Soul is the reflection of our Spirit-atma in 5 elements.
[QUOTE=Seeker33;43904]Soul is the reflection of our Spirit-atma in 5 elements.[/QUOTE]
I tend to disagree with this unorthodox definition, which casts more obscurity than clarity. The terms Soul-Spirit-Atma are rather commonly used as synonyms of eachother. This definition would imply that the term “soul” is restricted in its meaning to the incarnated soul. For me, the Soul of God or the Universe is Atma, the individual souls are jivatmas (which in fact are also the one Atma, they just don’t know it). The reflection of the Soul/spirit/atma in the 5 elements is the living being. That said, I am not interested in semantics.
The problem with your hypothesis that I see is that it doesn’t explain why certain photon souls evolve into higher aggregates and others remain embedded in rocks for billions of years. Maybe I misunderstand.
According to Vedanta existence has two aspects, Shiva and Shakti also described as the higher aspect of the Godsoul that dwells in us (Purusha) and the lower aspect of energetic and material illusionary world (Maya). This is a kind of dualist view with a Godsoul as knower of the field on the one hand and its substrate of expression, the field that is known by the Godsoul, on the other hand.
I don’t know if you are aware of Samkhya philosophy, which was adopted by Vedanta, but in a modified form. The Samkhya philosophers apparently conducted the same kind of inquiry that you have done here. They were not able to identify a single entity that would be considered the ultimate source of existence. They concluded that there are two primary entities, Purusa and Prakriti, which are essentially the same as Siva and Sakti. Prakriti is the name given to the origin of the material universe, consisting of the substances of sattva, rajas, and tamas, which undergo transformation into all of the various manifestations of material nature. Purusa is defined partially as not consisting of the gunas (sattva, rajas, and tamas), and not undergoing transformation. Later, the theory of Brahman came along, in which Purusa and Prakriti were considered to be two aspects of Brahman, Saguna Brahman (having attributes ) and Nirguna Brahman (not having attributes). Samkhya did not accept the concept of Brahman.
From a Samkhya perspective, your hypothesis would have to be considered as containing a fundamental error, in that the soul undergoes transformation, which by definition would mean that it consists of Prakriti, and not Purusa.
The concept of the “self” in Samkhya is an individual Purusa that has come into contact with Prakriti. The essence of Purusa is described as being that of light, but since light is clearly material in nature, in this sense light is clearly a metaphor. Some say it means consiousness, others say it means intelligence. I personally go with intelligence.
Samkhya also contains a concept of a subtle body, that is a body that is not physical but which is also not the Purusa. It is the subtle body that transmigrates from one physical body to another. I think this has a parallel to the information content that you describe, and could be considered the “soul” of the individual, as opposed to the self, which is the intelligence, and which is distinguished from information or experience and the means of acquiring and processing it.
[QUOTE=Asuri;43916]The problem with your hypothesis that I see is that it doesn’t explain why certain photon souls evolve into higher aggregates and others remain embedded in rocks for billions of years. Maybe I misunderstand.
I don’t know if you are aware of Samkhya philosophy, which was adopted by Vedanta, but in a modified form. The Samkhya philosophers apparently conducted the same kind of inquiry that you have done here. They were not able to identify a single entity that would be considered the ultimate source of existence. They concluded that there are two primary entities, Purusa and Prakriti, which are essentially the same as Siva and Sakti. Prakriti is the name given to the origin of the material universe, consisting of the substances of sattva, rajas, and tamas, which undergo transformation into all of the various manifestations of material nature. Purusa is defined partially as not consisting of the gunas (sattva, rajas, and tamas), and not undergoing transformation. Later, the theory of Brahman came along, in which Purusa and Prakriti were considered to be two aspects of Brahman, Saguna Brahman (having attributes ) and Nirguna Brahman (not having attributes). Samkhya did not accept the concept of Brahman.
From a Samkhya perspective, your hypothesis would have to be considered as containing a fundamental error, in that the soul undergoes transformation, which by definition would mean that it consists of Prakriti, and not Purusa.
The concept of the “self” in Samkhya is an individual Purusa that has come into contact with Prakriti. The essence of Purusa is described as being that of light, but since light is clearly material in nature, in this sense light is clearly a metaphor. Some say it means consiousness, others say it means intelligence. I personally go with intelligence.
Samkhya also contains a concept of a subtle body, that is a body that is not physical but which is also not the Purusa. It is the subtle body that transmigrates from one physical body to another. I think this has a parallel to the information content that you describe, and could be considered the “soul” of the individual, as opposed to the self, which is the intelligence, and which is distinguished from information or experience and the means of acquiring and processing it.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for your contribution. The insights of Samkhya (which I am not unfamiliar with) resonate with some further insights I had on this topic. In my article the tetrahedron of jnana (follow hyperlink), I describe how neither intelligence, nor energy nor consciousness nor knowledge taken alone can describe existence, Brahman or the Soul if you wish to call it so, but that these four taken together in a synergistic way give an approximation, which sheds some light on the subject. That said, I do accept the notion of Brahman; I’m an adept of Yoga rather than Samkhya.
It is very tempting to compare scientific phenomena with philosophical principles, especially from Vedanta. In our conditioned minds, there is a ‘proven beyond doubt’ stamp over the scientifc ‘truth’, while Vedantic principles, by themselves varied, appear speculative. So, at times, when the two truths appear similar or identical, we assume that Vedantic principles are authenticated by science. Many optimists hope to see one day science validating all that Vedanta says.
But there are two fundamental problems. Vedantic constructs are top-down, from holistic one to many derivatives; while scientifc approach is bottom-up, from many validated pieces to a unified theory. Apparently, on one hand, if any of the holistic principles is refuted all the derivatives collapse; and in the scientific unified theory one can never be sure that ALL pieces are present or conflicts among the pieces are fully resolved.
The other problem is more basic. Scientific validations are based on observations designed and crafted to be as objective as possible, by weeding out biases and undue influences. While, Vedantic principles are products of subjective observation made by very highly enabled and calibrated perceptive abilities. Science offers proof through experiment repeated externally and explains exceptions if any. Vedantic principles can only be internally experienced by those seeking proof.
Hence, a ‘photon soul’ is a misnomer. While photon as a phenomenon is subject to the laws of birth, existence and entropy; soul as a concept is beyond such term of life. On the scale of time sufficiently long, even photons embedded in rock will change. But a soul does not.
Speaking about ‘soul’ there is a lot to debate. But, leaving aside the intellectual arguments, as a practitioner I understand why Purusha, Ishvara and Soul are the same and yet need such different terms to address.
From where I am as a human being, I am already caught up in the interplay of Prakriti and Purusha and constrained by guna-dominant perception. How do I suddenly realiza Purusha which is so subtle and beyond guna? So, I have to evolve inch by inch. My first discovery is my own five koshas - gross to progressively subtle, with the subtlest part at the core, I call it ‘soul’. Soul is a fragment of Purusha principle, but because it appears as ‘many’ I need a different word. My next discovery is a uniform presence of souls and bodies in everything and realization that the souls are virtually one, so I call that ‘one’ Ishvara. Ishvara too is Purusha principle, but a perceivable aspect, hence I need a different word. Finally, I am capable of discovering the imperceptible, guna-less Purusha. By then I have acquired wisdom why the three are one and how the three names made me understand a single principle in stages.
Namaste,
You want to know the nature of the soul? Well, you will certainly not come to know the nature of souls by looking at theories which have been posited ad-hoc. The idea the soul is a photon, or the soul is the centre in the sun are not based on any kind of valid grounds, they are just fantasy. You can never know any truth through fantasy, fantasy is basically using your imagination by combining and recombining ideas you come across, often you can create very elaborate and beautiful ideas by doing that, but which have absolutely no correspondence in reality e.g. a hare with horns. Patanjali describes this as one of the 5 types of vrittis(thought-modifications/waves) of the mind and it is distinct from the vritti of valid knowledge(parmana) This is knowledge which is based on actual empirical data, rational analysis of empirical data or peer agreed data(perception, inference).
If you look at the beginning of science in the Western tradition it was all based on fantasy. Somebody coming up with some beautiful idea and then trying to fit that idea with actual reality. Such as Aristotle, who came up with this beautiful idea that the path of an arrow is as such because the arrow creates a vacuum behind it as it traverses through the air, and then because he thought nature does not like a vacuum, it immediately fills it up. Interesting definitely - but total bunk. Aristotlian mechanics which had been predominant for several centuries based on fantastical things like objects fall and rise because they have a will, was ultimately defeated by Newtonian mechanics who did away with all the fantasizing and used direct empirical methods to collect data in a systematic way(scientific experiments) This was the dawning of science, to begin from empirical data, not from ideas created in your mind.
In order to know the nature of the soul you need to first begin with actual data of what you know about the soul, just like how any scientific experiment begins. Direct observation will give you the preliminary data you need to start self-inquiry. If you begin with what is actual, then you are addressing something real. If you begin with fantasy, you are addressing fantasy.
Here is a good starting point for what you know about self. The self is not something you know through any number of experiences, or through any rational argument, it is something that is completely self-evident. Nobody has to tell me I have a self, or convince me I have a self, I naturally have this I-awareness. Although I can doubt things I come to experience, or doubt things that I infer through logic, I can never doubt my own self. So there are two categories I can positively assert from the outset:
Self and Objects of knowledge(field of knowledge)
Now continue the inquiry from here and see where you arrive.
[QUOTE=Awwware;43913]I tend to disagree with this unorthodox definition, which casts more obscurity than clarity. The terms Soul-Spirit-Atma are rather commonly used as synonyms of eachother. This definition would imply that the term “soul” is restricted in its meaning to the incarnated soul. For me, the Soul of God or the Universe is Atma, the individual souls are jivatmas (which in fact are also the one Atma, they just don’t know it). The reflection of the Soul/spirit/atma in the 5 elements is the living being. That said, I am not interested in semantics.;)[/QUOTE]Jivatma is Atma+Kundalini+reflection of Atma from 5 elements.
Atma is pure spirit.
How can a soul be fooled into thinking it is not God?
This makes no sense.
If someone has a sense of being separate and distinct from God, it’s because he is. Otherwise, I am you and you are me, and we are all here just talking to ourselves, waiting until the day until we melt like ice cubes into one large puddle.
How could a “part” of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and infninite God be so fooled?
[QUOTE=thomas;43951]How can a soul be fooled into thinking it is not God?
This makes no sense.
If someone has a sense of being separate and distinct from God, it’s because he is. Otherwise, I am you and you are me, and we are all here just talking to ourselves, waiting until the day until we melt like ice cubes into one large puddle.
How could a “part” of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and infninite God be so fooled?[/QUOTE]
That’s the big mystery. I like the “until we melt like ice cubes into one large puddle”, because that’s exactly how I see it, or rather in Vedantic terms, the “droplet returns to the ocean”. As I see it, God (which is the only absolute truth that really exists) enjoys the game of Lila as the Bhoktr, the enjoyer, he enjoys our experiences. We are supposedly just his eyes, limbs or hands in the material universe that he encompasses. A jivatma is described as a temporary phenomenon, in the end there is only the paratma. I am supposedly you, you are me, we just don’t know it, because we don’t know our true nature (our svarupa) yet. (This is my belief, it is not a statement that this is the way things are).
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;43942]Namaste,
You want to know the nature of the soul? Well, you will certainly not come to know the nature of souls by looking at theories which have been posited ad-hoc. The idea the soul is a photon, or the soul is the centre in the sun are not based on any kind of valid grounds, they are just fantasy. You can never know any truth through fantasy, fantasy is basically using your imagination by combining and recombining ideas you come across, often you can create very elaborate and beautiful ideas by doing that, but which have absolutely no correspondence in reality e.g. a hare with horns. Patanjali describes this as one of the 5 types of vrittis(thought-modifications/waves) of the mind and it is distinct from the vritti of valid knowledge(parmana) This is knowledge which is based on actual empirical data, rational analysis of empirical data or peer agreed data(perception, inference).
If you look at the beginning of science in the Western tradition it was all based on fantasy. Somebody coming up with some beautiful idea and then trying to fit that idea with actual reality. Such as Aristotle, who came up with this beautiful idea that the path of an arrow is as such because the arrow creates a vacuum behind it as it traverses through the air, and then because he thought nature does not like a vacuum, it immediately fills it up. Interesting definitely - but total bunk. Aristotlian mechanics which had been predominant for several centuries based on fantastical things like objects fall and rise because they have a will, was ultimately defeated by Newtonian mechanics who did away with all the fantasizing and used direct empirical methods to collect data in a systematic way(scientific experiments) This was the dawning of science, to begin from empirical data, not from ideas created in your mind.
In order to know the nature of the soul you need to first begin with actual data of what you know about the soul, just like how any scientific experiment begins. Direct observation will give you the preliminary data you need to start self-inquiry. If you begin with what is actual, then you are addressing something real. If you begin with fantasy, you are addressing fantasy.
Here is a good starting point for what you know about self. The self is not something you know through any number of experiences, or through any rational argument, it is something that is completely self-evident. Nobody has to tell me I have a self, or convince me I have a self, I naturally have this I-awareness. Although I can doubt things I come to experience, or doubt things that I infer through logic, I can never doubt my own self. So there are two categories I can positively assert from the outset:
Self and Objects of knowledge(field of knowledge)
Now continue the inquiry from here and see where you arrive.[/QUOTE]
Well, as I am not capable of achieving the real state of meditation, samadhi and experience truths via samyama, I must rely on the (western) tools that I do have at my disposal:
Pose a hypothesis and probe its truth. The result can be falsification or verification. Without hypotheses (which are often born out of fantasies), western science would not have gotten where we are today. Fantasy is a beautiful instrument of creation and intelligence.
Good, now back to the reason I posed my hypotheses: I hoped to profit from the experiences of those who have gathered information about the nature of the Soul via samyama. This is one way also Patanjali gives to uncover the truth: get the information from those who know.
To return to the Cartesian staring point of the only thing I know is that I am and that I have experiences unfortunately does not bring me closer to solving this mystery. I do appreciate your contribution though. Soon I will make a summary of the different contributions to this thread, to let you all know where it brought me, but you must realise that the title started with “AN INQUIRY…”. It’s a cry for help. But I get the impression, we’re all just guessing as we do not yet grasp the fundamental message of the Vedas (probably otherwise we wouldn’t be here in the sublunary either).
[QUOTE=Seeker33;43944]Jivatma is Atma+Kundalini+reflection of Atma from 5 elements.
Atma is pure spirit.[/QUOTE]
So when your physical body dies there is no jivatma anymore?
confused: That does not fit my belief.
Pose a hypothesis and probe its truth. The result can be falsification or verification.
The result is never verification my friend. No theory is ever verified by any number of positive trials, because later on new data presents itself which falsifies the theory, leading to revision or rejection of the old theory. For example Newtonian theory had been tested vigorously over centuries and it was never falsified, so it was taken to be verified. Then, Einstenian theory came and falsified Newtonian theory and Einsteinian theory then was taken as the replacement. Then, along came Quantum theory which falsified Einstenian theory. Now String theory is trying to falsify quantum theory.
To claim to know anything absolutely(positivism) is intellectual arrogance. Whatever we know is always based on the data that we can observe, and as there is so much data we cannot observe, our knowledge will always be relative and open to falsification.
Now the problem with theorizing/fantasizing is that this comes from our ignorant minds which are conditioned by all kinds of false assumptions, beliefs, prejudices. Thus to rely on our fantasies to show what is real is like relying on a blind man to show us the path. The idea “soul is a photon” is simply a fantasy fabricated in your mind. You are entertaining this fantasy and want us to entertain your fantasy as well. A waste of time for both of us. Humans have been playing these games of imagination for the last 2000 years and we are no closer to the truth.
You are not inquiring but playing games of imagination, and the imagination is infinite, so you will be playing these games forever. But, if you are serious about inquiring into the self and want to get real knowledge on the self, then you need to stick to what is actual and evident. Starting with empirical data is the starting point of any science.
I know is that I am and that I have experiences unfortunately does not bring me closer to solving this mystery
Unfortunately, replacing your ignorance with fantasy is not going to bring you any closer to solving the mystery either.
You do not have confidence in your powers of reason. The starting point of know “I am” will lead you to the next logical conclusion, and from there to the next and the next.
From the first conclusion that there is Self and Objects of knowledge of the self we can derive the next conclusion - The self cannot be anything that are the objects of its knowledge. Here is the proof: You are my object of knowledge, therefore because I am the one that knows you, I cannot be you.
What are your objects of knowledge?
See if you can carry this inquiry on further.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;43975]
You do not have confidence in your powers of reason. The starting point of know “I am” will lead you to the next logical conclusion, and from there to the next and the next.
[/QUOTE]
Reasoning is just another intellectual algorithm. I wonder what your intention is by using the term “intellectual arrogance”. Isn’t clinging to reasoning is on that same level? Reasoning is also part of the realm of relative things.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;43975]
From the first conclusion that there is Self and Objects of knowledge of the self we can derive the next conclusion - The self cannot be anything that are the objects of its knowledge. Here is the proof: You are my object of knowledge, therefore because I am the one that knows you, I cannot be you.[/QUOTE]
In the relative world, we may think we’re individuals. Don’t you as a Hindu believe that there is only one ultimate reality? Jnana or Paramatma or Brahman? Isn’t the “individual experience” a complete hallucination either?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;43975]
What are your objects of knowledge?
See if you can carry this inquiry on further.[/QUOTE]
In the end I have the feeling that neither from reasoning nor from scientific inquiry we can get to the ultimate reality. As I already said, you need samyama for that. If the activity of fantasizing is a waste of time then so is the activity of creativity. For me refraining from it is denying the world beauty.
By the way, your type of reasoning reminds me of the that of U.G.Krishnamurti. Any affiliation?
Reasoning is not the same as speculating, because reasoning is based on deriving a logical conclusion from a premises which is necessarily true if the premises are true.
All languages have latters
English is a language
Therefore: English has letters
or
Jason is taller than Sam
Sam is taller than Ben
Therefore: Jason is taller than Ben
or
Mary lives at 33 Bornie street
Nobody is at 33 Bornie street right now
Therefore: Mary is not at home
Where there is smoke there is fire
Here there is smoke
Therefore: There is fire
Reasoning is like the mathematics of language. In mathematics 2+2 = 4 is always going to be true. Likewise, statements derived from reason are always going to be true.
Now science uses what is known as hypothetica-deductive method. This employs reasoning, but reasoning based on justifying the hypothesis. The hypothesis itself is not based on reasoning, it is ad-hoc. This is why scientific theories are not particularly reasonable and reasoning as a scientific method has not been developed in the west. In India, the case is different, where huge investment of time, energy, thought has been put on developing scientific methods of reasoning. There is a 3000 year old tradition of the development of the science of logic, which continued well up to the 15-16th century. This is mainly because of the culture of debate in India, where it was important for the parties to prove their positions, and thus hair-splitting analysis, tight arguments, concise statements and evidence were required.
A lot of the theories that passes of as valid in the West would not have pass muster in India. They would instantly ask, “What is your means of knowledge” and then you would say, “It is just my idea” they would respond that ideas cannot be a means of knowledge, because I can have an idea of anything, such a hare with horns, or a fish with legs and there is no such thing. However, if instead you base your statements on what is actual, then it is a valid means of knowledge. If you say, “Where there is smoke, there is fire” I can accept your statement because it based on empirical observation and I can confirm that observation.
Thus in Indian logic you must first begin with an actual observable fact as your premise, then you must demonstrate that the relationship with other facts, and draw conclusions from that. Such as, “Sound is non-eternal because it is produced” Here we are tying up the premises of all things that are produced with things that are non-eternal, and showing that they always go together. Logically, if something is produced, it has a beginning in time and space, therefore it cannot be eternal.
Here is another example: All effects have causes, because effects cannot issue out of nothing. Here we are tying premises of effect with cause and showing they always go together. Logically, an effect cannot come out of nothing, because nothing can only produce nothing, it must come out of something and therefore all causes must have effects.
Now lets apply Indian logic to real world examples. There must be an unconscious mind, because I am not always conscious of what my body is doing. Here we are tying the unconscious mind, with behaviour of the body we are not aware of. Logically, I do not consciously control my heartbeat, breathing, body temperature, digestion, perspiration, brain activity, most of the thoughts that appear in my mind, the motor activity, perception, all of these activities take place unconsciously. Most activities I do are automatic, like walking, talking, writing, driving and are based on automatic habitual responses.
Here are just a few examples to show you how to reason scientifically. Conclusions derived from reasoning are bound to be true. Likewise, we can apply scientific reasoning to the inquiry of the self and come to actual knowledge of the self.
In the relative world, we may think we’re individuals. Don’t you as a Hindu believe that there is only one ultimate reality? Jnana or Paramatma or Brahman? Isn’t the “individual experience” a complete hallucination either?
It does not matter what I believe. An inquiry into the nature of the soul is an objective investigation into the self and has nothing to do with your beliefs. You cannot do an objective investigation of anything if you begin with beliefs. All scientists have to put their beliefs aside when doing an investigation.
First collect your data objectively on the self and do not let any of your own beliefs, assumptions, prejudices intefere.
The belief that there is one ultimate reality(Brahman) and that the self(Atman) is that ultimate reality, and all individuals are illusory is the final conclusion you will arrive at if you continue the inquiry into the self objectively.
In the end I have the feeling that neither from reasoning nor from scientific inquiry we can get to the ultimate reality. As I already said, you need samyama for that. If the activity of fantasizing is a waste of time then so is the activity of creativity. For me refraining from it is denying the world beauty. By the way, your type of reasoning reminds me of the that of U.G.Krishnamurti. Any affiliation?
Again, what you feel to be true is just as invalid as fantasizing as a means of knowledge. In science there is neither feeling or fantasy. You start with what you can know and then derive what you can from what you know.
So far we know the following to be true:
- There is a Self
- There is a field of objects of knowledge of the self
- The self is not the same as the objects of knowledge
Now we can continue this inquiry by enumerating some of the the objects of the field knowledge of the self. Some of those objects are insects, plants, animals, rocks, fire, water, air, wood, metal, other humans, chairs, tables, fruits, vegetables, stars, moons, suns, planets, tastes, smells.
Now let us continue this inquiry further by showing how the various objects of knowledge are received by the self. All these objects of knowledge of the self arrive at the self via contact with the senses. I see, I hear, I feel, I smell and I taste.
Is that the only senses that we have, or is there another sense? If there is, what is that sense and what are its objects.
The reason this reasoning sounds familiar to you is because this is classical Vedanta. All Vedanta teachers pretty much describe the same inquiry I am doing here right now stage by stage.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]Reasoning is not the same as…This is why scientific theories are not particularly reasonable and reasoning as a scientific method has not been developed in the west. In India, the case is different, where huge investment of time, energy, thought has been put on developing scientific methods of reasoning. There is a 3000 year old tradition of the development of the science of logic, which continued well up to the 15-16th century. This is mainly because of the culture of debate in India, where it was important for the parties to prove their positions, and thus hair-splitting analysis, tight arguments, concise statements and evidence were required.
A lot of the theories that passes of as valid in the West would not have pass muster in India.
[/QUOTE]
There is no difference between your resum? of logic reasoning and the Greek logical inference. Logic reasoning is not the mental heritage of the India alone.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
Here are just a few examples to show you how to reason scientifically.
[/QUOTE]
What is your intention? I repeat what I asked in the previous post.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
Conclusions derived from reasoning are bound to be true.
[/QUOTE]
In the realm of the relative.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
Likewise, we can apply scientific reasoning to the inquiry of the self and come to actual knowledge of the self.
[/QUOTE]
You won’t go far. Knowledge of the nature of the absolute cannot be arrived at by reasoning, only by direct experience.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
It does not matter what I believe. An inquiry into the nature of the soul is an objective investigation into the self and has nothing to do with your beliefs. You cannot do an objective investigation of anything if you begin with beliefs. All scientists have to put their beliefs aside when doing an investigation.
[/QUOTE]
I am a patent examiner. I can tell you that small inventions are born out of reasoning. Great inventions are born out of creativity, imagination, beliefs. To boldly go where no one has gone before: to try the unusual, the a priori uncombinable.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
Again, what you feel to be true is just as invalid as fantasizing as a means of knowledge. In science there is neither feeling or fantasy.
[/QUOTE]
I never had any pretense of knowing what is the truth. Do you? I never claimed my feelings as a source of knowledge. I do not claim fantasy as a source of knowledge. Rather it is a stimulus for exploration. If there had not been scientists with imagination, we wouldn’t have been where we were. People would still not have accepted the heliocentric view.
Those who only think and reason don’t get far. Those who try and experiment the unusual can have paradigms shifted.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;44015]
You start with what you can know and then derive what you can from what you know.
So far we know the following to be true:
- There is a Self
- There is a field of objects of knowledge of the self
- The self is not the same as the objects of knowledge
Now we can continue this inquiry by enumerating some of the the objects of the field knowledge of the self. Some of those objects are insects, plants, animals, rocks, fire, water, air, wood, metal, other humans, chairs, tables, fruits, vegetables, stars, moons, suns, planets, tastes, smells.
Now let us continue this inquiry further by showing how the various objects of knowledge are received by the self. All these objects of knowledge of the self arrive at the self via contact with the senses. I see, I hear, I feel, I smell and I taste.
Is that the only senses that we have, or is there another sense? If there is, what is that sense and what are its objects.
The reason this reasoning sounds familiar to you is because this is classical Vedanta. All Vedanta teachers pretty much describe the same inquiry I am doing here right now stage by stage.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but that was not what the inquiry of this thread was about. The inquiry of this thread is to humbly ask those who know by direct experience, what parallels there are between scientifically observable phenomenons and concepts described in Vedanta. I wonder what your intention is to present these well-known vedantic concepts and to explain logic in an over-simplistic manner. What do you know about your interlocutor i.e. me? What assumptions did you make about me?
Ask yourself three questions:
What I have to say is it 1) necessary 2) true 3) friendly?
If one of those criteria is not met, then inquire further about your intentions. If all criteria are met, then ask yourself, is there anything in what I write which might be perceived as unnecessary, untrue or unfriendly.
I know very well this sounds pedantic, but I’m just mirroring the tone of your posts as perceived by me. Is this a matter of differences and misunderstanding between our cultures or was there an issue of intent? If your intent is benevolent we can carry on this discussion. In French there is a saying: c’est le ton qui fait la musique…
There is no difference between your resum? of logic reasoning and the Greek logical inference. Logic reasoning is not the mental heritage of the India alone.
I will address two points here, one major and one minor
The major point is there is a difference between Greek logic and Indian logic , but you would have to study both traditions to know the difference. Greek logic is what is known as deductive. This is when the conclusion is bound to be true if the premises are true. Such as Jason is taller than Sam, and Sam is taller than Ben, therefore Jason is taller than Ben. This kind of logic is great to work with knowledge already known, but it cannot give you any knowledge that is not known. Indian logic is inductive-deductive. This is when a relationship of cause and effect between premises are declared through empirical observation and then a conclusion derived that is bound to be true.
For example:
- There is fire on the mountain(statement to be proved)
- Because there is smoke(reason)
- I have observed in the past that smoke always comes from fire(example)
- Here there is smoke(application)
- Therefore there is fire(conclusion)
This is very similar in fact to scientific reasoning. As all scientific reasoning begins with observable facts, but different because scientific reasoning then uses hypothesis to attempt to explain those facts, whereas Indian logic uses rational analysis/pure reasoning (known as rationalism). This tradition of using hypothesis to explain facts goes back to Aristotle, such as how he explains the movement of the arrow due to his hypothesis of nature abhorring a vacuum and the arrow causing a vacuum when it traverses, thus nature moving it along by filling the vacuum up. His other bright idea was the speed of an object is because of the medium it travels through. Thus if an object travels in space it would travel at infinite velocity. Of course we know today this is complete bunk.
Now the Indian logicians did not make the same mistake as Aristotle because they were using valid reasoning. The Indian logicians stated long before Aristotle that the motion of the arrow was due to the contact between the arrow, the bow and the volition provided by the bowman. This provided the arrow its initial momentum energy and its velocity. They further explained that the continuation of the movement of the arrow was due to the reproduction of the initial momentum energy, but because the arrow was falling, it meant that there was a downwards force acting on the arrow due to which it began to lose its momentum energy and fall. This in Newtonian mechanics is known as horizontal and vertical force vectors.
Thus if you have valid means of reasoning you can arrive at actual valid knowledge about reality. Much of what modern science knows today was known to the Indian logicians using their rational analysis. The humans ability to reason is truly great.
Minor point: The Greeks were not originators, but inheriters of philosophy. They learned their philosophy from the Indians, especially pre-socratic and socratic philosophy, which uses a lot of the same terminology that the Indians did. This should be no surprise, beause Indian philosophers were present in the Hellan period and the Greeks and Indians were in contact. Much of what Plato describes is Yogic philosophy. We know that it was the Greeks who inherited from India, rather than vis versa, because Indian philosophy is much older, developed and complex than Greek philosophy.
I will address the rest of your points in the other thread.
What is your intention? I repeat what I asked in the previous post.
There is no intention other than what the subject matter you set in the title: inquiry into the self. I am not here to do politics, I am simply demonstrating 1) How it is impossible to arrive at knowledge of self through fantasizing about it and 2) How there is a method by which we can arrive at knowledge of the self.
Do you want to do an inquiry into the nature of the self or do you just want your ego massaged by having us discuss your theories, which are based on your own imagination - “the soul is a photon”, “the soul is the being in the sun”.
In the realm of the relative.
You won’t go far. Knowledge of the nature of the absolute cannot be arrived at by reasoning, only by direct experience.
Again, you do not know this, you are simply stating a belief here. Perhaps it is possible to arrive at the nature of the absolute by reason. The only way to find out is to continue the inquiry using reason and see if it gets you to the absolute. If it does not, then your belief would have been turned into fact. Otherwise, you will have to revise your beliefs.
I never had any pretense of knowing what is the truth. Do you? I never claimed my feelings as a source of knowledge. I do not claim fantasy as a source of knowledge. Rather it is a stimulus for exploration. If there had not been scientists with imagination, we wouldn’t have been where we were. People would still not have accepted the heliocentric view.
People accept the helioncentric view not due to the imagination of any scientist, it is because it has been empirically proven and shown to be reasonable. There were many scientists at the time of Copernicus who imagined the earth going around the sun, but it was Copernicus who proved it. It is not the faculty of imagination that gets you anywhere, it just takes you further away from the truth. Rather than directly apprehending reality, you just waste your time thinking about it. Newton did not imagine the laws of gravity, he made direct observations on nature and discovered them.
Science is not about imagination. It is about actual observation made in the empirical world. Stick to the real world. Say only as much as as the real world will allow you to say and nothing beyond that. Anything beyond that is just your fantasy, beliefs or feelings.
Yes, but that was not what the inquiry of this thread was about. The inquiry of this thread is to humbly ask those who know by direct experience, what parallels there are between scientifically observable phenomenons and concepts described in Vedanta. I wonder what your intention is to present these well-known vedantic concepts and to explain logic in an over-simplistic manner. What do you know about your interlocutor i.e. me? What assumptions did you make about me?
Again my intention is nothing more than to do this inquiry into the nature of the self. That has nothing to do with you or me, or what our intentions are. If I say my intentions are benevolent, which they are, you cannot prove either way if they are or not, because you cannot see my intentions. Stick to the inquiry.
There is nobody here that has had direct experience of the self. If they had, they would be enlightened and they would not be spending time on this forum. Therefore, your only other alternative to get knowledge on the self is to use your own reason. So let us continue with the inquiry and see how far reason takes us.
Last time I asked you if we had any other sense and if so what are its objects in order to continue the inquiry into self. Yes, there is another sense other than tasting, seeing, feeling, smelling and hearing — there is the internal sense of thinking, imagining, reasoning, remembering. I am not just a tasting, seeing, feeling, smelling and hearing being, I am also a creative, rational and mindful being.
Therefore I do not just receive data from the ordinary 5 senses, but also data from this 6th sense. This 6th sense is special in that its objects thoughts, objects of reason such as numbers, space, time, causation, concepts, memories are not available to the 5 senses which make up our ordinary empirical world. Just as the objects of the 5 sense world have a field in which they are suspended, likewise the objects of the 6th sense world must also have a field in which they are suspended.
There are various arguments given by a host of philosophers both in the Indian and Western tradition to prove that such 6th sense must necessarily exist. Such as Kant which shows that if the subject was just a passive recepitent of sensory data from the empirical world then it would be overwhelmed with sensory data and never be able to perceive anything individually. Therefore, a faculty within the subject itself imposes upon the sensory data and arranges and organizes this data as per a priori laws of time and space. In the Indian tradition, the argument given is that for any act of perception to take place three entities are required: the knower(subject), the object of knowledge(object) and the instrument of knowledge(middle man). This is easily proven because there can be contact between the knower and the object of knowledge, but still knowledge of it would not arise, such as when somebody is absent minded. The senses are still receiving data but because the mind is not there to attend to the data, no knowledge takes place.
Therefore it logically follows there is a third entity between the subject and the object which we can call mind. Now we can add a third category to our previous two categories.
Self, mind, and objects of knowledge of self
Now the inquiry is getting somewhere. It follows that whatever we see, feel, hear, touch, taste, imagine, remember, think is first filtered by the mind before it is received by the self. In other words our view of reality is depends upon the condition of our mind. If the mind is conditioned we always get a conditioned view of reality, but not reality as it really is. An analogy would be to consider the mind like a lens in between the eye and the objects in the world. If the lens is clear then we see the objects in the world clearly, if it is not, then we see the objects in the world as distoted.
Therefore inquiry shows us that our view of reality is dependent upon our state of mind. If the mind changes, our view of reality changes. Now let us continue this inquiry further, how can we know whether our mind is clear or distorted? Is the reality that we currently apprehend actual or just apparent?
How about trying to contribute to this inquiry this time 
This post is directed to all the contributors of this thread and in particular to Surya deva.
First of all thank you all for having contributed to this thread. It is evolving in interesting directions.
Those who have criticised my seminal post on this issue, for having too many assumptions taken for granted, too many different sources, too lengthy, too fantastical etc. please realise that the post has attained a part of its goal: to get the discussion started, perhaps a better understanding and in any case the rejection of nonsensical hypotheses.
One of the criticisms was that the hypotheses in the seminal thread were solely based on “my fantasy”. Excuse me, but I have just made a resume of different views of different origins and tried to find a common denominator. It is true that the seminal post was full of assumptions. I took the phenomenon “Soul” for granted, for the reason that this is a YOGA forum, not a Samkhya forum. I assumed that certain concepts were a common understanding among practitioners of Yoga (and then I mean the eight-fold Yoga, not the single branches thereof or other derivatives). Apparently they are not. Fair enough, it’s not too late to return to a sound basis and call the concept “Soul” into question.
As to the alleged “my fantasy” of the photon-soul, please note that it is not “my fantasy” in the first place. It is in a certain way derivable from teachings of Epicurism, animism, I.K.Taimni, Gnosticism, Kabbalah and many others. Please also note that the concept “photon-soul” is not the same as the notion “a soul is a photon”. That is a concept I already rejected in my seminal article. To accuse me of things which I have not said is inappropriate. “Photon Soul” means so much as one of the qualities, i.e. properties of the soul is energy (see also my other article the tetrahedron of jnana). The Sun as local Isvara is also a concept of Taimni. It does not come from me.
I cannot but agree with you that a great deal of what I have read in the books “Self-Culture” and “Man, God, Universe” by I.K.Taimni sounds like fantasy. Then again, when I started with Yoga 22 years ago, much of its concepts sounded fantastical to me too. I have embraced many of them in the meantime.
To me it is not entirely clear what I should think of the author I.K.Taimni. His commentaries to the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali really make sense, that’s why I when I started reading the other two books mentioned here above. Those books come with concepts, which are rather unusual if not fantastical to the reader unfamiliar with this hypothesis. Either you accept Taimni’s authority as a seer, somebody who has experienced these things directly via samyama or you come to the conclusion that his ideas are fantastical gibberish.
What pleads for Taimni is his convincing approach in his commentary on the Yoga Sutras. What pleads against him is his affiliation with occultism, the theosophical society and the ideas of Blavatsky. I do not know if he really obtained his knowledge by direct observation although he convincingly explains the technique of samyama.
Let’s for the moment forget the teachings of Taimni and my compounded hypothesis and relaunch the debate.
As to the criticism that fantasy cannot lead to insight in the nature of the Soul, I’d like to make the following remark:
Fantasy is certainly not a means to come to a final correct understanding, but there is a role of fantasy which I already indicated. Fantasy is a stimulus, it provokes creativity, and it provokes a debate.
The very fact that you all have reacted to this thread, have invested so much time in writing your comments, is because you have been provoked by my fantasy! It has perfectly played its role as stimulus to start the debate, to start the real inquiry.
You have been able to put your counterarguments forward by opposing it to the fantastic views. Had there not been this stimulus, of little interest it would have been to set out your reasoning in the detailed manner it has been done. Therefore the role of fantasy has not been useless. And it is often not useless. As already indicated it is the stimulus for polarisation of views. If we all would agree, we would not have a debate.
That said, I agree that in this stage it is not the tool to come to a deeper understanding.
As to reasoning, the statement that [QUOTE=Surya Deva;44045]“Greek logic is what is known as deductive”[/QUOTE] is simply incomplete. In Aristotle’s “Prior and Posterior Analytics” both induction and deduction are treated in great detail. But it is immaterial to the present discussion. The debate on where philosophy originated is also immaterial to the present discussion. What can be the intention behind the mentioning of these things? If there is no political agenda, there is also no room for these statements.
As to the tone of the forum thread correspondence, if everybody is sincere and benevolent, then why do I read [QUOTE=Surya Deva;44045]do you just want your ego massaged by having us discuss your theories, which are based on your own imagination -“the soul is a photon”, "the soul is the being in the sun[/QUOTE].:o
First of all the quotations are wrong. They have been deformed and have been taken out of context. Worse, I have been accused of these notions being “my fantasy”.
Why do I read [QUOTE=Surya Deva;44045] To claim to know anything absolutely (positivism) is intellectual arrogance [/QUOTE]?:eek:
So what about the inductive-deductive method? Well, induction can never lead to positivism. But what about the result of deduction? If the result thereof is that the knowledge obtained thereby is necessarily true, than isn’t that also claiming to know anything absolutely (positivism)?
What is essential here is that the undertone of these remarks has nothing to do with an objective quest for the truth. I perceive the undertone as trying-to-outsmart another human being, trying to establish a picking order; a way of ridiculing, showing disrespect if not contempt. The giving of four examples instead of one etc. I also perceive as a sign of disrespect. 
The people who post on this forum are in general well educated.
So if intentions are benevolent and there is no political agenda, then in my optic there is no room for this type of -what I consider- subliminal hostilities.
I consider it very unfortunate that in this way we’re slipping into an argument. Here I am, starting to retort all kinds of accusations, starting to defend my views. Arguing. This is so unlike me. That was never my intention. :oops:
Yoga starts with Yama, Yama starts with Ahimsa. Let’s agree on adhering to these principles.
Now we can get back to the thread itself. We can try to start reasoning ab initio and it may take us ages to get somewhere. Or we can accept the authority of certain philosophers and yogis that have preceded us. As Newton put it, he could look far, because he stood on the shoulders of giants. Personally, I have no wish to try to reinvent the wheel. I certainly do not pretend to be smarter than an F.Nietzsche, I.K.Taimni or Y.Sarasvati. Those who wish to can continue this thread by following the path of reasoning. I do consider this a valuable attempt and let’s see how far you get.
There are just some pitfalls, where great care is necessary. The term [QUOTE=Surya Deva;44045] objects of knowledge [/QUOTE] was followed by an enumeration of physical objects. There is a great danger of confusing the perception and the apperception of an object with the object itself. We cannot know by the means of our five senses what is there outside of us. We can only know that we have perceptions and these perceptions are then given names, classified and judged: apperception. So the perceptions and apperceptions are the objects of our knowledge. If there are physical objects that correspond to these perceptions is part of the unknowable. As Kant puts it, we can know a phenomenon, but not the corresponding noumenon. Nietzsche concludes there are no noumena and there is no objective reality.
As to the equation of the instrument of knowledge with the term Mind, this involves a great deal of assumptions. If we choose a purist way of analysis, we should refrain from using a terminology which has many meanings, connotations and different optics in different cultures. Let’s keep the term instrument of knowledge. If we can conclude in a later stage that this is identical to what is commonly known as mind so be it, but not without a conclusive proof.
If there is one book, the authority of which I am inclined to accept, it is “Science of Soul” by Y.Sarasvati. I will be very honest with you, I read about half of the book and never got to the end of it. Moreover it has been a long time (over ten years) since I read part of it.
The fact that I couldn’t finish it, has to do with my-not-being-ready for this information. But its content is very sincere, authentic, genuine and most of all convincing. Note that although the book gives extensive details on the working of the Soul, it does not really address the questions I posed in the seminal post of this thread.
What pleads for Taimni is his convincing approach in his commentary on the Yoga Sutras. What pleads against him is his affiliation with occultism, the theosophical society and the ideas of Blavatsky. I do not know if he really obtained his knowledge by direct observation although he convincingly explains the technique of samyama.
Let’s for the moment forget the teachings of Taimni and my compounded hypothesis and relaunch the debate.
There were many claims made by the proponents in this tradition of Theosophy which turned out to be fradulent, exaggerated or wishful thinking. Such as their claims to have seen atoms. I am not condemning the Theosophical movement though, I myself have been a part of it and given talks there, but I am simply being objective. You should take everything you hear, esepcially from them, with a grain of salt.
That said, I agree that in this stage it is not the tool to come to a deeper understanding.
I am glad you say this. However, I want to explain why fantasy as the grounds of any inquiry is invalid. If you begin with fantasy, then your inquiry is all about falsifying the fantasy first, before you get to the real. Most of the first 1000 years after Aristotle were spent falsifying his false mechanics. If we had started from empirical observation first, like Galileo(or the Indian Vaiseshika philosophers) then we would not have had to go through all of that. Similarly, today we find that science is not about getting the absolute, but about falsifying one bad theory after the other(Newtonian, Einstenian, Quantum) We still are as far from the absolute as we were hundreds of years ago.
This is why we need valid methods to get to the absolute. There are two valid methods that been found by Indian philosopher-scientists: reasoning and direct experience. The former is only an intellectual map and will never get you to the absolute, it will give you an understanding of the absolute though and answer the questions “Who am I”, “What is my purpose” and “Where am I going” and “How will I get there” Direct experience will turn your intellectual understanding into experiencial understanding.
is simply incomplete. In Aristotle’s “Prior and Posterior Analytics” both induction and deduction are treated in great detail. But it is immaterial to the present discussion. The debate on where philosophy originated is also immaterial to the present discussion. What can be the intention behind the mentioning of these things? If there is no political agenda, there is also no room for these statements.
Greek logic is not very developed and this is why later on we had to do away with it in favour of symbolic logic in modern times, which is basically the logic of statements and uses operators like “And, or, if and then” and then tests for other logical properties other than validity, like soundness, consistency etc. This enables us to work with more complex statements like “If x and y is true, then z” Indian logic has always been more statement based and the majority of it is causal logic. How to infer from cause to effect and effect to cause. This is useful, because it enables us to develop scientific knowledge of how the world works and what exists in reality. This cannot be done with Western logic. This is why we use empirical methods to get scientific knowledge. Indian logic, however, can give you scientific knowledge and thus there is no need for empirical methods.
The use of pure reasoning to get actual scientific knowledge of the world is known as rationalism. The use of just pure observation, measurement is known as empiricism. Western science is a empirical tradition and Indian science is a rational tradition. If you have not done so already, please read the Samkhyakarika by Ishvarkrishna, for it is an exemplary example of how reasoning is used to describe the entire structure of reality and the elements(enumerated as 25) I personally see myself as an adherent of the Samkhya school. The Samkhya theoretical framework is what the practice of Yoga is based on.
So what about the inductive-deductive method? Well, induction can never lead to positivism. But what about the result of deduction? If the result thereof is that the knowledge obtained thereby is necessarily true, than isn’t that also claiming to know anything absolutely (positivism)?
Both induction and deduction have problems. Induction is going from the particular to the universal by inferring that x and y are universally related based on your observation. It is not necessarily true that because x and y have been observed to be related all the time(smoke and fire) that this will always be true. There maybe instances when x and y are not related. The problem with deduction is that an argument can be shown to be valid, but it does not mean that the premises are necessarily true. This is why deductive logic only works with facts known to be true. It cannot give you new knowedge.
Inductive logic will only give you conditionally true knowledge. At this moment given certain conditions x and y are related. However, inductive logic will eventually lead to deductive logic where all premises are true when you can explain all possible particulars in the world in relation to all others particulars. That is only if you can complete the logical system. Now, according to Godel’s theorem of incompleteness, such a complete system could not arise because the premises themselves are in need of proof. Hindu logicians have an answer for this: begin with the infalliable fact of “I am” If you begin with a premise that is infallible and indubitable then you do not require proof for it. Then whatever you derive from that infallible premise will also be infallible. This is what we are doing with our inquiry into self, and we are finding that every derivation is logical and sound.
There are four starting points I have noted that Indian philosophers begin with:
- The Self
- The Effect
- Suffering
- God
These are all valid starting grounds because they are absolute facts. The Self is a fact, the effect is a fact, the feeling of suffering is a fact of human life and the notion of “god” as an absolute is a fact, for every culture on the planet has a concept of it, but interprets it differently. You can begin your inquiry from any of these starting points and whatever you derive logically will be just as true.
Personally, I have no wish to try to reinvent the wheel. I certainly do not pretend to be smarter than an F.Nietzsche, I.K.Taimni or Y.Sarasvati. Those who wish to can continue this thread by following the path of reasoning. I do consider this a valuable attempt and let’s see how far you get.
This is known as the means of testimony. It is also a valid means of knowledge, but only when it comes from an enlightened human being(apta) or from the Vedas. However, it also considered the most inferior form of knowledge, because it is not your own knowledge - it in faith in anothers knowledge. This is dangerous because it can lead to blind faith, and it is something false gurus prey on. Moreover, their knowledge is their own experience, they cannot give you their own experience. They can give you techniques you can practice in seclusion to get your own experiences, but not give you the experience itself. When Buddha was approached by seekers demanding that Buddha do something and liberate them, Buddha simply told them he can only guide them to the path, but it is they themselves who are going to have to walk the path.
Thus knowledge gained from testimony is very unreliable and it cannot be tested. Now, here you are drawing from the testimony of people like Nietzche, a man who was driven to suicide and depression. His philosophies in part, inspired Nazism and eugenics. Therefore he is not an apta and his knowledge is not reliable or valid. There is much that is wrong with his philosophy if you read it critically. While, the enlightened philosophies tell you to transcend the ego, Nietzche tells you to expand the ego. He calls war and conquest good. His philosophy is one that leads to destruction.
Indian philosophers had realised the pitfalls of faith in the Vedas and during that time so many sects had formed that performed practices like animal and human sacrifice in the name of the Vedas(how they interpreted it) So they realised that they had to arrive at the true teachings of the Vedas themselves using their own empirical observations and reasoning faculty. So they paid only lip service to the Vedas, and based all their investigations on perception and inference. This was knowledge that could be tested, but Vedic knowledge could not. In the end they found they arrived at the same knowledge the Vedas taught, but they did it through pure observation and inference.
This is why I am telling you to stick to pure observation and use your reasoning if you want to do an inquiry into the self, because this method works. It is scientific, reliable and valid. Otherwise, you will just find yourself wasting your time playing an intellectual game that leads nowhere. So let us proceed with the inquiry and join in. Every conclusion we derive has to infallible and indubitable. If there is even a slight doubt, then we cannot proceed until doubt is removed.