On Vedantam

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

tks, Greetings!

When I read the word Faith in a post by Sri Saidevo, I immediately think the word is Shraddha which does not have an equivalent word in English. It is 'verifiable belief' to be understood (with 'Proof' and Pramana) at an appropriate time. As I have said many times that has not been acknowledged by Sri Nara that (blind) faith means suspension of reasoning faculty and has no place in any discussion associated with Vedanta.

I was not aware you were expecting an acknowledgement from me, sorry.

There is lot of very logical and reasoned analysis involved in the development of Vedantam, no doubt. But all of it based on the notion that Shruti is inerrant and the Brhman it talks about is real. No amount of reason can verify this basic belief. You may say with Shradda one can verify it. But such verification by its very nature is personal and cannot be demonstrated. So, to accept the accounts of people who claim to have verified it, in turn, requires unverifiable belief.

This is why the entirety of Vedantam is built on a foundation that is nothing more than blind faith/belief, even though a whole lot of logical arguments are made within the unverifiable premise, one that cannot be accepted except with blind faith.

Sri Nara - Will you answer these questions for me please so I know where you are coming from?

I will do my best.

Why do I want to study this branch.

The question of who the "I" is, is of great interest to me. That is why.

What is the subject matter about?

In this particular thread the subject matter is about Vedantam and its Achilles' heel.

How do I want to study and debate this?

Through reasoned and cogent argument, free of logical fallacies.

Answer basic questions to establish basic levels of points of agreement. One question that is relevant - ' Why is this topic so focused on the word Pramana', in what way Pramana is different from (blind) faith?

I am not focused on the word "Pramana", so I have no answer to the first question. If Pramana means the source of knowledge the validity of which is agreed to by mutual consent, then, it can be blind faith sometimes, but not always. Scientists agree that valid knowledge (pramana) is only that which can be independently demonstrated and verified -- this is not blind faith.

On the other hand, among the Vedantins there is mutual agreement that Shruti is inerrant and that makes Shruti a pramana in their circle. The most central claim of Shruti that there is a "self" different from material and there is Brhman, are claims that cannot be independently demonstrated or verified. Further, there are other parts of Shruti that are demonstrably false, like the rituals of poorva mimamsa. Therefore, this pramana, parts of which are false and the central claim cannot be demonstrated or verified independently, is a blind belief.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

tks, Greetings!
.
.
But all of it based on the notion that Shruti is inerrant and the Brhman it talks about is real. No amount of reason can verify this basic belief.

Sri Nara, Namaskaram.

You are interpreting and approaching the Upanaishads like you would any other 'blind faith' based scripture (though those religions may have a value for some people but that is not the topic here). Let us agree as a starting point that no body of work can claim 'inerrant' since you have no reason to accept this as 'gospel'. Since we are dealing with reasons and logic it is not right to expect someone to accept a notion as inerrant on 'blind faith'. There is no reason to approach this with Shraddha at this point since there is no 'problem statement' definition we have agreed upon as valid. Let us also not use the word Brahman because its definition from multiple sources make it seem mysterious and perhaps unacceptable.

Based on few references that Sri Saidevo cited there is a strong emphasis on precision of expression.

1.So you have to define what the word 'real' means to you and 2. what is an acceptable means of verification of this word 'real' can be accomplished. 3. Who has to accept that this verification method is acceptable - the whole world or just a few people? This has to be very precise and not be made up of loose definitions.

Let us say someone claims a thing called 'Pink Unicorn' is real. How will you go about analyzing and verifying that this statement is incorrect or correct without any ambiguity?

You may say with Shradda one can verify it. But such verification by its very nature is personal and cannot be demonstrated. So, to accept the accounts of people who claim to have verified it, in turn, requires unverifiable belief.

This statement and therefore all other conclusions are not logical since there is no way to make a statement categorically that it is an 'unverifiable belief' or 'verifiable belief' if something is personal in nature that cannot be demonstrated . The most you can say is that 'I am unable to verify it' since it is personal and cannot make a universal statement one way or the other. Anyway these statements detract us since a valid problem statement by you has not been established in this discussion yet.

The question of who the "I" is, is of great interest to me. That is why.

Let us see if this is reasonable objective for debate/discussion.
I claim that it is not. Let me explain.

There is only one 'I' in the entire multi-verse. This "I" cannot be 'objectified' - because you are the subject and the only subject from your vantage point of view (and there are no other views actually - will explain in a minute). You don't need any proof to yourself that you exist now and if you have questions on that then you will need help of a different kind You can call yourself as tissue or not just a tissue - that is not the point right now. You are self evident to yourself as existing.

Now you objectify all the world around including your sense organs. You see someone. When you do - there are two inverted images of about .25 cm of the person formed in your two retinas that are carried to some part of the brain through variety of chemical and other messages to an area called brain. Somehow they are unified since you do not experience seeing two images of .25 cm.

In fact every sense organs we have collects information in a certain manner that gets transformed in many different ways and gets 'stored' in the brain in another form. If you have a prior information of database they help in identifying and if there had been a similar 'fear producing' person seen in the past that could interfere with your judgement of the person being seen by you.

So the sense organ 'signals' are converted to some 'digital form' and reaches a 'storage area' for processing using database of 'previously stored patterns' . There is process of matching to a set of stored patterns or the closest match and a modified stored information is created which you become aware of and subsequent actions (like saying hi or avoiding the person) results in even more complex processing.

The point is that while you may experience seeing one person instead of two images of .25 cm as they initially get recorded and the experience of seeing the person external to you all translate to you becoming conscious of certain mental data & events. Even the perception of space, time etc are all experienced as mental events. You are not experiencing the 'outer world' as you think you do at all. In fact all you experience are mental events. If there is a problem in the stored data in your brain there could be false interpretations leading someone to act in ways that have nothing to do with what may be apparently happening.

In post #20 you were responding to a key point from Sri Saidevo which is "all knowledge and proof are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind". I hope based on this discussion the importance of that statement is more apparent.

So all these mental events are happening in your brain (and you experience as if it is happening in an abstract thing called mind) and self evident "I" (which is YOU) (regardless of your definition of what that it is - just tissue or whatever) is interpreting all these mental events. One of those mental event is this thought called curiosity of what this interpreter is. There is no possible way for anyone in your mental event to answer this question since there is only one "I" that is self evident which is YOU. All the rest of objects and people you experience are all mental events which your "I" is interpreting.

It makes no sense to ask about 'I' which is evident only to YOU and this "I" is only one shining light on all the mental events being experienced by you.

The objective is therefore absurd and cannot be legitimate to pursue as stated since no one can answer such a question to YOUR satisfaction.

I may not have done great job explaining but you have to appreciate the point Sri Saidevo was making about mind and what I am saying here. If this all does not make sense you can ask clarifying questions. If it does, please think about 'why' again and come up with an answer for debate and study.

.
.
I am not focused on the word "Pramana", so I have no answer to the first question. If Pramana means the source of knowledge the validity of which is agreed to by mutual consent, then, it can be blind faith sometimes, but not always. Scientists agree that valid knowledge (pramana) is only that which can be independently demonstrated and verified -- this is not blind faith.

On the other hand, among the Vedantins there is mutual agreement that Shruti is inerrant and that makes Shruti a pramana in their circle. The most central claim of Shruti that there is a "self" different from material and there is Brhman, are claims that cannot be independently demonstrated or verified. Further, there are other parts of Shruti that are demonstrably false, like the rituals of poorva mimamsa. Therefore, this pramana, parts of which are false and the central claim cannot be demonstrated or verified independently, is a blind belief.

Cheers!

There are many incorrect and wrong statements in the above segment . Kindly answer questions already raised and if we are able to make progress of alignment it will be easier for me to communicate what a Pramana is.

Regards

 

[zebra16]

namaste shrI Narayan.

It would be interesting to have you present a similar analogy for science, using the English language.

Namaste Sri Saidevo,

In deference to your request I was about to present a similar analogy for science, but it looked that this thread may be about to close, because of concurrence between your goodselves and Sri Nara that "repetitive phase" has begun and no headway is being made in discussions.

Meanwhile I came across this article Article Evolution & Migration - भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् | Google Groups by Sri R.N. Iyengar, which gives the required info. For those of the viewers who do not want to burden themselves by accessing the full article, I provide hereunder the excerpts:

"Science does not claim to explain every question that the human mind may conjure up, but it proceeds on the basis of propositions, hypothesis, conjectures and verification. If a better theory or explanation or generalization is available scientists will have no hesitation in recognizing the same. Acceptance may take time but will happen in course of time. Galileo was accepted like this only. Newton’s physics was shown to be invalid
at some time and space scales by Einstein. Science does not insist that it is telling the last word. There is nothing like Indian Science and Western Science. Finally Science is non-dogmatic. It accepts logical approach subject to verifiability, repeatability. At present Science uses only the five senses for getting knowledge. But a time may come when ‘consciousness’ or some other equivalent faculty gets included in the process of
getting valid knowledge.

I suppose you would also be interested in this article entitled "The trouble with science" which can be accessed here: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/10sep2010/553.pdf.

I think you are interested in adhi-daivika, adhyatmika and adhi-bhoutika meanings of vedas/puranas etc., There are many articles of this nature in the "Bharatheeya vidvat parishad group messages from where I have sourced Sri RN Iyengar's article. In case you are interested you may explore your interests there.

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

tks, Greetings!

You asked me some questions and I answered them to the best of my ability. Now, before we proceed any further, I would like you to give your answer to those questions as well. Please keep in mind that I defined the scope of this discussion in the OP, and that is, paraphrasing a little -- what evidence is there for the premise on which all schools of Vedantam rely on, namely, that there is Brhman and its relationship to jagat can be definitively established via Shruti.

Here are the questions, rephrased for context:

• Why do I want to study this branch -- why do you want to engage in this discussion?
• What is the subject matter about? Or, what is your view of the subject matter, stated in the OP and repeated above.
• How do I want to study and debate this?

Thank you ...

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Narayan.

Thank you for the intermative links. My impressions on some of the points made by shrI RN Iyengar:

• The "propositions, hypothesis, conjectures and verification" keep changing because science is looking at the external world at deeper and deeper micro levels, so it is not a surprise that science is unable to give a final answer to every question the "human mind may conjure up".

• To say, "There is nothing like Indian Science and Western Science" is like saying, "There is no Indian cow or the Western cow" because cow is a physical entity, human anatomy and faculties are universal, specially with regard to the five senses, so the view of the objective, physical world in the waking state remains fairly uniform and identical.

‣ Religion and spirituality are a mental process beyond the five senses, which is the reason for the saying, 'Indian mind, Indian thinking' and 'Western mind, Western thinking'. When human mind tries to have an idea about the metaphysical reality, it should not be surprising or delimiting that there should be as many ideas as there are minds.

• "Science is non-dogmatic" so far as it looks out at the external world. When science looks in, into the origin and nature of human mind and consciousness, I would say that science is pretty dogmatic in its assertion that the physical brain is all there is to it, although such assertion would amount to circular reasoning as I have indicated in my earlier posts.

• As for the statement that there has been no research in traditional Indian science systems, it is because we are all Macaulay's children who ignore Sanskrit both at the curricular and extra-curricular levels in school and college education.

 

[Nara]

• "Science is non-dogmatic" so far as it looks out at the external world. When science looks in, into the origin and nature of human mind and consciousness, I would say that science is pretty dogmatic in its assertion that the physical brain is all there is to it, although such assertion would amount to circular reasoning as I have indicated in my earlier posts.

Saidevo, this is not true. Science does not dogmatically say physical brain is all there is. This is only a theory and evidence observed so far points to this, but not conclusive. "We don't know for sure, and we may never know for sure" is the position of science on this question and this is the very antithesis of dogma.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

tks, Greetings!

You asked me some questions and I answered them to the best of my ability. Now, before we proceed any further, I would like you to give your answer to those questions as well. Please keep in mind that I defined the scope of this discussion in the OP, and that is, paraphrasing a little -- what evidence is there for the premise on which all schools of Vedantam rely on, namely, that there is Brhman and its relationship to jagat can be definitively established via Shruti.

Here are the questions, rephrased for context:

• Why do I want to study this branch -- why do you want to engage in this discussion?
• What is the subject matter about? Or, what is your view of the subject matter, stated in the OP and repeated above.
• How do I want to study and debate this?

Thank you ...

1. why do you want to engage in this discussion?

Actually I have no reason to engage in this or other discussions. I do not have conflicts (anymore) in reconciling various points of my study over the years regarding any knowledge source be it science or any other analysis that rely on the 'scientific method' of analysis.

I have a tendency being an extrovert to talk or interact and this forum provided a chance for asserting that aspect of myself. In addition, in my life, if there is an opportunity to help some one and I was at the right place at the right time, I have done that in my life if I am in a position to do so.

Despite all the arguments in various posts I thought you were wrestling with some confusion and you were sincere in seeking out your questions. I don't have a conflict with the teachings and hence I thought the best way I can be supportive is to be a 'sounding board' and ask more questions to you until you are able to see a way towards an answer you seem to be seeking.

If you or anyone tell me that you have no conflict with your understanding I will have nothing to say here. As I have said before I have no desire to defend Vedic knowledge or to prove someone that I know something to anyone or feel a need for others to see my way etc.

Additionally, this engagement like any other discussion is a way to help and in the process of responding test my own understanding each time I respond.

2. what is your view of the subject matter, stated in the OP and repeated above.?

The subject matter is about universal knowledge. My view is that it is not possible to discuss the 'subject matter' with anyone until a baseline is established in terms of the goals ("problem statement). My view is that the OP as stated as a question (evidence etc) does not make sense.

3. How do I want to study and debate this?

Respectful towards all participating in the discussions, genuine desire to learn while questioning, A shraddha towards the subject, an unwarranted good will towards anyone wanting to put forth their views etc

Regards

 

[Nara]

1....If you or anyone tell me that you have no conflict with your understanding I will have nothing to say here.

tks, I did not start this discussion because I was confused and wanting to find answers. My proposition is as stated in the OP and it is one of challenge, not confusion. I am prepared to present cogent and reasoned arguments free of logical fallacies. I invite any interested person to participate. If you have no interest, so be it.

2.... My view is that the OP as stated as a question (evidence etc) does not make sense.

If asking for evidence does not make sense to you, then make your case why, if you care. If you don't care, that is alright too.

What I find strange is to participate in the discussion and then say you have nothing to say.

Cheers!

 

[tks]

tks, I did not start this discussion because I was confused and wanting to find answers. My proposition is as stated in the OP and it is one of challenge, not confusion. I am prepared to present cogent and reasoned arguments free of logical fallacies. I invite any interested person to participate. If you have no interest, so be it.

If asking for evidence does not make sense to you, then make your case why, if you care. If you don't care, that is alright too.

What I find strange is to participate in the discussion and then say you have nothing to say.

Cheers!

Sri Nara - In Post #52 I had a few questions and I have shown that your stated objective for study and debate is not reasonable. Since those are not answered I have not much to say

My mistake to have interpreted that you had a confusion. If you have no confusion why bother bringing these topics up ... that escapes me ..

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

In Post #52 I had a few questions and I have shown that your stated objective for study and debate is not reasonable. Since those are not answered

Since you thought I was confused, why did you pose all those questions to me and expect answers from me? If it is your wish to help me clear my confusion, I wish to say, thank you for your extraordinary generosity, however, if I need your help I will ask.

My mistake to have interpreted that you had a confusion. If you have no confusion why bother bringing these topics up ... that escapes me ..

This is a discussion forum. People bring things up all the time to discuss. Did you really think only people who are confused ask questions? Really?? That is funny!!!

I am tired of these meta-discussions. tks, you seem to have a knack of steering all discussions into useless meta-discussions. I am going to respond only to substantive contributions, not frivolous ones.

 

[Nara]

This response is not intended as answers to tks, as, according to him, all this discussion is pointless. So, this post is addressed to only those who are interested in having a straight forward discussion.

...You are interpreting and approaching the Upanaishads like you would any other 'blind faith' based scripture ...

My friend Saidevo also expressed a variation of this, as though Hinduism in general and Vedantam in particular, is somehow built on solid foundation of logic and reason, but other religions such as Islam or Christianity are just total blind faith. There are any number of people from these other religions who state Hinduism is primitive and that their own religious doctrine is scientific. Dr. Zakir Naik is one of those people who claim a trove of scientific knowledge in his chosen religious text. If Hindus claim that people like Naik do not fully understanding their scriptures, in turn, the others say the same thing to Hindus.

I happen to think the hoary Vedantic thinkers were quite amazing in their own way, with very interesting ideas. While one can respect these ancient Vedic/Buddistm/Jain scholars as I do, there is no reason to adamantly insist any of them were inerrant, not even the Vedic rishees. For all the intriguing ideas about the material world found in Upanishads, it also contains nonsensical creation stories that involve things like ahankaram, mahat, tanmatrai, etc. So, there is absolutely no compelling reason to treat Upanishads any differently from the texts of other religions.

1.So you have to define what the word 'real' means to you

The scope of this thread is about the tenability of the foundation upon which Vedantam is built. The question is what evidence is there to assume a Brhman. Not even the great Acharyas have any, for they state that only through Shruti we know Brhman exists. So, these questions about how anyone defines reality and what it means, serve to distract and obfuscate.

In post #20 you were responding to a key point from Sri Saidevo which is "all knowledge and proof are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind". I hope based on this discussion the importance of that statement is more apparent.

Clarity can never be achieved through obfuscation. The question is what evidence is there to definitively claim the existence of Brhman that Shruti asserts, nothing.

So far, only two people took the challenge I offered in my OP (I am not sure where narayan sir stands). Saidevo's response amounts to "Science is also based on faith", which really does not address the main question. tks is more interested in meta discussion than take the question head on.

I did not pose this question as a mere taunt. Elsewhere, sravna (I don't mean to single you out, you are a good guy, I just happen to disagree with you) and others made all sorts of claims about Brhman, its nature, etc., as though they were self-evident truths. I wanted to show that even great Acharyas who wrote Bhashyas did not claim these things as self evident, but resorted to Shruti as evidence.

If anyone can show that these Acharyas did not rely on handed down wisdom to establish their interpretation, please make your argument with proper citations. I will not respond to meta-discussions, only serious and sincere arguments please.

Thank you ...

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

You said in post #58:
My proposition is as stated in the OP and it is one of challenge, not confusion. I am prepared to present cogent and reasoned arguments free of logical fallacies. I invite any interested person to participate.

As a counter challenge, let me ask you to explain the I-consciousness, in terms of the brain or any other area of science, in a way that is free of circular logic and other logical fallacies, and can be understood by people like me who believe in trans-physical reality.

I think there are two ways for you to do this:

• If you can explain 'I' in terms of physical reality, you would need to make the distinction between 'I' and 'my/mine' and answer the question 'how can something that is mine be I?'

• If you can only say that the knowledge about the 'I-consciousness' is as yet unknown to science, you would still need to have an initial explanation about this ubiquitous feeling and extential experience of 'I' or altogether deny that you have no such feeling/experience.

This 'I', my friend, contains all the evidence required to verify the Vedic statements, IMO.

*****

By the bye, all that I wrote and quoted in this thread by way of my responses to your 'challenge' cannot be dismissed by a simple, "it amounts to 'Science is also based on faith', which really does not address the main question."

• You said in your OP that Brahman is a premise, and I tried to show how every scientific research proceeds on a premise, existing or speculated.

• You said that the premise of Brahman is based on belief; I tried to show how the same kind of belief (in the ultimate unity) also drives all scientific research.

• You said that science corrects itself when new discoveries are made. This is not significant because science addresses only the physical reality, which keeps changing, so new discoveries are bound to come when this reality is addressed at deeper micro levels.

• You said that science has proved (tentatively at least) that the human brain is the origin and nature of consciousness. I tried to hightlight the circular logic in this assessment, which you have not denied so far.

As for my observation, "all knowledge and proof are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind", if it sounds obfuscating to you, you might if you wish, replace the word 'mind' by 'brain' and explain if and how the statement still sounds obfuscating or it sounds as a scientifically admissible statement.

 

[zebra16]

So far, only two people took the challenge I offered in my OP (I am not sure where narayan sir stands). Saidevo's response amounts to "Science is also based on faith", which really does not address the main question.
...

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

I think I am a fringe player in this (meta?) discussion but am pleased to note that my name finds a mention. I am a person of limited intellect and still limited reading. My participation in this thread is to further my understanding than challenging the statements or contentions of the participants here or the vedantin acharyas.

I have not seen or experienced Brhman, but have only read or heard about It (Him?). So I do not have any pretentions of proving or disproving Brhman to anyone else. I briefly summarise my position:

1. Brhman being abstract not graspable by any organs of perception, including mind cannot be demonstrated (at least by me). No new instruments of Brahman perception or cognition have been invented/discovered since the time of vedantins.

2. It is almost impossible to prove Brhman without relying on higher texts or scripture, which have to be inerrant per se, to obviate circular reasoning.

3. Notwithstanding ability to adduce positive evidence, I would think negative inferences (a la neti, neti) exists for an entitity which is different from the body apparatus, much like the curious case of the non-barking dog of Sherlok Holmes mystery story.

4. That entity could be Brhman (nirguNa or sampurNa gunavaan) or pink unicorn or just electrical impulse in the brain.

5. I would choose that entity as Brhman between Brhman and pink unicorn for the simple reason the pink unicorn may not find any hits in google search. Between Brhman and electrical impulse in brain, again I would choose Brhman, as "impulses" are like light switches which indicate but conceal the huge force of electricity.

6. In one of your messages you said that the teaching of SV acharyas that Brhman is in heart is disproved by giving the example of heart transplant. But in yet another of your messages you stated that consciousness is nothing but electrical impulses in the brain (per science), but what happens to the consciousness when brain transplant takes place was left unsaid.

7. Point no. 6 may not be construed as my intention to trap the participants in argument, but it shows a grey area for me to explore and fill in.

8. Your statement that "science being founded on belief" by itself does not vindicate the stand that "vedanta is also a belief based system" is understood. But when arguments based on scientific theory are adduced to strengthen the case against "vedanta", it is incumbent upon the nay-sayers of your line of arguments to point out the inadequacies of science (if there be any). To that limited extent, questioning scientific theories cannot be avoided.

9. As the message is already quite lengthy, I shall stop here and continue further later, if there is any response.

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, Greetings!

I see that you like talking to me, and I appreciate it. However, you are again raising the same questions that we have already gone over. I will have provide the same answers as before. But first, a correction.

• You said that science has proved (tentatively at least) that the human brain is the origin and nature of consciousness. I tried to hightlight the circular logic in this assessment, which you have not denied so far.

I never said science has proved, tentatively or otherwise, about origin and nature of consciousness. There are several theories developed based on careful observation, but they remain theories at this point in time. The fallacy of circular logic will apply only if a firm conclusion is made without addressing the fallacy satisfactorily, but no such conclusion has been made. Therefore, the charge of circular logic fallacy is premature.

If you can only say that the knowledge about the 'I-consciousness' is as yet unknown to science, you would still need to have an initial explanation about this ubiquitous feeling and extential experience of 'I' or altogether deny that you have no such feeling/experience.

If humans can figure out precisely and definitively what this consciousness is, which is a big IF, it can only come through scientific process. Otherwise, it has to remain a mystery, which the people given to religion can and will exploit.

This 'I', my friend, contains all the evidence required to verify the Vedic statements, IMO.

This is your opinion and I am fine with that.

"all knowledge and proof are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind",

IMO, this is a classic example of obfuscation. Human mind, with the help of sense organs, analysis, synthesis, etc., makes sense of the external world. Most of the knowledge the mind accumulates is about the external world. If there is no external world, then why does the mind rely on sense organs in the first place, it can simply conjure up something. Even then, what is it going to conjure up, there is no external world. So, this statement, one that is supposed to be enigmatically profound, IMO, does not make a whole lot of sense and only diverts attention from the central question I am trying to discuss in this thread.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear narayan sir, Greetings!

Thank you for the nice response. I shall give my take on some of the points.

3. Notwithstanding ability to adduce positive evidence, I would think negative inferences (a la neti, neti) exists for an entitity which is different from the body apparatus, much like the curious case of the non-barking dog of Sherlok Holmes mystery story.

I agree with points 1 and 2, but I am not sure I understand #3. Holmes knew for a fact the dog was there, and yet it didn't bark when the horse was stolen, which then led him to the conclusion it was an inside job. The existence of the dog was an incontrovertible fact. But, here, whether there is Brhman or not is up in the air, remains only a conjecture or Vedic assertion.

4. That entity could be Brhman (nirguNa or sampurNa gunavaan) or pink unicorn or just electrical impulse in the brain.

BTW, it is Invisible Pink Unicorn, don't leave the word "Invisible" that is what makes the phrase so apt .

5. I would choose that entity as Brhman between Brhman and pink unicorn for

Alright.

6. In one of your messages you said that the teaching of SV acharyas that Brhman is in heart is disproved by giving the example of heart transplant. But in yet another of your messages you stated that consciousness is nothing but electrical impulses in the brain (per science), but what happens to the consciousness when brain transplant takes place was left unsaid.

SVs say jeeva is an entity (dravyam) residing in the heart. So, what happens if the old heart is taken away and a mechanical heart is implanted?

The new brain will generate its own consciousness is what I think. As far as I am aware, no brain transplant has been performed. Therefore, this must be a hypothetical question. Please view this interesting 2 minute video, this may answer your question. It is scientific observation and study like these that can give us a better understanding of what this is all about.

8. Your statement that "science being founded on belief" by itself does not vindicate the stand that "vedanta is also a belief based system" is understood. But when arguments based on scientific theory are adduced to strengthen the case against "vedanta", it is incumbent upon the nay-sayers of your line of arguments to point out the inadequacies of science (if there be any). To that limited extent, questioning scientific theories cannot be avoided.

I beg to disagree, I am not the one to base my arguments in this thread on what science is, or is not. However, as I said in of my earlier posts, if anyone wants to discuss science and its limitations you won't find me shy.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

In post #24, you talked about a 'safe speculation' of consciousness residing inside the brain and went on to elaborate with a case study, as to how this could not be in the cerebellum or in the areas connected with deep sleep, so I took it as a tentative proof.

• But IMO, even if it is speculation, since there is no "the brain" but only "somebody's brain" (pun about the body intended), the gray area of circular reasoning is not premature but exists right in the speculation.

You said in post #64 (in reply to my 'challenge' to explain your idea about the I-consciousness):
If humans can figure out precisely and definitively what this consciousness is, which is a big IF, it can only come through scientific process. Otherwise, it has to remain a mystery, which the people given to religion can and will exploit.

• Is it a big IF because science can never hope to find an ultimate answer in the brain? If not in brain, I wonder, from where else could it be?

• Any effects of exploitation by religions of people with this mystery would be far less harmful than the exploitation with the destructive, corruptive and pollutive effects generated by the discoveries and inventions of science.

Unless and until we have a final answer from science, it would be unfair, IMO, to criticize/question/dismiss any concept based on vishvAsa--belief in mind, and pursuing it with shraddha--belief in action.

I would still like you to give your own opinion/speculation/idea about the extential experience of the 'I-consciousness', which inheres right from the time of birth.

*****

Most of the knowledge the mind accumulates is about the external world. If there is no external world, then why does the mind rely on sense organs in the first place, it can simply conjure up something. Even then, what is it going to conjure up, there is no external world.

• It would be interesting to hear what science thinks about the workings of a person who is born-blind, in whom the main sense of pratyakSha, vision, is absent. Would this person's concepts of the external world be as real as that of a normal person, or just conjuring up of the mind?

• Another area of interest from the angle of science is the subjective world created in dreams. Since the images and events therein should involve matter, what could be the play field, the players and the result of the play?

• Other gray areas are in what I might call the psudeo-science areas that deal with ESP, telepathy, remote sensing, and other para-normal abilities and realities.

• Even in pure, theoretical science, the conjuring up of the mind precedes any empirical/experimental/mathematical proof. Discoveries by Eistein, for example, were mostly made in his mind.

As for shrI Narayan's lighthearted observation that the IPU (insivisible pink unicorn) may not find any google hits, it actually finds over 200,000 hits. As against this, "'brahman' scriptures" finds 1,800,000 hits! Probably the majority of the world prefers brahman as a safe bet to the IPU.

 

[vikrama]

Namaste Sri Saidevo,

When the discussion has digressed into consciousness, the answer I was waiting for has eluded me. I am not an atheist as Sri Nara professes himself to be; nor am I challenging you like him. But IMHO, you have not given a straight answer to his original question, which is fairly simple. Or, I might have missed it in the jungle of words, since I usually skip long boring passages.

Does the existence of a Brahman depend on the sole authority of Vedas or can it be proved by anything else? How can the Vedas be trusted as unerring without belief in its apauresheyatvam?

Could you please answer the above questions. -if already replied, repeat? Please avoid jargons and long winding explanations. If you feel that it can not be answered in five or six lines, please ignore my post.

I am not for arguments. This is a humble disciple's sincere desire to learn and not a challenge, I repeat.

 

[zebra16]

Namaste Sri Saidevo,
Does the existence of a Brahman depend on the sole authority of Vedas or can it be proved by anything else? How can the Vedas be trusted as unerring without belief in its apauresheyatvam? .

Mr. Carl M. Johnson, in his article entitled "Possibility, Self, and Illusion in Advaita vedanta" gives two theoretical possibilities of advaita being demonstrated without resorting to inerrant books. The cases are (i) Jeevan mukthas... (ii)When human perceptions never go wrong"

Regards,

narayan

P.S.: I have not met a jeevan muktha so far, or failed to recognise one when I saw/met him/her

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, Greetings!

.. 'safe speculation' of consciousness .... so I took it as a tentative proof.

First of all, "tentative proof" is an oxymoron. However "safe" it may be, it is still speculation and therefore it can never be proof of any kind.

the gray area of circular reasoning is not premature but exists right in the speculation.

Well, this makes sense only if you can make up your own definition of what a "circular logic" is.

If not in brain, I wonder, from where else could it be?

It is most certainly in the brain, that much is known with certainty -- there is a plethora of data to support this, please take a look at the video I cited earlier in my post #65 to Shri narayan.

Any effects of exploitation by religions of people with this mystery would be far less harmful than the exploitation with the destructive, corruptive and pollutive effects generated by the discoveries and inventions of science.

And you said you are not pitting religion against science. See Shri narayan, I am not the one who keeps bringing up science in this discussion.

Unless and until we have a final answer from science, it would be unfair, IMO, to criticize/question/dismiss any concept based on vishvAsa--belief in mind, and pursuing it with shraddha--belief in action.

What does not make any sense can be rejected even if we do not have the final answer. Not having the final answer is not a license for superstitious beliefs.

I would still like you to give your own opinion/speculation/idea about the extential experience of the 'I-consciousness', which inheres right from the time of birth.

Please see post #24 for my view on consciousness.

• It would be interesting to hear what science thinks about the workings of a person who is born-blind, in whom the main sense of pratyakSha, vision, is absent. Would this person's concepts of the external world be as real as that of a normal person, or just conjuring up of the mind?

Brain scans on blind people have been done and reported.

• Another area of interest from the angle of science is the subjective world created in dreams. Since the images and events therein should involve matter, what could be the play field, the players and the result of the play?

The images created in the dream are based on the already recorded perceptions. One theory speculates dreaming is a way brain prunes memory.

Other gray areas are in what I might call the psudeo-science areas that deal with ESP, telepathy, remote sensing, and other para-normal abilities and realities.

Psudeo-sciences are, as the name implies, pseudo, false.

Even in pure, theoretical science, the conjuring up of the mind precedes any empirical/experimental/mathematical proof. Discoveries by Eistein, for example, were mostly made in his mind.

Yes, that is true.

As for shrI Narayan's lighthearted observation that the IPU (insivisible pink unicorn) may not find any google hits, it actually finds over 200,000 hits. As against this, "'brahman' scriptures" finds 1,800,000 hits! Probably the majority of the world prefers brahman as a safe bet to the IPU.

No Saidevo, you don't want to go there. I googled the following words and these are the number of hits I got.

Jesus Christ - 117,000,000
Prophet Muhammad - 12,000,000
Aishwarya Rai - 41,000,000

Would this mean the world prefers Aishwarya Rai to Brhman as a safe bet?

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Mr. Carl M. Johnson, in his article entitled "Possibility, Self, and Illusion in Advaita vedanta" gives two theoretical possibilities of advaita being demonstrated without resorting to inerrant books. The cases are (i) Jeevan mukthas... (ii)When human perceptions never go wrong"

P.S.: I have not met a jeevan muktha so far, or failed to recognise one when I saw/met him/her

Dear narayan sir, I think even theoretically these two possibilities can be shown to be untenable. Please consider the following.

Case (i) Jeevan Muktha:
As you have stated, these cannot be readily recognized and we have to take the Jeevan Mukta's own words as proof, the very definition of circular logic.

Case (ii) Perception never going wrong:
In this case, theoretically speaking, all we can speculate is that we can definitively answer the question whether Advaitam is true or not, not that Advaitam is true.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI vikrama.

Thanks to shrI Narayan for the jIvan-mukta part that I wanted to mention in my reply to you.

As I have told shrI Nara, IMHO, The I-consciousness contains all the evidence a seeker needs to verify inerrancy and authority of the Vedas' statements about Brahman, the Self and the self.

• It seems to me that the sva-pramANa and svayam-prakAsha nature of the self is like the wick that passes through the thick wax of attributive matter around it, which hides its connection to the immanent source of Brahman. To get the wax melt and the flame to reach its source, the wick of I needs to be lit with the flame of Self-inquiry.

• The jIvan-muktas (such as bhagavAn RamaNa mahaRShi, KAnchi ParamAchArya and ParamAchArya Chandrasekhara BhArati of the Shringeri MaTham have with their life, experiences and teachings have provided the required proof in recent times.

As for the apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas, this post might be of interest (post #4):
apaurusheya

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

In response to your post #69:

• In normal, healthy conditions, it seems ironical to me that what other brains think and know about the working of my brain gains precedence over what I think and know of my brain!

• As regards the I-consciousness, what you have said in post #24 are only the opinions/findings of science vis-a-vis the self of the Vedanta philosophy. I asked for your own, personal opinion about it. If you do not have one, it is fine with me.

You said in post #70 addressed to Narayan:
As you have stated, these cannot be readily recognized and we have to take the Jeevan Mukta's own words as proof, the very definition of circular logic.

• This statement ignores the proof that jIvan-muktas are capable of stimulating the experience related to Brahman, albeit for a short time, inside a devotee. A number of devotees have testified to it, so your denial/dismissal of their documented statements would not make them any less authentic. Some examples:

‣ Paul Brunton, in his book 'A Search in Secret India' has testified how RamaNa maharShi took charge of his spirituality and guided him into an experience of the bliss and peace of Brahman:
http://www.nonduality.com/brunton3.htm

‣ 'Nothing Existed Except the Eyes of the Maharshi' by N.R.Krishnamurti Aiyer
http://www.realization.org/page/doc1/doc109a.htm

‣ Some devotees of KAnchi ParamAchArya have testified as to the spiritual favours such as giving dIkSha to them in dreams.

• When devotees corroborate by their testimonies and other jIvan-muktas testify to similar transcendental experiences of Brahman, it defies any scope of circular logic, whereas the 'I is in my brain' reasoning of science involves circular reasoning could be too formidable to avoid.

*****

If the words of our own jIvan-mukta AchAryas seem circular logic to us, here is a discussion between two scientists doing psychic research:

Thinking allowed: Conversations On The Leading Edge Of Knowledge and Discovery
With Dr.Jeffrey Mishlove ( http://twm.co.nz/harm_consc1.htm )

Some points raised about consciousness in the discussion:

• ...in effect metaphysics is implicit, even if it's not explicit, in science.

• the assumptions are essentially what we usually think of as scientific method.

• Consciousness has always been a problem for science, and one, I think, for the most part that's been sort of shoved under the rug.

• And it's striking to me that scientists, who use their own consciousness, and very often their own deep intuitions, to develop their theories, have operated on assumptions that deny the very existence of those intuitions.

• ...if conventional science maintains that all of our knowledge comes through our senses the radical empiricist says, "Yes, but what does it mean to obtain knowledge through the senses? Isn't there a consciousness in there?"

• Today we have a notion coming from many fields--from biology, from ecology, even in quantum physics--the notion of holism--that the universe is an unseparated whole at its deepest level.

• if you're going to study consciousness, it only makes sense to turn to the ones who devoted their lives to that. And so you do pay attention to the mystics and the spiritual philosophers and especially to the core esoteric traditions of the various spiritual traditions of the earth.

• That is, the best of the mystics in all of the traditions tested their knowledge just as rigorously as scientists test their knowledge. Now, it sounds different because it was in a totally different framework, but they knew just as well as we know that you can fool yourself with optical illusions, and you can fool yourself with inner vision. And you have to keep testing, and you're never sure.

• I would imagine that the thrust of all of this is to say that there is a legitimacy to exploring the universe by using our own consciousness, our own direct awareness of the universe, as our tool.

• ...the thing that's pushing consciousness into the scene, I think, these days is not that particular question, but just the fact that really it's not just consciousness as awareness, but consciousness as intention and volition,

*****

These two doucments might be informative, I am yet to go through it:

• Consciousness in the Neurosciences
http://www.sciacchitano.it/Alle soglie del sito/Consciousness in neurosciences.pdf
• How to study consciousness scientifically
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692422/pdf/9854266.pdf

 

[vikrama]

Dear Sri Saidevo,
Namaste.
I believe in the existence of a Mahasakti before which I feel very humble and powerless. This is only an academic exercise to prove to myself the rationale of my belief.

1 Some people who perform Tapas or meditation succeed in attaining a super state and they are called Jivan Muktas- That is how I understand. This does not prove the existence of a Brahman. Because it is said that even atheists can perform meditation and attain that super state. JK is a concrete example. He was not an atheist but he did not believe in all the jumbo-mumbo of religions. He was a jivan mukta by all definitions.

2 The link given by you is not convincing. Simply because the Svetasvara Upanishad and Bhagavat Gita say that Vedas are Apauresheya, one is not convinced of the matter.
To give an analogy, suppose I write a book and within the body I mention that this is not man-made. I publish it without my name anywhere in it. Will anybody believe it even if some friend of mine writes another book to confirm my point?

3 How does the I consciousness prove the existence of Brahman is not clear, unless one resorts to belief.

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo Greetings!

Your arguments do not address the problems with self-serving testimony I raised in post #70.

In this response I shall restrict myself to only couple of points as follows.

...As regards the I-consciousness, what you have said in post #24 are only the opinions/findings of science vis-a-vis the self of the Vedanta philosophy. I asked for your own, personal opinion about it.

I am under the impression that I have already stated my own personal opinion in post #24. Why do you doubt that? Here it is, with some edits:

This is a difficult question to answer. We can say what it is not, but what it is, we can only speculate. We know it is not any of the body parts below our neck, not even the heart. So, we can safely speculate it must reside in the brain.

Science has mapped brain into various component parts and have also gained basic understanding of the function of each of these parts. From scientific experimentation we now know that what we refer to as "consciousness" does not exists in the back of the brain called Cerebellum. We know this because a person maintains consciousness of who she is even after the Cerebellum is surgically removed -- google for references.

Skipping a few steps in the interest of brevity, our search for consciousness can be narrowed to the cerebral cortex. By way of various kinds of scans scientists have found that there is quite intense brain activity, in certain areas of the brain, even when the subject is in deep sleep stage, one that can be equated to "sushupti". From this we can further narrow the field where consciousness is generated, it is not in the areas of the brain that remains active even in deep sleep, because, obviously, in deep sleep we have no consciousness.

So, while nothing definitive may be said, all evidences are consistent with the hypothesis that consciousness is nothing but brain activity -- in other words nothing that transcends the physical universe.
​

This is my considered opinion on what I-Consciousness is.

This statement ignores the proof that jIvan-muktas are capable of stimulating the experience

The above and all the rest of your statements about jeevan muktas are not free of self-serving circular logic -- circular logic as generally understood.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste sarva-shrI Nara, Vikrama, Narayan and others.

In all the discussions that has flown under this thread so far,

• each one of us (except Narayan perhaps) has been more keen on finding fault with the other premise than trying to establish the premise that our mind follows.

• Since the human mind is so much at variance on the opinion and explanation of the source and nature of consciousness, each mind taking its preferred approach--scientific, rational, philosophical, scriptural--there is actually no point about blaming one premise against another.

• This means that each premise is valid to those who believe in and follow it, although it may seem void to the follower of another premise.

That perhaps is the conclusion we can arrive at, in good sense.