Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote (13329): > 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. May 7th Hari Om. (Is there some disruption of ’ services?) Ref discussion of points raised by Vivekananda Center, we are dealing with intelligent learned, rational people, who will accept a good argument if it has validity. For example, Adi Sankara used the same technique of dialog with Buddhist intellectuals. Why should we assume that Today's Scientists are more biased? We have to first establish that "only Sprituality" satisfies "some human needs" (not psycho-therapy or any other existing science) and therefore this subject needs special study and attention as a separate discipline. This is important not just for this interaction but also in discussing with our own children or with younger generation who receive more than 15 years of formal education in Science and Technology during their school and college but very little formal spiritual training except what they pick up at home, temple satsang etc., which are more of info on rituals rather than spirituality per se. The argument in Advaitin theory seems to be Step 1: We are all essentially "Atman"- which is imperishable, Step 2: There is only One Brahman who is the "only reality". Step 3: We (and the whole perceived Universe) do not really exist and all this is unreal Maya. Step 4: I am that Brahman- the only reality. There are a lot of "fill in the blanks" between these 4 steps (assuming I got it right). Also what next after Step 4? It is easy to say ”Nothing except Bliss” but who knows? Anyway this is just Advaitin point of view. There are also other denominations of spirituality, most of them even outside the fold of Hinduism, as 90% of this world population to beliefs that are outside Hindu orientation, often with more intensity and sincere practice. They may not to the 4 step formulae. So my point of view is that the advocates of spirituality have to put forth a line of thought which is comprehensive to most of the population. Rather than “take it or leave it” policy we can put forth a line of thinking which is appealing to Logic. May be we have to work more on it. Adi Sankara did that and was successful. Rather than just repeating his presentations, which was relevant to that situation, we have to work to find new answers to the present situation. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 On Tue, 7 May 2002, pbvrajan wrote: > advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote (13329): > > 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. > > May 7th > Hari Om. > (Is there some disruption of ’ services?) > > Ref discussion of points raised by Vivekananda Center, we are dealing > with intelligent learned, rational people, who will accept a good > argument if it has validity. For example, Adi Sankara used the same > technique of dialog with Buddhist intellectuals. Why should we assume > that Today's Scientists are more biased? > > We have to first establish that "only Sprituality" satisfies "some > human needs" > (not psycho-therapy or any other existing science) and therefore > this subject needs special study and attention as a separate discipline. > > This is important not just for this interaction but also in discussing > with our own children or with younger generation who receive more than > 15 years of formal education in Science and Technology during their > school and college but very little formal spiritual training except > what they pick up at home, temple satsang etc., which are more of > info on rituals rather than spirituality per se. > > The argument in Advaitin theory seems to be > Step 1: We are all essentially "Atman"- which is imperishable, > Step 2: There is only One Brahman who is the "only reality". > Step 3: We (and the whole perceived Universe) do not really exist > and all this is unreal Maya. > Step 4: I am that Brahman- the only reality. There are a lot of > "fill in the blanks" between these 4 steps (assuming I got it right). > Also what next after Step 4? It is easy to say ”Nothing except Bliss” > but who knows? > > Anyway this is just Advaitin point of view. There are also other > denominations of spirituality, most of them even outside the fold of > Hinduism, as 90% of this world population to beliefs that are > outside Hindu orientation, often with more intensity and sincere > practice. They may not to the 4 step formulae. > > So my point of view is that the advocates of spirituality have to > put forth a line of thought which is comprehensive to most of the > population. Rather than “take it or leave it” policy we can put fort > a line of thinking which is appealing to Logic. May be we have to > work more on it. Adi Sankara did that and was successful. Rather than > just repeating his presentations, which was relevant to that situation, > we have to work to find new answers to the present situation. > Pranams > P.B.V.Rajan > namaste. The question that is to be considered is: are shri shankara's arguments not valid at this time? I think these arguments are eternally valid, just like the upanishadic statements are eternally valid. Thus, if we repeat shri shankara's arguments today (while understanding them, not parroting them), we are saying the Truth. The point I was trying to make in my posts: Intellectual science is not the saviour. It may appear that it (the intellectual science) is solving worldly problems. The biggest worldly problem is ajnAna and intellectual science has no answer to it. I am not saying spiritual knowledge is something mystical. Yet, I am trying to point out that spiritual knowledge is not quantitative science. I have nothing against intellectual science. I have spent my professional life and made my living as a scientist. Procedures of intellectual science (like logic; like accepting that what we see is not really the truth but something else can be inferred from it, etc) are extremely useful in the spiritual quest. But, at some stage, we have to drop off this intellectual pursuit and go beyond that. Then only, we get a feel for the intuitive knowledge that is Atman. I am not advocating the case of advaita (versus some other philosophy) nor am I trying to convert anyone to my line of thinking. I am stating what I believe is the Truth. If some one tells me that intellectually they can grasp Atman, I like to hear that. Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 On 7th May Mr. PBV Rajan wrote: 'Rather than “take it or leave it” policy we can put forth a line of thinking which is appealing to Logic. May be we have to work more on it'. In this connection I would like to draw the attention of Mr. Rajan to three posts in the advaitin list on 29th Nov. 98 and the days following, by Sadanandaji, Aikya Paramji and myself on 'Practical Advaita'. Regards and praNAms to all advaitins 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. Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 advaitin Shri G Murthyji wrote: Point1:>The point I was trying to make in my posts: Intellectual science is not the saviour. It may appear that it (the intellectual science) is solving worldly problems. The biggest worldly problem is ajnAna and intellectual science has no answer to it. Point2: >I am not saying spiritual knowledge is something mystical. If some one tells me that intellectually they can grasp Atman, I like to hear that. Gummuluru Murthy Point 1: As per recorded history, mere "spiritual" attitude did not help the residents of Indian sub continent in improving their life, only study of science and technology helped in overcoming the economic and defence handicaps. To say those who suffer and those who are inflicting suffering are same "atman" may be helpful for those non-involved souls, but not much help on the ground. My point is, after we have got to a certain level of prosperity and security, then spiritual orientation is a preffered choice of the future. I cannot speak for others, but till I met Shri Madhava, I used to hold the opinion that most Hindu Sanyasis are con-men based on media reports. After discussing the matter at lenght with him and learning from him different aspects of Hindu thoughts including an introduction to advaitin list and by self study, I have come to realize for myself, that soul is present in humans and needs spritual orientation. I got more clear theroretical clarifications by repeatedly going through Swami Ashokananda's book " The Souls' Journey to its Destiny". All this took a long time and self effort. But it has not diminished my entusiasm for scientific approach to life. I continue to see the benefits of technological progress. I feel-and I am saying this without any aspersions on any one in this list or outside- that sufficient efforts have not been taken by advocates of "spritiuality" to analyze this phenomenon. I may be wrong but I think most of them take the easy way out by repeating the past authorities on the subject, who by themselves put forth a new opinion breaking with the past. If Science and technology had taken the same "rever the past and ignore new research" attitude, there would have been no breakthoughs as we have witnessed in the last 200 years. Before that time, several natural phenomenon was also a mystery including diseases or mining for Gold. Even Swami Ashokananda mentions in his book that every spritual aspirant, however advanced he is, need not carefully observe and record the various steps of transformation. So we need to research "spirituality" scientifically and not mystify it. Point 2: This appears to be contractictory, to say-" it is not mystical but cannot be grasped by intellect"- then what is it?. I feel the marginalization of "spritual way of life" in modern society was as a result of misuse by many imposters. That by itself is bad but the behavior of true followers in not repudiating them seriously led to this situation. For example, Law and order is maintained in USA, only by vigilance of police and punishment via courts of the guilty. (I do not live in USA). If it is a free for all society, it will lead to chaos as it did in Afghanistan or Somalia. So the real question is the kind of spritual attitude that is "recommended" - is it for the masses or very select group in this list. If it is just latter it may be appropriate, but for discussion which Vivekananda center is holding, a more scientifc orientation towards studying the phenomenon of sprituality may be better. Why humans alone look for it (after some stage) and not other souls (such a! s animals, birds, fish, insects etc) needs proper investigation. It may take another 100 years to find out but the effort will be well worth it. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 On Wed, 8 May 2002, pbvrajan wrote: > > advaitin Shri G Murthyji wrote: > > > Point1:>The point I was trying to make in my posts: Intellectual > science is not the saviour. It may appear that it (the intellectual > science) is solving worldly problems. The biggest worldly problem is > ajnAna and intellectual science has no answer to it. > > > Point2: >I am not saying spiritual knowledge is something mystical. > If some one tells me that intellectually they can grasp Atman, I like > to hear that. > Gummuluru Murthy > > > Point 1: As per recorded history, mere "spiritual" attitude did not > help the residents of Indian sub continent in improving their life, > only study of science and technology helped in overcoming the economic > and defence handicaps. To say those who suffer and those who are > inflicting suffering are same "atman" may be helpful for those > non-involved souls, but not much help on the ground. > > > My point is, after we have got to a certain level of prosperity and > security, then spiritual orientation is a preffered choice of the > future. > I cannot speak for others, but till I met Shri Madhava, I used to hold > the opinion that most Hindu Sanyasis are con-men based on media reports. > After discussing the matter at lenght with him and learning from him > different aspects of Hindu thoughts including an introduction to > advaitin list and by self study, I have come to realize for myself, > that soul is present in humans and needs spritual orientation. I got > more clear theroretical clarifications by repeatedly going through > Swami Ashokananda's book " The Souls' Journey to its Destiny". All > this took a long time and self effort. But it has not diminished my > entusiasm for scientific approach to life. I continue to see the > benefits of technological progress. > > > I feel-and I am saying this without any aspersions on any one in > this list or outside- that sufficient efforts have not been taken > by advocates of "spritiuality" to analyze this phenomenon. I may be > wrong but I think most of them take the easy way out by repeating the > past authorities on the subject, who by themselves put forth a new > opinion breaking with the past. If Science and technology had taken > the same "rever the past and ignore new research" attitude, there > would have been no breakthoughs as we have witnessed in the last 200 > years. Before that time, several natural phenomenon was also a mystery > including diseases or mining for Gold. Even Swami Ashokananda mentions > in his book that every spritual aspirant, however advanced he is, need > not carefully observe and record the various steps of transformation. > So we need to research "spirituality" scientifically and not mystify it. > > Point 2: This appears to be contractictory, to say-" it is not mystical > but cannot be grasped by intellect"- then what is it?. I feel the > marginalization of "spritual way of life" in modern society was as a > result of misuse by many imposters. That by itself is bad but the > behavior of true followers in not repudiating them seriously led to this > situation. For example, Law and order is maintained in USA, only by > vigilance of police and punishment via courts of the guilty. (I do not > live in USA). If it is a free for all society, it will lead to chaos as > it did in Afghanistan or Somalia. So the real question is the kind of > spritual attitude that is "recommended" - is it for the masses or very > select group in this list. If it is just latter it may be appropriate, > but for discussion which Vivekananda center is holding, a more scientifc > orientation towards studying the phenomenon of sprituality may be > better. > Why humans alone look for it (after some stage) and not other souls > (such as animals, birds, fish, insects etc) needs proper investigation. > It may take another 100 years to find out but the effort will be well > worth it. > > > Pranams > > > P.B.V.Rajan > namaste shri Rajan-ji, I think we are arguing at cross-purposes here. There are two questions involved here and we are not speaking of the same question at the same time. The two questions are: Q1. Can human spirituality be understood or grasped by intellectual science like physics ? [This is the question of interest to me and for which I responded]. Q2: Are studies of intellectual science more important for the betterment of the humans as a society than spiritual understanding of the SELF? [This Question, as I gather from your responses, is topmost in your mind, and for this Question, I only have a casual interest]. The questions are quite distinct and I get the impression that you are reading my answer to one question as answer to the other. Let us try to keep the questions separate and look for the answers. For Q1, I categorically answered that understanding spirituality is not an intellectual science. And I quoted statements from chandogya upanishad and brahmANDa purANa in support of my statement. If you say understanding the SELF is an intellectual science, I would like to see your defense of such statement. Answer to Q2 is a matter of opinion. You say in your recent post that let us get to a certain level of prosperity and then we turn to spiritual matters. What is this "certain level of prosperity"? A rickshaw puller in India is quite happy sleeping in his rickshaw in the night while a billionaire in the U.S. is desparetely searching for that eluding happiness and is insecure. Tying up the timing of spiritual attitude to the prosperity level has been mentioned in our purANA-s many many times. SatyanArAyaNa vratakathA-s from MarkaNDeya purANa are good examples. Q2 was not part of the original question and I do not want to go further than what I have already stated in these posts. Coming back to Q1. Please do not get me wrong. I am not bashing intellectual science or its importance in worldly prosperity or its importance in disciplining the mind. But what I am saying is intellectual science and understanding the SELF are not the same. shri Dennis Waite gave a precise expression to this approach in a post a few days ago. We have to learn a lot from intellectual science. Scientific observations, being careful and being aware about the limits of observations, the careful inferences that can be drawn are part of the scientific method. The scientific method involves the sense organs and inferences by the mind. Understanding the SELF need to go beyond the mind. There has to be an intuition which is beyond the sense organs and beyond the proof which the scientific method demands. AtmavidyA is beyond science. Further, AtmavidyA is quite distinct from intellectual science in another important aspect. Intellectual science is *always* distinct from the SELF. You can be a physicist of highest renown and have the highest knowledge in physics; yet, you are distinct from physics. Physics knowledge and you are distinct. In AtmavidyA, if you have the supreme Knowledge, you *are* the Knowledge. Knowledge and you are not distinct. Brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati. I am grateful to shri Rajan-ji for giving me this opportunity to express my understanding. As there is not much else I can add to the topic, I will become a silent spectator in this from now. Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Dear GM, Thanks for your clarity. Well said. Amen! It is frightening to the educated people to relegate their minds and Science to a "seemingly" lower level when talking of Spirituality. The Church denounced Science several centuries ago and created the dark ages to human beings for a time. The strong proponents of Science and its approach can do the reverse equally successfully and drive humanity Spiritual dark ages. The reason is very simple -- Both groups (the Church and the Scientists) use the same tricky minds for their conclusions! Sometimes it is hilarious!! -- Vis - "Gummuluru Murthy" <gmurthy <advaitin> Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:55 AM Re: Re: SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY > Q1. Can human spirituality be understood or grasped by > intellectual science like physics ? [This is the question > of interest to me and for which I responded]. > > Q2: Are studies of intellectual science more important for > the betterment of the humans as a society than spiritual > understanding of the SELF? [This Question, as I gather > from your responses, is topmost in your mind, and for > this Question, I only have a casual interest]. > > For Q1, I categorically answered that understanding spirituality > is not an intellectual science. And I quoted statements from > chandogya upanishad and brahmANDa purANa in support of my statement. > > Answer to Q2 is a matter of opinion. You say in your recent post > that let us get to a certain level of prosperity and then we turn > to spiritual matters. What is this "certain level of prosperity"? > > Coming back to Q1. ------- > But what I am saying is > intellectual science and understanding the SELF are not the same. > shri Dennis Waite gave a precise expression to this approach in > a post a few days ago. > >The scientific method involves > the sense organs and inferences by the mind. Understanding the > SELF need to go beyond the mind. There has to be an intuition > which is beyond the sense organs and beyond the proof which > the scientific method demands. AtmavidyA is beyond science. > > Further, AtmavidyA is quite distinct from intellectual science > in another important aspect. Intellectual science is *always* > distinct from the SELF. You can be a physicist of highest renown > and have the highest knowledge in physics; yet, you are distinct > from physics. Physics knowledge and you are distinct. > In AtmavidyA, if you have the supreme Knowledge, you *are* the > Knowledge. Knowledge and you are not distinct. Brahmavid brahmaiva > bhavati. > > I am grateful to shri Rajan-ji for giving me this opportunity to > express my understanding. As there is not much else I can add to > the topic, I will become a silent spectator in this from now. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > --- > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 advaitin Shri G Murthyji wrote: Q1. Can human spirituality be understood or grasped by intellectual science like physics ? If you say understanding the SELF is an intellectual science, I would like to see your defense of such statement. ( As there is not much else I can add to the topic, I will become a silent spectator in this from now. Gummuluru Murthy) Hari Om. First I would like to apologise to Shri Murthyji if I sounded offensive. However I respect his right to be silent and not expecting a rejoinder. To answer the question 1- Yes, Sir, I think the best example is the Great Adi Sankara himself. Let us examine what he did. He first learnt at a much faster rate and in a more perfect way all the Hindu scriptures that were available at that time. This was a sheer intellectual exercise. Then he reformulated and succesfully defended the version 800AD of Advaitin Doctrine. He did not win his arguments with Buddhist scholars by saying, Vyasa said it like this or Valmiki said like that. He stood his ground with logic and carried the day. He came up with new insights. I would say with due humility that he was one of India's greatest intellectual scientists. His theories have stood for more than 1,000 years and appeal not just to Hindus but to other intellectuals as well. But what are we doing? We deitified him and forgot his "process, methodology and approach" but are repeating only his "content". My view is that we should fill in the blanks between various states he mentioned and tie up what at first sight seems as irrecoincilable logic by doing more intellectual labor over it. We have to decode the spiritual genetics. All the sciences which are now beyond doubt were, not so long ago used to be interpreted freely depending on who did the speculation. Then some systems were put in place and we have now codified science. I believe that spirituality can be approached like that although it may not get us to the pinnacle but can help in progress. Otherwise there is the clear danger of quacks mis-leading some of us. This is not to deny our scriptures but have more details researched. From Mandel (a christian monk) who first proposed the theory of genetics till the recent decoding of DNAs was long and laborious process of more than 100 years. Again quoting my experience, what attracted my attention and created respect for Hindu Philosophy was Shri Madhava's intellect. I had met earlier many sincere devotees but they did not create the effect which Shri Madhava did- not even 1%. I had attended myself many satsangs with due sincerity and devotion but reading that one book by Swami Ashokananda had lasting effect on my clarity of belief. I am not an expert but I think Gyana Marga has a respectable place even in Baghvat Gita. The covenant is that the Knowledge should not make one egoistic as far as I understood. May be Bakhti redeems oneself but Intellect is resplendent- just a personal thought. One unanswered question to my mind is why did Adi Sankara propose Advaitin as the supreme spiritual theory as per which "I am Brahman" and then go about making numerous temples for various Deities. Honestly I cannot reconcile these two divergent trends between theory and practice. But he was an intellect par supreme and must have had very good reasons. Or quite simply, he was pragmatic, the hallmark of a genius. I will now give company to Shri Murthyji in his silence on this subject. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.