Logic of Spirituality - Laws of Causation - The Vedic Way
#1
Hello everyone:

I have these 2 beautiful transcripts taken from a DVD called the Logic of Spirituality. It is given by the Guru of the Chinmaya Mission (Who's teachings I happily follow. Mind you, I used to be an atheist myself 12 yrs before I met him.) This is only the begining of the lecture.
He always challanged everyone to question the world and try it for themselves before making a conclusion. Also not to beilive him, until they themselves came to the same conclusion as he did.
Such a great scientific approach his was to the religion of Hinduism.

Please leave your thoughts. If you agree or disagree. Lets not bash each other and keep it clean.

Part 1


Part 2

Much Love.
Reply
#2
The first law is "There cannot be an effect without a cause." That is partly the idea behind causal determinism. So it is a perfectly acceptable statement.

But then he jumps the shark with the second law "Effects are plural, nothing but the cause in different forms". Such statements are what Dennett had in mind when he coined the term deepity. Put in a different way - all effects are nothing but different forms of a single entity - energy. It is a tautology.

The third law "If you remove cause from effect nothing remains". Another deepity. To show why that statement gives no new information and hence is useless, consider his later statement in a modified form - "If you remove all gold atoms from an ornament, then nothing remains no gold". Duh!

He then says, "If the wave is transferred to the hills, there is no wave". Wrong. If a wave is indeed taken to a hill, it will flow down, forming streams which can have waves.

He then concludes that since every effect has a cause, the Universe too must have one and that cause is god. But he fails to realize that it leads to an infinite regression. Who caused god? Who caused the entity who caused god and so on.

So only the first law has some useful information. The other two laws are redundant. And the conclusion drawn from them is also suspect. Since the premise that there is a god itself is on shaky ground, all arguments built on it too are suspect. I couldn't stand his logic after that point. Here are some articles from people who did stand it:

http://nirmukta.com/2011/01/07/a-critica...tual-fads/
http://nirmukta.com/2011/04/14/dialogue-...kersfield/
http://nirmukta.com/2011/05/20/gems-from...es-part-i/
http://nirmukta.com/2011/06/02/gems-from...s-part-ii/
http://nirmukta.com/2011/06/16/gems-from...-part-iii/
http://nirmukta.com/2011/05/12/a-way-of-...mayananda/
Reply
#3
This is the continuation of his attempt of explaining the beautiful life as we perceive it throught the Body, Mind and Intellect

B M I - Body Mind Intellect
P F T - Perceiver Feeler Thinker
O E T - Objects Emotions Thoughts

Enjoy the video in 3 parts as the great thinker explains the science of spirituality.

Part 1 :


Part 2 :


Part 3:


Best Regards
Reply
#4
The first law "there cannot be an effect without a cause" can be criticized. If at all we discover a first cause, then that would violate this law.
Reply
#5
I read few of your articles.

2 articles are simply making fun of the way the Gurudev has expounded these ideas in english language. But he forgets that it is the idea thats important not the language.

Ajita Kamal has actually gone through the effort of making a presentation on one statement of Swamiji's on the Hinduism being a way of life.

I agree to the terms that you can have a way of life without religion.

This is what Dicitionary.com says about religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

So that dragoncon would come under this defination or science would come under this defination too.
A moral and valuable life has to have a method of living. And if there is a certain pattern to that living. It is a religion. Even if we dont conciously percieve it.

I disagree in the point he makes that its not entertaining. In Hinduism, we have so many festivals that bring colors and good times and people together. It definately makes it worthwhile! smile

I am only 28. I saw Swami Chinmaya teaching when i was 10. It really was amazing listening to him trying to bring us subjective science.

Best Regards.
Reply
#6
(09-Dec-2011, 09:17 PM)Kanad Kanhere Wrote: The first law "there cannot be an effect without a cause" can be criticized. If at all we discover a first cause, then that would violate this law.

Well... the theory states that when you do discover the law. You dont exist. You become the cause.

But if science discovers this cause. your statement stands true. So we got to wait till that happens.
Reply
#7
Quote:"So that dragoncon would come under this defination or science would come under this defination too."

If you broaden the definition of religion the way its usually done by Hindus, everything comes under the definition of religion. Which is why its nothing but belief in belief, as Dan Dennett, quoted previously here, would attest.

What you are peddling us here is adoration of one wishy-washy religious leader who thought of himself as a philosopher. Not science. To call it science is an insult to the endeavor. The articles on Nirmukta.com do not just make fun of Menon's English, there are many specific criticisms of his teachings. Its convenient to focus on the tone and ignore the content, isn't it. Lije has presented arguments above that you've ignored. Again, a common tactic from those peddling a deceptively malleable way of thinking passed off as a belief system of sorts.

Science is not a bunch of metaphysical ideas passed off as fact. It is a process, an endeavor, with a distinctly unique method. There are various criteria that must be satisfied before something can be called science. The day religionists, theists and conspiracy theorists really get what science means, our freethought community would become redundant. And that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, such an eventuality seems rather distant at present. People like Bala Menon have done a lot to keep the masses going around in circles trying to avoid addressing reality.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#8
Lije has presented arguments above that you've ignored. Again, a common tactic from those peddling a deceptively malleable way of thinking passed off as a belief system of sorts.

I didnt ignore it. Was pondering upon his statements before I could present my answer. I dont come here with all the answers. I come here with questions that would take me to a better understanding of life. smile

This statement:
But then he jumps the shark with the second law "Effects are plural, nothing but the cause in different forms". Such statements are what Dennett had in mind when he coined the term deepity. Put in a different way - all effects are nothing but different forms of a single entity - energy. It is a tautology.

Well then that energy that you mention is the 'God Particle' that religion calls it. Energy by itself is inert and passive. But if put in the right instrument. Here Gurudev explaining the instrument as Body of a human, body of a plant or body of a animal makes it Active and Dynamic. That 'God Particle' is also Called 'Life' or 'Energy'. Can we agree upon that?

The Below statement:
The third law "If you remove cause from effect nothing remains". Another deepity. To show why that statement gives no new information and hence is useless, consider his later statement in a modified form - "If you remove all gold atoms from an ornament, then nothing remains no gold". Duh!

I dont know how you disagreed or nulled the statement if you are implying that the law is obvious? If it is so obvious. 'Duh'??? Why is it not a law? Does science state that for it to be a law it has to have new information?


Reply
#9
If you broaden the definition of religion the way its usually done by Hindus, everything comes under the definition of religion. Which is why its nothing but belief in belief, as Dan Dennett, quoted previously here, would attest.

I didnt broaden the definition in any Hindu way buddy. I took it from DICTIONARY.COM! Come on man. be reasonable here.

Science is not a bunch of metaphysical ideas passed off as fact. It is a process, an endeavor, with a distinctly unique method. There are various criteria that must be satisfied before something can be called science. The day religionists, theists and conspiracy theorists really get what science means, our freethought community would become redundant. And that would be a good thing. Unfortunately, such an eventuality seems rather distant at present. People like Bala Menon have done a lot to keep the masses going around in circles trying to avoid addressing reality

Religionists and conspiracy theorists cannot come under the same catagory man. Comeon... One is an uplifting value based life binding experience and the other is to ridicule human events! Lets not be so broad here.

The main question is that is life just about coming on this planet for this little time and discovering a few things and having fun with some things here and there the goal of life? If that is to be true, I have no respect for the world, as it cant bring not a single being eternal happiness.
But really think deep. Such a beautiful universe, has to have something more than FUN!

Hey atleast we are all thinking here looking for the same answers right. Going in the right direction!

Good Luck to all.

Best Regards!
Reply
#10
(09-Dec-2011, 11:12 PM)madpurple Wrote: I didnt broaden the definition in any Hindu way buddy. I took it from DICTIONARY.COM! Come on man. be reasonable here.
I did not say you did. I said if you do, then you can include everything in the category Hinduism. There are many definitions of religion. Dictionary.com is not a scientific resource. In any case, you are now deliberately missing the point. The point is this. Science is not religion. If you choose to define religion as encompassing science, all you are doing is trying desperately to garner some of science's credibility for your defunct belief system.

Quote:Religionists and conspiracy theorists cannot come under the same catagory man.

From the point of view of scientific credibility, they are. Both groups propose extraordinary claims that they defend using confirmation bias and pseudoscientific misrepresentation of facts.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#11
(09-Dec-2011, 11:04 PM)madpurple Wrote: Well then that energy that you mention is the 'God Particle' that religion calls it. Energy by itself is inert and passive. But if put in the right instrument. Here Gurudev explaining the instrument as Body of a human, body of a plant or body of a animal makes it Active and Dynamic. That 'God Particle' is also Called 'Life' or 'Energy'. Can we agree upon that?

You are responding to a statement that you are peddling deepities, by resorting to more deepities.

Firstly, you do not know what the so-named god particle is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
Here's a hint- it has nothing to do with god or religion.

Secondly, what do mean by "energy by itself"?

Thirdly, when you say that energy when in "the instrument as Body of a human, body of a plant or body of a animal makes it Active and Dynamic", you are resorting to some form of animism. Active and dynamic effects of energy-rich systems can be inanimate.

Fourthly, hell no, we cannot agree on that.

Quote:Does science state that for it to be a law it has to have new information?

So you are saying that the seemingly profound statement that was criticized does not provide any new information, and is still somehow important enough to be a law of science? Oh boy, I think this is not going to end well.
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
Reply
#12
(09-Dec-2011, 11:12 PM)madpurple Wrote: I didnt broaden the definition in any Hindu way buddy. I took it from DICTIONARY.COM! Come on man. be reasonable here.

Whenever someone says "by definition..." it is a very good sign that the argument that follows will be suspect.

But I'm not for going off topic, especially when there are religious apologetics involved. So coming to the topic:

Quote:Well then that energy that you mention is the 'God Particle' that religion calls it. Energy by itself is inert and passive. But if put in the right instrument. Here Gurudev explaining the instrument as Body of a human, body of a plant or body of a animal makes it Active and Dynamic. That 'God Particle' is also Called 'Life' or 'Energy'. Can we agree upon that?

You really should learn high school physics.

Quote:I dont know how you disagreed or nulled the statement if you are implying that the law is obvious? If it is so obvious. 'Duh'??? Why is it not a law? Does science state that for it to be a law it has to have new information?

I only mentioned it point out that the information it provides is redundant. Whether it is called a law or not is irrelevant.

Of the two counter arguments you gave, one displays a lack of understanding of physics and the other is irrelevant. You still haven't addressed the problem of infinite regress.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Newton's laws by Kanada - Debunking SUBRAMANNYA PADDILLAYA 0 7,155 26-Nov-2012, 09:50 PM
Last Post: SUBRAMANNYA PADDILLAYA
  MYTH OF VEDIC SOCIETY: BETWEEN REALITY, RELIGION AND POLITICS gunniboy 4 6,403 09-Aug-2011, 09:34 PM
Last Post: gunniboy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)