From: doug@uuisis.isis.org (Doug Thompson)
Subject: Re: A Course In Miracles / Reincarnation
Organization: International Shared Information Service (Ottawa)
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 19:37:37 GMT

>As you merrily plough through the text, you'll come to the parts where
>it says that all of your perception-based systems for ingesting information
>are hosed up because what you're seeing is your own illusory thoughts,
>not what's really there, or something to that effect.  The Text even
>mentions in passing that this *includes* the very exercise of reading
>the Text in first place.
>
>That's the paradox:  here you're reading a book that has the Wisdom of
>the Ages, all of the answers, but you vision might be blurred, so how
>can you tell if you're reading it correctly or not?
>
>Let's look at it another way.  Stare at your copy of the Text there on the
>table.  What do you see?  Bleached wood pulp, pressed into fibrous sheets,
>with strange little ink markings on them.  Yet when you stare at those little
>markings, a wonderous transformation seems to take place:  the markings seem
>to come alive and seem to take on new meanings!  But the markings themselves
>have not changed, have they?  The transformation takes place entirely in your
>head!!

Perhaps this is a paradox - but this is the case with all communication.
Basically, a *sender* transmits an idea (or something) via some medium.
The *receiver* picks up the transmission and with luck the receiver will
'get' the idea that the sender intended to put in his head.

In writing, the sender first forms the idea into words, then the words
are written down. The receiver reads the words and may or may not derive
the 'meaning' which the sender intended.

In all cases, however, the 'quality' of the receiver is very important
to the success of the communication.

"Quality" here would include things like eye-sight, fluency in the
language used by the sender, or the use of a good translator, and it
would also include 'adequatio' - that is to say that the receiver must
have an adequate education/culture/skill/attention-span etc., to
understand what is being said.

For instance, probably most news readers have looked at a unix manual
and most can recall the *first* time they looked at a unix manual. I
sure remember the first time I did. It was in English and I read
English. The text was printed with adequate quality and my eyesight was
adequate to discerns the characters on the page. The text was accurate
and 'contained' the information I sought. However, I understood next to
nothing of the contents the first time I read it. I didn't have an
adequate background.

That is one level of problems associated with the 'truth of a text'.

When dealing with religious or moral literature, the content will often
have to do with a pretty abstract spiritual idea which the author is
trying to express. The reader can only really grasp the full meaning
intended by the author if the reader applies a great deal of attention
and is open and receptive to the ideas being expressed. Otherwise the
reader is liable to misunderstand.

For instance, if a reader has a deeply held belief in a polytheistic
theology and should read "There is only one God", the reader's own
belief will interrupt the process of understanding the text at that
point. The theological dispute between the reader's beliefs and the
author's statement can set up an adversarial attitude which can close
the mind.

In a less drastic situation, a reader might stumble over something like:

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word
was God and the Word became flesh . . . "

and end up scratching his head.  A reader might ponder "I know what 'a
word' is, but what is 'the word'?" A reader might be part of a religious
community in which "the word" is an expression sometimes used
synonymously with "the bible".  And the reader wonders if the author is
saying that the Bible is God. 

At this point, even assuming that the text is, or contains a great
truth, the reader lacks the 'adequatio' to grasp the idea in the mind of
the author.

Finally, spiritual literature really speaks to the Spirit. It's meaning
is spiritual and the intellect alone is not adequate to 'contain' or
'hold' or 'grasp' a *spiritual* message.

So one's own state of spiritual understanding can determine how much of
the truth in a 'true statement' can be extracted. This is the case even
if there is no malice, and no overt misunderstanding or mistranslation
of the text.

A person who is totally uninterested in spiritual matters, for instance,
may find virtually no meaning in a spiritual text which he reads and
thinks he understands just fine. Another person might find the same text
contains a sublime and profound truth.

It is ever thus with writing - or talking - about spiritual matters. It
is very difficult for any two people to really communicate about such
matters. It is very hard for anyone to take his own spiritual awareness
and articulate it at all. Much harder still for any reader or listener
to receive the full intended meaning.

So I tend to assume when reading anything that has anything to do with
spirituality that it is nearly certain that I am not understanding what
I am reading perfectly in the way that the author intended. On a good
day one may glean *something* that approximates the intended meaning and
not glean *too much* that is completely opposite to what was intended
:-).

Even though I've spent years reading and studying spiritual literature,
including a good deal of formal university Biblical Studies, I generally
feel, when reading a spiritual idea, pretty much like I did the first
time I picked up a unix manual. I know that a great deal is going over
my head, that what I do know is miniscule when compared to what I don't
know, and the best I can do is just keep reading, pondering, thinking,
and talking about it in the hope that it will gradually grow more clear
and my understanding will gradually expand.

In one way this is my *big problem* with anyone who asserts that all the
answers can be readily found in any particular way. I know I am not
adequate to understand 'all the answers' even if they should be
presented to me on a piece of paper, and I am 99% sure that the person
asserting that 'all the answers are here' isn't qualified to make that
assertion either :-).

I kinda think that anyone who makes that sort of assertion simply
doesn't understand the situation. Or maybe I just don't understand the
statement in the way it was intended :-) :-) :-)

=Doug