Meme theory = mayavada?

[Nitaidas]

Jul 1, 2009 7:16:45 GMT -6 @Nurse Diesel said:

Can you imagine being under the 'professional care' of such 'psychologists'?

Like having Nitai lecturing you on Love and Sweetnesses. ;D

Ah! My favorite topics!

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2009 15:34:17 GMT -6 @buddysattva said:

Jul 1, 2009 7:12:39 GMT -6 @Dr Nodhyssewf said:

Malati, this is not Dhyanakunda but Gaurasundara, Sanjay, Brainiac, Ekantin, etc. Sanjay was into GVism until he decided to embrace psychology as a possible profession. He hung around GV for years quoting shastra, making extensive shows of knowlegability, except he never took the plunge, never took diksa, never became a practicioner. Then suddenly he became against religion, proclaiming himself knowledgable on all things science. But like his performance in GV, his understanding of science is childish at best, and has got him in trouble already. So much for psychology, at GR, the forum where he was hanging out before coming here lately, he was gently asked to tone down his disrespect for general opinions. Yes indeed, Sanjay is a troubled psychologist. At least Dhyanakunda is smart enough to ridicule theists only under her breath...

Can you imagine being under the 'professional care' of such 'psychologists'?

I thought Ekantin was Ek from Gaudiya Repercussions, I haven't heard from "Gaurasundara" aka Sanjay Dadlani for quite some time, but I didn't know he was using those various aliases. I remember first encountering him years ago on various forums, for years he came across as a pretentious t-w-a-t who thought he was coming across as some sort of brainiac, I guess that is why he chose that name for himself at GR. But this recent bout of delusional mania is much worse than he used to act like. I didn't know he had renounced Vaishnavism, it wasn't that long ago when he was acting like Madhava/Ananda, e.g. writing about rasa and lila as if he was an expert. Maybe there is some sort of connection between them -- they both presented themselves as genius spiritual authorities on esoterica, but later lost complete faith in the tradition they claimed to have mastered enough to speak down to the unwashed masses about as if they were masters.

I imagine he has made a lot of anonymous comments here in the past, I remember someone attacking GR out of the blue with no context a short while back.

Señor Dadlani has apparently made enemies with Sathya Sai Baba followers. They have devoted a blog to him and web resources to making him look bad:

[Links removed at Ekantin's request. Buddy-sattva, isn't this more than a little beneath you? Weren't you just lecturing us about ad-hominem logical fallacies? Two ad hominems do not make an ad veritas. Why not address his arguments instead of who he is (or who you think he is)? --- Nitai]

Look, he simply attacked people for their opinions and then wanted to come back and engage in his unique form of offensive debate. Does he deserve to be answered? I think from me all he got and all he will get is what he deserved. Respectful dialogue is a two-way street, but with Sanjay Dadlani it's a one way street where it's his imperative to run everyone down while laughing like a maniac. All I did was give links to people who have documented his long history of online abusive behavior. Why should he be allowed free reign to spew lies and abuse about others and then have the truth about him hidden?

[YF]

VS said: "We could end up looking and sounding like fools."


The truth is, a developed spiritualist does indeed look and sound like a fool in the eyes of materialists. Mahaprabhu, for example, was taken for a madman, epileptic, and such things. Moreover, a developed spiritualist does not care whether he/she looks smart or not, in the eyes of the world.

From Osho's The Great Secret: "When a man who is dumb eats a sweet, he simply enjoys it and smiles. If you ask him, "What is the matter? why are you smiling?" he cannot express his feeling in words, he can only keep on smiling. And so the man who has drunk pure love also smiles. He is also dumb; he is also at a loss to express his joy. He is so filled with the taste that even the experience has disappeared. If you can understand his smile then you will know it is the only way he can indicate his feeling of great joy.":

[Ekantin]

I should have known that the responses to my points would bring nothing but personal attacks and muck-raking than an attempt to actually address my points. So let me knock it on the head now, and hopefully this will be the end of it:

1) Yes, I used to be known as Gaurasundara and used to participate at Gaudiya Discussions and the spiritual discussions there. I said as much in my first-ever post on this forum, Caitanya Symposium. I don't remember making any claims to "expertise" or knowing everything there is to know about bhakti-rasa, neither did I do anything to give off that impression. So I consider these claims to be baseless. But I have to say that I'm amused that people who have posed as experts and have themselves abused other people in forum discussions now observe the same behaviour in me. As I mentioned, atmavan manyate jagat and all of that.

2) Yes, I played an important part in the exposure of Sai Baba's grand deceptions. As a result, I have been the target of an internet stalking campaign and malicious websites meant to 'expose' me and throw mud. There are attack websites dedicated to other critics of Sai Baba too. The disgruntled followers of Sai Baba have tried to ruin my life and have even gone as far as to get me thrown out of several places of work (all unsuccessful, I'm happy to say). So what now? There are just as many refutations and response websites against those Sai Baba followers, that in turn level very serious allegations of internet stalking etc. What am I supposed to do about it?

3) I have not and never have been "in trouble" at Gaudiya Repercussions. For the record, I had been disatisfied with the atmosphere there for some time and made my concerns known to the moderators, even expressing my wish to voluntarily leave. Some of them thought it would be a loss to the forum if I left, so I appreciated their kind thoughts and stayed on. However, a recent episode in which an adverse reaction was generated to an opinion of mine ("visions are neurological experiences, not spiritual ones") again confirmed to me that the environment there is not accomodating to the ideas I wish to discuss, which also represent a part of the processing of my own post-Gaudiya experience. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And certainly nothing personal. I'd appreciate it if certain people refrained from acting as if they know my whole story and talking about things they know very little about, least of all without asking me. Unlike some people, I have never been kicked off or banned from any forum for any sort of objectionable behaviour.

4) I have been a member of this forum since Jan 26, 2008. My participation here has been sporadic since activity is not as high as it is in other forums. What of it? I have not "come here" after "leaving there" as some people think they know the story. I have always been here since Jan 2008. I may have sometimes posted anonymously when I wanted to make a quick point, but I have never abused anyone at GR under anonymity here. I look into this forum because I like to read posts especially by Nitai. His original researches into CV are like a breath of fresh air, as well as the way he challenges himself and his own beliefs. So I like to read his posts as well as those by a couple of other people.

5) I guess people are free to have their opinions about the limits of my "scientific" knowledge, but I find it amusing to have it criticised by people who clearly don't know the A-B-C of it. I am also not an "expert" in anything, as only very few individuals can claim to have an expertise. Usually they are Nobel Prizewinners. However, I do claim to know a few things, yes. Although I have a general interest in all things scientific, my specific fields are psychology and neuroscience. I work with neuroscientists for a living and also on some projects and experiments, so yes, I would claim to know a good few things about how the mind and brain works. Unlike some people, I don't need to make a pretence and talk about "overminds" and other things when I have plenty of actual evidence to refer to. Some of these things have a direct relation to some spiritual concepts which is why it is important that they are known. Perhaps they will make for interesting discussions. I really don't mind at all if anyone disagrees with me, it is up to them. But by the same token I am not going to sit here and agree with people and their fuzzy speculations about overminds, memes and other things when they don't appear to have the slightest understanding of mind or brain.

6) Am I proud of my knowledge? Maybe I am, I guess it is something natural when I have taken it upon myself to do some actual research into some things before I open my mouth about it. If everybody else could do the same, perhaps discussions would be that much more enlightening, a collection of people who actually know what they are talking about. I think this is reasonable. It is unfortunate that the people who seem to object to this are the very ones who appear to talk about things they know very little of. Perhaps if they recognised their deficiency and tried to correct it, never mind the fact that they may learn something new, things would be so much better. Reverting to innuendo, slander, muckraking and personal attacks is all I can expect from certain individuals who have an incredibly long history of doing so. So I tend to pour a lot of scorn on them because it seems to be all they deserve. I admit sometimes taking liberties because of our mutual histories and previous tete-a-tetes, because it is amusing how they are quick to point out faults in others without being aware of the same faults that exist in them. I have no intention to continue with it though, because there is a limit to the number of times I can hit a brick wall. But seriously, you can't expect me to take ignorant arguments seriously and then object when I expose them for the inaccuracies that they are. If people want to learn something, that's fine. If people want to disagree with me, that's also fine. But please, don't pretend that your critiques of Dawkins/science/memes are unassailable and of irrefutable quality. They are not, so please don't cry when someone like me points out exactly what is wrong with them. If you think your points are so great, you ought to be prepared to take criticism for it.

Can we cut it with the usage of real names, please? I find it objectionable that various individuals here hide under various aliases yet have no problem with pasting my name all over the place. I don't mind a good joust, but I expect people to joust with a certain code of honour, not below-the-belt shots.

[VS]

("visions are neurological experiences, not spiritual ones")

Actually if you watch the movie I linked to above entitled What The Bleep Do We Know, that is discussed, along with "thoughts"and "memory" (attn: Buddysattva), from a scientific, neurological perspective.

I'm in the middle of watching that part of it right now, in fact.

Of course, the movie is based on quantam physics theories and gets kind of new agey in some spots too, but just look past that if you don't like that sort of thing.

The brain connection in bhakti (or any "spiritual experience") is quite interesting and I think its the "missing link", in the sense that the manushya rupa is the one praised and set apart for sadhana. Why? What differentiates us from chimps or cows or puppies? Our highly developed brains and nervous sytems - which allow for more refined thought processes i.e. emotions. This in turn relates to why raganuga bhakti is a manasi dharma.

You can watch the docu-drama here:

www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_the_bleep_do_we_know.php

[YF]

I think this is reasonable. ;D:

[HF]

I am watching this:


...singing along:


Because you're there
When I awake
And then you leave me
to lie sedate
Because the children
With you can play
I think
I think I am

Cause when I speak
You're always there
You even listen
What I can tell
You are my gospel
My daily bread
Thats why I think I am

I am I am, I am I am
I think I am I think I am
I'm glad I am
I'm proud I am
A real religious man

As I realized
The mightiest friend
Can separate
A chance from fate
Cause you have all I need to take
That's why I think I am I am
I am I am
(whoa)

Cause I have prayed I just behave
Cause saints and sinners
Are quite the same
Cause it's my temple
The whole wide world
That's why I think I am I am

I am I am, I am I am
Think I am
I thank I am
I'm proud I am
A real religious man

I am I am
I am I am
I pray I am
I feel I am
Oh Lord I am
God knows I am
A real religious man

I am I am,
I am I am
I pray I am
I feel I am
Oh lord I am
God knows I am
A real religious man
a real religious man
a real religious man

Artist: Mister Loco
Song: Religious Man (I am, I am)

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2009 19:24:25 GMT -6 Ekantin said:

I should have known that the responses to my points would bring nothing but personal attacks and muck-raking than an attempt to actually address my points. So let me knock it on the head now, and hopefully this will be the end of it:

1) Yes, I used to be known as Gaurasundara and used to participate at Gaudiya Discussions and the spiritual discussions there. I said as much in my first-ever post on this forum, Caitanya Symposium. I don't remember making any claims to "expertise" or knowing everything there is to know about bhakti-rasa, neither did I do anything to give off that impression. So I consider these claims to be baseless. But I have to say that I'm amused that people who have posed as experts and have themselves abused other people in forum discussions now observe the same behaviour in me. As I mentioned, atmavan manyate jagat and all of that.

2) Yes, I played an important part in the exposure of Sai Baba's grand deceptions. As a result, I have been the target of an internet stalking campaign and malicious websites meant to 'expose' me and throw mud. There are attack websites dedicated to other critics of Sai Baba too. The disgruntled followers of Sai Baba have tried to ruin my life and have even gone as far as to get me thrown out of several places of work (all unsuccessful, I'm happy to say). So what now? There are just as many refutations and response websites against those Sai Baba followers, that in turn level very serious allegations of internet stalking etc. What am I supposed to do about it?

3) I have not and never have been "in trouble" at Gaudiya Repercussions. For the record, I had been disatisfied with the atmosphere there for some time and made my concerns known to the moderators, even expressing my wish to voluntarily leave. Some of them thought it would be a loss to the forum if I left, so I appreciated their kind thoughts and stayed on. However, a recent episode in which an adverse reaction was generated to an opinion of mine ("visions are neurological experiences, not spiritual ones") again confirmed to me that the environment there is not accomodating to the ideas I wish to discuss, which also represent a part of the processing of my own post-Gaudiya experience. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And certainly nothing personal. I'd appreciate it if certain people refrained from acting as if they know my whole story and talking about things they know very little about, least of all without asking me. Unlike some people, I have never been kicked off or banned from any forum for any sort of objectionable behaviour.

4) I have been a member of this forum since Jan 26, 2008. My participation here has been sporadic since activity is not as high as it is in other forums. What of it? I have not "come here" after "leaving there" as some people think they know the story. I have always been here since Jan 2008. I may have sometimes posted anonymously when I wanted to make a quick point, but I have never abused anyone at GR under anonymity here. I look into this forum because I like to read posts especially by Nitai. His original researches into CV are like a breath of fresh air, as well as the way he challenges himself and his own beliefs. So I like to read his posts as well as those by a couple of other people.

5) I guess people are free to have their opinions about the limits of my "scientific" knowledge, but I find it amusing to have it criticised by people who clearly don't know the A-B-C of it. I am also not an "expert" in anything, as only very few individuals can claim to have an expertise. Usually they are Nobel Prizewinners. However, I do claim to know a few things, yes. Although I have a general interest in all things scientific, my specific fields are psychology and neuroscience. I work with neuroscientists for a living and also on some projects and experiments, so yes, I would claim to know a good few things about how the mind and brain works. Unlike some people, I don't need to make a pretence and talk about "overminds" and other things when I have plenty of actual evidence to refer to. Some of these things have a direct relation to some spiritual concepts which is why it is important that they are known. Perhaps they will make for interesting discussions. I really don't mind at all if anyone disagrees with me, it is up to them. But by the same token I am not going to sit here and agree with people and their fuzzy speculations about overminds, memes and other things when they don't appear to have the slightest understanding of mind or brain.

6) Am I proud of my knowledge? Maybe I am, I guess it is something natural when I have taken it upon myself to do some actual research into some things before I open my mouth about it. If everybody else could do the same, perhaps discussions would be that much more enlightening, a collection of people who actually know what they are talking about. I think this is reasonable. It is unfortunate that the people who seem to object to this are the very ones who appear to talk about things they know very little of. Perhaps if they recognised their deficiency and tried to correct it, never mind the fact that they may learn something new, things would be so much better. Reverting to innuendo, slander, muckraking and personal attacks is all I can expect from certain individuals who have an incredibly long history of doing so. So I tend to pour a lot of scorn on them because it seems to be all they deserve. I admit sometimes taking liberties because of our mutual histories and previous tete-a-tetes, because it is amusing how they are quick to point out faults in others without being aware of the same faults that exist in them. I have no intention to continue with it though, because there is a limit to the number of times I can hit a brick wall. But seriously, you can't expect me to take ignorant arguments seriously and then object when I expose them for the inaccuracies that they are. If people want to learn something, that's fine. If people want to disagree with me, that's also fine. But please, don't pretend that your critiques of Dawkins/science/memes are unassailable and of irrefutable quality. They are not, so please don't cry when someone like me points out exactly what is wrong with them. If you think your points are so great, you ought to be prepared to take criticism for it.

Can we cut it with the usage of real names, please? I find it objectionable that various individuals here hide under various aliases yet have no problem with pasting my name all over the place. I don't mind a good joust, but I expect people to joust with a certain code of honour, not below-the-belt shots.

You were banned from Audarya forum back years ago when you still called yourself a vaisnava. More than once I seem to recall, why? Because of the same type of behavior you have shown here. You have also claimed I was banned from some forums, which is a lie and you know it. I quit a few forums: Gaudiya Discussions because Madhava/Ananda was acting whiny when I wouldn't accept his version of Gaudiya esoterica as perfect. And I quit GR because moderators were playing favorites, i.e a few people were allowed to be abusive without rebuke towards me, like you here, but if I gave what I got then I was chastised by them. You have also spread rumors saying I once claimed Jessica Alba was Radha, when in fact all I did was say she was prettier and looked more like Radha than any ISKCON painting -- that was at Istagosthi forum where you used to hang out. You knew you were lying in both cases.

Anyone can look at how you responded to my comments which were only about the topic being discussed. You used logical fallacies in your obnoxious comments to Malati and I simply pointed them out. What did you do? Because you are an immense egotistic you became abusive. That has been your modus operandi for years on all forums.

You have used countless sock puppets (fake names) over the years on every forum simply to make denigrating remarks (anonymously), the Sai Baba people have found countless ones, and I am sure there are many more, probably many here as well. For you to make the claim that people know who you are when you post is another lie.

You give zero respect yet portray yourself as a victim of other people's lack of respect. You said:

"If people want to disagree with me, that's also fine."

Yeah, really? but you treat those people with nothing but abuse. Your so-called second intelligent response to me was really nothing but calling me stupid and saying that you are smarter. That may be what you think is brainiacky, but it shows to me that you are a vacuous self-deluded narcissist -- and a fake.

[Nitaidas]

It sounds like you guys have issues that go way back. Why not just kiss and make up? It is much more pleasant if you engage each other as rational men and maybe then we can all learn something from you.

[Nitaidas]

Jul 1, 2009 17:55:19 GMT -6 @buddysattva said:

Jul 1, 2009 15:34:17 GMT -6 @buddysattva said:

I thought Ekantin was Ek from Gaudiya Repercussions, I haven't heard from "Gaurasundara" aka Sanjay Dadlani for quite some time, but I didn't know he was using those various aliases. I remember first encountering him years ago on various forums, for years he came across as a pretentious t-w-a-t who thought he was coming across as some sort of brainiac, I guess that is why he chose that name for himself at GR. But this recent bout of delusional mania is much worse than he used to act like. I didn't know he had renounced Vaishnavism, it wasn't that long ago when he was acting like Madhava/Ananda, e.g. writing about rasa and lila as if he was an expert. Maybe there is some sort of connection between them -- they both presented themselves as genius spiritual authorities on esoterica, but later lost complete faith in the tradition they claimed to have mastered enough to speak down to the unwashed masses about as if they were masters.

I imagine he has made a lot of anonymous comments here in the past, I remember someone attacking GR out of the blue with no context a short while back.

Señor Dadlani has apparently made enemies with Sathya Sai Baba followers. They have devoted a blog to him and web resources to making him look bad:

[Links removed at Ekantin's request. Buddy-sattva, isn't this more than a little beneath you? Weren't you just lecturing us about ad-hominem logical fallacies? Two ad hominems do not make an ad veritas. Why not address his arguments instead of who he is (or who you think he is)? --- Nitai]

Look, he simply attacked people for their opinions and then wanted to come back and engage in his unique form of offensive debate. Does he deserve to be answered? I think from me all he got and all he will get is what he deserved. Respectful dialogue is a two-way street, but with Sanjay Dadlani it's a one way street where it's his imperative to run everyone down while laughing like a maniac. All I did was give links to people who have documented his long history of online abusive behavior. Why should he be allowed free reign to spew lies and abuse about others and then have the truth about him hidden?

I don't know much about what goes on outside this forum. I am a hermit in that respect, I guess. But, Ekantin has assured me that he will contribute respectfully to this forum and I think he has a great deal to contribute as i also think you do. I want to pick up our discussion of materialism and science again. I think you are being a bit disingenuous there, but I still value your argument. We will come back to that later.

And who the hell keeps smiting you? I keep exalting you and someone else keeps slapping you down. It can't all be Ekantin's work.

Anyway, let's try to work together to uncover the truth no matter how strange it might turn out to be.

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2009 23:04:09 GMT -6 Nitaidas said:

Jul 1, 2009 17:55:19 GMT -6 @buddysattva said:

Look, he simply attacked people for their opinions and then wanted to come back and engage in his unique form of offensive debate. Does he deserve to be answered? I think from me all he got and all he will get is what he deserved. Respectful dialogue is a two-way street, but with Sanjay Dadlani it's a one way street where it's his imperative to run everyone down while laughing like a maniac. All I did was give links to people who have documented his long history of online abusive behavior. Why should he be allowed free reign to spew lies and abuse about others and then have the truth about him hidden?

I don't know much about what goes on outside this forum. I am a hermit in that respect, I guess. But, Ekantin has assured me that he will contribute respectfully to this forum and I think he has a great deal to contribute as i also think you do. I want to pick up our discussion of materialism and science again. I think you are being a bit disingenuous there, but I still value your argument. We will come back to that later.

And who the hell keeps smiting you? I keep exalting you and someone else keeps slapping you down. It can't all be Ekantin's work.

Anyway, let's try to work together to uncover the truth no matter how strange it might turn out to be.

I haven't thought of the guy in a long time, I didn't know he was ekantin since I never read his first post. I thought he was ek from GR because ek is also an atheist ex-vaisnava who is maybe interested in psychology (from his wife I guess) and has a similar name. Our history isn't very much, or it's hard to tell when someone uses so many different names. But I seem to remember him being much less aggressively egotistic and abusive in otherwise friendly debates, at least when he used certain names for himself.

I'm not going to engage in debate with him since every time he has responded to me here he has acted like a psycho. If you want to discuss with me, that's fine, bring up whatever point...

[malati]

Jul 1, 2009 14:19:05 GMT -6 @VS said:

Malati said:

In the scientific community (whether its soft or hard sciences)before an idea/hypothesis can hold up it should be subjected to peer review. So are those scientists that required Dawkins to submit to their community standards ridiculous ? Dawkins first discussed it in 1976 since then not much has been added to the hypothesis.

The fact is as wikipedia says: Memeticists have not empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism, and memes do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart, genetics. So I say, time to put meme in the back burner.

I've not been able to read thoroughly through the comments here, but the above stood out to me.

I was wondering, would anyone here classify "yoga" and "yoga psychology/theory/philosophy" as a "soft-science"?

I know that medical doctors and scientists are coming out with a lot of research and material on the positive effects of yoga and meditation on both mental and physical health.

The concept of "samskaras" is a yogic, as well as a Gaudiya Vaishnava concept, yet has that theory been "peer reviewed" or "tested"?

Anyway, Malati (and others) might be interested in the film, "What the Bleep Do We Know", in case you haven't seen it yet. You probably have, I've been out of the loop and so have only heard about it a few years ago, and just started watching the first half of it a few weeks ago.

At least the first half is about various theories in quantam physics. Haven't gotten to the second half yet.

Here is the link to watch it online for free:

www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_the_bleep_do_we_know.php

Last week I attended a monthly open house at a B'hai Center here and the power point presentation was by a mathematician who was trying to draw parrallels between a few quantam physics theories, a few mathematical axioms and the existence of the Soul and God. The beginning started off interesting and I therefore assumed that it would just keep getting better and better, however, it fell miserably on its own face when he tried to conclude that his religion was the only axiomatic objective "truth" and all the other religions out there were "subjective" opinions.

I had to laugh a bit to myself coz I could picture in my mind's eye a western "devottee" attempting the very same thing and basically ending the same way. In fact, I think similar attempts have been and are being made by one or such other "scientist" within the western gaudiya vaishnava fold, are they not? I've heard as much, anyway.

My conclusion was, as "spiritualists" who are not trained in the hard sciences, it might be best if we don't over-extend ourselves and just keep it to the first law of thermodynamics which states;

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

{Om purnam-adah purnam-idam
purnaat purnam-udacyate.
purnasya purnam-aadaaya,
purnam-eva-avashishyate}

Anymore than that, we are overstepping our boundaries, a point that I brought up to the mathematician --- that there is no way to scientifcally proove that his religion is "objective" while others are "subjective", or vice versa.

Krishna and Buddha are two of ten prophets that are accepted within the B'hai religion, which has it's origins in 19th century Iran. Their famous "Lotus Temple" is in the heart of New Delhi and the grounds there are very beautiful and well-kept. I remember being dropped off there one day as my guru-bhein went to meet an appointment elsewhere, and I wandered around the green, grassy grounds and picked up some books from within their Temple, they qoute from Krishna quite a lot.

B'hai is actually one of the most "open", "neutral", and "gender-equal" religions that I've ever come across, therefore I was very suprised at the sectarian sort of presentation this mathematician gave, and that too in an attempt to be what he termed "scientifically objective".

It was really a very shoddy attempt at looking "scientific" and I was embarrassed for him, on behalf of the entire global scientific and math community, as well as on behalf of all spiritualists.

So, as spiritualists, we really should realize our limits in trying to explain our highly subjective, intimate and personal modalities (such as raganuga bhakti) in axiomatic "objective" scientific terms. We could end up looking and sounding like fools.

Science and math also have their limits.

The two worlds are separate and yet overlap in places. The problem is when we think they overlap in places where they don't. Like this man, who tried to "proove" that his religion was an axiomatic and objective scientific fact, simply by throwing out a few "theories" and mathematical equations!

aradhyo bhagavati brajesh tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!

(the above is not an axiomatic, objective "truth", just my own personal modality)



JAI SRI!

V S

To answer you:

I think there are studies done by professionals such as in the book, Modern Psychology and Ancient Wisdom.

Here is the link to excerpst from the book. books.google.com.au/books?id=gnqfk5QUYd0C&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=is+yoga+considered+a+part+of+the+science+of+psychology&source=bl&ots=ecuu9qNOjW&sig=MxSFFp2RstjAmG3y2rksgLPkzYI&hl=en&ei=Q-BNSq6BHpX0Md-L6O0D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Below are quotes from the book:

Most branches of Indian science did not experiment or test speculations (hypotheses). But Indian psychology can be considered empirical in the original sense of the word, it is based on immediate experience. The Siva Samhita (Vasu, 1939) for example, maintains that it is only through the practice of teachings that success is obtained and it is only through practice that one attains liberation. The principles of yoga psychology were tested pragmatically. If individuals and small groups had similar experiences with certain recommended practices if the effects were repeated generation after generation , if isolated practitioners reported similar results then the knowledge could be said to have been validated empirically through experience.

V S you said also: My conclusion was, as "spiritualists" who are not trained in the hard sciences, it might be best if we don't over-extend ourselves and just keep it to the first law of thermodynamics which states;

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.
In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same.

My reply is this: Someone started the thread so I think it's natural to express an opinion especially if you read something from both sides of the issue. And especially so if the devotee indeed has a bit of training in the hard sciences. I do not think it is over extending because especially if the devotee has some background on the subject it would be natural for him/her to respond to something that picks his/her GV worldviews. We are thinking, feeling entities and therefore acting as such, by way of expressing opinions, are part of being what we are. We live in a democratic society so discussing anything under the sun, of course within the constraint of law and common decency, is within our rights.

About the video, I have viewed 30 minutes of it and have heard/read opinions against and pro to some ideas expressed in the video. I'll surely finish it and like any video I watch I will try to see how I understand it.

What are the beliefs and practices of the the Bahai faith, if you wouldnt mind answering my question.

Regards

[VS]

Most branches of Indian science did not experiment or test speculations (hypotheses). But Indian psychology can be considered empirical in the original sense of the word, it is based on immediate experience. The Siva Samhita (Vasu, 1939) for example, maintains that it is only through the practice of teachings that success is obtained and it is only through practice that one attains liberation. The principles of yoga psychology were tested pragmatically. If individuals and small groups had similar experiences with certain recommended practices if the effects were repeated generation after generation , if isolated practitioners reported similar results then the knowledge could be said to have been validated empirically through experience.

Malati-ji, I'll check out that book Modern Psychology and Ancient Wisdom. Both modern (post-modern) psychology and ancient wisdom are subjects that I am interested in.

I'm not at all against blending some aspects of hard or soft sciences (such as psychology) with spiritual concepts, in fact, in the groups I attend we do a lot of that.

My point was more along the lines of thinking we can proove the existence of the personalities of Radha and Krishna with emperical, scientific data and axiomatic formulas. Spiritualists, or rather, religionists, often use circular logic.

Example: Krishna existed and exists eternally. How do you know? The "vedas" say so. Who wrote the "vedas"? Well, they ultimated emanated from Krishna.

Christians do the same thing regarding Jesus and the Bible. Muslims the same regarding Muhammed and the Quran. Etc.

It doesn't hold up scientifically and it does not HAVE to if we accept the obvious which is that our particular spiritual practices, whatever they may be, are [i]modalities[/i].[/b] What is a modality? A "model of possibility".

So in rupanuga bhakti we have the possibilty of becoming Sri Kishoriji's kinkari. Sadhan-bhajan is the model we follow to achieve that. Bas.

It's highly subjective.

Where the B'hai mathematician speaker failed in his presentation is that he tried to present his own subjective spiritual path as an objective, axiomatic truth for all jeevs, rather than simply his own personal modality.

I was actually impressed in the beginning of his speech coz I thought he was going to present some cool "scientific evidence" for the existence of Divine Source and the Soul in the abstract. Where he veered off was when he threw out some scientific theories and one or two math formulas in an attempt to proove, again, that his particular religion of choice was an objective, universal reality. And I must say that the presentation in general was shabby and quite elementary. I was almost stunned speechless (almost). In fact, he wasn't even able to connect the mathematic equations and axioms to anything. It really went nowhere. It appeared like he just threw them out to impress the audience or something. And when he presented a clip of "string theory" from the movie "WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW" and later when I repeated something else from that very same movie, he exclaimed, "that movie was not made by scientists!"

I mean, there was almost no coherence and I had to piece together what he was trying to get at. But still, some people in the audience were impressed!

(Later I found out that the council of the B'hai centered sat down and spoke to him about his reactions to my points, there's more to the story but too long to get into here, and he will not be speaking there again for some time. Appearantly I am not the first new guest who has been at the receiving end of his arrogant ignorance. I won't go into detail about what he said about "hindusim" and "sufism" and the concept of "karma". All things which I had NOT brought up but he assumed I was into/about, for some reason. Do I look like a Hindu or Sufi? What does a Hindu or Sufi look like? The blue pill or red pill? Your choice. Ahh.)

That is the type of thing religionists and spiritualists need to avoid.

Regarding "Indian psychology". Once, a long time ago, I was in New Delhi's Apollo Hospital, considered the best hospital in Delhi at the time, for something or other. During whatever I was doing there I asked if I could see the hospital's psychiatrist or psychologist. I forget if it was a psychiatrist or psychologist, but either way, I had asked him if India, with all of its knowledge about the workings of a the human mind, had ever developed a completely indigenous "psychology" of it's own (recognized by India's medical establishment) or if "psychology" practiced in India was the same model that is used in the West. He said they follow the traditional Western model.

That was over 10 years ago and of course since I've returned to the West I see that Buddhism has had a lot of impact on the "soft-sciences" here, as well as yogic and other "spiritual" theories, but I think Buddhism has taken the lead in the current branches of alternative psychology and "self-help" in the West.

You seem like the type of person that would be interested in Ken Wilbur's books. Check him out if you have not already heard of him. His Integral Institute is bringing on board people from almost every major spiritual practice and modality (same thing) and the stuff they are doing appears pretty cool.

As far as the philosophy and practices of the B'hai faith, I don't know more than can be found on their websites, as I've not gone deep into it. I have a few friends here who are practicing B'hais and there is a B'hai center just a few miles from where I'm currently residing which I had been to once a few weeks ago when the mathematician gave that speech I wrote about above.

Unfortunately many Persian B'hais have had to leave the country of their origin, Iran, because they are treated as second class citizens there. Their biggest temple and, I think, world headquarters is in New Delhi.

Here is a pic of their kind of spaceship looking (but beautiful) "Lotus Temple" in New Delhi:

hindilearner.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/lotus-temple.jpg

Aradhyo bhagavati brishabhanu tanayaas tad dham radha kundam!

[Bhakti]

On the subject, just found this. From two years ago, good stuff:

jagadanandadas.blogspot.com/2007/11/meme-eye-view.html

[Ekantin]

(Re post #104) Hmmm, it's been more than two weeks or so since I looked in here, and judging from Shiva/Buddysattva/Dirty Hari's asinine response, there isn't very much to respond to. I said much of what I had to say in my last post here; I haven't been kicked off or banned from any forum unlike some people. Neither do I use sockpuppets or anything else of his crazy accusations. By the way, I wasn't referring only to Buddy when I made the point about being banned from forums but to others, why does this guy seem to think everything I write is about him?

Now he complains that I treat him bad. Poor Buddy, boo hoo. Funny how I don't treat anyone else like I do Buddy, wonder why?

Your so-called second intelligent response to me was really nothing but calling me stupid and saying that you are smarter

Hmmm, or it could be the difference between someone who knows what they are talking about and someone who doesn't. Unfortunately Buddy was in the latter category this time. In any case, the measure of a person can be indicated by how they respond to a point. Looks like the ad-hominem attacks by him including abusive references to t-w-a-t-s, psychos, etc. while accusing me of being abusive (when I didn't utter a single abusive word) pretty much says it all about who is capable of making an intelligent argument. The guy is pretty much a waste of time, I've seen it for years. Responses from him are pretty much predictable. The only thing I can say to him is the same thing I've been saying to him for years: Go back to school and get an education.

Now, to make this post just slightly relevant to the topics discussed in this thread, I'd like to take back all the points I made about the non-material nature of thoughts in the brain. I'm not so sure now whether thoughts (memes) can truly be considered "non-material" now, because of this article I read recently: Scientists extract images directly from brain . Although the images are not crystal clear, that they can be imaged at all is remarkable. It goes without saying that further advancements in imaging technology will ensure crystal clear images, leading to all sorts of transparency. Maybe there will be physical evidence of memes one day. If anyone has an interest in reading the PDF of the journal article of this finding, let me know and I'll give the link.