Jul 23

Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology

Uncategorized Comments Off on Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology

A person [a spiritual entity] has subjective experiences, he has a brain that has neurons whose firings can be detected by machine M. The person (experiencer) looks at a pattern P and the Machine M records a pattern Pm of neuron firings. A decoder then correlates the pattern Pm with the pattern P as identical. This is the process called brain reading.

A phrenologist correlates bumps on the head by a similar process. By correlating the characteristics of persons with certain bump patterns they can then determine the characteristics of persons simply by feeling their heads.

Astrology can do the same thing by correlating the pattern of stars and planets at birth with certain characteristics of people born under those celestial patterns. This can all be made very complex as we find in computerized astrology programs.

The Chinese beat a gong whenever the Moon dog comes to eat the Sun god during a solar eclipse. Every time they do it it works. So much for the empirical correlational/modeling/mapping method of ‘science.’ Can such a method ever explain anything or can it only ever be simply metaphor?

-To continue reading –

Jul 20

Continuation from previous post on this blog of the conversation between Joe M and Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja

To continue reading —

Jul 18

Beyond the Looking Glass

Science of Krsna Consciousness, Uncategorized Comments Off on Beyond the Looking Glass

(The following is from an online discussion between Joe M and Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja.)

Joe: “. . . you still insist that the source created the energy, and that the energy did not create the source. I think you have it backwards. I don’t see how you can have a source, without the energy to create it. The difference here between us is critical.”

BMP: Because you are conceiving the relation between source and energy as being relatively on the same existential level, like self and other, you are missing the third element, i.e.the transcendental absolute nature of the Source. When the Source is conceived on the absolute platform it can no longer be the result of anything but itself. It is important to understand the difference between the Absolute and relative platforms, and I think Spinoza has made a clear attempt at explaining this difference by his concept of causa sui [cause of itself]. I explained this in my first message to you, but either you seem to have a terrible memory or were not able to understand this the first time. I agree this is an extremely critical point to understand and it will change your whole perspective when you do.

When we understand the Source [I write it with a capital letter to indicate it is an Absolute and not a relative idea] it means the nothing within the relative world-frame can influence it or exert any cause on it at all. Thus the absolute world is called pure, unconditioned, eternal, self-luminous, or as the Bhagavad-gita mentions the transcendental eternal soul cannot be wet by water, burned by fire, killed by a sword, and so on.

While the Absolute cannot be influenced by the relative world, the relative world can be influenced [or more properly, created/manifested] by the Absolute or Transcendental world. We can understand this idea through the example of reflection [this is only an example]. When an object is reflected in a lake, in a mirror, or cast as a shadow, the reflection imitates the original and is caused by the original, but the reflection does not cause the original to act. On the other hand, the activity of the reflection is entirely dependent upon the activity of the original [source of the reflection].

If someone is absorbed in the reflected objects or shadows on the wall and thinks them to be the actual or original world, then this is called Maya. Such a person thinks the reflected objects or shadows have their own spontaneous free will to move as they like, but this is all an illusion. The images in the mirror don’t move, nor are those images formed by the glass and silver of the mirror if they were to be analyzed.

When the reflective material is called matter, then we can understand how the material conception of life is simply an illusion or reflection of the original world of spirit. We will get to further details of that idea in a separate post. For now, I hope this helps to give a clearer understanding of what is involved.

To continue reading —

Jul 03

Johannine Ontotheology and Vedanta

Uncategorized Comments Off on Johannine Ontotheology and Vedanta

Johannine Ontotheology and Vedanta
Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

excerpt —
In the King James version (KJV) of the Bible the apostle John writes:

John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Commentary: The meaning appears to be that the Word and God are different, yet identical also. Ordinary understanding doesn’t like contradictions so it tries to ignore the contradiction and simply accept the sameness of Word and God without the difference. However, that is not what John is saying here. He distinguishes the Word from God by stating the Word first, and then using the preposition “with” to connect the Word with God. Finally John then identifies the Word with God. What John is actually saying therefore is that Word and God are different and identical at the same time – a contradiction!

Western philosophy since Aristotle avoids contradiction like the plague. But this identity-in-difference is a very important concept in Vedantic philosophy called bedha-abedha in Sanskrit. So it is not to be swept under the rug without taking it seriously. It forms the basis of a very important conception of the Absolute Reality of Chaitanya Vaisnavism and other similar vaisnava traditions, and even in the Roman Catholic tradition it is the basis of what is known as the Holy Trinity – the Oneness and Difference of God in His three distinct individualities/Persons.

‘In the beginning” means that we must not identify the Word with Jesus Christ right away, as many do. Actually the identity of the Word with Christ will come in John 1.14, so we don’t want to skip over the significance that the other verses play in arriving at that identity. So sticking to John 1.1 we can recognize that the Word [in the original Greek it is Logos and that is translated as Word in the KJV] is related to thought or thinking. Words are used to express or utter [meaning outer or objectify] thoughts [which are internal or subjective]. So we can interpret John 1.1. as saying the thoughts of God are with God, certainly, and they are also God, because a person is only what his/her thoughts make them. Thinking reflected upon itself is what is meant by “I.” Descartes; first indubitability was “I think, thus I am.” He identifies thinking with his being as an ego or I. At the same time thinking and being an “I” are different – we naturally distinguish the two. We naturally presume that “I” am the agent who produces thinking. In the case of John 1.1 the Word [thinking] is conjoined with the Supreme “I” or God. Thus God expresses His thinking as the Word, which makes the Word the offspring or Son of God. So the idea of the Son as produced from God the original “I” is contained in John 1,1.

To continue reading —

May 30

Beyond First Person Egoic Epistemology

Uncategorized Comments Off on Beyond First Person Egoic Epistemology

Consciousness is primary only from the experiential or empirically conditioned stage of existence, within the cidabhasa or shadowy reflection of reality [cf. Plato’s cave dwellers]. I think you may be familiar with the three epistemological forms of knowledge called pratyaksa, paroksa, and aparoksa. Pratyaksa refers to knowledge gained through direct, first person, perception and understanding. Paroksa refers to knowledge gained from other respected persons. Aparoksa refers to deductive knowledge gained by rational means or reason, either directly or through association with others who have reached that stage of spiritual realization. This is sometimes referred to as transcendental knowledge. I explained in another article that Reason extends beyond consciousness or knowing in the region of chidabhasa. Sometimes this knowledge is also described as descending or deductive because it begins from the universal or logical concepts to deduce particulars from it, unlike the problematic inductive process that starts from limited experiential data and hypothesizes universal conclusions,

Even beyond aparoksa there are higher principles of knowledge for one who enters into the stage of spiritual realization. To know that one must first get beyond the shadowy stage of consciousness, come to know the self or atma as self-consciousness, and then the stage of reason can be reached, beyond which lies the spontaneous plane of spirit whose substance or being is freedom. This path has been explained and laid out in the revealed scriptures and taught by the spiritual masters who have realized it. The method for learning it has also be explained, beginning with hearing (sravanam). The method of following one’s own ruminations is the negative process of learning what does not work.

Site Visits: