--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@...> wrote: > > > On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:05 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote: > > > Ravi: > > Curtis, How can we judge something without understanding the time, place, > > context and the people that were being addressed to? > > > > ME: I do, it was an ancient system of medicine that was the best they could > > do then. Now we can do better. Not perfect. But better. They didn't > > understand the circulation of blood then. They thought the heart functioned > > as we now understand our brain functions. We straightened that out. That is > > progress in understanding. > > > The important thing IME is to not under-appreciate what these texts are > describing. So for example they may describe the solar eagle-Garuda in terms > much like a radiant sun (or phoenix) - and their opposite, the serpent Nagas, > as opposites. But until you realize that the Sanskrit word "naga" also means > lead, only when you realize they are very precisely describing > electromagnetic radiation and lead shielding, do you get that these ancients > are describing, from samadhic inquiry into reality, something only relatively > recently understood by science. There are many, many similar examples. For > example how would an ancient yogi know that to make zinc bioavailable, it > needs to be ingested in the presence of certain biochemicals? Well, somehow > they did. Same with coral calcium. It's a long list. Plastic surgeons still > pay homage to Sushruta as father of their art. Some say the oriental martial > arts and acupuncture originate from kalarippayattu. > > Like I said, it's a long list.
ME: But we have confidence in their metaphoric reality from modern testing, not from taking them as divine revelation, right? If they can make a prediction that can be tested then you may have a better case for their value in medicine or science. I believe this is misplaced value and that it is the arts where they really shine. Vaj: > > While I think it's a good thing to be skeptical after being burned by a phony > guru, ME: I am not skeptical about the claims made in ancient systems of medicine because of Maharishi. As far as I am concerned I wasn't burned by anyone. I enjoyed Maharishi's POV till the day I didn't accept it as real. I am not at all convinced that what he was serving me wasn't exactly what any of these guys offer. He got me as off as I needed to get to evaluate his claims. It is the premise I reject, not his authority as the real deal holy man. I haven't seen evidence that these "enhanced" state of consciousness are actually better. For me, it was not. Vaj: it's also important to remain open-minded enough to see the actual viable wisdom in the systems of learning they talked about. It's humbling when you realize: most of it's never been translated into western languages, and the stilted Brahmin belief in brahman has relegated much of it to the dust-bins of time. > ME: We may not share the same definition of what constitutes an open mind. In my version, I read the books and see what they contain. Then I do my best to draw whatever conclusions I can. I am not humbled by Vedic literature or by the viable wisdom it may contain. It seems on a par with other ancient cultures who relied on sacrifices to appease gods. Mixed into the confusion are some interesting insights about human nature. How much of their medical POV will pan out, we don't know yet. Chimps chew on herbs to heal themselves, so there must be some accumulated wisdom. But it is mixed up with some pretty rank superstition that is flat out wrong or at best incompatible with society's modern outlook and knowledge base. I'll let the people who are its champions make their case for its value. People are not idiots in society, if it has real predictive power, it will get used.
