This knee-jerk reaction from Ruth and Vaj is truly pathetic. Rather than considering whether the Amazon reader reviewers might have valid points to make about Nanda's work, they dismiss the reviewers as likely biased. Goodness knows neither has actually gone to the Amazon site and read the full reviews.
In fact, none of the seven reviewers who gave the book the lowest possible rating show any signs of being TMers, "The Secret" advocates, or What-the-Bleepers (although two of them-- neither of whom I quoted--may have a personal resonance with Hinduism). Here are links to two critiques that expose very serious flaws in Nanda's scholarship, logic, and scientific understanding, from very different perspectives: http://thetrashbin.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/in-defense-of-spirituality/ A critique of an article by Nanda criticizing Sam Harris. (The "TRASH" in "Trashbin" stands for "The Rationalist Apostate Society for Humanism," a "group of assorted apostates of Islam who are committed to the application of reason," according to the "About" section of the blog.) http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/politics/bogey.html A critique of a paper by Nanda, written by a Belgian scholar of Hindu revivalism, multiculturalism, language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparative religion, and the Aryan invasion debate. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradh...@...> wrote: > > > On May 2, 2009, at 12:10 PM, ruthsimplicity wrote: > > > Of course, the reviewers may have their own axes > > to grind. Heck, they could be from TM'ers. 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. > > Yeah I think you could be right, and/or there could > similar backlash from a pseudoscience fad called "The > Secret", as well as fans of the movie What the Bleep?, > etc. However since I have seen TM folks--who seem to > watch this list and TM Free--attack links or websites > mentioned both places, it would not surprise me at all. > Prof. Nanda really undermines their shaky belief systems.
