Theos-Talk Archives (August 2003 Message tt00088)

Your usages of "esoteric" do a good job of explaining both contexts. 
That's why I qualified the statement with "by exercise of Buddhi." 
On one hand, there are esoteric things which are simply 
incommunicable by exoteric means, and there are esoteric things which 
are communicable, and are only esoteric by their not being revealed, 
and yes, much esoteric knowledge (as certainly modern science can 
attest to) can be gained by exoteric means...with questionable 
results.

As a specific example regarding esoteric knowledge of the latter 
type, there are functions and results of yoga practice that relate to 
specific practices, astrology, for example, where one may deduce 
certain puzzles, such as the timing of rounds and races, which is 
specifically mentioned in the Mahatma Letters (see Letter 23B, pg. 
146, 3rd Ed. see also W.Q. Judge "Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali", 
Section 3, Vibhuti Pada, #16)...I would ask what the consequences of 
such information, and the methodology for obtaining such would be if 
given to the public at large? Personally, I would not want the karma 
of revealing such information to the world, nor would I think it very 
safe for it an individual to be known to possess such knowledge.

What connection to Raja Yoga and Astrology you may ask? Certainly 
there has to be a means for the student to arrive at first principles 
to the point where the proper relations can be understood between the 
parts. For everyone that reads every post that Dallas makes, it is 
probably the most valuable point that could be driven home. The 
Theosophy of the ML and SD is a Zetetic science, always proceeding 
from universals to particulars, but encouraging the student to 
develop the faculty of buddhi in order to draw the links and fill in 
the blanks (of which there are many) in the world of phenomena.

Hope that helps.

Joe

P.S. Regarding knee pads and helmets...they would probably end up 
more useful in case of nuclear attack, at least that would be my 
guess.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Mauri <mhart@i...> wrote:
> 
> Joe wrote (re defining "exoteric/esoteric"): <<It would seem 
> that the explanation is pretty simple. If something is in the 
> public domain, and requires no exercise of buddhi, then it is 
> pretty safe to say that it is exoteric. If an element of 
> "knowledge" is gained through intuiting a truth that has not 
> been revealed to the world then it is esoteric...>>
> 
> I don't see why something that's "not been revealed to the 
> world" should be "esoteric" only on those grounds (not that 
> you meant that, Joe?), since, as I see it, lots of essentially 
> mundane things (things conforming to essentially 
> dualistic/aggregatory or "exoteric" logic and karma) are, 
> theoretically, waiting in the wings, ready to be discovered in 
> some "exoteric" manner.
> 
> I'm tending to define "esoteric" in two ways:
> 
> 1. "esoteric" as in such as some "out of the ordinary" context, 
> that, in essence, can, theoretically, logically (in terms of 
> "ordinary" or essentially dualistic/aggregatory logic) be 
> "revealed to the world" and thereby thereafter represented in 
> its mundane sense, (ie, in which case that "esoteric" then 
> becomes "exoteric").
> 
> 2. "esoteric" as in that which cannot be communicated by way 
> of any "exoteric" language or means whatsoever, in as much 
> as, or in the sense that that "esoteric" can, potentially, only be 
> experienced directly/individually (ie, even though some 
> versionized or interpretive or "exoteric" translations---as per 
> such as "Theosophic models," eg--- might be seen to, in effect, 
> "apparently survive" such esoteric experiences as if "in 
> memory."
> 
> In other words, as I see it, if the contextual sense in which the 
> words "exoteric" and "esoteric" are used is not made clear 
> enough, then (you guessed it?) some misunderstandings might 
> tend to arise. Not that I've been clear enough in MY 
> "contextual senses," in my posts, in general, obviously enough.
> 
> <<As a thought here...there are very heavy karmic 
> responsibilities that comes when one comes across knowledge 
> that is "esoteric". You are responsible for the consequences 
> that results from its use. Joe>.
> 
> Joe, one might wonder (among other things?) about which kind 
> of "esoteric" that might be in reference to? And what kinds of 
> "consquences" did you have in mind, there, Joe, as a result of 
> what kind of "use" of what kind of "knowledge that is esoteric" 
> in what sense? Or is it a secret or "too esoteric," (in some "too 
> esoteric sense"?) to be reavealed to speculators like me? And 
> who are you referring to, there, Joe? Could there be a chance 
> that you might be suggesting (possibly?) that even such 
> speculators as myself might some day (if not sooner?) reap 
> some of those "consequences," unless ... or what? And unless 
> what? I'm thinking, wondering: if we disagree about the 
> meaning of "esoteric," (as we might, possibly---not to mention 
> whatever else?), could that be an indication that I might come 
> to suffer from some kind of "consequences"? Should I put on 
> knee pads and a helmet? Or what?
> 
> In light of such speculative possibilities, on my part, and even 
> though I haven't directly experienced anything "esoteric" in 
> any kind of occultish sense, I wonder if I should consider 
> myself safe from such "consequences." What do you think, 
> Joe?
> 
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
> 
> PS Gerald, if you're reading this, I hope you have taken 
> appropriate precautions with knee pads, helmet, etc, or 
> whatever, just in case, seeing as ... ? ^:-/