[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

re: historical and doctrinal

Oct 30, 1995 09:20 AM
by Dr. A.M.Bain

> >> JHE
> >> >Personally, I prefer as much as possible not to lean on
> >> >that which I cannot confirm.
> >AB
> Doesn't this attitude rule out the whole Secret Doctrine?
> Doesn't this attitude rule out reincarnation?
> (Alan has already admitted that it does for him).

No he hasn't - read again. Alan has the matter on "hold."

> Doesn't this attitude rule out planes, globes, bodies, etc?

It *rules out* nothing. It recognises such teachings as working
hypotheses, well worth taking on board as such. It also says
that there may not be *any* teaching that is 100% reliable as absolute
truth, if only because of the fallibility of human

There is no way we can confirm (from reliable experience) a day
or night of Brahma .... :-)

> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "lean" and

By "lean" *I* mean "use as a crutch," an attitude I have seen
all to often over the years.

> "confirm." By confirm, do you mean historically? Or do
> you mean through personal experience (which we
> already know can be mayavic itself)?

And how do we *know* that personal experience is "mayavic"
(which term please define according to your understanding, TIA).

We can confirm *nothing* historically that occurred before we
were born - we were not there, and cannot bear witness. If a
historian lies to us, we may not be aware of it, and accept the
lie as fact. History, as taught, is a "working version" subject
to amendment in the light of new evidence.

> How should we
> confirm the teachings given in the SD to our own
> satisfaction?
> Jerry S.

How do we define "common sense" - ? :-)


[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application