Knowledge is Based on Faith part
Wed, 01/30/2008 - 12:20 — admin
TEACHER: Then they are hypocrites! If they really believed there is value only in what one experiences himself, they would not bother to write anything. Writing is an attempt to convey one’s own thoughts and experiences to others. The very fact they publish books indicates they aren’t convinced of their own philosophy.
Let’s ignore their hypocrisy, though, and concentrate on the idea itself, namely, that a person should only rely on what he directly perceives. Why, this is just another type of faith! They have faith in their senses! But can we trust the senses? I think not. We’ve already seen that our senses may trick us.
MICHAEL: Some of them don’t have faith in the senses, either. They question everything, even their own existence.
TEACHER: This is the apex of skepticism, and it is simply meaningless word jugglery. “Who is it,” I ask myself, “that doubts that I exist?” “Why, it is I myself!” Therefore, I exist.
Everything we know, Michael, is based on a type of faith.
MICHAEL: Criticism from the point of faith doesn’t seem to hold any weight-provided, I would presume, that you can establish the validity of the individual descending processes themselves.
TEACHER: That is not so difficult to do. Obviously, it’s not an impossible task for a being who is all-powerful to be able to reveal Himself to the denizens of this universe. If He chooses to make information about Himself available to us in the form of a book, is that anything extraordinary? Or if He chooses to convey intimate truths about His eternal nature by means of His most confidential servants, should we think it too difficult an undertaking for Him? And finally, can we not expect that so powerful and wondrous a being should be able to directly communicate to each of us within the depths of our hearts?
Through reason and discrimination we can come to this point of understanding, but we cannot go one step further. To know that God exists and that He can reveal Himself to me must be seen as the best fruit which the tree of empiricism can produce.
It is at this point, with the ripened fruit of empiricism in hand, that one can step onto the platform of well-grounded faith-faith which cements reason and revelation into an inseparable bond.
Some philosophers and theologians have wrongfully concluded that revelation and reason do not touch bases, but that they are separated by the chasm of faith. One must therefore take a “leap of faith”13 from the precipice of reason to that of revelation. This is not actually the case. There is no question of giving up reason.
MICHAEL: Within myself I feel the truth in what you speak, as I now feel a type of faith. I must admit that I don’t know any more about God than when I first came here, but what you’ve helped me achieve is the removal of a major obstacle from my pathway, and for that I am very grateful. I feel that you have knowledge about the Supreme Being, and I hope that you will continue to help me in my own quest for such knowledge.
TEACHER: As I told you when our conversations first began, Michael, I will help you in whatever way I can. It is not simply my speaking that has removed the first obstacle from your path, however, but your own sincerity.
A fake guru wants his followers to believe that he is God Himself — that’s why he tries to impress them with his mystic powers. If the disciple of a phony guru were to express doubts about his guru’s lordship, the guru would surely be angered. So how did Brahma react when Narada asked the questions, “Under whose protection are you standing? And under whom are you working? What is your real position?” And how did he react when Narada asked, “Yet we are moved to wonder about the existence of someone more powerful than you when we think of your great austerities in perfect discipline”? In response, Brahmaji was not angry. In fact, he was extremely pleased.MICHAEL: I’ve seen it in their writings.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
TEACHER: Then they are hypocrites! If they really believed there is value only in what one experiences himself, they would not bother to write anything. Writing is an attempt to convey one’s own thoughts and experiences to others. The very fact they publish books indicates they aren’t convinced of their own philosophy.
Let’s ignore their hypocrisy, though, and concentrate on the idea itself, namely, that a person should only rely on what he directly perceives. Why, this is just another type of faith! They have faith in their senses! But can we trust the senses? I think not. We’ve already seen that our senses may trick us.
MICHAEL: Some of them don’t have faith in the senses, either. They question everything, even their own existence.
TEACHER: This is the apex of skepticism, and it is simply meaningless word jugglery. “Who is it,” I ask myself, “that doubts that I exist?” “Why, it is I myself!” Therefore, I exist.
Everything we know, Michael, is based on a type of faith.
MICHAEL: Criticism from the point of faith doesn’t seem to hold any weight-provided, I would presume, that you can establish the validity of the individual descending processes themselves.
TEACHER: That is not so difficult to do. Obviously, it’s not an impossible task for a being who is all-powerful to be able to reveal Himself to the denizens of this universe. If He chooses to make information about Himself available to us in the form of a book, is that anything extraordinary? Or if He chooses to convey intimate truths about His eternal nature by means of His most confidential servants, should we think it too difficult an undertaking for Him? And finally, can we not expect that so powerful and wondrous a being should be able to directly communicate to each of us within the depths of our hearts?
Through reason and discrimination we can come to this point of understanding, but we cannot go one step further. To know that God exists and that He can reveal Himself to me must be seen as the best fruit which the tree of empiricism can produce.
It is at this point, with the ripened fruit of empiricism in hand, that one can step onto the platform of well-grounded faith-faith which cements reason and revelation into an inseparable bond.
Some philosophers and theologians have wrongfully concluded that revelation and reason do not touch bases, but that they are separated by the chasm of faith. One must therefore take a “leap of faith”13 from the precipice of reason to that of revelation. This is not actually the case. There is no question of giving up reason.
MICHAEL: Within myself I feel the truth in what you speak, as I now feel a type of faith. I must admit that I don’t know any more about God than when I first came here, but what you’ve helped me achieve is the removal of a major obstacle from my pathway, and for that I am very grateful. I feel that you have knowledge about the Supreme Being, and I hope that you will continue to help me in my own quest for such knowledge.
TEACHER: As I told you when our conversations first began, Michael, I will help you in whatever way I can. It is not simply my speaking that has removed the first obstacle from your path, however, but your own sincerity.