The unequivocal and uncompromising declaration of Advaita is that ‘Nothing is ever born; there is no creation.’
If so, what is ‘all this’ that we see?
Well, if such a question arises, the scriptures invoke the IkShaNa shruti – to explain creation. It is just a conceptual model – a fact which the shruti itself affirms. A throb in brahman is said to have engendered a formless Hiranyagarbha, as the Creator, whose thought then projects a world. Sage Vasishta explains very clearly in the Chapter on Origination in Yogavasishta that “Hiranyagarbha is born within the Supreme Self. He has no form. His body comprises his mind only. There is no physical body for him. The five fundamental elements are born from Hiranyagarbha through his mentation (thought process). Hence the five elements and the subsequent products arising out of them like the gross worlds do not have reality. They lack Beingness. They are not really born. They are like the horns of a rabbit.”
While answering the question of “What is this universe?” the physicists too figured out from their calculations a similar mechanism. What they find is that there is a high probability of a vacuum fluctuation in an absolutely quiescent thermodynamic equilibrium giving rise to a single conscious brain (mind) within it rather than the entire gamut of universes, galaxies, livable planets, living creatures. us and so on.
If true, the implication of what they say, in the words of Dennis Overbye, is: “that you yourself reading this article are more likely to be a momentary fluctuation in a field of matter and energy out in space than a person with a real past born through billions of years of evolution in an orderly star spangled cosmos. Your memories and the world and the world you think you see around you are illusions.” Vedantins have no problem with it. The physicists, however, call it The Boltzmann Brain paradox. And they are still probing into the problem.
***
The most fundamental theories of Physics are three. They are:
The Relativity Theory about space and time.
The Quantum Theory about small particles.
The Principles of Thermodynamics about matter and energy. (The thermodynamic quantity ‘entropy’ is about order and information).
A galaxy of physicists including Dr. Albert Einstein devoted their energies in unifying the Relativity Theory with the Quantum Theory trying to develop a Theory of Everything (TOE) in order to explain the origin of the universe (what we see as ‘our world’). It has remained a holy grail for them to date.
For Biologists and, perhaps, Vedantins the interface between The Quantum Theory and Thermodynamic Principles is of a greater interest in order to explain the origin of life forms (and Consciousness(?)). ‘Life’ is after all a process and not a static entity. Hence, Thermodynamics can throw more light “since literally all work (processes) in the universe is a function of the flow of heat” and Thermodynamics is basically the study of heat and heat flows.”
The Boltzmann Brain is a thought experiment similar to Schrodinger’s cat. It’s created to explore the interesting and complex questions regarding consciousness, intelligence, entropy, and probability.
“One of the fundamental principles of thermodynamics is the idea of equilibrium. This is the notion that differences in heat will, over time, tend to “even out.” When you drop an ice cube into a glass of water, you create a thermodynamic system with a significant heat gradient in it. Heat will flow out of the water and into the ice cube, melting it, and eventually the entire glass will reach a uniform temperature. There’s no physical law that says one spot in your glass of water can’t spontaneously get cold and freeze into an ice cube. But it’s so incredibly unlikely that you could watch a glass of water for infinite time and never see an ice cube form.” Our existence in the universe appears to be “even more improbable than an ice cube spontaneously forming in a glass of tap water.”
Ludwig Boltzmann, the 19th century Austrian physicist who studied the behavior of molecules in gases, “was perplexed by the existence of seemingly thermodynamically impossible things like human beings. He proposed that maybe we are just ice cubes that formed spontaneously. It’s just really improbable that they should. But in an infinite universe, isn’t it possible for the vastly improbable to happen? Since there’s no law preventing it, then it in fact can occur, and the fact that it did isn’t itself a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. We’re only surprised to find that we exist because, well, we’re the ones who are noticing we exist. If “we” were somehow disembodied minds observing the cosmos at a larger scale, the fact that there’s a tiny, completely insignificant thermal fluctuation in this one invisibly small spot doesn’t seem all that surprising, or even particularly interesting.”
“There’s a problem with that idea, though. If it’s possible for us to have emerged in the universe in the way that we did — as complex biological organisms that evolved greater complexity in a steady process taking place over millions of years — then it’s also possible for a conscious, thinking being to just emerge spontaneously out of, for instance, a glass of water. Boltzmann advanced the idea that, thermodynamically speaking, in fact it’s vastly more probable that a thinking being should emerge spontaneously out of thermodynamic equilibrium than what happened with us.”
“The Boltzmann Brain problem arises from a string of logical conclusions that all spring from the question why time seems to go in only one direction. The fundamental laws governing the atoms bouncing off one another in the egg look the same whether time goes forward or backward. In the universe the future and past are different and you cannot remember the future. Boltzmann ascribed the so-called arrow of time to the tendency of any collection of particles to spread out into the most random and useless configuration in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy (the amount of disorder) can never decrease in a closed system like our universe.”
The universe having been there from time immemorial (anAdi), would have reached equilibrium long back (what cosmologists call ‘heat death.’ That means “it would have already reached maximum entropy, and so with no way of reaching more disorder, there would be no entropy gradient, no arrow of time. No life would have been possible.”)
As Sean Carroll, theoretical physicist from Caltech, says, “If what we want is a single planet, we certainly don’t need a hundred billion galaxies with a hundred billion stars each. And if what we want is a single person, we certainly don’t need an entire planet. But if in fact what we want is a single intelligence, able to think about the world, we don’t even need an entire person–we just need his or her brain. So the reductio ad absurdum of this scenario is that the overwhelming majority of intelligences in this multiverse will be lonely, disembodied brains, who fluctuate gradually out of the surrounding chaos and then gradually dissolve back into it.”
Alan Guth, MIT Cosmologist even adds that some ‘calculations result in infinite number of free-floating brains for every normal brain.’ The famous physicist Richard Feynman too, following the same logic as Boltzmann, contemplates the possibility that we’re all just a statistical fluctuation. Only the fluctuations can create an entropy gradient and the life process can then start. The entropy gradient (from low to high) also brings in the arrow of time (irreversibility of processes – eggs do not unscramble).
But the fluctuations are not a regular feature. They are random and unpredictable. In fact, during the overwhelming majority of a universe’s history, there is no entropy gradient at all created by a fluctuation. Everything just sits there in a tranquil equilibrium (See the figure at top left). That is brahman condition. The ground state. Nothing happens in brahman. brahman is absolutely placid, composed (balanced), calm-posed (tranquil), empty (no form) situation (is-ness). No arrow of time. No life (a process, an activity) is possible. Life requires motion and evolution, riding the wave of increasing entropy.
A rare fluctuation, like a vacuum fluctuation, would decrease the entropy in some place and starts the arrow of time and the Boltzmann Brain. The dark energy which is running the universe now (rapidly expanding universe) is responsible for Boltzmann Brains.
Borrowing the words of Sean Carroll: So if we are explaining our low-entropy universe by appealing to the anthropic criterion that it must be possible for intelligent life to exist, quite a strong prediction follows: we should find ourselves in the minimum possible entropy fluctuation (points like C in the figure) consistent with life’s existence. And that minimum fluctuation would be “Boltzmann’s Brain.” Dr. L. Susskind at Stanford and his coworkers said that Boltzmann’s Brains are more likely than universes and real people in a scenario of eternal inflation giving raise to recurrent bubble universes. Such a likelihood (of a brain only) is more in the same way that it is more probable for a meaningful word to emerge than a whole sentence when you shake a box of scrabble letters.
So physics does indicate the greater probability of a Hiranyagarbha emerging from a random fluctuation in ground state equilibrium position. And there is this further possibility that you yourself are a Boltzmann Brain, if the only requirement is consciousness like what you have in your brain without the whole lot of baggage of galaxies, stars, planets, human bodies etc. etc. Of course, all physicists do not accept this model. They are still investigating the problem. That includes the popular theoretician Sean Carroll too. Unfortunately, he is not much interested in Vedanta.
Sean Carroll gave a talk recently on Quantum Fluctuations and a short version of it is relevant for us here to tell us about the nature of fluctuations that can trigger an entropy gradient which then activates the downstream processes. I am reproducing the salient points:
“There are really 3 different types of fluctuations: Boltzmann, Vacuum, & Measurement.
Boltzmann Fluctuations are basically classical: random motions of things lead to unlikely events, even in equilibrium.
The ‘macro’ state of a system can be static (equilibrium), but stuff is churning beneath the surface. That allows Boltzmann fluctuations.
Vacuum Fluctuations are the differences between quantum and classical states. Classically-definite observables can have a quantum variance.
Nothing actually “fluctuates” in vacuum fluctuations! The system can be perfectly static. Just that quantum states are more spread out.”
By itself, a system can be static, but observational outcomes are probabilistic. Observe over and over again, get different results.
That makes us confuse (static) vacuum fluctuations with (dynamical) Boltzmann fluctuations. We think what we see is what really is.
But quantum mechanics says that what really exists is very different from what we see. In an atom, electrons aren’t fluctuating at all.
All of which is crucial for understanding Boltzmann Brains.”
***
Though I am still to get a clear picture of it, I see a hint of similarity between the ‘spandana’ that shruti speaks about and the vacuum fluctuations – maybe a post for another day!
[Note: Almost all material presented above is a cut and paste job from many sources and I am indebted to all of them.]
Another fascinating article, Ramesam, thank you!
I have to say, though, that (as you know) I remain deeply sceptical about all this. It often seems that these scientists (is there a generic term for particle physicists, cosmologists and neuroscientists?) invent their own teminology and then use it in a way that may make sense linguisitcally but only conveys information to the reader to the extent that their imagination allows.
One point that occurred while reading the above is: is the assumption underlying the concept of the Boltzmann brain reasonable? Is it not actually reasonable to argue that a single brain is actually more complex than the entire universe of inanimate matter? Or am I missing something? (Quite likely!)
Shri V. Subrahmanian (Subbu) writes:
(off-line communication)
Nice article. My comments:
//Hence, Thermodynamics can throw more light “since literally all work (processes) in the universe is a function of the flow of heat” and Thermodynamics is basically the study of heat and heat flows.”//
I am reminded of the Mundaka mantra 1.1.8 and the bhashya:
मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमं मुण्डकम् । प्रथमः खण्डः । मन्त्रः ८ – भाष्यम्
यद्ब्रह्मण उत्पद्यमानं विश्वं तदनेन क्रमेणोत्पद्यते, न युगपद्बदरमुष्टिप्रक्षेपवदिति क्रमनियमविवक्षार्थोऽयं मन्त्र आरभ्यते — तपसा ज्ञानेन उत्पत्तिविधिज्ञतया भूतयोन्यक्षरं ब्रह्म चीयते उपचीयते उत्पादयिष्यदिदं जगत् अङ्कुरमिव बीजमुच्छूनतां गच्छति पुत्रमिव पिता हर्षेण ।
It is that Brahman, when creation is about to happen, ‘bloats’, as it were. ‘Tapas’ means intellectual activity and the word also means ‘heat generation’. I see a connection between the scientific view and the above mantra/bhashya.
I also find overtones of ‘krama srishti’ and ‘yugapat srishti’ in the article: creation in an order, evolution, and creation all at once, random.
Pl. upload the above comment in your blog.
Dr. K. Sadananda (Sada) writes:
(off-line communication)
Ramesam:
The unequivocal and uncompromising declaration of Advaita is that ‘Nothing is ever born; there is no creation.’
Sada:
The statement itself has problem. If nothing is ever born and there is no creation, then the statement has no meaning since negation of non-existing thing is meaningless. If it is born and if there is creation then also negation of that which exists is also meaningless. Declaration of Advaita is – nothing is REALLY born and there is no REAL creation. Then only the negation apparent creation is possible from the point of absoluteness. The ontological status of the negator, negation and negated have to be of the same order.
Remesam:
If so, what is ‘all this’ that we see?
Well, if such a question arises, the scriptures invoke the IkShaNa shruti – to explain creation. It is just a conceptual model – a fact which the shruti itself affirms. A throb in brahman is said to have engendered a formless Hiranyagarbha, as the Creator, whose thought then projects a world. Sage Vasishta explains very clearly in the Chapter on Origination in Yogavasishta that “Hiranyagarbha is born within the Supreme Self. He has no form. His body comprises his mind only. There is no physical body for him. The five fundamental elements are born from Hiranyagarbha through his mentation (thought process). Hence the five elements and the subsequent products arising out of them like the gross worlds do not have reality. They lack Beingness. They are not really born. They are like the horns of a rabbit.”
Sada:
Statement of Yogavashishta needs be accounted keeping consistency (samanvayam) with other Shruti statements. Ikshata – He saw – is statement to account that the existence (sat) before creation which is one without a second – SAW – seeing implies that it is a conscious entity. Since there is nothing else to see, the statement only implies that it is self-conscious entity. Then comes the statement – bahushyaam – let me become many – prajaayeyeti – He became many. In another Upanishad it says – Self alone was there before creation – It meditated before it became many. Becoming many involves two steps – first five subtle elements from which subtle materials are created and by grossification the gross elements for grosser worlds including 14 lokas and the required bodies
As per Vedanta Hiranyagarbha stands for total mind – which is made up of subtle material just as individual minds. Hence it is not brain which is gross material but subtle material similar to individual minds. Brains of individual are gross matter only and is left behind when death occurs. Mind cannot be analyzed by the objective sciences since the objective tools are not amenable for it. They cannot analyze even a thought that arise in the mind – at the most they will come to the level of electrical charges in terms of neurons.
The rest of the article I think more of a speculation and wishful thinking. I feel the objective sciences are useful up to the analysis of grosser materials including electrical charges. The rest is only speculation on their part. For that only Vedanta becomes a pramaana. Entropy itself is inert and it is a concept to provide a measure of degree of randomness in the system. Decrease of Entropy may designate some kind of order setting in. Interpretation beyond with as Dennis says with fancy words would not make it close to Vedantic truths.
Dennis and other Commentators,
Many thanks for your time.
I am grateful for all the thoughtful observations.
Before I respond to the specific comments, some general remarks:
1. The broad thrust of the Post may not have been lost to the Readers familiar with my writings. The post is an attempt, as my friend Fred said (in a mail to me), towards: “furthering our understanding of who/what we are, from both Vedanta and progressive science perspectives …. that these two approaches may not really be at odds with each other … or at least are getting closer.”
2. As the Question mark in the title signifies, the Post is neither an assertive statement nor a definitive conclusion.
3. Fred asked me this question: “How would the practices of science look if there were full understanding that Consciousness is primary?”
My reply to him: That’s a Big Big question. We have to see what will happen.
One thing I am hopeful though – the probability of the success for people to shedding their ignorance will go up – something Vedanta has not been able to improve on ever since what Krishna said in Gita VII-3.
Coming to specific comments:
Dennis:
“Scientists … invent their own teminology and then use it in a way that may make sense linguisitcally but only conveys information to the reader to the extent that their imagination allows.”
Is that not true with all branches of studies? The Children’s Crazy Story in Yogavasishta (in the chapter on Origination) is a hilarious example taking it to an extreme end.
Dennis: “One point that occurred while reading the above is: is the assumption underlying the concept of the Boltzmann brain reasonable? Is it not actually reasonable to argue that a single brain is actually more complex than the entire universe of inanimate matter? Or am I missing something? (Quite likely!).”
Complexity is a different matter altogether. Though it is very much relevant in the context of evolution of life forms, I deliberately avoided discussing that issue in this essay. Shri Subbu also touched on this aspect in a way in his comment with regard to yugapat sRiShTi and krama sRiShTi.
Please also see my response to him.
Secondly, classification of matter into animate and inanimate may be convenient for us, but Vedanta does not make this difference from the “constituent” point of view.
Shri V. Subrahmanian:
“ ‘Tapas’ means intellectual activity and the word also means ‘heat generation’. I see a connection between the scientific view and the above mantra/bhashya.
I also find overtones of ‘krama srishti’ and ‘yugapat srishti’ in the article: creation in an order, evolution, and creation all at once, random.”
Many translators usually give the meaning as ‘penance’ for tapas.
Penance is a term which in Christianity signifies self-punishment for atoning ‘sins.’ For Catholics it is a confession and repentance.
I agree with Shri Subbu that tapas is, as he said, ‘heat’ related – one may say something like incubation. (I always like to translate ‘tapas’ as performing austerities and meditation, not penance).
I thank him re: his observation with reference to ‘krama sRiShTi.’
I did not elaborate on that because of length considerations and it will also be digressing into the issues of ‘complexity’ and biological evolution. As he rightly said, the evolution of the organism (life-form), in fact, is a gradual progression (krama) involving ‘time’ element. ‘Natural selection’ (fitness) plays a significant role in that context. The role of ‘natural selection’ was not as well-known during Boltzmann times.
The scientific view in brief is that “Natural selection amplifies the improbable. Because organisms reproduce, and pass on their traits as they do, an improbable thing only has to happen once for it to be amplified and distributed through an environment. Over a long enough timeline, tiny changes give rise to vast complexity. It ends up looking like something hugely improbable happened, but in fact what happened is that over a very long span of time, a long series of only slightly improbable things happened.”
Dr. K. Sadananda:
When I read Shri Sada’s comment on the opening sentence of my Post, I felt immediately persuaded to change it in line with his suggestion. I replied to him that I shall modify the wording in the article accordingly.
But no sooner I opened the site to affect the alteration, it flashed to me that there was no flaw in the way the opening sentence read!
It takes a long essay to convincingly present all the nuances involved. The Comment column here is definitely not the place for it. In short, I feel unable to go with his arguments.
I shall touch here briefly his objections (including the one about the opening line).
Sada: “The ontological status of the negator, negation and negated have to be of the same order.”
Obviously such a pov is based on the subliminal assumption of multiplicity. That would be a valid environment if the statement is a “teaching” – made by a guru (more learned) sitting on a pedestal addressing a meek disciple down below.
But that is not the way Advaita (no-two) views (if it can be said to have a view). The opening sentence is not a teaching. It is a declaration of the Self, by the Self, for the Self, in the Self. It is like self-effulgence.
In short, the Sun does not shine because ‘I’ cook my food in sun-light.
Sada: “Statement of Yogavashishta needs be accounted keeping consistency (samanvayam) with other Shruti statements.”
The sentences on ‘creation’ in different Upanishads are not always consistent. One talks of only three fundamental elements, others talk of five. Sage Bushunda gives several instances where there is no prescribed order in creation. Some creations start with space, some with fire, some with water and so on.
Ultimately it is said that when, anyway, all creation statements are an ‘imagination,’ can there be a fixed rule and order for it? So it asks us to be focused on the core message. There are more detailed deliberations on this subject in Yogavasishta.
Sada: “Mind cannot be analyzed by the objective sciences since the objective tools are not amenable for it. They cannot analyze even a thought that arise in the mind – at the most they will come to the level of electrical charges in terms of neurons. ”
That is, scientifically speaking, an outdated view.
[If I may venture to say, what our scriptures call ‘gross world’ is amenable to Classical physics (intuitive and perceivable to the senses). What we call ‘subtle world’ is, perhaps, amenable to Quantum physics (counter-intuitive and not available to the senses).]
Sada: “The rest of the article I think more of a speculation and wishful thinking.”
This is a weak and trivial argument.
For one, by definition, science is that which is NOT speculative. In general it is philosophy that is usually called as speculative.
Secondly, people holding unfalsifiable and highly speculative concepts cannot take a “I-am-holier-than-thou” stand.
My apologies to respected Dr. Sadnanda, I fail to go with his objections.
regards,
The unequivocal and uncompromising declaration of Advaita is that ‘Nothing is ever born; there is no creation.’
If so, what is ‘all this’ that we see?
Reply: You do not see, your eyes seemingly ‘see’. This is why I don’t go with the word ‘appearance’. I’d rather stick to Sureshvaracharya, If I recall it correctly who says that “avidya is in the nature of ‘experience’ ” . So what is the experience ? Experience is due to maya called up by avidya, when actually there is no second to the really real brahman viz, even ‘experience/avidya’. So when we say that ‘I have experienced brahman’ it is actually a non-experience of any specific feature, except may be ‘awareness’. But there’s no mind to assert this fact in that state (It’s not a state, I know). So all experiences are possible only in the ignorant state.
So why is there ignorance at all ? Shankara points out in his adhyasa bhashya that it is beginning-less and something innate, a mixing up of the real and the unreal. So there really is no creation as such, but only an error.
I hope I have put everything at rest with this reply. Thank you.
Another brain tickler from Ramesam!
“Nothing is ever born….” is the uncompromising declaration of Advaita.
At the same time, Advaita also warns that do not try to peel the layers of Maya – just like peeling onion you will get nothing but just never ending peeling ( something to this effect is stated by Vidyaranya Chitradeep 6-139 – if you consider Panchadasi an authority on Advaita).
As I observe, Ramesam often tries to illustrate the above two aspects of Advaita without quoting or restating Shruti but through simple experiments and sometimes using complex modern day quantum physics.
My conclusion after reading this post is: Ramesam is trying to show that even modern day quantum physics is also coming to a similar conclusion as Advaita – the more you try to find out how and where this world emerged from, newer, finer and subtler discoveries seem to surface while the gap seems to widen even more.
As I understand, “Advaitic models of creation are conceptual and cannot be proven and negated by Advaita itself” has been the “bone” old school of scientific research folks (who always want solid proof) have been picking on. But now the modern day quantum physicists are changing the old lane and leaning more towards Advaita Creation theory – here is model(s) of creation that shows nothing is created!
Vijay
In connection with the above comments by Dennis, Ramesam, Vikram, and Vijay, what follows may add something relevant to the discussion:
(From a recent discussion in Quora)
Some argue that there is an underlying field of life/energy that is the source of everything in relation to consciousness. What is the reasoning?
A. Martin – V M (below) refers to those who entertain such concept as having “insufficient education and closed mindedness”.
There is a quite different view of things concerning this subject: ‘In the 1920′s quantum mechanics was created by the three great minds: Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger, who all read from and greatly respected the Vedas. They elaborated upon these ancient books of wisdom in their own language and with modern mathematical formulas in order to try to understand the ideas that are to be found throughout the Vedas, referred to in the ancient Sanskrit as “Brahman,” “Paramatma,” “Akasha” , and “Atman.” – See more at: http://scienceandnonduality.com/…
‘Akasha’ (‘space’, or ‘void’), though in principle (or initially) a metaphysical concept, can be seen as a/the unified field of energy that physicists are currently investigating and giving credence to as a model to explain everything that is known, not only about the physical universe, but also about the underlying consciousness that escapes explanation in terms of matter/energy, that is, of physicalist concepts.
V. M. Of course, Heisenberg, Bohr and Schrödinger, are not perfect and just because they were experts and correct in one thing doesn’t mean they were correct with all things.
To safeguard against the argument from authority fallacy like you are trying to do, you need objective evidence independent of such authority, i.e. where’s the proof.
A M. I previously referred to model/modeling in empirical science, whose results are always tentative and provisional. Theories and hypotheses are intimately related to these constructions, frequently – or usually – based on a hunch, or an intuition (something subjective, to begin with). The models with which these three great scientists worked were metaphysical insights taken from Hindu tradition. Thus, the objectivity that you talk about is more a procedure than a proof or something final. It also has a pragmatic element to it. The principle of falsifiability itself is not water-tight. Thus, there is no objectivity apart from the subjectivity of a creative mind; and the latter is free and ineluctable. It is also a reflection of the intelligence underlying the cosmos.
Vikram, Vijay and Martin,
Thank you for the kind observations.
1. Referring once more to the objections raised by Shri Sada, let me say that I have cross-checked the same with well-learned Vedic Pundits of Shankara tradition. They tell me:
i) The opening sentence of the essay is correct.
ii) The 19th century Saint Swami Ananda Bhodendra Saraswati in his commentary on the specific shloka quoted by me from Yogavasishta actually used these words about creation:
यथा न जातं अनुत्पन्नं शाश शृङ्गादि नास्ति तद्वदित्यर्थः
(yathA na jAtaM anutpannaM shAsha shRingAdi nAsti, tadvadityarthaH)
Meaning: Just as the hare’s horn etc never originated, creation is never born .
2. I agree with Martin that experimental verification is secondary. I am quite fond of what Immanuel Kant said:
Es gibt nichts Praktischeres als eine gute Theorie.
(There is nothing more practical than a good theory).
Prof. A Zeilinger wrote in a recent Review Article: “… because experimental technology was not sufficiently developed at the time, people like Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger relied instead on “gedankenexperiments” (thought experiments) to investigate the quantum physics.”
We know how long it took to confirm in the lab the Casimir forces, Bell’s inequality, Higg’s Boson etc. etc.. Gravity waves took a century! So theory and conceptual developments are always way ahead of so-called objective verification.
3. The latest concept is that ‘entanglement’ which has a central role in Quantum Physics may not be happening in space only (Like what Dr. Einstein said “spooky action at a distance”). It can happen in time also (spooky action at a ‘delay’)!
This give me the thought that ‘you’ are an entanglement with your ‘Self.’ (Brace yourselves for another write up from me 🙂
I shall end this note quoting two leading researchers at the cutting edge in their respective fields:
Donald Hoffman,Cognitive Scientist, Irvine: “I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Spacetime, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.”
Anton Zeilinger, Quantum Physicist, Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna:
“.. one has to abandon at least the notion of naïve realism that particles have certain properties that are independent of any observation.”
regards,
Thank you for the reply Ramesam sir.
With much knowledge, there is much grief.
When we say light enters the eye, an educated person would say they are ‘light rays’ and some scientist would then go on to say that they are ‘photons’.
Similarly with matter, they would say they’re all a bundle of atoms, then something more fundamental and the search for more and more fundamental will continue forever. If we keep creating duality after duality, reality will continue to elude us. And now some of them are saying matter does not exist. Then why bother ? 🙂 Because the mind hankers for an ‘explanation’ to know ‘how’/’why’ and it is not satisfied with the answer that it is a classic case of delusion and nothing more.
To illustrate further:
When we see a piece of cloth, we are not aware that they are threads running horizontally and vertically… but is it a thread ? No. It is simply cotton. But is it Cotton ? No. They’re just atoms. Are they really atoms ? No. They’re verily Brahman only appearing as atoms making up cotton which are then made into threads and weaved as a cloth. Strictly speaking, there is no piercing through ‘layers’ of reality to reach Brahman. It is rather ‘knowing’ that there is no such thing as a cloth but only Brahman. Duality is fake. Keeping the world to be real, such inquiries are being made. And what TIME ? As if time itself is not a superimposition.
Hi Shri Vikram,
Thanks again for the detailed comments.
I am fully with you with much of what you say except that a couple of points need to be said differently. I do not know the background from which you made your observations. I guess you are already aware of these things. However, let me make my understanding a bit more explicit for the sake of completion.
[I know we are digressing here from the subject matter of the current essay.]
1. “With much knowledge, there is much grief.”
Relating “knowledge” (lower case ‘k’ – accumulative memory-based stuff) with grief, which is usually the theme of the populist type of teachers, is, IMHO, ill-conceived. The “knowledge” itself is neutral. It is what the “separate self” (individual person) does with that ‘knowledge’ that causes the grief.
Many people think that the snake on the rope caused ‘me’ to sweat. NO. The apparent snake does not do any such thing. It is your own response system (which in actuality is ‘you’) that does it.
2. “And now some of them are saying matter does not exist. Then why bother ?”
Excellent. If the reductionist approach shows us that ‘matter does not exist,’ a real scientist will not say “Why bother?” He/she will investigate if the instrument used by her (in this case mind) in the investigation is contributing to the aberration. And that’s what Vedanta does too.
Cutting edge research in Quantum physics also is pointing out that the ““fabric” of space-time, a metaphor that evokes the concept of weaving individual threads together to form a smooth, continuous whole, looks less and less like space-time at scales comparable to the Planck scale.”
Space-time is an illusion emerging out of ‘entanglement of information.’ In the absence of space-time, causality cannot exist.
“Quantum theory challenges many common-sense assumptions about the physical world. Among these assumptions are “realism,” “locality,” and “non-contextuality.” Unless an observation is made, there is no measurable property — or to put it differently, a measured property is not there as a characteristic of an ‘object’ but ‘perception’ engenders it.
It is much like what Vedanta says: Perception is creation.
3. “It is rather ‘knowing’ that there is no such thing as a cloth but only Brahman.”
Perfect.
Much of the traditional system of teaching appears to be content in saying that the world is ‘mAyA.’
That is only a half-way house.
It is equally important to carry forward the investigation from “all that is seen is unreal” to “Everything that Is is Me, brahman.”
regards,
Thank you Ramesam Sir
Relating “knowledge” (lower case ‘k’ – accumulative memory-based stuff) with grief, which is usually the theme of the populist type of teachers, is, IMHO, ill-conceived. The “knowledge” itself is neutral. It is what the “separate self” (individual person) does with that ‘knowledge’ that causes the grief.
I acknowledge that how one handles knowledge depends on the individual’s psychology/state of mind/how it is received etc. What I meant is that the answer is not ‘out there’ which you seem to agree on. But by mixing quantum physics with classical physics is just going too far.
“Quantum theory challenges many common-sense assumptions about the physical world. Among these assumptions are “realism,” “locality,” and “non-contextuality.” Unless an observation is made, there is no measurable property — or to put it differently, a measured property is not there as a characteristic of an ‘object’ but ‘perception’ engenders it.
It is much like what Vedanta says: Perception is creation.
My knowledge about Quantum Physics is very limited, far less than your’s Sir. But from what I understand, Quantum Physics is for quantum things and it is seen that it does not hold good for the macro world.
If I close my eyes and stand in the middle of the road, and say that there are no vehicles headed towards me, because there is no ‘perception’…you know what’d happen.
There’s a difference between, “perception/No perception” and transcending “empirical reality”
The answer to a question like “Why is this coin shaped liked this with a crest on it ?” cannot be arrived at by looking at the atoms that make up the coin, no pattern can be discerned by looking at them is all I am saying. This is what even neuro scientists seem to be doing today, see what the mind is from the standpoint of individual neurons… One day they’ll also say, there’s no way there can be a mind there. There is no such thing as a mind also. But from the macro level, it is there.
So what is the obstruction here ? Matter or Mind ? 🙂
This website will then say, “See… advaita has always maintained this… there is no mind also…” (I know you’re laughing) This ‘seeming experience’ is what makes people ‘cling’ to the illusory world and search for an answer that is in/of this world. People won’t give up, because it is there (from the empirical standpoint, which is called up by avidya, fancied by maya)…. and the search will continue.
Much of the traditional system of teaching appears to be content in saying that the world is ‘mAyA.’
That is only a half-way house.
It is equally important to carry forward the investigation from “all that is seen is unreal” to “Everything that Is is Me, brahman.”
When that knowledge dawns, would the person see anything ? or should I say, will there be a person at all ? 🙂
“Wherefore when all of this becomes Atman… with what will one see, hear, smell, taste, think….” I suppose this is from Bri Upanishad.
Reality itself is not affected whether one knows it or not. The ignorance is in the person who doesn’t know this reality. Here, it is not the mind, but something innate as Shankara puts it.
I stick to teaching the traditional way.
Thank you.
Shri Vikram,
Thanks for continued dialog.
“If I close my eyes and stand in the middle of the road, and say that there are no vehicles headed towards me, because there is no ‘perception’…you know what’d happen.”
This is but a variation of the famous “gajopi mithyA palAyanaMca mithyA” story with which the dualists make fun of Shankara’s teaching. Such a thing arises because of domain confusion as explained by Donald Hoffman. See here : http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?language=en#t-766482
“The ignorance is in the person …..”
Ignorance is the ‘person’!
“I stick to teaching the traditional way.”
That is good.
It is also salutary to go by –
आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः
(Aa no bhadrah kratavo yantu vishwatah) Meaning: May auspicious thoughts come to us from all over the world. – Rig Veda …
regards,
This is but a variation of the famous “gajopi mithyA palAyanaMca mithyA” story with which the dualists make fun of Shankara’s teaching. Such a thing arises because of domain confusion as explained by Donald Hoffman. See here : http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is?language=en#t-766482
I have already maintained that.
Ignorance is the ‘person’!
Domain confusion. That is known only when knowledge dawns.
It is also salutary to go by –
आ नो भद्राः क्रतवो यन्तु विश्वतः
(Aa no bhadrah kratavo yantu vishwatah) Meaning: May auspicious thoughts come to us from all over the world. – Rig Veda …
Many thanks
Ramesam,
1. “With much knowledge, there is much grief.” Ramesam answered:
“Relating “knowledge” (lower case ‘k’ – accumulative memory-based stuff) with grief, which is usually the theme of the populist type of teachers, is, IMHO, ill-conceived. The “knowledge” itself is neutral. It is what the “separate self” (individual person) does with that ‘knowledge’ that causes the grief.”
Is there a separate self apart from ‘knowledge’?
3. “It is rather ‘knowing’ that there is no such thing as a cloth but only Brahman.”
Ramesam answered:
“Perfect.
Much of the traditional system of teaching appears to be content in saying that the world is ‘mAyA.’
That is only a half-way house.
It is equally important to carry forward the investigation from “all that is seen is unreal” to “Everything that Is is Me, brahman.”
Is this not the ultimate abstraction? This is more like an assumption, theoretical, conceptual. It is not your experience, just something you have read and believed to be true. You are trying to make everything fit into a compact and tidy little formula that you can pull out and hold up as an ‘answer’. It just doesn’t work that way.
Anon,
1. “Is there a separate self apart from ‘knowledge’?”
Thanks you raised the issue. Perhaps concerns semantics of my usage.
In the way I am using the word ‘knowledge,’ implicitly it is a bit or bits of info which is finite, with bounds. There can be a multiplicity of such pieces of info (physics, chemistry, astronomy, carpentry, cookery etc).
‘self’ (with lower case ‘s’) is another piece of finite info about an entity in the multidimensional space (birth, qualifications, features like height, relationships etc).This ‘self’ is the sense of a “separate me.”
3. “Is this not the ultimate abstraction?”
No.
“This is more like an assumption, theoretical, conceptual.”
No.
“It is not your experience,”
You are right. It is NOT an objective experience.
For, It is not ‘expereinceable’ by a ‘me’ as an experiencer. It is the ‘knowing’ with which I know even that experience.
“.. just something you have read..”
Yes.
” and believed to be true.”
No.
“You are trying to make everything fit into a compact and tidy little formula that you can pull out and hold up as an ‘answer’. ”
No.
“It just doesn’t work that way.”
There is nothing mysterious or hidden under layers of gobbledygook. What we are talking is a simple straightforward Thing.
‘It’ is that very transparent “quality,” like an Antenna, a sensor element, with which you “know” anything and everything — including ‘experiencing’ – reading this on the computer, understanding what is read, typing your response, tasting the food, loving the spouse etc. etc.
regards,
Dear Anononymous
“Is this not the ultimate abstraction? This is more like an assumption, theoretical, conceptual. It is not your experience, just something you have read and believed to be true. You are trying to make everything fit into a compact and tidy little formula that you can pull out and hold up as an ‘answer’. It just doesn’t work that way.”
Interestingly to me, It is exactly the opposite of what you say – any experience is that “compact truth” but it is the reading, listening hearing seeing, thinking that is making it something different each time…
Vijay
Thank you Vijay.
You put it well.
regards,
Thinking is what is trying to make everything fit into a conceptual model. Take away what you ‘think’ about anything and what are you left with? There is no experience of that because thinking is the only experience that exists. In essence, there is no compact truth and nothing like a self that experiences anything. It is all in the ‘knowledge’ that we share, which is what some call ‘mind’. There is no tool or instrument that this body/mind has that can comprehend anything but experience and knowledge. So when someone postulates Brahman, God, or whatever, it is this pool of ‘knowledge’ that is being talked about, not any reality of Brahman, God, or transcendence. This is not a denial of Brahman, God, or transcendence. There is a difference. No amount of investigation can produce or prove Brahman, God, or transcendence. It just produces more conceptual thinking, not the desired result.
Ah I recall what Shakespeare said,
Copy-Paste:
Methought I heard a voice cry, “Sleep no more!
Macbeth does murder sleep”—the innocent sleep,
Sleep that knits up the raveled sleave of care,
The death of each day’s life, sore labor’s bath,
Balm of hurt minds, great nature’s second course,
Chief nourisher in life’s feast.
I understand what you mean.
Granted, better not to think… and not to write, since writing involves thinking. But then, if ‘This is not a denial of Brahman, God, or transcendence’ (Anon.), you/one cannot explain the meaning of that statement, what it points at, since it would be thinking (‘the only experience that exists’), that is, falling into error, biting one’s tail. Good grief!
All reality is because of there is an ‘experiencing mind’, know that the mind is also not real.
Vikram,
It is not a matter of real or unreal. Both are lodged in thinking and discrimination which is part of the larger body of thought we call mind. There is no alternative reality, just modification of existing mind. How could we know anything else? Recognizing this doesn’t change anything except the search for a higher truth. Take away the search and desire to find or achieve something ‘beyond’ or ‘present’, and there is nothing to explain, nothing you need to know.
God told Adam not to eat that apple. Adam just couldn’t resist……….
Well, One is always beyond the mind. The problem is identifying with it.
A fellow advaitin once told me, even when established in brahman, the mind runs like an undercurrent, but it is knowing that you’re not the mind or other mental faculties is what differentiates being and non-being.
There were once two generals and their respective armies set for battle against each other. The placement of one of the generals (a), being at a higher altitude with respect of the other general (b), afforded him a whole view of the field of battle, which (b) obviously lacked. General (b), being full of self-confidence, thought he was in at least as good position, or even better, than the other… Draw your own conclusions.
Drawing your own conclusions is what you are always doing. You can only conclude what is part of this world mind that I mention.
There is no beyond mind that you can experience. Identification is a property of mind. it is part of the world of ideas and cannot reach out beyond it. This idea of ‘beyond’ and trying to identify with it is a major theme running through our collective mind. There is no ‘knowing’ that you are not the mind other than more ideation within it. If there is any truth to Advaita, it is this. Mind cannot know what is ‘beyond’ it. Being is the total acceptance of this without any struggle to change it.
No No No. It is you who identifies with the mind and mind that identifies as the subject and others as objects. You are not the mind, don’t believe your mind. Analyse what you are in deep sleep (dreamless sleep). Do you die in deep sleep ?
I’m not sure that I understand what you are saying, Vikram. Is there something else beside mind? How would you know this if mind can only recognize what it knows? It only knows what is available to it through culture and its collective mind.
I didn’t say I was the mind, I said there is only mind. There is no one separate from it. The mind recognizes this. In deep sleep, the analyzer, which is mind, is not active. There is no analysis in deep sleep. It is a physical function that is suspended by the body so you can rejuvenate. What dies? Don’t you mean the thinking process which is an accumulation of all sorts of data comes to an end? Some people think of it as a self. It is a convenient way to refer to the body/mind, but there is no entity there, no actual person. There is no need for identification, and analysis is left alone when you see this. It is an overriding insight into the nature of mind.
I am saying, that there is a witnessing consciousness which is witnessing the absence of body/mind. Here “Witness” does not imply “seeing” or “perceiving” but just “Being”. Because if you say there is perception there, then it’d mean there is a second to brahman, namely, “perception”. That is why the term Advaita (non-dual) not shunya.
You’re confusing Advaita and Nagarjuna’s Shunyavada Buddhism. They haven’t gone beyond the mind. If you can bring deep sleep into waking consciousness, you’ll understand. But this is possible only through negation.
I still don’t understand how Ramana’s “Who am I ?” works to get established in Brahman. I am only stating what works for me.
I agree that the person also is an illusion, but this is only when viewed from the transcendental standpoint i.e, deep sleep or turiya.
But bringing deep sleep into waking consciousness is what is called Sadhana.
Vikram, thanks for the reply.
The sense of ‘Being’ is operative in my life. What I don’t do (with mind) is associate it with Brahman, God, or Transcendence. I also don’t associate consciousness with the above trinity. Why? Because it is only mind that wants to make the association and this leads back to the same cycle of thinking that is always going on. Creating something abstract like Brahman, God, or Transcendence and trying to either experience it or understand it is just impossible. The very nature of transcendence cannot be grasped or experienced by mind. No sadhana can do this. It is an archetype in the world mind. All of that is part of the consciousness of man. Seeing this allows a certain measure of peace and understanding, but it is not transcendence that we speak about. With due respect, you are embroiled in the Indian mind/culture which is dictating to you all these concepts. Didn’t JK address all of this in his lifetime? He was a modern man and was possibly the first Indian to emerge out of this pot of stew and smack it in the face. Being is the acceptance of what is.
I have no comment on Ramana, but I disagree when you say that only from a transcendental point of view can you say the person also is an illusion. This is an overriding insight that can take place in the mind and can shift one’s view about oneself. In itself, there is nothing transcendental about it. Only when you stop believing all these ideas about things can it take place. Really, you need to review JK. lol.
The transcendental point of view need not necessarily imply where everything disappears. Even while there is a seeming body/mind experience, you are beyond the “experiencer” .
I have read some works of JK. He is a bore. Only the first few paragraphs actually make sense, later he gets lost.
I agree with you Vikram on both counts – i.e. both paragraphs’s contents.
Thank you, amartingarcia.
Anonymous, For more on this, refer jada/chetana…. Kshetra/Kshetrajna
Anon,
I could be wrong, but most of what you write, in spite of your claim of being associated with UG and his likes, don’t you think sounds more like metaphysical or epistemological or some sort of hybrid solipsism…. ?
regards,
I don’t understand what you mean, Ramesam. These terms are not in my limited vocabulary.
There are two types of solipsism: the one of the drop of water* which does not see beyond its very limited surroundings and thinks itself unique, and the solipsism of the ocean or – better – the infinite expanse of the ‘heavens’ which, knowing Itself as limitless**, encompasses everything else (particular appearances, phenomena or disturbances) within Itself. This second solipsism -solus ipse – is unsublatable, unlike the first.
* (self-enclosed ego-mind)
** There can only be one reality.