Is Mukti A Myth?

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

For a physist, a scientist is a conclomoration of atoms - just a omplex arrey of matter - and nothing else Hence there is no duality.

 

It is true that physics is fundamentally monistic in the material sense.

 

Physics simply does not admit a nonmaterial category, at the first place and at the second believes that all matter is ultimately is of one stuff. This is the meaning of Grand Unification.

I found your post very confusing.

At a high level, for any field, there is a

a) subject and

b) an object of his experience or study.

 

The above is not monism as you wrongly assume. Because:

 

1) The array of matter and atoms in this universe are distinct from each other. They are not the same as you wrongly opine.

 

2) Each distinct atom is distinct than the scientist (or the subject, or a individual body, or individual consciousness, or individual Atma) who analyzes them and

 

3) Each distinct atom and the scientist are distinct from their Creator (who transcends the atom, the scientist, the matter, time and space)

 

If you understood what I wrote above, you have understood less than 0.0000000001% of tattvavAda or also known as the doctrine of Realities in Vedanta. Non-dualism has no parallel in any field of study we know, be it Mathematics or Physics, Archeology or Evolution, Nano technology or Relativity, because by its own theory of lower and higher degrees of realities, all these fields of study are TRUE only when one is ignorant!

[Amlesh]

 

I found your post very confusing.

At a high level, for any field, there is a

a) subject and

b) an object of his experience or study.

 

The above is not monism as you wrongly assume. Because:

 

1) The array of matter and atoms in this universe are distinct from each other. They are not the same as you wrongly opine.

 

2) Each distinct atom is distinct than the scientist (or the subject, or a individual body, or individual consciousness, or individual Atma) who analyzes them and

 

3) Each distinct atom and the scientist are distinct from their Creator (who transcends the atom, the scientist, the matter, time and space)

 

If you understood what I wrote above, you have understood less than 0.0000000001% of tattvavAda or also known as the doctrine of Realities in Vedanta. Non-dualism has no parallel in any field of study we know, be it Mathematics or Physics, Archeology or Evolution, Nano technology or Relativity, because by its own theory of lower and higher degrees of realities, all these fields of study are TRUE only when one is ignorant!

 

You are really indeed Not HeeHee, you are serious.

 

What ever you've said is not wrong. But Kesaven is right in the sense how physicians view it.

 

The most common example is E=mc2.

 

One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter, which is scientifically correct.

 

That's why I say Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is right, "simultaneously one and Different".

 

However in Srimad Bhagwatam it is stated that it is a wrong conception to accept oneness without knowing the distinct elements.

 

The interaction of the atoms and its contituents should be known.

 

If I'm wrong please correct me.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Not HEEHEE,

 

Physics neither concerns itself with the subject nor it admits subject as real category. It simply is the study of objects of the world. The human being and scientists are just part of matter. ( you and I may not agree on this owing to our spiritual oriantation , but that should not confuse you and me in understanding of physics or physical sciences which are completely materialistic - sorry no scope for subject there. No subject object duality. There simplt is matter. That is the positrion of physical sciences.

 

Physical science doesnot deny the perceived difference in the phynominal world. As to the perceived difference of matter that does not mean duality either. When a physist maintain there is oneness it is ment an underlying oneness. For example you obviously see different colours in the world : the grass is green, the sky is blue and thesunflower is yellow and so on. But you must be aware that there are are not so many colours rerally - there are only three primary colours. we perceive the combination of these three in to many many varieties of colours. Now going a step further there are not even three things as for as colours are concerned . At still deeper level there is only a colourless electromagnetic wave - A mere vibration. Depending on the speed of vibration ( frequency) alternately of its wave length, our eye and subsequently our brain differently respond as different colours. All that is there in the real world is simple electromagnetic wave. some one thing that moves . Of course this wave is faster or slower - that difference exists . By that does not makle it dual or plural as a variation is really motion one one medioum one thing or one single parameter. There is no difference in kind though there is difference in quantity of one thing. In perceived world however this variation of spped of one thing is perceived as many different kinds of colours.

 

What i said in the sase of colour holds good for all other things in the universe too. Universe is a manifestation of one single energy perceived as varity oif things at phynominal level.

 

It is all simple physics I am talking about. There is no confusion in me. I am clear. If there is coinfution in you, you are free to sort it out. I can even help you on that. However if you find my description too dificult to grasp you can even learn science from more simpler sourses. I have no problem in acceptiong that I could be more complex to your simple mind and my explanation might be confusing to you.

I accept that - after all you are only helping me by giving your feed back .I should learn to communicate more simply and elegantly. I will try.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[jeffster]

Hello again Srikanth,

In answer to your question, what sustains the existence of all these lokas?, I had to look to Gita, and found it in Gita 10:41 and 42:

"Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge ? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe."

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

[bija]

thx jeffster

 

 

http://causelessmercy.com/Bg10.2.htm

 

CHAPTER TEN

The Opulence of the Absolute

 

TEXT 41

yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṁ

śrīmad ūrjitam eva vā

tat tad evāvagaccha tvaṁ

mama tejo-’ṁśa-sambhavam

yat yat—whatever; vibhūti—opulences; mat—having; sattvam—existence; śrīmat—beautiful; ūrjitam—glorious; eva—certainly; vā—or; tat tat—all those; eva—certainly; avagaccha—you must know; tvam—you; mama—My; tejaḥ—splendor; aṁśa—partly; sambhavam—born of.

TRANSLATION

Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.

PURPORT

Any glorious or beautiful existence should be understood to be but a fragmental manifestation of Kṛṣṇa’s opulence, whether it be in the spiritual or material world. Anything extraordinarily opulent should be considered to represent Kṛṣṇa’s opulence.

Bg10.42

TEXT 42

atha vā bahunaitena

kiṁ jñātena tavārjuna

viṣṭabhyāham idaṁ kṛtsnam

ekāṁśena sthito jagat

athavā—or; bahunā—many; etena—by this kind; kim—what; jñātena—knowing; tava—you; arjuna—O Arjuna; viṣṭabhya—entire; aham—I; idam—this; kṛtsnam—all manifestations; eka—one; aṁśena—part; sthithaḥ—situated; jagat—in the universe.

TRANSLATION

But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.

PURPORT

The Supreme Lord is represented throughout the entire material universes by His entering into all things as the Supersoul. The Lord here tells Arjuna that there is no point in understanding how things exist in their separate opulence and grandeur. He should know that all things are existing due to Kṛṣṇa’s entering them as Supersoul. From Brahmā, the most gigantic entity, on down to the smallest ant, all are existing because the Lord has entered each and all and is sustaining them.

Worship of demigods is discouraged herein because even the greatest demigods like Brahmā and Śiva only represent part of the opulence of the Supreme Lord. He is the origin of everyone born, and no one is greater than Him. He is samatā, which means that no one is superior to Him and that no one is equal to Him. In the Viṣṇu-mantra it is said that one who considers the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa in the same category with demigods—be they even Brahmā or Śiva—becomes at once an atheist. If, however, one thoroughly studies the different descriptions of the opulences and expansions of Kṛṣṇa’s energy, then one can understand without any doubt the position of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa and can fix his mind in the worship of Kṛṣṇa without deviation. The Lord is all-pervading by the expansion of His partial representation, the Supersoul, who enters into everything that is. Pure devotees, therefore, concentrate their minds in Kṛṣṇa consciousness in full devotional service; therefore they are always situated in the transcendental position. Devotional service and worship of Kṛṣṇa are very clearly indicated in this chapter in verses eight to eleven. That is the way of pure devotional service. How one can attain the highest devotional perfection of association with the Supreme Personality of Godhead has been thoroughly explained in this chapter.

Thus end the Bhaktivedanta Purports to the Tenth Chapter of the Śrīmad-Bhagavad-gītā in the matter of the Opulence of the Absolute.

 

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello again Srikanth,

In answer to your question, what sustains the existence of all these lokas?, I had to look to Gita, and found it in Gita 10:41 and 42:

"Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge ? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe."

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

 

Hi Jeffster, you have exactly come to the point. So, now you believe all has emerged from that one single fragment which pervades and supports(sustains) the universe.

 

Above, I have highlighted the word 'Myself' to say that the same thing is the self of Jeffster, Bija or me when we say 'Myself'(the purest form of yourself).

[William Young]

Hi all,

I am a new here. So let me introduce myself. I am a quantum physicist and my Ph.D thesis is on Quantum field theory. I worked on a part of the problem of unification of particles and forces. Presently I teach the subject of quantum mechanics and guide research in quantum field theory.

I am an agnostic and no stake to prove or disprove god. My interest in this forum is academic. I think by this I am better suited to comment objectively on the process of the debate that is going on in this forum and many others.

There is a huge misconception about quantum mechanics among laymen which is reflected in this forum too. Let me clarify this misconception just for the purpose of better, clearer and qualitatively more useful discussion among you. Before I enter in to debate with you all, let me clarify that I am not at all concerned with the religious dualism and monism and no implication is to be drawn in to my strictly scientific notion of dualism and monism. Nor I liked to be dragged in to the religious discussion. I will restrict to purely science. My only purpose of entering in to debate is to correct the science discussion you are already having. If you are using science then you must use it correctly with right understanding. That is all my concern.

Before we address the issue of dualism of Quantum mechanics, I wish to make a distinction between two kinds of dualism that science is concerned with. To make this distinction clear let me employ two terms to refer to them:

 

• Binary dualism,
  
• Dialectical dualism.

By binary dualism I mean that brand of thinking that there are two fundamental categories – entities, forces, concepts with which everything in a field of study is explainable. An example of this is the familiar computing systems. All computing is done in a modern computer with binary codes. Ultimately all information processing, -be it language mathematics, pictures, - all is done with a binary codes 0and 1. There is nothing else happening in a computer and nothing more is required other than these basic codes. In general terms binary dualism means that we need two minimum things, and only two things are needed, to explain anything. Everything else can be reduced to these two things. This kind of dualism is no real problem there is no real implication to quantum mechanism. We don’t mean quantum mechanics is dualistic in this sense. It is not. There is no need of two fundamental things in quantum mechanics.

 

Dialectical dualism on the other hand is the assumption that the two fundamental things are didactical opposites. – Not just any pair of two, but mutually exclusive two. And secondly these two opposite things are together. In other words there is a logical contradiction – a paradox – present in a dialectical dualism. Reality is explained by a set of paradoxical elements. An example is the wave particle duality of quantum mechanics a wave by definition is not a particle and a particle is not a wave. Normally both cannot be true as that is a logical contradiction. However Quantum mechanics assumes this paradoxical state of affairs. Another example is the quantum superposed state which assumes two mutually exclusive contradictory states coexisting together, conceived by the famous Schrödinger’s Cat. A cat cannot be dead and alive together, that would be a logical contradiction. But a quantum cat is such that it is alive and dead simultaneously in mysterious superposed state. An electron can have its existence in two states two places two orbits etc.

When we say Quantum world is dualistic we mean in the second sense and not in the first sense. There are many problems in quantum mechanics which are paradoxical and puzzling and out right unacceptable as logical neat thinking. Paradoxical thinking of this sort are logical contradictions and illogical. We live with it not because that is real or true, but because right now we don’t have solutions to the quantum paradoxes. It does mean we have accepted them as real. No one can accept them. No serious minded scientists have accepted this state of affair as real and final. Einstein who was in a way indirectly responsible for the emergence of quantum mechanics has not accepted this terrible state of affairs. Schrödinger, who is a major contributed of quantum mechanics, himself has not accepted the quantum dualism. There are scientists who do not take quantum theories seriously and consider it as nothing more than a computational algorithm to fit experimental data. All this is because we are not comfortable with the quantum duality and we would very much want to get rid of such dualism. We are putting up with all this at present because we don’t know yet the solution to avoid them.-Not that we have accepted them.

Binary dualism is no problem in science and is relatively a superficial problem. It is just a matter of convenience how many fundamental category we can use and there is even an arbitrariness to it. For example the nine digit number system that we use in mathematics is arbitrary. It could very well be a sixteen digit system of a six digit system or a binary system. There is no compelling reason which system should be adopted. There is no real system in this sense. However science strives to reduce categories to minimum and if we could just have one single category all the more better. This is the principle of Occam’s razor which science values and practices and this is the logic behind the striving for grand unification.

 

 

 

 

 

Is quantum mechanics dualistic? Yes at present. But is that the right and real state? Certainly not. It is in fact a problematic state. No one in the right state of mind can accept such an illogical state. Scientists, leaving alone a few minorities, have not accepted it as a real and final fate of the quantum world. Attempts are on to remove all this paradoxes and contradictions. Science as a philosophy do value and aspire to be non-dual. Two is better than many, but one is the ideal. On this there is no dispute among scientists. It is just that we are at present helpless with the ugly dialectic dualism present in quantum mechanics.

Some of the members of this discussion group think that science is dualistic. That “quantum science is dualistic at present” is a true statement. But then, “that is how the reality is made” is not at all implied and there no consensus on this at all. Dualism is not a quality to be celebrated in any case in science. It is considered to be a worst problem in science. Scientists do strongly believe in scientific monism.

By the term monism I don’t mean the religious theological or spiritual monism. And I don’t want to be dragged in to that. As I said I am an Agnostic. I don’t know whether soul spirit, or god exist and I don’t care either.

William Young

[Hiranyagarpa]

 

Mr. or Miss Hiranyagarpa,

 

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

 

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

 

Mr. Justin,

I am a male. My name means Golden Womb and refers to the Creator Brahma.

No need to get paranoid. I am not threatening you of any dangerous consequence from out side source. I am referring to the logical implication of your line of reasoning. If you are not athirst then you are confused. You remained me of a old mythical story of Kalidasa the poet. He was a utter fool before he became brainy, by the grace of goddess kali. The story goes like this. There was a princes who was very arrogant of her brain and insulted every one in the palace. They all were waiting for a chance to take their revenge. When it was time to get her married she put a condition that she will only marry some own who is a genius and who will win her in a debate with her. The minister and the group who were waiting for their chance to revenge her took this opportunity and conspired to find the most foolish person and trick her to get married to that moron. With this resolve they went on a search mission to find an utter fool. When they came to a remote village they found Kalidasa - a shepherded sitting on the end of a tree branch and cutting the bottom side of the branch. He was cutting the branch for the leaves for his goats oblivious of the fact that that way he will fall with the branch. The palace group picked him up as he was such a moron that he did not know the consequence of his own action. The story continues but I will stop.

Your way of arguing using science to make the Near Death Experience, a case of madness has the same implication for your own religiosity. If you are not an atheist, then you should not be doing what you are doing. Obviously you must be so confused about logic that you don’t see the implication of your own argument. I was referring to this logical implication, not uttering any personal threat.

Now coming to your links, I took the pain of going through them with the hope of finding the ‘established proof beyond doubt’, but all I could get there were opinion, not proof. Everything is doubtable. I could not find any proof beyond doubt.

 

May be my brain is not good enough like yours to see and understand such proof present over there. Since you have grasped it can you please do a favor? Please succinctly and clearly state the proof. Don’t give me the links. Hope that is not too much of a trouble for you. I am eagerly waiting for the proof beyond doubt that you have.

Hirayanyagarpa

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

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.

 

quote]

 

Dear Justine ,

While you are right that atoms are different Owing to their atomic number . the protons of atoms are the same protons. The atom of iron and atom of gold and atom of hidrogen all are consited of the same proton. i.e. the proton of gold atom is not a golden proton and that of iron is made of iron. It is just the number of protons that differ. Only quantity differs not quality.

 

Everythinmg in the univrerse is made of the same stuff. in differeing quantities and structures. Form differs, contents remain the same.

 

Well I did mentioned at the end of my post that atomic theory itself is an out dated theory. The lattest version is that of string. Protons, electrons, neutrons and all other particles are all strings now. And in strings there are no difference in quality though vibrwation rates and shapes of these strings do chasnge that account for phiominal plurolity.

 

 

 

one way to make sense of the underlying oneness with out getting in to details is to just think of the univerrse in terms three ontological forms: Matter , Energy and Strings. Einstein has already shown that all matter is energy.(E=MC square) Potrons, eletrons, neutons and all other particles of modern physics are all energies. Then we learned energies each being convertable to another, are all one in a fundamental sense. We have the unification of fourses . Of the four fundamental forces already three have been unified leaving gravity. Now we learn energy is actually string. In string the advantage is they are all can be conceived of as the same kind of thing - with just their vibrational rates and shapes being different.

 

Whether you and I like it or not Physics has been advancing towards unification systematically and reducing the number of essential fundamental entities and categories as per the Occams razer principle. This you cannot deny , though I do accept that the final unification is yet to be accomplished.

And hence I will be modest enough to accept that there is a possibility that the final union will never happen. This I am willing to buy as a hypothesis. Afterall you may be right that dualism is the final order of the universe. But that is just a tentative hypothesis . I am open.By that same openness I say anything is possible-even a unified theory. That openness i am not willing to surrender unless you can show me that that possibility doesnot exist by a compelling logic. But so far I dont have any compelling logical proof that it will not happen. Hence I will remain open about it.

 

As to your quackery thesis, we are both quacks . Your dualistic science and my monistic science both are quackery. We are not scientist and are not doing science in this forum. Is int it? So let us be wise. Let us not wash our dirty linen publically.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[jeffster]

Hello again dear Srikanth,

Nice discussion and we are keeping it civil, as gentlemen. The verse has the "M" in Myself capitilized. Krishna is referring specifically to Himself, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If the verse were referring to jivas, it would have a small "m." Krishna pervades and supports the entire universe, I don't. I am certainly not all pervasive, and generally not even particularly supportive. I can't even control my own body, what to speak of something like the universe. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, as has been posted here already, is "acintya bheda, bheda tattva," or "acintya bheda, abheda tattva," sorry I am writing this from memory, without looking up the exact Sanskrit, as I probably should, so I may not have the Sanskrit exactly correct. But it means, "simultaneous oneness and difference." This means that although the jiva is certainly one in quality with Krishna, fully spiritual, there is a vast difference in quantity. Krishna is great; we are small. Krishna can do things like support the entire universe. I, as a jiva, can do things like support my entire household.

Regards, Jeffster/AMdas

[Justin]

 

Mr. Justin,

I am a male. My name means Golden Womb and refers to the Creator Brahma.

I didn't want to assume you are a mister. Anyways in sanskrit the womb is referred to as Garba and not garpa.

 

No need to get paranoid. I am not threatening you of any dangerous consequence from out side source. I am referring to the logical implication of your line of reasoning. If you are not athirst then you are confused.

I am not paranoid thank you. You still have not expressed the implications of my reasoning in your post except to say there are implications.

 

You remained me of a old mythical story of Kalidasa the poet. He was a utter fool before he became brainy, by the grace of goddess kali.

The story continues but I will stop.

Glad that I remind you of the poet Kalidasa. I by no means can be compared to the great poet, but thanks for the compliment.

 

Your way of arguing using science to make the Near Death Experience, a case of madness has the same implication for your own religiosity.

Again you keep saying there is an implication without mentioning what that is.

 

If you are not an atheist, then you should not be doing what you are doing. Obviously you must be so confused about logic that you don’t see the implication of your own argument. I was referring to this logical implication, not uttering any personal threat.

I am not sure you have the eligibility to suggest what a religious person should or should not be doing. As such your behavior in this post that of calling me paranoid and a fool does not seem to convey any sense of righteousness for a spiritual being like you.

 

 

Now coming to your links, I took the pain of going through them with the hope of finding the ‘established proof beyond doubt’, but all I could get there were opinion, not proof. Everything is doubtable. I could not find any proof beyond doubt.

If you google there are thousands of links about NDE. I have spoon fed you enough.

 

What I said is that the fact is established beyond doubt that people who do not know Advaita have experienced NDE just like Ramana Maharishi. These people are in Africa, Indonesia, Uzhbekistan, etc., who have not read about brahma satya jagat mithya. If you cannot understand this simple thing, what can I do? I can bring a horse to the water but cannot make it drink.

 

 

May be my brain is not good enough like yours to see and understand such proof present over there.

May be.

 

 

Since you have grasped it can you please do a favor? Please succinctly and clearly state the proof. Don’t give me the links. Hope that is not too much of a trouble for you. I am eagerly waiting for the proof beyond doubt that you have.

I have provided enough information that members like Bija grasped the content. I do not take responsibility if others do not understand the content in the links inspite of consistent information.

 

The other thing I am scared of is that my good friend Bart Happel will admonish me for wasting my time blowing the violin in front of a bull

[Justin]

Dear Ravindran,

 

First you made a blunder by saying all atoms are the same. Now you retract that by saying all protons are the same.

 

At one point in time you say 2 separate things exist - material monism and spiritual monism. Your statement itself falls on its weight in that there are 2 separate things existing in the world besides other factors of various things which you refuse to take into account because your love for monism restrains you from accepting reality. When you segregate things into different categories you are already in a dualistic world even if you proclaim everything is ONE.

 

Monism takes consciousness to be the root of everything, not strings.

 

In a physical theory like string theory, consciousness is a by-product of sufficiently complex combinations of matter, like our brains and central nervous system. This in no way applies either to Advaita or Dvaita. For we know there are definitions of consciousness by these schools that says consciousness is definitely not matter.

 

One another contradiction is that Monism itself says there is no definition for consciousness. Cannot be explained. There is no point in people still insisting it is new-age science. That is quackery.

 

Monism cannot be a theory of science nor mathematical.

 

I am not drawing parallels of dualistic teachings with Science. But you are comparing teachings of monism with this science. I am just saying that your analysis fails completely because the very fundamental basis on which you compare is dualistic. I am not comparing the teachings of Ramanuja, Madhva or Harekrsna as equal to new-age crap. So I cannot be labelled as a quack as I am not claiming anything except proving your understanding of both monism and Science is warped.

 

The new Science has been misused by many other than monists too. For example Buddhism claims that it offers the most constructive comparisons with the new physics.

 

The premise that the cosmos as a whole is that Supreme Consciousness is a speculative idea that has no supporting evidence. The Supreme God has been explained in the Vedas as entirely made of a different set of attributes and form which cannot be seen by an average naked eye. You cannot say our central nervous system is similar to the toilet commode and is similar to the God who everyone believes in to be Perfect.

 

Science seeks to explain the universe by seeing what things are made of. Religion and philosophy works the other way around. Unlike Science, there are tenets that remain untested, or cannot be tested at all. Empirical observation only takes a person so far, and at some point the only tool left is one's mind, and this is why philosophy and religion exists.

[Bart Happel]

 

...

 

• Binary dualism,
  
• Dialectical dualism.

...

 

So, the term ‘binary dualism’ is only relevant for computer science, and not for the ‘monism/dualism debate’, apparent in this forum. And this term is also not relevant for understanding any (ontological) discussion that is going on in present day physics. Then why do you mention it at all?

 

The term ‘dialectical dualism’, indicates a tension (dialectic) between 2 opposed principles. That sounds promising. You mention ‘Particle/wave duality’ and ‘quantum superposition’ as examples of dialectical dualism in physics. You then conclude that present day physics can be called ‘dualistic’, because several opposing theoretical principles are used to explain reality. However, ‘oneness’ or ‘monism’ is preferred by science in general, and, therefore, science is essentially a ‘monistic’ enterprise. Nice.

 

What do you think of the term ‘dialectical monism’ in this context? Dialectical monism is an ontological position which holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

 

And do you have any specific ideas about this ultimate monistic solution or ‘the unification’ of physics?

 

I thought, by the way, that all quantum physicists are deeply religious.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija]

 

I have provided enough information that members like Bija grasped the content. by justin

What some of us spiritualists may find hard to accept Justin, is that theories such as DMT molecule and the pineal gland effect such profound encounter, with spiritual content. That it all may be simply a chemical product. But is NDE really spiritual? What is spiritual?

 

From the viewpoint of the extreme scientific mind all this phenomena is chemical brain activity. The spiritualist may say the subtle body effects the grey matter. No one knows for sure it seems, and personally I do not have concern about these things in regards to my spiritual life. The spiritualist is simply that - not a religionist or scientist. The spiritualists Hare Krsna faith and practice in Krsna consciousness may even be vastly different than many other devotees. So these DMT, NDE, debates hold little sway for such a devotees experience of consciousness and vision, and application and search for truth. But ofcourse on a practical level its very interesting reading - personally anyhow.

 

The mind is vast whichever way one looks at it. As Ravindran said psychologists who are vastly learned, barely understand its depths - so once again to say people with NDE are mentally challenged is a challenging comment. You may have to clarify by what you mean by challenged to clarify with Hiranyagarpa and others.

 

Here is one encounter I have with mind. I have various phenomena which yogis may call siddhis. Awakening to broader mind function is challenging for me in some ways, but not illness. Here is why not:

 

One gift of the mind I have is ability to see auras. Now there is alot of new age and theosophical junk out there about this subject matter. I relate this ability more to a type of synesthesia, to ground the concept in a scientific medical model to explain my encounter. There is one saying, 'if we can rationally explain our experience we are not mad'. The sense networks of my brain cross over (synesthesia - this is proven on brain scan), naturally I am very intuitive (another function of mind)....and with out any self effort of application of the mind I see auras automatically. It is like auto - no effort - very spontaneous. This says something of how the mind works, and how great is creation.

 

Now just as you see the world with your eyes, you may see sky or ocean - both blue. You know its exists because you can touch the water and feel it, you know the sky is blue becuse of knowledge of light and atmosphere. This world and its content looks very real to the 'normal mind'. In regards to synesthesia aura it looks just as real to me as your sky or ocean. Awakening to this new vision of the world does present its challenges.

 

How can these subtle visions seem so real for me as water is for you? That is something very odd for some to understand. It seems aura readers all have subjective experience of aura on others bodies. So in that sense it is not consistently real phenomena - it is subjective, but saying that there seems to be a super-subjective (or collective like the NDE's). But the psychic gift in regards to intuition of the reading has much consistency, so there seems to be a common factor. These visions seem real to me because my heart area also sees them (not just the mind) and processes the content. In a way Justin this experience is still conditioned experience - on a more subtle level, a greater functioning of the mind is taking place than some people may have (saying that others may have gifts which do not hold so much mystique, as these phenomena in question have in our rational western mindset and society). Some tribes in South America take ayahuasca, and all the tribe have synesthesia, which is common by content and experience. Tibetans have Bardo. We have Jung

 

So as we expand in mind, the content becomes vast, and the conditioning becomes more subtle. The yogi needs to go further, and will oneday realize these siddhis can be capturing and hindering, in that sense challenging, even deluding due to the nature of what conditioning is, and what speculation is - you can see that in new age circles. So many theories, some even quite bizarre, still though, not classified as pathology by the manual . Maybe nutty by a common term!

 

The spiritualist whose heart is captivated by Vraj rasa, will desire to go deeper, to simplicity, where knowledge, siddhi, yoga, karma etc take back stage. Simplicity (Vraj rasa) can actually become extremely desirable for one who has lived in this world of subtle mind and so called mystery. Guru said to go further, in regards to simple hearted bhakti he is right IMHO.

 

Challenging for me? Yes and no. Life ofcourse is a challenge. Simply of the world is this mind, simply conditioning, but in Krsna consciousness all things have application, especially the journey. IMHO. Maybe more of this world is delusion than is commonly accepted, but not pathologized by ethno-centric standards. We should take a look around? Something is out of order if we look at the nightly news. What one accepts as normal, another may see as atrocity.

[bija]

 

The premise that the cosmos as a whole is that Supreme Consciousness is a speculative idea that has no supporting evidence. The Supreme God has been explained in the Vedas as entirely made of a different set of attributes and form which cannot be seen by an average naked eye. You cannot say our central nervous system is similar to the toilet commode and is similar to the God who everyone believes in to be Perfect. by justin

Maybe Justin simply some of us do not yet know what God is. We cannot treat God as an object of our satisfaction and hope to find truth - its too big. Maybe us being a particle of God in quality - God will choose to give us more glimpses of what is truth. The Veda comes as servant in the form of language and words, we come to serve and take any drop available.

 

Sri asks 'is mukti a myth'? Man that's a good question in regards to the flow of this thread!

[Sephiroth]

 

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).

 

Foolish question, created by foolish mind.

 

Even if we are to debate here till hell freezes over, what difference could it make? No one here have achieved Mukti (at least not yet) so we could not know what we're talking about.

 

It could be like three blind men trying to describe what an elephant looks like.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Foolish question, created by foolish mind.

 

Ok, taken for granted I am foolish. It looks like you have come to a conclusion just by reading the first post (not properly also). Give us some light on your non-foolish thoughts so that we can deviate from foolishness.

 

 

Even if we are to debate here till hell freezes over, what difference could it make? No one here have achieved Mukti (at least not yet) so we could not know what we're talking about.

 

We are not here to achieve Mukti but here to clear our differences on the same. Kindly go through the postings. I think you have come to a conclusion about this thread just by reading the first post. You perhaps would have grasped the essence when I have told about by monoist stance and what I think and the same is being refuted and debated by our friends here.

 

 

It could be like three blind men trying to describe what an elephant looks like.

 

Dear Sephiroth, if you are in the light, lead us to it. I think you are a confused entity yourself when you say so.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello again dear Srikanth,

Nice discussion and we are keeping it civil, as gentlemen. The verse has the "M" in Myself capitilized. Krishna is referring specifically to Himself, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If the verse were referring to jivas, it would have a small "m."

 

We too use "I" capitalized when we refer to ourself

 

 

Krishna pervades and supports the entire universe, I don't. I am certainly not all pervasive, and generally not even particularly supportive. I can't even control my own body, what to speak of something like the universe. Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, as has been posted here already, is "acintya bheda, bheda tattva," or "acintya bheda, abheda tattva," sorry I am writing this from memory, without looking up the exact Sanskrit, as I probably should, so I may not have the Sanskrit exactly correct. But it means, "simultaneous oneness and difference." This means that although the jiva is certainly one in quality with Krishna, fully spiritual, there is a vast difference in quantity. Krishna is great; we are small. Krishna can do things like support the entire universe. I, as a jiva, can do things like support my entire household.Regards, Jeffster/AMdas

 

Yes. agreed that we cannot even control our own body. Anything can be achieved with practice. I even agree to the quantative difference. But the quality is the same. ....Purnameva vasisyate. The quality of 'You' and 'That' is one and the same. Its like pulling a cotton piece out of a big cotton bunch. Both are cotton. But the vastness of the two is the difference. By learning to do with the mind is what we are taught from birth and not to listen to our heart. By learning to do with the heart, we can do wonders too.

[bija]

Hi Srikanthdk, could you explain a little further what you mean by this statement please?

 

 

But the vastness of the two is the difference.

It seems we both agree here. Maybe differences arise in the way we see this environment we are observing, in our God consciousness?

 

If that is the case I would question two things:

 

1/what is the source of our greatest inner satisfaction?

2/what is the most satisfying vision for harmony, love, and beauty while encountering the environment?

[bija]

By learning to do with the heart, we can do wonders too. by sri

This is a very nectar realization.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hi Srikanthdk, could you explain a little further what you mean by this statement please?

 

 

It seems we both agree here. Maybe differences arise in the way we see this environment we are observing, in our God consciousness?

 

 

I think I have explained it before this statement when I quoted the essence of

 

Purnamadah, Puranamidam, Purnaatpurnamudatchyate

Purnasya Purnamaadaya, Purnameva Vasisyate.

 

Simple. 'This is That and That is this eventhough it is a part of purna, it is same as the Purnam itself.' If you know the charecterstics of this, there is no need to know the charecterstics of That. It is already known.

[bija]

This is my Gita verse for today, I read one verse per day:

 

 

Bg13.33

TEXT 33

yathā sarva-gataṁ saukṣmyād

ākāśaṁ nopalipyate

sarvatrāvasthito dehe

tathātmā nopalipyate

yathā—as; sarva-gatam—all-pervading; saukṣmyāt—due to being subtle; ākāśam—the sky; na—never; upalipyate—mixes; sarvatra—everywhere; avasthitaḥ—situated; dehe—in the body; tathā—such; ātmā—the self; na—never; upalipyate—mixes.

TRANSLATION

The sky, due to its subtle nature, does not mix with anything, although it is all-pervading. Similarly, the soul, situated in Brahman vision, does not mix with the body, though situated in that body.

 

 

Simple. 'This is That and That is this eventhough it is a part of purna, it is same as the Purnam itself.' If you know the charecterstics of this, there is no need to know the charecterstics of That. It is already known. by sri

If This and That does not mix with the illusion, but has characteristics, what is This and That doing here then?

 

The Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinoda, in accord with Gaudiya Tattva, says the jivatma is here in the conditioned state because of its propensity to enjoy seperately. So what does the Brahman do in your opinion if it becomes liberated, or even while in this world not mixing with the lower field?

 

Some would say this world has no purpose but enjoyment if Brahman has no purpose? And if Brahman's purpose is just to manifest what we see in these universes it is quite ghastly? Some may find it hard to have the depth to see beauty in that case (ofcourse not all:eek4:)...maybe if that is the case integration is the purpose of experience. Good and evil being an illusion of conditioned philosophers.

 

You see the Gita is meaningless without bhakti. Gaudiya philosophy is a further elaboration of bhakti based on the Bhagavata Purana. To minimze bhakti in the Gita, as some tend to do, brings great lack of purpose in the concept of absolute nature in my opinion.

 

I would really appreciate some forums members to share their understandings of bhakti and its relation to the advaitin/monist tradition...I have not studied this at all really.

 

Or is Brahman just self-satisfied in vastness, knowledge and bliss.

 

Or is true mukti to simply have a deep sense of love, beauty, and harmony (in serving mood).

[Sephiroth]

 

Ok, taken for granted I am foolish. It looks like you have come to a conclusion just by reading the first post (not properly also). Give us some light on your non-foolish thoughts so that we can deviate from foolishness.

 

Whatever thoughts I may have in understanding of what Mukti, Enlightnment and Moksha maybe, IT IS FOOLISH THOUGHTS to others. Even if I have state it to the best of my ability, in the end, someone will always disagree about some part of it, thus an argument of two blind men will begin. I have yet to be enlighten, yet I will debate like the blind men I have accused you all to be. Is that not an action of an ignorant man? I shall not do such mistake.

 

 

We are not here to achieve Mukti but here to clear our differences on the same. Kindly go through the postings. I think you have come to a conclusion about this thread just by reading the first post. You perhaps would have grasped the essence when I have told about by monoist stance and what I think and the same is being refuted and debated by our friends here.

 

It does not matter what stance you could make. In the end, all the conclusions you could achieve will be from influence of the Mind (and how it interprets the World).

 

 

Dear Sephiroth, if you are in the light, lead us to it. I think you are a confused entity yourself when you say so.

 

Not focused, learned. And in a confused World, a learned person is always considered to be a confused person to a confused bunch.

 

Very well ... I give a free lessons (which I have learnt). Lesson one :- To achieve Moksha, one shall not be lead by another. If you want it, go and find it. Do not expect others to lead you to it.

 

Lesson two :- Discard all you know, for you know nothing. What you have read in books, those are merely description of people who themselves have yet to experience Mukti. Discard all you have read, believe ONLY in God.

 

Lets see if you are capable of doing this two.

[Radhikakulakarni]

Dear members,

I believe that the ego of being a soul is encased in three bodies, the physical, the astral and the causal. Once you are out of these, there is nothing that remains and you are one with the Infinite. The Infinite does not have any particular form. It is nothing but the consciousness that prevails in the entire universe. That is what we call God or Supreme Soul.

But once this is attained, there is no difference. The very nature of this Supreme Consciousness is that it has powers to create, maintain and destroy. It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls.

 

Radhika

[srikanthdk71]

 

If This and That does not mix with the illusion, but has characteristics, what This and That doing here then?

 

Being deluded in lack of Knowledge owing to differences of 'This and That' where in reality there is 'No This or No That'. Everything is Purnam.

 

 

The Jaiva Dharma by Srila Bhaktivinoda, in accord with Gaudiya Tattva, says the jivatma is here in the conditioned state because of its propensity to enjoy seperately. So what does the Brahman do in your opinion if it becomes liberated, or even while in this world not mixing with the lower field?

 

When you say 'Brahman' it is the total cosmos or 'Brahmaand'. It includes everything. No different Jiva and Parama. So no question of mixing with lower field arises. It is all a mixture.

 

 

Some would say this world has no purpose but enjoyment if Brahman has no purpose? And if Brahman's purpose is just to manifest what we see in these universes it is quite ghastly?

 

This is termed as Leela or Maya where world appears in gross, you take a gross form. Why is all this happening without a purpose. Let me try. When we take some junk food and suffer indigestion, we take an antidote to cure the same. Here junk food is 'Lack of Knowledge', the indigestion is the effect of 'Lack of Knowlegde' and the Antidote is the 'Knowledge'. So, when the core of the creation is known, the rest has no mention. 'Where did the Darkness go when I switched on the Light? if Darkness was real.'...Aaditya varnam Tamasah Parastaat'