Thank you for your encouragement and extending assent to continue in this thread . I wish to just acquaint you with some things prior to writing about Vedic Logic since the ideas are quite necessary as a preliminary .

In Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) of anything but only the foreground objects". Moreover according to them what was responsible for this partial knowledge ie. knowledge of things seen but not not of those unseen - was due to the impinging of the day to day objects on the background of our knowledge - much as like loud noises and colours and other big objects would have the effect of distracting us , sometimes even to the extent of so disconcerting to us that we would have to search hard for what exactly we were thinking or doing before the distraction occured.

Now according to them this was not an "inverted perspective'' but rather a correction in the flawed way we were looking at things , what they percieved was that on seeing an object or (in coming to know of the object) there was an inherent inversion the knowledge garnered created in our otherwise pristine knowledge (much as a lense in a camera would invert the image ) only here the inversion was not in the image but in our knowledge !. So Vedic Logic attempts to correct this perspective as partial knowledge was always considered as wrong knowledge . A keen and understanding mind is required to grasp this and the logic . moreover it only required understanding as knowledge would work on knowledge once it was  understood correctly - It was also helpful in that this is the logic employed in all karikas and texts wherever things were propounded as well as in the epics and Yoga sutras etc.

I am following a classical approach but removing all the sanskrit terms and rigidity and some illustrations are only used to get the point home - moreover it is to be understood in the aspect of Total knowledge and a gradual rise to it .

Again the examples have over the years been enlivened as they are used throughout the vedas and , the vedas do not use multifarous examples , so wherever a person learns them it is in the same form that it was expounded thousands of years earlier and have acquired a potency to demonstrate knowledge once the import is accurately grasped. 

One need not worry about delineations that one comes across in books like Hetu,Sambandham etc ( Major premise , minor or conclusion) I will append the reasoning only so that the correctness is grasped and can be contrasted by the reader with how he was seeing the same thing previously .The conclusions naturally will follow from understanding .

Some examples:

An object is revealed not by sunlight but because  it is non luminous (or not capable of self illumination) . Sunlight is not the cause of its being revealed but the cause of it being brought to our cognizance is due to the fact that it cannot illuminate itself .

Here it may seem strange but as a fact , the ancients used to insist that the cause and effect have to be INTIMATELY connected and as far as possible it has to be immediate and no new parameters should be introduced into the equation since it would vitiate knowledge . For them one of the tests of right cause being attributed to right effect is one of the indications of right reasoning .This reasoning may be applied to various cases and validated .

Another example is : A man in a shadow (or shade) does not feel the heat( not because of the shadow) , but due to his refraining to interact with things having heat in them ..... for coolness is not a property of a shadow (or shade). 

             A thing to be noted is Universality of the applicability of the statement to ones own conviction ..

Here also the effect is allied as close as possible to the cause - one cannot just loosely say that the suns action is not there on the man - in which case one has to "Assume" (mentally and intellectually by images and a priori knowledge) many objects and instruments and other causes and effects thus making it interminable , giving rise to a fantastic mind (a mind riddled with fantasy) with  roots in memory.

This much being said , a question will naturally rise as to what is wrong in saying that it is the sun or the sunrays which reveal an object . Such a pedestrian reasoning has its pitfalls in that , the sun (would in our consciousness and knowledge consequently ) acquire a conditioning "by the sun" meaning - To do - as in a person and would lead to a conferring of "life" on the sun as if it were a ''human being"" or "being" whereas in terms of scale (or size ) it is a relationship between the Earth and its non consciousness . 

We are similarly culpable of painting nature as a woman, beautiful , etc etc . Nature is implacable and impersonal and treats everyone the same . It is calm , active and violent - just as human natures are - here the connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm is attained through understanding and knowledge alone . 

Otherwise we struggle to "imagine'' and merge the microcosm in the macrocosm or see it as an unbroken part of the unified whole . 

Another example is : which came first the seed or the Tree ? - It is the Tree that came first . ---- strange as it may seem why is it so ? .. According to them everything in the world consists of Names and Forms , and names and forms are what are grasped by the mind - what does not have name or form cannot be grasped by the mind (we leave it at that ) .

Now according to them a person is acquainted with "knowledge'' of objects of perception in  the following  ways  The Form or object is percieved by a person and he is "told'' that it is a Tree or House or Car or Dog etc by someone else IN THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE IN HIS LIFE or he reads or hears about it - but anyway a pictorial representation is a must .  So on an other wise plain tabula rasa of a memory or mind or knowledge a person aggregates what is known as perceptional knowledge and their impressions.  ie. in short a thing is pointed out or indicated and its representation connected to the knowledge of the word. or sound . internally .

Here the logic is that - All things percieved are EFFECTS . - In the outer world it is understood that the Tree is an effect (If the person was FIRST acquainted in consciousness and knowledge with a Tree in the inner world it is Cause) .  Now a person may ask why it cannot be a seed as it is well known trees come from  seeds .. The logic was - it may be so - but then a problem of non immediacy arises in the relationship - for if a tree (HIS TREE the reasoners) were to come from a seed , then that seed would have to come from another Tree , and so on into an infinite regression . And again there would be a violation of the "All things perceived are Effects"  - for the seed would be an effect and an effect cannot come from an effect .A seed has to give forth a seed - not a tree . From a tree similarly a tree would be the cause . So we have now two things which are both effects depending on how the knowledge came to him in the FIRST INSTANCE . This law requiring that all things connected by cause and effect have to be RELATED SUBSTANTIALLY to the thing under consideration (like the sun illuminating a house ). is to be strictly adhered to if we have to know the truth of things . This law of Effect on FIRST knowledge of an object was brought in to preempt the wrong thought process in knowledge whereby ultimately a man goes on thinking infinitly as to whether a tree came from a seed the that seed would have to come from a tree etc etc in infinity . And thus lead to a state of indeterminacy - indeterminacy would create doubt and doubt was the nature of the mind , whilst determinacy was the nature of the intellect . And since doubt is a creation of the person himself involved in reasoning and shows flawed understanding and consciousness - the point of infinite regression in any person was the point of pure ignorance due to a forgetting of the FIRST memory as to whether he was acquainted with a seed and then a Tree or a Tree and then the relationship of the Tree to it . So man if he does not remember his first experience has to make a principled stand and decide HIMSELF (thus eliminating doubt) whether in his opinion it was a Tree which came first or seed .- The thing to be understood in the above dissertation is that primacy was given to the operations of the mind and how it worked - since everything was conjured up instantaneously when a sound was heard - Thinking is an act that takes place in the dream consciousness even if we are awake , this is the thing to be noted.

Now the majority will be acquainted with Tree rather than seed , and as Trees are everywhere it is ingrained in our consciousness and knowledge that Trees are taken for granted , and moreover when the word Tree is mentioned a mental image is formed in our mind (of a Tree in general) - so the Cause is a Tree in which case there is a harmony between the Gross perception of the eye in the outer physical world , and In the mental world of thought and in the intellect which has the knowledge and in memory .Here emphasis is on seen and heard knowledge relating to physical objects . 

Similarly a person is precluded by this into tracing his cause of birth to the sun , or god, or even his grand parents etc. 

And an argumentative disputant is immediately located and thrown out of the debate . For if a person says the cause of his birth is the womb of his mother - no - Scale requires scale and consistency in both the Cause and effect .

So the correspondance of knowledge in consciousness has to be both of scale and equality of item . (naturally this is to get the right image - from which Species will follow which is a matter of intellect ) . Womb is a matter of discussion if only the subject is of conception and fertilization . One cannot talk to a fully grown man that his mothers womb is responsible for his birth as an illustration of cause and effect - the vulgarity and grossness in thinking is brought out by the statement of such a person who reasons so. HIs mind is fully known and also his knowledge and character .  

. In all thinking , everything has to be short and direct but universal at that level .

So what we mean here is that (in western terminology) "Material Cause" (or Substantial Cause ) is required . Clay pot comes from Clay. not from potter . Moreover it is validated by our conscious knowledge for when somebody says "Clay pot" he remembers the image of the pot not the potter or the idea that a potter and earth have to be added !!!. 

Similarly  gold ornaments are nothing but Gold . 

Clay pot is nothing but Earth . 

                           Here what is to be noted is that the accent was on the ACTUAL obtaining situation in knowledge and consciousness by our ancients . For one associates (internally) on seeing or hearing  the words clay pot or gold ornaments - first the Object per se "is seen internally and externally" next it is associated with the FEELING and KNOWLEDGE "Earthen or Gold" as the case may be . 

By this we can locate erroneous  thinking within ourselves and by becoming aware it is corrected automatically .

So a question as to if a glass is half full or half empty  can be immediately shut out - for the questioner has to frame it first and the question gives the answer itself . 

How is this done ? Assuming that it is a well known conundrum the most taut question can be if a person asks such an unfair question by the words : Would you say that a glass is half empty or half full - this is trolling and inadmissible since there is a preconcieved notion by the questioner that it is well known so answer is due to him - One can just let it pass or ask him to elucidate it so as to "see" his mind - he will have to ''Assume " a glass , a liquid . a pouring of the liquid by a someone to a desired level etc !!!! All which leaves a million loopholes to shoot it to bits . Or one can resort and give a considered reply that it is Full of space .

One should not introduce actions, instruments and agents without notifying the other party into any argument or debate .

One should not get into any debate or discussion where the ground rules are not known , ie. if a discussion on the existence of God is elicited by an awowed athiest - he has to first agree to the word God and what it means in the word concept - rather than use the word God and say that God does not exist , it is a Tamasic and most ignorant thing to say since he needs the word God to define the non existence . Of course the word Atheist if being discussed has to be agreed upon as ITSELF and not as some vague "meaning god does not exist'' - since it is another language and word meaning and idea would be different - which ultimately would lead to a conclusion of it being a state of mind or knowledge of a person !!.

So if a man complains he has been called a dog by another and frets he is being stupid - the other person cannot distinguish between a dog and man , and the hearer does not become a dog either !! if he feels aggrieved it means he has lost the humour of the situation altogether - he cannot become aggrieved because of anothers faulty logic and knowledge and consciousness (however temporary the lapse may be ). Krama becomes Karma gradually . 

There is no day or night 

There is no silver in mother of pearl

When we say "like'' (ie as ) and say an example people understand as "is'' in the absence of proper thinking - they approximate the like to is in consciousness and it becomes a habit .

Too much doubts indicate inability to think in the general and infer correctly to the particular - (conversly) treating the particular as the general .

   People might wonder what QM has to do with all this - QM is dealing with infinitesmally small measurements , maybe knowledge can be included as a QM variable ?  

Note : I do not physically mean a disputant or a debate with another person - It is all in our own ways of thinking and is an internal dialogue or process in thinking within us - of course it is applicable in the outer world also but knowing and silence is better in the outside world - one allows everything to be said and goes along so to say !!


There is a thing to be said about knowledge , which we assimilate (It is something to be taken into account when you read the far fetched post below ) Unlike physical objects , perceptional knowledge or results of proofs and evidences were considered thus (if it is of help in understanding the previous post ) 

There was a so called knowledge based on physical evidences arising in the consciousness of the observer , and this knowledge would stay for a period as long as it was pondered upon and then vanish when the thinking process was left off . And since knowledge however defective has to arise (as in dream - ie. in the subtle world of mind and matter) since it was based on evidences , it was considered to have arisen from a like "Cause'' ie knowledge which was pure and complete . It had a  vanishing point when the thought was left off and unlike in ordinary physical matters it was found to revert back to pure knowledge. And the same was recalled from knowledge at an instant when the recall function was applied. It appears as if from nowhere like magic only to stay for a while and then vanish - and these time frames of genesis  of secondary knowledge could only be from a like thing and not from something substantially different ., and it was sustained in knowledge and could revert back to knowledge . Of physical things it was found that we percieve only the effects and never the cause - the cause in popular parlance was a deconstruction of the effect - which was considered impossible , whereas in the internal world it was possible . So in essence what it means is that in the physical world there is actually no cause and effect but rather discrete events - this was so because it was not just an intellectual exercise , the reality was also considered - for instance in the case of Milk becoming curd , in the physical world the right reasoning is that Milk though the ostensible cause and curd the effect - considering the way the perception of objects took place by a conscious individual and how it affects his knowledge - milk is an effect in the physical world as well as Curd since milk required the addition of Agents and Instruments - and agents and instruments were a matter of the intellect and its knowledge . In the inner world both arise in the mind without knowledge as if in dream and cognition is by the intellect wherein it determines the object percieved with relation to previous knowledge of the Agent and Instruments and of connecting cause and effect in one quick instant . So mind has a random character and it cannot distinguish the particular image - it just displays all images as if in dream and so is chaotic whilst the intellect determines the object by prior knowledge . It is particular as related to the generality of the mind but in turn though particular at that level it in effect is general in relation to the Ego or empirical self . So basically the 5 senses are general (ie they are just conduits and cannot distinguish the object to which they relate their attribute) but become particular in the mind ( as an aggregation of senses and thus image of the object is produced) and the particularity of the mind is general compared to the(knowledge of the ) intellect and the particularity in the intellect becomes general in comparison to the knowledge in the Ego (empirical) . to clarify matters - the Ego contains the background data also as well as the foreground data of an object of knowledge thus making it complete in almost every respect . IT becomes perfect knowledge when the person has knowledge of the real self . I hope I have not been too obtuse  and confusing


Views: 1504

Replies to This Discussion

In continuation on the subject of Vedic Logic - another aspect is that since all things seen are names and Forms and the criteria is that it should also have a meaning or in other words make sense, failing which the logic employed by the ntellect is slightly different - in this regard the texts cite some examples which I am also using in the way they are meant to be , language notwithstanding .

The texts cite the following examples at various places - where the rule to Names and Forms and Meaning or sense is violated - these are actually expounded in order to show and highlight the nature of superimpositions that we have within out intellect and consciousness and knowledge due to a vulgar or loose and common usage of language and expression 

  "......Like silver in mother of pearl " or "mistaking a rope for a snake " or the mirage of an oasis or water in the desert , or the mistaking the stump of a tree in a forest for a man , and the blue in the sky . 

In all the above cases they do not make sense as there is no silver in a mother of pearl , or a snake in a rope , and a mirage is also imaginary and so on for the other examples . Here the underlying substratum or "object'' is real viz. Mother of pearl,rope,desert,stump of a tree and the sky . But momentarily it is forgotten or not perceived , but on knowledge being gained to the error is removed .  So actually in all these cases what is perceived is actually non existent and a play on consciousness by an error in understanding . There are two cases in the above which are of a serious type  viz. the seeing of a non existent body of water in the desert and the blue in the sky - because in either of these cases - though a person is told that these things do not exist in the desert (it being a mirage) and the sky is colourless - against all reason it still persists !. In the case of the snake in the rope and man in a tree stump it is minor and the strength of the error on ones consciousness is slightly less as once the error is dispelled everything becomes clear - it is a case of dispelling the error by knowledge - and in the case of silver in mother of pearl - the error is yet of another type and is not as easily removed as the shadows of a snake in a rope or man in a tree stump - it is a matter of common expressions and language and even if a person is told that there is no silver in a mother of pearl , he will not get the idea well - it may have to be demonstrated by some knowledge . But once this type of error (Common usage and language) is rectified it is permanent as well as that of the superimposition of shadows on objects or the seeing of one thing for another - this is instantaneous knowledge and permanent - the other types like "blue'' in the sky etc is a quirk of fate and is a cosmic superimposition same to all people who look at the sky - even if one knows it is colourless still one keeps on seeing it - these types are an out crop of the inadequacy of our PHYSICAL organs of knowledge .(in this case the Eye) - and can only be surmounted by a firm grasp of this fact itself and a firm belief in the concomittant knowledge . So these are three types of errors in perception which arise due to superimposition and happen in a clouding of knowledge . It does not make sense though the object has name and form - it is also the most dangerous types of errors that can happen to a person and his knowledge . Millions of examples of superimposition exist in daily life - we judge a person by his dress, looks , way he walks etc only to find that we were wrong (in any case the person is not the man ) - if known otherwise we still make mistakes of superimposition by his words etc. in short judgement is affected - it is better not to judge if one cannot intuit correctly , intution is the only way . 

So Cause and effect are much more closer in the mind and intellect than in the physical world .In the mind everything is random - it just pops up on hearing a word and the cause of every image is not the word but the mind itself since the images in the mind are the mind itself there is no other materials or objects . But for the case of bringing in Harmony between the physically observed world and the inner world of images the image is taken as an effect and the mind as the immediate cause - the secondary cause which connects the outer world(where everything is an effect in order to avoid a regression of infinite type is also applied to the inner world ) Now we (normally the aspirants) take examples from the outer world to find correlations in the inner world of images (mind ) to make sense - but the significant fact is that the laws of Metaphysics which originally was the kingly science or Science of Sciences had their roots in the internal world first and then applied to the physical world in which case every law will be in consonance . For example all images in the mind or inner world of images were found to be nothing but the mind proper - the mind was the cause and the image the effect wherein the ancients concluded that all forms seen in the physical world were effects . Material cause is mind and the image is also mind - so things could not be anymore closer in matters of substantial cause (it was 100% mind) ,Material cause (it was 100% being the mind itself ) and in immediacy between cause and effect (it was also 100% mind ) !. Once this is known viz. that the rules of the inner world when applied to the external world things become easy in understanding as does logic and knowledge and how consciousness works and binds everything in the physical world . Another thing was that in the physical world "Gaps'' began appearing in reason when the rules of the internal world were applied (we can also still do it these days to gain a better understanding of the world , mind and intellect and ourselves) . Into these gaps arrived the AGENTS and INSTRUMENTS - which made sense in the physical world but vitiated the rules of the working of the inner equipments of mind and intellect and ego . most inventions can be traced into these gaps in cause and effect and they were found to be a matter of knowledge wherein the functioning of the intellect was discerned . But again once the physical world and the cause and effect and reason as we apply in the physical world to get results were ascertained by the rules obtained from the inner world of images and knowledge it was found to be a 100% inversion of the inner world !. Every rule of the Mind and Intellects functioning had to be inverted to get the physical worlds reason and usage and custom !. 

Now the question may be asked why the inner worlds rules hold stronger over the physical worlds - it is due to subtlety , what is more subtle was found to pervade the grosser principle (in this case world ) . And in a more inner manner the intellect was found to be more subtle than the mind and hence it pervaded both the mind and the world . Similarly the empirical ego was found to be more subtle than the intellect and mind wherein it pervaded all the lesser or grosser principles .

Of Logic now to take a very common example to illustrate some things said before : The case of an earthen pot is taken 

Here in the real world an earthen pot is the result of a particular type of Earth (clay) then the Doer or Maker (ie Potter) and his implements of action or instruments of knowledge as they are called in Vedic language (viz. The potters wheel and stick ) .

In the mind the pot forms itself from the mind itself on percieving the form by the eye . But in the real world a person has to make the pot using instruments - and since the use of an instrument means there has to be an agent to use them . So there is the introduction of Agency and Instruments in order to get a thing in the physical world whereas the inner world was marked by precisely the absence of both these two factors to obtain an object. This as far as the mind is concerned . So what was the difference ?  The difference was the man who made it and the instruments -,now if the pot could be produced within the mind (by just seeing it ) how was this gap to be explained for in all cases attain to form from the subtler principles . {A short digression here before taking up the thread again - for those who are interested ). 

Many theories were mooted at this point as to whether the pot could be said to be latent in the earth before "becoming'' and whether the pot could be said to be a "feeling'' (or modification of the earth ).And would it be said to be truly existing since it would ultimately return to earth - in all these surmises they (the ancients) found that eliminating the agent and the instruments would keep the integrity of the rules of the inner world (of images) . So they inverted the worldly perspective and found that the intellect was necessary and had different functions from making images (it is here that the knowledge of the mind and the separate knowledge of the intellect were gleaned ). They found that as with earth - the knowledge of agency and instrumentality was a matter of intelligence and conscious knowledge . The primary or grossest knowledge man had inbuilt into him was the faculty of reasoning and it was akin to "observing objects by the sense organs" and this reason made connection between things observed (in other words it was flexible and "Behaved" as if it were self intelligent ).  So the logic of the Vedas developed along these lines - it went inner than the mind - agency and instrumentality was found to spring not from the  body (it was itself an instrument) but in the intellect coupled with knowledge or "Higher reason and intuition that was sporadic" And the intellect being subtler than the mind was found to pervade it also and there was a harmony in that the image represented the finished product AS PERCEIVED in the physical world . By virtue of Reason and Intelligence all human beings were found to be Agents requiring Instruments for action . So everything was found to spring from the intellect and the knowledge was reflected in the real world . As with the mind , it was found with regard to the intellect that - actions, instruments of knowledge and agency sprang up from the intellect . Thus the intellect was found to be a thing that was  perceived to have an organic growth( like the body) which grew with the accretion of knowledge and shrank with its disuse . And another thing was that it could only "Receive knowledge and accrete it " It was unable to produce new knowledge .  Receiving Knowledge - by that it means it cognized knowledge and accepted it without question due to its proximity to the Ego - which was subtler but had appropriated the functions of the eye - by superimposition as mentioned above . Really speaking the empirical self has no eye - it is the body which has the eye - but we aggrandize its functions by saying "I saw , with my own eyes'' and so on for all the other senses and organs . The ego is a subtle principle but consciousness through and through fix that belief as knowledge . I will post later how the intellect identifies what is knowledge and what is not and accretes both as knowledge !. 

As promised I am appending a post on the intellect - We all understand by the word Intellect that It is knowledge based and that it is not the brain (which is physical) - I do sincerely hope that nobody will read this post and see images of the brain whilst reading the word intellect . It would vitiate the understanding . 

What is knowledge ,? is proposed to be tackled here so that an understanding of the intellect and the workings of knowledge and consciousness on us may be attained to some reasonable degree . 

We see an object , or read a book or news paper or watch television or hear a person of authority speak on something (it could be at home , or in school or amongst peers, college , community leaders, colleagues , and numerous other sources ).  Now in the event that the object that has come under our cognizance if it is in the physical world (it is consisting of form and name ) in the first instance somebody "Teaches it '' and we say we have acquired knowledge - however general or sparse it may be . In all other cases of cognizing the same object through out our lives (say the example is of a Tree ) it is the first "Experience/Knowledge" which is the kernel or seed of all subsequent knowledges acquired throughout a persons life in the matter of Trees .In short the person slowly over time and experiences (both seen and heard from various sources ) Builds up a body of knowledge relating to Trees .So on with Ice creams , Cars etc etc .Now in the case of a careful person he can by Meditation (ie.By thinking also) aggregate each of these knowledges as a "Subject '' in itself . Normally in recall (as in the case of memory ) what we recall about Trees are actually THOSE IMPRESSIONS WE HAVE IN TOTO on Trees (by which I mean - Focus is missing , rather we recall the scenario and then the subject - ie. in the same way we experienced and remembered it each time ). We may think that all the knowledge we have on Trees are in a single body - no it is not so - it is scattered over age , place , time and circumstances - so thought culture demands that we have to  patiently aggregate ALL KNOWLEDGE that we have and with understanding the reasons for doing so  (without resorting to any aids or outside help)  Into a single body of thought on Say trees )- This is our cleanliness in mind and enlivening of the word Tree - (this is general concept ) In a way then we have to Exercise our mind and memory CHRONOLOGICALLY on Trees - It is always easier to think about a subject (as in the word Trees ) and see how the concept has grown within us over our life from Childhood to the present . Same can be done for say the word FAMILY and see how it has grown and undergone changes - one can also accrete to the word family ones knowledge in general of other peoples families also and also imagined   (as in the case of celebrities) . What is the purpose may be the question if on is to do this for every word known - the purpose is to bring our thinking process in LINE with the intellect because the intellect does not work in random and chaotically like the mind - it is based on reason and intelligence both are inherently required for knowledge to be effective . The joy of doing this is exhillarating as the results are immediate - difference in perception and greater clarity will be noticed (but always have the purpose (or intent ) that this exercise is being done as a means of liberation and not for petty selfish gain or reality shows or books on memory etc - keep it to oneself and help loved ones if possible that is all ). Purity in character will give purity in thought so purposive and pure resolve is required and our ancients have discerned that the maximum evolution is gained if the End of All Ends or the Great End (amongst all intermediary ends in life) is understood to be Liberation . Care must be taken to be chronlogically honest and accurate as far as possible - alertness is required to train memory and intellect and slowly the intellect and memory will become a scientific one . Every word will become a "Subject matter'' or  an "Object of Knowledge'' within ourselves . So when somebody says Tree what happens is that the whole of the knowledge within a person on Trees upto that time of hearing the word will aggregate as a FEELING from memory in a very structured manner and unfold and accrete correctly into the relevant subject matter (I can hear the modernists saying that this is nothing new and memory enhacement and modern science prescribes such intellectual exercises - True but not wholly true its rationale will be discussed at the end ).  After a period of vigilant meditation and accretion and ordering of thoughts one can by a focussed concentration penetrate the  "Feeling" of the word within us (ie. the word Idea that we have ) since every word first rises as a feeling and becomes a thought (or rather comes into our consciousness near the place between our breast /Chest) next - by continued and penetrating focus we can then unfold every detail exactly as it appeared in the first instance and in every succeeding instance in whole and part - if it is food items the smell ,taste, feeling and texture as experienced can be experienced EXACTLY as it was previously experienced . THis is not anything great some thought culture and recall will go a long way in helping us attain clarity in exact recall - This is everyones birthright and nothing great . So now we have the word idea within us as a feeling in our consciousness .

The thing to be remembered is that this is an automatic feature of the intellect and memory combined . Now the strange thing is that the AMBIENCE is also replicated as a feeling and we can hear birds and sound etc which may not form part of our sensate and conscious perception initially - this is the impression of the general surroundings or background which is automatically impressed in memory . To clarify this matter consider this fact - we consider ourselves as "Within'' the waking state and as a small entity in the world with the world much bigger than us . This ''feeling'' is a general consciousness for every one and it is within this backdrop that we perceive a single object i the environment . We experience this object in particular and the rest "unfocussed '' consciousness is experienced generally without effort .

To be clearer - suppose we are at the beach and looking at the horizon , we are conscious of the breeze and the waves breaking etc etc now this picture is a much larger one - much bigger than what can be accomodated by the eye itself , this knowing of the ambience is impressed within ourselves as memory (though we are aware of only a part of it ) in full and forms part of the subconscious intellect . If we observe carefully we remember days by ambience first and then the date and experience in recall . So what transpires is that though we are and consider ourselves as observers of a part of the phenomena , it is exactly replicated in our subconscious not only the unseen part which we consider general but everything can be recalled with the help of proper practice in every single detail including our feelings of enjoyment at that time - this led the ancients to conclude that though we consider ourselves to be the observers of phenomena - in fact we were the OBSERVED in all cases and without any deviation . So they concluded that the extent of the intellect was subtler than the mind and in relation to the generality of the intellect the mind was particular (since we are focused on enjoying an object specifically only ) . So the mind could present things one at a time without any particular order bought under its cognizance and the image was deciphered by the intellect  from the impressions in memory which in turn were there in memory as knowledge - But as knowledge of the feelings of the object seen.

So we are a repository of the conscious and (actually seen also ) unconscious . So they the ancient Rishis confirmed that

Consciousness was always general but not general in the way we say ie. devoid of individual particulars of the picture but was simultaneously particular also . But the mind was required though knowing this fact of the particularity of the intellect to discern a particular object comprising in the picture .

Now to put it lucidly - We are conscious of the Sun (by the fact of it being day ) we do not have to look up to verify this experience . And aware (internally ) that it is light outside (inference may be two fold in awareness - here auto inference is

It is light outside (as it is Day ) and  it is Day (because the sun has come up ) .

So consciousness was - Day , Night

Awareness was - Day due to sun coming up or sun going down (part reason is there )

Knowledge was - There is no Day or Night as the sun does not actually rise or set - it is nothing but the rotation of the earth around the sun and itself. 

Illusion which was uniform was - There is Day and Night  (perceived)

Illusion which was not uniform (due to language ) - Sunrise and Sunset - This pertains to Science which was subject to cosmic illusion of Day and NIght .

Error in Understanding by Language constituted of the words - Day and Night , Sunrise and Sunset  (these are opposites due to individual delusion ) and where ever a person saw opposites -there was an error in his intellect in understanding .

So Collectively there is - Illusion 

Individually there is - Delusion .

By the same and correct knowledge a person could remove both Individual delusion whereby he would not be under a delusion but the rest would be subject to both and so the microcosm and the macrocosm could be merged or rather there was only one ''Cosm" for a man of knowledge - it was neither Micro nor Macro - word are required only as long as there is ignorance !!!.

This post is getting too long will write later on the intellect and what is knowledge proper, than the knowledge that we say is "knowledge'' - it is delusion in individuals and constitute an error in understanding of the cosmic illusions in the intellect .


At This stage I feel I should give a rough summation of what has been posted since it may prove helpful in keeping focus on what is to follow in my subsequent posts as it will be INCLUDING these salient points which a reader should keep in mind .

1. In Vedic reasoning the gross forms (or physically perceived forms) are cognized "inside out '' .Not outside in - the cause is more subtle and internal and more pervading - It is a top bottom approach with validation at each stage with a bottoms up approach in order to "rectify'' errors in perception and knowledge.

2. All perceived forms in the real world are "Effects''.

3. Ascertaining The causes always require a play of knowledge from the intellect  which is as "Reason'' in the crudest form and "Intution" or "Divine Reasoning" in a subtle form and As ''Pure Knowledge " in its highest form . In a way it shows the evolution of a person and his intellectual capabilities.

4. The mind reproduces Images from both the Physical world on perception by the eye , and from impressions in memory . 

5. The mind is non conscious and just displays images in a random way - no particular sequence can be associated with the mind .

6. All images seen in the mind are also ''Effects''.

7. The cause of images in the mind are the mind itself .

8. In ascertaining Cause and Effect the Cause must be substantially allied with the effect - no new parameters can be introduced by any reasoning what ever in ascertaining the cause of a form - if not resolved satisfactorily the form is considered as an effect and to be dealt with later , 

9.Our Reasoning ability is vitiated by different kinds of ''errors'' of the intellect and inadequacy of the organs of perception in a search for the Truth .

10. The errors are mostly of superimposition of the qualities of one thing on another . And are of three types - Due to inadequacy of the sense organs, Due to the nature of the perceiver, and due to common usage and customs in language .

11. The organs of perception are just that much they act as conduits for external knowledge relating to their areas of functioning and so cannot individually distinguish between the objects to which they pertain - The nose (physical ) conducts the impressions of smell only and all smells are conducted as impressions of smell, as also the tongue and taste , eyes and form , skin and feeling or Touch , and ears and sound . The organs are non conscious in that they cannot distinguish to what object their particular knowledge was connected with .

12. The mind also like wise is non conscious - it displays the 5 impressions as an image but cannot distinguish between forms itself as "This is a tree " or This ''is a man'' etc . 

13.External world Cause and Effects are sometimes connected by Agents, Action and Instruments - as in the case of the Potters example.

14. In the internal world The mind is random whilst the intellect is highly structured since it is dependent on reason and knowledge .

15. All perceived impressions of objects in the world are known by 5 qualities only - smell, taste, forms. touch and sound.

So all objects (including the world stand within our senses of knowledge ) . ie. The senses are subtler and pervades the world of physical forms - but we limit them to the "feeling'' of identification that we have with the physical organs (nose, tongue, skin, eye and ear ) whereas they are all pervading. So basically the world is but a modification of knowledge into 5 modes of perception .

16. The mind is the place where images are seen , the mind has its resting place in the Dream state , when we think or visualize or ideanate (even in waking state ) we are in the dream state . All thinking is done in the dream state.

17. All images in the dream state or perceived in the physical world are the mind itself and nothing else.

18. All impressions of the waking state experiences are stored in memory and recalled as composite feelings .

19 . Behind every word is a word idea which is a feeling , which expands into a thought or subject for thought and analysis .

20. The intellect perceives the ''unseen'' portions of a scene in which we are the observed and these impressions form part of the subconscious .

21. The intellect is only capable of accretion or receiving of knowledge - it cannot produce new knowledge in the sense that all knowledge in the intellect is re-introduced as new concepts by the action of reason .

22. The intellect is purely consisting of the knowledge of objects WITHOUT IMAGES but accompanied with feeling from impressions from memory thus making up knowledge with the addition of knowledge acquired of sounds (language) .

23. Recall- Feeling- Thought -and Word is the Intellectual process.

24 . The intellect pervades the mind and so can control it - when an image is seen in the mind - the "Sky'' or background of the the vision or picture is the intellect . So the ambit is as between the mind and intellect is as to the physical world and sky seen physically . 

25 . The production of a pot or image in the internal world - is done by the knowledge from the intellect . (It is the potter) and so it is knowledge of the process and instruments that create the pot in the inner world of mind . So the agent , Instrument and action or doer (is the intellect itself  or knowledge ) are from the same "Cause'' and the object is the mind itself.

25. Knowledge is extremely subtle (even acquired knowledge) and is subtler than the mind as it is the ''Sky'' in dream whereas the mind is limited to the form of the object . So the world stands in the senses, the world and senses stand in mind and memory , and all the preceding stand in the intellect . 

26 . The Intellect which is acquired knowledge "grows'' from childhood just as a physical body and we consider this knowledge of objects to be ourselves , and define us variously by connections and feelings - these are the major superimpositions and errors of the intellect .

27. In fact identification by a person with the knowledge in the intellect is totally erroneous and has to be removed by proper thinking as the subject cannot become the object .Removal increases perception , intelligence and erasure of individuality to the extent of removal effected by cogitation and understanding.

28. We live out from memory and never really create anything , as thinking requires a previous fund of knowledge . Intuition alone is creation from the absolute .The rest are variations of intellectual knowledge superimposed by the language of the perceiver and his custom and usage - so it appears as new knowledge to another person (ie the listener or hearer ) - the example of the Silver in Mother of pearl is pertinent here .  Language of the person expounding his theory is the silver in the dissertation which is akin to the mother of pearl . Uniqueness of exposition in a subject is nothing but a re introduction of acquired knowledge from memory  with language differences added to it and is to be understood as such.

29. We are collectively subject to an illusion and individually to a delusion . One is macrocosmic and the latter is microcosmic.Removal by knowledge of the microcosmic delusion results in a simultaneous removal of the macrocosmic illusion also in the individual - thus proving that the micro and macro cosm does not exist in reality.

30.Inventions and scientific discoveries are the filling up of gaps in perception by intutive knowledge - leading to Agency, Actions and Instruments just as in the inner world of the intellect .Which in the outer world we loosely term as Cause and effect - but it can be seen that The Agent , Action and Instrument each has an Agent , action and Instrument in the real world leading to an infinite regression in the real world . ie. Potter has its own  cause, agency, action and instrumentality separately - the actions have their own cause , agency, action and instrumentality - and the instruments (potters stick and wheel) also have different causes and agents and actions and instruments separately leading to infinite ignorance of Cause and effect and so the mind is born being of the nature of doubt . 


For those interested, here is what is going at our facebook group page:

  • Christian von Lähr Its a system of procedural steps based on rationalized agreement, a formulary, which does not lead to an Absolute Right, but more evidently it is a rule book on how to use logic in a way that produces the same result across a broad body of practitioners.

    In conventional practice I would think we refer to a process as simply "logical," and not as "logic", which the Vedic system does. That which is conventionally logical is sensible and reasoned but it is not a universal fact. The Vedic system seems to have a purpose of determinative fact; but at the price of a common rule book. The rule book is not, cannot be universal, and so the determinative facts of Vedic Logic are conditional on agreements in advance. And do, this seems to me a "method" and not logic.

    The article was indeed interesting, and I am sure many takes on the system will result; from Perfect Logic to Fuzzy Logic.
  • Anand Kumar Thank you for comment Dr. Lahr. On the surface of it, it does appear to be a "method" and not logic, but I am sure Hari Menon has more to reveal on it. However I am quite curious about how we can relate this to fuzzy logic. For example, if the sunlight illuminates one object, how one can assign a corresponding truth value to that statement?
  • Christian von Lähr Why presume the sunlight illuminates the object, . . . The mind can illuminate, an object can be self- illuminating. Does Vedic logic on this problem allow for the blind man who sees only with his mind and can not by experience follow any of the Vedic rules?

    That's already at least three values. Ergo, fuzzy logic. Or, one could say they are reasoned probabilities, still fuzzy logic


  • Hari Menon I did mention that Vedic logic had an "inverted perspective'' from that of the day to day logic and reasoning which are prevalent in human thinking - it does not contrast with other logical methods , the idea was to illustrate the errors in reasoning that are involved in ordinary collation of knowledge or what we call knowledge , - these are the basic facts which a person should be acquainted with before one really delves into Vedic Thought . You are correct when you say that it is quite general the idea of vedic reasoning was to hone both the reasoning and intutive and cognitive simultaneously so as to get an uninterrupted flow of right reasoning from the particular to the general and from the general to the particular . The general was what was being discussed as an illustration of how the inner equipments work in relation to each other . -. It follows the strict observation by the sages that - the general was to be known first and the particulars would follow automatically . I can explain this by way of an example - if a man is taught that that in the case of being born each species can only be born from each species and not otherwise it would be a most general rule - so obviously whether one feels the need to know or not it would be within ones subconscious that a man or a child would always come from a like species and not a tree or a bird or an animal . Wholly unnecessary this knowledge one might say - but in its abscence as an axiom (At that level) there is every likelihood that within the subconscious a person would label a tree which appears to be a shadow as a man . Again everything works from the general to the particular - in the case of a blind man there is no "'distinctness'' of an object as he is blind - in other words the man does not percieve forms , it is the same with a man who has excellent sight - when a person is acquainted with the word (say) Fire he would only understand it in a genric way and the generic properties only would be known by him much as in a blind man - but the moment he percieves fire the knowledge generated on actually seeing fire would generate specific knowledge .
  • Hari Menon Again the cause of a thing being illuminated is because it is not self illuminating , which is why it is said that - sunlight is not the cause of one discerning an object . And again another thing to note is that one thing that exists on another is itself non existent . A pot does not exist fully on the sunlight to be known in all cases . This is just to prove the logic that the knowledge in the intellect of humankind is more useful as a revealler and not in generating original knowledge . This again just proves the fact that the knowledge in the intellect is not knowledge per se - but it is acquired knowledge which in turn depends on proofs and evidences in order to be known and hence is non existent as knowledge .True knowledge does not require anything in order to be known and the one true knowledge that is at the base of all this secondary proofs is the "'Self" in relation to the self al;l these are non existent . As they depend on the self in order to be known but not viceversa .
  • Hari Menon I will be slowly in my posts - leading up to the above points , it was mentioned again in the beginning that I would show how the relationships developed . but you made me jump the gun !! It is not a method - it may look as if it is a method , because unlike western logic where there is an unwholesome prediliction with the particulars and a total forgoing of Axioms at each stage - here the particulars develope as particulars but as axioms (ie generals at the lower stages ) so it takes a person into axiomatically through generalizations into the even the most infinitesmally particular things .Ie It may seem incredible but it is true , The major premise is a general and Axiom and the Minor premise is also general and and axiom and the conclusion will also be general in the particular and axiomatic at that level and wholly applicable to all things at that level and the levels are World, Mind,Intellect and Self ....
  • Hari Menon Thanks a lot christian and Captain - you guys are the only people who have at least responded - it shows your clarity and cler thinking in your intellects it is quite gratifying to meet like minded people . Thanking you once again

Some More....

  • Christian von Lähr Is the object "the Sun" not self illuminating; sort of where I was coming from.
  • Christian von Lähr "Observation" comes up a lot in the definition and the author-addendums; is this then/therefore primarily an observational logic based on the way the mind sees? I WILL GIVE that up to 90% of sight actually comes from memory, and was thinking that was going to be explored as a factor of Vedic Logic, especially since memory was mentioned several times. Perhaps VL considers this of lessor significance?
  • Francis Smith Hari .. you say.. "the only people who have
    at least responded" .. not so.. some of us, just "take" longer..
    to get 'into' a topic.. in order to "see".. before "commenting"..

    In the Article, you start with: "Vedic Logic attempts to correct this perspective.. as partial knowledge was always considered as wrong knowledge. A keen and understanding mind is required to grasp this
    and the logic. Moreover.. it only required understanding.. as knowledge would work on knowledge.. once it was understood correctly" -[I'm not 'sure' I have the 'sense' here, as you intended?]

    I'm "thinking" here.. in the Christian 'sense'.. that "what" we "see".. "now".. is only 'partial'.. as looking in a dark glass "dimly".. and that "what" we 'see', is "inverted" (more a 'reflection').. and that "truth"
    ie. "understanding" (correctly).. will enable 'us' to actually "correct",
    "this incorrect way, of "seeing" things"..
  • Christian von Lähr Western logic? Hmmm ... I'll have to ponder on that, . . . Okay, If this is meant simply to distinguish other logic from Vedic, I suppose I get it.
  • Christian von Lähr Thanks, Hari . . . Captain picked it up right away; me, I use a kind of psychic sense to tell me whether or not I need to analyze a concept, which I did in this case. Translated , this would suggest I would be using [western] logic to analyze Vedic logic - - - I suspect they will not reconcile, and rather, one will use a method (for lack of a better intrinsically-focused word) of choice based on a cultural familiarity since applied logic now becomes an applied [learned] logic, something that would seem to now consume time.

    The motivation may not be a need for a [corrected] logic if one considers the level of satisfaction derived or experienced from use; to the western mind our logical thinking to us seems simply black and white reasoned fact or conclusion. However, to those who use the Vedic system, and therefore have need for a precise consistent and repeatable conclusion after applying logic that weighs [most] heavily the expectation of universal outcome, then the [western] application seems inherently flawed because the conclusion lacks agreement; and to reach agreement with logic a systematic approach is required (by them).

    I wonder, given Astrology and Eastern esotericism, if the Vedic MIND itself REQUIRES a Universe of square pegs which must fit into square holes, and round pegs which must fit into round holes. This must provide [foundation] so the Vedic mind can derive more facts about an ordered Universe and individual existences?

    Conversely, we of the western persuasion accept a reasoned logical method because [progress] is achieved in a short amount of time (probably a reflection on how the human mind takes short cuts.)

    The Vedic mind seems to want to achieve depth, and so it eliminates barriers to foundational facts; these facts allow for greater or broader [theoretical?] conclusions - as already indicated. Western logic uses a shortcut for speed at the expense of an agreed upon set of concluded facts.

    I SUSPECT when either approach is used to solve every problem of the universe and all in it, they would ironically end up with the last fact to the complete puzzle at the precise same moment (I used a mental shortcut to teach this conclusion, by way of example.).

    Therefore, varied methods are [tools], and we each must chose the best tool not only for the job, but for us.
  • Christian von Lähr From the original Article premise: "Vedic logic an inverted perspective is employed since our ancients percieved that our natural way of looking at things was /or had an error - in that it did not allow a person to "see the background (or substratum) o...See More
  • Anand Kumar Thank you Dr. Lahr, Francis and Hari for making this thread so interesting. I agree with Christian that differentiating between eastern and western logic would serve no purpose.
    It is my hope that progressively Hari will reveal to us the parallels between Vedic logic and what we may, for want of a better word, term as Quantum logic where Entanglement and Superposition may be the k

Dear Christian , 

     You are bang on quite many points - what I meant was the sun we all know is a physical object but it does not require any other thing to illuminate it , it is self revealing (in the sense that it reveals itself by virtue of its properties) .The parallels to the inner world would be like the intellect being a revealer of the objects seen in the physical world . I do not think that Eastern and western logic would be so far at variance when looked at from the same angle - In western logic the working as it is used (not as it was actually ment in the beginning) is from the physical to the mental to the intellectual - in Vedic logic (this name I use again NOT as an insistence by way that it is Eastern Logic ) the working was from the inside to outside regard being had to the way the intellect and mind and senses worked . If it is of any consolation as things stand the present day eastern logic is the same as Western logic (again I mean by this how reason and logic of causation works in people in general) . 

        The thing to be understood is logic in the western sense is not just to be seen as some set of rules which are used to apply to arrive at a right reasoning , it goes deeper  each fallacy in western logic also follows the way the instruments work . Just as in Vedic logic , but the NATURE OF EXPOSITION IS diufferent the causes are adduced in the Vedas before the fallacy is stated so it becomes a way of tackiling the inner equipments with understanding , the ethos of logic is attained in its proper way since the effects permeate a person and he is in consonance with his surroundings also . Science is after all demonstrable and must have benefits - just knowing the rules without understanding would imapair the science proper and make a person to not be aware of why or how it was developed - he would be just a pedant whilst imagining himself to "know the Science of Logic''. 

Logic in ancient times was the bedrock on which disputes were later carried out - creative and energetic outcomes were attained to in thought by virtue of the fact that the people involved as well as the spectators (yes there were spectators also who were informed) were actually "moving '' and living this logic , as everything had its aim and logic was one of the steps to right reasoning leading to a better understanding of the self at higher levels . Maybe I should have put in this introduction on the uses that necessitated evolution of logic as a means to understanding the self , which was the primary aim in all the sciences in ancient times . Nomenclatures and apellations like "logicians'',"argumentative philosopher" etc were actually coined as generalizations in later ages to distinguish the chaff from the wheat . Everything undergoes a change and always it is in a deteriorating way so people who do not sometimes understand the real import and spirit (I mean in Vedic times also as in now - both in east and west - in fact all over the world ) of a science classify what they do not understand as such and such a thing and the error is then taken up from there (the market place as the Greeks would say). So now we have a serious problem in every area of life where we approach a thing by its cover or what an expert says on it - this vitiates our knowledge in the very first instance and our genuine understanding is thwarted . How many people are there who would see latin local fallacies in the nature of a training to understand the self ?.

I can name a few just in passing - right knowledge of which would enhance ones quest for the self

Ad hominem - it is a rule that one should not "address the body " it works both ways - the body is not the person and the body or subject under discussion is not to be addressed in the intellect - it IS the matter of verification and an outcome for determining . THe body is taken to be pre existing so that reasonable talks may be held on it - so that the losing person may not raise the problem of A priori later as a via media.

Regressus ad infinitum - it signifies that bot have reached a point of ignorance due to initially wrong hypothesis or totally wrong thinking.

Begging the question - strictly not allowed , even in ordinary tings one cannot answer a question by a question .

and many more . Unfortunately these are available only in Latin in the original , the truth of these are to found in Greek Philosophy , a keen understanding of which would tie in the loose ends . The advantage in Vedic Logic is that the whole body of thought is still available in a single manner and the language in which it was originally evolved is still alive and is spoken and used as it was so many thousands of years before . So the connections can be made easily - What goes by western Logic actually are English books of dead classical languages and from fragments (if they are of an older age) - we cannot go into the various dissertations and have to take the word of the translator which over period of time makes it an "ENGLISH LOGIC" claiming pedigree from the True source of either latin and Greek . I happened to read somewhere that according to western thought - there are hardly any systems of logic which match it or they have come to (ie the EXPERTS) the conclusion that there were no ancient civilizations with any proper system of logic , but (in a grudging way) they have located in the matter of Indian Logical systems some thought approximating the western thoughts and so it is "inferred" that they were a civilization which had a proper logical system albeit not quite the equivalent of the western one !!!! This is the heights of misuse of the language , a contumely far exceeding anything seen in human history , and the Hubris of the occidentally evolved animal , who so easilly disregards the genesis and evolution of mankind and ungratefully aggrandizes science , history , religion . culture and everything mankind holds dear to the heart through an inferior language . Language , language language language - it does great destruction of mankind , there is no weapon more potent to destroy the psyche by foisting language on a population . That people who write in English and consider themselves the best among themselves and pass judgement on other lesser privilaged civilizations is quite hilarious and pathetic.   

This is the true facts - so we have to understand the limitations that the language viz. English in this case brings upon the science proper , since there is a historical exegesis automatically carried out in the world intellect , with the rise of english speaking populations and the demise of classical languages - almost every writing is in English and so after generations the intellect starts to believe that it was a western standard . We have to question the very capabilities of our language and to the extent it affects our thinking when we are involved in such a serious matter as the heart of existence . 

I am not blaming anyone , it is the pressure of history that is to be blamed - I hope the toaster will still be functional after we put it back together !! otherwise maybe Russel & Hobbs will save us !!

Dear Francis ,

          I love it when you get going , of course I did not mean to say that only The Captain and Christian were the only people alive with clear intellects - I quite enjoy reading your posts and have a high regard for you (the inverted commas notwhitstanding !) You have read it correctly and especially where you have correctly seen that it is a case of knowledge working on knowledge - it has to be so , otherwise a person will struggle all his life to exercise vigilance whether he is employing right logic , - this does not require a struggle , keen understanding AND extending the understanding gained to a wider area of reasoning etc actually go a long way .

Dear Christian ,

      I do so love reading your analysis of my posts , I cannot but agree with you on almost all counts - but the problem which I would like to address is that - I have found that I have to take you a little back and explain some things in order that you may appreciate the manner of thinking employed more than anything else . In fact it might even help you in framing your reasonings based on western logic (though I still insist that we should not make such differentiations - after all mankind is universal and we have to keep an open mind and try to resolve the contradictions in the benifit of a higher personal good viz. the Self).

Once again at the cost of being repetitive - why is cause and effect so important when in the higher and rarified echelons of Indian philosophy there is an absolute rejection of cause and effect - is it not a dissonance to nit pick in the lower stages on causation and then discard it completely at a later stage ? . The reasons are if we consider the higher stage of nil causation and do not pay attention - what happens is that we will not be aware of what or hoe our reasoning and subsequently what the knowledge will be . Once a firm grasp of secondary knowledge is got then the primary can be easily tackled (again - the self is the source of primary knowledge and knowledge is defined in the vedas based on the nature of Pure knowledge ). 

Here I have to show you how wrong even the majority of Indians are - of course there are a lot of people who know the truth of what follows

By the use of loose language if we observe very closely even ourselves - we manage to "imprint'' knowledge into our memory in a very bad way . This imprinting is achieved in the presence of consciousness - now consciousness is something which always has a master and does EXACTLY what is meant . In other words it is general and unless the intent is clear there will be a wrong impression ingrained into memory . For again consciousness (I will go more into detail at a later stage on consciousness) has a "stabilizing'' effect on knowledge and the person . It is basically colourless but flexible according to a persons nature . If a man believes for a prolonged period or repeatedly (say) for instance that a god does not exist or existence itself does not exist he will come to honestly believe in it due to the action of consciousness . In other words it stabilizes a mans beliefs and faith in the way he wants whatever or irrational it may be to the extent that he actually believes it to be true . So if we are not careful or as the Greeks say "akrebia'' (or precision) in our day to day thoughts and beliefs with an awareness of their impact on ourselves (ie, consciousness) we will be in a bad way as regards our intellect  and our conduct of affairs etc in the world .

Now as the promised example : The word Shakthi occurs very frequently in the Vedas and is used by almost all people to mean power or "a power'' of the supreme etc and has become such a thing as to be so deified in common consciousness - like nature deified as shakthi (or a woman ) - and the representation of Shakthi as a woman accompanying Siva and hence as his wife , nature etc etc .

Even time is used as a shakthi or power of the infinite and many other intangibles are called shakthi or as a power . It may not be very difficult for a western mind to transcend the ideas of shakthi as they may not have such representations and various dissertations on what it is - but to an Indian it is almost impossible to transcend this idea of shakthi as a woman as it is so ingrained in the psyche (so everything is not easy here too !!! ). In many cases having a western mind set helps to transcend eastern ideas . But of course it has to be done judiciously or error ensues. Now coming to how causation helps in this matter and the laws of superimposition -

Shakthi meaning power can never be deified or seen as apart from the Shaktha (or powerful) - The very Dharma of Power in a person or thing is what makes it powerful . One cannot in ones wildest dreams see it as separate from the powerful . This is the essence of the thing and reason and knowledge . Now we say in more modern terms about the power of the engine of a car - now power comes not from the engine strictly - it comes from the petrol or whatever goes into the car to propel it . Power cannot be divorced from the propellant - because such divorcing requires a further extraction by mechanics and needs an agent so it is on another level . The specs of engines are different and the technologies are different which constitute their "power" - so in the case of engines which are mechanical it is the transformation in knowledge brought to bear on the fundamental principle that constitutes ''power" . Similarly in many other cases - in fact by closely sticking to the kernel of What is powerful one understands power . It is the powerful itself which is the power . Even if there is a mighty army - victory is attributed to a person or king - it does not matter numbers - power resides in the king or any such person . Rise and fall of nations are known through the people guiding it which is where power resides. Now it is the same with time - it is manifested or known to us by the decay of objects only , or by the waning of actions , so even though time is said to be a power of the infinite - Is it really so ? Can it be divorced from the powerful and seen separately ? . As a matter of conjecture yes , as an aid to understanding what is powerful yes , but it is not a means and end in itself it has to be understood as NON DIVORCEABLE FROM the powerful . THis gives us insight into the potential of the infinite and consequently our real selves . If there is a plethora of deification of principles it damages the intellect in a very bad way .

Instances are many - why have so many theories and man hours been spent in the world after the "advent'' of the computers - on its "flexibility'' and its ''Powers'' and whether it will match human beings or replace human beings etc . these make one wonder whether there is any seriousness in life at all. It is the purpose to which a computer is put to that decides its "power'' . In any case there is no power in computers - so you can see how bad things are - if precision is not there in the intellect .  Just for the record the sages were past masters at Generalizations which still hold good to this day - it was achieved due to precision and care in their thoughts  . I will just outline some generalizations in the Vedas

All actions done by human beings come under any of the following four only there is no other action possible 

Acquisition , Production,Transformation or Purification .  For the uninitiated just take purification as an example - the saying of mantras is mental purification , taking a bath is bodily purification . It is comprehensive at all levels .

Hands are used for giving or taking only .

Legs are used for going or coming only 

All beings are born either of Egg ,Seed, Self (division from itself), and Sweat .

       It soon becomes an art in generalization and when one talks to a person the intellect is known and consequently the knowledge of the person and its errors .

There is a preliminary controlling of the ''urge to communicate '' which is exhorted on serious students who wish to correct their perspective and knowledge -  somethings are as follows (in fact we all do it in the natural course of our dealings - but awareness and vigilance enhances intuition ) .

Never state the obvious to another person . (always please note that "the other person'' has to be taken also in reference to internal cogitations or  analysis ie ones own internal dialogue).

Understand the unstated obvious in anothers reasoning . (not expose it or get a clarification - it will show up our own lack of understanding on many obvious things - so that we can be aware and correct it )..

Understand the kernal of a statement (ie. the implied one correctly ) disregard what is not necessary or is descriptive .

Understand "as'' always as "as'' not as ''is" .

                   I hope I have been helpful . Small things lead to bigger things and more subtler understanding - In the Vedas there is no intuition espoused - Viveka or Discrimination is what is called for , in the higher reaches it is discrimination between the real and the unreal in the lower reaches it is an automatic process of discrimination by the mind and memory and intellect whereby the right thing is arrived at . It is Intuition with total awareness and continuity one becomes wholly intuitive and does not have to even think of ethics - only right will be done and right will be said and right will be felt . It takes away the trouble of having to make decisions !!!. It is definitly an attractive thing and a person must be mad not to want it . Some care and trouble will go a long way in harmonizing things.

Please feel free to contribute to this most important discussion....

Dear Captain ,

        The man Wolfram is obviously trying to make  making some  sense - one cannot just reduce everything to the present state , history has to be taken into account in anything - particularly so when we are involved in Metaphysics or Theosophy at its best - we would be labouring under a false pretence if we try and reduce everything - it is the gaps provided by a general thinking that makes one search and even come up with lost things from memory of the world and tie up loose ends - it is important in Philosophy . Take for example the most structured and routine of sciences (or Art) in the modern world - Accounting - In fact due to the repeatedly iterative nature of Accounting computers were actually evolved with accounting as the core , later it migrated to repetitive mechanical tasks of engineering like monitoring flows and standardized process . 

Now why I am mentioning this is english is the language of commerce and international standards of accounting exist these days - but if one were to closely examine this Science or Art we come to a fascinating aspect of world history and the development of Commerce (to which accounting is the crest jewel) -

Now Commerce (the International variation ) Has its roots in pillaging and plunder, brigands, thugs, Hassassins,looting , theft, usury, appropriation , slavery , and other coarse conditions of life . It has now with  the help of great people and experts attained to the a very noble pastime for governments and big businesses and is very respectable these days . It is useless to debate on the Ethics and morality of the captains of Industry and Countries  - It is idealism to dream of a world in which commerce and good commercial practices will make a golden world for the future - no - it will all end when mankind depletes all resources and goes back to trading cattle and goose eggs with his neighbour for  a pig or a horse. - since that which jumps ahead is the mind - and the mind is worthless in such matters it throws up a doubt for the intellect to reflect - History is ingrained in the intellect (memory is an integral part of the intellect)- it would show fascinating aspects and gaps where developments can be done based on history 

I was just recently reading an article on mathematics and on unsolved theorems and other things - it seems some theorems which were considered unsolvable have been solved by a group of mathematicians by using very simple and basic mathematics , They went back to basics and solved quite a few complex theories including some of Ramanujams and Fermats by using number theory which created astonishment in Mathematical circles but made them realize that sometimes simplicity is the essence of life - which is why in the science of the soul also I was instructed to keep things simple and not to complicate the issue!!!!.

In my profession also I only go by the basics I have found them adequate to tackle anything that comes up - it is easier to keep things simple . Complexity is a web created by ourselves and our individual perspectives and nature - it vitiates everything , nothing is complex - I am reminded of the soviet scientists who recommended that ordinary lead pencils be carried into space for writing , whilst the americans spent an unholy amount of money to develop ball point pens that would write in space under weightless conditions . It was the same when my Russian friend suggested simply to me (when I had complained of carpel Tunnel syndrom ) to change using my mouse from the right hand to the left hand , I recovered in two days . Most things in life can be kept simple .

I did read about Wolfram Captain - but unhappy to report that he or his things do not interest me , he falls in the general category of humankind there is nothing that he can really do to enhance what I believe would be a good existence. Maybe I am a boor !!!

Hi Hari !

a few questions:

1) if two people (different minds) see, experience, the same Effect in the external world, then the Cause for the Effect is different because of the different minds. But as stated, one has the same Effect with the same tree. This seems to lend an interpretation where external forms exist before the mind Causes them as Effects within mind. ??

2. The way you use Cause and Effect are easy to understand per each example. However, I find that you have two different types of Cause and Effect within the discussion (maybe more?). One is the mind as "Cause" within the form "Tree" as the "Effect." The other is the Cause and Effect within the external world. I expect it may be better to say that two Effects interact and create a resultant Effect (new form). Individually, this causes no problem for me. However, I think there must be some overlapping transition that combines and avoids the ravine between the two viewpoints/situations. After all, it is to spring from the same water well, so to say.

I really enjoy this thread. I am a little slow on this posting since some terms have parallels I use in other contexts. Those have to be forgotten first. <g>

Also - there are a few things in Physics which connect and slip into this discussion in some key areas.

1) Free Will

2) Cause and Effect within information, forming items like correlations, synchronicity, coincidence etc.

3) the "Now"  along with the concept of time. Things that happen today (as Effects) may be correlated and Caused at a latter point in time (via a free will event).

with respect to item 3, it is as if we are filling in some lost Hermetic axioms.

so far, we have:

( from Future Theosophies  )   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1) The key for the spatial connections in theosophy, i.e. the second verse in the 'Emerald Table' of Hermes Trismegistus:

"That which is above is like to that which is below and that which is below is like to that which is above, to accomplish the miracles of (the) one thing"

Note this refers to the Spatial Dimension. i.e. epistemologically it is externalism and internalism; theosophically as mind (human) as the mesocosm between the macrocosm and microcosm). Note the Eastern Philosophy version: “What is here is there, What is not here is nowhere”.

(Vishvasara Tantra; trsl. Arthur Avalone, The Serpent Power  1919, p 72.)


The analogy between space and time as interchangeable creates the second key. This is the temporal equivalent to the first key and completes the Hermetic set  of keys for both time and space. This is one of the great results that surfaced in the 20th century by theosophists, actually doing theosophy by using the three characteristics ('Die Gnosis' by Hans Leisegang, 1926; and 'Le Tarot' by Marc Haven, 1923):


2) The key for the temporal connections in theosophy.

"That which was is as that which will be, and that which will be is as that which was, to accomplish the miracles of eternity"

Reference from Meditations on the Tarot by Anonymous, 1985. Note: Anonymous is known to be Valentin Tomberg (1901-1973).


the next one is new. I stumbled onto it:

3) The key for Cause & Effect Relations within theosophy.

"For where there is a Cause, there is also an Effect; For where there is an Effect, there is also a Cause, to accomplish the miracles of the Relations"  (i.e.cause can follow the effect, or proceed it).

(There is a fourth, I believe I have found. It involves free will -- more latter)

I was thinking of adding some of this in Science. The main reason is that people still "Think" in 19th century ideas on science. It is causal; It is all pre-determined;

and the newer:  Quantum Mechanics applies only to sub-atomic phenomena. (false - entangled superconductors are very macroscopic and can be very entangled as well)



Search Theosophy.Net!


What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


Theosophy References

Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service