For gatito

[Brian]

 

If this Dr. is able to make that diagnosis, but one can donate blood or have a medical person draw an appropriate amount of blood to reduce the iron content.

I was just teasing -- only legitimate use I'm aware of (and it is exceedingly rare...)

[Simple_Jack]

Ralis, most what's discussed on spiritual forums, especially pertaining to Dharma, falls in the realm of religion. You need to get over that fact. Almost everything being discussed on TTB's would be considered religious superstition in mainstream society.

[asunthatneversets]

If one is to teach the Dharma scientifically, then much of the belief systems and superstitions need to be jettisoned immediately.

Or one can avoid being literal-minded and simply relate to such systems as the provisional and conventional devices they are.

 

A proper scientific methodology is a stepwise process such that the process is exact and anyone can duplicate it.

Much like the buddhadharma.

 

Honestly I don't see that in the Buddhadharma.

Clearly.

 

As far as the Tibetan medicine goes, I believe there has been very little scientific research if any as as to the efficacy of such a system that still retains techniques that are from the medieval period.

Traditional Tibetan Medicine is a centuries old system with great value, it has its strengths and weaknesses just like Western Medicine does. One would be unwise to sell it short.

[ralis]

edit

Edited December 5, 2014 by ralis

[ralis]

 

 

Much like the buddhadharma.

 

 

 

Traditional Tibetan Medicine is a centuries old system with great value, it has its strengths and weaknesses just like Western Medicine does. One would be unwise to sell it short.

 

You are claiming the Buddhadharma is a scientific approach? How can a mythical religion be based on science?

 

In what way does Tibetan medicine have great value?

[Simple_Jack]

In what way does Tibetan medicine have great value?

 

Do you have something against Tibetan culture? Because you've failed to bring up any issue in connection with Loppon Namdrol's training in Ayurveda nor have you specifically singled out Ayurveda (or TCM for that matter).

[Simple_Jack]

Do you have something against Tibetan culture? Because you've failed to bring up any issue in connection with Loppon Namdrol's training in Ayurveda nor have you specifically singled out Ayurveda (or TCM for that matter).

 

Ralis, how much knowledge of these systems do you have to give weight to any justified value judgments made against the credibility of their efficacy? Have you practiced and/or sought treatment that led to a conclusion of the ineffectiveness of these systems?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Jetsun]

If you want a scientific approach to the Dharma look at the work the Dalai Lama and others are doing at places like the Mind and Life institute. Mingur Rinpoche in particular is going to great lengths to present it in a scientific way and the Dalai Lama is always referencing the latest neuroscience in the talks he gives. If you don't like the religious bit you can skip it these days quite easily.

[forestofclarity]

Alan Watts draws an interesting distinction between myth and falsity. According to him, myth isn't untrue, rather it is a story that captures a truth that transcends any particular form. That is why, in my opinion, it is said that the dharma gates are endless. If Buddhism wasn't mythical, it would be limited in time, place, and expression.

[Trunk]

If you want a scientific approach to the Dharma look at the work the Dalai Lama and others are doing at places like the Mind and Life institute. Mingur Rinpoche in particular is going to great lengths to present it in a scientific way and the Dalai Lama is always referencing the latest neuroscience in the talks he gives. If you don't like the religious bit you can skip it these days quite easily.

 

saw this recently:

Harvard Unveils MRI Study re: Meditation

re-builds brain's gray matter in 8 weeks

[Simple_Jack]

If you want a scientific approach to the Dharma look at the work the Dalai Lama and others are doing at places like the Mind and Life institute. Mingur Rinpoche in particular is going to great lengths to present it in a scientific way and the Dalai Lama is always referencing the latest neuroscience in the talks he gives. If you don't like the religious bit you can skip it these days quite easily.

 

While not necessarily disparaging the research or dialogue between science and Dharma: the notion that Dharma in the West must be legitimized on the basis of the scientific method (i.e. in a laboratory) is being addressed within the Buddhist community:

 

http://www.utne.com/mind-and-body/the-scientific-buddha-zm0z13sozlin.aspx#axzz3L8aEwT4P

 

http://www.tricycle.com/blog/we-are-not-kind-machines?page=1

 

Obviously there are people who can only accept certain aspects of Dharma (or are simply interested in the worldly aspects of meditation), and I'm not outright dismissing their interests in or benefits derived from Dharma, but it stands as a contrast to the Sam Harris' of the world, the "mindfulness" memes, "Secular Buddhism", etc.

Edited December 6, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[KenBrace]

I never said science is the ultimate truth. In fact no one has proved there is any ultimate truth. So you can't decide if bloodletting is an appropriate therapy?

 

The goal of science is to get as close as possible to the truth via experimentation and observation (i.e. evidence).