namaste Nara.
Most of your assertions in post #22 can be countered using the same logic. My replies are in black to your statements in blue:
When it comes to science, the scientists do not invoke faith, if they do, they cannot be scientists.
• Using the term yogi for a Self-Realized man, yogis do not invoke faith, either. If they did only that, they could not have become yogis.
‣ Of course they started their intellectual inquiry with belief--vishvAsa, in the mahAvAkyas, of the absolute, immanent reality established by them, and pursued their efforts of experiential verification of it, in faith--shraddha, and finally realized it in experience.
• Comparatively, a scientist too starts with a belief on an existing premise, and goes about his empirical verification in faith.
‣ The difference is that the scientist's aim is to disprove an existing premise where it is limiting, while a yogi's aim is to prove it.
‣ Where they succeed, the scientist establishes his proof with a theory that gives a different what and how of the truth, while the yogi gives only a different how to accomplish the ultimate what.
‣ To elaborate the previous statement, all vedantic traditions agree on the svarUpa of the ultimate reality as sat-chit-Ananda, although they differ in the what of the individual realities and the how of accomplishing the ultimate reality.
• I don't consider myself a yogi (I am more of a common man), do you consider yourself a scientist? Even if you are a scientist, let us talk from the viewpoint of the common man who is not much familiar, either with science or vedanta.
• From the common person's viewpoint, the truths of both the physical and spiritual knowledge are taken on faith. While a few take efforts to verify them empirically/experientially, most people are content to enjoy the worldly lifestyle offered by physical knowledge and the lasting peace and happiness offered by the spiritual knowledge.
• Curiously, the common people, do not go about debating that science is right and religion/spirituality is wrong in their daily life. I have a feeling that some of us seek to do it here is more for ego gratification than for learning something new.
They have to carryout experimentation and show why something is true, or something is false, which other scientists must be able to replicate.
• This usual line of parroting can be countered by saying that the yogis carry out their experimentation in experience, and show why something is true, or something is false, which the other yogis can replicate in personal inquiry and experience.
They refrain from making any definitive statements about things that they are not able to prove or disprove.
• What about the currently extant premises such as the 'unified field theory', 'string theory' and the 'big bang theory' of science? Are they definitive statements that have been proved as ultimate, or only hazy speculations?
• Comparatively, yogis make definitive statements about the ultimate truth and absolute reality, because they have realized it in experience. And because the truth is ultimate and the reality absolute, the great statements of the Vedic RShis who originally realized it remain established as inerrant.
Faith is needed only on the part of common people and that too only due to their inability to understand and conduct the needed experimentation themselves. In other words, science itself is not based on faith in some supernaturally delivered knowledge.
• Every common person has a means to verify the metaphysical knowledge, but most don't do it for lack of inclination, interest and conviction, so they take it on faith. In the case of physical knowledge, the common person does not care to verify it, since he/she gets to enjoy its fruits, until it satiates in the end.
• All efforts of science are based on the faith of an ultimate physical truth as the absolute physical reality. As I have noted above, there are different theories about this APR--absolute physical reality, and faith in those premises drive the scientists' work.
• In other words, theoretical science itself is based on faith in finding a single answer to the APR of this universe. Since this belief is shared at least among the top scientists in the field, it can only be a group belief rather than individual, so it is not much different from belief in 'some supernaturally delivered knowledge'.
Also, the faith required from the common people is not a blind one, it is based on a long track record of enjoying the benefits of science. Today, even the great religious leaders rely on scientific advancements in their day-to-day lives. We see that all the religious heads have abandoned many traditional practices and taken to using a myriad of electrical and electronic devices, IC engines, modern science-based medicine, etc. All of this is everyday proof to everyone, even the most commonest of common persons, that science works. The faith they place on science is not a blind one.
Statements like these are what I meant by the term 'naive' in my post #21. They seem 'naive' because, firstly, there is no such thing as blind faith, since everyone has got reasons to believe in what they believe, and who or what perfect system is there to validate their reasons and beliefs?
• Most people who 'enjoy the benefits of science', also do enjoy the benefits of religion and spirituality--as much, if not much more--especially with regard to the quality of peace and happiness they give them, so it is naive to say that their faith in the teachings of religion and spirituality is blind.
• Hindu dharma--and vedanta--as TKS has pointed out--is not against science, as in the case of the Christian religion. So, why not also point out how much the papal and other Christian religious institutions depend on the benefits of science, abandoning their traditions?
• The point is that, to say that the religious heads--Hindu or Christian--have abandoned their traditions because they take to the 'benefits of science' is not only naive but has a personal bias.
• The traditional Hindu maThAdhipatis and religious leaders see and use the benefits of science, as a means to intensify and 'wide cast' the reach of scriptural teachings, their explanations and benefits, to reach the general public--not for betterment of their personal lifestyle.
• Any modern or scientific medicine they take or the modern transport they use, are only in the interests of the common people, since they do not care about their physical body or its comforts.
• If the faith of "even the most commonest of common persons, that science works" for, is not blind, it can be called an ignorant faith. After all this physical life is limited and the body is constantly decaying, so why go after enjoyments of worldly life instead of seeking lasting peace and happiness? I would say science is the biggest mAyA of the world that befools even the learned and thinking!
In contrast, in the arena of Vedanta, blind faith is the very foundation upon which the system is erected. Even the great Acharyas who founded/expounded these different Vedantic schools say that one has to rely strictly on Shruti and its inerrantness for ascertaining Brhman and its nature. If this is not blind faith, nothing is.
• This statement is biased because it implies that the Vedic RShis who gave the system of mahAvAkyas did it on blind faith because they obtained it supernaturally.
• This statement ignores the fact the Vedic RShis were seers who actually verified the Vedic truths in experience, lived them in their life, before they reduced them in speech for the ultimate benefit of mankind.
• The great AchAryas who founded/expounded the different Vedantic schools did not give their teachings on blind faith in shruti either, without verifying them in experience. Only that they have asked the common people to take them on faith in shurti as a goal for their sAdhana.
• The inerrantness of the mahAvAkyas lies, not in blind faith, but in the proven experiences of the Vedic RShis, which experiences have been verified by yogis all along in the passage of time.
Also, this blind faith is required not just on the part of the followers and disciples, but even from those who are supposed to be the founders and intellectual guardians of the different systems.
• To say that 'the founders and intellectual guardians' of the Hindu systems rely on blind faith and not on their personal verification in experience, of the Vedic truths is naive and biased. Only the common followers and disciples who would take time to realize the truths are required to take them on faith.
The whole point is, Nara, it is easy to cast aspersions on religious and spiritual people, but are you prepared to say that you have verified the Vedic truths in personal experience and found them to be false, so you blame their teachers? Until you do it, and if you are unwilling to do it, your statments against the Vedic truths and teachers can only remain as personally prejudiced and opinionated expressions.
As for me, I have not verified them beyond an intellectual conviction, so I have faith that they can be verified in experience too, in this or another birth.
I am not against science, although I am against a scientist finding fault with the methods of a spiritual teacher for the simple reason that he is not prepared to verify them in experience.
The mathematical A = B argument in support of Jivatma = Paramatma, is based on the supposition that there is something called Brhman. The very purpose of this thread is to show there is no evidence to accept this supposition as fact. So, trying to prove Jivatma = Pramtma by giving a mathematical analogy of A = B is akin to arguments about an IPU whose existence is no more than a baseless assertion.
• Self is the evidence of equation jIvAtman = paramAtman. Its proof lies in personal verification, to accomplish the transition from the individual self to the universal.
• Your self is the IPU (invisible pink unicorn) inside you, until you can prove--not just believe based on current scientific research--that you don't have a trans-physical self.
