Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00228)

>	I would plead for a discrimination between blind belief and
>a reasoned belief. The latter is based on hypotheses, which can be tested
>in one's life experience and may lead to rejecting or reformulating
>of one or more of these hypotheses .

Michael>I wouldn't call it "faith"anymore. It would stretch the concept of
fhe word too far.

        Let's call it an informed opinion, ok?
	

>Martin:<These concepts are just pointers to deeper layers within the human
>being. That's all.

Michael>Unfortunately these layers do not carry labels.

        You're right. These labels have been phrased in order to be able
to communicate, to describe these layers. That may have added to confusion
about these concepts. On the other hand, no verbal communication is possible
without the use of concepts - see the problem?


>
>Michael> Philosophizing with the intellect on matters spiritual may
>become an escape. I am quite sure that if we see in the end backwards we
>shall perceive that we missed the point completely.
>
>	This is a well-known (?) trap. It can be fruitful to one's
>understanding to study T/theosophy, but it is not a substitute
>for experience. Jerry Schueler quoted Jung saying: Theosophy is lazy
>thinking. Well, it needn't be so, of course, but it sometimes or maybe
>more often turns out that way. It is very convenient to think that
>one knows all when one has only *read about* things.
>
Last century's Theosophy  presented itself like a scientific system. It
contended that science was wrong on various  subjects.

        Blavatsky had a reason for that: she contended dogmatic scientific
ideas about man and nature. Also, she stretched the extent of the word
'science' into the metaphysical, or better: spiritual world or sphere.
Of course, one can question that (but see my opinion below).

Michael> Most Theosophical
concepts cannot be tested with human experience: root-race, rounds, globes,
etc etc. It is to be accepted a priori.

        That's a difficult point to discuss. Many Theosophists may acccept
this a priori, but that doesn't imply blind belief. I look upon this matter
as being hypotheses about man, nature, cosmos. Different interpretations
can be given to these concepts, which may complicate things further.
But I do think these ideas or teachings can be tested in one's experience
although it may require lifetimes to come to some final conclusions ..

>Martin:	I see these concepts as hypotheses which can be tested
>in one's life, like I said before. Theosophy is a spiritual philosophy
>of life for me and each of its contentions can be tested, not by scientific
>methods (such as these are now) but in and by one's own consciousness
>and that is one aspect of 'treading the Path', which one can see as
>process-theosophy.
>When we blindly belief the tenets, then it has become a religion for us.
>
>Martin
>

Michael>I wonder whether it is a spiritual philosophy? It is a
philosophy/speculation on spiritual concepts.

        That means the same to me. It *is* a philosophy of life, that can
hardly be contended IMO.


>
Michael>Well, I am glad that we could find each other on many other issues.


        Sure. FYI, I'm also studying other systems/ideas/teachings and
try to relate these to my own experiences in daily life (and to Theosophy
too). It is always gratifying to me when I succeed in extending my
understanding of things and discussions such as these are helpful, maybe for
others too.

Martin