Female sperm and male egg

[vgane]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Shri Prasad,

I completely believe in advaita. Advaita also talks about the nature of the reality of the physical world. The world we live in is a mix of the spiritual and the physical. We need to identify and separate the two at that fundamental level at least so that we can accept the former and eschew the latter. Not all research work produces knowledge that is in agreement with the ultimate knowledge. So any knowledge that opposes the ultimate knowledge if used will eventually act to our detriment. That is what I am trying to say.

Dear Shri Srvana,

How do you differentiate between knowledge and ultimate knowledge...As we are talking about scientific discoveries, can you elaborate in that context

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Srvana,

How do you differentiate between knowledge and ultimate knowledge...As we are talking about scientific discoveries, can you elaborate in that context

Dear Shri vgane,

A very good question. It is very difficult to know whether any knowledge is in accord with the ultimate knowledge. We do not have any proof other than its appeal to a realized mind.

The only other way I can think of is to create the big picture first and favor a top down approach to acquiring knowledge. Study thoroughly and come to a consensus in the area of philosophy first. Use experimentation and physical evidence as only a corroboration and not as the main proof. Knowledge in any field that is not consistent with the higher level knowledge you have created may not be considered to possess enduring value and hence not pursued even if there is supporting direct evidence.

 

[vgane]

Dear Shri vgane,

A very good question. It is very difficult to know whether any knowledge is in accord with the ultimate knowledge. We do not have any proof other than its appeal to a realized mind.

The only other way I can think of is to create the big picture first and favor a top down approach to acquiring knowledge. Study thoroughly and come to a consensus in the area of philosophy first. Use experimentation and physical evidence as only a corroboration and not as the main proof. Knowledge in any field that is not consistent with the higher level knowledge you have created may not be considered to possess enduring value and hence not pursued even if there is supporting direct evidence.

Dear Sri Sravnaji,

The OP was about a new discovery...In what way is it against higher level knowledge that you are alluding to.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Prasad,

So any knowledge that opposes the ultimate knowledge if used will eventually act to our detriment. That is what I am trying to say.

If the ultimate knowledge is Brahman, there can not be anything opposing it, because nothing is outside of that brahman. If I define Infinity as the largest, there is nothing called infinity + 1. Similarly if Brahman is all pervading supreme there is nothing opposing it.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sravnaji,

The OP was about a new discovery...In what way is it against higher level knowledge that you are alluding to.

Dear Shri Vgane,

We do not have any agreed upon higher knowledge now. That is the reason I am saying that the discovery that prima facie seems to oppose nature may need to be put to much greater scrutiny before accepting it. We are in no position to know the long term consequences of the use of the discovery without the higher knowledge I referred to.

 

[sravna]

If the ultimate knowledge is Brahman, there can not be anything opposing it, because nothing is outside of that brahman. If I define Infinity as the largest, there is nothing called infinity + 1. Similarly if Brahman is all pervading supreme there is nothing opposing it.

Ok call it as illusory knowledge or relative knowledge if you do not want to call is as opposing knowledge.

 

[Nara]

.... Knowledge in any field that is not consistent with the higher level knowledge you have created may not be considered to possess enduring value and hence not pursued even if there is supporting direct evidence.

So glad the religiously minded can never agree on what constitutes this "higher level knowledge". Otherwise, there wouldn't be any scientific progress. In times past when those who claim to possess "higher level knowledge" wielded temporal power this is exactly what they did, case in point -- Galileo was made to recant what the religious people deemed to be inconsistent with "higher level knowledge". Thankfully, in modern times nobody takes these religious people seriously.

 

[sravna]

So glad the religiously minded can never agree on what constituted this "higher level knowledge". Otherwise, there wouldn't be any scientific progress. In times past when those who claim to possess "higher level knowledge" wielded temporal power this is exactly what they did, case in point -- Galileo was made to recant what the religious people deemed to be inconsistent with "higher level knowledge". Thankfully, in modern times nobody takes these religious people seriously.

The question is "What is real progress?" Is it progress in science? or the progress of your mind?

 

[palindrome]

The question is "What is real progress?" Is it progress in science? or the progress of your mind?

Are you saying religion is progress? Or that religion offers progress of your mind?

 

[sravna]

Are you saying religion is progress? Or that religion offers progress of your mind?

Yes it does. Hinduism, the only religion I am familiar with is largely concerned with showing the ways to self realization

 

[palindrome]

Yes it does. Hinduism, the only religion I am familiar with is largely concerned with showing the ways to self realization

All believers in religion think their own religion offers salvation / nirvana / self realization / moksha / jannat, and so on. If only you cud explain how "hinduism" (as you call it) offers self-realization....and what sorta 'progress' is that?

 

[sravna]

All believers in religion think their own religion offers salvation / nirvana / self realization / moksha / jannat, and so on. If only you cud explain how "hinduism" (as you call it) offers self-realization....and what sorta 'progress' is that?

Kindly read Bhagavad Gita for the methods prescribed to attain self realization. You progress by shedding your ego, by attaining control over emotions and desires and in effect towards self control.

 

[palindrome]

Kindly read Bhagavad Gita for the methods prescribed to attain self realization. You progress by shedding your ego, by attaining control over emotions and desires and in effect towards self control.

thanks for the suggestion please.

Do you seriously think followers of bhagavad gita have shed their ego, have control on their emotions and desires? Appears to me followers of bhagavatism are far too mired in their caste-identity, ego, and have great control on their emotions to the extent of making fantastic claims such as labeling themselves with satvik genes or claiming satvik lifestyle influences their genes...

Moreover, what sort of progress is this? Its just self-control. Anyone could have it without the need to follow the Gita. Plus, in what way does bhagavad gita explain about tempering with nature, progress vis-a-vis science or against science ?

 

[sravna]

thanks for the suggestion please.

Do you seriously think followers of bhagavad gita have shed their ego, have control on their emotions and desires? Appears to me followers of bhagavatism are far too mired in their caste-identity, ego, and have great control on their emotions to the extent of making fantastic claims such as labeling themselves with satvik genes or claiming satvik lifestyle influences their genes...

Moreover, what sort of progress is this? Its just self-control. Anyone could have it without the need to follow the Gita. Plus, in what way does bhagavad gita explain about tempering with nature, progress vis-a-vis science or against science ?

For anyone interested in self realization BG shows the way. But I am not saying only BG shows the way or all those who read BG attain self control.

Remember it is your mind that you are using even for making inventions and discoveries. So total control and mastery over your mind goes a long way even in providing clarity of thinking for making such discoveries. So do not be dismissive of self control. BG doesn't talk about science per se I think but we can come to know from BG what is true knowledge.

 

[palindrome]

For anyone interested in self realization BG shows the way. But I am not saying only BG shows the way or all those who read BG attain self control.

Remember it is your mind that you are using even for making inventions and discoveries. So total control and mastery over your mind goes a long way even in providing clarity of thinking for making such discoveries. So do not be dismissive of self control. BG doesn't talk about science per se I think but we can come to know from BG what is true knowledge.

You got my post wrong. Nowhere have i been dismissive of self control. Just said one does not need Bhagavad gita for it. To realize oneself books are not needed in any case. True knowledge is subjective. Perhaps religion creates a mindset where the mind can think only in a certain manner. So reasoning with such folks cannot be done....Anyways, thanks for the discussion.

 

[ozone]

Just said one does not need Bhagavad gita for it.

If that was known, the intent behind the question

If only you cud explain how "hinduism" (as you call it) offers self-realization....and what sorta 'progress' is that?

is puzzling.

Perhaps religion creates a mindset where the mind can think only in a certain manner.

and perhaps ir-religion creates a mindset where the mind can think only in the other way.

So reasoning with such folks cannot be done

Yep, just what I too infer.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

I followed your discussion with Palindrome with interest. Following are few points as I understand.

1. Self realisation' is not something that can be considered as the 'highest'. In actual fact, it is the most basic for a human being. All the desirable qualities are obtained and built from there.

2. None of the religions can direct a person to 'self realisation'. They may talk about the concept, but may not have the mechanism to guide. For example, at primary schools students may learn about the existence of doctorate studies; but the primary schools do not have the mechanism to deliver such studies.

3. Srimad Baghavad Gita (Gita) can not direct anyone to self realisation. Gita was delivered at the eve of an unjust war. Pandavas were although victorious, were the unjust parties. Gita was delivered to encourage Arjuna to take part in that unjust war. Think about this scenario.. let us say there is property dispute Would you accept killing as one of the solutions for the dispute? if you said 'yes', then all your talk about 'Satvik Guna' would be just hot air; if you said 'no', then Gita is not a decent book.

4. One does not need any book or Guru to get to self realisation.

5. Just because a person is self realised that doesn't mean that person would get 'mukthi'. Self realisation is like getting admission to a course only; still one has to complete the studies before getting the 'mukthi'. By the way, 'mukhthi' is a state of mind only.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

What I meant was by reading Bhagavad Gita one can come to know the ways of attaining self realization. I was replying to the question on the ways that are there for self realization. Self realization as is normally meant signifies the end of one's journey on the physical plane and the soul is ready to be liberated from it. Self realization so is definitely not the beginning. BG does talk about the ways for attaining self realization like bhakthi yoga, karma yoga and gnana yoga as the ways towards it.

 

[palindrome]

If that was known, the intent behind the question

is puzzling.

Appears your likes specialize in extrapolating to create puzzles

My post to sravna was simple. Words from books like bhagavad gita, and from gurus like Buddha, cannot "teach" self-realization. They can at best serve as guides. Beyond that one has to take it on their own. To understand oneself one neither needs books nor gurus.

As for the point on "hinduism", i do not know what sravna intended to mean or refer to with that term. If smartism is hinduism, i am most certainly not a hindu. If bhagavatism is hinduism, i am most certainly a hindu. I do not know what sravna referred to under the term so-called "hinduism". Incidentally, bhagavad gita belongs to bhagavatism; and i may have a hundred things to say against the smarta interpretation of bhagavata texts.

and perhaps ir-religion creates a mindset where the mind can think only in the other way.

Yep, just what I too infer.
[/COLOR]

Yes you are right. If one's mind is stuck in one direction, it will think in one mode only. Hence, the necessity to come out of such mental conditioning and understand from various view-points. Finally, all are merely opinions.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

What I meant was by reading Bhagavad Gita one can come to know the ways of attaining self realization. I was replying to the question on the ways that are there for self realization. Self realization as is normally meant signifies the end of one's journey on the physical plane and the soul is ready to be liberated from it. Self realization so is definitely not the beginning. BG does talk about the ways for attaining self realization like bhakthi yoga, karma yoga and gnana yoga as the ways towards it.

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

I like to bring one point to your attention, please. I am not trying to teach you or anything like that. I am addressing you knowing very well you have not run the discussions in to arguments in the past. I don't want a debate or argument either.

This is just sharing my point of view only.

1. None of the religion may lead one to 'self-realisation'. By that I mean, one can not become self-realised while clinging to one's religion at birth or religion due to 'conversion'. Religions stoke 'Us Vs Them' feeling amoung it's followers. Hindus may say ' We don't say that'... even in that statement, 'we' denotes 'Us'. A self realised person essentially will not have this 'Us Vs Them' feeling. In other words. such a self realised person has to be beyond any religion or sect.

2. Any book wold reflect author's point of view. It has to, otherwise there would be no purpose for the book. But self realisation is an essentially private act, each individual has to do it in their own way and own pace. This is something that can't be influenced by others. Similar to a book, any guru would fall under the same category. If a Guru assures someone to guide to 'self' realisation, unfortunately, that guru may not be very honest.

3. BG may not lead anyone to self realisation although there are chapters covering Bakthi marga, Jnana marga etc. Actually I a confident about this. The proof is in the pudding. Kindly follow Mahabharata story.... Krsna delivered BG to Arjuna. In other words, Arjuna had BG directly from the Lord himself. Also as a bonus, Lord presented the 'Viswaroopam' to Arjuna. So, one may think Arjuna became a 'self-realised' soul; but one would be miserably wrong! After all the BG coaching, after Arjuna said he understood BG, he took up his bow and killed 1000s of innocents on a real estate dispute! Just for mere land and pride Arjuna killed!

I asked you would you do it... understandably you skipped that question. I know the answer... you would not do it.

Not just Arjuna, but Bhishma, Drona and many others also listened to BG..... Except Karna. Very similar to Arjuna, all the others took part in that killing for 17 more days and few nights. Did BG help them to self realise? I think not.

Karna was a self realised soul. Krsna revealed 'Viswaroopam' to Karna too. Karna said that was enough for him and did not want to live for one more minute after that. Just gave away all his 'good karmas' earned until then! He became a 'Jeevan Mukkthan'.. 'Good karma' ... 'bad karma'... punya or papa.... rich or poor . nothing mattered to him.

So, just by reading or understanding BG one may not attain self realisation. Also, one may very well become self realised without reading any book or without following any guru.

4. Self realisation is the first step to Mukthi. Firstly one has to realise 'aham Brahmasmi' ( Spelling? that's all I know). That is the first step. Then only I would even consider such situation is true for others too. Then only I would be able to get to a stage " a jnani would view a learned person, a sadhu, a dog eater and a dog' as equals ( by viewing the God in the learned person, sadhu, dog eater and a dog). Also it says one has to give up attachments and desires.... BG says on the way to jnanam, one would view a 'rock and a diamond' as equals, just as rocks. ( Arjuna did not have such views even after thinking he understood BG. That was his illusion).

Once in a different thread I wrote ( the subject was a question - is God veggie or non-veggie?) " God kills god to offer to god; then god eats god. Now is god veggie or non-veggie?"

Self realisation is just the initial step for someone to become a decent human being. It is not the end of the journey but the beginning in this world itself. It is the beginning for a very interesting and fulfilling journey. The journey concludes at our death. (Personally, my method is very simple - I would ask myself - Am I ready to die today?)

Cheers!

 

[tks]

Dear Shri TKS,

Could you elaborate?

I wrote "There is no such thing as tampering when it comes to nature"
Natural laws permit humans to invent approaches, and gadgets to explore (other) natural systems.

How an invention is used is a different subject matter. The artificial insemination methods have given many childless couples the joy of having a family. The same knowledge is used to cause untold harm to cows so it is constantly kept in state of milk production.

PS: Even a pair of chappals are made in a factory powered by machines invented. The cell phone device could be considered exploiting natural laws for a benefit. The list is endless.

PPS: Please go through every element that you use in today's life - Internet, cell phone technology, Google, Integrated circuits in all other gadgets. Most were discovered / invented in USA and west exploiting natural laws. As an expression of gratitude for all those inventions that you and others use in daily life (which has improved your life) you may want to say a prayer and thank you to the American (and West's) system of innovation

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

I like to bring one point to your attention, please. I am not trying to teach you or anything like that. I am addressing you knowing very well you have not run the discussions in to arguments in the past. I don't want a debate or argument either.

This is just sharing my point of view only.

1. None of the religion may lead one to 'self-realisation'. By that I mean, one can not become self-realised while clinging to one's religion at birth or religion due to 'conversion'. Religions stoke 'Us Vs Them' feeling amoung it's followers. Hindus may say ' We don't say that'... even in that statement, 'we' denotes 'Us'. A self realised person essentially will not have this 'Us Vs Them' feeling. In other words. such a self realised person has to be beyond any religion or sect.

2. Any book wold reflect author's point of view. It has to, otherwise there would be no purpose for the book. But self realisation is an essentially private act, each individual has to do it in their own way and own pace. This is something that can't be influenced by others. Similar to a book, any guru would fall under the same category. If a Guru assures someone to guide to 'self' realisation, unfortunately, that guru may not be very honest.

3. BG may not lead anyone to self realisation although there are chapters covering Bakthi marga, Jnana marga etc. Actually I a confident about this. The proof is in the pudding. Kindly follow Mahabharata story.... Krsna delivered BG to Arjuna. In other words, Arjuna had BG directly from the Lord himself. Also as a bonus, Lord presented the 'Viswaroopam' to Arjuna. So, one may think Arjuna became a 'self-realised' soul; but one would be miserably wrong! After all the BG coaching, after Arjuna said he understood BG, he took up his bow and killed 1000s of innocents on a real estate dispute! Just for mere land and pride Arjuna killed!

I asked you would you do it... understandably you skipped that question. I know the answer... you would not do it.

Not just Arjuna, but Bhishma, Drona and many others also listened to BG..... Except Karna. Very similar to Arjuna, all the others took part in that killing for 17 more days and few nights. Did BG help them to self realise? I think not.

Karna was a self realised soul. Krsna revealed 'Viswaroopam' to Karna too. Karna said that was enough for him and did not want to live for one more minute after that. Just gave away all his 'good karmas' earned until then! He became a 'Jeevan Mukkthan'.. 'Good karma' ... 'bad karma'... punya or papa.... rich or poor . nothing mattered to him.

So, just by reading or understanding BG one may not attain self realisation. Also, one may very well become self realised without reading any book or without following any guru.

4. Self realisation is the first step to Mukthi. Firstly one has to realise 'aham Brahmasmi' ( Spelling? that's all I know). That is the first step. Then only I would even consider such situation is true for others too. Then only I would be able to get to a stage " a jnani would view a learned person, a sadhu, a dog eater and a dog' as equals ( by viewing the God in the learned person, sadhu, dog eater and a dog). Also it says one has to give up attachments and desires.... BG says on the way to jnanam, one would view a 'rock and a diamond' as equals, just as rocks. ( Arjuna did not have such views even after thinking he understood BG. That was his illusion).

Once in a different thread I wrote ( the subject was a question - is God veggie or non-veggie?) " God kills god to offer to god; then god eats god. Now is god veggie or non-veggie?"

Self realisation is just the initial step for someone to become a decent human being. It is not the end of the journey but the beginning in this world itself. It is the beginning for a very interesting and fulfilling journey. The journey concludes at our death. (Personally, my method is very simple - I would ask myself - Am I ready to die today?)

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

Thanks for sharing your views. I understand your views on self realization. I think I too share the same views on how self realization transforms a person. However where we differ is whereas I think you do not believe in souls and rebirths I do. I hold the view that the purpose of various rebirths is to facilitate and achieve the goal of self realization. Achieving self realization being the ultimate goal there is no purpose for a soul in the physical world after that.

But I do understand if one takes the view that one lives only one life, self realization paves the way for being a good person and so self realization in a sense is the beginning for something.

 

[prasad1]

I wrote "There is no such thing as tampering when it comes to nature"
Natural laws permit humans to invent approaches, and gadgets to explore (other) natural systems.

How an invention is used is a different subject matter. The artificial insemination methods have given many childless couples the joy of having a family. The same knowledge is used to cause untold harm to cows so it is constantly kept in state of milk production.

PS: Even a pair of chappals are made in a factory powered by machines invented. The cell phone device could be considered exploiting natural laws for a benefit. The list is endless.

PPS: Please go through every element that you use in today's life - Internet, cell phone technology, Google, Integrated circuits in all other gadgets. Most were discovered / invented in USA and west exploiting natural laws. As an expression of gratitude for all those inventions that you and others use in daily life (which has improved your life) you may want to say a prayer and thank you to the American (and West's) system of innovation

Excellent point.
May be the PSS was not needed (knowing the forum members).

 

[tks]

Excellent point.
May be the PSS was not needed (knowing the forum members).

Yes, Prasad ji ...
The last bit indeed was a 'tongue in cheek' comment

 

[Raghy]

Dear Palindrome, Greetings.

I got interested in the conversation between yourself and Sri. Sravna and interacted with Sri. Sravna. I refer to my post #45 in this thread. Sri. Sravna addressed only the last sentence in that long post. I am asking you to share your opiions about the points I raised in post #45, please. I know, usually you would address a message in full. Thank you.

Regards, Raghy.