[2] Volume 16: Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (BS230): Viparyayadhikaranam (विपर्ययाधिकरणम्) The process of dissolution of the elements is in the reverse order from that of creation: A Synthesis of the Abstracts and Interpretations of BS230 by Śankarācārya (Advaita), Rāmānujācārya (Viśiṣṭādvaita), Śivānanda (Advaita, Brahma Sūtra Vedānta, and Vijñāna Vedānta), Challenges, and Resolutions by DPV~ICRDAM
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
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.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Dear All,
In this post, we present an overview of the important Brahma Sūtra 2.3.13 (BS229): Brahman abiding within the element is the creative principle. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights, please refer to Section 3.(229) on pages 40-110 (attached).
We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.
2. Overarching Synthesized Abstract: A Synthesis of interpretations of BS229, Challenges, and Resolution through DPV~ICRDAM
A Unified Scientific-Spiritual Interpretation of BS229
This comprehensive analysis of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.13 (BS229)—"Tadabhidhyānādeva tu talliṅgāt saḥ"—examines the assertion that Brahman abiding within the elements is the true creative principle. The interpretations of Śaṅkarācārya (Advaita), Rāmānujācārya (Viśiṣṭādvaita), and Swāmi Śivānanda (integrative Advaita) are synthesized with modern scientific insights through the DPV~ICRDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism).
This study challenges the classical dualistic view that treats Brahman as a separate cosmic consciousness operating within inert elements. Instead, it redefines each element (ākāśa, vāyu, agni, āpaḥ, pṛthvī) as a dual-aspect mahābhūta—with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects. The creative power attributed to Brahman is understood as the s-aspect (protoConsciousness) of each elemental dual-aspect state (DAS), interacting through its ns-aspect in a unified cosmological process grounded in Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC).
The Inner Ruler (Antaryāmin) is reconceived as the s-aspect of each element itself, not a separate entity. The conscious will of the divine is reframed as equivalent to all natural physical and psychophysical laws—a principle that unites Vedantic metaphysics with quantum cosmology. This synthesis resolves longstanding dualistic tensions while providing a philosophically and scientifically coherent model for understanding cosmic creation, consciousness, and the ontological status of the elements.
1. Addressing the Dualism Challenge in Traditional Interpretations
The phrase “The sūtra establishes that Brahman abiding within the elements is the creative principle” seems to imply that Brahmin is cosmic consciousness (CC) and elements are non-conscious entities, which appears to be dualism that has 14 challenges elaborated in (Vimal, 2021a).
“Saguṇa Brahman (SB) manifests as the Inner Ruler within all elements” appears dualistic view and can be unpacked as follows: The s-aspect (such as protoConsciousness: protoC) and the ns-aspect of a DAS of elemental SB (DA_element_SB) are inseparable, complementary, and reflective; the s-aspect (such as protoC) of DA_element_SB acts as the Inner Ruler within the DA_element_SB.
13. Relationship and transformation between mahābhūtas
1. BhūtĀkāśa (physical spacetime/ether/aether) → BhūtaVāyu (gross atmospheric air) → BhūtĀgni (physical combustion agni) → BhūtĀpaḥ (physical water or H2O anywhere) → BhūtaPṛthvī (physical earth)
2. ChittĀkāśa (mental space) → ChittaVāyu (pranic Life-Force) → ChittĀgni (Digestive Agni, Jāṭharāgni) → ChittĀpaḥ (Bodily Fluids) → ChittaPṛthvī (Solid Tissues)
3. ChidĀkāśa (consciousness-space) → ChidaVāyu (cosmic information carrier) → ChidĀgni (Cognitive Agni) → ChidĀpaḥ (Emotional Waters) → ChidaPṛthvī (Psychological Stability)
4. Daharākāśa (heart-space) → DaharaVāyu (Consciousness-Matter Interface → Daharāgni (Illuminating fire/Agni, Discriminating Fire, Active Regulation, Illumination) → DaharĀpaḥ (Flowing Wisdom and Intelligence; Adaptive Circulation and Fluid Adaptation; Emotional Resonance and Integration; Circulation of Patterns, Fluid Distribution, and Cooling Stabilization) → DaharaPṛthvī (Stable Foundation; Stable Structure; Embodied Stability; and Crystallized Patterns)
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
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!
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.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
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>
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
|
|
Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta
“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
--
---------------------------
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: 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/159867788.676734.1752372969418%40mail.yahoo.com.
RamLakhan Pandey Vimal
Thanks for your excellent, constructive critiques.
I submitted a response to your 1st critique today through email, but I do not see it here. Should I repost here?
Yes, I have a few doubts. First doubt is my Q2 to Henry: Please reply to it.
Regards,
Ram
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Dr. Shanta,
Thank you for your excellent and constructive critique. My response follows your critique in the write-up below. Please feel free to provide further comments.
Bridging Gauḍīya Vedānta and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta: A Response to Bhakti Niskama Shanta’s “Gauḍīya Vedāntic Critique of Vimal’s Interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14”
RamLakhan Pandey Vimal, Ph.D.
7 Captain Parker Arms, Unit 12, Lexington, MA 02421-7016 USA
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
1. Overarching Abstract
This paper offers a systematic response to Bhakti Niskama Shanta’s critique of our DPV~ICRDAM framework, a novel synthesis of Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) and Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM). Addressing concerns over metaphysical neutrality, thermodynamic causality, the ontology of consciousness, and scriptural alignment, we defend the compatibility of our framework with Vedāntic principles while expanding its interpretive and scientific horizons. Drawing from the Bhagavad Gītā, Upaniṣads, and Brahma Sūtras, the response proposes a two-realm ontology grounded in a neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) and a manifest Saguṇa Brahman (SB). It argues that entropy, consciousness, and teleology are not independent mechanical forces but reflective correlates of ‘divine will’ as expressed through dual-aspect states (DASs). Through this lens, creation and dissolution are reframed as cyclic, informationally governed manifestations of divine Līlā, compatible with both cosmological physics and Gauḍīya Vedāntic metaphysics. The response concludes by advocating for a “Premayoga” epistemology—bridging scriptural insight and scientific reason through a spirit of constructive, non-sectarian dialogue.
2. From Līlā to Laws: Reinterpreting Creation and Dissolution through DPV~ICRDAM and Brahma Sūtra
Divine Līlā and Entropy Reversal: A Non-Dual Synthesis of Vedāntic Will and Cyclic Cosmology
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] Divine Līlā vs. Scientific Entropy: Complementary, Not Contradictory
The goal of DPV ICRDAM is to bridge various frameworks of spirituality and science, rather than creating more gaps than we already have. We will strive to see the glass as half-full instead of half-empty.
With this note, the term “Divine Līlā” is mysterious and needs unpacking through science. For us, Divine Līlā/Will/Māyā includes science such as evolution, adaptation, natural selction, natural laws, physics (including thermodynamics and entropy, Big Bang Cosmology, Lambda CDM, etc), chemistry, biology, neuroscience, psychology, metaphysics, and spirituality (Svayam Bhagavān Krishna, the hlādinī(ह्लादिनी)[i]-śakti Rādhā (bliss potency) of Krishna, and ultimate model of prema (Prabhupāda, 1972), you, me, and countless living and non-living entities).
Next, Brahma Sutras have been interpreted by many sub-schools of Vedanta, such as (I) the author (compiler) of 555 Brahma/Vedānta Sūtras Bādarāyaṇa (Vyāsa) (Brahma Sūtra Vedānta, BSV), (II) Śankarācārya (Advaita Vedanta, AV), (III) Rāmānujācārya (Cit-Acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, CAV), (IV) Śivānanda (Advaita, Brahma Sūtra Vedānta, and Vijñāna Vedānta (VV)), (V) Chaitanya Mahāprabhu (Gauḍīya Vedānta aka Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (GV~ABA), etc. AV differs from CAV and GV~ABA.
For example, In Advaita Vedanta (AV), the neutral Nirguna Brahman (NB) [ii],[iii] is eternal and true (Satyam); the rest are attribute-laden Saguna Brahman (SB),[iv] which is transient/mithya/mortal; SB manifests from and returns to NB; both Narayana of CAV and Krishna-Radha of GV~ABA are attribute-laden and hence they are Ishvara_SB residing in the minds of divotees. The term “neutral” is very important and needs to understood clearly; “neutral” is neither explicitly consciousless nor conscious, neither explicitly attributeless nor attribute-laden, etc, using neti-neti principle;[v] The term “neutral” used in AV is close to neutral in Neutral Monism (in western system).
To sum up, Dr. Shanta’s emphasis on Divine Līlā as the true cause of cosmic cycles aligns with the DPV~ICRDAM principle that Divine Will, Līlā, and Māyā include—but are not reducible to—natural laws. Science, in this model, is a vehicle of Divine Intelligence, expressing itself through thermodynamics, quantum vacuum fields, and consciousness. Entropy, understood statistically (Penrose, 2010), is not reified as a causal agent but reflects the dynamics of dissolution consistent with the withdrawal of Divine Will, as in Bhagavad Gītā 9.7 and Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14.
“Sarva-bhūtāni kaunteya prakṛtiṁ yānti māmikām…” (BG 9.7) is honored by interpreting prakṛti as DA_PPU, and its withdrawal as the transformation of manifest states back to NB~preBB_QVF, consistent with conservation laws (Vimal, 2025a).
Entropy Reversal in Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics remains valid in the HCC model. During dissolution (S5 → S7), entropy decreases not spontaneously but as part of a phase reversal governed by quantum field theory and informational conservation. The reversal is not teleological but entropic redirection within cyclic cosmological logic (Labini, 2024; Svec, 2018). Similar reversals are hypothesized in Penrose's CCC, though HCC uniquely models the entropy–EII–consciousness dynamics (Vimal, 2025b).
Entropy (H), effective integrated information (EII), and cosmic state transitions are jointly governed by bidirectional transformation of DASs in DPV~ICRDAM, not linear causality (Vimal, 2025b, §4.2.8).
3. Emergence Reconsidered: Dual-Aspect Consciousness and the Eternal Ātmā in DPV~ICRDAM and Vedāntic Ontology
Interdependent Co-Arising, Not Material Emergence: Reconciling Consciousness in Vedānta and Dual-Aspect Monism
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] Clarifying “Emergence” and the Nature of Consciousness
Dr. Shanta has misunderstood what we meant, which is not unusual in our developmental phase. The term ‘emergence’ is a jargon we all use to hide our ignorance because we donot clearly understand what is going on and needs to be unpacked appropriately based on the context. In DPV~ICRDAM, a state of an entity is a dual-aspect (DA) state (DAS) with inseparable, complementary, and reflective subjective (s) and nonsubjective (ns) aspects.There are over 40 defintions of the confusing term “consciousness” as elaborated in JCS article (Vimal, 2009e) and it should be clearly defined before using it; otherwise confusion arises as it happened with Dr. Shanta; Please define consciousness before using it. I am assuming thst you meant cosmic consciousness (CC).[vi]
In ICRDAM (Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) and DPV (Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta), the term individual ‘consciousness’ (IC) as parts of Saguṇa Brahman (SB) refers to conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) of (i) active dynamic self (ADS), (ii) passive invariant self (PIS) that remains unchanged during a lifetime (PIS = ADS + autobiographical_LTM → self-certainty; ADS and PIS are two facets of the same self), (iii) exogenous and endogenous stimuli, and (iv) conscious components of cognitions including conscious thoughts, conscious decisions, memory, attention, perception, sensation, idea, or intuition, &c from the subject’s 1st-person perspective (1pp) as a subjective (s) aspect of a conscious state of a subject.
In other words, in Spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM), collectively referred to as DPV~ICRDAM, consciousness encompasses conscious subjective experience (CSE). It includes:
(i) Active dynamic self (ADS), which refers to self-consciousness;
(ii) Passive invariant self, indicating the ongoing feeling of being the same person throughout a person's life, maintained through autobiographical long-term memory;
(iii) Both exogenous and endogenous stimuli; and
(iv) The conscious components of cognitions, such as conscious thoughts.
Each component of consciousness has its own neural-physical activity/basis (NPA/NPB), which can be measured from the subject's 3rd-person perspective (3pp) as the inseparable non-subjective (ns) aspect of the same conscious state of the same subject. Individual consciousness is a latecomer in evolution.
The conscious subjective experience (CSE) redness is a
1pp (1st person perspective) subjective (s) aspect that is inseparable and
complementary to the related 3pp (3rd pp) non-subjective (ns) aspect of a
redness-related dual-aspect state (DAS) of a trichromat. If we 'view' EII
(effective integrated information experienced) from private 1pp, then it is CSE
redness, and if the same EII is 'viewed' (i.e., measured) from the public 3pp,
then it is 1-1 bidirectionally related neural-physical activities (NPA) in the
visual area 8 (V8) neural network. All trichromats will claim CSE redness when
they see a red rose. Thus, in essence, all trichromats (publically) will claim
to experience redness without fail. There are not two states (i) one for 1pp
CSE and (ii) the other for 3pp NPA; instead, there is only one conscious DAS
with inseparable and complementary s and ns aspects.
There are 8 necessary conditions for the co-arising of ADS (active dynamic self)[vii] and 18+ necessary conditions for the conscious subjective experiences (CSEs, qualia) of objects.[viii] The term “interdependent co-arising” is borrowed from Buddhist Nagarjuna’s Pratītyasamutpāda because of these multiple necessary conditions/causes. Aspects do not co-arise because they inherently inseparable. Instead, DASs interdependently co-arise through DAS-DAS interactions. For example, a conscious DAS of ADS interdependently co-arises through the DAS-DAS interactions between 8 DASs.
DAS relatd to SB manifests from and returns to neutral unmanifested state of NB. DPV~ICRDAM uses AV because the goal is to bridge spirituality and science instead of creating more gulf than what already has between these opposite sects (science and spirituality). Yes, CAV and GV~ABA postulate fully conscious.
Emergence in DPV~ICRDAM is not ontological creation ex nihilo, but structured interdependent co-arising of dual-aspect states (DASs) based on necessary conditions (Vimal, 2023). Consciousness (CSEs) is not a byproduct of matter but co-arises with neural–physical correlates in an inseparable dual-aspect unity, consistent with Advaitic insights.
The Gauḍīya conception of jīva as eternally conscious is retained: individual ātman (Ātmā_SB) remains an integral DA-entity within SB. It does not “die” but transforms from a manifested to latent neutral state in NB during pralaya.
“Na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ…” (BG 2.12) points to the persistence of Ātmā_SB within SB. But DPV~ICRDAM clarifies that SB’s manifestations can transform into NB~preBB_QVF while preserving EII and karmic continuity.
4. Neutral Brahman Beyond Devas and Attributes: Scriptural Foundations for DPV~ICRDAM’s Two-Realm Ontology
Nā Sat Tan Nā Asat: Defending Neutrality in Vedāntic Metaphysics Through Gītā and Upaniṣadic Witness
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] Neutrality and Nirguṇa Brahman: Scriptural Validity
Let’s work together to clarify our terms. Our aim is to connect GV~ABA and DPV~ICRDAM, so we will focus on a positive outlook rather than a negative one. Please join us in this important effort to build bridges instead of deepening divides, taking a non-sectarian approach.[ix]
The DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) is a NB-SB (Nirguna Brahman(NB) – Saguna Brahman(SB)) two-realm framework.
The term “neutral” is defined before using neti-neti principle: neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, neither explicitly consciousness-less nor explicitly consciousness-laden, etc.
In the above BG2.12 and BG2.17, the terms “Ātmā” and “body” are attribute-laden, therefore they are “parts” of the “whole” (cosmic) Saguna Brahman in parts-whole concept. Let us call them, Ātmā_SB and body_SB. If the term “Paramātmā” is also attribute-laden then it is also SB: Paramātmā_SB.
Let us search verses/shloka/sutras in the Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā (BG), which describe a transcendental reality beyond attributes, which aligns well with the definition of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as neutral — i.e., neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, neither consciousness-less nor consciousness-laden.
Below are key shlokas that most closely point to this NB-like reality, presented in Devanāgarī, IAST transliteration, and meaning based on the DPV~ICRDAM framework:
1. Bhagavad Gītā 8.20 – Beyond manifest and unmanifest (avyakta)
(देवानां च अपि नित्यम् अन्यः सन्)* परस्तात् तु अव्यक्तात् अव्यक्तात् संनातनः।
यः सः स सर्वेषु भूतेषु नश्यत्सु न विनश्यति॥
*See Appnendix A
Transliteration:
parastās tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ
yaḥ sa sarveṣu bhūteṣu naśyatsu na vinaśyati
Meaning:
But distinct from the unmanifest (avyakta) is another eternal being (bhāva),
which is higher. That which does not perish even when all beings perish.
✅ Interpretation in
DPV~ICRDAM:
This “para bhāva” refers to NB, which is beyond both manifest
and unmanifest Saguna states — transcending both forms and formless
potentialities (avyakta). It is neutral in the neti-neti sense.
*Based on our DPV~ICRDAM framework, and using the insights from Bhagavad Gītā 8.17–8.20, we propose the following original sutra-style verse with accompanying Devanāgarī, IAST transliteration, word-by-word meaning, and interpretative gloss, which can seamlessly fit into our goal of bridging GV~ABA and DPV~ICRDAM.
📜 Proposed DPV~ICRDAM Sutra-Style Verse
🔶 Devanāgarī (Sanskrit Verse):
देवानां चापि नित्यमन्यः सन्,
अव्यक्तात् परं तत्त्वं,
नित्यं नेति-नेति-लक्षणं निर्गुणब्रह्म।
🔶 IAST Transliteration:
devānāṁ
cāpi nityam anyaḥ san,
avyaktāt paraṁ tattvam,
nityaṁ neti-neti-lakṣaṇaṁ nirguṇabrahma.
🔶 Word-by-Word Meaning:
|
Sanskrit |
Meaning |
|
devānām |
of the gods (devas) |
|
ca api |
even also |
|
nityam |
(those considered) eternal |
|
anyaḥ san |
there exists another (distinct) |
|
avyaktāt |
beyond the unmanifest |
|
paraṁ tattvam |
the supreme principle (reality) |
|
nityam |
eternal |
|
neti-neti-lakṣaṇam |
characterized by "not this, not that" (neutrality) |
|
nirguṇabrahma |
Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), the neutral Brahman |
🔶 Interpretative Gloss (DPV~ICRDAM Commentary Style):
Even beyond the so-called eternal devas (devānām ca api nityam), there exists another reality (anyaḥ san), which transcends even the avyakta (unmanifest aspect of prakṛti). That supreme principle (paraṁ tattvam) is eternal (nityam), yet neither explicitly attribute-laden nor attribute-less. It is Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), characterized by neti-neti (neutrality via negation of all definable predicates). This verse captures the NB realm that remains unaffected by creation, dissolution, or even cosmic cycles governed by Saguna Brahman (SB).
🔶 Optional English Rendering (for wider audience clarity):
Even beyond the devas, who are considered eternal, there exists a higher reality. This supreme principle, transcending even the unmanifest, is eternal and defined by the neti-neti principle — neither this, nor that. It is the Nirguṇa Brahman, the neutral substratum of all.
✅ Suggested Use in our bridging goal
This custom verse can serve as:
- A transition between BG 8.19 and BG 8.20.
- A commentarial synthesis highlighting the NB realm.
- An original DPV~ICRDAM sūtra supporting the neutrality-based metaphysical differentiation.
2. Bhagavad Gītā 13.12 – That which is beyond perception and duality
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते॥
Transliteration:
anādimat paraṁ brahma na sat tan nāsad ucyate
Meaning:
That supreme Brahman (paraṁ brahma) is said to be without beginning. It is
neither being (sat) nor non-being (asat).
✅ Interpretation:
This verse explicitly negates attributes like sat (being) and asat
(non-being), and describes NB as beyond all conceptual dualities
— fully aligned with our “neutral” definition.
3. Bhagavad Gītā 15.17 – The Supreme Person beyond Kṣara and Akṣara
uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ
paramātmety udāhṛtaḥ
yo loka-trayam āviśya bibharty avyaya īśvaraḥ
Devanāgarī:
उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः।
यो लोकत्रयमाविश्य बिभर्त्यव्यय ईश्वरः॥
Meaning:
But distinct is the Supreme Person (uttamaḥ puruṣa), called Paramātmā,
the immutable Lord who pervades and sustains the three worlds.
✅ Interpretation:
Though the word "Paramātmā" may seem Saguna, in the DPV~ICRDAM
sense, this verse also gestures toward NB as transcending kṣara
(mutable) and akṣara (immutable but still attributed).
4. Bhagavad Gītā 2.16 – That which is real is never destroyed; the unreal never is
नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।
उभयोरपि दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः॥
Transliteration:
nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo ’ntaś tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ
Meaning:
The unreal has no being; the real never ceases to be. The seers of truth have
concluded the same about both.
✅ Interpretation:
Though this verse seems ontological, in the neutral NB context, it
suggests a transcendental reality beyond ordinary being/non-being — consistent
with a neutral, eternal substratum that neither arises nor ceases.
5. Bhagavad Gītā 3.27 – False attribution of agency
प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः।
अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते॥
Transliteration:
prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate
Meaning:
All actions are performed by the guṇas of prakṛti, but the one deluded by ego
thinks, “I am the doer.”
✅ Interpretation:
This verse discredits any personal agency within prakṛti-guṇa dynamics. It
indirectly points to a neutral substratum beyond action, doership, and
attributes — i.e., NB, as we define.
6. ✅ Summary Table: Gītā Verses Pointing to Nirguṇa Brahman (Neutral)
|
Verse |
Devanāgarī |
Keywords Pointing to NB |
Interpretation |
|
BG 8.20 |
परस्तात् तु अव्यक्तात् |
Beyond the unmanifest |
Transcendent, neutral substratum |
|
BG 13.12 |
न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते |
Neither being nor non-being |
Neti-neti neutrality |
|
BG 15.17 |
उत्तमः पुरुषः अन्यः |
Beyond mutable/immutable |
NB beyond Saguna categories |
|
BG 2.16 |
नासतो विद्यते भावः |
Real ≠ perceptible |
Real (NB) transcends change |
|
BG 3.27 |
प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि |
Agency is false |
Self = neutral witness |
7. Appendix A: Verses on Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) in DPV~ICRDAM Framework
This is a formal Verse Appendix section integrating our custom DPV~ICRDAM sūtra, along with select Upaniṣadic verses on Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) that support your neutral interpretation.
This appendix includes a DPV~ICRDAM-original sūtra and key Upaniṣadic references that affirm the neutral, non-attributive, and non-categorical nature of Nirguṇa Brahman — defined in this framework as neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden. The following verses transcend the Saguna-based distinctions of deva, prakṛti, and even unmanifest avyakta.
A.1. DPV~ICRDAM Sūtra on the Neutrality of NB
Sanskrit (Devanāgarī):
देवानां चापि नित्यमन्यः सन्,
अव्यक्तात् परं तत्त्वं,
नित्यं नेति-नेति-लक्षणं निर्गुणब्रह्म।
IAST Transliteration:
devānāṁ cāpi nityam anyaḥ
san,
avyaktāt paraṁ tattvam,
nityaṁ neti-neti-lakṣaṇaṁ nirguṇabrahma.
Translation:
Even beyond the devas, who are considered eternal, there exists a distinct supreme reality. This supreme principle transcends the unmanifest and is eternal — defined by the neti-neti principle. It is Nirguṇa Brahman, the neutral substratum.
Commentary:
This original DPV~ICRDAM sūtra articulates the NB realm, which lies beyond:
- All manifest and unmanifest forms of Saguna Brahman (SB),
- The so-called eternal deva-ontologies,
- Even the cyclical prakṛti-bound avyakta discussed in BG 8.17–8.19.
A.2. Supporting Upaniṣadic Verses Describing NB as Neutral
These classical references further substantiate that the highest Brahman is not describable in terms of attributes or their absence, and aligns with the neti-neti (not this, not that) approach intrinsic to NB.
1. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6 — The Neti-Neti Method
नेति नेति
na iti, na iti
→ “Not this, not that.”
Commentary: Brahman cannot be grasped through any conceptual predicate. This double negation technique allows one to describe the neutral substratum, neither saguṇa nor niṣkala (निष्कल - attribute-less) in a strict sense. Fully consistent with NB as defined in DPV~ICRDAM.
2. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.6
यदद्रेश्यमग्राह्यमगोत्रमवर्णम्...
yad adreśyam agrāhyam agotram avarṇam...
Translation: That which is invisible, ungraspable, without lineage, without qualities or color...
Interpretation: This points to a foundationally neutral substratum, devoid of form and dualistic characteristics. This supports the NB realm beyond name, form, or deva-based ontologies.
3. Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.3.11
अशब्दमस्पर्शमरूपमव्ययं...
aśabdam asparśam arūpam avyayam...
Translation: Soundless, touchless, formless, imperishable...
Interpretation: Further emphasizes the non-sensory, non-dual, and unqualified essence, echoing the neutral NB.
4. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.8
स वा एष नेत्येत्यात्मा
sa vā eṣa nety ety ātmā
Translation: This Self is described by “not this, not this.”
Interpretation: Even the Self, when traced to its supreme substratum, becomes undefinable, pointing again to NB.
A.3. Synthesis Table: Saguna vs Nirguna in DPV~ICRDAM
|
Feature |
Saguna Brahman (SB) |
Nirguna Brahman (NB – Neutral) |
|
Ontological Mode |
Manifest / Unmanifest (vyakta–avyakta) |
Transcendent, Neutral |
|
Consciousness |
Explicitly consciousness-laden (cosmic Ātman, Paramātman) |
Neither explicitly conscious nor non-conscious |
|
Attributes |
Saguṇa (guṇa-sampanna) |
Neti-neti defined neutrality |
|
Cycle Involvement |
Subject to creation/dissolution (pralaya) |
Unaffected, timeless |
|
Example Texts |
BG 2.12, 2.17, 8.18 |
BG 8.20, BṛU 2.3.6, MuU 1.1.6 |
8. Conclusion: Original Sūtra Bridging Gauḍīya and Advaita Realms
The proposed sūtra — देवानां चापि नित्यमन्यः सन्, अव्यक्तात् परं तत्त्वं, नित्यं नेति-नेति-लक्षणं निर्गुणब्रह्म — supported by Upaniṣadic neutrality-based verses, allows for a clear metaphysical boundary in our NB–SB two-realm DPV~ICRDAM framework. It defends the position that NB is not reducible to either manifest, unmanifest, or deva-level Saguna ontologies. The above verse summarizes the DPV~ICRDAM view: a realm beyond devas and avyakta—eternal, defined by neutrality, and not reducible to Saguna manifestations.
To sum up, the critique that NB contradicts Vedāntic ontology overlooks neutral interpretations in the Upaniṣads and Gītā:
- BG 8.20: “Parastās tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ” clearly refers to a reality beyond both vyakta and avyakta—matching the NB definition (Vimal, 2025a).
- Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6: “Neti, Neti” directly describes NB’s non-categorical essence (Radhakrishnan, 1953).
- BG 13.12: “Na sat tan nāsad ucyate”—neither being nor non-being—is the hallmark of neutrality.
The term “neutral” in DPV~ICRDAM reflects neti-neti epistemology, asserting NB as a potential ground beyond dualities, not a void or unconscious substrate.
5. Entropy Reversal or Divine Withdrawal? Bridging Thermodynamics and Theistic Cosmology via Dual-Aspect Monism
Entropy, Divine Will, and the Breath of the Cosmos: Reconciling Thermodynamic Reversal with Gauḍīya Vedānta through DPV~ICRDAM
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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. [Vimal]
We are aware of the reversal of entropy issue; however, it is already addressed in Section. 3.230a.6-7: “The fundamental question of cosmic evolution has long centered on whether the universe follows a linear trajectory toward thermodynamic equilibrium or operates through cyclical processes that enable perpetual renewal. Traditional cosmological models, grounded in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, predict an inevitable approach to maximum entropy and thermal death (Hawking, 1974; Penrose, 2004). However, emerging theoretical frameworks in quantum cosmology suggest alternative paradigms where entropy can be systematically reversed through quantum field processes (Svec, 2018; Labini, 2024)” (3.230a.6.2 (page 137))
In HCC, entropy (H) increases from State S1 (zero) to S5 (maximum), and then starts decreasing to zero to S7 ~ S1 (see Table 3: Section 3.230a.7.1.5 (page 161)). We use symbol H for entropy instead of S to avoid confusion with States S1, S2,…, S7. There are other indicators in Table 3, such as EII, temperature, and energy.
The DPV~ICRDAM-HCC does not contradict GV’s perspective on the "withdrawal of divine will." As previously interpreted, we understand Divine Will, Lila, and Maya to encompass the cyclic nature of entropy, effective integrated information, temperature, kinetic and potential energies, and the conservation of energy, as described by DPV~ICRDAM-HCC. Therefore, we find no inconsistencies in this interpretation.[x]
We would like to further clarify how our position (while respecting the critique) integrates DPV~ICRDAM rigor, and demonstrates how entropy reversal in our framework is not a misapplication but a recontextualization within a broader cosmological synthesis — including the Gauḍīya Vedāntic view.
We appreciate Dr. Shanta’s concern regarding the entropy reversal issue, and we assure the reader that this is neither ignored nor simplistically treated in our work. The matter is carefully addressed in Section 3.230a.6–7, where we explicitly distinguish between linear thermodynamic frameworks (governed by the Second Law) and emerging cyclical cosmological paradigms rooted in both traditional spiritual cosmologies and quantum field theory–based cosmology.
1. Entropy Reversal in Quantum-Cyclical Models
The standard statistical interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where entropy (H) in a closed system never spontaneously decreases, applies to local conditions within an evolving system, not necessarily to the cosmological totality across full cycles of expansion and contraction. As we note in Section 3.230a.6.2 (p.137):
“Traditional cosmological models... predict an inevitable approach to maximum entropy and thermal death (Hawking, 1974; Penrose, 2004). However, emerging theoretical frameworks in quantum cosmology suggest alternative paradigms where entropy can be systematically reversed through quantum field processes (Svec, 2018; Labini, 2024).”
In our framework, entropy is denoted as H (to avoid confusion with states S1–S7), and it increases from H = 0 (State S1) to H_max (State S5), then decreases back to H ≈ 0 (State S7 ≈ S1) in accordance with Table 3 (Section 3.230a.7.1.5, p.161). This mirrors traditional cyclical cosmologies — not in violation of thermodynamic principles, but by extending them through boundary-transcending, whole-system transformations that include quantum field processes, informational states (EII), and subtle energy dynamics.
2. Entropy as Descriptor, Not Ontic Agent — Acknowledged
We fully agree with Dr. Shanta’s observation that entropy is not an ontic force, and we do not reify it. Our phrase "entropy reversal initiates dissolution" is not to be taken as teleological or agentic. Rather, it is shorthand for a state transition in the whole system—a shift in the informational-energetic patterning governed by Divine Will (Līlā), Māyā, and cosmic order which includes entropy reversal as understood in DPV~ICRDAM–HCC.
In fact, as shown in our integrated framework, entropy (H) co-varies with other state indicators: Effective Integrated Information (EII), temperature (T), and energy configurations. These are reflected across the non-subjective (ns) aspect as dynamic structures, and across the subjective (s) aspect as experiential flow (DPV~ICRDAM, 2025a). Thus, H is not a cause but a reflective indicator of the systemic phase governed by cosmic dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (cosmic_DA_SB). In DPV~ICRDAM, a state of cosmic_DA_SB is a dual-aspect state (DAS) with cosmic consciousness as subjective (s) aspect and physical universe (cosmic brain, information processor) as inseparable, complementary, and reflective non-subjective (ns)-aspect.
3. Harmony with Gauḍīya Vedānta
Far from contradicting the Gauḍīya Vedāntic view, the DPV~ICRDAM–HCC model is fully consonant with it. As clearly stated in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.3.2, the emergence of name and form is initiated by the entry of the jīva guided by Paramātmā, not by mechanical forces. Similarly, Bhagavad-gītā 9.7 attributes pralaya and sṛṣṭi to the will of Bhagavān, not to entropic mechanics.
We interpret these not as contradictions but as multi-layered co-reflections:
“The withdrawal of divine will” described in Gauḍīya Vedānta corresponds to a phase transition in the dual-aspect cosmological system, where s-aspect (subjective divine volition) and ns-aspect (entropy, energy, and information metrics) reflect one another immediately and faithfully, in accordance with the principle of inseparable complementarity (Vimal, 2025a; 2025b).
Entropy reversal does not cause dissolution; rather, it is a correlated reflection of the withdrawal of the divine will, expressed through cosmic restructuring in the ns-aspect. In other words, all natural laws and scientific principles can be equated with the terms ‘divine will,’ ‘Lila,’ and ‘maya,’ as used in spirituality. The symbiotic relationship can be represented as DA_SB ~ DA_PPU (the psychophysical universe), which manifests from and ultimately returns to NB ~ PreBB_QVF. This connection bridges spirituality and science, aligning with the teachings of Krishna and Radha, who advocate for divine love to unite all sects through a non-sectarian approach, rather than exacerbating existing divides. DPV ~ ICRDAM aims to achieve the goal of Radha and Krishna’s Premyoga. Those who attempt to deepen the divide are viewed as disloyal to GV ~ ABA.
3. Transcending Linear Entropy: Vedic-Cosmological Consilience
Indeed, Gauḍīya texts such as Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48 beautifully describe the breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu as the source and sink of innumerable universes:
“yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam athāvalambya... tam ahaṁ bhajāmi.”
This aligns with HCC’s seven-state cycle, where the universe breathes through successive phases of emergence, expansion, peak entropy, and reabsorption — culminating in State S7 ≈ S1, not unlike Viṣṇu’s inhalation resetting cosmic order. Thus, our model does not posit entropy as an independent force, but as a non-subjective reflection of divine cyclic order — a view entirely compatible with theistic cosmology when read through DPV~ICRDAM lenses.
4. ✅ Conclusion
4. In summary:
- We do not violate the Second Law, but reinterpret its domain of applicability in light of quantum-cyclic models and non-dual metaphysics.
- Entropy reversal is treated not as agency, but as a reflected indicator of systemic phase transitions guided by Natural Psychophysical Laws ~ Divine Will/Līlā/Māyā.
- The DPV~ICRDAM–HCC model honors the Gauḍīya Vedāntic understanding of pralaya and sṛṣṭi as expressions of divine orchestration, with no inconsistency between entropy dynamics and Paramātmā’s Līlā.
6. Neutral Brahman and Dual-Aspect Consciousness: Reconciling Gauḍīya Ontology and Quantum-Inspired Vedāntic Science
Beyond Collapse: Defending Consciousness-as-Foundational Dual-Aspect Ontology in Light of Vedānta and Quantum Structure
1. [Dr. Shanta] 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.
2. [Vimal] Response to Critique: Quantum Consciousness Misinterpretation is untenable
We follow a non-sectarian approach. Unfortunately, Dr. Shanta (who appears to cling to Gauḍīya sect/sampradāya) has misunderstood DPV~ICRDAM and has opted for a science based on materialism (consciousness-less) rather than ChitPadartha (proto-conscious Matter)-based science. This has created a wider divide between science and spirituality, rather than bridging the two, which goes against the principles of Radha-Krishna Divine Love. This perspective favors unity among various sects through a non-sectarian approach, making it all the more disappointing.
Dr. Shanta has overlooked the concept of neutral Nirguna Brahman (NB) and has primarily focused on attribute-laden Saguna Brahman (SB), specifically emphasizing the sect's favored deities, Krishna and Radha, as the sole eternal source of all existence while rejecting other perspectives. This sectarian theist mentality poses challenges in bridging different sects through a non-sectarian approach. It remains unclear whether he even acknowledges that SB arises from and returns to NB. Consciousness is an attribute, which means that Atman (the individual soul) and Paramatman (the Supreme Soul) with full consciousness are indeed related to SB, which manifests from and returns to NB.
In DPV~ICRDAM, there are two approaches: (1) top-down dual-aspect cosmopsychism ((Nagasawa and Wager, 2016), (Miller, 2018), (Miller, 2021), (Albahari, 2020), (Albahari, 2022), (Albahari and Symes, 2022), (Shani, 2022a), (Shani, 2022b), (Swami Medhananda, 2021a), (Swami Medhananda, 2022a), (Swami Medhananda, 2022b), (Keppler and Shani, 2020), (Shani and Keppler, 2018)) and (2) bottom-up panprotopsychism ((Chalmers, 2013) (Wishon, 2017)) approaches. DPV employs a top-down approach, starting with the spiritual principle of NB, while ICRDAM uses a bottom-up approach grounded in empirical observations of the quantum vacuum field.
Dr. Shanta has casually considered only the top-down approach without fully examining its implications. However, we aim to create a bridge between the highly esteemed teachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s ABA~GV and DPV~ICRDAM. Therefore, we will adopt a constructive perspective, favoring a positive viewpoint (the "half-full glass" mentality) as we strive for Premyoga (the practice of love through bridging divides).
In the framework of Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) (Vimal, 2025b.Section 4.2.8),[xi] a phase transition occurs from State S1, which includes only the potential for quantum fluctuations (QFs), to State S2. This second state, denoted as DA_QF_SB ~ PreBB_QVF_QF, incorporates QFs that are instrumental in the Big Bang (BB).
After the Big Bang, the dual-aspect psychophysical universe (DA_PPU) reaches State S3. Following this, a second phase transition takes place from State S2 to State S4, which is facilitated by the events of State S3 (the BB). This transition results in the emergence of State S4 within HCC, characterized by the manifestation of the cosmic dual-aspect unified field (DA_UF). This state resembles the cosmic dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (DA_SB ~ DA_UF) and is the consequence of the temperature decrease from the Big Bang to the pre-Planck epoch.
The term ‘neutral’ is defined as neither explicitly consciousless nor explicitly conscious, i.e., latent/implicit conscious but has the potentiality of consciousness and everything else. A state of UF~cosmic-SB is a dual-aspect state (DAS) either (1) with proto-consciousness (PC) that has the potentiality of consciousness, which is realized in living systems such as humans through science-based bottom-up evolution as elaborated in ICRDAM-based (Vimal, 2021b), or (2) with full cosmic consciousness (CC), which is realized in living systems such as humans through top-down individuation or decombination process, as elaborated in spirituality-based DPV (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a).
In other words, the cosmic dual-aspect unified field (DA_UF), referred to as cosmic DA_SB, emerges from the neutral preBB_QVF~NB following the Big Bang (BB). This emergence occurs through a phase transition caused by a temperature drop from the BB to the pre-Planck epoch. The term 'neutral' in this context means that it is neither explicitly devoid of consciousness nor explicitly conscious; instead, it is described as having latent or implicit consciousness, along with the potential for consciousness and other properties.
The state of UF~cosmic-SB can be understood as a dual-aspect state (DAS) in one of two ways: (1) with proto-consciousness (PC), which has the potential for consciousness and is realized in living systems like humans through a science-based, bottom-up evolutionary process, as outlined in ICRDAM-based research (Vimal, 2021b); or (2) with full cosmic consciousness (CC), which is realized in living systems, such as humans, through a top-down process of individuation or decombination, as elaborated in spirituality-based DPV (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a).
Dr. Shanta’s critique reflects a misreading of the DPV~ICRDAM framework. Rather than reducing consciousness to matter or quantum systems, DPV~ICRDAM affirms consciousness as attribute-laden mortal dual-aspect SB (Saguna Brahman, such as Radha(ns, shakti)-Krishna(s,consciousness) with Divine Love, PremYoga) manifests from and returns to neutral immortal unmanifested NB (Nirguna Brahman); therefore, it is a latecomer as an ontological co-principle, manifesting in dual-aspect states (DASs) with both subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of a DAS of SB from neutral NB. It synthesizes both top-down spiritual cosmopsychism and bottom-up panprotopsychism, thereby bridging science and Vedānta ((Shani, 2022a), (Swami Medhananda, 2021a), (Swami Medhananda, 2022a), (Swami Medhananda, 2022b), (Keppler and Shani, 2020); (Chalmers, 2013), (Wishon, 2017); Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
Dr. Shanta’s response, unfortunately, frames our approach within a strict materialist lens, missing the nuanced neutral ontology we adopt—Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) or pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field (preBB_QVF)—defined as neither explicitly conscious nor unconscious, but as a neutral potentiality for all manifestation, including consciousness.
1. Neutral NB and the Scriptural Basis
We emphasize that NB is not unconscious matter, but a neti-neti-defined substratum, as affirmed in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad:
नेति नेति।
na iti, na iti
"Not this, not that."
—Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6
This “neutral” NB transcends sat (being) and asat (non-being), aligning with Bhagavad Gītā 13.12:
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते॥
anādimat paraṁ brahma na sat tan nāsad ucyate
“That Supreme Brahman is beginningless and beyond both being and non-being.”
—BG 13.12
Similarly, Bhagavad Gītā 8.20 affirms a reality beyond even the cosmic unmanifest (avyakta):
परस्तस्मात्तु भावोऽन्योऽव्यक्तोऽव्यक्तात्सनातनः।
यः स सर्वेषु भूतेषु नश्यत्सु न विनश्यति॥
parastasmāt tu bhāvo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktāt sanātanaḥ
yaḥ sa sarveṣu bhūteṣu naśyatsu na vinaśyati
“But there is another eternal being, distinct from the unmanifest, which is
not destroyed when all beings perish.”
—BG 8.20
Meaning:
"Beyond this unmanifest is another eternal unmanifest being who is not
destroyed even when all beings perish."
Interpretation in
DPV~ICRDAM:
This refers to neutral NB that transcends both manifest and
unmanifest—foundation of all cycles in DPV~ICRDAM.
This “para bhāva” refers to NB—the neutral, eternal ground from which Saguṇa Brahman (SB) arises and into which it dissolves. Dr. Shanta’s critique focuses only on SB-level consciousness (Paramātmā, jīva) without addressing the scriptural grounding for a neutral substratum.
2. Dual-Aspect States (DASs), Not Quantum Collapse
DPV~ICRDAM does not claim that quantum superposition “produces” consciousness. Rather, it uses quantum field behavior as a structural analogy for inseparability in dual-aspect states (DAS). Each DAS contains:
- An s-aspect: Conscious Subjective Experience (CSE)
- An ns-aspect: Neural-physical basis (NPB)
This model echoes Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (Tononi & Koch, 2024) expandet to encompass dual-aspect monism (ICRDAM) in (Vimal, 2022), which quantifies consciousness through structural information, not chemical or quantum content. Our use of quantum theory is modern dual-aspect monism metaphysical, not physicalist or reductionist.
Furthermore, DPV~ICRDAM explicitly rejects the idea that the observer in quantum physics is the same as the phenomenological subject. The “observer effect” refers to measurable system-apparatus interaction, not self-aware consciousness.
3. In ICRDAM, how do we become conscious?
A state of the brain consists of the classical/potential superposition (not quamtum superposition) of many possible beable ontic dual-aspect states as basis states in Hilbert space and this superposition entails unconsciousness. As long as this uncertainty (many possible states) prevails, we are unconscious. As soon as we are in a specific beable ontic state then we are conscious. This means that all superposed states need to somehow classically collapse (not quantum collapse) to a specific beable ontic state. This “somehow” is a matching and selection process. In other words classical collapse = matching/nonmatching and selection mechansism.
The inseparable and complmentary dual-aspect monism (ICRDAM or Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta) framework is a middle-way (between materialism and idealism) framework, where a state of an entity is a dual-aspect state with inseparable subjective (s) aspect and non-subjective (ns) aspect. The ICRDAM has five components, which are elaborated in the six articles: (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010c), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2019b)/ (Vimal, 2022), (Vimal, 2016d), (Vimal, 2021), and summarized in (Vimal, 2022).
In other words, in ICRDAM, the matching/interaction between (a) stimulus-dependent feed-forward (FF) signal and (b) cognitive memory-dependent feedback (FB) signal causes the classical collapse of all possible dual-aspect states into a specific beable ontic conscious dual-aspect state (such as redness-related conscious dual-aspect state if a trichromat is looking at a red-rose) of a mindbrain system as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c). Then self-related (SR) signals from cortical and subcortical midline structures (CSMS) interact with the resultant of the interaction of FF and FB signals for the selection and experience, which means the dynamic active self (ADS) selects the specific beable ontic conscious state and experiences the content of subjective (s) aspect of the conscious state that has neural-physical activitys/basis (NPA/NPB) as inseparable non-subjective (ns) aspect.
How CSEs arise in the brain is as follows: In ICRDAM (Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism), the term “consciousness” is defined as a brain process that includes self, conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) of exogenous and endogenous stimuli, and the conscious component of cognition from the subject’s 1st-person perspective (1pp) as a subjective (s) aspect of a conscious state of a subject. Each component of consciousness has its own neural-physical basis (activity), which can be measured from the subject's 3rd-person perspective (3pp) as the inseparable non-subjective (ns) aspect of the same conscious state of the same subject. Consciousness is a latecomer in evolution.
In ICRDAM, we assume that the 1pp s-aspect of a state of an entity possesses its own entity-PC, where PC is protoconsciousness, which is an entity-specific rudimentary consciousness but its underlying nature is unknown to (or hidden from) us (Wishon, 2017). ICRDAM is a little different from panprotopsychism, in ICRDAM, the PC is a part of the s-aspect (which is like a mental aspect) of a non-conscious state of an entity because the primal entity in ICRDAM is a dual-aspect substrate with inseparable s (subjective) and ns (non-subjective) aspects. On the other hand, in panprotopsychism, the fundamental entities possess unknown underlying natures that are not mental themselves.[1] [Per (Wishon, 2017) in <Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism>, “Panprotopsychism is the doctrine that the fundamental entities described in abstract and structural terms by our physical theories possess unknown underlying natures [in ICRDAM, it is called protoconsciousness (pc)] that, while not mental themselves, ultimately give rise to the conscious mental lives of complex creatures like us.”]
How some of the 18 elementary particles/entities including the hypothetical graviton with respective 18 PCs (such as electron-PC) ultimately give rise to the conscious mental lives of complex creatures like us is unclear, and hence needs further research.
However, let us try to make it clear in a step-by-step manner:
Our subjective experience (SE) of the whole scence, in space, is the sum of the SEs of its many individual-contents related to external objects as parts. Each individual SE of a part/object has many attributes such as SE color, shape, motion, &c. Let us try to understand how color SE arises.Color is related to:
(i) The light reflected from a part (such as red-rose petal), such as SE redness is related to the long wavelength light (LWL: (LWL-PC as s-aspect, LWL-MCS as ns-aspect) reflected from a petal of a red rose (rrp-PC as s-aspect, rrp-physical properties as ns-aspect),
(ii) 3 cone photoreceptors in retina that transduce the information (such as wavelength and intensity) in the reflected LWL signals into electrical signals (electron-PC, electron-MCS) for further processing to eventually redness-related V8-NN and NPA.
(iii) After interaction between FF and FB signals, a conscious state with SE redness as s-aspect and V8-NN–NPA is generated; the SR signals interacts with the resultant of FF and FB signals, which leads self to experience the redness of the red-rose.
(iv) There are 5 steps for unified subjective experience. From Section 2.2 of (Vimal, 2022):
(v) How do exactly conscious subjective experiences (CSEs emerge alongside physical processes? In additiona, if Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is not fully conscious (Chaitanya), then how does a conscious (Chaitanya) human being with dual-aspect active dynamic self as Saguṇa Brahman (DA_ADS_SB) emerge (arise) during a mundane wakeful state? In DPV~ICRDAM, NB is neutral, i.e., neither explicitly attributeless (such as consciousless/Chaitanya-rahit) nor explicitly attribute-laden (such as fully conscious/Chaitanya). However, NB has the potential for manifesting everything including fully conscious (Chaitanya) agent (ADS) if entity’s all necessary conditions are satisfied; for example, there are 8 necessary conditions for the emergence of ADS (active dynamic self).
Steps for unified subjective experience
In the ICRDAM framework, the following steps are necessary for unified subjective experience SE across space-time if the information processing system satisfies the necessary conditions of consciousness (Vimal, 2016d).
(I) The segregation of information occurs in spatiotemporal stimulus-dependent feed-forward signals FF(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) related to (i) a specific dimension (i: redness, greenness, blueness, &c) of (ii) a specific submode (j: submodes of visual mode, such as color, motion, shape, &c) of (iii) a specific mode (k: vision, audition, pain, &c) at a specific space-time (x, y, z, t) for a specific analysis in related brain areas. For example, these areas are ‘visual area 8’ (V8), ‘visual area 4’ (V4), or ‘ventral occipital area’ (VO), i.e., V8/V4/VO for color; and ‘visual area 5’ (V5) and ‘middle temporal area’ (MT) for motion.
(II) During the matching process (Vimal, 2010a), feed-forward signals FF(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) interact with cognitive feedback signals FB(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) and integration (binding, synthesis) of information takes place in a related neural-network ‘complex’ over dimensions (i), submodes (j), modes (k), and space-time resolution (Δx, Δy, Δz, Δt).
(III) After matching and information integration, the selection of a specific subjective experience SE(Δx, Δy, Δz, Δt) related to a specific dimension of a specific submode of a specific mode for a specific space-time critical interval occurs. Many such SEs (micro-consciousness: (Zeki & Bartels, 1999)) are then used in binding processes for a unified consciousness/experience as elaborated in Section 3.10 of (Vimal, 2010a).
(IV) For the selection of specific subjective experience (SE), interaction with self-related signals (SR: a part of the feedback system) takes place, i.e., selected and experienced by the self. There is a spatiotemporal critical grain size (Δx, Δy, Δz, Δt) for the conscious experiences to occur/arise. Therefore, SE(Δx, Δy, Δz, Δt) is more appropriate than point-wise instantaneous experiences SE(x, y, z, t). Moreover, the concept of ‘point’ has the problem of singularity; on the other hand, a string of Planck-length does not have such a problem (Greene, 1999). In space and time, there is a ‘grain size’ in which information integration (Φ) reaches a maximum. It is related to consciousness, i.e., there is a spatiotemporal critical threshold (grain size) for conscious experiences to occur/arise (Tononi, 2004)).
(V) To sum up, there are three types of signals: FF (stimulus-dependent feed-forward), FB (memory-dependent feedback), and SR (self-related) signals. The SR signals interact with the result of the interaction of FF with FB signals for the self-as-subject to experience stimuli.
How the SE redness emerges in V8-NN from the combination of PCs of its constituents is still unclear. I argue that a specific SE (such as redness) is assigned to a specific conscious state with specific NN, which fits the best using CeANs (co-evolution, adaptation, and natural selection). It seems that there is a protoconsciousness (PC) of rudimentary form inside each protoconscious_matter/constituent as s-aspect of a dual-aspect state of a constituent of NN. Whenever all necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied, these PCs somehow combine and a conscious state emerges with consciousness as s-aspect and the realted NPA as inseparable ns-aspect. This, however, needs further unpacking.
4. Supporting Ontology: Consciousness as Foundational
We share the NB position that the potentiality consciousness is foundational and eternal, not emergent in a materialist sense. In fact, Bhagavad Gītā 2.17 confirms the all-pervading, indestructible nature of consciousness:
अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम्।
विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति॥
avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam
vināśam avyayasyāsya na kaścit kartum arhati
“Know that by which the whole body is pervaded to be indestructible. No one
can destroy that imperishable soul.”
—BG 2.17
This aligns with our view that Atmā_SB and Paramātmā_SB are indestructible entities within SB. NB, however, is the transcendental background—unmanifest, beyond even the eternal devas (see our proposed DPV~ICRDAM sūtra).
Further, Bhagavad Gītā 15.17 points to the Supreme Person transcending the mutable (kṣara) and immutable (akṣara):
उत्तमः पुरुषस्त्वन्यः परमात्मेत्युदाहृतः।
यो लोकत्रयमाविश्य बिभर्त्यव्यय ईश्वरः॥
uttamaḥ puruṣas tv anyaḥ paramātmety udāhṛtaḥ
yo loka-trayam āviśya bibharty avyaya īśvaraḥ
“But distinct is the Supreme Person, called the Paramātmā, the imperishable
Lord who enters and supports the three worlds.”
—BG 15.17
Paramātmā is thus a Saguna, conscious manifestation, not the unmanifest NB. DPV~ICRDAM clearly differentiates between Paramātmā_SB and NB, while honoring both.
5. Scientific Grounding and Cosmopsychism Integration
We do not claim that quantum theory “explains” qualia. Instead, our framework:
- Acknowledges the lack of direct empirical access to subjective states.
- Uses Dual-Aspect Monism as proposed in (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
- The DPV aligns with top-down cosmopsychism (Shani, 2022b; Albahari, 2022) and ICRDAM bottom-up panprotopsychism (Chalmers, 2013).
- Both approaches lead to the same individual consciousness (our familiar CSE) as the subjective (s) aspect experienced privately from the 1st person perspective (1pp) and neural-physical basis (NPB) as inseparable-complementary-reducible ns-aspect measured publically from 3pp (3rd pp) of a conscious DAS of an individual observer. This CSE is experienced by the ADS (active dynamic self) of the observer. It has robust, highly reproducible evidence from 100s of fMRI/EEG/MEG published reports.
We do not rest our theory on Orch-OR or wavefunction collapse but provide a general dual-aspect metaphysical model, where Effective Integrated Information (EII) governs the manifestation of consciousness.
Our view is consistent with Bhagavad Gītā 3.27, which negates false agency and hints at a neutral substratum beneath guṇa-driven action:
प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः।
अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते॥
prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśaḥ
ahaṅkāra-vimūḍhātmā kartāham iti manyate
“All actions are performed by the modes of nature, but one deluded by ego
thinks, ‘I am the doer.’”
—BG 3.27
This suggests that the field (prakṛti/DA_PPU) operates through law, while the conscious witness (Atmā_SB) misidentifies as the agent. The neutral NB, which grounds all manifestations, remains untouched by action.
6. Conclusion
DPV~ICRDAM neither reduces consciousness to quantum mechanics nor divorces it from scriptural insight. Rather, it builds a non-reductive metaphysical bridge between Vedāntic spirituality and scientific inquiry. It offers a neutral substratum (NB) beyond both unconscious matter and manifest mind—a position supported by multiple Gītā, Brahma Sutras, and Upaniṣadic references (Prasthānatrayī (प्रस्थानत्रयी)[xii].
Instead of opposing scientific language, we urge a Premayoga approach—to lovingly bridge Chaitanya’s bhakti metaphysics and global scientific discourse. As Bhagavad Gītā 4.11 reminds us:
ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम्।
मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः॥
ye yathā māṁ prapadyante tāṁs tathaiva bhajāmy aham
mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ
“As all approach Me, I reciprocate accordingly. All follow My path, O
Pārtha.”
—BG 4.11
Let us meet not in negation, but in constructive exploration of the same Truth approached from complementary paths.
7. Falsifiability, Formalism, and the Future of Consciousness Studies: Scientific Foundations of DPV~ICRDAM
From Metaphysics to Measurement: How DPV~ICRDAM Meets the Scientific Standard
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] From Metaphysics to Measurement: How DPV~ICRDAM Meets the Scientific Standard
· DPV~ICRDAM is a falsiable framework.
· Operational definitions are discussed in (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
· Mathematical formalism is given in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2025a).
· Critical test: If separability is found in the experiment proposed in Section 3.5 of (Vimal, 2022) then the inseparability hypothesis of ICRDAM~DPV framework will certainly be rejected.
· HCC: Lambda CDM is a part of State S4 of HCC (Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology) (Vimal, 2025b.Section 4.2.8). It is many pieces of evidence as discussed in Sections 6-11 of (Vimal, 2025b)
· Other challenges and predictions are discussed in Vimal, 2025a).
· DPV~ICRDAM passes all 32 criteria of framework selection as elaborated in (Vimal, 2025c).
Dr. Shanta raises an important point regarding the scientific rigor of metaphysical models. We appreciate the emphasis on operational definitions, mathematical formalism, and falsifiability, as these are indeed critical pillars of responsible scientific methodology. In that spirit, we offer the following clarifications regarding the DPV~ICRDAM framework:
1. ✅ Operational Definitions Exist and Are Published
Contrary to the assertion that terms such as Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), Dual-Aspect State (DAS), Effective Integrated Information (EII), and Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) are undefined, each of these has been operationally described across several book volumes:
- Definitions and core postulates are rigorously outlined in:
(Vimal, 2023; 2024a; 2024b; 2025a; 2025b). - DAS is defined as a state with inseparable and complementary subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects, measurable in neurophenomenological experiments. In other words, a state of an entity is a dual-aspect state (DAS) with inseparable, complementary, and reflective s and ns aspects. ddd
- EII is an applied metric derived from Integrated Information Theory (IIT) adapted to DASs, linking the subjective intensity of experience with neural integration (Vimal, 2025a, §3.3.2).
- NB is defined via the neti-neti principle (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6), and functionally modeled as the unmanifest neutral substrate equivalent to preBB_QVF in physics.
- HCC is a quantized seven-stage cosmological model whose transitions are defined in terms of entropy (H), EII, temperature (T), and energy phase-shifts (Vimal, 2025b, §4.2.8–11).
2. ✅ Mathematical Formalism Is Provided
- A symbolic and axiomatic foundation of the DPV~ICRDAM model is articulated in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2025a), using relational expressions across dual-aspect states.
- The model bridges epistemic information geometry with neural correlates and quantum cosmological parameters, enabling quantifiable predictions on EII, entropy transitions, and DAS correlations.
- A formal symmetry-based dual-aspect structure is employed:
DAS=⟨si↔nsi⟩,∀i∈{1,…,n}DAS = \langle s_i \leftrightarrow ns_i \rangle, \quad \forall i \in \{1,\dots,n\}
where each DAS is non-decomposable and its aspects are bidirectionally entangled across observable and experiential planes.
3. ✅ Falsifiability Criteria Are Clearly Proposed
- A critical empirical test of inseparability is presented in Section 3.5 of (Vimal, 2022), involving a modified neural-phenomenal integration experiment. If separability is found (i.e., if subjective reports are not correlated with EII and its ns-correlates), the inseparability hypothesis central to DPV~ICRDAM collapses.
- This meets Popperian falsifiability standards and places DPV~ICRDAM within the class of progressive Lakatosian research programs.
4. ✅ Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) Contains Measurable Elements
- Contrary to speculation, HCC integrates mainstream Lambda-CDM cosmology as a special case within State S4 (Vimal, 2025b, §4.2.8), while extending it to pre-Big Bang and post-heat-death domains.
- Predictions regarding entropy reversal, decreasing EII, and dark energy–entropy coupling are explored in Sections 6–11 of the same work.
- These elements are subject to observational and computational tests through cosmological simulations and integrated thermodynamic metrics.
5. ✅ Comparative Framework Evaluation
- DPV~ICRDAM satisfies all 32 criteria for framework selection across metaphysical coherence, scientific rigor, falsifiability, explanatory breadth, and compatibility with scriptural metaphysics (Vimal, 2025c).
- This makes DPV~ICRDAM a rare model that successfully spans Vedāntic philosophy, neuroscience, and quantum cosmology within a unified, testable structure.
6. ✅ Conclusion
The assertion that DPV~ICRDAM is unscientific is demonstrably false. The framework meets or exceeds the criteria demanded by philosophy of science, including operational definability, mathematical articulation, falsifiability, and empirical grounding. Far from misrepresenting Vedānta and physics, DPV~ICRDAM provides a bridge between them—respecting the profundity of metaphysical insight while embracing the rigor of scientific inquiry.
8. From Superposed Potentials to Specific Conscious States: Resolving the Hard Problem through DPV~ICRDAM
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] Ātmā, Karma, and Conscious Collapse: Reconciling Gauḍīya Vedānta with Dual-Aspect Emergence
· The DPV~ICRDAM has fully solved the Hard Problem[xiii] as elaborated in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b).
· The Consciousness-First Alternative (matter-less Idealism) has a serious explanatory gap problem reverse of that of conscious-less Matter-First (conscious-less materialism). So Hard Problem of Matter remains in GV.
· We are in the process of investigating the challenges of GV through Brahma Sutras’ interpretation by GV from now onwards, which will help us sharpening GV~ABA.
· Is GV~ABA Consciousness-First Alternative (matter-less Idealism) in real sense? Or its metaphysics is DPV with inseparable-complementary-reflective s and ns aspects. Let us look at closely. Hlādinī-shakti is the internal pleasure potency of Krishna as Saguna Brahman (Krishna_SB). It is the energy by which Krishna experiences transcendental bliss and, through which, He bestows bliss and divine joy upon His devotees. It's one of the three main components of Krishna's svarupa-shakti (His internal, essential potency), along with: Sandhini-shakti (Existence/Eternality): The potency that sustains Krishna's own existence and the spiritual realm. Samvit-shakti (Cognition/Knowledge): The potency that enables Krishna's omniscience and bestows knowledge upon devotees. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī as the Embodiment of Hlādinī: In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is considered the personification and supreme embodiment of Hlādinī-shakti. She is the source and origin of all bliss and joy for Krishna. Radha and Krishna are considered to be inherently non-different, like the sun and its sunshine, or whiteness and milk. They are one divine reality, but they manifest as two forms to engage in the most intimate and ecstatic loving pastimes (līlā). Her role is to enhance Krishna's pleasure and to facilitate the highest expressions of divine love. Therefore, GV~ABA is more aligned with DPV (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta) as it encompasses inseparable-complementary-reflective aspects of spirit (Krishna consciousness) and nature (Krishna's svarupa-shakti with its three shaktis). Dr. Shanta should reconsider this perspective to refine his framework.
Dr. Shanta emphasizes Gauḍīya Vedānta’s Biohylogenesis model—life as the cause of matter—and asserts that the jīva, or self, is irreducibly conscious. While we respect this position, the DPV~ICRDAM framework does not contradict it, but rather recontextualizes consciousness within a dual-aspect, testable metaphysical model, drawing from both scriptural Vedānta and scientific rigor.
1. Consciousness-First vs. Collapse-Driven Strong Emergence
We fully agree with the Gauḍīya insight that consciousness is not reducible to conscious-less matter. However, our framework clarifies how specific conscious experiences (CSEs) arise through dual-aspect state (DAS) interactions, not from unconscious matter, but from a potential field of consciousness embedded in Saguna Brahman (SB), which manifests from and returns to Nirguna Brahman (NB).
- In DPV~ICRDAM, Saguna Brahman (SB) is a field of manifested dual-aspect states (DASs), each with inseparable subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects (Vimal, 2024b; 2018b).
- The collapse from a superposed set of possible DASs (ontic beables) into a specific CSE (like the perception of redness) is a classical resonance process involving feedforward (FF) and feedback (FB) signals (Vimal, 2010c; 2024b, §90.7).
- This model resolves the Hard Problem of Consciousness (HP2) by showing how subjective experience strongly emerges from interdependent DAS–DAS interactions, without invoking quantum collapse or materialist emergence.
Thus, we uphold the sacred status of consciousness while providing a causal process for how specific experiences arise—fulfilling both GV’s metaphysical intent and scientific demands for explanation.
2. Scriptural Alignment: Śruti and Smṛti Support
The neutrality and potentiality of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB)—from which DA_SB manifests—is supported directly in canonical texts:
(i). Corollary of Bhagavad Gītā 8.20 as Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta’s Sūtra
देवानां चापि नित्यमन्यः सन्, अव्यक्तात् परं तत्त्वं, नित्यं नेति-नेति-लक्षणं निर्गुणब्रह्म।
Even
beyond the unmanifest lies another eternal principle—defined by the neti-neti
method—Nirguṇa Brahman.
- This verse affirms NB as the neutral field beyond even the avyakta (SB), from which all DASs, including those of jīvas, emerge and return (Vimal, 2025a).
(ii). Bhagavad Gītā 2.13
देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा।
तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र न मुह्यति॥
- This confirms the continuity of the Ātmā_SB, i.e., the individual soul as a manifested conscious DAS, transforming across forms without losing its core (Gītā 2.13). We do not reduce it to matter; rather, we define it as a DAS with persistent EII (effective integrated information) across state transitions.
(iii). Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6
नेति नेति
"Not this, not that."
- This clearly defines NB as non-attributive and neutral, supporting the neti-neti epistemology central to DPV~ICRDAM.
3. Karma and Memory are Preserved in EII-NB Templates
We clarify Dr. Shanta’s concern about karmic memory. In DPV~ICRDAM, karma is not encoded in inert matter, but in informational-EII templates within NB:
- At biological death, the DAS collapses, and its informational content (EII) returns to NB ~ preBB_QVF, preserving karmic continuity.
- Gītā 15.15 supports this:
सर्वस्य चाहं हृदि सन्निविष्टो
मत्तः स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनं च।
वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो
वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम्॥
sarvasya chāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭho
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanañ cha
vedaiś cha sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva chāham
“I am seated in the hearts of all beings; from Me comes memory, knowledge, and forgetfulness...”
Meaning:
"I am seated in everyone's heart; from Me arise memory, knowledge, and
forgetfulness. I alone am to be known through the Vedas. I am the compiler and
knower of the Vedas."
Interpretation in DPV~ICRDAM: This confirms that EII (Effective Integrated Information) encoding karmic memory is consistent with divine oversight via s-aspect in each DAS (dual-aspect state).
This clearly aligns with our framework, where Paramātmā regulates conscious memory dynamics, consistent with karmic flow.
4. Consciousness-First Idealism Has Its Own Hard Problem
GV’s Biohylogenesis, though philosophically compelling, does not explain:
- How life organizes matter,
- How universal Ātmā relates to diversity in cognition,
- Or how specific qualia emerge from undifferentiated jīva.
Thus, just as matter-based emergence struggles with the “Hard Problem of Consciousness,” the consciousness-first idealism faces the “Hard Problem of Matter”—i.e., how structured matter appears within a conscious substratum.
DPV~ICRDAM addresses this by positing a neutral NB ground (neti-neti), from which dual-aspect states manifest, evolve, and return, allowing for both consciousness and matter to co-exist inseparably and reflectively (Vimal, 2023, 2024a,b; 2025a,b).
5. Summary
DPV~ICRDAM:
- Upholds the sacred centrality of consciousness as s-aspect of a conscious DAS of SB.
- Resolves the Hard Problem through classical collapse and DAS resonance, not inert material aggregation.
- Honors scriptural teaching (Gītā 2.13, 8.20, 15.15; BṛU 2.3.6) while providing scientific causal clarity.
- Bridges both metaphysical teleology and empirical explanation, offering a middle way (inseparable, complmentary, reflective dual-aspect monism: ICRDAM~DPV) between materialism and idealism.
9. Creation and Dissolution as Conscious Phase Dynamics: Reconciling Divine Līlā with Dual-Aspect Cosmology
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] From Divine Breath to Dual-Aspect Collapse: Mapping Gauḍīya Līlā onto DPV~ICRDAM
Response to Dr. Shanta’s Critique on Līlā, Agency, and Dissolution
We deeply respect Gauḍīya Vedānta’s theistic articulation of personal agency (līlā) in cosmic creation and dissolution. The DPV~ICRDAM framework does not contradict this perspective, but rather extends and reinterprets it using a dual-aspect, scientifically rigorous model that preserves conscious will while elucidating how that will is manifested in both subjective and non-subjective modes.
1. Divine Līlā as Phase Transition in DA_SB ~ DA_PPU: Bhagavad Gītā 9.10 — Divine Agency Governs Prakṛti
The Gītā (9.10) verse quoted:
मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम्।
हेतुनानेन कौन्तेय जगद्विपरिवर्तते॥
(Gītā 9.10)
IAST:
mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate
sa-carācaram
hetunānena kaunteya jagad viparivartate
"Under My supervision, material nature produces both moving and nonmoving beings. Because of this, O Kaunteya, the cosmic order keeps cycling."
Interpretation in DPV~ICRDAM: This śloka supports the view that the s-aspect (Divine Will) governs the unfolding of prakṛti, or nature (ns-aspect), in cyclical manifestation, aligned with DA_SB dynamics.
In DPV~ICRDAM, this “supervision” corresponds to Saguna Brahman (SB) as a dual-aspect divine field (DA_SB), which reflects both:
- the subjective (s-aspect) — Divine Will, Līlā, Volition
- the non-subjective (ns-aspect) — energy, entropy, information, and space-time (Vimal, 2025a)
Thus, what GV calls “will” or “divine play” is not symbolic but active causal phase restructuring within the DA_SB cosmos. Each state of the Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) corresponds to a breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu, as described in Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48.
2. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and Brahma Sūtra Support: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 1.3.1 — Puruṣa as Origin of Creation
The Bhāgavatam (1.3.1) states:
सूतः उवाच
जगृहे
पुरुषं
रूपं
भगवान्
महदादिभिः।
सम्भूतं षोडशकलं आदौ लोकसिसृक्षया॥
IAST:
sūta uvāca
jagṛhe puruṣaṁ rūpaṁ bhagavān mahad-ādibhiḥ
sambhūtaṁ ṣoḍaśa-kalaṁ ādau loka-sisṛkṣayā
Meaning:
"In the beginning of creation, the Lord assumed the universal form of
Puruṣa, from which emerged the sixteen principles (kalās) for creating the
worlds."
Interpretation in DPV~ICRDAM: The sixteen kalās represent foundational structured states, consistent with Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) and DA_PPU dynamics in our model.
This “puruṣa rūpa” is precisely the manifested DA_SB, which contains the sixteen kalās or principles of creation, understood in DPV~ICRDAM as structural states of the psychophysical universe (DA_PPU). These principles do not contradict but enrich the HCC’s layered states (Vimal, 2025b).
Moreover, Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 (तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्) affirms intentional dissolution, not mechanical annihilation. In DPV~ICRDAM, this is modeled as the collapse of manifest DASs into latent NB, with full informational conservation—aligned with Gītā 8.20’s transcendental avyakta.
3. Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14 — Dissolution as Conscious Process
Devanāgarī (Sūtra):
तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्॥ १४॥
IAST:
tanniṣṭhasya mokṣopadeśāt || 14 ||
Meaning:
"For one who is established in That (Brahman), liberation is taught (as
the final goal)."
Interpretation in
DPV~ICRDAM:
This sūtra indicates intentional dissolution of personal and cosmic
identity into neutral NB, consistent with cyclical reabsorption modeled
in HCC (Vimal, 2025b).
4. Mahā-Viṣṇu’s Breath = HCC Cycle States (S1–S7): Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48 — Creation/Dissolution as Divine Breath
The powerful verse from Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48:
यस्यैकनिश्वसितकालनमथावलम्ब्य
जीवन्ति लोमविलजा जगदण्डनाथाः।
विष्णुर्महान्स इह यस्य कलाविशेषो
गोविन्दमादिपुरुषं तमहं भजामि॥
IAST:
yasyaika-niśvasita-kālam
athāvalambya
jīvanti
loma-vilajā jagad-aṇḍa-nāthāḥ
viṣṇur
mahān sa iha yasya kalā-viśeṣo
govindam
ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
Meaning:
"By one breath of Mahā-Viṣṇu, the lords of countless universes live. That
Viṣṇu is a partial expansion of Govinda, the Original Lord—I worship Him."
Interpretation in
DPV~ICRDAM:
This is mapped to one complete HCC cycle: States S1 → S7, where each
cosmic breath is a full manifestation and reabsorption of dual-aspect
entities
In our framework:
- Each niśvasita-kāla maps to one full HCC cycle (S1 to S7), where:
- S1 is the latent NB,
- S4 reflects ΛCDM cosmology (our present),
- S7 returns to S1 via entropy and EII reversal (Vimal, 2025b).
The “breathing” of Mahā-Viṣṇu is not symbolic—it is a multi-scale cyclic phase transformation of the DA_SB cosmos.
4. Personal Volition and Scientific Causality Are Complementary
Dr. Shanta suggests that agency and entropy conflict. But DPV~ICRDAM maintains that:
- Entropy is not a causal agent, but an ns-aspect metric correlated with divine intent (s-aspect).
- Līlā is not abandoned, but reformulated as phase logic within the dual-aspect states governed by DA_SB.
- This mapping allows non-sectarian integration of personal theism with scientific formalism — a goal aligned with Premyoga (unification through divine love and reason) (Vimal, 2024a).
5. Supportive Gītā and Upaniṣadic Verses
|
Source |
Sanskrit |
Interpretation in DPV~ICRDAM |
|
Gītā 9.10 |
मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः |
SB guides creation through DA_SB volition |
|
Gītā 8.20 |
परस्तास् तु भावो अन्यो |
NB as latent ground beyond SB |
|
BṛU 2.3.6 |
नेति नेति |
NB as neti-neti-defined neutral substratum |
|
Gītā 2.16 |
नासतो विद्यते भावो |
NB as unchanging substratum |
|
Gītā 15.15 |
मत्तः स्मृतिर्ज्ञानम् |
Paramātmā governs memory and karma (via EII templates) |
6. Summary
DPV~ICRDAM does not deny Bhagavān’s līlā or agency—it explains how it operates across dual-aspect dynamics:
- Divine volition = s-aspect of DA_SB
- Entropic restructuring = ns-aspect of DA_SB
- Dissolution = collapse of DASs back to NB
- Karma/memory = EII-preserved patterns, regulated by Paramātmā
Thus, personal will, non-subjective science, and sacred scripture find non-contradictory expression in a rigorous and inclusive metaphysical science.
10. Neutral Nirguṇa Brahman and Divine Teleology: Bridging Gauḍīya Vedānta and Dual-Aspect Science
1. [Dr. Shanta]
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.
2. [Vimal] Reconciling Teleology, Agency, and Neutrality in DPV~ICRDAM
Dr. Shanta’s concern—that DPV~ICRDAM replaces Bhagavān with an impersonal and agency-less substratum—is rooted in a binary misunderstanding of the metaphysical spectrum. The Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (DPV~ICRDAM) framework does not reject personal agency but unpacks it through a layered metaphysical structure comprising:
1. Neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) — The unmanifest, potential ground of all.
2. Saguṇa Brahman (SB) — The manifest realm of divine agency (active dynamics self (ADS) and passive invariant (within lifetime) self (PIS = ADS + autobiographical long-term memory)), including Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and jīva who are inner-dwelling, i.e., reside in the mind-brain-heart system of divotees. It is important to note that dual-aspect (DA) SB manifests from and returns to neutral NB~preBB_QVF. In other words, Saguṇa Brahman (SB) refers to the manifest realm of divine agency, encompassing the active dynamic self (ADS) and the passive invariant self (PIS)—where PIS = ADS + autobiographical long-term memory. This realm includes Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and jīva, all of whom function as inner-dwelling presences within the mind–brain–heart systems of devotees. Importantly, dual-aspect (DA) SB manifests from and ultimately returns to the neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) ~ pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field (preBB_QVF), in accordance with the DPV~ICRDAM cosmological cycle.
3. DA_SB ~ DA_PPU — The dual-aspect nature of all manifest entities (psychophysical universe), wherein teleological causality emerges via the subjective (s) aspect.
In this framework, teleology is not assigned to an impersonal vacuum but arises from the inseparable subjective (s-aspect) of each dual-aspect state (DAS), including that of Bhagavān and jīva. DPV~ICRDAM does not deny the personal form of Bhagavān but recognizes it as part of Saguṇa Brahman, coexisting with impersonal neutrality at the NB level, which is itself neither conscious nor unconscious, neither attributeless nor attributed—characterized by neti-neti (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6).
Q. What are teleology and teleological causality and how do they emerge via the s-aspect and what happens to ns-aspect reflectively?
This is a thoughtful and deep question. Let’s break it down and explain clearly each of the components you're referring to—teleology, teleological causality, their emergence via the s-aspect (subjective aspect), and the corresponding reflective effect on the ns-aspect (non-subjective aspect) within the DA_SB ~ DA_PPU framework of DPV~ICRDAM.
1. What is Teleology and Teleological Causality?
Teleology (from Greek telos, meaning "end" or "purpose") refers to the explanation of phenomena in terms of their goal, purpose, or final cause. In classical philosophy (especially Aristotelian thought), teleology contrasts with mechanistic or material causality.
Teleological causality means that events or structures occur because they are directed toward some purpose or final outcome. It's "goal-oriented" causality.
For example:
- A heart beats not just because of biophysical mechanisms (mechanistic cause) but for the purpose of circulating blood (teleological cause).
- A seed becomes a tree not just due to DNA replication but also because it is "aimed at" becoming a tree—its telos.
2. How Does Teleology Emerge via the Subjective (s-) Aspect?
In the DPV~ICRDAM framework, every manifest entity is a Dual-Aspect State (DAS):
- s-aspect: Subjective pole (mind, self-awareness, intention, will).
- ns-aspect: Non-subjective pole (physical structure, measurable neural or field activity).
In this view, teleology is not imposed externally or from a divine puppet-master. Instead:
🔁 Teleological causality emerges from the s-aspect, because:
- The s-aspect of a conscious DAS of Active Dynamic Self (ADS)—a key s-aspect component—includes intention, volition, desire, and goal-setting.
- Both jīva and Bhagavān (as DAS entities within SB) manifest purposeful action.
- Teleological direction arises from internal motivation, not external mechanical determinism.
In simpler terms: The purpose or direction of anything in the psychophysical universe arises from its subjective aspect of a conscious DAS of self (ADS)—as its conscious intent—not from impersonal processes.
3. What Happens Reflectively in the ns-aspect?
Because s- and ns-aspects are inseparable and complementary, whatever arises in the s-aspect is reflected in the ns-aspect.
🔁 When teleology arises in the s-aspect (e.g., a goal-directed intention),
- the ns-aspect changes to reflect it via:
- neural-physical activity (in brains),
- behavioral motion,
- system reorganization,
- informational or physical structures evolving toward that goal.
So, in DAS:
- s-aspect: “I want to learn” → intention, volition.
- ns-aspect: Brain forms new synaptic connections to reflect that purpose (plasticity), muscle activation, etc.
This reflects to s-aspect to ns-aspect and vice-versa because of inseparability between s and ns aspects.
In Bhagavān’s DAS, for example:
- His līlā (divine play) arises teleologically from His s-aspect (desire to relate, create, love).
- The manifest world (DA_PPU) is the ns-aspect reflection of that purpose, structured accordingly.
4. Relationship to NB and Neti-Neti
Importantly, teleology does not arise in NB (Nirguṇa Brahman), because:
- NB is neutral, defined through neti-neti:
- not attributed, not purposive, not conscious, not unconscious.
- It is the potential source of all, but does not direct or will.
Instead, SB (Saguṇa Brahman) is the realm where teleological causality operates, through its DAS constituents—Bhagavān, Paramātmā, jīva, and others.
5. Scriptural Support
1. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6 (Neti-Neti):
देवतात्वं नेति नेति।
na iti, na iti
→ NB is beyond predicates: neither conscious nor not, neither purposeful nor
not.
2. Bhagavad Gītā 9.10:
मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः सूयते सचराचरम्।
mayādhyakṣeṇa prakṛtiḥ sūyate sa-carācaram
→ Teleology arises in SB: under Bhagavān’s oversight (s-aspect), prakṛti
(ns-aspect) manifests the world.
3. Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14:
लोकवत्तु लीलाकैवल्यम्
lokavat tu līlākaivalyam
→ Just as the world functions under human play, so too the cosmos manifests
through divine līlā (teleological s-aspect of Bhagavān).
6. Summary
|
Aspect |
Explanation |
|
Teleology |
Goal-oriented cause arising from consciousness (purpose, intention). |
|
Emerges in |
s-aspect (ADS, volition, intention in jīva or Bhagavān). |
|
Reflected in |
ns-aspect (physical, neural, cosmic systems evolving toward purpose). |
|
Source level |
Operative in SB (Saguṇa Brahman); absent in NB (Nirguṇa Brahman). |
|
Scriptural Basis |
Gītā 9.10, BṛU 2.3.6, Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14. |
The accusation of incoherence stems from a failure to distinguish between:
- Manifest agency (SB): e.g., Bhagavān's līlā, Paramātmā’s oversight, jīva’s karma.
- Neutral substratum (NB): the precondition for all being, including personal divinity.
This model does not negate personalism but synthesizes it with non-dual insight.
7. Supporting Scriptural References for DPV~ICRDAM
1. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6 – Neti-Neti Definition of NB
देवता वा एष नेत्येत्यात्मा, अगृह्यः, न हि गृह्यतेऽसति गृह्यतः।
na iti na iti — this self is not this, not that. It is ungraspable, for it
is not grasped by anything.
This verse supports the neutrality of NB, the non-attributed ground from which all Saguṇa forms (including Bhagavān) arise.
2. Bhagavad Gītā 13.12
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते॥
anādimat paraṁ brahma na sat tan nāsad ucyate
“That supreme Brahman is beginningless.
It is neither being nor non-being.”
This reinforces the neutral nature of NB, consistent with DPV~ICRDAM’s
foundational tier.
3. Bhagavad Gītā 15.15
सर्वस्य चाहं हृदि सन्निविष्टो
मत्तः
स्मृतिर्ज्ञानमपोहनं च
vedaiś ca
sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham
“I am seated in the heart of
all beings. From Me come memory, knowledge, and forgetfulness...”
This verse bridges personal agency (Bhagavān, Paramātmā) with subjective
EII (Effective Integrated Information) stored within DASs in DPV~ICRDAM.
4.
Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14
तन्निष्ठस्य मोक्षोपदेशात्॥ १४॥
tanniṣṭhasya mokṣopadeśāt || 14 ||
“Liberation is prescribed for one devoted to That (Brahman).” This confirms that realization of That (Brahman)—including its neutral and personal aspects—leads to liberation. DPV~ICRDAM explicitly upholds this soteriological direction.
5.
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.87.2
बुद्धीन्द्रिय-मनः-प्राणान् जनानामसृजत् प्रभुः।
मात्रार्थं च भवार्थं च आत्मनेऽकल्पनाय च॥
buddhīndriya-manaḥ-prāṇān janānām asṛjat
prabhuḥ
mātrārthaṁ ca bhavārthaṁ ca ātmane ’kalpanāya
ca
“The Lord created the
intelligence, senses, and vital airs for both worldly enjoyment and final
liberation.”
This śloka aligns with DPV~ICRDAM’s concept of DAS-level teleology:
SB-level agency creates experiential evolution toward mokṣa via DAS-DAS
interactions.
8. Summary
DPV~ICRDAM neither denies Bhagavān nor imposes teleology upon an impersonal vacuum. Instead, it:
- Retains Bhagavān within the SB domain because He is guna(attribute)-laden,
- Upholds divine agency as the s-aspect in DASs (including the cosmic SB),
- Affirms that NB, the neutral substratum, is the unmanifest source of all—consistent with Upaniṣadic and Gītā metaphysics.
- It seems that Dr. Shanta may either be unaware of Advaita or does not accept it, as concepts like Nirguna Brahman (NB) and the neti-neti principle are highly regarded in Śankarācārya’s Advaita philosophy. This discrepancy could be due to the existence of two different yet competing sampradāyas (sects). This situation appears to contradict the non-sectarian nature of Radha-Krishna’s Divine Love, which is central to Gauḍīya Vedānta. I am curious about how Dr. Shanta justifies this issue, and I hope that I may have misunderstood the matter.[xiv]
In short, DPV~ICRDAM’s non-sectarian metaphysics upholds the full spectrum: personal, impersonal, and beyond—echoing the deepest insights of Vedānta.
11. Overarching Conclusion
The present work clarifies, reinterprets, and bridges core metaphysical tensions between Gauḍīya Vedānta and the DPV~ICRDAM framework. Far from being speculative or atheistically depersonalized, the dual-aspect model affirms the integral reality of Bhagavān, Paramātmā, and jīva within the realm of Saguṇa Brahman, while grounding their cyclic manifestation in a neutral, transcendental substratum identified as Nirguṇa Brahman (NB). This substratum—characterized by the neti-neti principle—is neither conscious nor unconscious but the potential ground of both. Addressing critiques of scientific incoherence and metaphysical inversion, the DPV~ICRDAM model upholds the Vedāntic notion of eternal ātman while reinterpreting emergence, entropy, and causality within a rigorous, testable, and scripturally aligned dual-aspect framework.
Entropy does not replace ‘Divine Will’; it is the measurable non-subjective (ns) correlate of the subjective (s) divine impulse. Consciousness is not reduced to quantum mechanics but understood as a dual-aspect manifestation co-arising through classical collapses in the mind-brain system. At each stage, scriptural verses—such as BG 2.12, 2.17, 8.20, and Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6—are invoked to defend the ontological validity of this model. What emerges is a robust metaphysical bridge that preserves the personal dimension of the divine while also offering a coherent explanatory framework for empirical science.
Ultimately, DPV~ICRDAM is not a rejection of Gauḍīya ontology, but an invitation to deepen its universal scope through the lens of integrated science and spirituality. In the spirit of BG 4.11—“ye yathā māṁ prapadyante…”—this work calls for epistemic humility and pluralistic inclusivity, affirming that diverse yet complementary paths may converge in the realization of the same eternal truth.
3.3. [Siddhāntin: 12-July-2025]
1. Comparison between Gauḍīya Vedānta with Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita.
Bhakti Beyond Boundaries: A Comparative Study of Viśiṣṭādvaita and Gauḍīya Vedānta
From Nārāyaṇa to Krishna: Contrasting Theologies in Rāmānuja’s and Caitanya’s Vedānta
Here is a focused comparison of Gauḍīya Vedānta and Rāmānujācārya's Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta, addressing their metaphysical, theological, and devotional differences. The analysis includes key citations and concludes with two suitable academic titles and a reference list.
Comparison of Gauḍīya Vedānta and Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
1. Ontological Foundation: Brahman and Its Modes
|
Feature |
Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita |
Gauḍīya Vedānta (Caitanya School) |
|
Brahman |
Brahman is Saguṇa (with attributes), identified with Nārāyaṇa/Viṣṇu—the Supreme Person who is the indwelling Self of all (Rāmānuja, 1912). |
Brahman is also Saguṇa, but Krishna is the supreme form of God, higher than Nārāyaṇa; Svayam Bhagavān Krishna is the source of all manifestations (Saraswati, 1998). |
|
NB–SB relation |
NB ≡ SB in modal form; no Nirguṇa without Saguṇa: NB is conceptual abstraction; SB is ontologically real (Sharma, 1996). |
Emphasizes the neutral aspect of Brahman as impersonal (NB), but considers it inferior to SB (Krishna), who possesses rasa (divine emotional potency) (Satsvarupa, 1992). |
2. Relation Between Ātman, Paramātman, and World
|
Feature |
Viśiṣṭādvaita |
Gauḍīya Vedānta |
|
Jīvātmans |
Real, eternal modes (viśeṣaṇas) of Brahman; distinct yet dependent; share qualities but not identity (Rāmānuja, 1912). |
Same: eternal parts of Krishna (Bhagavad Gītā 15.7); qualitatively one, quantitatively different; jīvās can never become God (Prabhupāda, 1972). |
|
World (Jagat) |
Real, not illusory; part of Brahman’s cosmic body (Śarīra–Śarīrī relation) (Sharma, 1996). |
Same view: the world is real; Krishna’s energy (prakṛti) supports real lila; illusion (māyā) means forgetfulness, not nonexistence (Saraswati, 1998). |
3. Liberation (Mokṣa) and Its Nature
|
Feature |
Viśiṣṭādvaita |
Gauḍīya Vedānta |
|
Mokṣa Goal |
Eternal service to Nārāyaṇa in Vaikuṇṭha; includes sālokya, sārūpya, etc., based on devotion (Rāmānuja, 1912). |
Highest goal is prema-bhakti in Goloka Vṛndāvana with Krishna, experiencing rasa-laden lila in intimate forms (gopī, friend, parent) (Satsvarupa, 1992). |
|
Mokṣa Path |
Bhakti-yoga + jñāna and karma, especially through prapatti (surrender) and scriptural meditation (Sharma, 1996). |
Pure bhakti-yoga emphasized: especially nāma-saṅkīrtana and līlā-smaraṇa (Saraswati, 1998). No jñāna or karma required; only unalloyed devotion matters. |
4. God’s Ontological Nature and Devotional Theology
|
Feature |
Viśiṣṭādvaita |
Gauḍīya Vedānta |
|
Supreme Form of God |
Nārāyaṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. |
Krishna is Svayam Bhagavān, the origin even of Nārāyaṇa (Caitanya Caritāmṛta, Ādi 5.41). |
|
Bhakti Type |
Reverential, respectful dāsya bhakti (servitude). |
Adds higher rasa bhaktis: vātsalya (parental), sakhya (friendly), mādhurya (conjugal). |
|
Rādhā’s Role |
Not emphasized in classical Viśiṣṭādvaita. |
Central: Rādhā is the hlādinī(ह्लादिनी)[xv]-śakti (bliss potency) of Krishna, and ultimate model of prema (Prabhupāda, 1972). |
5. View of Nirguṇa Brahman
|
Feature |
Viśiṣṭādvaita |
Gauḍīya Vedānta |
|
Nirguṇa Brahman |
Considered a conceptual abstraction with no separate ontological value; Saguṇa Brahman is ultimate (Rāmānuja, 1912). |
Recognized but considered inferior; impersonal liberation is spiritual suicide; ultimate goal is loving Krishna (Satsvarupa, 1992). |
6. Summary of Key Differences:
1. Supreme Form: Nārāyaṇa (Viśiṣṭādvaita) vs. Krishna (Gauḍīya).
2. Bhakti Type: Reverential vs. Intimate ecstatic rasa-based.
3. Mokṣa: Service in Vaikuṇṭha vs. prema-laden lila in Goloka.
4. Path: Devotion + knowledge (Viśiṣṭādvaita) vs. exclusive devotion (Gauḍīya).
5. Role of Rādhā: Absent in Viśiṣṭādvaita; essential in Gauḍīya.
2. Comparison between Brahma Sūtra Vedānta
(BSV), Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV),
Cit-Acit-Viśiṣṭādvaita (CAV), Advaita
Vedānta (AV) and <Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~
Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (DPV~ICRDAM)>
Beyond Vedāntic Boundaries: A Five-System Comparative Analysis of Brahman, Self, and Reality
BSV,GV,CAV, AV, & DPV~ICRDAM: Synthesizing Classical Vedānta and Scientific Dual-Aspect Ontologies
Here is a synthesized comparative table analyzing the core metaphysical and ontological features of five major Vedāntic and integrative philosophical systems:
(i) Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahma
Sūtra Vedānta (BSV)
(ii) Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV)
(iii) Rāmānujācārya’s Cit-Acit-Viśiṣṭādvaita (CAV)
(iv) Śaṅkarācārya's Advaita Vedānta (AV)
(v) Vimal’s DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita
Vedānta ~ science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect
Monism)
1. Comparative Table: Five Vedāntic and Integrative Philosophical Systems
|
Dimension |
Brahma Sūtra Vedānta (BSV) (Bādarāyaṇa) |
Gauḍīya[xvi] Vedānta/ Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (GV~ABA) (Chaitanya Mahāprabhu)[xvii] |
Cit-Acit-Viśiṣṭādvaita (CAV) (Rāmānujācārya) |
Advaita Vedānta (AV) (Śaṅkarācārya) |
DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal) |
|
1. Ultimate Reality |
Brahman as NB + SB |
Kṛṣṇa (SB) as Svayam Bhagavān |
NB (potential), SB (actual) are one |
NB is the only real/permanent; SB is transient/mortal |
NB ~ preBB_QVF DA_SB ~ DA_PPU SB manifests from and returns to NB |
|
2. Nature of Brahman |
NB: unmanifest, SB: manifest |
SB (Kṛṣṇa) is highest personality NB subordinated |
SB (Nārāyaṇa) = body + soul of cosmos |
Only NB (nirguṇa) is real, immortal SB is māyā/mortal |
NB: unmanifest, immortal, neutral SB: manifest, mortal, Dual-Aspect Reality |
|
3. Māyā |
Implied but undefined |
Real energy (śakti) of Kṛṣṇa |
Not emphasized; real manifestation |
Illusory projection of NB |
Evolution, adaptation, and natural selection emergence via phase transition |
|
4. Ātman–Brahman Relation |
Both unity and duality accepted |
Jīvas are eternal parts of eternal Kṛṣṇa |
Jīvas are real, dependent parts of SB |
Jīva = NB in truth |
Jīvātman = DASic of ADS (active dynamic self) as ADS_SB, mortal |
|
5. Material World |
Manifested from SB |
Real; body of Kṛṣṇa |
Real; body of SB |
Ultimately unreal |
DA_PPU: manifests from & returns to NB |
|
6. Liberation (Mokṣa) |
Union with Brahman (NB or SB) |
Loving service (bhakti) to Kṛṣṇa |
Eternal service to SB in Vaikuṇṭha |
Realization of unity with NB |
ADS (as information patterns) returns to NB if karma resolved; else rebirth |
|
7. Soteriological Path |
Jñāna & Upāsanā |
Bhakti (ecstatic love) |
Bhakti + knowledge |
Jñāna only |
Ethics + EII purification |
|
8. Individual Identity Post-Liberation |
Flexible; unity or distinctness |
Retained in spiritual body (siddha-deha) |
Retained |
Dissolved in NB |
Latent CSE pattern preserved in NB |
|
9. Causality of Universe |
SB = upādāna + nimitta kāraṇa |
Kṛṣṇa and His śakti |
SB is both causes |
Māyā = instrument; NB untouched |
SB arises from NB via phase transition |
|
10. Epistemology |
Śruti + reason |
Śruti + ecstatic bhakti |
Śruti + logical realism |
Śruti + adhyāsa theory |
Empirical + scriptural + neurophenomenology |
|
11. Role of Deity |
Not personalized |
Kṛṣṇa is supreme Godhead |
Nārāyaṇa is Supreme Self |
ISB is māyā-born |
ISB = mind-generated archetype in theist ADS; mortal |
|
12. Scientific Integration |
Absent |
Not integrated |
Minimal |
No |
Fully integrated (DA ontology, CSE, physics) |
|
13. Subtle Entities (e.g., ISB, tanmātras) |
Implicit |
Exist in spiritual sky |
Exist as tanmātras, sūkṣma rūpa |
Explained as māyā |
Modeled as DAS with latent EII patterns |
|
14. Ontology Type |
Pluralistic-Nondual |
Theistic Pluralism |
Qualified Non-dualism |
Absolute Non-dualism |
Inseparable- complmentary-reflective Dual-Aspect Monism |
2. Key Insights
- Bādarāyaṇa’s BSV allows both NB (Nirguna Braham) and SB (Saguna Brahman) but leaves causality ambiguous (Dasgupta, 1922; Radhakrishnan, 1927).
- GV prioritizes SB (Kṛṣṇa) and retains individuality eternally for devotion (De, 1961).
- CAV (Rāmānujācārya) reconciles unity and multiplicity through body–soul analogy (Sharma, 1996; Rāmānuja, 1912). NB and SB are inseparable and complementary aspects of Brahman
- AV (Śaṅkara) asserts NB as ultimate non-duality and considers the world (SB) as illusory (Mayeda, 1979; Hiriyanna, 1951).
- DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal) unifies science and spirituality through dual-aspect ontology and two-realm NB-SB metaphysics (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism)
DPV is spirituality-based with Nirguṇa Brahman (NB)[xviii],[xix] as a primal source defined using the neti-neti principle.[xx] ICRDAM is science-based with the source Pre_Big_Bang-QVF (quantum vacuum field) or preBB_QVF in short. To bridge spirituality and science, DPV and ICRDAM postulate NB ~ preBB_QVF. Saguṇa Brahman (SB)[xxi] is defined to have attributes/guṇas and includes all manifested dual-aspect entities of our dual-aspect psychophysical universe (DA_PPU). NB and SB are related[xxii]; SB manifests from and returns to NB. Spirituality-based SB is equivalent to the dual-aspect (DA) unified field (UF), DA unified informational_energy/energetic_information field (UIEF/UEIF), or DA_ZPF.
In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is characterized as neutral. This means it is: (i) neither explicitly without attributes nor explicitly endowed with attributes; (ii) neither clearly self-luminous nor clearly non-self-luminous; (iii) neither definitively conscious nor definitively non-conscious; (iv) neither strictly mental nor strictly physical, and so forth, in accordance with the neti-neti principle.
According to the neti-neti principle, NB is defined as neutral; it is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden, nor is it clearly self-luminous or not self-luminous. NB possesses the potential for SB to have attributes. SB, on the other hand, is a dual-aspect (DA) entity that has attributes. For instance, DA_sun_SB is self-luminous, while DA_moon_SB is not, as the moon is illuminated by the sun.
To discover the truth, we must adhere to the principles of science. The framework of DPV~ICRDAM—spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (where “~” signifies “equivalent to”)—is considered the best approach. This is known as the NB-SB (Nirguṇa Brahman and Saguṇa Brahman) framework.
In this context, NB is defined using the neti-neti principle, indicating that it is neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious; it is neutral. This means that all the countless manifested living and non-living dual-aspect entities, including deities such as Brahmā, Viṣṇu/Nārāyaṇa/Kṛṣṇa/Rāma, and Śiva, exist within the minds of their devotees. They are “parts” of the “whole”/cosmic SB, which manifests from and ultimately returns to NB. Anything beyond this understanding is seen as superstition.
3.4. Premayoga (Divine Love and Compassion): Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta
Abstract
Premayoga—the yoga of divine love and compassion—offers a powerful experiential and metaphysical bridge between Bhakti traditions and scientific understandings of consciousness. This paper presents a synthesis of Premayoga within the framework of Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV). These twin lenses collectively articulate a two-realm ontology: one grounded in the neutral, non-empirical substratum of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), and the other expressed through the manifest, attribute-laden play of Saguṇa Brahman (SB). Premayoga is proposed not merely as a path of devotion, but as the dynamic force of reflective interconnection between the subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects of all beings and cosmic processes. Drawing upon classical sources—including the Bhagavad Gītā, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and Upaniṣads—and integrating them with a rigorous reflective science-based framework, this article demonstrates that love and compassion are not secondary emotional features but ontological drivers of cosmic coherence, recurrence, and meaning.
1. Introduction: Why Premayoga Now?
Modern science often isolates consciousness from affect, treating emotion as a product of neural computation rather than as a foundational feature of reality. Meanwhile, many spiritual traditions, especially Bhakti Vedānta, place divine love (prema) at the very center of being, ethics, and liberation. What if both are right, but incomplete?
In this article, we propose Premayoga—the path and principle of divine love and compassion—as not merely a practice or sentiment but an ontological bridge between spiritual metaphysics and scientific dual-aspect monism. Through the lens of DPV~ICRDAM, we argue that love and compassion are structurally woven into the reflective interface of reality, as s-aspect (subjective inner experience) and ns-aspect (non-subjective structural-expressive process).
2. What Is Premayoga?
2.1 Etymology and Definition
The term Premayoga (प्रेमयोगः) is a compound of:
- Prema (प्रेम) – divine, unconditional love
- Yoga (योग) – union, yoking, or integration
Thus, Premayoga means "the spiritual union through divine love", going beyond desire-bound emotion (kāma) to reflect pure, selfless devotion (bhakti), characterized by karuṇā (compassion) and ānanda (blissful unity).
2.2 Classical Contexts: Scriptural Support
a. Śrīmad‑Bhāgavatam 1.2.6
Devanāgarī:
स वै पुंसां परो धर्मो यतो भक्तिरधोक्षजे ।
अहैतुक्यप्रतिहता ययात्मा सुप्रसीदति ॥
Transliteration:
sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaje
ahaituky apratihatā yayātmā suprasīdati
Translation:
“That is the supreme dharma for human beings: loving devotion (bhakti) unto the
transcendental Lord (Adhokṣaja), causeless and uninterrupted, by which one’s
self is completely satisfied” (Wikipedia,
Vaniquotes).
This affirms that unmotivated, constant love (prema) is the highest Dharma.
b. Bhagavad Gītā 10.10
Devanāgarī:
तेषां सततयुक्तानां भजतां प्रीतिपूर्वकम् ।
ददामि बुद्धियोगं तं येन मामुपयान्ति ते ॥
Transliteration:
teṣāṃ satatayuktānāṃ bhajatāṃ prīti-pūrvakam
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṃ taṃ yena mām upayānti te
Translation:
“To those ever steadfast, who worship Me with love, I give wisdom by which they
attain Me” (Vaniquotes, Vaniquotes).
This verse emphasizes that divine love precedes knowledge and is the key to realization.
3. DPV~ICRDAM Framework Overview
3.1 Dvi‑Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV)
A non-dual ontology holding that:
- Reality consists of two inseparable aspects: s-aspect (subjective) and ns-aspect (non-subjective).
- NB is the neutral substratum; SB emerges as its manifestation.
- SB does not create NB; rather NB transforms into dual aspects.
3.2 Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM)
This model affirms that s and ns are inseparable and complementary. Any change in one is instantly reflected in the other. The reflection is faithful, non-reductive, and non-dual—crucial to modeling consciousness and cosmic cycles.
4. Premayoga as the Reflective Principle Between s & ns
- In s‑aspect, Premayoga is experiential divine love—an inner yearning for unity and compassion.
- In ns‑aspect, it is cosmic coherence, harmonic emergence, ethical consonance, and recurrence—structurally encoded in reality.
4.1 Scriptural Corroboration
These verses show that divine love is not marginal but central:
- SB 1.2.6 defines dharma as pure, continuous love.
- BG 10.10 states that love-enabled wisdom leads to union.
Love is not sentiment; it is structural alignment between s and ns.
5. Integration with Cosmology and Consciousness Studies
Within the DPV~ICRDAM–HCC (Holographic Cosmological Cycle), the universe cycles through seven states (S1–S7).
- In s‑aspect, Premayoga appears as longing, union, bliss.
- In ns‑aspect, as low entropy, high effective integrated information (EII), and organizational coherence.
Premayoga thus reflects the cosmic phase from formless unity → manifested love → reintegration.
6. Distinctiveness of Premayoga
|
Yoga |
Aim |
Method |
Highest Realization |
|
Jñānayoga |
Liberation through knowledge |
Inquiry, discernment |
Non-dual awareness |
|
Karmayoga |
Liberation through action |
Selfless duty |
Equanimity, detachment |
|
Bhaktiyoga |
Liberation through devotion |
Worship, surrender |
Devotional service |
|
Premayoga |
Liberation through love |
Resonance of Divine love with all entities, which activate bliss-related neural-physical activity in related neural-network (NN) |
Unity in divine love and compassion |
Premayoga is not opposed to other yogas, but transcends and integrates them within a reflective, ontological matrix where love is the core.
7. Broader Implications
7.1 For Science & Consciousness Studies
Premayoga reconceives consciousness as integral and affective, not emergent. It supports non-reductive frameworks and highlights compassion as a fundamental factor in conscious life and cosmological structuring.
7.2 For Ethics & Living
Every being is a dual‑aspect reflective state. Compassion becomes ontological action, restoring coherence and preventing disintegration of the whole. Ethical action is not moral surface—it is cosmic participation in divine interconnectivity.
8. Conclusion
Premayoga is the essential principle within DPV~ICRDAM: divine love and compassion as reflective coherence between subjective depth and cosmic structure. It is the experiential realization and ontological foundation of union with the divine, present throughout tradition and science alike.
9. Śāstra Verses Summary Table
|
Source |
Verse |
Devanāgarī / Transliteration |
Translation |
|
BG 10.10 |
teṣāṃ satatayuktānāṃ… |
तेषां सततयुक्तानां भजतां प्रीतिपूर्वकम् … |
“To those who worship Me with love…I give wisdom…” (Vaniquotes, Vedabase, Vaniquotes, Facebook) |
|
SB 1.2.6 |
sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo… |
स वै पुंसां परो धर्मो यतो भक्तिरधोक्षजे … |
“Supreme dharma: unconditional love unto the Lord…” |
3.5. References:
Albahari, M. (2020). Beyond cosmopsychism and the great I am: How the world might be grounded in universal consciousness. In W. Seager (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism (pp. 119–129). Routledge.
Albahari, M. (2022). One Consciousness: Toward an Advaita Theory of Consciousness. Oxford University Press.
Atmanspacher, H., & Rickles, D. (2022). Dual-Aspect Monism and the Deep Structure of Meaning. Routledge.
Bhagavad Gītā. (Trans. Swami Sivananda, 2000). Divine Life Society.
Bhāgavata Purāṇa (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam).
Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14.
Brahma-saṁhitā 5.48.
Caitanya Caritāmṛta. (16th century). Ādi-līlā. 1486-1534 Prabhupāda, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (1972)
Chalmers, D. J. (2013). Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism. In T. Alter & Y. Nagasawa (Eds.), Consciousness in the Physical World (pp. 246–276). Oxford University Press. https://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf (Chalmers, 2013)
Dasgupta, S. (1922). A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol 1.
De, S. K. (1961). Early History of the Vaiṣṇava Faith and Movement in Bengal.
Gītā (Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā), especially 2.16, 8.20, 9.10, 15.15.
Hiriyanna, M. (1951). Outlines of Indian Philosophy.
Keppler, J., & Shani, I. (2020). Cosmic Consciousness and Quantum Reality.
Labini, F. S. (2024). “Entropy Resets in Quantum Cosmology.” European Journal of Physics, 45(2), 101–119.
Mayeda, S. (1979). A Thousand Teachings: The Upadeśasāhasrī of Śaṅkara.
Miller, I. (2018). Mind Beyond Matter.
Miller, I. (2021). Consciousness as Field: A Cosmopsychist Account.
Penrose, R. (2010). Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe. Bodley Head.
Prabhupāda, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. (1972). Bhagavad-Gītā As It Is. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1927). Indian Philosophy, Vol 2.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1953). The Principal Upaniṣads. HarperCollins.
Rāmānuja (1912). Śrībhāṣya (Trans. Rangacharya, M.).
Rāmānuja. (1912). Śrībhāṣya on Brahma Sūtras. Trans. George Thibaut.
Śaṅkarācārya. (1904). Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya. Trans. George Thibaut, SBE Series.
Saraswati, B.V. Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja. (1998). Jaiva Dharma and Bhakti-tattva. Gaudiya Vedanta Publications.
Satsvarupa Dāsa Goswami. (1992). Readings in Vedic Literature. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
Shani, I. (2022a). Quantum Mind and Dual-Aspect Theories.
Shani, I. (2022b). Rethinking Cosmopsychism.
Sharma, C. (1996). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Śivānanda, S. (2002). Brahma Sutras. Divine Life Society.
Svec, M. (2018). “Time-Symmetric Interpretations of Entropy in Cyclic Cosmology.” Foundations of Physics, 48(11), 1421–1438.
Swami Medhananda (2021a). The Self as Consciousness: Advaita’s View.
Swami Medhananda (2022a). Panentheism and Vedānta.
Swami Medhananda (2022b). Atman and Brahman Reconsidered.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010c). Matching and selection of a specific subjective experience: conjugate matching and subjective experience. J Integr Neurosci, 9(2), 193-251. (Vimal, 2010c) <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44853901_Matching_and_selection_of_a_specific_subjective_experience_Conjugate_matching_and_experience>
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011). Premayoga (Divine Love and Compassion): Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research 4(4), 1-67 <Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283254996; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4585.8007.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2018b). The Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism framework: An attempt to solve the Hard problem. Trans/Form/Ação, Marília, Edição Especial, 41, 153-182. (Vimal, 2018b)
Vimal, R. L. P. (2023). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge the Gap between Science and Spirituality (Volume 1: Chapters 1-12). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(4), 1-1091. [Available: <Volume 1: (Vimal, 2023): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377964854> and <(Vimal, 2023): https://www.academia.edu/121285641/>]. https://5mp.academia.edu/RamLakhanPandeyVimal
Vimal, R. L. P. (2024a). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 2: Appendices).Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(5), 1-800. Available: <Volume 2: (Vimal, 2024a): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380850619> and (Vimal, 2024a): https://www.academia.edu/119946366>
Vimal, R. L. P. (2024b). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 3: Discussions). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 16(6), 1-453. Available<Volume 3: (Vimal, 2024b): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 >. Note: All volumes (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b) adopt a non-sectarian approach to bridge the two seemingly opposite major sects: spirituality and science. <Volume 3.1: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]. <Volume 3.2: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.2): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]. <Volume 3.3: (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.3): https://www.academia.edu/122272500/ and (Vimal, 2024b.Volume 3.1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382457706 > ]
Vimal, R. L. P. (2025a). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 4: Challenges and Resolutions).Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 17(1), 1-499. (Vimal, 2025a). Avialable : <https://groups.google.com/g/sboc-forum/c/847hqhHLdQg/m/uySeZHFLAgAJ>.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2025b). Towards a Holistic Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge Science and Spirituality (Volume 5: Jñāna Yoga and Cosmology). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 17(7), 1-457. (Vimal, 2025b). Avialable : <https://groups.google.com/g/sboc-forum/c/TG8kVmRF8Vs/m/KlyDkKODEQAJ>
Wishon, D. (2017). Chapter 3 Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism, Macmillan Interdisciplinary Handbooks (pp. 51-70): Macmillan Reference USA, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning WCN 02-200-210. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/200759409.pdf. (Wishon, 2017)
[i] Hlādinī (ह्लादिनी) is a significant concept in Hinduism, particularly prominent in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It literally means "that which gives delight or pleasure."
Here's a breakdown of its meaning and significance:
1. The Bliss-Giving Potency (Shakti) of God:
o In Vaishnava philosophy, the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Krishna) possesses various energies (Shaktis). These are broadly categorized as internal (spiritual), external (material), and marginal (living entities).
o Hlādinī-shakti is the internal pleasure potency of the Supreme Lord. It is the energy by which Krishna experiences transcendental bliss and, through which, He bestows bliss and divine joy upon His devotees.
o It's one of the three main aspects of Krishna's svarupa-shakti (His internal, essential potency), along with:
§ Sandhini-shakti (Existence/Eternality): The potency that sustains Krishna's own existence and the spiritual realm.
§ Samvit-shakti (Cognition/Knowledge): The potency that enables Krishna's omniscience and bestows knowledge upon devotees.
2. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī as the Embodiment of Hlādinī:
o In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is considered the personification and supreme embodiment of Hlādinī-shakti. She is the source and origin of all bliss and joy for Krishna.
o Radha and Krishna are considered to be inherently non-different, like the sun and its sunshine, or whiteness and milk. They are one divine reality, but they manifest as two forms to engage in the most intimate and ecstatic loving pastimes (līlā).
o Her role is to enhance Krishna's pleasure and to facilitate the highest expressions of divine love.
3. Significance for Devotees:
o The concept of Hlādinī is crucial for understanding the nature of bhakti (devotional service) in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
o True spiritual bliss (ānanda) is experienced through connection with this Hlādinī potency.
o Devotees strive to serve Radha and Krishna in their loving pastimes, thereby participating in and experiencing the transcendental bliss generated by Hlādinī-shakti. The desire to love Krishna itself originates from His Hlādinī-shakti working within the devotee's heart.
4. Beyond Vaishnavism (Other Meanings):
o While its philosophical significance is strongest in Vaishnavism, the term "Hlādinī" can also appear in other contexts:
§ It can be a name for a woman, meaning "one who brings joy and happiness."
§ In some Puranas, it refers to a river (a tributary of the Ganges).
§ It can also refer to Indra's thunderbolt or even a particular plant (like the frankincense tree).
In summary, Hlādinī is fundamentally understood as the divine potency of bliss and pleasure, most perfectly manifested in Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, and it forms the essence of the loving exchanges between the Supreme Lord and His devotees.
[ii] Definition of NB: In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as the primal, eternal source of ultimate reality is defined using neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, (ii) neither explicitly subject nor explicitly object, (iii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iv) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (v) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities, etc. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR), which has potential for everything. In other words, NB has implicit (latent, unmanifested) or potentiality of inseparable and complementary s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity.
Opponent: If NB neither has explicit attributes nor lacks explicit attributes, how can māyā veil NB when there is nothing to veil?
Scientist-cum-Vedantin: (1) Since science was not developed in the ancient period, the terminology māyā was used to proceed further on how Suguṇa Brahman (SB) was manifested from NB by proposing the SB was the result of māyā’s veiling of NB. Now, we have modern science to unpack the mysterious māyā as follows.
(2) In spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) that uses NB and SB, and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) that uses preBB_QVF ~ NB and manifested entities ~ SB, a working hypothesis is that NB ~ preBB_QVF has latent and implicit attributes with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) subjective (s, mental) and non-subjective (ns, physical) aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. In other words, NB is neutral.
(3) To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that <NB ~ preBB_QVF (pre Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field)> has latent/hidden/implicit subject-objects, s-ns aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting everything, such as both s and ns aspects of realized entities, which are the parts of dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
From premises (1) to (3), the mysterious māyā’s veiling of NB to result NB can be unpacked through scientific phase-transition from <NB ~ preBB_QVF> latent/implicit phase to <dual-aspect SB ~ dual-aspect unified field (UF)> explicit phase due to temperature drop from the start of BB to near Planck epoch using BBC (Big Bang Cosmology) that has some evidence. By <near Planck epoch>, we mean before the symmetry breaking of the dual-aspect unified field (DA_UF) to result in dual-aspect gravitational force/field (DA-GF) at Planck epoch (~10−43 seconds after BB).
[iii] In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is based on the neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither subject nor object, (ii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iii) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (iv) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (v) neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly with an attribute, and (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR) that has potential for everything including inseparable and complementary dual-aspect states of manifested entities/fields including our mindBrain system.
Per (Swami Sivananda, 2002), “Here the term imperishable means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita (the unmanifested or the undifferentiated) which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements and abides in the Lord [NB].” In other words, NB is unmanifested (undifferentiated), which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements.
In Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) and Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM), a working hypothesis is that NB is scientifically symmetric (in the sense of not explicitly detectable ie., has latent and implicit attributes) with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) mental and physical aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. For example, in the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis cannot differentiate between subject and objects, i.e., observer (kartā), observed (karm), and process of observation (kriyā) appear unified; it is the state of Oneness; so we can scientifically interpret that NB is symmetric with respect to subject and object. As an analogy, the unified field is symmetric with respect to (i) gravitational field, (ii) EM field, (iii) weak field, and (iv) strong field. Therefore, symmetry-breaking of NB might be involved after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB) for differentiating (i) subject from objects, (ii) s-aspect from ns-aspects, (iii) consciousnesses from non-consciousness, (iv) various forms, (v) various attributes, and (vi) various qualia, in analogy to the symmetry breaking of the unified field into the four (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong) fields. For example, the symmetry-breaking of non-dual NB can lead to the manifestation of subject and object duality in our mundane conventional mind-dependent reality. Conversely, at the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis experience that subject and objects merge/unify, Oneness appears, and subject-object symmetry recovers. The highest 7th state of consciousness in TM is unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self (Boyer, 2018).Ch.9.
To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that NB has latent/hidden subject-objects, aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting both s and ns aspects in dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
[iv] Saguṇa Brahman (SB) includes all manifested living and non-living entities and manifested deities (such as tri-devas: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). SB is manifested from NB; hence, it is a latecomer (perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago). In DPV (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB, where (i) GSB is Gross Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) NSB is Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities, (iii) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (iv) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, and (v) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman.
From A21.11 of (Vimal, 2024b): In DPV, SB includes all manifested living and non-living entities: SB = NLSB + LSB; LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB, where (i) NLSB is non-living Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) LSB is living Saguṇa Brahman, (iii) NCSB is non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states (such as deep sleep, anesthesia etc) SB of living entities, (iv) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (v) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, (vi) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman, (vii) ISB is Īśvara(ईश्वर) (deities, Bhagavan, gods, angels, &c) Saguṇa Brahman, which resides in the minds of devotees in two-realm frameworks, and (viii) ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist, then ICRDAM can accommodate it as 3rd intermediate layer, namely, ISSB between NB and GSB.
1. LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB
2. NSB = NLSB + NCSB = non-conscious living (including DSSB: deep sleep SB) and non-living entities
3. GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB;
4. Cosmic_SB = NLSB + LSB + ISSB = whole/cosmic SB
= (NLSB + NCSB) + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= NSB + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= GSB + ISSB
5. GSB: Gross Saguṇa Brahman = Cosmic_SB - ISSB (ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist)
- NSB: Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious dual-aspect states (DASs) of living and all DASs of non-living entities.
[v] Neti Neti Principle:
The neti-neti principle reveals a profound understanding of the primal source, known as Nirguṇa Brahman (NB). This source embodies neutrality, meaning that it is neither completely devoid of attributes nor fully defined by them. Instead, the attributes of NB remain latent, hidden, and undetectable, existing only in potential form. It’s crucial to acknowledge that the state of being "attributeless" itself constitutes a quality (guṇa). NB is not just neutral; it is immortal, unmanifested, and undifferentiated, representing an absolute or ultimate mind-independent reality (UMIR). Yet, within this neutrality lies the profound potential to manifest everything, giving rise to Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—a form that possesses attributes. For example, SB can be seen as a dual-aspect (DA) entity rich with these defining qualities.
The “Neti Neti” principle, rooted in the Upanishads, encourages seekers to negate everything that is not the true Self (Atman). By negating external attributes and forms, one can realize the formless, eternal reality beyond.
The term “Neti Neti” translates to “not this, not that” (नेति नेति) and serves as a method for understanding the nature of the Self.
Citation: This concept is discussed in various Upanishads, particularly the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad1,2.
The Upanishads and Vedanta are philosophical texts that explore the nature of reality, the Self, and the ultimate truth. They explicitly discuss the “Neti Neti” principle:
Meaning of “Neti Neti”: “Neti Neti” means “not this, not that.” It encourages seekers to negate all transient aspects (body, mind, senses, etc.) and recognize the unchanging, formless Self beyond them. By saying “Neti Neti,” one moves beyond identification with the physical and material, ultimately realizing the eternal truth.
Upanishad:
Chandogya Upanishad: In this Upanishad, sage Uddalaka instructs his son Shvetaketu about the nature of the Self. He says, “That thou art” (Tat Tvam Asi) and negates everything else.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Here, the sage Yajnavalkya teaches Maitreyi about the Self. He uses “Neti Neti” to negate all attributes and forms, leading to the realization of the formless Brahman. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19): Neti neti describes Brahman (ultimate reality) (Kaundinya, 2013). This shloka doesn't use the exact phrase but employs negation to define Brahman. (neti neti) - not this, not this (sa neti neti) - that is not this, not this. Interpretation: Brahman is beyond all descriptions and can only be understood through the negation of everything else.
Kena Upanishad (1.3-4): Uses neti-neti to describe the nature of Atman (Self) (Swami Nikhilānanda, 1990). (na tat) - not that (neti neti) - not this, not this. Interpretation: True Self cannot be grasped by the mind or senses, only known through negation.
Vedanta:
Advaita Vedanta (Shankaracharya): Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Upanishads, emphasizes “Neti Neti” as a method to realize the non-dual Brahman. He negates all limiting attributes to reveal the ultimate reality.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Ramanujacharya): Ramanujacharya interprets “Neti Neti” as negating only the imperfections of the world while affirming the divine qualities of Brahman.
Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya): Madhvacharya emphasizes devotion to Lord Vishnu and considers “Neti Neti” as a way to understand the distinction between the individual soul (jiva) and God (Brahman).
For further details, see Appendix 11 of <Vimal 2024 comparison Tables 1-9 DPV-ICRDAM>.
[vi] NB has the potential of everything, including Individual Consciousness (IC) and cosmic consciousness (CC). This potentiality of NB is actualized as dual-aspect SB through Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) (Vimal, 2025b.Section 4.2.8).
The DPV~ICRDAM framework provides a more detailed account of how IC relates to CC, which is defined as the universal field of awareness that permeates the cosmos. CC is the subjective (s) aspect, and CB (cosmic brain ~ physical universe) is the inseparable and complementary non-subjective (ns) aspect of the primal dual-aspect (DA) state of <DA cosmic Saguṇa Brahman (DA_SB) ~ DA psychophysical universe (DA_PPU)>.
In other words, the DPV~ICRDAM framework (Vimal, 2023) provides a comprehensive explanation of the relationship between individual consciousness (IC) and cosmic consciousness (CC). Cosmic consciousness is defined as the universal field of awareness that permeates the cosmos. In this framework, CC represents the subjective aspect (s), while CB (the cosmic brain) corresponds to the physical universe and embodies the inseparable and complementary non-subjective aspect (ns). Together, these elements form the cosmic dual-aspect (DA) state (DAS) of <DA cosmic Saguṇa Brahman (DA_SB) ~ DA psychophysical universe (DA_PPU)>. This state arises from the interactions between the individual DASs of the countless entities within the DA_PPU.
[vii] The 8 necessary conditions of the self
There are over 58 facets of self, which can be grouped into two categories (Vimal, 2021c): (a) James’ “I,” active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) (experiencer, cognizer, and performer of actions: a sub-aspect of consciousness, also called metaphysical self and (b) James’ “Me” or self-as-object (Vimal, 2021c). The necessary conditions for ADS are:
(1) Elementary waveforms (EW) (Pereira Jr. et al., 2016) related to ADS. EWs are fully developed in (Vimal, 2024b.Section 88).
(2) Formation of neural network (NN) such as cortical and sub-cortical midline structures (CSMS),
(3) Wakefulness,
(4) Reentrant interactions among neural populations,
(5) Long-term memory that retains information for the conscious self before deep sleep,
(6) Information integration (F) at or above the threshold level in the ‘complex’ of NN, such as thalamocortical complexes and CSMS (cortical and subcortical midline structures)-NN with critical spatiotemporal ‘grain-size’ (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012). Some brain complex (such as thalamocortical ‘complex’) or NN comparatively has very high integrated information (F), which can include precision and complexity of the internal generative model used in Bayesian theories of consciousness (Rorot, 2021). Therefore, it is a privileged brain area for consciousness.
One could further argue for other necessary conditions, such as (7) neural synchrony, (8) intrinsic activity (Georg Northoff, 2014), and so on.
Further research is needed to address if the above necessary conditions of consciousness are also sufficient.
References
Pereira Jr., A., Vimal, R. L. P., & Pregnolato, M. (2016). Ch. 5: Can Qualitative Biophysics Solve the Hard Problem? In R. R. Poznanski & J. A. Tuszynski & T. Feinberg, E. (Eds.), Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach (pp. 149-188). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd. <Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306363782>.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2016d). Necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 8(5), 1-177. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283345070_Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions_for_consciousness_Extended_Dual-Aspect_Monism_framework>
Vimal, R. L. P. (2021). Various levels of manifestations: Inseparable Dual-Aspect Monism (IDAM: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 14(6), 1-50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357163174.
Vimal, RLP (2021c). Inseparable dual-aspect monism (IDAM), self, framework selection criteria, a real-time-OBE-experiment, and BlissSamādhi. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 14(1), 1-28. [Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349158654
Vimal, R. L. P. (2023). Towards a Holistic
Paradigm: Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism and
Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta can bridge the Gap between Science and Spirituality
(Volume 1: Chapters 1-12).[vii] Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and
Consciousness Research, 16(4), 1-654. [Available: < (Vimal,
2023a): https://www.academia.edu/117032631>
[viii] The following is adapted from (Vimal, 2016d). The necessary conditions for consciousness are those conditions that must be satisfied in order to have consciousness, i.e., if any of them is missing then the entity is not conscious. The sufficient conditions for consciousness are conditions, if satisfied, guarantee that the entity is conscious. The criterion for "the selection of necessary conditions of consciousness" is that if any of them is missing, we will not have consciousness (that includes self and subjective experience (SEs) or qualia of objects), i.e., the necessary conditions are those conditions that must be satisfied in order to have consciousness. The sufficient conditions for consciousness are conditions, if satisfied, guarantee that the entity is conscious. Consciousness can be either access (reportable) or phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness (Block, 2005; Lamme, 2003). For access consciousness, the interactions are between feed-forward stimulus-dependent signals and frontoparietal feedback attentional signals. The necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are:
(1) Elementary waveforms (EWs) (Pereira Jr. et al., 2016) related to conscious and unconscious phenomenal subjective experiences; EWs are fully developed in (Vimal, 2024b.Section 88).
(2) Formation of neural networks related to ADS, CSEs, wakefulness, and short-term and long-term memory;
(3) Wakefulness;
(4) Reentrant interactions among neural populations;
(5) Working memory that retains information for consciousness;
(6) Integrated information (F) at or above the threshold level in the ‘complex’ of neural network, such as thalamocortical complexes with critical spatiotemporal ‘grain-size’ (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012). Some brain complex (such as thalamocortical ‘complex’) or NN comparatively has very high integrated information (F), which can include precision and complexity of the internal generative model used in Bayesian theories of consciousness (Rorot, 2021); therefore, it is a privileged brain area for consciousness;
(7) neural synchrony;
(8) intrinsic activity (Georg Northoff, 2014);
(9) Fronto-parietal and thalamic-reticular-nucleus attentional signals that modulate consciousness;
(10) Stimulus contrast at or above the threshold level; and
(11) Neural-network potential proto-experiences/consciousness (PEs/PCs), which are the precursors (or potentialities) of subjective experiences (SEs) embedded in a neural network.
There are over 58 facets of self as necessary conditions that can be grouped into two categories, namely, (12) James’ “I”, self-as-subject, or metaphysical self, and (13) James’ “Me” or self-as-object such as active dynamic self (ADS) that is composed of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical self, and other facets.
One could further argue for other necessary conditions, such as (14) higher-order thoughts, (15) executive functions, (16) feature and binding, (17) E=h/t for Orch OR, (18) self-consciousness, &c.
Further elaboration on some of the necessary conditions:
(6) Integration information: Per (Toker et al., 2022), in <Consciousness is supported by near-critical slow cortical electrodynamics>, “What changes in the brain when we lose consciousness? One possibility is that the loss of consciousness corresponds to a transition of the brain’s electric activity away from edge-of-chaos criticality, or the knife’s edge in between stability and chaos. Recent mathematical developments have produced tools for testing this hypothesis, which we apply to cortical recordings from diverse brain states. We show that the electric activity of the cortex is indeed poised [fully prepared to do something] near the boundary between stability and chaos during conscious states and transitions away from this boundary during unconsciousness and that this transition disrupts cortical information processing. […]
Mounting evidence suggests that during conscious states, the electrodynamics of the cortex are poised near a critical point or phase transition and that this near-critical behavior supports the vast flow of information through cortical networks during conscious states. Here, we empirically identify a mathematically specific critical point near which waking cortical oscillatory dynamics operate, which is known as the edge-of-chaos critical point, or the boundary between stability and chaos. […] Our evidence suggests that cortical information processing is disrupted during unconscious states because of a transition of low-frequency cortical electric oscillations away from this critical point; conversely, we show that psychedelics may increase the information richness of cortical activity by tuning low-frequency cortical oscillations closer to this critical point. Finally, we analyze clinical electroencephalography (EEG) recordings from patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) and show that assessing the proximity of slow cortical oscillatory electrodynamics to the edge-of-chaos critical point may be useful as an index of consciousness in the clinical setting. […]
What are the dynamical properties of electric brain activity that are necessary for consciousness, and how are those properties disrupted during unconscious states such as anesthesia, generalized seizures, coma, and vegetative states?
One possibility, which is suggested by a large body of recent evidence, is that the electrodynamics of the conscious brain are poised near some sort of phase transition or “critical point” and that this near-critical behavior supports the vast flow of information through the brain during conscious states (1, 2). A critical point refers to the knife’s edge in between different phases of a system (e.g., liquid to solid water) or types of dynamical states (e.g., laminar to turbulent airflow). It is widely believed that electrodynamics of both micro- and macroscale cortical networks are poised near some critical point or perhaps near several critical points, because power-law statistics, which are a key signature of criticality (3), are consistently identified in recordings of neural electrodynamics (4, 5). And such critical behavior is known to have important computational benefits, because critical and near-critical systems tend to have a high capacity for encoding and transmitting information (6–9). For these reasons, it is widely believed that being poised at—or at least near (10–12)—criticality of some form endows neural populations with a high capacity for encoding and communicating information (4, 5, 12, 13), particularly during conscious states (1, 2). Conversely, because signatures of cortical criticality have been observed to disappear or diminish during unconscious states (4, 14, 15), it may be that a transition of cortical activity away from some critical point is what underlies the disruption to cortical information processing during unconscious states (2). […]
What, exactly, is the phase transition (or transitions) near which cortical electrodynamics seem to operate during conscious states? Put another way, what, from a mathematical perspective, are the dynamical phases that lie on either side of the critical point(s) near which waking brain dynamics operate?
Terms like “order” and “disorder” have commonly been used to describe the phases on either side of neural criticality, but these terms are imprecise unless they are defined relative to the breaking of a specific form of mathematical symmetry, where the “ordered” phase of a system is the symmetry-broken phase (in the way that ice is the ordered phase of water relative to the freezing critical point, because water loses its translational and rotational symmetry at this phase transition) […] Imprecise use of terms like order and disorder can also be misleading in the context of neural criticality. For example, chaos, which is defined as exponential sensitivity to small perturbations, is often used interchangeably with disorder in the literature on neural criticality (16), but chaos is in fact the ordered phase of dynamical systems because it corresponds to the breaking of the topological supersymmetry present in all dynamical systems (22) [viii] […] If, as has been proposed (1), the disruption to cortical information processing during unconscious states is mediated by an excursion of cortical electrodynamics away from some sort of critical point during these states, then mathematically precise identification of this critical point (or points) may be crucial for improving both our theoretical and clinical grasp on the neural correlates of consciousness.
Here, we provide direct empirical evidence for the hypothesis (24) that during conscious states, cortical electrodynamics—and specifically low-frequency cortical electrodynamics—operate near a mathematically well-defined critical point known as edge-of-chaos criticality or the phase transition from stable to chaotic dynamics. We additionally provide evidence that slow cortical oscillations may specifically operate on the chaotic side of this critical point during normal waking states.”
18. Self-Consciousness as a necessary condition: Per (Friston, 2018) in <Am I Self-Conscious? (Or Does Self-Organization Entail Self-Consciousness?)>, “Is self-consciousness necessary for consciousness? The answer is yes. So there you have it—the answer is yes. This was my response to a question I was asked to address in a recent AEON piece (https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-not-a-thing-but-a-process-of-inference). What follows is based upon the notes for that essay, with a special focus on self-organization, self-evidencing and self-modeling. I will try to substantiate my (polemic[strongly critical attacking]) answer from the perspective of a physicist. In brief, the argument goes as follows: if we want to talk about creatures, like ourselves, then we have to identify the characteristic behaviors they must exhibit. This is fairly easy to do by noting that living systems return to a set of attracting states time and time again. Mathematically, this implies the existence of a Lyapunov function that turns out to be model evidence (i.e., self-evidence) in Bayesian statistics or surprise (i.e., self-information) in information theory. This means that all biological processes can be construed as performing some form of inference, from evolution through to conscious processing. If this is the case, at what point do we invoke consciousness? The proposal on offer here is that the mind comes into being when self-evidencing has a temporal thickness or counterfactual depth, which grounds inferences about the consequences of my action. On this view, consciousness is nothing more than inference about my future; namely, the self-evidencing consequences of what I could do.”
Certain neural networks or brain complexes (such as thalamocortical ‘complex’) comparatively have very high integrated information (Φ). Therefore, it is a privileged area for consciousness. Attention and the ability to report are not necessary for phenomenal consciousness. Therefore, the necessary conditions for the phenomenal consciousness are the same as those for the access consciousness except the 4th condition related to attention. Further research is needed to address if the above necessary conditions of consciousness are also sufficient.
The above write-up dives deep into the complex topic of consciousness, specifically focusing on the necessary conditions for it to exist. Here's a breakdown of the key points:
Types of Consciousness:
· Access Consciousness: This refers to the reportable aspects of consciousness, where you can describe your experience.
· Phenomenal Consciousness: This is the subjective experience itself, the "what it feels like" to be conscious.
Necessary Conditions:
The passage outlines several conditions believed to be necessary for consciousness, though it acknowledges the need for further research to confirm if they are sufficient. Here are some key ones:
· Elementary Waveforms (EW): The basic building blocks of neural activity, although the necessity of this might depend on alternative theories like protoconsciousness.
· Neural Networks: Formation of specific neural networks, particularly in the cortical and subcortical midline structures (CSMS).
· Wakefulness: Being awake and alert.
· Reentrant Interactions: The back-and-forth communication between different brain regions.
· Long-term Memory: Ability to retain information relevant to the conscious self.
· Integrated Information (Φ): A measure of how information is integrated across different parts of the brain, potentially occurring near a critical point of stability and chaos.
· Neural Synchrony: Coordinated firing of neurons across different brain regions.
· Intrinsic Activity: Spontaneous activity within the brain.
· Attentional Signals: Signals from specific brain areas that modulate consciousness.
· Stimulus Contrast: A minimum level of sensory stimulation to be consciously perceived.
· Neural Network Potentials: The potential for subjective experiences to emerge within the network.
· James' "I" (Active Dynamic Self): The sense of being an agent or experiencer.
· James' "Me" (Self-as-Object): The various aspects of your identity and personal history.
Additional Points:
· The passage discusses the "edge-of-chaos" theory, suggesting that brain activity during conscious states might operate near a critical point between stability and chaos, allowing for optimal information processing.
· Self-consciousness is proposed by some as a necessary condition for consciousness in general.
Overall:
Understanding consciousness is a complex scientific endeavor. This passage explores potential building blocks and processes, highlighting the intricate interplay between different brain functions. It emphasizes the need for ongoing research to solidify our understanding of this fundamental aspect of human experience.
[ix] In other words, let us try to understand each other’s terminologies. Our goal is to bridge GV~ABA and DPV~ICRDAM, so we will strive to see the glass as half-full instead of half-empty. Please join us in this noble effort making bridges instead of creating more gulfs than what we have through a non-sectarian approach.
[x] In other words, the DPV~ICRDAM-HCC does not contradict GV’s view of “withdrawal of divine will” because, as previously interpreted, it encompasses the cyclic nature of entropy, effective integrated information, temperature, kinetic and potential energies, and the conservation of energy, all of which are included in Divine Will/Lila/Maya. Thus, we do not see any problem.
[xi] 8 (4.2.8). Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC)
From Neutral Nirguṇa Brahman to Manifested Reality: Cooling-Driven Cycles of Dual-Aspect Cosmic Evolution
To improve clarity, we can rename Pentagonal Cyclic Cosmology (PCC) to Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) as follows:
S1 (NB) : <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> →
S2 (SB): <manifested DA_QF_SB ~ PreBB_QVF_QF with real manifested QF that led to BB> →
S3 (SB): BB →
S4 (SB): DA_SB~DA_UF (part of Lambda-CDM) →
S5 (SB): BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP (Big Freeze, Heat Death, Thermal Death, Big Rip, Big Crunch, Mahāpralaya) →
S6 (SB): <manifested Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_DA_QF_SB with real manifested QF> →
S7 (NB) : <neutral Post_BF/HD/TD/BR/BC/MP_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> →
S1 (NB) : <Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF with potentiality of quantum fluctuations (QFs)> to complete one cycle
[xii] The term “Prasthānatrayī” (प्रस्थानत्रयी) refers to the three canonical scriptural sources of Vedānta philosophy. These are considered the foundational triad (trayī) or “three points of departure” (prasthāna) for all Vedāntic systems—including Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita, and Gauḍīya Vedānta.
📘 Devanāgarī:
प्रस्थानत्रयी
📘 IAST Transliteration:
Prasthānatrayī
📘 Etymology:
- प्रस्थान (prasthāna) = departure, foundational path, or authority
- त्रयी (trayī) = triad, group of three
So, प्रस्थानत्रयी (Prasthānatrayī) literally means “the triple foundation” or “threefold canonical basis.”
📘 Explanation and Components
The Prasthānatrayī includes:
- श्रुति प्रस्थान (Śruti Prasthāna) – The Principal Upaniṣads
- These are the revealed scriptures (Śruti), forming the philosophical essence of the Vedas.
- Examples: Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Īśā, Kena, Kaṭha, Muṇḍaka, Praśna, Aitareya, Māṇḍūkya, etc.
- They provide metaphysical insights on Brahman, Ātman, mokṣa, and ultimate reality.
- स्मृति प्रस्थान (Smṛti Prasthāna) – The Bhagavad Gītā
- Part of the Mahābhārata (Bhīṣma Parva), it is considered Smṛti, i.e., remembered tradition.
- It presents practical Vedānta, dealing with ethics, action, devotion, knowledge, renunciation, and the nature of the Self and God.
- न्याय प्रस्थान (Nyāya Prasthāna) – The Brahma Sūtras (aka Vedānta Sūtras)
- Composed by Bādarāyaṇa (Vyāsa), these are aphoristic logical formulations that systematize and reconcile the teachings of the Upaniṣads.
- They serve as the logical and dialectical backbone of Vedānta, resolving apparent contradictions and supporting consistent metaphysical conclusions.
📘 Role in Vedānta Philosophy
All major Vedānta darśanas base their interpretations on the Prasthānatrayī, though they differ in emphasis and hermeneutics:
- Advaita Vedānta (Śaṅkara): Emphasizes non-dualism, ultimate identity of Ātman and Brahman.
- Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta (Rāmānuja): Brahman is qualified by infinite attributes; Ātman is a mode of Brahman.
- Dvaita Vedānta (Madhva): Emphasizes duality between God and soul.
- Gauḍīya Vedānta (Chaitanya): Follows Achintya-Bhedābheda—inconceivable oneness-and-difference between Krishna and jīvas.
- DPV~ICRDAM (Vimal): Uses the Prasthānatrayī as a scriptural base while integrating it with dual-aspect scientific metaphysics.
📘 Conclusion
The Prasthānatrayī (प्रस्थानत्रयी / Prasthānatrayī) is the triadic foundation of all Vedāntic inquiry. By collectively drawing on:
- Upaniṣadic revelation (Śruti)
- Bhagavad Gītā’s practical guidance (Smṛti)
- Brahma Sūtras’ logical structure (Nyāya)
—it ensures that Vedānta remains a coherent, holistic, and rational exploration of ultimate reality (Brahman), self (Ātman), and liberation (mokṣa).
[xiii] From Section 81.15 of (Vimal, 2024b)
The mysterious strong emergence of consciousness through dual-aspect (DA) state (DAS)-DAS interactions is unpacked through the classical (not quantum) collapses of the superposed all possible beable ontic basis DASs into a specific conscious DAS (such as redness-related conscious DAS). It employs a classical resonance process during the matching/non-matching of FF (feed-forward stimulus-dependent signals) and FB (feedback memory-dependent cognitive signals), as elaborated in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2010c). It is part of our conventional mind-dependent reality (CDMR), in which dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) is equivalent to dual-aspect PsychoPhysical Universe (DA_SB ~ DA_PPU) that contains countless manifested dual-aspect entities with respective DASs.
In other words, the mysterious emergence of consciousness through dual-aspect (DA) state interactions is examined by considering how classical collapses—not quantum collapses—transform a superposition of all possible ontological basis states into a specific conscious dual-aspect state (such as a state related to the perception of redness). This process employs classical resonance, which occurs during the matching or non-matching of feed-forward (FF) stimulus-dependent signals and feedback (FB) memory-dependent cognitive signals. This concept is elaborated in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2010c). It contributes to our understanding of conventional mind-dependent reality (CDMR), in which dual-aspect Saguna Brahman (SB) is equivalent to the dual-aspect PsychoPhysical Universe (DA_SB ~ DA_PPU). Together, they encompass countless manifested dual-aspect entities, each with its own respective dual-aspect states.
Thus, it is now crystal clear how potential consciousness (i.e., superposed innumerable potential conscious states) becomes specific experiences through strong emergence as a collapse process. In other words, the collapse of the beable ontic superposed states in the mind-brain system into a specific conscious state unpacks the mysterious strong emergence. Thus, the Hard Problem HP2 in DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) is fully resolved.
In other words, the mysterious emergence of consciousness through dual-aspect system interactions is revealed through the collapse of superposed potential states, known as "beables," into a specific conscious state, such as the experience of redness, in our conventional mind-dependent reality (CDMR). In this framework, the dual-aspect Saguna Brahman is equivalent to a dual-aspect psychophysical universe (DA_SB ~ DA_PPU), which encompasses countless manifested dual-aspect entities, each with their respective dual-aspect systems (DASs). Therefore, it is now clear how potential consciousness—represented by an array of superposed potential conscious states—becomes specific experiences through a strong emergence process characterized by collapse. As a result, the Hard Problem of consciousness (HP2) within the context of DPV~ICRDAM is fully resolved. See also (Vimal, 2018b).
[xiv] In other words, it appears that Dr. Shanta is either not aware of Advaita or does not accept it because Nirguna Brahman (NB) and the neti-neti principle are well respected in Śankarācārya’s Advaita. It may be because they are two different but competing sampradāyas (sects). It is against non-sectarian Radha-Krishna’s Devine Love (heart of Gauḍīya Vedānta): how can Dr. Shanta justify this issue? I would love to know it. I hope that I misunderstood it.
[xv] Hlādinī (ह्लादिनी) is a significant concept in Hinduism, particularly prominent in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It literally means "that which gives delight or pleasure."
Here's a breakdown of its meaning and significance:
5. The Bliss-Giving Potency (Shakti) of God:
o In Vaishnava philosophy, the Supreme Personality of Godhead (Krishna) possesses various energies (Shaktis). These are broadly categorized as internal (spiritual), external (material), and marginal (living entities).
o Hlādinī-shakti is the internal pleasure potency of the Supreme Lord. It is the energy by which Krishna experiences transcendental bliss and, through which, He bestows bliss and divine joy upon His devotees.
o It's one of the three main aspects of Krishna's svarupa-shakti (His internal, essential potency), along with:
§ Sandhini-shakti (Existence/Eternality): The potency that sustains Krishna's own existence and the spiritual realm.
§ Samvit-shakti (Cognition/Knowledge): The potency that enables Krishna's omniscience and bestows knowledge upon devotees.
6. Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī as the Embodiment of Hlādinī:
o In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is considered the personification and supreme embodiment of Hlādinī-shakti. She is the source and origin of all bliss and joy for Krishna.
o Radha and Krishna are considered to be inherently non-different, like the sun and its sunshine, or whiteness and milk. They are one divine reality, but they manifest as two forms to engage in the most intimate and ecstatic loving pastimes (līlā).
o Her role is to enhance Krishna's pleasure and to facilitate the highest expressions of divine love.
7. Significance for Devotees:
o The concept of Hlādinī is crucial for understanding the nature of bhakti (devotional service) in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
o True spiritual bliss (ānanda) is experienced through connection with this Hlādinī potency.
o Devotees strive to serve Radha and Krishna in their loving pastimes, thereby participating in and experiencing the transcendental bliss generated by Hlādinī-shakti. The desire to love Krishna itself originates from His Hlādinī-shakti working within the devotee's heart.
8. Beyond Vaishnavism (Other Meanings):
o While its philosophical significance is strongest in Vaishnavism, the term "Hlādinī" can also appear in other contexts:
§ It can be a name for a woman, meaning "one who brings joy and happiness."
§ In some Puranas, it refers to a river (a tributary of the Ganges).
§ It can also refer to Indra's thunderbolt or even a particular plant (like the frankincense tree).
In summary, Hlādinī is fundamentally understood as the divine potency of bliss and pleasure, most perfectly manifested in Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, and it forms the essence of the loving exchanges between the Supreme Lord and His devotees.
[xvi] "Gaudiya" (गौड़ीय)refers to a major branch of Vaishnavism (the worship of Vishnu as the Supreme God) within Hinduism. Specifically, Gaudiya Vaishnavism (also known as Chaitanya Vaishnavism or Krishna Consciousness) is a devotional movement founded by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1534) in the Bengal (Gaura or Gauḍa) region of India during the 16th century.
Here's a detailed overview:
Core Beliefs and Philosophy:
· Krishna as the Supreme God (Svayam Bhagavan): Unlike some other Vaishnava traditions that see Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu, Gaudiya Vaishnavism considers Krishna to be the original, supreme form of God, the source of all other divine manifestations, including Vishnu. This is based primarily on the Bhagavata Purana (Srimad Bhagavatam), particularly the verse "krsnas tu bhagavan svayam" (Krishna is the original Supreme Personality of Godhead).
· Radha as the Supreme Consort and Hlādinī-shakti: Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī is revered as Krishna's eternal consort and the embodiment of His internal pleasure potency (Hlādinī-shakti). She is considered the source of all other Shaktis (divine energies), including Lakshmi and Sita. The divine love between Radha and Krishna is the central focus of devotion.
· Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva (Inconceivable Oneness and Difference): This is the unique philosophical tenet of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. It explains that God (Krishna) is simultaneously one with and different from His creation and living entities. Everything is qualitatively one with Krishna (being spirit) but quantitatively different (as parts and parcels of Him). This philosophy reconciles monism (oneness) and dualism (duality).
· Bhakti Yoga (Devotional Service) as the Supreme Path: Gaudiya Vaishnavism emphasizes bhakti-yoga, pure loving devotional service to Radha and Krishna, as the most effective and sweetest path to spiritual liberation (moksha) and, more importantly, to attaining prema (pure love of God) in the current age of Kali Yuga. This selfless love for God is considered the ultimate goal, even surpassing liberation from the cycle of rebirth (samsara).
· The Soul (Jiva): All living beings (jivas) possess a soul, which is eternal, immutable, and distinct from the temporary physical body. Consciousness is a manifestation of the soul, not a product of matter.
· Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as a Combined Incarnation: Gaudiya Vaishnavas worship Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as the most recent avatar of Krishna in the current age, specifically as the combined incarnation of Radha and Krishna, who descended to teach the love of God through the chanting of holy names.
Practices and Rituals:
· Harinaam Sankirtan (Congregational Chanting): The most central practice is the public and congregational chanting of the holy names of God, especially the Hare Krishna Mahamantra (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare). This is believed to be the most potent method for spiritual realization in Kali Yuga.
· Japa (Mantra Meditation): Individual chanting of the Hare Krishna Mahamantra on beads (japa mala).
· Deity Worship (Arcana): Worshipping the forms (Deities) of Radha and Krishna in temples and homes with devotion, offering food, flowers, and other items.
· Reading Sacred Texts: Emphasis on scriptures like the Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana), which form the philosophical backbone of the tradition.
· Following Regulative Principles: Devotees generally adhere to four regulative principles: no meat-eating (lacto-vegetarianism), no intoxication (including alcohol, drugs, coffee, tea), no gambling, and no illicit sex. These are meant to purify the mind and senses, making them conducive for spiritual progress.
· Association with Devotees (Sadhu-sanga): Spending time with like-minded spiritual practitioners is considered essential for developing and strengthening one's devotion.
· Guru (Spiritual Master): The guidance of a qualified spiritual master is considered crucial for navigating the path of bhakti-yoga.
History and Important Figures:
· Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534): The founder of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, he spread the sankirtan movement throughout Bengal and Orissa.
· The Six Goswamis of Vrindavan: Rupa Goswami, Sanatana Goswami, Gopala Bhatta Goswami, Raghunatha Dasa Goswami, Raghunatha Bhatta Goswami, and Jiva Goswami. They were direct disciples of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who systematized the philosophy and practices of Gaudiya Vaishnavism through extensive writings in Vrindavan.
· Later Acharyas: Important figures like Narottama Dasa Thakura, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, Baladeva Vidyabhushana, and in modern times, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (founder of ISKCON - the International Society for Krishna Consciousness) have played pivotal roles in preserving, developing, and spreading Gaudiya Vaishnavism globally.
Gaudiya Vaishnavism is characterized by its emphasis on the ecstatic and joyful nature of divine love, particularly the madhurya-rasa (conjugal love) between Radha and Krishna, and its accessible practices of chanting and devotion for all people.
[xvii] Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference: Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534: see also current proponent (Bhakti Niskama Shanta, 2015)),
Q. Is Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV) is the same as Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (ABA) founder was Chaitanya Mahāprabhu?
Yes, Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV) is rooted in and synonymous with the philosophical system known as Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (ABA), and Śrī Chaitanya Mahāprabhu (1486–1534 CE) is its acknowledged spiritual founder.
🔷 Relationship between Gauḍīya Vedānta and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda
|
Aspect |
Explanation |
|
Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV) |
The theological and philosophical tradition developed in Bengal in the 16th century by Chaitanya Mahāprabhu and later systematized by his followers such as Rūpa Gosvāmī, Jīva Gosvāmī, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa. |
|
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (ABA) |
The core metaphysical doctrine of GV. It means “inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference” between the individual soul (jīva), the material world (prakṛti), and the Supreme Lord (Kṛṣṇa). |
🧭 Key Doctrines of Achintya-Bheda-Abheda
- Bheda (difference): The jīva and the world are eternally distinct from Kṛṣṇa.
- Abheda (non-difference): The jīva and the world are also eternal energies of Kṛṣṇa and inseparably linked to Him.
- Achintya (inconceivable): This simultaneous difference and non-difference is beyond ordinary logic but can be realized through bhakti (devotion) and śāstra (scripture).
- Kṛṣṇa is Svayam Bhagavān (the original and supreme form of God), not merely an incarnation of Viṣṇu.
🧘♂️ Role of Chaitanya Mahāprabhu
- Chaitanya did not write systematic philosophical treatises, but he lived the philosophy through ecstatic devotion and spiritual practice.
- His disciples and successors—especially the Six Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana—developed the doctrinal and metaphysical foundations of GV and codified ABA.
🧾 References
- Satsvarupa Dāsa Goswami (1992). Readings in Vedic Literature.
- Saraswati, B.V. Nārāyaṇa Mahārāja (1998). Bhakti-tattva.
- Haberman, D. L. (1988). Acting as a Way of Salvation: A Study of Rāgānugā Bhakti Sādhana.
- Rosen, S. (1996). The Hidden Glory of India.
- Sheridan, D. (1986). The Advaitic Theism of the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.
✅ Conclusion
Yes, Gauḍīya Vedānta is the philosophical system of Achintya-Bheda-Abheda, and Chaitanya Mahāprabhu is its founder, though its formal exposition was done by later ācāryas within the tradition.
[xviii] Definition of NB: In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as the primal, eternal source of ultimate reality is defined using neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, (ii) neither explicitly subject nor explicitly object, (iii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iv) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (v) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities, etc. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR), which has potential for everything. In other words, NB has implicit (latent, unmanifested) or potentiality of inseparable and complementary s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity.
Opponent: If NB neither has explicit attributes nor lacks explicit attributes, how can māyā veil NB when there is nothing to veil?
Scientist-cum-Vedantin: (1) Since science was not developed in the ancient period, the terminology māyā was used to proceed further on how Suguṇa Brahman (SB) was manifested from NB by proposing the SB was the result of māyā’s veiling of NB. Now, we have modern science to unpack the mysterious māyā as follows.
(2) In spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) that uses NB and SB, and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) that uses preBB_QVF ~ NB and manifested entities ~ SB, a working hypothesis is that NB ~ preBB_QVF has latent and implicit attributes with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) subjective (s, mental) and non-subjective (ns, physical) aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. In other words, NB is neutral.
(3) To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that <NB ~ preBB_QVF (pre Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field)> has latent/hidden/implicit subject-objects, s-ns aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting everything, such as both s and ns aspects of realized entities, which are the parts of dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
From premises (1) to (3), the mysterious māyā’s veiling of NB to result NB can be unpacked through scientific phase-transition from <NB ~ preBB_QVF> latent/implicit phase to <dual-aspect SB ~ dual-aspect unified field (UF)> explicit phase due to temperature drop from the start of BB to near Planck epoch using BBC (Big Bang Cosmology) that has some evidence. By <near Planck epoch>, we mean before the symmetry breaking of the dual-aspect unified field (DA_UF) to result in dual-aspect gravitational force/field (DA-GF) at Planck epoch (~10−43 seconds after BB).
[xix] In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is based on the neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither subject nor object, (ii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iii) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (iv) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (v) neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly with an attribute, and (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR) that has potential for everything including inseparable and complementary dual-aspect states of manifested entities/fields including our mindBrain system.
Per (Swami Sivananda, 2002), “Here the term imperishable means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita (the unmanifested or the undifferentiated) which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements and abides in the Lord [NB].” In other words, NB is unmanifested (undifferentiated), which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements.
In Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) and Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM), a working hypothesis is that NB is scientifically symmetric (in the sense of not explicitly detectable ie., has latent and implicit attributes) with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) mental and physical aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. For example, in the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis cannot differentiate between subject and objects, i.e., observer (kartā), observed (karm), and process of observation (kriyā) appear unified; it is the state of Oneness; so we can scientifically interpret that NB is symmetric with respect to subject and object. As an analogy, the unified field is symmetric with respect to (i) gravitational field, (ii) EM field, (iii) weak field, and (iv) strong field. Therefore, symmetry-breaking of NB might be involved after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB) for differentiating (i) subject from objects, (ii) s-aspect from ns-aspects, (iii) consciousnesses from non-consciousness, (iv) various forms, (v) various attributes, and (vi) various qualia, in analogy to the symmetry breaking of the unified field into the four (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong) fields. For example, the symmetry-breaking of non-dual NB can lead to the manifestation of subject and object duality in our mundane conventional mind-dependent reality. Conversely, at the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis experience that subject and objects merge/unify, Oneness appears, and subject-object symmetry recovers. The highest 7th state of consciousness in TM is unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self (Boyer, 2018).Ch.9.
To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that NB has latent/hidden subject-objects, aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting both s and ns aspects in dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
[xx] Neti Neti Principle:
The neti-neti principle reveals a profound understanding of the primal source, known as Nirguṇa Brahman (NB). This source embodies neutrality, meaning that it is neither completely devoid of attributes nor fully defined by them. Instead, the attributes of NB remain latent, hidden, and undetectable, existing only in potential form. It’s crucial to acknowledge that the state of being "attributeless" itself constitutes a quality (guṇa). NB is not just neutral; it is immortal, unmanifested, and undifferentiated, representing an absolute or ultimate mind-independent reality (UMIR). Yet, within this neutrality lies the profound potential to manifest everything, giving rise to Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—a form that possesses attributes. For example, SB can be seen as a dual-aspect (DA) entity rich with these defining qualities.
The “Neti Neti” principle, rooted in the Upanishads, encourages seekers to negate everything that is not the true Self (Atman). By negating external attributes and forms, one can realize the formless, eternal reality beyond.
The term “Neti Neti” translates to “not this, not that” (नेति नेति) and serves as a method for understanding the nature of the Self.
Citation: This concept is discussed in various Upanishads, particularly the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad1,2.
The Upanishads and Vedanta are philosophical texts that explore the nature of reality, the Self, and the ultimate truth. They explicitly discuss the “Neti Neti” principle:
Meaning of “Neti Neti”: “Neti Neti” means “not this, not that.” It encourages seekers to negate all transient aspects (body, mind, senses, etc.) and recognize the unchanging, formless Self beyond them. By saying “Neti Neti,” one moves beyond identification with the physical and material, ultimately realizing the eternal truth.
Upanishad:
Chandogya Upanishad: In this Upanishad, sage Uddalaka instructs his son Shvetaketu about the nature of the Self. He says, “That thou art” (Tat Tvam Asi) and negates everything else.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Here, the sage Yajnavalkya teaches Maitreyi about the Self. He uses “Neti Neti” to negate all attributes and forms, leading to the realization of the formless Brahman. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19): Neti neti describes Brahman (ultimate reality) (Kaundinya, 2013). This shloka doesn't use the exact phrase but employs negation to define Brahman. (neti neti) - not this, not this (sa neti neti) - that is not this, not this. Interpretation: Brahman is beyond all descriptions and can only be understood through the negation of everything else.
Kena Upanishad (1.3-4): Uses neti-neti to describe the nature of Atman (Self) (Swami Nikhilānanda, 1990). (na tat) - not that (neti neti) - not this, not this. Interpretation: True Self cannot be grasped by the mind or senses, only known through negation.
Vedanta:
Advaita Vedanta (Shankaracharya): Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Upanishads, emphasizes “Neti Neti” as a method to realize the non-dual Brahman. He negates all limiting attributes to reveal the ultimate reality.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Ramanujacharya): Ramanujacharya interprets “Neti Neti” as negating only the imperfections of the world while affirming the divine qualities of Brahman.
Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya): Madhvacharya emphasizes devotion to Lord Vishnu and considers “Neti Neti” as a way to understand the distinction between the individual soul (jiva) and God (Brahman).
For further details, see Appendix 11 of <Vimal 2024 comparison Tables 1-9 DPV-ICRDAM>.
[xxi] Saguṇa Brahman (SB) includes all manifested living and non-living entities and manifested deities (such as tri-devas: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). SB is manifested from NB; hence, it is a latecomer (perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago). In DPV (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB, where (i) GSB is Gross Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) NSB is Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities, (iii) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (iv) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, and (v) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman.
From A21.11 of (Vimal, 2024b): In DPV, SB includes all manifested living and non-living entities: SB = NLSB + LSB; LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB, where (i) NLSB is non-living Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) LSB is living Saguṇa Brahman, (iii) NCSB is non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states (such as deep sleep, anesthesia etc) SB of living entities, (iv) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (v) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, (vi) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman, (vii) ISB is Īśvara(ईश्वर) (deities, Bhagavan, gods, angels, &c) Saguṇa Brahman, which resides in the minds of devotees in two-realm frameworks, and (viii) ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist, then ICRDAM can accommodate it as 3rd intermediate layer, namely, ISSB between NB and GSB.
|
7. LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB
8. NSB = NLSB + NCSB = non-conscious living (including DSSB: deep sleep SB) and non-living entities
9. GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB;
10. Cosmic_SB = NLSB + LSB + ISSB = whole/cosmic SB
= (NLSB + NCSB) + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= NSB + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= GSB + ISSB
11. GSB: Gross Saguṇa Brahman = Cosmic_SB - ISSB (ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist)
- NSB: Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious dual-aspect states (DASs) of living and all DASs of non-living entities.
[xxii] The field of cosmic consciousness, as Saguṇa Brahman (SB), is manifested from NB. The neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is the fundamental/ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither subject nor object, (ii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iii) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (iv) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (v) neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly with an attribute, and (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR) that has potential for everything.
Saguṇa Brahman (SB) includes all manifested living and non-living entities. SB is manifested from NB, and hence it is a latecomer, perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. In DPV (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB ~ preBB-QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB, where, (i) GSB is Gross Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) NSB is Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities, (iii) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (iv) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, and (v) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman. See below for more information.
The Saccidānanda (SCA), Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Maya, all deities, all living beings (such as humans), and non-living entities (including silicon chips!) are parts of Saguṇa Brahman (SB). Saccidānanda (SCA) has three attributes, namely, existence (Sat), consciousness (Cit), and bliss (Ānanda) so it cannot be NB; it should also be a part of SB. Therefore, SCA is the derived entity and is not the ultimate reality, i.e., the SCA is derived from the neutral cosmic NB, which is the only fundamental/ultimate reality.
The SB is manifested from NB after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB), and eventually, SB will return to NB after Big Crunch (BC) for the next cycle (NB↔SB).
A working hypothesis is that NB is symmetric with respect to (i) mental and physical aspects, : (ii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iii) formless and with forms, (iv) attributeless and with attributes, and (v) with and without qualities. An analogy, the unified field is symmetric with respect to (i) gravitational field, (ii) EM field, (iii) weak field, and (iv) strong field. Therefore, symmetry-breaking of NB might be involved after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB), in analogy to the symmetry breaking of the unified field into the four (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong) fields.
After BC, SB returns to NB for the next cycle.
Saguṇa Brahman (SB): Individual living beings, including humans, are seen as manifestations of NB. Our experiences are conditioned by our minds and brains but ultimately connected to the cosmic consciousness. SB includes CSB (Cosmic SB), GSB, ISSB (Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman, such as deities and subtle world, which exists in 3 world DPV; the intermediate layer/world is between NB and GSB), GSB (Gross Saguṇa Brahman), NSB (Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities), DSB (Dream Saguṇa Brahman), WSB (Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman), and SSB (Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman). In two-world DPV, deities are in the minds of devotees.
The paths to knowledge and methodologies for NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) and QVF (quantum vacuum field) differ significantly; however, the conclusion from both paths is the same, which strongly supports the Equivalent hypothesis (NB and QVF are equivalent). If both are neutral entities/fields, then ontology for both is neutral primal entity/field, which implies both are the same neutral entity/field, which after manifestation are dual-aspect entities/fields as in the ICRDAM (Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The unveiling of Māyā leads to the conclusion that the NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) and unmanifested QVF (quantum vacuum field) are not only equivalent, but they are the same entity/field. It implies that all manifested living and non-living entities are dual-aspect SB (Saguṇa Brahman). Therefore, SB is manifested from NB, and hence it is a latecomer, perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.
In Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB.
In DPV (that uses NB as a primordial neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as a primordial entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB.
During co-evolution, adaptation, and natural selection, (i) the first living systems are estimated to have appeared on Earth around 3.7 billion years ago. (ii) the earliest fossils of multicellular organisms date back to around 570 million years ago during the Cambrian Period, and (iii) modern humans (Homo sapiens) are thought to have evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
RamLakhan Pandey Vimal
VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Shafiq Khan
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.
VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Shaique Khan,If you claim to bring religion/ spirituality and science on a common plateform as converging to a common point, first please present a mathematical explanatory and predictive model of science for our ordinary intuitive experiences in the normal wakeful conscious state. If you can't do this simple task by science, your claims that science and spirituality have a point of convergence als are only some smoke screens can't be trusted.
Vinod Sehgal
📲 Stay Updated: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vaz1goS5EjxsmbIcVh00
VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear all,Thank you, Dr. Shanta and Shafiq Khan.It will be very interesting to bridge Vedanta and Islam through a non-sectarian approach.
Please try to understand Ādi Śankarāchārya's Advaita Vedanta (AV) as well, especially the Nirguna Brahman (NB) and the neti-neti principle, and Saguna Brahman (SB). SB manifests from and returns to NB. See also my recent email to Dr. Shanta on our response to his critique of BS230 interpretation, which tried to bridge Gauḍīya Vedānta and <Spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) ~ science-based Inseparable and Complementary Dual-Aspect Monism (ICDAM)>. Islam's formless khuda (God) is related to neutral NB. Our effort should be to bridge science and spirituality as well through a non-sectarian approach. The essence of Radha-Krishna's Divine Love (Premayoga), central to Gauḍīya Vedānta, encourages us to build bridges through Divine Love rather than create divisions.Briefly:
DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism)
Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) is spirituality-based with Nirguṇa Brahman (NB)[i],[ii] as a primal source defined using the neti-neti principle.[iii] Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) is science-based with the source Pre_Big_Bang-QVF (quantum vacuum field) or preBB_QVF in short. To bridge spirituality and science, DPV and ICRDAM postulate NB ~ preBB_QVF. Saguṇa Brahman (SB)[iv] is defined to have attributes/guṇas and includes all manifested dual-aspect entities. NB and SB are related[v]; SB manifests from and returns to NB. Spirituality-based SB is equivalent to the dual-aspect (DA) unified field (UF), DA unified informational_energy/energetic_information field (UIEF/UEIF), or DA_ZPF.
In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is characterized as neutral. This means it is: (i) neither explicitly without attributes nor explicitly endowed with attributes; (ii) neither clearly self-luminous nor clearly non-self-luminous; (iii) neither definitively conscious nor definitively non-conscious; (iv) neither strictly mental nor strictly physical, and so forth, in accordance with the neti-neti principle.
In other words, according to the neti-neti principle, NB is defined as neutral; it is neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden, nor is it clearly self-luminous or not self-luminous. NB possesses the potential for SB to have attributes. SB, on the other hand, is a dual-aspect (DA) entity that has attributes. For instance, DA_sun_SB is self-luminous, while DA_moon_SB is not, as the moon is illuminated by the sun.
To discover the truth, we must adhere to the principles of science. The framework of DPV~ICRDAM—spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (where “~” signifies “equivalent to”)—is considered the best approach. This is known as the NB-SB (Nirguṇa Brahman and Saguṇa Brahman) framework.
In this context, NB is defined using the neti-neti principle, indicating that it is neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious; it is neutral. This means that all the countless manifested living and non-living dual-aspect entities, including deities such as Brahmā, Viṣṇu/ Nārāyaṇa/Kṛṣṇa/Rāma, and Śiva, exist within the minds of their devotees. They are “parts” of the “whole” SB, which manifests from and ultimately returns to NB. Anything beyond this understanding is seen as superstition.
[i] Definition of NB: In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as the primal, eternal source of ultimate reality is defined using neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither explicitly attribute-less nor explicitly attribute-laden, (ii) neither explicitly subject nor explicitly object, (iii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iv) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (v) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities, etc. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR), which has potential for everything. In other words, NB has implicit (latent, unmanifested) or potentiality of inseparable and complementary s and ns aspects of a dual-aspect state (DAS) of an entity.
Opponent: If NB neither has explicit attributes nor lacks explicit attributes, how can māyā veil NB when there is nothing to veil?
Scientist-cum-Vedantin: (1) Since science was not developed in the ancient period, the terminology māyā was used to proceed further on how Suguṇa Brahman (SB) was manifested from NB by proposing the SB was the result of māyā’s veiling of NB. Now, we have modern science to unpack the mysterious māyā as follows.
(2) In spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) that uses NB and SB, and science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) that uses preBB_QVF ~ NB and manifested entities ~ SB, a working hypothesis is that NB ~ preBB_QVF has latent and implicit attributes with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) subjective (s, mental) and non-subjective (ns, physical) aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. In other words, NB is neutral.
(3) To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that <NB ~ preBB_QVF (pre Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field)> has latent/hidden/implicit subject-objects, s-ns aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting everything, such as both s and ns aspects of realized entities, which are the parts of dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
From premises (1) to (3), the mysterious māyā’s veiling of NB to result NB can be unpacked through scientific phase-transition from <NB ~ preBB_QVF> latent/implicit phase to <dual-aspect SB ~ dual-aspect unified field (UF)> explicit phase due to temperature drop from the start of BB to near Planck epoch using BBC (Big Bang Cosmology) that has some evidence. By <near Planck epoch>, we mean before the symmetry breaking of the dual-aspect unified field (DA_UF) to result in dual-aspect gravitational force/field (DA-GF) at Planck epoch (~10−43 seconds after BB).
[ii] In Upaniṣads and some sub-schools of Vedānta, Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is based on the neti-neti principle, which we can elaborate further as follows:
The concept of the neutral NB represents the most fundamental and ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither subject nor object, (ii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iii) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (iv) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (v) neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly with an attribute, and (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR) that has potential for everything including inseparable and complementary dual-aspect states of manifested entities/fields including our mindBrain system.
Per (Swami Sivananda, 2002), “Here the term imperishable means the Avyaktam or Avyakrita (the unmanifested or the undifferentiated) which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements and abides in the Lord [NB].” In other words, NB is unmanifested (undifferentiated), which represents the potentiality or the seed of all names and forms, contains the subtle parts of the material elements.
In Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) and Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM), a working hypothesis is that NB is scientifically symmetric (in the sense of not explicitly detectable ie., has latent and implicit attributes) with respect to (i) subject and object, (ii) mental and physical aspects, (iii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iv) formless and with forms, (v) attributeless and with attributes, and (vi) with and without qualities. For example, in the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis cannot differentiate between subject and objects, i.e., observer (kartā), observed (karm), and process of observation (kriyā) appear unified; it is the state of Oneness; so we can scientifically interpret that NB is symmetric with respect to subject and object. As an analogy, the unified field is symmetric with respect to (i) gravitational field, (ii) EM field, (iii) weak field, and (iv) strong field. Therefore, symmetry-breaking of NB might be involved after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB) for differentiating (i) subject from objects, (ii) s-aspect from ns-aspects, (iii) consciousnesses from non-consciousness, (iv) various forms, (v) various attributes, and (vi) various qualia, in analogy to the symmetry breaking of the unified field into the four (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong) fields. For example, the symmetry-breaking of non-dual NB can lead to the manifestation of subject and object duality in our mundane conventional mind-dependent reality. Conversely, at the Samādhi state related to unity consciousness, yogis experience that subject and objects merge/unify, Oneness appears, and subject-object symmetry recovers. The highest 7th state of consciousness in TM is unity consciousness (Brahmi Chetana)—object and subject are one; the environment is nothing other than the universal Self (Boyer, 2018).Ch.9.
To address the explanatory gap problem of how aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities arise from such a neutral entity/field, we can argue that NB has latent/hidden subject-objects, aspects, consciousness, forms, attributes, and qualities. In other words, a state of Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) has latent/implicit/hidden/undifferentiated s and ns aspects, i.e., NB is neutral in the sense of neither explicit mental nor explicit physical. Thus, NB has the potential for manifesting both s and ns aspects in dual-aspect Saguṇa Brahman (SB).
[iii] Neti Neti Principle:
The neti-neti principle reveals a profound understanding of the primal source, known as Nirguṇa Brahman (NB). This source embodies neutrality, meaning that it is neither completely devoid of attributes nor fully defined by them. Instead, the attributes of NB remain latent, hidden, and undetectable, existing only in potential form. It’s crucial to acknowledge that the state of being "attributeless" itself constitutes a quality (guṇa). NB is not just neutral; it is immortal, unmanifested, and undifferentiated, representing an absolute or ultimate mind-independent reality (UMIR). Yet, within this neutrality lies the profound potential to manifest everything, giving rise to Saguṇa Brahman (SB)—a form that possesses attributes. For example, SB can be seen as a dual-aspect (DA) entity rich with these defining qualities.
The “Neti Neti” principle, rooted in the Upanishads, encourages seekers to negate everything that is not the true Self (Atman). By negating external attributes and forms, one can realize the formless, eternal reality beyond.
The term “Neti Neti” translates to “not this, not that” (नेति नेति) and serves as a method for understanding the nature of the Self.
Citation: This concept is discussed in various Upanishads, particularly the Chandogya Upanishad and the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad1,2.
The Upanishads and Vedanta are philosophical texts that explore the nature of reality, the Self, and the ultimate truth. They explicitly discuss the “Neti Neti” principle:
Meaning of “Neti Neti”: “Neti Neti” means “not this, not that.” It encourages seekers to negate all transient aspects (body, mind, senses, etc.) and recognize the unchanging, formless Self beyond them. By saying “Neti Neti,” one moves beyond identification with the physical and material, ultimately realizing the eternal truth.
Upanishad:
Chandogya Upanishad: In this Upanishad, sage Uddalaka instructs his son Shvetaketu about the nature of the Self. He says, “That thou art” (Tat Tvam Asi) and negates everything else.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Here, the sage Yajnavalkya teaches Maitreyi about the Self. He uses “Neti Neti” to negate all attributes and forms, leading to the realization of the formless Brahman. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.4.19): Neti neti describes Brahman (ultimate reality) (Kaundinya, 2013). This shloka doesn't use the exact phrase but employs negation to define Brahman. (neti neti) - not this, not this (sa neti neti) - that is not this, not this. Interpretation: Brahman is beyond all descriptions and can only be understood through the negation of everything else.
Kena Upanishad (1.3-4): Uses neti-neti to describe the nature of Atman (Self) (Swami Nikhilānanda, 1990). (na tat) - not that (neti neti) - not this, not this. Interpretation: True Self cannot be grasped by the mind or senses, only known through negation.
Vedanta:
Advaita Vedanta (Shankaracharya): Adi Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Upanishads, emphasizes “Neti Neti” as a method to realize the non-dual Brahman. He negates all limiting attributes to reveal the ultimate reality.
Vishishtadvaita Vedanta (Ramanujacharya): Ramanujacharya interprets “Neti Neti” as negating only the imperfections of the world while affirming the divine qualities of Brahman.
Dvaita Vedanta (Madhvacharya): Madhvacharya emphasizes devotion to Lord Vishnu and considers “Neti Neti” as a way to understand the distinction between the individual soul (jiva) and God (Brahman).
For further details, see Appendix 11 of <Vimal 2024 comparison Tables 1-9 DPV-ICRDAM>.
[iv] Saguṇa Brahman (SB) includes all manifested living and non-living entities and manifested deities (such as tri-devas: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva). SB is manifested from NB; hence, it is a latecomer (perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago). In DPV (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB, where (i) GSB is Gross Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) NSB is Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities, (iii) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (iv) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, and (v) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman.
From A21.11 of (Vimal, 2024b): In DPV, SB includes all manifested living and non-living entities: SB = NLSB + LSB; LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB, where (i) NLSB is non-living Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) LSB is living Saguṇa Brahman, (iii) NCSB is non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states (such as deep sleep, anesthesia etc) SB of living entities, (iv) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (v) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, (vi) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman, (vii) ISB is Īśvara(ईश्वर) (deities, Bhagavan, gods, angels, &c) Saguṇa Brahman, which resides in the minds of devotees in two-realm frameworks, and (viii) ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist, then ICRDAM can accommodate it as 3rd intermediate layer, namely, ISSB between NB and GSB.
1. LSB = NCSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB
2. NSB = NLSB + NCSB = non-conscious living (including DSSB: deep sleep SB) and non-living entities
3. GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB;
4. Cosmic_SB = NLSB + LSB + ISSB = whole/cosmic SB
= (NLSB + NCSB) + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= NSB + (DSB + WSB + SSB + ISB) + ISSB
= GSB + ISSB
5. GSB: Gross Saguṇa Brahman = Cosmic_SB - ISSB (ISSB is Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman: if astral world entities (Sukshma and Karan Jagats) exist)
- NSB: Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious dual-aspect states (DASs) of living and all DASs of non-living entities.
[v] The field of cosmic consciousness, as Saguṇa Brahman (SB), is manifested from NB. The neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is the fundamental/ultimate reality. The term “neutral” is used to describe it as being (i) neither subject nor object, (ii) neither explicitly mental nor explicitly physical, (iii) neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, (iv) neither explicitly formless nor explicitly with forms, (v) neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly with an attribute, and (vi) neither explicitly without qualities nor explicitly with qualities. This is achieved by applying the neti-neti principle. In other words, Nirguṇa Brahman is a neutral primordial cosmic ultimate mind-independent reality (MIR) that has potential for everything.
Saguṇa Brahman (SB) includes all manifested living and non-living entities. SB is manifested from NB, and hence it is a latecomer, perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago. In DPV (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB ~ preBB-QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB, where, (i) GSB is Gross Saguṇa Brahman, (ii) NSB is Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities, (iii) DSB is Dream Saguṇa Brahman, (iv) WSB is Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman, and (v) SSB is Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman. See below for more information.
The Saccidānanda (SCA), Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Maya, all deities, all living beings (such as humans), and non-living entities (including silicon chips!) are parts of Saguṇa Brahman (SB). Saccidānanda (SCA) has three attributes, namely, existence (Sat), consciousness (Cit), and bliss (Ānanda) so it cannot be NB; it should also be a part of SB. Therefore, SCA is the derived entity and is not the ultimate reality, i.e., the SCA is derived from the neutral cosmic NB, which is the only fundamental/ultimate reality.
The SB is manifested from NB after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB), and eventually, SB will return to NB after Big Crunch (BC) for the next cycle (NB↔SB).
A working hypothesis is that NB is symmetric with respect to (i) mental and physical aspects, : (ii) consciousness and non-consciousness, (iii) formless and with forms, (iv) attributeless and with attributes, and (v) with and without qualities. An analogy, the unified field is symmetric with respect to (i) gravitational field, (ii) EM field, (iii) weak field, and (iv) strong field. Therefore, symmetry-breaking of NB might be involved after Cosmic_Fire/Big_Bang (CF/BB), in analogy to the symmetry breaking of the unified field into the four (gravitational, EM, weak, and strong) fields.
After BC, SB returns to NB for the next cycle.
Saguṇa Brahman (SB): Individual living beings, including humans, are seen as manifestations of NB. Our experiences are conditioned by our minds and brains but ultimately connected to the cosmic consciousness. SB includes CSB (Cosmic SB), GSB, ISSB (Intermediate Subtle Saguṇa Brahman, such as deities and subtle world, which exists in 3 world DPV; the intermediate layer/world is between NB and GSB), GSB (Gross Saguṇa Brahman), NSB (Non-conscious Saguṇa Brahman, which includes preconscious, subconscious, and unconscious states of living and all states of non-living entities), DSB (Dream Saguṇa Brahman), WSB (Wakeful Saguṇa Brahman), and SSB (Samādhi Saguṇa Brahman). In two-world DPV, deities are in the minds of devotees.
The paths to knowledge and methodologies for NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) and QVF (quantum vacuum field) differ significantly; however, the conclusion from both paths is the same, which strongly supports the Equivalent hypothesis (NB and QVF are equivalent). If both are neutral entities/fields, then ontology for both is neutral primal entity/field, which implies both are the same neutral entity/field, which after manifestation are dual-aspect entities/fields as in the ICRDAM (Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework. The unveiling of Māyā leads to the conclusion that the NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) and unmanifested QVF (quantum vacuum field) are not only equivalent, but they are the same entity/field. It implies that all manifested living and non-living entities are dual-aspect SB (Saguṇa Brahman). Therefore, SB is manifested from NB, and hence it is a latecomer, perhaps NSB appeared at the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago.
In Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) (that uses NB as the primal neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as the primal entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB.
In DPV (that uses NB as a primordial neutral entity) and ICRDAM (that uses QVF as a primordial entity), (i) NB = QVF. (ii) there are 2 levels (layers, or worlds): NB and SB, where SB = GSB = NSB + DSB + WSB + SSB.
During co-evolution, adaptation, and natural selection, (i) the first living systems are estimated to have appeared on Earth around 3.7 billion years ago. (ii) the earliest fossils of multicellular organisms date back to around 570 million years ago during the Cambrian Period, and (iii) modern humans (Homo sapiens) are thought to have evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago.
Henry José Arámbulo Urdaneta
ALL GLORIES TO SRI SRI GURU AND GAURANGA
Dear Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal Thank you for your willingness to share and write your thoughts on this discussion forum. Regarding the questions you kindly asked me.
I leave you the answers below:
*Question 1: Does GV mean that ABAV (Gaudīya Vedanta = Achintya-bedhābheda Vedanta)?
Answer: Yes, GV (Gaudīya Vedanta) is associated with the philosophy of Achintya-bedhābheda Vedanta. The Gaudīya Vedanta tradition, founded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, uses the concept of Achintya-bedhābheda (inconceivable simultaneous unity and difference) to describe the relationship between the individual soul (jiva), the world (māyā), and God (Krishna). In the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, the concept of Achintya-bhedābheda (अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद) is taught. This concept was promoted by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and developed by his closest followers known as the Six Gosvāmīs of Vrindavana. Achintya-bhedābheda means: - Achintya: inconceivable or transcendental. - Bheda: difference. - Abheda: non-difference or unity. Thus, Achintya-bhedābheda describes the relationship between the individual soul (jiva), Krishna (God), and the world as one of simultaneous unity and inconceivable difference. This means that Krishna is simultaneously one with and different from his energies and souls, but this relationship is transcendental and cannot be fully understood by ordinary logic. The Achintya-bhedābheda conception is fundamental to Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy and emphasizes devotion (bhakti) to Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
*Question 2: The Divine Love of Radha-Krishna is for all sects (sampradayas), so those who support it should adopt a non-sectarian approach. Is this correct? If so, why is Dr. Shanta so critical of science? Why not try to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, as I am trying to do? Is there any justification?
Answer: The Divine Love of Radha-Krishna is a central theme in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition and is considered a sublime example of devotional love (bhakti) for Sri Krishna. Although the love of Radha-Krishna is an important theme in some Vaishnava traditions, the non-sectarian focus on divine love can be seen as a way to unite different sampradayas in the pursuit of spirituality and love of God. In this sense, adopting a non-sectarian approach can help emphasize the common aspects of spirituality and divine love rather than sectarian differences. His Holiness Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj, as you may know, graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 2000 and obtained his Ph.D. in 2003. He was invited to Korea to work in scientific research in 2007. Therefore, the Maharaj has always been involved with science, and in fact, his preaching is scientific. Gurudev's respect for science is evident. What he criticizes is the materialistic conception of some scientists who mistakenly believe that life comes from chemical mixtures. Both the Maharaj and Gaudiya Vaishnavism affirm that life comes from life. If materialistic scientists had the truth, they would have already created a living being using only chemicals to engender life. In various writings, including in his dissertations on these discussion forums, the Maharaj has often expressed his respect for science as something very positive for society.
However, his criticism is directed not at science in general but at materialist scientists. His criticism is not merely for the sake of criticism; he presents valid and reasonable arguments based on Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. The Maharaj, for example, created these discussion forums precisely to respectfully discuss and analyze ideological differences. This does not in any way mean that the Maharaj is sectarian or criticizing for the sake of criticism. On the contrary, he is encouraging us to approach the search for truth from a platform of humility, respect, and education. Therefore, this is a way of building bridges of unity through ideological exchange and discussion of diverse ways of thinking. Finally, although I was born in Venezuela, and my parents gave me the civil and material name of Henry, since I was a child I have always felt an affinity with India, despite being very far from where I was born. But I inexplicably felt drawn to India, and as an adult I took initiation (Diksa) from my Diksa Guru, His Holiness Srila Bhakti Nirmal Acharya Maharaj, who gave me the spiritual name of Hariananda das. After the departure of my Diksa Guru, I continue under the guidance of his beloved disciple, Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj. That is why I always write my real name, my spiritual name, which is Hariananda das. My name is not a name from India or any other region; my name is spiritual; it does not belong to a material identity. And because it was given to me by my Guru, that is what is important to me.
I hope this brief reflection has answered your questions appropriately.
With nothing else to say at this time, I bid you farewell with affection and respect.
Hariananda das Student under the guidance of Srila Bhakti Niskama Shanta Maharaj
RamLakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Hariānanda Dās ji,
Thank you. Very kind of you!
[1]. Then it means that Krishna, as subjective (s, consciousness)-aspect and Shakti (such as Radha) as non-subjective (ns) aspect of a dual-aspect state of Saguna Brahman (SB) are also inseparable, complementary, and reflective, in our DPV~ICRDAM (spirituality-based Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ (equivalent to) science-based Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework.
[2] I agree that consciousness-less matter can not create consciousness. This is a well-known hard problem of Consciousness in consciousness-less materialism (Chalmers, 1995) and has an explanatory gap problem (Levine, 1983).
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness <Available: http://consc.net/papers/facing.html>. J Consciousness Stud, 2, 200–219.
Chalmers, David J. 2013 Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism Amherst Lecture in Philosophy https://consc.net/papers/panpsychism.pdf (Chalmers, 2013)
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pac Philos Quart, 64, 354–361.
The Hard Problem is fully resolved in DPV~ICRDAM (it is a version of the middle way dual-aspect monism and assumes ChitPadāratha, (proto)consciousMatter in panprotopsychism (Chalmers, 2013)) as elaborated in Section 90.7 of Volume 3.3 of (Vimal, 2024b) and (Vimal, 2018b).