If it’s your intention to be open all the way, then you have to be open to all sides and not closed to some specific one.
Unless it would be the of being-closed itself.
This certainly is important when it’s not easy, when people tend to misunderstand, when people interpret their attachment to certain ideas as ‘openness’.
A little etymology:
The term ‘esotericism’ is derived from the ancient Greek εσωτερική. This means ‘the interior’ or ‘the concealed’. It stands in contrast to exotericism, which means ‘the external’ or ‘the public’.
Well, the ‘deeper self’ that is so hard to conceptualize, especially at a time of dissociation, is ‘the internally concealed’ par excellence.
At the same time, it is that what AURELIS is all about. So all things considered the core of AURELIS is the core of esotericism. Of course, one should exercise extreme caution with the use of words. Almost anything that presents itself as being ‘esoteric’ (and certainly anything with the words: ‘I do’ attached) is absolutely not to be confused with AURELIS!
Lots of people see any kind of esotericism and science as two camps that are pitted against each other: “Do you or do you not belong to us? That is the question”. Unfortunately, this question has often/almost always to do with the ego (‘I want’) and not with a deep search for ‘truth’. The views of the other camp are thrown in the trash without dwelling on them for even a little while. Must one choose one of those two camps?
If ‘esotericism’ and ‘science’ are each other’s antipodes, there is something wrong.
A ‘science’ that denies just about everything that is related to the ‘deeper self’, leads to the medicine that we currently know. An ‘esotericism’ that doesn’t attach a deep and thorough importance to ‘science’ will fall into any hole that it digs for another. I think it’s a requirement that both esotericism (in the sense of above) and science should always be deemed important. They always form two ways to approach reality, which can only have ‘volume’ when looked at from both sides. Instead of having ‘volume’, you can also say ‘exist’.
It corresponds with dualistic thinking versus non-dualistic thinking.
Or in other words: conceptual versus more-than-conceptual.
Nevertheless, what presents itself as esoteric is usually only a pitiful mockery of itself, a fairy tale that many get lost in and often (or especially) also let others get lost in.
The main intention of the latter is to benefit from it: making money, or acquiring status.
This last point is often remarkable , even in extreme situations such as the ‘vow of poverty’, yes, but preferably in the spotlights, or high up in the ‘hierarchy of the poor’.
Jesus (*) chased the merchants out of the temple. They were in the temple, which is good, but they were there for their own benefit, capitalizing on esotericism. Better to chase them away, ‘intolerantly’, physically even rather roughly, as is written in Luke 19:45-48 (on the right in a version of El Greco). At another time, the hypocritical rabbis (or pharisees) met him face to face, as traders in religious status. I see them in the lower right quadrant of the painting of El Greco. They are scheming and Jesus spooks them. They could not laugh with it and probably this has contributed to Jesus’ eventual execution.
‘Esotericism’ and ‘science’: not each in their own domain, but each in the entire whole.
They are two ways to look at the same thing. What’s more: it’s not about the fact that you have to balance the two. They are ‘orthogonal’. That is to say: in principle you can bring up a little bit of one and a little bit of the other. OR: a little bit of this and a lot of that. OR: lots of both at the same time.
Note: it’s not easy to understand this clearly. I really mean: the two at the same time (in principle). Not that it’s always necessary. You can play with it. Now and then it’s fun (and of course very meaningful) to experience them both at the same time, as intensely as possible (or ‘to implement them’ if you like to express it more actively).
And AURELIS: as a project, it has the intention to be as scientific as possible … and at the same time as rationally esoteric as possible, all the time.
Thus, of course without putting both in contradiction to each other. I think/feel that they can both better be themselves in a good synthesis. This might seem too scientific for ‘esoterics’ and too esoteric for ‘scientists’. So be it.
In the next sentences, the quotation marks speak volumes. You may place them yourself, as an exercise:
One can be an atheist and at the same time deeply religious.
One can be religious and at the same time extremely materialistic.
One can be esoteric and at the same time being chased out of the temple.
One can be scientific and at the same time only interested in lies.
One can be all for life and at the same time not even able to see the difference between life and death.
One can be oneself and at the same time completely besides oneself.
One can show the hidden as good as possible and at the same time be incomprehensible to many people.
One can be infinitely friendly by using a stick.
One can be scientifically esoteric and esoterically scientific.
The latter is even the only serious way.
(*) Something personal about Jesus: I think he was a nice guy, nice enough to sometimes even refer to him. Probably he even did actually exist. The fact that he would be, historically seen, more than a somewhat special ‘nice guy’, has been repeatedly challenged by himself. In my opinion, he was just trying something and if you look at the atrocities that have been committed in his name, his intent did largely fail. And yet my admiration remains. There is a romantic side to trying something ‘against all odds’. And you can learn a lot from it.