Is Mukti A Myth?

[William Young]

Bear Bart,

 

Refer to your post no. 113

I am mentioning binary dualism in order to clarify that there is a version of dualism like this and a discussion on dualism should explicitly be conducted keeping this division in mind to avoid confusion and ambiguity. That is all my purpose.

As to Dialectical dualism, which is the real issue in quantum mechanics, my position is that there are unresolved and puzzling issues arising out of it, which is not at all acceptable as good way of thinking, and these issues must be resolved and will be resolved. As to my position on Monism I am, like most scientists a monist. There is only one reality. This is the point I was making when I expressed my discomfort with the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Dialectical dualism is a big problem precisely because it is a logical contradiction. (If it were merely a binary dualism there is no logical problem). In dialectical dualism, one is arguing that a result of a coin throw experiment is Head and Tail, not head or tail (which is a binary dualism). If a cat is either dead or alive then there is no logical problem but to say it is dead and alive is a contradiction.

As to my position on monism is concerned I am, as majority of Scientists, is a monist. This is precisely why I cannot live with duality of quantum mechanics. But at present there is no solution to this and hence I maintained that Quantum physics is dualist - not that I am comfortable with it. But you have given a beautiful phrase Dialectical Monism. This indeed is a beautiful concept and has a potential to resolve the contradiction and duality. We encounter the paradoxical state of two opposite states together precisely because they are not two at all. Behind the apparent duality they are one at a deeper invisible level. That is why at the first place the paradoxical state arises. The two opposites are really one. But we need to establish this clearly before claiming it. We have not yet accomplished it.

As to my idea on unification, I am an ‘unificationist” and my PhD is a small contribution in this direction by way of a small solution on the synthesis of particle and forces. Though my own work is a very small contribution and no where near the grand unification, the grand unification is certainly on the way. In this respect I am a Monist.

As to quantum mechanist being religious, it is your generalization. Some are and some are not. There is no special connection between quantum mechanics and religion. May be that its present mysterious quality drives some towards religion. After all mystery is the origin and nature of religion. I prefer to be an agnostic because that is, according to me, being honest to one’s own self. We don’t know what are god, soul, and the like and we cannot know. Why get in to something that we cannot know and be dogmatic about it? I would rater claim something I know for certain.

 

Kind regards,

William Young.

[Sephiroth]

 

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

 

Beautifully explained.

[bija]

 

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' by Srikanthdk

I understand Sri. Some time ago I had realization of the heart, it said, 'if I was all these things would you still love me - ofcourse I said yes to this simple voice'. For me this experience of truth is a deep integration, far different than western ideas of an all perfect 'morality, based God. Something much more profoundly beautiful. And yes I appreciate your question...

'if darkness was real?'

[srikanthdk71]

 

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

It says all.

[bija]

 

It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls. posted by radhika

I agree sephiroth. Radhika's definition of soul is very beautiful. A wonderful soul experience is pointed to by Radhika here.

 

 

Once you are out of these, there is nothing that remains and you are one with the Infinite. by radhika

This comment does not satisfy my soul though...sorry Radhika:). Once we have the soul development from our encounter with the harmonious environment...is it all over red rover...or is there a positive progressive reality that is ever-new? Love must be such, not just expanding in this universal form.

[srikanthdk71]

 

'if darkness was real?'

 

Darkness can be driven out with Light and Light cannot be driven out by Darkness. So, Darkness is False and Light is True.

[bija]

Jaya...you bet ya its false...yes sir!

[srikanthdk71]

 

This comment does not satisfy my soul though...sorry Radhika:). Once we have the soul development from our encounter with the harmonious environment...is it all over red rover...or is there a positive progressive reality that is ever-new? Love must be such, not just expanding in this universal form.

 

I think Radhika is better qualified to answer this though. What she means is the Souls' very Nature is Creation, Sustainity and Destruction. So, the soul is always is in its own nature. The encounter from the harmonious environment is also a part of its own journey in its nature.

[Hiranyagarpa]

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

 

Mr. Justin,

Even I am ashamed of the mistake in the spelling in my name. It is not my doing. The municipality school I went in my primary education made that mistake. I could have corrected it of course. But it seems to be a big hassle.

You still not getting the implication that I am talking about, even after the Kalidas story? You are truly a former Kalians. Let me be explicit then. I am referring to your argument on near death experience. You are cutting the very branch on which you are sitting.

Still I am waiting for your scientific proof beyond doubt.

I think you are not providing it right away, because there isn’t any. The material that you have referred too does not contain neither scientific proof not it is in any way beyond doubt. What you are referring to are quake science. You are not able to distinguish between quackery and science.

Hiranyagarpa

[bija]

 

The encounter from the harmonious environment is also a part of its own journey in its nature. by sri

Yes. This is why I feel (in relation to this thread - does mukti exist)...that we do not have to go anywhere to begin to see vaikuntha or even finer, fully sweet encounter. But love must be ever-new, ever-expanding, eternally progressively expanding...not limited to simply soul encounter with matter. There is a higher plane.

 

What I am trying to point to, is a full blown experience right now, here. Not some relative place in the heavens. Not imitation, trying to find it in a lower exploitative field related to matter, but with the eyes of the heart, pressing down to us, within us. A land of love. As we cultivate that, surely we will attain it (applying all things - not negating, not exploiting). We will realize the constancy of the soul as one, as a part of a fully functioning whole (beauty and charm)...not all the various bodies we have passed through - cat, dog, pig, human etc.

 

 

Beauty, Charm and Sweetness

To attract the ordinary public in our Bombay preaching, we would state that the purpose of our

movement was to harmonize karma, jnana and bhakti. This was spoken outwardly, announced

only to canvass the general public. How is it possible that we want to harmonize karma, jnana

and bhakti? I said, "Of course the outward appearance may be kept, but in spirit what we are

doing is quite a different thing."

Karma means applying effort, not for our sake, but for the Supreme Lord. Jnana means searching,

but searching for what? Not for collective exploitation of nature; nor for Paramatma, nor

for Brahman; not even for the Narayana conception of the truth. We are not searching for Absolute

power, but for Absolute beauty, Absolute love.

Ultimately, by our sacrifice, our surrender, our devotion, we attain vimucyeta, vimukti, visesa

mukti, the highest type of salvation or emancipation. It is a positive attainment, not just the end

of the negative conception. Only to get out of the negative side is not real emancipation or liberation.

To enter into the positive safest position, that is our real interest.

Designations (upadhis) have been thrust on us, sarvopadhi vinir muktam tat-paratvena nirmalam.

Anyatha rupam, that which is just like a disease-an undesirable foreign thing has come to

cover me. That is upadhi. That is anyatha rupam. Successfully eliminating that, we must come

to our positive and proper position in the world of love and beauty. It is a very important thing

that power is not the ultimate controller; beauty is. The control of beauty is very sweet, normal

and natural.

Power, awe, reverence, grandeur, these all become stale in light of the Bhagavatam's Krsna conception

of Godhead. The Narayana conception has become stale, so to say. Beauty, love and

harmony are the highest goal ever discovered. Sri Caitanyadeva gave us that, Vrndavana has given

us that, and this is Krsna consciousness. Our Guru Maharaja and Svami Maharaja have given

to the wide world this Krsna conception, the conception of beauty, harmony, love. It is original,

the universal cause, this conception of the Absolute, not anything else.

With this fundamental conception we may find relief. We may feel that we are out of danger; we

are no longer the victims of power. The power in Vaikuntha, the grandeur, awe, reverence, that

may not be an inner hankering of any substance. Beauty is a hopeful assurance of our highest

position; it is charming.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura predicted that when the world's scholars understand the worth of that

which has been given by Sri Caitanyadeva, then all religion must vanish. It cannot stand. When the conception of the Absolute is identified with beauty and love, all sorts of different conceptions

cannot stand in competition. All will embrace it: "I want beauty, Ultimate beauty, Ultimate

harmony, Ultimate love, loving each other. If that is possible, then I don't want any other proposal."

We must run in that direction; the general indication will take us.

All other religious conceptions are compelled to vanish. When viewed with the divine eye, the

eye of divine knowledge, all other conceptions cannot appeal to the highest class of thinkers.

Prthivite ache yata nagaradi grama, sarvatra pracara haibe mora nama, "In every town and

village on this earth the glories of My name will be chanted." This is not a mere declaration by

Mahaprabhu. There is an intellectual as well as an intuitive foundation to this prediction.

http://mybloop.com/go/T8J170

Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts today.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

 

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.

 

quote]

 

Dear Justin,

True, I made a blunder in bring in atom instead of proton at the first place. But in rational debate which is an inquiry, blunders are correctible isn’t it? Actually even any conception using particle of any sort is still partial and inadequate description of reality. We need to go the full way through energy, (as matter is energy) to strings ultimately. After all unified theory is assumed to be formulated in string theoretic conception, not in particle terms and energy terms.

I mentioned about two kinds of monism: spiritual and Material (scientific) to avoid the ambiguity and confusion of reading in to my use of monism. My use of monism whenever I post scientific material is strictly confined to the scientific monism by which it must be understood that there is only one kind of stuff in the entire universe – the entire universe is made up of one thing – that is matter ( in the sense material , it refers to mean strings of late, as strings are very much material as you have rightly pointed out).

There is no contradiction or dualism by my 'theoritical' mention of the two versions , as long as I avoid the assumption both are real existing things. As long as I assume that material realm is the only realm and spirit is either a byproduct or down right a false poetic (nonexistent imaginary) category, there is no contradiction.

I am aware that Advida is spiritual monism and holds the root category of everything is consciousness not strings. It denies material entities of any sort as imaginary (maya). And so is the case with material science which seeks explanation in material realm entirely. Physics holds the root category is string and not consciousness. A thorough going science does not admit any nonmaterial category, like consciousness soul or god and rejects them as either illusory phenomenon, produced by the complex material brain. You yourself have been adopting this view in your near death experience analysis.

Science being pluralistic is of old age now. The recent position and consensus is a strong monist doctrine. (In the sense of material monism – I reiterate). It is not new age Science I am talking about. I am as wary of this new age thinkers as you are in many respects. I am talking proper serious physics, in which work in going on to unify the entire physics.

 

Unity of physics is not yet established, but in mathematics it is already firmly established. There are somany different branches of mathematics now but all of them can be reduced to Set theory. It is already established that all mathematics is one.

In advida proper (Spiritual monism), Consciousness cannot be defined because in any definition you need the other to define. You define one word with another word, one concept with another concept. In the absence of a second category of anysort how do you define the one and only thing? It is only logical to say that the only one existing thing cannot be defined. There is no ‘problem” in it – that is the logically correct thing to maintain provided advida is true.

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Amlesh]

 

 

 

payo ji, <st1:state><st1:place>maine</st1:place></st1:state> nama ratana dhana payo

 

 

 

I have found, yes, I have found the wealth of the gem of chanting the Holy Name.

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

<!--[endif]-->

 

 

 

bastu amolaka di mere satguru, krpa kari apanayo

 

 

 

My true spiritual master gave me a priceless thing. With his grace, I accepted it.

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

<!--[endif]-->

 

 

 

janama janama ki punji pai, jaga men sabai khovayo

 

 

 

I found the treasure of my several births; I have lost the whole rest of the world.

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

<!--[endif]-->

 

 

 

kharcai nahin koi, cora na levai, dina dina badhata savayo

No one can spend it, no one can steal it. Day by day it increases one and a quarter times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

sat ki nava khevatiya satguru, bhavasagara <st1:place>tara</st1:place> ayo

On the boat of truth, the boatman was my true guru. I came across the ocean of existence.

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->

<!--[endif]-->

 

 

 

mira ke prabhu giridhara nagara, harakha harakha jasa gayo

 

 

 

The Lord of Mira Bai is the Courtly Lord Giridhara, of whom I merrily, merrily sing His glories.

 

 

I think this is Mukti.

A poem from the Greatest liberated soul, Mira.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Amlesh]

Real Mukti is the trancendental Love that keep on increasing.

 

kharcai nahin koi, cora na levai, dina dina badhata savayo

No one can spend it, no one can steal it. Day by day it increases one and a quarter times.

We can use our brain to reach certain level of understanding, but the real test stands out to be love.

Love for Godhead.

[srikanthdk71]

 

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.

 

Ok. As you see it. Now tell me why are you here then. To accuse others? What is your gain? You have something to say on the subject, say it, you have something to disagree, mean it.

 

 

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).

 

Thats why in the first instance I told you that you have come to a conclusion before going through the contents of the postings here. The above quote that you have said is TRUE and exact replica of the postings myself have done(Go through my postings once again in this thread only). Anything new, definitely welcome.

 

 

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

 

Well, you call yourself learned. Accusing others does not make you qualify for this. I thought Man is a ever learner unless he is a realized soul. Well, if you are one of those, kindly share your experiences with these "unexperienced" souls.

 

 

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.

 

Nobody here to my knowledge is to attain Moksha. I personally agree completely with your Point #1 that nobody can lead you to Moksha and it is for every individual to attain it based on his pursuit for 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.

 

You exactly sound like my initial posts where I too advocated the same to all our friends here. Later, I found out that, to be blunt in words breed hatred and nobody listens to you. You will have to put your words in the most democratic way.

 

 

Lets see if you are capable of doing this two.

Sorry, I dont have to prove anything to you. I know what I am capable of. Anything new, definitely Welcome. If you read the postings here you will know its flavour and we are not turning and baking the same dough again and again.

[Radhikakulakarni]

 

I agree sephiroth. Radhika's definition of soul is very beautiful. A wonderful soul experience is pointed to by Radhika here.

 

This comment does not satisfy my soul though...sorry Radhika:). Once we have the soul development from our encounter with the harmonious environment...is it all over red rover...or is there a positive progressive reality that is ever-new? Love must be such, not just expanding in this universal form.

 

To Bija,

I will first explain what I mean by coming out of the encasements of soul.

As long as we identify with any body and possess an ego that this is me, we cannot become free. The soul is attached to the physical world with various intentions of material gain, name and fame. Once it is free

from all attachments, it becomes free from the hassles of the physical body. But still, as long as the soul has feelings of good, bad,emotions etc., it will still be in the astral body. (This means and explains that the various forms of gods and goddesses we speak of are all astral). Once the soul leaves all feelings and emotions, it has only thoughts i.e. it has a causal body only. In such a state the soul has powers to create objects and universes of its own. If it feels good of creating endless things, it remains in the causal body. But once it realizes that all this is like child's play, it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite. As it has no ego, it does not distinguish itself as a soul and is

one with the Infinite which state is called mukti.

The path to achieve mukti is ever new but it is attained only after the soul has passed through these various stages.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Dear Srikanth, and Sephiroth,

 

I dont see much of difference between you on the level of ideas. It is my strong hunch that you both are meaning the same. Why are you fighting unnessarily, when you mean the same?

 

Sephiroth, is taking the mystic's position. Since the ultimate reality is not cognizable by mind and not describable by words, all that we say become meaningless. "Those who talk do not know, thouse who know do not talk".

 

Srikant, this mystic position of Sephiroth will go very well with your position on mukti. Monism and Mysticism (that is undefinability and ineffablity) go hand in hand . Because if there is only one thing with out the other, how can we define and describe it in words? To define means to use other words and concepts . In the absense of the other, -with just one category -how do we define that one thing?

 

And Sephiritoth, if one really practice the mystic's principle then one cannot say anything. One must keep silent. the discussion forum will have no posting. This is why mystics themselves have broken the rule of silence and spoke their experience in volumes and volumes.So why accuse Srikant for attempting a discussion?

 

The misunderstanding between you is just verbal, not substantial.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[srikanthdk71]

 

The misunderstanding between you is just verbal, not substantial.

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

Exactly Ravindranji, and Sephiroth, I apologize for any misusings on my part regarding your position which is also mine. Sorry mate, no hard feelings on personal level anywhere and thanks Ravindranji for bridging the words between myself and Sephiroth.

[srikanthdk71]

Dear All, I feel Radhika is taking on the thread on a different plane. She seems to have answers for everything.

[bija]

 

To Bija,

I will first explain what I mean by coming out of the encasements of soul.

As long as we identify with any body and possess an ego that this is me, we cannot become free. The soul is attached to the physical world with various intentions of material gain, name and fame. Once it is free

from all attachments, it becomes free from the hassles of the physical body. But still, as long as the soul has feelings of good, bad,emotions etc., it will still be in the astral body. (This means and explains that the various forms of gods and goddesses we speak of are all astral). Once the soul leaves all feelings and emotions, it has only thoughts i.e. it has a causal body only. In such a state the soul has powers to create objects and universes of its own. If it feels good of creating endless things, it remains in the causal body. But once it realizes that all this is like child's play, it forsakes its thoughts and its ego and leaves the causal to merge with the Infinite. As it has no ego, it does not distinguish itself as a soul and is

one with the Infinite which state is called mukti.

The path to achieve mukti is ever new but it is attained only after the soul has passed through these various stages. by radhika

Thank you for sharing, I will contemplate what you have shared, your understandings show me how diverse this world and experience is. Om shanti! Jaya Nityananda!

 

 

And Sephiritoth, if one really practice the mystic's principle then one cannot say anything. One must keep silent. the discussion forum will have no posting. This is why mystics them broken the rule of silence and spoke their their experience in volumes and volumes.So why accuse Srikant for attempting a discussion? by ravindran

Silence is golden sometimes. But hey we are here to chat and share lol:P.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Radhika's words, short and sweet, are certainly much better and clear than many of ours who write volumes. Keep it up radika.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Justin]

 

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.

Do you become the Infinite? or are you the Infinite itself?

 

Realize there is a huge difference between the 2 questions. You 'becoming' an Infinite is dual, but you being the Infinite is non-dual.

 

For example, if the rope has to become a serpent, it is 'becoming', but if the rope is already a serpent but in ignorance it does not 'become' the serpent. There is a difference in the way it is written or said.

 

The Infinite does not have any particular form.

How do you know that the Infinite does not have any form?

 

It is nothing but the consciousness that prevails in the entire universe. That is what we call God or Supreme Soul.

Does matter have any consciousness?

 

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.

So the Supreme consciousness creates other conscious entities and matter and then merges it back to itself? From where does it create?

 

It is a part of its nature and therefore it can again create many encasements within itself which mark the birth of new souls.

So the Supreme Consciousness divides itself into different souls who are ignorant?

[Bart Happel]

Very nice Justin. That's close to what I would like to know.

[Bart Happel]

 

Bear Bart,

 

Refer to your post no. 113

I am mentioning binary dualism in order to clarify that there is a version of dualism like this and a discussion on dualism should explicitly be conducted keeping this division in mind to avoid confusion and ambiguity. That is all my purpose.

As to Dialectical dualism, which is the real issue in quantum mechanics, my position is that there are unresolved and puzzling issues arising out of it, which is not at all acceptable as good way of thinking, and these issues must be resolved and will be resolved. As to my position on Monism I am, like most scientists a monist. There is only one reality. This is the point I was making when I expressed my discomfort with the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Dialectical dualism is a big problem precisely because it is a logical contradiction. (If it were merely a binary dualism there is no logical problem). In dialectical dualism, one is arguing that a result of a coin throw experiment is Head and Tail, not head or tail (which is a binary dualism). If a cat is either dead or alive then there is no logical problem but to say it is dead and alive is a contradiction.

As to my position on monism is concerned I am, as majority of Scientists, is a monist. This is precisely why I cannot live with duality of quantum mechanics. But at present there is no solution to this and hence I maintained that Quantum physics is dualist - not that I am comfortable with it. But you have given a beautiful phrase Dialectical Monism. This indeed is a beautiful concept and has a potential to resolve the contradiction and duality. We encounter the paradoxical state of two opposite states together precisely because they are not two at all. Behind the apparent duality they are one at a deeper invisible level. That is why at the first place the paradoxical state arises. The two opposites are really one. But we need to establish this clearly before claiming it. We have not yet accomplished it.

As to my idea on unification, I am an ‘unificationist” and my PhD is a small contribution in this direction by way of a small solution on the synthesis of particle and forces. Though my own work is a very small contribution and no where near the grand unification, the grand unification is certainly on the way. In this respect I am a Monist.

As to quantum mechanist being religious, it is your generalization. Some are and some are not. There is no special connection between quantum mechanics and religion. May be that its present mysterious quality drives some towards religion. After all mystery is the origin and nature of religion. I prefer to be an agnostic because that is, according to me, being honest to one’s own self. We don’t know what are god, soul, and the like and we cannot know. Why get in to something that we cannot know and be dogmatic about it? I would rater claim something I know for certain.

 

Kind regards,

William Young.

 

Dear William,

 

My concern was that this monism/dualism debate would not benefit from introducing a whole new vocabulary. And ‘dialectical dualism’ is not a relevant term here. Particle/wave duality, for example, denotes a duality between 2 opposing theories, i.e., 2 theories that cannot exist together. Either one or the other applies, but never both. ‘Dualism or dvaita’ on the other hand, denotes 2 (or more) separate entities or forces that exist at the same time. In particular: God and (ignorant) souls. The term ‘monism or advaita’ denotes the essential oneness of the universe. Since this oneness typically expresses itself dualistically, the term ‘dialectical monism’ may be better. Also the term ‘non-dualism’ might apply. However, on this forum the term ‘monism or advaita’ is commonly used.

 

Science is a monistic enterprise. Here we agree. Ultimately science wants to understand everything (including science itself) on the basis of a single force or theoretical principle. That would be the ultimate unification of science; the theory of everything (including the theory itself). Chances are that, because such a theory cannot be any simpler (Occam’s razor), this theory also incorporates God and souls. If so, ‘universal monism’ will be scientifically proven to be true.

 

You should become more religious.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ayush]

Didn't wanted to scramble, but this post if worth reading.

 

wbr

Ayush

 

P.S. - Dualism is another principal devised to understand the unanswered questions of life, religion and basic sense of all.

[bija]

What Radhika has written seems to imply that the soul will pass through these dimensions in due course. What is interesting is that these dimensions such as astral and causal can be experienced while still in the body. Esoteric experience.

 

What I do not like about this esoteric yoga is that the goal is annihilation of the soul. That all soul experience is described as material ego driven.