The majority of forums are now only available as archives, which means posting/editing is disabled.
The Anything and Everything forum is still open.
The Anything and Everything forum is still open.
Spiritual Knowledge - Concepts Of Science
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (43)
Member #: 26540 |
Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’. Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures. A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch. Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion. A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud? Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean. At Thy Lotus Feet Anil Antony www.universal-spirituality.org Universal Spirituality for World Peace antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
dattaswami writes...
Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.
I would agree that these men were outstanding men of science but what evidence do you have that they reached any "final spiritual ocean"? Your whole article suggests that you are distressed by the gulf between a certain kind of extreme scientific atheist or material reductionist and a corresponding kind of extreme religionist. The vast majority of mankind does not hold such extreme views, so I can't see why we can't tolerate the odd freak here and there. You worry too much over this. From this and your other two articles, I think you might be under a delusion called "radical universalism" about which you can read more here: A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism We would be interested in your further thoughts on these matters. 
» Post edited 2006-02-01, 05:46pm by Arizona.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (644)
Member #: 25349 |
Arizona writes...
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
Morales make a strong case, Arizona. A fascinating read. Anil, please do not be disuaded by the splash of cold water on your ideas. I would advise you listen to what Arizona is saying.
It is true that the early bird gets the worm, however, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
YmirGF writes...
Morales make a strong case, Arizona. A fascinating read.
Yes, but also quite a long read. For those with little inclination for reading long articles, here is a good paragraph that gives an idea of his main point: The primary reason why Radical Universalists claim that "all religions are the same" is due to the pretentious assumption that the various individual Absolutes toward which each religion aims is, unbeknownst to them all, really the same conceptual goal. In other words, the members of all other religions are also really seeking Brahman - they are just not intelligent enough to know it! As every religion will vociferously affirm, however, they are not seeking Brahman. Brahman is not Allah; Allah is not Nirvana; Nirvana is not Kevala; Kevala is not polytheistic gods/goddesses; polytheistic gods/goddesses is not Yahweh; Yahweh is not the Ancestors; the Ancestors are not tree spirits, tree spirits are not Brahman. When a religious Muslim tells us that he is worshipping Allah, and not Brahman, we need to take him seriously and respect his choice. When a Buddhist tells us that they want to achieve Nirvana, and not Brahman, we need to take his claim seriously and respect his decision; and so on. To disrespectfully insist that all other religions are really just worshipping Brahman without knowing it, and to do so in the very name of respect and tolerance, is the very height of hypocrisy and intolerance. The uncomplicated fact is that, regardless of how sincerely we may wish that all religions desired the same Absolute that we Hindus wish to achieve, other religions simply do not. They, and we, are attempting to climb categorically different mountains. We need to accept and live with this concrete theological fact.
In the context of the discussion on this page, the truth that science seeks, the mountain that scientists climb, is simply not the same as the truth and the mountain that Hinduism or indeed any religion is about. We do a disservice to either if we refuse to acknowledge these differences. » Post edited 2006-02-01, 09:29pm by Arizona.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
On the other hand, Morales' analysis of the Rig Veda verse "God is one, despite sages calling it by various names" is weak, in my view. It's on page 2 of his article and ends with:
We will now use Categorical Exegetical Analysis to examine the famous verse from the Rig Veda: ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti. An exact transliteration of the verse is:
"Truth/God (sad) [is] One (ekam), [despite] seers (vipra) call (vadanti) [it] variously (bahudha)." The typical Radical Universalist attempt at interpreting this verse is to view it, incorrectly, as either an epistemological or a soteriological claim. That is, this verse is usually misinterpreted as either saying that a) God can be known in a myriad of ways (thus seeing this as an epistemological statement), or that b) there are many ways or paths of achieving God (thus misinterpreting this as a soteriological verse). It is my contention that both interpretations are incorrect. An interpretive error is committed by Radical Universalists due to not understanding the proper categorical context, and thus the proper philosophical meaning, of the statement. The mantra ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti is neither an epistemological nor a soteriological statement; but it is rather an ontological one. It is not talking about the proper derivation of authoritative knowledge (pramana), nor about the means of attaining liberation (mokshopaya, or mokshamarga). Rather, the verse is making a clear attributive statement about the essential ontological nature of the Absolute. The ontological nature of this verse is clearly known due to the fact that sat ("Truth, reality, being, God" ) is the singular nominative subject, which is then qualified by the accusative ekam ("one, unity" ). "God is One...". Thus the primary clausal emphasis of this propositional verse is clearly placed upon explaining the ontological nature of sat (before consonant-initial endings, the t becomes d; thus sat becomes sad in this verse) being a metaphysically unified substance (ekam = "one" ). The emphasis is not on the secondary supportive clause vipra bahudha vadanti. The point of this verse is the ontological unity and integrity of the Absolute, that God is one - despite the fact that this Absolute may have multiple names. The statement ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti is an ontological statement with God as subject, not an epistemological statement with wise-ones as subjects, or a soteriological statement with the means of liberation as the subject. Indeed, multiple paths of liberation are not even mentioned in the original Sanskrit of this verse at all, leaving even less reason for anyone to misinterpret this as a verse somehow supporting Radical Universalism from a soteriological perspective. In summation, this verse is not talking about multiple paths for achieving liberation (since it does not even mention "paths" ). It is not talking about various means of knowing God. Rather, it is a straightforward ontological statement commenting upon the unitive nature of the Absolute, that God is one. Thus, "God is one, despite sages calling it by various names". Surely, this Rig Veda passage is saying that we are all directed toward the same truth, the same goal, the same mountain top. Surely this is as monotheistic as any Abrahamic religious statement. Surely it covers all those who would talk of "God" at all. Since "sat" is the word used and this word also means "truth", that is, the statement could be translated as "Truth is one, ...", I'd have to say that it really covers everyone. ... But there is a difference, too. The scientist will not have any of this God stuff and the religionist will have none of this "truth" that limits itself to the empirical material world in which we live, this "truth" that manages very well without a God. Are "God" and "truth", then, just two names for the same thing? Or are they different? 
» Post edited 2006-02-01, 09:59pm by Arizona.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
A lock of your hair is an infinite tangled chain:
The man wise enough to untie that knot is insane. - Rumi
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
Yes, folks, I am bored tonight, lol.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (644)
Member #: 25349 |
Hehehe.
Still good articles for us to ponder. 
» Post edited 2006-02-02, 05:15pm by YmirGF.
It is true that the early bird gets the worm, however, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (43)
Member #: 26540 |
To all;
Science also helps in realisation of God The angle of science also helps in the realization of God. Science analyses all the items of the creation and proves that no item of creation is the creator. This analysis is mentioned in Veda (Neti Neti…  . The Advaita scholars misunderstood the soul as the creator. Science clearly proves that the soul is only an item of creation. The soul is pure awareness, which is just the finest form of inert energy called as electromagnetic radiation. You are calling it as the life energy due to its living activities, which are born due to its association with three qualities (Sattvam, Rajas and Tamas). These qualities are also inert which are the mechanical waves of the awareness. The soul and qualities are inert because the Lord always controls them. The Lord controls the qualities and the qualities control the soul. Sankara told that the Lord is the controller of Maya (the three qualities) and Maya is the controller of the soul. Therefore, both Maya and soul are inert only since the Lord controls both. Some realised souls transcend the three qualities and control the Maya. By this such souls cannot become the Lord. Instead of Maya controlling the soul, now the soul is controlling the Maya. Instead of the first inert item controlling the second inert item, it has become vice versa. By this neither the soul nor the Maya has become the absolute controller. Thus, a realised soul cannot become the Lord by transcending the Maya.
The prime minister and an ordinary party worker are carrying on tri-coloured flags in their hands. Both are controlling the flags. By this common aspect, the party worker and the Prime Minister are not one and the same. The soul attained its self by crossing the Maya but not has become the Superself. Therefore, the soul is said to be a part of creation (Para Prakruti). The word Para means the finest form. The word Prakruti means the creation. Krishna created the same souls again when Prajapathi hid the original souls. The created souls were not Xerox copies of the original souls. They were the original copies, which were created again. This clearly proves that the soul is creation only. Science is unable to regenerate the dead person because the condensed chip (Jeeva) containing millions of information (Vasanas or Samskaras) cannot be prepared due to tedious difficulty. It is possible to prepare a chip in robot, which contains a few information. Therefore the technology is known and is possible. It is only impractical but not impossible. Thus, Advaita scholars misunderstand the soul as the creator due to lack of the perfect knowledge of science. Enter Text To Make Bold Here |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (43)
Member #: 26540 |
To all;
Everywhere the universal perception should be the basis of authority In that case science is also satisfied because scientists believe this only Knowledge should be scientific, and then only it can be systematic Of course the Lord is above the science, which is the logic in this world But you are not above the science and your ways must be scientific You must detect the Lord who is above the science through scientific ways only Science is the nature and through the natural rules only you can catch the Lord You cannot catch the Lord directly because you are not above the nature You are a part of the nature and therefore your ways cannot be supernatural. When it is impossible to adopt the ways above the nature How can you catch the Lord who is beyond this nature? Nature is creation and the Lord is the creator Creator is beyond the creation as we can see in the world itself The pot maker is different from the pot and therefore stick to nature Infact owing to this limitation of yourself, the Lord is coming down He enters the best part of the nature, which is the human being The word Brahman means the best; human being is the best in the world Therefore human beings is called Brahman within the boundary of the world Brahman is greater than the greatest and therefore is the ultimate greatest. When such Brahman enters the world, He will enter the best part only When the king enters the town, he enters the best house in the town. He cannot enter a worst hut, which is below his dignity. Therefore Brahman can never enter any inert object, which is the lowest Brahman also will not enter trees birds and animals because They are higher than the inert object but not the highest. The advaita scholars are mislead at this juncture because When it is told that the human being is Brahman, they understood That the human being is the ultimate highest, but it is not so, This is the reason why the Lord is called Para Brahman Para Brahman means greater than Brahman that is greater than the human being You can experience Him through the human incarnation Thus you’re experiencing Him through nature and everything is setup |
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (644)
Member #: 25349 |
Sorry dude. Too many sweeping generalites for this unthinking sweeping generalist.
Tell me, have you wondered why no one seems to respond to the call of your mightly conch shell? I think I might have a hint.
It is true that the early bird gets the worm, however, it is the second mouse that gets the cheese.
|
||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rank: ? (4574)
Member #: 51 |
YmirGF writes...
I think I might have a hint.
Looking forward to your diagnosis.
|
||
|
Please login or register to post a reply.
