You need more than a brain to understand values

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I would like to make a distinction between the lower level of thinking and the higher levels. Brain as we know is a physical part. But my view, due of my heavy leaning towards scriptural knowledge, is that there is a higher counterpart called mind.

A brain by itself may be considered to be well developed but doesn't really transform to a well developed mind if holistic views cannot be created. So each aspect of a brain may be good but they may not together give rise to the next level of thinking.

We may thus find a mathematical wizard or a music prodigy but who is underdeveloped when it comes to understanding values. For these people it is effectively the brain that is the seat of control.

Because of their limitation they cannot think in a holistic manner. They possess an obsession with all that is physical and material and thus all that is ephemeral.These people are also the ones that are most self centered.

But I think we should distinguish these people from the people who naturally possess a well developed mind but are influenced by the former. The above happens when the flow is overwhelmingly towards material as it is in current times.

 

[sangom]

When I read "You need more than a brain to understand values", I thought "satyameva jayate naanrutam"; it requires more than one (person's) brain to understand values (what are these? - OP is conveniently silent on this crucial point). Hence the opinion of the original poster is, according to his own words, insufficient to understand values of any sort. Amen! Some humility

 

[sravna]

When I read "You need more than a brain to understand values", I thought "satyameva jayate naanrutam"; it requires more than one (person's) brain to understand values (what are these? - OP is conveniently silent on this crucial point). Hence the opinion of the original poster is, according to his own words, insufficient to understand values of any sort. Amen! Some humility

Dear Shri Sangom.

That is the beauty or the bane of a language depending on the reader. A text in most cases is open to more than one interpretation though there is always the natural interpretation, at least once the context is provided.

The purpose of the thread is to initiate a discussion on what constitutes the difference between two drastically different types of thinking. I just stated my view, that it is the difference between having a well developed mind and not.

I do not understand why the impression of being haughty is perceived in the message.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom.

That is the beauty or the bane of a language depending on the reader. A text in most cases is open to more than one interpretation though there is always the natural interpretation, at least once the context is provided.

The purpose of the thread is to initiate a discussion on what constitutes the difference between two drastically different types of thinking. I just stated my view, that it is the difference between having a well developed mind and not.

I do not understand why the impression of being haughty is perceived in the message.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I accept defeat before your disarming politeness. I expected a very spirited denial/attack but you have just taken out all weapons from me!

I saw your post yesterday but thought that it would be better if somebody from the usual "religious-minded" group sets the ball rolling. Since I found that no response has come till now, I thought of giving an interpretation which may provoke some one or the other to write against. But that also seems to have failed.

As you may well be knowing, I do not subscribe to the notions like 'higher level thinking', 'lower level thinking', scriptural knowledge giving impetus to a higher counterpart of the brain called "mind", etc. Even in your scripture itself annam, prāṇaḥ, manaḥ, vijñānaṃ, and ānandaṃ seem to rank in that ascending order since bhṛgu, s/o varuṇa, is said, in the taittirīyopaniṣad (bhṛguvallī), to have (mis) realized each of these successively as Brahma, till finally, he comes to realize that Brahman is ānandaṃ only after he acquires vijñānaṃ (viśeṣeṇa jānāti yat) or specialized knowledge of Brahman, in our parlance, and mistakes that knowledge itself for Brahman and at last obtains Brahman-realization. It is to be noted that in each of these stages bhṛgu, comes to varuṇa to tell him (varuṇa) that he had found out what is Brahman but right from the very beginning when bhṛgu, requests varuṇa "adhīhi bhagavo brahma" (teach me about Brahman), the latter's only advice was "tapasā brahma vijijñāsasva, tapo brahma"( Realize Brahman by Tapas, for, Tapas is verily Brahman.). We should carefully note that varuṇa did not advise his son to go read some scripture, not even one of the Vedas.

What is "Tapas"? The mythological films have been able to instil a certain kind of practice/s as Tapas but it essentially means "deep contemplation" which AdiSankara also recommends using the (more prevalent) term "nididhyāsana".

It should, therefore, be clear that reading or even mugging up or understanding the entire scriptural lore is not the way to brahmajñāna. As Sant Kabeer rightly and fearlessly said, "पोथी पढ पढ मुय गये पण्डित भयॊ न कोय" (pothī paḍh paḍh muy gaye paṇḍit bhayo na koy); most of our scriptures are not even as reliable as, say, Kalki's Ponniyin Selvan, Sabhaapati by Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar, or even Kallikkaattu itihaasam by Vairamuthu. For a beginning, perhaps, you will like to read the book "The Riddle of the Ramayana" by C.V. Vaidya.

I therefore hold the opinion that "heavy leaning" or even slight leaning towards scriptural knowledge is not likely to give rise to any 'higher' thinking; in fact, thinking is one human faculty and there is no high or low about it. But one can think of myriad of things and the objects of thought may be classified as good & bad, temporal & philosophical, etc., etc.

...to be continued

 

[sangom]

...Continued from previous post

IMO, the human mind and brain are a dual package and the ahaṃkāra or ego is in a position to control both of these, under normal conditions. But the mind and/or brain is also able to decide in favour of unselfish actions, when they override the ego, so to say. Mind is not a higher counterpart of the human brain.

Finally coming to my remark about humility (haughtiness), it looks to me that if 'leaning towards scriptural knowledge (LTSK)' makes a person to have 'higher' thinking, the first sign will be one of humility and this is itself one of the important messages found in many scriptures (even Duryodhana and Arjuna asking for Krishna's help in the war). But here, it is assumed that this LTSK has, apparently, launched one into believing that only a well developed mind capable of creating "holistic" views cannot be had without LTSK. It should be obvious from this that this LTSK is, like Nicotine, addictive. It will cloud the mind/brain into believing that they have become some higher grade mind/brain system. (I am forced to wonder whether the superiority of brahmins which is generally expressed, did not originate in this fashion, though many, if not most, of the present-day brahmins are not capable of understanding the actual contents of any of our scriptures because we, as a class, have long since become Clerks as envisaged by Macaulay!)

Statements such as the following, in the OP —

Because of their limitation they cannot think in a holistic manner. They possess an obsession with all that is physical and material and thus all that is ephemeral.These people are also the ones that are most self centered.

are, pathetic, imo and reveal a sick mind, to put it mildly. Why is the original poster then trying to make money by relying on the outputs of materialistic scientists? Does this not lower the writer to a level even lower than those materialistic scientists and inventors? If everything physical and material is ephemeral, then why do people linger around here and hanker around material possessions and riches? Why not such people retire to the forest and take up vānaprastha?

 

[renuka]

I would like to make a distinction between the lower level of thinking and the higher levels. Brain as we know is a physical part. But my view, due of my heavy leaning towards scriptural knowledge, is that there is a higher counterpart called mind.

A brain by itself may be considered to be well developed but doesn't really transform to a well developed mind if holistic views cannot be created. So each aspect of a brain may be good but they may not together give rise to the next level of thinking.

We may thus find a mathematical wizard or a music prodigy but who is underdeveloped when it comes to understanding values. For these people it is effectively the brain that is the seat of control.

Because of their limitation they cannot think in a holistic manner. They possess an obsession with all that is physical and material and thus all that is ephemeral.These people are also the ones that are most self centered.

But I think we should distinguish these people from the people who naturally possess a well developed mind but are influenced by the former. The above happens when the flow is overwhelmingly towards material as it is in current times.

Dear Sravna,

Everyone has a brain and a mind.
Brain is gross(physical) and the mind is subtle.

As long as we are alive..the brain needs the mind and the mind needs the brain.

All my years as a doctor I have never really thought to grossly classify human beings into higher thinking holistic beings and limited thinking non holistic beings.
Who am I or what do I posses to do so?

Dear Sravna..I don't know how you might take this piece of advise from me..but it is not very healthy to categorize people the way as you just did.
Cos at the end of the day..there is yet so much mystery of the human mind and brain that mankind has yet to unravel.

We should just be thankful to God that we have an able mind/brain and body for life to function.
That would really suffice.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

Contrary to what you had expected of me I did not expect a spirited reply from you. I was just stating a thesis and why should anyone take an offence at that.

In a pragmatic reality, there is definitely a need to categorize. But the way we categorize should reflect the reality and should not be unjustly discriminating. Categorizing people based on the mental faculty started in the west only fairly recently. The concept of IQ for categorizing someone as a genius, a mediocre or as a mentally retard based on an assessment which is questionable in judging one's worth, to say the least, is a product that came from the west.

The concept of IQ IMO is unjustly discriminating. Why would one's self worth be formed based on the ability to perform some simple minded logical tasks rather than, say, some really broad minded service to society.

Let me now state my argument:

1. Everyone will accept that altruism and selfishness cannot exist in the same person. I mean as extremes.
2.We cannot deny that there are people who are totally selfish and there are people who are totally altruistic.
3. Selfish people are self centered. Are more likely to gravitate towards material aspects. Can anyone deny this?
4. Altruistic people care at least as much for others as for themselves.
5.There is a genetic basis for behaviour.
6.The more extreme one is, the more is the contribution of genetics.
7. The genes that cause this behaviour has to have an effect on the brain as it is the brain that does the thinking.
8. The brain of selfish people doesn't support selfless thinking as that of an altruistic person's does and vice versa.
9. I said exactly the above and called self less thinking as higher level thinking as I think it is rarer and not destructive as a self centered thinking.

 

[sangom]

...

1. Everyone will accept that altruism and selfishness cannot exist in the same person. I mean as extremes.
2.We cannot deny that there are people who are totally selfish and there are people who are totally altruistic.

Dear Shri Sravna,

In my opinion, this thesis or statement is not true. No person is/can be selfish or altruistic at all times, without exception and in an unbroken sort of way. Selfish persons may and will have unselfish episodes, or moments, altruistic persons may become momentarily selfish, etc. None of us remains the same even at the very next moment. While we are able to see the changes which come about in our physical body, over a number of years, the change from one moment to the next goes undetected. In a nutshell all of us die every moment and are reborn into the next moment. Though Buddha said this, I think there is enough truth in this profound observation and this need not be rejected simply because Buddha is a persona non-grata for orthodox hinduism.

3. Selfish people are self centered. Are more likely to gravitate towards material aspects. Can anyone deny this?
4. Altruistic people care at least as much for others as for themselves.

Again, this is not true. A selfish musician may not impart all that he knows to his disciple. Same goes for any guru or teacher. Our scriptures (I think Garuda Purana) pronounces very dire results for this sin. The guru/teacher is not necessarily goaded here by material possessions but by "knowledge" or vidyaa which is ethereal. Altruistic people, at least a good percentage of them, are goaded towards altruism by, once again, the etherial objective of earning "punya".

5.There is a genetic basis for behaviour.
6.The more extreme one is, the more is the contribution of genetics.

All human activity, including, the very phenomenon of living, is in a way controlled by the genes and the genetic structure of each individual. But I am not sure whether science has so far found genes causing selfishness, altruism, etc., nor do I think that the genetic contribution is directly proportional to the extent of selfishness, altruism, etc. I do not think that more of 'intelligence genes' makes a person more intelligent, an abundance of 'beauty genes' does not make a person more beautiful. I don't know whether genes can act like medicine dosages.

7. The genes that cause this behaviour has to have an effect on the brain as it is the brain that does the thinking.
8. The brain of selfish people doesn't support selfless thinking as that of an altruistic person's does and vice versa.
9. I said exactly the above and called self less thinking as higher level thinking as I think it is rarer and not destructive as a self centered thinking.

Sravna, I feel you form the conclusion (Statement 9) first and try to justify it by means of arguments suited therefor. I don't think Statements 7 & 8 are valid as per science.

My request and suggestion to you is that though you may hold any kind of views personally, pl. don't try to find generalizations, because, almost all humans are similar and attempts at grading them, classifying them, etc., will only result in awkward results. Even a Ratnaakaran can have a Vaalmeeki hiding in him; it probably requires only a Naarada to bring this about; there are no genes in all these.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sravna, greetings.

When I read the OP, I was very tempted to type my response. But after reading responses from other learned members and your message in post #7, I feel my little knowledge would be quite inadequate to take part in this thread. It seemsway too philosophical for my thinking capacity. Nice discussion though.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,
My answers are in blue.

1. Everyone will accept that altruism and selfishness cannot exist in the same person. I mean as extremes.
Disagree...cos we have no idea in certain situations altruism might just take a step back in cases of emergency where one has to make a choice.

Most of the while..blood is thicker than water even in the best of people I have seen.
Very few people have Samadarshinah.

2.We cannot deny that there are people who are totally selfish and there are people who are totally altruistic.
Disagree again..no one is 100% bad and 100% good.
Some are good cos they never had a chance to be bad yet..therefore their selfishness lies dormant and some are bad cos their goodness and altruism has not sprouted yet..Karma my dear.. there is always a time for the Sanchita to sprout and become Prarabadha.

3. Selfish people are self centered. Are more likely to gravitate towards material aspects. Can anyone deny this.
Some people own nothing and do not even care to work and yet they are selfish.
They do not care to even accumulate any decent amount of money yet they are selfish..cos they want to just lead a care free life without being responsible.
So one's actions can be selfish but material does not need to be the underlying cause.

4. Altruistic people care at least as much for others as for themselves.
We have no idea..some people act good just for show..some do massive donations to evade taxes..some are actually altruistic cos they are looking for some heavy duty fruits of their actions.
So everyone is still selfish to a certain extent..it is for SELF that everything in this world moves.


5.There is a genetic basis for behaviour.
To certain extent..if a person is a XYY he might display some amount of aggressive behaviour but yet again environment can play a major role and influence a person's behaviour.
This holds good even in the animal kingdom.
I have seen TB houses here who have dogs that are made to be vegetarian and these dogs do not eat Non Veg at all.

6.The more extreme one is, the more is the contribution of genetics.
Not really....environment and experiences in life can change a person and they can still come out of any extremes.Sravna..God gives everyone a chance to redeem ourselves..God Patita Pavana but you make the world sound like there is only heaven and hell with now way out.

7. The genes that cause this behaviour has to have an effect on the brain as it is the brain that does the thinking.
Brain is a gross organ.If I disconnect a brain it would not think.It's the mind that thinks.
Brain is like a wire and the mind is like the current that flows through the wire.

8. The brain of selfish people doesn't support selfless thinking as that of an altruistic person's does and vice versa.
No basis at all..you are being judgmental here.
I repeat there is no dead end in life..I think Sangom ji has given the example of Ratnakara becoming Valmiki.That should make you understand.

9. I said exactly the above and called self less thinking as higher level thinking as I think it is rarer and not destructive as a self centered thinking.

Thoughts and actions might differ but high and low level thinking technically does not exist.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I think we cannot really agree on a conclusion. So I am not going to continue the argument. But the larger point is we need to accept that differences between people exists and some are inherently inclined towards self interests while some others are not. Some are inherently drawn towards values while others do not find a need for them.

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

You touched the crux of the matter when you said that the so called good people are good because they are not exposed to situations that make them look bad.

I fundamentally disagree with this. There are broadly two types of reactions that you may find when people are exposed to very adverse situations. Some react very negatively to it whereas some become more mellowed and actually benefit from such situations.

So I do not think it is true that good people will look bad under adverse situations.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

You touched the crux of the matter when you said that the so called good people are good because they are not exposed to situations that make them look bad.

I fundamentally disagree with this. There are broadly two types of reactions that you may find when people are exposed to very adverse situations. Some react very negatively to it whereas some become more mellowed and actually benefit from such situations.

So I do not think it is true that good people will look bad under adverse situations.

Dear Sravna,

That statement of mine is not something that was in my mind alone..I can't remember the name of the Swamiji that said this but as far as I know he is from Ramakrishna mission and I read a book where he said that same thing.

Someone had asked the Swamiji that if all those who pray and come to the ashram for meditation are good?
The Swamiji replied.."Some appear good cos they had no chance yet to be bad and some appear bad cos they had no chance yet to be good..the truly good person is a person who remains equiposed in all situations and comes out unaffected"

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

These days I really don't feel like calling anyone good or bad anymore.
It is really hard to judge anyone or even our own selves.

Circumstances sometimes can reveal what we did not even know or expect from others and even ourselves.

So for me I would rather classify Good and Bad behaviour as reactions to situations.

After all its reactions to situations that start the Karmic cycle isn't it?

 

[sravna]

Yes, everything evens out in the ultimate analysis but the reactions like mine or yours form the basis for that to happen, don't you think so? People don't change or learn by magic. So what I am supposed to say I will say and what you are supposed to say, you will

 

[renuka]

Dear Sravna,

Sometimes I feel I might actually need more than a brain to understand what exactly you are trying to convey!LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Sometimes I feel I might actually need more than a brain to understand what exactly you are trying to convey!LOL

Nothing complicated dear Renuka if one puts one's mind to it which I am sure you can.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I think we cannot really agree on a conclusion. So I am not going to continue the argument. But the larger point is we need to accept that differences between people exists and some are inherently inclined towards self interests while some others are not. Some are inherently drawn towards values while others do not find a need for them.

Dear Shravna,

I agree that no one person in this world is like any other completely, possible this applies to identical twins also; Smt. Renuka will know better, imo. But this fact by itself does not give us any ground for categorization of people into grades, classes, echelons and all that. After millions of years of existence (wanderings?) on the face of Mother Earth, humanity has settled down as farming communities, and evolved from there into the present stage during the last some millennia, which constitutes, after all, a small fraction of the whole time. Humanity today strives for equality of all people, irrespective of even gender, and in such a milieu, it is retrograde thinking to dig up perceived or postulated differences and then try to create differences. Even at the most personal and private levels of our conscience, we should try, rather strive hard, to abolish such ideas and try to view all humans as equals. That I think is the first step towards altruism and selflessness; rest of all the good nature in a human being will then follow, irrespective of genes, IQ and all such things.

Let us revisit the last sūkta of the ṛgveda and in the same spirit, exclaim "लोकाः समस्ताः समानाः (lokāḥ samastāḥ samānāḥ)".

 

[sangom]

Renuka,

You touched the crux of the matter when you said that the so called good people are good because they are not exposed to situations that make them look bad.

I fundamentally disagree with this. There are broadly two types of reactions that you may find when people are exposed to very adverse situations. Some react very negatively to it whereas some become more mellowed and actually benefit from such situations.

So I do not think it is true that good people will look bad under adverse situations.

Dear Sravna,

I wish to say, once again, there are no 24 x 7 x 365 good or bad people. What we can say at best, along with Jayakanthan, the Tamil writer is சில நேரங்களில் சில மனிதர்கள் (cila neraṅkaḷil cila maṉitarkaḷ) may appear to be good or bad.

 

[renuka]

Nothing complicated dear Renuka if one puts one's mind to it which I am sure you can.

Dear Sravna,

Ok in that case I have a few questions for you.

What is the purpose of starting this thread about higher and lower thinking..selfless and selfish behavior etc..in other words dwelling in the pairs of opposites that might actually even be non existent in some cases.

What are we going to achieve by such categorizations?
Won't this only add to divisions and sub divisions?

How would the Advaitic view fit in here(since we both agree on Advaita)

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I knew that categorizing people will evoke strong reactions But I understand this now more than ever. But before winding up I just wish to say that the trick I have learnt is to be in control of your emotions. I am constantly striving towards that goal. If that can be accomplished, I am sure that all the best adjectives will adorn you. But can you do that? Well, it simply is the ultimate holy grail.

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Sangom and Dear Renuka,

I knew that categorizing people will evoke strong reactions But I understand this now more than ever. But before winding up I just wish to say that the trick I have learnt is to be in control of your emotions. I am constantly striving towards that goal. If that can be accomplished, I am sure that all the best adjectives will adorn you. But can you do that? Well, it simply is the ultimate holy grail.

Dear Sravna,

Now do you understand why I said that " I need more than a brain to really understand what you are actually trying to convey"

Best of luck.
I give up.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

See it is simple. What I am saying is that there is a definite way to be good. That way is to be more in control of your emotions. A rapist or a murderer is blatantly out of control of his emotions or desires. All those who commit blatantly wrong deeds in some way or the other have a myopic view of reality primarily because of their inability to put aside the emotions. Some react in more subtle ways though will harming others but the fact is they are not exhibiting self control.

This is the point I was trying to make.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

See it is simple. What I am saying is that there is a definite way to be good. That way is to be more in control of your emotions. A rapist or a murderer is blatantly out of control of his emotions or desires. All those who commit blatantly wrong deeds in some way or the other have a myopic view of reality primarily because of their inability to put aside the emotions. Some react in more subtle ways though will harming others but the fact is they are not exhibiting self control.

This is the point I was trying to make.

Dear Sravna,

Agreed but you see the point I am trying to drive is no one remains totally out of control 24/7 for the rest of eternity.

No murderer/serial rapist is 24/7 a murderer and a rapist.

Humans have the capacity to repent and feel remorseful for the actions becos we have the ability to think.

Didn't Ajmal Kasab repent before his death?He said "Allah kasam maaf karna. Aisi galthi dobara nahi hogi. (I swear by Allah, please forgive me. I won't make such a mistake again),"

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

When you are in control of your emotions, your ego doesn't show up. Or in other words you are able to think beyond self. There definitely have been people in the past who have accomplished that. But without doubt it is a herculean task. But the more you are in control of your emotions, the, more your quiet your ego is and more selfless and good you can be. But the ability to control your emotions itself comes only after innumerable births and learning experiences.

Though I want to restrain myself from writing any further in this thread because it may offend certain people, on the other hand I am being compelled in some sense to write what I think is right for at least the sake of those who can resonate with the message that self control is important.