The Myth of Science

[Guest guest]

  Dear Bikkhu Yogi,

 

    You do not seem to get my point. Science is great. The problem

lies with the myth of materialism, that is, nothing exists except

matter. I agree totally with you that viraga is a matter of

spiritual discrimination and should not be mistaken for rejecting

science. I did not say that science has no value. I only said that

science has come to a point where it can blend consciousness and

matter. Matter is consciousness and consciousness is matter. I will

not go further into this as any discussion with you is to me a

complete waste of time. Although your points are put clearly, you

are always criticizing others. I do not want to discuss in such a

frame of mind. What I mean by Consciousness is not what you take

consciousness to be. Period. Let us end this here.

    kind regards,

    frederico

 

 

 

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi>

wrote:

>

> 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]

>  If members find my presence here uncomfortable, I shall leave the forum to

> avoid any further distress. I am deeply sorry for this. It is said that the

> one who dishonors the worthy ones on the path of Dhamma, has committed the

> worst crime of all. I am sorry to have hurt any members' feelings here.

 

I do not read all the posts, still, I find your last one interesting,

and not agressive as frederico suggested. Please dont leave the forum

 

 

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]

Dear all,

 

"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 ."

 

Your point is very pertinent. Oppenhiemer is known to have said a verse from the Bh. Gita., when the Manhattan project was successful.

 

I agree that spirituality has no disputes with science and that's because, science deals with study of nature and phenomena in nature using nature's own means of knowledge. Spirituality is on the other hand, the attempt to grow disenchanted with material and mental processes (which we should know as impermanent and hence unworthy attachment) and thereby gain a deep wisdom of detachment from them. A spiritual scientist (rishi) will not be intellectually aware of the science that scientists discover, but are aware of a deep satisfaction and bliss developed out of transceding both passion and dispassion for worldly objects, of which modern scientists (and even many of us) will not be aware. Thus there is no dispute between spirituality and modern science, as you point out, especially because they donot contradict each other. Instead a scientific spirit only encourages a spiritual seeker to look for the truth.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

                 

 

Celebrate Earth Day everyday!  Discover 10 things you can do to help slow climate change. Earth Day

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

  Dear Bikkhu Yogi,

 

   Please stay here and continue discussions. Please understand that

it was only my own view that to discuss with you is at this time

pointless not because you are bad or I am too good but because we do

not have "a language" to talk with. When I speak of "consciousness"

you interpret it as "self-consciousness" while I speak

of "awareness". I also have a hardtime understanding many of your

terms in the short offline discussion we had offline from the group

so I am reading a book on Theravada Buddhism called "The Buddhism of

the Buddha" by Alexandra David-Neel to familiarize myself with some

terms of Buddhism such as Samma=Samadhi etc.

   Please do not take this as a personal offense or anything of the

type. I like very much many of your posts, although I do not

understand them fully sometimes, they are surely worth reading. This

is one of the reasons I am reading Alexandra´s book on Buddhism.

   Also I think you are taking a dissention between us, which is

philosophical, and making it personal, bringing a grandeur to it

that it really does not have. Please re-consider your position; you

have offended no one. Criticism is allowed anywhere in the free

world, and I am also allowed to not want to discuss with someone

until I think that the discussion will move beyond criticism to a

real understanding on my part. If there is any fault here (and I

don´t think there is) it is ON MY PART NOT ON YOURS. So please do

stay with us. You have not hurt my feelings. I´m a very cool

person :-) .

   best regards,

   frederico

 

 

 

advaitin, ram mohan anantha pai

<pairamblr> wrote:

>

> Dear All,

>   I am a kg student in this school of advaita and have been

enjoying the " discussions"

>   

>   I feel very (sad?)  that some of our friends feel bit

dissatisfied with querries or dissent.

>   

>   But if there is no dissent, how can we learn? afterall, thru'out

the teachings, it is the question and answere method is adopted and

depending on the level or grade of the student, the questions may

look as though foolish, generally acceptable or intelligent.

>   But if questioning is not permitted, even if it looks asthough

foolish, then we may be entering into an area of doctrination...and 

i also think that  advaita clearly ask us all to learn to grow...not

to just believe.

>   

>   Also, being on web, where we feel not happy with questioning, we

are free to ignore that, some one who feels like may take it up from

there so that the discussions could continue... though it is not

very good to be that way.

>   We are all  adults - not merely by age, but by our learning

experience that we have been undergoing and hope the discussions

will become more interesting when more dissent and counters are

available for us - poor - kg students

>   

>   So my humble request to dear Frederico and Bikkuji is not to

take it to heart and continue the discussions.

>   

>   I was astounded to see such a subject - "science and ......"

coming up for discussions and i was keenly following it and i am

very sure there are many like me who read, read and read, but do not

write very often as we know we are kg students only.

>   

>   Kindly do continue and ...NEVER  HAVE  FEELING OF HURT  OR

GUILT..

>   after all, that is also what we learn from some of the

upanishads

>   

>   hope that they will not leave the forum and continue to bless us

with their veiws as that is the most educating to us..

>   

>   humbly yours all

>   pairam

>

>

>   Dear Frederico

>

> "I will not go further into this as any discussion with you is to

me a

> complete waste of time. Although your points are put clearly, you

> are always criticizing others. I do not want to discuss in such a

> frame of mind."

>

> I am sorry if you feel that it was to criticize you. I would not

want to do so under any circumstances. I shall withdraw from this

discussion. I am sure, you must have a valid point to make and am

sorry to interfere with that.

>

> At the same time, I wonder where scientists say that everything is

matter. I am sure talk of energy, light etc. is clearly saying it

aloud that matter is not all. Yet, since I donot understand what you

are saying, I shall leave the subject to you to continue further and

shall not interfere anymore. I am sorry for having offended you in

any way. Rest assured that I have a great deal of respect for you

and donot wish to simply criticize you.

>

> Very frankly, I entered this forum only with an intention of

making good fri with the community of Advaitists as I have a deep

regard for them and Sankara. I have only intended to be part of a

Sangha of Advaitists. It is clear that misunderstandings are surely

possible even in Sanghas. I wish to express my heartfelt remorse in

having caused any stress or lament or sorrow to any brother or

sister here.

>

> If members find my presence here uncomfortable, I shall leave the

forum to avoid any further distress. I am deeply sorry for this. It

is said that the one who dishonors the worthy ones on the path of

Dhamma, has committed the worst crime of all. I am sorry to have

hurt any members' feelings here.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

>            

>

> Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make  PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.