Bhagavad Gita

History, religion and culture
Post Reply
meena
Posts: 3326
Joined: 21 May 2005, 13:57

Post by meena »

For all 18 chapters of Bhagavadgita chanted devotionally
deleted

PUNARVASU
Posts: 2498
Joined: 06 Feb 2010, 05:42

Post by PUNARVASU »

I have a small doubt.Can any forumite clarify?
'KarmaNyEvAdhikArasthE mA phalEshu kadAchana'
Here the word 'mA' is used and not 'na'.
I always used to wonder why it is so.
If 'na' were used it would mean 'you have right over the action alone and NOT over the results'
Since 'mA' is used does it mean that 'you have right over the action alone and DO NOT EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT over the results'?
This doubt has been nagging in my mind ever since I learnt BG as an youngster.
Somebody pl. help me.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Good question which is not generally answered in the usual texts. I shall answer it from the grammatical perspective. The full shlOka is
karmaNi Eva adhikAraH tE mA phalEShu (astu) kadacana |
mA karmaPhla hEtuH bhuH mA tE sa^NgaH astu akarmaNi ||
Note that the verbs are all in the imperative. The prohibitive particle mA is used in the negative forms of the imperative sense. The negative particle na is used with all other tenses to indicate negative.
(Ref: page 113, 'First Lessons in Sanskrit Grammar and Reading' by Judith M Tyberg)

In fact the Sanskrit in Gita is very chaste and I have never come across any errors. But then what else do you expect when the Lord speaks in the Deva BhAShA!

PUNARVASU
Posts: 2498
Joined: 06 Feb 2010, 05:42

Post by PUNARVASU »

CML. thanks for the explanation;Never did I think it was an error; I did not understand and just wanted to satisfy my inner urge.Thanks once again.
'astu' in the first line has to be inferred I suppose.
Last edited by PUNARVASU on 12 Apr 2008, 16:50, edited 1 time in total.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

punarvasu,
From the way you have worded your question, I feel you are more interested as to 'why' the prohibition over exercising one's right over the results of action, rather than the pure grammatical view.

Assuming that to be so, I venture to answer. Please refer to BG -

anishTamishTaM miSraM ca trividhaM karmaNaH phalam.... || XVIII.12 ||

"The threefold fruit of action - disagreeable, agreeable, and mixed - accrues ..."

iccAdvEsha samutthEna dvandvamOhEna bhArata ||
sarva bhUtAni saMmOhaM sargE yAnti parantapa || VII.27 ||

"By the delusion of the pairs of opposites, arising from desire and aversion, .... all beings fall into delusion at birth...."

...vimRSyatadaSEshENa yathEcchasi tathA kuru || XVIII.63 ||

"...reflecting over it fully, act as thou likest." (Translation by Swami Swarupananda)

In a different thread, we had discussed about 'freedom' and 'sva-tantra'. As has been rightly observed by Vasantakokilam therein, there is no true freedom in this World of inter-dependency. Gitacharya, IMHO, simply points to the essentiality of our remaining attuned to the self-regulatory nature of the chaos of our Universe - that is the essence of 'karmaNyEva adhikArastE' - it is rather an advice. Freedom of choice is with us. God never constrains us - that makes us responsible for our own actions.
Last edited by vgvindan on 12 Apr 2008, 17:40, edited 1 time in total.

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Post by VK RAMAN »

Consequence follows action; one has no choice over consequence. It can be positive result or negative result.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

This is a deeply philosophical issue concerning 'Determinism vs Indeterminism'. Lord never states that He controls the outcome of our actions. He only advises us not to get 'attached' to the results 'good or bad'. He does not even assure us that if we pursue a certain prescription a definite result will be produced. That is indeterminism. He does not even force us to follow a certain course of action which is 'Free Will'. Even if the action is 'bad' and the results are ' atrocious' as long as we do not attach ourselves to the results then we are eligible for salvation since 'karmaphala' does not stick on us. On the other hand if we do 'good' action resulting in excellent results, if we attach ourselves to the results then we will not be eligible for liberation.

Are we to be like a Robot which produce at one end 'automobiles' and at the other end 'atomic weapons' but by itself is unconcerned about the consequences? What do you folks think?

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Post by VK RAMAN »

Freedom or liberation from attachment to materialistic or egotistic results will be the ultimate in self realization.

PUNARVASU
Posts: 2498
Joined: 06 Feb 2010, 05:42

Post by PUNARVASU »

VGV,
I was interested in the grammatical part and also in the fact that though one has right over the results of one's action, by not exrcising that right one is on the path to liberation.
When I dont have right over something there is nothing I can do about it.
But , to have a right over something and choosing not to exercise that right and obtain it, calls for a great amount of mental balance and equipoise. I was interested in knowing whether this is what was implied.
Thanks to all of you for explaining this.
Last edited by PUNARVASU on 12 Apr 2008, 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

It is not a "right" to expect the results to turn out the way one wants but if it does turn out that way consider it as a "privilege". I am not sure if that is what BG says but I am drawing on the "right" vs "privilege" distinction that exists in laws of many countries. Applying that here, "right" raises the level of expecation and demand a few orders of magnitude and hence the attachment to the results. Also, if it is a "right", people are not that thankful but if it is a 'privilege', people are naturally more thankful and grateful.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

vk,
This is what defined in 'agreeable', 'disagreeable', and 'mixed' in BG, Chapter 18, verse 12.
To accept what is agreeable, is probably what you call as 'privilege'; and contrari-wise, to reject what is not agreeable. Then it would amount to running away from the consequences when things do not turn out the way we want.

arasi
Posts: 16774
Joined: 22 Jun 2006, 09:30

Post by arasi »

VG,
I don't think VK implies that one runs away from the 'not so agreeable'. I understand it as one not agonizing over it. One does not reject it but gets resigned to it (or tries to).

CML,
How I wish the 'robotic' actions of humans were just that (mechanical or technological in nature) and did not involve a human mind which cannot boast of the 'innocence' of a robot!
Last edited by arasi on 13 Apr 2008, 07:28, edited 1 time in total.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

There is a nice surgical way of getting rid of that conscience:
It is called 'Frontal Lobotomy' !

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

Thanks cml,
There a nice slide show of 18 chapters on Psychology in the website.
http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/joor ... sld001.htm

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Talking of the brain, I recently watched a video presentation on how our brain functions. I could not help correlate those to the Hindu Sprituality/BG.

Here is a summary of the material I saw and some thoughts of my own based on this...

- Our brain is divided into two halves, the left and the right brain.

- The right brain perceives the "now" and the left brain provides the perceptions of the "past" and "future"

- Right brain is a massive parallel processing machine where as the left brain is more linear

- So we have two different consciousnesses with in ourselves. So 'I' is really a 'We'.

- The right brain just perceives the energy that is hitting the various sensory organs "as is". The sound energy, the light energy, the air molecules hitting our skin etc.

- The left brain takes all that information and using its associative memory gives us the perception of the world out there.

- The right brain does not really recognizes the boundary between itself and the rest of the world. To it, the whole universe is one and it is a part of that universe.

- The left brain is the one that provides the duality between 'I' and the 'Rest'.

- Left brain is the one that 'plans', creates the internal chatter, makes you remember that you have something to do. Basically, it provides the basic survival mechanisms. The right brain is a really happy place, it does not induce any stress of the past or the future since it is all about the present.

- When the left brain shuts down a bit and the right brain dominates the consciousness, we will feel euphoria and a feeling of "oneness" with the world since it does not even recognize the body boundary.

- The speaker is a leading brain researcher and 8 years back, she had a stroke which took the left brain activity in and out. She lived to tell her experience of experiencing the consciousness of right brain.

My thoughts:

1) It looks like when someone is in deep meditation, the left brain activity slows down and the right brain dominates. So the consciousness at that time is one of universal consciousness since the "I" basically disappears.

2) At that time, the concept of time also vanishes. You need the left brain to put together the perception of past and future. There is no arrow of time without the left brain. Right brain just is, there is no 'was' or 'will be'.

3) The realized souls who still live in this world, probably have very little left brain activity and live with the consciousness the right brain provides.

4) The left brain, since it is the planner and doer, seems to be about Karma. Since left brain is about the past as well, there is an intriguing possibility of it somehow going past its own life time in the past. Can it? Science would not go that far yet. One tantalizing possibility is, though the right brain is only about the present moment based on the energy hitting our sensory organs, is there any memory of the past that is encoded in those energy waves which the right brain can pass on to the left brain for it to "put together" a past even before it came into existence. I am just throwing this out here as an idea to ponder.

5) Since the right brain does not know self boundaries of both body and mind, to it there is no difference between itself and the rest of the universe. So if one shuts down the left brain activity momentarily and perceives only with the right brain, what our puranas talk about as 'viswa roopam', 'seeing the whole world in Krishna's mouth' etc. are immensely relatable. This brain scientist, when she woke up from surgery, she still was perceiving with her right brain and when a little bit of her left brain kicked in, her "thought" was, "How am I going fit this infinite enormity I feel myself "to be" in this little body.. At other times, as her left brain was shutting down, her right brain perception of her body was as if her body does not belong to her, and she was looking at it as if she is outside of it, a real out of body experience. That is what right brain consciousness seemed to have felt like for her.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Here is that video I watched: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Post by VK RAMAN »

VK: Thanks for giving a gist of what you watched. I like to add Right brain is creative whereas left brain is logical.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

vk,
I watched the video; to me it lacks spontaneity - as if doctored beautifully - may be I am a sceptic.
Last edited by vgvindan on 13 Apr 2008, 13:54, edited 1 time in total.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Thanks VGV
for the capsule summary of psychology link
What is lacking here is the eastern connection. The missing word is 'psycho philosophy'. In fact Lord Krishna is the greatest teacher who can expound it in the text book called Bhagavat Gita. It is prescribed for every human being and if only we follow the prescription the whole world will be beautiful.

Thanks VK
I have to agree with VGV on the artificiality of Jill's presentation. She is a very good actress. The message is full of half truths couched in a pseudo-scientific language. The left-right dichotomy is not that simple. Having seen a number of Stroke patients I feel that she is doing injustice to the victims by describing it as a mind-elevating experience. I pray to God to spare me that experience if that is the road to liberation :)

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

CML, VGV: I am quite surprised that you two are giving it such a negative spin. Watch it again when you are in a different frame of mind ;) Talk about expectations of the left brain, it gets it wrong a lot of times. ;) Meaning, I thought you two will find a lot of relevance to what you already believe in. May be what did not agree with you is that she is describing spirituality through mundane brain processes. That I can understand and that is something we can discuss.

CML, I may be wrong, but I do not think she is saying that you need to have a stroke to elevate the mind. That is missing the point. The 'advocacy' side of her speech is more about realizing that both sides of the brain are important and that we have a choice which one to give prominence at any time and that if a lot more people are projecting the right brain stuff, the whole world will be better off. That part is not the 'Science' part, more 'Advocasy" and "preaching". I did not find that any different from what Hindus believe in through many of our rituals.

On the science part, yes, she is 'capsulazing' the brain anatomy but she is a leading reasearcher and she can not be telling falsehood or half truths in front of the world ( especailly the TED conference audience ), that will be ruinous to her career, especially on such fundamental topics. But I grant you that the talk is not about strict science but advocasy using science as a medium.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

VK
I did not mean to sound negative at all. In fact I did appreciate the science part which as she presents will not stand up for questioning in a scientific conference. She was trying a cheap act by bringing and flauting a live brain. Her narration of her personal experience smacks of Drama while the truth may have been more devastating. Lots are known and lots are unknown about the Left/Right brain phenomena. It is highly controversial. The brain centres have been mapped out by using valuable clinical materials based on studies on stroke patients. She may be an outstanding neuroanatomist. That does not make her an expert in cognitive science and philosophy. Again I am not putting her down. But I resent the drama. If she had presented it objectively I can understand. Maybe she did since we have only a 18 minute clipping from TED. Of course we can discuss the issues objectively....

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

vk,
I do not know whether I am competent to make these observations, yet...

The functional differences of the two hemi-spheres of brain has been well documented. But the act of cognising is a wholesome affair.

I can take an example of ghost organs. When a finger or a hand is amputated, there exists in the brain the root of the organ which makes one to perceive, what is known as 'ghost' organ. If the two hemispheres are so independent, then this perception should not be there.

Further, when we sustain an injury, it is not the particular organ that feels the pain but the person as such. Therefore, when a haemorrhage occurs, the person would blank out and there cannot any blow-by-blow memory.

For example, today only I visited a person who had sustained a skull injury. She does not recollect anything about the sequence of events leading to the injury. This is what one would expect from an ordinary individual.

Not because I am biased towards Indian philosophical methods that I want to belittle what she is telling. But looking from the angle of 'person' as whole, the whole act does not jell.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

OK, the form did not agree with you which is understandable ( Yes, her presentation IS on the dramatic side ). TED presentations are like that. As you may know, TED is about pushing the envelope in terms of creativity and what is coming in the next few years, rather than a science conference on specific topics. That 18 minutes is her time slot. I think she was chosen to present there because of her background, her own personal experience with the stroke and not insignificantly for her presentation skills ;)

Since this is a Bhagavad Gita thread, I am more curious about how we can relate what bhagavad gita says or the philosophy of advaitha in terms of how the brain actually perceives things.

Karma is about Action and Time. Both of these are left brain activities. In fact, it is clear that the "perception of time" ( and not the scientific use of Time ) is an illusion and it is concocted by the left brain through its algorithms using the associative memory data structure. Meaning, it can index into its vast look up table like a Dictionary. In that operation, the input is the vastly complex structures that are coming from the world out there and the output is past concepts and structures which it had 'smoothened out' and stored away before. So, spatial and conceptual perception is an illusion. But we all have the same illusions and that is why we can safely drive across cross roads using traffic lights ;). So both time and space, the illusion, are left brain activities. The so called 'Maya' is thus a left brain function.

On the other hand, the right brain is about 'Now'. ( Please point out if this is wrong or if the good scientist misrepresented this basic concept ). It perceives the universe as is and it does not know the difference between 'I' or 'You' or 'Other'. It does not know about Time as an arrow but it only knows time as an Event which is single infinitessimally small point. It is the left brain that "connets the dots" to create the illusion of Time as we normally perceive it. ( the fact that the left brain is the agent of these words is a freaky thing. it can talk 'objectively' about its own illusions ).

Since right brain perceives time at such infinitessimal level appraoching zero, every moment is a moment of creation and every moment represents all such moments that ever existed. So it is zero and infinity all wrapped in one singleton. The same way our philosophers say God is beyond time, the right brain consciousness is really beyond time.

So, when a philosopher says that 'we all have a little bit God in us', he may be referring to the right brain consciousness and when he talks about 'maya', he is talking about the left brain consciousness that is creating all these illusions in space and time.

In all these discussions, left brain gets a bad rap, but without the left brain we would not survive. So, that is really a bad rap against Philosophers who talk down Maya ( I am referring only to those who do ). Maya/left brain is essential for Karma. So instead of talking down Maya, we should view it in the proper light, how it helps us survive by linearizing the non-linear world out there.

VK RAMAN
Posts: 5009
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:29

Post by VK RAMAN »

If we are locked up in a dark room without having a watch and or sunlight or moon shine, we will be living in a timeless world - will in that case right brain bring liberation to see light without light?

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

VGV, It is interesting you mention Ghost organs. There is another TED presentation on that topic by an Indian neuroscientist Vilayanur Ramachandran and his creative $3.00 solution for it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/184 ( CML, there is some trashing of Freud ;) on another part of the talk which suits me 100% perfectly fine, but may not be for others )

And here is a recent CNN story on using Dr. Ramachandran's technique with soldiers at Water Reid Army Medical Center.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/19/mi ... index.html

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

vk,
I think the 'routine' meaning attached to the word 'maya' - illusion, is very inadequate. The World is not an illusion. It exists. But there is no such universe which can be totally objectified. We are the subjects who cognise the universe and the intersection of our sum total of our cognition is what we generally conclude to be the Universe - and we understand it to be so. We are also objects of this very universe.

Indian philosophy has pointed out that cognition is not the end of the journey. The very act of cognition is a manifestation of the potentiality - called 'sat' - which neither cognises nor not cognises - it is from where cognition itself arises; while the cognition makes all this World-play, the source is neither affected not modificed because of the cognition. This is what IMHO Gitacharya calls 'mayAdhyakshEna prakRtiH sUyatE carAcaraM'. This is what IMHO bharati called 'cittianai acittuDan iNaittai'.

I think we are entering into a very esoteric area where I may be accused of subjectivity. Suffice it to say that it is not 'belief' or 'faith' that is needed to look at the cognition itself; but apprehension. But, apprehension cannot take place unless one has a fair idea as to what one is looking for - rather what one should not look for - that is where 'belief' and 'faith' ends.

This is exemplied by the 'pot of water' in the 'ocean'.
Last edited by vgvindan on 14 Apr 2008, 08:38, edited 1 time in total.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

VGV, you are saying a lot of things there. I need to think about it so atleast I understand clearly what you mean on a small subset of it. BTW, you mean apprehension in the sense of 'comprehending something' and not the other meaning of 'suspicion or fear', right?

Though I consider philosophy as the highest form of logical thinking, many a philosophers have gotten burnt very badly when they detect subtle logical inconsistency in their own work and force them to reject their prior work. So, I agree with you, it is quite a tough discipline and an esoteric one, full of slippery slopes.

Of course, the famous example of such rejection of their own work is Wittgenstein . I am not a student of western philosophy but just an amateur peeker in that direction to see what they talk about. I like Wittgenstein for his earnest desire to achieve clarity. Also who can not love someone who says "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" :)

What you said of apprehension, "unless one has a fair idea as to what one is looking for - rather what one should not look for", I was reminded of the above quote by Wittgenstein. After the rejection of his own work and later on in trying to put things back together, he wrote "Philosophical problems need not be solved but they should be dissolved. The clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.". He is of course talking about getting clarity on what problems philosophers should be trying to solve, so it is a statement on meta-philosophy. Western philosophers are stuck for centuries on that very issue ("what are we doing") and any bright insight like Wittgenstein's causes a new branch of philosophy to be born.

Sorry for the detour on Wittgenstein. His goal of clarity is a tall order, but I try to atleast get a base understanding with as much clarity as possible. I can deal with contradictions fine since I can file them away as inadequacies of our model, but I usually look for some unshakable axioms, ( I did notice that you are defining some axioms ). At the back of my mind, I also have this nagging feeling that several of these problems are so self-referential that it is hard to even talk about them. Wittgenstein's maxim would dictate we remain silent about them. Not because they are trivial or unimportant, but remaining silent is the best answer. He wrote to his friend once ' I have adequately answered the squabbles about metaphysical ramblings by choosing to remain silent' :)

All this to say, I will have to think about this further.

Wouldn't be great to imagine a debate between Wittgenstein and Shankara?

ignoramus
Posts: 197
Joined: 21 Aug 2006, 21:25

Post by ignoramus »

vk, this might interest you. there are some comparitive studies already on
2. The Problem of Meaning with Reference to Wittgenstein and Sankara, (Author) Madras University Philosophical Series - 51, pp. xviii, 212, University of Madras, 1993. (published by the University of Madras)

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

apprehension
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
Isaac Newton
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 41476.html

Hariko harimein dekhA
Aap hai bhaTTi, Aap hai chuvavanwala;
Aap hai pyAla, Aap hai madira,
Aap phirE matwala

Kabir

I saw Hari (the Lord) in Hari (the man)
Fire-place (where liquor is brewed) is He;
Brewer is He;
The cup is He;
The liquor is He
The drunkard is He that roams.

(Pardon me for any erors in the poem)
Last edited by vgvindan on 14 Apr 2008, 16:25, edited 1 time in total.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

VK
You are moving too fast and VGV is driving his wagon through other cross roads. Get focussed on a single issue and then we can discuss it.

VGV
where is the quote
'Gitacharya calls 'mayAdhyakshEna prakRtiH sUyatE carAcaraM'
occurring in Gita.? I could not find it.

That is a dogmatic quote and if we accept it no further discussion. But VK is mixing up 'reality' with philosophy. That is precisely the point of view of Ramchandran in his swipe at Freud (not that everybody will agree.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

cml,
BG, IX, 10.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Thanks VGV
Once we accept it implicitly where is the need for further analysis?

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

cml,
I have given my opinion on one of the issues (mAya) based on my understanding. We may agree to disagree, but the discussion could go on.
Last edited by vgvindan on 14 Apr 2008, 19:50, edited 1 time in total.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

I do not know what is going on here with respect to that BG quote. I do not even know what that means let alone figure out if you two agree or disagree on that. ;)

CML, I agree we are going too fast. Let us rewind to my post about comparing the left brain/right brain stuff to duality/singularity. I think I know what you mean by 'mixing up reality with philosophy'. See if I am right. Reality ( the actual brain functions ) are like the hardware. The emergent properties like consciousness, cognition and theories about them are software in the sense they are higher level concepts that are realized through the hard ware. So biology and brain anatomy provides for the bits and bytes ( memory ) and the instruction set ( control ) which is the REALITY where as the various concepts we use to theorize about are the higher level abstractions whcih is the equivalent of software platforms ( and not necessarily specific applications on top of that software platforms ). Since many such platforms can run on the same hardware, calling it 'REALITY' is a bit troublesome. Please clarify if this is the sense in which you meant 'Philosophy is not reality'. Thanks.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

The emergent properties like consciousness, cognition and theories about them are software
This is fundamentally contradictory to the Indian philosophy which holds that from cognition emerges the universe.
In the scheme of universe, brain is not sine-quo-non; if that be so, the single celled organisms - which has no 'brain' as such - would never have emerged in the first instance; flowers would never have had 'fragrance' and colour to attract bees. I would venture to state that the roots of trees is like a brain only - every twig - every leaf has a corresponding root.

If by cognition, we understand it to be 'self awareness' like that of human being then it is IMHO an error. Right from the rocks - so called inanimate - everything in the universe is of the form of intelligence - it is only question of grade between humans - animals - and 'the so called' inanimate.
Last edited by vgvindan on 14 Apr 2008, 21:41, edited 1 time in total.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

We are moving away from the starting point of the thread but I hope the originator does not mind! Again I do not know whether you want to stick to the BG platform or move away into generality. When I say the analysis stops if you accept GitAcArya though not precluding a rational analysis I meant taking it on faith and devotion. Personal level of acceptance may vary just as VGV is expressing his persoanl views on Maya (illusion) in the context of Indian philosophy.

Let us focus on the L/R dichotomy if that is what you want to discuss. At first my definition of reality is a 'material' objective phenomena like the fusiform gyrus which the neuro-anatomist identifies and investigates. The 'philosophicsl' relates to what is only a 'theory' which a psychiatrist postulates which may not have an 'objective' reality but can be indirectly proved. The three pound human brain is a combination of both; reality and philosophy! It is dogmatic to claim that consciousness is localized at specific locations as the neuroanatomist claims since in spite of damages to those 'locales' there are cases of other brain sites taking over those functions. There are numerous cases of anatomical L/R reversals too!

According to Indian philosophy the 'thinking' is not hardware related. Basically the physical body plays a minor role in comparison with the 'sukShma sharira' (ethereal body) and the 'karma sharira' (causal body).

So let us not mix the hard western science with the 'soft' Indian philosophy. Pose a clear question as well as the parameters so that we can investigate it in context. By that I mean let us not invoke Wittgenstein and Sankara simultaneously and muddle our discussions! No parallel processing; to keep us sane :)

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

CML, agreed. Can you translate that sanskrit sentence, so I know why it is dogmatic and why reasoning stops there?

BTW, on a lighter note, did you realize that your last paragraph that rightly admonishes mixing Wittgenstein and Sankara is actually a corollary of the previousy quoted Whittgenstein's colorfully worded quip? Yours will be: "Whereof one cannot mix, thereof one must be separate" ;)

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

So, back to basics. I do grant and understand the L/R consciousness assignment is not perfect. The state of the art is still at its infancy. But we know a lot already about the brain. You seem to be saying the same thing as my Hardware/software analogy for brain/cognition, right? In fact, that is the reason why I even have a few words to say about it since the higher level functions of the brain is turning out to be theoretical computer science problems which is itself a relatively new field, it is only 70+ years old starting from Alan Turing.

So, you wanted a question to be stated clearly. Clear or not, here is my question. What are the "assumed" axioms on which the indian side of the philosophy is based. VGV had mentioned a few and you have mentioned a few. I want to know which are axioms and which are derived using reason and logic from those axioms.

Is the statement 'Cogntion arises out side of the brain' an axiom of Indian philosophy? That is perfectly fine, we do not even need to understand or question how that is, since it is an axiom. As long as we can derive from it "Do your duty and do not attach to the results", I am fine ( which brings us back to the main topic of this thread). But if "DYD, DNATR" is also an axiom that can not be derived, that will be too much overloading of the axiom. Axioms have to be primitive. So the question is, How do you derive "DYD, DNATR"?

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

VG (very good :) )
Indian philosophy is not unipolar. Chief among them are advaita, dvaita, vishiShTAdvaita (and many other equally valid mixes). Shall we start with shankara as the advaitic representative? Then give me some time to readup and collect my thoughts while VGV can do the same on his own.

We will try to derive or axiomatize DYD DNATR

First here is the translation of the complete verse (BG 9.10)
mayAdhyakShENa prak^RitiH sUyatE sacarAcaraM |
hEtunA anEna kauntEya jagat viparivartatE ||
(Under my supervision, Nature sends forth (produces) the moving and non-moving (animate and inanimate); Oh KauntEya ! because of this the universe revolves).
I interpret this as dogmatic (or axiomatic) whence no discussion is possible. If not we can take it as the next theorem to be derived from other postulated axioms...
But first let us focus on your problem.... OK?

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Thanks CML for that translation.

Sounds good. I will hang tight until then..

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

I do not know whether the said BG quote would be ideal starting point of discussion. There are more basic issues of micro-cosm before we approach the macro-cosm. The more appropriate starting point could be - BG II.12

IMHO, it would not ideal to get bogged down by the definitions of Advaita and Dvaita because that is more to do with equation between the micro-cosm and macro-cosm.

The search, IMHO, should begin with by placing this "I" itself under scrutiny.

Somehow, I feel that we are drifting away into an area where there cannot be substantive agreement on issues. Therefore, let the L/R issues of the brain only be discussed in this thread and not any 'self enquiry'.
Last edited by vgvindan on 15 Apr 2008, 12:27, edited 1 time in total.

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

I have reconsidered my previous post. I shall await CML's views.

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

I have taken note of VGV's thought process. However let us focus on one issue at a time. The L/R issue is purely scientific/biological and hence cannot be dealt within the framework of BG. Let us look at DYD DNATR (particularly BG 2.47) in the Gita framework, first according to shankara (advaita) and then look at others. Let us invite all interested Net Friends to join in these discussions.

Let me reformulate the proposition:
If (DYD (and) DNATR) then salvation (or mukti (liberation))

Perhaps we need to define some of the terms to get a clear understanding.

'liberation', a desirable goal is the 'freedom from the birth and death cycle'.

The action verb 'Do' here refers to 'karma' embracing all human activities.

'Duty' means 'what one is enjoined by the vedas and dharma shastras (in the context of shankara) that ought to be done'. In other words Duty is a well defined subset of vedic-sactioned activities. Let us call all other activities 'ND' (non duty) which is not discussed in this proposition but has to be dealt with independantly.

'Results' mean Karmaphala or the outcome of all (sanctioned) actions.

'Attach' means hankering after karmaphala (Result). This implies other propositions (which have to be seperately discussed) viz.,
If (DYD (do your duty) then R (Results)....(1)
If (ATR (attached to results) then DYD....(2)
In other words the pathway is
ATR-->DYD -->R

Now our proposition claims that
ATR-->DYD-->R-->D*(death)-->B(birth)-->ATR....(3) is an infinite loop. But
NATR-->DYD-->R-->L (liberation)...(4)which may be recast as
If (DYD and NATR) then L ...(4a)
Hence our proposition which is (4a) is essentially the negation of (3).

We notice that (3) depends on the 'lemmas' (1) and (2).
Consider (1). The proof of (1) is based entrirely on conviction. If one is an 'aastika' then (1) is true whence it becomes an axiom. If one is a 'naastika' then (1) is not selfevident. Sankara attempts to prove it in BrahmaSutra whch however is not being debated here.

In fact Sankara argues that
IFF (DYD) then L or R...(5)
which dissolves as
If (DYD and NATR) then L ...(4a) (already quoted) and
If (DYD and ATR) the R ... (3a)
If (~DYD) then ~L or ~R (~ means 'Not')
(let us keep in mind the definitions of 'Do' and 'Duty' as defined by Sankara with which naastikas do not agree!)
Also note that DYD is necessary and sufficient (to be proved) accompanied by NATR, but NATR is necessary but is not sufficient without DYD. Hence the statement
mA tE sa^NgO astu akarmaNi which is being discussed extensively in BG in the section on Karma yoga. The sufficiency of DYD also is debated and refuted by Sankara in the section on g~naanayoga.

The conclusion is that (4a) is true for the vast majority of humans with the noted exceptions!

I will pause here.....

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

cml,
The definition of 'Duty' needs to be related to modern day. In a situation where the prophecy of BG I.41 (varNa sankara) has come true and everyone of is left to choose his own profession, 'duty', at best, could be what we have committed ourselves to. However, if your intention is to deal with the situation as obtained then, it is ok.

Sankara's argument that 'all actions should be altogether abandoned' is dealt in BG.III.17 (Atma rati).

As per BG III.3 - the whole of 'karma mArga' is applicable only to those who are 'action oriented' by nature so that their nature is given full play rather than constraining them to become contemplative.

Conversely, those who are contemplative by nature and who understand the purpose and limit of 'karma', would, naturally follow the 'karma mArga' by consecrating the results of their actions which are mandatory (earlier by varNa and ASrama)

cmlover
Posts: 11498
Joined: 02 Feb 2010, 22:36

Post by cmlover »

Thanks VGV for the clarifications.

Let us look at this in the ancient context as well as modern context. Of course the modern context willbe highly controversial and debatable, but worth trying!

karma yoga is prescribed for the vast majority of population including Arjuna and as such let us leave out the exceptions.

Should we move on to the context of the definition of 'duty' since VarNa and Ashrama are disappearing and we are in the critical transition phase!

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

CML, Thanks. That is the kind of formalism that will be useful. I will have to read it further in leisure and I will get back to you if I have any questions on that.

I did not know about "IFF (DYD) then L or R...(5)". The 'IFF - IF and only IF' part of it is something I did not know was part of our philosophy ( atleast as it applies to the majority of the people ).

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

CML; I am back with some questions, after contemplating about it a bit.

1) Let me first address somethings about the latter part of your post.

I understand the logic about Necessary and sufficient condition of DYD:

If (DYD and NATR) then L ...(4a) (already quoted) and
If (DYD and ATR) the R ... (3a)
If (~DYD) then ~L or ~R (~ means 'Not')

Now what does "~L OR ~R" actually mean? In other words, if someone does not do their duty, what is supposed to happen that is codified as "~L OR ~R".

2) About the first part which results in infinite Birth, Death cycle:

If (DYD (do your duty) then R (Results)....(1)
If (ATR (attached to results) then DYD....(2)
In other words the pathway is
ATR-->DYD -->R

I do not understand (2).

"R" is there no mater how DYD ( ATR or NATR )

because you also say

NATR-->DYD-->R-->L

If you cast "ATR" and "NATR" as properties of DYD, then it makes more sense to me.

3) The infinite loop is the crux of the matter
ATR-->DYD-->R-->D*(death)-->B(birth)-->ATR....(3) is an infinite loop

This is quite exciting to me since here is where my favorite theoreticians Kurt Godel and Alan Turning seem to meet Shankara. I will explain more once I get some clarifications on the above points.

kjrao
Posts: 49
Joined: 15 May 2007, 08:01

Post by kjrao »

In these equations(?) is there a difference between DYD and NDYD ? Both are actions and will have result !!!

vgvindan
Posts: 1430
Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 10:51

Post by vgvindan »

ATR-->DYD-->R-->D*(death)-->B(birth)-->ATR....(3) is an infinite loop
Gitacharya explains how ATR results in repeated cycle of B&D. I am quoting again the verses given in post #5.
anishTamishTaM miSraM ca trividhaM karmaNaH phalam.... || XVIII.12 ||

"The threefold fruit of action - disagreeable, agreeable, and mixed - accrues ..."

iccAdvEsha samutthEna dvandvamOhEna bhArata ||
sarva bhUtAni saMmOhaM sargE yAnti parantapa || VII.27 ||

"By the delusion of the pairs of opposites, arising from desire and aversion, .... all beings fall into delusion at birth...."
If the result of an action is pleasurable, we desire them; this desire results in thirst for more such pleasure and hence more such action - an endless loop till the desires are totally quenched or we understand the futility of it all. This is what Gitacharya calls 'dvandva mOha'.

There is an interesting story of yayAti who, in order to enjoy his sensual pleasures, wanted the youth of his son; the son obliged and took the old age of his father. Ultimately yayAti finds the futility of it all and declares in the following terms -

na jAtu kAmaH kAmAnAmupabhOgEna SAmyati |
havishA kRSNavartmEva bhUya EvAbhivardhatE || SB. Book 9. Ch 19 - 14||

"The craving for sense-gratification never ceases with the enjoyment of sense-objects. On the other hand, it grows stronger and stronger like fire fed by ghee."

kj,
This discussion, IMHO, is about only those who 'do their duties' (DYD). If someone chooses to not to discharge his duties, it amounts to dereliction and ATR or NATR does not apply to such a person; he may not be concerned about cycle of births and deaths or Liberation and hence this discussion becomes irrelevant to him.
Last edited by vgvindan on 18 Apr 2008, 11:42, edited 1 time in total.

kjrao
Posts: 49
Joined: 15 May 2007, 08:01

Post by kjrao »

Who decides what is once duty ? Which all shastras to consider ? Since we play different roles,will duties clash with each other ? When somebody takes sanyasa, is he running away from one set of duties to another ?

Post Reply