Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00023)

> this handkerchief is." The man said, "It is red!" The audience was even
more
> impressed, but the rabbi was not. "If you were born blind," asked the
rabbi, "then
> how could you possibly know which color is which?"

Interesting story.  Many things come to mind....
Being in the world but not of it.
Recognizing the distinctions between cultural experience, our common human
being experience, our variations of openess or releasing of supra/para
normal experiences, and the element of what we simply 'know' because we are
holograms of the one 'knower'.

>     Based on the most reliable stories of clairvoyance and astral
projection, it
> seems clear that what is being sensed is not vision, but another sense
being
> interpreted as vision. It becomes sort of the opposite of Quixotism, what
might be
> termed Panzaism; instead of seeing giants while looking at windmills, when
one
> looks at giants, one sees windmills.

Well, that just seems like a game of duality defining.  What in reality is
being seen is what I wonder.  'Seen' meaning a representation in language
format of a feeling of a vibration.

What one sees is heavily flavored by one's
> prejudices. When I read theosophical writings, I tend to look for two
things,
> first. They are, what are the prejudices (using the formal rather than
colloquial
> meaning of the word) of the author, and how hard does the author try to
keep those
> prejudices from influencing their work.

Interesting.....
You or I can look, but how can we 'see' the prejudices of another unless we
have none ourselves?
Isn't it wiser to simply 'look' as an experience, but to concentrate on
'knowing' oneself and one's own prejudices.  The result hopefully being that
as one knows oneself, one knows all others....when prejudice no longer
exists, and judgement as an experience is eliminated?

I think that 'a prejudice' is a simple way of experiencing 'non
understanding yet'.

> One of my own prejudices is that modern science is taking us closer to
Truth
> (although there are definite limits in what can be discovered using modern
> techniques, and even more limits in the human beings in the sciences), and
if
> there are multiple interpretations of Theosophical literature, one of
which agrees
> with modern scientific thought, then that is the interpretation one should
use a a
> working one until new information comes that contradicts it.

So then I wouldn't call this a 'prejudice', but a postulation or partial
vision of how things are which one then 'puts to the test'
experientially,and in that experience [called living] everything is 'right'
and everything is partial.

>     Therefore, when it was discovered by DNA testing that Neanderthal man
was not
> an anscestor of modern humanity, but a failed cousin, a fact which greatly
> increased the weight of the theory that humanity originally came out of
Africa and
> spread to the rest of the world from there, I felt that this fit in well
with
> Leadbeater's concept that humanity originated in one place, then crossed a
desert
> to spread into the rest of the world. That the desert was the Sahara
rather than
> the Gobi was, to me, an unimportant detail. Yet many old-time Theosophists
treated
> this idea as blasphemy.

An idea is both self-fulfilling and self-creating, and busy work of life.
Beyond the 'busyness', what Is?
Cheers
Annette



-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.