This came from a talk given by an expert on Vastu sent by MMY to the MUM campus to review the campus some years ago. Actually, I think it may have been asuras, and not devas. I don't remember very well. Anyway, this seemed to be coming, not from MMY, but from the traditional understanding of Vastu that predated MMY's interest in it.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IN all honesty, Ihave yet to hear an official TM explanation of SV > that involved devas. Orientation to the sun is all Ihave heard. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the explanation. But of course as soon > > > as > > > > we enter the domain of "devas" we've got problems > > > > Houston within a scientific paradigm. Not that I'm > > > > dismissing such an explanation, just that it hangs > > > in > > > > the air as a myth until it can be quantified. And > > > we > > > > are very far from that right now! > > > > > > But that's exactly what this myth does: it provides > > > a basis for quantification. From it we can > > > construct > > > testable hypotheses, e.g., people who live in homes > > > with south-facing entrances will die at younger ages > > > than those in homes with entrances facing in other > > > directions. > > > > I think two things are confounded here. There are the > > empirical findings that correlate south facing > > entranced homes with greater diseases, deaths, etc., > > compared to north facing entranced homes. These are > > empirical facts if the research is done right. Then > > there are the explanatory concepts that either link > > the empirical findings back into known science or a > > new explanatory construct is created (such as in the > > 1% stuff) because it is the best and only way to > > explain the findings. This, of course, is much more > > difficult to do (and what the TMO has failed to do > > with the 1% research. But the new construct must > > attempt to link or bridge known science to the new > > explanatory paradigm. The new construct must "make > > sense" within a scientific zeitgeist. The new > > explanatory construct is a myth and functions as a > > metaphor if this is not done. Right now, to talk about > > self-conscious, non-physical entities (i.e., devas) > > governing directional quadrants on a piece of property > > is just a cultural belief from India. It is very, very > > far away from explaining research findings that > > haven't even been completed yet! > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
