Why mAyA vAdam

After the first 2 postings in my blog, I have changed the name of my blog to mAyA vAdam. I would like to explain why I did so… :

When I write an article there are essentially 4 items, or as a matter of fact on any aspects of what we do or observe or think or explain or interpret or define…. So on –

1. The actor or observer or thinker or explainer or interpreter or definer
2. The acted upon, the observed or that is thought or explained or interpreted or defined
3. The process of acting, observing, explaining, defining
4. The result of the action, observation, interpretation…

 But there is an underlying 5^th element that distinguishes the four separate entities and also comprehends the collective entity. This 5^th element is hidden and unknown. More so the four elements individually and masks and hides the 5^th element. This 5^th element not only is capable of distinguishing the four elements but it comprises of the four elements. That is the observer, the observed, the process of observation and the result of observation become indistinguishable, from the stand point of the 5^th element. Not only that, all the four elements put together is the fifth element.

That is why Sri Adi Shankara Bhagawatpada declared his cardinal philosophy “Brhma satyam JaganmityA JivO Brhmaiva nAparah. – The Brhman is the only Reality, everything else is mere appearance, the Soul Jiva is identical with Brhman. All your actions, the acted upon, the process of action… are all unreal when viewed from the standpoint of the Absolute.

This is what beautifully questioned and answered in Keno Upanishad:-

By whom impelled soars forth the mind projected?

By whom enjoined goes forth the earliest breathing?

By whom impelled this speech do people utter?

There the eyes go not;

Speech goes not;, nor the mind. 

We know not, we understand not.

It is conceived of by him by whom It is not conceived of. 

He by whom It is conceived of, knows It not.

It is not understood by those who [say they] understand It.

It is understood by those who [say they] understand It not

So if Truth is one, and what we experience in day to day life of the world, that is perceived by our 3 planes of our common knowledge (physical means [Bhur], Intellectual source [Bhuvah], emotional and intuitive[Suvah] looks so real to us, what is true and which is false?. This question has raised in the minds of our great rishis. Truth can not contradict experience. So Shankara explains the apparent contradiction  between Truth and everyday experience, with the concept of MAyA. He says, the external world and all the ‘world’ experience through the 3 means has no reality, they are illusions (mAyA). This illusion gets extinguished once we get the Realization of Brhman. (with the example of rope and the snake). In effect He gives a  thundering declaration that there is No Duality. The explanation of the world as illusion gives the name to his philosophy as “mAyAvAda” or VivartavAda or AnirvacanIya. In other words “the doctrine of the apparent modification of Brhman into this phenomenal world”.

When Shankara says the world is false, he does not mean that it is absolutely nothing, but our experience of the world is liable to be cancelled out by means of knowledge of things as they are. The world has a relative existence, it is a temporary phenomenon, but disappears when true knowledge dawns on us. It is not real from the Absolute standpoint. We can not say ‘mAyA’ exists or does not exist, it is a mystery beyond our common understanding, it is unspeakable (AnirvacanIya)

So whatever I post in this blog – are all superficial, rudimentary, the arguments and counter arguments arising out of this mAyA, it is only a vAdam (discussion / argument) rooted in illusions of me!!

So in essence do not take it seriously, just be a part of this illusory drama

Secularism

“Secularism” has become a fundamental and more ‘fashionable’ and ‘politically correct’ creed. It has also become a bane of contention and a source of rivalry as to who is more ‘secular’ and terming others as ‘pseudo-secular’ or ‘fundamentalist’

Hence it is imperative to understand the ‘actual’ meaning of the word and also the ‘intended’ meaning of the word in India.

Actual Meaning

What does Encyclopaedia Britannica dictionary says:

Main Entry: sec·u·lar·ism
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&-"ri-z&m
Function: noun
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations
- sec·u·lar·ist /-rist/ noun
- secularist or sec·u·lar·is·tic /"se-ky&-l&-'ris-tik/ adjective

Hence, according to this definition and the actual interpretation of the word ‘Secularism’ must ‘reject’ and ‘exclude’ any religion. In other words the meaning of secularism is ‘anti-religion’ either in the form of ‘atheistic’ or ‘agnostic’ ideologies

But who coined this word ‘Secularism’ and for what?. Let us turn to wikipedia. The following is a ‘copy’ ‘paste’ from wiki:

The term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846.^[5] Although the term was new, the general notions of free-thought on which it was based had existed throughout history. In particular, early secular ideas involving the separation of philosophy and religion can be traced back to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and the Averroism school of philosophy.^[6][7] Holyoake invented the term "secularism" to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."^[8]

What was Holyoake’s definition? (again from wiki)

George Holyoake's 1896 publication English Secularism defines secularism as follows:

Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.^[18]

Holyoake held that secularism and secular ethics should take no interest at all in religious questions (as they were irrelevant), and was thus to be distinguished from strong freethought and atheism. In this he disagreed with Charles Bradlaugh, and the disagreement split the secularist movement between those who argued that anti-religious movements and activism was not necessary or desirable and those who argued that it was.

The European history shows us candidly that Church being the ‘prime mover’ on all walks of life, had suppressed, influenced and controlled everything - freedom of thought, scientific pursuit, politics, theology, society, social ethics, family and the individual. However, the same history also shows that the ‘individual’ despite of this suppression, influence and control has triumphed. The freedom of thought, scientific pursuit, polity, society and social ethics underwent evolutionary changes and was brought about by ‘individuals’ with or without ‘Secularism’

Secularism arose in the modern West as a revolt against the closed theology of Christianity which had acquired a stranglehold on the State. Why? Because Christianity is not a religion based on ‘the individual’ meaning ‘a being’, so that every individual can ‘experience’ and ‘understand’ God and His work by himself. But it was based on ‘Propheteism”, that is ‘: "I shall be your God and you shall be my people; I shall raise amongst you a prophet and I shall speak to him and he will tell you what I intend you to do. If you do not obey him I shall punish you.". Because it has ‘Commandments’, it tells you what is good for you, what is good for your society and it does not ask you to find what is good for you.

The real reason Holyoke defined secularism as above is because, Christianity (also Islam and Judaism)

- did not look at man internally,

- did not look at how to improve his life both internally and outwardly,

- did not develop the questioning ethos, rather it negated it,

- did not look at man externally as he would see

What is the relevance of Secularism in India, based on the ‘actual’ meaning perspective? Do we need such a theme at all?

For this we need to look at Hinduism, more correctly Sanatana Dharma as it is known prior to the invasion of Turkish dynasty in India as the name ‘Hindu’ was given to us by foreigners:

Spiritual Teachings: Âtma and Anâtma1[1]

1. The ancient sages studied man and for that they started with themselves; they turned their gaze inward and found there a vast internal life. Going still deeper, they discovered, beyond their more external being, another life or principle which takes another language to describe it; they found it self-existent, bodiless, pure, luminous and conscious; they found that it is in some way unborn and undying; that it does not come along with the body nor does it die with it; that it is beyond sorrow and decay; that it shines from within and it knows itself as self-evident. They found that it is their very essence, their true Self; they called it âtman, which is pure, immortal, and untouched by evil.
2. They found that this innermost truth of their being is also the truth of all beings, that it is inside as well as outside, that it pervades all; that the âtman is also brahman, that the immanent divine principle is also the transcendental principle and divine ground of all.
3. By the same token, they saw in man the other side of the coin, the principle of anâtma. They saw how man gives himself deceptive identities, how he confuses himself with various physico-mental constructs (nâma-rûpa); how there is nothing in him which is abiding, which he can own or call his own; that everything is a concatenation, a link in a chain; that nescience (avidyâ) and ego reign everywhere; that they have deep roots in man; that they are not only in our attachments and hatreds - in the more tâmasika and râjasika part of our nature - but they inform our sâttvika nature too, our good intentions and high principles, which become worse when they pretend to be better than they are. Think of all the make-believe, ego and even dishonesty of much that goes under the name of our charities, our high-minded ideals, missions and theologies. So, to much the seers had to say that This too is anâtma, that This too is not I, that This too is not That - the neti neti (Not this, Not this) of the Upanishads.
4. The two views, looking at the same thing from two angles, found their eloquent expression in two traditions known as Brahmanic and Shramanic, or, to put it differently, Rishi and Muni traditions. Both studied man in his more internal and metaphysical being and the two views were complementary. The two together gave us a great science of man, a veritable spiritual anthropology, which is different from the anthropology that we know today, the one based on the lower, psycho-physical definition of man.
5. Concentrating on the Âtmic truth, the Vedic seers found that though it resides in all, it is also beyond them all; that its truth is beyond all that a man has seen or heard, beyond his speech and mind, beyond his power to describe, imagine or conceive, and certainly beyond expounding (avyâkrita), for there could be no simple Yes or No to various queries.
6. They taught that though this truth is beyond number, gender, definitions, descriptions and indications, yet it is a man's most intimate reality. It is the eye of his eyes, and ear of his ears, and in fact he is It and It is also all this. They taught that this reality is realized in the "cave" of one's heart, and they also described it as sat, chit, ânanda..
7. They taught that though this truth is Unmanifest, the Nameless and Formless (nirâkâra and nirguNa), it supports all manifestations, names and forms. They saw in the world a great moral and spiritual order (rita), which knows no transgression, which sets up from within forces of self-correction and redress when violated. Sanatana dharma believes that truth triumphs, and that which is true never lacks true-being. (BG 2-18)
8. Sanatana dharma teaches a passage from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality. It holds that the world is supported by abhayam, ritam, yajñam, austerity. A deepened spiritual anthropology or rather anthroposophy (âtma-vâda) gave a lofty theology (deva-vâda). Indeed no great thinking about Gods is possible without deep thinking about man. Religious ideologies which are poor in âtma-vâda are also poor in deva-vâda. Their gods lack both immanence as well as true transcendence. Sanatana dharma saw Gods within; and the more it saw them within, the more it saw them outside and also beyond; it saw them filling the world, îSâvâsyam idam; it also saw that its fullness, pûrNam idam, derives from the fullness of that, pûrNam adah. True spiritual transcendence like true spiritual immanence, both are attributes that properly belong only to Yogic Gods.
9. As it saw in the Self all Godly attributes, it saw in Gods the truth and powers of the Self; indeed, it taught that one who worships a God as other than himself becomes his sacrificial animal, his draught-animal. He is driven and ridden by him.
10. In Sanatana dharma, man is conceived in the image of Gods, while some religious ideologies conceive their God in the image of human passions and preferences. No wonder, such a God has chosen people, preferred spokesmen and habitually indulges in acts of wrath and vengeance.
11. Sanatana dharma teaches that different parts of man's mind and being project their own "revelations" and "truths", and they share the qualities of their source. An impure source gives impure revelations; it gives boastful and self-regarding gods, and self-proclaimed saviours and intermediaries; it gives birth to dvesha and moha dharmas, to ideologies of hate and delusion which launch you on fierce and aggressive deeds. Sanatana dharma teaches that mind has to be purified through Sîla and samâdhi before it can receive higher truths without distortion; it teaches that even Yogic dhyâna-bhûmis require constant purification and uplifting for contact with higher spiritual truths.
12. So according to Sanatana dharma the source of higher truth is not an agitated mind under excitement of some special idea or mission, but a purified and illumined buddhi or dhî.
13. Not without reason, the representative figure of Sanatana dharma is a seer, a sage not a missionary or a crusader, a martyr or shahid. Similarly, in Sanatana dharma only those who are good and are men of knowledge and wisdom are regarded as 'saints'; in prophetic ideologies, saints are knight of the church or ummah, its sappers and miners, and even its storm-troopers.
14. Different available moral codes have derived from what men have thought of their deity, of themselves and of their neighbour. If divinity and even morality are external to man, then his moral code too is external. It is made up of Commandments, and compliance with them is secured by threats of hellfire and promises of a paradise.
15. Sanatana dharma however believes that man is spiritual and moral in his essence; that compassion, truthfulness, disinterestedness reside in his soul, therefore it expresses these luminous and divine qualities in his action too; that if man is depraved and sinful by nature, he neither needs nor is he capable of a developed moral action. What does a sinner need morality for? His moral code has to be rudimentary and it is good enough for a man of this definition. In any case, such a man is looking for a saviour and even an underwriter, not for sinlessness - a state which is impossible for him by definition
16. Similarly, a limited physical-vital view of man does not need much ethics. If a man lives only for himself and for a day, he owes little to others and to tomorrow. Only a higher vision of man gives and can sustain a higher system of ethics
17. An ordinary man's moral code is prudential in intention. He refrains from doing many things unto others lest they also do them unto him; he also sometimes does good unto them expecting they would do the same unto him. But Sanatana dharma teaches that one should be good and do good for its own sake. One does good because it is one's nature. However, it also knows that the law has its limitations. Forgiveness and patient bearing (kshmâ) under all circumstances cannot be laws of ethical behaviour for all, while mutuality and reciprocity are. Sanatana dharma also holds daNDa-nîti, the science of administering justice, in high esteem; it teaches punishment where it is due though it does not forget the divine in those it has to punish and its penal code has been humane and based on deep understanding. It also teaches that the âtatâyins, aggressors and invaders of various grades, are to be opposed with resolve and force. Are we not aware of ideologies and forces that are aggressive in their very creed and premises, which treat others harshly in the name of one principle while they expect to be treated indulgently in the name of another principle?
18. Broadly speaking, Sanatana dharma has spoken of four aims of man's pursuit (purushârtha). The first two, physical well-being and acquisition of wealth, even for their fulfilment, have to accept the guidance of the third, the ethical law, the dharma. Dharma in turn is rooted in the fourth, moksha, the principle of liberation in man from the pull of his lower nature. There can be no lasting ethical behaviour without cultivating dispassion and a taste for higher life. A Hindu sannyasin takes the vow of fearlessness; he takes no offence and offers no injury to anyone.

Because of these intrinsic values of Sanatana Dharma as above, it never had to suppress, influence or control either the scientific pursuit that would be beneficial to all beings (not just man), all elements, the earth, the cosmos and the universe, or the social ethics and development of individual, family, varnashrama (a community), a country and the humanity as a whole. Rather Sanatana Dharma aided all these developments

Hence, in India, we never had to resort to a revolt. Thus India never needed to invent ‘secularism’ as per the ‘actual’ definition. The new word or the theme has no place in India that is founded, established and nourished by Sanatana Dharma

Intended Meaning

In India, many call themselves ‘Secularist’ without clearly understanding the ‘actual’ meaning of Secularism as defined above, but tend to give a totally different meaning as postulated below. This is mainly done by the ‘modern’ Hindus brought up through the so called ‘modern’ western education designed by the ‘Marxist’ ‘intellectuals’ who dominate and control all the ‘think tanks’ of the education designers and implementers of India.

Secularism – ‘All religions are one, they all tell the same ‘truth’ of a ‘superior power’ beyond man’, though the paths are different

To this effect they even quote the Gita in which Bhagawan Krsna says ‘All paths lead to Me’.

And also The Mountain Metaphor:

“Truth (or God or Brahman) lies at the summit of a very high mountain. There are many diverse paths to reach the top of the mountain, and thus attain the one supreme goal. Some paths are shorter, some longer. The path itself, however, is unimportant. The only truly important thing is that seekers all reach the top of the mountain.”

Sadly they are mistaken. Here every one actually not aiming for the top of the same mountain and are not in the same paths either.

This is in other words called “Radical Universalism”. It is very deeply dealt in a separate book written by Dr Dr. Frank Gaetano Morales (Pravchaka Acharya) (available with me, can be sent on request)

In essence what the Abrahamic (Jewish, Christian and Islamic) religions teach and what Sanatana Dharma teaches are very different. We saw earlier some of the basic differences. There are much more both fundamental as well as peripheral contradictions;

1. Do they accept the concept of Athma? No clearly not. The Jehowa or Allah are not within in you, it is outside of you
2. Do they accept the concept of Brhman? No definitely not. The Holy Spirit and Allah can not be present in all ‘beings’ (so that they can eat animals)
3. Can Islam accept Jehowa as another name for the same ‘God spirit of Allah’ or Can Christianity accept ‘Allah as another name for the same ‘God spirit of Jehowa’? No Allah is the only God for a Muslim and Jehowa is the only God for a Christian, both are ‘Jealous Gods’ (Not to speak of Krishna or Shiva)
4. Can Islam accept Adi Shankara as a Sage or Saint or a Prophet – No Muhammad is the only and the last Prophet
5. Can a Muslim go to Christian heaven or a Christian go to Islamic heaven, even if both had been excellent human beings and not harmed others or other creatures in their life? No they will surely go to hellfire. (Don’t ask about an equally good Hindu)
6. But both accept a few concepts:
1. It is their duty, nay, crusade or jihad to make the whole population of the earth to be on their religion so that the whole population is saved from going to hell
2. It is their religious duty to kill the ‘idol’ worshipper and destroy the idols
3. We have only one life, after we die we are resurrected on the Judgement Day and the God will decide whether we go to hell or heaven

These are just a sample of the doctrines of the Abrahamic religion. Does Sanatana Dharma agrees with any of these? There is nothing to speculate on the answer.

Do all religions are same? This question is riddled throughout with logical inconsistencies, contradictory assertions, ad absurdum implications and self-defeating conclusions.

This ‘All religions are same’ is quoted only by a Hindu and will never be quoted by a person who belongs to any other religion.

Hence, the intended meaning of ‘Secularism’ does not have any validity either in Hinduism or in any other religion and it does not have any relevance in India

By

S L Sriram

20^th November 2007

---

[1] On Hinduism – Reviews and Reflections by Ram Swarup

Limits of Logic

‘Logic’ comes from the Greek word ‘Logos’ meaning ‘Pattern’ as it relates to study of patterns found in reasoning. Though the ‘modern’ history of logic dates it only to Greek philosophers like Pluto and Aristotle, the actual history belongs here in India.

In Rig Veda, the date of which is unknown and is slated to be far earlier than 7000 BC (all the dates of Rig Veda given by not-so-scholars like Max Mueller have been proved wrong) there are very clear references to Logic, by means of ‘chatuskoti’, anuviksiki and tarka. Chatuskoti refers to what modern day logic calls as ‘probability logic’, anuviksiki as ‘boolean’ – a whole algebra has been created using anuviksiki- and tarka as ‘informal logic’.

However, for our common understanding, let us keep referring to ‘modern’ logic. It consists of

1. Informal logic - based on arguments and argumentative nature of a discussion mainly involving bringing out inconsistency and fallacies
2. Formal logic – based on inferences by applying abstract rules. This and the abstract rules were developed by Aristotle
3. Symbolic logic – based on using formal logic symbolically using references

To put it simply, the 3 types of logic use ‘inconsistency’, ‘inferences’ which is always based on past experiences and rules and ‘symbols’ that are based on ‘intuitive’ understandings.

The modern science is developed using all the 3 fundamental logics. In scientific terms they are called as (though not as distinguishable as above):

1. Empirical – observable by senses and measurable
2. Objective – not interfered by different human biases or human behaviour or human consciousness (whatever it means here!!!)
3. Repeatable and Reproducible – given the same circumstances it should do so exactly as before

These are the fundamental principles governed in scientific research and may get expanded as below: - from wiki

The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

• Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

• Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

• Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

• Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

• Falsifiability or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

• Causal explanation. Many scientists and theorists on scientific method argue that concepts of causality are not obligatory to science, but are in fact well-defined only under particular, admittedly widespread conditions. Under these conditions the following requirements are generally regarded as important to scientific understanding:

· Identification of causes. Identification of the causes of a particular phenomenon to the best achievable extent.

· Co-variation of events. The hypothesized causes must correlate with observed effects.

· Time-order relationship. The hypothesized causes must precede the observed effects in time.

Of course, Science has advanced to such an extent using these fundamental factors of logic, that every minute of our existence is influenced by science at least remotely, without which I will not be able to write this article.

Now, let us examine how science itself, particularly modern science, has defied the fundamental tenets of science:

1. Before Galilee Galileo , it was ‘empirically’ -meaning by observation of the senses, - believed that all planets, moon and sun are circling around the earth. Even now, according to our senses- physical senses, it looks as if all planets circle the earth. He broke the myth of ‘empirical observation of senses’ through other means of logic and other observations that all planets circle around the sun and not the earth. He is considered the Father of Astronomy. So, until Galileo it was ‘Logical’ to think that all planets were circling around the earth. Now, it is no more logical.

2. Before Pythagoras it was believed that the earth was flat based on empirical – physical senses – observation. This logic was broken by Pythagoras and many others in the modern scientific scene. Now, it is no more logical to say the Earth is Flat, even though there is a society called ‘Flat Earth society’ that exists even today.

3. Before Newton, also with the premise of ‘flat earth’, it was believed that if we go to the end of the earth and jump, we will fall into the empty space. Newton postulated the gravitational theory and proved it mathematically and logically that we can not go out of the earth and fall into empty space. The ‘falling into space’ is no more logical

4. With the arrival of Einstein, General theory of relativity, special theory of relativity, quantum physics, quantum mechanics and string theory many ‘observed and logically concluded notions are no more facts and no more logical’ such as:

• Time flows like river and is running at same speed for everyone – this is no more logical
• An object or a particle can not be present in 2 different places in space time relationship – this is no more logical, as per the famous double-slit experiments. It is no more logical to say that a particle can not be seen at two places at the same time
• Space is an empty void and nothing has an effect on the space. This is no more logical, as it is proved that space is like a sheet and gets curved under a strong gravity
• “Nothing” can not create a particle. It is no more logical, it is proved through experiments that particle gets created out of ‘void’ and again goes back to void.
• Gravity is a force. This is no more logical as it is proved that it is a manifestation of curved space - time, with this curvature being produced by the mass-energy and momentum content of the space-time – ie – Gravity is nothing but constant acceleration

Treatment of gravitation

• The concept of entanglement – microscopic (quantum level) and macroscopic (supra atomic level) was illogical to Einstein himself, though it was proved of the possibility of entanglement with observable consciousness into scientific experiments was established by Shrodinger’s thought experiment called Schrodinger’s cat. Thus even braking the logic of Einstein

Schrödinger wrote:

One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.

It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

• Another logic of ‘point of object’ derived out of the quantum mechanic ‘logic’ is getting modified by ‘String Theory’, which tries to prove that the fundamental constituents of reality are strings of extremely small scale (possibly Planck length, about 10⁻³⁵ m) which vibrate at specific resonant frequencies. Thus, any particle should be thought of as a tiny vibrating object, rather than as a point. This object can vibrate in different modes (just as a guitar string can produce different notes), with every mode appearing as a different particle (electron, photon etc.). Strings can split and combine, which would appear as particles emitting and absorbing other particles, presumably giving rise to the known interactions between particles.

All of the above rise to the fundamental question. Is yesterday’s logic was wrong and today’s logic is right? And at a given point of time in the future the logic of ‘today’ will become wrong?

The real answer to this question is: Logic has levels, at each level different sets of logic and rules apply.

1. What ever Newton and Pythagoras and Galileo said is true in that level – even today it is logical. (here the level is the human senses observable level, not sub atomic or quantum level nor at the mega level of planets and stars
2. What ever pre Newton and Pythagoras people believed is true in that level of ‘sense observation’ limited by intuitive thinking capability
3. What ever Quantum mechanics says is true at the Micro level and can not be interpolated to our everyday observable sized objects at this ordinary speeds
4. What ever Einstein said in General theory of relativity is very valid at the Macro level and does not have any ‘sense-able’ relevance to day to day activities
5. What ever ‘logic’ that we will ‘understand’ in the future, will be valid at that level of ‘human comprehension’.

Now, let us examine how many levels of human comprehensions are and how are they inter related:

1. Physical comprehension: All our understandings and ‘knowledge’ and ‘logic’ that we acquire through the physical senses of vision, hearing, touch-feel, speech, and taste are at the basic level. Let us call this ‘Physical level’. Most of the human beings have the ‘full information’ of what this level gives, barring a few who are ‘physically challenged’ to be politically correct!!. We ‘know’ what it is like to touch an Ice cube and a rock. This ‘knowledge’ can not be explained and it needs to be realized. We need to be in this ‘physical level’ to know this information

2. Mental comprehension: All of our ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ that we acquire through ‘the subtle workings of the brain’ like mathematics, logic, and reasoning are at this level. Almost all the scientific advances are made possible due to the human capability at this level. Each human being has varying degree of ‘knowledge’ acquired through this level. Even after 100 years of ‘Relativity’, 90% of the population of this world can not comprehend it. The ‘knowledge’ of this level is possible even without the capability or limited capability of the ‘physical comprehension’. The standing example is Stephen Hawking.

3. Emotional comprehension: All of our ‘knowledge’ that we acquire through ‘emotions’ like love, compassion, beauty, pity, pride all comes from this level. Each human being has varying degrees and at varying directions of ‘knowledge’ of this level. It is not necessary to have either ‘physical comprehension’ or ‘mental comprehension’ capability to be at this level.

The beauty or irony, which ever way you look at it, is that each of these levels are independent of each other and they do not overlap with each other. From one level, we can not ‘understand’ the other level.

To elaborate: A ‘physical level knowledge’ such as what it feels to touch a fire, can not be explained through ‘mental level’ or ‘emotional level’ it has to be experienced. Similarly a quadratic equation can not be made to understand ‘through physical level or emotional level’ it has to be experienced in ‘mental level’ only. Again the ‘love of a mother to her child’ can not be shown through ‘physical or mental level’ it has to be experienced in ‘emotional level’.

[However, there can be an argument that it is the ‘Brain’ which has all these levels and the Brain is a ‘physical object’. This will lead to a different topic of ‘Brain’ Vs Mind, and at last ‘Consciousness’ which is out of scope of the current topic and it will be covered elsewhere]

So, which ever way we look at ‘Logic’ either through the scientific prism (point of view) or through human comprehension point of view, that it has limits as defined from which level we look at. The same logic of one level does not apply to the next level and vice versa.

So ‘Logic’ has limitations.

End of Logic.

After thought:

As an extension of the levels of human comprehension, can we have many more ‘levels’? Based on our understanding, that there can be many more levels other than the three mentioned. It sounds logical, isn’t it? Spiritual Level? So if there is a Spiritual Level, obviously (logically) we can not comprehend from the 3 levels that we are mostly present. We need to go to the ‘Spiritual level’ and experience it to understand. Hence ‘Spiritual issues’ can not be ‘analysed Logically or scientifically’ it can only be experienced.

By

S L Sriram