Deconstructing the Inanity of Brahman and the Vedantic Worldview
“In supposing the existence of a permanent reality, or ‘substance’, beneath the shifting series of phenomena, whether of matter or of mind, the substance of the cosmos was ‘Brahma’, that of the individual man ‘Atman’; and the latter was separated from the former only, if I may so speak, by its phenomenal envelope, by the casing of sensations, thoughts and desires, pleasures and pains, which make up the illusive phantasmagoria of life. This the ignorant, take for reality; their ‘Atman’ therefore remains eternally imprisoned in delusions, bound by the fetters of desire and scourged by the whip of misery. ”
—Thomas Huxley on the worldview of Vedanta
In studying the genealogy of Brahminism from the onset of the primary Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sama) through its transition to the Upanishads and Puranas, keen insight will at times observe and marvel at how it has morphed progressively from its ritualistic origins to assume more and deadly forms, where caste, religion and spirituality were used as tools in the real scheme of power grab and exploitation of large sections of society.
Given that such a conclusion is not totally unwarranted by historical and sociological analysis, the overwhelming tide of reverence for and fetishistic following of the Upanishads or the Vedanta is a paradox that is a thorny challenge for critical refutation.
In one of my earlier articles concerning the folly of current fashions in the exposition of Bhagavad Gita, which is a particularly vicious and diabolical form of Upanishadic evangelism, I had represented its vision in a mocking vein thus:
“The central conception of Advaita philosophy and its current evangelism, is more or less, building of elaborate ‘castles in the air’ around the definition of the Brahman as the one and only unchanging ultimate reality beneath which lies the illusion of constantly changing appearances and motions of the physical and transient world, where the ‘rope and the snake’ play the game of ‘snakes and ladders’ with our deluded senses, where Rishis, Gurus and Swamis play the great ‘Indian rope trick’ or tighten the hangman’s noose of ‘Self-Realization’ on bewildered devotees and followers, who are made to walk the ‘tight rope’ of avoiding ‘sense-objects’ and senseless objects in crossing the ‘transmigratory ocean of existence’, then selling such spiritual snake oil concoctions through speeches, books, seminars, study sessions and what not and misguiding and cheerleading innocent, gullible and earnest seekers of religion alike into a grand ‘wild-goose chase’ of the Brahman.”
The few critics of Vedanta and their incisive observations
Radicals of India’s pre-freedom era like BR Ambedkar and Lala Hardayal were even more scathing and unsparing in their denunciation of the Upanishadic spiritual tom-foolery. Ambedkar spoke in these unrelenting terms quoting from the observations of Thomas Huxley and Lala Hardayal:
“Of what use is this philosophy of the Upanishadas? The philosophy of the Upanishadas meant withdrawal from the struggle for existence by resort to asceticism and a destruction of desire by self-mortification. As a way of life it was condemned by Huxley in scathing terms: “No more thorough mortification of the flesh has ever been attempted than that achieved by the Indian ascetic anchorite; no later monarchism has so nearly succeeded in reducing the human mind to that condition of impassive quasi-somnambulism, which, but for its acknowledged holiness, might run the risk of being confounded with idiocy.”
But the condemnation of the philosophy of the Upanishads is nothing as compared to the denunciation of the same by Lala Hardyal:
“The Upanishads claim to expound ‘that, by knowing which everything is known’. This quest for ‘ the absolute ‘ is the basis of all the spurious metaphysics of India. The treatises are full of absurd conceits, quaint fancies, and chaotic speculations. And we have not learned that they are worthless. We keep moving in the old rut; we edit and re-edit the old books instead of translating the classics of European social thought. What could Europe be if Frederic Harrison, Brieux, Bebel, Anatole France, Herve, Haekel, Giddings, and Marshall should employ their time in composing treatises on Duns, Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and discussing the merits of the laws of the Pentateuch and the poetry of Beowulf?
“Indian pundits and graduates seem to suffer from a kind of mania for what is effete and antiquated. Thus an institution, established by progressive men, aims at leading our youths through Sanskrit grammar to the Vedas via the Six Darshanas! What a false move in the quest for wisdom ! It is as if a caravan should travel across the desert to the shores of the Dead Sea in search of fresh water! Young men of India, look not for wisdom in the musty parchments of your metaphysical treatises. There is nothing but an endless round of verbal jugglery there. Read Rousseau and Voltaire, Plato and Aristotle, Haeckel and Spencer, Marx and Tolstoi, Ruskin and Comte, and other European thinkers, if you wish to understand life and its problems.
“But denunciations apart, did the Upanishad philosophy have any influence on Hinduism as a social and political system? There is no doubt that it turned out to be most ineffective and inconsequential piece of speculation with no effect on the moral and social order of the Hindus.”
Spiritualists like the Bourbons learn nothing from history nor forget its wrong lessons
But does any of this deter the almost universal applause and reverential awe that is the constant companion of Vedanta and its myriad gyrations of studies and expositions? Not a whit, if one were to consider how the likes of Anil Mehta and other such spiritual faithful from cults like Chinmaya Mission can dismiss any effort of debate with cryptic 3-liner responses.
So when I heard a response from one of the leading lights of the Vedanta blogosphere, I was initially hopeful that meaningful debate will get its fair share at last. But as it eventually turned out that, such hopes were premature and I realized that I was actually up against a Trojan Horse from the spiritualist camp. After some initial pleasantries, this gentleman committed the same sin of most spiritual apologists, mixing science and religion, using scientific and argumentative generalizations to question the rejection of Vedanta. As another ploy, he sent me a link to a brain-fryer of a book called ‘Vichar Sagar’, another tedious apologia for Vedic and Vedantic scriptures.
I am reproducing below some parts of my exchange with this person, whom I’ll refer to as “H.A.” (not his real name or initials).
H.A.’s first comment to article on Bhagavad Gita via email:
Subject: The Ultimate Scientific Truth.
There is divergence of opinions about the truth, strategy, nature of the people etc. I realize that opinions cannot converge unless we agree on common principles, the biggest of them being ‘the truth absolute or ultimate’. I don’t know what you consider the ultimate truth, if any.
Any way I am interested in knowing what made you question or doubt the following points about Vedanta. I think if i know them i would be in better position to satisfy you to the best. It is from your above referred discussion.
- Questioning the suitability of the ‘rope and snake’ metaphor and its irrelevance to the question of interpreting real
- Pointing out the fallacies of the nature of Advaitic conception of knowledge which seems to fail even most basic tests of reason and empirical inquiry.
- Trying to reason that Consciousness has no real bearing on a comparison of illusion and reality
My response to H.A.’s question:
While there are many common principles which can form the framework of a living philosophy, these principles need to be practical and useful.
In all humility the principle of absolute or ultimate truth is not one of them since it is not practical as there is no definition of what constitutes ultimate truth.
To me, it is one of many jargons that abound in Hindu or vedic metaphysics. Vedanta claims that the ‘Brahman’ is the ultimate and only truth that is worthy of realization. But the texts are themselves not clear about the conception and identity of Brahman. Lot of arguments, opinions and riddles are posed about this entity without any conclusions being reached. One text contradicts the other with some texts even claiming that the ‘Brahman’ is beyond understanding and comprehension. If that is really the case, is not the quest of Brahman a futile exercise?!. Commentaries fare no better than the original texts, since there is not one but many flavors of vedanta:
- Advaita Vedanta
- Dvaita Vedanta
- Visishtadvaita Vendanta
and more that I can’t recollect. But honestly these don’t make any practical sense, because truth or facts cannot be established by arguments and counter-arguments and nit-picking and hair-splitting about verses of Upanishads and the syllables and sounds of ‘OM’. That the earth is round and other physical facts were not determined by round-table debates of misguided prophets and deluded saints, but by observation, experiments and corroboration, and by putting our faculties to right use. Modern science is using such same empirical methods to unravel wonders of our brains and not doubting and dismissing the utility and testimony of our senses.
Vedanta makes blanket statements and assertions of this physical world being an illusion without providing one shred of evidence to support such brazen claims. All its recourse is to blind faith, devotion and surrender to a teacher and unquestioning acceptance of the scriptural word.
H.A.’s counter-argument to my first response:
Belief, confusion, contradictions, mysticism are few of the unscientific aspects of Hindu metaphysics as per your understanding and I agree to the same. But does this all sufficient to dismiss altogether ‘The Truth’ so established by the Vedanta? It needs matching rebuttal comparable to the content and intent of the mechanism followed by these shastras. I expect the same in your next email about the specific few points raised by me.
The ‘Ultimate Truth’ may be defined as the one ‘which reveals and accounts for the existence of the universe as it is’ with all its cause and accordingly the scientific advancement may be directed.
Before you reply I wish you would have read or referred the likes of the book ‘Vichar Sagar’ by Nischal Das (http://www.archive.org/details/themetaphysicsof00sreeuoft ). If not taken as spiritualistic and viewed with scientific angle, it is formidable.
Before you explain the few points as referred by me I expect you would take the pros and cons of the issues as discussed in this analytical book. Of course you may not afford to spend such a time thing is different. Just like you I do believe Truth cannot be accepted just because Vedanta says. Let us arrive at it independently. Let us supplement science with the ideas of human beings. For I am satisfied with the ultimate truth ‘Brahman’ as realistically as E=mc2.
My rejoinder to his response above:
Skeptics are not dismissing the theories of the Vedanta. They are trying to question the claims of this school of ‘philosophic’ thought that their version of ‘truth’ or conception of the nature of reality is the real deal.
The playing field of a skeptic or a critical thinker is that of evidence, objectivity, feel, experience that is capable of validation by senses, perception, reason and logic, cross-verification of clues that must all tie to all threads and ends of a proposed theory that explains a phenomenon.
If this ‘truth’ that Vedanta is talking about of a unchanging reality super-imposed on an ‘illusory world of physical object and sensory experiences’ because senses are deluded into accepting illusion of physical appearances as reality, is an objective and valid one, as it sometimes claims, that claim should submit itself to objective and empirical verification.
But Vedantic apologists are not forthcoming with their proofs and evidences. They keep shifting the goal-posts, definitions, theories from time to time and hard as skeptics keep trying to pin them down, these idealists keep slipping out by changing the rules of the game. Vedantists cannot have their cake and eat it too.
Though commentaries, lectures and books on the Upanishads create heavy smoke-screens and fog around their theories, we can ferret out these recurring themes and components
- Universal Soul
- Individual soul
- Transmigration of the soul
- Karmic cyclicality and endless reversions of its cycles
- Release of the soul from transmigratory agony
- Final liberation of the soul and its unity with the Universal soul
- Realms through which the individual soul passes on its journey of final deliverance and unity with the Brahman
- Unified reality of the Brahman manifesting as the illusion of the physical world and sensory experience though the mechanism of Maya ( No explanation of why such an atrocity is being done by the Brahman is anywhere in the Upanishads)
I could go on and on, but the point is that all these things are in realm of speculation and imagination. The easiest way to resolve a controversy is provide a proof and experience of the claims that is at the heart of a controversy.
Skeptics have been waiting for centuries and no convincing proof or even good reliable evidence is forthcoming. All these airy-fairy concepts are resting on the shaky foundation of arguments, stories, fairy tales, tautological statements ( one example of a tautological statement is like this ( 1. “Since a higher reality exists, the current physical reality is not the ultimate reality” 2. “Because the the current physical reality is not the ultimate reality, therefore a higher reality exists and that is Brahman”).
The above is just one example, but the Upanishads, commentaries, its schools of thought are full of such circular arguments and reasoning. Upanishadic wisdom is worse than science fiction, it is metaphysical fiction.
When contradictions are pointed out, the defenders say that you have transcend your mind. My response is Good luck with that! As We have better things to do in life.
The final critical punch that hoped to nip misleading and diversionary arguments in the bud:
Further to my mail before this, let us briefly consider your statement
“So hope you will be as realistic as E=mc2 in your rebuttal of ‘Brahman’”
I see this as a trap that I don’t wish to fall into.
E=mc2 was proposed by scientists, which has been validated and accepted universally. It is upto the Advaitins and Vedantins, to contest and disprove it if they can with objective proofs and validations.
‘Brahman’ is a proposition of the Advaitins and Vedantins. The burden of proof is on them and lets us play by the rules of the game. As a skeptic I have the least eagerness or responsibility to provide a rebuttal. In my previous email I provided a few criteria that can serve to expose the lack of objectivity of the Vedantic propositions.
Don’t get me wrong, but refuting the Brahman or any other Vedic or Vedantic fantasy is like expecting to refute incontrovertibly the existence of fairies, ghosts, narasimha, pixies, flying monkeys, heaven, paradise, astral realms etc.
As the saying goes, “Fools can pose many many more questions than the wisest men can ever answer”.
Related posts:
This post was written by:
Ranganath R - who has written 11 posts on Nirmukta.
An accountant and a man of commerce by background and education, I am a Business Applications analyst by work and profession. I am a lover of diverse intellectual pursuits and interests. I have over time cultivated interests in literature, history and social sciences. In terms of beliefs, I have had in the past my share of swings between irrationality and rationality. As hopefully thinking processes and impulses mature, I am learning to cultivate the faculty of examining all systems and forms of thought and opinions, in whatever it is received and only accept those that accords with reason, logic and understanding.
Subscribe to RSS
Follow us on twitter
Follow us on facebook
Flickr
Youtube
Around the 8th century BC, everyone had developed very sophisticated philosophies in mythic forms. Taoism, Veda, persian and greek had more or less very similar viewpoints expressed through poetic stories. Then in the greek world they started writing down the implicit philosophies of these stories and tried to make them consistent and objective from a god like perspective. At the same time, they invented theological religious with God external to the world. Gradually these two forms of mythic styles forbade god visual representations and they presented to unique truth.
Noone can denied that modern science knows a good deal about the simplest aspect of the world but it knows nothing about meaning. Now india is becoming a modern society with technology and science. Many Aurobindo will emerge and will invent a new science,
a science that do not sacrifice meaning for objectivity.
The question for Indians to ask of ourselves is whether all we can do is wait with bated breath for the next Aurobindo or next Vivekananda or next Gandhi, or whether we step out of the shadow of these icons who obscure the imagination now as much as they may have thrown some light on it in their times, and whether theirs is the only conception of human and national greatness possible.
Confused!!
What is the point of contention here? How did Vedanta create all the caste system issues we have today in India? If you follow Vedanta principle then you will realize that everything in the universe is considered equal. Untouchability was not called for in the Vedas, This is the result of some selfish people who used religion for social dominance, these are exactly the people who didnt follow the essence of vedas.
I consider the Vedic Rishis to be scientific people pondering about existence, senses and things around us. Sanskrit is a scientific language and the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet. I don’t think a bunch of lunatics would come up with such a language in the first place. Earth was considered to spherical in the Vedic literature much before Galileo, that is why earth is called bhugol in sanskrit. The Word ‘Human’ has its origins in sanskirt word ‘Om’. Do you know why in a Vedic marriage, the couple is asked to look at arundathi naskshatra, go figure out.
It is very wrong to highlight Vedic knowledge as junk when infact it was has great scientific significance. If you follow the wisdom in vedas you are bound to be successful and peaceful. For sure, they were improperly used in the society for social dominance, but the vedas themselves never preached that.
How did Vedanta create all the caste system issues we have today in India?
It didn’t. However the apologetics and atavism of proponents of Vedantic schools have had a significant contribution in perpetuating and exacerbating exploitative social hierarchies. Consider reading the following articles:
Hindu Revisionism: Was Shankaracharya Deceptive Or Just Ignorant?
Maneesha Panchakam Of Shankaracharya
Sanskrit is a scientific language and the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet.
Anyone who has been a student of Sanskrit for even a month would refrain from making a claim of ‘unambiguity’, especially when it is the ambiguity that lends itself so readily to poetic devices that is hailed by literary enthusiasts to be one of the striking features of the language. Alberuni, who took his study of Sanskrit more seriously than most comment-trail Dharma Rakshaks of today, says,
Sanskrit is a language of enormous range, both in words and in inflections. They call one and the same thing by various names and unless one knows the context in which the word is spoken. Some of the sounds of consonants are neither identical nor resemble with the Arabic and Persian. And the Hindus write their scientific books in metrics so that they can be committed to memory and thus prevented from corruption. This metrical form of literary composition makes the study of Sanskrit particularly difficult.
If those are the traits of an unambiguous language, I would like to see examples of an ambiguous one.
The Word ‘Human’ has its origins in sanskirt word ‘Om’.
This gets the goat even of Koenraad Elst,otherwise a Hindutva sympathizer, who (rightly) calls this ‘donkey etymology’. This article explains why.
The incurable Hindu fondness for P N Oak
Nomad,
OK let’s not call Vedanta or Vedic ‘knowledge’ junk, if that is too harsh and derogatory. A better description of that would be to term it as bunk and bogus. Whether the Upanishads attest that everything in the universe is considered equal is not clear, but surely it considers the world and universe as fiction or Maya. When the world and existence is fiction, why should Vedanta care about untouchability. Is that not fictional too, for the Vedic worshippers?
Then you say Untouchability was not called for in the Vedas
If you read the Purusha Sukta of the Rig Veda, the four-fold classification or casteism comes thru very clearly in these verses:
Brahmanasya Mukham aseed.Bahu rajanya krutha.
Ooru tadasys yad vaisya.Padbhyo sudro aajayatha. 1-13
Meaning
His face became Brahmins,
His hands were made as Kshatriyas,
His thighs became Vaisyas,
And from his feet were born the Shudras
Following this lead Manu’s Dharma Sastras or more popularly known as Manusmriti is even more explicit about the sanctity and divine ordination of rigid caste hierarchy and pulls all punches in its severe strictures against Sudras.
The real damage done in the perpetuation of casteism and untouchability was by done by a scripture revered far more than the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas, that is the Bhagavad Gita, which says:
In the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.4, Verse 13
The Lord says:
“The fourfold caste has been created by Me
according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma;
Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or change.”
where the hypocritical, slimy and slippery character of Krishna using the bogus and deceptive concepts of Guna and Karma justifies the ‘divine mischief’ and then washes his hands off by claiming to be incapable of action or change, which effectively means that the structure of caste is set in stone
This is not some selfish people, this is very Vaishnava darling deity Krishna who put the scriptural stamp of approval on untouchability and then seals it with the ultimate insult to the Sudras and women in the scandalous verse 9.32. Do you wish to hear the ‘sweet strains’ of that ‘poetic verse’?!!
Then the ‘Great Sankaracharya’ (Adi Sankara) rubs more salt into the wounds of the Shudras by emphatically
explaining why a sudra is not entitled to philosophical wisdom, Sankara writes (on Brahma sutra i.3.34):
The sudras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters. But a sudra does not study the Veda for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana ceremony [i.e. the initiation ritual conferring on one the status of dvija] and that ceremony belongs to the three higher castes only.
I have no interest in dispelling Nomad’s ignorance and fantasies about the contents of the Vedas, which are as remote from scientific content or knowledge as we are from the Moon or the stars. The best way to remain entrenched in the ivory-tower of misconceptions about Vedas and Upanishads, is to not read even a few passages or verses of them and yet make grand statements about their knowledge content. Only his trivialization of the term scientific by using it so loosely and ignorantly is regrettable
This is not some selfish people, this is very Vaishnava darling deity Krishna who put the scriptural stamp of approval on untouchability and then seals it with the ultimate insult to the Sudras and women in the scandalous verse 9.32. Do you wish to hear the ‘sweet strains’ of that ‘poetic verse’?!!
Ranganath, Here is a comment-trail in which an apologist (complaining about my take on the verse here) offered an interpretation of 9:32 that went something like, ‘Krishna was sparing these folks the tedium of reading the scriptures out of recognition for the full-time work they were doing in other spheres, that didn’t leave them time for metaphysical pursuits’. Now if only such recognition for the contributions of the toiling sections of society were more evident in a plain reading of the texts than just in the credulous self-serving imagination of apologists!
You seem to have an opinion but I don’t think you ever made a serious attempt at understanding the Vedas or Upanishads, yet. Try to tread the path of knowledge with an open mind, even though on its course it may seem that mind itself will be blown away. Let me tell you something… Am convinced that you will one day find yourself resting deep peacefully under its shade. You know why, because clearly you are intelligent. It is wise men who wants to find meaning in life, keeping looking for answers in one dogma after another, argues on their on understanding, finds all to be just beliefs and naturally comes to understand Upanishads. At that time reading Upanishads will only confirm your understanding. (Don’t tell me there is no other meaning in life because you will be contradicting yourself by posting here which again would be meaningless.) And remember, you cannot utter Upanishads and Vedas in the same breath. Upanishads are part of Vedantas, literally “end of Vedas”. They are not true because it is part of some traditional scripture written by X who was “highly regarded”. Its truth can be revealed to any open minded person who wants to understand the meaning of life. Aravind, no need to quote another person’s take on any of these. In your mind you are trying to substantiate yourself with an authority. But it is your “self” behind your thoughts that matters. Other’s and your opinions are just thoughts. Understanding where these thoughts come from is more important than the thoughts themselves. If all of these feels crap to you, that’s nice too. Because it will give you an opportunity to get frustrated with other materialistic pursuits and thoughts and guide you towards the truth. Somebody just happened to record the same truth in a book they called Upanishads.
Niel states that Arvind has not made a serious attempt to understand the Upanishads, implying on the other hand that he himself has done that and understands the Upanishads very well.
To understand Upanishads or any work of literature for that matter, it needs to adhere to certain norms and rules of literary representation. Since the Upanishads violate most of those rules, they are a challenge to comprehension at one level. But there is something worse than that with them.
To quote again the person, Lala Hardayal, who has perhaps best understood the Upanishads for what they are, they are nothing more than absurd treatises that represent spurious metaphysics of ancient India.
The early Buddhists and the Carvakas rightly pointed out the chief defects of the Upanishads:
- They are tautological (statements about Atman, Brahman etc.)
- They abound in inconsistencies and contradictions
- They are incoherent
because of which these schools rejected the philosophy of the Vedas and Upanishads
To add to these woes of the Upanishads, they are too vague and allegorical in narration, opening the door to all sorts of interpretations.
So people who go with reason, logic and and inquiring spirit, and would also like to hold works to a high intellectual standard, find nothing very deep or of high significance in the Upanishads.
Neil’s wishy-washy and vapid lecture on the Upanishads does nothing of note to change
Ranganath, there is no reply button next to your comment (atleast I cant see). I know in your mind, am trying to be a supremacist claiming to have understood Upanishads. I would say, everybody is navigating towards that path even when they are arguing against it. All one’s beliefs will fail them one day (will leave it to your life to sort out if that seems like a cocky statement). You just have to be honest to accept that it did fail (ego will ofcourse say I always win, you don’t need me to explain why…). Then you start with another, then another…
Lala Hardayal! Why are you looking for another person’s validation to substantiate your claims. What do “You” think? Or just simply “who are you”? You are better than somebody who believes some one else’s beliefs. Would just leave you with a suggestion (who are you to give me suggestion? right?), keep with one of those convictions. You will know one day that you have to try all other belief structures out there to come out of it. May be someone with much higher intelligence than normal can get it naturally. Others including me, have to take the hard path it seems. May be its the big prize that nature hides with all its might.
I admit in advance that you are better than me. World has seen enough of egotistical warfare and its perils. Please write your opinion and from your heart. I fully realize that I cant do anything even if you choose not to. So good luck either way.
This article reminds me of the words in Upanishad itself… “The Upanishidic knowledge should be imparted only to one’s own disciple or kids whom are known to be pure in heart and has a thirst for knowing reality.” Having see this article, I admire the wisdom of those minds in foreseeing such rantings when a materialistic mind tries to fathom the information that it shares. One should discover Upanishads, when the ego is stretched to the limit and yet no peace is to be found. They are a last resort, definitely not for a materialistic mind which still don’t recognize the pleasure / pain cycle that it goes through.
The same Upanishadic excerpts which during a critical reading appear to enjoin an attitude of arbitrary supremacist exclusivity, to their obsequious apologists appear to be products of the ‘wisdom of those minds’ of antiquity. One wonders how apologists square this notion of prudent exclusion with the claim of all-embracing universality which too is claimed as a merit of Vedanta! Quoting from this earlier post about another contemporary revivalist:
Declining to respond to critics on grounds that the critics will fail to comprehend any arguments, is not only smug and patronizing but an abject admission of failure on part of those who claim to have a universal teaching that can be brought within the reach of everyone.
There is no exclusivity in Upanishads and you seem to be reiterating the above point (and in beautiful words!) about how a materialistic mind comprehends its knowledge. The emphasis is on passing it to the people who needs it desperately, not on their intellectual/familial/racial bindings. The knowledge in Upanishids is such a flower whose nectar exudes a smell so sweet that it bewitches those who had been wandering and tasting dirt, not the ones who doesn’t know they are wandering. The only criterion in a disciple are clear mind (expectation is that they are so clear that they squirm under suffering even after just having conquered the Everest. An impression of Buddha leaving his comfortable palace and Ashoka, desolate after winning Kalinga would help) and earnestness. A parent knows how to catch a kid in that mode and pave the way for their happiness even though they may have to face the worst tribulations in life.
If the words two comments above this one are the product of a ‘materialistic mind’, of what sort of mind is the comment just above this one a product?
An aside (or perhaps the central irreconcilable difference underlying these exchanges) about the utility of materialistic descriptions of the mind can be read here.
As for means to pave the way for their happiness even though they may have to face the worst tribulations in life, they are by no means the sole preserve of the Upanishadic or any other scriptural worldview, but a prerogative of each individual to decide for themselves. This recent post maybe a relevant read in this regard. Further, a defining tenet of humanism is acknowledging, and enabling, the right of every person to seek their own purpose, rather than enjoin scripturally mandated purposes on them. Far from being indifferent to questions of seeking purpose and overcoming suffering, humanists care about them enough to not let this seeking be hindered by the herding and corralling of the imagination by scriptural injunctions.
One thing I can suggest,
When taken by means of scientific logic, critical reasoning only Vedanta and not atheism will last. e.g.
http://inversesquared.blogspot.in/2012/03/you-never-go-full-profound.html
except case of castism by birth which alone becomes the debating point.
So I suggest discuss this alone and not the principles or anything else of Vedanta, or Sanatan Dharma. Some logical end will be then ensured. Otherwise all this is waste of time and energy.
One thing I can suggest
This suggestion that has been made will find few takers here, for the following reasons, and I would therefore suggest making that suggestion elsewhere.
except case of castism by birth which alone becomes the debating point.
Another debating point, perhaps even more fundamental, is about the materialistic nature of the mind and naturalistic explanations of consciousness. ( 1 , 2, 3)
So I suggest discuss this alone and not the principles or anything else of Vedanta, or Sanatan Dharma.
Beliefs have consequences. See 1, 2 and 3. Beliefs and principles, however beloved they maybe to some interlopers here, when they have manifestly deleterious consequences, will therefore not be exempt from the critiques of the other interlocutors here. Far from being a waste of time, such critiques are crucial to cultural progress and the freeing of human potential from the straitjacket of antiquated notions.
The many links provided above, provided one clicks them, offer enough of a record on previous debates on these questions to warrant desisting from further ad nauseam repetitive commenting…and leaving it to the wisdom of the readers to make their judgments and figure out their stance (hoping that Vedanta evangelists credit the readers with some with some wisdom, which all too often, they consider to be the monopoly of their school of thought). At the very least, readers will find in those discussions nothing to warrant the rather grandiose claim that when taken by means of scientific logic, critical reasoning only Vedanta and not atheism will last.
Thanks, Arvind,
I liked this two photos very much and will use them widely, I think.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6018/5960206082_99c23d88f1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OVbhpVUo-so/TZegsGWfC9I/AAAAAAAAALw/bev5WfQcu94/s400/ChristopherHitchensMorality.jpg
These have been so basic realities that from them exactly Sanatan Dharma began at ancient time, I think! Anyway got impressed with the thoughts.
Niel R
If you are in love with the Upanishads for sentimental and emotional causes or reasons, there is not much to quarrel with, though a more persistent inquirer would be interested in seeking the sources of such sentimental preferences like poetry, very refined and highly figurative allusions and imagery (but contrasted with vague and abstruse references), creative artistry in the form of striking and pithy yet meaningful aphorisms in such works.
Though not devoid of contentions and controversies, yet if the Upanishads were to be subjected to tests of literary and artistic merit, it is quite doubtful that these works will come away with flying colors.
So the formidable reputation and reverence of the Upanishads is surely not owing to any sentiments of artistic appreciation.
So this zeal on the part of many intellectuals with religious leanings or convictions to coronate the Upanishads as a work of superlative excellence, peerless wisdom, extraordinary insights and what not, naturally arouses skeptical curiosity.
Since the apologists have probably exhausted other defenses, what is left is an ‘appeal to emotion’ argument, which is what you are trying.
I quoted Lala Hardayal, because in my opinion, he best expressed the kind of ‘hot air’ that the Upanishads are filled with, and not for any other reason and would like to credit people who offer honest and sensible opinions.
Skeptics like to examine beliefs on their merits, without letting the ‘heart’, ‘soul’, ‘being You and not someone else’, ‘who are You’, ‘Why are You’ and similar mushy biases get in the way and muddy the waters of independent verification of theories and claims.
I respect the value of sentiment and emotion in providing and enhancing the meaning and beauty of life, but do not believe that religious insight,devotion and experience are the best ways to that end.
This article is one of the example of mindless reductionism applied of Vedanta.
The ‘Brahman’ even at the abstract conceptual level is a subject of philosophical study just like ‘Platonic world’ or ‘Ubermensch’ of Neitzsche.
Further, Advaitins and Vedantins themselves agree that ‘Brahman’ is to be realized and experienced personally and this is not an objective entity to be believed in like the Biblical ‘God’. Though most of the advaitins don’t have that experience, they at least aspire to have that experience and the Non dual perception of the world is the final goal in their spiritual pursuit.
The belief of Brahman cannot be equated to the claim of existence of ‘God’ of Abrahmic religions or the belief in ghosts, fairies, etc. Because the latter entities are conceived or imagined first and we have no way of establishing the proof for their existence unless they really exist. Whereas, in the case of the idea of ‘Brahman’, it is said to have been experienced by the serious spiritual seekers and those who experienced also agree with the possibility of the same experience in others.
Though such an experience is theoretically difficult for us to conceive or imagine, we do have people all along the Indian History who claimed to have achieved such higher states of consciousness. Ramana Maharishi, Nisgaradatta Maharaj and Ramakrishna Parmahamsa, for recent examples. I also acknowledge there are many who claim to have enlightened and exploit the followers by promising them the same. But such frauds does not refute the genuine experience. Just like Pseudoscience does not refute the Science.
If Brahman is an abstract philosophical conception alone, it would not have survived for so long. There is a continuity in Indian spiritual tradition, in which the serious seekers, over the centuries, attest to this ‘elevated’ experience and have expressed the same in their own way. Though there is large difference between, Ramakrishna’s teaching, Ramana’s Expressions or J Krishnamurti’s Lectures, Vedantins don’t find it difficult to get the underlying meaning of their teachings in spite of the difference. There may be many schools of thought in vedanta, but those differences exists only at the surface.
Besides influencing many western philosphers, the ideas of vedanta also influenced Quantum physicists like Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DevelQM/DevelQM.html
I quote from Schrodinger’s ‘What’s life?’
“In Christian terminology to say: ‘Hence I am God Almighty’ sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a
biologist can get to proving also their God and immortality at one stroke. In itself, the insight is
not new. The earliest records to my knowledge date back some 2,500 years or more. From the early great Upanishads the recognition ATHMAN = BRAHMAN upheld in (the personal self equals the omnipresent,all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous,to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was, after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really to assimilate in their minds this grandest of all
thoughts. Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each
other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal
gas) have described, each of them, the
unique experience of his or her life in terms that
can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS
SUM (I have become God).”
There is also research being done in the direction of finding the relationships between Science and the non-duality.
http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/
“When contradictions are pointed out, the defenders say that you have transcend your mind. My response is Good luck with that! As We have better things to do in life.”
Is that scientific? How can you reject even before verifying it?
To give an analogy, I have every right to say that I don’t believe in neutrinos till I myself have analyzed the theories of particle physics and observed or inferred the existence of neutrinos in a Neutrino observatory. When I do that, I will be convinced that neutrinos do exist. But since all these are not practical, we ‘believe’ the scientists who observe it in the observatories all over the world.
In the same way, Vedantins believe in ‘Brahman’ and its realization as the same was reiterated again and again by various seers and sages over the centuries. We are free to verify it when do we want.
What rot. Many people have personally experienced Jesus Christ. That is why Sanatana Dogma is not much different at all from the Abrahamic religions. All of them plead from personal experience that what they have experienced is The Truth (or The Ultimate Reality or whatever) and then type out reams of comments that it is The Truth because people have experienced The Truth say that it is The Truth and hence it becomes The Truth.
Neuroscience has come a long way since Schrodinger’s 1944 book “What is life?” and this progress has been within a framework of Eliminative Materialism and not owed in any significant measure to insights from any faith traditions. In fact the extent of productive interaction between faith traditions and neuroscience has been limited to faith traditions seeking materialistic and naturalistic demonstration as endorsement of some of their practices. The eminent neuroscientist Prof. Vilayanur Ramachandran acknowledges that subjective experience is a daunting frontier of neuroscience but he views this neither as a case for lapsing into supernatural copouts nor as a compelling reason to disavow the reductionist approach .
Vijay,
If you can hurl the accusation of mindless ‘reductionism’ to any unflattering criticism of Vedanta and Brahman, I am more than happy to return the compliment by terming your labored defense of Vedanta and Brahman as ‘mindless revisionism’
So what if Vedanta has resemblance to Platonic concepts? That part of the world which once reveled in this type of futile and speculative metaphysics has largely moved past it and we in India are still desperately holding on to this Vedantic fig leaf of a long past, decadent and feudalistic antiquity.
Brahman is not the only philosophical abstraction or conception to survive. The triune of Christianity is almost as much an abstraction as the Brahman or Atman and is far from dead or dying. So then is Holy Spirit as valid to you as Brahman?.
The superstition of astrology has also survived till now and is thriving in some societies. So does its survival validate its reality or factual basis?
Then you say “Besides influencing many western philosphers, the ideas of vedanta also influenced Quantum physicists like Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrodinger.”
The question to ask here is whether these celebrities were influenced by the content of the extant main Upanishads or their manipulative and revisionist interpretation and commentaries made by religious and spiritual apologists of yore and now.
Apart from that, any idealistic or poetic flings of a scientist or researcher do not constitute proof of an idea.
Also science and scientific method has become a convenient punching bag for religious apology, when in fact the article makes no reference to science, lab tests or any other paraphernalia of scientific rigor, to call the bluff of Brahman.
Let us spare science from the lowly task of delivering body blows to the flimsy edifice of Vedanta, Brahman and its shadowy spiritual cohorts. Practical philosophy and critical reasoning are good enough for this.
To determine that ‘transcending the mind’ is a fool’s errand does not need scientific verification and use of Hadron Collider or sonar sensors.
Coming to the Neutrino, now that you believe the scientists, will you worship the Neutrino and devote the rest of your life to understanding and being one with the Neutrino, who is the only One, without a second and who is ‘neither this nor that’ (neti neti). I am sure there is a Neutrino Upanishad waiting for you on your path to Vedantic salvation.
Ranganath,
I am trying to point out that you have not represented the position of Vedantins correctly and so you are merely deconstructing the straw man you have set up in your article.
You have to sufficiently differentiate the ‘personal’ God in Abrahmic religions and ‘impersonal’ Brahman of Vedantins before attempting to draw parallels between the two. There are many theological and philosophical differences between Judeo-Christian religions and Eastern religions. Not doing a differentiated analysis of religions, leads to fallacy of symmetry which is common in atheist and liberal discourse (Sam Harris is one exception, I am aware).
Let me try to represent the ‘distilled’ version of the core thought of Vedanta without any religious ‘romanticization’.
“The seeker starts from inquiring the ‘I’ (a dual state of object and subject). When he continues his self inquiry, at some point of time, his ego drops and his mind transforms into a non dual state of consciousness. This state of consciousness in which there is no difference between subject and object is called as Brahman,Nirvana and Moksha in Hinduism,Bhuddism and Jainism respectively.”
There were also people like J Krishnamurti and U G Krishnalmurti, who tried to demystify this state without accepting any relgious view. UG Krishnamurti called this state as a ‘natural state’.
Now we may reduce this transformation as a mere biochemical change in the seeker’s brain. But such reduction do not in any way decrease the significance of that transformation. We have wide range of emotions in our lives(which forms the basis of our lives) which are again reducible to mere chemical changes in our brain and body. But those theoretical abstractions do not in any way decrease our laughter or tears.
And for your ‘Speculative Metaphysics’, do you also denounce the whole of philosophical or metaphysical inquiry of existential questions as a futile exercise? And how exactly, holding the Vedantic worldview will deter the progress in science?
I have not quoted from Scrodinger to prove a point or appeal to authority, but to show how these eminent men saw Vedanta positively in their quest for answers for the lingering existential questions. It is to demonstrate that Vedanta is not a nonsense to be disposed of as reflected in the words of the intellectuals you have quoted.
Vijay,
Here is my response to each of your paragraphs of comment:
1. what Vedantins believe or assert is of no relevance to this article or the purpose of asserting logic and reason in investigating an issue . One could not care less for their conceits and lofty opinions. The emptiness and futility of the concepts like Brahman and Atman can be sought to be exposed independent of what its devotees and apologists claim about it.
2. That is nit-picking and hair-splitting about possibly subtle differences between competing theological systems. The so-called impersonal Brahman can be as nonsensical or meaningless as the personal god of other religions. No pretensions were made about knowledge of comparative religion. Every religious system has copious content and armies of apostles and theocrats, but such strengths or differences need not necessarily absolve them of the charge of confounding and misleading the society with their ‘ethereal concerns’.
3. If this is not religious romanticism, it will surely qualify for spiritualist romanticism. The only fly in this grand ego-dropping spiritualist argument is that the dropping ego invariably springs back like a coil and inspite of all fairy-tale descriptions of this pointless exercise of obliterating the distinction between subject and object, it is akin to a dog chasing its own tail.
4. It is not surprising that in the spiritualist world, unnatural states are ‘natural’ and natural states are low, ordinary and mean. Men like JK and UG spend much skill and energy in giving nonsense and vapidity, the appearance of great philosophy and knowledge. However hard they may try, irrational concepts and ideas will be what they are. You can rationalize the irrational to any lengths, but there surely will be a few on whom the irony of such a charade will not be lost.
5. The rationalist gripe with the biochemistry of Nirvana/Moksha/Brahman is that it is a case of ‘much ado about nothing’ and a spiritualist ‘rat-hole’ that its protagonists dig themselves into, though with a lot of ritualistic pomp and fanfare. If there is a poetry of the Moksha/Atman/Brahman that can come even a little close to the grandeur of ‘Paradise Lost’ or Kalidasa, I can suffer its inanity with gritted teeth. Even the creative genius of Bhakti era was riding on the pantheistic engine of the Puranic lore. A few cryptic verses of Upanishads do not a summer of Brahmanic glory make. Other bio-chemical changes or emotions in us do not lead us to absurd claims like ‘All existence is Maya’ and ‘Only Brahman is real’. Many of our emotional changes help us make a sense of our life and mostly experience it in a positive and constructive way, and not be waylaid by the schizophrenia of spiritualist rambling.
6. Speculations on existential questions are fine. But it is important to understand what theories they give rise to. We need to ask Do they make sense or not. Because we cannot satisfactorily answer questions like ‘why there is life’ or ‘why we exist’ ‘how existence came into being’, is not a license to run amok with bizzare theories and speculations (after-life and its cycles) that Vedanta indulges in.
7. The article has in its opening acknowledged the monumental difficulty of challenging the ossified legacy of and reverence for Vedanta. While you may have the company of Scrodinger and an overwhelming majority of assenting celebrities, nonsense is still nonsense whether it is the Vedanta or the Puranas.
Ranganath,
My intention is not to prove the reality of brahman or superiority of vedanta or to ask you to exempt vedanta from criticism but to have a dialogue from the position of a spiritual seeker and sceptic.
I could sense from your replies, that you are rejecting the whole class of ‘spiritual’ solutions proposed by all religions and even non religious people inspite of the social consequences those philosophies may have on the mankind.
I would like to conclude our exchange with the following question.
Don’t you feel any need for a indvidual ‘change’ or ‘transfromation’ in each one of us into a state of freedom where there is no suffering and conflict? The desire to free ourselves from ‘dukha’ as called by Bhuddha is what drives people basically towards ‘spiritual’ realisation or transformation.
If you honsetly dont feel for a such necessity for a ‘change’, its quite a surprise for me.
If yes, what in your view is the solution?
Thanks.
We reject spiritual solutions because of their social consequences. The hallowed Vedanta despite being sold as a cure all for human problems, couldn’t even admit that the Varna dharma is obscene and needs to thrown out, without making any lame excuses that “it didn’t start out to be birth based and etc..”. Varna dharma has only one logical path – to end up as a birth based system. So much for individual “change” and “transformation”.
I could sense from your replies, that you are rejecting the whole class of ‘spiritual’ solutions proposed by all religions and even non religious people inspite of the social consequences those philosophies may have on the mankind.
Don’t you feel any need for a indvidual ‘change’ or ‘transfromation’ in each one of us into a state of freedom where there is no suffering and conflict?
The following articles published in this website deal with the topic of how transformation towards a more fulfilled state of mind is possible, and has indeed been repeatedly demonstrated, without appeal to or aid from any ‘supernatural’ or ‘spiritual’ assumptions.
Creating meaning in our lives (Prof(Dr) VNK Kumar)
Send the Self on Vacation: How to Naturalize Enlightenment (Dr. Thomas W Clark)
Those who feel compelled to present themselves as arbiters of intellectual honesty in forums like this one, and are outraged over ‘mischaracterizations’ of Vedanta, would do well to remind themselves of the fact that there is no consensus even amid the ranks of self-proclaimed ‘defenders of Vedanta’ regarding what the canonical characterization is in the first place.
There are some of these defenders who insist that the Vedas, Upanishads and Puranas constitute a unified scriptural composite with the demarcations being only ones of convenience, while there are others who relegate the Puranas to profane realms. There are some who insist that Vedanta is such a lofty endeavour that it is unconcerned with such trifles as maintenance of social order, whereas there are others who manage to see in its texts a blueprint of social engineering. Apologists of these different stripes who insist that their stances alone are authentic amid this cacophonous and often contradictory multiplicity, have been responded to on different occasions, both here and elsewhere.
Far from the ‘above-the-fray’ apolitical character which is claimed for Vedanta by a certain brand of apologists, the revivalist agenda is far from free of real-world socio-political implications. For instance, the concepts of guna and karma, which are indispensable to Vedantic lexicons in its most orthodox as well as more revisionist variants, have had, and continue to have, demonstrably deleterious consequences whenever they have been allowed to influence public policy.
There are many who claim for Vedanta a sort of amnesty from criticism saying that its ‘original intent’ was to respond to the spiritual yearnings of a certain society in antiquity,and that it cannot be held accountable for ‘unintended outcomes’ of its application. That such amnesty is an unreasonable demand can be illustrated by watching this clip where social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls out the Dalai Lama for romanticizing Marxism indifferent to the observable adverse effects of the actual regimes it had produced. Recognizing that beliefs have consequences makes it incumbent upon us to not spare any beliefs the caution they must be subject to, and there is no compelling reason why Vedanta should be an exception.
Why a debate on a stance that is inherently in the realm of abstract imagination, and hence can neither be proved nor disproved? At the fundamental level, it all comes down to personal aesthetics.
The religious people can choose to believe, but should stop trying to shove it up others’ throats or try to use shaky science to make it seem grounded and reasonable.
At the same time, atheists might as well stop dissecting esoteric philosophical scriptures. That serves no purpose other than to inflate one’s one ego as being superior to a believer, while as I mentioned, this is more a question of taste.
The issues worth discussing are the political and social aspects of religion, and not the tautological and vague, but harmless, philosophies like Adwaita and Vedanta.
I don’t think you are familiar with Indian society. If you are, then you are oblivious to the fact that Vedanta has a very real social and political implications. It is sold as a cure all. You can’t take sugar pills to cure cholera. What you will get is an epidemic. So it is necessary to point out the stupidity of taking sugar pills.
Lakshminarayana,
The earth is really flat. It is only due to maya that it appears as an oblate spheroid. Only enlightened people can realize the Ultimate Endless Formless Flatness. The scripture says that the real Universe is hyperbolically polarized and one needs to find a real traditional guru to realize that. Once that real realization sets in, the maya of curvature will dissolve and all that will remain is the Ultimate Endless Formless Flatness. The hyperbolic polarization is a Fundamental Axiom. You are free to disagree with it and make fun of it. I ain’t gonna whine.
Hello Satish Chandra,
You say – “I’m baffled. If Brahman is as good as Unicorns (for those who reject scripture), then what is the problem in ridiculing the belief in Brahman?”
If you want to ridicule Brahman, who is stopping you? But there are a few things that you should keep in mind –
1. One must represent the opponent’s position correctly, even if one is out to ridicule him
2. An emotional tirade is not a substitute for a logical argument
I baffled not because somebody is stopping me, but because of the incessant harping from you on the tone of the article and the comments. Who is stopping you from accepting that Brahman will be ridiculed given that it is as absurd as believing in a flat earth (going by your logic. I reject scripture)? One can ridicule an idea and refute it as well. You seem to have forgotten that the article wasn’t written for you just so that you can copiously pontificate here. Accept that fact or stop wasting bandwidth.
Firstly, brahman is not as ridiculous as flat earth. Because flat earth can be easily disproved by means of direct perception. But brahman cannot. (Just like God cannot be disproved). Now please do not shift goal posts by suggesting that the burden of proof is on me since I am proposing brahman. Understand the point of saying that brahman cannot be disproved (in comparison with flat earth).
Secondly, the article indulges in heavy misrepresentation of the vedantic position and so the article itself is a big waste on bandwidth.
Finally, I am baffled that it does not seem to occur to you and Ranganath that it does not take much time for this discussion to degenerate into a slanging match, (though I guess that the moderator would be on your side in such a case). It is because I am focusing on debating and not on matching Ranganath’s childish emotional tirades, that there is at least a semblance of debate here.
//Firstly, brahman is not as ridiculous as flat earth. Because flat earth can be easily disproved by means of direct perception. But brahman cannot. (Just like God cannot be disproved).//
Nobody here is denying that there is a difference between the demonstrably false and the unfalsifiable. It’s just that some of us are not particularly thrilled at the prospect of making some ‘not even wrong’ assertions the core of our worldview. That something cannot be disproved is not a compelling enough reason to believe it, let alone make it a central, defining belief. We are yet to see a definition of Godhead which steers clear of the pitfalls of being demonstrably false or unfalsifiable.