Observation vs Scripture

Spirituality
#21

because scripture cannot overrule the evidence obtained from observation.

Yes it can, and the Karika itself admits it:

  1. The unseen can only be established through reasoning based on general observations. And those unseen things which cannot be established even through reasoning, testimony and yogic revelation can establish them.

The 26th principle(Brahman) is an example of an unseen thing which can only be established through the testimony of yogic revelation.

Vedanta does not actually overrule what we establish through perception and reasoning. It accepts its reality as relative and practical. However, at the level of absolute reality it shows that that this relative and practical reality is just a projection from consciousness. This still does not mean it is any less real or important, it simply means that essentially the actual substance of reality is consciousness. It all takes place within consciousness. Consciousness is the first cause of reality.

Samkhya accepts the existence of many things whichn cannot be established through observation and reasoning, for example the existence of Brahma, celestial beings, angels, spirits and spirit realms. These are established only on the force of testimony from scripture.

#22

Yes it can, and the Karika itself admits it:

You are saying here that if scripture says the earth is flat, that can overrule evidence that the earth is round. If you are going to indulge your penchant for endless, pointless, ridiculous argument and one-up-man-ship, you’re going to have to do it alone.

#23

Nobody says scripture can stand alone as proof. Obviously, even Vedantins do not believe that scripture is proof by itself, hence why they use reasoning to justify what the scripture says and refute what is against scripture.

A statement like “the earth is flat” can be easily contradicted. There is no reasoning one could produce to justify this statement except that appears that the Earth is flat from an optical point of view. This can be contradicted from a 3D point of view.

However, the statement, “The Earth is round” can also be contradicted in the same way. It only appears the Earth is round from a 3D point of view, but actually there is no form as such from the atomic point of view. It is 99% empty space, and its solidity is owing to the electrons circulating rapidly around the nucleus producing the sensation of touch.

Vedanta considers this kind of reality which can be contradicted as relative and practical. It does not say it is unreal and not important, it says that it can ultimately be contradicted. Vedanta looks at the reality which cannot be contradicted and what cannot be contradicted is absolutely true. Now consider the postulations of Samkhya:

  1. Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
  2. Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency

Therefore

  1. The truth of matter can be contradicted
  2. The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted

Consciousness simply is, it spaceless, timeless, absolute, free of all pain and pleasure. It is there even before there was manifest matter. It will be there even after there is no unmanifest matter. This truth is also accepted by Samkhya.

Now we can derive that if consciousness is spacless, timeless, absolute. It is identical to beingness and existence: Hence in Vedanta it is called sat(existence) and chit(consciousness). If consciousness is existence, then it means everything which happens happens within consciousness.

So Vedanta derive yet another conclusion: All forms(matter) are arising from consciousness and merging back into consciousness alone. Like all waves rise and merge back into the sea. Hence the Vedanta mahavakyas:

  1. All is consciousness
  2. You are consciousness
  3. I am consciousness

These truths can be supported by statements that cannot be contradicted(unlike the Earth is flat)

  1. If there is no consciousness, there is no reality
  2. Everything that happens is what we are conscious ‘of’ (i.e. is an object of our consciousnesses)
  3. The same consciousness that exists in the the state of deep sleep and dream, also exists in our waking sate
#24

Vedanta is basically Samkhya Plus. Where Samkhya ends, Vedanta begins.

Samkhya begins at the waking state of consciousness of observer and object. Why? Because we all begin at this level only from the moment we are born, we find ourselves as observers in a world of objects. We also find that this world of objects is independent of us and thus observer-object dualism is a logical conclusion we have to make based on the reality of our waking consciousness.

However, when we start to interrogate this sharply drawn divide between observer and object at the waking state of consciousness, we soon start to see cracks in it. e.g., there is also observer and object dualism in the dream state of consciousness, but we know for a fact that this is all produced within our consciousness. In the state of deep sleep all objects disappear. However, we know that the consciousness which remembers being in deep sleep, which remembers being in dream, which now is reminiscing in waking is the same consciousness. Therefore, all these three states take place within this consciousness alone.

Unfortunately, because most of what we can remember clearly is our waking state of consciousness we treat waking life as the only reality that is real and accept that as a solid fact(correct knowledge) Hence, why we constantly return to the waking state and cannot freely enter into other states at our whim. We are locked down in waking because of our strong belief it is the only reality.

Vedanta is simply a reminder for us all that the waking state of reality is not the only reality, but rather is one level of reality within the vast infinite field of consciousness. We are present at all levels at all times.

#25

“because scripture cannot overrule the evidence obtained from observation.”

If that is true, then which scriptures will be considered the ones with absolute authority ? You are speaking of scriptures as though they are all in agreement with one another. They are not. The Christian scriptures are not in agreement with the Buddhist scriptures. The Buddhist scriptures, even in Buddhism alone, are not always in agreement with one another. The scriptures of the Brahmins which give absolute authority to the Vedas as divine revelation are not in agreement with that of the Buddhists. The Jain scriptures have a different attitude and approach than the Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu scriptures. The Jewish scriptures are also competitors for absolute authority - they are equally convinced that the Torah is a divine revelation from God himself. Like the Brahmins, they also believe that Hebrew is a divine language which has come from the angels of God, just as the Brahmins believe that Sanskrit is a divine language, more divine than any other. The Quran is of course, like the Torah, the Bible, and the Vedas, also a divine revelation from God himself to the last and final prophet, Muhammed. It seems either God has multiple personality disorder, continues changing his mind all the time, or somebody here is hallucinating. Which of these scriptures will attain the first prize of being on the pedestal of absolute authority ?

Dont become too obsessed with this idea that if something is written in scripture, then it is without question. This is just a form of slavery to sacrifice your own intelligence for the sake of protection of your ego. Protection, because it always gives enormous nourishment that your beliefs and ideas have a divine seal of approval. Like this, most of the organized religions on the planet have been quarreling like hungry children for this divine seal of approval, often at the expense of excluding everybody else who does not agree. So if it is a question of something being truthful just because it is written in scripture, then we have a big problem. We will have to decide which of these scriptures, and especially in India there are thousands of scriptures that have been born out of the spiritual traditions, carry the divine seal of authority.

All of this attachment to the scriptures is simply because, by yourself you are inwardly completely empty. Because an inner revelation has not happened which has transformed your life, you have been left unfulfilled in such a way that one needs to cling to some scripture or belief system to fill the void.

#26
  1. Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
  2. Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency

Therefore

  1. The truth of matter can be contradicted
  2. The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted

Do not misconstrue my silence as agreement with anything that is said here. The quoted statement in particular is a complete non-sequitor and makes no sense whatsoever. However, I guess you can’t stop a preacher from preaching.

#27

It should make sense, it is basic English and basic Samkhya :wink:

Which part are you disagreeing with?

This part:

  1. Matter is changing, composite, active, objective, productive, has properties of pain and pleasure etc
  2. Consciousness is unchanging, non-composite, witnessing seeing, devoid of pain, pleasure and agency

Or this part:

Therefore

  1. The truth of matter can be contradicted
  2. The truth of consciousness cannot be contradicted
#28

“Consciousness is unchanging”

Tell me, is consciousness a fixed, static object - or is it a flowing process ? If it is a process, then how can it be changeless ? Even for anything to be changeless, would be to impose a limiting quality - it is simply the opposite of change. If we accept that Truth is simply inexpressible, that it is not something that can be grasped through thought - then it is neither of change nor is it changeless. If you say it is of change, you fail to recognize it as the very ground of nature itself. If you say that it is changeless, you fail to recognize its creative capability. Both would be to cling to one-sided views and perspectives. But that is the problem with all of these intellectual models of existence, whether Samkhya or any other model, if you are grasping onto these descriptions as though they can contain the inexpressible reality, you fall immediately into delusion. These models, at the most, can be useful tools. But once these tools start sticking to hands, they are far more of a nuisance than anything else.

#29

Amir,

Asuri was not saying that he agrees scripture overrules evidence obtained from perception, he was saying that he disagrees that scripture can overrule evidence obtained from perception.

Could have saved yourself a really long post there…

Consciousness is unchanging"

Tell me, is consciousness a fixed, static object - or is it a flowing process ?

It is neither. Consciousness is the ground of being in which take place all objects and processes. Hence it is said consciousness is just the witnessing power that witnesses all the material(including mental) activity that takes place within it.

Being is neither an object or a process.

#30

Are you the same person you were when you were five years old? Every aspect of your physical and psychological makeup has undergone change and transformation, but ‘I Am’ has not changed. It’s an observation of human nature, that’s all.

#31

Are you the same person you were when you were five years old? Every aspect of your physical and psychological makeup has undergone change and transformation, but ‘I Am’ has not changed. It’s an observation of human nature, that’s all.

It is not an observation, but an inference. Consciousness is not something we can observe, because if we could observe consciousness, then we would have to posit another observer that observes that consciousness and hence end up with an infinite regression. So because we know there is observation, we have to posit that an observer exists.

In Samkhya neither Purusha or Prakriti are observed entities, they are inferred entities. Hence Samkhya gives 5 logical proofs for each one to establish them. You really have to stop confusing the rational dualism of Samkhya with the empirical dualism of Descartes.

I have witnessed only my body and mind all my life. I certainly do not have the same body and mind I had when I was 5 years old. The body and mind has constantly changed. The reason I know that consciousness has not changed, is because there has to be a changeless principle that witnesses all changes. If consciousness also changed, then would be no background to witness any changes against. Therefore we derive that consciousness is unchanging and matter is changing.

Why does matter change according to Samkhya? Matter changes because it possessed of the nature of the gunas. It is composite, made up of more than one constituent, and it because they act against each other which causes all change to happen. In the unmanifest state when the gunas are resolved into balance, matter still has the potential to change, which happens when it comes into association with consciousness. In the same way a taut string on a guitar has the potential to vibrate, which happens when plucked.

Even in Samkhya consciousness is seen as the first cause. It is not until consciousness come into association with primordial matter, that matter can manifest. Prior to that matter does not really exist. It is only potential. However, consciousness is not potential, but actual. So the only actual thing existing before creation is consciousness. We can therefore derive from that if consciousness is the only actual thing ever existing and it is needed before there is any manifest matter, then consciousness has to be the first cause. Hence the doctrine of Vedanta.

#32

I AM born, I AM living, I AM dying?the born, living and dying is change, the ?I AM? is constant proceeding, during, subsequent and inclusive of the absolute which lies beyond human experience??inexpressible reality? and this is where the effort becomes necessary?

#33

yoga is nothing but a manifestation.

of love, love, love.

#34

Heart is the home of Self, Soul, Spirit, Atma, all one and meaning the same. …

#35

[QUOTE=bjoy;72285]Heart is the home of Self, Soul, Spirit, Atma, all one and meaning the same. …[/QUOTE]

You are allowed to give it the same meaning, because these English words like soul and spirit are extremely vague, but that doesn’t mean that everyone gives them the same meaning in the different contexts they appear.

#36

[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72286]You are allowed to give it the same meaning, because these English words like soul and spirit are extremely vague, but that doesn’t mean that everyone gives them the same meaning in the different contexts they appear.[/QUOTE]

alas! the duality of the ‘spirit’

#37

[QUOTE=bjoy;72287]alas! the duality of the ‘spirit’[/QUOTE]

i mean the atman and C2H5OH

#38

[QUOTE=bjoy;72283]yoga is nothing but a manifestation.

of love, love, love.[/QUOTE]

This has been my experience also.

#39

[QUOTE=Sarvamaṅgalamaṅgalā;72286]You are allowed to give it the same meaning, because these English words like soul and spirit are extremely vague, but that doesn’t mean that everyone gives them the same meaning in the different contexts they appear.[/QUOTE]

This statement applies to all human minds, language and Jnana yoga in general, perhaps inspiration but not much significance.