Article sent from The Hindu

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/13/02 5:57:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

thehindu writes:

 

> In his discourse, Swami Paramarthananada said modern man sought explanation

> for every religious activity and ritual. If a scientific (logical)

> elucidation is not given he does not want to accept it. Unless science

> validates religion, rituals and existence of God they are considered blind

> beliefs or superstitions. According to the scriptures it is a fundamental

> mistake to seek a logical explanation for matters concerning religion.

 

I can only question that scripture finds that 'it is a fundamental mistake to

seek a logical explanation for matters concerning religion'. If it is that

logic, faith, and science are at odds with each other, someplace or other,

then I can only feel that there is error in the arguments upholding such

tenets. God is a universal natural phenomena and it is about time that God

be seen in his/her full glory as universal natural phenomena, indeed, natural

phenomena whose outcome is dependent to a large extent on our individual

faith. Concerning ritual, real ritual with fully developed proper and

appropriate ingredients, it is a truly a supreme profound reality and it is

or certainly can be a science also. Science will not detract from the

efficacy of the holy traditions and the seen and unseen masters. It can only

make them more profound and help stimulate world peace in the process. It

would be good if we can spend some time in such glorified beautiful matters,

rather then to elect each of our own fundamentalistic views to spend time in

devising new ways to continue killing each other.

 

When a scriptural text introduces its subject matter it points out that the

focus of

> discussion in it is beyond the scope of the means of knowledge (sensory

> perception, inference) with which empirical knowledge (science) is gained.

> How then can science verify what is beyond its purview?

>

 

If we truly believe that any subject matter 'is beyond the scope of the means

of knowledge (sensory perception, inference) with which empirical knowledge

(science) is gained', then I'm sure that it certainly will be beyond our

scope and means. Perhaps we need to stop reiterating, like an old tired

mantra, that such scientific verification is beyond our purview. Science

will not take away from the thrills that our faiths bring to us.

 

> Assuming that religion rests on belief, it must be noted that science does

> not contradict human beliefs and hence there is nothing wrong in accepting

> scriptures on belief. This is akin to accepting the knowledge one gains

> through the five sense organs.

>

 

Absolutely, there is nothing wrong in accepting scriptures on belief. Belief

is beautiful. Belief must be the most provocative area that sustains

evolutionary principals in mankind's continuing growth. It is not only 'akin

to accepting the knowledge one gains through the five sense organs', it is

yet more profound because of its revealed subtlety not attainable through the

ordinary five physical senses. And though religion appears to rest on

belief, as you say above, I surely also believe that it is also solidly based

on universal measurable foundations. We need to look.

 

> Each sensory field is exclusive and hence one sense cannot verify the

> sensory input of another. For instance, the ear cannot validate the orange

> colour seen by the eye. According to tradition scriptures are the source of

> knowledge in matters that do not fall within the scope of science. Hence it

> is perfectly all right to accept scripture in its own terms.

>

>

>

 

Of course it is perfectly all right to accept scripture in its own terms.

Each physical body sense registers in its own domain, as you say, but

Beethoven never appears with less profound emotional upheaval just because

one happens to know all the details about how the ear works and registers to

the brain. Maybe there is a slight shift in registry, though, whether we

listen in a blue lighted room or in red lighted room. Again though, I need

to question the above, 'According to tradition scriptures are the source of

knowledge in matters that do not fall within the scope of science.

 

There is a long trail of false habituation among many spiritual adherents

that science and logic will somehow destroy our most closely held beliefs,

and this spreads fear. The more I see universal, repetitive, principals at

work in the domain of attainments in the evolution of consciousness, the more

excited and involved I become, not lessor. There is nothing to fear -- it's

just that old piece of rope again, dimly seen as a snake under cover of

darkness.

 

Peace and Blessings,

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

=============================================================

This article is emailed to you by Ram Chandran ( rchandran )

=============================================================

Source: The Hindu

(http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/03/14/stories/2002031406010800.htm)

Miscellaneous

-

Religion

 

 

Scriptures, source of knowledge on God

 

 

 

CHENNAI, MARCH 14. The Vedic culture advocates a religious lifestyle primarily

though the Vedas also deal with materialistic pursuits which are necessary for

living in the world. What does a religious lifestyle mean? It entails that a

person through the performance of a ritual or prayer is connected with God most

of the time or all the time. Right from the moment of conception, a human

being's life is linked to God through rituals. They are performed during

pregnancy, at birth and throughout his life till his end.

 

If we consider a day in the life of an individual, one is supposed to rise

during the predawn hour of Brahmamuhurta which is meant for worship. He has to

first offer obeisance to the preceptor, God, mother and father. No activity is

done without recitation of the prescribed mantra. Even mundane actions like

brushing the teeth, bathing, eating and sleeping are rituals thereby making

day-to-day life God-centred.

 

In his discourse, Swami Paramarthananada said modern man sought explanation for

every religious activity and ritual. If a scientific (logical) elucidation is

not given he does not want to accept it. Unless science validates religion,

rituals and existence of God they are considered blind beliefs or superstitions.

According to the scriptures it is a fundamental mistake to seek a logical

explanation for matters concerning religion. When a scriptural text introduces

its subject matter it points out that the focus of discussion in it is beyond

the scope of the means of knowledge (sensory perception, inference) with which

empirical knowledge (science) is gained. How then can science verify what is

beyond its purview?

 

Assuming that religion rests on belief, it must be noted that science does not

contradict human beliefs and hence there is nothing wrong in accepting

scriptures on belief. This is akin to accepting the knowledge one gains through

the five sense organs.

 

Each sensory field is exclusive and hence one sense cannot verify the sensory

input of another. For instance, the ear cannot validate the orange colour seen

by the eye. According to tradition scriptures are the source of knowledge in

matters that do not fall within the scope of science. Hence it is perfectly all

right to accept scripture in its own terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright: 1995 - 2002 The Hindu

 

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly

prohibited without the consent of The Hindu

[Guest guest]

Dear Edmond.

 

 

 

<I can only question that scripture finds that 'it is a fundamental mistake to

seek a logical explanation for matters concerning religion'.

 

If it is that

logic, faith, and science are at odds with each other, someplace or other,

then I can only feel that there is error in the arguments upholding such

tenets>

 

------------------------

 

The second sentence above is your comment on the first quote above, which is an

extract from Swami Paramarthananda's speech reported in The Hindu. I have read

the remaining part of your excellent post. I only want to comment on your

comment above.

 

Faith as explained by a scripture may be at odds with a particular scientific

fact. That does not mean that the scripture is wrong or for that matter the

scientific fact is wrong. We all walk over the earth, but this is no

disrespect to the Earth as far as Science is concerned, because earth is

inanimate. (Leave aside right now the pollution we may be committing from an

ecological viewpoint). But when the scripture tells us that the Earth is

divine, it is the manifestation of the Lord, and the Goddess BhUmA-devi

represents that manifestation and that we should pay our obeisance to that

Goddess the first thing in the morning when we step on Earth and ask Her pardon

for all the things we may do to her that day, the scripture has a point. A

belief in this statement of the scripture is not to be considered as an

antithesis to science, nor is it a superstition. Because, we have no way of

'scientifically' verifying or 'proving' what the scripture says. This is what

the Swamiji means when he says that the orange color seen by the eye cannot be

verified by the ear. So I find it difficult to agree with Edmond's comment that

'there is error in the arguments'.

 

I have a standard example which I always mention in this context. Some members

of the advaitin list must have heard it from me in the past. But it is worth

repetition now and here it is.

 

Two different statements may appear to be total contradictions of each other

but both might be true in their own context and in their own world of accepted

hypotheses. The example is a mathematical equation such as:

 

5 + 3 = 5 x 3 = 1.

 

This is obviously incorrect if you are not given any further hypothesis than

those of ordinary arithmetic of numbers. But suppose you add the hypothesis that

we are working in the algebra of numbers modulo 7 , the statement makes sense

and is perfectly a valid statement. Thus the statements of the scriptures may

for all you know have added hypotheses than simply the sensory inferences. And,

with the added hypotheses, it may turn out to be true though without the extra

hypothesis it is all only nonsense. In the case of Vedanta the added hypothesis

is that of scriptural intuition which also admits, according to the scriptures,

of verification by mystic experience.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

You can access my 'Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and Practice'

from my Science and Spirituality Website:

www.geocities.com/profvk

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Well thank you for your kind sharing in this continuing development.

However, it would seem that you are supporting my statement rather than

gracefully refuting it, which I believe was your intent? That beautiful

modulo 7 algebra analogy gets right to the point quickly. Consider that data

is registered from here and there, on this and that all around us, concerning

spiritual, religious, and ritualistic phenomena. In some cases the data

looks strangely like 5 + 3 should have to equal 1. In other cases it looks

more like 5 x 3 = 1 is implied, that is, it looks chaotic where logic, faith,

and science seem to be at odds with each other. We had originally thought

that all of these phenomena were, indeed, a consequence of universal laws of

nature, but the data does not uphold this. Finally, a bright young

mathematician comes along and discovers this new modulo 7 algebra, and

behold, systematic, logical, scientific thought forms spill over into the

previous domains of chaos. Our original thinking that used only modulo 10

algebra was in error in trying to discover the unifying natural laws

regarding a variety of honestly reported data. Now with this new modulo 7

stuff applied to the dynamics of the physical and metaphysical systems, law

and order does, in fact, begin to prevail. That chaotic data which

previously seemed totally nonaligned with any form of common sense suddenly

emerges as complying to a reality of simple subtle natural universal law,

just because of an ever so slight twist in our alignment of mental processes.

We would seem to be in total agreement.

 

jai guru dev,

 

Edmond

 

In a message dated 3/13/02 11:31:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,

profvk writes:

 

> Dear Edmond.

>

>

>

> <I

>

> If it is that

> logic, faith, and science are at odds with each other, someplace or other,

> then I can only feel that there is error in the arguments upholding such

> tenets>

>

> ------------------------

>

> The second sentence above is your comment on the first quote above, which

> is an extract from Swami Paramarthananda's speech reported in The Hindu. I

> have read the remaining part of your excellent post. I only want to comment

> on your comment above.

>

> Faith as explained by a scripture may be at odds with a particular

> scientific fact. That does not mean that the scripture is wrong or for that

> matter the scientific fact is wrong. We all walk over the earth, but this

> is no disrespect to the Earth as far as Science is concerned, because earth

> is inanimate. (Leave aside right now the pollution we may be committing

> from an ecological viewpoint). But when the scripture tells us that the

> Earth is divine, it is the manifestation of the Lord, and the Goddess

> BhUmA-devi represents that manifestation and that we should pay our

> obeisance to that Goddess the first thing in the morning when we step on

> Earth and ask Her pardon for all the things we may do to her that day, the

> scripture has a point. A belief in this statement of the scripture is not

> to be considered as an antithesis to science, nor is it a superstition.

> Because, we have no way of 'scientifically' verifying or 'proving' what the

> scripture says. This is what the Swamiji means when he says that the

> orange color seen by the eye cannot be verified by the ear. So I find it

> difficult to agree with Edmond's comment that 'there is error in the

> arguments'.

>

> I have a standard example which I always mention in this context. Some

> members of the advaitin list must have heard it from me in the past. But it

> is worth repetition now and here it is.

>

> Two different statements may appear to be total contradictions of each

> other but both might be true in their own context and in their own world

> of accepted hypotheses. The example is a mathematical equation such as:

>

> 5 + 3 = 5 x 3 = 1.

>

> This is obviously incorrect if you are not given any further hypothesis

> than those of ordinary arithmetic of numbers. But suppose you add the

> hypothesis that we are working in the algebra of numbers modulo 7 , the

> statement makes sense and is perfectly a valid statement. Thus the

> statements of the scriptures may for all you know have added hypotheses

> than simply the sensory inferences. And, with the added hypotheses, it may

> turn out to be true though without the extra hypothesis it is all only

> nonsense. In the case of Vedanta the added hypothesis is that of

> scriptural intuition which also admits, according to the scriptures, of

> verification by mystic experience.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/14/02 8:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,

edmeasure writes:

 

> Our original thinking that used only modulo 10

> algebra

 

Correction in immediately previous posting: base 10, not modulo 10

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with both Prof V.K. and Ed Measure.

 

In the book of practice of the Church of Cosmic Mathematicians it states

(Chapter 6, Verse 7, if I remember rightly):

Behold the mystical equation: 5 + 3 = 5 x 3 = 1

That by these numbers, shall the mathematical adherent know the truth beyond

the mundane.

 

But what value to those of us that were too dense, or too inattentive during

maths class to know or deduce that this isn't nonsense? Would blindly repeating

it, without understanding the underlying awareness, give comfort to some number

deva?

 

Or should we study our maths and then, coming back to it, think, "Ah! That's

what that meant. How obvious. How true."

 

Regards

 

Brian