When expressing anything, or making a point in a discussion, unless the point is made correctly, there is always the issue of ambiguity.
We try to avoid this by making a statement as precise as possible in order that it not be interpreted wrong.
In our discussion, we have already crossed a point where we have concluded that belief is not what we are after. We only make points about things we KNOW for sure - by inner experience or otherwise irrefutable proof. So it doensn't matter what any of us believe, we're after the Truth, which by definition, is unaffected by anyone's superstitions/beliefs.
I can accept "I feel so-and-so..." Or "I have personally experienced so-and-so as a consequence of such-and-such occurrence... Or "I think this because it follows as either an implication of or a conclusion from 1) Premise A and 2) Premise B..."
Anyone can - make a sensible statement for purposes of discussion...unless of course, you don't want your comment to make any sense.
'Ahankara:' Hmmm. I suggest you look up the origin of this word in Samskrith. Abusing anyone for any reason, be it their ignorance or their behaviour or their culture, is not a good thing. But there are more accurate words to describe such actions/attitudes.
It is inevitable that when one person is offended, he/she will resort to abuse. We try to work around such differences by bringing back the focus of the discussion to The Truth we seek.
I do not condone swearing, personally, but it's a free world, and I do not personally swear as far as possible.
If you know anyone who's had a personal encounter with an Aghori, please invite them to share their experience.
Language is an issue, as incorrect statements lead to ambiguity - and ambiguity is the essence of lies or fiction. The Truth, by definition, cannot be ambiguous.
So, while we appreciate all input, someone in this group would definitely try to disambiguate an otherwise ambiguous statement.
Ambiguity deters the accuracy of a description - be it the description of a concept, or of an experience.
Once we clear up any ambiguity, then we are free of the mess that words tend to create.
The other option is telepathy, but that mode of communication is gone with the ancients, and is available only to select people.
Again, I'd love to start up such a pure mode of communication wherever possible.
Anyone and everyone who says anything about anything is requested to make valid points, as opposed to making vague statements.
I look forward to reading what you have to say...
Hi Elfie,
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the comments that I found on that blog, which you would like to answer -
I just stumbled upon the previous blog and was just curious about your knowledge.For starters, I'm agnostic, and into physics, computer science and neuroscience. I have never come across any particular mathematics that is used in quantum physics that's mentioned in Vedas. If you can give an example or reference it will be great. Although a lot of text, that is complex and abstract, explaining number theory and very elementary calculus, is present in the Vedas. I can cite references if needed.
Although, a lot of your thought process involves much better understanding of concepts, that most intelligent and intellectual people simply ignore, or choose accept what is told to them with out proper reason or logic,you seem not to question the very axioms that your belief system is founded on - Yes, I used the word belief, not truth, because until you can prove them they are just believes. Proof is another word that is inherently intertwined with logic and its something that you have avoided.
Further, you use the word "truth" and claim that "you" have abandoned logic(or at least the thought process of using it), the very system that spawns the existence of the word truth and its meaning. Why? - and more importantly How?
I also would like you to quote or provide references(perhaps books or scriptures that can be accessed and also,if possible, where you came across them) when you reason with evidences from the "The Vedas" to describe,contrast,or compare the "current" scientific findings.
Finally, you said "The Veda, a document that within itself claims to be of non-human origin.... It defines a process, and a system, of which we are part. This process is described very precisely." where is this document. If it was destroyed, how do you know or have access to it,more importantly why do you choose to "believe" it. If its not,then, where and how can someone gain access to it?
I expect a better reply than some pseudo meta-physical argument that knowledge is within oneself and one has to find it and such rubbish stuff or worse some circular logic meaning nothing in essence.
Thanks,
Navin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Navin,
ReplyDeleteI think I understand the logic you seem to be applying when trying to understand how Quantum Physics originated in the Veda.
First, let's get a few points in here:
1) What many know as The Veda is incomplete, as noted in the prophecies regarding the Kali Yuga - you cannot find a complete copy of The Veda in writing - the closest you'll ever come to is what has been saved in Kaladi by Shankaracharya's predecessors
2) Mathematics used by 'modern' physicists is inherently different from Vedic mathematics - I'd say you ought to look at the original Smskrth works of one of the last Aryabhattas - the gentleman born appx 476AD in what is now Bihar
3) Quantum Physics is not about a 'type of mathematics' but rather it is about concepts - for instance, the concept that an object can exist at two different locations at the same instance of time
4) I'm surprised you actually expect Vedic Mathematics to appear in your studies of physics, computer science and neuroscience
5) Mathematics is a mnemonic representation of the world around you - the actual mnemonics that are used to represent concepts in 'modern' quantum physics is different in the Veda
Now, to answer your queries themselves:
ReplyDelete"Although a lot of text, that is complex and abstract, explaining number theory and very elementary calculus, is present in the Vedas. I can cite references if needed."
## I am not a university and I truly couldn't care less about references - I remember past lives, and past learning - a lot of which is not available today. However, do you have ANY evidence that the Vedas you are referring to are the exact same scripture that was around 12000 years ago? Why don't you try proving that your references are actually the Veda?
Please note, logical argument is not about empirical evidence - logic and sensibility are different from empirical or mnemonic 'evidence'.
I realise this is not the answer you're looking for - you're probably wanting a set of papers that you can read and interpret... sadly, the Vedas do not exist in their completeness in the Kali Yuga - good luck with your pursuit though. If you find a copy you think is complete, please put it up on this blog for the benefit of other seekers =)
"you seem not to question the very axioms that your belief system is founded on - Yes, I used the word belief, not truth, because until you can prove them they are just believes. Proof is another word that is inherently intertwined with logic and its something that you have avoided."
## Again, proof is in the eyes of the beholder. Logic can be put in words - proof is what the beholder accepts - and these are two different things. I never claimed to either want to prove anything, or provide proof of anything. I have also not stopped in the way of anyone who wants to spend a lifetime or two hunting for proof. Why would you expect me to prove anything to you simply because you feel that logic is incomplete without evidence?
ReplyDeleteLogic is logic - like Boolean mathematics - you cannot prove Boolean mathematics - it's just logic - unless you count in digital electronics based on silicon technology. This logic can be whisked away by something as random as a change of technology - at the Australian National University, they're building chips that transport digital signals by optical shifts rather than a restless electron's opening or closing of a silicon hole.
BTW, you are free to use 'belief', 'truth', 'lie' or 'hogwash' to describe what I talk about on this blog. Such is your right to your opinion.
"Further, you use the word "truth" and claim that "you" have abandoned logic(or at least the thought process of using it), the very system that spawns the existence of the word truth and its meaning. Why? - and more importantly How?"
ReplyDelete## Perhaps in your view of the world, logic is what spawns truth, but not in mine. Here's an instance of how logic and truth are not related at a cosmic or Karmic level - Quantum Physics defies logic - at least 'popular' logic. Until Quantum Physics was accepted by the scientific community (albeit a limited part of that community), it was considered illogical and impossible that an object could exist in two locations at the same time.
In my humble opinion, it is people's perceptions that are rationalised as logic - the human mind aims to make sense of it all, although in the Kali Yuga, humans are merely a fourth of what they were, and are inherently incapable of making sense of the world around them.
Even today, no one can explain why your hand does not merge into a table when you touch it although there is no actual boundary between the sub-atomic particles in your hand and sub-atomic particles in the table. It helps to remember that science, and quantum physics are merely the result of very confused people trying to explain the lack of logic combined with mathematical logic they see in the cosmos. The only proof that your hand won't merge into the table occurs when you experience the touching of the table in person.
Similarly, in my humble opinion, many 'proofs' are 'provable' only when you experience that proof - for instance, that you are an agnostic is your perception. If you'd lived in dark-age Europe, you would have been a perfect slave since you already feel that you cannot know 'god' (Agnostic).
Also, that you are an agnostic makes your views quite irrelevant to the discussions on this blog, which are inherently Vedic- an agnostic believes there is 'god', although he or she cannot 'know' it - the Vedic does not believe, neither are there 'gods' or a 'god' in the Veda - it's that simple.
We are comparing apples and oranges. Agnosticism is merely a view on whether or not one can know 'god'. How is that relevant in a discussion where there is no 'god'?
"Finally, you said "The Veda, a document that within itself claims to be of non-human origin.... It defines a process, and a system, of which we are part. This process is described very precisely." where is this document. If it was destroyed, how do you know or have access to it,more importantly why do you choose to "believe" it. If its not,then, where and how can someone gain access to it?"
ReplyDelete## (Oh no, not again!!) My dear Navin, for the zillionth time in this blog, let me note that The Veda does not exist in its entirety ANYWHERE in the Kali Yuga. It is not a reference book that some monk left in his archive library - it is a bundle of knowledge that was once passed on from mind to mind.
I have memories of past lives that assist me in my quest - that is Karmic, and honestly, my past lives are my business.
There are many such people who are aware of their past actions and learning.
Access to knowledge is Karmic... you can't buy it, you can't get it out of someone's head like you would a number or a phrase
"I expect a better reply than some pseudo meta-physical argument that knowledge is within oneself and one has to find it and such rubbish stuff or worse some circular logic meaning nothing in essence."
ReplyDelete## You are welcome to your expectations, and your comment is your opinion that you have a right to express. However, you call yourself an 'Agnostic' - an agnostic is one who 'believes' that the nature or existence of 'god' cannot be known...
How can you claim any level of credibility for yourself or your comments by your own 'expectations' given that:
1) you cannot prove you're an Agnostic (because you can neither prove the existence or the non-existence of the 'god' you are agnostic about)
2) Circular logic is a paradox, and Vedically, the universe (including yourself) is a paradox known as Advaitham - and honestly, I can't be bothered explaining it here
3) How is a person who lives in circular logic i.e. that he cannot know something (god) that has no proven existence (mathematically or logically) anyway be expected to understand the most logical statement ever viz. "meta-physical argument that knowledge is within oneself and one has to find it" (try and disprove it - mathemetically, many theories can be proven by the fact that they cannot be disproven)
The word 'agnostic' implies that although god exists, his or her nature cannot be known - if you're an agnostic, prove that god exists, and then you can say that you feel you cannot know 'god'.
That is the equivalent of me telling you that although you exist, I feel I cannot know you - to say so, you have to first exist, or not exist, and this must be proved. Agnosticism is circular logic that does not lead anywhere unless this 'god' chap can come over and put in a word - given its Christian origin, I couldn't be more tickled.
What is pseudo? Agnosticism or the search of knowledge? You decide - and dear Navin, I wish you good luck in your search for a truly agnostic experience...
But regarding knowledge, it is a Karmic thingie, so I can only hope that your Karma will lead you to what you're looking for.
Remember, I am not here to prove anything - but merely to present what I have learned across lifetimes - however, you might want to start proving you're agnostic by finding 'god' and then confirming that you can actually not know anything about him/her/it.
Discussion is always a great way to present various views, and compare - I do hope your discussion with this blog has been of use to you, my dear agnostic Navin...
ReplyDeleteThank you