Theos-Talk Archives (June 1995 Message tl00096)

Here are some statements from posts by Dan Caldwell and Paul
Johnson I'd like to respond to.

>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.

His expectations may be too low, because offering an explanation
as a possibility is human and therefore beneficial to the growth
of the thinking process.

> > Now I am not denying that "faith" or "intuition" or "personal
> > experience" doesn't have its place in the scheme of things.

> Theosophy 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.

We're not competing, but we are instead encouraging study and
providing people with alternatives to 1) gurus 2) monasteries 3)
universities , etc.  People are able to continue their work in
all different areas of life and still reap some of the "higher
learning" associated with "spiritual living." Where is the
spiritual life? Right where you are.  You don't need to attend
any classes or live anywhere.  Reading, meditation, and listening
to different points of view are available in every neighborhood,
every country, etc.  The only qualification is being human and in
existence.  Maybe the interest in reincarnation is concern for
other human beings who may not be able to reach a group concerned
with spiritual living or perhaps who aren't exposed to
theosophical teachings in a modern way.  For instance, can we
make theosophy available to those who are out of existence?
(Believe me, they need it.)

> "To theosophize" being to know or grok from buddhi-manas rather
> than kama-manas.  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.

Children are great, but they aren't faced with the problems of
living in a world where we can find no consort to "spirit" or
where public education refuses to become involved for some
"sinister" reason with our "education for truth," ignoring (and
banning?) any material that could strike the buddhi-manas or
better yet atma-buddhi chord by presenting a world picture that
encourages spiritual life and discipline.  I still become almost
frightened when I think I grew up and others have to without THE
YOGA SUTRAS and without a view of doing away with suffering and
reaching "isolated unity" and a consciousness of bliss, a
consciousness which can be blessedly sacrificed for the service
of mankind.  To aid the struggling, ignorant pilgrims is the only
cause greater than eternal peace and bliss.  (Ignorance in
childhood may be a result of maturation towards knowledge of
being rather than a cause of lack of that knowledge.)

Every member of The Theosophical Society has contributed
something inestimably of value to me personally by helping it to
exist, and if there is only one member who was encouraged (I know
there were thousands.) to "take the journey in search of the
self," we have participated in a method of living which has
produced manifold good where there was failure and manifold
difficulty before.

I'd like to put a very nice posting from buddha-l on the list
here to help our seeking of solutions to life's difficult
questions.

> David Thibodeau objects to the project of discovering whether
> Buddhist Logic is more like classical or more like intuitionist
> logic.  He writes: "we could 'tie down' Mipham Gyatso in such
> paradoxical dilemma; we could even end this discussion through
> logical resolution.  But to what ends? What would we have gained
> in solving such dilemmas? Respect from one's peers? A place in
> history books? And what would happen after such a resolution?
> Would your heart and mind, so used to struggling and grappling
> with such problems, feel an abscence, and find other struggles to
> take into its soul?"
>
> Well, gee, I think we would have gained a better understanding
> of Buddhist Logic, which has not been well understood at all. (And if
> you don't believe that, try making sense of Kalupahana's remarks on
> Buddhist Logic.) Not all knowledge is conducive to enlightenment, of
> course, but that doesn't mean that acquiring it can't be satisfying
> in itself. And as for finding other "struggles" (why "struggles?") to
> take into my soul (my soul? Isn't this a Buddhist listserve?)
> afterwards, I find that life has no problem plentifully supplying me
> with them on a regular basis all on its own.
>
> He continues, "People:  the essence of striving is the striving for
> essence.  The use of struggles of a rare and higher logical form is
> an obsolete way for the mind to raise itself from the struggles of
> the mundane. There is a better way."
>
> The chiasmus in the first line is surely striking, but I haven't any
> idea what it means. After the combined effects of graduate training
> in analytic philosophy and eleven years of Buddhist practice, I can
> hardly remember what an essence is supposed to be. (It also reminds
> me of how Wilfred Sellars loved chiasmus: "The perception of a
> manifold is not a manifold of perceptions." But I digress.) If
> "struggles of a rare and higher logical form" means working hard on
> problems of logic, I agree that it is not a path to enlightenment, at
> least for me, but it is satisfying and useful work, contibuting to
> our collective store of knowledge.
>
> "To entrap and to desire to entrap would be a statement, for sure:
> not only of your brilliance in reasoning, but also of your desire for
> power over another human being; another living creature."
>
> In _Philosophical Explanations_, Robert Nozick has written
> eloquently of the coercive tendency that often colors Western
> Philosophy, speculating that some philosophers would like to
> construct deductive arguments so strong, that if you accepted the
> premisses and still rejected the conclusion, your head would explode.
> Now there's a truly cogent argument. But I don't think anyone was
> suggesting necromantically resurrecting Mipham and forcing him, on
> pain of tortures too horrible to mention, to fess up and tell us
> whether he accepts the existence of unprovable truths or not. I think
> the idea was simply that it is interesting in contemplate what he
> might say, just as some Aristotle scholars might want to ask the
> Stagyrite what his views on prime matter are. (Unfortunately,
> whenever I resurrect some departed worthy in my imagination to ask
> him about some obscure problem in his philosophy, he always replies,
> "Oh my, I never thought of that. It surely is a puzzler.")
>
> "For those of us who have spent moments contemplating this matter, I
> ask:
>  during this time, were we aware that we were breathing in, and aware
> that we were breathing out?  The space between your birth and your
> death IS your breath.  To not pay attention to your breath, is to not
> pay attention to your life."
>
> Ahh, I think we're finally on the same page here. I strongly
> recommend that all logicians should remember to breathe. Some of them
> do need reminding.
>
> Best to all - Brian Holly