--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > For the record, Nanda's work is not exactly > > universally admired, even among those who are not > > "Indian right-wingers." > > > > Just for fun, excerpts from Amazon reader reviews > > of her book "Prophets Facing Backward" (7 of 12 > > reviewers gave it the lowest possible rating): > > > > "At the micro-level the arguments of the book > > seem reasonable. But for anyone who knows > > science, it is clear that the author does not > > have knowledge of the primary texts > > (presumably because she does not know > > Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian) and she has knit > > together fragments from secondary sources in a > > manner that makes no sense." > > ----- > > "Apparently, she does not possess adequate > > knowledge of the Indian scientific literature, > > and she relies on summaries of it which are > > out of date or have been refuted. This is one > > of the three legs of the stool, and as it > > falls, the general argument becomes invalid." > > ----- > > "The book attempts to somehow bind the post- > > modern critiques of science to the Hindu > > challenge to the Orientalist constructions of > > India. Given that the Hindu challenge goes > > back to at least Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami > > Vivekananda, much before post-modern ideas > > arose, this binding makes no sense. Also, the > > connections between Vedanta and modern physics > > have been advanced by great scientists like > > Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their more > > recent followers, therefore to see a Hindu > > conspiracy in this is unreasonable." > > ----- > > "Gaps between human comprehension (natural > > phenomena) and human perception (observable > > phenomena) are definitely NOT something > > incompatible with science, per se. Science is > > limited in that it may only address the > > comprehensible, but it does not, in itself, > > imply any limit to the observable." > > > > http://tinyurl.com/cpladm [amazon.com] > > > Of course, the reviewers may have their own axes > to grind. Heck, they could be from TM'ers.
Well, *of course*. I mean, Nanda is obviously *completely* objective and without any conceivable axe of her own to grind. So any critique of her criticism of TM is automatically suspect. That's just a given; we all know that. > She says tough stuff, of course she is not going to be universally admired. > It does sound like people are making a lot of assumptions, especially the > first two quotes you posted. My personal opinion, from the little I read of > Schrodinger and Heisenberg on "philosophical" issues (Ken Wilbur's book > Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists) is that > what scientists have said is frequently blown out of proportion. And, their > mystical writings are musings, not science. To tie the Vedas to science > isn't science.
