Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 03 Jul 2019 08:00

---CONTINUING FROM PREVIOUS POST---

Another way of thinking of karmic credit - marriage.

The guy and girl make some vows and pledges, and they are given karmic credit. They can start enjoying themselves right from the wedding night - but the vows of sharing all joys and sorrows, bringing up kids, etc. have to be honored, else the karmic creditor will come calling one fine day.

So when somebody asks you - "what is your view on adultery, according to your faith/ religion?" The answer, according to the above, would be - "it is not declared a 'sin' and there is no 'commandment' against it, but it is inadvisable, in the same way that spending away your lottery earnings, without thinking about a future revenue stream, is inadvisable."

"What is your view on marital infidelity?" The answer, according to the above, would be, "it is not declared a 'sin' and there is no 'commandment' against it, but it is inadvisable, in the same way that reneging on a loan pledge is inadvisable."

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6298
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Vikas » 03 Jul 2019 12:00

Very Interesting conversation.
Let me throw my own version to the mix (I still have my own unanswered questions)..

The souls are not separate entities like oil droplets floating in water. They are more like water droplets within a ocean of water. It is just the frequency of these droplets that may be different from the ocean.
So Maya or drama of universe is like a perpetual musical created by Srihari and is going on and Srihari in order to enjoy his own creation takes a part of him in the form of a Soul and these souls keep jumping into this musical as various characters at various points in time.
Important point is that the Musical is predefined with very little improv (Freewill) options available and all the souls know the screenplay hence can plunge depending upon what is to be enjoyed.
What we see as joy, pain, horror, ecstasy is a emotion that Souls wishes to enjoy.

Now here is where the fun begins. Once you join the musical, you can't check out voluntarily. You will have to keep participating in this musical coming back as various characters which will be defined by the Karma you keep accumulating from past roles.
You may consciencly make an effort to go back being Srihari and attain Moksha or keep enjoying this drama because eventually the Moksha will come.
There is no God waiting for us to return, He himself is the drama and participant. Aham Brahmasmi if you will.
More later...

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 17:12

Hmmm.. I think we started going in different directions... And this discussion is becoming unmanageable with too many references...

My expected approach was after your stated axioms, theorize as minimum as possible in support of these axioms in hope of proving them correct with the help of some proven facts & experiences from our daily life (our common observations & any references from life histories of prominent saints who lived in recent times and whom we may believe them as authentic in a best sense) and also from the theories & observations of Scientific world. Honestly we have to follow an approach of narrowing down to the bottom line with valid questions and using the deduction principle ( like falling into a black hole leading to perceived singularity :D ). But as with bringing many references to Puranas and Pauranic figures has no value addition here iMHO. Because as born Hindu you and I may take them for granted on its face value. They are more of a symbolism than representing actuality. God knows about their authenticity.., but I am not for them or denying them completely, but they are not treated as part of the core philosophy by many, and do not serve as a valid observation. Hope I don't hurt you or anybody on this...

There is no end in sight in trying to clarify every detail on law of karma. In a broad sense there appears to be a consensus based on logic and our observations that it is more or less has to be accepted as True qualitatively. Now going deep to quantify it like a mathematical formula has no value add in it, because there is no way for us to either prove or disprove by any means. It simply remains a hypothesis...

Even in "Satyartha Prakash" by Swamy Dayanand, he did not consider Puranas as authentic, but they are more of an imagined (kaalpanic) stories which serve the purpose of story telling to common folks understand some good values of life and morality and instill some fear and Bhakti to maintain Dharma.

Swamy Dayananda tried his best to prove monotheism, soul, moksha & cyclic nature of creation & pralaya trying to satisfy everything based on logic. But in my opinion he still failed to answer some basic questions in a meaningful way. Perhaps "the reason for the "root cause" of everything can never be answered or explained". It is simply so.. because of the limitations of our observations and language. But we need to reach to that "root cause" to make everything else clear in a better sense...

There is a story I remember reading some where, that in late 19th century when Swamy Dayananda visited Kashi, and met a great saint Trilinga swamy (known to be living by then for more 300 years at Dashaswamedha ghat) and asked him a question. Among Adavitha & Dvaita philosophies which one is correct?. The answer was: When jiva is in bondage it is Dvaita which is correct. In Moksha (when Jiva merges in Brahman) it is Advaita which is correct. After hearing this Swamy Dayananda left calmly...
Last edited by DharmaB on 03 Jul 2019 17:38, edited 1 time in total.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 17:31

Vikas wrote:Very Interesting conversation.
Let me throw my own version to the mix (I still have my own unanswered questions)..

The souls are not separate entities like oil droplets floating in water. They are more like water droplets within a ocean of water. It is just the frequency of these droplets that may be different from the ocean.
So Maya or drama of universe is like a perpetual musical created by Srihari and is going on and Srihari in order to enjoy his own creation takes a part of him in the form of a Soul and these souls keep jumping into this musical as various characters at various points in time.
Important point is that the Musical is predefined with very little improv (Freewill) options available and all the souls know the screenplay hence can plunge depending upon what is to be enjoyed.
What we see as joy, pain, horror, ecstasy is a emotion that Souls wishes to enjoy.

Now here is where the fun begins. Once you join the musical, you can't check out voluntarily. You will have to keep participating in this musical coming back as various characters which will be defined by the Karma you keep accumulating from past roles.
You may consciencly make an effort to go back being Srihari and attain Moksha or keep enjoying this drama because eventually the Moksha will come.
There is no God waiting for us to return, He himself is the drama and participant. Aham Brahmasmi if you will.
More later...


With some exceptions, this is what was depicted in the link I shared, "The Infinite Brahman experiencing himself as every living being through never ending cycle of Creation & Evolution to realize himself (as each soul) finally as Omnipotent, Omniscient..."

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 03 Jul 2019 17:34

DharmaB wrote:Hmmm. I think we started going in different directions... And this discussion is becoming unmanageable with too many references...

My expected approach was after your stated axioms, theorize as minimum as possible in support of these axioms in hope of proving them correct with the help of some proven facts & experiences from our daily life (our common observations & any reference from life histories of prominent saints who lived in recent times and we believe them as authentic in a best sense) and also from the theories & observations of Scientific world. Honestly we have to follow an approach of narrowing down to the bottom line with valid questions and using the deduction principle ( like falling into a black hole leading to singularity). But as with bringing many reference to Puranas and Pauranic figures has no value addition here iMHO. Because as born Hindu you and I may take them for granted on its face value. They are more of a symbolism than representing actuality. God knows about their authenticity.., but I am not for them or denying them completely, but they are not treated as part of the core philosophy by many, and do not serve as a valid observation. Hope I don't hurt you or anybody on this...

Even in "Satyartha Prakash" by Swamy Dayanand, he did not consider Puranas as authentic, but they are more of an imagined (kaalpanic) stories which serve the purpose of story telling to common folks understand some good values of life and morality and instill some fear and Bhakti to maintain Dharma.

Swamy Dayananda tried his best to prove monotheism, soul, moksha & cyclic nature of creation & pralaya trying to satisfy everything based on logic. But in my opinion he still failed to answer some basic questions in a meaningful way. Perhaps "the reason for the root cause can never be answered". It is simply so.. according to observation. But we need to reach to that root to make everything else clear in a better sense...

There is a story I remember reading some where, that in late 19th century when Swamy Dayananda visited Kashi, and met a great saint Trilinga swamy (known to be living by then for more 300 years at Dashaswamedha ghat) and asked him a question. Among Adavitha & Dvaita philosophies which one is correct?. The answer was: When jiva is in bondage it is Dvaita which is correct. When Jiva merges in Brahman it is Advaita which is correct. After hearing this Swamy Dayananda left calmly...


Keep the goals in mind, saar. The idea was:

a) three axioms were stated
b) it was postulated that these axioms define the basis of our dharmic faiths
c) one approach is to compare the axioms against observations of the universe, and show that they define our physical universe
(But this was not my initial goal - this, as I originally stated, would be the "grand theory of everything")
d) my initial idea was to validate b), not show a) as valid
e) so, to show that the postulate of "these axioms define our dharmic faiths" is true, I was comparing observations from the epics, puranas, etc. against axiom predictions

So, if an observation from the epics, puranas, etc. does not match the axioms, it invalidates b), not a). I.e., nothing is said about the validity of the axioms, just that, whether or not those axioms are a valid descriptor of our universe, they are not the basis of our dharmic faith.

When you brought up the issues on "why would a spirit soul even get started in the material plane," there were two ways of approaching it -

a) show that the axioms define this (i.e., the axioms are a valid descriptor of our physical universe)
b) show that our dharmic faiths have considered this question from the point of view of these axioms, and provided an answer (i.e., the axioms are still a basis of our dharmic faiths, and the above question has been addressed in our faiths, based on these axioms)

a) and b) are not the same thing. Maybe the problem is that I tried to do both, i.e., show that the axioms do lead to the concept of evolution, and secondly, when you brought up objections, I went the other way, trying to show that our tradition *has* considered your questions, and has some pointers on how to address them.

For now, my suggestion would be to not worry about a) (i.e., do the axioms describe the evolutionary process in sufficient detail, or not), but instead focus on b), which is, do our scriptures account for the process of evolution or not, if so, what are the nuances or subtleties or differences, and in what way do those nuances address some of the shortcomings of Darwinian evolution?

It was in this vein that I brought up those references. My idea was to show that karma isn't postulated as something inexorable and utterly unforgiving, but that it has leeway, that it allows "loans" based on earned trust (or on an initial presumption of trust), and that this notion is recognized in our tradition. This also addresses some of the philosophical points you raised.

IOW, I was treating the scriptural references as observations themselves, and using them to validate the theory of b), which is, that these references or observations corroborate the view, that the stated axioms really are the basis of our dharmic faith (regardless of whether or not the stated axioms actually describe our universe). Since we ran into philosophical questions with the bare "desire and karma" view, I was trying to show an alternative theory, and also that the alternative theory is consistent with scriptural references (or observations).

Coming up with an alternative theory when confronted with seemingly discordant observations is perfectly valid, and also showing that the alternative theory explains more observations than the original theory is equally valid. This is how we advance the theory (built on the axioms) to attain the goal of explaining all observations (or as many observations as possible).

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 18:03

Please read my added lines meanwhile...

There is no end in sight in trying to clarify every detail on law of karma. In a broad sense there appears to be a consensus based on logic and our observations that it is more or less has to be accepted as True qualitatively. Now going deep to quantify it like a mathematical formula has no value add in it, because there is no way for us to either prove or disprove by any means. It simply remains a hypothesis...


I appreciate your hard effort, to prove your stated goals. But I believe you understand my point also. Here as a skeptic, I am trying to deduct as many scenarios as possible from the discussion, so that we reach to the core of the Truth and target the more meaningful essence of life, in a simplistic way...

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 03 Jul 2019 18:16

So basically what happened was that I added a little rider to the third axiom, and tried to show that now, many more scriptural observations, which were formerly problematic, became corroborative. That was the reason why I pulled so many scriptural references. This was meant to show the utility of that little rider.

And the rider was, that karma isn't utterly unforgiving, but allows leeway in the form of "advance credit." Not to add to the axiom itself, but to add a little side note to it.

Just read your add -

There is no end in sight in trying to clarify every detail on law of karma. In a broad sense there appears to be a consensus based on logic and our observations that it is more or less has to be accepted as True qualitatively. Now going deep to quantify it like a mathematical formula has no value add in it, because there is no way for us to either prove or disprove by any means. It simply remains a hypothesis...


I agree, there is no end to clarifying every detail. We can stop with this for now and move on.

But when you say

because there is no way for us to either prove or disprove by any means. It simply remains a hypothesis...

- that is partially true, there is no way to prove it (even if every observation from the scriptures matches the axiom of "karma," that is not proof that it is a fundamental basis of our scriptures, it is only corroboration). But there is a way to disprove the statement, that karma is a fundamental principle - by showing an observation which negates it.

My point was, that if one little rider brings so many more observations to the "corroborative side," then that little rider is worth it, and the axiom can still be held as valid, but if we have to add a massive amount of riders and footnotes (similar to the number of epicycloids that were added in a vain attempt to reconcile planetary motion with the geocentric axiom), then - the axiom is probably wrong.

Having said that - do you feel that the rider of "karma not being unforgiving" addresses some of the points you raised, about "if a spirit soul knew that it had to start as a single-celled organism and work all the way up - why would that spirit soul still feel that it was worth it?" Response - because the spirit soul might be able to start way higher than a single-celled organism, by taking advance karmic credit, and the fall-back to single-celled state only happens when the credit is misused, and this is still consistent with Darwinian evolution.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 18:26

There are some more fundamental questions ...

1) How many are the total number of spirit souls that exist ever ? Is there a meaning to this question? or even is it valid in mathematical terms.
2) Is there any meaning in stating that "an already enlightened soul which is in Bliss, will chose to materialize its desires in material plane" at some point?
3) Once you fall back from the highest state of enlightenment to low level material plane, then what is the point of trying for Moksha ever? Any way you might be tempted any time in the eternity of time to fall back again from that state of Moksha to this material plane. Like Vishwamitra fell for Menaka.

It would lead into a chaotic system of world leading to a traffic jam of souls which want to materialize their desires (desiring consciously from a state of bliss they already experiencing) desperately and they may not prefer to wait for long because of the numbers in queue line. That may be the reason we are seeing terrible growth in population and everybody demanding the best in less time leading to many conflicts in the world. (just saying for fun, please don't mistake my intent. :D Thank you... )

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11624
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby A_Gupta » 03 Jul 2019 18:52

Brahmavaivarta Purana has this story.
http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... inity.html
Excerpt:
"O King of Gods, I have known the dreadful dissolution of the universe. I have seen all perish, again and again, at the end of every cycle. At that terrible time, every single atom dissolves into the primal, pure waters of eternity, whence all originally arose. Everything then goes back into the fathomless, wild infinity of the ocean, which is covered with utter darkness and is empty of every sign of animate being. Ah, who will count the universes that have passed away, or the creations that have risen afresh, again and again, from the formless abyss of the vast waters? Who will number the passing ages of the world, as they follow each other endlessly? And who will search through the wide infinities of space to count the universes side by side, each containing its Brahma, its Vishnu, and its Shiva? Who will count the Indras in them all—those Indras side by side, who reign at once in all the innumerable worlds; those others who passed away before them; or even the Indras who succeed each other in any given line, ascending to godly kingship, one by one, and one by one, passing away? King of Gods, there are among your servants certain who maintain that it may be possible to number the grains of sand on earth and the drops of rain that fall from the sky, but no one will ever number all those Indras. This is what the Knowers know."

"The life and kingship of an Indra endure seventy-one eons, and when twenty-eight Indras have expired, one Day and Night of Brahma has elapsed. But the existence of one Brahma, measured in such Brahma Days and Nights, is only one hundred and eight years. Brahma follows Brahma; one sinks, the next arises; the endless series cannot be told. There is no end to the number of those Brahmas—to say nothing of Indras."

"But the universes side by side at any given moment, each harboring a Brahma and an Indra: who will estimate the number of these? Beyond the farthest vision, crowding outer space, the universes come and go, an innumerable host. Like delicate boats they float on the fathomless, pure waters that form the body of Vishnu. Out of every hair-pore of that body a universe bubbles and breaks. Will you presume to count them? Will you number the gods in all those worlds—the worlds present and the worlds past?"

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 19:27

Our ancestors seem to be having more imagination than the modern day scientists. No body can beat them... Madam Blavatsky also gathered all this information & mentioned in her "Secret Doctrine"...

we all know how vast the observable universe is with 300+ billion galaxies (10 ^ 28 meters radius). The electron has a radius of 10 ^ -12 m.
The string has 10 ^ -32 m radius. Meaning what the universe for an ant is, like what an electron is for a string (at that perceived level)

Some time back there was an article saying that, there could probably present a universe in each electron in our universe and it goes on recursively... And also what we are observing as our universe probably present within an electron of another universe outside and so on... :eek:

This description matches with what mentioned above in Brahmavaivarta Purana. All the observable and non-observable universes are floating like bubbles in an ocean of infinite Absolute THAT.

Day by day the science appears to be becoming more bizarre than Puraanas. :)

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 03 Jul 2019 19:33

Having said that - do you feel that the rider of "karma not being unforgiving" addresses some of the points you raised, about "if a spirit soul knew that it had to start as a single-celled organism and work all the way up - why would that spirit soul still feel that it was worth it?" Response - because the spirit soul might be able to start way higher than a single-celled organism, by taking advance karmic credit, and the fall-back to single-celled state only happens when the credit is misused, and this is still consistent with Darwinian evolution.


I have a different point of view which focus more on qualitative aspect than quantitative. I will explain my point of view all at once, so that it wont interrupt your theories, and also I finish it to the logical conclusion as I see it. Please continue and let me know once you are done with QM and other theories relating to axioms.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 04 Jul 2019 00:50

Response - because the spirit soul might be able to start way higher than a single-celled organism, by taking advance karmic credit, and the fall-back to single-celled state only happens when the credit is misused, and this is still consistent with Darwinian evolution.


I just remembered that there are many unknown varieties of viruses that may exist on earth. And in view of how densely they spread probably, they count in trillions of trillions in numbers compared to mere 7 billion of humans. Also it was estimated that 25% of all bio-mass on earth is from ants. Probably they also exist in trillions... So this is a point need to be considered when you make above statement.

Got this link from web..
http://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-m ... -on-earth/
Considering that there are 10^31 virus particles in the oceans – mostly bacteriophages – the number is likely to be substantially higher.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 04 Jul 2019 06:52

DharmaB wrote:
Response - because the spirit soul might be able to start way higher than a single-celled organism, by taking advance karmic credit, and the fall-back to single-celled state only happens when the credit is misused, and this is still consistent with Darwinian evolution.


I just remembered that there are many unknown varieties of viruses that may exist on earth. And in view of how densely they spread probably, they count in trillions of trillions in numbers compared to mere 7 billion of humans. Also it was estimated that 25% of all bio-mass on earth is from ants. Probably they also exist in trillions... So this is a point need to be considered when you make above statement.

Got this link from web..
http://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-m ... -on-earth/
Considering that there are 10^31 virus particles in the oceans – mostly bacteriophages – the number is likely to be substantially higher.


Between a) and b) as I listed above, what you wrote above still seeks to achieve a). Nothing wrong with that (though I was focused on b) for the moment).

Yes, the numerical difference between viruses and humans is pretty high, and this has some startling implications for our theory. Having said that - do any of the competing theories succeed in explaining this? The Abrahamic faiths are in denial about evolution for two reasons. It goes against their creation story, and more importantly, the implications are horrifying for them - can you save the soul of a rat or goat or plant or virus? Xtianity gets around this by declaring that these beings have no soul to begin with! But evolution puts all these life-forms on the same pedestal, so to speak, by saying we humans evolved from them - anathema to the Abrahamics.

The other competing theory - Darwinian evolution itself. Does it explain this huge numerical difference, other than by saying "the mutation rate is that low, what to do onlee?" Meaning, that after billions of years of evolution from the single-cell phase to humans, viruses still outnumber humans by a factor of a trillion times a trillion! The mutation rates just happen to work out that way.

Or maybe somebody actually did some controlled experiment to determine the mutation rates, and showed that it was consistent with the numerical difference (hypothesizing here, don't know if anybody actually did this). Or maybe they traced the mutation rate to fundamental constants (again hypothesizing, I don't know if this happened either) - in which case - why are the fundamental constants what they are?

The theory we get from the axioms - is it really called upon to explain the numerical difference, if none of the competing theories can do this? Maybe the rates of forward and backward evolution (i.e., the rates of those jivas who misuse their karmic credit, to those who use it wisely) just works out that way. Please note that this is akin to a chemical reaction (with an equilibrium constant which determines how complete the reaction can be at steady state), but a multi-(multi times multi)-step reaction - virus to plant to ant to reptile to animal to human to Deva/ Asura/ Gandharva/ Yaksha/ Marut/ Danava/ Rudra/ Apsaras (with an associated equilibrium constant at each step).

Maybe if we do a controlled experiment to measure these equilibrium constants, maybe by data-mining - i.e. - observe a million chicken farms, record the actions of each chicken, postulate - given these actions, I expect to see a two-headed cow born in three years' time in the state of Assam in the summertime, see if that actually pans out. That might give you an idea of the equilibrium constant, forwards and backwards, from the chicken phase of existence. (Please note - this experiment might sound silly, but there are actually experiments being performed on these lines, for example, to measure the rates of neutrino interaction with matter, or the rate of proton decay, or to catch gravity waves from massive celestial events).

Short of doing a series of controlled experiments like this, how do we numerically estimate the rates of evolution and devolution at each step in the reaction, to compare against the observed species concentrations?

Also - when you say there are 10^31 viruses (a rough number) - do we know if viruses have an individual consciousness, or a collective one? Our bodies also have trillions of individual single cells, but they have a collective consciousness, not individual ones.

I'm not saying we don't need to consider these startling facts (that viruses are so much more numerous than the higher life forms) and their astonishing implications in terms of misuse of karmic credit vs. proper use. I'm saying - the karmic theory already does just as well (or better than) Darwinian evolution, by showing it as a special case, by tracing the origin of evolution itself to a more fundamental principle involving our consciousness, which (yet to come in my development) is also consistent with other principles such as QM. Plus it gives us a sense of origin, tying all this with the notion of God as well. The onus is not on a theory to explain everything, as soon as it is proposed. In fact, no scientific theory has as yet explained everything.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 04 Jul 2019 19:25

Also - when you say there are 10^31 viruses (a rough number) - do we know if viruses have an individual consciousness, or a collective one? Our bodies also have trillions of individual single cells, but they have a collective consciousness, not individual ones.


This is what I was also more or less implying to. When we try to theorize everything in minute details, we will face problems like this. This may be because of our science back ground, that we want to measure everything in terms of a consisting formula. However all of the Existence may not be meant for exact determination once it crosses a line (from matter to consciousness). Once we understand this, we may take some as exceptions or tweak the theories further as required and move on to real purpose.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 03:01

DharmaB wrote:
Response - because the spirit soul might be able to start way higher than a single-celled organism, by taking advance karmic credit, and the fall-back to single-celled state only happens when the credit is misused, and this is still consistent with Darwinian evolution.


I just remembered that there are many unknown varieties of viruses that may exist on earth. And in view of how densely they spread probably, they count in trillions of trillions in numbers compared to mere 7 billion of humans. Also it was estimated that 25% of all bio-mass on earth is from ants. Probably they also exist in trillions... So this is a point need to be considered when you make above statement.

Got this link from web..
http://www.virology.ws/2013/09/06/how-m ... -on-earth/
Considering that there are 10^31 virus particles in the oceans – mostly bacteriophages – the number is likely to be substantially higher.


Are you familiar with linear algebra and matrix operations? If so, I have a numerical simulation which you're going to love.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 04:55

Briefly - I did a numerical experiment with states such as Virus, Grass, Tree, Fish, Worm, Chicken, Dog, Elephant, Human, Deva, etc. I set up a matrix with transition probabilities between states. I set the matrix up in such a way, that there was a slight excess probability of moving lower in the scale, than moving higher. As the number of states increases (I increased the number from 2 all the way to 75), and considering steady-state (i.e., t->infinity), the fraction of entities in the Virus state vastly exceeded the fraction in the highest states (Human or Deva), regardless of the initial state. I'm not familiar enough with matrix math to prove this result analytically, but intuitively, it makes sense.

With 75 species, at steady state, the fraction of entities in the Virus state was greater than the fraction in the Human state by a factor of about 10^14 (roughly the same with Virus and Deva states), and this was regardless of the initial distribution of entities in the various states. I had to stop with 75 species, because my matrix library was running into issues beyond that point.

Now, how many species are there on earth? The number is in 100s of thousands, if not millions. You only need a slightly higher tendency to move down rather than up, and you can very well end up with the number of viruses outnumbering the number of humans by a factor of 10^21 (which is what DharmaB said - number of viruses being 10^31, number of humans being 10^10 roughly).

Then - I added a state called "Moksha." I postulated that once an entity attains Moksha, it stays there. That there is a slight possibility of a Deva attaining Moksha, and an even slighter possibility of a Human attaining Moksha (I set up the appropriate matrix entries in that way).

At t->infinity, all entities ended up in the Moksha state (this can be shown analytically, that the eigenvalue of the Moksha state is 1, whereas the remaining states have values less than 1 - so, since any number less than 1, when raised to the power of infinity, goes to zero, whereas 1 remains as 1). Again - Moksha is the default end state for all of us. So why is the virus state currently predominant? Because we are not yet at steady-state, not yet at t->infinity, a few billion years is still nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Then, as DharmaB said, I added a slight probability that an entity in the Moksha state could come back to the material plane. Things got more interesting, it depended on the probability of "regression" - the virus state could predominate, or the Moksha state could predominate (i.e., the lowest or the highest state ends up with the eigen value of 1).

If anybody wants to try out this exercise for yourself, let me know, I can give you pointers on the ground rules (yes, there are ground rules, the columns have to be normalized, etc.). These are not arbitrary ground rules, they very much follow from the physics of the problem, you have to carefully account for the physics, after all.

Please note - in the real world, the situation is dynamic (transition probabilities are variable, God intervenes and grants Moksha to some, upsetting the state distribution, etc.). But the general principle holds.

So - after going through this exercise - I am confidently re-postulating what I already postulated before - the concept of the "karmic loan," that we are able to take advance karmic credit to start off in the state we want (it doesn't matter which state we choose, the final configuration is independent of the initial state distribution), that some of us misuse this credit, whereas others use it wisely, that the number who misuse the credit ever-so-slightly outweighs the number who use it properly, and that this imbalance, when magnified by the number of states (or species) in the matrix, can and will result in the virus state being overwhelmingly predominant (in terms of numbers), even to the extent of a factor of 10^21 (or a billion times a trillion). Actually a factor of 10^21 is nothing, it can go way higher than that.

Now - can somebody do the same exercise from the point of view of Darwinian evolution - make a postulate, which explains the overwhelming predominance of the virus state in terms of numbers? I'm talking of a first-principles physical postulate, not just a bare statement of "that's how the mutation rates work out."

Let's see what you got.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 05 Jul 2019 12:31

I set the matrix up in such a way, that there was a slight excess probability of moving lower in the scale, than moving higher. As the number of states increases (I increased the number from 2 all the way to 75), and considering steady-state (i.e., t->infinity), the fraction of entities in the Virus state vastly exceeded the fraction in the highest states (Human or Deva), regardless of the initial state.


Now it appears that you are pushing the state deliberately to a a lower level by assigning some higher probability (externally influencing the system? against free will or desire ?. The principle of karma has to be dominating the principle of desire or free will, to satisfy our observation) for a spirit soul to accumulate bad karma, and end up eventually in lowest states regardless of the initial state (assuming every one given fair and equal opportunity to begin with, to take a human form and perform)

For the virus to remain permanently in that state (in view of whole system fall into the lowest state at t->infinity), at some point (on the scale of infinite time) the probability of it raising to next state has to become zero. Like it has defaulted massively and repeatedly that, based on its credit history, it will not be trusted any more and not given a chance for any new credit (karmic loan) to raise any further higher level. So it has to be permanently condemned for eternity to remain in that state of consciousness for eternity at t->infinity (die and born as virus infinite times - this more sounds like "eternal hell")

Also for the the whole system fall into the lowest state at t->infinity, as you stated, there should be a less than 1 probability (probability of remaining in Moksha state or highest possible state for eternity) for a spirit soul to fall back from the state of moksha to lower levels. Then for what reason? Just as per the law of karma, there cannot be infinite result (for eternity) for a finite karma performed in one life or many lives. So it has to fall back from that state eventually sooner or later. Then that is not a state of Moksha in its literal sense, but may be a state of heaven (which is of course not permanent as per the laws of creation).

a) This will lead to a final state of lowest possible level for all for eternity t->infinity. No religion is up for this case

Now if we reverse the probabilities, that there is always higher than zero probability for a virus to raise to next level either by earning credit by itself living as virus for certain time and qualifies to go to next level in the game automatically. Or after some time it qualifies for new karmic loan automatically (regardless of its history, like the defaulters in our financial sytem qualify for loan after certain period of condemnation, writing off their bad loans, forgiveness...). Then for the system to reach a steady end state, the probability of remaining in highest possible state for eternity has to be 1. Then eventually all end up to a final state of moksha sooner or later at t->infinity.

b) This will lead to a final state of highest possible level for all for eternity t->infinity. This is the case what you are trying to make

c) If the probability of a virus to rise above next level becomes zero at some point, and if the probability of falling back from highest state is also zero, then some will end up at lowest level, and some in highest level at t->infinity. There can not be any middle level in between. It implies, at some point in t->infinity, the creation has to cease to manifest, any different state other than these two states ( eternal hell and eternal heaven like in case of Abrahamic faiths with an exception of rebirth)

d) More importantly for (a) & (b) & (c) to happen there has to be a finite number of spirit souls in the system at any given time. Then only it would lead to a steady end state at t->infinity.


e) If the probability of a virus to rise above is always more than zero, and if the probability of remaining in Moksha state for eternity is always less than 1, then there is no steady state to reach at t->infinity. it would only mean that it is always in a swing state or oscillating state for eternity. Meaning it has always been in steady state of equilibrium (from t-> minus infinity to t-> infinity) at any given time including the moment NOW. (Swamy Dayananda case)

f) What if there are infinite number of (supply of) spirit souls from the infinite ocean of consciousness or God (God as depicted in the picture I shared, God in Beyond Beyond state, infinite, all pervading). The Dharmic faiths comes into picture from here. The purpose of Vedanta comes into picture from here...

If we look at the concepts and results from a), b) and in particular c) it will look more or less like Abrahamic concept of eternal heaven or eternal hell satisfying the condition (d), with a only difference of whether it is a test for one life time or many with rebirth). And there should be a starting point in time and there has to be an end point in time (like judgement day), The system involved here eventually leads to a conclusion that it is a closed and finite system. Then there is no real meaning of infinity on material plane or subtle conscious plane (of God, and his eventual characteristics of all pervading, infinite...etc.)

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 17:08

DharmaB wrote:
I set the matrix up in such a way, that there was a slight excess probability of moving lower in the scale, than moving higher. As the number of states increases (I increased the number from 2 all the way to 75), and considering steady-state (i.e., t->infinity), the fraction of entities in the Virus state vastly exceeded the fraction in the highest states (Human or Deva), regardless of the initial state.


Now it appears that you are pushing the state deliberately to a a lower level by assigning some higher probability (externally influencing the system? against free will or desire ?. The principle of karma has to be dominating the principle of desire or free will, to satisfy our observation) for a spirit soul to accumulate bad karma, and end up eventually in lowest states regardless of the initial state (assuming every one given fair and equal opportunity to begin with, to take a human form and perform)


This is not against free will, rather, it is because of free will. When there is no Moksha state, even then the final state is not one of everybody ending up in the lowest state, but one of a distribution, in which the lowest state dominates.

For the virus to remain permanently in that state (in view of whole system fall into the lowest state at t->infinity), at some point (on the scale of infinite time) the probability of it raising to next state has to become zero. Like it has defaulted massively and repeatedly that, based on its credit history, it will not be trusted any more and not given a chance for any new credit (karmic loan) to raise any further higher level. So it has to be permanently condemned for eternity to remain in that state of consciousness for eternity at t->infinity (die and born as virus infinite times - this more sounds like "eternal hell")


No, you got this wrong. The virus doesn't remain permanently in its state. There is a pretty large probability of its rising to the next state (definitely not zero). There is no "it will not be trusted any more," it is very much trusted, and very much does rise up, frequently in fact. In fact, the probability of a "virus rising up" that I set, was 1%, which I feel might be too high for a real world situation. Again, the final result is a distribution of state outcomes (not "everybody ends up in the virus state"), and again, this only occurs when there is no Moksha state.

Also for the the whole system fall into the lowest state at t->infinity, as you stated, there should be a less than 1 probability (probability of remaining in Moksha state or highest possible state for eternity) for a spirit soul to fall back from the state of moksha to lower levels. Then for what reason? Just as per the law of karma, there cannot be infinite result (for eternity) for a finite karma performed in one life or many lives. So it has to fall back from that state eventually sooner or later. Then that is not a state of Moksha in its literal sense, but may be a state of heaven (which is of course not permanent as per the laws of creation).


The whole system does not fall into the lowest state. Even when there is no Moksha state, even at t=infinity, there are still Humans, Devas, higher animals. The virus state just happens to be predominant (exactly like the observation you pointed out - 10^31 viruses vs. 10^10 humans, with many other intermediate species).

a) This will lead to a final state of lowest possible level for all for eternity t->infinity. No religion is up for this case


Again, this is not what the experiment shows. The experiment shows a steady state distribution, not everybody ends up in the lowest level. Also, steady state is not a static state, it is a dynamic one, where the rates of change between states exactly balance each other. It is still a churn.

Now if we reverse the probabilities, that there is always higher than zero probability for a virus to raise to next level either by earning credit by itself living as virus for certain time and qualifies to go to next level in the game automatically. Or after some time it qualifies for new karmic loan automatically (regardless of its history, like the defaulters in our financial sytem qualify for loan after certain period of condemnation, writing off their bad loans, forgiveness...). Then for the system to reach a steady end state, the probability of remaining in highest possible state for eternity has to be 1. Then eventually all end up to a final state of moksha sooner or later at t->infinity.


Moksha is the guaranteed end state for all of us. Are you uncomfortable with this statement?

b) This will lead to a final state of highest possible level for all for eternity t->infinity. This is the case what you are trying to make

c) If the probability of a virus to rise above next level becomes zero at some point, and if the probability of falling back from highest state is also zero, then some will end up at lowest level, and some in highest level at t->infinity. There can not be any middle level in between. It implies, at some point in t->infinity, the creation has to cease to manifest, any different state other than these two states ( eternal hell and eternal heaven like in case of Abrahamic faiths with an exception of rebirth)


The probability of a virus rising to the next level does not become zero at any point. The probability of this is finite, and pretty large in fact. The probability of falling back from the Moksha state was set at zero initially, but later I relaxed this constraint and allowed entities in Moksha to have a finite probability of wanting to re-enter the material. Despite this, eventually, all entities still ended up in the Moksha state (unless, of course, I drastically skewed the probabilities).

This was for small matrix sizes (between 2 to 40 species). For larger matrices, I was running into a lot of numerical stability issues, so the results are inconclusive, not negative. It is still perfectly possible to have a matrix with 1.5 million entries (the current number of recognized species in our world), where there is a finite probability of rising above the lowest state, and also of leaving the Moksha state for lower states, and still have the whole system converge to Moksha at t=infinity.

d) More importantly for (a) & (b) & (c) to happen there has to be a finite number of spirit souls in the system at any given time. Then only it would lead to a steady end state at t->infinity.


Do you know how to set up a simulation with infinite number of souls? :). But how did you come to this conclusion to begin with? Is this a mathematical conclusion, or your own intuitive one? Is there a (mathematical) reason that you know of, why an infinite number of souls will not end up in steady state?

EDIT: Just to point out - the simulation works with fractional shares, not with absolute numbers. So I didn't even set up the total number of souls in the simulation, theoretically the results apply regardless of this total number (since everything works with fractions). So theoretically, the results should be scalable even for an infinite number of souls (but I don't have enough of a math background to be sure of this).

e) If the probability of a virus to rise above is always more than zero, and if the probability of remaining in Moksha state for eternity is always less than 1, then there is no steady state to reach at t->infinity. it would only mean that it is always in a swing state or oscillating state for eternity. Meaning it has always been in steady state of equilibrium (from t-> minus infinity to t-> infinity) at any given time including the moment NOW. (Swamy Dayananda case)


This is again wrong. I set up some smaller matrices (like I indicated above) with finite probability of a virus rising above its state, and a finite probability of leaving the Moksha state, and the convergence at t=infinity was still to Moksha. Like I said, for larger matrices, my matrix library was running into issues, and I don't trust the results.

f) What if there are infinite number of (supply of) spirit souls from the infinite ocean of consciousness or God (God as depicted in the picture I shared, God in Beyond Beyond state, infinite, all pervading). The Dharmic faiths comes into picture from here. The purpose of Vedanta comes into picture from here...


Sir ji, I thought this was about matching theory to observation? The observation from our world is that there are 10^31 viruses, about 10^10 humans, and a finite number of other species. A postulate has been made, an experiment has been set up, a match has been shown between experiment and observation. Now why speculate about "but what if there is an infinity of souls?" Do you have an observation which shows an infinity of souls?

If we look at the concepts and results from a), b) and in particular c) it will look more or less like Abrahamic concept of eternal heaven or eternal hell satisfying the condition (d), with a only difference of whether it is a test for one life time or many with rebirth). And there should be a starting point in time and there has to be an end point in time (like judgement day), The system involved here eventually leads to a conclusion that it is a closed and finite system. Then there is no real meaning of infinity on material plane or subtle conscious plane (of God, and his eventual characteristics of all pervading, infinite...etc.)


I don't see how you come to this conclusion, possibly it is a misinterpretation of the results (see above, there were some wrong notions about how the experiment was set up in your post, which I pointed out).

Briefly:

  • A postulate was made
  • You made a valid point, that there was a startling observation involving the overwhelming numerical superiority of the virus state over the human state
    • And you had a valid concern that the postulate predictions might be unable to match the observation
  • The experiment shows that the postulate predictions can and do match the observation
  • Now it seems to me that the above post is no longer about any issues of mismatch between postulate and observation, but more along the lines of discomfort with the implications of the postulate
    • And there is also speculation about "what if there is actually an infinity of souls" which is not part of the observation (or any observation that we know of) to begin with (more like a philosophical concern)

Also - when I said that I set up the experiment with "a slight excess tendency to misuse karmic credit, over responsible use" - this is how I set it up:

30% chance of falling into a lower state (i.e., because of abuse of karmic credit)
50% chance of remaining in the same state (i.e., neutral use of karmic credit)
20% chance of going to a higher state (i.e., taking advantage of karmic credit to uplift oneself)

So as you can see, 70% of entities are set up to be neutral or positive, with only 30% being irresponsible enough to fall behind. This is actually a greater than 2 to 1 split between good use of karmic credit, vs. bad use. The excess tendency to fall behind only involves the "falling behind" cases vs. the "lifting up" cases. I.e., the profligates, vs. the entrepreneurs, after the statists are taken out of the equation.

Now you might argue that 30% vs 20% is still an excessive tendency to fall lower vs. rise higher. Of course it is, I had to set it up that way with the small number of species I had (75 at most). Now run the experiment with 1.5 million species, and you will probably find that a 25.000...0001% vs. 24.999...999% differential between rising vs. falling is enough to explain the 10^21 ratio between virus count and human count.

To clarify again - with a Moksha state in place, even with the assumption that those who enjoy Moksha might still want to come back to the material plane (i.e., a finite probability of "falling back"), and with a finite probability of rising above the virus state, the end state is still Moksha (unless, of course, the probabilites are drastically skewed). But before that end state is reached, there are intermediate states where the virus count vastly outnumbers the human count - this is a transient, and our current observation of virus count being a billion*trillion times greater than the human count is a transient - the eventual state for us is also Moksha.
Last edited by sudarshan on 05 Jul 2019 18:15, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 17:48

DharmaB wrote:f) What if there are infinite number of (supply of) spirit souls from the infinite ocean of consciousness or God (God as depicted in the picture I shared, God in Beyond Beyond state, infinite, all pervading). The Dharmic faiths comes into picture from here. The purpose of Vedanta comes into picture from here...

If we look at the concepts and results from a), b) and in particular c) it will look more or less like Abrahamic concept of eternal heaven or eternal hell satisfying the condition (d), with a only difference of whether it is a test for one life time or many with rebirth). And there should be a starting point in time and there has to be an end point in time (like judgement day), The system involved here eventually leads to a conclusion that it is a closed and finite system. Then there is no real meaning of infinity on material plane or subtle conscious plane (of God, and his eventual characteristics of all pervading, infinite...etc.)


The experiment was a limited simulation with at most 75 species, and the results are to be interpreted as being representative of a bigger system. The results show that it is possible for a system set up in this way, based on the postulate of karmic credit and its misuse or proper use, to show the traits that we observe in our own world (i.e., overwhelming virus count over human count). That is all there is to it. The experiment is not meant to be an exact simulation of reality (if we even know what that reality is), it is a small-scale proof-of-concept, a technology demonstrator.

The concern was that there was an observation which could be hard or impossible to explain with the given postulate, the experiment provides a conclusion that in fact, the observation is explainable by the postulate. Any further extrapolation to larger sizes or even to infinity is now a mental exercise, there is no way to really simulate all that.

Look at the implications - the system was set up with "irresponsible free will" (greater tendency to fall because of abuse of karmic credit, than to rise), the system was set up with a relatively low (but finite) probability of leaving the lowest state, and also with a finite probability of being "tempted to leave Moksha and re-enter the material plane," and further, the entry to Moksha can only happen from the two immediate lower states (not from any of the states further down). Despite all this, the convergence could still be to Moksha at the end. And this is just with the defined probabilities (which represent desire fulfillment, subject to karmic consequences), with no intervention by God!

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 05 Jul 2019 19:40

I honestly don't have an in-depth knowledge of how these mathematical models work. My statements are mostly based on my intuition. But still I believe they make sense to a larger extent. Now if you try to hide behind your model conveniently, to cover up my logical questions, and say, "the results of my model are more scientific hence more valid. so I am more right than you.. until unless you come with a more competing theory/model" then I have to withdraw, because I can't compete to argue in terms of your models / results. IMO, the philosophical aspect is more relevant and valid here than the mathematical model, because I still believe the nature of it is more philosophical than pure mathematics. 1+1 is not always equal to 2, it could be 0 some times. We can differ conveniently and move on. Still I appreciate, and will definitely care to listen about the results, if your model able to show probably using a super computer and doing all those computations with all the possible permutations and combinations...

Actually I have no problem with the concept of every one reaching Moksha at some point in the time. Because it is good news, at least to listen and it is is not making me uncomfortable at all :D . I only showed different possibilities in terms of a,b,c, giving some upper and lower limit values to the extreme states (states of virus, moksha etc.). But still it didn't satisfy my intellect & intuition, that you have used a matrix model to prove your karmic theory :) . Based on my knowledge any matrix with any set of values and initial state, and modeled with t->infinity, there could only be two possible outcomes 0 or 1. Pardon my ignorance, but logically speaking what other states we could possibly end up given an infinite time. Everything going to be alright after an infinite time... Why worry? Is this observation (so called) has any practical sense or use in our tiny life other than satisfying our scientific egos ?

Regarding infinite souls, yes this is purely in philosophical point of view. I think it has the same level of validity as any other theories like rebirth and karmic loan, we are discussing here in the name of so called "observations"... Both are based on our Dharmic scriptures only. Then what is the problem raising the concept of infinite souls ?( as shown in that picture). All the concepts we are observing are infinite in nature. Space, time, energy, numbers and God & Consciousness. Only that we are able to measure it finitely some where in the middle because of our finite bodies and finite nature of our tools,.. senses including our brain...

Is it not the science which is postulating that for every action of ours, there could be infinite possibilities of results to take place in infinite parallel universes ? At least I am making valid points right. If you strictly say, we should not talk anything beyond our scientific observations (proven by scientific experiments), I truly believe that we should stop discussing this topic karmic theory. Because all these discussions won't fall under that category honestly. IMO, Karmic theory is purely based on speculations, not based on scientific observations. We can use the mathematical models to speculate more scenarios, but that truly not serving any purpose in its true practical sense. We are all going to die in few years. Whether all could get Moksha or not at some point in infinite time, who cares... Is it a more an important question than whether "Am I going to get Moksha or not in this very life or at this very moment ?

At the most it is our faith, or our experiences in daily lives, based on feelings and intuitions that the karmic theory must be true. For example, we do some wrong doing (bad choice), and by chance if we face the repercussions soon enough (a common experience for many who believe in conscience), we end up relating the result to our bad karma for our satisfaction (could be true) and try to be more responsible and alert at our actions next time on. Now what scientific tool or experiment on earth can prove this? It is purely a heart felt conscious related matter. And you are trying to measure it in terms of kgs and meters as if it is a thing. It is more subtle and more related to consciousness than the "things". Hope you understand it.

Lets move on please. My intention is not to fall in these never ending non productive discussions. In the end we all can believe in what we want to believe (including all science).

You become what you think (believe?) - Buddha

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 21:24

DharmaB wrote:I honestly don't have an in-depth knowledge of how these mathematical models work. My statements are mostly based on my intuition. But still I believe they make sense to a larger extent. Now if you try to hide behind your model conveniently, to cover up my logical questions, and say, "the results of my model are more scientific hence more valid. so I am more right than you.. until unless you come with a more competing theory/model" then I have to withdraw, because I can't compete to argue in terms of your models / results.


Actually I have no problem with the concept of every one reaching Moksha at some point in the time. Because it is good news, at least to listen and it is is not making me uncomfortable at all :D . I only showed different possibilities in terms of a,b,c, giving some upper and lower limit values to the extreme states (states of virus, moksha etc.). But still it didn't satisfy my intellect & intuition, that you have used a matrix model to prove your karmic theory :) .


This might be the issue right here.

The matrix model is a very basic, oversimplified, even silly and trivial representation of what I was saying with regards to "karmic credit." Its only utility is to show that the concept of "karmic credit" is not incompatible with that one particular observation (that viruses currently outnumber humans by a startlingly large factor). End of story. Please don't take that model very seriously, it is like a sample experiment performed in the lab under highly controlled and over-simplified conditions, to make a limited point about one little aspect of the vast universe. So there's no "hiding behind the model," it would be like trying to hide an elephant behind a grain of sand.

I was joking about the "Moksha making you uncomfortable" bit. But I'm very concerned that you think that the model is being used as proof of the theory.

Like I repeatedly mentioned, in the deductive logic approach of science, axioms can be falsified, but they cannot be proved. Even if every single observation matches the axiom predictions (or the predictions of the theory built on the axioms), that is still not proof of the theory or axiom, it is only corroboration and lack of falsification.

In this particular case, there seemed to be an observation which might falsify the theory that I proposed, so I conducted an example of an extremely trivial, silly, limited, controlled mathematical experiment based on the theory to show that no, the observation does not falsify the theory, it could be in line with the theory. Other than for that limited purpose, the experiment is meaningless, and I'm certainly not making any claims that it proves anything.

If you're thinking about my little challenge to Darwinian evolution (I did say "let's see what you got"), that was simply a challenge to explain this startling numerical superiority of viruses over humans from the point of view of a physical principle.

Based on my knowledge any matrix with any set of values and initial state, and modeled with t->infinity, there could only be two possible outcomes 0 or 1. Pardon my ignorance, but logically speaking what other states we could possibly end up given an infinite time. Everything going to be alright after an infinite time... Why worry? Is this observation (so called) has any practical sense or use in our tiny life other than satisfying our scientific egos ?


No, the output from the matrix model represents a distribution of numerical density over all the species states which were initially set up, it is not a 0 or 1 output. Like I said, the states I set up (for an example with ten states) were - Virus, Grass, Tree, Worm, Snake, Chicken, Dog, Elephant, Human, Deva. For an example with 75 states, I didn't even bother enumerating all of them, I just called them "State 1", "State 2", etc. till "State 75" (but with the tacit understanding that "State 1" represented Virus, "State 74" represented Human, and "State 75" represented Deva).

If you're interested, I can tell you more about it, but maybe in the math thread, not here.

Anyway, let's move on.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 05 Jul 2019 23:53

Wrapping up whatever we have on evolution so far:

  • The basic "desire fulfillment subject to karmic consequences" approach seems compatible with the basics of Darwinian evolution (a)
  • If we postulate that karma isn't totally unforgiving, that it even allows advance credit, then some of the seeming issues seem to fall in place as well (b)
    • For example, how did single-celled plant organisms get energy unless there was a sun (b)
      • Because Surya is described in our tradition as a highly evolved being, who, further, is descended from Rishi Kashyapa (b)
      • Other evolved beings such as Indra, Vayu, Varuna, etc. also need to have come into the picture before the most basic single-celled plant could come into being (b)
      • The concept of the "karmic loan" offers a solution (b)
    • Also, how can God come down as an awesome, powerful avatara, without first going through multiple lesser phases of existence, starting all the way from single-celled organisms? (b)
    • For that matter, what about beings like Adi Sankara, Hanuman, etc.? Did they have to undergo a long chain of karmic evolution before coming to serve their recognized roles? (b)
      • Again - karmic credit offers a way out (b)
    • Darwinian evolution in this case reduces to a special case of the karmic evolution
  • Karmic evolution also offers further, deeper insights than plain Darwinian evolution (a)
    • The paradox which puzzled Darwin (which has, to be fair, been explained by other scientists in other different ways) - but karmic evolution offers a fresh take on this from a first-principle (a)
    • That devolution and evolution can go on in parallel (a)
    • That evolution isn't just some dry "evolution of the species," it is actually the evolution of our desires and our karmaphala (a)
  • Initially, I was a bit concerned about the observation that DharmaB pointed out - viruses outnumbering humans by a factor of 10^21 (one sextillion), which seemed to be bad news for the "karmic credit" approach (a)
    • But I'm reassured by the matrix simulation, which suggests that this observation does not negate or falsify karmic evolution (with the concept of karmic credit) (a)
    • Note: this is the best that can be said with the simulation, but it is still a fairly strong statement, and I'm now more confident of the axiom with its extended postulate (a)
  • There are also fairly explicit references to evolution in our scriptures, for example, the extract from Manikka Vasagar that I presented (b)

(a) Trying to match the axioms of 1. All-powerful, disinterested God, 2. Desire fulfillment, 3. The law of Karma against observations of the physical world to validate that these axioms provide a description of our universe

(b) Trying to match these same axioms against the view presented by our Dharmic scriptures to validate the postulate that these axioms describe our faith

The focus is on (b) for now, but a little of (a) has also been achieved.

There could of course be outstanding issues, frightening or seemingly nonsensical implications, that is the nature of the game. But the axioms of desire fulfillment and the law of karma seem to be on sound footing, and the theory can be developed to address the issues.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 06 Jul 2019 10:33

the arguments and axioms need to be made consistent to the Sruthi some basic uderstanding of the epistemological structure of Sanathana Dharma needs to be adhered to. Some years back I found Mahendra Pal Arya’s thinking and articulation very interesting.... esp his reliance on pramanas... it is so much easier when one is well versed in Arabic, Latin and Sanskrit to make the right arguments.
I have not kept up w his latest, but he does describe the concept of Karma (action) extremely well and clears the confusion on Karma phala being misunderstood. (not in this video - albeit the arguments against the religion of peace is scathing!)


Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 06 Jul 2019 23:34



Interesting debate with J.witness’s person - not sure why they never brought the Holy Ghost out! :mrgreen:

SriKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1845
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby SriKumar » 07 Jul 2019 20:25

Some un-connected comments:
1. I see a difference between 'evolution' as you describe, and Darwinian evolution,as is commonly understood. Darwinian evolution is a physical change in the body of the organism occurring during the lifetime of the creature (single-celled or otherwise) reinforced by its environment, and transmitted via genes to its offspring. Whereas the the evolution you describe (which is similar to the Dasha avatara type evolution) is different fundamentally in that the body destroyed and there is no physical continuity. The continuity is at some other level (soul/ karma bank balance etc.). So, I do see the two as quite separate/different. And frankly there is no need to conflate the two. The Hindu version of evolution can be its own thing, applicable to the mental and spiritual evolution of sentience in beings. It does not need the Darwinian 'stamp' to make it useful or interesting. I would even argue that calling the Hindu evolution 'Darwinian' might confuse the issue and also leave it open to (unfair) criticism.

2. I dont see viruses, trees and perhaps even dogs and other 'lesser creatures' as being able to (i) wish/desire a higher living, in a next life, or (ii) know what a next life is. I am not willing to be convinced otherwise of this particular point. The only thing I expect from a higher creature like a dog, for example, is to live a life where there is plenty of food- so this could perhaps be a desire that drives a change. Elephants, chimps, are in a different category , as are other higher animals. I'll concede this group is a grey area and not apply my scepticism to this class of animals. So, what happens to your model when there is no sign of a desire. Or do you posit that all life (plant, animal life) have desires? And what if they dont know about a next life, or know but dont believe in the concept.

3. It is interesting to note that you include gods in the same set (or really a spectrum) as viruses, only that they are more evolved. So a tree can become a god after accumulating enough karma, I suppose. I always associated the Supreme as an 'outside agent', who dispenses moksha and keeps an account of the karmic balance, and therefore being outside the 'set'. Just an observation.

4. Overall, there were several interesting concepts in your exposition- that humans can desire what they want for the next birth, that any human can become an Adi Sankara (or even become a deva) if they do enough good deeds, that God wants your attention just as much as any one else.


There are several posters who responded with links and posts about understanding karma and its applicability from an average person's point of view (i.e. for someone who has to work for a living)- All the posts were read and one BG version downloaded. THank you.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 07 Jul 2019 23:22

^^^ good summary...

1. There is no injunction on what constraints reincarnation in SD thinking avails to... there are several possibilities from simple energy cycles to complex theories on transmigration of atma. Further it is my contention that the complexities of attribution of cause and effect in a complex and chaotic system was well anticipated and understood since the singing of the Naasadiya Sukta. Therefore it is super hard to arrive at a karmic banking system to account for outcomes. Indeed one of the strong arguments of the mimamsakaras of yore was indeed this - distilled into what Krishna said to Arjuna for the mango peep to understand - to do your Dharma (duty) and not worry about them fruits...

2. The SD systems of thinking rely on two very key aspects of human existence beyond basic needs - intellect and experience. Pure intellect without experience is book knowledge. Pure experience without intellect is living a life of no reflections. This “higher” and “lower” life form or evolution and ideas of evolution towards some higher purpose presupposes an “intelligent design” and therefore untenable without some pramana for it.

3. Why do you need the Supreme to be ‘an outside agent?’ What pramana is there for this? What is outside?

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jul 2019 00:56

SriKumar wrote:Some un-connected comments:

2. I dont see viruses, trees and perhaps even dogs and other 'lesser creatures' as being able to (i) wish/desire a higher living, in a next life, or (ii) know what a next life is. I am not willing to be convinced otherwise of this particular point. The only thing I expect from a higher creature like a dog, for example, is to live a life where there is plenty of food- so this could perhaps be a desire that drives a change. Elephants, chimps, are in a different category , as are other higher animals. I'll concede this group is a grey area and not apply my scepticism to this class of animals. So, what happens to your model when there is no sign of a desire. Or do you posit that all life (plant, animal life) have desires? And what if they dont know about a next life, or know but dont believe in the concept.


[7]

I'll try and answer all the points you raised, but one at a time, as I read and digest and fully understand the points. Not necessarily in order.

So to start with 2.

These beings don't need to know what a higher living is, what a next life is. That is not necessary for the theory at all. All that is postulated is -

  • we come to this material plane in some form (maybe with "advance karmic credit," maybe not, but I found the concept of "karmic credit" convenient)
  • having come to this plane, we act to fulfill our desires, and thus create consequences for ourselves
  • if there is "karmic credit" involved, then the consequences of our actions either pay back the credit, or make us fall behind
  • at the end of the life, when God asks us - "did you have fun? are you done?" we look back on our life (the "life review," please read accounts of near-death experiences, they all describe this life review), and then we think - hmm, I didn't get this particular desire, should I go back?
  • if we really feel that we are done, then well and good, that is Moksha right there (except that God may want us to fulfill the rest of our karmaphala, so as not to jeopardize the path to Moksha of other beings still in the material plane)
  • if we want to come back, we will have to be subject to the consequences of our actions
  • if the consequences permit greater enjoyment, greater materialization of our potential, great
    • in this case, we have choices - become a "higher being," or go back into the same kind of existence (dog/ goat/ human) but with advantages (greater strength/ speed/ intelligence) or be born as a dog in a human household (as a pet - every one of your needs is taken care of for life, all you do is enjoy), etc.
  • if the consequences of our past actions restrict our future enjoyment, then we *may* be able to pick what kind of restriction we will have (i.e., go back as a human, but with a handicap; or in a bad political environment; or in poverty; or go back as a lesser being, which restricts our intelligence or strength) - whatever we choose (again, maybe we don't have a choice, I don't know, it's a postulate)
  • so, really, we don't have to know of a next life, or believe in it - not just viruses or animals, many humans don't know of this, or think of reincarnation as a strange concept - but when we leave one life and look back, then we see that we can go back if we wish, and at that point we "know the truth," so to speak, we just choose to forget it again, for another lifetime

Yes, I *am* postulating that all beings harbor desire, even plants, even viruses. Not in an explicit way, but instinctively. Plants don't just grow and spread due to biology - they spread consciously towards air and sunlight, they spread their roots consciously towards "tastier" parts of the soil (I've also read this in other places), just as an animal goes in search of tastier food, cleaner water. That is my postulate.

A plant or animal doesn't have to know anything about the next life, or karma, or any of that, *during its material existence* (though once it is done, once it is back in the spiritual plane and looks back, it will know). However, even these beings recognize some form of their Dharma - the deer on the lookout, which knows that its duty is to warns its mates; the huge dog which knows that when a human child is playing with it, pulling its ears or sticking its whole arm into its mouth, that it should not bite, because the child is after all a child; wolves which look out for each other when hunting in a pack.

They also have desires beyond bare biological needs. Like the whale which was recently in the news for swimming with its dead baby in tow for weeks - bare biology would dictate that the whale dump the dead body of its baby and work on producing another. Or like the dog which runs up, tail wagging, wanting its head patted, its ears scratched, and its tummy rubbed - just bare biology, or a genuine desire for affection? Like the male preying mantis which knows the female could well devour him after mating, but wants it anyway - could be bare biology?

Bare biology goes against homosexuality, animal sexuality, necrophilia, etc. Unless you argue that these are defects or nutritional deficiencies at work - so being gay is a defect or disease? Are we comfortable with those implications?

The Abrahamic paths have a strong concept of "us vs. them," and in this us vs. them, the animals, plants, viruses, etc. don't even figure. Now what I say is - the axiom of desire fulfillment acts as a GRAND UNIFIER OF ALL BEINGS UNDER ONE UMBRELLA, no "us vs. them," we are all in it to fulfill our desires. [7.1] But we are all subject to the law of karma. Suddenly the whole universe, even if there are beings on other planets, even if those beings are like nothing we've ever encountered on earth, well - this whole universe of beings is united under the SAME UMBRELLA. Would you really go grabbing their lands, enslaving them, trying to indoctrinate them, or wiping them out if they didn't comply with your doctrine, if you felt this unity of purpose with them?

Now we come to the notions of good vs. evil, and an extremely simple definition of both of them: [7.2]

If you act with empathy for the desires of other beings, your actions are good
If, in pursuit of your desires, you disregard the desires of other beings, your actions are evil

And we come to Dharma as a derived concept, something which frees us from worrying about the intricacies of the law of Karma and just follow some rules - and we should be fine that way. So in my theory, what I'm saying is - the lesser beings may have no conception of afterlife, or karmic consequences, or even any recognition of the fact that they are pursuing their desires - but they do recognize some "Dharma," each according to its own, which is why they serve on watch duty, why they follow group Dharma (or not - but this is a conscious decision they make, to deviate from Dharma) when hunting or evading a predator, when protecting their young, when adopting the young of another mother (or not - again a conscious decision) which has passed away, etc.
Last edited by sudarshan on 08 Jul 2019 08:21, edited 1 time in total.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jul 2019 01:01

What I have remaining at this point:

  • Quantum mechanics, and a tie-in to the concept of "maya" and "yogic slumber of Vishnu"
  • A few more observations from the scriptures:
    • Raktabijaka vs Kali
    • The story of Tripura
    • Jayadrata's boon from Shiva
    • Bhasmasura
  • Then an indication of practicalities, like how to trace stances on - say - adultery, homosexuality, etc. to the same axioms in a convincing way

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jul 2019 06:17

SriKumar wrote:Some un-connected comments:

3. It is interesting to note that you include gods in the same set (or really a spectrum) as viruses, only that they are more evolved. So a tree can become a god after accumulating enough karma, I suppose. I always associated the Supreme as an 'outside agent', who dispenses moksha and keeps an account of the karmic balance, and therefore being outside the 'set'. Just an observation.



Trying to address this one now.

Goddess Lakshmi is described as "Jagat stithe jagan matha" i.e., the one who, while situated in the universe, is still the mother of the universe. I think when I come to the concept of Vishnu's yogic slumber (in the QM part of what I have to say), this might make more sense.

So - God isn't just an outside agent. God *is* the entire universe; but God is disinterested, detached from the universe. Again - I'll come to this when I talk about Quantum mechanics. There is no paradox here, as I can (hopefully) show from the axioms.

But your point about "tree becoming a god after accumulating enough karmaphala" - yes, very much true, and very much supported in the epics and puranas. But this "becoming a god" is not the same as Moksha - this is still from the point of view of material enjoyment.

For example - whenever any person starts doing serious tapasya, Indra starts getting jittery. Indra is the king of the Devas, a god - but this is a position which he enjoys, he still has material desires, seeking to attain any beautiful woman he sees (Ahalya for instance), seeking artistic performances, drink (soma) and good food, etc. - but all in return for service. In short, it is an appointed post like any other, with perks and responsibilities.

So when the raja Kaushika started doing penance to become a brahmarishi (he eventually became the rishi Vishwamitra), Indra assumed that Kaushika wanted the post of Indra. So he arranged for Menaka to go disturb Kaushika. In the same way, he also freaked out when other personalities started doing severe penance (even though it turned out that these personalities did not really want the post of Indra).

However - there was one case where the person not only did want the post of Indra, but actually attained enough merit to dethrone Indra himself! This person was Nahusha, the father of Yayati, and one of the ancestors of the Pandavas.

Nahusha performed enough sacrifice to claim the post of Indra. The current Indra saw that he would have to abdicate in Nahusha's favor. So he came up with a ruse. He got four sages together, and sent them to receive Nahusha. The sages told Nahusha that they had come to carry him to heaven in a palanquin which they would balance on their shoulders. Nahusha was delighted (foolishly).

As the sages carried Nahusha towards heaven, his karmaphala rapidly declined (since making these meritorious sages carry him was enough to deplete his karmaphala) and all the merit he had acquired was being dissipated without his even knowing it.

Indra didn't stop with that. He sent a messenger, ostensibly from his wife Sachi, to tell Nahusha - "I am tired of my current husband, and am eagerly awaiting your arrival in heaven." Nahusha was overjoyed, and in great haste to get to heaven. He became annoyed at the sages for moving so slowly, and he became convinced that one of them (not sure who - Durvasa or Agastya?), who was shorter than the rest, was the reason for the delay. So he prodded this sage on the shoulder and said "sarpa, sarpa" (hurry up, hurry up).

The sage became enraged and cursed Nahusha - "since you insulted me by calling me sarpa (snake), may you become a snake yourself." And Nahusha, who was eagerly anticipating heaven, instead turned into a snake (a lesser life-form) and slithered away.

The meaning of the story? That one can attain to high posts, even the post of Indra himself, by attaining enough karmic merit; that if one does attain this merit, but foolishly squanders it on incidental pleasures (like making reputed sages carry him), then that merit will dissipate; once that merit is fully dissipated, the person is back where (s)he started, or even much lower (in this case, from a king, on his way to heaven, to an ordinary snake). The sage's curse was just a pretext, the real cause for Nahusha's fall was the fact that his karmaphala was depleted.

So yes, anybody, even a tree, can aspire to be a Deva, a Rudra, a Marut, whatever. In fact, Hanuman was promised that he would become the next Brahma. So even Brahma is a post.

The Supreme, however, is another story. I'll come to that.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Jul 2019 07:25

^^^ IMVHO SL Bhyrappa made this concept, part of his books, of a post or title for the role for Indra and all the other gods!
Point of clarification when u get to your quantum mechanics on the nature of this Supreme and relation to Brahman or not would be helpful.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jul 2019 07:33

^^ Sir ji, what do you feel about the development so far? I am not as well read as you, so would appreciate your view on whether you feel that the development is consistent with the core philosophy or not.

sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2034
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby sudarshan » 08 Jul 2019 08:59

[8]

Case study 2 - Quantum mechanics:

Please note - the wording could be imprecise, if anybody notices any incorrect wording, please let me know, I'll change it. The wording is always critical when trying to explain these scientific principles, like special or general relativity, but I feel that it is especially critical with QM, because QM doesn't have any physical axioms, only mathematical ones. In other words, the scientists who developed QM chose to do so from the point of view of the language of mathematics, rather than in plain language, which I feel is pretty unfortunate.

However, I also feel that our three simply-worded physical axioms could help overcome that shortcoming.

  • If you have a STEM background, you are familiar with the basics already
  • But *very* briefly, for those not clued in -
  • Classical physics thinks of the universe as deterministic
  • This is also the lay person's view of the universe
    • Briefly, planets orbit stars in accordance with gravity, electrons orbit the nucleus in accordance with electric field theory
    • All of this is an objective existence, independent of our observation (unless we perturb the fields or gravity itself in some way, or physically interfere)
    • So if an electron is flying around, it is like throwing a tennis ball, unless there is some electrical/ magnetic/ gravitational force acting on it, it will not change speed or direction until it hits some solid object
    • Light, however, is a wave, it behaves more like ripples in a pond
  • Now there was this famous "double-slit" experiment
  • And it led, through a series of experiments and reasoning, to the notion that:
    • The act of observing a system, changes the system
    • In other words - no such thing as "objective reality," reality is subjective and dependent on the observer
    • Note: this is the Copenhagen interpretation of QM
    • Scientists themselves are uncomfortable with the implications of this, and keep coming up with alternative explanations to do away with this loss of determinism
      • Like the statistical interpretation or the multiple universes interpretation (you can just google for these terms, you will get many links)
      • Because, you see, the implication of the Copenhagen interpretation is that you can change a system just by observing it - you can make light behave as a particle or a wave just by observing it - you can make solid objects like even helium atoms (the second link above) behave like a particle or a wave just by observing it - technically, you can make humans, airplanes, stars, and galaxies behave like particles or waves just by observing them
      • Technically, no object has a fixed location, it is a probability distribution, and the object is simultaneously everywhere in the universe until an observer comes along to observe it, at which point it collapses to a fixed location
      • This led to the notion of "wave function collapse" - i.e., the state of any system is indeterminate until it is observed (again, this is the Copenhagen interpretation)
        • If a tree falls in the forest, and there is nobody to hear it, does it still make a sound? Quantum mechanics suggests - there is no tree, no forest, no sound, so long as there is no observer
        • So does Zen Buddhism :)
      • Like I said, scientists were very uncomfortable with this loss of determinism
        • So Schroedinger set up a thought experiment to show the ridiculous implications of this principle of "no objective reality, reality is only defined upon observation of the system"
        • You put a cat in a closed box with a capsule of poison gas
        • The poison gas is released (or not) based on a random event, like, say, the radioactive decay of an atom
        • So - is the cat inside dead, or alive?
        • According to the wave function collapse view above - technically, the cat is neither dead nor alive, until somebody opens the box to see what's going on (the observer)
          • When the person opens the box, the wave function collapses, and the person sees - either the cat is dead, or alive
        • So the person who opened the box is the one who actually killed the cat (if the cat turns out to be dead)?
        • Other interpretations have been proposed, such as
          • Statistical interpretation - the cat is definitely either alive or dead, the probability distribution only holds if you prepare a large number of identical experiments - in 50% of those experiments, the cat will be found alive, in the remaining 50%, the cat will be dead, and which 50% yields "alive" vs. "dead" is random
          • Parallel universes - every time such a choice occurs, the universe splits into two (or three or 11, depending on the number of choices), and in one universe, the cat is dead, in the other one, the cat is alive
          • What will we see in "our" universe? It is random, we have a 50/50 chance of seeing the cat either dead or alive
  • So - basically, like Einstein kept objecting - God seems to be playing dice with all of us
Last edited by sudarshan on 08 Jul 2019 09:03, edited 1 time in total.

SriKumar
BRFite
Posts: 1845
Joined: 27 Feb 2006 07:22
Location: sarvatra

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby SriKumar » 08 Jul 2019 09:02

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^ good summary...

1. There is no injunction on what constraints reincarnation in SD thinking avails to... there are several possibilities from simple energy cycles to complex theories on transmigration of atma. Further it is my contention that the complexities of attribution of cause and effect in a complex and chaotic system was well anticipated and understood since the singing of the Naasadiya Sukta. Therefore it is super hard to arrive at a karmic banking system to account for outcomes. Indeed one of the strong arguments of the mimamsakaras of yore was indeed this - distilled into what Krishna said to Arjuna for the mango peep to understand - to do your Dharma (duty) and not worry about them fruits...

2. The SD systems of thinking rely on two very key aspects of human existence beyond basic needs - intellect and experience. Pure intellect without experience is book knowledge. Pure experience without intellect is living a life of no reflections. This “higher” and “lower” life form or evolution and ideas of evolution towards some higher purpose presupposes an “intelligent design” and therefore untenable without some pramana for it.

3. Why do you need the Supreme to be ‘an outside agent?’ What pramana is there for this? What is outside?

My context for the comment on 'outside agent' is poster sudarshan's theory that all life is one large spectrum starting from the viruses which are the least developed, to grass, trees, dogs, elephants, humans, and finally devas. Per his exposition, one could evolve from left to right, all the way to devas (gods) based on karmic advantage. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that something like moksha is 'granted' by a supreme power (a powerful deva). Similarly, who enforces karmic consequences on the spectrum of living beings? I assume it is the same Supreme power. Someone has to make the whole system work- and it would be this agent (Supreme) who does it. So s/he ought to be 'outside' the spectrum, one would think. By 'outside', I mean outside the spectrum (virus-trees-humans-devas spectrum). If the Supreme is inside the spectrum at the very apex of evolution, we might end up with multiple Supremes as more people work their way up. There was no insinuation from my side about dvaita or advaita philosophies. I am only looking at sudarshan's model and looking for self-consistency. Nothing more. ( I concede that I might have incorrectly equated a deva with the Supreme, but it could be argued, taking the next logical step, that the Supreme might be the highest form of a deva in the same spectrum).

About Mahendra Pal Arya's exposition on karma- if there is a video or article that describes it, please do link it. THanks.

sudarshan-
saw your other 2 posts in response to mine. Will read/digest it.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 08 Jul 2019 11:29

Pulikeshi wrote:^^^ IMVHO SL Bhyrappa made this concept, part of his books, of a post or title for the role for Indra and all the other gods!
Point of clarification when u get to your quantum mechanics on the nature of this Supreme and relation to Brahman or not would be helpful.


As per the SD literature the words Brahma & Brahman are different (used in different contexts).

Brahma is used for the representation of the role of the creator. Mentioned in many puranas. He comes beside Vishnu, and Shiva.

Where as the word "Brahman" is mentioned more in Upanishads to represent the Supreme (won't use 'being' beside it). This Brahman is all pervading. Formless, Nameless, Omniscient, Omnipotent etc. etc.. Nothing can be beyond it. There is no inside or outside of it. IT is all. All is in IT. Everything comes from, and every thing dissolves in. It cannot be described in words, cannot be imagined by mind. It is beyond all our comprehensions. But Upanishads claim, it IS..., since there is this creation and its experience in all its glory, and there must be some root cause for all of this phenomena, so Upanishads use this word "Brahman" to represent that root cause (for Supreme, Almighty).

Hope this clarifies enough...

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Jul 2019 11:46

^^^ yes very well aware thanks for refresh - my question was if The Supreme here is this Brahman
The role based idea is only for Vedic deities have never seen or heard it for the trinity - Brahman has always been beyond...

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Jul 2019 11:54

sudarshan wrote:^^ Sir ji, what do you feel about the development so far? I am not as well read as you, so would appreciate your view on whether you feel that the development is consistent with the core philosophy or not.


Thks for asking, but my feeling is really irrelevant :mrgreen: I am not any expert and in this journey same as yourself... happy to help.
That said, it seems your journey is to find the logic of creation and tie it to quantum mechanics and science. Or perhaps something else yet...
For me there is no one path in SD - just multiple ways to seek whatever it is one wishes to pursue... there is no one Truth only an emergent one...
The intellect cannot see past the cosmic thicket, all that needs protection is expositions such as yours... the journey we share is all that is sacred.
still understanding your thesis, will comment and share my thoughts as usual... but first I want to understand it fully.

Meanwhile interesting work by Penrose on the why consciousness does not compute: (Orch-OR theory is interesting and controversial)
Last edited by Pulikeshi on 08 Jul 2019 12:03, edited 1 time in total.

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6298
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Vikas » 08 Jul 2019 11:57

sudarshan wrote:[8]

Case study 2 - Quantum mechanics:

….
[*]So - basically, like Einstein kept objecting - God seems to be playing dice with all of us[/list]

Thanks for jotting it down Sudarshan Ji.

Everytime I read something like this, My mind goes Whaaaaat !!
This is the most complicated yet most beautiful definition of events happening around us.
I wonder if a observer also causes the historical background of the event to be formed along with.

e.g. There was no observer for big bang so it never happened but as soon as Scientists figured it out, The big bang along with all the later events unfolded.

DharmaB
BRFite
Posts: 113
Joined: 23 Feb 2019 19:21

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby DharmaB » 08 Jul 2019 12:13

so, really, we don't have to know of a next life, or believe in it - not just viruses or animals, many humans don't know of this, or think of reincarnation as a strange concept - but when we leave one life and look back, then we see that we can go back if we wish, and at that point we "know the truth," so to speak, we just choose to forget it again, for another lifetime


There is a contradiction in this. If the spirit soul "know the truth", it can not wish or desire foolishly to go back to the same state or next higher, when it is fully aware of the full spectrum of life up to Devas (even if assume law of karma forbids, that is separate, here we are talking purely about wishing aspect). It has no awareness of it, and only limited conscious of its being, and can choose within its limits of awareness. The scriptures are also more or less indicating this concept of Evolution of Consciousness by reincarnating through various body forms in various life(s).

IMO, the relevance of Karma and conscious choosing comes once we take birth as human. Then there are consequence of karma-phala. From this stage we can either evolve to higher beings (by our Karma, punya phala) or choose for liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of birth & death. We can fall from human stage to lower animal levels due to our bad karma (papa phala). But the evolution or devolution must be gradual, not sudden or drastic. Otherwise it feels like injustice.

In a way, from the primordial stage to just before the human life, the evolution is involuntary (more or less). There might be some references in Puranas, indicating otherwise, but they can be taken as exceptions. There are exceptions everywhere after all. But looking at the numbers (of various life forms that exist at any given point of time), it is more appropriate to say, taking those life forms before coming to human body is involuntary. And there is no pain or conscious suffering in it. Since they do not have a conscious mind, they do not repent, they do not plan, they do not bother about future (life). They appear to be in a kind of bliss (may not be ultimate), that they never show any signs of worry about what next (except when its life is in danger, again that is part of involuntary mechanism by nature).

The conscious evolution and (voluntary) wishing / desiring starts from the human birth. We have mind, discrimination, feelings and all that faculties which distinguishes from the lower forms of life. That is why it is said, "Human birth is the most precious of all births". This is the birth from where we can evolve to higher beings (Devas, Gandharvas, Kinnera, Kimpurusha etc. etc.). This is the birth we can aspire for Moksha (consciously choosing not to be born again in any form) and become liberated by conscious effort & knowledge (wisdom).

Then the question comes, why we have to fall in this trap involuntarily, or why we happen to choose badly and fall in to negative consequences. Why all of us can't choose wisely and make to heavens? Why can't there be a utopia from the beginning of creation itself?

The reason appears to be "Ignorance". We all are, even though fully potential as spirit souls in reality, immersed deeply in the ocean of ignorance, and not aware of our reality. By taking births we are consciously evolving... from darkness, ignorance to light, wisdom gradually,.. by slowly becoming aware, conscious of the nature of our desires and experiencing, learning from them,.. what happens from that desiring as consequences...

Einstein once said, "I am not sure about, if the universe is limitless & infinite or not, but am sure that human stupidity has no limits & may be infinite..." (may not be his exact words...)
Last edited by DharmaB on 08 Jul 2019 16:22, edited 5 times in total.

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1505
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Pulikeshi » 08 Jul 2019 12:34

Vikas wrote:Everytime I read something like this, My mind goes
...
e.g. There was no observer for big bang so it never happened but as soon as Scientists figured it out, The big bang along with all the later events unfolded.


There is great danger in looking at QM phenomenon from an anthropocentric point of view. :mrgreen:
One possibility is no QM before sentient beings arrived ~ the cat is in the box dead/alive till humans arrived!*** :shock:

Another idea that has emerged is that the events are the truth and depending on what you can observe and comprehend, truth is just a reprocessing over your time horizon and window... but this needs some crazy background explanation to make sense,
and even if it does so what? :P

*** Who let the cat in? Who? Who? (Bad joke based on a song! :mrgreen: )

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6298
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

Postby Vikas » 08 Jul 2019 16:40

^Maybe the ancient and later day sages and monks were right.
Hard to fathom Maya with Human mind, understanding and experience.
Still doesn't answer what is the purpose of this creation and why do we carry the curse of Moksha ?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shobhits89 and 20 guests