Random notes on how Science demolishes the strange philosophy known as Advaita Vedanta of Adi Sankara

Rashmun wrote:The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Of course, the Advaitin will claim that in fact the fact that there are six different fundamental constituents of matter is only illusory (maya). 


 Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct. Again, the advaitin will claim that in fact the entropy of the universe remains the same and the fact that it is always increasing is mere illusion. 

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Of course, the Advaitin will claim that in fact the fact that there are six different fundamental constituents of matter is only illusory (maya). 


 Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct. Again, the advaitin will claim that in fact the entropy of the universe remains the same and the fact that it is always increasing is mere illusion. 

Your confidence in science (especially related to the six types of quarks etc. as the fundamental constituents of matter / universe) is amazing. Read the essay carefully in the following link to get a much-needed dose of reality, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Of course, the Advaitin will claim that in fact the fact that there are six different fundamental constituents of matter is only illusory (maya). 


 Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct. Again, the advaitin will claim that in fact the entropy of the universe remains the same and the fact that it is always increasing is mere illusion. 

Your confidence in science (especially related to the six types of quarks etc. as the fundamental constituents of matter / universe) is amazing. Read the essay carefully in the following link to get a much-needed dose of reality, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

this new crisis in physics is nothing compared to the crisis that had affected physics when the principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics were discovered. physics came out of that crisis with renewed vigor and so will it come out of this new, rather frivolous, 'crisis'.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Of course, the Advaitin will claim that in fact the fact that there are six different fundamental constituents of matter is only illusory (maya). 


 Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct. Again, the advaitin will claim that in fact the entropy of the universe remains the same and the fact that it is always increasing is mere illusion. 

Your confidence in science (especially related to the six types of quarks etc. as the fundamental constituents of matter / universe) is amazing. Read the essay carefully in the following link to get a much-needed dose of reality, 
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

this new crisis in physics is nothing compared to the crisis that had affected physics when the principles of quantum physics and quantum mechanics were discovered. physics came out of that crisis with renewed vigor and so will it come out of this new, rather frivolous, 'crisis'.

Don't you think till that time (until physics is proven to be on a real sound footing again in future) you should stop taking cheap shots at Shankara and Advaita while even citing from science / physics in your support?

Rashmun wrote:
there is no such thing as "real sound footing" in science (in contrast to the bombastic and grandiose declarations of Adi Sankara. This fraud Sankara uses logic and reason to attack rival philosophies like Sankhya, Nyaya-Vaisesika, and Buddhism. At the same time he sees no use of reason and logic in formulating his own philosophy, since he claims he has revelation on his side. Indeed he declares reason and logic to be futile by giving the example of swordsman who defeats another swordsman but who in turn is defeated by another (superior) swordsman. What a fraud!)

in science any new truth has to struggle with new ideas, new objections. it then is refined/modified or else discarded completely.

harharmahadev wrote:What the fuck are you guys talking about?

Propagandhi711 wrote:

harharmahadev wrote:What the fuck are you guys talking about?

they're just giving each other mutual reach around in an aggressive manner

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
there is no such thing as "real sound footing" in science (in contrast to the bombastic and grandiose declarations of Adi Sankara. This fraud Sankara uses logic and reason to attack rival philosophies like Sankhya, Nyaya-Vaisesika, and Buddhism. At the same time he sees no use of reason and logic in formulating his own philosophy, since he claims he has revelation on his side. Indeed he declares reason and logic to be futile by giving the example of swordsman who defeats another swordsman but who in turn is defeated by another (superior) swordsman. What a fraud!)

in science any new truth has to struggle with new ideas, new objections. it then is refined/modified or else discarded completely.

Rashmun, your reasoning is so illogical. You are trying to refute something which you think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 5") by using the information which you believe is right but which others think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 7").

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
there is no such thing as "real sound footing" in science (in contrast to the bombastic and grandiose declarations of Adi Sankara. This fraud Sankara uses logic and reason to attack rival philosophies like Sankhya, Nyaya-Vaisesika, and Buddhism. At the same time he sees no use of reason and logic in formulating his own philosophy, since he claims he has revelation on his side. Indeed he declares reason and logic to be futile by giving the example of swordsman who defeats another swordsman but who in turn is defeated by another (superior) swordsman. What a fraud!)

in science any new truth has to struggle with new ideas, new objections. it then is refined/modified or else discarded completely.

Rashmun, your reasoning is so illogical. You are trying to refute something which you think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 5") by using the information which you believe is right but which others think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 7").

my reasoning is in accordance with the Nyaya Sutra--the venerated book of the Nyaya school of philosophy which specializes in logic. The Nyaya sutra heartily recommends the style of debating in which there are two mutually contradictory views which are opposed to each other, menacing each other, trying to annihilate each other until one of the views (idea or ideas) is vanquished and the other emerges triumphant.

The Nyaya sutra frowns upon the style of debate adopted by Adi Sankara where he goes after rival schools of philosophies using reason and logic and also all kinds of cheap tricks without offering alternative views of his own using reason and logic. (Sankara claims he need not give reason and logic for his philosophy since he has revelation on his side.) According to the Nyaya sutra this is a low level style of debating and should be used only as a last resort when, for instance, your views are being attacked maliciously at a time when they are still in a nascent stage of development and have not yet reached fruition.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Read my earlier comments again. There is no logic, Logicism / Nyaya in your refutation of Shankara and Advaita in the above, by using something in science / physics about which others are not even sure in terms of its ultimate validity.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
there is no such thing as "real sound footing" in science (in contrast to the bombastic and grandiose declarations of Adi Sankara. This fraud Sankara uses logic and reason to attack rival philosophies like Sankhya, Nyaya-Vaisesika, and Buddhism. At the same time he sees no use of reason and logic in formulating his own philosophy, since he claims he has revelation on his side. Indeed he declares reason and logic to be futile by giving the example of swordsman who defeats another swordsman but who in turn is defeated by another (superior) swordsman. What a fraud!)

in science any new truth has to struggle with new ideas, new objections. it then is refined/modified or else discarded completely.

Rashmun, your reasoning is so illogical. You are trying to refute something which you think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 5") by using the information which you believe is right but which others think is wrong (e.g. "2 times 3 equals 7").

my reasoning is in accordance with the Nyaya Sutra--the venerated book of the Nyaya school of philosophy which specializes in logic. The Nyaya sutra heartily recommends the style of debating in which there are two mutually contradictory views which are opposed to each other, menacing each other, trying to annihilate each other until one of the views (idea or ideas) is vanquished and the other emerges triumphant.

The Nyaya sutra frowns upon the style of debate adopted by Adi Sankara where he goes after rival schools of philosophies using reason and logic and also all kinds of cheap tricks without offering alternative views of his own using reason and logic. (Sankara claims he need not give reason and logic for his philosophy since he has revelation on his side.) According to the Nyaya sutra this is a low level style of debating and should be used only as a last resort when, for instance, your views are being attacked maliciously at a time when they are still in a nascent stage of development and have not yet reached fruition.

Read my earlier comments again. There is no logic, Logicism / Nyaya in your refutation of Shankara and Advaita in the above, by using something in science / physics about which others are not even sure in terms of its ultimate validity.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Read my earlier comments again. There is no logic, Logicism / Nyaya in your refutation of Shankara and Advaita in the above, by using something in science / physics about which others are not even sure in terms of its ultimate validity.

I think it is best not to discuss with him. We all tried in the past!

In my village, there was a fellow who was "curious" about our old stuff. His main intention was to poke holes and discredit traditional material. Early on, I used to quote the proper verses and correct him. After realizing that his interest was mainly agenda-driven, I stopped discussing with him. He is currently busy trying to convert Hindus into Christianity. His wife and kids abandoned him and he was having a fling with a woman he converted into Christianity. She abandoned him accusing physical and mental torture.....

Rashmun wrote:
isn't Adi Sankara taking a poke at science when he says there are no such thing as atoms (while refuting the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy). If he can take a poke at science, why can't i take a poke at what he is saying using my knowledge of science.

Frankly, Sankara would have been more consistent if he would have articulated his own philosophy while refraining from attacking rival philosophies using logic and reason. (After all, he says logic and reason are ultimately futile and not to be trusted which is why he depends on revelation while articulating his own philosophy.)Once he started attacking others using logic, it is inevitable that others should attack him using logic. Since logic is a double edged sword.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
isn't Adi Sankara taking a poke at science when he says there are no such thing as atoms (while refuting the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy). If he can take a poke at science, why can't i take a poke at what he is saying using my knowledge of science.

Frankly, Sankara would have been more consistent if he would have articulated his own philosophy while refraining from attacking rival philosophies using logic and reason. (After all, he says logic and reason are ultimately futile and not to be trusted which is why he depends on revelation while articulating his own philosophy.)Once he started attacking others using logic, it is inevitable that others should attack him using logic. Since logic is a double edged sword.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Thus your attack on Shankara's philosophy has no real basis.
If you want to attack Shankara for his Advaita arguments against the Nyayaakas and Vaisesikas then use the Nyaya / Vaisesika arguments alone, without dragging into the debate the modern science / physics about which even the scientists are not sure (as indicated earlier in the above w.r.t to the link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1).

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
isn't Adi Sankara taking a poke at science when he says there are no such thing as atoms (while refuting the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy). If he can take a poke at science, why can't i take a poke at what he is saying using my knowledge of science.

Frankly, Sankara would have been more consistent if he would have articulated his own philosophy while refraining from attacking rival philosophies using logic and reason. (After all, he says logic and reason are ultimately futile and not to be trusted which is why he depends on revelation while articulating his own philosophy.)Once he started attacking others using logic, it is inevitable that others should attack him using logic. Since logic is a double edged sword.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Thus your attack on Shankara's philosophy has no real basis.
If you want to attack Shankara for his Advaita arguments against the Nyayaakas and Vaisesikas then use the Nyaya / Vaisesika arguments alone, without dragging into the debate the modern science / physics about which even the scientists are not sure (as indicated earlier in the above w.r.t to the link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1).

did you know that while attacking the Charvaka philosophy Sankara uses ready made Nyaya-Vaisesika arguments. In other words he uses the arguments first formulated by the Nyaya-Vaisesikas to attack the Charvaka philosophy. These arguments presuppose that consciousness is a quality or attribute (out of several other attributes or qualities) of the soul which is of course something that is incompatible with Sankara's own Advaita Vedanta according to which consciousness is not an attribute of the soul since consciousness is identified with the soul and this is believed to have no attributes. This being the case, would you agree that Sankara was a cheap fraud?

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
isn't Adi Sankara taking a poke at science when he says there are no such thing as atoms (while refuting the Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophy). If he can take a poke at science, why can't i take a poke at what he is saying using my knowledge of science.

Frankly, Sankara would have been more consistent if he would have articulated his own philosophy while refraining from attacking rival philosophies using logic and reason. (After all, he says logic and reason are ultimately futile and not to be trusted which is why he depends on revelation while articulating his own philosophy.)Once he started attacking others using logic, it is inevitable that others should attack him using logic. Since logic is a double edged sword.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Thus your attack on Shankara's philosophy has no real basis.
If you want to attack Shankara for his Advaita arguments against the Nyayaakas and Vaisesikas then use the Nyaya / Vaisesika arguments alone, without dragging into the debate the modern science / physics about which even the scientists are not sure (as indicated earlier in the above w.r.t to the link http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html?ref=opinion&_r=1).

did you know that while attacking the Charvaka philosophy Sankara uses ready made Nyaya-Vaisesika arguments. In other words he uses the arguments first formulated by the Nyaya-Vaisesikas to attack the Charvaka philosophy. These arguments presuppose that consciousness is a quality or attribute (out of several other attributes or qualities) of the soul which is of course something that is incompatible with Sankara's own Advaita Vedanta according to which consciousness is not an attribute of the soul since consciousness is identified with the soul and this is believed to have no attributes. This being the case, would you agree that Sankara was a cheap fraud?

Not true about Sankara using the Nyaya-Vaisesika arguments, including about consciousness, to attack the Charvakas. 
Consciousness basically is absolute but it also is capable of being manifested as specific (in attributed form) after coming in contact with ahamkara (ego), and that is how the Advaita looks at consciousness. Thus there is no fraud in this on the part of Sankara, nor he steals anything from Nyaya-Vaisesika with respect to the consciousness.

Rashmun wrote:
I have discussed this issue in some detail earlier. I am giving below an extract from one of my blogs. I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own philosophical position.


http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t608-the-big-fight-adi-sankara-vs-charvakas#1312

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
I have discussed this issue in some detail earlier. I am giving below an extract from one of my blogs. I would appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own philosophical position.


http://sulekha.forumotion.com/t608-the-big-fight-adi-sankara-vs-charvakas#1312

What I wrote earlier ("Not true about Sankara using the Nyaya-Vaisesika arguments, including about consciousness, to attack the Charvakas. Consciousness basically is absolute but it also is capable of being manifested as specific (in attributed form) after coming in contact with ahamkara (ego), and that is how the Advaita looks at consciousness. Thus there is no fraud in this on the part of Sankara, nor he steals anything from Nyaya-Vaisesika with respect to the consciousness.") is the correct response on consciousness as per Advaita / Sankara, and not what  you indicated in the above (the latest post by you) from your old blog. You should add my statement (on consciousness according to Advaita / Sankara) as a post-scripted correction to your blog.

Rashmun wrote:Seva, is it your contention that at the vyahvarika level, Advaita's definition of consciousness is identical to the Nyaya-Vaisesika definition of consciousness according to which consciousness is a transitory quality of an inert substance?