Modern Physics and Vedanta - Part 4

P: I wanted to take forward our conversation with regard to space and time. What is space time then, if I only experience it in a discrete manner. This understanding completely challenges assumptions about space and time with regard to modern physics. Physics is based on the understanding that space and time are continous. In the descartian coordinates, we have a continous line, that depicts space and time.

V: It is a fact that we experience continuity. And that we experience time. But let us go into our experience of time. We say that the time is 5 o clock, when it is 5 o clock, isnt it "now", When it becomes 6 o clock that time is still the same "now". Then next day morning also it is still the "now".

So isnt it fair to say that "now" is the truth of time itself? Because almost every unit of time is in the now. The unit of time, the fabric of time, we imagine based on the conditions we experience. When we had bullock carts running we called time as 1950s. Now when we have supersonic jets we call time as 21st century, But all along, there was only the "now" which when associated with the state of the universe that we experience, we term as "time".

P: Hmm, what is this now.

V: As we saw earlier, this now is none other than consciousness.

P: Wow thats astounding. That proves the I am beyond time,a timeless being.

V: It indeed does, thats indeed the message of vedanta. Vedanta says I am timeless and I am the truth of time also.

P: I am the truth of time. It rings true but I dont seem to understand this fully.
I agree that time space, matter can be activated by presence of consciousness. But what is this language you use when you say truth of time.
In fact it is ironic, that we are also in search of something similar as scientists.

We want to find the source of macrocosm and microcosm.

V: Can you explain more what you mean from standpoint of physics.

Modern Physics and Vedanta - Part 3

V: So in vedanta, shruti is teaching there is both maya as well as brahman or consciousness.
Matter and conciousness are both beginingless cause.

Matter is what you experience as objects and thoughts. We say thought is also matter only, it is subtle matter and it appears as a conscious thought, due to reflected consciousness only.

So this subtle matter such as thoughts, and gross matter , is all evolutes from the causal matter, which is what we call as maya or prakrti, the material cause of the universe, which evolves into the universe.

However, we never say that this maya or prakrti exists and evolves independently. We say it gains its existence, as well as is able to evolve onto the manifest universe, or basically come out from its unmanifest to manifest state, only due to the presence of consciousness.

This conscsiousness , alongwith the material shakti, or maya shakti, or prakrti, together we call as ishvara, the conscious being who is the cause for the universe manifestation and resolution.

P: But where do I, come into the picture then? you were saying consciousness is myself. Now you say consciousness is ishvara. Then there is your consciousness, consciousness in other living beings.
So doesnt that mean that, there being so many consciousnesses, means that cosnciousness cannot be causeless? Cannot be an uncaused cause.

V: No, we say there is only one consciousness. And the same consciousness based on the material it is manifesting in, appears as different roles. behind the body minds, it is the knower or experiencer.
Behind the total causal matter, maya, same consciousness is ishvara.

P: So you are saying the consciuousness is what creates this meaningful, intelligent manifestation of matter, and that is why I am able to see a link between past present and future, as well as between events. As well as the whole paradigm of cause and effect?

V: Yes, consciousness together with maya or prakrti.

P: And same cosnsciousness also appears behind its individual body mind as the knower or experiencer.

V: Correct.

P: So that is what you are saying is my experience of continuity, Because I am the one who is continous and changeless one.

V: Accurate understanding .

P: I am starting to understand a bit of vedanta. But I still have many questions on how it relates to modern physics and its findinds.

V: Let us discuss that further....

To be Contd..........

Arguments from modern physics against vedanta- Part 2

P: It may be that I am aware of discrete thoughts. But my experience is that of continuity. There is a continuity that I experience. And that is the experience of time. And Space.

V: Have you studied time and space?

P: Of course. We have time and space as a continuum, the universe has space time continuum. So the experience of space time is continous, unlike thoughts that are discrete.

V: How can you say that. Only when you experience an object do you experience space time. You never experience space time independent of an object experience. Do you ever?

P: Hmm. Yes independent of object experience there isnt space time experience. But perhaps in between two thoughts , there is an experience isnt it?

V: Experience entails thought. Thought entails object. Along with object awareness, there is also space time awareness imbued in the object awareness. But object awareness is always discrete.

P: Your explanation seems logical with regard to experience. But it is incomplete.

V: Why do you say so?

P: Because it does not explain the continuity I experience . If thoughts are discrete, then I should not have any experience of continuity of thoughts. You are essentially saying that universe is like a an animation book that is flipped quickly one after the other. So per your explanation, I myself become a discrete entity. So perhaps thats the fact. I do not exist at all. There is an appearance of existence, due to one discrete thought after another.

V: You have now come out of physics and ended up becoming a buddhist. This is how buddhist argue that the truth is sunya or nothing. And everything is shanika or momentary. Lord shankara has already done detailed khandanam of this. But let me explain briefly. If you so posit, that existence itself is momentary, how can you ever experience continuity. Since the you who experiences space and time and objects is not the you who had the previous experience. But clearly you remember, I experienced that.

P: Isnt that due to experience of memory?

V: You also say in between two experiences, I am. What is that?

P: Thats perhaps a trick thought.

V: Again you are going back to square one. We had already established that its not due to the thought that you 'know' I am. Knowing is not same as saying. Knowing is , without any thought.

P: I am unable to beat your logic. So let me consider what you are saying to be true. I am, and my existence is not dependent on thoughts. But how does that explain the fact that the thoughts that occur, the objects I see, are interconnected logically. There is cause and effect. It is not random. How is that possible if its all momentary?

V: This is where ishvara walks in.

P: Ishvara? How , who??

TO be contd...

Arguments from modern physics against vedanta- Part 1

Modern physics makes a number of arguments against vedantic cosmology.


Physicist:  As per vedanta, both consciousness and matter are beginingless cause. As scientists we cannot accept it. Our observations into the universes past reveal the fact, that life evolved in the planets only much later, as matter evolved on earth to enable life on planet earth. This was due to favourable conditions such as formation of water and distance from sun. Therefore there is no such thing as consciousness, till the point that life evolves on a favourable planet.
Before life evolved the universe was pure matter and hence there could not have been any consciousness prior to that.

Vedantin: The assumption of science that the presence of consciousness is 'created' afresh, only once certain elements such as DNA , RNA and unicellular organisms evolve is faulty , and the argument they use against vedanta does not hold fort.

The reason is that, even vedanta does not say that consciousness is manifest in all of matter. Consciousness is manifest only in subtle bodies that are capable of manifesting or of reflecting consciousness.

Science is confusing consciousness with sentience. Consciousness lends sentience to certain matter, based on its ability to reflect consciousness. However in gross forms of matter , there need not be any sentience. Therefore when vedanta says consciousness we do not refer to sentience.

So while vedanta is not in opposition to the evolutionary model of how life forms evolved, but vedanta is misunderstood , when scientists equate "consciousness" in vedanta to mere sentience alone.

Physicist:  If sentience isnt consciousness, then science is not aware of any other consciousness. We as scientists see conscious or sentient beings, and for us, that is what is consciousness.

Vedantin: This precisely is the mistake of modern science. While you study the conscious beings , and there evolution etc. , as scientists you are always studying the world of objects, which includes sentient and insentient. However you do not study the subject, the one who "is" looking at the world of objects.

Physicist: See when you say subject, there isn't any separate subject for us. The body and mind alone is me the subject, and I happen to be conscious , since I am matter that has evolved into life.

Vendantin: As a scientist, you claim to draw your conclusions based on observation and analysis, and then arriving at results either via perception or inference.

How have you arrived at the knowledge that you are the body mind. Have you analysed all 3 states of your experience to arrive at that conclusion?

Physicist: Why do I need to analyse 3 states of experience. I experience anything only because I am alive and have a brain. If I had no brain, I wont have any experience at all.

Vedantin: On what basis have you concluded that you are able to experience because of your brain?

Physicist: Because brain drives thinking

Vedantin: So are you saying that only when you think you know that you exist?

Physicist: Of course, its only because I think, I am able to say I exist.

Vedantin: Do you exist between two thoughts. When one thought occurs, and next one occurs, did you know that there was no thought between two successive thoughts?

Physicist: Yes of course between two thoughts there isnt a thought.

Vedantin: Who knew the absence of thought, between two successive thoughts.

Physicist: I did.

Vedantin: So you know that there is no thought also, which is you know that "I am" even when there is no thought right.

Physicist: Not sure. To say that "I am" , a thought is needed, that says " I am".

Vedantin: Saying is different from knowing. My question is to know that 'fact' that you are, forget about you telling us, but just simply to be aware of that fact that you exist, are you saying that only when a thought occurs you know that you exist?

Physicist: I am not sure.

Vedantin: Why not sure. Lets go into your experience right now. Think of an 'apple', 'mango' , 'pumpkin', 'gold', 'television'. When I said each of these words, a thought came. Did you not know prior to these thoughts that "I am". In between these thoughts, when I wasn't prompting any particular thought, didnt you know 'I am'.

Physicist: Yes perhaps, But that can be attributed to brain activity, wherein there is a constant set of some other thoughts, such as silence. even when I close my eyes and I have no thoughts also, I am aware of silence. So isnt that a thought?

V: Now you contradicted yourself, so you are changing your mind and arguing no that thought is continous.  How can there be a constant set of thoughts. Thoughts by definition have to be discrete. If thoughts arent discrete you can never tell the difference between one thoughts and next. Even if the discreteness interval is a few micro or nano seconds, even then, that discreteness is a necessary condition, to ensure the cognizance of differences, between thoughts A and B. If its one continous thoughts, say you see pumpkin, you will keep on seeing pumpkin throughout and it wont change at all. It does change, and for it to change from state A to state B, there has to be an interval in between when it changes from A to B. Based on that only you say, this pumpkin was one whole pumpkin, which has become two pieces in the last few seconds ( seeing of cutting a pumpkin into two halves).
Isnt it because you saw intervals of time where pumpkins nature changed. In fact while blinking you didnt even see the pumpkin, you concluded this pumpkin alone I saw in before I blinked.

To be contd.....

What is wrong?

What is wrong in greed and avarice, when the one is greedy in gaining ultimate good,

What is wrong in clever thievery, when what is stolen is the ultimate truth,

What is ever wrong in adultery, when the mistress is knowledge and attachment the cheated spouse,

What is wrong in jealousy I'd say, when one is jealous of the wandering jivanmukta,

What is wrong in idleness and sloth, when the mind body and soul are immersed in brahman,

What is wrong in murder and killing, when the victim is none other than ignorance,

What is wrong in anger in fact, when anger is the wrath of rudra upon the ego rakshas,

In fact is there anything at all that is wrong, when the path one takes is the path to self and self alone ( at the exclusion of anything else).