A Critique on Sankara's School of Thought

Extracted this information from Messiah - understanding of the author, followed by his critique. Interesting questions (looks like Advaita is spelled incorrectly by the author).

Advaita

The Sankara school is often called Avaita (non-dualistic) Vedanta or simply Vedanta. As traditionally interpreted, the Sankara school claims that there is ultimately only one reality, Brahman, with which each of us is absolutely identical. Moreover, they claim that Brahman is pure consciousness, without any internal differentiation or characteristics whatsoever. (An analogy to their view of Brahman might be seen by considering what your own consciousness would be like if you were able to completely blank your mind of all internal differentiation and distinctions--that is, if through meditation you eliminated all sense impressions, feelings, and thoughts and simply experienced a state of pure awareness.)

Since Brahman comprises all of reality, and since there are no internal distinctions within Brahman, it follows that ultimately the world of separate entities, distinctions, and characteristics is an illusion. Followers of Sankara claim that this illusion, which they call maya, is produced by ignorance--that is, by our misapprehension of the true nature of Brahman. Salvation therefore consists of experientially realizing, through intense meditation, the Truth about ourselves--namely, that each of us is already identical with Brahman. Once we realize this, ignorance will vanish and we will hence escape from the cycle of rebirths.

An Excerpt from the critique

a. The View is Self-Contradictory: The first problem with the core of Sankara's philosophy is that it seems to be self-contradictory. As advocates of the other Hindu schools of thought have pointed out, if the only reality is Brahman, and Brahman is pure, distinctionless consciousness, then there cannot exist any real distinctions in reality. But the claim that this world is an illusion already presupposes that there is an actual distinction between illusion and reality, just as the claim that something is a dream already presupposes the distinction between waking consciousness and dream consciousness. Moreover, Sankara's idea of salvation--that is, enlightenment through recognition that all is Brahman--already presupposes a distinction between living in a state of unenlightenment (ignorance) and living in a state of enlightenment. So this view contradicts itself by, on the one hand, saying that reality (Brahman) is distinctionless, while on the other hand distinguishing between maya and the truth of Brahman, and by distinguishing between being enlightened and unenlightened.

b. The Impossibility of Maya: A second and related problem is that ignorance, which Sankara and his followers claim is the source of maya, could not exist. According to the Sankara school, Brahman is perfect, pure, and complete Knowledge, the opposite of ignorance. Hence, ignorance cannot exist in Brahman. But, since nothing exists apart from Brahman, ignorance cannot exist apart from Brahman either. Thus, it follows that ignorance could not exist, contrary to their assertion that our perception of a world of distinct things is a result of ignorance.

Oliver Twist

Rama and I went to Palace Theater in Georgetown and watched Charles Dickens' Oliver last Saturday. It was an excellent show with good musical scores. Stu, one of my colleagues who plays Trombone in the Orchestra for several shows at the Palace, has invited us to this show. The Theater was packed, and we ended up on the balcony as managed to reach there just 15 minutes before the show.

Here is a clip from Oliver. This is not from the show we watched - the sets, the music, and the actors in Georgetown theater I think were better.

Homer Simpson in Bangalore

If we can manage to overlook stereotyping, the following clips have some good humor.





I loved the quote "I have never been less angry to receive a book"!

Intelligent Design - Part Deux

Read the article The Incredible Design of the Earth and Our Solar System from a link provided on Raama’s blog. Mr. Rich Deem (the author of this article) is basically arguing that a set of apparently well-orchestrated astronomical events that resulted in the formation of Earth, are an indication that we (the carbon-based life forms) were created by a Designer. To support his belief in intelligent design, he elaborated on twelve factors that contributed to the kind of climate we have now. I enjoyed reading his persuasive and informative argument.

Like many, I too believe in intelligent design. I believe in it not because it has a stamp of approval from the scientific community. I believe in it because it makes sense to me, and I don’t need a validation from anybody. I am yet to see a defensible scientific basis to support intelligent design.

Though the information gathered by Mr. Deem in the above-mentioned article is fascinating, I think that his conclusions are not sufficiently defensible. Mr. Deem's conclusions are basically dependent on our understanding of conditions on the Earth, Mars, and Venus. The crux of his argument is:

The Earth has favorable climate for life, and we see life on the Earth. Venus and Mars have harsh conditions, and we don't see any life there. Therefore, we can conclude that we need favorable conditions for sustenance of life.

This, I think is circular logic. I can argue that we are calling the conditions "favorable", merely because we managed to evolve under these conditions. How can we can rule out the possibility that life could also evolve under harsh conditions? "Favorable conditions" is a subjective term. If a creature managed to evolve at say at -200 degrees Centigrade, it would think that Siberia is hot as hell! So, on watching favorable climates supporting life, we can’t say that any other (vastly dissimilar) climates will not sustain life. We found life in extreme conditions (from our perspective) on the Earth itself, near volcanic vents in Mariana Trench and in the Arctic.

To make a defensible statement that our terrestrial climate is necessary for origin of life, we must conduct a scientific study – define a control volume, collect adequate number of representative samples from this volume, and see if the data indicates that life (if any) exists only in Earth-like climates. If we find life on one asteroid with a climate dissimilar to that of the Earth, the 12 factors that Mr. Deem specified will have no meaning.

We have a major hurdle for conducting this experiment (even if we manage to travel at the speed of light) – Our control volume is the universe, which is infinite to our knowledge. So, it is not possible to collect a set of samples and call it a representative of the universe. Ergo, we probably cannot (at least, based on what we know now) define boundaries for conditions conducive for life in rest of the universe.

All we know now, is that we did not find evidence of life on Venus and Mars, based on our very limited investigations. We must remember that these two planets are only a few light-minutes away from us. Even if we manage to prove conclusively that there is no life on Mars and Venus, Dr. Deem would only have two data points supporting his argument. With this extremely limited information, how can we talk about the possibility of life and climatic conditions say in Andromeda galaxy, the nearest major galaxy to our Milky Way, which is about 2,000,000 light years away, based on what we know now?! We have no clue on 99.9999...% of the universe.

Not finding life on Venus and saying that life is not possible on bodies that are unlike Earth, is like picking up a fist full of sand and declaring that “I don’t see any gold in this sand. Therefore, I conclude that there is no gold on planet Earth"!

In conclusion, I see the following shortfalls in Mr. Deem's argument.

(a) To begin with, we can’t say for sure that there is no life on Venus. Sure, we observed surface temperatures of around 457 degrees Centigrade, and about 96% CO2 in the atmosphere on Venus. So what? If there is life in these conditions, for that life, conditions on Earth would appear unbearable! They would come to the same kind of conclusion that Mr. Deem arrived at – “Nope, it is not possible for life to exist on Earth – there is too much nitrogen, too much oxygen, it is too cold, atmosphere is too thin, not enough green house effect, ...".

I agree that it appears unlikely for life forms to exist on Venus. But how can we be sure of that? If there were life, there is no guaranty that it would reflect light within the wave lengths visible to us. So, we can't say anything conclusively, at least until we study these planets a little bit more.

(b) Even if we manage to prove that there is no life on Venus, I think that it wouldn’t prove or disprove anything. As I mentioned above, our universe is so large that there may be planets out there with life forms evolved in extreme climatic conditions (again, according our standards). If they visit our planet, our conditions would be equally harsh to them!

(c) Mr. Deem mentioned how it was necessary for a set of events to happen to give us the climate we have now. The problem is, this kind of logic would apply to any grain of matter in this whole universe. After all, for creating any object, a set of events should occur in a precise fashion, as no two objects are identical.

(d) If God is Omni-present and He (She/It) is the epitome life, how can there be any inanimate object in this universe? I think that there is life every where. We (at least, many among us) just are not blessed with the capability of realizing it.

I wrote this predominantly based on my intuition. I will try to get Mr. Deem's input on this, and correct my thought process as necessary.

Howdy!

Remember old Telugu movies? - the actor puts on a small wig and that's it. No one recognizes him except the viewers. I used to think that it was silly. How can some one transform themselves (like in one minute), into a totally unrecognizable character? I proved myself wrong last week. Yes, it's me in picture* above.

I went to Greyhound Station with this get up to pickup Rambabu, when he visited us last weekend. It took me less than 5 seconds to put this on, and I did it in the bus station itself, a few minutes before his arrival. I couldn't recognize myself in the mirror. I put this on, and I waited by the gate for Rambabu. He got out of the bus, came through the gate, made eye contact briefly, and looked right through me as if I were a stranger.

He was going into the terminal and I followed him. I passed him and made eye contact again - no response or recognition still. As he was expecting me at the bus station, he stopped at a point to pull out his cell phone to call me. I went and stood in front of him and made eye contact again, while he was holding his cell phone. This time I said non-verbal "Howdy" by raising my eye brows. He stared at me for a second, but no acknowledgement.

He started calling me (I kept my phone on vibrate just to make sure that I don't get caught) on my cell phone, and my cell started vibrating. I couldn't hold it any longer and I had to come clean. A few bystanders looked at me like I was crazy; it didn't bother me as they got it right! All this happened very quickly and no living beings were harmed or terribly inconvenienced during this experiment! If some of our friends show up in this get up, I sure wouldn't be able to recognize them either. So, Rambabu and I had some fun in the bus station.

Rama and I enjoyed Rambabu's company very much. We are glad that he made time to visit us, in spite of his hectic schedule. We went for a refreshing long walk on the Town Lake last Saturday, and went to Barsana Dham on Sunday. I am very glad that he works so close to Austin, and I am looking forward to keep meeting him in the future.

*If my colleagues see this, I am afraid that they might insist that I keep this on, saying "you look a lot better this way"!

Get a Grant for a Buck!

An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck without their edge inscriptions, including "In God We Trust," and made it past inspectors and into circulation, the U.S. Mint said today.

The properly struck dollar coins, bearing the likeness of George Washington, are inscribed along the edge with "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum" and the year and mint mark. They went into circulation Feb. 15. The Mint struck 300 million of the coins, which are golden in color and slightly larger and thicker than a quarter.

About half were made in Philadelphia and the rest in Denver. So far the Mint has received reports of error coins coming from Philadelphia, Mint spokeswoman Becky Bailey said. She said it was unknown how many coins didn't have the inscriptions.

Ron Guth, president of Professional Coin Grading Service, one of the world's largest coin authentication companies, said he believes that at least 50,000 error coins were put in circulation. "The first one sold for $600 before everyone knew how common they actually were," he said. "They're going for around $40 to $60 on EBay now, and they'll probably settle in the $50 range."

Production of the presidential dollar entails a "new, complex, high-volume manufacturing system" that the Mint will adjust to eliminate any future defects, the Mint said. "We take this matter seriously. We also consider quality control a high priority. The agency is looking into the matter to determine a possible cause in the manufacturing process," the statement said.

The coin's design already has spurred e-mail conspiracy theories saying that the religious motto was purposely omitted from the Washington dollars. That rumor may have started because the edge lettering cannot be seen in head-on photographs of the coins. The Washington dollars are the first in a series of presidential coins slated to run until 2016.

After Washington, the presidents to be honored on dollar coins this year will be John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Ms. Bailey said the striking of the Adams coin, expected to roll out in mid-May, will proceed as planned. "We are adjusting the manufacturing process to try to eliminate the problems," she said.

Source: The Washington Times

Mysore Sandal

Having used the sandals to the fullest extent, Rama (my wife) could call it, Mysore Sandal!

In Sea Sands lingo, using anything to its limit is called "fullu kittu baatu"!