http://list.vnet.net/ ?enter=theos-l
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001
Author: Jim Rodak
Subject: Explanations and Truth
Greetings My Fellow Pilgrims~
When I awoke this a.m., one word kept coursing through my
mind:
"explanations." The more I thought about what I had been reading on
this (and other) theosophical website re: reincarnation, karma, etc.,
the more I concluded that what I was actually reading were none other
than "explanations" as to who and what a being - particularly a human
being - is and what "its" place is in the scheme of existence. What, in
essence, is seemingly being promulgated and fostered in theosophy, as
well as other religious and spiritual "systems" - i.e., Christian,
Hindu, Buddhist, etc. - are none other than the conceptualized ideas of
its adherents. Can we really and truly say that any one system is "the
truth?" I believe that we can rationally conclude that certain
"explanations" have more of a "ring of truth" than others, and accord
with what we "believe" to be a
reasonable and plausible explanation of whatever concept(s) we take
under consideration.
When I hear or read such statements that, "HPB" or "The Masters" or "Alice Bailey" or &etc. "states . . . "; or that, "In the Secret Doctrine" or "In The Bhagavad Gita" &etc., I get a bit uncomfortable in the same way that a Christian might say to me, "Well, Jesus said . . ." or "In the Bible, read . .". Truth seems to be more of a "relative" than an "absolute" matter. Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that "The truth of the matter is that there is no truth." "Truth" - however defined - is, perhaps, only in the perceptual field of the beholder. We, each of us, perhaps, must thus conclude whether the "explanation" provided by whoever gives us that intuitive "comfort zone" that it is something that we can trust.
Otherwise we risk becoming just another "true believer" rather than an inquisitive skeptic. Just some ponderings from an early morning wakeup. Perhaps there are those of you listening in who have some thoughts on this matter of "explanations and truth?"
Most respectfully, Jim Rodak
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001
Author: K. Paul Johnson
Subject: Re: Explanations and Truth
Jim wrote:
> > concluded that what I was actually reading were none other than
> > "explanations" as to who and what a being - particularly a human
being -
> is and what "its" place is in the scheme of existence. What, in
essence, is
> > seemingly being promulgated and fostered in theosophy, as well as
other
> > religious and spiritual "systems" - i.e., Christian, Hindu,
Buddhist,
> > etc. - are none other than the conceptualized ideas of its
adherents.
They generally include both descriptive and explanatory
elements, but what
I find irksome is that the descriptions are dependent on the
explanations
rather than the other way around. That is, Buddhism starts out with
universal suffering as a basic description of human life; Christianity
starts out with a sense of distance/alienation from the divine that
requires mediation or reconciliation; Judaism and Islam start out by
"describing" humans as desperately in need of divinely-given laws. But
in
fact, Buddhism's stock in trade is liberation from suffering;
Christianity's is reconciliation with God through a mediator; Judaism's
and Islam's are divine laws to bring humanity into alignment with God's
will. So they describe reality in such a way as to make their particular
"solution" to an allegedly universal "problem" appear to be *the* way
for
*everyone* to "get right."
> Can we really and truly say that any one system is "the
truth?"
No, all we can say is that any particular system articulates
particular truths.
> I believe that we can rationally conclude that certain
"explanations" have
> more of a "ring of truth" than others, and accord with what we
"believe" to be a
> reasonable and plausible explanation of whatever concept(s) we take
under
> > consideration.
As long as we always bear in mind that sometimes what seems
reasonable and
has the ring of truth turns out empirically not to be true at all, and
something counterintuitive instead turns out to be truth.
> >
> > When I hear or read such statements that, "HPB" or "The Masters" or
"Alice
> > Bailey" or &etc. "states . . . "; or that, "In the Secret
Doctrine" or "In
> > The Bhagavad Gita" &etc., I get a bit uncomfortable in the
same way that a
> > Christian might say to me, "Well, Jesus said . . ." or "In the
Bible, read
Yes, it's lazy, the implication being that if we can say "The
Masters say
so" then we don't even need to ask whether or not it is true. In fact,
questioning the truth of what "the Masters say" can be taken by some
Theosophists as the basis for condemning one's soul as hopelessly lost
and
one's mind as twisted.
> .
> > the perceptual field of the beholder. We, each of us, perhaps, must
thus
> > conclude whether the "explanation" provided by whoever gives us that
> > intuitive "comfort zone" that it is something that we can trust.
More importantly, IMO, we must always remember that all
explanation is
tentative and subject to modification with fuller information and/or new
principles of interpretation.
> Otherwise we risk becoming just another "true believer"
rather than an inquisitive
> skeptic.
Don't think many inquisitive skeptics would be made to feel
welcome in any
branch of today's Theosophical movement or its derivatives.
I'll conclude by giving my personal take on the
explanations/truth issue
based on the Jungian concepts of the four functions and the
transcendence. Each of us has a dominant mode of perception
(intuition/sensation) and of judgment (thinking/feeling.) I'm an
intuitive type with thinking secondary. Spent my youth through age 40
obsessed with abstract systems of "spiritual" or "esoteric" truth. But
Jung says that at age 40 we can begin to develop our weaker functions,
balancing the strong suits that have been predominant early in life. For
me this meant making room for sensation and feeling to balance the
intuition/thinking functions that had been dominant for years.
This makes for a greater appreciation for direct experience
of the
numinous and a lot less interest in competing explanatory systems. For
example, I kayak a lot and have been enthralled by dolphin encounters in
recent summers. When I was into the Theosophical belief system, I might
have come up with all sorts of *theories* about dolphin intelligence
etc.
and would have been fascinated to speculate about it. Now, simply being
in the presence of dolphins and experiencing them is all I want or need.
Any belief system is inherently and inevitably reductionist
in the
direction of left-brain emphasis; it assumes that our language can
encapsulate reality which of course it cannot. The more we directly
experience the numinous (whether in nature, art, mystical experience)
the
less we feel that explaining phenomena is central to our pilgrimage.
K. Paul Johnson
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001
Author: Katinka Hesselink
Subject: Re: Explanations and Truth
Hi Jim,
I do not know whether it is my webpage you refer to (though it
has a
section on karma and reincarnation) - but it seems to me that any truth
that you do not feel in your gut, is simply theory for us. And reading
theory may perhaps prepare us for the truth when we stumble upon it, but
only when we do that, is it real for us, I think. We are a bit like
chemists studying chemistry without doing any experiments. But were we
to
do the experiments (how this should be done in the case of reincarnation
and karma, I really do not know), only then does the theory become real
to
us. But without the theory, doing the experiments becomes meaningless.
In
the case of karma and reincarnation perhaps something like that is
relevant. But the experiment (i.e. observe life, and live it as
consciously as possible) still has to be done in order for the theory to
*come alive* so to speak.
Your remarks also remind me of my experience on reading
Krishnamurti's
"conversation after the death of John Fields" URL:
http://www.geocities.com/katinka_hesselink/kr/death_jk.htm
also on my website.
Katinka Hesselink
=====
-Those who observe, learn, a whole life long.
-Wie observeert, leert , een heel leven lang.
=====
my own homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/katinka_hesselink/kh/visite.htm
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001
Author: Kym Smith
Subject: Re: Re: Explanations and Truth
Jim wrote:
>> . .". Truth seems to be more of a "relative" than an
"absolute" matter.
>> Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that "The truth of the
matter is
>> that there is no truth." "Truth" - however defined - is, perhaps,
only in
>> the perceptual field of the beholder. We, each of us, perhaps, must
thus
>> conclude whether the "explanation" provided by whoever gives us that
>> intuitive "comfort zone" that it is something that we can trust.
I believe that the HUMAN concept of "Ultimate Truth" is an
illusion;
however, such an illusion seems crucial to most humans in order to
figure
out how best to live in this world - a world which itself may be no more
than an illusion.
It seems easier, at least for me, to figure out what is most
likely
"non-Truth" than what is "Truth." Example: I am quite convinced that the
Christian idea of "hell" is a "non-Truth". Conversely, although I do
place
much hope in the idea that 'life as we know it' has some kind of
meaning or
purpose beyond this earthly existence, I cannot claim with complete
conviction that this is so. My life seems to revolve around "Hope" more
than a knowledge of "Truth."
Too often, I learn something about myself I didn't know or
something
confronts me that powerfully challenges what I previously believed was
"right" or "wrong". Therefore, I suspect that understanding Self,
seemingly isolated among identical forms and similiar circumstances, is
the
"Truth" we are here to 'find' while in humandom (each form-dom having a
different mission); yet, I have no evidence or confirmation that this is
indeed the case - I could just be plain conceited.
But, that aside, I think you are correct - most live
according to "comfort
zones", rather than by "Truth." Perhaps simply admitting that we don't
know the "Truth" is the first step to recovery.
'Course, that could just lead to a bunch of folks becoming
rather dainty
and rickety structures; and it must be recognized that zealots, while
making the world a scary place, do add some zest. . .but that's another
story.
Kym
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001
Author: Gerald Schueler
Subject:Re Explanations and Truth
<< Greetings My Fellow Pilgrims~ When I awoke
this a.m., one word kept coursing through my mind:
"explanations." The more I thought about what I had been reading on this
(and other) theosophical website re: reincarnation, karma, etc., the
more I
concluded that what I was actually reading were none other than
"explanations" as to who and what a being - particularly a human being
- is
and what "its" place is in the scheme of existence. What, in essence, is
seemingly being promulgated and fostered in theosophy, as well as other
religious and spiritual "systems" - i.e., Christian, Hindu, Buddhist,
etc.
- are none other than the conceptualized ideas of its adherents.>>
The human mind needs explanations. It must have a worldview
in order to
maintain sanity, and explanations help fuel and sustain our worldview.
So,
explanations are OK, but we need to realize them for what they are -
don't
mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itelf (an old Zen
expression pointing out that this idea has been around for a long
time). We
each come into this world with predispositions or latent tendencies
(some
call them karmic, and some call them genetic, but they do seem to be
present
at birth). This, together with our experiences, form and shape our
worldview
- how we see ourselves and our world. Even materialism is just another
worldview.
<<Can we really and truly say that any one system is "the
truth?" >>
No. All religions or philosophical systems are fingers
pointing at the
truth. Truth, our own inner Consciousness, has to be experienced, it
cannot
be logically or even intuitively understood. When we experience it, we
transcend our human mind and with it the words needed for any kind of
description.
<< I believe that we can rationally conclude
that certain "explanations"
have more of a "ring of truth" than others, and accord with what we
"believe" to be a reasonable and plausible explanation of whatever
concept(s) we take under consideration.>>
The degree of truth that we will find in any philosophy or
idea depends
entirely on our worldview. If it fits our worldview, we will tend to
accept
it. When something occurs to us that does not fit into our worldview we
experience what I have called a Significant Emotional Event or SEE. A
SEE
will usually have one of three outcomes: we will either change our
worldview
adjusting it in some way to account for the experience, or we will
become
mentally ill, or we will die. As Jung once said, evolution is an
expansion
of consciousness. Thus we must either expand our worldview or die. But
this
expansion is usually a gradual and slow process.
<<When I hear or read such statements that,
"HPB" or "The Masters" or "Alice
Bailey" or &etc. "states . . . "; or that, "In the Secret
Doctrine" or "In
The Bhagavad Gita" &etc., I get a bit uncomfortable in the same
way that a
Christian might say to me, "Well, Jesus said . . ." or "In the Bible,
read .
. .". >>
A Christian quotes Jesus just as a Buddhist quotes Buddha. Its pretty
normal
to me to see Theosophists quoting Blavatsky. However, this does not
make it
"truth." I do it myself mainly to give proper credit to an idea that I
am
using but that I didn't invent. To use quotes to try to prove something
is
an act resulting from ignorance. Even Blavatsky herself fell into this
trap,
and we see her giving "proofs" throughout her writings which obviously
don't
prove anything at all else the world would all be Theosophists. I take
such
things with a healthy dose of humor.
<<Truth seems to be more of a "relative" than
an "absolute" matter. >>
Oh, there is indeed an absolute truth. At least it sure seems
to be in my
meditations. But When I return to my normal human state, there is no
way to
put such things into words. But relative and absolute are polarities,
two
sides of the same duality, and so you can't have one without the other.
But
there are, I think, degrees of both, just like there is with any other
duality.
<< Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that "The
truth of the matter is that there is no truth.">>
Truth and falsehood are also dualities, and they go together
just like
matter and spirit, high and low, big and little, masculine and
feminine, and
so on. There can't be a "lie" unless there is a "truth" behind it. Truth
can't be put into words, but it can be experienced, at least in degrees
-
i.e., like infinity, we can approach it but probably never actually
arrive at it.
<<"Truth" - however defined - is, perhaps, only
in the perceptual field of the beholder.>>
Agreed. It always exists to a degree, and it is our task to
increase that
degree as we go through life. My own take on this is that whatever we
experience is "truth" at the time. We like to think that truth is
something
external to us, but it is actually an internal thing.
<< We, each of us, perhaps, must thus conclude
whether the "explanation"
provided by whoever gives us that intuitive "comfort zone" that it is
something that we can trust. Otherwise we risk becoming just another
"true
believer" rather than an inquisitive skeptic.>>
Agreed, and a great post. I also enjoyed reading Paul
Johnson's reply, with which I hardily agree.
Jerry Schueler
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001
Author: ramadoss
Subject: Re: Karma
Let me add to what Katinka has responded.
One of the issues that I was pondering for some years is what
is wrong with
killing someone. We can come up with all the theoretical reasons. On the
other hand one can argue that by killing some one, that entity will be
able
to reincarnate earlier and perhaps in much better situation.
On the other hand, a simple reading of the situation without
all the
theories, I came to the conclusion that when you kill someone, you are
setting in motion a chain reaction of results affecting many people for
a
long time. The person who is killed has no more problems -- he/she is
dead
and gone.
His/her family, friends and others who may have depended on
him/her may
have to face a lot of problems and a lot of suffering on account of the
person being killed by the deliberate or accidental act of some one
else.
So the person who is cause of all the suffering for so many people
cannot
escape the responsibility for causing the suffering and has to reap the
consequences. From this point of view, any sane person can understand
the
seriousness of the act and no amount of esoteric theory is necessary!
mkr