Guyfawkes with the big hammer of intellectual discrimination! Your post is so true! The whole thing is a silly exercise in meaningless superficial similarities. Reminds me of the pseudo adage: "Dog is God spelled backwards. Makes you think, doesn't it."
--- On Sat, 5/16/09, guyfawkes91 <guyfawke...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: guyfawkes91 <guyfawke...@yahoo.com> > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Vedic genitalia > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 3:22 AM > >> > but the work is challenging, to say the least, to > mainstream physiologists, > >> > It's not challenging at all, it's a completely trivial > exercise to find spurious connections between things. The > only challenging thing is for people who think it's > significant to escape from an intellectual hall of mirrors > with only superstition and wishful thinking to act as a > guide. > > It's so trivially easy to show that it's garbage and > contains many internal inconsistencies that no proper > physiologist would ever waste time arguing against it. > > As an example of internal inconsistency, human physiology > is supposed to have correlates with things in jyotish. There > are some ancient structures in the spinal cord which > "correspond" to the 27 nakshatras. The number of nakshatras > is determined by the number of days it takes for the moon to > move around the earth. But the orbital period of the moon > and the length of day on earth have changed over time. So > that at the time these ancient structures where first > evolved there weren't 27 nakshatras. Another example; the > structure of DNA is supposed to "correspond" to the layout > of the cosmos as understood in jyotish, but that leaves out > Uranus because it's not easily visible to the human eye. But > Uranus is readily visible to animals like cats who have good > night time vision. Is their DNA different? Why should the > structure of DNA correspond with what can be seen by an ape > with poor night time vision? The whole thing is riddled with > inconsistencies like this. > > > Like anyone else, Maharishi brought out some good ideas and > some bad ideas. The good stuff is mostly the early stuff, > the recent stuff is mostly rubbish. Any doctor or educated > person in the TMO who has had anything to do with developing > Tony Nader's stuff should hang their heads in shame at > having dragged the good things that Maharishi brought out > into a cess pit of pseudo-science. > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe, send a message to: > fairfieldlife-subscr...@yahoogroups.com > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!'Yahoo! Groups Links > > > mailto:fairfieldlife-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com > > >
