Quantum problem

[Hundovir]

Latest post of the previous page:

^^^
What he said.

[Nirvanam]

If the soul is natural (in the terminology relating to natural and supernatural) then it needs to conform to natural laws, which means it should also be able to be detected. If it cannot be detected and does not conform to natural laws it cannot be considered natural (by definition). This makes it beyond natural (=supernatural). Effectively, by presupposing the existence of soul the Vedic system limits itself. If it turns out that "soul" is actually just a name given to hormonal/chemical stimulation of the body and brain (as I suspect) then it means that the "soul" is a particularly poor presupposition for a logical epistemology to include.

You are wrong. For one, you are basing your argument on the word "natural". In any case, not all "natural" things are detected so far, hell they weren't even detected by modern science for until the last 100 or so years. So, because some "natural" thing is not YET "detected" by current science does not necessitate that it does not exist. You are free to believe what ever you want to though. Secondly, confirming to "natural laws": does science know ALL the natural laws? I am sure, no. How can science claim that something needs to obey a certain law when it does not understand that thing itself. As long as you look at everything from the current natural laws, you will only be able to detect things that obey those laws. It is only when you "discover" a new law that you end up discovering things that obey the newly discovered laws, or that in some ways the existing things obey the newly discovered law in some way, possibly.

One more area where you are wrong is the equating of soul with hormonal-chemical stimulations. You may "believe" it to be so, but you are in no special position to be taken seriously on that primarily because you don't seem to have an idea of what the "soul" means as per Vedic texts. Had you at least a decent understanding of how Vedic thought depicts soul, then with your amazing background in biology I may be inclined to consider your suggestion. Apologies, if it sounds personal, but please overlook it to understand the general point I am trying to make.

So, again, accepting one over the other is like in anything else, an individual's choice. Neither of these approaches are wrong, or probably not even right in entirety. But both of them have their own advantages, and disadvantages. But this time, I'll not add that most would agree with this

[Hundovir]

In any case, not all "natural" things are detected so far, hell they weren't even detected by modern science for until the last 100 or so years. So, because some "natural" thing is not YET "detected" by current science does not necessitate that it does not exist. You are free to believe what ever you want to though. Secondly, confirming to "natural laws": does science know ALL the natural laws? I am sure, no. How can science claim that something needs to obey a certain law when it does not understand that thing itself. As long as you look at everything from the current natural laws, you will only be able to detect things that obey those laws. It is only when you "discover" a new law that you end up discovering things that obey the newly discovered laws, or that in some ways the existing things obey the newly discovered law in some way, possibly.

Nevertheless, if new discoveries are to be made it will be through scientific method and evidence, not through mysticism.

One more area where you are wrong is the equating of soul with hormonal-chemical stimulations. You may "believe" it to be so, but you are in no special position to be taken seriously on that primarily because you don't seem to have an idea of what the "soul" means as per Vedic texts. Had you at least a decent understanding of how Vedic thought depicts soul, then with your amazing background in biology I may be inclined to consider your suggestion.

Thousands of years of navel gazing did not a cure for cancer find, nor modern anaesthetics or antibiotics or... Just what exactly are you claiming about Vedic methodology? What exactly has it discovered? In what way is its explanatory power complementary to scientific method, or what does its explanatory power actually explain that scientific method does not?

Apologies, if it sounds personal, but please overlook it to understand the general point I am trying to make.

[Paolo]

If the soul is natural (in the terminology relating to natural and supernatural) then it needs to conform to natural laws, which means it should also be able to be detected. If it cannot be detected and does not conform to natural laws it cannot be considered natural (by definition). This makes it beyond natural (=supernatural). Effectively, by presupposing the existence of soul the Vedic system limits itself. If it turns out that "soul" is actually just a name given to hormonal/chemical stimulation of the body and brain (as I suspect) then it means that the "soul" is a particularly poor presupposition for a logical epistemology to include.

You are wrong. For one, you are basing your argument on the word "natural".

That is because you used the word supernatural totally out of context in your previous post. Natural has specific meanings as well as more general ones, when in relation to supernatural it has the meaning I gave - you are the one who is wrong.

In any case, not all "natural" things are detected so far,...

Name one.

...hell they weren't even detected by modern science for until the last 100 or so years. So, because some "natural" thing is not YET "detected" by current science does not necessitate that it does not exist.

If it can't be detected then how do we know it exists in the first place? The simple fact is that we don't. Someone had to make it up for us to be discussing it. Who made it up? Why are you willing to take their word for it when no-one has witnessed this thing and not even sophisticated technology can detect it?

You are free to believe what ever you want to though.

Interestingly I was going to say the same to you. The fact is that I don't believe something for which there is no evidence - my position is not faith based - it is evidence based, your position however requires faith in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Secondly, confirming to "natural laws": does science know ALL the natural laws? I am sure, no. How can science claim that something needs to obey a certain law when it does not understand that thing itself. As long as you look at everything from the current natural laws, you will only be able to detect things that obey those laws. It is only when you "discover" a new law that you end up discovering things that obey the newly discovered laws, or that in some ways the existing things obey the newly discovered law in some way, possibly.

You miss the point that natural laws are obeyed by everything - that's what makes them laws. It makes no difference if there are natural laws we are yet to identify - everything still conforms to the natural laws that we are already aware of (thermodynamics anyone?). If something transcends these laws then it is supernatural by definition. Science doesn't say that things have to conform to natural laws, it says that natural laws seem to exist, since everything seems to follow them. Scientists try to identify those laws, they don't try to set them. So far, nothing has yet been found that transcends current natural laws - if something was found that did then the natural laws as we know them would be rewritten to account for the new information.

One more area where you are wrong is the equating of soul with hormonal-chemical stimulations. You may "believe" it to be so,...

As I said, I suspect it may be so - I do not believe it to be so.

...but you are in no special position to be taken seriously on that primarily because you don't seem to have an idea of what the "soul" means as per Vedic texts. Had you at least a decent understanding of how Vedic thought depicts soul, then with your amazing background in biology I may be inclined to consider your suggestion. Apologies, if it sounds personal, but please overlook it to understand the general point I am trying to make.

Rather than castigate my ignorance, why not provide a clear, brief description of what the soul is in Vedic texts (please summarise here rather than providing a link)? Then I can give a more informed opinion.

So, again, accepting one over the other is like in anything else, an individual's choice. Neither of these approaches are wrong, or probably not even right in entirety. But both of them have their own advantages, and disadvantages. But this time, I'll not add that most would agree with this

Let's see your idea of what constitutes "soul" before we start getting into discussions about who's right or wrong. Fundamentally the two approaches are different and I can see quite specific flaws in the epistemology of Vedic logic - but that will revolve around this concept of "soul".

[Dan]

Dan,
This link provides..[etc etc]

None of those links appeared to be relevant to the discussion.

Here's a small write-up in one of the number-syllable systems used for naming children with astronomical references that I am copy-pasting:

Erm, yes, but I challenged you to explain how the Gayathri mantra could be used to teach the value of "pi". The rather mundane school-yard numerology you have posted manifestly fails to explain that.

I don't believe the Gayathri mantra can be used to teach the value of "pi".

I referred to vedic methods as examples.

Examples are usually helpful ways of illustrating particular points or steps in an argument. Your examples, on the other hand, are completely irrelevant. If you have some relevant or useful examples, why not post them?

the European Missionary Bastards coined term "Hinduism/Hindutva" don't go around accusing me of stuff like this: "indeed, as soon as I hear talk of "Vedic science", alarm bells start ringing about Hindutva chauvinism, and the right wing ideology that all of science and civilisation is contained within Vedic mythology. Why are you promoting Hindu nationalist dogma on a humanist forum?"

"European Missionary Bastards" did not coin the term "Hindutva". It was coined by Vinayak Savarkar in 1923.

I hope you don't accuse me of such cheap hindutva chauvinism/ hindu nationalist dogma again.

Does this mean you explicitly deny any affinity to Hindutva and are prepared to say so here and now?

Although Vedic "science" is fashionable right now, it is also core to right-wing Indian nationalist politics. What you are advocating here, and the language in which you advocate it, has political consequences, intended or not. This needs pointing out, and it is no good complaining.

Dan

[Dan]

Like I have been saying all along, the modern scientific approach and the Vedic approach have a fundamental difference: modern scientific approach typically looks at a human being as a physical complex, and tries to find explanations of phenomena thu physical attributes. Whereas Vedic approach typically assumes that the human being as a body/mind/soul complex and tries to find explanations thru all 3 characteristics.

Accepting one over the other is like in anything else, an individual's choice. Neither of these approaches are wrong, or probably not even right in entirety. But both of them have their own advantages, and disadvantages. I woudn't think anyone would disagree with that.

I disagree with that.

Well, obviously I don't think that there shouldn't be freedom to choose. But that's a red hierring - it's not the issue at all.

I think the Vedic approach is completely wrong and must be rejected. I do not think that whether you are "astika" or "nastika" in Hindu terms is a toss-up. This division of human beings into "body/mind/soul" is incoherent. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Dan

[Nirvanam]

Dan, Hundovir, Paolo,

I stand defeated in that I don't think I have anything else to add to the discussion as it stands. I don't know what you can take out of this discussion, but I haven't gained a lot new (through your perspectives) from what I already knew. But believe me I say this only with regards this thread, I have learned from your viewpoints in other threads though.

As for the definition of the soul, I think if you'd want to really know the definition then you'll look for it yourself because whatever I say or present will be limited by the use of language and that will not be the true definition of the soul. Neither do I claim to know its definition. As I posted earlier, it is "felt", "experienced". Now, according to you what I feel/experience maybe hallucination or overactive imagination whereas according to me it is the soul. Immaterial of the "correctness" of it at a point in time, space, perspective, and context, it does not cause any harm to you or me. The maximum harm can be an ego that is hurt because the other person did not accept for himself your understanding.

I got the Gayathri mantra thing wrong...it isn't the Gayathri mantra but a hymn which glorifies Krishna that also gives the value of pi. I don't know how they devised the codes but I kinda know the result of it...numbers associated with certain letters in Sanskrit. On the face of it, may seem too simplistic. You will understand its complexity/sophistication only when you attempt to do a similar thing, for example create a code which uses numbers to depict some letters of the alphabet. Now consider a statement that you want to teach children, like "The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is defined as pi". Ensure that your numerical code will also help children translate this statement to 3.14..... Be aware that the code i.e. number-letter mapping must hold good in all other statement-math things i.e. if you assign the number '3' to the letter "T" or the word "The", then when you use this code on a statement like "The greatness of science is in its empirical grounding", here too the letter "T" or word "The" must take the value 3. Again, the use of such a code by itself does not qualify Vedic ways of approaching understandings as better or worse than our current systems. It is just different.

There was a mention that "if it can't be detected then how do we know it exists in the first place". Given the context of what I had mentioned which then brought up this argument, I totally stand defeated on how I can make you understand my point. I'll just hope if you re-read those arguments you will figure out yourself.

On what Vedic sciences have discovered...how do you want me to answer this? Or would you be able to understand its discoveries and contribution to humanity in a generic sense by being aware that before the Europeans came to India, there was some form of Engineering/Sciences which helped build houses, reservoirs, study patterns of the monsoon to grow crops during suitable seasons, perform surgery, contribute to mathematics....

I think I have stated my perspective, nothing more to add to this discussion in its current form. I leave the last word to you...go for gold.

[Hundovir]

Yeah, we seem to be rather at loggerheads!

Is this link worth anything? (you can never be sure with Wiki):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... edic_texts

I think my basic position is that although "science" has not of course discovered everything, nevertheless it's through scientific method that we do indeed come to a "true" understanding of the world. I realise that not everyone agrees, and I don't really know how to press my case. I think introspective mysticism does not yield real knowledge of anything other than what it "feels like" to be human. And what it "feels like", whilst an interesting piece of information, is not necessarily a good guide to anything other than "what it feels like".

[Paolo]

As for the definition of the soul, I think if you'd want to really know the definition then you'll look for it yourself because whatever I say or present will be limited by the use of language and that will not be the true definition of the soul. Neither do I claim to know its definition. As I posted earlier, it is "felt", "experienced". Now, according to you what I feel/experience maybe hallucination or overactive imagination whereas according to me it is the soul. Immaterial of the "correctness" of it at a point in time, space, perspective, and context, it does not cause any harm to you or me. The maximum harm can be an ego that is hurt because the other person did not accept for himself your understanding.

Nirvanam, I understand your frustration, but I just want to be clear that I am learning a lot from this discussion, because it is making me examine the epistemology of both science and the Vedic approach. Neither are perfect with regard to their assumptions, but so far science makes fewer assumptions and those assumptions are founded on what we are capable of knowing. You said:

...but you are in no special position to be taken seriously on that primarily because you don't seem to have an idea of what the "soul" means as per Vedic texts. Had you at least a decent understanding of how Vedic thought depicts soul, then with your amazing background in biology I may be inclined to consider your suggestion. Apologies, if it sounds personal, but please overlook it to understand the general point I am trying to make.

So you are arguing that Vedic though has a particular interpretation of soul that I have misunderstood, therefore my thoughts are inaccurate regarding this issue - that is a valid statement, since I do not claim to know what the Vedic idea of the soul is. If you are then saying that you don't know what the Vedic soul is, I obviously have to wonder what you found disagreeable about my interpretation? Moreover, if there is no agreed definition of the Vedic concept of soul then I fail to understand how it can have a place in any logical structure - Vedic or otherwise. Logic requires definitions, otherwise it is unstable.

I am happy to change my mind when I am presented with a convincing argument, or if I am shown evidence, but to disregard my opinion on the basis that I don't understand the Vedic concept of soul, when you don't either, seems neither valid nor particularly fair. Perhaps you should try researching the epistemologies of the thought systems you subscribe to/defend, rather than expecting others to research them for you?

I try to avoid being dogmatic about things - so far I have found the scientific method to provide the best mechanism for understanding the world - but I am open to better suggestions. However, I am not convinced by the Vedic system for the reasons I have stated previously. On the basis of our discussion I conclude that the Vedic system is simply not as good as the scientific method, either logically - as demonstrated by unfounded epistemological assumptions, or practically - as demonstrated by the global success of science based technologies and applications.

I make no claims for science as a cultural phenomenon however - as far as I am concerned diversity in cultural outlook generates new ideas which can feed into the scientific process, thereby improving our knowledge. The conflict that seems to exist between science and cultures seems to arise from the fact that merciless science crushes the romance and mysticism out of cultural ideas that people want to keep hold of. I suggest that this is the true incompatability between science and the Vedic system and I think it is this which leads to frustration with the scientific method.

[Dan]

As for the definition of the soul... Neither do I claim to know its definition.

So, hang on a minute, let's get this straight. You post here about the soul, but you don't know what it is supposed to be?! No wonder we've reached an impasse.

As I posted earlier, it is "felt", "experienced".

But is it? As you've said, you don't know what the "soul" is supposed to be, so how do you know it is felt or experienced?

Now, according to you what I feel/experience maybe hallucination or overactive imagination whereas according to me it is the soul.

But according to you, you don't know how to define "soul", so of what value is your giving that label to whatever it is you think you are experiencing? Not much value, eh?

I got the Gayathri mantra thing wrong...

That much was obvious.

it isn't the Gayathri mantra but a hymn which glorifies Krishna that also gives the value of pi. I don't know how they devised the codes but I kinda know the result of it...numbers associated with certain letters in Sanskrit. On the face of it, may seem too simplistic. You will understand its complexity/sophistication only when you attempt to do a similar thing, for example create a code which uses numbers to depict some letters of the alphabet. Now consider a statement that you want to teach children, like "The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is defined as pi". Ensure that your numerical code will also help children translate this statement to 3.14..... Be aware that the code i.e. number-letter mapping must hold good in all other statement-math things i.e. if you assign the number '3' to the letter "T" or the word "The", then when you use this code on a statement like "The greatness of science is in its empirical grounding", here too the letter "T" or word "The" must take the value 3. Again, the use of such a code by itself does not qualify Vedic ways of approaching understandings as better or worse than our current systems. It is just different.

The use of such a "code" has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "approaching understandings", even if we take your account of it at face value (and as we've just seen, that's a dangerous thing to do, because it often turns out that you literally don't know what you're talking about, even as you attempt to defend it).

What you're talking about here just sounds like another version of Piphilology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piphilology).

Never mind your vedic woolliness, why not just use a Western mnemonic?

"How I wish I could recollect pi easily today". Memorise that, and you will know that Pi=3.14159265

Your stuff is pretty much at the same level, but not as good.

I'll just hope if you re-read those arguments you will figure out yourself.

There is little chance of this, given that your arguments seem to mainly consist of stuff you've made up, stuff you can't explain, and irrelevancies.

On what Vedic sciences have discovered...how do you want me to answer this? Or would you be able to understand its discoveries and contribution to humanity in a generic sense by being aware that before the Europeans came to India, there was some form of Engineering/Sciences which helped build houses, reservoirs, study patterns of the monsoon to grow crops during suitable seasons, perform surgery, contribute to mathematics....

There's quite a good Wikipedia article about some of the (ludicrous) claims made of the Vedas. From my point of view, it's important to distinguish between what you might call Vedic fundamentalists claim the Vedas say, and what they really say.
And of course it's all mixed up with dubious right-wing politics, too.

It is surely plain daft to attribute to "Vedic Science" every advance made historically in India. India, like all civilisations, had its inventions and technologies, and mathematics, and so on, of course. But on what grounds do you claim that those things arise from "Vedic Science", as opposed to good old fashioned empiricism? In the sutras, which were used to relate mathematical problems, the poetic rendering (which assisted memory) was followed by a prose explanation which justified solutions in ways that would be familiar to anyone. They didn't solve mathematical problems with magic, you know.

"Vedic Science" is supposed to be a current thing. So a fairer question than asking about ancient civilisation is to ask what, now, has been discovered using these so-called "methods"?

Dan

[Felicia]

Right. Apologies for having started off this thread with little more than a vague disquiet about an area which seemed teasing in the extreme for which I just hoped someone would come up with an answer. Since then, I have taken advice from Emma and others and have read Feynman, and also a useful book by Nick Herbert called 'Quantum Reality', which gives I think, a fair survey of the various attempts that have been made to explain quantum reality in layman's terms.

Feynman: "I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'but how can it be like that?' because you will go 'down the drain' into a blind alley from which no one has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

He may be a Nobel Laureate, and originator of one of the more interesting theories about how it can be like that, but I need more than that. I find that, as human creatures, we are wedded to narrative in all our societies, in many of our activities. I have my own agenda, having been a professional writer of fiction at one stage. I also held quite strong deterministic beliefs: if this happens, that will be the result. This is the basis of the fiction plot, and also classical physics. It gave a pleasing stability to the world, something that can be comprehended, something rational. Temperamentally, I sympathise with Dan's passionate advocation of the rational.

Herbert says two interesting things before getting into his survey: 1. Quantum theory works. Its applications are wide ranging, from transistors and their impact on computers to astro physics and immensely useful. 2. Many physicists are happy to use it without considering what narrative can possibly surround these very odd effects. They follow Feynman in being wary of the blind alley. But it seems that the various narratives that have been presented (8 are surveyed by Herbert, all from eminent, often Nobel laureate mathematicians and physicists,) sit perfectly happily into the quantum framework. Therefore I'm now going to tell you what they are. We could even have a poll, if you like, for people to register which one they think might be the answer. This would probably be a whimsically or emotionally held position because few of us here would be able to unravel the maths required. I myself am of course taking the maths on trust. There will of course be a box for 'other' for any budding mathematical genii we may have among us.

The problem seems to be that at the minute level, there is nothing solid or predictable. As Heisenberg (he of the uncertainty principal) said, 'Atoms are not things...' and talks of 'probability waves, potentia, a strange kind of physical reality somewhere between a possibility and a reality.' What exists at the minute level are waves of probability and this is what the scientists work with. As soon as the wave is measured or observed however, it turns into particles. It begins to become comprehensible in classical physical terms. How or why this happens seems to me almost the most interesting question of all and is indeed the essence of many of the 8 explanations.

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation Version 1. Niels Bohr: there is no deep reality. "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description.' Our world is real enough but it rests on something unreal. This has been the majority view for many years, for most quantum physicists.

2. The Copenhagen Interpretation Version 2. (Reality is created by observation). John Wheeler: ”No elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.”

3. Reality is an undivided wholeness. Heitler: ‘the act of observing joins the observer to the observed.’ There is no separation. David Bohm: ‘The inseparable interconnectedness of the quantum world of the whole universe is the fundamental reality. ‘

4. Many worlds interpretation. (Reality consisiting of a steadily increasing number of parallel worlds). Herbert: ‘Of all claims of New Physics none is more outrageous than the contention that myriads of universes are created upon the occasion of each measuring act.’ Invented by Hugh Everett in 1957, this has, bizarre though it seems, increasing numbers of supporters among the quantum physicisists.

5. Quantum Logic. The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning. Just as Einstein’s theories showed a different geometry (that space and time are curved), so we need a different language to address the minute universe.

6. Neorealism. The world is made of ordinary objects. The view espoused by Einstein, Max Planck, Schroedinger and other luminaries… we just haven’t discovered enough about it yet. Einstein debated this at length with Bohr (see No. 1) but there was no conclusion and neither would give up. The EPR idea – that of the Hidden Variable was Einstein’s riposte.

7. Consciousness creates reality. The only observer that counts is the conscious one. Again bizarre, but espoused by Walter Heitler, Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, world class mathematisian John von Neumann. Wigner; ’It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness….It will remain remarkable …. that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality.’

8. The duplex world of Heisenberg. The world is twofold, consisting of potentialities and actualities. No deep reality; a kind of semi-reality - full reality status conferred by act of observation. The foundation of our everyday world is no more substantial than a promise.

A fascinating aspect is Bell’s theorum in the ‘60s: that reality is non-local. That quantum events can take place instantaneously across vast distances. This directly contradicts classical physics: the neorealists hated it, and one of them, Clauser dedicated years to trying to disprove this experimentally. Unfortunately, his experiment consistently proved that Bell was indeed right and that Einstein’s EPR thinking, and Newtonian physics just do not apply.

The structure of quantum reality is thus, whichever explanation you take, bizarre…. Or even, if you manage to think of something else, it has to include Bell’s non-locality.

Many of the above ideas bear relation to Eastern modes of thought (viz Capra’s Tau of Physics).

I’m going to investigate string theory next. Will let you know, if anyone’s still following this!

[Hundovir]

Yep QED is definitely a boggler!

This is where I find the Buddhist "Heart Sutra" very interesting. In one way it denies everything about Buddhist teaching, but in another...

It includes the following:

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness, emptiness only form.

All 'things' are characterised by emptiness -
They are not born nor are they destroyed.
They are not defiled nor are they pure.
They do not increase nor do they decrease.

In emptiness there is no form, feeling, perception, intention or consciousness...

There is no ignorance, no ending of ignorance...

There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no ending of suffering, no noble path to lead from suffering...

There is no attainment and nothing to attain."

[Nirvanam]

Yep QED is definitely a boggler!

This is where I find the Buddhist "Heart Sutra" very interesting. In one way it denies everything about Buddhist teaching, but in another...

It includes the following:

"Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness, emptiness only form.

All 'things' are characterised by emptiness -
They are not born nor are they destroyed.
They are not defiled nor are they pure.
They do not increase nor do they decrease.

In emptiness there is no form, feeling, perception, intention or consciousness...

There is no ignorance, no ending of ignorance...

There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no ending of suffering, no noble path to lead from suffering...

There is no attainment and nothing to attain."

This is not exactly original Buddhist philosophy...all these ideas come from Vedic works. Buddhism and Jainism are essentially parts of Vedic philosophies. Its like this: there are different levels of the Vedic philosophy catering to different "requirements" of people. At one point the Vedic people find comfort through superstition, at another point other Vedic people find comfort/understand all/one through faith. At another point some people understand all/one through the work they do...experience, this is karma. At another point people understand all/one thru contemplation and testing...this is science. At another point some understand all/one thru meditation..this was buddha's way.

Central to the Vedic philosophy is that all the above are not "levels" of higher understanding like a ladder...rather they are just different and serve the purpose of relativity. So, they are more like points on a wheel where no point is higher or lower than the other although they are interpreted as such by the observer. This in essence is relativity of experience. Therefore all/one changes in time, space, perspective, and context. And the dichotomy is that it is both correct and incorrect at the same time i.e. All is One yet Each is unique.

[Hundovir]

This is not exactly original Buddhist philosophy...all these ideas come from Vedic works.

"Father Christmas? Indian!"

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

Da Vinci? Indian!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWd9a8C ... ature=fvwp

The Queen? Indian!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTib5ic8cMI&NR=1

[Dan]

More nationalist political propaganda from Nirvanam, I see.

Not everything is vedic.

Dan

[Fia]

I just want to thank Felicia for taking the time to report on her reading on this subject, and am eagerly awaiting her investigations and others thoughts on string theory. Thanks Felicia

[Felicia]

Thanks, Fla! I am finding this exploration completely fascinating... the string theory book I;ve got, by Brian Glover (The Elegant Universe) starts with a thorough account of Relativity, which obviously I've obviously come across before. But it;s really coming into focus now, And although I know that bringing in Eastern thought to this discussion puts Dan and Nirvanem at loggerheads, it brings back the feeling of trying to grasp emptiness, back when I was a Buddhist. And the main Buddhist line was that reality does not inherently exist, not as we think it does. It is relative to us. Back to Einstein..... I suppose I really love these connections, (its the novelist in me). It does seem that there's something profound here, even if we can't be exactly sure what it is.

[Nirvanam]

This is not exactly original Buddhist philosophy...all these ideas come from Vedic works.

"Father Christmas? Indian!"

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

Da Vinci? Indian!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjWd9a8C ... ature=fvwp

The Queen? Indian!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTib5ic8cMI&NR=1

More nationalist political propaganda from Nirvanam, I see.

Not everything is vedic.

Dan

Hundovir, Dan,
Please, please, please, don't take it out of context. My response was to the specific thoughts that Hundovir mentioned as being part of Buddhism, that's all. Why imagine it to be nationalistic propaganda or anything else?

[Hundovir]

Sorry Nirvanam, I didn't mean to offend - it's just that I was suddenly reminded of the character in the BBC series!

I know what you mean, but... your post didn't really add to the discussion i think.

[Nirvanam]

Sorry Nirvanam, I didn't mean to offend - it's just that I was suddenly reminded of the character in the BBC series!

I know what you mean, but... your post didn't really add to the discussion i think.

What character are you referring to? Lemme see if we get that show here

[Hundovir]

Look at the youtube links!