immortal

I told you already this is different from intelligent design don't compare this with them. Its not personal insults that will decide as to who deserves the term true physicists. Its the evidence, the one's who give answers to those questions which I had outlined earlier in the thread are the one's who deserves to be called as true physicists until then physicists are just empiricists.

It violates the equality of parts, you can't say one is an illusion and the other is real.

I want to make this very clear. Physicists don't have an objective account of reality. Its a consensus which Physicists have not won. I have mutual respect for physicists, scholars and philosophers working in their own fields but not for those who want to use science as a dogma. As Einstein said the goal of science was to discover the way the world really is and not how it appears to us. If physicists can't give an objective account of reality then they no longer deserve to be called as physicists because it will be an insult to the term "physicist". A better term to assign to them would be empiricists because there are competing philosophers out there who want to take over that term as "true physicists" because they are discovering the world as it really is.

You admitted that you don't want to study those traditions so how can you know what's being revealed and what's not. That amounts to ignoring information which has been given to you and arguing from ignorance. There are a wide range of scholars, philosophers, psychologists and scientists investigating it.

Its because I'm not a proponent of Intelligent Design or a creationist. This is separate from those movements. No, our traditions have withstood the test of times and its correct and science itself has revealed the pleroma of God. I said I want to investigate it and I don't want this to be introduced in schools because I'm not a fundamentalist. We in the east don't have any conflicts between Religion and Science. That's mainly because we have preserved the wisdom of our ancients.

How is this relevant here? That scholar Devudu Narasimha Shastry who is a highly respected scholar who belongs to that tradition indepedently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of mandala and that work was done in 1950's and that's a fact because we have his works and Bernard d'espagnat a highly respected quantum physicist, he too independently arrived at the conclusion that the empirical reality is only a state of mind based on his knowledge of quantum physics and this work was done from 2002-2009 and its a fact. This debate of parallels between modern physics especially quantum physics and eastern mysticism is an important study carried out by scholars, philosophers and scientists around the world and there is a wide range of literature available everywhere. What this study has got to do with beliefs? The above work was independently done by Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal and I have given the links to his works in my OP. I independently argued about this earlier in SFN based on my study of that scholar named Devudu and it supports the work of Jonathon Duqette which is published at Wiley Library and gives some amazing new insights into it. I wasn't aware of the work of Jonathon Duqette at that time and when I searched about this in google scholar I found his papers. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63509-scientism-and-how-this-worldview-affects-open-discussions-in-the-philosophy-and-religious-forums-threads/page__view__findpost__p__663117 I think you have misunderstood a lot about the things which is being discussed in this thread. So please read before you make any arguments.

Those traditions support Bernard's claims and Bernard's claims indicate the validity of those traditions, those traditions have withstood the test of times and science is pointing towards those traditions and telling us to investigate it.

Non-dualism doesn't mean sameness, you make a strawman argument and laugh out loud against it. Nou-duality is the place where the law of opposites or the law of contradiction breaks down. Its the place where good and evil, Multitudinous and oneness, fullness and nothing exists. I have that from two important authorities one is the seer Yajnavalkya who is the author of one of the most important Upanishads i.e Isha Upanishad and the other one is Basilides, the founder of Gnosticism. The former is from the far-east and prior to the gnostic christians and the latter is from the near-east. The strawman goes on and on .. They don't have any differences among them, they all are speaking in one voice and that includes the traditions from the east as well as the west. It was already addressed in this post. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67990-why-scientific-realism-might-be-false/page__view__findpost__p__693837 Irrespective of what you care and don't care, they all are speaking the same thing and their ontological experiences are identical. Ignoring them without giving rational explanations is a display of intellectual dishonesty. I said that to scholars and philosophers who study these philosophical doctrines but you don't have to be a part of any tradition to know the truth, the pleroma of God or mandala exists in everyone and you can experiment yourself and know the truth yourself. You have misunderstood non-dualism. Its a place where both sameness and difference exists. And yet the positivism of science can not distinguish the real from the unreal, they are not even sure whether an external physical world exists independent of the mind, so what proof do you have, you have nothing. Top quantum physicists themselves state that what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind and it falsifies a 100 more other philosophies and science is not about how logical your theory is, its more about whether your theory describes the nature the way it is. Now I want you to answer those above questions and prove scientific realism if not accept that physicists don't have an objective account of reality. Where as the theory of forms of Plato and the philsophical doctrines of Advaita describe eternal unchanging realities and it exists the same whether you see it around 2500 B.C or in the 21st century or in the future. Which is real now?

Bernard does address that.

I'm not speaking of the unity yet and its pointless to speak about the unity because its beyond the intellect. There is much to know about before knowing the unity. Its something which most scholars and philosophers don't know and keep talking about "unity" and "Brahman" when no one knows what it is. They are using broken forms of reasoning because no one can speak about unity and nor should anyone speak about it. I have indeed addressed your points. Similarities between Valentinian Monism and Advaita Vedanta When Gnostic scholars began to see monistic expressions in the gnostic tradition of Valentinianism and the frequent assertions of this school of thought that the multiplicity of the world vanishes once one knows the fullness of the father through gnosis just as the Advaita Vedanta says that the multiplicity of the world vanishes once one knows the Brahman they started to hypothesize that there might be a connection between these two ancient monistic systems but they never took such a hypothesis too seriously. The following section shows why such a hypothesis is undeniable without giving reasonable explanations for the astonishing similarities seen between these two ancient monistic systems. Summary This is in so much similarity with the Gnostic view of the world which says that everything comes in dyads i.e. with male and female forms. This shows that human beings don't have free-will which is similar to the stoic view of providence and the Gnostic view of predestination as argued by Elaine Pagels. This is the ontological view or the ontological reality of Advaita Vedanta i.e. the pleroma of (Aeons) gods (fullness) exist in every living being which is amazingly similar to the Gnostic view. Advaita Vedanta is an ancient doctrine which existed prior to Gnostic Christians and therefore either there was a cultural diffusion at some point of time between these two traditions or they arrived about the nature of reality independently without any transfusion of ideas between each other. Whatever may be the answer, this hypothesis should be taken seriously and by testing such a hypothesis can reveal many things and have a wide range of implications. Here, the seer Yajnavalkya implicitly implies that He and Pushan will become One when one sees Pushan(the master of Pleroma). This is the highest form of philosophical thought expressed in all religions. This is the noumenon of the world and different traditions have identical ontological and philosophical aspects of this noumenal reality, this is the real objective physical world out there. This is what should be researched and we should talk more about this because we can reach up to here through our intellect and we should not speak about the unity which most scholars and philosophers often emphasize more on instead of the noumenal reality as espoused above. This is what interests scientists because through this knowledge we can become masters of nature and not its slaves. This demands explanation for anyone who is a rational minded person and their explicit claims on what mind is, what intelligence is, what space is, what time is, what the world is actually made of baffles me and it should be investigated. I don't know whether in the west you have preserved any kind of knowledge of that sort but in the east we have well preserved methods on how to access the noumenon but not many people in the east know about this either. This is something which most scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't see. Mandala Carved by Jung At Bolligen Jung created a monument out of stone to express what the Tower means to me. On one side, Jung carved in Latin In remembrance of his seventy-fifth birthday, C. G. Jung made and placed this here as a thanks offering in the year 1950. On the side shown in this photograph, Jung created a mandala centered on Telesphorus, the Greek demi-god of healing, surrounded by a Greek inscription, part of which says, This is Telesphorus, who roams through the dark regions of this cosmos and glows like a star out of the depths. He points the way to the gates of the sun and to the land of dreams. A new field of psychology is indeed emerging. THE SEVEN SERMONS TO THE DEAD WRITTEN BY BASILIDES IN ALEXANDRIA, THE CITY WHERE THE EAST TOUCHETH THE WEST.

c) mathematical insight (intuition) - Penrose is a strong Platonist and he makes mathematical arguments to show that mathematicians gain insights in a non-algorithmic way and he is convinced that strong AI is impossible and we know that Plato had argued that these "mathematical truths" exist physically in its own realm and these traditions know that intelligence exists in platonic realms. Bernard philosophically arrives at the conclusion that "what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" and this is the same view of reality which those traditions have arrived independently and this is the reason western scholars from various universities like Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal and others in the past study those traditions(as given in my OP) but the problem is they are not understanding them in their own milieu as to how those traditions actually saw the world and are not choosing the right scholars for their study, this is leading to confusion. If you study those traditions from the view point of traditional scholars you will realize why that statement of Bernard d'Espagnat who said, "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind" is actually true. This is the wisdom those traditions have to offer us. Its just that Bernard as well as those traditions have independently arrived at that conclusion about the nature of our reality. If there is ever a law of Religion and Science then that should be it. I guess you're not seeing the importance of this, Sam Harris who is a propenent of New Atheism himself admits that he has no idea from where the people from the east got the non-dual philosophical doctrines from. The John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of this. Jonathon Duqette from the University of Montreal recognizes this, PeterJ, a member of sfn, he himself independently said this, He said that this is the doctrine that must be refuted for the final defeat of religion but the problem is not many of them know as to what the implications of that doctrine are. As I said earlier, the scholar which I have chosen for this study was under the tutelage of S. Radhakrishnan and he has studied extensively about this for 20 years and he is a traditional scholar and not someone from outside the tradition. So this thread focuses on what these traditions exactly say and that's what I have been outlining here and I have already given enough information on how those traditions view the world and what's its implications are for us if taken in their own context. It inevitably leads to an esoteric worldview as I have outlined in this thread. In other words science cannot give an objective account of reality without bringing "Gods" into the picture. We need to extensively investigate on this Mandala and they say it exists in every living thing and is the soul of the universe from which the universe originated and it exists solely on the basis of this mandala. This is from where our ancients got there knowledge from. Also from where that traditional scholar got this knowledge. That's a rejected knowledge in western academy because its not based on the scientific method.

Why not? Science is a branch of philosophy and even its assumptions, its foundations can be questioned. Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner The scientist who leaves room for spirituality My argument is not based on belief since I am not forcing you to accept anything, I am just showing what is the need and importance of Religion and why it should be investigated. Its an argument which I had arrived independently from reading the wisdom literatures of the east and which I have developed it over the years and with even Bernard d'espagnat, a scientist who arrived at it from a different approach it gives more support to this idea and as you can see even he is arguing in the same way. Is it impossible to know the noumenon - I don't think so Mysticism is a rational enterprise, have you ventured into the unknown and experimented with those methods? Mystics have compelling reasons to investigate the esoteric essence hidden in all the religions of the world. Apply occam's razor, What is the explanation as to why Bell's inequality which applies to our universe is violated? 1. Science has no explanation yet and Bernard argues that non-separability and non-locality are facts of nature no matter what further discoveries will be made in physics. 2. Esoteric religions gives an explanation as to why counterfactual definiteness or in other words scientific realism is false or wrong. That explains the above question. Scientists reject that explanation not becuase its false because they don't have the tools to test such a hypothesis where as esotericism as a discipline can test it with its tools. So either accept, admit and allow that there are other competing alternative explanations which can be tested by a different method or come up with an explanation to those previously mentioned questions using the scientific method and disprove those philosophical disciplines. So religions does add knowledge to our database and gives explanations for the phenomena observed and it should be investigated. You should admit that there is lack of evidence on both sides and not on one only and people should be made aware of it. That's an old assumption. Methods on how to access the noumenon where given in the beginning of the thread. Esotericists existed prior from the time of Galileo or science and have been saying that scientific realism is false. This time its the evidence which speaks as to who corrects whom.

I have to agree to disagree now. You do realize that I'm not the only one who is arguing this way, even the quantum theoretical physicist Bernard D'espagnat is along with me, he has worked under the architects of modern physics like Bohr, Pauli and De Broglie and at the age of 87, I better take the advice and insights of that old man. What we learn from science is one thing and what we learn from religion is another. When we view from the point of science which basically deals with phenomena it indeed appears that the world is made of molecules, atoms, neurons etc and when we view from the point of religion which basically deals with the noumenon the world seems to be composed of five elements. World religions are still a possible road to reality as long as science doesn't give a complete account of the nature of reality which we are living in. Its very much possible that we are living in a Veiled Reality and other traditions are open for speculation. The onus is on both scientists as well as on traditions to give answers to those questions and no one can hide anything anywhere.

When the founding fathers of science like Newton and Galileo started their empirical investigation they demanded an explicit descriptive account of the phenomena being observed, they demanded explanations, science as a discipline should give us explanations but with the advent of quantum physics science has reduced to a discipline which only makes predictions about the physical system and QM has so far denied us every attempt to have a descriptive explanation of the nature of reality which we are living in. The physics community don't really recognize the problems of this and they are not even concerned about the philosophical implications of this way of thinking as to what they are describing is the Reality itself or is it just a model? This problem has been well explained by the theoretical physicist Bernard d'Espagnat and I did gave a link to his works in my OP. If you have not read it then please read it. On Physics and Philosophy - Bernard d'espagnat He says from the point of view of the physicists those things indeed seem to be real but we should keep emphasizing that those are just abstract concepts used to convey the experiences of the physicists and not reality itself. When my professor explained about the Bohr atomic model by drawing concentric circles to represent the orbitals of electrons or when an organic chemist represent the hybridization of orbitals as a cloud I thought that's how the nature actually "IS" but later I realized that those were mere models and abstract concepts and that quantum physics doesn't really give us any way to picture it at all. In these terms Bernard says, Its quite self-evident that when ever I asked to define what a quantum particle is juanrga dodges the questions and I very well know why because science forces us to abandon the multitudinous nature of our physical reality and we should emphasize that our words should only have meaning in an operational sense and not on holding a dogma that what we are describing is the reality itself rather than nature revealed to us according to our method of questioning. This is about how science should be done and what its limitations are and how much can physicists claim about the nature of the physical world. Its very clear that we can not use classical concepts to describe these phenomena and we need to abandon the multitudinous approach of viewing the nature, nonseparability and nonlocality are well established facts of nature and soon we recognize this its better. The third point is the use of objectivist language and I think the term "physical" no longer belong to the physicists because there is serious doubt on whether what they are describing is the real physical world or not and hence science is only concerned with the "empirical" and not with the objective physical world as it really is. So its very clear that scientific explanations are unsatisfactory as it only deal with the phenomena and not with the noumenon of the world. So based on these reasons the John Templeton foundation recognizes the importance of the work of Bernard D'espagnat. Statement by Professor Bernard d'Espagnat At The Templeton Prize News Conference Speech for the diner in Honor of Bernard d'Espagnat As I witnessed by arguing in the quantum physics forum it is self-evident that I think some physicists are intellectually dishonest and are using science as a dogma when they never really have a complete account of the nature of reality which are living in. Those traditions are not bunk if they did not had any wisdom or great philosophy behind it no scholars and philosophers from the west would have studied it with such seriousness. I have only revealed a small passage from that scholar and it contains so much wisdom in it. There is a common esoteric essence in religious scriptures of Mishnah, Talmud, Zohar, Midrash, Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Brahmanas, Samhithas, Upanishads, Buddhism, Valentinian tradition etc etc and its highly philosophical and those things are well studied and they are waiting to explain what space is, what time actually is and what exactly is the nature of physical reality and it should be researched and taken seriously. Is teleportation possible? What is the world made up of? "That's all right", said Koushika. "But please tell me whether you had previously planned to arrive at the site?" "No", asserted Vamadeva. "I" will tell you all about that. This human body drowns if it is thrown into water while alive. But if it is the body of a good swimmer, it can remain afloat. Likewise, there is another principle in respect of the body. The human body is composed of five elements. Now, as we regard this elements combine as separate, they appear to be obstacles in our onward progress. When once we realize that everything around us is composed of the same elements and that they and we are of one and the same flavour, It would be like giving a loan here and retrieving it there; that means you offer that quantity of the elements which compose your body to those around you (nature) here and claim that portion elsewhere you want it. To put it simpler, just as you learn to swim in water, you should learn to swim in the air too". -Devudu Note that this scholar was under the tutelage of the first president of India Dr. Radha Krishnan, an Indian philosopher, who was the first vice president of India and the second President of India, the scholars claims are based on the wisdom that he had gained from the scriptures and that work was done in 1950's so he very well knows as to what those elements are when he says the "body is composed of five elements".

Well my reply was to qsa's off topic mention of advantages of using operations research in any kind of organisation which wants to be successful. I did read your entire post and got disinterested when you said the bending of light is an illusion because my physics textbook says, "Einstein proposed that a beam of light should also be deflected downward or fall in a gravitational field. Experiments have verified the effect, although the bending is small. A laser aimed at the horizon falls less than 1cm after traveling 6000km." There is no attractive force here, it bends because of the curvature of space-time of the earth. In the same way the light bends in a lift accelerating upward in empty space depending on the frame of reference of the observer. As to your question of "Why do Matter particles accelerate towards each other?" That's because when a charged particle is projected or accelerated in a magnetic field just like in particle accelerators by superconductors which generate high magnetic fields they are deflected because it experiences a magnetic force. So I don't see what was your point. Again both electric field and magnetic field are two different aspects of a same entity called as the electromagnetic field and which field manifests separately depends on the frame of reference of the observers.

Those traditions have independently arrived at the conclusion that scientific realism is false, it doesn't require any justification from quantum physics, its eternal wisdom. I said what those traditions say not what modern science says. If its anything it gives more support to Bernard's claims and he surely deserves the Templeton prize. You have failed to define what a quantum particle is. Some say the world is made of fields, some say it is made of particles, some say not quite particles, not quite fields. If science can't answer those questions then there are traditions out there waiting to answer those questions. That's the picture held by scientists like Stephen Hawking, its called the positivism of science and that's the picture held by all the quantum physicists i.e The shut up and calculate picture of science. Locality and counterfactual definiteness are assumed in the derivation of Bell inequality and its violation implies that both of those assumptions are wrong. Non-separability and non-locality are facts of nature. Carl Jung took his neopagan ideas of mandala from the eastern traditions - Mandala. I don't know what he was doing with Active imagination but mandalas have nothing to do with imagination, it is a systematic practical way of knowing the noumenon whose methods are well documented in the scriptures, rituals which can only be carried out by priests who have the necessary practical skills for it. I again see that as a misrepresentation of pagan beliefs and pagan ideas which has led to some kind of new age movement which hijacks terminologies of eastern traditions and greatly misrepresent the true wisdom of these religions. The Germans who got interested into these religions for other reasons instead of knowing the wisdom hidden in these religions hijacked the term "Aryans" which is used for representing eastern traditions and misrepresented that term for some kind of master race and called it the Aryan race. Aryans (or Aryas) means "Venerable and highly civilized and cultured people known for their learning, wisdom and large heartedness". That's what the term Aryans means in the east and not some kind of master race as called by the Nazi Germany. There is an amazing ontological and philosophical similarity between Valentinian Monism and the eastern traditions and both of these traditions have been well studied by scholars such as Elaine Pagels in the west on Valentinian Monism and by traditional scholars of eastern traditions and it is an active topic of discussion.

This is the second time I have been asked to leave this forum everytime I bring this topic for discussion. I never knew that even some atheists try to suppress information and I very well know what the problem is, It disturbs scientists and the people of orthodox religions. Few scholars, scientists and philosophers are not afraid to state things the way they are. That's what those traditions say, it says 1. Scientific Realism is false. 2. Intelligence exists in platonic realms. 3. The world is made of five elements. 4. Gods are anthropomorphic beings pervaded everywhere in all aspects of human existence. 5. A noumenal objective world indeed exists. If you want us to stop doing this then accept the challenges and prove scientific realism or admit there are other traditions out there which gives explanations to the above questions and should be researched and taken seriously and everyone should be made aware of it instead of using silly tactics on forcing me to leave this forum. That doesn't solve anything. Yes, even Valentinus himself said that for people outside the tradition those things indeed look nonsense. That's not surprising at all. Its more likely that gods exist in our unconscious psyche and that they are alive and well and it should be researched.

Many physicists acknowledge Norsen's work and argue that it is indeed that counterfactual definiteness is logically derived from locality and hence both should be discarded. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.2855.pdf This is what I had read and so I asked you. Rejecting one means rejecting the other. Yes, counterfactual definiteness is the correct term indeed. QM doesn't rule out an objective world but it says it is definitely not in any way we think it is (no element of physical reality corresponding to a physical quantity). Non-separability and non-locality are the main features of our Nature.

I don't think you can have an either-or option. As Norsen argues we need to discard both. Isn't it? http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0601205.pdf

1. What is space-time actually made of? 2. What is the mechanism for quantum entangelemnt? How can one give explanations for the correlations observed? 3. A machine capable of strong AI - Those traditions already seem to know that "intelligence" exists in platonic realms so this is an important test. 4. Cognitive scientists solving the problem of qualia and the problem of universals. The aim of science is only to make predictions about the system and not to make any claims on the nature of the physical system itself and without knowing the answers for the above questions we cannot be sure of the reality which we are living in and the assumptions of science and scientific realism can swing towards either true or false. The violation of Bell's inequality means one of the assumptions of science must be wrong as Bernard d'Espagnat explains in his scientific american paper "Quantum theory and Reality" 1. The three premises of Scientific Realism 2. The methods of Induction 3. Einstein separability Which is it?

Bohr never used the term wavefunction collapse. Bohr was an instrumentalist. Anyways physicists can never make any claims about the nature of the physical system itself and this point is well emphasized by Stephen Hawking. The same problem persists in cosmology too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time In Cosmoslogy: “One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?”—Stephen Hawking Those traditions are not subjectivists, they say an objective world exists, they are not solipsists, they actually know what it "IS" and not how things appear to us, a noumenal objective world does exist and they say it is made up of five elements as described in world religions. I'm no one to educate you and I am an independent thinker. When I say, "The teachings and the wisdom in the religious scriptures are not so ordinary either to conclude that they were made up by goat herders or to call it childish." They say, "Immortal doesn't have anything to back up his claim" When I bring something new. You say, "I don't welcome You"

1. Are some scholars misrepresenting these traditions and not understanding it in its own millieu and its leading to confusion? Yes 2. It should be clearly emphasized what its implications are for science. If it had no implications for science I wouldn't have posted them here. 3. Many have serious interests in both Religion and Science. 4. If you are not interested to read those links, that's fine. 5. Make me say that from the owner of this forum that they don't allow anyone to educate people about religion just as they educate people about science and that they only like to bash religion then I will go away. 6. Everything cannot be studied under the assumptions of positivism of science. Yes, that's true. 7. Carl Jung has already made a huge contribution and has argued that there are symbols in all ancient cultures which represent these archetypes and give indirect evidence of their existence through the effects that they have on patients and could possibly explain the origin of religion in all cultures of ancient civilizations. 8. Keep aside my credibility, have I not cited sources for my claims, its only the content that counts.

Well, yes those traditions are in direct conflict with scientific realism and they are incompatible if scientific realism is true and all those traditions will be disproved. As we have discussed earlier there is no common consensus among you quantum physicists. So if you can prove scientific realism accepting the challenges which I have made against scientific realism then we should give up our beliefs on those traditions and move forward. Contrary to what you have said, modern science seem to indicate something else. The papers that I have given in my OP is not outdated, this is an active topic discussed by scholars, philosophers and scientists. "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'espagnat This was published in Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf "What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time. -Bernard d'espagnat

I didn't strated this thread saying scientific realism is false, I started it by stating scientific realism might be false. I started to show if those religious traditions are understood in their own milieu then what its implications are for modern science. You are missing the point I am making in a larger context, there are plenty of prophecy books that are written but lets not go there and I don't know anyone who is proficient in that technique of Samyama to answer your questions as to know what happens where, why and how. If that was true then we all had to inevitably give up our belief in Scientific realism. That scholar was an expert on the mandalas and his whole worldview is based on that. I have only revealed a short passage of his works and the ancient seers seem to have known that intelligence does exist in the platonic realms as espoused by Plato in his theory of Forms and the implication of this is that as strong Platonists like Roger Penrose argues strong AI seems to be impossible if these traditions turn out to be true. So if scientists can come up with strong AI then again these traditions will be disproved. Nothing is kept secret, Tar. Its just no one takes it seriously and investigates it. We all know that Carl Gustav Jung took his idea of mandala from the eastern religions and argued that there is a collective unconscious which exists in everyone from the beginning of mankind and started the archetypal psychology. In all this muddle there is infinite wisdom and just because it looks like nonsense from outside we don't investigate it. There is a documentation of dialogue with gods in Carl Jung's Red Book and the same if with this scholar but much more well organized and systematic. There is not much good info over the internet about this and I don't like to quote from the works of that scholar since expressiveness are copyrighted. I extracted this while arguing with someone from Nepal and it explains the kind of worldview expressed by our ancient seers. This is what the archetypal pyschologist James Hillman from the school of Carl Jung means when he says Gods are real, Gods are everywhere in all aspects of human existence and in all aspect of human life. The eastern traditions though from outside look like separate independent traditions they all worship the Sun God(not the star) from inside and this is what these traditions say that gods are pervaded everywhere and just like how plato said that the things which are manifested in this world are representatives of the eternal Forms. This is what they have to say about the physical reality. Whatever it is, one thing is for sure, its illogical to find parallels between these traditions and modern science, they are based on completely different epistemologies and the only message that these traditions seem to give us is that scientific realism is false.

A growing number of scholars, scientists and philosophers are leading us to an esoteric worldview without themselves being aware of this. While there seems to be much confusion on how to reconcile modern science with eastern and western esotericism most of the confusion seems to have come from choosing incompetent scholars for their study. Methodology in the study of Esotericism While esotericism has existed since millennia as a form of study of the esoteric essence and wisdom hidden in allancient mystery religions, recently few have argued to push the field of Esotericism into the academic. One such attempt has been made by a historian of religion,Wouter J. Hanegraaff and argues that esotericism can be studied from an empirical approach where one can measure its influence from a historical perspective. Any student of esotericism who accepts the most authoritative definition of Antoine Faivre knows that esotericism deals more with the reality of the numinous and less with our historical past. Hanegraaff who is well aware of this implicitly admits that to truly know the truth behind these religions only the empirical approach would not suffice. A simultaneous perennialist approach is needed where an intuitive access to the numinous is albeit necessary in order to completely understand these esoteric religions which are inherently metaphysical and hence not falls under the positivism of science or the empirical method. Based on this argument or assumption a competent scholar can be defined as one coming from the tradition and not someone from outside the tradition and one who has the competent skills and intuitive knowledge to interpret the works of our ancient people and give us a picture as these ancient people saw it and not as how one sees it individually which inevitably leads to conflicts based on how each one interprets these ancient works subjectively without any intuitive knowledge which our ancients claimed to have access to. A few words about the Scholar chosen for this study - If what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind then what is mind? This was the question asked by someone in Guardian and no one had an answer to it and not even modern science has an answer to it because cognitive scientists are reductionists and they see perception and cognition as neuronal activity in the brain but as Bernard D'Espagnat says even neurons fall under empirical reality which is only a state of mind. So what is mind then? Here's the answer: The word esoteric means "intelligible only to those with special knowledge" – esoterically. The scholar uses the traditional way of storytelling or dialectic to convey his ideas which is common in most forms of wisdom literatures which give us knowledge about the divine and the nature of reality. When Devudu uses words like sense organs and mind he is not referring it to biological organs and the brain instead he is talking of sense organs and the mind existing in the noumenal world which is responsible for the retrospective creation of our empirical reality which not only includes biological organs and the brain but everything which we see through our eyes. This is what Bernard D'Espagnat means that our empirical reality is a kind of Veiled reality and that there is an ultimate reality which is not embedded in space and time. Bernard is one of them who believes that the noumenon of Kant can be accessed by other means. All that can be supported by verses from the scriptures and it shows that the ancient seers had access to the numinous or the noumenon. The God exists in the noumenon and the traditional scholars know beyond any shadow of doubt that scientific realism is false. So either scientific objects exist in the external physical world and disproves God or God exists in the external noumenal world and disproves our notion of scientific objects existing independent of the mind. Devudu Narasimha Shastry. The Glory of Gayathri (Maha Bramhana in Kannada). Translated into English by Prof .N. Nanjunda Sastry. Bangalore: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,2004. (Original work in Kannada – 1950, Bangalore).