Modern Science and Advaita Vedanta

[Pleroma]

https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/jsp...2010_these.pdf

Jonathon Duqette is a philosopher of religion from the University of Montreal and one of the leading philosophers in the debate of reconciling Modern Science and Eastern Mysticism.

As anyone from with in the tradition see after reading that paper these philosophers and scholars are very much confused and we should help them out showing a clear direction as to how modern science and eastern mysticism can be reconciled. Science and Religion will be One with no conflicts.

Our tradition goes beyond science and has access to the ultimate reality and only God can give an objective account of reality as described in Bhagvad Gita.

It inevitably leads to an esoteric world view. For Advaita Vedanta to be true Scientific Realism must be false.

 

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

Thank you for starting this thread. I think our discussion on the similarities between science and modern science is more appropriate here. So I am responding to your recent post in the other thread here:

It is the wisdom of those traditions that is important not knowledge.

I do not really disagree that wisdom of the traditions is important. Knowledge and wisdom are quite close in meaning, but if you see them as distinct, then lets say say it is knowledge and wisdom which are important.

But what I am saying is knowledge and wisdom is not the exclusive property of a particular tradition. There is much knowledge and wisdom to found across the world, such as in the wisdom of governance of Confuscious or the elegance of flowing with life with Lao Tsu or the profound mathematical insights of Einstein.

If something is knowledge and wisdom it has a universal character. It can be discovered and applied by anybody. Such as anybody can apply the formulas of Einstein, from any tradition. On the other hand, beliefs, rituals and mythology are very specific to the cultural traditions they come from - they are not universal.

If you don't care about the Vedic tradition then you will never understand the truth behind Hinduism.

Perhaps, my statement that I do not care for the Vedic tradition is too harsh to convey what I am really saying. What I am saying is I do not care for particular tradition, though I will learn from every tradition on the planet. I not just learned from the Vedic tradition, but also from the Western traditions. I am open to knowledge and wisdom from all channels. I am always learning and growing in knowledge and wisdom. I am not exclusively preoccupied with just the Vedic tradition, though I owe one of the largest debts to the Vedic tradition because most of my knowledge comes from there.

The father of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger similarly described the quantum as a consciousness field, using Advaitic terms Atman and Brahman.
"As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind."

What I was illustrating to you was not whether Schrodinger is correct in his statements that the unified quantum field is identical to Brahman, but that the viewpoints within modern science is changing now days from the materialist ontology to a more idealist ontology. Strong materialism is more or less obsolete in science today. More and more scientists, especially quantum physicists are strongly challenging materialism today. However, we should not prematurely pronounce that materialism is dead, such as proponents like Amit Goswami do. It is still very much alive and still the dominant view in mainstream science.

I do actually agree with Mr Jones, Brahman is not identical to the quantum field, because Brahman is not material, and the quantum field is material. However, the quantum field is identical to the material substance known as akasha in the Samkhya elements. There are two kinds of Akasha in the Vedic tradition. There is the absolute akasha which the sruti declare to be identical to Brahman, and there is the physical akasha which is the substratum of all physical elements. As you will know yourself: akasha, vayu, tejas, apas/jaal, pritvhi.

The quantum field is identical in description to the akasha, that it would be appropriate to say that they are one and the same thing. Again, I will summarize

Quantum

1) The quantum field is the substratum of all physical elements
2) The quantum field is undifferentiated, all pervading
3) All physical elements exist as potentiality in the quantum field
4) The quantum field is made of highly subtle quantum forces or virtual particles that fleet in and out of material existence
5) Action at a distance or spooky action takes place in the quantum field. Also quantum phenomenon like quantum tunneling, quantum levitation taken place, which also affects material objects.

Akasha

1) The akasha is the substratum of all the physical elements
2) The akasha is undifferentiated and all pervading
3) All physical elements exist as potentials in the akasha
4) The akasha consists of extremely subtle forces known as pranas, which exert directly on physical matter
5) Action at a distance takes place in the akasha, due to a web of complex interconnected pranic systems, connecting every point in space. Yogis purport to use these pranic forces to accomplish siddhis like levitation, teleportation, telepathy etc

I thus think it is highly justified to equate Akasha to the quantum, as you know many philosophers of science and scientists have already done. But I don't understand why you are surprised that scientists should discover something that Sanatana Dharma says exists? If Sanatana Dharma is really universal, its truths will indeed be discovered over and over again.

When something is BS, one need to say it is BS. There is no other simple way of saying it. Your experts and Phd's in the field can't beat our traditional scholars because Vedic tradition is not based on the scientific method. Our seers and rishis didn't knew anything about Modern science nor did they knew anything about quantum mechanics. They got their knowledge from Gods and your experts in the field don't know anything about the Gods of the Vedas.

I really don't think you should be making sweeping judgements on the qualifications of experts, it makes you look pretty bad. I have met of the traditional scholars you talk about in my India travels, spent time with them in their Ashrams and studied with them, and to be honest I did not find anything extraordinary. In fact on the contrary I found many of them to be quite deluded, dogmatic and narcissistic. I am not saying they are all like this, just as you should not be saying all experts speak BS.

Let us try and look for the common denominator here: Knowledge and wisdom. We should not exclusively dedicate ourselves to just one human tradition, it is likely one among millions or billions of traditions in this universe, we should seek knowledge and wisdom wherever we may find it. There are many truths about the universe which have not come from the Vedic tradition, but from the Western empirical scientific tradition, such as the laws of gravitation, laws of relativity, quantum mechanics. The Vedic tradition, as wonderful as their contributions to philosophy and spirituality is, have not discovered everything.

Today, we are living in a globalized world where individual nationalities have become increasingly irrelevant, so Vedic spirituality, Western empiricism, Chinese pragmatism etc are a common human heritage. You are just as entitled to the knowledge and wisdom discovered by the West, as they are entitled to the knowledge and wisdom discovered by the Vedas. It was Oppenheimer who said that the the greatest privilege the 20th century has over preceding centuries, was the access to the Vedas.

 

[Surya Deva]

If your atoms, quarks and protons exist out there in the physical world then all the Vedas and the whole Sanatana Dharma will be falsified. For Hinduism to be true Scientific Realism must be false. I have this from leading philosophers who are studying the parallels between eastern mysticism and Modern Physics. Its time to get over your beliefs and misconceptions.

I never actually said atoms, quarks and protons exist out there in a physical world. Even modern scientists debate on where they actually exist. Quantum physicists like Neil Bohr maintained that atoms etc exist only insofar as we are conscious of them, a conclusion that materialist scientists found offensive. There is now even growing evidence in physical experiments which show clearly that physical reality does not exist independent of consciousness. However, it still is not accepted in the mainstream. There still exist many other interpretations of quantum physics, like multiple world theory or Bohm's interpretation of intricate systems. Hence, the consciousness theory of quantum physics cannot be asserted as truth just yet by physicists.

I do in fact agree with you that atoms etc do not exist in a physical reality. There is no physical reality I believe, this whole reality is a field of consciousness which we access through waking, dreaming and sleeping. Modern science is moving closer and closer to this ontology, but until there is enough hard empirical evidence to support this, the materialist paradigm will remain intact.

Nope, the body is indeed made of atoms, tissues and organs.
"Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

That's what the Vedic tradition says and all the world religions say and if you want to accept Sanatana Dharma accept it in this way, don't misrepresent those traditions. We will not tolerate it.

You are now coming across as rather irrational. The five element theory is the earliest attempts at classifying the physical world. Various classification systems have existed in ancient times, the Chinese for examples classified substances by their feel, fire, water, air, metal and wood - but these classification systems were not very practical. We needed more detailed systems in order to discover many of the truths of chemistry that we know today, so the periodic table emerged classifying all matter as per their atomic weight, giving a greater understanding of the elements that comprise the universe(hydrogen etc) and the various chemical groups. Now, that we know that atoms can be subdivided further into subatomic particles and quarks, we have even greater understanding of the physical world, and one of the practical innovations from these discoveries is computing and nanotechnology.

Simply put if we did not have our modern classification systems like the periodic table and standard model we would not not have any of our modern technologies. Fire, earth, air, water are clearly not elements as we know today, because earth is made up of many substances/minerals, air is made up of many gasses, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

The Vedic system of the 5 elements is not really a physical theory of classifying matter, but rather a philosophical theory. It divides the 5 elements into 5 sensory categories: earth: smelling; water: tasting; fire/light: seeing; air/wind; touching and ether: hearing.
This is actually a very accurate representation of empirical reality, because whatever we know about empirical reality is derived from our senses. Hence our reality is a sensory world. Whatever we know in our world can be put into the 5 categories.

But as I said this system of classification is not very practical and would be useless to a chemist or a physicist.

Many eastern thinkers as well as Western aspirants like you quote scientists and quantum physicists as though they are Gods and they are indisputable but we very well know that they are not Gods and they too are in ignorance just like any common man is and they really don't know about the ultimate reality which our traditional scholars had access to.

You quote traditional scholars like they are gods. They are not obviously and nor are modern scientists. You see the common denominator in my viewpoint is that knowledge and wisdom are the most important. I don't really care where it comes from, as long as it is knowledge and wisdom and I can test it. It can come from the traditional Vedic scholars, from modern scientists, from Poets, artists to the child in the playground. I am open to knowledge and wisdom from all channels. Shouldn't you be too?

Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture - YouTube

My claims are based on scientific evidence and with facts established from experiments. Quantum Mechanics inevitably leads to an anthropocentric worldview. Watch that full video. The Universe doesn't exist when you're not looking at it.

This is a very puerile and simplistic interpretation of consciousness measurement theory of quantum physic. It is obvious the universe continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If I close my eyes, you are still going to be there. When I was not here, my parents were here, and my parents parents. We know this Earth has been here for more than 4 billion years and the universe for approx 12 billion years.

The consciousness based theory of measurement says that the wavefunction in quantum mechanics is collapsed by consciousness, but it is not known which consciousness collapses it, which is dealt in Wigners paradox. It certainly cannot be yours or mine consciousness, because our consciousness is already existing in a reality that is collapsed. Therefore there is another transcendental consciousness that collapses the wavefunction. This is what Schrodinger was hinting at when he explained the apparent diversity of empirical reality using Vedantic Atman and Brahman terms, that the entire world of diversity of empirical reality is produced by only consciousness. The ultimate substance of reality is consciousness and from this consciousness this sensory or empirical reality proceeds.

That's pseudoscience. There is no evidence of that and it has nothing to with spirituality or with religion. Get over with your beliefs as soon as possible.

Of course superstring theory is purely theoretical at this stage. I am simply telling you what superstring theory states. The entire universe exists across several dimensions(the current favoured number is 11) where matter exists in higher and higher energy densities. The co-founder of string theory, Machiu Kaku himself has said that it is possible that higher-energetic life forms may exist in these dimensions.

Whether is correct or incorrect is moot, what is important here string theory corresponds closely to the Guna theory in Samkhya philosophy. The vibration of the gunas produces a multdimensional reality that exists in high vibrational states of sattva to the lowest dimensional state of of tamas. In these different dimensions different lifeforms exist. The supertring theory says the vibration of the superstrings produces a multidimensional reality that exists in high vibrational states to the lowest vibrational state. I am sorry but I cannot see how you cannot see the correspondence. Moreover, I am surprised at why you so religiously oppose that there is a correspondence? Do you feel that modern science discovering the same truths that are contained in your religion is going to undermine your religion?

Perhaps, you are correct. Hinduism does become rather irrelevant when the same truths become scientific facts. Who needs Hinduism, when we have Science?

As the above says what ever you've said here is pseudo-science and it is an insult to both science as well as those traditions.

It is common fallacy that scientific knowledge changes. No, it doesn't it deepens. The laws of Newton have not changed. Macroscopic phenomena still obeys the laws of Newton and we still use Newtonian mechanics today to build bridges, buildings and roller coasters. In Relativity theory Newtonian mechanics is included as a special case of relativity. Relativistic effects are negligible for macroscopic phenomenon and objects travelling at velocities significantly smaller than the speed of light, so despite the fact that the ontology of Newtonian mechanics is incorrect, it makes no practical difference.

We don't need any support from Physicists, if its anything our traditions support the work of Bernard D'espagnat and this should be our direction for our future research.

I am not saying science is going to support Hinduism. Hinduism like most religions will just get sublimated into science over the centuries. Science produces actually real, valid, testable and and applicable knowledge. Religion produces myths. This is why since the age of reason/enlightenment, Science has replaced religion in all matters practical and real.

Hinduism is the earliest enunciation of scientific attitude, and to that we modern people should be indebted and acknowledge the greatness of Hinduism and learn as much as we an from it. However, Hinduism is not the be all and end all of knowledge. We still have a lot to learn about the universe, that we are not going to learn from traditional scholars. Ask the traditional scholars about black holes and antimatter and you will draw a blank. Come on, this is the 21st century. Move on.

 

[Pleroma]

I do not really disagree that wisdom of the traditions is important. Knowledge and wisdom are quite close in meaning, but if you see them as distinct, then lets say say it is knowledge and wisdom which are important.

But what I am saying is knowledge and wisdom is not the exclusive property of a particular tradition. There is much knowledge and wisdom to found across the world, such as in the wisdom of governance of Confuscious or the elegance of flowing with life with Lao Tsu or the profound mathematical insights of Einstein.

If something is knowledge and wisdom it has a universal character. It can be discovered and applied by anybody. Such as anybody can apply the formulas of Einstein, from any tradition. On the other hand, beliefs, rituals and mythology are very specific to the cultural traditions they come from - they are not universal.

The aim of science was to give an objective account of reality and physicists have failed to give an objective account of reality because only God can give an objective account of reality. Of course there are other traditions and as samkhya philosophy evolved along with Yoga philosophy of patanjali even samkhya is recognized as highly theistic and Hinduism is basically a theistic religion. Even the Advaita philosophy is highly theistic, it is not an atheistic doctrine as many people in the west think so. If you don't understand the concept of Ishvara in Advaita then you haven't understood Advaita at all.

So contrary to your beliefs Gods are very important to these traditions, they are not fantasies and if you think God is a fantasy then please don't call yourself as a Hindu, you might accept the atheistic Samkhya philosophy and it might suit you but a small piece of advice to you is that, that's not the highest philosophical thought.

It is not the end of gods, it is actually the return of Gods.

"Gods are real and they are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspects of human life."

- James Hillman

Scientists will never be able to give an objective account of reality without bringing Gods into the picture. Physicists don't deal with the Reality as it is, instead they deal with Reality as it appears to us.

Perhaps, my statement that I do not care for the Vedic tradition is too harsh to convey what I am really saying. What I am saying is I do not care for particular tradition, though I will learn from every tradition on the planet. I not just learned from the Vedic tradition, but also from the Western traditions. I am open to knowledge and wisdom from all channels. I am always learning and growing in knowledge and wisdom. I am not exclusively preoccupied with just the Vedic tradition, though I owe one of the largest debts to the Vedic tradition because most of my knowledge comes from there.

God is important, if you think you're some how being smart by denying the existence of God then I would say you're spiritually immature. If gods are not real then Vedas are all made up by humans and therefore your so called Brahman doesn't really exist. Do you see the importance of Gods in Hinduism? So why don't you be a strong atheist instead of being false spiritualist?

As you will know yourself: akasha, vayu, tejas, apas/jaal, pritvhi.

The world is made up of only these five elements and that's what these traditions says. What we learn from Science is one thing and what we learn from Religion is another. You are showing a lack of wisdom about what these traditions say. Its time you better care about the epistemology of these traditions and Modern Science before making any claims. Science deals with the phenomena where as Religion deals with the noumenon. You cannot mix those too. From the point of view of those traditions the Universe doesn't exist when you're not looking at it. As I said earlier for Religion or spirituality to be true scientific realism must be false.

The quantum field is identical in description to the akasha, that it would be appropriate to say that they are one and the same thing. Again, I will summarize

Quantum

1) The quantum field is the substratum of all physical elements
2) The quantum field is undifferentiated, all pervading
3) All physical elements exist as potentiality in the quantum field
4) The quantum field is made of highly subtle quantum forces or virtual particles that fleet in and out of material existence
5) Action at a distance or spooky action takes place in the quantum field. Also quantum phenomenon like quantum tunneling, quantum levitation taken place, which also affects material objects.

Akasha

1) The akasha is the substratum of all the physical elements
2) The akasha is undifferentiated and all pervading
3) All physical elements exist as potentials in the akasha
4) The akasha consists of extremely subtle forces known as pranas, which exert directly on physical matter
5) Action at a distance takes place in the akasha, due to a web of complex interconnected pranic systems, connecting every point in space. Yogis purport to use these pranic forces to accomplish siddhis like levitation, teleportation, telepathy etc

I thus think it is highly justified to equate Akasha to the quantum, as you know many philosophers of science and scientists have already done. But I don't understand why you are surprised that scientists should discover something that Sanatana Dharma says exists? If Sanatana Dharma is really universal, its truths will indeed be discovered over and over again.

As I said earlier from the point of view of both science and these traditions this is complete BS. Those philosophers are confused and they are confusing you too. Go back and read the paper given in my OP. If Scientific Realism is not false then there is no truth in religion so why be a false spiritualist instead being a strong atheist. The Samkhya philosophy of purusha and prakrithi are not compatible with modern physics. The Samkhya philosophers are dealing with a metaphysical reality which is outside our sensory organs where as your quantum field is an abstract concept to describe the experiences of the physicists which we perceive through the sense organs.

Yes Sanatana Dharma is universal but they don't describe the empirical reality instead they describe a metaphysical reality. It is you who are demanding that Sanatana Dharma should describe black holes and singularities which is quite absurd and silly. You are very confused and that shows a lack of knowledge about these traditions.

I really don't think you should be making sweeping judgements on the qualifications of experts, it makes you look pretty bad. I have met of the traditional scholars you talk about in my India travels, spent time with them in their Ashrams and studied with them, and to be honest I did not find anything extraordinary. In fact on the contrary I found many of them to be quite deluded, dogmatic and narcissistic. I am not saying they are all like this, just as you should not be saying all experts speak BS.

Traditional scholars are known for their works on Vedas and Upanishads and they are the ones who brought back the sattva hidden in those Vedas and Upanishads. It is their works which counts and you get to know about our traditional scholars by reading their works not by meeting them in ashrams. Traditional scholars don't live in ashrams.

Let us try and look for the common denominator here: Knowledge and wisdom. We should not exclusively dedicate ourselves to just one human tradition, it is likely one among millions or billions of traditions in this universe, we should seek knowledge and wisdom wherever we may find it. There are many truths about the universe which have not come from the Vedic tradition, but from the Western empirical scientific tradition, such as the laws of gravitation, laws of relativity, quantum mechanics. The Vedic tradition, as wonderful as their contributions to philosophy and spirituality is, have not discovered everything.

Yet your science cannot make you free from bondage, you have to come back to Vedas and other religions of the world if you want immortality and omniscience.

Today, we are living in a globalized world where individual nationalities have become increasingly irrelevant, so Vedic spirituality, Western empiricism, Chinese pragmatism etc are a common human heritage. You are just as entitled to the knowledge and wisdom discovered by the West, as they are entitled to the knowledge and wisdom discovered by the Vedas. It was Oppenheimer who said that the the greatest privilege the 20th century has over preceding centuries, was the access to the Vedas.

I never denied Science. I embrace both Religion and Science.

 

[Surya Deva]

Lol, discussion over

PS I am going to stick to my decision not to identify as Hindu. I am sorry I just do not relate to all this fanaticism, superstition, fundamentalism and irrationality.

 

[Pleroma]

There still exist many other interpretations of quantum physics, like multiple world theory or Bohm's interpretation of intricate systems. Hence, the consciousness theory of quantum physics cannot be asserted as truth just yet by physicists.

I do in fact agree with you that atoms etc do not exist in a physical reality. There is no physical reality I believe, this whole reality is a field of consciousness which we access through waking, dreaming and sleeping. Modern science is moving closer and closer to this ontology, but until there is enough hard empirical evidence to support this, the materialist paradigm will remain intact.

That's true among the scientific community.

You are now coming across as rather irrational. The five element theory is the earliest attempts at classifying the physical world. We needed more detailed systems in order to discover many of the truths of chemistry that we know today, so the periodic table emerged classifying all matter as per their atomic weight, giving a greater understanding of the elements that comprise the universe and the various chemical groups. Now, that we know that atoms can be subdivided further into subatomic particles and quarks, we have even greater understanding of the physical world, and one of the practical innovations from these discoveries is computing and nanotechnology.

Simply put if we did not have our modern classification systems like the periodic table and standard model we would not not have any of our modern technologies. Fire, earth, air, water are clearly not elements as we know today, because earth is made up of many substances/minerals, air is made up of many gasses, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen.

But as I said this system of classification is not very practical and would be useless to a chemist or a physicist.

I am saying the worldview of Physicists is also correct and also the worldview of Religion is also correct. The former deals with empirical reality where as the latter deals with the physical reality. It is Science which is actually subjective and it is Religion which is actually objective.

You quote traditional scholars like they are gods. They are not obviously and nor are modern scientists. You see the common denominator in my viewpoint is that knowledge and wisdom are the most important. I don't really care where it comes from, as long as it is knowledge and wisdom and I can test it. It can come from the traditional Vedic scholars, from modern scientists, from Poets, artists to the child in the playground. I am open to knowledge and wisdom from all channels. Shouldn't you be too?

Traditional scholars are not gods but modern scientists don't have the access to the numinous world of Vedas and Upanishads which our traditional scholars had access to.

This is a very puerile and simplistic interpretation of consciousness measurement theory of quantum physic. It is obvious the universe continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If I close my eyes, you are still going to be there. When I was not here, my parents were here, and my parents parents. We know this Earth has been here for more than 4 billion years and the universe for approx 12 billion years.

That's based on EPR argument and quantum entanglement. Einstein's mathematical realism is fundamentally flawed. No local or non local causes can explain those correlations and the only viable option is to give up our common sense notions of realism.

ScienceDirect.com - The New Scientist - Reality check

We need to abandon the notion of an objective reality. It is based on facts established from experiments.

"We create reality rather than passively observing it."

- Vladko Vedral, Quantum Physicist.

The consciousness based theory of measurement says that the wavefunction in quantum mechanics is collapsed by consciousness, but it is not known which consciousness collapses it, which is dealt in Wigners paradox. It certainly cannot be yours or mine consciousness, because our consciousness is already existing in a reality that is collapsed. Therefore there is another transcendental consciousness that collapses the wavefunction. This is what Schrodinger was hinting at when he explained the apparent diversity of empirical reality using Vedantic Atman and Brahman terms, that the entire world of diversity of empirical reality is produced by only consciousness. The ultimate substance of reality is consciousness and from this consciousness this sensory or empirical reality proceeds.

Substance dualism is true. The Mind and Brain are two different things and in fact the Brain and all the matter don't exist out there, it is only a state of mind, like being in the Matrix of God. Its something our traditional scholars knew way before your modern scientists. Its called the Body-Mind-Intellect complex and the method to know it is called as Avastatreya. Therefore quantum mechanics doesn't apply to the metaphysical mind and it remains real and creates the empirical reality of the physicists.

Of course superstring theory is purely theoretical at this stage. I am simply telling you what superstring theory states. The entire universe exists across several dimensions(the current favoured number is 11) where matter exists in higher and higher energy densities.

Whether is correct or incorrect is moot, what is important here string theory corresponds closely to the Guna theory in Samkhya philosophy. The vibration of the gunas produces a multdimensional reality that exists in high vibrational states of sattva to the lowest dimensional state of of tamas. In these different dimensions different lifeforms exist. The supertring theory says the vibration of the superstrings produces a multidimensional reality that exists in high vibrational states to the lowest vibrational state. I am sorry but I cannot see how you cannot see the correspondence. Moreover, I am surprised at why you so religiously oppose that there is a correspondence? Do you feel that modern science discovering the same truths that are contained in your religion is going to undermine your religion?

As said our religion don't need any justification from Modern Science and you Guna-String pet theory is complete BS and pseudoscience. It is scientists who need to learn a lot from our religion because our rishis were true physicists because they dealt with the actual physical world.

Perhaps, you are correct. Hinduism does become rather irrelevant when the same truths become scientific facts. Who needs Hinduism, when we have Science?

"Many would hold that, from the broad philosophical standpoint, the outstanding achievement of twentieth-century physics is not the theory of
relativity with its welding together of space and time, or the theory of quanta with its present apparent negation of the laws of causation, or the dissection of the atom with the resultant discovery that things are not what they seem; it is the general recognition that we are not yet in contact with ultimate reality. We are still imprisoned in our cave, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall."

- Sir James Jeans

You along with your scientists will be forever imprisoned in our cave if you only rely on science. So pick your choice.

That's why we need Hinduism along with all the religions of the world. All the best to you!

It is common fallacy that scientific knowledge changes. No, it doesn't it deepens. The laws of Newton have not changed. Macroscopic phenomena still obeys the laws of Newton and we still use Newtonian mechanics today to build bridges, buildings and roller coasters. In Relativity theory Newtonian mechanics is included as a special case of relativity.

The last thing that an eastern mystic want would be to reconcile his religion with modern science. Scientific concepts will be refined and even its interpretations keeps changing with new evidences even though the well established theories will be carried forward.

I am not saying science is going to support Hinduism. Hinduism like most religions will just get sublimated into science over the centuries. Science produces actually real, valid, testable and and applicable knowledge. Religion produces myths. This is why since the age of reason/enlightenment, Science has replaced religion in all matters practical and real.

This time it is religion which might actually correct science.

Hinduism is the earliest enunciation of scientific attitude, and to that we modern people should be indebted and acknowledge the greatness of Hinduism and learn as much as we an from it. However, Hinduism is not the be all and end all of knowledge. We still have a lot to learn about the universe, that we are not going to learn from traditional scholars. Ask the traditional scholars about black holes and antimatter and you will draw a blank. Come on, this is the 21st century. Move on.

If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind, then your black holes and antimatter are mere shadows of the Mind and exists only in an immersive virtual reality. They are puny in the eyes of God.

Yeah I know this is the 21st century and I think we are living in the dark ages and not in the age of Enlightenment. The age of Enlightenment has not come yet.

 

[Surya Deva]

I will say one thing though - science is not going to go away. Religion has for the last few hundred years conceded to science and lost its power and influence in our secular world today. Science has gradually replaced all the 'truths' of religion in mainstream world today, and science will continue to do so. Science is basically humans creating valid methods of knowledge to discover themselves what is true.

Hinduism is of those very few religions that science does not contradict, but rather supports many of its concepts(Akasha, subtle body, reincarnation etc) but that is not going to make the scientist turn Hindu. They may indeed show respect for Hinduism and co-opt some of its terms, but they are not going to become Hindu because it is unnecessary. The knowledge is more important.

Today, ironically science has become the biggest source of spirituality on this planet. The research of many scientists, quantum physicists, biologists looking into spiritual fields has lead to a growing movement of spirituality within science, which is spreading over the world. This is obviously good news, because when it becomes factual for example that the subtle body does exist and reincarnation does happen, we will no longer have to rely on any religious beliefs and religious exaggerations, but merely take it for granted like we take other scientific truths today like evolution, atoms, blackholes.

Science is the real Sanatana Dharma and the Vedic sages would have been proud of modern scientists

 

[Pleroma]

Lol, discussion over

PS I am going to stick to my decision not to identify as Hindu. I am sorry I just do not relate to all this fanaticism, superstition, fundamentalism and irrationality.

Below you nick it says Religion - Sanatana Dharma. The above statement contradicts with this. Mind changing it? Unfortunately even less so theistic Samkhya philosophy is incompatible with your beliefs and hence no beliefs of yours actually qualify as Sanatana Dharma. Do you only study Sanatana Dharma for the sake of knowing or do you really believe in it?

 

[Pleroma]

I will say one thing though - science is not going to go away. Religion has for the last few hundred years conceded to science and lost its power and influence in our secular world today. Science has gradually replaced all the 'truths' of religion in mainstream world today, and science will continue to do so. Science is basically humans creating valid methods of knowledge to discover themselves what is true.

Hinduism is of those very few religions that science does not contradict, but rather supports many of its concepts(Akasha, subtle body, reincarnation etc) but that is not going to make the scientist turn Hindu. They may indeed show respect for Hinduism and co-opt some of its terms, but they are not going to become Hindu because it is unnecessary. The knowledge is more important.

Today, ironically science has become the biggest source of spirituality on this planet. The research of many scientists, quantum physicists, biologists looking into spiritual fields has lead to a growing movement of spirituality within science, which is spreading over the world. This is obviously good news, because when it becomes factual for example that the subtle body does exist and reincarnation does happen, we will no longer have to rely on any religious beliefs and religious exaggerations, but merely take it for granted like we take other scientific truths today like evolution, atoms, blackholes.

Science is the real Sanatana Dharma and the Vedic sages would have been proud of modern scientists

Scientific discoveries on exact sciences like Physics will come to an halt and inevitably it will be religion which is going to give an objective account of reality.

Science doesn't support Akasha, reincarnation and the subtle body. You better know that. There is no evidence of that. I don't want to call those things as science. It is an insult to the scientific method.

[youtube]IF54xqYhIGA[/youtube]
Consciousness and the limits of Science - Boundaries of the Knowable (1/10) - YouTube

Boundaries of the knowable - OpenLearn - Open University

Either be a strong Atheist or accept religion as it is. This mixing of quantum field and Akasha won't work.

 

[Surya Deva]

Below you nick it says Religion - Sanatana Dharma. The above statement contradicts with this. Mind changing it? Unfortunately even less so theistic Samkhya philosophy is incompatible with your beliefs and hence no beliefs of yours actually qualify as Sanatana Dharma. Do you only study Sanatana Dharma for the sake of knowing or do you really believe in it?

No, of course I am not going to change it, just because your interpretation of Hinduism is different to mine. What an offensive and insulting thing to ask. I follow what I believe to be the original Vedic dharma of Advaita sans all the dross that it has accumulated since then such as the Puranic mythology, the Trimurti, god/goddesses, Dvaita etc and rituals galore.

I do not consider you to be a real Santana Dharmin. A lot of your views are the exact opposite of the Vedic Risis taught. However, it seems like our feelings are mutual. Thus in the interest of civility and decorum it is probably better we do not talk. I do not relate to your interpretation of Hinduism, your world of gods and goddesses or your fundamentalism about traditions.

I completely accept the teachings of Advaita: I am the self, the infinite, eternal, absolute and pure being. I recognize no god/s. If there is any thing such as 'god' I am that - Aham Brahmasmi. Practically, I recognize infinite potential and divinity within me and I live my life to actualize that potential. In order to achieve this I practice Vedantic Upasana, Vichara and Patanjali's Kriya Ashtanga Yoga.

I know the Dvaita interpretation is not authentic, because I have read all the principal Upanishads and have not found anything supporting Dvaita philosophy. The very fact it took almost a millenia for Dvaita to appear in India, and that too it appeared within a theological tradition to justify worship of god, is proof enough for me to show Dvaita is clearly not consistent with Vedic philosophy. I follow the original Advaita tradition.

I know we disagree, and I am OK with that

 

[Jainarayan]

...the Puranic mythology

But they're fun to read, especially Krishna's antics in Canto X of the Srimad Bhagavatam; and in the Shiva Purana the story of His marriage to Parvati, with His mother-in-law fainting and throwing a hissy fit when she saw Shiva.

Seriously, I know I'm out of my depth here in this conversation but, while many people look on the Puranic stories as literal history, I think they are largely morality tales and definitely worthwhile.

 

[Pleroma]

No, of course I am not going to change it, just because your interpretation of Hinduism is different to mine. What an offensive and insulting thing to ask. I follow what I believe to be the original Vedic dharma of Advaita sans all the dross that it has accumulated since then such as the Puranic mythology, the Trimurti, god/goddesses, Dvaita etc and rituals galore.

I do not consider you to be a real Santana Dharmin. A lot of your views are the exact opposite of the Vedic Risis taught. However, it seems like our feelings are mutual. Thus in the interest of civility and decorum it is probably better we do not talk. I do not relate to your interpretation of Hinduism, your world of gods and goddesses or your fundamentalism about traditions.

I completely accept the teachings of Advaita: I am the self, the infinite, eternal, absolute and pure being. I recognize no god/s. If there is any thing such as 'god' I am that - Aham Brahmasmi. Practically, I recognize infinite potential and divinity within me and I live my life to actualize that potential. In order to achieve his I practice Vedantic Upasana Vichara and Patanjali's Kriya Ashtanga Yoga.

I know the Dvaita interpretation is not authentic, because I have read all the principal Upanishads and have not found anything supporting Dvaita philosophy. The very fact it took almost a millenia for Dvaita to appear in India, and that too it appeared within a theological tradition to justify worship of god, is proof enough for me to show Dvaita is clearly not consistent with Vedic philosophy. I follow the original Advaita tradition.

I know we disagree, and I am OK with that

The original Vedic Dharma worshipped Indra, Mithra, Varuna, Agni, Soma, Yama, Prajapathi etc. These all are gods too. But you don't believe in Gods so you're not practising the original Vedic Dharma.

In Advaita the concept of Ishvara is very important and all scholars agree on that and Ishvara is God but you don't believe in God, Advaita is theistic not atheistic, so you're not practising Advaita either. Isn't this double standards? Also there is no proof for Brahman just as there is no proof for Ishvara so I actually see double standards with your reasoning or is it wishful thinking?

The Alwars are one of the most respected people of Hindus and what ever you said is an insult to them. They know more about God than anyone else.

 

[Surya Deva]

on Science. There is now mountains of scientific evidence for spiritual phenomena. I recommend you read Dead Radin's book, "Noetic Sciences" to get a historical overview of important and key experiments done in the last 100 years into these fields. This is why there is a growing movement of spirituality in the scientific field.

Ian Stevenson's research has been very influencial in the field of scientific research into reincarnation through investigation of past life memories. His research looked at thousands of case studies across several cultures. He concluded his work with the publication of his seminal work, "20 cases suggestive of reincarnation" which as the title says document the reports from his 20 best cases which could only be explained by the hypothesis of reincarnation.

Studies into mind-matter interactions has also yielded volumes of hard empirical evidence showing positively how mind can directly influence matter through thought.

By the way if you really are Santana dharmin, you would not oppose scientific study into these areas, because in Santana dharma no substance dualism exists between mind and matter. Mind and matter are both regarded as matter, with physical matter being seen as gross and mental matter as being seen as subtle. It is Christians who accept a substance dualism between mind and matte. Although most Hindus might as well become Abrahamic, because they believe in Abrahamic things now days: monotheistic gods, heaven and hell, sin and punishment, eternal salvation.

 

[Pleroma]

on Science. There is now mountains of scientific evidence for spiritual phenomena. I recommend you read Dead Radin's book, "Noetic Sciences" to get a historical overview of important and key experiments done in the last 100 years into these fields. This is why there is a growing movement of spirituality in the scientific field.

Ian Stevenson's research has been very influencial in the field of scientific research into reincarnation through investigation of past life memories. His research looked at thousands of case studies across several cultures. He concluded his work with the publication of his seminal work, "20 cases suggestive of reincarnation" which as the title says document the reports from his 20 best cases which could only be explained by the hypothesis of reincarnation.

Good point. Appreciated. There is still no positive evidence for reincarnation and its really hard to convince the mainstream community.

By the way if you really are Santana dharmin, you would not oppose scientific study into these areas, because in Santana dharma no substance dualism exists between mind and matter. Mind and matter are both regarded as matter, with physical matter being seen as gross and mental matter as being seen as subtle. It is Christians who accept a substance dualism between mind and matte. Although most Hindus might as well become Abrahamic, because they believe in Abrahamic things now days: monotheistic gods, heaven and hell, sin and punishment, eternal salvation.

I am not opposing scientific study, scientists will study what ever they want.

There is no substance dualism in Sanatana Dharma? I think you're ignorant on that.

Manas and Buddhi are different things than the brain. Sanatana Dharma recognizes a Mind and Intelligence separate from the Brain and actually brain and matter doesn't exist independent of the mind.

See Bhagvad Gita.

We don't hate the Abrahmic religions. If you can't see the goodness of the Abrahmic God then that's not my problem.

 

[Surya Deva]

The original Vedic Dharma worshipped Indra, Mithra, Varuna, Agni, Soma, Yama, Prajapathi etc. These all are gods too. But you don't believe in Gods so you're not practising the original Vedic Dharma.

Indeed this is true, in fact the original Vedic dharma was a mixture of polytheistic, monotheistic and monistic thought. Then after Vedanta it becomes purely monistic and all the key concepts which later become Hinduism are formulated: karma, samsara, reincarnation, atman, brahman, yoga. These are further systematized in the Darsanas.

I thus only focus on the Jnana section of the Vedic tradition. The ritual-section is by definition the old testimant. It carries no weight after Vedanta.

In Advaita the concept of Ishvara is very important and all scholars agree on that and Ishvara is God but you don't believe in God, Advaita is theistic not atheistic, so you're not practising Advaita either. Isn't this double standards? Also there is no proof for Brahman just as there is no proof for Ishvara so I actually see double standards with your reasoning or is it wishful thinking?

Nope, this is incorrect. Ishvara is Brahman as reflected in Maya. It is also considered illusory. Advaita does not admit the existence of anything other than Brahman, only Brahman is real, everything else is unreal.

The proofs for Brahman's existence are given in Vedanta. The Upanishads contain several stories and arguments to prove Brahman. Advaita goes even further and attempts to systematically to prove it.

For myself the only proof I need of Brahman's existence is the proof of my own existence. I obviously exist and that is the only truth that I can hold as absolute certainty. I can doubt everything else, I can even doubt whether you exist, perhaps you are just a figment of my imagination. However, I cannot doubt my own existence, for to doubt my existence, requires the doubter. The doubter itself cannot be doubted. Starting from here as my premise I am able to logically conclude through step by step reasoning the existence of Brahman and my essential identity with it.

 

[Pleroma]

Indeed this is true, in fact the original Vedic dharma was a mixture of polytheistic, monotheistic and monistic thought. Then after Vedanta it becomes purely monistic and all the key concepts which later become Hinduism are formulated: karma, samsara, reincarnation, atman, brahman, yoga. These are further systematized in the Darsanas.

I thus only focus on the Jnana section of the Vedic tradition. The ritual-section is by definition the old testimant. It carries no weight after Vedanta.

If these Gods don't exist then you're Brahman also don't exist, you better understand that.

First came the Purva Mimamsa and then came the Uttara Mimamsa. Saying that Purva Mimamsa is old adds no value to Uttara Mimamsa of Jnana Khanda. You can't deny one and accept the other. Its illogical, irrational and devoid of any substance.

Nope, this is incorrect. Ishvara is Brahman as reflected in Maya. It is also considered illusory. Advaita does not admit the existence of anything other than Brahman, only Brahman is real, everything else is unreal.

The proofs for Brahman's existence are given in Vedanta. The Upanishads contain several stories and arguments to prove Brahman. Advaita goes even further and attempts to systematically to prove it.

For myself the only proof I need of Brahman's existence is the proof of my own existence. I obviously exist and that is the only truth that I can hold as absolute certainty. I can doubt everything else, I can even doubt whether you exist, perhaps you are just a figment of my imagination. However, I cannot doubt my own existence, for to doubt my existence, requires the doubter. The doubter itself cannot be doubted. Starting from here as my premise I am able to logically conclude through step by step reasoning the existence of Brahman and my essential identity with it.

Having belief in the existence of Brahman is having belief in the existence of Ishvara. One cannot exist without the other. So you're criticism for the existence of God is actually based on double standards.

 

[Surya Deva]

f these Gods don't exist then you're Brahman also don't exist, you better understand that.

That does not make sense lol

These devas in fact do kind of exist, the original Vedic people worshiped natural phenomenon, like the sun, water, wind, earth, much like many other primitive cultures on the planet. Like many other primitive cultures, the Vedic people thought them to be like gods and did ritual sacrifices in order to appease them, the most famous sacrifice being the Soma sacrifice.

First came the Purva Mimamsa and then came the Uttara Mimamsa. Saying that Purva Mimamsa is old adds no value to Uttara Mimamsa of Jnana Khanda. You can't deny one and accept the other. Its illogical, irrational and devoid of any substance.

This also makes no sense.

Of course I can deny one and accept the other. Just as Christians deny the Old testimant and accept the New testimant. the NT contains radically new doctrines and beliefs from the those in the OT, even though it follows on from it.

The Vedanta, which literally means the end of the Vedic phase, marked an evolution of thought among the Vedic people who started to challenge the rituals and their belief in gods, and started to approach religion more rationally. They then concluded that there was not actually many gods, but actually only one ultimate reality that was one without a second and that the self was essentially identical to it. The self actually becomes more important for the seers of the Upanishads. The preoccupation with self then leads to the advent of Samkhya, Yoga and Advaita philosophy.

Dvaita on the other hand, is preoccuipied with god/s and goddesses, much like the Purva Mimassa were. I thus see it as regressive and don't take it seriously.

 

[Surya Deva]

Having belief in the existence of Brahman is having belief in the existence of Ishvara. One cannot exist without the other. So you're criticism for the existence of God is actually based on double standards.

Nope, I don't have to believe in the existence of Ishvara. Advaitins only accept the existence of Brahman as the only reality. This is literally what Advaita means, not-two. We do not accept any duality. All duality is only apparent, including the duality of ishvara.

 

[Pleroma]

That does not make sense lol

These devas in fact do kind of exist, the original Vedic people worshiped natural phenomenon, like the sun, water, wind, earth, much like many other primitive cultures on the planet. Like many other primitive cultures, the Vedic people thought them to be like gods and did ritual sacrifices in order to appease them, the most famous sacrifice being the Soma sacrifice.



This also makes no sense.

Of course I can deny one and accept the other. Just as Christians deny the Old testimant and accept the New testimant. the NT contains radically new doctrines and beliefs from the those in the OT, even though it follows on from it.

The Vedanta, which literally means the end of the Vedic phase, marked an evolution of thought among the Vedic people who started to challenge the rituals and their belief in gods, and started to approach religion more rationally. They then concluded that there was not actually many gods, but actually only one ultimate reality that was one without a second and that the self was essentially identical to it. The self actually becomes more important for the seers of the Upanishads. The preoccupation with self then leads to the advent of Samkhya, Yoga and Advaita philosophy.

Dvaita on the other hand, is preoccuipied with god/s and goddesses, much like the Purva Mimassa were. I thus see it as regressive and don't take it seriously.

So delusional!

The foundational basis for Hinduism and even the Aryan Vedic Religion is the Gayatri Mantra and do you know to whom it is addressed to. If you don't accept the existence of Gods then you're not a Hindu or even a Sanatana Dharmin, don't act like you are one, please.

You're playing around here, my friend.

To say that "I can actually deny Purva Mimamsa just like the Christians deny the old testament" is foolish and rubbish.

 

[Surya Deva]

Manas and Buddhi are different things than the brain. Sanatana Dharma recognizes a Mind and Intelligence separate from the Brain and actually brain and matter doesn't exist independent of the mind.

Nope, they are not two different substances, they are one substance in different configurations. In both Advaita and Samkhya all of material nature/prakriti, including all its evolutes intellect, ego, mind, sense organs, motor organs, subtle elements, physical elements are just one substance. Hence there is no dualism between mind and brain.
However, what there is, is different bodies: physical body, subtle body and causal body. Although these are all matter, they range from gross matter, to subtle to the most subtle, like layers on an onion. When you peel of one layer such as the physical body, the more finer layer still remains. In this sense the brain is not identical to the mind, but the brain and mind are both same substance.

The only dualism that exists in Sanatana Dharma is the dualism between consciousness and matter(purusha and prakriti) and even this dualism is ultimately denied in Advaita, for prakriti is ultimately negated into nothingness, declaring it to be non-existent, leaving only the purusha as the only existent reality.