My comment was about your first sentence. The rest I didn't have time to parse but I will say you are correct that most other paths don't need scientific validation. I didn't start TM because of the "scientific studies" but to see if it worked. I suspect you didn't start because of those either. I think it is an excuse for making TM prices high.

On 10/11/2014 06:58 PM, seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:

Bhairitu said: "Science knows shit about tantra and mantra shastra. You're looking the wrong way. "


My post was not looking to science to validate tantra or mantra shastra or any traditional knowledge.

Just the opposite. My point was a statement of disagreement with the claim of rationalists that traditional knowledge consists of only primitive superstitions with no foundation (I include a vast array of practices, rituals, ceremonies, points of view, customs, processes, lifestyles, diets, medicine, exercise, meditation, yoga, chanting, sound, cosmologies,observed correlations (beyond the spurious), assumptions about causal factors, etc, across many cultures in the term "traditional knowledge).

Traditional knowledge has generally undergone a series of vast duration longitudinal studies with literally life and death consequences (for individuals and entire cultures). Nothing in the social or medical sciences have or are able to do anything remotely similar. It is a different type, yet in my view quite valid form of research. That which actually works survives as do the cultures that maintain and practice it.

Thus, it is my view that traditional knowledge in many forms already have some proven value. Based on ones needs, inclinations, and resources many forms of traditional knowledge are quite worthy of personal investigation and experimentation -- that is, does it work for me, does it bring positive value to my life (and others.

Science is like a hammer. Very effective, but it can only hit nails -- and it looks for nails to hit -- a small subset of worthy areas of investigation. That is, its tools and methods are not yet capable of meaningfully studying many aspects of traditional knowledge -- though certainly some useful progress has been made.

For example, the 1000's of studies on traditional herbs. While only a subset are double blind, placebo based studies of significant sample size, a lot of fascinating understanding has been uncovered. And such studies at imply that there is "some there, there".to traditional herbs and more broadly -- though more indirectly make other forms of traditional knowledge more plausible -- at least worthy of investigation.

The advances in brain and cognitive science and related fields over the past 10 years has been startling. And the progress in methodologies, analysis, imaging and other technologies, appears to be accelerating. Over the next 10-20 years, many forms of traditional knowledge may be able to be better investigated by science -- enhancing both science and the traditions and cultures that maintain and teach traditional knowledge.

But no need to wait for scads of peer reviewed double blind placebo studies to begin personal experimentation and validation of many forms of traditional knowledge.



Reply via email to