Man hypnotises himself before op

[mediator]

I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about "the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind". Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education.

Like I have said many times before, there is a difference between science and spirituality. U cannot neglect one for favouring the other. Today with that study of biology etc. one has come to know of the bodily functions and how they work, we have developed advanced techniques. But studies reveal we had advanced and rich knowledge in the past too.

Developing a medicine, testing it on animals, for the welfare of humans is that morality? Among humans too we have different immunity levels. Wisdom? And then many of those medicines have side effects. Are we getting cured?

It has been proven how love, faith, emotions can heal a person when everything else fails. A study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere like AC, isn't spiritualism!

U say u have read all my posts, but u r only making me repeat now.

It would be better if you learn that our great ancestors were both spiritual and scientific (in its true definition).

We are of course connected to each other by a common prehistoric ancestor, which has since long disappeared without a trace. The fact, that all vertebrates have a common sea ancestor, is evidenced by the fact that we still need sodium chloride to maintain our bodily functions. So, I also don't see why we can't say that we are connected in an evolutionary process, although, the genetic print of that one common ancestor is lost due to millions of years of mutation.

I was 'not' talking of 'theory' of evolution which u r putting up as an argument like its a fact! But yes we have lost a lot in million years due to wars, greed, religious intolerance, communal hatred, ego works etc.

Wisdom, again, can be had through proper education (It does not refer to academic education only. For a tribe living in the deep jungles of the Amazon basin, the most pertinent education is how to hunt successfully) and right experiences, (e.g. if you take your hand close to the fire, the heat should warn you of the damage it may cause to your hand, and you would recoil your hand. This experience should teach you to stay away from fire). This is where, I would part ways. Trying to know the "eternal" wisdom, however, presupposes that there is something "eternal" or "infinite" about some wisdom. Materialists are not good with presuppositions and seeks clear explanations, which I am sure, you will provide.

There is a difference between skill and wisdom. With that "experience" one may be able to hunt far off prey, which might seem "impossible" for a person who does not know, how to hunt.

When I talk of "eternal"/"infinite" wisdom, its only ideal. If materialists need "clear" explanation of everything, then science in its true meaning has to be "ideal" for them. But then, why do they "follow" "theories" as if they are "facts", form theories based on another set of theories, give names to the concepts they only visualize to be like "dark energy/ dark matter"?

Sure, why is it that everytime I ask those materialists "what" universe is, they fail everytime? I am sure u will provide the answer to those "theories", "presuppositions" etc.
Again I am merely repeating and u say u have read it all? I have asked and discussed a lot.

[In one debate with another spiritual person, I was told, that it is learning the "eternal truth". When I asked what do you mean by eternal truth, he replied back that it is about acknowledging and understanding that there is a greater consciousness, far bigger than the self. When I pointed to him that since he could explain what "eternal truth" is, it would mean that he has already known it, and hence his journey of spiritualism has ended, he, of course, replied back in kind words of the ghetto.]

Please refrain from giving such kind of examples, cause u can see a few of em in this forums also who talk in the tone of a hardcore materialist, but yet can't explain what I ask and jump to conclusions quickly....Scientific?? We are not discussing "that guy said that, and I won".

Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.

U r wrong. It seems ur concepts are not clear.
U r treating as if non-spirituality is a synonym of "science". That would make science and spirituality antonyms. Different fields, subjects do not mean they r opposites. That wud surely make a majority of scientists look foolish!!

U wanted to know my point of view and the defintition I presented. But the definition u have inferred is totally wrong.

The experiences, that you have associated with your definition of spirituality, can also be described as a feeling of wonderment, or a state of being in awe. I would like to think, everybody, whether spiritual or not, has enough sensitivity or emotion to make one appreciate beauty or quality, although it may vary in degree. Just because someone is spiritual, he is better suited to enjoy nature, or understand Mozart, or appreciate Tagore's novels, or marvel at Picasso's painting, is an argument, that does not support evidence.

Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"? Greed, hatred etc. I don't even understand how 'drinking' is called enjoyment since u don't even know what u r doing and it only corrupts ur body and mind?

If yes, then why even reject hypnotism? Like I said there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r "receptive"!!

It is perhaps not fair to assume, that just because one is not spiritual, he will be callous, self-hedonist, with no charity or kindness or generosity, and because one is spiritual he will be all of those. I understand that you are a fairly charitable person, and you believe that all this came to you because of your deep involvement with spirituality. Fair enough. But why are you assuming that this is the only way to goodness. A theist, on the other hand would claim, that the only way to goodness is god. Since you are an atheist, you will not find reason in it. But in doing so, you will be putting yourself in the same shoes of a non-spiritual person, as opposed to spiritual person.

Again, it seems u r unclear of what u r saying. Where did I say that it is the "only way to goodness"? So far it seems u r only assuming things that I have never said and many of em those assumptions are totally wrong.

Yes, I am an atheist. Why shudn't I find reason in it? Some treat "God" as an ideal too. For them, they seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance where it is only their spiritual self that is pondering over the situation.

But its the "blind faith" that I am against of. Some have blind faith in religion and some have that blind faith in science which makes them follow it, not pondering and questioning over the concepts thinking that they have already been pondered over. Some of em even put forward the theories like they are some kind of facts.

I am not saying to reject those theories, but simply to ponder over it, where a law is formed when the "majority" have "accepted" it and no more "flaws" are found against it. So please ponder!!

Remember a true scientist is one who doesn't accepts anything easily and also doesn't rejects anything likewise.

Physical means, which has presence in time and space. Non-physical means which does not. When materialists argue about everything being physical, it means that all phenomena, however, strange or mysterious it may appear to common sense, can be explained as or traced back or reduced to some physical process. Does gravity have a physical presence or a non-physical presence ? The correct question is, is gravity a result of some physical process or a non-physical process. As it turns out, it is a result of motion of matter, even at molecular level. Since, gravity is dependent on mass and motion, if any of the two is taken away, gravity ceases, confirming it to be physical process.

Explanation requires how, when and why. Why mass or distance affects gravity? Do we really know the full extent of everything that science deals with?
Again, it leads to repetitions

Same is the case with emotions. Loosely we ascribe it to mind, whereas, a materialist would call it a faculty of brain, which can further be reduced to some neural activities, resulting in flow of hormone, specially, Serotonin. A misbalance in the flow of this hormone causes, extreme emotions. Same is the case with intelligence or similar other phenomena.

I have not asked about the 'result' of emotions, but simply what is emotion. And when I say explain, I need "how, when and why". Why don't u describe whats the case with intelligence and those terms which u labelled under "similar other phenomena"? And if thats the case then why is science now bringing in spirituality to heal the patients since it can already do that with the balance of hormones and applying "physical" measures?? Have you really read the links I had put forward?

If mind is a separate entity, then it does not explain adequately why, when a person faces near death experience, that leaves her handicapped severely, she suffers from trauma, which can, in most cases be permanent. If mind does not have a spaceal existence, should not it remain unscathed.

You are treating mind as if it is some physical entity. Its a similar situation where one needs both software and hardware to run a PC purposefully to get his task done. A software corruption doesn't mean a hardware fault and a hardware failure doesn't mean a software failure.

Is religion a means of spirituality:

According to the explanation given by you, it is not. But to a theist, it is. Your definition is acceptable to you, for reasons that you feel are valid. A theists, definition is also valid to him, again, for reasons, that he finds acceptable. Implying, that he is wrong and you are right, requires explanation as to why. A materialist, meanwhile, is immune to any definition of spirituality, and however it is presented, whether in religious package or otherwise.

Every person, finds her religion to be “good” and all other religions to be “bad”, there is nothing new about it. What is, however, new is an atheist, would find it alright, bringing in a distinction between “good” religion and “bad” religion. Should not an atheist be indifferent to a religion as a whole. Are we sure, that we are not jumping into some conclusion on the basis of current day events in the name of religion, without actually studying them. Because if it is the current day events, that are making us bring this distinction, then can we at all bring in this distinction in the first place.

However, I understand, that it is the misinterpretation of Gore Vidal and more currently, the lenient tone of Sam Harris, that have quite inadvertently, added fuel to the fire of making such distinctions.

Definition of spirituality is universal I think and is more coherent to the one I gave. "Following blindly" anything cannot be called spiritualism. Killing people , sacrificing animals, polluting rivers etc in the name of god is far from "spirituality"!! A religious man "may" be spiritual, but saying "religious hence spiritual" would be like treating "spirituality" as a direct implication of being religious and that would be absurd.

You are totally wrong about the second statement in bold. I do not treat other religions as bad, but its only the "blind following" that I am against of. If that would have been the case then, there would have been mass slaughter of people of "other" religions.

So whats new is you telling me that people of one religion despise other religions and "there is nuthing new in it"! And by now if u have read even a small percentage of overall links and posts of mine, then u wud have clearly realised that I am "religious" too. I hope I don't need to repeat on this one too.

Millions believe and experience, hence true:

Millions believe that jesus was born of a virgin woman, and millions claim to feel god, (priests, monks, yogis), but that does not preclude you to become an atheist. You surely have your reasons for being an atheist. But if you call upon this argument, a theist may use the same against your atheistic belief. You can’t disagree to one argument in one context and agree to the same in another, according to whim or convenience.
Also, is there any safety in numbers ? That, there is none, was proved by Copernicus, with his life, and Galileo, with his surrender.

How many of em were scientific? I am not talking of people of an age or under some superstition where questioning some grand authority like a church was treated with offence and hence lowering the value of questioning. Neither I talk of "fake" monks, yogis etc. I am talking of an age where majoirity of people are scientific and still practise yoga and majority of them have resorted to "spirituality".

A person who is hungry for number of days will find it “right” to steal a loaf of bread. But the shopkeeper will not see the “right” in it.

The example of stealing bread by a hungry man, was an example of right action not of right morality. If someone holds a gun against an atheist, (e.g. Galileo) and asks her to become a theist, she may find it right to do exactly that, for she may wish to see the next morning. It is a case of how right and wrong change with circumstance.

To me the example seemed more related to morality. So how do u define a "right action"? Ur example isn't much comparable to that of stealing. It wud be "intelligent and may his temporary compulsion" otherwise to have become a theist or shud I say "acknowledging" the other person for satisfaction that he has become a theist. On the contrary, a person who steals bread may not find it "intelligent" but only as a last resort to end his hunger for he knows what can be the outcome of that stealing.

Also if the person who is hungry for "a number of days" could have worked, laboured so as to earn a small amount. I hope u wont add paramters now of why he could not work! Even people carrying mobiles and wearing denim jeans steal today. Which "right" will u bring here? I guess its all wrong!!

Your explanation regarding Sherpas, is actually the same as mine. You, not being a Sherpa, could conclude, that they don’t find climbing steep mountains as laborious as, say, you and me, because you have observed them and probably even studied. It simply is the other way of saying that, experiencing is not always necessary to conclude, as knowledge is.

No my explanation is not same! Don't mind, but I think u don't realize what u post. Here's what u posted......

Is it always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding? I have never climbed mount Everest, and I never will. But it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that climbing is a laborious, extremely strenuous job. I don’t have asthma, but it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that a patient suffering from this disease will be at great disadvantage, should she decide to climb that mountain. The key is keen observation of the person who is experiencing it, thorough examination of the person, if possible, and finally analyzing the evidences. All of which are processes of gathering knowledge. A doctor makes a successful diagnosis of a disease, not because he was himself previously infected by it, but because, he has the knowledge of its symptoms. He gains this knowledge, through training and observing (and treating) a patient with similar disease. It is not always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding. Of course, experience helps, but what is necessary, is the knowledge of the matter.

And so, I think u r twisting ur statement. You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious? U can only see a lake in ur television box. So how can u say if the water is hot or cold? Observation might help. U may observe a person not used to climbing, and guess that climbing everest is "laborious" or could watch a sherpa do it in much lesser time and guess that it might be "easy". Even after all this u are only observing, and not "rejecting" the possiblity that one can climb the great Mt. Everest!! But I think to make "assumptions or guesses" similarly one needs to observe whats going on and to "conclude" one must have the experience!!

True, the doctor does not reject the possibilities. But he does so because, each possibility is REAL to him. And one of these possibilities will lead him to something REAL, i.e. the disease, itself. By REAL, I mean something that can be tested and verified, empirically.

Again it seems u r deviating from what has been said. I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!

My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics. If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B. Yes, there is probably no research or data to prove my point. But, to believe, that spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason. Coke/ pepsi are health hazard all round the world and indeed toilet cleaners, in every sense of the phrase, but only in India. It is because, our political leaders (sic) have let our land to be the favorite dumping ground, or laboratory of the western companies.

First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd! I too have seen statistics in newspapers where they say "majority of men like to have a deep and serious relation", "people love to pay taxes" and everything that is marked just by a mere questioning if "if u did or not, yes or no", and third "learn" the definition of spirituality again and thats why I ask a critic must experience it before even debating over it. Even a criminal can say he is good at the time of such statistics gathering queue!

So yes, if the questioning the scientists and its report that majority of em are spiritual doesn't impress u, then don't believe it. I am not forcing! I don't understand why a scientists wud say he is spiritual. Is it a derogatory term or the opposite? Why wud they do that? Why is the science agreeing on yoga, hypnotism etc and its benefits?? Is that also a statistical report concerning "yes or no"?

To be able to tell what a person is thinking, or where is she, at a precise given time, yogis stopping heart beats at will, people receiving intuitional messages are all unproven facts. Proof doesn’t mean a claim to do those, but it means, if those feats could be replicated under controlled environment with credible scientists around.

And who do u call "credible" scientists? One who have their names written in books? I hope u know of INDIAN culture and how much science we had already in our past, where we not only knew of the colors of the planets but also about their rotation, revolution etc. U can simply google for that and understand how modern theories are also coming a synchronization with the ancient phiolosphies!! But neways here...
*www.sol.com.au/kor/10_02.htm

I feel u r far from reality as this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat. Also, "unproven" doesn't mean "rejected". If so, many theories like big bang have not been "proven", but find their ways in texbooks and then schoolchildren discuss it like some kind of law or a fact and grow up with that misconception. Rejecting something that is practical but not proven only limits the scope of study, speaks how broadminded a person is and thats not very scientific!!

You don’t know this or that:

Please stop making comments like that. It only leads an argument to nullity. The same way as you accuse people of not knowing something, one may label you to be not knowing what you are talking of. A “materialist” can accuse you of commenting on materialism without knowing what it is, particularly, in spite of explaining what it is in clear terms, when you say, “materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures”. One may be tempted to accuse you of twisting explanation to better suite your own ideas.

Just because someone holds a view, which is diametrically opposite to yours, it does not mean that the person is a lesser person. If it is so, again, one can say, that since you are holding an opposing view, you become the same, by your own premise, and it goes into an infinite reduction.

I am extremely sorry, if u found it offensive. But some people find the term "absurd" offensive and some find it offensive even when u talk against their opinions and then troll. But neways lets have it ur ways.


Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm

Thank you for replying back and filling the void. I will try to answer the points that you have raised, but, not as para by para, as you have done, for the reason of lack of time and of course my limited knowledge of formatting. However I will try to cover everything that seems relevant to the discussion.
.
.
.

You have not experienced, so you don't know:

Dealt with, in my previous post. Hence not repeating. I continue to hold my position.

@Sen : I wud love to discuss with u endlessly. Reflecting ur statement, u r not going to change my stance either. If thats the case, then I guess the debate has ended already as I can't entertain anyone who cannot read the previous topic and replies and then makes me repeat. You came and asked me my point of view, and thats the sole reason I replied. If it wud have been any other regular forum member, then I wudn't have and simply asked them to quote what I have stated already. So I think there's no use of debating this.

There is a reason I format and put it in paras so as to minimize repeatitions! U simply have not answered many questions that I asked or the statements that I discussed. As u might read now, u'll see that I have already repeated a lot.

I hope u read my previous post again and answer them....para by para, the ones u need to. U can take ur time and learn formatting as I have nuthing but time. But then making me repeat and saying it was due to lack of time, only demoralises me. I have already said, take ur time!!

 

[confused]

^^thats one huge post

 

[sen_sunetra]

WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.

Well, mediator, insisted on replying to his post, para by para and not generally. It turned out to be one giant question answer session. Anyway, getting back to the discussion:

mediator
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]#1. “Like I have said many times before, there is a difference between science and spirituality….. Today with that study of biology etc. one has come to know of the bodily functions and how they work, we have developed advanced techniques.”

Agreed, no arguments there.

#2. “But studies reveal we had advanced and rich knowledge in the past too.”

How is that relevant to the current discussion, unless of course you are suggesting, that these knowledges were acquired through “spirituality”. In that case, one needs to prove, that these were, actually acquired by a means, other than simple physical processes, like watching a night sky etc.

#3. “Developing a medicine, testing it on animals, for the welfare of humans is that morality? Among humans too we have different immunity levels. Wisdom? And then many of those medicines have side effects. Are we getting cured?

It has been proven how love, faith, emotions can heal a person when everything else fails.”

Again, agreed. Also, I would like to make a small correction that it is a question of ethics not morality, but, that’s getting too technical. However, if you say that no body is getting cured by modern medicine, then, well, I can’t argue. Side effects are a real threat and no body can deny this. But does that mean that we shall throw the baby with the bathwater.

I am sure, love and care make a huge difference in one’s healing process, and I know for sure that faith helps too, but never beyond the paradigm of placebo. I wonder if “love, faith, emotions” can remove a cancerous tumor inside a persons body, or sew up a hole in one of the chambers of the heart, or prevent gangrene from setting in, or bringing one back from coma (which even modern medicines can’t) or, the list is practically endless.

#4. “A study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere like AC, isn't spiritualism!”

Critical surgery, needs controlled atmosphere, in terms of humidity, temperature, dust-free air etc. Preserving blood and other body parts needs freezers. Growing crops in unfavorable atmosphere needs to control atmosphere. Powerful computers require constant cooling, or half the research facilities will just shut down. These are just few examples of how the “study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere” has come to of great help. It is of course not spirituality, but that does not, in anyway, matter.

#5. “I was 'not' talking of 'theory' of evolution which u r putting up as an argument like its a fact!”

You may want to look up these sites, just to get you started. TalkOrigin, Berkely, NewScientist. Also, you may want to read, The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma or if you want a book that explores the bad science involving evolution, you may try Unintelligent Design by Mark Parekh.

The only way to falsify the theory, is by finding a fossil of a species, that dates back long before it is believed to have made its appearance. Until that happens…….

#6. “There is a difference between skill and wisdom. With that "experience" one may be able to hunt far off prey, which might seem "impossible" for a person who does not know, how to hunt.”

Of course, “skill” and “wisdom” are absolutely different. Skill, roughly speaking, is the “ability” and wisdom, again roughly speaking, “knowledge acquired”. Please note the word “acquired”. How is “skill” coming in the picture.

#7. “When I talk of "eternal"/"infinite" wisdom, its only ideal. If materialists need "clear" explanation of everything, then science in its true meaning has to be "ideal" for them. But then, why do they "follow" "theories" as if they are "facts", form theories based on another set of theories, give names to the concepts they only visualize to be like "dark energy/ dark matter"?”

Is this another way of saying, “science is faith based”? I am not here to fight for science – there are plenty of people, way better than me, who can do that. You may read this and this.

Also, there is no need to cite dark matter, [1], [2] and dark energy, [1] to point out the gaps. If you look around you will find plenty more. But you should know, science, itself, classify these as “Theoretical”, which can be explained as - unless conclusive empirical evidence proves otherwise, and unless any alternative theory can adequately explain the current observations, we can assume the conclusion to be FAIR (carefully note, not “TRUE”). That’s how “Big Bang” [1] [2], in spite of its flaws [1], [2], got accepted by the majority of scientists. The flaws simply mean that the theory is not yet perfect, but that does not rule out the big prehistoric bang.

#8. “Sure, why is it that everytime I ask those materialists "what" universe is, they fail everytime? I am sure u will provide the answer to those "theories", "presuppositions" etc.”

Well, I do not know what you mean by, “fail every time”. If you are expecting some specific answer and get something else, then it does not qualify as failure. For me, it would be space and everything physical within it.

#9. “U r treating as if non-spirituality is a synonym of "science". That would make science and spirituality antonyms. Different fields, subjects do not mean they r opposites. That wud surely make a majority of scientists look foolish!!”

In my earlier post I explained, non-spirituality is a negative. Unless spirituality, which is the base word, is not explained, it can’t be explained. Simply put, Negative can’t be explained without a Positive. ( I am not talking of magnetic polarity, of course.)

My explanation was based on YOUR definition of “spirituality”. I am NOT treating it as a “synonym of science”. The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.

If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.

#10. “Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"? Greed, hatred etc.”

Yes I am sure. Even Hitler and Stalin, had shown taste in art and music. Please show the causation, or at least the correlation, between “taste”, “empathy” etc. and spiritualism. Once again, materialism does not mean pursue of materialistic pleasures.

#11. “I don't even understand how 'drinking' is called enjoyment since u don't even know what u r doing and it only corrupts ur body and mind?”

Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one’s senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind.

#12. “If yes, then why even reject hypnotism? Like I said there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r "receptive"!!”

No body rejects hypnotism, per se. Science rejects the mix of “para-normal”, that it has been subject to. Anesthesia (no feeling of pain) and analgesia (no pain at all) can very well be studied and experimented with. The medical world is debating on the therapeutic validity and value of hypnotism. But there is little “spiritualism” in it.

Well, if you want to believe, everybody is spiritual and some are not aware of it, you very well can. I have nothing against your belief.

#13. “Where did I say that it is the "only way to goodness"? So far it seems u r only assuming things that I have never said and many of em those assumptions are totally wrong.”

You, of course did not say so, at least, in so many words. But isn’t it implied ? You say, that “spirituality” enables a person to appreciate beauty or quality, or have empathy etc. which I collectively called “goodness”. You then, go on to say, that a “materialistic” persons - failing to distinguish between a person who pursues materialistic pleasures and a person who explains by material means - can’t have them, because of so and so reasons. Now, tell me what to infer from the combined reading of these two opinions, other than the implication of “only way to goodness” is spirituality. A person can be either spiritual or not spiritual. If spirituality, is the reason for goodness, and non-spirituality is not, then, it automatically transpires, that spirituality is the “ONLY way to goodness”.

If you meant that there was a third way, other than spirituality and materialism, which of course would be something non-spiritual, then you did not make it clear. If the glass is half filled, it is also half empty, unless, of course, there is a third possibility, which I missed. If there is, my apologies.

You of course tell us, that “there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r receptive”, meaning, we may all, including a hardcore materialist enjoy goodness, without really knowing why. Probably this is the third way, you are talking of. If you are, even then you are saying that it is because of spirituality that we have goodness.

#14. “Yes, I am an atheist. Why shudn't I find reason in it? Some treat "God" as an ideal too. For them, they seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance where it is only their spiritual self that is pondering over the situation.”

I hope, and I hope I am not wrong, what you mean by “spiritual self” is the “self”, that is aware of the spiritual trappings, not as an entity separate from blood, flesh and bone.

In the first case, the argument becomes circuitous. A theist may argue that the “self” is aware of spiritual trappings, because she “seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance”. Can you prove she is wrong, without first dismissing god. (Please note, that an atheist would not make this argument. You were responding to a ‘theistic’ argument, so I chose to continue with the argument from a theist’s point of view.)

In the second case, it is in fact a support of theistic spiritualism. For a overwhelming number of theists, this spiritual self refers to SOUL, which lives inside of her and when she dies, it goes to heaven or hell, depending on her deeds on earth. Because, of the possibility of a divine reward or punishment that his SOUL may be subject to, she would want to follow the COMMANDS of her god. So, she may argue, that she “seek(s) wisdom in him and ask(s) for guidance”, so that her soul may remain on the right path. Essentially it is same as you may be saying, accept that the theist is talking the route of god, for wisdom, and you are not. It is still the “spiritual self” that is doing the trick for both of you.

I don’t know what you mean by the term and so discussed both the possibilities.

#15. “But its the "blind faith" that I am against of. Some have blind faith in religion and some have that blind faith in science which makes them follow it, not pondering and questioning over the concepts thinking that they have already been pondered over.”

Refer #7. It just seems to me, that your spiritualism is a one way traffic. Like the Mac-fans say, “Once you go Mac, you don’t go back” (or something similar), once one goes “spiritual” there is no way one is going to question it and reject it. If one does, one has not “pondered” or is under the illusion that one has already “pondered” and has rejected without considering the possibility. It does sound like “blind faith”.

#16. “Some of em even put forward the theories like they are some kind of facts.

I am not saying to reject those theories, but simply to ponder over it, where a law is formed when the "majority" have "accepted" it and no more "flaws" are found against it. So please ponder!!”

This will cut both ways. Even you are putting forward your theory “like (it is) some kind of fact”. As proof all you are saying is, “I have experienced” and “Millions, including some scientists, have experienced” and of course, dismissing everything else, as if, the more one dismisses theory A and theory B, the more the theory C becomes valid.

Then also, one has to show, how spirituality is not flawed.

#17. “Remember a true scientist is one who doesn't accepts anything easily and also doesn't rejects anything likewise.”

What if I say, “a true scientist is one who doesn’t accept anything (at face value, that does not stand up to testability) and also doesn’t reject anything (that has empirical evidence)”

#18. “Explanation requires how, when and why. Why mass or distance affects gravity? Do we really know the full extent of everything that science deals with?”

Why, is still not understood, and it is a gap. You of course know the how and when.

No we do not “know full extent of everything that science tells us”, but history of science tells us that someday we will know. No person in right frame of mind claims, that science has reached its culmination and there is nothing more to explore. The good thing about science is that, if it can’t explain something, it simply says it can’t and gets on with acquiring data to understand and explain it. Recent observations, have concluded that the, ever so successful theory – The Theory of Relativity – is itself incomplete, but instead of turning a blind eye to the data, science is actually working to come up with the complete theory.

#19. “I have not asked about the 'result' of emotions, but simply what is emotion.”

I did not explain the “result” of emotions, but the “cause” of emotion. What you are asking is if emotion is the “cause” or “effect”, and I am saying that it is the effect of neural firing and hormonal flow.

#20. “Why don't u describe whats the case with intelligence and those terms which u labelled under "similar other phenomena"? And if thats the case then why is science now bringing in spirituality to heal the patients since it can already do that with the balance of hormones and applying "physical" measures?? Have you really read the links I had put forward?”

Intelligence has long been considered as abstract, but recent experiments show, that may be it has some materialistic explanations as well, and “similar other phenomena” like pain, desire etc. can all be defined by means of neural activities. For, better understanding of intelligence, you may refer to this paper by Ned Block. If you are really interested to know, that is really want to know, pick up some books on philosophy and neurology, from your nearby library. However, I am not claiming, nor is any sane rationalist, that we know everything about brain. Some fill the gaps by introducing “para-normal” while some still strive to find answers by means of testing and validating.

Where is science bringing in “spirituality to heal patients” ? I have dealt with Hypnotism in #12. Remember, Mr Lenkei, HAD to operate his thumb. He did not heal it by means of “hypnotism”, he, apparently, used hypnotism as means of anesthesia, for his operation. Hypnotism, is primarily used in pain or other physical discomfort related issues and is highly subjective.

#21. “You are treating mind as if it is some physical entity. Its a similar situation where one needs both software and hardware to run a PC purposefully to get his task done. A software corruption doesn't mean a hardware fault and a hardware failure doesn't mean a software failure.”

I am, not treating mind as physical entity, and, most definitely not as non-physical. I am simply asking the question, if mind is a separate entity, as claimed by “dualists”, or not, as claimed by “materialists” ?

I am not a computer expert, so won’t be able to answer to that example in detail. However, whatever, little I know of it, is probably enough to make a general criticism. Software is a bunch of instructions, in electronic form and occupies space, on the RAM. Computer executes these instructions. Perhaps I am technically wrong, but the point is software occupies a position in time and space. It is true that, software runs the computer, but is it true that mind runs the body ? Or should I say, the brain runs the body ? It is also true that cognitive psychologists sometimes refer mind as the software of brain. The 2nd link in #20 may throw some light.

#22. “Definition of spirituality is universal I think..”

Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Aquinas etc, all gave their definitions, or rather explanations, in the line of soul, without the divine involvement. Most religions give the definition of spirituality in the line of soul and a divine involvement. You, of course, have your own definition, no harm in that. With so many definitions and explanations, one can hardly claim, “spirituality” to be universal.

If you are saying, that these are all roads that lead to the same, destination, well, I can see the point. But are you saying that ? You have already rejected the “theistic” road.

.#23. “…more coherent to the one I gave. "Following blindly" anything cannot be called spiritualism. Killing people , sacrificing animals, polluting rivers etc in the name of god is far from "spirituality"!!”

I can’t argue with that. If you want to take it that way, you are welcome. “Following blindly”, again, is a knife that cuts both ways. However I am totally with you about killing, polluting etc

#24. “A religious man "may" be spiritual, but saying "religious hence spiritual" would be like treating "spirituality" as a direct implication of being religious and that would be absurd.”

Probably, it is, from your point of view, with your explanation of “spiritualism”. But your explanation is certainly not the one and only view of “spiritualism”. Say that to a theist, and she will explain you why it is that way. Yes, there are people who believe in religion, yet not accept its dogma, but the believe of presence of the big guy upstairs, the divine carrot and stick, the soul and body, are still at the core of any religion. To a theist, these encompass her understanding of spirituality. You may be critical of their belief, and may even “reject” it altogether, calling it absurd, but can’t deny that, their spirituality will follow their religion. It, of course, does not fit your concept of “spiritualism”, but, then, they might call your concept to be flawed. Its never ending.

#25. “You are totally wrong about the second statement in bold. I do not treat other religions as bad, but its only the "blind following" that I am against of. If that would have been the case then, there would have been mass slaughter of people of "other" religions.”

Here is your classification. “(R)eligion”,you say, and not the followers of religion, “can be classified into those who aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions”, and, you continue, “into those which do not even say anything about themselves or other religions or ask to embrace it, but only aim for the welfare of the nature, life and lifestyle.”. You go on to say, that, “n some religions there are a set of rulez that one "has to" obey and in other there is no such rule but simply pieces of wisdom that one "may" ponder over and follow.” Of course you don’t say that the former is “bad” and the later “good”, but you did not leave anything else to imply. May be, instead, of “bad” and “good”, the better term would have been “unacceptable” and “acceptable”.

I understand that you are against blind following of everything, and you have made it apparent for so many times, that its hard to miss. Its just that you did not mention that in that classification, to which I was replying.

Forget ancient history. Contemporary history is littered with horrible incidences of ethnic cleansing and pogrom. Starting from Hitler, to Serbia, to Somalia, to Darfur, to our very own, Sikh massacre in Delhi, Gujrat pogrom are all “slaughter of people of other religions”.

#26. “So whats new is you telling me that people of one religion despise other religions and "there is nuthing new in it"! And by now if u have read even a small percentage of overall links and posts of mine, then u wud have clearly realised that I am "religious" too. I hope I don't need to repeat on this one too.”

Well I guess, “infidel”, “mlechha”, “heretic” are really nice ways to call those, who don’t belong to one’s respective, brotherhood.

Yes I know, that you are religious, and an atheist. That would make you a spiritual-religious-atheist. Hope I got that wrong.

#27. “How many of em were scientific? I am not talking of people of an age or under some superstition where questioning some grand authority like a church was treated with offence and hence lowering the value of questioning. Neither I talk of "fake" monks, yogis etc. I am talking of an age where majoirity of people are scientific and still practise yoga and majority of them have resorted to "spirituality".”

How does one prove, that one is scientific ? What is the measure of this scientific temper ? Asking too many questions means one is not “pondering” and “rejecting without accepting”. Not asking questions, is “following blindly”. It’s a blind lane, its seems. So, probably, one should ask few questions, preferably the easy ones, and not ask the others, presumably the tough ones.

How does one distinguish a fake monk or whatever from the real ones ? If they all claim the same things, like controlling heart beat, how does one make the segregation, that one is fake and the other is real ? Should the procedure be, who-ever-got-the-maximum-follower-is-real ? Or is it through some tangible evidence ?

#28. “To me the example seemed more related to morality. So how do u define a "right action"? Ur example isn't much comparable to that of stealing. It wud be "intelligent and may his temporary compulsion" otherwise to have become a theist or shud I say "acknowledging" the other person for satisfaction that he has become a theist. On the contrary, a person who steals bread may not find it "intelligent" but only as a last resort to end his hunger for he knows what can be the outcome of that stealing.

Also if the person who is hungry for "a number of days" could have worked, laboured so as to earn a small amount. I hope u wont add paramters now of why he could not work! Even people carrying mobiles and wearing denim jeans steal today. Which "right" will u bring here? I guess its all wrong!!”

The link between the two examples, is compulsion. In the former case, hunger, while in the latter case, force. In the former case, without introducing unnecessary Dickens like complications, like, why did he not labour for work, or was he handicapped, or were his eyes blue and skin dark, she would steal to satisfy her hunger, and in the latter case, again without bringing in complications, like, was the gun AK-47 or M-16 , or did she know self-defense or not, she would confess to satisfy the oppressor. The link is threat of death and satisfying something for her own sake. It does not mean that she is not repentant, in the former case or she truly becomes a theist. Point is circumstance may change our perception of right and wrong. It does not mean everybody will steal when hungry and no-body will stand up for her cause, although, faced with threat of death, it may take a whole lot of guts.

I may also add, that I did mention that right and wrong are not always subjective and there are absolutes as well. This seems to have escaped your attention.

In pursuit of proving the example wrong, you have yourself, established, what the example sought out to establish in the first place – right and wrong can be subjective. That you are ultimately asking the questions, “Which "right" will u bring here”, or “So how do u define a "right action” proves, in a sense, that a simple situation, can be viewed in different ways with multiple “rights” and “wrongs”.

#29. “You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious?”

a)Listening to and/or reading of the experiences of mountaineers, and,
b)Observing, the effect of scaling, e.g. panting (surly panting is the sign of physical discomfort), and,
c)The knowledge, that with height, oxygen content in air gets thinner – meaning less oxygen is reaching the brain – meaning physical discomfort.

#30. “ U can only see a lake in ur television box. So how can u say if the water is hot or cold?”

Agreed.

[A person taking the example literally may argue that the medium used in the example is imperfect. Relax I understand what you are trying to say, so don’t find it difficult to agree to point you are raising.]

#31. “Observation might help. U may observe a person not used to climbing, and guess that climbing everest is "laborious" or could watch a sherpa do it in much lesser time and guess that it might be "easy". Even after all this u are only observing, and not "rejecting" the possiblity that one can climb the great Mt. Everest!! But I think to make "assumptions or guesses" similarly one needs to observe whats going on and to "conclude" one must have the experience!!”

The purpose of the example was not to establish “rejection without consideration”, which you are attempting to prove through all the examples that I have given. The purpose of the example was to establish - “experience” is not the only way to conclude, right “knowledge” is also valid for conclution. Before you get it wrong again, let me remind you I was simply replying to your question “What do u call a person and classify him in which category, the one who can't distinguish the right from wrong, who jumps to conclusions without even practicing or experiencing?”

I have dealt with your “rejection without consideration” arguments in #32, so , I will do it here in brief: The reason, we can’t reject the possibility, is because, the alternate possibility is REAL. By REAL, I mean, something which is tested and verified by means of empirical evidence.

#32. “I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!”

Fine, it is the possibility of the presence of the disease, that you are talking of and not the different possibilities of different diseases. Even then the argument, in my previous post holds up. Let me make it simple for you.

1. The symptoms of the disease are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by empirical evidence, that so and so symptoms are indicative of presence of a specific disease.
2. The knowledge of the symptoms, is passed on to the doctor, and now he knows that a specific disease has so and so symptoms.
3. He notices the symptoms in a patient.
4. He considers the possibility of the presence of specific disease and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for further pathological tests, where the results will be matched against already recorded data.
6. If the data matches, the doctor will be 100% sure that the symptoms are of that specific disease.
7. If the data does not match, he will then look for a pattern that matches an already recorded data base.
8. If it still does not match, then he will classify it as “new set of symptoms of yet unknown disease” and continue to find out more.

Now lets see, how this example stands up to the argument that you are trying to put, that scientists do not consider the possibility of spirituality and reject it.

1. The indications of spirituality are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (millions have experienced including scientists, but no one has provided any empirical evidence) that so and so indicates spirituality.
2. The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that spirituality has so and so indications.
3. He notices the indications in a person.
4. He considers the possibility of the spiritualism and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for…..????

The argument breaks down, at 1) only and 5) is just impossible and hence there is no 6), 7) and 8). I will prove it in the following manner.

Lets assume I have an invisible morlock in my garage. Now,

1. The indications of invisible morlock are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (its only me and some others I have been able to convince through my web blog) that so and so indicates presence of invisible morlock.
2. The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that invisible morlock has so and so indications.
3. He notices the indications in someone’s garage.
4. He considers the possibility of the invisible morlock and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for…..????
6. ????
7. ????

The examples were cited to establish something and you are trying to establish something else.

#33. “First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd!”

I said, PRINCIPLES of statistics, e.g. sampling and provided an example, although, a crude one. If you had actually read that reply, you would have found, that I have acknowledged that there is no such data. Because, you would find it easy to dismiss, I also cited the example of Europe and American continents.

#34. “…"learn" the definition of spirituality again and thats why I ask a critic must experience it before even debating over it. Even a criminal can say he is good at the time of such statistics gathering queue!”

Which definition do you want me to learn. Plato’s, Christians, Buddha’s, Hindu’s or your’s.

The argument regarding statistics gathering queue can be used, as well, against the statistics that you have thrown up. That scientists, a whole bunch of them do go to church and confess Christianity, simply pretended to be what the society at large wanted to hear. Social and profession position is not something that everyone can sacrifice for the sake of one’s belief.

#35. “So yes, if the questioning the scientists and its report that majority of em are spiritual doesn't impress u, then don't believe it. I am not forcing!”

Thank you very much, I really appreciate that.

#36. “I don't understand why a scientists wud say he is spiritual. Is it a derogatory term or the opposite? Why wud they do that? Why is the science agreeing on yoga, hypnotism etc and its benefits?? Is that also a statistical report concerning "yes or no"?”

Whatever agreement science is having with hypnotism has got absolutely nothing to do with spiritualism. Same is the case with yoga. Before you cite examples of how science is validating spiritualism, please make sure, that those experiments are validated by peers.

#37. “And who do u call "credible" scientists? One who have their names written in books? I hope u know of INDIAN culture and how much science we had already in our past…”

I agree, credible is a subjective term. You will find some credible while I will not. What it implied was the process of validation, that a scientist may use. One’s credibility is dependent on how he is approaching a “possibility”, and not, by writing a book.

Our culture, as well as, some others, e.g. Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese, Egypt during the times of pharaohs, all showed remarkable understanding of cosmos and engineering. What once seemed mysterious, are all now been understood, through reading of their texts, and not, everything seems mysterious. Also, none showed any sign, that these were learnt through spirituality.

#38. “…where we not only knew of the colors of the planets but also about their rotation, revolution etc. U can simply google for that and understand how modern theories are also coming a synchronization with the ancient phiolosphies!!”

Yes, I am very much aware of how “new” discoveries are being made in our ancient text, specially from areas, which can’t be interpreted unambiguously. Strangely, we are discovering the discoveries of our ancestors, only after the scientific discoveries are getting accepted among scientific fraternity. There is an uncanny feeling of ‘discoveries’ doing a catch up with the western science, and not the other way round. I would recommend a book, which any decent library will have. Its called, Prophets Facing Backwards by Meera Nanda. But this debate is another one, and we can do it some other time.

#39. “…this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat.”

Yes, the myth is an open secret, no doubt. Evidence is all I am looking for, not hearsay or rumour or gossip. The link you have provided is an interesting one. Suppose, I write a letter to the The Nature, that I have a pair of invisible wings and I can fly, and as proof attach a picture of me levitating and a full body scan repot. The I put that letter up on a web blog. How will that be ? Again, has the claim been validated, by means of replication. If it has, I will have no problem in admitting my mistake. Till then I will prefer to remain skeptic.

#40. “Also, "unproven" doesn't mean "rejected". If so, many theories like big bang have not been "proven", but find their ways in texbooks and then schoolchildren discuss it like some kind of law or a fact and grow up with that misconception. Rejecting something that is practical but not proven only limits the scope of study, speaks how broadminded a person is and thats not very scientific!!”

“Unproven” certainly does not mean “rejection”, also, being “critical” does not mean “rejection”. I am not rejecting anything. But unless proof is provided in support of a claim, I will be “critical”.

About Big Bang, you may read my reply at #7

#41. “Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm”

The article is indeed interesting. With my layman understanding of physics and biology, I could pick holes in them. But I could be wrong. So I checked all the internet resources to find some data on the research, but ended as a futile exercise. May be its not available on-line. But as I keep saying, making a claim is extremely easy. To have it passed by peers is equally difficult. Perhaps that’s the reason, why, every claim, that has the potential of rewriting history, physics and biology, and every other known, well tested theories, is always published as a book or on a site, which is never subject to peer review.

PS: There were too many insinuations to ignore. But looking at the size of this mammoth, I decided not to respond to those innuendos. Hopefully, in your reply, if you decide to give one, you will keep it clean

Regards

 

[eggman]

WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.

Well, mediator, insisted on replying to his post, p..........
..........
............
..........
............you will keep it clean

Regards

OMG!!! This must be the longest debut post in the history of iNternet

 

[Faun]

indeed a good read if i get some time to read it fully

 

[karnivore]

WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.

It looks more like a blog post than forum post.

 

[sreevirus]

Hmmm...Since the thread talks of the validity of ancient texts, Indian culture, ancient sciences, etc., I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here. I had read them some time back and I'm only posting only some lines from the articles (if anyone is really interested, they can go to the links that are given - the matter is a really interesting read). I usually would never do something like quoting large parts out of a website, though I feel whatever I am posting is relevant to the ongoing debate and to those who want to read it, (and to maybe some might prefer it to read snippets instead of the entire article) but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong here, except some might find it absurd of me that I'm quoting large amount of matter here (but then again, isn't right and wrong subjective?)

Information and biological technologies are the twin engines pulling India's economy. At a time when global corporations come courting Indian scientists and engineers not just for drudge work, but for advanced research and design as well, all this talk about India as a "science superpower" does make sense.

What does not make sense, however, is the radical disconnect between the dreams of becoming a science superpower, and the grim reality of the mind-numbing superstitions and life-threatening pseudo-sciences that are thriving at all levels of society. Indian scientists may well be the most sought-after workers in the global economy, but many behave as if what they do inside their laboratories has nothing to do with the supernatural and/or spiritual "truths" that pass as "scientific" explanations of natural phenomena in the rest of society. If anything, corporate science and technology is only adding to the ruthlessness of the global capitalist economy, which feeds the existential anxieties that feed on obscurantism.
.
.
.
If you thought that scientists, especially space scientists, would have something to say regarding the astrological logic underlying popular traditions, well, think again. While the country was gearing up for Akshay Trithiya, India's top space scientists were busy seeking the blessings of Lord Balaji at the Tirupati temple for a safe launch of the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle. A miniature model of the rocket was laid in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple and prayed over by priests in the presence of 15 scientists. Scientists, who have not let go their own security blanket of gods, can hardly be expected to question the comforting but false illusions astrologers sell to ordinary people.
.
.
.
.
What is remarkable is that all these reason- and evidence-defying traditions come wrapped in the fancy dress of "science". . . . . . . . . Astrology, yogic ideas of prana and kundalini and even the ideas of reincarnation, karma and varna (that is, caste order) are justified in the language of modern physics and evolutionary biology. All these ancient metaphysical speculations are proclaimed to be "vedic sciences" (that is, empirically testable and logical within the metaphysics of the Vedas) and they are supposed to have been belatedly rediscovered by modern science. What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.

NOW here is why I find the whole situation very troubling. On the one hand, there are countless gurus - from popular tele-yogis like Ramdev to elite, Sanskrit-speaking teachers of Vedanta - all eager to take on the prestige of modern science for an essentially spirit-based cosmology derived from the Vedas. On the other hand, India has literally an army of PhDs, many with advanced training in the most cutting-edge fields of natural sciences who, rare exceptions aside, refuse to stand up and draw a principled distinction between natural science and spiritualism. If the scientific community has not stood up for scientific reason, neither has the intelligentsia. Indeed, leading public intellectuals in India have generally taken a postmodernist stance of suspicion towards modern science. They have been more concerned with revealing the Orientalist and capitalist prejudices in science, than with using it to demystify the many dangerous and irrational beliefs that make up the commonsense of many of our fellow citizens.
.
.
.
.
Polling data show a far lower level of belief in God among American scientists than the levels that prevail among the general public. Indeed, the 1998 poll of the members of the National Academy of Sciences revealed that only 5.5 per cent of biologists and only 7.5 per cent of physicists believed in God. The numbers believing in immortality of the soul were also in single digits for most scientists. Indeed, the very idea of NASA scientists holding prayer services before space shuttle launches is inconceivable in America. What is more, American scientists remain far more actively engaged in public debates about religion, ethics and the standards of evidence and truth. Well respected scientist-scholars like (the late) Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins (from Britain, but read widely in America), Edward O. Wilson, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, William Provine, Robert Pennock, Paul Gross and a host of others are giving the Christian creationists a run for their money. Well-respected scientists including Steven Weinberg (a Nobel Laureate), Noam Chomsky, Alan Sokal, Paul Gross and Norman Levitt have intervened in the academic debates about the nature of scientific evidence and how it differs from other ways of knowing. Likewise, vigilant voices from within the medical profession have consistently demanded rigorous experimental checks on the claims of corporate and complementary medicine.

from *www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2219/stories/20050923002109200.htm

While the Abrahamic religions are wary of relativism out of the fear of relativizing the Word of God revealed in the Bible or the Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical relativism to evade all challenges to its mystical ways of knowing. Rather than accept empirical theories of modern science as contradicting the Vedantic philosophy--which they actually do--Hindu nationalists simply declare modern science to be true only within its limited materialistic assumptions. They do not reject modern science (who can?) but treat it as 'merely' one among the many different paths to the ultimate truth, known only to Vedic Hinduism.

They do not deny that modern science has discovered some truths about nature. But they declare them to be lower-level truths, because they merely deal with dead matter, shorn of consciousness. Notwithstanding all pious declarations of the 'death' of the Newtonian world view of matter obeying mechanical laws, the fact is that any number of rigorous, double-blind tests have failed to show any signs of disembodied consciousness or mind-stuff in nature: matter obeying mindless laws of physics is all there is. But in the Vedic science discourse, the overwhelming evidence for adequacy of matter to explain the higher functions of mind and life are set aside as a result of 'knowledge filtration' by Western-trained scientists.
.
.
.
.
...boastful claims raise the question of methodology. How did our Vedic forebears figure out the speed of light, the distance between the sun and the earth and why did they code it into the shape and size of fire altars? Similar questions arise for the more general claims that are basic to Hindu metaphysics, namely that there is a higher realm of ultimate reality (Brahman) that cannot be assessed through sensory means. How did our Vedic forbears know it exists and that it actually determines the course of evolution of species, and makes the matter that we all are made of? How can you experience what is beyond all sensory knowledge? But even more important for the claims of scientificity of the Vedas, how do you test the empirical claims based upon that experience?

Here one finds an incredibly brazen claim: Because in Hinduism there are no distinctions between the spirit and matter, one can understand laws that regulate matter by studying the laws of the spirit. And the laws of spirit can be understood by turning inward, through yoga and meditation leading to mystical experiences. Within Hinduism, it is as rational and scientific to take the non-sensory 'seeing'--that is mystical and other meditative practices--as empirical evidence of the spiritual and natural realm. This purported scientificity of the spiritual realm, in turn, paves the way for declaring occult New Age practices like astrology, vastu, quantum healing, and even yagnas as scientific within the Vedic-Hindu universe.

from *www.beliefnet.com/story/77/story_7776_1.html

THERE are two kinds of claims that feed the notion that the "Vedas are books of science". The first kind declared the entire Vedic corpus as converging with modern science, while the second concentrates on defending such esoteric practices as astrology, vastu, Ayurveda, transcendental meditation and so on as scientific within the Vedic paradigm. The first stream seeks to establish likeness, connections and convergences between radically opposed ideas (guna theory and atomic particles, for example). This stream does not relativise science: it simply grabs whatever theory of physics or biology may be popular with Western scientists at any given time, and claims that Hindu ideas are "like that", or "mean the same" and "therefore" are perfectly modern and rational. The second stream is far more radical, as it defends this "method" of drawing likenesses and correspondences between unlike entities as perfectly rational and "scientific" within the non-dualistic Vedic worldview. The second stream, in other words, relativises scientific method to dominant religious worldviews: it holds that the Hindu style of thinking by analogies and correspondences "directly revealed to the mind's eye" is as scientific within the "holistic" worldview of Vedic Hinduism, as the analytical and experimental methodology of modern science is to the "reductionist" worldview of Semitic religions. The relativist defence of eclecticism as a legitimate scientific method not only provides a cover for the first stream, it also provides a generic defence of such emerging "alternative sciences" as "Vedic physics" and "Vedic creationism", as well as defending such pseudo-sciences as Vedic astrology, palmistry, TM (transcendental meditation) and new-age Ayurveda (Deepak Chopra style).
.
.
.
.
ALL these numerous celebrations of "Vedas as science" follow a similar intellectual strategy of finding analogies and equivalences. All invoke extremely speculative theories from modern cosmology, quantum mechanics, vitalistic theories of biology and parapsychology, and other fringe sciences. They read back these sciences into Sanskrit texts chosen at will, and their meaning decided by the whim of the interpreter, and claim that the entities and processes mentioned in Sanskrit texts are "like", "the same thing as", or "another word for" the ideas expressed in modern cosmology, quantum physics or biology. Thus there is a bit of a Brahman here and a bit of quantum mechanics there, the two treated as interchangeable; there are references to "energy", a scientific term with a definite mathematical formulation in physics, which gets to mean "consciousness"; references to Newton's laws of action and reaction are made to stand for the laws of karma and reincarnation; completely discredited "evidence" from parapsychology and "secret life of plants" are upheld as proofs of the presence of different degrees of soul in all matter; "evolution" is taught as the self-manifestation of Brahman and so on. The terms are scientific, but the content is religious. There is no regard for consistency either of scientific concepts, or of religious ideas. Both wholes are broken apart, random connections and correspondences are established and with great smugness, the two modes of knowing are declared to be equivalent, and even inter-changeable. The only driving force, the only idea that gives this whole mish-mash any coherence, is the great anxiety to preserve and protect Hinduism from a rational critique and demystification. Vedic science is motivated by cultural chauvinism, pure and simple.

from *www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102000607800.htm

The article Postmodern "hybridity" and Hindu eclecticism here is a very interesting read.

PS: no flames please.

 

[Faun]

yeah if u consider the life cycle to be a vicious circle.

 

[karnivore]

PS: no flames please.

You have nice sense of humour i must say. You are criticizing Vedic gobbledygook science , and expecting not to be flamed....? Keep dreaming.

 

[legolas]

^ ^ just because we are more affiliated towards science and the other isn't and he expresses his opinions, doesn't mean he has to be flamed/blamed!! I don't understand the logic behind it. Besides, its not constructive and will result in nothing useful. If you think you know something that will help him realize where he might probe some thought, put it without disrespect... whatever you do its up to him to decide finally!

 

[karnivore]

^^ Come on legolas, i was being sarcastic. And you very well know what i meant. Just look what happened when i posted that Dr Novella link. It just turned into a full blown YOU-SAID-I-SAID war, and as you would except in such wars, decorated with provocative innuendos.

I very much agree with Meera Nanda's criticism.

 

[sen_sunetra]

OMG!!! This must be the longest debut post in the history of iNternet

So, where do i claim my trophy...

It looks more like a blog post than forum post.

It sure does...

I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here.

Those are Meera Nanda's general criticisms against the horrible attempts of the hindu brigade. To know about her more vivid and specific criticisms, you have to read her book.

Nevertheless, those write-ups can be a real good eyeopener. I will try to provide some other links to her write-ups.

 

[legolas]

^^ Come on legolas, i was being sarcastic. And you very well know what i meant. Just look what happened when i posted that Dr Novella link. It just turned into a full blown YOU-SAID-I-SAID war, and as you would except in such wars, decorated with provocative innuendos.

I very much agree with Meera Nanda's criticism.

Agreed

@sen_sunetra, seriously I never thought any1 could post a reply to the long post by @mediator. Bravo!!!

 

[sreevirus]

You have nice sense of humour i must say. You are criticizing Vedic gobbledygook science , and expecting not to be flamed....? Keep dreaming.

Heeheeheehee Thank you, but its more of a reflex.
And I'm not the one doing the criticism. It's Meera Nanda. I'm just passing the message.
But I must say, the article gives clear valid explanations on the current state of affairs, and it really echoes some of my thoughts, which I deduced through my interaction with people, though I could never have ever elaborated as much as the writer did.

Those are Meera Nanda's general criticisms against the horrible attempts of the hindu brigade. To know about her more vivid and specific criticisms, you have to read her book.

Nevertheless, those write-ups can be a real good eyeopener. I will try to provide some other links to her write-ups.

You know what, I actually wanted to buy Prophets Facing Backwards three months ago, but it wasn't available in the book stores here. But I think I'll look for it after I finish The God Delusion, which I have been reading in installments since 6 months (I don't get much free time these days).

I know her criticisms are directed at Hindutva apologists and hardliners, but yes, the explanations are quite precise.

I really find it very funny how people backfit anything into their holy texts, using science as a tool of verification. And its not confined to any particular religion. Every damn evangelist does the same. A few hours of watching those shows can actually teach you the art of twisting any literature to your liking. Even Harry Potter can become god if you ask me. But I'm quite happy with worshiping the Invisible Pink Unicorn (hallowed be her holy grooves) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages).

 

[karnivore]

^^ +1 gazillion

 

[mediator]

Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.

My explanation was based on YOUR definition of “spirituality”. I am NOT treating it as a “synonym of science”. The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.

If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.

What I defined was something like "understanding the nature, body, mind etc" remember? Yes its not like magnetic polarity as in that defintion of +ve and -ve and non-spirituality, it wud mean non-spiritual people are retards who don't want to understand it and that would be absurd!! Like I said spirituality is there in everyone. Its only how much "receptive" u r.

Like it is said "cold" is just the absence of "heat" and at 0K, there is no heat. But even 0 degrees centigrade is "cold" for us. "Not Hot" certainly does not mean "cold", it can refer to "pleasant atmosphere" also! Its just the "scale of heat" that is defining "hot","cold","not hot","pleasant". Its just relative. So there is nuthing like +ve and -ve and if non-spiritual is "extreme" opposite of "spiritual". Non-spiritual simply means "not spiritual". I am not saying non-spiritual people are mentally retarded!!

So the definition of "non-spirituality" u inferred previously, IMO, is not correct as a person can be "spiritual and scientific both" and it can be "non-spritual and scientific" too. Don't u agree? I People for instance even though "scientific" may eat "junk" food daily, watch obscene content and pursue negetive path as of crime. They may not hold importance to their body and mind as said or be "atruistic" in nature. Then there exist people who are scientific and may experience how much sleep there body needs, whats good for there mind and body and how there shud be a balance in life!! IMO, a person who is spiritual or has known that path, wud give up drinking, and those toilet cleaners for he knows how much accidents, loss of self-control and hence resulting to crime and healt hazards "drinking" causes.

Also, it seems u didn't read clearly. It wont make "MINORITY", but "MAJORITY" of scientists look foolish and if u r willing to take the risk even after such a discussion, then u also really need to take the path of "spirituality" just for an experience of how wonderful it can be!!

Yes I am sure. Even Hitler and Stalin, had shown taste in art and music. Please show the causation, or at least the correlation, between “taste”, “empathy” etc. and spiritualism. Once again, materialism does not mean pursue of materialistic pleasures.

Like I said, Spirituality leads to a fine balance in all. Just a simple "taste" in "art" and "music" canot be called spirituality. "Taste" is not "spirituality". A person who njoys music and corrodes nature and kills heartlessly cannot be called spiritual! It seems u r having a problem in understanding the very basic definition of spirituality! Like I said, "experience" is what u need and not mere guesses. Assumptions will not help! U may guess as much u like.

Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one’s senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind.

Not spiritual. One wise guy claimed "psychedelic drugs" do that. Its similar to what I briefed that, "happiness" and "greed" are not the same.

No body rejects hypnotism, per se. Science rejects the mix of “para-normal”, that it has been subject to. I tend to agree with karnivore a little. Anesthesia (no feeling of pain) and analgesia (no pain at all) can very well be studied and experimented with. The medical world is debating on the therapeutic validity and value of hypnotism. But there is little “spiritualism” in it.

Well, if you want to believe, everybody is spiritual and some are not aware of it, you very well can. I have nothing against your belief.

I am glad, we r starting to agree even though a little.

You, of course did not say so, at least, in so many words. But isn’t it implied ? You say, that “spirituality” enables a person to appreciate beauty or quality, or have empathy etc. which I collectively called “goodness”. You then, go on to say, that a “materialistic” persons - failing to distinguish between a person who pursues materialistic pleasures and a person who explains by material means - can’t have them, because of so and so reasons. Now, tell me what to infer from the combined reading of these two opinions, other than the implication of “only way to goodness” is spirituality. A person can be either spiritual or not spiritual. If spirituality, is the reason for goodness, and non-spirituality is not, then, it automatically transpires, that spirituality is the “ONLY way to goodness”.

A materialist may "smoke" even though he can train other and teach how to play guitar. He may be an alcoholic and a drug addict even though having a scientific mind and a daughter he loves. So a "little" happiness or taste as in art or music etc isn't "spirituality". Again its the scale, and hence I say there is little spirituality in every one that distinguishes spiritual one from "non-spiritual"!! Also, when I talk of a spiritual person it doesn't necessarily mean a "perfect" one. Its again the experience, and wisdom that takes u to the higher level of the scale. But when u take the path of spirtuality, it seems the body and mind are the first that r effected where u start undertsanding and learning whats important for both!

On one point u tell that u r not stating spirituality and non-spirituality "as polarity in magnetism" and now u r talking as if u don't undertsand at all.

If you meant that there was a third way, other than spirituality and materialism, which of course would be something non-spiritual, then you did not make it clear. If the glass is half filled, it is also half empty, unless, of course, there is a third possibility, which I missed. If there is, my apologies.

You of course tell us, that “there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r receptive”, meaning, we may all, including a hardcore materialist enjoy goodness, without really knowing why. Probably this is the third way, you are talking of. If you are, even then you are saying that it is because of spirituality that we have goodness.

I hope now I am clear!

I hope, and I hope I am not wrong, what you mean by “spiritual self” is the “self”, that is aware of the spiritual trappings, not as an entity separate from blood, flesh and bone.

In the first case, the argument becomes circuitous. A theist may argue that the “self” is aware of spiritual trappings, because she “seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance”. Can you prove she is wrong, without first dismissing god. (Please note, that an atheist would not make this argument. You were responding to a ‘theistic’ argument, so I chose to continue with the argument from a theist’s point of view.)

In the second case, it is in fact a support of theistic spiritualism. For a overwhelming number of theists, this spiritual self refers to SOUL, which lives inside of her and when she dies, it goes to heaven or hell, depending on her deeds on earth. Because, of the possibility of a divine reward or punishment that his SOUL may be subject to, she would want to follow the COMMANDS of her god. So, she may argue, that she “seek(s) wisdom in him and ask(s) for guidance”, so that her soul may remain on the right path. Essentially it is same as you may be saying, accept that the theist is talking the route of god, for wisdom, and you are not. It is still the “spiritual self” that is doing the trick for both of you.

I don’t know what you mean by the term and so discussed both the possibilities.

Its again how do u define god. It seems god is a highly ambiguous term to define. If it denotes eternal wisdom, then I am a theist and if its a fictious figure in the most typical sense, then I am an atheist (this is the one I mentioned). Science cannot explain "everything" and some people map that unexplained phenomena as God. And what do u call soul? Some call it an entity that "cracks the chamber when u r confining a dying body to it", some call it the sub-concious that is constantly giving u messages and thoughts. What do u call it?

So by my statement it doesn't mean that I "definitely will" find a reason! I just asked "why" I wont find a reason! U may 'follow' science and may follow a religion. But again it shudn't be 'blind'! If a theist tells me that "God asks us to be benevolent for the sake of society", then tell 'why' won't I find a reason in it?

Refer #7. It just seems to me, that your spiritualism is a one way traffic. Like the Mac-fans say, “Once you go Mac, you don’t go back” (or something similar), once one goes “spiritual” there is no way one is going to question it and reject it. If one does, one has not “pondered” or is under the illusion that one has already “pondered” and has rejected without considering the possibility. It does sound like “blind faith”.

Don't mind, but I thought u were mature enough. Spiritualism has nuthing to do with feeling "elite"!! After all the discussion u have now only to say this?

This will cut both ways. Even you are putting forward your theory “like (it is) some kind of fact”. As proof all you are saying is, “I have experienced” and “Millions, including some scientists, have experienced” and of course, dismissing everything else, as if, the more one dismisses theory A and theory B, the more the theory C becomes valid.

I know 'what" big bang is. I have "read" the theories behind it to be even talking about it. Besides, spiritualism is not a theory! So it won't "cut both ways" as materialist have simply not even "applied" to the path of "spirituality" to be even talking or "rejecting" it. Its like doing regular "gym and running" helps me. Millions of scientists agree with me and have "experenced" it. How can a non-gymers conclude what the experience is? If he has heard about it, then atleast he wont reject that regular gym and running helps. So it wont cut both ways. Like I said u can guess as much u like.

What if I say, “a true scientist is one who doesn’t accept anything (at face value, that does not stand up to testability) and also doesn’t reject anything (that has empirical evidence)”

Then he is not a "true scientist" at all. Besides, Big-Bang doesn't stand up to "testability". Shud we "reject" it? We cannot test the boundaries of "Universe". Shall we give up the meaning of universe and confine ourself to earth and related phenomena??

Why, is still not understood, and it is a gap. You of course know the how and when.
[/quote[
Ofcors, but do the materialist accept it, since u said they need "clear" explanation of "everything"??

No we do not “know full extent of everything that science tells us”, but history of science tells us that someday we will know. No person in right frame of mind claims, that science has reached its culmination and there is nothing more to explore. The good thing about science is that, if it can’t explain something, it simply says it can’t and gets on with acquiring data to understand and explain it. Recent observations, have concluded that the, ever so successful theory – The Theory of Relativity – is itself incomplete, but instead of turning a blind eye to the data, science is actually working to come up with the complete theory.

Sure. The modern science n the theory of parallel universe is coming in synchronization with ancient philosophy. Deja vu?? "The somedy we will know" is just faith, which I'm 'not' against of. Besides I'm not telling to turn a blind eye to the data. It seems you r only saying what I did, that we shud not "reject" anything is there both in the form of "data" and "experiments".

I did not explain the “result” of emotions, but the “cause” of emotion. What you are asking is if emotion is the “cause” or “effect”, and I am saying that it is the effect of neural firing and hormonal flow.

Why?

Intelligence has long been considered as abstract, but recent experiments show, that may be it has some materialistic explanations as well, and “similar other phenomena” like pain, desire etc. can all be defined by means of neural activities. For, better understanding of intelligence, you may refer to this paper by Ned Block. If you are really interested to know, that is really want to know, pick up some books on philosophy and neurology, from your nearby library. However, I am not claiming, nor is any sane rationalist, that we know everything about brain. Some fill the gaps by introducing “para-normal” while some still strive to find answers by means of testing and validating.

Where is science bringing in “spirituality to heal patients” ? I have dealt with Hypnotism in #12. Remember, Mr Lenkei, HAD to operate his thumb. He did not heal it by means of “hypnotism”, he, apparently, used hypnotism as means of anesthesia, for his operation. Hypnotism, is primarily used in pain or other physical discomfort related issues and is highly subjective.

The first link u presented didn't have much materialistic explanation but suggests "intelligence often hinges on how much one can make use of the data in its physical environment." which isn't something new for me. I didn't ask for that. Did u read that link? And what does the second link proves? I am not asking the definition of intelligence or about AI. "How , when and why"...remember?? Please enlighten for about behaviour, thoughts, beliefs, intentions etc?? Again "How, when and why"! Everything at material level!!

And I think u r hardly reading the links I presented before! But neways...
*www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=240
*www.californiapsychics.com/articles/Features/64/Can_Yoga_Help_Cure_Cancer.aspx

U will find more...just google!

I am, not treating mind as physical entity, and, most definitely not as non-physical. I am simply asking the question, if mind is a separate entity, as claimed by “dualists”, or not, as claimed by “materialists” ?

I don't know becoz I have not read what "dualists" or the "materialists" say. What do u say?

I am not a computer expert, so won’t be able to answer to that example in detail. However, whatever, little I know of it, is probably enough to make a general criticism. Software is a bunch of instructions, in electronic form and occupies space, on the RAM. Computer executes these instructions. Perhaps I am technically wrong, but the point is software occupies a position in time and space. It is true that, software runs the computer, but is it true that mind runs the body ? Or should I say, the brain runs the body ? It is also true that cognitive psychologists sometimes refer mind as the software of brain. The 2nd link in #20 may throw some light.

I just gave a simple explanation of a software. It can also be that the software is de-centralized and running on a cluster of computers "wirelessly" connected to each other. But to ur example of body/mind/brain of what u say, I wud ask if body fails i.e heart stops then one dies, then surely brain wud also fail, and hence mind. But to the yogis who, control heartbeat, they can regain their normal self afterwards? Is a 2nd life granted to them? But yes, without mind the body is just a chunk of meat!

*www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article62615.ece
*www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_3200.shtml

U may laugh and ignore the facts, or ponder how? Ur opinions are all urs!!

Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Aquinas etc, all gave their definitions, or rather explanations, in the line of soul, without the divine involvement. Most religions give the definition of spirituality in the line of soul and a divine involvement. You, of course, have your own definition, no harm in that. With so many definitions and explanations, one can hardly claim, “spirituality” to be universal.

May be its the purification of soul? In my terms that would be through mind, body n nature and everything else I said. So it isn't dfferent to mine. U could not distinguish, spirituality from religion, or religion from theism or theism from spirituality. Please understand the difference, what soul "might" be if you "could" undertstand.

Probably, it is, from your point of view, with your explanation of “spiritualism”. But your explanation is certainly not the one and only view of “spiritualism”. Say that to a theist, and she will explain you why it is that way. Yes, there are people who believe in religion, yet not accept its dogma, but the believe of presence of the big guy upstairs, the divine carrot and stick, the soul and body, are still at the core of any religion. To a theist, these encompass her understanding of spirituality. You may be critical of their belief, and may even “reject” it altogether, calling it absurd, but can’t deny that, their spirituality will follow their religion. It, of course, does not fit your concept of “spiritualism”, but, then, they might call your concept to be flawed. Its never ending.

You r not a theist, so how can u explain "it is that way". On one point you say to an atheist it will mean all the same and now you r "guessing" what a theist will say?
So yes, if u can only guess, then it becomes "never ending"!!

Here is your classification. “(R)eligion”,you say, and not the followers of religion, “can be classified into those who aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions”, and, you continue, “into those which do not even say anything about themselves or other religions or ask to embrace it, but only aim for the welfare of the nature, life and lifestyle.”. You go on to say, that, “n some religions there are a set of rulez that one "has to" obey and in other there is no such rule but simply pieces of wisdom that one "may" ponder over and follow.” Of course you don’t say that the former is “bad” and the later “good”, but you did not leave anything else to imply. May be, instead, of “bad” and “good”, the better term would have been “unacceptable” and “acceptable”.

Why do I feel u r trying to twist statements, instead of understanding them? But neways, I was only classifying how and what kind of "religions" there can be. And what "unacceptable" is the "blind" following in both. Read them again and understand the classification!

To me a person's free will is most important and even if he is religious, he should be able to question freely his own religion and not "obey" it "blindly"!

Forget ancient history. Contemporary history is littered with horrible incidences of ethnic cleansing and pogrom. Starting from Hitler, to Serbia, to Somalia, to Darfur, to our very own, Sikh massacre in Delhi, Gujrat pogrom are all “slaughter of people of other religions”.

The world is full of civilized people and a few criminals. Just because killings are going on and you read them in newspapers everyday, u cannot infer that the world contains far more criminals than civilized people. My neighbour is of a different religion and I can't recall if any religious misunderstanding or hatred ever prevailed!! Yes, history is full of such incidence, but I realize that humanity still prevails, human life is still there and the population is increasing!

Well I guess, “infidel”, “mlechha”, “heretic” are really nice ways to call those, who don’t belong to one’s respective, brotherhood.

Yes I know, that you are religious, and an atheist. That would make you a spiritual-religious-atheist. Hope I got that wrong.

I dunno much about the term "heretic" save its definition and if actually means it, but I dunno what made u drag the term "mleccha" here for the meaning I know is "a barbarian, who is devoid of morality and ethics"! BTW, whats the term corresponding to buddhism, jainism, sikhism?

How does one prove, that one is scientific ? What is the measure of this scientific temper ? Asking too many questions means one is not “pondering” and “rejecting without accepting”. Not asking questions, is “following blindly”. It’s a blind lane, its seems. So, probably, one should ask few questions, preferably the easy ones, and not ask the others, presumably the tough ones.

I can't agree. Asking too many questions is just a part of "pondering", where one realises a situation and simply asks "how, why?". "Rejecting without accepting" or did u mean to say "rejecting without understanding"? And yes, again the "guesses and probable assumptions"!!

How does one distinguish a fake monk or whatever from the real ones ? If they all claim the same things, like controlling heart beat, how does one make the segregation, that one is fake and the other is real ? Should the procedure be, who-ever-got-the-maximum-follower-is-real ? Or is it through some tangible evidence ?

Nope, it should be by observing his practices. dhongis, fakes can be easily recognized. It just depends on how "intelligent" u r. If "blind following" is something one has done in all his life, then surely it gets difficult for him to distinguish!! Its just like distinguishing between theories and laws. If one is intelligent, calls him materialist and a true scientist in approach, then he won't bring "Big Bang" to discussion as if it is some kind of reality that has happened and perhaps tested?? Same is the case with "dhongis"!

The link between the two examples, is compulsion. In the former case, hunger, while in the latter case, force. In the former case, without introducing unnecessary Dickens like complications, like, why did he not labour for work, or was he handicapped, or were his eyes blue and skin dark, she would steal to satisfy her hunger, and in the latter case, again without bringing in complications, like, was the gun AK-47 or M-16 , or did she know self-defense or not, she would confess to satisfy the oppressor. The link is threat of death and satisfying something for her own sake. It does not mean that she is not repentant, in the former case or she truly becomes a theist. Point is circumstance may change our perception of right and wrong. It does not mean everybody will steal when hungry and no-body will stand up for her cause, although, faced with threat of death, it may take a whole lot of guts.

I may also add, that I did mention that right and wrong are not always subjective and there are absolutes as well. This seems to have escaped your attention.

In pursuit of proving the example wrong, you have yourself, established, what the example sought out to establish in the first place – right and wrong can be subjective. That you are ultimately asking the questions, “Which "right" will u bring here”, or “So how do u define a "right action” proves, in a sense, that a simple situation, can be viewed in different ways with multiple “rights” and “wrongs”.

Last resort under compulsion doesn't mean "right path"! And by my statement "which right" only meant was "which statement in which you said both were right", perhaps you could not understand them? M I clear now? And no, a "such" simple situation cannot be viewed with "multiple' right and wrong! The statment of stealing is more of a thought like "its wrong but I have to"!!

The complications like "handicapped", unless u say he had one arm or one leg, would have prevented him from stealing neways! And even if he had one arm or one leg, he still could have worked!

#29. “You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious?”

a)Listening to and/or reading of the experiences of mountaineers, and,
b)Observing, the effect of scaling, e.g. panting (surly panting is the sign of physical discomfort), and,
c)The knowledge, that with height, oxygen content in air gets thinner – meaning less oxygen is reaching the brain – meaning physical discomfort.

Twisting and leading to repeatitions?
a) Sherpa?? laborious or easy? Cold or immune to cold? normal or abnormally amazing?
b) I am learning swimming these days. I don't see life-guards "panting" where I start "panting" just within 1 one minute.
c) Were u lying that u read the links? I'm Demoralised. Please read it carefully now!!

The sons of Everest pioneers Hillary, Norgay, and Bishop—Peter Hillary, Jamling Norgay, and Brent Bishop—are helping make a documentary that will air on the National Geographic Channel in the United States and internationally in 2003.

The National Geographic 50th Anniversary Everest Expedition is made possible in part by the generous support of American International Group, Inc.

The cheerful smiles and legendary strength of the Sherpas have been an integral part of Everest climbing expeditions from the very beginning. Indeed, very few significant successes have been achieved without them.

When Western mountaineers first set their sights on the world's highest peak, they found in the Sherpas a people ideally suited to the rigors of high-altitude climbing; unfailingly positive, stout at altitude, and seemingly resistant to cold.

Sherpas did not venture into the high peaks until European mountaineers began arriving to climb in the world's greatest mountain range. Mount Everest, known as Chomolungma or "Goddess Mother of the Land" to Tibetan language speakers like the Sherpas, was long revered as an abode of the gods. Its slopes were considered off-limits to humans.

Although Everest now sees many a human footprint, the Sherpas still regard the mountain as a holy place. All modern expeditions begin with a Puja ceremony in which Sherpas and other team members leave offerings and pay homage to the gods of the mountain, hoping to remain in their good graces throughout the climb.

The Earliest Years

A Himalayan veteran in the early 1920s, Alexander Kellas is generally regarded as the first person to recognize the natural aptitude of the Sherpa people for hard work and climbing at high altitude. In his time, Kellas was perhaps the world's leading expert on mountain sickness and the effects of high altitude. He recognized that Sherpas did not feel these effects in the same way as others, though it remains unclear what combination of genetics and an upbringing at high altitude allows the Sherpas to deal physiologically with altitude better than others.

Sherpas were first employed as porters, tasked with carrying large amounts of equipment to supply the military-style expeditions of the day. The British climbers were amazed at the strength of these people, from the fittest of mature men to the young and elderly. Arthur Wakefield described the team of porters on one early expedition as "a motley throng of old men, women, boys and girls." Yet their accomplishments astonished him. At 18,000 feet, how the Sherpas carried their loads "completely puzzles me," he wrote. "Some were 80 pounds!" In addition to their loads, some of the women carried along their babies. The whole troop slept outside, using only rocks for shelter, as temperatures dropped well below freezing.

Stronger Sherpas soon graduated from porter status and began to undertake challenging climbing and work high on the mountain. Those who distinguished themselves high on the mountain were awarded the Tiger Medal, and many aspired to this honor and the higher pay rate it afforded.

Quite laborious for sherpas? I don't think 18000 feet is something where oxygen is still in abundant for mental and physical alertness.

Humans can survive for weeks without food; days without water; however, we can only survive for minutes without oxygen. While the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere remains fairly constant up to 70,000 feet, the available amount of oxygen to sustain mental and physical alertness decreases above 10,000 feet. The atmosphere is primarily nitrogen (78%) with oxygen comprising 20.9 percent of the atmosphere.

*www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/oxygen.htm

So thats quite a lot of conclusion u have done just by "observing" like that "without" actually "experiencing" it!

 

[mediator]

#32. “I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!”

Fine, it is the possibility of the presence of the disease, that you are talking of and not the different possibilities of different diseases. Even then the argument, in my previous post holds up. Let me make it simple for you.

1. The symptoms of the disease are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by empirical evidence, that so and so symptoms are indicative of presence of a specific disease.
2. The knowledge of the symptoms, is passed on to the doctor, and now he knows that a specific disease has so and so symptoms.
3. He notices the symptoms in a patient.
4. He considers the possibility of the presence of specific disease and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for further pathological tests, where the results will be matched against already recorded data.
6. If the data matches, the doctor will be 100% sure that the symptoms are of that specific disease.
7. If the data does not match, he will then look for a pattern that matches an already recorded data base.
8. If it still does not match, then he will classify it as “new set of symptoms of yet unknown disease” and continue to find out more.

Now lets see, how this example stands up to the argument that you are trying to put, that scientists do not consider the possibility of spirituality and reject it.

1. The indications of spirituality are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (millions have experienced including scientists, but no one has provided any empirical evidence) that so and so indicates spirituality.
2. The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that spirituality has so and so indications.
3. He notices the indications in a person.
4. He considers the possibility of the spiritualism and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for…..????

The argument breaks down, at 1) only and 5) is just impossible and hence there is no 6), 7) and . I will prove it in the following manner.

Lets assume I have an invisible morlock in my garage. Now,

1. The indications of invisible morlock are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (its only me and some others I have been able to convince through my web blog) that so and so indicates presence of invisible morlock.
2. The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that invisible morlock has so and so indications.
3. He notices the indications in someone’s garage.
4. He considers the possibility of the invisible morlock and does not reject it.
5. To confirm, he may go for…..????
6. ????
7. ????

It seems u r deviating yet again. Read the statement in bold. I don't think our "modern science" is that weak, that even after "thorough medical tests and analysis" there will still be any "possibilities" rather than "possbility" of a "disease".
It seems as if u, to prove ur point, "interrupted" the "medical tests and anaylsis" in a situation where a few possibilites were found. Does "thorough" imply anything to you?

You did not "prove" this example, so I will let you "improve" on this and the succeeding examples u could bring up.

#33. “First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd!”

I said, PRINCIPLES of statistics, e.g. sampling and provided an example, although, a crude one. If you had actually read that reply, you would have found, that I have acknowledged that there is no such data. Because, you would find it easy to dismiss, I also cited the example of Europe and American continents.

Ahh, my mistake! But why r u guessing all the time, be its the situation and now guessing about a fictitous data??

Which definition do you want me to learn. Plato’s, Christians, Buddha’s, Hindu’s or your’s.

The argument regarding statistics gathering queue can be used, as well, against the statistics that you have thrown up. That scientists, a whole bunch of them do go to church and confess Christianity, simply pretended to be what the society at large wanted to hear. Social and profession position is not something that everyone can sacrifice for the sake of one’s belief.

Article Excerpt
Byline: Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

America's scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which almost 70 percent agreed "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68 percent classified themselves as a "spiritual person."

Overall, about a third said "I do not believe in God" in the analysis, which polled 1,646 scientists at 21 research universities across the nation.

The findings mirror a similar study of physicians released by the University of Chicago last...

*goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4592093/Scientists-spirituality-surprises-Only-one.html

Whats wrong if 70% scientists agree there is basic truth in religion and 68% classified themselves as spiritual? Though the article doesn't mention that they goto churches, but whats wrong in going to churches if one can find peace? All the wisdom quotations be it by scientists or religious surely make u feel light. Don't u agree?

But observing ur wrath, it seems the scientists did sacrifice their "professional" position! If the statistics can be used against me, then tell me how! Is 'spirituality' a derogatory term or the opposite? Why would the scientists say that they r spiritual? But neways, its ur wish, if u want to believe the research.

Whatever agreement science is having with hypnotism has got absolutely nothing to do with spiritualism. Same is the case with yoga. Before you cite examples of how science is validating spiritualism, please make sure, that those experiments are validated by peers.

The examples have already been given. It seems u missed them. The validation is more given here. But it seems ur quest for validation of everything even something like "spiritualism", "hypnotism" and "yoga" is highly narrowing ur scope of vision. Its like rejecting, when something is working and found to be correct, just cause science has not explained it yet?

#39. “…this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat.”

Yes, the myth is an open secret, no doubt. Evidence is all I am looking for, not hearsay or rumour or gossip. The link you have provided is an interesting one. Suppose, I write a letter to the The Nature, that I have a pair of invisible wings and I can fly, and as proof attach a picture of me levitating and a full body scan repot. The I put that letter up on a web blog. How will that be ? Again, has the claim been validated, by means of replication. If it has, I will have no problem in admitting my mistake. Till then I will prefer to remain skeptic.

I liked the original tone of how u presented urself here, but the tone u r talking in, it seems has been heard before!!
Like I said u can remain "skeptic" of the things u don't want to "believe" in or shud I say "hate" to believe in, and mark and talk of other things like "Big Bang theory" as if it were to be fact! Its all ur choice!

#41. “Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm”

The article is indeed interesting. With my layman understanding of physics and biology, I could pick holes in them. But I could be wrong. So I checked all the internet resources to find some data on the research, but ended as a futile exercise. May be its not available on-line. But as I keep saying, making a claim is extremely easy. To have it passed by peers is equally difficult. Perhaps that’s the reason, why, every claim, that has the potential of rewriting history, physics and biology, and every other known, well tested theories, is always published as a book or on a site, which is never subject to peer review.

Your wish, the link affirms how real hypnotism, spirituality, intuition is! Sorry, it validates also!
BTW, why r u so dependent on "peer review"? You may question it also and present those folks your view point and paste the the detailed discussion here.

Hmmm...Since the thread talks of the validity of ancient texts, Indian culture, ancient sciences, etc., I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here. I had read them some time back and I'm only posting only some lines from the articles (if anyone is really interested, they can go to the links that are given - the matter is a really interesting read). I usually would never do something like quoting large parts out of a website, though I feel whatever I am posting is relevant to the ongoing debate and to those who want to read it, (and to maybe some might prefer it to read snippets instead of the entire article) but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong here, except some might find it absurd of me that I'm quoting large amount of matter here (but then again, isn't right and wrong subjective?)

Again a sample, where ones thinking is based on the perspective of another! Let me ask have u really read what there is in great ANCIENT INDIAN TEXTS? There r many replies regarding those in this very forum! Besides it seems u still have not read the link I gave previously! Dear mod, learn on what u r replying!

What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.

She is quite learned in VEDAS it seems.
*www.planetherbs.com/articles/triphala.html

I am just wondering if u can even read the researches and science I would present. So please refrain from talking nonsense.

And I'm not the one doing the criticism. It's Meera Nanda. I'm just passing the message

Like a mediator? How silly!


Neways whats this nonsense of images and a limit of 15? Had to post twice

 

[legolas]

^ ^ *gigasmilies.googlepages.com/42.gif, you win!!

 

[karnivore]

^ ^ *gigasmilies.googlepages.com/42.gif, you win!!

And what a win........we are all knocked clean out of the ring.

 

[legolas]

^ ^ you know what I mean the sheer volume!! I dint even know there was a limit on the number of lines you can have per post until now!!