What is heaven?

[Something completely different]

If you just want to read the introduction, even that much would get your foot in the door.

The narrow basis of science
First, the main purpose of Substance and Shadow is to distinguish the Vedic
method of knowledge from other methods. Humanity has different methods of
knowledge available to it. I hold that only through Vedic knowledge can we grade
the validity of these methods. Substance and Shadow examines four such
methods: empiricism, scepticism, rationalism and authoritative testimony. I hold
that Western science isn't capable of comparing and contrasting the validity of
one method of knowledge against others. Why? Because its own basis is too
narrow. That basis was summed up by Albert Einstein in Out of My Late Years
(1936):
Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily,
certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to
them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.
Einstein admitted that this method cannot even prove the existence of the
external world. So how can we be sure that the bodily objects scientists study are
real things? Aren't such objects just mental interpretations of a jumble of sense
data that, with a nonhuman mind, or even with a human mind culturally
different than ours, could be interpreted in a very different way? Wouldn't a
different interpretation of sense data reveal a very different world? Which
interpretation is the right one? And how, by this method Einstein described, can
we ever know whether there is a reality outside the range of our sense
experiences? These questions are not for science to answer. They are for

amazing how I made it through this. Do you think this read proves anything? It`s just nonsence.

by the way.

"Making up quotes, for dishonest use of validating your personal views or agendas is fun!"

Albert Einstein