Descending Knowledge

This was posted by me as a comment in the ‘Atheist or Intellectual’ post. Thought it might actually be good to have this as a blog post.

Vedic methodology acknowledges that we are limited in our knowledge gaining capabilities, through direct sense perception, logical inference or historical records. These processes have their uses, but cannot guarantee correct knowledge at all times, especially so when the object they are trying to understand is infinitely complex and our position and capabilities are infinitesimal.

This understanding is the first prerequisite for what the vedic methodology recognizes as the process of descending knowledge, called ‘Shabda’ or revealed sound, in which perfect knowledge descends from the absolute being, AKA God, who is conscious of all time and space simultaneously.

This knowledge is passed down through an unbroken line of qualified, unalloyed loving devotees who are bonafide spiritual masters. That line of teachers is commonly known as ’sampradaya’ or disciplic succession.

Now comes the question – How can we differentiate what is true Shabda?

Absolute or perfect knowledge is one that is never subject to change. Contrary to modern scientific methodology where theories are almost always being ‘improved’ upon, there absolutely no place for speculation in the process of shabda. Given that this knowledge comes from, and is basically part of, the absolute being, it is perfect and if someone attempts to change any of that information through speculation, it would inject inherent imperfections in to that knowledge too. So, any speculative changes made in transit would render the knowledge, as well as the person passing it on, as non-authoritative.

In summary, the objective of the vedic methodology is to know the absolute being. Understanding that the knowledge descends from the absolute being through the line of masters is the only way to progress in this methodology.

Of course, if a person considers the vedic literature to be imaginative creations of mortals with their inherent defects, then they hold no authoritative value for that person.

Do your bit to save this Earth!

The next time you order take-away from a restaurant, carry a hotpack and some smaller metal vessels to pack the food from the restaurant.

That way, you can save a lot of plastic bags, heat-seal wraps and paper from getting wasted.

Sounds absurd? Think.

Lord Krishna existed. School texts are wrong.

So says a nuclear medicine physician.

The interesting interview can be found here.

Atheist or Intellectual?

I was reading through a magazine last week wherein there was this in response to a reader’s query: “You need to be an intellectual to be an atheist!”.

Is that really so? Then, are all atheists intellectuals?

My friend in the blogworld, Ketan states in his profile that elements of honesty, introspection, analysis go into someone turning an atheist.

That made me wonder: Is it that one who is not an atheist is not honest nor does that one possess the gift of introspection and analysis?

Cannot one be endowed with all that and still be a strong believer in God?

What makes 2 individuals, having the same skills at analysis and ability to ascertain things and their causes, end up with completely different conclusions and yet lets them feel the other person’s conclusion is the wrong one?

Robots and Humans

Robots at the cost of Humans?

Good article.

Ockham’s razor… can it cut everything? – recycled

Yet another post of mine, which was actually read by some faculty member from the place I worked! Google can a bane… sometimes.

I was reading about some stuff for my tutoring sessions and I came across a principle known popularly as ” Ockham’s Razor”. Intrigued, I started digging deeper. This was a medieval principle used by 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham that forms the basis of methodological reductionism and he was known to use it so frequently that his name stuck to it. William wrote, in Latin, Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate, which translates literally into English as “Plurality should not be posited without necessity”. In the layman language it is stated as ,”Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred.”Now, this principle of simplicity, has a bigger consequence. This Methodological reductionism is the basis of scientific research. Any problem in Science is dealt by this reductionist principle. Meaning, given a problem, it is reduced in to a cluster of simpler problems and the accumulated solutions for the simpler problems gives the over all solution to the problem itself. This might look logical for the thinking minds. After all, we have been known to make advancement in science for all time.

But then I remembered the arguments rendered by my teacher around 3 years ago. I was not aware of the name of this principle, but was very familiar with the reductionist approach. Let’s consider this Universe. People have racked their brains over finding answers to the many questions posed by the space around us. And believe me, they use the reductionist approach to solve the origin of the Universe.

So the question is, ” What if the Universe is irreducibly complex at its present state?”. Meaning, if the present state of the universe is the simplest state it can be in, the reductionist approach will fail miserably. And another question will be, “What if the Universe was meant to be infinitely complex?”. Then whatever reduction we make, a solution will never be formed.

My opinion on this topic: There are things that escape human comprehension… things that are subtle enough to dazzle the most brilliant scientist and shield its truth from us.

To me, Ockham’s razor loses its sharpness when the subtle and the gross meet.