Part is conscious of its separation from the Whole. Youtube video
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Sensory Experience and Reality
Perception through senses is illusion. For example it is illusion when a person thinks a rope to be a snake experiences snake and not the rope. This experience of the rope as a snake is reality. The rope is the absolute reality. Here distinction is to be made between reality and absolute reality. In vedic terms, nature of the world is looked into through the individual perspective and his subjective experience.
Everything that a human experience is reality and truth. This in Sanskrit is referred to as “vyavaharika Satya”. It is to be remembered that Vedas do not label human experiences to be “false”. The correct interpretation of this term in English could be “illusion”. Moving on the Vedas also recognize the truths which are not experienced through senses but are known to the individual. There are things which the individual will not deny whether or not the same is experienced through senses. These are things which he simply knows. These are not known through experience through senses. In English this could also be termed “apriori knowledge”. These are from the individual perspective undeniable irrespective of how it is perceived by others. These could also be called “truth for truth sake”. These are also called “Parmardika satya” or “absolute reality” in Vedas and Upanishads. In terms of Vedas this reality or truth is the objective reality since its awareness is known to the individual not through senses and the experience obtained through them but it is known.
The above example of rope and snake should not be interpreted out of the context. In the example, rope is assumed to be reality and snake to be illusion. But in vedic terms, both the perception of rope to be snake and the perception of rope itself are illusions. In the example, if the rope does not exist then the individual would not perceive the snake. Here since rope is absolute reality it is the basis for another reality although not absolute which is “illusion of snake”. The point being made is absolute reality is always the basis for “reality” or truth is the basis for “illusion”. When there is no absolute reality there is no reality.
Similar to Descartes assertion that whatever is not 100% reliable all the time is not reliable at all and needs to be rejected in toto, Vedas reject all the ‘perception of the world as human experience through senses’ as illusion. But the point of difference here between Vedas and Descartes is that while Vedas recognize human experience as” illusion” or “maya” Des cartes almost labels human experience to be false. Vedas accept illusion as accepted truth i.e the truth which is experienced but which is not actually the truth. Whereas Des cartes does not assert what is truth Vedas assert that all that which human being is ‘aware’ (which the individual can never deny but also cannot prove through senses) without relying on experiences generated through humans senses is the absolute reality.
All of the above concludes that the modern perception of reality is diametrically opposite to the vedic perception. Objective reality in Vedic sense is that reality which is not perceived by senses and experience generated by them. Whereas in the modern scientific sense it is what is perceived through senses and additionally verified by other means of proof (instead relying entirely on senses). The absolute reality in vedic sense becomes “false hood” or “illusion” in the modern sense of reality.
The “objectiveness” in the modern sense is entirely based on senses which both Descartes and Vedas discard. Scientific experiments claim not to be based entirely on senses in so far as the experiments provide data and conclusions are drawn based on data. However, it is the human mind which perceives the data, analyzes it and draws conclusions. Therefore scientific experiments also fall within “perception of senses”. Objectivity in the vedic sense is non dependence on human experience generated by human senses. That which is independent of human senses and the experience generated by them.
Everything that a human experience is reality and truth. This in Sanskrit is referred to as “vyavaharika Satya”. It is to be remembered that Vedas do not label human experiences to be “false”. The correct interpretation of this term in English could be “illusion”. Moving on the Vedas also recognize the truths which are not experienced through senses but are known to the individual. There are things which the individual will not deny whether or not the same is experienced through senses. These are things which he simply knows. These are not known through experience through senses. In English this could also be termed “apriori knowledge”. These are from the individual perspective undeniable irrespective of how it is perceived by others. These could also be called “truth for truth sake”. These are also called “Parmardika satya” or “absolute reality” in Vedas and Upanishads. In terms of Vedas this reality or truth is the objective reality since its awareness is known to the individual not through senses and the experience obtained through them but it is known.
The above example of rope and snake should not be interpreted out of the context. In the example, rope is assumed to be reality and snake to be illusion. But in vedic terms, both the perception of rope to be snake and the perception of rope itself are illusions. In the example, if the rope does not exist then the individual would not perceive the snake. Here since rope is absolute reality it is the basis for another reality although not absolute which is “illusion of snake”. The point being made is absolute reality is always the basis for “reality” or truth is the basis for “illusion”. When there is no absolute reality there is no reality.
Similar to Descartes assertion that whatever is not 100% reliable all the time is not reliable at all and needs to be rejected in toto, Vedas reject all the ‘perception of the world as human experience through senses’ as illusion. But the point of difference here between Vedas and Descartes is that while Vedas recognize human experience as” illusion” or “maya” Des cartes almost labels human experience to be false. Vedas accept illusion as accepted truth i.e the truth which is experienced but which is not actually the truth. Whereas Des cartes does not assert what is truth Vedas assert that all that which human being is ‘aware’ (which the individual can never deny but also cannot prove through senses) without relying on experiences generated through humans senses is the absolute reality.
All of the above concludes that the modern perception of reality is diametrically opposite to the vedic perception. Objective reality in Vedic sense is that reality which is not perceived by senses and experience generated by them. Whereas in the modern scientific sense it is what is perceived through senses and additionally verified by other means of proof (instead relying entirely on senses). The absolute reality in vedic sense becomes “false hood” or “illusion” in the modern sense of reality.
The “objectiveness” in the modern sense is entirely based on senses which both Descartes and Vedas discard. Scientific experiments claim not to be based entirely on senses in so far as the experiments provide data and conclusions are drawn based on data. However, it is the human mind which perceives the data, analyzes it and draws conclusions. Therefore scientific experiments also fall within “perception of senses”. Objectivity in the vedic sense is non dependence on human experience generated by human senses. That which is independent of human senses and the experience generated by them.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Ralph Waldo Emerson on Reality
Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it
happen.
—- Ralph Waldo Emerson
We live in succession, in
division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole;
the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is
equally related, the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist and
whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect
in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the
spectacle, the subject and the object, are one. We see the world piece by piece,
as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are
shining parts, is the soul.
— The Over-Soul from Essays: First Series
(1841), Ralph Waldo Emerson
Friday, January 29, 2010
I and Not I
Two pre conditions to experience are the experiencer and the thing experienced. Thus experience verifies the existence of duality in the world we live in. ‘I’ have been continuously experiencing the world around me through my senses. I am strolling in a garden and when I see a ‘snake’ I experience the ‘snake’ through my eyes, may be smell etc.. Similarly, when I am sitting on seashore I experience cold breeze across my face. My skin lets me experience the cold breeze. This is a proof of my ‘separation’ or ‘distinctiveness’ from cold breeze and the snake. For when I am a thing I cease to experience the thing. When i am outside the ‘whole’ I can experience the whole but when I become part of the whole (‘dissolve’) I am the whole and so I cease to experience the whole. I was born with inbuilt tuners which always let me experience the world around me. Even if I had not grown up in a civilized society I can still experience the things around me and may call them by different names.
The key point being I was not naturally born with an ability to cease experience which I am experiencing continuously since my mind began perception of things. Will I ever be able to cease my ‘experience ‘?
I had posed this question because advaita teaches me to dissolve in Brahman (whole of the universe). If at all I do loose my experience it means ‘I’ becomes ‘everything’ . I am the soil, rock, pebble,air,space, vaccum, shit or piss or flesh or other human or animal or gold or machine and anything and everything. It could also mean ‘I’ cease to be a distinct entity. The fundamental principle of identity or ego or Jeevatman is – ‘ he is what he is and not anything else.’ As long as I experience the world around me I am a distinct entity which is not the thing being experienced by me. But the moment I become everything I violate the principle enunciated in the preceding sentence. I become what I become and everything else. Experience is a function of experience and the thing experienced. In otherwords, it is a process applicable to duality of the world (I and not i).
I experiences not I through process of experience facilitated by senses. When there is only I and no not I then there is no thing to be experienced. Moving away from the individual perspective, if the whole universe is a sub set of other smaller things can each of these subsets be individual things and also the world at the same time? Can a monitor of a laptop be a monitor (part) and also a laptop (whole) at the same time? If a laptop is a union of monitor, keyboard, harddrive and ram and other constitutent parts then can a laptop be a laptop without the monitor or key board or any of its parts? Can a drop of water added to the ocean be still a drop of water or does it becomes the ocean? Can there be an ocean (not referring to existence) if ocean is nothing but a pool of individual drops of water? Can an elephant be its trunk and at the same time the elephant? This question goes to root of what we think a thing is.
If I see a new being with two legs and 10 heads and two tails and with changing face and I name it ‘x’ is it right to call the same being ‘x’ when I separated one of the tails of this being? If I do think it is right to call it ‘x’ even after the removal of its tail then am I not self contradicting my own definition or description of what a thing is? Anyway, the question which remains is can a thing be a thing and also some other thing at the same time? If it can will it be able to experience the other thing?
The key point being I was not naturally born with an ability to cease experience which I am experiencing continuously since my mind began perception of things. Will I ever be able to cease my ‘experience ‘?
I had posed this question because advaita teaches me to dissolve in Brahman (whole of the universe). If at all I do loose my experience it means ‘I’ becomes ‘everything’ . I am the soil, rock, pebble,air,space, vaccum, shit or piss or flesh or other human or animal or gold or machine and anything and everything. It could also mean ‘I’ cease to be a distinct entity. The fundamental principle of identity or ego or Jeevatman is – ‘ he is what he is and not anything else.’ As long as I experience the world around me I am a distinct entity which is not the thing being experienced by me. But the moment I become everything I violate the principle enunciated in the preceding sentence. I become what I become and everything else. Experience is a function of experience and the thing experienced. In otherwords, it is a process applicable to duality of the world (I and not i).
I experiences not I through process of experience facilitated by senses. When there is only I and no not I then there is no thing to be experienced. Moving away from the individual perspective, if the whole universe is a sub set of other smaller things can each of these subsets be individual things and also the world at the same time? Can a monitor of a laptop be a monitor (part) and also a laptop (whole) at the same time? If a laptop is a union of monitor, keyboard, harddrive and ram and other constitutent parts then can a laptop be a laptop without the monitor or key board or any of its parts? Can a drop of water added to the ocean be still a drop of water or does it becomes the ocean? Can there be an ocean (not referring to existence) if ocean is nothing but a pool of individual drops of water? Can an elephant be its trunk and at the same time the elephant? This question goes to root of what we think a thing is.
If I see a new being with two legs and 10 heads and two tails and with changing face and I name it ‘x’ is it right to call the same being ‘x’ when I separated one of the tails of this being? If I do think it is right to call it ‘x’ even after the removal of its tail then am I not self contradicting my own definition or description of what a thing is? Anyway, the question which remains is can a thing be a thing and also some other thing at the same time? If it can will it be able to experience the other thing?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)