Following on the lines of the post I wrote after our previous meetings, here is a brief synopsis :

• This session was pretty much a continuation of the last one. The main issue discussed was the problem of Adhyasa, which is the central problem in Advaitic metaphysics. Adhyasa means superimposition and Advaita holds that the phenomenal world of plurality is perceived only because we superimpose this erroneous world view on top of the one nondual unconditional nameless formless consciousness denoted by Brahman. So then the problem with this theory is that how did the process of Adhyasa first begin. Advaita holds that Adhyasa is coeternal with Brahman, which is better, and more honest, than the metaphysics of those monotheistic systems in which creation begins at a specific point in time, and is a non-cyclical, one-off affair. But then, if Adhyasa is coeternal with Brahman, then you no longer have a nondual view of reality but a dualistic view like the one espoused by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras.
• The best succint introduction to the problem of Adhyasa is given by Adi Shankara in the introduction to his Bhasya on the Brahma Sutras. This remarkable introduction (to a remarkable commentary) has earned a name for itself - Adhyasa Bhasya. In recent times, a thorough discussion occurred on the advaitin email list at yahoo in 2002 when a certain atmachaitanya108 provided a tour-de-force analysis of advaita/vishistadvaita (nondualism/qualified monism) polemics. This discussion has been compiled into a pdf file and is available here : Whence Adhyasa? Btw, this atmachaitanya108, following in the lines of the impersonal anonymous identies of the upanishadic sages of yore has remained anonymous.
• Like any other spiritual path, Yoga Vasishta in the end recommends "realizing the nondual truth after which all questions about adhyasa will be resolved."

That's exactly what a team of scientists is discovering as they watch new love literally blaze its trail across the living brain. Using real-time MRI brain images of people in the initial throes of passion, they're finding that love originates far from the brain's logic center, its emotional nexus and, perhaps most surprisingly, its centers of sexual desire. In fact, love may vie for the same real estate in the brain as drug addiction.

Read more...

The third meeting of our Advaita summer discussion group happened recently. Following on the lines of the post I wrote after our second meeting, here are some notes, not explanatory in any way.

• The advanced definitions of bondage and liberation in Yoga Vashishta.
• Perception of duality vs attributing absolute reality to duality.
• Advaita vs mysticism.
• Shunyata.
• Non contradictibility as an indicator of Reality.
• The real "purpose" of Vedanta is not just to become a better this or that but the realization of your identity with Brahman.
• The stranglehold of the phenomenal world of objects.

"Physism does not try to explain why there are such miracles, but reduces them to a unique one," says Omnès, because mathematics is "the laws governing the universe and its particles."

Read more...

She said the research investigated the extent that certain types of trained meditative practice can influence the conscious experience of visual perceptual rivalry, which is what happens when someone has two different images shown to each eye, or is shown an ambiguous image such as a picture that can look like two faces or a vase.

Read more...

In the mid-seventies, as part of an experiment in a psychology class, a blind student had been made hypnotically deaf (the signal to awaken was a touch on the shoulder). When the professor fired a blank pistol near his ear, the student didn’t flinch. On a whim, the professor then asked the blind and now-deaf student that if some part of his consciousness was still listening, to please raise his index finger. To everyone’s surprise, the finger raised. Even more strangely, the student then asked the professor why his finger had raised.

Read More...

The second meeting of our Advaita summer discussion group occurred about 2 weeks ago. Before I completely forget what transpired, here is a brief synopsis. It is not explanatory and is only for my own notes.

• The different notions of "god" in different systems. The standard usage of the term. The concept of an anthropomorphic transcendant creationist god and an impersonal transcendant immanent reality.
• The difference between monist (advaita like) systems and monotheistic (Christianity, Vaishnavism etc.) systems. The similarity between the Judeo/Chrisian/Islamic (JCI) religions and Vaishnavism on one hand and between the Oriental systems and Advaita on the other hand.
• The concept of "Be here now". Its confusion with laziness.
• Should a human being necessarily "contribute" something to the "society". If so, is usability to others the only way to contribute?
• The preliminary definitions of bondage and liberation in Yoga Vasishta. The life-embracing implications from a samsaric view point of these definitions (as opposed to monastic implications)
• Not getting hung up on the "limitations" of personal theistic systems.
• Why is it easy to do "evil" rather than "good" ?
• The relativity of moral values.
• The distinction between what is real, and, what is good for you to lead a happy fulfilling life.

This article talks about the reductionist tendency in web technology. Admittedly, nothing advaitic about it by a long shot, but still a hoot.

We live in a culture where the dualities of good and bad pervade everything. All actions, emotions, desires, thoughts etc. are classified as good or bad (or an intermediate shade between the two). In the language of the upanishads, (where certain sanskrit words have no suitable english descriptions) , the mind-stuff (chitta) flows along the rivers of good and bad impressions (vasanas)

So yesterday, we got into a discussion about why is it easier for the mind-stuff to flow along the bad impressions. For e.g. why is it easier to develop any "bad" habit than a "good" one. Looks like a naieve question. But you would be surprised as to where all it would lead you if you contemplate on it.

Certain tendencies like drug addiction, or eating fast food instead of healthy food can be explained from a purely physiological view point. Many others can be explained from a cultural or psychological platform.

Emotional responses to a situation can usually be explained as the mind thinking that it is the best and quickest way to handle that situation. From past habits, the body is conditioned to exhibit certain emotions in particular situations. Seemingly, giving vent to the emotions that arise is a good way for the mind to think that it has reached a solution.

However, in many ways, at the most basic level, this is an instance of the anthropic principle. This is the human condition as we observe it and asking why is moot because what we observe contributes to the existing human condition. So, we are like this, in part, because we are like this. Its like asking why we have 5 fingers and not 6.

The Upanishads make a nice point about this. It is obvious that with constant cultivation, we can make the mind-stuff flow along the "good" impressions. But then, are we now addicted to the "good" things?