The way I tend to see it, the heart of
Theosophy might be seen as being in the
heart of Theosophy rather than in
whatever somebody did or didn't do or
say or write or prove or demonstrate or
whatever. Seems to me that the various
historical characters in Theosophical
writings might not only be interpreted
as being representative or
unrepresentative of various "exoteric
versions" (which could be misleading in
various senses especially if interpreted
literally, seems to me), but might be
seen, in a sense, as incidental,
mayavic, karmic interpretations, in
effect, (in the sense that or
inasmuchasif people might be seen as
having to be interpreted as to meaning
that they might be seen to represent
...)... interpretations that, as I tend
to see it, might not be seen to be at
the heart of Theosophy (if "heart of
Theosophy" is associated with "esoteric
[direct/experiential] aspects"
representing transcendence of karma/maya
along with some some sort of
cultivating/modeling of whatever might
be seen as "applicable/helpful within
karmic limits"...). But, at the same
time, don't all student's of Theosophy
(ranging from speculators to Dallas, I
guess) wonder about just what exactly is
meant by "reading between the lines" (of
Theosophical writings, eg ...) ... Or do
those interested in the topic of
Theosophy (or "related topics" ...) all
assume or tend to think that, inasmuchas
they might think of themelves as being
(in some sense ...) as "student's of
Theosophy," then, to some extent, such
reading might be ... ^:-/ ... Sorry, I
couldn't help scratching my head, there,
when speculating about what might be
going on in various heads and hearts in
connection with "reading between the
lines in general or particular" (which
might be where that "then" was supposed
to lead up to, I think). Not that my
efforts to be more specific to myself
about the meaning of "heart" in that
context hasn't led me to scratch my head
a few times, as well.
And what if there are interpretations
with references to Theosophy out there
from the perpspective of those who,
being unable to read between the lines,
(except maybe in "shoreline terms" ...)
might then nevertheless go on to
construct various rather literal
interpretations "about Theosophy"... Not
that being literal might not be seen to
have a rather unavoidable tie-in (excuse
for whatever ...) with karmic/mayavic
existence on this plane, generally
speaking, I suspect, but then I suppose
we all tend to define "heart of
Theosophy" in our own way, don't we ...
(per whatever karmic/mayavic tendency,
generally speaking ...), so what can we
say ... And inasmuchas "heart of
Theosophy" can't be described in so many
words ... but seems to me that "heart of
Theosophy" might have something to do
with what might be described
("exoterized," in a sense ...) as
"direct experience." Not that one
person's "direct experiences" might not
be another's whatever.
^:-/ ...
Mauri
