--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Well, sure. But lots of anecdotal accounts > > accumulated over time ain't always chopped > > liver. That's the basis of folk medicine, > > after all, and quite a few of its prescriptions > > have turned out to be effective when they were > > tested scientifically. And you might want to be > > *very* careful even testing a substance that > > folk medicine warns is harmful. > > I agree. But since even Vedic medicine claims a divine, not > experimental origin,that is why I doubt that the mantras had > an experimental basis.
I suspect Ayur-Veda was a matter of experimental results that got engraved in stone and "certified" as divine, and that this is also what happened with the mantras. It starts with the assumption that some mantras > have a "bad' effect on subtle levels Does it? Or is it just a matter of which sounds work best? without any clear formulation of > what that actually means as a falsifiable claim. I think you could probably work it (in my version) into a falsifiable hypothesis using the benefits shown in the various TM studies as the criteria. I think that > Maharishi's innovation was to present the tradition as if it had > the kind of experimental basis he knew we would relate to. How many people would think that the modern scientific method was being used back in Vedic times? I mean, really...anybody with any sense would realize it would have had to have been anecdotal. I still like my idea that "sounds whose effects are known" refers to *all* the bija mantras as a whole, i.e., they all have good effects, whereas words like "mike" and so on would have little if any effect. > > Who knows, maybe there are meaningless sounds > > that have even better effects. But somebody > > has to come up with them before we can try > > them. The bija mantras are what the Indian > > culture came up with, and they seemed to work > > pretty well, so that's what we've got. I'm > > happy with mine, at any rate. > > Which for personal practice is all that matters. Plus I am not > against Maharishi's understanding of human physiology being used > in his teaching. It may be a useful belief to have for a new > student of meditation. And it may even be *true*. The guy was perceptive of how Westerners built their > beliefs. But since you probably transcend as soon as you close > your eyes by habit now (which even happens with my ragamuffin > nervous system!) Yup. > I can entertain this question about the claims. (Not sure of the connection you're making here.) > But pragmatically speaking if it ain't broke, I'm not > suggesting you try to "fix" it! If somebody came up with new 'uns and some basis for saying they're better, I might well have a shot.
