--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > It seems to me that many of the threads in the > last few days (as, in fact, many of the threads > throughout FFL's whole history) have dealt with > the same face-off between Faith and Proof. > > In the realm of "enlightenment," what we've seen > is a contingent here who seem to feel passion- > ately that requests for Proof are an affront to > their very sensibilities, and that Faith is the > only thing that matters. (This is even more cur- > ious coming from strong supporters of the TM > movement, whose founder was quite clear that he > believed that every state of consciousness -- > including enlightenment -- has its corollary > physiological counterpart, and thus can be proved).
As usual, you're presenting this in black-and- white terms (and clearly valuing the "proof" side above the "faith" side) when the reality is much more nuanced. For example, some of us (I for one) don't think it makes any more sense to demand proof of enlightenment than to demand proof that people have vivid fantasy experiences while they sleep. I'm not personally "affronted" by the demand for proof, I just think it's misconceived. And it's not that faith "is the only thing that matters" but that faith may be the only thing *possible*, MMY's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. I also think "faith" becomes something of a weasel word as used by TM critics; it's meant to be pejorative, implying belief without foundation, which is not the case for many of us on the no- proof-is-possible side. Objective proof is not the only possible basis for a reasonable foundation. <snip> > And for some, Faith *IS* "enough." They continue > to believe today the same stuff they were told 30 > or more years ago, and they believe it *without* > the benefit of any Proof. And interestingly these > people seem to think that the rest of us for whom > Faith is *NOT* "enough" are somehow weak or flawed > because we *need* Proof. They don't, after all. > They are content with Faith. Their *whole argument* > seems to be that we should have Faith, too. Then > everything would be OK and we skeptics would lose > these silly doubts and see the light the way they > have. Whole crowd of straw men in this paragraph, in the interests of painting those who are dubious about the possibility of proof as black as possible. > Well, to make one more connect-the-dots leap in > a post already full of them, isn't another way > of expressing this that they want us to do > what *they* did and just believe what was told > to them -- in "anecdotal stories" or by someone > they consider an "authority?" > > They believed Maharishi when he told them that > TM produced enlightenment. The fact that he told > them this was "enough." They have Faith that it > is true; no Proof is required. Same with Jyotish > and alternative medicine; if there are enough > "anecdotal stories," no Proof is required. Faith > is "enough." > > But is it? > > I have no conclusion to offer about any of this, > only the connect-the-dots nature of it all. Maybe > someone else here can come up with a conclusion... Maybe if you allowed shades of gray in your dots, you'd have more sensible connections to make.
