Dear George,

I was not previously familiar with Varadaraja V. Raman.

Having now read his Wikipedia entry, the article you referred to (the site of the first link rejected my browser) and his youtube clip, "The Hindu Gods", my first impression is that Raman, undoubtedly an expert in both physics and Hindu culture, is a person still struggling to reconcile science and religion, who is still at an intermediate state like an unfinished stone, who not yet had sufficient time to digest all the vast information that he acquired. From hints within his video-clip, I have the impression that he follows the VishishtAdvaita (qualified monism) school.

Your own description of «God’s Grace in the Self, - “God within” if you like - and God without, the former being a projection of the latter», also corresponds well with the Vishishtadvaita school of Vedanta.

Note that no school of philosophy is more "correct" or better than the others, since the Reality itself cannot be expressed in words anyway: the different schools simply suit different people or sometimes even the same person at different stages. It is like climbing the same mountain from different directions.

<<<<<<Divine knowledge cannot be communicated, but why should this render my religion invalid?>>>>>

Because this is what every religion claims.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»
<<<<They all boil down to things, thus by all those dictionaries, a claim needs to be about the world.>>>>

Ah ha. I've got you. What, pray tell, are the claims of your religion about? (ans. not the world)

So you are stuck. If your religion makes no claims outside of the world, or it makes no claims.

Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence. You cannot defeat it.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the info. I think https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Dvaita-Advaita-and-Visishtadvaita explains the difference between the three schools. I would not dare to argue which one is closest to the Christian religion which, after all, is also compatible with all sorts of philosophies: I am not only ignorant about Vedanta schools but neither am I a Christian theologian.

I certainly agree that no school of philosophy is more "correct" or better than the other in representing reality (by verbal or other models). Even when you restrict yourself to the features of reality that science, notably physics, has access to, the question about what is the “correct” theory is becoming more and more blurred, and you have e.g. Stephen Hawking’s “model dependent realism” (c.f.my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464).

I would not want to pass judgement on V. V. Raman who has proved that he understands what modern physics, as developed in the West, is all about, and hence - to my mind - is better suited than many others to make also the Hindu wisdom accessible to an open Western mind.

You’d think so, wouldn’t you RationalRazor.

<<Ah ha. I've got you.>>

But, as sure as day turns night, Yuyutsu will have some sort of sophistry ready to respond with.

I’ve been through all this with him/her/it (I say, “him/her/it”, because Yuyutsu believes that he/she/it exists on a higher and more-enlightened plane to the rest of us and must, therefore, remain genderless, as he/she/it has supposedly risen above "meaningless" statuses such as gender) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0.

Eventually, It will get very angry at you and demand that you compensate It for the many hours that you’ve cost It during the debate (It hates society but is happy become exceedingly wealthy from it).

Eventually, It will pretend that you don’t exist anymore.

Which has its pros and cons, I suppose.

Dear Razor,

«Because this is what every religion claims»

Please be more precise: shall I take it that by "this" you mean that "Divine knowledge cannot be communicated"?

This is bizarre: say an Olympic weight-lifter admits that they cannot play chess, does it make them an invalid weight-lifter?

An invalid weight-lifter is a person who cannot lift weights.
An invalid religion is a system of practices which does not help its follower(s) to come closer to God.

Nevertheless, lets assume for a moment that every religion claimed that divine knowledge cannot be communicated. Aren't you saying the same yourself? Are you perchance of the view that divine knowledge CAN be communicated? Does otherwise make you invalid?

«What, pray tell, are the claims of your religion about?»

You seem to confuse religion with philosophy: religions are not there to make claims - philosophies do that (usually). Religions are there to help people come closer to God.

While there often is some symbiosis between religions and philosophies, that is not required. Particular philosophies for example could include statements such as "this-or-that religion is valid" (explaining why), while particular religions may include a teaching to study this-or-that philosophy (since it will accelerate your progress towards God).

If you have been following my discussion with George, I just explained how three different philosophies can support the same religion - not only that, but those very same philosophies can support Hinduism, Christianity and many other religions.

«Every claim you make is susceptible to evidence»

Nevertheless, not every statement is a claim.

---

Dear George,

«I would not dare to argue which one is closest to the Christian religion»

All three schools of Vedanta encourage religion and support the teachings of Christ. Whichever of them encourages and supports its follower the most effectively to become Christ-like, is the "closest". As people in general and Christians in particular are quite different in temperament and inclinations, which school is most appropriate can be different for different individuals.

//Advaita Vedanta states that You and God are absolutely the same.//

//Religions are there to help people come closer to God.//

Yuyutsu, if we are absolutely the same as God then it is impossible to get any closer: we're already as close as we can possibly be.

If God does not exist, your other favourite claim, then it is once again impossible to get any closer: there is nothing to get closer to.

Your re-definition of religion doesn't make any sense in light of your other beliefs.

Although I guess that doesn't matter, since you only use it as a sleight-of-hand that allows you arbitrarily dismiss bona fide religions and annoy the irreligious by insisting that they are religious. It's not a very good trick, Yuyutsu, and it's not fooling anybody. I'd find a new one if I were you.