You wrote :
"Personal experience which verifies the claims cannot be a bad thing, but they must be verified by stringent scientific testing to be regarded as being a good scientific theory. Otherwise it is just a religious belief."
Whilst I applaud your religious scepticism, the above statement is taking things a bit beyond the scope of what qualifies as 'religion'. I think that you are talking about spiritual belief, which is quite a different animal altogether.
Religion, per se, implies dogma, i.e. a set of rules imposed by a hierarchical structure, such as the Vatican, in the case of the Roman Church. These rules are usually invented by people who hold positions of power within their various groups, and the purpose of the rules is to control and manipulate the followers of the said 'religion'. The rules are intended to be followed or some 'penalty' will result, in extreme cases burning at the stake, slow-roasting over a well heated barbeque, and other assorted 'gothic' style retributions. Ultimately the extreme sanction is usually something along the lines of "Do as we say or you will burn in Hell for all Eternity" !
If you take the time to actually read the material Pati posted and any of the miriad similar texts that are available along similar lines you will quickly realise that the emphasis is on SELF - motivation, i.e. all the results are totally dependent on the efforts and experiences of the individual, there is little or no co-ersion involved, and there are absolutely no threats of dire consequences if one neglects to follow the suggested guidelines.
So far as the 'science' is concerned I have two comments for you. Firstly if you study Yogic meditation in all it's forms you will gradually appreciate that this is a science, and it's practitioners are highly disciplined and scientific individuals. The appearance of 'mysticism' is usually applied by non-involved observers, typically highly sceptical at the outset, i.e. the 'agenda' that you refer to is usually coming from the critic's side as much, if not more, than the participant's side.
Secondly, if you have any particular reasons why you chose the e-handle 'B.L. Zeebub', and particularly if you have a reasonably defined sense of humour, I would highly recommend that you try reading G.I. Gurdjieff's book 'Beelzebub, Tales to His Grandson', assuming that you haven't already. This lengthy tome has much to say on the subject of our so-called 'Science' ! ;-)
|A Field Theory of Consciousness..#1||204||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 09:54|
|A Field Theory of Consciousness...#2..#1||146||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 10:00|
|Re: A Field Theory of Consciousness...#3(conclusion)||153||Astikapati||07-Jul-02 10:06|
|Exerpt from a book||79||Fuzzy||07-Jul-02 10:35|
|This is not science||81||B L Zeebub||07-Jul-02 12:48|
|Zee, bub it looks like Science to me :))||94||Astikapati||08-Jul-02 04:39|
|Scientific rigour||80||B L Zeebub||08-Jul-02 09:47|
|Re: Scientific rigour||71||Hoppy||08-Jul-02 11:47|
|Re: Scientific rigour||70||B L Zeebub||08-Jul-02 13:41|
|Re: Scientific rigour||72||mephisto||09-Jul-02 02:50|
|Re: Scientific rigour||94||B L Zeebub||13-Jul-02 12:25|
|Re: Scientific rigour||72||Hoppy||14-Jul-02 21:43|
|Re: Scientific rigour||57||B L Zeebub||14-Jul-02 22:30|
|Re: Scientific rigour||153||Astikapati||09-Jul-02 06:02|