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 eit
Yea, maybe it's like how people get obsessed with things.
Look, everyone here is a fan of science. We get it.
But, we don't then discard our intuition or personal experience with
something, just because we don't have a scientific study to verify it.
Okay, maybe I am exaggerating a tad,
seerdope, it's a pleasure, and probably even beneficial to the brain, to read
writing so...wholesome in both content and tone. I'd add that the efficacy of
Chinese approach to health might be indicated by the rise of China as a
superpower in the world. I'd bet money that they have an herbal ebol
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 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
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
ration
Science knows shit about tantra and mantra shastra. You're looking the
wrong way.
On 10/11/2014 02:56 PM, seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
Bhairitu: "He's not the only guru by a long shot who thought the
mantras came about by trial and error instead of being "cognized". So
they were
Bhairitu: "He's not the only guru by a long shot who thought the mantras came
about by trial and error instead of being "cognized". So they were
"recognized" instead."
I look to science when credible research is available. However, lots of life
does not (yet) have substantial numbers of of
