--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Me: I think a perfectly rational atheist is as much a myth > as a person who just believes everything. We are all a mix > of mental abilities and this is necessary to live in the > world. None of us just believe anything presented to us, > we use the criteria that we are comfortable with and has > served us well to choose. > > I think this is important because it connects people with > different criteria for beliefs on a continuum instead of > seeing them as completely different kinds of people. It > takes some of the smugness out of people on each side of > the question.
Indeed. > Rationality is a tool we all use. We may suspend the need > for further proof in certain situations, but life is too > complex, with too many choices to just be one way or the > other. It's this "suspending the need for further proof" thing that interests me in all these conversations lately about "knowing." It's all well and good to say that each knowing just reveals a new mystery, but does it really work out that way in the lives of the seekers you know? That is, once they have a glimpse of a realization and believe that they "know" something as a result, or when they meet a teacher whose presence convinces them that when he or she tells them something, that they can then safely "know" that it's the truth -- do they keep examining the subject, or do they *stop* examining the subject, because now they "know?" My experience has been that a *lot* of people who claim to "know" a thing have just stopped examining that thing. Take the example of someone who has bought the claim that TM is the most effective form of meditation. There have been people on this forum and others who have said that the arguments put forth by Maharishi and TM teachers have convinced them intellectually that no other technique could possibly be more effective. Thus they "know" that TM is the most effective. But did they ever try another technique? Even one, just to test out what they "know?" I think I can safely assume that everyone here knows at least a few people within the TM move- ment for whom the answer to that question is "No." Once they had come to believe that they "knew" which technique was the most effective, they never even *thought* of trying another one. And then there are the people we meet here who *did* try other techniques of meditation. Some liked the others better; some went back to TM. I guess what I'm suggesting is that *sometimes* feeling that one "knows" some thing is used as an excuse to stop examining that thing, to just sit back and cruise, content with already "knowing." It doesn't *have* to happen this way, but often it does seem *to* happen this way...that's my only point. I'm not trying to badrap anyone here, and if any- one thinks I am, well just do this exercise before blasting off an angry reply. Think about something you "know." That could be that God exists, or that such-and-such is enlightened, or whatever. It doesn't really matter what it is that you "know," just as long as you "know" it. So, got one...something you "know?" Ok, now think back to the last time you questioned whether or not this thing was really true, or whether what you "know" about it already is all that there *is* to be known about it? Did you use your "knowingness" as a springboard to dive deeper into the thing and learn more about it, or did you just put it on the shelf with all the other things that you "know" for sure, the stuff you don't have to bother to think about any more because you already "know?" I have no answers for you...this is something you have to ask yourself, and determine for yourself. If you feel that "knowing" the things that you "know" has enabled you to stay as open to other ways of seeing things, or to deeper ways of seeing the same thing, then cool. All I'm saying is that I don't see that all that often in the people in spiritual traditions who talk about the things that they "know."
