Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes not > > not > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't get this > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > al. > > > > ** " non-separate " ...not numbers, Al. > > > Aha, well that is perhaps a better definition of advaita. Science will > always treat things as separate objects, and that is fine. But science > cannot itself deal with the nondual, the religious stuff. I thought > that science and religion could be integrated, but perhaps that is not > possible. Science cannot embrace religion, nor even merge with > religion. However, religion can perhaps embrace science. Spirituality > is perhaps something that will eventually transcend and embrance science! > > al.>> Science and Religion do not have to conflict, necessarily. All they have to do is watch their LANGUAGE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > not > > > not > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > get this > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > ** " non-separate " ...not numbers, Al. > > > > > > Aha, well that is perhaps a better definition of advaita. Science > will > > always treat things as separate objects, and that is fine. But > science > > cannot itself deal with the nondual, the religious stuff. I thought > > that science and religion could be integrated, but perhaps that is > not > > possible. Science cannot embrace religion, nor even merge with > > religion. However, religion can perhaps embrace science. > Spirituality > > is perhaps something that will eventually transcend and embrance > science! > > > > al.>> > > Science and Religion do not have to conflict, necessarily. > > All they have to do is watch their LANGUAGE. They are their language. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2005 Report Share Posted April 19, 2005 Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > not > > > not > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > get this > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > ** " non-separate " ...not numbers, Al. > > > > > > Aha, well that is perhaps a better definition of advaita. Science > will > > always treat things as separate objects, and that is fine. But > science > > cannot itself deal with the nondual, the religious stuff. I thought > > that science and religion could be integrated, but perhaps that is > not > > possible. Science cannot embrace religion, nor even merge with > > religion. However, religion can perhaps embrace science. > Spirituality > > is perhaps something that will eventually transcend and embrance > science! > > > > al.>> > > Science and Religion do not have to conflict, necessarily. > > All they have to do is watch their LANGUAGE. Language is always only pointers. No words can embrace That from which they spring. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita includes > > not > > > > not > > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I can't > > get this > > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > ** " non-separate " ...not numbers, Al. > > > > > > > > > Aha, well that is perhaps a better definition of advaita. Science > > will > > > always treat things as separate objects, and that is fine. But > > science > > > cannot itself deal with the nondual, the religious stuff. I thought > > > that science and religion could be integrated, but perhaps that is > > not > > > possible. Science cannot embrace religion, nor even merge with > > > religion. However, religion can perhaps embrace science. > > Spirituality > > > is perhaps something that will eventually transcend and embrance > > science! > > > > > > al.>> > > > > Science and Religion do not have to conflict, necessarily. > > > > All they have to do is watch their LANGUAGE. > > > Language is always only pointers. No words can embrace That from which > they spring. > > al. ** Good lad! Then you'll no longer require them to? ;=} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " <kenj02001> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " misterenlightenment " > > <misterenlightenment> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " kenj02001 " > <kenj02001> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > > > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Advaita means not two. Not two is not two, so advaita > includes > > > not > > > > > not > > > > > > two, but that is two, and yet advaita means not two. I > can't > > > get this > > > > > > logic to compute. > > > > > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > ** " non-separate " ...not numbers, Al. > > > > > > > > > > > > Aha, well that is perhaps a better definition of advaita. > Science > > > will > > > > always treat things as separate objects, and that is fine. But > > > science > > > > cannot itself deal with the nondual, the religious stuff. I > thought > > > > that science and religion could be integrated, but perhaps > that is > > > not > > > > possible. Science cannot embrace religion, nor even merge with > > > > religion. However, religion can perhaps embrace science. > > > Spirituality > > > > is perhaps something that will eventually transcend and > embrance > > > science! > > > > > > > > al.>> > > > > > > Science and Religion do not have to conflict, necessarily. > > > > > > All they have to do is watch their LANGUAGE. > > > > > > Language is always only pointers. No words can embrace That from > which > > they spring. > > > > al. > > ** Good lad! Then you'll no longer require them to? ;=} With language we can more and more know how the world operates and that is good. However, we must also acknowledge the inherent limitation in language. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.