Theos-Talk Archives (August 2004 Message tt00532)

Hi Paul,
A quote I find quite interesting in the Mahatma letters is where the
Mahatma say's 'to doubt is to risk insanity'.
Beleif always seems to be wound up in insecurity and a desire for
certainty.
Faith is another loaded term as well.
I get the feeling the Mahatma in the above quote may be refering to
our 'intuitions' or inner glimpses of Unity or Oneness or gnosis or
whatever term you want to call it, rather than referring to doubting
in say superstitions or fanciful ideas.

To me its like when you experiance wonder or love or a beautiful peice
of music... and then try to use the analytical mind to try and disect
it.(the 'Mind slays the Real')

Identifying an experiance as this or that is almost automatic and I
think comes from the personalities need to clasify for its security.
Mind has its function and place but can't experiance the totality, as
soon as we analyze it the experiance is lost.

But that of course dosn't mean anaylze isn't important.
I personally think we should hold any concepts lightly and see what
experiance brings us.
Always remaining open to new insights and perspectives without being
gullable and not being so analytical our Heart can't get a look in.

I think this relates to the balance spoken of in the Voice of the
Silence, with the Head and the Heart doctrine.


Perry 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@y...>
wrote:
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Perry Coles" <perrycoles@y...>
wrote:
> > Hi Paul,Eldon and all
> > To me the importance is how we act, not what books we read or don't
> read.
> > 
> That's not an either/or IMO-- like saying what's important is
> breathing, not eating. Both are necessary; right action and right
> understanding are mutually supportive.
> snip
> > 
> > I don't think there is such a thing as an 'inferior function' 
> > 'chopping wood carrying water'
> > 
> When you phrase it that way, neither do I. Jung has certainly not
> established the four functions as "things" separately observable-- nor
> can introversion/extraversion, projection, etc. be considered as
> scientific theories. Jungian psychology has *some* empirical support,
> as with tests of the Myers-Briggs test, but it's mainly heuristic,
> offering a way to interpret experience, rather than scientific, in the
> sense of falsifiability, prediction, etc. I "believe in" Jungian
> ideas, as also in astrology, as useful tools for understanding
> experience. But cannot believe in them in the same way that one
> believes in plate tectonics, for example.
> 
> Which brings up the vexed question of what kind and level of
> "believing in" is appropriate for various theosophical and
> Theosophical doctrines. The conflation of all such kinds and levels
> of belief is fundamentalism.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul