VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]6789 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:19
Author: Dwayanu-22Apr02
Subject: Re: Credible Scientific Evidence
In reply to: ketch-22Apr02 's message, "Re: Credible Scientific Evidence" on 07:18

"No one with an open mind would simply accept everything Paulsen claims when the evidence is so overwhelmingly against him."
Well, of course, if your statement were true. On the contrary, the actual evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of it, not to mention that it comes from the highest of sources, which is far more reliable than what is usually thought of as scientific theory. Obviously, "Theory" is less reliable than "knowledge."
But let's not exaggerate what I said. I did not say to throw out all scientific research. Quite the contrary, I said the data certainly had its place and context. I was into physics myself before I realized the truth of the statement that scientists try to smash atoms apart in order to understand them, but the yogi simply sends his consciousness in to the center of the atom and looks out. So, it is not that what is normally thought of as scientific research is irrelevant, it is just less reliable than direct experience. And direct experience is even often discounted by so called scientists when it doesn't fit with how they think it should be. This concept is something that I would think would be quite clear to anyone on a spiritual path involving meditation ... but we're all different as far as what we are able to receive at any given time.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.