Responding to my article on Vedanta, one apologist came up with this kind of absurd claim:
"Just like universe does not exist, mind does not exist. These guys say, science assumes universe to exist, likewise, as per advaita, mind assumes it to be the body and because of that perception arises"
To support this absurdity, more hilarious claims and tendentious questioning ( all in italics) follow:
"In a body, brain begins to develop only from the 3rd week. What causes the development till the 3rd week?. If every thought arises from the brain, what causes the embryo to develop into human?".
"This body exists in this world, So the body should have some properties of this world (Some properties of earth, some properties of water etc). The world exists in this universe, but what are the properties of universe. Does the world not have some properties of the universe?. But we don't know the properties of the universe, as the universe does not exist".
"Whether Brahman exists or not is not a problem. Whether the universe exists or not is a problem as every assumption, perception, is based on assuming that this universe exists."
(Though incredulous and laughable, this is not surprising since for a religious and spiritual apologist, the existence of Brahman is never in doubt since it is certified by the Upanishads, with its incomprehensibility not bothering him in the least)
When pressed with this rebuttal from Arvind Iyer, the apologist comes up with an even curiouser denial like this:
"I never said body (or pain/pleasure that arise because of the senses) or the world does not exist."
( Oh! for sure, now the body and the world exists, only the Universe does not exist!!!!)
So for Vedantic apologists, the world, body and advaita can exist without the Universe existing. It goes without saying that the Brahman has to exist, even if none can comprehend or realize it.
When confronted with the analogy of "Flat Earth" to the flip-flops of Vedantic defense, the icing on the cake of denialism goes thus:
"Flat earth theory is not applicable to Indians. Even ancient Indians (several thousand years before), knew about the earth rotating the sun on its own axis"
So denial and stubborn irrationality resorts to historical distortion and license with facts and generalizations (several thousand could 3000 or 10000)
Any sane person can see through the logical inconsistency of this kind of a train of argument. But a religious apologist is blind to the obvious and the objective. .
For all the skill he employs in constructing his apologies and arguments, the spiritualist can pretend ignorance of the rules and outcome of debate and rebuttal.
So when Satish Chandra's comment nailed it thus:
"So you completely missed the point of the flat earth analogy. You are still clinging onto empirical evidence despite asking “profound” questions which assume the invalidity of empiricism. You are oblivious to the logical inconsistency of your arguments".
Our apologist suddenly lost his comprehension of even basic English language and blurted out this:
"Sorry i cant understand what you are saying because of your complex english. Could You kindly explain in simple words."
That is when I responded to call the bluff of this feigned ignorance on these lines:
Topics like the ones that we are discussing or debating cannot be simplified beyond a point.
Satish has not phrased his points in complex language. While dealing with a subject like epistemology, one cannot get too elementary in its analysis. The aforementioned link is a good place to acquaint oneself with the ‘nature of inquiry into knowledge’
The epistemic standards that Satish refers to are the rules and norms of that inquiry into knowledge and which may help in supporting its theories and/or conclusions. Assumptions can be part of those standards. But they should contribute to explaining the theory that they seek to establish.
Also these standards evolve and are changing continuously. Empiricism, on whose methods and techniques, science and practical philosophy largely rely on is considered a branch of epistemology.
Advaita or Dvaita or its numerous off-shoots, are a form of extreme Idealism and over-abstraction, which cannot be reconciled with the standards of reasoning that is the foundation of empirical method and validation.
While there are forms of Idealism that rely on some form of abstract reasoning which have their utility in some situations, these are prone to extreme tendencies like religious fundamentalism and spiritualism, which though they have built a huge body of theory and rules of reasoning (Epistemic standards), they fail the test of practical utility and add no value to human understanding.
What Satish referred to as the complex and open-ended rules and/or methods of reasoning of Vedanta theory, are more or less escape valves or hatches for its believers and apologists, to slip out of the discomfiting questions and evidential demands posed by skeptics and critics.
The flat-earth analogical absurdities (profound questions) that Satish is referring as being embraced by the Vedanta theory as primary tenets of its philosophical foundation are:
All the theory, discourse and treatise of Vedanta is not to validate its fantastic theories to the satisfaction of human understanding, but to undermine the basis and conviction of reason and sense, through confusing and deceptive arguments. Its purpose is to wear down and exhaust the rigor of intelligence, so that
acquire legitimacy as aids for justifying irrational ideas.
Long story short….A mind that can consider as legitimate, the bizarre fictions of Vedanta like your observation
This irony cannot be expressed in simple words
"Just like universe does not exist, mind does not exist. These guys say, science assumes universe to exist, likewise, as per advaita, mind assumes it to be the body and because of that perception arises"
To support this absurdity, more hilarious claims and tendentious questioning ( all in italics) follow:
"In a body, brain begins to develop only from the 3rd week. What causes the development till the 3rd week?. If every thought arises from the brain, what causes the embryo to develop into human?".
"This body exists in this world, So the body should have some properties of this world (Some properties of earth, some properties of water etc). The world exists in this universe, but what are the properties of universe. Does the world not have some properties of the universe?. But we don't know the properties of the universe, as the universe does not exist".
"Whether Brahman exists or not is not a problem. Whether the universe exists or not is a problem as every assumption, perception, is based on assuming that this universe exists."
(Though incredulous and laughable, this is not surprising since for a religious and spiritual apologist, the existence of Brahman is never in doubt since it is certified by the Upanishads, with its incomprehensibility not bothering him in the least)
When pressed with this rebuttal from Arvind Iyer, the apologist comes up with an even curiouser denial like this:
"I never said body (or pain/pleasure that arise because of the senses) or the world does not exist."
( Oh! for sure, now the body and the world exists, only the Universe does not exist!!!!)
So for Vedantic apologists, the world, body and advaita can exist without the Universe existing. It goes without saying that the Brahman has to exist, even if none can comprehend or realize it.
When confronted with the analogy of "Flat Earth" to the flip-flops of Vedantic defense, the icing on the cake of denialism goes thus:
"Flat earth theory is not applicable to Indians. Even ancient Indians (several thousand years before), knew about the earth rotating the sun on its own axis"
So denial and stubborn irrationality resorts to historical distortion and license with facts and generalizations (several thousand could 3000 or 10000)
Any sane person can see through the logical inconsistency of this kind of a train of argument. But a religious apologist is blind to the obvious and the objective. .
For all the skill he employs in constructing his apologies and arguments, the spiritualist can pretend ignorance of the rules and outcome of debate and rebuttal.
So when Satish Chandra's comment nailed it thus:
"So you completely missed the point of the flat earth analogy. You are still clinging onto empirical evidence despite asking “profound” questions which assume the invalidity of empiricism. You are oblivious to the logical inconsistency of your arguments".
Our apologist suddenly lost his comprehension of even basic English language and blurted out this:
"Sorry i cant understand what you are saying because of your complex english. Could You kindly explain in simple words."
That is when I responded to call the bluff of this feigned ignorance on these lines:
Topics like the ones that we are discussing or debating cannot be simplified beyond a point.
Satish has not phrased his points in complex language. While dealing with a subject like epistemology, one cannot get too elementary in its analysis. The aforementioned link is a good place to acquaint oneself with the ‘nature of inquiry into knowledge’
The epistemic standards that Satish refers to are the rules and norms of that inquiry into knowledge and which may help in supporting its theories and/or conclusions. Assumptions can be part of those standards. But they should contribute to explaining the theory that they seek to establish.
Also these standards evolve and are changing continuously. Empiricism, on whose methods and techniques, science and practical philosophy largely rely on is considered a branch of epistemology.
Advaita or Dvaita or its numerous off-shoots, are a form of extreme Idealism and over-abstraction, which cannot be reconciled with the standards of reasoning that is the foundation of empirical method and validation.
While there are forms of Idealism that rely on some form of abstract reasoning which have their utility in some situations, these are prone to extreme tendencies like religious fundamentalism and spiritualism, which though they have built a huge body of theory and rules of reasoning (Epistemic standards), they fail the test of practical utility and add no value to human understanding.
What Satish referred to as the complex and open-ended rules and/or methods of reasoning of Vedanta theory, are more or less escape valves or hatches for its believers and apologists, to slip out of the discomfiting questions and evidential demands posed by skeptics and critics.
The flat-earth analogical absurdities (profound questions) that Satish is referring as being embraced by the Vedanta theory as primary tenets of its philosophical foundation are:
- Brahman is the ultimate, absolute and unitary reality.
- The world or the experience that we know and accept to be real or material, is a fiction and the result of another phenomenon termed Maya
- Karma and reincarnation are the consequence of the supposed ignorance of Brahman as the ultimate reality.
All the theory, discourse and treatise of Vedanta is not to validate its fantastic theories to the satisfaction of human understanding, but to undermine the basis and conviction of reason and sense, through confusing and deceptive arguments. Its purpose is to wear down and exhaust the rigor of intelligence, so that
- blind faith,
- devotion
- surrender to a teacher or Guru and
- unquestioning acceptance of the scriptural word.
acquire legitimacy as aids for justifying irrational ideas.
Long story short….A mind that can consider as legitimate, the bizarre fictions of Vedanta like your observation
"likewise, as per advaita, mind assumes it to be the body and because of that perception arise"., is fully capable of questioning the existence of the Universe.
This irony cannot be expressed in simple words
No comments:
Post a Comment