When an unexpected thought came to the mystic Meister Eckhart (to whom God hid nothing) in a sermon, he called it a “revealed truth.” That might have been appropriate for him but for the rest of us there are some things better left unsaid. Revealed truth also has its corollary of revealed error.
Many years ago, in another lifetime, an astrologer told me I would say things just to test the reaction. She nailed that one. It’s hard not to do it when Kerry Cassidy or Sean Morton provides the laugh track. It is easy just to say something equally ridiculous. Still, you should be careful not to believe that it is true and only do it around someone with the same sense of humor.
Jo Ann Richards had that problem when she would casually say during an interview that Mark was a member of the Republican National Committee or talk about all the advanced degrees he had collected. I got the feeling that she would even astonish herself at some of the things she advanced as fact. She was off script, even by Mark Richards standards. To be fair, however, most people are closer to running at the mouth than espousing a revealed truth.
Perhaps it is easier to have a revealed truth when speaking about God. I won’t argue with Añjali when when she makes pronouncements about her spiritual beliefs. I will argue with her when she’s says she met aliens in a nonexistent tunnel. That is where standards of evidence comes in, and how much credence should be given matters of spirit or messages from higher beings. If you can’t substantiate what can be known, how seriously should any of it be taken?
I recently went on a rant inspired by my own positive Covid isolation and ruminated on the relationship between tricksters and the sutras. I don’t think my wife believed any of it was a revealed truth and it’s hard to remember what part of the dharma was being espoused. Even writing this blog entry might be an example of a presumptuous post, albeit one that does not claim any special understanding. It comes down to considering the source.