Theos-Talk Archives (December 2004 Message tt00344)

Somebody wrote: <<2) Karma is the 
adjustment of effects flowing from 
causes, during which the being upon whom 
and through whom that adjustment is 
effected experiences pain or pleasure.>>

I don't see how the defining of the word 
"karma" can escape interpretation (or 
what might be generally "understood" as 
"interpretation," at any rate ...), and 
if all "interpretations" are also seen 
as "karmic," then wouldn't that kind of 
defining seem kind of mayavic and kind 
of like an "exoteric version," 
basically, among other things ... In 
other words, as I tend to see it, 
inasmuchas the "reading between the 
lines" of "exoteric versions" is 
basically "interpretive," or seen as 
dependent on "karmic influences" 
("influences" that might be seen to have 
an "interpretive aspect" ...) ... where 
does that leave the average student of 
Theosophy ... Seems to me that Theosophy 
in general is a medium that might tend 
to foster all kinds of opinions and 
interpretations inasmuchas it's seen 
basically and primarily as an "exoteric 
version." But possibly most students of 
Theosophy don't see themselves as making 
100% literal interpretations ... And I 
wonder if humans in general might have 
some aspect to their make-up that might 
at least influence them in ways that 
might be seen as transcending 
literal/exoteric versions and 
interpretions, as by way of "intuitive 
promptings," eg. I tend to suspect that 
the latter ("tanscending aspect") might 
have some truth to it, and that HPB and 
the Masters were trying to appeal to 
that aspect, trait or sensitivity (ie, 
while being, or being seen/interpreted 
as constrained to "exoteric versions by 
karma").

Speculatively,
Mauri