The Wall Street Journal ran two essays on 9-12-09 by Karen Armstrong and Richard Dawkins in their Life and Style section that spoke to this topic. Unfortunately, I forgot the title and link but will try to add it later. I think science and religious faith have different objectives in modern times which account for much of our personal and general turmoil. Also- each human has a specific lifespan to figure "it" out or not- unlike history and physics which are indifferent to the individual. I cannot believe that man's destructive actions against others and Nature can co-exist with any spiritual intent- although embraced at various times in the name of religion or secular jargon. No- it is hubris.
On Sep 16, 7:21 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we (humanity) are headed toward a reconciliation of science > and spirituality or, an elucidation of what is always occurring for > us. In a perfect world, these attempts would be concise, and yet, > because we are not there yet, none of them are. I think we get closer > all the time and I can appreciate the brave attempts. Anyone who puts > themselves out there in print or digital imaging invites the critics, > and there seem to be many more critics than creatives. Yet all of it > is our nature, collectively and individually. This is how we learn > and develop our viewpoint. This, of course, and dialogue. Thanks, > folks. > > On Sep 15, 10:24 pm, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Justin is right, elsewhere, when he says that mixing religion or > > spirituality and science belittles both. Not because they cannot be > > brought together in the same frame but, in my view, because it calls > > for an extreme sharpness to learn in one and apply in the other, > > interchangeably, all the way, untill there remains just one. > > > Sadly, Neil, your post merely follows the stereotypical mode : > > religion vs science. It adds nothing and only seems like one more > > railing against. I can see you are ' for ' ' something,' but with such > > thought patterns I believe you may be doing no good to your cause, > > whatever it is ! The methodology ( to me, today ) seems extremely > > regressive. Entertaining ? Perhaps, to one who is looking for that. > > > I hope you get the job in Dubai. I know it would change your life > > much, for the better. But, you ? > > > On 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, he 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 Everything, 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, Rajas > > > > > 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 to 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
