The Indus Valley Civilization

Yoga Discussion General Yoga
#56

And please, do not compare gunas and other elements system with Standard Model or Periodic Table. The fact that the basic approach is the same (to use building blocks of different properties to describe matter) doesn?t justify stating that they say the same. They are light years apart in terms of advancement. The simple proof is that when people in chemical factory in India design reactions they use periodic table of elements and chemistry and not ?Hindu science?.

I am not going to compare guna theory to standard model or periodic table, because they are primitive in comparison. The guna theory is closer to superstring theory which does not say that matter is made out of basic building blocks called atoms, but that all matter is vibrations of quantum strings. Guna theory is exactly the same all matter is vibration of quantum matter.

Hindus did not engage in any kind of mathematical formalism because it is a fallacy. They used observational classification of the elements. Hence why they identify 5 main elements based on 5 perceptual categories(senses) So all matter in the universe is categorised in terms of shape, mass and colour, touch, smell, taste. All the Hindu applied sciences use this scheme. It’s better than the periodic table because the periodic table deals with only atomic elements, but what about other kinds of matter such as electromagnetic energy, forces, waves and subatomic particles. They fit easily in the 5 element system of the Hindus. The periodic table would fit in the solid atom category and the standard model in the fluidic atom category.

What about Brahman? Is it also object of the rational scientific research? When Hindu people talk about Brahman they base on results of their personal experiments and don?t use any concept that is not related with experience?

Brahman is a philosophical concept based on rational methods of science. It can only be empirically proven with Yoga. Adisankaracharya was able to show that Brahman is not just a mystical experience but could be rationally proven. The word Brahman simply means the infinite, all expanding ultimate reality. This ultimate reality is the true substance of all of reality and everything emanates from this. The Hindu scientists were able to prove that consciousness was the substance that reality was made of, not matter. It demonstrates this by showing that whatever we call reality whether that is chairs, tables and trees is ultimately a mental construction and only has reality insofar as we externalise it through language.

Neuroscience now backs up Vedanta in showing that all of reality is constructed in the mind.

Mind is more fundamental than matter. Matter obeys mind. Modern science is still stuck at matter. Hindu science has gone beyond it to the mind.

Physics is not dealing with metaphysical issues. They are by definition different areas. Writing phd on quantum mechanics you should know this culture in ?western? science. Maybe you rather compare ?western? and ?eastern? metaphysical systems?

No, actually physics is based on metaphysical assumptions, that is assumptions about the nature of reality which cannot be themselves proven. Realism, positivism, epiphenomenalism, materialism, causal determinism are some of those core assumptions. So physics is really metaphysics. As I said earlier the physicist makes a nautral assumption that there is an external world out there that will yield to their measurements.

A lot of modern physics postulates theoreticable and invisible entites atoms, quarks, dark matter and dark energy, virtual particles, fields. This is definitely metaphysics
.
It is no different to Hindu science talking about gunas, vrittis, prana, tanmatras akasha, quantum matter which are also invisible.

There is no difference between metaphysics and physics.

checked internet and my understanding seems to be correct. Matter shows both properties of particles and waves. Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementarity_(physics)

Citation: ?The complementarity principle states that some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory. Sometimes it’s possible to switch back and forth between different views of an object to observe these properties, but in principle, it’s impossible to view both at the same time, despite their simultaneous coexistence in reality. For example, we can think of an electron as either a particle or a wave, depending on the situation. An object that’s both a particle and a wave would seem to be impossible because, normally, such things are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, an electron is truly both at once.?

This is illogical. A basic rule of logic is that there cannot be any contradictions. An object cannot be both A and not A at the same time, it either A or not A. That is exactly what quantum physics shows us an object is either a particle or a wave, when it is a particle it is not a wave and when it is a wave it is not a particle. It is cannot be both at the same time. It’s already been proven by Schrodinger’s wave mechanics the particle does not exist until the wavefunction collapses. Everything is first a wavefunction then it is a particle.

Description of the physical system using probability distribution is still physical description. I don?t get it how you arrived at this conclusion. Physics is not just about bouncing balls. Probabilistic nature of the quantm world is very physical concept.

No, it is not a physical description, it is a mathematical description only of the probability of an electon being found in a certain location. This is not a subjective probability but an objective probability. The difference is the subjective probability is that the electron is already an a priori object and we find it, objective probability is the electron is a non-local wavefunction that is superpositioned that becomes localized on observation and we find it in a position. Prior to observation the electron is not a particle.

Hm… I always thought electron is all the time there. And by measurement we distort its state obtaining some classical properties (like momentum or position).

The electron only exists when it is observed. This is demonstrated by the double slit experiment where the electron exists as a wave when it goes through, and as soon as we observe it collapses into a particle.

#57

The fact that interface between quantum and classical physics has probabilistic nature is just one its properties. Nothing non-physical about it. It caused and still is causing lots of confusion but quantum mechanics is accepted physical description of the world.

Quantum physicists using physical descriptions for quantum objects are commiting a logical fallacy, as the quantum does not consist of “physical objects” A particle when it is measured has momentum and position, separability and its behaviour can be predicted using general relativity. However quantum objects are superpositioned wavefunctions which exist everywhere at once and interact instantanouesly with everything else in the universe. This is not possible in the physical universe and violates general relativity. Therefore it is clear that the quantum universe is a non-local domain outside of the physical universe.

It cannot be in the physical universe because it has the opposite properties of the physical universe. It is now very clear that there is a plane beyond the physical universe of space which is called the zero point energy field or the quantum vacuum. From this quantum vacuum virtual quanta fluctuate in and out of space. It is called “virtual” because it does not exist in real space-time. This virtual realm cannot be measured because it is not physical.

Statement from one of the real physicists from this movie (and not graduates from Maharishi School of Management):

This does not detract from the fact that the others in the film are physicists and scientists(except from the mystics they interviewed) Amit Goswami, ex professor of physics at Oregon university, one of the interviewed physicists, knows his quantum physics very well.

Hold on, there is no such claim in quantum physics that atoms are unreal!!!

I suggest you read Fritjof Capra’s “Tao of physics” he is a physicist and a philosopher of science. Quantum physics shows atoms do not exist until they are observed. Prior to that they are wavefunctions/information. They only take on physical form when they are observed.

Well, philosophical concepts are also “fallcy called psychologism”. They also are not real and exist only in the head. They just are not falsified so often because no one bothers to take those concepts and validate them against reality.

Philosophy is not about concepts itsef, but about conceptual analysis, deconstructing any idea/theory so we can see the primary assumptions. In this case it is clear that it is an illegal move to generalise mathematics to the real world, because mathematical entities are not real entities. Unless you can show me empirical proof for the number 2 in the world you will have to accept this. Classical physics uses ideal laws such as Boyles ideal gas laws, but the world does not behave in an ideal and deterministic way. A scientific experiment is the complete opposite of the natural world because it it works with a limited set of variables.

There is something very clear thar philosophers have known for ages both in the East and West. Reality is not as it seems to our senses. The view that the world is just how our senses show it to us is called naive realism. There are many things our senses cannot know such as atoms, quarks, dark energy, time, ultraviolet light. We are surrounded by radio waves and microwaves and our senses cannot detect them. Is it conceivable then to you that there maybe other things our senses cannot detect such as other dimensions, subtle energies and forces, astral objects?

Therefore it is clear that if we rely on just what the senses or instruments can show us we will only know as much as they can show, but nothing beyond. To know what is beyond you need rational scientific methods. This is exactly what Hinduism specialises in.

I will demonstrate to how you Hinduism discovered the gunas, vrittis, prana etc. Hindu scientists observed two major things about the world: 1) Everything evolves and 2) Everything takes place in cycles. All things are first unmanifest, then manifest and evolve, then becomes unmanifest again. This can be observed with trees, seasons, animals and humans, even stars. Everything obeys a cyclic nature. They then examined the causes of this and discovered that nothing comes out nothing, that all things proceed from a latent cause within which they are potential and evolve from minute to gross. For example the tree proceeds from minute to gross out of the seed within which it is latent. They finally concluded that the entire universe because it changing and evolving must also have a latent cause which is driving its evolution, therefore at one point the universe must also have been latent in a cause and unmanifest. This they call quantum matter. They modelled this quantum matter like a flat-plane with a potential for manifestation. From here it was logical to conclude that quantum matter exists in a state of perfect equilbrium but has three potential modalities: contractive; expansive and still which always operate in a triad(guna theory)

However how can this equillbrim be broken without there anything within material nature to collapse itself? The question being asked here is a question physicists also ask themselves what causes the big bang or what causes the wavefunction to collapse. As Wigner shows that because the entire quantum system is entangled there is nothing within it to collapse it, but it only collapses in the presence of a conscious observer. Similarly, Hindu scientists arrived at the same conclusion, concluding that an efficient non-material cause is required to collapse the material cause of quantum matter and that could only be a conscious observer.

Once it collapses it will proceed on the basis of evolution from very subtle and minute to gross and dense. It is very logical now to conclude that mind would come before matter comes into existence, because it is subtle and minute. It is also logical to conclude now that before we have particles we will have waves. The opposite sequence is illogical and not supported by any observation. Liquid will always precede solid and gas will always precede liquid. Simiarly quarks will precede atoms, atoms will precede molecules etc
Now as I explain this to you the Yoga metaphysics will start to make sense. The chakras, nadis and prana are said to exist in the etheric body which is more subte than the physical body; the sensory qualia are said to exist in the astral body, which is more subtle than the etheric body; vrittis and karmas are said to exist in the mental body, which is more subtle than the etheric body. Then the causal body(samskars) and finally the spiritual body(chitta)

The final stroke of genius of Hindu science was to create a method by which one could get direct experience(special empirical proof) of the higher realities and the technology of Yoga was invented. It was recognised that because the observer precedes matter and as it is the efficient cause, which causes matter to become active, the observer had absolute knowledge and control over matter. However, as embodied human beings with body and mind(both material products) we are not aware of this power. So by practicing Yoga we begin to awaken this power. Hence why studies have shown that Yoga activates dormant powers we have.

There is no question about it Hindusim is at the level of superscience. It has created sciences that will transform you completely and turn you into a superhuman and actualise your highest potentials. Modern science cannot do that.

#58

I’m sorry Surya Deva, I have to wrap the discussion at this point. I think I have some idea on how you think and what you want to say.

I’m afraid your efforts resulted in great scepticism on my side. Before I was quite open to learn about contributions of the Hindu culture to science but now I have clear impression that most of those claims are either false or exaggerated. And I consider myself open minded scientist (after all I’m practicing yoga and meditation and read lots of “weird” books). I won’t even mention more conservative scientists which would stop reading after first statements that Hindu science is the most advanced in the world and that Brahman can be empirically proven.

Attempt to verify those claims by comparison of the results of both theories leads to consternation: e.g. Standard Model and Periodic Table vs. Atomic Theory in Hinduism. On left I see a model which can explain everything I see around me and on the right a model which can’t even model simple phenomena. And you still claim this model is more advanced. If it is unable to properly model physical reality, how can I believe it is more correct about other levels of existence? And is there some self-criticism or limitations of the model? No… This is the ultimate description of all reality we know!

As I understand, one of your goal is to promote contribution of the Hindu science and culture to modern science. If you are serious about it, you should be mindful how your actions affect reality. For example, me. Because from now on, I will propagate opinion that one has to be extremely careful reading about contributions of Hindu science to modern science. That there are people who have political and intellectual interest in this and produce tons of false and exaggerated claims and give impression of being extremely arrogant and superior. I already spoke with 2 of my friends at university about it. So, this is the reality: result of the confrontation of your views with a little scientist eager to learn about Hindu culture. Not even fiasco, but opposite effect.

#59

Pawel, you were skeptical from the start and I know most skeptics will remain skeptics, it does not matter how much evidence you produce for them. This is because skeptics do not accept logic. So I no longer try to persuade them, instead I simply present the evidence and leave it that. If they are rational they will consider it, if they are not, they will not even look at it(such as you turning off what the Bleep do we know half way or not looking at the links I produced giving evidence of reincarnation, astral travel and yoga) This is fine, as I said something is only proven if it one has direct experience of it, and you do not have direct experience of gunas, chakras, pranas, kundalini, siddhis, other vibrational densities, karmas, devas, brahman, you are right to maintain your skepticism. However it is also a catch 22, because you will never find out if you do not do Yoga and experience it for yoursef. Either countless yogis and mystics throughout the ages and decades of modern researchers in the spiritual sciences(paranormal, transpersonal psychology) are lying and all of their data and systems fabricated or they are telling the truth and you are just ignorant of it.

As a Hindu I am strong believer in logic and accept everything that is logically sound. However, I am have been fortunate to also have direct experiences of supersensible realities due to my spiritual practice. So little doubts remain in my mind of the truths contained within Hinduism.

I will say this much, however, your claim that Hinduism does not explain physical reality is wrong. As I just said none of Hindu sciences general explanations are wrong, they are just not particular and do not give predictions. However, Hindu applied sciences can be very precise and explain their subject more precisely than the modern counterpart. For example Indian linguistics analyses language far more precisely than modern linguistics does, and as a result it has been able to develop Sanskrit, which is the worlds only formal language with natural language processing. Modern linguists have commented that Panini’s work may still inform 21st century linguistics, even 22nd century linguistics.

To a Hindu it is clear: if modern science is more advanced, then where is your Ayurveda, Yoga , Vedanta and Sanskrit? Why is it that Ayurveda can treat diseases better, even cure them better than the very best modern medicine can provide? Why is it that Yoga is the best system of mind-body managemet in the word? Why is Sanskrit the most advanced language in the word? Why is Hindu music which is microtonal the most complex and sophisticated in the world? All of these are facts. If Hindu physics is inferior to modern science, why do physicists look towards Hinduism for inspiration? Why is transpersonal psychology strongly based on Hindu research? I can say this with a certain amount of pride, but Hindus are ahead in the sciences, and this is why you guys continue to turn towards us. You did not have steel until the 18th century, we had steel even at a higher quality in 500BCE. You did not have comprehensive medical systems until the 19th century, we had them in 1000BCE. You did not have sanitation systems until the 15th century(which is why you guys suffered horrible plagues, like the black death) we had them in 3000BCE. It must be said but you guys were not the first to do modern science. You are a young civilisation compared to us.

We have done everything before you. We had the first dock yards, industries, the first colonies around the world, the first hospitals, the first universities, the first schools of philosophy, the first comprehensive medical system. The first planned cities and middle-class socieites. The first democracy. The largest and most advanced civilisation of the ancient world belongs to us, and it is twice as large as Egypt and Sumer combined. This information is out there in the open for anybody to see. I think you guys should have more respect for your elders(I am speaking on behalf of Hindu civiilsation, not myself) You have a lot to learn from us.

When it comes to physics what you can learn from us that all of empirical reality is a sensory reality can be reduced to 5 categories(5 elements) Your Greeks leared this from us but misinterpreted it(they had no context) Then you will understand you do not live in a physical world, but a sensory world. Your own modern science backs us up on this. All of reality is made up of sensory data arranged by the mind(Kant also understood this) and then what you perceive is a representation of the world. It is not the actual original world. This fact was understood by your Greek philosophers too, which said all reality was an appearance of something ese.

However, you are a materialist and will refuse to look at anything that contradicts materiaism, because it is your primary belief system. This is your biggest folly in my opinion and your biggest obstacle in your spiritual growth. You arrogantly just proclaimed to me that your current model of physics can explain everything around you. No it cannot, which is there are so many competing theories in physics radically different from one other. Some say gravity is wave, some say a particle, some a space-time distortion, other say it is quantum. Some say the world is real and some say it is holographic. Some say there are 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimesion of time, some say there are 10 dimensions, 13 dimensions, 50 dimensions. Some say there are parallel universes and some say there is only one universe. Some say the universe is flat, some say it is circular, some say it is composed of several membranes. Some say that time flows forward, some say it back flow backwards, and some say it is cyclic. Some say there is dark matter and some say there are quantum fields.

With all this disagreement how can you say you understood the world around you? All you have done is adopted one perspective classical physics, which has been dead for the past 80 years. You understand barely anything of the world around you. Neil Bohr and Heisenberg were humble enough to admit this and accepted that no amount of measurement will ever reveal the real nature of things i.e., quantum.

Materialists are a dying breed in this century and will be all but gone by the end of the century. Modern science, like it or not, is moving into the mind now. Say goodbye to physical reality :wink:

#60

Even more empirical confirmation from actual quantum physicists that physical reality is not real and cannot exist without an observer:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.

They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”

As I said before materialis are a dying breed. People will soon tire of your claims that everybody who states quantum physics shows that the observer collapses the wavefunction does not understand quantum mechanics, when clearly it is quantum physicists themselves that are saying this. It is you materialists who clearly do not understand quantum mechanics. I have talked to several experts in quantum physics who have confirmed over and over again that the observer is required to collapse the wavefunction. Several acadmic books I have read on the subject confirm it. Your feeble attempts to somehow integrate quantum physics into classical physics are not fooling anybody, as is well known that quantum physics contradicts everything in classical physics. As a physicist you should be honest enough to admit this.

Whether you like it or not, science is confirming Hindu science and moving in the same direction of mind. Thus once again backing up my statement that nothing within Hinduism is a belief, it is a scientific fact. We were ahead of you by thousands of years, and still are.

#61

Thanks, Pawel. Good job. Surya Deva, your credibility is seriously challenged. Your arrogance and extremist views are working against you, and are likely to get you branded as some kind of nut case. If you want anybody to take you seriously, you have a lot more work to do.

When I first became aware of Samkhya philosophy, I was intrigued by the similarity of some of the concepts to modern science. But not being a scientist myself, I’m not qualified to judge these things. It’s too bad we don’t have more clear insight into these things.

#62

Thank you Asuri. I’m also sorry I posted so much things not on your original topic.

[QUOTE=Asuri;32391]When I first became aware of Samkhya philosophy, I was intrigued by the similarity of some of the concepts to modern science. But not being a scientist myself, I’m not qualified to judge these things. It’s too bad we don’t have more clear insight into these things.[/QUOTE]

I can’t judge these things as well - I don’t have philosophical education and I think strong background in philosophy of science, Hindu philosophy and modern science is a must in order to do proper comparison. Especially since Hinduism is so vast and complex and describing reality in such holistic way and with such depth.

#63

Asuri, with all due respect, you would be expected to say this because you have a very secetarian view of Samkhya philosophy, which I contradict. I think your comments above were cheap and not necessary, as you are using my disagreement with Pawel over our discussion on quantum physics and hindu metaphysics, in order to express your own disagreement with me on another topic.

Now moving back to the topic. Pawel I do have knowledge of philosophy of science, Hindu philosophy and modern science. I have done the comparison in my research and found not just similarities, but an entire correspondence. The only difference is the language, epistemology and taxonomies used. So for example while modern science uses primarily empirical methods, Hindu science uses primarily rational and phenomenological methods. While modern science uses mathematical formalism, Hindu science uses observational and verbal descriptions. The motivations are also different, Hindu science subordinates science or aparavidya to self-realization or paravidya, whereas modern science studies science for its own sake.

I think the biggest disagreement we are having is because of your denigration of Hindu science and a tendency to make Western science look superior, which you have made clear by using words like, “primitive, intuitive, obvious” to describe Hindu scientific observations , despite the fact that these “primitive, intutive and obvious” views were not obvious to Western science until modern times. And then making, rather arrogant assertions that modern physics can explain everything about the world around you. A statement which to any student of the philosophy of science, who will be familiar with postmodern views of science is fatuous. Your statements bely a complete ignorance of the research of an entire civilisation, which has been around for 10,000 years and was doing science when your own civilisation had not even started out. So of course a Hindu reading such racist views is obviously going to be offended and retort back.

You should not expect to play with fire and not get burnt. Hindus now days are not going to sit by quietly and let others ridicule, denigrate and undermine their civilisation.

#64

Just for the record (to clarify few things):

  1. From scientific point of view I consider modern science to be superior to the sciences developed before modern times. I don’t feel superior because of that - it wasn’t me who worked hard developing more modern theories and experiments (many of which I still don’t understand).

  2. I used the expression that modern science can explain everything around me. First time I used “almost”, next time I didn’t. Well, my mistake. There are some physical phenomena which still remain a mystery to physics.

  3. I beg pardon but I don’t consider my remarks racist. I don’t believe that genetic predispositions played a role in development of Hindu science or philosophy. If ancient India was inhabited by African people, they would develop the same theories and philosophies.

  4. I consider Hindu philosophy as being extremely developed and deep (and much much broader than modern science - modern science is an extremely narrow way of looking at world in general). I’m sorry if I gave other impression. My point was just to compare scientific theories in narrow sense of scientific predictions and description of the world - that was the main intent from my side. It wasn’t me who kept bringing all Hinduism into discussion.

#65

I was also thinking about terms “primitive, intuitive, obvious”. I was wondering what would happen if an ancient sage (e.g. from Egypt to give India some break) came to an exam in physics or chemistry (in current times). He would get a questions and instead of providing exact answers he would start to explain atomic/elemental theory of matter. Most probably he would fail - examiner couldn’t accept such answers. Maybe this examiner would even explain that answers are primitive, intuitive and obvious and not answering the exact questions. But this is only science exam, nothing more. Just narrow, dry science exam. And such exam was in my mind when I was confronting “Hindu science” and “modern science” - since there was a claim that Hindu science is more advanced than modern science in description of physical world (important!: this is area of physical science, not philosophy or metaphysics or any other). That can better and more accurately explain phenomena around us (this is common sense definition of more developed and advanced science). So I thought, ok, let little exam begin.

For future I suggest not to try to pass modern science exam with ancient science. No one is expecting such things from ancient science. People talk about contributions of ancient sciences, not superiority. Ancient is an origin of modern. Continuous organism and process - advancement is natural. No grandfather should be offended if grandson will be more developed in some areas.

I would also point out that I never claimed that modern science is a superior method of describing non-physical aspect of the world. I have little knowledge in that respect. I know the limits of the science and have no problem with that. I even think that grandson is more dumb than grandfather in this aspect (non-physical nature of the world).

#66

Now moving back to the topic. Pawel I do have knowledge of philosophy of science, Hindu philosophy and modern science. I have done the comparison in my research and found not just similarities, but an entire correspondence.

The problem is, you have no credibility. I suggest you try practicing yoga or weight lifting or both and just hang out with people who are at the same level in those pursuits, instead of trying to lecture everybody all the time. People will like you better.

#67

We might see conflict where there is none.People sometimes love looking for differnces than similarities. I brought up a discussion on another forum,not this one, i was new to. And from the outset the moment i started talking about chakras and the energy body and how it was confimed in the ancient etxts and so forth , he began saying well ‘don’t believe the ancients’ we’ve moved on from there and it’s not really a science because a science in [I]his[/I] overly narrow definition of the term requires empirical observation and how chakras were actually new-age falsehood(or that’s what was stated by him to begin with) Now i felt he was not gonna be open to these ideas because he had not delved deeply enough into meditation.All i left him with was a research paper that speculated over the connection between dark-matter and the primordial life-force.I thought it was kind of odd on ayoga forum to write off what the ancients had written about primordial energy (aka ‘prana’) and how life depended on it. Evidence of the unseen.As i say, he went off on a tangent about the modern scientific method probably largely because ancient kundalini science was not true science according to that started in the 1600’s.( he probably pulled it offf a wikipedia) I think it was my first post on the forum and all i got was three posts in succession over a fortnight from some dude that had posted at the start of that thread. I think he may have lost how the thread had orginated.He was replying to me ,rather than the thread which was about chakras btw and their possible existence and application in yoga. All he did was tell me in depth what the scientific method was and then how i was substantiating my own theories of cakras and kundalini with or rather by what the ancient texts said rather than the other way around which i believe was more like the case.i.e The texts merely confirmed what I experienced…So therfore i respected them as an authority( though not the only on, the main one in yoga though)

He seemed a bit of a lost cause without the requisite raja yoga practice experience.Perhaps the existence of prana for e.g, for him, could be better explained by the paradigm of ‘modern science’ which for him meant one rooted in materialsm.But what stuck me is not how the two sciences could inform each other,perhaps even resolve unexplained mysteries , but how one was ,suggestibly,superior.

My definition of science has become a hell of a lot broader since reading & practicing yoga.

You will see conflict if you look for it.I prefer to see how they both inform each other, the similairites or confirmations, not the differences.Matter is reducible to energy, i mean that is in agreement.Perhaps we might go further and say energy is reducible to Consciousness.

I think they’ll catch on eventually.I think Consciousness, or inner space, the spiritual sicences,has got to be an emerging frontier, the next one,in the new sciences.The spiritual and the material will kind of come together;both validate each other both in terms of method & scope,as well as subject- matter.

#68

To put it simply,

I think “modern science”,( or the typically materialist-oriented variety) & spirtual science can inform each other by coming together,as friends that can have a good chat,talk it over.

The spiritual to me just simply ,means anything that is non-material( or transcends it) but also includes or rather subsumes the material btw.And i think we can investigate it in a very scientific way.

That word ‘spiritual’ has stopped having religious connotations,or certainly any overt ones, for me,btw.I sense I feel clearer on what that terms here now means to me.I used to associate it with acecticism(monastic orders) and denial rather than evolution & expansion of Consciousness and a more complete picture of reality.

This guy [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin) has been quite influential . I stumbled acorss one of his interesting books, it could have been ‘Phenomenon of Man’ ,along these lines.That our evolution is a (certainly primarily) spiritual one, above all else, the highest sort , and it goes on in synch, so to speak with that of the Universe Cosmos…I’m pretty sure Sri Aurobindo was also another that talked or wrote along those lines.

#69

Pawel,

I think the main reason for our differences is because we are operating from different linguistic and cultural maps. For example when you use the word “modern” you mean it in the sense of a linear growth in knowledge and material science from ancient times to modern. When I say “modern” I mean it in terms of a certain extent of knowledge and material development.

What I am presenting to you here is that when you use the word “modern” you are only referring to Western history. It begins at the Greeks around 500BCE, then from 1AD to 10AD it continues with the Romans and arabs and then around the 17th century there is an age of science and reason and the modern age begins. Then Europe develops industry and spreads around the world and establishes colonies.

The Eastern timeline is different. It begins 10,000 years ago in the Indian subcontinent. The Vedas appear at the latest around 6000BCE and this is roughly when the Eastern age of science and reason begins(I personally think it vastly older, but I am going to stick with conservative dates) By 3000-2000BCE a very modern civilisation is already in place called the Indus valley civilisation. It is at a level comparable to 19-20th century civilisation in many areas. At this point there are well established systems of philosophy, medicine, spirituality and industry. There is also clear evidence of the rapid expansion of this civilisation around the world setting up many colonies around the world.

There is not just some fantay of Hindus it is clearly evident if we compare history of the East with the history of the West. The East has sanitation, planned cities and plumbing in 3000BCE; in the West it appears in 18th century. The East have scientific systems of medicine and have already have a vast database of diseases and medicine listing 1200 diseases, 300 surgical procedures, 125 surgical instruments in 2000BCE there is nothing comparable in the West till the 19th century and onwards.

The East have developed formal language, binary numbers and hashing systems and error checking systems in 2000BCE, there is nothing comparable in the West till the 20th century.

Note: I am revising some of these dates by 1000 years due to Aryan invasion theory giving too late dates.

So you cannot just clump Eastern history and Western history together. It is very clear Eastern civilisation is many times more older and had reached key developmental stages much earlier than the West did. Now as I said, the extent to what level of development they reached in positive sciences is very controversial, because we cannot overlook the fact that Eastern texts mention very advanced technlogy existing in those times.

The fact of the matter is we cannot deny these references. There are ancient Sanskrit texts talking about aeronautics. The Charaka Samhita gives extensive descriptions of microbes and says they are seen with instruments. There is an ancient and very much real text stored at the Oriental library in India that gives explicit instructions on how to build a spectrometer, which has been built and documented in a peer-reviewed journal. I gave you a link to the artice and you did not even give it a fair hearing.

The Mahabharata gives descriptions of weapons of mass destruction, missiles, fighter planes. A Sanskrit text which mentions an ancient analog computer to calculate orbits of planets(which also mentions ancient aeroplanes, their propulsion systems and gives flight navigation guidelines) has recenty been discovered in a fluke accident in Greece. The level of engineering technology is comparable to 18th century engineering.
The sum of the archeological evidence and the scientific knowledge we find in the East is pointing to ancient modernity. They had reached modern levels of development thousands of years earlier. In other words words the linear model of development is wrong. The evidence is showing cyclic development. The rise and fall of very advanced civilisations that reach certain levels of development and then die out.

Suffice it to say East and West diverge on everything. They are incommensurabe. But one thing is very clear. The West is a young civilisation compared to the East. We are your elders in terms of civilisation and to a very large extent your teachers as well. We pretty much started you up via the Greeks and since that time you have constantly looked back at us for further development. Look at how steel was developed in the West in the 18the century, it was revere-engineered by examining Hindu steel. Look at how linguistics was developed in the 20th century; it was reverse engineered by studying Sanskrit. Look at the deveopment of psychology and modern philosophy it does not take off until Sanskrit texts starting pouring into Europe.

As I said before, and I say this with the utmost humility, you have a lot to learn from us. We are your grandfather in terms of wisdom, knowledge and experience accumulated. Study our Vedanta, Yoga, Ayurveda, Ragas and Sanskrit and advanced yourself further, but don’t pretend you are more developed, because you are not.

#70

[QUOTE=core789;32457] Perhaps we might go further and say energy is reducible to Consciousness.

I think they’ll catch on eventually.I think Consciousness, or inner space, the spiritual sicences,has got to be an emerging frontier, the next one,in the new sciences.The spiritual and the material will kind of come together;both validate each other both in terms of method & scope,as well as subject- matter.[/QUOTE]

Thank you core for input. You know, I had some thoughts about relation between materialism and spiritual view of the world (viewed as opposites). I thought that materialism will shrink and spiritualism grow since science will deal with more and more “spiritual” phenomena (like consciousness and subtle levels of existence). But then I realized that something is not right for me with this image. That is: what will happen if science will discover prana and chakras? People would start to make precise measurements, develop theories and mathematical description. Children at school would be forced to learn equations of prana flow dynamics. TV would be full of ads about new tablets to prevent prana-cold or ease prana-flu symptoms. All this world of spiritual energy would become totally mechanized, predictable, commercialized and deterministic (or not deterministic but anyway governed by equations). Just another level of our physiology. Look how difficult is now for young people to find spiritual aspect to life in this dry scientific world. How difficult is to overcome spiritual isolation and this picture that we are just walking chemical factory and all our personalities are just result of brain activity. If this atomistic and mechanical view would expand to more subtle levels, where then you would look for a Spirit? How difficult it would be then for young people to pass through those mechanical levels of existence and reach deeper into Spirit? How would you raise your children which year after year would discover just more and more levels of their mechanized existence and couldn’t imagine that there is something more to the world than science? Maybe there is no need to hurry with that kind of science then.

Maybe it is not an argument not to advance science into more subtle levels of existence, but rather a point to remember about costs of such development. Modern science brought huge changes into society - good are bad. We can’t even manage those properly (e.g. internet addiction, ethical problems of biotechnology). What would happen if it would expand even further?

#71

I was also thinking about terms “primitive, intuitive, obvious”. I was wondering what would happen if an ancient sage (e.g. from Egypt to give India some break) came to an exam in physics or chemistry (in current times). He would get a questions and instead of providing exact answers he would start to explain atomic/elemental theory of matter. Most probably he would fail - examiner couldn’t accept such answers.

Yes, they clearly would fail, because they are using one linguistic map and you are using another. Even a hypothetically more advanced alien from another planet would fail because they would have a radically different understanding about physics and would not be able to relate to our understanding.

I think you should make yourself familiar with the most important philosophers of science of the 20th century such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, which have forced us in contemporary times to be more critical of science. The understanding we have of physics is not proven. It is all based on theories, which come and go all the time. We are constanty having to revise and even replace our models, because they end up being wrong. You paint a picture of science which is uniform and assumed progression by saying “There are some physical phenomena which still remain a mystery to physics” No, in fact the whole of physics remains a mystery to you. You are constantly having to revise even the most basic theories of say gravity. Einstein did not simply add to Newton theories, he competely redrafted it and radically changed our understanding of what gravity and physics is. Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Bohr did not build up on Einstein either, they pretty much threw away classical physics and developed a whole new kind of physics and a radically different conception of the world. String theory similarly does not build up on quantum physics, its revolutionizes it. None of those paradigms are commensurable with one another. The truth is modern physics does not understand the world around it and this is clearly evident by just how many different models there are in physics. You should not pretend they are harmonious and compliment one another, because they are not. They are rivals. Newtonian physicists hated Einstein. Einstein hated quantum physicists. Quantum physicists hate string theorists.

There is no single field in any science where there is uniform agreement on anything. In Psychology there are so many mutually opposing models: psychoanalysis, learning theory, cognitive-behavioural, social, biological, parapsychology, humanistic and transpersonal psychology. Same in sociology: Marxism, Functionalism, Interactionalism, Feminism, Post-modernism.

The current status of any science is post-modern. This means there is no certainty on any truth and science is nothing more than competing viewpoints. So all we can say about science is that we have discovered that we don’t know bleep all, and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

#72

Just another level of our physiology. Look how difficult is now for young people to find spiritual aspect to life in this dry scientific world. How difficult is to overcome spiritual isolation and this picture that we are just walking chemical factory and all our personalities are just result of brain activity. If this atomistic and mechanical view would expand to more subtle levels, where then you would look for a Spirit? How difficult it would be then for young people to pass through those mechanical levels of existence and reach deeper into Spirit? How would you raise your children which year after year would discover just more and more levels of their mechanized existence and couldn’t imagine that there is something more to the world than science? Maybe there is no need to hurry with that kind of science then.

The truth will remain the truth irrespective of whether it is good for us or not. You fundamentally misunderstand prana and chakras as just another level to a mechanical existence. In fact, much to the contrary, chakras are intelligent regulating systems. Much less detracting from spirit, they point to a cosmic intelligence. The chakras govern all activity in your body through the regulation of pranic flow in order maintain optimum functionality. If this system was not present in your body there would be nothing to coordinate the activity in the body and no parts could communicate with each other. This system of prana and chakras is connected to the prana and chakras in the wider world and universe, and they operate in tandem with one another in order to maintain optimum functionality. Even slight changes in the environment and the wider universe will therefore reflect in the body.

Quantum physics has already discovered the existence of prana and calls it the “casimr force” This science is it in its infancy and positive applications of the casmir force are limited at the microscopic stage at the moment, for example achieiving quantum levitation on a nano-scale to be used in nanoengineering. However, eventually we will be able to use the casmir force for levitation of maco objects, including humans beings As the energy we are tapping in the quantum vacuum is potentially infinite we can utilize casmir quantum energies to extract free-energy for various purposes such as regenerating organs and powering our appliances. So a whole new pranic science is being birthed as we speak.

The use of quantum energy and quantum channels will be enable us to do many things master Yogis can do. It can be used to detect information of all events taking place in the universe as well as transmit information; it can be used to teleport objects anywhere in the universe; it can be used for healing by revitalizing the organs. It will also open up interstellar space travel as we can use quantum channels to travel in space. Quantum physics will basically make what seems to be magic possible.

But you know what I am going to say. We Hindus have been there and done that. The study of pranic energy and channels and intelligent regulating centres by our ancient scientists is how we developed our systems of Yoga. The next step modern science needs to realise after pranic physics is mental physics whereby the mind can control matter absolutely. There is nothing that is impossible once you realise the universe is made of consciousness. You can literally play with the so-called laws of physics and make it do whatever you want.

#73

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32466]You fundamentally misunderstand prana and chakras as just another level to a mechanical existence. [/QUOTE]

I’m talking about perception, not reality itself. If someone uses mechanical and structural concepts in perception of some part of reality, this part becomes extension of already “mechanized” world view. Since the center of our identity doesn’t like to be mechanized and conditioned (which for example results with a perception that all people around us are conditioned and only we are free and have a direct view of reality), mechanization of the main level of identity is not healthy. Only when we transcend it, it may be viewed as mechanical without identity issues. Thats why knowledge of the relation between brain damage and personality is so disturbing for people who totally identify themselves with persona.

#74

[QUOTE=Pawel;32473]I’m talking about perception, not reality itself. If someone uses mechanical and structural concepts in perception of some part of reality, this part becomes extension of already “mechanized” world view. Since the center of our identity doesn’t like to be mechanized and conditioned (which for example results with a perception that all people around us are conditioned and only we are free and have a direct view of reality), mechanization of the main level of identity is not healthy. Only when we transcend it, it may be viewed as mechanical without identity issues. Thats why knowledge of the relation between brain damage and personality is so disturbing for people who totally identify themselves with persona.[/QUOTE]

Well, in that case your perception is wrong. In the East we do not see the system of chakras and prana as mechanistic at all, rather we see your descriptions of organs, cells, chemicals and dna as mechanistic etc. We see the chakras and prana as intelligent systems existing in our subte energy body that connects us to the wider cosmos. Hence why we call it “life-force” This is why we have a greater sense of ecology than the West does and the need to remain in harmony with nature and with each other. On the other hand, in the West because there is such a mechanical view of the world, the West does not hestitate in tearing down a rain forests, or slaughtering animals or building vast concrete jungles by destroying natural ecosystems. This was best demonstrated by the recent film “Avatar” where the humans think nothing of destructing the ecosystems of the Navi because they think they are just “god damn trees”

You really should not worry about us getting any worse in our mechanized views because we have already gone to the very pitts with the concentration camps where we systematically exterminated humans beings, men, women and children. The understanding born of pranic sciences will not make things any worse, but actually improve things and cultivate more humity in humans and a sense of community and belongingness to the cosmos, much like the Navi people in Avatar have.

#75

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32463]The current status of any science is post-modern. This means there is no certainty on any truth and science is nothing more than competing viewpoints. So all we can say about science is that we have discovered that we don’t know bleep all, and you shouldn’t pretend otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I heard and read about this post-modern interpretation of science. But in my opinion it goes too far stating that all science is just a social construct (and viewpoint as you say). Also, it is not shared by majority of practicing scientists so it is not exactly true to say that it is current status of science.

I understand that one can have an image that all universe is unknown and not explained on fundamental level. However, we should try to have a balanced view on what we know and what we don’t know. We really learned a lot about structure and workings of the universe (material part). From DNA structure to formation of the galaxies. Its not the end of course, but already something…