Originally posted by FMF
Yes, I know you agree with him. But I think his assertion buckles under scrutiny. "Myths are better able to come closer to reality..." than what? Myths are folklore. They don't become "truth" simply because mystics claim it is the best that they convey. They don't become "the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words" simply because Coomaras ...[text shortened]... o. They aren't here at RHP to argue the corner. And you can't argue the corner either.

I would say that science does not claim that it describes even physical Reality completely and/or correctly. Science models the universe and while modelling creates an enclosure hemmed in by assumptions and observations et al. Science cannot and will not count God /Ultimate Reality / Truth among its objects of study let alone describe them. So, even a dancing dervish's glimpse of the supernatural is closer to the truth.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
really? isnt a child being raped by a holy man the height of child abuse?

Though I didn't read his call for genocide against Muslim men directly, I think Dasa is now paving the way towards a call for exterminating atheists. To do this he must cast us as vile and loathsome creatures for which humanity would be bettered by our permanent absence. He achieves this by conflating what normal folk recognise as child abuse (i.e. what you said) with his own personal conviction that not teaching children about 'Dasa-science' is to abuse them in an intellectual sense. Since he's too damned stupid to recognise his mistake here (even if someone points it out to him), then assuming he shares the same revulsion of child abusers as the rest of us (excluding child abusers of course) he has thus established within his own mind that we are the repulsive members of society he seeks to remove. He'll then try to project his own stupidity on to the rest of us in the hopes that we'll steer a course away from our wicked ways and embrace magic-thinking.

If you try to argue with him on this he will accuse you of being a lying, cheating, meat-eating, fault finding, child abusing, atheist rascal and ignore you. 😞

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I would say that science does not claim that it describes even physical Reality completely and/or correctly. Science models the universe and while modelling creates an enclosure hemmed in by assumptions and observations et al. Science cannot and will not count God /Ultimate Reality / Truth among its objects of study let alone describe them. So, even a dancing dervish's glimpse of the supernatural is closer to the truth.

Well you've given up trying to argue that myth is closer to reality than reality is, it seems. In debating terms, I will settle for that. You are, of course, entitled to believe whatever you want to believe about yourself. I support you in that.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
I would say that science does not claim that it describes even physical Reality completely and/or correctly. Science models the universe and while modelling creates an enclosure hemmed in by assumptions and observations et al. Science cannot and will not count God /Ultimate Reality / Truth among its objects of study let alone describe them. So, even a dancing dervish's glimpse of the supernatural is closer to the truth.

I say not true...you can have either:
a) a possibly incomplete view of the entire picture that takes in only what can be perceived via natural means
b) a view of the entire picture that takes in what can be perceived via natural means augmented with guesses about that which lies beyond our perception.

As for (a) it may well be the case that all there is to the universe is what could theoretically be detected by physical apparatus, as such we'd have a complete picture in this case.
On the other hand, if the picture we get from (a) is incomplete then to make it more complete we need to augment it with accurate guesses as to what is the nature of the supernatural (and it remains to you to demonstrate your faith in the supernatural is consistent with what actually is) . If sufficiently many (not necessarily a large number btw) of these guesses are wrong, and are in contention with what we have ascertained through natural means then I say you have an even less complete picture overall.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Mythology can be easily ridiculed and derided in the 21st century. So ? For your benefit, I quote here Fritjof Capra's words from his book " The Tao of Physics ". page 51, Flamingo edition, 1982. "Indian Mysticism, and Hinduism in particular, clothes its statements in the form of myths, using metaphors and symbols, poetic images,similes and allegories.My ...[text shortened]... swamy ' myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be stated in words.'

yes indeed, ignoring for a moment the absurdity of capra's statement, myths are completely useless for the sake of describing creation or for going toe to toe competing with scientific theories.

keep mysticism where it belongs, in speculative spiritual discussions. when you try, as dasa did, to present mythology as a viable alternative to science, expect the failure of the mythology to be exposed.

Originally posted by Agerg
Though I didn't read his call for genocide against Muslim men directly, I think Dasa is now paving the way towards a call for exterminating atheists. To do this he must cast us as vile and loathsome creatures for which humanity would be bettered by our permanent absence. He achieves this by conflating what normal folk recognise as child abuse (i.e. what you sa ...[text shortened]... ng, cheating, meat-eating, fault finding, child abusing, atheist rascal and ignore you. 😞

What a wonderfully written post.

l thank you.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yes indeed, ignoring for a moment the absurdity of capra's statement, myths are completely useless for the sake of describing creation or for going toe to toe competing with scientific theories.

keep mysticism where it belongs, in speculative spiritual discussions. when you try, as dasa did, to present mythology as a viable alternative to science, expect the failure of the mythology to be exposed.

I think I got carried away quite a bit, but that was a reaction against your ridicule of the myths present in the Brihadarnyak Upanishad. The algorithms of science are also not always sequential and going in a relentless march towards the Truth. Many a scientist had recourse to leaps of faith, blind guesses and even that elusive faculty called Intiution. Kekule's dream of the 6 serpents swallowing the tails of each other, leading him to the hexagonal arrangement of 6 CH molecules of Benzene, would be not far from a shaman or a witch doctor's dreams. I say that using a-logical ways for the search of the Ultimate Reality is well justified.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Many a scientist had recourse to leaps of faith, blind guesses and even that elusive faculty called Intiution.

And many of them got it wrong. In fact, on average, unless we are talking about educated guesses and intuition (which is often based on evidence), then they are wrong more often than not.
So unless, and until, such scientists back up their leaps of faith, blind guesses and intuition, with verifiable evidence, they are likely to have a less accurate picture of the universe than the rest of us.
If we look at religions, where leaps of faith, blind guesses and intuition have been piled on top of each other over centuries or millennia, without any verification, we can be pretty sure that they are highly unreliable. The fact that most religions disagree with one another quite significantly bears this out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And many of them got it wrong. In fact, on average, unless we are talking about educated guesses and intuition (which is often based on evidence), then they are wrong more often than not.
So unless, and until, such scientists back up their leaps of faith, blind guesses and intuition, with verifiable evidence, they are likely to have a less accurate pictu ...[text shortened]... able. The fact that most religions disagree with one another quite significantly bears this out.

Welcome ! I will give my own example. In our mythology and literature, a gentleman who has a lot of forbearance i.e.who is always externally cool and pleasant to others although tormented inside due to personal and other problems, is likened to the ocean inside of which a huge fire called Vadavanal is burning. Now, I thought that this is mythical nonsense. How can a huge fire can burn inside an ocean ? Yet, in a National Geographical Magazine show on TV,it was shown that a big volcanoe was burning inside the Pacific Ocean. Myth close to reality ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Welcome ! I will give my own example. In our mythology and literature, a gentleman who has a lot of forbearance i.e.who is always externally cool and pleasant to others although tormented inside due to personal and other problems, is likened to the ocean inside of which a huge fire called Vadavanal is burning. Now, I thought that this is mythical nonsense ...[text shortened]... V,it was shown that a big volcanoe was burning inside the Pacific Ocean. Myth close to reality ?

What you are doing, is taking what is obviously an analogy, (a fairly good one, and possibly useful for explaining something, or thinking about something), and then noticing something in reality that matches the analogy and somehow using this as confirmation that your initial analogy is justified. This makes no sense whatsoever, and is mostly a result of a well known phenomena called 'confirmation bias'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I actually don't believe you ever thought it was 'mythical nonsense', I certainly wouldn't. But once you saw something you see as confirming evidence (even though it isn't really), you now forget that you had a different explanation previously (that it was mere analogy) and you forget all the other questions / problems you might have, and focus on the one apparent confirmation.

Interestingly, the whole analogy is not a belief, it is not a fact, it is not science, it is not an alternative to science, it is a useful analogy for helping us define and understand a certain phenomena. And however right or wrong or useful or not useful it is has little bearing on the accuracy of the rest of your mythology and literature.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What you are doing, is taking what is obviously an analogy, (a fairly good one, and possibly useful for explaining something, or thinking about something), and then noticing something in reality that matches the analogy and somehow using this as confirmation that your initial analogy is justified. This makes no sense whatsoever, and is mostly a result of ...[text shortened]... ul it is has little bearing on the accuracy of the rest of your mythology and literature.

Thanks for the reply ! The Nat. Geo. show was seen by me quite sometime after I had been familiar with the analogy. Years had gone by after I had read Sanskrit poetry. So I was not looking for confirmation. Take another example. In our mythology, there is a story of the great churning of the ocean by gods and demons using the great serpent Vasuki as a rope and the Himalaya mountain as the churning rod. The object was to obtain various good things including Amrit, the elixir of life. When I first saw Himalayas during a pilgrimage, the fact that the entire mountain range has been lifted out of the ocean, suggested itself that probably humans saw the great mountain being pushed out of the ocean and might have been struck by the grand scene including a lot of turbulence. This event might have remained in the collective memory and been converted into a myth. Here I was looking for confirmation ! Unfortunately on enquiry with my geologist friend it was clear that the lifting up of the Himalayas was far earlier an event than the rise of homo sapiens ! Yet I say that myths should not be ignored, they may point a way.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Yet I say that myths should not be ignored, they may point a way.

Do you think astrology should not be ignored because it may point a way?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think astrology should not be ignored because it may point a way?

Or Phrenology or Scientology.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think astrology should not be ignored because it may point a way?

Myself, twhitehead, voidspirit are discussing whether mythology, which I take to mean the result of early human effort at collection of inspired stories about the strange world around them, is useful in making sense of the Ultimate Reality/ Truth / God or not. Where does astrology come into this ? Or phrenology or scientology ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Thanks for the reply ! The Nat. Geo. show was seen by me quite sometime after I had been familiar with the analogy. Years had gone by after I had read Sanskrit poetry. So I was not looking for confirmation.

So you kept this mythical nonsense in mind for years? Whether or not you were actively seeking confirmation, is irrelevant, the fact is that you took it as confirmation.

Take another example. In our mythology, there is a story of the great churning of the ocean by gods and demons using the great serpent Vasuki as a rope and the Himalaya mountain as the churning rod. The object was to obtain various good things including Amrit, the elixir of life. When I first saw Himalayas during a pilgrimage, the fact that the entire mountain range has been lifted out of the ocean, suggested itself that probably humans saw the great mountain being pushed out of the ocean and might have been struck by the grand scene including a lot of turbulence. This event might have remained in the collective memory and been converted into a myth. Here I was looking for confirmation !
You honestly thought that humans would have seen the Himalayas growing? Why did you dismiss the possibility that they, as you, could have realised that the mountains grow by looking at their structure, rather than actually observing movement?
And why are you looking for some connection between 'collective memory' and some ancient myth? If it turned out that the writers or their ancestors had witnessed such an event, would it cause to you believe that gods, demons and the great serpent Vasuki were involved? Do you currently think they are involved despite the lack of confirmation?

Unfortunately on enquiry with my geologist friend it was clear that the lifting up of the Himalayas was far earlier an event than the rise of homo sapiens ! Yet I say that myths should not be ignored, they may point a way.
Point the way to what? What way has been pointed to by the above story? Do you study the myths and legends of other cultures?