ckr-Vedanta-congress-points

Introduction
Part 1. Ātman and life after death
Part 2. Moksha and quasi-cyclic time
Part 3. Is quasi-cyclic time scientifically possible?
Part 4: Colonisation and math and physics
Part 5: Ethics

Introduction

One sentence summary

Beliefs in ātman and moksha are scientific beliefs
IF time is quasi-cyclic;
this makes the related ethics (धर्म) credible today.

Key problem 1: doubts about life after death

Ātman (आत्मन) and moksha (मोक्ष) are core beliefs of Vedanta/Hinduism.
But belief in ātman involves a belief in life after death,
which has long been doubted or rejected.

Even the gods doubted

This doubt about life after death found at beginning of
Nachiketa’s famous dialogue with Death (Yama) in Kathopanishad (1.20)
And Yama responds (1.21) that even the gods were once puzzled by this mystery.

Beginning with the pūrva paksha (पूर्व पक्ष)

On the the Indian tradition,
we must BEGIN by addressing this doubt or the pūrva paksha (पूर्व पक्ष) or the opposite position.
One who fails to do so, is deemed NOT to understand his own position.
E.g. one who gives a lengthy प्रवचन (sermon) on Vedanta without addressing this pūrva paksha (पूर्व पक्ष) LACKS a proper understanding of Vedanta.

The central point of the pūrva paksha is

that life after death is not credible.

Part 1. Ātman and life after death

Sceptics in ancient India

Pre-Buddhist Ajit Kesakambali (सामन्नफलसुत्त) called it a "doctrine of fools… an empty lie, mere idle talk".
(that gifts during a yajna (यज्ञ) would benefit the person after death)
He asserted: "Fools and wise men alike, on the dissolution of the body, are… annihilated, and
after death they are not."

These doubts persisted

growing till the time of Shankara (as Madhava's SankaraDigvijaya (1.27-39) tell us).
And modern sceptics, of course, reject the belief in life after death
as due to fear of death, etc.

Opponents of Lokayata gave no proper answer in last 2500 years

to this doubt about life after death. (They should have answered.)
Not even that champion Hindu debater Dayanand Saraswati (सत्यार्थ प्रकाश, 12) had a proper answer.
Core Reason: Sanskrit pundits went by शब्द प्रमाण (authority) of the Veda and Upanishads
Rejected by the नास्तिक (non-believers) like Buddhists, Lokayata, and Jains.

Abusing Lokayata is not a valid response (any ignorant lout can abuse or troll anything).
Science needed to persuade the non-believer.

Bad science?

Not adequate, also, to dismiss "modern science" as "materialistic".
To contest "modern science", first show us how to build a better science!
In fact, even EXISTING science CAN help to answer sceptics (both ancient and modern)
in a credible way which Sanskrit pundits could not do in 2500 years.

Payasi's experiments with life after death

The most outstanding ancient sceptic was King Payasi (पायासि राजञ्ञ सुत्त)
famous for his experiments with life after death.
This is the STRONGEST form of the पूर्व पक्ष which I will hence address.

Experiment 1. Bad people

Payasi knew many people who had lived bad lives
killing, stealing, lying etc.
He approached them on their deathbed with a proposition.

If, after death, they went to hell, then they should come and tell him,
or send a message.
They agreed,
but none of the dead ever returned.

Experiment 2. Good people

Payasi repeated the experiment with good people with but the dead did not return.
Payasi went on to wonder
since rewards awaited the good people
why did they not immediately kill themselves by jumping off a cliff etc.?

Experiment 3. Weighing the soul (आत्मन)

Payasi experimented with condemned felons
Weigh this man, strangle him with a bowstring
so no blood is spilt
weigh him again when he is dead.

But he found no difference in weight
The soul has no weight!

Experiment 4. Observing the soul (आत्मन)

Another experiment with condemned felons.
Put this man in a pot and seal the mouth.
Heat it till he is dead.
Now make a small hole in the pot to see if his soul comes out.

Again a negative result
the soul could not be seen.

Further experiments

Payasi went on to perform other experiments
He concluded: there is no ātman and no life after death.

Other arguments

Many other arguments have been given since then.
Why don't we remember our past lives?
If everyone is reborn, why does the population grow?
etc. etc.

Our first response to Payasi: origin of experimental method

Payasi certainly did something novel: he performed EXPERIMENTS to test the existence of the soul/ātman (आत्मन).
Experiments are the basis of scientific thought.
So, scientific thought is NOT Western in origin.
The experimental method was invented 2000 years before Francis Bacon.

HENCE, it is pseudo-nationalist to say
"you are comparing Vedanta with Western science".
Even if thought and debate is required to be limited by national boundaries,
I am responding to an Indian pūrva paksha.

2nd response: different notions of life after death

My 2nd response to Payasi is this.
There are DIFFERENT notions of life after death.
Payasi's experiments refuted a commonly prevalent but naive notion of life after death.
They did NOT refute the particular notion of life after death in the Upanishads.

WHEN does rebirth take place?

Payasi's experiments wrongly and naively assumed that
rebirth takes place immediately after death.
(He assumed that good and bad people would be reborn in his own lifetime.)

But even in popular Hinduism (Bhagavad Gita)
rebirth akes place in successive cycles of the cosmos.
(And each cycle takes a very long time.)

Bhagavad Gita (8.18-19)

अव्यक्ताद्व्यक्तय: सर्वा: प्रभवन्त्यहरागमे । रात्र्यागमे प्रलीयन्ते तत्रैवाव्यक्तसंज्ञके ।।8-18।।

भूतग्राम: स एवायं भूत्वा भूत्वा प्रलीयते । रात्र्यागमेऽवश: पार्थ प्रभवत्यहरागमे ।।8-19।।

Translation (rebirth across cosmic cycles)

(There is day also and night in the universe)
"With the coming of the day (of Brahma) all things are manifest.
In the night (or Brahma) they dissolve into what is called the unmanifest.
All past beings [and events] are created again and again and dissolve with the coming of the night (of Brahma),
O Partha, and are again manifest with the coming of day (of Brahma)."

Rebirth takes place in successive days of Brahmā (kalpas)

How long does a day (and night) of Brahmā last?
The Bhagvad Gita tells us:
सहस्त्रयुगपर्यन्तमहर्यद्ब्रह्राणो विदु: ।
रात्रिं युगसहस्त्रान्तां तेऽहोरात्रविदो जना: ।।8-17।।
(A day of Brahmā lasts 1000 (maha)yuga-s, so does the night.)

Duration of kalpa or day of Brahmā in the Vishnu Purana

1 Mahayuga consists of 4 yuga-s: Krita, Treta, Dwapara, Kali in the ratio 4:3:2:1.
Each mahayuga is 12000 years of the gods,
where 1 year of the gods = 360 days of the gods
and 1 day of the gods = 1 year of mortals.

The last equation is justified

since the gods were supposed to live on Meru
on the north pole
where day and night last for 6 months each (Aryabhatiya, Gola 17)

Day and night of Brahmā

The upshot is that a day of Brahmā (kalpa) or night of Brahmā (vikalpa) are each 4.32 billion years
so a day and night of Brahmā is 8.64 billion years.
(To complete the analogy, to an ordinary day and night (on earth),
note that an ordinary day and night is 86,400 seconds.)

WHAT is reborn (or repeats)?

Q. At the end of that period WHAT repeats?
A. Not living beings alone, but all things.

श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् (1.6)

सर्वाजीवे सर्वसंस्थे बृहन्ते
अस्मिन् हंसो भ्राम्यते ब्रह्मचक्रे ।

Translation (mine)

This vast universe is a Wheel, the Wheel of Brhman. Upon it are all creatures and things that are subject to repetition (birth, death, rebirth)

After (8.64 billion years) the whole cosmos goes through a cycle

Not only are living creatures (सर्वाजीवे) reborn
ALL things and events (सर्वसंस्थे) in the cosmos repeat

As the Bhagavad Gita too tells us

आब्रह्रभुवनाल्लोका: पुनरावर्तिनोऽर्जुन । … ।।8-16।।

"All things in this cosmos (not only living beings) are subject to repetition, O Arjun…

WHICH other worlds?

Recall कठोपनिषत् (2.6)

अयं लोको नास्ति पर इति मानी …. ॥ ६॥
This world alone is real; there are no others

What are these "other worlds"?

NOT heaven and hell, as Payasi thought
but approximate COPIES of this very world.
Cycles of the cosmos.

No description of heaven and hell in Upanishads

E.g. Payasi spoke of "good place" and "bad place" for good and bad people
but there is NO detailed description of "heaven" and "hell" in the Upanishads
(only in the Mahabharata and in popular Hinduism:
(not quite Vedanta, remember Dayanand Saraswati?)

Upanishads speak only of REPEATED lives
(and repeated deaths)
and liberation or moksha, from that cycle of birth and death.
E.g.श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् (1.6) (will come back to that)

Interim summary: cosmic recurrence (on tradition)

When does rebirth take place?
NOT immediately after death
but after a cosmic cycle, after 8.64 billion years.

What is reborn?
NOT only are living creatures (सर्वाजीवे) are reborn
ALL things and events (सर्वसंस्थे) in the cosmos repeat (cosmic recurrence, आब्रह्रभुवनाल्लोका: पुनरावर्तिनो).
The "other worlds" are NOT heaven and hell but (approximate) copies of this one.

Key scientific question

Does the cosmos recur?
This is a scientific question, which must be answered scientifically.
But no Indian scientist (apart from me, starting 1979) has engaged with this question.
Short answer: Yes.

Have been trying to explain this for over 40 years

(1979) "Ancient and Modern Cosmology", Proc. IAGRG, X, ISI/Tech. Report P&E/E/12-79.
(2003) The Eleven Pictures of Time , Sage
(2005)Ātman, quasi-recurrence and paticca samuppāda (PHISPC) … etc.
without much success in getting the point across.

Poincaré recurrence theorem

On Newtonian physics a closed cosmos MUST recur
like a gas in a box.(See any textbook on thermodynamics.)
That is, every micro state must recur infinitely often,
to any specified precision.

For a generalized form of the Poincaré recurrence theorem

which works for general relativity and beyond see my 1994 book: Time: Towards a Consistent Theory
Contents of chapter 4: Thermodynamic time
(A version of the recurrence theorem exists also for quantum mechanics.)
Won't go into all those details here, will only summarize.

Important conclusion

Belief in ātman or
related belief in repeated lives after death
is NOT a superstition.

The belief in repeated lives after death is an inexorable consequence of Newtonian physics in a closed cosmos.
Newtonian physics, of course, failed long ago (so it is NOT the right science to use), but
This is already enough to give easy answers to the questions raised by sceptics.

Answers to sceptics

Answers to sceptics-1

Cosmic recurrence answers ALL objections raised by sceptics.
Why don't the dead return?
They cannot. Because it will be billions of years before they are reborn.

Answers to sceptics-2

Why don't we remember past lives?
Because memories commence afresh.
Think of each cosmic cycle as a replay of the last.
The 29th time that a film is replayed, will the hero remember that the villain cheated him in the earlier replay?

Answers to sceptics-3

Why can't the soul(ātman) be seen or weighed?
Because it is an abstraction connecting one person in one cycle of the cosmos
to a similar person in the next/previous cycle
the way you are connected to yourself at the next/previous instant of time.

Summary and Conclusions-Part 1

There are various kinds of beliefs in life after death.
The actual Vedantic belief in life after death (and ātman) involves cosmic recurrence.
In that context, the belief in life after death is perfectly scientific.
To repeat: the belief in life after death is a perfectly scientific belief if the cosmos recurs.

A closed cosmos MUST recur on Newtonian physics.
Cosmic recurrence answers all doubts regarding life after death raised by sceptics, ancient and modern.
That settles the issue of Payasi's and other sceptic’s objections to life after death
which have remained unanswered in the past 2500 years.

Part 2. Moksha and quasi-cyclic time

So, we have moved a big step forward

we have convincingly answered the पूर्व पक्ष about disbelief in life after death
which NO ONE answered in the last 2500 years:
ātman or the related belief in repeated lives after death is scientific.
BUT that is only the FIRST step.

There are different types of cosmic recurrence.
Eternal or exact cosmic recurrence (or Poincaré recurrence) is NOT what is required for Hinduism.
Why not?

The key requirement of moksha

With cosmic recurrence, the only reasonable desirable goal of life is
LIBERATION from life after death or
moksha which is also the ultimate goal of Vedanta/Hinduism

This is clarified e.g. by the second part of the cosmos-as-a-wheel quote from श्वेताश्वतरोपनिषत् (1.6)
the next verse clarifies
अमृतत्व = immortality = non-death = freedom from (re-) birth = योनिमुक्ताः

Likewise, the second part of Bhagavad Gita 8-16 is
…मामुपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म न विद्यते ।।8-16।।
"On finding me, O son of Kunti, they are no longer reborn."

Key Problem 2: different TYPES of "cyclic" time

While ātman is a scientific notion with ANY kind recurrence,
moksha (or liberation) is NOT available with eternal recurrence (or Poincaré recurrence), or supercyclic time.
Moksha requires quasi-cyclic time but NOT supercyclic time.
So, it is a horrible mistake to assert that "Hinduism requires 'cyclic' time".

Confusing different kinds of recurrence

It confuses different types of "cyclic" time.
Just as Payasi confused different notions of life after death.
But this mistake often made by those influenced by Western philosophy,
because the church sowed this confusion (between different types of 'cyclic' time) in Western thought.

E.g. Nietzsche and eternal recurrence

Nietzsche intuitively anticipated the Poincaré recurrence theorem.
Nietzsche was opposed to the church. He knew that the church had cursed "cyclic" time.
Therefore, to oppose the church Nietzsche championed eternal recurrence as "cyclic" time, using Newtonian physics.
He wrongly attributed his half-understanding of cosmic recurrence to (the "Aryan") Zoroaster (Zarathustra).

Nietzsche's description of cosmic recurrence

What if some day or night a demon crept after you into your most singular solitude and said: 'This life that you now live and have lived, you will have to live it again and countless times again;

Nietzsche's description-2

and there will be nothing new about it; and every pain, every joy, every thought, every sigh, and everything unspeakably great or small in your life will have to return to you, everything in the same progression and sequence—even the spider I see, the moonlight filtered through the trees, even this moment and I myself.

Nietzsche's description-3

The eternal hourglass of existence will be inverted over and over again; as will you, you speck of dust!' Would you not cast yourself to the ground, grinding your teeth together, cursing the demon who spoke to you thus?

Just because liberation is impossible in an eternally recurrent cosmos,
Nietzsche advanced the doctrine of the Superman or the Ubermensch.
Nietzsche's confusion was due to the church curse on "cyclic: time.

Church curse on cyclic time

In fact, this non-availability of liberation (or salvation) with eternal recurrence
was THE argument used by the church when it pronounced its great curse (anathema) on "cyclic" time.

Augustine's argument was

that with eternal recurrence Christ is repeatedly crucified, in successive cycles of the cosmos.
Hence, Christ cannot save even himself.
And if Christ cannot save himself how can he save all humanity?
So, he said (City of God, XI.13)

Augustine quote

"Heaven forbid that we should believe this
for Christ having once for our sins
rising again dies no more"
Hence the church changed reincarnation to resurrection —life after death just once.

Resurrection

or life after death exactly once
differs from reincarnation (repeated lives after death).
It makes the Christian notion of soul metaphysical = scientifically meaningless,
though ātman often translated as "soul".

Confounding different type of 'cyclic' time

Early Christianity (Origen) had the same notion of "soul" as ātman in Hinduism. (See "Appendix on Origen".)
Augustine mischievously (for political reasons) misrepresented Origen, to confound two different kinds of "cyclic" time.

Key point: just as there are different notions of life after death,
there are also radically different and antagonistic notions of "cyclic" time,
as I explained in my book The Eleven Pictures of Time.

Disservice to Hinduism

But liberation or moksha is a fundamental and ultimate requirement of Hinduism.
Therefore, those who illiterately say "Hinduism speaks of cyclic time"
are unknowingly doing the greatest possible disservice and damage to Hinduism.

Quasi recurrence not eternal recurrence

Both ātman and moksha are scientifically possible
IF the cosmos is quasi-recurrent but NOT eternally recurrent.
That is if time is quasi-cyclic, but NOT super-cyclic.

Conclusion Part 2

For both ātman and moksha to be scientifically possible
the cosmos must be quasi-recurrent but NOT eternally recurrent.
That is if time must be quasi-cyclic, but NOT super-cyclic.
The above conclusion leads to the next question (will only summarize).

Part 3. Is quasi-cyclic time scientifically possible?

Key Problem 3: changing math and science

To achieve quasi-cyclic time starting from current physics involves a major difficulty:
to get rid of the church ideology in Western ethno-math and Western ethno-science.
This problem of eliminating church ideology in math and science
has two parts: math and physics.

Math: Calculus and superlinear time

On the current (Western) (mis)understanding of calculus
formal real numbers are deemed necessary for calculus.
This forces time in physics to be superlinear, like the real line,
just to be able to write down the differential equations of physics.

Physics: Mechanistic physics vs mundane creativity

Current physics (including quantum mechanics) is mechanistic,
no room for human effort/creativity observed at the mundane level.
Moksha doesn't just happen: it requires human effort.
But where is the possibility of human effort in science?

(Note: I do not use the Christian theological term "free will" but refer to purushartha or mundane time.)

A new math and physics

So, to achieve quasi-cyclic time
we need to build a NEW math and physics.
This requires a deep knowledge of math and physics.

This deep knowledge of math and physics NOT available with Sanskritists (even if they have a PhD in physics).
And, we cannot just facilely say "we had it all along",
as some people say about space travel or Newtonian gravitation (which has to be rejected).
The new math and physics needs to be built.

Resolution to Key problem 3

The good news is this has already been done,
but needs to be understood widely.

New/old calculus

As a first step we need to correct the current (mis)understanding of calculus
and base it on the way calculus originated in India
using Brahmagupta's polynomial (non-Archimedean) arithmetic
and zeroism.

Not just "first" but "differently"

The issue regarding calculus is NOT merely that we did it FIRST (that makes no difference here),
but that we did it DIFFERENTLY.
(explained again in Cultural Foundations of Mathematics, 2nd edition.

Revised calculus eliminates superlinear time

As usual most people don't understand this subtlety (or even the calculus)
But this revised understanding of calculus essential to free us from superlinear time in physics
(though we can still use time as a parameter).

Beyond calculus

Indeed, it is necessary to reform the entire philosophy of (formal) mathematics
which only superimposed a layer of metaphysics, based on crusading church politics,
on top of practical mathematics (arithmetic, algebra, "trigonometry, probability and statistics) imported from India.

and returned as "superior" during colonialism.
together with a false history.

Failure of Newtonian physics

For physics we need to understand the reasons for the failure of Newtonian physics,
due to it internal conceptual confusion over time.
That is, we need to understand WHY Newtonian physics HAD to be replaced by relativity.

Wrongly crediting Einstein

Cannot understand that easily because relativity falsely attributed to Einstein
who copied it with half-understanding from Poincaré.
As with calculus, this is about UNDERSTANDING
NOT just a matter of WHO gets credit.

Einstein failed to understand that relativity forces a new mathematical model –
the use of FDEs to reformulate physics.
Specifically, Einstein made the inexcusable mathematical mistake (till the end of life)
of trying to approximate FDEs by ODEs.

Einstein's mistake regarding FDEs

Poincaré, the real originator of relativity, understood that relativity needs FDEs
which are fundamentally different from ODEs.
(On my epistemic test, that knowledge thieves only half-understand what they steal,
Einstein's mistake shows that he stole relativity.)

The tilt in the arrow of time and creativity

But, to allow observed mundane creativity of living organisms,
we need to go beyond Poincaré.
The FDEs of physics must be FDEs with a tilt in the arrow of time,
as described in my books or in my series of articles on FDEs.

Back to Vedanta/Hinduism

FDEs with a tilt is pure science.
But IF the tilt in the arrow of time INCREASES with time
we get quasi-cyclic time without exact or eternal recurrence,
as required for both ātman and moksha to be scientifically meaningful.

Conclusions Part 3

Western ethno-math needs to be corrected especially to eliminate the use of real numbers in calculus.
Western ethno-physics needs to be corrected to eliminate mechanistic physics,
and allow creativity of living organisms.
FDE with a tilt in the arrow of time allow observed mundane creativity of living organisms.

If the tilt increases with time, we get quasi-cyclic time
without exact or eternal recurrence,
as required for BOTH ātman and moksha to be scientifically meaningful.

Part 4: Colonisation and math and physics

Key Problem 4: changing the colonial mindset

Colonised people think validity of math and science is NOT decided by applying their own mind
it is to be decided only by what the Western master approves.
This makes math and science subordinate to Western social approval
and makes the agenda of decolonisation, or de-Westernization of math and science, practically impossible.

The West will never approve of this change

in Western ethno-math and Western ethno-science
required for quasi-cyclic time (or Vedanta) to be scientific.
The colonised must decide what is more important
real math and science or just Western approval, due to the false sense of inferiority inflicted by colonialism.

To get rid of that sense of inferiority

we need to understand that the West systematically promoted racism based on
a false history of science since the Crusades.
And the way to counter that is NOT to promote one's own false history
but to replace the existing false history with truth.

The church curse on 'cyclic' time creates a conflict with Vedanta

so authoritative Western social approval will never come.
The deep loyalty/indoctrination of Westerners to/by the church is the reason
why church ideology still pervades Western ethno-math and Western ethno-science.
This politics consciously influences science at the highest level, of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose

Decolonisation: Indians living in the West can't do it

and the nationalist Indian government won't do it.
It only pays lip service to decolonization but is totally subservient to the West.
E.g. It appointed a Western-approved formal mathematician Manjul Bhargava, for its NEP.
This ensured that the Indian way of teaching calculus will not happen in our universities.

Recall that calculus forces superlinear time, contrary to Vedanta
and is so difficult today, just because Newton etc. did not properly UNDERSTAND
the calculus stolen from India (the original is easy).
(This calculus difficulty most recently acknowledged by the California state board.)

Anyway, do what you like:

BUT please don't tell ME what to do
("teach in a gurukul" etc.)
Especially after 2500 years of failing to address even the pūrva paksha.

If after 8 years in power the Indian government could not change even the calculus syllabus
even in 5 universities, even on a trial basis
despite so many pedagogical demonstrations of its benefit
then let this knowledge go elsewhere (you can be proud LATER).

For those still interested,you can
(a) read and understand my books, or
(b) let this knowledge die with me.

Resolution 4: Decolonization, and rejection of Western ethnomath and ethnoscience

possible in principle
but near-impossible in practice (in India).

Conclusion Part 4

❓
(Decolonisation is a political struggle for mental freedom, outcome uncertain.)
But those who are happy to remain mental slaves of the West
do NOT need to be spoon-fed knowledge of eternal liberation.

Part 5: Ethics

Key Problem 5: What difference does it make to everyday life?

So, what difference does it make in everyday life
if beliefs in ātman and moksha are scientific beliefs?

Resolution 5: This makes the related ethics (धर्म) credible

even to the non-believer
as already explained in The Eleven Pictures of Time
and "The Harmony Principle"
(live so as to increase harmony in the cosmos).

Evolutionary ethics

Much of everyday life involves {{{color(red, evolutionary ethics}}}}:
seeking status, territory, etc.
All this can be related to the urge to survive.
And most people live (and die) by it.

The conflict

The ethics related to moksha seems the exact opposite: abandon the world.
If this ethic is not credible, it is the ethic which will be abandoned instead.
शब्द प्रमाण of veda-s has limited credibility.
The two ethics need to be reconciled.

The analysis

But WHY do living organisms want to survive?
There is no explanation for this in the theory of evolution
(nor any allowance for the possibility that mutations may form creatively and non-randomly).

Why exactly do we want to survive?
This question becomes especially prominent, with any kind of cosmic recurrence,
for what is the point in surviving (across cosmic cycles) if there are repeated lives after death? (Recall Nietzsche.)
So, how does one relate survival ethics to moksha or the ethics of non-survival.

If survival is important in everyday life
why is non-survival important across cosmic cycles?
How to reconcile short term and long term objectives?

Creating harmony in the cosmos

On my theory, the desire to survive
derives from the more fundamental desire to preserve or create order or harmony in the cosmos.
More generally, one wants to increase harmony in the cosmos.

Creativity is needed to produce or preserve order or harmony.
And, paradoxically, seeking to attain moksha (or non-survival)
increases harmony in the cosmos.

For this ethics to be credible,
it is important that ātman and moksha should be scientifically credible,
i.e., credible on the most stringent intellectual tests we can administer.

Conclusion 5:

Hence, the ultimate ethical principle:
live so as to increase harmony in the cosmos.

Ātman as a scientific notion in relation to physics and math

Contents