Post by Shubo Chen on Jul 29, 2016 20:46:04 GMT
1. Why is Faqir Chand's experiences important in understanding the projective nature of religious visions and miracles?
According to the book “The unknowing sage,” Faqir Chand said “Whatever you gain, you gain it as per your own faith and belief. (5)” He also gives an example about how different people as different roles in a family see a woman, and gets different kinds of love from her. Her son gets motherly love, her husband gets a wife’s love. He means this is all based on our own knowledge or understanding, and it was already there. From the book, “When you identify yourself with the body as in jagrat, you see gross objects; when in subtle body or in mental plane as in svapna, you see objects equally subtle. (12)” He gives an example from the Bible about a woman curing from Jesus. Chand believes that religious visions is created by individuals and it is based on faith and concentration of zealous devotees. This book really gives me a reasoning explain about my personal question about religious vision. I have been thinking about what Chand talked about for a while, and I thought maybe I was the only one who think things in this way， but Chand gives me a more detail thinking about how people see things are all based on knowing, knowledge and faith.
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
According to the book “Circle of the wise,” “ Philosophical tradition that takes the natural sciences very seriously and that would be the tradition.” It explains that people who study for philosophy with serious attitude with science and some philosopher knows as much science as it was possible to know (11) or William Wimsatt sees philosophical problems about science that other people do not see. Science is the truth of this universe, and philosopher study to reaching the truth, and it is science itself. Therefore, if philosopher do well, they are just like doing science. “It is suspicious of and supercilious toward natural science. (9)” Matson pointed this out. Philosophy is not just “philosophy, it is a subject around truth.” Professor from U.C. Irvine, Woodruff said “I would disagree with those who think that philosophy is not continuous with science. (10)” From this, I understand that philosophy and science are continuous with each other, and they are both searching for truth.
According to the book “The unknowing sage,” Faqir Chand said “Whatever you gain, you gain it as per your own faith and belief. (5)” He also gives an example about how different people as different roles in a family see a woman, and gets different kinds of love from her. Her son gets motherly love, her husband gets a wife’s love. He means this is all based on our own knowledge or understanding, and it was already there. From the book, “When you identify yourself with the body as in jagrat, you see gross objects; when in subtle body or in mental plane as in svapna, you see objects equally subtle. (12)” He gives an example from the Bible about a woman curing from Jesus. Chand believes that religious visions is created by individuals and it is based on faith and concentration of zealous devotees. This book really gives me a reasoning explain about my personal question about religious vision. I have been thinking about what Chand talked about for a while, and I thought maybe I was the only one who think things in this way， but Chand gives me a more detail thinking about how people see things are all based on knowing, knowledge and faith.
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy."
According to the book “Circle of the wise,” “ Philosophical tradition that takes the natural sciences very seriously and that would be the tradition.” It explains that people who study for philosophy with serious attitude with science and some philosopher knows as much science as it was possible to know (11) or William Wimsatt sees philosophical problems about science that other people do not see. Science is the truth of this universe, and philosopher study to reaching the truth, and it is science itself. Therefore, if philosopher do well, they are just like doing science. “It is suspicious of and supercilious toward natural science. (9)” Matson pointed this out. Philosophy is not just “philosophy, it is a subject around truth.” Professor from U.C. Irvine, Woodruff said “I would disagree with those who think that philosophy is not continuous with science. (10)” From this, I understand that philosophy and science are continuous with each other, and they are both searching for truth.
