# Man hypnotises himself before op



## shadow2get (Apr 19, 2008)

Source



> *A hypnotist from West Sussex has undergone surgery on his right hand without a general anaesthetic.*
> 
> Alex Lenkei, 61, from Worthing, chose to sedate himself by hypnosis before undergoing the 83-minute operation. He said he was fully aware of
> everything going on around him during the procedure but was free from pain.
> ...


----------



## motobuntu (Apr 19, 2008)

shadow2get said:


> Source



Amazing!!!


----------



## Faun (Apr 19, 2008)

cool


----------



## legolas (Apr 19, 2008)

woww...finally i can start to believe in hypnosis!!


----------



## mediator (Apr 19, 2008)

^I thought u were a hardcore pro-modern science supporter. Believe it or not !!


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 20, 2008)

@legolas

you should watch Derren Brown (Mind Control Fame) videos 
very thrilling and entertaining 


_


----------



## legolas (Apr 20, 2008)

mediator said:


> ^*I thought* u were a hardcore pro-modern science supporter. Believe it or not !!


That is the problem!! You prejudge  and start giving lectures and links and then blame for not reading...(when its least involved with my views or topic AFAIK)
I believe what I said was *start*to believe.
@DigitalDude, thk you. Will check'em out.


----------



## mediator (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm neither judging anything nor giving any lectures. But, everything starts with that "start" thing u mentioned. Yes u may "start to believe" it or ignore it.  Thats y I  said "Believe it or not"  linking to a site.


----------



## legolas (Apr 20, 2008)

^^ I hope you know that too! (everything starts with that "start").


----------



## chesss (Apr 20, 2008)

Hypnosis works, it is a fact known  for decades!


----------



## pushkaraj (Apr 20, 2008)

Marvellous!!! Thanx for the info


----------



## The Conqueror (Apr 21, 2008)

Amazing


----------



## prasad_den (Apr 21, 2008)

We had a patient in our hospital who did not accept local anesthetics for undergoing tooth extractions..! Probably he had hypnotised himself, but he was never in pain.


----------



## nileshgr (Apr 21, 2008)

8)

I never previously believed in hypnosis !


----------



## Renny (Apr 21, 2008)

Have any of u guys watched criss angel, david blaine or mondo magic?

How the heck do they pull of such stuff!?


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 21, 2008)

~Rahul~ said:


> Have any of u guys watched criss angel, david blaine or mondo magic?
> 
> How the heck do they pull of such stuff!?


I have watched a lot (almost all) of David Blaine's magic tricks and also 'David Blaine's Magic Revealed'  esp the levitating one that he would be doing in the videos, if you come to know how he actually does that.. you would just bang your head on the wall hehehe

search for 'david blaine's magic revealed' you would come to know how they pull up those tricks 

_


----------



## utsav (Apr 21, 2008)

david blaine rocks


----------



## phreak0ut (Apr 21, 2008)

DigitalDude said:


> I have watched a lot (almost all) of David Blaine's magic tricks and also 'David Blaine's Magic Revealed'  esp the levitating one that he would be doing in the videos, if you come to know how he actually does that.. you would just bang your head on the wall hehehe
> 
> search for 'david blaine's magic revealed' you would come to know how they pull up those tricks
> 
> _



Don't take the fun quotient away  Even though I have the file, I'm very hesitant to go through the techniques. I won't enjoy his performances anymore. So, some things are best left unknown


----------



## DigitalDude (Apr 21, 2008)

^^
hehe.. more than the fun quotient the curiousness factor kills me so I can't help it but find out what the fk he does to do the trick  

but not all of his tricks are revealed so still some mystery remains 

_


----------



## entrana (Apr 24, 2008)

wi shud do this too seems uber


----------



## hullap (Apr 24, 2008)

well actually that person didnt want to spend even a penny on anesthetics


----------



## karnivore (Apr 24, 2008)

There is more to than meets the eye. This is something that should be taken with a little pinch of salt. Dr. Steven Novella, has already explored the case. Below is the extract from his blog



> ..........
> What should an open-minded skeptic make of such a tale?
> .........
> Hypothesis #1 - The story is true as reported.
> ...


----------



## mediator (Apr 24, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> There is more to than meets the eye. This is something that should be taken with a little pinch of salt. *Dr. Steven Novella, has already explored the case.* Below is the extract from his blog
> 
> 
> > .........
> ...


Already explored the case? Guess we shud take ur posts in the forums with "a little pinch of salt."


Besides, if u are linking something then u shud post the complete stuff or the relevant excerpts too. Don't u think so?


			
				Steven Novella said:
			
		

> I have e-mailed the hospital and I am trying to get contact information for Dr. Llewellyn-Clark so that I can fill in the missing details. If I do I will add an addendum to the post with the new information. Meanwhile, here are several possible hypotheses to explain this story.
> ..
> .
> .
> It is true that pain is a subjective experience and is highly modified by our mood and attention. If we focus on the pain, even a minor pain can become very bothersome. Likewise, if we are distracted from our pain it can diminish significantly. Fear and anxiety will also tend to exacerbate the perception of pain. So it is plausible that using meditation to focus one’s attention elsewhere and keep oneself calm and free from fear and anxiety will significantly reduce the perception of pain. This can also reduce the need for sedation and pain killing surrounding a surgical procedure.



Neways since u like to quote wiki for reports and definitions, u can read this or may be this one.

So let the doc clear out what he wants. Keep ur mind at rest for the time being before uttering "he has already explored the case"! I hope u do understand in all ur conscious and unconscious state of mind what "hypothesis" is. 

BTW, were u trying to ridicule hypnotism in general or just this case?


----------



## karnivore (Apr 25, 2008)

And so it begins.......



> Guess we shud take ur posts in the forums with "a little pinch of salt."


Be my guest. But i would like to know, why the term "already explored" irked you. Wait a min...no i don't.



> ..if u are linking something then u shud post the complete stuff or the relevant excerpts too. Don't u think so?


Because i am linking something, it makes more sense to not copy/paste the "complete stuff". I guess everybody can point and click on a link. And "relevant" is a subjective word. What is relevant to you, may not be the same to me.



> Neways....u like to quote wiki for reports and definitions...


No i don't. The only way Dr Novella could be introduced was by referring to the wiki. And, the pdf, that you linked was actually provided by one of those who replied, by one who claims to be a hypno-anesthetist and who is not a doctor. Should have shown some courtesy to mention that. Also, the document is an internal finding of Mayo Clinic. It has never been published in any peer reviewed science/ neuroscience journal. The findings are fantastic, but not yet vetted by the peers. So....



> I hope u do understand in all ur conscious and unconscious state of mind what "hypothesis" is.


And i hope, "in all ur conscious and unconscious state of mind" you know everything starts with a hypothesis. At least, science starts that way. It seems, you are clear about how things start on your side, but a little fuzzy about the other side. Anyway.......



> BTW, were u trying to ridicule hypnotism in general or just this case?


What exactly is hypnosis "in general". I am not aware it. But, yes "spiritual" hypnosis is a great source of amusement for me. "Hypnosis" is something of a misnomer, when used in medical sense. It is use to denote "power of suggestion" i.e. the willingness of a person to accept, believe, do and feel, what she is told to and it is highly dependent on the susceptibility of that person, to suggestions. It has nothing "spiritual" in it. It is important to make this distinction, otherwise we might just get lost in interpretation.


----------



## mediator (Apr 25, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Be my guest. But i would like to know, why the term "already explored" irked you. Wait a min...no i don't.


Well if u don't, then please don't troll around. A case is known to be "already explored" when necessary facts, detailed study and complete interaction is done with the subject...i.e "EXPLORED". I thought u were mature enough to have understood this.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> Because i am linking something, it makes more sense to not copy/paste the "complete stuff". I guess everybody can point and click on a link. And "relevant" is a subjective word. What is relevant to you, may not be the same to me.


Guess u shud join media then, which recently entitled "Doctor ya fir Jallaad" for a simple case where X-RAYS showed a needle inside the stomach of a patient where in reality, in actual case, the needles were kept "besides" the patient. Thus, just frivolously insulting the doctor for a cheap news/masala and not giving the "complete" stuff. Well, I agree hypothesis seems more important to you then the ground reality of what remains to be seen and what is actual.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And i hope, "in all ur conscious and unconscious state of mind" you know everything starts with a hypothesis. At least, science starts that way. It seems, you are clear about how things start on your side, but a little fuzzy about the other side. Anyway.......


U seem to be fuzzy on the whole news it seems.



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> What exactly is hypnosis "in general". I am not aware it. But, yes "spiritual" hypnosis is a great source of amusement for me. "Hypnosis" is something of a misnomer, when used in medical sense. It is use to denote "power of suggestion" i.e. the willingness of a person to accept, believe, do and feel, what she is told to and it is highly dependent on the susceptibility of that person, to suggestions. It has nothing "spiritual" in it. It is important to make this distinction, otherwise we might just get lost in interpretation.


If u r not "aware" of what hypnosis is "in general", then why even ponce around? Since, u r not aware of it, then u must read this also and may be this too.

And finally...


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> And, the pdf, that you linked was actually provided by one of those who replied, by one who claims to be a hypno-anesthetist and who is not a doctor.


Yes, it wud have saved me from linking it, if u have read the replies and understood what Dr. Steven is doing. So, it doesn't matter if the chap, who gave the link, is a doctor or not. More important is what is inside the link. So Read it. By now u must have understood that scientists are still discussing about hypnotism. So take a rest and add "hypnotism" also to ur list of fake "amusements". 

Besides, u don't know what hypnotism is, u don't understand what spirituality is.....wht r u doing here? 'Amusing' me?

Again an excerpt from the blog.


			
				Steven said:
			
		

> If the story is accurate and correct as reported, then Mr. Lenkei had no anesthesia and his only form of pain control was his self-hypnosis.  I find this to be highly implausible. As a matter of definition - we must first distinguish stage-hypnotism from the kind used by Mr. Lenkei, *which is probably better described as deep meditation.*


Read, just for ur "awareness".




			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> It is important to make this distinction, otherwise we might just get lost in interpretation.


Understand what u said or may be copied from somewhere, as it will help u.


----------



## phreak0ut (Apr 25, 2008)

Why don't we request the mod to rename all the sections to "Fight Club" on this forum?


----------



## Faun (Apr 25, 2008)

^^lol


----------



## karnivore (Apr 25, 2008)

I thought, taking up an issue in search for answers is in itself an "exploration". I, at the time of hitting reply button, forgot we have a contortionist amongst us. _Mea Culpa_.

As with the media report, i don't even see a parallel. My quote can be verified, cause i have provided a link to the original, while a media report can't be verified by an ordinary person, because there is no means to do so. Buddy, you got to work more on your analogies.

Let me say this again. I still don't know what hypnosis is "in general". I know of stage/ spiritual (sic)/ clinical ones. The first two links actually talk of clinical one. Not stage, not spiritual. Like some kids who are unnecessarily elated by the mention of the word "candy", some of us get equally elated and start thumping our chests, by the mention of "spirituality", "hypnosis" or "meditation". That, these words may have different connotations as well, is something beyond their grasp.

Yes the pdf is interesting. But only if you had read my post completely you would have known my opinion on the findings.

As with amusing you....NAAAAH, you are not that important and i have better things to do. But, if you are still getting amused, well, good for you.

Regarding spirituality, Daniel Denett had this to say in his BREAKING THE SPELL.



> ....let me try to put better words in their mouths. What these people have realized is one of the best secrets of life: let your self go. If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that however deeply you have seen, you have only just scratched the surface, you will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore imagine, and your own mundane preoccupations will shrink to proper size, not all that important in the greater scheme of things. Keeping that awestruck vision of the world ready to hand while dealing with the demands of daily living is no easy exercise, but it is definitely worth the effort, for if you can stay centered, and engaged, you will find the hard choices easier, the right words will come to you when you need them, and you will indeed be a better person. That, I propose, is the secret to spirituality, and it has nothing at all to do with believing in an immortal soul, or in anything supernatural.


----------



## mediator (Apr 25, 2008)

> I thought, taking up an issue in search for answers is in itself an "exploration". I, at the time of hitting reply button, forgot we have a contortionist amongst us. Mea Culpa.


I agree. I wonder why people make expert comments which do not conform to facts and reality. What a philosophy.

Neways yes its an 'exploration".... an ongoing one (which needs more time before jumping to conclusion) rather than an "already had" one.



> As with the media report, i don't even see a parallel. *My quote can be verified*, cause i have provided a link to the original, while a media report can't be verified by an ordinary person, because there is no means to do so. Buddy, you got to work more on your analogies.


And I don't understand, why those self-proclaimed experts joke that much. "Verified"?  .
FYI, doctors themselves cleared out the news given by the misleading media. U shud understand that no reputed or high self-esteemed doctor wants to be a subject of mindless and misleading discussion.



> Let me say this again. *I still don't know what hypnosis is "in general"*. I know of stage/ spiritual (sic)/ clinical ones. The first two links actually talk of clinical one. Not stage, not spiritual. Like some kids who are unnecessarily elated by the mention of the word "candy", some of us get equally elated and start thumping our chests, by the mention of "spirituality", "hypnosis" or "meditation". That, these words may have different connotations as well, is something beyond their grasp.
> 
> Yes the pdf is interesting. But only if you had read my post completely you would *have known my opinion on the findings.*
> 
> ...


Ur opinion is nuthing but a misleading joke. BTW, I don't understand what makes u base ur opinions on that of others......loss of independent outlook? Oh wait, I will follow those who are known to be scientific as the only thing I have done is......."follow". 

So thats what I asked u before and thats what I ask u now. Let the facts prevail. Until then please don't troll with statements like "this case has already been explored" and few childish philosphies...

P.S : Lets not make it into a FIGHT CLUB or *else, the mods can move it into that prestigious section.*


----------



## karnivore (Apr 26, 2008)

> ..(which needs more time before jumping to conclusion) rather than an "already had" one.


Who is denying that. And who is saying that the conclusion is final. Thats why Dr. Novella called those, "hypothesis" and provided 5 (not 1) of those. I mentioned "already explored", because, he has already looked into the matter "on the basis of the news article". Is English such a difficult language for one to understand ?



> And I don't understand, why those self-proclaimed experts joke that much. "Verified"?


Sorry. You have dipped your statement, so much into the sarcastic jelly, it has ended up being inscrutable. But it seems you can't make a distinction between something that can be verified for authenticity and something which can't be so done.

However, couldn't help but notice an irony. You can see through the shenanigans of media making false claim about the needle inside a patient, you can understand their attempt to sensationalize something mundane or false but, at the same time, fail to see the attempt of the same media to sensationalize "hypno-anesthesia". Is it because, hypnotism "in general" is one of your sacred pets.



> Ur opinion is nuthing but a misleading joke


The "joke" part i understand. That is your opinion and you are entitled to make plenty of it. But, the "misleading" part i don't. Which part of my which opinion is misleading ?



> BTW, I don't understand what makes u base ur opinions on that of others......loss of independent outlook? Oh wait, I will follow those who are known to be scientific as the only thing I have done is......."follow".


Let me make a wild guess. No, 2 guesses. OK.

Guess #1: Immediately when you were conceived you acquired, by some magical, or "spiritual" means, all the knowledge of the world. History, geography, physics, chemistry, maths, spirituality, hypnosis, meditation, neuroscience and everything else were hardwired into your brain. So when you were born you did not have to go to school, college, University and did not have to turn any page of any book and became an automatic leader.

Guess #2: Immediately when you were born, you went out on voyage of quest and in the process acquired first hand knowledge of the world. History, geography, physics, chemistry, maths, spirituality, hypnosis, meditation, neuroscience and everything else were discovered/ invented/ experienced by you. So when you returned back you did not have go to school, college, University and did not have to turn any page of any book and became an automatic leader.

Now, you tell me which of my guesses is correct. I am more inclined to go with #2.

HAIL MY LEADER.
(Hmmm...in all your post you give one or more links to some sites, that you feel will substantiate your point of view. I guess, thats NOT basing one's "opinions on that of others" and IS a perfect example of "independent outlook".)



> Let the facts prevail..... few childish philosphies...


Thats what i say too. Let the facts prevail. Not the tailor made, cut to convenience, fact. And all philosophies appear childish, if one is a child. Thanks of acknowledging that eventually.


----------



## mediator (Apr 26, 2008)

> Who is denying that. And who is saying that the conclusion is final. Thats why Dr. Novella called those, "hypothesis" and provided 5 (not 1) of those. I mentioned "already explored", because, he has already looked into the matter "*on the basis of the news article*". Is English such a difficult language for one to understand ?


U are surely amusing me after each n every post of urs. 

Do u even understand the meaning of the following excerpt from the blog u linked? And then u talk about English.... 


			
				Steven said:
			
		

> I have e-mailed the hospital and *I am trying to get contact information for Dr. Llewellyn-Clark so that I can fill in the missing details.* If I do I will add an addendum to the post with the new information. *Meanwhile, here are several possible hypotheses to explain this story.*
> .
> .
> .
> To be clear - I am not accusing Mr. Lenkei or his surgeons of anything. I am simply laying out various hypotheses given the information available on this story. I would love to have the opportunity to test these hypotheses, by questioning Mr. Lenkei and/or his surgeon


Beating the drums of ur intellect and aptitude? "already explored"? Good one for rejuvenating my mood today...and may be for a few days to come if u still want to beat the drums!



> Is it because, hypnotism "in general" is one of your sacred pets.


Interesting. U shud really read the pdf. Even the folks u blindly follow and plagiarize 24*7 are "trying' to come to a conclusion "in favour" of it. So its not my 'sacred pet', but something that works! It seems u r having trouble to follow the herd u r part of.



> The "joke" part i understand. That is your opinion and you are entitled to make plenty of it. But, the "misleading" part i don't. Which part of my which opinion is misleading ?


The disorder u r suffering from is called "Dysphasia/Aphasia".



> Let me make a wild guess. No, 2 guesses. OK.
> 
> Guess #1: Immediately when you were conceived you acquired, by some magical, or "spiritual" means, all the knowledge of the world. History, geography, physics, chemistry, maths, spirituality, hypnosis, meditation, neuroscience and everything else were hardwired into your brain. So when you were born you did not have to go to school, college, University and did not have to turn any page of any book and became an automatic leader.
> 
> ...


Well there can be a guess 3 which is in addition to 2 => u question everything that is taught and when u find confusions/limitations and contradictions to the definitions and explanations u were taught, u start ur "own" thinking process of what could be correct and what could be done!! BTW, leaders are not the ones who have just read what has already been there, but the ones who also "lead" the way for others through the dark passage using their own brains when everything else they have studied simply "fails"!!



> (Hmmm...in all your post you give one or more links to some sites, that you feel will substantiate your point of view. I guess, thats NOT basing one's "opinions on that of others" and IS a perfect example of "independent outlook".)


If something seems correct to me, then ofcors I link the site instead of blandly quoting that author/Doctor/scientist A/B/C has to "opine" this and that without any "rational" elements in the victinity of that quote.



> And all philosophies appear childish, if one is a child.


Is that ur new philosophy or again a "followed" one?  Neways it contradicts with ur guess #2. But again amusing! Repair urself and the stammered tone of ur intellect before its too late.

*Mods : Move to Fight Club?*


----------



## mediator (Apr 26, 2008)

> Now, what would one say, if one considers the facts, IN HAND, and arrives at a decision. Would it be safe to say that he has "already explored" the GIVEN FACTS, which in this case happens to be just a piece of news article.


No, he is still exploring and hence says he will update his blog soon when he gets the "missing details".



> It is irrelevant, if he is waiting for some more information, which was NOT present in the news article. Question is did he CONSIDER the information PRESENT in the news article and subject it to thorough examination. If he has, then, for me, he has "already explored" the "case", the case being the incidence AS reported in the media. There you go. I don't think i can clarify it any better.


U shudn't have clarified ur irresponsible and misleading statements or even tried to from the beginning. U shud have just acknowledged that the action, exploration is still going on . It isn't so hard is it?




> You have previously accused me of plagiarism, but i preferred not to respond. I took it as a kid's bla-bla. But now, i am convinced that this kid, either has a short circuit upstairs, or needs some serious help in how to look up a dictionary. Assuming, its the latter, let me help you with this, by quoting from Oxford Genie.
> Quote:
> plagiarize: (BrE also plagiarise) {speaker} verb (disapproving), to copy another person’s ideas, words or work and pretend that they are your own:
> Now, make a wild guess, who is claiming to be "independent", having his "own thinking" while relentlessly parroting the same things/ ideas, which have been around loooong before he was even conceived, and then, to prove his point - hold your breath - linking to sites which "seems correct to" him. I wonder, who can that be?


Running out of ideas and statements for "on-topic" discussion? Don't troll dear, speak "on-topic".



> Let me clarify my position on Hypnosis. I believe, and quite sincerely too, that hypnotism is nothing more than the "power of suggestion". There have been numerous experiments in that direction, and no experiment concludes with reasonable evidence, that it is not. *There is absolutely nothing "spiritual" about it.* And that is my point. That hypnosis does not work because of any "spiritual" driver. Just another trick that brain plays with people who are susceptible to suggestions.


U need not worry about the "spiritual" driver thing. Just follow ur herd and don't question....Best for u!! 
Meanwhile read or let the people acknowledge what it is from the view point of scientists, practitioners or themselves. We really don't need expert opinions from a lad who himself lives in a narrow world where his soul task is "following" others with 99.99% of his brain going idle, who doesn't know or fickles on what "hynotism is", "spirituality" and can't even comprehend the articles he links!!



> And i am still waiting to learn, how i have "mislead".


Still waiting even after reading the link u gave, eased by formatting I did and bringing out the statements in bold?  Toddlers shud learn how to walk first!!



> Oh, BTW, thanks for the diagnosis. Errr....Doctor, what medicine shall i take. I suppose it would be, a teaspoon of "meditation" in a cup full of "spirituality", diluted and succussed to one part "knowledge" in 10 million parts "ignorance".


Ur wish. But if u r asking genuinely then may be this site can help u => Aphasia treatment



> Now that you have successfully started to crawl on my nerves, (congratulations) am thinking, if it would be apt to say ADIOS. Well, lets just give it one last shot, to clarify myself (and funny thing is,that it has nothing to do with the topic in hand)


I never wanted that. ...but simply an open-minded discussion like a true scientist!!  But all I got was some stereotypical and mindless set of null arguments from someone who forgot to stay with his herd!! Dunno what annoys u that much. But u can medicate urself for that tooo!


Neways since ur disorder is getting worse and u r getting aggravated unnecessarily leading to simple trolls and repeatitions, lets stop here.


----------



## Faun (Apr 26, 2008)

stop it guys, lol...get something else to do than aching ur fingers and eyes.


----------



## karnivore (Apr 26, 2008)

OOOOPS Sorry i deleted my previous post. I did not know @mediator was answering. Terribly sorry. Maybe you could edit your post so i can reply. It won't take long to fill your post with inanities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have successfully started to pi$$ on my nerves (congratulations) am thinking, if it would be apt to say ADIOS. Well, lets just give it one last shot, to clarify myself (and funny thing is,that it has nothing to do with the topic in hand)

Now, what would one say, if one considers the facts, IN HAND, and arrives at a decision. Would it be safe to say that he has "already explored" the GIVEN FACTS, which in this case happens to be just a piece of news article. *It is irrelevant, if he is waiting for some more information, which was NOT present in the news article*. Question is did he CONSIDER the information *PRESENT* in the news article and subject it to thorough examination. If he has, then, for me, he has "already explored" the "case", the case being the incidence AS reported in the media. There you go. I don't think i can clarify it any better.

You have previously accused me of plagiarism, but i preferred not to respond. I took it as a kid's bla-bla. But now, i am convinced that this kid, either has a short circuit upstairs, or needs some serious help in how to look up a dictionary. Assuming, its the latter, let me help you with this, by quoting from Oxford Genie.


> *plagiarize*: (BrE also plagiarise) {speaker} verb (disapproving), to copy another person’s ideas, words or work and *pretend that they are your own*:


Now, make a wild guess, who is claiming to be "independent", having his "own thinking" while relentlessly parroting the same things/ ideas, which have been around loooong before his great great grandfather was even conceived, and then, to prove his point - hold your breath - linking to sites which  "seems correct to" him. I wonder, who can that be?

Let me deal with it in another way. You say that when you are confronted with contradictions, "u start ur own thinking process of what could be correct and what could be done". Setting aside the question, as to why this is perfectly valid for you and not so valid for others, lemme try and get a perspective. 

You mean, that in contradictory situations, you, like all other rational person, switch one set of ideas for another. Perfectly all right for me. The question is, are the ideas, that you switch to, your own formulated ones. Or you simply subscribe to the ideas, that have been around, say for hundreds of years. If it is the former, then you are correct in saying, that these are results of your "own thinking". But if it is the later, then you are a <insert that word that starts with "H">.

So tell me, did you invent "spirituality" or did you discover "spiritual meditation" or did you theorize "quantum consciousness" or did you prove "homeopathy" (these are some of your sacred pets, as anybody who has had the misfortune of engaging in a debate with you will know). My wild guess is - NO. And in that, you are as much a "follower" and a "plagiarist" as i am, and actually, worse, <insert that word that starts with "H">.

To question commonly held believe systems or knowledge base, is a sign of a healthy brain, but attempting to answer the GAPs by means of "spirituality" or some other sky-fairy, which itself can't be defined without ambiguity, is pure intellectual laziness of the worst type. Why take the trouble to find the answers, when just about everything can be explained by means of a pixie. Now, that is quite an "independent" thought process.

Let me clarify my position on Hypnosis. I believe, and quite sincerely too, that hypnotism is nothing more than the "power of suggestion". There have been numerous experiments in that direction, and no experiment concludes with reasonable evidence, that it is not. *There is absolutely nothing "spiritual" about it*. And that is my point. That hypnosis does not work because of any "spiritual" driver. Just another trick that brain plays with people who are susceptible to suggestions.

And i am still waiting to learn, how i have "mislead".

Oh, BTW, thanks for the diagnosis. Errr....Doctor, what medicine shall i take. I suppose it would be, a teaspoon of "meditation" in a cup full of "spirituality", diluted and succussed to one part "knowledge" in 10 million parts "ignorance". 

Anyway, nice bickering with you.


----------



## mediator (Apr 26, 2008)

> So tell me, did you invent "spirituality" or did you discover "spiritual meditation" or did you theorize "quantum consciousness" or did you prove "homeopathy" (these are some of your sacred pets, as anybody who has had the misfortune of engaging in a debate with you will know). My wild guess is - NO. And in that, you are as much a "follower" and a "plagiarist" as i am, and actually, worse, <insert that word that starts with "H">.


They r not to be invented but simply experienced. Like I said before, since simple scientific medicines didn't work they gave me homeopathic ones and indeed it worked marvels. Thats what led me to know more about homeopathy and its principles. Lets not digress. 
Even when someone doesn't know what spirituality is by definition ofcors, it is quite possible that he might be experiencing it by his own will to know more about himself. That doesn't makes him a follower. So, get ur concepts straight first before uttering nonsense. Learn what spirituality is before giving us a full fledged show of ur remarkable intelligence and comprehension next time! Meanwhile u may read the following about 'scientists and spirituality'. It might help to clear the smog inside ur hollow upper shell.

*goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4592093/Scientists-spirituality-surprises-Only-one.html
*www.physorg.com/news5785.html
*www.californiapsychics.com/articles/Features/64/Can_Yoga_Help_Cure_Cancer.aspx
*www.jewishworldreview.com/0108/religion_healing.php3



			
				link1 said:
			
		

> America's scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which almost 70 percent agreed "there are basic truths" in religion, and *68 percent classified themselves as a "spiritual person."*
> 
> Overall, about a third said "I do not believe in God" in the analysis, which polled 1,646 scientists at 21 research universities across the nation


It seems there many people like me and many of em are scientists. But I still advise u to follow ur herd as it wud be good 4 u! 

So first understand and experience what spirituality is.


----------



## hullap (Apr 26, 2008)

STOP IT


----------



## karnivore (Apr 26, 2008)

No matter how much i think, that i will not post again, i just get sucked right into it. UUUGGGHHH......here i go again.



> They r not to be invented but simply experienced


There you go again. You are saying things, that are besides the point. The point, that i was making, is, are those ideas, your own. Whatever, "spirituality" is, and whether or not it is invented or experienced, did you think of the term "spirituality" (which BTW, means "of the spirits") to define those experiences. *How did you know, what kind of experience/ feeling constitutes "spirituality"*. Let me tell you how. You know it because you have read it somewhere, or someone has told you that so and so feeling is "spirituality". Is taking a dump "spirituality" ? Is having orgasm "spirituality" ? (Mind you, particularly, in the last case, one looses one's sense of self, feels transcended to another dimension and feels an unworldly pleasure) If not, why ?  Because, these feelings don't fall within the paradigm that you have been programmed to believe in. And thats following.

Again, let me ask, are those, which i mentioned in my previous post, the result of faculty of your brain or someone else's. If those ideas, whatever these attempt to explain, are not yours, then, by subscribing to those, you are simply following, much like me.



> ...since simple scientific medicines didn't work they gave me homeopathic ones and indeed it worked marvels. Thats what led me to know more about homeopathy and its principles.


Don't we all do the same thing. Something works for someone, on some level and then one goes out to find more about it. And if it satisfies one's rationale or reason, one holds it sacred to heart. Whats wrong in it. Now that you stick to homeopathy, it definitely makes you its follower, as much as i am a follower of modern medicine.



> Even when someone doesn't know what spirituality is by definition ofcors, it is quite possible that he might be experiencing it by his own will to know more about himself. That doesn't makes him a follower


I have already discussed this above. I will just make an addendum. Experience is a personal and highly subjective matter. One, snorting psychedelic drugs, may have a "transcending" experience. If we are talking of "experience" itself, and since both result in "transcending" experiences, please, logically, differentiate between "spirituality" and psychedelic drug. Before suggesting others what to do and learn, may be you should do it before hand, preferably not from dime-a-dozen web sites with commercial agenda.

Believing in something, only on the basis of "experience", which is similar to schizophrenic hallucination, with no logical explanation to support that experience, is nothing but faith and faith, again, is nothing but following something blindly.

And don't you think that one's own "will to know more about himself" can be better and more aesthetically satisfied by reading Biology.

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it - even if I have said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~Buddha

Rest of the post is just plain bla-bla. So excuse me if i do not respond.

So, there now. Figure out if the dish is made of china or ceramic - never mind the cuisine.


----------



## mediator (Apr 27, 2008)

> Whatever, "spirituality" is, and whether or not it is invented or experienced, did you think of the term "spirituality" (*which BTW, means "of the spirits"*) to define those experiences.


I am sure u looked at the definition from wiki again, but did u try to know what that "spirit" is? Its not related to ghosts etc! 
Lets see if u can still tell what "spirtuality is" in ur next post!



> How did you know, what kind of experience/ feeling constitutes "spirituality". Let me tell you how. You know it because you have read it somewhere, or someone has told you that so and so feeling is "spirituality".


U r wrong again! I never started to know about spirituality "after" reading about it! Have it ever occured to u that yoga can also be spiritual? I am simply close to my roots unlike others who like to abuse his own roots all the time. Thats it! 

In Hindi its called "Dhobi ka kutta na ghar ka na ghaat ka"!! Its a proverb not an abuse like many illiterates think. Please tell if u don't understand it.

And thats how u learn what u r doing, in detail! Just a child who learns to talk and later understands what he is doing is called "talking" and how gets to another place via footstep is called "walking"! Did u learn the definition of walking before walking or the definition of stooling/urinating before stooling/urinating? I hope not! Like me, many learn when they witness something remarkable and find its practical importance to enhance its use in their daily life! So be real, its not always theory first and practical later.



> Is taking a dump "spirituality" ? Is having orgasm "spirituality" ? (Mind you, particularly, in the last case, one looses one's sense of self, feels transcended to another dimension and feels an unworldly pleasure) If not, why ? Because, these feelings don't fall within the paradigm that you have been programmed to believe in. And thats following.


No wonder u can talk at ur low level of deteriorated/null intellect.  I feel embrassed now to be even talking to u.

 Besides dump,orgasm etc are not unwordly but worldy/materialistic pleasures! Get ur concepts straight first. It seems as if u r rebuking a subject without even knowing about it. How absurd!



> Don't we all do the same thing. *Something works for someone, on some level and then one goes out to find more about it.* _And if it satisfies one's rationale or reason, one holds it sacred to heart._ Whats wrong in it. Now that you stick to homeopathy, it definitely makes you its follower, as much as i am a follower of modern medicine.


I agree on the bolded part, but u need to ponder over the italiced part. Even though I have vowed to find more about the things that work, it doesn't recedes me from the stuff I already know. I don't rebuke "all" scientific stuff, neither I rebuke "homeopathy","hypnotism" etc just becoz the scientists are still discussing over it! So I don't hold any subject "sacred" to my heart and thats what being scientific is all about i.e open to all cases and ground reality! But u my friend on other hand with ur low level of terminology and statements and open rebukes over the subjects u don't even know about have shown how much "scientific" u r! Even the scientists are not rebuking homeopathy, hypnotism and spirituality. And thats how a member of the herd gets mocked when he doesn't keep up with the pace and space!



> If we are talking of "experience" itself, and since both result in "transcending" experiences, *please, logically, differentiate between "spirituality" and psychedelic drug.* Before suggesting others what to do and learn, may be you should do it before hand, preferably not from dime-a-dozen web sites with commercial agenda.


No offence but u r simply asking like a child now and showing as of how much "well read" u r. Do I even need to talk on the difference? U r making me feel like as if I am teaching u the alphabet in the midst of a discussion! 



> Believing in something, only on the basis of "experience", which is similar to schizophrenic hallucination, with no logical explanation to support that experience, is nothing but faith and faith, again, is nothing but following something blindly.


That wud make the leaders of ur herd which obviously u don't know much about, the same i.e schizophrenic? What does that make of u? 



> "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it - even if I have said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~Buddha


Understand what u quoted as it will help u to reduce plagiarizing the "opinions" of others!



> Rest of the post is just plain bla-bla. So excuse me if i do not respond.
> 
> So, there now. Figure out if the dish is made of china or ceramic - never mind the cuisine.


Hehe, rest of my post if simply facts and researches...no wonder u can't respond and that it is all "bla bla bla " to u. May be I shud have "plagiarized opinions"! Let me quote em if u dont get em.





> America's scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which almost 70 percent agreed "there are basic truths" in religion, and *68 percent classified themselves as a "spiritual person.*"
> 
> Overall, about a third said "I do not believe in God" in the analysis, which polled 1,646 scientists at 21 research universities across the nation.
> 
> *The findings mirror a similar study of physicians released by the University of Chicago last...*


*goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4592093/Scientists-spirituality-surprises-Only-one.html



> merican and Indian scientists may be adding yoga to the list of options currently available to aid in the treatment of breast cancer, according to a recent edition of the Science & Theology News. Yoga as a form of complementary alternative medicine has been used in conjunction with traditional Western medicine for years. However, the recently announced partnership of American and Indian scientists to test its effectiveness with breast cancer is something new.


Read more. Look at u now.




> *Religion, spirituality impact patients' healing, scientists say*
> 
> "Our goal is to bring to the conversation that health is more than fixing your body," Duffy said. "Health is a transformative process that involves healing the spirit."
> .
> ...


*www.jewishworldreview.com/0108/religion_healing.php3




> *Spiritual practices are gaining mainstream acceptance as complementary and alternative therapies. And as spiritual well-being is boosted, breast cancer patients become survivors.*
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Read more


Thre are many such facts embedded in some links that I can give. But whats the point? That wud be just showing u the ground reality. The actual definition is to be understood by u alone.

So until now, u have mislead about the work of "Dr. Steven", acknowledged how much u know about hypnotism, homeopathy, spiriutality and deviated the topic and only shown how much u can lowball them with ur excellent English terminology. Grow up and learn what the leader of ur herd is doing! 



*PS : Mods may move it now to FIGHT CLUB *
@friends : Sorry, but the fog needs to be cleared out! U all may take part though.


----------



## karnivore (Apr 27, 2008)

Again, excuse me if i don't participate in your display of lack of culture and taste (Doesn't speak very highly of your background, either). You can merrily pi$$ on your education (whatever little you received) and be proud of it.

Moving on....

You have actually corroborated the point i was trying to make. That we sometimes experience something and then, later on, go on to "learn" about it and it is a perfect process. If that process of learning is valid for you, it is, perhaps, valid for others, including those who hold an opposing view. We all, on some level, simply subscribe to ideas. If your believe in "spirituality" is only normal to you, perhaps my vote for "materialism" is same for me.

"Walking, talking, pissing" etc. are all specific set of *physical* *activities*, which all follow a set of specific rules, biological AND otherwise, and are all *natural* (please NOTE this word, if you can), provided one is not congenitally or otherwise handicapped. However, feelings can't be defined by certain set of rules. Science does that only in terms of neurons and hormones. But thats besides the point (Also, my point wasn't if practice follows theory or if you started to "believe" in "spirituality" after reading it. In fact, it was quite the opposite. That you felt something and then 'learned' that it was "spiritual".). The point is *how does one know, what  are those feelings, that constitute the "definition"*. In case of a physical activity it can be clearly defined due to observable and determinable events. But is it the same for "feelings", particularly "spiritual" feelings, which are extremely subjective. *If "feeling" is the touchstone*, on the basis of which "spirituality" is defined (Please note that, this is what you are saying, not me), then why certain mundane physical activities, triggering the same feelings, can't be categorised as "spirituality". Thats what Denett illustrated in that quote, i had earlier mentioned.

Yoga is a physical activity (the very act of standing, sitting or lying is physical activity, because, body can't be in any of those states if the muscles are not manipulated in certain ways), and hence the act of yoga is just as much "materialistic" as, for example orgasm (show some maturity here) or intake of psychedelic drugs (if you are too immature to consider the word orgasm). If both, being physical activities, can give the same feeling of "elevation of spirit beyond the self", in other words a "transcending experience", why can't both be "spiritual" activities. And that is my point. 

Staying close to one's roots, just for the sake of so staying, is another form of chauvinism or excess clanism (and seems strangely similar to the facists' rants of Hitler). Wasn't it the poster-boy for Vedas, we lovingly call, Swami Vivekananda, who wanted us to assimilate in our culture the "best of west". Again, wasn't he the one who wanted us to cleanse our culture of "bad practices and superstitions". Seems you are not aware of the clarion calls of your headmaster.

One more thing. Psychic / religious/ pseudo-scientific sites can be your playground, but for me, these are akin to garbage-dump. And just as every person with reasonable sense of repulsion would do, i too pass those sites with my forefinger and thumb tightly pressed against my nose.

Oh, one more thing. Instead of telling me what to do or learn or wondering how lowly my intellect is or what percentage of brain i use, (which actually is strange because you claimed earlier i don't have one), why don't you enlighten us all by what you understand of "spiritualism", if possible, without recourse to any garbage site.

You actually remind me of Russell's "celestial teapot". (OOPs i did it again)


----------



## selva1966 (Apr 27, 2008)

FUNNY.  His hypnotist skills has not helped him from feeling the the pains of arthritis.


----------



## karnivore (Apr 27, 2008)

^^ Good question, but, there is a plausible explanation for that. Clinical hypnosis involves, primarily to focus on something other than the pain. Very much like a magicians trick. While you are focusing on his right hand, he is manipulating with his left. That focusing can work, for a limited period of time. But to make himself, not feel the pain, through out his life would need him to do the same amount of focusing, 24x7, through out his lifetime. That is virtually impossible.


----------



## mediator (Apr 27, 2008)

> You have actually corroborated the point i was trying to make. That we sometimes experience something and then, later on, go on to "learn" about it and it is a perfect process. If that process of learning is valid for you, it is, perhaps, valid for others, including those who hold an opposing view. We all, on some level, simply subscribe to ideas. If your believe in "spirituality" is only normal to you, perhaps my vote for "materialism" is same for me.


It seems u r diverting ur point of view to match mine. So, neways u have never experienced "spirituality", so how can u ever rebuke it? U have already been exposed a lot, but neways its good for u if ur thinking process is enhancing now!



> The point is how does one know, what are those feelings, that constitute the "definition".


Again u r only strengthening my point, that its not always theory first and practical later! Are we coming to an agreement?



> *But is it the same for "feelings", particularly "spiritual" feelings, which are extremely subjective.* If "feeling" is the touchstone, on the basis of which "spirituality" is defined (Please note that, this is what you are saying, not me), then why certain mundane physical activities, triggering the same feelings, can't be categorised as "spirituality". Thats what Denett illustrated in that quote, i had earlier mentioned.


Like I said it depends on ur roots. I am close to mine, so whatever is already there is in my blood like many others from birth. Its only ur independent outlook that differentiates and separates wrong from right. So yes it is same for spirituality if u r asking in general! Besides, I am not interested in ur plagiarized opinions whether they r correct or not, as they r simply "opinions". *I hope u know what "opinion" means and how different it is from facts, researches, ground reality etc??* Even I can plagiarize "opinions" like that. But thats not me!




> Yoga is a *physical activity (the very act of standing, sitting or lying is physical activity, because, body can't be in any of those states if the muscles are not manipulated in certain ways), and hence the act of yoga is just as much "materialistic" as, for example orgasm (show some maturity here) or intake of psychedelic drugs (if you are too immature to consider the word orgasm).* If both, being physical activities, can give the same feeling of "*elevation of spirit beyond the self*", in other words a "transcending experience", why can't both be "spiritual" activities. *And that is my point.*


Are u trying to make a joke of urself? Your ignorance is really getting entertaining now. 
Yoga is much more than those "physical activities". It also about body and mind control, concentration, your breathing. Please show some mercy on urself!
*www.yoga.net.au/what_is_yoga 

And I think ur mind doesn't work to ponder over what psychedelic drugs are! Wondering, I think ur brains doesn't work at all.


Since from the start u like giving "opinions" as ur backup base and using "wiki" to support ur definitions, so let me give on like u at ur level....may be for ur better understanding as now I can understand that giving researches and facts, ground reality can be of no use for u and may take additional toll on ur little hollow brains!



> Psychedelic drugs are psychoactive drugs whose primary action is to alter the thought processes of the brain and perception of the mind. The term is derived from Greek ψυχή (psyche, "mind") and δηλείν (delein, "to manifest"), translating to "mind-manifesting." "The implication is that the psychedelic drugs can develop unused potentials of the human mind." [1] Psychedelic drugs are part of a wider class sometimes known as the hallucinogens, which also includes related substances such as dissociatives and deliriants. Unlike other psychoactive drugs such as stimulants and opioids, the psychedelics do not merely induce familiar states of mind but rather shift the locus of experiences so that they are qualitatively different from those of ordinary consciousness. *The psychedelic experience is often compared to non-ordinary forms of consciousness such as trance, meditation, and dreams.*
> 
> Many psychedelic drugs are thought to disable filters which keep signals unrelated to everyday functions from reaching the conscious mind.[citation needed] These signals are presumed to originate in several other functions of the brain, including but not limited to the senses, emotions, memories, and the unconscious (or subconscious) mind.[citation needed] This effect is sometimes referred to as mind expanding, or consciousness expanding, for the conscious mind becomes aware of things normally inaccessible to it.
> "Blotter" LSD, a psychedelic drug
> ...


*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_drug

It seems u most probably don't even understand the difference between meditation and sleep, dreaming and pondering! 

What do u mean by "elavation of spirit from self"? On one hand we have psychedelic drugs which cause "induced" hallucinations filled with side effects. Do u even understand the difference? Besides "transcendental meditation" is not the 'only' form of meditation that u r trying to compare!!

Dude, please stop it. I can't take ur ignorance now!



> Oh, one more thing. Instead of telling me what to do or learn or wondering how lowly my intellect is or what percentage of brain i use, (which actually is strange because you claimed earlier i don't have one), why don't you enlighten us all by what you understand of "spiritualism", if possible, *without recourse to any garbage site.*


I thought u followed the leader of ur herd well enough to have understood the definition of "spiritualism". But heck, "u did it again"! Neways I am not a teacher to make u understand spirituality. But I can advise that for understanding it u need to have a broadminded outlook and open mind, open to ideas. But rather u have a mindset to rebuff anything that science can't explain or is still discussing about!  And thats so "scientific" of you!!

Neways I don't understand why u induce terms like "bla bla bla", "garbage" to define the sites that I link which merely show researches and ground reality unlike urs which show "opinions" and "wiki" links. It seems this discussion has taken a huge toll on ur null intellect and brain filled with nuthing but meat as in every reply of yours u have shown remarkable set of terminology like "bla bla bla", "orgasm", linked homeopathy with "ignorance" etc and whateva a frustrated mind backed by constipated body can!! Congratulations, u have deviated a lot. 

Finally coming back to the topic, the case is still an ongoing one and not "already explored". Learn the alphabet, improve ur vocablury and terminology, meditate a little, learn not to deviate and then comprehend what the article u linked by "Dr. Stevens" says!


----------



## karnivore (Apr 27, 2008)

> It seems u r diverting ur point of view to match mine.


Please show me how i have diverted. You said i only follow and you don't. I just provided my arguments to prove we all follow, only some of us are too "naive" to realise that. So show me, just which part of my argument is incoherent.



> Again u r only strengthening my point, that its not always theory first and practical later


You did not even read that para, let alone understand. Just scroll up and read it again and again and again and try to figure out what i said.



> ...so whatever is already there is in my blood like many others from birth.


And whats that. What exactly are you referring to. (I just want to clarify before making any assumptions)



> ...differentiates and separates wrong from right.


Again, right and wrong are subjective. What you may reject as wrong, may not be so to others, or, in the long run. 

So, lets summarize. The concept of "spirituality" that you have is shaped by, subjective modification (right and wrong being subjective) of subjective assimilation of cultural roots (just 10 miles in any direction you go you will have a different culture system), complemented by subjective experiences. I guess, with so many "subjectives", the end result will be subjective as well. Please note this conclusion is on the basis of your remarks and not on the basis of any subjective "assumptions" or "opinions" of any expert.



> Yoga is much more than those "physical activities". It also about body and mind control, concentration, your breathing.


Just because, somebody or some site claims it to be "more" than physical activity, it does not become so. If i start claiming, that i have magical dragon under my bed, it does not automatically become true. Or does it.

Now, since you have too much brain that spills through your nose and ears, lets discuss this point by point, 

1. Even if i assume, that yoga is "much more than those physical activities", the starting point still remains physical. 
2. If i consider your/ their definition of yoga to be true, it still means that yoga is a process of achieving "non-physical" ends through "physical" means. 
3. Since, the only way one can realise if that "non-physical" end is achieved or not, is only through some sort of experience, again, it is the "experiences" or "feelings" that become the touchstone. 
4. Now, it is virtually impossible to narrate those experiences or feelings in exact detail. So the understanding of the experiences or feelings would be highly subjective.
5. If those subjective "experiences" and "feelings", are the key, then any physical process, resulting in the same set of experiences and feelings is valid "spiritualism".

Instead of saying "no it is not", just logically prove why it is not.



> It seems u most probably don't even understand the difference between meditation and sleep, dreaming and pondering


I think that wiki link actually proves what i am saying. If you read that in conjunction with the above argument, it will become clear why. If it isn't, then probably, too much brain is spilling out.



> On one hand we have psychedelic drugs which cause "induced" hallucinations filled with side effects.


...and on the other hand ??



> Besides "transcendental meditation" is not the 'only' form of meditation that u r trying to compare


Where ? Oho, i get it. Since i mentioned the word 'transcend', i must be talking about "transcendental meditation". so 2 + 2 = 5 (don't have a brain, so i hope i got that right)



> I am not a teacher to make u understand spirituality


I did not ask you to define "spirituality" to learn it from you. Believe me, i have far better persons, sitting on the racks my home library, to learn from. I just wanted to see, how much of it you yourself understand. Since you don't hesitate to advise people what to do and learn, i thought may be we should also learn, how far you own learning goes.



> ..*u have never experienced "spirituality", so how can u ever rebuke it?*


*Please share with us, what you have experienced. And lets see how good you are at bluffing.*


----------



## mediator (Apr 28, 2008)

> Please show me how i have diverted. You said i only follow and you don't. I just provided my arguments to prove we all follow, only some of us are too "naive" to realise that. So show me, just which part of my argument is incoherent.


Kiddo, Do u understand what the topic is about? Read where the diversion started from. And yet u dragged homeopathy/spirituality which was a part of another debate? Grow up.



> You did not even read that para, let alone understand. Just scroll up and read it again and again and again and try to figure out what i said.


Funny, a guy who can't even read the link he provides and makes absurd conclusions like "already explored" is telling that others don't read!  



> So, lets summarize. The concept of "spirituality" that you have is shaped by, subjective modification (*right and wrong being subjective*) of subjective assimilation of cultural roots (just 10 miles in any direction you go you will have a different culture system), complemented by subjective experiences. I guess, with so many "subjectives", the end result will be subjective as well. Please note this conclusion is on the basis of your remarks and not on the basis of any subjective "assumptions" or "opinions" of any expert.


Differentiating "Right from wrong" was linked to awakening of ur independent outlook. Do I need to explain every simple statement just for u? And here u r trying to know the definition of spirituality after rebuking it mindlessly. 



> Just because, somebody or some site claims it to be "more" than physical activity, it does not become so. If i start claiming, that i have magical dragon under my bed, it does not automatically become true. Or does it.


Are u high on mushrooms? Seems like u r miles behind reality. Thats what anybody can expect from an illiterate ill-informed about yoga! 

Ofcors the "magical dragon" doesn't become true unless it is proven/shown. But guess what, we have almost half of america, majority of Europe and other nations practising Yoga and major percentage of it has made it their lifestyle.....a spiritual lifestyle and that includes a major percentage of scientists too! I hope u read the researches and links I gave just for ur enlghtenment! They r not "garbage", believe me, read em n then comment for the sake of  making others believe that u still have a little percentage of wisdom still inside u!

*A piece of friendly advise : If u really do not know what spirituality and yoga is, then please don't discuss. I am not 'forcing' u to discuss as this is not "ontopic" and I am not laughing either, but just being sympathetic and sad!*

So lets discuss this in a much friendly tone, since I feel u really do not know anything over the topic at all.



			
				present said:
			
		

> 1. Even if i assume, that yoga is "much more than those physical activities", the starting point still remains physical.
> 2. If i consider your/ their definition of yoga to be true, it still means that yoga is a process of achieving "non-physical" ends through "physical" means.
> 3. Since, the only way one can realise if that "non-physical" end is achieved or not, is only through some sort of experience, again, it is the "experiences" or "feelings" that become the touchstone.
> 4. Now, it is virtually impossible to narrate those experiences or feelings in exact detail. So the understanding of the experiences or feelings would be highly subjective.
> 5. If those subjective "experiences" and "feelings", are the key, then any physical process, resulting in the same set of experiences and feelings is valid "spiritualism".





			
				earlier said:
			
		

> Yoga is a physical activity (the very act of standing, sitting or lying is physical activity, because, body can't be in any of those states if the muscles are not manipulated in certain ways), and hence the act of yoga is just as much "materialistic" as, for example orgasm (show some maturity here) or intake of psychedelic drugs (if you are too immature to consider the word orgasm). If both, being physical activities, can give the same feeling of "elevation of spirit beyond the self", in other words a "transcending experience", why can't both be "spiritual" activities. And that is my point.


Read what u quoted earlier and read what u quoted now. It seems u r softening ur stand now! 

1. Its mutual! Just like for a perfect lifestyle and body, u need to have a healthy mindset and for healthy mindset u also need to workout. From ur point, I can also say that the starting point can be also the very  "thought" to initiate yoga.
2. Again the same. we can make ourselves lead to healthy and compassionate lifestyle i.e physical from a "non-physical" process!
3.4. Why is it impossible?
5. The answer rests with u! Ponder. U have every right to form ur own definition of "spiritualism", but atleast  try to practise it first!!



Now again for psychedelic drugs......

A few aspects of Psychedelic drugs

* The drugs are known more for their abuse potential
* As a group, the drugs are often referred to as psychedelic (meaning mind-altering) or hallucinogenic because they cause people to have hallucinations; that is, to imagine they see and hear things.
* Street users call these experiences "trips," which can be extremely pleasant or highly unpleasant and frightening.
* The drugs can cause other adverse reactions, too. LSD, for example, can dilate pupils; increase body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and sweating; and cause loss of appetite, sleeplessness, dry mouth, and tremors. Also, many LSD users experience flashbacks, spontaneous recurrences of certain aspects of the person's "trip" (without the user having taken the drug again). Long-term LSD users may develop psychoses, such as schizophrenia and severe depression.
* Addiction
*www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/795_psyche.html

* Psychedelic drugs are not necessary for a spiritual path. I would say that they don't have much connection to the spiritual path, since in its true meaning "spirituality" also means understanding and controlling your body, nature so as to lead a "natural life" filled with intelligence, wisdom etc. But here we have psychedelic drugs which make u "see" and "hear" things, make u hallucinate filled with "side effects" and addictions!
*www.csp.org/chrestomathy/psychedelic_drugs.html 


Read the *Details on the drug abuse* and its *History*....which may also lead to death!! A way of life? Can it be? Never!! 




> I think that wiki link actually proves what i am saying. If you read that in conjunction with the above argument, it will become clear why. If it isn't, then probably, too much brain is spilling out.


Even a child can infer the level of ur comprehension from ur very first post here proved by ur succeeding posts. So read again!



> Please share with us, what you have experienced. And lets see how good you are at bluffing.


A healthy lifestyle, a world full of joy, broadminded and independent thinking approach which isn't based on the 'opinions' of others and  which doesn't neglects anything just at random unlike urs, may be also to understand my body of what I shud eat and drink so as to minimize the dependence on medicines, understanding the nature, a feeling of compassion and peace that doesn't let go angry easily and knowing the surrounding around me and people I talk to. May be I can infer that in reality u are a good person who has had enough of religion becoz of their negative outcomings everyday and thus u fail to see the difference between propoganda based 'institution like religion', which aim to fulfill themselves, and religions which aim to fulfill others and bring joy, compassion, wisdom and healhty lifestyle in people and that u have a very distorted view of terms like "yoga", "spirituality" etc! May be u too are a spiritual person, but u yet do not know of it becoz as inferred so much from ur posts it seems u really do not know what spirituality is!! Its just a way to enhance ur will, patience, benevolence, concentration, to understand nature and body and mind control. 

Try yoga, just for a month. Millions across the world be it US, Europe, INDIA etc aren't trying it for no reason. Majority of Scientists call themselves spiritual and science isn't bringing spirituality in for no reason!

Do read the links I post!


----------



## karnivore (Apr 28, 2008)

Sorry guys for the enormous post (not that anyone cares). But it was necessary.

To this...


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> > You have actually corroborated the point i was trying to make. That we sometimes experience something and then, later on, go on to "learn" about it and it is a perfect process. If that process of learning is valid for you, it is, perhaps, valid for others, including those who hold an opposing view. We all, on some level, simply subscribe to ideas. If your believe in "spirituality" is only normal to you, perhaps my vote for "materialism" is same for me.
> 
> 
> *It seems u r diverting ur point of view to match mine*


I replied..


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> > It seems u r diverting ur point of view to match mine
> 
> 
> Please show me how i have diverted. You said i only follow and you don't. *I just provided my arguments to prove we all follow, only some of us are too "naive" to realise that*. So show me, just which part of my argument is incoherent.


To which you replied...


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Kiddo, *Do u understand what the topic is about? Read where the diversion started from*. And yet u dragged homeopathy/spirituality which was a part of another debate? Grow up.


See, who is incapable of understanding agruments. You, suddenly come up with the diversion of the topic, when i was, in fact, asking you to prove how i have diverted from my line of argument on the "following" and "leading" $hit, which you accused me of. I wanted you to show me the lack of coherence in my arguments. And see what answer you come up with.

And with diversion of thread, you are as much responsible as i am.



> ..makes absurd conclusions like "already explored"..


Since you are the only cry-baby, whining about this, i am guessing, i did alright. You have only yourself to blame for your misinterpretation. So, whine on.



> Differentiating "Right from wrong" was linked to awakening of ur independent outlook


Now, you are either trying to be funny, or playing "naive". Let's take you back a little.


			
				mediator said:
			
		

> > But is it the same for "feelings", particularly "spiritual" feelings, which are extremely subjective...
> 
> 
> Like I said it depends on ur roots. I am close to mine, so whatever is already there is in my blood like many others from birth. *Its only ur independent outlook that differentiates and separates wrong from right.* So yes it is same for spirituality if u r asking in general!


You were replying to the question if "spiritual feelings" can be clearly defined like any physical activity, which can be so done, due to observable and determinable events. Your conclusion was "YES", since we grow with some cultural lineage (i asked u to clarify what you meant by "in blood" and since you did not bother, thats what i would assume) and our independent outlook helps us to "differentiate and separate wrong from right". To this i replied...


			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> So, lets summarize. The concept of "spirituality" that you have is shaped by, subjective modification (right and wrong being subjective) of subjective assimilation of cultural roots (just 10 miles in any direction you go you will have a different culture system), complemented by subjective experiences. I guess, *with so many "subjectives", the end result will be subjective as well*.


This was how i was giving a counter point to your answer "YES", to prove, that feelings can't be so clearly defined because of so much variables that are involved. Got the point? Still don't? You will, once you can stop the spilling of your brain.



> Read what u quoted earlier and read what u quoted now. It seems u r softening ur stand now!


Although you have diligently copied the two of my arguments (both of which are,that since certain set of feelings, experienced by means of a physical process called yoga, is called "spirituality", the same set of feelings which can be experienced through some other physical process, can also be called "spirituality". In other words, "spirituality" is nothing but some feelings and how you define it.), you conveniently forgot to tell me why you thought, that i softened my stand. You don't have to agree to my arguments and you have every right not to. But the least i can expect of you is that, you will follow my arguments, before starting your diatribe.

Now about your point wise rebuttal:
1. There is no doubt, that work-out is necessary for a healthy body. But thats not the point. The point is, yoga is just another "work out routine", which has been given a spin of "spirituality", following our tradition of assigning sky-fairies to everything we could lay our hands on. Again the point is not if starting point is physical, the point is, that, the entire routine of yoga involves some "physical process" at some point or other, thereby making it just another physical process.

2. So you mean, unhealthy and uncompassionate lifestyle is non-physical? BTW, how is "lifestyle" a non-physical process. Even if i assume (don't get carried away, here) that life style is non-physical, why is yoga the necessary means. The same can be achieved through, say for example AEROBICS. If you say "NO", you have to explain why not.

3. No answer.
4. You have clubbed 3 & 4 together, although the question, you have asked, is more related to 4. Why, you ask. Tell me how does it feel to be "happy" or "sad". You can only describe how you feel in your body when you are happy or sad. But do you think, that those descriptions would invoke the same feeling of "happiness" or "sadness" in the person who is listening. Got it now.

5. Funny, you can't come up with a convincing answer to rebut my "opinion", except, of course, a suggestion. So "YOU-WILL-KNOW-IT-WHEN-YOU-EXPERIENCE-IT" is your last argument. Not much of an argument there.



> Now again for psychedelic drugs......


Now you have started ranting about psychedelic drugs. I know, by now that you are a literal person. But that can't be an excuse for confusing a "metaphor" with the "literal". So let me clarify. (and now i am getting bored clarifying everything)

I used psychedelic drugs and orgasm as metaphor for physical processes. While orgasm was supposed to represent a bodily act that is internally self generated (now, don't start ranting about orgasm) and psychedelic drugs were supposed to represent the external stimuli effect on body. Since both give the feeling of extreme pleasure, in different ways, which can roughly induce in a person, a state of trance, a feeling of "lost from the present", these processes can be used as counterpoint to yoga.

The point was, if "feeling" is the touchstone, or key to spiritualism, then any physical process, initiated by external means or internal, resulting in similar feeling, is just as valid as yoga.

It has nothing to do with advocation of psychedelic drugs as way of life or with its side effects and all that $hit. Please try to distinguish between a "metaphor" and the "literal". That would save you a lot of trouble.



			
				some stinking corner of a garbage dump said:
			
		

> ..in its true meaning *"spirituality" also means understanding and controlling your body, nature so as to lead a "natural life" filled with intelligence, wisdom* etc.


So practice of materialism, in its true meaning, does not result in "understanding and controlling your body, nature so as to lead a "natural life" filled with intelligence, wisdom etc." Can you please prove this premise, that materialism, without any recourse to "spiritualism", does not allow to lead a "natural life". 



> A *healthy lifestyle*, a *world full of joy*, broadminded and independent thinking approach which isn't based on the 'opinions' of others and which doesn't neglects anything just at random unlike urs, may be also *to* *understand my body* of *what I shud eat and drink* so as to minimize the dependence on medicines, *understanding the nature*, a *feeling of compassion and peace* that *doesn't let go angry easily* and *knowing the surrounding around me* and *people I talk to*.


You experienced all of these, because of spirituality or because of these experiences you realised you are "spiritual".

And how are these experiences different from those experienced by, say for example, a "materialist". Although i can't give myself all those nice certificates that you have given to yourself, i can say with fair confidence that i am feeling the same as you are (note the ones in bold) without any "spiritual" inclination or activity. How is that so. And guess what - all that you have mentioned can be explained from a "materialist" point of view as well. So tell once again, what has "spirituality" got to do with all of those.



> ..u have a very distorted view of terms like "yoga", "spirituality" etc!


If you claim someone has distorted view of certain terms, it becomes your responsibility prove that your view is correct and also why you are correct, which i don't think you can in this lifetime, at least. Or can you, now.



> Try yoga, just for a month. Millions across the world be it US, Europe, INDIA etc aren't trying it for no reason. Majority of Scientists call themselves spiritual and science isn't bringing spirituality in for no reason!


YUP.....now i am convinced, you don't follow or depend on "others" opinion. Irrefutable proof.


----------



## mediator (Apr 28, 2008)

> And with diversion of thread, you are as much responsible as i am.


Hold ur pants dear and read who started talking about homeopathy and spirituality like a full fledged illiterate!



> Since you are the only cry-baby, whining about this, i am guessing, i did alright. You have only yourself to blame for your misinterpretation. So, whine on.





			
				Dr.Steven said:
			
		

> I have e-mailed the hospital and I am trying to get contact information for Dr. Llewellyn-Clark *so that I can fill in the missing details.* If I do I will add an addendum to the post with the new information. *Meanwhile, here are several possible hypotheses to explain this story.*
> .
> .
> .
> To be clear - I am not accusing Mr. Lenkei or his surgeons of anything. I am simply laying out various hypotheses given the information available on this story. I would love to have the opportunity to test these hypotheses, by questioning Mr. Lenkei and/or his surgeon


I will have no problem quoting the article u linked as many times it will take to add to ur shame!
So meanwhile the blanks are being filled by the doc, u can entertain me as much as u want!



> You were replying to the question if "spiritual feelings" can be clearly defined like any physical activity, which can be so done, due to observable and determinable events. Your conclusion was "YES", since we grow with some cultural lineage (i asked u to clarify what you meant by "in blood" and since you did not bother, thats what i would assume) and our independent outlook helps us to "differentiate and separate wrong from right". To this i replied...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't understand why ur peanut brains is getting so jumbled now and so confused. Well, u r so predictable. "In blood", "in roots" mean the same thing if u were asking genuinely to improve ur English. It seems your concepts on the whole topic of science and spirituality are not clear either thinking of which it seems its only ur ego and arrogance that is taking toll on ur thinking process.

"Learning" a skill is not called "following"! U r treating as if learning is a synonynm of following. Do I ned to teach u English also now in the midst of an already deviated discussion? But walking behind someone without questioning and plagiarising his opinions 24*7 like he is a god or something is definitely called "following". May be u learnt somewhere that hypntoism, spirituality, homeopathy etc are "garbage" without  any glance on the reality, facts and researches and since that time u have been beating the drums of ur ignorance.

If u r asking on the previous question of physical activites in "spirituality", that was quite clearly given by me i.e "mutual"! Ur notions of orgasm/dump as 'unworldy' quite clearly proved that u r here to talk rubbish like a stereotype who watches B-Grade Hindi erotic movies! So grow up, first understand what u r talking of and get ur concepts cleared. Repeatitions will not help u in anyway!



> In other words, "spirituality" is nothing *but some feelings and how you define it*.), you conveniently forgot to tell me why you thought, that i softened my stand. You don't have to agree to my arguments and you have every right not to. But the least i can expect of you is that, you will follow my arguments, before starting your diatribe.


U need to understand what those feelings and experiences are! Howling without understanding will only take a toll on ur little brain here.



			
				earlier said:
			
		

> 1. Even if i assume, that yoga is "much more than those physical activities", *the starting point still remains physical.*





			
				now said:
			
		

> 1. There is no doubt, that work-out is necessary for a healthy body. But thats not the point. The point is, yoga is just another "work out routine", which has been given a spin of "spirituality", following our tradition of assigning sky-fairies to everything we could lay our hands on. *Again the point is not if starting point is physical,* the point is, that, the entire routine of yoga involves some "physical process" at some point or other, thereby making it just another physical process.


Please make up ur mind what u wanna say. 'Guessing' about what yoga is,  isn't gonna help u.



> 2. So you mean, *unhealthy and uncompassionate lifestyle is non-physical*? BTW, how is "lifestyle" a non-physical process. Even if i assume (don't get carried away, here) that life style is non-physical, why is yoga the necessary means. The same can be achieved through, say for example AEROBICS. If you say "NO", you have to explain why not.


Again a lapse in ur comprehension. If u cared to read carefully, I was replying to the mutuality which was 'just below' the 'previous line'. 
Where did I say "lifestyle" is a non-physical process?  U surely are addicted to the psychedelic drugs that is making u see things!! 



> 3. No answer.
> 4. You have clubbed 3 & 4 together, although the question, you have asked, is more related to 4. Why, you ask. Tell me how does it feel to be "happy" or "sad". You can only describe how you feel in your body when you are happy or sad. But do you think, that those descriptions would invoke the same feeling of "happiness" or "sadness" in the person who is listening. Got it now.


I asked u "why it is impossible". I am listening!



> 5. Funny, you can't come up with a convincing answer to rebut my "opinion", except, of course, a suggestion. So "YOU-WILL-KNOW-IT-WHEN-YOU-EXPERIENCE-IT" is your last argument. Not much of an argument there.


U can't even understand what "mutual is", how can I explain u any further? Its get entertaining further, when u r trying to prove something even when u don't understand the difference between worldy and unworldy and calls dump/orgasm as unworldy! Smell the path to ur herd. 

Its like explaining to a child who can't differentiate between oranges and apples and says they taste the same.



> Now you have started ranting about psychedelic drugs. I know, by now that you are a literal person. But that can't be an excuse for confusing a "metaphor" with the "literal". So let me clarify. (and now i am getting bored clarifying everything)
> 
> I used psychedelic drugs and orgasm as metaphor for physical processes. While orgasm was supposed to represent a bodily act that is internally self generated (now, don't start ranting about orgasm) and psychedelic drugs were supposed to represent the external stimuli effect on body. Since both give the feeling of extreme pleasure, in different ways, which can roughly induce in a person, a state of trance, a feeling of "lost from the present", these processes can be used as counterpoint to yoga.


I see, u don't like fruit juice, so u r telling to have something like "Coke/Mirinda" as an alternative, as some counter to fruit juice? But dear, u can't have those toilet cleaners daily!! I wont rant bt orgasm, coz it wud be silly to even discuss bt it and I hope u don't either. 

Besides the inclusion of psychedelic-drugs and wateva rubbish u cud think of was really pathetic. Besides ur "clarification" is much more amusing. Yoga is a way of life, psychedelic drugs is not! The details have already been stated in the previous post!! Grow up.



> So practice of materialism, in its true meaning, does not result in "understanding and controlling your body, nature so as to lead a "natural life" filled with intelligence, wisdom etc." Can you please prove this premise, that materialism, without any recourse to "spiritualism", does not allow to lead a "natural life".


Do u even understand what materialism is? U have shown remarkable example of (un)worldy already!!



> And how are these experiences different from those experienced by, say for example, a "materialist". Although i can't give myself all those nice certificates that you have given to yourself, i can say with fair confidence that i am feeling the same as you are (note the ones in bold) without any "spiritual" inclination or activity. How is that so. And guess what - all that you have mentioned can be explained from a "materialist" point of view as well. So tell once again, what has "spirituality" got to do with all of those.


Again understand what materialism is before I start!



> If you claim someone has distorted view of certain terms, it becomes your responsibility prove that your view is correct and also why you are correct, which i don't think you can in this lifetime, at least. Or can you, now.


Thats what I am trying to do. But I cannot succeed if the subject itself is reluctant can I? How can I acknowledge a child that apple tastes different than an orange, if he himself is not willing to eat it? But instead the child is only trying hard on his insane guesses. 



> YUP.....now i am convinced, you don't follow or depend on "others" opinion. Irrefutable proof.


Again a case of "aphasia". Its not "opinion" dear . But a simple proof, ground reality, researched and found correct by 'modern scientists' who are 'spiritual' in majority!!


AGAIN do u still like to be corrected? If yes, then atleast try to taste the apple and the fruit juice. If not, then why even bother and create a joke of urself? Talk "on topic", the case is not "already explored". Please qquote me lie by line from next time and also the quotes from the links so as to acknowledge that u really read the full thing!!


			
				Dr.Steven said:
			
		

> I have e-mailed the hospital and I am trying to get contact information for Dr. Llewellyn-Clark *so that I can fill in the missing details.* If I do I will add an addendum to the post with the new information. *Meanwhile, here are several possible hypotheses to explain this story.*
> .
> .
> .
> To be clear - I am not accusing Mr. Lenkei or his surgeons of anything. I am simply laying out various hypotheses given the information available on this story. I would love to have the opportunity to test these hypotheses, by questioning Mr. Lenkei and/or his surgeon




Mods : PLease move to Fight Club??


----------



## karnivore (Apr 28, 2008)

*IMPOSSIBLE*.......

Its been quite a comic relief for me.

Thanks for the entertainment, hope to see you around. One question though, did you actually pass your school or ..........  

Take care


----------



## mediator (Apr 28, 2008)

WTH  . I was hoping for some 3-4 pages more atleast.

But neways, its quite clear that u will still be reluctant on spirituality matters and wont believe and learn from the scientists also u praise so much about how majority of em can be spiritual!!

So, take ur psychedelic drugs, have ur toilet cleaners and lead ur "natural" way of life as me and many others lead a spiritual life!

Hope u understand now, that its not "already explored"!!


----------



## karnivore (Apr 28, 2008)

^^ Tee hee hee.
Right you are. Live and let live.


----------



## sen_sunetra (Apr 29, 2008)

I was passing by and this discussion caught my attention. I have read the entire discussion, but, I am still not clear on number of issues. I registered, so I could clear those things out. 

Although, this discussion started with hypnotism - of which I have nothing worthwhile to contribute - and veered off to spiritualism, I hope I won’t be breaking any forum rules, if I ask a few questions on spirituality. However, if I am breaking any rule, I sincerely apologize. 

I have 4 questions for all who feels like answering, and particularly for *mediator* and *karnivore*, since you two are the only ones engaged in a heated debate.

#1. What do YOU understand by spirituality ?

#2. Have YOU ever experienced spirituality as explained in #1 ? If yes, what were those experiences ?

#3. Do YOU think that the experiences YOU had, as described in #2, can also be experienced by a person, who is not spiritual, per se ? If NOT, then why ?

#4. If the answer to #3 is “YES”, then, how is a spiritual person different from a non-spiritual person ?

Regards


----------



## mediator (Apr 29, 2008)

#5 What do u understand by non-spirituality and define it? Lets first distinguish clearly!
#6 What do u call a person and classify him in which category, the one who can't distinguish the right from wrong, who jumps to conclusions without even practicing or experiencing?
#7 Define "materialism"!
#8 Can 'materialistic' person ( ponder over or see the definition if u don't know ) still be thoughtful over the ethics, needs of others, benevolent and have some meaningful purpose of life?
#9 What r we, a mere piece of flesh that shud eat and sleep?
#10 Why is it that even though I can earn sufficient amount of money and buy all the materialistic things, I get happiness only in spending time with  relatives, friends, understanding nature, mind and body?
#11 Do we really need to adapt ourselves to a lifestyle concerning beer, toilet cleaners like pepsi etc and all synthetic things we eat and drink and then constantly whine over health related problems and seeking medications afterwards?? Do we really need ACs contributing to CFCs, loss of ozone, global warming etc and then cry for the crisis that has arisen? We seek pleasant atmosphere in our "home", for that we heat up the "neighbourhood". In winters we use 'heaters'. Heat generated both to produce electricity and to heat the atmosphere!! 

Lets see spirituality leads to a stability factor in all i.e mind, body and nature. What I discussed, is that stabilty??

Neways, there are many more questions yet to be asked and some that will  present themselves over the passage of time. 

@sen_sunetra: You are new here. I hope u will try to discuss in a civilized manner. But neways still I feel this shud be moved to "Fight Club". Learn what "Fight Club" is. 
Meanwhile, I request u to take ur time and read my previous posts and links  here, so as to minimize "repetitions" as it makes me lose my interest in the topic. And when I say read, then it means read it all. You may then resume!

Welcome to the forum!!


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2008)

yeah the stability of mind, body and nature.


----------



## karnivore (Apr 29, 2008)

AAAHHH.....its like kicking a dog poop. No matter how much you shower, the stink keeps following.

@*sen_sunetra*

1. Spirituality is a word that starts with "S" and ends with "Y".
2. If leading a moral, ethical life, filled with compassion, love for humanity, a taste for quality, etc. is spirituality, then, yes i have experienced. But as far as i am concerned, i experience all of those not because of any pie-in-the-sky, but because, i chose to.
3. I guess, i am my own example. 
4. There is basically no difference between a spiritual person and a non-spiritual person. They differ only in the manner they view life and its mysteries. 

I would have loved to elaborate my points, but i am running short of time here. (Thats the main reason, why i ended this debate so abruptly. I would be traveling a lot in the next couple of weeks.)

Anyway, be forewarned, some people have successfully inoculated themselves against all sort of logic and rationale and have started breeding butterflies inside their skull cavity. 

Would have really loved to discuss with you. But i gotta run.

Cheers.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2008)

The above post shows that you are a chauvinist and follow science religiously 

remember with only one word you can change the ending to a tragedy.


----------



## sen_sunetra (Apr 29, 2008)

Lest one gets a wrong idea, let me make it clear at the very outset, that my purpose is not to convert anybody from his/her belief.
*
mediator*,

Let me first thank you for your welcome note. I also, appreciate, that you responded to my request, although, not exactly to my queries. I would also like you to know, that I have indeed read all of your posts in connection with this discussion, and still did not get a clear idea of your, or karnivore’s, view on spirituality.

I will most definitely go through all the links that you have provided, as and when I get time. However, I was expecting to hear about YOUR OWN views. I would have really been glad, if you took your time out and answered those specific questions. In the meantime let me try and answer to your queries, which seems, more to be directed at someone else than me.

#5. What do u understand by non-spirituality and define it? Lets first distinguish clearly!

A: Non-spirituality is something that is not spiritual. As you can see, non-spirituality is a negative word derived from the original word spirituality. Hence it is impossible to define non-spirituality, without first defining spirituality. That’s why my first question was for the definition of spirituality, so that we can actually understand where we stand on the issue of spirituality.

#6. What do u call a person and classify him in which category, the one who can't distinguish the right from wrong, who jumps to conclusions without even practicing or experiencing?

A: I don’t know, if a category for this exists. So I won’t be able to answer this question. Our understanding of right or/and wrong, depends entirely on individual point of view. An orthodox Brahmin, will feel, that getting touched by a so called un-touchable, is a “wrong”. But an enlightened Brahmin will not see any “wrong” in it. A person who is hungry for number of days will find it “right” to steal a loaf of bread. But the shopkeeper will not see the “right” in it. However, there are also, rights and wrongs, that are absolute. Killing a person, for whatever reason, if it is not intentional, is always wrong, whoever you are and however you are. 

Is it always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding ? I have never climbed mount Everest, and I never will. But it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that climbing is a laborious, extremely strenuous job. I don’t have asthma, but it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that a patient suffering from this disease will be at great disadvantage, should she decide to climb that mountain. The key is keen observation of the person who is experiencing it, thorough examination of the person, if possible, and finally analyzing the evidences. All of which are processes of gathering knowledge. A doctor makes a successful diagnosis of a disease, not because he was himself previously infected by it, but because, he has the knowledge of its symptoms. He gains this knowledge, through training and observing (and treating) a patient with similar disease. It is not always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding. Of course, experience helps, but what is necessary, is the knowledge of the matter.

#7. Define "materialism"!

A: In common parlance, it means one’s attachment to material possessions, say for example, wealth, and the free lunches that come with it. However, when philosophers or scientists talk of materialism, they actually refer to the attempt of explaining every single phenomena without recourse to anything immaterial. Material in such a case refers to “physical” and immaterial refers to “non-physical”. For example, Cartesian dualists try to differentiate between the body (physical) and the mind (non-physical), implying that mind has a separate non-spaceal existence. A materialist try to define mind as a function of brain (physical).

 #8. Can 'materialistic' person ( ponder over or see the definition if u don't know ) still be thoughtful over the ethics, needs of others, benevolent and have some meaningful purpose of life?

A: True. If a person attaches too much value to materialistic pleasures, as understood in common parlance, that all his priorities, his attention, his energy, his focus, will tend to revolve around, how to acquire and enjoy those materialistic pleasures. His life will indeed revolve around himself only.

But “materialism”, is not about “materialistic pleasures”. As I have defined above, it is the manner of defining everything without recourse to anything immaterial. Worldly pleasures, can be pursued with equal intensity, by a strictly spiritual person as well. Half the atrocities against humanity are carried on in the name of religion, which also, claim to be the road to spirituality. There is no evidence, statistically speaking, that spiritual persons are less likely to kill, rape, rob, defraud, evade tax or commit any other crimes. A cross section of prison population in any country would show, that there are more religious (hence spiritual) persons doing their term, than non-religious persons.

 #9. What r we, a mere piece of flesh that shud eat and sleep?

A: Speaking in terms of evolutionary science, that’s what we are supposed be. Human beings are animals, just as much any four legged, or two legged one, the only difference being the complexity of the brain. While a four legged one is incapable of thinking on its own, human beings can. Because we can think, we have appreciation, a sense of quality, logic, rationale etc. That’s why we can appreciate a Mozart, or a Picasso, or a Shakespeare. And that’s why we don’t find it fulfilling just to eat, drink, sleep and propagate. Because we can think we try to give a moral acceptability to life, by means of religion or spirituality or some other belief system.

#10. Why is it that even though I can earn sufficient amount of money and buy all the materialistic things, I get happiness only in spending time with relatives, friends, understanding nature, mind and body?

A: Because your priorities are different than the one, who finds happiness in pursuit of “materialistic” (speaking in common parlance) things. I have covered this in #8 and #9. You can call this “spirituality”, but remember, it is a matter of one’s choice.

#11. Do we really need to adapt ourselves to a lifestyle concerning beer, toilet cleaners like pepsi etc and all synthetic things we eat and drink and then constantly whine over health related problems and seeking medications afterwards?? Do we really need ACs contributing to CFCs, loss of ozone, global warming etc and then cry for the crisis that has arisen? We seek pleasant atmosphere in our "home", for that we heat up the "neighbourhood". In winters we use 'heaters'. Heat generated both to produce electricity and to heat the atmosphere!!

A:  I agree, with you, that we don’t need most of the indulgences. But again, it is a matter of choice. Just as it is one’s choice to drink beer or coke to satisfy himself, it is yours not to. If you are saying, that “spirituality” helps in making choices, then, the question is, does that mean, that spiritual persons do not drink beer or coke ? The sales figure and the ever increasing profit margin of the beer or coke companies, however, tend to speak otherwise. Since majority of the population, some way or the other, believe in “spirituality”, one can safely assume, that a large section of their consumer constitutes of these spiritual persons.

Environmental pollution, due to use of luxury equipments, pose a different question altogether. You obviously do not want to throw the baby with the bathwater. You certainly do not want the people living in the low temperature zone to switch off their heaters, or people living in high temperature zone to switch off their ACs. Simply generating electricity, by conventional method of burning coal, will generate huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere. You certainly do not want to shut down the plants. You definitely do not want people to walk all the way to their offices, because, their cars emit toxic chemical in the air. The question, is how should we decrease the amount of pollution in the air and water. It is something that should concern the scientists and governments. I am sure, a spiritual person uses electricity, ACs, heaters, cars and plays equal role in polluting mother earth.

“Lets see spirituality leads to a stability factor in all i.e mind, body and nature. What I discussed, is that stabilty??”

That assumes, that mind, body and nature are in an unstable state. I would really appreciate it, if you please explain this unstable state, that requires stability. If you are implying, that spirituality brings out the best in a person, then, since this world is mostly inhabited by persons, who are spiritual in their own ways, shouldn’t it already have been a better place to live in. Statistically speaking, there are far less number of atheists or non-spiritual persons, than theists and spiritual persons.

However, I completely agree with you, that more questions need to be asked, and if I may, correctly asked.

Please, try to answer the questions I posed, in my first post. That will help me in debating with you more objectively.

*karnivore*:      

I would have loved to see your elaboration.

Thank you for your warning, but I am willing to believe, that I won’t be unfortunate to meet one.

Regards.


----------



## Faun (Apr 29, 2008)

^^may i recommend u a movie to see what exactly it is in more nearer sense ?


I know we dont actually want to do these things until and unless we are free to do so.


----------



## mediator (Apr 30, 2008)

@Sen : Since u have responded in such a humble way, it compels me to answer to u similarly.

#1. What do YOU understand by spirituality ?
Like I said before, the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind, this is what spirituality means to me. It is the understanding that without the mind, the body is just a mere piece of flesh. Life is all connected. We are all connected! Our body is formed of natural elements/nature and hence if we play with nature, then it is bound to reflect on our body as already being seen these days. It is the quest for eternal wisdom. Even though it has been years, I still feel I am rather new to the path of spirituality!

#2. Have YOU ever experienced spirituality as explained in #1 ? If yes, what were those experiences?
The experience is that of joy, happiness, peace and sometimes amazement. Like from watching over the hilly areas of kedarnath, the peace at the top of the valley, the ganges, the hot sulphur spring that flows out from the earth just 10 meters away from the fresh cold stream arising from the snow at the top, experiencing the true beauty of nature that makes u calm and revives ur mind and body and fills with an energy that cannot be gathered via materialism and a state of mind that lets you forget all the worldy problems. Its also the intuitional experience of knowing when someone is about to come, what other person is doing, "where" he is.

#3. Do YOU think that the experiences YOU had, as described in #2, can also be experienced by a person, who is not spiritual, per se ? If NOT, then why ?
My discussion here is more to the point that spirituality is not "garbage"!! But now thinking of it, I think everybody recieves intuitional messages, but it depends on how receptive u r of it. A man who neglects "spirituality" simply lowers his tendency to 'hear' those messages that are "non-physical" and "immaterial". I dont know if a materialistic man practices meditation, pranayam, yoga. If he does then he is simply spiritual. Don't u agree?

So I think everybody is spiritual at some time or other, but its only how much u r aware of it.

#4. If the answer to #3 is "YES", then, how is a spiritual person different from a non-spiritual person ?
Your definition of materialism has itself inferred that. A spiritual person is beyong the worldy desires of money, fame, name etc which when goes to the head, corrupts it and then destroys you from within. If the people had been non-spiritual and simply materialistic, then I don't think fields like hypnotism, meditation or yoga would have even surfaced.



			
				sen said:
			
		

> A: Non-spirituality is something that is not spiritual. As you can see, non-spirituality is a negative word derived from the original word spirituality. Hence it is impossible to define non-spirituality, without first defining spirituality. That’s why my first question was for the definition of spirituality, so that we can actually understand where we stand on the issue of spirituality.


NOw please define non-spirituality in ur own words!



			
				sen said:
			
		

> An orthodox Brahmin, will feel, that getting touched by a so called un-touchable, is a “wrong”. But an enlightened Brahmin will not see any “wrong” in it. *A person who is hungry for number of days will find it “right” to steal a loaf of bread.* But the shopkeeper will not see the “right” in it. However, there are also, rights and wrongs, that are absolute. Killing a person, for whatever reason, if it is not intentional, is always wrong, whoever you are and however you are.


How can u say a person who is stealing will find it "right"?



			
				sen said:
			
		

> *Is it always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding?* I have never climbed mount Everest, and I never will. But it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that climbing is a laborious, extremely strenuous job. I don’t have asthma, but it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that a patient suffering from this disease will be at great disadvantage, should she decide to climb that mountain. The key is keen observation of the person who is experiencing it, thorough examination of the person, if possible, and finally analyzing the evidences. All of which are processes of gathering knowledge. A doctor makes a successful diagnosis of a disease, *not because he was himself previously infected by it, but because, he has the knowledge of its symptoms. He gains this knowledge, through training and observing (and treating) a patient with similar disease. It is not always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding. Of course, experience helps, but what is necessary, is the knowledge of the matter.*


It certainly makes u describe ur "experience" as it becomes ur own!! Again how can u say climbing is a "laborious" task? U r simply not used to it or have not developed a certain set of muscles in your body. 

Have u ever been to a hilly area, again like kedarnath. See how the locals do up and down there 4 times easily, where we have trouble catching our breath in covering not even one-fourth of the distance upside. I also don't have asthma!!

Learn about sherpas.

Now for the doctor, yes he might not be infected. But he certainly has the "knowledge" like u urself say. And since he has the knowledge, learnt about the symptoms etc, he does not rejects the possibilty of the disease.

Similar is what I am talking about. Even if u don't know what spirituality is, millions have told there experiences vaguely or may be clearly. Like I reported, majority of scientists too are spiritual. Yoga is practised across by millions and have found spirtuality as a way of life. So, even if u have not experienced it, u can observe people and learn more about their experiences. But if u cannot understand it or the person explaining is not clear, shud u reject it?

A child for example might not know what quantum physics, theory of relativity, uranium dating is. He might not even understand it for the whole of next 1 year, since he has just started with number addition, subtraction etc. Shud he then reject what modern science is trying to explain? Don't u agree to be able to understand it all, u need to have basic concepts cleared first? Or do u conclude, learn, observe the advanced concepts without clearing the basics first?

Its always common among the gymers where noobies come in pursuit of a  herculies like body & give up in a week or two sayin gym is a waste and body develops only when u take "supplements"! What do u call that? "Experience" or "ignorance"?? I hope u r a gymer urself!



			
				sen said:
			
		

> #7. Define "materialism"!
> 
> A: In common parlance, it means one’s attachment to material possessions, say for example, wealth, and the free lunches that come with it. However, when philosophers or scientists talk of materialism, they actually refer to the attempt of explaining every single phenomena without recourse to anything immaterial. Material in such a case refers to “physical” and immaterial refers to “non-physical”. For example, Cartesian dualists try to differentiate between the body (physical) and the mind (non-physical), implying that mind has a separate non-spaceal existence. A materialist try to define mind as a function of brain (physical).
> 
> ...


What is "dark energy',"dark matter", physical or non-physical? What r emotions, feelings, intelligence? Material then or immaterial? Can everything be material?

If a materialist tries to define mind as a function of brain(physical), then does the mind need to be physical also? If so, where can we find it? And if we can find that, where can we find intelligence, emotions, behavior, knowledge?

Again, it has been quite known now that many INDIAN yogis can successfully control their heart beat and even stop it for brief period of time. Science clearly mantions that a person is dead if his heart stops. What do the materialists say on that??



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> *But “materialism”, is not about “materialistic pleasures”.* As I have defined above, it is the manner of defining everything without recourse to anything immaterial. *Worldly pleasures, can be pursued with equal intensity, by a strictly spiritual person as well.* Half the atrocities against humanity are carried on in the name of religion, which also, claim to be the road to spirituality. *There is no evidence, statistically speaking, that spiritual persons are less likely to kill, rape, rob, defraud, evade tax or commit any other crimes. A cross section of prison population in any country would show, that there are more religious (hence spiritual) persons doing their term, than non-religious persons.*


Nope, materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures! Yes the worldy pleasures "can" be pursued by a "spiritual" person too. He "can" be "greedy", "sex" hungry. But this intensity isn't that intense in spiritual person.

Again ur inclusion of a phrase like 'religious (hence spiritual)' clearly tells that u don't understand the difference between religion and spirituality!! Again religion can be classified into those who aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions and into those which do not even say anything about themselves or other religions or ask to embrace it, but only aim for the welfare of the nature, life and lifestyle. In some religions there are a set of rulez that one "has to" obey and in other there is no such rule but simply pieces of wisdom that one "may" ponder over and follow.

A man may become spiritual pondering over the thoughts and wisdom from his religion or he may become one without a religion!

So yes a religious man who has done nuthing but following what his own religion says, can "kill, rape, rob, defraud, evade tax or commit any other crimes". But a man who really is spiritual, I think, cannot do such crime as spirituality after all is also about "eternal wisdom". Its all practical and one needs to experience it "practically" cause guessing only promotes "rumours", "humors" and vague vision of the subject!!




> #9. What r we, a mere piece of flesh that shud eat and sleep?
> 
> A: Speaking in terms of evolutionary science, that’s what we are supposed be. Human beings are animals, just as much any four legged, or two legged one, the only difference being the complexity of the brain. While a four legged one is incapable of thinking on its own, human beings can. Because we can think, we have appreciation, a sense of quality, logic, rationale etc. That’s why we can appreciate a Mozart, or a Picasso, or a Shakespeare. And that’s why we don’t find it fulfilling just to eat, drink, sleep and propagate. Because we can think we try to give a moral acceptability to life, by means of religion or spirituality or some other belief system.


Agreed!



> #10. Why is it that even though I can earn sufficient amount of money and buy all the materialistic things, I get happiness only in spending time with relatives, friends, understanding nature, mind and body?
> 
> A: Because your priorities are different than the one, who finds happiness in pursuit of “materialistic” (speaking in common parlance) things. I have covered this in #8 and #9. You can call this “spirituality”, but remember, it is a matter of one’s choice.


No, I too have priorities that I shud earn sufficiently and may be I can donate if I earn extra, live according to the laws. But again money doesn't impress me, it doesn't makes me happy! Does the extra money or the desire for infinite money makes a materialist happy? Why? What is he earning that for? Why does he gets frustrated if he doesn't gets that "extra"? Are the means of earning ethical. Is morality a part of that earning or the effect of earning?

If not then, there isn't much difference between that "happiness" and greed!



			
				sen said:
			
		

> A: I agree, with you, that we don’t need most of the indulgences. But again, it is a matter of choice. Just as it is one’s choice to drink beer or coke to satisfy himself, it is yours not to. *If you are saying, that “spirituality” helps in making choices, then, the question is, does that mean, that spiritual persons do not drink beer or coke ? The sales figure and the ever increasing profit margin of the beer or coke companies, however, tend to speak otherwise. Since majority of the population, some way or the other, believe in “spirituality”,* one can safely assume, that a large section of their consumer constitutes of these spiritual persons.


Large percentage of people drinking "doesn't mean" that many of em can be or may be spiritual? Its only ur "proabable guess" nuthing else, which has no reports or even studies which asks of how many of em are spiritual!!

Besides I think no sane person who has been walking the path of spirituality for years will ever touch those toilet cleaners! Spirituality means seeking "infinite wisdom" also. I haven't touched it for around 2 years now. Once u explore the natural alternatives, u will be surprised to know how much better they are.



> That assumes, that mind, body and nature are in an unstable state. I would really appreciate it, if you please explain this unstable state, that requires stability. If you are implying, that spirituality brings out the best in a person, then, since this world is mostly inhabited by persons, who are spiritual in their own ways, shouldn’t it already have been a better place to live in. *Statistically speaking, there are far less number of atheists or non-spiritual persons, than theists and spiritual persons.*


Greed, ego, arrogance, not willing to look deeper before concluding something, following blindly etc can very well be used to describe an unstable mind.

You don't seem to understand the difference between spirituality and theism also very well. I think I have discussed on that one too. U may read it. Let me say it again, I am spiritual but not a theist!!


----------



## karnivore (May 1, 2008)

@*sen_sunetra*

Can't blame that you were not warned.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Greed, *ego*, *arrogance*, *not willing to look deeper before concluding something*, following blindly etc can very well be used to describe an unstable mind.


HMMM........and some stability it has brought to my friend. Here are some pearls.


> ..all I got was some stereotypical and mindless set of *null arguments*..





> The disorder u r suffering from is called "*Dysphasia/Aphasia*"





> No wonder u can talk at ur *low level of deteriorated/null intellect*.





> Wondering, I think ur *brains doesn't work at all*.





> I don't understand why ur *peanut brains* is getting so jumbled now and so confused.


*Arrogance*....anybody.

Seems magic of "spirituality" is not working on everybody. Or is it the extremely *HIGH CULTURAL BACKGROUND*, that my friend comes from, that is coming in his way.

Pity, Pity. What a waste.


----------



## mediator (May 1, 2008)

^Ur troll is losing its intensity actually.


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 1, 2008)

*T159,
*
You are always welcome to make recommendations. Although, i am not so much of a movie buff, but i will definitely try to watch your recommendation.
*
mediator*,

 Thank you for replying back and filling the void. I will try to answer the points that you have raised, but, not as para by para, as you have done, for the reason of lack of time and of course my limited knowledge of formatting. However I will try to cover everything that seems relevant to the discussion.

*Spirituality, Non-spirituality, Experiences and Can we be good without spirituality:*

   I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about “the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind”. Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education. 

  We are of course connected to each other by a common prehistoric ancestor, which has since long disappeared without a trace. The fact, that all vertebrates have a common sea ancestor, is evidenced by the fact that we still need sodium chloride to maintain our bodily functions. So, I also don’t see why we can’t say that we are connected in an evolutionary process, although, the genetic print of that one common ancestor is lost due to millions of years of mutation.

  Wisdom, again, can be had through proper education (It does not refer to academic education only. For a tribe living in the deep jungles of the Amazon basin, the most pertinent education is how to hunt successfully) and right experiences, (e.g. if you take your hand close to the fire, the heat should warn you of the damage it may cause to your hand, and you would recoil your hand. This experience should teach you to stay away from fire). This is where, I would part ways. Trying to know the “eternal” wisdom, however, presupposes that there is something “eternal” or “infinite” about some wisdom. Materialists are not good with presuppositions and seeks clear explanations, which I am sure, you will provide.

  [In one debate with another spiritual person, I was told, that it is learning the “eternal truth”. When I asked what do you mean by eternal truth, he replied back that it is about acknowledging and understanding that there is a greater consciousness, far bigger than the self. When I pointed to him that since he could explain what “eternal truth” is, it would mean that he has already known it, and hence his journey of spiritualism has ended, he, of course, replied back in kind words of the ghetto.]

  Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.

  The experiences, that you have associated with your definition of spirituality, can also be described as a feeling of wonderment, or a state of being in awe. I would like to think, everybody, whether spiritual or not, has enough sensitivity or emotion to make one appreciate beauty or quality, although it may vary in degree. Just because someone is spiritual, he is better suited to enjoy nature, or understand Mozart, or appreciate Tagore’s novels, or marvel at Picasso’s painting, is an argument, that does not support evidence.

  It is perhaps not fair to assume, that just because one is not spiritual, he will be callous, self-hedonist, with no charity or kindness or generosity, and because one is spiritual he will be all of those. I understand that you are a fairly charitable person, and you believe that all this came to you because of your deep involvement with spirituality. Fair enough. But why are you assuming that this is the only way to goodness. A theist, on the other hand would claim, that the only way to goodness is god. Since you are an atheist, you will not find reason in it. But in doing so, you will be putting yourself in the same shoes of a non-spiritual person, as opposed to spiritual person. 

  As it turns out, that, the reasons of altruism can be explained by means of Darwinian Natural Selection. There are several books on this subject only, notably by Marc Hauser, Robert Hinde or Richard Dawkins. Marc Hauser, in his book “Moral Minds”, actually goes a step ahead, in testing the premise, that morality is subjective to religion, or as the case may be, spirituality. Not surprisingly, sense of morality was found to be absolute, irrespective of one’s faith, belief or religion. Different things work for different people. If spirituality motivates one to be good, then for other people it can be something else, say for example, his sense of duty towards his family or society as whole. That sense, is firstly genetically printed in all of us, and secondly, polished by means of, believe in spirituality, in someone’s case, or humanism, in some others.

  Note carefully, that I am not claiming that non-spirituality, increases, the goodness in human being. I am merely pointing out that there is no correlation between non-spirituality and badness, or for that matter, spirituality and goodness.

*Physical, Non-Physical and Is everything Physical:*

   Physical means, which has presence in time and space. Non-physical means which does not. When materialists argue about everything being physical, it means that all phenomena, however, strange or mysterious it may appear to common sense, can be explained as or traced back or reduced to some physical process. Does gravity have a physical presence or a non-physical presence ? The correct question is, is gravity a result of some physical process or a non-physical process. As it turns out, it is a result of motion of matter, even at molecular level. Since, gravity is dependent on mass and motion, if any of the two is taken away, gravity ceases, confirming it to be physical process.

  Same is the case with emotions. Loosely we ascribe it to mind, whereas, a materialist would call it a faculty of brain, which can further be reduced to some neural activities, resulting in flow of hormone, specially, Serotonin. A misbalance in the flow of this hormone causes, extreme emotions. Same is the case with intelligence or similar other phenomena. 

  If mind is a separate entity, then it does not explain adequately why, when a person faces near death experience, that leaves her handicapped severely, she suffers from trauma, which can, in most cases be permanent. If mind does not have a spaceal existence, should not it remain unscathed.

*Is religion a means of spirituality:

*   According to the explanation given by you, it is not. But to a theist, it is. Your definition is acceptable to you, for reasons that you feel are valid. A theists, definition is also valid to him, again, for reasons, that he finds acceptable. Implying, that he is wrong and you are right, requires explanation as to why. A materialist, meanwhile, is immune to any definition of spirituality, and however it is presented, whether in religious package or otherwise. 

  Every person, finds her religion to be “good” and all other religions to be “bad”, there is nothing new about it. What is, however, new is an atheist, would find it alright, bringing in a distinction between “good” religion and “bad” religion. Should not an atheist be indifferent to a religion as a whole. Are we sure, that we are not jumping into some conclusion on the basis of current day events in the name of religion, without actually studying them. Because if it is the current day events, that are making us bring this distinction, then can we at all bring in this distinction in the first place.

However, I understand, that it is the misinterpretation of Gore Vidal and more currently, the lenient tone of Sam Harris, that have quite inadvertently, added fuel to the fire of making such distinctions. 

*You have not experienced, so you don’t know:

*   Dealt with, in my previous post. Hence not repeating. I continue to hold my position.

*Millions believe and experience, hence true:

*   Millions believe that jesus was born of a virgin woman, and millions claim to feel god, (priests, monks, yogis), but that does not preclude you to become an atheist. You surely have your reasons for being an atheist. But if you call upon this argument, a theist may use the same against your atheistic belief. You can’t disagree to one argument in one context and agree to the same in another, according to whim or convenience.
  Also, is there any safety in numbers ? That, there is none, was proved by Copernicus, with his life, and Galileo, with his surrender.

*Wrong examples ? Stealing, Sherpas, Doctors and beer /coke/ pepsi:

*   The example of stealing bread by a hungry man, was an example of right action not of right morality. If someone holds a gun against an atheist, (e.g. Galileo) and asks her to become a theist, she may find it right to do exactly that, for she may wish to see the next morning. It is a case of how right and wrong change with circumstance.

  Your explanation regarding Sherpas, is actually the same as mine. You, not being a Sherpa, could conclude, that they don’t find climbing steep mountains as laborious as, say, you and me, because you have observed them and probably even studied. It simply is the other way of saying that, experiencing is not always necessary to conclude, as knowledge is.

  True, the doctor does not reject the possibilities. But he does so because, each possibility is REAL to him. And one of these possibilities will lead him to something REAL, i.e. the disease, itself. By REAL, I mean something that can be tested and verified, empirically. 

  My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics. If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B. Yes, there is probably no research or data to prove my point. But, to believe, that spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason. Coke/ pepsi are health hazard all round the world and indeed toilet cleaners, in every sense of the phrase, but only in India. It is because, our political leaders (sic) have let our land to be the favorite dumping ground, or laboratory of the western companies. 

*Arguments based on assumptions and unproven feats:

*   To be able to tell what a person is thinking, or where is she, at a precise given time, yogis stopping heart beats at will, people receiving intuitional messages are all unproven facts. Proof doesn’t mean a claim to do those, but it means, if those feats could be replicated under controlled environment with credible scientists around.

  You don’t see a materialist, resort to some non testable or non verifiable events or feats to stake her claim. That’s because, empirical evidence is the key for a materialist.

*You don’t know this or that:

*   Please stop making comments like that. It only leads an argument to nullity. The same way as you accuse people of not knowing something, one may label you to be not knowing what you are talking of. A “materialist” can accuse you of commenting on materialism without knowing what it is, particularly, in spite of explaining what it is in clear terms, when you say, “materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures”. One may be tempted to accuse you of twisting explanation to better suite your own ideas.

  Just because someone holds a view, which is diametrically opposite to yours, it does not mean that the person is a lesser person. If it is so, again, one can say, that since you are holding an opposing view, you become the same, by your own premise, and it goes into an infinite reduction.

Regards.


----------



## mediator (May 2, 2008)

> I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about "the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind". Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education.


Like I have said many times before, there is a difference between science and spirituality. U cannot neglect one for favouring the other. Today with that study of biology etc. one has come to know of the bodily functions and how they work, we have developed advanced techniques. But studies reveal we had advanced and rich knowledge in the past too.

Developing a medicine, testing it on animals, for the welfare of humans is that morality? Among humans too we have different immunity levels. Wisdom? And then many of those medicines have side effects. Are we getting cured?

It has been proven how love, faith, emotions can heal a person when everything else fails. A study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere like AC, isn't spiritualism!

U say u have read all my posts, but u r only making me repeat now.

It would be better if you learn that our great ancestors were both spiritual and scientific (in its true definition).



> We are of course connected to each other by a common prehistoric ancestor, which has since long disappeared without a trace. The fact, that all vertebrates have a common sea ancestor, is evidenced by the fact that we still need sodium chloride to maintain our bodily functions. So, I also don't see why we can't say that we are connected in an evolutionary process, although, the genetic print of that one common ancestor is lost due to millions of years of mutation.


I was 'not' talking of 'theory' of evolution which u r putting up as an argument like its a fact! But yes we have lost a lot in million years due to wars, greed, religious intolerance, communal hatred, ego works etc.



> Wisdom, again, can be had through proper education (It does not refer to academic education only. For a tribe living in the deep jungles of the Amazon basin, the most pertinent education is how to hunt successfully) and right experiences, (e.g. if you take your hand close to the fire, the heat should warn you of the damage it may cause to your hand, and you would recoil your hand. This experience should teach you to stay away from fire). This is where, I would part ways. *Trying to know the "eternal" wisdom, however, presupposes that there is something "eternal" or "infinite" about some wisdom. Materialists are not good with presuppositions and seeks clear explanations, which I am sure, you will provide.*


There is a difference between skill and wisdom. With that "experience" one may be able to hunt far off prey, which might seem "impossible" for a person who does not know, how to hunt.

When I talk of "eternal"/"infinite" wisdom, its only ideal. If materialists need "clear" explanation of everything, then science in its true meaning has to be "ideal" for them. But then, why do they "follow" "theories" as if they are "facts", form theories based on another set of theories, give names to the concepts they only visualize to be like "dark energy/ dark matter"?

Sure, why is it that everytime I ask those materialists "what" universe is, they fail everytime? I am sure u will provide the answer to those "theories", "presuppositions" etc.
Again I am merely repeating and u say u have read it all? I have asked and discussed a lot.



> [In one debate with another spiritual person, I was told, that it is learning the "eternal truth". When I asked what do you mean by eternal truth, he replied back that it is about acknowledging and understanding that there is a greater consciousness, far bigger than the self. When I pointed to him that since he could explain what "eternal truth" is, it would mean that he has already known it, and hence his journey of spiritualism has ended, he, of course, replied back in kind words of the ghetto.]


Please refrain from giving such kind of examples, cause u can see a few of em in this forums also who talk in the tone of a hardcore materialist, but yet can't explain what I ask and jump to conclusions quickly....Scientific?? We are not discussing "that guy said that, and I won". 



> Non-spirituality, *on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical*.


U r wrong. It seems ur concepts are not clear.
U r treating as if non-spirituality is a synonym of "science". That would make science and spirituality antonyms. Different fields, subjects do not mean they r opposites. That wud surely make a majority of scientists look foolish!!

U wanted to know my point of view and the defintition I presented. But the definition u have inferred is totally wrong.



> The experiences, that you have associated with your definition of spirituality, can also be described as a feeling of wonderment, or a state of being in awe. *I would like to think, everybody, whether spiritual or not, has enough sensitivity or emotion to make one appreciate beauty or quality, although it may vary in degree.* Just because someone is spiritual, he is better suited to enjoy nature, or understand Mozart, or appreciate Tagore's novels, or marvel at Picasso's painting, is an argument, that does not support evidence.


Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"? Greed, hatred etc. I don't even understand how 'drinking' is called enjoyment since u don't even know what u r doing and it only corrupts ur body and mind?

If yes, then why even reject hypnotism? Like I said there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r "receptive"!!



> It is perhaps not fair to assume, that just because one is not spiritual, he will be callous, self-hedonist, with no charity or kindness or generosity, and because one is spiritual he will be all of those. I understand that you are a fairly charitable person, and you believe that all this came to you because of your deep involvement with spirituality. Fair enough. But why are you assuming that this is the only way to goodness. *A theist, on the other hand would claim, that the only way to goodness is god. Since you are an atheist, you will not find reason in it. But in doing so, you will be putting yourself in the same shoes of a non-spiritual person, as opposed to spiritual person.*


Again, it seems u r unclear of what u r saying. Where did I say that it is the "only way to goodness"? So far it seems u r only assuming things that I have never said and many of em those assumptions are totally wrong.

Yes, I am an atheist. Why shudn't I find reason in it? Some treat "God" as an ideal too. For them, they seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance where it is only their spiritual self that is pondering over the situation.

But its the "blind faith" that I am against of. Some have blind faith in religion and some have that blind faith in science which makes them follow it, not pondering and questioning over the concepts thinking that they have already been pondered over. Some of em even put forward the theories like they are some kind of facts.

I am not saying to reject those theories, but simply to ponder over it, where a law is formed when the "majority" have "accepted" it and no more "flaws" are found against it. So please ponder!!

Remember a true scientist is one who doesn't accepts anything easily and also doesn't rejects anything likewise.



> Physical means, which has presence in time and space. Non-physical means which does not. When materialists argue about everything being physical, it means that all phenomena, however, strange or mysterious it may appear to common sense, *can be explained as or traced back or reduced to some physical process.* Does gravity have a physical presence or a non-physical presence ? The correct question is, is gravity a result of some physical process or a non-physical process. As it turns out, it is a result of motion of matter, even at molecular level. *Since, gravity is dependent on mass and motion, if any of the two is taken away, gravity ceases, confirming it to be physical process.*


Explanation requires how, when and why. Why mass or distance affects gravity? Do we really know the full extent of everything that science deals with?
Again, it leads to repetitions



> Same is the case with emotions. Loosely we ascribe it to mind, whereas, a materialist would call it a faculty of brain, which can further be reduced to some neural activities, resulting in flow of hormone, specially, Serotonin. A misbalance in the flow of this hormone causes, extreme emotions. *Same is the case with intelligence or similar other phenomena.*


I have not asked about the 'result' of emotions, but simply what is emotion. And when I say explain, I need "how, when and why". Why don't u describe whats the case with intelligence and those terms which u labelled under "similar other phenomena"? And if thats the case then why is science now bringing in spirituality to heal the patients since it can already do that with the balance of hormones and applying "physical" measures?? Have you really read the links I had put forward?



> If mind is a separate entity, then it does not explain adequately why, when a person faces near death experience, that leaves her handicapped severely, she suffers from trauma, which can, in most cases be permanent. If mind does not have a spaceal existence, should not it remain unscathed.


You are treating mind as if it is some physical entity. Its a similar situation where one needs both software and hardware to run a PC purposefully to get his task done. A software corruption doesn't mean a hardware fault and a hardware failure doesn't mean a software failure.



> Is religion a means of spirituality:
> 
> *According to the explanation given by you, it is not. But to a theist, it is. Your definition is acceptable to you, for reasons that you feel are valid.* A theists, definition is also valid to him, again, for reasons, that he finds acceptable. Implying, that he is wrong and you are right, requires explanation as to why. A materialist, meanwhile, is immune to any definition of spirituality, and however it is presented, whether in religious package or otherwise.
> 
> ...


Definition of spirituality is universal I think and is more coherent to the one I gave. "Following blindly" anything cannot be called spiritualism. Killing people , sacrificing animals, polluting rivers etc in the name of god is far from "spirituality"!! A religious man "may" be spiritual, but saying "religious hence spiritual" would be like treating "spirituality" as a direct implication of being religious and that would be absurd.

You are totally wrong about the second statement in bold. I do not treat other religions as bad, but its only the "blind following" that I am against of. If that would have been the case then, there would have been mass slaughter of people of "other" religions.

So whats new is you telling me that people of one religion despise other religions and "there is nuthing new in it"! And by now if u have read even a small percentage of overall links and posts of mine, then u wud have clearly realised that I am "religious" too. I hope I don't need to repeat on this one too. 



> Millions believe and experience, hence true:
> 
> Millions believe that jesus was born of a virgin woman, and millions claim to feel god, (priests, monks, yogis), but that does not preclude you to become an atheist. You surely have your reasons for being an atheist. But if you call upon this argument, a theist may use the same against your atheistic belief. You can’t disagree to one argument in one context and agree to the same in another, according to whim or convenience.
> Also, is there any safety in numbers ? That, there is none, was proved by Copernicus, with his life, and Galileo, with his surrender.


How many of em were scientific? I am not talking of people of an age or under some superstition where questioning some grand authority like a church was treated with offence and hence lowering the value of questioning. Neither I talk of "fake" monks, yogis etc. I am talking of an age where majoirity of people are scientific and still practise yoga and majority of them have resorted to "spirituality".





			
				sen said:
			
		

> A person who is hungry for number of days will find it “right” to steal a loaf of bread. But the shopkeeper will not see the “right” in it.





			
				sen said:
			
		

> The example of stealing bread by a hungry man, was an example of right action not of right morality. If someone holds a gun against an atheist, (e.g. Galileo) and asks her to become a theist, she may find it right to do exactly that, for she may wish to see the next morning. It is a case of how right and wrong change with circumstance.


To me the example seemed more related to morality. So how do u define a "right action"? Ur example isn't much comparable to that of stealing. It wud be "intelligent and may his temporary compulsion" otherwise to have become a theist or shud I say "acknowledging" the other person for satisfaction that he has become a theist. On the contrary, a person who steals bread may not find it "intelligent" but only as a last resort to end his hunger for he knows what can be the outcome of that stealing.

Also if the person who is hungry for "a number of days" could have worked, laboured so as to earn a small amount. I hope u wont add paramters now of why he could not work! Even people carrying mobiles and wearing denim jeans steal today. Which "right" will u bring here? I guess its all wrong!! 



> Your explanation regarding Sherpas, is actually the same as mine. You, not being a Sherpa, could conclude, that they don’t find climbing steep mountains as laborious as, say, you and me, because you have observed them and probably even studied. It simply is the other way of saying that, experiencing is not always necessary to conclude, as knowledge is.


No my explanation is not same! Don't mind, but I think u don't realize what u post. Here's what u posted......



> Is it always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding? I have never climbed mount Everest, and I never will. *But it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that climbing is a laborious, extremely strenuous job.* I don’t have asthma, but it is not difficult for me, or you, to conclude that a patient suffering from this disease will be at great disadvantage, should she decide to climb that mountain. The key is keen observation of the person who is experiencing it, thorough examination of the person, if possible, and finally analyzing the evidences. All of which are processes of gathering knowledge. A doctor makes a successful diagnosis of a disease, not because he was himself previously infected by it, but because, he has the knowledge of its symptoms. He gains this knowledge, through training and observing (and treating) a patient with similar disease. It is not always necessary to experience or practice everything before concluding. Of course, experience helps, but what is necessary, is the knowledge of the matter.




And so, I think u r twisting ur statement. You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious? U can only see a lake in ur television box. So how can u say if the water is hot or cold? Observation might help. U may observe a person not used to climbing, and guess that climbing everest is "laborious" or could watch a sherpa do it in much lesser time and guess that it might be "easy". Even after all this u are only observing, and not "rejecting" the possiblity that one can climb the great Mt. Everest!! But I think to make "assumptions or guesses" similarly one needs to observe whats going on and to "conclude" one must have the experience!!



> True, the doctor does not reject the possibilities. But he does so because, each possibility is REAL to him. And one of these possibilities will lead him to something REAL, i.e. the disease, itself. By REAL, I mean something that can be tested and verified, empirically.


Again it seems u r deviating from what has been said. I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!! 




> *My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics.* If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B. Yes, there is probably no research or data to prove my point. But, to believe, that spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason. Coke/ pepsi are health hazard all round the world and indeed toilet cleaners, in every sense of the phrase, but only in India. It is because, our political leaders (sic) have let our land to be the favorite dumping ground, or laboratory of the western companies.


First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd! I too have seen statistics in newspapers where they say "majority of men like to have a deep and serious relation", "people love to pay taxes" and everything that is marked just by a mere questioning if "if u did or not, yes or no", and third "learn" the definition of spirituality again and thats why I ask a critic must experience it before even debating over it. Even a criminal can say he is good at the time of such statistics gathering queue!

So yes, if the questioning the scientists and its report that majority of em are spiritual doesn't impress u, then don't believe it. I am not forcing! I don't understand why a scientists wud say he is spiritual. Is it a derogatory term or the opposite? Why wud they do that? Why is the science agreeing on yoga, hypnotism etc and its benefits?? Is that also a statistical report concerning "yes or no"?



> To be able to tell what a person is thinking, or where is she, at a precise given time, yogis stopping heart beats at will, people receiving intuitional messages are all unproven facts. Proof doesn’t mean a claim to do those, but it means, if those feats could be replicated under controlled environment with credible scientists around.


And who do u call "credible" scientists? One who have their names written in books? I hope u know of INDIAN culture and how much science we had already in our past, where we not only knew of the colors of the planets but also about their rotation, revolution etc. U can simply google for that and understand how modern theories are also coming a synchronization with the ancient phiolosphies!! But neways here...
*www.sol.com.au/kor/10_02.htm

I feel u r far from reality as this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat. Also, "unproven" doesn't mean "rejected". If so, many theories like big bang have not been "proven", but find their ways in texbooks and then schoolchildren discuss it like some kind of law or a fact and grow up with that misconception. Rejecting something that is practical but not proven only limits the scope of study, speaks how broadminded a person is and thats not very scientific!!  



> You don’t know this or that:
> 
> Please stop making comments like that. It only leads an argument to nullity. The same way as you accuse people of not knowing something, one may label you to be not knowing what you are talking of. A “materialist” can accuse you of commenting on materialism without knowing what it is, particularly, in spite of explaining what it is in clear terms, when you say, “materialism is about material world and its materialistc pleasures”. One may be tempted to accuse you of twisting explanation to better suite your own ideas.
> 
> Just because someone holds a view, which is diametrically opposite to yours, it does not mean that the person is a lesser person. If it is so, again, one can say, that since you are holding an opposing view, you become the same, by your own premise, and it goes into an infinite reduction.


I am extremely sorry, if u found it offensive. But some people find the term "absurd" offensive and some find it offensive even when u talk against their opinions and then troll. But neways lets have it ur ways. 


Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm 



> Thank you for replying back and filling the void. I will try to answer the points that you have raised, *but, not as para by para, as you have done, for the reason of lack of time and of course my limited knowledge of formatting.* However I will try to cover everything that seems relevant to the discussion.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


@Sen : I wud love to discuss with u endlessly. Reflecting ur statement, u r not going to change my stance either. If thats the case, then I guess the debate has ended already as I can't entertain anyone who cannot read the previous topic and replies and then makes me repeat. You came and asked me my point of view, and thats the sole reason I replied. If it wud have been any other regular forum member, then I wudn't have and simply asked them to quote what I have stated already. So I think there's no use of debating this.

There is a reason I format and put it in paras so as to minimize repeatitions! U simply have not answered many questions that I asked or the statements that I discussed. As u might read now, u'll see that I have already repeated a lot. 

I hope u read my previous post again and answer them....para by para, the ones u need to. U can take ur time and learn formatting as I have nuthing but time. But then making me repeat and saying it was due to lack of time, only demoralises me. I have already said, take ur time!!


----------



## confused (May 2, 2008)

^^thats one huge post


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 4, 2008)

WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.

Well, mediator, insisted on replying to his post, para by para and not generally. It turned out to be one giant question answer session. Anyway, getting back to the discussion:

mediator
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]#1. “Like I have said many times before, there is a difference between science and spirituality….. Today with that study of biology etc. one has come to know of the bodily functions and how they work, we have developed advanced techniques.”

 Agreed, no arguments there.

 #2. “But studies reveal we had advanced and rich knowledge in the past too.”

 How is that relevant to the current discussion, unless of course you are suggesting, that these knowledges were acquired through “spirituality”. In that case, one needs to prove, that these were, actually acquired by a means, other than simple physical processes, like watching a night sky etc.

 #3. “Developing a medicine, testing it on animals, for the welfare of humans is that morality? Among humans too we have different immunity levels. Wisdom? And then many of those medicines have side effects. Are we getting cured?

 It has been proven how love, faith, emotions can heal a person when everything else fails.”

 Again, agreed. Also, I would like to make a small correction that it is a question of ethics not morality, but, that’s getting too technical. However, if you say that no body is getting cured by modern medicine, then, well, I can’t argue. Side effects are a real threat and no body can deny this. But does that mean that we shall throw the baby with the bathwater. 

 I am sure, love and care make a huge difference in one’s healing process, and I know for sure that faith  helps too, but never beyond the paradigm of placebo. I wonder if  “love, faith, emotions” can remove a cancerous tumor inside a persons body, or sew up a hole in one of the chambers of the heart, or prevent gangrene from setting in, or bringing one back from coma (which even modern medicines can’t) or, the list is practically endless.

 #4. “A study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere like AC, isn't spiritualism!”

 Critical surgery, needs controlled atmosphere, in terms of humidity, temperature, dust-free air etc. Preserving blood and other body parts needs freezers. Growing crops in unfavorable atmosphere needs to control atmosphere. Powerful computers require constant cooling, or half  the research facilities will just shut down. These are just few examples of how the “study to develop a device that cools the atmosphere” has come to of great help.  It is of course not spirituality, but that does not, in anyway, matter.

 #5. “I was 'not' talking of 'theory' of evolution which u r putting up as an argument like its a fact!”

You may want to look up these sites, just to get you started. TalkOrigin, Berkely, NewScientist. Also, you may want to read, _The Blind Watchmaker_ by Richard Dawkins, _Evolutionary Biology_ by Douglas J. Futuyma or if you want a book that explores the bad science involving evolution, you may try _Unintelligent Design_ by Mark Parekh.

 The only way to falsify the theory, is by finding a fossil of a species, that dates back long before it is believed to have made its appearance. Until that happens…….

 #6. “There is a difference between skill and wisdom. With that "experience" one may be able to hunt far off prey, which might seem "impossible" for a person who does not know, how to hunt.”

 Of course, “skill” and “wisdom” are absolutely different. Skill, roughly speaking, is the “ability” and wisdom, again roughly speaking, “knowledge acquired”. Please note the word “acquired”.  How is “skill” coming in the picture.

 #7. “When I talk of "eternal"/"infinite" wisdom, its only ideal. If materialists need "clear" explanation of everything, then science in its true meaning has to be "ideal" for them. But then, *why do they "follow" "theories" as if they are "facts", form theories based on another set of theories*, give names to the concepts they only visualize to be like "dark energy/ dark matter"?”

 Is this another way of saying, “science is faith based”? I am not here to fight for science – there are plenty of people, way better than me, who can do that. You may read this and this.

 Also, there is no need to cite dark matter, [1], [2] and dark energy, [1] to point out the gaps. If you look around you will find plenty more. But you should know, science, itself, classify these as “Theoretical”, which can be explained as - unless conclusive empirical evidence proves otherwise, and unless any alternative theory can adequately explain the current observations, we can assume the conclusion to be FAIR (carefully note, not “TRUE”). That’s how “Big Bang” [1] [2], in spite of its flaws [1], [2], got accepted by the majority of scientists. The flaws simply mean that the theory is not yet perfect, but that does not rule out the big prehistoric bang. 

 #8. “Sure, why is it that everytime I ask those materialists "what" universe is, they fail everytime? I am sure u will provide the answer to those "theories", "presuppositions" etc.”

 Well, I do not know what you mean by, “fail every time”. If you are expecting some specific answer and get something else, then it does not qualify as failure. For me, it would be space and everything physical within it. 

 #9. “U r treating as if non-spirituality is a synonym of "science". That would make science and spirituality antonyms. Different fields, subjects do not mean they r opposites. That wud surely make a majority of scientists look foolish!!”

 In my earlier post I explained, non-spirituality is a negative. Unless spirituality, which is the base word, is not explained,  it can’t be explained. Simply put, Negative can’t be explained without a Positive. ( I am not talking of magnetic polarity, of course.)

 My explanation was based on YOUR definition of “spirituality”. I am NOT treating it as a “synonym of science”. The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.

 If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.

 #10. “Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"? Greed, hatred etc.”

 Yes I am sure. Even Hitler and Stalin, had shown taste in art and music. Please show the causation, or at least the correlation, between “taste”, “empathy” etc. and spiritualism. Once again, materialism does not mean pursue of materialistic pleasures. 

 #11. “I don't even understand how 'drinking' is called enjoyment since u don't even know what u r doing and it only corrupts ur body and mind?”

 Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one’s senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind. 

 #12. “If yes, then why even reject hypnotism? Like I said there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r "receptive"!!”

 No body rejects hypnotism, per se. Science rejects the mix of “para-normal”, that it has been subject to. Anesthesia (no feeling of pain) and analgesia (no pain at all) can very well be studied and experimented with. The medical world is debating on the therapeutic validity and value of hypnotism. But there is little “spiritualism” in it.

 Well, if you want to believe, everybody is spiritual and some are not aware of it, you very well can. I have nothing against your belief.

 #13. “Where did I say that it is the "only way to goodness"? So far it seems u r only assuming things that I have never said and many of em those assumptions are totally wrong.”

 You, of course did not say so, at least, in so many words. But isn’t it implied ? You say, that “spirituality” enables a person to appreciate beauty or quality, or have empathy etc. which I collectively called “goodness”. You then, go on to say, that a “materialistic” persons - failing to distinguish between a person who pursues materialistic pleasures and a person who explains by material means - can’t have them, because of so and so reasons. Now, tell me what to infer from the combined reading of these two opinions, other than the implication of “only way to goodness” is spirituality. A person can be either spiritual or not spiritual. If spirituality, is the reason for goodness, and non-spirituality is not, then, it automatically transpires, that spirituality is the “ONLY way to goodness”.

 If you meant that there was a third way, other than spirituality and materialism, which of course would be something non-spiritual, then you did not make it clear. If the glass is half filled, it is also half empty, unless, of course, there is a third possibility, which I missed. If there is, my apologies.

 You of course tell us, that “there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r receptive”, meaning, we may all, including a hardcore materialist enjoy goodness, without really knowing why. Probably this is the third way, you are talking of. If you are, even then you are saying that it is because of spirituality that we have goodness.

 #14. “Yes, I am an atheist. Why shudn't I find reason in it? Some treat "God" as an ideal too. For them, they seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance where it is only their spiritual self that is pondering over the situation.”

 I hope, and I hope I am not wrong, what you mean by “spiritual self” is the “self”, that is aware of the spiritual trappings, not as an entity separate from blood, flesh and bone.

 In the first case, the argument becomes circuitous. A theist may argue that the “self” is aware of spiritual trappings, because she “seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance”. Can you prove she is wrong, without first dismissing god. (Please note, that an atheist would not make this argument. You were responding to a ‘theistic’ argument, so I chose to continue with the argument from a theist’s point of view.)

 In the second case, it is in fact a support of theistic spiritualism. For a overwhelming number of theists, this spiritual self refers to SOUL, which lives inside of her and when she dies, it goes to heaven or hell, depending on her deeds on earth. Because, of the possibility of a divine reward or punishment that his SOUL may be subject to, she would want to follow the COMMANDS of her god. So, she may argue, that she “seek(s) wisdom in him and ask(s) for guidance”, so that her soul may remain on the right path. Essentially it is same as you may be saying, accept that the theist is talking the route of god, for wisdom, and you are not. It is still the “spiritual self” that is doing the trick for both of you.

 I don’t know what you mean by the term and so discussed both the possibilities.

 #15. “But its the "blind faith" that I am against of. Some have blind faith in religion and some have that blind faith in science which makes them follow it, not pondering and questioning over the concepts thinking that they have already been pondered over.”

 Refer #7. It just seems to me, that your spiritualism is a one way traffic. Like the Mac-fans say, “Once you go Mac, you don’t go back” (or something similar), once one goes “spiritual” there is no way one is going to question it and reject it. If one does, one has not “pondered” or is under the illusion that one has already “pondered” and has rejected without considering the possibility. It does sound like “blind faith”.

 #16. “Some of em even put forward the theories like they are some kind of facts. 

 I am not saying to reject those theories, but simply to ponder over it, where a law is formed when the "majority" have "accepted" it and no more "flaws" are found against it. So please ponder!!”

 This will cut both ways. Even you are putting forward your theory “like (it is) some kind of fact”. As proof all you are saying is, “I have experienced” and “Millions, including some scientists, have experienced” and of course, dismissing everything else, as if, the more one dismisses theory A and theory B, the more the theory C becomes valid.

 Then also, one has to show, how spirituality is not flawed. 

 #17.  “Remember a true scientist is one who doesn't accepts anything easily and also doesn't rejects anything likewise.”

 What if I say, “a true scientist is one who doesn’t accept anything (at face value, that does not stand up to testability) and also doesn’t reject anything (that has empirical evidence)”

 #18. “Explanation requires how, when and why. Why mass or distance affects gravity? Do we really know the full extent of everything that science deals with?”

 Why, is still not understood, and it is a gap. You of course know the how and when. 

 No we do not “know full extent of everything that science tells us”, but history of science tells us that someday we will know. No person in right frame of mind claims, that science has reached its culmination and there is nothing more to explore. The good thing about science is that, if it can’t explain something, it simply says it can’t and gets on with acquiring data to understand and explain it. Recent observations, have concluded that the, ever so successful theory – The Theory of Relativity – is itself incomplete, but instead of turning a blind eye to the data, science is actually working to come up with the complete theory.

 #19. “I have not asked about the 'result' of emotions, but simply what is emotion.”

 I did not explain the “result” of emotions, but the “cause” of emotion. What you are asking is if emotion is the “cause” or “effect”, and I am saying that it is the effect of neural firing and hormonal flow. 

 #20. “Why don't u describe whats the case with intelligence and those terms which u labelled under "similar other phenomena"? And if thats the case then why is science now bringing in spirituality to heal the patients since it can already do that with the balance of hormones and applying "physical" measures?? Have you really read the links I had put forward?”

 Intelligence has long been considered as abstract, but recent experiments show, that may be it has some materialistic explanations as well, and “similar other phenomena” like pain, desire etc. can all be defined by means of neural activities. For, better understanding of intelligence, you may refer to this paper by Ned Block. If you are really interested to know, that is really want to know, pick up some books on philosophy and neurology, from your nearby library. However, I am not claiming, nor is any sane rationalist, that we know everything about brain. Some fill the gaps by introducing “para-normal” while some still strive to find answers by means of testing and validating.

 Where is science bringing in “spirituality to heal patients” ?  I have dealt with Hypnotism in #12. Remember, Mr Lenkei, HAD to operate his thumb. He did not heal it by means of “hypnotism”, he, apparently, used hypnotism as means of anesthesia, for his operation. Hypnotism, is primarily used in pain or other physical discomfort related issues and is highly subjective.

 #21. “You are treating mind as if it is some physical entity. Its a similar situation where one needs both software and hardware to run a PC purposefully to get his task done. A software corruption doesn't mean a hardware fault and a hardware failure doesn't mean a software failure.”

 I am, not treating mind as physical entity, and, most definitely not as non-physical. I am simply asking the question, if mind is a separate entity, as claimed by “dualists”, or not, as claimed by “materialists” ?

 I am not a computer expert, so won’t be able to answer to that example in detail. However, whatever, little I know of it, is probably enough to make a general criticism. Software is a bunch of instructions, in electronic form and occupies space, on the RAM. Computer executes these instructions. Perhaps I am technically wrong, but the point is software occupies a position in time and space. It is true that, software runs the computer, but is it true that mind runs the body ? Or should I say, the brain runs the body ? It is also true that cognitive psychologists sometimes refer mind as the software of brain. The 2nd link in #20 may throw some light.

 #22. “Definition of spirituality is universal I think..” 

 Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Aquinas etc, all gave their definitions, or rather explanations, in the line of soul, without the divine involvement. Most religions give the definition of spirituality in the line of soul and a divine involvement. You, of course, have your own definition, no harm in that. With so many definitions and explanations, one can hardly claim, “spirituality” to be universal.

 If you are saying, that these are all roads that lead to the same, destination, well, I can see the point. But are you saying that ? You have already rejected the “theistic” road.

 .#23. “…more coherent to the one I gave. "Following blindly" anything cannot be called spiritualism. Killing people , sacrificing animals, polluting rivers etc in the name of god is far from "spirituality"!!”

 I can’t argue with that. If you want to take it that way, you are welcome. “Following blindly”, again, is a knife that cuts both ways. However I am totally with you about killing, polluting etc

 #24. “A religious man "may" be spiritual, but saying "religious hence spiritual" would be like treating "spirituality" as a direct implication of being religious and that would be absurd.”

 Probably, it is, from your point of view, with your explanation of  “spiritualism”. But your explanation is certainly not the one and only view of “spiritualism”. Say that to a theist, and she will explain you why it is that way. Yes, there are people who believe in religion, yet not accept its dogma, but the believe of presence of the big guy upstairs, the divine carrot and stick, the soul and body, are still at the core of any religion. To a theist, these encompass her understanding of spirituality. You may be critical of their belief, and may even “reject” it altogether, calling it absurd, but can’t deny that, their spirituality will follow their religion. It, of course, does not fit your concept of “spiritualism”, but, then, they might call your concept to be flawed. Its never ending.

 #25. “You are totally wrong about the second statement in bold. I do not treat other religions as bad, but its only the "blind following" that I am against of. If that would have been the case then, there would have been mass slaughter of people of "other" religions.”

 Here is your classification. “*(R)eligion*”,you say, and not the followers of religion, “can be classified into those who aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions”, and, you continue, “into those which do not even say anything about themselves or other religions or ask to embrace it, but only aim for the welfare of the nature, life and lifestyle.”. You go on to say, that, “_n some *religions* there are a set of rulez that one "has to" obey and in other there is no such rule but simply pieces of wisdom that one "may" ponder over and follow.” Of course you don’t say that the former is “bad” and the later “good”, but you did not leave anything else to imply. May be, instead, of “bad” and “good”, the better term would have been “unacceptable” and “acceptable”.

__ I understand that you are against blind following of everything, and you have made it apparent for so many times, that its hard to miss. Its just that you did not mention that in that classification, to which I was replying.

 Forget ancient history. Contemporary history is littered with horrible incidences of ethnic cleansing and pogrom. Starting from Hitler, to Serbia, to Somalia, to Darfur, to our very own, Sikh massacre in Delhi, Gujrat pogrom are all “slaughter of people of other religions”. 

 #26. “So whats new is you telling me that people of one religion despise other religions and "there is nuthing new in it"! And by now if u have read even a small percentage of overall links and posts of mine, then u wud have clearly realised that I am "religious" too. I hope I don't need to repeat on this one too.”

 Well I guess, “infidel”, “mlechha”, “heretic” are really nice ways to call those, who don’t belong to one’s respective, brotherhood.

 Yes I know, that you are religious, and an atheist. That would make you a spiritual-religious-atheist. Hope I got that wrong.

 #27. “How many of em were scientific? I am not talking of people of an age or under some superstition where questioning some grand authority like a church was treated with offence and hence lowering the value of questioning. Neither I talk of "fake" monks, yogis etc. I am talking of an age where majoirity of people are scientific and still practise yoga and majority of them have resorted to "spirituality".”

 How does one prove, that one is scientific ? What is the measure of this scientific temper ? Asking too many questions means one is not “pondering” and “rejecting without accepting”. Not asking questions, is “following blindly”. It’s a blind lane, its seems. So, probably, one should ask few questions, preferably the easy ones, and not ask the others, presumably the tough ones.

 How does one distinguish a fake monk or whatever from the real ones ? If they all claim the same things, like controlling heart beat, how does one make the segregation, that one is fake and the other is real ? Should the procedure be, who-ever-got-the-maximum-follower-is-real ? Or is it through some tangible evidence ? 

 #28. “To me the example seemed more related to morality. So *how do u define a "right action"?* Ur example isn't much comparable to that of stealing. It wud be "intelligent and may his temporary compulsion" otherwise to have become a theist or shud I say "acknowledging" the other person for satisfaction that he has become a theist. On the contrary, a person who steals bread may not find it "intelligent" but only as a last resort to end his hunger for he knows what can be the outcome of that stealing.

 Also if the person who is hungry for "a number of days" could have worked, laboured so as to earn a small amount. I hope u wont add paramters now of why he could not work! Even people carrying mobiles and wearing denim jeans steal today. *Which "right" will u bring here?* I guess its all wrong!!”

 The link between the two examples, is compulsion. In the former case, hunger, while in the latter case, force. In the former case, without introducing unnecessary Dickens like complications, like, why did he not labour for work, or was he handicapped, or were his eyes blue and skin dark, she would steal to satisfy her hunger, and in the latter case, again without bringing in complications, like, was the gun AK-47 or M-16 , or did she know self-defense or not, she would confess to satisfy the oppressor. The link is threat of death and satisfying something for her own sake. It does not mean that she is not repentant, in the former case or she truly becomes a theist. Point is circumstance may change our perception of right and wrong. It does not mean everybody will steal when hungry and no-body will stand up for her cause, although, faced with threat of death, it may take a whole lot of guts.

 I may also add, that I did mention that right and wrong are not always subjective and there are absolutes as well. This seems to have escaped your attention.

 In pursuit of proving the example wrong, you have yourself, established, what the example sought out to establish in the first place – right and wrong can be subjective. That you are ultimately asking the questions, *“Which "right" will u bring here”*, or “*So how do u define a "right action*” proves, in a sense, that a simple situation, can be viewed in different ways with multiple “rights” and “wrongs”.

 #29. “You have never climbed everest, so how can u conclude it laborious?”

 a)Listening to and/or reading of the experiences of mountaineers, and,
 b)Observing, the effect of scaling, e.g. panting (surly panting is the sign of physical discomfort), and,
 c)The knowledge, that with height,  oxygen content in air gets thinner – meaning less oxygen is reaching the brain – meaning physical discomfort.

 #30. “ U can only see a lake in ur television box. So how can u say if the water is hot or cold?”

 Agreed.

 [A person taking the example literally may argue that the medium used in the example is imperfect. Relax I understand what you are trying to say, so don’t find it difficult to agree to point you are raising.]

 #31. “Observation might help. U may observe a person not used to climbing, and guess that climbing everest is "laborious" or could watch a sherpa do it in much lesser time and guess that it might be "easy". Even after all this u are only observing, and not "rejecting" the possiblity that one can climb the great Mt. Everest!! But I think to make "assumptions or guesses" similarly one needs to observe whats going on and to "conclude" one must have the experience!!”

 The purpose of the example was not to establish “rejection without consideration”, which you are attempting to prove through all the examples that I have given. The purpose of the example was to establish - “experience” is not the only way to conclude, right “knowledge” is also valid for conclution. Before you get it wrong again, let me remind you I was simply replying to your question “What do u call a person and classify him in which category, the one who can't distinguish the right from wrong, who jumps to conclusions without even practicing or experiencing?”

 I have dealt with your “rejection without consideration” arguments in #32, so , I will do it here in brief: The reason, we can’t reject the possibility, is because, the alternate possibility is REAL. By REAL, I mean, something which is tested and verified by means of empirical evidence.

 #32.  “I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, after thorough medical tests and analysis. So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!”

 Fine, it is the possibility of the presence of the disease, that you are talking of and not the different possibilities of different diseases. Even then the argument, in my previous post holds up. Let me make it simple for you.
 
The symptoms of the disease are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by empirical evidence, that so and so symptoms are indicative of presence of a specific disease.
The knowledge of the symptoms, is passed on to the doctor, and now he knows that a specific disease has so and so symptoms.
He notices the symptoms in a patient.
He considers the possibility of the presence of specific disease and does not reject it.
To confirm, he may go for further pathological tests, where the results will be matched against already recorded data.
If the data matches, the doctor will be 100% sure that the symptoms are of that specific disease.
If the data does not match, he will then look for a pattern that matches an already recorded data base.
If it still does not match, then he will classify it as “new set of symptoms of yet unknown disease” and continue to find out more.
 Now lets see, how this example stands up to the argument that you are trying to put, that scientists do not consider the possibility of spirituality and reject it.
 
The indications of spirituality are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (millions have experienced including scientists, but no one has provided any empirical evidence) that so and so indicates spirituality.
The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that spirituality has so and so indications.
He notices the indications in a person.
He considers the possibility of the spiritualism and does not reject it.
To confirm, he may go for…..????
 The argument breaks down, at 1) only and 5) is just impossible and hence there is no 6), 7) and 8). I will prove it in the following manner.

 Lets assume I have an invisible morlock in my garage. Now,
 
The indications of invisible morlock are REAL, because, it has been observed, tested and verified by word of mouth (its only me and some others I have been able to convince through my web blog) that so and so indicates presence of invisible morlock.
The knowledge of the indications, is passed on to the scientist, and now he knows that invisible morlock has so and so indications.
He notices the indications in someone’s garage.
He considers the possibility of the invisible morlock and does not reject it.
To confirm, he may go for…..????
????
????
 The examples were cited to establish something and you are trying to establish something else.

 #33. “First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd!”

 I said, PRINCIPLES of statistics, e.g. sampling and provided an example, although, a crude one. If you had actually read that reply, you would have found, that I have acknowledged that there is no such data. Because, you would find it easy to dismiss, I also cited the example of Europe and American continents.

 #34. “…"learn" the definition of spirituality again and thats why I ask a critic must experience it before even debating over it. Even a criminal can say he is good at the time of such statistics gathering queue!”

 Which definition do you want me to learn. Plato’s, Christians, Buddha’s, Hindu’s or your’s.

 The argument regarding statistics gathering queue can be used, as well, against the statistics that you have thrown up. That scientists, a whole bunch of them do go to church and confess Christianity, simply pretended to be what the society at large wanted to hear. Social and profession position is not something that everyone can sacrifice for the sake of one’s belief. 

 #35. “So yes, if the questioning the scientists and its report that majority of em are spiritual doesn't impress u, then don't believe it. I am not forcing!”

 Thank you very much, I really appreciate that.

 #36. “I don't understand why a scientists wud say he is spiritual. Is it a derogatory term or the opposite? Why wud they do that? Why is the science agreeing on yoga, hypnotism etc and its benefits?? Is that also a statistical report concerning "yes or no"?”

 Whatever agreement science is having with hypnotism has got absolutely nothing to do with spiritualism. Same is the case with yoga. Before you cite examples of how science is validating spiritualism, please make sure, that those experiments are validated by peers.

 #37. “And who do u call "credible" scientists? One who have their names written in books? I hope u know of INDIAN culture and how much science we had already in our past…”

 I agree, credible is a subjective term. You will find some credible while I will not. What it implied was the process of validation, that a scientist may use. One’s credibility is dependent on how he is approaching a “possibility”, and not, by writing a book.

 Our culture, as well as, some others, e.g. Mayans, Aztecs, Chinese, Egypt during the times of pharaohs, all showed remarkable understanding of cosmos and engineering. What once seemed mysterious, are all now been understood, through reading of their texts, and not, everything seems mysterious. Also, none showed any sign, that these were learnt through spirituality.

 #38. “…where we not only knew of the colors of the planets but also about their rotation, revolution etc. U can simply google for that and understand how modern theories are also coming a synchronization with the ancient phiolosphies!!”

 Yes, I am very much aware of how “new” discoveries are being made in our ancient text, specially from areas, which can’t be interpreted unambiguously. Strangely, we are discovering the discoveries of our ancestors, only after the scientific discoveries are getting accepted among scientific fraternity. There is an uncanny feeling of ‘discoveries’ doing a catch up with the western science, and not the other way round. I would recommend a book, which any decent library will have. Its called, Prophets Facing Backwards by Meera Nanda. But this debate is another one, and we can do it some other time.

 #39. “…this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat.”

 Yes, the myth is an open secret, no doubt. Evidence is all I am looking for, not hearsay or rumour or gossip. The link you have provided is an interesting one. Suppose, I write a letter to the The Nature, that I have a pair of invisible wings and I can fly, and as proof attach a picture of me levitating and a full body scan repot. The I put that letter up on a web blog. How will that be ? Again, has the claim been validated, by means of replication. If it has, I will have no problem in admitting my mistake. Till then I will prefer to remain skeptic.

 #40. “Also, "unproven" doesn't mean "rejected". If so, many theories like big bang have not been "proven", but find their ways in texbooks and then schoolchildren discuss it like some kind of law or a fact and grow up with that misconception. Rejecting something that is practical but not proven only limits the scope of study, speaks how broadminded a person is and thats not very scientific!!”

 “Unproven” certainly does not mean “rejection”, also, being “critical” does not mean “rejection”. I am not rejecting anything. But unless proof is provided in support of a claim, I will be “critical”. 

 About Big Bang, you may read my reply at #7

 #41. “Here's an interesting article u may read.
*www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm”

 The article is indeed interesting. With my layman understanding of physics and biology, I could pick holes in them. But I could be wrong. So I checked all the internet resources to find some data on the research, but ended as a futile exercise. May be its not available on-line. But as I keep saying, making a claim is extremely easy. To have it passed by peers is equally difficult. Perhaps that’s the reason, why, every claim, that has the potential of rewriting history, physics and biology, and every other known, well tested theories, is always published as a book or on a site, which is never subject to peer review.

PS: There were too many insinuations to ignore. But looking at the size of this mammoth, I decided not to respond to those innuendos. Hopefully, in your reply, if you decide to give one, you will keep it clean

Regards_


----------



## eggman (May 4, 2008)

sen_sunetra said:


> WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.
> 
> Well, mediator, insisted on replying to his post, p..........
> ..........
> ...



OMG!!! This must be the longest debut post in the history of iNternet


----------



## Faun (May 4, 2008)

indeed a good read if i get some time to read it fully


----------



## karnivore (May 4, 2008)

sen_sunetra said:
			
		

> WARNING: Colossal post ahead (and I am terribly sorry for this). If you have better things to do, hop skip and jump.



It looks more like a blog post than forum post.


----------



## sreevirus (May 4, 2008)

Hmmm...Since the thread talks of the validity of ancient texts, Indian culture, ancient sciences, etc., I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here. I had read them some time back and I'm only posting only _some _lines from the articles (if anyone is really interested, they can go to the links that are given - the matter is a really interesting read). I usually would never do something like quoting large parts out of a website, though I feel whatever I am posting is relevant to the ongoing debate and to those who want to read it, (and to maybe some might prefer it to read snippets instead of the entire article) but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong here, except some might find it absurd of me that I'm quoting large amount of matter here (but then again, isn't right and wrong subjective?) 



			
				Meera Nanda said:
			
		

> Information and biological technologies are the twin engines pulling India's economy. At a time when global corporations come courting Indian scientists and engineers not just for drudge work, but for advanced research and design as well, all this talk about India as a "science superpower" does make sense.
> 
> What does not make sense, however, is the radical disconnect between the dreams of becoming a science superpower, and the grim reality of the mind-numbing superstitions and life-threatening pseudo-sciences that are thriving at all levels of society. Indian scientists may well be the most sought-after workers in the global economy, but many behave as if what they do inside their laboratories has nothing to do with the supernatural and/or spiritual "truths" that pass as "scientific" explanations of natural phenomena in the rest of society. If anything, corporate science and technology is only adding to the ruthlessness of the global capitalist economy, which feeds the existential anxieties that feed on obscurantism.
> .
> ...



from *www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2219/stories/20050923002109200.htm



			
				Meera Nanda said:
			
		

> While the Abrahamic religions are wary of relativism out of the fear of relativizing the Word of God revealed in the Bible or the Koran, Brahminical Hinduism (and Hindu nationalism) thrives on a hierarchical relativism to evade all challenges to its mystical ways of knowing. *Rather than accept empirical theories of modern science as contradicting the Vedantic philosophy--which they actually do--Hindu nationalists simply declare modern science to be true only within its limited materialistic assumptions. They do not reject modern science (who can?) but treat it as 'merely' one among the many different paths to the ultimate truth, known only to Vedic Hinduism.
> *
> *They do not deny that modern science has discovered some truths about nature. But they declare them to be lower-level truths, because they merely deal with dead matter, shorn of consciousness. *Notwithstanding all pious declarations of the 'death' of the Newtonian world view of matter obeying mechanical laws, the fact is that any number of rigorous, double-blind tests have failed to show any signs of disembodied consciousness or mind-stuff in nature: matter obeying mindless laws of physics is all there is. But in the Vedic science discourse, the overwhelming evidence for adequacy of matter to explain the higher functions of mind and life are set aside as a result of 'knowledge filtration' by Western-trained scientists.
> .
> ...



from *www.beliefnet.com/story/77/story_7776_1.html



			
				Meera Nanda said:
			
		

> THERE are two kinds of claims that feed the notion that the "Vedas are books of science". The first kind declared the entire Vedic corpus as converging with modern science, while the second concentrates on defending such esoteric practices as astrology, vastu, Ayurveda, transcendental meditation and so on as scientific within the Vedic paradigm. The first stream seeks to establish likeness, connections and convergences between radically opposed ideas (guna theory and atomic particles, for example). This stream does not relativise science: it simply grabs whatever theory of physics or biology may be popular with Western scientists at any given time, and claims that Hindu ideas are "like that", or "mean the same" and "therefore" are perfectly modern and rational. The second stream is far more radical, as it defends this "method" of drawing likenesses and correspondences between unlike entities as perfectly rational and "scientific" within the non-dualistic Vedic worldview. The second stream, in other words, relativises scientific method to dominant religious worldviews: it holds that the Hindu style of thinking by analogies and correspondences "directly revealed to the mind's eye" is as scientific within the "holistic" worldview of Vedic Hinduism, as the analytical and experimental methodology of modern science is to the "reductionist" worldview of Semitic religions. The relativist defence of eclecticism as a legitimate scientific method not only provides a cover for the first stream, it also provides a generic defence of such emerging "alternative sciences" as "Vedic physics" and "Vedic creationism", as well as defending such pseudo-sciences as Vedic astrology, palmistry, TM (transcendental meditation) and new-age Ayurveda (Deepak Chopra style).
> .
> .
> .
> ...



from *www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2026/stories/20040102000607800.htm

The article  Postmodern "hybridity" and Hindu eclecticism here is a very interesting read.

PS: no flames please.


----------



## Faun (May 4, 2008)

yeah if u consider the life cycle to be a vicious circle.


----------



## karnivore (May 4, 2008)

sreevirus said:
			
		

> PS: no flames please.



You have nice sense of humour i must say. You are criticizing Vedic gobbledygook science , and expecting not to be flamed....? Keep dreaming.


----------



## legolas (May 4, 2008)

^ ^ just because we are more affiliated towards science and the other isn't and he expresses his opinions, doesn't mean he has to be flamed/blamed!! I don't understand the logic behind it. Besides, its not constructive and will result in nothing useful. If you think you know something that will help him realize where he might probe some thought, put it without disrespect... whatever you do its up to him to decide finally!


----------



## karnivore (May 4, 2008)

^^ Come on legolas, i was being sarcastic. And you very well know what i meant. Just look what happened when i posted that Dr Novella link. It just turned into a full blown YOU-SAID-I-SAID war, and as you would except in such wars, decorated with provocative innuendos.

I very much agree with Meera Nanda's criticism.


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 4, 2008)

eggman said:
			
		

> OMG!!! This must be the longest debut post in the history of iNternet



So, where do i claim my trophy...



			
				karnivore said:
			
		

> It looks more like a blog post than forum post.



It sure does...



			
				sreevirus said:
			
		

> I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here.



Those are Meera Nanda's general criticisms against the horrible attempts of the hindu brigade. To know about her more vivid and specific criticisms, you have to read her book. 

Nevertheless, those write-ups can be a real good eyeopener. I will try to provide some other links to her write-ups.


----------



## legolas (May 4, 2008)

karnivore said:


> ^^ Come on legolas, i was being sarcastic. And you very well know what i meant. Just look what happened when i posted that Dr Novella link. It just turned into a full blown YOU-SAID-I-SAID war, and as you would except in such wars, decorated with provocative innuendos.
> 
> I very much agree with Meera Nanda's criticism.


Agreed 

@sen_sunetra, seriously I never thought any1 could post a reply to the long post by @mediator. Bravo!!!


----------



## sreevirus (May 5, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> You have nice sense of humour i must say. You are criticizing Vedic gobbledygook science , and expecting not to be flamed....? Keep dreaming.


Heeheeheehee  Thank you, but its more of a reflex. 
And I'm not the one doing the criticism. It's Meera Nanda. I'm just passing the message.
But I must say, the article gives clear valid explanations on the current state of affairs, and it really echoes some of my thoughts, which I deduced through my interaction with people, though I could never have ever elaborated as much as the writer did. 



			
				sen_sunetra said:
			
		

> Those are Meera Nanda's general criticisms against the horrible attempts of the hindu brigade. To know about her more vivid and specific criticisms, you have to read her book.
> 
> Nevertheless, those write-ups can be a real good eyeopener. I will try to provide some other links to her write-ups.


You know what, I actually wanted to buy Prophets Facing Backwards three months ago, but it wasn't available in the book stores here. But I think I'll look for it after I finish The God Delusion, which I have been reading in installments since 6 months (I don't get much free time these days). 

I know her criticisms are directed at Hindutva apologists and hardliners, but yes, the explanations are quite precise.

I really find it very funny how people backfit anything into their holy texts, using science as a tool of verification. And its not confined to any particular religion. Every damn evangelist does the same. A few hours of watching those shows can actually teach you the art of twisting any literature to your liking. Even Harry Potter can become god if you ask me. But I'm quite happy with worshiping the Invisible Pink Unicorn (hallowed be her holy grooves) and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (blessed be his noodly appendages).


----------



## karnivore (May 5, 2008)

^^ +1 gazillion


----------



## mediator (May 5, 2008)

Sen said:
			
		

> Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.
> 
> My explanation was based on YOUR definition of “spirituality”. I am NOT treating it as a “synonym of science”. The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.
> 
> If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.


What I defined was something like "understanding the nature, body, mind etc" remember? Yes its not like magnetic polarity as in that defintion of +ve and -ve and non-spirituality, it wud mean non-spiritual people are retards who don't want to understand it and that would be absurd!! Like I said spirituality is there in everyone. Its only how much "receptive" u r.

Like it is said "cold" is just the absence of "heat" and at 0K, there is no heat. But even 0 degrees centigrade is "cold" for us. "Not Hot" certainly does not mean "cold", it can refer to "pleasant atmosphere" also! Its just the "scale of heat" that is defining "hot","cold","not hot","pleasant". Its just relative. So there is nuthing like +ve and -ve and if non-spiritual is "extreme" opposite of "spiritual". Non-spiritual simply means "not spiritual". I am not saying non-spiritual people are mentally retarded!!

So the definition of "non-spirituality" u inferred previously, IMO, is not correct as a person can be "spiritual and scientific both" and it can be "non-spritual and scientific" too. Don't u agree? I People for instance even though "scientific" may eat "junk" food daily, watch obscene content and pursue negetive path as of crime. They may not hold importance to their body and mind as said or be "atruistic" in nature. Then there exist people who are scientific and may experience how much sleep there body needs, whats good for there mind and body and how there shud be a balance in life!! IMO, a person who is spiritual or has known that path, wud give up drinking, and those toilet cleaners for he knows how much accidents, loss of self-control and hence resulting to crime and healt hazards "drinking" causes.

Also, it seems u didn't read clearly. It wont make "MINORITY", but "MAJORITY" of scientists look foolish and if u r willing to take the risk even after such a discussion, then u also really need to take the path of "spirituality" just for an experience of how wonderful it can be!!



> Yes I am sure. Even Hitler and Stalin, had shown taste in art and music. Please show the causation, or at least the correlation, between “taste”, “empathy” etc. and spiritualism. Once again, materialism does not mean pursue of materialistic pleasures.


Like I said, Spirituality leads to a fine balance in all. Just a simple "taste" in "art" and "music" canot be called spirituality. "Taste" is not "spirituality". A person who njoys music and corrodes nature and kills heartlessly cannot be called spiritual! It seems u r having a problem in understanding the very basic definition of spirituality! Like I said, "experience" is what u need and not mere guesses. Assumptions will not help! U may guess as much u like. 



> Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one’s senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind.


Not spiritual. One wise guy claimed "psychedelic drugs" do that. Its similar to what I briefed that, "happiness" and "greed" are not the same. 



> No body rejects hypnotism, per se. Science rejects the mix of “para-normal”, that it has been subject to. I tend to agree with karnivore a little. Anesthesia (no feeling of pain) and analgesia (no pain at all) can very well be studied and experimented with. The medical world is debating on the therapeutic validity and value of hypnotism. But there is little “spiritualism” in it.
> 
> Well, if you want to believe, everybody is spiritual and some are not aware of it, you very well can. I have nothing against your belief.


I am glad, we r starting to agree even though a little. 



> You, of course did not say so, at least, in so many words. But isn’t it implied ? You say, that “spirituality” enables a person to appreciate beauty or quality, or have empathy etc. which I collectively called “goodness”. You then, go on to say, that a “materialistic” persons - failing to distinguish between a person who pursues materialistic pleasures and a person who explains by material means - can’t have them, because of so and so reasons. Now, tell me what to infer from the combined reading of these two opinions, other than the implication of “only way to goodness” is spirituality. A person can be either spiritual or not spiritual. If spirituality, is the reason for goodness, and non-spirituality is not, then, it automatically transpires, that spirituality is the “ONLY way to goodness”.


A materialist may "smoke" even though he can train other and teach how to play guitar. He may be an alcoholic and a drug addict even though having a scientific mind and a daughter he loves. So a "little" happiness or taste as in art or music etc isn't "spirituality". Again its the scale, and hence I say there is little spirituality in every one that distinguishes spiritual one from "non-spiritual"!! Also, when I talk of a spiritual person it doesn't necessarily mean a "perfect" one. Its again the experience, and wisdom that takes u to the higher level of the scale. But when u take the path of spirtuality, it seems the body and mind are the first that r effected where u start undertsanding and learning whats important for both!

On one point u tell that u r not stating spirituality and non-spirituality "as polarity in magnetism" and now u r talking as if u don't undertsand at all. 



> If you meant that there was a third way, other than spirituality and materialism, which of course would be something non-spiritual, *then you did not make it clear.* If the glass is half filled, it is also half empty, unless, of course, there is a third possibility, which I missed. If there is, my apologies.
> 
> You of course tell us, that “there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r receptive”, meaning, we may all, including a hardcore materialist enjoy goodness, without really knowing why. Probably this is the third way, you are talking of. If you are, even then you are saying that it is because of spirituality that we have goodness.


I hope now I am clear!



> I hope, and I hope I am not wrong, what you mean by “spiritual self” is the “self”, that is aware of the spiritual trappings, not as an entity separate from blood, flesh and bone.
> 
> In the first case, the argument becomes circuitous. A theist may argue that the “self” is aware of spiritual trappings, because she “seek wisdom in him and ask for guidance”. Can you prove she is wrong, without first dismissing god. (Please note, that an atheist would not make this argument. You were responding to a ‘theistic’ argument, so I chose to continue with the argument from a theist’s point of view.)
> 
> ...


Its again how do u define god. It seems god is a highly ambiguous term to define. If it denotes eternal wisdom, then I am a theist and if its a fictious figure in the most typical sense, then I am an atheist (this is the one I mentioned). Science cannot explain "everything" and some people map that unexplained phenomena as God.  And what do u call soul? Some call it an entity that "cracks the chamber when u r confining a dying body to it", some call it the sub-concious that is constantly giving u messages and thoughts. What do u call it?

So by my statement it doesn't mean that I "definitely will" find a reason! I just asked "why" I wont find a reason! U may 'follow' science and may follow a religion. But again it shudn't be 'blind'! If a theist tells me that "God asks us to be benevolent for the sake of society", then tell 'why' won't I find a reason in it?



> Refer #7. It just seems to me, that *your spiritualism* is a one way traffic. Like the Mac-fans say, “Once you go Mac, you don’t go back” (or something similar), once one goes “spiritual” there is no way one is going to question it and reject it. If one does, one has not “pondered” or is under the illusion that one has already “pondered” and has rejected without considering the possibility. It does sound like “blind faith”.


Don't mind, but I thought u were mature enough. Spiritualism has nuthing to do with feeling "elite"!! After all the discussion u have now only to say this? 



> This will cut both ways. Even you are putting forward your theory “like (it is) some kind of fact”. As proof all you are saying is, “I have experienced” and “Millions, including some scientists, have experienced” and of course, dismissing everything else, as if, the more one dismisses theory A and theory B, the more the theory C becomes valid.



I know 'what" big bang is. I have "read" the theories behind it to be even talking about it. Besides, spiritualism is not a theory! So it won't "cut both ways" as materialist have simply not even "applied" to the path of "spirituality" to be even talking or "rejecting" it. Its like doing regular "gym and running" helps me. Millions of scientists agree with me and have "experenced" it. How can a non-gymers conclude what the experience is? If he has heard about it, then atleast he wont reject that regular gym and running helps. So it wont cut both ways. Like I said u can guess as much u like. 




> What if I say, “a true scientist is one who doesn’t accept anything (at face value, that does not stand up to testability) and also doesn’t reject anything (that has empirical evidence)”



Then he is not a "true scientist" at all. Besides, Big-Bang doesn't stand up to "testability". Shud we "reject" it? We cannot test the boundaries of "Universe". Shall we give up the meaning of universe and confine ourself to earth and related phenomena??



> Why, is still not understood, and it is a gap. You of course know the how and when.
> [/quote[
> Ofcors, but do the materialist accept it, since u said they need "clear" explanation of "everything"??
> 
> ...


----------



## mediator (May 5, 2008)

> #32. “I have not said "possiblities", but simply the "possibilty" of the disease (I have not given a choice as in "possibilties") and when I say that, naturally it means, *after thorough medical tests and analysis.* So obviously there arises no question of "rejection"!!”
> 
> Fine, it is the possibility of the presence of the disease, that you are talking of and not the different possibilities of different diseases. Even then the argument, in my previous post holds up. Let me make it simple for you.
> 
> ...


It seems u r deviating yet again. Read the statement in bold. I don't think our "modern science" is that weak, that even after "thorough medical tests and analysis" there will still be any "possibilities" rather than "possbility" of a "disease". 
It seems as if u, to prove ur point, "interrupted" the "medical tests and anaylsis" in a situation where a few possibilites were found. Does "thorough" imply anything to you? 

You did not "prove" this example, so I will let you "improve" on this and the succeeding examples u could bring up. 



> #33. “First, I too would like to have those statistics and second, even if they were true then they are simply absurd!”
> 
> I said, PRINCIPLES of statistics, e.g. sampling and provided an example, although, a crude one. If you had actually read that reply, you would have found, that *I have acknowledged that there is no such data.* Because, you would find it easy to dismiss, I also cited the example of Europe and American continents.


Ahh, my mistake!  But why r u guessing all the time, be its the situation and now guessing about a fictitous data?? 



> Which definition do you want me to learn. Plato’s, Christians, Buddha’s, Hindu’s or your’s.
> 
> *The argument regarding statistics gathering queue can be used, as well, against the statistics that you have thrown up. That scientists, a whole bunch of them do go to church and confess Christianity, simply pretended to be what the society at large wanted to hear. Social and profession position is not something that everyone can sacrifice for the sake of one’s belief. *





			
				link said:
			
		

> Article Excerpt
> Byline: Jennifer Harper, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
> 
> America's scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which almost *70 percent agreed "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68 percent classified themselves as a "spiritual person."*
> ...


*goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4592093/Scientists-spirituality-surprises-Only-one.html

Whats wrong if 70% scientists agree there is basic truth in religion and 68% classified themselves as spiritual? Though the article doesn't mention that they goto churches, but whats wrong in going to churches if one can find peace? All the wisdom quotations be it by scientists or religious surely make u feel light. Don't u agree? 

But observing ur wrath, it seems the scientists did sacrifice their "professional" position! If the statistics can be used against me, then tell me how! Is 'spirituality' a derogatory term or the opposite? Why would the scientists say that they r spiritual? But neways, its ur wish, if u want to believe the research. 



> Whatever agreement science is having with hypnotism has got absolutely nothing to do with spiritualism. Same is the case with yoga. Before you cite examples of how science is validating spiritualism, please make sure, that those experiments are validated by peers.


The examples have already been given. It seems u missed them. The validation is more given here. But it seems ur quest for validation of everything even something like "spiritualism", "hypnotism" and "yoga" is highly narrowing ur scope of vision. Its like rejecting, when something is working and found to be correct, just cause science has not explained it yet?



> #39. “…this is no hidden secret that yogis can control heartbeat.”
> 
> Yes, the myth is an open secret, no doubt. Evidence is all I am looking for, not hearsay or rumour or gossip. The link you have provided is an interesting one. Suppose, I write a letter to the The Nature, that I have a pair of invisible wings and I can fly, and as proof attach a picture of me levitating and a full body scan repot. The I put that letter up on a web blog. How will that be ? Again, has the claim been validated, by means of replication. If it has, I will have no problem in admitting my mistake. Till then I will prefer to remain skeptic.


I liked the original tone of how u presented urself here, but the tone u r talking in, it seems has been heard before!! 
Like I said u can remain "skeptic" of the things u don't want to "believe" in or shud I say "hate" to believe in, and mark and talk of other things like "Big Bang theory" as if it were to be fact! Its all ur choice! 



> #41. “Here's an interesting article u may read.
> *www.rense.com/general62/expl.htm”
> 
> The article is indeed interesting. With my layman understanding of physics and biology, I could pick holes in them. But I could be wrong. So I checked all the internet resources to find some data on the research, but ended as a futile exercise. May be its not available on-line. But as I keep saying, making a claim is extremely easy. To have it passed by peers is equally difficult. Perhaps that’s the reason, why, every claim, that has the potential of rewriting history, physics and biology, and every other known, well tested theories, is always published as a book or on a site, which is never subject to peer review.


Your wish, the link affirms how real hypnotism, spirituality, intuition is! Sorry, it validates also! 
BTW, why r u so dependent on "peer review"? You may question it also and present those folks your view point and paste the the detailed discussion here.  




			
				SriVirus said:
			
		

> Hmmm...Since the thread talks of the validity of ancient texts, Indian culture, ancient sciences, etc., I feel it won't be an inappropriate deed on my part if I post a few lines from some sites here. I had read them some time back and I'm only posting only some lines from the articles (if anyone is really interested, they can go to the links that are given - the matter is a really interesting read). I usually would never do something like quoting large parts out of a website, though I feel whatever I am posting is relevant to the ongoing debate and to those who want to read it, (and to maybe some might prefer it to read snippets instead of the entire article) but I don't think I'm doing anything wrong here, except some might find it absurd of me that I'm quoting large amount of matter here (but then again, isn't right and wrong subjective?)


Again a sample, where ones thinking is based on the perspective of another! Let me ask have u really read what there is in great ANCIENT INDIAN TEXTS? There r many replies regarding those in this very forum! Besides it seems u still have not read the link I gave previously! Dear mod, learn on what u r replying! 



			
				meeraji said:
			
		

> What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.


She is quite learned in VEDAS it seems.
*www.planetherbs.com/articles/triphala.html

I am just wondering if u can even read the researches and science I would present. So please refrain from talking nonsense. 



> And I'm not the one doing the criticism. It's Meera Nanda. I'm just passing the message


Like a mediator?  How silly! 


Neways whats this nonsense of images and a limit of 15? Had to post twice


----------



## legolas (May 5, 2008)

^ ^ *gigasmilies.googlepages.com/42.gif, you win!!


----------



## karnivore (May 5, 2008)

legolas said:


> ^ ^ *gigasmilies.googlepages.com/42.gif, you win!!


 
And what a win........we are all knocked clean out of the ring.


----------



## legolas (May 5, 2008)

^ ^ you know what I mean  the sheer volume!! I dint even know there was a limit on the number of lines you can have per post until now!!


----------



## krazzy (May 5, 2008)

legolas said:


> ^ ^ you know what I mean  the sheer volume!! I dint even know there was a limit on the number of lines you can have per post until now!!



There is not a limit of lines but a limit of how many images you can put in a post (15). Mediator exceeded that with his truck-load of smilies.


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 5, 2008)

*mediator*

I would try and post my reply. As of now, I am bogged down with some personal work. You have made an effort to reply my colossal post and so it would be unfair, if I don't reply to yours.

But if I still can't post my reply,

my apologies and regards,

Sen


----------



## sreevirus (May 5, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> Again a sample, where ones thinking is based on the perspective of another!


Should I be offended at this "assumption" of yours that I can't think for myself? Actually I thought I may have clarified it in my next post where I said the article reflects some of my thoughts. (BTW, aren't our thoughts and views influenced by others?)



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Let me ask have u really read what there is in great ANCIENT INDIAN TEXTS?


To be honest, no, but only parts of them, and parts where my dad read and translated for me from Malayalam. I thought it's more of a morality thing. But I'm gaining knowledge along the way (through debates like these too).



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> There r many replies regarding those in this very forum! Besides it seems u still have not read the link I gave previously! Dear mod, learn on what u r replying!


And I had told you before too, that the site is filled with pseudoscience. Neither do the site's claims nor it's author Dr.Sant Kumar Kapoor find any mention in credible mathematical circles. Of course I had read the site, not in its entirety though (I did read 3 or 4 pages), because I felt there was no point. I know Indian mathematicians had found out numerical techniques of solving mathematical problems. But the site's claims of saying that the techniques mentioned there are found out by paranormal properties of Hindu gods is going way overboard and highly pseudo-scientific.
What do you call these examples (I may term them nonsense):


			
				vedicganita.org said:
			
		

> As the scripture begins with the prayer to Lord Brahma, the overlord of real 4-space and ends with the chiseling of third eye of Lord Shiv, the overlord of real 5-space, therefore, geometric format at the dimensional level is bound to be spatial with the flux of time being solid.
> .
> .
> .
> ...


Invoking the gods (and their properties and attributes) to solve maths? Claims that have absolutely no proof solving maths? A fine example of twisting literature to your whims. BTW, I heard from one of my Hindu relatives that the four heads of Brahma is symbolic of his vision in all four corners of the world. Of course, he could be wrong. The writer of the site interprets his four heads as the four dimensions. Of course, different people, different interpretations (or maybe plain backfitting).

If you want to know of hypercubes, read a bit: *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube. I found no correlation with the examples in that site you provided.

The site claims that Dr.S.K.Kapoor has solved Fermat's last theorem and Goldbach's Conjecture in his book. I searched on the internet and found absolutely nothing to verify his claims (except in other vedic math sites). You see, Fermat's last theorem and Goldbach's Conjecture are some of the most famous mathematical problems and if someone had found out the proof, it is bound to get publicized and documented in mathematical circles. Mathematical problems (or for that matter, any scientific problem) are subject to scrutiny by other fellow mathematicians (or peers), till it is agreed upon unanimously. But I found no matter about the solution from Vedic maths or from Dr.S.K. Kapoor. From the wiki entry on Fermat's last theorem:


> Although Wiles had reviewed his argument beforehand with a Princeton colleague, Nick Katz, he soon discovered that the proof contained a gap. There was an error in a critical portion of the proof which gave a bound for the order of a particular group. Wiles and his former student Richard Taylor spent almost a year trying to repair the proof, under the close scrutiny of the media and the mathematical community.


From wikipedia entry on Goldbach's Conjecture:


> As with many famous conjectures in mathematics, there are a number of purported proofs of the Goldbach conjecture, none of which are currently accepted by the mathematical community.


 I wonder why vedicganita.org or Dr.Kapoor escaped the scrutiny of the mathematical community and find no mention there.

However, if  overlooked it, or if there is a site in which true mathematicians have genuinely validated the claims of vedicganita.org or Dr.S.K.Kapoor, please provide the link, and if such validity exists, I'm willing to apologize and say that I was wrong (please don't provide links to other vedic math sites).



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I am just wondering if u can even read the researches and science I would present. So please refrain from talking nonsense.


Of course I do read if I get time. And I find it is extremely condescending of you to say that what I am saying is nonsense, and it would be nice if you tone down that attitude a bit. Maybe nonsense to you, but as I have said it before, with varying perspective, even the term nonsense can be relative and subjective. Your "sense" may be nonsense to me. But I don't think that I have ever disrespected your views.


------


You know, I'm reminded of an incident here from the debate. When I was in the 10 standard, my Hindi teacher (obviously a devout Hindu) said that all the so called western "inventions and discoveries" are fake and plagiarised from ancient Indian contraptions and texts. She said the before the Wright brothers made the aeroplane, we had Pushpakavimana, before TV was invented, we had something (she said something about Sanjeeva). What would you call this except blatant apologism for utter crap? Besides that, I thought it was an extreme insult to the vision, hard work and genuine achievements of people like the Wright brothers and J.L.Baird. I guess I wouldn't be stretching my imagination if I say that the tradition continues in many Indian homes where children are taught to assimilate fairy tales and lies as true knowledge. AS Meera Nanda says, we are skeptic about western sciences and inventions until it "fits" with the ancient texts.

After the lecture, when I asked my friends about their opinion on the hogwash, I was a bit shocked to hear them say that whatever she said was true (maybe except Muslim and Christian friends). Some had other opinions like the inventions might've been coincidental or genuine achievements, but they were all agreed on the truth of the teacher's statements. I concluded there was no point arguing with them.

I realised a thing about Indian culture that we encourage our kids to accept anything the parents or teachers say to their face value without arguments. Maybe its the tradition of respecting the guru (I'm not arguing against giving anyone respect, except for the fact that the faith may discourage independent thought). We are no different from western counterparts in the sense that where they teach that the Bible or the Quran or the Torah is the Ultimate Truth, we say its the Ramayan, Mahabharat and/or the Vedas. 

From what I have seen in evangelical TV shows and websites, every damn mathematical or physics or any scientific problem can be or are solved from any of these these texts. The problem is, which is to be believed (if believed at all)?




PS: @mediator, I really like debates like these and hearing views from guys like you, but unfortunately I have less time these days. Last time, I had a project to work on if you remember (which I just finished in the nick of time). This time, I have my exams (from 22nd May), and I have a lot to study. So maybe my participation might not be active. My apologies.


----------



## mediator (May 5, 2008)

srivirus said:
			
		

> Should I be offended at this "assumption" of yours that I can't think for myself? Actually I thought I may have clarified it in my next post where I said the article reflects some of my thoughts. (BTW, aren't our thoughts and views influenced by others?)


Actually u have done very little in the past debate and this one too where u acknowledged very little of your "own" perspective!! BTW, our thoughts and views are influenced only when we allow them to be influenced.



> And I had told you before too, that the site is filled with pseudoscience. Neither do the site's claims nor it's author Dr.Sant Kumar Kapoor find any mention in credible mathematical circles. Of course I had read the site, not in its entirety though (I did read 3 or 4 pages), because I felt there was no point. I know Indian mathematicians had found out numerical techniques of solving mathematical problems. But the site's claims of saying that the techniques mentioned there are found out by paranormal properties of Hindu gods is going way overboard and highly pseudo-scientific.


Your statements shout of how much u have read the site.



			
				vedicganita.org said:
			
		

> As the scripture begins with the prayer to Lord Brahma, the overlord of real 4-space and ends with the chiseling of third eye of Lord Shiv, the overlord of real 5-space, therefore, geometric format at the dimensional level is bound to be spatial with the flux of time being solid.
> .
> .
> .
> ...





> Invoking the gods (and their properties and attributes) to solve maths? Claims that have absolutely no proof solving maths? A fine example of twisting literature to your whims. BTW, I heard from one of my Hindu relatives that the four heads of Brahma is symbolic of his vision in all four corners of the world. Of course, he could be wrong. The writer of the site interprets his four heads as the four dimensions. Of course, different people, different interpretations (or maybe plain backfitting).


Don't tell me that u didn't read the site just becoz of that excerpt. Thats really, well, "not wise"!!
People think by "athidevo namah","pitri devo namah" worshipping is done for everyone and hence 330 million gods? Ignorance at its best?



> If you want to know of hypercubes, read a bit: *en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercube. I found no correlation with the examples in that site you provided.
> 
> The site claims that Dr.S.K.Kapoor has solved Fermat's last theorem and Goldbach's Conjecture in his book. I searched on the internet and found absolutely nothing to verify his claims (except in other vedic math sites). You see, Fermat's last theorem and Goldbach's Conjecture are some of the most famous mathematical problems and if someone had found out the proof, it is bound to get publicized and documented in mathematical circles. Mathematical problems (or for that matter, any scientific problem) are subject to scrutiny by other fellow mathematicians (or peers), till it is agreed upon unanimously. But I found no matter about the solution from Vedic maths or from Dr.S.K. Kapoor. From the wiki entry on Fermat's last theorem:


Even I didn't find anythin likewise. May be its not published becoz the author is not an Englishman? Ah, I forgot the concept of basmati rice is patented and many such INDIAN concepts that are patented. And then people say why don't INDIANS reveal it, if they have it.

So its revealed, and it seems u r also after some "peers" to get it verified! But neways there r many other links in my previous post that u may like to read and get them verified! The "herd instinct" rulez after all.  Don't u agree? 



> Of course I do read if I get time. And I find it is extremely condescending of you to say that what I am saying is nonsense, and it would be nice if you tone down that attitude a bit. Maybe nonsense to you, but as I have said it before, with varying perspective, even the term nonsense can be relative and subjective. Your "sense" may be nonsense to me. But I don't think that I have ever disrespected your views.


U have shown how much u read, u didn't even read the 33 pages pdf u linked previous time.



> You know, I'm reminded of an incident here from the debate. When I was in the 10 standard, my Hindi teacher (obviously a devout Hindu) said that all the so called western "inventions and discoveries" are fake and plagiarised from ancient Indian contraptions and texts. She said the before the Wright brothers made the aeroplane, we had Pushpakavimana, before TV was invented, we had something (she said something about Sanjeeva). What would you call this except blatant apologism for utter crap? Besides that, I thought it was an extreme insult to the vision, hard work and genuine achievements of people like the Wright brothers and J.L.Baird. I guess I wouldn't be stretching my imagination if I say that the tradition continues in many Indian homes where children are taught to assimilate fairy tales and lies as true knowledge. AS Meera Nanda says, we are skeptic about western sciences and inventions until it "fits" with the ancient texts.


You know what, when I was in 10th standard I was told about the amazing Appolo Moon mission. Later I found it was all some frustrated efforts to fulfill some desperate attempts.



> After the lecture, when I asked my friends about their opinion on the hogwash, I was a bit shocked to hear them say that whatever she said was true (maybe except Muslim and Christian friends). Some had other opinions like the inventions might've been coincidental or genuine achievements, but they were all agreed on the truth of the teacher's statements. I concluded there was no point arguing with them.
> 
> I realised a thing about Indian culture that we encourage our kids to accept anything the parents or teachers say to their face value without arguments. Maybe its the tradition of respecting the guru (I'm not arguing against giving anyone respect, except for the fact that the faith may discourage independent thought). We are no different from western counterparts in the sense that where they teach that the Bible or the Quran or the Torah is the Ultimate Truth, we say its the Ramayan, Mahabharat and/or the Vedas.
> 
> From what I have seen in evangelical TV shows and websites, every damn mathematical or physics or any scientific problem can be or are solved from any of these these texts. The problem is, which is to be believed (if believed at all)?


I agree she shouldn't have said that. But if I were u, I wouldn't have "rejected" it also. Its only upto u to find out whats correct and it seems u can do that if u have done taking the "helping hand" of meera ji!

Ah, yes the "concept of less time & so..." and posting randomly. Sometimes its called "troll" and it doesn't look nice if mods behave that way!


----------



## karnivore (May 5, 2008)

A wishy-washy whisper on a blog and it amounts to mountains of evidence in favour of the counter argument.  If one questions, then he is of course being "closed minded" and following "the herd". But if one accepts without even questioning, he is the poster boy for "open-mindedness".

Dr Novella has _*already explored*_ this open mindedness (OOPS....did i do it again)
Here's some more "open mindedness"


In the words of *Bertrand Russell*:



> _*There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.*_ Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! *Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed*.


----------



## mediator (May 5, 2008)

Seems like Dr.Novella n Bertrand Russell have atleast one loyal and lifelong fanboy with them to sing n praise their words everywhere he might go. Nice strategy to gather some audience and collect a few coins. Funny indeed. WTH


----------



## karnivore (May 5, 2008)

Russell is not meant for everyone


----------



## sreevirus (May 5, 2008)

I wouldn't have replied here, but since there have been some accusations levelled against me by mediator, I'm taking a break from my studies and posting here. 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Actually u have done very little in the past debate and this one too where u acknowledged very little of your "own" perspective!! BTW, our thoughts and views are influenced only when we allow them to be influenced.


I agree. Maybe you allowed the influence of some people on yourself, whose views may not have influenced others like me. But I disagree when you say that I haven't put forth my views. I provided links that justify or substantiate my views. Just like you did and still do. How can you even accuse anyone of not having an opinion of their own for giving links if you yourself find it very easy and convenient to post links to sites that are in agreement of your own views or which further take your point ahead?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Your statements shout of how much u have read the site.


And can you make that clear? There was in all about 9-10 pages on that site. And most of them were doing the same thing.
BTW, if your site's claims of the Rigveda Samhita are assumed right, then this site is also right in what it claims:
*www.submission.info/quran/appendices/appendix1.html
Of course, from your viewpoint, you shouldn't be having any problem with what this site claims, as you have said people shouldn't be skeptic to reject everything (though I find that site a big hogwash). But if you do not accept the site's claims as true, may I know the reason for it?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Don't tell me that u didn't read the site just becoz of that excerpt. Thats really, well, "not wise"!!
> People think by "athidevo namah","pitri devo namah" worshipping is done for everyone and hence 330 million gods? Ignorance at its best?


No. I came across those exerpts while I was reading the page 'Multi dimensions of time and space in Manasara'. I said that these are examples which I find hard to digest, because this is no way of solving a mathematical problem. Claims or chants cannot be held as axioms in a mathematical proof. Its not ignorance pal, its skepticism.

Since you are an atheist, you should not even have given a link to a site like vedicganita.org. 
Look at this statement - "Lord Shiv, the overlord of real 5-space, therefore, geometric format at the dimensional level is bound to be spatial with the flux of time being solid." If you are an atheist, and a mathematician, just tell me when did Shiva ever become the overlord of the real 5-space? And taking that as an axiom, how can you even go about solving any problem? And if you do believe that Lord Shiva is indeed the overlord of the real 5-space, then your claim of you being an atheist stands redundant.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Even I didn't find anythin likewise. May be its not published becoz the author is not an Englishman? Ah, I forgot the concept of basmati rice is patented and many such INDIAN concepts that are patented. And then people say why don't INDIANS reveal it, if they have it.


Isn’t this a prejudice against the white man? Isn't it convenient that whenever a Western source does anything related to the Vedas or any ancient Indian text, you gladly provide details and links, but when you failed to answer my queries, you put an Indian (or Hindu) national's prejudice (or should I say diatribe) that the West doesn’t give us a fair deal and doesn't give us the awards and due credit for our achievements? 
You accuse others of deviating the topic all too often as I have observed. But this example of yours of the Basmati rice patent is totally unrelated to the topic. (JFYI, fortunately, the patent for Basmati was not given to RiceTec after the diplomatic row. Basmati is indeed still ours.)
Srinivasa Ramanujan, CV Raman, SN Bose, Jayant Narlikar, etc are *Indian** mathematicians and physicists who are well recognized and respected world over. They are not recognized because they are Indians, but because they did something outstanding. They were/are human beings who contributed to the world with their findings/works. 
(*Note the emphasis on the word Indian, I did not mention the Indian born US naturalized citizens Harish-Chandra or Dr.Subhrahmaniyan Chandrashekhar, but they are famous and noted for their works nonetheless.)

Against what could be your counter argument, I would beforehand state the unfortunate case of Sir J.C. Bose who could've been credited with the invention of radio (although Nicola Tesla had discovered it before Bose did). But Bose is indeed credited for his contribution to the development of radio.
The modern scientific community doesn't make prejudices or biases against any person based on his/her nationality for genuine works or achievements if they are verified. It is unfortunate if you think so.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> So its revealed, and it seems u r also after some "peers" to get it verified! But neways there r many other links in my previous post that u may like to read and get them verified! The "herd instinct" rulez after all. Don't u agree?


I would agree, because for some links, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", which the sites don't provide. They are not up for testing. Many are unscientific. Most of the sites you provided only have made claims too hard for a skeptic like me to digest. And most of them have never been accepted in the scientific community. If somethings are indeed verified (by peers), then we can rest assured that it is TRUE, and we might not even be having an argument like this. 
Maybe you have no problems believing in uncorroborated claims put by any odd guy out there with a dime-a-dozen website, but I'm uncomfortable at it; we are not living in a Utopian world, are we now? 



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> U have shown how much u read, u didn't even read the 33 pages pdf u linked previous time.


I thought that I had clarified it then, that I read things that were critical about Mark McCrutcheon's theories, but I didn't read it in entirety. Just for the sake of it, I had further searched on McCrutcheon and all I could conclude was that he is a person who is scorned upon in the scientific community and whose so called theories are rejected.



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> You know what, when I was in 10th standard I was told about the amazing Appolo Moon mission. Later I found it was all some frustrated efforts to fulfill some desperate attempts.


Too bad you believe in that hoax. But right now, I'm not really surprised that you do.
But even if the moon landing was a hoax, then you are countering my statements of a hoax with another hoax as an excuse. What's the point?



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> I agree she shouldn't have said that. But if I were u, I wouldn't have "rejected" it also. Its only upto u to find out whats correct and it seems u can do that if u have done taking the "helping hand" of meera ji!


The incident that I cited had happened in 2001. I didn't even have internet back then and I certainly never even knew of Meera Nanda. Don't make lame assumptions on people. I was always skeptical about these things. That is why I had a hard time accepting it. If the Pushpakavimana was real, then so are the Nimbus 2000 and the Firebolt.

My only argument is that claims have to have proof and the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the audience. So far, all the outlandish claims have not had any clear proof of existence or validity, nor have they been verified scientifically. If I say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster came in my cupboard and made the revelation that "The world sucks", then it is upon me to prove it that I had indeed had the revelation from the FSM. It is never your responsibility to prove my claims, nor can I say that I'm right because "you can't disprove me". But then, if some guy out there believes me for whatever I say at it's face value and starts worshipping the FSM and starts a propaganda that the world is suckier-than-thou, then I would not only call him ignorant, but idiotic. 
Now replace me with any prophet/swami/guru/seer, the FSM with god/higher consciousness/energy and the revelation with Vedas, Bible, Quran, or any Holier-than-thou book and maybe you'll get the point (but I guess you won't and I wont be surprised if you reply that you find my post really amusing and funny; I have no problems, please laugh all you want).



			
				mediator said:
			
		

> Ah, yes the "concept of less time & so..." and posting randomly. Sometimes its called "troll" and it doesn't look nice if mods behave that way!


Dude, some of us have other things to do than sit and surf sites. If you think that voicing one's opinion is trolling, then you are as much a troll as anyone else on this particular thread. I really had thought that you were capable of having a sane discussion with, but I never expected you to fall like this and take it down this low. It's very unfortunate that you should think that we just argue for the sake of it and at our convenience. It was very arrogant of you to make such a statement. Having read your earlier posts, you had accused karnivore of plagiarism, where there was none. Now, since you have accused me of trolling, I ask you, do you even know what trolling means? Did I post anything irrelevant? Did I go off topic? Did I make a wild accusation at anybody? Did I have any ulterior motives when  I posted here? And since you are pointing at my position of being a mod, you are welcome to complain or make a report to an admin or any other mod if you feel that I am being a troll, and if anyone agrees, I'll resign. Maybe then, the next time there's a situation like this, you won't get a chance to have a go at me because I'm a mod.

Yes, I am a moderator and the reason why I come to this forum is because the administrators of the forum made me a mod and entrusted me with some responsibilities. And once in a while, a topic like this interests me and I post there. But I have other commitments and work too. It really takes time to read, think and type replies. That was why I said my participation won't be active. The least you could've done was excused me. If you think I'm being dishonest here, then it is your problem.

Your attitude of insulting and making snide remarks at your opponents might make you feel victorious, but will get you nowhere. I wonder if all the spirituality in you has disappeared.


Anyway. See ya. Gotta study. Adios.


----------



## legolas (May 6, 2008)

sreevirus said:


> I wonder if all the spirituality in you has disappeared.


 + 1 well said.


----------



## Faun (May 6, 2008)

k guys just watch the limitations of our brain 
Dragon Illusion (search it on youtube)


----------



## karnivore (May 6, 2008)

sreevirus said:
			
		

> ...you had accused karnivore of plagiarism, *where there was none*.



Thanks, man. That was a real disturbing accusation.


----------



## mediator (May 6, 2008)

srivirus said:
			
		

> I wouldn't have replied here, but since there have been some accusations levelled against me by mediator, I'm I'm taking a break from my studies and posting here.


No accusations, but it seemed funny where on one hand u say u have exams and on other are posting replies! 



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> I agree. Maybe you allowed the influence of some people on yourself, whose views may not have influenced others like me. But I disagree when you say that I haven't put forth my views. I provided links that *justify or substantiate my views.* Just like you did and still do. How can you even accuse anyone of not having an opinion of their own for giving links if you yourself find it very easy and convenient to post links to sites that are in agreement of your own views or which further take your point ahead?


"Justify and substantiate ur views"? That seems a bit farfetched!



			
				srivirus said:
			
		

> *I haven’t read The Final Theory, but from whatever I could gather (from reviews and articles), author seems to have used situations where phenomena do not appeal to common sense to debunk modern physics.* That is plain puerile. It seems like he’s using argument from personal incredulity to debunk modern physics. Common sense would tell you wrong things many times. Some centuries ago, common sense would've told people that the earth was flat. Then, common sense would've also told people that the earth was at the centre of the Universe. Some time back, common sense would’ve told me (and I’m sure many others) that when you invert a glass filled with water covered by a paper, the water will fall to the ground, or that when you lie on a bed of nails, you’d be pierced through. But science tells otherwise, with reasons. Common sense told many people some years ago that it was a miracle that Ganesha statues drank milk, but science gave them a rational explanation as to why it happens. If you put an argument from common sense, I can prove 1=2 using flawed algebra or calculus, but people can find that it fits with common sense (heck, i've befuddled my engineering classmates).


Need to say anymore? Read the pdf of 33 pages u put forward, where the reviewer himself agrees on many issues!




> And can you make that clear? There was in all about 9-10 pages on that site. And most of them were doing the same thing.
> BTW, if your site's claims of the Rigveda Samhita are assumed right, then this site is also right in what it claims:
> *www.submission.info/quran/app...appendix1.html
> Of course, from your viewpoint, you shouldn't be having any problem with what this site claims, as you have said people shouldn't be skeptic to reject everything (though I find that site a big hogwash). But if you do not accept the site's claims as true, may I know the reason for it?


Shud I assume from the link u put forward that u know arabic? I certainly don't know arabic. But ofcourse, its your wish whether u wanna believe the "apollo moon hoax" or the site I linked, whether you wanna feel elite by thinking of "Big Bang and all the theories" as a fact or something like hypnotism, spirituality that are more real! Ofcourse you can research about spirituality,hypnotism etc or read about the "reviews and comments" from skeptics. Funny, that one guy in "science or God" thread took the help of "digs" to form hs opinion.



> Since you are an atheist, you should not even have given a link to a site like vedicganita.org.
> Look at this statement - "Lord Shiv, the overlord of real 5-space, therefore, geometric format at the dimensional level is bound to be spatial with the flux of time being solid." If you are an atheist, and a mathematician, just tell me when did Shiva ever become the overlord of the real 5-space? And taking that as an axiom, how can you even go about solving any problem? And if you do believe that Lord Shiva is indeed the overlord of the real 5-space, then your claim of you being an atheist stands redundant.


Ever heard statements like "Sun god is the essence of whole life on earth", 100 billion years is the age pf brahman?? Understand what it means. "Athidevo bhava, matri devo bhava"? Anything that is essential for our life is treated as God here. So don't just pause when u hear or read the term "God" in context of those lines.




> Isn’t this a prejudice against the white man? Isn't it convenient that whenever a Western source does anything related to the Vedas or any ancient Indian text, you gladly provide details and links, but when you failed to answer my queries, you put an Indian (or Hindu) national's prejudice (or should I say diatribe) that the West doesn’t give us a fair deal and doesn't give us the awards and due credit for our achievements?
> You accuse others of deviating the topic all too often as I have observed. But this example of yours of the Basmati rice patent is totally unrelated to the topic. (JFYI, fortunately, the patent for Basmati was not given to RiceTec after the diplomatic row. Basmati is indeed still ours.)
> Srinivasa Ramanujan, CV Raman, SN Bose, Jayant Narlikar, etc are Indian* mathematicians and physicists who are well recognized and respected world over. They are not recognized because they are Indians, but because they did something outstanding. They were/are human beings who contributed to the world with their findings/works.
> (*Note the emphasis on the word Indian, I did not mention the Indian born US naturalized citizens Harish-Chandra or Dr.Subhrahmaniyan Chandrashekhar, but they are famous and noted for their works nonetheless.)
> ...


Thats exactly what the sad part is, that in the quest of so called "modern education" we have lost what was ours! Once INDIA was known as "GOLDEN BIRD". But it seems no one takes a pride in that. Where scientists are coming to a conclusion that sanskrit is one of the oldest and scientific language, we are losing it in our home country. Its feels much worse when u see that the foreigners are the ones who are digging deep to know about INDIAN past and texts. Before it was confined to INDIA no one,even nationals, bothered to know about yoga. But suddenly it became "I'm proud of my INDIA" when major fraction of West started practising it and aproved by the scientists. Majority of illiterates on the subjects of INDIAN PAST, have often shown interest and delight only after the "foreigners" proved that it is correct. Vedic mathematics??

May it was not Edmund Hillary, who climbed the everest first, but a person called "Shiva". Medical science has so many drugs, but the cure of many diseases is itself given in ayurveda without side effects. People are so fascinated by the eye-candy of the west, that a few even speak like "All inventions happen in america, its a great country", "there is nothing in INDIA"! Well if u can see what they can't then certainly that statement I made wasn't for u. 



> I would agree, because for some links, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", which the sites don't provide. *They are not up for testing. Many are unscientific.* Most of the sites you provided only have made claims too hard for a skeptic like me to digest. And most of them have never been accepted in the scientific community. If somethings are indeed verified (by peers), then we can rest assured that it is TRUE, and we might not even be having an argument like this.
> Maybe you have no problems believing in uncorroborated claims put by any odd guy out there with a dime-a-dozen website, but I'm uncomfortable at it; we are not living in a Utopian world, are we now?


The bold part tells how much blinded you are. You can't accept the researches and facts I linked, but however u can believe on big-bang? Please tell me about its "testability". With all the evidences and "theories" and junk about Universe given in modern science filled in textbooks of school children, may be we shud narrow our scope to a more "observable" and "testable" environment like that of Earth.

Your blind faith in peers is only laughable. Theories after theories, one based on another, modified and replacing others. Is that what u call learning? Recent experiments showed achievable speeds greater than speed of light. Do u understand what it means? You can either have blind faith in such and literally "learn nuthing" or atleast understand the facts and reality & "not" rejectg the things that are real. 

Matter is constant: where did this matter come from? We talk of Universe, where did this universe come from? Can materialists ever answer it? But yes, since we can't explain where the matter came from, we formed a law, that "matter is contant" in universe even when, modern science has not been able to even guess about its boundaries. So we get a picture of "matter is constant" in "observable universe"!

So what u say sometimes is hard to digest for me too! 



> I thought that I had clarified it then, that I read things that were critical about Mark McCrutcheon's theories, *but I didn't read it in entiretly. Just for the sake of it, I had further searched on McCrutcheon and all I could conclude was that he is a person who is scorned upon in the scientific community and whose so called theories are rejected.*


And thanx for acknowledging ur scientific views. I hope u understand that "scientific" community doesn't flourish by just watching the faces of each other and glancing over other's paper likewise. Its an example where people start treating science religiously without much questioning leading to blind approval!!



> Too bad you believe in that hoax. But right now, I'm not really surprised that you do.
> But even if the moon landing was a hoax, then you are countering my statements of a hoax with another hoax as an excuse. What's the point?


The point is that I read "why" it was a hoax, and not just that "It is a hoax". You surely haven't even read about ayurveda that u started "following" MeeraJi. There are people much learned then me, in "Science and God" thread. Well if u can read MeeraJi's reaply, then I hope u can read the whole of Science and God thread tooo!



> The incident that I cited had happened in 2001. I didn't even have internet back then and I certainly never even knew of Meera Nanda. Don't make lame assumptions on people. I was always skeptical about these things. That is why I had a hard time accepting it. If the Pushpakavimana was real, then so are the Nimbus 2000 and the Firebolt.
> 
> My only argument is that claims have to have proof and the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not on the audience. So far, all the outlandish claims have not had any clear proof of existence or validity, nor have they been verified scientifically. If I say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster came in my cupboard and made the revelation that "The world sucks", then it is upon me to prove it that I had indeed had the revelation from the FSM. It is never your responsibility to prove my claims, nor can I say that I'm right because "you can't disprove me". But then, if some guy out there believes me for whatever I say at it's face value and starts worshipping the FSM and starts a propaganda that the world is suckier-than-thou, then I would not only call him ignorant, but idiotic.
> Now replace me with any prophet/swami/guru/seer, the FSM with god/higher consciousness/energy and the revelation with Vedas, Bible, Quran, or any Holier-than-thou book and maybe you'll get the point (but I guess you won't and I wont be surprised if you reply that you find my post really amusing and funny; I have no problems, please laugh all you want).


Modern science has "vaguely" given the proof that u can read and mark them as correct. May be the pushpaka vimana was real. May be we knew about the nuclear weapons. If evidences for dinosaurs are found, then evidences for them have also been found! Whats the conclusion? That science was advanced in the past? So don't get offended, instead think harder and research harder instead of reading "opinions and reviews"!!
You shudn't have problem in using your own mind, since science is ever changing, with new theories coming out each day and likewise! What remains constant is what already is there. May the way of exploration is changing, the views, and the methods, the variables and equations, acceptations and all! You r only treating the "peers" as if they r god! Your faith in peers is no different than a theist's faith in God.



> *Dude, some of us have other things to do than sit and surf sites.* If you think that voicing one's opinion is trolling, then you are as much a troll as anyone else on this particular thread. I really had thought that you were capable of having a sane discussion with, but I never expected you to fall like this and take it down this low. It's very unfortunate that you should think that we just argue for the sake of it and at our convenience. It was very arrogant of you to make such a statement. Having read your earlier posts, you had accused karnivore of plagiarism, where there was none. Now, since you have accused me of trolling, I ask you, do you even know what trolling means? Did I post anything irrelevant? Did I go off topic? Did I make a wild accusation at anybody? Did I have any ulterior motives when I posted here? And since you are pointing at my position of being a mod, you are welcome to complain or make a report to an admin or any other mod if you feel that I am being a troll, and if anyone agrees, I'll resign. Maybe then, the next time there's a situation like this, you won't get a chance to have a go at me because I'm a mod.
> 
> Yes, I am a moderator and the reason why I come to this forum is because the administrators of the forum made me a mod and entrusted me with some responsibilities. And once in a while, a topic like this interests me and I post there. But I have other commitments and work too. It really takes time to read, think and type replies. That was why I said my participation won't be active. The least you could've done was excused me. If you think I'm being dishonest here, then it is your problem.
> 
> ...


Your tone is utterlyy sarcastic and is quite typical. You have "no time' and yet you r posting, and explaining your replies, feeling offended for something true? You saw a statement that talked about INDIAN past and texts and then all u could bring here was a little "enlightment" for "Meera Nanda"! I better start preparing on how to bring "Digg.com" links here I guess.  

It seems u don't even know the definition of "troll", that u r saying that ur is not a troll!

And lastly, u got it all wrong. I don't feel victorious or defeated. Its just my way of learning through debates. Like u gave a review of "Final theory" and I thanked u for it. I didn't put the excerpt from "Final theory" as it is some kind of final evidence or claimed as such, but to make u ponder over it! But it seems u didn't ponder much, even on the pdf u linked!

So the spirituality has not disappeared it has only given me wisdom on how to "debate" also! Spirituality doesn't mean u will invite all the mosquitoes of the world and get urself eaten. If a few people are willing to listen peacefully then they r most welcome, but what can u do of the monkeys who by nature want to destroy the trees and create noise all the time?

So instead of MeeraJi, explore this forum only. U may find a lot here itself! And please don't get offended. I feel guilty.


----------



## sreevirus (May 6, 2008)

I'm compelled to say: *OH MY EFFING GAWD!*

:SIGH:

@karnivore and @legolas, I now know and understand what you guys must've gone through and felt after having a debate with him. And if I'm right, EXASPERATION would have been just one of the feelings.
I sincerely hope, no wish that sen_sunetra won't answer here and is kept busy.


@mediator I don't find it a point to reply now, since you have clearly chosen to believe in what some of us might think of as nothing more than fairy tales, and nothing can shake your belief and faith in them. So be comfortable with it, be your benevolent spiritual self, while I'll be comfortable remaining skeptic towards mere claims, and statements in storybooks and have more faith in science and corroborated evidence documented in credible sources. It will be pointless to argue further. Though I must say, your "way of learning through debates" (clearly involving a condescending attitude and making statements laced with accusations and insults) are quite unconventional. 

But I want to know just one thing (just curiosity). I accept the sun is indeed the star that keeps life going on earth. It is seen, everyone sees it, we know the entire process. But how is (Lord) Shiva the overlord of the real 5-space? I still haven't got the answer. And Dr. S.K. Kapoor is definitely not invoking any blessings or using some statement as a ritual. He is clearly using properties of the god Shiva as axioms in the proof of a mathematical problem. If you have fully read the site and if you have knowledge of the texts and Hindu gods, I'd be grateful if you could clear that out for me.

-------

But before I go, continuing from my earlier statement of the "World sucks" revelation from the FSM, I could make a situation where a few people do believe my prophetic words. Years later when this Pastafarian statement is facing criticism, a couple of guys will start a research on it and start an analysis on the wordings.

One will say "the world sucks" means that the world sucks in air, which we all do, so that was the essence. The other will say "The prophet meant that the world likes to give oral sex", while someone else will say "the world indeed sucks, since all newborn babies suckle". Someone else will gather a different viewpoint and will get a PhD in Pastafarianism. But the original meaning will be lost forever that "the world stinks". Aah, human imagination, it has no limits (just like human stupidity).

Its on a similar basis that something like the "brahmastra" and statements like "a projectile with the power of the universe creating a pillar of smoke and a flame" in a brilliant story book will become "evidences" of tracking missiles and nuclear weapons in ancient India (for that matter, so many "glimpses" and "evidences" of the discoveries of modern science and scientific inventions are all too frequently seen in the Bible and the Quran too).

If only everyone had a poetic license... The nuclear weapon can even become flambe'd chicken.

(These were my views and I just put them for people to read. You may have the last word, and the last laugh @mediator. Me bailing out of here)


----------



## legolas (May 6, 2008)

sreevirus said:


> @karnivore and @legolas, I now know and understand what you guys must've gone through and felt after having a debate with him. And if I'm right, EXASPERATION would have been just one of the feelings.


Its a quagmire  


sreevirus said:


> One will say "the world sucks" means that the world sucks in air, the other will say "The prophet meant that the world likes to give oral sex", or "the world indeed sucks, since all newborn babies suckle", but the original meaning will be lost forever that "the world stinks".
> 
> Its on a similar basis that something like the "brahmastra" and statements like "*a projectile with the power of the universe creating a pillar of smoke and a flame*" in a brilliant story book will become "evidences" of tracking missiles and nuclear weapons in ancient India


eeeehhahahahahhhehhahahhh


----------



## avadhesh (May 6, 2008)

nice info
thanks


----------



## karnivore (May 6, 2008)

sreevirus said:
			
		

> @karnivore and @legolas, I now know and understand what you guys must've gone through and felt after having a debate with him. And if I'm right, EXASPERATION would have been just one of the feelings.



First, welcome to the club and second, EXASPERATION is a word that does even begin to describe what it is like to be on the other end. 

But you guys (@sreevirus and @logolas) have much cooler head than I have. Keep it up guys. 



			
				sreevirus said:
			
		

> .. "a projectile with the power of the universe creating a pillar of smoke and a flame" in a brilliant story book will become "evidences" of tracking missiles and nuclear weapons in ancient India...



Right O.


----------



## mediator (May 6, 2008)

sreevirus said:


> I'm compelled to say: OH MY EFFING GAWD!
> 
> :SIGH:
> 
> ...


@mod : I find it really 'typical' that instead of answering my questions, u chose to run away from it every time I ask it. The questions in the "science/god" thread still "remain unanswered" and a few here likewise. But you on the other hand dear, want every question to be answered? 

U may find it "interesting", though the matters of science regarding Universe are nuthing but fairy tales to me! Earth still revolved around the Sun, gravity was still there, "Universe" was still there etc even when people didn't have the ever changing "equations n variables to fulfill" about them.


" The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." *(Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3)*

alayan - a vehicle designed to operate in air and water. (Rig Veda 6.58.3)
Kaara- a vehicle that operates on ground and in water. (Rig Veda 9.14.1)
Tritala- a vehicle consisting of three stories. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)
Trichakra Ratha - a three-wheeled vehicle designed to operate in the air. (Rig Veda 4.36.1)
Vaayu Ratha- a gas or wind-powered chariot. (Rig Veda 5.41.6)
Vidyut Ratha- a vehicle that operates on power. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)

Well if u have made up ur mind to treat it as a fairy tale, its ur wish. But still read a few links that wont disturb ur exam preparation.....

*www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ancient_atomic_3d.htm
*www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/vimana.html
*www.newbranes.com/alternative-science/ancient-flying-machines/


And hence, like I said why do materialists "fail" everytime I ask such questions! 
I don't hear u say that, ANCIENT INDIANS didn't even have medicinal knowledge. 

You have every right to "proclaim" urself as a scientist and then follow "reviews/opinions or perhaps digs?", form a "team" n explain urself, in such a discussion coming randomly even when u have exams and then whine "Oh, I don't have time". How cute! 
And, So I agree human stupidity is infinite. Lets not discuss, as u need time for ur exams!


----------



## dheeraj_kumar (May 6, 2008)

Damn you shadow2get!!! You start with an innocent question and I feel I have enough material to become a monk in an ashram!!! 

I just read through the ENTIRE thread, and I feel it has been an hour which I have NOT wasted. Good argument folks, and mediator, your name doesnt really suit your nature  no offence, that was a compliment to you...


----------



## legolas (May 7, 2008)

agreed, we are all puppets and vedas are scintillating in every way than science, as in, every time science invents something, people start searching for words in vedas and match a meaning by translating it (perfectly of course).
science people -> get a life. vedas have already everything... leave C++ and start decoding vedas!!  may be we will come to know a little earlier which century this thread will stop saying the same things again and again


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 22, 2008)

OK, I am back, at least for a couple of days, with another colossal post. The caveat remains. If you have better things to do, move on.

*mediator*

 


> What I defined was something like "understanding the nature, body, mind etc" remember? Yes its not like magnetic polarity as in that defintion of +ve and -ve and non-spirituality, it wud mean non-spiritual people are retards who don't want to understand it and that would be absurd!!


Agreed. I mentioned magnetic polarity as a hint, to not get confused, with (+)ve or (–)ve as understood in physics. You do just that and bring in this example of “heat” and “cold”.
 


> Like it is said "cold" is just the absence of "heat" and at 0K, there is no heat. But even 0 degrees centigrade is "cold" for us. "Not Hot" certainly does not mean "cold", it can refer to "pleasant atmosphere" also! Its just the "scale of heat" that is defining "hot","cold","not hot","pleasant". Its just relative. So there is nuthing like +ve and -ve and if non-spiritual is "extreme" opposite of "spiritual". *Non-spiritual simply means "not spiritual"*. I am not saying non-spiritual people are mentally retarded!!


 Is it too difficult to say, that a word formed with a negative prefix means the opposite of the base word, without having to resort to erroneous example. Happy-Unhappy, Believable-Unbelievable, Charitable-Uncharitable and finally Spiritual – Non-spiritual. That wasn’t hard, was it ?

 


> So the definition of "non-spirituality" u inferred previously, IMO, is not correct as a person can be "spiritual and scientific both" and it can be "non-spritual and scientific" too. Don't u agree? I People for instance even though "scientific" may eat "junk" food daily, watch obscene content and pursue negetive path as of crime. They may not hold importance to their body and mind as said or be "atruistic" in nature. Then there exist people who are scientific and may experience how much sleep there body needs, whats good for there mind and body and how there shud be a balance in life


 Again, the definition of non-spirituality is based on your explanation of spirituality. You are inferring stuffs, that I have never implied. I have never implied, that non-spirituality is being scientific. I would rather call it a rational position than anything.

 


> Like I said, Spirituality leads to a fine balance in all. Just a simple "taste" in "art" and "music" canot be called spirituality. "Taste" is not "spirituality". A person who njoys music and corrodes nature and kills heartlessly cannot be called spiritual! It seems u r having a problem in understanding the very basic definition of spirituality! Like I said, "experience" is what u need and not mere guesses. Assumptions will not help! U may guess as much u like.


 Another example of taking things out of context ? I gave the example of Hitler and Stalin, as a reply to your question, which was “Are u sure, if a person who is *possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"*?” The answer was Yes, e.g. Hitler and Stalin i.e. a man can pursue materialistic pleasures and yet “appreciate it all”. I never, ever claimed them to be spiritual. It is actually the contrary that I am trying to say. That one does not have to be spiritual to “appreciate it all”.

 Taste in art and music is one of the manifestations of the appreciation for quality. That these two monsters also enjoyed nature was also evidenced by their obsession of building rest houses for themselves in some of the most picturesque of places.

 I don’t have any problem understanding your spirituality. Its you who is having problem understanding the context in which something is being said (or not), and constantly implying things that were not meant to be. Even after clarifications you are sticking with the errors. And frankly, so far you have not being able to cite one single “experience”, that is exclusive to spirituality.

 


> Not spiritual. One wise guy claimed "psychedelic drugs" do that. Its similar to what I briefed that, "happiness" and "greed" are not the same.


 I don’t think that the wise guy was too far off.

 


> I am glad, we r starting to agree even though a little.


 Probably you missed, as usual, the line where I say “*But there is little “spiritualism” in it*”. Hypnotism is a method of suggesting and does not involve any mystical force or anything. Actually the word “hypnotism” is a huge misnomer.

 


> Like I said *spirituality is there in everyone. Its only how much "receptive" u r.*


 


> A materialist may "smoke" even though he can train other and teach how to play guitar. He may be an alcoholic and a drug addict even though having a scientific mind and a daughter he loves. *So a "little" happiness or taste as in art or music etc isn't "spirituality". Again its the scale, and hence I say there is little spirituality in every one that distinguishes spiritual one from "non-spiritual"*!! Also, when I talk of a spiritual person it doesn't necessarily mean a "perfect" one. Its again the experience, and wisdom that takes u to the higher level of the scale. But when u take the path of spirtuality, it seems the body and mind are the first that r effected where u start undertsanding and learning whats important for both!


 Lets see if I can retrieve anything worthwhile from this utter mess.

 It’s the *quantity of goodness* (using the collective term) that matters. A “little” goodness is not enough. (That’s why, a smoker , who has appreciation for quality, or an alcoholic who is scientific and loves his daughter, is disqualified.) *There has to be a whole lot of it*. Although we all _have little spirituality_ in all of us, we don’t automatically become “SPIRITUAL”, per se. But when we have whole lot of it, and of course, perceive it, we can stake our claim for SPIRITUALITY. But then, a spiritual person does not have to be perfect. Is that correct ? Now let me wonder aloud.

 a)Since you claim, a “spiritual” person does not have to be perfect, meaning, little imperfections may remain, can you please tell us, what are those imperfections, that a person is allowed to possess and yet continue to be spiritual and, of course, why ?

 b)How many imperfections can a man possess, and yet be spiritual ? I mean what is the ceiling on number of imperfections ?

 c)If goodness far exceeds the number of imperfections, would the man become SPIRITUAL, admittedly, even though he is a materialist and does not perceive spirituality ?

 d)You had earlier defined spirituality as i) “the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind”, ii) “We are all connected”, i.e connectedness, iii) “the quest for eternal wisdom”. Now which part of this definition is there in little quantity in all of us ?

 e)i) & iii) are matters of ACT, while ii) is a matter of REALISATION. Both, ACT and REALISATION need conscious effort on one’s part. Conscious effort means one is aware of what one is doing. So how is it possible for any part of your definition to remain latent in all of us, without we, being aware of it ?

 Now, do you want to change your definition of spirituality ? You are saying things that don’t go with that definition.

 


> I hope now I am clear!


 Yes you are. Now I know, that goodness is not enough. Unless one has a “large” amount of goodness, one is not “spiritual”. And one has to be “receptive” of…….something, I guess.

 


> Its again how do u define god. It seems god is a highly ambiguous term to define. If it denotes eternal wisdom, then I am a theist and if its a fictious figure in the most typical sense, then I am an atheist (this is the one I mentioned). Science cannot explain "everything" and some people map that unexplained phenomena as God.


 The para of mine, that you have quoted and replied to dealt with something entirely different. I have not asked for the definitions of god or soul or whether you are a theist or not. I have simply put two arguments from a theistic point of view. I also specifically mentioned that this is not how an atheist would argue. Anyway.

 The expression “god” is not so ambiguous after all. People make it ambiguous for sake of making it ambiguous and probably, to sound too deep. In all religion, god is considered as a supreme being who created everything. The variations start from here. Some consider it to be the one who listens to prayers, punishes sin, rewards virtue etc. (theism), while some believe all that the rules, laws and nature represent god (pan-theism) while yet other believe it to the creator of everything, who does not interfere in the daily activities of human (deism). Comments like, “God is love” or “God is eternal wisdom”, are basically pantheistic metaphors. The minor problem that I have with these metaphors, is that, these always invariably mislead.

 Yes, I know that god resides in the dark corners of gaps. As these gaps are being constantly filled up, god is seriously running out of space to hide.

 


> And what do u call soul? Some call it an entity that "cracks the chamber when u r confining a dying body to it", some call it the sub-concious that is constantly giving u messages and thoughts. What do u call it?


 There is no such thing as soul. I did not get that sentence within quotes, though. What is that supposed to mean anyway? If anybody wants to call the sub-conscious, his soul, I would not have a major problem with that. The minor problem is that, why not call sub-conscious, what it is – the sub-conscious. We don’t call moon, the sun, at least, not on planet Earth. Or do we.
 


> So by my statement it doesn't mean that I "definitely will" find a reason! I just asked "why" I wont find a reason! U may 'follow' science and may follow a religion. But again it shudn't be 'blind'! *If a theist tells me that "God asks us to be benevolent for the sake of society", then tell 'why' won't I find a reason in it?*


 Because, then you have to believe in a talking god in the most typical sense, who “asks us” what to do, through his messengers or texts. This god can’t be the deistic god or the pantheistic god. This god is of theistic variety. That will go against the fabric of atheism, which you claim to be. So it just seems, that you are not yet sure of which side of the divide you stand in.

 


> sen_sunetra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I have not implied spiritualism to be elite. Far from it. It is you who is doing that. You claim _“[d]efinition of spirituality is *universal* I think and is more coherent to the one I gave_”, thereby dismissing in one clean sweep all other definitions of spirituality. You do not even appreciate the subtle differences in the concept of spirituality in Christianity and Hinduism and Islam and Buddhism or non-religious belief. If you had, you would not have defined spirituality to be “universal”. (You will see the futility of this towards the end of this post).

 Besides, you have not responded to the other part of that quote. So let me rephrase that for you. Do you think that *if any person who experiences spirituality and of course realizes/perceives it, can never go back to being non-spiritual* ? 

 Since you do not take the trouble of reading the entire para or post (I don’t blame you for that. The posts are just too long), I will draw your attention to another para in the same post.
 


			
				sen_sunetra said:
			
		

> You of course tell us, that “there is a little spiritualism in all, but its the intensity that distinguishes a non-spiritual from spritual and depends on how much u r receptive”, meaning, *we may all, including a hardcore materialist enjoy goodness, without really knowing why*. Probably this is the third way, you are talking of. If you are, *even then you are saying that it is because of spirituality that we have goodness.*


 You are blatantly attributing all goodness to spirituality, latent or perceived, without being able to correlate goodness to spirituality. Is this “elitism” or what. (Its you who introduced the term “elitism”, not me)

 


> I know 'what" big bang is. I have "read" the theories behind it to be even talking about it. Besides, spiritualism is not a theory! So it won't "cut both ways" as *materialist have simply not even "applied" to the path of "spirituality" to be even talking or "rejecting" it*. Its like doing regular "gym and running" helps me. Millions of scientists agree with me and have "experenced" it. How can a non-gymers conclude what the experience is? If he has heard about it, then atleast he wont reject that regular gym and running helps. So it wont cut both ways. Like I said u can guess as much u like.


 So far, you have not put a single argument that will convince a materialist that spiritualism is something exceptional to non-spirituality, or that it is worth exploring, or that it is nothing more than some hogwash. 

 Again you have resorted to a wrong example. All one has to do is look at one of those Mr Universes or sports personalities to know what gym routine can do. *The effect of a proper gym routine has TANGIBLE evidence*. It is not hard for a “non-gymer” to conclude, “that regular gym and running help”. The question of rejection does not even arise. (I have earlier made this point on this gym example) Where is the *TANGIBLE* proof of the effects of spiritualism, let alone spiritualism itself ? Show the materialists the proof that spiritualism has its effects, and you will have all the materialists biting dust. Simple isn’t it ?

 Please do not resort to “experience-it-to-know-it” routine, because so far, you have not been able to provide a single experience that can’t be experienced without being spiritual. Altruism, empathy, appreciation for quality are not at all exclusive to spiritualism. If you claim these to be so, then you have to tell us why these are not possible without being spiritual. (Oh, btw, materialism ≠ mindless pursuit of materialistic pleasure, just in case you resort to this. But I have a feeling that you are going to resort to that only.)

 


> Then he is not a "true scientist" at all. Besides, Big-Bang doesn't stand up to "testability". Shud we "reject" it? We cannot test the boundaries of "Universe". Shall we give up the meaning of universe and confine ourself to earth and related phenomena??


 Big Bang probably does not stand up to testability, but it does have some compelling “empirical evidences” (Hubble’s red shift, Background Microwave radiation etc.) all of which point to the Big Bang. Its much like a forensic detective work of piecing together evidences of a crime. Because no one has witnessed the crime, it does not mean the crime was not committed. If the evidences, point towards it, Court will accept it. Its called _circumstantial evidence._ (May I note, so far no one has ever been able to come up with any evidence of spirituality, other than flimsy claims). We can’t test the boundaries of Universe, but if something has a beginning or is expanding, then it is bound to have a boundary. Can something infinite have a beginning or expand ? You have concentrated on one part of the definition but not the later part – the part that deals with _empirical evidence_.

 


> sen_suentra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Now see who is guessing. Of course materialists accept the gaps. No one claims that science has discovered or explained everything. And yes, materialists seek clear explanation of everything, through regression. What is so wrong about it. The difference is that, materialists try to find answers in terms of matter while woo-mongers look for something like the FSM, to explain everything.

 


> It seems you r only saying what I did, that we shud not "reject" anything is there both in the form of "data" and "experiments".


 Absolutely not. I am in no way saying what you are implying. Science will reject everything and anything that does not have a basis or any evidence of being. Show a basis or some evidence, science will lap it up. Spirituality has not shown any evidence of its effect, homeopathy, chiropractic etc. have not shown any evidence beyond placebo, clairvoyance has not shown any evidence of being more than chance and hence science rejects all of these.

 BTW, if you want us not to “reject anything”, why do you reject personal god. How do you know there is no such thing as personal god, or for that matter the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn or Magic Dragon or an Invisible Morlock. Going by your logic, we should not reject any of those. For that matter, we should not reject anything at all. As someone said, “Don’t be so open minded, that your brain falls off”.

 On one hand you reject personal god, in spite of the “fact” that many people claim to have “experienced” the super man (or woman), but on the other, you want us all to consider “spiritualism”, because millions have “experienced” it. Contradicting yourself ? Or am I seriously missing something ?

 


> sen_sunetra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Your bolding. What do you mean “why”. I have got few more “whys” for you, which you will probably be able to answer by spiritual means, science certainly can’t. Why is laughter the correct response to humour. Why do we blink both the eyes simultaneously and not alternately. Why do our toes project towards the front and not backwards. Etc. etc.

 


> The first link u presented didn't have much materialistic explanation but suggests "intelligence often hinges on how much one can make use of the data in its physical environment." which isn't something new for me. I didn't ask for that. Did u read that link? And what does the second link proves? I am not asking the definition of intelligence or about AI. "How , when and why"...remember?? Please enlighten for about behaviour, thoughts, beliefs, intentions etc?? Again "How, when and why"! Everything at material level!!


 You seriously do not expect me to answer all those questions on a forum. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject and it is virtually impossible for me to summarize those that I have read. If I could, I would not have been wasting time on a tech forum, but would have written a bunch of books myself. Anyway, I can only suggest you books e.g. _The Analysis of Mind_ by Bertrand Russell. You can start by this and as you progress I will keep suggesting you more books.

 As with the links, well, claiming something is easy. Let the scientific community accept these. We shall then see.

 


> I just gave a simple explanation of a software. It can also be that the software is de-centralized and running on a cluster of computers "wirelessly" connected to each other. But to ur example of body/mind/brain of what u say, I wud ask if body fails i.e heart stops then one dies, then surely brain wud also fail, and hence mind. But to the yogis who, control heartbeat, they can regain their normal self afterwards? Is a 2nd life granted to them? But yes, without mind the body is just a chunk of meat!


 This remote computing example is a good one (not being sarcastic), probably the only correct, to the context example that you have cited. Anyway. In case of remote wireless computing, the signals are elocto-magnetic waves which are transmitted through air. This set up has a sender and a/ many receiver/s. Everything works within the known paradigm of science. 

 This however does not mean there is nothing beyond the known paradigm. There may well be a bunch of other waves that we do not know or experience. No one can deny that. But then, to consider these, yet undiscovered waves, as basis for arguments (telepathy, intuition etc.) would mean that we also have to consider the existence of FSM, Pink Unicorn, Magic Dragon or Invisible Morlock. Just as the proponents of the mystical force have no way of proving its existence, science too does not have the mechanism to test it or disprove it. And this is where we use _Occum’s Razor_.

 The example of yogis stopping heart beat makes a presumption that yogis do stop their heart beat. First prove it, then we will discuss on this. A better example could have been, the Russian method of heart surgery, although the method is a totally controlled stoppage or near stoppage of heart. For that matter, any Bypass surgery shall qualify for your example.

 


> May be its the *purification of soul*? In my terms that would be through mind, body n nature and everything else I said. So it isn't dfferent to mine. U could not distinguish, spirituality from religion, or religion from theism or theism from spirituality. Please understand the difference, what soul "might" be if you "could" undertstand.


 


> You r *not a theist, so how can u explain* "it is that way". On one point you say to an atheist it will mean all the same and now you r "guessing" what a theist will say?


 “Purification of soul” ???? But you say that soul is “sub-conscious”. If you consider “soul” to be a separate being (being ???), like the dualists, then perhaps you can talk of purification of soul. How can one purify ones sub-conscious ? OK, I am sure I am missing something here.

 I agree spirituality can be separated from religion or theism, but can religion be separated from spirituality, or theism from religion or spirituality ?

 Just because I an atheist if does not automatically mean that I don’t know anything about “theism”. Guess who is guessing and being judgmental. If this is what one gets out of spirituality, then I am more than glad that I am a materialist.

 


> Why do I feel u r trying to twist statements, instead of understanding them? But neways, *I was only classifying how and what kind of "religions" there can be*. And *what "unacceptable" is the "blind" following in both*. Read them again and understand the classification*!*


 Read closely, if you can.
 


> Again religion can be *classified* into those who *aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions* and into those which do not even say anything about themselves or other religions or ask to embrace it, but only aim for the welfare of the nature, life and lifestyle. In some religions there are a set of rulez that one "has to" obey and in other there is no such rule but simply pieces of wisdom that one "may" ponder over and follow.


_First_ , explain what does “*aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions*” mean in the context of the _above_ para. _Second_, please make me understand the classification if it is anything other than “bad” (unacceptable) and “good” (acceptable)._Third_, which part of the _above_ quote talks of “*what (is)"unacceptable" is the "blind" following in both*”. _Fourth_, which comment of mine is an attempt to twist your statement. 

CORRECTION: "first" is replaced by "_above_".

 


> To me a person's free will is most important and even if he is religious, he should be able to *question freely* his own religion and not "obey" it "blindly"!


 


> I can't agree. *Asking too many questions is just a part of "pondering"*, where one realises a situation and simply asks "how, why?". "Rejecting without accepting" or did u mean to say "rejecting without understanding"?


 How far, i.e. to what extent, is a one allowed to question “freely”, before one acquires the right to reject ? Let me rephrase that. What if, all these questioning “freely” and “pondering” result in outright rejection ? Will you still call it “rejecting without understanding” ? 

 


> Just because killings are going on and you read them in newspapers everyday, u cannot infer that the world contains far more criminals than civilized people. My neighbour is of a different religion and I can't recall if any religious misunderstanding or hatred ever prevailed!!


 I don’t think I implied what you are assuming I have. I have simply responded to your observation that if people had hatred for other religion, then there would be mass slaughter. I simply drew your attention to the fact that mass slaughter does happen and it is not at all rare. But you should say that to the families of 6 million jews, or the moslems of Serbia or christians of Somalia or the pundits of Kashmir, or sikhs of Delhi or moslems of Gujrat or…. The list is endless. (I am not even considering the dark ages of Europe.) 

 “$hit happens”. Don’t they. Why should we be bothered by that. Civilized people far out number the barbarians. So lets raise a toast for humanity and let the barbarians have a day or two of thunder. Every doggie needs bonie, don’t they. Humanity will continue to exist. So who cares about its wounds here and there. Nice spiritual observation. Bravo.

 


> I dunno much about the term "heretic" save its definition and if actually means it, but I dunno what made u drag the term "mleccha" here for the meaning I know is "a barbarian, who is devoid of morality and ethics"! BTW, whats the term corresponding to buddhism, jainism, sikhism?


_Mleccha_  means one who does not confirm to vedic principles. Even Vevekanda was once referred to as _Mleccha_ by the orthodox Brahmins, surely not because he was devoid of morality and ethics. Of course the word has been used with a wide variety of implications, but always as a derogatory term.

 I do not know, the corresponding term in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or for that matter in Taoism, Rastafarianism and other hundreds of offshoot religious belief system. I guess that makes me guilty of ignorance. 

 


> Its just like distinguishing between theories and laws. If one is intelligent, calls him materialist and a true scientist in approach, then he won't bring "Big Bang" to discussion as if it is some kind of reality that has happened and perhaps tested??


 Big Bang is accepted by majority of scientific community for no reason I guess. They are all deluding themselves, perhaps.

 


> Last resort under compulsion doesn't mean "right path"! And by my statement "which right" only meant was "which statement in which you said both were right", perhaps you could not understand them? M I clear now? And no, a "such" simple situation cannot be viewed with "multiple' right and wrong! The statment of stealing is more of a thought like "its wrong but I have to"!!
> 
> The complications like "handicapped", unless u say he had one arm or one leg, would have prevented him from stealing neways! And even if he had one arm or one leg, he still could have worked!


 Let me take the help of Vivekananda, although I disagree with almost everything he said.

 “*…the only alternative remaining to us is to recognise that duty and morality vary under different circumstances*” – Complete Works of Vivekananda, Vol-1, pg 54.

 It is this, that I was trying to get across. The thief example was used by Ramkrishna Dev, Vivekananda’s Guru, in _Kathamrita_, as well. (OOOPS)

 


> Twisting and leading to repeatitions?
> a) Sherpa?? laborious or easy? Cold or immune to cold? normal or abnormally amazing?
> b) I am learning swimming these days. I don't see life-guards "panting" where I start "panting" just within 1 one minute.
> c) Were u lying that u read the links? I'm Demoralised. Please read it carefully now!!


 Do you not know, how to reply with reference to the context. I was replying to your question - “You have never climbed everest, so *how can u conclude it laborious*?”. I was replying to the “HOW” not “IF” there is an alternative ? Yes Sherpas can climb with much ease. But how is that relevant to the question that you had asked. Its like “Whats your name ?” and replying, “My name is Sunetra, and I have friends named Tina, Mina and Linda”.

 Still I will try to reply to those:
 a)Sherpas have high threshold for fatigue, much higher than even professional mountaineers, probably through genetic adaptation and of course through practice. It is amazing but very normal just like blinds’ heightened sensitivity to sound or smell.

 b)The expert swimmers that you are referring to, also have increased threshold for fatigue, due to practice. They too will tire out once they cross that threshold. 

 In both the cases, fatigue is inevitable. It is a matter of WHEN. You don’t suppose, that if a Sherpa is sent in space he will survive without oxygen, or your expert swimmers can swim all the way to American West Coast.

 


> Quite laborious for sherpas? I don't think *18000 feet* is something where oxygen is still in abundant for mental and physical alertness.





> So thats quite a lot of conclusion u have done just by "observing" like that "without" actually "experiencing" it!


See a) and b) above.
 Couple of fallacies in your arguments:

 1)* You are not a SHERPA*. (Or are you ? Such an authoritative tone.) So when you are concluding that climbing is not always laborious by citing Sherpas as example, you are concluding “_without actually experiencing it_”, just like me. Just like me you are concluding by “observing” and reading resources. 

 2) If this is your example of “not rejecting without considering the alternative”, then you are doing so, because of a *TANGIBLE PROOF* a la Sherpas. Had there been no sherpa, we would have been stuck with only one conclusion. Besides, just because Sherpas have high fatigue threshold, it does not make climbing any less laborious for people like us. Also, high threshold for fatigue does not mean zero fatigue.

 Guess, who is making the repetitions. 
 


> It seems u r deviating yet again. Read the statement in bold. I don't think our "modern science" is that weak, that even *after "thorough medical tests and analysis" there will still be any "possibilities" rather than "possbility" of a "disease"*.
> It seems as if u, to prove ur point, "interrupted" the "medical tests and anaylsis" in a situation where a few possibilites were found. Does "thorough" imply anything to you?
> 
> You did not "prove" this example, so I will let you "improve" on this and the succeeding examples u could bring up.


My argument was based on the “POSSIBILITY of A disease” and not on “POSSIBILITIE*S*”. Clearly, you haven’t even read the entire explanation. If you had, you did not even understand it. So, read it once more, probably you will understand what I am saying. I don’t think I can simplify this anymore. And while replying, instead of evading the whole argument reply from 1) to 8 ). 

 Both the examples of Mt Everest and Doctor were in the context of “experience, not being the sole criterion for knowledge”. You have ripped these out of context and used them in the context of “rejection without consideration”. I played along with you just for the sake of carrying out this debate. And you don’t even show the decency of appreciation (spirituality ???), now, you want me to develop the examples to suite your context. Show some decency by not making such comments and developing your own examples  - that too, in the right context.
 


> Ahh, my mistake! But why r u guessing all the time, be its the situation and now guessing about a fictitous data??


My guess was based on “some” data alright, although not a direct one. It was based on 2004, WHO survey of alcoholism across the world. You can download page 22 to 34 from here. Refer to Table 6 on page 24. You will find some interesting pattern emerging. [NOTE: Abstainer means, one who has not drank within 1 year preceding the date of survey]

 a)Muslim countries have the highest number of abstainers. (i.e. lowest alcohol drinkers)
 b)Countries following the Eastern religious philosophies follow closely.
 c)Europe has the lowest number of abstainers. (i.e. highest alcohol drinkers)

 You may also refer to the alcoholism pattern in Europe in this link. (Leave aside the fact that Islamic spirituality is entirely different from the eastern or western or your spirituality.)

 Here’s what had you said earlier;


> *IMO, a person who is spiritual or has known that path, wud give up drinking*


and,


> Besides I think *no sane person who has been walking the path of spirituality for years will ever touch those toilet cleaners*!


. 
You were of course referring to Coke/ Pepsi. 

 If I can draw your attention to one of my comments:


> My argument on, spiritual persons being the highest drinkers of beer/ coke/ pepsi, were based on principles of statistics*.* *If in a room of 10 people, 8 believe in theory A and 2 believe in theory B, then a random sample of, say 6, will reflect the believers of theory A to be greater in number than the believers of theory B*………But, to believe, that *spiritual people in the European countries, or say, American continents do not drink beer or coke or pepsi*, is probably stretching our imagination beyond reason.


Now, apply the sampling rule of statistics on the data presented above.

 So tell me, are you suggesting that in Europe, “materialists” far outnumber “spiritual” persons. If you are, then these are the happy days for materialists. Oh wait. You have already mentioned, a spiritual person needs not to be perfect, or “Large percentage of people drinking "doesn't mean" that many of em can be or may be spiritual?” or <put another excuse>.

 On a more serious note, drinking/ eating something that is beneficial to health, depends on one’s awareness and this awareness comes through proper education. It has nothing to do with “spirituality”.
 


> It wont make "MINORITY", but "MAJORITY" of scientists look foolish...





> Whats wrong if 70% scientists agree there is basic truth in religion and 68% classified themselves as spiritual? Though the article doesn't mention that they goto churches,


The original article by Elaine Howard Ecklund can be downloaded from here. Let me quote from her article.



> During public lectures about the study, the question inevitably asked first is: Do the professors you studied believe in God? When asked their beliefs about God, nearly 34 percent of academic scientists answer “I do not believe in God” and about 30 percent answer “I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out,” the classic agnostic response. *This means that over 60* *percent of professors in these natural and social science disciplines describe themselves as either* *atheist or religiously agnostic*. In comparison, among those in the general U.S. population, about 3 percent claim to be atheists and about 5 percent are religiously agnostic.When it comes to affiliation with particular religions, scientists are also vastly different from members of the broader society. *About 52 percent of scientists see themselves as having no religious affiliation when* *compared to only 14 percent of the general population*.



MINORITY seems to be the order of the day.




> *Childhood religious background, not exposure to scientific education, seems to be the most powerful predictor of future irreligion*. Those scientists raised in almost any faith tradition are more likely to currently be religious than those raised without any tradition.



In other words, up-bringing is the key to religiosity among persons. 




> When asked “to what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person?” about *66 percent of the*
> *natural scientists and about 69 percent of the social scientists describe themselves as spiritual* . This means there is a population of scientists who say they have no religious affiliation but who do see spirituality as important. Indeed, about *39 percent of those without a current religious affiliation still consider themselves spiritual*. In addition, *over 22 percent of the scientists who are atheists are spiritual*. And *over 27 percent of the scientists who are agnostic are spiritual*.



 So the MAJORITY of scientists actually seem to be “spiritual”. Now lets see, what do they mean by “spirituality”.





> And what did these respondents mean by spirituality? Analyses of the in-depth interviews reveal definitions *that vary from “a vague feeling that there is something outside myself” to “a deep and compelling, other-centered worldview that directs how research and interactions with students are conducted.”* *Definitions of “religion” and “spirituality” are not benign constructs for this population*. Among university scientists such distinctions often carry a moral weight. For example, one chemistry professor describes having “the feeling that [religion] doesn't really work in that it ends up being a mechanism by which people's thoughts and lives are controlled or meant to be controlled.” This same professor, when asked to compare religion and spirituality, says that spirituality is “more flexible and personal, and a *lot less judgmental*. In fact, she explains, “[W]hen I think of a spiritual person, the word ‘judgment’ doesn't even pop into my mind.” *For many of those who consider themselves spiritual, spirituality means simply having a larger purpose or meaning that transcends daily concerns. For many of the natural scientists, in particular, knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work.*



Aha. So much for “spirituality” being “universal”. Those definitions or understanding of spirituality are just too remote to your definition, to be overjoyed by that magic figure of 66 %. Oh. Wait a minute. They did mention the word “spiritual”. Didn’t they. 

 Interesting, that some think that, “*knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work”.* Lets have a look at what I had said earlier.



			
				sen_sunetra said:
			
		

> I do not have any problem with your definition of spirituality, as long as it is about "the path to know the nature, understand ur own body and mind". *Some might, however, go about the same by means of nature study, or study of biology or neurology or anthropology etc. and call it education.*




 So whats the conclusion.



> *There is some truth to the perception that scientists and the academy are “godless.”* Yet, to see the academy only from this monolithic view would overlook the significant numbers of scientists who do identify with some form of faith tradition (48 percent) as well as those who are interested in spirituality (about 68 percent). In addition, when we look at the religious backgrounds of scientists, the picture becomes more complicated. *Scientists come disproportionately from irreligious backgrounds or backgrounds where a faith tradition was only nominally practiced*…… In addition, *results reveal that scientists raised in religious homes often remain relatively religious*.




 


> I liked the original tone of how u presented urself here, but the tone u r talking in, it seems has been heard before!!
> Like I said u can remain "skeptic" of the things u don't want to "believe" in or shud I say "hate" to believe in, and mark and talk of other things like "Big Bang theory" as if it were to be fact! Its all ur choice!


 All I am asking is proof. That’s all. Not some flimsy letter to the editor which we do not know if was published or not, not some claim which could not be repeated in front of skeptics, not some “i-said-so” or “i-heard-so” or “I’ve-seen-so”. Pure, hard evidence.

Irony is that, you are talking of ‘tone’. Right from the beginning you have characterized me.

You seem to have something chronic with the Big Bang theory. Too bad. Its going to stay there and be accepted by the scientific world, for a long long time to come. I guess, you just have to live with it.

 


> Your wish, the link affirms how real hypnotism, spirituality, intuition is! Sorry, it *validates* also!
> BTW, why r u so dependent on "peer review"? You may question it also and present those folks your view point and paste the the detailed discussion here.


 Validates ??? Well…………….if you say so. Wormholes in DNA ? Microscopic Wormholes ? A sure shot at Noble Prize. Pity, no one gave that chap even a peny. :Sigh: What are those astrophysicists doing if wormhole can be had in lab. Damn those astrophysicist. Draining public fund. 
 Examples of lunacy:



			
				rense.com said:
			
		

> These are tunnel connections between entirely different areas in the universe through which information can be transmitted *outside of space and time*.


Errrr…. What exactly is “out of space and time.”
 


			
				rense.com said:
			
		

> *I thought once: "Hello up there. If you happen to be a UFO, fly in a triangle." And suddenly, the light balls moved in a triangle*. Or they shot across the sky like ice hockey pucks: they accelerated from zero to crazy speeds while sliding silently across the sky. One is left gawking and I have, as many others, too, thought them to be UFOs. *Friendly ones, apparently, as they flew in triangles just to please me.*


I haven’t had a laugh for a long long time. Thank you rense.com



			
				rense.com said:
			
		

> There are some spiritual teachers, like the young Englishman Ananda, for example, with whom nothing is seen at first, but *when one tries to take a photograph while they sit and speak or meditate in hyper-communication, one gets only a picture of a white cloud on a chair*.



 I leave it to the judgment of rational readers - should this guy be taken seriously or should he be put in a straight jacket and couriered to some mental asylum. Needless to say, I prefer the latter. 

 


> I don't know becoz I have not read what "dualists" or the "materialists" say. What do u say?


 And yet you continue with your diatribes. And I guess, you already know what I say.

 All you have in favour of spirituality is "EXPERIENCE-IT-TO-KNOW-IT". You have to do better than that.


 Regards

 PS: As you can see the post is really very looong, mostly because of repetitions, next time around I will respond to your post only if there is something valid or thought provoking. Else, not. It took me over 3 hours and 5 sessions to write this up, including researching.


----------



## legolas (May 22, 2008)

^^ seriously?? 3 hours?


----------



## Vyasram (May 22, 2008)

> @karnivore and @legolas, I now know and understand what you guys must've gone through and felt after having a debate with him. And if I'm right, EXASPERATION would have been just one of the feelings.
> I sincerely hope, no wish that sen_sunetra won't answer here and is kept busy.



+Googol^Googol




> Earth still revolved around the Sun, gravity was still there, "Universe" was still there etc even when people didn't have the ever changing "equations n variables to fulfill" about them.



And your point is? Do you expect people to invent(rather than discover) the universe, gravity and stuff? 




> alayan - a vehicle designed to operate in air and water. (Rig Veda 6.58.3)
> Kaara- a vehicle that operates on ground and in water. (Rig Veda 9.14.1)
> Tritala- a vehicle consisting of three stories. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)
> Trichakra Ratha - a three-wheeled vehicle designed to operate in the air. (Rig Veda 4.36.1)
> ...



Believe me, after reading this , I feel that Xenu-stuff is nothing compared to this.


----------



## mediator (May 23, 2008)

sen said:
			
		

> Is it too difficult to say, that a word formed with a negative prefix means the opposite of the base word, without having to resort to erroneous example. Happy-Unhappy, Believable-Unbelievable, Charitable-Uncharitable and finally Spiritual – Non-spiritual. That wasn't hard, was it ?


Where's the erroneous example? I didn't even give a fictitous data yet! Isn't 'hot' the opposite of 'cold'?




			
				sen_new said:
			
		

> Again, the definition of non-spirituality is based on your explanation of spirituality. You are inferring stuffs, that I have never implied. I have never implied, that non-spirituality is being scientific. I would rather call it a rational position than anything.





			
				sen_old said:
			
		

> Non-spirituality, on the basis of your definition would be, pursuing knowledge through study of empirical evidence (as in nature studies, biology, neurology, anthropology etc.) or reasoning (as in evolutionary science), without having to resort to non-physical.
> 
> My explanation was based on YOUR definition of "spirituality". I am NOT treating it as a "synonym of science". The explanation of non-spirituality appears to sound like science, because of , how you have explained spirituality in the first place. If you had given me a different version, (o, believe me, there are many) I would have defined it in a different way. Simple.
> 
> If that makes a MINORITY of scientists look foolish, then I am willing to take the risk.


And thats what I said, u r wrong! Or u can say ur "rational" approach is erroneous!




			
				sen said:
			
		

> Another example of taking things out of context ? I gave the example of Hitler and Stalin, as a reply to your question, which was "Are u sure, if a person who is possessed enough by the material world and its materialistc pleasures can appreciate it "all"?"
> 
> The answer was Yes, e.g. Hitler and Stalin i.e. a man can pursue materialistic pleasures and yet "appreciate it all". I never, ever claimed them to be spiritual. It is actually the contrary that I am trying to say. That one does not have to be spiritual to "appreciate it all".
> 
> ...


Like I said, u r really full of guesses be it of a fictitious data, theism, where on one hand u say to an athiest it will mean the same and then guess what a theist will say, spirituality, sherpas, panting n the mountains? 

So sure, stalin n hitler even though killed many, had dreams to "conquer" territories, build places for themselves, njoyed truly and appreciated it all! Greed for name, fame, terroritory etc? Its high time u acknowledge the difference between greed and happiness that I requested u to understand in the first place!



			
				sen said:
			
		

> I don't think that the wise guy was too far off.


U may start where he left off then. Not even him, u can continue where anyone leaves. I had questioned in plenty which remains unanswered.




			
				sen said:
			
		

> Probably you missed, as usual, the line where I say "But there is little "spiritualism" in it". Hypnotism is a method of suggesting and does not involve any mystical force or anything. Actually the word "hypnotism" is a huge misnomer.


YEa, even the wise guy said that! I find similarities between ur posts and his.




			
				sen said:
			
		

> Lets see if I can retrieve anything worthwhile from this utter mess.
> 
> It's the quantity of goodness (using the collective term) that matters. A "little" goodness is not enough. (That's why, a smoker , who has appreciation for  quality, or an alcoholic who is scientific and loves his daughter, is disqualified.) There has to be a whole lot of it. Although we all have little spirituality in all of us, we don't automatically become "SPIRITUAL", per se. But when we have whole lot of it, and of course, perceive it, we can stake our claim for SPIRITUALITY. But then, a spiritual person does not have to be perfect. Is that correct ? Now let me wonder aloud.
> 
> ...


a) I dunno. But spirituality offers u a better way of life where one realises of ill-effects of smokin n alcohol! I said bt the imperfect coz nobody is perfect and that includes our "modern-science" where its hardcore believers call for "peer review" in their every second post, some bringing in opinions, whereas a few others forward the "digg.com" here.
b) Ah, be spiritual and then try to guess. 
Besides its better than the theories which r based on more theories n put in to text books of very little school children, who grow up n speak aloud "science can explain everything"!!

Take my "peer review" and start practising spirituality to decrease the number of ur guesses. 
c) example?
d) I said a "little spirituality", I wonder why u bring it in parts now?
e) Ur intuition might tell something?



			
				sen said:
			
		

> Yes you are. Now I know, that goodness is not enough. Unless one has a "large" amount of goodness, one is not "spiritual". And one has to be "receptive" of…….something, I guess.


A lucky guess.



			
				sen said:
			
		

> The para of mine, that you have quoted and replied to dealt with something entirely different. I have not asked for the definitions of god or soul or whether you are a theist or not. I have simply put two arguments from a theistic point of view. I also specifically mentioned that this is not how an atheist would argue. Anyway.
> 
> The expression "god" is not so ambiguous after all. People make it ambiguous for sake of making it ambiguous and probably trying to sound deep. In all religion, god is considered as a supreme being who created everything. The variations start from here. Some consider it to be the one who listens to prayers, punishes sin, rewards virtue etc. (theism), while some believe all that the rules, laws and nature represent god (pan-theism) while yet other believe it to the creator of everything, who does not interfere in the daily activities of human (deism). Comments like, "God is love" or "God is eternal wisdom", are basically pantheistic metaphors. The minor problem that I have with these metaphors, is that, these always invariably mislead.
> 
> ...


Ur theory is far fetched! Even if the dark "corners" in the "observable" seemingly limitless space are being filled by something hypothetical which the peers christen as "dark energy/dark space"? Then also the question arises where did it all come from?

Materialists must be surely on a high thinking bt it all......dimensions, strings? Its a bang, a big bang! 

So what is god? It seems the answer is complicated, ambigous? I surely don't know!



> There is no such *thing as soul*. I did not get that sentence within quotes, though. What is that supposed to mean anyway? If anybody wants to call the sub-conscious, his soul, I would not have a major problem with that. The minor problem is that, why not call sub-conscious, what it is – the sub-conscious. We don't call moon, the sun, at least, not on planet Earth. Or do we.


And there is no such thing is cold. Is there a "thing" called thought, desire etc? From where do we even get them? How, when and why? why r the folks in US and researches even studying on after life reincarnations where many of em have found to be true??



			
				sen said:
			
		

> Because, then you have to believe in a talking god in the most typical sense, who "asks us" what to do, *through his messengers
> 
> or texts*. This god can't be the deistic god or the pantheistic god. This god is of theistic variety. That will go against the
> 
> fabric of atheism, which you claim to be. So it just seems, that you are not yet sure of which side of the divide you stand in.


Thats correct, its the texts. So I still don't find why I won't find a reason in it. My side is crystal clear dear, but it seems u r not sure of what u r talking of => "Alcohol fulfills senses"??


			
				sen said:
			
		

> Enjoyment is nothing but satisfying one's senses. Drinking certainly does that, along with, as you have rightly pointed out, damage to body and mind.


Post #63

There's a difference between blinding our senses and satisfying our senses, the same way as that of greed & happiness!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> I have not implied spiritualism to be elite. Far from it. It is you who is doing that. You claim "[d]efinition of spirituality is universal I think and is more coherent to the one I gave", thereby dismissing in one clean sweep all other definitions of spirituality. You do not even appreciate the subtle differences in the concept of spirituality in Christianity and Hinduism and  Islam and Buddhism or non-religious belief. If you had, you would not have defined spirituality to be "universal". (You will see the futility of this towards the end of this post).


Then ur analogy with Mac must be a light hearted joke in an interesting debate!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Besides, you have not responded to the other part of that quote. So let me rephrase that for you. Do you think that if any person who experiences spirituality and of course realizes/perceives it, can never go back to being non-spiritual ?


I thought u were wise enough to have already inferred that or u forget the previous part of debate to question randomly again n again? U do remember spirituality, eternal wisdom posts dont u? C'mon!

I don't think wise people become unwise. Satisfactory? Or u still don't understand?



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> You are blatantly attributing all goodness to spirituality, latent or perceived, without being able to correlate goodness to spirituality. Is this "elitism" or what. (Its you who introduced the term "elitism", not me)


It was funny actually of u bringing the Mac OS example here.




			
				sen said:
			
		

> So far, you have not put a single argument that will convince a materialist that spiritualism is something exceptional to non-spirituality, or that it is worth exploring, or that it is nothing more than some hogwash.
> 
> Again you have resorted to a wrong example. All one has to do is look at one of those Mr Universes or sports personalities to know what gym routine can do. The effect of a proper gym routine has TANGIBLE evidence. It is not hard for a "non-gymer" to conclude, "that regular gym and running help". The question of rejection does not even arise. (I have earlier made this point on this gym example) Where is the TANGIBLE proof of the effects of spiritualism, let alone spiritualism itself ? Show the materialists the  proof that spiritualism has its effects, and you will have all the materialists biting dust. Simple isn't it ?



 I'm not even concerned bt the materialists or if they r so desperate to bite the dust. U forgot the point of the debate it seems n I guess all my previous little speeches  fell on deaf ears! BTW, its surprising that all the so called materialists r still shying to answer my questions. The irony!!



			
				sen said:
			
		

> Please do not resort to "experience-it-to-know-it" routine, because so far, you have not been able to provide a single experience that can't be experienced without being spiritual. Altruism, empathy, appreciation for quality are not at all exclusive to spiritualism. If you claim these to be so, then you have to tell us why these are not possible without being spiritual. (Oh, btw, materialism ? mindless pursuit of materialistic pleasure, just in case you resort to this. But I have a feeling that you are going to resort to that only.)


Funny that I'm constantly talking of reincarnations, intuition, control of body/mind etc, yogis stopping heart beats, the whole topic revolved around hypnotism, "eternal wisdom". All the ramayan  read and u ask who was "SITA" ? 



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Big Bang probably does not stand up to testability, but it does have some compelling "empirical evidences" (Hubble's red shift, Background Microwave radiation etc.) all of which point to the Big Bang. Its much like a forensic detective work of piecing together evidences of a crime. Because no one has witnessed the crime, it does not mean the crime was not committed. If the evidences, point towards it, Court will accept it. Its called circumstantial evidence. (May I note, so far no one has ever been able to come up with any evidence of spirituality, other than flimsy claims). We can't test the boundaries of Universe, but if something has a beginning or is expanding, then it is bound to have a boundary. Can something infinite have a beginning or expand ? You have concentrated on one part of the definition but not the later part – the part that deals with empirical evidence.


Cool! But, even though it cannot be reproduced or stand up to testabilty of physical evidence that it really happened on the other hand reincarnations, intuitions, hypnotism have been found many times correct! Like I said, I already have read bt the BING BANG theory. It seems u r short of statements now! 

How can u be so sure that Universe had a beginning? Marking the theory as a fact again? Someone gave a link to Big Bang from wiki.

U can have that as an appetizer n read  carefully!

It reminds me of a similar debate where one asks for scientific evidence even after having acknowledged that science cannot

explain it! Such a wise questioning itself. I can surely see how much help such materialists need.




			
				Sen said:
			
		

> mediator said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Meh guessing? 
C'mon, I didn't write my previous reply that long.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Absolutely not. I am in no way saying what you are implying. Science will reject everything and anything that does not have a basis or any evidence of being. *Show a basis or some evidence, science will lap it up. Spirituality has not shown any evidence of its effect, homeopathy, chiropractic etc. have not shown any evidence beyond placebo, clairvoyance has not shown any evidence of being more than chance and hence science rejects all of these.*


Thats correct. And thats the reason they have opened reasearches on intuition, hypnotism, reincarnations etc. coz they have evidence that it works whereas the herd of blind followers mark it with terms like "flimsy","garbage","rubbish", <insert ur word> not even willing to see clearly in such case where their peers are going! Its again funny that u r bringing homepathy here! U have a thread that deals with it, and u may read "all" my replies and answer them one by one there.

Its time it seems that "modern science" re-writes itself!




			
				Sen said:
			
		

> BTW, if you want us not to "reject anything", why do you reject personal god. How do you know there is no such thing as personal god, or for that matter the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn or Magic Dragon or an Invisible Morlock. Going by your logic, we should not reject any of those. For that matter, we should not reject anything at all. As someone said, "Don't be so open minded, that your brain falls off".
> 
> On one hand you reject personal god, in spite of the "fact" that many people claim to have "experienced" the super man (or woman),
> 
> ...


I wonder for how long u can question n guess without having "experienced" it? Well I tried a lot to be a theist, but a "personal god" cannot bring me my childhood, cannot make me a "god" itself. But again, do u even have an iota of idea of what spirituality is?

U didn't miss "something" dear, it seeems u missed "everything" that has been debated! I can recall here a statement though that said "Drinking satisfies one's senses" 
BTW, "millions are not theists" just becoz they have experienced "personal god", a major fraction is such becoz of such beliefs. U can bring in the "herd instinct" here also.

Its like a few friends of mine, who say I wont eat egg because its Tuesday or some say saturday. I ask y they believe so, they say "It is so, it is said so". I hope u r wise enough to atleast understand this example.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Your bolding. What do you mean "why". I have got few more "whys" for you, which you will probably be able to answer by spiritual means, science certainly can't. Why is laughter the correct response to humour. Why do we blink both the eyes simultaneously and not alternately. Why do our toes project towards the front and not backwards. Etc. etc.


U certainly r not trying to entertain me r u? Neural firings happen, causes emotions. But "why" do those neural firings happen?

And why does it causes emotion? What if I can control my emotions? Does the serotonin levels vary at that time also? If a bad news arises, "why,how" those levels start varying? Why shud it happen?
I'm not asking bt the toes or the blinks. All I said was "science cannot explain everything"! so keep ur mind at peace.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> You seriously do not expect me to answer all those questions on a forum. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject and it is virtually impossible for me to summarize those that I have read. If I could, I would not have been wasting time on a tech forum, but would have written a bunch of books myself. Anyway, I can only suggest you books e.g. The Analysis of Mind by Bertrand Russell. You can start by this and as you progress I will keep suggesting you more books.
> 
> As with the links, well, claiming something is easy. *Let the scientific community accept these. We shall then see.*


I feel more n more resemblence of ur posts with another poster! But, neways where did the forums come from and I certainly didn't tell u to read books? I am only giving simple readable links and not even a pdf of 33 pages that someone else gave without even reading it! I gave only simple links or shud I quote them for u, for better understanding if u like? well ur last line again reflects of the "herd instinct". Some have it for "digg.com"!

"Oh let the scientific community accept these, and then we shall see. Then if it gets a remodification period, then we will watch their faces again n when they'll accept these again, then we shall be back to our drawing boards again......n again n again n again". The situation is simply hilarious!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> The example of yogis stopping heart beat makes a presumption that yogis do stop their heart beat. First prove it, then we will discuss on this. A better example could have been, the Russian method of heart surgery, although the method is a totally controlled stoppage or near stoppage of heart. For that matter, any Bypass surgery shall qualify for your example.


We r not talking of surgeries, artificially induced stuff or external aid for the body! It seems u r making it an habit to write "prove it" in every next statement of yours! I feel u must re-read the whole previous discussion first so as to remember n minimize repetitions.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> "Purification of soul" ???? But *you say that soul is "sub-conscious".* If you consider "soul" to be a separate being (being ???), like the dualists, then perhaps you can talk of purification of soul. How can one purify ones sub-conscious ? OK, I am sure I am missing something here.





			
				mediator said:
			
		

> And what do u call soul? *Some call it* an entity that "cracks the chamber when u r confining a dying body to it", some call
> 
> it the sub-concious that is constantly giving u messages and thoughts. *What do u call it?*


U r only wasting ur energy in trying to twist the statments and deviate. What u r missing is a simple ethics for debates for reading and pondering on what one said. But u on other hand r full of guesses on what others can think and forming fictitious data to prove ur points? I see why people need "peer review" so much.




			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Just because I an atheist if does not automatically mean that I don't know anything about "theism". Guess who is guessing and being judgmental. If this is what one gets out of spirituality, then I am more than glad that I am a materialist.


But to an "'atheist' it will all mean the same"? Right? 
I'm not guessing anywhere relevant, but ur words speak louder than anyone could guess.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> First , explain what does "aim to fulfill their own propaganda and aim and little tolerance over other religions" mean in the context of the above para. Second, please make me understand the classification if it is anything other than "bad" (unacceptable) and "good" (acceptable).Third, which part of the above quote talks of "what (is)"unacceptable" is the "blind" following in both". Fourth, which comment of mine is an attempt to twist your statement.
> 
> CORRECTION: "first" is replaced by "above".


First, I don't wish to start religious wars that u might aiming for. Second, already did that before. Its again n instance where u come forgetting about ur past debate. Third, is not restricted to above parts. Fourth, u r classifying it as good/bad or acceptable/unacceptable as a whole. Is it a ur natural approach to jump to the conclusions early so as to get a better picture of the things they can't understand? If yes, then its far from scientific one where one understands a picture and then concludes.

Its a similar case where recently a person followed another's 'peer review' filled with opinions and nuthing factual and marked vedas as nuisance.


			
				Sen said:
			
		

> How far, i.e. to what extent, is a one allowed to question "freely", before one acquires the right to reject ? Let me rephrase that. What if, all these questioning "freely" and "pondering" result in outright rejection ? Will you still call it "rejecting without understanding" ?


"Allowed to question freely"?? Have u actually questioned the testability of Big-Bang theory n the hypothetical terms related, the "limited" laws and the vaguely understood laws?? If u wonder what I may be talking of, then please refer to the "science or God" thread again.

Whats so hard to understand bt the phrase "rejecting without understanding" which a few materialists have been doing here itself??



> =Sen]
> I don't think I implied what you are assuming I have. I have simply responded to your observation that if people had hatred for other religion, then there would be mass slaughter. I simply drew your attention to the fact that mass slaughter does happen and it is not at all rare. But you should say that to the families of 6 million jews, or the moslems of Serbia or christians of Somalia or the pundits of Kashmir, or sikhs of Delhi or moslems of Gujrat or…. The list is endless. (I am not even considering the
> dark ages of Europe.)
> 
> "$hit happens". Don't they. Why should we be bothered by that. Civilized people far out number the barbarians. So lets raise a toast for humanity and let the barbarians have a day or two of thunder. Every doggie needs bonie, don't they. Humanity will continue to exist. So who cares about its wounds here and there. Nice spiritual observation. Bravo.


So r there any "mass" slaughters going on world wide everyday in every country? Do u see that in ur neighbourhood everyday? 

People can even kill each other for differing in views. Why r u getting emotional? So yea "$hit happens", I can read it right now.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Mleccha  means one who does not confirm to vedic principles. Even Vevekanda was once referred to as Mleccha by the orthodox Brahmins, surely not because he was devoid of morality and ethics. Of course the word has been used with a wide variety of implications, but always as a derogatory term.
> 
> I do not know, the corresponding term in Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism or for that matter in Taoism, Rastafarianism and other hundreds of offshoot religious belief system. I guess that makes me guilty of ignorance.


Where is it written that mleccha is related to something called "Hinduism"? Was swami vivekananda a non-hindu? Why did the orhtodox brahmins called him a mleccha then? Were they more learned the Vivekananda? It seems u urself don't understand what u r saying.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Big Bang is *accepted* by majority of scientific community for no reason I guess. They are all deluding themselves, perhaps.


Finally, u r showing urself!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Let me take the help of Vivekananda, although I disagree with almost everything he said.
> 
> "…the only alternative remaining to us is to recognise that duty and morality vary under different circumstances" – Complete Works of Vivekananda, Vol-1, pg 54.
> 
> ...


It wud have been better if u had not quoted Vivekananda if u can't understand him. It seems u r having tough time udnerstanding the thief example alone.



			
				sen said:
			
		

> Still I will try to reply to those:
> a)Sherpas have high threshold for fatigue, much higher than even professional mountaineers, probably through genetic adaptation and of course through practice. It is amazing but very normal just like blinds' heightened sensitivity to sound or smell.
> 
> b)The expert swimmers that you are referring to, also have increased threshold for fatigue, due to practice. *They too will tire
> ...


a) Question still arises, "How can u conclude if its or how it is laborious"??
b) Are u even trying to understand? yeah they will tire after some time, atleast not withing a minute. So see me swim and what do u conclude?

Sure walking, talking, watching TV or perhaps eating too is quite laborious likewise then? C'mon talk sensible man. If u continue to talk like this I guess I will soon lose mah interest in this debate! 



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> 1) You are not a SHERPA. (Or are you ? Such an authoritative tone.) So when you are concluding that climbing is not always laborious by citing Sherpas as example, you are concluding "without actually experiencing it", just like me. Just like me you are concluding by "observing" and reading resources.
> 
> 2) If this is your example of "not rejecting without considering the alternative", then you are doing so, because of a TANGIBLE PROOF a la Sherpas. Had there been no sherpa, we would have been stuck with only one conclusion. Besides, just because Sherpas have high fatigue threshold, it does not make climbing any less laborious for people like us. Also, high threshold for fatigue does not mean zero fatigue.
> 
> Guess, who is making the repetitions.


Pleaase atleast don't say that I'm talking like u.
1) Yea not only I have observed but experienced too. Ever lived on mountains? But u saying that "climbing is laborious" simply tells that u r not used to climbing. Is that hard to understand? Also please don't "guess again" that I'm not accustomed to climbing. It simply depends if u have "experienced it and how well u have experienced it". It seems U didn't understand very well of why I talked of Sherpas.

2) Yea for child it is hard to walk first. U have done very little to understand or it seems u r running away from sherpas example. So u see the sherpas in action, what do u conclude now?



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> My argument was based on the "POSSIBILITY of A disease" and not on "POSSIBILITIES". Clearly, you haven't even read the entire explanation. If you had, you did not even understand it. So, read it once more, probably you will understand what I am saying. I don't think I can simplify this anymore. And while replying, instead of evading the whole argument reply from 1) to 8 ).
> 
> Both the examples of Mt Everest and Doctor were in the context of "experience, not being the sole criterion for knowledge". You have ripped these out of context and used them in the context of "rejection without consideration". I played along with you just for the sake of carrying out this debate. And you don't even show the decency of appreciation (spirituality ???), now, you want me to develop the examples to suite your context. Show some decency by not making such comments and developing your own examples - that too, in the right context.


U say ur argument was on "Possibility of a disease" and yet u brought "possibilties"?  Simplified? It seems u made complicated for urself alone.

I m showing decency, but guess who is bringing in the ficitious data to prove his point? U make me yawn.




			
				Sen said:
			
		

> *My guess was based on "some" data alright*, although not a direct one. It was based on 2004, WHO survey of alcoholism across the world. You can download page 22 to 34 from here. Refer to Table 6 on page 24. You will find some interesting pattern emerging.
> 
> [NOTE: Abstainer means, one who has not drank within 1 year preceding the date of survey]
> 
> ...


If all u r doing now is running away from what u said, then u can quit the debate right now. Did u forget what ur ficitious data was about? "no. of spirituals who drink"....does that ring some bells? Where is that particular data?

First u tell there is no such data, now u come saying it was based on "some" data and now u link a data that talks about alcoholics and then u talk about religious countries. Are u alright? I feel u r doing ur best in twisting  words!
a)b)c) U r agin bringing "muslims", "eastern religion" etc as if religion and spirituality are the same. After all this time, u again put urself to t=0? How wise.




			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Now, apply the sampling rule of statistics on the data presented above.
> 
> So tell me, are you suggesting that in Europe, “materialists” far outnumber “spiritual” persons. If you are, then these are the happy days for materialists. Oh wait. You have already mentioned, a spiritual person needs not to be perfect, or “Large percentage of people drinking "doesn't mean" that many of em can be or may be spiritual?” or <put another excuse>.
> 
> On a more serious note, drinking/ eating something that is beneficial to health, depends on one’s awareness and this awareness comes through proper education. It has nothing to do with “spirituality”.


I wud suggest that u shud give up on rationalising things for it needs clear concepts first! U have clearly shown how much ur awareness tells u, "Drinking fulfills senses"?? WTH! 



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> pdf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Keep trying ur luck. The MAJORITY I talked of refers in context to spirituality. The minority u talk of refers in context to religion. Why do I have to correct u so often now?



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Childhood religious background, not *exposure to scientific education*, seems to be the most powerful predictor of future irreligion. Those scientists raised in almost any faith tradition are more likely to currently be religious than those raised without any tradition.


Not only exposure to the scientific education, but also develop in them the scientific outlook which unfortunately the "herd" is lacking!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Aha. So much for “spirituality” being “universal”. Those definitions or understanding of spirituality are just too remote to your definition, to be overjoyed by that magic figure of 66 %. Oh. Wait a minute. They did mention the word “spiritual”. Didn’t they.
> 
> Interesting, that some think that, “knowledge of the spiritual comes directly from their work”. Lets have a look at what I had said earlier.


Thats correct, u just keep bragging bt the definition of spirituality. U haven't even understood its meaning as so clear from ur replies n talking of religion n spirituality like they r synonyms. Ponder over coz its never too late. Its not remote but the same!

N what u said earlier reflects the confusion in ur mind. Its like there is a difference between scientific exposure and having a scientific outlook. U only seem to have the former.



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> All I am asking is proof. That’s all. Not some flimsy letter to the editor which we do not know if was published or not, not some claim which could not be repeated in front of skeptics, not some “i-said-so” or “i-heard-so” or “I’ve-seen-so”. Pure, hard evidence.
> 
> Irony is that, you are talking of ‘tone’. *Right from the beginning you have characterized me.*
> 
> *You seem to have something chronic with the Big Bang theory. Too bad. Its going to stay there and be accepted by the scientific world, for a long long time to come. I guess, you just have to live with it.*


I didn't characterize atleast u from the beginning, or r u a person posting with two IDs/usernames to be feeling the heat?

You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang! It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> Validates ??? Well…………….if you say so. Wormholes in DNA ? Microscopic Wormholes ? A sure shot at Noble Prize. Pity, no one gave that chap even a peny. :Sigh: What are those astrophysicists doing if wormhole can be had in lab. Damn those astrophysicist. Draining public fund.
> 
> Errrr…. What exactly is “out of space and time.”
> 
> ...


Are u done with ur fake laugh? "Experience-IT-TO-KNOW-IT" is a wise choice in many cases instead of putting up shots and guesses n a few fake laughs making u look even more miserable. Its funny how materialists present themselves!



			
				Sen said:
			
		

> PS: As you can see the post is really very looong, mostly because of repetitions, next time around I will respond to your post only if there is something valid or thought provoking. Else, not. It took me over 3 hours and 5 sessions to write this up, including researching.


It wud be better if u don't coz I see alzhiemers sprouting up in u.


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 23, 2008)

> It wud be better if u don't coz *I see alzhiemers sprouting up in u*.


 Thanks for the abuse, and real sensitive of you to make fun of the sufferings of people. Bravo.
 


> I *didn't characterize atleast u from the beginning*, or r u a person posting *with two IDs/usernames* to be feeling the heat?


 For the first bolding, I would ask you to refer to your posts . I don’t even feel like quoting your memorable comments. May be I should have replied to your “characterizations’”, right from the start, instead of being civil.

 For the 2nd bolding, *I demand an unambiguous clarification and an apology*. Unless you do that, I don’t see why I should post any further. Message me when you have so done, and I will carry on with this debate.


 To all readers, how to contact the moderators or administrators. And who are the administrators of the forum.


----------



## mediator (May 23, 2008)

Yeah, thats a convenient way to end it. Neways, alzheimers isn't an abuse. It seems u need to polish ur concepts for this term also. I'm not making fun of any person, but just telling the state which resembles as so clearly inferred from ur posts in which u urself don't understand what u speak off and then forget, repeat and making the discussion start from t=0.

I really don't see why I shud apologize for the line in "bold" as u said, for its just another debate where a few even called personal with me. May be u shud read the description of this section called "Fight Club". Its really not for softies, sensitive n emotional souls.

But, if an apology makes u feel better, then u can have 1000s of such apologies from me. So I apologize "unconditionally" for watever the reason might be. I dunno why u felt so aggravated.

Frankly, the previous post of urs made me yawn heavily n PMing u well, is more than the threshold of yawning. I'm willing to give up arms and surrender instead! 

PS : @Mods u can close this topic now as nuthing productive is coming out n people have resorted to unnecessary whining.


----------



## sen_sunetra (May 24, 2008)

mediator



> Neways, alzheimers isn't an abuse. It seems u need to polish ur concepts for this term also. I'm not making fun of any person,



My grandfather is suffering from Alzheimer disease, and every single day is a struggle for him, just to get up from his bed and step into the next room. I see it every single day of my life, how it is pushing him inch by inch closer to death and you are asking me to polish my concepts.

If mentioning of the disease is the only way of implying whatever you are trying to, then, I pity your vocabulary and taste and your so called spirituality. 

People yawn, when they get bored due to their lack of understanding. Had I been you, I would not have been so proud of my yawns.



> I really don't see *why I shud apologize* for the line in "bold" as u said, for its just another debate where a few even called personal with me. May be u shud read the description of this section called "Fight Club". Its really not for softies, sensitive n emotional souls.



You should apologize because you accused me of a fraudulent act.

I had no intention of running away and I still don't have any. If I had, I would not have come back and replied to your last post after a good two weeks.


----------



## mediator (May 24, 2008)

@Sen_Sunetra : I am sorry to hear about your grandfather. How can u say I was making fun of any person? Your new posts spoke how much you forgot about your past posts. I constantly reminded you of your tone. But in the end if you have nothing else to speak of save repeating and forgetting things and "laughing" childishly on rense.com article, telling me that I have to live with big-bang, forging a fictitous data, then sorry to say that I follow laws of physics here of "equal n opposite reaction" save repetitions & abuses. I still don't understand how I abused you. Your posts give a striking resemblance to that of another wise guy here. I welcomed you in the most humble way I could. Now if you say that I'd been unfriendly or repulsive from the beginning, then obviously it means that someone has created aliases. I can very well counter your argument by saying "You accused me of being unfriendly from the beginning........apologize now". Its your wish to understand the statements or shy away from them and laugh. I'm looking forward for science to explain this kind of "behaviour and intelligence", how it happens and why it happens! But take my "peer review" that spirituality can improve upon such primitive type of behaviour and intelligence.

Like I said spirituality doesn't mean u feed mosquitoes with ur own blood. Your continuous demands for apologies make me feel u need to live a spiritual life as well. This is yet another spiritual experience of mine that you are getting emotional randomly unlike me. So am I controlling my serotonin levels now? "How & why for effect and cause"?? 

Now for the apology part,  I already said, I don't like to repeat! BTW, who is PMing you or you developed some intuition?


----------



## Vyasram (May 25, 2008)

mediator said:
			
		

> You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang! It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!




On many occasions, I feel that you dont actually believe the things you type. One of those.


----------



## legolas (May 25, 2008)

I dint know spirituality is much more profound and reasonable and utterly logical when compared to Big Bang. My bad... I thought both are equally stupid/creative/intuitive theories on which ppl who believe try to explore the possibilities. Others don't but then they don't whine either.

@Vyasram that is called garrulous jibber jabber


----------



## mediator (May 25, 2008)

Thats correct, people don't know much, yet they like to guess what it is. It is like, in ancient era where people didn't know that earth was round, but thought that it is flat & many didn't even question it but simply 'followed' the notion. I wonder what causes such a behaviour in materialists which tends to limit their intelligence and knowledge. At the end they run away and scatter when spiritualists start questioning. A few troll from behind like very little children looking only at the developing situation, laugh n make a few remarks when their little brain gets overloaded pretty soon of the stuff that they can't understand and at the end, all they have to say is,  "I shall wait for the 'peer review' , until then its garbage/garrulous jibber jabber/nonsense, atleast I, the wise one, declare it so". How typical!

Materialists n such blind followers have surely got a funny comic character in them where on one hand they follow and wait for the 'peer review' and on other like to form conclusions n remarks themselves without even knowing or understanding the picture. Its like they like to get a scientific exposure without having a scientific outlook, and a simple conclusion from the peer so as to get a little idea in short so as to follow them like reading/hearing the moral of the story from someone without reading the story itself! I wonder if they even read the thesis and publications since many here itself have shown how much they read the link they post.

But newayz, the irony that majority of 'peers' are spiritual themselves. Marvellous!

@Vyasram : U can have plethora of surmise about me. I have no problem with that.   *@MODS : u can close the thread now.*


----------



## legolas (May 25, 2008)

you seem to be declaring yourself as the definition of spiritualism and that your definition of spiritualism is not uncontaminated or unstained and as if you were imparted with this thoughts as some sort of afflatus which is an utter reflection of your megalomaniac attitude.

While in reality, your definition of spiritualism is also influenced by many sayings, writings and with much bias like any other person you have found peace with your beliefs and your numerous erroneous quotes about vedas and their translations and garrulous and utterly redundant paragraphs.



mediator said:


> You live with ur theories, imagining them as facts in ur wonderland while I live my spiritual life. *Too bad u live ur life based on "peer review" n have a certain emotional affinity with theories like Big Bang!* It gives me a picture of a helpless animal waiting for his master to give him appropriate directions to follow. How sad!


So quit whining like some being who has been imparted the knowledge as afflatus and start giving credit for yourself, for you are as much flawed as any1 else, not perfect.


----------



## mediator (May 25, 2008)

U can stop trolling now, as u have done nuthing in this debate save making statements like "U win...oh what a win; this is gibberish/jibber jabber" and being stereotypical side spectator. So keep ur mind at peace instead of coming randomly n poncing around.


----------



## legolas (May 26, 2008)

ufff... finally tired!!!


----------



## sreevirus (May 26, 2008)

Ok. Here's the drill:

There's a topic. Somebody makes a statement that mediator finds contradictory towards his set of beliefs and ideas. 

mediator gives links and makes oh so long quotes.

Opponent gives his views.

Mediator finds him closed minded (Mediator adds more links).

Opponent again tries giving his reasons for his disbelief/skepticism.

Now here starts the typical mediator replies: Mediator finds the opponent to be having no intellect. Starts questioning the opponents' brain capacity. Starts making accusations and insinuations. Feels sorry for the opponents. Finds the opponents' posts amusing. More accusations and snide remarks. Finds opponents' posts to be trolling. Thinks of them as childish. Feels even more sorry at the opponent for his/her thinking. Finds the opponent lacking in English vocabulary. Thinks that others giving any links to website with contradicting ideas are because they don't have opinions of their own. Mediator himself gives more links. Acts to be politically correct while slinging insults and insinuations at the opponent. Shows no respect or appreciation for the opponents' views or their time. Gives more links that only he will find credible. 

Opponent is disgusted at mediator's antics. Finds mediator's posts irritating. Debate is going nowhere and is stalled.

Mediator feels victorious.



Seriously dude. Did spirituality teach you your unique debating skills? What makes you think your brand of spirituality is the only one that other so called spiritual people follow? I have come across people who are humble and who can amicably debate. You definitely are not one of those. People don't want to have fights with you. Everyone will like a debate as long as things are civilized. And being civil and humble is what you should learn first. I guess your own brand of spirituality has made you what you are and thank goodness that other "spiritual people" don't think and act the way you do and are more human. Even Mark McCutcheon was a really down to earth guy who respected his opponent when he had a debate with another guy who was not convinced by his ideas. You could learn a thing or two from him. 

If I remember correctly, you were banned once because you made an insult against a member involving his mother and family (I think it was aryayush if my memory serves me right). Did your spirituality make you do it? Whatever you said to karnivore, legolas and me were pretty low enough, but it was utterly disgusting of you to have made some of those comments to sen_sunetra. Spirituality again?

You leave a bad taste in people's mouths after they have a debate with you. You make things ugly with your arrogance and condescending tone where you belittle people for not agreeing with your views (is it your subconscious reflex or ego?). And you still have the galls to say others are closed minded? It is pure irritation that drives people away, not your debating skills.


Yeah I know you will find my posts to be trolling, but believe me, it will only be you who will find it that way. People can see who can comprehend what.


There went 45 minutes of time of my studies.
But I'll be back (count on it). I have some things to be cleared out. See you here after 5th June.


------


@Vyasram, the Jalvahan, Vayuratha and other things are definitely there in those books (mediator just copy-pasted stuff that I've already seen a lot of times and what's already there in so many sites). Just search for those verses in the books if you have them or in an authentic Hindu website with those scriptures. But these things cannot be anything more than people's imagination at those ancient times. The ancient Persians/Arabs imagined flying carpets, and mentions of them are found in some books. The English imagined flying brooms. So does it imply that those things actually existed and that the Persians and English had found out anti-gravitational technology? Jules Verne wrote books about space travel, underwater travel and air crafts even before such technology existed. So what does that mean? That he invented something or that he imagined how things in the world could be? Heck the creators of the Jetsons and the Centurions were fantastically farsighted for their time. I hope you get what I mean. 
Scientology and Xenu border on undiluted lunacy if you ask me.

I have an answer for the nuclear fission stuff, but I'll get back on it a day or two after 5th June. Right now it will be impractical for me to delve in.


----------



## mediator (May 26, 2008)

It seems u have nuthing better to do save guessing "how and what mediator thinks" and then u whine "I have exams"! It seems u don't understand very simple english either. I already said "I don't feel victorious or defeated". This is a discussion zone and I am not putting a sword on the throats of materialists unlike them saying "U have to live with....this n that or saying materialism is garbage".

U told urs and here's mine....
"A wise guy tells that the case is already closed and Dr.Steven has searched for it (whereas he is still looking). I simply tell that he is looking and the case is not closed. A few more jump in and start talking bt spirituality. They question me about spirituality and I answer them. They talk about materialists and spiritualists and that materialists need every answer at material level. Then starts the rain of mediator's questions. Materialists could not answer and some give their expert opinions in between that spiritualism, hpynotism etc are garbage. Mediator simply tells that its not garbage since many cases have found to be true in reincarnation also. Materialists cannot digest this and call it garbage/crap/jibber jabber nth time. Another comes in and now states "Vedas" are garbage, bringing the "opinions" of another wise guy and nuthing factual . I reply to him and he whines that "I have exams". The previous souls start repeating, one of them even forgets the previous replies and repeats, seemingly from t=0 and says "Mediator abused him for having said the word 'alzhiemers'". Mediator finds himself in a clueless situation, where he  cannot understand how 'alzhiemers' is an abuse. The exam guy comes in and whines again, not bt exams this time, bt instead says I have "wasted 45 minutes" and that "Mediator abused".

@srivirus : Frankly, u shud compete in the Great Indian Laughter Challenge. May be u can show me in bolds where I abused. It is silly of u actually to drag member like "aryayush" here, since it was just a communication gap and we already settled the thing in the most humble way we could. U seriously don't know whole of story and here u r linking this thread with thousands of other threads where I might have abused.

I myself admit that I have abused "in my past" but not that sordid, but thats how u learn when u understand what u did was not right. I have even apologized if someone felt hurt and if my conscience told me so. No one is born genius or for the matter born wise. Wisdom comes with experience. Hope u have read the "definition" of the term "wisdom" and tried to know its meaning.

So refrain from bringing my earlier fights and other members here coz it simply makes u look, well, no wise and u r a mod!! Such kinda childishness doesn't suit a mod very well. 

BTW, I still don't see u saying anything about ayurveda, or meera nanda doesn't know anything about ayurveda as well?

"I have exams","45 mints wasted" & "I am here reading n posting meera nanda's opinions instead of Veda itself".....Grow up!


----------



## karnivore (May 26, 2008)

On one hand my internet connection is for some reason malfunctioning for some days now, and on the other, i am down with worst case Chicken Pox (damn that itch). Still could not resist the temptation of adding fuel to the raging fire.



> A wise guy tells that the case is already closed and Dr.Steven has searched for it (whereas he is still looking)


  I have neither said nor implied, that "the case is already closed". I have only used the phrase, "already explored THE case". It means that all the facets have been looked into, in view of the currently available evidences and information connected with the case. It does not, in any way, imply that if new evidence arises, it will not again be looked into. It also does not imply, that the search for new evidence has ended. 

   A bad case of Aphasia. 



> They talk about materialists and spiritualists and that materialists need every answer at material level. Then starts the rain of mediator's questions. Materialists could not answer and some give their expert opinions in between that spiritualism, hpynotism etc are garbage.


  Oh, it rained ? Damn, and i thought i was in the middle of a desert. But i can be excused. Isn't it. I already have Aphasia. 

   “Materialists could not answer” ? Or were the answers too complicated for you to understand ? Did you actually honestly try to find the answers ? Or you found it convenient to mock instead ? 

  If you carefully note, that in all my post, i have used only one link, that of Dr Novella's, which was relevant for the thread topic, and tried to answer all your queries with my own understanding of stuffs. Whereas, you covered your posts with links and yet blamed me of following a herd and not being independent. You don't even see the irony here. 



> Mediator simply tells that its not garbage since many cases have found to be true in reincarnation also. Materialists cannot digest this and call it garbage/crap/jibber jabber nth time.


  It is strange that some blog mentions something or somebody claims something and it automatically transpires into irrefutable proof, whereas evidences, which are verified nth times, tested nth times and most importantly, the knowledge gathered from the analysis of such evidences, which has been applied nth times, do not constitute to be "proof". 



> Another comes in and now states "Vedas" are garbage, bringing the "opinions" of another wise guy and nuthing factual .





> "I am here reading n posting meera nanda's opinions instead of Veda itself"


  No body has ever claimed Vedas to be garbage. Only the self-claimed cognoscenti, who deliberately misinterpret Vedas have been criticized and called "garbage". 

   Some more evidence of Aphasia ? 

   BTW, have you, yourself read any of the Vedas, other than the perverted interpretations by some jacka$$. 



> Mediator finds himself in a clueless situation, where he cannot understand how 'alzhiemers' is an abuse.


  Finally you admit that you too suffer from APHASIA. Don't worry, we are brothers-in-Aphasia. 

   Anyway, gotta go now. Got to scratch that itch.


----------



## mediator (May 26, 2008)

karnivore said:
			
		

> Finally you admit that you too suffer from APHASIA. Don't worry, we are brothers-in-Aphasia.


Scientists resemble such an understanding, behaviour and intelligence to that of an early man fit only to do a tribal dance. Its not even a case of aphasia where u r trying to degrade and put me in ur category! 

Its funny how the left over materialists are lining up one by one now trying to entertain me, joking around and showing how much they can post ON-Topic n then getting their serotonin levels shooting up n down.

How many times do I have to say that u do not have to post ur personal problems here like "Internet not working, exams here n there, chicken pox etc". I feel like the materialist brigade is trying to get some sympathy from me. 

But neways, take care and get better soon.


----------



## sreevirus (Jun 7, 2008)

OK, exam's over. Lets get back to business, shall we?

So where were we? Ah yes. Nuclear technology in the texts. Lets try taking them one thing at a time...

SO...



mediator said:


> U may find it "interesting", though the matters of science regarding Universe are nuthing but fairy tales to me! Earth still revolved around the Sun, gravity was still there, "Universe" was still there etc even when people didn't have the ever changing "equations n variables to fulfill" about them.


Of course. For someone who can unquestionably accept anything that he wants to believe, that too a hardened belief in unverified claims made by sites without any credibility, it comes as no surprise that you believe all the scientific theories are fairy tales. You have no problem believing in statements like "Vedic sounds are multi-dimensional domains’ frequencies from within a particular dimensional domain" made in a crank site like vedicganita.org, it is absolutely no surprise that you find more concrete theories like the big-bang and dark matter (which you repeat all too often as an argument) to be lies.

And I guess Vyasram answered about gravity before. Like he said, those stuff existed, nobody invented it. They only tried to find answers. They wanted to know how gravity worked, why it works and why those things exist in the first place. Each explanation they came up with only provided an impetus for further generations to find out more answers to the universe. In any case, they built on their research. Mistakes were found by peers, or further generations (you could draw an analogy to software debugging). Those equations and variables are the reason that you see the things around you. Like the buildings, the malls, the lights, the computer you use,the internet, everything. No ancient texts contributed to their making. Like they say, science evolves, unlike those philosophical texts which remain static and intellectually dishonest apologetic jerks will try to find an answer for everything in them somehow. And what's worse? People like you will accept it blindly. And you call others "blind followers"? I ask you: How dare you?

I'm glad that the scientific community is far away from how you view it, because if they were like you, we'd still be living in the dark ages.



mediator said:


> The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." *(Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3)*


I have to ask you. Have you read the vedas yourself? Anything? If you have, then you would have found out that the Atharvaveda Book 20, Hymn 40, Verses 1-3 says these lines, as I found from authentic Hindu websites.


> [SIZE=-1]1[/SIZE] With bones of Dadhyach for his arms, Indra, resistless in attack,
> Struck nine-and-ninety Vritras dead,
> [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE]He, searching for the horse's head, removed among the mountains, found
> At Saryanāvān what he sought.
> ...


*www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av20041.htm
*www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/hinduism/athar/avbook20.asp#av20041
I can't, by any stretch of imagination, find a mention of atomic energy fission, neutrons, molecular adjustments, bombardments or anything even near to them. The only stuff I found having any sort of semblance between the verses in the texts and your claims are the words underlined.

I had already found the answers before my exams, but, not to be too opinionated myself, to have a clear stance for the sake of keeping things fair in this debate, (and the reason why I took two days to answer was that) I even consulted an expert regarding this recently and was waiting for his reply (the person happens to be a PhD in physics from IISc and is highly learned in Vedas, and most importantly, is a highly rational and scientific person). Even he refuted those claims. In our correspondence, this is what he had to say:


> Dear Sree,
> I generally use Ralff Griffith's translation.
> Here is the link to the Atharvaveda Hymns.
> Look at Hymn-39 and proceed towards 41
> ...


What I did is called *peer review*, if you didn't have a clear definition of what peer review is.

So let me ask you: can you do any bit of independent thinking other than blindly following claims in Hindu apologetic websites? As karnivore bluntly put it, "have you, yourself read any of the Vedas, other than the perverted interpretations by some jacka$$". You tell others of not having an opinion of their own. This proves how much of an opinion you yourself have, oh great spiritual one. So next time, before you "plagiarise" stuff from crank sites, follow your own advise: THINK.

Again, I ask one more question: Do you even know who was the great swamiji who came up with the idea of nuclear technology in the Atharvaveda?

People like you are an impediment to progress. The sad thing is, scientific temper is totally discouraged to view ancient books as true knowledge (that is after someone has invented or discovered something). I had to answer this and if anyone reading this will become influenced enough to think again before accepting lies and assimilating pseudo-science as reality, I will have attained nirvana.



mediator said:


> *J*alayan - a vehicle designed to operate in air and water. (Rig Veda 6.58.3)
> Kaara- a vehicle that operates on ground and in water. (Rig Veda 9.14.1)
> Tritala- a vehicle consisting of three stories. (Rig Veda 3.14.1)
> Trichakra Ratha - a three-wheeled vehicle designed to operate in the air. (Rig Veda 4.36.1)
> ...


Already answered this in my reply to Vyasram in post #114.

About those sites, its only those sites again which claim so. Why am I not surprised? If they were indeed true, at least some credible institute or organization (like an archeological institute or at least Nat Geo) would have taken interest. But no. I observed that many of the articles were written by a certain David Hatcher Childress. Any rational human being, just by one look at his works on the net, would certify him as a natural lunatic. Tell me, can you only follow blindly and believe in hoaxes made by crazies??
One site mentioned the Lonar crater. It is accepted that it was the result of a meteorite or comet impact. Only apologists will make wild imaginations other than that.



mediator said:


> @srivirus : Frankly, u shud compete in the Great Indian Laughter Challenge.


Yeah. With inspiration for comedy from someone like you and your posts, I could win the coveted price in a snap.



mediator said:


> May be u can show me in bolds where I abused. It is silly of u actually to drag member like "aryayush" here, since it was just a communication gap and we already settled the thing in the most humble way we could. U seriously don't know whole of story and here u r linking this thread with thousands of other threads where I might have abused.


 Well, insults may not always be abuse, but for a spiritual person like you, you insult your opponents a lot. You just can't keep your self-righteousness to yourself. And when anyone has a view which is disagreeable to you, they immediately will develop aphasia, Alzheimer's disease, they will become Cyrus Broacha, they will qualify for the Laughter Challenge, and what not. Any person who has had a debate with you will find that you would have branded them with at least two of the following words: hallucination, forgetfulness, troll, laughable, amusing, pitiable, etc. Is that all you can repeat in all your arguments? Its almost like an algorithm.
Anyway, if you had indeed settled an argument before, its great. But the way things are, you still have a long, long way to go.



mediator said:


> How many times do I have to say that u do not have to post ur personal problems here like "Internet not working, exams here n there, chicken pox etc". I feel like the materialist brigade is trying to get some sympathy from me.


Thanks for your concern, but no thanks. After all those instances where you felt sorry for us and utterly pitied our existence, the last thing we need is more of your sympathy.



Oh and BTW, the next time, before you accuse others of "blind-following", "repeating", "hallucinating", and all those selected terms, you could meditate and do a bit of self introspection.



Oh I almost forgot, I will accept that the sun (sungod as you put it) is an essential element in our existence, I will accept that my mom and dad are gods, since they are the reason I am, I will also accept guests as god; the sun, parents, guests are all real things/people. I see them, I give them respect. But HOW THE HELL is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5-space (whatever the hell that means)??


----------



## mediator (Jun 7, 2008)

LOL, the exam guy is back with some exam-aholic nature this time willing to pass some exam here in this forum. Go back where I asked some questions regarding science in the science god thread n this one too. U must understand n appreciate that trolling is not the best way to celebrate the end of ur exams!


----------



## legolas (Jun 8, 2008)

@sreevirus, this is just a new way of replying to threads. Accordingly.. if upset with the response to the thread or not interested anymore or "really" don't have anything to say... then one can call for mods to close the post.. thinking that  they are the only person replying !!  so.. don't bother! we have heard much of bullsh!t already


----------



## karnivore (Jun 8, 2008)

*@sreevirus*

All i have to say is BRILLIANT.

I will just add one more thing to your already mind blowing bebunking. The number 99, appears many times in the Vedas. Its primary implication is that of IMPERFECTION. It works like this.

 99 = 100 - 1

100, 10000 etc numerics are symbols of perfection. One short of perfection means imperfection. Examples, in Ashwa Medha Scrifice, one had to sacrifice 100 horses. But Indra will in some occasion disrupt the 100th sacrifice, restricting the total sacrifices to *99*, in other words, rendering the Aswa Medha ritual, imperfect.

I have debunked another claim of "Nuclear-India-as-evidenced-in-Mohenjo-Daro". See post #584, here.


----------



## sreevirus (Jun 8, 2008)

mediator said:


> LOL, the exam guy is back with some exam-aholic nature this time willing to pass some exam here in this forum. Go back where I asked some questions regarding science in the science god thread n this one too. U must understand n appreciate that trolling is not the best way to celebrate the end of ur exams!


Ooooh. That just answered everything, didn't it? But why is it that your reply doesn't come as a shock to me now?

I'm telling you man. The claims that you have quoted here, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, are not right, they are NOT EVEN WRONG!



legolas said:


> @sreevirus, this is just a new way of replying to threads. Accordingly.. if upset with the response to the thread or not interested anymore or "really" don't have anything to say... then one can call for mods to close the post.. thinking that  they are the only person replying !!  so.. don't bother! we have heard much of bullsh!t already


So I noticed. But I had to reply. Silence on our part would only encourage gullible minds who would come across these sort of debates to accept these kind of malarkey as truth. The least we can do is to play our part as skeptics and make people think twice.



karnivore said:


> *@sreevirus*
> 
> All i have to say is BRILLIANT.
> 
> ...


Thanks, and thanks for the additional inputs. I read your work. Just awesome!


----------

