mystic_seeker

You have almost answered it for yourself. A Saivite like Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami would probably say call it Siva consciousness if you like. Some Christians might say Christ consciousness. Some people get caught up in names and words, but the important thing is that one must live life in devotion to the Supreme Lord. gHari put it best: We have three things forever, eternally and they are: 1 ..... Our self, 2 ..... God, 3 ..... Our devotion to God. These three we have forever. Everything else is inconsequential, not eternal.

Beautifully put! Seek God with all your heart and all the rest will work itself out.

Does anyone happen to know a place that sells this resin Dancing Siva (Natraj), see image below. It was on ebay but I missed it; perhaps one of you have see a store that has this particular one? Thanks

Dear Murali_Mohan_das, You really must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today. I and gHari both disagree with Dawkins' atheism. I like gHari. I only, kindly I might add, pointed out to him that he should not say things about Mr. Dawkins if he is not sure they are true. He agreed. The conversation was always nice and civil. I even gave him the benefit of the doubt that it might have been only sloppy language on his part rather than an intent to misrepresent Dawkins. Nevertheless, we should be careful when we write because we don't want to accidently misrepresent someone. I am stunned that you cannot see the importance of not misrepresenting the other side in a debate. That was my only point to gHari, and it is an important point because satya (truthfulness) is a yama. God bless you, and have a nice day.

Dear Murali_Mohan_das, gHari has already admitted he should not have written that sentence, so why continue to protest? It is wrong for a person to write: "Dr. Dawkins says he doesn't accept quantum mechanics" when that person is unsure what Dawkins' personal opinion on quantum mechanics is. Truthfulness (satya) is important in life. How would you like it if someone put your name "Murali_Mohan_das" in sentence about science or scripture that you felt inaccurately reflected your opinion? You would probably protest: "Hey, that sentence is untrue, I don't believe that!" And you would be right to protest...

First, I hope you are not lumping me in with shvu; I already agreed with one of your other points earlier in this thread. Second, I hope you are not suggesting I am an idiot. Quantum mechanics is a very difficult topic. Many scientists disagree about how to interpret the experiments. Among scientists the Copenhagen interpretation is popular, but other scientists disagree with that interpretation. Third, if you wanted to say that a man (for example Dawkins) who has not experienced the things of the Spiritual life should not attack what he has not experienced, then say that. The way you put it gives the false impression that Dawkins rejects quantum mechanics: Debate suffers when warring parties misrepresent each other. Even though I happen to think that Dawkins is arrogant and is quite pathetic when he tries to do philosophy, I would never try to misrepresent his views. Ahimsa and Satya are yamas for a reason. Anyway, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just wanted to make a point (and didn't express it well) rather than misrepresent him.

Listen, man, I dislike Dawkins too, but don't you think its wrong to attribute something to him that he did not say?

gHari, you are correct. In fact, many scientists do not really understand the nature of science. Many of them are lab people who have never bothered to study "philosophy of science," which is the discipline that deals with the nature of science. By the way could you tell me in what book/article/webpage does Dawkins say he does not accept quantum theory?

Cbrahma, is totally correct. Materialism is a philosophical view not scientific view. In addition, it is an assumption. How would someone go about proving that in "all of reality" there is not even one non-material being? Most humans have only experienced a very small part of reality. The only hope atheists have would be to demonstrate that the notion of a non-material being is contradictory (like a square-circle). Contradictory items cannot exist. However, the notion of a non-material being is not contradictory so the atheists should take the humble route and admit "they don't really know."

Accidental double post

The word soul (psyche, in Greek, the same Greek word that Plato and Aristotle used for soul) occurrs 58 times in the Bible. See the image below.

This is a joke, correct? You are not seriously suggesting that Moses did not know Hebrew, right? Because he knew Hebrew....

Dear Suchandra, I agree that Paul has had a tremendous influence on most Christians, probably more than Jesus (at least in some ways).... and that is troubling in my opinion. I often find myself disagreeing with some of Paul's teachings though there are others I agree with. I certainly think that if Jesus returned today and examined all the division and different teachings in the various Christian churches he would not be happy. I do feel much of what Jesus truly taught has been lost or misunderstood. But on one point I disagree with you. I do think Jesus came for everyone to draw them all back to God:

Well I don't presume to know the exact significance/meaning of the event. However, based on my own experiences and information that has been revealed to me, I'll try to shed some light on it. Feel free to disagree, of course. By chanting the names of the Lord you invited Him into your life. A combination of your meditational focus and His divine grace made you vibrate at a higher level. This allowed you to take a brief glimpse into the higher realms and thus you saw things that ordinary people do not see (golden lights). You also activated your crown chakra, which explains the upward pull you felt on the top of your head. These type of experiences are good. Many humans are stuck in a materialist type of consciousness. But now that you have experienced what you described above, you know that the materialist view only gives an incomplete picture of reality. Because these experiences are wonderful it is natural for you to desire more. However, it is best, in my view, to simply Love the Lord and surrender to Him. If it is good for more experiences to be given to you, they will be given to you (don't worry). But to seek out these experiences selfishly is not the way to go. (I only mention this because it is easy to get caught up in the selfish route, though I am not suggesting that you are caught in it.) Ultimately, the Lord will transform you by His Grace if you surrender to Him. Namaste.

Dear Shvu, Thanks for the book recommendation! Perhaps now you realize I am not as dense as I appear!