[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Faith & Healing
vijaypai@mridangam.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai) writes:
>In article <4r8u94$3da@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>> There has been many scientific studies on yoga and the body. For
>>example, the book 'yoga and psychotherapy' extensively deals with this.
>>I think Swami Rama was able to change the temperature in the palm of his
>>hand.
>That's too bad that all these scientific studies on yoga are just
>looking at the body -- really cheapens yoga, IMHO. I mean, c'mon, I
>can change the temperature in the palm of my hand by sticking my hand
>in the fridge or by sticking my hand in a glass of hot water. But what
>has that accomplished?
Come on, you can not change temperatures in two nearby points in
your palm of your hand (with one temp. increasing while the other decreasing)
at the same time by sticking your hand in a fridge.
I completely agree with you that yoga is not meant for this at all. But
what else can you expect in a western society which has associated yoga
with hatha yoga alone.
>But it's only stuff like that that a certain
>segment of scientists are going to look at, unfortunately.
Not necc. They have looked at different states of consciousness
using biofeedback instruments and brainwave studies (alpha, beta etc).
As you know, scientists can never *measure* happiness, or bliss.
The concept that you can be extremely happy by merely serving God [to the
best of ability] is beyond the grasp of any scientific instrument.
>> For example, the dasa-avatars of Vishnu are linked to show the
>>evolution of being according to Darwin. But there is no scriptural support
>>for this (as far as i know).
>In fact, as far as I can tell, it would take a really twisted view of
>the scriptures to come up with this.
Yes. But the statement of mine was based on some poster's remark
on SRH how Hindus thought about evolution *like* but *before* Darwin.
> For example, if one insists that
>Matsyaavataara represents the lowest stage of evolution, one must ask
>why there were humans (such as Satyavrata Rshi -- maybe I had better
>say "human-like lifeforms" since I'm not sure if Rshis are actually a
>higher species) present at the same time?
Maybe they were alien lifeforms. Just kidding.
>>Darwin's theory is the best science can offer
>>right now, but that may change with time and new evidence. Hence association
>>of things like avatars to an imperfect science is not only dangerous but
>>may look foolish in the long run.
>Right; as an orthogonal point, there is also a danger in saying "God
>is in the details [the gaps that science hasn't filled in yet]"
>because in a few years science might fill those gaps in [since not
>even the _greatest_ astrologer can predict what science will come up
>with next], and guess what, that person's view of God just
>disappeared...
>-- Vijay
Maybe you can post in alt.jyotish and ask what science will come up
next :-)
Regarding God in the gaps of science, I thought He was everywhere,
both inside and outside the gaps :-).
Namaste.
