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.....
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.....
No comments:
Post a Comment