A brief reflection on Atheism, God, Pluralism and Monism.

[Water]

Wow.

I did not expect that reaction at all. I especially did not expect someone to claim computers to be adharmic while using one. Is it only the production of computers you are worried about? Most computers are made with ROHS certified parts (ie "green"). Disposal is also better handled by most states now - no more dumping cadmium and lead filled parts into a public landfill.

Regarding cell phones, it has actually been proven that the extremely small amount of radiation does have an impact - it actually recedes some tumors and the "plaque" associated with Alzheimers. There has been millions of studies on that very fact - none of them have been conclusively proven to negatively impact an individual.

There have been many false claims that cell phone and Wifi radiation affect human life - none of it has any evidence. While it is true that sounds of certain frequencies as well as electromagnetic radiation can cause distress.... none of it has been linked to the low-power, high-frequency radiation of modern equipment. I do believe that some people may be super-sensitive to some signals, the average population has nothing to worry about.

The whole thing reminds me of the "don't watch TV or read in the dark because you'll need glasses" myth. It is quite literally a myth - you will strain your eyes more reading in low light, but you certainly won't need glasses as a result. TV in the dark significantly disrupts sleep patterns but has nothing to do with glasses. You can take a thousand people and reproduce the result - there will be no deficit to sight above (or below) the normalized average.

There is a specific balance inherent to everything - including science and including religion. There is nothing that you can do in excess that does not harm something or someone else.

In a non-dualistic approach - there is no idea or concept that does not arrive from That. That has given us the ability to harness nuclear energy. That has also provided the concepts to weaponize technology. It is up to us to facilitate the application.

On the other side of the spectrum, religion and fanatacism has destroyed at least equal lives (animals, man, etc), cultures and technologies as anything we could call science.

You could blame all of that on "abrahamic religions" - but that would be exceptionally short sighted. As I'm sure you're aware, there was a time when animals and men were sacrificed in Asian religions. Sects fought wars over who was Supreme. etc, etc, etc

For even easier examples - there has never been conclusive proof that males (or a specific race) was any better (or worse) at any task as females (or a different race). Yet every religion has specific undertones on gender treatment and duty. Is this instinctual? Cultural? Or religious? Perhaps a combination of cultural and religious practices?

[Adhvagat]

Wow.

I did not expect that reaction at all. I especially did not expect someone to claim computers to be adharmic while using one. Is it only the production of computers you are worried about? Most computers are made with ROHS certified parts (ie "green"). Disposal is also better handled by most states now - no more dumping cadmium and lead filled parts into a public landfill.

Regarding cell phones, it has actually been proven that the extremely small amount of radiation does have an impact - it actually recedes some tumors and the "plaque" associated with Alzheimers. There has been millions of studies on that very fact - none of them have been conclusively proven to negatively impact an individual.

There have been many false claims that cell phone and Wifi radiation affect human life - none of it has any evidence. While it is true that sounds of certain frequencies as well as electromagnetic radiation can cause distress.... none of it has been linked to the low-power, high-frequency radiation of modern equipment. I do believe that some people may be super-sensitive to some signals, the average population has nothing to worry about.

The whole thing reminds me of the "don't watch TV or read in the dark because you'll need glasses" myth. It is quite literally a myth - you will strain your eyes more reading in low light, but you certainly won't need glasses as a result. TV in the dark significantly disrupts sleep patterns but has nothing to do with glasses. You can take a thousand people and reproduce the result - there will be no deficit to sight above (or below) the normalized average.

There is a specific balance inherent to everything - including science and including religion. There is nothing that you can do in excess that does not harm something or someone else.

In a non-dualistic approach - there is no idea or concept that does not arrive from That. That has given us the ability to harness nuclear energy. That has also provided the concepts to weaponize technology. It is up to us to facilitate the application.

On the other side of the spectrum, religion and fanatacism has destroyed at least equal lives (animals, man, etc), cultures and technologies as anything we could call science.

A tu quoque counter-argument doesn't negate the fact that computers use lots of other components (plastic, for starters) that are not healthy to Bhumi.

Adharmically ideas and practices could rise from That, but that doesn't mean we should use them. Using non-dualism to justify adharma is not wise. If everything comes from That, should I do everything?

The ability to harness nuclear energy is also a very dangerous practice that is being done indiscrimantely today. It's a dirty type of energy, clean in the short term, but can have great consequences in the planet, not to mention it already is dirty in transportation of nuclear material and what not. And how can we ignore Fukushima? Yeah, definitely That.

Studies? Perhaps staged ones just so things could be sold (not the first, not the last it has happened). The long term study is happening to us now.

I'm sure Hinduism never went on crusades to kill another sect of Hinduism or even other religions for that matter. Animals were sacrificed? Yes, you can read on the Vedas (and get better informed of the circumstances and use of animals in those ceremonies). But I'm sure it weren't millions of cows for the brahmin kids to eat a Happy Yajna Meal and become overweight.

Science tries to sell itself as the most amazing thing ever made. But kids take remedies for fever that may make their livers fail. Sounds safe.

The very fact that almost all the technology that we possess today in the name of development and modernization is polluting, proves that the technology we have created using modern science is still primitive. It has more to do with our greed, than with science.

http://www.hitxp.com/articles/scienc...-ganga-ganges/

You could blame all of that on "abrahamic religions" - but that would be exceptionally short sighted. As I'm sure you're aware, there was a time when animals and men were sacrificed in Asian religions. Sects fought wars over who was Supreme. etc, etc, etc

For even easier examples - there has never been conclusive proof that males (or a specific race) was any better (or worse) at any task as females (or a different race). Yet every religion has specific undertones on gender treatment and duty. Is this instinctual? Cultural? Or religious? Perhaps a combination of cultural and religious practices?

I'm also not sure why you throw that around if it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

If the blame is not solely from the Abrahamic religions, is it from Hinduism too?

- Forceful conversion and demonization of foreign cultures, thefore obliteration of foreign knowledge?

- Burning of books, which may resulted in erasing ancient knowledge? (Hypatia's libraby, for example)

- Denying of science because of a extremely irrational faith? http://veda.wikidot.com/do-you-know

- Caste system, exclusive to Hindu society?

http://rajivmalhotra.com/index.php?o...ness&Itemid=29

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...4&postcount=12

Or perhaps you're referring to Islam? Well, here in Brazil we have an expression: "They're all flour from the same sack!"

[Water]

Is there a reason you linked to a 3 year old advertisement for GangaGen Biotechnologies?


Where was the information on what GangaGen Biotech does that is in adherence to the condemning paragraph, "The very fact that almost all the technology that we possess today in the name of development and modernization is polluting, proves that the technology we have created using modern science is still primitive. It has more to do with our greed, than with science."?

Oh, there wasn't any. There was only positive press mentioning their own personal achievements to attract public attention and funding shrouded with the context of mystery and religion to get more readers.

This press release that appears to have been made to refute modern science and it's commercial greed is, in itself, the exact same thing.

[Adhvagat]

It's an article by that blogger (also distributed as an e-book), it's not a Gangagen advertisement just because he mentions it.

http://www.hitxp.com/zone/books/scie...rets-of-ganga/

[Water]

Adharmically ideas and practices could rise from That, but that doesn't mean we should use them. Using non-dualism to justify adharma is not wise. If everything comes from That, should I do everything?

You're relying only on the aspect of "slippery slope" to somehow make righteous claims. Sure - you can definitely go "do everything." After the first day of "doing everything" - let me know if you realize how futile and silly that claim is.

The ability to harness nuclear energy is also a very dangerous practice that is being done indiscrimantely today. It's a dirty type of energy, clean in the short term, but can have great consequences in the planet, not to mention it already is dirty in transportation of nuclear material and what not. And how can we ignore Fukushima? Yeah, definitely That.

Good point. Fukushima - an application of technology.

Again, let us use slippery slope and sensationalism - did you know most pacemakers are powered by nuclear sources? I suppose we should rip all of their hearts out.....

Studies? Perhaps staged ones just so things could be sold (not the first, not the last it has happened). The long term study is happening to us now.

Oh, goodie, conspiracy theories without any basis in factual information. Japan was the leader in cellular-phone-to-consumer-capita. Have you checked their current rate of new cancer cases against their previous rates (before cell phones)? Have you compared it to the U.S.? You could use a city in India for the comparison, but be sure to use an area that is comparable - that is, don't try to compare a city with one hospital and two doctors with New York.

Science tries to sell itself as the most amazing thing ever made. But kids take remedies for fever that may make their livers fail. Sounds safe.

And without the remedy, they very well could have brain damage as a result of a high fever or even death.

Good job. Let's protect livers by killing children. I don't mean to be offensive... but are you reviewing what you're writing? In what context are you making these claims? Fever never kills?

I'm also not sure why you throw that around if it has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I will correct that for you,
"I'm also not sure why you throw that around if I can't make a relational thought to what we're discussing."

You are claiming misinformation and greed as the motivation of the "miracles" of modern science. I'm not sure if you realize this, but Religion is the source of modern education and science. Religion, in itself, is a science.

You could say a "superstition" of modern science is that "we must have source of nuclear energy." In identical application, you could say that a "superstition" of many religions is the inequality and different treatment of the genders.

In actually, both of these are extremes. No scientist says we "must have sources of nuclear energy" without an unfounded reasoning. Likewise, the context of the gender treatment difference in religion (and culture) is rarely present without a reasoning. Reasoning with either case is applicable to the current context of that reason.

Intolerances in the past are present in every religion. You need only look - many times, these transgressions are sensationalized by agnostics/atheists with their own agenda much in the same way that theists sensationalize "miracles" and confirmation-bias present in science..

You are arguing the same coin from two different faces with the fanatacism, tact, hypocracy and relational thought process of a junior theistic debater.

[Adhvagat]

You're relying only on the aspect of "slippery slope" to somehow make righteous claims. Sure - you can definitely go "do everything." After the first day of "doing everything" - let me know if you realize how futile and silly that claim is.

You said that every thought arise from That, somehow justifying that science should be used. Do I agree? Yes.

But science is being used destructively. Environmental problems is the blaring proof of this.

Therefore, yes, everything can be used and should be used. But the dharmic perspective has been lost.

Good point. Fukushima - an application of technology.

Again, let us use slippery slope and sensationalism - did you know most pacemakers are powered by nuclear sources? I suppose we should rip all of their hearts out.....

Or perhaps utilize dharma to apply the technology with conscience that the world (as a being) deserves respect? As I proposed in the PS² of the first answer.

Oh, goodie, conspiracy theories without any basis in factual information. Japan was the leader in cellular-phone-to-consumer-capita. Have you checked their current rate of new cancer cases against their previous rates (before cell phones)? Have you compared it to the U.S.? You could use a city in India for the comparison, but be sure to use an area that is comparable - that is, don't try to compare a city with one hospital and two doctors with New York.

It's not about conspiracy, it's about practical reality, how many dyes and stuff we eat (for example) aren't safe for consumption? Why is still being sold to us? It's money first in this business, it's science being used by asuras.

And without the remedy, they very well could have brain damage as a result of a high fever or even death.

Good job. Let's protect livers by killing children. I don't mean to be offensive... but are you reviewing what you're writing? In what context are you making these claims? Fever never kills?

Do you know Ayurveda? I mentioned in this claim.

Modern medicine is not the only treatment to every disease.

The other point is diseases the scientific advances create themselves (e.g. pollution generated by fossil fuel burning causing a respiratory problem) Why not focus on erradicating the source of the disease first?

Ayurveda is focused on health, modern medicine is focused on disease. That's as clear as the smog filled day of our scientific cities.

I will correct that for you,
"I'm also not sure why you throw that around if I can't make a relational thought to what we're discussing."

You are claiming misinformation and greed as the motivation of the "miracles" of modern science. I'm not sure if you realize this, but Religion is the source of modern education and science. Religion, in itself, is a science.

You could say a "superstition" of modern science is that "we must have source of nuclear energy." In identical application, you could say that a "superstition" of many religions is the inequality and different treatment of the genders.

In actually, both of these are extremes. No scientist says we "must have sources of nuclear energy" without an unfounded reasoning. Likewise, the context of the gender treatment difference in religion (and culture) is rarely present without a reasoning. Reasoning with either case is applicable to the current context of that reason.

Intolerances in the past are present in every religion. You need only look - many times, these transgressions are sensationalized by agnostics/atheists with their own agenda much in the same way that theists sensationalize "miracles" and confirmation-bias present in science..

You are arguing the same coin from two different faces with the fanatacism, tact, hypocracy and relational thought process of a junior theistic debater.

You implied that somehow Hinduism was also responsible for what is usually attributed to Abrahamists? I presented you examples disagreeing. But you're being vague and hitting this key of gender inequality.

And what I am or am not is not what is being discussed here. I'd really like if you could just refrain from telling what you think I am, because firstly I don't care, and second it's not relevant to the discussion.
And I being a hypocrite or not, doesn't negate the fact that computers use lots of other components (plastic, for starters) that are not healthy to Bhumi.

You're free to disagree with the ideas I present though.

[Water]

And what I am or am not is not what is being discussed here. I'd really like if you could just refrain from telling what you think I am, because firstly I don't care, and second it's not relevant to the discussion.

You're free to disagree with my ideas and what I present though.

I think there was some confusion. If offense was implied, I did not mean it. I was not suggesting what you "are or are not," I was suggesting my own interpretation of the material. In a neutral discussion, that opinion is critical to communication. It should allow you to understand the message I received in my own understanding of the message you conveyed. In other words, as the "sender" you can take that opinion in offense and disregard my interpretation as you see fit. Although, if my opinion is shared or you are content with me being the only "receiver," you may consider the information as a way to better tailor the communication that you made. To reiterate yet again, "this is where I'm coming from - is this where you're coming from?"

On Ayurveda - I will again claim that modern medicine stems from the past without question. There is no Dr. EvilGuy out there purely motivated to only injure. On the other hand, there are many people that feel themselves to be qualified to promoted, restrict and disseminate information as they see fit. There are abundances of sensationalized modern examples. Let us make a sensationalized Ayurvedic example - Ayurveda condones the treatment of some illness or disease with the eating of meat. Meat consumption is not conducive to spiritual practice. Therefore, is Ayurvedic unattached and unsympathetic to Religion? You can explore this concept if you'd like - but in the end, you will find that the Ayurvedic practice is based on their understanding of the physical world at the time. Equivalent to any science.

Science is not your enemy in that respect - it is the marketing.

You implied that somehow Hinduism was also responsible for what is usually attributed to Abrahamists? I presented you examples disagreeing. But you're being vague and hitting this key of gender inequality.

Again, please reduce the scope of your comparisons. Atrocities are atrocities - you cannot deny that there were instances in the past of Vaishnavites and Shaivites at extreme odds. I do not feel I should wrap and present what is considered common knowledge for your specific, tailored ingestion. As you have already declared - I do not know enough about you to even attempt that.

Why is the caste system exclusive only to Hinduism? In this respect, I ask you to expand your scope of comparison. I will present you an extremely obvious link of examples in many other cultures with possible religious implications in each:

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

Additionally, caste is an "easy target" - everyone likes to debate caste in Hinduism to no ends. Even though the majority of modern teachers and practitioners do not uphold it. Consider Sri Adi Shankaracharya. Consider Mahatma Gandhi. Consider Siddhartha (although not directly Hinduism related, Buddhism did have a specific impact on many branches of Hinduism), consider Swami Vivekananda, consider Vishwaguru Basavanna.... I could continue listing for quite some time.

To reiterate the Gender example yet again - this is a basis of socio-political, cultural and religious superstition in many instances. It can also be utilitarian - a Hindu-related custom is that women should not depart the home unaccompanied by a man. One person may suggest this is a negative gender inequality - why is the woman not liberated to do as she pleases? In a utilitarian approach, you may infer that the reasoning behind the superstition is for the woman's own protection in a positive approach to gender inequality (that is, you could have the opinion that we uphold women to be protected and respected higher than men). You could also twist the same reasoning to any means you would like, sensationalize it and come to the conclusion that women should never leave the house and should always serve a man - an intent that was probably not the original when the superstition had first begun. This is a simple and easy example of the timeless, ongoing debate of a topic that is simple a non-topic, yet inflammatory and everyone has an opinion - like Science vs Religion.

Using this same twisting of our own rationalization in science, we can say that nuclear energy and tylenol murder millions of people and animals. In reality, the intent was never there to create that situation. So do we deem all science impure, harmful and utterly useless based on our own rationalization? That is entirely a rationale you can subscribe to, if you like.

PS - I would ask that you stop quoting an entire lengthy post to only make counterpoints on an extremely small amount of it. It makes for quite the clutter when reviewing information on the forum by redundantly displaying the same information that is only a single page up.

[Adhvagat]

On Ayurveda - I will again claim that modern medicine stems from the past without question. There is no Dr. EvilGuy out there purely motivated to only injure. [...] Let us make a sensationalized Ayurvedic example - Ayurveda condones the treatment of some illness or disease with the eating of meat. Meat consumption is not conducive to spiritual practice. Therefore, is Ayurvedic unattached and unsympathetic to Religion? You can explore this concept if you'd like - but in the end, you will find that the Ayurvedic practice is based on their understanding of the physical world at the time. Equivalent to any science.

I think science being used adharmically is much more than sensationalized claims. Otherwise environmental issues would be sensationalizations as well.

Science condones the treatment of a disease through various remedies that not just harm the body, but harm the mind (in the case of Prozac for example), and it's not just a isolated case, I tend to disagree with allopathic medicine on the whole.

Adharmic science is part of our everyday life, be it in medicines that harm body and mind, be it in foods that harm the body and are not sattvic etc. That's my opinion.

Again, please reduce the scope of your comparisons. Atrocities are atrocities - you cannot deny that there were instances in the past of Vaishnavites and Shaivites at extreme odds. I do not feel I should wrap and present what is considered common knowledge for your specific, tailored ingestion. As you have already declared - I do not know enough about you to even attempt that.

I'm not sure what you meant. You implied that Hindus also practiced those things. I briefly showed you they didn't. Can you show me they did?

Why is the caste system exclusive only to Hinduism? In this respect...

Caste was never a main focus of this discussion, and since I'm not an expert nor an indian citizen it's not very fruitful to discuss it.

[Water]

I think science being used adharmically is much more than sensationalized claims. Otherwise environmental issues would be sensationalizations as well.

I would very well agree with the point that science is used questionably in many contexts - be it adharmic, harmful, anti-environment, etc. Without question, I will return to something I've stated previously - there is almost no action that can be taken that has absolutely no probability of injuring something else.

We can make silly observances like - brushing your teeth is Armageddon for biological colonies. Silly example, sure, but the concept can easily be expanded upon. You can expand it into "hot topics" of argument such as abortion, racism, psychology, etc with ease. I will leave that up to the reader to make those extremely simple associations with plenty of examples.

We can also identify clearly sensationalized (and counter sensationalized) points - For example, when I was growing up, we were told that fossil fuels would destroy the Ozone layer before the millenium. The surface of the Earth would no longer be livable and none of the plants nor animals would survive. The temperature would only increase.

Last winter was the coldest in history for many places.

What would you like to sensationalize - the presence of a measurable increase in UV radiation? Or the fact that global warming was a crock of @#$! because, and solely because of, the harsher winters experienced?

Note that neither is my ardent stance - I'm sure we have done irreparable damage with fossil fuels, but it is clearly not to the extent that was theorized. It is also clearly not to the other extreme (that is, that no damage has ever been done).

Science condones the treatment of a disease through various remedies that not just harm the body, but harm the mind (in the case of Prozac for example), and it's not just a isolated case, I tend to disagree with allopathic medicine on the whole.

Adharmic science is part of our everyday life, be it in medicines that harm body and mind, be it in foods that harm the body and are not sattvic etc. That's my opinion.

Again, there are many instances where people are willing to adamantly state that many of these drugs are unparalleled in their ability to improve life. We can make another simple example of benefit and abuse with modern antibiotics - put simply, antibiotics themselves are literally poison. The concept is to use a mild poison to reduce or kill a specific thing. However, you can't deploy poison without some risk of injuring all of the other cells. Do we ban antibiotics because they are not sattvic at all, create imbalances and obliterate extremely helpful cells in their process? Obviously, that would result in significant amounts of casualties and suffering. At the other extreme, ingesting these "helpful" substances without a proper, careful regimen will produce harmful effects - from destroying helpful tissues, causing mental focus to be reduced, causing sickness as a whole and even attributing to resistant strains of bacteria.

The application of the technology can certainly be considered evil when the context is abuse. The overall benefit, however, is justifiably good.

I'm not sure what you meant. You implied that Hindus also practiced those things. I briefly showed you they didn't. Can you show me they did?

As you insist on the "vagueness" of the message, I will present you with a very clear attachment of Hinduism to an act of violence: Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by conspirators of National Hinduism.

In the 80s, there was violence instigated against Sikhs by Hindu majorities.

In many parts of India, Buddhism was driven out (and often with violence) by Hindu opposition.

There is a debate on Ramanuja being persecuted by a Saivite king. This is now recently being considered extremely questionable, although you can find references to it in many sources.

In ancient India, you must remember that "Hinduism" did not exist.

Each tribe had their own individual religion and that religion was their pond. There was no other pond as nice as theirs and certainly no ocean at that time (this is all metaphorical, if you don't understand it, skip it).

Only very recently has Hinduism been considered a single religion and there has been significant work on uniting each different religion into a single "fit-all" category to strengthen practitioners as a unified whole rather than disjointed minorities.

Please locate and read A social history of India By S. N. Sadasivan. I am under the impression it's available on electronic sources. Although the text certainly makes me no authority, I am sincere in my understanding of the copy that I have in that there has been undeniable proof of intra-religious violence.

I'm not sure what you meant. You implied that Hindus also practiced those things. I briefly showed you they didn't. Can you show me they did?

In what thread does this irrevocable, undeniable proof that you "showed me" exist? It is not this one.


Also, at this extent, I would like to know if we are exploring concepts or arguing.

I don't wish to argue.

To be honest, I never did quite understand the opening post of this thread. Nor do I understand what the presented material in the opening post has to do with what we are discussing (and what has already been discussed). I was of the opinion I was qualified to help you explore the concept you presented. That may not be the case.

It may also be the case that you are not of mind to consider the exploration and were only venting. In that case, I think the both of us can achieve more by recording our own inner-argument in notepad (or whatever text editor you prefer).

[charitra]

Namste Water,
I beg to differ. Your thoughts are quite not true facts but they are mere observations.
Tribals have lived there all along, and even now living, in hindu lands. Those who have advanced in their free self inquiry found veda based sanatana dharma most appealing and have accepted it at their own freewill without any proselytism leave alone crusade/ inquisition. Mind you none of these latter 3 words have any Sanskrit equivalents in a rich language that Sanskrit is. Buddha was looked after very well in 600 BC era and lived and died in his 80s a peaceful death and many hindus have built Sanchi, Nalanda other stupas in his name. To this day Dalai Lama commands lots of respect in hindu lands. ‘Many ponds’ in your reflection, after all was Rig veda sanctioned, wasn’t it: Truth is one wise call it by many names. Whats new my friend? Whats wrong with it then. How can we make a very low IQ person understand god is in him as well, and his soul joining Brahman is called liberation or moksha? Try gently or leave him be, right ?! It is incredulous any number of Americans in 2011 believe that if you don’t believe in Jesus and bible you are bound to rot in eternal hell.

The intra religious ‘war’ fare you alleged is just a myth, there may be inter-sampradaya disagreements and stand offs, but none ever escalated to an armed conflict. Were vocal, and thats about it.

The Sikh violence was a direct result of years of simmering discontent among hindus whose coreligionists were regularly massacred by Sikh militants in Punjab state, that eventually exploded when Sikhs assassinated Indira the then PM. Not to forget the fact that her own party machinery worked behind scenes to perpetuate the reactionary ‘riots’. Can you dream of a scenario wherein a Sikh man (prime minister) to rule in his second term as we speak, should there be a hatred for Sikhs? Don’t think so. Om Shanti.