Science, Rituals, Jyothisham, Vaastu etc

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Sravna...I will answer this later.

No Problem

 

[sravna]

By placing rituals, astrology and vaastu alongside Science they wanted to show the former in a diminished way. What prejudiced thought!

IMHO science has no chance against the intuition masterpiece that astrology is. Think of all the profound truths being grasped by mind alone. No cumbersome experimental setup, no half baked theories to fit the experimental results but all grasped by a very powerful mind. Scientists will struggle for eons to explain such depth in understanding by the revered rishis. So they simply dismiss something their puny minds cant accept as fake. Very predictable given their puny minds.

They will struggle to paint the discipline as lacking rigor, not systematic or physically verifiable. That's the best they can come up with. Their puny minds cant do better. They will keep writing thesis after thesis on why methodology is so important.

Their time is probably over is the intuition i get.

Keep fretting and fuming over the capabilities of spiritual energy.

You cant do better than that.

 

[a-TB]

Genesis of this Thread: The discussion began with a specific question related to Astrology in another thread. A member, while asking a question, made some comments about the nature of science, which I addressed after the initial question was responded to by believers in Astrology. Normally, I avoid introducing opposing thoughts that might conflict with the intent of such threads.

However, I felt compelled to elaborate further. In my understanding, the Indian subcontinent has given humanity one of the greatest visions and methods for study, rooted in universal wisdom. Unfortunately, modern society has deeply undermined this legacy by fostering superstitions and ignorance. This has had a profoundly negative impact. A land that once upheld respectful debates for thousands of years now suffers from arguments marked by indecency and a lack of decorum.

The premise of this thread is to address these issues using logic and authentic scriptures of universal wisdom, focusing on selected areas. The expectation is that counterarguments must rely on facts, references, and logic. If counterpoints are based merely on beliefs—particularly within a thread aiming to show how such beliefs are detrimental—how does one respond? I see two options: ignore them or point out the illogic.

Just as it would be inappropriate to criticize beliefs in a thread dedicated to such beliefs, it is equally inappropriate to inject unfounded beliefs into a thread focused on logic and universal principles. However, such unwritten rules of debate cannot be enforced.

I have only skimmed a few posts and will now bow out of this thread, after making a few points. .

​

• The Karma model, as commonly believed today, lacks both logical basis and support in the Upanishads. This point has been addressed earlier.
• The term "Iccha Shakti" was mentioned as free will. However, Iccha means will; there is no concept of absolute free will. What exists is a "free will experience." Recent neuroscience experiments support the thesis that decision-making is not governed by free will, although these studies are in their nascent stages.

​

The term "Iccha Shakti" gained prominence in later Hindu texts and traditions, particularly in:

1. Tantra: Iccha Shakti is one of the three primary shaktis (powers) in Tantric philosophy, along with Jnana Shakti (power of knowledge) and Kriya Shakti (power of action).
2. Yoga: It is sometimes referred to as "willpower" or the "desire" aspect of an individual, which needs to be balanced and harmonized through yogic practices.

There is also a reference to the beginning of the universe in the concept of Hiranyagarbha, the first Jiva, where it is said, "He willed that there may be many." However, this is often misinterpreted as Iccha. The purport of this reference is entirely different.

​

Science, as explained earlier, is not the ultimate authority, but it is rooted in open-mindedness, which makes it a valuable tool. The Big Bang is one hypothesis for the origin of the universe, but there are other competing hypotheses that challenge its assumptions. However, there is a deeply ingrained idea in scientific thought that all living beings originated from insentience.

The Vedantic model refutes this view, asserting instead that sentience is the essence of the universe. The statement, "He willed," signifies this sentience as the foundation, contrasting sharply with the idea of inert matter (jadam) as the source of life. I will avoid delving deeper into Vedantic concepts here.

As with any thread, participants are free to disagree or use this as an opportunity to learn.

I also took the opportunity to explore the notion of "science as a belief" and came across some interesting perspectives in my search.

Unless there are specific questions regarding my statements—if I happen to read them—I will respond. Otherwise, I am exiting this thread.

 

[sravna]

We dont find any logic in the thread that's supposed to be critical of unfounded beliefs. For something to be logical it is not on;y necessary to be valid but also be sound. a-TB's statements connect together well but are the statements sound? They are based on his own ideas and beliefs which have no basis in truths.

I do not want to engage too as the same unfounded ideas are being parroted.

 

[renuka]

We dont find any logic in the thread that's supposed to be critical of unfounded beliefs. For something to be logical it is not on;y necessary to be valid but also be sound. a-TB's statements connect together well but are the statements sound? They are based on his own ideas and beliefs which have no basis in truths.

I do not want to engage too as the same unfounded ideas are being parroted.

There is logic in someway or the other depending on the school of thought we follow.

For eg those who follow ISCKON translate the Sarva Dharman parityja maam ekam sharanam vrja line from Bhagavad Gita as surrendering to Krishna.

Maam means Me in Sanskrit and its taken to mean Krishna speaking to Arjuna.
Is ISCKON right to say that.
Yes! They are.
One can surrender to Krishna as in a dualistic format too.

Now what if we look at the word Maam as meaning the Atmic Principle( Atma Tatva) and its the Atma Tatva which is the Charioteer here.
So it is dualistic now?
No..its not dualistic as one isnt having an external concept of God here.

So who is right?The dualist or the Non Dualist?
Both are right.

The Dualist might hold the Bhagavata Purana as their backup and the Non Dualist might prefer the Upanishads.

Who is right here?
Both are right.

But if the Dualists go around calling Advaitins as Mayavadins and if the Advaitins call the concept of God man made stemming from ignorance or greed then both have strayed from the purpose of spirituality.

This is why sometimes debating isnt worth it.
Let all schools of thoughts prevail.
At the end of the day all of us are functioning at the level of the intellect...so there is bound to be differences.

 

[sravna]

Renuka

Personally I prefer not to attack Science but when you say Scientific knowledge is only true knowledge and others are unfounded beliefs i feel compelled to point out the gaps in science. I prefer a healthy approach towards opposing views too but are they doing the same?

 

[sravna]

It is just not enough to present a facade of logic. They have been using this trick for long. It is necessary to make premises rooted in reality. and which are not just their beliefs

 

[sravna]

Lets take einsteins relativity. It says gravity is because of curved space time. It developed a mathematical framework for it and observations tend to follow the theory. But does it mean the theory is correct? May not be. There may be different and the correct explanation for the same math. Can the math be wrong? Yes if aspects of reality evolve or change over time.

This brings us to the notion of falsifiability. It is a clever notion hiding behind it the fallibility of scientific methods. Why should some theory have to be falsifiable? What just as in the case of rishis absolute truth can be directly and totally accessed? It is bad knowledge that is falsifiable though may be good science.

Nothing great about methodology too. You can rigorously create wrong theories and methodologies do not establish causality. It is actually dangerous to pass off something as right knowledge based on shaky logic though rigorous methodology. It gives a false sense of correctness.

So folks Science is not all that glorious as they make you believe. The less said about technology the better. Most are pericham pazham technology only based on data and not even half baked science.

 

[sravna]

Those who are saying that science is about methodology only are in a pathetic state of having to defend American science which works solely on methodology. It is a sorry state of affairs and rightly their technology deserves to be called pericham pazham technology.

 

[renuka]

Those who are saying that science is about methodology only are in a pathetic state of having to defend American science which works solely on methodology. It is a sorry state of affairs and rightly their technology deserves to be called pericham pazham technology.

Sravna, personally I respect both Science and Spirituality.
Science isnt a problem but some scientist reject spirituality by identifying themselves too much to being evidence based.
Its quite normal to let our profession shape our thoughts..just like how as a doctor I do see lots of things through the lenses of medical science.
But since spirituality is about not identifying with any externality..so I ask myself.." who am I?" Am I a doctor? The answer will be No..because spirituality is about I am not this, I am not that.
Knowing this we need to drop the over analytical mind and pursue spirituality with a calm mind sans agitations of any kind or even preconcieved notions.

In an earier post, I was called a Believer by a member.
I dont know why these days the word Believer has become something to comment about.

What is wrong in being a Believer?
We believe the words of our mother when she tells us who our father is, so why cant we believe what avatars, siddhas, messengers, rishis and prophets have said?
After all they are more spiritually advanced than us..like how we read science in a text book and regurgitate the same to pass an exam, at that time we believe the text till its proved otherwise.
So what is wrong to be a believer?

At the same time there is nothing wrong being a seeker or an agnostic or theist or satanist too as long it sheds light in some way..even Lucifer means the Harbringer of Light.


I was reading a book by Datta Swami where he said science is the technology from God meant for each era which is revealed through scientist in a form of intuition and they start to work on it...whether the scientist is an atheist or theist it doesnt make a difference to God as the scientist is an instrument here.

So insulting science is akin to insulting the plan of God.

Now coming to spiritualist..they too can be a problem when they start to find fault with science.
So best is we realize science functions in the domain of physical reality and spirituality functions in the domain of subtle reality.

There is no need for both to reject each other.

 

[sravna]

Sravna, personally I respect both Science and Spirituality.
Science isnt a problem but some scientist reject spirituality by identifying themselves too much to being evidence based.
Its quite normal to let our profession shape our thoughts..just like how as a doctor I do see lots of things through the lenses of medical science.
But since spirituality is about not identifying with any externality..so I ask myself.." who am I?" Am I a doctor? The answer will be No..because spirituality is about I am not this, I am not that.
Knowing this we need to drop the over analytical mind and pursue spirituality with a calm mind sans agitations of any kind or even preconcieved notions.

In an earier post, I was called a Believer by a member.
I dont know why these days the word Believer has become something to comment about.

What is wrong in being a Believer?
We believe the words of our mother when she tells us who our father is, so why cant we believe what avatars, siddhas, messengers, rishis and prophets have said?
After all they are more spiritually advanced than us..like how we read science in a text book and regurgitate the same to pass an exam, at that time we believe the text till its proved otherwise.
So what is wrong to be a believer?

At the same time there is nothing wrong being a seeker or an agnostic or theist or satanist too as long it sheds light in some way..even Lucifer means the Harbringer of Light.


I was reading a book by Datta Swami where he said science is the technology from God meant for each era which is revealed through scientist in a form of intuition and they start to work on it...whether the scientist is an atheist or theist it doesnt make a difference to God as the scientist is an instrument here.

So insulting science is akin to insulting the plan of God.

Now coming to spiritualist..they too can be a problem when they start to find fault with science.
So best is we realize science functions in the domain of physical reality and spirituality functions in the domain of subtle reality.

There is no need for both to reject each other.

Alright Renuka. I accept your position
But I wanted to make them see that truth which is both can contribute.

 

[renuka]

Anahata Chakra - Heart center

The Qualities and Symbols, Exercises, and Meditations for awakening and purification of Anahata Chakra.

www.chakras.net

This site is really beautiful.

 

[sravna]

Yes great site