Science, Rituals, Jyothisham, Vaastu etc

[a-TB]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thank you for your comments.

I have critiqued beliefs in a general manner across various areas and highlighted their harmful effects at both individual and societal levels. These ill effects are far-reaching, transcending generations, and can be very detrimental. I have provided a few examples to illustrate this point.

When it comes to individuals and their personal beliefs, I do not debate or challenge them. I respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs, provided they do not harm others.

Regarding science, I have made several specific and concrete comments in this thread. If you disagree with any of my points, you must quote the exact statements I’ve made to support your critique, in which case I will be able to respond appropriately. However, your general characterization of science versus spirituality is not accurate if spirituality is understood as the teachings of Vedanta. Logic, as the domain of the intellect, plays a crucial role in going beyond the intellect itself—a teaching upheld by the Upanishads and the Gita, as explained in Shankara's commentaries.

The Pramana (means of knowledge) for concepts such as Karma Phala, papa, punya, etc., is found exclusively in the Veda Vakyas (statements of the Vedas). No other Pramana is available. The Karma model commonly propagated in society, which aligns with the perspective you have expressed, does not have a strong basis in scripture.

At the highest level, the Gita and the Upanishads speak of the absence of birth and death—there is no ultimate duality. References to rebirth and similar concepts are preliminary teachings only intended for preparatory purposes and are negated as one progresses toward the ultimate understanding.

Therefore, all the points you’ve raised fall within the domain of your beliefs. I can only respect your right to hold these beliefs and will leave it at that.

 

[sravna]

Thank you for your comments.

I have critiqued beliefs in a general manner across various areas and highlighted their harmful effects at both individual and societal levels. These ill effects are far-reaching, transcending generations, and can be very detrimental. I have provided a few examples to illustrate this point.

When it comes to individuals and their personal beliefs, I do not debate or challenge them. I respect everyone's right to hold their own beliefs, provided they do not harm others.

Regarding science, I have made several specific and concrete comments in this thread. If you disagree with any of my points, you must quote the exact statements I’ve made to support your critique, in which case I will be able to respond appropriately. However, your general characterization of science versus spirituality is not accurate if spirituality is understood as the teachings of Vedanta. Logic, as the domain of the intellect, plays a crucial role in going beyond the intellect itself—a teaching upheld by the Upanishads and the Gita, as explained in Shankara's commentaries.

The Pramana (means of knowledge) for concepts such as Karma Phala, papa, punya, etc., is found exclusively in the Veda Vakyas (statements of the Vedas). No other Pramana is available. The Karma model commonly propagated in society, which aligns with the perspective you have expressed, does not have a strong basis in scripture.

At the highest level, the Gita and the Upanishads speak of the absence of birth and death—there is no ultimate duality. References to rebirth and similar concepts are preliminary teachings only intended for preparatory purposes and are negated as one progresses toward the ultimate understanding.

Therefore, all the points you’ve raised fall within the domain of your beliefs. I can only respect your right to hold these beliefs and will leave it at that.

Beliefs are not accorded the status of truths whereas knowledge is. So what is truth? In an ideal sense those that hold universally and in a timeless way. For example the concept of Brahman. what sort of evidence do some thing need to be considered truths? I would say physical evidence and apt logic that exp[lains it perfectly with no possibility of contradictions.

Is Science then a belief system or a system of knowledge? Proclamations of Science are neither universal nor timeless. what is true in Science today is replaced by something else in the future. We do not know about universality but we can say if they are not timeless they not universal. Law of gravity may not hold in some spaces or may be different. Is science atleast verifiable? Not fully except for the physical evidence that it totally relies upon. but the logic are not irrefutable making the intellectual evidence shaky. The theories keep changing for the same evidence.

So science as is theorized and practised today is a system that solely hinges on physical evidence. How reliable is physical evidence? Not quite because they are tested at a particular point of time. we do not know the evolving status of the evidence. So there is a problem there too.

What about spirituality? It does talk about the universal and the timeless such as brahman and maya etc . Can we verify whether it is universal and timeless? Not by physical evidence but by logic and intuition. Logic that is not contradictory. Thats a huge thing. If we have to explain everything in nature starting from the creation of the universe and the origin and nature of space and time, the logic of timelessness has to unfold. The fact that we can see spiritual truths through our mind is consistent with spiritual knowledge though manifestation or implications can be physically seen.

So we see spirituality on a much stronger ground when it comes to deciding which is knowledge system and which is belief system.

 

[sravna]

Also spiritual knowledge is more inclusive. It honors the body too and talks of mind body integration for a spiritual experience whereas science totally dismisses mind and soul.

 

[sravna]

Timelessness is a logical necessity and there has to be a super intelligent entity associated with timelessness because if time and space constrained humans can be intelligent what about something unconstrained by space and time. It is essentially omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent and is what we call as God. Time bound reality then is more an illusion all of these beautifully expounded especially in Advaita.

 

[sravna]

Karma is nothing but the manifestation of the non dual reality in a physical mental setting. The nondual system by being timeless incorporates intelligence, ethics in an aesthetic and cohesive way. The system by nature incorporates dharma or righteousness. When projected as a dual reality the inherent righteousness manifests as the karmic system maintaining spiritual law and order.

 

[a-TB]

"and knowledge is with God alone, and I am only sent with a clear warning" (قُلۡ إِنَّمَا ٱلۡعِلۡمُ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ وَإِنۡمَآ أَنَا۠ نَذِيرٞ مُّبِينٞ) is found in Surah Al-Mulk, verse 26.
Surah Al-Mulk (67th chapter Quran)



It's good to realize that we humans are actually ignorant of most things and strive to not remain ignorant but there is always the One who is Omniscient and comparatively we are always ignorant.

I just came across this message and thought I would share some comments.

Regardless of the underlying religion or its sacred texts, such messages often represent common dualistic beliefs. They are less about a philosophy in search of truth and more an expression of belief in a powerful God who is both a punisher and to be feared.

In essence, the verse reflects themes of humility, trust in divine knowledge, and the central mission of prophetic guidance.

All dualistic theologies and their associated beliefs invariably require an intermediary—a Guru, Prophet, Messenger, or Son of God. Fear is a central element in such traditions, where God is portrayed as a figure akin to a "Godfather," offering an ultimatum: paradise or eternal damnation. It is like making an offer that cannot be refused so to speak.

These systems also revolve around the concepts of free will and destiny.

In the vision of the Upanishads, however, these ideas are rejected and shown to be contradictory. For instance, the second chapter of the Mandukya Karika addresses and critiques various schools of thought. Beliefs are given respect by categorizing them as "schools of thought," but their limitations are evident.

Plurality does not require validation through scripture; we perceive multiplicity all around us. Feeling limited in our capabilities, we imagine an all-knowing, all-powerful God. This often leads to contradictions, or what some may call paradoxes, because omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence cannot logically coexist in the same entity.

Advaita Vedanta resolves these contradictions comprehensively. Adi Shankaracharya has provided an irrefutable framework in this regard, though that is a separate topic.

In the long run, dualistic traditions tend to create division and propagate insecurity through the idea of a powerful, punishing God, as opposed to an all-loving, compassionate God. How does God fit into the Advaita understanding? This is addressed without contradictions in Advaita Vedanta. Furthermore, if God is truly all-compassionate, the question of so-called evil is resolved without resorting to the concept of a Devil.

Interestingly, many of the more recent Puranic stories seem influenced by Biblical narratives. These stories often lack the essence of wisdom or, if such wisdom was present, it has been largely forgotten.

However, the wisdom of the Rishis has given rise to a robust system of learning. This includes rituals, mythological stories intended to convey wisdom, Itihasa (epic narratives that are not history in the modern sense), science and its applications, and finally, the highest wisdom of the Upanishads.

It is worth noting that there is no equivalent term for "free will" in Vedanta—it is an import from Christianity. Similarly, the concept of destiny (Kismat) comes from Islam. Both ideas are alien to the universal and holistic teachings of Vedanta.

There is a way to understand all of these concepts without resorting to belief or faith. In Vedanta, God is not feared but discovered in the "cave of the heart."

When such a universal teaching is available to all humanity, it is paradoxical that many remain fixated on gods and scriptures created by human insecurity and greed.

For clarity, I do not identify as a theist, atheist, agnostic, or any such label. As the quoted verse from Islamic scripture is intended for believers, I will refrain from critiquing it.

All the best!

 

[renuka]

I just came across this message and thought I would share some comments.

Regardless of the underlying religion or its sacred texts, such messages often represent common dualistic beliefs. They are less about a philosophy in search of truth and more an expression of belief in a powerful God who is both a punisher and to be feared.

In essence, the verse reflects themes of humility, trust in divine knowledge, and the central mission of prophetic guidance.

All dualistic theologies and their associated beliefs invariably require an intermediary—a Guru, Prophet, Messenger, or Son of God. Fear is a central element in such traditions, where God is portrayed as a figure akin to a "Godfather," offering an ultimatum: paradise or eternal damnation. It is like making an offer that cannot be refused so to speak.

These systems also revolve around the concepts of free will and destiny.

In the vision of the Upanishads, however, these ideas are rejected and shown to be contradictory. For instance, the second chapter of the Mandukya Karika addresses and critiques various schools of thought. Beliefs are given respect by categorizing them as "schools of thought," but their limitations are evident.

Plurality does not require validation through scripture; we perceive multiplicity all around us. Feeling limited in our capabilities, we imagine an all-knowing, all-powerful God. This often leads to contradictions, or what some may call paradoxes, because omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence cannot logically coexist in the same entity.

Advaita Vedanta resolves these contradictions comprehensively. Adi Shankaracharya has provided an irrefutable framework in this regard, though that is a separate topic.

In the long run, dualistic traditions tend to create division and propagate insecurity through the idea of a powerful, punishing God, as opposed to an all-loving, compassionate God. How does God fit into the Advaita understanding? This is addressed without contradictions in Advaita Vedanta. Furthermore, if God is truly all-compassionate, the question of so-called evil is resolved without resorting to the concept of a Devil.

Interestingly, many of the more recent Puranic stories seem influenced by Biblical narratives. These stories often lack the essence of wisdom or, if such wisdom was present, it has been largely forgotten.

However, the wisdom of the Rishis has given rise to a robust system of learning. This includes rituals, mythological stories intended to convey wisdom, Itihasa (epic narratives that are not history in the modern sense), science and its applications, and finally, the highest wisdom of the Upanishads.

It is worth noting that there is no equivalent term for "free will" in Vedanta—it is an import from Christianity. Similarly, the concept of destiny (Kismat) comes from Islam. Both ideas are alien to the universal and holistic teachings of Vedanta.

There is a way to understand all of these concepts without resorting to belief or faith. In Vedanta, God is not feared but discovered in the "cave of the heart."

When such a universal teaching is available to all humanity, it is paradoxical that many remain fixated on gods and scriptures created by human insecurity and greed.

For clarity, I do not identify as a theist, atheist, agnostic, or any such label. As the quoted verse from Islamic scripture is intended for believers, I will refrain from critiquing it.

All the best!

Thank you for the reply.
I do understand you align with Vedanta.
But other schools of thought too are equally valid.
There is no my way or the highway.
At times your opinions sound as if all other methods are "haram" and only Vedanta is " halal"
It defeats the purpose of aligning with Vedanta if other schools of thoughts are considered fixated on God and scriptures created by human insecurity and greed.

At times when we are exploring spirituality be it the Vedanta or any other path or even a new religion, there is a normal tendency to feel that one's path is clearing misconceptions, after all that is what spiritual pursue is all about.

For eg you wrote in another post that you realized you had been ignorant but now you realized you dont want to remain ignorant anymore.

That is the start of any spiritual journey....the Amazing Grace feeling of " I once was lost but now I am found,, was blind but now I see.."..everyone goes through this feeling.
At the same time the human mind has a tendency to hijack its ownself as the Ahamkara wants to remain top gun.
The Ahamkara doesnt want to let the "I am the mind, I am the body. I am the senses " factor disappear.

This is where we start to feel that our path is better than another's path.
Hence you wrote
"When such a universal teaching is available to all humanity, it is paradoxical that many remain fixated on gods and scriptures created by human insecurity and greed"

Its like a person who loves chocolate ice cream and says.." when such an out of the world flavor exists..why are people even eating vanilla ice cream?"

This thought is the Ahamkara which has mutated into a new form, the Spiritual Ego..its a mild delusion actually.

We then start to focus on the "negativity"of other paths without realizing that we are hijacking our own plane.
Its a state all of us go through, usually we come of out it after sometime.

Anyway your understanding of Vedanta is deep, may the force be with you.
Fly your plane and have a safe journey.

 

[a-TB]

Vedanta is about universal truth—it does not belong to anyone.

To assume that one can "take a side" in relation to Vedanta is, in itself, a misunderstanding.

It is natural for some to see Vedanta as just another religion and to interpret any discussion of universal truth as an attack on personal beliefs. This often leads to labeling such comments as ego-based attacks (ahamkara).

Ignorance arises from closed-mindedness, which limits one’s ability to discern the falsehoods present in many societal constructs and edicts.

Religions and concepts of God are often shaped by human insecurities and greed, and they tend to be divisive. This applies to all religions, including Hindu traditions. However, this perspective may not sit well with a believer, which is why I avoid debating with those rooted in their beliefs.

Yes, God is unknown and unknowable through logic. Yet, paradoxically, nothing is more immediately available to everyone. All knowledge—whether scientific or intellectual—is ultimately ignorance when viewed through the lens of universal truth. To grasp this, one must transcend fixations and conditioned thinking. However, these ideas are unlikely to resonate with those steeped in dualistic beliefs, even if they claim to accept Advaita as truth.

Quoting the Gita, specifically Verse 18.66 (Sarva dharman parityajya), is often used to emphasize surrender. However, when interpreted from a dualistic perspective, this surrender carries deep contradictions.

By way of metaphor: you cannot compare one crore rupees earned in a dream to 1,000 rupees in the waking state. Similarly, Vedanta is often misunderstood, and true universal truth can only be non-dual. What I have expressed here is not my personal opinion; while the presentation and examples are my own, the ideas are firmly rooted in well-established teachings that anyone with an open mind can comprehend.

It was a mistake for me to engage in a debate here with a believer. My apologies.

OM

 

[renuka]

Vedanta is about universal truth—it does not belong to anyone.

To assume that one can "take a side" in relation to Vedanta is, in itself, a misunderstanding.

It is natural for some to see Vedanta as just another religion and to interpret any discussion of universal truth as an attack on personal beliefs. This often leads to labeling such comments as ego-based attacks (ahamkara).

Ignorance arises from closed-mindedness, which limits one’s ability to discern the falsehoods present in many societal constructs and edicts.

Religions and concepts of God are often shaped by human insecurities and greed, and they tend to be divisive. This applies to all religions, including Hindu traditions. However, this perspective may not sit well with a believer, which is why I avoid debating with those rooted in their beliefs.

Yes, God is unknown and unknowable through logic. Yet, paradoxically, nothing is more immediately available to everyone. All knowledge—whether scientific or intellectual—is ultimately ignorance when viewed through the lens of universal truth. To grasp this, one must transcend fixations and conditioned thinking. However, these ideas are unlikely to resonate with those steeped in dualistic beliefs, even if they claim to accept Advaita as truth.

Quoting the Gita, specifically Verse 18.66 (Sarva dharman parityajya), is often used to emphasize surrender. However, when interpreted from a dualistic perspective, this surrender carries deep contradictions.

By way of metaphor: you cannot compare one crore rupees earned in a dream to 1,000 rupees in the waking state. Similarly, Vedanta is often misunderstood, and true universal truth can only be non-dual. What I have expressed here is not my personal opinion; while the presentation and examples are my own, the ideas are firmly rooted in well-established teachings that anyone with an open mind can comprehend.

It was a mistake for me to engage in a debate here with a believer. My apologies.

OM

Thank you..apology accepted.

 

[sravna]

Religion and concepts of God are not shaped by insecurities or greed. That is a western notion which fails to grasp the intellectual depth of religious thoughts. They are often blinded by the fact that something that cannot be seen or felt has no basis to exist. The logic in Advaita or Dvaita or Gita are all razor sharp and deep that if you fail to understand that depth it is indeed sad that you are missing something.

Different schools of thoughts does not mean they are contradicting. The basic premise of a God is common to all and depending on what aspects of divinity needs to be presented for it to reach people are what are presented. Due to differences in peoples nature each may appeal to different sections of people.

That is the beauty. Unity in diversity applies here too.. All well laid out paths lead to the destination of Divinity.

Let's not try to be divisive.

 

[sravna]

People should be more respectful of religions and God. Religious people themselves should be more embracing of other religions. It is good to be not only conversant with what the vedas say but also what Quran and Bible say for example.

Let noble thoughts come from all directions and religions

 

[renuka]

The concept of Free Will and Destiny isnt an influence of Abrahamic religions.

What we call Destiny is the unfolding of our own seeds of Karma we had sowed in our past lives.What is known as the Prarabdha Karma.

What we call Free Will is how we choose to react in situations in our present life karmic unfoldings.

Free Will reactions becomes the seeds that will sprout in later part of our live or in our next life. What we call Agami Karma or Kriyamana Karma.

So how to we try not to accumulate Karma of any type?
This is where Free Will can be utilized.
Free Will is our Iccha Shakti, Kriya Shakti and Jnaana Shakti.
Before we react to any situation we face in life, use the Iccha to align with Jnaana so the Kriya doesnt accumulate seeds of reactions.

I wont go into the details about not accumulating seeds of our reactions for now.

I just highlighted that concepts like Free Will and Destiny is well rooted in our scriptures and not an influence of Abrahamic religions per se.

 

[OKO]

I was unable to log on to the site as I had taken a flight back home. I have read the thread from where I had left off and would like to contribute my thoughts regarding the above:

1. a-TB has summarised the ongoing debate quite well, however, I must admit that we are not on the same page regarding the objectivity of the scientific method. Countless stories such as the acceptance of the earth being round, changing the method for delivery of a child for perverted reasons (the last one is a really interesting story and quite unfortunate as well), et cetera. I do believe that as long as ad-hoc modifications exist to circumvent any further critiques or experimental results science can never truly be "objective" as it is in its nature to be subjective and the objectivity is from its subjectivity (a more Popperian view I suppose).
2. For something to be "true", it ought to be "false" as well. At the end of the day, the human faculties with their own biases determine the "truth" and what it comprises of, and inadvertently determine what is "false". Therefore, IMHO the "truth" is nonexistent and at this juncture used as a divisive policy.

 

[OKO]

The concept of Free Will and Destiny isnt an influence of Abrahamic religions.

What we call Destiny is the unfolding of our own seeds of Karma we had sowed in our past lives.What is known as the Prarabdha Karma.

What we call Free Will is how we choose to react in situations in our present life karmic unfoldings.

Free Will reactions becomes the seeds that will sprout in later part of our live or in our next life. What we call Agami Karma or Kriyamana Karma.

So how to we try not to accumulate Karma of any type?
This is where Free Will can be utilized.
Free Will is our Iccha Shakti, Kriya Shakti and Jnaana Shakti.
Before we react to any situation we face in life, use the Iccha to align with Jnaana so the Kriya doesnt accumulate seeds of reactions.

I wont go into the details about not accumulating seeds of our reactions for now.

I just highlighted that concepts like Free Will and Destiny is well rooted in our scriptures and not an influence of Abrahamic religions per se.

Not really. While you are right that it is not an Abrahamic influence, it is not something which Advaita supports. The concept of free will denotes that you as a person can have your own thoughts which would be a more dualistic approach. There is however freedom to choose between multiple possibilities (within the Advaithan concept, something Jyothisam also acknowledges).

Also, could you kindly let me know from where you are quoting the bit about icha, kriya and jnaana shakti? It is an interesting and different take compared to my understanding of it and would like to read up a bit more.

 

[sravna]

Free will in my view is aligning with nature which can be said to be being balanced which a non dual reality would support. Balancing interests of self with the interests of other which is treating self and others on the same footing is close to the essence of non dual nature of reality. Advaita so in fact can be said to endorse the notion of free will as defined above.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka

I am also interested in knowing about who said free will as being associated with ichaa, Jnana and kriya Sakthi? The concept seems neat.

 

[sravna]

Can I interpret in this way when uchaa which is desire or our own will aligns with gnanaa that is with the nature or the ultimate reality kriya or the seeds of reactions does not accumulate or our will becomes free will.

What say you Renuka and Shri. OKO?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka

I am also interested in knowing about who said free will as being associated with ichaa, Jnana and kriya Sakthi? The concept seems neat.

Dear Sravna,

Its from my understanding of what I have read over the years.


At the Macrocosmic level Energy expresses itself as Iccha Sakthi, Kriya Shakti and Jnaana Shakti.

Iccha Sakhti functions at the level of the mind..mental energy which hasnt kicked started any activity yet..somewhat in Potential state.

Kriya Shakti is physical energy which expresses itself through actions.

Jnaana Shakti is the spiritual energy which expresses itself as knowledge.

Anything that is present at the Macrocosmic level is also present at the Microcosmic level hence I correlated it to Free Will in us at a microcosmic scale.

I might be wrong but this is my personal understanding.

 

[OKO]

Free will in my view is aligning with nature which can be said to be being balanced which a non dual reality would support. Balancing interests of self with the interests of other which is treating self and others on the same footing is close to the essence of non dual nature of reality. Advaita so in fact can be said to endorse the notion of free will as defined above.

Would free will not be against the balance?

Think of it this way, you have come to earth to do XYZ and to learn ABC and the cosmic balance is shifted to accommodate this. However, the you who has a personality and differentiable attributes wishes to abstain from doing something you had to do. Therefore, your "free will" alters the cosmic balance.

Freedom on the other hand denotes that the balance will be maintained whether you do XYZ or go the other way and do not. In essence, freedom means the expected trajectory is not one but many compared to free will which posits only one. The idea of mantra japam, yantram, yoga, etc comes under freedom and not free will.

This is my understanding of the above. If there is a different way to go about it please do let me know. Furthermore, could you kindly clarify the latter half of your post which talks about "balancing interests of self with the interests of other" and Advaita?

Can I interpret in this way when uchaa which is desire or our own will aligns with gnanaa that is with the nature or the ultimate reality kriya or the seeds of reactions does not accumulate or our will becomes free will.

What say you Renuka and Shri. OKO?

Personally, I have always taken it as the desire drives the self to gain knowledge which allows you to act on it, i.e., icha fuels the self to get jnanam and that jnanam helps in the practical aspect or the kriya quotient (could not find an English equivalent that succinctly gets to the point).

This understanding stems from the fact that all devi temples when you go around the idol it is taken as the desire for you to grow spiritually and the different aspects required for that growth. Therefore, I have never thought about it this way. Your analysis regarding the same does seem quite nice. However, can it really be said that it is free will when our will is one with nature?

 

[OKO]

Dear Sravna,

Its from my understanding of what I have read over the years.


At the Macrocosmic level Energy expresses itself as Iccha Sakthi, Kriya Shakti and Jnaana Shakti.

Iccha Sakhti functions at the level of the mind..mental energy which hasnt kicked started any activity yet..somewhat in Potential state.

Kriya Shakti is physical energy which expresses itself through actions.

Jnaana Shakti is the spiritual energy which expresses itself as knowledge.

Anything that is present at the Macrocosmic level is also present at the Microcosmic level hence I correlated it to Free Will in us at a microcosmic scale.

I might be wrong but this is my personal understanding.

Does this mean that the order of flow from icha, jnana, and kriya becomes icha, kriya, and then jnana?

Where you can say that one's desire fuels action that lets you gain knowledge?

 

[sravna]

Dear OKO

You do the right thing even if you do only one thing. Any way you cannot do multiple things and will have to choose only the best one. It is spontaneous and doing the right thing at the right time every time.

Makes sense?

 

[OKO]

Yes. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[sravna]

Does this mean that the order of flow from icha, jnana, and kriya becomes icha, kriya, and then jnana?

Where you can say that one's desire fuels action that lets you gain knowledge?

I think she is being creative in the explanation of the three sakthis with regard to free will. A different problem such as gaining of knowledge may be explained with the flow you suggested. Anyway at the deepest level all the sakthis are interconnected and only one reality.