======== Newsgroups: alt.atheism Subject: Re: VEDANTA From: Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu dasa) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:47:44 GMT Smedley wrote: >Jahnu@wineasy.se (Jahnu dasa) wrote: Let me first thank you for your thoughtful comments even though I seem to detect in them a slightly preconceived prejudism towards any spiritual approach to reality. >>Real knowledge must describe all aspects of reality. >No, Real knowledge of all aspects of reality must describe >all aspects of reality. One can have real knowledge of a specific >thing. But that's not considered real knowledge according to Vedanta. Real knowledge means to understand the whole picture, not just a part of it. For example, an ant crawling on my arm could be said to have more specific knowledge of my arm than I have. I has so to speak a more in depth view of my arm. The ant has, to a larger degree than I, a more detailed picture of the hairs growing on my arm and all the cracks and pores of the skin. Still the ant is in ignorance because it's knowledge is limited. By it's narrow outlook it is prevented from seeing the real picture, namely that it is crawling on an arm which is attached to a living organism which is far superior to itself. >>According to everyone's experience, there are three features of >>reality; the knower, the known and knowledge - or in modern terms; >>the observer, that which is observed, and the process of observation. >>Vedanta provides a working model to scientifically study these three >>aspects of reality. >What do you mean by "scientifically"? I ask because I happen >to know that your definition of "philosophy" and "religion" and >"atheism" differ from everyone elses here, so its a good bet that >you probably have a different definition of "science" as well. I'm not completely sure, but I think the word science comes from Greek and denotes the process by which one may know something. >>Any science that does not scientifically describe >>total reality, is but ignorance only, and nothing else. >Well, that makes no sense. Earlier this year I conducted a >scientific experiement which showed that infants less than 4.5 months >old attend to boundary lines between objects. My experiement does >not describe all of reality, yet we know understand something that >we did not understand before. I knew that before. I knew that many years ago simply by observing the behavior of my own kids. Thus I know this regardless of the experiments you have performed. Your experiement has simply confirmed what I already knew. Still this specialized knowledge is not considered real knowledge according to Bhagavad Gita. I will explain why in the following. > Thus, my knowledge increased and >my ignorance decreased. No your ignorance has not decreased. You still don't know who you are, why you are here, what is the real purpose of human life and where you are going after death. As long as we don't know this we are in ignorance regardless of our expertise in the material field. >But, I guess you have a different definition of ignorace and knowledge >too, right? Right. Does that upset you? > Let me guess, knowledge is that which is related to >the teachings of Krishna. Everything else is ignorace? Well sort of. Please allow me to explain. Krishna explains in Bhagavad Gita that everything in existence must be understood in terms of the three modes of material nature, goodness, passion and ignorance. Everything in nature is a manifestation of a mixture of these three modes, and can be analyzed scientifically according to these three modes. Just like all colors are a manifestation of yellow, red and blue in various compounds so material nature is a manifestation of the three modes of goodness, passion and ignorance. Thus there is knowledge in the mode of goodness, knowledge in the mode of passion, and knowledge in the mode of ignorance. There is also happiness in the mode of goodness, happiness in the mode of passion and happiness in the mode of ignorance, as there is determination, charity, activity, religion, food, austerity etc. in these three modes. There is everything in these three modes and beyond that there is transcendence, which is a state of pure conscoiusness beyond the contamination of the three modes of material nature. This is elaborately and scientifically described in the Vedic litterature and foremost in the Bhagavad Gita, which was spoken by God Himself 5000 years ago. So knowledge has to be analyzed in terms of these three modes of nature. Roughly speaking knowledge in the mode of goodness means to see the oneness of all living entities. In other words one sees the soul within everybody. The soul within all living entities - regardless of whether it appears in a human, animal, plant or fish body, has the same potential of eternality, knowledge and bliss. It is the same eternal atomic spark of consciousness within all living organisms, but according to the external material body - consisting of gross and subtle body - the original pure consiousness of the soul will be allowed to manifest in various degrees. This will be known in the mode of goodness. Knowledge in the mode of passion means to see only the external material body of a living entity. In the mode of passion one will judge everybody according to the material body in which they appear. Knowledge in the mode of ignorance means to regard one's work as the all in all and to be blind to the need of self realization. Like a tennis player may have very detailed knowledge of how to serve and hit the ball and all that. So he has some knowledge, but because that knowledge is limited and will not free him from birth and death it is considered knowledge in the mode of ignorance. Similarly a scientist may know so many things within his specific field. He may know everything about banana flies, how they eat, sleep mate and defend, or another scientist may know everything about planets and cosmos, but such narrow minded knowledge which is blind to self realization is said to be in the mode of ignorance. >>The current Western system of Scientism, empiricism, materialism or >>whatever, does not define reality in scientific terms, in that it only >>deals with two aspects of reality - that which is observed and the >>process of observation, completely neglecting the most vital part - >>the observer. >What about the study of perception? That's what I am talking about. > Psychology? Psychophysics? That's study of perception? I thought they merely studied chemical reactions. Please tell me what experiments within those fields of studies have led to the widespread idea that perception is merely a result of some neuro-chemical reactions in the brain. >I have learned alot about observers in my field of research. So what did you learn? Did you learn why some people suffer more than others. Why some are ugly and some pretty? Why some are rich and some poor? Why some are sick and some healthy? These are different states of different observers. Did you learn any of that? >>According to Scientism all of reality can be explained in terms of >>matter, >Scientism? Whats that? And why do they ignore energy? Scientism is the belief system that holds that all phenomena can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and that these laws are valid all over the universe. They ignore the energy of consiousness, since they can't say anything scientific about it. Why, I don't know. Maybe because mainstream material scientists are just a bunch of puffed up and arrogant fools with no real desire to understand reality as it is. Maybe because they are afraid of loosing huge goverment grants if they don't conform. You want to hear something more of that? I have documentations that shows how scientists lost their job because they didn't conform and wanted to publish, say, findings that contradicted the current idea of evolution propagated by the scientific community. >>but Scientism fails to explain consciousness in terms of >>matter, and refuses to accept any other explanation, which gives a >>more coherent description of reality, like for example Vedanta. >Scientists refuse to explain conciousness in any way for which there >is no evidence. Evidence according to whom and whose premises? Isn't it quite stupid and narrow minded to fanatically maintain the idea that consiousness must be proven according to material science? What if consiousness is not a material phenomenon. How then can there be any material evidence for it? Another thing is that within modern science there are many things that are accepted without physical or even mathematical evidence. Where is the physical evidence supporting evolution? What is the evidence for the square root of 1? Where is the evidence for the singularity, the Big Bang? Where is the evidence that the same physical laws apply all over the universe? > I am a psychologist. My main goal is to understand >conciousness. Really? Then I'd advice you to start with your own consiousness. You could for example study your own consciousness and see what happens to it if you become a vegetarian, or if you begin to chant the Hare Krishna mantra on a regular basis. What's the use of studying the consiousness of others? It will never be complete. You can never really have access to the experience of others. The single most fundamental aspect of your existence is your own experience of it. Why not study that? > I *believe* that conciousness is an emergent property >of the complexity of our brains. I am not certain of this however. >I really don't know. No one knows. How do you know that nobody knows? > Oh, except the Krishna's right? Do I detect a slight derogatory tone? Could it be that you are simply being prejudised. Are you a priori ruling out any possibility of the truth of Krishna's words? Without even any investigation? Do you consider that a scientific approach for understanding reality as it is? >>Vedanta operates on the premise, that any knowledge that does not >>distinguish between the observer and the observed, and the process of >>observation, is not knowledge but ignorance. >As far as i know, ALL science does this. I study infant perception. >I am an observer, oberserving another observer, observing a material >display. I never mix the three of us up. How do you not mix the three up if you operate on the preconceived notion that the process of observation is a material phenomenon? Science simply studies matter, that's all. They have no concept of the observer being an entity fundamentally distinct from matter. >>This also translates into matter and spirit. The observer is spirit >>and that which is observed is matter... according to Scientism there >>is no distinction between the knower, and that which is known, both >>are considered matter in that system. >No, I don't consider the term "matter" or "spirit" at all in my >experiments. So what's the use of your studies? You simply study the ever changing nature of matter and then you die without a clue as to what was the use of it all. > I study how people perceive and think about the world. What's the use of that? Can you relieve people from their suffering? Does your studies lead to any tangible results towards that end? Otherwise what's the use of your mental speculation? >Matter and spirit are pretty irrelevant. How do you figure that? Please tell me how it is irrelevant? Without knowledge of the distinction between these two energies you'll simply suffer life after life, and so will anyone following in your foot steps. This is clearly stated in the Upanishads. >>In Vedanta the knower is considered spirit, and that which is known >>can be either matter or spirit. The process of knowledge can be either >>spiritual or material according to what it is absorbed in. >Ok fine, in my experiement call me the spirit call the baby (which is >known) the spirit and call the display (which is known by the baby) >matter. Happy now? Does it matter? >>Scientism operates on the premise that there is no distinction between >>the knower and that which is known >Show me the science textbook where you read that! Don't they say that both the knower - the experiensor - and that which is known - nature - are both a conglomeration of material interaction, and that they both are guided by the same physical laws? >>These are severe self afflicted limitations, designed only to block >>any real contact with reality. >Desinged by who? The anti-Krishna conspiracy? Aren't you getting a little emotional here? >>It is self imposed illusion, and >>nothing more. It is very wonderous how Scientism has been able to fool >>the world. Of course in cosmic history the 200 hundred years of >>Scientism, is merely an insignificant passage of time, a short >>nightmarish flickering of the mind. >The history of science started more than 200 years ago! 200 or 300, who cares? The fact is that it is an entity with a very short experience in the history of humanity. The religious experience of man, on the contrary, goes back into time immemorial. Do you think that people have been discussing God for thousands and millions of years if there were not something to it? Do you think that all the people of the world had nothing better to do for thousands of years than to discuss and believe in God if there was not something to it?...that everybody is simply a bunch of fools and rascals, except a small cult of modern people whose only contribution to the planet has been to design a culture which is simply ruining the world and making everyone confused and unhappy? Is that it? And do you think that the only religious conception of God was fostered by some primitive tribes in the dessert of Palestine 2000 years ago? That this is the only valid account of God? What about the Vedic culture, which predates Christianity with millions of years, and which has produced the largest and most sophisticated body of knowledge - the Vedas - known to mankind? Only a fool with absolute no knowledge would think that the Vedas are primitive and unscientific. Many people here make statements to that effect without even taking the trouble to chech out the Vedas and their teachings. Is that the scientific approach? Is that your understanding of science? To simply disregard - a priori - the documents of the ancient sages and simply speculate your brains out? >Oh well, ran out of time to respond to you... >It was fun though. Yes, I also think so. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to relate the glorious message of the Vedas. -Jahnu http://webcom.com/~ara/col/vv.html http://www.users.wineasy.se/storm/ http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/hkindex.html