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

re "faith," thematics ...

Jan 03, 2003 07:56 AM
by Mauri

On Theos-1, Gerald wrote: << >> 

Not that I don't have
permission to quote, but ... This following was in response
to Gerald's "Re to Mauri - Gurus & Chelas" Jan 1 post on Theos-1.

Gerald, in this post I'm trying to offer some aspects of 
how "faith" might be interpreted from various 
perspectives, and how I tend to see "aspects of faith," so 
before you jump to any conclusion about any particular 
paragraph or about "what I think," maybe if you were to 
read this entire spiel, first, not that ... whatever ...

Webster's: Faith: <<1. unquestioning belief. 4. anything 

Webster's: Trust: <<1. firm belief or confidence in the 
honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc. of another 
person or thing; faith; reliance.>>

Gerald, we seem to be (are?) bringing up, continuing an 
age old "faith" topic. While it would seem to me that my 
approach to such as "spirituality," zen, mahayanics, 
Theosophy, etc, has various facets to it, ("speculative," 
etc ...), as per it's "apparent" or "exoteric version," say, 
and while I tend not to see myself particularly "unfairly 
favoring" any particular, apparent bias within my "sense 
of relevance," I seem to currently prefer a "basic 
approach" that might be described as one by which I seem 
to be assigning a basic relevance (or "faith," "trust," or 
whatever) toward what would appear to me to be a kind 
of intuitiveness about "h/Higher"... however that might be 
seen to evolve in "exoteric terms." 

So if you prefer to see "faith" (of whatever flavor) 
somewhere along the line of such a process, Gerald, you 
might have a point in as much as, as I tend to see it: 
dualistic "reliance" is (isn't it, 
theoretically/basically/exoterically in duality?) always 
kind of relative, (if by whatever interpretive "faith 
related" tendency?), so wouldn't there be somewhat "less 
sense" in cultivating, say, "b/Basic faith relevance" 
"intentionally" in mainstream terms, (ie, by purposely 
trying to align one's thinking, "faith," etc, within what 
would appear to be a generally accepted worldview), 
since, (as we all know?), "faith" in the apparent products, 
thought forms within such a relative, relational medium 
"is" ("essentially"?) "mayavic," "in essence," so ... 
("intentionally" in that, in some cases, "unintentional" in 
the sense of "more intuitive cultivations" may be seen as 
"more meaningful" or "more faith-based," to whatever 
extent ...)

In other words, as I tend to see it, there would appear to 
be no "faith" relevance in anything "much h/Higher" 
within "duality itself," but then one might (justifiably?) 
question (okay, "justifiably," in quotes, if you prefer ... ), 
so one might question the the "relevance," or apparent 
relevance, of such "relevance," out of one's sensed 
interconnection (interpretiveness) with whatever 
"h/Higher," thereby establishing one's 
apparent/transcendent, "real" or "imagined," "faith 
connection"...not that such connecting is not any less 
"essentially mayavic," but/"but" ... After all, manas has to 
(or does it?) hang on to "something," "basically" ... ? 

Another perspective on "faith": In the early seventies, if I 
remember correctly, there were controlled, scientific 
studies on medical placebo's that convinced researchers 
that there is a body-brain/mind connection in terms of 
health, and that that connection could be beneficiently 
activated with the use of placebos in a "medical setting." 
Those quotes refer to a "familiar medical setting" setting 
(compelete with ritualistic stethoscopes, white coats, 
weigh scales, impressive certificates, impressive looking 
instruments, etc, etc) that condition the patient to have 
faith/trust in that kind of setting/doctor/s. The upshot of 
the research was that, to all appearances, medical cures 
were effected with the use of placebos. Of course if one 
were to ask a representative of a pharmaceutical company 
about that, one might receive a very different response, 
these days, naturally, what with an apparent general 
tendency for placing much faith in a certain kind of 
socially counter-productive greed, instead?

So I think you have a point there, Gerald, about "faith."
But/"but" ...

Gerald, my interpretation of "working trust" takes in, 
equates to, or translates toward "faith" in the sense that, 
as I see it, "trust relevance" in duality has an essential 
("essential enough"?) "faith" aspect, so that, if one can 
accept/consider "trust" as a relevant enough 
"faith"-derivative (has it come to that? :-), then "working 
trust" means, (or "could mean"?), in that sense, as I see it, 
a form of karmic variable that, in "manasic terms," (or 
"mayavic terms," if you like, if you happen to be "more 
esoterically" inclined ...:-), or is suggestive of a form of 
working relationship in which "faith" or "trust" carries 
enough of whatever it might be that one might, as a 
student/chela, elicit, create, cultivate, come to realize, etc. 
from a relationship or source that one has "elevated," 
cultivated, assigned relevance or significance in, by one's 

For example, I feel that manas can, optionally, "elevate" 
(or "relevatize," in basic terms, if by way of whichever 
interpretive tendency?) even those who, outwardly, may 
profess a total ignorance of "spiritual matters" or 
"Theosophic topics." It's just a matter of perspective, isn't 
it? For example, I've been "elevating"/relevatizing a 
tennis friend for many years. But just a few days ago I 
happened to "find out" that, "outwardly," he "is," or at 
least "appears to be," kind of ignoratic about certain kinds 
of "esoteric things" (ie, "in a sense").

Seems as if we're all relatively guru/chela's, 
interchangeably, from moment to moment), but that, 
(apparently/"apparently"?), some of us seem to have a 
certain talent ("karmic propensity... ") to "elevate" or 
relevatize our entire environment (not just people) to a 
guruic relevance, sense, significance ... And if that kind 
of "elevation" (or "relevance making," if you prefer, in 
"exoteric terms" ...) is done with reference to one's 
karmic/apparent limits or apparent guidelines, then (as I 
see it) one ought to be able to "elevate" anybody, 
anything, regardless, even the worst troublemakers in as 
much as one's focus trascends appearances through to 
what you, (Gerald, maybe?), might refer to as "a 
connecting toward divinity," say (if "divinity" is seen as a 
"Higher" that's "sensed as guiding," but "not heard," like 
the "voice of the silence," or at least as some "extension 
of such," maybe, in some cases ... Not that I've had any 
particularly special experiences along those lines, (not 
that I seem to prefer to think in terms of "special 
experiences," if I can help it ...), except for maybe that 
one time (when I slipped up? :-) when I seem to have 
been transformed into a speculator, having had a 
"profound enough realization," "apparently," (I seem to 
think, thinking back on it ...), that I don't "basically know 
anything," not that it seemed to be any kind of 
"particularly spiritual or mystical" experience.

Defining a guru's "credentials" ought to involve, as a first 
order of business, as I see it, "an assesment" of 
"s/Self-r/Relevance," by whatever means that may be at 
hand, at the time, with respect to whatever/whoever one 
might experience. Which means that, in practice, in my 
case, for example, on the average, those kinds of 
"credentials" appear to be, at any given moment/scenario 
of the day, all over the map, basically, though I seem to 
think that I have cultivating a "higher" sense of reality, or 
a "higher sense of reality making," lately, out of ... 
whatever ...

While I tend to "agree with you, Gerald," (if you don't 
mind getting "quoted"... :-) about "faith" having 
relevance within a guru/chela inter something, at the same 
time I tend to think that if a chela's "faith" is, in a sense, 
"too exoteric" or naive (ie, not by way of a chela's "s/Self 
relevance") then, well, good luck, I might say, because 
such a chela might need it, in a sense ... Of course, in my 
case, what with my speculative approach ... Hmm ... ^:-) 

But I don't know if you see where I'm going with, in a 
sense, by apparently reversing (?) the guru/chela picture 
by placing a focus on "s/Self relevance," "instead," 
(apparently?), (ie, "s/Self relevance" in whatever 
interpretive terms re "h/Higher," as per the quotes), 
instead of getting worked up "faith"-wise by assigning 
"credentialized faith" in a guru as though that could be 
done "sensibly enough" without the "readiness" of "s/Self 
relevance." But then (of course?) that's all so much 
exoteric talk, so ...

So I agree with you 100%, Gerald, "in a sense," (as per 
my preceding attempts to explain, hee hee); but/"but," 
seeing as such "agreements" are exoteric/mayavic, well ... 
I don't see how that kind of "agreement making" means 
much "in theory," aside from exoterics.

Maybe I'll consider this as a "part one" response to your 
post, Gerald ... 


PS Not that ...

PPS But/"but"...

PPPS "...."


[Back to Top]

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