The Secret of the Vedas

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I did not click on all your links. Sorry, its Christmas morning. I have visions of suger plums dancing in my head.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Merry Christmas, and happy holidays to everyone. And wishing for maybe someday, somehow...Peace on Earth and Good Will toward men.

Edited December 25, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I did not click on all your links. Sorry, its Christmas morning. I have visions of suger plums dancing in my head.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Merry Christmas, and happy holidays to everyone. And wishing for maybe someday, somehow...Peace on Earth and Good Will toward men.

 

As an atheist I always found religious holidays, visiting temples, mosques and churches, giving thanksgiving etc quite ridiculous and I still find it ridiculous now because such behaviours can be easily explained through evolutionary psychology.

 

The things which defy common sense and evolutionary mechanisms are this.

 

Sufism

 

Below are some quotes from Rumi or Jelaluddin Balkhi (1207 – 1273) taken from the book “Rumi: Selected Poems”; Penguin; trans Coleman Banks, 1995.

 

“It's the man who was looking for treasure... He wants me to finish his story...

Don't think of him as a seeker, though. Whatever he's looking for, he is that himself. How can a lover be anything but the beloved?

Every second he's bowing into a mirror. If he could see for just a second one molecule of what's there without fantasizing about it, he'd explode.

His imagination and he himself, would vanish, with all his knowledge, obliterated into a new birth, a perfectly clear view, a voice that says, I am God.

That same voice told the angels to bow to Adam, because they were identical with Adam.

It's the voice that first said, There is no reality but God. There is only God.”

(from the poem In Between Stories)

 

Judaism

 

http://www.learnkabbalah.com/the_meaning_of_god/

 

"An impoverished person thinks that God is an old man with white hair, sitting on a wondrous throne of fire that glitters with countless sparks, as the Bible states: “The Ancient-of-Days sits, the hair on his head like clean fleece, his throne–flames of fire.” Imagining this and similar fantasies, the fool corporealizes God. He falls into one of the traps that destroy faith. His awe of God is limited by his imagination.

 

But if you are enlightened, you know God’s oneness; you know that the divine is devoid of bodily categories — these can never be applied to God. Then you wonder, astonished: Who am I? I am a mustard seed in the middle of the sphere of the moon, which itself is a mustard seed within the next sphere. So it is with that sphere and all it contains in relation to the next sphere. So it is with all the spheres — one inside the other — and all of them are a mustard seed within the further expanses. And all of these are a mustard seed within further expanses.

 

Your awe is invigorated, the love in your soul expands."

 

"The essence of divinity is found in every single thing — nothing but it exists.... Do not attribute duality to God. Let God be solely God. If you suppose that Ein Sof emanates until a certain point, and that from that point on is outside of it, you have dualized. God forbid! Realize, rather, that Ein Sof exists in each existent. Do not say, “This is a stone and not God.” God forbid! Rather, all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity."

 

- Rabbi Moshe Cordovero

 

God is that which Is — YHVH, one of the main Hebrew terms for this Reality, might even be translated “Is.” God is not an old man;God is What Is. The Infinite is everything. It is the only thing.

 

“God” is an imprecise name for the only thing in the universe that actually exists.

 

 

Christianity

 

"Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15).

 

"People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

 

Buddhism

 

Padmasambhava said:

 

My father is the intrinsic awareness, Samantabhadra (Sanskrit; Tib. ཀུན་ཏུ་བཟང་པོ). My mother is the ultimate sphere of reality, Samantabhadri (Sanskrit; Tib. ཀུན་ཏུ་བཟང་མོ). I belong to the caste of non-duality of the sphere of awareness. My name is the Glorious Lotus-Born. I am from the unborn sphere of all phenomena. I act in the way of the Buddhas of the three times.

 

Hinduism

 

 

Shankara, the eight-century Indian saint, whose insights revitalized Hindu teachings, said of his own enlightenment:

 

"I am Brahman… I dwell within all beings as the soul, the pure consciousness, the ground of all phenomena... In the days of my ignorance, I used to think of these as being separate from myself. Now I know that I am All."

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Ok, I see your point. There is a consistency and logic between these beliefs, that has to be true, and cannot be denied.

 

But if true, what difference would there be between someone who starts with the notion, or someone that learns about the notion from others, or somebody that figures it out?

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Ok, I see your point. There is a consistency and logic between these beliefs, that has to be true, and cannot be denied.

 

But if true, what difference would there be between someone who starts with the notion, or someone that learns about the notion from others, or somebody that figures it out?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Well I'm sure the Sufis, the Rabbis, the Buddhists and others would have their own practical methodologies, I don't like proselytizing people and of course one would have been brought up with one genuine religion or the other so rather than putting those books of oral traditions into a trash can if one reads them and gain insights into how these traditions viewed their world and what accurate methodologies they had discovered to consistently access the noumenon and if we do trial and error and it shows some positive results or even a new understanding of nature and if such results are repeatable then we have a new science here no matter how weird or strange it might get. Isn't the goal of science has always been to understand how nature works?

 

If you still remember for example the technique of Samyama, a way to disentangle your metaphysical sense organs from the metaphysical mind so that one can know what happened where, why and how and see the past, present and the future. This isn't magic, they have their own theoretical model of the mind and their own practical methodologies, how many people have researched it, learnt it, figured it out how to do it? Has the knowledge been lost? I don't have answers to that because I don't have the statistics with me. An another example is Mithras Liturgy which is found in the Greek Papyri where a practical methodology is described by an Egyptian religious scholar of late antiquity to make an ascent to heaven, your physical body doesn't ascends literally but only the perception of it changes, again we don't know how much we understand those methodologies and how it was carried out and these are the reasons why I think the conclusion should have been more open, I single handedly cannot explore such a huge field, its a huge task.

 

 

MYSTICISM is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is mysticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial—at once full of hope and full of fear—of the vastitude of human ignorance. A kernel of truth lurks at the heart of religion, because spiritual experience, ethical behavior, and strong communities are essential for human happiness. And yet our religious traditions are intellectually defunct and politically ruinous. While spiritual experience is clearly a natural propensity of the human mind, we need not believe anything on insufficient evidence to actualize it. Clearly, it must be possible to bring reason, spirituality, and ethics together in our thinking about the world. This would be the beginning of a rational approach to our deepest personal concerns. It would also be the end of faith.

 

- Sam Harris, End of Faith

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung#Spirituality

 

Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. Our main task, he believed, is to discover and fulfill our deep innate potential. Based on his study of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Gnosticism, Taoism, and other traditions, Jung believed that this journey of transformation, which he called individuation, is at the mystical heart of all religions. It is a journey to meet the self and at the same time to meet the Divine. Unlike Sigmund Freud, Jung thought spiritual experience was essential to our well-being.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Well this is all fine and good, but I am somewhat of a pragmatist. That is, in the process of individualization, the self is very important. No, more than that, it is crucial.

 

Why would you figure you should lose this thing inorder to find it, when you already have it?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 26, 2012 by tar

[tar]

Separate thought: The thread title speaks of a "secret".

 

Tie that back in: If the process of individualization is required for single people, would it not necessarily be required again for couples, and then again for groups, tribes, and nations?

 

The implications of this question would be at least twofold. First, a religion, or societal group, in forming its personal identity, might envision a "greater good" or god that it associates itself with. It might develop a concept of its relationship with the greater universe, that it holds, that other couples, groups, tribes and nations, do not hold. They might develop "secrets". Second, if an individual can have a personal relationship with God, then probably a group can have one, as well.

 

This begs many questions as to the validity of any personal god, in comparison with the validity of a collective god, but any answers to the question of "objective" truth that would go for an individual, would probably go for the group, and vice-a-versa.

 

If humanity as a collective, can know the truth, then an individual within that collective, can know the same. But can I suggest it would have to work the other way, as well? Must my promise to God, or "the secret of the Vedas", apply to objective reality? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Quite frankly, I think this consideration would suggest that scientific method, and the study of empirical evidence, that ALL can witness, is the very best way to get to know God better...what ever that may turn out to mean. And this consideration, should as well put focus on the fact, that in the greater scheme of things, we are as limited, and empowered, as individuals as we are in groups. And that groups and individuals could well have the same constraints, and the same potentials.

 

So, Immortal, I would join your plea to "investigate" further the truths of the mystics, but I would keep the investigations grounded in empirical evidence that we can all investigate together, and I would suggest you more or less drop the secret stuff. (Like Jesus holding the Key, or the 31 gods, or special mental gymnastics that one must perform, inorder to witness God). It would appear to me, that the simplist explanation is, that we all already know God, and that is what we are talking about.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 26, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

So, Immortal, I would join your plea to "investigate" further the truths of the mystics, but I would keep the investigations grounded in empirical evidence that we can all investigate together, and I would suggest you more or less drop the secret stuff. (Like Jesus holding the Key, or the 31 gods, or special mental gymnastics that one must perform, inorder to witness God). It would appear to me, that the simplist explanation is, that we all already know God, and that is what we are talking about.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Of course the empirical evidence is always the judge, no one should ever believe in the things which goes in our subjective minds, everything need to be tested, any one who claims to be enlightened or claims he knows the ultimate reality should objectively demonstrate it but to bring that empirical evidence one need to investigate the secret stuff and we cannot drop it from our investigations. The problem here is religion, one will be brought up with the view that only their God is the true god and anyone worshipping other gods and following other religions is a deception by Satan or worshipping other gods is a serious sin or people think its proselytizing. Therefore these reasons might hinder everyone to investigate things equally but none the less it exists in all the major religions of the modern world and if people come out of their fundamentalist mindset and investigate things which exists in their own religion we can objectively figure out the truth of religion.

 

There is secret stuff and I cannot drop it.

 

http://www.shambhala.com/the-guhyagarbha-tantra.html

 

This Secret Essence Tantra is the most advanced and extensively studied tantra within the Nyingma lineage.

 

 

Yes, that's what it says.

 

With the advent of internet outsiders can get a glimpse of what it is and its quite useful for comparative religion but the secret mantras will be kept secret and only be transmitted orally for an initiated few.

 

Illusion Web - Locating the Guhyagarbha Tantra in Buddhist Intellectual history.

http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/collections/journals/jts/pdf/JTS_SL_10.pdf

 

 

Luminous Essence A Guide to the Guhyagarbha Tantra by Jamgön Mipham

http://ebookbrowse.com/gdoc.php?id=346202909&url=2b0b5ab32127d06c788d548a2993364b

 

I cannot drop deities, mantras, jewels of gods, divine light rays because it forms the very soul of the eastern and western esoteric religious view of the world. We all don't know God yet.

 

[tar]

Immortal,

 

Secret societies are not my cup of tea. I do not like the believer/unbeliever nature of the Koran, or the saved/unsaved nature of the New Testament. I am equally repulsed by the secret mantra thing.

 

This is a science forum. Most here are interested in what can be independently reproduced.

If the secret mantras engage some harmonic energy source that connects one to some objectively real being, then it can be reproduced in a properly set up experiment, and we can forward the study.

If not...its a bunch of hooey.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

Secret societies are not my cup of tea. I do not like the believer/unbeliever nature of the Koran, or the saved/unsaved nature of the New Testament. I am equally repulsed by the secret mantra thing.

 

This is a science forum. Most here are interested in what can be independently reproduced.

If the secret mantras engage some harmonic energy source that connects one to some objectively real being, then it can be reproduced in a properly set up experiment, and we can forward the study.

If not...its a bunch of hooey.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Then what is the purpose of a religious sub forum on a science forum when the scientific community is not open to investigate the supernatural, what is its purpose if one doesn't understand religion in its own milieu and understand its principles and methodologies and the way it works. I am a strong advocate of Non-overlapping magisteria its as much wrong to disprove the existence of God using logic and applying scientific methodologies to religion as much it is wrong to interpret and drag religious scriptures so that it fits with what modern science says. Both of these approaches are dead wrong, religion should be understood and tested in its own milieu but majority of them here want to disprove the existence of God using logic and science without having a shred of understanding about the meaning of God and how religion works. That's sounds double standards to me. Many of them even go on to say, this is a science forum and religion will be ridiculed and mocked if one uses just faith to justify his claims but as I have shown science and religion is converging and there are strong compelling scientific reasons to investigate and reassess religion again.

[Moontanman]

 

Then what is the purpose of a religious sub forum on a science forum when the scientific community is not open to investigate the supernatural, what is its purpose if one doesn't understand religion in its own milieu and understand its principles and methodologies and the way it works. I am a strong advocate of Non-overlapping magisteria its as much wrong to disprove the existence of God using logic and applying scientific methodologies to religion as much it is wrong to interpret and drag religious scriptures so that it fits with what modern science says. Both of these approaches are dead wrong, religion should be understood and tested in its own milieu but majority of them here want to disprove the existence of God using logic and science without having a shred of understanding about the meaning of God and how religion works. That's sounds double standards to me. Many of them even go on to say, this is a science forum and religion will be ridiculed and mocked if one uses just faith to justify his claims but as I have shown science and religion is converging and there are strong compelling scientific reasons to investigate and reassess religion again.

 

Immortal you need to read the rules, yes they apply to you and your religion, this is a science forum and as such you need to back up your claims with evidence that can be tested and confirmed scientifically. Yes, even in the religious forum.... I have asked you over and over to show us the scientific evidence you have incessantly claimed you have and so far you have failed to do so. The bold part of your quoted message is not true, you have shown no such thing, that statement is dishonest. I request that you withdraw your assertions if you cannot back them up...

[tar]

Immortal,

 

I am the last to propose that we are not subject to the universe. And I would be the first to propose that we have very meager control over the rest of the universe, and being mortal, have only a very brief time in which to exercise the meager control we have.

 

But in studying it, or attempting to understand it, or associating with it, or attempting to manipulate it, to our will, or to have it do our bidding, its best to stick to the facts.

 

Mystical is a directional word to me, now, after thinking about this stuff alot, and looking for the meaning of things we say and do, and how they "fit" with reality. Mystical directs me to the human mind, the human imagination. It directs me to consideration of supernatural things. Supernatural things are almost by definition of the imaginary type. They are not natural, not of this world. They are exactly "unreal". If your 31 gods exist only in this realm, then they exist only in your imagination. They are not "out" where the rest of us can witness them. They are secret creations of a secret sect of self hypnotised elites.

 

But, as you say, it is worthwhile to study and understand the real things to which the myths and ledgends are referring to. But here, where the study is to be worthwhile, is in neurology, and evolution, and chemistry and physics. In psychology and sociology, and history and indeed in religion and the arts.

 

If some aspect of your beliefs matches a conception a scientist studying quantum physics forms, you are not allowed to suggest that that proves your 31 gods. All it suggests is that scientists are studying the same reality you are and there may be analogs. But these analogs are held in human brains, in human minds, and the "reasons" we hold them are the substantial things to study.

 

It is different in my mind to call the universe God, or call God the universe.

 

Take a specific image you have, of god wearing a certain jewel. Let us assume that the universe exists, and we in it. That the universe/god exists objectively. Our particular take on it is similar to other people's take on it in many ways, so we can assume as well, that there is something about objective reality that can be witnessed by anyone that focuses on it. If person A sees this entity from the left, and person B sees this thing from the right, it is still an objectively real thing that is being seen. If you see a certain god with a certain jewel, but I don't see it at all, then we are talking about a different kind of object. An object that exists in your mind, but not in nature. A rough analog of it, may exist in nature, but if it does, others can see that thing, without having to squint or take a certain drug, or repeat a certain phrase.

 

If god and nature are one in the same, and we are 100% natural, then studying nature would include studying ourselves and all that is to be known can be found out by studying natural, real things.

We need no magic, impossible things to help us in the quest.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited December 28, 2012 by tar

[immortal]

 

Immortal you need to read the rules, yes they apply to you and your religion, this is a science forum and as such you need to back up your claims with evidence that can be tested and confirmed scientifically. Yes, even in the religious forum.... I have asked you over and over to show us the scientific evidence you have incessantly claimed you have and so far you have failed to do so. The bold part of your quoted message is not true, you have shown no such thing, that statement is dishonest. I request that you withdraw your assertions if you cannot back them up...

 

I very well know that I am on a science forum and I will show you how science and religion is converging and since you're not reading the links which I had already given to you I might have to make you read and make everyone understand since some are not willing to click on the links which I had provided before. So Sorry for this long post.

 

 

The Nine Lives of Schrodinger’s Cat On the interpretation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

Zvi Schreiber

http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9501014v5.pdf

 

 

Mind causes collapse

 

Introduction

 

Schrodinger’s equation cannot be accepted on its own because our minds perceive macroscopic objects as always having definite states, not linear superpositions of definite states. It is therefore possible to assume that the unitary mechanics applies to the entire physical universe and that wave function collapse occurs at the last possible moment, in the mind itself. This, of course, assumes a non-physical mind.

 

This interpretation was hinted at by Von Neumann [Neu55, §VI.1] and later advocated in [LB39, §11], [Wig67]. It was at one time known as the standard interpretation.

 

Formulation

 

The idea that consciousness causes the wave function to collapse may be formulated as follows.

 

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.

Of course, the state of particles in a persons brain will be correlated with the state of particles outside the person’s brain so the collapse will have far reaching consequences. For example, assuming that Schrodinger’s cat is not itself conscious, its fate will be

finally decided after Schrodinger first takes a look at it, when the information enters his mind.

 

This interpretation makes a prediction that is, in principle, experimentally testable, namely that some particles in the human brain do not obey Schrodinger’s equation. For example, if a person’s mind measures say the position of a particle in the person’s brain at time t, this will have an effect which may be observed by measuring the momentum of the same particle at times t−ǫ and t+ǫ.

 

Measurement

 

In this interpretation, the only true measurement is the mind measuring the brain.

 

Determinism

 

This interpretation accepts that the universe is inherently non-deterministic.

 

Locality

 

This interpretation accepts that the universe is nonlocal; when the mind measures the brain it causes wave-function collapse which may have consequences far beyond the brain. In the EPR situation, for example, a conscious observation of one particle’s z -component of spin causes the distant particle to obtain a definite z-component of spin.

 

Philosophy

 

This interpretation depends on a particular ontological view of the mind-body question. Many physicists have criticised the interpretation because it does not accord with their own understanding of the mind-body question without in any way making clear that this is the reason.

 

Therefore, in order to put the debate about this interpretation into its correct philosophical context, a brief description of the main philosophical approaches to the mind is required here.

 

Idealism

 

Russell uses the term idealism for “the doctrine that whatever exists, or at any rate whatever can be known to exist, must be in some sense mental.”. It is a monistic theory as it recognises only one type of entity. It may be traced back to the Irish bishop George Berkeley [ber10, Ber13] This belief has been very popular with philosophers over the ages.

 

 

Figure III.3.1: Some philosophies of the mind

 

The main argument against idealism is that elements of the physical world evolve with time in a way which is often predictable and which does not depend on whether or not I am looking at them. Even if this does not prove that these items have an independent existence, it makes it a lot simpler to assume that they do. And there is, after all, no evidence whatsoever that they do not. (One interpretation of quantum mechanics, the many-minds interpretation [Chapter III.6] is arguably idealistic.)

 

Materialism

 

At the other extreme is materialism, another monistic theory, the doctrine that the physical universe is all that exists. It may be traced back to the early Greeks.

 

How does this doctrine explain sensations and emotions? In one version it is believed that these words should be eliminated altogether from the philosopher’s vocabulary, at least for the purpose of describing facts. In the other version, reductionism, sensations and emotions may be explained as complex physical phenomena. That is, the study of the mind can in principle be reduced to the study of chemistry and physics. They may either be explained as nothing more that types of behaviour (behaviourism) or as particular states of neurons in the brain (central-state theory or the identity thesis).

 

Materialism gains credence from recent progress in understanding the brain (eg.[Kon93, LeD94]), work which has not found any need for a mind. Materialism is very much in vogue at the moment following the proclamation by Francis Crick and Chrostof Koch (the former of double-helix fame) in 1990 that the time is ripe for science to tackle consciousness (see [Cri94]). This has helped to inspire “an intellectual stampede” of ‘scientific research’ into consciousness [Hor94].

 

This doctrine, by definition, precludes consciousness from having a privileged role in quantum mechanics.

 

Dualism

 

Mind-body dualism, or psychoneural dualism, is the doctrine that the mind or consciousness exists as an entity separate to the physical universe. In this model, there is an objective physical universe and, in addition, associated with humans and perhaps some other beings is an extra-physical mind which observes (and possibly influences) the universe. This view may be traced back to Plato although it is Rene Descartes [Des42] who gave the best known formulation.

 

Advocates of this view may accept that the behaviour of a fellow human can be understood without assuming that they have an extra-physical mind. But they feel that their own sensations must be extra-physical. After all, one could imagine a human-body obeying the law of physics without having any sensations. The advocate of dualism believes that he or she must comprise more than ordinary matter and, for philosophical or emotional reasons, believes that other humans, and perhaps animals, must be conscious in the same way.

 

Do the body and mind interact? Descartes thought that they do. The mind observes the world but also influences it; for example, one makes a conscious decision to move one’s arm. This is called interactionism.

 

Others have suggested that the decision to move an arm is made by the physical brain and the mind can do nothing but observe. This is epiphenomenology. Still others have suggested that the mind can affect the body but is not affected by it. This is mentalism. Finally, in a view that goes back to Leibniz, it has been suggested that the mind and brain do not interact at all but work in parallel maintaining corresponding states, rather like synchronised clocks. This view is called parallelism or, more fully, psycho-physical parallelism.

 

Neutral monism

 

There is one more form of monism which warrants a mention, neutral monism. In this doctrine there is only one type of entity which is neither purely physical nor purely mental. This doctrine was first proposed by Benedict de Spinoza [spi77] and various other forms have been proposed since.

 

Science and philosophy

 

Scientists may, for the most part, ignore the multitude of theories of the mind. Their job is to model the physical world and they have been able to do so, up to know, without assuming any kind of mind whatsoever. Almost without exception, scientists believe, perhaps implicitly, that their success in modelling the physical world without reference to the mind, vindicates the idea that the physical world exists in its own right. In terms of philosophical models, this means that scientists tend to be materialists or dualists.

 

Many scientists believe that it is possible to model the physical universe completely without reference to the mind, ie. they believe that the mind does not affect the physical world and so reject any form of interactionism or mentalism.

 

In fact, many scientists are materialists, ie. they reject the existence of anything outside the physical universe. (In a cynical assessment of this, Wigner [Wig67] writes “The reason is probably that it as emotional necessity to exalt the problem to which one wants to devote a lifetime.”.)

 

In this context, it is easy to see why the present interpretation, which stipulated a form of interactionism1, is often rejected out of hand.

 

Criticism

 

One important difficulty with this interpretation is that it assumes a very specific model of the mind, a dualistic interactionist model. However, even if this model is accepted, the interpretation is problematic.

 

Firstly, it is often criticised for giving predictions which are not clear-cut in that they depend on which animals are conscious and on the precise nature of the measurements performed by the mind. However, this criticism is unscathing as these open questions could, in principle, be settled by experiment. It is true that even with the arsenal of modern invasive and non-invasive techniques for observing the brain, the above experiments will not be feasible for the foreseeable future. But the interpretation is a good theory in that it has testable consequences and in that it prescribes a scientific programme for filling in the unspecified parameters.

 

A more serious criticism is hinted at by Bohm and Hiley [bH93, §2.4]. They write that “it is difficult to believe that the evolution of the universe before the appearance of human beings depended fundamentally on the human mind”. This criticism can be expanded as follows. Assuming that the only minds belong to humans and to certain animals, the universe in this interpretation would initially undergo no wave function collapse. If that were true, the universe’s wave function would become a linear superposition of many different possibilities and human beings or animals would not come into existence at any well-defined moment. It is therefore difficult to see at what point minds could start to observe the universe.

 

Bohm and Hiley write “Of course one could avoid this difficulty by assuming a universal mind. But if we know little about the human mind, we know a great deal less about a universal mind. Such an assumption replaces one mystery by an even greater one.”. Indeed, if the interpretation were correct and if there were minds observing points outside human and animal brains, we would not know were to start looking for the quantum effects they must be causing!

 

Variations

 

Some have suggested that the mind not only observers the universe causing a random collapse of the wave function but that rather it chooses between different quantum alternatives [Mar67, Mar68,Wal74,WH77, Mar84] This is seen as a way of attributing free will to the mind.

 

In the normal version of the interpretation, it was shown that the effects of the mind could be detected by sensitively analysing the brain. But if the mind can actually choose between alternatives, its effects could be detected outside the body. (Unless the mind is in some way forced to obey Copenhagen statistics in the long run.)

 

For example, if Schrodinger had many cats each sharing a box with a bomb in the normal way then when he observed the cats his brain would be in a linear superposition of seeing them alive and seeing them dead and his mind could choose to make them all alive thereby causing a blatant deviation from the predictions of quantum theory. (There have been claims that the mind can be seen to exert just such an influence on macroscopic objects in the lab [For69]!)

 

Conclusion

 

The interpretation ties down the Copenhagen model by saying that the only true measuring apparatus are non-physical minds. Unlike the previous two interpretations, it is ontological and is not inherently ambiguous. For those who accept the philosophical arguments for dualism and are not scared of a little interactionism, this interpretation seems attractive. Even so, it does not allow sensible discussion of the big-bang and evolution.

 

Scientists must hope for a different interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

Bibliography

 

This idea is advocated by [Neu55] (especially §VI.1), [LB39] (especially §11), [Wig67] and criticised all over the place.

 

An excellent concise overview of the various philosophical approaches to the mind body question may be found in [sha76]. A well known known philosophical discussion of the relevant issues is [Rus12]. A classification of the various views may be found in [bun77].

 

 

Facts established from experiments strongly suggest that there is a non-physical mind and the measurement problem has not been solved for almost over a century and its mainly because science lacks a successful model of the human mind and what surprising is that not even a single reference is made to eastern philosophical notions of the mind in the philosophy section which could have given some amazing new insights to this idea. Unfortunately many academicians in the west don't know about eastern philosophical models of the mind and they are often personally biased against this idea because it doesn't allow an atheistic view of our existence in the cosmos.

This is the kind of double standards that atheistic scientists are showing even though facts established from experiments and nature has shown that their views of the cosmos are wrong. Why should scientists hope for a different interpretation of quantum mechanics? Its simply because if one takes this interpretation very seriously it shatters their cornerstone beliefs and their ego-trip.

Therefore me having investigated both modern science and the eastern philosophy and their science cannot let such bias against a very important idea and force one to abandon this research programme and look for an alternative realistic interpretation so that they can somehow desperately save scientific realism. This is the big mistake which many with in the scientific community are making just because they are too much hooked into their atheistic pre-conceived notions and beliefs and doesn't want to let them go even though there are credible evidence against their beliefs.

So I am basically doing the exact opposite that is to take this research programme and this idea very seriously which has been side lined by atheistic scientists because of their ignorance and their cultural bias.

Yes at the core of this, is my religion, the Tibetan Vajrayana Buddhism, Gnostic Christianity and the Vedic Aryan religion which can be put forward together as a single theory and in the midst of it is Western and Indian psychology and that's what this thread is all about.

Psychologists are working on to test this hypotheses and how it can be incorporated into a scientific method but most of them in the academic community are not seem to be aware of this and as I will show you this is a serious research and the implications of it are earth shattering, I am not here to preach.

http://www.ipi.org.in/second/teaching-ip.php

How to do research in Indian Psychology?

 

There is as yet no simple, comprehensive guideline on how to do research in Indian Psychology. There are, however a number of articles that deal with the basic principles, and that can help to find one's way.

 

This article has been included with only a few minor changes in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson.

 

A slightly revised version of this article has been included in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson.

1. For a clear exposition of how the existing and well-established methods of mainstream psychology can be applied to Indian Psychology one may consult: Sedlmeier, Peter (2007), 'Indian Psychology and the Scientific Method'.
2. For an excellent survey of the methods used in Transpersonal Psychology, one may consult:

   Braud, William (2007), 'Integrating yoga epistemology and ontology into an expanded integral approach to research'.

3. For an introduction to first-person, yoga-based research in Indian psychology, one could have a look at the following three articles:

   - This article looks from an experiential angle at the different types of knowledge that are involved in yoga-based research.

   - A slightly shorter version has been included in Matthijs Cornelissen, Girishwar Mishra and Suneet Varma (eds.) (2011), Foundations of Indian Psychology (Vol. 1), New-Delhi: Pearson.

   This gives the basic argument why rigorous, yoga-based, research of first person experience is necessary to take Psychology further.

   • Cornelissen, R. M. Matthijs (2006), 'What is knowledge? A reflection based on the work of Sri Aurobindo'.
   • Cornelissen, R. M. Matthijs (2007), 'In Defence of Rigorous Subjectivity', in Transpersonal Psychology Review (BPS), Vol. 14 (1), 2007.
   • Cornelissen, R. M . Matthijs (2011), Research about yoga and research in yoga.This article tries to explain how first-person, yoga-based research can be made rigorous and reliable.

Read the article Indian Psychology and the Scientific Method by Peter Sedlmeier, it clearly outlines the hypothesis which need to be tested, the differences between the eastern and the western psychological views and also on the rigorous methodologies to test these hypotheses.

 

Peter Sedlmeier is absolutely right when he makes a contrast of the western and the eastern psychological view.

 

Differential hypothesis between Indian and Western Psychology

 

The most important difference between the Indian and the Western approach seems to be about the existence of pure consciousness as postulated by the former. However, as far as “normal life” is concerned, ancient Indian psychology, especially as expressed in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika have astonishingly parallel views with modern Western psychology (e.g., Raju, 1983; Sharma, 2003). But there are also some striking differences. For instance, in contemporary Western cognitive psychology, the relationship between brain and mind is seldom explicitly spelled out, but if one would press researchers to make a statement, most would probably resort to the view that cognitive processes co-vary with brain processes, and if pressed still harder, some might say that essentially brain processes produce cognitions and emotions (e.g., Damasio, 1999). The Indian view is just the opposite: the brain is used as an instrument by the mind (e.g., Raju, 1983).

 

Does the mind use the brain or is the reverse true? This is a very interesting question, which cannot easily be tested. One might, however, try to find evidence for whether mind exists independently from brain. If the brain is the basis for the mind, there should be no mind if the brain is dead. So a good starting point to examine the hypothesis might be to look for evidence on near-death experiences or on reincarnation (for some attempts do to so see Cook, Greyson & Stevenson, 1998; Stevenson, 1987).

 

Do the senses connect to their “sense-objects”? In Indian psychology, at least in the systems of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, Sāṁkhya, and Mīmāṁsā, it is assumed that the senses go out to their objects and contact them or even “become” the objects (e.g., Raju, 1983). Therefore, sense-organs such as the eye or the nose that do not really touch their objects seem to be not the whole story according to the Indian view. So one might, for instance, hypothesize that even if the visual sense in the Western understanding does not work any longer, the remaining part of the visual sense in the Indian understanding might still be functioning and an (incomplete) perception might be the result. This hypothesis might open up some interesting links to phenomena such as “blindsight” (e.g.,Cowey, 2004).

 

- Peter Sedlemeier, Indian psychology and the scientific method(I couldn't put this in quotes because there seems problem when the editor renders it)

 

Yes, that's the basic point, Indian psychology is just the opposite, the mind is something different than the mind and they recognize a metaphysical mind, an Intellect in the platonic realm, metaphysical sense organs etc.

 

 

As I said, I come from the local and I very well know how people view the cosmos here and this is exactly what Indian psychology is based on and this is what need to be tested. Science and religion is indeed converging and theistic scientists know that very well and the next frontier is to investigate the gods. Scientists with in the scientific community, religious scholars and psychologists are quite aware of this but its ironic that this has not been discussed much in internet forums. This is the correct approach to science and religion, the correct approach to understand eastern and western mysticism. This is as much a genuine research programme as any other, the challenge to atheists is that build as many big particle accelerators as you want, take as many research funding you want but you people cannot escape from the cave especially if the attitude is "why should we consider it just because some guy said do". We have nothing to lose.

[Moontanman]

A mind or an observer is not needed to collapse the wave function, radioactive decay is all that is needed.... your so called scientific proof is biased and based on nothing but subtle apologetics based on cherry picked speculative interpretations not empirical evidence... there are many other schools of thought on this that do not support your god idea in the least...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

 

 

http://io9.com/5528321/how-smart-do-you-need-to-be-to-collapse-a-wave-function

 

 

 

 

You're probably thinking that we don't collapse the wave function at all when we open the box. We're just finding out whether we have to have a cat funeral or not. And you're not the only one. Schrödinger wasn't seriously proposing the cat experiment. It was really his not-so-subtle way of mocking the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum mechanics, the one you normally hear about.

If the Copenhagen interpretation bothers you, there are other options. David Bohm's "Causal Interpretation" is based on the idea that regardless of whether you observe it the electron really does go through one slit or another; the cat is dead or alive, and opening the box just informs you, not the universe. There is no collapse of the wave function; there are just hidden variables that we can't measure.

Another fan favorite is Hugh Everett's "Many Worlds Interpretation." The basic idea is that we live in one universe of (infinitely) many. Every quantum possibility branches off into a new parallel universe. In the double-slit experiment, the electron goes through one slit or another, and the interference comes from the interaction with electrons in other universes. This being io9, I'm pretty sure you're all familiar with the concept.

We can be so cavalier about interpretations because all of them produce identical predictions in our universe. Quantum mechanics has allowed us to built very effective circuitry and the like without ever needing to worry about the philosophical implications. The physicist David Mermin probably summed it up best: "Shut up and calculate."

 

 

[immortal]

A mind or an observer is not needed to collapse the wave function, radioactive decay is all that is needed.... your so called scientific proof is biased and based on nothing but subtle apologetics based on cherry picked speculative interpretations not empirical evidence... there are many other schools of thought on this that do not support your god idea in the least...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

 

 

http://io9.com/5528321/how-smart-do-you-need-to-be-to-collapse-a-wave-function

 

 

All those alternative schools of thought which you had mentioned are lost causes in theoretical physics.

 

Hidden variables programs -

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#I

 

"This subject has been thoroughly worked out and is now understood. A thesis on this topic, even a correct one, will not get you a job."

 

Bohmian mechanics -

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XI

 

This subject was assessed by the NSF of the USA as follows [Cushing, J. T., review of Bohm, D., and Hiley, B., The Undivided Universe, Foundations of Physics, 25, 507, 1995.] "...The causal interpretation [of Bohm] is inconsistent with experiments which test Bell's inequalities. Consequently...funding...a research programme in this area would be unwise".

 

Everett's Many world Interpretation -

http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/lostcauses.html#XII

 

---

 

As it is said by Max Planck, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

 

John Wheeler who was a strong supporter of Everett's many-worlds interpretation has expressed doubts. In response to a questioner at a symposium held in Princeton in 1979 to mark the centenary of Einstein's birth, he expressed his revised views on the many worlds theory as follows:

I confess that I have reluctantly had to give up my support of that point of view in the end --much I have advocated it in the beginning--because I am afraid it carries too great a load of metaphysical baggage.

-Wheeler, J., "Some strangeness in the Proportion", ed, Harry Woolf, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1980, pp.385-6.

It is best to say that the radical implications of quantum mechanics isn't much appreciated by majority of the physicists apart from a few physicists like Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg and Wheeler.

On the Interpretation and Philosophical foundation of Quantum Mechanics, Anton Zeilinger.

http://www.quantum.at/fileadmin/quantum/documents/Interpretation_and_Philosophical_Foundation_of_Quantum_Mechanics.pdf

Abstract

When investigating various interpretations of quantum mechanics one notices that each interpretation contains an element which escapes a complete and full description. This element is always associated with the stochasticity of the individual event in the quantum measurement process. It appears that the implications of this limit to any description of the world has not been sufficiently appreciated with notable exceptions of, for example, Heisenberg, Pauli and Wheeler. If we assume that a deeper foundation of quantum mechanics is possible, the question arises which features such a philosophical foundation might have. It is suggested that the objective randomness of the individual quantum event is a necessity of a description of the world in view of the significant influence the observer in quantum mechanics has. It is also suggested that the austerity of the Copenhagen interpretation should serve as a guiding principle in a search for deeper understanding.

Any attempt at a naive realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics is just a desperate attempt to save a classical picture of the world and a sign of evasion and dodging important questions.

Evelyn Fox-Keller[31] has claimed, as another hint at the lack of such a paradigm, that there exists a cognitive repression of the interpretation problem by the majority of physicists. For that majority the questions concerning the meaning of quantum mechanics are answered once and for all by the Copenhagen interpretation, and all further inquiry is rejected as a sign that the inquirer does not understand the topic. Further questions are called "only philosophical" and thus not befitting a physicist. But if one inquires in depth what the Copenhagen interpretation says one gets a variety of different answers. According to Fox-Keller this, too, is a sign for evasion, whereby what is evaded is the necessity of a new cognitive structure which differs radically from the existing one. Fox Keller calls the old structure classical objectivism. To her, the confusion concerning the interpretation of quantum mechanics exists, thus, in the attempt to retain one or more components of the classical position. While this may be as it is; I suggest that the search for interpretations different from the Copenhagen interpretation very often is motivated by trying to evade its radical consequences, that is, an act of cognitive repression on the part of the proposers.

Bohr knew we need to give special attention on the very act of observation or measurement itself.

N. Bohr: Die Einheit der Wissenschaft. (The Unity of Science.) Lecture held on the occasion of the

200th anniversary of Columbia University.

"Complementarity means in no way an abandonment of our position as detached observers. It should, on the contrary, be seen as a logical expression of our situation concerning objective description in this area of experience. The realization that the interaction between measuring devices and the physical systems forms an integrating part of quantum phenomena, has not only revealed an unexpected limitation of the mechanistic view of nature which attributes well defined properties to the objects themselves, but it has forced us to give special attention to the problem of observation when ordering the experiences."

When Bohm and Hiley raised certain problems with the mind causes collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics they themselves provided a solution to it but they didn't go an and take such a solution seriously because they were not aware of eastern philosophical models of the mind and hence concluded it as a mystery.

"A more serious criticism is hinted at by Bohm and Hiley [bH93, §2.4]. They write that “it is difficult to believe that the evolution of the universe before the appearance of human beings depended fundamentally on the human mind”. This criticism can be expanded as follows. Assuming that the only minds belong to humans and to certain animals, the universe in this interpretation would initially undergo no wave function collapse. If that were true, the universe’s wave function would become a linear superposition of many different possibilities and human beings or animals would not come into existence at any well-defined moment. It is therefore difficult to see at what point minds could start to observe the universe.

Bohm and Hiley write “Of course one could avoid this difficulty by assuming a universal mind. But if we know little about the human mind, we know a great deal less about a universal mind. Such an assumption replaces one mystery by an even greater one.”. Indeed, if the interpretation were correct and if there were minds observing points outside human and animal brains, we would not know were to start looking for the quantum effects they must be causing!"

There is no mystery here our ancients not only knew about the human mind they also knew about the universal mind and it can be empirically tested.

Idealism in Ancient Philosophy

"The oldest reference to Idealism in Hindu texts is in Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda. This sukta espouses panentheism by presenting cosmic being Purusha as both pervading all universe and yet being transcendent to it.Absolute idealism can be seen in Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where things of the objective world like the five elements and the subjective world such as will, hope, memory etc. are seen to be emanations from the Self."

 

All scientific evidence is pointing to the Pleroma of God and that's what scientists need to research rather than throwing these texts into the dustbin.

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

I am the last to propose that we are not subject to the universe. And I would be the first to propose that we have very meager control over the rest of the universe, and being mortal, have only a very brief time in which to exercise the meager control we have.

 

But in studying it, or attempting to understand it, or associating with it, or attempting to manipulate it, to our will, or to have it do our bidding, its best to stick to the facts.

 

Mystical is a directional word to me, now, after thinking about this stuff alot, and looking for the meaning of things we say and do, and how they "fit" with reality. Mystical directs me to the human mind, the human imagination. It directs me to consideration of supernatural things. Supernatural things are almost by definition of the imaginary type. They are not natural, not of this world. They are exactly "unreal". If your 31 gods exist only in this realm, then they exist only in your imagination. They are not "out" where the rest of us can witness them. They are secret creations of a secret sect of self hypnotised elites.

 

But, as you say, it is worthwhile to study and understand the real things to which the myths and ledgends are referring to. But here, where the study is to be worthwhile, is in neurology, and evolution, and chemistry and physics. In psychology and sociology, and history and indeed in religion and the arts.

 

If some aspect of your beliefs matches a conception a scientist studying quantum physics forms, you are not allowed to suggest that that proves your 31 gods. All it suggests is that scientists are studying the same reality you are and there may be analogs. But these analogs are held in human brains, in human minds, and the "reasons" we hold them are the substantial things to study.

 

It is different in my mind to call the universe God, or call God the universe.

 

Take a specific image you have, of god wearing a certain jewel. Let us assume that the universe exists, and we in it. That the universe/god exists objectively. Our particular take on it is similar to other people's take on it in many ways, so we can assume as well, that there is something about objective reality that can be witnessed by anyone that focuses on it. If person A sees this entity from the left, and person B sees this thing from the right, it is still an objectively real thing that is being seen. If you see a certain god with a certain jewel, but I don't see it at all, then we are talking about a different kind of object. An object that exists in your mind, but not in nature. A rough analog of it, may exist in nature, but if it does, others can see that thing, without having to squint or take a certain drug, or repeat a certain phrase.

 

If god and nature are one in the same, and we are 100% natural, then studying nature would include studying ourselves and all that is to be known can be found out by studying natural, real things.

We need no magic, impossible things to help us in the quest.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Yes, people should be taught facts and not fiction, they should be taught the truth and not the lie.

 

"Do not suppose that the resurrection is an illusion. It is not an illusion; rather it is something real. Instead, one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion, rather than resurrection" (Treatise on Resurrection 48: 12-17).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem#Views_of_the_pioneers_of_quantum_mechanics

 

 

"Wolfgang Pauli interpreted the laws of quantum mechanics as leading to a lucid Platonic mysticism, a position intermediate between the skepticism of Western science centered on objective observer-independent facts, and the philosophies of ancient Eastern mysticism which put primary emphasis on conscious experience. Werner Heisenberg reported on Pauli's position, and his own, as follows:^[44]

 

...Pauli once spoke of two limiting conceptions, both of which have been extraordinarily fruitful in the history of human thought, although no genuine reality corresponds to them. At one extreme is the idea of an objective world, pursuing its regular course in space and time, independently of any kind of observing subject; this has been the guiding image of modern science. At the other extreme is the idea of a subject, mystically experiencing the unity of the world and no longer confronted by an object or by any objective world; this has been the guiding image of Asian mysticism. Our thinking moves somewhere in the middle, between these two limiting conceptions; we should maintain the tension resulting from these two opposites."

Welcome to our world of Platonic mysticism, The Real World: Nous and Buddhi.

Nous - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nous

Buddhi - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhi

Edited December 29, 2012 by immortal

[Semjase]

Existence of a God can only be proven by evidence of a God, which is anything

here that defies explanation within the natural laws of physics. Even consciousness

it's self and the act of the observer falls within the realm of science, since it is

connected to the science of the physical. Even God has to have an explanation

to what he actually is, the likelyhood of God being outside the realm of science

disappears down to virtually nothing since he would become an unsolvable

mystery not part of science yet works with every facet of science, this

points to the theory that everything here has all evolved from the

properties of nothing which is real and is something. What is possible

is something or nothing which is proven and stands forever. The evidence

for God is structure that could have not envoled in it's environment through

natural means, for example the universe it's self which has charged particles

that can only be created by pair creation, which leaves a universe missing

it's antimatter. All structures of life which are part of science work together

with consciousness under science may be proven to be not of a natural

origin, and the result of higher intelligence that created our world to

be perfect for life.

[immortal]

Existence of a God can only be proven by evidence of a God, which is anything

here that defies explanation within the natural laws of physics. Even consciousness

it's self and the act of the observer falls within the realm of science, since it is

connected to the science of the physical. Even God has to have an explanation

to what he actually is, the likelyhood of God being outside the realm of science

disappears down to virtually nothing since he would become an unsolvable

mystery not part of science yet works with every facet of science

 

Actually God indeed works in such mysterious ways even though he is in every facet of science.

 

It is something of a paradox that we are within God, yet we do not recognize or know him. As Valentinus says, "It was quite amazing that they were in the Father without being acquainted with him and that they alone were able to emanate, inasmuch as they were not able perceive and recognize the one in whom they were" (Gospel of Truth 22:27-32)

 

That doesn't mean we cannot know him or study him, we can indeed know God, see him and be One with him.

 

Gospel of Mary

 

According to the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, Jesus himself articulates the essence of Nous:

 

"There where is the nous, lies the treasure." Then I said to him: "Lord, when someone meets you in a Moment of Vision, is it through the soul [psuchē] that they see, or is it through the spirit [pneuma]?" The Teacher answered: "It is neither through the soul nor the spirit, but the nous between the two which sees the vision..."

 

—The Gospel of Mary Magdelene, p. 10

 

this points to the theory that everything here has all evolved from the

properties of nothing which is real and is something. What is possible

is something or nothing which is proven and stands forever. The evidence

for God is structure that could have not envoled in it's environment through

natural means, for example the universe it's self which has charged particles

that can only be created by pair creation, which leaves a universe missing

it's antimatter. All structures of life which are part of science work together

with consciousness under science may be proven to be not of a natural

origin, and the result of higher intelligence that created our world to

be perfect for life.

 

I honestly don't think the epistemology of religion is same as the epistemology of science, its incorrect to mix science and religion like you have done here, I am not a proponent of intelligent design and nor do I think antimatter has anything to do with god, if scientific realism turns out to be true then I will indeed give up my belief in God and proclaim myself as a strong atheist because I don't think God had used Big Bang and DNA to create the universe and life on earth.

 

[Semjase]

Alien contacties have been told that the universes are created

in antimatter, matter pairs by the creation, which is responsible

for life, spirit, and universes.

On top of that we may exist in a computer simulation

that German physicist's are trying to prove, as explained below

 

http://www.techspot.com/news/50468-physicists-may-prove-we-exist-in-a-computer-simulation.html

[immortal]

Alien contacties have been told that the universes are created

in antimatter, matter pairs by the creation, which is responsible

for life, spirit, and universes.

 

Well, I don't believe in anti-matter because some alien abducties claim that antimatter exists, I believe it because physicists have created a lump of anti-hydrogen in their labs and they have trapped it using laser cooling and a magnetic trap.

 

If you want to discuss about UFO's then watch this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0gZMFD34Vc

[Semjase]

The point I'm making about antimatter is that charge and mass are conserved

when creating charged particles, in the way they are created in nature by pair creation,

positron electron pair and proton antiproton pair. In our universe the matching positron and

antiproton aren't here, so where are they? This indicates a creation force that seperated

them so the universe doen't annihilate it's self.

[immortal]

The point I'm making about antimatter is that charge and mass are conserved

when creating charged particles, in the way they are created in nature by pair creation,

positron electron pair and proton antiproton pair. In our universe the matching positron and

antiproton aren't here, so where are they? This indicates a creation force that seperated

them so the universe doen't annihilate it's self.

 

My point is that very very few religious people or genuine theists are interested in explaining the missing matter in the universe through religion rather they are more concerned with understanding their relationship with God. Religion isn't about how Grand Canyon was formed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0w0eshXr2U

[Semjase]

That maybe so but I would like to know the truth about God.

[CarbonCopy]

Immortal,

May I tell you that the basic rule of Hinduism is that there is no god sitting above all of us and creating us and everything else, but, that there is one thing and one thing ONLY and that is brahman. That is what they call god. So, everything in this world is god, including you and I. If you would have known about Hinduism you would have realized that and found the brahman (god) in YOU and everything else. After all, that is the enlightenment ( moksha ).

[immortal]

Immortal,

May I tell you that the basic rule of Hinduism is that there is no god sitting above all of us and creating us and everything else, but, that there is one thing and one thing ONLY and that is brahman. That is what they call god. So, everything in this world is god, including you and I. If you would have known about Hinduism you would have realized that and found the brahman (god) in YOU and everything else. After all, that is the enlightenment ( moksha ).

 

Tell that to someone who is ignorant of tradition, they might easily buy your ignorance but not to me.

 

"Vivekananda was one such strong opponent of the Aryan Invasion Theory. He boldly challenged in this way (5:534-535): "And what your European pundits say about the Aryans swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! In what Veda, in what Sukta do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense? Strange that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys!... Whenever the Europeans find an opportunity, they exterminate the aborigines and settle down with ease and comfort on their lands; and therefore they think the Aryans must have done the same!... But where is your proof? Guess work? Then keep your fanciful ideas to yourself. I strongly protested against these ideas at the Paris Congress. I have been talking with the Indian and European savants on the subject, and hope to raise many objections to this theory in detail, when time permits. And this I say to you–to our pundits–also, ‘You are learned men, hunt up your old books and scriptures, please, and draw your own conclusions.’

 

This was the genesis of his great enterprise, translating the Rig Veda with Sayana's commentary and the editing of the fifty-volume Sacred Books of the East. In this way, there can be no doubt regarding Max Muller’s initial aim and commitment to converting Indians to Christianity. Writing to his wife in 1866 he observed:

 

"It [the Rig Veda] is the root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last three thousand years."

 

Two years later he also wrote the Duke of Argyle, then acting Secretary of State for India: "The ancient religion of India is doomed. And if Christianity does not take its place, whose fault will it be?" This makes it very clear that Max Muller was an agent of the British government paid to advance its colonial interests. Nonetheless, he still remained an ardent German nationalist even while working in England. This helps explain why he used his position as a recognized Vedic and Sanskrit scholar to promote the idea of the "Aryan race" and the "Aryan nation," a theory amongst a certain class of so-called scholars, which has maintained its influence even until today."

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm

 

Its quite disappointing to see that those who claim themselves to be Hindus don't know the truth about their own religion.

 

Max Muller himself knew the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Iranian_religion

 

"Max Müller believed that Indo-Iranian religion began as sun worship."

 

What is the secret of the Vedas?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajnavalkya

---

 

"According to tradition, Yājñavalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana .^[3] Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yājñavalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yājñavalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.^[3]

 

As per the demands of his Guru, Yājñavalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples ofVaisampayana took the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.^[3]

 

The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda.^[4]

 

Then Yājñavalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yājñavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.^[5]

 

The Sun God, pleased with Yājñavalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit, term "Vaji" means horse. Yājñavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.^[3]

 

It is important to note that within the hierarchy of Brāhmaṇas, certain sects believe in the Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda while others practice from the Śukla Yajurveda. Two important sects of Telugu Brāhmaṇas with a belief in Śukla Yajurveda are the Niyogis who are further sub-divided into sub-sects like Prathama Sakha Niyogis (śukla yaju) and Aaru Velu Niyogis (kṛṣṇa yaju) (aaru-velu = six-thousand Saṃskṛt)

 

Yājñavalkya married two wives. One was Maitreyi and the other Katyaayanee.^[6] Of the two, Maitreyi was a Brahmavadini (one who is interested in the knowledge of Brahman).The descendant sects of Brahmans are the progeny of the first wife Katyaayanee. When Yājñavalkya wished to divide his property between the two wives, Maitreyi asked whether she could become immortal through wealth. Yājñavalkya replied that there was no hope of immortality through wealth and that she would only become one among the many who were well-to-do on.^[3] When she heard this, Maitreyi asked Yājñavalkya to teach her what he considered as the best.

 

Then Yājñavalkya described to her the greatness of the Absolute Self, the nature of its existence, the way of attaining infinite knowledge and immortality, etc. This immortal conversation between Yājñavalkya and Maitreyi is recorded in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.^[7]

 

Wisdom of Yājñavalkya is shown in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad where he gives his teachings to his wife Maitreyi and King Janaka.^[3] He also participates in a competition arranged by King Janaka about the selecting great Brhama Jnani (knower of Brahman). His intellectual dialogues withGargi (a learned scholar of the times) form a beautiful chapter filled with lot of philosophical and mystical question-answers in Brhadaranyaka Upanishad.^[3] In the end, Yājñavalkya took Vidvat Sanyasa (renunciation after the attainment of the knowledge of Brahman) and retired to the forest.

 

It is believed that during the spiritual cleansing of Kshatriya males by Parshurama, the noble families were unable to find suitable male suitors for the princesses. During this period, some of the descendants of Yājñavalkya were offered these princesses as brides as they were the only sects bestowed with the quality of pride amongst the various Brahman sects. Thus a new line of brahman nobility was created in the social hierarchy (prathama shakhi) advising the king on the spiritual and administrative aspects of ruling the kingdom.

 

Yājñavalkya was one of the greatest sages ever known. His precepts as contained in the Upanishads (the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad) stand foremost as the crest-jewel of the highest teachings on knowledge of Brahman.^[3] Most of the Hindu Laws today are based on the Yājñavalkya Smriti."

---

 

Who is the master of the Vedas?

 

Yes, it is the holistic Sun-god, the one who is situated at the centre of the Agnisoma Mandala of the gods. Without him there is no Vedas, no Upanishads and no revelation about Brahman. Hinduism is a sun-god worshipping religion, the truth of true Hinduism.

 

You want evidence from the Upanishads?

 

 

8 Fools, dwelling in darkness, but wise in their own conceit and puffed up with vain scholarship, wander about, being afflicted by many ills, like blind men led by the blind.

 

9 Children, immersed in ignorance in various ways, flatter themselves, saying: We have accomplished life's purpose. Because these performers of karma do not know the Truth owing to their attachment, they fall from heaven, misery— stricken, when the fruit of their work is exhausted.

 

10 Ignorant fools, regarding sacrifices and humanitarian works as the highest, do not know any higher good. Having enjoyed their reward on the heights of heaven, gained by good works, they enter again this world or a lower one.

 

11 But those wise men of tranquil minds who lives in the forest on alms, practising penances appropriate to their stations of life and contemplating such deities as Hiranyagarbha, depart, freed from impurities, by the Path of the Sun, to the place where that immortal Person dwells whose nature is imperishable.

 

- Mundaka Upanishad.

 

 

9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

10 One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

 

11 He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

 

12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

 

13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

 

14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti.

 

- Isha Upanishad.

 

No one is saying there are two things, there is only one thing that is Brahman(The Self) and everything is an emanation from it.

 

Where the barbaric interpretation of the scholars and where the esoteric interpretation of the tradition. LoL, if anyone thinks that the academicians know about Hinduism better than the natives then god help them.

 

[CarbonCopy]

If you do accept that there is only brahman and not many gods of hindu mythology, then what are you arguing about ? Please make your self clear ( your posts are becoming too long to read, sorry don't have that much time). What is your basic argument ?

Edited December 30, 2012 by CarbonCopy