Dvaita-Advaita Discussion
V Subrahmanian
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Respected Vidwans,
Unfortunately, both Dvaita and Avdaita (and other sub-schools of VedAnta) have serious problems as elaborated in Section 4.2 of (Vimal, 2012).
The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita has the least number of problems as discussed in Section 5.1 of (Vimal, 2012).
Comments are most welcome to my email ID rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Ram
9-July-2016
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
sk
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:59:40 AM UTC-4, V Subrahmanian wrote:
sk
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
In Madhvāchārya’s Dvaita school of Vedānta (Sharma, 1986, 2000), there is a strict distinction (i) between God (Brahman)[i] and individual souls (jīvas), (ii) among individual souls, (iii) between God and matter, (iv) between soul and matter, and (v) among various types of matter. These five differences make up the universe (prapancha).[ii] The relationship of Brahman, jīva, and matter (jagat) are summarized in Table 1 of the e-book (Vimal, 2012).
How do we define God (Brahman) and matter? If we define God as non-material entity and matter as non-experiential entity, question arise about the relationship/interaction between them.
If we assume as Sāṃkhya does, then there are two independently existing fundamental entities: (i) non-material entity Puruṣa and (ii) non-experiential entity Prakṛti. In this case, some of the 8 problems of Interactive Substance Dualism (ISD) (Section 2.4) apply even though Sāṃkhya is little different from ISD. The non-material Puruṣa, and the causal (kāran jagat) and astral bodies (sukshma jagat) of Prakṛti are all included in the western term ‘mind’. The non-experiential physical bodies (sthūla jagat) of Prakṛti are part of western non-experiential ‘matter’.
If we assume monism such as Śankarāchārya’s Adavita or idealism, where non-material God/Brahman is the fundamental entity and matter somehow arise from it, then we have problem of Idealism (Section 2.3): how non-experiential matter-in-itself arise from non-material God/Brahman.
Therefore, the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is the least problematic metaphysics (Section 2.5). An updated version that has 5 components is summarized in (Vimal, 2015) and briefly in the Endnote[iii] (see below).
[i] In my view, the term, ‘Brahman’ has multiple meanings:
(1a) One interpretation of Brahman for some is Sat-cit-ānanda, where Sat = creation or manifested universe, Cit = creator, and ānanda = pure joy (personal communication with Critique1 in January-March 2011). However, the doctrine of ‘neti-neti’ suggests that Brahman has no attribute!
(1b) Alternative meaning for some investigators is Sat = truth, Cit = consciousness-as-such, and ānanda = bliss, which are the subjective experiences at samādhi state for ultimate reality, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat-cit-ananda).
(2) For some, ‘Brahman’ is not ‘monism’ as some in the west and some Indian scholars characterize; the only statement is ‘Brahman is’, there is no qualifier or equivalence. The term Brahman is a concept; it is singular; it is neuter; it is all-pervasive; it has no origin and no manifestation; it just exists (personal communication with Critique1 in January-March 2011).
(3) Therefore, in my view, the conceptual entity ‘Brahman’ can be used by both theists (as God) and atheists (as a fundamental dual-aspect entity from which universes including us with mind and matter arise via co-evolution).
(3a) For theists, Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe; the nature of Brahman is described as transpersonal, personal, and impersonal by different philosophical schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman).
(3b) For the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework, the term Brahman is a dual-aspect monistic entity with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities. At its unmanifested state, Brahman is the fundamental primal dual-aspect entity, which is also called kāran (causal) Brahman from which universe(s) arises. There are innumerable manifested state of Brahman, which are called kārya (active, effects) Brahman.
Advaita is a monistic system of thought and refers to the identity of the Self (Ātman) and the Whole (Brahman) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita). Viśiṣṭādvaita is a non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists; Brahman is both the cause and the effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viśiṣṭādvaita), which implies the doctrine of ‘All (mental and material entities) in One (Brahman) and One in All’. Thus, for me, the mental aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman can cause all mental entities and its physical aspect can cause material entities without category mistake. Since aspects are inseparable, a physical manifestation automatically, faithfully and rigorously entails the related mental manifestation and vice-versa. Since Brahman is both cause and effect, every entity including us, fermions, and bosons are Brahman and vice-versa.
Critique1: Consciousness is not a Vedic term, vijnāna is. In the attempt to find a God mapping through the vedānta, the road has been distorted. Some of the late Indians accept things passively with little thinking (hence the phrase “mechanical brain”). Vedas (specially vedānta) were done and are meant for “active” analysis. Each word is formed with contemplation and carries its meaning. jnāna is always unknown and not perceptual. Hence, the difficulty of discovering rules through the known rules, and the application of meditation for discovering unknown. “Sat” is physical, but satyam is a concept. We “use” our senses to perceive sat, we “block” our senses to realize satyam, so the phrase satyam brahma(n).
Possibly I should added that sat, cit and ānanda are not attributes and [hence Brahman is consistent with the doctrine of ‘neti neti’ (not this, not that)]. Attributes are what we can conceive, and these “objects” we can only realize and can't express. We are writing limited by our words, that's the essence of the theory. There is no “Creator” in this, but an extrapolation that a “creation” happened, because we exist. From “here”, we go “there”, and “there” is inconceivable and we describe what we think! It's thrilling if you examine, it's open-ended and hence powerful! Sound is important, no word exists, it's all sound (nāda and dhvani!)
Author: Yes, we are “here” and we want to find out our origin. But, do we need God for that? The reproductive process is enough. If we want, we can call God as a Big Bag of all the processes related to Generation, Operation (maintenance), and Destruction (annihilation). Yes, Gītā (before 3000 BC) is very informative and tell us how to live, but it can be made better if we implement over 5000 years of researches in it. Since mind is evolving, so today’s minds are more evolved compared to our ancestors; our children are smarter than we are. We do not have to be rigid on old stuff. We need to move on with time; otherwise, time will leave us behind. New knowledge needs to update old knowledge.
Critique1: You are always free to find new things and that's vedānta. It's a metaphysical concept, not a physical one. Questions like: does mind exist and where we go after death or where genes come from are the inquiries and not how our eyes see objects. Once we have a theory of mind and a theory for life and death, vedānta may die. It just gives a bridge between the known and unknown. When we make effort to map vedānta to a theistic or atheistic world we get into trouble. If anyone has a full cosmology of his/her “being”, the person does not need a theory. I do see most people think partially and that's where I get fascinated with the Vedas. Any closed theory is not knowledge and most live there. Ask yourself what's the cause of gravitation, and why not the reverse, or in phases? One should mediate hard and then develop a theory. Jnāna is internal and not external. Knowledge gives you happiness, jnāna gives you thrill!
Author: I agree. In addition, if the dual-aspect monism is implemented in Vedānta, as the Dvi-Pakṣa-Advaita, it will be significant accomplishment because it will address the problems of the built-in interactive substance dualism of Gītā, Sāṃkhya, Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita, and it will be closer to science.
[ii] See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Madhvacharya .
[iii] The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta) is a middle way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The eDAM is elaborated in (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015f, 2015g), an e-book (Vimal, 2012b) for Hinduism and another e-book (Vimal, 2012a) for other religions.
In the (eDAM), a state of our mind-brain system has inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (such as subjective experience redness when a trichomat looks at a ripe tomato) and 3pp-physical aspects (such as brain’s visual area V8-neural-network and its activities related to redness). The degree of the manifestation of aspects from primal entity (Brahman) varies with the level of states of our mind-brain system. [1pp: 1st person perspective and 3pp: 3rd pp]. We have assumed that, in Nature, the subjective experiences potentially co-exist with its inseparable physical aspect. Here, the 1pp-mental aspect consists of superposed potential basis-states related to the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) representing the co-existence of the potentiality of experiences for us. A specific SE is realized by the matching and selection mechanism (see below). In other words, there are two robust reproducible sources of information 1pp and 3pp in our wakeful conscious life; this is empirical data that we need to explain how are they linked. In the eDAM, the doctrine of inseparability of aspects tightly links these two sources of data.
The eDAM uses dual-mode and the matching and selection mechanisms to connect qualia/subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) to neurons: this is discussed in (Vimal, 2010). Briefly, there are two modes: stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-extrinsic-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-intrinsic-mode. They interact for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience occurs and experienced by the self (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007).
For experiencing a specific SE, there are three major interacting signals: (i) stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signals, (ii) stimuli-related-memory-dependent cognitive feedback (FB) signals, and (iii) self-related signal that is a part of reentrant FB signals. The potential SEs are embedded as memory traces in FB signals during developmental period.
The self (a) is the subjective experience of subject (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007), (b) consists of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical-self (Damasio, 2010), and (c) is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of ‘self-related neural network (such as cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures: (Northoff, 2014; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004)) and its activities (intrinsic activities).
The matching/interaction is between FF and FB signals (or mode if we use QED); then the self-related signals/modes interact with the resultant signal/mode representing the matching between stimulus-related FF signal/mode and cognitive FB signals/mode; thus, there are interactions between the three major signals/modes; this interactive process can be called as ‘the specific SE is selected and experienced by the self’.
The eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is NOT interactive substance dualism that has many problems. The physical aspect of a state of an entity includes both its appearance and its intrinsic nature (entity-in-itself).
The 3pp-appearance of matter (such as color related V8-NN and its activities) and matter-in-itself (such as V8-NN-in-itself) are inseparable and are parts of physical aspect of a state of an entity (such as V8-NN for color). This physical aspect is inseparable with 1pp-mental aspect (such as the experience redness when a trichromat views a ripe-tomato) of the same state of the same entity (such as V8-NN for color). Therefore, the eDAM is a monist framework because of the doctrine of inseparability. In dualism, aspects and/or sub-aspects are separable, for example, mind and matter can exist independently but they can interact; this metaphysics has serious problems.
In any case, we cannot ignore 99.99… % of our universe that we cannot ‘see’ or we do not know; they are also the manifestation of primal entity. I completely agree with idealists that all sciences and philosophy and everything we do in daily lives are in wakeful consciousness in mind-dependent reality (MDR).
We, as physicists, usually make models (such as relativity, QM, string theory, Standard Model such as mass, charge, spin of 17 elementary particles, QFT and so on) in MDR and assume that they are for mind-independent reality (MIR) once we have some consensus. We do not know the intrinsic nature of matter-in-itself (although we have postulated mass, charge, spin of 17 elementary particles as their intrinsic nature) and consciousness-in-itself (Universal potential Consciousness: UpC), but we try our best in MDR to assume they might be for MIR. We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized (Hameroff, email communication on 3/6/16) as excitations of UpC, in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of quantum field.
In my view, fundamental reality is dual-aspect potential field from which both physical and mental aspects co-arise, co-evolve and co-develop and they co-exist and are inseparable; same reality but with two inseparable aspects: mental and physical.
One could argue that what ways the doctrine of inseparability different from the identity theory, eliminativism, emergentism of materialism.
Materialists want to either eliminate experiences or try to create experiences from non-experiential matter (such as brain). Thus, they have serious problem: how can they eliminate experiences when they are the main source of empirical reproducible 1pp-data? Or how can they create experiences from non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of experience. The identity theory and emergentism of materialism have serious problem simply because their matter is non-experiential. An analogy: there is no way we can create oranges from apple seeds that do not have a single trace of orange.
In the eDAM, we use alternative definition of matter that has potentiality of experiences and framed it in dual-aspect language to avoid category mistake. We postulate that a state of an entity has inseparable mental and physical aspect. The degree of manifestation of aspects varies with entity.
There are two concepts of matter:
(i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983); it is used in our frameworks (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr., Vimal, & Pregnolato, 2015; Vimal, 2013).
(ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential (Vimal, 2015); it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology).
The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems.
It is very simple, you want to create experience from brain; brain as matter must have potential for creating experiences, otherwise how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple-seeds.
To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential non-mental matter that does not even have a single trace of potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds.
By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more materialist; you are dual-aspect.
The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015).
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 9:41:52 PM UTC-4, sk wrote:
Unfortunately I could not find the problem you have mentioned in section 4.2. Could you explain the problem you are claiming is with Dvaita Vedanta? Please remember I am asking about Dvaita Vedanta of Sri.Madhvaacharya. I am not interested in dualism of body-mind type.Regards,Srinivas Kotekal
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 1:57:33 AM UTC-4, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal wrote:
Respected Vidwans,
Unfortunately, both Dvaita and Avdaita (and other sub-schools of VedAnta) have serious problems as elaborated in Section 4.2 of (Vimal, 2012).
The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita has the least number of problems as discussed in Section 5.1 of (Vimal, 2012).
Comments are most welcome to my email ID rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Ram
9-July-2016
Aurobind Padiyath
Your statement "If we assume monism such as Śankarāchārya’s Adavita or idealism, where non-material God/Brahman is the fundamental entity and matter somehow arise from it, then we have problem of Idealism (Section 2.3): how non-experiential matter-in-itself arise from non-material God/Brahman." Is not correct. It is a very clear stand that at all three times the rope never "became" snake, it appeared like a snake. So, similarly Brahman never became anything else at any point of time. All that is, were, and will be only appearances in Brahman. The words used are 'dhyayateeva,lelayateeva'.
The best way to understand Advaita Vedanta is a deeper study of our personal experiences of waking, Dream, and deep-sleep dealt in detail in his bhAshya of Brhadaranyaka.
Regards
Aurobind
Ganesh R
The best way to understand Advaita tattva is through the method of adhyaarOpa and apavaada technique as explained by Sri. Sankarabhagavatpaada and of course, avasthaatraya meemaamsaa is the best methodology in it.
Dr. P. Ramanujan
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurobind Padiyath
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ici3Sg2WfYs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Aurobind
Dr. P. Ramanujan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]
This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Aurobind
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Aurobind Padiyath
Dear Sir,
I'm not replying to the group as it may be of not in tune with the thread.
Upadana and nimita are required for a creation only in the waking. For example of dream what are these two? Only the dreamer's bodham. There is no separate Upadana and Nimita there.
Same way in all three states of existence experienced both the experiencer and the experienced objects called the jeeva and Jagat are nothing but Brahman and the swaroopa of which is nothing but bodham also called Chit. Hence jagatAtma, jagatah Atma, jagatah swaroopa, all are nothing but bodham.
Just as सलिलं फेन बुद्बुदादि आपः एव। And If you can remove the wateryness from them their existence ends. Hence wateryness is their swaroopa. Similarly if one can remove the bodham or awareness or "knowingness" nothing can exist. Hence bodham or Chit which is experienced as existing is not two but the same.
Regards
Aurobind Padiyath
+91-9689755499.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ici3Sg2WfYs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Aurobind Padiyath
Dear Sir,
Slight correction :
When I said "Just as सलिलं फेन बुद्बुदादि आपः एव। And If you can remove the wateryness from them their existence ends. Hence wateryness is their swaroopa. Similarly if one can remove the bodham or awareness or "knowingness" nothing can exist.", I meant that all these will reduce to the swaroopa. Only when there is two one can know the existence of other. When there is only One? केन कं पश्येत् ? Who will see whom
Regards
Aurobind
Venkatesh Murthy
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:13:32 AM UTC+5:30, Ramanujam CDAC/B wrote:
Brahman is upadana and nimitta karana for jagat.While rope is not so for snake. It is an illusion.
What is swaroopam of Brahman in Advaita?
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
sunil bhattacharjya
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Aurobind Padiyath
Regards,
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/ici3Sg2WfYs/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Aurobind
Jaya Prakash
V Subrahmanian
Hello Subrahmanian Sir,Can I get audio of the event please.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Surendra Mohan Mishra
Surendramohan Mishra
Dept of Sanskrit,Pali & Prakrit
Faculty of Indic Studies,Kurukshetra University
KURUKSHETRA-136 119,Haryana,INDIA
Tel : (Off.)01744 238410(extn.)2504
(Mob.)098960 86579;(Res.)01744-238567
Blogs : http://surendrashastram.blogspot.com
http://surendra-shaastram.blogspot.com
V Subrahmanian
Glad toknow that to the well-known Prameyachandrikaa there is a S'aankarapaaadabhushaNam. May I know the author of the latter pl ?