Yes, there are evil cults that plunge the other half of the world into centuries of darkness, and wise religions that enlighten my half of the world with centuries of insight. :)
-
-
Absolutely, and each observation has to be explained. The frame of the explanation itself cannot be generated by divine revelation.
-
Explanations are constrained by language. Some things can't be understood no matter how well it's explained (e.g. what a headache feels like). The issue with mystics is they try to explain gnostic knowledge in the same terms physicists explain electrons. This causes confusion.
-
Ex: Claims made in Vipassana are inherently experiential. Thus they can only be understood by experience. Nothing divine about it. In vipassana, you learn the nature of experience. In science, you learn how physical systems behave/function. They are completely separate projects.
-
I tend to disagree. Science is simply the systematic, criticizable pursuit of knowledge. The nature of experience is a kind of knowledge, and separation is not the right way. Vipassana may have a scientific and a practical and a cultural aspect.
-
That's actually a fair point, and I happen to think that vipassana is a scientific practice, insofar as what you're doing is testing empirical hypotheses about the nature of mind. The methods of experimental methodology are just different from those of "Western" science.
-
Yes, and I don’t think there is Western and Eastern science, only bad and good science. The deference to authority (scholasticism) is usually a sign of bad science, as are emphasis on consensus and preservation of tradition.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not all so-called gnostic knowledge is ontological, moral or ethical.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.