--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I had hoped for some thoughtful responses, thanks! I am not > doubting > your subjective experience and those of your friends. I am also not > saying that everything the Vedic writers believed is wrong. I am > saying that I have no reason to believe that ancient India was > specially blessed with complete knowledge of how life works.
I have to agree with you here. The longer I'm on this rock, the more years chug by in the incarnation, the more cultures and the more "bodies of knowledge" I've run into. Every one has its values based on the power plays that were going down in the culture as that tradition arose, and every one has its truly trans- cendent knowledge. *And* almost every one has its myth of being the "first" such body of knowledge, and many of those who don't claim to be the "first" (such as Christianity or Islam) do claim to be "the best." I've learned things from all of them, things that have proved invaluable to me in my spiritual quest. But none of those things were ever "the best," so I'm not exactly achin' to declare any of the traditions from which those things came either "the first" or "the best." > There may be an effect from making offerings to statues and > paintings that transcends the obvious psychological and > sociological effects. There may, in fact, be. My predilection is to not base my path on that belief, but I remain open to its possibility. > These are highly testable,falsifiable claims. But I don't > see the movement offering the slightest interest in testing > it. It is presented as a given that they have successful > yagya knowledge. And it was presented that way before the TMO ever received money for, and thus performed, a yagya- for-hire. The value of TM-yagyas was presented as a fait accompli, because it was assumed to be one. > Judging by how the sidhi program was developed by trial and > error, I find this claim dubious. We should not only have > anecdotal evidence for something that could be specifically > tested. I don't feel that the "we should not" above is warranted. Anecdotal evidence has been "enough" for spiritual seekers for millenia, and will be for millenia in the future. Anecdotal evidence is what got us started meditating, although some here might deny it. Yeah, if you were initiated after things shifted towards SIMS terminology there was probably talk in your introductory lecture about Keith's "scientific verification" of the technique, but I started because the teacher giving my intro lecture impressed me. TM had obviously worked for him. The anecdotal evidence of his smile was all that I needed. Others want "hard evidence." And that is cool, for those organizations or traditions that want to provide it. But I respect those who do not, and who stick with anecdotes. 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/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> 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/
