Brahma Sutras

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sangom, my arguments were about the "I" sensation, not involuntary kicking or the mere survive and multiply urge of all living beings from single cell entities to the advanced primate species. My argument is that the "I" cognizance is nothing but what appears as magic arising out of the workings of a complex brain. The conscious mind is nothing more than a functioning of a complex brain. Employing the principle of Occam's razor, I opt for this more straight forward reasoning free of anything imaginary. It is because I find this reasoning persuasive I find atheism persuasive, not the other way around as you have stated.

regrads ...

Dear Shri Nara,

We know for sure the "I" sensation in humans and we may also perhaps agree that the higher animals, most birds, reptiles, etc., exhibit behaviour which reveal this "I" sensation. But we may not be correct in discarding the urge for sustaining life and multiplying which the lower organisms exhibit, as outside the ambit of this "I" sensation. An amoeba hunts for its prey, for example. Even our own body cells reject "foreign" implants possibly because there apparently is a "I" & "not-I" sense at the level of the cells themselves.

I therefore feel that this "I" sense must be independent of brain or any other body part, but it must be extending throughout the physical body of any living organism and hence related to the phenomenon called "Life".

 

[Vaagmi]

A rationale for non-dual reality.
All hindu schools of thoughts and for that matter all religions accept that God is omnipotent , omniscient and eternal. But there can be only one such entity. Also that entity can allow for or disallow any other reality. All other realities are at its discretion. So for all purposes that is the only reality of substance or is the ultimate reality. Given these facts advaita makes very good sense in considering reality as ultimately only one.

Dear sravna,

omnipotent means just all-powerful. omniscient similarly means all-knowing. Eternal may mean "without a beginning or end. Now Why should there be only one such entity? What excludes the possibility of many such entities? "there can be only one such entity" is not automatically derived from omnipotent etc., It also does not follow that all other entities are at the discretion of this mono entity. Something is missing in the argument.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Raghy,

your post #136:

The earth is said to be about 4 billion years old; the universe is said to be 14 billion years (?) old…. In this world our life span, even 100 years would be like a soap bubble. That temporary.

So what? Why this obsession with spans of time? Even if it is just a storm in a teacup, for the ant sitting on the edge of the cup it is a full scale gale. I get only one life to live here. I dont like to be told that it is just a trivial one nano second divided a million times in the larger scheme of things. I am not bothered about it. So let us forget about this world being just phenomenal. Each such phenomena stays long enough for me to wonder what is behind that and it is worth the effort to find out that. Or else you should say that whenever I see the computer before me it is not the computer that I am seeing but it is my existence here that I am seeing/realising. But that would start another chain of questions.

 

[Nara]

... An amoeba hunts for its prey, for example. Even our own body cells reject "foreign" implants possibly because there apparently is a "I" & "not-I" sense at the level of the cells themselves.

I therefore feel that this "I" sense must be independent of brain or any other body part, but it must be extending throughout the physical body of any living organism and hence related to the phenomenon called "Life".

I don't think we can simply take it for granted that instinctive and involuntary behavior can only result from "I" consciousness. There are many animate and even inanimate objects that display what may appear to be conscious behavior. Certain metals get attracted to magnet. As you have yourself stated, the immune system of our body fights off foreign invaders. Our heart beats on its own accord without help from brain. The heart of brain dead people keeps beating away. Our digestive system can override commands from brain without any conscious effort, or sometimes even in spite of our conscious effort. All of this shows brain is not necessary for certain base level functions, thats all, not the presence of consciousness In other words, there is no valid reason to suppose "I" consciousness in primitive living organisms just because they engage in base level actions of survival and procreation.

All our cognitive abilities rely on brain activity, sight, sound, smell, touch, you name it. None of it can be experienced without the brain. All these cognitive functions get affected by changes in brain. Brain activity undergoes many changes when we sleep and our consciousness is correspondingly affected. Anesthesia takes our consciousness away by messing with the cerebral cortex. Our consciousness gets altered by medication that regulates chemicals and electrical activity in the brain. Please google V.S. Ramachandran and you will see many intriguing experiments that clearly establish connection between brain and consciousness. So, the hypothesis that "I" consciousness is nothing more than what our complex brain creates is on solid rational grounds.

If the argument is that there is an entity external to the brain and that brain is simply a conduit to that entity, then the problem of consciousness only gets more complicated. We now have to explain the nature of this entity, how does brain convey all the information to it, how does the entity perceive all this information, etc. In other words, we have doubled the questions we have to answer, for the brain and for this entity. If there is reasonable evidence for this, or if this helps us find rational explanations, then it would be okay to go down this road. But I am afraid neither is true. So, I see no valid reason to suppose the "I" consciousness is an independent entity outside the brain.

Thank you ...

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I did see your post but thought that we may not have any meeting ground when you insist that "One has to realise 2:32 against one just believes 2:32", etc.

My view is that it is not always possible to "realize" everything but it is much easier to understand. Understanding leads one gradually to the stage where one will partially realize the illusory nature of this world. For full realization, it is absolutely necessary that ordinary people like us are dead - i.e., it is not posssible to fully realize or experience this.

Liberation or Moksha was a candy which was dangled in front of householder brahmins by the pundits, nothing more. Believing what the pundits said, most brahmins (and many NBs who liked to dabble in religion & philosophy etc.,) observed all the religious injunctions and even went to the extent of accepting "sanyaasa" etc., under the mistaken notion that all these would lead "one" to a highly blissful state of existence without even an iota of trouble or suffering or pain, etc., called the state of brahmaanandam. But there is no evidence for the existence of any such state; hence, this liberation is a religious myth, that's all.

Humans are born every second and the world population of humans is increasing. If many people had attained Moksha, the world population should naturally have declined at least marginally and not increased. We do not as yet know why the population is increasing and is forecasted to increase as years pass. Let us not therefore confuse ourselves with the ambition of getting Moksha. That is my view.

Just two points I want to make:

1. In ancient hindu religious thought anandham is not just happiness. It is something else. A reference to Anandavalli in Taitreeya Upanishad will give a lead about this. Learned scholars say happiness is relative while anandham is not that. So brahmanandham is..........

2. Human population is indeed increasing. Does it mean that the population of jeevas/atmas is also increasing. This is something to be pondered over. The answer to the question "why population of humans is increasing" may be there. So those who are bothered about getting moksha may still have a point.

Thanks.

 

[C RAVI]

If the argument is that there is an entity external to the brain and that brain is simply a conduit to that entity, then the problem of consciousness only gets more complicated. We now have to explain the nature of this entity, how does brain convey all the information to it, how does the entity perceive all this information, etc. In other words, we have doubled the questions we have to answer, for the brain and for this entity. If there is reasonable evidence for this, or if this helps us find rational explanations, then it would be okay to go down this road. But I am afraid neither is true. So, I see no valid reason to suppose the "I" consciousness is an independent entity outside the brain.

Thank you ...

"I" = Soul, gets Brain as an apparatus to operate through, during the given span of life.

The thought process, perceptions, intentions, behaviors, attitude, character etc..etc are out come of one's Brain process. This reflects what up to the Soul is with its "I".

When this "I"=Soul gains the highest spiritual energies, using the same brain as an apparatus, the soul attains highest realization, totally shedding "I" and escapes birth-death-rebirth cycle.

 

[tks]

Sri. TKS,

It is quite possible you are a very knowledgeable person.

But this is the second message from you ridiculing this thread.

Sir, there is no need for you to praise this thread. at the same time, I don't see the reason to ridicule a thread like this.

Sri. Sravna and other learned members deserve credit for this thread. I don't know about others, personally I am learning something here. If this thread is not worth the trouble visiting, one need not visit this thread, I would suppose.

Cheers!

I reject your characterization - if you had a question about my point of view (and it is a point of view only) you are welcome to ask politely. I did not use the name of Sri Ramana Maharishi whose work I have great deal of respect for, to ridicule anything . It would be silly to think that way - I will just interpret your comments as a hasty response.

In an open forum you are going to find many views. Learn to be tolerant of all the views, please. Or just dont read my posts and skip over.

You can give credit to whoever you please and it is irrelevant to me. Similarly whether I am knowledgeable or not is irrelevant and I never claimed anything here for you to pass any kind of judgement.

I have nothing more to respond to you ....

 

[tks]

In most of his posts he sounds condescending. Probably he only knows why.

Sri Sravana

If you only say that you are repeating your beliefs that is fine provided you do not attribute your beliefs to teaching of Sri Sankara or anyone else. There are long series of posts questioning your logic and all you did in my view is simply repeat the same beliefs over and over. You are welcome to post anyway you want.

I tend to think that if someone posts science fiction and calls it as science then it is hard to get engaged and I may choose to call it as fiction.

In my view using terms from scriptures loosely to push a set of own pet theories and beliefs is a form of disrespect to a great teaching tradition. The fact that there are logical holes pointed out by a few should be enough feedback that your beliefs have flaws. But you are welcome to proceed ahead ignoring them..

But expect push back now and then in a open forum..

Regards

 

[tks]

Because he thinks he is much wiser than he really is but is never able to express his learning or wisdom except saying that one has to learn from a proper, ideal guru which he claims he has done.

Here, in this forum, he came of his own accord - without invitation - but is unwilling to share his vidya with anyone even though there will definitely be many who will like to learn. In a way he is committing a sin because our sastras lay down that one should never hold one's knowledge as secret and should teach it to anyone who comes to him for learning. On top of that he often says this is Q4 activity (neither urgent nor important) for him!

Sri Sangom

No one has come here to learn anything from me .. I never claimed anything.

You have rejected what I have said before - to learn anything there is a need to earn the right to learn which includes proper prerequisites, proper Shraddha and guidance from right teacher (and I do not claim to be one and I do not believe any forum can provide that). But if you or anyone asked a targeted question and I know the answer I will be happy to share what I know.

The comment I had in response to one of your posts calling into attention of teaching methods of Sri Ramana Maharishi was not made loosely.

I have not come to this forum on my own accord to get any certificate from anyone

In general if someone expresses a strong opinion or theory which has holes I do not bother to correct. If someone asks a question with right attitude and if I have something to share I will.

You have made strong statements as if you have the final word, so it is pointless to bother to respond to your theories or show logical fallacies in them

 

[sravna]

Dear sravna,

omnipotent means just all-powerful. omniscient similarly means all-knowing. Eternal may mean "without a beginning or end. Now Why should there be only one such entity? What excludes the possibility of many such entities? "there can be only one such entity" is not automatically derived from omnipotent etc., It also does not follow that all other entities are at the discretion of this mono entity. Something is missing in the argument.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

Something is all powerful would imply that it would be able to overpower everything else. But if there are say two such entities, one cannot overpower the other. That would mean that they are not omnipotent.

 

[Nara]

....Because he thinks he is much wiser than he really is ... [snip] ... but is unwilling to share his vidya with anyone even though there will definitely be many who will like to learn.

Dear Sangom, I edited your post a little bit to make sure what you are really saying is not missed.

When it comes to the subject matter of this thread, we all are amateurs. Nobody can claim to possess the absolute truth. Obviously each of us is convinced of the truth that we see. But it takes a certain level of maturity to admit to oneself that he/she cannot be 100% certain. It takes a level of humility to realize that those who have a different POV are no less dedicated in the search for truth. It takes a special kind of narcissism to repeatedly declare that he/she has seen the truth and only those with the right attitude, background, preparation, and guidance from the right teacher, something they have apparently mastered, can one see it. In other words, those who disagree with these narcissists lack the right attitude, background, preparation, and guidance from the right teacher.

It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with people which such absolutist attitude.

Further, if we examine these prerequisites -- which are quite vague to begin with -- one will readily see that it is a prescription for getting indoctrinated.

When it comes to religious teachings, such as Vedanta, here is what the prerequisites actually mean:

right attitude = Don't question the validity of the scriptures
background = Brahmin, accepts the supremacy of brahmanical texts, White man who thinks Hinduism is great, anyone who agrees with you
preparation = another vague criterion, means very little
guidance from right teacher = guidance from an already indoctrinated vedic scholar, not anyone who questions vedanta, however learned he/she may be

"I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member", Groucho Marx is supposed to have said. Having become a member of this forum, it is pitiable to see the proud member repeating himself at every half opportunity that he is better than the other members of the club he has chosen to join on his own accord!!!

Thanks ...

p.s. 1: I wish there was no need for these tiresome meta discussions.

p.s. 2: Dear sravna, I disagree with much of what you say, but I welcome your contributions. I will chip in if and when I have anything to say, best wishes!!

 

[Nara]

....Something is all powerful would imply that it would be able to overpower everything else. But if there are say two such entities, one cannot overpower the other. That would mean that they are not omnipotent.

sravna, being able to overpower and actually implementing it are two different things, no? What if there are two all powerful entities that love each other to the extent their all powerful power allows? Why would they not not coexist?

 

[sravna]

Sri Sravana

If you only say that you are repeating your beliefs that is fine provided you do not attribute your beliefs to teaching of Sri Sankara or anyone else. There are long series of posts questioning your logic and all you did in my view is simply repeat the same beliefs over and over. You are welcome to post anyway you want.

I tend to think that if someone posts science fiction and calls it as science then it is hard to get engaged and I may choose to call it as fiction.

In my view using terms from scriptures loosely to push a set of own pet theories and beliefs is a form of disrespect to a great teaching tradition. The fact that there are logical holes pointed out by a few should be enough feedback that your beliefs have flaws. But you are welcome to proceed ahead ignoring them..

But expect push back now and then in a open forum..

Regards

Dear Shri TKS,

I said you are welcome to point out the logical flaws and explain why they are flaws. I did not see any such response from you other than repeating that they are flaws. Why should I take you seriously if all you can do is to just imply that you possess superior knowledge but would not share that knowledge with others.

To be frank, I have not seen any benefit to the forum as a result of your posts but probably to yourself by trying to project yourself as a very knowledgeable person.

 

[sravna]

sravna, being able to overpower and actually implementing it are two different things, no? What if there are two all powerful entities that love each other to the extent their all powerful power allows? Why would they not not coexist?

Yes Shri Nara, It is possible. But I am saying that we cannot say that the entities are omnipotent if even in a hypothetical situation, one cannot overpower the other. The characterization of the entities as omnipotent would not hold.

 

[Nara]

Yes Shri Nara, It is possible. But I am saying that we cannot say that the entities are omnipotent if even in a hypothetical situation, one cannot overpower the other. The characterization of the entities as omnipotent would not hold.

No sravna, you have not answered my objection. My point is, in this hypothetical situation wherein two omnipotent powers exist, and they love each other so much that they choose not to exercise their omnipotent power to overpower each other they so love. Please sravna, pause a little and think about this. In as much as they are all powerful, they certainly should have the power to withhold deploying their omniscient power in order to preserve something they value.

 

[sravna]

OK shri Nara, then you answer me why they should they worry about preserving or destroying the other? Even if they do want to they cannot destroy the other, can they?

 

[Nara]

OK shri Nara, then you answer me why they should they worry about preserving or destroying the other? Even if they do want to they cannot destroy the other, can they?

Alright sravna, let me give you a concrete example. These days it is not unusual to have equally capable husband and wife. If they wish they can try to dominate the other partner. But, since they love each other and value each other's company they don't. If two people of limited but equal capabilities can achieve mutually beneficial compatibility, why two omniscient beings that loves each other cannot? In other words, it is not self evident that two equally omniscient powers cannot coexist.

 

[sravna]

Alright sravna, let me give you a concrete example. These days it is not unusual to have equally capable husband and wife. If they wish they can try to dominate the other partner. But, since they love each other and value each other's company they don't. If two people of limited but equal capabilities can achieve mutually beneficial compatibility, why two omniscient beings that loves each other cannot? In other words, it is not self evident that two equally omniscient powers cannot coexist.

Dear Shri Nara,

You are considering only one possibility i.e.,that they love each other and so they want to co-exist. I accept that is possible. But consider other possibilities too. What if they want to be the sole all powerful one. Is that also possible? What makes you rule out that possibility is what I am asking.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara, my point is an omnipotent entity should not be limited in what it could do. Otherwise it is not potent enough to be called omnipotent

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

You are considering only one possibility i.e.,that they love each other and so they want to co-exist. I accept that is possible. But consider other possibilities too. What if they want to be the sole all powerful one. Is that also possible? What makes you rule out that possibility is what I am asking.

sravna, you made an assertion that two omnipotent entities cannot coexist. To disprove this it takes all but one possibility. Of course if the two entities are at odds with each other there will be chaos, but that does not prove your claim that it is impossible for two omnipotent entities to coexist.

 

[tks]

The subject matter of Vedanta does not have anything to with any religion. It describes universal knowledge and is not the the property of Hindus

Certain Hindu religious practices use verses from Upanishads but the teachings themselves do not depend on the existence of rituals.

There are many who are indoctrinated into believing what comes under the domain of understanding. This gives rise to contradictions while applying or it causes one to rebel against the topic area.

(Root cause for confusion described in Post #161 may be addressed by the above)

 

[sravna]

sravna, you made an assertion that two omnipotent entities cannot coexist. To disprove this it takes all but one possibility. Of course if the two entities are at odds with each other there will be chaos, but that does not prove your claim that it is impossible for two omnipotent entities to coexist.

Shri Nara,

Good. But I am talking about a certain impotence of the entities in the case of more than one such entity. Even if they are co-existing it is with the knowledge that they have to co-exist. they cannot be existing alone. That is the impotence? In that case the two entities co-existing cannot be properly called omnipotent.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

I feel you have got it all wrong about TKS ji's post to you.

I do not feel he has tried to project superiority of knowledge in any of his posts so far.

I find his post truthful even though it might sound blunt.

Sometimes those who want to gently tap someone into the right direction might choose bitter words.

It is better to hear bitter truthful words than to consume sugar coated deluding words.

Regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

I feel you have got it all wrong about TKS ji's post to you.

I do not feel he has tried to project superiority of knowledge in any of his posts so far.

I find his post truthful even though it might sound blunt.

Sometimes those who want to gently tap someone into the right direction might choose bitter words.

It is better to hear bitter truthful words than to be consume sugar coated deluding words.

Regards

Dear Renuka,

I am willing to face any bitter truth but I do not understand what is the truth you are talking about.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am willing to face any bitter truth but I do not understand what is the truth you are talking about.

Dear Sravna,

I can not be more blunt than this..I feel you will figure out what I was trying to tell you over time.

Take care