Basics of Logic - Discussions thread

[SANDHYAV]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

dear dear, i have read only page 3. My comments

1. Prof sangom, if SE is a concoction of the mind, then it has to be topped up every now and then, just like the emotion - happiness. i think if u compare SE to contentment, then there is no topping up required, coz contended mind is a static phenomenon unlike a happy mind.

2. Prof. Sravna, i dont know if u meant beyond time ( endless instead of timeless ? Many-time-phenomenon instead of one-time-phenomenon)

 

[tks]

Shri TKS,

I was just trying to illustrate. If only rigor and precision are the issues I do not have a disagreement with you. But I wonder how necessary or feasible it is to give your ideas rigor and precision when you are only trying to communicate informally and expect people to get the gist of what you say. Nobody here is publishing scholarly papers.

In order to explain one has to know what exists as known knowledge first in details. At least core knowledge has to be digested. Then one needs clarity of thoughts aligned with established teachings.

You dont have to answer the questions posed below but they point to the source of issues in many points you are trying to communicate in my view. I am not going to debate on this more since this is not a topic of debate.

You talk about time, space, energy and nature in your posts. Have you taken the trouble to understand established knowledge in these areas? One does not need formal background in mathematics to master such topics if there is interest.

What scriptures have you taken the trouble to learn properly? You talk about Sri Sankara all the time. Are you exposed to teaching of his Bhashya?

In order to communicate in a non-scholarly manner one's preparation has to include significant effort to learn and master the teachings first.

I find you have lot of anger at people especially those that raise questions and you are ready to criticize them as a person when your so called 'fresh views' are challenged.

Sri Auh was very respectful in the other thread (Brahmasutra) in my view and had excellent points. All you did was to dismiss them without understanding often veering into insults.

Anger as you know is Rajas and not spending time to learn any topics properly is Tamas. Please think about it. You dont have to respond agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I know you are angry and will dole out many negative comments at me - you are welcome to do this.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri TKS,

You are entitled to your opinions. But I can also say that you are pontificating without any real substance. You want to impress others by projecting yourself as an expert in both science and vedanta but sorry I do not know any person who thinks he is a know-all possess real knowledge.

I am not angry and do not understand why you used that word.

 

[sangom]

dear dear, i have read only page 3. My comments

1. Prof sangom, if SE is a concoction of the mind, then it has to be topped up every now and then, just like the emotion - happiness. i think if u compare SE to contentment, then there is no topping up required, coz contended mind is a static phenomenon unlike a happy mind.

"Contentment" is also something that needs to be topped up periodically, is it not? But most people do experience contentment at least some times in their life time when they get to eat food which they like most, to their heart's fill. But nobody is usually contented at all times about all aspects of their life.

Spiritual energy, on the contrary, is something which, I believe, only few people like Shri Sravna might have experienced; for all the others it is just a concocted idea and nothing more.

I think the problem with Shri Sravna's ways of putting things is that he has a certain world view which is just subjective. He feels that this purely subjective world-view of his must be correct because he has been able - again, according to his own admission - to cure certain afflictions in others by his wishing or prayer or whatever. I personally feel that even this claim of his needs to be verified in a scientific way. As a first step we must at least have a certificate from a competent medical authority to prove that the said patient was suffering from certain complaint (physical or psychological, as the case may be) and also that after the treatment the said patient has been permanently cured of the said problem/complaint. In the absence of that the claim is just that — a claim.

Once, many years back, when I entertained religious beliefs like most tabras, I performed a "varuna japam" and 'punyaaham' to ritually purify the house after the death of a daayaathi. The water in which varuna was aavaahified was poured into the well in the house. One elderly relative told me that the water should have been thrown on clean ground and not in another water body. The very next day there was torrential rain, the river flowing by the side of our colony got flooded and our entire colony and a much larger area was under 4 to 5 feet of muddy water for nearly 10 to 15 days. Can, I therefore, claim that there is some spiritual energy, that I can bring floods by my varuna japam, that varuna is always present in the spiritual energy and so on? I would think it to be ludicrous!

 

[auh]

.....
So physical evidence as a criterion of objectivity has limitations. In my view intuitive knowledge can best access reality that are very deep and hence can better unearth truths than these scientific methods that establish the so-called truths, by physical evidence.

If you cannot prove by physical evidence then it is outside the purview of logic. I am surprised that you seem blinded to this fact.

Whatever that you postulate may or may not be true, but kindly dont say it is logical.

 

[auh]

...
You will understand it better if you consider that when physical energy travels through space it travels in time also because it does not travel instantaneously from one point in space to another.

Something which travels instantaneously in space and unchanging in time is not actually traveling.

Is energy manifested when something is static? For eg. in a spring the energy is said to be latent; only when it is compresed and released, the energy becomes apparent to the eyes.

Similarly, what is this spiritual energy? Is it something latent that manifests only on certain occasions or is it something different? What does it do? How is it activated? And how is it verifiable? If you cannot objectively prove (i.e., the proofs may seem ok to you, but they have to be seen as ok to others also) then your hypothesis becomes null and void.

Btw, I find it funny that you have contradicted yourself in a manner of sorts "Something which travels instantaneously in space and unchanging in time is not actually traveling." Apart from the fact that this might very well be an improbability, you have to show for your statement to be valid whether somethng could travel instantaneously in space. And whether something could be unchanging in time. Any examples that are physically verifiable?

If you cannot prove then the statement is only as good as this "the blue fairy that inhibits the violet water and cohabits the unknown known is actually uninhibiting."

 

[sravna]

Dear Folks,

Though I am sure there are many who are genuine in their intention to get clarifications on what I say, as always there are some whose intention it seems to me to be not genuine. They just want to malign or discredit what is said. I am sure such people would be identified by the members and their posts be understood in the above light.

 

[Nara]

Dear Folks,

Though I am sure there are many who are genuine in their intention to get clarifications on what I say, as always there are some whose intention it seems to me to be not genuine. They just want to malign or discredit what is said. I am sure such people would be identified by the members and their posts be understood in the above light.

Dear sravna, even though I disagree with your views in almost all issues I do have some sympathy for you, to me you seem quite sincere and level headed. This is why I am quite perplexed with this post. There are several people who have challenged you, most have been quite sincere, IMO. Sangom and Auh have engaged you with due respect, something that cannot be said about others who seem intent on putting you down. So, it is not fair to simply express your displeasure in general terms. Please be specific, you owe it to those who have been respectful of your posts. By leaving it open ended the sincere and the imbecile both get equal treatment and that is not fair.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

As you say there are some who seem intent on putting me down. I do not want to name anyone. Since you specifically asked me, you are not one among them. So are Shri Sangom and Shri auh. With regards to Shri Auh, he has been asking some excellent questions but I think for a debate to move on sometimes getting bogged down on the details proves detrimental. As I said this is a informal exchange of ideas and one needs to appreciate that and spend some time on thinking about what is said and try to take only the essence of what is said. If you do not do this and immediately jump at every opportunity to be critical, the discussions can sound silly and I think that doesn't really benefit anyone.

Frankly I have planned to respond only to posts which seem to have given some thought about what is said and seem genuine.

 

[auh]

...but I think for a debate to move on sometimes getting bogged down on the details proves detrimental. As I said this is a informal exchange of ideas and one needs to appreciate that and spend some time on thinking about what is said and try to take only the essence of what is said. If you do not do this and immediately jump at every opportunity to be critical, the discussions can sound silly and I think that doesn't really benefit anyone.

Frankly I have planned to respond only to posts which seem to have given some thought about what is said and seem genuine.

Sravna,

If you say that this is a debate about intuition and all that what you prescribe belongs to the same category, then I would not bother for proofs, as individual experiences and conclusions vary. But you seem to mix, science, and spirituality in a manner that is not verifiable (except in your thoughts) and then go on to say that it is logical.

In a logical debate, without clearing some of the basic objections, you cannot go on with your conclusions. It just seems that you want to rush ahead and say. lo and behold, thus the proof.

But kindly do not proscribe opposing views as silly just because they dont let you to proceed with the thread.

 

[sravna]

Sravna,


In a logical debate, without clearing some of the basic objections, you cannot go on with your conclusions. It just seems that you want to rush ahead and say. lo and behold, thus the proof.

But kindly do not proscribe opposing views as silly just because they dont let you to proceed with the thread.

Dear Shri Auh,

I do not think what we are having is a logical debate . If you are logical in your rebuttal, it would be but that is not the case. You just state your objections without any basis. You need to spend some time on the argument if you are really serious. But you do not.That is the reason for my disinclination to engage with you on many of your posts.

 

[auh]

...I do not think what we are having is a logical debate . If you are logical in your rebuttal, it would be but that is not the case. You just state your objections without any basis. You need to spend some time on the argument if you are really serious. But you do not.That is the reason for my disinclination to engage with you on many of your posts.

I am sorry Sravna, but I dont see where my objections as illogical. I had tried to point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your premises and arguments, but it just seems that you are happy to pass the buck.

I have just given an example in your other thread as to how a conclusion can be logical but need not be true. The problem seems to be that you seem to have formed an opinion in your mind that my comments are just to rebuke you and not well thought out. Well, with due respect, it does not take long to see the gaping holes in your arguments, and hence I dont find any reason to do any thesis on your posts before responding to you.

More than a single member finds your posts devoid of logic - Shri Sangom, Shri Nara, Shri tks have been outright in rejecting your claims. You have as you rightly say, carefully avoided all such arguments which you cannot answer, in the guise that you would be getting bogged down, and proceeded with your grand theories. In fact, to do this, you might very well have started a blog and stated your thoughts, and restricted the comments. You start a topic for discussion, claim it to be logical, but put down others' arguments as illogical just because you cannot answer !

I feel that whenever I reply to you, it is a rehash of some earlier post, and hence, I stop my ramblings now.

In all your logical posts, you seem to have only the support of Renuka, the reason being that she probably believes in advaita. But even then, I noticed that her posts did not always reflect the "logical" conclusion that you seem to claim. Even Shri tks who probably believes in advaita, has critiqued your posts as illogical.

So much so for your logical enlightenment !

 

[sravna]

Dear shri Auh,

All I can say is you seem to live in an imaginary world seeing imaginary problems. If you open your mind you will come out of that. That is all I can say for your ramblings.

 

[auh]

I think Sravna has a (wrong) notion, that his statements/posts are loaded with profound philosophical truths that need to be pondered over deeply in order to respond. Well, there might well be some profound philosophy, but they dont seem to emanate from his statements.

Perhaps, replies that pop up after a day, or greater, of his posting, might merit the conseridation as being "well thought out".

So I will then continue on with my "not-so-well-thought-out" postings without expecting a response from Sravna. Even if he shirks from a debate, the himalayan blunders in the "logical" thought process is pointed out to the reader.

 

[sravna]

I think Sravna has a (wrong) notion, that his statements/posts are loaded with profound philosophical truths that need to be pondered over deeply in order to respond. Well, there might well be some profound philosophy, but they dont seem to emanate from his statements.

Perhaps, replies that pop up after a day, or greater, of his posting, might merit the conseridation as being "well thought out".

So I will then continue on with my "not-so-well-thought-out" postings without expecting a response from Sravna. Even if he shirks from a debate, the himalayan blunders in the "logical" thought process is pointed out to the reader.

Not so good logical rebuttal of my philosophy, according to you only.

 

[tks]

Sri Auh

With reference to Post #37..let share a couple of thoughts

What is generally discussed in many of the threads and posts has nothing to do with what is termed advita.

Since the topic is about teaching it does not need one to believe in it though there are axioms which are reasonable to understand and cannot be provan. One axiomatic statement for example is an assertion that there is a original cause (and is called Brahman)

Everything in the universe we find ourselves is subject to change and seems to be made up of parts. We have not yet found the most elemantal item ( part that is unbreakable into more units) as the cause of all we see here. The atom was also not 'atomic and unbreakable' and today's theories such as strings as the unbreakable part cannot be verified experimentally by limitations of science itself (limitation is theoretical and not due to experimental technologies)

It is reasonable to think that there may be a original part from which all we see originated. All search for unified theory to explain various fundamental phenomena rests in the assumption that perhaps there is a original cause.

In Vedanta the assertion of a original cause is not an unreasonable assertion. What makes this topic much more complex is that the idea is so radical that there are no words to describe this original cause. The lack of words to describe itself can be logically arrived at. Therefore the understanding is acheived by negating what it is not. That is why the term for this 'thing' is not one and only one but described as 'not two' though that does not convey the idea.


Since the seat of understanding involves the subject (I) and the world, the teaching / proof has to make sense in the mind of the student. Therefore there is empasis is on preparation of an individual's mind ( I call maturity) .

There are not many axiomatic statements that need one to accept in order to arrive at the truth through the teachings of Sri Sankara.

In that sense I do not 'believe' in Advita since it is not subject to belief.

 

[renuka]

Dear shri Auh,

All I can say is you seem to live in an imaginary world seeing imaginary problems. If you open your mind you will come out of that. That is all I can say for your ramblings.

Dear Sravna,

Sravna..I have been noticing that you are handling too many heavy duty threads..you need a break yaar.

Please take a slight break from thinking.


I dont know if I am right to say this but forgive me if I am wrong.

I have noted that some people feel that being a Brahmin is all about using the mind and tend to engage in intellectual pursuits 24/7 whether its logical or not.

Too much of anything is bad...Too much Sattva eventually becomes Tamas and we might not be able to get the right answers and at times this affects our mood and raises our blood pressure.

So Sravna..as your well wisher...try coming to other threads in Chit Chat as join in the fun there too.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I know you are my well wisher. I will definitely visit chit chat section.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,


Too much of anything is bad...Too much Sattva eventually becomes Tamas and we might not be able to get the right answers and at times this affects our mood and raises our blood pressure.

.

By the way Renuka, my blood pressure has always been 110/70 even during my most stressful years. So no problem on that count.

 

[auh]

Shri tks,

Please find my observations on your thoughts.

...Since the topic is about teaching it does not need one to believe in it though there are axioms which are reasonable to understand and cannot be provan. One axiomatic statement for example is an assertion that there is a original cause (and is called Brahman)

This statement is subjective and not objective. Please see the below excerpts from Wiki (just to illustrate):

...As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms...

Hence in our discussion it can function only as a premise and nothing more. Esp. since the subject matter of Brahman has been the object of controversy and discussion by various acharyas and by various philosophies over time.

Hence, the assertion that there is an original cause might be valid as a premise within confines, but it cannot represent the absolute truth (i.e., universally), and hence fails to qualify as an axiom.

Everything in the universe we find ourselves is subject to change and seems to be made up of parts. We have not yet found the most elemantal item ( part that is unbreakable into more units) as the cause of all we see here. The atom was also not 'atomic and unbreakable' and today's theories such as strings as the unbreakable part cannot be verified experimentally by limitations of science itself (limitation is theoretical and not due to experimental technologies)

It is reasonable to think that there may be a original part from which all we see originated. All search for unified theory to explain various fundamental phenomena rests in the assumption that perhaps there is a original cause.

I agree that the stand in the highlighted sentence is acceptable, but it is only a probability, and not a certainity. Whatever result that might come out of such an assumption, if verifiable by logic and our senses, may ultimately be analysed for its veracity. Until then it is only an assumption and not a conclusion.

In Vedanta the assertion of a original cause is not an unreasonable assertion. What makes this topic much more complex is that the idea is so radical that there are no words to describe this original cause. The lack of words to describe itself can be logically arrived at. Therefore the understanding is acheived by negating what it is not. That is why the term for this 'thing' is not one and only one but described as 'not two' though that does not convey the idea.

This reasoning follows from your above position that "there may be an original cause", and as I observe, it is true only if the parent premise/position is tenable logically, which it is not. The fallacy of circular logic creeps in.

On the other hand, if you say that such a position (that the brahman is "anirvachaneeya") is beyond logic and hence cannot be logically proved, then we have no debate here.

Since the seat of understanding involves the subject (I) and the world, the teaching / proof has to make sense in the mind of the student. Therefore there is empasis is on preparation of an individual's mind ( I call maturity).

Rather than the highlighted, it has to stand the test of logic that could be universally verified or deductively concluded at, without any element of ambiguity.

There are not many axiomatic statements that need one to accept in order to arrive at the truth through the teachings of Sri Sankara.

This, I think, is the essential difference between belief and logic. While I have no qualms with the former, one cannot claim that it is logical. A logical conclusion arrives itself without the need to accept.

In that sense I do not 'believe' in Advita since it is not subject to belief.

In view of the above, I think, that this position is untenable.

Thanks,

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

Please find my observations on your thoughts.

1. This statement is subjective and not objective. Please see the below excerpts from Wiki (just to illustrate):

...As used in modern logic, an axiom is simply a premise or starting point for reasoning. Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms...

Hence in our discussion it can function only as a premise and nothing more. Esp. since the subject matter of Brahman has been the object of controversy and discussion by various acharyas and by various philosophies over time.

Hence, the assertion that there is an original cause might be valid as a premise within confines, but it cannot represent the absolute truth (i.e., universally), and hence fails to qualify as an axiom.

2. I agree that the stand in the highlighted sentence is acceptable, but it is only a probability, and not a certainity. Whatever result that might come out of such an assumption, if verifiable by logic and our senses, may ultimately be analysed for its veracity. Until then it is only an assumption and not a conclusion.

3. This reasoning follows from your above position that "there may be an original cause", and as I observe, it is true only if the parent premise/position is tenable logically, which it is not. The fallacy of circular logic creeps in.

4. On the other hand, if you say that such a position (that the brahman is "anirvachaneeya") is beyond logic and hence cannot be logically proved, then we have no debate here.

5. Rather than the highlighted, it has to stand the test of logic that could be universally verified or deductively concluded at, without any element of ambiguity.

This, I think, is the essential difference between belief and logic. While I have no qualms with the former, one cannot claim that it is logical. A logical conclusion arrives itself without the need to accept.

In view of the above, I think, that this position is untenable.

Thanks,

Sri Auh

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

1. All I said is that there is a original cause (without infinite regression ) and it it is called Brahman. It is a starting point as an assertion and that it is axiomatic because all deduction follow from this. It is axiomatic because there is nothing else by defintion of this notion is there to use to prove it further
You have introduced the word truth without defining what is truth in the discussion in the *context* of defintion of original cause. All words that have meaning depend on the original cause by defintion

Amongst various schools of thought there is no controversy of this starting point that I am aware of. Idea like subjective and objective is meaningless in this context because the starting point as an assertion that the original cause is the cause for subject and object.

2. All I was trying to show is if the starting point is reasonable from our knowledge where we stand. Hence the use of the word 'may'

3. An axiom is a starting point - there is nothing to prove since nothing else exists to prove in this context. So the reasoning that something is not tenable does not arise.

4. I have tried to stay away from use of any terms or citations if there is a simpler (at least in my mind ) to describe an idea. All words with their associated meanings are dependent on the existance of the original cause which we call Brahman. Therefore words cannot be useful to describe the nature of the cause. The most we can say is that any word that we can think of is NOT a description of this original cause. Hence it is anirvachaneeya. Let me amplify by use of another example.

Suppose someone were to theorize that our world is a projection of an entity in 5 dimension. Mathematically (purely logic of mind) we can concoct infinite dimensional space (and therefore 5 dimensional space) and do logical manipulations with mathematics which is short hand for procesing logic.

Just like movie is a projection of a three dimensional world on a screen of two dimensions similarly we could be a projection of a 5 demesional world resulting in space (3 dimension) and time. However it is impossible mathematically to use objects of 3 dimension to prove the existance of 5th dimension.At best it is an idea and conclusions could point to potential truth but there is no way to reach that entity in 5th dimension.

We can only say that any object we perceive in 3 dimesional space and time is NOT this entity.

5. The statement 5 (I have numbered your points in the quote) is not applicable. I said the teaching involves the Subject (I) and the world... There is no other disciplines that address both. When I say the word I - I mean the person 'auh' for you , the one that cognized that my statement is not logical. If you look out for you realize there is only one entity you call I . Your existence , that is recognition of existence of I is self evident. All other existence living or nonliving are only mental events in your mind preprocessed by your sense organs and your I cognizes the mental events . In that sense there is nothing external or intenal because even your body is cognized by this I.

The teaching is about this I and what is cognized. Hence the seat of any understanding and proof can only happen in what you cognize as your mind. Therefore preparation and maturity
of mind is crucial ..

6. All fields of objective world has axioms. I was merely pointing out that in addition to the existance of original cause as an axiom there may be other .. My intent is not to get much more deeper beyond the first one. The logic follows from axioms that are not unreasonable .. Hence I was saying that the teaching is not about belief based preaching.

Hope I have used better world to explain this time

Regards

 

[auh]

Shri tks,

Thanks for the clarifications. I will now state my major objections in it.

1) After going through your reply, it is apparent that you feel (or believe) that there HAS to be an original cause for which there is no cause. This is where the axiom takes the shape of a premise as a "causeless cause" or an "original cause" is not a logical derivative, and cannot be a fact. Why cannot the universe be bereft of any cause at all? Why cannot the universe have two or more original causes, they themselves being the cause of each other? I hope you understand the drift of the objection.

Moreover what you have stated w.r.t. an original cause is not an apparent reality, but a deduced inference, and hence cannot qualify as an axiom so as not to merit any explanation or proof.

2) Now, the second objection is that when such an purported original cause cannot be described or imagined by our faculties, does it not mean that such an existence itself cannot be said to be certain? It is implicit that when we say that something exists but we cannot know anything about it, it might be at best a unknown possibility, as you have put it here

At best it is an idea and conclusions could point to potential truth but there is no way to reach that entity in 5th dimension.

Anybody can hold any view on "that-something-which-cannot-be-known" and nobody would be able to refute it.

3) The third and final objection is to the importance given to the "I" based on which you have interpreted a common happening - of that of the necessity to accept proof within confines - to be something more that what it is.

Cognition is an process which is purely based on our faculties and the ability to do so depends on the extent of receptivity and adaptability of the faculties. You have made an assertion that this "I" has cognized. But with what? It cannot cognize anything independently outside the realm of the senses. For eg., can you clearly detail something what your senses cannot? No. Hence all the awareness is due to the joint venture of our senses controlled by the Central Nervous System (CNS). To put it simply - there is again no concrete proof that a separate "I" exists, independent of our senses.

To conclude that "All other existence living or nonliving are only mental events in your mind preprocessed by your sense organs and your I cognizes the mental events" does gross injustice to existence itself. This can easily be negated by the fact that when a person dies, the existence of other living/non-living beings does not cease to be.

Again I would say that this statement

The logic follows from axioms that are not unreasonable .

is not correct.

Thanks,

P.S. I used "truth" in the sense of physically verifiably universal facts (rather than individual-only perceivable facts) and hence the indication of "universal" in my earlier post. But maybe it was ambiguous.

 

[sangom]

Shri tks,

< snipped >
To conclude that "All other existence living or nonliving are only mental events in your mind preprocessed by your sense organs and your I cognizes the mental events" does gross injustice to existence itself. This can easily be negated by the fact that when a person dies, the existence of other living/non-living beings does not cease to be.
< snipped >

Shri auh,

Though I am not familiar with the principles of logic etc., I get a doubt as to why our experience of "life" itself cannot be a mental phenomenon? When a person dies, that is the end and we don't even know whether that deceased entity (person) continues to exist - in some altered state, even - and if so whether that altered state being experiences the world and the universe in the same manner as living beings do. Hence, is it not correct to conclude that all the life experiences originate in one's own self (may be in the mind, or elsewhere) and all such experience comes to a complete close in so far as that person was concerned.

The fact that other beings who continue to "live" continue to experience the world, etc., does not appear to be logically sufficient to disprove the conclusion in the above para. Since the world experienced by blind people, deaf people and others with colour blindness and many psychological 'abnormalities' is quite different from what a 'normal' human being experiences, it appears to me that our image and experience of the world (universe) is vitally linked to our senses and hence to the mind, intellect, etc. This linkage is uniform - we may view it as though our psyche is "programmed" to view the world on particular lines and that is why all of us who are living seem to get more or less the same image of the world

Part of this "sameness" is also artificially created. When two people look at one object, say, a blue flower, it cannot be said that both are "seeing" the same 'blue colour'. Similar is the case with our other sense-faculties also.

 

[auh]

Dear Shri Sangom,

... I get a doubt as to why our experience of "life" itself cannot be a mental phenomenon?

A) When a person dies, that is the end and we don't even know whether that deceased entity (person) continues to exist - in some altered state, even - and if so whether that altered state being experiences the world and the universe in the same manner as living beings do.

B) Hence, is it not correct to conclude that all the life experiences originate in one's own self (may be in the mind, or elsewhere) and all such experience comes to a complete close in so far as that person was concerned.

I observe these from the above para; pls correct me if I am mistaken:

1) Ref the highlighted in A - when we dont know about a state, all we can postulate comes under the realm of speculation, or to put it better "a state of possibility, but not a certainity".
2) I dont think B necessarily follows from A or to put it differently - B is not an inescapable conclusion assuming A to be true.
3) I would rephrase the highlighted in B as "one's own life experiences originate in the self" which would be a better fit. Notwithstanding this amendment, B is only a probability.

The fact that other beings who continue to "live" continue to experience the world, etc., does not appear to be logically sufficient to disprove the conclusion in the above para. Since the world experienced by blind people, deaf people and others with colour blindness and many psychological 'abnormalities' is quite different from what a 'normal' human being experiences, it appears to me that our image and experience of the world (universe) is vitally linked to our senses and hence to the mind, intellect, etc. This linkage is uniform - we may view it as though our psyche is "programmed" to view the world on particular lines and that is why all of us who are living seem to get more or less the same image of the world

I dont think that my cognition would have anything to do with yours, and, in this sense, the world that we perceive exists for real and not in one's perception. Only that the receptiveness of our faculties limit/expand our ability to cognize it.

To illustrate the point on existence: When somebody says that in a particular latitude and longitude a certain monument exists, you may assert that it exists only in "somebody's" imagination, but when I go to the very same location, the monument is apparent to me also in the same manner in which it appeared to be, to "somebody", and not in some altered state. Though a blind person may not be able to "see" the monument, he can feel it and he would find that it conforms to the same patterns described by me. Hence the existence of the world is independent to our senses.

To illustrate the point on cognition: One feels pain when pricked by a needle, irrespective of whether others do or do not, because that is what is perceived by his/her senses and relayed to the brain in response to the "real" external stimuli. When one feels pain, the other necessarily need not feel it unless it is a group experience. So our experiences and perception are different even though the objects of perception seem to be contained in one superset (ie., the verifiable universe).

The "particular lines or "linkage" that you speak of is determined by the presence or absence of certain biological organs. Beings without the CNS respond in one particular pattern to the same external stimuli, which evokes a different pattern of response in beings with the CNS. Hence the program is dependent on the body constituent, and the cognition is but the sum total of its experiences.

Part of this "sameness" is also artificially created. When two people look at one object, say, a blue flower, it cannot be said that both are "seeing" the same 'blue colour'. Similar is the case with our other sense-faculties also.

Only in "sameness" we can relate, and the human need to relate to one another has cultivated this "sameness" into "a means of communication". Dont we need a common ground even in case of a debate?

I concede that there are complex possibilities but let us agree that they are just that and nothing more.

 

[tks]

Shri tks,

Thanks for the clarifications. I will now state my major objections in it.

1) After going through your reply, it is apparent that you feel (or believe) that there HAS to be an original cause for which there is no cause. This is where the axiom takes the shape of a premise as a "causeless cause" or an "original cause" is not a logical derivative, and cannot be a fact. Why cannot the universe be bereft of any cause at all? Why cannot the universe have two or more original causes, they themselves being the cause of each other? I hope you understand the drift of the objection.

Moreover what you have stated w.r.t. an original cause is not an apparent reality, but a deduced inference, and hence cannot qualify as an axiom so as not to merit any explanation or proof.

2) Now, the second objection is that when such an purported original cause cannot be described or imagined by our faculties, does it not mean that such an existence itself cannot be said to be certain? It is implicit that when we say that something exists but we cannot know anything about it, it might be at best a unknown possibility, as you have put it here Anybody can hold any view on "that-something-which-cannot-be-known" and nobody would be able to refute it.

3) The third and final objection is to the importance given to the "I" based on which you have interpreted a common happening - of that of the necessity to accept proof within confines - to be something more that what it is.

Cognition is an process which is purely based on our faculties and the ability to do so depends on the extent of receptivity and adaptability of the faculties. You have made an assertion that this "I" has cognized. But with what? It cannot cognize anything independently outside the realm of the senses. For eg., can you clearly detail something what your senses cannot? No. Hence all the awareness is due to the joint venture of our senses controlled by the Central Nervous System (CNS). To put it simply - there is again no concrete proof that a separate "I" exists, independent of our senses.

4) To conclude that "All other existence living or nonliving are only mental events in your mind preprocessed by your sense organs and your I cognizes the mental events" does gross injustice to existence itself. This can easily be negated by the fact that when a person dies, the existence of other living/non-living beings does not cease to be.

Again I would say that this statement is not correct.

Thanks,

P.S. I used "truth" in the sense of physically verifiably universal facts (rather than individual-only perceivable facts) and hence the indication of "universal" in my earlier post. But maybe it was ambiguous.

Sri Auh


I thought I indirectly answered the source of your objections already in the last two pasts but it is obvious that it did not make the mark. Let me try once more.

Thanks for taking the time to respond .. We both are here to waste time provided there is some fun element somewhere along the way

1. When someone proposes a starting point we try to ask if it is reasonable. There are few more criteria as well such as 'does it contradict anything we know from our experience and understanding', 'if it is adding anything new, and if it is useful' . There are many more but this is a good representative set.

Vedas postulate the existence of first cause. My posts earlier was todiscuss if that is a reasonable. Causeless cause is NOT a derivative .. It is a starting point. First cause also means lack of infinite regression of cause effect in the model.


What we see in the universe that is constantly changing (and subject to change with some change recognizable over millions of years) we perceive that the universe is in a series of cause-effect play. Let me repeat an example from one of my past post. The Big Bang is a statrting point by reversing the all the effects back to perhaps the first cause which caused space and time. No one know if that singularity happened but with that as a starting point we try to understand if the fundamental forces we see were unified before they appear as effects today. The unification and search for theory for everything continues though unification of Gravity is elusive except in mathematical terms. Without the axiomatic starting point of Big Bang there will be no basis to think of unification.

If everything we see is a chain of cause and effect (and not a single example exists that is not subject to this) and our sciences postulate that there may be a original cause then putting forth a notion that things exist without any cause in not reasonable.

Saying that there are infinite regression of causes is also not reasonable.

Putting forth that multiple causes being existing is a possibility but then independent interaction of effects of each of the causes is likely to interfere and the interference itself has to goverened by another cause etc. That will lead to another infinite regression.

So if Vedas assert a starting point as a casuse and calls it Brahman it is a reasonable starting point. The other criteria I laid out (which are not complete and there are more) many of the other starting points will fail as reasonable but this starting point will meet them.

Just because we reason all this does not mean we are arriving at notion of first cause, rather it is the starting point for development of this branch of study

2. In this objection there are many assumptions which are not reasonable. First you have to define what is existence when the starting point asserted for *the universe and you * is Brahman. I gave example of projection of higher dimentional entity into three dimension to explain that the word you introduced in the discussion (anirvachaneeya) is understandable. I did not say that Brhaman which is anirvachaneeya is not understandable. If you ask how can one understand an entity that is not descripable be understood that is a completely differernt discussion. It will get us into other Vedanta areas that I am not prepared to delve into in this medium. I have given reasons why this is a serious study topic. Your question is very reasonable though if I can interpret the objection as a question.

3. If one is in a state of general anasthesia or in coma the sense organs may be working but there is no cognition. Just because the eyeball with a lens mechanism created two inverted images in your retina does not mean that is your experience when you see something. Sometimes when our mind is distracted we find that see but did not cognize what happened. Sense organs themseves have to be cognized for one to know what is happening. There is lot more to cognition beyond sense organs. There is intuition for example not tied to any sense organs.

4. I have numbered the last part as item 4. All you know without any condition is the existence of yourself. All other things that you preceive and reason are mental events - period. They have conditional existence in your mind provided you are able to cognize them. You may see other people and see that they die and perceive that the universe continues without them. But please realize that all these are mental events also and they are derived conclusions. No one can prove after we die if the universe as perceived by us continues to exist. All mental events has 'reality' because of I and I itelf is the only entity that is self evident.

I have done short cuts in a number of areas above. They may create more questions than answers. The forum is not a place to do justice to the topic area . What I have shared is a small glimpse of some of my understanding of the topic area.

Besides the axiom of original cause I only used what we observe in the discussions above. If you do not agree that the observations are not in line with your experience I will let that be.

Chandogya Upanishads , Chapter 6 with Shankara Bhashya goes into great depths by putting forth arguments and world view of Sankyas (atheism with non-living entity as a starting point much like our sciences today), Vaiseshikas (Dualists ), Karma people for whom words of Vedas are the most important things etc.

If you are not convinced still I thank you for engagement. If you are convinced but have clarification questions please let me know

Regards