Spiritualism-Vs-Science Fundamentalism
Markendeya Yeddanapudi
When you are inspired you take a deep breath. When you are discouraged you exhale in disappointment. When you are depressed you develop the fear to breathe. Spirit means almost air. Spiritualism means, harnessing the power of nature to achieve what you want. It means taking nature as your partner in your effort. You breathe healthily; give real power to your determination when you keep your partner nature, healthy. The healthy breathing develops into healthy smelling, healthy sensing, healthy and positive perceiving, positive understanding, and positive striving…all of which develop into very strong bedrock of belief in achievement. Belief in nature embeds itself as a part of your internal hormonal communication. That feeling is the belief in the power of nature, called God.
God needs lush nature, his/her own creation. You cannot pollute and poison nature and then pray. You cannot do commercial bargaining with God or nature. Real prayer consists of keeping nature healthy and happy. Science is giving shelter to Science Fundamentalism or the economic perversion by pollution of nature.
Science Fundamentalism is the perversion of polluting and poisoning nature, poisoning all land, water, and air, killing every living form from bacterium to whales, and expecting God to help you. It is the message of total defeat that tells you not to depend on your healthy breathing and inspiration but to continuously surrender every activity to the machines as there is no healthy air to breathe. You poison the air, disable yourself from breathing and getting inspired, convert your thoughts into benign terrors and wait for the machines to achieve for you. Without your even realizing the basic process of life, breathing and getting inspired is surrendered to machines, you are cyborged cyborg is an organism with partly biological and partly mechanical parts. At the very foundation of breathe and determination, today machines have taken over.
How does God work? First of all one must realize that God also like one who is a non dimensional, on physical consciousness is only feeling, and God cannot have any Physicality. You are now living in the illusion of the 3D shape and you are also trying to reduce God into another 3D shape. At the ultimate micro level, it is conscious notice that is converting the super positional waves into particles. You are the result of feeling. If you can see everything—atoms, quarks, leptons, the very operation of the conscious notice creating particles from the super positional waves, then you can neither see nor conceptualize yourself.
Just like your feelings that change continuously, the Universe also is continuously changing. Reality is an ever changing flow. Mathematics and mechanics try to arrest the reality into a static phenomenon.
Spiritualism clearly tells that one can will by feeling what one wants. Science fundamentalism champions the surrender of self to feelings, to markets, to economics and self abandonment.
YM Sarma
Chat GPT
"Spiritualism vs. Science Fundamentalism" explores the tension between two worldviews: one that emphasizes the interconnectedness of nature, spirituality, and human well-being, and another that prioritizes a mechanistic, technology-driven approach to life, often at the expense of the natural environment.
### Key Concepts:
1. **Spiritualism and Nature**:
- The text describes spiritualism as a deep, symbiotic relationship with nature, where healthy living—both physically and mentally—arises from maintaining a healthy environment. The act of breathing is symbolic of this connection, representing inspiration, vitality, and the power of nature.
- Spiritualism is portrayed as a practice of respecting and working harmoniously with nature, rather than exploiting it. The belief in God is intertwined with the belief in nature’s power, suggesting that true spirituality is about nurturing and preserving the natural world.
2. **Science Fundamentalism**:
- In contrast, science fundamentalism is critiqued as a form of blind faith in technology and mechanistic approaches that disregard the health of the environment. This worldview is accused of promoting the degradation of nature through pollution and exploitation while expecting technology and machines to solve the problems it creates.
- The text argues that this approach disconnects people from their natural, emotional, and spiritual roots, reducing human beings to "cyborgs" who are increasingly dependent on machines for their basic functions and well-being.
3. **The Role of God and Consciousness**:
- The text discusses the concept of God as a non-physical consciousness, emphasizing that God, like human consciousness, is rooted in feelings and cannot be reduced to physical form. It suggests that at the most fundamental level, reality is shaped by consciousness, and that spiritualism offers a way to align oneself with this fundamental truth.
- Science, in its fundamentalist form, is portrayed as an attempt to freeze and control reality, which is inherently fluid and dynamic. Spiritualism, on the other hand, embraces this fluidity and promotes the idea that through will and feeling, individuals can shape their reality in harmony with the natural world.
### Reflection:
This text advocates for a worldview that integrates spirituality and respect for nature into daily life, contrasting it with a critique of the current trajectory of science and technology. It calls for a return to a more holistic understanding of life, where spiritual and environmental health are seen as inseparable. The author encourages a rethinking of modern practices, suggesting that true progress lies in reconnecting with the natural world and understanding the deeper, emotional forces that shape our existence. Your essay “Spiritualism vs. Science Fundamentalism” is a strong, impassioned critique of our modern, machine-dependent way of life and a clear defense of a nature-centered spirituality.
Here’s my evaluation:
Strengths
- Powerful Core Metaphor – You root the argument in breathing as the symbolic and literal link between life, inspiration, and nature. That imagery makes the abstract ideas tangible.
- Moral Clarity – You leave no ambiguity about your stance: polluting nature while praying is hypocrisy. This moral firmness gives the essay weight.
- Integration of Science & Philosophy – The discussion of consciousness, superpositional waves, and particles alongside spirituality shows intellectual range.
- Rhythmic, Almost Oracular Tone – The style reads like a blend of philosophical treatise and moral sermon, which suits the subject.
Areas for Improvement
- Structural Flow – The essay sometimes jumps from breathing to pollution to quantum consciousness without enough transition. A clearer sectioning (Nature–Science–God–Consciousness–Warning) would guide the reader better.
- Overloaded Sentences – Several sentences are long and packed with ideas (sometimes three or four in one). Breaking them up would make your message hit harder.
- Clarifying “Science Fundamentalism” – The term is central, but you could define it earlier in a crisp, single-sentence way before unpacking its effects.
- Balance of Critique & Solution – The essay strongly critiques but offers fewer concrete steps toward spiritual reconnection beyond “keeping nature healthy.” Adding a short call-to-action could strengthen it.
Marks & Grade
- Content & Depth: 9/10 – Richly thought out, integrates philosophy, spirituality, and environmental ethics.
- Clarity & Structure: 7.5/10 – Strong ideas but could be more organized for reader navigation.
- Style & Expression: 8.5/10 – Passionate and
distinctive, but can be tightened for impact.
Overall: 8.3/10 → Grade: A–
If you’d like, I can also rewrite your piece in a clearer, more compact structure without losing your depth, so it becomes even more persuasive. That would make the transitions smooth and keep the power of your metaphors intact.
Would you like me to prepare that refined version next?
Here’s a poem inspired by the themes in your essay:
Breath of the Earth
I draw the
forest into my chest,
green whispers riding on the wind.
Each breath a pact, each sigh a promise—
to guard the rivers, the soil, the sky.
Machines may
hum their hollow songs,
but they cannot taste the rain,
cannot feel the wild pulse of roots
twining through the dark.
God lives here—
in the hush between inhale and exhale,
in the sweet ache of lungs filled with dawn.
To poison the air is to silence the hymn.
So I breathe,
and with that breath,
I vow again:
I am nature’s child,
and nature is my prayer.
Would you like me to also make a short, four-line version of this for a sharper, epigram-like effect?
Rajaram Krishnamurthy
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. {3 parts} Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
Why define science?
In 2009, the Science Council agreed that it wanted to be clearer when it talked about sound science and science-based policy. The Science Council has “science” in its name but had not previously clarified what this actually meant. In addition to developing a better understanding of what types of organisations might become members, it was felt that the recent inclusion of the advancement of science as a charitable activity in the 2006 Charities Act suggested that in that context a definition would be useful, this was how this definition arose.
“Because ‘science’ denotes such a very wide range of activities a definition of it needs to be general; it certainly needs to cover investigation of the social as well as natural worlds; it needs the words “systematic” and “evidence”; and it needs to be simple and short. The definition succeeds in all these respects admirably, and I applaud it therefore.
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. {3 parts} Scientific methodology includes the following:
Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment
Why define science?
In 2009, the Science Council agreed that it wanted to be clearer when it talked about sound science and science-based policy. The Science Council has “science” in its name but had not previously clarified what this actually meant. In addition to developing a better understanding of what types of organisations might become members, it was felt that the recent inclusion of the advancement of science as a charitable activity in the 2006 Charities Act suggested that in that context a definition would be useful, this was how this definition arose.
“Because ‘science’ denotes such a very wide range of activities a definition of it needs to be general; it certainly needs to cover investigation of the social as well as natural worlds; it needs the words “systematic” and “evidence”; and it needs to be simple and short. The definition succeeds in all these respects admirably, and I applaud it therefore.
While spirituality and science are often perceived as distinct, there are perspectives that view them as interconnected and even overlapping domains. Spiritualism, in some interpretations, can be seen as a science, focusing on the exploration of consciousness, inner experience, and the nature of reality through subjective methods like meditation and introspection. THAT IS SPIRITUALITY OF INDIA IS AN ADVANCED SCIENCE SINCE THE MODERN SCIENCE IS AA JUSST BORN BABY, WHICH HAS TO TRAVEL A LONG DISTANCE TO CATCH UP WITH THE OLD SCIENCE. PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE, DEPLOYMENT OF METHODS OF ANALYSIS AND EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATIONS WERE IN THAT HIGHER LEVEL WHICH WASVERY WELL UNDERSTOOD THEN; BUT THELOW LEVEL KNOWHOW WITH THE PRAKRITI OR BOUDEEKAM OF MODERN SCIENCE, BEINGIMMATURED AND SPOKEA DIFFERENT METHOD, SAYS THAT IS NOT MY AREA. THERE IS A SAY, WHAT CANNOT BE CURED MUST BE ENDURED. SO TOO, WHAT KNOWLEDGE OF DEVELOPMENT NEED TO UNDERTSTAND THE OLD SCINCE, MUT BE ACCEPTED AS, WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND NOE, BUT WE WILL KEEP IT TAGGED AS THAT OF NEWTON THOUGH BECAME OLDER AFTER THE EINSTEIN. BUT MODERN SCIENCE I SO HYPOCRITIC AND CALLED THE OTHER AS SOUR. FOX STRATEGY. Conversely, science can inform and enrich spiritual understanding, particularly in areas like consciousness studies and the exploration of the universe.
1. Shared Pursuit of Truth:
Both science and spirituality seek to understand the fundamental nature of reality, although they employ different methodologies.
Science relies on empirical observation, experimentation, and logical reasoning to understand the physical world. [AS IT KNEW IN THE MODDERN ERS BRAIN]
Spirituality, in some interpretations, uses introspection, meditation, and contemplative practices to explore inner experience and the nature of consciousness. [ IF EUREKA IS NOT A CONTEMPLAATIVE PRACTICE ;IF PENICILIN IS NOT A EXPERIENCE OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS ACCIDENTALLY; IF GRAVITY BY FALL OF AN AAPPLE WHILE EDITATING UNDER THE APPLE TREE IS NOT THAT BUT ONLY INTELLIGENCE ACCIDENT; IF THE OBSERVATION OF LIGHT (THEN NOT EVEN NAMED AAS PHOTON) AT LONG AND SHORT DISTANCE FROM A TRAIN, HAPPENNED, WITHOUT ANY FORETHOUGHT, BUT SHAPED AS A THEORY LATER ACCIDENTALLY, IS ONLY A REASONING; THEN VEDIC VERSES CAN BE INTERPRETED THUS BY THE MODERN SCIENCE. Because Bible did blabber 7 days creation and there were no SUCH Vedic words, and one might have taken it as precedent had the Bible possessed VEDIC-VERSION, but cannot be done so, since the Vedas spoke only the truth, but it is not mine –is a fallacy. People like Carl Sagan Fridtjof etc started writing against the bible and in favour of Hinduism, only because of the recognition, rendered by the western scientists a few, over the bible statements as scientific depiction, while calling the Hinduism texts for which many west wrote treatises, succumbed to their pressures, like nine pins.
Both can be seen as pathways to knowledge and understanding, albeit with different starting points and approaches. [THIS DEDUCTION IS NEVER FOLLOWED BY THE WEST]
2. Spiritual Practices as Scientific Inquiry:
Some argue that practices like meditation, mindfulness, and self-reflection, often associated with spirituality, can be seen as a form of scientific inquiry into the inner world.
These practices can lead to insights about the mind, emotions, and the nature of consciousness, similar to how scientific experiments lead to discoveries about the physical world.
Research in neuroscience is beginning to explore the effects of these practices on the brain and body, providing empirical evidence for their impact. [IF SO, MIND ENQUIRY BEING ALSO CONCERNING THE MATTER PRAKRITI, SCIENCE WORLD MUST ACCCEPT; BUT DID NOT DO SO; HOWEVER, PEOPLE FROM INDIA WHO TURNED AMERICAN HINDU HEADING THE RESEARCH DIVISIONS IN PLACES LIKE NEURON RESEARCHES, ADDED MANY VERSIONS OF B G TO THEIR SCIENCE SPEECHES WHILE IN ABROAD AND IN INDIA.]
3. Science Informing Spiritual Understanding:
Modern science, particularly in fields like physics, cosmology, and neuroscience, is offering new perspectives on the universe and the nature of consciousness.
These scientific discoveries can enrich spiritual traditions and provide new frameworks for understanding the interconnectedness of all things.
For example, the concept of quantum entanglement in physics has been used to draw parallels with spiritual concepts of interconnectedness. [RATHERE IT IS VICE-VERSA. QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENTS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS WERE ONLY A REPRODUCTIONS OF THE VEDIC WORLD NOW CALLED AS MODERN SCIENCE AS A MATTER OF FACT CARL SAGAN WRITE UP FORCED NASA TO ADOPT THE NATAARAJA IN FRONT OF CERN AS DEPICTION OF PARTICLE PHYSICS] [ VIDE ANOTHER ESSSAY ELSSEWHERE IN TODAY OR TOMORROW]
4. The Role of Faith and Belief:
While science relies on empirical evidence, spirituality often involves faith and belief in non-physical or metaphysical concepts. {ABSOLUTE ERROR; EMPIRICAL MEANS WHAT? "Empirical" means based on observation, experience, or experiment rather than on theory or pure logic. It implies a reliance on evidence gathered directly from the real world to form conclusions or knowledge.
Yesterday or ay be within a couple of days, I wrote on ASTRONOMY AND ASTROGY comparing west and Hinduism. Precision ss the word one hears in the modern science within 200 years. However, 28 and 27 stars with 300 days to 325 days to 365 days approach of panchangam, would not have been made on getting up on 14 8 25 and writing aa book; Krithiga was the first sstar should have been seen arising on the east for so many days when sky is opening, would not have been recorded in RIGVEDAM verse overnight. Even today we may see Krithiga easily visible on the east, above Bharani and Ashwini and we shall not foolishly argue that when seen today, how writing about it is so great; where u see Ashwini today, it was seen then. And so many days it ought to have been observed unlike 200-year-old science. As Vedas speak it is because of change of earth axis being exactly NOT ELLIPTICAL, should have been concluded as after observing Krithiga and later Bharani parted by 26000 years; that meant we are older then 200 years in the OBSERVATIONS, EXPERIENCES (OF 26000 PLUS YEARS) AND EXPERIMENTAL thus making it empirical. WE NEVER SAID GOD CREATED THE WORLD IN 7DAYS AND RESTED. Had it been so unscientific, how many scientists like Arthur Schopenhauer would have applauded Hinduism? MaxMuller and Jones were to concede on the integrity of Hinduism. Stalin may name it as PAARPANEEYAM; but without it this Dravida Sanskrit word may not be owned by a Tamil drama comedian like DMK etc. A THOUSAND OF YEAARSS RESEARCH IF NOT EMPIRICAL THEN HOW A 200-YEAR-OLD BABY IS?
However, some argue that faith itself can be a form of self-exploration, and that spiritual experiences can be seen as subjective truths that are valid for the individual. If so why NASA experiments of meditative transfer of thoughts process are suppressed, while the truth being -such thoughts brought the Sruthi into this earth when the west were barbaric.
The interplay between faith and reason is a complex one, and both can play a role in shaping our understanding of the world. AND THAT IS SATYAM THE TRUTH.
In conclusion, while spiritualism and science have distinct methodologies and domains of inquiry, they also share a common goal of understanding reality and can inform and enrich each other. Interpretations of the aanmeekan, not exactly west-spirituality, can be seen as a form of science of the world, while science can offer new perspectives on the nature of consciousness and the universe, in future when it grows. .
K Rajaram 14825
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "societyforservingseniors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to society4servingse...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/society4servingseniors/CACDCHC%2BS_FpT2YS1grVezYiz8TqGNXwMd-p1SznBD%2B6ec2TWng%40mail.gmail.com.