True principles of Sanatana Dharma

[Jainarayan]

Some people have claimed I dissed the BG just because I said its not my main scripture. (I'm a Saivite, what am I supposed to say? It is a very important, if not the main scripture for several sects, but even those put Vedas right up there ) Kind of like claiming I hate Brazil because I said I like Argentina.

When somebody is adamant about something, another person's neutrality can be taken as negative. Its an overemotional reaction, IMHO.

OK, I understand.

 

[Jainarayan]

no no rest assured it was not this remark , I rather like the title the scripture for mankind , it is very apt .

OK, good.

 

[Surya Deva]

Here is an illustration I use to ascertain what the principles of a universal religion would be like. Suppose there is more advanced intelligent life in other parts of the universe, and one day you go on a tour of their planets and are able to observe their religious life. What would you expect to find which is common and what do you expect to find that is uncommon?

Let us start with the uncommon:

Would they be speaking Sanskrit or Tamil? Highly unlikely
Would they be worshipping a god called Krishna, Vishnu or Shiva? Highly unlikely
Will they have the same festivals as Earthlings? Highly unlikely
Will they have a scripture called the 'Vedas'? Highly unlikely
Will have the the same social systems? Highly unlikely

What should be in common if Hinduism principles are indeed universal
Will they believe in reincarnation? Highly likely
Will they believe in an all pervading, unchanging, eternal absolute reality? Highly likely
Will they believe in eternal laws like dharma and karma?
Will they believe the universe is a holographic projection? Highly likely
Will they believe in a subtle body with vital energy centers? Highly likely
Will they believe in a multidimensional universe? Highly likely
Will they believe in moksha/self-realization? Highly likely
Will they have similar analytics of reality like Samkhya-Yoga-Vedanta? Highly likely

In the same way we would expect to find in advanced cultures in the universe the same truths of gravity, electricity, quantum, atoms etc, we should like-wise expect to find the same universal spiritual truths like the aforementioned. This is why it is Santana dharma. In fact ironically there are many truths of Sanatana dharma which have be uncovered by science already, thus corroborating that it really is santana I would like to mention some:

The existence of the subtle body: There is tremendous evidence indicating the existence of a structure like the subtle body in OBE and NDE research.
The existence of an unmanifest universai field: It is more or less accepted, though still in the territory of theory, that the quantum field is real. In fact the correspondence between the Hindu Akasha and quantum is so close, that many modern philosophers of science and scientists even use the term 'Akashic field/A-field'
The existence of subtle matter: In particle accelerators know it is a known reality that there very subtle particles exist and even exotic types of matter like dark matter.
The existence of other dimensions: Although still theoretical, superstring theory posits that the universe in several dimensions ranging from matter with low energy densities to high energy densities. The evidence for other dimensions is based on a mathematical explanation to account for the behaviour of particles
The existence of reincarnation: Research into past-life memories corroborates that past life memories do indeed refer to real people in the past, and the subject of the memories had the memories a priori

There many truths that are declared in Santana Dharma that are all being rediscovered by modern science. Hence it is no coincidence how intimately modern science and Hinduism are involved with one another. Unfortunately, there are far too many Hindus I talk to who rather than celebrating this, continue to argue a sharp dualism between science and religion, calling their religion their faith - which is not a the attitude of a Sanatana Dharmin.

 

[Pleroma]

In fact ironically there are many truths of Sanatana dharma which have be uncovered by science already, thus corroborating that it really is santana I would like to mention some:

The existence of an unmanifest universai field: It is more or less accepted, though still in the territory of theory, that the quantum field is real. In fact the correspondence between the Hindu Akasha and quantum is so close, that many modern philosophers of science and scientists even use the term 'Akashic field/A-field'
The existence of subtle matter: In particle accelerators know it is a known reality that there very subtle particles exist and even exotic types of matter like dark matter.
The existence of other dimensions: Although still theoretical, superstring theory posits that the universe in several dimensions ranging from matter with low energy densities to high energy densities. The evidence for other dimensions is based on a mathematical explanation to account for the behaviour of particles.

The scientists turned philosophers and scholars coming from outside the tradition are talking crap and nonsense when finding parallels between eastern mysticism and Modern Science. The above parallels that you have mentioned are simply nonsense. Our traditions don't need any justification from Modern science for it to be true and there are no parallels between the findings of Modern Science and Advaita. For God sake stop this broken forms of reasoning.

The only message that Advaita gives to Modern science is that Scientific Realism is false. What we know from Religion is one thing and what we learn from Science is another. Those who equate the quantum field with the Akasha of Advaita are out of their minds and talking absolute nonsense. The epistemology of Advaita and Modern Science are very different. Modern Science deals with the empirical reality where as Advaita deals with the Noumenon world.


"[When making parallels] it could be that Western thought is unconsciously
or consciously being taken as the supreme standard, with a corresponding
lack of sensitivity to other interests: Asian thought must be shown to
be positivistic in a time when positivism was in vogue, or existential for
those who value existentialism. . .Or it must share our moral values, if not
our beliefs. The various traditions cannot stand on their own terms but
must be related to a Western standard. The danger here is in distorting
the fundamental nature of these traditions in order to fulfill this demand
rather than in understanding them in their own milieu."

- Richard H Jones.

Western Scholars and even some of the eastern philosophers and others like Fritjof Capra and Panda are unconsciously misrepresenting those traditions with out understanding it in its own milieu and we will not tolerate it. I strongly critcize the works of Fritjof Capra and Panda. If you want to talk about these traditions then talk about it in their own milieu without twisting some of its sensitive issues just to justify your broken forms of reasoning.

It is the eastern thought which should be taken as superior and these esoteric religions will one day be more powerful than orthodox religions and modern science.

There many truths that are declared in Santana Dharma that are all being rediscovered by modern science. Hence it is no coincidence how intimately modern science and Hinduism are involved with one another. Unfortunately, there are far too many Hindus I talk to who rather than celebrating this, continue to argue a sharp dualism between science and religion, calling their religion their faith - which is not a the attitude of a Sanatana Dharmin.

I am a born Hindu and I am very much aware of the advancements made in Modern Science and also on what these traditions say. The right direction in finding parallels between Modern science and Eastern Mysticism is through the works of Bernard D'espagnat, the french theoretical physicist who won the templeton prize.

Bernard D'Espagnat said, "What we call reality is only a state of mind". This is based on fact established from experiments. The universe exists only when you're looking at it. Keeping this in mind we should research those traditions intensively. There is definitely some truth in them.

Hindus are not dumb, we are way ahead of everyone, I for one is celebrating just as the John Templeton Foundation celebrated in honour of Bernard D'Espagnat. We are very much aware of what is happening around the world and in Science.

 

[Surya Deva]

Western Scholars and even some of the eastern philosophers and others like Fritjof Capra and Panda are unconsciously misrepresenting those traditions with out understanding it in its own milieu and we will not tolerate it. I strongly critcize the works of Fritjof Capra and Panda. If you want to talk about these traditions then talk about it in their own milieu without twisting some of its sensitive issues just to justify your broken forms of reasoning.

It is the eastern thought which should be taken as superior and these esoteric religions will one day be more powerful than orthodox religions and modern science.

I think such views are silly. As I said if Santana Dharma is really Sanatana then its truths will be universal and found universally, not just in one own "milieu" as you call it. They would be found throughout the universe in all scientific cultures, in all time periods. This is exactly what we do find. The truths of reincarnation for example, are not just found in the Indic traditions, but even in Western esoteric traditions and other pagan traditions. Today, reincarnation is found in modern science in research into past life memories.

There is indeed a vast correspondence between modern scientific concepts and concepts from Vedic thought, too strong really to deny for anybody rational. Let me up take them up one by one:

The existence of an unmanifest universal field. In Vedic tradition this is called Akasha or Moolaprakriti. The Akasha is an undifferentiated field of pure potentiality from which the mahabhutas arise, beginning from the lighest vayu to heaviest pritvhi. The quantum field is an undifferentiated field of pure probability where all matter exists as a possibility or wavefunction, from which arises all matter, beginning from the lightest fundamental forces to subatomic particles to the heaviest atomic elements.

The existence of subtle matter: Although, today we take for granted atoms exist, what most people do not know is that atoms were not accepted in modern science until the 19th century. The Greek ideas of atoms were rejected long ago in favour of Aristotle's ideas. However, in the Vedic tradition atoms were never disputed to exist, they were taken for granted. All of the bhutas are atomic, except for akasha which is all pervading substance and is of the quality of sound. Likewise in modern science all the physical elements are atomic, except for quantum, which is all pervading.
There is another category of tattvas called 'tanmatras' which precede physical elements, making up the quantum world. This is also known as prana, the word prana literally means that which precedes physical. Likewise in modern science, in the quantum exists very subtle forces known as quantum forces/casimir force which precede the physical.

The existence of other dimensions: The Vedic tradition model the universe as consisting of several dimensions or planes ranging from the lightest sattvic to the heaviest tamasic. The difference being only in density of matter. The entire universe is just different modulations of the three fundamental forces or qualities(gunas) In superstring theory the entire universe consists of several dimensions(10, 11 or more) ranging from the highest density to the lowest density. The entire universe is just different modulations of superstrings.


The similarities are too strong to deny. It should not be surprising though to find these correspondences, for Santana Dharma is universal, hence its truths are universal and can be discovered by anybody, without having even read the Vedas - just as anybody in the universe can discover the truth of gravity, without having read Newton.

I don't understand why so many Hindus feel science undermines their religion. This is coming from the religion that itself enjoins ones to know the ultimate reality, know the eternal law of nature, know... know... know. That is what science does as well. Just because modern scientist do not need to rely on ancient traditions or reading and analyzing scriptures, but discover the same through the modern scientific method, doesn't make scientific knowledge any less valid.

 

[Pleroma]

I think such views are silly. As I said if Santana Dharma is really Sanatana then its truths will be universal and found universally, not just in one own "milieu" as you call it. They would be found throughout the universe in all scientific cultures, in all time periods. This is exactly what we do find. The truths of reincarnation for example, are not just found in the Indic traditions, but even in Western esoteric traditions and other pagan traditions. Today, reincarnation is found in modern science in research into past life memories.

Traditions are important and there is a danger of distorting its fundamental principles.

"The danger here is in distorting the fundamental nature of these traditions in order to fulfill this demand rather than in understanding them in their own milieu"

- Richard H Jones

As I said earlier those traditions do not require any justification from Modern Science. It is based on a different epistemology and it stands on its own. If its anything it is Modern Science that needs to re-define its physical concepts. The empirical world isn't out there, It is only a state of mind.

There is indeed a vast correspondence between modern scientific concepts and concepts from Vedic thought, too strong really to deny for anybody rational. Let me up take them up one by one:

These are irrational and worst broken forms of reasoning I have ever seen. Scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't know anything about the world-view of these traditions and what ever they say is quite silly.

The existence of an unmanifest universal field. In Vedic tradition this is called Akasha or Moolaprakriti. The Akasha is an undifferentiated field of pure potentiality from which the mahabhutas arise, beginning from the lighest vayu to heaviest pritvhi. The quantum field is an undifferentiated field of pure probability where all matter exists as a possibility or wavefunction, from which arises all matter, beginning from the lightest fundamental forces to subatomic particles to the heaviest atomic elements.

The quantum field has nothing to do with Akasha or Moolaprakriti. By saying this you're insulting modern science and also those traditions. Atoms, electrons, protons and even including neurons and your Brain don't exist out there in the physical world. The empirical reality is brought into existence by a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. Only the mind and five elements earth, fire, air, water and outer space exists out there in the physical world. Your body is not made of atoms, tissues and organs instead your body is made of only those five elements as espoused in world religions.

It is science which must be reduced to religion or to these traditions not the other way round. The empirical world is only a state of mind. Your atoms, quarks and protons don't exist independent of a human mind. You're just showing your immaturity in the spiritual knowledge of those traditions.

The existence of subtle matter: Although, today we take for granted atoms exist, what most people do not know is that atoms were not accepted in modern science until the 19th century. The Greek ideas of atoms were rejected long ago in favour of Aristotle's ideas. However, in the Vedic tradition atoms were never disputed to exist, they were taken for granted. All of the bhutas are atomic, except for akasha which is all pervading substance and is of the quality of sound. Likewise in modern science all the physical elements are atomic, except for quantum, which is all pervading.
There is another category of tattvas called 'tanmatras' which precede physical elements, making up the quantum world. This is also known as prana, the word prana literally means that which precedes physical. Likewise in modern science, in the quantum exists very subtle forces known as quantum forces/casimir force which precede the physical.

As said earlier atoms don't exist out there neither does your brain, all this is only a creation of a metaphysical mind.

The existence of other dimensions: The Vedic tradition model the universe as consisting of several dimensions or planes ranging from the lightest sattvic to the heaviest tamasic. The difference being only in density of matter. The entire universe is just different modulations of the three fundamental forces or qualities(gunas) In superstring theory the entire universe consists of several dimensions(10, 11 or more) ranging from the highest density to the lowest density. The entire universe is just different modulations of superstrings.

Those extra dimensions are very small, you can't hide anything in there and it has nothing to do with our traditions. Kindly notice that.

WebsterWorld - Online Encyclopedia - Australian Encyclopedia - World Encyclopedia - Education Resource - WebsterWorld

The similarities are too strong to deny. It should not be surprising though to find these correspondences, for Santana Dharma is universal, hence its truths are universal and can be discovered by anybody, without having even read the Vedas - just as anybody in the universe can discover the truth of gravity, without having read Newton.

Those are not similarities, you have just shown that Sanatana Dharma and Modern Science cannot be reconciled in that way.

I don't understand why so many Hindus feel science undermines their religion. This is coming from the religion that itself enjoins ones to know the ultimate reality, know the eternal law of nature, know... know... know. That is what science does as well. Just because modern scientist do not need to rely on ancient traditions or reading and analyzing scriptures, but discover the same through the modern scientific method, doesn't make scientific knowledge any less valid.

As I told sooner or later philosophers investigating the pleroma of God will take over as true physicists. Physicists will be called as empiricists because they don't deal with the Real reality as it is but only with the empirical reality which is only a state of a metaphysical mind.

Science indeed supports our traditions but you need to reconcile it in the right way and not by equating quantum field with Akasha of Advaita, that's complete nonsense.

 

[TenjikuZero]

dear peg ,

yes , that ultimately the lord (in what ever form or formless state he is seen , or by what ever name we might call him ) is supreme and that we are subordinate to the lord and in ignorance of his true nature , his true glory .that we are temporarily sepperated from the lord , but that ultimately it is to the lord that we are destined return .

excuse me as I have tried to encapsulate a huge spectrum of beliefs in to very simple english , there are also codes of conduct to which all or most adhere to some degree dependent upon the level of their personal devotion . although they appear to be structured differently within each school a concurrent thread runs throughout all .

Excuse me If I misunderstood, but I have to disagree with your version of the common thread that underlies Sanatana Dharma. As an Adaita Vedantin, I cannot agree with the terms such as "supreme lord" and "subordinate". I do agree that certain Hindu philosophies (mostly the Dvaita schools, Vishistadvaita schools) have such beliefs of a god that supersedes humans/Atamans, but however it is not common to all Hindu schools of thought.

Brahman is ineffable because it transcends duality, Imho the moment we start talking about 'lord", 'supreme" and "subordinate" we are falling victim to classic dualism.

I believe the following quote better expresses the defining characteristic of Hinduism

"I think I have understood Hinduism correctly when I say that it is eternal, all-embracing and flexible enough to suit all situations."
Mahatma Gandhi, as quoted in Relentless Brush Strokes : A Memoir

:namaste

Imho the defining characteristic of Sanatana Dharma is that the adherent is given full freedom of thought. There is no "dogma" to follow. Human beings are unique and by virtue of this fact alone, their paths towards enlightenment will be unique as well. Dharmic philosophies (I dislike using the term religion for Sanatana Dharma) are introspective. Books and accumulated words are worthless before the enlightened sage who finally mastered himself.

What you others call a dream is for us the only reality. Cities,
luxuries, the marvels of material science, we have awakened
from that brutal dream by which you are still enthralled. We
close our eyes, we hold our breath, we sit under the kindly shade
of a tree before the primitive fire, and the Infinite opens its doors
to us and we enter into the inner world which is the real one
~ Vivekananda


On a lighter note, a true yet humorous statement by Vivekananda


What do you gain in heaven? You become gods, drink nectar, and get rheumatism. There is less misery there than on earth, but also less truth.

 

[TenjikuZero]

Pegg, by posting these questions it seems that you wish to understand Hindusim and see if there is any reason why you should also consider becoming a Hindu. So let me explain it to you in a nutshell what Hindusim is.

The only structure that is common to all forms of Hindusim is the steadfast pursuit of truth through freethought and rationalism. We accomodate atheists too for that reason. I call this mode of being the practice of satya-advaita. Every life has a fresh new beginning. We as parents give that life the start that it it needs. By its evolution over tens of thousands of years Hindus have realised that a theistic start is the default start that is good for the child. But we teach according to the stories of God that have been handed down to us in the forms of Krishna, Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Kali, lakshmi, etc. We do not teach Christianity because it is based on the falsehood of Genesis and the falshood of the effects of sin in terms of an afterlife. We normally hate the creotardism of the Abrhamaic religions for this reason. But we then leave the child to find its own path. We need our indivudual freedoms to think and determine our own futures. We do not require the impostion of a Holy Book of a Holy Person. There are numerous books and millions of gurus all of which have something that we have as food for thought. It shows with what lack of fear of God they all pursued their individual courses to the truth. Since time immemorial people have done a lot of truthseeking and determined Reality but today we still start afresh daily to reaassess and reveiw everything based on our daily experiences of truth.
So Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism, Advaita is Hinduism, Jainism is Hinduism, Sikhism is Hinduism, but Buddhism is not Hinduism because it is not interested in how the universe came into being, and Christianity is not Hinduism.

I agree with pretty much everything except the last sentence.

The Term "Hinduism" is misleading. Buddhism is a Dharmic philosophy, and while running the risk of unintentionally offending some Buddhists, I have to say that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta both talk about the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. The End goal is the same.

Buddhism (as is practiced today in most Buddhist countries(I exclude Zen from this as its pretty much similar to Advaita)) talks about Sunyata, while vedanta talks about Brahman. Ironically the Buddhist Sunyata and the Advaita Brahman are one and the same!(at least imho). Nothing = Everything :namaste

The number 0 by itself is "nothing", but when placed next to a number it increases its value by an order(s) of magnitude. Thus Zero is both "nothing" AND "everything". This is a paradox which can only be solved when we stop dualistic thinking. The Nature of Sunyata and Brahman are identical tot he nature of zero.

PS: Nirguna(Nirguna brahman) = Sunyata (without qualities/qualifiers)

 

[ratikala]

Excuse me If I misunderstood, but I have to disagree with your version of the common thread that underlies Sanatana Dharma. As an Adaita Vedantin, I cannot agree with the terms such as "supreme lord" and "subordinate". I do agree that certain Hindu philosophies (mostly the Dvaita schools, Vishistadvaita schools) have such beliefs of a god that supersedes humans/Atamans, but however it is not common to all Hindu schools of thought.

yes , I think quite possibly you have missunderstood

Brahman is ineffable because it transcends duality, Imho the moment we start talking about 'lord", 'supreme" and "subordinate" we are falling victim to classic dualism.

no we are speaking with respect !

I believe the following quote better expresses the defining characteristic of Hinduism

"I think I have understood Hinduism correctly when I say that it is eternal, all-embracing and flexible enough to suit all situations."
Mahatma Gandhi, as quoted in Relentless Brush Strokes : A Memoir

and gandhi ji was the humblest of souls who was not affraid of humility or admitting his subordination to god , and a true practitioner of sanatana dharma :namaste

Imho the defining characteristic of Sanatana Dharma is that the adherent is given full freedom of thought. There is no "dogma" to follow. Human beings are unique and by virtue of this fact alone, their paths towards enlightenment will be unique as well. Dharmic philosophies (I dislike using the term religion for Sanatana Dharma) are introspective. Books and accumulated words are worthless before the enlightened sage who finally mastered himself.

please try to practice a little of the hindu flexibility you have advocated , and try to understand why I used the word religion , a follower of sanatana dharma adheres to a very strict code of conduct in order to uphold dharma (law)

please try to follow the reasoning I am giving , the purpouse of this thread is not to react from any sectarian veiw point but to discuss and establish a clear understanding or sanatana dharma .

 

[ratikala]

I agree with pretty much everything except the last sentence.

Im glad at least you dissagree with this

The Term "Hinduism" is misleading. Buddhism is a Dharmic philosophy, and while running the risk of unintentionally offending some Buddhists, I have to say that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta both talk about the same thing, but from opposite viewpoints. The End goal is the same.

thank you . I agree the term hinduism is missleading , buddhism is allso equaly wide in its standpoints .and personaly I find no incompatability from the perspective of sanatana dharma .

 

[TenjikuZero]

yes , I think quite possibly you have missunderstood

no we are speaking with respect !
and gandhi ji was the humblest of souls who was not affraid of humility or admitting his subordination to god , and a true practitioner of sanatana dharma :namaste


please try to practice a little of the hindu flexibility you have advocated , and try to understand why I used the word religion , a follower of sanatana dharma adheres to a very strict code of conduct in order to uphold dharma (law)

please try to follow the reasoning I am giving , the purpouse of this thread is not to react from any sectarian veiw point but to discuss and establish a clear understanding or sanatana dharma .

My apologies for any offense I might have inadvertently caused
While re-reading my own post I realize my post probably came across as somewhat critical, even though i assure you that it was never my intention.

I was not trying to react from a sectarian point of view, but was only trying to be more inclusive. By using certain terminology we might unintentionally exclude certain Sanatana Dharmic philosophies. My desire to point out that not all Hindu philosophies use the terms usually used to address deities/gods might have come across as offensive , but I had to say it lest people started using that as a defining characteristic of SD. The more specific a terminology we use, the more we exclude. Imho, given the diverse nature of Sanatana Dharma we have to take extra care to be inclusive.

I personally dislike the whole "Define" Sanatana Dharma kind of questions. how can something that is which "Sanatana" be defined? It seems like an Oxymoron to me. Sanatana Dharma, imho is just that "Sanatana Dharma", eternal way/path if you will.

Either way, I apologize again for my previous post.
:namaste

 

[ratikala]

dear shantanu ,

Perhaps you can tell us what 'sanatana' means first, and whether Christianity is sanatana dharma?

I have allready given an explanation , but for your benifit ......

yes it is hard to define , but important to understand .

sanatana , meaning eternal , dharma meaning rightiousness , thus it can be aplied as religion , duty and truth as it is duty and truth which uphold society .

I was taught it as eternal religious principles , that which upholds ,and eternal in the respect that it is un changing ,sanatana dharma in ancient scripture is refered to as the dharma bull (the embodiment of morality)and is supported by four limbs

tapas ; austerity
saucham; purity
danya; compassion , mercy
satyam ; truth

(these principles appear also in the yoga and bhakti schools )

why please do we need to discuss if christianity is sanatana dharma ?

we should be concerned with our own conduct , we should try to fully understand our own tradition before we criticise others .

 

[TenjikuZero]

Im glad at least you dissagree with this

thank you . I agree the term hinduism is missleading , buddhism is allso equaly wide in its standpoints .and personaly I find no incompatability from the perspective of sanatana dharma .

Yep, I avoided saying Buddhism is a Sanatana Dharmic philosophy because I was afraid i might offend some Buddhists by seemingly appropriating their philosophy, so used the term Dharmic philosophy instead

Imho Buddha was one of the greatest Sanatana Dharmists who ever lived.
:namaste

 

[Surya Deva]

Traditions are important and there is a danger of distorting its fundamental principles.

Nah, knowledge is important. Traditions come and go.

As I said earlier those traditions do not require any justification from Modern Science. It is based on a different epistemology and it stands on its own. If its anything it is Modern Science that needs to re-define its physical concepts. The empirical world isn't out there, It is only a state of mind.

I never actually said that the tradition needs justification from science. I don't actually care about the tradition, even the Vedic tradition. To me knowledge is important. Nor does it matter which epistemology is used to arrive at knowledge, whether it was through experiments, philosophical investigations or through meditation - as long as that knowledge is open to testing to me.

Actually, if you know any of modern science today strong materialism is actually considered obsolete. It is now known as a matter of fact that most of the physical world is pure empty space. A new movement within modern science today, sometimes called a consciousness revolution, is redefining reality completely as a field of consciousness. These ideas especially came in vogue during the advent of quantum physics, and interestingly the father of quantum physics Max Plank himself stated that the findings of the quantum can only be explained by positing the existence of a universal consciousness field(divine matrix) which underlies all matter. The father of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger similarly described the quantum as a consciousness field, using Advaitic terms Atman and Brahman.

These are irrational and worst broken forms of reasoning I have ever seen. Scholars and philosophers outside the tradition don't know anything about the world-view of these traditions and what ever they say is quite silly.

Nah, I think you will find you are just being arrogant. These scholars and philosophers you talk about are experts in the field, with many degrees and Phds in various areas and respected among peers. The chances are their knowledge in their area of expertise far excels yours or even mine many times over.

In any case one can clearly see the correspondences are there, I have pointed them out clearly enough for anybody to see. You denying them is not going to make them disappear.

The quantum field has nothing to do with Akasha or Moolaprakriti. By saying this you're insulting modern science and also those traditions.

Atoms, electrons, protons and even including neurons and your Brain don't exist out there in the physical world. The empirical reality is brought into existence by a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. Only the mind and five elements earth, fire, air, water and outer space exists out there in the physical world. Your body is not made of atoms, tissues and organs instead your body is made of only those five elements as espoused in world religions.

Nope, the body is indeed made of atoms, tissues and organs. We know this because we have dissected it and analysed every nook and corner of the body. The anatomy of the human body as we know today is far in advance of premodern culture, which any medical scientist could tell you.

The ancient 5 elements theory is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory. It is certainly not equivalent to our periodic table and standard model in physics today. I am sorry but to insist that the world is made out of fire, earth, air and water in the 21st century would make you look silly.

It is science which must be reduced to religion or to these traditions not the other way round. The empirical world is only a state of mind. Your atoms, quarks and protons don't exist independent of a human mind. You're just showing your immaturity in the spiritual knowledge of those traditions.

I think you are showing immaturity in general in a lot of stuff you are saying. Humans have not always been on this planet according to our geological records, and they were certainly were not around at the time of the formation of the Earth, the galaxy or the time of the big bang - atoms, quarks and protons etc existed - but humans didn't then, hence obviously atoms, quarks and protons existed without humans minds to perceive them. To deny this, would be to deny mountains of hard physical evidence. You might as well say the Earth is flat.

As said earlier atoms don't exist out there neither does your brain, all this is only a creation of a metaphysical mind.

According to your belief.

Those extra dimensions are very small, you can't hide anything in there and it has nothing to do with our traditions. Kindly notice that.

WebsterWorld - Online Encyclopedia - Australian Encyclopedia - World Encyclopedia - Education Resource - WebsterWorld

Indeed, they are tiny dimensions which contain whole new universes of their own. According to the co-founder of superstring theory, these higher dimensions could even harbor their own exotic higher energy life forms, as the mathematics shows that matter becomes coherent again at higher energy density, so that it may aggregate to form more complex matter.

Those are not similarities, you have just shown that Sanatana Dharma and Modern Science cannot be reconciled in that way.

Modern science is based on discovering universal principles that govern nature and the universe. Santana Dharma also claims to discover universal principles. I see a lot of similarity already.

As I told sooner or later philosophers investigating the pleroma of God will take over as true physicists. Physicists will be called as empiricists because they don't deal with the Real reality as it is but only with the empirical reality which is only a state of a metaphysical mind.

Physicists are already called empiricists, that is they deal with the empirical world and need to collect hard empirical evidence. You obviously do not require evidence to support any of your points - this is why it is called faith. Science has already proven its mettle giving the world computers, cars, aeroplanes, jet engines, nuclear energy, electricity etc etc Faith cannot give us anything, because the reality of anything it says is unfalsifiable.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

dear prabhu ji



sometimes bickering might be productive .... if some one learns something ?
otherwise yes best to stay out of it .
:yes: this is all we can do .

my appologies , just to be certain of your meaning ? do you mean lack of true understanding of dharma ?
before I comment any further ......

Yes, Dharmah Shikshah, To understand Dharmah better or to educate one about Dharmah.

i think this is lacking.

 

[Pleroma]

Nah, knowledge is important. Traditions come and go.

It is the wisdom of those traditions that is important not knowledge.

I never actually said that the tradition needs justification from science. I don't actually care about the tradition, even the Vedic tradition. To me knowledge is important. Nor does it matter which epistemology is used to arrive at knowledge, whether it was through experiments, philosophical investigations or through meditation - as long as that knowledge is open to testing to me.

If you don't care about the Vedic tradition then you will never understand the truth behind Hinduism.

The father of quantum mechanics, Schrodinger similarly described the quantum as a consciousness field, using Advaitic terms Atman and Brahman.

"As Richard H. Jones notices, it is incorrect to equate the unified field with Brahman, which is not an extended and structured field embedded in the spacetime continuum (as the unified field) but pure consciousness “beyond” space, time and even mind."

Schroedinger was someone outside the tradition and therefore he didn't knew how traditional scholars in India viewed Vedic tradition. Your western scholars and philosophers don't know any damn thing about the Vedic tradition.

As Richard Jones as said equating quantum field with Akasha is irrational and a broken form of reasoning.

I think you will find you are just being arrogant. These scholars and philosophers you talk about are experts in the field, with many degrees and Phds in various areas and respected among peers. The chances are their knowledge in their area of expertise far excels yours or even mine many times over.

When something is BS, one need to say it is BS. There is no other simple way of saying it. Your experts and Phd's in the field can't beat our traditional scholars because Vedic tradition is not based on the scientific method. Our seers and rishis didn't knew anything about Modern science nor did they knew anything about quantum mechanics. They got their knowledge from Gods and your experts in the field don't know anything about the Gods of the Vedas.

In any case one can clearly see the correspondences are there, I have pointed them out clearly enough for anybody to see. You denying them is not going to make them disappear.

As I have pointed out very clearly those are not correspondences. If your atoms, quarks and protons exist out there in the physical world then all the Vedas and the whole Sanatana Dharma will be falsified. For Hinduism to be true Scientific Realism must be false. I have this from leading philosophers who are studying the parallels between eastern mysticism and Modern Physics. Its time to get over your beliefs and misconceptions.

Nope, the body is indeed made of atoms, tissues and organs.

"Bernard d'Espagnat a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality wrote a paper titled The Quantum Theory and Reality according to the paper: "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

In an article in the Guardian titled Quantum weirdness: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind d'Espagnat wrote that:

"What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects – the particles, electrons, quarks etc. – cannot be thought of as "self-existent". He further writes that his research in quantum physics has lead him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time."

Quantum mechanics tells us that your quarks, atoms, tissues and your brain don't exist out there and our bodies are not made of atoms. Your view is in conflict with facts established from experiments. Someone who is so much fond of testable knowledge shouldn't find it hard to accept, isn't it?

The ancient 5 elements theory is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory. It is certainly not equivalent to our periodic table and standard model in physics today. I am sorry but to insist that the world is made out of fire, earth, air and water in the 21st century would make you look silly.

That's what the Vedic tradition says and all the world religions say and if you want to accept Sanatana Dharma accept it in this way, don't misrepresent those traditions. We will not tolerate it.

"Similarly, when discussing quantum physics, parallelists rarely address the different interpretations that exist in literature. In Modern Physics and Vedanta, Jitatmananda refers indistinctly to Copenhagen and Everett’s multiworld interpretations, without taking note of their basic differences. A related issue is that parallelists, especially those from the spiritual or religious side, often quote scientists with enormous respect as if they had discovered an unshakable truth. Any scientific theory presented becomes a ready-made worldview. Not surprisingly, then, some parallelists barely consider the scientific arguments raised against the theory or interpretation they promote. This attitude perhaps reflects a purely religious background, or an unfamiliarity with the process of scientific progress."

Many eastern thinkers as well as Western aspirants like you quote scientists and quantum physicists as though they are Gods and they are indisputable but we very well know that they are not Gods and they too are in ignorance just like any common man is and they really don't know about the ultimate reality which our traditional scholars had access to.

I think you are showing immaturity in general in a lot of stuff you are saying. Humans have not always been on this planet according to our geological records, and they were certainly were not around at the time of the formation of the Earth, the galaxy or the time of the big bang - atoms, quarks and protons etc existed - but humans didn't then, hence obviously atoms, quarks and protons existed without humans minds to perceive them. To deny this, would be to deny mountains of hard physical evidence. You might as well say the Earth is flat.

[youtube]ta09WXiUqcQ[/youtube]
Spooky Actions At A Distance?: Oppenheimer Lecture - YouTube

My claims are based on scientific evidence and with facts established from experiments. Quantum Mechanics inevitably leads to an anthropocentric worldview. Watch that full video. The Universe doesn't exist when you're not looking at it.

According to your belief.

A very reasonable belief based on scientific evidence and with facts established from experiments.

Indeed, they are tiny dimensions which contain whole new universes of their own. According to the co-founder of superstring theory, these higher dimensions could even harbor their own exotic higher energy life forms, as the mathematics shows that matter becomes coherent again at higher energy density, so that it may aggregate to form more complex matter.

That's pseudoscience. There is no evidence of that and it has nothing to with spirituality or with religion. Get over with your beliefs as soon as possible.

Modern science is based on discovering universal principles that govern nature and the universe. Santana Dharma also claims to discover universal principles. I see a lot of similarity already.

"Another problem in pushing parallelism to its extreme is the confusion between the ephemeral nature of scientific discoveries and the perennial truths of mysticism. Scientific discoveries ceaselessly change and alter; it is inadequate to make them equivalent with the “timeless” truths conveyed by mysticism.

As Jeremy Bernstein said: “If I were an Eastern mystic the last thing in the world that I would want would be a reconciliation with modern science.” In his opinion, since “the most valuable commodity that we have in science is doubt,” “to hitch a religious philosophy to a contemporary science is a sure route to its obsolescence.” Conversely, to elevate a scientific theory to the rank of a metaphysical system takes us beyond the realm of science. Although metaphysical assumptions intervene in the scientific theoretical process, the practice of physics must be kept within the defined boundaries of scientific epistemology. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between pseudo-science and scientific facts."

As the above says what ever you've said here is pseudo-science and it is an insult to both science as well as those traditions.

Physicists are already called empiricists, that is they deal with the empirical world and need to collect hard empirical evidence. You obviously do not require evidence to support any of your points - this is why it is called faith. Faith cannot give us anything, because the reality of anything it says is unfalsifiable.

We don't need any support from Physicists, if its anything our traditions support the work of Bernard D'espagnat and this should be our direction for our future research.

 

[ratikala]

Yep, I avoided saying Buddhism is a Sanatana Dharmic philosophy because I was afraid i might offend some Buddhists by seemingly appropriating their philosophy, so used the term Dharmic philosophy instead

Imho Buddha was one of the greatest Sanatana Dharmists who ever lived.
:namaste

jai jai :namaste

 

[TenjikuZero]

jai jai :namaste

:namaste

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

Yes, Dharmah Shikshah, To understand Dharmah better or to educate one about Dharmah.

i think this is lacking.

yes, one of the fundemental tenants of hinduism and it has many people baffled !!! and here we are trying to expand our understanding of dharma and these guys are fixatad on examamining scientific exploration of matter ???

one has to ask what is dharma ? ...O.K. prehaps thais too large a question ?

O.K.where do we begin .......
what is dharma in general ..... truth !
what is dharma when it relates to us ? ....duty !
if dharma is duty what then is our personal dharma ? ....to understand truth and to uphold that truth ! ...rightiousness !

we canot uphold it untill we understand it , so this is what I am here to do , this is a religious forum , so lets discuss dharma ! and if christians want to discuss it or ask questions I am fine with that . I canot see that hindus would claim to have a monopoly on truth .

so what is sanatana dharma ,

eternal truth , ...thuth that is un changing
eternal law , .....law in that it governs all existance and law in that if upheld it supports existance .there are laws within society and laws within nature , laws of science and so on but in any feild if that law is broken everything collapses so our dharma is to uphold that law !
eternal religious principles , .....the word religion seems to scare some people ? it should not it simply means to do or to follow un waveringly , it does not require blind faith or dogmatism , but simply that once the importance of rightious behavior is understood one realises ones duty is to follow un waveringly .

how ever we define it we are simply looking at it from slightly different perspectives , which simply helps to create a clearer picture ....

 

[Pleroma]

dear prabhu ji ,

yes, one of the fundemental tenants of hinduism and it has many people baffled !!! and here we are trying to expand our understanding of dharma and these guys are fixatad on examamining scientific exploration of matter ???

Reason and Faith(Dharma) are not mutually exclusive both leads to the truth. Both Science and Religion will arrive at the same thing.

one has to ask what is dharma ? ...O.K. prehaps thais too large a question ?

O.K.where do we begin .......
what is dharma in general ..... truth !
what is dharma when it relates to us ? ....duty !
if dharma is duty what then is our personal dharma ? ....to understand truth and to uphold that truth ! ...rightiousness !

we canot uphold it untill we understand it , so this is what I am here to do , this is a religious forum , so lets discuss dharma !

"hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye" (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

You're right Dharma is truth, it is duty, it is righteousness. You're also right that we cannot uphold it unless we understand it. You're Brahman and our minds should be fixed in that and we should act accordingly and renounce everything as not ours. I am that, Dharma is as simple as that.

Dharma is knowing your true nature and all the disappointments in this world is because we don't know what our Dharma is.

Can we really divide the people of our society based on the Guna-Karma Vibhaga Yoga as espoused by Krishna in Bhagvad Gita?

What is my Dharma? I am a Brahmin? a Shudra? a Kshthriya? I think we all are Shudras, we have not achieved Aryathva and as Prabhupadha of ISKON says we have knocked out the head part of Brahma which should guide our society and they are the Brahmins, they are knocked out completely and what we have are Jati Brahmins with no real knowledge and urge to know Brahman.