Just because you possess and use power – even for good causes – does not make you great. I think the greatest people are people who are truly genuine and therefore happy. It is irrelevant how many other people you make happy or affect; if you are happy, you have won. And it is the course of nature that happy people make others happy.
Uncategorized
Science + Religion – Set 1
It’s not vs. It’s +
Too often people present science and religion as mutually exclusive choices. And in fact, for people who present themselves on either side of that choice, too often, this framing is just a way to pique interest and gain an audience. In fact, as both are streams of knowledge and pursuits of truth they must be complementary and not adversarial. Indeed, the closer one’s religion is to the Truth, the less there is a fight with science. And, the more honest the science (specifically in regards to the questions unanswered) the less the fight with religion.
“If we keep a bit of humility and accept mankind has not yet mastered the Truth through science or as presented by religion, we may actually be able to use both disciplines to move closer to the Truth at a greater pace.”
I am neither a scientist nor a theological or philosophical expert. I am a Swaminarayan Hindu and in my amateur readings of scripture and amateur interest in science, I have come across things that make me think that Hindu views of cosmology, written at a time without all the modern instruments of experimentation and observation, show that the rishi-scientists and mystics of ancient India were using spirituality to describe reality and discover the Truth in a way that is coherent with, if not instructive to modern science. I think they increase my faith in the mystics and scriptures as I believe it is truly a product of great intellect to describe things so accurately without having modern tools and science to support them. They also increase my faith in the idea that to attain the Truth we can use Science + Religion as opposed to framing the two as adversaries by putting Science vs. Religion.
Earlier, I admitted being an amateur and not an expert. This is because I know ‘half knowledge is dangerous’ and I hope that if I am presenting examples that I have misunderstood, someone will come along to put me in my place. Like anyone who writes blogs, at least part of the point is to start a conversation.
With that preamble here are points for us to think about:
source: http://suscon.bec.org.hk/tc/page.php?id=6&sub_id=18
1. The number of species on this planet.
In the Puranas, our rishis shared a system to classify all life. Just as we use six kingdoms today, the ancient rishis divided life into four kingdoms: swedaja (born from impure water – microscopic life and insects), udbhija (born of seeds – plants), andaja (born from eggs – reptiles and birds), and jarayuja (born from wombs – mammals). Thousands of years ago, a time without microscopes to see small life forms or satellites to track large ones, the rishis of Sanatan Dharma counted 8.4 million different types of life forms. Their accuracy is amazing! Especially when you consider the fact that after thousands of years of scientific research and species differentiation and extinction, in 2011, a group of scientists published a paper in the journal PLOS Biography that there were 8.7 million life forms on planet Earth.
source: https://www.deviantart.com/goateeguy/art/My-thoughts-on-String-Theory-178427359
2. String Theory and The Three Gunas of Maya
So I said in the beginning that I’m no expert so, let’s first understand some science from an expert.
https://embed.ted.com/talks/lang/en/brian_greene_on_string_theory
In this video, Physicist Brian Greene explains superstring theory in a TED Talk in 2005. The whole talk is interesting but for our purposes pay attention to 9:35 – 11:33.
I know there is a lot of depth to this theory and in fact, there are string theories and not just a single string theory. But for now, what I am taking away is this idea from Dr. Greene, that the fundamental, formative matter of the universe is a string whose permutations are perceived as particles who come together to form greater, more complex things. These strings live in a multi-dimensional space but share a single time dimension.
Now let’s consider the events of creation as told by Bhagwan Swaminarayan in Gadhada Section I – 12 and other Vachanamruts: Maya is the substance of creation and it is jad – meaning lifeless, without a consciousness. In Ultimate Dissolution (pralay) Maya becomes dense and small like an atom or a subatomic particle and stays within Metaspace (chidakash – which is the greater space than the normal space we talk about since that space is created later in ‘Creation’). Maya’s three Gunas (don’t how to translate this to English; the only known translation ‘Qualities’ doesn’t seem to make sense here) are in equilibrium here.
In creation, God (the greatest living, conscious thing – dare I say the greatest Energy) works through Aksharbrahman and the Aksharpurush (one of the liberated souls living with God in this Metaspace in a place called Akshardham – the eternal abode) and disturbs the equilibrium of Maya and creates the differing permutations of its three gunas – sattva, rajas, and tamas. Everything after this point, elements like the mahattattvas, etc. are all made from the kshobha (agitation – or shall we say vibration) of Maya and the permutations of its gunas.
To me, this sounds an awful lot like the idea of saying that in the Big Bang, a densely packed thing is disturbed with energy leading to vibration of strings whose permutations are the particles we perceive that come together to form greater forms of matter and all the forces and constants needed to explain the existing multiverses.
Interestingly, in this video, Dr. Greene talks about the fact that the equations of string theory require 10 dimensions of space but only one dimension of time. In Hindu cosmology, there is akash (space) and chidakash (a sentient, energy space or metaspace) – meaning that there are many spaces, but there is only one kal (or time). And, that time allows for (is one of the indirect causes of) the kshobha of Maya (almost word for word from the above-stated Vachanamrut Gadh I – 12).
So, the Big Bang, String Theory and a lot of theoretical physics do explain Creation quite well. However, that doesn’t mean that spirituality and religion have no place in the conversation. In fact, for Hindus, science may just be proving what our scriptures have said for quite some time. If we can accept that, understanding the science may help us understand the scriptures, and understanding the scriptures may also demystify some of the science behind these propositions of theoretical physics.
(As an aside, I think Germans kill at theoretical physics in history because Germany is a hub for studying Sanskrit. You look at the works of Kant and can’t help but see a German version of the workings of Shankaracharya and you look at String Theory and can’t help remember the physicist rishis of ancient India.)
Anyway, that’s a lot for one day and one read. There’s a bit more to come – including the duality of light – in the next set of examples to show it should be Science + Religion and not Science vs. Religion – at least for Hindus.
No Love Without Freedom
“No love without freedom, No freedom without love” – Dido
The English singer/songwriter Dido uses this as a refrain in her song of the same title. Her conversation is most likely with a lover. However, as a statement it’s universal.
The other day someone asked me how God could allow people the freedom to do horrible things if he is benevolent and powerful.
There are of course some metaphysical and ethical considerations. If people were without free will and the power to make that will come true, we would no longer be autonomous or independent. We would be automated – acting always without choice. Indeed, there is a question of whether cognition would exist if there is no choice. And if there were no cognition, would there be existence? The cogito – ‘I think therefore I am’ – would no longer exist and so how would we know we do?
But those questions aside, there is a philosophical but also emotional answer that is framed well by Dido in her song: There is ‘no love without freedom’. Virtues like love (in other words bhakti) cannot exist without choice. Love is not just a chemically-induced experience. It is something that takes free choice to both initiate and sustain. Love cannot be coerced; it has to be chosen. So there is no love without freedom.
Equally important is the second part, ‘no freedom without love’. Only those who truly love us, trust us and wish us to be happy can truly give us freedom. God’s choice to give mankind freedom arises from his love. He wants us to find our happiness and trusts that eventually (here, Hinduism’s understanding of eternity and rebirth is helpful) we will all find the truth.
And so, the question of evil in the world is answered by the existence of free will. And, the existence of free will is answered simply by the statement, “No love without freedom; no freedom without love.”
A question or two for the world
Is loyalty greater than honesty?
Is sacrifice for others greater than being content with one’s life?
May wisdom come to me from all sides…
The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake
Came across an interesting video today I hope everyone will take the time out to see. It is a TEDx lecture by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake on what he calls ‘The Science Delusion’. He essentially takes some of the underlying assumptions of today’s scientific pursuits and turns them into questions. In essence, he reminds us that science’s assumptions and worldview should not be exempt from scientific inquiry. He discusses 10 underlying notions of science that need to be questioned and then goes into detail about two: 1. that there are natural laws or constants and 2. that our memories and experiences are not just inside our heads but that we actually perceive external objects – basically he’s a pure epistemological realist and not an indirect realist like Locke and most who have followed. For details on his ideas, this video is a great intro and then of course we could pick up his book.
Here, however, I want to mention something that struck me as he spoke. His insights are either heavily influenced by Indian philosophy or at the least are very synchronous with Indian philosophy.
He questions weather the universe may itself have a consciousness. He says that he believes perception includes a force that reaches out to interact with the object we perceive – not just that we perceive it in our head from the bio-chemical-electrical messages of our senses.
Interestingly, Indian philosophers have said these same things for millenia. They say that there is a chidakash which the conscious space which holds the space of the universe. Basically, if this universe was born from the big bang, in what space did the big bang occur? The Indian philosopher’s answer to this for centuries has been chidakash which, again, literally means conscious space.
On the point of perception, Indian epistemologists in most Vedant traditions believe that knowledge has three forms – one is like a substance or form (gnanswarup). the second is a quality (gnanguna) and the third is a power or ability (gnanshakti). The soul is made up of a substance which is knowledge. It has the quality of knowing and it has an ability or power to know. in perception, the soul’s knowledge power reaches out and comes in contact with objects through the sense and on contact with the object, the eternal, experienced and knowledgable soul perceives the object and recognises it. That is sounds almost verbatim of what Dr. Sheldrake describes.
It is interesting that a modern and well-established academic has through research and the use of model tools come to believe the same things which ancient rishi-scientists perceived through calculation, contemplation or visions gifted by God’s grace. It is also sad that the current scientific establishment can’t even stand to let such ideas be discussed – even if it’s just an 18 minute speech on the internet. That’s right, TED actually banned Sheldrake’s speech and took it off their sight. So much for open minds, free speech and ruthless enquiry.
6 studies on how money affects the mind
More reason to be nirlobhi – it let’s you connect better to other humans. That’s what I get from this TED talk.
Hinduism: Alive and Well
People often like to talk about religion dying away or thriving and alive. But if you have heard about the BAPS Conventions that happened last week, you would never question whether Hinduism is dying or thriving.
For any religion to stay alive it has to maintain its principles while adapting to accept the media that will allow those principles to be best communicated to and absorbed by its practitioners. BAPS’s recent youth conventions gave us great insight into what that really means and they showed us what modern, vibrant Hinduism and Swaminarayanism looks like today. Their conventions also gave us a glimpse into the future of what Hindu practice will look like. But enough from me, just check out these documentary videos and see how BAPS has out done itself again in being at the forefront of Hindu spiritual evolution.
Why things don’t change…
So many of us want things to change. Having just gone through an election cycle in the US, change is like a buzzword, a fashion maybe. People want environmental policies to change to save the world; they want foreign policy to change to nurture more peace; they want economic policies to change so that we can climb out of recession, not fall off a cliff, and avoid all roads bumps in the future. And for that change, we will picket, we will shout, we will point out all the ways that all the people in charge, in suits, and in big offices on streets with famous names are all wrong. We will debate it over coffee and tea and at the dinner table. We will also do small private things – we will earnestly pray, we will read about new ideas, we will think of ways to make change in our homes, friends, and families. We will do all of this and then we will be frustrated – because it seems that despite all our efforts – nothing has changed.
We’ve done so much, so much of everything but the one thing that truly needed to be done. We needed to change ourselves. I am so upset about the recession and the credit crisis and yet I’m not willing to make the lifestyle changes to live within my means without leaning on credit. I’m so angry about the blind eye turned to the climate change and global environmental catastrophe that we’re all witnessing with our own eyes and still I can’t seem to ween myself away from the luxury of my personal car to join others in carpools or public transport. I’m not happy with foreign policy but I’m not willing to change how I interact with my neighbor.
So much of the change we want so badly but have not achieved is being hindered by no one else but ourselves. Now think on these words:
“The one who does not see oneself is the fool of fools.” – Bhagwan Swaminarayan.
“If one was as adamant about understanding as one is about explaining…” – Gunatitanand Swami
And as a modern rendition of this age old advice: “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
So
Good to see true diversity and acceptance in action.
It was 2006 when Keith Ellison (MN – 05) made history as the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. The same year, Mazie Hirono (HI – 02) and Hank Johnson (GA – 04) became the first Buddhists in American history to serve as U.S. Senators. But both Hirono’s and Johnson’s achievement was overshadowed by the fact that Ellison wanted to use Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Qur’an for his oath ceremony.
Despite the fact that the United States Constitution provides “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” (Article VI, section 3), there was much debate about whether Ellison was in fact worthy of the position he had earned. “He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization,” protested Dennis Prager
View original post 394 more words
“The Cove” and its Hypocrisy
I just watched the documentary “The Cove” last night. For those of you who don’t know about it, it’s a film about a group of people who try to stop the killing of dolphins in Japan. For more info: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313104/.
As a vegetarian Hindu, I’m all about saving dolphins from inhumane treatment and murder. But even then, this video just kept feeling weird to me. These men were making a cover operation (and sometimes it seemed the covert part of the job was what was making this exciting for them) to travel to Japan to save innocent dolphins; they challenged local authorities; they feel the local fishermen are evil; they crash conferences with videos and audio recordings and they really succeed at making it seem as if these Japanese fishermen are really the worst people in the world. And then there’s a line, which is meant to be something that really highlights how these Japanese are so misguided, that mentions how the Japanese are silly for claiming this is just a cultural misunderstanding. “You eat cows, we eat dolphins,” those silly Japanese claim.
But…that line caught something that I was thinking for the first half of the film already. These men and a one woman diver were going crying out about being humane; they bemoaned the evil treatment of separated baby dolphins from their parents as the parents went to slaughter; they cried as the waters turned red from dolphin blood; they held each other watching a dolphin writhe and jump in pain as it made final attempts at escape. And I wondered, have you been to a slaughter house? Why are you so surprised that you are not waking head-way through these Japanese people when you really have no moral high ground to stand on? These men catch wild dolphins – at least those dolphins had a chance of not being caught; in the U.S. and elsewhere millions upon millions of cows are bred in cattle FARMS!!! just for your consumption! They don’t even have a chance of have a free or natural existence. They probably a kill a few thousand dolphins every year; for you burgers and fries or the steaks you eat at fancy restaurants ask for the killing of millions of cattle. You’re surprised that the Japanese don’t listen that these fishermen can be so cruel; let me ask you. Have you heard of PETA’s campaign about the cruel treatment of cattle in America? Have you seen there videos? They make videos like yours every year – they may not be sexy covert ops but still. And after knowing about it for all these years and after watching those videos, did you change your lifestyle? Are you vegetarian or have you at least given up beef? So hard to change your own lifestyles, so easy to demand others to change – isn’t it? I agree that those dolphins should be saved. I gawk at the shock and sudden wave of humanity that is shown in the video when I know they probably had some Kobe beef during they stay in Japan.
People in the United States who eat meat should have to see the factories that produce their food. They should be forced to visit there before they purchase. Of course, chances are they’d get used it and then continue eating because at the end of the day changing social norms is not a simple thing and not a thing anybody likes to do. People will more likely look away then have to address the facts. It’s the very basic, maybe intrinsic, opposition to lifestyle-change that is freezing our society on two of our major issues – Global Climate Change (Global Warming) and our Economy.
Satsang Pensieve 