On 10/18/2015 09:52 AM, salyavin808 wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <olliesedwuz@...> wrote :
Yeah, there is a pretty strong bias against yogic science in the West.
Possibly even a racial prejudice. Yoga did not evolve out of either
the Western sciences or religions, and as such, is considered suspect
by many.
No, I have no bias against "yogic" science because there is no such
division between east and west in my mind. There is simply science
that works, and science that doesn't work. If two apparently different
disciplines come to different conclusions about the same thing then
one of them is wrong.
Thing is a lot of this stuff hasn't actually been researched. India has
only had it's independence a little over half a century. When I visited
there Indian scholars were just beginning to research these things.
Westerners would just roll their eyes that all this was "superstition"
without taking a good look at it. The question would be if it were all
false why would it continue to stick around all these centuries?
There's a lot of things that don't get researched because there is no
money it for the big corporations. So it's hard to get grants.
My qualm about TM is not Maharishi so much as it is it being a very
limited path. What I call "yoga lite." There is no chance to become an
archarya because Maharishi had no authority to make acharyas and
apparently never made it that far himself. Plus if he did acharyas
would learn they have the authority to go start a school themselves
(which is the tradition). For those who don't know an archarya is a
person with a high level of knowledge and proficiency sort of like a
high level martial arts instructor.
