[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re to Larry - Proof

Feb 12, 2002 02:31 PM
by Larry F Kolts

Yes, Jerry, I see your point and really agree more than it seems.

I guess the problem really is that word "proof". As I was using it I was
thinking of "evidence" vs a sense of absolute proof. That's why I use the
word "belief" instead"f "Knowledge". When we believe, we exercize some
degree of "faith" (a very Christian term, but i know of none better)
Belief, by definition is non provable. If it was then we would "know"
with a surety. But we don't. I quess we all bring a bunch of vocabulary
bagage with other. It's good to talk about the terms. You've convinced me
that 'proof" not the word to use in these discussions.

You see bill, some of use can change our minds because of these posts. Or
a least our way of looking at something.


On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 05:19:12 +0800 "Gerald Schueler"
<> writes:
> <<<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 used it a lot, but it is no longer applicable in today's world.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.
> Jerry S.
> -- 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application