Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01335)

Rich:
> WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF?
>For all the scads of psychics/shamans/tulkus/gurus on theos-l, their own
>personal experience is proof.  Great.
	This is an excellent question, Rich.  And I don't have an
answer.  Even personal experience won't hold up, because that
too can change.  As I have said here before, our experience always
tends to substantiate our beliefs.

>For those of us who believe in Adepts, and believe HPB to have been working
>directly with Adepts, their statements, are, until good proof is brought
>against them, usually regarded as at least possible, if not probable.
	I agree, that for those without any direct experience, this
is, by far, the best course.  And even those with direct experience must
have a very good reason to disregard what, after all, is the direct
experience of many Adepts for a very long time.  Alan, for example,
doesn't believe in reincarnation.  This is based on his direct experience
and study.  We all have the right to pick and choose the "gold nuggets,"
as Eldon likes to say, that currently appeal to us.

>It really depends upon what one chooses to accept as a valuable
>source, and what can disrupt how one sees this source.
	Exactly.  Asking someone to change their worldview is
too much to ask.  But I think, as theosophists, we should all of us
be questioning our worldviews, and leaving at least some room
in there for doubt.  One of the ways in which I have been able to do this
is to keep reminding myself that my own worldview has changed a
lot over the years, and so more change may yet be in the works.  We
need to stay flexible because without flexibility we open ourselves
up to fundamentalism and orthodoxy.

>After so many years in the movement, I have come to trust HPB and her
>writings a very great deal.  (This does NOT imply infallibility).  I did not
>come to feel such trust all at once, but over the years, as more and more of
>the teachings made sense to me, and I saw their value in practical
>application.  Now I tend to accept what she says on face value, unless I come
>across compelling reasons to doubt it.
	Me too, for the most part.

>I don't think it is so outrageous to trust HPB, particularly if one is
>willing to go OUT INTO THE WORLD and experiment and APPLY the teachings
>and learn from the results.
	Agreed.  But we have to remember that HPB did not give us
the whole story.  I have been accused of saying things on theos-l that
are not theosophical, because HPB didn't say so.  This, to me, smacks
of fundamentalism.  If I say something that flatly contrdicts her, then
that would be another thing altogether.  Eldon and I, for example, both
agree that G de P expounded on HPB's teachings and that therefore
G de P can also be used as a "source."  This kind of thing, I think, helps
us to expand our worldviews beyond what HPB gave out last century,
without in any way criticising her or going against what she did have
to say.

	Jerry S.
	Member, TI

Note: I am sorry that things got so out of hand between you
and Alexis.