Bart Happel

Dear Bija and Jeffster,

I accept that the devotional path can lead the devotee to knowledge of the Absolute. But this also implies that the Absolute can be known at a profound level. Nevertheless, enlightened devotees appear to be unable to clearly convey or formalize this knowledge. I propose that the model I’m referring to may be such a formalization. I must admit, however, that even though the model can be implemented and run (simulated) on a computer, and its simple, strictly singular (monistic) basic principle can be observed to produce or generate infinite fractal structures (forms) in perceptual planes or dynamical phase-projections, the model is still difficult to understand without any prior knowledge of complex nonlinear (chaotic) systems in general. However, the model can be explained and understood by everyone, devotees and non-devotees, enlightened souls and atheists. When, in addition, the dynamics of the model will prove to resolve current 'quantum physical weirdness', it may greatly contribute to God-consciousness, exactly because of its monistic non-dual basic principle.

By the way, perhaps the following explanation sheds some more light on this monism/dualism controversy:

There is no duality in Nirguna and Saguna Brahman (Ch. 12 of the Gita) and He is undivided. These basically are two different functional and phenomenal aspects of the same reality, which incidentally are misinterpreted as duality or opposites. As far as various schools being confused regarding this (so-called duality), it is because of their own doing.

 

They assign all very specific Saguna characteristics to their personal deity (who even supposedly existed -- like in the case of Krishna) and that is well and good. But then they also want the same (historical) deity to validate the terms of Nirguna aspect, but that is not all that easy to do philosophically for a personal deity, who can be worshipped and even is considered a historical figure. The whole concept of Nirguna-Saguna basically breaks down if assumed strictly in the narrow opposing sense of unattributed-attributed.

 

To get around this confusion, they use the word Purushottama or Bhagawan for their deity assuming that the deity is Purushottama or Bhagawan. They mistakenly assume that Purushottama or Bhagawan combine both Nirguna and Saguna aspects of Brahman into a single entity, and thus there would be no problem of the so-called duality encountered in the case of Brahman. It is just a self-deception and self-serving proposition on their part. Note that Purushottama (meaning, supreme person in the saguna sense and supreme soul in the nirguna) and Bhagawan (bestower of good luck or bhaga, and simply meaning God) are as Brahmanical (Nirguna and Saguna) as the other names (Gita: Ch. 10). As indicated above, Nirguna and Saguna are simply functional and phenomenal aspects and not a duality representing the opposites. It is more on the lines of body-soul matrix for a jiva.

 

Krishna (whether or not the historical figure) similarly can be considered speaking in the Gita in first person as (or in the capacity of) Brahman (both Nirguna and Saguna -- like in Ch. 12). There basically is no point in calling him other than Brahman, such as Purushottama or Bhagawan, and hoping that the problem of ill-conceived duality would go away that way.

 

Note that Nirguna and Saguna are dual (two) aspects of Brahman and nothing else (like simultaneous mutually opposites). In comprehending and describing Brahman in every essence, these categories or classes basically complement each other (i.e. like having the incomprehensible or Nirguna along with the comprehensible or Saguna) rather than contradict, confuse or negate each other.

 

 

By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma

 

Kind regards, Bart

How is it possible that a naughty little boy, who steals butter and yoghurt, could be God and the source of brahman ? To the monist mind, this is improbable, implausable, and doesn't even appear philosophically viable. It usually appears to be mere sentimentality. But frankly, it is inconceivable. Krishna is independent and does not readily reveal himself. Only through love, through bhakti, can He be known. I also was something of a monist before I became a Vaishnava. I studied Meher Baba and Kirpal Singh and sensed something lacking in their understanding. At first I thought that the tales of Krishna lila were fairy tales, hyperbole, as Srikanth has pointed out, but upon reading Krishna Book (the summary study of the 10th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam) I became convinced of the viability of the philosophy. This was due to the mercy of an uttama-adhikari devotee, HDG A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, who very cleverly interspersed Bhagavat philosophy throughout the story line. Krishna dispenses causeless mercy, but only to those who surrender, not to those who either wish to usurp His position or become His equal. Shastra states that there is no one equal to or superior to Him, so then how does He allow Mother Yasoda to act in a superior parental capacity, to bind Him with ropes ? This is singularly due to her great love for Him; it is lila ! Again, it is inconceivable, although I am attempting with words to convey it.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

In my view Krishna simply is Brahman, and Bhagavan is His perceivable (personal) form.

Kind regards, Bart

... TRANSLATION

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal. ...

Are you sure this translation is correct? Replace the word 'basis' with a term like 'primary result' and the statement will fit into the model. It looks like there's been some mix-up of identities. Brahmana must be the origin of Bhagavan and not vise versa. Bhagavan is personal and can be perceived, so Bhagavan can't be the origin. Bhagavan must exist within the Divine ground of all matter: Brahman.

... Devotional service is the king of all knowledge...and it is an easy process to attain full self-realization. ...

I still think a clear proof would help.

Kind regards, Bart

... the ascending process, is done on the strength of the practitioner's own intelligence, and is essentially a process of elimination to arrive at truth. This is a valid process, no doubt, but difficult, and cannot carry you beyond the brahman conception. ...

As I understand it, Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman ). This means: nothing exists beyond Brahman.

... The Vaishnava understanding is that brahman (or brahmajyoti) are the rays emanating from the transcendental body of the person Bhagavan, who is, therefore, the source of brahman, just as sun rays emanate from the sun globe. Therefore, according to Vaishnava understanding brahman is a manifestation of Bhagavan. ...

This cannot be correct (see my first comment).

Kind regards, Bart

Hello Bart,

Quite nice, but is it the complete conception ? Vaishnavas accept brahman, paramatma and Bhagavan. Monists accept brahman, yogis accept paramatma; but Bhagavan completes the conception and expresses it in its fullest sense.

Also, you state "the final stage of mukti may be a complete merge of the soul with the singular consciousness (God)." Saying "may be" means that you are speculating. "May be" suggests also "maybe not." As I have mentioned in prior posts Vaishnavas take help from guru, shastra & sadhu and they spell it out with no need for us to strain our brains to understand the ontology.

Kind regards, jeffster/AMdas

Firstly, I think that if reality and spiritual experience can be understood in terms of a simple mathematical model, this would be beneficial to our God-consciousness. So let me (tentatively) try to incorporate the concepts that you mention into the model.

Monism accepts Brahman and it accepts souls. In the model, Brahman is the chaotic system itself, and souls are complex dynamic regions in the so called ‘state-space attractor’ of the system. Such regions are the most changing. What we call matter are regions that are the most stable or unchanging. Living organisms would be some intermediate dynamic regime in the model. Paramatma (supersoul) is the most complex or most changing regime in this continuum.

So called ‘phase-projections’ of a chaotic attractor display a hierarchical self-similar structure or ‘fractal structure’. Similar structures can be seen within similar structures, within similar structures, infinitely. The top of this hierarchy (the largest scale) forms the basic structure that is infinitely repeated at smaller scales in the model. In the model, small scale living beings may then be ‘similar’ to the basic large scale structure at the top of this hierarchy. Since living beings are personal, this ‘top being’ may also be personal. As such it can be seen as Bhagavan. However, in the model, Bhagavan is not equal to Brahman. Bhagavan is a manifestation (phase-projection) of Brahman.

Kind regards, Bart

Dear Bija & Jeffster,

Personally I try to understand monism in terms of a simple mechanical model of reality. The theoretical properties of this system correspond remarkably well to Radhika’s explanation of mukti and monism. There is only one thing in the universe: consciousness. It is smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest, indicating that everything in the cosmic manifestation is ‘described’ or ‘painted’ by this universal consciousness, up to the level of individual atoms, protons & neutrons, quarks, etc. The dynamics of universal consciousness are infinite. A surprisingly simple computational proof exists that such an infinite (chaotic) system can in fact produce limited, finite (or pseudo-infinite) structures within our perceptual plane. The model also complies with the existence of multiple, qualitatively different perceptual planes. The first stage of mukti may correspond to a perceptual plane where the densest regions of consciousness or energy that we call matter are no longer perceived. Instead we may perceive a different cosmic manifestation in which our bodies and structures are composed of less dense consciousness or energy or spirit. Ultimately, the final stage of mukti may be a complete merge of the soul with the singular consiousness (God). Quite nice isn’t it?

Kind regards, Bart

One of the characteristics commonly attributed to God is that He is all-powerful, correct ? "Allahu akbar" in Arabic. Therefore, it follows that if God wishes to assert Himself by taking on a form, or a multitude of forms, and He does, that it must be quite readily possible for Him. This is simple logic, is it not ? What is the difficulty in understanding and accepting this simple logic ? Frankly, it is irrefutable, but it again demonstrates that some here must be either dull or envious or both. I say that not as a personal insult - Namaste - I respect the spirit within all of you, but in terms of philosophical understanding, you are sorely lacking and stubborn, as well.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

Perhaps I have to re-read the thread. Anyway, I missed any discussion about monism not acknowledging form.

Kind regards, Bart

Dear Bija,

I still don't understand..

Kind regards, Bart

... The limitless must have limit ...

Dear Bija,

I don't understand..

Kind regards, Bart

Dear Justin,

It seems obvious to me that you do not have a single argument against mukti and its monistic implications (except perhaps something that goes like: “I just don’t buy it!”, and some arguments against wrong statements), whereas several posters in this thread presented quite good arguments in favor of mukti and monism, as well as some interesting explanations or personal experiences. So unless you can disprove monism in principle, you’ve lost this debate in my opinion. That is, your position is clear, but it is not any threat to the monistic position. I suggest you take a deep breath and admit defeat. You’ll get over it.

Kind regards, Bart

Dear Justin,

At a microscopic - or quantum scale, our perceived reality appears to be non-causal. For example, the state of different quantum particles can be ‘instantaneously correlated’. This is called quantum entanglement. When of two entangled quantum particles the state of one particle changes, then the state of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously. Such non-causal correlation of quantum state may persist even if the particles are miles or light-years apart.

This can only mean 1 thing: What we perceive at a quantum scale as different or dual is actually one or non-dual. And since quantum reality is thought to underlie our entire perceived macroscopic reality, it is quite reasonable to assume that everything that we perceive as dual is actually one.

Kind regards, Bart

Just don’t be afraid to die. You can always die. And unless you have really (really) serious problems with life, don’t choose to die. If you do, then first make sure you are not afraid to die.

Kind regards, Bart

... [formless's given name is Sri Krishna. Sri Krishna's form is "unborn" (anti-matter)] ...

Dear Bhaktajan,

I like the square brackets. It's much more structured. Can you perhaps explain a bit more about 'anti-matter' in relation to 'unborn form'?

Kind regards, Bart

... It is this lack of knowledge of the system as a whole that is the ultimate cause of the uncertainty and resultant probability inherent in Quantum Physics. ...

Agreed.

... Real life entities like borders of nation islands and leafs may not be neat circles ( or ellipses, squars, triangles or any such neat and simple geometric objects that we study in elementary geometry text books) . They are intricate fractul designs is true but nontheless they are closed loops, and hense of finate lengths. ...

Dear Ravindran,

Agreed. Let's call this 'pseudo-infinite'.

Kind regards, Bart

Whats your definition of Infinity and kindly explain the form of Infinite as per you. As per my perception, the form can be a part of infinite and not the other way round. ...

I don't think we disagree. I only illustrated how the infinite quality of the underlying order of reality (God) is (necessarily) reflected as an infinite quality of all objects in our cosmic manifestation of reality. And at a microscopic scale, all form is infinite.

Kind regards, Bart

What's the question?

Kind regards, Bart

... Even if I have not seen the whole of europe I know for certain that it is a small island surrounded by sea, hence is limited. The logic holds good that however big a thing may be, if it has a boundry it is still limited , finate- not infinite. ...

Europe, of course, is not an island, but your point is clear. Let’s take England as an example. England is an island surrounded by sea. But does that mean it’s limited? When you try to measure the actual length of the coastline of England, you may take a satellite picture of England and draw a line around it and say: that’s the length of the coastline of England. However, when you zoom in, you will see that you forgot to measure many irregularities of the coastline and that it is actually much longer. Moreover, your measurement must include every grain of sand that constitutes the coastline of England, and even every irregularity on the surface of every grain of sand, then every atom, proton, quark, etc. Ultimately you will find that the length of the coastline of England is in fact infinite.

Finite limits (such as the circumference of a circle) are properties of theoretical geometrical objects. Real world objects do not have finite limits. But does this mean they have no form?

Kind regards, Bart

Dear HeeHee,

In answer to your post (#152), let me first clarify that within the scientific community there is no consensus about what ‘consciousness’ is. Actually most scientists to date adhere to the view that consciousness is an artifact (or a byproduct) of the material complexity of our brains. A scientific monistic theory of reality may then be conveniently wholly materialistic, i.e., concerning itself with matter or energy only. It is believed that consciousness emerges automatically from material complexity and as such it doesn’t have to be explained by any theory.

Ultimately, however, in a truly monistic scientific theory of reality, everything that exists must be explained by a single, irreducible force or theoretical principle. Since, as yet, science hasn’t identified such a force or principle, we may theoretically call it anything we like, be it: matter, energy, consciousness or spirit. If such a theoretical force or principle proves to exist, it will describe all of the cosmic manifestation, including consciousness, and therefore we might as well call it consciousness.

Now, to your questions:

1) What does this 'science' study -- consciousness or matter?

The entire cosmic manifestation and its underlying principle is the object of Science. That is all of reality, including science itself.

2) Do the scientists say both consciousness and matter are the same?

A current scientific consensus is that matter and energy are the same. However, as I explained in my introduction, in a monistic scientific theory it can ultimately be said that energy = matter = consciousness = spirit. It’s all the same.

3) How do they account for the mind and intellect? Is that part of the material universe or conscious universe?

Currently the working of mind and intellect, or more generally the brain, is one of the big open questions in science. Science simply has no idea at all. In a monistic theory, however, all is part of this single force or principle. If we call this force consciousness, then mind and brain exist within the conscious universe.

4) Does this 'scientific' theory account for creation? Or does it say nothing is created?

The concept of ‘creation’ implies the notion of ‘time’. Something can be called created at a specific point in time, when it didn’t exist at any earlier point in time. If time exists, creation may be accounted for as a dynamical property of the theory. If time doesn’t exist, then there is no beginning or end, consequently nothing can be created. So we must wait and see if this monistic theory incorporates time. My guess is that it will.

5) Does this theory say matter is consciousness or vice versa?

Again, I refer to my introduction. So the answer is: both conjectures are equivalent. In a monistic theory matter and consciousness must be the same.

6) Does this theory say consciousness creates matter, or does it say matter creates both matter and consciousness?

Currently science sees energy as more fundamental than matter, i.e., energy creates matter. Since in a monistic theory or model of reality the postulated unitary force or principle (e.g., consciousness) must necessarily be most fundamental or basic, material structures in the cosmic manifestation must be created by consciousness.

7) Currently science (not quantum theory) says that the cosmos began billion years ago in an incredibly and unimaginable hot and dense state. The first life appeared and progressed through a series of evolution. Does your 'science' support this?

If with "your science" you mean the possible (monistic) model that I discussed in the thread http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/448303-does-free-will-exist.html, then the answer is yes. This is explained in post #37 of that thread.

8) How does the monistic 'scientists' account this theory as monism when he/she is looking at it studying this field? Or are they saying they are also one (merged with or part of or whatever terminology you may use) with whatever they are studying?

In a monistic theory, scientists must necessarily be one with the object (reality) that they are studying. This may already be evident in current quantum physical experiments, where the observer appears to influence the outcome of experiments, just by observing or measuring the quantum state of the physical system under investigation.

9) You say universal monism can be proven to be true. That is quite a strong statement. According to monism, there is only God (above time, space, attributeless, non-active entity). You still believe your 'science' will prove God!!!?

Well, the envisioned monistic theory must be a ‘complete’ model of reality. And because a monistic model cannot be any simpler per definition, it must be seen as a model of God, or the origin of everything. Whether such a model proves anything remains to be seen. I would say, if it explains everything that exists in our cosmic manifestation of reality, and complies with all religious knowledge and experiences we have, and when it predicts enough completely new phenomena that can be verified by our senses or experience, then yes, such a model may prove God, at least according to any scientific standards that we have of what counts as scientific proof. However, any scientific model is per definition a simplification of reality and therefore different from reality. So ‘absolute proof’ can’t exist in science (Edit: only logical proof).

10) Does this monistic science prove age old beliefs like karma, relationships between the souls, matter and God?

A monistic theory will be in accord with current classical physical laws such as the ‘conservation of energy’. It should describe a complex dynamical equilibrium in which the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. Karma may be a form of energy or consciousness, that is locally dissipated and absorbed but the total amount of karma will globally remain constant. However, this is just my guess. I wouldn’t know what karma is in such a model. Intricate relationships between souls, matter and God necessarily follow from the postulated underlying oneness of the universe.

11) Are these 'scientists' you are talking about religious monistic 'believers' or is

the community comprised of atheists too?

Scientists come of course in all sorts and flavors. Some are deeply religious and some are atheists. An agnostic attitude is probably the most scientific state of mind right now, but that might change.

12) How do these monistic scientists know everything contained in this universe is that Supreme Being who is beyond time and space? We haven't even explored planet Mars thoroughly, but go on to assume myriad things about the solar system in the name of monistic science!

Currently science doesn’t know that. However, when the monistic ideal of science is ever achieved, this will necessarily follow from the single force or principle postulated by the theory of everything, that underlies and describes the entire universe.

Kind regards, Bart

Bear Bart,

 

Refer to your post no. 113

I am mentioning binary dualism in order to clarify that there is a version of dualism like this and a discussion on dualism should explicitly be conducted keeping this division in mind to avoid confusion and ambiguity. That is all my purpose.

As to Dialectical dualism, which is the real issue in quantum mechanics, my position is that there are unresolved and puzzling issues arising out of it, which is not at all acceptable as good way of thinking, and these issues must be resolved and will be resolved. As to my position on Monism I am, like most scientists a monist. There is only one reality. This is the point I was making when I expressed my discomfort with the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. Dialectical dualism is a big problem precisely because it is a logical contradiction. (If it were merely a binary dualism there is no logical problem). In dialectical dualism, one is arguing that a result of a coin throw experiment is Head and Tail, not head or tail (which is a binary dualism). If a cat is either dead or alive then there is no logical problem but to say it is dead and alive is a contradiction.

As to my position on monism is concerned I am, as majority of Scientists, is a monist. This is precisely why I cannot live with duality of quantum mechanics. But at present there is no solution to this and hence I maintained that Quantum physics is dualist - not that I am comfortable with it. But you have given a beautiful phrase Dialectical Monism. This indeed is a beautiful concept and has a potential to resolve the contradiction and duality. We encounter the paradoxical state of two opposite states together precisely because they are not two at all. Behind the apparent duality they are one at a deeper invisible level. That is why at the first place the paradoxical state arises. The two opposites are really one. But we need to establish this clearly before claiming it. We have not yet accomplished it.

As to my idea on unification, I am an ‘unificationist” and my PhD is a small contribution in this direction by way of a small solution on the synthesis of particle and forces. Though my own work is a very small contribution and no where near the grand unification, the grand unification is certainly on the way. In this respect I am a Monist.

As to quantum mechanist being religious, it is your generalization. Some are and some are not. There is no special connection between quantum mechanics and religion. May be that its present mysterious quality drives some towards religion. After all mystery is the origin and nature of religion. I prefer to be an agnostic because that is, according to me, being honest to one’s own self. We don’t know what are god, soul, and the like and we cannot know. Why get in to something that we cannot know and be dogmatic about it? I would rater claim something I know for certain.

 

Kind regards,

William Young.

Dear William,

My concern was that this monism/dualism debate would not benefit from introducing a whole new vocabulary. And ‘dialectical dualism’ is not a relevant term here. Particle/wave duality, for example, denotes a duality between 2 opposing theories, i.e., 2 theories that cannot exist together. Either one or the other applies, but never both. ‘Dualism or dvaita’ on the other hand, denotes 2 (or more) separate entities or forces that exist at the same time. In particular: God and (ignorant) souls. The term ‘monism or advaita’ denotes the essential oneness of the universe. Since this oneness typically expresses itself dualistically, the term ‘dialectical monism’ may be better. Also the term ‘non-dualism’ might apply. However, on this forum the term ‘monism or advaita’ is commonly used.

Science is a monistic enterprise. Here we agree. Ultimately science wants to understand everything (including science itself) on the basis of a single force or theoretical principle. That would be the ultimate unification of science; the theory of everything (including the theory itself). Chances are that, because such a theory cannot be any simpler (Occam’s razor), this theory also incorporates God and souls. If so, ‘universal monism’ will be scientifically proven to be true.

You should become more religious.

Kind regards, Bart

Very nice Justin. That's close to what I would like to know.

Looks like the debates can be reduced, simplified to atheism versus theism. Intelligent design versus Evolution theory. ...

In a monist view of reality, ‘evolution theory’ and ‘intelligent design’ can both be true. Intelligent design refers to the underlying 'oneness' of reality, and evolution theory describes the manifest consequences of intelligent design in material reality. Evolution theory in biology is like quantum mechanics in physics. Both models describe material reality quite accurately (at different geometrical scales), and (as yet) both models are 'incomplete'.

Kind regards, Bart

Dear IamNotHeeHee,

I guess that ‘proof’ is a ‘material’ concept. As such, the truth of the scriptures can probably not be proven. Bhaktajan’s consciousness may allow him to see reality (more or less) different from reality the way you and I perceive it. As a result he simply ‘knows’ (or somehow ‘concluded’) that the ancient scriptures are correct. One must respect that possibility..

Kind regards, Bart

...

 

• Binary dualism,
  
• Dialectical dualism.

...

So, the term ‘binary dualism’ is only relevant for computer science, and not for the ‘monism/dualism debate’, apparent in this forum. And this term is also not relevant for understanding any (ontological) discussion that is going on in present day physics. Then why do you mention it at all?

The term ‘dialectical dualism’, indicates a tension (dialectic) between 2 opposed principles. That sounds promising. You mention ‘Particle/wave duality’ and ‘quantum superposition’ as examples of dialectical dualism in physics. You then conclude that present day physics can be called ‘dualistic’, because several opposing theoretical principles are used to explain reality. However, ‘oneness’ or ‘monism’ is preferred by science in general, and, therefore, science is essentially a ‘monistic’ enterprise. Nice.

What do you think of the term ‘dialectical monism’ in this context? Dialectical monism is an ontological position which holds that reality is ultimately a unified whole, distinguishing itself from monism by asserting that this whole necessarily expresses itself in dualistic terms. For the dialectical monist, the essential unity is that of complementary polarities which, while opposed in the realm of experience and perception, are co-substantial in a transcendent sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism

And do you have any specific ideas about this ultimate monistic solution or ‘the unification’ of physics?

I thought, by the way, that all quantum physicists are deeply religious.

Kind regards, Bart

Bart, I am curious about something. Do you believe in karma? You know, what you do to others will be done to you.

 

You must not believe in karma or why else would you eat meat knowing that it means one day you will be the animal in the slaughterhouse being killed so that some human who wants to taste your flesh and blood will be able to.

First of all, I agree that a lot is wrong with the meat industry. This is especially evident from the way the animals are kept and transported, and possibly the methods used to kill the animals are inadequate. This must all change of course. However, I don’t agree with the suggestion, that the general public doesn’t care about the suffering of the animals, because they eat the meat. I think the general public isn’t aware of the possible extent of the suffering, and most people are inclined to think that the meat on their plate is in fact ‘kosher’. Then again, maybe this wasn’t suggested at all in the first posts..

Regarding your question: one has to believe in both karma and reincarnation, as well as in the unavoidability of being slaughtered and eaten in a next life oneself, as a consequence of eating meat. I’m okay with karma and reincarnation, but I have difficulty accepting the last conjecture. For example, there appears to be a circularity in the whole idea. When I eat an animal, I may (indirectly) ‘balance’ the karma of another soul that reincarnated as the animal that I’m eating.

Kind regards, Bart