On Vedantam

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

• 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.

Saidevo and others, I simply cannot accept that there is an equivalency between those who wish to assert certain definitive conclusions without a shred of independently verifiable evidence and what I have presented as my position. There simply is no equivalency between faith and rationality. If you wish, put rationality inferior to faith, but, please, do not say they are somehow equal positions, that would just be intolerable.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

If you want to have the last word, that is fine with me. But then most readers and members, I am sure, would agree with the conclusion I have suggested in post #75.

• The pratidina pratyakSha anubhavam--every day direct experience, of the sun seen travelling from east to west on the sky is an example of empirical premise that seems blemishlessly true but essentially false.

• The ubiquitous I-consciousness that everyone of us witnesses in mAnasa pratyakSha anubhavam--direct mental experience, every moment of our life, as one that is beyond the body, mind and the individual self, is an example of spiritual premise that seems hopelessly false but essentially the only truth.

Therein lies all the difference. Those who can make the difference and inquire further into it, are seen to be happier and more at peace in life.

 

[vikrama]

Namaste Sri Saidevo,
Here is my last post in this thread. I believe and I can not explain why I believe. I thought that there could be an answer to this question. Any length of discussions couldn't convince my rational brain. I am happy with my believing mind. Thank you for taking pains to answer me.

 

[zebra16]

Sri Saidevo and others

This post basically is aimed at your msg # 75 although it covers some other issues as well

I include myself in the bracket of "vedantins" or the "wannabe vedantins" (I adore the term "wannabe") but would expressly exclude anyone else in this thread as a wannabe. The basic error, we (or specifically I) made was that by making the other party believe that there is assumption in science too (at the initial level of forming enquries) and at the fringes (like string theory) etc. will somehow bring the vedanta theory on par with science and both the theories would swim or sink together.

When Sri Nara repeatedly insisted upon restricting the discussions and arguments to his OP, I paid real attention and found that my approach was not going to lead anywhere.

Sri Nara gave two options to the defenders in this case, either to chose the traditional methods and rely on shruthi or argue out on logic.

He in fact insisted that he be informed as to what line of option the defenders were to opt. But either due to lack of application of mind or general indifference as to how we are about to go into the business, even the line of defence or option was not chosen.

In between, one of your posts to Sri Nara asking him as to what pramaaNaas were acceptable to him and giving the details of the six pramaaNaas stumped me, because if we are to establish in the traditional way, we could not simply drop one or two pramaaNaas for our convenience or opponents convenience and if we are going to use traditional method, Sri Nara has to accept all the pramaaNaas and he does not have the choice to pick and choose (For sake of clarify, I did not feel he intended to do that, either).

{While on the subject of pramaaNaas, although you cited the six, I have a feeling Sankara used pratyaksham, anumaanam and Shruthi only. Can you please tell me the BSB (brahma sutra bhashyam) sutra nos. where he used the others. I mean Sri Adishankara himself, and not the succeeding schools}.

Sri Nara has unequivocally stated that to him Shruthi is not apauresheya and that apauresheya and its infalliability had to be taken up soon or later. If that could not be established, all the other cogent argments even if already established, would fall like nine pins. Even initial post of apauresheyatvam was not made, but the discussions dithered here and there, with we attacking science and Sri Nara giving his views about shruthi. So in my view at least the vedantin's view point of shruthi is to be posted for the acceptance or objections of the other party. I am not much confident of my ability to do so, hence I was procrastinating in the (fond!) hope that some others would do so.

The other basic issue is whether consciousness = brhman? We are using the term consciousness inter-changeably with brhman (or using it as a similie in our discussions) but even a basic statement of equivalency has not been adduced.

But the argument that consciousness is much more than electrical impulse is not going to help our case, even hypothetically unless consciousness = brhman is firmly established.

Here, I would like to touch upon pre-disposition of mind to certain concepts. The Jeevan muktha concept has not been accepted, except by the two of us in this thread. By way of analogy, (for limited purposes) I would like to compare the jeevan mukthas to the present day astronauts who have writen about their experiences in space, on moon etc. All the science readers (including myself) and even ordinary folks who have just had about science as a subject in their elementary school will accept the experiences of the astronauts (by reading their articles or some sundry tit-bits in newspapers) as if it is their self-experience, although in their life there is not a chance of million to one that they will have the real space experience. But the experience of jeevan mukthas will be summarily set aside on the grounds that the experience is not transferable to the questioner. By way of experiences both are at par (according me) but by way of acceptance the scales are very heavily tilted in favour of science. So when pre-disposition of the mind is not towards acceptance of a concept, solid and incontrovertible evidence is to be provided to the opposing party.


Regards,

narayan

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Narayan and others.

You are, in effect, Narayan, trying to revive the discussion. I don't think that the discussion we have had so far has 'dithered here and there' or frittered into lesser entities like consciousness or the nature of pramANa admissible to attain true knowledge.

01. You are right that Nara gave us two options to prove Vedanta's premise of Brahman and its relation with the world: using the traditional methods or arguing out on logic.

• At the same time he has also made it clear that he does not believe in God, God's words, soul or individual self, or any sort of metaphysical reality. His only belief is that consciousness is brain-based; it originates and dies with the brain. I wonder what sort of a proof would be acceptable to a man of such propensity.

02. The three great Acharyas and their followers say two things:

• that the Vedas are apauruSheya and the Vedic RShis are mantra-dRShTas--seers of the mantras, not mantra-karta--author of the mantras.

• that since Brahman as the absolute realilty is beyond the knower, known and knowledge, it is not an object to be known by proof, so it has to be taken on the authority of the Vedas.

Let us note that Nara accepts the second statement of the AchAryas (about Brahman) but rejects the first (about the apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas).

03. Since Brahman is the main premise of Vedanta, it takes precedence over the inerrancy of the Vedas. Of the mahAvAkyas that describe Brahman and the self, two statements speak about the entities that are common to both the physical and metaphysical realms:

prajnAnam brahma--Consciousness is Brahman.--aitareya upaniShad 3.3
aham brahmAsmi--I am Brahman.--bRhadaraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10

These two statements deal with consciousness in general and the I-consciousness in particular, which is the reason we talked about consciousness as the main thrust in our arguments.

• Since the I-counsciousness is experienced by both followers of science and spirituality, we tried to explore its nature and prove how the 'I' has to be different from is 'my/mine', so all researches related to brain as its source cannot escape the circular logic of 'My brain is the I-consciousness in me'.

‣ Nara's stand on this is that nothing definite has been established as yet by science, although he believes that consciousness cannot exist beyond the brain as a separate entity.

‣ If a follower of science beleives brain as the finality of human existence vis-a-vis a follower of spirituality who believes in metaphysical existence of the self, what can be the meeting point of these two viewpoints?

It can only be a tie: if you say that metaphysical reality of the self is only my belief, I counter it saying that your belief of its physical reality is bound to invite the conundrum of circular logic.

This is where we stand now, IMO. Unless the tie is broken, or at least loosened, how can the discussion proceed to examine the apauruShetvam?

 

[sangom]

Original post by Nara

I don't want to single out Advaitam, so this thread. I hope everything can be questioned, so this forum.

All Vedantic traditions start with the premise that there is an entity called Brhman and then go on to describe that Brhman and its relationship with Jagat. I would like to examine this premise. Is this a reasonable premise? What is the supporting evidence?

I hope I will be excused for my non-conformist views - these do not follow either the traditionally accepted methods, or logic; may be there is some commonsense in what I write.

vedānta literally means "the end of the veda/s". ṛgvedic belief was that brahman was the power which made the performance of the yāgas effective and bestowed the merit for performing the yāgas on the yajamāna. Naturally, this merit and the power which caused such merit both had to be limitless, as otherwise doing any further yāga will become useless at some stage; hence the very name brahman from the root "bṛh" meaning to grow, to swell, to enlarge.

It is only in the upaniṣadic lore that we find the word "brahman" taking over a different meaning and form. Essentially, brahman of the upaniṣads is ajñeya, or unknowable. When the bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad says the neti, neti principle, it is clear that the brahman can only be explained by what it is not, and it is none of the things known.

Thus we are stipulating an imaginary item brahman and then have been building tall philosophical arguments as if that brahman is the "be all and end all" of existence. I feel this is a very clear evidence of how much removed from reality our ancient philosophers were and how they could indulge in disputes reminiscent of the one between two farmers, one saying that his imagined tiger would kill and swallow the other's imagined cow which yields a fabulous amount of milk daily. We now feel proud in further hair-splitting analysis of such highly imaginary postulates.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

antaH-karaNa and bahir-karaNa

Nara dismissed the qualifications of a seeker of knowledge of the truth of the upaniShads that TKS brought forth in our discussion, as meta discussion (post #61). I should like to make a point in this regard.

• A scientist is qualified for his study and research only if he has well developed bahir-karaNa--external sense organs: the five external senses--karmendiya and their internal counterparts called jnAnendriya. In addition, he should have a keen intellect that depends on logic and rationality, besides a mind that is good at anumAna--inference.

‣ This means that a blind person, a deaf person, a person whose tactile sense is below normal, a person with speech disabilities or a person whose sense of smell is defective cannot effectively study and research in science (although there might be exceptions). None of this qualifications, however, apply to a follower of science.

• Spiritual inquiry relies on well-developed and refined antaH-karaNa--inner sense organs, which comprise the manas--mind, chitta--individual consciousness and the impressions it has accumulated, buddhi--wisdom and intellect, and ahaMkAra--the ego, as the I-maker (which is the sum total of the other three components).

‣ The beauty of it is that even a person with defective bahir-karaNa has potentially flawless antaH-karaNa, and so can be a sAdhaka--seeker. As against this, a person with defective inner organs usually has flawless sense organs (such as a mad man), but still cannot study or research science.

• Just as scientists with well-developed faculties of bahir-karaNa have evolved the empirical knowledge of science, sages with well-developed and refined faculties of antaH-karaNa have hit upon the nature of absolute reality.

‣ Unlike a follower of science who can be anyone with a bent for rationality, a follower of spiritual knowledge, if he/she relies only on the intellectual inquiry rather than experiential verification, the knowlege is bound to be conditioned by belief.

• When the limitations due to belief in metaphysical reality can be said to color a spiritual person's approach to the empirical knowledge of science, it is also logical to say that the limitations due to belief in ultimate physical reality can color the approach to the subjective experiential knowledge of spirituality.

Our friend Nara is a man well read in the scriptures he talks about, although he has turned to science for final answers and seeks to apply them to metaphysical concepts and challenges others to do it. As against this, I am in the category of one who believes in the metaphysical reality of consciousness as the finality, but cannot explain it adequately for lack of systematic scriptural knowledge.

I am surprised that a person like shrI Vikrama, a Vedic scholar who can interpret the Vedas for another scholar like Sangom, is undecided about for feels the need to explain his conviction.

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, Greetings!

I am not going to present any new arguments now, we are done with our arguments I think. My intent is to clarify some of statements you have made.

I wonder what sort of a proof would be acceptable to a man of such propensity.

I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to accept any proof that can be independently and consistently verified. This is the standard of proof rationality demands that faith can never supply.

prajnAnam brahma--Consciousness is Brahman.--aitareya upaniShad 3.3
aham brahmAsmi--I am Brahman.--bRhadaraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10

These two statements deal with consciousness in general and the I-consciousness in particular, which is the reason we talked about consciousness as the main thrust in our arguments.

It is a fact that there is extreme disagreement about the purport of the above statements within the community of Vedantins themselves. You present only the Advaitin view as though that is the consensus view.

so all researches related to brain as its source cannot escape the circular logic of 'My brain is the I-consciousness in me'.

Using the brain to ascertain the nature of brain is not circular logic. Here is the definition of circular logic:

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

​

Let me give an example of the fallacy of circular logic -- Bible is inerrant because it is God's words, and, God is God because the Bible says so. The rishees of yore realized this logical fallacy and came up with an ingenious solution that Shruti is apaurusheya. But, by doing so, they jumped from frying pan to the fire, so to speak. They provide no evidence to back up this claim. It has to be taken only on faith. Why is this faith any more valid than the faith that accepts Bible is word of God and God is God because Bible says so?

Using our brain to fully understand brain function may be difficult and even impossible, but that is not circular logic.

It can only be a tie: if you say that metaphysical reality of the self is only my belief, I counter it saying that your belief of its physical reality is bound to invite the conundrum of circular logic.

It is a tie only in the sense we have each exhausted presenting all our arguments and neither side has budged, not in the sense both the arguments are equally plausible. The question I raised in my OP still remains unanswered because there is no supportive evidence outside mere faith. This is not a tie by a long shot.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I am glad to see you back. As against your statement that Brahman is "an imaginary item", it would be interesting to know your personal view about the I-consciousness in you and how you relate it to yourself and the external world.

Welcome back!

 

[sangom]

namaste shrI Sangom.

I am glad to see you back. As against your statement that Brahman is "an imaginary item", it would be interesting to know your personal view about the I-consciousness in you and how you relate it to yourself and the external world.

Welcome back!

Shri Saidevoji,

I am thankful for your welcome and kind words. Still, my comeback may not be complete because aging seems to affect me in a sawtooth wave; suddenly I find myself getting too tired after sitting before the monitor.

The "I" consciousness (Ic), in my humble view, is an acquired trait. Very small infants do not seem to show Ic to any appreciable extent. They probably do many things risky for themselves (like trying to catch the jyothi at the tip of a wick in the oil lamp, catch millipedes/centipedes or at least try to do that, etc.). These show that these infants do not feel they will be harmed by these outside agencies. Many tiny tots also do not show possessiveness, though there are exceptions to this, I concede. So it seems to me that Ic grows in us as we grow and hopefully ends also with us/our body (I can't say!). But even for the tiny infant, feelings like hunger & thirst, pain and pleasure etc., are there. I cannot say whether these are facets of Ic or plain basic self-preservation techniques provided by mother Nature.

The adult Ic which most people try to equate with the "poornam idam" (eeSa upanishad?) is the fully grown ego or ahamkaara, IMO. We tend to feel that we must be something much greater than we really are and feel very elated that we have the permission of scriptures to feel "aham brahmaasmi". In street Malayalam there is a usage "ஞான் ஒரு மஹாஸம்பவம் தன்னெயாணே!". I think this type of a feeling lurks in the deep layers of our mind.

To the extent that Brahman is axiomatically considered everything in this jagat (viśvaṃ viṣṇuḥ), we may say we are also that Brahman; once the axiom is removed, the conclusion loses validity. But just as we are Brahman, the ChandaaLa must also be Brahman, but even Adisankara erred on this, did he not? Hence I feel that even a so-called avataar of Siva showed us by example that the Brahmana-brahman is different from the ChandaaLa-brahman and so the aham brahmaasmi formula is not really to be taken as correct unless one publicly professes advaita and someone corners him, like the ChandaaLa in Kasi.

 

[Nara]

...We tend to feel that we must be something much greater than we really are and feel very elated that we have the permission of scriptures to feel "aham brahmaasmi".

Dear Sangom sir, a thousand years ago aham brhmaasi was the pinnacle of human ingenuity and wisdom. For the religious it is so, even today, and for them it will be so a thousand years from now as well. For the rest of us, human wisdom follows the arc of history that always bends towards justice and away from handed down wisdom. Those who draw a small circle around them and refuse to get out of it, are better left to stay inside their own comfort zone.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom and others.

This is in reply to your post #85.

• Consciousness involves certain features: the basic consciousness of awareness, and the progressively higher mental states of intention, volition, cognition and intuition.

• If 'I' is the consciousness of the Self, and 'I am' the consciousness of the (individual) self, then IMO the infant has the I-consciousness right from birth. It is said that at birth, an infant has all, or most of the brain cells they will ever have, that the neurons develop rapidly before birth, but connections take time to develop until about 10 years of age. Thus the mind of an infant is not fully developed, and therefore, the Self/I-counsciousness takes time to manifest as the self/I-am-consciousness.

Here is an interesting slideshow about the development of brain in infants and children.
Infant Brain Development

• Is the infant in the same state as a jnAni before its mind develops? shrI NisArgadatta calls it a state of ignorance--the bAlakriShNa state (bAla--food essence/child body, and kRShNa--ignorance) or the ignorant-child principle.
(Nisargadatta The Philosophy part two)

I think the above facts explain why the child is unconscious of time and space and is fearless about its own existence. This is also why the jnAnis are said to be like children and the sAdhaka is advised to develop that state of awareness.

• The chaNDALa episode in the life of Adi shankara, to which you try to impute a caste feeling, is viewed by many such as the followers of KAnchi ParamAchArya as a lIlA of Maheshvara, whose incarnation was Shankara.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

You said in post #83:
I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to accept any proof that can be independently and consistently verified. This is the standard of proof rationality demands that faith can never supply.

What rationalists cooly forget/ignore in their criticism/skepticism/cynicism is that, their concepts of no-God, no-metaphysical-reality and so on are also faiths as of now and would remain such, until (and only if) the physical reality is proved to be the ultimate, in men and matter.

Using the brain to ascertain the nature of brain is not circular logic. Here is the definition of circular logic:

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

Let us take the statement, "I am my brain". Here, the proposition, "I am"--that is, "I exist"--is sought to be proved by the premise of "my brain", that is, "a physical organ that I possess." The fallacy is the confusion of the subject and object, 'I with my' or knower with the object known, and say, "I with my brain shall prove the I in me."

Your statement "using the brain to ascertain the nature of brain" is an assumption that an object can get to know itself by itself, which would be like saying, "The robot will eventually know its self by itself", whereas even in science fiction a robot's 'I-ness' comes from a source outside it.

 

[tks]

Problem is not knowing what the problem is!

All –

I was away for a few days and could only browse quickly but did not have time to respond and/or see the need to respond given my understanding that the OP is flawed (post #1) as stated and thread initiator’s context (‘what’ and ‘why’) did not have sound logic (post # 52 )
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-scriptures/6486-vedantam-2.html#post82131
though my questions were summarily dismissed by Sri Nara as ‘frivolous’ meta-information. By the way, I was smiling while reading Sri Nara's reaction

I realized that there are possibly few people viewing this thread and thought that it might be useful to point out why the OP is meaningless as stated.

Though Sri Saidevo has provided excellent references (that I benefited from) in the course of this dialog I thought that the discussions favored a Shraddha approach which cannot be satisfying to anyone who questions the whole premise.

I have found that religions that view their holy book as ‘the word of God’ rely on quotes to justify their interpretations of situations and reasoning. In contrast, our Upanishads are source of knowledge that need to be understood and not believed which means the logical deductions have to stand on their own merit. For example, we do not need original papers of Einstein to get clarity of his discovery. The only reason to go back and cite a verse from Upanishads in my view is to get clarity of this understanding given that these teachings have been subject to intense scrutiny over the years.

Let me first show why the OP is flawed as stated.
Quoting from Post #1

“All Vedantic traditions start with the premise that there is an entity called Brhman and then go on to describe that Brhman and its relationship with Jagat. I would like to examine this premise. Is this a reasonable premise? What is the supporting evidence?”

1. Brahman is not an entity. In fact it is the other way around. All entities including the concept of entity is Brahman. If it was this simple the Upanishad would have declared Brahman as such. There is no need for mysterious statements as in Keno Upanishad (post # 33)
2. Brahman is Subject (Self) and hence cannot be simply objectified as an ‘entity’
3. The relationship to Jagat is very simple. Jagat IS Brahman. It can’t be any simpler.
4. Not sure what it means to be a ‘reasonable premise’ and evidence mean– I asked this question in Post #52. Let me repeat it here:

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.

Attribute-less Nirguna Brahman is described as Sathyam (“Real”), Jnanam, and Anantham.
To dismiss questions about the word Real, and the above questions about definitions of evidence simply as meta-info and 'frivolous' means that this OP as stated is flawed (bullet point 1 above) and defined using highly imprecise language.

Quoting from post #23 ” By the way, all scientific studies require all five means of knowledge (Pratyaksham, Anumanam, Upamanam, Arthapathi, Anupalabdhi). All sciences and discoveries and all discoveries that are yet to be discovered and all inventions yet to be realized will only be by these five means of knowledge. This can be validated by studying progress in all currently known fields of studies.”

This means that if there is a Brahman that gives to rise to matter, space, and time and these concepts of means of knowledge it has to be ‘outside’ these entities– meaning it has to be non-matter, non-space, non-time etc. This is a major teaching point and can be understood from examples for starters. A cell is made up of non-cell (molecules), a molecule is made up of non-molecule (atoms) etc. I am obviously not doing justice here to explain a major point well with a just a few random examples.

In any case what this means is that Brahman is not definable and understandable by these five means of knowledge that make up all necessary and sufficient means of knowledge for understanding all scientific thoughts & outputs. However Science as knowledge IS Brahman and this can be established by sound logic. Without required infrastructure it is not possible to have meaningful discussion on such points. No one will think of having serious discussions about Quantum Electrodynamics without basic infrastructure. This subject is no different.

In addition I tend to shy away from those that are too far into any doctrines driven by beliefs and not logic. Based on many of the postings in this thread I am tending to think that Sri Nara is a follower of faith of his own ideas and beliefs, though not organized (as in a religion).

Peace!

 

[zebra16]

Dear Sangom sir, a thousand years ago aham brhmaasi was the pinnacle of human ingenuity and wisdom.

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

I am surprised that you say this. Well here is about brain surgery during harappan times. http://www.thehindu.com/arts/history-and-culture/article2118388.ece

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

Dear Saidevo, Greetings!

..What rationalists cooly forget/ignore in their criticism/skepticism/cynicism is that, their concepts of no-God, no-metaphysical-reality and so on are also faiths

No, they are not based on faith at all.

While you and tks still can't bring yourselves to admit it, at least Vikrama and Narayana are not afraid to agree with Adi Sankara and Bagavat Ramanuja that only through total faith (blind faith, IMO) in the words of Shruti can Brhman be ascertained. BTW, I don't understand this reluctance as though "faith" is some kind of dirty word, when in fact all the religious people and their leaders can't extol the virtues of faith enough. The point of stories like Draupati letting go her hold on her clothing or Abraham decisively bringing down the blade on the neck of his son is to illustrate total and blind faith will always be rewarded. So, why are these two ashamed of embracing faith?

Now, interestingly enough, you say rationality is also faith as if, if I am in the dirt let me pull you down into it as well.

Alright, I am willing to take on this proposition now. Let me state it based on what you have said.

Proposition:

"Concepts of no-God, no-metaphysical-reality and so on are also faiths"

Definitions:
​

• [*=1]faith = making definitive statements not based on valid and independently verifiable facts, but based on unverified or unverifiable handed down wisdom
  [*=1]God = two aspects of gods -- (a) personal god who listens and answers prayers, (b) a creator god with intentions to create and destroy -- we can talk about a god who is only (a), or only (b), or both.
  

If you wish to state the proposition and or the definitions differently, please go ahead, but please be specific and short. Once we are agreed on these basics you can state your arguments for the affirmative case and I will present mine for the negative.

Let us take the statement, "I am my brain". Here, the proposition, "I am"--that is, "I exist"--is sought to be proved by the premise of "my brain", that is, "a physical organ that I possess." The fallacy is the confusion of the subject and object, 'I with my' or knower with the object known, and say, "I with my brain shall prove the I in me."

You are trying hard to introduce some kind of confusion that does not really exist. To study the nature of consciousness using the same brain that creates it, is not a fallacy of any kind. If you think it is, state what kind of fallacy it is with proper citations, not just your own definition.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

I am surprised that you say this. Well here is about brain surgery during harappan times.

Thanks Narayan sir, a very interesting article.

You are right, I should have said, "a thousand years ago aham brhmaasi was the pinnacle of Brahmnical (strike out human) ingenuity and wisdom."

I hope you appreciate my point that religious wisdom/doctrine stands still.

Cheers!

 

[kunjuppu]

sai,

i too have wondered many a time if atheism is also a faith.

after all, one believes in 'no God exists' if he is of the atheistic persuasion. no?

what bout someone who does not believe in anything? wouldhis faith be 'not believe in anything'?

without offending anyone, i would like ask folks like Nara or Yamaka, if each one's 'anti god' is of different persuasion? from their posts, we know, that Nara came to be what he is, via sri vaishnava path. Yamaka has also described his initiation to anti God as a youngster and one of the reasons that initiated it.

periyar and stephen hawkins are both anti god. we have stephen's erudite and elegant explanation, while we all know how crude periyar can be. when they die, their souls, which does not exist, will it go to the same place?

please nobody take or give offence. i thank you.

 

[tks]

sai,

i too have wondered many a time if atheism is also a faith.

after all, one believes in 'no God exists' if he is of the atheistic persuasion. no?

what bout someone who does not believe in anything? wouldhis faith be 'not believe in anything'?

without offending anyone, i would like ask folks like Nara or Yamaka, if each one's 'anti god' is of different persuasion? from their posts, we know, that Nara came to be what he is, via sri vaishnava path. Yamaka has also described his initiation to anti God as a youngster and one of the reasons that initiated it.

periyar and stephen hawkins are both anti god. we have stephen's erudite and elegant explanation, while we all know how crude periyar can be. when they die, their souls, which does not exist, will it go to the same place?

please nobody take or give offence. i thank you.

Sri Kunjuppu -

I am sure Sri Saidevo will answer your question.

Faith is accepting something while 'ability to reason' is suspended, in my view.
So if someone says 'there is nothing' that is faith. However through a set of reasons it is possible to come to the conclusion that there is no personal God that intervenes on prayers. But Iswara is not that though for someone who is starting out it is a good starting point for a concept of God.

Newton's view of the universe is not correct but extremely useful. Personal God concept is something like that in my view.

Most of Puranas are wonderful stories embellished over time which makes them fun to read. But they all have a message .

Vedanta is not based on blind faith but requires Shraddha (which is not faith).

Part of confusion of some people equating Vedanta concepts as Faith is due to not knowing the subtle difference between Pramana and faith.

Regards

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Narayan.

Here is another ancient account of brain surgery
bhoja rAja undergoes brain surgery in 10th century CE
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/scriptures/3079-snippets-hindu-science.html#post30455

Namaste Sri Nara Sir,

I am surprised that you say this. Well here is about brain surgery during harappan times. http://www.thehindu.com/arts/history-and-culture/article2118388.ece

Regards,

narayan

 

[Nara]

.... i would like ask folks like Nara or Yamaka, if each one's 'anti god' is of different persuasion? from their posts, we know, that Nara came to be what he is, via sri vaishnava path. Yamaka has also described his initiation to anti God as a youngster and one of the reasons that initiated it.

K, I am not "anti god" as that presupposes accepting the reality of something called god. I have made my position on god very clear many times. In a technical sense I have to be an agnostic as the non-existence of something is not empirically provable. But, in practice I am a strong non-believer in supernatural stuff, for short Atheist.

I will state my case why this is not another "belief system" like theism in the course of my discussion with Saidevo.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara, Kunjuppu and others.

This is with reference to your post #91:

• You seem to jump to conclusions that are easy and convenient for you, about some (what I consider as) key statements that I make in my posts.

• The 'faith/belief' I have in mind is the equivalent of the SaMskRta word vishvAsaH--all-conquering, confidence, faith or belief. You say that faith is to believe in something without basing that belief on "valid and independently verifiable facts, but based on unverified or unverifiable handed down wisdom".

‣ The proof and verification you are talking about are objective, external, and physical. The vishvAsaH I am talking about is a conviction arrived at using internal, subjective proof and verification, which is essentially metaphysical.

‣ Therefore, faith/belief is not a dirty word for me. When I said "Concepts of no-God, no-metaphysical-reality and so on are also faiths" what I meant was that these concepts are as of now not proved, even within the realm of physical reality (of science or atheism), and therefore are only (mental) convictions, assertions of which amount to faith, which is not different from the assertions of convictions about God and metaphysical reality.

Kunjuppu, when you ask, "what about someone who does not believe in anything? wouldhis faith be 'not believe in anything'?", please tell me if that someone believes in himself/herself or not.

You are trying hard to introduce some kind of confusion that does not really exist. To study the nature of consciousness using the same brain that creates it, is not a fallacy of any kind. If you think it is, state what kind of fallacy it is with proper citations, not just your own definition.

• You, in turn, Nara, are trying hard to avoid commitment to the I-consciousness, and if this perception of the self, which is common sense, has any correponding identification in the human physiology of science. If the brain is all there is to the I-ness, then why say my brain? Would you say it is a fallacy in the lauguage?

• "To study the nature of consciousness using the same brain" that creates it involves no fallacy, so long as it is not done with the assumption/faith/belief that the brain is the be-all and end-all of consciousness.

 

[Nara]

....what I meant was that these concepts are as of now not proved, even within the realm of physical reality (of science or atheism), and therefore are only (mental) convictions, assertions of which amount to faith, which is not different from the assertions of convictions about God and metaphysical reality.

Saidevo, does this mean you don't want to debate it, just state your proposition is self evident? Please clarify. If you don't want to discuss it I can go ahead and give a more detailed answer to K directly.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

..., while we all know how crude periyar can be.

K, EVR was a quintessential iconoclast if ever there was one. For Brahmins he will be nothing more than a "Brahmin hater", but for just about everyone else, he was much more. We all are aware of the widespread adulation of the masses towards him in Tamilnadu, though, sadly, most all of them ignore or pay lip service to his teachings.

Beyond popular adulation, he is of great academic interest as well. No serious academic research on the history of social reform, not just in Tamilnadu, not just in India, but the world over, will overlook EVR. No academic library of any repute in the world will be free of some sort of academic material on EVR.

When you talk about his "crudeness" you need to realize, he was trying to unshackle the masses and obliterate their slavishness to the established social order. He wanted to empower them with self-respect. He wanted to free women from the slavery of male domination. He probably was one of the first true feminist in India.

Part of his tactics to achieve all this is to ridicule the prevalent Brahmnical social order and lay bear its superstitions and contradictions. Also, connecting with the masses required certain plebeian touch, one that may seem crude to the patricians. To me, it is the so called "crudeness" that is the most endearing part of EVR.

Many generations from now, when all our present day mahatmas are forgotten, EVR's message will resonate loud.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

He wanted to free women from the slavery of male domination. He probably was one of the first true feminist in India.

Dear Shri Nara,

I carry the impression that EVR did not do anything substantial in regard to women's emancipation - except his marrying Maniammai - and he was as much conservative and orthodox as the others in this matter. So, will you kindly elaborate EVR's attitudes and achievements in the women's emancipation front?

Also, connecting with the masses required certain plebeian touch, one that may seem crude to the patricians. To me, it is the so called "crudeness" that is the most endearing part of EVR.

I do not feel that "connecting with the masses" as such, requires a crude approach and we have Sree Narayana Guru in the next door who did probably much more momentous emancipation work of the downtrodden masses, without unduly jeopardising the high castes, without using any crass or crude language or approach. Unless we postulate that such refined approach would not have suited/woken up the Tamilian masses (because of their inherent attitudes and proclivities) we should concede that EVR could have achieved equally well or even better than what SNG could, by being a bit more refined and polished.

Many generations from now, when all our present day mahatmas are forgotten, EVR's message will resonate loud.

Cheers!

I am not sure whether the Tamil people adore EVR or remember him now to any appreciable extent. SNG in Kerala is an all-but-forgotten figure, just like Gandhi, Nehru, etc., are, after 60 years. The messages of these once-upon-a-time-great people, are also mostly forgotten and have to be dug out from out-of-print books or the web archives. Hence IMHO, the above view is facetious.