raaabo said:
I keep hearing from people who have existential crises apparently! How do I know it's you replying? The atoms of your hand yesterday were not the same as they are today. Some of your brain cells died from yesterday, thus it is not you anymore, and thus this conversation was over before it even began. We might all be living in Brahma's dreams, or maybe our entire Milky Way galaxy is just the dirt in his left foot's little toenail... Consciousness is not the forever doubting of one's existence. As the latin saying goes, I think, therefore I am. Also, I think differently than you, therefore I am not you. I can be a part of groups, a part of humanity, a tiny atom of the universe, but I am me. I think for myself, and do not blindly just follow a doctrine. Apparently you attempt to do the same thing, but the difference is, believing. I absorb all I can, just as you do, but I believe nothing until it is logical, free from mysticism, and is provable. It doesn't have to be the popular opinion or the right one, it just has to make sense, and be based in fact, and not fiction. Why stop at the vedas, there are some really interesting science fiction books written by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlin and the likes, they also question a lot of things and they do it in the future.
You have totally missed or sidestepped my point of view, either because you didn't understand it or it was inconvenient to take on. I accept the premise that what the vedas contain is possible as a teaching of understanding one’s self better, or maybe it was just stuff people talked about because they had no idiot politicians to laugh about. The difference is I also read a lot of things, and I don't limit myself to reading what I presuppose is true. This is led me to read psychology as well, and my experiences with thousands of humans has also given me my own insight into the way people think and act.
The context you are trying to present revolves only around the analysis and research in the physical domain and for that matter you have unknowingly presented a paradox in the process of the reasoning. If the whirpool, the tornado of the ever changing atoms which present an "image" of raaabo to my lower conscious frameworks i.e senses and the mind, the light from which was received some nano-seconds in the past, then how can that perceived image alone be "measurable, verifiable and provable"?
Like I asked, which was ignored, what are we trying to prove here? The subject that we are trying to prove has become the past at the very moment of our analysis, let alone conclusions. If we apply Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to it, then it becomes even more difficult to prove your own existence. The moment I apply any source of energy to measure or verify the ever changing whirpool of atoms in an illusory shape of Raaabo, in the sense of dynamism, then can I really measure you, or verify or prove you?
The irony hence presented is a subject of unverifiable, unproven, unmeasured essence called Raaabo is trying to analyze the world where he percieve everything as a belief, yet seeks permanence in the chaotic dynamism.
Raaabo said:
And yes, I am questioning them, exactly as you want people to. I have read a little of it, and I have an interest in it. Since I found nothing great in them, whatever little bits I read, and yet others swear by them, my interest is based on what they see in it that I didn't, and unlike most others, I do not take this for sure as a failing of myself, but I look at it that it may be a failing in myself, or it may be a failing of the other people. I just present both sides of the coin openly.
Bhakti yog, explained by Gita as well, is an art of perfection of listening/devotion/surrender. It is not the bhakti you see on TV shows or temples where people are busy ringing the temple bells or putting sweets in front of the idols. Bhakti essentially means devotion or surrender to that which you seek, a higher art or science. For a guitarist, his bhakti lies in practicing devotedly, a surrender of ego, where the person "does" withhout a sense of "I" for in the moment of that devotion, he cannot think of anything else, not even himself. The same bhakti can be seen in many students one day before exams, where they don't even listen to their hunger and thirst, let alone a sense of "I".
From your post, it is clear enough that your interest is not genuine for your interest is "based on what they see in it that you didn't". For one who truly seeks does not care about others, a competition from them or what they found that you didn't. Many people take up arts, not because arts is a fashion, but because arts is their nature. Similarly, some take music, not because music is in fashion, but music is what resonates in their inner being. Their interest is not based on what other see in it that they didn't!
Raaabo said:
I agree people should understand, but I do not agree that everyone has to "experience" everything in order to move forwards. If that was the case, we'd all be hunters and gatherers, never sharing knowledge with one another, because hey, you need to figure it out yourself. If every living human had to learn and experiment and properly understand every little bit of basic science, we'd go back to prehistoric times.
The evolution in this adventure, the rise in consciousness is something that happens naturally not because you want it and hence for that matter, everyone dwells at various levels of consciousness. Some at low and some at high depending of various factors, perhaps inborn or upbringing, parents, teacher or guidance from the shruties or may be "few good quotes", tragedies in life etc.
You can read it as much as you want. It is not guaranteed that something will stir in youu until and unless there is a deep/genuine sense of seeking. That bhakti will not come just because I debated or you want it!
Raaabo said:
And yes, I question "higher", not because you say it, but because the vedas do. I know you are just saying what they do, whereas I am questioning the very basis of higher and lower when it comes to knowledge and service. This is why the caste system arose, and I don't think the people who pick up my garbage deserve any less respect that me. Skills are one thing, a craftsman who can make something others can't deserves to demand a special price for his handiwork, and thus perhaps salaries of the garbage man would be lower than people who are on this forum, but I am sure he also some knowledge that others can learn from. I have no doubt about complexities of things being called further studies, or specialisation, however, it still seems elitist to me to call the study of one's own thoughts "higher" than other sciences. A rocket engineer at NASA who spent most of his life studying something is certainly achieved a "higher" level of specialisation than me, but just because I sit about pondering why people act the way they do, and if I claim to be reading the vedas, saying that I am on a "higher" plane of consciousness is just narcissistic to me.
Is it any different than the atheists condescending on the theists and promoting themselves to be "better" and tagging themselves as "scientific" just because they can name a few science theories? Is it any different than the terms like theism and atheism having any basis at all? If you go by the mentality of people, the herd instinct which judges instead of understanding, then ofcourse there is no difference in the class system/varna giving rise to cast and the workings of modern science giving rise to atheism and theism and underlying saddism and superiority complex. But if you go by the "essence", the genuine seeking of the answers, then varna exists and so does a scientist! In that case, a brahmin exists because of his nature and work and so a does a scientist and not because they want to call themselves so out of some fashion or saddism.
All the limbs of the varnashram are equal FYI. Brahminism which started during early ADs was just a distortion of Vedic literature where Veda was reduced to a subject of attachment and Brahmin/Brahman a higher essence of living.
Indeed, the consciousness of the brahmin by his own nature i.e the very definition of consciousness itself, is bound to be higher than the rest. But equality here is subjected to the physical world, living, right on the elements of the nature and hence,
Only those who see with equal vision the Ultimate Truth in a brahman endowed with Vedic knowledge and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, in a dog and in the lower animal eating members of humanity are learned in genuine wisdom. (Bg 5.18)
Just like the experience of your father and mother on the matters of life is "higher" than you, but in terms of living, as citizens of the country etc you, your father, mother, me etc are all equally inclined. Naturally, the NASA engineer who spent years in a specialization is bound to have "higher" level of specialization and wisdom than you. Is "higher" a condescending word here?
Similarly, the science of consciousness revolves around knowing the absolute truth, which can be called by any name. Like discussed in detail, it is a practice (which is inborn), a science of transcending beyond the limited frameworks of your body or expanding your consciousness or making your mind completely still in other words to transcend from this world of dynamism to permanence, to the static where one can experience "nothing" yet everything, subtler than the subtlest yet larger than the largest where infinite paradoxes merge into the reality of the absolute truth which beyond that, the lower level of consciousness which is responsible for the cause and effect of those paradoxes. Like I said earlier you may read chapter 7 of Gita on that matter.
Raaabo said:
Anyway, as you say, question the vedas, and I am doing exactly that. They lived in an age when technology was non-existent, and the skills they had were usually all pretty equal. There were some special aspects of skills, sure, but basically everyone knew how to farm, to make curd or lassi from milk, all women knew how to cook something, all men knew about tobacco, or alcohol. All tended to cows and goats, all knew how to milk them. The hunters knew how to hunt (and yes there were hunters back then). Even the scientists were busy plotting stars and their movement, but some people decided to "interpret" the meaning of everything. There was superstition back then also, as is evident form the fire rituals, the sacrifices, or the rain dancers, shamen, whatever you want to call them. There’s no surprise that it was the religious leaders who held the answers to everything. In every uneducated group of villagers you will find one who others follow because he gives them answers they can understand. This is basic human tendency to try and be in the limelight and get power.
Ofcourse, superstition is bound to exist in all ages for the nature has its different and infinite manifestations where all the people are not the same! For me Evolution and Big-Bang are the greatest superstition of the modern times where the concepts of mutation and adaptation have been used to conclude something unimaginable.
So we found different varieties of fossils and made an assumption that "evolution happened"? A land species which looked similar in structure to the air one and hey, we found a missing link? When was the first flight from land to air evolution happened? Is that recorded or an assumption connoting a time scale? Is that measurable, verifiable and proven? If thats the case, then perhaps humans should have evolved to be resistant to "mosquito bites" alone or does mutation, adaptation and survival of the fittest are completely silent on the diseases caused by food habits, deficiency of vitamins, minerals, protiens etc, heat, cold, insect bites etc? There are many other factors which can be put and are not really registered in the dictionary of mutation, adaption and the survival of the fittest.
And so the big-bang happened. What was before that t=0? Where did that concentrated chunk of matter come from? Why did it concentrate in the first place? Remember, the "mysterious dark energy" which is trying to "explain" the faster expanding universe is contrary to the "contracting universe" side of the theory! This is what I call a research work, analogous to sample testing in marketing and not really a science! You observe and you "assume and make conclusions" and when those conclusions don't fit in the newly revealed play of Shakti, you do your homework again and make new "conclusions and assumptions" telling others "This is how modern science progresses"!
My simple question to you : First, it was assumed that there is "contracting and expanding" universe. Now when universe is observed to be expanding, they deduce something called "dark energy" and used scientific words like "mysterious" to explain it. What is the guarantee that this universe will continue to expand even faster? Suppose by any chance a deceleration is observed, are we going to rip off the "dark energy" and go back to "contracting universe" or have a pudding of both?
raaabo said:
As you will have seen from all around you, as true scientific knowledge increases, superstitions decrease. Of course it's been put into our psyche by thousands of years of "idle gossip" by people who do not understand - and thus even today if you walk out of your house and a black cat crosses your path you might stop for a second, then shake your head and go along your way. Many will not even do that or notice even – and still others like me will insist on having a black cat as a pet, which I do. If i see a ladder, I make it a point to walk under it. It’s just my way of experimenting with supposed superstitions.
Not really. For me the so called intellectuals who fashionably tag themselves as atheists are the biggest modern day "superstition mongers" for a true scientific mind would not really tag himself and narrow to the usage of that limited context and its narrow frameworks. Superstition existed back then as well, and even now. The difference being that today the superstition exists in a socially accepted form of schizophrenia wearing a cloak of modernism, calling itself scientific and few terms like atheism which sound fashionable and appealing to the modern mind!
Just like calling oneself as Vedic was fashionable back then, today it is like calling oneself as "scientific or atheist or whatever fancy words the modern mind wants". Hence, back then, the cast system arose with surnames like dwivedi (knower of two vedas), trivedi (knower of three veda), chaturvedi (knower of 4 vedas). Back then, it was an attachment to a concept because people praised those who really knew Veda or the science of consciousness, just like how most of the atheists I see follow modern day scientists blindly!
Like I said, the science of consciousness or for that matter science alone cannot be realized by tagging yourself scientific/atheist/vedic etc. It happens naturally for one who genuinely seeks!
raaabo said:
Again, I do not disagree with you since I haven’t been able to meditate and lose myself like others claim to have done. I accept that this is perhaps the weakness of my own mind. Will you accept that perhaps it is the weakness of yours that allows you to achieve this? Like I said, many sadhus I have met who can read and quote from the vedas from memory, also say that marijuana gives the same effect. So is meditating a natural way of getting high?
Do you really need to lose consciousness before you can appreciate it? Traditionally, we make fun of those who cannot appreciate what they have until they lose it.
I won't really call it as a weakness of your mind, but simply lack of interest. One who has a genuine interest develops a unique will as well which can take you to great heights! A person whose interest is low in archery may sound lazy or see the sun or the different surroundings, but one has a genuine interest will see the target only, unperturbed of where he stands as compared to others or what others are doing or if its too hot or cold!
But anyways, the latter part of this excerpt is again a clear example that you really haven't developed an understanding of the science of consciousness. Again, consciousness does not mean that a person who practices meditation, sleeps or loses consciousness. [
]
But yes, you can say meditation is a natural way of getting high in the sense of developing mind control and rising beyond, increasing body control and perfecting it, detachment of all the worldy pleasures like "marijuana" in the first place etc. Meditation is not only a technique to merge with the absolute, but also a way which enables a person to engross in the worldy actions or in the material play at physical/material level yet untouched by its happenings at higher levels.
For the being who has conquered the mind; that beings mind is the best of friends; but for one whose mind is uncontrolled, that very mind acts as the worst of enemies. The being who has conquered the mind, transcending the dualities of cold, heat, happiness, distress, honor and dishonor is firmly established with the Ultimate Consciousness within. (BG 6.6-7)
raaabo said:
Again with grand words like essence, whereas the only effect the sun has on the universe is radiation and gravity. Sure there may be a magical bit of invisible string tying every insect, plant, human and animal to the sun, or maybe every atom of everyone, but just because there is a “possibility” doesn’t make it a “probability”. Life is probability. Why isn’t there a tribe on the moon if the sun is such a giver of life? Where are the Martians? We sit on a world that was at the right end of the probability divide, and thus life was made “possible”. Basic physics, chemistry and biology explains what holds us together. Holds all living objects together for that matter. And yes, we are able to measure and find pretty close approximates to how much a person eats a day, how much is converted to calories, how much is excreted, how many hairs fall, how much skin is turned to dust around the house, what are the chances of getting dust mites because of not cleaning. Everything is and has been studied, and you can go do it too, using simple mathematics and the powers of observation.
Do you really think that the modern science has understood "gravity" completely? Can you explain why gravity happens? Can you further explain that which enables gravity to be "measurable, provable and verifiable"? Can you further dissect those terminologies to be "measurable, provale and verifiable" and so on? Ofcourse, there is something that is binding the galaxy and univsere at large. You can call it gravity according to the terminologies of modern science, a terminology at the physical domain only. Whereas is called Ritam according to the Vedic terminology which goes beyond the physical.
The usage of the word "essence" that I propose is only to make you realize "that" which is being discussed and hence the understanding/transcending beyond the attachment to "what" it is being called and "how" it is being percieved!
Like I discussed before, "physically" you were not the same 5/10/15 years ago in terms of shape,size,appearance etc, chemically you lose atoms (exhale,sweat,excretion etc) and gain atoms (inhale, drinking, eating etc), mentally (changing thoughts, wisdom, emotions etc). So do you really think basic physics, chemistry etc explain everything or perhaps present more questions that make it difficult to explain everything? I can only sense a generalization again with the phrase "everything is and has been studied" in a universe which analyzed in the limitedness of what is called as "observable univsere".
I can use simple mathematics and find that if I keep dividing 1 again and again, it will still leave "something". Can the "modern science" really find the "smallest particle"? With the higher versions of microscope, even the smallest known is analyzed and then something smaller found! If everything can be explained through mathematics, then FYI, many formulae and theories break when ‘infinity’ comes into the picture. What formulae do you have for occurrence of prime numbers, random events alone?
Raaabo said:
By using your “who are you” analogy, and trying to dissolve everything into nothingness or your own quaint little description of consciousness – if I am no one, neither are you, and neither were any of the people who wrote the vedas, and neither is Brahma or Vishnu, or Allah, or Christ, and we should all just give up right this instant and accept that we don’t exist. Sorry, but I very much do exist, as did the people who made all the things that allow us to sometimes make silly points on this forum. As did the people who wrote down what you hold so dear, or the blogs and teachings of so many you learn from. They are all held together just as well as the Nirbhaya rapists, and our horrible politicians, and Hitler. There is no good and bad in being held together and existing, we just do. Life in abstracts can make you feel special, but eventually you wake up and smell the reality all around you.
I was not referring to a comparison. But simply asking a question as to "who exactly are you"? If you can't explain with all the modern science at your disposal, then it is still fine with me. And yes, brahma and Vishnu are no one, but simply an experience of higher reality/consciousness/truth which you can call by anyname. It doesn't matter to me!
But, it doesn't mean that we should give up and hence a point where the transcension to the higher understanding of the concepts of dharma, karma, akarma and ritam comes into the picture!
Raaabo said:
Now to the point, who told you the universe is infinite? Did you travel for an infinite time to try and reach the end at speeds greater than light and have now come back to report that it isn’t? Yes we consider what is observable, as we do in every aspect of life around us, not just the vastness of the universe. There is no point you’re making here, because this is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Infinity is a simple way of saying “we don’t know” or “undefined” or “currently uncalculable”. I know many people like to give themselves self-importance and claim to understand infinity, but the reality is the idea of infinity is one of belief in itself.
I don’t know what is beyond the edge of the universe, but I can certainly tell you that you don’t either, and neither does any living soul. Of course with everything that is unknown and unmeasurable, you will always get people jumping out and saying:
“I know! It came to me in a dream! I floated past the edge of the universe and then I travelled so fast suddenly and was transported back to the opposite end. Even the universe is circular, but it is still miniscule to God, thus the entire universe is merely a toe ring of Lord <insert deity here>’s little toe!”
Now depending on how seriously that is taken, more and more people will sit and opine this, and eventually you might have a verse thrown in by some good writers that equates this to the philosophy of our times. If this stupid line I said survives 10,000 years, and the people of that time have barely made it across the milky way, who knows how many people will quote the teachings of TDF. I kid, of course, because we’re already beyond such easily gullible times, but there’s a point that’s being made there.
Nobody has to tell you that universe is infinite. You don't have to travel at the speed of light to find if universe is finite or infinite. You don't have to travel the whole world to seek happiness or answers to life. You can deduce it through questioning alone or a higher experience.
PAUL DEUSSEN (1845-1919), a direct disciple of Arthur Schopenhauer: "Whatever may be the discoveries of the scientific mind, none can dispute the eternal truths propounded by the Upanishads. Though they may appear as riddles, the key to solving them lies in our heart and if one were to approach them with an open mind one could secure the treasure as did the Rishis of ancient times"
I don't really understand the reason why my questions to you are being replied by you like "Hey, You don't know either", "You don't exist as well".
My question to you is a simple logic. I would like to repeat it again, since you ignored to answer it.
mediator said:
If you really think, this Universe is finite, then what is beyond this Universe? What is the shape of this finite. Is this finite rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X1)? What is the shape of that X1? Is that finite also rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X2)? Do you really think this recursive question/series is finite alone? If you have no answer to it and are waiting for "modern science" to give an answer, then I guess you are undermining your own consciousness and limiting because of an attachment to a thought that "modern science" one day will give you an answer which is again a blind-belief in modern science!
Regarding time, it is relative indeed where time becomes a function of movement. The faster the movement, the lesser the time and so on. But like I have discussed before, who exactly analyzes the frameworks of time? Who causes a distinction between night and day, good and bad, small and large? Do you think the frameworks of time are the same for one who cannot see, hear, speak or touch i.e all five senses not working?
Close your eyes and walk, can you really see where you are walking? When that which is causing a reference has been removed, how can you even categorize then? Like I asked you, if time is a reality, then why do we lose a sense of time and space when we dream? Time exists only at lower frame of consciousness and ceases to exist as we go higher in the place of consciousness.
You can make a workflow diagram for an easier understanding of what I'm trying to ask you. There are two cases i.e Univser is finite or infinite. Lets us "assume" it is finite. Then my question starts : What is beyond this Universe? What is the shape of this finite. Is this finite rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X1)? What is the shape of that X1? Again let us assume, it is also finite and hence my next question : Is that finite also rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X2)?
This is an infinite/recursive series a solution to which can never be finite and only "tends to" (read calculus) infinity. The depths cannot be analyzed.
Raaabo said:
See the asking for directions analogy I gave above? Many people are taken in by “knowers” based on their surety and absolute confidence in what they “know”. Once you figure out you’re lost, what do you do? Do you keep barrelling on through the jungle looking for the spot, unfased, because the directions seemed so precise and confident, or do you stop, go back and start again.
Again an instance where you have not really understood the essence of the term "knowing". Here "knowing" does not mean over confidence or abbsolute confidence. It is more like an ability to percieve without analysing but based on subtle experiences and wisdom. Just like you "know" that you can lift a spoon and put it in your mouth does not infer to over/absolute confidence, similarly there exists "knowing" for the genuine gymmers who listen to their own body and exercise in an optimal way. Like I asked you, who can give the best advice to you regarding your own body : Your gymn trainer, a doctor, or an active and thorough listening to your own body i.e you?
Similarly, there is a knowing the arts of shaloin practioners where terminology called Qi/Chi is used. This is as I said not registered in the framworks of modern science!
raaabo said:
As for why you lose sense of time when you sleep, this is because your conscious is resting but your sub-conscious brain is still firing. Most of your perception and senses are controlled by the conscious side of the brain, because evolution made them more important senses to survive in tougher times. Biology 101. Yet you will also awake when refreshed, even if in a totally serene room with the perfect temperature and zero light changes. People who wake up on time everyday often wake up just before their alarms ring – and this has happened to everyone at some point, say, when you know you have a meeting you cannot miss. The brain still knows time, even if it does not scream it into your conscious memory as it would a waking thought. Again, this is another example of consciousness, not something higher than it. Unconsciousness is actually “lower”, which is why you never get anything done when sleeping, and why most people die in their sleep. Rest modes are needed, but not productive, and there’s nothing higher about a dream state, merely different, and in some ways lower.
I can now see a person who has doubts about the science of consciousness giving replies and answers based on "consciousness" as coined by modern psychology. What exactly is sub-consciouss and unconscious? Do you think that these, with addition to thoughts and intelligence, are explained by modern science i.e "verifiable, proven and measurable"?
How will you know what is light and dark, if you lived in either darkness or light for your whole life? How'd you know what is happiness or sadness if you remained on a static scale of either percieved happiness or sadness. Similarly, how'd you realize what is time if the frameworks that enabled a measure, a relativity did not exist like the 5 senses? When you were born, did you really have a sense of time and its individual units as taught by the external world? Where did this understanding of time come from?
raaabo said:
Again, sorry, but I see no Brahman or Brahma around me anywhere. This is pure fiction, and about as believable to me as it is to you when someone says Allah created the universe. If so, then why can’t Allah just be a translation of the word Brahma / Brahman? In that case just as every Hindu has gone off on the wrong path according to you, so has every Muslim, and they are equally right and wrong in their own ways. And the big bang is a “theory” no one calls it fact, not even its most staunch believers or the people working in that direction. Again, probability and possibility. It could be possible that there is an entity or force called Brahman /Brahma that acts the very way you describe it, and it’s also possible that there isn’t. Probability is built up based on evidence, and mathematics. If I told you that I would pay you Rs 1 lakh salary per month, and then gave you 200 x 10 rupee notes, you would fight with me. You wouldn’t let me get away with any “theory” of mine that explained to you that the amount of meaningless atoms in the 2,000 I gave you were identical to the other bundle of Rs 100 x 1000 that I have with me as well. It’s all the same in some ways, but it’s all very different in the ways that matter.
Like I have said from the very beginning of this discussion, even science has beliefs. I have always refuted the use of the words “know” or “knowing” when you use them, and god knows how many times I have use quotes to highlight “belief” in my replies. I am not the one saying science “knows” everything. I merely state that logic and mathematics is used there and thus the probability of it coming up with the right answer eventually is a lot higher.
.
.
.
Your understanding of Abrahamic religions is flawed. Take Christianity, it states that God created us in his own likeness, and that he exists in all of us, and is everywhere. Ask the pope if god watches us on mars and on alpha centauri, and he will say yes. All religions are the same, they espouse a belief in an all-powerful creator. Nothing just happens, it’s all part of god’s will / energy / chi flow / grand scheme. All religions also state that giving to your fellow humans is the path to god, loving and nurturing life, etc. Everything you said in the paragraph quoted is similar to what people from other religions say as well. The words used may be different, the names are different, the belief is the same, and proof of such is exactly zero. You cannot prove anything because it’s an experience, when you know, you know, and other such double talk. It works well in the abstract, and has no real meaning to life as we know it. Just as the moon god was shown to be a dead rock in space that humans have walked on, so will the rest of the universe eventually. If, or according to probability, when we meet an alien race and it looks and behaves nothing like us, I am sure the creationists and religions will find a way to explain that as well. In the abstract everything is explained so easily, in real science everything is a question that leads to a hundred more.
Again an example, where the works and study on consciousness have been percieved from abrahamic frameworks and narrowed to it. Brahma is similar to matter and energy. I don't know how many times I must have put it already across this board.
If you don't see matter and energy around you, in you, in the food you eat, in the output of the process of the food you eat and treat it as a friction, then debate has no meaning. Anyways, here to repeat it for the umpteenth time.
bhagvad_gita said:
When a man liberated, free from attachment, with his mind, heart and spirit firmly founded in self-knowledge, does works as sacrifice, all his work is dissolved. Brahman is the giving, Brahman is the food-offering, by Brahman it is offered into the Brahman fire, Brahman is that which is to be attained by samadhi in Brahman-action. ( BG 4.23-24)
Like I requested, try to understand the "essence" of brahman being put by the shruti before you use it in your own words and discuss on it.
And so I have no qualms to what you call the supreme consciousness be it brahman or Allah. But the question that you put "why can’t Allah just be a translation of the word Brahma / Brahman?" is simply a no, a negative which is because of the context, the essence that has been put by the shruties and the Quran and not because of the terminologies. Let me list a few difference, since you see no difference :
A. Rigvedic hymn of creation : Can you find such a thought in Quran or Chrisitanity?
here was neither non-existence nor existence then.
There was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred?
Where?
In whose protection?
Was there water, bottlemlessly deep?
There was neither death nor immortality then.
There was no distinguishing sign of night nor of day.
That One breathed, windless, by its own impulse.
Other than that there was nothing beyond.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning,
with no distinguishing sign, all this was water.
The life force that was covered with emptiness,
that One arose through the power of heat.
Desire came upon that One in the beginning,
that was the first seed of mind.
Poets seeking in their heart with wisdom
found the bond of existence and non-existence.
Their cord was extended across.
Was there below?
Was there above?
There were seed-placers, there were powers.
There was impulse beneath, there was giving forth above.
Who really knows?
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?
Whence this creation has arisen
- perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not -
the One who looks down on it,
in the highest heaven, only He knows
or perhaps even He does not know.
B. A few differences :
1) In Monotheism every thing is God's i.e “apart” from God, whereas with ultimate reality, everything is a “part” of ultimate reality.
2) In monotheism only the god as mentioned in the holy book is to be worshipped, whereas with respect to Ultimate reality, “everything that upholds life” is considered as divine. E.g air/breaths, water/space, sun/dawning of truth, fire/will, intellect-mind/indra, universe/brahma etc at physical consciousness/underyling meaning of higher consciousness
3) Monotheism forbids the chanting the “name” of some other god other than the one mentioned in their “holy book”, whereas the same ultimate reality is called by different names which concludes ultimate reality is nameless.
4) Monotheism “preaches attachment” to a particular name, a belief system, a set of DO-s and DONT-s which a person has to follow blindly. Whereas, Vedas and Upanishads speak of detachment to think objectively and gain complete knowledge.
5) Monotheistic god is “personal and the belief imposed”. He belongs to the followers of the “book”. Whereas, the nature of ultimate reality/highest level of consciousness is impersonal, formless, umanifested and unborn. It is to be known through detachment via an objective frame of mind.
6) Monotheistic god in western faiths has “a gender” and is a male. Whereas, the ultimate reality is has both male, female, neuter gender names according to its various manifestations. Its essence is beyond male, female or neutar gender.
Not woman is He, nor man either, nor yet sexless; but whatsoever body He take, that confineth & preserveth Him. (Svetasvatara Upanishad, 5.10)
Here limitations of language alone can be seen.
7) Monotheism lacks “spirit of questioning”, whereas Vedas and Upanishads speak of dharma and karma where spirit of enquiry and questioning are the basic aspects.
8) The “science of consciousness” originated from the Vedas which the modern science is researching now. Whereas, it is absent in the western faiths.
9) Friendship with the non-believer i.e one who doesn't believe in the holy book, is considered as inferior, whereas friendship itself is considered as divine as per Vedas and Upanishads.
10)Monotheism that originated in the west often finds itself in contradiction to modern science, whereas the ideas from Vedas and Upanishads are revolutionising the modern science.
Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda.
Schrodinger wrote in his book Meine Weltansicht:
“This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a certain sense the whole; only this whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear; tat tvam asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as “I am in the east and the west, I am above and below, I am this entire world.”
[This is a reference to the Mundaka Upanishad mantra 2.2.11 ]
“All this that is in front is but Brahman, the immortal. Brahman is at the back, as also on the right and the left. It is extended above and below, too. This world is nothing but Brahman, the highest.”
Schrodinger’s influential ‘What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell & Mind and matter (1944)’ also used Vedic ideas. The book became instantly famous although it was criticized by some of its emphasis on Indian ideas. Francis Clark, the codiscoverer of the DNA code, credited this book for key insights that led him to his revolutionary discovery.
According to his biographer Walter Moore, there is a clear continuity between Schrodinger’s understanding of Vedanta and his research:
“The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on super-imposed inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.”
He became a Vedantist, a Hindu, as a result of his studies in search for truth. Schrodinger kept a copy of the Hindu scriptures at his bedside. He read books on Vedas, yoga and Sankhya philosophy and he reworked them into his own words, and ultimately came to believe them. The Upanishads and the Bhagavad gita, were his favorite scriptures.
According to his biographer Moore, “His system – or that of the Upanishads – is delightful and consistent: the self and the world are one and they are all. He rejected traditional western religious beliefs (Jewish, Christian, and Islamic) not on the basis of any reasoned argument, nor even with an expression of emotional antipathy, for he loved to use religious expressions and metaphors, but simply by saying that they are naïve.
Apart of Nicolas Tesla and Scroedinger, various other scientists and philosophers have testified about the greatness of Vedas and the Upanishads.
11) The western faiths “preach conversion” of the mankind to follow the belief as prescribed in the “book”, whereas Vedas and Upanishands promote questioning (e.g “neti neti”) to experience the truth.
12) The term muslim, christian etc is mentioned in their respective “books”. But neither Buddha mention “buddhist”' or Veda or Gita mention “Hindus” or gives more importance to Hindus.
The difference can be found in clear terms! Now equate it with your understanding of Christianity alone that you put forward.
Raaabo said:
You can also Google for the many more theories and findings that support it. It’s a theory, and is backed up by practical evidence. Of course it has some chinks in its armour? Maybe it wasn’t a meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, maybe it was a scale eating bacteria. Maybe climate change and the coming of the ice age caused it, and maybe a meteor killed them all like is popularly believed, or maybe all of the above. The difference between modern science is it’s trying to find this all out, would you rather take the sayings of some ancient tribe as the gospel truth? I thought the words of some such tribes based on faith were evil? How do we choose which tribe to believe?
There is a lot of "may be" in your argument, then what is the criteria of your argument that man and dinos did not walk at the same time in the past? => "Fossils not found"?
raaabo said:
Where in the vedas is an explanation of matter and energy as science shows it. Where are the atomic bombs and E=MC^2. Wheres the explanation of friction, of gravity, of the solar flares you love to talk about? Is it written the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, and burns in this way, is estimated to be thus large, and has solar flares that are millions of miles long, which emit radiation, but we’re protected by the magnetic field of our earth’s iron core? Or will you now point me to a passage that says Agni gets angry from time to time, and shoots weapons at non-believers? We can find explanations the way children (and many adults) find shapes in the clouds – in anything. People read tea leaves and read tarot cards, they find patterns in a jungle and the way flowers bloom. This is the nature of us and the world, and our understanding of it can be subjective and personal, or be all inclusive and logic based. The same logic that displays the dots just the right way on your screen so that my words are intelligible to you, and not the belief and hope that allows you to read so much more into what could just be a very simplistic statement.
This is again an example of how you are conditioned by the modern science and trying to use it as a framework or a standard to view the science propounded by the ancients with its own terminology and meaning behind.
But still if you want to read, then read the texts of Vaisheshika, the Vishnu-Nabhi as understood by David Frawley. The science of Ayurveda revolves around Sattva, rajas, Tamas as food types and vata, pitta, kapha as body types. If I start using these terminologies then much of the modern medicine/science will be reduced to generalizations. Would that be fair?
Try to even understand the highly unscientific question you have asked yourself! I cannot really find a concept from Chinese science or accupuncture in Ayurveda as "Chinese science shows it". Similarly, I cannot really find in Vedas about concepts "as science shows it".
Raaabo said:
No you’ve got me upside down. I never said the vedas were right or wrong. I have never read them enough to know that. I specifically said they were irrelevant.
There’s a reason I said that. To start with, they require faith in “powers” that most people associate with gods. No matter how much people try and explain it all away as to what Brahma really means (which no one can be sure of anyway, since all the people who wrote it are dead, and there was no neat little stack of proofs or documentation or footnotes as is left in real science), to the world it is still faith-based idealogy.
Trust me, I'm not really interested in your judgement whether Vedas are right or wrong, but simply that you read them devotedly (let it be Upanishads if not Vedas) and understand the underlying meaning, whereas you have not even read, quoted a few verses here and there without verse number ( e.g one from atharveda where the owl is reduced literally stripping the Vedic poetry of its poetry and metaphors) to be talking and discussing on the science of consciousness.
How can you even judge it to be irrelevant when you yourself confirm "I have never read them enough to know that" ?
Anyways, this is going no where. You can continue "believing" in whatever you want.
