This is the latest in our series of blogs dealing with the problem of digestion of Hinduism, which is quite different from both inclusivism and conversion to Abrahamic faiths. For example, in Kerala, the digestion of many aspects of Hinduism in general, and the festival of Onam, in particular have been covered in the last few days. This post is part of the discussion on Phil Goldberg's 'American Veda' has been shown to be an example of this problem. You can find Part-1 of the current discussion here. However, many Hindus live in denial for a variety of reasons. You can find the first set of posts in 2012 on Goldberg's American Veda: Analysis-2 that summarizes the first set of feedback on AV is here, and Analysis-1, is the very first summary, where AV was introduced to the forum, and shows Goldberg's attempted defence of his work.
There are several other dicussions of 'digestion' in the forum that can be accessed by clicking the keyword. Another external blog that was among the very first to comment on AV is the 'Digesting Veda blog'.
For those who want to get the full details on digestion of Hinduism, the links (total of 9 posts) provided above can be traversed in the following order:
1. Familiarize yourself with digestion activities in Kerala
2. Understand how digestion differs from both inclusivism and conversion
3. American Veda: start with the DigestingVeda blog
4. Then read Analysis-1 and Analysis-2
5. Read Part-1 and Part-2 of the current discussion on how American Veda is being supported by Hindu intellectuals (this one and the previous one)
6. Examine other discussions of digestion in the forum.
7. Don't stop there! Blog, discuss and educate others about this serious problem.
In Part-2 of our current discussion below, we examine the foreword and contents of Phil Goldberg's book 'American Veda' shared in this blog, and then see how Hindu intellectuals respond to it.
Inside the 'American Veda' - celebration of uturners
Subra shares: "...
Just the first 25 pages. We can see the shoddy scholarship, the Sanskrit
mistranslations being used to set the stage for digestion, the
reductionism, and the justification for digestion. Once this is done,
the remaining chapters celebrates one u-turner after another..."
Rajiv responds:
"Thanks for a good analysis. People who are in doubt should read the analysis:
It
is sad how many so-called supporters of our cause failed to understand
digestion at work, and went around proudly promoting the author. One
such man called me... to say: "What if we get him to state he is against the Aryan theory and against missionaries"?
I told this man he does not understand digestion. It is not about being
against missionaries, being against Aryan theory, and so forth.
If
a thief is taking your assets and digesting them by characterizing them
as belonging to others, does it help you because he praises your home,
expresses anger at some of your opponents, etc and other unrelated
things.
THE DIGESTER LOVES WHAT HE IS DIGESTING OTHERWISE HE WONT DIGEST IT. Why am I unable to get this across???
These
people among us are so STUPID and ignorant of our own history where we
have seen so many westerners support us, praise us, etc precisely to
dupe such IDIOTS. By now we ought to have no more fools but sadly we do.
I
am confident I can get a statement from Witzel opposing missionaries.
In fact he told me as such in person many years ago. But is that the
issue???
Can Hinduism be rescued by a bandwagon of fools, who are
easily swayed, lazy to read and understand issues, and in awe of
someone supporting them with glamor.
I hope people who have promoted his works will now do penance by promoting the link above with greater enthusiasm."
Aditya has a useful suggestion:
"... Does anyone want in this group want to write an "alternative" review for
AV on Amazon with a mention of "Being Different" as a book to read?
... for someone who has [read the book], this would be
one small step in the right direction."
css shares feedback from another person who disagreed that 'American Veda is digestion'. Please read the details in the forum. We only provide a gist of the arguments here:
1. He acknowledges the impact of Indian spirituality on America
2. He is not working on behalf of missionaries
3. He is not a practitioner in the Ken Wilber mould
4. Sloppy scholarship does not prove digestion
Rajiv comment: The above looks at DIRECT digestion only. Does not
understand the subtlety and multi layered processes at work. This
simplistic view is quiet common and hence I know my work is cut out for
me.
PhilG valorizes digesters - he himself does not have to be one. Every
digester has a coterie of cheerleaders supporting him, building is brand
value, legitimizing him. These cheerleaders might not be smart enough
to do the heavy thinking like a digester. They are his support team.
PhilG is such a cheerleader. Wilber and Keating are examples of top tier
digesters that PhilG celebrates. Good analogies are:
- most sepoys merely suck up to another thinker and hence build brand
credibility for a major thinker and are not capable of doing this
thinking themselves.
- People in Indian media are supporting X but not doing the nasty things
personally that X does. Yet we oppose such media persons. They are part
of the entourage of X that makes X important.
The problem .... is that he has not read Keating or Wilber,
for example...What he sees is PhilG praising these folks in ways that
seem reasonable. This is why incomplete knowledge is dangerous... I have separate
volumes in the pipeline on each of these men, along with many others.
The history of PhilG work with me... (Read the original and complete information in the forum).
...
5) When the book came out I was shocked. He took all my info on the uturners and made them look like heroes.
This inverts my thesis. He celebrates the process that I consider a
problem...
6) ...PG's book has a couple of pages on me. I am
depicted as someone who complains about uturns. He is dismissive of my
complaint. He includes me to be able to say "I have already factored
what Malhotra has to say". This is a tactic to dispose of a serious
issue without properly dealing with it.
....point on PG criticizing missionaries is simply
irrelevant. It further shows shallowness of understanding this theater.
...Witzel also opposes proselytizers, and so do most
western scholars we fight - Doniger, et al. By the standards of
sophisticated western scholars, proselytizing is crude, old fashion,
meant for extreme right wing christianity. These folks are liberal left
wing and hence anti-proselytizing.
....As I said
before: People who digest from the liberal left wing side are not
proselytizers or in support of them. For instance, Wilber is too
sophisticated to operate at the evangelism level. Nor are any of the
neuro-scientists and cognitive scientists appropriating Hindu and
Buddhist ideas and practices. ... understand
the complexity of liberal/leftist ideas of dharma and not try to collapse
all western approaches as proselytizing. (For one thing Jews are not
christians or proselytizers and yet many of them are digesters!)
It is sad that while I must invest years of rigor to get one book at a
time out, there are "supporters" who cant wait. .... On limited knowledge they align
themselves with the very same digesters I spend all my time
investigating."
Curating Rajiv Malhotra's Works. Online Resource, Database, Crowd Sourcing, and Expert Feedback on Contemporary Hinduism, Dharmic India, and topics covered in 'Breaking India', 'Being Different: An Indian Challenge to Western Universalism", 'Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity', 'The Battle For Sanskrit', and the newly released book 'Academic Hinduphobia'.
Showing posts with label Neuroscience. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neuroscience. Show all posts
Why are Hindus Celebrating the Digestion of Hinduism? - Part 2
Labels:
American Veda,
anti-conversion,
conversion,
Digestion,
Father Keating,
Ken Wilber,
M. Witzel,
Missionary,
Neuroscience,
Phil Goldberg,
Sepoy,
U-Turn,
Wendy Doniger
Can the Yogic experience be replicated using psychedelics?
Commentators debate this interesting question. The answer is a 'no' from every commentator, but each offers slightly different reasons. What do you think?
November 2013
Spiritual experience due to psychedelics
Vijaya comments:
"there was a discussion in this forum (why mantra cannot be performed by a machine) regarding the attempt to replace living pandits with devices like Ipod to chant sanskrit mantras. Similarly, isn't there a possibility to reduce the spiritual experience gained through meditation/Yoga to the experience due to psychedelics and eventually replace meditation/sadhana with psychedelics?
Sam Harris in his Huffpost blog seem to equate the experience due to the ingestion of psychedelics like LSD and spiritual experience gained through meditation, although he is cautious about the former.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-_b_891014.html)
"...it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray, chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen. Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom is simply not in the cards. ...It is, however, a difference that brings with it certain liabilities."
This approach presupposes the material nature of our consciousness as opposed to the dharmic position of many layers of reality. Also, it separates the metaphysics of objective outer cosmos and the subjective inner consciousness, which is antithetical to integral unity."
Maria responds:
"Very interesting post, specially your conclusion. Many of these western scientifics, whose scientific knowledge I don´t doubt, but have a very limited vision influenced by subtle abrahamic ideas like only one life. Their potential as researchers is very much limited, provided that they cannot help but associating mind to the brain, and the end of everything with the death. If they could go further, see the implications into the world of samskaras and vasanas brought from life to life, how would they explain it? There would be a revolution in their own minds. Like they cannot afford going further, they end up relating every spiritual experience as provided by the brain. As a material effect of a material cause, that´s all. Instead of seeing that the brain could be a material tool in the hands of an spiritual consciousness. I think that is why many western scientific become atheists..."
Prasad responds to the previous two posts:
"... the dharmic position of many layers of reality is nothing more than another "unfalsifiable presupposition" from a scientific point of view. I am not aware of any evidence through neuroscience which requires any neuroscientist to consider a Dharmic view of many layers of reality as a scientific theory or position. Thus, there is no reason also for scientists to presuppose anything of the sort of a divide between what is the cosmos and what is inner consciousness. The duality between mind and body(brain) is not a chief concern for neuroscience as far as I know, since there is no scientific evidence as such for any mind separate from a body.
...Guys
like Sam Harris have spent a llllong time trying to study Dharmic
positions like those in Buddhism and also Advaita Vedanta. It is not
their influence by subtle abrahamic ideas that they stick they to
their claims. Please try to understand the methodology of science
before commenting on scientists and their "biased" worldviews. Science
does not proceed by handwaving or by unfalsifiable theories. It proceeds
by rigorous evidence. So in order for a neuroscientist to seriously
consider the dualistic claim (i.e. there is a body separate from a
mind), an experiment has to be first described which can show whether
the claim is true or not. In other words, see what Harris says -
November 2013
Spiritual experience due to psychedelics
Vijaya comments:
"there was a discussion in this forum (why mantra cannot be performed by a machine) regarding the attempt to replace living pandits with devices like Ipod to chant sanskrit mantras. Similarly, isn't there a possibility to reduce the spiritual experience gained through meditation/Yoga to the experience due to psychedelics and eventually replace meditation/sadhana with psychedelics?
Sam Harris in his Huffpost blog seem to equate the experience due to the ingestion of psychedelics like LSD and spiritual experience gained through meditation, although he is cautious about the former.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-_b_891014.html)
"...it cannot be denied that psychedelics are a uniquely potent means of altering consciousness. If a person learns to meditate, pray, chant, do yoga, etc., there is no guarantee that anything will happen. Depending on his aptitude, interest, etc., boredom could be the only reward for his efforts. If, however, a person ingests 100 micrograms of LSD, what will happen next will depend on a variety of factors, but there is absolutely no question that something will happen. And boredom is simply not in the cards. ...It is, however, a difference that brings with it certain liabilities."
This approach presupposes the material nature of our consciousness as opposed to the dharmic position of many layers of reality. Also, it separates the metaphysics of objective outer cosmos and the subjective inner consciousness, which is antithetical to integral unity."
Maria responds:
"Very interesting post, specially your conclusion. Many of these western scientifics, whose scientific knowledge I don´t doubt, but have a very limited vision influenced by subtle abrahamic ideas like only one life. Their potential as researchers is very much limited, provided that they cannot help but associating mind to the brain, and the end of everything with the death. If they could go further, see the implications into the world of samskaras and vasanas brought from life to life, how would they explain it? There would be a revolution in their own minds. Like they cannot afford going further, they end up relating every spiritual experience as provided by the brain. As a material effect of a material cause, that´s all. Instead of seeing that the brain could be a material tool in the hands of an spiritual consciousness. I think that is why many western scientific become atheists..."
Prasad responds to the previous two posts:
"... the dharmic position of many layers of reality is nothing more than another "unfalsifiable presupposition" from a scientific point of view. I am not aware of any evidence through neuroscience which requires any neuroscientist to consider a Dharmic view of many layers of reality as a scientific theory or position. Thus, there is no reason also for scientists to presuppose anything of the sort of a divide between what is the cosmos and what is inner consciousness. The duality between mind and body(brain) is not a chief concern for neuroscience as far as I know, since there is no scientific evidence as such for any mind separate from a body.
..
-
So I would opine that the scientific community (which now includes
almost all of humanity) would not be doing science by assuming a duality
between a body and mind and then working from such an assumption to
discover truths about the mind.
Now let me come to how a response can still be made in the lines of Rajivji's ideas of "being different".
First
of all, it is simply a narrow view to treat mind-altering drugs and
meditation (which I will now call dhyAnA, identifying it as a step in
Patanjali's ashtAnga yoga scheme) on the same lines, i.e., as a means to
effect changes in the mental states (I
am purposefully not calling these "states of consciousness" because of
my Advaitic leaning that the mind is different from the Atman, which is
the Original Consciousness). Sam Harris' claim is that both can effect changes in the mental states. According to my understanding, in
Yoga/VedAntA and other indian darshaNAs, the purpose of dhyAnA is not
just about altering your mind-states during the time of meditation.
Instead, the main purpose of dhyAna is to effect the triumph of one's
will over the constantly drifting/changing mind...
In
the same way, a yogi who practises dhyAna according to the Indian
traditional darshana's need not have all the kinds of experiences or
mental states that Harris is talking about. However, over time, he/she will gain the strength of mental will to concentrate on any particular object.
This one-pointedness of mind which one gains is called "chitta-ekAgrata"
in some traditions. The supporting factors to doing proper dhyAna and
achieving its intended results include living a life of ethical and
moral values and having devotional mindset (roughly, yamA and niyamA -
the first two steps of ashtAnga yogA), sitting for dhyAna in correct
physical posture (Asana - 3rd stage), prANAyamA (the 4th stage, learning
to breathe properly prior to dhyAnA), restricting one's diet to saatvic
food and restricting one's mental diet to saatvic imagery/sounds/ etc
(pratyAhArA). Only after all these stages can dhyAnA be done properly
and will bear the appropriate fruit. This is what the Indian Yogic
traditions say, as far as I know. This is why the so-called meditation
does NOT work for everyone and anyone. It is like taking a medicine
without observing the appropriate dietary restrictions for it to work,
and then claiming that the medicine doesn't work!..."
Vijaya responds:
"...My point is that science has a reductive approach to consciousness as BD explains (Page 104),
"...the Western scientific tradition has been reductionist rather than integral. Reductionism attempts to explain wholes in terms of their parts. This works, to a large extent, in ways that are practical, and hence modern science has made major contribtions to our lives using this principle.
The unity assumed in most of the dharmic traditions is a unity of consciousness. Western scientists and philosophers often ask how consciousness can arise from the chemistry of the brain. In the Indian tradition, we find the reverse problem. Absolute consciousness is understood to be the source of everything. The challenge is to understand the ordinary world of multiplicity."
Even your definition of dhyana "to effect the triumph of one's will over the constantly drifting/changing mind", is also another mental state with a different/dynamic biochemical composition, according to neuroscience. So why to do all the tough sadhanas? We can put our efforts in producing drugs that will give an 'enlightened state' and distribute them to all?
This is not philosophically possible from the viewpoint of vedanta. The 'turiya' state which is the self and the pure consciousness is not a state of mind but is the whole essence of other three states, waking (jågrat), dream (svapna) and deep sleep (susupti). So the self transcends the other three states. The knowledge of neuroscience(and even the world) which is in realm of the waking state is limited and it cant find ways to reach a state that transcends it.
Another important point neuroscientists like Sam Harris make is that such altered mental states of mind do not represents reality by any means. This is in line with the basic axiom of science, the objective existence of the universe.
A Sadhaka in dharma religions does not need to start with such an axiom. That's why realised sages from Ashtavakra to Ramana maharishi describe enlightenment with analogy of 'waking up from the dream'. So a sage indeed perceives a different reality. That's why I mentioned different layers of reality.
Finally, there is more to dharma than the reductionist scientific methods. Dharma traditions take a nuanced approach to one of the pramana (epistemic tool), Sabda, the verbal testimony. The words of a realised Yogi which becomes smriti, is accepted and followed if it agrees with Sruti. This is why we have guru sishya traditions which help seekers in their spiritual quest. "
"...the Western scientific tradition has been reductionist rather than integral. Reductionism attempts to explain wholes in terms of their parts. This works, to a large extent, in ways that are practical, and hence modern science has made major contribtions to our lives using this principle.
The unity assumed in most of the dharmic traditions is a unity of consciousness. Western scientists and philosophers often ask how consciousness can arise from the chemistry of the brain. In the Indian tradition, we find the reverse problem. Absolute consciousness is understood to be the source of everything. The challenge is to understand the ordinary world of multiplicity."
Even your definition of dhyana "to effect the triumph of one's will over the constantly drifting/changing mind", is also another mental state with a different/dynamic biochemical composition, according to neuroscience. So why to do all the tough sadhanas? We can put our efforts in producing drugs that will give an 'enlightened state' and distribute them to all?
This is not philosophically possible from the viewpoint of vedanta. The 'turiya' state which is the self and the pure consciousness is not a state of mind but is the whole essence of other three states, waking (jågrat), dream (svapna) and deep sleep (susupti). So the self transcends the other three states. The knowledge of neuroscience(and even the world) which is in realm of the waking state is limited and it cant find ways to reach a state that transcends it.
Another important point neuroscientists like Sam Harris make is that such altered mental states of mind do not represents reality by any means. This is in line with the basic axiom of science, the objective existence of the universe.
A Sadhaka in dharma religions does not need to start with such an axiom. That's why realised sages from Ashtavakra to Ramana maharishi describe enlightenment with analogy of 'waking up from the dream'. So a sage indeed perceives a different reality. That's why I mentioned different layers of reality.
Finally, there is more to dharma than the reductionist scientific methods. Dharma traditions take a nuanced approach to one of the pramana (epistemic tool), Sabda, the verbal testimony. The words of a realised Yogi which becomes smriti, is accepted and followed if it agrees with Sruti. This is why we have guru sishya traditions which help seekers in their spiritual quest. "
This discussion is not over. If you have addition insights on this topic to share, please join the discussion group and contribute.
Labels:
abrahamic,
Adhyatma Vidya,
Advaita,
Being Different,
dhyana,
HuffPost,
Integral Unity,
LSD,
Mantra,
Neuroscience,
Sam Harris,
Turiya,
Vedanta,
Yoga
RMF Summary: Week of April 2 - 8, 2012 - Part 2
|
Labels:
Archeology,
Aurobindo,
Diana Eck,
G. Hancock,
Heehs,
History-Centric,
Integral Unity,
J. D. Salinger,
Kaballah,
Neuroscience,
Original Sin,
Pagan,
PBS,
Ramana Maharishi,
Reverse Digestion,
Satchitananda,
SRF,
Yoga
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)