Hi Venu, > Mind is what the brain does, mind can be thought as the canvas of the brain, > this need not rhyme with Indian mysticism, nevertheless mind is a product of > the 'physical' as far as our present scientific understanding goes, Modern science doesn't understand the brain or the mind. A lack of clarity cannot be taken to be understanding. All that we have are conjectures. And there are also respected scientists (including Nobel laureates) who have deep respect for Indian mysticism (not just in a spiritual sense, but even in a logical/rational sense). But science works on solid evidence. And I don't see any good evidence for any of these conjectures/theories of brain/mind held by scientists. > At the level of neurons, cells, quantum physics plays no part, > it is more or less the same scale as that of a cricket ball exhibiting perfect predictability, I would strongly recommend the book "Quantum Aspects of Life". It is a collection of articles by biologists and physicists where they present good evidence to suggest that the cells and neurons do use quantum mechanics in some way. One clear example is photosynthesis. > The unpredictability of the mind is because of high number of factors involved in > determining the state of mind as a whole, it is a complex system.What is your opinion about this perspective? I do strongly believe that at the fundamental level, the universe is inherently unpredictable (not just because of lack of information). The mind also has many levels. What you have said is perhaps true at the gross level of the mind. But as we go deeper into the mind, I think we will find phenomenon fundamentally different from the surface. But getting there requires immense discipline and practice. Not an easy task at all! Best, Kushal.

Modern science does not understand the correlation between different brain areas and the functioning of the brain, does this leave any room for speculation in a spectacular mystical interpretation? The inherent evolutionary advantage that brain present to life forms is itself reason enough to its evolution. Why cannot we argue that all ancient mystical proposals however spectacular they might appear were arguments from people who did not know enough about this universe simply due to the fact that they were not scientifically progressed as we are. The enormity of questions that evolution addresses is itself evidence to the fact that without evolutionary theory we would still be believing in other mystical theoies, is it not? I will read that book, Sir.

> Modern science does not understand the correlation between > different brain areas and the functioning of the brain, > does this leave any room for speculation in a spectacular mystical interpretation? The brain is too complex a system. Modern science doesn't even have a complete understanding of a single electron. Physics has certainly made enormous progress in the last century, but there is still a very long way to go. The universe is too big and too subtle for the human mind to grasp fully. No system of thought can understand all aspects of this universe. In that sense, I think modern science and Vedanta complement each other well. Each of them understands only a certain aspect of reality. And I am sure there are many more aspects which are not captured by either of these. > Why cannot we argue that all ancient mystical proposals > however spectacular they might appear were arguments > from people who did not know enough about this universe > simply due to the fact that they were not scientifically progressed as we are. Vedantins have a similar view about science. They think that modern scientists are running around with instruments only because their inner awareness is not developed enough to directly grasp the cosmos in its entirety. Instead of fighting with each and trying to put the other down, it will do enormous good for the world if physicists and mystics can sit at the same table and discuss ideas. I would suggest you to read the lives of Heisenberg, Einstein and other great physicists who developed modern physics. You will see for yourself the enormous role our mystic ideas have played in these discoveries.

+venukannur Hi Venu, thanks for your interesting comments! :) > A balanced approach of having one foot in the known and the other foot > in the unknown might be progressive and at the same time stable. > For this a person needs to be willing to be constantly in the flux. Totally agree! > The inner world is made indeterminate by evolutionary patterns, temperament and conditioning. > To improve the model of the inner world he needs to observe. This is meditation [Raja Yoga] This brings us back to a point we discussed earlier. Observation of the inner world need not be Raja Yoga. It can also be Jnana Yoga depending on the nature+objective of the observation. > The outside world comprises him, as only one of the factors. > A voluntary encounter with the unknown provides new knowledge. > A Penchant for the continuous accumulation of such knowledge could be Gyana Yoga. Jnana Yoga has nothing to do with accumulation/analysis of worldly knowledge. The idea of an 'intellectual' in western societies is in some ways quite different from that in eastern societies. > To go about carrying on the activities while encountering the snakes > of the unknown requires a certain diligence and detachment, this could be Karma Yoga. That I agree with. > To keep up the good work, a certain emotional exuberance is required, > a certain love, this could be Bhakti Yoga. Well said! Best, Kushal.

+venukannur Hi Venu, thanks for your very interesting comments. > I think religion is farthest to Spirituality. That definitely appears to be the case when we see all the horrible incidents religion has led to. But there are also many great spiritual saints that religion has produced. Ramakrishna (Vivekananda's guru) is one of the finest examples of this. So its surely not the case that there are no true scotsman, just that they usually live in anonymity. > Science is the next door neighbour of Spirituality. > If spirituality can be considered as pure observation without conclusion > for understanding the self, then it closely maps the scientific path. Thats true to a large extent. But when you have carried out the required scientific study and arrived at certain 'truths' that you know for sure will improve your well being, the next step will obviously be to follow your own findings. And when a certain number of people agree with your findings and also start following these ideas, it starts to become religion. So, in my opinion, religion is purely a statistical property of human societies: simplescribblings.blogspot.in/2009/12/religion-statistical-property.html > Religion has given us morality, a social structure, an economic framework for transaction etc, > but considering the fact that all major advances especially in evolutionary biology and cosmology has happened > after all major religions have evolved, is it not reason enough to revamp all religions on more reasonable lines? Totally agree! And this is already happening. All religions have started to slowly adopt the principles discovered by science. The process is very slow because religion is deeply connected to human emotion and memory which takes long time to change. But its also the responsibility of scientists to be a little more sensitive towards religious sentiments. > Secondly, since Nations have evolved and we have a wonderful constitution which gives directive principles > of state policy and defines clearly fundamental duties and responsibilities, does it not supersede many religious dogmas? Thats a very tough question to answer. One person may find the constitution to be wonderful but another person may not agree with some of its rules. Its a debatable topic. Though it is certainly important for all citizens to abide by the law of the land, it is also important to constantly revisit our notions of right/wrong and see if they need revision. > Most importantly since liberal democracy is the form of governance most appealing today, > does it not make all religions and their infrastructure absolutely unbearable? Many people have been immensely benefitted by the religious infrastructure. But yes, it has also led to many problems. I think whats important is to try to put in place mechanisms through which religions keep evolving with time and do not degrade into dogma. I am sure science will go a long way in achieving this.

My argument is that 1. Swami Vivekananda could have flourished as a Marxist thinker if he was born in Russia. He could have flourished as a revolutionary in Cuba if he were friends with Che Guvera and Fidel Castro. He could have been an enlightened Christian monk if he we were to be in Vatican. He could have been a great social scientist if he were to be born today. He is an oddity insofar as religion is concerned. They are the exceptions. They really do not represent religion in its evolutionary context. Religion evolutionarily is a product of lack of understanding of the universe. It found utility as a reward/punishment mechanism to ensure that the majority confirm to a certain moral standard. With time economics/trade (division of labourers, Caste), law and order evolved around the religious context. 2. Like anything else religions would try to adapt to changing times, but it would hyperventilate trying to keep pace with changing morality, scientific and social understanding. A classical case would be the amount of money being pumped into Africa in the name of aid on the one hand and the Roman Catholic Church's stand that it is not permissible to use contraceptives which is leading to widespread disease and misery. If anything religion is just an impediment. It can only decelerate human progress. Now that we have alternative affiliations in the form of Nationality, we must dispose religion totally from our society. This is no easy task. 3. In Hinduism, Caste is an inseparable element. I wonder if Hindu society would survive an "Annihilation of Caste" as Ambedkar had envisaged? 4. Hinduism is intertwined with culture and caste beyond redemption. Indian context is a special context. Here it would take generations to resurrect India from the shackles of religion. 5. I feel that the mistake that spiritual minded people, maybe in good intention, have done over and again in history is to generalize their spiritual experience into theories and religions. We now understand that this clearly is not the territory of spirituality. When we observe the self, we might encounter many treasure island and ghost towns, they rarely have anything to with the external world. They have profound value when they are observed. They loose any value as soon as they are conceptualized.

+venukannur > Swami Vivekananda could have flourished as a Marxist thinker if he was born in Russia. > He is an oddity insofar as religion is concerned. They are the exceptions. I was not referring to Vivekananda at all but to his guru, Ramakrishna. There are many examples of Indian saints who reached the highest level of spirituality through religious practices. And I am sure there are many examples in Islam and Christianity too. One example from Islam in modern times is Maulana Wahiduddin Khan who lives in Delhi. > Religion evolutionarily is a product of lack of understanding of the universe. I don't think anyone can claim to understand the whole universe, not even scientists. What each one of us understands is only a small piece of an infinite pie. Science and religion represent two different realms of human perception and neither of them should try to claim supremacy. > Like anything else religions would try to adapt to changing times, > but it would hyperventilate trying to keep pace with changing morality, > scientific and social understanding. Not all change should be fast. Certain things that change slowly give us a feeling of stability and security, which is of immense importance specially in these crazy times. > Now that we have alternative affiliations in the form of Nationality, > we must dispose religion totally from our society. This is no easy task. Nationality is not a permanent thing. Specially people in the technology and management sector move from one country to another too easily nowadays. > In Hinduism, Caste is an inseparable element. > I wonder if Hindu society would survive an "Annihilation of Caste" as Ambedkar had envisaged? Caste can never be annihilated but can only change forms. After a few decades we may not have Brahmins and Shudras, but something else will take its place. Humans might consider themselves to be highly evolved and intelligent, but they should not forget that they share more than 95% of their genes with apes. > Hinduism is intertwined with culture and caste beyond redemption. > Indian context is a special context. Here it would take generations > to resurrect India from the shackles of religion. Yes, Hinduism surely needs to be freed from the clutches of orthodox caste systems. But the cultural aspect is already changing quite rapidly. Many of the new age gurus (genuine ones) are following practices that would be considered blasphemous by orthodox Hindus. > I feel that the mistake that spiritual minded people, maybe in good intention, > have done over and again in history is to generalize their spiritual experience into theories and religions. You are assuming that all human beings on this planet have the intellectual capabilities that you have been bestowed with. When you teach a course in the future, you will realise that not all students can find answers on their own. Some have to be literally spoon fed. You can of course say that those who can't learn on their own are better sent away from universities, but I don't think thats a good idea.

1. I seriously doubt the claims of every Bhakti saint. The process of Bhakti looks so at odds with Rajayoga. I feel Bhakti culture is of recent origin(relatively) and claims of reaching highest levels of spirituality through a kind of obsession(I think bhakti is an obsession) does not seem reasonable. Anyway, I am unable to connect Bhakti with Rajayoga. 2. Evolutionarily every religion and god-idea came out of the fear of nature. Over a period of time, any theory however flawed it is can appropriate truth through a series of manoeuvres(minor corrections). Absolute truth forever would remain beyond us, but we have to acknowledge that we have been building better approximations of truth particularly in the last 150 years, much after every major religion was conceived. Religions, religious philosophies, god-ideas are all not-falsifiable. These ideas are from an era where an idea was deemed to be great when it was unfalsifiable and irrefutable. We have a totally different idea of a working theory now and it must essentially be falsifiable. 3. Stability and security can and should only be ascertained through science. Any changes should be voluntary and not enforced. People should be sufficiently educated of the various choices and the repercussions. 4. If religion which appropriates morality to itself cannot outright prevent such a hideous idea like caste, then what is its benefit? Rather, how can Hinduism claim greatness with such a cancer in its belly? 5. I feel that spirituality can only be made democratic through Rajayoga. Every person who cannot meditate need not take the circuitous path of religion. Maybe in those brains religions(with all its inappropriateness) are all the more dangerous.

+venukannur > I seriously doubt the claims of every Bhakti saint. > The process of Bhakti looks so at odds with Rajayoga. > I feel Bhakti culture is of recent origin(relatively) and claims of > reaching highest levels of spirituality through a kind of obsession(I think bhakti is an obsession) > does not seem reasonable. Anyway, I am unable to connect Bhakti with Rajayoga. Bhakti is not at all recent. It is mentioned in the Gita itself and is considered to be equal to Jnana and sometimes even higher. We usually confuse Bhakti with emotionalism and thats why it looks to be a lowly thing. > but we have to acknowledge that we have been building better approximations > of truth particularly in the last 150 years, much after every major religion was conceived. > Religions, religious philosophies, god-ideas are all not-falsifiable. > These ideas are from an era where an idea was deemed to be great when it was unfalsifiable and irrefutable. > We have a totally different idea of a working theory now and it must essentially be falsifiable. The kind of 'truth' that science is pursuing is actually very different from the kind of 'truth' that religion is interested in. Science is all about things which can be measured, but not all things in this world fall in this category. Human behaviour is very complex and needs very different tools to be understood. In an academic sense, study of human psychology comes closest to religion. But psychological studies are in their infancy and there have been some recent studies which actually find evidence of the importance of religion in human society. But these studies are too rudimentary to be taken seriously. It will take many decades before modern psychology can reach the depths required to understand religion. > Stability and security can and should only be ascertained through science. Thats a very limited perspective, in my opinion. When a boy is thinking of proposing a girl, I am not sure if science can help in this decision making process in any way. > Any changes should be voluntary and not enforced. > People should be sufficiently educated of the various choices and the repercussions. Thats an idealistic situation and of value only in academic settings. It is impossible to maintain law and order in a totally free society. > If religion which appropriates morality to itself cannot outright > prevent such a hideous idea like caste, then what is its benefit? > Rather, how can Hinduism claim greatness with such a cancer in its belly? I think it is important to separate the deep religious ideas from their cultural (transient) aspects. The caste thing is not a foundation stone of Hinduism but is only a cultural aspect which emerged at a certain point of time due to some local situations and will also fade away in the future. Bad things can happen to good people. Similarly, we cannot judge Islam purely by the acts of Osama or Christianity by the acts of Hitler. It is important to study these deep philosophical ideas and practice them in our lives to see whether they make sense or not. > I feel that spirituality can only be made democratic through Rajayoga. > Every person who cannot meditate need not take the circuitous path of religion. > Maybe in those brains religions(with all its inappropriateness) are all the more dangerous. When you say 'can only be made' by one process, that itself is the end of democracy. A true democracy allows practice of a diverse set of ideas (within certain regulations, of course), some of which may even look absurd to others. I also personally feel that life is so complex that its not possible to practice only one path and exclude others. What is required is a balanced approach.

+venukannur Thanks Venugopal for your comments! Here's my response: 1. Buddhist "Anatman" and Hindu "Atman" are not only different but contradictory. This talk/article might be of interest to you in this context: drive.google.com/file/d/0BwgYQ4cos99lNTR2VVdkMUVYYXM/view?usp=sharing www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm 2. Meditation is objective(as objective as it an get) Subjectivity, why should we care about any other form of spirituality which is lesser so? If we confine our self to meditation we can reduce the consumption and trade of nonsensical religious dogmas in the name of spirituality. I am not sure if meditation is objective. When two people sit down to meditate, there is absolutely no way of knowing (except in rare cases) whether they are following the same procedure and if they are experiencing the same thing. 3. Neither faith or doubt is required for spirituality, but an unceasing and relentless urge to observe, the introduction of a "measurable eternity" between observations, thought and conclusions initially under controlled conditions and later as part of routine life. The exclusion of faith unfortunately throws out many spiritual pursuits of this world, but it is better that way. Why would one carry out this exercise of observation if one has no faith that this process will lead to something valuable? 4. Experimentation is observation of an external object under scrutiny, while meditation is observation of the observer itself and hence highly confounding. Very true! 5. Meditation cannot validate any assumption/faith because it is an endless journey of pure observation without any presumption or any conclusion. It must remain that way. If it deviates and starts making conclusions, then it cannot coexist with science. Even the biological/neurological aspects of meditation falls into the realm of science. Very true! 6. Most importantly, meditation can give wonderful personal experience in life but it cannot give any real insight into the physical nature of the universe. Hence any of these experiences should not encourage a non-scientist to propose theories of the universe and spread the "unscientific temper" in society. This might challenge the psuedo-scientific concept of the non-duality of the observer and the observed that some people propound. But it is better it remains that way. Actually if we carefully observe the process of creative thinking (by scientists, poets, etc), we will find that that nature of the method by which people come up with interesting ideas and theories is very similar to meditation. 7. The role of faith in Science, is that the scientist have faith that every assumption he/she makes can be proven. This is a reasonable assumption and harmless to the pursuit of science. On the contrary if a spiritual-seeker bases himself/herself on conclusions arrived at by previous generations, they have not yet begun the journey. If a scientist also blindly accepts the assumptions/conclusions of the previous generation, s/he is unlikely to become a good scientist. So here there is lot of similarity. In both science and spirituality, its important to carefully scrutinise the assumptions/conclusions of the previous generation before making any progress. Best, Kushal.

Hi Sir, 1. Meditation does not require the correctness of Atman or Anatman, because that is part of a conclusion. Meditation teaches us to not assume but just observe. Anatman is more appealing because it parallels poetically at the least to the concept of a "Universe out of nothing" as elucidated by Prof. Lawrence Krauss and other physicists. Between the two I prefer Anatman due to the practical reason that there is no room for Oracles and Clairvoyants. I will go through the article and audio. 2. Meditation process is laid out in an objective manner but carried out with subjective variations, true. The "promised land" in meditation is an island of free-will in the ocean of an illusion of it. Free-will is the ultimate expression of objectivity. 6. Any creative act involves getting lost in the act itself without getting hijacked by random intruders, and where intruders dry up at randomized creative peaks. Meditation is in some way, never getting lost, but observing every hijack attempt and attempting to bring in a certain amount of non-randomness to "presence" from where every creative impulses flow. 7. A scientist builds on what previous generations have achieved and hence a thorough understanding of the results are necessary. A meditator needs to know the process and the hurdles but not necessarily the conclusions of previous generations. Regards, Venu.

+venukannur 1. Anatman is more appealing because it parallels poetically at the least to the concept of a "Universe out of nothing" What matters is what works for you! :) 2. Free-will is the ultimate expression of objectivity. Free-will is the biggest illusion of all. 6. Any creative act involves getting lost in the act itself without getting hijacked by random intruders, and where intruders dry up at randomized creative peaks. Meditation is in some way, never getting lost, but observing every hijack attempt and attempting to bring in a certain amount of non-randomness to "presence" from where every creative impulses flow. That depends on the kind of meditation one does. In some methods, the idea is to actually try to loosen up and stop trying to control thoughts. 7. A meditator needs to know the process and the hurdles but not necessarily the conclusions of previous generations. That again depends on the objective of meditation and science. In many scientific pursuits its not necessary to know all past results and in many meditation techniques its necessary to know the same.

1. I agree that free-will is the biggest illusion of all. What I wanted to say is that meditation aims at bringing in a semblance of order by giving a window of opportunity in the present moment to express free-will. Here by free-will I do not mean to react in a conditioned way as enforced by nature but as necessitated by the situation. That is the ultimate expression of objectivity. 2. I feel a proper starting point for meditation is in agnosticism without any presumptions. We cannot expect any progress from this state since meditation cannot reach any conclusion regarding the origins of anything except maybe thoughts and the feeling of identity. 3. What is the real question is, given that evolution of true, given that natural selection is true at the level of genes/chemicals, given that a central nervous system/identity with a self that needs to be preserved in line with the survival of the genes is true, can a breakdown of the self happen?, given that the self has evolved over millions of years of evolution, evolved over multiple ancestral species. According to evolution the identity of self is a wall created for self-preservation. Can this be broken with the scrutiny of meditation??? What is beyond the wall? Is it just free-fall?

+venukannur "meditation aims at bringing in a semblance of order by giving a window of opportunity in the present moment to express free-will." Thats just one way of looking at meditation. Another approach could be that of surrender where the meditator has no desire to make sense of the chaos all around. All that s/he wants to do is to just remember his/her beloved. Bhakti is also a kind of meditation. But if you are strictly referring to Raja Yoga, then yes, I agree with you. "According to evolution the identity of self is a wall created for self-preservation. Can this be broken with the scrutiny of meditation??? What is beyond the wall? Is it just free-fall?" I would recommend the book "Unthink" by Chris Paley in this context. He gives a very beautiful explanation for the role of consciousness in our lives and gives convincing arguments (based on neuro-science) to show that the unconscious is much more in control than what we think. So as per my understanding, there is nothing that lies beyond the wall. I personally believe in neither Atman nor Sunnyata. All that exists for me is the infinite Prakriti and thats the only God I pray to.

Arun Dayal Udai Here are the slides: web.iitd.ac.in/~kkshah/ValueEducation_14Feb2015.pdf

Thanks for the share.