Marital Rape

Our reality of our ``consciousness`` is an academic subject no more and no less than the reality of your coffee mug sitting in front of you, and how it should be described -- quantum mechanically or in Newtonian terms.

Moreover, consciousness is primary, all else is filtered through it. So far, religion, and specifically Vedanta/Yoga/Tantra, has far more to say about the nature of consciousness than does science.

Yes, science may know about it in 200 years. Or maybe someone will come up with an impossibility proof -- you never know.

-Arun Gupta

Dost Mittar Jee:

I just conducted a search and found the following worth mentioning sites. Hope you`ll find them interesting.

1) http://www.go.com/?win=_search&sv=M6&qt=ghalib&oq=&url=http%3A//www.xiber.net/%7Easad/&ti=DEEWAN-E-GHALIB&top=&svx=NotFound

2)http://www.go.com/?win=_search&sv=M6&qt=ghalib&oq=&url=http%3A//www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Enavin/india/songs/ghalibindex.html&ti=Ghazals+of+Mirza+Ghalib&top=&svx=NotFound

Take Care,

PS. #286

You say:

“spiritual and scientific are two different realm. However, one can easily be scientific in all matters of material world and spiritual only in the matters of non-material.”

Read the post-modern critique of Quantum physics on the site I suggested…

Sameer #274

Dear Sameer,

Modernity and the absolute, unquestionable rule of science have been under attack in this post-modern era. Many traditional scientific principles held sacred by scientific community and never in doubt in societies, which held science in almost “God like” regard are now being questioned. You seem to be equating modernism/science with rationality and any other view with irrationality. This is an extreme modernist position carrying an implicit claim to omniscience that allows you to know that nowhere in the universe could the supernatural exist.

Regarding scientific objectivity, traditional view is that:

Scientists are supposed to be objective observers. They study nature by direct observation, indirect observation or through controlled experiments intended to rule out bias.

Post-modern critique:

Observations do not interpret themselves. They are interpreted by a mind and the biases of any particular person or group conducting the experiment. They also argue that human minds are affected by their culture and language to such an extent that the ``actual`` nature of things may be unknowable.

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/pomosci.htm

For a quick look at traditional scientific principles and their post-modern critique…

Comments?

tahmed321

I see you`ve obviously no intention of getting into specifics (even after I obliged you with the same), so okay, if it makes you feel any better, go ahead and stick with the childish name-calling. Never mind my request to you to produce one specific quote of mine that you can show as Islam-bashing.

Sameer
``For average Pakistan also, the desire to ultimately accumulate enough good deeds play very significant role in their insecure feelings despite a 97.5 percent Muslim country because there is no way of knowing when your account is in the green. The fear of being in red keeps them working in that direction. ``

Not very different in India, too. You should look at anonymous gifts to Indian temples made in penitence.

However, why does Mullah Omar think he will get to heaven and people like Ms. Asma Jahangir willnot?

Sadhana

Re: Pankaj

I will guess that there is nothing about the human brain that cannot be recreated artificially....we don`t know enough to be able to do it right now and probably will not know enough for another 200 years. But that is not to say that it is impossible. Even emotions are nothing more than the effects of several complex chemical interactions (which we don`t yet understand). Love too has biological and evolutionary explanations. It bonds us to our significant others so we reproduce often (biological duty), to our children so we raise them to reproduce and continue our genetic line, to friends so they will be there in the hour of need to ensure our survival, etc. etc. This is a rather self-centric explanation but you see the point...there is a reason for everything.

I may sound like the ultimate cynic but that`s not my intention...I am also not trying to deny the beauty of human relationships and our existence...just trying to get a practical understanding.

Consider this example. For a while people committing crimes were thought to be possesed by the devil and innately evil...we now understand that no one is born evil or violent, they are just victims of their environment...this scientific approach can help us find solutions to preventing crime and violence...believing that people have some hoky-poky spirit and essential-being will lead us to Witch Trials as the solution to the problem.

krashid #275, ``Man is formed by his enviornment. And you have a duty to bring your children up. You cannot leave them at the mercy of society.``

I agree. That`s why I won`t let my children be swallowed by that society called mullahs, priests, and other bs like that.

``f I look back at my life. My parents did a good job of raising me up. Giving me good moral values etc. Now I am independent, those values, teachings and brought up is part of my life even in the

``Deen-less`` society and I am proud of it.``

Good for you. Values, teachings, and morals are taught at home, like you just said. Not by religious leaders.

All they can do is spread propaganda and make religion into a garbled mess. YOu know and I know that the true spirit of faith/spirituality/God is not really taught at these schools. I remember going to an Ustaani when I was a kid, learning to read the Quran. If I pronounced something wrong, I was scolded and made a fool out of. Is that the true meaning of religion? I didn`t know what I was reading, just the fact that what I was reading had to be pronounced just right. The only thing I learned from this Sunday school was ``proper`` Arabic pronunciation and how to tie a dupatta around my head so tightly that it stopped the blood circulation of my scalp. Religion is not supposed to be torture.

It wasn`t until I read the book in English did I understand the true meaning of it, and that Islam wasn`t all about what Mullahs or Ustaanis said. And I could judge for myself what was good and what was bad.

Re: macgupta

``#235, RSaxena : no, contrast Richard Feynman, also an atheist and a ``realist`` with Steven Weinberger. Feynman`s writings are about how the universe is this very interesting and fun place, not about its pointlessness, optimism instead of pessimism.``

I know Feynman`s writings well. I think we are discussing two different points here. Feynman took great delight in explaining the beauty of science and physics to the public and he should be applauded for that. He had amazing communication skills. But he never believed or suggested some profound reason for the universe`s existence or for our existence in it. Weinberger, while he may not have tried to communicate the beauty of the universe, did reach the same conclusions. Surely you will agree that something can be beautiful but pointless, won`t you?

``In any case, an education in physics provides an excellent understanding of the limitations on one`s ability to know what is ``real``. My answer is : ``God`` is as ``real`` as my ``consciousness``; I cannot do any better. E.g., if ``consciousness`` is purely material and is an emergent property of the matter in my brain, then ``God`` is likewise an emergent property of the universe. If my ``Consciousness``, which is subjective, can be ``real``, then so can ``God``.``

We can get into a fruitless debate over this but I don`t believe that what we don`t know must be ascribed to god. That article mentions that our brains have evolved limited by our existence on one planet and by time...surely we have a long way to go before we understand everything. Also, challenging our own consciousness is a bit academic...you and I are communicating so let`s assume that we *perceive * each other to be conscious; whether we are conscious in an absolute sense is irrelevant then.

By the way, you could rewrite your statements above and replace the word ``God`` with ``devil`` (to the exclusion of god) and it would be equally difficult to prove or disprove.

Sigalph:

Thanks for the sweet and pertinent couplet :-). Interestingly, your choice of words and selection of verses is better than many on board. Most of the native speakers are as clueless as you can imagine, therefore lack the spontaneity to think on those terms, let alone quote any bur`justaa` verse! In short, you do not have to justify your stance. Keep it up!!!

Take Care

Good Ones!!!!

A long article on this subject in News From Bangladesh today at:

http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/jan/16/fv4n455.htm#1

Ras

re zahra

Baji, thank you for the correction to the correction. I am humbled both by dost-mittar`s effort and yours. As you probably realize I am not a native speaker of the language and thus any indulgence on part of all of you is most appreciated.

But you are, even other than this post, quite sharp and incisive in a few words. I am impressed. Or, to continue the tradition, in the words of the same Delhi poet,

``Is saadgi pe kaun na mar jaye Asad,

Larte hain aur haat mein talwaar bhi nahin``

Thank again.

Dost Mittar:

Scout #238

I totally disagree with your point.

Man is formed by his enviornment. And you have a duty to bring your children up. You cannot leave them at the mercy of society.

It is a B-S spread by well to do people in society. I see with my own eyes everyday, the consequences of such an approach in poor socio-economic strata of society.

If I look back at my life. My parents did a good job of raising me up. Giving me good moral values etc. Now I am independent, those values, teachings and brought up is part of my life even in the ``Deen-less`` society and I am proud of it.

Sadhana # 266: Thanks for clarification. Actually it was my mistake to have misread your previous post.

PM: I am not tilting or changing my mind about God. The discussion was about Universe, Science and Steven Weinberg. I make clear distinction between Science which I believe whole-heartedly and non-Scientific matters. Science is backed by verifiable laws that govern nature. Why should quantized energy that has created the whole material universe be anything but pointless. Pointless does not mean unintersting particularly given the capabilities of human mind to create interest by creating patterns in a patternless and seeing chaos in well-organized systems. The only faculty of human mind beyond limit is imagination and consciousness comes in that category. It can by-pass the limitations of time and space in that mode only unless there is a malfunction like schizophrenia. You may be able to create a consiousness situation by starving your brain of oxygen through mediatation or any other mean of deep concentration but it is totally internal and does not change the outer universe. Otherwise, brain works as programmed through evolution. It will not allow the eyes to see objects who do not reflect or emit light, nor will it allow eyes to see microscopic or atomic/ sub-atomic level realities of the universe. There is no place in science that is immeasurable and a matter of belief only.

I will happily talk about God outside the discussion of science. It has diffenet meaning for different people. It is not an absolute necessity though because a good 30 percent of the world population is having a perfect normal and happy life without him-despite all the efforts of last 3000 years to make people believe in Him. Even among the 70 percent or so who believe in it do not agree with one common definition of Him. More and more people are accepting it internally as opposed to externally. I have previously discussed with you about my interest in eastern philosophies and creating an internal God or consiousness or ``I`` factor. I still believe in It because It is helpful to me in relaxation of my mind. I am not fearful of It (or Him), it does not cost my time and does not ask me to make my decisions only if they filter through the coded and loaded sieve.

Pointless of scientific universe is nothingness of spiritual universe and only Buddhism comes closest in bridging the two together. For the followers of rest of the religions, spiritual and scientific are two different realm. However, one can easily be scientific in all matters of material world and spiritual only in the matters of non-material.

Man, it is getting confusing-just discard it. Just be pragmatic and practical.

PM #268 I see from your post that you think all has been hunky-dory with your previous posts. That means the problem is, as I feared, deeper than I originally thought: the problem will not go away with simple introspection. I am afraid this calls for an operation...

PS Better whisper your last curses to Islam before the brain surgeon starts on you