Reply on Religion and Marxism: 2

[gyanananda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Reply on Religion and Marxism: 2

We now continue with discusion of religion and Marxism.

Mr Jim Farmelant write:

>If as the collected weight of evidence
>from neuroscience, scientific psychology, and
>general physiology indicates, that consciousness
>does not exist, except as a function of the
>nervous system,then it is reasonable to expect \
>that when the body dies, so does the mind.

You are probably correct, mind die with death of
body. But is consciousness and mind same
thing? According to Sankhya philosophy, perception
is as follows: First there is external object
which produce a disturbance (affection),
this affection is carried by instrument like eye,
ear, to respective centre in brain, the brain
centre give affection to the mind, the mind to
the determinative faculty (buddhi), and from
this finally it is receive by the Purusha (Self)
when perception result. The Self then give the
order to the motor centres to give
appropriate response. The mind is composed of
subtle matter called the Tanmatras compared to
grosser matter which make up the outer
instruments (eye, ear, etc). The mind, according
to Sankhya philosophy, is also a instrument in
hands of the Self (consciousness) through which
Self catches external objects. The
real intelligent ?person? who act behind the
scene is this Self.

The related question is: with death of body,
does entire human organisation die or disolve?
Has science conclusively answer this question?
The yogis say (from their practice) that
everything die including all instruments except
the Self or Atman which is a pure field
of consciousness. For most people like us, the
answer is that we do not know conclusive answer
to question.

>Remember, there is overwhelming evidence
>that physiological changes can produce
>profound changes in a person's psychology, and
>even his or hers personality.  People who
>suffer injuries to the brain from accidents
>or strokes or from brain tumors can
>experience radical changes in their personalities
>or character.

This is true.

>As Lucretius wrote 2000 years ago:

>"We feel that the understanding is begotten
>along with the body and grows together with it,
>and along with it comes old age.  For as
>children totter with feeble and tender body, so
>a weak judgement of mind goes with it.  Then
>when their years are ripe and their strength
>hardened, greater is their sense and increased
>their force of mind. Afterward, when now the body
>is shattered by the stern strength of time, and
>the frame has sunk with its force dulled, then
>the reason is maimed, the tongue raves,
>the mind stumbles, all things give way
>and fail at once."

Lucretus is correct , from the Greeks we have
?sound mind in sound body? showing intimate
connection of body and mind. But state of mind
can also affect state of body. For example, if I
feel sudden anger (say by reading your words),
then blood pressure and heart rate go up. One
purpose of yoga is to control mind so as to have
sound body. The mind is like mad monkey, it is
always restless. Vivekananda say, ?it is
incessantly active by its own nature, then it
become drunk with wine of desire, thus increasing
its turbulence. After desire take possession, come
the sting of scorpion of jealousy at success
of others, and last of all the demon of pride
enter the mind, making it think itself of
all importance?.

Yoga prescribe practical procedure for bringing
this restless mind under control and to master it.
In one of the steps of Raja Yoga called
Pratyahara (sense withdrawl), the connection
between the mind and the brain center
receiving affection (via external  instrument
like eye, ear, etc) is broken consciously. The
yogi then no longer feel any external stimulus
like pain. This is widely documented in many cultures
? fire eaters, tongue and flesh piercers, walking
on burning coals, etc.

Thus, relation between mind and body is quite
complex and many question remain although a lot
of progress have been made in last 20-30 years
in scientific research on workings of brain
and consciousness.

>Even if the yogi is not a charlatan, it is
>unclear what he would be meaning when he
>makes such an assertion.  Unless, you can show
>us how such assertions can be either
>confirmed or disconfirmed in a publicaly
>verifiable manner, then I submit that no
>particular meaning can be attached to
>such assertions.  Perhaps,they have some
>emotive meaning to those who accept them but I
>cannot discern any cognitive meaning.

When yogi say that Self is immortal, he make
this claim from yogic practice. He, through a
lifetime of practice (meditation), has perceived
the Self, so to him it is not assertion but
scientific conviction. Like gravity is not belief
but conviction for us since everyone feel force
of gravity. Most physical phenomena is
common experience of mass of humanity. So if you
ask how water flow, we can go to laboratory and set
up experiment to actually see how water flow.
Here, subject (we) and object (water) are
seperate.

But when both subject and object is human being
(since aim of study is internal mental states of
human being), then this type of experiment is
not possible. Other methods,like yoga, is
necessary. So to publically verify claims of yogi,
you have to try his method and experience
for yourself. There is no simple shortcut. The
long hard road of your own practice is the only
way. And yoga say that every person is capable of
this practice. In 19th century, when
Vivekananda (trained in western science
and philosophy) met the nearly iliterate
Ramakrishna, he asked: ?Have you seen God??
The reply, ?I see God as I see you? completely
baffled and shocked Vivekananda. For five years,
he struggled and fought and called Ramakrishna
a madman, hallicunator, fool etc ? finally he
was convinced through hard practice. So it is not
a question of emotion or simple assertion, it
is reality according to yogi.

>What is real religion, and by what criteria
>are we to distinguish it from the "false" variety?

Real religion is realisation of immense power
hidden in human being. No sect or dogma or
blind belief in supernatural being in sky,
or superstition. Here is better defination:

?Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is
to manifest this Divinity within by
controlling nature, external and internal. Do
this either by work, or worship, or psychic
control, or philosophy ? by one, or more, or all
of these ? and be free. This is the whole of
religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or
books, or temples, or forms, are but
secondary details? ? Vivekananda.

As you can see from above, real religion is
very personal and practical matter. The founders
and teachers of what is called organised
religion today like Buddha and Christ all start
from this principle. But with progress of
time, this principle was lost and religion
become stronghold of priests, fakers, and
charlattans to exercise control over masses ? i.e.
it became tool to uphold system of class
exploitation by serving to control and hypnotise
mind of masses. This organised religion, which
teach slavery, dependence (on supreme being),
and superstitious ideology to proletariat ,
this essentially anti-human false religion,
is correctly the object of Marxist critique. False
and true relgion is related like revisionism
and Marxism.

>Does yoga really liberate people from the
>reign of natural laws or (assuming it to be
>efficaciouss)make people freer through the
>application of knowledge of natural laws,
>just like any other technology or praxis?

Consciousness of necessity (laws of nature) is
first step towards freedom (Marxism). But the aim
of the yogi is to become master of internal
and external nature, i.e. go beyond working of
natural laws ? out of realm of necessity into realm
of absolute freedom. As the kundalini energy rises
in the sushumna canal, the yogi acquire certain
powers (?siddhis?) as mentioned in last post,
powers which violate our concept of physical law.
But these powers are also a hindrance in yogi?s
path, i.e. they are attachment (Maya). The yogi
wishes to break all attachment (name, fame,
wealth, body, etc) which he consider bondage,
i.e. ultimately freedom from cycle of birth and
death, and unite with Brahma (Absolute). This type
of freedom is of course incomprehensible to most
of us.

>From what I have seen of the literature, the
>gate control theory has been pretty successful
>at explaining accupuncture ( as well as most
>other phenomena relating to pain).

Quite interesting. Perhaps you can explain
rudiments of this theory and its emprical
verification?

>However, even if we suppose that modern
>science cannot explain accupuncure, or the
>phenomena associated with yoga, that is no
>reason to expect that science will not be
>able to explain them in the future.  To
>suppose otherwise is throw up obstacles on the
>path of inquiry.

Agrement here. With passage of time, as
science develop further, many of these phenomenon
will be explained. Perhaps, it has already
started which is good news. One reservation:
science may perhaps have to adopt other
perspective and technique as it try to explain
these phenomenon. Still today, approach of
modern science is atomistic and Newtonian
(inspite of relativity). This atomistic viewpoint
lead to fragmented outlook. We forcibly break
reality into finer and finer part and study each
part individually, and often lose sight of
its connection to other parts. Modern
science (physics, chemistry, medicine, etc)
is permeate with this viewpoint, e.g. This method
and perspective lead to great scientific advance
and progress but may not work in all cases. Engels
and the American physicist David Bohm have
both comented on this fragmented approach of
science (see Bohm?s writing on
fragmentation, wholeness and implicate order).

The question then arise if in studying the
internal metal states of human being, this
fragmented approach will work. Or some
other perspective/viewpoint will have to be taken
that give better result.

Doyle Saylor write:

>Lack of consciousness is lack of brain
>activity.  There are various ways in which this
>is defined in terms of the effects of comas
>in people which some doctor will be trying
>to diagnose brain death.  This is an important
>area in the debate about how the brain actually
>works.

The ultimate question for science is if human being
is like a machine internally connected by
mechanical and electrical pathways. Or is it
something more than this. Is consciousness only
a result of brain activity or something more? Can
a machine, however sophisticatedly built to
reproduce human (living) attributes and qualities,
be called human? Can such machine feel joy,
sorrow, emotion, poetry, pain, pleasure, like us?

I mention point of view of Indian yoga about
this previously. According to it, consciousness is
not mind but is something else, something
independent of the apparatus in which it exist. It
is like a field which exist is all things, even in
a stone, except that stone is not aware that it
is conscious (no awareness). As we progress
upwards from inanimate to living matter ? amoeba, simple bacteria, multicelled
animals, man/woman,
this awareness increases, and in human beings it
is most developed and advanced. And therefore, it
is only human beings who can realise (through
yoga) the real nature of this consciousness.

As mention earlier, there is now a lot of
scientific research on workings of brain
and consciousness which will throw light on
many hidden aspects.

>Not in the sense you write about above that
>someone's mind is immortal, but in the sense of
>where do we truly differ from organisms like
>insects who have elementary nervous systems
>but no consciousness.

Not mind, but what is the ultimate esence of
living being, the Self (Atman ? pure field
of consciousness), this, the Vedanta and the
systems of Indian yoga say, is indestructible,
un-transformable. Insect also have consciousness
but low level of awarness accordinf to this view.
They have come to this conclusion from yogic
practice. Also, this is not my original idea,
I am merely serving here as transmitter of
other viewpoint. Personally, I do not know
answer.

One interesting question is if yoga philosophy
is correct, what implication it has for
Marxist philosophy of materialism.

This reply is again become long and so I finish
here for now. In final and last part, I will
answer Rev Williams and conclude with application
of two Marxist laws (negation of negation and contradiction) to religion.

Gyan











______________________________________________________
123India.com - India's Premier Portal
Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com