Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00451)

Hi Jerry and all of you,

Yes - allright Jerry. But I will try again - maybe naively thinking, that you really would answer my question.

Jerry wrote:
"There is, certainly, a knowledge of gupta vidya. There is, I am equally certain, no proofs."

1. Answer : Can you prove the above Jerry ? - (That goes for both sentences.)
2. Answer: Can you prove your theory of Maya in the below ?

When you claim no 'proof' exists - it can be considered as a selfcontradicting statement. Because you - because of the statement - can't prove the exact same statement.
Therefore - it will always be good to have "the 7 keys" of Blavatsky - mentioned in her writings - in mind, when we deal with metaphysics - like this.
The Secret Doctrine written by Blavatsky, was never ment to be read with the dead-letter-view in mind - and rejection of "the 7 keys". Blavatsky says so herself at the beginning of the same book. Well that is my view.
But maybe you won't understand me.

Maybe it is not so important who is wrong or right in this debate on proof.Maybe it is the reaction which comes forward in these our emails, which isof outmost importance. Or the reactions the readers of the emails make.

Yes the world is an illusion; - but the truth is always shown there.
(the sufi Subhani)

 
from
Sufilight...with...Rugrats from the Middle East...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerald Schueler" <gschueler@earthlink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <theos-l@list.vnet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 3:26 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re to Sufilight - Proofs


> <<<<Jerry wrote:
> "There is, certainly, a knowledge of gupta vidya. There is, I am equally certain, no proofs."
> 1. Answer : Can you prove the above Jerry ? - (That goes for both sentences.)>>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Morten, most of the "proofs" that we have in life are simply consensual agreements based on similar observations. I see a Gupta Vidya, and you do, and maybe a few others, and so we together can agree that such a thing exists and this mutual consensus is our "proof." But we are steeped in maya, and our observations are all mayavic, and so who can say how accurate our observations really are?
> 
> **************
> 
> <<<2. Some thoughts to ponder on :
> What is Blavatsky defining as "Proof"? What thoughts are behind the word "proof"? A word can have more than one meaning. Maybe the dead-letter view needs to removed from such a debate, so we can talk about ,what all this isabout. If one refuse to seek to use "the 7 keys" as mentioned by Blavatskyin the Secret Doctrine, then one will not get very far in understanding Blavatskys writings. That is a view.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Morten, the "7 keys" are a manas/exoteric approach. Seven is a purely arbitrary, and usually symbolic, number. It is almost never to be takenliterally. The best approach, and the best key, is one's personal direct experience.
> 
> *******************
> 
> Blavatsky wrote:
> "The same may be said of the whole Esoteric system. One turn of the key, and no more, was given in "Isis." Much more is explained in these volumes. >>>
> 
> JERRY: In her quote here, she is simply referring to the fact that exoteric material is graded into many levels of understanding. Isis is a lower level, dealing primarily with outer surface exoteric material. The SD is a step up, containing more esoteric material. There is lots that the SD left out too.
> 
> ******************
> 
> 
> <<<In those days the writer hardly knew the language in which the work was written, and the disclosure of many things, freely spoken about now, was forbidden. >>>
> 
> JERRY: And much of those "forbidden" teachings are coming out today.
> 
> **********************
> 
> <<<<A view:
> You can 'prove' a lot. But who is right ?
> That is the key. 
> The ignorant one is of course not right.>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Knowledge and ignorance are two sides of the same coin. Right and wrong are two sides of the same coin as well. When you say that you are right and that another is wrong, you are simply saying that you are on one side of a coin while another is on the other side of the very same coin. In the overall scheme of things, it really doesn't matter much about the human labels that we stick onto things. There is no way to "prove" that you are right other than by mutal consent.
> 
> Fundamentalists, of whatever persuasion, get together and agree to think in certain ways about issues, and this mutual consent gives them a feeling of rightness and provability. But the non-fundies do the same thing, and sowe find oppositional camps or cults within the overall umbrellas of virtually all organizations. This is our human nature, and is perfectly understandable and natural. But the notion or belief that "I am right" while "you are wrong" is a result of maya, our ignorance of what is really going on.
> 
> **********************
> 
> <<<One of the keys issues of Gupta Vidya is the removal of ignorance. Theindividuals ignorance. And also removal of ignorance in general...>>>
> 
> JERRY: Agreed, but there can be no way to "prove" such a removal of ignorance. Ignorance of what can be mutually observed can be agreed to and "proved" but otherwise no proving is possible.
> 
> ************************
> 
> <<<Proof of Gupta-Vidya is in a sense also proof of the existence of Wisdom.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Neither is provable. No two people can even agree on what "wisdom"is.
> 
> **************************
> 
> <<<The one experienceing, that wisdom exists has a proof on that.>>>
> 
> JERRY: No. She only has an experience of that. Experiences can be lived, but never proved. When you think that you have proved wisdom or God or spirituality, you can rest assured that you are still grapsing onto ignorance. Such "proofs" are called reifications, and they are all maya.
> 
> *****************************
> 
> <<< The one who don't hasn't such a proof. When everyone in a group of people experience wisdom, then that is proof for them. Right ?>>>>
> 
> JERRY: Wrong. There is only mutual consent. The reason why it is important to make the distinction between "proof" and "mutual consent" is that the former conveys the idea of permanence and eternality, while the latter conveys the idea of temporality and allows for possible change. The former is maya while the latter is reality.
> 
> *******************
> 
> <<<<True Theosophists followers of the Gupta-Vidya - agrees on that wisdom relly exists.
> Merely being an intellectual is not the same as being wise.>>>
> 
> JERRY: Reifying wisdom into something that it is not, is not wise. When you say "that wisdom really exists" you are reifying wisdom, and making it into an objective thing, which it is not. You cannot obtain wisdom in the same way that you obtain a beer.
> Beer is a thing. Wisdom is not a thing. 
> 
> *************************
> 
> <<<<That which is good is good. That which is bad is bad. Wisdom is good.Should we seek to achieve it if possible ? I think so. I am not going to prove that.>>>
> 
> JERRY: I don't subscribe to your good vs bad outlook on life. This is a mayavic outlook. Good and bad are simply labels that we put onto things thatwe like or dislike. To some wisdom is good, but to others it is bad. Wisdom means accepting the fact that we human beings have no inherent permanent existence at all. How many people do you know would consider that to be a "good" idea? And how about the idea that our Higher Self has no more inherent reality to it than our Lower Self? What about "atma is maya?" Is that wisdom or ignorance? I suspect that you won't find agreement even among Theosophists. I can say that atma is maya and I base that conclusion on my studying, my intellectual reflections and logic, and my direct experience. But can I prove it? No. If I could, everyone would agree with me.
> 
> Reification is a part of maya. Our human mind always wants to observe "things" but spirituality has no "things" in it, and so when we reify spiritual ideas, we are making spirituality just as unreal as materiality.
> 
> Love is the Law,
> 
> Jerry S.
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>