[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Faith & Healing
In article <ghenDu7Hrn.AIK@netcom.com>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>While I agree that a "scientific" analysis per se, does
>cheapen Yoga, if the study is restricted to just that,
>there is a lot of reason why such analyses should be
>done. The Hindu society has never been 100% spiritual,
>nor has it been 100% material. It has sought to balance
Objection! How can you say such a thing, when:
1> Hindu society, according to any reasonable definition, is not a
monolithic and homegeneous entity;
2> it has not remained unchanged over time;
3> it has included people who gave up either the material or the
spiritual completely (i.e., who were 100% spiritual or material)
-- and so on?
It is a very dangerous thing to make sweeping statements about Hindu
society -- unfortunately, on SRH and in other newsgroups, and on many
websites, one sees just that. It is dangerous because it gives the
license to others having no exposure to our society to make similar
statements (which are often even more incorrect), and it is also
dangerous because it tends to propagate the resulting false myths
about the nature of Hinduism.
>Yes and no. On a too literal stance, perhaps, I will agree
>with Vijay. However, we do see in the dasavataar, that society,
>at both physical and psychological level change with the descent
>of time. So, while in the beginning, a fish is sufficient to
>save the world, the last avataar (Krishna) needs a lot of
>aids (arms, tact, ...) to do the same. The instruments of
>God become more complicated, more intense, and more puzzling.
>In the fish era, it was simple. The fish just carries on
>the oceans, during the pralaya, with all the species on her
>back.
I'm not familiar with whatever scripture (Matsya PuraaNa?) carries the
story referred to, but I believe the account is that the species and
Manu were towed rather than carried.
But that is essentially irrelevant. What is important is that even
the toned-down notion of avatar-evolution that you are propounding has
no basis in scripture.
>I agree with your sense of danger in the direct association
>of dharma with science. It is for this reason, that I hold
>the opinion, that though a lot of modern scientific notions,
>like duality of reality, are quite concordant with our own
>Upanashidic notions, the Upanishads do not end here. Rather,
>they say much more, than just that. And sometimes, those
>messages are strikingly simple, time tested, and useful from
>an eternal perspective. One such thing is: satya_nishthha.
I seek your pardon, but that hardly seems strikingly simple to me,
perhaps because I have much to learn. I would suggest that if you
were to start investigating it in some detail, you'd find that it has
a world of nuance, and that it is impossible to explain in brief.
I also do not see any "danger in the direct association of dharma with
science." To me, science is not a laboratory experiment (or
Gedankenexperiment, for that matter), or the results derived thereby,
or the dogma fo specific scientists (quite unfortunately, all of these
things are considered to be science, more often than not). Science is
a method of investigating, an approach to understanding, and a way of
thinking. The so-called "scientific method" is, to its utmost
perfection, already a part of our philosophical tradition, and nowhere
is one advised to ignore the truths and lessons of physical science in
developing one's metaphysical understanding.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>--
>Nachiketa Tiwari
>
