Platonic Idea of the Good

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 9:09:22 AM4/15/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Respected Dr. Bob Wallace
 
Namaskar.
 
Ancient Greek philosophers were trying to understand ‘Natural World’, ‘Natural Order’, ‘Natural Processes’, ‘Basic Element(s) that are basis of entire cosmos’, ‘What are the causal processes that account for the variations (changes) of things that occur’, ‘Origin of Cosmos’ and so on. We can find two philosophical lines of thoughts in ancient Greek philosophers:
i.             Philosophy that mainly focus on Physical Order of Cosmos
ii.            Philosophy that reflects on Moral Order of Cosmos
 
Thus Ancient Greek philosophers provided the philosophical agenda on which every branch of Western world developed. However, the meanings of different terminologies (like, soul, mind and so on) that are commonly used in Western philosophy are very different than that we find in Vedic tradition in East. This unfortunately creates some difficulties to correlate the ideas of Western Philosophy with the Vedic views, especially, when someone is only familiar with the meaning of terminologies of one tradition only.
 
For Plato, the Good is of all topics the one most important to man. As you often refer to the philosophy of Plato in your discussions on this list, I want to know from you what is the real meaning of “Good” that is often used in the philosophy of Plato and why it is called “Good”. I want to understand it and thus can correlate it with the explanations of Vedic views. Your help on this will be much appreciated.
 
Thanking you.
 
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta

Dhirendra Sharma

unread,
Apr 15, 2017, 11:12:24 AM4/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
Dear Dr.Bhakti  Nishkama Shantaji:

   Humans are born of Knowledge gene and
there is no distinct Indian learning/ observing  process  of Knowledge
that could be called Eastern/ Indian and Western.   Cosmic  Knowledge ( Science)  is  Secular and common, there is  no East or West or Knowledge  division as Eastern and Western.
                          
Energy, and Mother e.g., are Secular  common narratives- universally same irrespective  age, ( History)  caste, race, region or religion.

But your statement that:
 
":...the meanings of different terminologies (like, soul, mind and so on) that are commonly used in Western philosophy are very different than that we find in Vedic tradition in East. This unfortunately creates some difficulties to correlate the ideas of Western Philosophy with the Vedic views, especially, when someone is only familiar with the meaning of terminologies of one tradition only..." ??

 In the Vedic age, 5000 years ago, what was meant by the Rishis
 ( Scientists) by -  jivatman, moksha, surya-chandramas, or even common expression SHANTI  - in that ancient  times of Knowledge - is rather uncertain..

2. Bertrand Russell, in the History of Western Philosophy says that when an

intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true at that bygone days of  history and psychology. But the chauvinist of all faiths, claim  to know the  Absolute Truth on the basis of Holy testament.

Pl. forgive me for raising these questions but I have  worked on for some years.

Pl. see my contribution on "Indian Science-Philosophy" in the Science, Technology  and Society Encyclopadia (STS) Oxford University Press
1986.

High regards,
Dhirendra Sharma

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/412639017.1027962.1492261589891%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

Insaan-ko, Insaan-se ho Bhai-chaara, Yehi hai Paigaam Hamara!

Dhirendra Sharma
Centre for Science Policy/Concerned
Scientists & Philosophers,
"Nirmal-Nilay", Dehradun 248009 (India).
+(0135) 2736027.Mob. 989788 3741
http://psaindia.infotechlogic.com/

Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 8:49:59 AM4/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dhirendra Sharma ji
 
Namaskar.
 
Thank you for your reply. You have told that “Humans are born of Knowledge gene”. But if we try to analyze the available evidence carefully, we can easily recognize that the observed truth is completely opposite of what you have claimed here. We all know that intervention efforts are necessary at both biological and psychosocial levels for a child’s development of resilience focused on self-regulation skills that are essential in facilitating children's adaptive abilities, such as self-control, social competencies, and emotion regulation. Completely devoid of behavioral-developmental training, in a laboratory one can facilitate child development by a mere focus on health (reducing child morbidity) and physical growth. However, child who has undergone only such a developmental process will never develop proper human behavior and intelligence. Hence, there is no knowledge gene that can guide on its own a human child to develop all the necessary cognitive abilities essential for a human being. In the human form the individual has the facility to acquire proper knowledge which will guide him/her toward his/her ultimate good but, that cannot be attained by an individual’s own ability alone. For example, without any higher intervention, human beings do not normally inquire properly after the real self (beyond body) and God. Vedic teaching also confirms the same:
 
oṁ ajñāna-timirāndhasya
jñānāñjana-śalākayā
cakṣur unmīlitaṁ yena
tasmai śrī-gurave namaḥ
 
Translation: I was born in the darkest ignorance, and my spiritual master opened my eyes with the torch of knowledge. I offer my respectful obeisances unto him.
 
Moreover, in my message, I have not discussed anything about the distinction between Indian and Western learning. I have only mentioned that there are certain terms that mean different things in Western and Eastern (Vedic) Philosophies.
 
You have told “In the Vedic age, 5000 years ago, what was meant by the Rishis ( Scientists) by -  jivatman, moksha, surya-chandramas, or even common expression SHANTI  - in that ancient  times of Knowledge - is rather uncertain..”
 
Vedic literature talks about Yuga cycles and according to that chronology the Vedic tradition is continuing for many billions of years. A teacher may try to transmit the same truth to all his students but, according to the different capacity of those students, what they received is a little changed when they deliver it to others. That is why in due course of time there may be some difference of meaning of different things that is said by the original teacher. In this process the original message became lost due to the vitiating nature of the mundane plane. Therefore, in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā Bhagavān Sri Krishna says He appears now and then to reestablish the principles of religion: yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati – When religion becomes extremely degraded, Bhagavān Sri Krishna comes again, or sends His representative to establish the real internal meaning of the truth.  
 
You have told that “chauvinist of all faiths, claim to know the Absolute Truth on the basis of Holy testament.”
 
No one can claim himself/herself a neurosurgeon by a mere reading of different books on neuroscience. By serving under the guidance of an expert neurosurgeon there is a possibility that one can also become a neurosurgeon. Similarly, by a mere reading of certain scriptures no one should claim that he/she has realized the real internal meaning of the truth. There is a proper process of learning and a sincere seeker of truth follows that process properly. In the verse 4.34 of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā Bhagavān Sri Krishna explains the proper process of learning:
 
tad viddhi praṇipātena
paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ
jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ
 
Translation: You will be able to attain knowledge by satisfying the divine master with submission, relevant inquiry, and sincere service. The enlightened souls who are learned in scriptural knowledge and endowed with direct realization of the Supreme Absolute Truth will impart divine knowledge to you.
 
We hope that it clarifies some of the questions that you have raised. Thanking you.
 
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta

Robert Wallace

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 7:34:33 PM4/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dr. Shanta,

Thanks for these good questions. 

Let me start, I hope not impolitely, by questioning your introductory remarks. You write:

Ancient Greek philosophers were trying to understand ‘Natural World’, ‘Natural Order’, ‘Natural Processes’, ‘Basic Element(s) that are basis of entire cosmos’, ‘What are the causal processes that account for the variations (changes) of things that occur’, ‘Origin of Cosmos’ and so on. We can find two philosophical lines of thoughts in ancient Greek philosophers:
i.             Philosophy that mainly focus on Physical Order of Cosmos
ii.            Philosophy that reflects on Moral Order of Cosmos

This is a very common way of sketching early Greek philosophy, but I think it’s misleading. It’s true that early Greek thinkers seem “mainly” to focus on a physical order of the cosmos. But there are always moral elements or suggestions in their thinking, as when Thales speaks of “soul” and Anaximander speaks of the infinite “controlling” the cosmos and of the opposites “paying penalty and retribution to each other.” In Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, moral and “physical” issues are much more manifestly intertwined and inseparable.

Thus when historians speak of the early Greek “natural philosophers” as anticipating our natural sciences, they are oversimplifying. 

There is indeed a famous passage in which Plato has Socrates say that he turned away from speculation about the cosmos to thinking about ethics. And perhaps for a while he did. But Plato very quickly rejoined the two topics to each other, because he saw that Socrates’s concern about truth in ethics required an account of truth in general, which would have to apply to nature as well as to human affairs. 

Plato then gives an explicit argument to show that reality as such is ultimately determined by the Good, and thus by (among other things) moral considerations, so that (if we assume that the “physical” is supposed to be “real”) your (I) and (II) are inseparable from each other. 

So that you appropriately ask:

what is the real meaning of “Good” that is often used in the philosophy of Plato and why it is called “Good”. 

What is the “Good”? Ah, that is the question alright!  Plato mentions two popular theories of the Good: that it is pleasure, and that it is knowledge. (505c)  He (through Socrates) comments that everyone admits that there are bad pleasures; and as for knowledge, its advocates go on to specify the important knowledge as knowledge of the good, so “knowledge” as such can’t be the good. 

Here Plato has Socrates make one of his well-known disavowals of knowledge: “I’m afraid that I won’t be up to it…” (506d)! But he does not, like a skeptic, abandon the topic! Rather, his famous similes of the Sun, the Line, and the Cave are meant to suggest how we go about thinking about what is real in general and what the Good really is. Having finally left the Cave (of familiar theories of the real or the Good as “pleasure” or “knowledge” or whatever) behind him, the former cave-dweller will “be able to see the sun” (516b). Then he will have the answer to your question, “what is the real meaning of the Good”! 

Plato concludes that “the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul,” but what’s needed is to “turn the whole soul until it is able to study that which is and the brightest thing that is, namely, the one we call the good” (518c). How to “turn” the soul in this way is the issue that the whole Republic addresses.

So we shouldn’t expect Plato to give us a cut-and-dried answer to your question, “what is the real meaning of Good?” He has had Socrates tell us that he doesn’t possess a cut-and-dried answer. The common answers (pleasure, knowledge) have been shown to be inadequate, and Plato has nothing so simple to offer in their place.

What he does offer us is a description of the whole process whereby we necessarily seek the Good. We criticize and “turn away” from common answers, and continue to explore the issue. And in the process we explore the whole of reality—including animals, plants, mathematics (510)—so as to determine what aspect of it makes it truly real. 

But your second question, “Why is it called ‘Good,’” does have a simple, cut-and-dried answer. The Good is what everyone wants for themselves. “Nobody is satisfied to acquire things that are merely believed to be good … but everyone wants the things that really are good and disdains mere belief” about this subject (505d). This is why reality, and knowledge of reality, are so important for us. We may or may not care to know what the distance of the sun is from the earth. But everyone wants to know what’s really good, so as to be able to go after that, and not after some illusion. 

And Plato’s broader point, as I said in previous emails, is that seeking knowledge of what’s really good is what distinguishes a “unified” and self-governing soul from a scattered soul which is governed by influences originating outside it. So that the pursuit of the Good (pursuit of knowledge of it, and thus of it) enables us to be more fully ourselves than we can otherwise be—and thus more real, as ourselves, than we would otherwise be. This is where the Good and the Real turn out to be intimately connected to each other. The Real order of the cosmos is moral as well as physical. The two are ultimately inseparable.

And this pursuit of the Good (and thus of Reality) takes us beyond not only our pre-existing opinions but also beyond what we call “ego” and Plato calls thumos. Because opinions and ego merely distract us from whatever Reality and the really Good may be. 

Plato tells us that the part of the soul that seeks the Good is “more divine” (518e), and that the Good is “superior” even to being “in rank and power” (509b). So he invites us to see what he has described as a search not only for what’s really good (for us) but for the divine as such. Indeed, the two will be the same. 

Best, Bob W
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

Robert Wallace
#lovethyneighbor












Shafiq Khan

unread,
Apr 16, 2017, 7:34:45 PM4/16/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hello Everybody,

                          Thorough rational analysis leads to the fact that humans are not only physical bodies but besides physical bodies humans have soul, substance responsible for life phenomenon ( the interaction of this substance with the physical body gives rise to consciousness & natural instincts within a species/humans ), substance wherein the actions done by them are stored. Soul within the humans could be perceived by existence of the Ego ( Self the "I" within every human being ), innate knowledge of the Creator ( Descartes ) and most importantly a very well defined book of innate moral law ( Thomas Aquinas & Kant ) and the latter is with only humans as the species. The only task of all prophets was to convey the eternity of the soul and to warn humans that their afterlife will depend upon whether they adopted the book of innate moral law, which has been authored & inscribed by the Creator in their souls, or not. Once the book of innate moral law is opened ( this could be done by only original, genuine & philanthropist philosophers ) the basic & fundamental principle of this book is that humans should live peacefully & justice should prevail in all human societies. This is discussed at length in the book titled 'Natural World Order & The Islamic Thought which could be read free at https://www.slideshare.net/mohammadshafiqkhan1/natural-world-order-the-islamic-thought.

With Regards
Mohammad Shafiq Khan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1927153492.1560422.1492346854887%40mail.yahoo.com.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 6:25:57 AM4/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Since humans are doing the inquiry beyond the body what is your evidence that this is only being done through non-human intervention?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1927153492.1560422.1492346854887%40mail.yahoo.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 17, 2017, 7:07:18 PM4/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Robert,


On 16 Apr 2017, at 21:15, Robert Wallace wrote:

Dear Dr. Shanta,

Thanks for these good questions. 

Let me start, I hope not impolitely, by questioning your introductory remarks. You write:

Ancient Greek philosophers were trying to understand ‘Natural World’, ‘Natural Order’, ‘Natural Processes’, ‘Basic Element(s) that are basis of entire cosmos’, ‘What are the causal processes that account for the variations (changes) of things that occur’, ‘Origin of Cosmos’ and so on. We can find two philosophical lines of thoughts in ancient Greek philosophers:
i.             Philosophy that mainly focus on Physical Order of Cosmos
ii.            Philosophy that reflects on Moral Order of Cosmos

This is a very common way of sketching early Greek philosophy, but I think it’s misleading. It’s true that early Greek thinkers seem “mainly” to focus on a physical order of the cosmos. But there are always moral elements or suggestions in their thinking, as when Thales speaks of “soul” and Anaximander speaks of the infinite “controlling” the cosmos and of the opposites “paying penalty and retribution to each other.” In Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, moral and “physical” issues are much more manifestly intertwined and inseparable.

Thus when historians speak of the early Greek “natural philosophers” as anticipating our natural sciences, they are oversimplifying. 

There is indeed a famous passage in which Plato has Socrates say that he turned away from speculation about the cosmos to thinking about ethics. And perhaps for a while he did. But Plato very quickly rejoined the two topics to each other, because he saw that Socrates’s concern about truth in ethics required an account of truth in general, which would have to apply to nature as well as to human affairs. 

Plato then gives an explicit argument to show that reality as such is ultimately determined by the Good, and thus by (among other things) moral considerations, so that (if we assume that the “physical” is supposed to be “real”) your (I) and (II) are inseparable from each other. 

So that you appropriately ask:

what is the real meaning of “Good” that is often used in the philosophy of Plato and why it is called “Good”. 

What is the “Good”? Ah, that is the question alright!  Plato mentions two popular theories of the Good: that it is pleasure, and that it is knowledge. (505c)  He (through Socrates) comments that everyone admits that there are bad pleasures; and as for knowledge, its advocates go on to specify the important knowledge as knowledge of the good, so “knowledge” as such can’t be the good. 

Here Plato has Socrates make one of his well-known disavowals of knowledge: “I’m afraid that I won’t be up to it…” (506d)! But he does not, like a skeptic, abandon the topic! Rather, his famous similes of the Sun, the Line, and the Cave are meant to suggest how we go about thinking about what is real in general and what the Good really is. Having finally left the Cave (of familiar theories of the real or the Good as “pleasure” or “knowledge” or whatever) behind him, the former cave-dweller will “be able to see the sun” (516b). Then he will have the answer to your question, “what is the real meaning of the Good”! 

Plato concludes that “the power to learn is present in everyone’s soul,” but what’s needed is to “turn the whole soul until it is able to study that which is and the brightest thing that is, namely, the one we call the good” (518c). How to “turn” the soul in this way is the issue that the whole Republic addresses.

So we shouldn’t expect Plato to give us a cut-and-dried answer to your question, “what is the real meaning of Good?” He has had Socrates tell us that he doesn’t possess a cut-and-dried answer. The common answers (pleasure, knowledge) have been shown to be inadequate, and Plato has nothing so simple to offer in their place.

What he does offer us is a description of the whole process whereby we necessarily seek the Good. We criticize and “turn away” from common answers, and continue to explore the issue. And in the process we explore the whole of reality—including animals, plants, mathematics (510)—so as to determine what aspect of it makes it truly real. 

But your second question, “Why is it called ‘Good,’” does have a simple, cut-and-dried answer. The Good is what everyone wants for themselves. “Nobody is satisfied to acquire things that are merely believed to be good … but everyone wants the things that really are good and disdains mere belief” about this subject (505d). This is why reality, and knowledge of reality, are so important for us. We may or may not care to know what the distance of the sun is from the earth. But everyone wants to know what’s really good, so as to be able to go after that, and not after some illusion. 

And Plato’s broader point, as I said in previous emails, is that seeking knowledge of what’s really good is what distinguishes a “unified” and self-governing soul from a scattered soul which is governed by influences originating outside it. So that the pursuit of the Good (pursuit of knowledge of it, and thus of it) enables us to be more fully ourselves than we can otherwise be—and thus more real, as ourselves, than we would otherwise be. This is where the Good and the Real turn out to be intimately connected to each other. The Real order of the cosmos is moral as well as physical. The two are ultimately inseparable.

And this pursuit of the Good (and thus of Reality) takes us beyond not only our pre-existing opinions but also beyond what we call “ego” and Plato calls thumos. Because opinions and ego merely distract us from whatever Reality and the really Good may be. 

Plato tells us that the part of the soul that seeks the Good is “more divine” (518e), and that the Good is “superior” even to being “in rank and power” (509b). So he invites us to see what he has described as a search not only for what’s really good (for us) but for the divine as such. Indeed, the two will be the same. 


I agree on all of this. 

The focus on physics came with Aristotle, and, imo, from his misunderstanding of Plato. Plato put the right fatal seed in materialism and physicalism. It is not a coincidence that Plato did not take Aristotle as next director of the academy. I think that today, the main line of difference in thinking is between Plato (non materialism) and Aristotle (materialism). Materialism has failed on the mind body problem, and actually has to fail for the mechanist mind-body problem. 

Best,

Bruno






For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dr Shilpi Saxena

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 3:22:20 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Respected Moh. Shafiq Khan,

Not only the bodies of Human beings are animated by immaterial souls but also the body of each and every living entity (8,400,000 species) is animated by immaterial soul [Ref: Brahma Vaivarta Purana].

As you mentioned in your email that,

Soul within the humans could be perceived by existence of the Ego ( Self the "I" within every human being ), innate knowledge of the Creator…..

The Soul can’t be perceived by the existence of the Ego. The Soul is atomic in size and can be properly understood only when we can realize its real origin and purpose of existence.The soul is full of knowledge, or full always with consciousness [Ref. katha-Upanisad 1.2.18]. Therefore consciousness is the symptom of the existence of soul.

This is also confirmed in the Katha-Upanisad (1.2.20) that there are two kinds of souls-namely the minute particle soul (anu-atma) and the Supersoul (the vibhu-atma). “Both the Supersoul [Paramātmā] and the atomic soul [ jīvātmā] are situated on the same tree of the body within the same heart of the living being, and only one who has become free from all material desires as well as lamentations can, by the grace of the Supreme, understand the glories of the soul.”

You also mention in your email that,

“Once the book of innate moral law is opened (this could be done by only original, genuine & philanthropist philosophers) the basic & fundamental principle of this book is that humans should live peacefully & justice should prevail in all human societies”.

Moral and justice is the main focus of Western Philosophy and Religious system. ‘Moral and Justice’ are necessary for the Peaceful Human Societies but only this cannot help us to realize absolute knowledge and true purpose of human life.

Do we see the God (the Creator) only as Judge of our good and bad deeds? Shall we also not develop love for Him? Because God (the Creator) also loves all His creation and all the souls. How we can also develop that love for God that is also important. A book cannot awaken that love for God in us. We need someone who has real devotion (love) for God and from Him we can get that consciousness of love.

Just reading and self-understanding of a book can’t help us to understand the exact subject-matter of that book. If many people read a book then all of them will get different understanding about that book. Then how one can know the proper meaning and real essence of that book. For this purpose, we need a genuine authority (real Guru) who can personally guide us.

As Dr. Shanta has mentioned in his reply (dated 16.04.2017) to Shri Dhirendra Sharma,

“No one can claim himself/herself a neurosurgeon by a mere reading of different books on neuroscience. By serving under the guidance of an expert neurosurgeon there is a possibility that one can also become a neurosurgeon. Similarly, by a mere reading of certain scriptures no one should claim that he/she has realized the real internal meaning of the truth. There is a proper process of learning and a sincere seeker of truth follows that process properly. In the verse 4.34 of Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā Bhagavān Sri Krishna explains the proper process of learning”.


With regards

Shilpi Saxena


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

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.D, FICCE
Women Scientist-DST (Project Submitted)
Ex-Executive Member of Board of INC-IAH (United Kingdom)
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007

Sarvesh Gyawali

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 9:08:55 AM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, b...@scsiscs.org
Dear Bhakti Niskima Santa, 

Namaste 

The fact that humans are not able to take care of their own selves or grow on their own or gain knowledge on their own "right after their birth" merely states the fact of faulty evolution. Humans, unlike many other animals, are least equipped of all to take care of themselves after only 9 months of conception.

Sarvesh 

--
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/412639017.1027962.1492261589891%40mail.yahoo.com.

Robert Wallace

unread,
Apr 18, 2017, 12:37:10 PM4/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruno,

You write:

The focus on physics came with Aristotle, and, imo, from his misunderstanding of Plato. Plato put the right fatal seed in materialism and physicalism. It is not a coincidence that Plato did not take Aristotle as next director of the academy. I think that today, the main line of difference in thinking is between Plato (non materialism) and Aristotle (materialism). Materialism has failed on the mind body problem, and actually has to fail for the mechanist mind-body problem. 

Best,

I don’t agree that Aristotle is a materialist. Matter is only one of the “four causes” that Aristotle unfolds in his Physics and Metaphysics. Essence, in his view, is form more than matter. And he has a theology that resembles Plato’s. (A good recent book on this Lloyd Gerson’s Aristotle and Other Platonists.)

Materialism was represented in ancient Greece by Democritus and Epicurus, and later by the Stoics, not by the Aristotelians. 

Hegel had high regard for Aristotle, primarily because he thought Aristotle had preserved what was indispensable in Plato and Greek thought in general. I focus on Plato as a way of bringing out this indispensable truth, which tends to get lost in technicalities in Aristotle’s voluminous writings.

Best, Bob W

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 4:56:03 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

This is rather ad hominem. You may not agree with Aristotle. However, Aristotle was a physicist and a biologist. Plato wasn't. Aristotle also invented formal logic which Plato was not able to do. Aristotle also attempted to formalize ontology and ethics. Only thing Aristotle wasn't was perhaps a mathematician, though he knew a lot of mathematics. Furthermore, as we understand the term 'materialism' today, Aristotle was not a materialist as he accepted the existence of a non material soul. That he gave a materialist explanation of the material world is what made him a scientist like scientists today. However, by positing a final cause and being critical of the Presocratics for not having discussed the formal cause, Aristotle (the Greek) definitely parted from the materialism of the Presocratics (Asians) who were only concerned with the material cause. So, if you are looking for the roots of materialism and want to condemn it and praise Plato for not being a materialist, then you have to go much further back to the Ionians to pin down materialism. For me, Plato, is important for a lot, of which his non-matierialism, if that can be attributed to him, is rather insignificant. The main contributions of Plato are to methodology which makes him the founder of philosophy to some extent.

Priyedarshi 

Dear Robert,


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.
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.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8C646C1C-A821-4787-B15A-F6C17148D0B8%40ulb.ac.be.

Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 8:20:48 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I have written “For example, without any higher intervention, human beings do not normally inquire properly after the real self (beyond body) and God.”
 
We can inquire about the true self but being finite we cannot by ourselves comprehend and establish ourselves in our true constitutional position. Some may argue that if scientific research is possible, why cannot higher spiritual knowledge also be evolved from within. But we have to realize that it is impossible for gross senses to sensually (hear, see, touch, taste and smell) observe the mind (manasā); senses by themselves do not have the power to have a connection with the mind (manasā). Senses can only have some connection with mind (manasā) when mind (manasā) becomes mindful of senses. We can take this evidence as a basis that something higher than us cannot be approached by our efforts alone. Our true self is not independent of Supreme Absolute. Supreme Absolute is the Absolute Subject and everything else including ourselves constitutionally stand only as object for His purposes. Therefore, our genuine connection with absolute knowledge is completely dependent on the sweet will of Absolute alone. This is the reason why Vedic teaching emphasizes that without proper submission to Sri Guru (living agent of Absolute) no one can seek the Absolute Truth.



For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 9:24:44 AM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bob,


On 18 Apr 2017, at 15:04, Robert Wallace wrote:

Hi Bruno,

You write:

The focus on physics came with Aristotle, and, imo, from his misunderstanding of Plato. Plato put the right fatal seed in materialism and physicalism. It is not a coincidence that Plato did not take Aristotle as next director of the academy. I think that today, the main line of difference in thinking is between Plato (non materialism) and Aristotle (materialism). Materialism has failed on the mind body problem, and actually has to fail for the mechanist mind-body problem. 

Best,

I don’t agree that Aristotle is a materialist. Matter is only one of the “four causes” that Aristotle unfolds in his Physics and Metaphysics.

My fault. I meant "weak materialist". Weak materialism is the doctrine that Primary Matter exists. I was just saying that Aristotle introduce the hypothesis of the existence of primary matter, which I show to be logically incompatible with Mechanism (+ the usual Occam razor of the scientist). 




Essence, in his view, is form more than matter.

Which makes him into the one duplicating reality, after accusing (if not mocking) Plato of doing that duplication (in the 'Metaphysics').



And he has a theology that resembles Plato’s. (A good recent book on this Lloyd Gerson’s Aristotle and Other Platonists.)

I read it. I agree with Gerson that Aristotle was more platonists than many of his followers, but eventually, with computationalism, you need to abandon the belief in primary matter to remain coherent with Platonism.



Materialism was represented in ancient Greece by Democritus and Epicurus, and later by the Stoics, not by the Aristotelians. 

I am not so sure. Democritus introduced the atoms, but does not aboard explicitly the metaphysical primariness assumption. They are doing physics, even good physics, but not metaphysics, which Aristotle did. 




Hegel had high regard for Aristotle, primarily because he thought Aristotle had preserved what was indispensable in Plato and Greek thought in general. I focus on Plato as a way of bringing out this indispensable truth, which tends to get lost in technicalities in Aristotle’s voluminous writings.


Keep in mind that I use "materialist" always in the sense of "weak materialism": it is the idea that the physical reality is ontological, instead of being a first person plural appearance or dream, or something emergent (logically) from the infinities of dreams which are provably realized in the elementary arithmetical truth. Since a long time, theology is materialist in that sense. It seems to need a genuinely ontological creation, to justify a creator. But Mechanism eliminates the two gods of Aristotle: the first mover, and the primary matter: no creator, no creation. Mechanism suggest more a universal dreamer lost in a (highly mathematically layer structured) web of dreams.

With computationalism, there is a web of dreams (computations "seen from inside"), or a consciousness flux, in Arithmetic. It is up to the (weak) materialist who want to keep Mechanism to explain how Matter can select a computation, or a sheaf of computations from that web. Without Mechanism, we can use actual infinities, or any non Turing emulable reality for doing that task. But that type of explanation reifies our ignorance and is a bit similar to "God made it", which I would invoke only if they were evidence for non-mechanism, and for primary matter. Those evidences are still lacking, so by default, I think that Mechanism is a good starting methodological assumption. I provide the way of testing it, and without quantum mechanics, I would tend to believe that Mechanism is not plausible, but QM (+ Gödel) saves mechanism until now, and is the only theory explaining why qualia extends properly the quanta in a clearcut manner, with very few assumption (elementary arithmetic or Turing-equivalent).

Kind regards,

Bruno




For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 19, 2017, 12:36:03 PM4/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Priyedarshi,

On 19 Apr 2017, at 09:04, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Bruno,

This is rather ad hominem. You may not agree with Aristotle. However, Aristotle was a physicist and a biologist. Plato wasn't. Aristotle also invented formal logic which Plato was not able to do. Aristotle also attempted to formalize ontology and ethics. Only thing Aristotle wasn't was perhaps a mathematician, though he knew a lot of mathematics. Furthermore, as we understand the term 'materialism' today, Aristotle was not a materialist as he accepted the existence of a non material soul. That he gave a materialist explanation of the material world is what made him a scientist like scientists today. However, by positing a final cause and being critical of the Presocratics for not having discussed the formal cause, Aristotle (the Greek) definitely parted from the materialism of the Presocratics (Asians) who were only concerned with the material cause. So, if you are looking for the roots of materialism and want to condemn it and praise Plato for not being a materialist, then you have to go much further back to the Ionians to pin down materialism. For me, Plato, is important for a lot, of which his non-matierialism, if that can be attributed to him, is rather insignificant. The main contributions of Plato are to methodology which makes him the founder of philosophy to some extent.

Weak materialism might even come from the millions years of brain evolution. It is a simplifying (at the least) hypothesis, very handful to not confuse the prey and the predator, which can make the difference in the "eat or be eaten" game of life.

I am interested in theology/metaphysics, and Aristotle makes clear that he believes that Plato is wrong *on that subject*. Plato is among the first to publicly and explicitly rise doubt on weak-materialism (with the use of another terminology). It is comparable with some of the idealist of the Madyamika school (les idéalistes de l'écome du milieu) researchers, or perhaps Vasubandhu (in his five treatise on only spirit). Pythagorus and Parmenides were less explicit, but can be said to have open that path in occident, notably by inspiring the immaterialist with the rational but immaterial realm of mathematics. Note that Pythagorus brrows his ideas from its travel in orient.

The mathematical reality is not a formal cause only. Most of mathematics is not formal, and some part of it can be proved to be necessarily informal. Notably, it can be proved that if we accept the definition of the knower (or soul) by Theaetetus, and accept to model it by Gödel's provavbility predicate, then machine have a soul which already know that it is not formally definable at all. That is not obvious and use the work of some logicians like Tarski, Kaplan, Montague.

Note also I have a great admiration for Aristotle, and that being refuted (in some theories) does not mean being wrong, and is anyway an honor, as it means he works with the scientific attitude (to be enough clear to be made wrong relatively to some theory). Apology if I looked ad hominem with respect to him. Alas, perhaps due to the fact he was so great, many take his notion of primary matter for granted, especially that it is more intuitive and reassuring than idealism and web of dreams.

Aristotle was not a materialist indeed, but he was the first explicit weak-materialist in theology/metaphysics, and like you say, that is still the current paradigm, which in my opinion is the main roots of the absence of solution of the mind-body problem. Yet, all I say is that such a weak-materialist, non immaterialist, paradigm is in contradiction with Digital Mechanism. It is not obvious, and the result of many years of work. We cannot use validly the speculative existence of primary matter to select some special computations in the set of all computations already realized in arithmetic, without negating the mechanist hypothesis. It is important because many (at least in Occident) believes in both weak-materialism *and* in mechanism. Then, the most rigorous tend  to just eliminate soul and consciousness as spurious notion, to save their weak-materialist assumption. 

It is simpler to explain the illusion of piece of matter to a consciousness, than to explain the illusion of a consciousness to a piece of matter.

Mechanism might be false. The interest relies in that it gives a precise theology which contains a precise (but immaterial) physics so that we can test the hypothesis, and refute it, or perhaps improve it. Up to now, it is close to Plato, Ibn Arabi, Vasubandhu and other idealist or immaterialist.

Best,

Bruno



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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Dr Shilpi Saxena

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 4:58:33 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Respected Dr. Shanta,

I am very much grateful for your unambiguous reply. And also thankful to the Priyedarshi Jetli Ji who asked this question.

With Regards 

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.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/844308593.4434862.1492604298646%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.D, FICCE
Women Scientist-DST

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 4:58:34 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

There is a lot in what  you have written. I will respond to only some points. I have read all of Plato's dialogues at least once, though in translation. I wish you could cite from some dialogues that Plato was a critique of weak materialism. I really don't know what you mean by weak materialism. The materialism of the Ionians: Thales, Heraclisus and others was a strong materialism. Even Anaxagorus's soul was material. This is generally accepted by Presocratic scholars. There was no room for mind or soul among these scientists. Plato does take on a critique of Heraclitus in the Theaetetus but it is of the claim that everything is changing and hence relative. It is not a critique of materialism. If anything, Aristotle has a critique of materialism in his critique of the Presocatics for not having discovered the final cause, a cause that comes at the end. Scientists surely do not have any place for such a cause. Ad hominem is ok, even Galileo mocks Aristotle on his stance that there are three types of motion. 

As for Pythagoras being influenced by the Orient, what do you mean by "Orient"? Because this has different meanings. For us in India "Orient" means East Asia. For Said perhaps it means all except West Asia. Pythagoras may well have been influenced by India but the more immediate influence of the Ionians was from the south, that is Egypt. Eurocentric history often marginalizes the influence of Egypt because it is in Africa. Some Indians are also suckers for this racism. I am not. The dates have to be cleared. The Buddhist schools you are referring to are after Pythagoras. One of my mentors, P. T. Raju, who was my father's teacher, wrote a beautiful article on the four cornered negation. He traces its origins to Sanjaya. He is not properly able to date Sanjaya, but when he finds something similar in Parmenides, he places Sanjaya before Parmenides, whereas he could easily have been after or contemporary of Parmenides. I look at it as mutual influences as far as east and west at the time goes as there is evidence that there were West Asian and Greek professors in Indian Universities in ancient times and a foundational influence of Egypt and perhaps Ethiopia on all cultures. This is common sense. Recently they have discovered some writings which are being touted as Jain philosophy, in Ethiopia. Indians of course jump to the conclusion that they went from India to Ethiopia. But it is probably the reverse. There is some evidence that African Historians are working on which claims migration from Ethiopia to India about 4000 years ago.  All of this needs to be established. One cannot simply construct history.

Priyedarshi 


Hi Bob,



Bruno



Dear Robert,


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.
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.
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.
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.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/B9CED627-36D5-4F4D-8B10-D0AF5BAADAF6%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 8:44:57 AM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
dear Priyedarshi ,


On 20 Apr 2017, at 08:52, priyedarshi jetli wrote:


There is a lot in what  you have written. I will respond to only some points. I have read all of Plato's dialogues at least once, though in translation. I wish you could cite from some dialogues that Plato was a critique of weak materialism. I really don't know what you mean by weak materialism. The materialism of the Ionians: Thales, Heraclisus and others was a strong materialism. Even Anaxagorus's soul was material.

Not in the explicit primary sense made precise by Aristotle in his metaphysics. I would say. It is not so important, see below.


This is generally accepted by Presocratic scholars. There was no room for mind or soul among these scientists. Plato does take on a critique of Heraclitus in the Theaetetus but it is of the claim that everything is changing and hence relative. It is not a critique of materialism. If anything, Aristotle has a critique of materialism in his critique of the Presocatics for not having discovered the final cause, a cause that comes at the end. Scientists surely do not have any place for such a cause. Ad hominem is ok, even Galileo mocks Aristotle on his stance that there are three types of motion. 

The immaterialism of Plato is in his "Noùs" notion: all what there is is the world of ideas, and the physical reality is the shadow on the wall of the cavern. Then in its "Parmenides", we can see, following the neopythagorean (Moderatus of Gades) and the neoplatonists (Plotinus, ...) the appearance of the ONE above the Noùs, and Matter is the last thing of the creation/emanation from God/One, almost the "bad", the place where God loses control, leading to the indeterminate/matter, the attachment and the suffering.

Weak materialism is the belief in some primary matter, or, epistemologically, the belief that physics is the fundamental science from which all the others can be explained.

With computationalism, I have shown that physics is an emerging science from arithmetic. It is explained by the arithmetical reality viewed from inside arithmetic. There is only one "simple" truth (the set of all true arithmetical propositions, which contains all truth about computations), and physics arises from the first person indeterminacy on the arithmetical entities with respect to such a truth. It explains intuitively quantum mechanics, and it explains it formally too, at least at the propositional level (much works needs to be done to extends this at the first order level).




As for Pythagoras being influenced by the Orient, what do you mean by "Orient"? Because this has different meanings. For us in India "Orient" means East Asia. For Said perhaps it means all except West Asia. Pythagoras may well have been influenced by India but the more immediate influence of the Ionians was from the south, that is Egypt.

OK. I meant Egypt Persia and Middle-East, perhaps further (that points is discussed by scholars). Please, I am not an expert on history, I use Plato and other grand researchers for the pedagogy, and because some author are very close, in some of their texts, to the discourse of the introspecting universal machine. I make big simplification for pedagogical purpose. What I say from the Parmenides of Plato can be criticized from the perspective of the Timeaeus. My reading of Plato is close to the reading made by the neopythagoreans and the neoplatonists, which are rather immaterialist.



Eurocentric history often marginalizes the influence of Egypt because it is in Africa. Some Indians are also suckers for this racism. I am not. The dates have to be cleared. The Buddhist schools you are referring to are after Pythagoras. One of my mentors, P. T. Raju, who was my father's teacher, wrote a beautiful article on the four cornered negation. He traces its origins to Sanjaya. He is not properly able to date Sanjaya, but when he finds something similar in Parmenides, he places Sanjaya before Parmenides, whereas he could easily have been after or contemporary of Parmenides. I look at it as mutual influences as far as east and west at the time goes as there is evidence that there were West Asian and Greek professors in Indian Universities in ancient times and a foundational influence of Egypt and perhaps Ethiopia on all cultures. This is common sense. Recently they have discovered some writings which are being touted as Jain philosophy, in Ethiopia. Indians of course jump to the conclusion that they went from India to Ethiopia. But it is probably the reverse. There is some evidence that African Historians are working on which claims migration from Ethiopia to India about 4000 years ago.  All of this needs to be established. One cannot simply construct history.

Very interesting, I agree. One of my favorite text is "the question of King Milinda", which is difficult to date. Some think that Milinda was the greek king Menandre (in french, sorry). The text illustrates the existence of some dialog between Greek and India. I like to see that text as an early apparition of the mechanist idea (in the first reply of Arjuna to Milinda). 

But my point is not historical, especially with Plato, which I think try to just open the mind on the different views, and insist mainly on the art of dialog. 

My point is more technical: if we are machine, there is no primary physical reality, only a first person locally sharable infinities of number's "dreams". It makes me say that in Occident, we have to backtrack to Pythagorus and Plato (and the neopythagoreans + the neoplatonists) in the field of (scientific/modest) theology. I appreciate the antique greeks mainly because they do not oppose mysticism and rationalism. 
My feeling, coming from my interest in buddhist mahayana is that in India, there has been always a bigger open-mindness about immaterialism, or, to put it in another way, a bigger skepticism toward the material explanations. India, and China for a long time, seem to not have separated rationalism and religion/theology as much as Europa. But of course, all civilisation has its dark period and witches hunts.

Best,

Bruno




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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 20, 2017, 12:12:51 PM4/20/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Your sense of weak materialism then is a modern notion. If fact these labels taken back to the Presocratics, Plato and Arisstotle really do not make much sense. They are putting the cart before the horse. This is a standard interpretation of Plato that Forms are the only real entities and the rest is illusion. Plato never says that. That is why I want you to quote from Plato where he says that and not use secondary sources as authority. Similar things are said about Sankara but some scholars tell me that this is a misreading of Sankara. Gregory Vlastos has an excellent article on degrees of reality in Plato. Plato does not deny the existence of the physical world or sense experience, it is only they present a different grade of knowledge. In all the Indian ancient schools of philosophy they accept perception as one source of knowledge. Idealism does not appear till quite late in the history of Indian philosophy. Plato was definitely not an idelist. Forms are not mental entities. They are grasped by the mind, not constructed by the Nous. He was a realist because without acknowledging the existence of universals mathematics was not possible. Nominalism  as opposed to realism appeared much later, perhaps inspired by Aristotle but Aristotle was not a nominalist  either.

Priyedarshi 

dear Priyedarshi ,



Priyedarshi 


Hi Bob,



Bruno



Dear Robert,


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscri...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
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/9D286CE0-3847-4642-9306-F51CC5A22206%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 21, 2017, 9:07:55 AM4/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,


On 20 Apr 2017, at 16:42, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Bruno,

Your sense of weak materialism then is a modern notion. If fact these labels taken back to the Presocratics, Plato and Arisstotle really do not make much sense. They are putting the cart before the horse. This is a standard interpretation of Plato that Forms are the only real entities and the rest is illusion.

Yes, I agree. I use that standard interpretation of Plato. In the publications I made that clear, and usually refer only to Plotinus account of Plato, specially his Theaetetus and Parmenides.



Plato never says that. That is why I want you to quote from Plato where he says that and not use secondary sources as authority.


I will no more mention Plato. I do believe that Plotinus is right on Plato, but that does not come from a passage to be quoted, but from the general felling after reading it all, despite some passage could contradict that feeling. My point was not on history of philosophy, but on ideas only. It helps some people to mention Plato, but that is not necessary. 



Similar things are said about Sankara but some scholars tell me that this is a misreading of Sankara. Gregory Vlastos has an excellent article on degrees of reality in Plato. Plato does not deny the existence of the physical world or sense experience,

But sense experience, or sensible reality refer to sense. the weak materialist believe that there is a physical reality even when there is no senses. That is Aristotle position, and why Xeusippes asked Plato to fire Aristotle. Plato is neutral about the fundamental reality, but seem open to the idea that it is not material (god, consciousness, or Pytahgorean numbers, etc.).


it is only they present a different grade of knowledge.

Exactly.


In all the Indian ancient schools of philosophy they accept perception as one source of knowledge. Idealism does not appear till quite late in the history of Indian philosophy.

Really?


Plato was definitely not an idelist. Forms are not mental entities.

That's the point. They would be, the explanation of soul would be circular. But Forms are the real thing, and material form are considered as pale imitation of the eternal non material (and non mental indeed) form. It akin to mathematical realism, or arithmetical realism.




They are grasped by the mind, not constructed by the Nous.

yes, like in the canonical theology of the universal machine/number. We assume the additive and multiplicative structure of the natural numbers, and we can derive logically the existence of the computations. Then the machine explains the appearance of consciousness and matter from the first person statistics on the relative computations. If interested I can explain with more details or give references.



He was a realist because without acknowledging the existence of universals mathematics was not possible.


Absolutely.



Nominalism  as opposed to realism appeared much later, perhaps inspired by Aristotle but Aristotle was not a nominalist  either.

We agree on this. 

Bruno


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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 21, 2017, 3:23:31 PM4/21/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Thanks so much for responding to me in a detailed manner. I am not a scholar of Plato but wrote my PhD thesis on Plato and have been teaching if for quite some time. I am not very happy at all with standard intepretations of Plato. It is a tendency of standard interpretations to stand a philosopher on his head and say the opposite of what he intended. This is the case with what the German Idealists did with Kant. Kant went into depression, I have been told, reading some of their works while he was still alive. But as you said you are not really taking about Plato but what some, like Plotinus, and others understand or misunderstand or distort about Plato. That is fine. 

I am not sure but what you call "weak materialsm" may be similar to what I call "minimal materialism" which is what I find in the Presocratics from Thales to Empedocles. 

As far as Indian philosophy goes, again I am not a scholar but having returned to India for the past 26 years I listen to enough scholars of Indian philosophy. Popular Indian philosophy is dominated by Advaita, and a lot of this is due to Radhakrishnan's affinity to Advaita. But Advaita is almost at the end of the history of Indian philosophy. If we go to the beginning we have the old Vedantic philosophy and Carvaka materialism which challenged it. then other heterodox schools like Buddhism and Jainism emerged. There were also as many atheistic schools as there were theistic schools even through the middle ages, which may not be the case in the west. This actually created more open ended debates in Indian philosophy among schools and also within each school.

Thanks again. I enjoyed reading what you have written.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,



Priyedarshi 

dear Priyedarshi ,


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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/ADE5E185-8F5B-445B-BE6C-9FB7D1397564%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 23, 2017, 6:33:11 PM4/23/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,


On 21 Apr 2017, at 18:26, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Bruno,

Thanks so much for responding to me in a detailed manner. I am not a scholar of Plato but wrote my PhD thesis on Plato and have been teaching if for quite some time. I am not very happy at all with standard intepretations of Plato. It is a tendency of standard interpretations to stand a philosopher on his head and say the opposite of what he intended. This is the case with what the German Idealists did with Kant. Kant went into depression, I have been told, reading some of their works while he was still alive. But as you said you are not really taking about Plato but what some, like Plotinus, and others understand or misunderstand or distort about Plato. That is fine. 

I am not sure but what you call "weak materialsm" may be similar to what I call "minimal materialism" which is what I find in the Presocratics from Thales to Empedocles. 

As far as Indian philosophy goes, again I am not a scholar but having returned to India for the past 26 years I listen to enough scholars of Indian philosophy. Popular Indian philosophy is dominated by Advaita, and a lot of this is due to Radhakrishnan's affinity to Advaita. But Advaita is almost at the end of the history of Indian philosophy. If we go to the beginning we have the old Vedantic philosophy and Carvaka materialism which challenged it. then other heterodox schools like Buddhism and Jainism emerged. There were also as many atheistic schools as there were theistic schools even through the middle ages, which may not be the case in the west. This actually created more open ended debates in Indian philosophy among schools and also within each school.

Thanks again. I enjoyed reading what you have written.

You are welcome. And thanks for the information. To be honest, I often attribute to Plato what some of the participant in the dialog explains the most convincingly to me, when Socrates does not convince me of his usual refutation or critics. For example, Theaetetus defined once knowledge by "true belief". Yet, concerning the digital machines, or numbers, the incompleteness theorem of Gödel refutes Socrates' refutation of Theaetetus. Some scholars believes that Plato identified himself to Socrates, or share his opinion, but I am not sure of this.

The beauty of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic is that we can study the difference between computer science and computer's computer science, and the computers can do that too: it is what I call machine or number theology. The Church-Turing thesis in theoretical computer science  rehabilitates Pythagorus, I think, even if with major difference.
Physical computers are only physical implementation/incarnation of universal numbers, which are exectuted by infinitely many universal numbers, in an out of time, mathematical manner.

I tend to assume only numbers, or notion Church-Turing equivalent, and their relatives dreams (computation + some modalized perspective). Physical realities is when dreams cohere enough to be locally sharable by class of universal numbers.
The additive-multiplicative structure of the numbers defines a universal knower leading to a consciousness flux differentiating on many histories, but able to fuse also through amnesia or dissociative state, and get relative, and less relative, awakening states.

I do not known if any of this is true, but it is made precise and testable through computer science, and somehow, if we abandon the idea that consciousness reduces the wave, quantum mechanics and quantum logic arguably confirm the web of dreams (computation + first person perspective) origin of the physical laws. 


Bruno

PS Lot of work. Absence of comments does not mean lack of interest in the conversation.


What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?

And it is this ...
Existence that multiplied itself
For sheer delight of being
And plunged into numberless trillions of forms
So that it might
Find 
Itself
Innumerably (Aurobindo)



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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 26, 2017, 12:19:03 PM4/26/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the delay as I was off for a couple of days. Plato was more of a journalist of philosophy, presenting all the views up to his time. In the Theaetetus he first rejects the hypothesis that knowledge is simply perception. Then he moves on to identifying knowledge with belief or opinion, but since this would make all false beliefs knowledge, he builds in the qualification of true belief. Now, true belief being knowledge would make knowledge a lucky affair. Plato believes that the notion of knowledge should involve some hard work and that is why the condition of account or justification is added. In mathematics this would be a proof and you know how difficult proofs are to come by. Did Fermat know his last theorem since he could not prove it. Well, he said that he had a proof but did not pen it down before he died. I would say he knew it even if he did not have a proof. And he knew it in a way I could know it even if I can understand and reproduce the proof that has now been found. I have to read your comments on computability more carefully. I tend to agree with you on these. Of course Plato even rejects true account with a belief as being sufficient for knowledge which would eventually lead to Gettier's paper in 1963.

Interestingly in the Meno, earlier than Theaeteus Plato also suggests that knowledge needs a tethering down, a justification or an account. However, for action, which is the main concern of Socrates at least, true belief is sufficient for the knowledge required to perform the morally correct action.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,



Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,


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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/131790CA-6442-4F8E-8D18-4EEA8AC99441%40ulb.ac.be.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Apr 27, 2017, 5:25:43 AM4/27/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Priyedarshi,

On 26 Apr 2017, at 17:43, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

Bruno,

Thanks for the reply and sorry for the delay as I was off for a couple of days. Plato was more of a journalist of philosophy, presenting all the views up to his time. In the Theaetetus he first rejects the hypothesis that knowledge is simply perception. Then he moves on to identifying knowledge with belief or opinion, but since this would make all false beliefs knowledge, he builds in the qualification of true belief. Now, true belief being knowledge would make knowledge a lucky affair. Plato believes that the notion of knowledge should involve some hard work and that is why the condition of account or justification is added.

OK. It is also a way to make knowledge a little less into a lucky affair only--- to avoid Malebranche's "occasionalism".


In mathematics this would be a proof and you know how difficult proofs are to come by.

Yes. But "proof" is only the belief+account. Since Gödel we know that for the sound (correct) machine, provability does entail truth, but only at the level of truth, not at the level of provability. We have the truth of []p -> p, but not, in general (for all p) of []([]p ->p). This is because a machine cannot know that it is correct, and this makes the conjunction with the truth non trivial. That is what make Theaetetus working in the machine or formal context, astonishingly enough. Socrates and Gettier missed this.


Did Fermat know his last theorem since he could not prove it. Well, he said that he had a proof but did not pen it down before he died. I would say he knew it even if he did not have a proof. And he knew it in a way I could know it even if I can understand and reproduce the proof that has now been found. I have to read your comments on computability more carefully. I tend to agree with you on these. Of course Plato even rejects true account with a belief as being sufficient for knowledge which would eventually lead to Gettier's paper in 1963.

Interestingly in the Meno, earlier than Theaeteus Plato also suggests that knowledge needs a tethering down, a justification or an account. However, for action, which is the main concern of Socrates at least, true belief is sufficient for the knowledge required to perform the morally correct action.

OK. I think we agree on this. With the computationalist hypothesis, incompleteness will make all intensional variants of provability obeying different logics. We will have, for the ideally correct machine, with "[]" for the Gödel's  provability ()beweisbar) predicate:

p = truth = the one (god, good)
[]p = provable = belief = the discursive reasoner
[]p & p = the knower

[]p & ~[]~p = the observer (intelligible matter)
[]p & ~[]~p & p = the "feeler" (sensible matter)

That gives 8 "hypostases", not 5, because three of them will obeys different modal logic, at the level of provability. That will be useful to get the "divine intellect", corresponding to the truth *about* the discursive reasoner, and similarly for the intelligible and sensible matter. The knower does not split, and confuse truth and proof, from its own perspective. It can be shown that it defines an intuitionist logic. On p semi-decidable, the matter hypostases can be shown to define quantum logic and intuitionist quantum logic (up to some technical nuances too long to described here).
We might come back on that rather important subject. 

Bruno



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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
Apr 27, 2017, 9:34:45 AM4/27/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,

Again, thanks for your detailed response. I agree with you on truth. I think the truth condition should actually be dropped and could be replaced by approximate truth in most cases. In mathematics as you suggest the situation is different. Truth is always defined under an interpretation I in logic. So, essentially this condition will have to be refined contextually in different domains of knowledge.

I need to look at the last part more closely and research it a bit.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,


Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi,

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

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/6E2E26A1-FCB5-46A6-9A8C-C43770936E5F%40ulb.ac.be.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages