--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > 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,
Oops. Looks like Barry actually read a post of mine. > but does it really work out that way in the lives > of the seekers you know? FWIW, in my post I said it was *my experience* that solving a mystery reveals new and bigger mysteries. I didn't claim it applied to everyone; I'm sure it does not. I was just suggesting to those who value "don't know" so highly that they don't even try to figure things out that this can be as limiting as feeling uncomfortable unless one has figured *everything* out. As I said in that post, nobody needs to worry that they're going to run out of mysteries. <snip> > 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. And others say it's their own experience of the technique that convinced them. > But did they ever try another technique? Even one, > just to test out what they "know?" It's perfectly reasonable to assume that testing out other techniques is necessary to make a valid evaluation, but in my observation and experience, that assumption is mistaken in this case. (And it may well be the *only* case of its kind.) Notwithstanding, I *did* experiment with other techniques just enough to see that they weren't competitive. It's not so much a matter of "this technique" vs. "that technique." It's a matter of exceedingly basic principles. But that's another discussion. <snip> > 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." It's important, however, not to define "being open to other ways of seeing things" to mean "agreeing with my way of seeing things."
