Scientific knowledge as a projection of Spiritual Knowledge

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I also think that "time" when viewed as an absolute term may not be finite. Perhaps there may be no time at all !

My time begins with my birth and your time begins with yours, and the world's time might begin with its birth, if there is one. But these are all relative terms and it would not be prudent to come to a conclusion that time has just started from the supposed birth of the world. There may be a million other worlds, which perhaps existed before us, and might exist after us. So what is time then?

Searching for these unfathomable (at least for now) depths and seeking to trap them in the box of spirituality does not hold, at least from what has been shown to us as proof.

Thanks,

 

[prasad1]

All these seem full of premises, and conclusions, none of which are logical. It is not enough to simply put something as a premise and then draw a conclusion as if it is the only valid and logical derivative.

As an example you say


The basic fallacy is that somehow time is taken to be finite (is there a proof for this in physics or whatever?) and thus by disproving that time is infinite you arrive at the conclusion that the world has a beginning. My query is - Why should time have a finite time frame when we dont know about what existed before? Big bang theories are not proven facts and you cannot take it as conclusive proofs. It is therefore mere speculation and hence cannot be logical.

Another fallacy is that space seems to have been emerged or created. We cannot comprehend this, and what cannot be comprehended, cannot be fit in a logic. The logical question, if we were to accept this statement, would then be, what existed before space emerged? It there wasn't anything then it would seem that space emerged out of nothing, which is a contradiction by itself, but if there was something (call it by any name), where did it reside? This is again another contradiction, because there is no space for it , you see.

I cannot proceed to analyse further with what seems to be an erroneous logic. Or perhaps I need to be in the spiritual reality to comprehend this.

I agree with your post. We can not see, beyond logic. There is a leap of faith even in Advaita. We have to accept that this universe came out of nothing.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh and Shri Prasad,

If you can accept that universe came out of nothing then why do you find it difficult to accept that universe came out of that which represents everything? The latter is more logical, right?

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Auh and Shri Prasad,

If you can accept that universe came out of nothing then why do you find it difficult to accept that universe came out of that which represents everything? The latter is more logical, right?

Dear Sravana,
It is just play of words. Either it came out of nothing, or brahman or anything else, it is still out of the realm of logic. It is speculation at best.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Prasad,

I think it is not a problem if anything is outside the realm of logic. Logic is not the only way to truth. By the way the difference between nothing and everything cannot be just a play of words. The implications are totally different.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri Auh and Shri Prasad,

If you can accept that universe came out of nothing then why do you find it difficult to accept that universe came out of that which represents everything? The latter is more logical, right?

Dear Sravna, I have no stated position. I am just debating on logic and the validiity of your statements.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna, I have no stated position. I am just debating on logic and the validiity of your statements.

I understand

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

After a hectic 1 week at this forum, I find there are things I need to catch up with. I will be responding to the posts made in this thread though I will be visiting less frequently. It has been a good discussion and I hope everyone feels the same.

 

[sangom]

Dear Folks,

After a hectic 1 week at this forum, I find there are things I need to catch up with. I will be responding to the posts made in this thread though I will be visiting less frequently. It has been a good discussion and I hope everyone feels the same.

Dear Sravna,

All that you have done is to give out your ideas about spiritual, spiritual laws etc., which may be intelligible to you (and perhaps Shri Ravi also) but the world at large will definitely not be able to make head or tail out of it. You must immediately come out with one lone example at least, of a spiritual law which negates one of the accepted scientific laws; if this is impossible for you (and it looks to me very much so) then, you should at least enunciate the spiritual law corresponding to one of the scientific laws.

I think you have done neither. Instead you have simply been blabbering. It was entertainment for readers but not instructive at all.

Lastly, what was the condition before the beginning of time? What does your so-called "spiritual truths" say about this? Was God or Brahman existing before the start of time?

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

All that you have done is to give out your ideas about spiritual, spiritual laws etc., which may be intelligible to you (and perhaps Shri Ravi also) but the world at large will definitely not be able to make head or tail out of it. You must immediately come out with one lone example at least, of a spiritual law which negates one of the accepted scientific laws; if this is impossible for you (and it looks to me very much so) then, you should at least enunciate the spiritual law corresponding to one of the scientific laws.

I think you have done neither. Instead you have simply been blabbering. It was entertainment for readers but not instructive at all.

Lastly, what was the condition before the beginning of time? What does your so-called "spiritual truths" say about this? Was God or Brahman existing before the start of time?

Dear Shri Sangom,

Fair enough. But give me some time. I will take a day or two.

BTW I think I should seriously consider switching my occupation from education to entertainment if the readers were really entertained.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Fair enough. But give me some time. I will take a day or two.

BTW I think I should seriously consider switching my occupation from education to entertainment if the readers were really entertained.

Sir, you need not switching your occupation; you are entertaining even without doing so.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Sravna,

All that you have done is to give out your ideas about spiritual, spiritual laws etc., which may be intelligible to you (and perhaps Shri Ravi also) but the world at large will definitely not be able to make head or tail out of it.

Shri Sangom,

As far as I am concerned, I have the attitude of respecting every one's views and thoughts out of box. For me, its a sort of mental stimulation in understanding the different perspective/dimension of a subject/topic and try the best to grasp the input on a continuous exchange of ideas.

Even if some thing makes "me" unable to make head and tail out of it, I rather prefer not to pass sarcastic comments on the posts and make fun of them. If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it.

I can't expect this attitude from every member here BUT I can remain as I am.

 

[sravna]

One thing I have found out as a fact of life is that some people can become very defensive about their beliefs. When anything that seems to thwart them they begin to get insecure. Just as ostriches bury their head in the sand they cannot come to grips with reality.

But I did not expect Shri.Sangom to respond the way he did. Shri Sangom, if he was able to see the flaws in my ideas would well have rebutted them with reasons. At the very least he could have as Ravi pointed out shown the propriety I expected of him ,of respecting others opinions. Or am I expecting too much?

 

[V.Balasubramani]

Shri Sangom,

As far as I am concerned, I have the attitude of respecting every one's views and thoughts out of box. For me, its a sort of mental stimulation in understanding the different perspective/dimension of a subject/topic and try the best to grasp the input on a continuous exchange of ideas.

Even if some thing makes "me" unable to make head and tail out of it, I rather prefer not to pass sarcastic comments on the posts and make fun of them. If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it.

I can't expect this attitude from every member here BUT I can remain as I am.

Sir, I really appreciate your attitude.

Cheers


With regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

I will only make predictions here as the what I consider to be truth which is spiritual energy exists will , in my view be borne out only in the future. Here are my major predictions:

1. Space which has been expanding till now will stop expanding as spiritual energy begins to drive the course of the universe. As space begins to be characterized by more and more uniform energy, distances will more and more shrink until space itself totally vanishes.

2. This happening to time would mean that spiritual energy would begin to more and more influence minds and people would be able to interpret things in the right light and be able to understand spiritual truths.

So , talking in spiritual language, both de-projection of the universe and unveiling of maya will happen in the second half of the universe

I think we are at the midway where the physical aspects have peaked.

 

[auh]

I think, putting forward viewpoints should be at a minimally accepted level when the attempt is to connect science and logic and not like chandamama stories.

And I am surprised to see people unable to differentiate between a debate and a normal discussion (not that I dont value creativity). When questioned, it is always the topic and not the person. But of course, if people cannot comprehend this basic fact, they tend to think that perhaps they are the only soul with empathy and sympathy.

This debate is not even aggressive; should say that it is rather timid. Nobody has decried out anybody; yet there are defensive posts explaining their stand. Is this not some kind of put down? Or perhaps, should I say, it is their insecurity?

In post 162, Ravi has said that "If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it."
I have yet see him being respectful and friendly manner, detesting from discouraging, and with hands joined, reply to some of my posts. All that he has done is to pass on flippant comments as if it were Adi Sankara preaching to the Candala.

And Sravna here "One thing I have found out as a fact of life is that some people can become very defensive about their beliefs. When anything that seems to thwart them they begin to get insecure. Just as ostriches bury their head in the sand they cannot come to grips with reality."

Boss, get a grip on reality. You should be very well aware that the same sentence can be used back at you.

What I just did was to show the absurdity in your logical or scientific attempt. Your "udumbu pidi" on this seems to suggest that you maybe perhaps deluded. I do not have any personal grudge against you.

You should be aware that your personal "truths" may not be the other's "truth" or the universal truth.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh,

The points you raised questioning my logic I replied and I am willing to have a further debate on them if you are not satisfied with my reply.

For others I don't find the need to respond just as for some of your recent posts.

 

[sangom]

Shri Sangom,

As far as I am concerned, I have the attitude of respecting every one's views and thoughts out of box. For me, its a sort of mental stimulation in understanding the different perspective/dimension of a subject/topic and try the best to grasp the input on a continuous exchange of ideas.

Even if some thing makes "me" unable to make head and tail out of it, I rather prefer not to pass sarcastic comments on the posts and make fun of them. If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it.

I can't expect this attitude from every member here BUT I can remain as I am.

Shri Ravi,

I don't find anything sarcastic in my post nor even in the portion quoted by you. You will observe that yours is the lone voice (post) which is able to understand Shri Sravna's theory/hypothesis and others have not understood anything logical. That was why I wrote plainly, "You must immediately come out with one lone example at least, of a spiritual law which negates one of the accepted scientific laws; if this is impossible for you (and it looks to me very much so) then, you should at least enunciate the spiritual law corresponding to one of the scientific laws.

I think you have done neither. Instead you have simply been blabbering. It was entertainment for readers but not instructive at all.

Lastly, what was the condition before the beginning of time? What does your so-called "spiritual truths" say about this? Was God or Brahman existing before the start of time?"

If you have that kind of perception of illogical ideas and the broadmindedness to keep quiet, you could have done so even in regard to my post, instead of using it as an indirect handle to point out that Shri Sravna is not doing a good job and is getting sarcastic comments, when, in actual fact, no sarcasm is there and what I have written is plain request to him to come out with clear examples.

 

[sangom]

One thing I have found out as a fact of life is that some people can become very defensive about their beliefs. When anything that seems to thwart them they begin to get insecure. Just as ostriches bury their head in the sand they cannot come to grips with reality.

But I did not expect Shri.Sangom to respond the way he did. Shri Sangom, if he was able to see the flaws in my ideas would well have rebutted them with reasons. At the very least he could have as Ravi pointed out shown the propriety I expected of him ,of respecting others opinions. Or am I expecting too much?

Dear Shri Sravna,

I have to refer you to my post #168 here, addressed to Shri Ravi.

I think I have pointed out the flaws in your ideas but since they are completely illogical and unintelligible (to me as also a few others (who pmed me to enquire whether you are a normal person at all) I wrote that "All that you have done is to give out your ideas about spiritual, spiritual laws etc., which may be intelligible to you (and perhaps Shri Ravi also) but the world at large will definitely not be able to make head or tail out of it."
This is a plain statement of the position and there is nothing sarcastic about it as far as I can see.

I observe that as yet, you are unable to come out with any examples though you are actively participating and attacking for your self defence, etc.

Kindly give at least one example each for "a spiritual law which negates one of the accepted scientific laws; if this is impossible for you then, you should at least enunciate the spiritual law corresponding to one of the scientific laws."

Based on the logicality of your examples I will even delete my above said post if necessary.

 

[sangom]

Dear Folks,

I will only make predictions here as the what I consider to be truth which is spiritual energy exists will , in my view be borne out only in the future. Here are my major predictions:

1. Space which has been expanding till now will stop expanding as spiritual energy begins to drive the course of the universe. As space begins to be characterized by more and more uniform energy, distances will more and more shrink until space itself totally vanishes.

2. This happening to time would mean that spiritual energy would begin to more and more influence minds and people would be able to interpret things in the right light and be able to understand spiritual truths.

So , talking in spiritual language, both de-projection of the universe and unveiling of maya will happen in the second half of the universe

I think we are at the midway where the physical aspects have peaked.

According to Advaita, mAyA has its two powers of vikShepa and AvaraNa. The latter veils the nature of parabrahman from the jeevAtma while the former, vikShepa, projects or superimposes the jagat on the (concealed) brahman.

Hence, all that is discussed here as also in science, about space, time, expansion of space, etc., etc., are all only the unreal jagat and do not indicate the reality.

Advaita does not propose any end to this notion of the unreal jagat, but, at the individual level of a human being (that too, I think, according to Sankara, only to brahmins who strictly follow all their dharma) mAyA can come to an end once the brahman is realized. Nothing is there in vedanta about the jagat itself undergoing radical changes nor is there any mention of the second half or first half of the universe etc.

From where Shri Sravna has quoted this idea of the "second half of the universe", he has not mentioned. If it is his own hypothesis, he must prove that.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Since it has not specifically happened or at least to our knowledge a spiritual energy negating a physical energy, I will give you one that which is equivalent to it and that which can be proved by logic:

Directly verifiable truth: Physical universe exists
Spiritual law: Spiritual energy creates and destroys the universe

I think if you once again closely follow my logic we will arrive at the conclusion that spiritual energy can supercede physical energy. If you do not follow my logic for some reason let me know which specific one, I will be glad to explain.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Ravi,

I don't find anything sarcastic in my post nor even in the portion quoted by you.

Shri Sangom,

My post no.162 was not specifically intended to reflect on anything in "your" posts.

My post was in general, to appear in this forum publicly, because you included my name in your post to state that Shri.Sravna and myself and probably few in this world are odd men out, out of our mind, distinct from the rest of the World at large.

See your post below, if you feel that, this post of mine is unsubstantial -

Dear Sravna,

All that you have done is to give out your ideas about spiritual, spiritual laws etc., which may be intelligible to you (and perhaps Shri Ravi also) but the world at large will definitely not be able to make head or tail out of it.

 

[C RAVI]

AUH is in this forum Only Since May, 2013 BUT interestingly is finding me being contrary to what I have stated about myself - "If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it."

Probably AUH has misunderstood my post no.162 that, I am claiming myself of a type of a person who would not give back, in tat-for-tat manner to any one who needs to be served equally.


I can understand AUH's defensiveness and pointing me out negatively, against what I have stated about myself in my post no.162. It is fine that, atleast AUH could see "himself" clearly by what I have expressed about myself in my post on.162.


My post no.162 is not to highlight the necessity of identifying who is logically brilliant and who is not BUT to emphasize that, making sarcastic comments about the post and the well intended poster is not my cup of tea. I don't mind what others do or don't do.

 

[auh]

AUH is in this forum Only Since May, 2013

So?

BUT interestingly is finding me being contrary to what I have stated about myself - "If need be, if I need to refute, I would cross question the poster to bring the best on topic in a respectful and friendly manner. I detest from discouraging anyone and try my best to join hands, as long as I could go along with it."

Yes, why not?

Probably AUH has misunderstood my post no.162 that, I am claiming myself of a type of a person who would not give back, in tat-for-tat manner to any one who needs to be served equally.

I have not misunderstanding of any sort. Hope your doubt stands clarified.You can always give back, either in tat-for-tat or tit-for-tat, and that is your prerogative.

I can understand AUH's defensiveness

Really? Oh well...You seem to be another mind reader.

and pointing me out negatively,

against what I have stated about myself in my post no.162.

I think you were the onewho used my post indirectly to applaud Sravna, instead of replying to me directly. Even this post of yours is not direct.

It is fine that, atleast AUH could see "himself" clearly by what I have expressed about myself in my post on.162.

Perhaps this is one of your friendly encouraging sentence which you have mentioned earlier, like joining hands, and not detesting anybody etc.

My post no.162 is not to highlight the necessity of identifying who is logically brilliant and who is not BUT to emphasize that, making sarcastic comments about the post and the well intended poster is not my cup of tea. I don't mind what others do or don't do.

Yes, we are all here to prove who is the most logically brilliant in this forum . How clever of you to have smelt that ! Clever indeed ! Can you point out any sarcastic comment about the well intended poster in my posts (except this one ) please?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Auh,

You have indeed made sarcastic comments though I am not interested in cutting and pasting them here. I have no problems with that as I feel it is the problem of one who feels the need to be sarcastic. I do agree that you raised some queries concerning the logic and it would have been nice if you had done only that but the fact is you did not.