OzSpen,

You ask:

" Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?"

No, I'm suggesting that the laws of physics have been around from everlasting and they'll run to everlasting. I don't know if chance has anything to do with them.

Perhaps in deep space, some of those laws may be bent, but I don't know enough about physics to comment, I only went as far as Year 12 Physics, and that was well over fifty years ago.

Joe

OzSpen,

You ask:

" Are you saying you agree with the philosophy that time + energy + chance created the ordered laws of physics?"

No, I'm suggesting that the laws of physics have been around from everlasting to everlasting. I don't know if chance has anything to do with them. Perhaps in deep space, some of those laws may be bent, but I don't know enough about physics to comment, I only went as far as Year 12 Physics, and that was well over fifty years ago.

Joe

Dear Ozpen,

You write; “That's my understanding of logical fallacies as well.” Well no, this was specifically referencing the Genetic fallacy and while it could also apply to some of the others it is not universal.

Hopefully you have had the chance to reflect on the language used by the review you linked to and are able to accept it as ad hominem and emotive and thus rightly rejected.

Dear Banjo,

«I suspect that contemporary proponents of the Advaita spiritual philosophy have “cherry-picked” some of the latest scientific knowledge in order to illustrate their definition and prove their point while leaving aside anything that contradicts it.»

Guilty as charged, I used to do those things myself. Such reckless attempts to popularise Advaita at all costs were common in the New-Age movement and probably contributed to its downfall. I was always too enthusiastic to save the world, without first asking whether it wanted to be saved (at the age of 7 I decided to free the children that were locked behind a high wall in a monastery run by cruel witch-like nuns in black. I ran with a toy gun, shot in the air and shouted "you are free", "I've come to save you", but these ungrateful kids instead threw a rock down the wall which hit my head, sending me to the emergency-room).

But I try not to commit this mistake any more and accept that Advaita is not intended to be popular, but is meant for the fewer students and seekers who seriously want to know the One ultimate Reality, be it called 'God', 'Truth', 'Love', 'the Absolute' or by any other name (the Sanskrit name is 'Brahman', which must not to be confused with 'Brahma', the creator-deity). To avoid such populist interpretations, one ought to study Advaita with a qualified teacher within an established lineage, which I now do.

That said, I do not find contradictions between science and Advaita:

We need to distinguish between Reality and our experience(s) of it. Despite all being One, despite there truly being nothing but God, we do for now, like it or not, EXPERIENCE duality/plurality. Objectiveness is one such experience - and empirical science is the correct tool to investigate and determine facts WITHIN THAT EXPERIENCE. We also, for example, experience another form of duality while dreaming (both when sleeping and within aboriginal dream-time), but empirical science is of no use there.

Since Advaita speaks of the ultimate reality and science speaks of a specific experience, no contradictions are possible.

Dear Banjo,

Regarding the precise choice of words, truth can be approached from so many different angles and so it can have that many names with different nuances.

'Love' in essence is a synonym of 'truth' because it points to our essential oneness. To the extent that we experience duality/plurality, we can only love (true, not for-profit, love) ourselves, it just makes no sense otherwise - it is only the glimpse into the truth of Oneness which allows us to expand our sense of "self" to also love "others".

As far as we know, Jesus never explained to his disciples WHY one ought to love their fellow/neighbour, even their enemies. Perhaps this was because his disciples were simple people and not such great intellectuals. Nevertheless he just told them to do it, knowing that it will remove their psychological barriers, their cognitive dissonance which prevents them from finding the Oneness of all, the Truth, God.

Unlike 'Truth' which is a stronger noun, 'Eternal' is an adjective and also includes that which has a beginning (but no end), the intermittent (which eventually must return) and that which can change (but not disappear completely).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your explanations. I look forward to learning more about the spiritual philosophy of Advaita from authoritative sources as soon as I get a chance to do so.

As for the “contradictions between science and Advaita”, you may recall that I cited an example in my definition of “truth” :

« The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. Truth is not reality in this instance. »

Here is the full definition once again :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5636#156235
.

Also, you write :

« 'Love' in essence is a synonym of 'truth' because it points to our essential oneness. To the extent that we experience duality/plurality, we can only love (true, not for-profit, love) ourselves, it just makes no sense otherwise - it is only the glimpse into the truth of Oneness which allows us to expand our sense of "self" to also love "others". »

While we are all members of the same (“one”) species, each and every “one” of us is unique and cannot be replaced by another. I can never be an “other” and an “other” can ever be me.

From my point of view, the only “oneness” we share is that of being members of a common species, homo sapiens. All “others” are unique, different, autonomous, and entirely independent. We are similar but not "one".

I also consider that to love another is not to love oneself – quite the opposite. Love often involves denial of self for the benefit of "other". There is usually an element of self-sacrifice. War heroes are extreme cases.

I do not see truth and love as being synonymous. Naturally, love exists only if it is true. If not, it is not love. But that could be said about anything. A haircut is a haircut only if it is true. If it is not true, it is not a haircut.

That does not make truth and haircut synonymous.

.