The Secret of the Vedas

[tar]

Immortal,

 

"If you want to understand Brahman then first you need to understand about Indian Psychology."

 

Well this is sort of my argument against "the Secret of the Vedas".

 

The statement would work better for me, if it was posed the other way around. To understand Indian Psychology you need to understand Brahman.

 

Certainly thousands of years of insight and discussion and "confronting" of the human condition, can result in a workable "understanding" of the cosmos and our place amongst it. But it would still be a "subjective" opinion.

 

If Brahman is real, then it would not require any special secret, provided by any one individual, or sect, or religion, or species to "understand" Brahman.

 

What is a "construct", or model, or abstraction, or theory, is derived first from the facts. The facts are objectively real, first and before the senses become aware of them. Scientific method tries to establish the facts...from which theories can be drawn. Certainly one can work the other way as well. An architect can "think" of a form, and make it real on paper, and that form can be matched by builders in concrete, plastic, glass and metal.

 

I am aware of the fact, that the "world" I know is extracted from and merely represents the actual world. Analog representations of it, gleened by my senses and recorded in the synapes and structures of my brain...are not the "same" as the actual world. But I know that the actual world must exist, because of the very many similarities between my abstraction of it, and 6 and half billion other current examples of such.

 

Thus the scientific method, which strives to focus on the similarities that one subjective mind, and another, would both agree on, upon mutual inspection of THE FACTS.

 

So if Brahman is a fact. I do not need the secret of the Vedas, to witness such, to be a part of, to understand, or to have a relationship with.

 

Your thesis is thusly soundly defeated. The REAL Brahman is obvious to and accessable to all.

 

I can, and do, know THE SELF as intimately as any human, be she a scientist, or a Westener or a Vedic Master. Everybody knows.

 

The opposite of this truth, would be to say that only you know the truth, and nobody else is doing it correctly. Such thinking is the basis of "the secret of the Vedas", or "'til all the world is for Allah" or "only Jesus holds the key to heaven". All these certainties have the same flaw. If God is real, then there is no one that is not already admitted to the club. To create a club, with special membership requirements, is immediately FALSE.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

In other words. If I am familiar with a concept, and the concept is of a real thing, why must I know the Indian pronounciation, to understand the concept?

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

In other words. If I am familiar with a concept, and the concept is of a real thing, why must I know the Indian pronounciation, to understand the concept?

 

That's the reason why I had started an another thread to answer these questions of yours.

The importance of ritual in religion

 

Science is not all there is, the scientific enterprise itself has forced us to question the existence of this empirical world independent of us. The very foundation of science is in question here. Scientific method is not the only method which works, there are other methods as well which works in bringing out knowledge which are practically useful.

 

The pagan religions should be understood in the context of the thread which I have provided above, which explains why the names of Gods are important, why ritual is important and why it is so important to worship Gods, it answers all your questions. This is how our ancients did it and that's how they discovered the truth about Brahman. This is not science, this is esotericism.

[Moontanman]

Science is not all there is, the scientific enterprise itself has forced us to question the existence of this empirical world independent of us. The very foundation of science is in question here. Scientific method is not the only method which works, there are other methods as well which works in bringing out knowledge which are practically useful.

 

Please name a few of them...

 

The pagan religions should be understood in the context of the thread which I have provided above, which explains why the names of Gods are important, why ritual is important and why it is so important to worship Gods, it answers all your questions. This is how our ancients did it and that's how they discovered the truth about Brahman. This is not science, this is esotericism.

 

You cannot support this in any verifiable way, in fact this is complete nonsense, you assume something is true and then use that assumption to support your assertion. Nothing but horse feathers...

[immortal]

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.

 

I said that to suggest that just because someone holds a Phd in this subject doesn't mean he knows more about the subject than others when they are getting much of their insights from the natives who are the real experts on the subject.

 

Please name a few of them...

 

The methodology of Yoga.

 

You cannot support this in any verifiable way, in fact this is complete nonsense, you assume something is true and then use that assumption to support your assertion. Nothing but horse feathers...

 

LoL, the enterprise of science is actually a dead end, science doesn't and cannot give you the ultimate truth.

[Moontanman]

The methodology of Yoga.

 

And what knowledge comes out of that?

 

 

LoL, the enterprise of science is actually a dead end, science doesn't and cannot give you the ultimate truth.

 

 

Science has given us far more than the ultimate truth, your religion gives us nothing but false claims and demands for undeserved respect. You cannot support your religion giving you anything of substance, not even morals, it's empty and meaningless...

[John Cuthber]

You said "Scientific method is not the only method which works, there are other methods as well which works in bringing out knowledge which are practically useful." and when asked to name a few you said "The methodology of Yoga."

 

So now you need to show the practical utility of "The methodology of Yoga."

 

Please note that the merits of stretching and gentle exercise are well documented in science so they don't count as any practical utility of yoga.

 

Did yoga, for example, build your computer or produce a vaccine against illness?

 

 

(Incidentally, I assume that you are misusing the word "methodology" when you mean practice or method(s). because methodology is actually the study of methods. What we are doing here is actually methodology, we are comparing the scientific method (which is known to work, even if you pretend that it doesn't) with the methods used in Yoga which are not known to work, even if you pretend that they are).

[tar]

Immortal,

 

If the "subject" you are wishing to understand, is the mind of the natives, then traditional beliefs are important. To understand my mind, for instance, you must understand the constitution of the United States, the tenants of the particular Christian Church I attended when I was young, the beliefs and insights of the philosphers I have read, the social conversations that have gone on in the media of the US over the last 50 years, the history and efforts and endeavors of my family and friends, and all such things that give me context and character.

 

If the "subject" is Brahman, God, Allah, the universe, being, consciousness, or the nature of reality, however, a particular "take" on the matter, is not going to be the only take possible. There would be no requirement to know my mind, or the mind of any particular native population, to be aware of "being" itself.

 

That can be understood, by any sentient being, automatically. With no help from the Masters. With no complicated stable of dieties named, with no assumptions of reincarnation, with no manipulations or requirements, or made up "eminations" from supernatural beings.

 

You keep trying to say, that I can not, or do not understand this being thing. But the particular "subject" you are concerned with, is my understanding of YOUR mind. The subject of Brahman, and the subject of your mind are related, but are not the same subject.

 

You can suggest I do not understand the Indian mind. This is probably true. You cannot suggest that I do not understand being. This is self evident.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

(Bad sentence construction there. Meant, not that I do not understand being, but that as soon as one is, it is rather self evident that being, is indeed the case.)

My world is not commanded by Thor, because I am not a Viking.

It is not commanded by Zeus, because I am not a Greek.

It is not commanded by Brahman, because I am not a Buddist.

It is not commanded by RA because I am not Egyptian.

It is not commanded by the God of Moses, because I am not a Jew.

 

It is however commanded by its empirical self, the actual empirical history that has led up to the here and now in which I find myself. The actual forces and forms that have created life on Earth, the evolution of humans, the birth of my parents and such, that have relsulted in TAR. There is enough wonder, and magisty, eternalness and expanse to both the external and the internal, for me to believe in, that is empirically true, for me to consider myself a believer. Without the permission of the Viking or the Mayan or the Jewish or the Moslem or the Buddist traditions or the masters of said traditions, being required, for my acceptance into reality. I am, by all accounts, already fully here. And I believe in it. It is true. It is the truth. I am not in search of it. It has already been found, or has already found me, to be the case.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

So take your advice, as to what I need to do, to "understand" the truth, and park it away somewhere. I don't consider myself needing it. Show me instead, what I have yet to learn, about empirical reality. There alone is where what matters, to me, resides.

Edited January 18, 2013 by tar

[immortal]

And what knowledge comes out of that?

 

Real Knowledge.

 

 

Part Three on Divine Powers

3.1 One-pointedness is steadfastness of the mind.

 

3.2 Unbroken continuation of that mental ability is meditation.

 

3.3 That same meditation when there is only consciousness of the object of meditation and not of the mind is realization.

 

3.4 The three appearing together are self-control.

 

3.5 By mastery comes wisdom.

 

3.6 The application of mastery is by stages.

 

3.7 The three are more efficacious than the restraints.

 

3.8 Even that is external to the seedless realization.

 

3.9 The significant aspect is the union of the mind with the moment of absorption, when the outgoing thought disappears and the absorptive experience appears.

 

3.10 From sublimation of this union comes the peaceful flow of unbroken unitive cognition.

 

3.11 The contemplative transformation of this is equalmindedness, witnessing the rise and destruction of distraction as well as one-pointedness itself.

 

3.12 The mind becomes one-pointed when the subsiding and rising thought-waves are exactly similar.

 

3.13 In this state, it passes beyond the changes of inherent characteristics, properties and the conditional modifications of object or sensory recognition.

 

3.14 The object is that which preserves the latent characteristic, the rising characteristic or the yet-to-be-named characteristic that establishes one entity as specific.

 

3.15 The succession of these changes in that entity is the cause of its modification.

 

3.16 By self-control over these three-fold changes (of property, character and condition), knowledge of the past and the future arises.

 

3.17 The sound of a word, the idea behind the word, and the object the idea signfies are often taken as being one thing and may be mistaken for one another. By self-control over their distinctions, understanding of all languages of all creatures arises.

 

3.18 By self-control on the perception of mental impressions, knowledge of previous lives arises.

 

3.19 By self-control on any mark of a body, the wisdom of the mind activating that body arises.

 

3.20 By self-control on the form of a body, by suspending perceptibility and separating effulgence therefrom, there arises invisibility and inaudibilty.

 

3.21 Action is of two kinds, dormant and fruitful. By self-control on such action, one portends the time of death.

 

3.22 By performing self-control on friendliness, the strength to grant joy arises.

 

3.23 By self-control over any kind of strength, such as that of the elephant, that very strength arises.

 

3.24 By self-control on the primal activator comes knowledge of the hidden, the subtle, and the distant.

 

3.25 By self-control on the Sun comes knowledge of spatial specificities.

 

3.26 By self-control on the Moon comes knowledge of the heavens.

 

3.27 By self-control on the Polestar arises knowledge of orbits.

 

3.28 By self-control on the navel arises knowledge of the constitution of the body.

 

3.29 By self-control on the pit of the throat one subdues hunger and thirst.

 

3.30 By self-control on the tube within the chest one acquires absolute steadiness.

 

3.31 By self-control on the light in the head one envisions perfected beings.

 

3.32 There is knowledge of everything from intuition.

 

3.33 Self-control on the heart brings knowledge of the mental entity.

 

3.34 Experience arises due to the inability of discerning the attributes of vitality from the indweller, even though they are indeed distinct from one another. Self-control brings true knowledge of the indweller by itself.

 

3.35 This spontaneous enlightenment results in intuitional perception of hearing, touching, seeing and smelling.

 

3.36 To the outward turned mind, the sensory organs are perfections, but are obstacles to realization.

 

3.37 When the bonds of the mind caused by action have been loosened, one may enter the body of another by knowledge of how the nerve-currents function.

 

3.38 By self-control of the nerve-currents utilising the lifebreath, one may levitate, walk on water, swamps, thorns, or the like.

 

3.39 By self-control over the maintenance of breath, one may radiate light.

 

3.40 By self-control on the relation of the ear to the ether one gains distant hearing.

 

3.41 By self-control over the relation of the body to the ether, and maintaining at the same time the thought of the lightness of cotton, one is able to pass through space.

 

3.42 By self-control on the mind when it is separated from the body- the state known as the Great Transcorporeal- all coverings are removed from the Light.

 

3.43 Mastery over the elements arises when their gross and subtle forms,as well as their essential characteristics, and the inherent attributes and experiences they produce, is examined in self-control.

 

3.44 Thereby one may become as tiny as an atom as well as having many other abilities, such as perfection of the body, and non-resistence to duty.

 

3.45 Perfection of the body consists in beauty, grace, strength and adamantine hardness.

 

3.46 By self-control on the changes that the sense-organs endure when contacting objects, and on the power of the sense of identity, and of the influence of the attributes, and the experience all these produce- one masters the senses.

 

3.47 From that come swiftness of mind, independence of perception, and mastery over primoridal matter.

 

3.48 To one who recognizes the distinctive relation between vitality and indweller comes omnipotence and omniscience.

 

3.49 Even for the destruction of the seed of bondage by desirelessness there comes absolute independence.

 

3.50 When invited by invisible beings one should be neither flattered nor satisfied, for there is yet a possibility of ignorance rising up.

 

3.51 By self-control over single moments and their succession there is wisdom born of discrimination.

 

3.52 From that there is recognition of two similars when that difference cannot be distinguished by class, characteristic or position.

 

3.53 Intuition, which is the entire discriminative knowledge, relates to all objects at all times, and is without succession.

 

3.54 Liberation is attained when there is equal purity between vitality and the indweller.

 

End Part Three

 

- The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Translation by BonGiovanni.

 

 

 

Science has given us far more than the ultimate truth, your religion gives us nothing but false claims and demands for undeserved respect. You cannot support your religion giving you anything of substance, not even morals, it's empty and meaningless...

 

We hold the Kernel of Truth not the scientists, they are just prisoners of the cave.

 

Science cannot fully describe reality

 

Immortal,

 

So take your advice, as to what I need to do, to "understand" the truth, and park it away somewhere. I don't consider myself needing it. Show me instead, what I have yet to learn, about empirical reality. There alone is where what matters, to me, resides.

 

You need to learn this empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us in the external world, its all inside your mind.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I suppose you actually read the stuff you link?

 

"D'Espagnat's writings on quantum mechanics lay out with great clarity the genuine puzzles that quantum mechanics presents, says Jeffrey Bub of the University of Maryland, College Park. But he's skeptical about finding common ground among notions of reality from art, science, and spirituality. As he puts it, if there's something about the physical world that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, "it doesn't follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry.""

 

Do you take D'Espangnat so cherrypickingly, that you ignore the sound judgement of Jeffrey Bub?

 

Having a "gap" does not imply that it must be filled by cream cheese.

 

And besides D'Espagnat himself is aware that there is a reality that exist, independent of "us". This is in direct opposition to your thesis, that you can predict the future, walk on water, become invisible and soundless, pass through walls and such, should you just concentrate on the task with the right frame of mind. In direct opposition on two axis. One, to imagine you can have superhuman powers over the "outside" world, you must admit first, there IS an outside world, an actual independent reality, for you to exhibit superhuman powers over. And two, to consider that success in "imagining" a change in the actual reality, is accomplishing an actual change, anyplace other than in your imagination, is patent delusion.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You really only have two ways to go with this. This "secret of the Vedas". It either fails because it demands that actual reality does not exist, which is clearly a false ascertion. Or it fails because the human mind does not have the superhuman powers over actual reality, that it has over its own internal configuration and delusions.

 

Brings me back to a discussion we were having in some thread or another about the relationship of self hypnosis and mushroom use and the effects on the mind that sitting in a dark silent cave for hours, has with spiritual insights. And the very real fact that if you were to reach nirvana, you would be doing it by yourself, with no instant effect on the rest of reality. There would be 6.5 billion that had NOT reached nirvana with you. Meaning exactly that there is an outside reality that really exists that is what it is, no matter what the mushrooms say about it.

Real Knowledge.

We hold the Kernel of Truth not the scientists, they are just prisoners of the cave.

Science cannot fully describe reality

 

You need to learn this empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us in the external world, its all inside your mind.

 

I do not need to learn this thing you say I must learn. It is a false thing you would have me submit to.

Empirical reality DOES exist independent of us, AND we have a very intricate and representative model of it built into the folds and synapses and connections of our brains.

 

If I were to take a picture of a thing and show it to you, would you argue that the thing exists only in the 1s and 0s inside my digital camera? Or was there indeed the thing I took the picture of?

Consider the model of the world I have, and contrast it with the model of the world you have. Both are incomplete and I have images of it you have not seen, and vice a versa. You do not know what my dog looks like, and I do not know where you keep your toothbrush. But my dog is real, and so is your toothbrush. How would you account for this, without the assumption of an external reality, an objectively true world, where both my dog, and your toothbrush, exist?

Edited January 19, 2013 by tar

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I suppose you actually read the stuff you link?

 

"D'Espagnat's writings on quantum mechanics lay out with great clarity the genuine puzzles that quantum mechanics presents, says Jeffrey Bub of the University of Maryland, College Park. But he's skeptical about finding common ground among notions of reality from art, science, and spirituality. As he puts it, if there's something about the physical world that quantum mechanics isn't telling you, "it doesn't follow that those gaps can be filled with poetry.""

 

Do you take D'Espangnat so cherrypickingly, that you ignore the sound judgement of Jeffrey Bub?

 

Having a "gap" does not imply that it must be filled by cream cheese.

 

I very well read the stuff which I link to, no one here is filling the gaps in QM with poetry or classical music. I am filling the gaps in QM with 3000 years of eastern Vedic science.

 

And besides D'Espagnat himself is aware that there is a reality that exist, independent of "us". This is in direct opposition to your thesis, that you can predict the future, walk on water, become invisible and soundless, pass through walls and such, should you just concentrate on the task with the right frame of mind. In direct opposition on two axis. One, to imagine you can have superhuman powers over the "outside" world, you must admit first, there IS an outside world, an actual independent reality, for you to exhibit superhuman powers over. And two, to consider that success in "imagining" a change in the actual reality, is accomplishing an actual change, anyplace other than in your imagination, is patent delusion.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

No body said there is no reality independent of us. I am a Platonic realist. D'Espagnat's position is in line with me and with the view of the Vedas and the Upanishads.

 

You really only have two ways to go with this. This "secret of the Vedas". It either fails because it demands that actual reality does not exist, which is clearly a false ascertion.

 

It stands as one of the surviving religions because it asserts that this empirical reality is only a state of mind which is in line with facts established from experiments.

 

Or it fails because the human mind does not have the superhuman powers over actual reality, that it has over its own internal configuration and delusions.

 

All evidence is pointing to a metaphysical Mind and an Intellect and it is this is what is responsible for the retrospective creation of this empirical reality.

 

 

I do not need to learn this thing you say I must learn. It is a false thing you would have me submit to.

Empirical reality DOES exist independent of us, AND we have a very intricate and representative model of it built into the folds and synapses and connections of our brains.

 

"What we call reality is only a state of mind" - Bernard D'Espagnat. This empirical reality doesn't exist independent of us, that's the truth about this world something which you need to learn because your belief in the existence of this empirical reality independent of us is wrong and contradicts empirical evidence.

 

If I were to take a picture of a thing and show it to you, would you argue that the thing exists only in the 1s and 0s inside my digital camera? Or was there indeed the thing I took the picture of?

 

Consider the model of the world I have, and contrast it with the model of the world you have. Both are incomplete and I have images of it you have not seen, and vice a versa. You do not know what my dog looks like, and I do not know where you keep your toothbrush. But my dog is real, and so is your toothbrush. How would you account for this, without the assumption of an external reality, an objectively true world, where both my dog, and your toothbrush, exist?

 

Your dog and my toothbrush are phenomena, a spatio-temporal reality which has been given to us and not how it exists out there in the external world. The reality which exists out there in the external world which is the noumenon is completely different.

[John Cuthber]

Immortal, what you have posted as evidence is either meaningless

like

" By self-control on the Polestar arises knowledge of orbits."

 

or simply not true like

"By self-control of the nerve-currents utilising the lifebreath, one may levitate, walk on water, swamps, thorns, or the like."

 

Did you not realise that?

Did you think that we wouldn't notice that it's complete rubbish?

 

So, you have not yet provided any evidence of your previous assertion.

Are yo able to do so?

[tar]

This spatio-temporal reality is the only one available. Its the only one we have, its the only one we can sensibly talk about.

 

My dog is "out there" in reality to you. And your toothbrush is "out there" in reality, to me.

 

Any "other" reality you might be referring to is not pertinent to this one.

 

If it does have a bearing on "this" reality, show us where it makes its marks.

 

If it does not have a bearing on "this" reality, then it is not true, not real, not empirically findable or useful.

 

You can not just pronounce that my dog and your toothbrush are simply states of mind. Its silly garbage to suggest such a thing. My dog is real, your toothbrush is real...and abstractions of yours are one level away from, not one level toward reality.

 

I really do think you have promoted your dreams and visions to an undeserved status. And I wish you would stop telling me I need to learn something about the truth, when your insights and secrets point very much in the other direction.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 19, 2013 by tar

[Moontanman]

 

I very well read the stuff which I link to, no one here is filling the gaps in QM with poetry or classical music. I am filling the gaps in QM with 3000 years of eastern Vedic science.

 

 

 

Vedic Science? Is that anything like creation science? In other words complete horse feathers?

[tar]

Immortal,

 

OK, here's my real concern. This near enemy, far enemy stuff of yours.

 

I can not parse it, within your explainations, as being the kind of objectively valid consideration you make it out to be.

 

If everybody is just a figment of everybody else imagination, there is no real battle going on, between real camps. This appears to me to undermine your thesis again. Either there is a real battle, between real camps and reality is not an illusion, or the illusion is reality, and the battle is not between you and me, but between various alliances of various of your 31 gods who you consider real eminations from Brahman, and I consider figments of your imagination.

 

If I try to follow your logic and consider my soul on some journey, whose destination is Brahman, It gets rather confusing, as to which of the 31 gods, are guiding my passage. Being that all 31 are eminations of Brahman, it would be rather odd to ever think you were not on Brahman's side in the story. You have to be some god's patsy, some god's fool, or some god's ally, because according to you, the real reality is the battle being fought by the divine forces drawing you toward Brahman and those keeping you away. But from my point of view, if this is true, then its all good, because the divisions themselves are eminations from Brahman...and one can easily consider the witnessing of empirical reality a directive from Brahman.

 

Bottom line, if your secrets are true, you do not get to chose the winners and losers, nor do you get to know whether you yourself are winning or losing. From this vantage point, you are in no position to have enemies, near or far.

 

Now where you might have some choices such as who is your enemy and who is your ally, is if you are a non-trancendental human soul, inhabiting a human body, with a human mind, with desires and feelings, able to experience hunger and pain, satisfaction and pleasure. With such a mortal soul, you are in a position to survive or to die, and it would matter greatly to you who was on your side in the matter and who was against you. Now it would make sense to have enemies near and far, and to have people on your side, protecting you and helping to maintain your safety and peace, and helping you to keep your belly full.

 

So which is it Immortal? Are your 31 gods actual entities, or are they figments of your imagination?

 

Do you have any empirical evidence, with which we could write a rule book, as to which of the 31 gods you have allied with, and which of them I have allied with, or are the rules only existing in your mind, and not "out there" for everybody's inspection?

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

OK, here's my real concern. This near enemy, far enemy stuff of yours.

 

I can not parse it, within your explainations, as being the kind of objectively valid consideration you make it out to be.

 

If everybody is just a figment of everybody else imagination, there is no real battle going on, between real camps. This appears to me to undermine your thesis again. Either there is a real battle, between real camps and reality is not an illusion, or the illusion is reality, and the battle is not between you and me, but between various alliances of various of your 31 gods who you consider real eminations from Brahman, and I consider figments of your imagination.

 

If I try to follow your logic and consider my soul on some journey, whose destination is Brahman, It gets rather confusing, as to which of the 31 gods, are guiding my passage. Being that all 31 are eminations of Brahman, it would be rather odd to ever think you were not on Brahman's side in the story. You have to be some god's patsy, some god's fool, or some god's ally, because according to you, the real reality is the battle being fought by the divine forces drawing you toward Brahman and those keeping you away. But from my point of view, if this is true, then its all good, because the divisions themselves are eminations from Brahman...and one can easily consider the witnessing of empirical reality a directive from Brahman.

 

Bottom line, if your secrets are true, you do not get to chose the winners and losers, nor do you get to know whether you yourself are winning or losing. From this vantage point, you are in no position to have enemies, near or far.

 

Now where you might have some choices such as who is your enemy and who is your ally, is if you are a non-trancendental human soul, inhabiting a human body, with a human mind, with desires and feelings, able to experience hunger and pain, satisfaction and pleasure. With such a mortal soul, you are in a position to survive or to die, and it would matter greatly to you who was on your side in the matter and who was against you. Now it would make sense to have enemies near and far, and to have people on your side, protecting you and helping to maintain your safety and peace, and helping you to keep your belly full.

 

So which is it Immortal? Are your 31 gods actual entities, or are they figments of your imagination?

 

Do you have any empirical evidence, with which we could write a rule book, as to which of the 31 gods you have allied with, and which of them I have allied with, or are the rules only existing in your mind, and not "out there" for everybody's inspection?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

You guys need to understand the eastern mind, our model of the cosmos.

 

Macrocosm and Microcosm

Taoist views of the body

Inner Gods

 

Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful.

Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good.

 

- Lao Tsu

 

The truth about this world is that Gods are real and they are everywhere. Near enemies are those who show double standards and ignore the explicit existence of Gods in these traditions and far enemies are those who are atheists. There is only two options either Advaita Vedanta is true and these Gods exist or Advaita is false and atheists are right. Since all empirical evidence is in favour of Advaita Vedanta of Shankara the conclusion is these Gods are real and they are everywhere and are in control of all our aspects.

 

Gods not only exist in heaven they dwell or reside with in our bodies. This is our view of the world. No double standards and no fuss, I am as straight forward as I can get.

[John Cuthber]

Immortal,

come on, you have missed the point again.

What real evidence can you offer for Yoga offering anything real?

 

In the meantime, here are some delusional people who think they can fly because they can bounce around on their arses.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438UKM1Av1g

[immortal]

Immortal,

come on, you have missed the point again.

What real evidence can you offer for Yoga offering anything real?

 

In the meantime, here are some delusional people who think they can fly because they can bounce around on their arses.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=438UKM1Av1g

 

There are lots of evidence, read a good yoga journal or read this.

 

Yoga and Consciousness Studies

Sun Salutations

 

 

"These explanations are provided here to illustrate how our ancient masters have, by their insight, study and research, understood how the various organs of the body can be kept in optimal and strong functioning levels. Their knowledge and understanding of the externals and the internals are amazing. Modern science is only gradually scratching the surface of the vast knowledge hidden in our hoary scriptures and in the practices of our Rishis."

All the empirical evidence is in favour of our model of the cosmos. We don't start with the Big Bang, according to this model the observers came first.

[John Cuthber]

So, as evidence of levitation you cite a page which says "Though people testified under oath before the Congregation of Rites that they had seen Saint Teresa of Avila or Saint Joseph of Cupertino defy gravity, no scientific studies have recorded instances of levitation.".

Biofeedback is an established scientific phenomenon so it's clearly not an example of progress that's not open to science.

It is, thus, not evidence to support your assertion.

 

 

The second site says things like "Combined Vowel ‘ai’ as in ‘hraim’: vibrations work on kidney and urinary

passage making the organs strong and sensitive." but, as expected, lacks any sort of evidence for the assertions.

Why do you keep citing fairy tales?

Is it because you don't actually have any evidence.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I thought you were defending Indian traditions? What is with the Taoism?

 

By a cursury reading of your latest links, it appears that Taoism is more of a metaphor type mindset, where what is true in the macrocosm has its analogies in the microcosm and vice a versa. This would correspond somewhat to reality and we all seem to be able to draw these analogies, and is not completely a different notion than a Mandebrot set, or considering the similarities between a Galaxy and a hurricane. For that matter, not significantly a different kind of notion than a scientist applying a gas formula, to the universe.

 

But the beauracratic nature of the thing requires a kind of projection of the human body upon the society and then again upon the universe. This is not dissimilar to belief in an athropomorphic god and it is important to remember that not all analogies are complete. There is not a requirement that ones analogy be correct or that the map of the United States will mirror the distribution of stars in the sky, or the shape of one of my organs.

 

We humans seem to recognize patterns. We match stuff all the time, for recognition and simplified handling.

 

But it is interesting to me that the Tao stuff you linked spoke of five seasons, and five this and that, fitting various considerations into this five pattern. Why, if this is "true" should my calender work so well with four seasons? It appears we can arbitrarily lock onto a pattern, and then fit the rest of the universe into it...if we wish.

 

This is not allowed while applying the scientific method upon the world. Maybe OK to formulate a theory, but then the next step is to see if it actually matches with what exists. One cannot assume that the patterns of the macrocosm and the patterns of the microcosm will be exact analogs. Such as holding a simple picture of an atom being the "same thing" as a Solar system.

 

So consider the arbitrary aspects of the traditions you cite. The difference in the number and roles of the Gods in the Chinese traditions and the Indian traditions. Does this not tell you something? If these gods were actual, there would not be a difference in the count. Everyone would count the same. As in when two scientists on different sides of the world perform a measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun, there will be a consistency that will suggest that there actually IS a distance between the Earth and the Sun that changes in a regular and predictable fashion.

 

Your 31 gods, and the 3600 or whatever of the Tao plan, do not suggest this same consistency and predictability. The patterns don't match. Where the descrepencies can be found are in our traditions, and in our incomplete analogies, and in our own abstractions. The greater reality on the other hand has a consistency and truthfulness that remains unaffected by any projection we might place upon it. It is more likely that the universe informs us, than that we inform the universe.

 

I would advise you to keep this in mind when you suggest that the secret of the Vedas is where I would be likely to find the truth, if only I was not a far enemy. With such statements you reveal your desire to enforce your plan upon the universe. And it simply just does not work, in that direction, when it comes to Gods and the nature of things. Maybe does in terms of humans being able to create tools and buildings and processes and governments and such, but the reach of our minds and the reach of our arms do not go by the same rules. What we think, need not fit with reality, what we do, absolutely does.

 

Regards, TAR2

[CarbonCopy]

Oh god ! this thread is getting way too long. It's becoming filled with Immortal's ramblings. He is just presenting random thoughts in his head and providing a multitude of link to us, which we will never read anyway. This thread has just become Immortal vs Empirical Science.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I thought you were defending Indian traditions? What is with the Taoism?

 

Do you really know how many traditions I am defending? I am defending at least four to five traditions both from western religions as well as from eastern religions, that's one of the strengths of my argument and not my weakness. Having investigated the religions of all these cultures I hold very high liberal thoughts and I'm not here only to defend the Vedas and the Upanishads. I am here to defend Vajrayana Buddhism, Neoplatonic Christianity, Neoplatonism, Taoism, Kabbalah and the Smarta tradition of the Vedic Aryans.

 

"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."

Contrary to your belief all these traditions can be put forward as a single theory, its coherent and consistent. This is one of the reasons why I insist that different cultures across different timelines and disconnected places have come up with similar theories about the origin of the cosmos which need to be taken seriously and not to be dismissed by giving silly excuses that they were all on LSD.

 

 

So consider the arbitrary aspects of the traditions you cite. The difference in the number and roles of the Gods in the Chinese traditions and the Indian traditions. Does this not tell you something? If these gods were actual, there would not be a difference in the count. Everyone would count the same. As in when two scientists on different sides of the world perform a measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun, there will be a consistency that will suggest that there actually IS a distance between the Earth and the Sun that changes in a regular and predictable fashion.

 

Your 31 gods, and the 3600 or whatever of the Tao plan, do not suggest this same consistency and predictability. The patterns don't match. Where the descrepencies can be found are in our traditions, and in our incomplete analogies, and in our own abstractions. The greater reality on the other hand has a consistency and truthfulness that remains unaffected by any projection we might place upon it. It is more likely that the universe informs us, than that we inform the universe.

 

I would advise you to keep this in mind when you suggest that the secret of the Vedas is where I would be likely to find the truth, if only I was not a far enemy. With such statements you reveal your desire to enforce your plan upon the universe. And it simply just does not work, in that direction, when it comes to Gods and the nature of things. Maybe does in terms of humans being able to create tools and buildings and processes and governments and such, but the reach of our minds and the reach of our arms do not go by the same rules. What we think, need not fit with reality, what we do, absolutely does.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Who said different traditions cite different number of Gods in their scriptures? Did you forget this so soon?

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

 

III-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. ‘How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), ‘As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – three hundred and three, and three thousand and three’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Thirty-three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘six’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Two’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One and a half’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three ?’

 

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, ‘these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.’ ‘Which are those thirty-three ?’ ‘The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas – these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three’.

 

III-ix-3: ‘Which are the Vasus /’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars – these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.’

 

III-ix-4: ‘Which are the Rudras ?’ ‘The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one’s relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.’

 

III-ix-5: ‘Which are the Adityas ?’ ‘The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.’

 

III-ix-6: ‘Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati ?’ ‘The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati’. ‘Which is the cloud ?’ ‘Thunder (strength).’ ‘Which is the sacrifice ?’ ‘Animals’.

 

III-ix-7: ‘Which are the six (gods) ?’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven – these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.’

 

III-ix-8: ‘Which are the three gods ?’ ‘These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.’ ‘Which are the two gods ?’ ‘Matter and the vital force.’ ‘Which are the one and a half ?’ ‘This (air) that blows.’

 

III-ix-9: ‘Regarding this some say, ‘Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half ?’ ‘ It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory’. ‘Which is the one god ?’ ‘The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).’

 

Did you not see that all those thousands of gods are just manifestations of these 33 gods, actually there is only one God, The Holy Father and all other gods are manifestation of him and you can find this in both Indian traditions, Egyptian traditions, Chinese traditions and as well in Neo-Platonic traditions. Non-dualism is the main tenet of all these traditions.

 

If you don't believe me read it for yourself.

 

 

"It is worth noting that Valentinianism shows an astonishing degree of similarity to another monistic system, the Advaita Vedanta school of Indian philosophy. In Advaita, the material world is an illusion (maya) attributed to ignorance (avidya) of the true reality. Through knowledge (jnana) of the ultimate reality (brahman), the world of multiplicity vanishes. True redemption (moksha) is the knowledge of one's true nature.

This raises the intriguing possibility of some kind of connection between the two. There was some awareness of Indian thought in the ancient Roman world. However, at the time of Valentinus, there was no systematic statement of Advaita thought. It is possible that Valentinus came into contact with some form of early Advaita Vedanta teaching. Advaita philosophy as it now stands was given its definitive form by Shankara in the 6th or 7th century AD. There also exists the possibility that he was influenced by Valentinian thought. Valentinians are known to have been active in the Middle East as late as the seventh century. It is possible that Valentinian missionaries or refugees may have made their way to India and come into contact with Shankara or his immediate predecessors. However, any connection between the two remains purely hypothetical. "

- Valentinian Monism

I am defending for Christianity as well here in case you guys are not aware of it. Guess what? Do you want to know the number of Aeons that existed in the Valentinian tradition?

 

"The order of Anthropos and Ecclesia versus Logos and Zoe is somewhat debated; different sources give different accounts. Logos and Zoe are unique to this system as compared to the previous, and may be an evolved version of the first, totalling 32 Aeons, but it is not clear if the first two were actually regarded Aeons."

- Aeon_(Gnosticism)

You guys have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. My position is consistent and well supported by scholarly evidence.

 

Oh god ! this thread is getting way too long. It's becoming filled with Immortal's ramblings. He is just presenting random thoughts in his head and providing a multitude of link to us, which we will never read anyway. This thread has just become Immortal vs Empirical Science.

 

Don't give such silly excuses like laziness for not reading my links and at the same time accuse me that I am going against empirical evidence. I can shatter your belief systems with a blink of an eye because my position is backed up by scientific evidence, don't underestimate these arguments, this will be taught in schools as facts in the near future and I have nothing to lose, you're the real loser by displaying your own ignorance. Actually this thread is not about immortal, this thread is about making people aware that both science and religion are basically saying the same thing about the origin of the cosmos and that there is no conflict between religion and science.

[Moontanman]

 

Don't give such silly excuses like laziness for not reading my links and at the same time accuse me that I am going against empirical evidence. I can shatter your belief systems with a blink of an eye because my position is backed up by scientific evidence, don't underestimate these arguments, this will be taught in schools as facts in the near future and I have nothing to lose, you're the real loser by displaying your own ignorance. Actually this thread is not about immortal, this thread is about making people aware that both science and religion are basically saying the same thing about the origin of the cosmos and that there is no conflict between religion and science.

 

 

Oh yeah? Give it whirl, you got nothing and your continued claims of scientific evidence are nothing but horse feathers, I for one say you should put up or shut up...

[immortal]

Oh yeah? Give it whirl, you got nothing and your continued claims of scientific evidence are nothing but horse feathers, I for one say you should put up or shut up...

 

Moontanman calls facts established from experiments as horse feathers. LoL

 

Observer in Quantum Experiments

 

Its your beliefs which are horse feathers Moontanman not mine. You guys need to give up these two beliefs urgently if you expect people to give back respect to you guys.

 

1. Your belief in free will

2. Your belief in the existence of an empirical reality independent of the human mind.

 

Because facts established from experiments contradicts both of those beliefs strongly. Sooner or later this will be introduced in schools.

[Moontanman]

 

Moontanman calls facts established from experiments as horse feathers. LoL

 

Observer in Quantum Experiments

 

Its your beliefs which are horse feathers Moontanman not mine. You guys need to give up these two beliefs urgently if you expect people to give back respect to you guys.

 

1. Your belief in free will

2. Your belief in the existence of an empirical reality independent of the human mind.

 

Because facts established from experiments contradicts both of those beliefs strongly. Sooner or later this will be introduced in schools.

 

 

Did you actually read that link? it says nothing about gods... yours or anyone else's ..

[John Cuthber]

Immortal.

Supply some actual evidence.

Stop pretending that old books or mystic ramblings count.

Don't tell us that reality isn't real.

 

 

Either back up your assertions with evidence or accept that you don't have any.