Is Mukti A Myth?

[Trivedi 3]

That is another beautiful post by Ravindran ji. The finger- Palm anology is very beautiful and clearifying. It gives me clarity on the confusing unsettled Advaida -Dvaida debate. Thank u ravindran ji for your clarity and insight.

 

Pramod Trivedi

[bija]

I do have one small question that comes to mind for you all (especially for srikanthdk).

 

If behind this manifestation we see now, is simply formless...why would we then desire liberation? Or is the formless always manifesting into form of which we will be a part of (lila) eternally? Has any advaitin attained full liberation?

 

In the Gaudiya tradition desire for liberation begins to cease as we awaken as parts in service mood...a spiritual joy may be even found within the trials of this world in service (Krsna consciousness). In a previous post I quoted about super-subjective plain...that is something I would like to discover more of (in service mood).

 

I just re-read the opening post in this thread...it is a very good question actually.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello Srikant,

There are the gods, generally jivas who act as deputed agents (demigods) of the Supreme, and then there is the God of the Gods, I forgot the Sanskrit for this. We need not be confused, Krishna's position as God of the gods is clearly superior to that of any of the demigods.

The paths are different, thereby leading to different destinations. Generally, merging into Brahman for monists; going to Vaikuntha, Krishnaloka

(Vrndaban, Dwarka or Mathura), Ram loka, etc. for Vaishnavas.

Pranams, Jeffster/AMdas

 

Dear Jeffster, I am not at all debating about the existance of demigods, Indraloka, Vaikunta or Kailasa. All these are existing. Fine. But existance need perceverance. Anything perceived is subject to finite boundries. What about the rest? Is there not something beyond these Lokas which are sustaining the existance of all these lokas. So, there comes the common regulator for the whole cosmos. The "monoists" are trying(if they really are) to emphasise that Utimate Truth. What I can say at this point is, we are all trying. The Truth may be laughing at us.

[srikanthdk71]

 

I do have one small question that comes to mind for you all (especially for srikanthdk).

 

If behind this manifestation we see now, is simply formless...why would we then desire liberation? Or is the formless always manifesting into form of which we will be a part of (lila) eternally? Has any advaitin attained full liberation?

 

Since it is specially designed for me, I wouldnt let it unnoticed. Desiring liberation is to be free from the bondage of Karmas, various births and deaths. To be simple, not to be 'Born Again' as a bounded(Karma) labour. Nobody can come and tell to know whether anybody has attained full liberation. But the liberated souls can still come to this earth from time to time to distribute their Knowledge and cleanse the World on their own will.

 

 

In the Gaudiya tradition desire for liberation begins to cease as we awaken as parts in service mood...a spiritual joy may be even found within the trials of this world in service (Krsna consciousness). In a previous post I quoted about super-subjective plain...that is something I would like to discover more of (in service mood).

 

Dear one, for a Yogi, spiritual joy is experienced in Kundalini awakening and in Samadhi, for a Bhakta, spiritual joy is experienced in Chanting the Holy Name and in Service of the lord. For a person like Mother Teresa, spiritual joy is service of the needy and the poor. For a layman spiritual joy is something he sees in the happiness of his beloved ones and in keeping his beloved ones happy. So, spiritual joy is one and the same. The degree of experience is different.

[bija]

 

The degree of experience is different. by sri

yep! good one! so where does gradation come from?

 

For example Lord Caitanya taught to seek Vrindavan mood in bhajan. His followers taught Krsna is supreme becuase of the sweetness. Madhurya.

 

So this gradation ideas...what place does that have? Or is such a concept only sign posts...so we may choose? I would speculate that such concepts are manifestation of mercy potency...but unfortunately the seeker with minimal vision misuses that mercy. For sectarianism etc.

[srikanthdk71]

 

yep! good one! so where does gradation come from?

 

For example Lord Caitanya taught to seek Vrindavan mood in bhajan. His followers taught Krsna is supreme becuase of the sweetness. Madhurya.

 

So this gradation ideas...what place does that have?

 

Experience makes Man Perfect. This is an old saying. As you go on experiencing any Mood of spiritual joy, the perfection will automatically lead you to the Truth. But it is upto us to either stand at a point and say 'Yes, so that I have attained Kailasa/Vaikunta, I am satisfied' or still move further if we believe in doing so. So, no Gradation here. What we aspire is what we get.

 

Oh, if you feel that since I have used the word 'Degree of Experience', I am grading it as low/high, yes, the happiness/love is so much within you that that you can expericnce it in times of various actions depending on your involvement to the subject of experience.

[bija]

 

Experience makes Man Perfect. This is an old saying. As you go on experiencing any Mood of spiritual joy, the perfection will automatically lead you to the Truth. But it is upto us to either stand at a point and say 'Yes, so that I have attained Kailasa/Vaikunta, I am satisfied' or still move further if we believe in doing so. So, no Gradation here. What we aspire is what we get.

Thx...I appreciate what you say. Here is some common ground we share Srikanth.

[bija]

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Oh, if you feel that since I have used the word 'Degree of Experience', I am grading it as low/high, yes, the happiness/love is so much within you that that you can expericnce it in times of various actions depending on your involvement to the subject of experience. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

This leads me to more self inquiry. What is transcendental and what is simply gratification (bhoga). From my observation the need to control the environment entangles one in so many problems...maybe the opposite of that is some degree of liberation (mukti) and real freedom (relinquishing the need to be controller). This is for me the potential for a fully wholesome organism...maybe it has always been wholesome...we just need to enter in awareness of it.

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Gita 18.66

sarva-dharmān parityajya

mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja

ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo

mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

sarva-dharmān—all varieties of religion; parityajya—abandoning; mām—unto Me; ekam—only; śaraṇam—surrender; vraja—go; aham—I; tvām—you; sarva—all; pāpebhyaḥ—from sinful reactions; mokṣayiṣyāmi—deliver; mā—not; śucaḥ—worry.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

Dear Friends, as you all know (those who are already familier with my postings) that I follow a monoist stance. I believe that there is Mukti. So, Dvaita cannot give you Mukti. If Dvaita was true, the last abode would be a Kailasa or a Vaikunta in the presence of Lord Shiva or Sriman Narayana. Still, you are not a Mukta, you still maintain the differnce between you and the lord in the Shivaloka or Vishnuloka. If there is Mukti, only one truth applies and that is Advaita. God made everything and everything is god. Unlike the 'Me' is identified as Srikanth, I have these different instruments of sense and action where my five fingers are different, and all organs are different but the truth is 'I'. In Vaishnava Sampradaya, the Samipya, Sannidhya and Sayujya is mentioned. It maintains that there is no Mukti according to Madhva principles. Infact he says that if 'Srilakshmi herself would maintain the differnce, what about us Mortals?'. The monoist principle doesnt focus on Bheda much as DarkWarrior rightly pointed out in one of the forums. Can we have an open dicussion as whether Mukti is the essence of all the Upanishads or is it just like promising something to gain popularity(for the Dharma). posted by srikanthdk71

This is a brilliant question the more I look at it. The first question that comes to mind is...what experiences would arise living in this world in full Krsna consciousness (full fledged love of God as taught by Sri Caitanya), as compared to full fledged monistic liberated experience?

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[Hiranyagarpa]

 

It has established beyond doubt that people who experienced this sense of oneness were neurotic. FYI..these people were not even Advaitin's. They just went through a Near Death Syndrome which they thought they experienced bliss. Such people are mentally challenged.

 

Mr Justin

 

Those supposed to be Established proofs beyond doubt with near death experiences are not at all established but opinion of materialist scientist who do not believe in soul. I have read accounts of near death experience and judgments on them. There are counter views.

The materialistic medical scientists trained to believe that body is just a mechanical material gadget and there is no soul and death is the material body stops functioning. Nothing continues beyond death as there is nothing else (like soul) to continue. Death is simply the end. What remains is Nothing. These materialist doctors unable to believe the accounts of out of body states of those people who experience death and returned to the body (technical termed as near death experience - though it is death proper for a brief time), in their disbelief and materialistic prejudice explain it away as the person’s hallucination. It is just their prejudiced opinion. There is no conclusive proof that it is just hallucination and there is no conceivable way to prove that it is so.

There are other equally and well qualified but open-minded serious medical professionals who have researched on the same state have a different view. They note that almost all the near death experience experiences are more or less very similar in content. If it were mere hallucination this uniformity of contents could not be accounted for. This account clearly indicates survival of a soul beyond physical mortality and conform spiritual accounts to an amazing degree. This is so even of nonreligious people and atheists who experienced the near death state and the experience is uniformly same across cultures and religious background. There is simply no room to assume subjectivity.

What you call established -beyond doubt - proof regarding the illusory nature of the experience is neither neither established nor convincing going by the data on real death experience. NDE rather offers a direct proof for the existence of souls and the truth of religion if we were to look at these experiences with open mind and objectivity.

 

If you still hold that there is conclusive proof , please provide the details of such proof. What are the standards and rigor of such proof? How is the proof actually worked out in detail?How exactly it is proved beyond doubt? I am very curious to know the detailed proof.

Are you an atheist pretending to be religious in this forum with a purpose of demolishing religious belief or are you simply inconsistent, not knowing what really the implication of what you are talking about?

 

Hiranyagarpa

[bija]

Dear Hiranyagarpa, several on this forum know of my own personal NDE experience...and ironically when I mentioned it to a professional he classed it straight way as hallucination.

 

I am no expert on the NDE experience, but can say it is profound. If we accept the existence of soul, we are definately conscious in the NDE encounter. I did not have a body, it was surely a very deep part of mind experience. So deep in fact that parts of myself (or subtle makeup) were revealed in the encounter, that I did not fully comprehend until more than a decade later. So many layers of meaning in what I saw - yet so simple. Very personal.

 

Jung or other spiritualists would say this is archetypal realms. I am of the opinion it is not spirit/soul proper...but a part of mind which is in very close proximity to soul factor. That is all I can say from the encounter.

 

It was a subjective experience for me...not purely objective as you say. So that brings the question, how can so many recorded events of NDE share so much similarity without being purely and objective phenomena. That is where we are entering super-subjective realms. A great mystery to many, barely glimpsed by some. I am sure science would love to understand that by experiment! Great scientists, psychologists etc have pondered on this great wonder. Philosophers have questioend what is this truth (God, being, manifestation).

 

I am sorry Justin, you have discounted something as illness, when infact it resides in each of us. We use very little of brain matter as Srikanth said, what to say of the possibility that lies in mind.

 

Justin you are correct in some way...or pointing in a direction which has possibility in these realms. Madness can awaken. That is why Patanjali recommends to have a development in yama and niyama before beginning the quest. Infact I am of the opinion that modern culture will suffer great consequence with deep yoga practice, with its unrestrained appetites. The modern materialist will need very realized guides, or unlimited grace of God (in surrender) to walk deeper within mind, and penetrate beyond it (without entering delusion).

 

All these modern kundalini show bottle schools, a little bit of this a little of that...may produce no real result, and if they do, by God's grace goes the one who awakens. But saying that, maybe peeling away of all false labels is necessary (and is subconsciously desired) by the organism who yearns full release. That is more common than is know.

[srikanthdk71]

 

This leads me to more self inquiry. What is transcendental and what is simply gratification (bhoga). From my observation the need to control the environment entangles one in so many problems...maybe the opposite of that is some degree of liberation (mukti) and real freedom (relinquishing the need to be controller). This is for me the potential for a fully wholesome organism...maybe it has always been wholesome...we just need to enter in awareness of it.

 

Transcendental is nothing but 'Original Form'. Ornaments may be many where as the Gold in those ornaments is the original form. Now, what is our original form arises the question. We just need to rightly enter into its awareness.

 

 

This is a brilliant question the more I look at it. The first question that comes to mind is...what experiences would arise living in this world in full Krsna consciousness (full fledged love of God as taught by Sri Caitanya), as compared to full fledged monistic liberated experience?

 

The first gives you the best available experience outside you temporarily(you get bored after a while). Nothing is under your control. The next gives you the best experience within you permanently which is nothing but the best you cannot experience outside. No scope for even a thought to enter. Everything is under your control.

[bija]

Ok...this is a good opportunity to open up here. When I had the NDE, I asked the light, 'who are you?'. By some good fortune that was the first thought to enter my extermely degraded mind. A wonderful reply issued forth. "Original" was the one word response. It was outside and within...permeated with extreme bliss. One yet different. It was realized as the Other first, but in that instance it was within (then upon that realization bliss arose - and all fear was vanquished). Thank you Srikanth!

 

Please forgive my audacity in sharing this. But I firmly believe in oneness and difference. Maybe it is foolsih to share...or maybe a blessing to share (I dont know).

 

What captures my heart now...is how to apply constantly what we discover, without falling down or forgetting. That is the essential thing (constant rememberance - even at the time of death). Without flavor, we will eventually fall, that is the argument that the Gaudiya Acaryas put forth, the impersonal liberation will lack rasa - in due course leading the entity to re-enter the material realm for satisfaction. Prabhupada uses the example of mayavadi sannyasi's who end up performing humanitarian services. What do you think? (I hope this conversation is not to deep for you)

[srikanthdk71]

 

Ok...this is a good opportunity to open up here. When I had the NDE, I asked the light, 'who are you?'. By some good fortune that was the first thought to enter my extermely degraded mind. A wonderful reply issued forth. "Original" was the one word response. It was outside and within...permeated with extreme bliss. One yet different. It was realized as the Other first, but in that instance it was within (then upon that realization bliss arose - and all fear was vanquished). Thank you Srikanth!

 

Me too had similar experience when I was in 9th Std. 22 years back. I was too young to know what happened. After being pushed back, I yelled, cried with fear and went and slept with my dad till I had the same experience just on the Guru Purnima day where I went to Sri Kasi Vishwanatha Temple with my Guru in the Astral form and was a witness to my Guru performing the puja for his Guru(Lord Shiva). Thanks to my Guru for granting this wonderful experience. We have all the people who are spiritual just with experiences which triggered off spirituality within them at some point in their life.

 

 

What captures my heart now...is how to apply constantly what we discover, without falling down or forgetting. That is the essential thing (constant rememberance - even at the time of death). Without flavor, we will eventually fall, that is the argument that the Gaudiya Acaryas put forth, the impersonal liberation will lack rasa - in due course leading the entity to re-enter the material realm for satisfaction. Prabhupada uses the example of mayavadi sannyasi's who end up performing humanitarian services. What do you think? (I hope this conversation is not to deep for you)

 

I am not better qualified. I leave this to Ravindranji. He is the best guide for such expositions. Over to Ravindran Kesavanji >>>>>>

[kaisersose]

 

Please forgive my audacity in sharing this. But I firmly believe in oneness and difference. Maybe it is foolsih to share...or maybe a blessing to share (I dont know).

 

Your belief is your personal choice. I dont see what is aduacious about that.

 

 

Without flavor, we will eventually fall, that is the argument that the Gaudiya Acaryas put forth, the impersonal liberation will lack rasa - in due course leading the entity to re-enter the material realm for satisfaction.

 

Completely incorrect. Liberation is unconditionally irreversible. Please check Gita 8.21. This is how it is is interpreted in all the major Vedanta doctrines. There is no "getting bored" and coming back. This conditional liberation concept is peculiar to Gaudiya Vaishnavism and directly contradicts 8.21.

 

As per the Advaita interpretation, experiencing Rasa requires an experiencer (a frame of reference) which means duality still exists and therefore the person is not yet liberated. So one in Rasa is still under the influence of Maya.

 

He who has been mentioned as the Unmanifested, the Immutable, they call Him the supreme Goal. That is the supreme abode of Mine, reaching which they do not return - Gita 8.21

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

Bg8.21

TEXT 21

avyakto ’kṣara ity uktas

tam āhuḥ paramāṁ gatim

yaṁ prāpya na nivartante

tad dhāma paramaṁ mama

avyaktaḥ—unmanifested; akṣaraḥ—infallible; iti—thus; uktaḥ—said; tam—that which; āhuḥ—is known; paramām—ultimate; gatim—destination; yam—that which; prāpya—gaining; na—never; nivartante—comes back; tat-dhāma—that abode; paramam—supreme; mama—Mine.

 

thx kaisersose...do you understand sanskrit...how would you translate paramam gatim?

[kaisersose]

 

thx kaisersose...do you understand sanskrit...how would you translate paramam gatim?

 

paramam - supreme, ultimate, highest.

gatim - goal, destination.

 

The translation you posted says the same thing.

 

Cheers

[Justin]

 

Once we succeed in this attempt then we will have one single force under the entie multidyde of manifestations, and one single theory explaining everything in the universe. Science is Monistic - ( material monistic - I must qualify).

I see that you still want to console yourself that your spiritual ideology is science. Science works on observation and evidence. Various religions, like for example, Buddhism also says it is quantum science. You say it is monistic. Likewise, I can claim that the flying teapot is also quantum science. There are a lot of deceivers who have piggy backed on quackery explaining it to the world that their belief is quantum science.

 

These real scientists below would laugh at the assertion that Science is Monism i.e. like Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Marie Curie, Niels Bohr, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, Copernicus, Max Planck, Robert Koch, Stephen Hawking, Gregor Mendel, de Broglie, Oppenheimer, Archimedes

 

Ravindran, after going through your posts, it is apparent you have no idea of what Science and technology are. Quantum science is only a SMALL branch of science and nowhere does it prove monism. In fact, just the opposite.

 

For Science to be valid, it has to be dualistic. So your imaginations of it being monistic does not cut it.

 

Monism by its very definition refutes science. No scientist can claim that all is ONE. Science cannot claim that a pig/skunk/desk/commode are all ONE. For if that was the case, science would be bankrupt by now.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

Me too had similar experience when I was in 9th Std. 22 years back.

I am not better qualified. I leave this to Ravindranji. He is the best guide for such expositions. Over to Ravindran Kesavanji >>>>>>

 

Dear Bija and Srikant,

 

It is nice to see that you are opening up freely. This is authentiic sharring. Much more useful than theoritical bookish discussion.

 

I too have a spiritual experience of a very powerful profound kind, not an NDE though. It is a kundalini awakened experience. It is little longish to post - toomuch of details and too vast . I have seen every posible state of mind in these profound spiritual experiences . May be I will assemble parts of it some time and post it.

 

For the time being I can only say that your experiences are not symptoms of madsness or anything to do with any sickness. They are genune real states - not illusions. Dont go by the psychatrist's opinion on this Psychiatry is in a lousy state as a science and not developed much. It is the least developed branch when compared to other branches of medicine, and not at al satisfactory. There are controled researches done on psychiatry and psychiatriests in the west and the result is that the psychiatric diagnoisis is as bad and random as coin throw and not at all realiable. Psychiatrists dont know really much. Psychology it self is just scraching on the surface of our very mysterious mind. We dont know much of our mind and its Profound depts and potentials.

 

Dear Bija, you dont have to be assamed of or uncertain of or appologetic about of your profound experience. It is in fact a universal experience of all those who have NDE, hence not an illusion or hallucination. It is very real.

 

And srikant your out of body astral travel experience too is real. US army once was supposed to have engaged in training soldiers on "remote viewing" (to spy on countries and events), which is nothing but astral body travel of the kind that you have experienced. There are internet sites now established by the retired US army soldiers to train on this. You can check on it if you need more information on it. Tibeten Buddhism too have esoteric system of training to accomplish this siddhi.

 

Though madness and psychological illhealth are actual facts , there are genune mystical and spiritual experiences too. Mind is the most misterious devise in the universe. We (Psychologist and Scientists) know almost nothing about it at present. And anything we dont understand we tend to clasify as weird and mad.

 

It is good to share these experiences freely so that people having these experiences need not get confused and scared and ashamed of their experiences. I feel like joining you in this but my only itch - it is too vast. and I dont know how to present it short and sweet. May be I should try.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija]

Maybe some would like to hear about kundalini awakening on this forum? I watched one small video of Gopi Krishna sharing his experience.

 

<embed id="VideoPlayback" style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" allowfullscreen="true" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3384114237073918452&hl=en&fs=true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

 

I have this kundalini too possibly...I have not met one person here in this small city who has somewhat similar. There is alot to be grateful for coming in contact with the wealth of eastern thought...western culture seems to have very little room for these experiences. The closest thing I have related to in a western medical model is a kind of synesthesia...there is one excellent book..but still no discussion of subtle body or soul...simply brain.

 

this is the book link...a wonderful read http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11303

[Justin]

 

Mr Justin

Those supposed to be Established proofs beyond doubt with near death experiences are not at all established but opinion of materialist scientist who do not believe in soul. I have read accounts of near death experience and judgments on them. There are counter views.

Mr. or Miss Hiranyagarpa, every field has a counter view. We have to weigh the pros and cons and evaluate it if it appeals to our reason. The fact that people all over the world experienced this state without reading one word of Advaita like Ramana Maharishi has is proof enough that you need not read Monism to experience NDE.

 

The links below contain an exhaustive list of resources and FAQs on NDE

http://www.nderf.org/

 

Books on NDE and people who wrongly claim to be self-realized because of NDE

http://www.nderf.org/Books_and_Reviews.htm

 

http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html

 

http://www.crystalinks.com/neardeath.html

In each case, according to Jansen's more recent pronouncements, all we can say is that the subject gets catapulted out of ordinary 'egoic' consciousness into an altered state - we cannot comfortably rule out the possibility that the 'worlds' disclosed in these 'trips' have ontological status. Latterly, therefore, Jansens position appears closer to thinkers like Daniel Pinchbeck (2002), who has written a book on hallucinogenic shamanism, and other names like Carl Jung, Ken Wilber and Stanislav Grof, than to thinkers like Susan Blackmore or Nicholas Humphrey (two particularly high-profile materialist skeptics).

 

http://leda.lycaeum.org/index.pl?ID=9264

 

 

Are you an atheist pretending to be religious in this forum with a purpose of demolishing religious belief or are you simply inconsistent, not knowing what really the implication of what you are talking about?

I am not an atheist or inconsistent. What implications are you threatening me with?

[bija]

 

In each case, according to Jansen's more recent pronouncements, all we can say is that the subject gets catapulted out of ordinary 'egoic' consciousness into an altered state - we cannot comfortably rule out the possibility that the 'worlds' disclosed in these 'trips' have ontological status. Latterly, therefore, Jansens position appears closer to thinkers like Daniel Pinchbeck (2002), who has written a book on hallucinogenic shamanism, and other names like Carl Jung, Ken Wilber and Stanislav Grof, than to thinkers like Susan Blackmore or Nicholas Humphrey (two particularly high-profile materialist skeptics). by justin

Grof prefers the word non-ordinary states of consciousness rather than altered states. He says altered gives a definition of a warped/sense of mind state. He says in one lecture that the non-ordinary states in some sense are more real than some normal states of consciousness people exist in. He says mystics of past age and founders of modern mainstream religion, would be locked up today. He goes on to say if a person in some church speaks or exhibits some of the symptoms similar to these founders, the pastors would call the quack;). Its true...just like the psychiatrists Ravindram mentions...these spiritual doctors (religionists) have blinkers on too in some cases.

 

Interesting you bring up shamanism. There is a wonderful movie by Jan Kounen called 'Other Worlds' http://otherworlds.jankounen.com/ , about ayahausca and shamanism. He also made a wonderful documentary about Sri Amrtananda Mayi Devi (Ammachi). I have one friend sometime back, who is a part of an ayahuasca cult - and its healing modality. Interestingly enough this drink activates DMT. DMT is also situated in the brain naturally in the area of the third eye (pineal gland) and can be activated at certain times of life. In Switzerland presently (study is legal again), as far as I know, they are investigating these plants and chemicals they contain...one day they may find some new therapuetic medicines to assist schizophrenia etc. Rather than tranquilizers and inhibitors, these 'new medicines' will work similar to the shaman medicine, but in a controlled form clinically...to not shutdown...but to gradually open.

[bija]

http://www.crystalinks.com/neardeath.html here is the link you gave.

 

here is one of the books mentioned in the article (DMT-the spirit molecule):

 

http://mybloop.com/go/BjPTvi

 

thx for the article link Justin.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

after going through your posts, it is apparent you have no idea of what Science and technology are. Quantum science is only a SMALL branch of science and nowhere does it prove monism. In fact, just the opposite.

 

For Science to be valid, it has to be dualistic. So your imaginations of it being monistic does not cut it.

 

Dear Justin,

 

It is the current consensus of theoritical physists that there are only two theories in physics : Quantum theory, And General theory of relativity. Quantum theory is not a small branch of physics anymore but one of the major paradigm . It is also true that serious attempt is going on to unite them together to produce onr single theory of everything. Whatever I said about seience are true fact not opinion or imagination.

 

About the monism of science I should admit that it is presently not yet achieved that status and hence I cannot convince you that it is already monoistic. As a mater of fact I said there are two theories Quantum mechanics and general theory. Together they explain the universe. Hence you are right that it is at present dualistic. You need two theories to account for all that is there.

 

But however, as I said, attempt is goiing on to unify them to produce a grant unified theory. (This is a common knowledge in physics circle. I am not saying anything strange or weird or imagined things). I can only argue with you at present that the value of science is monistic. ie. the ideal of science is monism . Otherwise those scientists would not striving to unify the forces. However what you can still maintain is that this attempt will never succeed as science is fundamentally dualistic and has to be that way. On wich I will not have any argument with you but wait to see what happens to the attempt of unification.

 

Well you may even be right that science can never be a monistic endwever and any attempt to make it will fail. I am willing to buy that stance as a hypothesis. But your certainity on that is quite another matter. Scientists who tries to unify , if they have that certanity and clarity, will never attempt the unification task. It is obvious that they think otherwise.

 

Forget of all the past scientist you listed. they may not have thought about the monistic science (Except Einstin of course) . In their time it was not a real possibility. The present scientists who are working on unification certainly think of such a possibility and even dream of it as the goal of physics . And mind you thay are regorous scientists, not spiritualist. You can accuce me of my projecting my spiritual monism on science. But you cannot accuse of that to these material scientists.

 

In any case I will have no argument with you if you say that the present real status of science is dualistic . I will have to aggree to that as I myself said there are two theories now. Whether it would remain that way or not is to be seen. Let us wait and see who is right - if we live up to that time.

 

Note: Monism or unification is not about pig and dog and worms and human being same. Obviously at the phenominal level there are differences. Monism is about the underlying ontic truth, that behind phynominal plurality there is an ontic unity. There is no denial that there are different things and forces in the universe at the surface level. What the monistic schema in physics argues is that behind these varities of phenominon there is one single underlying force, that account for all the variety. Pig and worm and human being are made of same atomic particles: Proton eletron and neutron. There is nothing else other than atoms and everything is composed of atoms That is the implication of monistic thinking . No one is saying Pig is Human But what one is saying is pigs and humen are atoms really. (Of course atomic structure is now outdated ontology the most resent verson would be that everything are made up of strings)

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Justin]

 

Note: Monism or unification is not about pig and dog and worms and human being same. Obviously at the phenominal level there are differences. Monism is about the underlying ontic truth, that behind phynominal plurality there is an ontic unity. There is no denial that there are different things and forces in the universe at the surface level. What the monistic schema in physics argues is that behind these varities of phenominon there is one single underlying force, that account for all the variety. Pig and worm and human being are made of same atomic particles: Proton eletron and neutron. There is nothing else other than atoms and everything is composed of atoms That is the implication of monistic thinking . No one is saying Pig is Human But what one is saying is pigs and humen are atoms really. (Of course atomic structure is now outdated ontology the most resent verson would be that everything are made up of strings)

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

There are many errors in your posts. I am going to take only some salient ones. For example, you say the pig, skunk, worm, desk, looney bins, commodes, humans are made of the same atomic particles.

 

NO SCIENTIST WILL AGREE THAT AN ATOM IS THE SAME AS ANOTHER ATOM next to it.

 

What makes an atom different from another atom? Every atom has a unique number of protons, and proton number equals electron number. EVERY ATOM RETAINS ITS INDIVIDUALITY INCLUDING DISTINCT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS.

 

Also, the atomic mass for one atom may be different from another atom of the same element.

 

What you are referring to and explaining is not Science but quackery. If you still didn't get the basics of science, I do not want to pursue clarifying quackery any further. There are fundamental flaws in your hypothesis. A 3rd grade science text book might help define an atom and its composition.

 

Even if we consider Science to support metaphysics, Science is strongly dualistic. It involves the interaction of five or six kinds: matter, energy, forces, space, time, and laws. Each of these are radically different from another.

 

The laws of nature regulate the behavior of all physical systems at every level. The laws cannot be God. They are controlled by Him. That itself is dualistic.

 

Now the so-called quacks (or whom you call new-age scientists) who observe nature fail to understand that they are not viewing this underlying Reality. Monism itself states that the underlying reality (which it calls GOD) cannot be observed nor comprehended nor even explained by words. Ever heard of anirvachIniya?

 

If you talk to an actual 21st century scientist, he will call new-age science a bluff. If you talk to a classical Advaitin or a Dvaitin, he will not agree with you because you haven't understood monism in the first place to correlate it to quantum science.

 

As a blogger wrote: It’s somewhat incorrect to say physics is dualistic; it’s quadraplistic, pentuplistic, sextuplistic, or at least quintuplistic. If you throw in the geometric math of string theory with its eleven dimensions, it might even be hyperplistic.

[Bart Happel]

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

There are many errors in your posts. I am going to take only some salient ones. For example, you say the pig, skunk, worm, desk, looney bins, commodes, humans are made of the same atomic particles.

 

NO SCIENTIST WILL AGREE THAT AN ATOM IS THE SAME AS ANOTHER ATOM next to it.

 

What makes an atom different from another atom? Every atom has a unique number of protons, and proton number equals electron number. EVERY ATOM RETAINS ITS INDIVIDUALITY INCLUDING DISTINCT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS.

 

Also, the atomic mass for one atom may be different from another atom of the same element.

 

What you are referring to and explaining is not Science but quackery. If you still didn't get the basics of science, I do not want to pursue clarifying quackery any further. There are fundamental flaws in your hypothesis. A 3rd grade science text book might help define an atom and its composition.

 

Even if we consider Science to support metaphysics, Science is strongly dualistic. It involves the interaction of five or six kinds: matter, energy, forces, space, time, and laws. Each of these are radically different from another.

 

The laws of nature regulate the behavior of all physical systems at every level. The laws cannot be God. They are controlled by Him. That itself is dualistic.

 

Now the so-called quacks (or whom you call new-age scientists) who observe nature fail to understand that they are not viewing this underlying Reality. Monism itself states that the underlying reality (which it calls GOD) cannot be observed nor comprehended nor even explained by words. Ever heard of anirvachIniya?

 

If you talk to an actual 21st century scientist, he will call new-age science a bluff. If you talk to a classical Advaitin or a Dvaitin, he will not agree with you because you haven't understood monism in the first place to correlate it to quantum science.

 

As a blogger wrote: It’s somewhat incorrect to say physics is dualistic; it’s quadraplistic, pentuplistic, sextuplistic, or at least quintuplistic. If you throw in the geometric math of string theory with its eleven dimensions, it might even be hyperplistic.

 

I see you didn't (re)read - or you didn't understand my posts (and related posts).