Scientific spiritulaity- the future of relegion-- what do you think?

[patelvipulk]

I came across this nice article, which made me think about the role that we must play in deciding how to use scieince. I found this article very thought provoking (eventough it is writen based on spiritual beliefs based on Hindu tradition, I felt that it applies to all of us), and feel like sharing it with the group.. It is also a combination of thoughts from two Indian spiritual masters of recent times (Sri Aruvindo and Sri Ram sharma Acharya--- the author of this article,) -- My apologies for double posting as I though that this may be a better forum.....
Here is the article:

Scientific Spirituality: The Religion of the Future

The universe comes out of the union of two fundamental forces: matter (jada, or ‘that which gives shape’) and consciousness (chetan). These are also respectively known as prak•ati (the manifested form) and purusha (the invisible enlivening spirit). Both have their own merits when considered in isolation; however, it is the union and co-operation of these two entities that works wonders. The human body is a very good example of this fact. Our body is made up of five basic elements – the panca tatvas1. The body is an integrated form of various organs, muscles, nerves, arteries, veins etc., and can be used to accomplish any desired work but is non-functional without consciousness. The consciousness part of man (termed “the soul”) thinks, decides and directs organs towards a particular task. The separation of consciousness from matter results in death. A dead body is useless since it is not functional. In the absence of consciousness, it rapidly decays and its constituting elements eventually dissolve into their cosmic states.

In essence, it is the association of matter and consciousness that gives rise to functionality. Matter alone, otherwise, is unorganised and of very little use even though it is present in abundance in the universe. For example, water is plentiful in oceans but is too salty. The atmosphere is full of gases, electro-magnetic rays, X-rays etc. but these components are not useful on their own. It is the human intervention, or alternatively the intervention of developed consciousness, that organises matter so as to make it useful. For example, man has developed methods to process water to make it fit for human consumption. Fire and electricity were present in the universe since times immemorial, but man’s intelligence organised these entities in a utilisable form. Thus, although the components of Nature are powerful in their own right, their usefulness has depended on the inventive skills of human consciousness.

Science and spirituality:

The discovery of the powers of Nature, their organisation and the skills that make them useful to man is called science. Science can thus be called the unison of matter and consciousness. Science has made possible the progress of the human civilisation.

It should be noted that the knowledge of the use of matter is not enough; its righteous use should also be considered. The same criterion also applies to consciousness. In the absence of their righteous use, matter and consciousness are open to be abused. The attraction of immediate gains is such that its long-term effects are not appreciated and this shortsighted judgement prompts man to misuse power. Ultimately, he creates a web in which he gets trapped, just like a fish caught in a net. This results in suffering, public anger and self-destruction, and yet it is a practice generally adopted by most people. The society and the government rarely succeed in preventing such practices.

Science can be legitimately credited for the current progress and prosperity, but it is incapable of differentiating between use and abuse. The only way to control its misuse is to incorporate wisdom based on foresightedness and the nobilities associated with human glory. This is the essence of spirituality. Spirituality means, “centred and established on the soul”, that is, activities in life are designed keeping the awakening of the soul as the aim. The soul is the individualized consciousness present in the human body.

Consciousness is more powerful than matter. As discussed earlier, it is the miracle of consciousness that organises matter in an orderly way. However, unrestrained consciousness has drawbacks too. For example, it is easy to find faults in others, but does anyone try to observe his own self for their own faults? Usually, an individual is biased towards his shortcomings and considers him self the best. A person trying to prove him self right will present several arguments in his favour. This distorts the reality and generates undesirable thoughts.

The dual accomplishment of the righteous use of science and the refinement of consciousness is possible only through spirituality.

The great divide:

Since the 17th century, when modern science made its first appearance, it has clashed with religion/spirituality. At the root of the clash lie two streams of beliefs. Science believes everything is made up of matter and therefore ought to be demonstrable through experiments.

A spiritualist insists that pure Spirit is reality, not matter. The great Indian seer-sage Sri Aurobindo has termed the scientific viewpoint as “the materialist denial” and the spiritual viewpoint as “the refusal of the ascetic” in his magnum opus The Life Divine. Discussing these issues further, Sri Aurobindo says the premise of science is that the physical senses are our only means of obtaining knowledge. Therefore, reason cannot transcend the reach of the senses and so, says Sri Aurobindo, “it must deal always and solely with the facts which they [the senses] provide or suggest.”2 Science says that we cannot go beyond our senses and cannot use them “as a bridge leading us into a domain where more powerful and less limited faculties come into play…”3 In other words, science denies the existence of anything that is supernatural, supraphysical or extrasensory. In doing so, science assumes Nature to be an unintelligent substance or energy and uses this excuse to refuse, in the words of Sri Aurobindo, “to extend the limits of inquiry”. However, science has come to a stage where prominent scientists accept that there are several phenomena, backed by compelling evidences, which cannot be explained by the current formulations of scientific theories and laws, but only by the presence of an unthinkable, omniscient Intelligence. Examples include: the behaviour of Earth as a single living organism, telepathy, precognition, the presence of a Universal Mind, etc.

Sri Aurobindo says the spiritualist believes that pure Spirit is a reality because there are supraphysical realities that are beyond the grasp of the senses, based on principles other than those that govern gross matter. Therefore, it is not justifiable to reject them as “false positives”. For a spiritualist, consciousness is the unifying factor in the universe, which Sri Aurobindo calls “the universal witness for whom the world is a field”, while “the senses are [its] mere instruments”. The spiritualist considers the material universe as unreal.

What are the consequences of these two streams of beliefs? Both are seriously flawed, according to Sri Aurobindo. A mixture of matter and consciousness gives a meaningful functionality. If we adopt a purely materialistic view, Sri Aurobido says we arrive at a mâyâ “that is [present] and yet is not [present]”. We see the physical aspects of the universe and so mâyâ is present and compelling, leading us to believe what we see is the only reality. Yet, mâyâ “is not”, because it is transitory. Transformation is the principle of the universe. On the other hand, the refusal of material existence leads, in Sri Aurobindo’s view, to the development of ego and the purposelessness of the human existence.

In the modern times, the conflict between science and spirituality has further deepened. They have become two separate streams in practice. Both are in a muddled state of affairs and each falsely believes to be complete in its own right. As a result the worldview has become fragmented and has led to manifold problems, a view endorsed by modern thinkers. Eminent physicist David Bohm explains this extremely well in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. He says that everything is treated as separate, rather than as a part of “something bigger and wider”; thus we have separate religions, separate sciences, separate subjects, separate nations, separate societies, separate families etc. And how does this view act as a precursor to problems? Bohm provides a simple answer:

“The notion that all these fragments are separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder, and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people to live in.”4

In his best-selling book The Tao of Physics, physicist Fritjof Capra says:

“Our tendency to divide the perceived world into individual and separate things and to experience ourselves as isolated egos in this world is seen as an illusion [in the East] which comes from our measuring and categorising mentality.”5

Mankind has enormously suffered this conflict between science and spirituality. A person cannot ride a bicycle if one of its wheels is missing. Time has now come for both science and spirituality to widen their thinking horizons and realise the importance of their alliance, since the future of mankind rests on their combined insight and wisdom. How could this be achieved? Sri Aurobindo provides an answer. He says:

“Only by an extension of the field of our consciousness or an unhoped-for increase in our instruments of knowledge can this ancient quarrel be decided.”6

One of the aims of the “Yug Nirman mission” is to integrate science and spirituality, which is being attempted at its research wing, Brahmavarchas Research Centre at Haridwar (India). The results of experiments on this front show that spirituality has a sound scientific basis and spiritual principles practiced in daily life yield extraordinary benefits. Further research on this theme will be carried out at the newly founded Dev Sanskrati Vishwavidyalaya (Divine Culture University)7at Hardwar.

Notes and References:

1. Panca Tatvas: The five basic elements of the gross manifestation of Nature. Namely, prithvi (solid matter on or inside the earth), jala (water, liquids and fluidic substances), vayu (air and gaseous elements), agni (source of fire and energy) and akasha (the subliminal etheric expansion).

2. Ghose, Sri Aurobindo (1970). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry. p.9.

3. ibid., p.10.

4. Bohm, David (1995). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routeledge, London. p.1-2.

5. Capra, Fritjof (1992). The Tao of Physics. Flamingo, London. p.29.

6. Ghose, Sri Aurobindo (1970). The Life Divine. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, Pondicherry. p.20.

7. See the article “Dev Sanskrati Vishwavidyalaya – A University…. [link removed] ” In this issue.

Hope you enjoyed that article. Please write your comments on this thread.
source: [link removed]

I f you like to read more books by the author, ( Sri Ram sharma Acharya-- ), some of them are avaialble for free download at : [link removed]

Vipul..


[Edit by I, Brian - links removed]

[DT Strain]

Interesting stuff Patelvipulk. A few observations...

Originally Posted by patelvipulk

The universe comes out of the union of two fundamental forces: matter (jada, or ‘that which gives shape’) and consciousness (chetan)... The separation of consciousness from matter results in death. A dead body is useless since it is not functional. In the absence of consciousness, it rapidly decays and its constituting elements eventually dissolve into their cosmic states.

How is consciousness being defined here? Is a termite conscious? What about a person whose brain has been destroyed but whose body is being kept functional by machines? What about machines themselves? All of these things are "functional" but their consciousness is questionable, unless one has an extremely vast definition of it.

It seems to me, rather, that matter is capable of functioning on its own, and naturally can build into self creating, self sustaining complex systems. When this functioning becomes complex enough, and is the right type of functioning (as in a human brain), then consciousness emmerges.

Matter alone, otherwise, is unorganised and of very little use even though it is present in abundance in the universe.

There are many examples of matter which is organized by itself, due to the properties of its inherent components. As for being of "very little use" this is a relative term. Of "use" to whom?

For example, water is plentiful in oceans but is too salty. The atmosphere is full of gases, electro-magnetic rays, X-rays etc. but these components are not useful on their own.

Not useful to us, I assume you mean. But even here that isn't true. Water is not only useful, but highly essential, as are many other minerals, etc.

It is the human intervention, or alternatively the intervention of developed consciousness, that organises matter so as to make it useful. For example, man has developed methods to process water to make it fit for human consumption. Fire and electricity were present in the universe since times immemorial, but man’s intelligence organised these entities in a utilisable form. Thus, although the components of Nature are powerful in their own right, their usefulness has depended on the inventive skills of human consciousness.

What about when ants organize dirt to make it into useful shapes for their homes? What about when dung beetles organize feces into balls? What about when microorganisms reorganize chemicals into other forms for their use and when growing more of themselves? Here matter is organized without human consciousness. And, when elements organize into chrystal structures naturally, you have matter being organized into a more complex pattern without the intervention of even a living animal.

Since the 17th century, when modern science made its first appearance, it has clashed with religion/spirituality. At the root of the clash lie two streams of beliefs. Science believes everything is made up of matter and therefore ought to be demonstrable through experiments.

Sorry but this is not correct. It is a common misperception about science. Science does not say that "everything is made up of matter" and that there cannot possibly exist improvable phenomena.

What science says is that the matter in our universe can be studied and learned about through empirical observation. Things which cannot be measured empirically are beyond the scope of science and so science remains silent on them. No scientific theory, law, or otherwise says that the supernatural does not or cannot exist.

Now, individual scientists, like all people, may have their own personal philosophies, and many of them are atheistic, but this is not "science" - these are individuals with their own opinions about the supernatural. There are also many scientists who are believers in the supernatural. But they understand that science is a tool for studying the natural. So, again, science does not say that there is "only matter".

Science says that we cannot go beyond our senses and cannot use them “as a bridge leading us into a domain where more powerful and less limited faculties come into play… In other words, science denies the existence of anything that is supernatural, supraphysical or extrasensory.

Again, false. No scientific theory, law, or principle states this. It is simply that the body of scientific knowledge is based on what has been empirically measured. If we were ever able to reliably and repeatably measure the supernatural or extrasensory, then it would become part of the scientific body of work, because it would then be within its realm od study.

Time has now come for both science and spirituality to widen their thinking horizons and realise the importance of their alliance, since the future of mankind rests on their combined insight and wisdom.

There is no real conflict between science and religion. The conflict is only perceived because of a misunderstanding by mystics about what science is and what its claims are, and by scientists who voice their personal opinions without noting the distinction.

An "alliance" is not a bad thing, but if by this the mystic means that scientists need to start making claims about the empirically immeasurable in their scientific journals (one way or the other) then this cannot and will not ever be done. Science has a very specific focus and its body of work stringently keeps to that focus - and this is a good thing. In that way, it remains a viable objective tool for understanding and manipulating the physical world. The very reason for the success of science in its ability to empower human beings is specifically because of this narrow focus on that task.

Science rightfully stays out of matters of the spirit or that which cannot be measured empirically. In doing so, it does not conflict with religion or spirituality.

The results of experiments on this front show that spirituality has a sound scientific basis and spiritual principles practiced in daily life yield extraordinary benefits.

If this is referring simply to studies on the biological effects of certain practices, then this would be a physically measurable phenomenon and therefore within the realm of science. However, the furthest science can go is to say, "when a person believes x and performs y activity, these biological effects happen". It cannot step over that line and make a claim that those doing y activity are indeed actually touching the spiritual. That is the realm of the spiritualist to decide.

[Postmaster]

Before I found the Baha’i faith I would had said that science would never settle for recognition of anything beyond the material universe. However, science will have no choice but accept this soon enough. Most of the accomplishes of science are for the good of man anyway.

[Sacredstar]

"I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos." Kim

and a quote from a friend


"It has been a delight to see the scientists, those very people who cast the most scorn on metaphysical reality be the ones to prove it exists ! A fantastic irony !" Ru

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

[Bandit]

I see some type of reform or merging of religions. Wether it be this or something else.

I also see a complete merging of political and economic powers that is coming first and well underway, before the religions make a move.

But I dont see any of it working well. Just a temporary relief from the inevitable.

[Sacredstar]

Brian Greene is a theoretical physicist and public champion of 'superstring theory' science populariser who is being hailed as a new Stephen Hawking by The Times newspaper.

It is written in The Times on 19/02/2004

"I believe there is an order and harmony to things, If we are uncovering the laws of physics and that's all there is, its a noble task, if we are uncovering laws that a diety put in place, that's pretty exciting too".

Yes indeed they are slowly uncovering the spiritual and natural laws that GOD put in place.

We live in very exciting times and the biggest and best transition that humanity as ever made since the history of time began. But yet it is like a painful birth of the new adam predicted in Revelations, because it means the end of the old way of being.

New positive human beings......that will be pure and perfect love and this will create the Kingdom of Love and peaceful world we all yearn for.

Onwards and upwards continually raising our consciousness.

Sacredstar

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by DT Strain

Sorry but this is not correct. It is a common misperception about science. Science does not say that "everything is made up of matter" and that there cannot possibly exist improvable phenomena.

What science says is that the matter in our universe can be studied and learned about through empirical observation. Things which cannot be measured empirically are beyond the scope of science and so science remains silent on them. No scientific theory, law, or otherwise says that the supernatural does not or cannot exist.

Now, individual scientists, like all people, may have their own personal philosophies, and many of them are atheistic, but this is not "science" - these are individuals with their own opinions about the supernatural. There are also many scientists who are believers in the supernatural. But they understand that science is a tool for studying the natural. So, again, science does not say that there is "only matter".

Again, false. No scientific theory, law, or principle states this. It is simply that the body of scientific knowledge is based on what has been empirically measured. If we were ever able to reliably and repeatably measure the supernatural or extrasensory, then it would become part of the scientific body of work, because it would then be within its realm od study.

There is no real conflict between science and religion. The conflict is only perceived because of a misunderstanding by mystics about what science is and what its claims are, and by scientists who voice their personal opinions without noting the distinction.

An "alliance" is not a bad thing, but if by this the mystic means that scientists need to start making claims about the empirically immeasurable in their scientific journals (one way or the other) then this cannot and will not ever be done. Science has a very specific focus and its body of work stringently keeps to that focus - and this is a good thing. In that way, it remains a viable objective tool for understanding and manipulating the physical world. The very reason for the success of science in its ability to empower human beings is specifically because of this narrow focus on that task.

Science rightfully stays out of matters of the spirit or that which cannot be measured empirically. In doing so, it does not conflict with religion or spirituality.

Great post, DTS. Honestly, it seems that these points can't be repeated enough.

[patelvipulk]

What a similarity with your views and that of Sri Ram Sharma Acharya:
He was a great spiritual mastere from India whom I have met personally. He has written over 30 books on the subject about the future of mankind. Some of his books are avialable in the form of free e-books ( such as -- the great moment of change, Twenty First Century - The Dawn of The Era Of The Divine Descent On Earth") which can be downloaded from
[link removed]

I am finding a lot of references on the subject by many spiritual masters from all faiths with year 2012 being a very important year for change.
May be we should share more about what we feel and why?

Vipul .. [e-mail removed]


[Edits by I, Brian - reason - self-promotion]

Originally Posted by Sacredstar

"I predict that due to the change of consciousness, intent and will, the approaching years will bring us completely new models, and understanding of the fundamentals of the cosmos." Kim

and a quote from a friend


"It has been a delight to see the scientists, those very people who cast the most scorn on metaphysical reality be the ones to prove it exists ! A fantastic irony !" Ru

blessings in abundance

Sacredstar

[Blue]

The latest famous scientist and thinker to posit a view that the observable complexity in the micro and macro-universe could be an indication of intelligence, is Professor Flew, but he recently has made a point that all those of a religious turn of mind, and some of the Press media circus are wrong in declaring that he now believes in a 'God'!

There is nothing that says that what is conceived of through one's affective nature and nurture has to be rational, though it is highly likely to be irrational.

Like other scientists of serious intent and fame, Professor Flew denies 'God' and says he will continue to point out the dangers of all organised religions and their 'churches', as he has done for over forty years! As he emphasises, what he feels about it is no better than what anyone else feels about it. It is what IS, which is important.

This idea in the last few posts that 'Scientists' are affirming Gods is fine... so long as you realise that is simply what they affirm... affectively. Anyone can do that, scientist or not. There is no law which states a Catholic Christian or a Mormon or a Pagan, or a Muslim* cannot study sciences. There is no evidence and nothing amenable to investigation which actually has the quality of objective evidence for 'Gods' of any flavour or type. At least Professor Flew is one of the honest ones!

*Of course, if you are a fundamentalist Muslim though, even playing Chess is forbidden. (See the election promises last week in Iraq and the declared intent of the Party declared with the highest results this week.)

[Sacredstar]

and of you are a Christian fundamentalist Yoga and complementary medicine is forbidden too in fact anything that is enlightening from eastern civilisation.

[Blue]

"and of you are a Christian fundamentalist Yoga and complementary medicine is forbidden too in fact anything that is enlightening from eastern civilisation."

Eastern civilisation has much to offer us, SacredStar; I agree.

[Faithfulservant]

Its not yoga its the meditation... and anything medicinal is not disallowed.. LOL
Anything that puts itself above God including Self.. is against Christianity. Worsipping self is worshipping yourself above God.. The reason for the meditation is when you still your thoughts completely you are potentially allowing other negative things in that are not of God. We are to meditate on his Word only. If you hold to the world more than you hold to God you are worshipping the world.

[Blue]

We are to meditate on his Word only. WHY?
If you hold to the world more than you hold to God you are worshipping the world. (AND WHY NOT?)

============
WHY? is the key question here FaithfulServant.

Who tells you to meditate on His word only... and why do they tell you to do so?
Are they scared the faithful might be contaminated by curiousity and questioning, so they tell you must do this... sounds like that old faithful St Paul to me!

As to the 'world', well it will exist whether I am faithful to a particular God or not. It can equally well cease to exist whether I do or I don't, or the God does.

Better 'to hold' to people than a God... they communicate more readily and are prepared to question and some of them, to question themselves... fearlessly.

What does blind faith actually achieve, be one a Muslim, a Pagan or a Christian, a Jain or a Jew?

I think using a flower in full bloom, or clear, fresh, cool water bubbling down a stream are more worthy objects of contemplation and meditation.

What really puzzles me is why someone should tell another person that there is only one object of meditation? I mean this seriously. I am not being sarcastic in any of this. I am simply puzzled whever I meet blind faith.

[Sacredstar]

Dear Faithfulservant

Well if meditation was good enough for Jesus and St Francis of Assisi its good enough for me. At St Francis's sanctuary in Assisi there is even the exact spot that St Francis laid in meditative contemplation and direct communion with GOD.

Haven't got the time to time to sort out the links for you on this one but I vagely remember a BBC programme having something to do with the original release from the Pope about eastern spiritual practices which of course a lot of complementary therapies/medicine comes from. Shiatsu, Acupuncture etc predates Christianity by 1,000's of years and so it begs the question why should the church of Rome hold back our access to the self healing process when Jesus was a healer himself? Some say some can heal by faith alone but I would say positive thought which of course is a faith in itself is part of that process.

Another interesting fact the Lost Gospels state that Jesus also worked with colour. Mr Henry Sike, Professor of Oriental Languages at Cambridge (1697) claimed that from La Brosse's Persic Lexicon that Jesus practised the trade of a dyer, and his working a miracle with colours; from whence the Persian dyers honour him as their patron and call a dye-house the shop of Christ. We also know that colour healing was practised in ancient Egypt.

'When we look through the mirror of our consciousness and only see GOD, this is the perfect vision, for beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder".

Love beyond measure

Sacredstar

[Faithfulservant]

We are to meditate on his Word only. WHY?

-Because we are to meditate on that which is of God. That means the scriptures like I said in my post.. When you meditate on things that are not of God you are making yourself vulnerable to outside influences.

If you hold to the world more than you hold to God you are worshipping the world. (AND WHY NOT?)

-I didnt say it worked for everyone.. I was simply replying to the Christian fundamentalist comment.. Which was an indirect criticism of course

============
WHY? is the key question here FaithfulServant.

Who tells you to meditate on His word only... and why do they tell you to do so?
Are they scared the faithful might be contaminated by curiousity and questioning, so they tell you must do this... sounds like that old faithful St Paul to me!

-Why are you so offended by the idea of God and his will? Why are you so intimidated that someone can believe in something other than themselves or their surroundings? If you cant touch it does it mean its not there? If you cant see it does it mean its not there? My questionings and my curiosities are answered sufficiently with the word of God. Its that simple. Im satisfied.. Are you?

As to the 'world', well it will exist whether I am faithful to a particular God or not. It can equally well cease to exist whether I do or I don't, or the God does.

-If thats what you need to be able to sleep at night.. then thats good for you.

Better 'to hold' to people than a God... they communicate more readily and are prepared to question and some of them, to question themselves... fearlessly.

-You have never communicated with God so how can you understand me when I tell you that I communicate with God on a regular basis.. Even more how could you ever understand that he answers me back.

What does blind faith actually achieve, be one a Muslim, a Pagan or a Christian, a Jain or a Jew?

-Peace Love Happiness Security Joy Comfort Longsuffering Confidence Assurance .......the list goes on.

I think using a flower in full bloom, or clear, fresh, cool water bubbling down a stream are more worthy objects of contemplation and meditation.

-Hmm contemplation is another matter. I appreciate all of Gods creations and I contemplate God when I observe nature all the time.

What really puzzles me is why someone should tell another person that there is only one object of meditation? I mean this seriously. I am not being sarcastic in any of this. I am simply puzzled whever I meet blind faith.

-Its the meditation on God thats the issue..Im not telling YOU what to meditate on I was merely commenting on SS's post about what Christians are and are not supposed to do.. and its not just someone thats telling me this... its God.