That is quite coherent but I think you’re really out on a limb when you try to equate Samkhya-Yoga with quantum physics and Vedanta with string theory. I don’t know of anyone else who would go that far. And we know that you are a strong proponent of Hinduism so this can’t be regarded as an unbiased scientific point of view.
To be fair you aren’t equating them in this particular post, only placing them in the same category, but still, can you really call string theory monistic idealism? I’m not a scientist but as I understand it one of the problems of classical physics is that it doesn’t really apply at the quantum level, so I have to question your assertion that lower world views get sublimated into ‘higher’ world views, and I’m not at all convinced that Vedanta is a higher world view.
However, as we can see from the above discussion the subjective objective divide in reality is not as clear cut, but rather they clearly overlap. So there is no purely subjective reality or a purely objective reality, one can be simultaneously present in all objective states of consciousness and all subjective states of consciousnes. There is no clear cut internal or external divide either, consciousness seems to be simultaneously outwards projected and introverted at the same time. This naturally leads to the conclusion that there is no subjective-objective division reality, it is all one consciousness. Hence the worldview of Vedanta.
I really have to challenge this. Starting with the four states described by the Mandukya Upanishad, this has to be regarded as scriptural knowledge. It’s only partially based on common experience, so from the start this is a faith-based system.
We can use the waking state as a basis for discussion, because it’s common experience. In the waking state we perceive the reality around us. We call it ‘real’ precisely because it is common experience. If I can see something, and you can see the same thing, we agree that it’s real. There’s no ‘objective state of consciousness’, there is the object and the subject which is conscious of it.
In terms of individual consciousness, the division between external and internal clearly is our own body and there is no way that the assertion of one consciousness can be called a logical conclusion. That is an idealistic, scriptural assertion that you are trying to rationalize.
Samkhya and Quantum physics are related in that Samkhya is the philosophy that makes quantum physics and its discoveries explicable. In my BA dissertation this is the subject I looked at and I noted many similarities between Quantum physics and Samkhya:
They both posit that matter exists in two states: manifest, differentiated and massive and unmanifest, undifferentiated and potential. They both use similar words to describe the fundamental state of matter: quantum/moolaprakriti
They both posit that a conscious observer is required to collapse this unmanfiest state of matter and the collapse only takes place due to promixity, no intentional act by the conscious observer
They both posit that reality is interconnected at the fundamental level, thus no such thing as individual entities exist, but only mutual relationships which act upon one another. In quantum this is called entanglement, and in Samkhya they are called the effect of the gunas, which are constantly acting against each other. If you change one factor, other factors have to change in accordance.
They both end physical reality at the level of space, beyond this they posit the existence of other realities. In Samkhya once you reduce physical reality to space, a non-physical reality begins which is outside of time and space. In quantum physics beyond space exists a non-physical reality known as the quantum field or non-locality.
There are more similarities, but these are the major ones. Thus it is only natural to pair them up with each other. The similarities are not superficial(like other philosophers like Fritjof Capra draws) but very strong, almost as if quantum physics is simply a modern reformulation of Samkhya thinking.
As regards to Vedanta and String theory, I admit the relationship is tenuous, but there are some weak similarities. String theory is an attempt to unite the pluralistic realism of classical physics with the interactionist dualism of quantum physics to come up with a grande unified theory which explains all of reality in terms of only one fundamental substance(strings, as vibrating energy loops) which form an 11 dimensional universe. In this framework they also include consciousness as existing across 11 dimensons and even conclude that consciousness and reality have the same structure: ranging from high energy vibration(11th dimension) to low energy vibration(3 dimenions)
Vedanta is a philosophy which presents reality as being one substance of consciousness(brahman) out of which’s creative energy(maya) reality emanates outwards from high vibration(pranva) to low vibration(physical reality) According to Vedanta reality and conscousness have the same structure: hence why every state of consciousness is paired up with a level of reality.
Ironically, the Mandala(showing the structure of reality and consciousness as fractal) has proven to be a metaphor for reality and consciousness in both Vedanta and String theory.
Although it comes from a scripture, it does not mean that it is faith-based. Not everything which comes from a scripture has to be faith. If scripure talks about fire as hot and water as cool, it is not faith, but an observation.
Similarly, the Mandukya’s classification of states of consciousness is not faith, but observation of internal states across a spectrum of states of conscousness.
Today, we take many of these states for granted: conscious, subconscious, unconscious(modern terms for: waking, dream and deep sleep) We also recognise transcendent states(modern term for turya) In other words modern observation agrees with the sages of the Upanishad.
But even modern scientists do not see the subject matter of ‘states of consciousness’ as cut and dry, as obviously the sages did not either. It is obviously problematic to classify the states of consciousness into clear subject and objective divisions.
We can use the waking state as a basis for discussion, because it’s common experience. In the waking state we perceive the reality around us. We call it ‘real’ precisely because it is common experience. If I can see something, and you can see the same thing, we agree that it’s real. There’s no ‘objective state of consciousness’, there is the object and the subject which is conscious of it.
There is nothing wrong with your line of thinking from the practical point of view, but it is is simplistic. If we take the waking state as a basis for reality, then we would also have to include other experiences in the waking state. For example we are simultaneously aware of our internal world of imagination, thoughts and feelings amd we are also simultaneously unaware of things(e.g., eyes are open, but I am not seeing anything) In other words, experience is not as simple as waking observer and an object. It is a complex overlay of states of consciousness.
Now, if I were to take your criteria for reality as others being able to see it and agree on it, then I must deny reality to my thoughts. As others cannot see my thoughts, only I can. Thus I must conclude my internal experience does not exist. I cannot do that, because I know my internal experience, just as I know my external experience. Therefore the criteria that others must be able to see what I am seeing for it to be real is clearly wrong.
In terms of individual consciousness, the division between external and internal clearly is our own body and there is no way that the assertion of one consciousness can be called a logical conclusion. That is an idealistic, scriptural assertion that you are trying to rationalize.
Now here is the problem I have with the body as being the division between what is external and internal: how can you be so sure that this is where the distinction can be drawn, based on what criteria?
Does an internal and external division even exist in reality? Or is it only the act of observation that causes us to perceive reality as divided ? If you took the observer out of the picture, what would reality be then?
This is getting tiresome. Yes, conscious, subconscious, and unconscious are generally accepted terms in psychology. But I don’t think you will find any modern counterpart for turiya, And I don’t think you will find any support for subtle bodies. There is an element of faith.
My example using the waking state is admittedly simplistic. I was using that as a basis to make my point that there really is no such thing as objective states of consciousness, which is a term you used as if it were common knowledge.
As for similarities between Samkhya and modern physics, yes, there are some. But I don’t think they are as strong as you would like for us to believe. There are also some similarities between Vedanta and string theory. String theory is highly controversial, untested, and unproved.
There is quite a lot of support for the existence of the subtle body in modern science, more than you seem to be aware of. In modern psychology, particularly with OBE/NDE studies, the evidence is strongly in favour of a subtle body existing. The evidence is strong enough for spirituality to be taken more seriously in the mainstream scientific community. Mystical experiences like the kind of experience turiya is referring to are widely documented and acknowledged in modern psychology.
I did not actually say there is something as an objective state of consciousness existing; in fact I was challenging any subjective-objective division exisiting in the first place. In the Mandukya upanishad it divides reality into subjective and objective states. So the waking world is an objective state and the waking subject is a subjective state; the dream world is an objective state and the dream subject is a subjective state.
What it shows is that the subjective and objective always go together, there is no clear division between them. If consciousness is slightly external we say ‘objective’ if it is introverted we say ‘subjective’
The other Upanishad problematizes the subjective objective division further by diving it into 16 parts. So in any state consciousness is both outwards(waking), inwards(dream) and mergent(deep sleep) and also has flashes of what is outside all three states(turya) In other words what we call reality seems to be a whole spectrum of consciousness. When its fully outwards we say “external” and when its fully inwards we say “internal” but it still is the same consciousness that is producing our experience.
We commit a fallacy when we start to assign reality to only one band of this consciousness spectrum by saying that only the waking world is real and the dream world is false. It is exactly the same consciousness producing both experiences, the only difference is in in the degree of introversion and extroversion.
This is what Vedanta is pointing out in its worldview. Although it maybe inspired by scriptural authority, it does demonstrate its points using formal arguments. The critique it makes about reality also comes from secular postmodernism, that reality is the act of language construction, including the realities of science. When we make an observation we isolate in our consciousness certain characteristics and then objectify it and label it, like say a table and a chair, and then we separate out all the isolated objects according to time and space - so we might say “The Earth is 91 million miles away from the sun, America is thousands of miles away India, I am a few metres away from the wall” but what if we say “How far is the sun from space” Then space disappears, because the sun is pervaded by space. Similarly, everything that occurs within the field of our consciousness is pervaded by consciousness - the sun, moon, stars, other people. Thus whatever we are isolating is in the field of consciousness. There is no such thing as something outside of consciousness. There is no such thing as a location of consciousness inside our outside. It all is consciousness. Any multiplicity we see is just an act of language.
There is nothing religious about this worldview, it is a logically valid worldview which looks at how we construct our reality through language. The very basic assumption in Samkhya or in science for that matter of a subject and object, is an act of language. Where we assume to exist something called a subject and something called an object. But if we scrutanize this assumption we end up realising how problematic this assumption is and how we produce it through language.
