Purusha sooktam verse 2

Verse 2

(purusha) purusha (eva) alone (idam sarvam) is all
of this, (yad bhUtam) that which was, (yac ca bhavyam) and
that which is too be. (uta) Moreover (amRtatvasya) of
immortality too (IshAna) is he alone Lord. (yad) That
which (annena) as food (atirohati) shows itself, that too is
purusha.

This is the standard translation given. While this might be the correct translation. There are some who have slightly different translations to this. One translator has given a meaning for atirohati as "grows immensely", so that the last part of the verse would mean that purusha grows immensely by food. I leave the discussion open here . I have another doubt with regard to the translation for the words (idam sarvam). As opposed to the translation given below, when the verse is chanted it sounds like purushaevadagum sarvam. evadagum - what does that mean? If I were to follow that the svaram and the tone is to determine the meaning then evadagum might mean something more. Why this doubt? Isnt the meaning obvious. Again I repeat what Lord Krishna had to say. That he is not this material manifestation.
So while translation may be correct I will personally favor such a meaning at a more deeper level
"Purusha is the one who pervades or permeates everything,what was and he is the lord of immortality,and is beyond anything which grows by food"The last part may be translated in different ways such as he grows immensely by food etc. But somehow that did not satisfy me.
He is certainly beyond anything which grows by food, since the purusha does not need any food to grow or sustain? ati means beyond
yad anena rohati could mean that which grows by food and therefore loosely it can be translated as he is beyond anything which grows by food.
My translation may possibly be fanciful and just a play of words. I leave my thoughts open and I will continue to ponder on this verse!

My take on Purusha sooktam - Introduction and Verse 1

Scholars seek to ascribe multiple meanings to this exalted hymn from the vedas. Having gone through a number of translations of this hymn, I feel more satisfied with translation attempts by Sri vaishnavaites. What makes their translations praiseworthy, is the fact that they have a deep foundation in not only sanskrit scholariship, but are heavily moved by devotion when seeking to represent its meaning. I am not going to deviate from such translation attempts but I would like to view the translations in the light of my slightly different philosophical viewpoint. Thats the only difference which you will find here.
For the source of this translation please refer to http://www.ramanuja.org/purusha/sukta-1.html
I have with due homage to their seers represented the translation as it is in their website in my blog. But I have lent intepretation colored by own philosophical view, to this. I feel that translations and interpretations of such great verses should not be bound by copyright as the source and inspiration to any translation, has come from the common ancestors of entire mankind . In this sincere view I am representing this translatioN. However should anyone have objection to my representation of this translation, from a legal standpoint, I will sincerely pay heed to the advice of the genuine people concerned.

My justification for the need of an ellaborate contemplation on the meaning of vedic verses
1. The upanishads and vedanta in a more comprehensible language prove beyond doubt that the seers of those times had contemplated on nature of god at the very deepest level. If the internal evidence in these works are to be accepted then it must be acknowledged that the source for all this is in the vedas itself as represented by the innumerable hymns including the purusha sooktam. So such powerful understanding of god must have come from equally deep and rich verses
2. It is already recommended that while reciting vedas , knowing its meaning brings maximum benefit. While this is not possible to do so now due to the difficulty in grasping the meaning by modern humans, one should certainly be open to listening or chanting mantras, while simultaneously contemplating on the mantras. Remember that there is qualification to the kind of person who must chant the mantra. But I feel that it is wrong to say that-listners can never seek to derive the same benefit from the mantras as the chanter.
I however personally feel that merely contemplating on the meaning is not the key. The secret is to be able to study the effect of the mantras and dig at the source of its meaning. I can assure that there is certainly spiritual power in these mantras, and the way they are chanted makes a difference. Further the person who chants these hymns also can make a big difference on the power unfolded by the mantra. Finally, to be able to study the effect of such mantras, one must himself be a qualified person. Normal mortals like us can only open our minds to the translations produced by great seers like syanacharya and interpret them from a reasonably open point of view, and hope to learn to visualize the power of these mantras in due course of time, as we progress spiritually.


verse 1-
(sahasra) Thousands (SIrshA) of heads has (purusha:)
the great being. (sahasra) Thousands of (aksha) eyes has he,
(sahasra pAt) and thousands of legs. (sa) He (vRtvA)
manifests (bhUmim) the world. (atyatishTat) He stands
beyond (daSAngulam) the count of ten fingers.

In accordance with Sayanacharya, we may take the meaning of this verse to represent the manifestation of god in all that lives. The word Sahasra may just mean a thousand or might mean uncountable. But we need to understand that there is a subtle difference between what purusha is and what he is not. As in Bhagwat Gita, Lord Krishna says that the ignorant mistake him to be the material manifestation. If we were to go by this understanding and go by a more literal translation then the verse should mean-that the purusha has thousands of heads,thousands of eyes and thousands of eyes and he extends the world by ten fingers or limbs. Some interpret the last part of verse to mean that the divine purusha cannot be measured by the 10 finger counting system. This interpretation is certainly true if it can be proven from ancient scriptures that dasangulam is used to refer to a counting system. If we rewrite the interpretation as extends beyond the 10 fingers, we are closer to this meaning.what this particular verse does not mean, is whether we ourselves are a limb or a head or an eye of the purusha. The verse indicates the powerful facet of this purusha with these huge number of dimensions and who has huge physical and mental resources at his disposal.This way I must acknowledge that the scholars of dvaita, advaita and vishitaadvaita can each interpret something according to their own viewpoint. Why use the word -thousands?, is there a word for uncountable which would have been more suitable? The grand darshan or vision of the thousand headed vishnu was granted to arjuna, as described in bhagwat gita. so that there must have been something to the head and limbs of purusha which is different from an individual or a normal human's head! So the verse certainly should not be interepreted to mean that our heads are the head of the lord , our eyes are the eyes of the lord, etc as some people intend to do when they translate.

There are two possibilities in my view though I feel more comfortable with the second possibility
1. the word for thousand - sahasra may mean just thousand or thousands if we were to go by a literal translation. which means that the divine purusha has delibrately manifested himself with only those many heads, eyes and limbs as is needed to be present everywhere in the world.
2. the word for sahasra might mean something more. Is there a clue? It can be understood from the teachers of the vedas that the swaram or the manner of recitation of the syllables define the meaning intended to be conveyed. I can vouch that having heard the recitation of this verse, the word sahasra is given a special stress during the recitation of the verse and this swaram has to determine its meaning. Further the same word sahasra is recited with different swaras according to its position in this verse.Maybe sayancharya might have been aware of the meaning based on such recitations, in which case, his interpretation must be given more importance. I however would like to leave the interpretation of sahasra open for understanding through devotion and meditation rather than just forcing it to subscribe to someone's religious views.
Coming back to the last part of verse. I feel that by merely stating that the lord cannot be counted by 10 fingers is stating an obvious assumption of people with regard to god. No there is something deeper. lets see how this verse is chanted. atya thistat is prounced as though it is somehow separated from dashangualam or 10 fingers. so we must first state this- the purusha stands extended beyond the material world. this seems to be implied. then we state the next part of the verse. dashangulam. Though I leave the meaning of this verse to readers, I would like to bring forward a view that dashangulam refers to 10 members and not just 10 fingers. Thus in such a view, the purusha is beyond the constituent 10 members or properties or elements of the universe. Here is an interpretation that I have brought from the following website
http://www.vjsingh.info/int3.html
according to this
quote
"
The phrase 'dashangulam' in the verse stands for the universe and the heart. The word angulam (finger) is here used as a name for limbs or members.
It signifies the finite world. The entire universe is composed of ten parts, viz., fiver great and five subtle, i.e., altogether ten elements.
The phrase may also be taken to mean five vital airs (<>pranas) the four inner senses, the manas, etc.., together with the outer senses, and the jiva as the tenth or agan,
it may mean the jiva's heart which also measures ten finger breadths."

There is a possibility that such an interpretation is true because the word 'anga' in sanskrit may also mean limb or member and not just refer to a finger- example usage is the word "vedanga"

Ayodhya : What is the correct solution

Yesterday, September 30, 2010 was another day chance missed. The Indian Allahabad High Court Bungled by declaring that only 2/3 of land must be given to the Hindus and only 1/3 of land must be given to Muslims. It was a great opportunity missed.
Why?
It would have been the new beginning to religion in India. And a solution that could have changed history of religion was missed. But I hope that atleast the Supreme Court changes its views and provides the right solution

Let us consider the facts first
1. Hindus worshipped in the place for many centuries and they dont pray at any xyz place, and this itself is proof that the place was sacred to the Hindus
2. Evidence has been broughtout to show that Mosque was built on a temple( whether on ruins or on a temple where people continued to pray will always be debatable)
3. Mosque was there for centuries in that place and that place was important to the Muslims too

Now the solution
Hindus recognize that God has form and also a formless attribute. Muslims believe that God is formless. Even those Hindus who believe that God cannot be formless, also believe that God can have a form yet he can be prayed to within the mind.

So the solution is here. The Court should have ruled that the place of worship must go both to the Hindus and the Muslims. They must together discuss within a specific time frame on how they would like to Build a religious structure, where both can pray together- where neither muslims or hindus are disallowed and where there are common code of conduct for conducting prayers. This would have been revolutionary - This does not mean that there is a call for a new fusion religion. But whoever cares to pray there should be able to pray in his own way, silently, without noise at that place. The cleanliness of that place is to maintained in a way acceptable to both

The fact is neither are our saints so revolutionary in thinking, nor are our courts so far sighted when it comes to interpretation of religion. Also I found that the three judges expressing dissenting views in public is a shame.

Hinduism allows silent prayer to God and so does Islam. The solution was to grant both of them the right to pray without causing disturbance. This would be the most revolutionary and correct judgement.

My answers to the preachings against Hinduism - Part 1

This is part of the series of Blogs and I hope that these answers will atleast help hindus resolve the doubts raised in their minds by christian missionaries. The intention of this blog is not to run down on Jesus, which is what an ordinary christian would assume. But it is to free the public from the propaganda that belief in christ is somehow essential for every one who wants to be the beloved child of god.

1. "Jesus was the first person to emphasize that love not hate is the ideal." - The life of many vedic rishis like vasistha and the later saints like Buddha and Mahavira is sufficient to prove that neither was Jesus the first person to emphasize love against hatred, nor was he unique in this matter. Infact it can be easily seen from the life story of these saints that their love and affection to people was not only free from hypocracy , greed, want of some heavenly glory etc but also extended to animals. Those who are filled with hatred will choose to pick up those examples who are imperfect and highlight their flaws at the expense of good qualities. But atleast in this regard the characters I have mentioned do not have the flaws which the missionaries would like to find.
2. "Jesus can only truly cure the sick and provide solace to desolate sections of society" - This is not true at all. We have a recent example in India, the Sai Baba of Shiridi who has performed miracles and cures at the same level of Jesus Christ, and he certainly not even a christian. There have been more examples even in the past including the likes of Tiruganasambandar. Just like among the christians, the hindus too have amongst them more charlattans and fake gurus than true saints. However the great saints of India, have never attached much importance to miracles(whether or not they performed them). The reason being that miracles and healings could only provide temporary solace to the Individual. Until the individual understood that material desires amount to nothing, and the only purpose of a long life was to reach atleast a more disciplined and sustained experience of spirituality, before making the journey to next life. The fact that praying to a God cures a person of a certain problem does not really prove that the saint or deity is all knowing. Further if failure in getting expected relief even after prayer to God is to be taken as a standard for deciding if that God is powerful ,in that case, even christianity has failed someof its more sincere followers. Similarly the chirstians like to argue that non christians could be cured of their problems only if satan decides to help them or only if they somehow unknowingly win the grace of christ. Not only can this argument be applied against the christians, there have been plenty of examples available to prove that even those who are cured of certain diseases at a certain stage continue to suffer again at a later point of time due to a certain other health problem or disease or pain at the time of death. Thus the christian cure is not a gurantee against future occurence of a more fatal health disorder.
3. "Jesus worked for the lowest sections, while Hinduism worked against the lowest castes"- This feeling is widely received by the affected sections of the society. But we need to see if the so called component of Hiduism called varnashrama as it was deviced really exists in the current society of India. The next question to ask is if the socalled varnashrama is responsible for the social inequalities. This question has been sufficiently addressed by aurobindo, ISKCON and Vivekananda that I direct the readers to their explanation of these questions. But if the flaws of the Indian society is to be taken as proof of the failure of the Indian rishis and Krishna , then how would any logical person accept the argument that christianity was somehow better when it was able to spread mainly due to imperialism and not until the christian world became millitarily powerful and not until they managed to enslave the africans, native americans and conquer India, and not until they tortured thousands of goan hindus. The christians would retort that Christ never preached inequality but Krishna and the rishis did. My answer is -If the Rishis were so fond of spreading inequality then why did they throw off all comfort and embrace the forests and why did they allow even scorpions to bite them , but refused to kill them. Krishna 's view on Varna is however sufficiently explained by ISKCON and the actions of Ramanujacharya, that I dont even think I need to defend it.
4."However inspite of the good qualities of the saints of other saints,Jesus was alone perfect". This is again a repetitive argument. Please ask the Christians to enlist the good qualities of Christ and compare these qualities with Vasistha, Buddha and Mahavaira. I think any logical and well read hindu would see that there is really no logical foundation to the argument in favor of a unique christ. An alternate christian tactic is to divert the attention by starting a discussion on Krishna's so called flaws . Even if we allow the accusations to pass, the uniqueness in terms of good qualities of christ would remain unproven. I again see no reason to defend Krishna's actions as they need to be seen from a spiritually matured point of view and it would be apparent that even if the so called actions of Krishna of stealing butter as a child, playing and teasing the village girls, use of cunningness against the wicked were all taken true, these actions in no way prove Krishna to be a wicked or a criminal person. A patient reading of Srimad Bhagwatam is sufficient to understand the incidents according to the prose of the work and not according to the imagination of the accusers. However incase there are people who want to still debate on this I redirect them to vaishnava forums who have answers to each of these silly questions.
5. "Christ was born to a virgin"- The argument here is that this is a unique incident. A little reading of pagan deities reveal that this belief is not unique to christ. Some christians like to quote vedas and say that it refers to a virgin son and that it is really a prophecy of christ. If this is to be taken as a prophecy which was fulfilled 2000 years after it was made, then in that case one cannot dismiss the other verses of vedas which are contrary to christian understanding of god. Rather one must conclude that christian understanding of god, is only a subset of the vedas -more comprehensive understanding of god. A more rational argument is that vedas also pointed to deities born to virgins and this again makes Jesus non unique. I dont need to go so far back in time, even the renowned saint Sadasiva Brahmendra was believed to have born to a virgin mother just over a few centuries back. There must be a logical reason to only accept that one incident alone was true, and really speaking there is none. Being born to a virgin proves or disproves nothing . Finally there is really an alternate christian legend which explains that christ had a brother. This leads us to suspect that this virgin story was superimposed by the early church by amalagamating the pagan legends in the many lands it conquered.
6. "People have been blessed with the vision of Christ". I am not sure whether any christian is really aware of this-"But people of other religions have also had these visions."
7. "Christ said that I am the only way". If he indeed said this, then he was not a fair person because he does not say what happened to people of his grandfather's generations and other earlier generations before him ? There are people who could argue that somehow christ mysteriously saved those deserving people who did not worship him. If that is the case, then we should all try to become a deserving person rather than focussing on accepting christ(and not be deserving at all). End of argument.
The vedas put a fullstop to all these motivated arguments of the missionaries by a simple proclamation
"Truth is one, the sages call it by different names".
Let us all focus on becoming good individuals rather than trying to superimpose the rituals and labels we follow on others.

Vegetarianism in Ancient India

Hello friends , there are many among you who have read contradictory tales of vegetarianism in India.On one hand you would have heard that many people in India were meat eaters and later became vegetarians. There is also an accusation that brahmins used vegetarianism to practice untouchability. There are others, who consider that vegetarianism arose out of a desire to defeat buddhism and jainism.
Unlike my other blogs , I will not flood my blog with quotations or make it too long. I will present a few facts and the reader can ask me for specific sources. Further I shall leave the reader to make their own inferences
Fact 1. Vegetarianism as a lifestyle in India predates Buddhism and Jainism
Fact 2. Majority of Indian Population were vegetarian most of the times.
Fact 3. Maintenance of Slaughterhouse were considered taboo
Fact 4. Domestic animals were not eaten except probably as sacrifical offerings conducted on rare occassions.
Fact 5. People from good family never consumed any unclean meat or meat not offered to God and this was consumed along with a prayer
Fact 6. It was acknowledged even by the meat eaters that animals had a soul and that they had a karmic responsibility to take care of animals
Fact 7. Meat consumption vanished not because brahmins wanted to prove themselves superior to jains, but because they were fully convinced of vegetarian ethics.
Fact 8. Meat was consumed in extremely low quantities by many brahmins and that too only during sacrifices and that is why vegetarianism quickly spread across brahmins during reformations.
Fact 9. Vegetarianism was the practice of most ascetic orders which included the buddhists, the jains as well as the brahmins
Fact 10. Yagna did not always involve sacrifice of animals
Fact 11. Yagna was not performed to relish the taste of flesh.
Fact 12. The smritis of Hinduism is clear about virtues of vegetarianism

A clearer picture of Ancient India

Clearer Picture of Ancient India-

What Ancient Indians already knew can be reconfirmed by the Indica of Megasthenes
Until the British came to India , the Indians knew this of themselves . Since today Indians don’t trust each other, I thought it was necessary to reconfirm some of what Megasthenes had to say about Indians. There is nothing strange or confusing about all this.
A vast majority of Indians, in pre British India, knew exactly about the nature of people who lived in the past in their own country. We can clearly see that the current situation in India was a result of subsequent changes.
Reference
http://www.payer.de/quellenkunde/quellen1102.htm

1. Identity of India is a very ancient concept- Quote “India , which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemōdos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus , which is perhaps the largest of all rivers in the world after the Nile . 2 The extent of the whole country from east to west is said to be 28,000 stadia, and from north to south 32,000” (in Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 86, c. 2).
2. India was a fertile and famine free land, and certainly not barbaric with people destroying and subjugating each other- Quote – “But, farther, there are usages observed by the Indians which contribute to prevent the occurrence of famine among them ; for whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.”
3. Indians including the ruling class were indigenous people. Quote
“It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous ; 23 and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. 24 The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such, fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks ; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching”
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”

4. The society of India was not certainly demoniac and trying to enslave the low castes -The only way we can understand the contradiction with the present culture is to view the effect of politics and wars, and the result of the fight for limited resources. The quotation takes care of itself
“Of several remarkable customs existing among the Indians, there is one prescribed by their ancient philosophers which one may regard as truly admirable : for the law ordains that no one among them shall, under any circumstances, be a slave, but that, enjoying freedom, they shall respect the equal right to it which all possess: for those, they thought, who have learned neither to domineer over nor to cringe to others will attain the life best adapted for all vicissitudes of lot : for it is but fair and reasonable to institute laws which bind all equally, but allow property to be unevenly distributed.”

5. That land was not even under the control of Brahmins and
priests of that time is reconfirmed – Quote “The husbandmen themselves, with their wives and children, live in the country, and entirely avoid going into town. 46 They pay a land-tribute to the king, because all India is the property of the crown, and no private person is permitted to own land. Besides the land-tribute, they pay into the royal treasury a fourth part of the produce of the soil.”

6. Artisans were so respected as to be exempt from taxes-Quote
“Of these some are armourers, while others make the implements which husbandmen and others find useful in their different callings. This class is not only exempted from paying [S. 43] taxes, but even receives maintenance from the royal exchequer.”

7. Orderliness and little theft,drinking among Indians
Quote:
“The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp. They dislike a great undisciplined, multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenēs says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices.a Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage.b The simplicity of their laws and their contracts is [S. 70] proved by the fact that they seldom go to law. They have no suits about pledges or deposits, nor do they require either seals or witnesses, but make their deposits and confide in each other. Their houses and property they generally leave unguarded. These things indicate that they possess good, sober sense ; but other things they do which one cannot approve: for instance, that they eat always alone, and that they have no fixed hours when meals are to be taken by all in common, but each one eats when he feels inclined. The contrary custom would be better for the ends of social and civil life.”
8.That the modern situation of labourers falling into bonded labour due to non payment of loan, was not a practice during that period.
Quote “The Indians neither put out money at usury, nor know how to borrow. It is contrary to established usage for an Indian either to do or suffer a wrong, and therefore they neither make contracts nor require securities”
Quote “Among the Indians one who is unable to recover a loan or a deposit has no remedy at law. All the creditor can do is to blame himself, for trusting a roque.”
9. Rigours of Brahmacharya and the virtue of abstinence from meat was not a new concept to Hinduism- Quote “The Brachmanes are best esteemed, for they are more consistent in their opinions. From the time of their conception in the womb they are under the guardian care of learned men, who go to the mother and, under the pretence of using some incantations for the welfare of herself and her unborn babe, in reality give her prudent hints and counsels. The women who listen most willingly are thought to he the most fortunate in their children. After their birth the children are under the care of one person after another, and as [S. 99] they advance in age each succeeding master is more accomplished than his predecessor. The philosophers have their abode in a grove in front of the city within a moderate-sized enclosure. They live in a simple style, and lie on beds of rushes or (deer) skins. They abstain from animal food and sexual pleasures, and spend their time in listening to serious discourse, and in imparting their knowledge to such as will listen to them. The hearer is not allowed to speak, or even to cough, and much less to spit, and if he offends in any of these ways he is cast out from their society that very day, as being a man who is wanting in self-restraint. After living in this manner for seven-and-thirty years, each individual retires to his own property, where he lives for the rest of his days in ease and serenity”
10. The argument of kancha illiah that Ancient Indians somehow hated buffaloes is trashed by this quote. Neither there seems to be any reason to believe that beef consumption was widespread. JNU Scholars have tried to argue that Indians were reckless meat eaters can be disproved by this single quote Quote “
They eat flesh, but not that of animals employed in labour. It needs to be emphasized that in parts of India lay brahmins did eat flesh, but even there it was certainly not reckless meat eating with beef and a whole lot of other domestic animals. Once again even here we can see from earlier quotations, that they did not eat during brahmacharya and a specical category amongst them did not eat meat at all.
11. Genealogy of Kings existed as far as 6451 BC in India,
Quote – “For the Indians stand almost alone among the nations in never having migrated from their own country. From the days of Father Bacchus to Alexander the Great their kings are reckoned at 154, whose reigns extend over 6451 years and 3 months.”
12. That there was an ascetic sect amongst Brahmins whose principles seem similar to modern sanyasis . The fact that they followed the upanishadic thought is indicated here Quote–“ There is among the Brachhmans in India a sect of philosophers who adopt an independent life, and abstain from animal food and all victuals cooked by fire, being content to subsist upon fruits, which they do not so much as gather from the trees, hut pick up when they have dropped to the ground, and their drink is the water of the river Tagabena.a Throughout life they go about naked, saying that the body has been given by the Deity as a covering for the soul.b They hold that God is light,c but not such light as we see [S. 121] with the eye, nor such as the sun or fire, but God is with them the Word,—by which term they do not mean articulate speech, but the discourse of reason, whereby the hidden mysteries of knowledge are discerned by the wise. This light, however, which they call the Word, and think to be God, is, they say, known only by the Brachhmans them selves, because they alone have discarded vanity,d which is the outermost covering of the soul. The members of this sect regard death with contemptuous indifference, and, as we have seen already, they always pronounce the name of the Deity with a tone of peculiar reverence, and adore him with hymns. They neither have wives nor beget children. Persons who desire to lead a life like theirs cross over from the other side of the river, and remain with them for good, never returning to their own country. These also are called Brachhmans, although they do not follow the same mode of life, for there are women in the country, from whom the native inhabitants are sprung, and of these women they beget offspring. With regard to the Word, which they call God, they hold that it is corporeal, and that it wears the body as its external covering, just as [S. 122] one wears the woollen surcoat, and that when it divests itself of the body with which it is enwrapped it becomes manifest to the eye. There is war, the Brachhmans hold, in the body wherewith they are clothed, and they regard the body as being the fruitful source of wars, and, as we have already shown, right against it like soldiers in battle contending against the enemy. They maintain, moreover, that all men are held in bondage, like prisoners of war,e to their own innate enemies, the sensual appetites, gluttony, anger, joy, grief, longing desire, and such like, while it is only the man who has triumphed over these enemies who goes to God. Dandamis accordingly, to whom Alexander the Makedonian paid a visit, is spoken of by the Brachhmans as a god because he conquered in the warfare against the body, and on the other hand they condemn Kalanos as one who had impiously apostatized from their philosophy. The Brachhmans, therefore, when they have shuffled off the body, see the pure sunlight as fish see it when they spring up out of the water into the air.”
13. Brahmins of those times were certainly not money minded as there are in the modern times-
Quote – “Bragmanes neither love gold nor fear death.”
Quote – “They (the Brachmans) eat what they find on the ground, such as leaves of trees and wild herbs, like cattle”

Deconstructing the world: Understanding the Supposition layers of Consciousness and beliefs

The stress here is more on underlining the levels at which we have become a product of our own suppositions. I demonstrate here that current scientific knowledge cannot prove that anything around us is really happening. I expose the problem , but the solution is left to the reader, and no where do I haughtily claim that some particular supposition is wrong. But I demonstrate that there is no way we can claim that life around us is any more different from the dream we experience.

I take you step by step to demonstrate this

1.Brain in the Vat
Situation-
This is an interesting puzzle . Today it is assumed by neuroscientists that every thought and feeling is a consequence of some brain activity. Well that is not a proven statement but it is a strongly held view. This view makes brain in the vat as real as it can be. How do we know the world? By the excitation that the nerves leading to the brain recieve. This means that the light falling on the optical nerves are not conducted as light itself to the brain but they just excite the nerve and the signals are interpreted within the nervous system and finally these impulses make us correlate with the world we know. This means that we can take the brain out of the skull and attach it to a computer, which would then send signals to the brain The brain would then have no way of knowing that it is not in the skull.

Conclusion- The information about the world collected by the brain is just a consequence of neuron activation and hence there is no way we can know using the brain alone ,whether or not the world really exists.

2. Myth of brain as a reliable observation tool.
Situation-
We Have seen through vat problem of brain, that nothing can be known truly of the world .If the individual's world view were just the consequence of the stimulation of brain cells then it is important to prove that through some principle of nature, brain happened to be stimulated in just the right way necessary for it to know about the world accurately. Any scientist would say that experience is a consequence of brain wiring. Based on this information let us come to the next point. People who report strange experiences claim them to be real. But an average individual does not see this. Immediately the scientists dub these experiences as hallucinations. whatever. But these experiences are also a consequence of brain wiring. Brain wiring leads to experience. But then how different is that experience from the experience of the normal individual, unless it can be proven that the normal individual's brain , can exactly map information of the world and present it as a coherent thought. The argument that can be made in support of the "exact map theory" is that more than one person sees the same observation and that instruments devised to measure physical phenomenon lead to the same results as the results being observed by the brain. If more than one individual can observe the same result can it not be because they have similar brain wiring. wherever brain wiring is different, there observations are different.so based on this argument one cannot support the exact map theory.Now the instruments making observations - what do they do and why do they work the way they do? Let us understand that instruments were built to finetune observations of the material world or observe phenomena that cannot be observed by senses of the body. In either case, the instruments were built to support the inferences made out of the observations of the brain.These inferences are logically consistent with the observations made. Therefore the instruments will observe phenomena in line with logically inferred possibilties of the world as conceived by the brain. But the conception of the world as understood by brain is itself due to brain wiring. Therefore observation of instruments is a mere function of brain wiring. And hence observation of instruments cannot be taken as evidence that brain understands world correctly. Thus we see the two possible reasons cited to prove that brain is a right map, cannot be really used to prove anything concrete about our understanding of the world or our understanding of the brain.
Conclusion- This completely proves that brain is only assumed to be a reliable tool for the purpose of practicality but there is no proof, on the contrary there is plenty of reason to disbelieve in the very nature of world presented by brain.

3. How much strength is there in the supposition that brain could be responsible for an individual's mind?
Situation- Is it the hen and egg problem? Did mind come first or the brain? Scientists would say it is the brain.Because brain causes mind. There is no evidence even by the standards of science . Evidences are cited to disprove the contrary claim.But these are lengthy arguments which can be easily disposed off as baseless and of no consequence to any understanding. I could argue with specific points in the comment section. What we however observe is that many a times, when we think there is brain activity which can be measured .we may also find brain activity which could affect the mind. Good . Now we can see that the same thing is possible in reverse, that mind affects brain activity too.Mind specifically affects how brain processes information. It is mind that conceives that something is happening around it. It is mind that conceives that an event in the world affects the body and also the brain.It is mind which conceives of the idea called brain, without this mind brain would cease to exist as an entity and which can be experienced. Therefore this is truly a case of the hen and egg problem.

Conclusion- The claim by some , that brain alone causes the mind to exist is purely a supposition. There is no strong reason to claim that this supposition is true.

4. The one principle that we know which is not a supposition
Situation-"At this moment I exist".
This is not a supposition. How do we know that?
If I were not true, then there is nothing called my imagination, my supposition, my belief, the validity and invalidity of all these claims dissappear. But I know I suppose, because I do. Therefore I dont need a proof to know I exist. But do you? That you only know. I hope you get the point!
Conclusion- Any theory that does not show how the structure of the world is derived from the individual's awareness of oneself is not a sound basis for understanding the nature of the world. The Reason is that awareness is the basis for all other understanding and reason is that it is the only truly unfalsifiable premise.

5.Finally the supposition model responsible for what we know of the world.
Layer 1- We start with the Individual I. This is true. But then I assumes different concepts regarding thoughts and about the mind. For instance I might assume that mind is real, I might also assume that mind is necessary for "I" . All these are unproven suppositions. So these suppositions comprise the first layer.
Layer 2- Layer 1 contributes to assumptions . Depending on how one views of one's own mind, one's assumptions about one's own brain varies. So all suppositions regarding the relation between mind and brain is unproven and hence these suppositions are dependant on layer 1 suppositions.This is Layer2
Layer3-Brain's conception of world. This is again a consequence of layer 2 suppositions,more the number of suppositions in layer2,greater the number of suppositions in layer 3.
Layer 4-Inferences made due to interaction with others and due to inferences derived from signals transmitted by mechanical instruments.These set of suppositions come into place as a consequence of layer 3 suppositions.

If we represent this as a visualizable model, we can create a three dimensional pyramid like structure based on our suppositions.This is how we really construct the world. These layers of suppositions must be deconstructed in order to truly understand the world.

Freeing the mind from religious stereotypes - How I have been impacted

Reconcile with Oneself!
This is an earnest attempt to help fellow humans who are confused by the apparent contradictions in religion, science and the questions about the nature of God. There is one reason why you should read on! I dont charge you for my suggestion and I have no hidden agenda to pursue. Further more I dont consider myself to be a guru in the making, you are free to put in your comments and I am more than willing to change my views if you say something Convincing!

The idea here is to help the seeker of a religion to free himself from those anxieties and emotions which can confuse him and throw him into inaction or put him along the wrong path.

Stage 1- Guilt imposed by standards
I would often try to see if I really met the standards of my religion. Most humans make mistakes. The greater mistake is in not giving importance to this question. One cannot be a true believer in a religion if One fails to examine this concept. It is a different matter that after such an examination, one concludes that these standards are non essential to life or plainly erroneous. But unless this question is visited, the seeker can be said to live in blissful ignorance. I needed to free myself from such a guilt feeling. People would normally react to this situation in different ways, according to the people they meet and according to their very own ideas of religion. Some might go to a saint or to a minister and confess and pledge before God,and promise that they would indeed become a better person. To make themselves free from guilt some people would reconvert or undergo some kind of religious ceremony. All these token efforts are fine, but these serve mainly as an emotional tool, but unless properly adressed, these make the individuals repeat mistakes, or it just happens that one emotional issue becomes another.Old dies but a new one comes up in its place. So how did I deal with my situation of guilt? I decided that ,what is done in the past cannot be revisited but it can be improved to the greatest possible extent in the future. With such an attitude, I am certain that almighty would certainly look upon any individual even if it were me with favor. The story of Jean Valjean from the book Les Miserables (Author Victor Hugo) is one of the best inspiration which one can get in this matter. I will never forget this book. It does not show the main character becoming a born again christian or undergo some kind of purificatory rituals and even if he did , it is hardly relevant to the message of the book. What a memorable character. He changed himself from a rascal to an angel and what a transformation. There would be no one who is not convinced that what matters is the effort one takes to change the present and to change one's deeds and actions.Though you or I may have done nothing antisocial or against the law, I think anybody who has even the slightest sense of guilt in life should read this book and digest the deeds of this wonderful character. This man comitted great crimes, but he lead such a divine life afterwards,so much so that every reader would be put to shame and they are sure to say- "I was never this bad but I was certainly never this Good!". This is how we should deal with guilt, by doing so much good to offset the bad we have done. For those who have never read this book , I strongly recommend you this work and I promise you ,that you will know exactly how to free yourself from any feeling of guilt, which you may have had in this life.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/135

Stage 2 - Confusion on the nature of God and questions on how God deals with atheism and heresy
Let us assume that there are two individuals - atheist A and religious man B.
Let us say A has done 30 units of good deads. 20 units of bad deeds.
Let us say B has done 27 units of good deeds. 25 units of bad deeds.
Any modern rational person would say that A would be dearer to God than B.
But a religion bred person has a problem here. B has been baptized and to the best of his ability done good. But A is an atheist and worse he was never baptized, never visited a church even. I am delibrately using christian terminology here because this issue is encountered to the greatest extent by christians and muslims. If they dont, they should right away sit down and contemplate on this problem. In an ingenious way a bookish christian might explain away this problem by suggesting that "by following christ the goods deeds of B increases by 100000 units and there is no reason why he should not be favored more than A".
Let us throw aside the blind quotations and think without any bias- there is no doubt a fair and equal god would look at the good intentions of an individual with the greatest degree of importance. This simple illustration should make us feel strongly motivated to be a good person before giving importance to anything else. Ideas about God hold significance only later. It will not make one dearer to God just because another individual understood God's nature better. You want to be friends with a good person and who is helpful to one and all, not just because he was your neighbour and knew you and your family very well. This idea will not convince many immediately, but those who have involved themselves in social welfare and seen and experienced unmotivated love will second my views. If you dont agree with this , you should still contemplate ,because you dont certainly have an answer. The resolution of this problem is one of the keys in freeing your mind. I am sure that people will like to say that "hey this does not mean we should not worship God!" I would say "true", but even if we should worship God, it is not true to say that a person indulging only in service to man and not to God, does not win his equal favor. That is the focus here. If all religious institutions put stress on service and making a better human out of the people they serve, as the only real goal, people will automatically win favor of God, and God will bring them into the way, he feels most suitable to that individual. It is business to sell God. You may want to read the ideas of vivekananda as a further exploration of this concept.
http://www.towardstillness.com/articles_service.htm

Stage 3- How to free oneself from anxiety and depression arising out of misery and sorrow
Any rational believer will know that a fair God will equally favor two people of equally good nature, irrespective of their religion. So if someone is suffering, it means there is something to learn and some effect of past action which is affecting that individual.Even if one does not want to relate suffering to concept of sin or karma, it is clear that some kind of cause was behind the effect. One can suffer and continue to do so, or one can be hopeful of cure and say I will die with honor by fighting to my last breath.The extreme form of such hope is to sit in a corner and pray night and day to God.But one should understand for oneself, where one is getting into the state of inaction and this is important for the individual to identify. It is a matter of choice - inaction or action? So help yourself and be a good individual and be prepared to be a martyr and dont die a coward. Fight till your last breath against every misery and sorrow. If there is any chance to win, it can be got only by fighting with the problems and not by inaction .Choice is yours. You can also pray apart from making effort. But dont expect miracles to happen when you make no effort. Be prepared to be a martyr, like the spartans getting ready for the war.Nothing more to say here!

Stage 4 - How to deal with contradictions between religious works and science

There is no need to feel confused. The Purpose of religion is served once you have become a good individual. If you feel that your religion has made you into a good individual, why feel miserable? Why worry if religious teachings about matter and world, seem to contradict with science. Do you know so much that you can say with certainity that God's words have been correctly deciphered by you? If you feel convinced by science be convinced about it , or else if you feel convinced by statements in your religious book then that is okay too. Bottomline, if you have become a better individual your religion has already proved its worth. If Not Go back to preceding stages starting from Stage 1.
Regardless of whether you believe in the principles of science or in the principles of religion , it does not matter, once you know you have become a better individual because of your religion. Your religion is true once you have become a better individual.Keep your mind open and dont be ashamed to question what is in any book even if it were your holiest book, and if it does not fit in with your rational outlook, try to reformulate your ideas thoroughly and carefully. Dont dismiss views and ideas, but question them. Your religion does not become wrong by questioning and reformulation. Please also dont start a new religion without a complete confidence inspired by rationality and practical experience of every single truth. Be prepared to admit that observations are relative to time and place and these ideas may turn truly false, when another individual digests it. This also means that, you should not get into a fanatic preaching mode, even if your religion is as old as the hills and as popular and well known as the sea or even if it completely convinces your mind.Similarly dont give up on a religion just because some teachings dont match with science or modern standards of humanity.When I say dont give up on religion, I dont mean you should stick to every fairy tale in the book, and I dont mean you should not give science its due place . I believe you should allow humility peppered with sceptism, to penetrate the shield of even hard held religious ideas. By failing to do so, you may actually be doing injustice to the very founders of the religion and even if you dont consider that to be the case, by failing to do so, you dont allow humans to be more enlightened . God wants people to move forward and become more enlightened and use their rational powers more often. If you throw away a religious book completely, inspite of the good that it has done for you and millions of others, then you confuse less learned people and throw them into a state of anarchy and sorrow ,which does them no good at all.Any acceptance or rejection of an idea must be gradual, marked by sceptism at every step and every individual must be encouraged to do this exercise at his own pace and in his own way. Give more importance to the principles ,than to the word and letters.
No matter what action you take in this matter,you are stuck with the relative paradigm , and you are in no way harmed by using a good measure of reverent sceptism. If you still dont know how to deal with this question, you are a man of inaction and ignorance and you have still not crossed stage 3.



I am happy if there is atleast one person in this world who takes life more positively after reading this Blog! It is easy to live with both religion, science and lead a life free from misery and lead life with confidence, once you know exactly how to deal with these critical questions.Cheers!

The position of human brain

Before reading this blog, I would request friends to check out the views of present day neuroscientists.
I find the views of Prof VS Ramachandran interesting in this regard. Check this out in case you are not familiar with these ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6u4XVrr58
Please spare time to watch the complete series to get an understanding of these concepts .
I shall take the trouble here to deal with the following facts of human brain experience which would be encountered if the video series is watched fully. The idea is to reconcile this with spiritual thinking and more particularly with eastern philosophy. I am using a Sanskrit word called Atman in this blog which also means the "Soul" in English.
The blog is divided in three sections.
1. Summary- Summary of some of the views of modern science along with my short remarks in the same context.

2. Understanding-Trying to understand the logic of spirituality and reflect on the challenges which face modern science. The relation and similarity with machines and non human life forms are explored.

3. Conclusion- How the spiritual concepts explain the summarized observations of section 1.

Summary-
A summary of some of the ideas presented in the videos of VS Ramachandran along with some of my own initial comments is presented below.


1. Psychological denial of certain physical experiences by some people – The peculiar wiring of the Brain of some people makes them deny certain experiences which most others would acknowledge. For example, some people who have lost a limb in their body, still feel that it exists . Another example is of People who do not acknowledge certain colours which everyone else can see. In this context let me quote Henry David Thoreau who said -“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with success unexpected in common hours.” Is living in such an unrealistic world wrong after all?. What is wrong in denial of known experience if it brings us close to making our dreams true? That is an even more profound thought. As a side remark Advaita Vedanta asks you to keep repeating- "I am not that, I am not that!" until you realize what you are. A most positive denial of everything.

2. Consciousness and brain – How is consciousness linked to the brain. Is it just a by product of brain activity? If that is so why do great sages like Buddha and Ramana Maha Rishi believe in reducing thoughts to zero in order to realize the true meaning of consciousness, isn't that a contradiction of sorts? Though spirituality does not like to view brain with greater seriousness than the problem of soul, there are quite a few interesting spiritual beliefs about the brain which we shall later discuss.

3. Difference in development of different areas of the brain and difference in response to differing positions of objects– The vision and experience of people is distorted by development in different areas of the brain. More significantly people respond to a situation differently, when the position of observed object is changed. To quote the renowned Sivananda in this matter-
"The senses are the gatekeepers of the wonderful factory of the mind. They bring into the mental factory matter for manufacture. Light vibrations, sound vibrations, and the like, are brought inside through these avenues. The sensations are first converted into percepts by the mind, which then presents these percepts to the intellect. The intellect converts these percepts into concepts or ideas. Just as raw sugarcane juice is treated with so many chemicals and passes through various settling tanks, and is packed as pure crystals; just as ordinary clay mixed and treated with plaster of Paris, etc. passes through settling tanks and is made into jugs, jars, plates, cups, etc.; just as crude sand is turned into beautiful glassware of various sorts in a glass factory; so mere light vibrations, sound vibrations, etc. are turned into powerful ideas or concepts of various descriptions in the factory of the mind. " He continues -"The external senses are only instruments in the process of perception. The real auditory, tactile, visual, gustatory and olfactory centres are in the brain and in the astral body. These centres are the real senses which make perception possible. The intellect (Buddhi) receives material from the mind and presents them to the Purusha or the Atman which is behind the screen. The intellect is like the prime minister; it is closer to the Purusha than the mind is. As soon as facts are placed by the intellect before the Purusha, there flashes out egoism (Ahamkara). The intellect receives back the message from the Purusha, decides and determines, and transmits it to the mind for the execution of orders. The external organs of action carry out the orders of the master. "

4.Different areas of the brain are found to deal with different aspects of sensory experience and more than one area is involved in a single experience. A single event such as recognition of a person or object requires participation of different areas of brain. A person can recognize another person by his or her voice but cannot recollect the person when he sees him. This shows that the parts of the brain related to recognition of vision and sound are different. Damage to one area need not mean that the other area is damaged as well.


5. Even pain can be the construct of the mind. Pain remains a construct of the mind. Thus even though a person has lost a limb, the person experiences pain when someone pretends to pinch his lost limb. An interesting observation from Kahlil Gibran who says in 'The Prophet', his all-time classic: 'Your pain is the breaking of a shell that encloses your understanding.' (8. Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet (London: Pan Book Ltd., 1980) p.61.). Our understanding of pain gets complicated if we refer to the often quoted vedantic view which says that "Pain is inevitable , but suffering is not". It is a simple verse but try to view this in the context of phantom limbs and the mind making a map of body parts

6. Consciousness is not always necessary in an action, this is a well known fact, and people do not always seem to be conscious of what they do. This raises an important question is consciousness necessary for brain to function?

7. Existence of a map in the brain. The brain builds up a map of different areas and linkages between sense organs, experiences, thoughts and pain. So much so that a specific area of the brain could be responsible for the sensation of pain in a particular hand or finger. This finger may cease to exist but that map remains in the brain and pain does not go away until the brain unlearns this experience.

7 .Seizures and religious experience – people with epilepsy can have what is termed as religious experience , what can be described as overwhelming or exaggerated state of emotions in relation to day to day events ,for example feelings of being one with god .

8.Flood of Feelings- A flood of feelings can overcome the brain when certain experiences are evoked. An example is the clever use of art to evoke strong feelings among people who observe the works.


Understanding
As far as eastern spirituality is concerned Brain is only as important as the rest of the Body. But being the one of the limited means by which the Self or Atman can experience the world, it attains importance. Some concepts from Hindu Yogic System might be of interest to some in this regard. I shall briefly mention two concepts
1. Concept of third Eye - The region between the eyebrow is called Agna chakra which some believe to be linked to pituatory gland and this is supposed to be responsible for the control of all sensual activities
2. Concept of thousand petalled lotus in the brain- There is a centre called thuria in the brain believed to be associated with pineal gland. This centre is also called as Sahasrarahara or thousand petalled lotus. There are thousand regional values associated with this, and if all these petals are activated then the mind can be focussed on any level or plane.

Brain is however just a part of the body and that which is not part of the individual and that which is not responsible for the individual’s existence. The individual is called as Atman or the Soul. That such an assumption exists can be reemphasized by the following verse from Bhagawat GIta

Bhagavad-gita 18.61

"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be."

What is permanent has to be independent of the body because body dies and so does the brain.

Can the modern knowledge of Brain contradict this assumption? I reemphasize here- can actual knowledge, as we know it today contradict this assumption?

Well the facts outlined above as brought out from the videos certainly do not. It is another different story that merely because some knowledge does not contradict an assumption,it does not mean that it has to be right. But to prove a particular view wrong, in this case vedantic understanding of Atman, one must be fully aware of its implications.

Lets look at another verse from the Gita

Bhagavad-gita 18.61

"all living beings, are seated as on a machine made of the material energy."

The second quote is the key here. In another example a verse from Kathopanishad a part of Yajur Veda , compares the body to a chariot , the horses to the sense organs and the driver to the atman.

Let us forget for a moment that there is someone inside the body and view it merely as a mechanical system.
We can view the nerves as a series of connectors having an ability to transform one form of signal to another. These nerves link the brain to the sense organs. These nerves are also used by our brain to send signals to different areas of the body and to control them. It can easily be seen how the nerves can be compared to the reins of a horse. Now what about the brain?
. My question here is: why is the brain any different from the CPU of a computer or from the reins of a horse?
A CPU may be more complex than the reins which control a horse, in that the CPU not only processes and controls the behaviour of the system; it also processes and performs computation based on the information collected. Human brain is however a lot more complex than the present day CPU. I don’t need to be contradicted here, as that is what puts me in the same league as proponents of Artificial Intelligence.

So what does the human brain certainly do? The Information conducted by nerves are mapped to Information already stored somewhere possibly inside a place in the brain itself. Those storage area/areas are the Hard disk or the RAM of the human brain. If all this is certainly true, then where is the scope for human consciousness?

In Vedanta, Atman is described as one of pure consciousness devoid of any physically describable attributes. What I mean is that it does not have attributes like weight, colour, form etc. Awareness of itself is its natural state.

If there is such an Atman in the first place , Science cannot contradict its existence at the present moment. Neither can Science prove its existence. Why is that so?

The answer is simple. Let us visit a Chemistry Lab. What is used to prove something here? The Scientists here have built instruments which can analyze micro and macro compounds and also the way the way they interact with each other. If the soul does not have physical attributes like colour, then a spectroscope cannot see it. If it does not have a sound or a physical vibration then it cannot be known by its vibration. If it does not have a form , then it does not have a size. Even if it has a size it is still not visible since it neither absorbs light, nor reflects it nor does it bend it. In a similar way no matter which lab we visit , we do not have any instrument in that lab, which can record its presence , since the subject has no physical attributes. Thus the existence of Atman cannot be proven by present instruments used in modern Science.

The question which comes to mind is, Is there a need for Atman’s existence?. The justification for the body to exist is its own and the justification for Atman to exist is its own.

Let us take an automated motor vehicle. We assume that there is a motor vehicle that starts and stops by itself. Further it can start based on certain environmental conditions and navigate based on intelligent devices fit to its body. Each intelligent unit can process a certain signal, and compute values and associate these values to certain stored values. Such an association leads to pattern recognition and this pattern recognition can be used as inputs to an associated inbuilt program which makes decisions based on this. Further the programs can make more and more worthwhile decisions based on learning arising out of performance feedback. The feedback of performance is based on measured criteria set up by another program. So in this case the machine is completely independent. We can imagine such a motor vehicle comprising different components each working with one-another and ready to fulfil the common goal of existence. Does such a machine have anything called self awareness? It might, but can it be tested? It may be tested if its awareness is similar to ours. Let us say we have also provided this machine with a speech system which can voice its opinion if it wants to. Now if the machine says something to you, we can immediately try finding out if this is the effect of some program which was self developed in the system. By Studying and proving the existence of such a program, can awareness be established?. My answer is no. This is because it is easily claimed that the development of the program is based on the rules of the programs designed originally in that system. There was one program capable of developing other programs. There need not be awareness for one program to spawn the creation of another program. Such self generating programs have been already built by Lay programmers in the computer field today.
If at all there is a software which was not spawned by any of the existing programs , then it could be speculated that awareness may have been existing in such a system . What that means is that there is something external to the system and to the programs which run on it which motivates the development of something unplanned. This program created by an external awareness is also involved with the system and is similar to the other programs, but the difference is that such a program was not part of the Plane. In this speaking system, the speech system is what the system has in order for it to communicate its feelings. No doubt, if the power to speech system is cut-off then the speech would be cut-off too. And also the system cannot speak to you if it no longer supports programs to run on it. This can be compared to the brain and speech organs of the human body.

But the presence of programs in the system which have come on their own and which have not been spawned by existing programs in the system should be considered as sufficient proof for the existence of external awareness.

What is the implication of such a model. The implication is that, if it can be proven by scientists that there is not even one program in the human brain or nervous system which was not created by an existing program in the human brain, then that means that there is a reasonable cause to doubt the existence of atman in that human brain or body. Such a situation cannot invalidate the existence of atman because awareness may be manifest elsewhere in the world or awareness may be lost in inertia,like in a coma. What do I mean by programs in connection with human brain or body? The answer is simple- a program in this context is just a set of instructions in the human brain and which may be executed in order to achieve a certain outcome, no matter how insignificant it can be. So the goal of scientists should be to prove that every such program is a logical outcome of another program in the human brain. This other program should be an outcome of another such program in the brain. And finally all the first generation programs (which are the cause of other programs and for which no other program is responsible) should be traceable and attributed totally to the human genes or supply of External inputs. If this can be proven then a reasonable case arises to doubt the very existence of Atman.

Needless to say, Science is nowhere near this goal. Nor do I wish to discourage them on this endeavour to disprove the existence of Atman, but this does not mean that the current situation should not be clearly specified..


Anyway the automatic motor vehicle could still be used by some one to ride it if it allows someone to occupy it in the first place. If there are controls for a driver in the vehicle,then the driver can navigate the vehicle to the extent that the machine allows him.The driver might know how to fly a plane as well. He can certainly not fly the automobile because the vehicle is designed not to allow such a possibility. He cannot also exceed a certain speed and once the fuel in the engine is spent , he has to stop. If the vehicle allows no control at all, then the driver is merely a passenger. This is the paragraph that summarizes eastern ideas about the atman and its relation to the body.

The next question which comes to mind is- Is atman really me? If I am not the atman then I am definitely the body. Merely because there are programs which have been introduced in me by an external agent that does not mean that I should not be the body. This is one line of thinking. In such a view, a possibility of external awareness is allowed but it is considered irrelevant to one’s own awareness. Supporters of such a view would show examples of how people who have lost part of their nervous connections fail to recognize someone as important to them as thier mother. I agree with this example, but my counter question is -Is it possible to prove that someone who lost all nervous connections, retains no awareness of even himself. I know the exact counter question to my counter question which is that the onus should be on me to prove that a system without nervous connection is capable of awareness. I can certainly not prove to you if a system without nervous connections can still have awareness residing in it, but I can certainly say that awareness exists in the body at each cellular level even under such a situation. Each cell can behave as though it were an independent living entity like a plant or a bacteria . It has been proven that plants have awareness, when such is the case why cannot individual cells in an organism not have awareneess. If there were no nervous connections in my body , I cannot see or hear or smell or taste or fear. So even if I were aware of myself I would have no way to express myself to you. So the question regarding the absence of awareness when nervous connections fail in our body is irrelevant, because a response cannot be elucidated from the atman without nervous connections in the body. A person in an inaccessible jail cannot know what is happening outside nor can he reply to anyone from outside nor can people outside know about him.

The heart of a brain dead person can still beat. The cells in the heart are still filled up with consciousness in the same way as a plant’s consciousness is filled up.
Thus the absence of brain does not remove consciousness from a body. If that were true then plants could also be considered as entities without self awareness. Now an evolutionary biologist would never deny consciousness completely to such elementary organisms. When such is the case it is sufficient to directly work with the easier problem . Do people with brains and nerves have the capability to introduce programs in their brain or mind which have no basis in genes? This should be the focus of scientists. If it so difficult to work with such a complex system then let them move to simpler systems. Is it possible for a plant to exhibit behaviour which is not derived from its genes or as a consequence of the involvement with a physical entity?

I have thrown open the questions and the scientists are already tackling such profound questions.
I will now get back to how atman works with the brain according to the vedantic view.

I incidentally found out that my ideas came out close to David Chalmers, a contemporary Australian philosopher, he says 'If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. … even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioural functions in the vicinity of experience-perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report, there may still remain a further unanswered question; why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience …? Why doesn't all this information processing go on in the dark, free of any inner feel?'(Quote from http://www.eng.vedanta.ru/library/prabuddha_bharata/Dec2006_consciousness_revisited.php
)
Let us look at the summarized points from the video.


Conclusion

1. Psychological denial of certain physical experiences by some people- Nothing surprising here. Our experience is limited to what our body can offer. If we have no eyes we cannot see, can we? Even if we can see, if the nerves are not connected then signal mapping to Information does not take place. The innerbody or wrapped soul has no way of distinguishing falsehood from truth in so far as external experiences are concerned. Because its experience is based on only what the body has to offer. If you shout and I cannot hear , what difference does it make to me?

2.Brain has its own function to manage body, and as long as brain can function it will function even if most of the nerves are cut or damaged. Consciousness is awareness. I can go into deep sleep and be mostly unaware of things going around me. Consciousness needs the body to fulfil its karma. In such a situation it maintains awareness of worldly experiences by maintaining in touch with consciousness in every cell. For consciousness of one entity to communicate with another there is no need of a body. Body is a window to the physical world. An activity can happen in any cell only if there is an awareness which drives it, since there would be no motivation to act. The nerve cells are significant in this regard because they can transform and form patterns of recognition based on the obtained Information. But it is the consciousness in these cells which create the need for the very existence and action of the nerve cells and it is this individual cellular level consciousness which enables the body's complete consciousness to identify itself with the whole body. To each his own goal. Our individual cells are no different from the individual bacteria in our body. The difference is only in the difference in alignment of the goals of cells and bacteria. Both are born and then face death within the lifespan of the whole body. The consciousness in them is not dependant on their death.

2. Difference in positional behaviour. This is again a totally nerve system problem, It has no relation to atman , the brain behaves exactly the way information is fed to it.

3.Recognition – This might seem like clinching evidence for non believers to the concept of Atman. Why should one level of consciousness have any difficulty recognizing another? I can go further than this and say that since two levels of consciousness do not require a body to communicate , there should be no two people in this world who have any kind of difficulty in knowing about the other person or communicating with another. To quote from the movie The Sixth Sense – “ They see only what they want to See”. I think this one sentence answers the question why the soul which can communicate with another soul fails to do so without sense organs under normal circumstances . It really remains unaware of the proximity of the other individual even though it may be looking for it elsewhere.

4. Pain is indeed a construct of mind. It cannot be part of the nature of Atman. If the latter were true then Atman cannot be independent of the brain. The brain causes an illusion of pain. The consciousness which identifies with the body at some or the other level of the body feels that it is affected by pain but it is not true. When a lady sees her friend cry she joins her even though her suffering is much more temporary than that of her friend's. Imagine what can happen when a whole city full of close friends cry. This is what happens in our body too. People can cry for no reason at all as well and body can experience pain without a cause.

5.Consciousness is not always in an action. This question been answered earlier. It is true and nothing surprising about consciousness getting disconnected with the body.

6.Map in the brain. It is only logical. A well managed city supports its inhabitants with good maps or Information guides. But it is possible that these maps can get outdated. This can tend to cause chaos

7.Seizures and religious experience – But if it is true that temporal lobes can cause religious experience, even then what it means is that temporal lobes can cause a physical manifestation of religious experience. It is not by itself responsible for something spiritual to happen. I am sure that if studied well it can be proven that temporal lobes are responsible for a lot of other mundane things apart from a physical manifestation of spiritual experience. The soul over its different journeys in different bodies has learnt to express spiritual ecstasy in a certain way. All said and done, I am open to the theory that the experience caused by the temporal lobes is another knee jerk reaction of the body. It could just be a mismanagement of nervous system. It might have no spiritual connection associated with it.

8. Flood of feelings and emotions. At the vedantic level the soul or atman at its purest state is above all duality. That is why the yogis are advised to be indifferent to pain and sorrow. As long as you have a feeling, you are still bound to the body or the nervous system.