Ramanisblog

Tag: Reality

  • Existence Reality About

    For my recent post ‘God will Never Die’ there has been a good response.

    God Arguments
    Reality Arguments

    There have been a few relevant comments .

    Some of them need an answer,

    Instead of replying to the comments individually, as the subject is quite complex, I am posting.

    Existence Definition.

    ”

    1. The fact or state of existing; being.
    2. The fact or state of continued being; life: our brief existence on Earth.(free dictionary.com)
    This is  simple a definition as one can get.
    However if one were to analyse the explanation provided , it becomes Complex.
    ‘Existing‘,’Being”
    Normal understanding is that when I see some thing , it exists.
    What does not appear to me does not.
    One of the comment says this and this is the common view.
    If we say things Exist only because they appear to me, then things we do not see DO NOT Exist.
    I do not see my back directly.
    I do not hear one speak in the next house.
    I do not smell the sea, which is not in Bangalore.
    I do not taste  Honey.
    I do not see my Brain or Mind.
    Don’t they Exist?
    They do.
    And there are explanations and this is precisely the reason why there are many schools of Thoughts in Philosophy.
    That they exist so long they appear to me, as has been commented upon this post ,is Realism.
    But Things do Exist even when I do not see hear them.
    We hear people informing us of things happening  in USA or NASA Flights to Solar Systems.
    So we do accept these as Existing.
    So, if a Thing were to Exist as an Idea in some else’s Mind, it Exists.
    This is called Idealism.
    There are yet another group of people who say that the idea of what others inform me is because of my Idea of their Idea.
    Therefore, things exist so long as they exist as an Idea in my Mind.
    These people are called Solipsists and this system of thought is called Subjective idealism or Solipsism.
    There is another practical point of view.
    If it writes it is a Pen or Pencil as the case may be.
    This explanation is called Pragmatism.
    But in many a case what when we see an Illusion, we believe them to be true and react accordingly.
    In some cases of mental disorders people do ear voices and visions.
    Are they all true?
    No.
    Then what is Existence?
    Existence is That which Is at all points of Time, without reference to anything else, People or circumstances.
    Spinoza‘ while speaking of Reality speaks thus,
    ‘Subject(Reality), is That which Exists by Itself ,independent of everything or anything else and , which does not need th conception of anything in order to be conceived”
    This applies to Existence or Being,
    Hinduism calls Reality by the attributes ‘Being, Consciousness and Bliss’
    ‘Sat, Chit, Anandam.

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • What Is Certainty ?

    Whenever we talk of certainty what do we mean?

    That an event or thing will happen the way we expect it to happen?

    Again what is ‘expected to happen?

    We expect things to happen indicates that we have seen some things, events followed some events, some experienced by us, some by the others,

    And we think the same pattern will follow.

    Just  how scientific is this?

    I am talking about Science here, because it what people think is the solution for every thing and Science is the club used to beat Philosophy and Religion.

    When a religious information , or even a fact is presented, the immediate question, from the people, especially who profess to have a scientific temper(?), is,

    How certain are you?

    The same question is addressed to Philosophy.

    You Talk of Reality God.

    The retort is,

    Is it certain?

    Does it hold good for all times the past,, present and the future.

    Philosophy and Religion take this very seriously and replies,

    Yes, it holds good for all times and it is Eternal.

    I think the answer is not can not be reasoned out for we can not verify, it.

    As of now, we know things and events as they are or reported to be ‘were’

    Not it ‘will be’

    What we know is the Finite and we presume, that since there is some thing Finite, there has to be some thing Infinite.

    Because we are conditioned to think, I do not know how, that there should be a pair of opposite.

    True there are pairs of opposites in what we experience in Life, pleasure and Pain,Darkness and Light, Good and Bad,the  list goes on.

    But by logic it need not be.

    What has happened yesterday need not happen to morrow.

    Our mind is programmed to find similarities,categories, uniformity  to make it easier for the Mind to categorize.

    It is the mechanism of the Mind.

    If we think it is in the outside world, then one has to accept the the Law of Uniformity of Nature and as a consequence must accept the Theory of Causation as well.

    Law of Uniformity , at its best can only say that an event had happened, is happening in the present and no more.

    Law of Causation can tell you an event is caused by another.

    One event may be the Cause for many events and one result may be caused by more than one Cause(event)

    There are many sub causes to make a particular Cause to produce one particular effect.

    This, I shall deal, in a separate post

    These sub or attendant  causes .’ along with the Primary Cause again assumes the law of Causation.

    So Causation assumes Uniformity and Uniformity assumes Causation.

    This is Logical fallacy. for each assumes the other as proven.

    So ‘expecting’ , including the results of scientific experiments , is not logical.

    One may say some result is expected, that’s all.

    So since our definition of certainty is based on  Expectation, it is equally untenable.

    Therefore, certainty is a Myth.

    It can not be verified.

    Curiously I find definitions on Uncertainty, not on Certainty.

    I am providing information  at the end , on this.

    This Uncertainty Principle gained recognition after the advent of Quantum Theory.

    Here it is:

    In 1927 Heisenberg suggested the uncertainty principle, which can be formulated now as follows:

    If one tries to describe the dynamical state of a quantum particle by methods of classical mechanics, then precision of such description is limited in principle. The classical state of the particle turns out to be badly defined.

    In 2005 the certainty principle was suggested, which is formulated as follows:

    If one describes the dynamical state of a quantum particle (system) by methods of quantum mechanics, then the quantum state of the particle (system) turns out to be well defined. This certainty of the quantum dynamical state means that “small” space-time transformations can not substantially change the quantum state.

    Both principles are not just some misty philosophy about uncertainty and certainty, but they have quite rigorous mathematical formulations in the form of the following inequalities:

    (* note the smirk behind the word,’Philosophy’ while it says the same under the garb of Science.)

    And the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a consequence of the certainty principle. The certainty principle generalizes on the unified base both the uncertainty principle and the Mandelshtam-Tamm relation for energy and time (discovered in 1945).

    A more detailed answer you can find in the paper The certainty principle (review).

    An explanation for dummies is given in the article The certainty principle for dummies.

    Should the certainty principle be considered more fundamental than the uncertainty principle?

    From the point of view of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the certainty principle is just more general.

    But from the point of view of relativistic quantum theory, it is more fundamental.

    The matter is that for the theory of relativistic quantum systems the notion of “space coordinate”, as a quantum-mechanical observable (a self-adjoint operator), is not natural. Correspondingly, the uncertainty principle turns out to be sapless.

    Why did not Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrödinger, Fock… have a hunch of the certainty principle?

    Because they did not know relativistic canonical quantization.

    Fortunately, now that the certainty principle is already discovered, for its understanding it is sufficient a usual introductory course of quantum mechanics (knowledge of the RCQ-theory is not necessary).

    A more concrete answer is given in the popular article The certainty principle for dummies.”

    (Source:http://daarb.narod.ru/tcpqa-eng.html)

    In simple English, it means that if you accept that the world alone is Real and Absolute, then the The Theories are Certain.

    If there is more than one world, then the Certainty theory is not correct.

    Now Quantum is proving that there are Multiverses(please read my posts on this subject under Astrophysics).

    In conclusion there is no such thing as certainty at all, except in our Mind.

    Shankaracharya deals this subject very eloquently  in his Mayavada theory, where he proves both  the Worlds, Relative and Real do exist side by side.

    http://transcendentwisdom.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/truth-beauty/

    The Uncertainty Principle.

    In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[1] The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. A more formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[3] in 1928,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

    Related Articles

  • God The First Cause, Yet Not Sankara Yoga Sutra 1.25

    Every thing has a Cause,

    Yoga Sutra 1.25. Patanjali.
    Yoga Sutra 1.25.
    Here Patanjali is reinforcing the notion of a unique original and unsurpassable soul. Apparently God is smarter than all of us put together. Still this brings up and interesting paradox around the issue of infinity. If all souls are purusha, and purusha is pure consciousness, i.e. sat-chit-ananda (eternal-knowing-blissfull), then how can God the Soul be more of anything?

    Events, Actions follow each other.

    An action or event is the reason for another action, event.

    Therefore, Cause may be the result of a Cause and be a Result of another.

    Again a Cause may lead to many results,

    A Result may be due to many Causes.

    If this were to be true, then the First Cause becomes a Logical fallacy.

    It is interesting to the Theory of Causation in Indian Philosophy, Hinduism.

    There are three Vadas or doctrines viz., Parinama Vada of Sankhya Philosophers, e.g., like milk changing into curd, Vivarta Vada of Sri Sankaracharya, e.g., snake in the rope, and Ajati Vada, the theory of non-evolution of the universe of Sri Gaudapada. The first Vada is the lowest. Vivarta is in the middle. Ajati Vada is the highest.

    To understand this we may like this.

    The Effect is different from the Cause as in Parinama Vada,

    This is fallacious as this theory assigns an Object without a Cause, which defeats the Theory of causation which is being defined.

    And an Object comes into being without a cause means we allude to Multitudes of realities.

    This is Philosophically incorrect as the presence of more than One Reality would limit the other or at least interact with the other.

    It it interacts with the other, it would again lead to other Reality.

    If it exists in parallel, it should have an origin either with that of the other Reality that has caused the other Reality.

    In both cases it is fallacious.

    Therefore the Theory that the Effects are different from Causes is untenable.

    The other one is the Effect is contained in the Cause.

    This is The Ajati Vada, the theory of non-evolution of the universe of Sri Gaudapada.

    Though logically correct, this does not explain our experience of the external world of Things.

    Shankaracharya explains this contradiction of both the Theories in his Vivarta Vada.

    The world is Real, yet Illusory.

    He cites the example of a Rope being mistaken for a Snake in poor light.

    Once we flash a light, we know that it was not a Snake but a Rope.

    So the fact that we saw a Snake was real for that limited point of Time when we did not have correct Knowledge.

    That it is a Rope is Real in the Absolute sense.

    Therefore both are Real but differentiated because of our Knowledge/inadequate Knowledge.

    This is Sankara’s Vivarta Vada.

    What does Yoga say on this?

    Definitions 
    Tatra – He (referring to Ishvara)
    Niratishayam – unsurpassable (beyond being bound)
    Sarva – all
    Gya – knowing
    Bijam – seed, primary cause

     

    God Is unsurpassable , this indicates he is The First Cause.

    He is the Root , Seed for Beings.

    Krishna says in The Bhagavad Gita ‘The Prakriti is the Mother and I am the Father, I am The Seed’

    Patanjali though seems to adhere to Parinama vada doctrine of Sankhya, he actually follows Vivarta vada of Shankaracharya, when he declared that the concept of God is necessary,though need not be Real in the Absolute sense of Samadhi

    Related Articles

  • Saasmita Samadhi Yoga Final Stage?

    The Final type/Stage of  Yoga,Patanjali Calls as ‘Saasmita’

    Individual Consciousness
    Consciousness.

    In this stage, Personal Consciousness alone remains.

    Gross elements like Objects and subtle elements, Objects like thoughts disappear.

    When Pure Consciousness , the attribute of Atman or the Individual Self alone remains,there is yet another level one should reach.

    That is merging or returning to the original state of Reality or Brahman, the macro principle.

    The Brahman is the Ultimate Reality and the individual Reality is but a reflection of it.

    This is what is stated in the Mahavaakyas,

    Tattvam Asi,

    Aham Brahmaasmi,

    Soham Asmi,

    Pragyanam Brahma.

    The Consciousness is a stream.

    Henri Bergson calls it as ‘elan vital’

    The Upanishads of The Vedas.
    The Principal Upanishads, List.

    This Consciousness appears at the individual level because of non Knowledge,Avidya.

    (In Indian Philosophy, Knowledge is defined as the removal of ignorance)

    Once Ignorance is removed knowledge of Reality ,nay, Reality dawns.

    Those who attain the Saasmita  Samadhi are called ‘Prakritilayar’, ‘one who s in tune with Nature’

    Here, of the three Gunas or dispositions(I use the normal meaning, not the term in a Philosophical sense), only the Sathva , pure, clear,remains.

    In Savitraka Samadhi, Sathva, Rajas and Tamas are present, but controlled.

    In Savichara Samadhi, Tamas is absent.

    Ananda Samadhi has Sathva remains dominate, Rajas less active.

    In Saasmita Samadhi,only Sathva remains.

    But to attain Self realization , one should transcend the three Gunas.

    The merging or return to Brahman is not Duality.

    The Reality is One.

    How this can be explained?

    It is like the relationship between heat and Fire.

    One can not dispense with another.

    In some cases, as in Microwave cooking, the Heat is felt and not the Fire which is the cause .

    Here the cause , Fire is invisible, the energy is visible , not the source.

    All these States constitute the Savikalpa Samadhi, except Ssaasmita Samadhi , where one is nearer to Nirvakalpa Samadhi which is the State where the Individual Consciousness merges with the Reality , Brahman.

     

    http://ramanisblog.in/2013/05/05/savichara-ananda-samdhis-yoga-sutra/

     

    Related articles

  • The World Is Us Sankya, Nirvana Satakam

    We have seen that Adi Shankaracharya explaining the various elements in us for understanding Objects  and how we perceive them, the ‘Observer‘

    न च प्राणसंज्ञो न वै पञ्चवायुः
    न वा सप्तधातुः न वा पञ्चकोशः ।
    न वाक्पाणिपादं न चोपस्थपायु
    चिदानन्दरूपः शिवोऽहम् शिवोऽहम् ॥२॥
    Na Ca Praanna-Samjnyo Na Vai Pan.ca-Vaayuh
    Na Vaa Sapta-Dhaatuh Na Vaa Pan.ca-Koshah |
    Na Vaak-Paanni-Paadam Na Copastha-Paayu
    Cid-Aananda-Ruupah Shivo[a-A]ham Shivo[a-A]ham ||2||

    Meaning:
    2.1: Neither am I the Vital Breath, nor the Five Vital Air,
    2.2: Neither am I the Seven Ingredients (of the Body), nor the Five Sheaths (of the Body),
    2.3: Neither am I the organ of Speech, nor the organs for Holding ( Hand ), Movement ( Feet ) or Excretion,
    2.4: I am the Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness; I am Shiva, I am Shiva,
    The Ever Pure Blissful Consciousness.

    The outside world, to be made known to us has,
    Katopanishad
    Katopanishad

    The Prakriti,(The Potential Energy to be known,),of  three constituent  Dispositions of the Prakriti) called the Gunas.

    Purusha, Kinetic Energy that Flows,

    Mahat, The Intellect, to translate these,

    Ahankara,The Feeling of ‘I, Mine” to be conscious,

    Mind,(For the Observer)

    Five sensory organs,(For the Observer)

    Five Motor organs,(For the Observer)

    Five Subtle Elements(For The Observed, The World)

    Five Gross Elements(For the Observed)

    Total 25.

    Let us look at each in brief.

    What is to be known, has ‘To Be’

    That implies presence.

    That presence has to be immanent and be inert, to be activated when to it is to be known or aware of.

    This presence is Prakriti or the Principle that is permanent, immanent and inert, awaiting to be known.

    This is provided by Purusha, the Kinetic principle that interacts with the Prakriti to generate Intellect,(at the macro level)

    Now Prakriti is constituted by the Three Gunas or Dispositions(for details see post Gunas under Indian Philosophy)

    This Intellect at the Macro level is Mahat.

    Once the Intellect is formed, it is ready to be known, both at the Macro-level and at the individual level.

    To be  understood, at the Macro-level, the external World has the Following.

    Five elements,Earth, Water, Fire, Air and Ether.

    These five elements have five  subtle elements called Tanmatras.

    The Five elements of the external world are gross in nature.

    Their qualities are a part of them ,  like Heat and Light are the qualities of Fire.

    We can not experience them as they are.

    The qualities embedded in them make us aware of them, like the heat is known by our bodies, light by our eyes.

    To sum up, the external world, the’Observed’ has elements that complement the internal organs of the Individual(Observer).

    When these connect Awareness or Knowledge dawns.

    Put it in another way , the Observed becomes Observer when connected, when the Individual Ego is identified with it.

    Therefore to know the Observer(self), is identical with knowing the Observed(External world), for the elements that constitute both are the same.

    The Observed becomes known when the elements of both the Observer and the Observed become  One, when the ‘Ahankara’ or  the ‘I, Mine ‘ is eradicated.

    This , in essence, is Advaita of Shankaracharya.

    It would be interesting to note that the principles elaborated above are from the Sankhya system of Indian Philosophy , which is called a Nastika, Heterodox, as it does not believe in the authority of The Vedas and for Shankaracharya , the Vedas are his source.

    Truth has many facets.

    Paths are many, destination is One.

    For readers,

    I have tried to simplify the concept.

    I find a lot of readers keenly following the post on Yoga Sutra, Isa Upanishad and Nirvana Shatakam.

    For any doubts, please post your comments as a discussion would benefit everyone.

    Also please do not hesitate to point out inaccuracies.

    Here I may mention that while I write objectively, where a topic on Advaita or Shankaracharya is concerned I tend to  become an Advaitin in interpretation for I am an Advaitin by Faith(which includes Reason)

    Those who have different stand points,may have their view and interpret the way it suits their disposition.

    But the meaning of the Sanskrit words are completely neutral as also the translation honest; I might differ in interpretation.

    This applies only to Nirvana Sathakam and not any thing else where I will be posting objectively.

    Explanation of the sloka in the next post.

    Related articles