Dr.Alan wrote:OR maybe you believe in the Higgs Bosun particle - which is so incredibly small and exists for the smallest period of time that anyone can imagine. Yet it is supposed to control our whole existence ??? Read the description of that as given by the scientists. Then come to your own conclusion whether it is language bordering on madness and unbelievable stupidity - or maybe you think it makes sense. There will never be anyone there to witness one of these things and hold it up to show another that it really exists - so that we can experience it for ourselves.
I think this is a miss-characterisation of the scientific position. It's not about belief at all, but rather about evidence and concrete knowledge. The existence of the Higgs Boson was postulated in the 1960's, but only truly accepted by physicists recently. It's not that it just took 50 years for scientists to "believe" in the Higgs Boson - they were waiting for concrete evidence to back up the theory. Such evidence was found recently - the wide acceptance of the existence of the boson followed naturally. Higgs never asked anyone to just take his word for it and 'trust' him; to do so would be to undermine the whole philosophy and methodology of science.
As for the 'size' of the Higgs Boson (and 'controlling our whole existence'): the special thing about these particular bosons is that they form the Higgs Field, the interaction with which gives objects mass. To the extent that giving objects mass is "control", I agree with you - the Higgs Field "controls" our existence. However, I don't think this is a particularly helpful characterisation of "control".
Language of scientists: I'm not sure how you come to conclusion that scientific language "borders on madness". This same language enables your computer to work and planes to fly. It is this language that sent men to the moon and showed us that the solar system was heliocentric. Scientific language enabled us to eradicate smallpox. If this is all just "madness" then madness has acquired a new and formidable quality. To call this language "stupid" is to betray a profound ignorance of its true value and purpose.
"There will be never anyone to witness these things" etc.: Actually, there has been. The existence of the Higgs Boson is accepted because scientists did see it. Your assertion here is demonstrably false. I might add that no one was around to witness the "cosmic egg" referred to in the Veda either. Why do you think the Vedic picture is true?
Dr.Alan wrote:Perhaps you believe in the modern idea that it all began with a big bang - examine the scientists' explanation of that event. Then come to your own conclusion whether it is language bordering on madness and unbelievable stupidity - or maybe you think it makes sense. There was no one there to witness it by the way.
This is a rather simplistic way of framing the "modern idea". The "big bang" idea could be more accurately described as being one of a number of different propositions regarding the "beginning" of this particular universe. I don't think physicists have come to any complete theories about this just yet. You might not agree with the "big bang" idea, but on what basis? Do you really understand the physics behind it? Perhaps you do, but from the tenor of your writing you seem to reject it on somewhat more superficial grounds. Your argument seems to be one of personal incredulity - "I can't see how this could possibly be true. Therefore it isn't." As I'm sure you're aware, such arguments are quite spurious.
Dr.Alan wrote:For those who are interested - which does not seem to include you two - Advaita Vedanta makes a million times more sense than modern scientific non-sense. Think about it. If you can.
This is again an unsupported argument. How do you see that Advaita makes a million times more sense? All you seem to have offered us so far is some unfounded disparaging comments about scientific language. Can you back these comments up with some actual evidence? You are rather keen on the idea of "experiencing things for ourselves" - I certainly do not "experience for myself" that scientific language is "bordering on madness". The only way to decide between our two views is the production of evidence. I think the track-record of "scientific language" speaks for itself. What evidence do you bring for your own position?
Dr.Alan wrote:But if you are not interested in Advaita Vedanta philosophy - no one said that it is compulsory to do so - and in my opinion you are not less than anyone who does take an interest. Maybe you should think along those lines a bit. i.e. we are all human beings taking an interest in things we like, and we should not denigrate others on the grounds of their particular interests.
Yes, but I would say that describing scientific language as "madness" is somewhat of a denigration.
Dr.Alan wrote:Or you can carry on grumbling and weeping if you want. Your life is your choice - I respect that. Let others alone in their choice too. If you are proud to be a human being that is.
This makes it sound like grumbling and weeping is the only alternative to complete acceptance and 'trust' in the Teaching. This is clearly a false characterisation of the way things stand here. I'm not grumbling and weeping about Advaita or anything else, and I'm sure Ahamty2 isn't either. I have found all this to be a stimulating discussion, and it behoves us all to refrain from disparaging the other side just because we don't agree. It behoves us also to remember that this is a public forum in which many views are likely to be expressed. If you only want to talk about Advaita with people who already agree with you then an Ashram is perhaps a more appropriate environment in which to do so. Truth-claims made here are likely to be questioned and analysed, and you have to be prepared to back your claims with evidence (or links thereto!). This is not me imposing the "scientific paradigm" on everyone; its use is simply necessitated by the nature of this forum and the fact that there are competing claims in play.
I think the Scientific method is superior, in part because it doesn't rely on trust to make its conclusions solid. Yes, we pay the price of knowing a little less and more slowly (although I would hardly call the last 50 years "slow" for Science) but what we know is concrete and universally acceptable. I cannot say the same for Advaita. The problem there is that many of the core beliefs in Advaita must be taken on trust because there is no objective evidence to support them. The problem with that is that there is no way to distinguish the truth value of those claims from the claims made by any other religion/philosophy.
Dr.Alan wrote:It is quite simply that some people find the philosophy subject interesting and beneficial in their lives.
You both do not find it of much interest - it seems. But this does not give you any position of authority in it - only puts you in the position of those who "Grumble and weep."
The fact that I think the truth-claims of Advaita are unfounded does not mean that I am not interested in its philosophy. I recognise its historical importance, its evolution, and (hence) its complexity. This in no way commits me to believing its claims.
a. You obviously have a broad understanding of Advaitic/Vedantic philosophy (at least, you have described parts of it quite well), however it would be a mistake to think that some others here do not.
b. It is not enough to simply state your claims and invoke "trust" - doing so is no different to what our tutors at School used to tell us, and we have no more reason to "trust" you than we do them.