Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00147)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> Okay, but my comments were meant in a 
> general sense, in that, as I tend to see 
> it, it's as if people, in general, tend 
> to fall into one of two camps, to an 
> extent, even on these lists: 1. people 
> who tend to give me the impression that 
> everything can be explained in exoteric 
> terms, and, 2. people who seem as if 
> they might have somehow transcended, in 
> some sense, such exoteric limitations.
> 
> Which brings to mind what seem like 
> similar differences between the Gnostics 
> and the supporters of the orthodox 
> church. I suspect that there might be, 
> in some sense, similar differences among 
> students of Theosophy, where those who 
> might see themselves as tending to lean 
> on some sort of "more scientific" 
> approach might be seen as more orthodox 
> in some sense than those who might be 
> seen to be somewhat freer, or "more 
> gnostic," in their thinking.


In one of her articles in "Lucifer", Blavatsky defined Occultism (or 
Theosophy) as "the science of life, the art of living". Perhaps those 
who split, in their minds, the exoteric and esoteric dimensions of 
the Wisdom-Teaching do so at their own risk. Jalaluddin Rumi, for 
example, wrote that wisdom "is a mind that loves and a heart that 
sees". Such teachings seem to point to an integration of mind and 
heart. Separate emphasis on any of the two, history shows, is the 
breeding ground of fanaticism, fundamentalism and materialism.

unimportantly,

Pedro