The forms coming together probably assists your thoughts on the image well, Ghanshyam. While I don't understand or don't share Osho's views fully I think we do need to consider and wonder about the wonderful ways in which Nature (also called God?) created ways to evolve and continue life in general in this planet. We probably reason about and understand this in other life forms better than Homo sapiens. This I think is more of a philosophical and scientific discussion than a religious, divine or glamorous one, for me.

I got amazed when I saw a Peepal tree by the side of the road near the small bridge over the canal. I saw an idol of Krishna-Radha installed by the worshippers at the trunk of the Peepal tree. There was the shadow of the bridge half on the idol and the rest on the trunk. I visualised aerial -roots as the ‘Tantric’ transformation with that of the divine couple of Radha-Krishna simultaneously, an orgasmic unity, a divine creation……and suddenly came the title of the above mentioned book to my consciousness.

In the Hindu religion, much importance has been given to the Peepal tree- according to the Shastras, this tree is the abode of the gods and our ancestors.

Lord Krishna, in the Gita says, “Amongst the trees, I am the Peepal tree.”

Sir, here my intention is not to project the so called religious beliefs and other dogmas, but just to share how I visualised and saw the mysterious ways of Nature.

There was once a beautiful question asked to Osho:

Science and Religion - Two Petals of the Same Rose

ISN'T A SYNTHESIS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION NEEDED?

The very idea of synthesis already accepts that they are not only two but opposed to each other.
Unless there is an antithesis there is no question of synthesis at all.
For me, science and religion are two sides of the same coin. Science is looking outwards, religion is looking inwards, but both are the same kind of looking, the same kind of search. They may have different names - that does not matter at all.
Science calls it observation, religion calls it awareness.
Science calls it experiment, religion calls it experience.
The difference of words simply signifies that their dimensions are different.
Science is focused on the object; and remember the meaning of the word "object" - that which hinders, objects, prevents.
Religion is focused on the subject. Without the subject there can be no object; without the object there can be no subject.
The subjectivity of man's consciousness and the objectivity of existence are totally interdependent.


Thanks and regards.....

here my intention is not to project the so called religious beliefs and other dogmas, but just to share how I visualised and saw the mysterious ways of Nature.

Ghanshyam, all views are welcome, not that we all need to share the same views however. That would be a disaster! That is how we all grow together.

Science is focused on the object; and remember the meaning of the word "object" - that which hinders, objects, prevents.

I object and disagree! I think that is a narrow view on the science. I think science consciously chose to remain blind towards things without hard evidences/facts. Belief has no place in the dictionary of science by choice while it is the first word in the dictionary of religion. I am not trying to pass a judgement on what is right or wrong Just sharing a little I know about scientific foundations

I think science and religion are two mutually perpendicular lines that humbly meet at God (whatever God means).

"That is how we all grow together." This is more important than what we all differ together in our "Subjective" and "Objective" perception.....!!! This grows us together and adds beauty and essence to our beings.....!! Wonderful, Sir.....!

"Science is focused on the object; and remember the meaning of the word "object" that which hinders, objects, prevents."- is just a fragment and gets completed when the same is read with- "Religion is focused on the subject. Without the subject there can be no object; without the object there can be no subject. The subjectivity of man's consciousness and the objectivity of existence are totally interdependent."

"I think science and religion are two mutually perpendicular lines that humbly meet at God (whatever the God means)."- Very true, Sir.....!

Thanks and regards....

The Religious Mind Includes the Scientific Mind

A religious mind is free of all authority. And it is extremely difficult to be free from authority not only the authority imposed by another but also the authority of the experience that one has gathered, which is of the past, which is tradition. And the religious mind has no beliefs; it has no dogmas; it moves from fact to fact, and therefore the religious mind is the scientific mind. But the scientific mind is not the religious mind. The religious mind includes the scientific mind, but the mind that is trained in the knowledge of science is not a religious mind.

A religious mind is concerned with the totality not with a particular function, but with the total functioning of human existence. The brain is concerned with a particular function; it specializes. It functions in specialization as a scientist, a doctor, an engineer, a musician, an artist, a writer. It is these specialized, narrowed-down techniques that create division, not only inwardly but outwardly. The scientist is probably regarded as the most important man required by society just now, as is the doctor. So function becomes all-important; and with it goes status, status being prestige. So where there is specialization there must be contradiction and a narrowing-down, and that is the function of the brain.

J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life

There are several such debates like these below (both for and against). Some of these are interesting.

"I think science and religion are two mutually perpendicular lines that humbly meet at God (whatever God means). "

Wonderful ....

Very interesting discussion.

@GHS..

Sir

Very interesting debate, I enjoyed listening it......thanks for sharing....!



"Philosophy is not Darshan. Darshan is the eastern term. Darshan means perception, philosophy means thinking. Herman Hesse has coined a new word to translate Darshan into western languages. He calls it “philosia” - “sia” from “to see.”

Philosophy means to think, and Darshan means to see. Both are basically different; not only different, but diametrically opposite. Because when you are thinking you cannot see. You are so filled with thoughts that perception is blurred, perception is clouded. When thinking ceases, you become capable of seeing. Then your eyes are opened, they become unclouded. Perception happens only when thinking ceases.

For Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and the whole western tradition, thinking is the base. For Kanad, Kapil, Patanjali, Buddha, and the whole eastern tradition, seeing is the base. So Buddha is not a philosopher, not at all; neither is Patanjali, nor Kapil or Kanad. They are not philosophers. They have seen the truth; they have not thought about it.

Remember well that you only think when you cannot see. If you can see, there is no reason to think. Thinking is always in ignorance. Thinking is not knowledge, because when you know, there is no need to think. When you don’t know, you will the gap by thinking. Thinking is groping in the dark. So eastern philosophies are not philosophies. To use the word philosophy for eastern Darshan is absolutely wrong. Darshan means to see, to attain the eye, to realize, to know - immediately, directly, without the mediation of thinking and thought.

Thinking can never lead to the unknown. How can it lead? It is impossible. The very process of thinking has to be understood. When you think, what do you really do? You go on repeating old thoughts, memories. If I ask you a question - does God exist? - you can think about it. What will you do? All that you have heard, all that you have read, all that you have accumulated about God, you will repeat. Even if you come to a new conclusion, the newness of it will only be apparent, not real. It will be simply a combination of old thoughts. You can combine many old thoughts and create a new structure, but that structure will be apparently new, not new at all.

Thinking can never come to any original truth. Thinking is never original; it cannot be. It is always of the past, of the old, of the known. Thinking cannot touch the unknown; it is repetitively moving in the circle of the known. You don’t know truth, you don’t know God. What can you do? You can think about it. You will move in circles, around and around. You can never come to any experience of it."

Osho, The Book of Secrets

I am not sure if we need to go down this path of "Science versus Religion " Large part of this debate originates from a "Creationism versus Evolution" conflict. 99% ( just an number) religion we know and practice is just labels ( term "God" is a label created by humans ) . But hidden within these practises are verses and glimpses of transcending experiences .
As of now my thinking is a useful debate is between "Understanding and Experiencing "

Understanding is science. Which may or may not lead to experiencing . Simple approximate example I understand Smoking is bad for health you can tell all the chemical names but I will stop only when I experience the effects
Experience is about transcending and feeling connected with a grand scheme of things which we may or may not understand and difficult to describe

If I am able to experience a flower ( as an example) in its true glory ..without
• Without attachment
• Without interpreting
• Without interruption
• Without pride
• Without feeling
• Without contact
• Without waiting
• Without adding
• Without removing
• Without wanting
• Without not wanting
• Without purpose
• Without effort
• Without fear
• Without reverence
• Without expectation
• Without thoughts
• Without praising
• Without criticising

I am probably experiencing what is labeled as "God"
Are we just using selected parts of books and text created by people to "See" "God" and use scientific part of our brains. When in fact the flowery hidden verses are about experiencing "God" by people who have done that. We downplay it since it is so hard and we end up with a Dogmatic set of rules called religion

So I don't see any conflict between understanding and experience . There is only a conflict between Dogma and Science which we need not bother about

Disclaimer --- I am not saying I have figured it all out and practicing. Just putting out a thought process for debate and learning

@Rajkumar.....

Sir

Very interesting, Sir….! Thank you very much for sharing your valuable thoughts to this debate.

You analyzed experiencing a flower with all its detailed subtlety and delicacy- without any kind of its praise or condemnation. In this seeing- a true ‘seeing’ happens. It is called ‘Choiceless Awareness’: a moment to moment experiencing the flower- direct seeing the ‘flower’ without any barriers, without any images, without any kind of information about the flower. In this ‘experiencing’, a flower becomes an utter experience of sheer orgasmic joy, an ultimate contentment that brings a state of ultimate cheerfulness and blissfulness. It is so fulfilling that you don’t ‘desire’ any more to repeat this ‘experiencing’ again and again and hence you are not seeking. Here ends the ‘seeking’. Here the circle of energy is complete. This submergence is the ultimate orgasmic experience of not that God that we have believed somewhere above the sky. God here simply means ‘GODLINESS’. This ‘experiencing’ of a flower is ‘godliness’- a presence, experiencing…….

‘Seeking’ what? Seeking ‘pleasure’ again and again, if we get it we are happy; if not we are miserable. The circle does not get completed. This incompleteness of ‘experiencing’ creates ‘a desire’ to seek that ‘pleasure’ again and again and the ‘desire’ is endless……….! And it is the cause of all miseries……….!

FROM SEX TO SUPER-CONSCIOUSNESS is experiencing like a flower you mentioned as an example in your view to this debate. This life is a divine journey to experience ‘GODLINESS’ which we may call God……Nature……Science or whatever other created labels by us…..!

We cite books or selected parts of books just to enlighten the darker parts of our limited minds. In scientific investigation, we need reference and support to our views to broaden shallow horizons of our consciousness. In esoteric search, we need people of higher consciousness to hold our finger to point us out the Moon.

This is how we all grow together sharing our insights through such platform like CNP….

Thanks and regards….