Yes, you easily discover that there is not a single valid narrative but a map of possible truths. But the ambiguity does not extend to "perhaps we can go back to Newtonian physics" or "perhaps people talking to burning bushes have access to a deeper level of cosmic truth".
-
-
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 -
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.