The Secret of the Vedas

[Moontanman]

 

There are lots of evidence.

 

"Some scientists (like Wigner) believe that quantum mechanics makes certain dualist ideas about the mind/body problem acceptable again within mainstream science."

 

Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."

 

Science has already confronted with the numinous by recognizing a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect in the platonic realm.

 

 

 

When you apply negative theology to religion and consider the current available evidence only a few religions survive and this is one of them which is backed up by science.

 

 

Again, you evidently have a completely different definition of Empirical EVIDENCE than the rest of us do....

[immortal]

Immortal, I am going to recommend you watch the following video, it is mostly targeted at creationism but it makes some pretty good points about the Holy nature of various religious writings. You keep saying the Veda's are somehow evidence of God or some sort of god but the first five minutes of this video gives very good logical reasons why this cannot be true. I realize you will not watch this, but I feel the need to at least give you the opportunity to see just how irrational the idea that any writings, much less yours are somehow written by a deity. AronRa gives a very good summation of why this is certainly not the case and what we would expect a god to write...

 

 

Well, time to get the facts right.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1_N4-kwGSA

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN9wwevE0Us

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnJz5Hhk4sU

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

"Out there, in the numinous?"

 

Perhaps here, in this statement, is the rub.

 

Let us assume that along the lines of Kant's thinking, we, as humans are in possession of the pure conceptions of "time", and of "space". That from this, we might suggest that here and now are two things that TAR and Immortal could agree on.

 

Out there? What could that mean, that is mutual to both our conceptions? Is a thought of mine, "in here" to me, but "out there" to you? I would think so. There is a lot of thinking that goes on during any one moment, here on Earth, and the portion of it, that is "in here" in this TAR brain is miniscule, compared to the whole of human thought currently going on (1 part in 7 or 8 billion or so) and dwarfed again, by the hundreds of thousands of years of human thought that occurred prior our lives.

 

If "in here" in this TAR brain/body/heart group, I was to reach Nirvana, or learn the "Secret of the Vedas", or speak to God and make him a promise...that activity would be "out there" to you. You could view such an event as having some objective characteristics, being as they are occurring outside of your here and now, without your participation, and some subjective charactistics, being as you know the difference between imagination and reality, and would know which parts of my activity you could reproduce for yourself, and experience in your own, here and now.

 

Thusly a clear distinction can be drawn, by any of us, of what ideas and forces, forms and reality, exist "in here" and what of these exists "out there" in the open, in the "greater" reality, in which, and of which, all our separate heres and nows are composed.

 

Moontanman asked you to show us where one can find your 31 gods "out there". We already know where to find them "in here".

 

Regards, TAR2

 

For Kant space and time itself are categories of mind, they are mental constructs, we only know of the phenomena and the world which is out there which is the noumenon is forever impossible to know.

 

It was this conviction that science cannot go beyond mere appearances of phenomena which compelled many of the physicists of the past century to look for alternative models of reality which gives us a complete objective picture of the world and it is this conviction which has led Bernard D'Espagnat to leave room for spirituality by saying science cannot fully describe reality.

 

The Scientist Who Leaves Room for Spirituality

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/03/17/the-scientist-who-leaves-room-for-spirituality/

 

Does Agni have a "human" soul? Is there a place and time that Agni knows as "here and now"? Is there a place and time where Agni can be found, that corresponds with the conceptions of the other 30 gods?

Does this conceptual "greater" world have any "mappings" to this one of ours?

 

The Vedas declare "Agnisomadmikam Jagath" means the world is a Agnisoma Mandala. This is similar to the concept of Pleroma of the Gnostics or the Hellenistic philosophers and you should be familiar with it to clearly understand this.

 

AGNI AND SOMA: A UNIVERSAL CLASSIFICATION

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgadkw/papers/2005%20SA%20AgniAndSoma.pdf

 

 

“He who discovers that all this is Agni and Soma,

and is not affected by extraordinary feelings,

is truly liberated”.

- Mahabharata

Not many people take this path for their liberation hence not many are aware of this.

[Moontanman]

Ok Immortal, I watched your videos, I saw no scientific evidence of the existence of your god, in fact the entire video danced around that concept in favor of the Vedas being historically accurate. This does not support the existence of your god but only the antiquity and relative accuracy of the vedas compared to what westerners thought happened in the area.

 

If there is some part you think i missed that was support for the existence of your god feel free to give me the time index of the statement.

 

Again it would seem that your idea of what constitutes Empirical Evidence appears to be evidently different from what everyone else defines as empirical evidence...

 

having said that if I take the narrators word at face value it is evident that Vedic Culture was mischaracterized due to prejudices of western researchers and some of the history described in the Vedas is accurate despite what the Western researchers thought to be true.

 

But at no point did the videos or the guy who made them claim the existence of your god or gods was confirmed by anything in the Vedas. the best he could do was say that the Vedic description of the universe was somewhat more accurate than other religious writings...

 

His claims of technology in the Vedas, while interesting, do not support this position either, in fact the whole thing is after the fact transposition of information that appears to describe technology but cannot be used to create technology is not indicative of anything anymore than ancient writings that describe flights to the moon were prophecy...

 

If you disagree with my assessment feel free to give me the time indexes for the information i missed...

[immortal]

Ok Immortal, I watched your videos, I saw no scientific evidence of the existence of your god, in fact the entire video danced around that concept in favor of the Vedas being historically accurate. This does not support the existence of your god but only the antiquity and relative accuracy of the vedas compared to what westerners thought happened in the area.

 

If there is some part you think i missed that was support for the existence of your god feel free to give me the time index of the statement.

 

Again it would seem that your idea of what constitutes Empirical Evidence appears to be evidently different from what everyone else defines as empirical evidence...

 

having said that if I take the narrators word at face value it is evident that Vedic Culture was mischaracterized due to prejudices of western researchers and some of the history described in the Vedas is accurate despite what the Western researchers thought to be true.

 

But at no point did the videos or the guy who made them claim the existence of your god or gods was confirmed by anything in the Vedas. the best he could do was say that the Vedic description of the universe was somewhat more accurate than other religious writings...

 

His claims of technology in the Vedas, while interesting, do not support this position either, in fact the whole thing is after the fact transposition of information that appears to describe technology but cannot be used to create technology is not indicative of anything anymore than ancient writings that describe flights to the moon were prophecy...

 

If you disagree with my assessment feel free to give me the time indexes for the information i missed...

 

Did you watched the end of the part-3 video especially from the time index 8:35 min to 9:56 min? This presentation was not given as offering evidence to the more esoteric side of the Vedas, I very well know what empirical evidence is, remember we are discussing two topics here, one topic is whether these gods exist out there or not and the other topic is whether the Vedas themselves support the literal existence of these Gods or not, when people are so ignorant with the Vedic religion and don't even see that this religion takes the existence of Gods very seriously then how will people take the former topic more seriously, simply put majority of the people have not understood the doctrine of the Vedas and when they realize it they will be very disturbed by this.

[Moontanman]

 

Did you watched the end of the part-3 video especially from the time index 8:35 min to 9:56 min? This presentation was not given as offering evidence to the more esoteric side of the Vedas, I very well know what empirical evidence is, remember we are discussing two topics here, one topic is whether these gods exist out there or not and the other topic is whether the Vedas themselves support the literal existence of these Gods or not, when people are so ignorant with the Vedic religion and don't even see that this religion takes the existence of Gods very seriously then how will people take the former topic more seriously, simply put majority of the people have not understood the doctrine of the Vedas and when they realize it they will be very disturbed by this.

 

 

 

I am well aware of what is being discussed/asserted here and so far you have failed to show any of it to be anything but faith and belief, I have no problem with that but to assert it as empirical evidence your god is real is simply not supported by what you keep claiming is evidence...

[immortal]

I am well aware of what is being discussed/asserted here and so far you have failed to show any of it to be anything but faith and belief, I have no problem with that but to assert it as empirical evidence your god is real is simply not supported by what you keep claiming is evidence...

 

No, there is too much mischaracterization of the Vedas and there are a lot of things being discussed here, one wants to throw these texts into the dustbin and another one says Advaita is not theistic and the other one was an ignorant Hindu, these things need to be fixed first before one can understand the soundness of my arguments.

 

Vedism is not Hinduism and its very important to separate those two. What is Hinduism? Hinduism is a word which outsiders call to identify a group of disorganized eastern religions of India which don't agree with one another just like the 9000 or so sects of Christianity who don't agree with one another. The problem with these ignorant Hindus is that these people keep hearing the secrets of the Kingdom of God but they don't understand it. The Gods of the Vedas are not same as the Gods of the Hindus, the Vedic people gave importance to different gods but in Hinduism hardly anyone seems to be worshipping them. Vedism is a very silent religion and actually its not even in the picture because majority of them don't follow or are not aware about it. The misunderstandings of these near enemies need to be fixed first before challenging the position of the far enemies i.e. atheists.

 

Why Vedism

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/why-vedism.html

 

Now coming to atheists, you seem to have made up your mind that this position of mine is based on wishful thinking, however its not, anyone who has made a critical analysis of both science and religion based on its available evidence compels one to arrive at this conclusion. This is not wishful thinking, a theory has already been put forward and a fringe consensus has already emerged with in the scientific community itself and looking at all this its quite silly for you to say that this is my blind faith or belief, no its not. That's what nature is saying and we need to accept it.

 

"The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

This is the theory which has been put forward and experiments in quantum physics, bio-research feedback and consciousness studies have given support to this theory, this is no longer my beliefs any more, it has all the goods to be a well established theory, things have changed, this was my position right from the beginning and I stand by it.

Edited January 14, 2013 by immortal

[Moontanman]

 

No, there is too much mischaracterization of the Vedas and there are a lot of things being discussed here, one wants to throw these texts into the dustbin and another one says Advaita is not theistic and the other one was an ignorant Hindu, these things need to be fixed first before one can understand the soundness of my arguments.

 

Vedism is not Hinduism and its very important to separate those two. What is Hinduism? Hinduism is a word which outsiders call to identify a group of disorganized eastern religions of India which don't agree with one another just like the 9000 or so sects of Christianity who don't agree with one another. The problem with these ignorant Hindus is that these people keep hearing the secrets of the Kingdom of God but they don't understand it. The Gods of the Vedas are not same as the Gods of the Hindus, the Vedic people gave importance to different gods but in Hinduism hardly anyone seems to be worshipping them. Vedism is a very silent religion and actually its not even in the picture because majority of them don't follow or are not aware about it. The misunderstandings of these near enemies need to be fixed first before challenging the position of the far enemies i.e. atheists.

 

Why Vedism

http://www.adf.org/articles/cosmology/why-vedism.html

 

Now coming to atheists, you seem to have made up your mind that this position of mine is based on wishful thinking, however its not, anyone who has made a critical analysis of both science and religion based on its available evidence compels one to arrive at this conclusion. This is not wishful thinking, a theory has already been put forward and a fringe consensus has already emerged with in the scientific community itself and looking at all this its quite silly for you to say that this is my blind faith or belief, no its not. That's what nature is saying and we need to accept it.

 

"The Buddhist scholar B. Alan Wallace has also indicated (as shown above) that saying that Buddhism as a whole is "non-theistic" may be an over-simplification. Wallace discerns similarities between some forms of Vajrayana Buddhism and notions of a divine "ground of being" and creation. He writes: "a careful analysis of Vajrayana Buddhist cosmogony, specifically as presented in the Atiyoga tradition of Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, which presents itself as the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, reveals a theory of a transcendent ground of being and a process of creation that bear remarkable similarities with views presented in Vedanta and Neoplatonic Western Christian theories of creation." In fact, Wallace sees these views as so similar that they seem almost to be different manifestations of the same theory. He further comments: "Vajrayana Buddhism, Vedanta, and Neoplatonic Christianity have so much in common that they could almost be regarded as varying interpretations of a single theory."

This is the theory which has been put forward and experiments in quantum physics, bio-research feedback and consciousness studies have given support to this theory, this is no longer my beliefs any more, it has all the goods to be a well established theory, things have changed, this was my position right from the beginning and I stand by it.

 

 

immortal, does your version of religion have anything to say about lying?

[John Cuthber]

 

There are lots of evidence.

 

"Some scientists (like Wigner) believe that quantum mechanics makes certain dualist ideas about the mind/body problem acceptable again within mainstream science."

 

Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..."

 

Science has already confronted with the numinous by recognizing a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect in the platonic realm.

 

 

 

When you apply negative theology to religion and consider the current available evidence only a few religions survive and this is one of them which is backed up by science.

Even if Wigner were not dead he would be an authority on physics, not religion and so , even if argument by authority were not a logical fallacy he would be a poor example on two grounds.

Is that the best you can do?

I agree with Penrose that 2 +2 is 4 without the need for any human intervention.

But there's no need for divine intervention either

 

Here's a list of about 20 pages of Christian sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

which makes your assertion "only a few religions survive" absurd.

As is the claim that it is " backed up by science."

 

Science would call for real evidence and you have provided none, you just keep playing at being Humpty.

[immortal]

Even if Wigner were not dead he would be an authority on physics, not religion and so , even if argument by authority were not a logical fallacy he would be a poor example on two grounds.

Is that the best you can do?

 

Science and religion are converging, there is no conflict between science and religion. Is that the best you can do as an atheist?

 

I agree with Penrose that 2 +2 is 4 without the need for any human intervention.

 

That was not the argument of Penrose.

 

But there's no need for divine intervention either

 

Divine intervention is taking place 24*7 days of a year, all evidence of science is pointing towards the existence of a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect. Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed and without that intellect human beings would not have discovered mathematical truths.

 

Here's a list of about 20 pages of Christian sects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

which makes your assertion "only a few religions survive" absurd.

As is the claim that it is " backed up by science."

 

Did you saw that when you revert back from those branches all those different sects unify itself into Early Christianity?

 

Science would call for real evidence and you have provided none, you just keep playing at being Humpty.

 

I am talking science.

 

immortal, does your version of religion have anything to say about lying?

 

No, why?

[tar]

Immortal,

 

From Wiki:

"Meta- (from the Greek preposition μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self", also commonly used in the form μετα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter."

 

 

Divine intervention is taking place 24*7 days of a year, all evidence of science is pointing towards the existence of a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect. Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed and without that intellect human beings would not have discovered mathematical truths.

 

I would agree that there is intellect that is "beyond" or "after" or "adjacent to" the physical. We, after all, are intimately entwined with the physical, yet we have intellect. This proves only that abstraction is possible. Not that abstraction must first exist to cause the physical.

 

"Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed..."

 

You have the cart before the horse, and assume that without a big cart prototype in the sky, there would not be carts at all. This appears to be incorrect. Abstractions must come after the thing that is being condensed, and understood.

 

Which brings us directly to "self". Why is this a part of the definition of metaphysical? Because, when you place the cart and the horse in correct position, the combo works. The "mind" you speak of is evidently present in the combo. Present in the physical, present in the math. Self evident.

 

A divine God is therefore an addition to the mix, an abstraction of yours, that is not required by the atheist. The "spirit" that drives the horse can be anything we wish. It can be the whip god, or the oat god, or the muscle god, or the god that lays the road before, or the hoof god that causes there to be friction between the motive of the horse and the road.

 

A mind that is an abstraction of all that is intelligent is defendible. But it need not be a first cause. It cannot be a first cause. Because it is an abstraction of what already exists. The abstraction must come "after" the thing.

 

If one is to consider that reality can not exist without god, then one must also ask how then, can god exist? What is required for abstract mind to pop into existence? It cannot pop. So it must be derived from what already existed, or it must have always been. And if God could have always been, why not just cut out the middleman, and consider that reality always was, in some arrangement or another?

 

Which leaves us with your assumption that a divine god must exist, for reality to exist, as a mere unsubtantiated guess on your part. With no proof, no evidence, no factors pointing directly toward such a thing being required, or even possible.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

 

 

We can arrange the physical to correspond with all sorts of abstractions of ours. But we cannot create or destroy matter or energy themselves. They already exist. The physical embodies already all that we may derive from it. And by my reckoning, the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. If the universe is to be seen as having a mind, then we are an example of it, and not different from it.

[PeterJ]

Tar - I've read quite a few of your posts here and agree with a lot of what you say. Your objections seem mostly very reasonable.

 

Immortal - I respect your enthusiasm for evangelicising and share it. But your approach is not working. Tar is not an outright sceptic and clearly thinks a lot about these things, but the discussion is not leading towards any agreement.

 

So, how about cutting me a little slack and assuming temporarily that my grasp of the issues is at least no worse than yours, so that I can chat without having to argue all the time. I won't;argue with you anymore, that's also an approach that doesn't work, but I'll try answer any questions you might ask to put me on the spot.

 

 

Immortal,

Well this is all fine and good, but I am somewhat of a pragmatist. That is, in the process of individualization, the self is very important. No, more than that, it is crucial.

Why would you figure you should lose this thing inorder to find it, when you already have it?

Regards, TAR2

 

Yes. The self is crucial to the process of individuation. This is what the Vedas tell us. Indeed, it might almost be their central message. .

 

Your question is answered by the Dalai Lama, who writes that the self is not something we need to give up or overcome in practice, for it never existed in the first place. It is simply a matter of realising this. We do not have to lose the self to find it, What we already have is not the self but the Self. There is nothing to lose or find, just something to realise.

 

For you world is fundamentally individuated, or, in more vedic language, consists only of what is 'created'. .This is the intra-subjective (not 'objective') universe. If there is an objective spacetime universe we'll never know it. So for you this world and its contents is real, cannot be reduced to a further phenomenon, and it makes no sense to you when someone suggests that the self is a fiction. Without it there would be no spacetime universe.

 

But this is the exact point. Without the self there is no spacetime universe. It is by seeing beyond the self that we are able to verify that it is not truly real. It is precisely because the self is crucial to the psychophysical and intrasubjective universe that it is possible for every human being to learn more about the nature of reality than can be learnt in physics, and to write it all down, as far as it can be written down, three thousand years before Gallileo. .

 

To make the Upanishadic view plausible in physics (as opposed to plausible to the occasional physicist) is a job for physcists. In two essays in the first issue of the journal here www.anti-matters.org Ulric Mohrhof explains the Vedic view of quantum mechanics, This is sometimes known as the 'Pondicherry' interpretation of QM, I have never found a better explanation of the relationship between physics and mysticism. The second article is the more technical, and perhaps wil be more appealing to physicists, but the first one is worth reading first I think, since it puts the second in a more general context. The second one is often beyond me, but I'd be happy to discuss the first. .

 

Individuation would be an illusion. Brahman would be all. There would be no other phenomenon. Thou art that.

 

Erwin Schroedinger is excellent on the relationship between the (seemingly) individuated 'self and the uniified Brahman. He shows that it is at least possible to be a successful physicist while sharing the world-view of the writers of the Upanishads. If he uses the word 'God' it is only ever to say that He is God, just as we all are.

 

I wonder, Tar, if the self is not even more crucial that you think it is.

[immortal]

Do you really know how deep the rabbit hole goes?

http://hermetic.com/pgm/mithras-liturgy.html

 

I would advice you, Deepak chopra and a bunch of people who try to epistemologically link quantum mechanics with Vedanta to abandon this approach of yours. Sam Harris seems to know more about mysticism than Deepak chopra and people like you when he said that mysticism is about sitting inside a cave for weeks for gaining wisdom and immediate insight and its not about non-locality or anything to do with QM. These guys don't give a damn fuck whether the universe is local or non-local. I abandoned that approach of yours long time back and I have move forward and even everyone should do that.

 

 

Immortal,

From Wiki:
"Meta- (from the Greek preposition μετά = "after", "beyond", "adjacent", "self", also commonly used in the form μετα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter."

I would agree that there is intellect that is "beyond" or "after" or "adjacent to" the physical. We, after all, are intimately entwined with the physical, yet we have intellect. This proves only that abstraction is possible. Not that abstraction must first exist to cause the physical.

"Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed..."

You have the cart before the horse, and assume that without a big cart prototype in the sky, there would not be carts at all. This appears to be incorrect. Abstractions must come after the thing that is being condensed, and understood.

Which brings us directly to "self". Why is this a part of the definition of metaphysical? Because, when you place the cart and the horse in correct position, the combo works. The "mind" you speak of is evidently present in the combo. Present in the physical, present in the math. Self evident.

A divine God is therefore an addition to the mix, an abstraction of yours, that is not required by the atheist. The "spirit" that drives the horse can be anything we wish. It can be the whip god, or the oat god, or the muscle god, or the god that lays the road before, or the hoof god that causes there to be friction between the motive of the horse and the road.

A mind that is an abstraction of all that is intelligent is defendible. But it need not be a first cause. It cannot be a first cause. Because it is an abstraction of what already exists. The abstraction must come "after" the thing.

If one is to consider that reality can not exist without god, then one must also ask how then, can god exist? What is required for abstract mind to pop into existence? It cannot pop. So it must be derived from what already existed, or it must have always been. And if God could have always been, why not just cut out the middleman, and consider that reality always was, in some arrangement or another?

Which leaves us with your assumption that a divine god must exist, for reality to exist, as a mere unsubtantiated guess on your part. With no proof, no evidence, no factors pointing directly toward such a thing being required, or even possible.

Regards, TAR2




We can arrange the physical to correspond with all sorts of abstractions of ours. But we cannot create or destroy matter or energy themselves. They already exist. The physical embodies already all that we may derive from it. And by my reckoning, the universe has not yet done, what it is going to do next. If the universe is to be seen as having a mind, then we are an example of it, and not different from it.

 

 

 

The entire Vedantic philosophy can be summarized as follows:

 

"Narada Muni continued: What I referred to as the chariot was in actuality the body. The senses are the horses that pull that chariot. As time passes, year after year, these horses run without obstruction, but in fact they make no progress. Pious and impious activities are the two wheels of the chariot. The three modes of material nature are the chariot's flags. The five types of life air constitute the living entity's bondage, and the mind is considered to be the rope. Intelligence is the chariot driver. The heart is the sitting place in the chariot, and the dualities of life, such as pleasure and pain, are the knotting place. The seven elements are the coverings of the chariot, and the working senses are the five external processes. The eleven senses are the soldiers. Being engrossed in sense enjoyment, the living entity, seated on the chariot, hankers after fulfilment of his false desires and runs after sense enjoyment life after life. (SB 4.29.18-20)"

The Vedas then go on to declare that if there is an intellect then there should be someone behind that intellect to stimulate your thoughts and he is that divine God, the one who stimulate our intellect.

"Let us adore the supremacy of that divine sun, the god-head who illuminates all, who recreates all, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, whom we invoke to direct our understandings aright in our progress toward his holy seat."^[15]

Sir William Jones, 1807

"Unveil, O Thou who givest sustenance to the Universe, from whom all proceed, to whom all must return, that face of the True Sun now hidden by a vase of golden light, that we may see the truth and do our whole duty on our journey to thy sacred seat."^[16]

William Quan Judge, 1893

"We meditate on the worshipable power and glory of Him who has created the earth, the nether world and the heavens (i.e. the universe), and who directs our understanding."^[17]

Sivanath Sastri (Brahmo Samaj), 1911

"We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds."^[18]

Swami Vivekananda, 1915

1. "We meditate on the effulgent glory of the divine Light; may he inspire our understanding."^[19]
2. "We meditate on the adorable glory of the radiant sun; may he inspire our intelligence."^[20]

S. Radhakrishnan, 1. 1947, 2. 1953

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Mantra

Edited January 15, 2013 by immortal

[John Cuthber]

 

Divine intervention is taking place 24*7 days of a year, all evidence of science is pointing towards the existence of a metaphysical mind and a metaphysical intellect. Without that mind which is the product of a divine God this reality would not have existed and without that intellect human beings would not have discovered mathematical truths.

That's just an assertion.

You have no evidence for it.

It's not science and when you say it is you are back in the world of Humpty Dumpty.

BTW, do you know that at least one new mathematical proof has been discovered by a computer.

Do you think a bunch of chips is "divine" but I (as an atheist) am not?

 

 

While I'm at it, this

"Did you saw that when you revert back from those branches all those different sects unify itself into Early Christianity?"

doesn't even parse, never mind answer the point

The point remains that there are many religions and they all survive (at least for the time being) so your assertion ""only a few religions survive" is nonsense.

 

The only sense in which science and religion are converging is that 300 years ago the only explanation of "why does so and so happen" was "Goddidit".

Now science is explaining more and more complex phenomena and religion is left "explaining" less and less.

(That's the weird use of the word "explaining" where they say "Goddidit" and pretend that this brings some sort of understanding.)

 

So things like "why are there planets and a sun?" was once the realm of religion, but now it's science.

 

As there are fewer things left for science to look at, it looks at the more complex problems like "How did the universe begin?" and historically that was the realm of the God botherers there could be said to be a convergence, but it's a product of what's called the "God of the gaps" idea.

 

It's not that science is approaching religion, it's that religion is retreating.

Edited January 15, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Semjase]

Intelligence is never retreating who controls it

is what counts. The one that has the highest intelligence

is calling the shots as the way it should be.

 

 

 

[tar]

Semjase,

 

Perhaps that is what is at issue here. Who is in control?

 

I have noticed a similarity between the usurption of "Allah's" power by Mohammed, and the association of the Pope with holy power, and the reverence for those that hold "The Secret of the Vedas".

 

For you, "the most intelligent" should be at the rudder.

 

We all subjigate ourselves to the pack leader. Its probably in our genes to do such. It works out, pretty well. Anarchy doesn't usually result in a sustainable situation.

 

I suppose "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." is probably very sound advice.

 

My father was proud of my daughter's acceptance to a Doctorate program at Virginia Tech. He told her she would be only the 4th PhD in the extended family. Made me think of how important it is, to us all, that some have the intellect, the strength of will, and expend the great amount of effort required to study what is known, and apply such, to push "our" knowledge and command of things to the next level. We all eat the fruit from the trees these people husband.

 

Immortal,

 

Would you follow the advice of a PhD?

 

You summed up the Vedic body of knowledge, with an arbitrary chariot metaphor. No doubt these people wish for others to view their detailed understanding of the various barriers we common folk have, between us and an understanding of the "truth", as an indication that we should subjigate ourselves to those blessed few, who know all the tricks of the trade.

 

I'll throw in with the scholars at the universities, first, thank you.

 

PeterJ,

 

I think I, at least once, mentioned that I had a long talk with God when I was 13. (Brahman, Allah, whoever) I understood his predictament, and realized it was my job to forget that I was him, and to be just me. I have undergone various insights and learned various things in the intervening 46 years, but I do not think that my 13 year old insights tell a different story than the Vedic Master's conclusion. Same deal. Only differ in the take away.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 16, 2013 by tar

[PeterJ]

Okay Immortal. I give up. I'll leave you continue to represent religion.as a lot of dogmatic nonsense impervious to analysis.

 

,

 

. .

 

. .

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Would you follow the advice of a PhD?

 

You summed up the Vedic body of knowledge, with an arbitrary chariot metaphor. No doubt these people wish for others to view their detailed understanding of the various barriers we common folk have, between us and an understanding of the "truth", as an indication that we should subjigate ourselves to those blessed few, who know all the tricks of the trade.

 

I'll throw in with the scholars at the universities, first, thank you.

 

 

Who here has a Phd in philosophy of religion? You better take this advice from someone who has a Phd in this subject or else you are free to go and believe in whatever you want, the choice is yours.

"As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind"

- Jonathon Duqette, Phd, philosopher of religion.

Anyone who is epistemologically linking QM with Vedanta is talking bs. You guys have no idea what you have confronted with.

[Semjase]

Everything here works under science including the intelligence

that oversees everything that is here, the problem arises

with our experience of real events it's an intangible you

can't explain under scientific terms even though it works

under science, it creates confusion in science, you

have to experience it to know it.

This realitiy we live in hasn't been this way forever

it's evolved including everything that is here, even consciouness

has evolved to be what it is today.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Semjase

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Should one have their own understanding of Brahman, or should one assume someone else's understanding?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

IOW-It may be possible that I know what I am confronted with.

Edited January 16, 2013 by tar

[John Cuthber]

A PhD in religion isn't something I'd consider relevant when looking at the validity of someone's point.

I'd look at whether or not they constructed a valid argument backed by evidence.

Edited January 16, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

What? You don't think a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech counts?

[John Cuthber]

What? You don't think a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech counts?

Only on the Sabbath.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Should one have their own understanding of Brahman, or should one assume someone else's understanding?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

IOW-It may be possible that I know what I am confronted with.

 

 

I will put Brahman in the right perspective for you.

 

Idealism in Ancient philosophy

 

"The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.[1] Absolute idealism can be seen in Chandogya Upani?ad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self."

(From Wiki)

 

One of the main important concepts that one need to understand about the Upanishads is Antharmukh and Bahirmukh. If you want to understand Brahman then first you need to understand about Indian Psychology.

 

 

Differential hypotheses between Indian and Western psychology.

 

The most important difference between the Indian and the Western approach seems to be about the existence of pure consciousness as postulated by the former. However, as far as “normal life” is concerned, ancient Indian psychology, especially as expressed in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika have astonishingly parallel views with modern Western psychology (e.g., Raju, 1983; Sharma, 2003). But there are also some striking differences. For instance, in contemporary Western cognitive psychology, the relationship between brain and mind is seldom explicitly spelled out, but if one would press researchers to make a statement, most would probably resort to the view that cognitive processes co-vary with brain processes, and if pressed still harder, some might say that essentially brain processes produce cognitions and emotions (e.g., Damasio, 1999). The Indian view is just the opposite: the brain is used as an instrument by the mind (e.g., Raju, 1983).

Does the mind use the brain or is the reverse true? This is a very interesting question, which cannot easily be tested. One might, however, try to find evidence for whether mind exists independently from brain. If the brain is the basis for the mind, there should be no mind if the brain is dead. So a good starting point to examine the hypothesis might be to look for evidence on near-death experiences or on reincarnation (for some attempts do to so see Cook, Greyson & Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1987).

Do the senses connect to their “sense-objects”? In Indian psychology, at least in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, Sāṁkhya, and Mīmāṁsā, it is assumed that the senses go out to their objects and contact them or even “become” the objects (e.g., Raju, 1983). Therefore, sense-organs such as the eye or the nose that do not really touch their objects seem to be not the whole story according to the Indian view. So one might, for instance, hypothesize that even if the visual sense in the Western understanding does not work any longer, the remaining part of the visual sense in the Indian understanding might still be functioning and an (incomplete) perception might be the result. This hypothesis might open up some interesting links to phenomena such as “blindsight” (e.g., Cowey, 2004).

- Peter Sedlmeier, Indian Psychology and the Scientific method.

These are the basic things which you need to understand first before understanding Brahman. According to Indian Psychology, Mind and Brain are two different things, Mind and Intellect are not just abstractions as you have thought, they literally exist in the external world out there, this is the reason why I earlier quoted Wigner since he argued that Substance dualism is slowly becoming more and more acceptable into the mainstream science.

 

Indian Psychology is not really concerned or is connected with the empirical world at all, it is a metaphysical theory. Normally in science we put those theories into the world of metaphysics which cannot be disproved or falsified. According to it, it places the Self(Brahman) as the origin of all these manifested cosmos of God and including this empirical universe, the five objective elements which are Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Outer Space and the subjective elements which are Mind, Intellect and metaphysical sense organs are the things which exists in the noumenon of Kant and these elements participate in the retrospective creation of this empirical universe which is only a state of mind i.e. this universe of yours is all inside your Mind and its not out there in the external world, what is out there is the manifested world of God. This is the reason why I said that this reality would not have existed without the existence of God.

 

Non-dualism means becoming one with God or the Holy Father, according to Advaita, God(Ishvara) is an emanation of Brahman and he exists behind the Intellect and what is beyond God(Brahman) is Unspeakable or ineffable, that's why they named it as Brahman or Ein Sof, no one really knows what it is. We can meaningful understand about God and his relationship with the manifested Cosmos but anything beyond is beyond from our Intellectual grasp.

 

This is the orthodox traditional take on Advaita and this is my position.

 

A PhD in religion isn't something I'd consider relevant when looking at the validity of someone's point.

I'd look at whether or not they constructed a valid argument backed by evidence.

 

The PhD's particularly in this subject visit India and learn things from the tradition and then they publish their work according to the perspective of Western philosophy.

 

Okay Immortal. I give up. I'll leave you continue to represent religion.as a lot of dogmatic nonsense impervious to analysis.

 

If your dream of placing Jesus in line with Shankara and Buddha need to become a reality then start taking the Pleroma of God seriously. Did you understand now why I criticized your position from the beginning?

[John Cuthber]

The PhD's particularly in this subject visit India and learn things from the tradition and then they publish their work according to the perspective of Western philosophy.

It doesn't matter if they got their insight while visiting the bathroom and published it on toilet roll.

If what they say is not supported by evidence and a logically valid argument, then it's bollocks.