Exposing the blunders of Advaita philosophers Part-4

dattaswami2's picture

Average: 1 (1 vote)

Exposing the blunders of Advaita philosophers Part-4

A human being is exactly regenerated by science, today, in the form of a robot. Several microprocessors simultaneously function and identify the object in a single instance like the human brain. The chip of information present in the robot is the subtle body of the human being. According to science, which does not believe in previous birth, the information in the chip is gathered by the brain in course of time as the child grows by observing the world. In a dead body since this chip of information (Subtle Body) escapes as Jiva, it is very difficult to exactly reproduce the same chip and introduce into the dead body. Therefore, it is very difficult to make the dead body alive to behave exactly as the previous person.

The Jiva contains the information collected in the previous millions of births. Therefore, the regeneration of the chip is impossible which means to bring back the same dead person is impossible. This point indicates only the difficulty in the process and thus is not related to the concept of God. It is only an impossibility within the limits of Science. Christianity and Islam which do not believe the previous birth or future rebirth are in agreement with science in this aspect because the escaped chip will never come back to the earth. Science says that the chip disappears along with the life. But there are several practical examples in the world in which souls have remembered the past births and narrated the past events correctly.

Thus the rebirth is proved based on the perception. Whatever may be the case, the human being is exactly reproduced in toto by the scientists in the form of a robot, whether the brain-chip has received information from the previous birth or from external world in this birth. All the potentiality of awareness is exhibited in toto by the robot. This has clearly proved that any human being is a created item only and not the creator. This rejects the view of Advaita philosopher who says that every living being is Brahman or God, the creator. However science is good as far as this achievement is considered but some scientists who are atheists say that no human being is God because God does not exist. Science is good and most of the scientists are also good because even the top scientists like Einstein believed in God. The scientist who is not the perfect scholar in science talks like an atheist.

The superman like Krishna or Jesus is a perceived example in this world. Even though the scientist is able to produce robot, who represents any ordinary human being, why is science unable to produce the robot resembling Krishna or Jesus? Jesus gave the eyesight to blind. But the robot cannot do that. The super powers are impossible for a robot. Therefore science is used to reject the philosophy of Advaita scholar but the same science is to be condemned in the case of superman. The logic of science is used to refuse the logical items like human beings to be called as God. But the same science is to be condemned if it says that there is no God or human incarnation (superman). The logic is used to reject the items of creation to be called as God. But the same logic is to be rejected to analyze God, who is beyond logic. The superman is exhibiting the superpowers before our eyes.

If science rejects the perception of superman, then the perception of the entire world should also be rejected. Thus science is utilized in one context and is criticized in another context. Ghatotkacha was a demon having both good and bad qualities. He was utilized by the Lord to kill Alambusa who was a demon with all bad qualities only. But Ghatotkacha cannot be excused for his partial bad qualities. Therefore the Lord planned in such a way that Karna kills Ghatotkacha. Karna is having all good qualities except a very few bad qualities. Therefore even Karna cannot be excused and was killed by Arjuna according to the instruction of the Lord. Therefore science is used to analyze any item of the creation. Science is perfectly useful in rejecting the items of creation, which are not God. But the same science is to be rejected when the concept of creator is approached, because the logic fails in God. In fact, science is only a subject which is limited to the analysis of the creation. It keeps silent about God because it cannot analyze God. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science.

Some scientists oppose God and this does not mean that science opposes God. Buddha kept silent about God because God is unimaginable. He preached about the spiritual efforts of the human being because the human beings and their efforts are imaginable entities. The silence of Buddha was misinterpreted by the followers and Buddhists say that Buddha did not accept God. The same situation is true in the case of science also. Therefore there is nothing wrong with science because only some scientists are wrong. If science is absent, we cannot analyze the awareness so clearly and we might have been misled by the followers of Advaita and we might have thought that awareness is God. You must maintain the power of logic always as far as the items of the world including human beings are concerned.

You have to leave logic only in the case of God. Science helps you to identify what is not God and this itself is a great advantage. Otherwise you will be fooled by others since you can easily be trapped by others so that you can easily believe any item of the creation as God. Today there are several spiritual preachers who do not know the fundamentals of science. They believe certain items of the creation as God because their analytical faculty is weak due to lack of scientific knowledge. They are blind and mislead the people, who are also blind due to lack of scientific knowledge. The philosophers are good scholars of logic but the ancient logic contains several wrong conclusions due to absence of experimental verification. For example, the ancient Indian logic says that sound is the characteristic property of space. But sound cannot travel in vacuum. It requires particles to vibrate mechanically for the propagation. Thus mere theoretical logic called as dry logic also goes wrong in several places.

Science is never wrong as far as the analysis of the creation is considered. In the case of God it is incapable to touch God. Incapability is not wrong. Science accepts its incapability by not speaking about God like Buddha. In fact this is the correct way of explanation about the unimaginable God. Shankara says that silence is the best explanation for the unimaginable God called as Para Brahman (Maunavyakhya Prakatita Parabrahma Tattvam). At least science does not pose to give wrong conclusions in the case where it fails because it understands its limits. The Advaita philosopher is just opposite to science. He is also incapable of understanding the unimaginable God like science. But he does not accept his incapability and poses that he has understood God and presents every living being as God. Silence is far better than the misled and misleading Advaita Philosopher. Buddha is far better than the present Advaita philosopher.

Buddha kept silent about God and such silence is the correct interpretation in the case of unimaginable God. Veda says that every word fails in the case of God which means that one has to keep silent about the explanation of God. In Veda it is mentioned that a son of a sage came to his home after studying the spiritual knowledge. When his father asked about God, the son kept silent and the sage certified that his son has completed the spiritual knowledge. God is unimaginable only to those people who like to approach God directly. But the devotees experience God through a specified human form. The devotees may not know the real nature of God but they have experienced God. The Advaita scholar opposes this concept and tries to experience God within himself or within every human being. He does not experience God because he poses that he knows the real nature of God as awareness.

The devotees accept the unimaginable nature but experience God. A blind man enjoys the taste of a sweet kept on his tongue even though he does not see it or realize its appearance. This is the case of a devotee who believes the human form of God. A person is not blind but he is eating some mud claiming it as the sweet. He has seen the mud and can explain the nature of it. But what is the use? His conclusion is wrong and therefore he lost the experience of sweet. Egoism is responsible for such loss. A devotee who does not believe the human incarnation but believes in other forms like statues, which are not God is also a blind person who eats mud thinking it as a sweet. A person who has not tasted sweets pleads or believes that the mud is the only sweet. He is not prepared to taste the real sweet. Therefore he is not capable of differentiating the mud from sweet. Therefore mere devotion is not sufficient. The devotion must be associated with knowledge or logical analysis to reject the items of the creation as non-God entities.

[Continuied in Part-5]

At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami

Anil Antony

Universal Spirituality for World Peace