Bobananda,
I am replying late and hastily, having been "away" for a few days. Your reply is (typically) an interesting mix of the astute and the debatable. I agree that meditators tend to accept the "package" because of their satisfaction with TM and their trust of MMY. I also agree that the Vedic tradition is an almost unparalleled fountain of knowledge. Usually the TMers' acceptance of the "package" includes assumptions that M has "restored the purity" of the information in a particular Vedic discipline which then becomes part of the proprietary offering. I would submit that the proprietary offering frequently seems to embody and transmit distortions of its own, and MSV is an example of this. I know this has been said before in this forum, and I apologize for the somewhat derogatory quality of the phrase, but it seems that the proprietary makeover often includes "dumbing down" for mass consumption. Where MSV is concerned, for example, other authorities say that the question of entrance placement is an individual consideration, properly based on birth chart and perhaps other factors. One can make the argument that dumbing down is actually part of the perfection of the revival, insuring that the principles will be adopted by significant, trend-setting numbers of individuals, thus propogating the doctrine in perpetuity. I'm just not buying that approach. L B S --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Brigante" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "L B Shriver" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <SNIP>> > > I'm working from memory here, my copy of this thing is packed away. > However, as > > someone else has pointed out: even if the measurements for > Fairfield are reliable, it could > > be an anomaly. The very fact that people are taking this one study > as PROOF of a theory > > they already believe in makes the enterprize somewhat questionable. > > > > > *********** > > I think most long-term meditators (those who would like to quit TM, > if they could do without suffering withdrawal, as I believe you have > said about your practice) extrapolate confidence to other Vedic > knowledge because of the confidence engendered in all things Vedic by > their practice of TM, which is the centerpiece of Vedic knowledge -- > anyway, I do have confidence in all aspects of Vedic knowledge based > on my experience with the consciousness-expanding ability of Vedic > meditation, TM. As MMY has said, nobody buys half a banana, and the > Vedas are total knowledge -- it doesn't make much sense to buy into > half of the Vedas. > > The fact that some guys in lab coats have not come up a universally > compelling case for the utility of Sthapathya Veda is not really > important to those who see the Vedas as the "instruction book that > comes along with creation" (MMY). In addition, there is no such thing > as a universally compelling case in scientific research, a fact > obvious from the persistence of silliness like creationism and > intelligent design despite the clarity and power of evolutionary > theory (funny editorial from Scientific American follows at end). > > Of course, a lot more research would have to be done to get at least > some non-meditating scientists interested in the research, that's why > studies are replicated many times before scientists buy into > theories. However, this hurdle has started to be overcome by being > peer-reviewed before publication in Social Behavior and Personality, > so it's not like the accepted scientific methods and procedures are > being ignored or contravened by SV researchers. > > I'm not a big fan of anecdotal evidence, but I do notice the > uplifting effect of being in SV-compliant bldgs (although I don't > really notice deleterious effects of being in south-entrance bldgs). > If you don't mind being a little ascientific, do you ever notice the > delightful effects of SV bldgs? > > > > Scientific American editors renounce their smug ways > From the April 2005 edition: > > Okay, We Give Up > We feel so ashamed > By The Editors > > There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers > told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and > politics > don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of > such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We > resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations > that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or > Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is > in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's > no > better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong. > > In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has > been > hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue > that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the > theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the > unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific > ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. > Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for > scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that > dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the > Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy > fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of > peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being > persuaded by mountains of evidence. > > Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) > theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe > that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But > ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed > superpowerful > entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some > of > the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: > it doesn't get bogged down in details. > > Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our > readers > to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit > theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or > facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that > scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or > best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest > groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as > journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do > otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we > will > end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an > editorial page is no place for opinions. > > Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how > science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to > building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that > will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national > security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the > administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the > dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two > decades, > that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect > science either-so what if the budget for the National Science > Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to > science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that > scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day. 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/ <*> 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/
