The Myth of Science

[Guest guest]

   Namaste everyone,

 

  As I see it contemporary science has evolved up to a point where

it has to make a decision. The international scientific community

must make this decision. This decision is whether to stay arrogantly

and wrongly situated in their thrones of atavistic materialism, and

lead this planet and its population to ultimate decay or sudden

destruction, or to finally admit that they have found what the

Upanishads were saying thousands of years ago: all is consciousness.

  Quantum physics has evolved to a point where it is known that the

observer alters the outcome of an observed event at sub-atomic

levels. This implies a non-duality between observer and that which

is observed.

  Heisenberg himself could have, in the previous century, spoken out

loud against the scientific myth that there is nothing but matter.

His experiments showed that what we consider to be solid matter

behaves sometimes as particles and sometimes as waves. This alone

categorically sets materialism as an obtuse, primitive custom

reserved for savages.

  But the scientists do not want to say that everything is

consciousness. You know why? Because they would loose all their

power if they said that out loud for the world to hear. They would

loose all their priest-like authority as supreme knowers of truth.

They want to possess knowledge and knowledge is not to be possesed

it is to be given.

  Sat Nam,

  frederico

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

Dear Frederico,

 

You wrote:

"But the scientists do not want to say that everything is

consciousness. You know why? Because they would loose all their

power if they said that out loud for the world to hear. They would

loose all their priest-like authority as supreme knowers of truth.

They want to possess knowledge and knowledge is not to be possesed

it is to be given."

 

I find this very surprising to be coming from a westerner as yourself. Swami Vivekananda who travelled to America liked two major features of american society:

1. Their libertarian views about society, esp. w.r.t women.

2. Their scientific quest and open-minded enquiry into the truth.

 

Swami Vivekananda thought that America was ready for Vedanta for these two major reasons.

 

To criticize science is not appropriate for two reasons. One is that you say "All is consciousness". This is nothing but the vijnanavada of yogacara Buddhism. Neither the Buddha would say this, nor is this accepted in any part of the Advaitic scritpures. I wonder why you are so particularly attached to the concept of consciousness. Perhaps, it makes you feel that being conscious is what is constituted in enlightenment.

 

Science has progressed a lot from the age of insisting on philosophically pleasant theory to explain the nature of the world, to the stage of actually observing the true nature of phenomena around us and explaining them as they actually are. Earlier scientists would not accept that matter could behave like waves, when set in motion, but now the behaviour of moving particles seeming to have wave-like characteristics is evident from their experiments; and they accept it. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is a statement that admits the impossibility of determining both the Hilbert vectors of momentum and position accurately, owing to the wave-like nature of moving particles. Prof. R P Feynman is quoted as saying "We can't question the ways of nature. That is how she behaves. We can only know her as she is."

 

The advent of quantum physics and the view of scientists towards nature has shaped today's world, in as much as describing the nature of matter as it appears, rather than assuming philosophically pleasing thoeires. The acceptance of the theory of relativity describing stationary frames of reference, inspite of the established view of Galelian physics, especially in the case of light shows their readiness to accept that which explains experiments and to reject the others. Galelian physics is thus only an approximation of the Einsteinian view of space-time.

 

It is important to understand that nothing in this part of physics/science affirms the Upanishadic truths. Science has found a property of moving matter and only says that all characteristics of moving matter cannot be explained using classical axioms as was postulated earlier by Hilbert in one of his 23 problems. The wave-like nature of particles does not show impermanence of matter or unreality of matter in the spiritual sense or an absolutist sense. Both science and spirituality do not mean that matter does not exist. Such a criticism of matter is not the Upanishadic teaching.

 

The impermanence of matter is a spiritual truth, found by observing reality in a spiritual sense. Many people misunderstand quantum physics to think that it proves Upanishadic truths. But the Upanishadic truths come from a spritual quest born out of dispassion for worldly elements. The wave-like nature of moving particles does not mean that matter is of the nature of consciousness, but only describes the probabilty function of finding a particle in space and time, the probability itself being characterized by changes in space-time. From Fourier analysis any changing function can be represented as a weighted sum of complex sinusoids and hence the so-called "wave-like nature of matter". It is only the wave-like nature of the probabilty of finding a particle/quantum.

 

The Upanishads teach to control the dog-like behaviour of the uncontrolled deluded mind and divert it towards a happy [blissful] egoless life of a good human being, that intends good for the entire environment and society as a whole. It is a teaching of self-transformation to live a contemplative life and not of unreality of matter and extolling of consciousness as many percieve incorrectly.

 

Where Advaita or Buddhism name corporeality as maya or unreal, it means that corporeality or form is unworthy of clinging and desire and hence we should develop dispassion for it as in 'not mine, not self', 'neti' etc. It does not entail non-existence of corporeality.

 

Please understand therefore that scientists are not spiritualists. They study the nature of matter as can be observed through nature. One cannot criticize them for that. It is neither atavistic, not materialisticto study science. Rather a scientific view of the world makes one open to new ideas and removes attachment to old views. Attachment of any form is a bondage and hence will deter the progress of the individual. This is different from the scientific quest for knowing out of curiosity. Knowledge in the Upanishadic sense is not knowing something unknown out of curiosity, but a deep wisdom of detachment and knowledge of the fickle nature of the misconceived notion of self [ego] and posession.

 

Yet spiritualism is not far removed from science. Both share the same scientific quest for knowledge, independent of sources, trusting nothing other than experience or 'anubhava', both spiritualists and scientists look for the truth in an objective manner, without coloring it with their tinted glasses of preconceived notions and prejeduices. It is this scientific temper that is demanded in spirituality and it is for this reason that the Swami Vivekananda taught Vedanta to the Americans. If Vedanta were to be taught as a truth superceding scientific quest, and if were meant only for the closed-minded beleiving only one scripture, it is not true Vedanta. The ultimate aim of Vedanta is knowledge, wisdom or 'science'.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

           

 

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

>    But the scientists do not want to say that everything is

>  consciousness. You know why? Because they would loose all their

>  power if they said that out loud for the world to hear. They would

>  loose all their priest-like authority as supreme knowers of truth.

>  They want to possess knowledge and knowledge is not to be possesed

>  it is to be given.

>    Sat Nam,

>    frederico

 

I would like to know about this power that they will loose. Wouldnt

they gain more of this "power" if they disclosed this last piece of

evidence to the general public??? Wouldnt this make them to appear

MORE like priests?

 

And the last time I checked, anyone is welcomed to "Possess knowledge"

all they can do is study a bit. No secrets.

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

_____

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;

the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt

the world to himself. Therefore, all progress

depends on the unreasonable man.

 

-George Bernard Shaw

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I wanted to say, all they NEED to do is study.

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

namakaram to all

  

  i am afraid the statment that " scientists are afraid that they will loose...."

  seems to be one more " projection" of our own mind.  May be it is too generalised a statment since there are many many scientists who take the pains to study the vedanta- upanishads etc and seeing its relevance with respect to science....and it has been noticed that Hinduism has no disputes with science since, it is easily modifiable as and when scientists understand and are in a position to explain some thing newer than what is known now .

  so it may be our " sheath of ignorance " that make us think like that.

  

  let the discussion go on and let us learn some thing more....if what we read is rubbish, atleast that will make us know why that is rubbish and if it is not rubbish then that too will make us know why it is not rubbish..

  process of learning and growing to maturity??????

  

  with prayers and pranams to all and humble request that we should not take to our heart our dissent..

  

  pairam

 

Manuel Delaflor <delaflor > wrote:

  >    But the scientists do not want to say that everything is

>  consciousness. You know why? Because they would loose all their

>  power if they said that out loud for the world to hear. They would

>  loose all their priest-like authority as supreme knowers of truth.

>  They want to possess knowledge and knowledge is not to be possesed

>  it is to be given.

>    Sat Nam,

>    frederico

 

I would like to know about this power that they will loose. Wouldnt

they gain more of this "power" if they disclosed this last piece of

evidence to the general public??? Wouldnt this make them to appear

MORE like priests?

 

And the last time I checked, anyone is welcomed to "Possess knowledge"

all they can do is study a bit. No secrets.

 

 

Manuel Delaflor

_____

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;

the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt

the world to himself. Therefore, all progress

depends on the unreasonable man.

 

-George Bernard Shaw

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.