this is quite like the myth about allopathy being 'science', and ayurveda not.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: sri venkat <ahvenkitesh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Subject: myth that only 'hard' science can be objective
To:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
In this context it will be worth looking to what Robert Thurman says
in his book "Inner Revolution". He notes that a myth prevalent in the
West is that only 'hard' science can be objective, in the sense that
experiments are carried out, and scientists observe and then report
their findings in an unbiased and neutral fashion. In contrast, the
disciplines of psychology, philosophy, consciousness studies, ethics,
and so forthare, by their very nature, subjective, because they deal
with various inner private experiences. This dichotomy presupposes
that inner experiences do not follow predictable lines of causation
whereas the outer world does. It is impossible then, to study the
inner realm scientifically with observations that can be deemed
reliable, reproducible and verifiable by others. As per this
prevailing myth, only outer revolutions have shaped history, and it is
these that have liberated the West by usheringin modernity. The inner
disciplines are
subjective and well-meaning at best, superstitious or arbitrary at
worst. They are 'other worldly' and offer little benefit to this
material/social world apart from making us feel better.
He points out , that scientists are limited to studying the world of
phisical matter and mistakenly see this as objectivity. On the other
hand, dharmic practitioners have long discerned the interdependence
between object/subject, percept/concept, body/mind, other/self,
society/individual, experience/belief, signified/sign, etc and they
have a legitimate claimto usinf scientificmethodology. The inner
sciences were developed through observation, experimentation, critical
inquiry and debate and they should not be confused with religious
beliefs of the Judeo-Christan genre.
He explains that the enlightenment tradition discovered the micro and
macro dimensions more than two thousand years ago by using
sophisticated contmplative practices to augment the sixth mental sense
of inner vision. The realm is supernatural only in relation to a
constrained definition of natural. It is mystical only when the
analytic investigation is not completed. It is magic only when the
technique involved is not understood.
Adhyatma-vidya posits that it is possible to achieve complete mastry of
the conditions of life and death in order to attain happiness and this
knowledge can be taught to others and it does not demand blind faith
and this is done by using the methods of interior observation wherein
the mind itself is employed as an instrument for gaining insight.
V. S. Sardesai
From: sri venkat <ahvenkitesh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 6:26 AM
Subject: myth that only 'hard' science can be objective
To:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: vasant sardesai <vasant_sardesai@yahoo.co.in>
In this context it will be worth looking to what Robert Thurman says
in his book "Inner Revolution". He notes that a myth prevalent in the
West is that only 'hard' science can be objective, in the sense that
experiments are carried out, and scientists observe and then report
their findings in an unbiased and neutral fashion. In contrast, the
disciplines of psychology, philosophy, consciousness studies, ethics,
and so forthare, by their very nature, subjective, because they deal
with various inner private experiences. This dichotomy presupposes
that inner experiences do not follow predictable lines of causation
whereas the outer world does. It is impossible then, to study the
inner realm scientifically with observations that can be deemed
reliable, reproducible and verifiable by others. As per this
prevailing myth, only outer revolutions have shaped history, and it is
these that have liberated the West by usheringin modernity. The inner
disciplines are
subjective and well-meaning at best, superstitious or arbitrary at
worst. They are 'other worldly' and offer little benefit to this
material/social world apart from making us feel better.
He points out , that scientists are limited to studying the world of
phisical matter and mistakenly see this as objectivity. On the other
hand, dharmic practitioners have long discerned the interdependence
between object/subject, percept/concept, body/mind, other/self,
society/individual, experience/belief, signified/sign, etc and they
have a legitimate claimto usinf scientificmethodology. The inner
sciences were developed through observation, experimentation, critical
inquiry and debate and they should not be confused with religious
beliefs of the Judeo-Christan genre.
He explains that the enlightenment tradition discovered the micro and
macro dimensions more than two thousand years ago by using
sophisticated contmplative practices to augment the sixth mental sense
of inner vision. The realm is supernatural only in relation to a
constrained definition of natural. It is mystical only when the
analytic investigation is not completed. It is magic only when the
technique involved is not understood.
Adhyatma-vidya posits that it is possible to achieve complete mastry of
the conditions of life and death in order to attain happiness and this
knowledge can be taught to others and it does not demand blind faith
and this is done by using the methods of interior observation wherein
the mind itself is employed as an instrument for gaining insight.
V. S. Sardesai
No comments:
Post a Comment