AUM and Science

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear friends,
33 copies have been downloaded and another about 20 have been directly mailed by me of the book " The Glory of Vishnusahasranamam, some glimpses and scientific facts" to the valuable readers of the Forum "Literature" of this web site. There is now a population of about 50 who would have at least glanced through this book. In order to promote further understanding and interaction, I propose to follow the following procedure.

I intend posting a few questionaires in this thread everyweek, requesting the readers to read through the concerned part of the main text again and post their valuable comments, suggestions and proactive reactions and additions. I intend ultimatelyto add some of the thought provoking suggestions as an additional appendix to the book, with your permission. This may also incidentally attract more readers.

Q.1.AUM has been dealt with in chapters 2&3 of the book. and also in the appendix 2 , dealing with Gayatri. References are made how the Mantra evolved from Savitri mantra to Vyahriti Mantras ans then to Pranava, which then evolved into Mantra, Yoga and Occult. Detailed references in the Mandukya Upanishad and in Buddhist philosophy have also been made.
Of every 200 atoms in our body,125 are Hydrogen,51 are Oxygen, and though only 19, yet very vital are Carbon. Hardly 4 atoms are constituted by the rest. Are we then paying obeisance to Hydrogen, which occupies the maximum in the Universe , burning all the time converting to Helium, the moderator,Oxygen the most prolific element in the earth's crust, which does not burn by itself but without which nothing can burn on earth and Carbon, the third most common element in our body,which is a party animal and without which we will be lost. When ever we chant AUM or perform Archana,do we subconsciously worship Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, as thanksgiving?

Q2. What is Turiya? Is it Plasma Physics?

Q3.Taittariya Upanishad,Maitrayana Upanishad and Mandukya Upanishad, do they all say roughly the same about AUM or are there differences? (I am not clear on this, I accept).

Q4. Gaudapada, Govindabhagawatpada and Adisankara, -- is there a gradual evolution of philosophy from Buddhism to Samkhyam to Advaitam or only a negation of the earlier philosophy by the later?
Respects and regards,
Ramanathan.

 

[RVR]

Dr Ramanathan Sir,

I am really enjoying your postings.

Please enlighten us further.

Thanks and regards

RVR

 

[renuka]

I was just reading about AUM today>Article from Message of the Lord(Chapter 1) Nature of the Atma.

I just want to share what I read on Turiya. i am just typing from the article. My question is at the last line.

The Fourth State--- Turiya
What about the 'fourth quarter' that the Mandukya talks about?
This state which really subsumes all the others, even as OM subsumes AUM is refered to as Turiya.
Though often translated as a fourth state, experts point out that Turiya is not a state at all; rather it is very existence itself, which takes on the apperances of the various 3 states known(Waking,dream and deep sleep)
As sage Ramana puts it:

Pure Consciousness is the only Reality.Consiousness plus waking we call the waking state,consiousness plus dream we call dream state, consiousness and deep sleep we call dreamless state.
Because by long habit we have ben regarding these states as real, we call the state of Pure Awareness as the fourth or Turiya.
there is however no fourth but only one state.

suppose one were to ask "Who am I" Bhagawan Baba says the vedantin answer would be:
I am not the one experiencing the waking state nor am I experiencing the dream state nor am I in the deep sleep state.I transcend all these. I am the Transcendental Reality itself(or what Ramana sage refers to as Pure Consciousness)

the Turiyavastha is the highest state of consciousness in which the essential nature of the Atma is experienced.. The Turiyavastha is a pure, tranquil and steady state of Superconciousness in which all discriminating and differentiating Gunas are transcended and dissolved in the eternal and absolute reality of Brahman.

in brief, Turiya is Atma or Brahman for both means the same.It provides the connecting link between not only the 3 universes, the gross(bhutakasa), the subtle(chittakasa) and the causal(chidaakasa) but also between the states of experience of an individual.



Now comes my question.
Dear sir, plasma as I know does have properties, parameters, frequencies,degrees of ionization, density etc.
Therefore for all practical purposes it comes under Gross State hence corresponds to the Waking state.
Therefore how can Turiya be Plasma Physics when Turiya transcends all 3 states?

hoping for a feedback Sir

renu

 

[Dr.S.Ramanathan]

Dear Dr. Renuka Kartikayan,
Thank you very much and very well put.
I would kindly request you to read paras 2.13.1, 2.13.2 and the subpara below that, together with para3.5, and particularly para 3.5.4. Some answer seems to emerge.
Ishall revert again after more responses are received on this and other questions I had raised.
Thanks once again for a thought provoking discussion.

Dear Sri. RVR, Thank you for your encouragement.
Regards and Respects,
Ramanathan.

 

[renuka]

Dear Dr RamanathanJi,
i went through the paragraphs.
You had mentioned that Plasma is an electrically neutral,highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons and neutral particles.
It is a phase of matter different then solid, liquids and gases and its known as the 4th state of matter.

Maybe here sir, you are trying to see the link between the 4th state of matter and the 4th state called Turiya.
Sir as I mentioned in my earlier post Plasma is Matter. Gross matter to be exact.
Even you have mentioned sir that Plasma is 4th state of matter.

You had also mentioned that Turiya is defined as Na iti Na Iti(not this, not this)(Neti Neti with Sandhi) rather than a positive indication and is beyond perception and thought.
And as i mentioned in my earlier post since Turiya has transcended all stages hence Plasma Physics cannot be the same as Turiya.

So once again its just Neti Neti.

Keep giving replies sir.Its very mind stimulating to discuss in depth.

 

[arunshanker]

Of every 200 atoms in our body,125 are Hydrogen,51 are Oxygen, and though only 19, yet very vital are Carbon. Hardly 4 atoms are constituted by the rest.

Dear Dr. Ramanathan
Where did you get the above information?
Just curious .. when everything in general is expressed as percentage composition why have you taken 200 as standard? is it to avoid fractions?
There is one thing I have to point out- the above figure is based on atomic quantities and not on mass and volume, if one takes mass and volume it is as follows ( please read the below figures as Mass, Volume
oxygen: 43 kg , 37 L carbon: 16 kg, 7.08 L hydrogen: 7 kg, 98.6 L nitrogen: 1.8 kg, 2.05 L
Source : Ed Uthman 2009 Elemental Composition of the Body
If one takes percentage
Major Elements Percentage (by weight) Oxygen 65.0, Carbon 18.5, Hydrogen 9.5, Nitrogen 3.3
Source :University of Biology Department of Biology URL: http://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/life/elements.htm
Coming to the Atom part In a book called Nanomedicine by Robert A. Freitas Jr.
The Human body of 70Kg Mass has a total of 6.71 x 10 to the power 27 atoms of which H is 4.22 x 10 to the power 27 which works out to your stated figure of 125 but Oxygen amounts to 1.61 x 10 to the power 27 this works out to 47.98 or lets say 48 in 200 atoms but your figures states 51 out of 200

So here you can see that my mass Hydrogen is not in the first rank in the body where as in the studied universe Hydrogen ranks first by mass, volume and also number of atoms per nuclei
One more thing Hydrogen in the human body is mostly in the molecular bound form mostly in water unlike elemental form in the universe so why should one logically relate this to as obeisance?
more importantly it is only natural that Hydrogen is more everywhere in terms of atoms simply because it is abundant everywhere in the universe it is a simple cause effect logic what so esoteric or magical about it?
Finally you say "

 

[renuka]

Dear Dr RamanathanJi,
I was reading your explanation on AUM and Science.
Interesting though.
I have a few questions for you too.

Before that I want to share about AUM.I have taken this from Sathya Sai Gita Q&A .

Omkara has 3 constituents A-kaara, U- kaara,M-kaara(the 3 sylabbles A U M)
A-kaara represents the vital princilpe Praana Tattva,U -kaara represents the Mind.
M-kaara represents the body.
OMkaara is thus the unified expression of the Atma,Mind &Body.

the cosmos emerged from A-kaara. It is the Praana(life force).
the Mind principle came from U-kaara. The body emerged from M-kaara.
Omkaara is the essential basis for the entire creation.
The Omkaara principle has 3 forms:Naada,Bindu and Kaala>
Naada is the sound that comes fromthe life breath.Bindu is unified form of tha Atma, the Mind and the Body.Kaala is the reflected image of the Paramatma(Omniself) through the Buddhi(intellect).

Omkaara is the fusion of the 3 primal sounds A, U and M.These 3 letters represents respectively the Jagrat(waking),the swapna(dream) ans shushupti(deep sleep) state of consciousness.
they also symbolize Brahma,Vishnu and Maheshwara.
this trinity represents the 3 personified realities corresponding to the afore-mentioned 3 states of conciousness.

The Pranava is the primordial sound that eminated when the big bang took place.
Pranava originated from Paramaanu(atom)
in fact there is nothing than atoms in this universe.
this was the enquiry of sage Kanada.Ultimately he realized the principle of Pranava.


now my questions:
A-kaara--- represents the Praana Tatva(life principle)
cosmos emerged from A-kaara.

You have mentioned that you equate A-kaara with Hydrogen.
I really dont know what was the Paramaanu really about whether it was Hydrogen.
So on this i cant comment but at least we are almost there that A-kaara is the precursor of the Cosmos.

U-kaara--represents the Mind Principle.
By the Mind here we are talking of a bundle of thoughts.
what is thoughts?
what is the form of thoughts?
The thought process in the human body has been proved to trigger electrical reponses in the human brain via a relay of depolarizations which leads to eliciting an Action Potential if the intended thougth is carried out.
Therefore thought causes electrical response(medically proven).

Sir you link U--kaara with Oxygen.
Since thought process elicits electrical response in the body can U--kaara be only Oxygen?
Oxygen is needed for survival at a cellular level but not the only thing needed to elicit an electrical response.
We need electrons to elicit an electrical response and according to Swami Yogananda Prana is highly intelligent electrons to which he has coined the term "thoughtrons"

M-kaara --represents the body.
You link it with Carbon.
The gross body is made up of amino acids, lipids, glucose,DNA and as you mentioned the element called Carbon.
But Carbon is not the only element in the Human body.
So can M-kaara solely be attributed and link to Carbon alone?

hoping for reponse.

 

[renuka]

is there anything wrong here with the forum(technical)?
some portions my above post got deleted 3 times.

 

[RVR]

The word `Aum' has several meanings. It is used in Hindu, Bhuddist, Jain and Sikh religions.

Within Hindu religion also the term has several meanings according to different philosphies like Advaitha, Dwaitha etc.

Aum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are also articles about Aum, Amen and Amin involving Christianity and Islam

Hindu Culture - Omkar and Swastika

Proably we can take the meaning from `Mundukyaupanishad' and analyse in this forum which involves creation, preservation and destruction - Brahma, Vishnu and Sivan respectively.

All the best

 

[arunshanker]

A-kaara represents the vital princilpe Praana Tattva,


the cosmos emerged from A-kaara. It is the Praana(life force).

If A kaara is vital principle then how can you say that "cosmos emerged from A-kaara"? Cosmos did not emerge from life , life came very late in the time scale of the universe!
Is it not the other way round that "Life emerged from cosmos"

You say "We need electrons to elicit an electrical response and according to Swami Yogananda Prana is highly intelligent electrons to which he has coined the term "thoughtrons""
What exactly are intelligent electrons- as science knows now electron is matter - particle -

You say "The thought process in the human body has been proved to trigger electrical reponses in the human brain via a relay of depolarizations which leads to eliciting an Action Potential if the intended thought is carried out.
Therefore thought causes electrical response(medically proven)."
Please could you give me your source of information
you said "Plasma is Matter. Gross matter to be exact"
Plasma is a state of matter not matter itself you have said that yourself in the beginning of the post
Any element ( which is matter) can exist as plasma but plasma itself is not matter
A very simple thing that might have escaped many is that
the very most common from of plasma is FIRE ! but actually it is not hot enough to be called exact plasma

 

[renuka]

If A kaara is vital principle then how can you say that "cosmos emerged from A-kaara"? Cosmos did not emerge from life , life came very late in the time scale of the universe!
Is it not the other way round that "Life emerged from cosmos"

Dear Arun,
A-kaara represents the Prana Tattva(Life principle).
Life principle is different from living organisms.
Its almost like the precusor of living organisms.
Prana is what which animates all living organisms and it also present in everything in this world including inanimate objects.
You might ask me then if Prana is all pervasive and present even in inanimate objects then how come a stick can't walk, talk, reproduce etc.
Prana is present in everything but its the animate organisms which are wired up and have basic raw materials for sustenance of life.Hence it functions and lives.

 

[arunshanker]

Q2. What is Turiya? Is it Plasma Physics?

.

Turiya is the so called state of mind
Plasma physics is a branch of physics
there can be no connection here
but if you mean Just " Is it Plasma?
then I must say it is not as You had mentioned that Plasma is an electrically neutral,highly ionized gas composed of ions, electrons and neutral particles which is the definition in the free online dictionary (Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus - The Free Dictionaryplasma)
These two are unconnected If we try to connect these to it is purly speculative and metaphysical with not much logical reasoning in it
Frankly the answer to your other Q "When ever we chant AUM or perform Archana,do we subconsciously worship Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, as thanksgiving?" is a simple no!
AUM has nothing to do with Elements of the universe or matter it is just that We (you) are trying to grandiose the word to create an illusion of Grandeur. I see very little logical reasoning in this
I am sorry for my blunt answers!

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,
A-kaara represents the Prana Tattva(Life principle).
Life principle is different from living organisms.
Its almost like the precusor of living organisms.
Prana is what which animates all living organisms and it also present in everything in this world including inanimate objects.
You might ask me then if Prana is all pervasive and present even in inanimate objects then how come a stick can't walk, talk, reproduce etc.
Prana is present in everything but its the animate organisms which are wired up and have basic raw materials for sustenance of life.Hence it functions and lives.

But then you brought the cosmos into it like I said Life as science knows was very late in time scale
You said "1.You might ask me then if Prana is all pervasive and present even in inanimate objects then how come a stick can't walk, talk, reproduce etc."
In fact I am not asking that!! if I ask that would be inappropriate!
Because I dont understand what you mean by "Its almost like the precursor of living organisms"
Are you talking science or metaphysics here
If it metaphysics I guess you or me can say anything and defend it with our own conjectural logic
If it is science then I am afraid you are not correct here
You have also said "The Pranava is the primordial sound that eminated when the big bang took place. Pranava originated from Paramaanu(atom)"
Even if did it cannot reach the earth As I understand sound is not propagated without medium

In some post you have taken the advancement of science to support your statements ( eg Thought process and neural energy transfer) and some post are purely out out sync from science - there is no consistency
You say that "the cosmos emerged from A-kaara. It is the Praana(life force).
the Mind principle came from U-kaara. The body emerged from M-kaara.
Omkaara is the essential basis for the entire creation.
The Omkaara principle has 3 forms:Naada,Bindu and Kaala>
Naada is the sound that comes from the life breath.Bindu is unified form of tha Atma, the Mind and the Body.Kaala is the reflected image of the Paramatma(Omniself) through the Buddhi(intellect)"
Actually I am saying that the word AUM came from man! From his mouth! say a few thousand years back and the use of it in an (en)chanting way was practiced it brought peace and a sense of well being, for that matter any chanting of up to a few syllable sounds will have the same effect. The word started to get mystical or sacred connotations
It was Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, in the book The hidden power in humans, Ibera Verlag, page 15., ISBN 3-85052-197-4 popularized the idea that "As the creation began, the divine, all-encompassing consciousness took the form of the first and original vibration manifesting as sound "OM". This is purely Mystical and thrusts greatness mystically and magically in the word. I am afraid this is even far away from the main stream philosophy and metaphysics here let alone reasoning and logic!

 

[renuka]

dear Arun,
i made a grammar mistake when i explained that to you.
Prana Tattva(life Principle) is the Precusor of Life.
i had said that Prana Tattva(Life Principle) is like the precursor of life thats wrong grammar i had written. The word like should not have been there.

You were asking me about action potential, depolarization and electrical impulses in the body.
The source is from my own knowledege as a doctor and this is what I studied in Med School.

Also to add the very thought of performing a task eg moving a limb has been proved to trigger a recordable electrical activity (EEG is employed here) in the brain at the supplementary motor cortex the area which selects voluntary movements) which will lead to excution of a task if intended.


Now coming to Prana.
This I am taking from Paramahansa Yogananda's God Talks with Arjuna The Bhagavad Gita.
Paramahansa had said this"The Hindu scriptures mention anu ,atom the paramanu ,beyond the atom--finer electronic energies and prana "creative lifetronic force".Atoms and electrons are blind forces.Prana is inherently intelligent.The Prana in the spermatozoa and ova for example guide embryonic development according to Karmic design"


just to add dear arun, i hope this debates can take place at a less "attack mode" manner.
Dr Ramanathan has written a very comprehensive book which i have not finished yet and I really admire the trouble he has taken to write it and trying to find the missing link in the evolution of religion and science.It would be very nice if our debates take place with points to prove and disprove but in more gentle tones. Dont take this to heart, sometimes "attack mode" manner might not make one want to open up as to share knowledge"
love
renu

 

[arunshanker]

The source is from my own knowledge as a doctor and this is what I studied in Med School.

Then you can surely give me a reference of a peer reviewed article for this!
I am not in an attack mode your perception is such. I am in fact in a reasoning and logic mode
Like I said before if it is metaphysical we can say anything and defend because there is no need for material proofs here
but if it is logic and reasoning then it is a different story
I am not belittling it (the work) I am only analyzing the statements made in a free thought mode which essentially means I am putting my philosophical viewpoint which holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any other dogma. Anyway If my comments are not being liked here I will stay away
Another thing is that you said "trying to find the missing link in the evolution of religion and science"
There is no such link!
Religion is based on unquestioning faith and belief in dogma whereas science is based on observation logic and reason Just for example If talk science here in the accepted sense I will be accused of attacking religion and dogma ( like you have already said) but if I had said all what you and the Dr. Ram have said is correct and great you will like me, so you know what I mean!

 

[RVR]

Arunshankar said `If my comments are not being liked here I will stay away'

You can express your opinion freely here and no body will attempt to stop your comments as long as it is not provocative or un-parlimentary nature. To day happens to be the third anniversary of this forum and we shall all preserve the freedom of expression principle.

All the best

 

[renuka]

Dear Arun,

This is for you.I looked up the net for you.Its simple to understand.
In fact earlier i had tried to attach a word document on action potential with diagrams/neurons etc but I dont know why it failed to get attached.
This is just a very simple explanation from the net.
Dear Arun, Dont stay away.I did not mean to say that.You were here since 2008 much earlier to me and you have every right to state your comments.
No hard feelings please.
please read this.If I have more I will post later.

What Is an Action Potential?

By Kendra Van Wagner, About.com Guide

See More About:

• action potentials
• neurons
• biopsychology

Definition: An action potential is part of the process that occurs during the firing of a neuron. During the action potential, part of the neural membrane opens to allow positively charged ions inside the cell and negatively charged ions out. This process causes a rapid increase in the positive charge of the nerve fiber. When the charge reaches +40 mv, the impulse is propagated down the nerve fiber. This electrical impulse is carried down the nerve through a series of action potentials.

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,


Dear Arun, Dont stay away.I did not mean to say that.You were here since 2008 much earlier to me and you have every right to state your comments.
No hard feelings please.
please read this.If I have more I will post later.

[FONT=&quot]Thanks no hard feelings here as well and one more thing is that by the same reasoning mode I had earlier used I must say that the mere length of the stay in this forum does not make me a nice person, only the quality of posts could possibly make me a reasonable person. You joined in recently but one quality post is enough. In simple terms there is no "senior Junior in forums" (At least that's what I think!LOL)
You have said about the “evolution of religion “
Here is my take
With regard to the evolution of religion there are adaptationist and non-adaptationist accounts.
One needs to study maths for several years before getting a grip on quantum mechanics. Not many have time for that, similarly physics now talks about ten-dimensional vibrating strings and membranes, worm holes, time wrap, dark energy, virtual particles and string tunneling photons, that is too much for a layman’s mind So here is a way out “- It is all God‘s work" It is so much easier this way.
A religion is a system of beliefs and faith which acts to create powerful, all-encompassing, and long-lasting frame of mind and driving force in humans by putting together conception of a universal order of existence and encompassing these conceptions with such an appearance of authenticity that the moods and motivations seem uniquely level-headed.
Most importantly a prerequisite of religion is one should not ask many questions (like I am doing here LOL!!)
Question of whether or not religion has biologically pertinent meaning is fundamental for the development of an evolutionary explanation of its origin.
There is an evolutionary significance for the development of faith- like for example religious emotions and imagery mainly stem from unconstrained extrapolation of capacities (like the one of AUM here) and longings for attachment (eg., like to the word AUM here). In the simple sense people are pleased to read the greatness of AUM (like here with the tossing of some science here and there) and what more do you need but peace?
In my next post I will come to the aspect of thought and neural process[/FONT]

 

[renuka]

[FONT=&quot]Most importantly a prerequisite of religion is one should not ask many questions (like I am doing here LOL!!)[/FONT]


dear Arun,

In religion one must ask the most questions.
Isnt the Bhagavad Gita the best Q & A ever known to mankind?
Everyone learns by Q & A only.

renu

 

[arunshanker]

[FONT=&quot]Most importantly a prerequisite of religion is one should not ask many questions (like I am doing here LOL!!)[/FONT]


dear Arun,

In religion one must ask the most questions.
Isnt the Bhagavad Gita the best Q & A ever known to mankind?
Everyone learns by Q & A only.

renu

No! The Bhagavad Gita is the not the best Q & A ever known to mankind. To say that is too much extrapolation which actually means I know all the Q&A's ever asked known to mankind which is not true
Actually maybe the Q's were good in Bhagavad Gita but the A's are debatable, in fact one has to accept the answer and not question the answer! In fact you have to believe the answer otherwise you are a nonbeliever.
To be more succinct- By questioning I actually mean the Socrates method of questioning which means to resolve a doubt it would be broken down into a several questions, the answers to which progressively condense to the answer a person would seek. This approach is used in the scientific method. But unfortunately on cannot use this method in religion simply because it is dogmatic and does not allow questioning! Which is the very reason we possibly cannot bridge science and religion without a compromise on one or the other and it is all the more difficult to actually try and find a missing link if at all there is one missing
To remind you that Dr. Ramanathan has titled the book "The Glory of Vishnu Sahasranamam
Some Glimpses and Scientific facts"
Please note the word "Scientific facts" this has far reaching consequence inasmuchas the title is concerned. Scientific facts are undisputed with the current method of scientific questioning, logical reasoning and observational experimentation on hypothesis. There is a lot rigor put in to reach a state when it is called a "Scientific facts" Religious dogma cannot stand that much of rigor and questioning because the very nature of perpetuation of the dogma is not questioning it!
for example here is a statement from the book says
"Religious doctrines and scientific theories express the same truth about the world,
but in different formats" This is not an entirely true statement and this statement will fall apart in the scientific method of questioning
Firstly there is a whale of a difference between "Religious doctrines" and "scientific theories"
Religious doctrines is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" in a belief system one cannot question doctrines because it is a corpus of religious dogma.
scientific theories are entirely different it encompasses a compilation of concept, which includes generalization of discernible and observable fact expressed as properties that can be quantified, there are rules and scientific laws that put across associations between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is assembled to confirm to available empirical data on these observations and is given as a principle for explanation of phenomena firstly they are extensively questioned and they evolve continuously. The best part of scientific theories are that they are endlessly questioned and the evolve continuously simple examples are Newton's Laws and Einsteins theory of general relativity (TGR). TGR evolved from questioning of Newton's Laws.
So here you can I guess see the difference Now do you really think that as the book says ""Religious doctrines and scientific theories express the same truth about the world, but in different formats" can be correct?
In fact there cannot be different formats for truth can it be?
In fact science does not in reality claim truth at all, it only talks of information, which is valid when the above mentioned method is used. A simple example is that "Darwins theory" is in fact highly debated and possibly rejected by several scientific bodies.
Science does not seek truth but only limits itself to theories and explanations and most importantly encourages furthering of it
whereas most religions claim the absolute truth! which should not be put to test.
In fact Dr. R has written clearly that "Science has its own
dictum that a fact is not a fact until it has been repeatedly tried and failed to
disprove it, over a period of time" I must say that is what is behind the success of science
The author also says "what
science can explain is, in turn, taken as already perceived by the scriptures" this is somewhat overreaching and intended as a statement to favor religion over science!
The author says "One need not compare science and religion with each other because they are
different intellectual approaches, laying claims to truths in their respective fields of
enquiry" True indeed, one need not compare these two, but please note here that religion is not a field of enquiryIt enquires about nothing on the contrary it is dogma if religion was a field of enquiry it would not have been religion it would have been science!
There is another interesting point I would want to comment on
The author says "For example, Newton
argued that the orderliness of the solar system is a witness to the skill of the creator.
Thus, science requires theological insight for its intellectual completion
Newton may have commented on the skill of the creator - it is not theological insight of Newton

 

[renuka]

Dear Arun,

In Sanathana Dharma there is no two distinct groups such s believers and non believers.
Sanathana Dharma is actually very scientific.
There is always a hidden message behind every statement and no compulsion at any stage.
Sanathana Dharma makes us think logically and search for an answer more from within and not from without.

You know in the Bhagavad Gita when Lord Krishna was explaning the impermenance of the body and the eternal state of the Atma(True Self can never be slain) to Arjuna, Lord Krishna even told to Arjuna that" even if you feel that the True Self is slain, what have you got to lose.If you win the war you inherit the Earth, if you lose the war you are entitled to Heaven."

Lord Krishna was not even imposing his advice and explanation to Arjuna.
Lord Krishna even made room for an alternative reasoning and thought.
It was Arjuna who finally surrendered to Lord Krishna.

 

[renuka]

Dear Arun,

I think you edited your post after I had replied you about the Bhagavad Gita.Thats is why I did not answer many questions you had put forth.
Dear Arun,I on my own have never viewed science and religion as seperate.
Science is just explanation of a phenomenon.
We are just unveiling the knowledge and facts that are actually present in the cosmos.

No one taught me the Gita. I read it myself and it made perfect sense to me and I did not doubt even a single line there.
It is not that I am saying that I have blind faith but to understand the hidden message of the Gita one really needs an analytical mind.
Its not that it was coming from Lord Krishna and due to this I accepted but it was because the data in the Gita was very logical.
The Magic of the Gita is it has a "tranformer" like capacity. It words come out alive to suit the situation and demand in relation to Time, Place and Person.

Sometimes its hard to explain Faith.The best example I can give is all of us believe our Mother when she tells us who our Father is.
We never ask her a scientific evidence for that.

 

[renuka]

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

When the answer is simple, God is speaking. (Albert Einstein)

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

 

[arunshanker]

Dear Arun,

I think you edited your post after I had replied you about the Bhagavad Gita.Thats is why I did not answer many questions you had put forth.
Dear Arun,I on my own have never viewed science and religion as seperate.
Science is just explanation of a phenomenon.
We are just unveiling the knowledge and facts that are actually present in the cosmos.

No one taught me the Gita. I read it myself and it made perfect sense to me and I did not doubt even a single line there.
It is not that I am saying that I have blind faith but to understand the hidden message of the Gita one really needs an analytical mind.
Its not that it was coming from Lord Krishna and due to this I accepted but it was because the data in the Gita was very logical.
The Magic of the Gita is it has a "tranformer" like capacity. It words come out alive to suit the situation and demand in relation to Time, Place and Person.

Sometimes its hard to explain Faith.The best example I can give is all of us believe our Mother when she tells us who our Father is.
We never ask her a scientific evidence for that.

I did edit my post because I had to do a lot of reading and writing
Here are a few of my view points
1. You talk about " a) There is always a hidden message behind every statement b) understand the hidden message of the Gita
Please tell why hide the message? What is need to hide something in Geetha What is logic in these, now science does not have any hidden messages
2. "Science is just explanation of a phenomenon" No it is not only that, science is a whole process, if you had read my earlier post you might see my point
3. Let me tell something about my idea of Geetha I do not subscribe to the belief that it came from God It is the work of a gifted person
Please refer to my earlier post on Geetha
a.http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2098-god-why-19.html#post23001
b. http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2098-god-why-19.html#post22998 ( this is a post you sped time reading I took a lot of time in research to write it)
c. Please read this too http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/2098-god-why-20.html#post23004
The above posts will let you know about my views on Geetha
Geetha is not very logical Let me remind you that The statements in geetha are not even exactly clear ( like you yourself have said hidden messages) That itself defies logic! Logic involves reasoning, questioning and critical thinking
You say "We never ask her a scientific evidence for that" that is because you dont have the need to ask
Are you telling that it is forbidden to ask that question? If you have a doubt you have to ask the question, of course DNA can get you the answer! So here your analogy is not perfect in fact you put that statment to "explain Faith"
let me tell you are talking here about belief not faith you believe that your mothers statement is true and hence you build your faith on her
so when have doubt in mind you don't believe and hence there is no faith
you say "Sanathana Dharma is actually very scientific"
If you have read my earlier post you must understand thatNo religion can be scientific because science had boundaries ie demarcation If a religion is scientific it will cease to be a religion it will become scienceThe very reason you say that"Sanathana Dharma is actually very scientific" is you want credibility for your set of beliefs.
Religion demands faith! even Sanathana Dharma does I cannot be a practicing Sanathana Dharma if I dont have faith in it, but science is a totally a different issue

 

[arunshanker]

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

When the answer is simple, God is speaking. (Albert Einstein)

I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p.202)

You have quoted Einstein very good quotes!
Let me tell you some more quotes of Einstein
1.I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
2.I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
I actually I should not have quoted AE here ( I just responded to stimulus) I just don't know why you quoted him here ( it is sort of out of context) are trying to infuse a sense of authority here by quoting AE or is to question my questioning by quoting someone who is considered a great scientist?