--- Begin Message ---
Jim,
The article in this link may be somewhat useful to you and others, based
on a lot of what you said in your message:
http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/difference.html
Compiler
(John DeSantis)
-------
Jim Rodak wrote:
> > Greetings Good and Noble Spirits ~
> >
> > When I awoke this a.m., one word kept coursing through my mind:
> > "explanations." The more I thought about what I had been reading on
> this
> > and other theosophical websites re: reincarnation, karma, etc., the
> more I
> > concluded that what I was actually reading were none other than
> someone's
> > "explanations" as to who and what a being - particularly a human
> being -
> > is and what "its" place is in the scheme of existence. What, in
> essence, is
> > seemingly being promulgated and fostered in theosophy, as well as
> other
> > religious and spiritual "systems" - i.e., Christian, Hindu,
> Buddhist,
> > etc. - are none other than the conceptualized ideas of its
> proponents. Can
> > we really and truly say that any one system is THE truth? I believe
> that
> > we can rationally conclude that certain "explanations" have more of
> a "ring
> > of truth" than others, and accord with what we "believe" to be a
> reasonable
> > and plausible explanation of whatever concept(s) we take under
> consideration. But I > would also strongly recommend maintaining a
> skeptical mindset all the while in >one's ruminations.
> >
> > When I hear or read such statements that, "HPB" or "The Masters" or
> "Alice
> > Bailey" or whoever "states . . . "; or that, "In the Secret
> Doctrine" or "In
> > The Bhagavad Gita" &etc., I get a bit uncomfortable in the same way
> that a
> > Christian might say to me, "Well, Jesus said . . ." or "In the
> Bible, it says . . . "
> > Truth seems to lme to be more of a "relative" than an "absolute"
> matter.
> > Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that "The truth of the
> matter is
> > that there is no absolute truth." "Truth" - however defined - is,
> perhaps, only in
> > the perceptual field of the beholder. We, each of us, perhaps, must
> thus
> > conclude whether the "explanation" provided by "whoever," gives us
> that
> > "intuitive comfort zone" that it is something that we can trust.
> Otherwise
> > we risk becoming just another "true believer" rather than an
> inquisitive
> > skeptic.
> >
> > Just some ponderings from an early morning wakeup. Perhaps there
> are
> those of you listening in who have some thoughts on this matter of
> "explanations
> > and truth?" Most respectfully, Jim Rodak
>
> ---
> Current topic is at
> http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm
> You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as:
> [compiler@wisdomworld.org]
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> leave-bn-basic-5270077P@lists.lyris.net
--------------2483CEAF3070B79F26DCCF01
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Jim,
<p>The article in this link may be somewhat useful to you and others, based
on a lot of what you said in your message:
<br><A HREF="http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/difference.html";>http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/difference.html</A>
<p>Compiler
<br>(John DeSantis)
<br>-------
<p>Jim Rodak wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><style></style>
<p>> Greetings Good and Noble Spirits ~
<br>>
<br>> When I awoke this a.m., one word kept coursing through my mind:
<br>> "explanations." The more I thought about what I had been reading
on this
<br>> and other theosophical websites re: reincarnation, karma, etc., the
more I
<br>> concluded that what I was actually reading were none other than someone's
<br>> "explanations" as to who and what a being - particularly a human
being -
<br>> is and what "its" place is in the scheme of existence.
What, in essence, is
<br>> seemingly being promulgated and fostered in theosophy, as well as
other
<br>> religious and spiritual "systems" - i.e., Christian, Hindu,
Buddhist,
<br>> etc. - are none other than the conceptualized ideas of its
proponents. Can
<br>> we really and truly say that any one system is THE truth? I
believe that
<br>> we can rationally conclude that certain "explanations" have more
of a "ring
<br>> of truth" than others, and accord with what we "believe" to be a
reasonable
<br>> and plausible explanation of whatever concept(s) we take under consideration.
But I > would also strongly recommend maintaining a skeptical mindset all
the while in >one's ruminations.
<br>>
<br>> When I hear or read such statements that, "HPB" or "The Masters"
or "Alice
<br>> Bailey" or whoever "states . . . "; or that, "In the Secret Doctrine"
or "In
<br>> The Bhagavad Gita" &etc., I get a bit uncomfortable in the same
way that a
<br>> Christian might say to me, "Well, Jesus said . . ." or "In the Bible,
it says . . . "
<br>> Truth seems to lme to be more of a "relative" than an "absolute"
matter.
<br>> Perhaps we could even go so far as to say that "The truth of the
matter is
<br>> that there is no absolute truth." "Truth" - however defined
- is, perhaps, only in
<br>> the perceptual field of the beholder. We, each of us, perhaps,
must thus
<br>> conclude whether the "explanation" provided by "whoever," gives us
that
<br>> "intuitive comfort zone" that it is something that we can trust.
Otherwise
<br>> we risk becoming just another "true believer" rather than an inquisitive
<br>> skeptic.
<br>>
<br>> Just some ponderings from an early morning wakeup. Perhaps
there are
<br>those of you listening in who have some thoughts on this matter
of "explanations
<br>> and truth?" Most respectfully, Jim Rodak
<p>---
<br>Current topic is at
<br><A HREF="http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm";>http://www.blavatsky.net/talk/bnbasic/basicSyllabus.htm</A>
<br>You are currently subscribed to bn-basic as: [compiler@wisdomworld.org]
<br>To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-bn-basic-5270077P@lists.lyris.net</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------2483CEAF3070B79F26DCCF01--
--- End Message ---
