Yoga cures Cancer and Aids

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

Prowag, the point is simple here. You said to coolwarn that Democritus
was the founder of atoms and there is nothing about India mentioned. I
then produced 4 articles to show you clearly that Indian philosophers were
the first to talk about atoms.

There is nothing controversial here. It is something every student of Indian
philosophy knows. Atomism is a fundamental philosophy in all Indian philosophical
schools, and its roots go back very far.

I am not discussing this point any further with you. You can either allow yourself
to be educated and accept that philosophy and atomism is older than the greeks,
or you can continue to remain ignorant about non-western traditions of thought
and their contributions.

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

And one final point on this subject, Indigo Child. If you're so confident that there are yogi's and doctors in India who have actual cures for diabetes, parkinsons, AIDS, cancer, etc., WHY IN THE HELL ARE YOU SPENDING ALL YOUR FREAKING TIME ON A FORUM THAT ONLY HAS A FEW PEOPLE READING IT!!! Why aren't you compiling your data and sending it to JAMA? Why aren't you out there spreading the word and SAVING PEOPLE'S LIVES?
Those are the real reasons I doubt the accuracy of your posts concerning cures for such diseases. If you really believed them and are spending your time on "debunkingskeptics.com" rather than spreading the word to places that count and can give your claims credence, you are missing out on being one of the most famous and richest people in the world, not to mention the lives you could be saving.
I am not a professor of medicine Indigo, my specialty is the rather boring subject of management. I'm afraid I can't help you spread your yoga/ayurveda claims.

[Indigo Child]

Just to correct Democritus was not a scientist, he was a philosopher. He did not give the properties of atoms,
he merely proposed the idea that the world must be made of atoms, because he said it would be impossible to
divide matter up endlessly. It was not based on any evidence, and his atoms are wrong. He said everything is made
out of atoms of different shapes for instance. This idea did not take off in ancient Greece, Aristotle rejected it and
Aristotle's physical theories(all wrong) dominated Western philosophy and science right up to the times of Galileo, and
it was not until Dalton that the atom was discovered. Prior to that Western philosophy and science did not believe in atoms,
and the sole philosopher who said anything about atoms, mentioned it only as an idea, and did not develop any theory or
philosophy. In fact in all likiliness, Democritus probably heard about it from the Indians, because other than him, there is
nobody else in the West who said anything about atoms until Dalton. It is not a Western concept.

On the other hand, in the Indian tradition we can trace back atoms back to the Vedic texts and it was such a well developed
philosophy, that every philosophical tradition in India had something to say on them. Unlike the West, they were widely accepted,
and very elaborate philosophical analysis of atoms was done, as well as empirical investigations of chemical changes. It was not until
modern timies that similar conceptions of atoms were created. The Indians obviously understood atoms to a very high degree, for
they knew they were spherical, they knew they atoms combined and broke and energy was needed to form or break bonds, and they even knew
light consisted of light particles. They knew about atomic aggregation. They knew about different states of matter, solid, liquid and gas
as being due to atoms having different levels of energy. Most importantly, they knew matter was all energy. This is all very modern knowledge.

It is also clear that the Greeks inherited the 5 element theory from the Indians as well. However, once again the 5 element theory is not as developed
as its Indian counterpart, which describe the elements in terms of properties and their corresponding sense faculty. Once again every Indian philosophical
schools accepts the 5 elements and has a lot to say on them(tattvas, mahabhutas, skandas)

So actually coolnwarn is right, atoms were only discovered in the West in modern times, and this idea was never accepted in the West until then. In contrast
they have been widely accepted in Indian philosophy, and you can find tons of discourses on them by every Indian philosophical school.

[Indigo Child]

Finally, to answer why you did not learn about this in school. Well, the simple answer
is you don't learn Eastern, especially Indian philosophy at school. It is a specialist subject,
which I happen to have studied. I have also studied Western philosophy, so I have a well
rounded knowledge about world philosophy.

The reason it does not have wider acceptance in the West is also simple to answer, there is
lack of awareness about non-western cultures, their history and their contributions. This does
not mean their sciences, philosophy, literature or culture is flawed. They have made remarkable
contributions in all these areas, and they have been just as rigorous, if not more as the West in
these areas. Sorry you don't know about it, perhaps you should educate yourself about other civilisations
on this planet, which make up 5000 years of history and more than half of the worlds population

[Indigo Child]

Bringing this back to Yoga and Ayurveda.

You seem to be under this impression they are some kind of voodo.
Nothing can be further from the truth, and you will know this if you actually
studied them.

They are classified as sciences in the Indian tradition(vidya) How does something
qualify as a science in the Indian tradition? It must be 1) empirical 2) rational and
3) methodical 4) it must be based on theory.

The only real point that Western science and Indian science differ on is point 4,
as Western theory is based on the theory of materialism and reduces everything
to matter, and Indian theory is based on the theory of idealism and reduces everything
to mind. The rest is the same, Indians pay as much attention to empirical data and rational
interpretation of empirical data as the West does. In addition they also pay strong attention
to phenomenological data, which only recently has been accepted as valid in the West.

Let us look at Ayurveda for instance. A typical Ayurvedic consulation will last up to an hour. It will involve:
An examination of the patient's pulse, tongue, voice, skin, eyes, urine, stools and general appearance. An
extensive questionaire about diet, lifestyle habits, mental habits and history of diagnosis. This happens in
every consultation, no matter what afflication you go for, because every patient is different. All this data is
collected by the physician and then a diagnosis is made and a treatment plan drawn up tailored to the patient.

The diagnosis is based on a list of diseases given in Ayurvedic texts, which contain extensive data on symptoms
classified into various categories. Almost all of the modern diseases we know are given in these texts. Then
finally treatment is given as prescribed in the texts, which will often consist of drugs, diet and lifestyle recommendations. In
the case of drugs extensive data is given on thousands of different kinds of plants, sea salts, gem stones, metals, minerals
in the texts and various formulations.

Now if that is not empirical, rational and methodical, then I don't know what is.

[ProfWag]

[coolnwarm]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]