Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00095)

According to MGRAYE@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU:

> If anybody offers an "explanation" the burden of proof is on that
> person to submit evidence of some kind that shows that his
> explanation rules out the competing explanations.  To simply
> offer an explanation as a possiblity solves nothing.

This seems to suggest that your expectations are too high for
certain circumstances.  How often is it, outside of exact
science, for a new explanation to fully rule out all competing
ones? I don't recall any universally-acknowledged, "let's throw
out all the old biographies" kind of success for a new
explanation of any biographical or historical question.* It's
all, seemingly, a matter of tiny incremental increases in
understanding and huge amounts of uncertainty.  Meaning that
"solving something" is not the only reason to explore evidence
and alternative explanations.  Maybe just inching closer to a
solution that someone will reach in 2095?

> (*David Lane's work on Paul Twitchell comes close.)
>
> Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal
> experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things.  But
> I dare say that their is not a belief system in the world that
> cannot be "validated'" by faith, intuition and personal
> experience! So if Theosophists claim Theosophy is something
> unique among all the competing ideologies of this world (notice I
> said IF!), what is it that Theosophists can present to seekers
> other than "faith", "intuition" or "personal experience"? (NOTE:
> My above comments are made from the perspective that Theosophy
> (as a body of knowledge) is a science.  See the writings of HPB
> and her Masters.)

The above is food for thought.

Indeed so.  What I would offer in response is that Theosophy is
not "unique among the competing ideologies of this world." It is,
rather, unique in providing a context in which people of
differing ideologies can exchange their "faith, intuition and
personal experience" in search of truth at a higher level than
can be verbalized as just another competing ideology.  In other
words, a process rather than a product.  "To theosophize" being
to know or grok from buddhi-manas rather than kama-manas.

Of course, by this definition we must face that theosophers have
come up with all sorts of contradictory conclusions about
reincarnation, which makes one wonder if "Theosophy teaches
reincarnation" is quite exactly true.

For my own "faith, intuition, and personal experience," the
reincarnation question is as someone, Paul G.  perhaps, already
stated.  The first time I heard about it as a small child, I
immediately embraced the idea.  Since then, there have been
enough deja vu experiences with foreign countries and languages
to confirm that "there's something to it." But the possibility
that we can prove, or even fully understand, the process of
reimbodiment seems pretty remote.