Re to Larry - Proof
Feb 12, 2002 01:19 PM
by Gerald Schueler
<<<Hi Jerry and Morten,
I think I understand what Morten is trying to say. >>>
Hi Larry. I think I understand it too, only I don't agree with it. I have spiritual experiences too, but how can I prove, even to myself, that they are any more or less genuine that my normal waking state? Are dreams real? Well, they seem so at the time. Why cannot the same be true for spiritual experiences? My hypothesis is that they cannot. We all like to think that the upper spiritual planes are more real than the lower material planes. But Blavatsky tells us that they are really the same thing, and I find her statement to be intuitively true.
<<<If one has a spiritual experience, that experience constitutes a proof to the individual who had the experience, but not to anyone else.>>>
Here is exatly the problem that I am trying to get across. There is absolutely no "proof." If a drunk sees pink elephants, and touches them, and talks to them, then he will be convinced that he can "prove" their existence. But existence and non-existence are not provable. It is the word "proof" that bothers me so much. Blavatsky used it a lot, but it is no longer applicable in today's world.
<<<This would however prove only the
existence of a spiritual realm and say nothing about the truth/falsehood of Theosophy per se.>>>
No, it would only "prove" that spiritual experiences are possible for us human beings.
<<<Let me go a little deeper using a different example.
In my Mormon days I often took part in " laying on on hands for the Healing of the Sick" and other such Mormon ordinances. I had over my 35 years some very interesting experiences. Many of these constitute for me a verification of the reality of "faith healing". Others expanded that beyond the reasonable. At the regular first Sunday
testimony meetings it was not uncommon for several "Molly Mormons" (as a few of us called the uncompromising, blind faith, female members) to get
up and relate a healing experience and then to go on and say that was further proof that "The Church" was "true". I would shake my head and roll my eyes and think, NO NO NO you silly girl, it only confirms the reality of faith healing. But some were even more fundimentalist in their attitude. When I would argue my case they would say something like "you
know it's only the Mormon priesthood that can do this!" And I would say "but what of all the other denominations that practice faith healing?"
And they would look me in the eye and say" Brother, you know that if they do that they are either lying about it or doing it by the power of Satan.
You know that don't you?" And I would bite my tongue and mutter to myself "Yeah, right" Yet in spite of all that nonsense, I still believe in the
reality of the power of faith, though I never did but into their exclusivity model.>>>
I come from a Christian Science background, and can relate to what you say. Healing is the foundation stone of Christian Science, and the fact that it does work on occassion is their "proof" that Christian Science is truth. I healed myself many times, and fell into this idea too. Nowdays I like to think that my view is a bit more mature. So when I hear Theosophists saying much the same thing, ie proof for this and proof for that, I can't help but speak out. There is simply no "proof" for anything at all. It is a lousy word, and one that modern science has discarded, and one that Theosophists should discard as well.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application