Logic In Gaudiya-epistemology - The boundaries of and the necessity for logical thought

We have often read of the three-fold basic division of Gaudiya-epistemology, as in pratyAkSa (sense perception), anumAna (reasoning) and zabda (revealed wisdom). The general theme in such discussions has been to demonstrate how the other two, in contrast to revealed knowledge, are invalid in acquiring knowledge of that which is beyond perception.

However, in the course of such discussions, the valid use of sense perception and logic has often been set aside, if not neglected altogether. As the natural consequence, many devotionally inclined persons have ended up rejecting the validity of logic almost altogether, adopting what sometimes seem as the most absurd ways of thinking and acting.

Let us, therefore, explore the boundaries of logic and the necessity for its use.

Logic can transcend senory perception, can't it. In otherwords, it can describe topics that are beyond sensory perception. Physical sense and transcendental ones. they seem to work very differently. For example, in my argument for plant sentience, my feeling that plants are sentient comes from transcendant senses or intuition-- but I have used ordinary logic to defend the case. And I believe I have presented an air-tight case. I have posted the same in other forums where there alot of evolutionists, solipsists, athiests, reductionists, existenialists and so on. Not a single person has anything to say on the matter. Regarding clairivoyance-- it is real. I know so because I have had clarivoyant episodes. transcendant senses.

Yes, in a sense logic can transcend sensory perception. However, it still remains a dependent tool for acquiring knowledge. By dependent, I mean that logic can only act with the ingredients it has gathered from either sense perceptions or revelations. In other words, the playground logic is restricted within the boundaries set by our prior experiences.

OK.
In order to be a Vaishnava is it neccessary to believe in half animal/half human beings and in animals that can talk, etc. like Hanuman.

Could descriptions of such beings be allegorical?

Well, may we consider Rama an allegorical character? I don't know if you've read the thread on The Reality of Gopa Kumara. Some interesting, relevant points are raised there.

In fact, if you would like to pursue this line of thought further, perhaps you could do it in that thread? I was hoping that here we might discuss logic in general as a method of acquiring valid information, in contrast to dedicating the thread to any given specific example.

Hmmm, I wasn't aware that anything could be aquired though logic. A tool, surely, but even above that,. I consider it a thought syntax In that is the way in which we organize bits of our experience. A language consistes of 3 components: symbols, syntax and grammar. We could think of consciousness as a language. Reality provides the symbols-- raw symbols stream through the senses continuously. the the syntax (the way we organize the symbols into coherant patterns-- would be like logic and grammar (rules suggesting how syntax is implemented) would be like -every effect has a cause -rules of time (cause can't come after effect),, etc. It seems to me that the grammar is where most philosophies differ. The entire language is consciousness.

But I conjecture that the only "boundary" set by experiences is imposed by the mind. For example, just the simple experience of drinking a cup of coco... there may be enough "symbols" within that experience to construct a very broad picture of reality. It is just that our mind act as a pressure valve.. not absorbing it all and causing alot of it to be lost. If we adjust our mind, we may know such things as the nature of the soul just by drinking coco. why do I think such a thing? Because how can we put a finite value on the symbols we are absorbing.. they are a continuum. They may be a finite time period.. but the the spectrum in a rainbow has finit boundaries and yet it has actually infinite colors and gradients. Just a thought.

I think Nabadip's post today in another thread is also relevant here: "most of us entertain an over-confidence into the power of the word to convince others," hermeneutics, etc.

It seems to me that without a supporting cultural backdrop, logic has limited power in convincing others. For instance, if we are to believe the history of India and our own scriptures, pandits often debated and the loser would surrender to the winner, become their disciple. The culture was so strong that logic carried real weight; that a sense of integrity and honesty lead people to respect knowledge and those who possessed it.

Yesterday someone on a mailing list that I belong to posted some bogus "facts" on the Florida presidential election debacle. Nothing will convince that person that they are wrong, even if every piece of evidence is thoroughly exposed as false.

Or take a recent incident on another board where Jagat posted a thoughtful, balanced opinion that he supported by research. Some could not hear what he said due to their blinding opposition to who they think he is. They could not mount a challenge in response, and instead resorted to hate-filled mouthing off and ad hominem attacks.

We live in such a low age.

Hmmmmmm..... since my recent mental emancipation I've come to view the above scenario with scepticism. Today everyone has a right to their own opinions and freedom of thought/speech is considered a moral virtue in society.
What is logical to one may not be logical to another and those differences must be respected. I don't think it is a sign of a highly evolved culture that a "loser" in debate (if there really is such a character) would have to "surrender" to the winner.

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our mind".

The late, great Bob Marley

A part of the grand problem might be this compelling urge of ours to assert our own understanding through attempts to convince others. Why not try for change to engage in a dialogue in which all parties -- instead of trying to convince each other -- engage logic in pursuing new angles of vision and opening new doors of insight for oneself, and use the aspect of dialogue with others as a medium of self-enlightenment rather than a medium of convincing others of one's own views.

When the other party in a dialogue presents a view that is seemingly incoherent for us, we could for change try to gain an understanding of the premises that lead the other to draw a certain conclusion. Of course, some may experience that intimidating, which is unfortunate, since it is an opportunity to better understand oneself. It is liberating to learn to perceive the variables in the equasion that leads one to a draw a certain conclusion.

Somehow we are obsessed with trying to convince others.

I consider it a great test to your own understanding to pose a relatively convincing argument against what you believe to yourself. I respect the spirityual man who can provide a convinging argument that God does not exist, and vice versa.

But I consider this out of the range of epistemology

"Yes you have got the wrong interpretation
Mixed up with vain, vain imagination"
- Stiff Necked Fools

Even Bob judged. A great sea of understanding and acceptance is not possible, even with unlimited sensimilla, for there will always be someone more to the left or to the right, someone who wants more than others, someone higher and someone lower. We are human.

As for freedom of speech and thought: respecting that someone has greater knowledge is not opposed to that at all. Indeed, freedom of speech opens an opportunity to come in contact with those elevated ideas. But amanitvam is the first quality listed by Krsna when he defines knowledge. Yes, such respect must come from within and not through any slavish mentality but submission and selflessness are required.

And can we really claim "none but ourselves can free our mind"? In one sense it is a truism--no one can make us understand--but if we take that lyric to mean that some sort of rugged independence is necessary, the statement becomes almost ludicrous unless we are life-long hermits. We take knowledge from others constantly, even for trivial matters, and even for the tools we use to aquire knowledge, e.g. language. So what to speak of gaining knowledge of a realm beyond sense perception? How far can we get without guidance?

Probably as far as existentialism if we are ruggedly analytical. Or maybe just to the point of seeing that all views should be respected and hoping for a better world if we have more emotion.

I think many of the people in question need to learn what logic is to begin with. They can sign up for a class at the local college or university, or even pick up a standard text on deductive logic. Without the necessary discipline, they are just going to resort to their usual fuzzy thinking (not to be confused with fuzzy logic, which is a set of very useful algorithms in embedded software on devices such as washers and dryers for the home laundry room).

I am not sure deductive logic is still that much validated, if you study it on academical level. Even if we would agree on one particular text-book or author, I suspect we would get into endless discussions about details of definitions (if definitions are allowed), such as modern philosophy has produced.

What happens with us common contributors is that each of us establishes a language game with meanings of things, and we assume the fuzziness of the understanding process, because otherwise we would not feel a need to go on and on on a subject. If it is so definite that it can be expressed just in a few words, like in a sutra text (and it seems to me classical Pundit discussions are led in such a way, where just a hint is given to a certain topic, and the hearer knows right away what is addressed, and can counter-argue or submit) discussion can be short and clear, like a chess-game.

We lack clarity of rules, as Mina points out, but whether that can be clarified by reading a textbook on logic, is another question. How about we define our own logic by saying that it is the meta-structure inherent in our modes of arguing, and that we are ready to look at it more closely on a case to case basis when there is disagreement?

I doubt anyone of us has become a vaishnava due to logic. But we have all heard arguments, phrases, statements (meaning: language games) that have echoed in us. An understanding opened up, a desire to know more, to integrate more, to grow and to give, to participate. Only later we discovered: Ooooh, hmmm, there are problems, how do we solve them? In the old organisation problems could be solved by authority. Just believe what person A says, and you are fine. Repeat what he says, and you are fine too. No understanding required. Not being fully convinced oneself, one repeats to others in the hope the conviction grows in one's own depth that what one says is so true. And then it is called preaching.

The endeavour to convince others has become sanctified as a holy war against untruth. To establish a new argument-culture against such odds is difficult but worthwhile.






The rationalist-optimist will say, lets read a text book that each of us knows exactly what we are talking about. The realist-pessimist will say, let's discuss that on a case to case basis, but now let's look at what we need in term of understanding to induce an attitude change in the participants. Let us engage logic in dialogue, yes.

But let us not expect change of attitude, choices of guiding principles of our actions, due to logic. Because it was not logic that brought us to the acceptance of our faiths in the first place. It was applied logic, because there is no meaningful exchange without logic (but there is meaningless logic indeed, at least as far as existentially pertinent meaning is concerned). Not being a rationalist myself I plead for fuzzy thinking, because that allows for a dynamic hermeneutic process, is open and democratic, and is not hierarchically decision-dependent ("Read a text-book on logic first!"). It is realist because it applies to everyone participating here already, and allows deviations from a desired ideal now and then.




Already on this micro-level of discussion we are caught in the need to convince to come to an agreement... Again I plead for Madhavaji's lead in this.

An Internet forum is mostly self-enlightenment-oriented anyway. We hope to gain some new insight by reading this and that, and by expressing ourselves we also understand ourselves better, or discover our own weaknesses or strengths. It is a process of self-discovery. A process of learning to be truly critical as Immanuel Kant taught it, that is to reflect on one's own assumptions on which one bases one's understanding and speaking of anything.

There was an interesting religious debate on BBC TV tonight. One thing that surprised me is that someone who I thought might be an ultra-conservative Christian fundamentalist Southern Baptist minister, Dr. Richard Land, actually propounded a relatively "peaceful" opinion about how our faith is so "enjoyable" that we would like to share it with others in a non-coercive way, and that this was his viewpoint as an evangelical Christian.

Imran Khan, on the other hand, was of the opinion that faith is perhaps the most personal thing an individual can ever have and that it is best manifest in personal behaviour. Sister Wendy, a Catholic nun, also opines that personal prayer is not necessarily limited to a fixed time and schedule but can also carry on as part of one's daily duties being ever-mindful of God.

Very interesting viewpoints considering the amount of "logic" involved in these personal opinions.

99.9999% of all the Gaudiya vaisnavas think in very illogical
terms ,especially when it comes to rasa lila, the logic of monotheism
flys out the window and they blindly accept polytheism without batting
an eye.

this has always amazed me, such absolute illogic taken as mysterious
or unknowable or some other label, whenever i point out the utter
illogic of thinking in polytheistic versions of rasa lila i get called
a mayavadi or worse, It amazes me.

Why do people believe that on the one hand we have all of the vedic
literature telling us that there is one all pervading supreme being,
one God, then on the other hand the mass of Gaudiya vaisnava forget this when it comes
to rasa ?

Why are we illogically seeing rasa lila ?
when the sastra tells us over and over god is one being,Radha and Krsna
are two manifestations of one god, why is this illogically concieved of
when "vaisnavas" consider rasa lila ?

They always look at rasa lila as being between Radha and Krishna,Krishna
and the gopis, this is illogical, yet all these so called great philosophers
and pundits are blind to this illogical vision they have,it's like they
lose their mind when considering rasa lila.

If i call them polytheists they complain of being derided,but i tell them
that is not derogatory,it's an accurate description, when you believe
that there is more then one supreme being, One all pervading person,
one who is everything and everywhere, when you think there is more then
one ,that is polytheism.

What is the reason of the illogic in so many ?

They read about rasa between Krsna and the Radha and the gopis
and since they accept with blind faith the Bhagavat school and at the same
time have very little actual realization, they make the leap from mono theism
to polytheism without blinking an eye.

So the illogical becomes blindly accepted, "everyones doing it so it must be right ".

Sad really,God is really a single person, one not many,all of our
ideas of rasa are totally messed up when we illogically refuse to
accept this most basic fact of Vedanta.

We get caught up in the flowery descriptions of rasa between Krsna and the gopis,
not realizing the inner reality,the thing we miss is the thing that those books
are meant for, to qualifiy you to engage in rasa, most people think
the center of rasa lila is the love between Radha and Krsna,when we wake
up from our dream like illogical assumptions of being "in the know",
then you will see how the real rasa lila is between God and you,all rasa
literature has this as it's true purpose,showing you the mood of God
for you,not for Herself in another body.

Shivaji, we've been over this a number of times, and you should know it as well as we do that the insights of yours into the "inner meaning of shastra" rely on very subjective interpretations of shastra, and hence the premises from which you start are rather questionable.

That being said, I don't think the folks here think of rasa in terms of polytheism, not in ontological terms at least.

I disagree with saying my understanding is subjective,i believe it is the other way around, there are thousands of shastric references to the effect
that there is one God,that all incarnations and plenary portions etc
are all in essence identical,can you show a single shastric reference
that goes against that ?

your understanding is subjective not mine,mine is based on objective
reference to authentic shastra,objective analysis using logic
and objective reasoning i.e., if god is one why do you believe that god
is many ?

that belief is subjective not mine,my belief is objectively supported,
whereas your belief is based on subjective analysis of commentary
on shastra ,which is subjective in nature when it uses shastra to
derive the oppositie conclusion of shastra.

if you believe in more then a single person who is God,then that is polytheism,
no matter how you subjectively conjure up rationalizations.

Whoever said that there are many Gods, that I wonder. What does that have to do with this thread? Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss such topics.

this is objective ontological Gaudiya epistemology

“The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.”

"I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. "

"One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees."

"For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me."



Faith in a particular belief system is also not under our control,in our illusory conception we take our faith or
belief in this guru or that saint as our own doing,
we see ourselves as using our intelligence and choosing
to believe based on our realization.

In this way we see those who agree with us as correct and those who oppose our belief as beneath our superior ability
to discern absolute truth.

When we are freed from the conditioned state of consciousness we no longer identify the mind as the self,
the mind is under the control of the higher power,
our belief system is not our doing,it is the doing of the
mind under the control of Paramatma.

Why do we believe as we do ?

This is based on large part with memory,memory is the
essence of knowledge,education and intelligence.

without memory given to us at every moment we cannot remember anything at all, we will not know who we are,
where we are,what we are,and what is to be done.

Memory is the gateway to life as an intelligent
person, we are completely dependent at every moment
on our memory,without memory being supplied we would
be like babies at all times, devoid of all knowledge.

So all of our beliefs and knowledge of all facets of our existence are completely dependent on memory.

where does memory come from ?

We have no control over memory,we have no ability to store
or gather a stored memory,even scientists are completely baffled by memory,without any doing on our part memory
appears as we need it, we do not consult a catalogue,
we do not have a search engine in our mind to search for us,
we have no clue as to how this magical memory storage and retrieval is going on.

But it is.

We are 100% dependent on memory for any and every thought
or knowing that we have .

In this way we should understand the illusory conception
of life we are in when we see our beliefs or thoughts
as something independent from an outside control,
We are at all times being given our conception of reality
by our memory which we have absolutely no control over.

Oh, behave!