Are Americans going crazy?

[Paul Werbos]

One of the people in this list posted something about a survey saying that Americans now have massively regressed back to believing that humans were created directly as in the book of Genesis ("life comes from life" and such), and many other unfortunate delusions. 

Actually, insanity is a global problem. One of the most important symptoms is when people commit themselves to strong testable opinions, without doing a two minute web search to check the truth of their offhand impressions. 

So, in my first really relaxed day for a month, I just went to google, searching on "poll evolution." There is relatively clear data:

http://news.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

From 1981 to 2017, the percentage rejecting the fossil record declined from 44% to 38%. Even 38% is too high, and it does speak to deep issues about education, but it is less than what the previous post suggested, and it has gone down, at a faster rate in the most recent years. 

It is interesting that a majority of those accepting the evident facts of life here did say "God had a part in the process." The poll tells us nothing more about what this really means, beyond those words. 

[BMP]

Dear friends,

Namaste. 

We have zero tolerance on this list for supremacists of any type and the hate speech that they generate. 

We remind and request all participants to follow the one rule of humility, tolerance and respect when addressing one another, even in the case of complete disagreements. It is what makes this list unique in being able to consider a wide diversity of viewpoints urbanely without the dialog becoming acrimonious. We do not think this rule is beyond the ability of intelligent ladies and gentlemen to observe.

One may make the case that the major problem in the world today, certainly in the USA, is extremism and its consequent polarization of society. What lies at the root of that type of mentality and how did it develop? One of our subscribers to this list recently asked the question: why are we suffering? I responded with a line paraphrased from the Greek tragic play of Sophocles' Antigone - we suffer because we have erred.

In a list with a large number of scientists, mathematicians and other professionals it might not be expected that many would recognize that line and the great significance it has maintained in human culture for millennia. Historians tell us it was composed by Sophocles almost 500 years before the historical appearance of Christ. Why has it endured and been so highly respected by scholars, the learned and other members of society for so long? 

It is not hard to imagine that when Sophocles wrote that play, it was in the midst of a social crisis much like the one we are facing in our own modern or post modern culture. The central figure of the play is Antigone, who was the daughter of the deceased Oedipus Rex, or King Oedipus who Freud made famous in the 20th century. Her brothers turned out to become enemies and were killed in an ensuing battle. The then ruling king, Creon, declared that the brother who had joined the enemy ranks (named Polynices) should be dishonored like all the other enemy bodies who had been killed, and left on the battlefield as carrion rather than afforded a burial.

Antigone could not bear to allow her brother such a fate, which in Greek tradition was considered a very serious matter since the soul of one who did not receive a proper burial would be condemned. So she felt she had a moral and divine spiritual duty to him. To fulfill such a duty, however, she would have to disobey the King's order, which was punishable by death to the offender. 

Since Antigone was also engaged to Creon's son, it make the situation for the King even more difficult when Antigone finally decided to disobey the king and perform the burial rites for her brother. In the end the King decided not to kill Antigone for the sake of his son, but to bury her alive in a cave. While in the cave Antigone took her own life by hanging. When the King's son found out about this he also took his own life. Then when the King's wife found out about her son she also committed suicide. In this way the tragedy unfolded. 

King Creon was advised by his priest that he should not violate the divine law by which Antigone felt obligated to follow, that is was higher than any man made law or decree by the king. Although the king was just trying to preserve the dignity of the community over which he ruled for their benefit, it was also

alloyed with his personal motives for preserving his own authority and attendant power and prestige. The people in general also respected Antigone's dutiful moral attitude toward her brother as higher than any man made decree. But the result was agonizing suffering all around.

So what was the moral Sophocles was trying to teach his countrymen here? It come in the line "We suffer because we have erred." What was the error? It must have been on both sides since they all suffered in the end.

Everyone is genuinely driven by the desire to do what they believe is right.  Even an evil person may think that destroying human culture and civilization is somehow right. The supremacists think that they are right and all their peers just don't realize it, and even the whole of civilization before them were all idiots or insane, and that their ideas will still be right for all future time to come. The important point to recognize here is that each one believes their own idea of truth is based on what they think is right. The problem is even if each person is genuinely acting upon and certain that what they are doing is right and for the good of all, it can produce very serious conflict.

What Sophocles is trying to point out is that we have to recognize this inherent moral rectitude within ourselves and others and try to understand first where it comes from. We are not to imagine some extraneous causation like our basic struggle for existence, or selfish genes, or neural patterning. As soon as we subject moral certitude to judgement we place ourselves above morality, thereby relativizing it, i.e. justifying immorality. When this happen suffering will certainly ensue because suffering is just the product of a conflict between our constitutional, divine or moral rectitude and what we believe or do that is opposed to that.

Antigone was conflicted between her divine and social duties, of which the divine held more importance.  Creon was likewise conflicted with the same duality of which the social held more significance. The error comes from being unable to harmonize the two and instead becoming absorbed in extremes and the social and internal polarization that ensues. 

Trying to understand oneself comes with the ability to understand others, as much as trying to understand others brings a better understanding of oneself. We need to be reasonable. Isaiah 1.18 states: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." Books like the Bible or other scriptures do not retain a place for such long periods of time in human civilization because they  are filled with superficial superstitions. Some profoundly sound, useful and essential wisdom is found in them that benefit mankind. Certainly we find some outmoded ideas as well, particular idiosyncrasies that may have had some significance for a particular time, or may have contingently entered those works. But we don't reject the brilliance of the Moon because it has some pock marks on it; we don't reject the usefulness of fire because it also produces smoke. 

 

Kindly think about and consider these ideas, and not only the particular conception of truth of which you may be certain and want to convey to others. We have to start the healing process somewhere  and we are trying to point out the direction that may take.

Thank you very much for your understanding and participation.

Humbly and respecfully

Bhakti Madhava Puri

[sally annett]

Well Said,

Peace

Sally 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2113505462.915698.1526297152323%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joan Walton]

Dear  Bhakti Madhava Puri

Thank you very much for this interesting, important and thoughtful reflection.  Looking at many exchanges that are taking place across social media and other forms of communication, which lack mutual respect and proper attempts to understand another's perspective, this would be worthwhile for all to read, think about and pay attention to.   

Namaste and best wishes

Joan 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

[BMP]

Namaste. Thank you Joan and Sally. Your appreciation is greatly valued. I have edited my original message to remove some typographical and grammatical errors, and hope that it will be useful for others to read and consider. There is now a link for a PDF of that message under the title Science and the Rise of Science Supremacists at http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/?download=Science_and_the_Rise_of_Science_Supremacists.pdf

Thank you very much.

Humbly and respectfully,

Bhakti Madhava Puri

---

From: Joan Walton <joanwa...@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Are Americans going crazy?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CANUhcv0Tq5Xp5i3OQEmV0rnMibt8r8189HP%3DeX13d_knBuhtsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 11:25:52AM +0000, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> One may make the case that the major problem in the world today, certainly in
> the USA, is extremism and its consequent polarization of society. What lies at
> the root of that type of mentality and how did it develop? One of our
> subscribers to this list recently asked the question: why are we suffering? I
> responded with a line paraphrased from the Greek tragic play of Sophocles'
> Antigone - we suffer because we have erred.

Namaste.

Do you suggest this as a contemporary error? Or are you agreeing with St.
Augustine regarding the notion of original sin?

In Buddhism the word usually translated "suffering" is "dukkha," which is
thought to come from the experience of having a wheel badly fit to an axle,
so that it is rolling "out of true."

The Dalai Lama says one of the most difficult things for him to learn in
understanding European culture was the notion of fallenness, of original
sin. He says no such idea has existed in Tibet.

The notion of truing the wheel I find most suggestive. The suggestion is in
part that it's not necessarily the moral dimension in which we err, but in
the dimension of understanding how to tune our beings, our consciousness.
Many of us have fine sets of moral doctrines, and strive to adhere to them,
yet we are out of tune, and roll roughly through life, going off the road
not because of bad intentions or efforts as drivers, but because our wheels
aren't mounted right.

Best,
Whit

[Joan Walton]

Hello Whit

Thank you for your interesting contribution. 

I too have been influenced by Buddhist ideas of suffering, with my understanding of it being as a consequence of 'dislocation from essential self'.   

Huston Smith summarises it well, I think:

“Life (in the condition it has got itself into) is dislocated.  Something has gone wrong.  It is out of joint.  As its pivot is not true, friction (interpersonal conflict) is excessive, movement (creativity) is blocked, and it hurts. 

 

…Somehow life has become estranged from reality, and this estrangement precludes real happiness until it is overcome”.    (Smith 1991 The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions , pp 101-102)

Which sounds close to your analogy of the wheel fitted badly to an axle.  

I have never seen this understanding of suffering as being close to the Christian concept of original sin (I am very uncomfortable about the way the idea of original sin is communicated, and the inbuilt guilt it generates, by large sections of the Christian church, particularly the 'high' church) - and did not understand  Bhakti Madhava Puri  to be suggesting that either.  

But I will leave him to talk for himself!

Best wishes

Joan 

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20180514142940.GA28754%40black.transpect.com.

[BMP]

Dear Whit

Namaste. You bring up a very interesting and important point that is certainly related to my original message. But as Joan correctly surmised I was not thinking of or implying a connection with the Genesis narrative of the Fall of Man in discussing the meaning of Sophocles' play. 

The Fall may seem a simple enough and innocent story at first, concerning disobedience to the Will of God and the unfortunate consequence thereof. The spiritual, theological and philosophical implications, however, are very deep and profound, as can be ascertained in the remarkable details of the story.

If we start at the point in the story where Adam and Eve are living naked in a paradisaical life that seems to be in perfect harmony with nature, an external temptation arises in Eve that leads her to disobey a specific injunction of God. The questions arise: Why Eve? Could it have just as likely been Adam who also succumbed to temptation? Was it really something necessarily external [the serpent or devil] that provoked them or was it ultimately something internal to human nature that was involved here?

Once we understand what is really being explained here the above questions will be seen to be mere contingencies of the story line. So to continue, the divine injunction was to prohibit eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But knowing the difference between good and evil seems like a really important thing to know. Isn't it?  Why would God prohibit that? Yet a subtle distinction is being made here between the knowledge of good and evil, and the fruit of that knowledge. In other words, we may implicitly or subjectively know what is good and evil, but to act on that knowledge requires manifesting what is potential and subjective in the actual and objective world 

The discriminating intelligence can recognize that a split or division has entered the story at this point. What was originally a life of perfect unity with nature in paradise, has been dirempted  [divided into two]. On one side is the subjective knowledge of good and evil, on the other is the objective actuality in which such knowledge is pragmatically implemented. 

Before we can understand the significance of this sundered distinction into subject and object, it is important to note that in the original paradise the tree of life existed along with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. They could eat the fruit of the tree of life [the fruits of nature] by which they were sustained. Animals also sustain themselves by eating the same life giving fruits, and animals and humans both lived naked in paradise.

The first thing to happen when the subject/object distinction appeared out of the original natural unity was the reflection of one's subjective self on their natural nakedness, and the shame or moral awakening that led to covering themselves. This moral origin of clothes does not occur in animal life.

It was after this that God pronounced the punishment of work and labor upon Adam and Eve, and banished them from paradise. Animals don't work, they sustain themselves with the fruits of nature. Man cultivates his own food. But work also has a healing significance since it binds Man and Nature in a relationship that can be understood as an attempt to mend the original fissure.

There is much more to the story and its philosophical significance that I don't have the time to go into now, except to say that the subject/object duality can eventually be reconciled in a more comprehensive concept called Spirit in which harmony is restored as a harmony, a unity of differences, and not as a monotony or immediate natural unity in which all difference is unconscious.

Hegel's fascinating philosophical analysis of the Fall can be found in the following reference for those who may be interested in more details: 

Hegel, Logic. Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Part I, trans. William Wallace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 1892, §24 addition.

Regarding your idea of what I am interpreting as suggesting an attuning oneself with nature [is that correct?] to create a harmony. The attunement perhaps refers to the inner self adjusting itself with the outer world. Does this imply the natural world is OK and we are out of wack with respect to it? Not sure what you want to say here. 

Respectfully,

Bhakti Madhava Puri

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 10:39 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Are Americans going crazy?

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 06:16:00PM +0000, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bhakti Madhava Puri,

Namaste.

> Namaste. You bring up a very interesting and important point that is certainly
> related to my original message. But as Joan correctly surmised I was not
> thinking of or implying a connection with the Genesis narrative of the Fall of
> Man in discussing the meaning of Sophocles' play.

Yes, Sophocles' sort of error may not be the same as the post-Augustine
interpretation of Eden.

Stephen Greenblatt, in his recent book in the Eden myth's history and
variations, brings in an earlier story from the region. In the Epic of
Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh meets an immortal couple (given immortality by the gods
after surviving a great flood, much in the manner of Noah) who tell him
where to dive beneath the sea to find the Tree of Life. He fetches the tree,
but on his way home with it stops to bathe in a pond. While he's bathing, a
serpent steals the tree.

One point about the tree as metaphor -- our own lives present us with paths
which branch before us. All of the fruits of our lives are, as it were, on
those branches. How we approach the branchings, the choices, can be
determinative. Often we may judge them prematurely, letting potentially good
branches wither through the limitations of such judgment.

As for the serpent in the Eden variation, notably it speaks, and does so
while wrapped around a branch, at least in the paintings we have of the
scene. Since it is through language that we arrive at so many of our
judgments, is it language itself whose dangers we're warned of in the Eden
myth? If so, this might conjoin with Taoist warnings about language, where
"tao", meaning "way" or "ways" (the Chinese is neither singular or plural),
also suggests the branching paths.

So putting language to one side, so as not to judge too quickly, while
appreciating the ways open before us, which, to use another metaphor,
radiate somewhat like spokes (spokens?) from the axis of here and now --
that's where dukkha can come in. The Buddhist Sutras repeatedly emphasize
the difference between what things are called, the verbal labels we give
them, and what they really are, insisting that even the label "buddha" is
ultimately inadequate.

Sophocles would have known well the statues of the goddess Hecate, whose
statue was typically placed at the junction of paths in ancient Greece,
holding a lamp aloft so the paths might be seen, much like New York's Lady
Liberty.

Best,
Whit

[BMP]

Dear Whit

Namste. Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

You write:

>is it language itself whose dangers we're warned of in the Eden myth? 

REPLY

As I understand it, language is what we utter. The word 'utter' means 'outer' or what we externalize and make public, from the depths of our private inner thoughts. Language or words are also connected with Logos (logic) as John 1.1 expresses in the New Testament. In Genesis, it is told that God speaks the words "Let here be light." So it not only the serpent that speaks.

Certainly speech can be interpreted as good or bad depending on that to which it leads us. This is like judging the tree by the fruits it produces. If we consider the inner thoughts of the speaker to be those of one who has logical thoughts [implying inferential or rational thinking], that sort of branch off from one another, then we may interpret that system of thoughts as an image of a tree.

The experiences of the outer world through the intuitions of the senses, which we try to understand through rational or logical thought may also be imagined as a tree of branching relations that is really just a reflection of the inner logical tree appearing in an external form. A similar idea is found in the Bhagavad-gita and probably many other places.

The assignment of word-concepts to objects or things of the external world, have a different significance than names. Proper names can be changed, so it is a kind of an external assignation rather than an essential determination of objects.  Names that imply a predication or judgement  of an object or thing may relate to the intrinsic nature of a thing.  Concepts [a system of judgments] as well certainly imply the essential determinations of objects or things even more than simple predication or judgment.

In conclusion we may say that how well or completely the concept properly comprehends the object will determine if it is good or not, in the sense that it completely articulates the truth of the thing. It is possible to understand this in two ways: that the internal subject supplies the concept for the external object, or that the object is for itself its own concept. However, this latter is an important detail that would require a lengthily explanation.

I hope this clarifies rather than confuses the issue for you.

Respectfully,

Bhakti Madhava Puri

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>

To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Are Americans going crazy?

[Whit Blauvelt]

Dear Bhakti Madhava Puri,

Namaste. Thanks for the conversation on these issues, which have long
fascinated me. I had not known the connection of "utter" and "outer."

What I would like to consider is the difference between seeing what to do
and saying what to do. What we can see is often more direct, and in a way
complete, than what we can say. Similarly we can often be in situations
where we can say something, even something whose meaning is fairly accurate,
without truly seeing the meaning of what we're saying. This is in part how
both spiritual and political traditions sometimes leave behind their
original brilliant visions and become collections of ideological assertions,
repeated opinions rather direct apperceptions of or reports on truth.

When an Athenian came to a crossroads, and saw a statue of Hecate there
holding up her lamp, the suggestion may have been to _see_ the choices, to
cast the senses down both paths where they fork. "See" here can be taken in
a broader sense, to include all the immediate senses, and their projection.
This is what the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment called "the
common sense." So there can be a question of whether we act from what we see
through "the common sense," or whether we act instead from the received
judgment of others, from opinion, rather than more directly look ahead at
the presently-available paths.

Aristotle addressed this in the Nichomachean Ethics, discussing the
difference between the "strong willed" and the "temperate" psychological
types. For the first, choice is a matter of enforcing good opinions on
oneself, as it were, following "the word"; for the second, choice is
achieved by what today we might call a more ecological manner, by a sort of
consensus of the gods within us, what Aristotle and the Greeks called
"eudaemonia," identified with graceful happiness. It is a matter of seeing,
more than saying.

Aristotle held that the eudaemonic approach was better than self-government
by strength of opinion. Of course, we see in the world today, in many
cultures, the contest between different bodies of opinion, each seeking to
be adopted by individuals to control our behavior. We also see stern
admonishments within different ideological alignments against those who
would stray from any of the opinions sanctified by that group's thought
leaders -- "political correctness" enforced by every side. This is tragic,
and occludes a common vision of the good.

Does this resonate with anything you've observed in your spiritual
explorations? To me, it seems vision is closer to direct experience than any
opinion can be, and direct experience and apprehension is essential to
spiritual advancement. Thus vision, in its broad sense, is superior to
opinion, even when that opinion is well-honed as scripture, or as science.

Best regards,
Whit

> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

> --
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions
> under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/
> j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
> 19420889.2015.1085138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

> "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D."

> group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

> to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/

> Online_Sadhu_Sanga/669382423.2056283.1526497931744%40mail.yahoo.com.

[john.kineman]

Indeed, this is a beautiful statement and it speaks very highly of the organizers of this group.mtruly nothing will make progress without harmony.

[BMP]

Dear Whit

Namaste. We are getting into new territory with your latest message, so the subject line was changed accordingly. I hope this is not confusing for anyone.

Here we are discussing (1) saying and (2) seeing

(1) saying, speaking

As mentioned in my previous post, 'saying' is uttering or externalizing what is internal - the silent words of thinking. When those thoughts are comprehended in a unity they form a concept [literally grasped (-cept) together (con-)]. 

In the Sanskrit literature speech, vak, is determined as consisting of four distinctionsL

1.vaikhari, spoken sound [including the hearer/interpreter of the speech]

2. madhyamaa, medium [speaking process the produces the sound]

3. pashyanti, concept

4. paraa, thoughts that originate the idea. There is yet the higher origin of the thoughts

The origin paraa may be conceived as a universal collective, referring to the subtle common ecological plane from which each particular speaker derives thoughts. We might also think of this plane as Plato's universal archetypal Forms or Ideas. 

Patanjali in his Yoga-sutras III. 17 also points out that sabda, word, intelligible sound, contains meaning [ reference to something] (artha), as well as concept ( pratyaya). Some translators use idea rather than concept, but I prefer to employ Idea as the unity of concept and reality, as Hegel does.

(2) seeing

The eye does not see anything. It is a sense organ, but the retina or lens does not see anything, it only receives and delivers signals, much like a photo-electric cell. We do not see with the eye but through it. That is why the eye connected to the optic nerve running to the occipital lobe is essential for seeing. The occipital lobe doesn't see anything either. It is a dark region of neurons. A mind is necessary for perception or seeing. 

Look at the word 'perception' in comparison with the word 'conception.' It is clear the a per-ception is a a pre-requisite for a con-ception. In other words perception is what comes before conception. Perception is a non-conceptual predecessor of conception. Kant called sense perception 'intuition.' It is an immediate or unmediated (un-thought) impression that has to be interpreted or determined. In other words the senses, (eye in this case) only deliver a stimulus indicating 'presence' or 'being there.' It is only after the mind [what we call understanding and intelligence) interprets the stimulus that we can actually see a determinate object.

An easy way to visualize this is by thinking of a robot with a photo electric cell as a detector of objects around it. The photo cell receives a signal from an object, outputs a current to an internal computer, which receives the signal and outputs a current to a servo motor which then directs the robot toward or away from the object. But the whole thing depends on a programmer who must write the code to establish how the signals are to be interpreted and what actions are to be performed in their presence. The program is thus like the mind without which the signals would just be contingent currents.

Conclusion

What we see is what we conceive, and what we conceive is what we see. Concept and sense experience work together and are not separable, even though we can distinguish them. We can say that seer-seeing-seen form an inseparable unity in difference, or oneness in multiplicity. This is a theme I would like to develop further but will stop for now as this message is getting rather long.

Respectfully,

Bhakti Madhava Puri

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:01 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Are Americans going crazy?

[Whit Blauvelt]

Dear Bhakti Madhava Puri,

Namaste. Thank you again for your insight.

> Here we are discussing (1) saying and (2) seeing
>
> (1) saying, speaking
>
> As mentioned in my previous post, 'saying' is uttering or externalizing what is
> internal - the silent words of thinking. When those thoughts are comprehended
> in a unity they form a concept [literally grasped (-cept) together (con-)].
>
> In the Sanskrit literature speech, vak, is determined as consisting of four

> distinctions:
> 1. vaikhari, spoken sound [including the hearer/interpreter of the speech]

> 2. madhyamaa, medium [speaking process the produces the sound]
> 3. pashyanti, concept
> 4. paraa, thoughts that originate the idea. There is yet the higher origin of
> the thoughts

This taxonomy looks useful. The word "idea" comes from the Greek 'idean,'
meaning 'to see.' The word "concept" comes from Latin roots meaning 'to
receive, seize, catch. The suggestion from these roots is that a concept is
a communication of an idea. We see a truth, and then toss it as words to
another person, who hopefully catches our meaning.

My concern is that the words we toss can become divorced from the original
seeing, and subsequently convey only a shadow of the idea, as in Plato's
cave. So we end up living in a social world constructed of the shadows of
true seeing, divided into schools of thought which, however well founded,
tend to degenerate as their formulas are passed along.

A question, then, is how best to return to the true seeing, the true idea.

> Conclusion
>
> What we see is what we conceive, and what we conceive is what we see. Concept
> and sense experience work together and are not separable, even though we can
> distinguish them. We can say that seer-seeing-seen form an inseparable unity in
> difference, or oneness in multiplicity. This is a theme I would like to develop
> further but will stop for now as this message is getting rather long.

I agree with your conclusion, and hope you find time to elaborate on this
for us.

Best,
Whit