Most people have a wrong notion about Vedanta, because most commentaries give partial explanations not covering all aspects. Thus, their translations do not give a correct picture. I had spoken on this in many important forums. Specifically, I had presented a paper last year in a National Seminar to commemorate the Millennium of Ramanuja, the founder of Dwaita School, where I had shown that the different schools are not really different, but are different aspects of the same subject. Vedanta does not talk of “some sort of TRANS-individual, all-encompassing, divine-like Consciousness”. It declares both concepts of the Universal and the Individual Consciousness as valid and different aspects of the same thing – analog and digitized versions like the ocean and a bucket of ocean water. You had given a limited version, whereas I had used the totality.
Mind (मनः): It is called Manas. It has two variants based on the Universal (स्ववश्यस् मनः) and the Individual (हृदयाख्य मनः or सङ्कल्पात्मक मनः), which are analog and digitized versions respectively. The former is infinite (परममहत् परिमाण) and without numbers, whereas the latter is one and quantum (एक, अणु). We generally use the latter as mind. It is highly mobile – faster than light – though it can be brought to a standstill. For this reason, some American scientists proposed a Tachyon theory of mind. But after I showed their theory as self-contradictory, it is no longer discussed.
The materialists will dispute it by telling that there is no such thing as mind. It is only the neurons, nerve cells and nerve fibers, lecithins, proteids, etc. But what are these? Specific combinations of different atoms. Thus, according to them, motion of these matter leads to conscious functions in some yet unknown process. Motion means change of place over time. But this cannot explain different emotions generated in different persons by the same object. Other say that a person boarded a train to a certain city. We infer that he is going to that city or some place on the way to that place. From this, they infer that mind is co-emergent and co-terminus with motion of matter in the brain. But unless we know the mechanism of generation of different emotions, we cannot accept the above view.
We always give three different complementary interpretation to everything. Material interpretation (अधिभूत), energy interpretation (अधिदैव) and Conscious interpretation (अध्यात्म). In Conscious interpretation, mind is called Manas (मनः), which regulates the functioning of the sense organs (पञ्चभूतात्म धारकम्). In material interpretation, it is called Imagining Agency (सङ्कल्पात्मक मनः), as it tests an impulse with memory in a format “this or that” (इदं वा इदं वा) “it should be like this” (अस्येदं भवतु). In the energy interpretation, it is called the “Enlightening Agency” (चन्द्रमा – चन्दति दीप्यते), because unless mind is operating, the sensory agencies cannot function – the external impulses cannot be carried to the brain for processing.
Intelligence/Intellect (बुद्धि): It is the mixing agency of all sensory perceptions that leads to determinate knowledge (निश्चयात्मक). When we observe something; say, a rose; our eyes give us the perception of color only. Our sense of touch gives us the sense of form. Our sense of hearing, which can receive the sensations involving compression and rarefaction, gives us the spatial arrangement of petals and their intervals. Our sense of taste gives us the perception of freshness or dryness. Our sense of smell gives us the perception of fragrance. All these are mixed in our brain to give us a composite picture. The agency that gives us such composite picture is called Intelligence/Intellect (बुद्धि). All information has a source rate (complexity) that can be measured in bits per second (speed) and requires a transmission channel (mode – sensory channel) with a capacity equal to or greater than the source rate (intelligence or memory level). In perception, these are the intelligence level.
Self/Ego (अहङ्कार) & Self-Consciousness (अस्मिता): These are really not two different things, but two names of the same thing. For the different data structures that are received and to be mixed, we require a common code to bring it to a format “this (object) is like that (the concept)”. The Agency that provides the common code is called Self/Ego (अहङ्कार) and Self-Consciousness (अस्मिता). Since only here the synthesis of all perceptions through a common code takes place, it appears as the cognizer.
This cognition of self can be pure cognition or mixed cognition. The latter are of four types:
1) Externally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am rich”, “I am poor”, etc.
2) Internally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am fat”, “I am healthy”, etc.
3) Mentally induced ego: such as the feeling that “I am intelligent”, etc.
4) Mindless ego: such as the feeling that “I was asleep”, etc.
Of the above four, generally the last two are considered as Self or Ego. In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier.
Consciousness/Awareness (चित्त or महत्तत्व): Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. Number is a perceived property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. Hence they are most suited for describing messages concerning everything. Since the higher or lower numbers are perceived in a sequence of one at a time, it can be accumulated or reduced by one at each step making it equivalent to binary systems, such as yes/no. The repository of the data bank, which determines the response as yes/no relating to the concept, is called Consciousness/Awareness (चित्त). This reflects pure consciousness in a digitized form – a totality of different concepts, in a limited scale. For this reason, there is a limitation to our knowledge. Its analog form is the Absolute Consciousness or “TRANS-individual, all-encompassing, divine-like Consciousness” – (पुरुष).
Before we discuss: “Are the principles and rules of logic themselves knowledge or not”, it is necessary to precisely define “knowledge”, “truth” and “logic” to be clear in our minds about the exact content of our deliberation. This will eliminate doubts regarding “whether we do have genuine knowledge at all” and “in what sense can they be deemed ‘true’ or ‘false’?” These questions arise because if we consider “knowledge is justified true belief”, then we face a contradiction: logical validity is a property of inferential schemes and structures, whereas ‘truth’ and ‘rational belief” or ‘justification’ are properties of propositional content. To try and establish whether the principles of logic are themselves true or false would seem to imply an inconclusive ‘regressus ad infinitum’. This will also reply the question: “Are the principles and rules of logic themselves knowledge or not?”
KNOWLEDGE: When, due to some external or internal impulse, we remember something out of our past experience, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge” (smritipoorvaanubhutaartha vishayam jnaanamuchyate).
TRUTH: Everything in the universe is ever being transformed in time. Such transformations follow a set pattern of six steps (shad bhava vikaaraah): from 1) being as cause (jaayate) to 2) becoming as effect (asti) to 3) growth due to accumulation of similar content (vardhate) to 4) transformation due to accumulation of harmonious content (viparinamate) to 5) transmutation due to accumulation of non-harmonious content (apakshiyate) to 6) change of content by disintegration and recombination (vinashyati). Observation of this universal pattern and its invariant description in time and space, is called “Truth” (sate hitam).
“LOGIC” is the instrument for eliminating doubt (vyabhichaarishankaa nivartaka). These can be of five types:
a) Based on the content of itself (Aatmaashraya).
b) Based on the content of its complement – if the other is established as true, this must also be true (anyonyaashraya).
c) Circular (chakrakah).
d) Self-contradictory (anavasthaa), and;
e) That which contradicts the very proposition that is advanced as proof (pramaana vaadhitaarthakah).
There is plenty of literature on this subject.
1) There is no difference between what I wrote and what you say now. We also differentiate between memory (smriti) and remembrance (smarana) from knowledge (jnaanam). My definition of knowledge focuses on the “SUB-class of ACCURATE memories”, when I say: “we remember something out of our past experience”. It is not everything from out of our past experience. It is “on the present rationally justified/warranted TRUE opinions about past, based on present ACCURATE representations (memories) referring to it”, when I say: “the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject)”. Knowledge is always about some subject with reference to an object. The realization is related to “the present rationally justified/warranted TRUE opinions about past”. The object is: “based on present ACCURATE representations (memories) referring to it”. Since memory is only data from past experience, there is some “mental representation”, but since memory is different from realization, “not every mental representation (or memory) constitutes/ carries/encodes knowledge”.
- (a) When I say: “universal pattern and its invariant description in time and space”, “such observation must ACCURATELY ‘mirror’ or represent the relevant patterns”. It would be impossible to be invariant, yet not-accurate.
(b) We also differentiate between “’rational warranted-ness/justification”, which we call proof (pramaana – literally, instrument for realization) and “’truth (deemed to be a context-INdependent or ABSOLUTE property of propositional mental representations)”, which is Satyam – an “universal pattern and its invariant description” as different from the object proper.
- We are talking about universal logic (tarka) and not “valid logic (pramaana) or invalid logic (viparyaasa)”. All types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt. Doubt arises when we notice contradictory characteristics in something, leading to a confusion “whether it is this or that” (idam vaa, idam vaa). We try to remove that doubt by applying logic. This logic can be valid logic due to proof based knowledge or invalid logic due to ignorance (avidyaa). Hence I had to cover all.
(a) True, “the absence of doubt can also lead to irrational states of mind (like fanaticism)” or even fantasy. But as I said above, all types of logic are applied for eliminating doubt. Even an invalid logic is “(SELF-)CRITICAL reasoning, carried on according to VALID (i.e., truth-preserving) inferential schemes”. Because, this “self-critical reasoning” is different for different persons according to their level of understanding of the same phenomenon or concept. Yet, everyone thinks that it is “VALID (i.e., truth-preserving) inferential schemes”. There is no standard yardstick here to judge whose reasoning is right and whose wrong. Mostly, it is a mixture of both. In an intellectual debate, we can eliminate the invalid part from the statement by relying on its truth content, which is universally invariant. But that is not applied in all cases. We have different types of logic (reasoning), as listed by me.
(b) “What if one doubts the instrument ITSELF”? As I had pointed out above, doubt arises when we find self-contradictory features – some pointing to one conclusion, while the other pointing to a different conclusion. Hence, self-contrariness is inherent in doubt. We try to remove that contradiction by using logical tools. These tools are based on standard principles based on their invariant nature. It is not that “we are not allowed to critically scrutinize them” – everyone is free to and do apply these “tools which are logical principles” and try to improve upon them. But the question is, can everyone apply these tools in a universally invariant method? The answer is a big NO, because everyone is not equally talented. Talent is inborn – though skill is acquired.
When you say: “Logic …. strives to promote CORRECT reasoning…”, you are talking of the ideal case (vaada) only, where the effort is directed at arriving at the truth by examining various alternatives. But sometimes logic is used to establish one’s own views (jalpa) or to falsify the opposite view (vitandaa) only, irrespective of the truth content in both cases. We must differentiate between logic (tarka) and proof (pramaana). Reality is determined by proof only, which can be direct perception (pratyaksha), inference (anumaanam), similarity (upamaanam) or self-realization (shabdah). Logic is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof – which considers different alternatives of a generally known subject to arrive at the reality or the concept behind its existence or functioning. This may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic.
Falsity (Chhala) is a much more widely encountered property. Though generally it is assumed that “no one would really be interested in setting such a bizarre goal like primarily, deliberately, and systematically arriving to FALSE propositions”, it is not always so, and it could arise from other reasons also. Also, it can arise from a misunderstanding of reality. There are five types of falsity. We can discuss about that separately.
Logic and knowledge are two subjective concepts (because the principles are applied individually and not universally – there is no fixed yardstick for either) and inherence or acquisition are objective concepts that become evident during the process of application of either logic or knowledge. Hence we must first define “logic” and “knowledge” and examine their process of application to find the answer.
