benzyme said:
believe what you will...but if you're going to claim a belief system is a science, then you'd better be prepared to show some evidence and references to support your claim. else, it most certainly is pseudoscience and subject to intense scrutiny.
I am not personally claiming that metaphysics and modern science are the same system of belief, let alone the ancient Tantric and Yogic cosmologies. The Vedic Indians, achieved scientific breakthroughs long before the Europeans were even civilized. The Aryans, who mingled with the Dravidians, had their Sanskrit name for science, "Shaastra". They pragmatically and methodically recorded their observations and revelations in the Vedantic literature which they wrote down. 3000 years later this is not exactly an intelligible scientific text, by exact definition but nothing to sweep away as it if were meaningless dribble or the fantasy of the gullible and unintelligent.
Ayurveda can be translated as “science of life” and it predates the current concept of
science by several thousand years. The very name of their linguistic system,
Sanskrit, means "language brought to formal perfection". Considerable thought went into it's formulation and the interplay of it's intentional sonic effects upon the human psyche. The recitation of it's wording does indeed alter the consciousness of the speaker and listener, as they act as mantras upon the mind of the user. Only and only if there is a receptivity to it's powerful trans formative effects, but of course.
So in all fairness, a science which involves subjective experience for a central axis, is no less a science. It's certainly a matter of perspective and a series of journeys into the
Unified Field of Being. And assuredly, its' a solo journey, at that. You demand sources and references? There is a lot of material but I think we all know this is not what you are referring to? Your challenging tone makes the definitive implication that you suspect there are no verifiable references or any reliable evidence.
The Rig Vedas are composed, yes composed, in prose. They are essentially revelatory and highly ritualized hymns to the Deity/Deities of their era. The Upanishads are far better for Western minds to accept and glean wisdom from, so I could recommend reading one of the many translations but this is hardly proof or evidence.
To insist that an ancient science adapt to a modern science is fruitless, as modern science largely ignores anything but the gross material plane of existence. You are projecting your viewpoint upon this situation, given your demand for "evidence and references". Any novice scientist knows that today's latest scientific breakthroughs in discovery, are tomorrow's superseded and most outmoded theoretical antiquities.
Any paradigm is limited by the mentality which crafted it. Despite the acclaim and contemporary favor, this is a relatively temporary ideological edge, which is gained. It will in time, also be replaced by new ideas, also scientifically derived by logical procedure. And for the sake of an
Open Discussion, we might see that not everything can be defined with reason and reason alone? It's almost as if you are covetous of the word SCIENCE. Maybe you're right about Tantra and Yoga being sciences, in the light of contemporary usage... I have to think about it further. But if so, the use of "Shaastra" could be utilized instead, which would lead to translation and semantical analysis. Eventually someone would just say, Shaastra means science, anyway. Flex a little, Buddy. That's all I ask.
benzyme said:
that being said, beliefs are a personal thing, and if a person was secure in his/her beliefs, he/she wouldn't get offended if someone challenged them.
You've used that one before, friend. This is hardly the case. In fact, it' a tired argument and not even close to being applicable to my response, in the very least. OK? You imply insecurity because one chooses to resist your dismissive attitude? We all get offended by another's arguments, from time to time. It's only human to do so. You seem genuinely offended by the use of the word science, so what's the big deal? I am certain that this is not born of insecurity, so why must you infer it of me and those who have had their precious, direct immersions into the insubstantial essence of the Godhead? Believe it or not, I do care what you think and I do not feel threatened at all, by your challenges, however predictable.
You err in logic by demanding that the spiritual experience be brought into a provable, objective context. It cannot be done. This does not, nor will it ever, mean that it is not as
real or in many cases, more real than anything which can be proven through logical deduction or scientific procedure. "Show me the evidence" is not a winning point in this debate,
benzyme, it is the declaration by yourself, that you have not experienced union with the Divine. The Oneness is not subject to being proven by some mathematical equation or newest quantum hypotheses, which may gain the most favor amongst the pseudo geniuses of the 21st century, scientific community.
Either you've seen the light... or you have not. I cannot prove my experience or the existence of God. I cannot give you or sell you or anyone else the experience. Nor would you necessarily want it given or sold to you. Hey, you might not be buying the whole idea and I can respect that. Some things are forevermore subject to interpretation and some things that we collectively speculate as objective fact, are just that,
speculations that can be procedurally conducted to yield definitive results.
I sincerely do applaud any method which can be reproduced through routine procedure but this cannot happen within the realm of the transcendental. This does not make it invalid or purely illusory, now does it? That's just fine for rational endeavors but again,
The Flight of the Wounded Healer is a solo trip. It's destination is the shattering of the ego and the realization of the inherent Omniself. The witness to the play of duality, the embrace of the universal unity in all things. "Different strokes for different folks."
Really, it's completely understandable to turn your challenges back at you, as I don't need to prove anything to anyone. No insecurities on this side of the looking glass, friend. I have spent more than 1/2 a century questioning everything I have encountered and I am not a groupie, cultist or extremist. We each receive our own unique perception of reality and this is as it should be. I honor yours but I don't enjoy the blatant dishonor directed upon the spiritually-inclined individuals in this forum, myself included.
Look, it's as simple as this, if you choose to play it safe by only respecting that which can be proven through procedural process and quantified by repeated testing... great! This is only applicable to physical objects and the material plane, which are ruled by our intellectual ideas about the fundamental laws of physics. There is so much more happening, here and now, than just our cherished human conceptions about the laws of quantum mechanics. There are an infinity of unknowables to this universe in which we exist and many of the laws we hold dearly are meaningless on alternate planes of being. I can't prove what I do not know, so I'll beat you to it... and admit I don't know how much else is out there or conversely, in here, within.
If you feel that any other entity in this multiverse is merely defensive and insecure, because they return your challenging vibe, you are most incorrect in such an assumption. And I am not being combative, brother. It's just that too much adherence to the activities born within the frontal cerebral cortex, block the immersion into the
Clear Light of the Void and that's not good for me or my devotion to Spirit. "To each their own."
www.livingworkshop.net
