tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post9147410340960726842..comments2024-03-26T13:06:41.178-04:00Comments on Jagat: Conference on Spirituality and the Science of ConsciousnessJagadananda Dashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-7024244197777366762010-01-14T19:15:59.270-05:002010-01-14T19:15:59.270-05:00Interesting post. If I could, I'd help you wit...Interesting post. If I could, I'd help you with selecting a few names in and out of ISKCON to recommend to them for the next conference.<br /><br />However, I've been engaged in my own journey to find out what exactly are the religious (Vaishnava?) positions on consciousness and it's function? And more importantly, <b>do they have anything to contribute to current scientific understandings of consciousness?</b> From my own readings of the scriptures I haven't come across anything of real use. The Upanishads make some interesting remarks here and there, but the subject doesn't seem to have been discussed in depth given that the text quickly relates all things to Brahman.<br /><br />I've also wondered what someone such as Satyanarayan das would have to constribute to such a discussion. In ISKCON I expect Steven Rosen (Satyaraja) would be the obvious choice, but in my interactions with him so far he seems to take very much the party line that science is evil and only spirituality has all the answers.<br /><br />So, generally speaking, I have been quite disappointed in my search thus far, which is leading me to think that 'spiritual' conferences to discuss scientific processes like consciousness are of little or no use. It's nice to know that the RK folks attempt to do so though. I can certainly agree with Swami Atmapriyananda's comment.Neural Outlawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12299570389772377623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-88209300686468419822010-01-13T23:40:41.849-05:002010-01-13T23:40:41.849-05:00As far as consciousness studies amongst Vaishnavas...<i>As far as consciousness studies amongst Vaishnavas is concerned, the Bhaktivedanta Institute seems to be the best on offer in this particular realm. But I don’t know what kind of work the BI is doing these days.</i><br /><br />I'd be interested to see that too. They used to be at strange odds with Western science, sometimes beyond stubbornness and neck deep in the waters of literalism (impossible to construct Vedic planetarium being a perfect example). However, I find a great bond between the philosophy of acintya bhedabheda and modern scientific thought. <br /><br />If one just sits down quietly and free the mind of preconceptions, the vast number of evidence supporting their natural link is almost overwhelming, leaving ideas like advaita in the dust of evolutionary past.<br /><br />I'm not sure if you have noted, but URK book deals with this too, briefly in pages 84/85, 92/93, etc., showing not only natural evolution and better understanding of acintya bhedabheda is possible, but is both directly and indirectly confirmed. Both Steve and myself go in that direction, quite strongly.<br /><br />So I think we have partially spotted the problem -- if you a priori ignore something as irrelevant, like modern medical, philosophical and scientific insights, you cannot see possibilities. State of denial is a widespread phenomenon among GVs and that's why no one can find any interest or enthusiasm to represent its thought in such conferences.<br /><br />And that would be a good example of process theology, which naturally brings forth another caveat -- once you go forward and explore, you inevitably change. Using Heraclitus' metaphor, that wouldn't be the same GV as it was today, or centuries ago. It would assume much more of a universal character and appeal.Zvonimirhttp://www.radha-krishnaism.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-1893063622499748852010-01-13T22:54:08.517-05:002010-01-13T22:54:08.517-05:00Dear Zvonimir,
All ideas are simply being repacka...Dear Zvonimir,<br /><br />All ideas are simply being repackaged. Materialistic monism, which sees consciousness as a product of matter, is far from being a new idea. It is simply that science has given the true believers of “promissory materialism” a new elan. <br /><br />What I was appreciating in the RKM was their engagement with the ideas. You should not make the mistake of thinking that Advaita is static, though its basic premise or insight may be. <br /><br />I don't know enough about process theology to really speak to your point, but my inclination is to think that in the broad lines of the dialectic thought, general tendencies are pretty well defined. Meaning that nothing is really new.<br /><br />Where consciousness itself and the interaction of science and theology on this issue is concerned, I am a neophyte, but the extremes of materialist or spiritual monism both present problems that are recognized by all but the most obtuse in both camps.<br /><br />As far as consciousness studies amongst Vaishnavas is concerned, the Bhaktivedanta Institute seems to be the best on offer in this particular realm. But I don’t know what kind of work the BI is doing these days.Jagadananda Dashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05887720845815026518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-82731478675754144432010-01-13T19:21:50.117-05:002010-01-13T19:21:50.117-05:00The value given to education and a Western approac...<i>The value given to education and a Western approach to study, or at least an interaction with Western rationalism, is a feature that has to be admired. Though the RKM sannyasis who spoke—Swami Prabhananda, Swami Sarvabhutananda, Swami Bhajanananda, Swami Atmapriyananda and Swami Sarvapriyananda all showed remarkable erudition, and all defended the Advaita position, they were all quite competent in dealing with the issues under examination in the conference. And it must be remembered that whatever the Vaishnavas’ disagreements with them, as Vedantists we are allied with the Mayavadis in our acceptance of the irreducibility of consciousness.</i><br /><br />It's somehow odd to see someone embracing Western approach to study, like those gentlemen, yet failing to see the best accomplishments in West are based on process theology and the process of evolution (species, thought, idea, etc.), both based on conclusions coming from both Western and (today we can broaden it) universal syllogism. <br /><br />In his 'Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture', Jaroslav Pelikan reveals how the image of Jesus created by each successive epoch -- from rabbi in the first century to liberator in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries -- is a key to understanding the temper and values of that age. Or looking at it another way, how each age shaped the image of Jesus. We see Jesus much differently today than a first century Jew would have. And of course, such an approach allows us to observe and analyse word 'Jesus' from many different perspectives.<br /><br />Perhaps as a Westerner I see a Vedantic thought as evolution of understanding of the world as history progresses, starting from bronze-age polytheism, influencing Buddhism, then Sankara's advaita monotheism, further into more complex avenues of thought explored by Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallabha and even further Chaitanya. <br /><br />But Indians somehow fail to see that each consecutive iteration brings forward a more comprehensive and better outlook on reality (and that the outlook on reality is best description what reality truly is -- a process), comparable to, for example, universes described by Ptolemy, Kepler, Newton and Einstein -- each one superseding the other, retaining some ideas of the previous model in one sense but always revealing something fundamentally new.<br /><br />So, are gentlemen at Ramakrishna Mission really doing anything new, even by allegedly using Western methods? Sadly, not at all. And that's the sad truth of almost all Eastern views, including wider Vaishnaism and all forms of Buddhism -- figuratively, they only change shirts sometimes, but not taking a shower beforehand. They see their doctrines immutable in time, although mutations, as a visible side-effect of evolution, is the fundamental principle of life. It's almost like they reset the time line at certain stage of their liking and stick with it. <br /><br />Sadly, this is all very far from any kind of rationalism indeed. Quite the opposite.Zvonimirhttp://www.radha-krishnaism.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31351038.post-33585331558778842022010-01-13T10:23:24.844-05:002010-01-13T10:23:24.844-05:00...and all defended the Advaita position, they wer...<i>...and all defended the Advaita position, they were all quite competent in dealing with the issues under examination in the conference...</i><br /><br />You cannot cross the same river twice. <br /><br />You cannot see the same mirror reflection twice. <br /><br />You cannot find even the same snowflake twice, yet some people insist the nature of all is motionless, and always same. <br /><br />All because someone, sometimes, told some new lie that makes all who accept it freeze imagination and live all the same lives.<br /><br />Oh, how pitiful and lame.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com