Hi D, Gustl and List...We
keep the daily Zen Calendar in plain view. Maybe some funky sayings
every now and then, but it does provide some small, daily reminder of our center
and source of true vision. Today's quote seems especially apropriate to
this post: "Beginners, make your will firm and strong; twenty-four hours a day,
wield the sword of positive energy to overcome demons and curses, cutting off
psychological afflictions. Look continuously into a saying, and you will
spontaneously discover the light of mind, containing heaven and earth, every
land completely revealed."-- Chien-Ju. I don't know who was Chien-Ju, but
it doesn't matter. The substance of the words are the point. Hope
this helps. Mike DuPree
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Mindock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 2:01
AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness
(Was Hypnosis as AnesthesiaWasTestimonials as Evidence)
> It really does not take much effort to experience the mystical. The less
> effort you put into it, the more readily it'll occur. I'm thinking of
> meditation, of course. I remember my first meditative experience.
> I was given a mantra to use, one specially for me.
> It was wonderfully relaxing and when I got up to leave, I could
> hardly walk, I was so relaxed. I had a huge amount of job stress
> in those days and that first experience got rid of a lot of it. Now,
> many years later, I know about those mystical experiences. There're
> not something abstract, but very real.
> Anyway, meditation is the most direct way to higher states of
> consciousness
> that I know. The effort required is minimal and the payoff is phenomenal.
> Only thing required is a desire to get to know your real Self.
> Peace & light, D. Mindock
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gustl Steiner-Zehender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Michael Friebel" <biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Closed-Mindedness (Was Hypnosis as Anesthesia
> WasTestimonials as Evidence)
>
>
> Hallo Michael,
>
> I may be running on assumptions here and you appear to me to be
> running on some assumptions, but I do realize that assumptions are
> only that and nothing more and may be false. Perhaps it is just a
> matter of definitions or perception. I will give both of us the
> benefit of the doubt. :o)
>
> I was born into, raised as and am presently a member of a mystical
> religion, that being Friends (Quakers). We had a schism back in the
> early 1800's here in the states and my family ended up on the
> "Hicksite" side of the thing. Outwardly conservative and inwardly
> liberal. Hicks once stated the following:
>
> "Now I want these things to sink deep into the heart of every age, sex
> and condition. Be willing to investigate for yourselves; don't mind
> what I say, or what any one else may say, but bring things home to the
> truth in your own bosoms; turn them over and over, and see if there is
> not something in them worthy of preservation--and if there is not,
> leave them. I say, I want you to investigate for yourselves; for we
> have that liberty, in this land of liberty. We have a right to think
> for ourselves, about what we know to be the truth in ourselves, and
> nothing but the truth...Oh! then, that we may become willing to turn
> inward to what the light makes manifest...Whatsoever is wrong is
> reproved by this light, and all things that are reproveable we know,
> for they are made manifest by the light; clearly so. And it is
> reasonable to conclude that without light, nothing can be made
> manifest. But when we come into the light of the Lord, all things
> will be made manifest, when the mind is willing, and the heart is
> disposed to receive God in the way of his coming. I feel earnest in
> my desires for us, that we may this evening lay these things properly
> to heart. I hope you will take these things home, my friends, and not
> be hasty in deciding, but turn them over in your minds, and if you can
> find any thing in them, well, and if not leave them." (Gould 1830)
>
> If this isn't the mystical equivalent of the scientific method then I
> will eat my hat (either straw or felt).
>
> It uses operational terms, allows for experimental duplication and
> repeatability, calls for emperical observation and induction, uses
> analytic-synthetic thinking, allows for prediction and falsification
> and the conclusions come from a "scientific" public consensus of
> truth.
>
> While all of this is not readily observable from the small paragraph
> above, it is if one takes the time to get acquainted with Friends
> beliefs (or those of other branches of mystics). You should be able
> to get the sense of it from the paragraph above though.
>
> But brother, we haven't defined out terms. You claim mystical
> experience is unverifiable but it is verifiable to anyone with the
> right tools and interest. If I were to tell you that the existence of
> atoms is unverifiable you would tell me that I just don't have the
> right tools and expect me to accept that. Same same mystical
> experience brother. Goose, gander. Because a person does not pursue
> one particular path does not obviate the existence of that path nor
> does it make that path irrelevant. And you can "analyze, criticize, or
> accept anything pertaining to it, including its existence" IF you care
> to take the trouble to examine it thoroughly. But one size does not
> fit all and if a person doesn't have the interest then there will be
> no investigation. I would urge caution however to those making
> pronouncements about something they have not investigated thoroughly
> and I would also not dismiss something solely because it was
> subjective. Headaches are subjective brother. :o)
>
> And again, mystical experience can be verified if one has enough
> interest to take the time (and it is a long process) to investigate.
>
> Now brother, for this bit:
>
> "It is possible to have knowledge which comes through a route other
> than the senses."
>
> This is where the time comes in in the investigation. It is not
> "magical" at all. The concept of truth is associated with wisdom and
> facts with knowledge. Truth never changes but facts do. In order to
> understand how one comes by knowledge through routes other than the
> senses requires a persons time and experimentation. It is not
> demonstrable by another and there is no equation I know of which will
> show it. It is entirely subjective. Once one has had the experience
> however it can be spoken of with others having had the same experience
> rationally and intelligently. To simply discount it because one has
> not had the experience is an error akin to discounting snow because
> one has never seen it.
>
> Since the mystical experience is subjective (as is the headache) it is
> not incumbent on mystics to "prove" anything. There is a great body
> of literature out there which can get very "technical" about the
> mystical experience but it only really hints at the thing. Real
> knowledge comes from the actual, subjective experience of the thing
> and that requires time, interest and effort. Because most folks are
> neither willing to nor interested in putting forth the effort does not
> make the experience irrelevant or false. Religion and science should
> walk hand-in-hand. It would keep both more honest.
>
> Happy Happy,
>
> Gustl
>
> Friday, 06 October, 2006, 20:13:22, you wrote:
>
> ...snip...
> MF> "If you had ever had a mystical experience you would
> MF> not ask this."
>
> MF> Mystical (unverifiable) experience can only be
> MF> relevant to the person who experiences it. If another
> MF> claims such experience, I can't analyze, criticize, or
> MF> accept anything pertaining to it, including its
> MF> existence. If I had such an experience, I can't
> MF> expect anyone else to acknowledge it in any way. It
> MF> is a purely subjective phenomenon that is completely
> MF> irrelevant to all but the one who claims it.
>
> MF> Note that I do not have to doubt the reality of the
> MF> perception of a mystical claim; i.e. I do not have to
> MF> consider someone who claims to have had a mystical
> MF> experience to be lying. I simply cannot verify or
> MF> know anything about its reality outside of the
> MF> perception.
>
> MF> "It is possible to have knowledge which comes through
> MF> a route other than the senses."
>
> MF> If so, then how is this other way not a sense? What
> MF> meaningfully differentiates it from our "ordinary"
> MF> senses? If I could perceive through some new
> MF> "magical" way, wouldn't it simply be just another
> MF> sense regardless of how extraordinary? How would what
> MF> I perceived through it be anything other than reality?
> MF> By whatever way (sense) I am able to perceive
> MF> something, if it is verifiable, then it is reality.
> MF> If it isn't verifiable, then it is irrelevant to all
> MF> but me (and is truely of limited use).
>
> MF> "We have also grandly blundered by it. Don't forget
> MF> this fact. The fact that others do not compete with
> MF> this grandiose assumption does not mean that there is
> MF> nothing outside the box."
>
> MF> Blundered in what way? By how we've used the fruits
> MF> of science? Such is outside of the realm of science.
> MF> Science is merely a tool of investigation. What we do
> MF> with our knowledge is of another domain. By mistaken
> MF> conclusions? This is a normal & unavoidable part of
> MF> the scientific method, let alone any investigative
> MF> effort. The grand beauty of science is that it
> MF> possesses built-in self-correcting machinery that
> MF> allows it to automatically correct itself in time.
> MF> That's the key. Where less formal thinking fails for
> MF> lesser or dogmatic thoughts, science prevails--in
> MF> time.
>
> MF> The bottom-line is that this "grandiose assumption"
> MF> works while nothing else we know of does. This does
> MF> not mean there isn't anything "outside of the box,"
> MF> although if there is something "outside of the box" it
> MF> will be in the box once discovered.
>
> MF> "Although your mind may require proof for your
> MF> acceptance, does this mean that TRUTH depends on proof
> MF> for its existence? In an ultimate sense is it absolute
> MF> or is it always relative?"
>
> MF> Any meaningful truth depends solely upon the evidence
> MF> available. The concept of objective or absolute
> MF> ontological truth is meaningless for we have no way of
> MF> verifying, let alone recognizing, such a thing. It
> MF> stands upon nothing demonstrable. For this reason,
> MF> nothing is more relative than a claimed
> MF> objective/absolute truth. Essentially, there are as
> MF> many absolute truths for any one question as there are
> MF> persons alive who accept the concept. Nothing is more
> MF> relative. Worse, nothing is less conciliatory. At
> MF> least these "relative" truths discovered through
> MF> verifiable experience are claims tangible to all of
> MF> us, thus allowing for real discussion, understanding,
> MF> & compromise, as well as further investigation.
> MF> Frictions between verifiable truths are easily
> MF> alleviated; frictions between "absolute" truths can
> MF> only be tolerated.
> ...snip...
> --
> Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns.
> ********
> We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails.
> ********
> The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope,
> soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones,
> without signposts.
> C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters"
> ********
> Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen,
> daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht
> gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden.
> ********
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't
> hear the music.
> George Carlin
> ********
> The best portion of a good man's life -
> His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love.
> William Wordsworth
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>
>
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
