Thursday, 25 September 2014

Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

Earlier I made a post titled "The philosophical differences between Advaita, Buddhism and Samkhya" where I said that it was Shankara who took us out from the repeated onslaught of Buddhist philosophy and re-established the doctrine of Advaita all over India but if anyone had noticed carefully I said that even Shankara was too influenced by Buddhist philosophy and introduced his theory of Mayavada or illusionism into the Vedas and the Upanishads which is in complete variance with Indian philosophy which always considered the creator and the world to be real.

This post is just about that which refutes Shankara's theory of Mayavada or his theory of superimposition, a refutation which results in a wide range of implications for Indian philosophy which would place it along side Neo-platonism and Neo-platonic Christianity on a much firmer ground by embracing the philosophical position of Platonic realism. This is the reason why I'm a strong platonic realist and not an idealist or a scientific realist. Its also the same reason why I have not given up my works and has taken up celibacy or sannyasa ashrama.

Sri Aurobindo, the great mystic was the first to raise his strong voice against Shankara's theory of Mayavada and criticized him relentlessly through his voluminous works on the Vedas and especially on one important Upanishad of all which is the Isha Upanishad which forms the very soul of my research and my life.

Sri Aurobindo takes an all out attack on Shankara's theory of Mayavada using Isha Upanishad as his main scriptural source and I love every point he makes in his criticism.

The main obstacle that stands in the way of accepting the straightforward meaning of the Isha Upanishad and rightly understanding its inner truth about the Brahman, the Self and the Divine, is Mayavada, Illusionism, preached by Shankaracharya and the commentary he wrote on this Upanishad. The one-pointed drive towards withdrawal that is Illusionism and the much-praised inaction of the Sannyasi are completely at variance with the Isha Upanishad. If the meaning of the slokas is strained and tortured to give an opposite sense, the solution of this quarrel becomes impossible. The Upanishad in which it is written: “Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years”, and again: “Action cleaves not to a man” — the Upanishad which proclaims with courage: “Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone”; and again says: “By the Birth one enjoys Immortality”, how can that Upanishad be reconciled with Mayavada, Illusionism and the path of withdrawal? A highly erudite person, who was possibly the chief sponsor of Monism in South India after Shankara, expunged it from the list of the twelve Upanishads and installed the Nrisimhatapini in its place. Shankaracharya was not so daring as to alter the prevailing canon. The Upanishad was a “Sruti” (heard scripture), and Illusionism was a subject for inquiry in the “Sruti” and as such, he assumed, the meaning of the “Sruti” could not but be favourable to real Illusionism.

Even though I am from South India I completely agree with Sri Aurobindo here because one has to speak the truth and criticize the mistakes made by anyone even though he or she is an highly famous and a reputable person. No hard feelings here and we agree with everything Shankara says except his theory of Mayavada or his insistence that only Brahman is real and the world and God are unreal. This doctrine of Mayavada put forward by Shankara around 6th century has destroyed the all important Indian philosophy of Purva Mimamsa (deals with Vedic rituals) which is as important as Uttara Mimamsa (Vedanta - enquiry about Brahman) because one cannot exist without the other and this lack of knowledge of Purva Mimamsa and the Vedas is the main reason for all the confusion which exists in understanding the relationship between Ishavara, Prakrithi, Purusha and Jiva in Advaita which many followers face.

The truth has been buried under the carpet for well over 5000 years which is a very long time and this change of perspective has global ramifications because it shows that we have to seriously consider the Vedas and the Vedic deities in it to fully understand the true integral Advaita of the Vedic rishis as they viewed it who gave equal importance to both a personal God with innumerable qualities and an impersonal God without qualities. For many whose main mode of acquiring knowledge is through Logic and reason this is highly unacceptable as both of these concepts are contradictory notions and forces one to make the wrong conclusion that either one view has to be false and the other view has to be wrong but as Aurobindo says the great seer rishi Yanavalkya at each step tramples at the Law of Contradiction and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction.

God is beyond logic and reason and yet many meta-physicians  try to understand metaphysical concepts like God through logic and reason despite the fact that Kant destroyed the synthetic priori knowledge of metaphysics centuries ago and William of Ockham who postulated the occam's razor was himself a theist and he seems to have said that "only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

Very few people are aware of the traditional interpretation as to how the Isha Upanishad came into existence in this world. It was actually revealed by the Sun God who is the master of the Vedas and the supreme God of the universe.

According to traditional accounts, Yājñavalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana . Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yājñavalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yājñavalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.

As per the demands of his Guru, Yājñavalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples of Vaisampayana took the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.

The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance. The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda.

Then Yājñavalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yājñavalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.

The Sun God, pleased with Yājñavalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit, term "Vaji" means horse.

Yājñavalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.
Every one cites the Isha Upanishad and interprets the text as though he is an all knowing god without showing any sensitivity, humility and thought to understand how the Shukla Yajurveda tradition interprets this particular Upanishad from the traditional point of view.

The Isha Upanishad introduces to us the integral spiritual realisation and the principle of the integral yoga; within a short space it resolves many difficult problems. It is a śruti replete with sublime, profound and fathomless significances. This Upanishad, concluded in eighteen slokas, explains in these small mantras many major truths of the world. Such “infinite riches in a little room” can be found only in this śruti.

Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguṇo guṇī, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithyā, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction. The oneness of the universe in motion and the immobile Purusha, enjoyment of all by renunciation of all, eternal liberation by full action, perpetual stability of the Brahman in movement, unbound and inconceivable motion in the eternal immobility, the oneness of the Brahman without attributes and the Lord of the universe with attributes, the inadequacy of Knowledge alone or of Ignorance alone for attaining Immortality, Immortality obtained by simultaneous worship of Knowledge and Ignorance, the supreme liberation and realisation gained not by the constant cycle of birth, not by the dissolution of birth but by simultaneous accomplishment of Birth and Non-Birth, — these are the sublime principles loudly proclaimed by the Upanishad.

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of unnecessary confusion regarding the meaning of this Upanishad. Shankara is generally recognised as the most important commentator of the Isha Upanishad, but if all these conclusions are accepted, then Mayavada, the Illusionism of Shankara, sinks in the bottomless ocean. The founder of Mayavada is incomparable and immensely powerful among the philosophers. Just as thirsty Balaram brought to his feet the Yamuna unwilling to alter her course, by dragging and pulling her with a plough, so also Shankara, finding this Upanishad destroyer of Mayavada and standing across the path toward his destination, dragged and pulled the meaning till it agreed with his own opinion. One or two examples will suffice to show the miserable condition to which this Upanishad has been reduced by such treatment.

For a more deeper understanding of the differences between our integral Advaita and Shankara's Advaita please read Integral Advaitism by Sri Auorbindo by Ramachandra Mishra. I am very much happy that whatever I was arguing for well over five years or so slowly everything is reaching its fruition. But the job is not completed yet we still have to revive the Vedas, Neo-platonism and Neo-platonic Christianity and master it completely by uncovering the great mysteries hidden inside them.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Bernard d'Espagnat's interpretation of Quantum mechanics

Finally after years of research I can cite a paper which fully conforms with my view on Quantum mechanics and why such an interpretation of QM has a huge significance for all those religious oral traditions and traditionalists who emphasize a great deal on revelation.

Quantum mysticism is quite often misunderstood by both New Age spiritualists and also by the scientific community, while the former rely on pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious claims without getting neither science nor religion right on the other hand the latter simply rubbish away any such arguments by saying its all woo woo.

While people like Richard Jones have argued that neither quantum mechanics nor mysticism has given the ultimate nature of reality at this current time that doesn't stop optimistic ones like me to correctly lay down each ones domain and explain how both science and religion converge at a single point when both are interpreted correctly differentiating their epistemology and ontology precisely.

Many non-physical minds exist in the platonic realm.

One solution to Wigner's friend problem is to take seriously the dualistic theories of mind and body and argue that quantum mechanics applies to all the universe, our bodies and brain but not to the non-physical mind treating only minds as real having a dynamics of their own. This doesn't mean this view endorses solipsism or absolute idealism but a form of Platonic realism or in the words of Bernard d'Espagnat, a Veiled Reality.

Platonic forms are what exists in the noumena and give rise to phenomena, a distinction which Kant affirmed long time back. We have to take seriously the idea that minds are prior to time, space and other Kantian categories as Kant said and give rise to phenomena which is only in a state of inter-subjective agreement between minds. The correct formulation of quantum mechanics which is the quantum information theoretic framework is in complete agreement with this view and it is the only reasonable view possible which otherwise leads to unavoidable paradoxes if one believes that the quantum states have objective existence rather than interpreting it as representing our knowledge of the quantum system. This view is reasonable and highly intellectual and should be considered very seriously as these papers show. Thanks to the John Templeton foundation for recognizing the importance of Bernard's works and its implications to our world.

Consciousness and the Wigner’s friend problem - Bernard D'Espagnat

Information and fundamental elements of the structure of quantum theory - Caslav Brukner and Anton Zeilinger

Monday, 28 July 2014

I'm a strong Platonic realist

Platonic Realism
Valentinian Gnostics and Vedic Aryas are those people who broke out from the shackles of their prisoner bodies and turned back and saw the real Sun God who is stimulating everyone's mind and intellect, this empirical world is a mere shadow copy of the real Pleromic world. Scientists, atheists and other believers of orthodox religions are actually inside the cave of King Helios-Aion-Mithras. 

Tuesday, 15 July 2014

Who is the first born of all creation? Christ? or the Sun God?

Saint Paul always upsets me when he said this in his letters,
Colossians 1:15 He(Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.…
I was upset because in the Rig Veda it says it is the Sun God, Hiranyagarbha which is the first-born of all creation. 
Rig Veda (10.121) 1 In the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born Only Lord of all created beings.He fixed and holdeth up this earth and heaven. What God shall we adore with our oblation? (Translated by Griffith)
So how can there be two deities at the beginning of creation and each one claiming to be the first-born over all creation? Now any non-believer will say that this is not surprising at all as Saint Paul took a lot of his themes from the pagan mystery religions. To me, that's like undermining Christianity even before addressing the real problem and such a view should not be tolerated and encouraged at all because these morons are ignorant of one aspect of Saint Paul that he had a genuine apostolic Christian tradition behind him named Valentinianism who claimed to have had authentic esoteric interpretation of Pauline Letters and a continuity of genuine apostolic tradition. As Einar Thomassen says Valentinians were the great Paulinists and we will not let anyone criticize our most revered Saint so easily and get away just like that.

Isn't it a irony that the person whom the orthodox Church quotes to fight against the Gnostics and the Gnostic ideas is in fact the person whom the Gnostics claim to be their sole initiator into the mysteries of gnosis. Both atheists and orthodox Christians have underestimated Saint Paul and the gnosis of the Valentinian Christians and they are going to pay for it big time.

So who is the first born of all creation? Christ? or the Sun God? The reasonable explanation will be that unity appeared as Christ to Christians and at the same time the same unity appeared as Sun God to Vedic Aryans. Well this is a typical pagan attitude isn't it showing tolerance and pluralism towards religions of other nations and their deities. Yes for I am a pagan first and then a Christian. Also I know what its like to have gnostic visionary experiences and it is absolutely arrogant and foolish to assume that only we had genuine experiences and think that the divine revealed itself only to us and not to the people of other nations especially when both of our visions are explaining the same reality word to word having differences only in our linguistic description of the divine. 

2nd century Gnostic Christians shouldn't be indebted to Greeks, Neoplatonists, the Persians or the Aryans because the knowledge of the divine is no one's intellectual property and I hope Plotinus and anyone who thinks like that understands it clearly. Any philosopher who expects credit in the matters of the divine and shouts at others for plagiarising his teaching is not a true philosopher and he doesn't really know anything about the divine. If the Vedic rishis had copyrighted all their teachings then every Greek, Egyptian and Persian philosopher and theologian would have nothing to boast about.   

Monday, 14 July 2014

Nicholas Kazanas, the Vedic scholar's research on Advaita and Gnosticism

Nicholas Kazanas runs an institute named Omilos Meleton and here he has published his paper on Advaita and Gnosticism.

A study on the possible connection between the ancient Indian philosophical system Advaita (an aspect of Vedanta) and certain ideas that circulated in the first two centuries of the Christian Era in the Easter Mediterranean and particularly in Egypt. Also, an attempt to trace great philosophical ideas e.g. The Unity of Being, The identity of Man's self with the Godhead, etc in Hermetic texts, Vedanta, Christianity, Gnostic writings, Judaism, Greek Thought and Egyptian culture.  
Published in VVRI Research Bulletin (Hoshiarpur) vol 2 (43-112), 2003.

Well disappointingly, even he could not find any reasonable explanation for the startling similarities found between Advaita and Gnosticism. It is this kind of unsolved mystery which compels me to dig deep through the rabbit hole and I am not approaching the problem from a historical perspective but from an esoteric perspective.