The average monk believes what he's told to believe. He's hardly going to dismiss all that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition as false evidence, which is what it all is.

Yes, Steve, I have acknowledged several points where I think you have been quite fair. However, the above statement is rather incontrovertibly black-and-white, I believe. What you call "false evidence" has worked very well for many very wise people over the last two or three millennia - but not as "evidence." All "that biblical stuff, all that witness, all those edicts of holy men and all that tradition" is the context of one belief system - within which one can explore "what is within and what is beyond" and view it all as sacred. All that stuff is meant to convey a sense of the sacred, not to convey "evidence." To me, life is an exploration, with very few absolutes. And that's OK by me.

Now, the "evidence" and "proof" are essential tools when we explore on a scientific level, which is also a valid and necessary level of exploration - but not the only level. When you explore the essence of things and what is beyond all things, poetry and myth and ritual and tradition are the essential tools.

-Joe-