Theos-Talk Archives (December 1995 Message tl00324)

RI:

>It's pretty obvious that "France" is not nearly as closed or private of a
>belief since it can be validated by most people who are willing to follow
>the directions of the map makers and go there.

Some things are easier to validate than others but still possible. If
something is hard to validate or would require personal training and
preparation would it therefore become a "private and closed belief"?

If you have never seen a particular country you have not validated the
idea. Your belief that the country exists would be a matter of logic
and would be based upon information provided you which you trust. The
idea would be as unproven as that of the Masters.

>This is the first time I have heard anybody say that the existence of
>Masters is the kind of idea which "could be considered as scientific
>knowledge"; I suppose however you simply mean it in the same sense
>as the "Abominable Snowman"--that is if they ever find it they will
>be able to see it etc.

You might compare the idea to that of the Abominable Snowman if you
thought it highly unlikely. I might compare the idea to the existence
of France if I thought it likely.

The reality of something in the world does not depend upon how easy
it is for us to personally validate it. If something is not true unless
a majority of people can readily validate it then much of what we'd
call scientific knowledge would have to be rejected. Many would take
more than a single lifetime to acquire the necessary knowledge to
understand much less experimentally verify the more advanced areas
of science. But science does not become untrue and the more advanced
researchers are not followers of a closed private view about life.

Theosophy deals with things that are more difficult to realize than
research in advanced science. Many lifetimes of preparation may be
required to make progress with it. There is a mystical side to it
but it also deals with the invisible hidden side of nature parts of
objective reality that are normally inaccessible to us.

>Also allow me get rid of *arbitrary* and change the wording a little so we
>can agree on our "first category of ideas." Thus: *Mystical insights
>dealing with things basically unknowable any other way*.

An understanding of Parabrahm falls in the first category that of
personal mystical experience. The existence of the Masters as living
flesh-and-blood people is not mystical but ordinary knowledge. I'd
define them as people more advanced than the Buddhist Arhat and less
than the Buddhist Bodhisattva. And all of these people are somewhat
less advanced than the Buddha a real person.

Where there might be some disagreement would be on the attributes and
powers of such a person. We have two extreme views from all-powerful
angels on the one hand to exceptional ordinary people as depicted in
Paul Johnson's books. I'd tend to put them somewhere in the middle on
the scale.

>--I am never one for biting the theosophical hand that feeds us all ...

Unless you think that the hand is empty and not likely to offer any
more food! <grin> I'd still getting fed though so I'm well behaved.

-- Eldon