consciousness into matter

[Guest guest]

Okay, here goes, I am going to attempt to explain some stuff with the

assistance of _Ayurveda, Textbook of Fundamental Principles_ by Vasant

Lad, from which I am--heavily--paraphrasing.

This is an offering to Deanna, because it was in reading certain of

her posts that I got the jam to take this thing on and see how/if it

passes scrutiny.

Ayurveda, a medical science, incorporates six systems of Indian

philosophy, representing six visions of life. They are ways of

orienting with reality. Three of the systems predominantly deal with

the material world. Of these three, one, Nyaya, focuses on logical

reasoning, understanding cause and effect, or experiences one can

reduce to cause and effect, and one, Vaisheshika, is focused on the

level of the physical world without concern for what created it, where

it came from. It is more a model of physics, particle interactions,

than a philosophy of speculative thought.

Nyaya means logic and Vaisheshika means to specify the important

aspects of concrete reality. Their proponents believed in obtaining

knowledge through observation and critical logic.

Vaisheshika speaks of nine causative substances of the

universe--Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth; the soul, which is the

spirit or self; mind; time; and direction--while Nyaya deals with how

to think/reason about them.

Vaisheshika holds the atomic theory of existence, believing the union

and separation of atoms is guided/directed by the will of the Supreme

Being. Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth are eternal atoms. Unions

of atoms created universal elements at the time of creation and these

will separate at the time of disintegration/annihilation.

So, according to Nyaya, there are three sources of non-valid

knowledge: doubt, faulty cognition and hypothetical argument, and

four sources of valid knowledge: peception, inference, comparison and

testimony. Nyaya states that any reality can be understood by these

four methods.

The first proof, perception, is knowledge produced through contact of

the senses with objects of the world. This contact must be clear.

Next is inference, and cognition, based on some previous knowledge or

experience.

Comparison comes from perceiving the similarity between a known and

unfamiliar object.

The last proof is verbal testimony, that which is authentic and truthful.

Okay, now for the five elements, which here are composed of *atoms* of

the first five of the nine causative substances mentioned earlier.

Ether: all pervading field upon which all the objects of the universe

play. Ayurveda says within Ether is a pure presence of spiritual

energy which manifests as nuclear energy.

Air: Ether, when it moves in a particular direction, becomes air.

(Well, " air " is an insufficient word to convey the deeper meaning of

the original word, " vayu " .) Air is a principle of movement necessary

to keep the body in motion and manifests as electrical energy.

Now " prana " is a basic principle of the air element, being the flow of

Consciousness from one cell to another cell in the form of

intelligence. It is the vital life force and needed for all the

subtle and gross movements within the cell, within the system, and

within the physical body. IOW sensory stimuli and motor responses are

subtle movements of prana. The movements of the heart, respiration,

peristalsis and other involuntary movements are governed by this

principle, this Air/prana.

Movement creates friction, and where there is friction is Fire, the

next manifestation of Awareness. Fire element governs all

transformative processes: the metabolic processes regulating the

transformation of food into energy, body tempurature, digestion,

absorption and assimilation of foodstuffs.

Fire is caried throughout the body in the blood and plasma as heat. If

the blood supply is cut off, that pat of the body will be cold. Fire

regulates understanding, comprehension and selectivity. The Fire

element is radiant energy and its presence in the body is the flame of

attention.

Water is associated with chemical energy. Water is the universal

chemical solvent and governs all biochemical functions. Its presence

in the body is the plasma and lymph.

Earth: solid, dense and hard, the firm ground for global life. All

solid structures, hard, fim and compact tissues are derived from Earth

element (e.g. bones, cartilage, nails, hair, teeth and skin) Earth is

associated with mechanical energy.

Soul: eternal; universal and of two kinds, individual and supreme;

inferred and indivisible, a substratum or phenomenon of Consciousness.

Sure, modern science takes seriously only what can be seen, measured

or put upon an observation table but ancient Vedic philosophy

speaks--a lot--about the soul as one's true identity/true Self.

Without that Self, consciousness is *unpossible*. Soul/Self cannot be

seen but it can be experienced; can't be measured but one can merge

into it. Vaisheshika defines it as a material, causative factor of

creation.

Mind: is universal, atomic/indivisible. It directs experience.

There is no line of demarcation between the conscious/subconscious

mind, only levels, the division has been created by us as a matter of

convenience. Meditation is probing into the subconscious. When

meditating, our cells become aware/conscious of thoughts, of stress

being released. We can in this way begin to communicate with each cell.

Time: a force that can produce change and be used as a marker for

change. Time can also be measured in terms of " prana " . One prana is

one breath, thus, the faster the rate of respiration, the shorter the

span of life.

There is chronological time and psychological time, which is the

movement of thought. If one enters an inner space beyond thought, one

goes beyond psychological time.

Direction: up, down, and lateral movements, also internal/external

movements give a sense of direction. Ayurveda also uses east, west,

north and south as directions. East is hot, sharp, bright, with more

solar energy. West is cool and has more lunar energy. The further

north, the colder, the further south, the hotter. These directions

can also be used for healing purposes.

Southeast is the direction of Fire, southwest, Earth, northwest the

direction of Air, northeast, Earth. Ether is in the center. This is

the natural order of direction and the elements and can also be used

to encourage harmony in, say, the living space.

Any questions?

B.

[Guest guest]

-

>Vaisheshika speaks of nine causative substances of the

>universe--Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth; the soul, which is the

>spirit or self; mind; time; and direction--while Nyaya deals with how

>to think/reason about them.

Many ancient takes on the world divided it into elements -- earth, water,

air, and fire being a taxonomy many people are probably familiar with from

school. But what evidence is there for the proposition that any such

taxonomy is correct? As science progressed, taxonomies progressed

too. People learned what fire really is, the " earth " is actually all sorts

of different elements and molecules, etc. etc. etc.

>Vaisheshika holds the atomic theory of existence, believing the union

>and separation of atoms is guided/directed by the will of the Supreme

>Being.

So ayurveda is actually a religion?

>Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth are eternal atoms. Unions

>of atoms created universal elements at the time of creation and these

>will separate at the time of disintegration/annihilation.

I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with actual physical reality

and physical science and I'm failing.

>So, according to Nyaya, there are three sources of non-valid

>knowledge: doubt, faulty cognition and hypothetical argument, and

>four sources of valid knowledge: peception, inference, comparison and

>testimony. Nyaya states that any reality can be understood by these

>four methods.

This also sounds like a fairly primitive and outdated philosophy, in this

case of knowledge and logic.

>Ether: all pervading field upon which all the objects of the universe

>play. Ayurveda says within Ether is a pure presence of spiritual

>energy which manifests as nuclear energy.

What is nuclear energy supposed to be in this context? And why was the

word 'atom' used -- or misused, as far as I can tell -- previously?

Many cultures believed in ether or something like that because it was hard

to believe that existence itself didn't have a medium. Even physicists

used to believe there had to be an ether -- that light waves had to be

" waving " something. But then experiments proved that there's no such thing.

>Air: Ether, when it moves in a particular direction, becomes air.

>(Well, " air " is an insufficient word to convey the deeper meaning of

>the original word, " vayu " .) Air is a principle of movement necessary

>to keep the body in motion and manifests as electrical energy.

If " air " doesn't mean the stuff we're breathing, then why use that word at

all? And again, all of this sounds like religious mythology. It's

definitely not science.

>Any questions?

Yes: why do you think any of this is in any way scientific?

I'm not saying that ayurveda has no functionally useful medical advice to

offer. It may even be that its diagnostic prowess is as great as you

say. But its underlying explanations of those diagnoses, and its

underlying explanations of the world, are religious and also do not

correspond to physical reality.

-

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> -

>

> >Vaisheshika speaks of nine causative substances of the

> >universe--Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth; the soul, which is the

> >spirit or self; mind; time; and direction--while Nyaya deals with

how

> >to think/reason about them.

>

> Many ancient takes on the world divided it into elements -- earth,

water,

> air, and fire being a taxonomy many people are probably familiar

with from

> school. But what evidence is there for the proposition that any

such

> taxonomy is correct? As science progressed, taxonomies progressed

> too. People learned what fire really is, the " earth " is actually

all sorts

> of different elements and molecules, etc. etc. etc.

>

> >Vaisheshika holds the atomic theory of existence, believing the

union

> >and separation of atoms is guided/directed by the will of the

Supreme

> >Being.

>

> So ayurveda is actually a religion?

>

<snip>

From what I can tell (and I haven't given ayurveda any significant

amount of in-depth study), the terminology and taxonomy used in

ayurveda are fairly simple, which makes it less intimidating for the

vast mass of its adherents to grasp and practice.

Those ancient cosmologies and medical philosophies seem to me to have

restricted themselves to breaking down the universe into numbers of

things that can be counted on one's fingers and toes. You know, like

when they always seem to find only 5 to 7 categories of things like

flavors, elements, bodily systems, illnesses, etc.

And they seem to restrict their labels to things that practically

every individual has had experience with, or can experince, if they

chose to. I mean, who hasn't had experience with air...and known

it. Or had experience with water...and known it? Or had experience

with earth (soil) and known it?

And, with only a handful or two of labels for things, it appears that

they have to " force " everything they see into one of those

categories, or a combination of them. It's like the old saying, " To

a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail " .

This is in contrast to our modern allopathic medical philosophy which

has so many categories and names for things, and uses a language for

labeling that the common man/woman does not use every day (i.e.,

Latin), and expresses concepts that the common man/woman cannot

experience firsthand unless they have access to, say, a CT scan

machine, an electron microscope, a brix meter, or at least a good

medical dictionary.

Our modern way of labeling the " elements " and health issues requires

so much specialized knowledge (at least of the Latin terms used!)

that at least 80% of the common people make NEXT TO NO EFFORT to

actually understand their doctor's comments or the fine print on the

patient education documents they receive, let alone actually seek our

and study medical research. (I'm assuming the 80/20 rule applies

here!)

All they care about is whether their doctor seems " nice " or not, and

whether or not their health insurance will cover the treatment they

expect to receive. They make no attempt to figure out whether or not

what they're being led to do (especially in the case of things like

cancer screenings and such) is really necessary, let alone whether

it's a good health strategy or not.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

On 9/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

> >Vaisheshika holds the atomic theory of existence, believing the union

> >and separation of atoms is guided/directed by the will of the Supreme

> >Being.

>

> So ayurveda is actually a religion?

No, those were just the terms employed at the time to explain the

things that were beyond investigation. Just like many earlier Western

scientists talked a lot about God being responsible for different

forces or properties. Even Einstein invoked the " God doesn't play

dice " argument. Questions about ultimate cause still come down to

belief, don't they? We have yet to prove or understand or observe

what's truly at the bottom of the universe.

Replace " Supreme Being " with something like " the total of all forces

in the universe " or something like that, and it's perfectly secular.

>

> >Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth are eternal atoms. Unions

> >of atoms created universal elements at the time of creation and these

> >will separate at the time of disintegration/annihilation.

>

> I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with actual physical reality

> and physical science and I'm failing.

See below.

<snip>

> >Any questions?

>

> Yes: why do you think any of this is in any way scientific?

>

> I'm not saying that ayurveda has no functionally useful medical advice to

> offer. It may even be that its diagnostic prowess is as great as you

> say. But its underlying explanations of those diagnoses, and its

> underlying explanations of the world, are religious and also do not

> correspond to physical reality.

I'm not understanding the equation of truth or " physical reality " with

science. They didn't have the methods of microscopic observation etc

that we do now. Ayurveda, though not privy to those tools,

nonetheless relied on observation, hypothesis, experiment, etc, just

like modern sciences do. Our technologies have progressed immensely

and disproven or reconfirmed millions of previous findings/beliefs.

I'm sure the effort is already underway to reconcile Ayurveda's

systems with current ones and to update the language to something more

comfortable to the modern. But to say that they were just woo-wooing

around with no eye to the efficacy of their treatments is, I think,

just wrong. Saying that would be the same as rejecting all cultural

traditions and undercutting the core of Price's work.

The argument that their metaphysical beliefs (i.e. the Supreme Being)

invalidate the " science " of the discipline, zero-sum, to me holds no

water. Many modern scientists would attribute the final source of the

universe to God. Many wouldn't. That's a *philosophical* judgement

about things they recognize to be beyond observation, i.e. beyond

science in its current state. Are those who don't employ a principled

refusal to believe not allowed to be scientists?

[Guest guest]

Reality is relative to whatever it is being observed with. If you read

Eintstein's work you should know this. Scientists observe it with

complex tools used to measure different aspects of it. Ayurveda and

many other belief systems used an infinitely more complex tool, which

is the human mind.

Science can be said to be a religion as well, as nothing can even be

absolutely proven, thats what theories are for. A theory isn't proof,

its a model of an aspect of reality that hasn't been disproven yet.

God could also be said to be a theory, but some things you just can't

disprove so we will have to settle for what we believe in.

> > -

> > >Vaisheshika holds the atomic theory of existence, believing the union

> > >and separation of atoms is guided/directed by the will of the Supreme

> > >Being.

> >

> > So ayurveda is actually a religion?

>

> No, those were just the terms employed at the time to explain the

> things that were beyond investigation. Just like many earlier Western

> scientists talked a lot about God being responsible for different

> forces or properties. Even Einstein invoked the " God doesn't play

> dice " argument. Questions about ultimate cause still come down to

> belief, don't they? We have yet to prove or understand or observe

> what's truly at the bottom of the universe.

>

> Replace " Supreme Being " with something like " the total of all forces

> in the universe " or something like that, and it's perfectly secular.

>

> >

> > >Ether, Air, Fire, Water and Earth are eternal atoms. Unions

> > >of atoms created universal elements at the time of creation and these

> > >will separate at the time of disintegration/annihilation.

> >

> > I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with actual physical

reality

> > and physical science and I'm failing.

>

> See below.

>

> <snip>

>

> > >Any questions?

> >

> > Yes: why do you think any of this is in any way scientific?

> >

> > I'm not saying that ayurveda has no functionally useful medical

advice to

> > offer. It may even be that its diagnostic prowess is as great as you

> > say. But its underlying explanations of those diagnoses, and its

> > underlying explanations of the world, are religious and also do not

> > correspond to physical reality.

>

> I'm not understanding the equation of truth or " physical reality " with

> science. They didn't have the methods of microscopic observation etc

> that we do now. Ayurveda, though not privy to those tools,

> nonetheless relied on observation, hypothesis, experiment, etc, just

> like modern sciences do. Our technologies have progressed immensely

> and disproven or reconfirmed millions of previous findings/beliefs.

> I'm sure the effort is already underway to reconcile Ayurveda's

> systems with current ones and to update the language to something more

> comfortable to the modern. But to say that they were just woo-wooing

> around with no eye to the efficacy of their treatments is, I think,

> just wrong. Saying that would be the same as rejecting all cultural

> traditions and undercutting the core of Price's work.

>

> The argument that their metaphysical beliefs (i.e. the Supreme Being)

> invalidate the " science " of the discipline, zero-sum, to me holds no

> water. Many modern scientists would attribute the final source of the

> universe to God. Many wouldn't. That's a *philosophical* judgement

> about things they recognize to be beyond observation, i.e. beyond

> science in its current state. Are those who don't employ a principled

> refusal to believe not allowed to be scientists?

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 9/19/05, gdawson6 <gdawson6@...> wrote:

> Reality is relative to whatever it is being observed with. If you read

> Eintstein's work you should know this. Scientists observe it with

> complex tools used to measure different aspects of it. Ayurveda and

> many other belief systems used an infinitely more complex tool, which

> is the human mind.

Yes, definitely. And as and others have pointed out before,

scientists are still human with all the same biases and

predispositions to which we're all subject.

> Science can be said to be a religion as well, as nothing can even be

> absolutely proven, thats what theories are for. A theory isn't proof,

> its a model of an aspect of reality that hasn't been disproven yet.

I think this is an important point. I've noticed it a lot with really

die-hard advocates (including one of my former selves) of

pure-objective-science-and-nothing-else: Science (with a capital S)

begins to take on the roles formerly in religion's domain. It becomes

a rigorous dogma to be deployed against anything with a hint of the

mystical. It can force thought into such a narrow tunnel (the unknown

is off limits because we don't know it) that it becomes, in a way, a

new kind of puritanism.

: Please don't take that as directed toward you. It's a general

observation after significant contact with, and after being one of,

the people of which I'm speaking. I certainly don't know you well

enough to make any such judgements and wouldn't presume to do so.

> God could also be said to be a theory, but some things you just can't

> disprove so we will have to settle for what we believe in.

Exactly. So I'm not arguing that Ayurveda or the philosophy of Yoga

etc are *right* or are to be believed etc. I'm trying to make a

strenuous argument against the restraint of thoughts and capacities

(mystical, irrational, whatever) that are and always have been a huge

part of a full human life. This mode of thought doesn't trump the

other - they both have value.

In fact, this is exactly what many of the greatest scientific minds of

any time have done. brought up the example of Einstein, maybe

in another thread. His reliance was primarily on the intuitive,

instinctive and unreasoned. The ideas could later be massaged and

made coherent and structured, but the true advance was neither

structured nor coherent. This is a real and important part of our

sentience, and one that should not be lost completely to the analytic.

[Guest guest]

On 9/19/05, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote:

<snip>

> Exactly. So I'm not arguing that Ayurveda or the philosophy of Yoga

> etc are *right* or are to be believed etc. I'm trying to make a

> strenuous argument against the restraint of thoughts and capacities

> (mystical, irrational, whatever) that are and always have been a huge

> part of a full human life. This mode of thought doesn't trump the

> other - they both have value.

<snip>

PS: Olson had the most wonderful phrase for this: " a

secularism which loses nothing of the divine " (from Proprioception).

[Guest guest]

>Reality is relative to whatever it is being observed with. If you read

>Eintstein's work you should know this. Scientists observe it with

>complex tools used to measure different aspects of it. Ayurveda and

>many other belief systems used an infinitely more complex tool, which

>is the human mind.

I don't have time to get into a detailed discussion of relativity, but

there's a vast difference between Einstein's frame of reference and the

idea that reality is whatever you see or believe or use to observe it, if

I'm correctly understanding your point. As to ayurveda and other belief

systems, the complexity of the tool is beside the point.

>Science can be said to be a religion as well, as nothing can even be

>absolutely proven, thats what theories are for. A theory isn't proof,

>its a model of an aspect of reality that hasn't been disproven yet.

Religions take things on faith. Science understands that there's no such

thing as absolute certainty, but seeks verification for everything. To

conflate the two is to misunderstand both.

>God could also be said to be a theory, but some things you just can't

>disprove so we will have to settle for what we believe in.

Yes, that's true enough.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>So I'm not arguing that Ayurveda or the philosophy of Yoga

>etc are *right* or are to be believed etc. I'm trying to make a

>strenuous argument against the restraint of thoughts and capacities

>(mystical, irrational, whatever) that are and always have been a huge

>part of a full human life. This mode of thought doesn't trump the

>other - they both have value.

If the goal is to become health or to understand the natural world, though,

what's the value of a mystical belief system? Is there more value in a

rain dance or in meteorology? (And please understand that I'm not talking

about cultural or anthropological value, just value in terms of defined

goals and results, with the example goal here being in understanding and

predicting and eventually manipulating the weather.) I'm sure there's

plenty of diagnostic and prescriptive utility in systems like

ayurveda. I'm just objecting to the idea that their metaphoric

explanations of reality are just as useful and accurate as their specific

recommendations.

> brought up the example of Einstein, maybe

>in another thread. His reliance was primarily on the intuitive,

>instinctive and unreasoned. The ideas could later be massaged and

>made coherent and structured, but the true advance was neither

>structured nor coherent. This is a real and important part of our

>sentience, and one that should not be lost completely to the analytic.

This is a classic lay misunderstanding -- the idea that in science, all

thought is supposed to be algorithmic and computer-like. Intuition is a

type of thought process -- an immensely important and valuable type of

thought process. That doesn't make it unscientific, and the idea that it

would is actually kind of strange.

-

[Guest guest]

On 9/20/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >So I'm not arguing that Ayurveda or the philosophy of Yoga

> >etc are *right* or are to be believed etc. I'm trying to make a

> >strenuous argument against the restraint of thoughts and capacities

> >(mystical, irrational, whatever) that are and always have been a huge

> >part of a full human life. This mode of thought doesn't trump the

> >other - they both have value.

>

> If the goal is to become health or to understand the natural world, though,

> what's the value of a mystical belief system? Is there more value in a

> rain dance or in meteorology? (And please understand that I'm not talking

> about cultural or anthropological value, just value in terms of defined

> goals and results, with the example goal here being in understanding and

> predicting and eventually manipulating the weather.) I'm sure there's

> plenty of diagnostic and prescriptive utility in systems like

> ayurveda. I'm just objecting to the idea that their metaphoric

> explanations of reality are just as useful and accurate as their specific

> recommendations.

Right - the times *have* changed. Of course the answer is not to

decide " I will now be mystical in my nutritional decisions, " to drop

the extensive gains of the modern West and to unthinkingly take up

something that isn't, in some sense, " yours " (Jung cautioned

forcefully against this, especially WRT Yoga, though I think he

fundamentally misunderstood the philosophy). With respect to Ayurveda

and similar systems, I'm saying that to dismiss them because of their

mystical language would be a huge mistake. Massive amounts of

important knowledge were encoded in that language, and its dismissal

would mean a huge loss to humanity. The mode of thinking required for

their understanding, I'd argue, has lots of other important benefits

about which we might disagree.

So yes, we should never accept these doctrines without significant

historical context and a strict eye to detail, but nor should we allow

our sight to be obscured by changes in the dominant mode of

thought/investigation.

> > brought up the example of Einstein, maybe

> >in another thread. His reliance was primarily on the intuitive,

> >instinctive and unreasoned. The ideas could later be massaged and

> >made coherent and structured, but the true advance was neither

> >structured nor coherent. This is a real and important part of our

> >sentience, and one that should not be lost completely to the analytic.

>

> This is a classic lay misunderstanding -- the idea that in science, all

> thought is supposed to be algorithmic and computer-like. Intuition is a

> type of thought process -- an immensely important and valuable type of

> thought process. That doesn't make it unscientific, and the idea that it

> would is actually kind of strange.

I think we've beaten this horse to death, so I'll pass here. My ego,

though, wants badly to object to my inclusion in the scientific

laity...