|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 5, 2011 19:58:10 GMT -6
I had read something recently from Jagat: Too few devotees contemplate the description of the uttama bhagavata in the Eleventh Canto. This is the exact same kind of verse that is found in the Ishopanishad and other Upanishads, including the Gitopanishad: sarva-bhūteṣu yaḥ paśyed bhagavad-bhāvam ātmanaḥ bhūtāni bhagavaty ātmany eṣa bhāgavatottamaḥ The superlative devotee is one who sees his own nature or mood of the Lord (bhāva) in all created manifestations, and sees all created manifestations in the Lord, who is himself.Yah. I'm not so sure this is the uttama bhagavata. I suspect it is more the adhama bhagavata or perhaps madhyama. Perhaps the author is being ironic or even facetious. What? Are these folks completely humorless? This view seems to me to be too influenced by majesty or opulence. I can't imagine how anyone can love a being whom one sees spread everywhere. The operative word in this verse is bhava. What does it mean. Jagat thinks mood. I think this is another fine example of advaita in the Bhagavata. Now there is the phenomenon of love. When one falls deeply in love it sometimes happens that one sees one's beloved everywhere. But that rather requires that the beloved not be really there. The power of love paints the beloved on everything. If he is already there what need is there for the painting? What need is there for the love? If he is really there and we don't see him, it is knowledge not love that opens our eyes. This is a jnana text and thus could not refer to the uttama bhagavata. That is the way I see it, at any rate. Have you seen Blackmore's book on Consciousness. It lays out all the various possible ways that the question of consciousness is being explored nowadays and the various options available to us in our present state of knowledge. I don't know if she refers to Linde. We always have our Amit Goswami who is from our tradition. Are you familiar with his works? Yes, the anthropic principle is a little foolish. I saw Chris Hitchens take it apart in a debate recently. He describes how we will die (if we still live then) when our sun goes supernova. It is hard to argue that the universe is made for us in the face of that scenario. I suspect we can find our place in this new cosmos, but as you say it won't be easy. We should try to make a list of the CV ideas that are not provincial and see where that gets us. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 5, 2011 20:13:33 GMT -6
Anyway consciousness is being explored in interesting ways now as evident from this video of the famous physicists ... It always seems odd to me when people such as physicists are asked to consider an issue out of their usual purview, such as consciousness. Ekantin If you are not sure, then please dont offer your opinion . Consciuosness is one of the most baffling, hard problem for the best minds in the world to figure out. David Chalmers, an Australian philosopher trained int he US, whose first degree is Maths and Comp. Science en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers (he dresses cool) started the discussions of the hard problem of consciousness. He has posited that consciousness could be a fundamental feature of this world just like gravity! The problem of consciousness is obviously an interdisciplinary thing. There was a landmark conference in 1994 led by Chalmers and others who are experts in their fields , like philosophers (Dennett, Churchland et al), physicists (Penrose, C S Clarke), neuro and cognitive scientists (F, Crick, Koch) that tried to figure out just what is the nature of consciousness. The papers presented by these experts were compiled in a book called Explaining Consciuosness, the Hard Problem. I actually have the book but I never got to finish it because most of it is very technical. I have bought Chalmers recent book called Nature of Consciousness which I never got to even reading halfway. I think I buy too many books than I have time to read. (8 books some not even read halfway, others like the ones I bought from Nitai just got to the stage of unpacking from the box). I have more to write in reply to Nitaidasji and Vakaul but I got to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 5, 2011 21:21:54 GMT -6
vkauli wrote: It seems odd to me when religious people insist on puranic cosmology and yuga cycles which is outside their purview.  Anyway why consciousness has entered physics is strange ways is something you will appreciate more going into general relativity, quantum mechanics and then inflationary theory. Obviously, we can do without it also. quote from Lawrence Principe, historian of science at JHU: "A believer studying the marvelous intricacies of the natural world can see the hand of God and have his devotion increased, but a non-believer, while subject to the very same feelings of awe and wonder, is not going to translate that emotional response into praise of a creator. Instead, he could just as easily marvel at the efficiency and power of the operation of natural causes. In short, a sense of wonder is going to enhance your respect for whatever cause you already have in mind, not change its identity." |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 5, 2011 22:53:30 GMT -6
Im back.
Vkaul1
Where do you stand exactly? You seem to be very well read on science and Indic philosophy and you seem to be well versed also on the GV siddhanta. How do you reconcile your understanding if the shastras like the Bhagavatam conflict with science. Or how do you decide which one to subscribe to if one Indic school of thought contradicts another Indic school. Are you agnostic then?
Nitaidas, why did you repost VKaul1's post on page 1 of this thread?
This was cited by VKaul1 right?: quote from Lawrence Principe, historian of science at JHU:
"A believer studying the marvelous intricacies of the natural world can see the hand of God and have his devotion increased, but a non-believer, while subject to the very same feelings of awe and wonder, is not going to translate that emotional response into praise of a creator. Instead, he could just as easily marvel at the efficiency and power of the operation of natural causes. In short, a sense of wonder is going to enhance your respect for whatever cause you already have in mind, not change its identity."
Yes, Principe has a point. We all sometimes have priori's when trying to make sense of some knowledge that comes our way. That is why it is sometimes futile to talk about God to an atheist. (Atheists also say that of the theists) Worse even to go into an argument with atheists. So I personally try not to open up unless the other party asks what I believe in or starts up the topic. Does not the GV teaching has adviced us not to instruct the faithless? Also that what we are at this point in time is a result of what we were in the past.
To me science, empirical method, is not the only source of knowledge. There are other ways of knowing. I have posted comments on another thread about this topic.
To those who think science should be the be all and end all of our life. Maybe this will give you an afterthought:
The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact—it was a meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a scientific accident that can take years to unravel.
This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. While Karl Popper imagined falsification occurring with a single, definitive experiment—Galileo refuted Aristotelian mechanics in an afternoon—the process turns out to be much messier than that. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. Verbal overshadowing might exhibit the decline effect, but it remains extensively relied upon within the field. The same holds for any number of phenomena, from the disappearing benefits of second-generation antipsychotics to the weak coupling ratio exhibited by decaying neutrons, which appears to have fallen by more than ten standard deviations between 1969 and 2001. Even the law of gravity hasn’t always been perfect at predicting real-world phenomena. (In one test, physicists measuring gravity by means of deep boreholes in the Nevada desert found a two-and-a-half-per-cent discrepancy between the theoretical predictions and the actual data.) Despite these findings, second-generation antipsychotics are still widely prescribed, and our model of the neutron hasn’t changed. The law of gravity remains the same.
Such anomalies demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism. Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. And this is why the decline effect is so troubling. Not because it reveals the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions. (Such shortcomings aren’t surprising, at least for scientists.) And not because it reveals that many of our most exciting theories are fleeting fads and will soon be rejected. (That idea has been around since Thomas Kuhn.) The decline effect is troubling because it reminds us how difficult it is to prove anything. We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. ♦[/b] The above taken from the New Yorker mag., The Truth Wears Off, by Jonah Lehrer. Find the full article here: www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1Nitaidas, Your forum is a time waster!. I have to go back to the stuff I have read in the recent past , even worst if its something Ive read from ages past! I could have used the time I spent here doing my cookbook! Just to inform you it's rolling along. [/color]
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 6, 2011 13:00:12 GMT -6
Yah. I'm not so sure this is the uttama bhagavata. I suspect it is more the adhama bhagavata or perhaps madhyama. Perhaps the author is being ironic or even facetious. What? Are these folks completely humorless? This view seems to me to be too influenced by majesty or opulence. I can't imagine how anyone can love a being whom one sees spread everywhere. The operative word in this verse is bhava. What does it mean. Jagat thinks mood. I think this is another fine example of advaita in the Bhagavata. Now there is the phenomenon of love. When one falls deeply in love it sometimes happens that one sees one's beloved everywhere. But that rather requires that the beloved not be really there. The power of love paints the beloved on everything. If he is already there what need is there for the painting? What need is there for the love? If he is really there and we don't see him, it is knowledge not love that opens our eyes. This is a jnana text and thus could not refer to the uttama bhagavata. That is the way I see it, at any rate.I am not sure about this at this moment. I think texts oscillate between separation and union. Sometimes in bhava, every river seems to become yamuna and every hill becomes govardhana and sometimes nothing is to be found (aka wave/particle duality depends on the way u approach perhaps) For Gopal Tapani Upanishad for instead: 38. tasmad evam paro rajaseti so ’ham ity avadharyatmanam gopalo ’ham iti bhavayet | Therefore, in the consciousness that “I am the divine Lord beyond the mode of passion,” one should meditate on the self, [thinking], “I am Gopala. Then again we have From the Uddhava Gita SB the section on bhakti yoga the following verses that emphasize the idea of some sort of oneness: SB 11.29.15: For him who constantly meditates upon My presence within all persons, the bad tendencies of rivalry, envy and abusiveness, along with false ego, are very quickly destroyed. SB 11.29.16: Disregarding the ridicule of one's companions, one should give up the bodily conception and its accompanying embarrassment. One should offer obeisances before all — even the dogs, outcastes, cows and asses — falling flat upon the ground like a rod. SB 11.29.17: Until one has fully developed the ability to see Me within all living beings, one must continue to worship Me by this process with the activities of his speech, mind and body. SB 11.29.18: By such transcendental knowledge of the all-pervading Personality of Godhead, one is able to see the Absolute Truth everywhere. Freed thus from all doubts, one gives up fruitive activities. SB 11.29.19: Indeed, I consider this process — using one's mind, words and bodily functions for realizing Me within all living beings — to be the best possible method of spiritual enlightenment. *These verses kind of emphasize that we should see the ability to realize Krsna within every living being or in 11.29.18, one's ability to see Absolute truth everywhere. The BG also has similar verses. And then that is what I concluded from discussion from scholars: In BhP verse 8.7.31, the phrase nirasta-bhedam is used, meaning
that there is no distinction that can be made between the various divinities
and
divine manifestations. And at one level that cannot; yet at another level a
distinction can be made. In our western minds, we need the typical Kantian
categories, which strictly compartmentalize. In the Indian system, although
later Indian philosophers do establish metaphysical categories, in reality,
the original texts such as the Bhagavata describe or express a kind of
fluidity
between beings and stages of being that is not always accounted for in later
doctrinal traditions. It it never an absolute oneness, but never an absolute
dualism either. In fact, the word Upanishad according to many scholars represents connectedness. There has to be some abheda (oneness too) in the difference (bheda) that is very important for love. In any case, ramanuja may be an uttama bhakta even though he is seeing some majesty, right? Perhaps the verses SB/BhP may reflect an uttama bhakta like that and not necessarily advaita practitioners. Anyway SB appears to be a more integrated view of things that puts together different ideas together without necessarily engaging in polemical tirades. That is the opposite of CC and later sectarian Gaudiya works that are just too provincial for comfort. Polemical tirades on metaphysical points have no meaning in today's world, especially when they are based on the belief that one interpretation of the unauthored texts (Vedas) is the right one. Another thing, you only said that Sankara is represented incorrectly by Sri Jiva and you have respect for him. So I had two questions in that regard. One, how is he misrepresented and what misrepresentations should I be careful of? Second, what is so bad to consider oneness or connectedness sometimes if one is in Chaitanya Vaisnavism. I must admit that I at different times do relate to the 7th and 8th verse of sikshatakam when I don't see any trace of Krsna out there. But at others times, I find some trace of something. So an interesting hide and seek game after all. Have you seen Blackmore's book on Consciousness. It lays out all the various possible ways that the question of consciousness is being explored nowadays and the various options available to us in our present state of knowledge. I don't know if she refers to Linde. We always have our Amit Goswami who is from our tradition. Are you familiar with his works?I prefer Henry Stapp's work to Amit Goswami's work, but I haven't had time to look at that deeply. But anyway, it is of no use as it is just the majesty of God , right? Yes again I am learning a lot from you and like you said we can learn from everywhere. Like Newton said, "If I have gone further, I have done so looking on shoulder of giants." So there are giants in different fields and I try to absorb what I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Apr 6, 2011 19:15:22 GMT -6
It always seems odd to me when people such as physicists are asked to consider an issue out of their usual purview, such as consciousness. Ekantin If you are not sure, then please dont offer your opinion . Consciuosness is one of the most baffling, hard problem for the best minds in the world to figure out. If I am not sure about what?  I am a cognitive neuropsychologist by profession and am well aware of the bafflement that arises when considering consciousness. If you read carefully what I mentioned to vkaul, it was a subtle hint about how physicists (and especially quantum physicists) these days seem to comment quite easily on consciousness when, traditionally, it is not a subject under their purview. What purview it is under is that of psychology and/or neuroscience, which are subjects that I have studied. However, this is not to say that physicists absolutely cannot have anything to contribute to the conversation on consciousness, and sometimes their contributions are quite interesting. In that respect I generally quite agree with vkaul's response. Unfortunately I have no regard for David Chalmers. He is neither a psychologist nor a neuroscientist, but - as you observe - a philosopher. Yet another category that discusses a subject like consciousness that is out of their purview! Then again, Daniel Dennett is a philosopher too, but he is integrative enough to allow his thoughts to be profoundly influenced by neuroscientific and psychological discoveries and has also the rare distinction of having his own writings influence psychological/neuroscientific research in turn. Chalmers is a dualist who has no good reason to be one. But anyway I'm not so sure consciousness is an interdisciplinary issue. Sure, sometimes different fields can contribute something insightful occasionally, but I haven't seen any such. It's a much safer bet to leave it to the psychologists and neuroscientists. Same here. Sometimes I look at my book collection and sigh, thinking I haven't a life long enough to read them all... lol... |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Apr 6, 2011 19:25:08 GMT -6
We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that’s often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe. ♦ It's only a convention, but p < .05 works for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 7, 2011 11:04:28 GMT -6
Nitaidas, why did you repost VKaul1's post on page 1 of this thread? I didn't mean to repost it. I was just trying to correct a quote markup so it would be easier to read. Somehow I co-opted it and I was not able to undo that. The whole post was by vkaul1 with maybe a citation from a previous post Yes I meant to answer you in a previous post, but was too busy at the time. There really are no other sources of knowledge. Only pratyaksa. All other forms are based on pratyaksa. Inference is based on the prior experience of invariable concomitance between a cause and an effect (fire and smoke). Verbal authority (sabda or apta) is based on the prior pratyaksa of authorities which they later communicate to others through speech (that too is based on pratyaksa, the accuracy of the hearing abilities or reading abilities of the audience). It is all pratyaksa "before the eyes or senses." All of those so-called other sources of knowledge that you listed boil down to mere pratyaksa. [/b] The above taken from the New Yorker mag., The Truth Wears Off, by Jonah Lehrer. [/quote] No one denies that the senses are unreliable. But that does not discredit science. Science has learned to work around that flaw by repeating experiments. refining measurements and confirming or disconfirming the work of others. Besides, there is the simple fact that science works. Anomalies in the data are potential new discoveries or an indication that something is wrong with the instrumentation. Scientists do not ignore the anomalies, but try to discover their causes, in other words they do more science. Have you ever heard of a religion doing that? Religions hide behind the veil of immunity to disproof. They are not based on any knowledge but instead a lack of it (which is called faith). Of course, as human beings we are filled with all kinds of ignorance and thus we are infested with all kinds of faith. The goal is not to strengthen those faiths but to replace them with knowledge or direct experience. Faith is at best a temporary support to get one started down the path of sadhana. Once one has advanced down that path to some degree one no longer needs faith. That last bit about truth and proof is a bunch of nonsense. It just empty rhetoric. Something that is true but can't be proved? There may be such things but they are completely useless to us. And things that can be proved that are not true. I guess this would be some sort of logical proof that has no bearing on anything real. Again, interesting perhaps, but not really what we mean by proved. Some more smoke and mirrors with a faith-based agenda. Glad to hear we are keeping your neurons exercised. You will thank me later when your senility never arrives. Glad also to hear about your cookbook. I look forward to working on that with you. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 11:29:42 GMT -6
Im back.
Vkaul1
Where do you stand exactly? You seem to be very well read on science and Indic philosophy and you seem to be well versed also on the GV siddhanta. How do you reconcile your understanding if the shastras like the Bhagavatam conflict with science. Or how do you decide which one to subscribe to if one Indic school of thought contradicts another Indic school. Are you agnostic then?
I will respond to this in detail later. I have tied up with a lot of work. First of all there are different types of agnostics: indifferent agnostics and open-minded agnostics. Bertrand Russell said he is an atheist for a lay person and agnostic for a philosopher because he cannot disprove the existence of God. Similarly I would say I am a theist for a lay person with the highest sympathy for CV, but I can't really prove anything. In fact, I don't need to that much now. I am comfortable with uncertainty. It is interesting to live with uncertainty. Initially, it is hard to deal with it, but once you embrace it in the mood of last verse of sikshatakam or the verse from the Katha Upanishad:
[b]nᾱyam ᾱtmᾱ pravacanena labhyo na medhayᾱ, na bahunᾱ śrutena:
yamevaiṣa vṛṇute tena labhyas tasyaiṣa ᾱtmᾱ vivṛṇute tanῡṁ svᾱm. (23)
Translation: This self cannot be grasped by teaching or by intelligence or by great learning. Only the man he chooses can grasp him. To such a one Atman reveals Its own form. [/b] So I serve and let the Absolute do what it wants to me. I am not concerned whether he will put me in hell or what happens after death. Just serve here and now. So in one sense I am agnostic, i.e I am open to the possibility that whatever I have feeling for (CV) may be false and there may not be an ontological truth to that. But I have moved beyond the need for dogmatic faith. It is hard, but liberating at the same time. I am more in peace with the world. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 11:37:31 GMT -6
Yes I meant to answer you in a previous post, but was too busy at the time. There really are no other sources of knowledge. Only pratyaksa. All other forms are based on pratyaksa. Inference is based on the prior experience of invariable concomitance between a cause and an effect (fire and smoke). Verbal authority (sabda or apta) is based on the prior pratyaksa of authorities which they later communicate to others through speech (that too is based on pratyaksa, the accuracy of the hearing abilities or reading abilities of the audience). It is all pratyaksa "before the eyes or senses." All of those so-called other sources of knowledge that you listed boil down to mere pratyaksa.
No one denies that the senses are unreliable. But that does not discredit science. Science has learned to work around that flaw by repeating experiments. refining measurements and confirming or disconfirming the work of others. Besides, there is the simple fact that science works. Anomalies in the data are potential new discoveries or an indication that something is wrong with the instrumentation. Scientists do not ignore the anomalies, but try to discover their causes, in other words they do more science. Have you ever heard of a religion doing that? Religions hide behind the veil of immunity to disproof. They are not based on any knowledge but instead a lack of it (which is called faith). Of course, as human beings we are filled with all kinds of ignorance and thus we are infested with all kinds of faith. The goal is not to strengthen those faiths but to replace them with knowledge or direct experience. Faith is at best a temporary support to get one started down the path of sadhana. Once one has advanced down that path to some degree one no longer needs faith.
That last bit about truth and proof is a bunch of nonsense. It just empty rhetoric. Something that is true but can't be proved? There may be such things but they are completely useless to us. And things that can be proved that are not true. I guess this would be some sort of logical proof that has no bearing on anything real. Again, interesting perhaps, but not really what we mean by proved. Some more smoke and mirrors with a faith-based agenda.
I really appreciate you for pointing this out. I know that there are issues in publications and I found that during my PhD. However, there is a mechanism for self-correction in science that is not to be found in religion. Even the so called revelation from the infinite comes through the "purified" senses,mind and intellect (albeit they are still senses) of the finite, right? So direct experience and inference is ultimately involved. Though Sri Jiva and Ramanuja do stress on sabda alone as the proof, I think it is meant for beginners because eventually sabda is direct experience of the rishis (unless u believe in aparaeshya argument where even God is not the author of the Vedas etc and that does not really sit well). Unfortunately the Vedantists attack the yoga school for not relying on sabda and focusing more on direct revelation. However, the yoga school and Buddhism are more in sync with the modern times. Traditional schools need to modify the content of their faith, lest they become a sophisticated version of Southern Baptists.
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 11:47:49 GMT -6
Ekantin If you are not sure, then please dont offer your opinion . Consciuosness is one of the most baffling, hard problem for the best minds in the world to figure out. If I am not sure about what? I am a cognitive neuropsychologist by profession and am well aware of the bafflement that arises when considering consciousness. If you read carefully what I mentioned to vkaul, it was a subtle hint about how physicists (and especially quantum physicists) these days seem to comment quite easily on consciousness when, traditionally, it is not a subject under their purview. What purview it is under is that of psychology and/or neuroscience, which are subjects that I have studied. However, this is not to say that physicists absolutely cannot have anything to contribute to the conversation on consciousness, and sometimes their contributions are quite interesting. In that respect I generally quite agree with vkaul's response. Unfortunately I have no regard for David Chalmers. He is neither a psychologist nor a neuroscientist, but - as you observe - a philosopher. Yet another category that discusses a subject like consciousness that is out of their purview! Then again, Daniel Dennett is a philosopher too, but he is integrative enough to allow his thoughts to be profoundly influenced by neuroscientific and psychological discoveries and has also the rare distinction of having his own writings influence psychological/neuroscientific research in turn. Chalmers is a dualist who has no good reason to be one. But anyway I'm not so sure consciousness is an interdisciplinary issue. Sure, sometimes different fields can contribute something insightful occasionally, but I haven't seen any such. It's a much safer bet to leave it to the psychologists and neuroscientists. Same here. Sometimes I look at my book collection and sigh, thinking I haven't a life long enough to read them all... lol... You may read this if you want. Anyway, I didn't find Chalmers that convincing either. You must have seen Ramachandran, the person who is one of the top neuro-scientists. www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10468 |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 14:25:36 GMT -6
[
No one denies that the senses are unreliable. But that does not discredit science. Science has learned to work around that flaw by repeating experiments. refining measurements and confirming or disconfirming the work of others. Besides, there is the simple fact that science works. Anomalies in the data are potential new discoveries or an indication that something is wrong with the instrumentation. Scientists do not ignore the anomalies, but try to discover their causes, in other words they do more science. Have you ever heard of a religion doing that? Religions hide behind the veil of immunity to disproof. They are not based on any knowledge but instead a lack of it (which is called faith). Of course, as human beings we are filled with all kinds of ignorance and thus we are infested with all kinds of faith. The goal is not to strengthen those faiths but to replace them with knowledge or direct experience. Faith is at best a temporary support to get one started down the path of sadhana. Once one has advanced down that path to some degree one no longer needs faith. That last bit about truth and proof is a bunch of nonsense. It just empty rhetoric. Something that is true but can't be proved? There may be such things but they are completely useless to us. And things that can be proved that are not true. I guess this would be some sort of logical proof that has no bearing on anything real. Again, interesting perhaps, but not really what we mean by proved. Some more smoke and mirrors with a faith-based agenda.
I think Bhaktivinoda Thakur distinguished between faith and belief for the same reason. I think you are referring to belief rather than faith here. evelation is one sense is pratyaksha for the advanced soul. I think BVT distinguishes between faith and belief and many people understand faith to be belief. Belief is just about getting things right, like belief in resurrection, and is tied to their religious belief system and religious conception . Faith is a deeper quality of the soul that continue even if the content of the faith moves according to the changes presented by the times. Subal had some good insights on this topic I think
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 15:18:55 GMT -6
This is how a traditionalist responded to your assertion. That is why I don't trust traditional followers of Gaudiya Gurus either. They are living in their yuga cycle doctrine and think too less of modern science.:
>>There really are no other sources of knowledge. Only pratyaksa.<<
This means already he is rejecting the Vedic version, so he may be a "noted scholar" but he really is not an authority.
Not only does he say "I do not accept any Vedic authority", but he also rejects the authoritative Vedic epistemology which does treat pratyaksa as different from anumana and sabda.
>>All other forms are based on pratyaksa. Inference is based on the prior experience of invariable concomitance between a cause and an effect (fire and smoke).<<
This is a childish statement. Who is this "noted scholar"? He does not seem to be at all familiar with either Vedic philosophy or Western philosophy. There is a big difference between reasoning and analysis (for example, the process used to prove mathematical theorems) and direct perception.
>>Verbal authority (sabda or apta) is based on the prior pratyaksa of authorities which they later communicate to others through speech<< No, no no! He does not understand that Vedic sabda is "apauruseya". Krishna does not know things because He has learned them. Knowledge comes from Krishna, not that Krishna comes to knowledge.
The Absolute Truth has transcendental qualities and that the material mind can be purified by hearing about the Absolute Truth from pure authorities. In this way, one can be liberated from material contamination and know something of the real nature of the Absolute Truth by a descending process.
>>(that too is based on pratyaksa, the accuracy of the hearing abilities or reading abilities of the audience). It is all pratyaksa "before the eyes or senses." All of those so-called other sources of knowledge that you listed boil down to mere pratyaksa<<
The actual transmission of real knowledge through parampara is not strictly dependent on material senses or intelligence, although it appears as an ordinary process of inquiry and reasonable explanation. The realization takes place in the heart of one whose heart has been transformed by submission and service to the bona fide guru. It is different from acquiring knowledge by hearing the knowledge that another has learned through sense perception.
>>No one denies that the senses are unreliable. But that does not discredit science. Science has learned to work around that flaw by repeating experiments. refining measurements and confirming or disconfirming the work of others.<<
We do not "discredit" ascending knowledge of the natural world through science. We simply point out that such knowledge is limited and cannot approach higher realms of knowledge. It is useful for shudras, craftsmen who want to develop some iron age technology. It is too blunt an instrument to understand much about how the soul transmigrates from one body to another or what kind of body he will enjoy due to acquired modes of nature and different kinds of Karma, and it is far too blunt to understand Krishna or His devotional service.
>>Besides, there is the simple fact that science works. Anomalies in the data are potential new discoveries or an indication that something is wrong with the instrumentation. Scientists do not ignore the anomalies, but try to discover their causes, in other words they do more science. Have you ever heard of a religion doing that?<<
Sure. Any serious practitioner of yoga has to pay attention to what is working and what isn't, through introspection.
And science works at some things, like how to make a car run, but it does not work at other things, such as how to control the senses and become peaceful and undisturbed by material miseries.
>>Religions hide behind the veil of immunity to disproof. They are not based on any knowledge but instead a lack of it (which is called faith).<<
Some cheating religions exists, of course. Similarly, just because some religions hide ignorance behind claims of absolute authority, that does not mean that there are no real authorities. Pure devotees are real authorities on Krishna and can give authoritative knowledge about Krishna that can never be understood by nondevotees, no matter how advanced in shudra-style science, the non-Vedic science based on gross sense perception and peer reviewed publication.
>> Faith is at best a temporary support to get one started down the path of sadhana. Once one has advanced down that path to some degree one no longer needs faith.<<
This last part leaves me puzzled. What kind of sadhana is this guy talking about? What does it have to do with acquiring knowledge? Most mundane science does not require any rituals or rules and regulations for purifying the senses and developing finer spiritual understanding. I have never seen the word "sadhana" in the context of mundane science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 7, 2011 15:33:33 GMT -6
This is really funny, vkaul1. This guy is an idiot and it is on the shoulders of such unthinking dummies that CV rests? CV has not got a chance in the modern world except among a small group of misfits who try to hide out in a dark medieval mindset. I have drawn all those ideas from Indic texts, mostly nyaya texts. Those texts have as much claim to being Vedic as anything else that comes within the tradition. The real problem with those traditionals is that they do not think about what they are studying. They do the sravana alright but never get to the manana. Or. if they do the manana they do it so feebly that it never gets off the ground. Forget about the nidhidhyasana. Such people will never get very far in the realization of any substantial truth. They are fooling themselves and unfortunately fooling others.
Let me guess. Chandan? I hope it was not SN. That would be sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 7, 2011 16:16:29 GMT -6
Quote: Malati said:
To me science, empirical method, is not the only source of knowledge. There are other ways of knowing. I have posted comments on another thread about this topic.
Nitaidas answered:
Yes I meant to answer you in a previous post, but was too busy at the time. There really are no other sources of knowledge. Only pratyaksa. All other forms are based on pratyaksa. Inference is based on the prior experience of invariable concomitance between a cause and an effect (fire and smoke). Verbal authority (sabda or apta) is based on the prior pratyaksa of authorities which they later communicate to others through speech (that too is based on pratyaksa, the accuracy of the hearing abilities or reading abilities of the audience). It is all pratyaksa "before the eyes or senses." All of those so-called other sources of knowledge that you listed boil down to mere pratyaksa.
Nitaidasji
Yes, I agree with you. Please understand the "meaning" of empirical method, to understand why I said there are other sources of knowledge. You didnt reallly seem to see the nuance of my answer. Please read this:
According to McGraw-Hill
The empirical method is generally characterized by the collection of a large amount of data before much speculation as to their significance, or without much idea of what to expect, and is to be contrasted with more theoretical methods in which the collection of empirical data is guided largely by preliminary theoretical exploration of what to expect. The empirical method is necessary in entering hitherto completely unexplored fields, and becomes less purely empirical as the acquired mastery of the field increases. Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner.[1]
Ekantin
I think it was lost on you that if the deepest level of reality, at this time, is the quantum level , then physicists have their rightful place in the determination of the nature of consciousness.
Question like: Can consciousness be reduced to matter? Or does it arise out of matter-like aspects of nature but governed by the experiential aspect of nature?
Why are you underestimating Chalmers. So what if he is a dualist. Why do you think the 2nd question I wrote above was asked? Even Dennett has said, philosophy frames the question from which science starts.
Chalmers has asked a very important question central to the growing discipline of consciousness studies. “ Why doesn’t all this cognitive processing go on “in the dark” without any consciousness at all?”
Same thing with the idea of “singularity” that an ultraintelligent machine can surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever and there would be an explosion of intelligence. The best minds from all fields are making their contributions to what this idea might take and the implications for the future. From this idea also arises the idea that we can make copies of ourselves by uploading our “brain” into computers.
Why do I know about this? Just like some devotees play computer games as their hobbies, reading what the experts see/think from the handiwork of Krishna, the nature, is my hobby.
|
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCnGf37iiKU . Tyson speaks about how the universe is just ready to kill you at every instant and the design is pretty inefficient. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lm6pEhykhs
I am a cognitive neuropsychologist by profession and am well aware of the bafflement that arises when considering consciousness. If you read carefully what I mentioned to vkaul, it was a subtle hint about how physicists (and especially quantum physicists) these days seem to comment quite easily on consciousness when, traditionally, it is not a subject under their purview. What purview it is under is that of psychology and/or neuroscience, which are subjects that I have studied.