|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 8, 2014 22:39:19 GMT -6
This article appears to be a misrepresentation of the study. Here is the actual Abstract of the Study:
Abstract Background
Cardiac arrest (CA) survivors experience cognitive deficits including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It is unclear whether these are related to cognitive/mental experiences and awareness during CPR. Despite anecdotal reports the broad range of cognitive/mental experiences and awareness associated with CPR has not been systematically studied. Methods
The incidence and validity of awareness together with the range, characteristics and themes relating to memories/cognitive processes during CA was investigated through a 4 year multi-center observational study using a three stage quantitative and qualitative interview system. The feasibility of objectively testing the accuracy of claims of visual and auditory awareness was examined using specific tests. The outcome measures were (1) awareness/memories during CA and (2) objective verification of claims of awareness using specific tests. Results
Among 2060 CA events, 140 survivors completed stage 1 interviews, while 101 of 140 patients completed stage 2 interviews. 46% had memories with 7 major cognitive themes: fear; animals/plants; bright light; violence/persecution; deja-vu; family; recalling events post-CA and 9% had NDEs, while 2% described awareness with explicit recall of ‘seeing’ and ‘hearing’ actual events related to their resuscitation. One had a verifiable period of conscious awareness during which time cerebral function was not expected. Conclusions
CA survivors commonly experience a broad range of cognitive themes, with 2% exhibiting full awareness. This supports other recent studies that have indicated consciousness may be present despite clinically undetectable consciousness. This together with fearful experiences may contribute to PTSD and other cognitive deficits post CA.
Any critical thinkers out there who can see where the article goes astray? What is the difference between "described awareness" and "exhibited full awareness" (as the article says)? In other words, the "evidence" is purely anecdotal.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 9, 2014 20:48:25 GMT -6
Malatidi,
It is not a matter of statistics. Out of 2060 patients with cardiac arrest they found only one who was conscious and whose awareness could be verified. What does this prove? Life After Death? Only if death is defined as cardiac arrest. It rather suggests that cardiac arrest is not necessarily real death, that consciousness may continue for a while (20-30 seconds?) after cardiac arrest and that it may be present even when it cannot be detected in the usual manner. This does not prove that conscious survives forever or that there is a conscious soul that continues to exist apart from the body. It merely suggests, but does not prove, that we have something more to learn about dying. That is all the authors of the study themselves suggest, that more study is needed, that we don't understand death yet.
The article takes it way beyond that and wants us to believe (as you apparently do) that evidence has been found for life after death of the permanent variety. This baloney. The study provides no such evidence. It bothers me that you search high and low for these scam articles to try to prove what you want to be true and you allow yourself to be taken in by them. Worse, you want others who think as uncritically as you to be taken in as well.
What difference does it make what you or I believe if it is untrue? It may be that some day there will a be real study conducted with every scientific care and precaution that does prove life after death, but this is not that study. By fostering this sort of study off on others as real "evidence" of life after death you have become wittingly or unwittingly a party to a scam.
One thing about this study that I like, however, is that it suggests a solution to all those accounts of people dying and visiting heaven or whatever. The solution? They weren't really dead. Their consciousness's continued undetected by normal means and filled with phantasmagora of various sorts and when they woke they had stories to tell, none of them true, but stories nevertheless.
It is not required that we become ignorant fools who believe everything we read. Sravana, manana, nididhyasana.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 13, 2014 9:17:15 GMT -6
Haribol Nitaidas Only 140 survivors of CA out of of the 2060 events participated in the study and only 101 in the second stage. Read again the abstract. What is the point of mentioning 2060 patients if they did not really participate in the study? It is misleading and to a degree falsifies the validity of the study. "Largest ever" becomes meaningless. My suggestion is just the rational conclusion. Death as defined by medical science is drawn into question here. If the study has any implications it is that medical science has got to rethink its definition of death, because the stopping of the heart and the silence of the brain do not necessarily mean that consciousness has vanished. Like the warmth of the body, it may persist for a while after "death." This does not mean that there is life after death. The article itself mentioned 20-30 seconds. The one patient who survived for 6 minutes was clearly not dead, but still conscious to the degree that he or she could sense the events going on around him or her. The idea that the patient was out of his body is unproven and unprovable. And as you say it does not proven anything about the existence of a permanent or immortal self or soul. Sensationalism mixed with baloney. Most people who read that article now think that the existence of an immortal soul has been proven by science. I would not call someone who is willing to change his mind on the basis of real evidence close-minded. Those who believe in something on the basis of some anonymous scripture or anecdotal account are the really close-minded. No lack of evidence or presence of evidence for an opposing view will ever cause them to change their minds. Ah! William James! Sadly this is not a case of a white crow. It merely demonstrates that conscious awareness may persist for a few minutes after the heart stops and be undetectable by our measurements. In most cases it only persists for 20-30 seconds. But in one case out of 2060 it persisted for 6 minutes. Medical science may have to adjust its understanding of death to account for this, if consciousness is considered an important aspect of life. No evidence here for anything more. This is fine anecdotal evidence that is meaningful primarily to you. What actually happened we may never know. That you believe it happened just as you experienced it tells us something about you, but nothing about the world as it really is, except that there are people in the world who believe their own experiences, the more vivid the more true, count for more than the careful, experimental, critical, and verifiable study of the world conducted by science. This is a kind of pernicious arrogance, isn't it? Pernicious because it blocks the growth of knowledge based on real evidence and closes the mind to other interpretations of the event. For such people there is no higher source of truth than "I heard with my own ears and from my own lips!"
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 20, 2014 22:22:41 GMT -6
A close minded person is one who does not follow where the evidence leads. Now we have this recent research which they have been doing for decades. And GV devotees who read from Srimad Bhagavatma: Skandha VI . chap 15. 8 : Just as the distinction made between the universal and the particular is an assumption, so also the distinction between the the spirit and the body adn their coming together is an assumption. The soul alone is the abiding reality. The concomitance between the two is is no proof that the spririt dies with the body. "So now you pull out the big guns. But first a comment on your definition of a closed minded person. We agree on the definition. What I am saying is that the evidence, this evidence, does not lead us anywhere, certainly not to the conclusion that the existence of a permanent self has been proven. The verse you cite is interesting and sadly mistranslated: here are the words: deha-dehi-vibhAgo'yam avivekakRtaH purA| jAti-vyakti-vibhAgo'yam yathA vastuni kalpitaH|| There is nothing here about a "soul alone is the abiding reality." In fact, it says just the opposite: the old distinction between the body and the possessor of the body is made out of ignorance (that is, a lack of discrimination), just as the distinction between the genus and the individual is imagined in the thing itself. The translator has added "The soul alone is the abiding reality. The concomitance between the two is is no proof that the spirit dies with the body." Sorry. I see you are reading the translation I sold you. The four volume Ramkrishna Mission version. The translator seems to mix his commentary (not even Sridhara's) into his translations. But then how are we to take this except in its literal sense which seems to suggest that there is no distinction between body and self? In the previous verse such a distinction is made. Is this verse critical of that distinction? Sridhara has an answer. It may not be the correct answer, but it is an answer. I will tell you later. For now, let us ask: why should we believe the words of a text written by who knows who over a thousand years ago? On the basis of what is this author speaking? What possible means of knowledge did he have at his disposal? Science at least has a means of knowing and a means of testing and confirming or disconfirming that knowledge. What recourse do we have here? How can we determine if what we are told is true or not? In this sense, the knowledge generated by science is much more likely to be true, than anything we may find in these old texts which depend mostly on fiat rather than evidence to make their case. Still, they are fun to read like with this little jewel that you have found.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Oct 21, 2014 21:02:52 GMT -6
Science will never have definitive answer regarding life after death. Body is made of organisms and organs consisting of various chemicals and elements. The force which attracts it is Purusha. So body is dead already, but animated due to proximity to purusha. So there you go. Just the idea of life after death is ridiculous. Consciousness is also subtle element animated due to proximity to purusha. That's why we have different yoga paths, different bhakti rasas, etc. But when purusha takes his/her glance away, all comes to rest.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Oct 23, 2014 8:50:04 GMT -6
Fioramere, I agree with the metaphor "when the purusha" takes away his/her glance away, all comes to rest". For sure, the scriptures always talk in symbolic language but in this instance, as a GV devotee, I think you are missing the "in-between concepts". What about the concept of karma-- or the concept of prarabdha : actions whose fruits have begun to manifest, aprarabdha: consequences of action that are waiting to fructify, rudha/kuta: those that exists in potentiality, bija: those that exist in seed form. You also say: Just the idea of life after death is ridiculous. Why ridiculous? If we talk of death only of the body, it'not ridiculous. Think of reincarnation or the cycle of birth and rebirth, regulated by karma. Chapter 13. Ksetra–Ksetrajna Vibhaga yoga (Religion by Separation of Matter and Spirit contains 35 verses): The difference between transient perishable physical body and the immutable eternal soul is described. As I understood it, in GVism, consciousness is the symptom of the soul and through consciousness the jiva will be able to finish his material existence because one can develop attraction for Krishna. Namaste Malati, Well if we see that the body is already dead and just animated due to the proximity to Purusha, what is there realy to say about its life when it is not alive from the get go? Karma, and different aspect of karma, are interactions of nature in proximity to Purusha. It is an action automatically performed by nature due to its closeness to Purusha. Now, if you or I appear, we will certainly attach the asspect of doership which results in what? Next life? Next life for who? "We" are eternal. There is no life after death as we are never born, nor will ever die. All that "in between" you mentioned I am missing are movements of nature. You can attached yourself to them and bear the results or just be and see that what was never born will never die. As far as developing attraction towards Krishna, we will never know what happened to those who stayed the course till the end and achived the highest stages. I think something wonderful happend to them to the tune of sufi poet Rumi.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 26, 2014 14:51:21 GMT -6
Science will never have definitive answer regarding life after death. Body is made of organisms and organs consisting of various chemicals and elements. The force which attracts it is Purusha. So body is dead already, but animated due to proximity to purusha. So there you go. Just the idea of life after death is ridiculous. Consciousness is also subtle element animated due to proximity to purusha. That's why we have different yoga paths, different bhakti rasas, etc. But when purusha takes his/her glance away, all comes to rest. Hi Fiorafemere, Good to hear from you again. Of course science can give us a definitive answer about life after death. If "spirit" in any way affects "matter" it can and should be studied by science. If as you say Purusa "attracts" matter then it should be observable and measurable by science and the mechanics of that "attraction" should be studied. And by the way, what is your evidence for this idea of yours? Surely, you don't expect us to believe you just because you said it. Give us evidence. mon ami.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 26, 2014 16:02:40 GMT -6
Fioramere, Nitaidas, I go by what I read. I have not read the translation you are purporting to be the correct one. Notice that in your translation it's "self" but the translation I cited by RK it's "soul". Well you should not just go by what you read. You should question what you read. Only dolts believe whatever they read. The correct translation is the one I just gave you. You can compare it with the Sanskrit words in the verse. There is a one-to-one correspondence between my translation and the words actually used in the Sanskrit. And there is no word in it or even in the Sanskrit language that corresponds to "soul." It is a borrowing from Christianity. Why import it into Hinduism or Hindu philosophy? Again, atman does not mean "soul," but self. It can also mean mind or body. One must depend on context to determine which it is. By the way, what is your degree in? You are always putting down my degree. What is your degree? Identity is usually ahamkara in Sanskrit, not atman. It might be abhimana sometimes which means self-conceit, but usually it is ahamkara. The problem with your argument is that there is no evidence of a separate consciousness, that is a consciousness that is separate from the body, that can change the body or the operations of the body. If there were it would be studiable by science. Anything that can move "matter" can be observed and measured by science. And the evidence for this is? Certainly not this verse. There are others that make that claim for sure, but not this one. This one actually seems more sophisticated than most of what one finds in the Bhagavata. It is the occasional appearance of verses like this that makes me think that there might actually be some profundity in the Bhagavata, instead of the usual unsupported and unsupportable crass duality of spirit versus matter. In this verse that whole way of looking at things is drawn into question and attributed to ignorance. Bravo! Besides, the body never really annihilates. It just changes forms; its parts scatter and it becomes part of something greater, the vast universe, like a wave rejoining the ocean.
|
|
nyame
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by nyame on Oct 26, 2014 17:35:38 GMT -6
deha-dehi-vibhAgo'yam avivekakRtaH purA| jAti-vyakti-vibhAgo'yam yathA vastuni kalpitaH||
This does not mean there is no difference between body and self, it is saying that just like there is a oneness or bond between caste and the person in that caste, there is also a oneness or bond between body and self - to see that there is only difference is incorrect. How do we know this is what is meant? By the use in the analogy of jati and person, i.e. is there really no difference between jati and person? Of course there is a difference, a person is not caste and a caste is not a person. But there is also no division in the sense of the person in the caste is one with that caste since the caste is comprised of persons.
The point of this verse in context is that you shouldn't lament for the death of a loved one because the jiva is an eternal being living in a temporary manifestation in a reality where there is no difference between anything due to all being a part of a unified universal reality controlled by Isvara.
On another note, I don't think we can count on science to determine the truth of existence of consciousness outside the body. Science as it functions in modern times is dependent on examination through instruments made of matter, e.g. machines and tools in combination with the bodily senses. For example we know thoughts exist through experience, but since thoughts are not comprised of 3 dimensional matter, machines or senses cannot perceive them. You can't hear, touch, or see my thoughts. This is because thoughts exist in another dimension to 3 dimensional matter. Consciousness/self can perceive thoughts because consciousness exists in another dimension as well.
While there are machines capable of interacting with thoughts ("Brain–computer interface" or BCM), like recent advances in computers controlled by thoughts, the machines are not actually perceiving the thoughts themselves. Instead they perceive biological reaction to thought. For example they connect EEG devices to a person which can perceive different biological reactions in the brain (neurons), they then calibrate reactions in the brain to certain thoughts, then those biological reactions are used to control the computer.
Consciousness exists, as do thoughts, since we all experience them. Science can prove thoughts exist, but only indirectly through the effects thoughts have on matter (brain activity). In that way science can also prove consciousness exists because science can prove that something is self-aware, creating thoughts and causing actions by it's own choice (it's not the jiva since we have no idea how to cause thoughts or actions).
But as for directly proving thoughts or consciousness exist, that would require the ability to perceive outside the boundaries of 3 dimensions - which to me seems unlikely since anything outside of the 3 dimensions of our world would be literally invisible to sensory perception - unable to be seen, touched, weighed, etc. All things measured by science, even if not able to be seen by the naked human eye or ear (e.g. non-visible light spectrums), are 3 dimensional substances, from elements on down to elementary particles. Something without 3 dimensions would be invisible to instruments which can only measure 3 dimensions. You can only perceive other dimensions though their interactions with matter - unless you are using instruments from those other dimensions, i.e. the self/consciousness perceives thoughts, dreams, etc.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Oct 26, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -6
Nitadas, good too see you too. How can I prove your existence? Do you need a science for that?. Science is a part of phenomena created by movements of matter in its proximity to Purusha. It is development of consciousness, but it folds once purusha takes its glance away. It is seen through experience, not proven through scientific experiments. I don't have a proof I was ever born. That concurs with knowledge revealed in scriptures. How can I then die and have a life after death when death is only stopping of bodily movements or better put changing of energy states and functions. I don't expect you to believe me, it won't change anything. We're just having fun in various moods.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Oct 26, 2014 19:47:41 GMT -6
Haribol Fioramere Most GV devotee do not use namaste to greet each other, so I'm supposing you're coming from another school of thought. I think my issue with your idea is your use of the word "dead" to describe a "body" being still functioning in the material world. I learned that in philosophy, especially in philosophy, semantics are very important. To me "dead" is to describe something that has stopped doing the job it's meant to do and given time will cease to exist. I will describe the atoms, or matter that make up the body as "inert" or in a state of doing nothing, rather than "dead" and given time will eventually cease to exist so long as the atman, brahman or spirit/soul, or call it purusha if you like, does not animate it. I believe "inert" is how the shastras describe matter. Matter is not dead because it has potentiality if energy is applied or incorporated into it. And I am not just talking of principles of physics here, I'm also thinking of the shakti in relation to prakriti. So if you mean inert then I agree with you. In GV, matter is not unreal; it's real on a certain level but temporary. The Advaitins, too, think so. From Wiki: Adi Sankara also claims that the world is not absolutely unreal (false). It appears unreal (false) only when compared to Brahman. At the empirical or pragmatic level, the world is completely real. However, it's temporary or fleeting.Sure, I can go with inert. It didn't enter my mind but it can suffice. Nice quote from Wiki, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 28, 2014 11:50:04 GMT -6
Greetings Nyame. Welcome to the forum. Thanks for posting your views on the verse Malati and I have been discussing.
Naturally, I completely disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the verse. I think the verse does in fact say that the distinction between body and self or we might say "possessor of the body" (dehin) is made out of lack of discrimination (aviveka). This is what makes the verse so unusual and such a gem. This does not at all fit into our expectations and it is way better if we recognize that, rather than try to explain it away in some manner as you have tried to do. You take jAti it mean caste which it sometimes does, but here it has a larger meaning, a meaning the word has in philosophical discussions. Here it means "universal" or as I have put it "genus." This is so because of the use of the word vastu, or substance, in the verse. Thus, the distinction that is being criticized is the distinction between the dharma or characteristic jAti, class of things or genus, and the individual members (vyakti) of that class or genus. Thus dog-ness is the jAti and a particular dog is the individual. Such a distinction is called "imagined" or "fabricated" (kalpita). Like that the distinction between body and possessor of body is fabricated and that fabrication was done "before" (purA). I think this is a criticism aimed directly at the second chapter of the Bhagavad-gita which is the classical exposition of the distinction between deha and dehin and it was written earlier than the Bhagavata.
I think your views on science are completely off. Let me quote a fine characterization of science by Mariette DiChristina, editor in chief of Scientific American: Science is, as many observe, a truly collaborative enterprise. It is also one in which practitioners are unafraid to examine evidence and, if the facts point the way, revise previous notions, even if they have been widely held. (SA, Nov., 2014, 6).
The collaborative nature of science and its ability to correct itself make science the best and perhaps the only mean we have of gaining knowledge. It is not a matter of what the instruments are made of. It is the careful observation of nature and the confirmation of those observations by independent observers that makes science so powerful.
We have a similar case here. This verse flies in the face of our expectations. Therefore, you and fiorafemere and Malati and the translator of the RK translation of the Bhagavata want to try to jam it into our expectations instead of taking it seriously as a piece of evidence that points off in a different direction, a direction in which we may actually learn something new. This is science. It is a method of keeping an open mind and allowing oneself to be led by the evidence in a new and unexpected direction. This verse and other verses that I have noticed in the past make me think that there is a completely unnoticed and ignored message in the Bhagavata, one much more sophisticated than anyone expected. If we just explain it away, we will miss it.
Also in the latest issue (Nov., 2014) Scientific American there is an article on the scientific study of meditation. Here is what DiChristina says about it: As it turns out, meditation produces actual changes in the brain as shown by brain scans and various techniques. People who meditate not only have a greater amount of brain tissue in some regions, but they also can withstand stress better and react faster to certain types of stimuli. Something (dare I say) to ponder.
Anyway, I think science is an indispensable tool for discovering what is real and true even in the study of a religious tradition and its texts,
|
|
nyame
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by nyame on Oct 28, 2014 13:21:09 GMT -6
Nitai, the context of the verse informs the meaning, i.e. it is in a discussion telling someone that they shouldn't lament for their dearly departed because the soul is eternal. Plus the analogy of the jati (however you want to translate it) and the person makes it clear it isn't talking about absolutely no difference, as there is a difference in jati and person, and person and body. The context should trump whatever interpretations you can possibly conceive of if you try hard enough without any context.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Nov 1, 2014 13:22:44 GMT -6
Nitai, the context of the verse informs the meaning, i.e. it is in a discussion telling someone that they shouldn't lament for their dearly departed because the soul is eternal. Plus the analogy of the jati (however you want to translate it) and the person makes it clear it isn't talking about absolutely no difference, as there is a difference in jati and person, and person and body. The context should trump whatever interpretations you can possibly conceive of if you try hard enough without any context. Nyame, you are right. The context is important and usually does inform the meaning. But here I am not sure it does. This verse makes me want to reexamine the context and see if it is really the context that we think it is. This verse was so disturbing to Vijayadhvaja of Madhva's school that he added four more verses after this one to try to "clarify (correct)" it. The previous verse is quite laconic and in need of reconsideration. The interpretation of it as it now stands is rather tortured. Sometime when I have a little extra time I will look at it more closely. The main piece of serendipity for me is that Malati cited this verse thinking it had a completely different and more predictable meaning. On closer examination I discovered that it not only did not have that meaning, it had a meaning strangely supportive of a line of thought I have been pursuing for a few years now on my own: the idea that the distinction between matter and spirit is simply wrong. It based only on appearances much like the idea that the earth is flat and the sun circles the earth are based only on appearances with no real evidential support. The idea that matter and spirit are completely separate and incommensurate elements is also quite likely wrong. Matter and spirit are probably more like matter and energy, they are two different states of the same thing. In other words they are not different and the distinction between them is based on ignorance or the inability to properly distinguish things. Bang! Here comes the verse! I am not one to accept something just because some verse says it is so. I still need more concrete and confirming evidence. Still, it is rather surprising and interesting that some author of the Bhagavata, perhaps a millennium and a half ago, has in this verse suggested that the relationship between body and spirit or self is at the very least much more complicated than we usually think, that they might not be entirely different or they may be mostly or entirely the same. I will later present some of my thinking about this with more evidence. Yes, I trust science as the best or perhaps the only really effective means of knowing. Science is based on pratyaksa and has developed very effective ways of overcoming the weaknesses of pratyaksa that Sri Jiva has so helpfully and sadly so thoughtlessly presented in the beginning of the Tattva-sandarbha. Even the most favored means of knowing in CV, zAbda or verbal testimony, is dependent on pratyaksa, though nobody seems to recognize this. What is hearing anyway? It is pratyaksa. If you hear something wrong even zAbda becomes deffective. Anyway, more later, if you can bear it.
|
|
|
Post by fiorafemere on Nov 1, 2014 18:38:56 GMT -6
Nitai wrote: "I have been pursuing for a few years now on my own: the idea that the distinction between matter and spirit is simply wrong. It based only on appearances much like the idea that the earth is flat and the sun circles the earth are based only on appearances with no real evidential support. The idea that matter and spirit are completely separate and incommensurate elements is also quite likely wrong. Matter and spirit are probably more like matter and energy, they are two different states of the same thing. In other words they are not different and the distinction between them is based on ignorance or the inability to properly distinguish things."
I got the same idea reading Bhagavatam and Upanishads, and then it was confirmed by those who came to this conclusion through meditation. Would love to hear what more you have to say about it.
|
|