Book Review: Ramana Maharishi's Philosophy of Existence and Modern Science

""This throws out all possible use of Newtonian Physics out of the window that relies on absolute space and absolute time in the macro and micro universes.""

Not! Everytime one walks, throws a stone, takes a train, bikes, fires a canon ball, throws a discus or javelin etc., indeed most of our everyday experiences, Newtonian physics can explain it and need not be thrown out of the window. Quantum mechanics is a slightly different kettle of fish and to oppose Einstein and Newton and to declare the former a winner (and the latter a loser!) is a classic case of comparing apples and amruds. For certain classes of phenomena, Newton will do just fine, for others, Einstein, Bohr etc. etc. are useful. No either/or issue here. This is the least one can learn from quantum mechanics, ie. no either/or but duality :)

As for whether certain Eastern philosophies anticipated modern physics or not, well it depends on the level of generality at which one wants to make this claim and of course WHY would someone want to make such claims in the first place. Commonsense it is that all scientific theories have antecedents in philosophy, old, new and yet to emerge. If one is making this claim in a triumphalists sort of way, "look we had such and such, before others had it", one is betraying the spirit, if not necessarily the actual conduct of science. This spirit is: regardless of local origins and inflections, science is universal and not the private property of any specific culture, easter, western or martian. To proclaim that quantum mechanics is actually based on some Eastern/Indian whatever philosophy, is to ironically fall prey to the very illogical Eurocentrism that one understandably seeks to demolish. Except for historical interests, (and it is an important of course to trace histories) it is absolutely irrelevant whether quantum mechanics derives from Advaita, emerged as a result of "The Dancing Wu Li Maters" (Gary Zukav) or Taoism (Fritjof Capra). Mostly these are cases of special pleading, a tad patronizing (when Europeans try to praise Eastern mysticism as the source of everything) and do not in anyway help contemporary physicists in their actual day-to-day research.

For a potted, understandable explanation of why exactly Einstein DID NOT supersede Newton, as the dominant Reader's Digest version of this urbal leged, I'd suggest this link. (My ability to explain this issue in commonsensical language is a tad limited...even I have limits!)

http://plus.maths.org/issue38/outerspace/index.html

The key extract from the above link being:

""Yet, although Einstein's theory superseded Newton's, it didn't make it obsolete. When gravitational fields are weak and motions occur at speeds much less than that of light, Einstein's theory just becomes more and more like Newton's theory. Newton's gravity is a limiting case of Einstein's gravity and holds with very high accuracy on Earth today. This is why engineers build bridges using Newton's theory rather than Einstein's. If students are studying gravity in 1000 years time, they will still be studying Newton's theory and using it in the same way.""

Since of course I don't believe that physics or particle physics is my own private property, I will restrain myself from going off on a tangent. However, it is important, as that old saying goes, to get the facts right before distorting them at leisure, be they for spiritual or anti-Eurocentric ends.

I'm no physicist, Meenakshi, but I know of a physicist who might well be interested in this book, as his niche is the convergence of science and religion, but from a Jewish perspective. So, I'll forward this to Dr. Gerald Schroeder and ask him to read it over. If anyone can communicate effectively with the author in a cross-cultural fashion, he can.

Arguments have been brought forward that the culture that produced ancient Sumeria from which Abraham came, and the culture that produced a civilization on the Indus River millennia ago are the same culture. If similar streams of knowledge flow from Kabbala and from Indian wisdom sources, then this thesis might well be true.

The main reason I've been hanging around Desicritics is to see is something turns up that might be the link that allows this idea to be tested. This book review might well be that link.

Thank you!

Ruvy:

""The main reason I've been hanging around Desicritics is to see is something turns up that might be the link that allows this idea to be tested.""

Amen! The rest has been a side unappetizer! Welcome to the main dish and eat a lot.

The path of Science and the Path of Spirituality do not cross one another. The path of Science is search for ultimate TRUTH in an objective and empirical manner. The path of Spirituality, on the other hand is totally subjective. Spiritual experience is deeply subjective, and is better not expressed objectively. It is deep inner experience ...that is at its best when left unexpressed. That is why the search for God in an objective matter is doomed to end in failure. God doesn't exist ...as an external agent. He or She is Antaryami. Contrast this with the approach of Science. It is external, objective and empirical. Science therefore cannot meet religion, and vice-versa, in a conventional sense.

Books such as this although welcome can never bridge the gap between spirituality and science. Unfortunately book writers of this kind, seek to somehow link spirituality and science, in their inevitable angst to bridge the gap between the two. Their angst shall always remain as long as they remain unrealised. It is also worth pointing out here, that philosophers and scientists such as Einstein, Schrödinger, Spinoza, et al, although were atheists, they were all highly spiritual too.

Commonsense, you are drifting, not the first time. Let others discuss relavent subject.

Morris,

I'm guilty as charged! (and not for the first time either ;). Would actually stick to the topic, but i've said what I had to say on an issue that I feel I really know quite a bit about physics at least. in other words, I have no desire to engage with a Readers' Digest view of physics...

morris,

I trust you meant my non-comment # 4 right?

CS: U r so good at jumping the gun! I did not say throw out Newton! I said, "THIS throws it out wrt macro and micro universe"- in the context of quantum physics. Newton is more than enough to explain many of the phenomena as experienced by the 5 senses on this planet. Only in the comic expanse and in the sub atomic realms, these laws fail.

As for "look we had such and such before others"- I do not see that anywhere in my text. I wonder if you concluded that on your own because you sense it within- relatively speaking;)

neither the author nor I make claims that quantum physics was derived from Advaita. On the contrary, the title makes it very clear that it is a matter of convergence! There is no "western" quest to be "winner" here, to be "first". It is just a matter of "exclaiming"- wow! just look at this amazing "pattern"- a similarity of thought, of idea, of experience and experimentation!

Please do not get so "paranoid"! A review is to tease you to make you either want to read the book or not. If you believe this is not a subject of ay interest to you, please do not read it. However, if it intrigues you to read it, please do so- send an email to the publishers and get yourself a copy!
Cheers!

Yes, Ruvy, please do. It will be of great interest to scientists and their ilk.

Kalyan: You are very right when it comes to the realm of classical physics that is Newtonian in nature. In the early 1900s when the atom was discovered to be further divisible (earlier it was considered to be the smallest unit of matter) and it opened out an entire plethora of particles that "had a possibility of existing" and their position was again just a possibility- the "objectivity" that you claim science has, got totally shaken and further confirmed by the theory of relativity. Hence, all the "objectivity" of observing phenomena was reworked as an "experience" of the observer in a "field" of relativity. (remember the classical example taught to us about the person on the platform wrt the person on the train and who feels what is really moving). This caused great problems for the classical scientist. Now, all grade students are taught this amazing perspective of science that makes our minds open to look at this universe from a different dimension- that is what is amazing- looking at the world from a different dimension.

And advaita does the same in the realm of spirituality- it collapses the observer and the observed within the fabric or substratum of the "field" opening up a whole new dimension to experiencing the world. We do recognize that the "mind" projects the world that we believe is true- the information gathered by the senses are entirely dependent on our subjective ideas of likes, dislikes, past experiences etc. Thus there are no absolutes or "standards" to verify against to proclaim this alone is the absolute truth!!!

So, modern quantum physics and spirituality have a lot in common!

Meenakshi,

I already received a response from Dr. Schroeder thanking me for the link. I'm going to try and monitor where this goes - and if it goes in a positive direction, maybe Dr. Schroeder will consent to deliver a lecture on it to the Root & Branch English Lecture Series in Jerusalem.

In the meantime, I received an interesting e-mail today that indicated that an ancient center of Jew-hatred, the Tyrolean mountains in Austria, is slowly changing round in its views.

The Catholic churches are emptying out, Austrians are making formal declarations leaving the state church of the Hapsburg Empire - and people drive over an hour to a mountain fastness there to listen to an old woman talk to them of - the Kabbala!

We Jews do not proselytize our faith - but Catholics are not just leaving Christianity - they are occasionally switching sides to the "damned Jews" as one (now deceased) nasty Tyrolean priest referred to us....

I know it seems to have no direct relationship to your review, but it feels good to talk about this. It's good news in the middle of what is supposed to be a sad period on our calendar.

If G-d is gracious and allows me to, I'll be turning that letter into an essay for distribution through the Root & Branch Information Service.

Blessings from the mountains of Samaria,
Ruvy

I agree with you that there is lot of similarity between Quantum Physics and Advaita. But then, it is only similarity, and not sameness. I know that Quantum Physics and its cousin Bell's theorem have determined that there is no difference between the observer and the observed in the phenomenal world. I also agree that this conclusion is similar to Advaita. But then the similarity ends there. For you and me and the bulk of the population that has not had realisation the wholeness of Advaita is merely a concept. It a concept because we are all yet to realise "who we are?". Until that realisation dawns Advaita shall merely be a concept. On the other hand anybody and everybody who goes to CERN testing ground in Switzerland can verify that there is no subject-object difference in the phenomenal world. The former, therefore is a concept, and the latter, is there for everybody to see. I hope you are able to see the difference

Meenakshi,

Yes indeed I did jump the gun. So, not for the first time (neither the last I suspect), apologies!

However, you did claim a tenuous CONNECTION between Advaita and Quantum Mechanics. Once again, instead of re-inventing the wheel, Kalayan #13 expresses my views succintly.

Trying to argue that science and spirituality are the same or have the same goals, is being unfair to BOTH science and spirituality.

Kalyan, CS: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar says this beautifully: http://www.srisri.org/teachings.html
Better him than me!LOL!

Meenakshi,

Not to offend you since I know you are a Sri Sri Ravi Shankar fan....but I will let you know that while on a trip to india this summer, i had nothing better to do, so I saw/heard your guru on TV, and I will refrain from commenting any further, since I want to believe that "different folks, different strokes", "to each his/her own". (But I did think he took me for an unadulterated fool, although I have not enough ego to really believe that he was literally addressing me directly)

Aware of a Morris in a censorious mode, reminding me whenever I go astray from the set topic of the day, I must object to the following unambiguous passage by Meenakshi (with all due respect of course)

Meenakshi writes:

""I would recommend he boldly proclaim, Vedantic or Advaitic philosophy. There is no need to soft pedal for "wider" consumption or acceptance. The simple truth is, this is the best repository of Human Experience of Reality recorded and passed on in the annals of human history. If certain egoists wish to deny it or denigrate it, "My bad!"""

How on earth can one proclaim that Vendatic or Advaitic philosophy is the "best repository of Human experience of reality"? How do we come to this conclusion. Note, I am not questioning or even devaluating Vedantic or Advaitic philosophy. If it works for some, excellent! But to say that is is the "best" in recorded human history is like saying that my wife or husband or country is the best for everyone. How would "everyone" verify such a proposition? Is this not the same as saying that Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Spagghetti Monsterism, is the "best" for everyone. Don't tell me that Vedantism is not a religion, because the same argument applies to any worldview, philosophy, spiritualism, whatever terms one might want to use. To unambiguously assert that some worldview is the "best" is to presage a certain kind of authoritarianism that humans as adults with their own brains don't need.

CS
Since you used my name I can't help but say that here we go drifting again. She said it is the best, perhaps it is not but that is not the point. If you think something else is better than that in that domain, by all means say so. Let us hear about it. For crying out loud, what is the big deal.
Each one expresses his or her opinion. Everyone does not consider spaggetti the best. But if you want to debate then say I consider pizza the best and say why.

Morris, (I did not intend to take your name in vain.)

There is a difference between the two assertions:

1. From my point of view, Islam/philosophy X etc. is best for me for others who follow it.

2. Islam/ philosophyX etc. is the best, period.


The differnence between the two assertions is a logical one and not dependent on my or your viewpoint.

Morris,

Not too big a deal if I drift, really! Just expresssing MY view on why there is a problem with an assertion that someone knows which philosophy, worldview or relgion is "the best" for everyone, through all recorded (even unrecorded) history. That's all. What's the big deal? If you don't agree with my view, you just have to say it, and you did! I get your drift.

People use all kind of expressions to drive a point home. I think she was saying that why not use "vedanta" rather than "eastern thinking", if I understood her correctly. Now we can argue whether that was the best recorded experience. Perhaps it was, because there has not been a lot of recordrd experience of that kind to my knowledge. But I am not very learned person. I could be wrong. In any event it is taking us away from the main subject of the article. And that is drifting. Now I am guilty.

Morris,

No sweat! As you can see, I have nothing better to do. No other threads are all "fired up" so to speak. I agree with you for sure. Just trying to get some cheap thrills here at no cost; I could be a real nuisance to my neighbours and fellow city-dwellers, if I were to go out. So in the interest of the greater whole, it is better I sound off inane stuff in cyberspace, if you get my drift....

dearest blokes. now consider this - one fine day we really do converge - then what? - the wheel would have turned full circle - the old rishi's/ gods of yore were great scientists in my opinion - they never disclosed their secrets because "retail" participation in these secrets would lead to "global warming or some such global scale disaster". hence they had to be pleased by the "bhakth" to help the bhakth also participate in the knowledge to learn how to move the elements for one's individual private benefit. all we do is but help in the churning. one is the vasuki, one is the meru and so on. but then those who taste the nectar have to go through the poison first.

Perhaps the manifested and spiritual world already coexist and we haven't, nor will develop the tools (our small sliver of perception and intellect) to see the connection. I "think" we cannot get there from here. The eternal paradox.

Ciao, Guido

Sprituality slowly gaining status of another experimental science where seeker carries out experiments and takes observations.

many other seekrs carry out the same experiment and take observations of the outcome.

if they match and can be cross verified by any honest and sincere experimenter, it becomes a law.

Its a progress of humanity in right direction. Otherwise Communists and `believers' tried their best to block the minds of humanity not to learn and experiment with energy forms beyond electromagnetic and mechanical energy.

Now such blocked minds whenevr find sprituality gaining ground, it supsets them.

MS:

""Sprituality slowly gaining status of another experimental science where seeker carries out experiments and takes observations."'

indeed

Yes. For honest and sincere researchers it is.
For blocked minded communists it is not as they are not interested in seeing anything beyond Marx.

Upto here its fine if commies want to remain hooked up within Marx. Problem starts when they start violence to impose their closemindedness on others.

CS and Morris: There is definitely no other civilization in the world that has researched the concept laid out by Vedanta/Advaita and Upanishads as much. Be it native americans, new americans, europeans, other asians and africans. They all come to a halt, a limit because they have not been able to stretch beyond mentally. That stretching comes from much intense mental elasticity that comes with regular meditation and spiritual seeking. The reason Budhism gets the attention it does today is because it very succinctly puts together these points - which was the Budha's purpose. To make advaita more accessible to the common man. IN other words, the knowledge is quite absolute because in so many hundreds of years, no one has been able to disprove it in anyway or go beyond it in any way!

Btw, there is no juncture between science and spirituality simply because these are concepts that we deal with at level of the mind. We will agree/disagree with it today only to change our minds tomorrow. In other words, some see a juncture and others don't. Who cares if there is or there isn't a God! Some think there is and some do not!! Ultimately what is true is that these are all manifestations of the mind. How one wants to follow up on that is also a mental exercise...gosh. i think I need to go to bed!!! ha ha ha.... But i hope you got the point!

Saraswati:

""IN other words, the knowledge [Advaita/Vedanta] is quite absolute because in so many hundreds of years, no one has been able to disprove it in anyway or go beyond it in any way!""

If I can put my scientific hat on, a proposition can be disproven or falsified, ONLY if it is presented as a falsifiable proposition.

Examples of unfalsifiable, hence unscientific claims include:

1. God exists (or God does not exist)
2. Science and spirituality are really quite the same; it all depends on one point of view.

Falsifiable claims include the following:

1. All swans are white
2. Commonsense has no brains (physically)

As far as I can tell, and even I can be wrong, to claim that Advaita/Vedanta have not been disproven is a pointless one because they CANNOT be disproven. This does not in any way belittles the value and genuine insight of this knowledge. What belittles them, ironically enough, are these unfounded claims:

1. Vedanta/Advaita is universally applicable and of value to everyone, regardless of cultural or historical context.

2. Vedanta is indeed scientific because it has not been "disproven" until now.

Any attempt to claim universality of a particular form of knowledge for ALL HUMANITY is an insiduous form of "conceptual imperialism" even though we Indians, usually with good reason, are the first to complain and whine about imperialism when it is directed at us from non-Indian sources.

Saraswat:

""Btw, there is no juncture between science and spirituality simply because these are concepts that we deal with at level of the mind.""

BTW, there is no juncture between my elbow, my ass and my so-called brains. But I can tell the difference between them (usually) and never (almost never) conflate them.

CS
Just a question.
Are you familiar with Vedanta/Advaita?

Good question Morris. But me being me, I will evade it by saying that it is not relevant to the issue since it is not science, although it is probably the basis of science as all philosophical, spiritual worldviews are.

Morris,

I am happy to inform you that after a series of hectic correspondence with Man Singh, he has agreed to offer free lessons on Vedanta to me. So, in a few weeks time, I will not have to evade your question. Till then, I have to work hard.

Any principle that can be proved and cross verified by any honest seeker theoretically, mathematically or experimentally can be called as science.

As per basic definition of science , `scinetice is systematic and organised knowledge'

"Kisi vastu ke krambadha evan suvyavasthic=t gyan ko vigyan kahte hai"

Therefore if the laws listed in Vedanta teachings about Soul, God and nature etc can be cross verified experimentally, why it can'nt be called scinece?

Yes communists are always prejudiced against any great thing or Indian origin and hence neither ready to do experiment to verify the truthfulness of vedanta nor ready to accept it.

A reasonable person will carry out research to prove something wrong. Commie always ridicule all ancinet Indian treasure of knowledge as `Tauta maina ki kahani' without bothering to cross verify it.

Any principle that can be proved and cross verified by any honest seeker theoretically, mathematically or experimentally can be called as science.

As per basic definition of science , `scinetice is systematic and organised knowledge'

"Kisi vastu ke krambadha evan suvyavasthic=t gyan ko vigyan kahte hai"

Therefore if the laws listed in Vedanta teachings about Soul, God and nature etc can be cross verified experimentally, why it can'nt be called scinece?

Yes communists are always prejudiced against any great thing or Indian origin and hence neither ready to do experiment to verify the truthfulness of vedanta nor ready to accept it.

A reasonable person will carry out research to prove something wrong. Commie always ridicule all ancinet Indian treasure of knowledge as `Tauta maina ki kahani' without bothering to cross verify it.

Man Singh:

""Any principle that can be proved and cross verified by any honest seeker theoretically, mathematically or experimentally can be called as science.""

Any scientist will tell you that this is absurd nonsense. Scientists can never ever VERIFY anything. They only put forward propostions that can be proven WRONG, ie. can be FALSIFIED. Science refers to those propositions that can be put up in a form that can be proven wrong, but have not yet been proven wrong. The natural world changes with time, and there is no such thing as verified truth, apart from moronic commonsensical statements such as "commonsense has brains (ie. physical brains).

When you have some time, after you are done with your tota maina ki kahanees, try reading the philosopher Karl Popper's _The Logic of Scientific Discovery_.

CS # 37

again you are going by wordings of the story like a typical fanatic and not by moral of teh story.

A soil sample ia taken. Its stenth is tested and reported. Another scientist comes and does the same test in similar laboratory conditions and can always cross verify the work of previous scinetist.

Hooks Law, Newtons law or any other scientific laws are laws only because they are cross verifiable.

Of course there is permissible percentage error and tolerance within scientific limitations.

Yes in Vednata etc also different people carried out experiments and minor differences are found which are acceptable the same way.

CS #30 and #32

I will agree with you. Familiarity with Vedanta is perhaps not necessary.

Saraswati made several subjective statements. You paraphrased them in Points 1 and 2. It is your rebuttal of point #1 which is perplexing to me.

"1. Vedanta/Advaita is universally applicable and of value to everyone, regardless of cultural or historical context."

I find nothing wrong with this statemnt. And yet you came with this rebuttal

"Any attempt to claim universality of a particular form of knowledge for ALL HUMANITY is an insiduous form of "conceptual imperialism""

I am sorry I do not understand that. It is a little too much.
Almost all religions, ironically except hiduism are claiming that. Are'nt they? Hinduism will readily agree that there are other paths that are equally effective. I am not sure about what is the big deal about the claim of universality.

Scholars all over the world have dwelt into Vedanta. I am not aware of any discussion about its limited applicability. I have not heard of any suggestion by any one that it is only applicable to a segment of humanity. I do not think there is any question about its universality. Equally true is its value to all. Contemporary writings about metaphysics often make refence to it. Dr. Deepak Chopra is writing extensively these days and he often draws from Vedanta. I find absolutely nothing wrong with the statement.

What is this insideous form of "conceptual imperialism"? That claim really irked you. And yet that claim upon examination seems to be reasonable.

That knowledge you talk about is not something that is patented or copy written. It is a revelation based on study of the 'Self'. She is claiming that such study has not been done else where before. That too happens to be true. So what is the problem?
By reacting the way did you reveal yourself. Thank you.

Morris:

""Almost all religions, ironically except hiduism are claiming that. Are'nt they?""

This is the crux of my objection. If one objects to Islam, Christianity etc. for claiming universal validity, as one should and as I strongly do, then one cannot come thru the backdoor and proclaim universal validity for Vedanta. OR claim that Hinduism sanctions all paths, therefore it is universally valid. A classic case of eating one's roti and having it too, while claiming to do neither. Any religion, philosophy or worldview cannot be claimed to be "universally valid" or "best" for everyone. Let everyone with brains decide what's best for them as long as they don't force it on everyone.

"OR claim that Hinduism sanctions all paths, therefore it is universally valid."

No for crying out loud, I did not say that. You arrived at that conclusion and perhaps rightly so, so long as the others insist on being the only knower of the right path. It is some what like issues of human rights. If whites keep iinsisting that they are superior as they did in South Africa and blacks say we are all equal, then we have no choice but to say that balcks thinking is right although at that point in time whites did appear superior based on what they managed to achieve. But supremacy of one race over other is not a viable concept in a multi-racial society. So call it a back door approach or whatever you either learn to respect all religions or segregate as SA tried. Other choice is to convert all to one. It is possible with a battle between two main contenders, chritianity and islam. Not a happy thought. So pick what you want to as a universally valid approach. You are left with a Hobson's choice. In the western christian democracies there is a recognition of this fact and they are adopting laws to accomodate all. Sadly muslim countries have not seen the light yet. And theologians are far behind.

You are objecting to the claim of universality by Vedanta. But I do not think Vedanta is claiming as a sole possesser of the truth. And that does not exclude universality by such others as Kabbala, Sufism, Zen Budhhism to name a few in the domain of spirituality. That has nothing to do with hinduism. Universality here means it is respected and even pracised by the cross section of the humanity irresective of their faith. I am not mixing up universality with a sole knower of the truth.

#40

"If one objects to Islam, Christianity etc. for claiming universal validity, as one should and as I strongly do, then one cannot come thru the backdoor and proclaim universal validity for Vedanta. OR claim that Hinduism sanctions all paths, therefore it is universally valid."

If 'A' is invalid, how does that in itself make 'B' invalid? Conversely, if 'A' is valid, how does that make 'B' valid too? If something is valid, it has to stand on its own independent validity. I see the whole exercise as creating some sort of contrived and unscientific parity between 'A' and 'B' just so that 'A' can be invalidated based on invalidity of 'B' and vise versa.

In a Psecular world view - all religions are bad and no religion should be allowed to gain moral high ground or validity, for it undermines the moral high ground needed by secularism to enjoy its hegemony. That is why if certain bad of a religion comes to light, psecularists would go to extreme overdrive to point out how other religions are equally bad too. Similarly if certain good of a religion comes to light, psecularists would go to extreme overdrive to point out how other religions do equally good too - the idea is not to let any religion gain upper-hand or higher moral ground and cut them all down to size, mostly by siding with minority ones to neutralize the majority one. It is only when it comes to secular ideologies that great pains are taken to differentiate them from rest of them and how their chosen one has all the answers and valid claims to univeralism.

commonsense (#40)

>> Any religion, philosophy or worldview cannot be claimed to be "universally valid" or "best" for everyone.

Why not? Each religion is basically a set of doctrines/beliefs pertaining to claims about philosophical truth and morality. The pursuit is for the "best" of truth/morality and so there is the claim that it is the best. Nothing wrong in that. In fact that is how it ought to be.

>> Let everyone with brains decide what's best for them as long as they don't force it on everyone.

Absolutely! That does not mean that one should not claim that a particular religious doctrine or a moral theory to be the best (the claim will be contested though).

kerty (#42)

>> In a Psecular world view - all religions are bad and no religion should be allowed to gain moral high ground or validity, for it undermines the moral high ground needed by secularism to enjoy its hegemony.

The secular view is that there is a religiously neutral public sphere in the governance of a state, which seeks to define/implement the best of law/constitutinal provisions for justice, fairness, human rights, welfare/well-being of citizens etc. At the sametime all citizens are free to practice a religion/culture/tradition of their choice. The freedom of religion ought to be an inherent theme of genuine secularism. (in contrast to states that are communist or theocratic or religious fascist).

#44

"The secular view is that there is a religiously neutral public sphere in the governance of a state"

Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity? Can anything remain off-limit from their constant and ever growing encroachment, intrusion, expansion? Not just in theory, but in practice?

The truth is that both government domain and secularism are expansionist and hydra-headed, and can never leave any room for religion or culture or any other parallel or rival reality. They can not help but push Religion and cultural domains down to the deepest private and lowest atomized levels of existence and role in a society - selective patronage of minority religions/cultures is deployed to neutralize dominant religion/culture and achieve the end results. That is why anything that is part of dominant religion and culture or reinforces them is demonized as communal, while relentless patronage and appeasement of even the most extreme and intolerant form of minority religions is hailed as secularism. That is the modus operandi of secularism. If there is such a thing as genuine secularism out there, it has yet to rear its genuine head in India.

Appeasement of minority is happenning in not just India but in other secular democracies as well, more or less. India probably tops them all. But it is a political process and I am not sure how that can be checked. The limit is what the politicians can get away with without losing the support of the majority.

Just a thought.
The only other answer is that the word religion should have no legal standing. But that would offend minorities who are at present enjoying privilege of wearing turban, hijab etc. where it is not permitted. In such a secular country, the state will be totally blind with respect to religions. Religion will become like a private service club.

I agree that one could intelectually determine which is the best religion. Unfortunately, it is an emotional issue not subject to meaningful discussion. I am sure a lot of people, deep down in their hearts doubt whether their religion is the best. But they are born in it and if need be they will fight for it. Ideally, I think our children should not be considered of the same faith as we are until they decide so upon reaching the age of majority. This will never happen. It must be in our genes to see our children in the same image as we are. And we will not accept our faith to be second best. Therefore the best we can achieve is that they are equally good and able to save us.

kerty (#45)

>> Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity?

A very large portion of government domain has to do with providing education, health care, promoting industry/jobs, maintaining general law/order, nations defense etc. A large part of it is religiously neutral (as it ought to be). In India, there is a lot of governmental support/encouragement for all religious places, pilgrimages, festivals etc. There can be points of conflicts which needs to be dealt with sensitively. It gets difficult if VHP/BJP/RSS creates and invents anti-religious and anti-traditional 'sentiments' like demolishing mosques.

>> The truth is that both government domain and secularism are expansionist and hydra-headed

May be true in an extreme communist state. Otherwise, there is no reason why government cannot be religiously neutral and yet provide support and freedom of religion/culture/tradition. The ideas such a hindutva state or a islamic/christian theocratic state needs to be rejected. More so in a globalized world where there is a lot of co-existence of people of all religions/races/castes/language etc.

Morris (#46)

>> Appeasement of minority is happenning in not just India but in other secular democracies as well, more or less.

There is constitutional provision in all civilized democracies to treat everyone as equal citizens of state with rights/freedom/responsibilities/accountabilities etc (without regard for minority/majority distinctions). The minority question is dealt with some sensitivity and care due to the natural tendencies seen in history towards fascism, aparthied, racism, casteism etc. So any attitudes of religious/linguistic/casteist/racist/traditional/cultural chauvinism is dealt with some extra care.

>> India probably tops them all.

India can be certainly counted as a mature secular democracy. However, much of affirmative action, reservations etc are primarily based on caste and so in most cases it is limited to only hindus (and the sections of minorities who are equally backward/disadvantaged in socio-educational-economic standard stand to lose in some of these cases).

>> enjoying privilege of wearing turban, hijab etc.

What is wrong if someone wants to wear a turban, hijab, bindi, skull caps etc as part of their culture/tradition/religion? Only a truly secular state can provide such freedom to all religions/cultures/traditions (regardless of majority/minority)

>> I agree that one could intelectually determine which is the best religion

Yes, and it is up to the individual to decide - whether one calls it intellectual or spiritual or moral or social etc is ones choice.

>> Unfortunately, it is an emotional issue not subject to meaningful discussion.

It need not be that way. The likes of VHP/RSS make it a "emotional issue" and it is an archaic attitude that belongs to stone age.

Kumar

In India, religion thrives in spite of government and its secular ideologies, and not because of them. Not that it does not want to uproot it from every sphere of life, but religion is entrenched and embedded so deeply into every sphere of life that there is very little it can do about it, but use rival and minority religions to neutralize it.

Talk of religious neutrality, an intrusion-free zone for religion to express its freedoms, respect for all religions etc are theories that remain theories. Secularism usually rides with expansionist leftist ideologies and therefore, it can not translate such theories into reality.

In India, government has been engineered by leftist ideologies that are expansionist and totalitarian in ambition, where government, people, public domain and private domain incrementally have to become one and the same, indistinguishable, inseparable, where government itself becomes an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God-like institution, leaving no room for real God to coexist in any sphere of life. Expansionist government acquires overriding interest in every sphere of nation's life and people's lives, and pushing out and banishing religion from every noon and cranny of them becomes a secular mandate and a crusade, recognizing only individual and nothing beyond, appeasing hedonistic individualism and nothing beyond, tactically appeasing most belligerent and extreme strands of minority religions and pitting them against other religions to neutralize them all and vacate them from all domains. That is the tract record of secularism so far. Secularists sound like snake oil salesmen and have lost most of the goodwill and credibility in India - No doubt, India needs a positive system that can empower and manage its diversity, but it has not reared its genuine head in India so far.

Kumar:

""Why not? Each religion is basically a set of doctrines/beliefs pertaining to claims about philosophical truth and morality. The pursuit is for the "best" of truth/morality and so there is the claim that it is the best. Nothing wrong in that. In fact that is how it ought to be.""

Whatever religous believe is BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose to believe in it. Until they choose to believe in it. There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions. To each is his/her own, or if they prefer, no religion.

Kumar, sorry for the stupid typos. I mean:

Whatever religous beliefs are BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose NOT to believe. Until they choose to believe in it. There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions. To each is his/her own, or if they prefer, no religion. Hence what is BEST is in the eyes of the believer.

Kerty:

""Can you define the boundaries of government domain and public sphere with any certainty and clarity?""

Social life is fluid, a seamless web. Can anyone define the boundaries of the economy and separate it from culture, religion, politics, sports etc.? They are inter-twined, and reinforce each other, yet we understand the distinctions. Same for the state and civil society distinction.

CS

Social and economic spheres have to be fluid and seemless indeed, and they would be intertwined with all other spheres no doubt. But we are not taking about social and economic spheres. We are talking about spheres of government and religion which can not be allowed to be seemless or intertwined with each other. That means society has to come to some understanding about their distinct and clearly marked spheres where intertwining of each other would not be allowed. That is the idea behind separation of religion and state. And it works when state operates with clearly defined domain and limited roles, leaving people to fashion their own social and cultural and religious institutions as they wish. However, such state is not possible with the advert of state-centric ideologies that want state to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipresent entity and every nook and cranny of nation as its exclusive domain - that is what artificially engineers a divide and turf clash between state and religion, state and nation, government and the governed, majority religion and minority religions.

commonsense (#51)

>> Whatever religous beliefs are BEST for its believers is best for them and not necessarily for those who chose NOT to believe

Some of the followers of a religion may think that it is best for all humanity. There are people of all religions who think that way about their particular religion and there is nothing wrong in that. A Vedantist may think that his philosophy is the closest representation of truth; a Muslim may believe that Quran is the final and most reliable word of God, a Christian may believe that Jesus is true incarnation and so on. How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet?

>> There will never be only one religion in this world, so it's best not to create a universal pecking order of religions

Most likely we will never see a situation of one world religion, and that is because of human diversity, differences in areas of philosophical emphasis etc. That does not mean that one has no right to believe in what he sees as the best representation of philosophical truth and morality (and proclaim the reasons why he/she thinks so).

Kumar:

""Some of the followers of a religion may think that it is best for all humanity. There are people of all religions who think that way about their particular religion and there is nothing wrong in that. A Vedantist may think that his philosophy is the closest representation of truth; a Muslim may believe that Quran is the final and most reliable word of God, a Christian may believe that Jesus is true incarnation and so on. How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet?""

I completely agree! So why are we discussing this? Perhaps because the original discussion was slightly different. I was arguing against the idea that it is possible to scientifically "prove" that one's religion is the "best".

"Believing" that one's religion is best is of course probably the reason why one believes in one's religion! However to claim that it can be proven to a believer of another religion that religion B is better than A, and that too, "scientifically" is untenable. What's good for one is not necessarily good for the other. When it comes to a question of "faith" no point trying to justify with by connecting it to "science".

Kumar:

""How can a Vedantist who believes that Vedanta is the best representation of truth also say that Quran is equally good/true, when the Quran does not teach Vedanta and in many cases directly contradicts it? Or how can a Muslim who has concluded that Muhammad is the last prophet of God also agree with Christianity which does not accept Muhammad as a true prophet?""

Precisely! All religious belief-systems are relative to the point of view of the believers with absolutely NO LOGICAL way of adjudicating between competing claims. Such claims cannot be proven or disproven since they are contextual, relativist claims. A bit like somebody saying (sorry I've used this example before), "my wife is the best in the world". Sorry, perhaps best for you, but a nighmare for others.

commonsense (#55),

I broadly agree with your post #55, but I would like to add a comment on one line:

>> However to claim that it can be proven to a believer of another religion that religion B is better than A, and that too, "scientifically" is untenable.

One may claim to show that "that religion B is better than A" on the basis of philosophical/logical/moral reasoning and so on. Almost all the books of religion and philosophy are written to show what is so good about that religion that the book advocates. There is nothing wrong in that. Even if someone attempts to "scientifically" show that a religious belief is true, one can give it a try, but I don't think it will work. For example, someone may argue on the lines that a religious scripture must be from God because it states scientific facts that were unknown to humanity at the time of its writing and so on. It may be untenable, but not illegitimate.

Kumar:

""It may be untenable, but not illegitimate.""

True. I really don't care what people believe in and it is not for me to referee beliefs!! That would keep me too busy. Talking of what is untenable or not only!

All following which a human being has realised/seen the Pram tatva (Brahm) are valid.

Those paths who block the minds of human beings by saying `you simply can not see, understand or realise Brahm' are naturally invalid paths.

Ideology of gangasters can not be considered a valid path in vedant.

It is vivek shakti (common sense) that has to be used while understanding the verse `Ekam sad vipra bahuda vadanti' of rigveda.

This param tatva Bhram has been described as :

CXXIX. Creation.(Translation by Griffith)

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darknew this All was indiscriminated chaos.All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?TheGods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Does description of Allah or God matches with this description of Param tatva that existed before any creation.

And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed.

Therefore spritual paths that are capable of taking the seeker to our origin are valid paths. vedic Rishis say there are many paths to reach there. But for sure those who never claim to lead a sadhak to that level can not be valid paths. Yes their spritual practices help sadhak to reach closer to destiny. Their political behaviour though has cased a havoc on the earth.

Man Singh:

""Does description of Allah or God matches with this description of Param tatva that existed before any creation.

And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed.""

Can someone interested in performing some public service enlighten everyone about what this person is raving and ranting about??

Man Singh:

""And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed""

True, but the correct spelling is Pluto, not Plut. However, the real issue, regarding the moral and aesthetic issues of our tortured times is this, at least from an ethical point of view is this: Would you read a sleazy magazine on a crowded train? Use a toothpic in public (no not pubic). Attend a "mating party" behind your partner's back (not not literally your partner's back). Slip off to a commercial sex venue after seeing your date home? Let us know.

Man Singh:

""And a sound vibration of `Plut'(waveform) characterstics caused the disturbace in it and creation evolved out of it like a tree from a seed""

True, but the correct spelling is Pluto, not Plut. However, the real issue, regarding the moral and aesthetic issues of our tortured times is this, at least from an ethical point of view is this: Would you read a sleazy magazine on a crowded train? Use a toothpic in public (no not pubic). Attend a "mating party" behind your partner's back (not not literally your partner's back). Slip off to a commercial sex venue after seeing your date home? Let us know.

am i the only person who pays any attention to man singh's tota maina ki kahanee? how come it took me so long to realize this? commonsense, eh?

CS # 60 to #63

Plut is pure sanskrit word and has nothing to do with Pluto.

For many people Newton Einstein and galileo's theorries are alos `tauta maina Ki Kahani' only becasue they can'nt understand it.

And I resepct even Tauta Maina ki kahani if they carry some moral for humanity. Why not?

We should go by moral of the story and not by wordings and even if we dun know the writer.

Perhaps `Pin drop silence' metaphor used in English literature was first used in Vedic sanskrit literature `Soochibhedya sannata' while describing the process of creation. Refer Chapter 6 shloka 7 of Rudra Samhita of Shivpuran that `itham satyam dhatamse soochibhye nirantare' (That truth existed even when there was comntinuous pin drop silence)

If some ignorant progeny of those great Rishis do not want to give any credit for their exteremely creative lieterary and analytical skills.

Yes there have been people ridiculing them in all ages and todays fans of `tauta maina' are no exceptions.

Macauley wanted to create such generation of Indians who have inferiority complex towarsd every thing Indian. You are demonstrating it well that you are a perfect product of Maucaley's factory.

What is origin of anger? Lord Krishna gives answer in Chapter in Bhagwadgeeta chapter 2 shloka 62 to 64 and compare it with what modern Pyschologists say?

Study theiry of creation from vedas and other vedic literature and then compare it with what modern scientists say?

Look how creatures like Ila has been described to act as male and female both in the beginning of creation.

Check how creation proceeded with creating another creature without sexual activities like Ameba and Paramesium do.

Look at order of Avataras Fish - Tortoise-narsingha-Ram (with vaanaras) - Krishna - Budha - .. and compare it with theory of evolution.

Study Aryabhatta, Parashar and Bhrigu , compare their conslusions about plenetry motion and its impact of human life and compare with it with results of modern reasearch.

If you find mismatches beyong reasonable limits then only call them `tauta main ki kahani' otherwise you are making monkey of yourself if you are ridiculing these great works of Rishis like this.

Man Singh:

the correct spelling is "tota", not "tauta" according the the Oxford English Dictionary of Authentic Indian Words.

#65

Good catch. MS should not misspell Indian words in English, it does not look authentic.

And BTW Man Singh,

The Eurocentric Cambridge Dictionary of Authentic Indian Words edited by Thomas Macaulay himself, spells "kahanee" as "kahanee", not "kahani". Please get grip on your language first, via Macaulay's dictionary.