No Vam - I suspect the stereotyping lies within you as you are projecting what I don't mean on to what I say. Some of the more farcical aspects of religion hardly needed science to expose them because of internal contradictions and we can delve beyond Plato to find record of this. Religion, as politics and economics uses sleight- of-hand and should, unless there are prudential reasons be exposed. Science has done a lot of this (ad nauseum), but it is only a position taken that makes this into 'religion versus science' - the typical standard is the 'paranoid-schizoid' position of demonising the opposition. My point is only to question what religion might be and might offer if the conditions of its existence incorporate scientific understanding, including what role it may have played in developing that understanding, including how science so readily acts in religious ways (social science in particular may like to envisage itself working in 'paradigms' but the behaviour involved is that of 'sects'). Economics, certainly as popularised, has established itself as an 'exact science' (there is no such thing) and propounds religious-like dogma and is very much involved in social control as religions have been. Deeper understandings take the certainty away, as with much religious contemplation that is not aimed at rationalising dogma. Many people will never understand science in the way some of us can, so questions about fair and equitable ways of living together and what might inspire us in this and allow individual creativity remain very important. We can't just sit on the fence in polite diplomacy - we need an honest space of tolerant discussion. Science has traditionally run away from this to work free of all but its own prejudices, leaving some chronic mis-information around.
On 16 Sep, 08:06, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Gibbs, do you also believe that non-patients should/need to work on > 'forging a solid identity...'? > Thanks. > > On Sep 15, 7:42 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > I believe that science and spirituality can mix in the process of a patient > > working on forging a solid identity if by spirtuality is meant connecting > > with basic 'spiritual' concepts of faith, hope, trust. love and persistence > > all associated with the consciousness of a one year old child. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Vam <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tue, Sep 15, 2009 10:24 pm > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Newton's Spiritual Laws of Motion... > > > ustin is right, elsewhere, when he says that mixing religion or > > pirituality and science belittles both. Not because they cannot be > > rought together in the same frame but, in my view, because it calls > > or an extreme sharpness to learn in one and apply in the other, > > nterchangeably, all the way, untill there remains just one. > > Sadly, Neil, your post merely follows the stereotypical mode : > > eligion vs science. It adds nothing and only seems like one more > > ailing against. I can see you are ' for ' ' something,' but with such > > hought patterns I believe you may be doing no good to your cause, > > hatever it is ! The methodology ( to me, today ) seems extremely > > egressive. Entertaining ? Perhaps, to one who is looking for that. > > I hope you get the job in Dubai. I know it would change your life > > uch, for the better. But, you ? > > > n Sep 16, 4:18 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Science has overturned many fables (though not necessarily the power > > of fable) - I often wonder how we might expose the liturgies > > of > > capitalism for what they are and thus discover what was working given > > that it wasn't. Instead the bwanking priests are still blackmailing > > us along old religious lines - if we don't pay their ransom (tithe) > > they won't do the chanting that ensures our prosperity. They are > > saying this to us even after all their runes and litanies have just > > failed and we have had to empty our social confers to save them. What > > we haven't done is formulated a science of living without their magic > > wand. I actually think Pat is wrong here, though one can see in Vam's > > exegesis notions of forces very familiar in relational physics. > > Physics was never my bag, but my colleagues in it always seemed the > > most religious and inclined to a certain rhythm even if even more > > appalling social misfits than I. These days they are seeking all > > kinds of Indian rhythmic mathematics to see if it somehow sways in > > harmony with the universe they can prod. Even quarks sound like > > mystical history - originally 6 there are now just two, clinging > > together because they are so much more attractive to each other when > > apart. Bwankers in sack-cloth and ashes and worker control of capital > > through government directly and openly consulting the people - now > > there's something to pray for. > > > On 15 Sep, 17:54, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Gunas are fundamental to Sankhya philosophy, also termed Sankhya Yoga. > > > Krishna himself says in Bhagwat Gita that, among all yogas,=2 > > 0he is > > > Sankhya Yoga. And, among all yogis, he is Kapil muni, the stalwart > > > Sankhya yogi. > > > > Gunas takes our realisation of our self beyond the ego, where most of > > > our understanding stops, for the ego is nothing but constituted of > > > gunas. > > > > Even Prakriti, the nature both primordial and individuated, is nothing > > > but constituted of gunas. Only Purusha, or the Witness - Self, is not. > > > > The most popular and well - known of all yogas, Patanjal Yoga, is > > > entirely based of Sankhya principles. > > > > There is never, without exception, when all three gunas are not > > > present in any being or thing. Only occassions when one may > > > predominate, while the other two are dormant or attenuated. By one's > > > choice of realisation, and in thought and action, one may cause the > > > predomination of one. > > > > In Prakriti, or the penultimate realisation, all three gunas are in > > > complete balance, annulling the effect of each other. > > > > Each guna becomes a means to liberation, in correspondingly > > > appropriate situations. > > > > On Sep 15, 4:32 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > When I got home last night, it dawned on me that Sir Isaac > > > > Newton’s main goal and deepest interest was to discover how spirit and > > > > the universe interact; which is why a huge percentage of his writings > > > > were alchemical—the scientific findings were, more or less, a by- > > > > product of his overall search for a Theory of E > > verything, which would, > > > > necessarily, include spiritual phenomena. I then had the thought > > > > that, perhaps he had intended his ‘Laws of Motion’ not just to include > > > > physical bodies, but spiritual bodies, as well. Now, his laws have > > > > been expressed in many ways, but, at home (which is where I am at the > > > > moment of writing this), the only book that I found (I’m sure there > > > > are a couple more, but I couldn’t find them and went with what I found > > > > first) that has them listed is ‘The Hutchison Encyclopaedia—1997’, not > > > > the best source, but, I think, it’s good enough. > > > > The first law states that “unless acted upon by a net force, a > > > > body at rest stays at rest, and a moving body continues moving at the > > > > same speed in the same straight line (direction)”. Now to me, that > > > > just screamed out “That is the Western scientific version of the gunas > > > > of Hinduism”. Vam, I expect, may want to set me straight here with > > > > respect to a few details I gloss over, as his knowledge of Hinduism > > > > far exceeds mine, but, I’ll describe this as I see it. The three > > > > gunas are: Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. They are spiritual qualities/ > > > > forces that, together, express the ‘net spiritual forces’ that affect > > > > us. Sattva is usually depicted as simple (!), clarity of mind,=2 > > 0Rajas > > > > as a disruptive, disturbing influence and Tamas as dullness and > > > > lethargy. In this analogy, I see Sattva as representing an > > > > individual’s truest sense of self, their own unsullied consciousness, > > > > and Rajas (the general disruptive, interactive force) and Tamas > > > > (spiritual inertia), is how one individual experiences another > > > > individual’s Sattva. Whilst it is true that one can be affected by > > > > another’s Sattva, it is harmonic enough as to not distress the soul as > > > > do the other forces of Rajas and Tamas. Tamas is what keeps a > > > > depressed person depressed and why it’s harder to motivate a depressed > > > > individual than one who is not depressed. So, too, a mind/soul filled > > > > with Tamas will tend to remain at rest (and depressed and slothful > > > > and, in extreme cases with the right combination of Rajas, self- > > > > harming) until acted upon by sufficient Rajas (and/or Sattva [but it > > > > takes more Rajas at first!]) such that it can, once again, achieve its > > > > own Sattva. Too much Rajas can make an individual aggressive, like a > > > > bull in a china shop and is what keeps the manic, manic. Sattva is > > > > the quiet forward motion with no external forces impinging on it. (Too > > > > much Sattva usually leads to moksha and is not considered > > > > problematic!) > > > > So, to paraphrase Newton’s first Law: A (more) Tamasic soul will > > > > tend t > > o remain Tamasic until acted upon by Rajas (and/or Sattva) and a > > > > (more) Sattvic soul will continue to be Sattvic until acted upon by > > > > Rajas (and/or Tamas). (I inserted the word ‘more’ in there to denote > > > > that each soul is, in most but the rarest of cases, comprised, to some > > > > extent, of all three gunas.) And, we have a sound spiritual concept > > > > (that’s been recognised by Hindus for millennia) that is an almost > > > > perfect corollary to Newton’s first Law. > > > > Looked at another way—probably Newton’s alchemical way—Sattva > > > > becomes Salt, that perfect combination of opposing (with respect to > > > > charge) elements that forms a complete bond with itself (its Self). > > > > Rajas is Sulphur, the fast burning element that scorches its way > > > > disrupting and disturbing. Tamas is, then, Mercury, the heavy, liquid > > > > and poisonous metal. I think Newton understood the gunas in this way > > > > and may well have hinted at it in this first law. > > > > The second law states that “a net force applied to a body gives > > > > it an acceleration proportional to the force and in the direction of > > > > the force.” This is vastly important. Given the first paraphrased > > > > law, this second law implies that the interactions between spiritual > > > > bodies impart an eternal effect, that is, when one set of gunas (one > > > > spiritual body) communicates > > with another, it imparts a force that is > > > > irremovable and it receives a force that is irresistible. From that > > > > moment forward (in a spatio-temporal cone), all the actions of B have > > > > become affected by B’s communication with A and vice versa. > > > > Spiritually, we can interact in an intellectual and/or emotional way > > > > with one another, if not a combination of both (not to mention that > > > > intimate, physical communication, certainly, can have emotional > > > > effects). This is the ‘emotional communication’ that Gregg Bradon > > > > intended in his book ‘The Divine Matrix’; especially his ‘Key 4’: > > > > > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
