--- In [email protected], maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > Put it this way (I realize I am interpreting Aquinas on behalf of Aquinas: I wish he could tell us directly what he meant; still I feel confident in being his spokesman!): his straw comment would be the same as someone who (let's go to the East for this one) say, had studied the Bhagavad Gita carefully and faithfullyand had intellectually absorbed its entire meaning and significance, such that this person could be considered in academic terms, *the* authority on the Bhagavad Gita. > > Now this person has never had any kind of mystical experience which would enable him/her to verify the truth of the Gita. He/she is then initiated into Transcendental Meditationand has the maximal pantheistic experienceperfect transcendence, bliss, unboundedness. > > He/she might then say, in comparison to what he/she had just experienced: all his/her writings seem like straw. > > But you see, this would not impugn the significance of those writings at all. And certainly would not bring into question the truthfulness of what he/she had written.
Wish I had time to read more, (and hope to be able to), but I like this part. And it seems to me to be a reasonable perspective. I don't know if it is accurate or not, but certainly plausible.
