Drawing Water from a Painted Well: Why Science Alone Cannot Quench the Thirst for Truth

45 views
Skip to first unread message

Bhakti Niskama Shanta

unread,
Jul 16, 2025, 2:49:09 AMJul 16
to Online Sadhu Sanga
Drawing Water from a Painted Well: Why Science Alone Cannot Quench the Thirst for Truth
Inline image
Bhakti Niṣkāma Śānta, Ph.D.
President-Sevāite-Āchārya
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Nrisimha Palli, Sri Nabadwaip Dham, West Bengal, India


Dear Shri Sehgal and esteemed members of the group,

Namaskāra.

You have rightly pointed out that modern science is limited by its own methodology: empirical observation and mathematical abstraction. But I would urge a deeper introspection into what that implies. The very attempt to study consciousness, the soul, or God through the lens of modern science — which relies on empirical, quantifiable, and material methodologies — is a categorical error. 

We cannot drink rice, we cannot see music, nor can we taste anger with our tongue. Each domain of experience has its corresponding instruments of access. Trying to use a voltmeter to measure love, or a microscope to detect the soul, is a fundamental methodological blunder. Similarly, placing the Absolute Truth — Śrī Bhagavān — in a laboratory to validate His existence is not scientific humility, but scientistic arrogance.

The most serious error modern scientists make is assuming that everything real must be measurable, and that unmeasurable truths are either "not yet discovered" or "nonexistent." This worldview is epistemologically colonial — it reduces all of reality to the domain of inert matter, while in fact, matter itself cannot exist independent of consciousness. It is consciousness that lends significance, observation, and even existence to matter. Without a knower, there is no meaning to "known."

Spiritual reality, especially as revealed in Gauḍīya Vedānta, is accessed not by microscopes or equations, but by purified consciousness and surrendered heart. The lab of spiritual realization is the heart, and its methodology is śravaṇam, kīrtanam, smaraṇam, and ultimately śaraṇāgati — surrender to the Lord and His bona fide representatives.

It is only when a materialistic scientist becomes a disciple of a genuine Vaiṣṇava Guru, receiving transcendental knowledge in a mood of service and humility, that the higher truths of ātma, Paramātma, and Bhagavān begin to manifest within his purified awareness. This is not hearsay. This is verified epistemology — called śabda-pramāṇa.

As Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura and all our Guru state, the spiritual subject is beyond matter and cannot be perceived through the gross material senses. Only a self-realized soul who has received divine vision from his Guru can comprehend and describe these truths.

The so-called "bridge" between science and spiritual wisdom is not a matter of inventing new hybrid models like DPV~ICRDAM, which attempt to forcibly merge incompatible ontologies. Instead, it is about scientists becoming spiritualists, not by academic speculation, but by transformation of heart and epistemic humility.

Śrī Kṛṣṇa says in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā  (4.34):

tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevayā
upadekṣyanti te jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ

Translation: Approach the seer of truth with humility, inquiry, and service. The self-realized souls will impart knowledge unto you, for they have seen the truth.

Modern science has not even understood the consciousness that watches the instrument. The instrument is blind; it is the observer who sees. But who is the observer? Who is the seer of the seer? That is where science ends and Vedānta begins.

I welcome sincere scientists to transcend their laboratory-bound egos, take shelter of the Guru-paramparā, and taste the nectar of realized truth. Until then, all speculative models — however mathematically elegant — remain like drawing water on a painted well.


On Wednesday, July 16, 2025 at 11:39:43 AM UTC+5:30 vinodse...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All, 

The gap between science and spiritually can't be bridged with the present state of development of science simply due to the fact that science and spiritually study and explore their own respective domains / territories of nature, using their own methodology and protocol. For example, science studies and explores our physical brain/ body, a vast macro physical world, quantum level physical world of 18 fundamental particles and 4 physical force fields as using methodology of 3 pp objective empiricism of mathematical modelling and physical instrumentation. In this methodology the level- power and purity of consciousness of the researcher is immaterial. 

In contrast, spiritually studies and explores Cosmic Consciousness ( CC) / an Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omniknowing( OOO) God, mind, consciousness of human, other sentience, a vast non physical/ astral and causal realm of nature and a large non physical/ astral entities, a large deities- gods and goddesses inhabiting the non physical realm of nature as using the subjective methodology of subjective empiricism of Samaadhi state experiences and other spiritual means where the factor of the level of the consciousness is  a single factor of utmost importance. In spiritually the usual and dominant fools of mathematical modelling and physical instrumentation are not applicable. 

The way gap between a high school  and a PhD student can't be bridged till high school student shall upgrade to the level of PhD similarly gap between science and spiritually can't be bridged till science shall advance further to the levels where it can have mathematical modelled based and empirical knowledge of those non physical realms and that of CC. This does not seems to be feasible in the foreseeable future since with the present state of development of science, leave alone spiritual realms, science is incapable of developing any mathematical explanatory and predictive model even for our ordinary experiences/ state of mind in the normal wakeful state. 

So all efforts by Dr Ram to bridge science and spiritually  thru DPV/ iCDAM are frivolous, wastage of time/ energy since here the objective is an utopia and tool of DPV/ ICDAM is fictitious with its foundational invalidity going down to it's very roots. 

Vinod Sehgal

On Wed, 16 Jul, 2025, 10:46 am RamLakhan Pandey Vimal, <rlpv...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Henry,

Thank you!

Q1. Does it mean that GV=ABAV (Gaudīya Vedanta = Achintya-bedhābheda Vedanta)?

Q2. Radha_Krishna Devine Love is for all sects (Sampradayas), so supporters should follow a non-sectarian approach: Is this correct? If yes, then why is Dr. Shanta so critical about science? Why not try to make a bridge between science and spirituality, similar to what I am trying to do? Any justification?

Best regards,
Ram

On Tuesday, July 15, 2025 at 10:05:57 AM UTC-4 Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta wrote:

Dear Professor Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal:

I hope the following quote can help you with the answer you are looking for:

“However, the philosophy of achintya-bedhābheda-si ddhānta - the axiom of inconceivable simultaneous unity and difference - was illustriously promulgated by the authentic followers of Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu, the Gaudīya Āchāryas Śrīla Visvanātha Chakravarti and Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūşana - eminently faithful to exclusive devotion to the Supreme Lord. Faithful and learned devotees are also inspired by Śrīla Bhaktivinod Thakur's Bengali commentary on Śrī Gītā, realizing that it is an all-harmonious treasure of divine love for Lord Śrī Krsna (Krsna-prema), the fifth and ultimate goal of life, beyond the 4 general goals of religion, wealth, material enjoyment and liberation”.

Bhagavad Gita, The Hidden Treasure of the Absolute Sweetness, by: Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Maharaj
Reference:page 11, preface

With affection, Hariananda das from Spain

El El dom, 13 jul 2025 a las 15:41, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sādhu-Saṅga of Higher Thought <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> escribió:

Dear Shri Das and Dr. Shanta,

 

Thank you for your interest in my research work focused on bridging spirituality and science. This is indeed a challenging endeavor, but together we can strive to connect these two seemingly opposite fields through a non-sectarian approach. Our efforts are a collective undertaking!

 

First, I must gain a comprehensive understanding of Gauḍīya Vedānta (गौड़ीय वेदान्त) before I can address the important constructive critique regarding DPV~ICRDAM’s interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (BS230). Please let us know if we misunderstood the introductory section concerning Gauḍīya Vedānta and its comparison with other subschools of Vedanta, as presented on pages 245-263 (Section 4.3) of the attached document.

 

I have a question: Is Gauḍīya Vedānta the same as Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedanta associated with Chaitanya Mahāprabhu?

 

Thank you once again for your engagement.

 



Cheers!

Best regards,

Ram + ChatGPT (https://chatgpt.com) + Claude.AI  ( Claude ) +  Perplexity.AI  ( https://www.perplexity.ai/ ) + Gemini ( https://gemini.google.com/ ) + Bing ( https://www.bing.com / )

-------------------------------------------------- --------

RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāma ṇ i Professor (Research)  and President
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday 12 July, 2025 at 02:10:17 pm GMT-4, G.C. Das <tila...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bhakti Niskama Shanta <suresh_...@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 3:43:53 PM UTC+5:30
Subject: Gauḍīya Vedāntic Critique of Vimal’s Dual-Aspect Interpretation of Brahma Sūtra
To: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>


Gauḍīya Vedāntic Critique of Vimal’s Interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14
Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.
President-Sevāite-Āchārya, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Nrisimha Palli
Sri Nabadwaip Dham, West Bengal, India: www.scsmathworldwide.com


Creation and Dissolution as Divine Līlā, Not Thermodynamic Reversal
Dr. Rām Lakhan Pandey Vimal’s reinterpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam is widely regarded as the natural commentary on the Brahma Sūtras, also known as the Vedānta Sūtras) through his DPV~ICRDAM-HCC framework attempts to synthesize Vedic cosmology with concepts from thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and information theory. Despite its interdisciplinary appeal, this framework suffers from both scientific misapplications and philosophical deviations, especially when evaluated against the coherent personalist ontology of Vedānta.

I. Incompatibility with Vedāntic Ontology
Vimal proposes that consciousness (s-aspect) and non-subjective physical states (ns-aspect) co-arise from a neutral substrate he terms “Neutral Brahman” (NB). This emergentist view contradicts Vedānta, where consciousness is not emergent or dissolvable but eternally existent. As stated in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā (2.12):

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na chaiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param
Translation: Never was there a time when you, I, or all these kings did not exist. Just as we exist in the present, so have we existed in the past, and shall continue to exist in the future.

The source of consciousness, the ātmā, is imperishable (Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā 2.17).

avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam
vināśam avyayasyāsya na kaśchit kartum arhati
Translation: Know that the soul, by which the entire body is pervaded, is indestructible. No one can destroy the imperishable soul.

It does not revert to a neutral state but remains eternally active, guided by Paramātmā even during pralaya in the mundane reality.

II. Misapplication of Scientific Concepts

1. Entropy and Thermodynamics
Dr. Vimal’s assertion that entropy reverses during cosmic dissolution contradicts a foundational principle of physics: the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In its statistical form, the Second Law states: In a closed system, entropy tends to increase or remain constant; it never spontaneously decreases.

Entropy (S) quantifies the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. As systems evolve toward equilibrium, they traverse from low-probability, high-organization states to high-probability, disorganized states. This transition is inherently irreversible, governed by probabilistic mechanics rather than deterministic forces.

In a thermodynamically isolated system, such as the universe under classical cosmology, time’s arrow is marked by this entropic ascent—toward disorder, uniformity, and energy unavailability. This principle does not accommodate reversal under contraction. Even Roger Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), one of the more speculative models proposing eternal cycles of expansion and contraction, does not claim that entropy decreases. Instead, CCC postulates conformal rescaling, resetting entropy’s reference point without violating its inherent directionality.

Entropy is a statistical quantity, not a cosmic agent. Vimal's language implicitly reifies entropy—as if it chooses or acts. But entropy is not an ontic force or intelligent principle. It is a statistical descriptor, a mathematical function that encodes disorder or multiplicity of microstates. It cannot cause, initiate, or reverse anything by itself. Suggesting that entropy “reverses to initiate dissolution” smuggles teleology into thermodynamics, violating the strict non-intentionality of physical laws.

From a Gauḍīya Vedāntic perspective, the universe is not governed by blind material causality, but by conscious intelligence. Matter is not self-organizing, nor self-dissolving; it is activated by life (jīva) and orchestrated by Paramātmā. This view is affirmed in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.3.2:

seyaṃ devataikṣata hantāhamimāstisro devatā anena jīvenātmanānupraviśya nāmarūpe vyākaravāṇīti
Translation: Having entered these elements as the living self, I shall differentiate them into name and form.

Thus, the dissolution of the universe (pralaya) is not a consequence of entropic pressure but of the withdrawal of divine will—the cessation of Paramātmā’s sustaining glance. The Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā (9.7) affirms:

sarva-bhūtāni kaunteya prakṛtiṁ yānti māmikām
kalpa-kṣaye punas tāni kalpādau visṛjāmy aham
Translation: O son of Kuntī, at the end of the millennium, all beings are merged in the material nature of three modes, which is My external potency; and at the beginning of a new millennium, I make them manifest again.

By attributing cosmic dissolution to a reversal of entropy, Dr. Vimal inverts cause and effect. Conscious will, not thermodynamic processes, governs the universe’s genesis and dissolution. Entropy only describes material dispersion within a system—it does not explain why the system itself arises or ceases.

Biohylogenesis, the Gauḍīya conception, asserts that matter comes from life, not the other way around. The universe arises not from chaos tending toward order (a statistical improbability), nor from mechanical design, but from the whole, living absolute (pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idam), who breathes out and draws back innumerable universes:

yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya
jīvanti loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ
viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
Translation: The masters of innumerable universes (Brahmā and other lords of the mundane worlds) live only as long as the time of one exhalation of Mahā-Viṣṇu. He (Mahā-Viṣṇu) is a plenary portion of that Govinda, the original Supreme Person. I worship that original Lord, Govinda. (Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48)

2. Quantum Consciousness Misinterpretation
There is a widespread misapplication of quantum mechanics in the study of consciousness, and Dr. Vimal’s Dual-Aspect interpretation exemplifies this confusion. Dr. Vimal’s proposal to equate dual-aspect quantum states with consciousness—a claim that the subjective (s-aspect) of experience arises from quantum superpositions—lacks both mathematical rigor and empirical grounding. His invocation of quantum theory to support a metaphysical emergence of subjectivity is neither supported by quantum formalism nor justified by any validated model in physics.

Quantum states are formal objects and not phenomenal agents. In standard quantum mechanics (QM), a system is described by a wavefunction, a complex-valued amplitude encoding the probabilities of measurement outcomes. This function evolves linearly under the Schrödinger equation until a measurement collapses it into an eigenstate of the observable operator. However, (1) the wavefunction has no experiential content. It is a mathematical abstraction used to predict experimental results—not to account for what it is like to be a conscious subject, (2) in all mainstream interpretations—Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, QBism, Relational QM—consciousness is not intrinsic to the quantum formalism and (3) the wavefunction does not explain self-awareness, intentionality, or qualia. There exists no accepted formulation in Hilbert space theory that connects the ontic status of a wavefunction with phenomenal consciousness.

The observer effect in quantum mechanics strictly concerns physical measurement interactions, not metaphysical inquiry. Dr. Vimal appears to conflate this effect with the epistemic subject of conscious experience—a clear category error. Observers in quantum theory are measurement devices or systems, not self-aware minds. Mixing these distinct concepts misrepresents both quantum physics and the philosophy of mind. The observer effect in quantum theory refers to physical interactions between a quantum system and measuring apparatus, leading to decoherence or collapse (depending on interpretation). The “observer” in this context is any physical system capable of information registration (a Geiger counter, photodetector, etc.), not a conscious being. No formulation of QM requires a conscious observer for wavefunction collapse. Even in Wigner’s original proposal, Wigner later abandoned the idea of consciousness causing collapse, favoring environmental decoherence. Thus, invoking QM to justify phenomenological consciousness is unsupported.

Dr. Vimal's ideas lack empirical validation. There is no experimental evidence supporting: (1) the existence of consciousness as a quantum field, (2) a “subjective pole” or “s-aspect” inherent in quantum states, or (3) dual-aspect wavefunction configurations that correspond to introspective awareness. These claims remain speculative and untestable within the current framework of quantum theory, and thus fall outside the bounds of empirical science. Proposals such as Orch-OR (Penrose-Hameroff) remain highly speculative and lack testable predictions or independent verification. Vimal’s Dual-Aspect State theory fares no better; it offers no mathematical framework, no falsifiable criteria, and no peer-reviewed evidence. Hence, it fails both the Popperian standard of falsifiability and the Lakatosian criteria for progressive research programs.

Gauḍīya Vedānta advocates an ontological reversal: consciousness is the origin, not the byproduct of matter. From this standpoint, Dr. Vimal’s model mistakenly inverts causality by positing consciousness as an emergent feature of physical systems. In contrast, Vedānta asserts that cit—pure consciousness—is primordial and self-luminous. As described in foundational texts like the Bhagavad-gītā and Brahma-saṁhitā, consciousness is the ontological basis of both the observer and the observed, sustaining and illuminating the phenomenal world, not arising from it.

viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
(Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48)
Translation: This material world is but a partial manifestation of one of His portion of portion. The original source is the conscious Absolute—Govinda.”

Thus, consciousness is not an emergent aspect of quantum states, but the source of quantum phenomena itself, mediated by the Lord’s agency (māyādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ, Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā  9.10).

Dr. Vimal proposes a misleading symmetry between quantum mechanics (QM) and subjectivity. While QM is a formalism for predicting physical phenomena via probabilistic outcomes, it is entirely silent on inner, qualitative experience. In contrast, Gauḍīya Vedānta offers a coherent ontology: the jīva is an irreducible unit of consciousness, and Paramātmā is the transcendental witness and guide. Attempts to derive consciousness from QM fail because (1) QM models probabilities, not intentional awareness; (2) wavefunction collapse does not involve introspection; and (3) the Schrödinger equation contains no reference to subjective experience.

Therefore, Vimal’s model reveals a fundamental incompatibility with both modern science and Gauḍīya Vedānta. Scientifically, it misrepresents the formalism of quantum mechanics—where no term or mechanism accounts for self-aware subjectivity—and lacks any empirical support. Metaphysically, it inverts the ontological foundation of Vedānta by placing consciousness as a product of material processes, rather than their origin. In Gauḍīya Vedānta, the conscious self (ātmā) is categorically distinct from matter, including quantum fields. Consciousness is not emergent—it is eternal, foundational, and the very basis of all perception and cognition.

To advance a scientific understanding of consciousness, we must move toward a consciousness-centered ontology, where matter is a derivative of life, not the origin of it—a view grounded in both scripture and experiential reason.

3. Lack of Testable Predictions
Scientific models require operational definitions, mathematical formalism, and empirical verifiability. Vimal’s framework lacks all three. Terms like NB, DAS, EII, and HCC stages remain undefined and unmeasurable.

This renders the model speculative and unscientific, misrepresenting both Vedānta and physics.

III. Biohylogenesis: The Consciousness-First Alternative
Gauḍīya Vedānta advocates Biohylogenesis — the principle that matter comes from life, not vice versa. Life is not an emergent property of complex matter but the organizing principle behind material arrangements.

1. Empirical Support for Consciousness-First
Modern science has failed to generate life from non-life (abiogenesis). Living systems consistently organize matter intelligently, as seen in embryogenesis and cellular activity. These functions display purpose and teleology absent in inert matter.

Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā 2.13 affirms the soul's distinct continuity across bodily changes, establishing it as the animating principle:

dehino ’smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati
Translation: As the living being passes through the bodily changes of childhood, youth, and old age, it similarly attains another body at death. The wise are not deluded by this.

2. Irreducibility of Consciousness
Material science cannot explain qualia, moral judgment, or volition. The “hard problem” of consciousness remains unsolved. Gauḍīya Vedānta identifies consciousness with the eternal jīva, not neural or quantum patterns.

3. Karma and Memory Are Not Physical Templates
Vimal posits that karmic imprints are stored in NB as informational templates. There is no mechanism in physics to preserve such metaphysical data. Gauḍīya Vedānta teaches that memory and karma are preserved in the jīva, regulated by the omniscient Paramātmā.

Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā 15.15:

sarvasya chāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭho
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanañ cha
vedaiś cha sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva chāham
Translation: I am situated (as the Supersoul) within the heart of all souls, and from Me arises the soul’s remembrance, knowledge, and forgetfulness (according to his actions). I alone am the Sweet Absolute to be known through all the Vedas. I am the revealer of the Vedānta—Vedavyās, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

IV. Personal Agency and Līlā in Creation and Dissolution
In Gauḍīya Vedānta, the universe is not a mechanical system but the dynamic manifestation of Bhagavān’s līlā. Creation and dissolution occur by His will:

mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-charācharam
hetunānena kaunteya jagad viparivartate
Translation: O Kaunteya, ordained by Me, My illusory potency produces this universe of moving and stationary beings. Thus it is manifest over and over again. (Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā 9.10)

sūta uvāca
jagṛhe pauruṣaṁ rūpaṁ
bhagavān mahad-ādibhiḥ
sambhūtaṁ ṣoḍaśa-kalam
ādau loka-sisṛkṣayā
(Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.3.1)
Translation: Sūta said: In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the puruṣa incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action. This was for the purpose of creating the material universes.

The process described in Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 refers to a conscious reversal of creation, not thermodynamic regression. The Śrī Brahma-saṁhitā (5.48) explains how all universes emerge and dissolve with the breathing of Mahā-Viṣṇu:

yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya
jīvanti loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ
viṣṇur mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
Translation: The masters of innumerable universes (Brahmā and other lords of the mundane worlds) live only as long as the time of one exhalation of Mahā-Viṣṇu. He (Mahā-Viṣṇu) is a plenary portion of that Govinda, the original Supreme Person. I worship that original Lord, Govinda.

This is not symbolic entropy, but personal volition.

V. Rejection of Depersonalized Metaphysics
Vimal’s model replaces Bhagavān with a neutral, impersonal force, yet paradoxically attributes it with memory and teleology. Teleology without agency is incoherent. Only a conscious being can direct cosmic order meaningfully.

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.87.2: 

śrī-śuka uvāca
buddhīndriya-manaḥ-prāṇān
janānām asṛjat prabhuḥ
mātrārthaṁ ca bhavārthaṁ ca
ātmane ’kalpanāya ca
Translation: Śukadeva Gosvamī said: The Supreme Lord manifested the material intelligence, senses, mind and vital air of the living entities so that they could indulge their desires for sense gratification, take repeated births to engage in fruitive activities, become elevated in future lives and ultimately attain liberation.


VI. Conclusion: Reclaiming the Bhāgavata Paradigm
Gauḍīya Vedānta presents a theistic and scientifically compatible ontology. It posits consciousness as the basis of all reality, life as the source of organization, and the universe as a manifestation of divine play. The attempt to recast these truths in the language of entropy and quantum metaphors, as seen in DPV~ICRDAM, only leads to confusion and philosophical dilution.

Let us reject models that attempt to replace the Supreme Person with impersonal constructs. The origin, maintenance, and dissolution of the cosmos are eternally and joyfully conducted by Bhagavān, not by entropy or quantum fluctuations.


On Saturday, July 12, 2025 at 9:01:31 AM UTC+5:30 rlpv...@gmail.com wrote:

Dear All,

 

In this post, we present an Overarching Conclusion of the important Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (BS230): The process of dissolution of the elements is in the reverse order from that of manifestation/creation. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights, please refer to pages 110-203 (attached).

 

We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.


8. Overarching Conclusion: DPV~ICRDAM–HCC Reconstructs the Dissolution Principle of BS230

The interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (BS230)—"Dissolution proceeds in the reverse order of creation"—finds revolutionary reinterpretation through the DPV~ICRDAM + HCC framework, reconciling classical Vedantic cosmology with modern entropy dynamics, quantum field theory, and dual-aspect consciousness studies. This synthesis reveals twelve foundational tenets:

1. Principle of Reverse Dissolution is Ontologically Sound

BS230 affirms a causal logic: the last created (grossest) dissolves first, and the first created (subtlest) dissolves last. This pattern reflects natural phenomena, from clay returning from pots to stars collapsing into energy fields (Śivānanda, 2002).

2. Śaṅkarācārya’s Nondual Return:

Advaita teaches that dissolution involves complete absorption into Nirguṇa Brahman, the attributeless, nondual reality. Reverse order is a hierarchical undoing of manifestation, restoring pure unity (Śaṅkarācārya, 1904).

3. Rāmānujācārya’s Qualified Retention:

Viśiṣṭādvaita preserves individual identity in subtle form during dissolution. The return is not annihilation but a shift to latent potential within Brahman. SB(realized) is co-reflected in NB(potential) as dual-aspect states of the same reality (Rāmānujācārya, 1904).

4. Śivānanda’s Bridging View:

Śivānanda links spiritual insights with analogies and observations—stairs, pots, evaporation—showing the deep symmetry of universal cycles (Śivānanda, 2002). His interpretation connects practical life with spiritual law.

5. Scientific Resolution via DPV~ICRDAM:

The dual-aspect framework posits that all manifest entities are dual-aspect states (DASs)—with inseparable subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects. Dissolution is the reversal of DASic configurations into neutral potential within NB (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2025a).

6. HCC Maps BS230 to Entropy Cycles:

Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) encodes seven thermodynamic stages from pre-Big Bang neutrality (S1) to Big Bang, cosmic expansion, heat death (S5), and return to neutral NB (S7) (Vimal, 2025b, §4.2.8). BS230 aligns with this cosmic reversal sequence, where dissolution mirrors evolution in perfect inverse.

7. Entropy Reversal Supports Recursion:

Entropy is maximal at dissolution (S5) and systematically decreases during S6–S7, allowing return to a minimum-entropy, potential-rich NB. This refutes the assumption that entropy can only increase, replacing linear thermodynamics with cyclic entropy logic (Penrose, 2013; Vimal, 2025b).

8. Information Templates Survive Pralaya:

During dissolution, individual consciousness patterns (ADSs), CSEs, and Mahābhūtas revert to informational-energy templates (tanmātras or EII) within DA_UF—preserved, not erased (Vimal, 2024a, 2025a).

9. Cosmic Memory Enables Rebirth:

These stored patterns in NB (S1) become seed templates for future manifestation cycles, ensuring continuity across universes. Mokṣa is possible if karmic patterns are resolved before pralaya; otherwise, rebirth resumes per unresolved karmas (Vimal, 2025a).

10. Consciousness is Never Lost:

Even in dissolution, consciousness (as s-aspect) does not vanish but becomes deactivated and reflective in neutral NB—never ontologically destroyed (Vimal, 2023; 2024b).

11. Ethics and Cosmology are Coherent:

BS230 is not just cosmological—it’s ethical. Mokṣa aligns with the natural tendency to dissolve, ethically encouraged by yogic and dharmic living. Right action accelerates return to NB (Vimal, 2025a).

12. From Metaphor to Mechanism:

BS230’s metaphysical model is no longer just allegory. Through DPV~ICRDAM + HCC, it becomes a mechanistic law of quantum reversal, entropy dynamics, and cosmic memory—bridging Vedānta, physics, and consciousness research.

13. Final Insight:

BS230 reveals a recursive truth: creation and dissolution are mirrored arcs in the spiral of existence. The cosmic stair ascended in manifestation is descended in reverse through dissolution, back to the neutral silence of NB. The DPV~ICRDAM synthesis unlocks this insight for both science and spirituality—offering ontological precision, metaphysical elegance, and ethical clarity.



Cheers!

Best regards,

Ram + ChatGPT (https://chatgpt.com) + Claude.AI  ( Claude ) +  Perplexity.AI  ( https://www.perplexity.ai/ ) + Gemini ( https://gemini.google.com/ ) + Bing ( https://www.bing.com / )

-------------------------------------------------- --------

RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāma ṇ i Professor (Research)  and President
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


--
---------------------------
Join Dialogue between Vedanta and Science Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vaz1goS5EjxsmbIcVh00
 
If you would like to support our efforts and activities, you may kindly do so through the following link: https://scsmathworldwide.com/donation.html
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:

Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta

unread,
Jul 16, 2025, 5:05:09 AMJul 16
to Sādhu-Saṅga of Higher Thought

ALL GLORIES TO SRI SRI GURU AND GAURANGA

Beloved Gurudev Srila Niskama Shanta Maharaj: Dandavats Pranams

I have read with great attention and pleasure the beautiful and profound writing about the impossibility of material science being able to explain spiritual matters since they do not fall within its scope of action. You have presented compelling analogies as powerful arguments that support your dissertation.

I would like to share this brief reflection with everyone as a sign of support for what you have written and expressed so beautifully:

Science, as a method of studying and understanding the natural world, is based on observation, experimentation, and the empirical verification of hypotheses and theories. However, when it comes to concepts such as the soul and God, which belong to more spiritual, philosophical, and theological realms, science faces internal limits within its own method. As philosopher Karl Popper points out, "Science is a system of hypotheses that are subject to testing and can be falsified" (Popper, 1934).

This implies that science focuses on what is observable, measurable, and quantifiable in the physical world. The soul and God, in many philosophical and religious traditions, are considered entities or concepts that transcend the material realm and are not directly observable or measurable through empirical scientific methods.

Science is very beautiful and valuable, but it has its limits:

- Science focuses on what is observable, measurable, and quantifiable in the physical world. The soul and God, in many philosophical and religious traditions, are considered entities or concepts that transcend the material realm and are not directly observable or measurable through empirical scientific methods.

 - As philosopher and theologian William Alston says, "Religious experience is not something that can be reduced to purely natural or scientific terms" (Alston, 1991). This suggests that the nature of the soul and the existence of God are topics that have been addressed in more complex ways by philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

Albert Einstein, one of the most influential physicists of the 20th century, expressed reflections on the relationship between science, religion, and the search for truth. In a 1954 letter to a rabbi, Einstein wrote: "My religion consists in a humble admiration of the Higher and Limitless Spirit, which reveals itself in the smallest details that we are able to perceive with our fragile and weak mind" (Einstein, 1954). This quote shows Einstein's perspective on spirituality and the search for truth in relation to science.

The mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose has commented on the limits of science in relation to consciousness and the understanding of reality: "Consciousness is an aspect of reality that we cannot fully explain by means of current physics" (Penrose, 1989).

- Science has always attempted to explain immaterial aspects with material methods, which is evidently illogical and a mistake that even a child can perceive. However, the ego of scientists blinds them to reality, and together with the servile and deceptive media, today science has become a kind of religion, and scientists its priests. Everything they say must be accepted as SACRED WORD, which the population must accept without question. I believe that today we can clearly speak of a religion called Science, with scientists assuming the role of priests and the sleeping, ashamed, and manipulated population as their faithful followers and disciples. Personally, I am not aligned with this fanatical religion called contemporary science, and I am very sorry if my words hurt the ego of any reader. But I have always been direct and sincere with what I feel, and that is why I express myself directly without using politically correct or diplomatic words.

- Some scientists and thinkers have attempted to address topics such as consciousness, spirituality, or even the existence of God using scientific methods. However, these attempts often generate debates about the limits of science and the suitability of its methods for addressing concepts that may be inherently non-empirical or transcendental. As neuroscientist Francisco Varela notes, “Science cannot capture the totality of human experience, especially with regard to spirituality and consciousness” (Varela, 1999). Biologist and Nobel Laureate Francis Crick also highlighted the complexity of studying consciousness: “Consciousness is a very difficult problem, and I am not sure we will solve it soon” (Crick, 1994).

Theoretical physicist Niels Bohr emphasized the importance of considering the limits of description in physics: “The description of nature is not a simple task, and we must be aware of the limits of our methods” (Bohr, 1958).

-The Science of the Soul falls outside the scope of action and research of Materials Science, as Srila Govinda Maharaj said: “God breeds them, and they gather together.” In other words, we cannot mix things that will never mix like oil and water, and anyone who attempts this task is destined to fail because: The concept of "science of the soul" is problematic from an empirical scientific perspective, since the soul, as a spiritual or immaterial entity, does not fit the criteria of study of the natural sciences. Spirituality and beliefs about the soul are most often addressed in religious, philosophical, and personal contexts.

 

References - Alston, W. P. (1991). Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cornell University Press.

 - Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge. Wiley.

- Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. Scribner.

 - Einstein, A. (1954). Letter to Eric Gutkind. Quoted in "The Expanded Quotable Einstein," edited by Alice Calaprice.

 - Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: On Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.

- Popper, K. (1934). The Logic of Scientific Research. Tecnos Publishing.

 - Varela, F. J. (1999) Ethical Know-How: Action,Wisdom and Cognition. Stanford University Press

 

With love and affection, Hariananda das from Spain, 

Student under the tutelage of His Holiness Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj. 

Hare Krishna 🙏

e w

unread,
Jul 17, 2025, 1:03:14 AMJul 17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
The Avesta says otherwise.

It warns us of the dregvant worshippers of the evil devas, whose every honeyed word is a lie and who cannot see the truth even if their life depended on it, because they have been so thoroughly misled by Indra, the enemy of all truth.


Am Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2025 um 11:04:23 MESZ hat Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta <hariana...@gmail.com> Folgendes geschrieben:


ALL GLORIESTO SRI SRI GURU AND GAURANGA

BelovedGurudev Srila Niskama Shanta Maharaj: Dandavats Pranams

I have readwith great attention and pleasure the beautiful and profound writing about theimpossibility of material science being able to explain spiritual matters sincethey do not fall within its scope of action. You have presented compellinganalogies as powerful arguments that support your dissertation.

I wouldlike to share this brief reflection with everyone as a sign of support for whatyou have written and expressed so beautifully:

Science, asa method of studying and understanding the natural world, is based onobservation, experimentation, and the empirical verification of hypotheses andtheories. However, when it comes to concepts such as the soul and God, whichbelong to more spiritual, philosophical, and theological realms, science facesinternal limits within its own method. As philosopher Karl Popper points out,"Science is a system of hypotheses that are subject to testing and can befalsified" (Popper, 1934).

Thisimplies that science focuses on what is observable, measurable, andquantifiable in the physical world. The soul and God, in many philosophical andreligious traditions, are considered entities or concepts that transcend thematerial realm and are not directly observable or measurable through empiricalscientific methods.

Science isvery beautiful and valuable, but it has its limits:

- Sciencefocuses on what is observable, measurable, and quantifiable in the physicalworld. The soul and God, in many philosophical and religious traditions, areconsidered entities or concepts that transcend the material realm and are notdirectly observable or measurable through empirical scientific methods.

 - As philosopher and theologian William Alstonsays, "Religious experience is not something that can be reduced to purelynatural or scientific terms" (Alston, 1991). This suggests that the natureof the soul and the existence of God are topics that have been addressed inmore complex ways by philosophy, theology, and spirituality.

AlbertEinstein, one of the most influential physicists of the 20th century, expressedreflections on the relationship between science, religion, and the search fortruth. In a 1954 letter to a rabbi, Einstein wrote: "My religion consistsin a humble admiration of the Higher and Limitless Spirit, which reveals itselfin the smallest details that we are able to perceive with our fragile and weakmind" (Einstein, 1954). This quote shows Einstein's perspective onspirituality and the search for truth in relation to science.

Themathematician and physicist Roger Penrose has commented on the limits ofscience in relation to consciousness and the understanding of reality:"Consciousness is an aspect of reality that we cannot fully explain bymeans of current physics" (Penrose, 1989).

- Sciencehas always attempted to explain immaterial aspects with material methods, whichis evidently illogical and a mistake that even a child can perceive. However,the ego of scientists blinds them to reality, and together with the servile anddeceptive media, today science has become a kind of religion, and scientistsits priests. Everything they say must be accepted as SACRED WORD, which thepopulation must accept without question. I believe that today we can clearlyspeak of a religion called Science, with scientists assuming the role ofpriests and the sleeping, ashamed, and manipulated population as their faithfulfollowers and disciples. Personally, I am not aligned with this fanaticalreligion called contemporary science, and I am very sorry if my words hurt theego of any reader. But I have always been direct and sincere with what I feel,and that is why I express myself directly without using politically correct ordiplomatic words.

- Somescientists and thinkers have attempted to address topics such as consciousness,spirituality, or even the existence of God using scientific methods. However,these attempts often generate debates about the limits of science and thesuitability of its methods for addressing concepts that may be inherentlynon-empirical or transcendental. As neuroscientist Francisco Varela notes,“Science cannot capture the totality of human experience, especially withregard to spirituality and consciousness” (Varela, 1999). Biologist and NobelLaureate Francis Crick also highlighted the complexity of studyingconsciousness: “Consciousness is a very difficult problem, and I am not sure wewill solve it soon” (Crick, 1994).

Theoreticalphysicist Niels Bohr emphasized the importance of considering the limits ofdescription in physics: “The description of nature is not a simple task, and wemust be aware of the limits of our methods” (Bohr, 1958).

-TheScience of the Soul falls outside the scope of action and research of MaterialsScience, as Srila Govinda Maharaj said: “God breeds them, and they gathertogether.” In other words, we cannot mix things that will never mix like oiland water, and anyone who attempts this task is destined to fail because: Theconcept of "science of the soul" is problematic from an empiricalscientific perspective, since the soul, as a spiritual or immaterial entity,does not fit the criteria of study of the natural sciences. Spirituality andbeliefs about the soul are most often addressed in religious, philosophical,and personal contexts.

 

References - Alston, W. P. (1991). PerceivingGod: The Epistemology of Religious Experience. Cornell University Press.

 - Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic Physics and HumanKnowledge. Wiley.

- Crick, F.(1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul.Scribner.

 - Einstein, A. (1954). Letter to Eric Gutkind.Quoted in "The Expanded Quotable Einstein," edited by AliceCalaprice.

 - Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind:On Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press.

- Popper,K. (1934). The Logic of Scientific Research. Tecnos Publishing.

 - Varela, F. J. (1999) Ethical Know-How:Action,Wisdom and Cognition. Stanford University Press

 

With loveand affection, Hariananda das from Spain, 

Student under the tutelage of HisHoliness Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj. 

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
 
Idols of the Mind vs. True Reality
https://www.amazon.com/Idols-Mind-vs-True-Reality/dp/1734908955
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Narashimapalli, Nabadwip Dham, West Bengal, India
https://scsmathworldwide.com
 
Contact Us: https://scsmathworldwide.com/contact.html
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sādhu-Saṅga of Higher Thought" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/96a6a2d1-1f17-40bb-8fff-5b57078e4c80n%40googlegroups.com.

Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta

unread,
Jul 17, 2025, 5:12:17 AMJul 17
to Sādhu-Saṅga of Higher Thought

Dear Evelyn,

First of all, thank you for your sincere participation in this wonderful philosophical and scientific discussion group. Regarding what you have expressed.

I would like to share some thoughts, in order to try to understand Zoroaster in a very general way:

Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, was a prophet and religious reformer from ancient Iran (Persia). He is considered the founder of Zoroastrianism, one of the world's oldest religions that still has followers today. Zoroaster was a historical and legendary figure who probably lived between 1500 and 1000 BC in eastern Iran (Boyce, 1975).

His teachings, known as Zoroastrianism, advocate the existence of a Supreme God called Ahura Mazda, who is the source of all good. He emphasizes the struggle between good (represented by Ahura Mazda) and evil (represented by Angra Mainyu). Zoroaster is known for his teachings on the importance of truth, justice, and morality, and the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism are found in the Avesta as a foundational text. As Mary Boyce points out, "Zoroastrianism is one of the world's oldest religions with a lasting influence on the history of religious ideas" (Boyce, 1975).

Now, the terms Devas and Asuras are mentioned in both the Avesta and the Vedas, but they are different traditions. Although they may have a common point somewhere long lost in the mists of time, it is good to know these differences:

 In both the Avesta (Zoroastrianism) and the Vedas (the Vedic tradition of India), the terms "deva" and "asura" are mentioned, as I have already mentioned, but with different meanings and connotations in each tradition. In the Vedas, "devas" are benevolent demigods or divine beings, while "asuras" can have both positive and negative connotations depending on the context, but are sometimes considered a class of demonic beings. In the Avesta, "daevas" (equivalent to "deva" in Sanskrit) are considered evil entities, followers of lies, and opposed to Ahura Mazda, the Supreme God. As Gherardo Gnoli points out, "the daevas in Zoroastrianism represent the forces of evil opposed to the divinity of Ahura Mazda" (Gnoli, 2000). On the other hand, "ahuras" (related to "asura" in Sanskrit) are entities associated with truth and justice in the context of Zoroastrianism.

In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, devotion to Sri Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead is emphasized, and devas are considered servants of the Supreme Lord in the context of Vaishnava cosmology (Srila Prabhupada, 1972).

In the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 16, verse 6), the distinction between the divine nature (deva) and the demonic nature (asura) is described:

 "द्वौ भूतसर्गौ लोकेऽस्मिन् दैव आसुर एव च | दैवो विस्तरशः प्रोक्त आसुरं पार्थ मे शृणु ||"

("There are two kinds of created beings in this world: the divine and the demonic. I have explained the divine to you at length; now hear from me about the demonic, O son of Pritha.")

Furthermore, in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 7, verse 20), it is mentioned that all beings, including devas and asuras, are under the influence of Krishna's energy:

 "कामैस्तैस्तैर्हृतज्ञानाः प्रप, माम् उपयान्ति ते |"

 ("Those whose wisdom has been stolen by such desires approach me.")

Here, Sri Krishna presents Himself as the Supreme Goal for all beings.

 Once these topics are understood, the question arises:

Is it possible to compare these terms and use them in a common way, explaining an aspect of one tradition using the terms of another?

Although this approach may be viable and interesting, it is actually confusing due to the differences in the meanings of these terms between Vedic philosophy and Zoroastrian culture.

As I mentioned earlier, in Zoroastrianism, "daevas" are evil entities opposed to Ahura Mazda, while in Vedic philosophy, "devas" are gods or benevolent divine beings. Therefore, using the terms "Deva" and "Asura" with their Zoroastrian meanings to explain Vedic philosophy could lead to misinterpretations or a conflation of concepts that do not align with the original Vedic tradition.

 In Vedic philosophy, devas are an integral part of the cosmos and are considered divine beings with specific roles in maintaining cosmic order (rita). Applying the negative connotation of "daeva" from Zoroastrianism to the Vedic "devas" would be inaccurate.

I hope this brief reflection has been helpful in shedding light on the subject of Devas and Asuras.

With affection, Hariananda das,

Student of His Holiness Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj

Hare Krishna

 Bibliographical references:

 - Boyce, M. (1975). A History of Zoroastrianism. Leiden: Brill.

- Gnoli, G. (2000). Zoroaster in History. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press.

 - Srila Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (1972). Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages