Advaita connection with science-based philosophy

[Guest guest]

Lema-ji wrote:

I find that a pretty good connection with Metzinger's statements: " I

certainly

feel like someone, but there is no such thing " and " If it is true that the

self

is not a thing (but a process as I've described it) then it is also true

that

the tragedy of the ego dissolves because, strictly speaking, nobody is

ever born

and nobody ever dies. "

 

Your discussion wasn't written for this purpose, and I'm not trying to

make it

support/justify his views or vice-versa. I just found your comments

personally

useful for making a connection between these two separate approaches and

wanted

to thank you for providing them. Since there are significant differences

between them, it may not be wise to mix science-based philosophy and

Advaita,

but I find it hard to avoid trying it with some aspects where they seem

close to

one another.

 

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Namaste Lema-ji,

Thomas Metzinger seems to think that he is a philosopher and is probably

interested in the salary which is paid to a man of the same name at the

University of Mainz who is a professor of philosophy. This theory of the

self or what the Buddhists call the anatman/annata theory cannot be

established by any experiment that could be devised. Shankara in B.S.B.

II.ii.19 and II.ii.25 offers cogent philosophical reasons why this theory

is incoherent, literally so. The binding problem i.e. how all sensations

come to be _my_ sensations, cannot be resolved at the level of the

sensations themselves and is thus beyond the reach of neuroscience.

 

I have noticed that Buddhism seems more attractive to the intelligent

Westerner in that it has an intellectual respectability so to speak which

is perceived to be lacking in Hinduism. They appear to be more attentive

to philosophical justification than the Swamis. It's all perception of

course and it goes in cycles. The alternation between the two is called a

bicycle.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Lema-ji,

 

Glad you found the comments useful. But I do agree that “it

may not be wise to mix science-based philosophy and Advaita”. In fact, I

would go further and say it definitely isn’t wise. Science is about

objects, advaita is about the subject. Science is about cause and effects, reality

is beyond cause and effect. And never the twain shall meet…

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

_

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Thomas Metzinger seems to think that he is a philosopher and is

> probably interested in the salary which is paid to a man of the

> same name at the University of Mainz who is a professor of

> philosophy.

 

No doubt that's true! However, he might express it as " The phenomenal self

model in my brain evidences interest in its phenomenal salary within the model

of its world, so that it can buy a representation of a car. "

 

> This theory of the self or what the Buddhists call the

> anatman/annata theory cannot be established by any experiment

> that could be devised.

 

He does mention Buddhism briefly, suggesting that the Buddhist conception of

enlightenment corresponds to a conception of selflessness in his theoretical

framework (in which a lucid dreamer phenomenally recognizes herself as being a

dream character: a situation in which the " dreaming system " becomes lucid to

itself).

 

> Shankara in B.S.B. II.ii.19 and II.ii.25 offers cogent

> philosophical reasons why this theory is incoherent

 

Thank you, Michael-ji, I will consider those portions of the Brahma Sutra

Bhashya in connection with that.

 

Metzinger references Shankara on pp. 549-551 of Being No One when discussing the

relationship between his approach and metaphors like Plato's cave (please

forgive the following, lengthy quotations if you're already familiar with these

references).

 

He writes: " Samkara (who lived 1200 years later than Plato, from 788 A.D. to 820

A.D.), in his Vivekacudamani or Crest-Jewel of Wisdom, argued that just as we

don't confuse ourselves with the shadow cast by our own body, or with a

reflection of it, or with the body that appears in dream or in imagination, we

should not identify with what appears to be our bodily self right now. Samkara

said: Just as you have no self-identification with your shadow-body,

reflection-body, dream-body, or imagination-body, so should you not have with

the living body. The SMT [self-Model Theory of Subjectivity] offers a deeper

understanding of why, in standard situations, the system as a whole inevitably

does identify itself with its own neurodynamical shadow, with its inner

computational reflection of itself, with its continuous online dream about, and

internal emulation of, itself. It is the transparency of the human self-model

which causes this effect. "

 

Metzinger continues: " Samkara was right: A transparent phenomenal self-model is

not a self. But Socrates was right too. " And he concludes: " A third aspect, in

which both Plato and Samkara were certainly right, is the normative ideal of

expanding self-knowledge. The neurophenomenological caveman's situation is

deplorable. It must be changed. However, it cannot be changed by freeing

ourselves and leaving the cave altogether, searching for the true light of the

sun. We have never been in the cave. The cave is empty. "

 

> I have noticed that Buddhism seems more attractive to the

> intelligent Westerner in that it has an intellectual respectability

> so to speak which is perceived to be lacking in Hinduism.

 

I've seen that too, and I was a little surprised (and, it must be admitted,

pleased) to see Shankara raised in the discussion above.

 

Lema

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

> I do agree that " it may not be wise to mix science-based philosophy

> and Advaita " . In fact, I would go further and say it definitely

> isn't wise.

 

Thank you, Dennis-ji, I'm taking your advice to heart.

 

I've found it not overly hard to accept the world as mithya with the exception

of my own self/ego. Entire galaxies can be dismissed without much trouble, but

the inner ego felt that it wouldn't budge (a familiar experience, perhaps).

 

Metzinger's approach is that the self/ego is a mere modeling action of the

physical brain (which he regards as real) and thus the ego is not real despite

feeling that way. But for me, the brain is accepted as mithya. That combination

somehow penetrated in a way nothing else had, making my ego briefly feel unreal

as it never had before.

 

This feeling was no doubt the result of his lecture interacting in a particular

way with what I'd already learned from Advaita (in no small measure from your

books and website), so that it wouldn't have the same outcome for others. And

I'm aware that it was still just a mithya experience with no real value on its

own.

 

Despite those known restrictions, I still had an impulse to try to connect it to

Advaita (due to some areas where they seem somewhat similar). But to make sure

there's no confusion in the overlap, I'll recognize his approach as just a tool

that had an effect, to be disposed of after serving its limited purpose, rather

than trying to make it something it isn't or connect it with something else.

 

Lema

[Guest guest]

Dennis - PraNAms

 

Here is my outlook.

 

I like science - it operates in the realm of tripuTi - observer, observed and

observing.

 

Vedanta also operates in tripuTi too - but pointing to the direction what

paramarthanandaji calls as binary format - aatma and anaatma.

 

Vedanta provides the holistic approach to three jiiva-jagat and Iswara. while

science is trying to understand the cause effect for the jagat only - Vedanta

all inclusive rather than exclusive where one is looking the substantive or

adhaara of the apparent three with causeless cause - one.

 

The scientific tools are important and should be applied since most of the

analysis is in the real of jiiva-jagat and iswara or vyavahaara level only -

including jnaana and ajnaana and self-realization too.

 

The perceiver-perceived and perceiving has to understand correctly to arrive at

the consciousness entity that is substantive all the three - since realization

is in the mind. Mind is not mithyaa until it is recognized as mithyaa. The world

is not mithyaa until the substantive of the world - Brahman is recognized. Till

then intellectual inquiry of vichaara which itself is mithyaa has to be taken

seriously until the mithyaatva aspect of the very inquiry is understood. That

arises only and only after one is fully established in satyaatva aspect of the

underlying mithyaa.

 

Hence I consider Vedanta is science but it includes not only jagat but jiiva and

iswara aspect - that the totality involved.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

 

 

Namaste Lema-ji,

 

Glad you found the comments useful. But I do agree that “it may not be wise to

mix science-based philosophy and Advaitaâ€. In fact, I would go further and say

it definitely isn’t wise. Science is about objects, advaita is about the

subject. Science is about cause and effects, reality is beyond cause and effect.

And never the twain shall meet…

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

_

[Guest guest]

Dear Sada-ji,

 

Very fair points – and of course I agree. I suppose that, when

the subject of science comes up, I always think of its attempts to ‘explain’

consciousness. It is here specifically where arrogance and unreason is manifest

in the attitude that the ultimate subject can in any way be objectively

investigated and explained. I don’t think that advaita anywhere attempts to do

this or to suggest that it could be possible.

 

(I like science, too, really. It’s a fascinating pastime for the

mind.)

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi

sadananda

Friday, November 06, 2009 3:21 AM

advaitin

RE: Advaita connection with science-based philosophy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dennis - PraNAms

 

Here is my outlook.

 

I like science - it operates in the realm of tripuTi - observer, observed and

observing.

 

Vedanta also operates in tripuTi too - but pointing to the direction what

paramarthanandaji calls as binary format - aatma and anaatma.

 

 

<<<   >>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

I agree with you. When we are discussing vedanta it is better to keep science

out. Science is concerned only with the external world. Though advaita also

deals with worldly phenomena, it is not for their sake, but only with a higher

intention. For example vedanta describes creation in detail, but says that its

aim is not to describe creation but to show that everything is Brahman. Thus all

theories about perception, inference etc., are meant not to be taken literally,

but only as means to explain the ultimate goal of vedanta. From this point of

view science has no place in vedanta.

It is an entirely different matter that scientific discoveries are found to

support some of the conclusions of science. This only means that vedanta has

anticipated the discoveries of science.

(By vedanta I mean only advaita vedanta.)

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sada-ji,

>

>

>

> Very fair points †" and of course I agree. I suppose that, when the subject

of science comes up, I always think of its attempts to ‘explain’

consciousness. It is here specifically where arrogance and unreason is manifest

in the attitude that the ultimate subject can in any way be objectively

investigated and explained. I don’t think that advaita anywhere attempts to do

this or to suggest that it could be possible.

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadaji,

 

/// Till then " intellectual inquiry " of vichaara which itself is mithyaa has to

be taken seriously until the mithyaatva aspect of the very inquiry is

understood.

////

 

How far this intellectual inquiry would take the sadhaka?

 

IMHO, it is the Guru Anugraha. There is an incident that happened with a

certain maharashtrian scholar of Nanded district.

 

This scholar was well-versed in sastra like tarka & vedanta, advaita siddhanta

like brahma sutra sankara bhashya & gita bhashya.

 

He was expounding the famous gita sloka " nainam chindanti sastrani nainam dahati

pavakah.... " in a wonderful way quoting different yuktis.

 

The great avadhuta Shri Gajanan Maharaj of Shegaon who is a naked fakir and

roams about fearlessly was quietly listening to his exposition. Gajanan Maharaj

has the habit of smoking cigars, which is as usual with avadhutas of datta

parampara which is a lila. Intentionally, Shri Maharaj threw the burning cigar

on the dias where the scholar was giving lecture. This scholar got panic amidst

the flames and could not come out. Finally, Shri Gajanan Maharaj had to come to

his rescue. Maharaj held the scholar on His shoulders walked out the flames

unmindful of the fire.

 

After coming out, Shri Maharaj said that this is the " essence " of the sloka

" Nainam Dahati Pavakah... " walked down smoking the cigar.

 

Just my 2 cents....

 

sriram

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> Dennis - PraNAms

>

> Here is my outlook.

>

> I like science - it operates in the realm of tripuTi - observer, observed and

observing.

>

> Vedanta also operates in tripuTi too - but pointing to the direction what

paramarthanandaji calls as binary format - aatma and anaatma.

>

> Vedanta provides the holistic approach to three jiiva-jagat and Iswara. while

science is trying to understand the cause effect for the jagat only - Vedanta

all inclusive rather than exclusive where one is looking the substantive or

adhaara of the apparent three with causeless cause - one.

>

> The scientific tools are important and should be applied since most of the

analysis is in the real of jiiva-jagat and iswara or vyavahaara level only -

including jnaana and ajnaana and self-realization too.

>

> The perceiver-perceived and perceiving has to understand correctly to arrive

at the consciousness entity that is substantive all the three - since

realization is in the mind. Mind is not mithyaa until it is recognized as

mithyaa. The world is not mithyaa until the substantive of the world - Brahman

is recognized. Till then intellectual inquiry of vichaara which itself is

mithyaa has to be taken seriously until the mithyaatva aspect of the very

inquiry is understood. That arises only and only after one is fully established

in satyaatva aspect of the underlying mithyaa.

>

> Hence I consider Vedanta is science but it includes not only jagat but jiiva

and iswara aspect - that the totality involved.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

>

>

>

> --- On Thu, 11/5/09, Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Lema-ji,

>  

> Glad you found the comments useful. But I do agree that “it may not be wise

to mix science-based philosophy and Advaitaâ€. In fact, I would go further and

say it definitely isn’t wise. Science is about objects, advaita is about the

subject. Science is about cause and effects, reality is beyond cause and effect.

And never the twain shall meet…

>  

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

>  

>

> _

>

[Guest guest]

Sriram - PraNAms

 

I must say if ignorance is root cause - knowledge alone is antidote.

 

There are two understandings required.

 

1. inquiry into mahavaakya - which is nothing akhandaakaara bodhaka vaakyams

that I am the substratume of jiiva jagat and Iswara - that understanding is

jnaanam.

 

2. The seond understanding is that understanding that I do not anything elase

for my understanding because the mahavakya undestanding involves I am nithya

muktaH.

 

3. Everything elase comes under chitta suddhi so that I can understand the

mahavakya bodhana as fact.

 

Some aspects of this will be discussed in the next post.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, babi <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

 

 

How far this intellectual inquiry would take the sadhaka?

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sadacharya Ji,

 

Thanks for enlightening me. Kindly explain the Gita Sloka

 

// dadAmi buddhiyogaM taM yena mAmupayAntite //

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Sriram - PraNAms

>

> I must say if ignorance is root cause - knowledge alone is antidote.

>

> There are two understandings required.

>

> 1. inquiry into mahavaakya - which is nothing akhandaakaara bodhaka vaakyams

that I am the substratume of jiiva jagat and Iswara - that understanding is

jnaanam.

>

> 2. The seond understanding is that understanding that I do not anything elase

for my understanding because the mahavakya undestanding involves I am nithya

muktaH.

>

> 3. Everything elase comes under chitta suddhi so that I can understand the

mahavakya bodhana as fact.

>

> Some aspects of this will be discussed in the next post.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Tue, 11/10/09, babi <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

>

> How far this intellectual inquiry would take the sadhaka?

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis,

 

I agree of course with your distinction that 'Science is about objects, advaita

is about the subject.' All objects in the world are partially perceived

appearances, and all scientific theories are thus caught up the inevitable

imperfections of picturing an outward show of put-together partiality.

 

In search of any genuine truth, there has to be a turning back, from outwardly

constructed pictures to an inward questioning. Such questioning must turn,

reflectively, from pictured worlds of outside space, through asking thought of

time in mind, to a subjective ground of knowing continuity.

 

To this effect, two pieces of verse are appended below. The first is a short

stanza, about objective picturing. The second is rather longer, about space,

time and continuity.

 

These pieces of verse are meant to show that it is so-called 'science' which

needs a basis in philosophy. Not the other way around, as unwittingly suggested

by the phrase: 'science-based philosophy'.

 

Ananda

 

_________

 

 

Picturing

=========

 

Whenever any world appears,

through any body, sense or mind,

this world is just a show, made up

by an imperfect picturing.

 

 

_________

 

 

Space, time and continuity

==========================

 

 

Space of world

--------------

 

What we call 'space', how is it made?

It's made of co-existing points.

One point alone does not make space.

 

To make up space, two points or more

must co-exist, at the same time.

Thus co-existing, points relate.

 

The different points that make up space

relate through intervening points

which make up distance in between.

 

 

Time in mind

------------

 

All space is known in course of time,

by moving on from place to place,

through joined-up paths of travelling.

 

It's only by such tracing out,

of paths connecting different points,

that any space of world appears.

 

And what appears thus of the world,

at any place or any time,

is never more than momentary.

 

It's never more than passing show,

replacing previous states of show,

to get thus in its turn replaced.

 

As any state of show occurs,

all previous states have passed away,

all future states are yet to come.

 

In time, no moments co-exist.

Each present moment is alone,

with past and future absent here.

 

This is the nature of all time:

which each of us experiences

through our successive states of mind.

 

The world that we perceive outside,

through bodied sense, appears as 'space':

made up of co-existing points.

 

This is a world of structured space:

made up of many different points,

each one of them in its own place.

 

But when we turn attention back,

to ask how mind interprets world

we come to time and memory.

 

 

Continuity in consciousness

---------------------------

 

As moments pass in changing mind,

each moment brings a single state

appearing at this present time.

 

But now, here, at this present time,

how does this present mental state

relate to past and future times?

 

How does this state, appearing now,

relate to states now passed and gone,

to states that we expect to come?

 

How can mind's states, appearing singly,

carry on from past to present

and from now to future times?

 

To think that previous states have passed,

they must be somehow thought contained

in this one state that now appears.

 

This thinking now that previous states

though passed and gone are present still,

quite clearly contradicts itself.

 

All of our thought of time and mind

is found thus logically confused,

under the name of 'memory'.

 

We keep on thinking that passed states

of mind are somehow present now,

despite their having passed away.

 

This muddled thought, called 'memory',

thus compromises, from the start,

all our ideas of time and mind.

 

To know that states of mind keep passing,

that which knows them must be present

through each state that comes and goes.

 

That knowing presence is called 'self'.

It's that which knows, in each of us,

throughout our passing states of mind.

 

It's that alone which does not change,

while passing states replace each other

in the process of each mind.

 

That self is always found the same,

quite unaffected by all acts

of changing body, sense and mind.

 

The knowing of that changeless self

is not an act that may be changed,

but its own being in itself.

 

That being is a knowing light

which shines unchanged in each of us,

beneath our seeming differences.

 

It is that unchanged consciousness

which stays in truth impersonal,

in every personality.

 

And it is found by asking back,

beneath our seeming differences,

to that which knows them from within.

 

It is at once what knows in us

and all the world's reality

that's shown throughout all space and time.