Logic and Perception...

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Brahman is that which is beyond logic...

Anyway, as an example, consider this statement which describes the Brahman - 'neti, neti', -> even if you interpret it as 'not this', 'not this' or 'not only this', 'not only this'... so, even for a fundamental truth, there are different opinions, depending on how they were perceived.

Who is to say which logic is right?

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Seshadri, let me share this paradox,so that you will understand the importance of my previous post.

consider a situation, in which a father and his son are driving down the road. The car collides with a tree and the father is killed. The boy is rushed to the nearest hospital where he is prepared for emergency surgery. On entering the surgery suite, the surgeon says, "I can't operate on this boy. He's my son."

To define "Perception' here, Its what we feel/Perceive/or even Judge thinks based upon what all our senses are earlier, tuned/set/exposed to. For eg, we tend to say,that based upon our reading sense, that, the Ghost-Surgeon is not supposed to surgery on his own son/relative..(Perception based on Ghost/reincarnation/Surgical ethics)

Logic tells us,that, Surgeon can be both male/female, and the one on operating theatre is the boys mother..

There is another possibility, the person who died is not the real father and the surgeon is the biological father (assuming he knows the fact)...

It all depends on which line we want to adopt, isnt it?

Logic is analytical - 'break it down into the bare components and decide on the probability'... but if there are conflicting optimal solutions (you would remember the transportation problems in quantitative techniques), then either of them could be chose, which depends on individual preference, which again is based on perception...

In your example given above, I have added another possibility - if we ask an audience to conclude, what would be their logical conclusion?

 

[s007bala]

re

Brahman is that which is beyond logic...

Anyway, as an example, consider this statement which describes the Brahman - 'neti, neti', -> even if you interpret it as 'not this', 'not this' or 'not only this', 'not only this'... so, even for a fundamental truth, there are different opinions, depending on how they were perceived.

Who is to say which logic is right?

s s

at last thnk you.the logic of logic and the perception of perceptions.bingo!

sb

 

[happyhindu]

Brahman is that which is beyond logic...

Anyway, as an example, consider this statement which describes the Brahman - 'neti, neti', -> even if you interpret it as 'not this', 'not this' or 'not only this', 'not only this'... so, even for a fundamental truth, there are different opinions, depending on how they were perceived.

Who is to say which logic is right?

"Brahman" is that whose presence has been established thru logic. That brahman and para-brahman (beyond brahman) exist were established thru logic.

If logic is different for different people, then it is not logic. Logic is that which establishes reality.

None of the hindu philosophers (dwaita, advaita, vishistadvaitha) differed in saying that brahman exists. That eternal nityam, that truth (that brahman exists) was expounded using various methods, various expressions...the means differ but the truth does not. That "brahman" exists is established by logic in all hindu schools, not perception.

Neti, neti is the process by which perception or assumption is rejected.

 

[happyhindu]

There is another possibility, the person who died is not the real father and the surgeon is the biological father (assuming he knows the fact)...

It all depends on which line we want to adopt, isnt it?

Logic is analytical - 'break it down into the bare components and decide on the probability'... but if there are conflicting optimal solutions (you would remember the transportation problems in quantitative techniques), then either of them could be chose, which depends on individual preference, which again is based on perception...

In your example given above, I have added another possibility - if we ask an audience to conclude, what would be their logical conclusion?

When something is broken down into bare components to understand it, it means those people are trying to understand the logic behind how that thing came to exist the way it is.

They try to analyse and understand the logic behind it.

Each individual will approach it in a different way, based on individual perception, however no individual perception, no "method" changes the existence of that thing itself.

Hope indians themselves will not write off the work of all those hindu logicians as mere logic of the illogical disprovable kind...those blessed souls established that "brahman" exists - long before anyone did. It is from their experimentation of the mind, experimentation of though processes, that things like zero, the decimal system, etc come from.

perception=>analysis=>judgement (you are using the term "logic" for judgement, hindu philosophies do not expound brahman that way)

perceptive cognition=>analysis=>use of trial and error methods (neti neti)=>fixing perceptive errors=>cognitive logic=>disprovable logic=>truth

logic and truth are far from judgement.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

"Brahman" is that whose presence has been established thru logic. That brahman and para-brahman (beyond brahman) exist were established thru logic.

Brahman's existence does not depend on logic or otherwise (for the mind which believes it)... your above statements have no relevance to an existing fact. The above logic of Brahman can be refuted easily, as is seen by charvaka or shoonyavaadha logic...

If logic is different for different people, then it is not logic. Logic is that which establishes reality.

To comprehend reality, one need not necessarily resort to logic... it is used in situations which could have multiple meanings and interpretations...

None of the hindu philosophers (dwaita, advaita, vishistadvaitha) differed in saying that brahman exists. That eternal nityam, that truth (that brahman exists) was expounded using various methods, various expressions...the means differ but the truth does not. That "brahman" exists is established by logic in all hindu schools, not perception.

Am not talking about 'truth' here... it is the method which is analysed... there could be many logical ways (pls note that am not saying that there is no logic... rather logic depends on perception)... so, even if we perceive something as 'the logic', there could be other logics too...

Neti, neti is the process by which perception or assumption is rejected.

It simply implies that 'Brahman' can never be comprehended by the senses...izza:

...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Each individual will approach it in a different way, based on individual perception, however no individual perception, no "method" changes the existence of that thing itself.

The above statements seem to confuse the 'thing' with the 'means'... This discussion is not about the 'thing'...

Hope indians themselves will not write off the work of all those hindu logicians as mere logic of the illogical disprovable kind...those blessed souls established that "brahman" exists - long before anyone did. It is from their experimentation of the mind, experimentation of though processes, that things like zero, the decimal system, etc come from.

????????????? No relevance...

perception=>analysis=>judgement (you are using the term "logic" for judgement, hindu philosophies do not expound brahman that way)

perceptive cognition=>analysis=>use of trial and error methods (neti neti)=>fixing perceptive errors=>cognitive logic=>disprovable logic=>truth

Cognition -> Perception - > Experience -> Feedback & Analysis -> Establishment of Premise/Fact/Assumption -> Logic.

Neti Neti is not trial & error method... it is an assertion... :faint2:

logic and truth are far from judgement.

They are all inter-related...

...

 

[sapr333]

to Happy Hindu..

Brahman's existence does not depend on logic or otherwise (for the mind which believes it)... your above statements have no relevance to an existing fact. The above logic of Brahman can be refuted easily, as is seen by charvaka or shoonyavaadha logic...

Seshadri, there is nothing wrong in buidling the concept of Brahma through faith and experience. But whats your answer to those who doesnt have any faith in the existence of Brahma ..or for those who couldnt experience Brahman...Why should anyone accept God/Brahma, just because you and I have experienced it or believed in faith.

In that context, there should be some other ways, to prove/show the existence of Brahma. Thats what 'Happy Hindu' is talking all about. In that context, Logics/Philosophy/Resoning has helped a lot to the mankind to explore and prove the Brahma.

Similarly, you can also refute Charvaka, with logics/Philosphy easily, in line with the debates, what the modern day philosophers do, to prove the existence of God with aetheists. Its believed, in 13th century, Madavacharya too did some good compilations to refute Charvaka, and Im searching for his works.. If you come across, please share it with me.

 

[sapr333]

Seshadri, please go through this link, and see the works (abstract) of Adi Shankara in refuting Charvakas..


http://rashmun.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2.htm

 

[s007bala]

re

brahmaa is saguna brahman

where as brahman is nirguna brahman.

sb

 

[sapr333]

There is another possibility, the person who died is not the real father and the surgeon is the biological father (assuming he knows the fact)..It all depends on which line we want to adopt, isnt it?

Logic is analytical - 'break it down into the bare components and decide on the probability'... but if there are conflicting optimal solutions (you would remember the transportation problems in quantitative techniques), then either of them could be chose, which depends on individual preference, which again is based on perception...

Interesting. Let's discuss the same 'Transportation Problem'..When we encounter conflicting goals like cost minimization, bridging work among the plants, lead time, fleets,etc,, one just dont take a decision by 'Perception'. Rather, the need of the hour is analysed and logical conclusions are taken. If perceptions are used to take decision,then, perception being based on individuals sense, there would be a conflict of interest and goal. E.R.P may not have found a place.

Similarly,in the surgeon paradox, when we get multiple solutions for a single instance, and if we were to rely on perception, then each one will have a different perception, and the conclusion would definitely vary from truth. Those who have not heard the term "Step-Father", will perceive the sugeon in O.T as the boy's mother, though in truth it could be the step father.(OR) logically one can reject the term Step-Father,as the term not mentioned clearly, where as, in normal lingua the term 'Surgeon" is represent both Male/Female and hence its acceptable.. The basic point here is, logics can still extend the argument, until we find an answer, where as "Perception' could end up in 'Wrong Answer'.

Btw, to start with , I have shared this simple PARADOX (set on lingua).. There are many a paradoxes which could be logically concluded. Will post some more later.

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Seshadri, please go through this link, and see the works (abstract) of Adi Shankara in refuting Charvakas..


http://rashmun.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/07/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2.htm

There is a piece of empty land and scattered bricks stones and wood lying around...

Now, on the same plot of land the bricks/stones & wood are arranged to form a house/warehouse/factory/playschool.. etc... depends on how it is used and perceived...

So the components are the same, but the usage and names are varied.

Again, the usage and names only arise when there is a construction... the empty space under the building, whether it be a factory or a school, is the same, but in entirety, it is identified differently... Similarly, the components are the same, but when arranged differently, it gives a different appearance and a change to the identity...

The identity of the structure stands as long as its components hold together; obviously gross matter degrades over time, but can it be inferred to conclude that the empty space occupied by the matter is superior over matter itself?

It could be that the combining of various gross matter itself gives rise to a new combination, which is synergic, symbiotic and balanced...

It could be that creation was only random, consciousness itself could be a product and not the source!

How do we prove it?

Similarly, there could be gross consciousness or empty space everywhere, & gross matter everywhere... but when combined together in a particular pattern, the identity arises... Again, there could be a few possibilities -

The beings are nothing but empty space and gross matter infused by consciousness to spark the mind (in this context consciousness would be an external entity)...

The second is that consciousness itself blends with gross matter to create/experience the identity of the being...

The third is that, the natural combination of matter uniquely brings forth a mechanism that controls the combination itself (for its benefit)...

If we assume consciousness as the blending authority, then it could be say that the soul is different from the body...

If we assume the the mind is a natural combination of matter, then it could be said that the soul/mind is different from matter, but only a product... and that is why when matter deteriorates, there is no more mind/soul...

 

[happyhindu]

brown

Originally Posted by happyhindu
"Brahman" is that whose presence has been established thru logic. That brahman and para-brahman (beyond brahman) exist were established thru logic.

Brahman's existence does not depend on logic or otherwise (for the mind which believes it)... your above statements have no relevance to an existing fact. The above logic of Brahman can be refuted easily, as is seen by charvaka or shoonyavaadha logic...

Was saying the same thing as well. i did not say brahman's existence depends on logic, was saying the existence of brahman was proven by logic...logic establishes reality, not a judgement. I suppose its the usage of terms that's causing the disconnect here...you are saying judgements are also logic (that's the common everyday parlance, the usage is western)..but indian system of logic is not that way..that's not how the entire nyaya school was based..to the hindu nyaya (logic) is that which disprovably proves that something exists as a reality...

One may perceive so many things due to their senses..even animals, birds also have intelligence. But what makes man a man is 'evolutionary intelligence', therefore he does not perceive or assume that brahman exists as a mere perception or by a mere judgemental perception, he "knows" it exists after he has dropped his senses, assumptions and perceptions.

The west calls info-processing as part of cognition. However the hindu schools seem to have gone a few steps further in their experiments with 'consciousness' (though the same is recognized by the west also now). The west now knows that memory depends on a complex network of info stored in the brain with the hypothalamus at the centre playing the main role, but the yoga school had already established the 'cave of brahman' in the mid-brain where all memories of the complex kind and of lives lived before are stored. One can also say that those rishis were like psychics who understood the presence of brahman (like mediums that access "consciousness" to this day) but this was not by sense-based perception, but by its existentiality and more by "cognition of a spiritual kind" which the later philosophers proved using logic.

The charvakas / shoonyavadas refuted the existence of brahman since they did not try to connect with it (adi shankara called them lokayata for a reason). Those men were sorta bindas nearly hedonist, wanting a philosophy to justify their way of life and concerned more with mundane life..neither did they contribute to philosophy based on the cognitive / meditative side, nor did they contribute to science...but they were philosophers and swamis nevertheless

If logic is different for different people, then it is not logic. Logic is that which establishes reality.

To comprehend reality, one need not necessarily resort to logic... it is used in situations which could have multiple meanings and interpretations...

But the hindu schools did resort to logic to establish reality..and they had rejected those perceptive errors of multiple meanings and interpretations to establish one truth (each at a time)....for that matter science also needs hard facts, seen and established, to finally come to a logical conclusion..

None of the hindu philosophers (dwaita, advaita, vishistadvaitha) differed in saying that brahman exists. That eternal nityam, that truth (that brahman exists) was expounded using various methods, various expressions...the means differ but the truth does not. That "brahman" exists is established by logic in all hindu schools, not perception.

Am not talking about 'truth' here... it is the method which is analysed... there could be many logical ways (pls note that am not saying that there is no logic... rather logic depends on perception)... so, even if we perceive something as 'the logic', there could be other logics too...

ok now i get it...the prob is with the usage of terms (which is more like the stuff we say in everday life, like 'arre yaar wrong logic, wrong funda"..but the term logic was not used that way by hindu schools...if we perceive something as "logic", then it is not a "logic" to the hindu schools, it is a judgement that was borne from and made by the senses.

yes ofcourse there are other logics too, if two theorems establish the same thing (same reality, same truth), then both those theorems said to have been based on logic or 'logical' conclusion..

Neti, neti is the process by which perception or assumption is rejected.

It simply implies that 'Brahman' can never be comprehended by the senses...izza:

brahman can be comprehended by dropping the senses..this exactly is advaitha...to the yogi, neti neti is rejecting sense-based preceptions....please try to stop breathing for 45 min, can you? but if you are brahman-realized, you can...

 

[happyhindu]

brown

Originally Posted by happyhindu
Each individual will approach it in a different way, based on individual perception, however no individual perception, no "method" changes the existence of that thing itself.

The above statements seem to confuse the 'thing' with the 'means'... This discussion is not about the 'thing'...

The means is the way to establish the thing. If you are assuming that logic is judgemental then that too is the means to the judgement or conclusion or the thing.

Hope indians themselves will not write off the work of all those hindu logicians as mere logic of the illogical disprovable kind...those blessed souls established that "brahman" exists - long before anyone did. It is from their experimentation of the mind, experimentation of though processes, that things like zero, the decimal system, etc come from.

????????????? No relevance...

Yep there is relevance. If the logic (nyaya side) of hindu schools are rubbished off as mere judgements (based on mundane perceptions of the kind you say), then it reduces hindu philosophies as mere judgements or perceptive judgements. A christian theologist or islamic scholar can very well contend that his theology is equivalent to that kind of judgemental mundane "logic" that you are saying it is (of the illogical disprovable kind).

It also means one has rubbished off hindu contribution to the world of science as things that had come from mere perceptive judgements alone. How did one conceive of numbers, of spatial skills to establish sense of distance, of planetary movement to establish astronomical calculations, etc..

Hindus were able to establish truths such as decimal syatem, numbers, etc, because

perception=>analysis=>judgement (you are using the term "logic" for judgement, hindu philosophies do not expound brahman that way)

perceptive cognition=>analysis=>use of trial and error methods (neti neti)=>fixing perceptive errors=>cognitive logic=>disprovable logic=>truth

Cognition -> Perception - > Experience -> Feedback & Analysis -> Establishment of Premise/Fact/Assumption -> Logic.

Neti Neti is not trial & error method... it is an assertion... :faint2:

i have nothing to say if you consider neti, neti as an assertion of the sense-based perception kind. All i can say is that if one does not fix perceptive errors, which is generally done thru trial and error methods, then nothing gets established as a logical conclusion...am using the term perceptive cognition or cognitive perception to mean 'that connect to the consciousness' that happens after one has withdrawn from his senses...

logic and truth are far from judgement.

They are all inter-related...

ofcourse they are inter-related...but perception (of the non-spiritual mundane kind) that leads to judgemental conclusions of the sense-based kind, was seperated away from "reality" while establishing "logic", by the hindu schools.

 

[sapr333]

Seshadri, I find one interesting point in HappyHindu's post.

"brahman can be comprehended by dropping the senses..this exactly is advaitha...to the yogi, neti neti is rejecting sense-based preceptions"

Another way to comprehend Brahman is logic. The nine proofs for the existence of God, enlisted in Udayana's Nyaya Kusumanjali..

Lets start from here.. Do you agree with these 2 views.

 

[s007bala]

re

Another way to comprehend Brahman is logic

nyayam is a margam,just as gyaanam or bhakthi....karma margams ..etc

brahmam is nirgunam.

oopsy now i am using samsk-inglish!ray2: charge of the light brigade..khe khe:laugh:

sb

 

[sridharvasudevan]

Dear Seshadri or anyone who can help by their experience,

We tend to look at only a few perspective angles of an object or event and assume something because of our limited knowledge. We tend to talk about our assumptions as a conclusion, because of our ego.

The way in which we tend to declare our assumption as correct, is based on so many factors - social, material, etc.,

Action and reaction theories are known to us. So control of mind will also have its own reaction. Rather than control of mind should we not reduce the mind to inactivity? I have heard, by constantly watching the breath, one's thoughts come to a stand still and that moment we have over come the mind, than controlling it. By extending this as much as possible, that is even during our daily activities, it is said we would have over come our ego.

But, the eluding thing is doing our day to day activity and also keeping the mind inactive through the above methodology.

Here I am not talking about "mindless living", but it is about, "thoughtless living", which leads to ego free living.

 

[malgova.mango]

sv ji!

if you can read tamil, then a noble soul has pdfed - "deivathin kural" and provided a link here. please read slowly.... you will gain what you seek.


regards

 

[s007bala]

re

s v,

Dear Seshadri or anyone who can help by their experience,

We tend to look at only a few perspective angles of an object or event and assume something because of our limited knowledge. We tend to talk about our assumptions as a conclusion, because of our ego.

everyone needs ego=ahamkaranam.

The way in which we tend to declare our assumption as correct, is based on so many factors - social, material, etc.,

while some are assumptions some are not.some are facts.

Action and reaction theories are known to us. So control of mind will also have its own reaction. Rather than control of mind should we not reduce the mind to inactivity?

you mean be like a comatose patient?

I have heard, by constantly watching the breath, one's thoughts come to a stand still and that moment we have over come the mind, than controlling it. By extending this as much as possible, that is even during our daily activities, it is said we would have over come our ego.

there is simply no way to cease our ego.its like pranam for us.even animals display it.but shiva tells it parvathi to meditate over the life breath that we inhale and exhale.during that process,for a nano kshanam,there is voidness,he says try to be that.all siddhis will happen.its upto you whether you want to display your siddhic powers or remain in total ecstacy within your siddhic powers.choice is left to individual.

But, the eluding thing is doing our day to day activity and also keeping the mind inactive through the above methodology.

Here I am not talking about "mindless living", but it is about, "thoughtless living", which leads to ego free living.

thoughts emanate in mind.ego is absolute neccessary,only a shavam will become ego-less.

sbray2:

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Shri SV,

Mind is the cause of all... and hence is the solution!

There are various types of meditation - concentration on the heartbeat/the point between the eyebrows/breath... etc... there is also a technique called Nyasa Dhana where one concentrates on all parts of the body...

Ego arises from the mind, yes, but when does it arise? Do we remember anything when we were in the womb? That was a time when we were not taught to perceive!

It is because of ego, that this world is what it is now... but was it meant to be so?

Again, the important part to be understood is - "If all the worldly things are to be shunned as they bring unwanted desires, then why creation/manifestation in the first place?"

I heard a story that when Jesus was tried by Nero of misleading the Jews, he was asked - "What is the truth?" Jesus was silent, as 'silence' was the truth... it was mistook for acceptance and he was sentenced...

 

[Seshadri Subramaniam]

Seshadri, I find one interesting point in HappyHindu's post.

"brahman can be comprehended by dropping the senses..this exactly is advaitha...to the yogi, neti neti is rejecting sense-based preceptions"

Another way to comprehend Brahman is logic. The nine proofs for the existence of God, enlisted in Udayana's Nyaya Kusumanjali..

Lets start from here.. Do you agree with these 2 views.

sapr333, brahman is that which cannot be comprehended by the senses... it is a fact... the explanations are but guides for us to understand...

logic is for the mind which believes in patterns... which lead to a conclusion... they may or may not be true...

if we try to find brahman within a set of beliefs, we can find it... provided the definition of 'brahman' is the same... it is the intent which matters and not the means...