MAYAVADIS,hear hear.

[raghu]

 

An alternative version of Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate", which translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity.This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. (from Wikipedia)

 

Again, you are mistaken. Possibly you may not have a true scientific background which is why you misunderstood the Wikipedia entry. The "plurality" referred to her is not "plurality of entities" (as is often the concern of Advaitins trying to explain away the reality of the world we live in), but rather plurality of unfounded assumptions.

 

 

So it seems we are both correct. However, starting out from the doctrine that all material perception is illusory, which is generally accepted on this forum by both dualists and monists, monism is the best solution because monism, obviously, makes the least assumptions about reality and postulates the fewest entities.

 

Advaita makes more assumptions about reality, and thus does not satisfy the criteria of simplicity when explaining existence.

 

Examples:

 

1) The world around us is not real. This runs contrary to our experience. A simpler point of view would be to accept the reality of the world in which we live, and by extension, the reality of our perceptions. If we assume that this is all false, then even our conjecturing that it is all false is itself false, which leads to an infinite regress.

 

2) We are all the same Brahman. Again, this runs contrary to our experience as we have different life experiences. We do not all get damnation or salvation at the same time, for example.

 

3) Brahman alone exists.

 

4) Maya neither exists nor does not exist. Maya has to exist in order to explain how this Brahman supposedly fell under illusion. If the illusory world is not real, then some agent must be postulated to explain the illusion. If that agent (maya) itself is not real, then from whence the illusion? An entity that neither exists nor does not exist is illogical.

 

5) Vedas can provide knowledge about Brahman, although Vedas do not exist.

 

In fact there are so many assumptions that Advaitins have to make due to their accepting the doctrine of maya that it is not possible to get to every one of them here. Tattvavadis by contrast accept only one assumption - that the Vedas are apaurusheya (which Advaitins also except). Everything else in Tattvavada follows from that.

[krohit]

once there was an intense discussion going on between some great scholars, along with swami vivekanand and sri ramkrishna paramhamsa about what is better, dvaita or advaita.

 

it went on for many hours and after a long time ramkrishna paramhamsa said, "there are two doors to a house. one is the main entrance another is a back entrance. as long as one gets into a house, why care about how did that person enter in?"

 

i think its high time vaishnavas stop unnecessarily bashing mayavadis. i don't see a point. sri sankaracharya wrote devotional hymns for sri narayana...then why are vaishnava brothers so against him?

 

i would really like to know why this hate?

 

and for the so called "puritans", people can believe in advaita vedanta and worship vishnu or krishna at the same time.

[primate]

 

Again, you are mistaken. Possibly you may not have a true scientific background which is why you misunderstood the Wikipedia entry. The "plurality" referred to her is not "plurality of entities" (as is often the concern of Advaitins trying to explain away the reality of the world we live in), but rather plurality of unfounded assumptions.

 

 

 

Advaita makes more assumptions about reality, and thus does not satisfy the criteria of simplicity when explaining existence. ...

 

Your theory (if you have one) would make the assumption that an infinite number of atomic entities exist, which through their collective interactions make up the entire perceived universe, including life and individual consciousness, or it would make the extra assumption that there is a god that creates and maintains life and/or individual consciousness. My theory assumes that only one atomic entity exists: consciousness, which has a finite number of (complex) aspects that account for our individual consciousness and the entire 'illusion' we call the material universe. So my theory makes fewer assumptions and postulates less entities. Thus my theory is better. Q.E.D.

[primate]

 

once there was an intense discussion going on between some great scholars, along with swami vivekanand and sri ramkrishna paramhamsa about what is better, dvaita or advaita.

 

it went on for many hours and after a long time ramkrishna paramhamsa said, "there are two doors to a house. one is the main entrance another is a back entrance. as long as one gets into a house, why care about how did that person enter in?"

 

i think its high time vaishnavas stop unnecessarily bashing mayavadis. i don't see a point. sri sankaracharya wrote devotional hymns for sri narayana...then why are vaishnava brothers so against him?

 

i would really like to know why this hate?

 

and for the so called "puritans", people can believe in advaita vedanta and worship vishnu or krishna at the same time.

But I'm quite sure there is no hatred here.

[raghu]

 

Your theory (if you have one) would make the assumption

 

I do not believe I have postulated any theory. I merely pointed out the flawed premise upon which yours is based.

 

 

that an infinite number of atomic entities exist, which through their collective interactions make up the entire perceived universe, including life and individual consciousness, or it would make the extra assumption that there is a god that creates and maintains life and/or individual consciousness. My theory assumes that only one atomic entity exists: consciousness, which has a finite number of (complex) aspects that account for our individual consciousness and the entire 'illusion' we call the material universe. So my theory makes fewer assumptions and postulates less entities. Thus my theory is better. Q.E.D.

 

Again, your assumption about singular consciousness runs contrary to common experience, and is prima facie absurd. By ordinary experience we can appreciate that (1) we are each conscious living entities, and that (2) we are not the same conscious living entity. You do not know what I am thinking or what I will do or write, for example. We can logically infer that we are two different entities. To say that we are somehow connected in any way is itself an assumption not based on any evidence obtained via sensory perception or logical inference. It requires additional evidence to substantiate, which you do not have.

 

Furthermore, your theory which holds that "illusion" is another aspect of this singular conscious living entity begs the question. From whence does this illusion come? Brahman. And who is put into illusion? Brahman. So it is in Brahman's nature to be both the source of illusion and that which is deluded by it? A singular, self-deluding entity does not follow from direct observation nor from logical inference. Such a thing again requires more assumptions to accept. And once again, if it is all illusion anyway, then nothing within it is real including this very conversation regarding spirituality and metaphysics. Which then begs the question of why even talk about it in the first place.

 

If a self-deluding Brahman is easy for you to accept, why not just accept the possibility that you are merely deluding yourself?

[raghu]

 

once there was an intense discussion going on between some great scholars, along with swami vivekanand and sri ramkrishna paramhamsa about what is better, dvaita or advaita.

 

it went on for many hours and after a long time ramkrishna paramhamsa said, "there are two doors to a house. one is the main entrance another is a back entrance. as long as one gets into a house, why care about how did that person enter in?"

 

If you are trying to fly to Mumbai, what difference does it make whether you buy a ticket for Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, or some other destination? The mere fact that you are flying means you will eventually end up in Mumbai, right?

 

And if someone dares to suggest that your ticket to Chennai will not take you to Mumbai, then ask him to put aside his hatred of your path and just accept that we are all going to the same place despite our different plane tickets.

[primate]

 

I do not believe I have postulated any theory. I merely pointed out the flawed premise upon which yours is based.

 

 

 

Again, your assumption about singular consciousness runs contrary to common experience, and is prima facie absurd. By ordinary experience we can appreciate that (1) we are each conscious living entities, and that (2) we are not the same conscious living entity. You do not know what I am thinking or what I will do or write, for example. We can logically infer that we are two different entities. To say that we are somehow connected in any way is itself an assumption not based on any evidence obtained via sensory perception or logical inference. It requires additional evidence to substantiate, which you do not have.

 

Furthermore, your theory which holds that "illusion" is another aspect of this singular conscious living entity begs the question. From whence does this illusion come? Brahman. And who is put into illusion? Brahman. So it is in Brahman's nature to be both the source of illusion and that which is deluded by it? A singular, self-deluding entity does not follow from direct observation nor from logical inference. Such a thing again requires more assumptions to accept. And once again, if it is all illusion anyway, then nothing within it is real including this very conversation regarding spirituality and metaphysics. Which then begs the question of why even talk about it in the first place.

 

If a self-deluding Brahman is easy for you to accept, why not just accept the possibility that you are merely deluding yourself?

Indeed a few good questions for me to contemplate, before answering without sacrificing clarity and conciseness..

 

But does this mean you accept my proof that monism is, in principle, a better scientific theory than dualism?

[raghu]

 

But does this mean you accept my proof that monism is, in principle, a better scientific theory than dualism?

 

Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse?

[primate]

 

Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse?

No, I'm not joking. Up to now I have consistently refuted your arguments against my original claim that monism is an inherently simpler and thus scientifically more attractive theory than dualism. So, given that I will be able to answer your questions without introducing many more assumptions and/or entities, would you accept my basic argumentation? I must know this, because if you don’t it would be a waste of time to answer your questions and explain to you the details of a possible monistic model of reality..

[chandu_69]

 

my original claim that monism is an inherently simpler and thus scientifically more attractive theory than dualism.

 

While you continue discussions with raghu i am just curious to know whether you see some parallel between monism and "sufi islam".

[primate]

 

While you continue discussions with raghu i am just curious to know whether you see some parallel between monism and "sufi islam".

I don’t think I’m the most qualified person to answer your question, but as far as some Sufi mystics (apparently through Buddhist influences) substituted the ‘realm of Truth’ for Allah and emphasized self-annihilation as the path to understanding reality, there clearly are parallels with extreme monist ideologies (such as Buddhism).

[theist]

 

I don’t think I’m the most qualified person to answer your question, but as far as some Sufi mystics (apparently through Buddhist influences) substituted the ‘realm of Truth’ for Allah and emphasized self-annihilation as the path to understanding reality, there clearly are parallels with extreme monist ideologies (such as Buddhism).

 

 

I believe Sufis are impersonalists.

[raghu]

 

No, I'm not joking. Up to now I have consistently refuted your arguments against my original claim that monism is an inherently simpler and thus scientifically more attractive theory than dualism.

 

What color is the sky in your world, Primate?

[Justin]

 

But does this mean you accept my proof that monism is, in principle, a better scientific theory than dualism?

It is quackery in the guise of a 'scientific theory'. This proof is another one of the several thousands of attempts by monists who grasp at straws of science to mask their weak philosophy as 'scientific'

[primate]

 

It is quackery in the guise of a 'scientific theory'. This proof is another one of the several thousands of attempts by monists who grasp at straws of science to mask their weak philosophy as 'scientific'

Justin, I don’t think you understand this correctly. It’s really quite simple. The ‘scientific method’ would consider a theory that postulates only one entity to explain an observed phenomenon to be a better theory than a theory that needs two or more entities to explain the same observed phenomenon, provided that both theories fully explain the observed phenomenon. Thus, a monist theory would be considered better than a dualist theory, provided that both theories fully explain human conscious experience. You simply can’t disagree with that. Yet, this is what the foregoing discussion was all about..

[Justin]

 

Justin, I don’t think you understand this correctly. It’s really quite simple. The ‘scientific method’ would consider a theory that postulates only one entity to explain an observed phenomenon to be a better theory than a theory that needs two or more entities to explain the same observed phenomenon, provided that both theories fully explain the observed phenomenon. Thus, a monist theory would be considered better than a dualist theory, provided that both theories fully explain human conscious experience. You simply can’t disagree with that. Yet, this is what the foregoing discussion was all about..

Primate, science has not yet defined consciousness. No one in this world has any knowledge of consciousness except as described by the scriptures. No scientist has any evidence or an inkling of consciousness to even explain it using a model. Models can be drawn to suit ones purpose and can be twisted any which way you want it to be. There is no point in trying to describe 'scientifically' something that you have absolutely no idea about.

[primate]

 

Primate, science has not yet defined consciousness. No one in this world has any knowledge of consciousness except as described by the scriptures. No scientist has any evidence or an inkling of consciousness to even explain it using a model. Models can be drawn to suit ones purpose and can be twisted any which way you want it to be. There is no point in trying to describe 'scientifically' something that you have absolutely no idea about.

I'm talking about human conscious experience. And I'm an expert on that.

[raghu]

 

I'm talking about human conscious experience. And I'm an expert on that.

 

Primate, since you have "scientifically" determined that we are all One, will you kindly hand over all of your cash, credit cards, and other valuable possessions to me? After all, you believe we are both One, so that should not be a problem for you, right?

[primate]

What more do you want raghu? I think it’s clear that either you don’t understand the simple point I made, or your psyche is incapable of accepting the fact that you were wrong. Anyway, you don’t seem to be interested in truth. Too bad. End of discussion. And please stop spamming the topic. All the best.

[raghu]

 

What more do you want raghu? I think it’s clear that either you don’t understand the simple point I made, or your psyche is incapable of accepting the fact that you were wrong. Anyway, you don’t seem to be interested in truth. Too bad. End of discussion. And please stop spamming the topic. All the best.

 

Does this mean you won't be sending me your money anytime soon? I do accept check if that makes it convenient.

 

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

[Justin]

 

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

His model seems to be broken, thats why

[tackleberry]

 

Does this mean you won't be sending me your money anytime soon? I do accept check if that makes it convenient.

 

Why are you drawing distinctions between us when we are all ONE?

 

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

[chandu_69]

 

Primate, since you have "scientifically" determined that we are all One, will you kindly hand over all of your cash, credit cards, and other valuable possessions to me? After all, you believe we are both One, so that should not be a problem for you, right?

 

Hmmm, i will remember this point and the flight analogy you made in the earlier pages.

 

primate has already abandoned his scientific thing and that means you wont be getting anything from him:D.

[primate]

 

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

The way I see oneness is that all ‘individual conscious experience’ originates from - and is maintained by a single atomic conscious entity. Possible ‘models’ that may provide evidence in favor of such a hypothesis exist in mathematical chaos theory. Extremely simple nonlinear dynamical systems can produce complex infinite self-similar structures or ‘fractal’ structures, in which every part of the structure resembles or represents the whole. The entire system may be just a single oscillating point in a ‘state-space’. It can then be assumed that this original point is conscious of all its complex dynamical aspects, and that our individual consciousness is maintained as a self-similar partial form of consciousness.

 

Of course such a model cannot provide absolute proof of oneness. Interestingly, however, classical chaotic systems can model some quantum-mechanical systems, suggesting that at the most fundamental level of material reality everything is one.

 

I don’t expect you to understand all this, but hopefully it gives you some idea of the direction that I’m thinking in. Perhaps chaotic systems can ultimately serve as a useful analogy or framework to understand some puzzling and controversial concepts from scripture. If such a metaphor would have been available when the Vedas where compiled, its authors just might have used it.

[Justin]

 

Could it be that advaitins mean oneness in the sense of mathematical equality? We don't say rice=rice or wheat=wheat, but if they both weigh 3 kg, we equate rice and wheat on the basis of a common factor, weight in this case. Does it not follow that only distinct entities can be equated on a common factor? So wouldn't the advaitin argue that Brahman and Jiva are one in this way, and not in the rice=rice sense? Just speculating, like to hear your thoughts on this.

Their concept of oneness is rice=every other grain. Wheat is the ego. We goofs think it is wheat. Once Wheat vanishes you will discover that it was originally rice. It was only because of your foolishness you were thinking it was wheat, barley, oats, maida, etc. Once their stupidity evaporates and they obtain realization they will find that they cannot even put a certain attribute such as weight, width etc. to the rice (because it is nirguna). Whats even worse is they do not even call it 'rice' after their pigheadedness dissolves because they cannot even describe what it is. So they spin it up as anirvachInIya (cannot express THAT).

In order to explain this unreasonable philosophy they take support of quackery and cloak it in analogies (rice is not wheat but 3 kgs is the common factor), or develop illogical 'scientific models', or use word jugglery such as real-unreal, etc