On Jul 26, 2008, at 11:41 AM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
Yoga "science" or Yoga-vidya would therefore be an unconventional
science in that it does not rely on objects, but rather unification.
It's source of knowledge is jnana rather that mind-think.--- In
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What I don't understand is why people who are into spirituality try to
invoke the name "science" at all. I get why Maharishi did it, to
sound as if he was offering something more substantial than the
religious ideas of his tradition. But the scientific method,
wonderfully useful as it is in certain contexts, is not the only gold
standard of knowledge. We have the whole area of the humanities and
the arts, and this may be a more appropriate connection to make for
spiritual practices.
One may be simple translation. The word often used in the spiritual
sciences for the western word science is "vidya". However vidya has a
deeper meaning that the western term science, as it is less encumbered
by the taboo of subjectivity which stultifies western science. The
taboo of subjectivity in the west has a lot to do with the way the
scientific fundamentalism came about but it is also a shared element
with religious fundamentalism, as both have placed a taboo on
subjectivity. Both believe they are heading towards an absolute truth,
one based on science's grokking of Nature, the other through the
absolute word of god.
The actual basis for what we call science is in fact based on Greek
and Hebrew religious and philosophical beliefs which all assert that a
god or gods created the universe we inhabit before he/she/they created
humans--this a basis for scientific realism which in turn was a basis
for scientific materialism.
This is actually a rather lengthy and detailed topic, as one has to
explain what the taboo of subjectivity is and how it came about, along
with our current paradigms.
I don't try to sell the art that consumes my life as "blues science."
It doesn't need to be blessed by that approach to knowledge. That
means that if someone says they think my music sucks, I can't get on a
high horse and proclaim that my music is verified by the true blues
science of cognizing the soul of Robert Johnson and that they are
"wrong." I just have to accept that in the arts we all have our
preferences and I just need to find the people who share mine.
I think the terms of science are being misapplied to spiritual
practices to invoke more credibility or that the position is more than
a personal opinion or insight. But personal opinions and insights are
fine on their own without trying to make them more than they are with
claims of "science."
Maharishis had it only half right IMO. There is no "science of
being", but there is an "art of living." And expressing the art of
living doesn't need to position itself with the connection with the 3
out of 4 dentists surveyed mentality. Leave that approach to knowledge
alone so it can stay busy trying to figure out why cancer cells
metastasize and just enjoy the fact that when we close our eyes we
feel something we personally value.
