[12] Volume 18: NB, SB, DPV~ICRDAM: Brahma (Vedānta) Sūtra 2.3.43-53 (BVS256-257): Amsadhikaranam (अंशाधिकरणम्) Relation of the individual soul to Brahman: Advaita and DPV~ICRDAM
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in>Dear Satya ji,
Short answer:
Long answer:
Śaṅkarācārya's Interpretation of Brahma Sūtra 2.3.43-53: The Fundamental Contradiction Exposed
1. The Core Problem: Attributeless Reality with Essential Characteristics
Key Tenets:
Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Amsadhikaranam faces an irreconcilable contradiction between claiming Nirguṇa Brahman as completely attributeless (nirguṇa) while simultaneously identifying it as pure consciousness (cit-mātra) and Sat-Cit-Ānanda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). This logical inconsistency undermines the entire foundation of classical Advaitic interpretation of the individual soul-Brahman relationship described in these crucial sūtras.
Narrative Expansion:
Śaṅkara's interpretation of BS 2.3.43-53 attempts to resolve the apparent contradiction between the soul [Q. Is it jivatman ~ embodied atman?] being both "part" (aṃśa) and "whole" of Brahman [jivatman_as_part_in_SB and merging_of_ADS_IIP_in_NB≡pure_ātman] by arguing that the jīvātman represents pure ātman [≡NB] falsely identified with psychophysical limitations through adhyāsa (superimposition[of pure_ātman≡NB on brain-body system appearing as jīvātman]) (Śaṅkara, 788-820). However, this solution creates a more fundamental logical problem: Śaṅkara simultaneously claims that Nirguṇa Brahman is (1) completely without attributes (nirguṇa), (2) pure consciousness (cit-mātra), and (3) characterized by Sat-Cit-Ānanda. These claims are mutually contradictory - consciousness, existence, and bliss are positive attributes that violate the principle of attributelessness. If NB possesses these characteristics as essential nature (svarūpa), then it cannot be truly nirguṇa. If these are merely conceptual designations imposed by ignorance, then what grounds the claim that ultimate reality is specifically conscious rather than something else entirely?
2. The Reflection Metaphor and Its Logical Failures
Key Tenets:
Śaṅkara employs the reflection (ābhāsa) metaphor from BS 2.3.50 to explain how individual consciousness appears within ultimate reality without affecting it, but this analogy fails to resolve the fundamental attribution problem and creates additional conceptual difficulties about the relationship between appearance and reality.
Narrative Expansion:
The sun-reflection metaphor central to Śaṅkara's commentary illustrates how jīvātman appears as distinct consciousness while NB remains unaffected, just as the sun's reflection in water creates apparent multiplicity without altering the sun itself. However, this metaphor presupposes that we can meaningfully distinguish between the "sun" (NB as pure consciousness) and its "reflections" (individual consciousness) - but this distinction requires that NB possess the specific attribute of consciousness to begin with. The metaphor fails because it assumes what needs to be proved: that ultimate reality has the particular nature of consciousness rather than being truly attributeless. Furthermore, if the reflection is purely illusory (māyā), what explains its systematic appearance? If māyā has genuine causal power to create appearances, then NB is not truly independent of attributes. If māyā lacks such power, then the appearance of individual consciousness becomes inexplicable.
3. The Two-Level Framework and Its Instability
Key Tenets:
Śaṅkara's two-level interpretation distinguishes between the apparent "part-whole" relationship operating at the level of false appearance (adhyāsa) within Saguṇa Brahman and the ultimate reality where no such relationship exists, but this framework cannot consistently maintain the distinction between levels while preserving meaningful content for ultimate reality.
Narrative Expansion:
In Śaṅkara's analysis of the Amsadhikaranam, the jīvātman's apparent status as both part of and identical with Brahman [NB] operates purely within the realm of false appearance - what seems to be Saguṇa Brahman but is ultimately illusory superimposition upon attributeless NB. However, this two-level strategy encounters decisive objections: if SB is purely illusory, then all experiential content, including the spiritual practices and knowledge claims that supposedly lead to liberation, operate within illusion. If NB is truly attributeless, then claims about its being "pure consciousness" or the goal of liberation become meaningless attributions. The framework cannot coherently explain how illusory appearances arise from attributeless reality, how knowledge of truth emerges from false superimposition, or how the supposed "recognition" of pre-existing identity differs from acquiring new information about reality's nature.
4. Contemporary Resolution through DPV~ICRDAM: Neutrality vs. Attribution
Key Tenets:
The DPV~ICRDAM framework resolves Śaṅkara's contradiction by redefining Nirguṇa Brahman as truly neutral - neither conscious nor unconscious, neither attributeless nor attribute-bearing - and relocating consciousness (including pure consciousness) to the level of Saguṇa Brahman, but this solution fundamentally departs from classical Advaitic commitments.
In DPV~ICRDAM, NB~PreBB_QVF manifests into DA_UF, which thru evolution ADS interdependently co-aises as a part/aṃśa in DA_SB~DA_PPU, which returns to eternal neutral NB after dissolution about 100 billion years; so it does not appear simultaneous. However, NB is eternal so it is ultimate reality underlying jivatman (ADS), i.e., [jivatman_as_part_in_SB from the perspective of SB and merging_of_ADS_IIP_in_NB≡pure_ātman from the perspective of NB.
Narrative Expansion:
DPV~ICRDAM acknowledges that "so-called 'pure consciousness' (pureC) is misnomer and misleading because “pure” and “consciousness” are also attributes" and therefore "pureC is SB, which is derived from NB" (Vimal, 2023b, 2024a, 2024b(3.1,3.2m,3.3), 2025a(4.1,4.2, 4.3), 2025b, 2025v17, 2025v18). This approach resolves the logical contradiction by making NB truly neutral regarding all determinations, including consciousness, while explaining the manifestation of conscious experience through phase transitions from preBB_QVF to dual-aspect unified field.
However, this solution raises fundamental questions about continuity with Śaṅkara's system: if consciousness belongs entirely to SB rather than constituting NB's essential nature, then what motivates the spiritual quest for "Self-realization"? If NB is neither conscious nor unconscious, then liberation cannot involve recognizing one's identity with pure consciousness. The DPV~ICRDAM framework may resolve Śaṅkara's logical contradictions, but it does so by abandoning the core Advaitic insight that ultimate reality and full consciousness are non-different. Instead, DPV~ICRDAM reconciles by proposing that ultimate reality and the potentiality of consciousness and of everything with the potentiality of attributes are non-different.
In other words, the DPV~ICRDAM framework may address Śaṅkara's logical contradictions; however, it does so at the cost of abandoning a fundamental Advaitic insight: that ultimate reality and full consciousness are non-different. Instead, DPV~ICRDAM attempts to reconcile these ideas by suggesting that ultimate reality and the potentiality of consciousness, along with everything that possesses the potential for attributes, are non-different.
5. The Amsadhikaranam's Enduring Challenge
Key Tenets:
The Brahma Sūtras 2.3.43-53 present a fundamental challenge that neither classical Advaita nor contemporary modifications can fully resolve: the problem of explaining the relationship between ultimate reality and individual experience without falling into either meaningless attributelessness or self-contradictory attribution.
Narrative Expansion:
The Amsadhikaranam's central question - how the individual soul can be both part and whole of ultimate reality - exposes the deeper philosophical challenge of relating the absolute and the relative. Śaṅkara's interpretation fails because it tries to preserve absolute transcendence while maintaining specific identification with consciousness.
Critique: DPV~ICRDAM's neutrality solution avoids logical contradiction but potentially eliminates the experiential dimension that makes the spiritual quest meaningful.
Resolution: There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding DPV~ICRDAM. It does NOT eliminate the experiential dimension that makes the spiritual quest meaningful. Buddhism posits that Advaita is a form of crypto-Buddhism. The concept of Sunyata (emptiness) is neutral and can be related to Neutral NB and neutral preBB_QVF.[i]
Buddhist meditation also does NOT eliminate the experiential dimension; in fact, it emphasizes it. DPV~ICRDAM-based meditation allows for an experiential dimension because its techniques establish an appropriate neural network. This network enables individuals to experience states like Bliss during the samadhi state, for example.
Additionally, pure consciousness (pureC) is connected to spiritual bliss (SB), while the experience of Sunyata—characterized by the absence of inherent existence—as well as the quantum vacuum field and neutrality, are related to Neutral NB.
Referring to the experiences in the Samadhi state as pure consciousness related to Nirguna Brahman (NB) may be misleading; instead, pure consciousness is related to Saguna Brahman (SB).
The sūtras may be pointing toward a more radical conclusion: that any conceptual framework attempting to relate ultimate reality and individual experience necessarily involves either logical contradiction or abandonment of one of the terms. This suggests that the Amsadhikaranam functions not as a problem to be solved but as a koan[ii] pointing toward the limitations of conceptual understanding itself.
6. Contemporary Resolution through DPV~ICRDAM: Neutrality vs. Attribution
Key Tenets:
The DPV~ICRDAM framework resolves Śaṅkara's contradiction by redefining Nirguṇa Brahman as truly neutral - neither conscious nor unconscious, neither attributeless nor attribute-bearing - and relocating consciousness (including pure consciousness) to the level of Saguṇa Brahman, while maintaining the experiential dimension essential for spiritual practice.
Narrative Expansion:
DPV~ICRDAM acknowledges that "so-called 'pure consciousness' (pureC) is misnomer and misleading because consciousness is also an attribute" and therefore "pureC is SB, which is derived from NB" (Vimal, 2023b, 2024a, 2024b(3.1,3.2m,3.3), 2025a(4.1,4.2, 4.3), 2025b, 2025v17, 2025v18). This approach resolves the logical contradiction by making NB truly neutral regarding all determinations, including consciousness, while explaining the manifestation of conscious experience through phase transitions from preBB_QVF to dual-aspect unified field.
Crucially, this framework preserves rather than eliminates the experiential dimension of spiritual practice. DPV~ICRDAM-based meditation establishes appropriate neural networks that enable practitioners to experience states like bliss during samadhi. The experience of neutral Sunyata (emptiness) - characterized by absence of inherent existence - relates to Neutral NB and the quantum vacuum field, while pure consciousness connects to spiritual experiences within SB. This parallels the Buddhist understanding where Sunyata's neutrality corresponds to the neutral preBB_QVF without eliminating meditative experience.
The framework maintains continuity with contemplative traditions by recognizing that liberation involves experiential realization rather than mere conceptual understanding. Buddhist meditation emphasizes experiential dimensions, and DPV~ICRDAM similarly allows for direct experience of both neutral emptiness (NB-related) and conscious bliss (SB-related) through appropriate meditative techniques.
[i] In other words, there is a misunderstanding here because DPV~ICRDAM does NOT potentially eliminate the experiential dimension that makes the spiritual quest meaningful. It is because Buddhism argues that Advaita is a form of crypto-Buddhism. The neutral Sunyata (emptiness) ~ Neutral NB ~ neutral preBB_QVF. Buddhist meditation does NOT potentially eliminate the experiential dimension that makes the spiritual quest meaningful. DPV~ICRDAM-based meditation allows an experiential dimension because meditative techniques set up an appropriate neural network, and its activity in the samadhi state to experience Bliss (for example). The pureC is related to SB. Experience of sunyata (empty of inherent existence), quantum vacuum field, and neutrality are related to NB.
[ii] Koan: a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.
-------------------------------------------------- --------
RāmLakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Dear Satya ji,
Short answer:
There are many definitions of NB. We are using a definition as follows to bridge science and spirituality (atheists can also be spiritualists):
NB is fully symmetric, unmanifested, and neutral (neither attributeless nor attribute-laden, neither conscious nor conscious-less, neither mental nor physical).
Long answer:
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.
Very short ICRDAM[vi], [Short] Inseparable-complementary-Reflective dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM) (Vimal, 2022), also known as Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita in Sanskrit (Vimal, 2012b)[vii] ;Regards,
[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 (Ātman). 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 Ātman (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.
[vi] The Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (DPV)) framework is a middle-way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The ICRDAM has five components, which are elaborated in the six articles: (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010a), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2019b)/(Vimal, 2022), (Vimal, 2016d), (Vimal, 2021), (Vimal, 2023), and (Vimal, 2024a); see also (Vimal, 2018a) related to Interdependent Co-arsing, (Vimal, 2018b) related to Hard Problem. They are summarized in (Vimal, 2022). For a holistic approach that bridges science and spirituality, see (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
[vii] The Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (DPV)) framework is a middle-way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The ICRDAM has five components, which are elaborated in the six articles: (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010a), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2019b)/(Vimal, 2022), (Vimal, 2016d), (Vimal, 2021), (Vimal, 2023), and (Vimal, 2024a); see also (Vimal, 2018a) related to Interdependent Co-arsing, (Vimal, 2018b) related to Hard Problem. They are summarized in (Vimal, 2022). For a holistic approach that bridges science and spirituality, see (Vimal, 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b).
ICRDAM is consistent with “ChitPadartha” (consciousMatter) for a conscious state and protoconsciousnessMatter for all non-conscious states of all living and non-living systems (see below) from ancient Eastern Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika-Yoga science (NVYS).
The basis of the ICRDAM (Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism) framework is the two sources of highly reproducible and robust empirical and scientifically collected data related to a conscious state:
(1) Conscious subjective experience (CSE) from subject/observer’s 1st person perspective (1pp) as the subjective (s) aspect of a conscious state of a subject and
(2) The related neural-physical basis/activities (NPB/NPA) measured from the subject’s 3rd person perspective (3pp) as the inseparable non-subjective (ns) aspect of the same conscious state of the same observer.
We can measure the NPB/NPA through functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), magnetoencephalography (MEG), and others. However, none of the 100s of reported data show separability between s and ns aspects. Therefore, the inseparability between s and ns aspects is assumed. It leads to the inseparable DAM (ICRDAM) framework.
In ICRDAM, we can logically extend the above s and ns aspects of a conscious state to all non-conscious states of all living and non-living entities, including the primordial dual-aspect substrate, such as primal dual-aspect unified informational_energy/energetic_information field (UIEF/UEIF) or primal dual-aspect zero-point field (ZPF).
In other words, a state of such a non-conscious entity has protoconsciousness (PC) as the s-aspect and the related material/physical content as the inseparable ns-aspect.
For example, we can logically propose an electron-PC as the s-aspect of the state of an electron and MCS (mass, charge, spin) of an electron as the inseparable ns-aspect of the same state of the same electron. What is electron-PC? We don’t know, and we don’t have any empirical evidence either. However, we argue that an electron with a negative charge metaphorically “experiences” repulsion or attraction toward the same or opposite charge, respectively. This metaphorical experience may be reflected as electron-PC. Similarly, we can argue for PC as an s-aspect in other non-conscious states of living and non-living entities.
A whole is more than the sum of its parts. So, the rock-PC of the whole rock may differ from the stone-PC of a part stone. There is a well-known combination problem in panpsychism and panprotopsychims, as elaborated in (Wishon, 2017) in <Panpsychism, Panprotopsychism, and Neutral Monism>. To avoid this problem, I have used “emergence” in ICRDAM. We use this scientific principle, but we need to unpack it, as we have unpacked the emergence of consciousness through the collapse process, as detailed in (Vimal, 2013).
We hypothesize that the emergence of consciousness as a “whole” from the complex combination of PCs as “parts,” is a viable possibility. This hypothesis may solve all three (subject, quality, and structural) subproblems of the combination problem of ICRDAM (David J. Chalmers, 2016; Wishon, 2017). However, we need to unpack the term “emergence”.
Per (Goff et al., 2022), “Whereas panpsychists think that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, panprotopsychists think that proto-consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous.” Perhaps the panpsychism framework has an explanatory gap problem: a stone does not have consciousness as we have; how can panpsychists explain it?
To address this problem, we could use panprotopsychism (Chalmers, 2016; Wishon, 2017), which argues that “some fundamental physical entities have protophenomenal properties.” In other words, the stone might have protoconsciousness (rudimentary microconsciousness, such as microsubjects, microqualities, and microexperiential structure). However, we have to address three aspects of the combination problem (David J. Chalmers, 2016): (i) “how do microsubjects combine to yield macrosubjects?”, (ii) “how do microqualities combine to yield macroqualities?” and (iii) “how does microexperiential structure (and microphysical structure) combine to yield macroexperiential structure?” (David J. Chalmers, 2016). To address these problems, one could use various levels of manifestations as done in the Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism (ICRDAM: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) and elaborated in (Vimal, 2021).
We should note that a combination problem exists in panpsychism, panprotopsychism, neural monism, and ICRDAM. Strictly speaking, ICRDAM is neither panpsychism, panprotopsychism, nor neural monism because ICRDAM is Inseparable-Complementary-Reflective Dual-Aspect Monism, where a state of an entity has dual-aspect state with inseparable s and ns aspects and entity includes all living and non-living entity and also unmanifested state of primal entity (such as primal dual-aspect UIEF/UEIF or primal dual-aspect ZPF).
One of the fundamental postulates of ICRDAM is the extended superposition principle, the basis of which is the possibilities as in the quantum superposition principle. We use a step-by-step method for the different levels of manifestations, as elaborated in (Vimal, 2021). We have followed (a) Bottom-up synthesis: primal level to wavicle level to nucleus level to atomic level to the molecular level to neural-network (NN) level to specific neural-physical activity (NPA) level and then (b) top-down analysis: MindBrain system Level to receptor level, primary cortical level, and association cortical level to NPA level. In addition, we used the principle of extended co-evolution, adaptation, and natural selection (ECoANs), the extended principle of superposition (EPS), the principle of interaction and emergence (PIE), and the principle of endosymbiosis (PES).
In ICRDAM, the state of any entity is a dual-aspect state with inseparable subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects. It accepts the concept of consciousMatter (ChitPadartha). A conscious state of a human mindbrain system has consciousness (conscious subjective experiences (CSEs) of self and objects) as s-aspect and the correlated NPA/NPB (neural-physical activities/basis) as inseparable ns-aspect. A non-conscious state of living or non-living entity has entity_protoconsciousness (PC) as s-aspect and the correlated material content as inseparable ns-aspect. For example: (i) a state of an electron has electron-PC as s-aspect and its MCS (mass, charge, spin) as inseparable ns-aspect. (ii) a state of a carbon_in_DNA has carbon_in_DNA-PC as s-aspect and its material content as inseparable ns-aspect. The ICRDAM uses panprotopsychism (David J. Chalmers, 2016; Wishon, 2017) starting from primal dual-aspect substrate/Brahman. In ICRDAM-based panprotopsychism, a non-conscious state of entities (living and non-living) has PC as s-aspect and material content as inseparable ns-aspect; a conscious state of entities (including conscious robots) has consciousness as s-aspect and its NPA/NPB as inseparable ns-aspect.
The basis of ICRDAM is the two sources (1pp-SE as the s-aspect and 3pp-NPB/NPA as the ns-aspect of a beable ontic conscious state of a mindbrain system) of robust and highly reproducible data, which we cannot reject because there are 100s of fMRI/EEG/MEG published report to support it. None of the reported data show separability between subjective (s) and non-subjective (ns) aspects.
If a single authentic report shows separability, then Cartesian interactive substance dualism and (or) non-interactive dualistic Sāṅkhya would be true, which will reject (i) materialism-based Panexperiential Materialism (PanMat) (Poznanski & Brändas, 2020), Integrated Information Theory (IIT), Global Neuronal Workspace Theory (GNWT), &c and the ICRDAM. (ii) God theory will prevail, and the separability between aspects will reject the evolution theory. To sum up, the doctrine of inseparability will remain in force until somebody provides authentic evidence for the separability.
The ICRDAM is a testable framework. If we find separability in the experiment proposed in §3.5 of (Vimal, 2022); we can reject the inseparability hypothesis of the ICRDAM framework.
Q. Are there problems related to supervenience and element maps in the ICRDAM?
A. Per McLaughlin and Bennett (McLaughlin & Bennett, 2021) in < supervenience>, “A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”. […] Supervenience is a central notion in analytic philosophy. It has been invoked in almost every corner of the field. For example, it has been claimed that aesthetic, moral, and mental properties supervene upon physical properties.”
In ICRDAM, there is a 1-1 relationship (or inseparability) between the subjective (s) aspect and the non-subjective (ns) aspect of the same state of the same entity; otherwise, the 1-1 relationship (or inseparability) may not be valid. If we find separability between s and ns aspects of the same state of the same entity, then we can reject ICRDAM’s inseparability.
In ICRDAM, (i) s-aspect does not cause ns-aspect and vice-versa (ns-aspect does not cause s-aspect). (ii) The ontology is from the primal dual-aspect substrate, such as dual-aspect ZPF/UIEF/UEIF; ZPF: zero-point field, UIEF/UIEF unified informational_energy/ energetic_information field. (iii) The dual-aspect state co-evolves and (iv) state-state interaction or ns-ns interaction should be used because s-aspect is private, and we do not know what is going on in private 1pp s-aspect. A state of entity is always a dual-aspect state with inseparable s and ns aspects.
For example, in a field of view of a scene, such as in an office, there might be many objects, such as a laptop, table, chair, book, &c. Each object and its attributes may have spatial NPB/NPA, and the whole scene may have its NPB/NPA after addressing the binding problem as elaborated in §3.10 of (Vimal, 2010a). Is the whole = the linear sum of parts in each of aspects? Since objects are spatially separated from each other (with space in-between) in our SE (s-aspect), is the NPB/NPA of each object also separate from other objects? By “element map,” do we mean that the SE of the laptop and NPB/NPA for the laptop should have a 1-1 relationship (similarly for other objects)? In other words, for four objects/elements (laptop, table, chair, and book), there is a 1-1 relationship between respective s and ns: (s1, ns1), (s2, ns2), (s3, ns3), and (s4, ns4); similarly for the whole scene (s-whole, ns-whole). Is the s-whole equal to the linear sum s1 + s2 + s3 + s4? Is the ns-whole equal to the linear sum ns1 + ns2 + ns3 + ns4? If the answers to these questions are YES, then is there any problem?
Observational fact is that there are two sources (SE as s-aspect and its NPB as ns-aspect) of robust and highly reproducible data, and none of the 100s of fMRI/EEG/MEG reports show separability between s and ns aspects. Therefore, in ICRDAM, the state of an entity has s and inseparable ns aspects.
In ICRDAM, we should consider only state-state interaction because we cannot separate s and ns aspects ontologically, functionally, epistemologically, and all other senses whenever we consider interactions. Separability is a property of dualism. In the ICRDAM framework, the concept of s-s interaction is misleading because it is private and not accessible to 3rd person (public). Therefore, we should use state-state or ns-ns interaction. Whenever we say/think about a dual-aspect state, we should include both s and ns aspects simultaneously. Physics/science allows state-state interactions. Therefore, neuroscience should allow. The terms “I/you/we,” “see,” “experience,” &c are metaphoric because, in reality, it is all interactions everywhere.
The interaction between two dual-aspect states implies both s-s and ns-ns interaction simultaneously. However, 1pp s-aspect is private, and we (as a 3rd person public) do not know about it. Therefore, we should not use s or s-s interaction; instead, we should use state-state or ns-ns interactions, and we can infer s or s-s interaction from them. We can also think of interaction in terms of EI (effective information) because EI is identical in both aspects. In other words, the interaction between state1 and state2 implies interaction between EI_1 and EI_2. And, ns1-ns2 interaction suggests the interaction between ns_coded_EI_1 and ns_coded_EI_2 with ns_coded_EI as a parameter in ns-aspect. Since 1pp s-aspect is private, we can infer s1-s2 interaction or interaction between s_coded_EI_1 and s_coded_EI_2 from state1-state2 or ns1-ns2 interactions (ns_coded_EI_1 and ns_coded_EI_2).
If we like to compare (a) looking at red_rose_petal (RRP) with (b) looking at related NN (with NPB/NPA), the light reflected from both will carry information related to their surfaces. It means that trichromats will experience redness and greyness, respectively. However, for NPB/NPA with ns-code, we need to measure it using fMRI/EEG. In the future, it may be possible to decode ns-code into s-code, which should reveal redness. We can interpret such empirical data in terms of all four foundational metaphysics (dualism/Sāṅkhya, materialism, idealism, and ICRDAM). In ICRDAM, it would be easier to understand if we use dual-aspect state-state interaction as elaborated above. A dual-aspect state has information related to both s and ns aspects inseparably and simultaneously. In ICRDAM, the terms “I/you/we” representing ADS or PIS (if it exists!) and “observe/experience/see” are metaphoric because they all involve interactions everywhere.
In other words, we need to reconsider state-state interactions. We must not separate s and ns aspects in any sense, including functional (theory of function: having a practical application or serving a useful purpose), ontological (theory of existence: the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being), epistemological (theory of knowledge: the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, in particular, its foundations, scope, and validity), &c. Otherwise, it will be dualism. If you look at my brain, you do not see activity NPA/NPB; instead, you need to measure it. The fMRI/EEG measures ns-code related to ns-aspect, which has identical EI (effective information) in the s-aspect, except EI's code is s-code. One day, we might be able to decode ns-code into s-code.
Ram--On Tuesday, August 26, 2025 at 12:24:01 AM UTC-4 origi...@gmail.com wrote:Dear AllWe are NB and we create our SB ,this SB can be created,sustained and can be destroyed without affecting NB ,All the diseases in human body can be destroyed through action of NB , SB is a undergoing continuing process,governed by NB ,We should learn how to use NB to sustain SB ,There should be a big place with sound proof meditation houses ,where we can learn and use the NB to sustain our SB and enjoy blissful effect of NB .
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/36ed1b7c-0b13-4fff-8dec-16f9120a2a2an%40googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sboc-forum/f0VdJETMwKg/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to sboc-forum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit