Science and Spirituality

[Guest guest]

Namaste Everyone interested in this topic,

 

Would like to start by clarifying that by profession I am

not a scientist. I am an electrical engineer. Though I am

quite interested in science in general (and physics in

particular).

 

It would be reasonable to define science as an inquiry into

matter, and spirituality as an inquiry into mind.

 

Basic question here is what is the relation between matter and

mind ?

 

1. Materialistic view point: Mind is a product of matter and is

completely governed by the laws matter.

 

2. Spiritual viewpoint: Matter is a product of mind and completely

governed by laws pertaining to mind.

 

I personally to the viewpoint 2 and believe that Vedic

literature also supports the view point 2.

 

Consider a practical application: Say curing a disease. (If you

notice, I use this example quite often. In my quest on the path of

yoga (vedanta) I obtained some theoritical understanding of the

nature of reality from quantum physics. However the realization

in practice was due to some simple experimentation with ayurveda).

>From viewpoint 1, the cause of a disease is some disorder

in the physical body, or attack from some physical foreign

bodies. Hence we tackle the disorder exclusively by treating the

body. (Approach 1)

 

A yogi on the other hand, realizes that a bodily disease is

a reflection of some disorder in the domain of the mind, and by

meditation tackles this disorder. (Approach 2).

 

Approach 1 is incomplete and is possible to do better.

 

Approach 2 is not suitable for everyone.

 

How about something in between. This is precisely what ayurveda

does. We use herbs and other ingredients (even chemicals) from

the physical plane BUT UNLIKE MODERN MEDICINE, THE GOAL IS TO

PRODUCE AN EFFECT IN THE DOMAIN OF THE MIND. In essence, the goal

is to use drugs to simulate a meditative state of mind. But this

state is not a general meditative state like that of a yogi, but

tailored to stir the particular disorder of mind that is causing

the disease and thereby cure it.

 

So this is the general idea. For any practical application

consider the two extremes:

 

Approach 1: How modern science would tackle the situation.

Approach 2: How an advanced yogi would tackle the situation.

 

A modest goal: Aim at something in between.

 

Hope I was not too vague in this post.

 

Best regards

Shrinivas Gadkari

[Guest guest]

Shree Shreenivaas Gadkaari,

 

Thanks for your post. I am scientist-engineer by

profession or at least paid for it. I will present my

views on the issues you have raised.

 

> It would be reasonable to define science as an

> inquiry into

> matter, and spirituality as an inquiry into mind.

 

I would define it more general

science, I will define it as logical inquiry. Logic

itself is based on experimentation. Experimental

observation and logic has to go together. This is

addressed as epistemologically in our vedantic enquiry

as pramaaNa-s. Pratyakshan is observation by senses

and becomes basis for experimental investigations.

The concomitent relationships that one establishes by

scientific inquiry is what is referred in logic (what

ours empistamologists charcterized as anumaana - is

called 'vyaapti j~naanam' - essentially the

cause-effect correlations established on the basis of

direct experimentation and observation or pratyaksha.

Hence logic or anumaana rests on pratyaksha.

objective inquiry in to the mind is what is done by

psychologiests.

 

You brought diseases as an example - but all those

come under objective sicences only as pere vedanta.

There are psychosymatic disceses that you have

mentioned where the source of the disease is the mind.

But there are others that have source which are

physical - phsical hurt and breaking of the bones etc

or grosser at body level and many not have much to do

with the mind per sec. Mind could activate the

natural curing process since body is designed to some

extent as the self-repairing system. But that may not

be sufficient if the hurt is grossl physical and

requires proper help including sometimes amputation

inorder for curing to occur. We have in this country

- christian scientists group who refuse to take their

sick children to hospital thinking that prayer will do

the job. Many innocent children died due to

negligence of the parents beause proper care was not

given.

 

My general defintion is anything that can be

objectified - including the mind - and observed,

codified and quantified comes under objective science.

 

We have 'anumanaana' or logical deductions that or not

based not objective experimentation and observation

but based on scriptures - these are subjective inquiry

of the truth and is logical with in realm of shaastra

- is called shaastriiya anumaana. Vedantins take Veda

as the valid pramaana and use that as basis for

logical analysis of life experiences and goals etc.

Since the object of the experimentation is the very

subject itself - "I" or 'aatma' in contrast to

objective science where the subject of inquiry is

'anaatma'- the objective scientific inquiry is

invalied to establish the truth of the subjective

inquiry - Hence the scriptural statement - 'naishaa

tarkena matiraapaneya' one cannot establish 'aatma'

using logic - yet shaastra is not illogical. Logic is

intellecutal inquiry - inquiry with intellect has to

be done but using the shaasriyya declations as a

basis - like the four mayaa vakyaas as an example.

One cannot prove or disprove using objective logic the

declaration of the veda-s.

 

Everything else other than aatma comes under anaatma

and is subject to objective inquiry since it is object

and not a subject. Science is only a logical inquiry

-and since shaastra-s are not illogical -scientific

analysis is still valid with in the boundaries of

valid shaastriiya pramaaNa. Truth is beyond pramaana -

aprameyam is what scripture says.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

> Basic question here is what is the relation between

> matter and

> mind ?

>

> 1. Materialistic view point: Mind is a product of

> matter and is

> completely governed by the laws matter.

>

> 2. Spiritual viewpoint: Matter is a product of mind

> and completely

> governed by laws pertaining to mind.

>

> I personally to the viewpoint 2 and

> believe that Vedic

> literature also supports the view point 2.

>

> Consider a practical application: Say curing a

> disease. (If you

> notice, I use this example quite often. In my quest

> on the path of

> yoga (vedanta) I obtained some theoritical

> understanding of the

> nature of reality from quantum physics. However the

> realization

> in practice was due to some simple experimentation

> with ayurveda).

>

> From viewpoint 1, the cause of a disease is some

> disorder

> in the physical body, or attack from some physical

> foreign

> bodies. Hence we tackle the disorder exclusively by

> treating the

> body. (Approach 1)

>

> A yogi on the other hand, realizes that a bodily

> disease is

> a reflection of some disorder in the domain of the

> mind, and by

> meditation tackles this disorder. (Approach 2).

>

> Approach 1 is incomplete and is possible to do

> better.

>

> Approach 2 is not suitable for everyone.

>

> How about something in between. This is precisely

> what ayurveda

> does. We use herbs and other ingredients (even

> chemicals) from

> the physical plane BUT UNLIKE MODERN MEDICINE, THE

> GOAL IS TO

> PRODUCE AN EFFECT IN THE DOMAIN OF THE MIND. In

> essence, the goal

> is to use drugs to simulate a meditative state of

> mind. But this

> state is not a general meditative state like that of

> a yogi, but

> tailored to stir the particular disorder of mind

> that is causing

> the disease and thereby cure it.

>

> So this is the general idea. For any practical

> application

> consider the two extremes:

>

> Approach 1: How modern science would tackle the

> situation.

> Approach 2: How an advanced yogi would tackle the

> situation.

>

> A modest goal: Aim at something in between.

>

> Hope I was not too vague in this post.

>

> Best regards

> Shrinivas Gadkari

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

http://games./

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

wrote:

> You brought diseases as an example - but all those

> come under objective sicences only as pere vedanta.

> There are psychosymatic disceses that you have

> mentioned where the source of the disease is the mind.

> But there are others that have source which are

> physical - phsical hurt and breaking of the bones etc

> or grosser at body level and many not have much to do

> with the mind per sec. Mind could activate the

 

Namaste Shri SadanandJi and GummuluruJI,

 

Just to clarify (for I think not clarifying this will

certainly miss the point that I am trying to make):

> > A yogi on the other hand, realizes that a bodily

> > disease is

> > a reflection of some disorder in the domain of the

> > mind, and by

> > meditation tackles this disorder. (Approach 2).

 

I am making no exceptions here. I mean ALL diseases

for a yogi are indicative of a need to correct something

at the level of mind. Whether it be a fever or a bone

fracture or something else, the cause IS in the mind.

And when the cause is eliminated via say meditation, the

bodily disease/injury which was an effect cannot remain.

Yes this is mystic. But removing mysticism from Yoga (Vedanta)

means watering it down to a level where it is too mild

for many seekers.

 

(Did Shri Krishna or Shri Sai Baba ever hide the

fact that Yoga is mystic ?)

> Everything else other than aatma comes under anaatma

> and is subject to objective inquiry since it is object

> and not a subject. Science is only a logical inquiry

 

Maya shakti projects that which is inside the purusha and

makes it seem as if it is outside the purusha. What purusha

thinks is outside him is actually within him. Seen this

way anAtama is actually Atma.

 

Best regards

Shrinivas

[Guest guest]

Anand Natarajan <harihara.geo> wrote:

> Unfortunately modern scientists

> with all their "greatness" ignored this fundemental

> aspect. However our Vedic Seers emphasised that you

> can ignore the seen but do not ignore the seer.

 

hariH OM! anandaji-

 

yes, emphatically agree. this has to be the major

difference in the two approaches.

 

the popular "new physics" upheld by most in the

scientific community, has yet to recognize [this] most

fundamental of all factors that goes into their whole

method of investigation. i wrote an artical about

this very subject, and also propounded [what i think

is a very simple and viable observation] called the

"Zero Mass Theorem" (see link below). proving by a

very simple and inescapably logical (at least to me

:-) experiment, the impossibility of there finally

being any such thing as solid substance, in particle

form. that it is in fact, as the saying goes, "all in

the mind."

 

(i should mention however, that neither can this, nor

should it be anything that one should settle on as

being finally true [for lack of better phrasing, let's

say] from the most esoteric level of Reality, which is

Absolute Mystery Itself, defying all logic. because

we [brahman] want it that way...couldn't in fact have

it any other way! and *even this latter* statement is

merely a half-truth,.. as well as *this latter*,..

etc,.. ad infinitum! in other words, It's all

investigatively seamless anirvachaniyam :-)

 

i look at such philosophising and exploring the limits

of Mind, as well as its awesome non-limits!, as

*entertainment*, with no hope or even desire to reach

any protracted final solution or answer.....in fact,

about *anything*! we can propound relative answers to

relative conditions, that have dharmic validity

specifically relative to our particular human

wavelength of evolved awareness, within those specific

isolated/encapsulated conditions; but there's the

limit. or *is* it?! hahaha!

 

living alongside .. in fact, WITHIN and AS this Ocean

of Mystery, in peace, is the destination of our

advaita marga. for, this Ocean is nothing other than

the brahman Self.

 

i found especially entertaining the recent alleged

breakthrough in science, discovering finally the

coveted Unified Field Theory, or Theory of Everything.

notwithstanding they're yet short of focussing on the

core issue of the relaiability of the Observer Itself,

what the article does reveal is the living potential

of the power of maya-shakthi demonstrated in the lila

of the Universal Mind [as first breath of brahman].

they call it the "M Theory." first it was partical

theory, then particle/wave, then string, and now "M"

(representing an astronomically long "Membrane"

extending through spacetime. now, little do they

realize the significance of the letter "M."

for, "M" represents the "M" in OM: as manifestation,

mother, maya, man, [the soma] of moon, manvantara,

mara, mithya, muni, etc. as well as the very shape of

the letter, depicting the *modulation* of Relativity.

 

here's the last paragraph from the discussion (see

link below):

 

ALAN GUTH: "I in fact have worked with several other

people for some period of time on the question of

whether or not it's in principle possible to create a

new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it

really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it

probably would work. It's actually safe to create a

universe in your basement. It would not displace the

universe around it even though it would grow

tremendously. It would actually create its own space

as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a

second it would splice itself off completely from our

Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe

growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any

of the territory that we currently lay claim to."

 

regards,

frank

 

link to quantum theory article:

http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpageq.html

 

link to Zero Mass Theorem:

http://digital.net/~egodust/fmpagezm.html

 

link to recent discussion, unveiling new "M Theory."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

 

___________________

 

PS hi greg-ji. thanks. sorry for the delayed reply..

 

 

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.

[Guest guest]

Quote from Frankji's Zero Mass Theorem:

 

"Mass is an appearance of the non-event of Energy. This will likely

be met with vigorous opposition, if not cynicism or even laughter.

Nevertheless, it is a conclusion reached--albeit incredible--via the

scientific method. Only a measure of patience and a fair dose of an

open mind will enable one to perhaps come to recognize that it is a

viable possibility."

 

Namaste Frankji!

 

Your links were really exhilarating and this was what I was looking

for when I requested other advaitins to respond to the Vivekananda

Centre question.

 

I am not a scientist and, therefore, not competent to appreciate the

finer nuances of your zero mass theorem. However, my lay mind can

still grasp the message you are trying to convey.

 

You could postulate the way you have done because, first of all, you

dared to do so (and that is very very important) and, secondly,

because you had the required exposure to relevant philosophical

insights. I am not naming Vedanta alone. This is not the case with

the other scientists. Still, however, occasionally, they dare to

come out in the open like it was expressed in the BBC Horizon

interview:

 

"Paul Steinhardt: I think people get the wrong impression about

scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to

sep 2 to step 3. What really happens is that often you make some

imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you

capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you

are imagining without yet proving.".

 

We need more poetry, Frankji. A large dose of it. And, that

exactly is most of our scientists are incapable of or shy of. To

them, to sound philosophically "nonsensical" is worse than admitting

a close encounter with aliens! There is a lot at stake and, no

wonder, the prospect of being imaginative is just galling! What a

tragedy!

 

Science lives in the hope of a Unified Field Theory. Carl Sagan

fantasized it in "Contact", his novel of the eighties. We are past

the millennium milestone. Still, the all-explaining theory remains a

figment of imagination. How will they ever realize that they are

chasing a chimera? If they realized that, will that not be an end to

Ignorance? Our scientists ought to remain Ignorant. That is the way

Maayaa ordains it. That bewitiching beauty is really inscrutable!

 

In a way, the scientists are trying to explain our adhyaasa from

their point of view. No wonder that they are at a loss like we

advaitains are, as we have found from our recent discussions on that

topic. I remember Atmachaitanyaji fearing that advaita would remain

a religious dogma if adhyaasa is not logically explained. Yet,

adhyaasa has remained intractable, whether one likes it or not, like

the hope for a unified field theory, the physicist's panacea for his

ultimate Ignorance!

 

Frankji, something strikes my lay mind about your zero mass theorem.

If I have understood it right, you seem to explore only in one

direction, i.e. to the microcosm and downwards. Why has not an

attempt been made to look at the macrocosm and beyond. You have

rightly assumed that the human mind presupposes a limit to solid

state in the direction of the microcosm. Accepted. Do we have the

same presupposition, logical or illogical, about the macrocosm and

beyond? If possible, could you please look from the macrocosmic

angle and tell us how well that goes with your zero mass theorem?

 

In Lalithasahasranaamavali (the thousand names of Devi Lalitha),

which I chant day in and day out, She is

called "anekakotibrahmaandajanani". My translation of this name

is: "the mother of several crores of universes". I do not know when

Lalithasahasranaamavali was authored or by whom. However, I am sure

Her devotees were chanting the sthothra long long before our modern

physicists had their umbilical cords removed. And, Lo! There they

are now waxing eloquent about multiple universes! And, then again,

Frankji, there is our own Sankara who sang in Annapoorna Sthothram at

a time when our physicists had not yet opened their eyes to the light

of the world:

 

"Drisyaadrisyavibhoothivaahanakaree brahmandabhandodaree

Leelaanaatakasoothrabhedanakaree vijnaana deepamkuree"

 

Brahmandabhandodaree! What a beauty! Carrying the universes in the

bag of her stomach (That is my translation. Forgive me if I am not

exact.). Our ignorant scientific minds now reecho the same truth

rather hesitantly: There are multiple universes! And this knowledge

dawns on them as a wayward nonsensical awakening during a train

journey to the Copenhagen show in London!

 

Let them chant the Lalithasahasranaamaavali or Annapoorna Sthothram!

Better for them! Or, let them just apprentice themselves to Don

Juan, Carlos Castaneda's guru. They will realize that there are

realities (universes) stacked one upon the other!

 

Thanks and best regards, Frankji, for this opportunity for me to

respond to your splendid mail. And, please don't forget to post

other interesting stuff.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

> i look at such philosophising and exploring the limits

> of Mind, as well as its awesome non-limits!, as

> *entertainment*, with no hope or even desire to reach

> any protracted final solution or answer.....in fact,

> about *anything*! we can propound relative answers to

> relative conditions, that have dharmic validity

> specifically relative to our particular human

> wavelength of evolved awareness, within those specific

> isolated/encapsulated conditions; but there's the

> limit. or *is* it?! hahaha!

>

> living alongside .. in fact, WITHIN and AS this Ocean

> of Mystery, in peace, is the destination of our

> advaita marga. for, this Ocean is nothing other than

> the brahman Self.

>

> i found especially entertaining the recent alleged

> breakthrough in science, discovering finally the

> coveted Unified Field Theory, or Theory of Everything.

> notwithstanding they're yet short of focussing on the

> core issue of the relaiability of the Observer Itself,

> what the article does reveal is the living potential

> of the power of maya-shakthi demonstrated in the lila

> of the Universal Mind [as first breath of brahman].

> they call it the "M Theory." first it was partical

> theory, then particle/wave, then string, and now "M"

> (representing an astronomically long "Membrane"

> extending through spacetime. now, little do they

> realize the significance of the letter "M."

> for, "M" represents the "M" in OM: as manifestation,

> mother, maya, man, [the soma] of moon, manvantara,

> mara, mithya, muni, etc. as well as the very shape of

> the letter, depicting the *modulation* of Relativity.

>

>

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! Madathil-ji,

 

yes, i quite agree with your entire post. and so

eloquently stated!

 

please however bear in mind that my Zero Mass Theorem

is *exclusively* an attempt to prove the fact that

physical matter is not what we conclude it to be, as

something "solid" (incidentally the very concept of

"solidity" is itself a thought!, which proves the

theorem correct from another whole angle..), but which

is a product of the Mind! so it doesn't address

larger objects; nor does it need to, in *this*

context.

 

what i believe you're getting at is: is there a limit

to the breadth or size of the macrocosm? and where

you're correctly seeing the applicability of my

theorem is in terms of its logical approach, where the

theoretical idea of infinite shrinkage can also be

applied to infinite expansion. (i remember when i was

first contemplating the size of the universe, i said

to myself, "if there's some limit to it, where even

space is supposed to be nonexistent (which intuitively

rings impossible), then what's there at that outermost

limit-mark?...a wall?" :-))

 

obviously it's got to be equally a product of Mind.

einstein even alluded to the fact that the size of the

universe varies with the varying limits of the

observer's imagination! incidentally, einstein, bohr,

and heisenberg, among other physicists of the mid 20th

century, were more and more sounding like mystics!

 

today we have fritjof capra, michael talbot, and gary

zukov, among select others carrying it a step further.

in fact, capra's TAO OF PHYSICS compares hindu,

buddhist and taoist thought to *select* contemporary

breakthroughs in theoretical physics.

 

namaste,

frank

 

 

 

Mother's Day is May 12th!

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Frankji!

 

I have heard of them. Where on the Net can I access interesting

material concerning their work and views? Appreciate your guidance

and advice.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, f maiello <egodust> wrote:

>

> today we have fritjof capra, michael talbot, and gary

> zukov, among select others carrying it a step further.

> in fact, capra's TAO OF PHYSICS compares hindu,

> buddhist and taoist thought to *select* contemporary

> breakthroughs in theoretical physics.

[Guest guest]

madathilnair wrote:

> I have heard of them. Where on the Net can I access

> interesting material concerning their work and

views?

>> today we have fritjof capra, michael talbot, and

gary

>> zukov, among select others carrying it a step

further.

>> in fact, capra's TAO OF PHYSICS compares hindu,

>> buddhist and taoist thought to *select*

contemporary

>> breakthroughs in theoretical physics.

 

 

hariH OM! nairji-

 

sorry took so long replying..

 

i searched the web and found only some commentaries re

the authors cited. below are the books applicable to

our concerns [in this and recent related threads]. if

i had one book to pick, i'd choose capra's TAO OF

PHYSICS.

 

fritjof capra:

THE TAO OF PHYSICS

THE TURNING POINT

 

michael talbot:

THE HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE

MYSTICISM AND THE NEW PHYSICS

 

gary zukav:

THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS

 

http://www.holographic-meditation.com/Holo_med/holographic_universe.htm

 

short write-up re capra's works:

http://www.wye.ac.uk/News/Issue2/Reviews/Richbook.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

madathilnair wrote:

> I have heard of them. Where on the Net can I access

> interesting material concerning their work and

views?

>> today we have fritjof capra, michael talbot, and

gary

>> zukov, among select others carrying it a step

further.

>> in fact, capra's TAO OF PHYSICS compares hindu,

>> buddhist and taoist thought to *select*

contemporary

>> breakthroughs in theoretical physics.

 

Below are some more books in addition to what Frankji listed.

 

Paul Davies: God and the new Physics (1983) Penguin Books

Paul Davies: The fifth miracle - The search for the origin and the

Meaning of Life . Simon and Schuster (1999)

H.K. Kesavan : Science and Mysticism . New Age International, Delhi

(1997) (Note: A Review of this book by me appeared in The Hindu. A

copy of that review was posted by me on this list on 23 Sep. 1999)

N. Mukunda. The World of Bohr and Dirac. Wiley Eastern Lt. New Delhi

1993

 

With praNAms to all advaitins

Yours profvk

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

LAUNCH - Your Music Experience

http://launch.

[Guest guest]

OM

GURUR BRAHMA GURUR VISNU GURUR DEVO MAHESHVARAH

GURUH SAKSHAT PARAM BRAHM TASMAI SRI GURVE NAMAH

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

OM NAMAH SIVANANDAYA

 

Revered Patrons,

Sadar Pranam

 

IS MODERN SCIENCE A CHALLENGE TO RELIGION?

By

SRI SWAMI KRISHNANANDA

http://www.sivanandadlshq.org/messages/scichalrel.htm

 

OM