Posted: 17 July 2012 at 10:50pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Vibhishna
A very interesting article ... Thanks a lot for sharing.
However, I do not agree with most of the explanations given linking science and spirituality - not because I don't accept science and spirituality are the same but because the concepts which the writer has associated with is entirely different in my opinion. No offense intended, I respect spiritual leaders but I do not agree with everything a person says unless I am convinced. But my mind is open to receive any explanation - I will listen, analyse and then decide.
For example, "Science has its value in terms of utility, but science cannot open up
the existence for human experience. It will not, it can never do it
because they are going with intellect. Intellect as an instrument works
only to dissect. The only way intellect can approach anything is to
break it up and see. If you ask a scientist to find out something about a
flower for example, the first thing is he will break it up into pieces.
If you break up the flower, you may know many parts of it, you may know
the structure and chemistry of it, but you will not know the beauty of
it; you will not know the completeness of it because the flower is an
expression of a plant finding its fulfillment. It is the highest thing
for the plant, the flowering of that life. You will not see the hand of
the creator in this if you break it. But as a whole, if you are willing
to pay absolute attention, if in your approach, you make this flower
more important than yourself and keep your focus on it, you will see the
whole universe in this."
Intellect is different from experimental knowledge, collecting facts and conducting experiments out of curiosity. A person's intellect can enable him/her to see the beauty of anything. It is while conducting an experiment or collecting data that we mechanically follow a procedure. Thus, breaking up a flower is not intellect. Admiring the flower, knowing about it like what its made up of, how many units it has, etc. and even correlating the two is intellect - it may be scientific, artistic or both.
@ about the Higgs boson:
It was called the God particle for the want of a fancy name - just like X-Rays. Roentgen discovered these rays and had never seen anything like them before. He didn't know how they could behave this way and hence named them X-Rays. Similarly, before its discovery, the Higgs particle was a proposed particle - if it existed, it could explain how matter has mass (and consequently inertia). For many years, physicists have been trying to find a proof for either the presence or absence of this particle. Either result would have been a major discovery. It was called the God - particle because it was so elusive and undetectable. (I wonder... Now that they have found it, would it still be called the God - particle?) Since the Higgs is proved to exist, physicists are happy that what was so long just a theoretical structure has now become a reality. Still, there are lots of phenomena that needs explaining. Everytime we discover something new, it is just the first step for something even more grand and interesting.
I can elaborate even further but will wait for more responses. Will post more when I get more time.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. As a (n eternal) student of science myself, I don't agree with Sadguru's premise that there is no beauty in the scientific approach. The immense pleasure one derives when things fall into place in a complicated mathematical puzzle or when experiments verify theories to the T can only be experienced.
What I do believe however is that at some point the scientific quest for Universal laws will converge with the philosophy postulated by our ancient sages. What they "saw" in their transcendental states will be ultimately verified by scientific discovery and experimentation. That will be the ultimate beauty of this convergence.
I found the analogy between the Higgs particle and the Shiva/Jada/Rudra myths particularly striking in this regard.
As an aside, the Higgs was first called the "Goddamn" particle by Peter Higgs I believe - something our Mahadev would probably smile at :)
Edited by pnars - 17 July 2012 at 11:13pm