Logic Only can bring unity among religions

[dattaswami]

Logic Only can bring unity among religions

Today the development of science is terrible, which is the faculty of logic and analysis. Today the heart is reduced and the brain is expanded. The old generations were having a broad heart and less brain. The heart can be inspired by appeals but the brain will not be satisfied by appeals. If you appeal “All the human beings are one and the same internally and externally. God is one only. Do not quarrel with each other and be united as one familyâ€, the effect of such appeal is temporary only. When the devotee returns back, the emotion is subsided by next day itself.

The reason is that his or her intellectual facility (Buddhi) is not satisfied. You have not given the logical analysis of such concepts. You have worked at the level of mind only and not at the level of intelligence. Mind is the steering rod and the intelligence is the driver. Mind is in the hands of intelligence. Due to this reason only, the Lord started Gita with the concept of knowledge and analysis (Buddhi Yoga). The driving knowledge of the driver is more important than the driver. The correct driving depends on the correct driving knowledge imparted on him by the teacher of the driving school, who is the Satguru.

In the case of Arjuna, the teacher of the driving school himself became the driver! You cannot imagine the fortune of Arjuna. When God Himself became the driver, He is called as Satguru. The word Sat is used to mean God. Guru means guide.

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace

antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

[tSingh]

you've misconstrued the meaning of budhi.

[dattaswami]

you've misconstrued the meaning of budhi.

The spiritual knowledge or philosophy (Vedanta) is generally based on logic (Tarka). God is certainly above the logic and thus logic cannot touch Him (Naisha Tarkena -Veda). Nobody can show God by the indicating finger. Veda clearly states that God is beyond words, mind, intelligence and logic and the best way of explanation is silence about God. If that is so, there is no necessity of spiritual knowledge, because God cannot be known or imagined. Then what is the use of all these scriptures? Why are there so many discussions and debates?

Lord Yama says in Veda that angels and sages are still discussing about God and have concluded that God is unknowable. Here unknowable means unimaginable even to the logic. They have not conducted such long discussions to know simply that God is unknowable because it is not the object as my friend says! If God is said to be unimaginable, what is the subject of discussions? The answer is that the logic used in long discussions is not about God but about the Non-God entities (items of creation). Certainly, we cannot know God by logic or by any other means, but we can use the logic to reject a Non-God item projected as God. When you say that awareness is God, we will use the logic and see whether awareness is an item of creation.

If it is an item of creation, certainly it can be analyzed by logic. If logic fails to analyze it, certainly we will accept it as God. Similarly we shall apply the logic to several entities rejected as God and see whether any item is beyond logic.

The logic is the analytical faculty supported by practical examples, which stands as experimental verification. The ancient Indian logic was developed based on practical examples like mud pot etc. The advancement in logic took place from time to time and the logic was more and more sharpened. The authoritative parameters (Pramanas) have improved in number and therefore the schools of Nyaya, Vaiseshika and Vedanta differed in the subject of logic. The number of Pramanas increased from 2 to 4 and finally became 6 in Vedanta. This shows the improvement of logic in course of time. Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God. God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

[tSingh]

I wasn't talking about pramaan...I was talking about tarka and budhi being two seperate categories. Vivek can arise from bhakti as much as it can from jnaana. Controlling antahkaranvritti, creating chittashudhi, padarthbhavani, etc HAVE to be underpinned with bhakti (at least according to Sikh sidhant) for the state to become one of 'Tuhi' rather than 'Me'. Of course its merely a technical difference, atma meh parmatma parmatma meh atma...but even Sri Madhusudan Sarasvati states that the jivanmukt exists in a state of spontaneous devotion to Parbraham...even with the most austere vedantic realisation....

which means that your use of the word 'logic' in an unqualified way like this is unfortunate. It doesn't convey the complexity of it. I've heard the 'logic' argument used by Yogananda types to suggest that only vedanta is in tune with the other logical truth..science (interestingly a 'truth' that has consistently shifted and reinvented itself over the course of its history). They've used it to remove what they construe are the 'ritualistic' and 'superstitious' elements of all other traditions...and thats great..but somewhere down the line you have to drop that intellect and break open that big cold heart inside. I think Vedanta particularly advaita has been turned into something its not over the last 100 years.

[dattaswami]

I wasn't talking about pramaan...I was talking about tarka and budhi being two seperate categories. Vivek can arise from bhakti as much as it can from jnaana. Controlling antahkaranvritti, creating chittashudhi, padarthbhavani, etc HAVE to be underpinned with bhakti (at least according to Sikh sidhant) for the state to become one of 'Tuhi' rather than 'Me'. Of course its merely a technical difference, atma meh parmatma parmatma meh atma...but even Sri Madhusudan Sarasvati states that the jivanmukt exists in a state of spontaneous devotion to Parbraham...even with the most austere vedantic realisation....

which means that your use of the word 'logic' in an unqualified way like this is unfortunate. It doesn't convey the complexity of it. I've heard the 'logic' argument used by Yogananda types to suggest that only vedanta is in tune with the other logical truth..science (interestingly a 'truth' that has consistently shifted and reinvented itself over the course of its history). They've used it to remove what they construe are the 'ritualistic' and 'superstitious' elements of all other traditions...and thats great..but somewhere down the line you have to drop that intellect and break open that big cold heart inside. I think Vedanta particularly advaita has been turned into something its not over the last 100 years.

Whenever the direction to God was twisted by misinterpretations, I came several times to this earth through human bodies to remove the misinterpretations and restore the correct direction. I communicated the truth according to the then existing standards of logic and analysis (Science). I could not go beyond a certain level of logic because the receivers could never digest and appreciate it. But today the development of science is so tremendous that the capability of logic is in its climax.

Therefore, I have used the present standards of logic in communicating the spiritual knowledge. Of course, God is beyond logic and logic cannot show God directly. But based on this fact, you should not reject the logic (Tarkaapratishthaanaat…Brahma Sutra). Even though the logic cannot indicate the unimaginable God directly, the logic can eliminate the non-God items which are established as God by misinterpretations.

For example, with the help of the advanced logic (Science), I could easily eliminate the soul from the position of God. By removing the fungus, and impurities the water becomes clear and there is no need of any direct purification of water. Similarly by removing the misinterpretations through the powerful logic of today, God becomes clear by this indirect way. When all the imaginable items are eliminated, the unimaginable God is inferred.

God can be inferred indirectly but cannot be perceived directly and therefore God remains unimaginable always. However, God gives the experience of His existence in a specific medium by entering it, pervading all over it and identifying Himself with it like current in the alive wire. Through Science you can infer the existence of unimaginable God, whereas through the medium you can experience the existence of the same unimaginable God. Do not mistake that experience means understanding the nature of God. You have only experienced the existence of unimaginable God, which was already inferred by you through Science.

[tSingh]

I've had a nosey at your website (i'm loving those photos). No offence but this stuff has been written many times before over the last one hundred years. So you were talking about ACTUAL science (which at best gets as far as anumaan and pratakshya in terms of pramaan and adopting basic approach of the four anubandhs). I think you are confusing analytic philosophy with science per se. Within the predominant reductionist, determinist model of experimental science you would be hard pressed to prove adequately God's existence. It is antithetical to it and proving things through negation as you state (atma from anatma) is certainly a form of logic but not necessarily scientific...unless you pull the usual 'spiritual science' thing of dumbing both religion and science down to such a level where they are merely one liners...'science says this, but god said that...'.

Budhi at the functional level only affirms the analytical processes of sankalap and vikalap. So by 'advanced logic' do you mean vivekbudhi in accordance with scripture? Or are you still talking about tarka? You mention the Vedantsutra which categorically states scripture is the pramaan on Parmatma...it is apaurshya because it conveys what cannot be intellectually reasoned by logic. Logic (anumaan, arthapatti) can only be used in direct relation to scripture (or rather shabad roop Braham) to elaborate on those truths...but remember that at the intellectual level it is redundant...the wavering continues, the trehgunas still pervade the mind, only through vivekbudhi (which is not 'logic' or 'science') can this wavering stop through samadhi/nididhyasan. That state in our tradition comes only through the blessing of the Guru.

[dattaswami]

I've had a nosey at your website (i'm loving those photos). No offence but this stuff has been written many times before over the last one hundred years. So you were talking about ACTUAL science (which at best gets as far as anumaan and pratakshya in terms of pramaan and adopting basic approach of the four anubandhs). I think you are confusing analytic philosophy with science per se. Within the predominant reductionist, determinist model of experimental science you would be hard pressed to prove adequately God's existence. It is antithetical to it and proving things through negation as you state (atma from anatma) is certainly a form of logic but not necessarily scientific...unless you pull the usual 'spiritual science' thing of dumbing both religion and science down to such a level where they are merely one liners...'science says this, but god said that...'.

Budhi at the functional level only affirms the analytical processes of sankalap and vikalap. So by 'advanced logic' do you mean vivekbudhi in accordance with scripture? Or are you still talking about tarka? You mention the Vedantsutra which categorically states scripture is the pramaan on Parmatma...it is apaurshya because it conveys what cannot be intellectually reasoned by logic. Logic (anumaan, arthapatti) can only be used in direct relation to scripture (or rather shabad roop Braham) to elaborate on those truths...but remember that at the intellectual level it is redundant...the wavering continues, the trehgunas still pervade the mind, only through vivekbudhi (which is not 'logic' or 'science') can this wavering stop through samadhi/nididhyasan. That state in our tradition comes only through the blessing of the Guru.

Spiritual Knowledge - Concepts of Science

Science is the logical analysis of the items existing in this creation based on only one authority that is perception (Pratyaksha Pramanam). Even in the ancient logic, all the authorities (Pramanas) are based on perception only. You see the fire giving smoke. This is deduction or perception. When you see the smoke coming from a distance and do not see the fire, you say that fire exists there and this is induction or inference (Anumana Pramanam). But this induction is based on your previous deduction only. Somebody says to you that fire gives smoke. If that person is your dearest, you believe it and infer the fire from the smoke. This is authority of word ‘Shabdha Pramanam’.

Though you have not seen the fire, your dearest person has seen the smoke coming from fire. Like this all the authorities are based on perception only. I do not find any scripture of any Religion, which contradicts the experience of perception. There are four ways of authority. 1) Sruthi, which is the original scripture. 2) Smrithi, which is the commentaries of Scholars on the original scripture. 3) Yukthi, the logical analysis based on deduction, induction etc., 4) Anubhava, the experience based on the perception of the items in this world, which may be direct or indirect. Out of these four ways, the fourth way is the most powerful. If anything contradicts the fourth way, that is not valid or it may be a misinterpretation based on misunderstanding of the Sruthi or Smrithi or Yukthi. Thus Science and Philosophy are not separate. The very frame of the spiritual knowledge is Science only. Thus Science is the basic foundation and over all underlying structure of all the Scriptures.

A true Scientist should always stand on the perception and should not deny the experience derived by perception. If he denies, he is not a scientist. All top most scientists were philosophers and spiritual people only. Those scientists have travelled along the river of Science and reached its end, which is the ocean of spiritual knowledge called as philosophy. Philosophy is pervading all the branches of Science. Every branch of Science gives Ph.D as the final degree. Ph.D means Doctor in Philosophy. If Science and Philosophy are different, why this word Philosophy is regarded so much by all the branches of Science? Philosophy means the essence of the knowledge of every branch that is experienced when one reaches the end of that branch.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is the ocean is the Philosophy in which all branches of Science and all the Religions merge and loose their identity. A scientist who has not reached the end of Science and who is still travelling in the river only denies the existence of the ocean, since he is still perceiving the limiting boundaries of his knowledge – river. Such river-travellers are called as atheists. They neither see the ocean nor see the other rivers. Even the follower of any particular Religion is in the state of this atheist only. He is no better than these atheists because he believes that God is a particular form only, which is a small part of this creation. Some other followers believe God as formless, who is the all-pervading cosmic energy. Since cosmic energy is also a part of the creation, their form of God is very big. These atheist-scientist believe that this creation is God. Thus all these are atheists only. All these atheists, who may be scientific atheists or religious atheists, will realize the true nature of God only when they reach the end of the Science or Religion.

A scientific atheist is contradicting his own authority, which is the perception. When the human incarnation performs the inexplicable miracles, how can they deny the perception of such miracles? You may do that miracle in an alternative way, but that does not contradict the different path of the original miracle. One may get first class by copying. Such false first class cannot contradict the genuine first class. The result is same, but the process is different. You may produce ash by putting a fine powder of wet salt in the grews of your hand like a magician. The same ash may be produced by a divine miracle also. Since the result is same, can you argue that the process also should be same? Since the first class result is same in the case of the original student and a fraud student, do you mean that the hard work of the original student is fraud?

Do you mean that the original and fraud students are one and the same? Therefore, the same result can have two different processes. Since the result is same, processes need not be same. Do you mean that a result has only one process? Is it not contradicting the very fundamentals of Science? A Chemical compound can be produced in several ways (Hess Law). Since the compound is same, do you mean that the alternative reactions are also one and the same? Same Chennai city can be reached by several ways. Since the end City is same, do you mean that all the paths are not different? Do you mean that all the paths are merged as one path only and thus there is only one path to reach the Chennai city? Therefore, conservative scientists and conservative religious followers can be categorized as immature analysts. The immaturity indicates their position in the river and maturity indicates their position in the end of the river, which is the ocean. Einstein, Newton, Heisenberg etc., are the top most scientists who have travelled and travelled along the Science River and reached the final spiritual ocean.

[tSingh]

A fair bit of that is spurious. Your definition of sceince is your own (or rather Paramhans Yogananda and his ilk back in the late 1800s). The top scientists are not spiritual in any sense. Your failure to recognise that experimental science and analytic philosophy are different spheres demonstrates that you have a rather dated and fixed notion of science. Science is only as fixed as the validity of a prior hypothesis. Once that has been disproven, on it moves. I think this is the difference between chemistry, biology and physics. While chemistry from what I know is pretty much hard and fast, the other two are not. Take biology for example. What currently floats the scientific boat include evolutionary theory, biochemistry (making its come back I'm told!), neurobiology, etc. The most 'groundbreaking' research into religion/spirituality has been scientists like Ramachandran using neurobiology (in particular temporal lobe epilepsy) to provide an organic explanation of religion per se. Scientists like Damazio have undermined the Cartesian presumption of 'i think therefore I am' to one of 'my body exists, and my emotional responses to perception trigger my thoughts to a degree'. How does that marry with what you're talking about? Well it doesn't. Even then as any student of science knows, when it comes to the realm of experimental research, is there such a thing as an absolute proof? How many experiments provide 100% proof, and even then how many areas of research do not contain as many studies that agree as disagree? Look at biochemistry, this is research into the chemicals in your brain, the stuff they give you drugs to change when it goes wonky, and yet for every affirmation of the effect of a neurotransmitter there are as many studies showing nothing or, in many cases, the exact opposite effect. Logic however as deriving from perception is analytic philosophy. The term 'phd' is hardly a clarification that science is philosophy! I'm sure you can get a phd in media studies.

If there is a philosophy in the prevalent scientific model, it is built upon the last few hundred years of western philosophical thought, working its way into the crisis of Kant critique of reason. Science moving forward with reductionism, empiricism and determinism. If you can put god in a beaker and prod it with a spatula, it exists. If you can't but you still believe in it, they start prodding your brain. Thats a crass way of putting it, but is accurate on this issue.

Does everything come back to perception? Not really, no. Surely you've heard that old joke about the rope at dusk being mistaken for a snake. Perception is assumed to be faulty, although real in a phenomenological sense. Our Gurus have stated that the experience is real (Guru Nanak), but the implications we draw from it false (Guru Tegh Bahahdar).

So let me ask you a simple question. Can you put atma in a glass and measure it? Can you quantify parmatma...other than through a BELIEF in the implication (or inference derived from) gross experience?

[dattaswami]

A fair bit of that is spurious. Your definition of sceince is your own (or rather Paramhans Yogananda and his ilk back in the late 1800s). The top scientists are not spiri..............

So let me ask you a simple question. Can you put atma in a glass and measure it? Can you quantify parmatma...other than through a BELIEF in the implication (or inference derived from) gross experience?

God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

The Universe is infinite with unimaginable beginning and unimaginable end. This means the cause from which the Universe started and the same cause in which the Universe ends on dissolution is the unimaginable God. Mud is the beginning stage of the pot and also the end stage since the pot ends in the mud on destruction. The Universe exhibits the unimaginable God by its unimaginable limits of beginning and end. The space is generated from God and the dissolution of space can only show the real nature of its cause (God).

When the chain is dissolved in fire, then only the gold lump, which is the cause of the chain, appears in its original form. But even if you imagine for millions of years, you can never imagine the dissolution of space and therefore you can never imagine the original nature of God. God is beyond space and God is the permanently unknowable region even for the intelligence enriched with science and logic.

Hence, God is a permanent wonder and the creation consists of some knowable regions of knowledge without any wonder and also some temporarily unimaginable regions with temporary wonder. Now the word Maya can be used for the wonder, which is both permanent (God) and which is temporary also (the deeper layers of the world up to the space).

[tSingh]

I wish no disrespect to you Dattaswami, but you've kind of demonstrated my point. If this is the way in which your 'logic' has been used to answer my criticisms (i.e. by generalising everything or using fairly banal analogies without answering the specific points made), then the 'unity of religions' you talk of would also similarly demean all the specific details and differences between traditions to a kind of vague mush.

Not only do I feel this is the worst way to do inter-faith work, but also it demeans a very important aspect of mystical traditions, the ability to transcend apparent contradiction. Take for example Kabir, he uses a number of totally illogical metahors to DIRECTLY highlight how insufficent logic alone is when it comes to the understanding of Parmatma. Your bottom-up model of logic pointing out that which is not God does not get to the heart of religion. It does the oppossite, it works against the very notion that mystical experience is beyond logic, and applying logic to its diverse expressions within time, space, cultural context, language, name-form, etc (all of which mystics explain makes for a deficient expression of it) is regretable.

[Genie Singh]

We use science to prove all religions are wrong and develop something new from all of that.