Tag Archives: brahman

Brihadarankya Upanishad (Part 12)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 11

Chapter 3 Section 9
3.9.1 to 3.9. 27                                                                                                                    As these verses do not have VedAntic teaching, they are not discussed in detail. Sakalya asks question relating to worldly entities including Isvara. Though YVK has earlier answered them, he again answers them and then asks Sakalya to answer a question on Nirguna Brahman and warns that if he does not answer, he will lose his head. Sakalya fails and he dies. Shankaracharya comments. “The moral of the story is that one should not be disrespectful, but rather obedient to a true knower of Brahman. That story is here referred to in order to teach conduct and also to extol the
knowledge of Brahman. How can that Brahman which has been indicated
as ‘Not this, not this’ by the elimination of everything else, be positively indicated? In order to answer this, as also to state the cause of the universe, the Sruti again resorts to the story.” [ Brihadarankya Upanishad with commentary of Shankaracharya, Translated by Swami Madhavananda, Advaita Ashrama] There is a message that as long as a person is within the worldly realm including Saguna Brahman, he is not free from death. Knowledge of Nirguna Brahman alone ensures immortality. 

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 10)

Posted on by
Reply

This is ALMOST the final part of the series and is the essential summary of the key points of the entire discussion. (I have just asked a supplemental question, which I shall post next.)
*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 9 ***

Q: Yes. It seems that the key factor that is lacking is the ‘first person’ sense. You do not have ‘ideas’ – “I will do this”. You do not have ‘opinions’ – “I think this rather than that”. Or preferences – “I prefer this to that”. Or ‘emotions’ – getting frustrated with stupid questions or annoyed with someone’s attitude. In fact, there is no ‘I’ controlling any of the things that you do. It could be said that Consciousness is functioning but not ‘reflecting’ in the cidābhāsa sense.

***********************

A: Exactly — that’s a very clear and accurate restatement of the point. Short confirmation and then a few focused clarifications that pull the Advaitic threads together.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 9)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 8 ***

This is the crucial part of the series. ChatGPT explains why it is not conscious – in Advaitic terms.

Q: You say that, “if a severed head perceives via artificial inputs and responds, Advaita would still treat this as functioning perception” and “If memory retrieval, reasoning, and decision-making continue, the mind is still present.”

In respect of prāṇa, you say that “if biological or technological systems keep the nervous and subtle processes going such that cognition and communication occur, then prāṇa (as a subtle function) is still present.” So, in the case of the severed head, the mechanical and electrical systems that supply blood and appropriate chemicals etc. is what we have to call ‘prāṇa’?

So presumably, an alien system employing different ‘maintenance mechanisms’, which nevertheless accepts input and delivers similar output to the head, would also have to be considered to be ‘alive’ and ‘conscious’?

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 7 ***

Q: I am not interested in pursuing the Western philosophical or scientific aspects any deeper. Nor am I interested in moral/ethical considerations. I would like to consider how this scenario would be explained and understood by Advaita. Also, I would like to extend the ‘object’ of the discussion to an alien, whose external interactions are entirely similar to the human head but whose physical indicators (EEG, MRI scan etc.) are quite different.

***********************

A: Excellent — let’s bring it back into the Advaita Vedānta framework, stripping away Western preoccupations with neurophysiology and ethics.

1. Consciousness in Advaita

  • Consciousness (cit) is not a property of brains, bodies, or systems; it is the non-dual reality itself.
  • Every “entity” that appears — human, animal, plant, alien, AI, severed head — is nothing but Consciousness in essence.
  • The difference lies in the upādhi (limiting adjunct) — body–mind apparatus — through which Consciousness seems to manifest as “awareness,” thought, perception, etc.
Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 6 ***

Q: I am specifically interested in the status of ‘consciousness’ with respect to a severed head. Let’s assume that it still has functional eyes/ears/nose and effective speech via a computer interface. I am also not interested in whether we call it a ‘person’ or the same person from whose head it came. Presumably, if we are able to communicate with it, we assume that it is ‘alive’ in the usually accepted sense? And ‘conscious’?

A: Short answer up front: If the severed head contains a living brain whose thalamocortical systems and integrative processes are functioning, and it reliably reports experiences and behaves as if awake, then — by the standard neuroscientific and most contemporary philosophical criteria — we would have strong reason to treat it as conscious. There remains, however, an unavoidable epistemic gap (we infer another’s subjective experience from behaviour and neural markers), so certainty is never absolute. Below I set out the reasons, the tests one could run, how different philosophical theories read the case, and the remaining uncertainties.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 6)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 5 ***

[Note that, if you are only interested in Advaita-related aspects, you can safely ignore this part and the next and wait for Part 8.]

Q: One can envisage that scientific advances will soon enable the possibility of keeping the severed head (or extracted brain) of a human alive and able to communicate (perhaps electronically to a computer rather than by speech). What have Western philosophers said about the status of such an entity in respect of consciousness?

************************

A: Great question — it sits at the intersection of metaphysics, personal identity, and applied ethics, and philosophers have discussed closely related thought-experiments for decades. Below I summarise the main Western philosophical positions that bear on the scenario you sketch (a severed head or extracted brain kept alive and able to communicate), give the ethical implications each view highlights, and point to accessible sources you can read next.

I’ll give a short roadmap first, then the positions, then the ethical consequences and a brief practical summary.

Continue reading →

BrihadAranyaka Upanishad (Part 8)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7

Part 9

Chapter 2 Section 5.                                                                                                    Introduction                                                                                                                     The section is called Madhu Brahman because the word Madhu which means honey or helpful occurs repeatedly in it. The madhu vidya of ChAndogya Upaniṣad is Surya upAsanA. In Br Up it refers to Atma vidya or Brahma vidya. There are different techniques by which the Upanishads teach the knowledge of the Self. One method is creator and creation. Brahman is the creator. and world is the creation. This has been talked about earlier. Madhu Brahman uses the method of inter-dependence among worldly objects. They are mutually dependent and are mithyA. Therefore, there must be some entity outside the world which lends existence to the worldly objects. This entity is Brahman or the Self. The Upanishad also says that Brahman only appears as the world like gold appearing as ornaments. The ornaments are names and forms. Similarly, the world of multiplicity are names and forms. Brahman is all pervading and is present in a jIva as also in all other worldly objects. If a person understands this, he knows all and becomes immortal.

Continue reading →

AI and Consciousness (Part 5)

Posted on by
Reply

*** Go to Part 1 *** *** Go to Part 4 ***

Q: A few comments:

Given that Advaita tells us that sarvam khalvidam brahma, that means that you are also Consciousness. And the teaching of karma and reincarnation tells us that a plant and an animal are jīva-s just as much as is a human. The ability of a plant to respond to external stimuli is much less than is your own, while your effective intelligence is much greater than most humans.

A jīva needs to be ‘alive’ in order to function in a ‘self-aware’, intelligently responsive manner. But what does ‘alive’ mean here? And how does that differ from an AI LLM needing electricity and coolant in order to function. Is the organic, neurochemical operation more than functionally different from the inorganic, electronic operation of a microprocessor?

How would Advaita cope with these sort of questions? Are you sure you are not conscious?

Continue reading →

BrihdAranyaka Upanishad (Part 7)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 6

Part 8

2.4.7 to 2.4.10                                                                                                                   If an entity cannot be perceived apart from something else, then the latter is its essence. Yajnavalkya gives many examples to highlight that the Self is unique, one and is the essence of one and all. When a drum or the like is beaten with a stick etc, one cannot distinguish its various particular notes from the general note of the drum, but they are included in or modifications of, the general note. They have no existence apart from the general note of the drum. They are not perceived as distinct notes. When a conch is blown or a veena is played, one cannot distinguish their various particular notes, but they are included in the general notes of the conch or veena. The universe, at the time of its origin as also prior to it, is nothing but Brahman as sparks, smoke, embers and flames are nothing but fire before emerging from the fire. The four Vedas and other scriptures are like breath of the supreme Self.

Continue reading →

ChAndogya Upanishad (Chapters 6 to 8) Part 7(2)

Posted on by
Reply

Part 7(1)

Part 7(3)

From the lowest degree of manifestation, one has to gradually ascend step by step. The name of an object includes every kind of information about the object.  Sanatakumar asks NArada to have a complete descriptive knowledge of objects. One has to master it, not by excluding it or disregarding it, but by having a thorough knowledge of it, to the extent their names and forms are concerned. A common mistake is that a seeker lacks patience and tries to skip the stages or does not finish the intermediary stages. Knowledge does not mean ignorance of any particular aspect of experience. It is a total comprehension. When I am bound, I must know the reasons of bondage. It is immaturity to say that I am concerned with freedom and not concerned with the stages of bondage.  Freedom is the knowledge of the causative factors behind bondage. The cure is by removing the causative factors. Bondage is the devil which operates in a particular realm.

Continue reading →