Science and Knowledge

[Guest guest]

Hello All,

There's even a word for this excessive veneration of science.

It's called 'scientism'. My philosophical dictionary defines it thus: "the

belief that the methods of the natural sciences are applicable in all

inquiry, especially in the human and social sciences, scientistic adj."

 

The advaitin runs foul of this inanity in the matter of consciousness

studies. The mind just is the brain he will be told. Never mind this

qualia business they are just subjective feelings which even if they

exist, which we doubt, have no part to play in hard science. Science

relies on third person reports, anything else is prey to delusion and

confusion. I have heard this so often that I think it must be in an

introduction to one of those thick books which cover everything that

Americans use in undergraduate courses.

 

So then, objective good, subjective bad. But when, you might timidly

interject, the matter under review is feeling, perception and awareness

then does not the subjective become the objective? Is it not a matter

of logical level?

 

That's too deep for the man in the lab coat which is the alb of the

initiate into the mysteries of creation. Withdraw in a dignified manner

salaaming as you go.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I have read most of the posts, As far as I know the difference between

science and Philosophy is the same as between Proof and Belief.

Does that mean All Philosophies are wrong? I suppose the answer is NO,

As far as I think science is still lagging, it has to catch up with

the Philosophy.

 

Both went out to explain the World, but science took the path of

visible Proofs and Philosophy took the path of reasoning proof, as

always its very easy to convince person with visual proof than the

reasoning proof (remember after all Bagavat gita, Krishna did show his

Vishwa Swaroopa), I think its natural for all human beings to believe

in what we see than the reasoning proof.

 

As always reasoning is much faster than the experimental proofs, I

suppose the experimental proofs need to catch up with the reasoning proofs

There are some more questions which science has left out, th famous

question is Who am I?, though you can start defining genetically or as

evolution, but still it doesn't answer. I think the ultimate answer

for every question, can only be a reasoning proof, than visual proof.

but man being a natural conqueror, is still trying.

The famous example I can quote is "String theory"

 

Some of the Scientific proofs which coincided with philosophy, though

the scientific community will never give credit to philosophers..

1. Relativity of Time ( We always knew it, that their is difference in

Times for Humans, Yakshas, Gods and Brahma)

2. String theory proposes Multiple world theory, though not proved

scientifically (I remember my Grandpa telling me same thing, we have

Bhooloka Buvarloka, Maholoka.....Pathala)

3.Now world is waking up for science of Yoga (though most of them

treat that as Exercise than what Krishna preaches as "Samatvam yogaha")

 

I think we are much farther away, when the science will prove some of

the philosophical answers, and I think we are very Very far away, when

the Science will realize they cannot answer the Ultimate questions

with visual proofs, they will fall back on Philosophy ie (Reasoning

Proof) and I think people might never accept the ultimate singular

answer as it goes beyond reasoning and lies in "Belief" and

"Accepting" some shastra.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ananda-ji and Michael-ji,

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

> As I see it, there is a rather sad but widely prevalent confusion

> here, undermining much of our modern education. On the one hand, we

> use the word "science" in its older and basic sense, to describe a

> correction of knowledge through investigating reason. But, on the

> other hand, we also use this same word in a recently restricted

> sense, which requires that reason should be tested and applied

> exclusively through the calculation of objective predictions.

 

 

To add a few words here... it is not science that hinders the sadhaka

in the path of Advaita, but the prison of the mind shackled by an

unquestioning adulation of science, so much so that it refuses to

critique science.

 

Thank you for breathing in the fresh air of free intellect.... your

post is luminescent with the spirit of philosophy, and points out the

way to dispossess the modern mind indoctrinated by an overdose of

scientific education.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

PS. Michaelji, thank you also for the correction regading Spinoza's

faith - I had read that Spinoza was a Jew, but it seems to have

slipped my mind when I was writing that post.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "prashanthkris"

<prashanthkris@g...> wrote:

>

> Hi

>

> I have read most of the posts, As far as I know the difference

between

> science and Philosophy is the same as between Proof and Belief.

> Does that mean All Philosophies are wrong? I suppose the answer is

NO,

> As far as I think science is still lagging, it has to catch up with

> the Philosophy.

> than what Krishna preaches as "Samatvam yogaha")

>

> I think we are much farther away, when the science will prove some

of

> the philosophical answers, and I think we are very Very far away,

when

> the Science will realize they cannot answer the Ultimate questions

> with visual proofs, they will fall back on Philosophy ie (Reasoning

> Proof) and I think people might never accept the ultimate singular

> answer as it goes beyond reasoning and lies in "Belief" and

> "Accepting" some shastra.

>

Namaste.

 

Science, on the one hand, and Religion, reinforced by Philosophy and

Spirituality on the other hand, are complementary -- in the

following seven ways:

 

1. While the former informs man about all that is individual and

all that is perceptible through the sense organs, the latter

transforms man by bringing to him the holistic aspect of a macro-

perception.

 

2. While the former, by its very nature, has to be subject to the

rationale, the latter, by its very purpose, has to transcend the

rationale.

 

3. While the former unravels the 'what' and 'how' of things, the

latter reveals the 'that' and 'why' of things.

 

4. While the former is a collective obligation answerable to the

peers in the society, the latter is an individual responsibility,

irrespective of the experts in the society.

 

5.While the former exploits for humanity the reductionist aspect of

the universe, the latter puts together the holistic aspect of the

universe.

 

6. While the former takes care of mankind's micro-problems the

latter undertakes to fulfill mankind's macro-aspirations.

 

7.While the former constantly purusues a reconciliation between

infinitesimal smallness (the sub-atomic) and infinite immensity (the

super-cosmic), the latter reveals a reconciliation between

infinitesimal smallness (the individual soul) and infinite

immensity (the Transcendental Absolute).

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

P.S. After writing this I remember I had posted something like this

earlier, but I cannot remember when! Kindly bear with me if it is a

repetition.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

>

> Hello All,

> There's even a word for this excessive veneration of

science.

> It's called 'scientism'. My philosophical dictionary defines it

thus: "the

> belief that the methods of the natural sciences are applicable in

all

> inquiry, especially in the human and social sciences, scientistic

adj."

>

> The advaitin runs foul of this inanity in the matter of

consciousness

> studies. The mind just is the brain he will be told. Never mind

this

>

 

Namaste,

 

I find that science is ruled by certain philosophies in the

universities, which sometimes are influenced by exterior forces.

 

I find that science is getting closer and closer to the mystical

and metaphysical position. As is indicated by recent posts on

Einstein etc. Science being from the Latin to know, is a term for

enquiry. The brain is only an instrument of course but most of what

happens in the world is happening in that particular organ.

 

On the other hand there is always the danger coming from the anti

scientists who believe in all kinds of conjury and trickery by so

called gurus, and spiritual leaders as being real. This is seen as

much on Sunday TV miracle services as in Ashrams in India.

 

So in the end result Advaita is a philosophy for SELF enquiry more

than blind following of leaders, who may or may not be charlatans or

saints...............ONS..Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thank you for the enlightening post and the subject matter itself.

After eloquent and poetic presentations trying to express my

thoughts is like trying to light a candle in front of the Sun !

 

IMO - Advaita comes closest to science for having furnished the

most powerful tool of self-query - "neti-neti".

 

Word j~nna is defined as j~naayate anena iti - Meaning - By which

one knows.

 

The meaning of word "meaning - artha is defined as j~naatortho

j~nana sa.mbandhaH shrotu shrotaa pravartate"

 

Science is also on this fishing expedition of truth. I think the

problem comes when we limit the comprehension with intellect and not

let it be evaluated with the heart.

 

If we regard science as nothing more than a tool or the process for

such acquisition then at the moment on gets that knowledge it is

advaita only; because j~ntaa, j~neya, and that process there off has

become "ONE" in that j~naana.

 

That is also the reason in our athrvashiirsha it says = tvaM

j~nanamayo vij~naanamayosii. Because science is not the end point

it is just a process for that "KNOWLEDGE".

 

It only when Einstein asked simples sincere question, "What if one

travels with the speed of light on it's wave-front with a mirror in

his hand then would he be able to see himself ? He could find

answer the first step to become invisible and realization of this a

knowledge.

 

Just some babbling within my own confusion !

 

Warm regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Dear Ananda-ji and Michael-ji,

>

> advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> > As I see it, there is a rather sad but widely prevalent confusion

> > here, undermining much of our modern education. On the one hand,

we

> > use the word "science" in its older and basic sense, to describe

a

> > correction of knowledge through investigating reason. But, on the

> > other hand, we also use this same word in a recently restricted

> > sense, which requires that reason should be tested and applied

> > exclusively through the calculation of objective predictions.

>

>

> To add a few words here... it is not science that hinders the

sadhaka

> in the path of Advaita, but the prison of the mind shackled by an

> unquestioning adulation of science, so much so that it refuses to

> critique science.

>

> Thank you for breathing in the fresh air of free intellect....

your

> post is luminescent with the spirit of philosophy, and points out

the

> way to dispossess the modern mind indoctrinated by an overdose of

> scientific education.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

> PS. Michaelji, thank you also for the correction regading

Spinoza's

> faith - I had read that Spinoza was a Jew, but it seems to have

> slipped my mind when I was writing that post.

>