Care to Discuss this? Consciousness

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Dear Kaos


Just a remark. In the beginning Science main objective inside Religion was to free Mankind and religion from Psychosis's and religious psychotic thinking; not all religious thinking is psychotic as Kant and later on Heidegger will point out.
Sarabhanga is correct wen he says that Science and Religion are the same, Science is born inside and out of Religion.

[sarabhanga]

Spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion.

Scientists who scoff at the whole of Religion are misguided.

Spiritualists who scoff at the whole of Science are misguided.

"Science talks of the relativeness, and yet does not say what is the absolute" The only absolute is brahman.

Science cannot go to what is beyond science. There is a limit to the scientific quest.

If you read what I originally posted, my position should be clear. I have given some indication of what Science does find to be �the Absolute�, and already noted the limit of scientific certainty!

In relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons (electromagnetic radiation) or anything that moves at the same speed as light, there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

The break comes when science asks how and why this light (which has all been present since the first moment of creation) was originally produced. Was the �Big Bang� a spontaneous event (simply because �nature abhors a vacuum�), or was it caused (and in which case, what is the cause)? And from this point science understands that all is pure speculation and personal opinion.

In absolute singularity (or advaita) there is no reference for any normal relations or reactions, and empirical evidence or even the idea of observation is impossible, because such things (by their nature) require a framework of duality.

And God said �Let there be Light�.

No scientific hypothesis (apart from purely abstract mathematical or logical arguments) can ever be absolutely proven. Hypotheses may be disproved, but those still standing are known by all scientists to be our �best guess� at the present time.

In Relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons, and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

In Dharma, the one absolute is Atman. All beings are ultimately created from Atman, and that Atman defines space and time by its own existence. But from the perspective of Atman there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And realizing the Atman is only possible by shedding all material attachment and becoming one with the Atman itself.

And that shining Atman is Brahman.

Ultimately, Science and Religion are both concerned with realizing the Truth.

And until quite recently, most scientists (even Darwin) saw the universe as God�s creation, and by investigating the natural world they sought to better understand the divine plan and to glorify the Creator by exposing the intricate wonder of his works.

The Absolute, Nirguna Brahma, the Fourth, the Turiya, is (by definition) indescribable, so that any definitive description of the Absolute has surely missed the point!

[Agnideva]

Namaste Kaos,

Science cannot go to what is beyond science. There is a limit to the scientific quest. At best, religion and science are complementary but to claim that Religion and Science is one and the same is inaccurate.

The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth. I do not find the two contradictory. Science absolutely demands empirical proof for everything, while religion does not. Although I guess one could say the empirical proof in religion is in the realization of the realized . Early on, scientists in all religions were also theologians and philosophers. The rift probably began when the church started to suppress/persecute scientists, their works and theories because it contradicted church doctrines. Probably as a result of this rift going back a few centuries, we are accustomed to seeing science as a study of the physical world only, and religion a study of the spiritual world, but it need not be that way.

OM Shanti,
A.

[Kaos]

Namaste Kaos,


The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth.

Namaste Agnideva,

Fair enough.
The relativity of science is maya. In that aspect, I guess, we can say that science and "religion" are the same?

Science can explain, relativity, through it's laws, only certain movements of the grand cosmic dance of parashakti, or primal energy; however, science is incapable of showing a path for realizing, merging and experiencing this oneness that flows through and underlies all form.


Om Namah Shivaya

[Kaos]

so that any definitive description of the Absolute has surely missed the point!

Thank you for missing the point as well!

[Kaos]

All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence.

Really? Have you ever seen a photon?
Have you ever measured it? Please describe a photon? What does it look like?

Have you ever talked to a photon?
Have you ever been a photon?

Have you ever interviewed a photon? Describe to us what you experienced during your interview with this photon?

If you say, that talking, interviewing, or experiencing being a photon is not possible because a photon is inert matter, then please explain how or what makes inert matter non-inert?

[atanu]

Namaste Kaos,


The way I see it, both science and religion are quests for the truth, the same truth. I do not find the two contradictory. Science absolutely demands empirical proof for everything, while religion does not. Although I guess one could say the empirical proof in religion is in the realization of the realized . Early on, scientists in all religions were also theologians and philosophers. The rift probably began when the church started to suppress/persecute scientists, their works and theories because it contradicted church doctrines. Probably as a result of this rift going back a few centuries, we are accustomed to seeing science as a study of the physical world only, and religion a study of the spiritual world, but it need not be that way.

OM Shanti,
A.

Namaskar Agnideva ji,

Some say that Descartes, by separating, strongly, the observer and the observed as two distinctly separate entitities (this had very strong religious rationale, as dvaita philosophy has), led observers to forget that the observed is also the part of the observer.

With modern 19th and 20th century physics, the picture has indeed again changed. Scientists are now more aware of limitations and I have seen/read many excellent books that marry science and spirit.

Similarly there are scriptural instructions, which place a very high premium on intellectual vichara to discriminate between the eternal from the non-eternal. Sage Vasista, in the very beginning of Yoga Vasista says "Discard what Brahma says if that does not stand the test of logic." Svet. Upanishad says "Brahman is found in the heart by application of mind, bhakti, and Guru puja".

On the other hand, there indeed are so-called spiritual people who are bigoted, jingoist, and sectarian.

What Kaos Ji says about science being pre-occupied with the observed rather than the observer is in general true. At the ame time, Sarabhanga Ji is most wise man -- indeed 'Spiritualists who scoff at ALL science are equally as misguided as scientists who scoff at ALL religion'.


This statement coming from a sadhu, who has been taken in as Shiva himself, is not to be taken as an insult to ego, since it is balanced. This is my POV.

Regards to all

Om Namah Shivaya
Om Shanti

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaskar Agnideva ji,
Some say that Descartes by separating, strongly, the observer and the observed as two distinctly seaparate entitities (this had very strong religious rationale, as dvaita philosophy has), led observers to forget that the observed is also the part of the observer.
Om Namah Shivaya Om Shanti

Namaste atanu (et.al)
I believe René (Descartes) got it half right. His most notable statement is "I think, therefore I am" to attest to his being.

If he dropped the think part, and let Aham vibrate he would be Advaita.

just an idea....

[vcindiana]

What science and religion got to do with Consciousness ? What does Hindu religion say about consciousness? Can some one please clearly explain without going in circles ? I find the word "CONSCIOUSNESS" is extremely important because it has practically changed my life.

[Znanna]

What science and religion got to do with Consciousness ?

Religion is interpreted through the conventions which preserve the texts and science is also interpreted through the conventions which preserve the texts ... in the sense of consciousness being preservation of "self", both are "self" perpetuating memes which serve to create order from chaos.

Perhaps a more interesting question might be what does Consciousness have to do with Self?




YMMV


ZN