TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Introduction 00:10 Defining Consciousness, the Self & Mind 06:18 The Diversity of Indian Philosophy 14:42 Understanding the Concept of Consciousness 25:03 Non-Dualism in Western and Chinese Philosophy 33:20 The Notion of Materiality 42:51 Idealism vs. Realism 52:17 Illusionism and Materiality 1:02:11 Relevance of Indian Philosophy Today 1:10:15 Recommended Reading for Beginners 1:19:29 Challenges of Translating Indian Philosophy 1:26:45 Established Translations and Explanations 1:34:51 Curiosity as a Driving Force 1:40:32 Debates and Discussions in Indian Philosophy 1:47:10 Enjoying the Exploration of Philosophy 1:52:44 Influence of Sanskrit Language 1:57:26 Theoretical vs. Practical Aspects of Indian Philosophy 2:01:01 Advantages of Curiosity and Lifelong Learning 2:01:57 Final Thoughts and Closing Remarks THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
EXCELLENT conversation, many thanks to Dr. Naidu. I must say I am quite impressed with Dr. N's facility with Philosophy. Allow me to summarize what was NOT SAID, not so much, in fact not at all to criticize, but hopefully to seek insights... The framing and content of the inquiry left unresolved the contradictions inherent in the Western approach to philosophy. These problems are (1) Knowing vs. Consciousness (2) What is real (vs. Illusion) (3) What is it "to exist" (and how is it related to causality) (4) Mind vs. Matter, and is one contingent (5) What is "mind", and its relation to agency The "Mind-Body" problem, at its surface, commences at the Cogito, viz., if knowing is fundamental, then might the object of knowledge then be contingent? Or are they both independent and real? The agency for knowledge (the subject) is variously claimed to belong to the brain, the mind, or the Atma (the SELF, the spirit, etc.). The nature of this agent is then to be explored, and its distinction from being to be established. The cause for the being is to be sought, and so too the source of knowing. Where the Subject is non material, there ends materialism. Where the Objects don't really exist but knowing does (Vedanta), or where the knowing is illusory but being is real (surrealism, materialism), which are the two different kinds of illusionism. ALL of this, so far, is dualistic. And all of this struggles, on the one hand, with connecting spiritual to the material and, on the other, with the definitions of "real" vs. "illusory". We don't often say this, but existence and extent of such a things as "mind" is a barely justified claim. In Vedanta, mind is "knowing conditioned by Maya". Since dualism struggles (due to the contradiction between the ostensible natures of "knowing" and "being", the lack of clarity as to "real" vs. "illusory", and the absence of definitions for "mind", "knowing", and "being), therefore we look to Vedanta. Vedanta supplies a new approach... instead of proceeding from the separation of knowing and being, it starts by asserting (and then making plausible) the identity of knowing with being. It then clarifies what is REAL, vs. what it means to be an illusion. One advantage of Vedanta is that it supplies a logical "first cause". Another is that addresses the otherwise unexplained Kantian intuitions, just as well as it dispenses with the key problems of dualism. None of this is religious-- Vedanta (like its estranged stepchild, Buddhism) is non-religious. It is not, however, heterodox or materialistic, and for this reason is wrongly considered religious. It is not. There is no deity, no worship, and no rituals. Moksha, freedom from sorrow, is a purely worldly aspiration. Vedanta is also not irreligious. From this firm foundation, then, it supplies a metaphysics that addresses some of the key problems of (with) Western philosophy. Since Dr. Vaidya is an Epistemologist, it would be natural of him to embrace Vedanta, except that he is trained to start from (mind-body) dualism, which inevitably confounds the resolution of the dichotomy. The way you'd know that framework is wrong is the existence of thes cited conundrums. Presumably, the biggest problem with Vedanta is its orthodoxy. It deals with a subject that is admittedly beyond scientific inquiry and, to support its unlikely (i.e., counterintuitive) claims, it uses a pedagogy that is rooted in facile logic . Where logic too fails, there we are to rely on the testimony of (the sages, as recorded in) the Vedas. It is this last bit that, without being "Hindu" or religious, is seen as Vedanta's fatal flaw. That is unfortunate.
Supplying the key insights of Vedanta, per my understanding (1) Knowing vs. Consciousness Knowing is mechanistic, and can occur without awareness. Vedanta invokes the triad of "knower-knowledge-known" as a not-non dual construct, as ascribes it to ignorance. When "knowing" is seen in terms of this triad, then it is not consciousness. Consciousness is described as the resolution of the triad into pure knowing. Consciousness, when that word is used for Atma, in the vedantic sense, relates to subjective awareness. Except, it clarifies, that there isn't a knower. Knowing is happening. This is Atma. (2) What is real (vs. Illusion) Atma, the essence of which is EXISTENCE-KNOWING-JOY, is what is REAL. "Real" is defined as that which is unconstrained by (free of, beyond) time-space-identity. That is to say, it exists without change over time, is everywhere, and has cannot be qualified in any way. Anything that changes in not REAL, and is in that sense "ILLUSORY". Change of a thing is seen as the end of the first kind and the creation of the second kind. All things that change where once created and will eventually end. (3) What is it "to exist" (and how is it related to causality) To exist, per Vedanta, is to be witnessed, by Atma. Since Atma is existence, it is therefore, so to speak, in everything that exists. Since it is knowing, "to exist" is "to be witnessed by Atma". One way vedantins say this is, "everything exists in consciousness". Note how this is different from panpsychism. However, vedanta can often sound like panpsychism or panentheism. It is easy to reason out why. (4) Mind vs. Matter, and is one contingent In Vedanta, MIND is material, but not physical. Brain, contrariwise, is physical. The non-physical or, in vedic parlance, "subtle", mind is composed of subtle material. Mind has the unique quality of reflecting consciousness. This means the activities of mind are known (to, by) due to the reflection of conscioussness in it. Both borrow existence from Conscioussness (which itself is EXISTENCE-KNOWING-JOY). (5) What is "mind", and what is its relation to agency? The human organism, mind included is, so to speak, a level-5 intelligence. It is insentient but intelligent. Agency, in so much as it requires sentience, doesn't exist in the human organism. The mind is insentient, and the mind is not an agent. The Atma, sentience, is non-qualified, in the sense that it has no attributes, and is therefore not an agent.
I don’t embrace Vedanta because I am an epistemologically trained. I do it because it is useful to discuss. I was not trained to start with mine-body dualism. That is just what I am discussing
It is instructive to use the example of "blind sightedness" to try and better comprehend what is CONSCIOUSNESS. Let's say Krishna is blind-sighted. His comprehension before he was so afflicted, let us say, was C*, which included KNOWLEDGE (K) of the world around him, EMOTIONAL (E) valence arising out of this knowing, the executive function, called EGO (*), that makes it Krishna's subjective knowing-feeling, and not just generic knowing-feeling, and AWARENESS (D) of this knowledge, and of the inevitable valence. We represent this as C* = K + E + * + D After his injury, his brain has the knowledge, and so it can respond. However, there is no personal (neither emotional nor self-arrogating) response to the knowledge. Mind, in vedanta, is the (E + *). It is this E + * that reflects CONSCIOUSNESS, D. In vedanta, "person" is defined as C*, the "K+ E + * + D" complex. After his affliction, he has KNOWLEDGE, that his organism uses to create appropriate responsesAn example is, our stomach has the knowledge needed to perform digestion, but we have no awareness of it. The stomach, as also the blind-sighted brain, have K, but lack the person. No one is home.
Why have ISKON members so saturated the academic departments studying Indian philosophy in western universities? Vaishnava purpose, in certain lineage traditions is to influence, not study. In terms of ISKON this is clearly stated by their founder & more than noticeable in his English translations of texts not to mention the commentaries, all this in spite of his overt praise of western science. This is not a particular beef with ISKON, a developmentally western conception of a radically orthodox system, rather a question as to the veracity of more than possibly influenced work & teachers & how that influences what is studied & learned. There seriously should be an assessment of the diversity of academics & what they choose to study within western institutions in regard to Indian Philosophy. This could be done in concert with Indian Academic institutions, which I am sure are aware of the implications of such issues. This is mainly a scientific issue, all observations are made from the frame of reference of the observer, this has distinct correlation to all interpretation fields. It is interesting that when there is a discussion on Indian Philosophy in the west it will be predominantly a form of Vaishnavism with a reference to "the other systems". I understand that Mr Vaidya is studying Vedanta & he speaks not only very well, but appropriately. I find no fault with the discussion, however certain recognisable names & identifications continue to arise in these discussions. It has become clear that members of certain sects are becoming prominent members & or spokes people for the state of Indian Philosophy in the western academic system. Westerners are familiar with the effect of Christianity on Science throughout history yet they do not always apply the same discrimination towards other cultural influences, especially while operating under the influence of western culture wars as this is an easy infiltration opportunity. As we know also, those who can afford to bid for grants, just as politicians who can afford to campaign, will shape the academic direction & milieu. So corporate funded academic`s pose a great question as to the necessity for further scrutiny. We notice this in finance & civil government. Do we grant a predominance of Catholic priests to teach Christianity? Even this is a useless comparison, which is the whole point. Love the discussions, Many Thanks
I am sorry, "In Advait vedanta Atma is not phenomenal consciousness" is wrong. Very wrong. "Chidabhaas" is a clear explanation of subjective-experience, and is uniquely supplied by Shankara. It is the reflection of pure-consciousness, in the "mirror" mind. Chittchhaya, "self reflection", the other word for phenomenon consciousness, is a key concept in the teachings. I wish he would correct these misstatements.
I am not discussing subjective awareness in Advaita. That is explained. I am discussing phenomenal properties which are not part of Saguna Brahman which is what is most real and fundamental. So I am not making the mistake you are claiming. You are not understanding what point I am criticizing and exploring. Subjective awareness is not the same as phenomenal property and changing non-fundamental subject-object consciousness in human embodied state is an illusion for Advaita.
This is a circular argument, a logical circle or hysteron-proteron. It is an evidentiary error in which the prerequisites of what is to be proven are already included. So you purports to prove a statement by deduction, using the statement itself as a premise.@@anandvaidya8257
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Introduction
00:10 Defining Consciousness, the Self & Mind
06:18 The Diversity of Indian Philosophy
14:42 Understanding the Concept of Consciousness
25:03 Non-Dualism in Western and Chinese Philosophy
33:20 The Notion of Materiality
42:51 Idealism vs. Realism
52:17 Illusionism and Materiality
1:02:11 Relevance of Indian Philosophy Today
1:10:15 Recommended Reading for Beginners
1:19:29 Challenges of Translating Indian Philosophy
1:26:45 Established Translations and Explanations
1:34:51 Curiosity as a Driving Force
1:40:32 Debates and Discussions in Indian Philosophy
1:47:10 Enjoying the Exploration of Philosophy
1:52:44 Influence of Sanskrit Language
1:57:26 Theoretical vs. Practical Aspects of Indian Philosophy
2:01:01 Advantages of Curiosity and Lifelong Learning
2:01:57 Final Thoughts and Closing Remarks
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Dr Tevin Naidu...is an exceptionally gracious and patient host. This alone demands a 👍Much respect to you... 👍Kind sir.
Thank you!🙏🏽
Lets face it, the Doc is just plain smart! He can hold his own with even the most esoteric. Good on ya Doc!
🙏🏽
You are a great interviewer! You ask very good questions! Thanks for another cool episode.
Thanks for the kind feedback🙏🏽 Glad you're enjoying the content!
EXCELLENT conversation, many thanks to Dr. Naidu. I must say I am quite impressed with Dr. N's facility with Philosophy.
Allow me to summarize what was NOT SAID, not so much, in fact not at all to criticize, but hopefully to seek insights...
The framing and content of the inquiry left unresolved the contradictions inherent in the Western approach to philosophy. These problems are
(1) Knowing vs. Consciousness
(2) What is real (vs. Illusion)
(3) What is it "to exist" (and how is it related to causality)
(4) Mind vs. Matter, and is one contingent
(5) What is "mind", and its relation to agency
The "Mind-Body" problem, at its surface, commences at the Cogito, viz., if knowing is fundamental, then might the object of knowledge then be contingent? Or are they both independent and real? The agency for knowledge (the subject) is variously claimed to belong to the brain, the mind, or the Atma (the SELF, the spirit, etc.). The nature of this agent is then to be explored, and its distinction from being to be established. The cause for the being is to be sought, and so too the source of knowing. Where the Subject is non material, there ends materialism. Where the Objects don't really exist but knowing does (Vedanta), or where the knowing is illusory but being is real (surrealism, materialism), which are the two different kinds of illusionism. ALL of this, so far, is dualistic. And all of this struggles, on the one hand, with connecting spiritual to the material and, on the other, with the definitions of "real" vs. "illusory". We don't often say this, but existence and extent of such a things as "mind" is a barely justified claim. In Vedanta, mind is "knowing conditioned by Maya".
Since dualism struggles (due to the contradiction between the ostensible natures of "knowing" and "being", the lack of clarity as to "real" vs. "illusory", and the absence of definitions for "mind", "knowing", and "being), therefore we look to Vedanta. Vedanta supplies a new approach... instead of proceeding from the separation of knowing and being, it starts by asserting (and then making plausible) the identity of knowing with being. It then clarifies what is REAL, vs. what it means to be an illusion.
One advantage of Vedanta is that it supplies a logical "first cause". Another is that addresses the otherwise unexplained Kantian intuitions, just as well as it dispenses with the key problems of dualism.
None of this is religious-- Vedanta (like its estranged stepchild, Buddhism) is non-religious. It is not, however, heterodox or materialistic, and for this reason is wrongly considered religious. It is not. There is no deity, no worship, and no rituals. Moksha, freedom from sorrow, is a purely worldly aspiration. Vedanta is also not irreligious.
From this firm foundation, then, it supplies a metaphysics that addresses some of the key problems of (with) Western philosophy.
Since Dr. Vaidya is an Epistemologist, it would be natural of him to embrace Vedanta, except that he is trained to start from (mind-body) dualism, which inevitably confounds the resolution of the dichotomy. The way you'd know that framework is wrong is the existence of thes cited conundrums.
Presumably, the biggest problem with Vedanta is its orthodoxy. It deals with a subject that is admittedly beyond scientific inquiry and, to support its unlikely (i.e., counterintuitive) claims, it uses a pedagogy that is rooted in facile logic . Where logic too fails, there we are to rely on the testimony of (the sages, as recorded in) the Vedas. It is this last bit that, without being "Hindu" or religious, is seen as Vedanta's fatal flaw. That is unfortunate.
Thank you! Lots more to come on the channel (in general and Vedantic Philosophy)
Supplying the key insights of Vedanta, per my understanding
(1) Knowing vs. Consciousness
Knowing is mechanistic, and can occur without awareness. Vedanta invokes the triad of "knower-knowledge-known" as a not-non dual construct, as ascribes it to ignorance. When "knowing" is seen in terms of this triad, then it is not consciousness. Consciousness is described as the resolution of the triad into pure knowing.
Consciousness, when that word is used for Atma, in the vedantic sense, relates to subjective awareness. Except, it clarifies, that there isn't a knower. Knowing is happening. This is Atma.
(2) What is real (vs. Illusion)
Atma, the essence of which is EXISTENCE-KNOWING-JOY, is what is REAL. "Real" is defined as that which is unconstrained by (free of, beyond) time-space-identity. That is to say, it exists without change over time, is everywhere, and has cannot be qualified in any way. Anything that changes in not REAL, and is in that sense "ILLUSORY". Change of a thing is seen as the end of the first kind and the creation of the second kind. All things that change where once created and will eventually end.
(3) What is it "to exist" (and how is it related to causality)
To exist, per Vedanta, is to be witnessed, by Atma. Since Atma is existence, it is therefore, so to speak, in everything that exists. Since it is knowing, "to exist" is "to be witnessed by Atma". One way vedantins say this is, "everything exists in consciousness". Note how this is different from panpsychism. However, vedanta can often sound like panpsychism or panentheism. It is easy to reason out why.
(4) Mind vs. Matter, and is one contingent
In Vedanta, MIND is material, but not physical. Brain, contrariwise, is physical. The non-physical or, in vedic parlance, "subtle", mind is composed of subtle material. Mind has the unique quality of reflecting consciousness. This means the activities of mind are known (to, by) due to the reflection of conscioussness in it. Both borrow existence from Conscioussness (which itself is EXISTENCE-KNOWING-JOY).
(5) What is "mind", and what is its relation to agency?
The human organism, mind included is, so to speak, a level-5 intelligence. It is insentient but intelligent. Agency, in so much as it requires sentience, doesn't exist in the human organism. The mind is insentient, and the mind is not an agent. The Atma, sentience, is non-qualified, in the sense that it has no attributes, and is therefore not an agent.
I don’t embrace Vedanta because I am an epistemologically trained. I do it because it is useful to discuss.
I was not trained to start with mine-body dualism. That is just what I am discussing
I tried looking up the Ramakrishnan book called Science and Spirituality. Google didn't help. Any ideas?
Would it be fair to say that consciousness is the action of constructing?
It is instructive to use the example of "blind sightedness" to try and better comprehend what is CONSCIOUSNESS. Let's say Krishna is blind-sighted. His comprehension before he was so afflicted, let us say, was C*, which included KNOWLEDGE (K) of the world around him, EMOTIONAL (E) valence arising out of this knowing, the executive function, called EGO (*), that makes it Krishna's subjective knowing-feeling, and not just generic knowing-feeling, and AWARENESS (D) of this knowledge, and of the inevitable valence. We represent this as
C* = K + E + * + D
After his injury, his brain has the knowledge, and so it can respond. However, there is no personal (neither emotional nor self-arrogating) response to the knowledge. Mind, in vedanta, is the (E + *). It is this E + * that reflects CONSCIOUSNESS, D. In vedanta, "person" is defined as C*, the "K+ E + * + D" complex.
After his affliction, he has KNOWLEDGE, that his organism uses to create appropriate responsesAn example is, our stomach has the knowledge needed to perform digestion, but we have no awareness of it. The stomach, as also the blind-sighted brain, have K, but lack the person. No one is home.
Why have ISKON members so saturated the academic departments studying Indian philosophy in western universities? Vaishnava purpose, in certain lineage traditions is to influence, not study. In terms of ISKON this is clearly stated by their founder & more than noticeable in his English translations of texts not to mention the commentaries, all this in spite of his overt praise of western science. This is not a particular beef with ISKON, a developmentally western conception of a radically orthodox system, rather a question as to the veracity of more than possibly influenced work & teachers & how that influences what is studied & learned. There seriously should be an assessment of the diversity of academics & what they choose to study within western institutions in regard to Indian Philosophy. This could be done in concert with Indian Academic institutions, which I am sure are aware of the implications of such issues.
This is mainly a scientific issue, all observations are made from the frame of reference of the observer, this has distinct correlation to all interpretation fields. It is interesting that when there is a discussion on Indian Philosophy in the west it will be predominantly a form of Vaishnavism with a reference to "the other systems". I understand that Mr Vaidya is studying Vedanta & he speaks not only very well, but appropriately. I find no fault with the discussion, however certain recognisable names & identifications continue to arise in these discussions. It has become clear that members of certain sects are becoming prominent members & or spokes people for the state of Indian Philosophy in the western academic system.
Westerners are familiar with the effect of Christianity on Science throughout history yet they do not always apply the same discrimination towards other cultural influences, especially while operating under the influence of western culture wars as this is an easy infiltration opportunity. As we know also, those who can afford to bid for grants, just as politicians who can afford to campaign, will shape the academic direction & milieu. So corporate funded academic`s pose a great question as to the necessity for further scrutiny. We notice this in finance & civil government. Do we grant a predominance of Catholic priests to teach Christianity? Even this is a useless comparison, which is the whole point.
Love the discussions, Many Thanks
Thanks! Glad you're enjoying and engaging with the discussions.
I am sorry, "In Advait vedanta Atma is not phenomenal consciousness" is wrong. Very wrong. "Chidabhaas" is a clear explanation of subjective-experience, and is uniquely supplied by Shankara. It is the reflection of pure-consciousness, in the "mirror" mind. Chittchhaya, "self reflection", the other word for phenomenon consciousness, is a key concept in the teachings. I wish he would correct these misstatements.
I am not discussing subjective awareness in Advaita. That is explained. I am discussing phenomenal properties which are not part of Saguna Brahman which is what is most real and fundamental. So I am not making the mistake you are claiming. You are not understanding what point I am criticizing and exploring. Subjective awareness is not the same as phenomenal property and changing non-fundamental subject-object consciousness in human embodied state is an illusion for Advaita.
Is Anand Vaidya Peter Sellers?
No! I am anand vaidya! Thus, o cannot be Peter Sellars!
This is a circular argument, a logical circle or hysteron-proteron.
It is an evidentiary error in which the prerequisites of what is
to be proven are already included.
So you purports to prove a statement by deduction, using the
statement itself as a premise.@@anandvaidya8257