Comment

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 4, 2011 at 7:57pm

 

Thanks Jacques.

 

Indeed we have to get organized for making progress. The idea of a charter is very good.

 

I think the name "Traditions and Theosophy" is very good and we can begin by discussing just one topic, "Atomism", and see where we end up. Publication of a journal is certainly a very good obejective, while a book can be considered at a later stage.

Comment by Roopa H Narayan on March 4, 2011 at 9:31am

Hi all. thanx for the warm welcome. I am happy to share my thoughts based on my limited exposure to life and work in this area. I am Roopa (R.H.Narayan).

1. To begin with why dont we see Math in many of the Indian Philosophies, it is easy to give defensive answers as well as reductionist arguments that Philosophy itself is a higher science devoid of math. i think either of them would be opinions rather than truth. We need to firstly remember that Indian Philosophy as we know today is not the way it was truly taught. There has been a major gap and theer are people conducting specific studies to show how colonialists  (Dr.Nalini from US is one of them) made deliberate attempts to misinterpret our texts and leave us with a sense of - our philosophy is unscientific and a sham.

Secondly, at the times these were taught to students oral methods were relied upon and imagine a situation where you have a chance to pass across wisdom which must survive generations. Let us say for e.g., about triangles - then we will simply pass the statement that all triangles always have three angles which add up to 180degrees rather than a mathematical proof.

It is important to notice that off late people like Dr. Balchander Rao have just begun to prove that several mathematical theorems, etc were arrived at by our ancestors. heis one person working only for the last couple of decades or so. this is a new field and it will take time before enough research is done before we can draw conclusions about was all philosophy devoid of Math? In my humble opinion I would think no mainly because for e.g when we take Vaisheshika by itself it is a coherent theory to explain the space, motion, gravitation to mind, consciousness, etc. All this could not have been accomplished without much more than arm chair thinking and there is parallel evidence of temple astronomy, vedic altars related to astronomical cycle needing Math(check Subhash Kak), etc. Anyway that is for time to prove.

lastly about is philosophy dead, ont he contrary I think the scienctific world is just waking up to it. Science has the tardition of accepting anything as true only when everyone can reproduce the same result. even the uncertainity of quantum mechanics is accepted because there is a certainity that every one will find uncertain answers!!!!

The final aim or goal in Indian philosophy is knowing the answer to the ultimate question and this answer is interestingly not related to any real categories of the universe yet not making it unreal in any way. It can only be found ona one-on-one mapping basis and by following a certain yogic path. This is the catch 22 for modern science for even though only one Newton dicovered the Gravitation law, after he did, everyone could follow him. So also with Quantum Mechanics. But in Philosophy it doesnt work like that for the final answer alone. Is there a mathematical derivation or super computer capable computation or latest electron microscope revelable answer visible to all?

Unfortunately no. I will answer from Vaisheshika perspective (which is also Vedantic anyway). If the whole universe can be reduced to say a few different substances as space, time, matter, mind, etc and if all of this has evolved from one fundamental substance we call aNu, then such aNu will not be like anything we know because obviously it preceds even space and time. Now how is it possible to explain such an entity with any of our derivations or sharp microscopes or other techniques?

The only way is to fine tune our consciousness along with our mind to know the fundamental particle aNu (which is the equivalent of God in other schools of Vedantha). A strong connection between the consciousness and the aNu is observed may be because besides the laws of conservation, motion, momentum (all expressed in vaisheshika), a law of karma too is expressed which states that always when one follows the right path the law of karma aides such a life form.

This may sound bizarre but so are some of the quantum mechanical observations where splitting of certain particles seems to affect somthing else instantaneously, etc (check Donah zohar, etc).

This is a rather longish answer and not necessarily a perfect answer, but hopefully good enough to spark off soem interesting thoughts.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on March 4, 2011 at 6:10am

Filtering out combative attitude is definitively a must if we want to make some progresses.
I would call that positive challenging of ideas, and to do so, we may want to write a "Project Charter" , to be agreed and buy-in by all participants. This charter would propose :

- the overall goals and objectives of the project,

- the subjects to be studied, or at least generic themes we want to approach, not be overwelmed by the enormous amount of scientific disciplines. It can be a gradual roadmap with different threads opening when needed, in order to stay open to any matter which has a value in our projects. We may also want to propose to have a "champion" per area of research.

- a behavior guide.
It can sounds a little bit too formatted. Let's talk about it.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 4, 2011 at 1:57am

 

Thanks David.

 

I wlll touch upon "filtering out the combative attitude" just a little bit, since it raises a few questions.

 

Pranava Vada mentions the the sacred letter M of A U M as symbolizing the, "necessity of realation of neagtion". One way to explain this may be that whenever there are two objets at different potentials, a force will be generated between them, referred to as the hidden "i" of  A U M.

 

Science is by definition is forward looking. i.e. con be construed as having a forward movement vector. Philosophy is usually backward looking, i.e. referring to ancient texts, teachings etc. and therefore having a backward movement vector. So whenever one wil want to make a compariosn between the two, a force should emerge, perhaps what we call the "Combativeness". Until now, this combativeness has been good for both as it has kept science as well as philosophy on their toes.

 

If they begin to collaborate which means both acquire forward movement vector, will the force i still be generated?

Comment by David Reigle on March 3, 2011 at 6:57pm

The statement made by Capt. Anand Kumar, "Philosophers and Scientists will have to collaborate and not spar," strikes me as profoundly true. For this to happen, comparisons between science today and Theosophical teachings given by HPB more than a century ago will need to take into account the historical background of HPB's statements. Much of HPB's work was, at that early stage, necessarily combative.

HPB's first book, Isis Unveiled (two volumes, 1877), was largely meant to tear down existing beliefs, whether in religion or science. It was intended to clear the ground so that the idea of the existence of a hidden wisdom tradition could be heard and considered, without being summarily dismissed. To do this, she had to show that neither religion nor science had all the answers. Thus, as the ironic titles indicate, the first large volume of Isis Unveiled counters "The 'Infallibility' of Modern Science," and the second large volume of Isis Unveiled counters, "The 'Infallibility' of Religion."

Isis Unveiled was superseded by her major work, The Secret Doctrine (two volumes, 1888), which took a quite different approach. In Isis Unveiled, comparatively few of the teachings of the wisdom tradition were given, as the main focus was on clearing the ground for them. In The Secret Doctrine, the main focus was on bringing out teachings from the allegedly ancient and long hidden wisdom tradition. Here, in the one third of each volume devoted to comparisons with science, HPB gave some explanations of physical phenomena as being effects of causes originating on higher planes of existence that are beyond the reach of the physical senses. These were contrasted with explanations of science, based solely on physical reality. So the theme was still largely to combat what HPB regarded as the undue confidence that people then had in science, based, as it was, on physical data only. Science was becoming, for the public, what amounted to a new religion, a new belief system, and was often accepted by the public with nearly the same degree of blind faith.

Leaving aside the whole issue of what science and religion have become today in relation to what they were in 1888, any comparison between the Theosophical teachings and those of modern science will need to take into account the above facts. Otherwise, we may end up needlessly sparring rather than collaborating. It must be recognized what HPB was then doing, and why she was doing it. Her combative approach, no longer necessary today, must be taken into account. So when we compare teachings from The Secret Doctrine with those of modern science, it will be helpful to filter out the combative attitude that is clearly present in many of the source Theosophical writings. The reasons for this are clear.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on March 1, 2011 at 5:13pm

(continued)

 

in 1783, John Michell read an article at the London Royal Society saying that, based on Newton discovery, if light can be affected by gravitation like other particles, then it could not escape from a body having the same density that the Sun, but 500 times more large. Later on, in 1796, the mathematician Pierre Simon de Laplace express the same comments in his ' Exposition du système du monde' . These ideas were completely discarded at this time...

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on March 1, 2011 at 5:12pm

H.P.B. wrote in the S.D Volume II p.240, a note referring to the "central sun" : 

This « central » sun of the Occultists, which even Science is obliged to accept astronomically, for it cannot deny the presence in Sidereal Space of a central body in the Milky Way, a point unseen and mysterious, the ever-hidden centre of attraction of our Sun and system . . . the Eastern Initiates maintain that, as the supra-divine Essence of the Unknown Absolute is equally in every domain and place, the « Central Sun » is simply the centre of Universal life-Electricity ; the reservoir within which that divine radiance, already differentiated at the beginning of every creation, is focused. Though still in a laya, or neutral condition, it is, nevertheless, the one attracting, as also the ever-emitting, life Centre.

 

This « central sun » looks like what modern science calls BLACK HOLES which are now well identified and modelized as one of the end products of gravitation. Modern astronomers have been able to « visualize » such phenomenon, not as a visible object because, by definition, a black hole swallow everything which come too close, including light rays and nothing can escape from it. They can be spotted thanks to the vortex of matter and light which is seen « falling » into the black hole. It is anticipated that all galaxies and clusters of galaxies are orbiting around a black hole.

 

This black hole theory was developed during the 20^th century (the black hole name was labeled in 1968), but it is interesting to know that it was already anticipated long time ago, before the S.D was written : in 1783, John Michell read an article at the London Royal Society saying that, based on Newton discovery, if light can be affected by gravitation like ot

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 1, 2011 at 9:50am

 

Thanks Dominique.

 

The reason I cited the availability of the document on CERN/NASA server is to indicate that the very best scientists are at least aware of Philosophy, if not making use of it. Therefore, I disagree with Stephen Hawking. Philosophy is not dead. Not yet. But it has a lot of catching up to do.

 

One of the biggest roadblock one comes across is that although the ancient texts give very profound truths abot matter, universe, conciousness etc. but stop just there. There is no complete mathematical model available to build on that knowledge. Or, perhaps there is (as is evident by the vedic mathematics example) but is hidden and no keys are available. Those who have the keys are not willing to part with it. Even HPB or Subba Row take the reader to a point and then declare no further explanation can be given because of vows of secrecy. It is extremely frustrating.

 

One of the reasons, I rate this topic very highly is the hope that by discussing about it, a few brilliant minds will find the spark to develop algorithms to decipher those ancient texts containing so much of hidden knowledge. And, if that happens it will be the most significant contribution of Neuro-Philosophy.

 

But, for that to happen, Philosophers and Scientists will have to collaborate and not spar.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on February 28, 2011 at 10:29pm

 

While totally agreeing with David and Michael on the low level of interest that this topic has generated, perhaps one needs to ask what can we do to increase the level of participation. Or, is Stephen Hawking correct when he infers that "Philosophy is Dead"?

 

Had it been so, an excellent document on the investigation into matter in ancient Indian tradition of Nyaya Vaishehika (earlier referred to by David) would not be found on the servers of NASA/ Smithsonian/Harvard/ CERN. Please check out:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007physics...1077N

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1009308 

Comment by Michael A. Williams on February 26, 2011 at 11:43pm

I'm surprised, David, that there aren't more replies to many of the blogs and forums presented recently. With 2 to 3 new people joining almost daily, one wonders where they go once registered! It could a time issue for some, as my time is limited also.

Very quickly, in regards to this blog, you asked about new material in relation to Theosophy. In la arger sense of theosophy, I can point to two websites. Number one, there is now going Dr. Deepak Chopra's annual "Sages and Scientists  Symposium" in San Diego. It's being streamed live via Hay House for $99, but there are always videos and summaries afterward  that are free. Here's the website that shows all the participants. Put the cursor over a face and their name and bio appears:

http://deepakchopra.com/chopra-foundation/sagesscientists/symposium...

And here's Dr. Stuart Hammeroff's website, who has worked closely with Sir Roger Penrose(mentioned on this site several times) with some of the matters under discussion:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

There's lots of modern edge research and investigation concerning science, spirit and consciousness going on and these are just two that come readily to mind.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page