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

[Anand Hudli]

Interesting and insightful discussion! It is important to note that
causality as explaining reality is rejected by Gaudapada in his kArikAs. So
causal closure does not mean much, if both causes and effects are unreal.
The question that needs to be asked of those who believe in Physicalism is:
who observes/experiences the causes and effects? It cannot be a physical
entity, because such an observation would then have to be part of the
cause-effect network. But everyone agrees that observation/experience of
the observer is not a cause or effect. It is coincidental. In Vedantic
terms, this observation/experience is indeed jnAna, something that cannot
be explained as a physical entity. The dArshanikas, not just Vedantins,
recognized this. For example, even naiyAyikas hold that jnana is a property
of the soul. (jnAnAdhikaraNam-AtmA - tarkasaMgraha of annaMbhaTTa)

Anand



On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:50 AM S Jayanarayanan via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>