Ontology and Epistemology

[Markendeya Yeddanapudi]

--

Mar 

Ontology and Epistemology

Ontology means what we know. Epistemology means, how we know.Once, especially before the takeover of cartesianism and mechanization, knowing was feeling. It was feeling as nature, in nature, synchronizing my rhythm with the rhythm of nature.Knowing, feeling and understanding became perception. Simply, living was knowing continuously. It was emotionally teaming up and complementing feeling with every other organism of the Biosphere. Life was ontological. And perception was knowledge, derived by being naure.It was experiencing as knowing and understanding in the present perfect continuous tense.

Epistemology simply means the strategy for ontology, how to know. In nature Ontology automatically follows Epistemology, when you adopt the method of feeling nature as nature, as a limb of nature. In the free and healthy nature, where there is no tampering at all, Epistemology simply is not tampering and Ontology is experiencing the continuous flashes of brilliant revelations and discoveries, exciting and teaming every cell in one’s body. One becomes nature as a limb of Gaia. Education flowed naturally, as the symbiotic growth of nature, nature in continuous syntropy.

Today we teach that according to the second law of Thermodynamics, there is continuous Entropy or decline and that it is the basic law of time, that we cannot go back in time and that the arrow of time has only one direction, decline. I have not been able to understand this supposed basic law. Decline must mean, matter becoming molecules, molecules becoming atoms and atoms becoming energies, ultimately into electromagnetism, simply going back in time. According to Einstein, everything is striving to reach the speed of light or simply become photons, which means that everything is attempting time travel into the past. Is that effort a symptom of entropy or renewal and growth, syntropy? Is the Universe growing in health and syntropy? Or is it basically sick suffering from entropy?

If you do not adopt the mechanical paradigm of Rene Descartes and live as a limb of nature, feeling and experiencing nature, you live in syntropy and not in entropy. What is the method of your Epistemology, feeling as a limb of nature and experiencing syntropy or employing machines in your Epistemology and accepting decline or entropy?

In the free and untampered nature, one experiences the overwhelming Syntropy. You participate in the luxurious and prospering growth of the flora and fauna, where there is only the free ecology without the man made economics. You can actually go back or move forward in time. Nature gives you the reinforced young age. Or you grow and experience nature’s education.

This statement of mine may not be acceptable, but cartesianism and mechanization have contaminated our very ontology. What sort of education is it when you cannot feel your oneness with nature and continuously need some machine to live? Mechanization has taken over Epistemology completely.

Today the Universities have monopolized education. And they are in the frenzy of mechanization; with economic destinations. They are driving nature into entropy.

It is for the Universities to revive the basic syntropy of nature, by immediately starting the ‘Free Nature Parks’ without any tampering. The Free Nature Park will be the new start for syntropy. Syntropy is natural and entropy is Cartesian.

YM Sarma

 

[Rajaram Krishnamurthy]

       Epistemology simply means the strategy for ontology, how to know. In nature Ontology automatically follows Epistemology, when you adopt the method of feeling nature as nature, as a limb of nature. In the free and healthy nature, where there is no tampering at all, Epistemology simply is not tampering and Ontology is experiencing the continuous flashes of brilliant revelations and discoveries, exciting and teaming every cell in one’s body. One becomes nature as a limb of Gaia. Education flowed naturally, as the symbiotic growth of nature, nature in continuous syntropy. Today we teach that according to the second law of Thermodynamics, there is continuous Entropy or decline and that it is the basic law of time, that we cannot go back in time and that the arrow of time has only one direction, decline. I have not been able to understand this supposed basic law. Decline must mean, matter becoming molecules, molecules becoming atoms and atoms becoming energies, ultimately into electromagnetism, simply going back in time. According to Einstein, everything is striving to reach the speed of light or simply become photons, which means that everything is attempting time travel into the past. Is that effort a symptom of entropy or renewal and growth, syntropy? Is the Universe growing in health and syntropy? Or is it basically sick suffering from entropy? [YMji]

1  KR     Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge—how we know what we know, its limits, and its validity.
Ontology is the study of being or reality—what entities exist, their categories, and how they relate to one another.

Modern science and Indian Vedic scriptures describe a profound nexus between the knower (epistemology) and reality (ontology):

1. The Nature of Reality (Ontology) in Modern Science, seen as a, Quantum physics and cosmology suggest an interconnected, dynamic universe. Matter and energy are interchangeable: \(E = mc^2\). The observer affects the observed (e.g., double-slit experiment), blurring the line between objective reality and consciousness. On the contrary, in Vedic Scriptures, Reality operates as a unified whole. The Vedas posit that the material cosmos (Prakriti) and pure consciousness (Purusha) are two sides of the same coin. ARDHA-NAREESWARA.

Sanskrit Verse:
Īśāvāsyamidaṃ sarvaṃ yaṭkiñca jagatyāṃ jagat
(Translation: All this, whatsoever moves in this universe, is pervaded by the divine.) - Isha Upanishad 1.

2. The Theory of Knowledge (Epistemology) IN THE Modern Science STATES AS, Knowledge is acquired via the scientific method—empiricism (sensory data and instruments) and logic (mathematical models, quantum mechanics, and relativity). However, the Vedic Scriptures, Emphasize both empirical knowledge (Apara Vidya) and transcendent, spiritual realization (Para Vidya). Valid knowledge (Pramana) in the Vedic schools of logic relies on perception (Pratyaksha), inference (Anumana), and verbal testimony of the realized sages (Shabda). THAT IS KNOWLEDGE IS STREWN ALL AROUND US AND BY PRATYAKSHA WE LEARN THRO PERCEPTION (EPISTOMOLGY) AND ORGANISE THEM ALL AS SOLID WAY OF LIFE (ONTOLOGY). OUR SYSTEM WAS OLDER THAN THE MODERN SCIENCE IS THINKING OF AS A CARTESIAN.

Sanskrit Verse:
Dvā suparṇā sayujā sakhānāṃ samānaṃ vṛkṣaṃ pariṣa svajāte.
(Translation: Two birds [the individual soul [jeevatma] and the universal Self [Paramātmā] ], eternal companions, dwell upon the same tree [the body].) - Rig Veda I.164.20. while Paramatman is silently observing the samsara actions of the Jeevatma.

3. The Nexus: Consciousness and the Cosmos

• The Nexus: Both modern scientific frameworks (like systems theory) and Vedic texts (like the Samkhya and Vedanta philosophies) arrive at a paradigm of holism. The Vedic scriptures uniquely synthesize epistemology and ontology by stating that the observer (Atman, the individual consciousness) and the ultimate reality (Brahman, the universal consciousness) are fundamentally one.

4        Theory of knowledge, pramāṇa-śāstra, is a rich genre of Sanskrit literature, spanning almost twenty centuries, carried out in texts belonging to distinct schools of philosophy. Debate across school occurs especially on epistemological issues, but no author writes on knowledge independently of the sort of metaphysical commitment that defines the various classical systems (darśana), realist and idealist, dualist and monist, theist and atheist, and so on. And every one of the dozen or so major schools from early in its history takes a position on knowledge and justification, if only, as with the Buddhist skeptic (Prasaṅgika), to attack the theories of others. There are nevertheless many common epistemological assumptions or attitudes, the most striking of which is a focus on a belief’s source in questions of justification. Mainstream classical Indian epistemology is dominated by theories about pedigree, i.e., views about knowledge-generating processes, called pramāṇa, “knowledge sources.” The principal candidates are perception, inference, and testimony. Other processes seem not truth-conducive or reducible to one or more of the widely accepted sources such as perception and inference. However, surprising candidates such as non-perception (for knowledge of absences) and presumption (defended as distinct from inference) provoke complex arguments especially in the later texts—from about 1000 when the number of Sanskrit philosophical works of some of the schools begins to proliferate almost exponentially. The later texts present more intricate views and arguments than the earlier from which the later authors learned. Classical Indian philosophy is an unbroken tradition of reflection expressed in the pan-Subcontinent intellectual language of Sanskrit. Or, we should say it is comprised of interlocking traditions since there are the distinct schools, all nevertheless using Sanskrit and engaging with other schools. Later authors expand and carry forward positions and arguments of their predecessors.

Skepticism and the issue of whether knowledge that p entails that you know that you know that p are addressed as well as the question of the usefulness of knowledge not only for the purposes of everyday life but also the religious goal of world-transcendence, about which most schools take positions. The authority of testimony, among candidate sources, is considered by some to have special religious importance. Others view yogic perception and/or meditative experience as crucial for religious knowledge, which is usually distinguished from the everyday knowledge analyzed in the textbooks of epistemology.

5     Knowledge is cognition that has been produced in the right way. Cognitions are moments of consciousness, not species of belief, but we may say that cognitions form beliefs in forming dispositions and that veridical cognitions form true beliefs. A knowledge episode—to speak in the Indian manner—is a cognition generated in the right fashion. Whether this be because it is (as say the realists, Mīmāṃsā, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika) that it has the right origins in fact, or whether it is because it guides successful action in helping us get our desires satisfied (as say Yogācāra idealists and pragmatists), knowledge is cognition that arises in the right way. There are different theories of truth, but everyone sees knowledge as not only revealing the truth but arising from it. Knowledge episodes form non-occurrent knowledge (it is assumed, we may say), and so an examination of what is crucial to the arising of a knowledge episode is crucial to the evaluations of epistemology. Knowledge cannot arise by accident. A lucky guess, though true or veridical, would not count as knowledge because it would not been generated in the right fashion, would not have the right pedigree or etiology. The central notion throughout classical Indian epistemology is the “knowledge source,” pramāṇa, which is a process of veridical-cognition generation.

Now the word ‘pramāṇa’ (“knowledge source”) and the result ‘pramā’ (“knowledge”;[EPISTOMOLOGY AND THE ONTOLOGY]  this is a technical usage that matches, practically perfectly, the analytic usages of ‘knowledge’ in English) along with the words used for individual knowledge sources, for perception and so on, are commonly used such that the truth of the resultant cognition is implied. This runs counter to English usage, along with broad philosophic supposition, which is different with the words ‘perception’ and company. For no knowledge source ever generates a false belief. Thus, there can be no wedge driven between cause and effect such that there could possibly be true belief by accident. The Vedic schools (Mīmāṃsā, Vedānta, Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga) do distinguish knowledge from true belief but also see the concepts of truth and knowledge-producing process as wedded in that, as indicated, no genuine knowledge source ever produces a false belief. Only pseudo-sources do. A non-veridical perception is not really a perception at all but a “pseudo-perception” (pratyakṣa-ābhāsa), “apparent perception,” a perception imitator. You don’t really see an illusory snake; you only think you see one. [ANNA AND Ramakrishna Mutt] That is to say, no non-veridical cognition is knowledge-source-generated. A knowledge source is then not merely a reliable doxastic practice. Being merely reliable does not fit the bill. The concept of a knowledge source has a truth logic, like ‘knowledge’ in English; it is factive. Maybe we should say perception*, inference*, testimony* to render the classical Indian ideas.

6       The Bhagavad-Gita is said to be a divya grantha or divine or wonderful treatise that synthesizes all Indian philosophical thoughts and ideas. Thus, we  saw how the dualistic sAGkhya concept of prakriti and puruSa are presented  as kshetra and kshetrajna, and synthesised with the Vedantic monistic idea of Atman and Brahman. Manusmriti says: When the scriptures present contradictory ideas; both are right. Indian philosophy and world view is comfortable in accepting two contradictory ideas as true, and does not need to accept the law of the excluded middle in logic, which only allows good or bad to exist separately, not together (Bhawuk, 2008b). In India, the Jains   Btake it to another extreme in SyAd vAda by presenting the idea that there  are seven different possibilities to everything, and all seven are true! Thus, in  India, cArvAka’s materialistic philosophy that is different from the Vedantic position is accepted by not only those who fi nd it meaningful, but also  those who do not subscribe to it, making the work of Indian psychologists  so much more exciting by providing more variance in the world view of the  population.

7      PERCEPTION, PRAMANA, PRESUMPTION AND INFERENCE AND COGNITION >EPISTOMOLOGY>ONTOLOGY

      A PERCEPTION:    अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकर्योऽयमुच्यते ।

तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनं नानुशोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २५॥2 B G

Avyakto ’yamacintyo ’yamavikaryo’ yamucyate  |

tasmādevaṁ viditvainaṁ nānuśocitu marhasi  || 25 ||2

Meaning:  Atma is unmanifest and is not an object to be thought of and it is not subject to modification. You should not worry and grieve, if you have this knowledge.

Explanation:  Let us analyze what is manifestation and what it is not. Manifestation means available for perception as an object. Atma is not an object and hence it is not available for perception. Why do we say it is not an object? We have to understand this equation very clearly. It is called as “Triputi” and is very important.

 Experiencer                Experience                  Experienced

(Subject)                      (Process)                   (Object)

Seer                              Sight                           Seen

 Perceiver                   Perception                 Perceived

Knower                       Knowledge                 Known

 In the above equation, what we have to understand is that the subject is the one who is lending recognition to the object through the process of experience. The process of experience involves the sense organs and all the components of subtle body and employs all the means of knowledge (Pramanas).

8    B PRAMANA:   तस्माच्छास्त्रं प्रमाणं ते कार्याकार्यव्यवस्थितौ ।
ज्ञात्वा शास्त्रविधानोक्तं कर्म कर्तुमिहार्हसि ॥ 24॥16

tasmāch chhāstraṁ pramāṇaṁ te kāryākārya-vyavasthitau
jñātvā śhāstra-vidhānoktaṁ karma kartum ihārhasi

tasmāt—therefore   śhāstram—scriptures pramāṇam—authority te—your

kārya—duty  akārya—forbidden action vyavasthitau—in determining jñātvā—having understood  śhāstra—scriptures  vidhāna—injunctions

uktam—as revealed  karma—actions  kartum—perform iha—in this world

arhasi—you should

BG 16.24: Therefore, let the scriptures be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. Understand the scriptural injunctions and teachings, and then perform your actions in this world accordingly.

9  C   PRESUMPTIONS:    The believer might give their own experiment to satisfy the skeptic. What if someone approached us and claimed that they never die? That would certainly fit one aspect of the definition of God. If we are ready to conduct the experiment, the issue is that we cannot validate throughout all of time that the person is still vital.

If I must one day leave the area of observation, how will I know that the person claiming to be God continues to live? We could say that there is the ability to pass on observations, to keep something like a chain of scientists moving into the future. Their word would be considered the truth, the proof that everyone is looking for.

That is exactly how parampara already operates. The Vedic tradition, for instance, has survived without any major institutions. Divinely empowered individuals arrive from time to time, to reinstitute the science of yoga, should it be lost, but then it is up to others to keep the tradition going.

एवं परम्परा-प्राप्तम्  इमं राजर्षयो विदुः
स कालेनेह महता योगो नष्टः परन्तप

evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ
sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ parantapa

“This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 4.2)

At some point the skeptic will come upon the difficult questions of life. Why am I here? Why was I born? Why do I have to die? Why am I forced to lose the association of my friends and family? How should I live my life? What will happen to me after death?

There are no answers attainable through scientific research or mental speculation. There are answers from the Vedic tradition. For as many questions as a person has, there is at least some explanation on the other side.

इति ते ज्ञानम् आख्यातं गुह्याद् गुह्यतरं मया
विमृश्यैतद् अशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु

iti te jñānam ākhyātaṁ guhyād guhyataraṁ mayā
vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa yathecchasi tathā kuru

“Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 18.63)

10    D     INFERENCE:    धूमेनाव्रियते वह्निर्यथादर्शो मलेन च ।
यथोल्बेनावृतो गर्भस्तथा तेनेदमावृतम् ॥ 38॥3

dhūmenāvriyate vahnir yathādarśho malena cha
yatholbenāvṛito garbhas tathā tenedam āvṛitam

dhūmena—by smoke āvriyate—is covered vahniḥ—fire yathā—just as ādarśhaḥ—mirror malena—by dust  cha—also yathā—just as  ulbena—by the womb āvṛitaḥ—is covered garbhaḥ—embryo tathā—similarly tena—by that (desire) idam—this āvṛitam—is covered

BG 3.38: Just as a fire is covered by smoke, a mirror is masked by dust, and an embryo is concealed by the womb, similarly one’s knowledge gets shrouded by desire.

Knowledge of what is right and what is wrong is called discrimination. This discrimination resides in the intellect. However, lust is such a formidable adversary that it clouds the discriminatory ability of the intellect. Shree Krishna gives three grades of examples to illustrate this principle. Fire, which is the source of light, gets covered by smoke. This partial obscuring is like the thin cloud that sāttvic desires create. A mirror, which is naturally reflective, gets obscured by dust. This semi-opacity is like the masking impact of rājasic desires on the intellect. And an embryo gets concealed in the womb. This complete obfuscation is like the consequence of tāmasic desires subverting the power of discrimination. Similarly, in proportion to the grade of our desires, the spiritual knowledge we may have heard and read gets shrouded.

11    E     COGNITION:  The Bhagavad Gita provides a profound cognitive framework in Chapter 2, Verse 62. It details how contemplation on sense objects creates attachment, which fuels desire. When that desire is unfulfilled, it spirals into anger and cognitive delusion, destroying one's discriminative intellect and ultimately leading to a downfall.

dhyāyataḥ viṣhayān puṁsaḥ saṅgas teṣhupajāyate
saṅgāt sañjāyate kāmaḥ kāmāt krodho ’bhijāyate

"While contemplating the objects of the senses, a person develops attachment for them. From such attachment, lust (desire) develops, and from lust, anger arises."

The Cognitive Cascade (Chapter 2, Verse 63):

• Delusion: Anger leads to illusion and a clouded judgment.
• Memory Loss: Bewilderment causes a loss of memory (of right and wrong).
• Intellect Failure: Loss of memory destroys the intellect (buddhi).
• Downfall: When the intellect is lost, the person falls down into ruin. The Gita teaches that to control this cognitive descent, one must train the intellect to guide the processing mind (manas) and regulate the senses, leading to peace and steady wisdom

12       HENCE FROM RIG VEDAM DOWN ORDER BIRTHRHARI ,EVEN BEFORE THE MODERN SCIENCE THOUGHT OF, OR PRINCIPLES OF CARTESIAN IS EVOKED IN MANY STYLES, VEDIC LITERATURES DISCUSSED THREAD BEAR THRO ALL OUR SCIENCES AND CONFIRMED THE PRINCIPLES. PROBLEMS AND THE SOLUTIONS WER EPORTRAYED THREADBARE. HENCE ONTOLOGY FOLLOWED EPISTOMOLOGY OR NOT, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF LIFE WERE ELUCIDATED IN THE SANATANA DHARMA ALREADY. K RAJARAM IRS 15726

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to thatha_patty...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCKO_5ro5s6NVqRdRXEthmYuxh0PPi-5gqXPrnupedF5xA%40mail.gmail.com.