Does 'free will' Exist?

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

Dear Bart,

I saw the cosmos in its mind boggling complexity. There were many universes, with different laws. There were all possible universes. They were complete closed systems in themselves, with their own space times. There were beings of all sorts living in each one of these trillions of universes. I called this grand cosmos Mayicocosm as it is truly magical and wondrous and beautiful to witness it. And yes it was a Fractal design with a single system of algorithem behind it. (I will soon come to it) With all the multiplicity and complexity of the mayicosm it was one single organism with intelligence. I felt it to be a goddess – the one I worshiped. I dint see the Goddess in an anthropomorphic form. But I saw her in the very Cosmos – She was the cosmos and She was stunningly beautiful. The universe was not impersonal but personal and it interacted with me. There are many many things I learned day by day about the cosmos. I shall cut short of the details which I can go on and on, and come to certain final details as to its algorithm.

I saw the entire Mayicocosm arising from a mysterious triangle. Though I learned many things about these universes themselves, the source- the triangle and what lies behind - remained a mystery. Occasionally I wondered over it. A day came and the goddess suggested that it is the time to go beyond the triangle. And she initiated me to Lord Siva’s Mantra. When I meditated on that new mantra for some time, I got very close to the primordial triangle and I could see clearly what it was. It was made up, of Sanskrit alphabets.

Then I passed through the triangle to the other side. When this happened I noticed that my sense of self altered drastically. ‘I’ did not exist. My I- sense vanished. Not that I was not conscious. I was. But the Ego boundary – the usual ontological certainty – dropped. I panicked. Not finding me, and not sure of who I was, I shouted in fear “Who am I?” That shout was mere sound without any substantive meaning or reference to any ‘I’. (Note: In this description I am using the pronoun I still, though it is not appropriate. But still I retain it to describe the experience so as to communicate meaningfully in familiar language. Without the word ‘I’, I don’t know how to form the normal sentences and if I did, it sounds very weird to the listeners and readers and made no sense.) I got so scared and thought that I died, or am dying. To avoid my dying I clinged on to thoughts and generated madly and rapidly various I -thoughts: “I am so and so… I am the Son of so and so…I am working in such and such place…” etc but to no avail. My desperate attempt to define myself was turning out to be futile as all that thought I produced were mere empty thoughts with out any ontological ‘I’ content. Then I gave up my struggle to retain my I sense.

Then something mind boggling happened. What I am going to say below is to be is to be understood as mere attempt of language to capture what is essentially indescribable and beyond language. What I encountered was a true mystical experience – totally ineffable. It cannot be described at all. Yet I am attempting to talk as many mystics did, just to give out a pointer to what lies beyond, not to describe it. My language should be understood in this sense. Rather than keeping silent, which is the only sensible thing a mystic could actually do, I prefer to talk. My talk, that follows below in italics, must be not interpreted as description but as a pointer to a grand indescribable truth.

 

I found myself in a state of complete silence – my mind disappeared totally with out any trace. No thought, no ego sense, no perception of any object – nothing. No I should not say that it was a nothing I must more appropriately state it as “No-Thing” Because it was not a coma state. Consciousness existed. But the consciousness was with out any object of consciousness. There was no duality of ‘I’ and ‘that’. There was no duality between knower and known. Not even space and time existed. This consciousness is beyond time. Another way to say the same is that time stopped – no past and future, only present. It was an eternal present – a moment in which all time – eternity- existed. It was a conscious eternal moment. And it was omniscient though there was no object. I call it for naming sake Siva Consciousness, as I was meditating on Siva’s mantra before entering in to this mysterious state. There was no difference in this between my consciousness and Siva consciousness. There was only one consciousness. I existed in indistinctly one with this mysterious Siva consciousness. It was me, but a mysterious me, a transcendental me. Hence to refer to this transcendental aspect of me I shall use the royal ‘We’ instead if ‘I’ (to indicate it was Siva as well as me but not in a dualistic sense).

 

Then from the depth of this mysterious consciousness We generated a stirring, and that stirring arose in the form of a sound. Along with this sound arose time. The sound sounded like Om initially but soon it resolved in to a serious drum beats (of a small drum that one finds in the hand of Siva’s anthropomorphic form) .The drum beating sound evolved in to the entire Sanskrit alphabet. Then the alphabet sounds formed a triangle generating the first space. Then We produced fourteen strings of sounds, defining the rules or formulas to be applied to the triangle of letters. The resultant was the fabric of mantras emerging from the triangle of letters and evolving in to a grand fabric of mantras. This was the cosmos.

All these while We were in a state of Omniscience, Omnipotence and Ecstasy.

 

Then I got snapped off from the ‘We’ state and landed in to my familiar I consciousness. The ecstasy in a reduced scale continued for days even in the normal state. Though I was no more omniscient, there was a new intelligence that I found with me then on. I understood empathetically all the spiritual texts and mystic’s writing, which I could not make sense before. The experience gave a completely new way of understanding material world too I knew intuitively that Unified theory of Physics was true, and one single theory of everything was posible

This is how I became a scientific mystic. (There are times I cried in gratitude for this experience. I dint know how come I had this experience as I felt that I was completely undeserving.)

The following intuitive positions might Interest You:

 

• The whole world is fractal design
  
• There is a simple and coherent system of initial algorithm behind it
  
• Consciousness is the source. Universe exists in consciousness or came from consciousness.
  
• Consciousness there fore has free will as it is the one which choose the initial conditions – the very algorithms of the universe.
  
• One single point generating the entire universe could be a viable model though I did not see any initial geometric point as source. But I did see one vibration, one sound, evolving to the entire universe. Hence I should have no problem in assuming that one particle was vibrating to produce that sound at least as a model.

Of late I have many problems with my insights. If I don’t use reason and just go by my experience alone I have no conflict between science and religion and between monism and dualism. But when I use reason I do have conflict in many of the insights and positions that I institutively take. The problem is one of reason and Language.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

[bija 0]

 

Ch 4 Verse 9 here

janma karma ca me divyam / evam yo vetti tattvatah

tyaktva deham punar janma / naiti mam eti so ’rjuna

 

Click here to read Shrila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is 4.9 <http://www.bhagavadgitaasitis.com/4/9/en>

 

arjuna---O Arjuna; me---My; janma---birth; ca---and; karma--- activities; (are) divyam---transcendental; (one) yah---who; vetti--- knows; evam---thus; tattvatah---in truth; tyaktva---having given up; deham---the body; na eti---does not accept; punah---again; janma---(re) birth; sah---he; eti.comes; mam---to Me.

 

O Arjuna! My birth and activities are transcendental. One who knows this in truth does not take another birth after giving up the present body. He certainly attains Me.

 

SARARTHA-VARShINI

BY ShRILA VIShVANATHA CAKRAVARTI THAKURA

 

"One will only become perfect when he has understood the essence of the transcendental nature of My birth (janma) and activities (karma), which are endowed with the characteristics described in the previous shlokas." This shloka, beginning with the word janma, is spoken to explain this. Shripada Ramanujacarya and Shripada Madhusudana Sarasvati explain that the word divya means aprakrita, transcendental, and Shrila Shridhara Svami has translated it as alaukika, not of this material world. The material world is created by prakriti (material nature), thus by the word alaukika Shrila Shridhara Svamipada also implies aprakrita. Consequently, because the birth and activities of Shri Bhagavan are aprakrita and beyond the modes, they are nitya (eternal). In the Bhagavat-sandarbha, Shrila Jiva Gosvami refers to this present subject in his explanation of the shloka: na vidyate yasya ca janma karma va (Shrimad-Bhagavatam (8.3.8)). He explains that, although this matter cannot be comprehended by logic, on the strength of statements from the Vedas and Smriti it must be accepted as being beyond reason. In this regard, it is also said in the Purusha-bodhini shruti of Piplada-shakha:

 

eko deva nitya-lilanurakto / bhakta-hridy antar-atma

 

Eternally engaged in His pastimes, the one Lord in His form of Antaryami enters within the hearts of His bhaktas. Regarding the eternality of Shri Bhagavan's birth and activities (janma and karma), detailed descriptions have been given in Shrimad-Bhagavatam. "After hearing My statements such as: yo vetti tattvatah (Gita 4.9), ajo 'pi sann avyayatma (Gita 4.6) and janma karma ca me divyam (Gita 4.9), one who understands the eternal nature of My birth and activities with theistic intelligence-that is, who is not dependent on empiricism to accept it-does not have to take birth again in this material world."

 

"Those who in truth understand the word tat in the statement of Gita (17.23)-om tat sad iti nirdesho brahmanas trividha h smritah to mean brahma do not have to take birth again after giving up their present body. Rather, it is assured that they attain Me." Here Bhagavan gives a superior meaning to the phrase 'giving up the body'. "Such a person does not take another birth after giving up the body. Rather, he attains Me even without giving it up."

 

Shripada Ramanujacarya writes paraphrasing Krishna, "All sins that impede one on the path to attain My full shelter are completely destroyed by true knowledge of My transcendental birth and activities. Only those dear devotees who have taken shelter of Me, attain Me even in this very life."

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Ch 4 Verse 9 here

 

janma karma ca me divyam / evam yo vetti tattvatah

tyaktva deham punar janma / naiti mam eti so ’rjuna

 

Click here to read Shrila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita As It Is 4.9 <http://www.bhagavadgitaasitis.com/4/9/en>

 

arjuna---O Arjuna; me---My; janma---birth; ca---and; karma--- activities; (are) divyam---transcendental; (one) yah---who; vetti--- knows; evam---thus; tattvatah---in truth; tyaktva---having given up; deham---the body; na eti---does not accept; punah---again; janma---(re) birth; sah---he; eti.comes; mam---to Me.

 

O Arjuna! My birth and activities are transcendental. One who knows this in truth does not take another birth after giving up the present body. He certainly attains Me.

 

SARARTHA-VARShINI

BY ShRILA VIShVANATHA CAKRAVARTI THAKURA

 

"One will only become perfect when he has understood the essence of the transcendental nature of My birth (janma) and activities (karma), which are endowed with the characteristics described in the previous shlokas." This shloka, beginning with the word janma, is spoken to explain this. Shripada Ramanujacarya and Shripada Madhusudana Sarasvati explain that the word divya means aprakrita, transcendental, and Shrila Shridhara Svami has translated it as alaukika, not of this material world. The material world is created by prakriti (material nature), thus by the word alaukika Shrila Shridhara Svamipada also implies aprakrita. Consequently, because the birth and activities of Shri Bhagavan are aprakrita and beyond the modes, they are nitya (eternal). In the Bhagavat-sandarbha, Shrila Jiva Gosvami refers to this present subject in his explanation of the shloka: na vidyate yasya ca janma karma va (Shrimad-Bhagavatam (8.3.8)). He explains that, although this matter cannot be comprehended by logic, on the strength of statements from the Vedas and Smriti it must be accepted as being beyond reason. In this regard, it is also said in the Purusha-bodhini shruti of Piplada-shakha:

 

eko deva nitya-lilanurakto / bhakta-hridy antar-atma

 

Eternally engaged in His pastimes, the one Lord in His form of Antaryami enters within the hearts of His bhaktas. Regarding the eternality of Shri Bhagavan's birth and activities (janma and karma), detailed descriptions have been given in Shrimad-Bhagavatam. "After hearing My statements such as: yo vetti tattvatah (Gita 4.9), ajo 'pi sann avyayatma (Gita 4.6) and janma karma ca me divyam (Gita 4.9), one who understands the eternal nature of My birth and activities with theistic intelligence-that is, who is not dependent on empiricism to accept it-does not have to take birth again in this material world."

 

"Those who in truth understand the word tat in the statement of Gita (17.23)-om tat sad iti nirdesho brahmanas trividha h smritah to mean brahma do not have to take birth again after giving up their present body. Rather, it is assured that they attain Me." Here Bhagavan gives a superior meaning to the phrase 'giving up the body'. "Such a person does not take another birth after giving up the body. Rather, he attains Me even without giving it up."

 

Shripada Ramanujacarya writes paraphrasing Krishna, "All sins that impede one on the path to attain My full shelter are completely destroyed by true knowledge of My transcendental birth and activities. Only those dear devotees who have taken shelter of Me, attain Me even in this very life."

 

Gita 4.9: O Arjuna! My birth and activities are transcendental. One who knows this in truth does not take another birth after giving up the present body. He certainly attains Me.

 

Dear Bija,

 

In my understanding ‘knowing something’ is equivalent to ‘being consciously aware of something’, whereas ‘knowledge’ or ‘consciousness’ is not necessarily equivalent to ‘understanding’. If one understands something then one automatically knows it, but if one knows something one may not understand it.

 

Then what did ShRILA VIShVANATHA CAKRAVARTI THAKURA mean when he stated in his explanation of Gita 4.9: “… one who understands the eternal nature of My birth and activities with theistic intelligence-that is, who is not dependent on empiricism to accept it - does not have to take birth again in this material world.”?

 

And can you tell me what Prabhupada meant when he stated in his explanation of the same Gita verse: “… there are many transcendental forms of the Lord, they are still one and the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. One has to understand this fact with conviction, although it is incomprehensible to mundane scholars and empiric philosophers. As stated in the Vedas”?

 

Does this mean that the scientific (empirical) method cannot be a valid path to arrive at true/absolute knowledge, or does it mean that these men simply didn’t understand science?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bija 0]

 

Does this mean that the scientific (empirical) method cannot be a valid path to arrive at true/absolute knowledge, or does it mean that these men simply didn’t understand science? by Bart

Firstly Bart, scripture is made of words. While we are in this body/mind consciousness we need to use words, to convey or point to, the transcendental reality. Empiricism is basically dealing with the substance of this universe. The transcendental is a totally different field of reality than matter.

 

The intelligent person (jnani) will negate, for example, spirit is not this thing, spirit is not that thing. And on and on, but still such an approach only points to the subject matter of transcendence. It is not this, it is not that!

 

Ravindran for example has had such a profound encounter. Such deep knowledge and experience. But it seems from his writing his answers are not satisfying him with the 'point'. The goal has not been pinned down yet. Such a great mind and mystic.

 

Krsna and the other forms of transcendence are a higher principle. This is called adhoksaja. This higher principle has a nature called 'pressing down'. It can press down to us. But we have no claim to extrapolate, then quantify, by our own frog mentality. Mr. Frog sits in his well with his small pond. 'Oh the ocean is like this, and the ocean is like that. There is no sunshine near the ocean etc etc'.

 

The adhoksaja plane is so great, it may take many many births using empiricism to even gain a glimpse. If we are gleaning a hint through the empirical mode it is because of a very good pious birth, after many many such births. And also due to association with devotees.

 

Try to understand the adhoksaja plane of existence is living, full of personality. If you had a friend, would it be wise to quantify him/her. Catergorize and box him/her. Measure, probe...and then out of complete pride say, 'You are like this! I have studied you well!'. Would that be pleasing to your friend?

 

Any sane man knows Bart, such dealings on a personal level are never satisfying. A conscious feeling entity hardly ever, fully grants full affection, when treated as an object. And in fact, the nature of the so-called object is not really known by the fool. By some good fortune if we begin to treat the other with affection (bhakti)...the other begins to open and reveal who they truly are. Such is the nature of love.

 

What this Gita commentary is saying simply, is the adhoksaja plane of affection is living and full of conscious diversity. It will press down and come to us if we simply 'surrender' in love. Bhakti being the highest principle, the nature of the adhoksaja plane.

 

I cannot explain it to you. I can only admonish you to put faith in the scriptures I have presented, and to begin devotional service. I can only point by using words, which are temporary and of this world.

 

 

Then what did ShRILA VIShVANATHA CAKRAVARTI THAKURA mean when he stated in his explanation of Gita 4.9: “… one who understands the eternal nature of My birth and activities with theistic intelligence-that is, who is not dependent on empiricism to accept it - does not have to take birth again in this material world.”?

 

And can you tell me what Prabhupada meant when he stated in his explanation of the same Gita verse: “… there are many transcendental forms of the Lord, they are still one and the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. by Bart

Those with material consciousness only see a sectarian God and division. Those who have awoken (by the grace of a pure devotee) to the truth of vedanta sutra, know that the truth is non-sectarian and non-dual (inconceivably full of diversity). The Supreme Personality (reality) reciprocates with each devotee who has pure 'desire' of love. Yoga means fulfillment of 'desire' Bart, spiritual union. It is inconceivable to the mind, how a devotee can cultivate and attain a spiritual reality (vaikuntha planet) or impersonal liberation. It is inconceivable that the absolute Personality of Godhead manifests diverse realities to satisfy the devotees heart. It almost appears that the absolute becomes a servant. How is that? Love.

 

It is very difficult for me to formulate this in words Bart (I have seen it in my heart - even though you doubt). It is almost if the higher plane, the super-soul becomes a servant. It is the sweetest of loving dealings.

 

The materialist (mayavadi) will identify himself as the supreme God at some point. Due to lacking fine theistic intelligence of this great mystery. We are never the supreme but we are one with it. We are particle servants of a divine Personality that manifests the devotees inner most desires. Even the material world if that is what we desired. Ravindran has pointed to a great mystery of universes upon universes in this very world Bart. That is mind reality and still of this world. It is not the Transcendental.

 

Srila Prabhupada is pointing to that Krsna, that Rama, that Nrsingha etc etc. He calls it the Supreme Personality of Godhead. What is that Supreme Personality of Godhead...it is the finest principle. It is the Anandamaya Personality. We gain fullest satisfaction by serving it.

 

It is so profound it may even appear as a baby, or small cowherd boy....within the heart of hearts. It is the fullest satisfaction and desire of the pure heart.

 

I have pointed you to the Vedanta Sutra with commentary by Srila Baladeva Vidyabushana several times. It will explain what Anandamaya is. Vidyabushana was a master of using words, and much more realized in the subject than me. Therefore I serve such a master, and hope (with love) for the higher principle to press down to my soul. Our tradition is descending from Sri Krsna Caitanya, the master of all potencies.

 

I can copy and paste many quotes from the Vedanta Sutra for you Bart, but I think you are quite capable of reading it and understanding it, if you have any 'desire' for bhakti and 'surrender'.

 

 

Vedanta Sutra

Sutra 15

mantra-varnikam eva ca giyate

mantra—by the mantra portion of the Vedas; varnikam—described; eva—certainly; ca—also; giyate—is described.

(The same Supreme Personality of Godhead) described in the mantra-portion of the Vedas is also described (as the anandamaya-person in the text of the Taittiriya Upanishad).

Purport by Baladeva Vidyabhushana

The same Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantra, Satyam jnanam anantam brahma (the Supreme Brahman has no limits. He is eternal and full of knowledge), is also described in the Taittiriya Upanishad by the word anandamaya. In this way the above sutra explains that the word anandamaya does not refer to the individual living entitiy. Further, the Taittiriya Upanishad explains:

brahma-vid apnoti param

"One who understands the Supreme Brahman attains the Supreme Brahman."

This sentence explains that the individual living entity worships the Supreme Brahman and then attains the association of that Supreme Brahman. This is the same Supreme Brahman previously described in the mantra, satyam jnanam anantam brahma. This is the Supreme Brahman described by the word anandamaya. This is the Supreme Brahman described in the Taittiriya Upanishad in the passage begining with the words tasmad va etasmat. Because the Supreme Brahman is the object of attainment for the individual spirit soul, and because the object of attainment and the attainer must be two distinct entities, and they cannot be identical, therefore the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities must be distinct persons, and therefore the word anandamaya refers only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead and not to the individual living entites.

At this point someone may raise the following objection: If the Supreme Brahman described in the Vedic mantras were different from the individual living entity, then the individual living enitites could not be the anandamaya person described in the scriptures. The actual fact is that the Supreme Brahman and the individual living entities are identical. The Vedic mantras state that when the individual spirit soul is free from ignorance and liberated from material bondage, then he become identical with the Supreme Brahman.

To answer this objection, Shrila Vyasadeva speaks the following sutra.

Sutra 16

netaro 'nupapatteh

na—not; itarah—the other; upapatteh—because it is illogical.

The other person (individual living entity) is not described (in the mantra "satyam jnanam anantam brahma"), because such an interpretation of the mantra is illogical.

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

The itara (other person) mentioned in this sutra is the individual living entity. This sutra, therefore, states that the individual spirit soul, even in the liberated condition, cannot be the Supremem Person described in the mantra, satyam jnanam anantam brahma. This is confirmed by the following statement of Vedic literature:

so 'shnute sarvan kaman saha brahmana vipashcita

"The liberated soul enjoys the fulfillment of all his desires in the company of the omniscient Supreme Brahman."

 

In this passage the difference between the liberated spirit-soul and the Supreme Brahman is described in the words "He enjoys in the company of the Supreme Brahman." The word vipascit means "He whose consciousness (cit) sees (pashyati) the great variety of that which exists (vividham). The word pashya is changed to pash in this word by the grammatical formula prishodaradi-gana (Panini 6.3.109). In this way the liberated individual soul attains the association of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is expert at enjoying many varieties of transcendental bliss, and with Him, the individual spirit soul enjoys, fulfilling all his desires.

 

The word asnute should be understood to mean "enjoys" in this context. The verb ash means "to enjoy", and although we would expect it to be conjugated in the parasmaipada, (ashnati), in this passage it is conjugated in the atmanepada (ashnute). The reason for this is explained by Panini in the sutra vyatyayo bahulam iti chandasi tatha smriteh (3.1.85).

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is naturally the Supreme Enjoyer, and the individual spirit soul is His subordinate in the matter of enjoyment also. Still, the Supreme Personality of Godhead glorifies the liberated souls, when He says:

 

vashe kurvanti mam bhaktah

 

sat-striyah sat-patim yatha

 

"My pure devotees bring Me under their control, just as faithful wives bring a kind-hearted husband under their control."

 

 

y.s. bija.

[bija 0]

 

...or does it mean that these men simply didn’t understand science? Bart

These men taught the science of transcendental love Bart. The science of bhakti yoga. Others from the vedic culture taught various sciences too. In different words etc than modern man. Modern man with his different language and quantification may see ancient text as simply myth.

 

Here is an example:

 

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-538297875584368796&hl=en&fs=true" style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

 

Modern man is fortunate in the field of his science. When he discovers the transcendental through a machine, let me know (is not the greatest machine soul/super-soul). And if the scientist wishes to extrapolate and have bias, that transcendence is fantasy of the mind, until proof is found...what can we do?

 

Ps...the author of this video left his body two days ago 18th Sept. He left a great legacy for us as a scientist and simple hearted devotee. An intelligent person will at least take time to investigate his words.

 

Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by Richard Thompson (Sadaputa dasa) - click here

[bija 0]

 

Of late I have many problems with my insights. If I don’t use reason and just go by my experience alone I have no conflict between science and religion and between monism and dualism. But when I use reason I do have conflict in many of the insights and positions that I institutively take. The problem is one of reason and Language.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

Dear Bart, this is an intelligent realization of the topmost. It shows the position of man in relation to the Summum Bonum Absolute Truth. And the validity of surrender.

 

Also I wish to say, one does not have to deny his God given gifts to be a pure devotee. Devotional service is a life of application, but it definately entails surrender. Such is the way of spiritual life.

 

One reason I have spent my time in dialogue with you Bart, is because when you first came to Audarya, you mentioned your great pleasure in reading, 'The Science of Self Realization Book by Srila Prabhupada'. Therefore I could see you are a very great soul in search of truth.

 

I have noticed though, you have made scientific commentary on Srila Prabhupada's words. Bart's commentary. If I was to be honest Bart, I would say your commentaries totally miss the essence contained in Srila Prabhupada's words. He admonished us to take sacred scripture and the commentaries of the saints, simply As It Is. Then over extended time, cultivation, and surrender...all will be revealed in due course (by the grace of bhakti-devi's agent and within).

 

He has said any empirical commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is useless, as it misses the point totally, and is of no aid to the sincere seeker. Infact misleading them from the sweet centre. The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

We can either accept what he says as Guru, or we can evaluate, reject, extrapolate...and find our own way. We surely have free will.

 

Please forgive my total honesty, I only open when I know I am in good company.

 

 

y.s. in affection....bija

[Justin 0]

 

Of late I have many problems with my insights. If I don’t use reason and just go by my experience alone I have no conflict between science and religion and between monism and dualism. But when I use reason I do have conflict in many of the insights and positions that I institutively take. The problem is one of reason and Language.

 

and you are reasoning that reason is a problem! I have seen you trying to give reasons for every non-dualistic belief of yours and now you say you do not use reason.

 

You say you are like a scientist. Science is strongly based on reason. In the posts you have used the keyword scientific "reason" for all your experiences. Are you fighting some tremendous conflicts within yourself that seems to confuse you between science and experiences?

[bija 0]

Remembering Sadaputa Prabhu

 

282 Views / EMail This Post / Print This Post / Home » Remembering Sadaputa Prabhu

<!-- end .post-top --> <!-- the main section of the post goes here --> By Danavir Goswami

We are shocked and very sorry to hear of the sudden departure of Sriman Sadaputa dasa Adhikari (Dr. Richard L. Thompson).

His work in establishing Krishna consciousness through science was brilliant and effective. As a submissive disciple of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Sadaputa Prabhu put aside all of his Western academics in favor of studying the Vedas and practicing their tenants. However, at the request of his spiritual master, he agreed to utilize his scientific education and sharp intellect for supplying supporting evidence to Vedic teachings. He ventured into many subjects-the soul, consciousness, the spiritual world, as well as refutations of commonly-held modern theories of evolution, the Big Bang Theory, etc.

It was Sadaputa Prabhu who fearlessly led many attacks against the godless myths in the form of so-called science. His writing and speaking were so eloquent that no one could defeat him. Once in 1984, we invited Sadaputa Prabhu to speak at the prestigious Eindhoven University in the Netherlands (home to many Phillips Corporation scientists). The topic of the lecture was “Consciousness,” and the audience was made up entirely of science professors, including the chancellor of the university, a reputed scientist himself. Sadaputa Prabhu used a slide show demonstration and explained each slide thoroughly. He presented a convincing argument in favor of consciousness being a component of a living being rather than an outcome of material interactions.

The audience was in rapt attention and quiet until the questions and answers period afterward. These professors contemplated every word he said and they were determined to dismantle his arguments. They asked questions like, “Dr. Thompson, are you familiar with the work done by such and such scientist in the field of such and such?” Everyone was amazed at how Sadaputa Prabhu knew all about every subject that was asked. Not only that but he was able to synthesize and critique the work under discussion in light of the superior Vedic conclusions.

By the time the questions were over, the audience was spellbound. The best of scientists were unable to find any holes in his presentationithey became completely silent. Following the discussion, a wondrous prasadam feast was served and everyone honored it with gusto. Several professors, including the chancellor, stayed on longer and asked Sadaputa Prabhu questions of a more personal nature. One question was, “Dr. Thompson, how should we deal with the question of evil.” Sadaputa Prabhu answered all the submissive inquiries to their full satisfaction. That was one of the most striking preaching engagements I have ever witnessed.

Sadaputa’s work of debunking Darwin’s Theory of Evolution will go down as one of the history’s greatest acts of scholarship and kindness to a misguided civilization. Seeing him featured on NBC television’s The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, was exhilarating beyond description.

In the 1970’s Sadaputa and I spent many an hour together discussing a preaching strategy-a traveling Vedic planetarium in a tent. We envisioned taking it to universities all over America. I hope that dream of ours can still take place.

Sadaputa had the unique ability to explain extremely complex scientific subjects in a manner that most moderately-educated laymen could understand. Sadaputa was our movement’s big artillery. When doubtful questions arose from new bhaktas, we sent them to Sadaputa. When science challenged the faith of the devotees, Sadaputa answered and answered with scientific authority as well as Vedic knowledge. Armed with transcendental knowledge and firm faith in guru and Krsna, Sadaputa was invincible.

That powerful preacher has departed and we are very, very sorry that we will no longer be able to see him thrashing the demoniac speculators, providing us inspiring insights into understanding the Vedas and fulfilling the desires of Srila Prabhupada with expertise. After the departure of Srila Prabhupada, Sadaputa served thirty years as a vital resource for discerning Vedic and Western sciences.

Sadaputa Prabhu, we thank you with great sincerity for being there when it was most needed.

Your servant and friend,

Danavir Goswami

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=6451

 

For writings click here

[bija 0]

 

Subjective Evolution of Consciousness

 

Preface

by Srila Sridhar Maharaj

 

Evolution is generally thought of as something objective. But objective evolution is a misperception of reality. Evolution is actually based on consciousness, which is subjective. Subjective evolution, however, seems to be objective evolution to the ignorant. In ignorance we think of ourselves as subjects, although in reality the Lord is the subject and we

are his objects. We think of ourselves as proprietors although we are his property. It is said that all things happen by the will of the Vaisnavas, the devotees of the Lord. A Vaisnava is like a faithful employee who speaks the will of the employer; he has no will of his own: the will of the pure Vaisnava is nothing but the will of God. In ignorance, however, we try to make

the Lord our servant, but this is like using a salagrama sila to crack nuts. The Lord is not an object. He is the seer, the doer, and the knower - the Supreme Subject - but we foolishly think of ourselves as such.

 

The concept of subjective evolution is explained in Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.14.22):

 

tasmad idam jagad asesam asat-svarupam svapnabham

asta-dhisanam puru-duhkha-duhkham dukhabodhan

 

"By an illusion created by the Lord the universe appears to be real, although it is not, just as miseries we suffer in a dream are only imaginary."

 

Unintelligent people take the subject as an object. It is ignorance to confuse the eye with the seer or the brain with the knower. This is described in Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.3.31):

 

yatha nabhasi meghaugho

renur va parthivo' nile

evam drastari drsyatvam

aropitam abuddhibhih

 

"The unintelligent equate the sky with the clouds, the air with the dust particles floating in it,

and think that the sky is cloudy or that the air is dirty.''........

 

For full e-book click here

[Bart Happel 0]

Vedanta Sutra 1.26

 

 

atma-kriteh parinamat

 

atma-self; kriteh -because of making; parinamat-because of transformation.

 

(Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of the creation) because He transformed Himself (into the world).

 

 

Purport by Shrila Baladeva Vidyabhushana

 

The Taittiriya Upanishad (2.6.2) says:

 

so 'kamayata

"He desired: I shall become many."

 

It also says (2.7.1):

 

tad atmanam svayam akuruta

 

"He created the world from His own Self."

 

In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient from which the creation is made.

Someone may object: How can the eternally-perfect creator be also the creation?

To answer this objection he says parinmat (because He has transformed Himself). This does not contradict the changelessness of Brahman for a certain kind of transformation is not incompatible with changelessness. Here is the truth of this. In the following passages the shruti explains that Brahman has three potencies:

 

parasya shaktir vividhaiva shruyate

 

"The Supreme has many potencies."

 

Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.8

 

pradhana-kshetrajna-patir guneshah

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the master of pradhana (material nature), kshetrajna (the individual spirit souls), and guna (the three material modes)."

 

Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.16

 

The smriti (Vishnu Purana) also explains:

 

vishnu-shaktih para prokta

kshetrajnakhya tatha para

avidya-karma-samjnanya

tritiya shaktir ucyate

 

"The potency of Lord Vishnu is summarized in three categories: namely the spiritual potency, the living entities, and ignorance. The spiritual potency is full of knowledge; the living entitles, although belonging to the spiritual potency, are subject to bewilderment; and the third energy,

which is full of ignorance, is always visible in fruitive activities."

 

In this way the scriptures explain that Brahman is both the creator and the ingredient of which the creation is made. He is the first (the creator) by the agency of His spiritual potency and He is the second (the ingredient of which the creation is made) by the agency of the other two potencies. This interpretation is confirmed by the aphorism sa-visheshena vidhi-nishedhau visheshanam upasankramate (an adjective describes both what a noun is and what it is not).

 

The scriptures also explain (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 4.1):

 

ya eko 'varno bahudha shakti-yogad

varnan anekan nihitartho dadhati

vi caiti cante vishvam adau sa devah

sa no buddhya shubhaya samyunaktau

 

"May the one, unrivalled Supreme Personality of Godhead, who for His own purpose created the many varieties of living entities by the agency of His potencies, who created everything in the beginning and into whom everything enters at the end, grant pure intelligence to us."

 

As the supreme unchangeable the Supreme Brahman is the original cause of creation, and as the parinami (the transformable) Brahman is also the ingredient of which the creation is made. In His subtle nature Brahman is the creator and in His nature as gross matter He is the creation itself. In this way it is established that the Supreme Brahman is both creator and creation. The creation is thus like a lump of clay that may be shaped in different ways. The word parinamat (because of transformation) in this sutra clearly refutes the theory that declares the material world a vivarta (illusion) that has no reality. The statement that the material world is an illusion superimposed on Brahman just as the existence of silver is an illusion superimposed on an oyster shell with a silvery sheen cannot be accepted because the oyster shell is an object that can be placed before the viewer, but Brahman, because it is all-pervading cannot be placed before the viewer and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. One may object that although the sky is all-pervading illusions may be superimposed on it. However, Brahman is not like the sky in the sense that the sky may be approached by the material observer but Brahman remains beyond the reach of the material senses and therefore an illusion cannot be superimposed on it. Furthermore, the existence of an illusion implies the existence of something different from the thing on which the illusion is superimposed. Without the existence of something separate there is no possibility of an illusion. In the end, therefore, the vivarta theory postulates the existence of something different from Brahman. This is the fault in their theory. When the scriptures state that the material world is an illusion it should be understood

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... Of late I have many problems with my insights. If I don’t use reason and just go by my experience alone I have no conflict between science and religion and between monism and dualism. But when I use reason I do have conflict in many of the insights and positions that I institutively take. The problem is one of reason and Language.

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

Here’s some speculative reasoning using the language of chaos.

 

I mentioned elsewhere, that human consciousness may be like a stroboscopic light that shines on a fast turning wheel. We may initially see the wheel as just a spinning blur. However, at specific stroboscopic frequencies, the wheel appears not to turn (or to turn very slowly) and we can discern every single detail of the wheel. Although this is in fact an optical illusion, it shows us every real detail of the structure of the wheel. Maybe, analogously, human consciousness can be understood as tuning the frequency of our consciousness to specific dynamical aspects of the universe.

 

Now imagine that the universe is not a wheel but a chaotically oscillating particle in absolute space. And suppose that while this unitary particle describes its infinite chaotic trajectory (at an almost infinite speed) it continuously dissipates and absorbs some elementary visible (audible?) stuff. A stroboscopic light will then reveal evolving fractal structures in the state-space of the oscillation. Different stroboscopic frequencies will tune in on qualitatively different structures. Low stroboscopic frequencies will show structures that are relatively stable or unchanging (i.e., living organisms and dead matter in reality). Higher frequencies will reveal more subtle (unstable) co-existing structures. These may be higher order structures within which lower level structures exist in an overall fractal design. At the top of this hierarchy must be the ‘original’ - and most subtle structure, which essentially encompasses everything.

 

If, in reality, our conscious perception can be compared to a stroboscopic (spot) light, then our perception of time may slow down at higher frequencies. At frequencies beyond the most subtle structure at the top, time may even appear to stop or vanish. Nothing happens and there will be only consciousness.

 

In this chaos analogy of reality, all that we can consciously perceive as structure (be it matter or more subtle forms of energy) exists simultaneously. In a way the frequency of our consciousness creates our specific conscious manifestation of reality. And all structures that we can consciously perceive (including the most subtle all encompassing structure at the top) are in fact no illusion but real aspects of the unitary chaotic oscillation in absolute space.

 

The above is, of course, essentially a dualist description of consciousness, in which we are stroboscopically viewing a chaotic oscillation from the outside. The real mystery seems to be that in reality our consciousness is somehow an integral part or aspect of the chaotic oscillation itself. Indeed, such a monistic assumption much complicates our reasoning about the nature of consciousness and human conscious experience.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Bart Happel 0]

 

I saw the cosmos in its mind boggling complexity. There were many universes, with different laws. ...

Dear Ravindran,

 

The term ‘universe’ is normally used to refer to the absolute whole that encompasses everything of reality. Yet we talk about ‘multiple universes’ here. Do you think that one absolute universe exists that has limits and that contains all these sub-universes? And do you think the number of sub-universes is finite or infinite?

 

When you say: “There were many universes with different laws”, I assume that you mean the empirical laws/regularities of physical/material nature. Can you indicate how these laws are different in different universes?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

and you are reasoning that reason is a problem! I have seen you trying to give reasons for every non-dualistic belief of yours and now you say you do not use reason.

 

You say you are like a scientist. Science is strongly based on reason. In the posts you have used the keyword scientific "reason" for all your experiences. Are you fighting some tremendous conflicts within yourself that seems to confuse you between science and experiences?

 

Dear Justin,

You are accurate in analysing me. I have a spiritual -material conflict. I am a Mystic by my experience and a scientist by training. I cannot rejcet science as I have seen it works. I cannot reject mysticism as I have a direct experience.

 

I have an insight of my conflict too . In mystical trance all conflict disappears. Conflict appears only in the emprical realm, conceived with reason, and expressed in language. I dont have the matrial - spiritual conflict in the mystical state. In that state I directly see that everything is spiritual - everything is conscious and are manifestatioin of conscoiousness only . The material world emerged from and is sustained in God's consciousness. And hense there is nothing else but God. Hense I am a monist spiritually. But as soon as I am in the normal emprical consciousness conflicts appear.

 

Of course I have a choice. I can reject emprical existence completely and choose to be pure Mystic. In that case My ideal choice should be to remain Silent. But If I choose to speak and discuss, then I need to put up with the duality, conflicts, and the nessary confusion(in the listerner's mind) that results out of using language which is essentially inadequate to capture the mystical truths.

 

Or I can be a pure Scientist and use reason and emprical proof exclusively. In that case I will have to reject the mystical experience and religion as irrationality of the faulty undeveloped or damaged brain - as the primitive thinking or of madness.

 

What I am actually atempting is to create a language , a system of reasoning in which both spiritual truths as well as scientific truths can be expressed coherently with out conflict and confusion. I dont know whether that is possible, right now. It is an attempt inspired by my mystical seeing that the emprical world is part of the Mystical reality and there there is no conflict. (This very earth is Goloka, if seen with a spiritual eye(insight) ) If that is the case why should we not able to state the truths of this world as well as of Goloka with a single coherent description?

 

That is the attempt.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[bija 0]

Dear Ravindran and Bart,

 

I wish to share my heart and conscience. In this world we are all opening and discovering what truth actually is. I call that sacred ground...please forgive my forwardness if any of my words have offended, and trampled that sacred ground of your hearts.

 

In the journey of jnana-bhakti-yoga, the inner is continually flowing and evolving with realization. Some things too sacred to mention, but I will share this (the reason for speaking to you both in this thread) - I also have that duality Ravindran that you talk about in your previous post. What I am finding in the journey of self discovery, is that Truth is so vast. And, in my walk in this earthly frame...surrender seems to be the call.

 

The 'Affectionate' may grace us all, in due course with what the Truth is. Personally there is no other way for me...but to surrender. If I offend, and trample sacred ground (the work of God within his dearmost)...truth will never come to me.

 

Please forgive my forthrightness in expressing the desire of my heart...Sri Krsna. And my sentiment driven approach to God.

 

your servant.

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

The term ‘universe’ is normally used to refer to the absolute whole that encompasses everything of reality. Yet we talk about ‘multiple universes’ here. Do you think that one absolute universe exists that has limits and that contains all these sub-universes? And do you think the number of sub-universes is finite or infinite?

 

When you say: “There were many universes with different laws”, I assume that you mean the empirical laws/regularities of physical/material nature. Can you indicate how these laws are different in different universes?

 

Kind regards, Bart

 

What I am saying here is out my Mystical seeing and not of scientific cosmology.

 

Multiple universes are all sub parts of one single totality . The single totality is governed by a coherent set of initial laws.

 

The Different (sub) universes - of which ours is just one of them - are all governed by different(possible fundamental local laws. By this I mean that there are universes with completely different fundamental forces ( baring one , which I think is gravity, but I am not sure) with differernt laws pertaining to them. There are actually a very huge possibility of these variations of forces and laws. The universe themselfe could be theoritically infinity but the type of universes , i.e., the possible laws governing them are finate but very huge. (Here I am not talking of the quantum mechanical interpretation of multiopple universes , where the forces and particle remainds the same but the possible way they actualise would be different. I am talking of the existence of entirely new particles and forces)

 

When I am saying the universes themselves could be infinity, I am making the assumption that the total mass of the universe is not finate. This I am assuming from the fact that the transcendental Consciousness could conjure up matter from it with out reducing the quantity of consciousness in any way. That is, the law of concervation seems to not obey when consciousness conjure up mater. Therefore consciousciousness could conjure up as much of universes as it pleases. However as to the property of the matter - or particles - thus conjured up seems to be limited as they are all conjured up with the finate Phonemes .(of Sanscrit like devine language) The rules of conjuring up is also limited in number . However like the language with finate Phonemes and gramitical rules, infinite words and sentences could be made, The number of universes could be infinite.

 

The limit of the total, cosmos is not spacial. In any case space has no meaning beyond the total cosmos - beyond the manifestation - itself as Space (and time ) is a product of the conjuring up and can only be foung with in the cosmos.

 

The limit is the limit if the entities and laws of conjuring .

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

 

Dear Ravindran and Bart,

 

I wish to share my heart and conscience. In this world we are all opening and discovering what truth actually is. I call that sacred ground...please forgive my forwardness if any of my words have offended, and trampled that sacred ground of your hearts.

 

In the journey of jnana-bhakti-yoga, the inner is continually flowing and evolving with realization. Some things too sacred to mention, but I will share this (the reason for speaking to you both in this thread) - I also have that duality Ravindran that you talk about in your previous post. What I am finding in the journey of self discovery, is that Truth is so vast. And, in my walk in this earthly frame...surrender seems to be the call.

 

The 'Affectionate' may grace us all, in due course with what the Truth is. Personally there is no other way for me...but to surrender. If I offend, and trample sacred ground (the work of God within his dearmost)...truth will never come to me.

 

Please forgive my forthrightness in expressing the desire of my heart...Sri Krsna. And my sentiment driven approach to God.

 

your servant.

 

Dear Bija,

You are not offensive. Spiritual realm is in fact very vast. It is true that only the grace of god can deliver the spiritual truth. And surrender to the devine is a condition to gain that grace. The entire mystical experience happened to me not because of any of my sadana. In fact nothing happened as long as I was struggling severly. But it happened in one day when I surrendered totally and unconditioally to goddess.

 

I know what you are saying and can only second it and vouch for it, from my own experience. God is certainly personal.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... The Different (sub) universes - of which ours is just one of them - are all governed by different(possible fundamental local laws. By this I mean that there are universes with completely different fundamental forces ( baring one , which I think is gravity, but I am not sure) with differernt laws pertaining to them. There are actually a very huge possibility of these variations of forces and laws. The universe themselfe could be theoritically infinity but the type of universes , i.e., the possible laws governing them are finate but very huge. (Here I am not talking of the quantum mechanical interpretation of multiopple universes , where the forces and particle remainds the same but the possible way they actualise would be different. I am talking of the existence of entirely new particles and forces) ...

 

I have another speculative idea. Perhaps you are familiar with so called ‘cellular automata’, which are related to the parallel rewriting systems (L-systems) which I discussed earlier in this thread. A well known example of a cellular automaton is Conway’s ‘Game of Life’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life). The universe of the Game of Life is an infinite two-dimensional grid of cells, each of which is in one of two possible states, on or off (live or dead). Every cell interacts with its eight neighboring cells according to a few simple rules:

 

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbours dies, as if by loneliness.

2. Any live cell with more than three live neighbours dies, as if by overcrowding.

3. Any live cell with two or three live neighbours lives, unchanged, to the next generation.

4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbours comes to life.

 

An initial pattern constitutes the 'seed' of the system. The iterative application of these rules simultaneously to every cell of the grid, results in evolving ‘life-like’ patterns in the grid.

 

(Gosper's glider gun)

 

Different seeds and/or interaction rules (laws of nature) will produce different universes. Our universe could be sparsely and continuously ‘seeded’ by universal consciousness. And, like Conway’s Game of Life, our consciousness may apply some appropriate set of simple rules to create the perceptual space time and matter of our cosmic manifestation.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

Dear bart,

That is possible.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Bart Happel 0]

 

That is possible.

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

Do you think there must be some ethereal medium for such a conscious (cellular) automaton to act on, or is consciousness itself the medium, i.e., do specific marginal (living) conscious regimes transform themselves? Could our cosmic manifestation be a kind of (persistant) dynamical interference pattern within our consciousness?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

Dear bart,

Going by direct experience Consciousness ityself seems to be the basic stuff the medium itself in which the disturbances waves and interference pattern develop that we call energy or matter. It is not the otherway round where universal conscoiusness is produced from material phinominon. Consciousness is the basic stuff. That is my position as a Mystic .

 

However as a Scientist I am not sure. It may well be the case that consciousness - individual as well as the universal - are the product of some physical phenominon. After all what I have seen is an experience where my brain was involvred. (I saw that certain dormant brain program unfolding associated with the experience) . I cannot be certain that if I dint have a body and brain . I would have experienced those things. I still cannot conclude rationally that my experience is inspite of my brain.

 

That is my rational self speaking. However my strong mystical intution is that I exist beyond my body and Transcendandal consciousbnerss is my abord if not my true state itself. My fear of death vanished as a result of this experience knowing that I am immortal and will be eternally present, though the body will go. But this is faith, not reason.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

[Sarva gattah 0]

 

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EqP3wT5lpa4

 

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Dear bart,

Going by direct experience Consciousness ityself seems to be the basic stuff the medium itself in which the disturbances waves and interference pattern develop that we call energy or matter. It is not the otherway round where universal conscoiusness is produced from material phinominon. Consciousness is the basic stuff. That is my position as a Mystic .

 

However as a Scientist I am not sure. It may well be the case that consciousness - individual as well as the universal - are the product of some physical phenominon. After all what I have seen is an experience where my brain was involvred. (I saw that certain dormant brain program unfolding associated with the experience) . I cannot be certain that if I dint have a body and brain . I would have experienced those things. I still cannot conclude rationally that my experience is inspite of my brain.

 

That is my rational self speaking. However my strong mystical intution is that I exist beyond my body and Transcendandal consciousbnerss is my abord if not my true state itself. My fear of death vanished as a result of this experience knowing that I am immortal and will be eternally present, though the body will go. But this is faith, not reason.

 

Regards,

K.Ravindran

 

Dear Ravindran,

 

A reasonable solution still seems possible within the general view that all of reality is a continuous, conscious chaotic oscillation in absolute space and time. This must be the simplest possible model of consciousness. Our ego and the world do not explicitly exist here; all that exists is all pervading consciousness.

 

Next, our cosmic manifestation is created as a discontinuous, 3-dimensional phase projection of the oscillation. It emerges as a conscious function of an interference pattern that is added to the original oscillation in the form of an extra frequency or sound. This interference can, for example, be like the harmonic distortion or intermodulation distortion in electronically amplified sound waves. Such interference can act as a filter that largely suppresses or overrules original consciousness. It may limit consciousness to the perception of only the exact discontinuous set of universal conscious states that constitutes (projects) our actual cosmic manifestation.

 

Local dynamical aspects of such a projection are (necessarily) a conscious function of the interference signal itself. This might be the basis of all fundamental local forces in our cosmic manifestation. Non-local gravity, however, must remain a function of the global chaotic attractor of original universal consciousness, which dictates the macroscopic evolution of our world. And what we perceive as time is strictly relative to the sequential order in which microscopic conscious events occur within our cosmic manifestation. It is not absolute time.

 

Finally, different interference patterns may be added to the universal oscillation simultaneously and different souls may be precisely ‘tuned’ to consciously perceive a specific interference pattern. If somehow our individual human ego is a (by)product of such a mechanism, then simply adding the inverse interference pattern or frequency to the universal oscillation, will cancel the interference and, consequently, our ego and our cosmic manifestation will disappear, and our soul may regain its original consciousness. The only remaining question is: What are souls?

 

I think this must be the solution Ravindran!

 

Kind regards, Bart

[Ravindran Kesavan 0]

Dear bart,

I am happy to see that you are perceiving a possibility of a solution now more clearly. As I said earlier, your model is a worthwhile model and you muct give it a try. If it explains the spiritual religious insights in terms of Chaos theory concepts that would be a true advancement both in science and religion.

 

As to soul, the official religious position is that it is the non material in the material body . It has the same essential nature as that of god the universal consciousness. It is consciousness but limited, in space time and causation (laws). There is consensus in almost all religion on its being spirit ( non material) and it is like god in substance. The difference between different religion and doctrines arises out of various explanetory schemas of the apparent difference between soul and god.

 

To deal with these varoious versons let me introduce a third term 'World' in the discourse. Thus there are three categories in the discourse : World, Soul and God. Different doctrines deal with these three categories differently. Monist hold that there are no three things, or two thgings but One. There are different versions of monism depending on which one is assumed to be the fundamental category, assepted as the real One.

Material monism assume that this one stuff is matter . Everything else is just byproducts of matter emerged out of matter. In this position Soul and god do not exist as only matter is a valied category. This is the position of Natural sciences of the present day.

 

Spiritual monism , Of which Advida is the prime example, assumes that the One real stuff is pure spirit- One transendental consciousness .(ie. god in religious language) World does not exist in a real sense and is only an illusion - the transcendantal spirit's dream. Soul is nothing but the Trasnscendantal spirit under its own illusion. This doctrin could be stated crisply in the form of the famous dictum:

" Bhrama satyam, Jagat mytya, Bhramo jivaihe na para" .

( Transcendantal Consciousness is real, World is an illusion, There is no difference between Transcendental consciousness and the soul)

This is clasical advida position.

 

God is dreaming . The dreaming god is the Soul. The dearm of god is the world.

 

Dualism assumes that there is an essential difference between god and soul , that of god and world and world and soul. Versons with in differ in details, regarding the nature of the tree categories, but all of them agree thyere is an unbridgable gap between god world and soul. Vaishna dualism assumes God and world are fundamentally different . Soul is a created thing just like world by god, and can never be or become god. All that the soul can aim for at the best, and souls must aim for this best status, is to seek the company of god and live in the gods world in servitude and devotion to god .

 

As to the world - god duality it is sharply stated in christianity that world is just the creation of god and is not god and hence cannot be worshiped . That is why idol worship, natrue worship, tree worship, animal worship are declared to be sin in Christianity, as idols and trees and animals are material and created things by god and not god himself. (If it were not the case , If monism is true, If stones and mountains , rivers, vegitation and creatures are all actually illysory appearence of god - if there is no duality between the creator and the creation - then one can worship anything as everything is god. )

 

In Vaishnava doctrin the world -god duality is fuzy and not that shapr as it is in Christianity. This is because, in Vaishnava philosoph which is not very unrelated from the general hinduism, World assumed to be the Body of god. Hense while there is still a difference between God proper (god's 'soul' - if you like) and god's body, this difference is not that sharp as in Christion dualism where apart from the fact that world is created by god there is nothing common between god and world - world has nothing to do with god. Hense a Vishnava justifies Idol worship Tulsi Worship and Cow Worship

because while world and its things are different from god , nonless thess it is god' s body and is devine. God's body cannot be dispised as something evil and low.

 

Whatever are the differences between religions, one thing is the common consenses amoung all of them : Soul is similer to god (If not one and the same ) and that both are forms of consciousness.

 

I am in total agreement on one thinmg you said long ago. Whatever the shape of the Unified theory of physics going to be , it must incorporate coinsciousness in it to explain everything. Otherwise it cannot human behaviour and the theory itself. Because theory is not a mechanically determined product. It is the product of conscoious mind whatever that may mean. Otherwise Stephen Howking's question that why we are able to make right theory of the universe cannot be answered. If everything is determined in the universe including the theory itself, Then the distinction between true theory and false thery makes no sense as all trherories are deterministically evolved from the universe and are equally valid.

 

Hense any attempt or any model that accounts for or contributive to our understanding of consciousness is a worthwild model presently. If your model could either explain consciousness itself of account for the consciousness-like behaviour of the material world through chaos theoritic formulation it could lead to a great leap in our knowledge.

 

One observation in your formulation needs attention philosophically . It seems you need more ontological categoreries than conscouusness alone . You need space and time apart from consciousness, as you suggest that the world is a chaotic occilation pattern in continuous space time. Even if you assume along with Einstein that space and time are fundamentally one , as time is just the fourth geometric dimention , there by reduce the space time split you still need two categories : Conscviousness and Space-time. And my intuitive hunch is that you would need a third that accounts for the occilation itself - the energy or particle or string whatever.

 

Enen if your theory is not monistic, in the sense of assuming only one ontological category, It could be still unifying mater and spirit and science and religion, and the variety of scientic theories wirth in physical sciences themself. Even if you have not reduced everything to one your model as it is still a worthwile.

 

 

Regards,

K. Ravindran

[Bart Happel 0]

 

... One observation in your formulation needs attention philosophically . It seems you need more ontological categoreries than consciousness alone . You need space and time apart from consciousness, as you suggest that the world is a chaotic occilation pattern in continuous space time. Even if you assume along with Einstein that space and time are fundamentally one , as time is just the fourth geometric dimension , there by reduce the space time split you still need two categories : Consciousness and Space-time. And my intuitive hunch is that you would need a third that accounts for the occilation itself - the energy or particle or string whatever. ...

 

A fundamental premise of any ontological argument must be that ‘change’ exists in reality. There is really no way around it; our world changes. It may then be argued that for change to exist, ‘time’ must exist at some level in reality. However, it can more conveniently be argued that time is merely a theoretical concept that we use to describe change with, and that, in fact, only change exists. Time is created by – or derived from change. Time is an epistemological concept and it doesn’t exist as an ontological dimension of reality.

 

So time doesn’t explicitly exist in reality. When I mentioned ‘time’ and ‘absolute time’ this was only to indicate the fundamental difference between the discontinuous (projected) changes in our perceived world and the continuous change of the chaotic oscillation in the reality that underlies our world. And the familiar notion of directionality of time (the arrow of time), is strictly related to the ‘irreversibility’ of all manifest change in our world.

 

When it is agreed that change exists and everything is consciousness, then change must be an aspect of universal consciousness. This requirement is obviously satisfied when universal consciousness is a (continuous) chaotic oscillation. Moreover, deterministic chaos is a formal process that can create infinite structure within a limited formal space. Such a structure is infinitely ‘folded in on itself’, thereby creating a fractal structure. In chaos theory this infinite quality of a fractal structure is referred to as an extra ‘broken dimension’. A fractal structure doesn’t have an integer dimensionality like 2, 3 or 4, but it has, for example, 3.5 dimensions. In reality, such a broken dimension may basically underly our sense of directional time.

 

Finally, all manifest change that we consciously perceive in our world occurs within three space dimensions. Therefore, the origin of our consciousness (and our changing world) must also exist in at least three dimensions or ‘degrees of freedom’. We perceive our 3-dimensional space as separate from the world and containing the world, but that is simply our brain’s interpretation of some actual degrees of freedom of consciousness. Universal consciousness must have degrees of freedom in order to act or behave. In this view, space is simply an aspect of universal consciousness; consciousness has ‘spatial awareness’. Monism is preserved.

 

Kind regards, bart

[Bart Happel 0]

Dear Ravindran,

 

I think it can be concluded that many of your ideas and visions of advanced spiritual realms, may have a formal analogy within a ‘chaos theoretical model of reality’. I.e., a chaos model of reality seems to be largely compatible with your mystical experiences. We agree on the possibility of a variety of phenomena, including: memory of organic evolution; different co-evolving sub-universes; the program (software) of marginal life; the fundamental conscious nature of everything; and even the absence of time and space in reality.

 

Perhaps most importantly; a chaos model of consciousness and reality seems to be compatible with a monistic religious view of reality, as well as with the scientific theories of quantum mechanical reality and general relativistic reality.

 

Of course, a final ontological question must be: What sustains the chaotic oscillation? Where does ‘conscious chaos’ come from? I can only argue that it is very likely that universal consciousness incorporates a dynamical principle similar to formal deterministic chaos, exactly because chaos is extremely common in our world and it is extremely simple and infinitely creative. Hence, it seems reasonable to assume that a (subtle) form of chaos must be a basic dynamical quality of universal consciousness (God).

 

Although chaos may underlie many aspects of conscious experience, I don’t think it can be known where ‘universal conscious chaos’ ultimately comes from. Srila Sridhar Maharaj stated this as follows: “Not only is He a magician, but the Super-magician. He is not merely the kind of magician that is within our experience.” (thanks Bija ).

 

Kind regards, bart