|
|
Post by Ekantin on Apr 7, 2011 17:05:00 GMT -6
Hi Vkaul, interesting that you mention Stapp. I recently had an exchange with Tripurari Swami about consciousness etc., and he also passed me this file of Stapp's. Apparently he finds Stapp's ideas very interesting and, according to Tripurari, Stapp has a "deep appreciation for Gaudiya Vaishnavism". Ramachandran is my hero.  It was his book Phantoms In The Brain that made me decide to go into neuroscience. 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. Yes, but medical evidence does not support dualism. Medical evidence supports monism i.e. that the brain and mind are one, not two separate things.For example, if you have an accident that unfortunately affects the memory networks in your brain adversely (some form of brain damage), those memory parts are gone forever and you will have lost them. You have then lost a certain aspect of your "self", of which memories are a very important part. The same holds true for other parts of the brain that control and regulate other functions. Once they are damaged and become non-functional, the corresponding mental faculties similarly disappear. The mind is clearly dependent on the health of the brain, and this is why dualism doesn't work. Like I told Tripurari Swami, it's OK to ask "philosophical" questions and entertain dualism in this way, but ultimately you will have to arrive at a conclusion that works practically, or medically at least, to be useful. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 7, 2011 17:16:21 GMT -6
Nitaidas you said:
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.
Useless and no bearing in the real world?  Facts are not the same as truth. Science cannot find 'truth'. It can find the likelihood of truth. Our choices of scientific hypotheses and theories are something like evaluations. We evaluate scientific hypotheses against "values" such as explanatory power, parsimony, and track record in making good predictions. What science cant prove but is rational to accept
Mathematics and Logic-Science can't prove mathematics or logic. These are presumptions to the scientific method. Science presumes them to be true and has not proven them to be true. The metaphysical-That there are other minds other than my own -That the world is created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. -That there is an external world and its real Ethical belief or statements of value are not accessible by scientific method-that the Nazi scientists were evil compared to the western scientists -that Karl Marx communism is bad - social ideas that will be put into practice or were already put into practice. The Scientific MethodScience can't prove the scientific method itself. It presumes it. How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process? It can't. To even try is circular reasoning. I was reading an atheist blogger's and she has made a deep reflection on something seemingly trivial such as viewing an eagle taken by a webcam that was posted on the internet. She says: Animal cams are just about the only thing that make me feel slightly agnostic about the existence of God. What huh? Well, think of these eagles. They have no notion whatever that they're being watched by nearly a million viewers. They can't begin to conceive of the nature of those viewers. They don't know, and can't know, about The Human Mind. Isn't it just slightly possible that there are things beyond our ken as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 18:22:43 GMT -6
Hi Vkaul, interesting that you mention Stapp. I recently had an exchange with Tripurari Swami about consciousness etc., and he also passed me this file of Stapp's. Apparently he finds Stapp's ideas very interesting and, according to Tripurari, Stapp has a "deep appreciation for Gaudiya Vaishnavism". Ramachandran is my hero. It was his book Phantoms In The Brain that made me decide to go into neuroscience. 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. Yes, but medical evidence does not support dualism. Medical evidence supports monism i.e. that the brain and mind are one, not two separate things.For example, if you have an accident that unfortunately affects the memory networks in your brain adversely (some form of brain damage), those memory parts are gone forever and you will have lost them. You have then lost a certain aspect of your "self", of which memories are a very important part. The same holds true for other parts of the brain that control and regulate other functions. Once they are damaged and become non-functional, the corresponding mental faculties similarly disappear. The mind is clearly dependent on the health of the brain, and this is why dualism doesn't work. Like I told Tripurari Swami, it's OK to ask "philosophical" questions and entertain dualism in this way, but ultimately you will have to arrive at a conclusion that works practically, or medically at least, to be useful. I agree with you. Stapp's idea is the most credible out of Chamers, Penrose and other people out there trying to rescue something about consciousness. On the whole, Stapp's ideas are different from Chamers. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 18:26:27 GMT -6
I was discussing the same with a famous mathematician and he sent me the following:
I guess placing science, or for that matter mathematics, on a certain perch of objectivity is not grounded in objectivity. That being said, it is certainly justified to elevate it to a higher degree of objectivity than the Subjective. This might as well be the best we can do in terms of grounding our thought in the Objective and as Karl Popper puts it in his Logic of Scientific Discovery:
"…we must not look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge’, but rather as a 'system of hypothesis’; that is to say, as a system of guesses or anticipation which in principle cannot be justified but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know that they are ‘true’ or ‘more or less certain’ or even ‘probable’ "
Douglas Hofstadter in his book, Gödel, Escher, Bach also makes similar points about mathematics,
Hofstadter is trying to explain this fictional dialogue of Lewis Carroll(which shows that even the basic syllogism is not beyond faith) and then goes on to say:
"...one can never give an ultimate, absolute proof that a proof in some system is correct. Of course one can give a proof of a proof, or a proof of a proof of a proof – but the validity of the outermost system always remains an unproven assumption, accepted on faith... But that doesn’t mean that mathematicians and logicians are constantly worrying that the whole edifice of mathematics might be wrong. On the other hand, unorthodox proofs are proposed, or extremely lengthy proofs, or proofs generated by computers, then people do stop to think a bit about what they really mean by that quasi-sacred word "proven"."
So this makes me think that mathematics and science, as systems of reason and experience do guide us to a higher truth which can be an arbitrarily small epsilon down from the truth, if any. But there is surely no proof.
Obviously Malati we can go into solipsism and deny everything out there also. You have to understand somethings have extremely high certainty in science like the distance of sun to the moon and it won't be replaced by literal puranic cosmology and you can't just say they are equally valid interpretations of the data. So certainly one piece of data can lend to two different interpretations like in QM and it is hard to know which one is true. However, if some theories don't even fit the data at all then they are falsifiable like in science. So there are many unlikely things out there like Vedas being unauthored and occurence of yuga cycles.
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 7, 2011 18:34:11 GMT -6
[ She says: Animal cams are just about the only thing that make me feel slightly agnostic about the existence of God. What huh? Well, think of these eagles. They have no notion whatever that they're being watched by nearly a million viewers. They can't begin to conceive of the nature of those viewers. They don't know, and can't know, about The Human Mind. Isn't it just slightly possible that there are things beyond our ken as well? [/quote] closertotruth.com/video-profile/Arguing-God-from-Consciousness-Colin-McGinn-/796 Here Colin talks on the same points like you on the possibility that we may not know some things, but he does not like to throw in the idea of God to explain that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Apr 7, 2011 19:32:39 GMT -6
They don't know, and can't know, about The Human Mind. Isn't it just slightly possible that there are things beyond our ken as well? This is misdirected rhetoric. Of course there are many millions and billions of things we don't know. This planet is a Pale Blue Dot floating in some dark corner of the universe; somehow or other life arose on it and gave rise to thinking and feeling animals who are capable of investigation. There is so much we don't know, but that doesn't mean we have to think someone or something is out there who was responsible for creation, etc. 600,000 years or so of human history, and religion has held sway for almost all of it. Now that literalism has shown itself to be utterly incapable of discerning things "out there" and providing satisfactory answers, these gumballs are now reluctantly turning to science and prostituting it's language to give an air of credence to their ideas which, when you strip them down to their bare basics, are just as silly as they were when viewed with more literal eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 8, 2011 15:52:03 GMT -6
They don't know, and can't know, about The Human Mind. Isn't it just slightly possible that there are things beyond our ken as well? This is misdirected rhetoric. Of course there are many millions and billions of things we don't know. This planet is a Pale Blue Dot floating in some dark corner of the universe; somehow or other life arose on it and gave rise to thinking and feeling animals who are capable of investigation. There is so much we don't know, but that doesn't mean we have to think someone or something is out there who was responsible for creation, etc. 600,000 years or so of human history, and religion has held sway for almost all of it. Now that literalism has shown itself to be utterly incapable of discerning things "out there" and providing satisfactory answers, these gumballs are now reluctantly turning to science and prostituting it's language to give an air of credence to their ideas which, when you strip them down to their bare basics, are just as silly as they were when viewed with more literal eyes. In my understanding she was making a reflection on the faith people put on scientism. I think my conversation with you will not go so far because I think you think everything has value only if it can be proven by empirical method. And before you reply again, understand the meaning of scientism and empiricism because there are many nuances to it. You are like Nitaidas. Thinking that everything on this planet has proofs. Then he wants me to believe that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God (on another thread) and then says that the only source of knowledge is one that can be proven by the empirical method. "Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is God" is a hypothesis that can be proven empirically, so I think that was the reason that not all Bengalis let alone Indians at the time he was manifest in India believed him to be so. |
|
|
|
Post by malati on Apr 8, 2011 16:01:44 GMT -6
Vkaul1
About science, yes, that is why I used the term likelihood. Yes, very strong likelihood.
I post here to dispel the idea that scientism is the ONLY source of knowledge. As Hayek and Popper had observed, scientists had elevated science to the level of ideology.
And I'm disappointed that Nitaidas' forum is now more an atheist outlet than a GV's.
I'd like to point out to you that I do not take the shastras literally. Regarding cosmology, I try to see how they match or differ and leave it at that because it has no practical value to me. Cosmology is not where I earn a living.
Ok, about consciousness, lest others here think that I only read non-devotees writings.
I got a small book titled Science, Spirituality and the Nature of Reality , a small booklet of the discussion between Roger Penrose and T. D. Singh (the late Swarup Damodar Maharaj, (acbsp)
in Vrindaban market last year.
In some parts, they discussed consciousness. SDM giving his Vedantic understanding (conscuosness is a fundamental qualities of the "soul", "self" or "spiriton" as he called it) and Penrose giving his opinion that at the present time scientific knowledge cant described consciousness and that consciousness at present has no room in the physical theories even in QM.
Also in the discussions SDM pointed out that even Neils Bohr said that we have to admit that consciousness exists and we need different types of law to explain it. Penrose agrees and said that we may need an extended science to explain consciousness. He mentioned that QM is not complete as Einstein also thought so.
Penrose supports the idea that there are 3 worlds, the physical, mental and platonic, an existence independent of of the physical world, where mathematical truth resides like beauty.
Go read the book, it's very interesting.
SDM obviously asked good questions because he had a PhD in Physical Organic Chemistry from UC, Irvine
You can get the booklet from Vrindaban Market bookshop, forgot the name of the shop but I think it's the biggest there or at Bhaktivedanta Inst. Kolkata.
I will be away for sometime so no replies from me for sometime.
I'll catch up on your discussions when I'm back.
Haribol
|
|
|
|
Post by Ekantin on Apr 8, 2011 16:51:02 GMT -6
And before you reply again, understand the meaning of scientism and empiricism because there are many nuances to it. Unfortunately for you, this is not a discussion under your control. Before you reply again, you might well consider if you have properly understood everything that is being said to you, either by me or other members of this forum, and whether you properly understand everything you are saying. I think you don't, but that's just my opinion. And for the record, please don't use these fashionable buzzwords like "scientism" with me. They mean nothing in the context of real research and discovery. I say what I say because I have been trained in the sciences, I work in the field and make real discoveries. It isn't something that I do for a hobby and giggles. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 9, 2011 7:16:02 GMT -6
Vkaul1 About science, yes, that is why I used the term likelihood. Yes, very strong likelihood. I post here to dispel the idea that scientism is the ONLY source of knowledge. As Hayek and Popper had observed, scientists had elevated science to the level of ideology. And I'm disappointed that Nitaidas' forum is now more an atheist outlet than a GV's. I'd like to point out to you that I do not take the shastras literally. Regarding cosmology, I try to see how they match or differ and leave it at that because it has no practical value to me. Cosmology is not where I earn a living. Ok, about consciousness, lest others here think that I only read non-devotees writings. I got a small book titled Science, Spirituality and the Nature of Reality , a small booklet of the discussion between Roger Penrose and T. D. Singh (the late Swarup Damodar Maharaj, (acbsp) in Vrindaban market last year. In some parts, they discussed consciousness. SDM giving his Vedantic understanding (conscuosness is a fundamental qualities of the "soul", "self" or "spiriton" as he called it) and Penrose giving his opinion that at the present time scientific knowledge cant described consciousness and that consciousness at present has no room in the physical theories even in QM. Also in the discussions SDM pointed out that even Neils Bohr said that we have to admit that consciousness exists and we need different types of law to explain it. Penrose agrees and said that we may need an extended science to explain consciousness. He mentioned that QM is not complete as Einstein also thought so. Penrose supports the idea that there are 3 worlds, the physical, mental and platonic, an existence independent of of the physical world, where mathematical truth resides like beauty. Go read the book, it's very interesting. SDM obviously asked good questions because he had a PhD in Physical Organic Chemistry from UC, Irvine You can get the booklet from Vrindaban Market bookshop, forgot the name of the shop but I think it's the biggest there or at Bhaktivedanta Inst. Kolkata. I will be away for sometime so no replies from me for sometime. I'll catch up on your discussions when I'm back. Haribol I have got that book in 2006 when I gave a presentation at their conference in Tirupati. Svarupa Damodara Maharaja made good attempts, but he was limited to work within the parameters of scriptural literalism. I know some of his disciples and they are completely out of sync with science to say the least and most of them do believe in the scripture literally. What is the hope then? scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/2010/12/01/darwinism-dead-at-150/ This is their recent research. They are not very well versed with current evidence (or don't bother with it, being tied to pre-existent conclusions) . Malati, don't get disillusioned. I am only arguing against the tendency of religious people to put every theory out there and say everything is equally true or false. There are errors and certainties in theories and for a new theory to replace the existing one, it has give even more better accuracy and predictive power than the older theory and should have better explanatory power. So the problem is that most of the religious theories out there (like doomsday prediction which was updated so many times by the church) hardly can predict much. Sometimes, religious people jump on an event, which matches the scriptural predictions of disasters in kali yuga (Malthius theory of population, darwinian evolution and cosmology can do a better job of predicting calamities) and ignore whatever positive that comes (attributing that to a golden age). Heads you lose, tails I win. Whatever happens change from the golden age model to the kali yuga model. I am open to the possibility of learning newer dimensions, which we may not be aware as evidenced in the video by Andrei Linde, physicist at Stanford. Actually Dalai Lama has been pretty open to the experiments of neuro-scientists and some of his monks have demonstrated brain patterns that only epileptic patients manifest (and they don't have the disease). Like ekantin said brain for the most part influences the mind or perhaps is synonymous with the mind for all practical considerations. However, following William James, we may have something more to consciousness than the brain. We have yet to find it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 9, 2011 13:18:16 GMT -6
Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I am fascinated by the discussion that we are currently having. I am not sure why it has sprung up in this thread, however. We never seem to be able to stick to topic, but that is alright. I don't think of this as an outlet for atheism. It is a group of people with high regard for CV or who for some good reason identify with it, trying to understand it in the context of the modern scientific world that we live. Attempts to discredit science or turn it into a lapdog are distasteful to me and I presume to many of the others who frequent this forum. Therefore, we have to explore other ways of understanding CV I saw the power of CV when I saw the effect it had on my gurudev. Where did that power come from and what sort of power is it? How does that power fit in with our current understandings of the nature of the world? These are the questions that animate me. I could try to turn off that part of my brain which funds these inquiries and just do as my gurudev did. That option is tempting and maybe some day I will give in to that urge. In a way I remind myself of that hunter described in the Buddhists scripture who has been hit by an arrow and refuses to have it removed until he knows who shot it, what caste he belongs to, what kind of wood it is made of, what the tip is made of, etc etc. By the time all my questions are done, I will be dead. Better to just pull the arrow out now and not worry about all the details. Still, my brain continues to tick and I don't think that being inquisitive is an obstacle to getting to know Sri Krsna or Sri Radhika. It would be surprising to me if it were.
Malati complains that this forum has become an avenue for atheism instead of CV. I have expressed the opinion many times on this forum that theism is problematic and that perhaps atheism is more harmonious with the core values of CV. I still believe this and am undeterred by the lack of comprehension and regard for this view that my expressions have met with. I can't get around the sense that there is something fundamentally twisted about theism and any religion that is based on it. I don't need a god, but I do need a friend or a lover. If I am able to find a friend or a lover in Krsna, theism is sure to ruin that relationship. If I had a close friend whose was also very rich, no matter how good and intimate our friendship was, there would always lurk in the background the idea that this friend of mine might be able to help me out if the need arose. That would have to corrupt our friendship even if a need never arises. Now, it is true that someone, speaking as Krsna says, that Krsna is very pleased when we depend only on him, like a father supporting his children. But something in me tells me that this simply isn't true. Even the slightest trace of that expectation in our relationship with Krsna would sour it, would make it impure. We simply can't have it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 10, 2011 11:50:45 GMT -6
Malati complains that this forum has become an avenue for atheism instead of CV. I have expressed the opinion many times on this forum that theism is problematic and that perhaps atheism is more harmonious with the core values of CV. I still believe this and am undeterred by the lack of comprehension and regard for this view that my expressions have met with. I can't get around the sense that there is something fundamentally twisted about theism and any religion that is based on it. I don't need a god, but I do need a friend or a lover. If I am able to find a friend or a lover in Krsna, theism is sure to ruin that relationship. If I had a close friend whose was also very rich, no matter how good and intimate our friendship was, there would always lurk in the background the idea that this friend of mine might be able to help me out if the need arose. That would have to corrupt our friendship even if a need never arises. Now, it is true that someone, speaking as Krsna says, that Krsna is very pleased when we depend only on him, like a father supporting his children. But something in me tells me that this simply isn't true. Even the slightest trace of that expectation in our relationship with Krsna would sour it, would make it impure. We simply can't have it. On this point I am with you Nitai ji. It looks unusual to start with the last verse of sikshatakam, but I start from there. I personally do bhakti for the sake of bhakti, it does not matter what Krsna does. In one sense, it goes against the principle of sarangati or dependence. I feel that is the charm of CV, taking love to its peak. So I even if I do little bit of devotion, I have no expectation out of that and surprisingly I feel very satisfied this way. I think I want to take care of myself and be happy inside without bothering Krsna The soul has enough happiness inside. So whatever I do for Krsna and the Guru, just do it as without thinking about what you will get. Embrace the uncertainty of the other side, and revel in the mystery. Am I on the wrong track nitai ji? Also please keep your brain active for a few years and share somethings with me, before you quit. I will also shut my brain after sometime, but till then, "An unexamined life is not a life worth living". Right? I forgot, the foolish reply on your comments on pratyaksha being the only evidence was from a follower of SN, not SN himself and I was just disgusted by this approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 10, 2011 14:42:51 GMT -6
Malati complains that this forum has become an avenue for atheism instead of CV. I have expressed the opinion many times on this forum that theism is problematic and that perhaps atheism is more harmonious with the core values of CV. I still believe this and am undeterred by the lack of comprehension and regard for this view that my expressions have met with. I can't get around the sense that there is something fundamentally twisted about theism and any religion that is based on it. I don't need a god, but I do need a friend or a lover. If I am able to find a friend or a lover in Krsna, theism is sure to ruin that relationship. If I had a close friend whose was also very rich, no matter how good and intimate our friendship was, there would always lurk in the background the idea that this friend of mine might be able to help me out if the need arose. That would have to corrupt our friendship even if a need never arises. Now, it is true that someone, speaking as Krsna says, that Krsna is very pleased when we depend only on him, like a father supporting his children. But something in me tells me that this simply isn't true. Even the slightest trace of that expectation in our relationship with Krsna would sour it, would make it impure. We simply can't have it. On this point I am with you Nitai ji. It looks unusual to start with the last verse of sikshatakam, but I start from there. I personally do bhakti for the sake of bhakti, it does not matter what Krsna does. In one sense, it goes against the principle of sarangati or dependence. I feel that is the charm of CV, taking love to its peak. So I even if I do little bit of devotion, I have no expectation out of that and surprisingly I feel very satisfied this way. I think I want to take care of myself and be happy inside without bothering Krsna The soul has enough happiness inside. So whatever I do for Krsna and the Guru, just do it as without thinking about what you will get. Embrace the uncertainty of the other side, and revel in the mystery. Am I on the wrong track nitai ji? Also please keep your brain active for a few years and share somethings with me, before you quit. I will also shut my brain after sometime, but till then, "An unexamined life is not a life worth living". Right? I think you are on the right track. It is what is meant by ahaituki in haituki bhakti. One must perform bhakti without any motivation or cause, even those connected with the belief in the Krsna's godhood, maybe especially those. It is not so easy to do because of all the conditioning we have been subjected to. I just came across the following passage in a text I happened to be reading: īśvaro'yamityanusandhāne'pi hṛtkampajanakasambhramagandhasyānudgamāt svīyabhāvasyātisthairyaṃ yat pratipādayati, tanmādhuryajñānam| "Even in the realization that "this is the lord," there is no appearance of even a whiff of the reverence that causes the heart to tremble. That which, because of that, establishes a stability to the one's feelings [for him] is called knowledge of sweetness." This is from Visvanatha Cakravartin's Raga-vartma-candrika. The way it is framed with the "even if" cause suggests that most of those who have this knowledge never even realize that he is god. In addition, he makes it easy for us by removing all traces of himself from the cosmos such that we never really need to come to the realization at all. Unfortunately, we have all of our conditioning to contend with and all these obnoxious little blabbermouths, flapping their tongues and sounding their vocal chords, thinking it is their duty to remind us. How can one ever succeed with such a racket going on? Thanks. I was coming to the conclusion that it must be someone in IGM. Otherwise why the nonsensical references to "pure devotees?" Traditional CVs never talk like that. It appears again that old habits die hard. Those old IGM delusions live on in SN and his followers. Poor Haridas Sastri. |
|
|
|
Post by vkaul1 on Apr 10, 2011 15:48:33 GMT -6
Many of the traditionalists in all theistic schools also live in some outmoded reality and they will object to you in similar ways . I have talked to people of many schools including dvaita and the intelligent thoughtful people exposed to modern science ( mind u not engineering because that has no impact on one's belief) are finding it hard to find ancient arguments convincing. They either lose their faith or keep these doubts under the carpet. Chandan Goswami wants BVP to be studied so elaborately, the text even the Goswamis did not refer to (The current version that has a child of Radha and Krsna etc and Tulasi's curse story. Sound more like folktales and it does not do justice to modern notion of the universe). Another thing could you answer me more in detail about the defects in Sri Jiva's understanding of Sankara. I had asked those questions above. I also was trying to reconcile our atheistic approach with the fact that sometimes we get some traces of the mystic in the cosmos ( I quoted from Uddhava Gita and BG above to make that point). Consciousness is one thing, which is fascinating and it will be good to plumb the depths of consciousness through all approached available. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Apr 12, 2011 15:28:13 GMT -6
Another thing could you answer me more in detail about the defects in Sri Jiva's understanding of Sankara. I had asked those questions above. I also was trying to reconcile our atheistic approach with the fact that sometimes we get some traces of the mystic in the cosmos ( I quoted from Uddhava Gita and BG above to make that point). Consciousness is one thing, which is fascinating and it will be good to plumb the depths of consciousness through all approached available. Sorry to take so long to answer this. I teach on MWF and don't have any time on those days to visit this forum. It is especially difficult now because of papers to be read and exams to be graded. We are winding down here and i will be more free in a month. There are a few places in which Sri Jiva discusses Sri Sankara. I have not examined them all. One place is in the Tattva-sandarbha para 23 where he is trying to justify why Sankara did not write a commentary on the Bhagavata. There he argues that Sankara, who is a descent of the god Sankara, did not write on the Bhagavata because, though he had been ordered by the Lord to teach non-dualism and hide the Lord, if he imposed confusion on the Bhagavata, which is very dear to Krsna, the Lord would be angry with him. Therefore he shied away from commenting on the Bhagavata and instead to satisfy that urge in him to glorify the Lord, described some of his lilas in his stavas and poetic works. This is all very sweet, but the simplest explanation is that the Bhagavata was not written by the time of Sankara (650-700 CE, yes the evidence points to an earlier date for Sankara than traditionally believed) or it was written only shortly before (500-650) and had not achieved authoritative stature yet. Moreover, the Bhagavata's view of matters is not all that different from Sankara's. Revolutionary research into the Sankara's works by Paul Hacker and Hajime Nakamura suggests that Sankara had nothing to do with Saivism and was not an exponent of vivarta. I have not yet found Sri Jiva attributing vivarta to Sankara which means that the works that he read of Sankara's were probably, or for the most part, actually by him and not works attributed to him later or the works of a later Sankaracarya confused with his works. Most of the works attributed to Sankara were not by him. Sri Jiva thinks the Govindastaka was by Sankara and that probably was not so. Basically this is what I think about Sankara based on some of the new research: 1 He was a Vaisnava (from the Nambudri community in South India) 2. He did not regard Brahman as superior to Visnu. For him Brahman and Visnu were equivalent. 3. He did not teach vivarta (that was developed by Mandana Misra and later incorporated into Sankara's tradition by Vacaspati Misra) 4. We are actually in his lineage, not Madhva's 5. Though he believes jnana brings mukti (not karma and not a combination of karma and jnana), so do we. Bhakti is a kind of jnana. 6. Though bhakti was recognized by him, it had not yet reached the stature it assumed latter in his lineage (yes, in the advaita tradition bhakti becomes more and more important until we have its centrality in Sridhara Swami) 7. The Bhagavata was written by someone in his community or with views similar to his in South India (the text hasn't a clue where things are in Vraja). These are my current set of beliefs and theories about Sankara. As always they are open to discussion, but I have not imagined them out of the air. There is evidence for all of them. |
|
It was his book Phantoms In The Brain that made me decide to go into neuroscience. 
