You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[I-Ching]

Wait... so to discern a bona fide teacher, you need to be properly educated in the shastras...

... but to be properly educated in the shastras, you need a bona fide teacher...

... but to discern a bona fide teacher, you need to be properly educated in the shastras...

Do you see any problem with this arrangement?

It not a black and white process. You can learn about science to some extent from a text book but to become expert you need a teacher. In the same way you learn from sastra to some extent without a Guru and the third party the sadhu can also help you.

How could you ever know when this happens? Your determination of whether your understanding is correct, but if your understanding isn't correct, it could allow you to come to a faulty conclusion (e.g. that your understanding is correct when it really isn't).

The Guru knows if your understanding is incorrect. He is not only dependent on mundane ways of knowing. He is connected with God in the heart and is therefore omniscient to some extent.

But deductive reasoning can never be any more valid than its initial premises, so in any system where you can't test those premises, you can never be sure if they're valid or not.

All reasoning is based on some premise. Our premise is that God exists and yours is that you know reality through your senses. Yours is obviously wrong.

But your argument implies that learning from a teacher is not only superior, but that it's a flawless process. That's what I disagree with.

That is your argument, not mine. First of all I am saying that you can't have perfect knowledge through science. I don't think anyone disputes that.
Secondly I am saying that is it possible to have perfect knowledge by the descending process. If you accept the premise that God exists I don't think you can argue that it is beyond His power to make it possible.

 

[I-Ching]

I also highly doubt the existence of 'perfect knowledge'.

And I suppose you are putting this forward as perfect knowledge?

 

[I-Ching]

God is that higher authority. God is perfect and his Knowledge is perfect. Human knowledge is insignificant in comparison. God comes to this world Himself or he sends his representatives to impart that Knowledge to us.

I would also like to know how I-Ching knows this..

I know this from the Vedas.
"Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion — at that time I descend Myself." Bhagavad-Gita 4.7

 

[I-Ching]

I accept that the descending process of obtaining knowledeg is also problematic. But I would contend that:
A) the descending process is superior to ascending process
B) It is possible to have perfect knowledge through the descending process if you accept the axiom that God exists, which means that the source is prefect and the conduits can be empowered to become perfect.
C) As opposed to science where the source of your knowledge is fundamentally imperfect and therefore perfect knowledge can never be obtained. Even quantum theory speculates that there are many dimensions.

For example even in science the descending process is used most of time due to its superiority. Most of your knowledge is gained by hearing from other scientists who are authorities. It is only when you reach the edge of that knowledge that you resort to the slow and laborious ascending process.

Practically we can see that religion in this age is a bit of mess and therefore conclude that either God does not exist or the descending process has broken down. It is a fact that there is a lack of Guru's in the real sense of the word and a great number of cheaters. The cheaters proliferate because the seekers are insincere and therefore want to be cheated, God then sends them a cheater. Those that are real Guru's are often inaccessible. You can not rely on the inner-guru until you are significantly spiritually advanced. My solution to the problem is to use the I-Ching to communicate with my Guru. In that way I have unlimited access to a pure Guru.

 

[ScottySatan]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
quote]

I have to say, I find your posts extremely maddening. You can't be argued with. You are kryptonite. You bother me much more than anyone here should, and it's fantastic. I love you. Well done. I look forward to reading more in the future.

 

[averageJOE]

I accept that the descending process of obtaining knowledeg is also problematic. But I would contend that:
A) the descending process is superior to ascending process
B) It is possible to have perfect knowledge through the descending process if you accept the axiom that God exists, which means that the source is prefect and the conduits can be empowered to become perfect.
C) As opposed to science where the source of your knowledge is fundamentally imperfect and therefore perfect knowledge can never be obtained. Even quantum theory speculates that there are many dimensions.

For example even in science the descending process is used most of time due to its superiority. Most of your knowledge is gained by hearing from other scientists who are authorities. It is only when you reach the edge of that knowledge that you resort to the slow and laborious ascending process.

Practically we can see that religion in this age is a bit of mess and therefore conclude that either God does not exist or the descending process has broken down. It is a fact that there is a lack of Guru's in the real sense of the word and a great number of cheaters. The cheaters proliferate because the seekers are insincere and therefore want to be cheated, God then sends them a cheater. Those that are real Guru's are often inaccessible. You can not rely on the inner-guru until you are significantly spiritually advanced. My solution to the problem is to use the I-Ching to communicate with my Guru. In that way I have unlimited access to a pure Guru.

Well, if the two of us were ever in an violent accident where we both have large holes in our abdomens with our guts hanging out, you use your I-Ching and I'll use medical science and we'll see who comes out alive.

 

[I-Ching]

Well, if the two of us were ever in an violent accident where we both have large holes in our abdomens with our guts hanging out, you use your I-Ching and I'll use medical science and we'll see who comes out alive.

I would only be in a violent accident due to using the scientists technology to begin with. I was chronically ill for 8 years and allopathy could do nothing for me. I cured myself with the I-Ching and Ayurveda. Ayurveda was curing people of small-pox in 1500 BCE according to the Wiki.

 

[I-Ching]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
quote]

I have to say, I find your posts extremely maddening. You can't be argued with. You are kryptonite. You bother me much more than anyone here should, and it's fantastic. I love you. Well done. I look forward to reading more in the future.

Thanks :bow:. Everything I know is only by the mercy of my Guru's. I can take no credit.

 

[jarofthoughts]

And I suppose you are putting this forward as perfect knowledge?

Then you would suppose wrong.
I'm not denying it.
I'm doubting it.

Difference.

Just like, as an atheist, I do not claim that there is no god.
I'm doubting the existence of one due to lack of evidence.

 

[Father Heathen]

This whole thread in a nutshell.

 

[I-Ching]

Then you would suppose wrong.
I'm not denying it.
I'm doubting it.

Difference.

Just like, as an atheist, I do not claim that there is no god.
I'm doubting the existence of one due to lack of evidence.

My argument is based on the axiom that God exists. If you accept this then there is no reason why He can't give us perfect knowledge.

 

[averageJOE]

This whole thread in a nutshell.

It is. I read every post and the reasoning just goes in circles.

 

[I-Ching]

It is. I read every post and the reasoning just goes in circles.

The reasoning is based on the axiom that God exists, something that you no doubt struggle with, such reasoning may be a bit foreign.

 

[Otherright]

I'm not making a spiritual argument here, I'm making a rational one. You can't call science absolute knowledge. If you do, you are being just a gullible as you assume a theist is.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not making a spiritual argument here, I'm making a rational one. You can't call science absolute knowledge. If you do, you are being just a gullible as you assume a theist is.

lol at the disclaimer before your statement.

 

[Otherright]

They have several methods of determining distance and it verifies itself when those different methods give relatively the same answer. Same goes for dating methods of rocks.

Yes, they do, and most use a basis formed by parallax for the initial measurements.

 

[I-Ching]

Y
This is ultimately why I believe (perhaps even contrary to I-Ching) that inner Guru is 'place to be' - place to find Trust, use Reason, experience Life.

I love your posts here but I don't agree about the inner Guru. If we are tied up only one who is free can release us. We are tied by the ropes of illusion and therefore we can not untie ourselves. Because our hearts are covered with karma from many lifetimes only when that karma is significantly cleared can we reliably connect with the inner Guru.

 

[Otherright]

lol at the disclaimer before your statement.

I don't know, man. Maybe too many years in philosophy, or too many Hellenism courses. I don't take many things to be genuine knowledge. With the exception of a few, you've really go to show me you are making the proper observations and that the method is sound for me to even believe that the sun is coming up today.

Most people rely to much on religion. Those who forsake religion, rely too much on science. At the fundamental core, I really don't see a hell of a whole lot of difference between either of them.

Once you get passed the basics of either, you are really just relying on the observations and methods of others to form your world view.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't know, man. Maybe too many years in philosophy, or too many Hellenism courses. I don't take many things to be genuine knowledge. With the exception of a few, you've really go to show me you are making the proper observations and that the method is sound for me to even believe that the sun is coming up today.

Most people rely to much on religion. Those who forsake religion, rely too much on science. At the fundamental core, I really don't see a hell of a whole lot of difference between either of them.

Once you get passed the basics of either, you are really just relying on the observations and methods of others to form your world view.

I'll have to look into Hellenism. Funny in the sense that you actually
have to state that, especially since you've taken courses like that.

 

[Otherright]

I'll have to look into Hellenism. Funny in the sense that you actually
have to state that, especially since you've taken courses like that.

Well, its a major branch of philosophy. I'm simply setting the tone of the statement. What I said was very Hellenistic. You have to remember, the focal schools of thought in Hellenism are Skepticism, Cynicism, Stoicism, and Nihilism.

You'll see me mention, in other posts, epistemology when making statements about truth and what we know and how we can know it.