[Advaita-l] Causal Closure, Yogic Powers, Purusha and Prakriti (was Re: Perception and Consciousness)

[S Jayanarayanan]

Raghav Kumar Dwivedula raghavkumar00 at gmail.com wrote:
 
> Namaste
> Thank you for the compilation posted by you.
> Is there any logical way to refute the modern materialistic idea that
> matter and it's forms and movements in space and time, i.e., the 'world of
> space time and causation' is not in any way affected by "consciousness"
> (even if it exists) and that matter alone is sufficient to effect changes
> in matter? The cause of everything is matter alone .
> 
 
You've asked perhaps the key question regarding the acceptance or postulation of "Consciousness"
as a non-physical entity.
 
A quick overview of what is currently occurring in Western philosophical circles:
 
It is well known that Science has developed a respect and following among the general public
that is truly overwhelming. It is fair too, as it has produced remarkable results.
The person leading the case for Science as "Explaining Everything" is Daniel Dennett. Conversely,
the philosopher trying to make the persuasive case for Consciousness being non-physical is
David Chalmers. The debate between these two factions has been heating up for quite a while now.
 
The philosophical basis of Science is known as "PHYSICALISM", which is the modern variation of
the more common ancient term "Materialism": basically stating that "Everything is Physical".
{To be ultra-precise, every entity in the Universe can be reduced to the four fundamental physical
quantities: (1) Mass, (2) Space, (3) Time, (4) Electric Charge.}
 
The foremost argument given by Physicalists is that of CAUSAL CLOSURE:
 
  Causal Closure (Physicalism): "In every single observed instance, a cause is always physical."
 
This is a tough challenge to anyone who wants to postulate a non-physical entity:
 
  "How exactly does something that is non-physical effect physical change?"
 
Meaning, any physical phenomenon can be observed to have cause as well as effect in the physical
world itself. For example, the "melting of ice into water" or the "phases of the moon" or
"an antibiotic curing disease" – are all examples where causation is wholly explained by physical
entities alone. There is no reason to assume the existence of a "ghostly cause" for any observed
physical phenomenon. This casts a serious doubt on things like "soul" or "God"!
 
On the other hand, what do these "Physicalists" say about sense-experience or "QUALIA"?
Daniel Dennett, I believe, holds that such a thing called Qualia (e.g. "taste of sugar") simply
doesn't exist because it cannot "cause" anything!
 
Thus, in present-day Western Philosophy:
 
  Third-person Description: "Science explains physical causation, but not sense-experience."
  First-person Perception: "Consciousness explains sense-experience, but not physical causation."
 
The above dichotomy is begging for a resolution, but none seems too obvious!
 
This dichotomy was surely evident to Sankara and other Advaitins, who teach that the link between
the Conscious ("Atma or Jnana") and the Material ("Sarira or Karma") is but Avidya or Ignorance.
Of course, the famous dictum "Vyavahare Bhatta-nayah" is keenly followed by all Advaitins,
readily accepting Mimamsa to be authoritative as long as the physical world is assumed real.
 
> (Some madhyastha vedantins might say "ayuShmAn Bhava" to the above
> materialistic idea based on a superficial similarity to the akartRAtmA idea
> and that the guNas of matter act on one another effecting all changes . Tge
> first cause is matter alone. The mistake/divergence in this idea is that
> vedAnta holds that only with AtmA as sAxI, things can happen in space and
> time - an idea unacceptable to scientific materialism.)
> 
 
Advaita Vedanta does claim that matter can be subdued by Mind or Manas: via Yogic Powers. There are
many examples in the Itahasa-Puranas where Rishis perform "miracles" that appear scientifically
impossible, but are claimed to be possible by means of Yoga. Stories such as Vasishtha resisting the
weapons of (king) Vishwamitra or Agastya taming Vatapi are popular. In fact, even the Brahmastra is
rendered ineffective against Vasishtha's Yogic powers, demonstrating the mastery of mind over matter!
 
As for myself, although I fully understand the argument from causal closure for Physicalism/Science,
it is impossible to ignore Perception, without which there is only the void! My personal opinion is
that Perception has to be fundamental for any view or Darshan. Hence, unless Science can explain the
full process of Perception, or come up with a Vision/Hearing/Thinking system that at least behaves
like it is capable of Perception, I will continue to place Consciousness as fundamental and
independent ("Purusha"), and the Material as derivative and dependent ("Prakriti"). This sounds
suspiciously similar to the Samkhya view, but the third chapter of the Gita does allow for a
Vedantic interpretation, treating Prakriti as existentially inferior to the Purusha.
 
> Om
> Raghav
 
Regards,
Kartik