Absolutely correct on that. I can take you even deeper on that logic for there is no such thing as direction in this directionless world anyways. Like I reasoned for names etc as a frame of reference, direction is also a frame of reference in a relative term. For that matter can you even prove your existence? For all I can see, from a greater level of reasoning, is a tornado of molecules, a dance of energy behind your "perceived" shape of the body which is changing every nano-second. Does your existence go beyond to the atoms that left your body through excreta, perspiration, exhale etc or the do the atoms that come to your body, through inhale, drinking, energy from sun, light from tubelight etc, for a "moment" even belong to you in the first place?
What exactly are we trying to prove then? What is yours, Can you identify the atoms that are yours? Is your mind even registered to work at micro and the macro, subtler than the subtlest and larger than the largest of what is known?
Knowing here, exists at a different levels of consciousness. I just gave the example at the lowest level of consciousness i.e material play!
Exactly my point. We call it "East" but it's just a direction. And yes, directions exist - you yourself are trying to move "closer" to understanding your consciousness. This is a direction. According to you I am moving away, but that is also a direction.
I keep hearing from people who have existential crises apparently! How do I know it's you replying? The atoms of your hand yesterday were not the same as they are today. Some of your brain cells died from yesterday, thus it is not you anymore, and thus this conversation was over before it even began. We might all be living in Brahma's dreams, or maybe our entire Milky Way galaxy is just the dirt in his left foot's little toenail... Consciousness is not the forever doubting of one's existence. As the latin saying goes, I think, therefore I am. Also, I think differently than you, therefore I am not you. I can be a part of groups, a part of humanity, a tiny atom of the universe, but I am me. I think for myself, and do not blindly just follow a doctrine. Apparently you attempt to do the same thing, but the difference is, believing. I absorb all I can, just as you do, but I believe nothing until it is logical, free from mysticism, and is provable. It doesn't have to be the popular opinion or the right one, it just has to make sense, and be based in fact, and not fiction. Why stop at the vedas, there are some really interesting science fiction books written by Asimov, Clarke, Heinlin and the likes, they also question a lot of things and they do it in the future.
You have totally missed or sidestepped my point of view, either because you didn't understand it or it was inconvenient to take on. I accept the premise that what the vedas contain is possible as a teaching of understanding one’s self better, or maybe it was just stuff people talked about because they had no idiot politicians to laugh about. The difference is I also read a lot of things, and I don't limit myself to reading what I presuppose is true. This is led me to read psychology as well, and my experiences with thousands of humans has also given me my own insight into the way people think and act.
You are getting confused I guess in this overdose of reasoning. I never would want people to "follow/believe" Vedas in the first place, but question it!
Questioning takes place the best when you have a genuine interest in the subject or the science and when you have read it, the complete teaching or the message devotedly without dissecting it in between. e.g Pythogoras theoram. Many would mug the theoram. But geuine seekers of mathematics would go to the root, as to how and why it happened. The same goes for the Vedas and hence the description of the term "astik" which I detailed to you in my earlier reply. In this context, one who analyzes the pythagoras theoram, deduces it correctly and sees no flaw in it transcends to a position where he can affirm with confidence about the correctness of the theoram. In that sense, he has become an astik, for he read, understood, questioned and authorized!
Higher doesn't mean the best. Veda propound the science of consciousness from lowest (arthashastras,Ayurveda,Vaisheshika) to highest (shruties). Veda here is an umbrella term which is further branched and connected to itihaas, brahmanas and the science of shruties, the categorizations from different levels of descriptions Nyaya, Yoga, dvaita, advaita, Vaisheshika etc. Its a science of the holistic understanding holding cause and effect, time and space and that which is beyond cause and effect, time and space.
I am not confused, actually I am crystal clear, because all of what I say can be analysed logically, and doesn't hide behind words no one understands. When I don't understand something, I say it out loud, without shame. And yes, I am questioning them, exactly as you want people to. I have read a little of it, and I have an interest in it. Since I found nothing great in them, whatever little bits I read, and yet others swear by them, my interest is based on what they see in it that I didn't, and unlike most others, I do not take this for sure as a failing of myself, but I look at it that it may be a failing in myself, or it may be a failing of the other people. I just present both sides of the coin openly.
I agree people should understand, but I do not agree that everyone has to "experience" everything in order to move forwards. If that was the case, we'd all be hunters and gatherers, never sharing knowledge with one another, because hey, you need to figure it out yourself. If every living human had to learn and experiment and properly understand every little bit of basic science, we'd go back to prehistoric times.
And yes, I question "higher", not because you say it, but because the vedas do. I know you are just saying what they do, whereas I am questioning the very basis of higher and lower when it comes to knowledge and service. This is why the caste system arose, and I don't think the people who pick up my garbage deserve any less respect that me. Skills are one thing, a craftsman who can make something others can't deserves to demand a special price for his handiwork, and thus perhaps salaries of the garbage man would be lower than people who are on this forum, but I am sure he also some knowledge that others can learn from. I have no doubt about complexities of things being called further studies, or specialisation, however, it still seems elitist to me to call the study of one's own thoughts "higher" than other sciences. A rocket engineer at NASA who spent most of his life studying something is certainly achieved a "higher" level of specialisation than me, but just because I sit about pondering why people act the way they do, and if I claim to be reading the vedas, saying that I am on a "higher" plane of consciousness is just narcissistic to me.
Anyway, as you say, question the vedas, and I am doing exactly that. They lived in an age when technology was non-existent, and the skills they had were usually all pretty equal. There were some special aspects of skills, sure, but basically everyone knew how to farm, to make curd or lassi from milk, all women knew how to cook something, all men knew about tobacco, or alcohol. All tended to cows and goats, all knew how to milk them. The hunters knew how to hunt (and yes there were hunters back then). Even the scientists were busy plotting stars and their movement, but some people decided to "interpret" the meaning of everything. There was superstition back then also, as is evident form the fire rituals, the sacrifices, or the rain dancers, shamen, whatever you want to call them. There’s no surprise that it was the religious leaders who held the answers to everything. In every uneducated group of villagers you will find one who others follow because he gives them answers they can understand. This is basic human tendency to try and be in the limelight and get power.
As you will have seen from all around you, as true scientific knowledge increases, superstitions decrease. Of course it's been put into our psyche by thousands of years of "idle gossip" by people who do not understand - and thus even today if you walk out of your house and a black cat crosses your path you might stop for a second, then shake your head and go along your way. Many will not even do that or notice even – and still others like me will insist on having a black cat as a pet, which I do. If i see a ladder, I make it a point to walk under it. It’s just my way of experimenting with supposed superstitions.
I guess you still haven't understood the basic meaning of consciousness or the order that I have explained again and again or the Ritam at large. It is not limited to "life" or happening on the earth. For that matter, even if I narrow myself to your understanding, how can you call that which contains life as lifeless? For that matter the essence of Sun like I explained before, encompasses the entire solar system. Earth is a part of the solar system which is a part of milky way galaxy and hence the universe. How can you call Universe as lifeless which contains you and me? Like I questioned before, are you really apart from the Universe or you are simply a part of it?
What is "that" which is holding the entire template of your body together which is just a chaotic tornado of atoms at a nano-seconds measure? Who exactly are you? The atoms that left you or the atoms that come to you? Do you think that is measurable, verifiable and proven?
Regarding infinite,
1. Anything divided by infinite is not exactly an analysis of infinity, which you think can be "analyzed".
2. research again, infinite or any number divided by 0 is not exactly infinite i.e a/0 is not equal to infinity, which if taken into consideration can lead to paradoxes!
Are you sure you have your basic mathematics concepts in place? The first is verifiable. You may use a calculator, whereas the second would give an error. Do you know if second situation is encountered in programming, an exception is usually thrown or it may cause the program to terminate? Moreover, who told you that the Universe is finite? Have you got it "measured, verified or proven". Even the modern science works under what is called as "observable universe"!
Again, I do not disagree with you since I haven’t been able to meditate and lose myself like others claim to have done. I accept that this is perhaps the weakness of my own mind. Will you accept that perhaps it is the weakness of yours that allows you to achieve this? Like I said, many sadhus I have met who can read and quote from the vedas from memory, also say that marijuana gives the same effect. So is meditating a natural way of getting high?
Do you really need to lose consciousness before you can appreciate it? Traditionally, we make fun of those who cannot appreciate what they have until they lose it.
Again with grand words like essence, whereas the only effect the sun has on the universe is radiation and gravity. Sure there may be a magical bit of invisible string tying every insect, plant, human and animal to the sun, or maybe every atom of everyone, but just because there is a “possibility” doesn’t make it a “probability”. Life is probability. Why isn’t there a tribe on the moon if the sun is such a giver of life? Where are the Martians? We sit on a world that was at the right end of the probability divide, and thus life was made “possible”. Basic physics, chemistry and biology explains what holds us together. Holds all living objects together for that matter. And yes, we are able to measure and find pretty close approximates to how much a person eats a day, how much is converted to calories, how much is excreted, how many hairs fall, how much skin is turned to dust around the house, what are the chances of getting dust mites because of not cleaning. Everything is and has been studied, and you can go do it too, using simple mathematics and the powers of observation.
By using your “who are you” analogy, and trying to dissolve everything into nothingness or your own quaint little description of consciousness – if I am no one, neither are you, and neither were any of the people who wrote the vedas, and neither is Brahma or Vishnu, or Allah, or Christ, and we should all just give up right this instant and accept that we don’t exist. Sorry, but I very much do exist, as did the people who made all the things that allow us to sometimes make silly points on this forum. As did the people who wrote down what you hold so dear, or the blogs and teachings of so many you learn from. They are all held together just as well as the Nirbhaya rapists, and our horrible politicians, and Hitler. There is no good and bad in being held together and existing, we just do. Life in abstracts can make you feel special, but eventually you wake up and smell the reality all around you.
I have my maths concepts in place, but perhaps you didn’t read all of my post.
Actually not exactly, but for the sake of simplicity an acceptable compromise.
Now to the point, who told you the universe is infinite? Did you travel for an infinite time to try and reach the end at speeds greater than light and have now come back to report that it isn’t? Yes we consider what is observable, as we do in every aspect of life around us, not just the vastness of the universe. There is no point you’re making here, because this is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Infinity is a simple way of saying “we don’t know” or “undefined” or “currently uncalculable”. I know many people like to give themselves self-importance and claim to understand infinity, but the reality is the idea of infinity is one of belief in itself.
If you really think, this Universe is finite, then what is beyond this Universe? What is the shape of this finite. Is this finite rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X1)? What is the shape of that X1? Is that finite also rotating and revolving around something higher (lets call it X2)? Do you really think this recursive question/series is finite alone? If you have no answer to it and are waiting for "modern science" to give an answer, then I guess you are undermining your own consciousness and limiting because of an attachment to a thought that "modern science" one day will give you an answer which is again a blind-belief in modern science!
Regarding time, it is relative indeed where time becomes a function of movement. The faster the movement, the lesser the time and so on. But like I have discussed before, who exactly analyzes the frameworks of time? Who causes a distinction between night and day, good and bad, small and large? Do you think the frameworks of time are the same for one who cannot see, hear, speak or touch i.e all five senses not working?
Close your eyes and walk, can you really see where you are walking? When that which is causing a reference has been removed, how can you even categorize then? Like I asked you, if time is a reality, then why do we lose a sense of time and space when we dream? Time exists only at lower frame of consciousness and ceases to exist as we go higher in the place of consciousness.
I don’t know what is beyond the edge of the universe, but I can certainly tell you that you don’t either, and neither does any living soul. Of course with everything that is unknown and unmeasurable, you will always get people jumping out and saying:
“I know! It came to me in a dream! I floated past the edge of the universe and then I travelled so fast suddenly and was transported back to the opposite end. Even the universe is circular, but it is still miniscule to God, thus the entire universe is merely a toe ring of Lord <insert deity here>’s little toe!”
Now depending on how seriously that is taken, more and more people will sit and opine this, and eventually you might have a verse thrown in by some good writers that equates this to the philosophy of our times. If this stupid line I said survives 10,000 years, and the people of that time have barely made it across the milky way, who knows how many people will quote the teachings of TDF. I kid, of course, because we’re already beyond such easily gullible times, but there’s a point that’s being made there.
Is the ability to say “I don’t know” such an insult to homo sapiens? I see it all the time around me, from so-called gurus to someone you ask simple directions from on the street. There’s almost a sense of sheepishness that creeps in when people have to go, “Sorry, but I don’t know.” How much has ego gotten into our systems where we HAVE to know. If science doesn’t offer an answer right now, I’m happy to sit back and say, “Sorry I don’t know.” However, will so called religious or spiritual people do the same? Why don’t you think about that for a bit, and perhaps take the real high road to understanding the flaws that humans have. We keep wanting to be perfect, but we aren’t. We want to be smart, but we’re still dumb. The truth comes from accepting that you don’t know – or else you head down a path that takes you in circles.
See the asking for directions analogy I gave above? Many people are taken in by “knowers” based on their surety and absolute confidence in what they “know”. Once you figure out you’re lost, what do you do? Do you keep barrelling on through the jungle looking for the spot, unfased, because the directions seemed so precise and confident, or do you stop, go back and start again.
Science is like exploring, and accepting defeat when reaching a dead end, going back and trying to find a new path. Faith is like sitting around at that dead end wondering what is beyond the dead end. Eventually you wonder so long, and make such precise mental images of the wonders beyond the wall, that you start believing in it.
There are no blind beliefs in modern sciences, those only exist in religious sciences, because “I/we don’t know” undermines religious sciences, but is what fuels modern science.
Time becoming a function of movement, and how, to what degree, until when at the speed of light time stands still is modern science’s contribution, and yes, it’s a theory still until we can prove it by moving at relativistic speeds. However, the examples you use are explained easily. Close your eyes and walk, and you will stumble – as will the greatest studier of the vedas, as will I. Thus, using that example is pointless. Biology will explain why it is so. And it doesn’t even have to be human minds you analyse to see that. Blind a bird and it flies into the wall, blind a cat or a dog and it does the same, blind a fish and it gets eaten by a predator because it swims where it shouldn’t. Anti-bacterial medication kills and inhibits bacteria… what is the point of all this? We already know all of this.
As for why you lose sense of time when you sleep, this is because your conscious is resting but your sub-conscious brain is still firing. Most of your perception and senses are controlled by the conscious side of the brain, because evolution made them more important senses to survive in tougher times. Biology 101. Yet you will also awake when refreshed, even if in a totally serene room with the perfect temperature and zero light changes. People who wake up on time everyday often wake up just before their alarms ring – and this has happened to everyone at some point, say, when you know you have a meeting you cannot miss. The brain still knows time, even if it does not scream it into your conscious memory as it would a waking thought. Again, this is another example of consciousness, not something higher than it. Unconsciousness is actually “lower”, which is why you never get anything done when sleeping, and why most people die in their sleep. Rest modes are needed, but not productive, and there’s nothing higher about a dream state, merely different, and in some ways lower.
A simple example :
Raaabo is sitting at the top of eucalyptus tree and Mediator down. Earth being round, your best friend comes from far where you can see but I cannot. For you, your friend is more like present-tense, but for me he is future-tense as I cannot see him. When he comes near me, where I can see him, he becomes present. For you he still remains present. When he leaves and goes at a distance where I cannot see him, he becomes past. But for you he is still more like present tense. You could see the flow, but I could not!
This eucalyptus tree here is a reflection of the scale of consciousness here, where that which is beyond the realms of time and space, cause and effect can see the cause and effect, for whom past, present and future all become one! Hence Mahakaal is called as trikaaldarshi whereas human level of consciousness can only dwell in or percieve a limited framework of cause and effect and hence there exists a science to raise one's consciousness to the Shiva/Mahakaal/Mahadev/trikaaldarshi/supreme consciousness!
I would call down from the eucalyptus tree and say “Hey mediator, here comes Anorion, can you see him?” And you’d reply, “No you ignorant techno-junkie, the earth is round, so I cannot see him now, but I will soon enough, unless he turns back”. There’s nothing mystical about this, and it isn’t an example of time. Light and curvature of the earth, sure, but time, not at all.
You consciousness sees what you want it to see, and this is why what you call a higher state, I call lower, because your dreams are always incoherent, and thrown together badly as if your brain was malfunctioning. You could dream that you took a holiday to Gujarat, and everyone looked like Narendra Modi, except Narendra Modi, who when you met him looked just like Rahul Gandhi! Ok Maybe not a dream, but a nightmare, but you see, this is the pattern that dreams follow. Just leaking of electrical impulses and imperfect memories of random events. If you’re watching a horror show, and were genuinely frightened, the chances of you having a nightmare is heightened. If you got turned on by a love making scene on TV before you slept, you may even have nightfall and if you remember the dream, often it’s the girl from the love making scene you saw, only her hair is different, and she’s wearing a sari and claims to be from India but looks like she’s from abroad… but your brain will insist she’s the same girl from the scene you saw, even though when you wake up, you know it wasn’t. The conscious brain is what makes the logical and right choices, the unconscious one come up with some freaky $h17!
Now again I claim ignorance when it comes to meditation, but based on the scores of people who claim to do it successfully, narrating it to me, it sounds more dreamlike than conscious. It sounds fantastically superfluous, and just like being in a dream, but then dreams are good, they’re just not sensible. Again, the illusions that drugs like marijuana bring – almost everyone who has meditated and smoked dope claim that the two are similar in bringing peace and tranquillity to one’s “soul”. It’s a wonderful feeling I’m told, and it feels like you’re floating. You know who else has those feelings? Children!
There might have been times in all of your lives as a child where things felt fantastic, and you may even have believed that you could walk on air or water. Sometimes euphoria would take over and make you believe you could levitate. Maybe not, or maybe you don’t remember it, but almost everyone I have ever spoken to agrees that as a child, even the clouds would form wonderful shapes, everything looked more awesome and beautiful, and unbelievable things would happen all around you. Some even had imaginary friends – aliens, dead pets, other little boys or girls, baby Ganesha… the imaginations we had as children were always good fun and wondrous in the way they felt, but today if you look back at it, you know that it was the more innocent mind playing tricks on you. Of course a lot of us wish to feel that way again, and do it even today when sitting about day dreaming, meditating, dreaming, smoking dope, drinking alcohol, etc. Mind altering is usually fun and relaxing, thus all the junkies who need a fix – drugs, music, booze, etc. it’s so nice not to think sometimes…
However, I have found that only in the conscious and thinking mind do things when logic take precedence. Go out and buy something when drunk, and it will probably be useless, but when sober and aware, you buy things on merit. A silly example, but I suppose you get the drift.
Perhaps you have been never introduced to this science, the science of inner which you may call it, as since your childhood you have been conditioned to the analysis of the external? So yes, there is a higher consciousness needed to understand time. I guess it is your "belief" that such a plane is not needed? Obviously, Brahma has a limited time frame and again, exists at a lower level of consciousness only. It is not the same as Brahman! Brahma is the body of the universe which contains the manifest and the unmanifest, but there is that which lies beyond and hence a metaphor of "Vishnu dreaming of infinite Brahmas" where Vishnu dreaming on the AnantNag refers to that which lies dormant and holding this entire body of brahma together which is metaphorically called as "sleeping" where Anant-Nag by its very meaning (Anant = Endless/Infinite) refers to eternal, infinite existence. This somehow resembles the "parallel" universe theory or perhaps the theory has been taken from this Indian metaphor? But according to an atheist like you, it is already void, for you have already rejected its basis which cannot be "proven or measured or seen". For that matter, do you think the evolution theory or the Big Bang that you "believe" in is "proven or measured or seen"? They have been debunked already where I can pour my own questions to further the discussion. Should I call it your blind belief then in these debunked theories?
Further, if its a blind-belief or a belief alone, how different are you, an atheist from the so called theist?
Again, sorry, but I see no Brahman or Brahma around me anywhere. This is pure fiction, and about as believable to me as it is to you when someone says Allah created the universe. If so, then why can’t Allah just be a translation of the word Brahma / Brahman? In that case just as every Hindu has gone off on the wrong path according to you, so has every Muslim, and they are equally right and wrong in their own ways. And the big bang is a “theory” no one calls it fact, not even its most staunch believers or the people working in that direction. Again, probability and possibility. It could be possible that there is an entity or force called Brahman /Brahma that acts the very way you describe it, and it’s also possible that there isn’t. Probability is built up based on evidence, and mathematics. If I told you that I would pay you Rs 1 lakh salary per month, and then gave you 200 x 10 rupee notes, you would fight with me. You wouldn’t let me get away with any “theory” of mine that explained to you that the amount of meaningless atoms in the 2,000 I gave you were identical to the other bundle of Rs 100 x 1000 that I have with me as well. It’s all the same in some ways, but it’s all very different in the ways that matter.
Like I have said from the very beginning of this discussion, even science has beliefs. I have always refuted the use of the words “know” or “knowing” when you use them, and god knows how many times I have use quotes to highlight “belief” in my replies. I am not the one saying science “knows” everything. I merely state that logic and mathematics is used there and thus the probability of it coming up with the right answer eventually is a lot higher.
The video I showed and the discovery is based on dating techniques. "A claim or what has been claimed" is a totally different thing! I really don't know how you define civilization. But for me civilization means a society which can learn to co-exist with the nature and the animals, promotes science of consciousness and mind and body control to be taught at a very young age to children, perfection in various spheres of life, ability to retain knowledge. For that matter, I don't see the "modern world" to be much civilized which is busy in external analysis, attachment and making concrete jungles out of fertile lands in the name of "progress and development", where life has been reduced to a little booze, drug-addiction, engrossed in one's own life and job without any concern for the Family, Joint Family, Nation and world at large!
So what even if there are cave paintings? How can you really say that they were not civilized or again, the conception of civilization that you are hinting at has been borrowed and the limited framework of your own mind being used to judge the people of the past? Is eating with hands less civilized than eating with forks and spoon?
Research yourself on Shaolin temples, where living is simple with an aim to perfect the control over the body. There they use a concept of Qi/Chi which is not really registered in the frameworks of modern science. Again "knowing" comes into the picture and not some "belief"!
I know, I have seen that video before and watched it again when you posted it. In the video themselves they say they found artifacts dating back to about 9,500 years. Also I think the length of my posts perhaps tires people out and gives them the wrong ideas. When I quoted the cave paintings, that was exactly the point I was making. In fact I would say that evolution itself is civilisation, because the best survival methods live on.
As for the way of life it is now, I suppose everyone’s unhappy with it, but that’s what happens when we get tom many humans. However, for me, it’s also what’s needed. You need to get fed up of being stagnant, as that’s what brings evolution. Notice how many people applied to go to mars? I wanted to as well but was forbidden, and it was sending the wrong message to my family that I was applying to go off for good to mars just when I am about to have a child. In order to protect humanity and prevent World War III, I decided to not apply in the end.
It’s only when we’re bored do we search for answers and challenges. Life is what it is here, and some of us are so fed up of it we’re willing to leave everything behind and go off into space, to an alien world, leave all of our loved ones and belongings behind, risk a horrible death, loneliness and more just to do something new and get away. Isn’t that what people do when meditating as well? However, from my point of view, this overcrowding and degradation of life is a good thing in some ways because it is forcing mankind to branch out. The truth is out there amongst the stars in space, and not in the space between our ears. Somehow we’ve filled this planet after exploring it, and now we need to do the same up there. Given the amount of knowledge we have accumulated by just digging around this little insignificant planet, imagine the wealth of knowledge and experience that awaits us in space…
Evolution requires that we do it, it’s the next step for mankind.
There’s no need to ridicule me by suggesting being civilised is eating with a fork, and anyone who actually read any of my posts will know that this is just a bad assumption. However, there is a difference between us and a caveman. We live longer, we use more technology and have more access to things. This is evolution, going back to a much earlier post where you asked why evolution stopped. It hasn’t. We have built massive cities, because we had to. A lot of what has happened is out of necessity rather than pure interest. How we have evolved from real interactions to this digital form is also evolution. It may or may not be ideal, but it is what we’re forced into, given the amount of pain required to travel in the real world. It’s also brought more and more people together to share ideas, and this is also evolution. Thus as I said earlier, evolution is civilisation, and vice versa.
Again, with anything physical, control is exercised with a lot of practice and belief. Please understand I do not mean self-confidence, the kind that Usain Bolt needs to exert over his brain to push past pain. This is often considered to be “knowing” when it’s basically forcing your brain to not accept that you are tired. As a former marathon runner and athlete myself, I can tell you about how when we’re younger we feel we’re invincible, and sometimes knowing we can do something that we can’t, brings about our downfall. All we have is belief in our abilities, and so long as that doesn’t turn into the arrogance of demanding from your body what it cannot supply, i.e., pretending to know what it can do without actually knowing.
However, we don’t really “know” what we can do, because we always feel we can push a little harder. Thus we “strongly believe” that we can improve.
“Knowing” is fine for “knowing” that you can climb up one flight of stairs without trouble. We certainly “know” that much. However, you might believe that you can run up 25 flights of stairs in 4 minutes without collapsing of exhaustion… you might be able to, you might not, only “doing” will allow you to change “belief” to “knowing”. All pushing of physical boundaries for sports or martial arts etc., is hard work and belief. This is why I exert the same parameters for the brain and the sciences. You can believe all you want, but someone has to “do” something before proving satisfactorily that something is a fact.
This is again an example where you are judging everything through a narrow and limited frameworks of "physical" alone. Like I said, if you dwell in the lowest consciousness i.e physical
1. Can you prove your own existence then?
2. Can you explain why you lose a touch of time and space often during your dreams?
3. Can you tell who exactly are you?
4. Can you prove that you are isolated from earth and Sun alone?
I have stated the characteristics of Satyuga and not the "physical proof" of it. But you should start from here I guess : Agamas and Science and Art of Temple Construction
Do you think cavemen cannot be perfect? Or do you think men in this age who cannot remember what happened 2 days back, need a timer to wake up, calculator to do simple maths, who cannot stand in Sun for 1 hour etc are perfect? BTW, there are instances of human beings co-existing with the dinosaurs from the smritis!
What you call narrow, I call realistic. What you therefore call broad, I call fantasy. Perhaps neither of us is right in the grand scheme of things, or maybe one of us is, but the understanding and “knowing” as I pointed out earlier, comes only from being able to test. By your logic, since you cannot prove that you as an individual exist, and there’s no real difference between you and the universe, then neither does the universe exist, or anything else. If that was the case, why fear death? Why punish a rapist or murderer? If I came walking towards you with a knife, would you open your shirt and point me to where your heart is, or fight me off? If everything is just pointless and so spiritual, why debate? Why bother understanding anyway?
As for my point of view, I am because I think for myself. I am isolated from the earth and sun because I can travel beyond them in space to a new sun. I cannot actually, because I am not important enough, but if a ship was built for me I could do it. Now you will say universe, and then the whole of existence. And to that I say, the whole universe is not in me, because I do not have a big enough ego to contain it. I do not have delusions of grandeur. Mars is not inside my mind or my being just because it is made of atoms and so am I. Mars is made up of a set of things, and so am I. At the atomic level we are all the same and that’s a wondrous thing, but it doesn’t prove or disprove god or some connection. If I die will mars die? If someone burns me does a new spot appear on Mars? Connections are easy to make in the abstract, but that doesn’t prove one, and neither does it allow anyone to actually feel one.
Of course someone deluded would pass gas and then claim it was a volcanic eruption on Mars that caused it. Or maybe someone’s stomach would rumble and claim it was an earthquake on Venus. This is all fantasy, and honestly, perhaps good humour or fiction, but completely pointless in the grand scheme of things.
You can google for the debunks from the modern day scientists yourself, but since there is an overwhelming conditioning of yours to Evolution, let me ask. What really happened to the dinosaurs or the explanation is again a plausible theory? Since the survival of the fittest, adaptation and mutation enables the species to grow to a more suitable environment, is it necessary that the eating habits would change too? How were the senses developed? Did they happen in one day or incrementally? Most importantly when did the life come? Do you understand the history of E.Coli experiment and its advancements so far? The questions are many. Let see how far can you talk on these alone from the framework of "proven or measured or seen".
You can also Google for the many more theories and findings that support it. It’s a theory, and is backed up by practical evidence. Of course it has some chinks in its armour? Maybe it wasn’t a meteorite that killed the dinosaurs, maybe it was a scale eating bacteria. Maybe climate change and the coming of the ice age caused it, and maybe a meteor killed them all like is popularly believed, or maybe all of the above. The difference between modern science is it’s trying to find this all out, would you rather take the sayings of some ancient tribe as the gospel truth? I thought the words of some such tribes based on faith were evil? How do we choose which tribe to believe?
Evolution is constant change, because the minute there are more tigers than bison, tigers can start fighting one another or finding new food sources. Less bison means more grass and less trampled flowers, this spreads seeds further, and more plant types are created as bees pollinate different plants that might never have crossed. This may mean taller trees, thus requiring the animals to stretch their necks further to get to the leaves, and this might result in the very first bison with a long neck that later we call a giraffe. Meanwhile the tigers can’t catch the monkeys, but they focus on the slower moving neandrathal as prey, which in turn changes them into faster and more upright humanoids in order to be able to run and hunt and protect themselves better.
This is just random thoughts being thrown out there so don’t take them as examples, but one single change of many bison dying in a flood can bring about an evolution. Not just in physical forms but in behaviours as well. Killer whales never hunted near shorelines, for example, but have started doing so in known documented history – a blink of an eye in evolution terms – and this is because the seals got more accustomed to land as ice floes reduced… evolution is merely adaptation to an ever changing world, which bring me back to relevance… the world is different, and new ideologies are needed, instead of clinging to old ones… that’s evolution. And yes, it’s seen and observable.
Gradually, whether people like it or not, a lot of the world is moving away from religion, and this causes the powers that control the religions to get more and more desperate to control them. It will not be easy, because as you have seen on this forum itself, people get touchy and supporting their religion, even if they themselves break every “law” their own religion has imposed on them on a daily basis. They couldn’t be bothered by rites and rituals, yet you get indignation of someone from the same religion being questioned. This too shall pass, because it must, as we evolve and adapt to the new world we live in.
Like I stated, brahma is an experience and not an abrahamic God isolated from you or me. I requested you to transcend beyond names. Brahma as I repeat is a lower level of consciousness and Vishnu the supreme as per the context! Similarly, the world of Shakti can rise and merge, from Sati to Parvati to uniting with Shiva, where a man is said to be awakened with the union of Shakti with Shiva! It is simply a transenscion of consciousness, just like I gave the analogy of matter and energy rising from matter and energy and using matter and energy and becoming matter and energy at its end, where matter is alone seen as energy as per Quantums theory!
Your understanding of Abrahamic religions is flawed. Take Christianity, it states that God created us in his own likeness, and that he exists in all of us, and is everywhere. Ask the pope if god watches us on mars and on alpha centauri, and he will say yes. All religions are the same, they espouse a belief in an all-powerful creator. Nothing just happens, it’s all part of god’s will / energy / chi flow / grand scheme. All religions also state that giving to your fellow humans is the path to god, loving and nurturing life, etc. Everything you said in the paragraph quoted is similar to what people from other religions say as well. The words used may be different, the names are different, the belief is the same, and proof of such is exactly zero. You cannot prove anything because it’s an experience, when you know, you know, and other such double talk. It works well in the abstract, and has no real meaning to life as we know it. Just as the moon god was shown to be a dead rock in space that humans have walked on, so will the rest of the universe eventually. If, or according to probability, when we meet an alien race and it looks and behaves nothing like us, I am sure the creationists and religions will find a way to explain that as well. In the abstract everything is explained so easily, in real science everything is a question that leads to a hundred more.
Where in the vedas is an explanation of matter and energy as science shows it. Where are the atomic bombs and E=MC^2. Wheres the explanation of friction, of gravity, of the solar flares you love to talk about? Is it written the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, and burns in this way, is estimated to be thus large, and has solar flares that are millions of miles long, which emit radiation, but we’re protected by the magnetic field of our earth’s iron core? Or will you now point me to a passage that says Agni gets angry from time to time, and shoots weapons at non-believers? We can find explanations the way children (and many adults) find shapes in the clouds – in anything. People read tea leaves and read tarot cards, they find patterns in a jungle and the way flowers bloom. This is the nature of us and the world, and our understanding of it can be subjective and personal, or be all inclusive and logic based. The same logic that displays the dots just the right way on your screen so that my words are intelligible to you, and not the belief and hope that allows you to read so much more into what could just be a very simplistic statement.
I don't really understand how these points you made are connected to context I'm talking of or perhaps you are again ignoring too much?
The scientists still do not know when Veda originate and FYI they clearly talk of earth's revolution, roundedness etc. You clearly ignored my question - Did the Indians also thought that the earth was round? Here Indians (the students of consciousness studies) refer to the people of the time and before, when "flat earth theory" was coined.
Clearly, this understanding of yours is again based on you abrahamic conditioning and limited perspective of modern science, where you are treating the the different levels of consciousness in isolation to each other, where the tide called Raaabo with the sense of "I" is perceiving itself and all the other tides from the metaphorical infinite ocean as separate from each other.
I was offering explanations to the quotes you put up, that maybe, just maybe, there are explanations for what was said, if you go into the context of what was life like then. It’s easy to take today’s knowledge, and find similarities in the past sayings of people long gone. Like I said, Google a little and you will find even the Bible and Quran being quoted to explain modern science’s findings. Yet we are always selective. Our own religion’s followings always follow science’s findings and everyone else’s just do not. It’s too convenient.
The vedas may have been written by the scientific and religious minds of that time, but the fact that they talk of a round earth in no way is proof of their righteousness of all aspects of life and every quote. Just because I said some day we will probably meet aliens, if we do, does that make every statement I ever made before it and after also fool proof?
As for that last sentence, sometimes I wonder if the people who talk like this even realise what they themselves are saying. I will assume you do, however, there is no tide called Raaabo or a tide called “I” that flow, there is just me and my logical way of thinking, the conclusions I draw, much like your thought process. You are not a tide, and your thoughts are very similar to many others, just as mine are, there is nothing special or unique about most of these thoughts, and there is certainly no infinite ocean.
As for Abrahamic conditioning, I belonged to family of forward thinking teachers who never forced me to go to church and even encouraged me to go to a mosque and temple and learn whatever I wanted to. Of course I went to church most often because a lot of my friends were there and especially a lot of the cute looking girls I was interested in. This never stopped me from listening to every word that was said and even questioning the people who spoke them. I was branded a trouble maker at quite a young age, and to be honest I kind of enjoyed the attention, as it’s human to do so. I have also grown up and read a lot based on interest, and formulated my own opinions. I try as much not to just drown people with links, because I believe if I cannot explain it myself, I would rather lose an argument, rather than cite what someone else said. Abrahamic conditioning is the least accurate description I have ever heard of myself, and those who know me in person will vouch for that.
The only flaw in your argument is that you made the science of the consistent ( where sifferent sages of 108 Upanishads, contributing to Veda, Tantras, Zend Avesta, Greek Literature arrived at the same conclusion ) compared to a case of probability "a broken clock is right twice a day". There is a difference between modern science and the science of the consciousness. Former works on the lowest level of consciousness and hence a "subset" of the latter, perhaps a subset of "Vaiseshika classification", but the latter works on the higher levels of consciousness aimed to achieve the highest. The former changes its theories based on a limited set of analysis, where the believers of science, those attached to it unable to understand it in detail change their tone as research changes with time. Hence the proverb - Dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka na ghaat ka (Its a proverb, not an abuse FYI). The Latter remains static, fixed, where sages can arrived at the same truth through different approaches as they like depending upon their outlook, creativity and experience and hence at a higher level of awareness can comprehend the reality/happenings and have a "direct access to knowledge". Yes, this understanding of "direct access to knowledge" is something alien to "modern science" before you jump to conclusions that everything is compared to "modern science" (like your dark energy comment). Hence different shruties though arriving at the same conclusions and affirmations, have different styles of writing!
First up, my Hindi is pretty decent, so I understand simple dhobi ka kutta kind of sayings, to save you time in the future. Sanskrit, I’m terrible at, so those please dumb down as much as possible.
That’s easy to do, by the way. Say the same things in multiple ways. Both you and I are doing it all through this conversation and I certainly think neither of us is qualified to be followed as great minds of our time. I would have liked it even more if there were differences in the findings, much like the way modern science keeps contradicting itself with new and improved data. However, I think it’s also possible that given a popular belief, if one wanted to be known and famous, one would try and use a different method to arrive at the same conclusion, a new way of thinking perhaps. This is also a lot easier to do in the abstract, as the details do not need to be worked out. If you have a goal, there will always be 100 paths to reach it, some will be the most efficient, some the most scenic, some tough and daunting and even more of them just different, but not by much. When the end result is known, this is easy. Like telling a good chemistry student to make a particular compound using “any chemicals”. He /she could probably find 20 different ways of making exactly what you want. Exploration by documenting every step and questioning every theory or leap of faith, and then proving mathematically what you are doing is verifiable to others, that’s science.
Religions tried to formulate theories for everything using higher powers, and then kept losing interest in the details when they were either accepted or rejected by the real sciences. What’s proven is not fantastic or magical. Religion needs mystery. The only frontier left is in the abstract, even though not even close to 10 per cent of the physical aspect of our world is “proven”, people are already losing interest in it. If science can explain something magical like the northern lights, then everything will be explained eventually. If it can measure Jupiter’s density and tell you that it would float if inserted into a gigantic sea… what’s left to explain.
It’s this lack of wonder that drives people into the abstract, because the sense of understanding what “most” can’t is the draw here. It feels intellectual and superior in some way, and thus the insistence on terms such as “higher” to explain it, and also the use of emotional words such as “essence”. This is a doctrine that is followed by religions and seers of all sorts, because it seems to be more authoritative when larger words are used. Compare this to science, which comes up with a lot of weird words, but takes the time to explain why. Not only do they tell you why they did something, they tell you how, and help you understand the whole process so you can replicate it. Where’s the dummy’s guide to meditation? Where’s the list of 10 experiences that all people who meditate have in common, even if they have a million different ones? Where’s all the simple rational explanations for what is this higher plane of existence, and the proof of its existence? Why is it that drug addicts report the same feelings as people who seek a higher consciousness? These are the questions I ask myself, and the reasons for my scepticism, and need for more proof and clarity before I can take the step to believing even part of it.
"The Mysterious" dark energy used to explain the "faster expanding universe" which was earlier "supposed" to slow down under the effect of its own gravity? I didn't think that words like "mysterious" are apt to explain a phenomena which contradicts the earlier "supposed" theory. I won't really relate it to Vedas but again an example of a wild goose chase by the modern scientists just like as in the case of Higs-Boson which has so many fundamentals incorrect and already refuted by many other scientists.
But anyways, do you know what all has been taken from Shruties (Veda, Upanishads, Gita etc) by the "modern science"? I guess you are trying to make it a debate of Veda Vs Modern science, which is surely not my intention but would love to debate!
As I said before, if you don’t fail, you’re not experimenting or learning. Finding the clues to the right answer is usually more about eliminating the possibilities and increasing the probability. As for CERN, it is happy to fail, because even failure is a learning. Science is not ego based on the need to be right, it is knowledge based and accepts failure and doubt with open arms and learns from it. Something no religion has ever done. Thus although science has a set of followers, it certainly isn’t a religion.
You have got it all upside down. It is not because of Veda that a person may become knowledgeable, creative or wise! Veda is just a tool a guidance for those who seek genuinely and hence can utilize it, just like in the company of wise, even a foolish can change and improve! Moreover, it is a foundation for the lower sciences and hence a testimonial of the world's famous scientists from Heisenberg, Tesla, Einstein, Capra etc who were influenced and motivated by it.
Better is one's own law of works, swadharma, though in itself faulty than an alien law well wrought out; death in one's own law of being is better, perilous is it to follow an alien law ( BG 3.35)
This Self is not won by exegesis, nor by brain-power, nor by much learning of Scripture. Only by him whom It chooses can It be won; to him this Self unveils its own body. (manduka Upanishad 3.2.3, Page 145)
When thy intelligence shall cross beyond the whirl of delusion, then shalt thou become indifferent to Scripture heard or that which thou hast yet to hear. When thy intelligence which is bewildered by the Sruti, shall stand unmoving and stable in Samadhi, then shalt thou attain to Yoga. (BG 2.52-53)
No you’ve got me upside down. I never said the vedas were right or wrong. I have never read them enough to know that. I specifically said they were irrelevant.
There’s a reason I said that. To start with, they require faith in “powers” that most people associate with gods. No matter how much people try and explain it all away as to what Brahma really means (which no one can be sure of anyway, since all the people who wrote it are dead, and there was no neat little stack of proofs or documentation or footnotes as is left in real science), to the world it is still faith-based idealogy.
Veda exist only because of science of consciousness and not vice versa, which in turn enables a foundation for lower material sciences. This science is embedded in everyone's heart or higher consciousness, the treasure hidden due to the play and conditioning and non-control at the lower levels of consciousness. Do you really think that the knowledge of whole world, number of species, the infinite play of shakti and her dynamism etc can be recorded in 4 books? It is a flow (Ganga) which automatically passes when one reaches the highest stages of meditation or consciousness (Shiva) and hence he becomes a hearer of the heard (shruti), transcending beyond time and space. Hence, it is said that only Shiva is powerful enough to accomodate the flow of Ganga to let it flow in a way which would not destroy but rejuvenate the earth (where man is freed from the essence of karta/doer or karma/actions). Yes, high level of intuition is a siddhi achieved at such a stage which enables a person to have access to direct knowledge. Just like you cannot lift a 100 kg on chest at first visit to gym, similarly a man cannot achieve this science by default. If you lift heavy weight by jerks, it can destroy you. Similarly, many people are indeed intuitive where their mind is not strongly developed to accomodate that intuition and often gets distorted by chaos of the conditioned and uncontrolled mind and hence attachment to such intuition can make them look like mad! Thus Veda is indeed written by humans but not a human level rather at a non-human or super-human level of awareness. This nullifies the lowly argument whether it is written by human or a "God". Therefore, it is not necessary for one to know sanskrit or Veda. The path of karma-Yoga (perfection in actions), bhakti-yog (perfection in devotion and surrender of ego) and gyaan-yog (perfection of knowledge) seem different but lead to the same destiny!
Words are themselves a limitation and so is the mind. But, IMO, Sanskrit is the perfect language which can incorporate this science in closest way as possible.
Here is the text of Zend Avesta => PersianDNA™* [KHORDEH AVESTA] Niyayesh: Atash (Litany to Fire)
Hymns to Agni which draws close parallels to that in Veda. If you have even a little bit knowledge of sanskrit, you'd find same sanskrit words in the Avestan language as well where putra is modified to puthra, pancha (five) is used as it is, mitra -> mithra and words from sanskrit grammar. The only difference remains that deva and asura have been reversed here.
The above science is not registered or approved by "modern material science", obviously how can that which resides in time and space know that which is beyond time and space?
This is perhaps like the chicken and egg scenario. Does the theory of a higher consciousness exist because of the vedas, or do they exist because a higher consciousness does. In your case I would say it is certainly the idea of a higher consciousness that exists because of the vedas. You may have thought one way and then been inducted into this belief by someone at some point in time and your reading of the vedas has made you believe in this. How do we know what was the case when they were written?
As for need to not know Sanskrit or the vedas, that’s exactly my point. It’s irrelevant because of the fact that people today know and understand much more now, There is a thirst for knowledge in humans, and we now have more knowledge than any human can every incorporate in a lifetime. No one needs the vedas to think, and no one needs them to realise that doing good is good, for example. The average educated mind is open to knowledge, but needs proof, and thus knowledge that requires jumps of faith do not fit. Just as there’s nothing wrong with someone being a day dreamer and contemplating the “meaning of life”, there’s nothing wrong with being an observational and proof based society using modern science to understand the world around us. It’s perfectly ok to read them and make observations, but not ok to claim that it is the only path to enlightenment.
Modern science in fact is fascinated by the human brain, it’s why everything around us exists. Psychology is the study of the functioning, and we even have brain surgery. There are enough and more research projects dedicated to trying to understand the brain and what makes us tick and think. There is no aspect of the world around us or us ourselves that is being ignored, and even the abstract, out of body experiences, and such are being looked at and logical answers sought. The difference is that the findings are documented, published, and make no major assumptions based on religious bias. A Muslim-born scientist won’t try and draw parallels to the Quran, neither will a Christian or Hindu scientist do that. With modern science, religions are left at home, and purely fact and findings are the basis of conclusions. And every conclusion is challengeable and verifiable as well.
This is so much better for society as a whole, because it unites rather than divides, unlike popular religions. It’s evolution to become more civilised and less divisive, and it’s exactly what’s happening. Whether anyone loves it or hates it, it will happen eventually, because it’s the only way for humanity to survive and evolve. There is no choice in the matter, and thus again, my comment about relevance.
You got my logic all wrong. What would you call the shape of the Sun during solarwinds, Sunpots etc? Even a spheroid has a shape, but something which changes its shape all time due to increasing and decreasing flames cannot be said to have a "definite shape". How can that which is ever changing, according to the lower consciousness of sense, be called as having a definite shape?
Again, I'm talking about dynamism for nothing in the material world is "static".
Again you did not read my post properly. Tell me if the Marijuana smokers, drug addicts can control their mind or body under its effect? Do you really think Marijuana, smoking, drug-addiction "increases" life? The very concept of higher consciousness is based on detachment whereas the drug addiction is based on attachment to the sense-object! Moreover, a yogi who shows attachment to material pleasures like "Marijuana,smoking, drugs etc" is not really a Yogi in its basic definition. So I can only request you to not be fooled by the names/tags or what a person calls himself. Transcend to the essence, is the only thing I can request you.
By that logic the earth has no shape because the tides move across its surface, or when a volcano erupts. The sun is a spheroid, and a solar flare is merely some of its mass and energy being ejected. It’s like saying someone is not a vegetarian because they have incisors, from a time when their ancestors ate meat. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it’s probably a duck. Every human is not human by your logic, and nothing binds us together because if we focus only on flaws or differences, then there is no humanity and no race, and no relation to one another. We’d have 7 billion different human species living here.
If you fill a bucket, and remove 1 drop with an eye dropper, does it stop being “a bucket of water”? Is it a bucket of water minus one drop? Of course you can argue for or against this point depending on how anal you want to be – and modern scientists would probably support the more exact 7.99999999999872568765574568765 litres theory (one drop less), but it’s pointless unless you’re trying to explain something related. For all purposes, the sun is a spheroid and is that way because of its gravity pulling all of the plasma into that shape. Does saying it’s a spheroid automatically rule out solar flares and boiling plasma on its surface? Of course not.
Based on my experiences, yes, marijuana smokers can control their body better sometimes than sober people. Marijuana also gives increased focus. I know guitarists who focus so well that they can play complicated pieces only when high, or certainly make less mistakes when high. It makes their fingers flow smoother, reduces cramps and basically takes away other distractions.
Detachment is also subjective. Detachment from what? If it’s detachment from the outside world, sure, drugs do that as well as meditation. In fact, a drunkard is even detached from himself and his own senses. Many believe a drunkard is the only completely truthful person of all, because all his senses are dulled. There’s no more filter, and thus people also believe that a person’s true nature comes out when they’re drunk. I know of women who have encouraged their boyfriend to get totally drunk, to see what his character is before marrying him, because if he’s a nice guy when he’s drunk, then he will be the same or better when sober.
As for prolonging life, of course it doesn’t, but then some say overthinking things can do the same and give you an aneurism. No proof of this of course, but I merely mentioned it because so many people use drugs to get to the state you speak of, and my logical way of looking at it is if it’s artificially reproducible, then it can be studied, and also explained.
A person who seeks interest in technology will indeed gain knowledge of it and what is available in terms of technology. It is as simple as that! You don't have to "believe" (like you assume) in the science of consciousness here. It is inherent to you! Similarly, one who seeks the highest does not need to read Veda, but simply genuinely seek it and the path shall reveal itself in time!
Either you can tune guitar in different ways and fail just to find the 1000th time about the best tuning or instead have a prior guidance about it. Either you can have a permutation and combination of different frets to fail and find the 1000th time about the correct chords or instead a have prior guidance about it. Similarly either you can seek and fail 1000 times to find the perfect procedure or have a prior guidance about it. So yes, your own inner consciousness can reveal different paths and optimize after sometime, or you can have a guidance from RigVeda, Upanishads, Gita and Tantras.
It seems you still did not read the "The Colloquy of Indra and Agastya" from "Secret of Veda by Aurobindo" (Refer page 265) that I requested you to read. I request you again to read it => *www.sriaurobindoashram.org/ashram/sriauro/downloadpdf.php?id=30
Agreed totally. If someone is looking for that experience, I am sure the vedas will give it to him / her. I have no problem with the vedas as I have said before. I believe history should be kept alive, because you never know when it will inspire something. I don’t think it’s for the masses, and thus do not think it’s relevant because of the language barrier and the leaps of faith required. However I don’t agree with it being something exclusive. I think most of it can be theorised and come up with by a good thinking mind or a group of thinkers all on their own, without all of the religious connotations, and thus encourage more people from other faiths to think the same way. I also prefer to see proof before allowing myself to call something a “science”. I have no problems with beliefs, because I think everything is very belief based, including advanced modern science. First a theory comes and then it is proven or disproven. I see a quote you put out and look at it as a theory, and like any good science-minded person, I look at all the ways to disprove it, and if I cannot find any, then I will look for ways to prove it.
Read the above quote again!
If you still think that the science of consciousness, the essence of the Indian teaching, the shruties is a belief system or has anything to do with supersition etc, then I guess you have reduced all the stars of the modern science to theism.
But like I always requested, I would like you to move beyond from "who said what" and understand the shruties, not just read them, from your primary frameworks, with detachment after emptying yourself of all that of what you call as knowledge, only and only if you have a genuine interest in seeking the higher!
Anyways, much of your understanding is based on how you have seen the society in action, how those tagged as "Hindus" behave, analysis and statements from those who call themselves as 'Sadhus' (and still who use drugs) and so the drug-addicts and what the "modern science" has to tell you. I still don't see any iota of understanding so far in your posts about the basics of consciousness and how the science works for true science does not work on using terms like "mysterious" to explain a phenomena that contradicts the earlier "assumption" on which a theory was based (refer dark energy)! Moreover bringing a debunked theory like Evolution as a source of argument is not really wise. I've told this before also and repeating again, we can't really move forward in this discussion if you don't develop the understanding of the basics of consciousness studies. If the shruties seem archaic to you, or its style incompatible with your "modern conditioning", then you can study the Ken wilber's "levels of consciousness" which is based on Aurobindo's explanation which is further based on Vedic teaching. Moreover, it seems to me that you are using and implementing the "modern frameworks" as a standard to view the science of consciousness. Trust me, until and unless you detach and empty your mind of what you know or decondition from modern "assumptions and conclusions" which revolve around material existence, you will never be able to understand the science of consciousness.
Anyways, Like I asked, can you prove that you exist? You can use the modern science as much as possible!
First of all evolution theory is not debunked, it’s merely the timelines that are being relooked at and questioned. The very Ecoli study you pointed to proved that bacteria evolved to changes in circumstances and morphed. That proves evolution, even if it questions timelines. As for anti-evolutionists, it’s not surprising to see that most of them are vedic followers, or members of religion.
The most commonly asked question is where are the “half-evolved” species.
Well, as much as I hate posting links:
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
There they are.
Still don’t see how evolution is debunked. Just because a scientific theory undergoes corrections and changes doesn’t debunk it, it’s still a theory, and the closest one we’ve got to what matches all the evidence. Unless you want to say some God came down from heaven and turned all the dinosaurs into men and gave a few of them a million pages of words to remember. That I cannot prove, but hey, even that is a possibility with miniscule probability, and science will investigate it if even the slightest shred of evidence is found to support that theory.
As for consciousness, this goes back to basic learning and understanding of intelligence. Curiosity is the hallmark of all living things, and predators such as the angler fish prey on exactly that. Even fish get curious, so it stands to reason the higher up the intelligence chain you go the more curious animals get. It culminates with us, and since we’re not created equal, some of us are more curious than others. If you look at scientific development, it’s very animal like. Just as a lion will be alert when hunting and playful after a full stomach, mankind has progressed in technology when faced with death or contentment. Every war has brought out new technologies and advancements in science as well, and every lull in between has brought out more artistic views. It’s not hard to see how the most warring of nations lead the technology world, and how at the same time the first world countries lead the breakthroughs in science. When life is good, funding for less important research is also given, and when war time approaches, anything to give you an edge over the opponent is funded.
Individual men are the same. When faced with a crunch and uncertainty, they will line up to acquire skills as we do in school, college, with friends. Anything to help us get ahead of the pack. However, when content with life, we start doodling with the abstract. Take up music, try painting, etc. All of this is an expansion of our understanding of ourselves. The delving into ones consciousness is also similar. It’s a luxury not everyone has the time for, but which some find very relaxing and enjoyable. It also gives one the air of superiority to have such “high level” thoughts. It’s nothing more than human nature to want to fit in, and yet to also be an individual. We don’t want to be ostracised, but at the same time we don’t want to be ignored.
The mind is the new frontier, and many of us sit around thinking – of ways to get rich, of ways to impress chicks, of ways to impress bosses, etc. It’s mostly external, and is nothing more than a caveman flexing his muscles and showing off the mammoth he killed alone. It surely would have gotten him suitors, and felt good to be noticed. Even in the animal kingdom, suitors must distinguish themselves in some way. It’s no surprise that most of these kinds of discussions happen between men (not that women aren’t capable, they know better than to waste their time on something pointless). This is the simple reason why the quest for higher consciousness began and continues. It’s nothing more than measuring brains instead of other anatomy. Plus it also makes one feel special and feel like they are closer to god (if they’re believers). Consciousness studies are for what aim? To understand the psyche of humanity? That’s psychology and psychiatry. But who wants to be a shrink? Thus the consciousness studies must be something different. They must be something to do with understanding the universe. No wait, that’s just regular science. What about something all encompassing that explains everything and yet nothing at all because it deals totally in the abstract? Hmm.
A human brain that ponders over the vedas is also capable of being a scientist. The same brain could also bring thoughts like Gandhi, or belong to Hitler. Consciousness is nothing but a collection of experiences that cause you to think in a certain way, and had you been born a Muslim, you would never be sitting here debating the vedas, but the Quran perhaps. The same applies if you were born in Greece, or Italy, or even in a tribal village of Andaman. We are nothing but the product of our experiences, with a few chemicals and brain patterns in common and a lot of differences as well. A higher level of consciousness as you put it is only achieved when exposing one’s self to more knowledge than would be available to you or given to you as per your life. What effects those have on every individual are unique. And learning never stops, to think one has attained a higher consciousness so that knowledge just flows into a brain is again arrogance, and detrimental to learning.
As for proving that I exist, every reply to my posts that you have given prove that I indeed exist and have a thinking mind.
1st quote -> Irrelevant where conclusion, analysis is done on a science which is totally alien to the quote owner in the context and further apples have been used to compare to oranges i.e different framework used as a standard which doesn't match!
2nd quote -> Knowledge of the language is equally essential instead of generalizing which is done here. The only problem with sanskrit translations to English is finding the right words which can retain the original meaning in its completeness, as most Sanskrit words are an experience in themselves like Bhrama, deva, mahakaal, dharma etc which when translated to a language like English strips it of its underlying experience and hence the disconnect with the broader frameworks that Sanskrit presents! Here bhrama has been reduced to a level of Abrahamic God, further seen as isolated without knowing what the word itself means and further based on underlying ignorance of science of consciousness.
I am surprised that the vedas themselves don’t have that first quote in some form.
Is this translation not right?
“O Indra, destroy all those lustful people behaving like birds.... angry ones; behaving like wolves.... greedy ones; behaving like vultures.... enticed ones; behaving like owls..... arrogant ones; behaving like eagles… and the jealous ones behaving like dogs.”
- The Atharva Veda
Now I could go into how the owls are supposed to be the wise creatures of the woods, and calling them arrogant takes a pot shot at the very teachers who refuse to learn themselves, and then also go on and on with thousands of more examples, and throw in quotes from all religious books, a few modern quotes, and cite examples of how this also applies to the universe and how the owl is Laxmi’s vahana, and thus how the pseudo-wise are the ones who get rich, etc., but isn’t it easier to say “Arrogance leads to the end of learning”? I believe in simplicity. And the reason I say that translators (and I don’t mean between languages, I mean understanding something ancient, and applying your own current day logic to get the answers you want) see the meaning that suits them is because of life experience.
The difference with which I conduct my life is to question everything, and not just for the sake of questioning, but also offering answers if possible. And answers are usually a lot simpler than most people think. While we like to believe in the complexity of humans, it’s always the simpler more base answer that’s the correct one.
This is why when I hear pseudo-intellectual talk I like to butt in with my ignorant simplistic comments. I like throwing the simpler ideas in people’s faces. I like using fact, but I prefer to use logic more than facts. When people quote ancient texts to me, I prefer to not go the pseudo-intellectual way and imagine all of the answers of the universe in a line that’s coated with generous helpings of religious beliefs and says something as simple as “Be good to your fellow humans”, or “learning is good for you”. Of course I also have the mental capacity to go into grand theories of the magnificence of the human mind, and talk about galaxies and any idiot today can Google and include half-baked theories of someone else as their own in an argument, and try and answer all the questions of the universe, but I choose not to, and instead apply my own logic (as flawed as it may be at times) and present my view.
That’s just to give you and insight into why I reply like I do.
I also do not discount the reasons that have led to my apparent dislike for religion and all blind-faith-based followings. It’s not from following an “Abrahamic” religion as I explained earlier, I never followed any to begin with.
I grew up in Delhi and was a witness to the riots there, I saw the bomb blasts in Mumbai. I have had discussions with many religious people and always been dissatisfied. When simple logical questions bring about anger from others, you know there’s something wrong with the “facts” being stated. I have also spoken to enough pseudo-intellectuals, who try and hold their exotically gained knowledge over you like an engineer would an IIT degree in India. However, ask them questions, and you always get vague answers. Ask for specifics and proof, and you’re told that the problem lies in your own understanding or lack of “culture” or “knowledge”. This drove me towards not being a pseudo-intellectual trying to hang “culture” over another’s head like an IIT degree. I’d rather be the simple fool that asks the questions of logic, because the world understands logic, and it’s the only global language. If a = b and b = c, then a = c.
At worst a science teacher would call you ignorant and proceed to try and enlighten you (as you tried mediator, but failed because either I’m just too ignorant, or you cannot find enough logical and factual basis to convince my lower consciousness). Still, my suggestion to anyone reading this would be to apply your logic, ask a question, and not worry about being made to look like a fool. Better a fool than a blind believer. And this applies to science as well, not just religions.
As all canteens will do that 
..
. 
