Theos-Talk Archives (July 2004 Message tt00163)

Pedro<<Perhaps those who split, in their 
minds, the exoteric and esoteric 
dimensions of the Wisdom-Teaching do so 
at their own risk.>>

Mauri<<Maybe yes, maybe no. That 
depends, seems to me.>>

Leon<<Depends on what? (If you don't 
know, why say it?) >>

I was referring to the nature of that 
"risk" in the sense that inasmuchas 
"exoteric versions" (if such versions 
can be seen as "splits" in some sense 
...) are "dependent on" various 
interpretations on various individual 
levels ... Not that there might not be 
some element of risk involved in such 
interpretation.

P ><<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>>
M<<I tend to agree. But I suspect that
how one defines "separate emphasis" 
might be somewhat relevant.>>

L<<What definition would make it 
relevant? And what not? (If you don't 
know, why talk about it?)
Questioningly.
Leo >>>

Seems to me that "indivual" 
interpretations/definitions (in various 
senses) might often be seen to have made 
things "relevant" or otherwise 
especially re esoteric/occult and 
"heart/head" topics. In other words, 
one person's "relevance" may not always 
be another's "relevance," (per whatever 
kind of "heart/head" interpretive 
input) but that some people may have 
seen themselves as having, in some 
sense, "hearted through" some differences.

Speculatively,
Mauri