Post by Hansen Young on Aug 1, 2015 21:56:57 GMT
1. Why are Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
Having attained a high level of mastery over surat shabd yoga and conscious descent into near-death experiences, Faqir Chand can be said as speaking from a position of experience when he denounces other mystics, gurus, masters, etc and their claims of omnipotence/omniscience. His views on his own appearances to his followers is also enlightening, as it is not often one finds the opportunity to actually speak to the subject of visions people have. His own recounting that he wasn't personally aware of his appearances to his followers in their visions seems to support the theory that visions come from within instead of “with-out”, and that experience color the beholders of visions. Only his followers saw him in their visions. Seeing as we can't interview Yeshua or Yahweh and the validity of their appearances to Christian followers, I'd say Faqir Chand's experiences are the best we can hope for as evidence in the projective nature of religious visions and miracles.
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
I'm reminded of the quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Everyone can form an opinion, but unless that opinion is rooted in reality and supported by concrete evidence, it remain an opinion instead of rising up to the category of “fact”. Similarly, everyone is theoretically free to philosophize in whatever manner they choose, but unless they do so in such a way as to rely on current understanding of sciences and reality, as well as being formulated to be testable and able to withstand challenges, they might as well call it quackery. On the other hand, philosophy done well is science because that's exactly what it uses to support its findings and direct its future endeavors.
Having attained a high level of mastery over surat shabd yoga and conscious descent into near-death experiences, Faqir Chand can be said as speaking from a position of experience when he denounces other mystics, gurus, masters, etc and their claims of omnipotence/omniscience. His views on his own appearances to his followers is also enlightening, as it is not often one finds the opportunity to actually speak to the subject of visions people have. His own recounting that he wasn't personally aware of his appearances to his followers in their visions seems to support the theory that visions come from within instead of “with-out”, and that experience color the beholders of visions. Only his followers saw him in their visions. Seeing as we can't interview Yeshua or Yahweh and the validity of their appearances to Christian followers, I'd say Faqir Chand's experiences are the best we can hope for as evidence in the projective nature of religious visions and miracles.
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
I'm reminded of the quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Everyone can form an opinion, but unless that opinion is rooted in reality and supported by concrete evidence, it remain an opinion instead of rising up to the category of “fact”. Similarly, everyone is theoretically free to philosophize in whatever manner they choose, but unless they do so in such a way as to rely on current understanding of sciences and reality, as well as being formulated to be testable and able to withstand challenges, they might as well call it quackery. On the other hand, philosophy done well is science because that's exactly what it uses to support its findings and direct its future endeavors.