Direction of Science

[Guest guest]

An interesting exchange of views on Direction of Science....

 

-

"sunderh"

Subject:Direction of Science....work in London

 

> Namaste Jay,

>

> In one sense even the search after Truth of the 'hard

> sciences' is a waffle! The end result/goal has to be stated too - eg

> Physical immortality? Perpetual sensory satisfaction? Total control

> of Nature?

>

> Though science can be pretentiously equated with Vedanta,

> 'values' [axiology], a prerequisite for jnana-marga, is notably

> ignored, the result being the Frankenstein that now haunts the planet.

>

> The goal of Vedanta/Spiritual disciplines is stated as

> salvation/liberation/freedom/beatitude [soteriology], and there have

> been innumerable instances of individuals whose sublime lives have

> served as models for humanity.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~response~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Dear Mahasaya

 

Yes, in a way everything - even this analysis - can be termed as

a waffle but there is a degree involved which distinguishes

the 'hard sciences' from the 'soft sciences'.

 

Some soft sciences like the 'social sciences' are indirectly invoking

spiritual elements but they are introduced as 'a priory' requirements

within their own frameworks and they will not allow these terms to

be called 'spiritual'. I will deliberately give a very simplistic example

to show up this bias. No biological science has given a valid reason

- why we should care for other living things. This may appear trivial but

the answer does not come naturally out of the biological findings.

The answer is introduced as 'a priory'. (This is how this issue

would be resolved by social sciences: "Surely there is no question

of why do good to other living things. You are living, don't you like good

things to happen to you? By extending this idea of doing good to others

you are going to reap the indirect benefit of good things happening to you.

See.. how good it sounds without reference to anything spiritual?).

 

I am deliberately using this simplistic example to show how

'a priory' enters into the soft sciences and manages to displace

anything that even remotely can be termed as 'spiritual' entering

this field. This is why 'soft sciences' will consider usage

of 'spiritual' terms as just re-naming their own 'a priory' concepts.

Not worth bothering with....... they will tell us. : )

 

There is a marked difference when we deal with a hard science like

Physics. Here the demarcation lines are very sharp. This

pretentious science : ) of today is attempting to peer into the nature

of reality, and is finding that things are seriously missing and admits

that the things missing 'are not and cannot be material'. This is the

adamantine conclusion. This is not a temporary hitch, neither is this

limitation of ability or equipment -- This problem is at the heart of

reality. What are we dealing with? The ancient concepts borrowed

from the Greek thinkers to make sense of this world fall apart.

Where do you think the answer lies?

 

The ball is in our court.... should I not pick it up and run?

 

: )

jay

Vivekananda Centre London

[Guest guest]

advaitin wrote:By extending this idea of doing good to others

you are going to reap the indirect benefit of good things happening to you....

What are we dealing with? The ancient concepts borrowed

from the Greek thinkers to make sense of this world fall apart.

Where do you think the answer lies?

jay-Vivekananda Centre London

 

 

Hari Om,

 

 

This being a basically spiritually oriented list, there is a

rather biased justification of Spirituality over Science. This ignores, perhaps

deliberately, what really happened as recorded history in the last 500 years.

 

 

Let us take 3 scenarios: Europe, USA & India. Europe was highly regulated

society 500 years back by the Church which in turn supported various Kings and

Princes. Till 50 years back there were constant wars and religious leaders took

sides, in effect to the killing and human misery although they did not cause it

directly. Then came the reformation and scientific attitude and accompanying

secularism (more as a bulwark against religion which discouraged scientific

orientation). It was not the Church that started Red Cross but they supported it

later. The progress of science was helpful in, the society becoming more

prosperous and then more humane. Science & Technology were causative and

reinforcing factors in changing the society for better.

 

 

Something similar happened in USA perhaps at a faster pace. The native Red

Indians could not have built the present day USA which has given this world this

Internet which makes this dialog possible in the first place.

 

 

In India the situation was terrible before 500 years. For all its India-centric

spiritual traditions about which there is no doubt, the country succumbed to

invaders and was literally over-run. So did "spirituality" help us or protect us

or our wives, daughters or sisters or mothers? No it did not and this is a fact.

Hindu spirituality just went down.

 

 

Last century, there was renaisance starting with Swami Vivekananda's movement

and others. Hindus took to scince and technology and therefore it has been able

to give a better life to those living and talking today about spirituality.

 

 

I am living amidst Islamic countries who are feeling the lack of Science and

Technology bitterly although they are in their own way more spiritual, than

Hindu society, in my opinion based on observations.

 

 

Perhaps there is Science and Technology on one side and Spirituality on the

other and both are required for humans to live and progress- even spiritual

progress. Like we have 2 eyes and 2 hands and 2 legs. Both of them are

important.

 

 

Also just as, there are many fraudsters in Science so also in Sprituality. Any

man who claims "spiritual" superiority over others, probably does not have it.

Before it can compete with Science, the serious practitioners of sprituality

must clean up their act and agree to atleast peer review or an equivalent

mechanism. If one is attempting "self realization", better do it silently and

sincerely, why make a public fuss. On the otherhand if one is exchanging notes

or learning, a sense of humility is more credible than "I know the answer- but

others do not" attitude.

 

 

To separate spirituality from religion is a bit of joke. Then why did Adi

Sankara support reconversion to Hinduism from Buddhism? Although he

re-formulated "Advaitin" theory, he did actively establish other Hindu

traditions.

 

 

Religion is for the masses, sprituality is for the elite ( but not necessarily,

the rich, educated or high born or royalty). There is after all a lot of truth

in the statistical ratio of humans being able to reach the pinnacle of

spirituality- liberation, 1 in a million, as said in Baghvat Gita.

 

 

Pranams

 

 

P.B.V.Rajan

 

 

 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy Music, Video, CD-ROM, Audio-Books and Music Accessories from

http://www.planetm.co.in

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

This has reference to shri pbvrajan's strong defense of the

importance of science to betterment of society. I do not doubt

the importance of science for betterment of society. It is

important.

 

The question that is asked is: can the spirituality of the

human be understood by intellectual science? Vivekananda centre's

attempt is, as I understand, the spirituality of the human can be

explained by some branches of science like physics. I doubted that

approach and expressed that in my two posts. All the posters in

these threads, including the original questioner, have recognized

the knowing the spirituality as the highest goal. Intellectual

science falls on the wayside in this priority ladder, according

to all the posters. The doubt seems to be whether we can use

scientific methods to study spirituality; or recognize spirituality

as that not grasped by the traditional scientific techniques.

 

Shri rajan's references to the glory of science cannot be

denied. However, Shri rajan further says the spirit is down

because of the invasions. What is this 'spirit' that is down?

Atman, the REAL spirit of the human, is unaffected in spite of

the many invasions and fightings. Atman is a witness to all

these happenings. And if we find what that Atman is, we will

see that all these sciences, all these periodic invasions,

and all these periodic wars all merge into that Atman.

 

The aim of scientific study and the aim of spiritual study are

different. Spirituality and science are different and are in

different realms. Doing spiritual study of science or scientific

study of spirituality, I am afraid, will take us only so far and,

ultimately, do not do justice to either.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

murthyji wrote:

> Atman, the REAL spirit of the human, is unaffected

in spite of

> the many invasions and fightings. Atman is a witness

to all

> these happenings. And if we find what that Atman is,

we will

> see that all these sciences, all these periodic

invasions,

> and all these periodic wars all merge into that

Atman.

 

AMEN.

(which is a derivative of OM incidentally :-)

 

peace.love.peace,

frank

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

In one upanishad, a Sage asks his son to systematically break a fruit

into small pieces until it cannot be broken anymore. Then the Sage

declares that, from that unknown comes the known-manifestation. This

is a perfectly scientific approach.

 

Here, the role of science is to exhaust all possibilities to explain

creation. Hence the need for scientific advances. A scientist will

never accept what a spiritualist says at the outset, discounting it as

only a feeling. When (s)he is also convinced as above, (s)he will look

at it with interest. A scientist's interest will go a long way in the

betterment of society and in bringing down the spiritual to daily use.

 

We have Newton's laws being taught at an early age. When a scientist

re-discovers spiritual laws, spiritual laws will be also taught just

like Newton's laws from an early age. Further, a scientist's spiritual

laws will be passion-free and acceptable by all because they are

scientific.

 

Though the aims of scientific and spritual studies seem to be

different, they are all going towards the same goal; just that they

are on different tracks temporarily.

 

With Love,

Raghava

[Guest guest]

Raghava said in Digest 1328: "Though the aims of scientific and spiritual

studies seem to be different, they are all going towards the same goal; just

that they are on different tracks temporarily."

 

This topic, raised a week or two back, seemed to die out without anyone's

seeming to make the strong objection that this cannot be so. I held back

from commenting because I thought many would be certain to make the same

comments.

 

Science and spiritual endeavours can never be on the same track because they

are seeking different ends and utilising different methods. Science uses the

senses and is thus forever investigating the unreal world of sense objects.

It tries to find meaning using unreal concepts such as time, space and

causality. Science only has meaning in a dualistic context. How can it ever

have anything to do with advaita? Spiritual endeavours on the other hand

turn inwards towards the unperceived reality of the non-dual Self relying on

the insights of realised Sages and the authority of the shruti for guidance.

The truth might be intuited but it will not be perceived by any sense

because it is not an objective truth.

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

>> Raghava said in Digest 1328: "Though the aims of scientific and

spiritual

>> studies seem to be different, they are all going towards the same

goal; just

>> that they are on different tracks temporarily."

>>

>

> Science and spiritual endeavours can never be on the same track

because they

> are seeking different ends and utilising different methods. Science

uses the

> senses and is thus forever investigating the unreal world of sense

objects.

> It tries to find meaning using unreal concepts such as time, space

and

> causality. Science only has meaning in a dualistic context. How can

it ever

> have anything to do with advaita? Spiritual endeavours on the other

hand

> turn inwards towards the unperceived reality of the non-dual Self

relying on

> the insights of realised Sages and the authority of the shruti for

guidance.

> The truth might be intuited but it will not be perceived by any

sense

> because it is not an objective truth.

>

Namaste DennisJi,

 

Yes, today science has meaning only in a dualistic context; however,

it need not be so in future with more scientific research. This also

may lead to scientific truths not necessarily perceivable by senses

and not necessarily objective. It is an open area for future

scientists.

 

Coming back to the basic question as to whether science and

spirituality are leading to same or different goals:-

 

Let us say Science and Spirituality lead to different goals.

If this be so, then we have many Truths.

This is a contradiction in terms because we all agree that Truth is

one.

 

As a corollary, this further implies that any two endeavours

eventually lead to the same goal !

 

Logic apart, reflection of some of Existence-consciouness-bliss(E-C-B)

is a part of everything. If we look at a beautiful rose for example,

the reflection of the bliss associated has to be from E-C-B.

 

 

Kind Regards,

Raghava