dependent arisings of 
>essential duality and "karma"---however those 
>might be, in turn, qualified or interpreted 
>per various "karmic tendencies"), then, as I 
>see it, such a medium of reality is, 
>therefore, to that extent, seen (or not 
>seen), as "exoteric," in effect (ie, at least 
>in comparative terms, if not "more" so). At 
>any rate, one may, (as in my case), at least 
>hope that one's "intended meaning" re 
>"exoteric," eg, might be in keeping with some 
>kind of general mental workings (karma) of 
>"enough people" on these lists (not that some 
>of us might not think that even one person 
>might make "enough people," here, so ...). 
>Not that ...
>
>So, "esoteric," as I see it, or, rather, 
>"tend to see it, speculatively" (seeing as my 
>"directer experience" of anything that might 
>be described as particularly esoteric seems 
>rather lacking, apparenlty) ... so, 
>"esoteric," to me,
>has to do with those aspects/experiences that 
>are, in effect, in a sense, "pointed at" by 
>such wording as HPB's "the soul of things," 
>eg, which kinds of "things," as I see it, are 
>not explainable (only "pointable, in a 
>sense") any which way on this essentially 
>dualistic, karmic, mayavic plane, in as much 
>as if such explaining is understood only in 
>its "dead letter" terms based on the 
>dependcnt arisings of karma and maya.
>
>So the "exoteric/esoteric" references I've 
>used in my posts are in keeping with the 
>preceding in the various intended, 
>contextual, expanded senses (ie, whether or 
>not those "intended" meanings were 
>unscrambled at the receiving end out of my 
>qualifiers).
>
>Sorry about my qualifers if they were seen as 
>excessive and confusing. But, then, as I 
>see, "some things," as it were, (note 
>quotes), are difficult enough to even as much 
>as "try to convey something about," so ... 
>^:-/ ... Leon, in your case, for example, as 
>I see it, your rather "scientific" efforts to 
>explain the unexplainable are, I suspect, 
>just as confusing to many people, so ... ^:-/ 
>... Not that your "scientizing," in effect, 
>might not have more pull, in general, as 
>compared to my speculative approach (which 
>kind of "speculative approach" might often be 
>seen as "without the benefit of introductory 
>modeling," possibly ...), so, in general, I 
>tend to respect your efforts, Leon, even 
>though, at the same time, I tend to think 
>that, like me, you might be about as 
>basically blind as a bat, like me ... So at 
>least we might have that in common, eh, 
>maybe, in a way ... ^:-) ...
>
>Incidentally, that last sentence, believe it 
>or not, was actually intended, by me, to be 
>"somewhat" humorous (ie, even if it went over 
>kind of like a lead balloon). As for the 
>rest, for the most part, including that 
>letter you thought was hilarious, apparently, 
>it was (how can I put it ...) about 99.9% 
>intended as rather deadly serious, in a way, 
>believe it or not.
>
>I'm beginning to think that some of my 
>"attempts to communicate" might have, at 
>times, become so deadly, in a way, that they 
>might have had the strange effect of getting 
>some people (apparently?) to go into a kind 
>of automatic defensive mode by "finding 
>humor". Sorry about that if that kind of 
>thing has happened by any chance. Yes, okay, 
>I'll try to be less deadly ("deadly"... ^:-/ 
>...) in the future (not to mention so many 
>other things). But I'm not promising 
>anything, seeing as I seem to have a certain 
>tendency to speculate with "enough 
>qualifiers," as I tend to see it, so ...
>
>Speculatively,
>Mauri
>
>PS Leon, not that I haven't been able to put 
>myself in your shoes, kind of, in terms of 
>the kind of humor that, in a sense, might be 
>optionally/interpretively/alternately seen in 
>some of my wordings, by some people. In 
>fact, just today, I suddenly thought of how 
>you might tend to interpret some of my 
>posts/wordings and, what with your 
>description of that "professor" act, I even 
>found myself laughing about it while getting 
>physio therapy for my shoulders (eg I was 
>laughing about that sentence that ended with 
>"...not that the reverse is not possible, of 
>course," among other things). I don't know 
>if you read the post where I speculated about 
>the possible "Zen slap" causes of my shoulder 
>problems in relation to certain "exoteric 
>tendencies out there" (ie, speculated in 
>terms that transformed the words in some 
>posts into effects reminiscent of "exoteric" 
>Zen-stick wielding/slapping, in a sense) that 
>I thought one (such as myself, at any rate) 
>might occasionally find, if all too 
>speculatively, on these lists---which 
>speculation, true, might've been kind of 
>tongue in cheek, partly, but I try not to 
>leave "too many stones unturned," as it were, 
>for better or worse. And so "excessive 
>qualifiers" seem to have a way of slipping 
>through my fingers, or head (not that my head 
>and fingers have escaped damage, any better, 
>really, over time). But, sorry, in general. 
> And sorry about being so serious that, 
>occasionally (?) ... whatever ...
>