Beyond Science and Technology

[suraju06]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am just an observer

An "X" is an elderly person who contributes regularly to this forum on many different topics. He expresses his views clearly and is able to bring a lot of purpose and direction to the discussions that he participates in.Of course there are those who do not agree with his views but they too argue with him and in the process gain a lot of insight into matters from different view points.

There is this "Y" who joined a discussion and in course of time came to the conclusion that the discussion was going no where. In exasperation he expresses his difficulty and uses the term "rant" to describe Mr. X's arguments. The dictionary gives the meaning of the word rant" as 'a bombastic extravagant speech, a bombastic extravagant language'.

Now "X" takes it as an affront or disrespect shown to him and expresses his annoyance clearly and refuses to continue the discussion with Y.The neutral observers understand that X feels hurt and expect that Y will record his views to assuage the feelings.

But now comes in a "P" and quickly does a psycho analysis to determine what type of personality Y has and admonishes Y.

What is the moral of the story?

1.X should apply his thinking skills and do two things:
a) Forget what Y said and forgive him even if he is not forthcoming with any explanation/apology because learned elders do not take the punches of young children as punches. They rather take it with pleasure as they know they are condescending or are just indulgent.

b) Be wary of people who try to put him on a pedestal because it will rob him, in course of time, of his freedom to be just himself and his unconstrained originality in thinking and writing.

Just an observation and No offence whatsoever is intended or meant. Cheers.

 

[sangom]

...What is the moral of the story?

1.X should apply his thinking skills and do two things:
a) Forget what Y said and forgive him even if he is not forthcoming with any explanation/apology because learned elders do not take the punches of young children as punches. They rather take it with pleasure as they know they are condescending or are just indulgent.

In this forum there is anonymity. Hence the question of elder, younger, young children, etc., do not apply, IMO. It is amongst equals and even among equals, certain decorum is expected; one can attack the idea/s but not pass any comment on the writers. If the discussion goes down to that level, there is no point in continuing it, irrespective of the personalities involved. Normally, we find out the nature of the people from the way they settle their differences.

b) Be wary of people who try to put him on a pedestal because it will rob him, in course of time, of his freedom to be just himself and his unconstrained originality in thinking and writing.

Just an observation and No offence whatsoever is intended or meant. Cheers.

Thank you for your psychology-based advice. Again, I do not mean any offense.

 

[Nara]

.... what Sravna or myself posted ie

1) One should trust and use only those postulations for which one has personally seen the Physical Evidences.
2) Additionally one might also trust and use only those postulation for one has heard here-say about its Physical Evidences.

Hello, I think three sources of knowledge are usually accepted. They are, (a) direct observation, (b) logical inference, and (c) conveyed knowledge. IMO, our trust about anything must be directly proportional to the extent to which these three sources intersect. If one were to construct a scale between 0 and 100, where 0 refers to no intersection at all among the three sources of knowledge, and 100 being all three sources are identical, Science and Technology, the title of this thread, falls closer to 100 and religion/spirituality falls closer to zero.

Arguments that spirituality is beyond science and can only be experienced is quite unpersuasive. First, experiences that cannot be explained must remain as such. Human energies must be directed at developing a logical explanation for such unexplained observations. Just claiming a supernatural source for the unexplained experience only encourages superstition.

Scientists have already made great strides in understanding the chemical and electrical states of the brain that leads to mental states, such as pain, grief, pleasure, bliss, etc. These are perfectly normal physical phenomena that can be measured and altered. The source is not supernatural. There are perfectly logical explanations for the reasons for such brain states, or, states of mind . These are based on long years of observation, study and analysis. Human knowledge expands through this process. Just claiming it is god or spirituality, diminishes human knowledge and enhances superstition.

Cheers!

 

[raghuramja]

Shri Sangom, Shri Nara, Shri Raghy,

My words used are in sense of harsh judgment and certainly not in derogatory sense.
My apologies to Shri Sangom for hurting with such harsh judgmental words.

Pls do spare a moment to contemplate on the below quoted response of Shri Sangom to my First introduction followed by my positive construct on the subject started by Sravna.

The quoted statements casts aspersions on the fidelity and intent of my chosen authors. And further cast aspersion on my ability to apply my discretion in authors, crosschecks and credulousness. These aspersions has put forth with no basis.

I have provided 3 days of opportunity for Moderation to kick in while you were busy posting other comments. (I now understand moderation is privilege to be enjoyed by select amongst you)
Even after this I have only requested constructive statement, which was also deflected asking me to read responses to Sravna which are mostly negations.

After such 10 lines of scornful aspersions followed by spurned request for constructive statement , if you do not expect and harsh judgement then I believe you are looking saintly persons only and not a discussion forum by ordinary mortals.

I am might just as well logout of your discussions you may reciprocate out of my discussion too.

I don't know for how long you are reading religious scriptures and also which type of our religious scriptures and the kind of books on those texts which you read. If you are reading the books which try to extoll at any cost what is written in the original, sometimes even by omitting what is inconvenient, by using convoluted derivations instead of the straightforward meanings, through the commentators' imaginative descriptions and analogies, by citing some earlier sanskrit commentator as undisputable authority, etc., etc., it is possible that despite your 37 years of secular and scientific outlook, you get hooked onto those kind of explanations and start feeling that there is a lot of mysterious, other-worldly knowledge bequeathed to posterity in those texts and you are a proud inheritor of such wisdom. Of course, those people will write that way because that is what the believers want. It is also fortunate for them that most of our scriptures are in Sanskrit and we, the lay people, have to depend upon somebody who says "this is what it says"; this is akin to the position in Christianity in which the laity is prohibited from interpreting its scripture/s and have to gulp (compulsorily) what the clergy claims it to mean.

If you acquire a working knowledge of Sanskrit, read the original texts and find out what it means, you will come to know what exactly is there.

 

[raghuramja]

Hi Nara,

Thank you very much for your very positive response. Our scriptures do share things in common with what you state but there is more.
I would gladly share in discussion forum if you desire so.

Rgds
Raghuram

 

[Nara]

.....I have provided 3 days of opportunity for Moderation to kick in

[...]

After such 10 lines of scornful aspersions followed by spurned request for constructive

Dear Raghuram, there is probably some misunderstanding here. Let me give my perspective.

Nobody likes their thoughts and opinions criticized. But, that is inevitable in a public space like this one. I think most people will agree that critique of ideas, even if it is scathing, must be permitted as long it is based on some evidence and does not sink into personal level. This is a line all of us must endeavor to not cross. Your use of "nit pick" was alright in my book -- even though IMO Shri sangom did not do any such thing -- but using the term "rant" to characterize Shri Sangom's presentation crossed the line I mentioned above.

For all intents and purposes this web site is one that I would call, member-moderated. The formal moderators try to stay out of the way as long as things are kept within reasonable civility. IMO, this is a good thing.

Unless you were a silent observer in the past, I think you are a newcomer. So, let me take the liberty to submit to you, that Shri sangom is always very courteous and never walks away from any reasonable discussion without stating his reasons.

Internet communication is seriously flawed, all there is are just the words we type. Stripped of the benefit of body language that is part of face-to-face communication, our words can easily get misinterpreted. Some readers may take offense sometimes to some of our words, even if we did not intend any. This is why I would like to request you to read us and then make a judgment whether we are of the type who intends and gives offense.

Hi Nara,
Our scriptures do share things in common with what you state but there is more. I would gladly share in discussion forum if you desire so.

I would welcome it, but, I submit to you, you should post your views only if you desire to do so, not if somebody else wants it. People will respond if they have something to say.

Also, if you cite Hindu scriptures (any scripture for that matter), please note that it is not enough to simply say here is what this text or that text says. Unless you give some logical supportive argument you must be prepared for some major push back from me and probably from Shri sangom as well.

Raghuram, let us get past this initial hick-up. Thank you and hope to hear more from you.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

In my opinion the discussions in this forum are to a very large extent done in a very civilized and courteous manner. It rarely gets down to the level of personal attacks that is so much visible in many other forums. That is one of the main reasons I got involved in the discussions here.

In the course of discussions especially between those with totally divergent views, some personal insinuations may be inevitable. But again personal attacks will always invoke strong responses.

Let us carry on the discussions in the spirit they have always been done in this forum.

 

[raghuramja]

Thank you Shri Nara for your sage advise.

My apologies once again to Shri Sangom for hurting with harsh judgmental words. I trust you scholarly credentials in your postings.

Scholarly credential not withstanding your below quote casting aspersions is without basis.

I don't know for how long you are reading religious scriptures and also which type of our religious scriptures and the kind of books on those texts which you read. If you are reading the books which try to extoll at any cost what is written in the original, sometimes even by omitting what is inconvenient, by using convoluted derivations instead of the straightforward meanings, through the commentators' imaginative descriptions and analogies, by citing some earlier sanskrit commentator as undisputable authority, etc., etc., it is possible that despite your 37 years of secular and scientific outlook, you get hooked onto those kind of explanations and start feeling that there is a lot of mysterious, other-worldly knowledge bequeathed to posterity in those texts and you are a proud inheritor of such wisdom. Of course, those people will write that way because that is what the believers want. It is also fortunate for them that most of our scriptures are in Sanskrit and we, the lay people, have to depend upon somebody who says "this is what it says"; this is akin to the position in Christianity in which the laity is prohibited from interpreting its scripture/s and have to gulp (compulsorily) what the clergy claims it to mean.

If you acquire a working knowledge of Sanskrit, read the original texts and find out what it means, you will come to know what exactly is there.

 

[suresoo]

But now comes in a "P" and quickly does a psycho analysis to determine what type of personality Y has and admonishes Y.

Good Analysis, But i have a question. After X and Y How did you choose alphabet P?
P for psycho analyst or
....

I can think of some Tamil words that fit the narrative !!

thanks,

 

[sangom]

Thank you Shri Nara for your sage advise.

My apologies once again to Shri Sangom for hurting with harsh judgmental words. I trust you scholarly credentials in your postings.

Scholarly credential not withstanding your below quote casting aspersions is without basis.

Shri Raghuram,

The portion that is quoted meant this:

"I don't know your age now. You had stated that up to your 37th. year you were a "secular" hindu relying more on the senses for perception of truth than on the scriptures. So I don't know for how long you have been reading the religious books.

I don't know what type of book/s you are referring to as religious scriptures. Most religious books usually in the market extol what the religionists want us to believe. So they are at times not always true to the original even. There can be omissions of inconvenient passages, and convoluted (in the sense, "highly complex or intricate and occasionally devious") interpretations instead of straight forward meanings. Sometimes they cite an earlier commentator and hold that his meaning "should" be followed, though the reason therefore is not given. Sometimes the commentator/s himself/themselves give imaginative descriptions and analogies which may not represent the direct meaning.

I said, therefore, there is a chance that you get a strong attraction towards religion, scripture, etc., when freshly exposed to it. I used the word "addicted" because it is very difficult to get out of the very strong influence which religion exerts on the human mind.

In truth, the scriptures do not hold such mysterious, other-worldly and true wisdom, as they are generally picturised to be.

Many people who contribute to the above opinion feel that they are proud inheritors of such wisdom. People who are freshly exposed to this, may also feel so.

It helps the religious interests a lot because most common people do not know Sanskrit and have to depend upon such commentaries and their translations. People accept without questioning whatever these books say as true.

This situation is similar to the one in Christianity where the ordinary churchgoer christian should not try to interpret what the Bible or apocrypha mean to say.

Only when we start looking at the original of our scriptures (mostly in Sanskrit) with a working knowledge of Sanskrit, and try to understand what exactly they tell, we will know their exact worth."

I did not intend, deliberately, any affront to you at all in any of the above statements of mine. Since I do not even know which books you have read/are reading, I don't know how my comments can be taken to mean as an aspersion on the authors you prefer, your credulousness etc. It is true that these comments show our religious books (translations, commentaries) in general, in bad light and that is my opinion.

As Prof. Nara has rightly said, the internet communication is imperfect and it is possible that what I wrote, without intending any disrespect in any way to you, looks to you as aspersions made on you. I apologize for the same.

 

[Nara]

Thank you Shri Nara for your sage advise.

Scholarly credential not withstanding your below quote casting aspersions is without basis.

Dear Raghuram,I went back and read Shri sangom's post again and reviewed the part you cited carefully. All I can gather from these is as follows.

He was only cautioning you not to be swayed by books that books which try to extol Hindu scriptures uncritically. He pointed out that if you acquire a working knowledge of Sanskrit and read the original texts you will get a more complete picture.
​

May be I am way too jaded, but I don't see any aspersions in the above. As I said earlier, and now confirmed by Shri sangom, there was no intentional offense. The imperfect medium that internet is, may have given such an impression to you. Take for instance your opening sentence in your post, "Thank you Shri Nara for your sage advise." For a moment I was wondering whether you were mocking me, I couldn't really tell.

Now that even Shri sangom has apologized, which I think is a very gracious gesture on his part, let us leave this behind.

Thank you ....

 

[raghuramja]

Thank You Shri Sangom and Shri Nara

My apologies to all for causing digression from the Main Topic initiated by Sravna. Pls do continue the discussion on the topic.

I must admit when I intially read your reply to my first introduction, I sensed cold aspersion or whatever else it might be.

Reading your sage advises (without meaning to mock) I feel more comfortable. I shall try contribute as positively as possible.

Rgds
Raghuram

 

[suresoo]

Note: This is an SATIRE and not meant to hurt any one's feelings. If anybody gets hurt its all due to his/her misunderstanding.

Member M,
Long Long ago 'Member M' went to the market and tripped on few Religious Books. 'Member M' kept on reading them regularly without knowing there were omissions of inconvenient passages and convoluted interpretations. 'Member M' got strongly attracted to it when freshly exposed and unable to get out of it (like a drug addict ??).

WAIT, do not worry

'Member M' came to the right forum at the right time (like Buddha found the Banyan tree). Here is the truth

scriptures do not hold true wisdom!!
Hip Hip Hurray Uncle sam found the way!!

STOP reading the scripture 'Member M', do not spend time and money on them. Come to this forum and learn from the learned members the true wisdom, the PATH to salvation!

Good Luck,

 

[raghuramja]

Dear Shri Suresoo,

Your disclaimer in the header not withstanding and referring to member by a letter not withstanding , your posting in this subject and its participant's context do refer to me. (circumstantial evidence).
This is ok with me, only I would request more direct addressing.

You are of-course free to issue denial to above and ignore my further line below. And thus I would not respond.

Further in the paragraph you stated the below quoted, is it because you have a basis with physical evidences such as of me? Or is it because of your belief divine otherwise.

Long Long ago 'Member M' went to the market and tripped on few Religious Books. 'Member M' kept on reading them regularly without knowing there were omissions of inconvenient passages and convoluted interpretations. 'Member M' got strongly attracted to it when freshly exposed and unable to get out of it (like a drug addict ??).

You further stated the below quoted, is it because you have obtained basis Physical or otherwise of every persons who follows some aspect of his scripture ? Is it because of basis of select amongst followers of some scriptures ? Or is it because your belief divine or otherwise.

'Member M' came to the right forum at the right time (like Buddha found the Banyan tree). Here is the truth

scriptures do not hold true wisdom!!
Hip Hip Hurray Uncle sam found the way!!

STOP reading the scripture 'Member M', do not spend time and money on them. Come to this forum and learn from the learned members the true wisdom, the PATH to salvation!

Rgds
Raghuram

 

[suresoo]

Dear Raghuram,

I Believe

Epporul YaarYaarVai Ketpinum Apporul
MeiPorul Kanpdhu Arivu

The mark of wisdom is to discern the truth
From whatever source it is heard.

In that sense i want to keep all my channels open. Physical Experience, Science, Scriptures etc etc.

I'm no wiser to pass a condescending view on other members Experiences. I did not intend to convey that in the above posting.

thanks,

 

[Nara]

....Your disclaimer in the header not withstanding and referring to member by a letter not withstanding , your posting in this subject and its participant's context do refer to me. (circumstantial evidence).
This is ok with me, only I would request more direct addressing.

Dear Reghuram, having confronted you upon your comment about Shri sangom, now I wish to stand with you on your request to be directly addressed by suresoo.

Unfortunately, there are cowards among our midst, like suresoo and suraju, who wish to make minimally concealed derogatory comments, and then stand behind self-serving disclaimers. I call on these people to stand up and be direct, make their statements in the open, and be prepared to defend them if they can. If they can't or won't do that, then I say to them, you are damn cowards.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

My contribution to the discussion on 'beyond science and .....'

The discussion under this thread is quite interesting. I had been reading the contribution of the members to the discussion in hand. It is a subject on which quite a lot of exchange of knowledge can happen and but for a brief digression i find that all are contributing with vigor. I thought I will contribute my share (though borrowed wisdom) to this discussion and here it is.

I had a beautiful experience. I was sitting by the ocean one late summer afternoon, watching the waves rolling in and feeling the rhythm of my breathing, when I suddenly became aware of my whole environment as being engaged in a gigantic cosmic dance. Being a physicist, I knew that the sand, rocks, water and air around me were made of vibrating molecules and atoms, and that these consisted of particles which interacted with one another by creating and destroying other particles. I knew also that Earth’s atmosphere was continually bombarded by showers of ‘cosmic rays’, particles of high energy undergoing multiple collisions as they penetrated the air. All this was familiar to me from my research in high energy physics, but until that moment I had only experienced it through graphs, diagrams and mathematical theories. As I sat on that beach my former experience came to life: I ‘saw’ cascades of energy coming from outer space, in which particles were created and destroyed in rhythmic pulses: I saw the atoms of the elements and those of my body participating in this cosmic dance of energy; I felt its rhythm and I “heard’ its sound, and at that moment I knew that this was the dance of Shiva, the lord of Dancers worshipped by the Hindus…

We have favored self-assertion over integration, analysis over synthesis, rational knowledge over intuitive wisdom, science over religion, competition over cooperation, expansion over conservation, and so on.

The general notions about human understanding……which are illustrated by discoveries in atomic physics are not in the nature of thing wholly unfamiliar, wholly unheard of, or new. Even in our own culture they have a history, and in Buddhist and Hindu thought a more considerable and central place. What we shall find is an exemplification, an encouragement, and a refinement of old wisdom.—Julius Robert Openheimer

For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory……(we must turn) to those kinds of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence.-----Niels Bohr.

The great scientific contribution in theoretical physics that has come from Japan since the last war may be an indication of a certain relationship between philosophical ideas in the tradition of the Far East and the philosophical substance of quantum theory------Werner Heisenberg.

The birth of modern science was preceded and accompanied by a development of philosophical thought which led to an extreme formulation of the spirit/matter dualism. The formulation appeared in the seventeenth century in the philosophy of Rene Descartes who based his view of nature on a fundamental division into two separate and independent realms; that of mind(res cogitans)and that of matter(res extensa)……Such a mechanistic world view was held by Isaac Newton who constructed his mechanics on its basis and made the foundation of classical physics. From the second half of the seventeenth century to the end of nineteenth century the mechanistic Newtonian model of the universe dominated all scientific thought...........
All the schools of Eastern philosophical thought emphasize the basic unity of the universe which is the central feature of their teachings. The highest aim for their followers—whether they are Hindus, Buddhists or Taoists—is to become aware of the unity and the mutual inter relation of all things, to transcend the notion of an isolated individual self and to identify themselves with the ultimate reality. The emergence of this awareness—known as enlightenment—is not only an intellectual act but is an experience which involves the whole person and is religious in its ultimate nature, For this reason most eastern philosophies are essentially religious philosophies.

Throughout history, it has been recognized that the human mind is capable of two kinds of knowledge, or two modes of consciousness, which have often been termed the rational and the intuitive, and have traditionally been associated with science and religion, respectively. In the west the intuitive religious type of knowledge is often devalued in favour of rational, scientific knowledge, whereas the traditional eastern attitude is in general just the opposite.........................
Rational knowledge is derived from the experience we have with objects and events in our everyday environment. It belongs to the realm of the intellect whose function it is to Discriminate, divide, compare, measure and categorize. In this way a world of intellectual distinctions is created; of opposites which can exist only in relation to each other...................
Abstraction is a crucial feature of this knowledge, because in order to compare and to classify the immense variety of shapes, structures and phenomena around us we cannot take all their features into account but have to select a few significant ones. Thus we construct an intellectual map of reality in which things are reduced to their general outlines. Rational knowledge is thus system of abstract concepts and symbols, characterized by the linear sequential structure which is typical of our thinking and speaking. In most languages this linear structure is made explicit by the use of alphabets which serve to communicate experience and thought in long lines of letters.
The natural world on the other hand is one of infinite varieties and complexities, a multidimensional world which contains no straight lines or completely regular shapes, where things do not happen in sequences, but all together; a world where—as modern physics tells us—even empty space is curved. It is clear that our abstract system of conceptual thinking can never describe or understand this reality completely. All rational knowledge is therefore necessarily limited.

Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.—Werner Heisenberg.

For most of us it is very difficult to be constantly aware of the limitations and of the relativity of conceptual knowledge because our representation of reality is so much easier to grasp than reality itself, we tend to confuse the two and to take our concepts and symbols for reality..................
The eastern mystics repeatedly insist on the fact that the ultimate reality can never be an object of reasoning or of demonstrable knowledge. It can never be adequately described by words because it lies beyond the realms of the senses and of the intellect from which our words and concepts are derived.
The Upanishad says:
There the eye goes not
Speech goes not, nor the mind.
We know not, we understand not
How one would teach it.—Kena Upanishad.

Absolute knowledge (as different from relative knowledge) is thus an entirely non-intellectual experience of reality, an experience arising in an non-ordinary state of consciousness which may be called meditative or mystical state.

This fact has been confirmed by psychologists also. William James says:
Our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about it , parted from it by the flimsiest of screens, there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different.

These words of wisdom coming from knowledgeable sources, I believe, can give some direction to the discussion. It is a bit lengthy though. What I have given above in quotes are the words of Fritjof Capra a particle physicist in one of his books. Cheers.

 

[suresoo]

having confronted you upon your comment about Shri sangom, now I wish to stand with you on your request to be directly addressed by suresoo.
Unfortunately, there are cowards among our midst, like suresoo and suraju, who wish to make minimally concealed derogatory comments, and then stand behind self-serving disclaimers. I call on these people to stand up and be direct, make their statements in the open, and be prepared to defend them if they can. If they can't or won't do that, then I say to them, you are damn cowards.

ha ha ha, what a phony anger!!
Otherwise i don't respond to silliness in the above statement(s).

END.

 

[raghuramja]

Hi Suresoo,

The 2 paragraph long point that Sravna put out in the first place, is very succinctly summed up and admonished subtly to put things in place by your Thirukkkural quotation and its subsequent line.

Thanks
Raghuram

 

[raghuramja]

Dear Shri Suraju,

Quotations of eminent scientist you have enumerated , are very indirect argument in support of Sravna first post.
As personalities named have supposedly contemplated deep into Physical quantification of fundamentals due to which they accomplish what they did.

I casually recollect some quotation of accomplished scientists moderating their Own Stellar Quantitative Postulates.
I wouldn't know the veracity of the same though as I would read in some Literary Articles in newspaper, magazine , books and such.
I would generally trust that the author of such Literary article has taken pain to cover the Veracity.

Do you know more on this topic.
It would be yeoman service if you could Blog Post the quotation with its Veracity for Posterity.

Rgds
Raghuram

 

[Nara]

Dear Raghuram, Greetings!

.... are very indirect argument in support of Sravna first post.

Sravna declares that there is a flaw in science, and that it is, it relies on physical verification. He further says that mind is as real as the body, which seems to imply that mind is not of the body, but different from it. Both these claims are founded on faith.

Science is no more than a collection of fully verified knowledge and a process that adds to this sphere of verified knowledge. So, how can it be flawed? All one can say is it is not complete. That is not a flaw. Scientists have never claimed that they have licked all the unresolved questions there are and there could be.

If Sravna's claim is that there is a set of knowledge that will always remain outside the realm of systematic scientific study, but is accessible through methods that are not scientific, then that is nothing more than his pet theory. For it to be universally accepted he has to come up with more persuasive arguments than just saying one has to experience it.

As far as mind is concerned, it is nothing more than the chemical and electrical acitivity of brain cells, neurons, the nervous system, etc. Please read this article from yesterday for an example. There is a mother load of verifiable, repeatable, verifiable, data and findings out there that clearly shows that what seems to be an entity disconnected from the body is nothing more than the truly amazing feats of brain in general, and human brain in particular.

Sravna also posed a challenge to the so called spiritual community. I am not holding my breath that his challenge will be taken up by anyone. People who claim the existence of some super-natural power has never taken the trouble to even demonstrate it in a controlled environment, let alone give a cogent explanation for it. I call upon those who claim this power to first demonstrate this power.

I casually recollect some quotation of accomplished scientists moderating their Own Stellar Quantitative Postulates.

IMO, the scientists of the west who comment on Hindu philosophy are not familiar with the full gamut of the Hindu beliefs, or just ignore that part. When they compare the completely bizarre beliefs of the so called Abrahamic religions, for whom earth is no more than 5000 years old, with that of much the more interesting speculations of the Hindu sages of yore, they are impressed, with good reason. But, this does not mean they buy into all the beliefs of the so called Hindus, they don't.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

If you are going to reject scriptural knowledge citing it is based on faith, I am going to reject science on the basis that it is incomplete. The real problem with science is it is not just incomplete but it cannot be complete. Spirituality on the other hand is not inexplicable by logic. I think no serious attempt has been made to formulate a theory that explains it. But no one can deny that there have been cases of exhibbition of supernatural powers by people.

Thus the only way science can become complete is by explaining spiritual phenomenon

 

[Nara]

...If you are going to reject scriptural knowledge citing it is based on faith, I am going to reject science on the basis that it is incomplete.

sravna, I hope you don't consider this a tit-for-tat exercise. You cannot reject science, even if you live in a jungle all alone, as you will observe, analyze and figure out how to survive. This is what science is, in its essence.

Also, I do not reject knowledge of any kind, I cannot. If there is a knowledge that is spiritual and can be demonstrated, then science will embrace it with open arms, and it will become part of science.

The real problem with science is it is not just incomplete but it cannot be complete. Spirituality on the other hand is not inexplicable by logic.

It is quite possible that science can never find all the answers. This is very true. Human mind may lack the capability to understand everything there is. But that does not mean there is something called, spirit, spirituality, etc., and, that such spirituality can give all the answers. That is just a leap of faith.

I think no serious attempt has been made to formulate a theory that explains it. But no one can deny that there have been cases of exhibbition of supernatural powers by people.

Please give us a list of instances when this "supernatural powers" were exhibited by people. Please be as specific and complete as possible.

Thus the only way science can become complete is by explaining spiritual phenomenon

As I have said many times, science is a process of observing, etc., etc. It is a continuous process, always pushing the envelop of knowledge further and further. It is a never ending process. Whether it ever gets complete or not is immaterial. The so called spirituality, on the other hand, is stuck in the musings of ancient yogis, unable to explain anything, and worse yet, not even making an attempt to explain anything, but demanding that it must be taken seriously.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

I never said that scientific knowledge is of no use. But you are bound to reach a dead end after sometime with the approach of science which relies totally on physical observations for any validation. My contention is beyond a certain point you will have little happiness if your focus is on the external world instead of the inner world which is the mind.

And the seers were far sighted. They knew even if you conquer and be the emperor of the whole universe you still are not out of the survival mentality. You need to go beyond that. That way you can be peaceful even if you are among the poorest

 

[suraju06]

Dear Shri Suraju,

Quotations of eminent scientist you have enumerated , are very indirect argument in support of Sravna first post.
As personalities named have supposedly contemplated deep into Physical quantification of fundamentals due to which they accomplish what they did.

I casually recollect some quotation of accomplished scientists moderating their Own Stellar Quantitative Postulates.
I wouldn't know the veracity of the same though as I would read in some Literary Articles in newspaper, magazine , books and such.
I would generally trust that the author of such Literary article has taken pain to cover the Veracity.

Do you know more on this topic.
It would be yeoman service if you could Blog Post the quotation with its Veracity for Posterity.

Rgds
Raghuram

Hi Raghuram,
If you want to be sure about the authenticity of the quotes i had given please refer to the book "The Tao of Physics"(Harper Collins Publishers) by Fritjof Capra. Capra received his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna and has done research in high-energy physics at several European and American Universities. Capra has written and lectured extensively about the philosophical implications of modern science. Cheers.