Septic tank maintenance, as you put it, and legitimate tantra that doesn't mind hanging out in the charnel grounds and embraces the fullness of human experience...how can you be sure you know the difference?
-
-
The problem with gnostic knowledge is not its content, but the positive confidence without evidence. We can have as much content as we want, but must only assign confidence to them according to the evidential support, which esoteric practice and religion reject.
-
The claim that gnostic knowledge is inherently rejecting of observable evidence is just not true. You can find competent teachers who won't ever ask you to believe anything. They will give you specific instructions on how to use your attention, and ask you to see what happens.
-
Certain kinds of knowledge are inherently experiential: the only evidence you can possibly get for them is through experience. If I said that you can feel pain on your head, the only way to know that I'm right is to hit yourself on the head and remove all doubt that this is true
-
That's not to say contemplatives never make claims without evidence. Far from it. Scientists also make claims without evidence. What makes science great is that it doesn't matter who makes the claim. What matters is whether their results are reproducible.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.