Capn_Danger

You need to differentiate between internal senses (ie. feelings), which can only tell you about your own internal state, and external senses (sight, hearing, etc). The second sort help us to understand the world around us; the first can only help us understand what's going on with ourselves, psychologically.

The correct way of coming to the right conclusion about anything, besides matters of personal preference or taste, is to use logic and have good reasons for our beliefs. That precludes referencing our own feelings when trying to understand the world around us- conclusions about our external reality do not follow from what we feel.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Nevertheless, this is fun . The fact that scientists wait for people to make new discoveries doesn't equate to a religious practice at all- religion and science maybe be similar in many irrelevant ways (such as a hope for progress), but they're still fundamentally different ways of approaching the search for knowledge.

by "apples and oranges" i meant that explanation and action aren't really things that can be compared, to conclude that one is "better" than the other. You need them both to function properly; they're mutually inclusive.

I'm not waiting for anyone to come save me. If anyone else is, they're being naive. One of the main reasons that religion "works" because people choose to not think rationally (in general); that is, they reason with their emotions. Science understands that. Take a psychology of religion course, you'll learn all about it. And just because something works, or functions, doesn't mean it's true.

radagast

You are arguing something completely different than they are.

Both you and they would agree that what a Yogi does, can be repeatable and is objective. As a Buddhist who's been meditating for over thirty years, working toward ordination, and has a strong scientific background, I would say, from a scientific perspectice, meditative, experiential knowledge is subjective. It may be highly practical from the point of view of the person meditating, but isn't within the realm of science, given it's not objective. This is why (Buddhist) teachers cannot 'show' enlightenment to students, but can only try to point out the path the student must follow. The fact a Yogi stops his heart is objective. The mental experience he goes thru and knowledge of how to do it isn't.

The scientists who investigate that are not unaware of the physiological reasons over why can be done, though don't know how to do it themselves. But the latter isn't science.

Personally, I would consider the defeat of smallpox a greater achievement than that of the common cold. Few people die of a cold, hundreds of thousands died of smallpox. Besides, it's apples and oranges. Have Yogi's cured the common cold. Even within themselves? (in a shorter time than a typical person)

Comparing Yoga and science is absurd. It's like comparing algebra with music. Their function, objectives, actions, and mechinisms are totally different.

You use terms like theory, in the context of science, but seem to use the common meaning. Theory has a very specific meaning in science. Theorys are as strong as scientific explanations go. There is no higher designation. You talk about evolution then use phrases like "higher being". Evolution isn't and doesn't produce higher beings. That term doesn't mean anything within the context of Evolution. Are tapeworms more highly evolved than what they evolved from?

You go by the name of Dharma, yet I see very little clarity in your posts.

Maitri,
Glenn

radagast

In debate, when evidence is presented, it must be considered evidence by all, else no debate can proceed. Even you must see that many here won't take ancient text as concrete evidence, anymore than they accept that the bible is the word of god.

Now, if a Yogi stopped his heart, indefinitely, with scientific observers present, then that would be much stronger evidence.

Maitri,
Glenn

BDS

It's a scientific fact that all yogis stop their breath indefinitely, eventually.

It's called, "dying".

radagast

Actually the quotes I saw, indicate they give credit for eastern thinkers coming up with similar ideas.

Your contention was they got the ideas from the eastern thinkers, then used them to develop their own theories.

Two different things.

Clarity, please.

Maitri,
Glenn

Dharma

and no we are not arguing apples and oranges...science is a way of knowing, so is Yoga...these are two distinct ways of knowing, both can help each other, but ultimately I simply stated Yoga is better. And by yoga, I don't mean the twisted pretzel kind, I mean the meditative techniques...

Dharma

I don't like repeating myself, but I have clearly stated that Meditative science is about overcoming subjective reality until an objective state is reached, so you are incorrect even in your understanding of medititation and it's objectives...

this is almost like arguing with little children...no, no, no...such a state can't be reached...scientists say so...no...no...no....scientists say they are superior and the only way of knowing...no, no, no...yeah, suuure...in the meantime there are college educated Bible belt Americans who are afraid of angering some Jews of Israel because they are the "chosen ones" and might incur the curse of Abraham... absolutely amazing! Just imagine what you can do with religion...:notworthy :notworthy


so you are a person who has meditated 30 years and is going to BE ORDAINED and has not figured out how to cure the common cold using meditative techniques? You know there are people who probably read a theoretical physics books for 30 years, and not understand the theory of Relativity...so don't feel bad...


people speak of science as if it were a person, not a tool used by men to come to some conclusion..."science gave me this, science gave me that"...no, it was not science, it was some scientist who "HAD SOMETHING CALLED AN IDEA"...and have something called intelligence...where do ideas come from -- how are these ideas processed coherently...? This is where the meditative stuff comes in...

yes...I can say, I have cured the common cold within me... :thumbs:

Dharma

I think both internal and external senses have been quite taken care of by eastern meditative practices... :thumbs: thanks though...


Yes, but currently I see that logic, to use your favorite word, has become quite subjective...logic is dependant on objective knowledge and a step by step proof...you insist that Eastern philosophy couldn't judge between internal and external senses without having a knowledge of eastern philosophy...they have defined it quite well...

I have never disagree about the differences in approaches, but again, they are both OBJECTIVE forms of knowledge and can help each other.

again that is an assumption that most people make. People do not "choose" rationality --- either they have it or they don't...(some can get it through religion as most of these scientists are religious)...people do not choose to be emotional, they are or they are not...you might consider this genetic...however these can be altered "theoretically" through some meditative practices...

Dharma

you forgot the returning part... :rolling: that's the difference between ordinary dying and yogis dying...

Dharma

No I quite clearly stated that many were sanskrit scholars and were quite well versed with eastern philosophy...

er, READ PLEASE...