[1] Volume 17: Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232): Characharavyapasrayadhikaranam (चराचरव्यपाश्रयाधिकरणम्) Births and deaths are not of the soul: A Synthesis of (A) Interpretations by (1) Bādarāyaṇa (Vyāsa) (Brahma Sūtra Vedānta), (2) Śankarācārya (Advaita), (3) Rāmānujācārya (Viśiṣṭādvaita), (4) Śivānanda (Advaita, Brahma Sūtra Vedānta, and Vijñāna Vedānta), (5) Chaitanya Mahāprabhu (Gauḍīya Vedānta a.k.a. Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta: GV≡ABAV), and (6) DPV~ICRDAM, (B) Challenges, and (C) Resolutions
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear All,
In this post, we present:
[1] An overview of the important Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232): Births and deaths are not of the soul. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights, please refer to Section 3.(232) on pages 68-102 of the attachment.
[2] Conclusion of Discussion on Bridging Gauḍīya Vedānta and Science through DPV~ICRDAM. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights, please refer to Section 4.1 on pages 106-127
We appreciate your feedback and constructive comments.
1. Overarching Synthesized Abstract for Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232)
Bridging Birth and Death Metaphors with Consciousness Science: A DPV~ICRDAM Synthesis of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232)
Bridging the Mind-Matter Divide: A Unified Scientific-Spiritual Interpretation, Challenges, and Resolutions of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232)
This study investigates Brahma Sūtra 2.3.16 (BS232) — Charācharavyapāśrayastu syāt tadvyapadeśo bhaktaḥ tadbhāvabhāvitvāt, (अन्तराविज्ञानाधिकरणम्) — across six interpretive traditions: Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahma Sūtra Vedānta (BSV), Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita Vedānta (AV), Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita (CAV), Gauḍīya Vedānta a.k.a. Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV), Śivānanda’s synthetic Vedānta (BSV–AV–VV), and Vimal’s DPV~ICRDAM framework. Each perspective affirms that birth and death do not apply to the soul (ātman) but only to bodily embodiment. However, only the DPV~ICRDAM framework systematically bridges ancient spiritual metaphors with modern empirical consciousness science by interpreting the soul as an active dynamic self (ADS) with dual-aspect state (DAS) as a part of whole/cosmic Saguna Brahman (SB) —an inseparable, complementary, and reflective structure with a subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspect.
DPV~ICRDAM postulates that consciousness as conscious subjective experiences (CSEs), the s-aspect of DAS, is not born or destroyed but reorganized across bodily transitions. Birth and death are phase transitions of dual-aspect systems, not ontological beginnings or ends. The soul, therefore, is not an immutable metaphysical substance but an ADS within a nested hierarchy of DASs, each emergent from and eventually returning to Nirguṇa Brahman (NB)—the neutral (neither explicitly attributeless nor explicitly attribute-laden), unmanifested, eternal source equivalent to the pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field (preBB_QVF).
This integrative reinterpretation resolves longstanding theological paradoxes, such as the coexistence of unity and individuality, the eternal versus temporal nature of the soul, and the empirical unobservability of metaphysical claims. In doing so, it affirms ancient insights (e.g., Chāndogya Upaniṣad VI.11.3; Bhagavad Gītā 2.13, 8.20) while grounding them in a scientifically coherent framework that models CSEs (consciousness) as Effective Integrated Information (EII) within reflective, inseparable dual-aspect states.
Please refer to Section 4.1 related to discussion.
2. From Eternal Soul to Dual-Aspect Self: Bridging Gauḍīya Vedānta and Consciousness Science through DPV~ICRDAM
Life, Matter, and Consciousness: A Vedāntic-Scientific Synthesis via Dvi-Pakṣādvaita and Inseparable-Complementary Dual-Aspect Monism
Overarching Conclusion
The metaphysical chasm between modern science and Vedāntic theology is often attributed to irreconcilable definitions of life, matter, and consciousness. However, our analysis shows that this gap narrows significantly when framed through the DPV~ICRDAM lens, which preserves the spiritual ontology of GV≡ABAV while introducing scientifically coherent structures. In Gauḍīya Vedānta, GV_life is a non-material conscious self (jīva) that is ontologically prior to GV_matter (prakṛti), which is inert and dependent. In contrast, modern biology defines life functionally and emergence-based, treating matter as consciousness-less. Recent scientific paradigms such as panpsychism and dual-aspect theories challenge this view, yet often fall short of grounding their claims in coherent metaphysical sources.
DPV~ICRDAM addresses this by positing an Active Dynamic Self (ADS) with Dual-Aspect State (DAS) that has inseparable and complementary subjective and non-subjective aspects, situated within Saguna Brahman (SB) and ultimately traceable to a neutral Nirguṇa Brahman (NB). This preserves divine relationality—affirming the reality of Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā as inseparable conscious polarities—while offering a resolution to the hard problem of consciousness. Critiques from GV≡ABAV scholars are addressed by distinguishing between the reflective (not inert) nature of the non-subjective aspect and the ontological inseparability of consciousness from life. Thus, DPV~ICRDAM does not dilute bhakti theology but elevates it into a cosmologically rigorous model that resonates across disciplines. This integrative paradigm honors both scriptural śruti and scientific rigor, enabling a new era of constructive dialogue between Vedānta and science.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Neo-<Gauḍīya Vedānta ≡ Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)>: Scientific Ontology and Theistic Non-Dualism through the DPV~ICRDAM Framework
A Recontextualization of Bhakti, Consciousness, and Life Beyond Sectarian Limits
1. Abstract
Gauḍīya Vedānta, classically known as Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta (ABAV), has often been interpreted through a devotional-theological lens, emphasizing the simultaneous oneness and difference between the jīva (soul) and Bhagavān (God). However, recent advances in consciousness science and dual-aspect monism call for a systematic rearticulation of its metaphysics. In this study, we propose a scientifically robust recontextualization—Neo-Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV≡ABAV)—through the Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ Inseparable-Complementary Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (DPV~ICRDAM) framework. Using this dual-aspect model, we reinterpret Kṛṣṇa-Rādhā cosmology, jīva-tattva, and the ontological grounding of bhakti (devotion) not as theological postulates, but as reflective instantiations of subjectivity (s-aspect) and structural embodiment (ns-aspect) nested in Saguna Brahman (SB). We show that this model not only addresses classical Vedāntic critiques (e.g., Brahma Sūtras 2.3.16: BS232) but also aligns with contemporary debates on the hard problem of consciousness, panpsychism, and post-materialist science. Neo-(GV≡ABAV), thus redefined, transcends sectarian boundaries and integrates devotional theology with scientific ontology, offering a coherent metaphysical system where divine love, self-awareness, and consciousness are ontologically real and scientifically expressible.
2. Introduction
Gauḍīya Vedānta emerged as a distinct theological voice in the 16th century under Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu and was later systematized by theologians such as Jīva Goswāmī. Its cornerstone is Achintya-Bheda-Abheda ("inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference"), which affirms the jīva’s eternal subordination to and unity with Bhagavān. However, in the modern context, where scientific explanations are demanded for metaphysical claims, GV≡ABAV must evolve from scriptural faith to ontological rigor (symbol '≡' signifies ‘identical to’ or a.k.a.). The DPV~ICRDAM model enables this transformation by framing spiritual realities as Saguna Brahman (SB) with dual-aspect (DA) states (DAS)—each DAS composed of subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects that are inseparable, reflective, and complementary (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b). This opens the way for a Neo-(GV≡ABAV), which retains the essence of devotional non-dualism while integrating current scientific paradigms.
3. Historical Background and Core Ontology of GV≡ABAV
GV≡ABAV holds that all entities—including the jīva and the material world—are simultaneously identical to and distinct from Kṛṣṇa (Bhagavān). This paradoxical unity is labeled achintya (inconceivable), resisting complete logical categorization. In classical texts (e.g., Tattva-Sandarbha, Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu), the jīva is described as an eternal spark of consciousness, distinct from but dependent on the Supreme (Rosen, 1996).
Within the DPV~ICRDAM framework, this relationship becomes scientifically tractable: the jīva is a dynamic DAS, an Active Dynamic Self (ADS) with both a lifelong passive invariant self (PIS). The DAS of ADS/PIS has conscious subjective experience (CSE) as a subjective (s) aspect and inseparable, complementary, and reflective ns-aspect (embodied structure: cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures, as discussed in the works of Northoff & Bermpohl (2004), Northoff et al. (2006), and Northoff (2014, 2016). The ontological relation to Bhagavān is not just devotional but structural: Kṛṣṇa as cosmic Saguna Brahman (SB) is a DAS entity, and the jīvas are micro-reflections of SB, conditioned by karma, guṇas, and ego feedback loops.
4. Jīva-Tattva Revisited: The Reflective DAS View
In Neo-(GV≡ABAV), the jīva is:
- Not created (against BS 2.3.16 critique),
- Not identical to inert matter (against materialism),
- Not absolutely identical to Brahman (against Advaita),
- But an eternally dependent DAS—reflecting both cosmic cognition and local individuation.
- Jīva_SB (individual consciousness)
The jīva’s s-aspect includes awareness, intention, volition, and devotion. Its ns-aspect includes neuro-symbolic patterns, prāṇic structures, and karmic memory. This matches current science’s demand for integration between subjective phenomenology and neural dynamics (Chalmers, 1995; Northoff, 2016).
5. Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa Duality as Dual-Aspect Ontology
A classical objection raised by Gauḍīya scholars is that interpreting Rādhā as a "non-subjective aspect" reduces her to an inert energy (Shanta, 2025a, 2025b). However, according to Dās (2025), “Radha as the Personification of Hladini Shakti: Radha is considered the personification of Krishna's pleasure energy (hladini Shakti). This relationship is seen as the most intimate and transcendental in Krishna's pastimes in Vrindavana.” Thus, the interpretation remains ambiguous.
In any case, in the DPV~ICRDAM, the distinction between subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) does not imply consciousness versus unconsciousness; instead, it highlights differentiated roles within a unified reflective field.
Rādhā represents the hlādinī-śakti (bliss potency)—fully conscious and emotionally autonomous—yet functioning as the relational pole complementing Kṛṣṇa’s central subjectivity (Das, 2023). In this schema, divine love is the co-reflection of mutual subjective surrender (s-aspect) and cosmological enactment (ns-aspect).
Through Bhakti yoga, devotees can activate hladini Shakti (Rādhā_DA_SB), which fundamentally enhances the pleasure centers in our brains. The s-aspect of DAS in Rādhā_DA_SB relates to the CSE (Conscious Subjective Experience) of Bliss, while the complementary and reflective ns-aspect corresponds to the neural-physical activity/basis (NPA/NPB) within the Bliss-related neural network of the limbic system. This hypothesis can be scientifically tested using fMRI and EEG on accomplished bhakti-yogis who embody the principles of GV≡ABAV. It would be great if Dr. Shanta could explore this during his Premyoga-related Bhakti-Samadhi state and publish an insightful research article. We would be happy to collaborate with him.[i]
6. Bhakti as DAS-Process: Non-Reductive Devotion
Bhakti in GV≡ABAV is not sentiment or ritual alone but a transformational realignment of the jīva’s DAS with that of Bhagavān. In DPV~ICRDAM terms:
- S-aspect of bhakti: inner devotion, surrender, love.
- Ns-aspect of bhakti: mantras, rituals, symbolic actions.
The dual-aspect view preserves theological integrity while explaining psychosomatic processes (Sharma, 2021). The more transparent the DAS (e.g., egoless Śeṣa), the more clearly NB (Nirguṇa Brahman) is reflected in Neo-GV≡ABAV. Ego, by contrast, is a distorted DAS blocking NB-reflection.
7. Responses to Classical Critiques
- BS 2.3.16 (Soul is not produced): The jīva is not causally produced but conditionally co-emergent from NB via SB as a DAS entity.
- BS 2.2.42–45 (Multiplicity of Īśvaras, contradiction): The multiplicity of deities in classical GV≡ABAV is symbolic, representing nested DAS functions rather than ontologically separate gods. In Neo-(GV≡ABAV), through Premyoga, the DAS of KṛṣṇaRādhā emerge from the interaction of DASKṛṣṇaÄDASRādhā, which would be consistent with Brahma Sutras’ Single Brahman, instead of two Brahmans in classical GV≡ABAV, which will never be accepted by Brahma Sutras.[ii]
- Advaita critique: Classical (GV≡ABAV) considers Advaita’s impersonal Nirguna Brahman (NB) as subordinate because of ignorance (see Gita). However, Neo-(GV≡ABAV) is consistent with Advaita because through Premyoga, both Kṛṣṇa and Rādhā can unify inseparably and become a single Saguna Brahman (SB); further permanent/eternal unification would be achieved through the hypothesis KṛṣṇaRādhā SB manifests from and returns to NB that has potentiality of everything, including KṛṣṇaRādhā-SB, Kṛṣṇa-SB, and Rādhā-SB. This will bridge all sub-schools of Vedanta, Gita, Upanishadas, and also DPV~IRCDAM-based science.
8. Scientific and Philosophical Convergences
- The hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) is resolved through inseparability of s and ns aspects.
- The idea of Active Dynamic Self (ADS) aligns with self-model theories in neurophilosophy (Metzinger, 2003).
- In Classical GV≡ABAV, the non-emergence of GV_life (life+consciousness) from GV_matter (jada mahabhutas instead of protoconscious elementary particles) confirms Vedāntic priority of consciousness (Shanta, 2025), challenging abiogenesis (Luisi, 2006). However, Neo-(GV≡ABAV) accepts ChitPadārtha ((proto)conscious matter) hypothesis.
9. 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 |
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, 2025v16).
9. Conclusion
The reinterpretation of classical (GV≡ABAV) through DPV~ICRDAM as Neo-(GV≡ABAV), transcends sectarian theology, in real sense, by offering a coherent, scientific, and theologically authentic ontology of life, consciousness, and divine relationship, which is consistent with single Brahman in Prasthānatrayī (प्रस्थानत्रयी: Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and Gita)[iii], . The jīva is an irreducible DAS nested within Saguna Brahman (SB), with divine consciousness (SB) as its neutral reflective field (NB); SB manifests from and returns to NB. Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa dynamics, bhakti practices, and scriptural insights are preserved not only as enhanced devotional truths but as scientifically consistent ontological structures. This synthesis resolves classical critiques from Brahma Sūtras, rebuts reductive consciousless-materialism, and provides a non-dual, relational cosmology that honors both śāstra and science. In doing so, Neo-(GV≡ABAV) stands as a powerful spiritual-philosophical system for the 21st century.
10. References
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Das, H. J. A. U. (2023). Reflections on Śakti and Divine Love. Vaiṣṇava Dialogues, 4(1), 25–39.
Luisi, P. L. (2006). The emergence of life: From chemical origins to synthetic biology. Cambridge University Press.
Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity. MIT Press.
Northoff, G., & Bermpohl, F. (2004). Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci, 8(3), 102-107. <Available: http://www.imhr.ca/research/northofflab/documents/cms_and_the_self.pdf>.
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006). Self-referential processing in our brain--a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self. Neuroimage, 31(1), 440-457. <http://www.imhr.ca/research/northofflab/documents/self_referential_processing_in_our_brain.pdf > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16466680.
Northoff, G. (2014). Unlocking the Brain: Volume 2: Consciousness. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Northoff, G. (2016). Neurophilosophy of the self: A neural signature of the first-person perspective. MIT Press.
Rosen, S. J. (1996). Essential teachings of the Gauḍīya tradition. Torchlight Publishing.
Shanta, B. N. (2025a, July 12). Gauḍīya Vedāntic Critique of Vimal’s Interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.14. Online Sadhu-Sanga of Higher Thought. <https://groups.google.com/g/online_sadhu_sanga/c/XJVIcz4FyL4/m/zW7EeNPWCwAJ>
Shanta, B. N. (2025b, July 19). Beyond Dual-Aspect Monism: Consciousness in Gauḍīya Vedānta. Online Sadhu-Sanga of Higher Thought. (Shanta, 2025a, 2025b) <https://groups.google.com/g/online_sadhu_sanga/c/voV9X6Ch62Q/m/kM9Kv5f0AAAJ>
Dās, Hariānanda (aka Urdaneta, Henry José Arámbulo) (2025, July 21) Beyond Dual-Aspect Monism: Consciousness in Gauḍīya Vedānta. Online Sadhu-Sanga of Higher Thought. (Dās, 2025) <https://groups.google.com/g/online_sadhu_sanga/c/voV9X6Ch62Q/m/3jQMegeOAQAJ>
Sharma, A. (2021). Neuroscience and Indian Psychology: Bridging Models of Mind. Motilal Banarsidass.
[i] In other words, through Bhakti yoga, devotees can activate hladini Shakti (Rādhā_DA_SB), which is, in essence, activating pleasure centers in our brain. The s-aspect of DAS of Rādhā_DA_SB is the CSE of Bliss, and the inseparable, complementary-reflective ns-aspect is neural-physical activity/basis (NPA/NPB) in Bliss-related neural-network (NN) of limbic system. This is a scientifically testable hypothesis through fMRI/EEG of accomplished GV≡ABAV bhakti-yogi. Perhaps, Dr. Shanta can test it during his Premyoga-related Bhakti-Samadhi-state and publish an outstanding research article. We will be happy to collaborate with him.
[ii] In other words, in Neo-(GV≡ABAV), through Premyoga, the DAS of KṛṣṇaRādhā emerge from the interaction of DASKṛṣṇa and DASRādhā, which aligns with Brahma Sutras’ concept of a Single Brahman, rather than two Brahmans as seen in classical GV≡ABAV, which will not be accepted by the Brahma Sutras.
[iii] The Prasthānatrayī (प्रस्थानत्रयी) consists of three foundational texts in Vedanta philosophy:
1. Brahma Sutras: These sutras systematize the teachings of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita.
2. Bhagavad Gita: A part of the Mahabharata, it provides a practical guide to spiritual realization.
3. Upanishads: These ancient texts contain philosophical and spiritual teachings, considered the pinnacle of Vedic literature.
Q. If Brahma Sutras systematize the teachings of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, then why do we need to study Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, separately?
That's an excellent question! While the Brahma Sutras do systematize the teachings of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, there are several compelling reasons why studying the original texts remains invaluable:
1. Depth and Nuance:
- Upanishads: These texts delve deep into philosophical concepts, exploring the nature of reality, consciousness, and the ultimate truth.1 They offer a rich tapestry of diverse perspectives and insights from different sages.
- Bhagavad Gita: This text presents a practical guide to spiritual living, weaving together themes of duty, devotion, and liberation.2 It offers a dialogue format that allows for multiple interpretations and applications.3
2. Contextual Understanding:
- Upanishads: Studying the Upanishads in their original context helps us appreciate the evolution of philosophical thought in ancient India. It allows us to understand how these ideas emerged and developed over time.
- Bhagavad Gita: By studying the Gita within the context of the Mahabharata, we gain a deeper understanding of the characters, the historical setting, and the specific dilemmas that Krishna addresses.4
3. Direct Experience:
- Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita: Engaging with the original texts allows for a more personal and immersive experience. It enables us to connect with the wisdom of the sages directly, fostering a deeper understanding and resonance.
4. Complementary Perspectives:
- Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita: While the Brahma Sutras provide a systematic overview, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita offer unique perspectives and approaches to spiritual realization. By studying all three texts, we gain a more comprehensive understanding of the Vedantic tradition.
In essence, while the Brahma Sutras offer a valuable synthesis, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita provide the original source material, enabling a richer, more nuanced, and personally meaningful exploration of these profound teachings.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
<vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sboc-forum/1227629344.1627204.1753310961506%40mail.yahoo.com.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear All,
In this post, we present:
[1] An overview of the important Brahma Sūtra 2.3.17 (BS233): The individual soul is eternal. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights, please refer to Section 3_233 on pages 132-246 of the attachment.
[2] Overarching Conclusion: Reinterpreting BS233 through the DPV~ICRDAM Framework – Atman’s Eternality as Scientific-Spiritual Information Pattern. For a deeper understanding and comprehensive insights.
2. Overarching Synthesized Abstract: A Unified Scientific-Spiritual Interpretation of BS233 – The Eternity of the Soul through DPV~ICRDAM
Bridging the Mind-Matter Divide: A Unified Scientific-Spiritual Interpretation, Challenges, and Resolutions of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.17 (BS233)
This comprehensive analysis examines Brahma Sūtra 2.3.17 (BS233) – “Nātmā śruternityatvācca tābhyaḥ” (नात्मा श्रुतेर्नित्यत्वाच्च ताभ्यः) – across seven major interpretative paradigms: Bādarāyaṇa’s foundational Vedānta, Śaṅkarācārya’s Advaita, Rāmānujācārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita, Śivānanda’s integrative Advaita-Vijñāna Vedānta, Chaitanya Mahāprabhu’s Gauḍīya Vedānta (GV≡ABAV), its Neo-Gauḍīya reinterpretation, and the modern DPVI~CRDAM synthesis. While each tradition affirms the soul’s eternality based on scriptural silence regarding its origin and affirmation of its permanence, they differ in explaining its ontological status, its relation to Brahman, and the mechanisms of manifestation. The DPV~ICRDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta ~ Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) synthesizes these perspectives through a science-compatible metaphysics: individual and cosmic consciousness are eternal information patterns arising from and returning to Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), understood as a neutral pre-Big Bang quantum vacuum field (preBB_QVF). The individual soul (jīvaātman), like the pañcamahābhūtas, is not created ex nihilo but undergoes phase transitions through cosmological cycles. This reinterpretation integrates spiritual doctrines and contemporary science, providing a mature paradigm for understanding the soul’s eternality, consciousness, and its interplay with cosmic matter.
7. Overarching Conclusion: Reinterpreting BS233 through the DPV~ICRDAM Framework – Atman’s Eternality as Scientific-Spiritual Information Pattern
1. Scriptural Silence Confirms Eternality
All classical commentaries—from Bādarāyaṇa to Śivānanda—affirm that the soul (jīvaātman) is eternal because the Upaniṣads do not describe its origination and instead assert its permanence (Śaṅkarācārya, 1904; Rāmānujācārya, 1904; Śivānanda, 2002).
2. Brahman as Dual-Natured: Nirguṇa and Saguṇa
The concept of Brahman bifurcates into Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) as the neutral, unmanifested, pre-causal potential, and Saguṇa Brahman (SB) as the manifested, attribute-laden cosmic consciousness. Both are preserved across frameworks but unified in DPV~ICRDAM as dual-aspect expressions of the same reality (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
3. The Soul Is an Eternal Information Pattern
According to DPV~ICRDAM, the jīva is an entity with Dual-Aspect State (DAS) that persists as an Atman_IP (informational pattern of Atman), which undergoes phase transitions rather than creation or annihilation (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
4. Addressing Apparent Multiplicity and Free Will
Advaita resolves multiplicity through māyā; Viśiṣṭādvaita through qualified dependence; GV≡ABAV through simultaneous difference-in-identity. DPV~ICRDAM clarifies that apparent multiplicity arises through pattern manifestation within SB, while Divine Free Will (DFW) emerges within cosmic SB patterns, not within NB (Vimal, 2023, 2025a,b).
5. Increasing Population Does Not Imply New Souls
The increase in embodied beings is explained not by the creation of new souls but by the emergence of latent patterns from NB into SB, congruent with thermodynamic and information conservation laws (Vimal, 2023, 2025b).
6. Soul and Mahābhūtas Share Immortality as Patterns
A major advance of DPV~ICRDAM is extending eternality to all structures, including pañcamahābhūtas and elementary particles, by treating them as Mahābhūtas_IP, equivalent in informational persistence to Atman_IP. Both undergo transformation through Heptagonal Cyclic Cosmology (HCC) phases, not destruction (Vimal, 2025b.Section 4.2.8).
7. Integration of Vedānta and Science via Phase Transition
The evolution from NB to SB via cosmic phase transition (e.g., quantum symmetry breaking post-Big Bang) corresponds to the emergence of soul and matter in observable form, confirming Vedāntic teachings with quantum field metaphysics (Vimal, 2023, 2024a; Vimal, 2025a,b).
8. Resolution of Classic Commentarial Contradictions
Contradictions between Śaṅkarācārya’s illusionism, Rāmānujācārya’s qualified realism, and Chaitanya’s inconceivability are dissolved under DPV~ICRDAM’s dual-aspect ontology, revealing them as complementary levels of explanation (Vimal, 2023).
9. Scientific Grounding of Spiritual Doctrine
By modeling both soul and matter as patterns within a conserved information field, DPV~ICRDAM gives empirical credibility to the doctrine of the soul’s unoriginated and indestructible nature. It also maps onto the First Law of Thermodynamics, preserving energetic-informational continuity (Vimal, 2025b).
10. Implications for Consciousness Studies and Cosmology
The reframing of jīva and Brahman via dual-aspect monism provides testable models for modern neuroscience, quantum consciousness research, and cosmological modeling, pushing Vedānta into the frontiers of interdisciplinary inquiry (Vimal, 2024b; Atmanspacher & Rickles, 2022; Tononi & Koch, 2024).
11. Paradigm Shift in Metaphysical Understanding
The conclusion that “nothing is ever created or destroyed, only transformed” is not merely spiritual—it now forms the basis of a scientifically-validated metaphysical model where Atman_IP and Mahābhūtas_IP are immortal, cycled through manifestation and dissolution across cosmic epochs (Vimal, 2024b, 2025b).
12. Ethical and Soteriological Relevance
This synthesis reinvigorates the soul’s spiritual journey: liberation (mokṣa) becomes the realization of one's identity as an eternal pattern within Brahman. It also impels a rethinking of life, death, and environmental responsibility—if both soul and world are sacred information structures, then all existence warrants reverence and care (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.