Can Agnihotra prevent the effect of nuclear radiation?

[Shuddhasattva]

Vannakkam: If you don't believe that pujas, etc. can help in some way, why do them? So there is a middle ground, recognizing that some of the claims put out by 'science' are exaggerations, and also a recognition that pujas, purification rituals, and the like really do help, just not to the extent, or in the ways some might think.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste

I don't see the need for a 'middle ground here.' Science is self-correcting by nature, and almost always errs on the side of conservative judgments rather than exaggerations. The business end of technology may exaggerate itself, but not science.

As a Hindu, I ardently believe in the efficacy of all spiritual practice, and I am not adverse to the idea that spiritual practice, including such rituals, has an effect on the objective environment.

My problem is conflating claims with science. I do think that this should be studied, but it needs actual science - real studies.

[Eastern Mind]

My problem is conflating claims with science. I do think that this should be studied, but it needs actual science - real studies.

Vannakkam: As you well know, some scientists truly believe that all religion is superstition. So most likely your 'real' scientists would conclude that this is bogus, just as they have discounted astrology, herbalogy, and many other common Hindu practices as mere superstition, and besides, do it in a condescending, "We're smarter than you" way. They'll deny the existence of the Self, of God, of shakti, of any life-transforming miracles, etc.

So I beg to differ. I'm not saying I agree with the pseudo-science presented here. But of course I could be totally wrong. Maybe I am just an ignorant old superstitious fool.


Aum Namasivaya

[Twilightdance]

Vannakkam: If you don't believe that pujas, etc. can help in some way, why do them?

One is free to believe anything. It is one thing to say "rituals help in some way" and another thing set out to precisely map out all the "science" of it using arbitrary percentage's and diagrams.

It becomes a significant embarrassment for an entire community [not a problem but embarrassment].

As someone has said it becomes mockery of both science and religion. If someone finds these useful to establish the efficacy of religion to themselves, its fine. Just don't call it science in any sense of the term.

[Twilightdance]

Vannakkam: As you well know, some scientists truly believe that all religion is superstition. So most likely your 'real' scientists would conclude that this is bogus, just as they have discounted astrology, herbalogy, and many other common Hindu practices as mere superstition, and besides, do it in a condescending, "We're smarter than you" way. They'll deny the existence of the Self, of God, of shakti, of any life-transforming miracles, etc.

So I beg to differ. I'm not saying I agree with the pseudo-science presented here. But of course I could be totally wrong. Maybe I am just an ignorant old superstitious fool.


Aum Namasivaya

Just "because they don't believe me, I don't believe them" may be an acceptable way to live one's life, many people in parts of america still believe that creation is a few thousand years old, evolution is bogus, man and dinosaurs lived together in recent past etc etc - but it is not an argument to be put forward if you really want to establish a scientific basis of things or want general acceptance of arbitrary explanations as science. As I said, one can free to believe, use and apply anything they seem fit.

[Sahasranama]

This type of pseudo science is what results of neo-vedic reinterpretations. It comes from the Arya Samajis who don't do agnihotra to bring oblations, but because the samagri and ghee purifies the air.

Pundit Madhavacharya Shashtri has criticised this stupidity decades ago in one of his two volume books "kyo?" (why?).

[Eastern Mind]

It becomes a significant embarrassment for an entire community [not a problem but embarrassment].

Vannakkam TD: Really? I find that curious. I would have thought most people would just put it in one ear and out the other, without any serious consideration given. But you're in Bangalore, and I'm not. Does this sort of stuff actually make the press there, enough to embarrass the whole community? Or is just out on some fringe area? Its certainly the first time I've heard it over here (Canada), and I don't think the mainstream media would ever give it the light of day.

Aum Namasivaya

[Shuddhasattva]

Vannakkam: As you well know, some scientists truly believe that all religion is superstition. So most likely your 'real' scientists would conclude that this is bogus, just as they have discounted astrology, herbalogy, and many other common Hindu practices as mere superstition, and besides, do it in a condescending, "We're smarter than you" way. They'll deny the existence of the Self, of God, of shakti, of any life-transforming miracles, etc.

So I beg to differ. I'm not saying I agree with the pseudo-science presented here. But of course I could be totally wrong. Maybe I am just an ignorant old superstitious fool.


Aum Namasivaya

Namaste

That isn't science though; science is a method of inquiry which generates emergent knowledge, which is continuously refining itself.

Yes, some scientists take it upon themselves to push atheism - but that isn't representative of science itself. Yes, atheistic attitudes - sometimes aggressive ones - are often part and parcel of an education in science, but this is a corollary, not science itself, and something that can be corrected.

Most of the greatest scientists were panentheists/monists, and many of them admirers of Hindu philosophy.

[dhyandev]

Most of the greatest scientists were panentheists/monists, and many of them admirers of Hindu philosophy.

This is what is called Newtonian or to be exact ,western science.And the great scientist you are quoting are all western scientists .what does a modern scientist do.
1. think 2. give hypothesis 3.do trials4. see if trials are agreeing to hypothesis 5.Publish the theory 6.get nobel prize

Vedic scientists were Rishis-Munis,All the did was meditate & all the mysteries unfolded before there intellect.And no one has ever been able to disprove them.So called 'modern ' science is slowly accepting what the rishis did hundreds if thousand years ago.

Also,SPiritual matters are sookshma (subtle) whereas the scientific instruments are sthool (physical) so how do you expect them to prove the subtle vedic theories.A person on a lower level cannot see a person on higher level but reverse is true.

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

If you think science and dharma are incompatible, why make such threads?

You're also wrong about Newtonian mechanics. In fact, it was quantum mechanics, relativity, string theory and the like that was the watershed for recognizing Hindu-esque philosophies in physics.

[dhyandev]

I think this powerpoint might help sooth critic's nerves
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99482448/Science-in-Vedas