I don't think anyone was advocating talking to a burning bush - that's pretty clearly reductio ad absurdum. Just because a system has some obviously false elements doesn't mean that the entire system, or the people who use the system, have nothing else to offer.
-
-
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 -
-
-
Though they are separate projects, they are interdependent, and both are needed to get a full picture. Science can only be done within experience, so it's useful to know the nature of experience. Experience is constrained by physical processes, so it's useful to know physics.
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.