Scientific Hinduism Bringing Science and

Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and
and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-

Dual-Aspect Monism (the eDAM framework: Dvi-
Dvi-Pakṣa
Pak a Advaita) RLP Vimal
For the cover of the book

The message in the cover-design should be as follows: Science is based on
materialism/Cārvāka/Lokāyata, whereas religions are based on
idealism/Advaita, and/or interactive substance dualism/Sāṃkhya. In other
words, for example, Hinduism (and all other religions: (Vimal, 2012a)) start from
the mental aspect of the unmanifested primal entity (idealism: matter from mind,
Brahman/God/consciousness, subjective first person perspective), whereas
science starts from the physical aspect of the unmanifested primal entity
(materialism, mind from matter, objective third person perspective). However, all
these three metaphysical have serious problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010d,
2013). We need both science and religions in our daily lives; but they are riding
on different boats of foundational metaphysics. We somehow need to put them
on the same boat of metaphysics so that they can ride smoothly and we do not
have daily conflict. This middle path compromised metaphysics is the five-
component extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework
(Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c), where the mental and physical
aspects are inseparable. In other words, one can start from either aspect, but it is
translated automatically, appropriately, rigorously, and faithfully to other aspect
because of the doctrine of inseparability (1-1 correspondence). Thus, the Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita brings Hinduism (and all other religions) and science closer while
maintaining individual’s faith/belief as they may have evolution and natural
selection based adaptive benefits along with genetic traits. Any person (atheist,
theist, agnostic, and so on) can be spiritual and the eDAM framework brings
religion-based and science-based spirituality closer. Front cover should somehow
reflect this idea.
1
Dvi-Pakṣa
We need to superpose the second one on the first (or third below), so that it
represents ‘Scientific Hinduism’
2
Dvi-Pakṣa
Scientific Hinduism:
Bringing Science and Hinduism
Closer via
Extended Dual-Aspect Monism
(Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 and 428 Great
Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720 USA; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, A-60
Umed Park, Sola Road, Ahmedabad-61, Gujrat, India; Dristi Anusandhana
Sansthana, c/o NiceTech Computer Education Institute, Pendra, Bilaspur,
C.G. 495119, India; and Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, Sai Niwas, East of
Hanuman Mandir, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. 273001, India
rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
3
Dvi-Pakṣa
Copyright © 2012 by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal and Vision Research

Institute
Author’s permission is needed for re-producing and/or quoting any portion
except the text quoted from other authors
For referring, the following content should be included:

Vimal, R. L. P. (2012). Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism
Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). Vision Research
Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: <
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Scientific-Hinduism-
Bringing-Science-and-Hinduism-closer-eDAM-5-4-book.pdf >, 5(4).
[DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1982.0485 ]
[Last update: Sunday, October 18, 2015, 12:41 PM]
4
Dvi-Pakṣa
PROLOGUE
We cannot ignore science because our daily life is based on it and we cannot
ignore our religion (Hinduism) because it teaches us how to live in our own
(Hindu) culture.1 Therefore, serious effort is needed to bring them closer. The
dominant metaphysics of science is materialism (mind from matter) and that of
Hinduism (such as Vedic System) are idealism (matter from mind) and/or
interactive substance dualism (mind and matter are two independent entities but
they interact in us when we are alive). All these three metaphysics have serious
problems. Because of these problems ‘real’ science (not the logic based
pseudoscience) and Vedic system of Hinduism are at opposite poles. In other
words, science and religions are in different boats of metaphysics and tacking in
opposite directions. We need to put science and religions in the same boat of
metaphysics then only we can unify them in ‘real’ sense.
A simple idea is to consider science and religions (such as Hinduism) as the

inseparable physical and mental aspects of our lives, respectively. Science is
based on materialism and it should be represented by the physical aspect,
whereas religions are mostly consciousness-based idealism and they should be
represented by the mental aspect of our lives. In the extended Dual-Aspect
Monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (िपाैत )), Brahman is an dual-aspect
fundamental monistic entity. Its state has inseparable mental and physical
aspects. The eDAM addresses the problems of metaphysics of science and
religions and brings them closer.
One could argue that all entities can be categorized in two categories: the mind
and the matter. This western scientific term ‘mind’ (different from the eastern
Vedic term ‘mana’ or ‘manas’) includes all mental entities (such as cognition,
functions, experiences/appearances, self/soul, Brahman/Parmātman/God). The
term ‘matter’ means matter-in-itself (not the appearances of matter). This
categorization entails four major metaphysics (the foundation of everything): (1)
mind from matter (materialism), (2) matter from mind (mentalistic idealism or
simply idealism), (3) matter and mind as independent entities but then can
interact (interactive substance dualism), and (4) mind and matter as two
inseparable aspects of the same entity-state (dual-aspect monism). The
frameworks (1)-(3) have serious problems and (4) has the least number of
problems.
In science’s materialism, matter is the fundamental reality. The mind (including

our subjective experiences (SEs)) arises from brain: either emerges from the
5
Dvi-Pakṣa
interaction of stimulus dependent feed forward signals and cognitive feedback

signals in the neural-networks of the brain or identical with the related brain-
state. However, its explanatory gap problem is: how our experiences can arise
from non-experiential matter such as brain.
Our Vedic system, such as Dvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Gītā, Sāṃkhya, Upaniṣads (such
as Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad), has the ‘built-in’ interactive substance dualism.
This is because, after death, a soul (jīvātman, mental entity) is separated from its
dead body (physical entity). This means the soul is a separate entity and the dead
body is also a separate entity (or substance). These two entities interact when we
are alive in such a way that they appear inseparable.
However, interactive substance dualism has seven problems: (i) association or

mind-brain interaction problem, (ii) problem of mental causation, (iii) ‘zombie’
(human-like-being in which there is no consciousness) problem, (iv) ‘ghost’ (soul
without body-brain) problem, (v) neurophysiological many-one/many-many
mind-brain relation problem, (vi) causal mind-brain pairing problem, and (vii)
developmental problem.
In Sankarāchārya’s Advaita (Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva

nāparah), matter/jagat (physical world including brain/body) is unreal/illusion
because of its transitory nature, and Brahman (and jīva) is real because He is
eternal/permanent. Thus, the separation between jīva and body is controversial
in Advaita. Some argue for the separation between real (jīva) and unreal (body),
whereas some argue that the question of separation does not arise because world
is illusion. For some, Advaita affirms monism without denying pluralism, but
this monism is a (mentalistic) idealism that has an explanatory gap problem: how
matter-in-itself (not its appearances) can arise from aspectless, attributeless,
Advaita’s Brahman (consciousness).
These problems are addressed by replacing the built-in interactive substance

dualism and/or idealism with the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the five-component eDAM
framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c)). This is the extended
dual-aspect monism framework: the Dual-Aspect Monism with dual-mode and
with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities.
Here, each entity (including Brahman) has two inseparable aspects (mental and
physical).2 This is an analogy to two inseparable sides of the same coin (sikke ke
dvi Pahalū).
This new Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita or extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM)

framework has two versions: (1) Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (आितक िप ाैत ) as the
6
Dvi-Pakṣa
theist version of the eDAM framework. (2) Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (नाितक
िप ाैत ) as the atheist version of the eDAM framework.
We propose Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (significantly different from cit-acit3

Viśiṣṭādvaita as it does not embrace atheism) as the 7th sub-school of Vedantic
system. It addresses the problems of all other eastern and western views
including the previous 6 sub-schools of Vedantic system. We emphasize that the
eDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework brings science and all (theist and atheist)
religions closer as it is the middle path and encompasses all views with
appropriate modifications. We think that the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
framework is a major breakthrough in sciences and religions.
In Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita,4 Brahman is the eternal, fundamental, dual-aspect,

monistic entity. In its unmanifested causal-form (kāran-Brahman)5, Puruṣa is its
eternal mental aspect and Prakṛti is its eternal physical aspect. Both aspects are
inseparable and latent in the unmanifested state of Brahman, and hence kāran-
Brahman appears aspectless and attributeless as in Sankarāchārya’s
Nirviśeṣādvaita (Radhakrishnan, 1960). In its fully manifested effect-form (kārya-
Brahman that has innumerable manifested states), ‘individual-self/unliberated-
jīvātmā/consciousness’ is the transitory mental aspect of the fully manifested
state and jagat (world/physical-universe) is its transitory physical aspect; both
aspects are inseparable and expressed.6 In other words, each entity has
inseparable mental and physical aspects, and the dominance of aspects varies
with levels of entities. In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework, an individual
self/soul and inseparable brain-body are the mental aspect and the physical
aspect of manifested/realized state of brain, respectively. They co-evolved from
the mental and the physical aspect of the dual-aspect un-manifested state of
Brahman. At the time of dissolution (such as perhaps Big-Crunch), they all
return back to the dual-aspect un-manifested state of Brahman.
In the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (āstika/theist version of eDAM framework),

(a) the SE of subject (self/jīva) and SEs of objects were potentially superposed in
the mental aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman (before cosmic fire or Virāt);
the related physical aspect (neural-networks (NNs) of brain) were potentially
superposed in the physical aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman before the
Big Bang. These two aspects eventually co-evolved from Brahman (over 13.7
billions of years) and co-developed after birth for the manifestation (realization) of
self and its neural-correlates into respective aspects of brain state. Once the
necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied in NNs, the self
emerges/arises as the mental aspect of self-related NN-state, and its physical
7
Dvi-Pakṣa
aspect is the self-related NN and its activities. (b) At the highest (samādhi) state
of consciousness, three kinds of subjective experiences are reported: the Bliss,
the inner light perception, and the unification of self/subject with
environment/objects. This triad is due to the highest manifested states of kārya-
Brahman. This is also called by some as Parmātman with Bliss/Ānanda,7 which
presumably/metaphorically lives in each of us all the time, and can be realized
by yoga. (c) The mukta/liberated-jīvātmā (if soul exists after death) merges with
the mental aspect of unmanifested Brahman (kāran-Brahman) and loses its
identity to transform into Puruṣa (the mental aspect of the unmanifested
(potential, avyakta) state of kāran-Brahman.8 (d) At death, un-liberated soul
acquires a subtle body (sukshma śarīra), i.e., the dual-aspect soul-subtle-body
state has (i) the mental aspect that contains soul/self/jīvātman and (ii) the
physical aspect that is the subtle body, which contains traces of manas, the five
senses of knowledge, life (prāṇa), karmas (merit/puṇya and demerit/pāpa) and
intense desire.9 In liberated soul (mukta jīvātman), there is no traces of karma
and the liberated soul merges with Brahman in the form of dead brain-body (all
entities are Brahman and Brahman is in all entities: ALL in ONE and ONE in ALL)
at death.
The Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (nāstika/atheist/scientific version of eDAM

framework) can be described better by comparing with the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita as follows: (a) Creation of Universe: the physical aspect of unmanifested
state of empty-space (nothing/void: no matter/radiation or no space-time) with
quantum fluctuations leading to the Big Bang followed by inflation (Guth, 1997)
for creating universe (from nothing: (Krauss, 2012))10 is equivalent to the
fluctuations in the cosmic consciousness (a peculiar adjustment of
consciousness11 in the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman
(kāran-Brahman)) leading to the creation of universe in the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita.12 This is because the mental and physical aspects of unmanifested state
of Brahman/Śūnyatā/void are inseparable and hence fluctuations in physical
aspect can be translated to that in mental automatically, rigorously, and
faithfully, and vice versa.13 (b) The manifestation of self/jīvātman from
unmanifested state of Brahman is the same as that of the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita. (c) Parmātman (kārya-Brahman) as the manifestation of kāran-Brahman
of Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, living in us, is equal/equivalent to the highest state
of consciousness in nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. And (d) the merging of mukta-
jīvātmā in Brahman of Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is equal/equivalent to the
merging of mukta-jīvātmā in the mental aspect of its dead body-brain system as
every entity is Brahman, which is equivalent to the superposition of potential
subjective experiences (SEs) of objects and subject (self) in the mental aspect of
8
Dvi-Pakṣa
the unmanifested (potential) state of Brahman after death in nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa

Advaita. It is unclear what happens to un-liberated soul and its remaining
karmas and intense un-fulfilled desire after death because of the lack of scientific
evidence for soul, Parmātman (kārya-Brahman),14 and the life-after-death after
death.15 Further research is needed.
The nāstika (science) and āstika (religions) Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita can be thought
of two different languages/views for discussing how we and our universe arose
from Brahman. Their underlying metaphysics is the same, namely the Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (eDAM) framework, and hence trying to reveal us the same fundamental
truth, which encompasses both atheism and theism and brings science and
religions closer. This working hypothesis is consistent with the finding that
atheist(nāstika)-theist(āstika) phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired.
One could argue that the status of unliberated–jīvātman in unclear because so

far there is no scientific evidence for the life (existence of soul) after death to the
satisfaction of all scientists. After death, we eventually disintegrate in to natural
dual-aspect entities for Nature’s recycling process. The mukta/liberated-jīvātman
is not a problem because it merges with body at death, which is consistent with
science that self and related neural-network merges with body. The dead body is
also a manifested state of Brahman with dominant physical aspect and latent
mental aspect. One could also argue that it is also unclear how and from where
our daily experience of self (as the knower, the owner of action-brain-body, and
the experiencer of objects) come from; until this is resolved to the satisfaction of
everybody, the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita cannot be rejected. To address both
objections, we propose that the self co-evolves and co-develops from the mental
aspect of the unmanifested state of the fundamental entity (Brahman) with its
inseparable physical aspect. The SEs of objects and subject (self) are in
potentially superposed (latent) form in the mental aspect of unmanifested state of
Brahman. Here, the essence of all jīvātmans, i.e., the SE of self for all subjects, is
the same, so no need to superpose innumerable jīvātmans in the mental aspect
of unmanifested (potential) state of Brahman. Each specific jīvātman (the SE of
subject, self) can be developed later during the process of manifestation
(realization) as follows: The potential SEs of objects and subject (self) are realized
(manifested) via the process of co-evolution, co-development, and co-tuning (via
sensorimotor and neural Darwinism) processes using the matching and selection
mechanisms (detailed in (Vimal, 2010c)). Is this hypothesis satisfactory to
everybody?
The major difference between the two versions of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM)
framework is as follows: In the nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, the status of the life-
9
Dvi-Pakṣa
after-death and the jīvātman/soul after death is unclear (don’t-know-status)

because of the lack of scientific evidence. Whereas in the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita, it is assumed (as a brute-fact) that the life-after-death and the dual-
aspect jīvātman/soul exist after death.
In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework, the mental and physical aspects
are latent in unmanifested state of Brahman, which appears as formless,
aspectless, and attributeless. If total energy of universe is zero (if the amount of
positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative
energy in the form of gravity) as Flat Universe model requires, then quantum
fluctuations (spontaneous births and deaths of virtual particle pairs) in dual-
aspect unmanifested state of Brahman will cause the emergence of universe, i.e.,
a universe arose from ‘nothing' (the empty space at ground state of quantum
field with minimum energy or no space-time) (Berman, 2009; Berman & Trevisan,
2010; Guth, 1997; Hartle & Hawking, 1983; Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010; Krauss,
2012).16
In both versions of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework, it is unclear if

there exist an entity (such as Parmātman or kārya Brahman who resides in each
of us and also outside)17 that is all-knowing (knows what everything is
thinking/experiencing, omniscience), and that helps in reducing/eliminating our
suffering by worshipping Him as claimed in religions. Perhaps, Brahman’s
omnipresent and omnipotent can be defended, but omniscience is certainly
debatable. It is also unclear if this is needed and ethical because it will violate
modern HIPAA privacy Act. It is also unclear if soul with traces of its karmas and
intense desires exists after death and if rebirth hypothesis is correct because
there is no solid scientific authentic evidence. It appears that as science
progresses and answers all questions, Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita will slowly start
dominating. For example, Vedic system was dominating over Cārvāka and
nāstika systems, but now as nāstika (neo-Cārvāka) modern science is
progressing, the dominance of āstika system is declining. However, it is argued
that they are two different languages to describe the same fundamental truth as
both are based on the same Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework.
It is claimed that once a ṛṣi (seer) is in samādhi state, then whatever he sees
or hear (śruti) is directly from God.18 This is debatable because different ṛṣis
(such as Vedantic ṛṣis vs. Buddha19 vs. Christ vs. Mohammad vs. Jain-ṛṣi vs.
Cārvāka-ṛṣi vs. Sāṃkhya-ṛṣi Kapila) give different information whereas God is only
one. It is highly unlikely that experimentally verified information from great
scientists is inferior to that from ṛṣis. However, one could argue that different
10
Dvi-Pakṣa
views represent different aspects of the unmanifested state of Brahman or unified

field.20
Furthermore, the problems (such as category mistakes and metaphysical

problems) and controversies of Brahm-sūtra and Sāṃkhya (Radhakrishnan,
1960; Rāmānujāchārya, 1904) can be addressed by the āstika and the nāstika
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. For example, without making category mistake, one could
question about creation/evolution (Srishti): who/what is behind evolution as
potter is behind making pot from clay? To address this question, one could argue
for the tinkering process, which is the random process with trial-and-
success/error method, adaptation, natural selection, and so on. During Srishti,
the world/jagat as a manifested state of Brahman (with dominant physical aspect
and latent mental aspect) is realized from the physical aspect of unmanifested
state of Brahman and a jīva/self is realized from the mental aspect of
unmanifested state of Brahman. During Pralaya (dissolution), world is
contracted/absorbed into the physical aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman
and jīvas are absorbed in to its mental aspect, where both aspects are latent and
hence Brahman appears as aspectless, formless, and attributeless. This model is
consistent with the cyclic Closed Universe, but it is unclear for the Flat Universe.
Furthermore, it is argued that theist/atheist phenomenon is subject-specific

because it has genetic disposition or acquired traits. This implies that the
Fundamental truth (the dual-aspect Brahman) is independent of mind-dependent
theism/atheism. The doctrine of ‘All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One
(Brahman) in All (entities)’ of Advaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita is still maintained.
To sum up, as science progresses and provides explanation of paranormal

phenomena, 21 ethics/morality/science-based-dharma (such as good over evil,
right over wrong, truth over lie, fairness over unfairness, justice over unjust,
unselfishness/altruism over selfishness, love over hate, compassion over
ruthlessness, humility over arrogance, peace over war, happiness over suffering,
control over cravings and desires, and so on) and other necessities of humanity
what religions currently provide, the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita will prevail over
the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. Until this happens, we need hypotheses (even if
they are fictions) for life-after-death, soul, rebirth due to residual karmas, and
God/Ῑśvara.22
Conclusion: Hinduism (and all other religions) start from the mental aspect of
the unmanifested primal entity (idealism: matter from mind,
Brahman/God/consciousness, subjective first person perspective), whereas
science starts from the physical aspect of the unmanifested primal entity
(materialism, mind from matter, objective third person perspective). However,
11
Dvi-Pakṣa
these two aspects are inseparable in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM
framework). In other words, one can start from either aspect, but it is translated
automatically, appropriately, rigorously, and faithfully to other aspect because of
the doctrine of inseparability (1-1 correspondence). The domains of materialistic
science and idealistic religions are physical and mental aspects of each entity-
state, respectively. As long as they operate in their own domain, category
mistakes are not made; otherwise, these mistake cause serious problems. Thus,
the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita unifies Hinduism (and all other religions) and science
rigorously while maintaining individual’s faith/belief as they may have evolution
and natural selection based adaptive benefits along with genetic traits.23
The work was partly supported by VP-Research Foundation Trust and Vision
Research Institute research Fund. I would like to thank Dr. Syamala Hari (SH)
for critical comments (as given in the endnote) on the problems of Interactive
Substance Dualism and Nityanand Misra (NM) for discussion in the endnote
(related to active approach), which have sharpened my arguments. In addition, I
would like to thank Dr. Rajendra Trivedi (M.D), Syamala Hari (SH), Nityanand
Mishra (NM), Vivek Dubey, Critique1, Critique2, Critique3 (Sébastien Fauvel),
Critique4 (Marilena Avraam-Repa), Critique5 (Glenn Carruthers), Critique6
(R.W. (Dick) Richardson), Critique7 (K. H. Greenaway), Critique8 (B. D. Slife),
Steven Kaufman, J. I. (Hans) Bakker, Louise Sundararajan, Graham Smetham,
Bhakti Vijnana Muni, other colleagues/critiques, anonymous reviewers, Manju-
Uma C. Pandey-Vimal, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Shalini Pandey Vimal, and
Love (Shyam) Pandey Vimal for their support, critical comments, suggestions,
and grammatical corrections. The author would like to thank Shri Kiran
Paranjape for the translation of some words in Sanskrit, such as Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (िप ाैत ) for the dual-aspect monism.
Boston, USA 2012 Prof. Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph. D.
12
Dvi-Pakṣa
KEY WORDS
Science, Religions, Hinduism, Philosophy, Vedanta, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, Brahman,
Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, mind, matter, theist, atheist, mentalistic
idealism, interactive substance dualism, dual-aspect monism, God, jīva, Atman,
Vedas, Gītā, Sāṃkhya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Lokāyata, Cārvāka, Advaita,
Kashmir Shaivism, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Dvaita, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
cMDR: Conventional Mind Dependent Reality
eDAM: extended Dual-Aspect Monism or Dual-Aspect Monism with dual-mode

and with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of
entities; it has five components each elaborated in 5 articles: (Vimal, 2008b,
2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c): briefly, the five components are: (I) Dual-
Aspect Monism framework, where each entity-state has inseparable physical and
mental aspects and the primary irreducible subjective experiences potentially
pre-exists in Nature (Vimal, 2008b); (II) dual-mode (conjugate matching between
stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-mode and cognitive-feedback-
signals-related-mode and then the selection of a specific subjective experience by
the self) (Vimal, 2010c); and (III) varying degrees of dominance of aspects
depending on the levels of entities and contexts. The mental aspect is from the
subjective first person perspective (1pp) and the physical aspect is from the
objective third person perspective (3pp): (Vimal, 2013). (IV) The fourth
component is the necessary conditions of consciousness (Vimal,
2015c): The necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are:
formation of neural-networks, wakefulness, reentry, attention, information
integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above threshold, and
potential experiences embedded in neural-network. Attention is not necessary
for phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness (Vimal, 2015c). (V) the fifth
component is the segregation and integration of dual-aspect information as
elaborated in (Vimal, 2015b).
God = Paramātman = Ishawar = Bliss (atishay ananda), the feeling of merging of

self with surrounding objects/environment at samādhi state in the eDAM
framework
MIR: Mind Independent Reality

SEs: Subjective Experiences
uMDR: Ultimate Mind Dependent Reality
13
Dvi-Pakṣa
CONTENTS
PROLOGUE
KEY WORDS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. Introduction
2. The Four Major Metaphysics: Western Metaphysics and

Comparison with Eastern Metaphysics
2.1. The four major metaphysics from the categorization of entities
2.2. Materialism and its problems
2.3. Idealism and its problems
2.4. Interactive substance dualism and its problems
2.5. Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM) Framework
2.5.1. eDAM and doctrine of inseparability
2.5.2. Dual-mode in eDAM
2.5.3. The concept of varying degrees of the dominance of aspects in
eDAM with Dual-mode
2.6. Three Kinds of realities
3. Science and its problems

3.1. Science in Ancient India
3.2. Cārvākas
3.3. Modern Science and its problems
4. Hinduism and its problems

4.1. Gītā, Sāṃkhya, Brahma-Sūtra, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, and
Trika Kashmir Shaivism
4.1.1. Gītā and Sāṃkhya, and Critique
4.1.2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Critique
4.1.3. Brahma-Sūtra and Critique
4.1.4. Trika Kashmir Shaivism and Critique
4.2. Six Subschools of Vedānta
4.2.1. Advaita Vedānta and Critique
4.2.2. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
4.2.2.1. Ramānujāchārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
4.2.2.2. Rāmānandārchārya’s cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and
critique on Śankarāchārya’s Advaita
4.2.2.3. Comparison between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita/eDAM framework
A. Major Differences between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework)
14
Dvi-Pakṣa
(i). The doctrine of inseparability of aspects

(ii). The doctrine of meta(beyond)-theism-atheism
phenomenon
(iii). Conclusions
B. Similarity between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (the eDAM framework)
(i). Jīvātman and Parmātman
(ii). Cit (mind) and acit (matter)
4.2.3. Dvaitādvaita Vedānta
4.2.4. Dvaita Vedānta
4.2.5. Shuddhādvaita Vedānta
4.2.6. Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta
4.3. Problems of Hinduism (Vedānta, Gītā, and Sāṃkhya
philosophy)
5. Solution of the Problems of Science and Hinduism by Seventh Sub-

school of Vedānta (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
5.1. Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) Resolves
the Problems
5.2. Theist/atheist phenomenon
5.2.1. God gene and acquired traits
5.2.2. God Gene hypothesis
5.2.3. God Module hypothesis
5.2.4. God Particle hypothesis
5.2.5. Neural correlates of religiosity
5.2.6. Conceptual analysis of theist/atheist phenomenon
5.3. Evolution of Universe
5.4. In search of equivalence between science and religions to
Bring them closer
5.5. Future Researches
6. Critiques
6.1. Discussion with Steven Kaufman (SK)
6.2. Discussion with Graham Smetham (GS)
6.3. Discussion with J. I. (Hans) Bakker, Ph.D. (Sociology) (Hans-JIB)
6.4. Discussion with Louise Sundararajan, Ph.D., Ed.D. (LS)
7. Epilogue
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ENDNOTES
INDEX
15
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
We use science in our daily lives so we cannot ignore it. Religions are needed as
they teach us how to live in unity among diversity. Science, unfortunately, has
not done this job well. However, we need to update our religions as per scientific,
philosophic, and metaphysical researches with time. For this, we must have
critical ‘eyes’ to figure out possible problems. We cannot escape from this. In this
book, I critically examine some parts of Hinduism concisely to investigate the
inherent metaphysical problems.
The time line and authors/founders are: Vedas (Rig-Vedic period:
Astronomical-sky-view 8000-4000 BC24, 4000–2000 BC25), Rāmāyaṇa (Rāma:
5114–5075 BC26, 8000-6000 BC27), Gītā (Mahābhārata war: 3067 BC28, 5561
BC29, Vyas), Sāṃkhya (~1000–600 BC?, Kapila: ~550 BC?, before 3067-5561
BC)30, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (Yajnavalkya, Mid-first millennium BC)31, Jainism
(Rishabh Dev, 900-600 BC,32 Lokāyata/nāstika/materialist/atheist (Cārvāka,
800-500 BC; Chānakya, c. 350–283 BC)33, Buddhism (Buddha, birth:c.563 or
623 BC, death c.483 or 543 BC),34 mind–body holism of pre-Qin (pre-221 BC)
China (Slingerland & Chudek, 2011), Judaism (Tanakh: 450 BC – 70 CE),35
Christianity (Jesus Christ, c. 5 BC–c. 30 CE),36 Islam (Muhammad: 610–632),37
Advaita (non-dualism, Adi Shankara: 788-820)38, Kashmir Shaivism (Vasugupta,
860–925)39, Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism, Ramānujāchārya: 1017–
1137)40, Dvaitādvaita (Nimbārkāchārya: 1130-1200)41, Dvaita (dualism,
Madhvacharya: 1238–1317)42, Shuddhādvaita (pure non-dualism,
Vallabhacharya: 1479-1531)43, and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534) . 44
The above have the ‘built-in’ interactive substance dualism that has seven
problems and/or idealism that has an explanatory gap problem. These problems
are addressed by proposing Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (िप ाैत , or Dōharī-Pahalū
Advaita) framework, which has the theist and atheist versions of extended dual-
aspect monism or eDAM framework. (Kak, 1997a) has summarized the Vedic
theory of consciousness within a framework of contemporary scientific concepts.
A critical test for any metaphysical framework could be its predictions: What
happens at the time of death and birth? Does the mental aspect (such as jîva) get
separated from physical aspect (such as body) at time of death? Can
jīvātman/soul exist independent of body/matter/jagat? Our empirical
observation is that we see dead body and dead brain after death in conventional
mind dependent reality (cMDR). We really do not know if jīvātman/soul 45 exists
after death because we do not have empirical scientific evidence one-way or
other. We will examine relevant metaphysical frameworks with respect to this
16
Dvi-Pakṣa
test in addition to the relationship between Brahm/Brahman/God,

jīvātman/soul, and matter/jagat.
17
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 2
The Four Major Metaphysics:

Western/Scientific Metaphysics and
Comparison with Eastern
Metaphysics
2.1. The four major metaphysics from the categorization of

entities
In Western/scientific Metaphysics, we categorize all entities in just two

categories: matter and mind, or physical (P) and mental (M) entities.
Matter: This is a western/scientific term for matter-in-itself and includes all

elementary particles (fermions and bosons), atoms, molecules, and all inert
entities including our body, brain and its activities (such as neural activities).
Mind: This is a western/scientific term and includes all entities that are not
matter-in-itself. For example, our subjective experiences, self, thoughts,
attention, intention, perception, the appearance of matter-in-itself, and so on are
all mental entities.
The western/scientific term ‘mind’ is different from eastern term ‘manas’ or

‘mana’, which is a subtle matter, the central processor, and is liaison between
Puruṣa and Prakṛti. As per Rao (1998), “The manas is the central processor which
selectively reflects on the material provided by the senses and determines its
character by assimilation and discrimination” (p.319).46
The above categorization entails four major scientific/western/eastern

philosophical positions (metaphysics) (Vimal, 2013):
(1) M from P: P is primitive/fundamental. SEs emerge from the interactions of
feed forward and feedback signals in neural-networks (emergentism) or identical
with brain-states (identity theory). This metaphysics includes materialism
(materialistic idealism), physicalism, naturalistic/physicalistic/materialistic
nondual monism, reductionism, non-reductive physicalism, naturalism, and/or
Cārvāka/Lokāyata view (800-500 BC: (Vimal, 2011h)).
18
Dvi-Pakṣa
(2) P from M: M is primitive. Matter-in-itself is ‘congealed’ mind. This

metaphysics includes idealism (mentalistic idealism), mentalistic nondual
monism, and/or Advaita (788-820 AD: (Vimal, 2011h)).
(3) P and M are independent but can interact when we are alive. Here, both P
and M are equally primitive. This metaphysics includes interactive substance
dualism, Prakṛti and Puruṣa of Sāṃkhya (1000–600 BC) and/or Gīta (3067 BC)
(Vimal, 2011h).
(4) P and M are two inseparable aspects of a state of an entity (such as
fundamental/primal entity, fermions and bosons and composites, the ‘primitive’
quantum field/potential,47 the empty-space with or without space and with or
without ground state minimum energy (Krauss, 2012), the fundamental
unmanifested Brahman, manifested Brahman, brain). This metaphysics includes
dual-aspect monism (DAM),48 eDAM framework, triple aspect monism (M can be
further divided into non-conscious M and conscious M), neutralism, Kashmir
Shaivism (860–925 AD) and Viśiṣṭādvaita (1017-1137 AD: mind (cit) and matter
(acit) are adjectives of Brahman), 49 see (Vimal, 2011h)).
The framework (1)-materialism is the dominant view in science, and (2)-
idealism and (3)-interactive-substance-dualism are the dominant views in
religions; all (1)-(3) have serious problems. The framework (4)-DAM has the least
number of problems; the proposed eDAM framework is the
extension/modification of DAM, which brings science and religions such as
Hinduism closer.
2.2. Materialism and its problems
If matter is fundamental reality then it is materialism or monistic materialism

(materialistic idealism, which is the dominant view in science), where mind
including SEs somehow (we precisely do not know how) arise from non-
experiential matter-in-itself. However, this has explanatory gap problem: how
SEs arise from non-experiential material entities.
My working hypothesis is that the western/scientific materialism is close to the

eastern Cārvāka/Lokāyata system.50
2.3. Idealism and its problems
If mind is fundamental reality then it is idealism (Kant, 1929), where matter

arises from mind. Stapp’s quantum-physics-based dual-nondual framework is a
good example. According to (Stapp, 2009a), “quantum mechanics conforms at the
pragmatic/operational level to the precepts of Cartesian duality, but reduces at a
deep ontological level to a fundamentally mindlike nondual monism.” Here, the
matter-in-itself is assumed to be ‘congealed’ mind. However, it has explanatory
gap problem: what is precise mechanism of ‘congealing’ process? In other words,
the problem of idealism is reverse to that of materialism/emergentism: how can
19
Dvi-Pakṣa
non-experiential matter-in-itself such as neural-networks of our brain emerge

from non-material experiences/consciousness?
My working hypothesis is that the western term ‘idealism’ is close to the eastern
Śankarāchārya’s Advaita (nondual monism). Advaita is silent on matter because
jagat/matter is considered mithyā/māyā (illusion) or transient: “Brahma satyaṃ
jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah”. If this is interpreted as the matter-in-itself
being unreal (transient), then Advaita’s matter might be derived from the eternal
(satya) Brahman (mental entity in Advaita) at its unmanifested dual-aspect state
thru evolution, adaptation and natural selecton.51
2.4. Interactive substance dualism (ISD) and its problems
If mind and matter are on equal footings but interact then it is interactive
substance dualism (somewhat close to eastern Sāṃkhya’s Puruṣa-Prakṛti system,
where Puruṣa ‘shines’ on Prakṛti to create our universe). Mind and matter are
separable in interactive substance dualism, which has 7 problems (Vimal,
2011c); here, there is clear cut duality both substance-wise and property-wise.
The seven problems are as follows. Comments on these problems and replies are
given in endnote.52
(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem

How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? For
example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’
neural-net?53 This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump
made from the mental redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice
versa). Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and
matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp,
2009b)? In addition, we face empirical contradiction if we estimate the time
needed to experience. For example, when we open our eyes we immediately have
phenomenal subjective experience of redness if we look at a ripe tomato with in
less than 100 msec. However, if we try to estimate time needed to experience
redness using the interactive substance dualism (two independent fundamental
entities mind and matter but interacting), we can easily come up that minimum
time needed is at least seconds to minutes. This is because there are about 86
billion neurons in the human brain (Azevedo et al., 2009), where processing
time is in msec. If the independent mind/consciousness starts searching the red-
green cells among billions of cells, it may take about (86*109 * 10-3) = 106
seconds or if better search procedure is used then at least significantly more
than 100 msec.
20
Dvi-Pakṣa
(2) Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy

conservation and problem of causal closure
How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of
the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without
making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as
intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain-events ((Collins,
2011).note5.p265)? The casual closure principle is “every physical effect has its
chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000). Then how is it
possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as
((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have
an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain
cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires
the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of
energy), where does this energy come from? These imply that (a) the law of energy
conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of
energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections); however,
assumptions (a) is false in GTR and (b) is false in QM ((Collins, 2011).p125).
However, as per (Collins, 2011), “the law of energy conservation cannot be
defined for the gravitational field, and hence for interactions involving gravity.
[p127…] The non-conservation of energy in general relativity opens up another
response a dualist could give to the energy-conservation objection. A dualist
could argue that, like the gravitational field, the notion of energy simply cannot
be defined for the mind, and hence one cannot even apply the principle of energy
conservation to the mind/body interaction. The mind, like the gravitational field,
could cause a real change in the energy of the brain without energy being
conserved. [… then why] one should think that it [energy conservation] must
apply to the mind/brain interaction. [p130…] The energy-conservation objection
against interactionistic dualism fails when one considers the fact energy
conservation is not a universally applicable principle in physics and the quantum
mechanics sets a precedent for [causal] interaction [between the particles
themselves] (or at least law-like correlation [between attributes of distantly
separated particles as in quantum entanglement]) without any sort of energy-
momentum exchange [by Bell’s theorem], or even any intermediate carrier. Of
course, the more general interaction problem for interactionistic dualism still
remains, a problem that is addressed [elsewhere (p133)]”. Thus, the problems
may still remain for mind influencing the brain in interactive substance dualism.
As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply
an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate
conservation laws of physics.”
21
Dvi-Pakṣa
(3) ‘Zombie’ problem

Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by
subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental
events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any
physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it
has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).
(4) ‘Ghost’ problem

The problem is that the interactive substance dualism would allow for various
paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically
verified. It is “the converse of the zombie problem. If the mind is separate from
the body, then not only can the brain exist without the mind but also the mind
can exist without the brain. Thus, the so-called ‘disembodiment’ becomes a real
possibility” (Eerikäinen, 2000). Nunn argues (personal communication) that the
evidence for the occurrence of apparently disembodied states is actually quite
strong, for example, near-death experiences (NDEs) (Blackmore, 1996; French,
2005). If this is true then this may not be a problem. However, one could argue
that although there is some evidence for states that appear to be disembodied,
but this is different from the evidence for disembodiment (soul/self can be
separated from its body), since the phenomenon may be illusory.54 Moreover,
according to (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik, & Grmec, 2010), the higher partial
pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2) in arterial blood proved to be important in the
provoking of NDEs and higher serum levels of potassium (K) might also be
important. In addition, the “factors that could be important in provoking NDEs
are anoxia …, hypercapnia …, and the presence of endorphins …, ketamine …,
and serotonin …, or abnormal activity of the temporal lobus … or the limbic
system ... These psychological theories try to explain the NDEs as a way of
dissociation …, depersonalisation …, reactivation of birth memories …, and
regression” (Klemenc-Ketis et al., 2010).55
(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

Interactionism or substance dualism is not favorable to neurophysiological
tests because it entails a many-one or many-many relations or correspondences
(Feigl, 1967). In neuropsychology, we need one-to-one relationship: for example,
experience (mental): physical: function :: redness: V4/V4/VO NN : color detection
:: 1:1:1 relationship.
As per (Beck & Eccles, 1992), the mind-brain interaction is a quantum
process in synapses. One-one relationship means one experience (mental entity)
interacts at one synapse (physical entity); many-one relationship means many
synapses are related to one experience; many-many relationship means many
22
Dvi-Pakṣa
synapses are related to many experiences. Thus, many-one and many-many

relationships/interactions are not tractable for neurophysiological tests. For
example, many experiences to one synapse (many-1) relationship can be redness-
V8/V4/VO_synapse, greenness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, orangeness-
V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. On the other hand, one experience to many
synapses (1-many) relationship can be redness-retinal_cone_synapse, redness-
retinal_ganglion_cell_synapse, redness-LGN_synapse, redness-V1_synapse,
redness-V2_synapse, redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. These (many-1
and 1-many) entail many experiences to many synapse (many-many)
relatioinship.
(6) Causal pairing problem

“It is exceedingly odd that particular minds and brains form a lifelong
‘monogamy’ despite the absence of any apparent relational framework. [In other
words, in ISD, mind is independent of brain and vice versa, but they can interact;
but how they interact is unclear, so there is no real framework. In the eDAM,
they are inseparable aspects of the same mind-brain state, so there is clear cut
framework.] For it is only within the terms of such a framework that we could
explain the persistent individual pairings as a consequence of a contingent,
external relationship between them, which relations structure mental-physical
causality in a general fashion. […] This difficulty might be overcome by positing
the emergence of the mental substance, so that the asymmetrical dependency of
mind on brain grounds their monogamous interaction” (O'Connor & Wong,
2005). However, it will be then materialistic emergence.
(7) Developmental problem

“[E]ven an emergentist version of substance dualism requires what is empirically
implausible, viz., that a composite physical system gives rise, all in one go, to a
whole, self-contained, organized system of properties bound up with a distinct
individual. For we cannot say, as we should want to do, that as the underlying
physical structure develops, the emergent self does likewise. This would require
us to posit changing mereological complexity within the self, which would give
rise all over again to problems of endurance that substance dualism is supposed
to avoid, and which would run counter to intuitions of primitive unity that
substance dualists have regarding persons. No, the emergent dualist view will
have to say, instead, that at an early stage of physical development, a self
emerges having all the capacities of an adult human self, but most of which lie
dormant owing to immaturity in the physical system from which it emerges”
(O'Connor & Wong, 2005). However, this seems to imply that self is not powerful
and is a slave of developing physical system.
23
Dvi-Pakṣa
(8) Legal Problem

In Sāṃkhya (which is close to Interactive Substance Dualism), Puruṣa
(Parmātman/jīvātman: experiential aspect of consciousness) is like a witness
(Sākshi) of whatever activities go on in subject’s brain but does not affect its
activities; however, Puruṣa is the real experiencer. Subject’s brain is simply a
physical machine/instrument; Puruṣa ‘shines’ (throws ‘lights’ on) this machine to
experience. If this is true, then it is unclear who commits the crimes and who
goes to jail: the brain or Parmātman/jīvātman?
Working hypothesis
My working hypothesis is that the metaphysics of Sāṃkhya, Gītā, and Advaita
might be close to this western interactive substance dualism; this is based on
verses II/17-25 of Gītā (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000) pp.74-85). Advaita is
derived from Sāṃkhya’s philosophy perhaps via Mahat (Great-Brahman:
Gītā:XIV/3: (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000).p.870) concept. Advaita’s non-
duality is between jīvātman and Parmātman (Puruṣa). Advaita is silent on matter;
Jagat/matter is mithyā/māyā (illusion) because it is temporary as it dies and
hence it is not eternal. If this is interpreted that the matter-in-itself, though
temporary, is real in cMDR, then Advaita’s matter might have come from
Sāṃkhya’s Prakṛti. In other words, Advaita and Gītā appear similar and are
derived from Sāṃkhya’s Puruṣa and Prakṛti. Thus, Puruṣa and Prakṛti are two
different substances, but they interact via ‘shining’ concept. Therefore, it is
interactive substance dualism framework. Gītā seems to mention that Puruṣa-
Prakṛti interaction is via Hiranyagarbha (Golden Egg) concept (Rig-Veda,
10:121;56 Gītā:VIII/4, XIV/4: (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000).p.488-91 and 871-
2): Puruṣa shines on un-manifested Prakṛti (metaphorically makes her pregnant)
for the creation of universe. However, there is an explanatory gap problem of
precisely how this happens just saying it happens is not satisfactory because it
would fall under hand-waving hypothesis.
2.5. Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM) Framework
The extended Dual-Aspect Monism or the eDAM framework is the ‘Dual-Aspect

Monism framework (Vimal, 2008b) with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010c) and varying
degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities (Vimal, 2013),
where each entity-state (including the state of matter-in-itself) has inseparable
physical and mental aspects. The mental aspect is from the subjective first
person perspective and the physical aspect is from the objective third person
perspective. This framework is optimal because it has the least number of
problems (Vimal, 2010c).
The eDAM framework is elaborated further in (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007; Caponigro
et al., 2010; Caponigro & Vimal, 2010; MacGregor & Vimal, 2008; Vimal, 2008a,
24
Dvi-Pakṣa
2009a, 2009b, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2009f, 2009g, 2009h, 2009i, 2009j, 2009k,
2010a, 2010b, 2010d, 2010e, 2010f, 2010g, 2010h, 2011c, 2011d, 2011f, 2011j,
2011k, 2011l).
2.5.1. The dual-aspect monism and the doctrine of inseparability

In the dual-aspect monism (Vimal, 2008b), the state of each entity has
inseparable mental and physical aspects, where the doctrine of inseparability is
essential to address various relevant problems discussed in (Vimal, 2010d).
There are a number of hypotheses in this framework. In (Vimal, 2010d), (Vimal,
2010c), and (Vimal, 2009i), three competing hypotheses about inseparability are
described: (i) superposition based (hypothesis H1), (ii) superposition-then-
integration based (H2), and (iii) integration based (H3) where superposition is not
required.
In H1, the mental aspect of the state of each fundamental entity (fermion or
boson) and inert matter is the carrier of superimposed potential subjective
experiences (SEs)/proto-experiences (PEs).57 Here, SEs potentially pre-exist but
the necessary conditions of consciousness must be satisfied for their realization.
In H2, the mental aspect of the state of each fundamental entity and inert matter
is the carrier of superimposed potential PEs (not SEs); these PEs are integrated by
neural-Darwinism (co-evolution, co-development, and sensorimotor co-tuning by
the evolutionary process of adaptation and natural selection). There is a PE
attached to every level of evolution (such as atomic-PE, molecular-PE, genetic-PE,
bacterium-PE, neural-PE, and neural-net-PE). In H3, for example, a string in
string theory has its own string-PE; a physical entity is not a carrier of PE(s) in
superposed form as it is in H2; rather its state has two inseparable aspects. H3 is
a dual-aspect panpsychism because the mental aspect of the entity-state is in all
entities at all levels, even though psyche (conscious subjective experience) only
emerges when PEs are integrated. These two aspects of the state of various
relevant entities for brain-mind and/or other systems are rigorously integrated
via neural-Darwinism.
In H1, a specific SE arises (or is realized) in a neural-net as follows: (i) there

exists a virtual reservoir that stores all possible fundamental potential SEs/PEs.
(ii) The interaction of stimulus-dependent feed-forward and feedback signals in
the neural-net creates a specific dual-aspect neural-network (NN)-state. (iii) The
mental aspect of this specific state is assigned to a specific SE from the virtual
reservoir during neural Darwinism. (iv) This specific SE is embedded in the
mental aspect of related NN as a memory trace of neural-net-PE. And (v) when a
specific stimulus is presented to the NN, the associated specific SE is selected by
the matching and selection process and experienced by this NN that includes
also self-related areas such as cortical midline structures (Northoff & Bermpohl,
2004; Northoff et al., 2006).
25
Dvi-Pakṣa
For example, when we look at red ball, it generates a state/representation in

brain, which is called the redness-related brain state; this state has two
inseparable aspects: mental and physical aspects. Our subjective color
experience is redness, which is the mental aspect of NN-state. The red ball also
activates a brain area called visual V4/V8/VO color area; this structure and
other related structures (such as self-related cortical midline structures: CMS)
form a NN that has related activities such as neuronal firing that we can measure
using functional MRI. The physical aspect of this NN-state consists of the NN and
its activities. These two aspects are inseparable in the dual-aspect monism. Here,
the substance is just a single entity (the NN-state), which justifies the term
‘monism’; however, there are two inseparable aspects/properties, which justifies
the term ‘dual-aspect’ and the dual-aspect monism framework (Vimal, 2008b).
In hypotheses H2 and H3, a specific SE emerges mysteriously in a NN from the

interaction of its constituent neural-PEs, such as in feed-forward stimulus-
dependent neural signals and fronto-parietal feedback attentional signals. In all
hypotheses, a specific SE is realized when essential ingredients of SEs are
satisfied (Vimal, 2011e).
2.5.2. Dual-mode in the dual-aspect monism

In (Vimal, 2010c), the dual-mode concept58 is explicitly incorporated in dual-
aspect monism (Vimal, 2008b). The two modes are non-tilde and tilde modes: (i)
The non-tilde mode is the cognitive nearest past approaching towards present;
this is because memory traces (that contains past information) are stored in
feedback system, which are involved in matching process (matching with
stimulus dependent feed forward signals). In dual-aspect monism framework
(Vimal, 2008b), the state of each entity has two inseparable (mental and physical)
aspects. Therefore, the NN-state of the cognition (memory and attention)-related
feedback signals in a neural-network of the brain has its inseparable mental and
physical aspects. (ii) The tilde mode is the nearest future approaching towards
present and is an entropy-reversed representation of non-tilde mode.59 This is
because the immediate future is related to the feed forward signals due to
external environmental input and/or internal endogenous input. The NN-state of
feed forward signals has its inseparable mental and physical aspects. The
physical aspect (P) of non-tilde mode is matched with the physical aspect of tilde
mode (P-P matching) and/or the mental aspect (M) of non-tilde mode is matched
with the mental aspect of tilde mode (M-M matching). In other words, there is no
cross-matching/cross-interaction (such as M-P or P-M) and hence there is no
category mistake. As mentioned before, mind and matter are of two different
categories and one cannot arise from other; mind and matter cannot interact
with each other; a mental entity has to interact with another mental entity but
NEVER with a physical entity and vice-versa; cross-interaction is prohibited;
otherwise we will make massive category mistake.60 Interactive substance
26
Dvi-Pakṣa
dualism (where mind and matter interact), materialism (where mind arises from
matter), and idealism (where matter-in-itself arises from mind as ‘congealed’
mind) make category mistake and hence they are rejected. The reason is that we
do not have scientific evidence for M-P or P-M. However, we have evidence for P-P
from physics, which implies that same-same interaction cannot be rejected. If we
find scientific evidence for cross-interaction M-P or P-M then we can reject the
categorization of all entities into two categories if needed as in materialism or
idealism to avoid category mistake. In that case, we cannot reject materialism,
idealism, and substance dualism based on category mistake. Perhaps, we should
search very hard for evidence to make sure that ‘category mistake’ is reliable
doctrine. If we cannot reject this doctrine, then it clearly supports ONLY dual-
aspect monism and its variations such as eDAM framework and triple aspect
monism.
Furthermore, to link structure and function with experiences, there are two types
of matching mechanisms in DAM framework with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010c): (a)
the matching mechanism for the quantum dendritic-dendritic MT pathway, and
(b) the matching mechanism for classical pathways. In other words, we propose
that (a) the quantum conjugate matching between experiences in the mental
aspect of the NN-state in tilde mode and that of the NN-state in non-tilde mode is
related mostly to the mental aspect of the NN-state in quantum MT-dendritic-
web. In addition, (b) the classical matching between experiences in the mental
aspect of the NN-state in tilde mode and that of the NN-state in non-tilde mode is
related to the mental aspect of the NN-state in remaining non-quantum
(classical) pathways, such as axonal-dendritic sub-pathway for neuro-
computation. Similarly, the physical aspects are matched.
In all cases, a specific SE is selected (a) when the tilde mode (the physical and
mental aspect of NN-state related to feed forward input signals) interacts with the
non-tilde mode (the physical and mental aspect of NN-state related to cognitive
feedback signals) to match for a specific SE, and (b) when the necessary
ingredients of SEs are satisfied (Vimal, 2011e). When the match is made between
the two modes, the world-presence (Now) is disclosed; its content is the SE of
subject (self), the SE of objects, and the content of SEs. The physical aspects in
the tilde mode and that in the non-tilde mode are matched to link structure with
function, whereas the mental aspects in the tilde mode and that in the non-tilde
mode are matched to link experience with structure and function. However, if
physical aspects are matched, mental aspects will be automatically and
appropriately matched and vice versa because of the doctrine of inseparability
of mental and physical aspects.
27
Dvi-Pakṣa
2.5.3. The concept of varying degrees of the dominance of

aspects in DAM with Dual-mode
Here, we introduce the concept of varying degrees of the dominance of aspects
depending on the levels of entities (Vimal, 2013) in the Dual-Aspect Monism
(Vimal, 2008b) framework with dual-mode (Vimal, 2010c); all these three
components together is called the eDAM framework. For example, in inert entity,
such as rock, the physical aspect of the state of entity is dominant and mental
aspect seems latent (because we do not know the first person perspective of rock,
for which we need to be rock). When we are awake, both aspects are equally
dominant. At deep quantum level, the mental aspect is dominant and the
physical aspect is latent. By the term ‘latent’, we mean that the latent aspect will
re-appear when appropriate conditions are satisfied. This concept is introduced
to encompass most views. For example: (i) In materialism, matter is the
fundamental entity and mind arises from matter. This can be re-framed by
considering the fundamental entity in materialism as a dual-aspect entity, its
physical aspect is dominant, and its mental aspect is latent. (ii) In substance
dualism, mind and matter are two independent entities, which interact. This can
be re-framed as the one of the entities has mental aspect dominant and physical
aspect latent, and other one has physical aspect dominant and mental aspect
latent. (iii) In idealism, consciousness/mind is the fundamental reality, and
matter emerges from it. This can be re-framed, as the fundamental entity in
idealism is a dual-aspect entity, its mental aspect is dominant and its physical
aspect is latent. Thus the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013)
encompasses and bridges most views; and hence it is close to a general
framework.
If mind and matter are two inseparable aspects of the same entity, then it is
dual-aspect monism. For example, you look at this red text. The subjective color
experience is redness, which is the mental aspect. It also activates a brain area
called visual V4/V8/VO color area, this structure and related activities such as
neuronal firing that you can measure it using functional MRI is the physical
aspect. This red text generates a state in brain, which is called redness-related
brain state; this state has two aspects: mental and physical aspects. These two
aspects are not separable in the eDAM framework. Here substance is just one (so
monism) but there are two properties (so dual-aspects).
As per (Vimal, 2013), “The eDAM framework is (i) consistent, to a certain extent,
with other dual-aspect views such as reflexive monism (Velmans, 2008), retinoid
system (Trehub, 2007), and also triple-aspect monism (Pereira Jr., 2012), and (ii)
is complementary to (a) Global Workspace Theory (Baars, 2005; Dehaene,
Kerszberg, & Changeux, 1998), (b) neural Darwinism (Edelman, 1993), (c) NCC
framework (Crick & Koch, 2003), (d) autopoiesis/autonomy (Maturana, 2002;
Varela, Maturana, & Uribe, 1974; Varela, 1981)-embodiment/embeddedness
(Thompson & Varela, 2001)-neurophenomenology (Varela, 1996), (e) the self-
28
Dvi-Pakṣa
organization based autogenesis of the self (Schwalbe, 1991), and (f) the mind-
brain equivalence hypothesis (Damasio, 2010) that proposes that brain states
and mental states are equivalent, for example, when the physical aspect of the
self-related neural-network state or process is generated (in three stages:
protoself, core self, and autographical self), its inseparable mental aspect
emerges.”
As per (Velmans, 2008), “Reflexive Monism [RM] is a dual-aspect theory (in the
tradition of Spinoza) which argues that the one basic stuff of which the universe
is composed has the potential to manifest both physically and as conscious
experience. In its evolution from some primal undifferentiated state, the universe
differentiates into distinguishable physical entities, at least some of which have
the potential for conscious experience, such as human beings. […] the human
mind appears to have both exterior (physical) and interior (conscious
experiential) aspects […] According to RM … conscious states and their neural
correlates are equally basic features of the mind itself. […] the reflexive model
also makes the strong claim that, insofar as experiences are anywhere, they are
roughly, where they seem to be. […] representations in the mind/brain have two
(mental and physical) aspects, whose apparent form is dependent on the
perspective from which they are viewed.”
In my view, the RM framework needs to address a few explanatory type problems

(Vimal, 2013): (i) What is that mechanism which differentiates the presumed
primal undifferentiated state of the universe into distinguishable physical
entities, at least some of which have the potential for conscious experience, such
as human beings? (ii) What is so special about some entities that become
conscious? (iii) Why can mind (a mental entity) have two aspects: exterior
(physical) and interior (conscious experiential) aspects, i.e., how can a mental
entity mind have physical aspect? Is this because the third person perspective
(that we usually say physical aspect) is also mind’s construct? (iv) Is it not that
the objects of experiences are roughly where they seem to be whereas the process
of experiencing is in the neural-network of brain? One could argue that the SEs,
such as redness, belong to the subject and is the function of the triad: brain,
body, and environment; objects reflect long wavelength lights; otherwise,
achromat should also be able experience redness if redness only belongs to the
ripe tomato.
In the eDAM framework, the SE of 3D phenomenal world can be nothing more

than the mental aspect of a brain-state/representation that must be inside the
brain. Its physical aspect is (i) related NN and its activities are inside the brain,
(ii) body and (iii) environment. However, the aspects of the brain-state and that
of 3D-world-state are tuned (Vimal, 2010c). In other words, the eDAM framework,
like RM, accepts the world appearance-Reality (cMDR-MIR: see below Section 2.6)
distinction and “conscious appearances really are (roughly) how they seem to be”.
The term ‘appearance’ is our daily conventional mind-dependent reality (cMDR);
and the term ‘Reality’ is thing-in-itself or mind-independent reality (MIR) that is
29
Dvi-Pakṣa
either unknown as per Kant or partly known via cMDR as per neo-Kantian view
because mind is also a product of Nature and hence it must be telling us at least
partly about thing-in-itself.
In RM, perceptual projection is “a psychological effect produced by unconscious

perceptual processing” (Velmans, 2000).p115, which is the mental aspect of
related brain-state in eDAM. eDAM incorporates some of the features of both RM
and biological naturalism (BN), where BN is ‘non-reductive’ or emergent forms of
physicalism (Searle, 2007; Velmans, 2008). In the eDAM framework, the real
skull and its (tactile, visual image in mirror) appearance are between the mental
aspect of brain-state and the psychologically projected phenomenal world.
My working hypothesis is that the theist interpretation of the eDAM framework

(Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) may be somewhat close to eastern Viśiṣṭādvaita and
Trika Kashmir Shaivism (TKS). However, there is one difference: in all theist
religions, the ‘soul’ is separable from body at the time of death, whereas mental
and physical aspects are inseparable in the eDAM framework. The dual-aspect
entities are disintegrated during death; after death, the actuality of soul or self as
being the SE of subject returns into its potentiality as in SEs potentially
superposed in each entity. In other words, the Brahman is the fundamental dual-
aspect entity in which all dual-aspect entities are in potential form. The theist
interpretation of the eDAM framework is that the Brahman is God and atheist
interpretation is simply the fundamental dual-aspect entity from which physical
and mental aspect of universes including us arise. In the eDAM framework,
Ishvara and Jīva (purely mental entities) of Viśiṣṭādvaita are the mental aspect
and Jagat (purely physical entities) of Viśiṣṭādvaita is the physical aspect of
Brahman. It appears that mental and physical aspects are separable in eastern
Viśiṣṭādvaita and TKS, whereas they are inseparable in the eDAM framework. The
problems of Sāṃkhya, Gītā, and Advaita creep up in Viśiṣṭādvaita and TKS.
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework) is NOT inconsistent with the view: “this
universe is spoken of as both differentiated and undifferentiated to indicate the
identity of the Self [mental aspect] and not-Self [physical aspect]” (Ādi
Śankarāchārya, 1950).I.4.7.p114.
2.6. Three kinds of realities
There are 3 kinds of realities (Vimal, 2009a):

(1) Our daily conventional mind-dependent reality (cMDR)
(2) Ultimate Samādhi-state61 mind-dependent reality (uMDR)
(3) Mind-independent reality (MIR), which is partly known via cMDR and uMDR.
One could argue that we live daily in conventional mind-dependent reality

(cMDR); entities around us are real in this cMDR, but they are illusion in mind-
30
Dvi-Pakṣa
independent reality (MIR). MIR is unknown as per Kant; however, it is partly

known as per neo-Kantians because mind is also a product of Nature; so MDR
must be telling us something about reality.62
My working hypothesis is that, in cMDR and uMDR, theists claim that God exists
who created all universes including us. Whereas, in cMDR, atheists claim that
God is created by human mind. Thus, there is a conflict in views. ‘God exists or
not’ cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. We cannot settle this issue in
both MDRs. We need to investigate the fundamental Truth in MIR, which is
either unknown or partly known via cMDR and uMDR. Thus, Truth remains
unknown; however, it would be fair to say, there is the fundamental entity
(unmanifested state of Brahman) from which universes including us arise.
Theists can call this entity God and atheists can call whatever they wish as per
their metaphysical view such as physicist’s vacuum/quantum potential, Bohm’s
Implicate Order, Buddhist Universal Mind, and so on. For example, Brahman is a
dual-aspect entity I the eDAM framework.
31
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 3
Science and its problems
3.1. Science in Ancient India
The practice of science in ancient India emphasized to link rigorously both outer
(physical) and inner (mental) worlds based on idealism, interactive substance
dualism, separable dual-aspect/perspective monism, and Cārvāka’s
materialism/naturalism. Thus, it was different from current purely materialistic
western modern science. All have serious problems except the dual-aspect
monism to some extent. The extended dual-aspect monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
with inseparable physical and mental aspects has the least number of problems.
3.1.1. Some of Ancient Indian Scientists

Some of Indian scientists in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, grammar
(Danino, 2009) are: Baudhāyana (800 BC), Manava (750 BC), Apastamba (600
BC), Pāṇini (पाणन : 520 BC, 600-500 BC in Pushkalavati/Attock/Gandhāra
now in Pākistān), Katyayana (200 BC), Āryabhata-I (born 476, Patna),
Yativrsabha (500), Varahamihira (505, Ujjain), Brahmagupta (598, Ujjain),
Bhāskara-I (600, Saurashtra), Govindaswami (800), Mahāvira (800, Mysore),
Prthudakaswami (830), Sankaranarayan (840), Sridhara (870), Āryabhata II
(920), Vijayanandi (940, Varanasi), Parameswara (1370, Alattur), Nīlakantha
(born 1444, Kerala), Kamalakara (1616, Varanasi), Sripati (1019, Rohinikhand),
Brahmadeva (1060, Mathura), Bhaskara-II (1114, Vijayapura), Narayana (1340),
Mahendra Suri (1340), Mādhava (1350, Kochi), Kyesthadeva (1500, Kochi),
Jagannath (1690, Jaipur). Siddhantic Period (from 5th century CE) was the golden
age of Indian mathematics and astronomy (Danino, 2009).
Baudhāyana (fl. c. 800 BC) was mathematician. His Śulbasûtra give rules for
the construction of altars that contained several important mathematical results.
He is accredited with calculating the value of pi before Pythagoras, and with
discovering what is now known as the Pythagorean Theorem.
Suśruta (सु त
ु , fl. 800 BC) was an ancient Indian Father of Surgery and lived
in Varanasi. In his Suśruta Saṃhitā, he describes over 300 surgical procedures,
120 surgical instruments and classifies human surgery in eight categories.
Caraka (चरक, born c. 300 BC) was the Father of Indian Medicine, contributed
ancient art and science of Ayurveda (a system of medicine and lifestyle developed
32
Dvi-Pakṣa
in Ancient India). His Charaka Samhita (चरक संहता) is an early Ayurvedic text on
internal medicine. His Sushruta Samhita (स ु त
ु संहता ) is foundational to Ayurvedic
medicine with innovative chapters on surgery.
Kanāda (कणाद: c. 200-600 BC) developed logic in Vaiśeṣika Sutra (वैशॆ षक सू ),
which advocates a form of atomism and postulates that all objects are reducible
to a finite number of atoms. He developed the concept of Anu (atom), such as
Dvyanuka (biatomic molecule) and tryanuka (triatomic molecule). He believed
that all living beings are composed of one to five elements: water, fire, earth, air,
ether. He theorized that Gurutva (Gravity) was responsible for the falling of
objects on the Earth.
Nāgārjuna (नागाजनु ) (ca. 150–250 CE) was a Buddhist philosopher. Along with
his disciple Āryadeva, he is credited with founding the Mādhyamaka school of
Mahāyāna Buddhism. Nāgārjuna developed (a) concept of śūnyatā, or
‘emptiness,’ (b) anātman (no-self), (c) the philosophy of the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras
related to dependent co-origination or the organism-environment interaction, (d)
the idea of relativity in his Ratnāvalī (shortness exists only in relation to the idea
of length, the determination of an object is only possible in relation to other
things or objects, relationship between the ideas of ‘short’ and ‘long’ is not due to
intrinsic nature (svabhāva), (e) further Ayurvedic medicine, compiled redaction in
Suśruta’s Sushruta Samhita, conceptualized the circulatory system and blood
tissue (rakta dhātu), developed the therapeutic value of minerals (bhasmas: the
father of iatrochemistry) and (f) iconography.
Āryabhaṭa (आयभट ) of Kusumapura/Pāṭaliputra/Patna (476–550) was Indian
mathematician and Indian astronomer. His book Āryabhaṭīyam (499 CE) covers
arithmetic, algebra, plane trigonometry, spherical trigonometry, fractions,
quadratic equations, sums-of-power series, a table of sines, planetary, and
cosmic theories. Āryabhaṭīyam has four chapters (Kak, 1997b): “(i) the
astronomical constants and the sine table, (ii) mathematics required for
computations, (iii) division of time and rules for computing the longitudes of
planets using eccentrics and epicycles, (iv) the armillary sphere, rules relating to
problems of trigonometry and the computation of eclipses.” His another book
Arya-siddhānta has astronomical computations. As per Āryabhata (476 CE)
(Danino, 2009): (i) earth spins on its axis (Kak, 1997b) and rotates around sun;63
(ii) earth’s diameter = 1050 yojanas, circumference = 2_r = 44,860 km (~10% off;
circumference at the Equator = 40,075 km); (iii) the “moon eclipses the sun, and
the great shadow of the earth eclipses the moon” (Āryabhata, IV.37); (iv) 24
values in increments of 3.750 = 900 for the first quadrant as the table of sines
and _ = 3.1416. He (v) gave the area of triangle, and (vi) solved, in integers, the
linear indeterminate equations of the type ax + c = y. (vii) His ‘orbit of the sky’ is
close to the distance ‘illuminated by the sun’. (viii) He hypothesized that the
heavenly motions go through a cycle of 4.32 billion years (Kak, 1997b). (ix) As per
(Kak, 1997b), “Aryabhata was aware of the relativity of motion is clear from this
passage in his book, ‘Just as a man in a boat sees the trees on the bank move in
33
Dvi-Pakṣa
the opposite direction, so an observer on the equator sees the stationary stars as
moving precisely toward the west.’ ”
Varāhamihira (वराह$महर) (505–587) was an astronomer, mathematician, and
astrologer and lived in Ujjain. His Pañcasiddhāntikā (treatise on the five
astronomical Canons, ca. 575 CE) is a treatise on mathematical astronomy; it
summarizes five earlier astronomical treatises, namely the Surya Siddhanta,
Romaka Siddhanta, Paulisa Siddhanta, Vasishtha Siddhanta and Paitamaha
Siddhantas. He mentioned that the shifting of the equinox is 50.32 seconds. His
book Brihat Samhita has 106 chapters and covers astrology, planetary
movements, eclipses, rainfall, clouds, architecture, growth of crops, manufacture
of perfume, matrimony, domestic relations, gems, pearls, rituals, gemstone
evaluation criterion found in the Garuda Purana, and the sacred Nine Pearls. His
book Brihat Jataka details Hindu astrology.
Brahmagupta (598–668) of Bhilamala in Rajasthan (&'मग(ु त ) was
mathematician and astronomer who wrote Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta (628 CE) on
mathematics (algebra, arithmetic, series, zero, geomtery-trianlge, Pi,
trigonometry) and astronomy. His work was translated into Arabic (771/773) at
Baghdad as Sindhind (Kak, 1997b). He proposed the solutions in integers for Nx2
+ 1 = y2 (second order indeterminate equation) using bhāvanā method. His other
book Khandakhadyaka is related to astronomical computations. As per (Ifrah,
1994), “A thousand years ahead of Europeans, Indian savants knew that the zero
and infinity were mutually inverse notions”, for example, see
Brāhmasphuṭasiddhānta.
Bhāskara I (c. 600 – c. 680) (भा)कर I) was a mathematician, who (a) wrote
numbers in the Hindu-Arabic decimal system with a circle for the zero, (b) gave a
rational approximation of the sine function in Āryabhaṭīyabhāṣya (629 CE), and
(c) wrote two astronomical works: the Mahābhāskarīya and the
Laghubhāskarīya.
Mahavira (born: 800) provided approximate formulas for the eclipse’s area
and its circumference and worked on permutations and combinations.
Halayudha (हलायध ु ) was a 10th century mathematician, who wrote the
Mṛtasañjīvanī, a commentary on Pingala's Chandah-shastra, containing a clear
description of Pascal's triangle (called meru-prastāra).
Bhāskara-II (born 1114 in Karnataka region) (a) developed the improved
‘cyclic method’ (chakravāla), e.g. solution to 61x2 + 1 = y2. Lagrange (1736–1813)
reached the same solution, but through a much longer method, (b) also worked
on derivatives (of a sine function in relation to the velocity of planets), and (c)
defined a unit of time (truti) ~ 30 microseconds (Danino, 2009). His book
Siddhānta Shiromani has four parts (Kak, 1997b): “(i) Lilavati on arithmetic, (ii)
Bijaganita on algebra, (iii) Ganitadhyaya, (iv) Goladhyaya on astronomy.” He
extended earlier siddhāntas related to epicyclic eccentric theories of planetary
motions.
34
Dvi-Pakṣa
Parameswara (1360-1455) (a) observed eclipses over 55 years and made

minute corrections on the position of planets, and (b) worked on infinite series
including trigonometric functions (Danino, 2009).
Mādhava (c. 1340-1425) worked on (a) power series expansions for sine and
cosine (correct to 1/3600th of a degree), and (b) infinite series of _ with 10 correct
decimal places (Danino, 2009). He developed (c) a procedure to determine the
positions of the moon every 36 minutes, and (d) methods to estimate the motions
of the planets (Kak, 1997b).
Nīlakantha Somayaji (c. 1444-1545) provided (a) the formula for the sum of a
convergent infinite geometric series, and (b) the concept of heliocentrism
(building on Parameswara) (Danino, 2009).
Jyesthadeva’s Yuktibhāsā (1530) proposed (a) the notion of proof (upapatti)
and (b) the observed results must be validated (Danino, 2009).
The Avatamsaka Sūtra (Buddhist text) illustrates a network of pearls: one
can see, in each pearl, the reflections of all other pearls and the reflections within
the reflections. This is consistent with the arrangement of circles in a ‘Schottky
group’ in modern mathematics (Danino, 2009).
Sayana’s comments on RigVeda (1.50.4) implies speed of light = 2202
yojana (1 yojana=13.6km) in half a nimesha (16/75th second) = 280,755 km/s,
close to actual speed of 299,792 km/s (Danino, 2009).
Infinitesimals: one paramānu ~ 70 nanometers; and 1 dhansi = 0.123 mg
(Danino, 2009).
The metaphysics of above ancient scientists seems to be idealism and/or

interactive substance dualism; whereas, materialism is unclear (except in the
metaphyscis of Cārvākas discussed later in Section 3.2).
3.1.2. Physical and Cognitive sciences

The followings are adapted from (Kak, 1997b) and other sources64:
(1) Mathematical and Physical Sciences: Vedic science encompassed both
physical (such as physics, mathematics, astronomy, and logic) and cognitive
sciences including other disciplines.
As per (Seidenberg, 1978), “Old-Babylonia [1700 BC] got the theorem of
Pythagoras [570-495 BC] from India [geometric rituals were preserved in the
Śulbasūtras: 800-600 BC]”. He argues that (a) Indian geometry (800-600 BC)
predates Greek geometry (Thales: 635-543 BC; Pythagoras: 570-495 BC) by
centuries evidenced from śatapatha brāhmaṇa (9th to 6th centuries BC), (b) the
origin of mathematics including geometry had a ritual origin because the ritual
consisted of converting the circular altar (representing earth) into a square alter
(representing heavens) of an identical area. Furthermore, ritualists knew that the
length of the year was between 365 and 366 days.
The Shri Yantra is mentioned in the Atharvaveda and is “formed by nine
interlocking triangles that surround and radiate out from the central (bindu)
point, the junction point between the physical universe and its unmanifest
35
Dvi-Pakṣa
source. Together the nine triangles are interlaced in such a way as to form 43
smaller triangles in a web symbolic of the entire cosmos or a womb symbolic of
creation. Together they express Advaita or non-duality.”65 (Barrow, 1992) argued
if the Shri Yantra implies non-Euclidean geometry; if so then it originated in
India centuries before its systematic development in Europe.
As per (Kak, 1994), the zero symbol was derived from the fish sign, which
represented ‘ten’ in Brāhmī script (50 BC-50 CE). As per (van Nooten, 1993),
Piṅgala(िपङ्गल)'s Chandaḥśāstra (est. 4th century BC) used binary numbers to
classify Vedic meters. (McClain, 1978) described the tonal basis of early myth
and argued that the links between music and myth are even deeper than
astronomy and myth. The Samaveda (its hymns were sung) was compared to the
sky, which emphasizes the musical basis of astronomy.
As per (Staal, 1988), Panini's grammar (6th century BC or earlier) embodies a
universal grammatical and computing system implying Panini-grammar based
logical framework for modern computers (Kak, 1987).
According to (Filliozat, 1970), the link between the three elements of the wind,
the gall, and the phlegm, hypothesized by Plato (Greek medicine), seems to be
derived from the earlier tridosha theory of Ayurveda. This transmission of
information might have occurred via the Persian Empire.
Rhythms of outer and inner world: The ancients (such as in Aitreya
Aranyaka 2.4.2.4) discovered many of the biological periods (Kak, 1997b), such
as (a) the 24-hour-50-minute circadian rhythm, (v) the 24-hour cycle of the sun
and sight, (c) the connection of the menstrual cycle with the motions of the
moon, (d) the life cycles of various plants, (e) the semimonthly estrus cycle of
sheep, (f) the three-week cycles of cattle and pigs, and (g) the six-month cycle of
dogs.
(2) Appendices to Vedic science are six Vedāngas: (i) kalpa for the
performance of ritual based on geometry, mathematics and calendric, (ii) shiksha
for phonetics, (iii) chhandas for metrical structures, (iv) nirukta for etymology, (v)
vyakarana for grammar, and (vi) jyotisha for astronomy and other cyclical
phenomena.
(3) The Tripartite Model: Vedic science/world-view proposed that our
universe can be divided in 3 regions (earth, space, and sky), where the processes
in the earth, on the sky, and within the mind are linked.
(4) The Five Levels/Sheaths: This model was extended to five
categories/levels of analysis: (a) Panchamahābhuta (the foundation of Ayurveda)
theory has 5 elements, namely, Prithvī (earth), Jala (water), Teja (fire), Vayu (air),
and Ākāsh (ether); (b) five senses: smell, taste, form/sight, touch, sound; and (c)
Pancha Koshas/sheaths (the foundation of yoga) from gross to finer levels:
physical body (annamaya kosha), prāṇa (prāṇamaya kosha), mind (manomaya
kosha), intellect (vijnanamaya kosha), emotion (ānandamaya kosha). The self is
above emotion, which is higher than the intellect. The prāṇa is the energy
underlying physical and mental processes and synchronizes the body and the
mind/thoughts through prānāyāma. The three energy states are tamas (the state
of dull and lethargic), rajas (the state of agitated and restless), and sattva (the
36
Dvi-Pakṣa
state of equilibrium and balance). The characteristics of each higher level emerge
from the previous level. In other words, mind emerges from matter (materialism),
but requires the presence of the self (interactive substance dualism).
(5) Vedic cognitive science: As per Rig-Veda, the outer world (physical
aspect) and the inner world (mental aspect) are equivalent in a complementary
manner for cosmic order. As per Vedic world, the matter-in-itself (physical
aspect) and its appearance/consciousness (mental aspect) are aspects of the
same transcendental reality. The hypothesis of complementarity (mind and
matter are complementary to each other) is consistent with the following
complementary groups: logic (nyāya) and physics (Vaiśeṣika), cosmology
(Sāṃkhya) and psychology (yoga), and language (Mīmānmsā) and reality
(Vedānta). These are consistent with the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
(6) Cosmology: Sāṃkhya addresses the question of ‘how does inanimate
matter come to have awareness/consciousness’? The primal physical entity
Prakṛti evolves into 24 categories, which when interact with the 25th category, the
primal mental entity Puruṣa, the consciousness emerges; this is detailed later in
Section 4.1.1. This is consistent with western interactive substance dualism. The
universe itself goes through cycles of creation and destruction as per the
recursive Vedic world-view; Sāṃkhya implies that individual life “mirrors the
entire creation cycle and cognition mirrors a life-history” (Kak, 1997b).
Alternatively, un-manifested pre-big-bang state of universe (primal entity
Brahman) before Planck time universe is dual-aspect state in which both
physical and qualitative/mental aspect were latent without any attribute: no
information about space-time, no information about hot-cold temperature, no
information about density and mass, no information about curled/compacted or
unfurled dimensions; it may be Planck-size abstract nugget with latent
qualitative/mental and physical aspects, i.e., all information are latent. Then
presumably, an instability kicked in. This caused first cosmic phase transition
from un-manifested state to manifested Planck-size physical nugget/blob/lump.
This was first physical manifestation. It is unclear how the Planck-size physical
nugget/blob/lump from the hypothesized attribute-less Planck-size abstract
nugget (primal entity Brahman) came into existence in pre-big bang un-
manifested state through the first cosmic phase transition and vice-versa; further
research is needed. Rest of the story is as in string cosmology, as elaborated in
((Greene, 1999).Ch.14(Reflections on Cosmology).p157-168).
(7) The Structure of the Mind: The (western term) mind consists of five
components: manas, ahamkāra, chitta, buddhi, and ātman; this is not
inconsistent with Sāṃkhya. The manas is the sensory-motor lower mind that
assembles sense impressions (sensory representations) from the senses of sight,
hearing, touch, taste, and smell. The perceptions related to manas shift from
moment to moment. The Ahamkāra is ‘the sense of I-ness’, which links some
perceptions to subjective experiences. The chitta (different from cit), is ‘the
memory bank of the mind’, such as iconic memory, short-term/working memory,
and long-term memory. The chitta is an active entity that organizes the new
impressions for instinctual/primitive urges responsible for different emotional
37
Dvi-Pakṣa
states. The buddhi, discriminative in nature (बु. न/चयाि1मका 2च1त -विृ 1त ),

discerns truth from falsehood for making wisdom possible. The ātman/self is the
innermost aspect of mind/consciousness, which is surrounded/covered by the
above mental complex (manas, ahamkāra, chitta, and buddhi).
(8) Yoga-Vasiṣṭha’s concepts of space, time, matter, mind,
experience/consciousness: Valmīki’s (first century AD) Yoga-Vasiṣṭha is based
on radical idealism at deeper level (Kak, 1997b) and interactive substance
dualism (mind and matter dichotomy) at conventional mind-dependent reality
(cMDR). YV implies three kinds of space (Kak, 1997b): (i) the infinite space of
consciousness (idealism) that is omnipresent, (ii) the psychological space for
individual mind/consciousness, and (iii) the physical space for all material
objects (interactive substance dualism). Space and time do not a fixed span. For
us external objects (matter-in-self) have appearance, so is the time. The time can
vary from about one-millionth of the twinkling of an eye (one unit of time) to
several cycles of the four yugas, which is the life-span of one cosmic creation-
cycle in cyclic universe. There are innumerable universes with varied composition
and space-time structure.
As per Upaniṣads (śrutis), the direct experience (such as in samādhi/mystic
state: consciousness-as-such) is the basis for main pramānas (proofs). The
underlying hypothesis is that (a) the infinite space of consciousness is
substratum of the experiencing intelligence (the Puruṣa); and (b) this itself
becomes the experiencer (karta, the observer), the act of experiencing (kriya, the
process of observation), and the experiences (karm, appearances of objects, the
observed). We have an insentient destructible physical body and the finite but
orderly mind with sentient self. “I have carefully investigated, I have observed
everything from the tips of my toes to the top of my head, and I have not found
anything of which I could say, ‘This I am.’ Who is ‘I’? I am the all-pervading
consciousness which is itself not an object of knowledge or knowing and is free
from self-hood. I am that which is indivisible, which has no name, which does
not undergo change, which is beyond all concepts of unity and diversity, which is
beyond measure”. The following pairs are complementary to each other: mind
and matter, the observer and the observed, appearances and matter-in-itself, and
experiencer and experiences.
The radical idealism of Yoga-Vasiṣṭha is as follows (Kak, 1997b): (i) Cosmic
consciousness is eternal, pure, infinite, omnipresent, birthless, deathless,
omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, fundamental field that pervades the
whole universe but is unknowable (to some extent in my view). (ii) The creation of
universe(s) appears when cosmic consciousness reflects in itself. (iii) The world
can be considered as the body of consciousness. (iv) The universe is real because
its source is the cosmic consciousness (Brahman) that is real (eternal) and is also
unreal because the universe is transient and will face death at the end of cycle.
(v) This eternal infinite cosmic consciousness contains innumerable universes in
analogy to a beam of light containing specks of dust. (vi) “The universe exists in
infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness is unmanifest, though
omnipresent, even as space, though existing everywhere, is manifest. […] The
38
Dvi-Pakṣa
manifestation of the omnipotence of infinite consciousness enters into an alliance

with time, space and causation. Thence arise infinite names and forms” (Kak,
1997b). (vii) The laws of Nature are intrinsic to the unfolding universe and hence
evolve with it. (viii) A new information is a result of the interaction between
cosmic mind (Puruṣa) and matter (Prakṛti) and does not emerge from the
inanimate world. (ix) The radical idealism of Yoga-Vasiṣṭha and the dominant
view (materialism) of mainstream science are at opposite poles and both have
serious problems as mentioned in Section 2 but they can addressed by the Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM framework) as discussed in Section 5.
3.1.3. Yugas and Dashavatār

Yugas: The durations of Satyayuga, Tretāyuga, Dvāparayuga, and Kaliyuga are
1.728, 1.296, 0.864, and 0.432 million years (MY), respectively (Danino, 2009).
The total for all yugas (i.e., Churyuga) is 4.32 MY, which is close to Ardipithecus
(5.5–4.4 MYA (million years ago)), with species Ar. kadabba (about 5.6 MYA) and
Ar. ramidus (about 4.4 MYA). The duration of one day of Brahmā is = one kalpa =
1000 Churyuga = 4.32 BY (billion years), which is very close to when our solor
system was formed (about 4.6 BYA: billions years ago). As per Āryabhaṭīyam,
Kaliyuga started on Friday, 18th February, 3102 B.C. (Kak, 1997b).
Dashavatār: The concept of Dashavatar is consistent with Darwin’s theory of

evolution (Danino, 2009): (a) Satyayuga: fish (Matsyavatār), amphibian
(Kurmavatār, tortoise), mammal (Varahavatār, boar), half-man half-animal
(Narasimhavatār), (b) Tretāyuga: short-man (Vamanavatār, dwarf,)
Parshuramavatār (mental evolution), Ramavatār (mental evolution), (c)
Dvāparayuga: Krishnavatār (north India)/Balaramavatār (south India) (mental
evolution), (d) Kaliyuga: Buddhavatār (north)/Vithoba (Maharashtra,
Goa)/Jagannath (Orissa) (mental evolution), and Kalkivatār (Hindu)/Imam Ali
(Ismaili Khoja) (mental, technical, and cultutral evolution: awaited for full mental
evolution).
3.2. Cārvākas/Lokāyatas
Cārvāka/Lokāyata (चावाक: 800-500 BC) is a system of Indian philosophy that

adopts various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifference.
Cārvākas were nāstikas, materialist, and atheists and were the probable author
of the Bārhaspatya-sūtras and probably followers of Brihaspati, who founded the
Cārvākas/Lokāyata philosophy.66
The followings propositions related to Cārvāka/Lokāyata system are adapted

from (Raju, 1985; Singh, 2002) and other sources mentioned in the texts below:
39
Dvi-Pakṣa
(i) The hypothesis of life-after-death (such as soul, karmic laws, rebirth, and
God) was rejected unequivocally by Cārvākas in any shape or form, similar to
modern science.
(ii) They also rejected the hypothesis of the post-death karmic law of reward
and retribution, which influences the destiny of a soul for rebirth.
(iii) As per Mādhava Vidyāraṇya (Advaitist and 12th Jagadguru of the Sringeri
Sharada Peetham: 1380-1386 AD in his Sarvadarśanasaṅ̇graha (सवदशनसह ))
reveals the view of Cārvākas/Lokāyata as, “There is no heaven, no final
liberation, nor any soul in another world, nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, etc., produce any real effect. […] While life remains let a man live happily
[…] When the body turns into ashes, how can it ever return again? If he who
departs from the body goes to another world, how is it that he does not come
back again, restless because of his love for his kindred?” (quoted from (Singh,
2002)).
(iv) As per Cārvākas/Lokāyata, our consciousness, intelligence, and
subjective experiences somehow emerge/arise from matter (such as our brain),
similar to the materialistic emergentism of modern cognitive neuroscience and
the atheistic system of the materialist school of Epicurus (341-270 BC) in ancient
Greece.
(v) Cārvāka related atheist Bṛhaspati (बह ृ )पत: c. 600 BC), different from
theist deva-guru (guru of the gods) Bṛhaspati, wrote Bārhaspatya-sūtras, which
is the foundational text of the Cārvāka school of ‘materialist’ (nastika)
philosophy.
(vi) Dehātmavāda: Cārvākas/Lokāyatas rejected the metaphysical concept
(idealism) of the ‘Self’ as portrayed in the Upaniṣhads, and the karmic law that
necessitated the rebirth of this entity into the next life was nonsensical. They
believed in Dehātmavāda that consciousness emerges from the body-brain
endowed with intelligence. Buddha and Mahavīra also rejected the Vedic
orthodoxy of Self (God). When we die, our body-brain disintegrates into its
constituent elements and merges with Nature for recycling (prithivikayah and
bhutacaitanyavadin); this is similar to modern materialistic science.
As per Śankara (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1988), Dehātmavāda is as follows: (a)
Consciousness/SE/intelligence is observed only in body-brain system, whereas it
is never detected without a functional body-brain. Therefore, materialists
(Dehātmavādīs) consider consciousness is simply the attribute of the body-brain
system. (b) The three gunas, tamas, rajas, and sattva are mass, energy, and
intelligence, respectively. As the mixture of these three gunas unfolds,
consciousness emerges from the brain-body system via theory of Sāṃkhya. (c)
Dehātmavāda negates anything (such as soul, God, Puruṣa) outside of the
material elements that constitutes the body-brain system; it can also be
interpreted as being “the cult of the body-brain system”.
(vii) Pramāṇa: Cārvākas/Lokāyatas accepted pratyakṣa (perception) as the
only pramāṇa (proof). They rejected anumāna (inference) because it can entail
transcendental world (such as heaven/hell, God, soul/ātman, immortality, laws
of karmas and life-after-death), which was not acceptable to them (Raju, 1985;
40
Dvi-Pakṣa
Singh, 2002). However, later Cārvākas (such as Purandara: 7th century) was
sympathetic to anumāna related to the nature of all worldly entities if where
pratyakṣa (perceptual experience) is available. However, since ordinary
perceptual experience is not available for transcendental hypotheses, anumāna
cannot used to establish them.
(viii) Agnostic scepticism: Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa (ca. 770-830) wrote the
Tattvopaplavasimha (‘The Lion that Devours All Categories’ or ‘The Upsetting of
All Principles’) was a radical Cārvāka. He rejects all pramāṇas67 as valid sources
of knowledge. The claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity,
transcendental world, also religious and metaphysical claims are unknown or
unknowable. The Cārvāka/materialist’s doctrine of causality must be due to
purely physical processes only, i.e., adṛṣtā (unseen) non-physical causes are
either unknown or unknowable.
(ix) Svabhāvavāda and Yadṛcchāvāda: The world/universe is the result of
the inherent nature (svabhāva) of the (material) elements or things that
constitute it.68 As per Gunaratna (c. 15th century CE), the doctrine of self-
origination (Svabhāvavāda) implies that an entity undergoes transformation by
itself (svatah) because of its essential/inherent nature (svabhāva), i.e., all entities
are born because of their own svabhāva. He also hypothesized an alternative
view for the rejection of causality (Yadṛcchāvāda): There is no fixed cause-effect
relation for objects; such relations are due to yadriccha (chance, accident), i.e.,
objects are attained accidentally without any prior deliberation (abhisandhi). As
per Gopinath Kaviraj (1887–1976), both Svabhāvavāda and Yadṛcchāvāda are
identical in the sense that both reject the causality; both imply that the observed
order and regularity in our experience is because of mere chance.
(x) The Cārvākas (800-500 BC) proposed (Raju, 1985) that (a) perceptual
experiences alone is the valid means of knowledge (pratyakṣa pramāṇa); (b) the
processes of the world are due to their own nature (Svabhāvavāda), (c) which are
certainly not due to supernatural causation, consistent with modern science
(Krauss, 2012).
(xi) Cārvākas and Sāṅkhya: Some of the later Cārvākas accepted gradually
the atheistic Sāṅkhya philosophy of interactive substance dualism, i.e., the
physical universe is because of the insentient Prakṛti (primitive matter) and
somehow self (ātman) gets entangled in it.
(xii) The Cārvāka system might have partly originated from 3 premises: (a)
Svabhāvavāda (self-origination): the universe arose because of its own nature; (b)
Yadṛcchāvāda: it is due to chance/ accident; and (c) Sāṅkhya: it is the outcome
of the interaction between Prakṛti and Puruṣa (cosmic sexes). This is also
consistent with the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad.
(xiii) Rationale for Yadṛcchāvāda, anumāna (inference), and
Svabhāvavāda (Raju, 1985): If one argues that the causality is the major
premise, then a Cārvāka replies that the causality must be a universal
proposition. However, the universal proposition cannot be verified by pratyakṣa
(perception) pramāṇa. Therefore, alternatively, Cārvākas argue that every event is
a chance. If we use inference; all our inferences are conjectures; sometimes it
41
Dvi-Pakṣa
turns out to be true. Therefore, this truth is accidental/chance (Yadṛcchāvāda).

The inferences are verifiable only when we perceive the objects of inference;
perceivable and verifiable inferences were acceptable by Purandhara (7th century
Cārvāka). However, if the inferred entity is unperceivable, Cārvākas cannot
accept its truth. Since the transcendental world (such as ātman, God, heaven,
etc.) is unperceivable, Cārvākas would never accept it. Furthermore, they argue
that events simply happen because of their inherent nature (Svabhāvavāda).
(xiv) Epistemology: Like inferential knowledge, Cārvākas do not accept
verbal knowledge (knowledge from speech, such as śrutis) giving truth unless it is
clearly verified by pratyakṣa (perceptual subjective experiences) pramāṇa. The
rationale is that Veda/Vedanta considers śrutis as best proof and is based on it.
However, knowledge from śrutis is based on samādhi-state so called direct
perceptions, but this knowledge is contradictory, for example, Vedantic-self vs.
Buddhist non-self. The rival schools argue that Cārvākas’ premises (such as
everything is due to its own nature, everything is a chance, and nothing has a
cause) contain universal propositions that cannot be verified by perception. This
is because all principles (abstract laws) are not perceivable. Furthermore, there is
an explanatory gap: where do the subjective experiences (SEs) come from? How
can SEs arise/emerge from non-experiential matter? Thus, Cārvāka-epistemology
remains self-contradicted and problematic; so is the Vedic-epistemology. The Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita does not have such problems.
(xv) Metaphysics of Cārvākas: The metaphysics of Cārvākas is materialism,
naturalism and humanism (not unethical materialism). This is because matter or
physical nature is the ultimate reality. They unequivocally rejected
supernatural/transcendental world because of lack of rigorous scientific
empirical evidences. The Cārvākas clearly admit that there is a difference
between the living and dead man, but this difference is certainly not because of
the hypothetical and the imperceptible ātman. The quale/consciousness/SE is
only a quality of the brain-body system. For example, when the material
constituents of the brain-body come together in a specific ratio, form, and
pattern, a specific brain-body-structure with the quality of consciousness
emerges ( indeed this is modern scientific materialistic emergentism).69 Therefore,
the quale/consciousness/SE is only an emergent quality. Furthermore, when the
brain-body system disintegrates or when a specific part is damaged as in
accidents, the specific ratio, form, and pattern wanes; and the constituents of
brain-body system tend to disperse and the emergent quality/consciousness
disappears. Emergences are also seen in inert systems. For example, when yeast
and grape juice are mixed/interacted, wine with intoxicating quality emerge
because the yeast or the grape does not have quality. Although Cārvākas (and
still modern scientists) cannot explain why a new quality emerges, it is assumed
that it is natural and certainly not caused by super-natural entities. To sum up,
consciousness in living beings somehow arises/emerges from material entity.
Cārvākas (and still modern materialistic scientists) admit that they do not know
how, but consciousness certainly cannot exist apart from the brain-body system.
Thus, their metaphysics was materialistic emergentism, which is also indeed the
42
Dvi-Pakṣa
case for modern materialistic science (that has alternative view of the identity
theory where consciousness is assumed to be identical with the brain state).
(xvi) Rationale against transcendental world (Raju, 1985): (a) If the ātman
survives after death, as Veda/Vedānta hypothesizes, it should have ability to
visit its family and friends; however, over thousands of years, there is not even a
single authentic repeatable report. (b) Immortality, for Cārvākas, is the
immortality of the body-brain system i.e., the preservation of the living body
forever; this is somewhat similar to the modern concept of cryonics for preserving
whole body for preserving the information theoretic death. (c) Most of the
theologians in the West and also most of the Vedāntins in India acknowledge that
the effort for the absolute proof for the existence of God, soul, and the moral law
has failed. Kant, Bacon, Hume, and Mill have also has similar difficulties. Only,
so far, we have some success on the phenomenological and existential analysis of
human experience in the realms of Nature, ethics, and religion. However, this is
not a conclusive and syllogistic inference for the transcendental world. (d) Even if
we accept causality, we cannot explain why the causal law is as it is. The
Cārvāka, the Mīmānmsā, and the Sāṅkhya do not accept that God or Nature is
the ultimate truth who has purpose in creating the universe. Even Śaṅkara
argues for impersonal Absolute (Parabrahman, not any personal God) as the
ultimate truth. Similarly, Aristotle rejects the reality of God as Pure Form and
accepts some ultimate tychism (absolute chance/indeterminism for the operation
of the universe).
(xvii) Rejection of super-natural entity: The super-natural cause is been
rejected by (i) human-centered philosophy such as Cārvākas/Lokāyatas as early
as 1000 BC and (ii) Buddhism, for example Gautama Buddha’s skeptical attitude
toward the supernatural in the 6th-century BC. 70
(xviii) Cārvākas/Lokāyatas as ancient Indian materialistic scientists: As
per (Singh, 2002), “it is doubtful that Lokāyata is synonymous with the modern
usage of scientific materialism.” However, as long as there is rigorous empirical
evidence, the same requirements as in modern science, Cārvākas/Lokāyatas
accepted (a) pratyakṣa (perception) and later (b) anumāna (inference), and (c)
śabda/āgama (verbal knowledge). Perhaps (d) they would have accepted also
upamāna (analogy), (e) arthāpatti (superimposition of the known knowledge on
an appearing knowledge), and (f) anupalabdi (skepticism in the face of non-
apprehension) as long as there are rigorous empirical evidence.
Furthermore, Cārvākas hypothesized that the creation/evolution of universe
is consistent with Yadṛcchāvāda (non-causal chance-based/accidental) and
Svabhāvavāda (events happen due to their inherent nature), which is somewhat
similar to modern science hypothesis of the chance-based quantum fluctuations
in empty-space for creation of universe and stochastic/intrinsically non-
deterministic processes in science (such as physics, biology, medicine and so on).
Moreover, Cārvākas were very particular for scientific rigorous validations
(pramāṇa). Therefore, I would argue for Cārvākas being ancient Indian
materialistic scientists, and modern materialistic scientists as neo-Cārvākas.
43
Dvi-Pakṣa
Summary: From Sections 3.1 and 3.2, it appears that the metaphysics of ancient
Indian science includes idealism and interactive substance dualism in addition
to materialism (the dominant view in current western and eastern science). All of
these views have problems as discussed in Section 2.
The views of the Cārvāka/Lokāyata, the Mīmānmsā, and the Sāṅkhya, even
Śaṅkara’s Advaita are somewhat consistent with the atheist Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita—
for the evolution of the physical aspect of the unmanifested fundamental primal
dual-aspect entity (Brahman). Whereas, the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita is somewhat
consistent with the theist Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita—the co-evolution of the inseparable
mental aspect of the unmanifested fundamental primal dual-aspect entity
(Brahman).
As per the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, as long as (a) theists, idealists, and/or dualists
(such as Vedic/Vedantic system, Buddhists, Jainists, and Sāṃkhyists) are limited
to the mental aspect of each entity-state, and (b) materialists (such as Cārvākas)
are limited to the inseparable physical aspect of the entity-state, they are fine.
Problems start when they cross their domains. In other words, when (a) theists,
idealists, and/or dualists try crossing to the physical domain from their mental
domain, and/or (b) materialists try crossing to the mental domain from their
physical domain because of the massive category mistakes.
3.3. Modern Science and its problems
As per (Crick, 1994), “The Astonishing Hypothesis is that you—your joys and
your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity
and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve
cells and their associated molecules.”
This has explanatory gap problem of materialism: How can subjective

experiences (SEs) such as the SE of self (you), SEs of joy, sorrow, and other
feelings, and SEs of objects can arise from non-experiential material entities such
as ‘a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules’? Materialists
have two main hypotheses: (1) emergentism: SEs emerge from the interactions of
stimulus dependent feed forward signals and cognitive feedback signals. (2) SEs
are identical with the relevant brain-states. However, both hypotheses have the
same explanatory gap problem, which has not been addressed to the satisfaction
of everybody.
Furthermore, the dominant metaphysics of science is materialism, which has

problems (Vimal, 2010d). In Identity theory of materialism, a specific experience
(SE: such as redness) is identical with a specific state (such as redness-related
state caused by long wavelength light) of a specific neural-network (such as red-
green V4/V8/VO-neural-net) (Levin, 2006; Levin, 2008; Loar, 1990, 1997;
Papineau, 2006). In the emergentism/reductionism framework of materialism,
qualia/subjective experiences (such as redness) are assumed to mysteriously
44
Dvi-Pakṣa
emerge (emergentism) or reduce to (reductionism) the relevant states of neural-

nets, which is a brute fact (that's just the way it is).71
The major problem of materialism is Levine’s explanatory gap (Levine, 1983)72:

the gap between experiences and scientific descriptions of those experiences
(Vimal, 2008b). In other words, how can our experiences emerge from the non-
experiential matter such as neural-networks of our brain/organism-environment
interactions or be identical with the related brain-states?
Furthermore, materialism has three more assumptions (Skrbina, 2009): matter is

the ultimate reality, and material reality is essentially objective and non-
experiential. These assumptions need justification.
(Fingelkurts & Fingelkurts, 2009) uses materialistic emergentism metaphysical

framework for the occurrence of religious experiences in brain. This has Levine’s
explanatory gap, which cannot be addressed. However, our eDAM (Dual-Aspect
Monism with dual-mode and varying degrees of the dominance of aspects)
framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) can address the gap and is a
complementary to both materialism (mind from matter) and idealism (matter
from mind) and bridges these two opposite frameworks.
In the holoworld framework (Globus, 2005; Globus, 2007), one always find
oneself already amidst a world of colors, sounds, and so on; ‘experience’ is
superfluous, and, in a manner of speaking, is grounded in dualistic metaphysics,
a separation between experience and thing. Thus, this framework seems to
eliminate SEs and hence bypasses the explanatory gap of materialism. However,
if one finds the reduction or elimination of SEs problematic, then the problem
raised remains, i.e., SEs exist and cannot be eliminated.
“The suggestion that the mental may still be conceptually irreducible to the
physical is but a sop: from an ontological point of view, it amounts to nothing
more than noting that there can be complex physical structure types which
conform to high-level patterns of instantiation. […] The flipside of the
reductionist view that mental activity is not fundamentally distinctive is that
the qualitative and intentional character of mental states from which such
activity flows is likewise unremarkable. Here, too, the general reductionist line
flies in the face of deep intuitive judgments derived from introspection”
(O'Connor & Wong, 2005).
45
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 4
Hinduism and its problems

Hinduism, in general, includes all philosophies developed over 6000 years in
India. However, I will discuss concisely just a few of them, such as Gītā,
Sāṃkhya, Brahma-Sūtra, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Trika Kashmir Shaivism,
and the six sub-schools of Vedānta, and related metaphysical problems.
4.1. Gītā, Sāṃkhya, Brahma-Sūtra, and Bṛhadāraṇyaka

Upaniṣad, and Trika Kashmir Shaivism
4.1.1. Gītā and Sāṃkhya, and Critique

Verses II/17-25 (especially II.20 and II.22) of Gītā ((Swami Chinmayananda,
2000) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita related commentary of (Jagadguru
Rāmabhadrāchārya, 1998b)) implies ‘built-in’ problematic interactive substance
dualism because soul/jīvātman separates from dead body/brain after death and
interacts with brain/body when we are alive. In Sāṃkhya philosophy
(Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1957; Rao, 1998; Sen Gupta, 1986), Puruṣa (mental
aspect, consciousness, mind) and Prakṛti (physical aspect, matter) are
independent entities but they interact, via the ‘shining’ or the ‘fusion’ process
because of the proximity of Puruṣa with Prakṛti, to create universe including us
(िचत् प ु ष के सािनय से इसी एक तव ‘कृ ित ’ को मश: तेईस अवातं र तव! म" प#रणत होकर सम&त जड़ जगत् को उप+न करती ह-ई माना गया
है)73. This is close to the problematic interactive substance dualism. Atheist
version of Sāṃkhya denies the existence of God, which is criticized by
Vedantists.74 The relationship of Brahm, Jīva, and matter (Jagat) are summarized
in Table 1.
In verses II/26-28 of Gītā, the materialism/Cārvāka/nāstika view is presented

that jīvātman is ‘nityajAtam’ (nirantara janma lene wālā: always takes birth as
body is born) and ‘nityam vā manyase’ (nirantara marne wālā: always dies as
body dies); in other words, jīvātman as being constantly born and constantly
dying (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000). The state of jīvātman-brain-body before
birth and after death is in unmanifested/potential (avyakta) form of Brahman;
and the period between birth and death, i.e., during one is alive is in
manifested/realized (vyakta) form of Brahman (verse II/28) (Swami
46
Dvi-Pakṣa
Chinmayananda, 2000). At this point, both theist and atheists agree that life is
continuous chain of birth and death. However, the materialistic view has the
explanatory gap problem (how the mental entity ‘jīvātman’ can emerge/born from
physical (inert) entity, such as brain).
One could attribute multiple meanings to the term Brahman: (i) Brahman is
aspectless, formless, and attributeless in Sankarāchārya’s Advaita, (ii) Brahman
has cit (mind) and acit (matter) as adjectives in cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, (iii) Brahman
is fundamental matter from which mind emerges in materialism, (iv) Brahman
has two inseparable (mental and physical) aspects in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, and
so on.
4.1.2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and Critique

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad metaphysical cosmology: This is discussed in (Vimal,
2011b). Briefly, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (verses I.2.1-6 of (Swami
Krishnananda, 1983) and (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1950)) has well developed
metaphysical cosmology via the doctrine of manifestation (causal to subtle to
gross by the use of ‘condensation’ process)75: Originally, there was ‘nothing’ (in
the sense of an imperceptibility of all things)76, but this ‘nothing’ was in a
primordial/universal causal state that contained the effect (in ‘potential’ form). A
peculiar adjustment of consciousness77 (the desire/will of Supreme Person self-
conscious Puruṣa/Brahman)78 within the cause separated the effect, which
activated the unmanifested Prakṛti/(Īshvara: Mula-Prakṛiti)79. This manifested to
Mahat/Hiraṇyagarbha/Cosmic-Mind, which then manifested to Cosmic
Ahamkāra (Cosmic ‘I’-sense)/Virāt that has inseparable mental and
physical/material aspects.80 Virāt was then manifested (via Cosmic Fire) into the
Tripartite-Being or threefold form/aspect: the transcendent (Adhidaiva), the
objective physical (Adhibhūta) and the subjective mental (Adhyātma) aspects; i.e.,
mental and physical aspects were separated but linked together via Adhidaiva as
per Madhu-Vidyā.81 Since then further creation of universe continued down to
lower levels as of today including us. A major claim is ‘aham brahmāsmīti’
(I.4.10): “I am Brahman”82 which is eternal and is inherent in all entities (both
physical and non-physical) and also localized in each individual).83 However, the
jagat (world, wealth, relationship etc.) is transient; after dissolution, there is no
awareness;84 therefore, our goal of life should be to realize Brahman/Puruṣa
(II.4.12-14; II.5). At the end of the cosmic dissolution, all entities return back to
source (Absolute/Brahman) and then next cycle begins.85
Critique: Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is a great Upaniṣad; it is excellent, very

interesting, and beautiful subjective research. One of the claims of this Upaniṣad
47
Dvi-Pakṣa
is that the self (mukta-jīvātman) is not conscious (of objects, actions and their
results) after attaining oneness with Brahman because then everything is the Self
(Brahman) who is only aware of Itself. This is consistent with the current
scientific research because after death self (if exists) cannot be aware of objects
as it was aware before death because functional neural-networks, wakefulness,
re-entry, attention, and working memory are necessary for awareness (Vimal,
2009g), which is missing after death.
The main metaphysical view of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad appears to be

idealism (matter from mind) because Supreme Person self-conscious
Puruṣa/Brahman or universal consciousness is the fundamental reality. However,
it appears that Sāṃkhya philosophy/metaphysics (interactive substance dualism)
is somehow also included because the term ‘Mula-Prakṛiti’ (unmanifested Prakṛti)
is also used. Both metaphysical views have problems as elaborated in Section 2.
Furthermore, in view of current researches: (1) it has explanatory gap problems
at various levels (for example, how mind and matter are inseparable at Virāt level,
but they get separated at lower levels)86. (2) It makes category mistake (when it
proposes that matter/body/physical universe arises from mental entities such as
Puruṣa, Mahat/Hiraṇyagarbha/Cosmic Mind, and Cosmic Ahamkāra/Virāt). And
(3) it has some of the problems of interactive substance dualism because of (a)
the separation of mental entity (jīvātman) from physical entity (brain/body)
during and after death, (b) their integration during birth, and (c) their
interactions during life.87 Other views of eastern and western systems also have
some of the above problems along with their own problems.
4.1.3. Brahma-Sūtra and Critique

As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “THE LIFE-PRINCIPLES OF A KNOWER OF
NIRGUṆA BRAHMAN DO NOT DEPART FROM THE BODY AT DEATH … prāṇas
[life-principles] do not pass out of the body of him who know [nirguṇa] Brahman.
The opponent denies this and argues that the passage does not deny the passage
of the prāṇas from the body but only from the embodied soul. For if they do not
depart from the body there will be no death at all. [BS:IV.2.12:p539-540]”. In
other words, as per BS:IV.2.12, prāṇas are life-principles, which do not depart
from the body of the knower of nirguṇa Brahman at the time of death. However,
critique argues that if prāṇas do not depart from the body, there will be no death
at all. Therefore, prāṇas depart from the body and go with the departing soul at
death.
(Radhakrishnan, 1960) discussed Brahma-Sūtras further, “It is not true that if

the prāṇas do not depart there will be no death for they do not remain in the
48
Dvi-Pakṣa
body but get merged [in the body], which makes life impossible and we say that
the person [the knower of nirguṇa/kāran Brahman] is dead. Again, if the prāṇas
departed with the soul from the body, then the rebirth of the soul would be
inevitable and there would be no liberation. [This seems to imply that the soul
departs from body (for all beings both knower and non-knowers of nirguṇa
Brahman), but prāṇa is merged in the body. BS:IV.2.13:p540] […] It follows that
he who knows Brahman neither moves not departs. R. [Rāmānujāchārya] says
that there are smṛti passages which declare that sage also when dying departs
from the body. The soul of him who knows departs by means of an artery from
head. … According to Nimbārka [the souls of] both knowers and non-knowers go
out; only they travel by different paths. [BS:IV.2.14:p540] […] THE ORGANS OF
THE KNOWER OF NIRGUṆA BRAHMAN ARE MERGED IN IT DEATH … The
question is in regard to the knower of Brahman who dies. What happens to the
sense-organs and the subtle body in which they abide? These get merged in the
Supreme Brahman. See Praśna U. VI.5.1. M.U. III.2.7, however, gives the account
of the end from a relative standpoint according to which the body disintegrates
and goes back to its cause, the elements. The former text speaks from a
transcendental standpoint according to which the whole aggregate is merged in
Brahman … Ś [Śankarāchārya]. R. says that elements unite themselves with the
Highest Self: C.U. VI.8.6. … As in the states of deep sleep and pralaya, there is,
owing to union with the Highest Self, a cessation of all experience of pain and
pleasure, so is it in the case under question. [BS:IV.2.15:p541] […] ON THE
DEATH OF THE KNOWER OF THE HIGHEST BRAHMAN THE ORGANS AND THE
ELEMENTS ARE MERGED IN THE BRAHMAN SO AS TO BE NO LONGER
DISTINCT FROM IT IN ANY WAY … The merging of elements in the case of the
knower of Brahman is absolute, whereas in the case of an ordinary person it is
not so. The elements exist in a subtle condition, causing future rebirth. In the
case of the knower of Brahman, knowledge destroys ignorance and its effects get
merged in Brahman absolutely, without any chance of cropping up again.
[BS:IV.2.16:p541] […] No movement can take place towards the highest Brahman
which is absolutely complete, all-knowing, present everywhere, the Self of all. We
do not move to some other place in order to reach Brahman. Brahman is
something already reached. [BS:IV.3.7:p548] […] According to S., sūtra 12-14
give the opponent’s view. The Brahman attained by those who travel by the path
of the gods cannot be the Supreme Brahman but only the kārya Brahman or
effected Brahman. The supreme Brahman is all-pervading and the inmost self of
all. Journey or attainment is possible only where there is a difference where the
attainer is different from the thing attained. To realise the Supreme Brahman, all
that is necessary is to remove ignorance. In such a realization there is neither
going not attaining. The reference to a journey to Brahman belongs to the sphere
49
Dvi-Pakṣa
of relative knowledge [BS:IV.3.14:p550] […] ‘In whatever form they meditate on

him, that they become.’ [BS:IV.3.15:p551] […] R. points out that the question is
whether the released soul views itself as separate, pṛthag-bhūta from Brahman or
as non-separate, being a mode of Brahman. There are passages favouring both
views. The released soul, it is said, stands to the Highest Self in the relation of
fellowship, equality, equality of attributes. All this implies consciousness of
separation. … The sūtra says that the released soul is conscious of itself as non-
divided from the Highest Brahman. The souls have for their inner self the Highest
Brahman. This is seen. The souls have for their inner self the Highest Self. They
are modes (Prakāras) of it. [BS:IV.4.4:p554]”.
Critique: The above seems to imply that individual soul irrespective of knower or
non-knower, leaves the body. The question is about prāṇas (life-principles). It is
unclear what prāṇas really mean in terms of current physiology: is it constituents
of life such as breath/respiration, vital energy in breath, blood, semen in men,
vaginal fluid in women, and so on?88 The prāṇas of knower merges in the body
and does not depart from the body. Whereas, the prāṇas of non-knower does not
merge in the body, rather it departs from the body with soul for rebirth because
prāṇa is presumably necessary for rebirth. However, how is that possible for
prāṇa? Elements/prāṇas are the same elements/prāṇas for both non-knower
(ignorant) or knower of kāran(nirguṇa)-Brahman. It seems that the hypothesis of
the life-after-death, soul with or without prāṇa, and Parmātman are inserted by
hand (in the concept of the fundamental entity unmanifested Brahman) just to
make society doing good karmas for the benefit of all. However, the same can be
achieved by sublimation process (to required extent, converting selfish energies
to non-selfish ones for the interest of society) if the Fundamental Truth is told as
it is. As long as there are neural activities, related brain-state exists, which has
inseparable mental aspect with some type of experience/cognition and self. Once
a knower or non-knower person is dead, the mental aspect of dead-body is latent
like any other inert entity with partly un-manifested Brahman. This is because
majority of the space between quarks of proton has quantum fluctuations
(spontaneous births and deaths of virtual particle pairs) (Krauss, 2012), which is
close to unmanifested Brahman. Furthermore, one all ṛiṣi's views (śrutis) arose
from samādhi state, but they contradict each other, for example, eternal ātman
Vedantists vs. anātman Buddhists.
4.1.4. Trika Kashmir Shaivism and Critique

Kashmir Shaivism/Śaivism or Trika Śaivism is “categorized by various scholars as
monistic idealism (absolute idealism, theistic monism, realistic idealism,
50
Dvi-Pakṣa
transcendental physicalism or concrete monism). […] These descriptors denote a

standpoint that Cit (consciousness) is the one reality. Matter is not separated
from consciousness, but rather identical to it. There is no gap between God and
the world. The world is not an illusion (as in Advaita Vedānta), rather the
perception of duality is the illusion.” 89
Trika Kashmir Shaivism (Kaul, 2002; Raina Swami Lakshman Joo, 1985;
Vimal, 2009b; Wilberg, 2008) is close to dual-aspect view. According to (Kokiloo,
2002), “Veda, Shaiva, Vama, Dakshina, Kaula, Matta, and Trika are the seven
Acharas (systems) recognised by Kashmir Shaivism. The most popular among the
seven Acharas has been the Trika system. What does this Trika mean? Trika
means trinity of Nara Shakti and Shiva as is given in Tantras. Nara means an
individual, Shakti means the Universal Energy and Shiva means the
Transcendental Being. Thus, a soul recognizes himself as Shiva by means of the
realization of his Shakties - the powers of God-head. Therefore, this Trika system
advocates the practical path towards complete self-realization. To make it more
clear, this threefold science of spirit is based on the three energies of Lord Shiva
namely Para, Parapara and Apara. Para energy is subjective energy of Lord Shiva
and it is regarded as the supreme. Parapara energy is cognitive energy of Lord
Shiva and is called as intermediate. Apara energy is objective energy of Lord
Shiva and it is known as inferior energy.” “It is called Trika because it
encompasses the threefold signs of man and his world. These three signs are
Shiva, his Shakti (energy), and Jīva (individual). Also signified are three primary
energies: para (supreme) energy, para-para (combination of highest and lowest)
energy, and apara (lowest) energy. These are also termed iccha Shakti, the energy
of will, jnana Shakti, the energy of knowledge, and kriya Shakti, the energy of
action. These three energies represent the threefold activities of the world:
knower, knowing, and known.”90
Critique: Kashmir Shaivism seems close to neutral monism (which has

explanatory gap problem: how the aspects are derived from or reduced to the
third neutral entity): Śiva (Puruṣa, consciousness, mental aspect) and Śakti
(Prakṛti, Nature, matter, physical) are two projected aspects of the third
transcendental ‘ground’ level entity (Brahm, Mahātripurasundarī) (Kak, 2010b).91
Trika Kashmir Shaivism92 seems close to dual-perspective/dual-aspect

monism, where Śiva is the mental aspect and Śakti is the physical aspect of same
entity (such as Brahm/Brahman). It is unclear (i) if these aspects appear
separable and (ii) it is also unclear if jīva (mental aspect) and body (physical
aspect) remain inseparable at the time of death. We assume that jīva/atmā/soul
51
Dvi-Pakṣa
can exist independently after death because Sāṃkhya is involved in it. If this is
correct, then it has the problems of interactive substance dualism.
Thus, in Trika Kashmir Shaivism, there is a no distinction (i) between God

(Brahman) and individual souls (jîvas), (ii) among individual souls, and (iii)
between God and matter. (iv) There is a possibility of separation/distinction
between soul/jîva and matter at the time of death. (v) However, the distinction is
unclear among various types of matter, perhaps there is no distinction as in
dual-aspect monism. The relationship of Brahm, Jīva, and matter (Jagat) are
summarized in Table 1.
4.2. Six Sub-schools of Vedānta

Vedānta is the philosophy developed after Vedas. It has six main sub-schools:
Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Dvaita, Shuddhādvaita, and Achintya-Bheda-
Abheda Vedānta.
4.2.1. Advaita Vedānta and Critique

In Adi Śankarāchārya’s Advaita Vedānta (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 788-820a, 788-
820b; Rosen, 2007), Brahman alone is truth, the jagat (material world) is
unreal/illusion, individual self is none other than Brahman, i.e., there is
ultimately no difference between Brahman and individual jîva (Brahma satyaṃ
jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva nāparah).93 In other words, there is NO distinction
(i) between God and individual souls and (ii) among individual souls. Brahman is
the substrate of the material world, but not necessarily a form of physical matter.
Therefore, it is unclear if the there is a distinction (iii) between God and matter,
but, matter (such as dead body) is also a part of God. However, there is a
distinction (iv) between soul (jīva) and matter (such as dead body) and (v) among
various types of matter, but the matter (jagat) is unreal because only Brahman is
real. (vi) All qualities or manifestations that can be perceived are unreal and
temporary. (vii) The doctrine of ‘All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One in All’ is
maintained. These are summarized in Table 1.
(Radhakrishnan, 1923) mentions that Nyayakosa includes Sāṃkhya and

Advaita Vedānta under nāstika (atheist), i.e. unorthodox systems.94 As per
(Balasubramanian, 2011), “Following the Upanisads, Advaita holds that
consciousness is the support (adhisthana) of the objects of the entire world; that
is to say, the objects, which are totally different from consciousness, have no
existence of their own, no status of their own, no nature of their own, with the
52
Dvi-Pakṣa
result they are dependent on consciousness.95 […] Though Advaita is pluralistic

from one point of view, it is monistic from another point of view. Without denying
pluralism, it affirms monism.”96 However, it is unclear how then objects (matter-
in-itself) arise from ‘consciousness’/mind; this appears to be idealism.
Critique: If Advaita also has the attributes of monistic mentalistic idealism, then
Advaita has the reverse of the explanatory gap problem of materialism, namely,
how matter-in-itself arises from consciousness (mind).
For some scholars, in Advaita, matter/jagat (world including brain/body) is

an illusion and hence never exists so the question of separation between jīva and
body never arises during death.97 Alternatively, since material world is illusion
and Brahm is real, there is dramatic difference between Brahm and world. One
could argue that the jagat is unreal because it is temporary whereas Brahm is
real because Brahm is assumed permanent/eternal. Since, in conventional mind
dependent reality (cMDR), death is real as we all observe and as argued in other
branches of Vedānta (such as Dvaita) and Gītā, one could also interpret that
there is separation between truth (jîva) and illusion (body) at the time of death. In
other words, an alternative interpretation can be that there is a separation of this
illusion (jagat/body) from the real jîva (Brahm) at the time of death. Thus,
Advaita also involves interactive substance dualism implicitly. One could also
argue that non-duality is among all jîvas and Brahm, but their relationship with
matter is unclear. Thus, Advaita has multiple interpretations and hence it is
controversial on this issue. To be on safe side, it is better NOT to ascribe
interactive substance dualism (ISD) to Advaita, but the problem of mentalistic
idealism still remains.
4.2.2. Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta and Critique

We discuss Viśiṣṭādvaita in little more detail because it has addressed some of
the problems of Advaita Vedānta, and it is somewhat close to the proposed
Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
4.2.2.1. Ramānujāchārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta
Vedānta has been interpreted also in terms of cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (which is, to
the some extent, close to the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAMv: (Vimal,
2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c))) besides interactive substance
dualism/Sāṃkhya, and idealism/Advaita (Hari, 2015); this is elaborated in
(Vimal, 2015d).98
53
Dvi-Pakṣa
In this Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta (Rāmānujāchārya, 1904), God (Narāyana/Brahman)

has two inseparable Prakāras or modes/aspects, namely, the world and the
souls. Matter and souls are the subordinate elements (Viśeṣaṇa or attributes).99
In contrast to Śankarāchārya, Ramānujāchārya holds that there is no knowledge
source in support of the claim that there is a distinctionless (homogeneous)
Brahman. All knowledge sources reveal objects as distinct from other objects.
Furthermore, there seems NO distinction (i) among individual souls and (ii)
between God and matter (soul and matter are two inseparable aspects of
Brahman). However, there is a distinction (iii) between God (kārya Brahman or
Ishvara) and individual souls (because of two birds analogy, one jīvātman and
distinct Parmātman always sitting very closely in us)100, (iv) between soul and
matter (such as dead body), and (v) among various types of matter; this
distinction is real similar to Brahman is real. (vi) All qualities or manifestations
that can be perceived are real and permanent and under the control of the
Brahman. God can be one despite the existence of attributes, because they
cannot exist alone; they are not independent entities. They are Prakaras or the
modes, Sesha or the accessories, and Niyama or the controlled aspects, of the
one Brahman. (vii) The doctrine of ‘All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One in All’
is maintained. (viii) Ramānujāchārya picks out seven fundamental flaws in the
Śankarāchārya's Advaita: the nature of Avidyā, the incomprehensibility of
Avidyā, the grounds of knowledge of Avidyā, the locus of Avidyā, Avidyā's
obscuration of the nature of Brahman, the removal of Avidyā by Brahma-vidyā,
and the removal of Avidyā.101 The above are summarized in Table 1.
“The typical interpretation of Neti-Neti102 is not this, not this or neither this, nor
that. It is a phrase meant to convey the inexpressibility of Brahman in words and
the futility of trying to approximate Brahman with conceptual models. In
Viśiṣṭādvaita, the phrase is taken in the sense of not just this, not just this or not
just this, not just that. This means that Brahman cannot be restricted to one
specific or a few specific descriptions. Consequently, Brahman is understood to
possess infinite qualities and each of these qualities is infinite in extent.”103 It is
interesting to note that Tulsīdāsa (the author of Śrī Rāmacaritamānasa:
(Goswami Tulsīdāsa, 1574/2004)) and Kabīrdāsa (the author of Satya Kabīr kī
Sākhī: (Kabīrdāsa, 1977)) were from Rāmānandārchārya’s sampradāya and
hence their metaphysics was also the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita.
54
Dvi-Pakṣa
4.2.2.2. Rāmānandārchārya’s cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and critique

on Śankarāchārya’s Advaita
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya (PhD, DLitt)104 (personal meeting on 23rd Dec

2011 night in Chitrakoot Ashram) accepted the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita whole-
heartedly. As a matter of fact, he mentioned, his own metaphysical framework is
cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita of Jagadguru Rāmānandārchārya (about 1400-1476 AD:105
he was initiated in the Ramānujāchārya Sect). This is very close to the Āstika
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. He mentioned that Viśiṣṭādvaita has two sub-schools:
previous one is Rāmānujāchārya’s Viśiṣṭādvaita about 1017–1137 AD. This is
because their metaphysics of ‘cit’ (mental, mind=not manas but mind includes
manas) and ‘acit ’(physical, matter) as adjectives (viśeṣaṇa) of Brahman is close to
the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. He even said that Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is the same as
cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. However, after studying seriously his books (Jagadguru
Rāmabhadrāchārya, 1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d, 2000e, 2000f,
2000g, 2000h, 2000i), I found that the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is significantly different
from cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, although there are some similarities. This is because
(a) the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita encompasses both theism and atheism whereas cit-acit
Viśiṣṭādvaita supports only theism (āstikatā) and strongly rejects the atheism
(nāstikatā). I also explained to him that the recent research related to
theist/atheist phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired. The major problem of
Vedānta including the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita is NOT encompassing the
nāstika/atheist-views of science, where the eDAM framework addresses this
problem. He accepted that we cannot ignore science, but science is atheist
system. This means that further investigation is needed for the Fundamental
Truth.
Critique on Śankarāchārya’s Advaita: Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya has

presented critique of Śankarāchārya’s Advaita in his books (Jagadguru
2000g, 2000h, 2000i) that includes re-interpretation of Gītā and Upaniṣads based
on Jagadguru Rāmānandārchārya’s cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. If acit (matter, jagat) is
not an adjective (aspect) of Brahman then (1) knowing Brahman will not reveal
jagat/matter/acit, (2) if jagat/matter/achit/acit is illusion/mithyā and is the
effect of Brahman,106 then jagat/matter/acit has to be another independent
entity, which will entail Dvaita and hence Śankarāchārya’s Advaita will be
abolished, and (3) if jagat is mithyā then it cannot cover (envelope) Brahman
(“yadi vah [jagat] mithyā hae to vah Brahman ko dhānka nhee saktī ”p.205) and if
it is eternal then Advaita is abolished (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya,
2000b).p204-5.Hindi-part. 107 If jagat is mithyā and Brahman is satya, then there
55
Dvi-Pakṣa
are two substances: (i) satya-Brahman and (ii) mithyā-jagat; this rejects
Śankarāchārya’s Advaita (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000h).p33-34. As per
page 81 of this reference, Madhvāchārya in Dvaita claims that jagat/māyā/acit is
true (satya), Śankarāchārya in his Advaita claims it is untrue (illusion), and
Nimbārkāchārya in his Dvaitādvaita claims it is both true and untrue (i.e.,
satyāsatya). Moreover, Rāmānandārchārya in his cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita claims
jagat/māyā/acit and cit as adjectives of Brahman. Finally, the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita
claims cit (mind) and acit (matter) as two inseparable aspects of Brahman; this
view has the least number of problems and addresses the theist-atheist
phenomenon.
As per (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000h), (a) “jisme brahmbodha

vidyamāna nhee hae vahī avidyā hae” (page 92); this obviously rejects nāstika
framework; and (b) there are two kinds of jīva (p.97): (i) bhagvad-prapann or
āstika/theist type, and (ii) bhagvad-vimukha or nāstika/atheist type; this seems
to accept theist-atheist phenomenon.
As discussed in Section 2.5, the eDAM framework has 3 parts: (1) DAM, (2) dual-
mode, and (3) varying degrees of the dominance of aspects depending on the
levels of entities. The eDAM framework addresses the remaining problems of all
six sub-schools of Vedānta system, science, and atheist religions, such as
Buddhism. Thus, the eDAM is a better framework for bringing science and
religions closer.
4.2.2.3. Comparison between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa

Advaita/eDAM framework
There are some similarities between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa

Advaita/eDAM framework; however, there are significant differences. I elaborate
first the major differences and then the similarities.
A. Major Differences between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa

(i). The doctrine of inseparability of aspects
It should be noted that the meaning attributed to the term ‘aspect’ is different
from the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita term ‘viśeṣaṇa’ or adjective. Aspects have 1-1 (one-
to-one) correspondence and they are viewed from first (mental aspect) and third
person (physical aspect) perspectives; both aspects CANNOT be separated under
any circumstance although their degrees of dominance vary with the levels of
56
Dvi-Pakṣa
entities. The viśeṣaṇas are adjectives and do not necessarily have 1-1
correspondence and can be separated depending on the entity in question.
(a). In cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, cit (mind) and acit (matter) are adjectives (viśeṣaṇas) of
Brahman (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 1998a, 1998b, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c,
2000d, 2000e, 2000f, 2000g, 2000h, 2000i). This means that cit and acit can be
separated at certain entity-levels. For example, dead-body, stone, table, chair,
car, and other inert entities are acit entities that have no built-in/inherent cit,
although they are (acit) Brahman. Furthermore, cit and acit are adjectives of
Brahman, but they are not Brahman; Brahman is beyond cit and acit (Jagadguru
Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000e). This seems to imply that Brahman is a third neutral
entity (Uttam Puruṣa: personal communication with Jagadguru
Rāmabhadrāchārya on 23 Dec 2011) beyond cit and acit, i.e., this framework
seems to the Neutral Monism, which has explanatory gap problem: precisely how
cit and acit become adjectives of Brahman. It may be separable dual-aspect
monism where aspects can be separated, such as at the time of death. However,
after death, an unliberated jīvātman also has subtle body (sukshma śarīra) that
carries traces of karmas and intense desire which is responsible for rebirth; this
can be considered as physical aspect of the post-death state of jīvātman.
However, the liberated (mukta) jīvātman does not have karmas and desires left
and does not go through the cycle of rebirth; therefore, does not need subtle body
and is purely mental entity which merges with Brahman. One could argue that
cit and acit were latent or in unmanifested (avyakta) potential form in Brahman.
In Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the theist version of the eDAM framework), the
mental and physical aspects are inseparable aspects of unmanifested state and
manifested states (the states of micro to macro entities, from quantum entities
such as electron to whole universe) of Brahman with varying degrees of the
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities. For example, dead-
body, stone, table, chair, car, and other inert entities have dominant physical
(acit) aspect and latent mental (cit) aspect; these two aspects cannot be separated
but their dominance can vary depending on the entities.
The dual-aspect unmanifested state of Brahman has potentialities of all entities.

When an entity is realized, its state is called a dual-aspect manifested state of
Brahman. For example, the self and its neural correlates (such as cortical midline
structures of brain) are realized, respectively, from the mental and physical
aspects of the unmanifested state of Brahman with all potentiality (possibilities)
via co-evolution and co-development of both aspects. In other words, the
universes (including us) explicate or are unfolded from the folded/implicated
57
Dvi-Pakṣa
Brahman using the concept of Implicate-Explicate Order of Bohm (Bohm, 1980;

Bohm & Hiley, 1985).
(b). In the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the theist version of the eDAM framework),
(i) jīvātman/self is realized/manifested (via co-evolution and co-development with
its physical aspect) from the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman
that has the potentiality of all entities and (ii) the liberated/mukta jīvātman
merges with Brahman: the mental aspect of the liberated and post-death state of
a mukta jīvātman merges/unifies/interacts with the mental aspect of the
unmanifested state of Brahman; similarly for the physical aspects. This implies
that the identity of the mukta jīvātman is lost in the unmanifested state of
Brahman (unlike the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita where the identity of a mukta jīvātman
is preserved). In other words, the explicated or unfolded universes (including us)
implicate or are folded back to the folded/implicated Brahman using the reverse
of concept of Implicate→Explicate Order of Bohm (Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley,
1985). Whereas in the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, the identity of the mukta jīvātman is
NOT lost in Brahman (see p.221-233 of Hindi-part of Chāndogyopaniṣadi
(Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000b)); this is because cit and acit are
adjectives (viśeṣaṇa) in the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita framework, which has the
explanatory gap problem of association: how to associate cit and acit in our brain
if they are separable and if they do not have 1-1 correspondence.
(ii). The doctrine of meta(beyond)-theism-atheism phenomenon
The cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita is a 100% theist/āstika framework (Jagadguru

2000g, 2000h, 2000i) that rejects atheist/nāstika framework completely. Thus, it
rejects ‘real’ science as ‘real’ science is the nāstika framework (logic based
pseudoscience may be argued to be part of theism to some extent). Whereas the
eDAM framework (it has both theist and atheist versions) encompasses both
theist/āstika and atheist/nāstika frameworks. This is because the theism-
atheism phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired; therefore, the Fundamental
Truth must encompass/transcend both theist/āstika and atheist/nāstika views.
Furthermore, Kapila’s Sāṃkhya has two versions: (i) nāstika(nirīshvaravadī)-
Sāṃkhya with 25 elements (tatva): Puruṣa (Ātmā), 24 elements of Prakṛti [4 Antah-
karanas/inner-instruments (mana/manas, buddhi/mahat, chitta, and ahamkāra),
5 jñāna-indriyas (netra/eyes, karṇ/ears, nāsikā/nose, jivha/tongue and
tvachā/body), 5 karma-indriyas (hasta/hands, pāda/legs, vāka/voice/vocal-
apparatus, upastha/urino-genital-organ, and gudā/pāyu/anus), 5 Tanmātrās
(rūpa/color, shabd/sound, gandha/smell, rasa/taste, sparsh/touch), and 5
mahābhūtas (jala/water, prithavī/earth, agni/fire, vāyu/air, Ākāsh/sky/ether)]
58
Dvi-Pakṣa
(ii) Āstika(seshvaravadī)-Sāṃkhya with Parmātman as 26th tatva (Jagadguru

Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000h).p.76 and p.94 (ShwetAshwataropanishad).108 Puruṣa
and Prakṛti can be derived from Parmātman as its two aspects (viśeṣaṇas). This
implies that SāṃkhyAchrya Kapila (~1000–550 BC) somehow seems to know
about theism-atheism phenomenon; however, Sāṃkhya is close to interactive
substance dualism that has 7 problems. In other words, so far, the eDAM
framework is closest to the Fundamental Truth.
(iii). Conclusions
The eDAM framework has two versions: the theist version is called Āstika Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita and the atheist version is called Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. The
eDAM framework has 3 parts: (1) Dual-Aspect Monism (DAM) (details in (Vimal,
2008b)), (2) dual-mode (details in (Vimal, 2010c)), and (3) varying degrees of the
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities (details in (Vimal,
2013)). The eDAM framework addresses the problems of all 6 sub-schools of
Vedānta system including the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, science, and atheist religions,
such as Buddhism.
In the theist version, one could argue that the dual-aspect Brahman, via its
unmanifested state and manifested states, is the creator, governor, controller,
regulator, and organizer of universes. In atheist version, the same dual-aspect
Brahman can be viewed as the dual-aspect universes that are self-creator
(autopoietic), self-governor (autonomous), self-controller, self-regulator, and self-
organizer, and hence this scientific view does not need any additional higher level
entity to create, govern, control, regulate, or organize them. Thus, theism and
atheism are two different perspectives/views for describing the same
fundamental entity: the dual-aspect Brahman. Therefore, it is not useful to argue
theism against atheism and vice-versa because it is an endless discussion and
just waste of time (in my view). If theism-atheism phenomenon is genetic, then by
definition, theists are NOT supposed to agree with atheists and vice-versa
because they are wired/built in two different ways: scientifically, if temporal lobe
of brain inhibits strongly the frontal lobe then a subject is atheist; if this strength
of inhibition is reduced below critical level, then the same subject becomes theist.
The ‘god-gene’ regulates this strength of inhibition. A working hypothesis is that
if we apply a magnetic field to brain (as done in trans-magnetic stimulation: TMS
experiment) in such a way that it reduces the strength of inhibition then we can
temporarily transform an atheist to a theist during TMS and vice-versa.
Thus, the eDAM framework is NOT the same as the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, and
hence it is a novel framework that brings science and religions closer by resolving
59
Dvi-Pakṣa
their problems. In the eDAM framework, theist religions and science-and-atheist

religions are two different approaches to understand the Fundamental Truth.
Therefore, the eDAM framework (Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita as the theist version
and Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita as the atheist version) should be considered as a
separate 7th sub-school of Vedānta system.
B. Similarity between cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa

(i). Jīvātman and Parmātman (Kārya Brahman)
In Adi Śankarāchārya’s Advaita, jīvātman and Brahman are the same. In cit-acit
Viśiṣṭādvaita and Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, they are different because even mukta
jīva cannot create universes as Parmātman and/or realized/manifested Brahman
can (see Rāmabhadrāchārya’s interpretation of Mundkopnishad, p.37 and
VedaVyas interpretation of BrahmaSutra 4/4/18 on p.37 of (Jagadguru
Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000f)). As per BrahmaSutra IV.4.18, “The powers of the
released souls are not unlimited for they get their powers from the Lord
[Brahman] and depend on him” (Radhakrishnan, 1960).p561. One of the
hypotheses of the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita is that jīvātman is different from
Parmātman/Brahman; the former is considered as a close-
friend/slave/servant/adjective of the latter; they are like two birds sitting very
close in us, one (jīvātman) eats and the other does not but enjoys the food
(Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000h).p33-40.
In cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, as per Ishāvāsyopanishada (Jagadguru

Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000c), there are two kinds of Brahman: (1) The ‘kāran
Brahman’ that is the unmanifested fundamental dual-aspect entity, which is the
cause of all mental and physical entities and is beyond everything and is all-
encompassing (sabka vyāpaka hae, सबका यापक है). (2) The ‘kārya Brahman’ that is
Parmātman and is attached to Jīvātman (cit) and Jagat (world, acit) and lives in
each individual as inseparable friend of Jīvātman; it is the potential source of all
subjective experiences, thoughts, cognition, and other mental activities. Both
kinds of Brahmans are essentially the SAME (they are NOT dual, but they are
non-dual) and have mind (cit) and matter (acit) as adjectives (viśeṣaṇas) in cit-acit
Viśiṣṭādvaita or as inseparable aspects in the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (theist
version of the eDAM framework). Therefore, the Brahman is called Kārya-Kārana
Brahman. The mukta (liberated) Jīvātman is like Parmātman and is capable of
60
Dvi-Pakṣa
enjoying everything as Parmātman is; however, Jīvātman is NOT the same as

Parmātman/Brahman.
Furthermore, the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita adopts the śarīra-śarīri-bhāv, the

relation of Brahman (God) to the Jīvātman (soul) in the analogy of the Jīvātman to
the śarīra (body), i.e., Brahman is the soul of Jīvātman.
In Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, one could argue for two states of Jīvātman: (1)
In un-liberated state, Jīvātman is enveloped/covered by māyā and hence this
state of Jīvātman is certainly different from the Parmātman. (2) In liberated
(mukta) state, mukta Jīvātman and Parmātman/Kārya-Brahman should
eventually (at the end of universe-cycle) be unified/merged into unmanifested
Kārana-Brahman from which they arose/manifested. It is unclear if Jīvātman
loses its identity or not in this Final process. The former (Jīvātman losing its
identity) is consistent with Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita because of the doctrine of
inseparability of aspects (see Section 4.2.2.3.A(i) above). The latter (Jīvātman NOT
losing its identity and being slave/servant (दास/सेवक) of Parmātman) is a useful
concept for deleting our ego (अहंकार) of ‘I am Brahman’ (अहम् #$हाि%म ), otherwise this
ego may cause problem as was in Rāvaṇ’s ego; this is consistent with the cit-acit
Viśiṣṭādvaita. However, one could argue that अहम् #$हाि%म feeling should also lead to
positive energy that we must follow all the positive attributes of Brahman. Thus,
the latter (Jīvātman NOT losing its identity) concept is not needed.
In the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the atheist version of the eDAM

framework), however, Jīvātman and Parmātman are the lower wakeful normal
state (self) and the highest (samādhi) state of consciousness, respectively, and
hence they are not the same. In addition, the attributes (such as subjective
experiences, thoughts, perceptions, cognition etc.) of Jīvātman are
realized/manifested from potential/unmanifested attributes of
Parmātman/Brahman who also lives in us and who can be realized in samādhi
state with bliss/happiness of highest degree. This is the interpretation of
Aitaretyopnishad.III.3-4.p15-18 of (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000a) in
terms of the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. Furthermore, in this nāstika framework,
there is no soul/Jīvātman/Parmātman after death; but the unmanifested dual-
aspect Brahman (that has potentialities for all entities) is eternal; and karmas (it
is a supernatural that appears to be a cultural universal) and intense unfulfilled
desires may be stored in cosmic-memory-field (if it exists) from which information
related to dead people may be acquired by some rare individuals as in
parapsychology phenomena (such as knowledge of information related to dead
people). Thus, the eDAM framework brings both Āstika and nāstika views closer.
61
Dvi-Pakṣa
(ii). Cit (mind) and acit (matter)
In Adi Śankarāchārya’s Advaita, jagat is mithyā (illusion) but is based on

aspectless Brahman, whereas Jīvātman and Parmātman are manifested or
realized from the potentialities of Brahman. However, this view has explanatory
gap problem: (i) how can jagat, Jīvātman and Parmātman be created from
aspectless, adjective(viśeṣaṇa)-less, action-less, attributeless Brahman? And (ii)
how Jīvātman can be the same as Parmātman (manifested Brahman) or
(unmanifested) Brahman?
In both cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita/Sāṃkhya, (a) the mental

aspect of each entity-state (or cit-entity) is created/manifested/realized from the
potentialities of the mental-aspect of (or cit) the unmanifested state of Brahman,
and (b) the physical aspect of the same entity-state (or acit-entity-state) is
created/manifested/realized from the potentialities the physical-aspect of (or acit)
the unmanifested state of Brahman. As per (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya,
2000h).p.40-44, (a) ‘trividham brahmetat’ (ि&िवधं #(ेतत् : ShwetAshwataropanishadi
(1/1/12)) cit (mind, bhoktā), acit (matter, bhogya), and Parmātman (manifested
Brahman, preraka/stimulating/setting in motion) all three can be considered, in
certain (such as above) sense, (unmanifested, potential) Brahman; and (b)
Parmātman is present in us in all 4 states of brain (deep sleep, dream,
wakefulness, and samādhi states) along with Jīvātman, in analogy to oil is
present in sesame seeds.
4.2.3. Dvaitādvaita Vedānta

Dvaitādvaita (Bhedabheda vada, duality and nonduality at the same time)109 was
proposed by Nimbarkāchārya, who categorizes the existence as chit (cit, jīva),
achit (acit, jagat), and Isvara (Brahm/Brahman). Isvara is independent and exists
by Himself, while cit and acit have existence dependent upon Him. However, cit
and acit have attributes (gunas) and capacities (Swabhāva) different from Isvara.
Thus, cit and acit are not different from Brahm and are also different from Him
simultaneously.
“This Brahman is both the Upādāna (material cause) and the Nimitta (efficient
cause). It is the material cause in the sense that it enables its natural shaktis,
viz. the cit and the acit in their subtle forms, to be manifested in gross forms; and
it is the efficient cause in the sense that it unites the individual souls with their
respective fruits of actions and means of enjoyments. […] The jīva [the cit or
individual soul] is the knower also; and he can be both knowledge and the
possessor of knowledge at the same time […] The jīva is atomic in size; at the
62
Dvi-Pakṣa
same time his attribute, knowledge, is omnipresent, which makes it possible that
he can experience pleasure and pain in any part of the body […] The jīvas are
different and in different bodies, and so are infinite in number. […] The acit [the
jagat] is of three different kinds: viz. prākṛta (matter), aprākṛta (non-material), and
kāla [time?]. Prākṛta, or what is derived from Prakṛti, the primal matter, aprākṛta
is defined negatively as that which is not the product of Prakṛti, but its real
nature is not clearly brought out. These three categories in their subtle forms are
as eternal as the cit or the individual souls. […] Prakṛti, or the primal matter-the
stuff of the entire universe is real and eternal like the individual souls … though
eternal and unborn, has yet Brahman for its cause. It consists of the three
qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas”.110
From above, one can argue that (i) there is distinction between God/Brahm
and individual souls (jīvas/cit), but at the same time a jīva is derived from
Brahm. (ii) There is distinction among individual souls. (iii) There is distinction
between Brahm and matter (acit), but at the same time matter is derived from
Brahm. (iv) There is a distinction between soul/cit and matter/acit. (v) There is
distinction among various types of matter; this distinction is real similar to
Brahman is real. (vi) There is separation between jīva and body at the time of
death. These are summarized in Table 1.
4.2.4. Dvaita Vedānta

In Madhvāchārya’s Dvaita school of Vedānta (Sharma, 1986, 2000), there is a
strict distinction (i) between God (Brahman)111 and individual souls (jīvas), (ii)
among individual souls, (iii) between God and matter, (iv) between soul and
matter, and (v) among various types of matter. These five differences make up the
universe (prapancha).112 The relationship of Brahman, jīva, and matter (jagat) are
summarized in Table 1.
4.2.5. Shuddhādvaita Vedānta

In Vallabhāchārya’s Shuddhādvaita, the individual soul is not the Supreme
(Satcitānanda) clouded by the force of Avidyā, but is itself Brahman, with one
attribute (ānanda) rendered imperceptible. The soul is both a doer and enjoyer. It
is atomic in size, but pervades the whole body through its essence of intelligence.
Unlike Advaita, the world of Māyā or material world is not regarded as unreal
because it is a power of Ishvara (who is not only the creator of the universe but is
the universe itself). Vallabhāchārya interprets the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad that
Brahman desired to become many, and he became the multitude of individual
63
Dvi-Pakṣa
souls and the world. Although Brahman is not known, He is known when He
manifests Himself through the world.
In all the philosophical traditions, it is common practice to describe how the

Supreme Entity Brahman is related to our surroundings and us. In the system of
Shuddhādvaita Vedānta, otherwise known as Brahmvād, the One, the Ultimate
Reality is the only category. Every other thing has proceeded from it at the time
of creation, is non-different from it during creation and merges into it at the time
of dissolution. The animate souls and the inanimate objects are respectively its
parts and modifications. The animate souls are its parts because they retain to
some extent the essential qualities thereof namely consciousness and joy. The
inanimate objects are its modification because the above said qualities are absent
therein (Sharma, 1968).113
Thus, there is a no distinction (i) between God (Brahman) and individual souls
(jīvas), (ii) among individual souls, and (iii) between God and matter, but matter
is derived from Brahman. There seems to be distinction (iv) between soul and
matter, but (v) unclear among various types of matter. The relationship of
Brahman, Jīva, and matter (Jagat) are summarized in Table 1.
4.2.6. Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta

Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534) is a
school of Vedānta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and
difference, in relation to Brahman and also between God and his energies. This is
middle path between the absolute monism of Advaita and the dualist monism of
Dvaitādvaita. Brahman and the jīvas are ‘inconceivably, simultaneously one and
different’. The jīva is intrinsically linked with Brahman and yet at the same time
is not the same as Brahman; the exact nature of this relationship being
inconceivable to the human mind. Any object and its energy are non-different
such as fire and power of burning. 114
The jīvas (individual souls) are all separated parts of Brahman; in bound state
the jīvas are under the influence of matter; in the liberated state the jīvas are free
from the influence of matter; the jīvas and the material world are both different
from and identical to the Lord (Brahman).115 The relationship of Brahman, Jīva,
and matter (Jagat) are summarized in Table 1.
64
Dvi-Pakṣa
4.3. Problems of Hinduism (Vedānta, Upaniṣhads, Gītā, and

Sāṃkhya philosophy)
The metaphysics of Advaita is idealism, which has the reverse of the explanatory
gap problem of materialism, namely, how matter-in-itself arises from
consciousness (mind). If the matter-in-itself is argued as ‘congealed’ mind, then
what is the mechanism of ‘congealing’ process?
The Vedānta (other than Advaita), Upaniṣhads, Gītā, and Sāṃkhya116

philosophies have directly or indirectly the ‘built-in’ interactive substance
dualism.117 This is because, after death, a liberated soul (mukta jīvātman: mental
entity) is separated from its dead body (physical entity), where all entities are
categorized in to mind and matter (western system). An unliberated soul has
subtle body (physical entity) attached to it that has the traces of karmas and
intense desires responsible for rebirth, whereas a liberated soul is beyond the
cycle of rebirth. This means that the liberated soul is a separate substance/entity
(mental entity) and the dead body is a separate substance/entity (physical
entity). These two substances interact when we are alive in such a way that they
appear inseparable. However, both (soul and dead body) and all other entities are
parts of the same fundamental entity (one can call Him with different names
such as God, Allah, Brahman, dual-aspect entity, physics’ vacuum, and so on)
whether we are alive or dead does not matter.118
However, the interactive substance dualism has the seven problems, which
are discussed in (Vimal, 2010d) and (Vimal, 2011i): (i) association or mind-brain
interaction problem, (ii) problem of mental causation, (iii) ‘zombie’ problem, (iv)
‘ghost’ problem, (v) neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem, (vi)
causal pairing problem, and (vii) developmental problem; they are discussed in
Section 7.3 below. We need to address these problems, which can be done using
the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c) in Chapter 5.
65
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 5
Solution of the Problems of Science

and Hinduism by Seventh Sub-school
of Vedānta (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
5.1. Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) Resolves

the Problems
In the extended Dual-Aspect Monism or the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa

Advaita), Puruṣa (mental aspect, consciousness, mind) and Prakṛti (physical
aspect, matter) are inseparable aspects of the state of fundamental dual-aspect
entity (such as Brahman) with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending
on the levels of entities.119 This framework does not have problems and hence
addresses the problems of interactive substance dualism, Gītā, Upaniṣads,
Sāṃkhya, and Vedānta. The theist version of this new eDAM framework can be
named as the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (आितक िप ाैत , or Dōharī-Pahalū
Advaita), where Dōharī or Dvi means dual, Pahalū or Pakṣa means aspect, Advaita
means monism. Its atheist version can be named as Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita
(नाितक िप ाैत ).
So far, the eDAM framework is optimal (because it has the least number of
problems) and general (because all other metaphysical views can be derived from
this as special cases). For example:
(A) In interactive substance dualism (O'Connor & Wong, 2005) and theist
religions120, at the time of death, soul appears to separate from body, which
implies that Puruṣa (mental aspect, consciousness, mind) and Prakṛti (physical
aspect, matter) are two independent/separate entities. These definitions of
Puruṣa and Prakṛti in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM framework) may be somewhat
different from that of Sāṃkhya. When we are alive, then they interact in us. The
interactive substance dualism can be derived from the eDAM framework by
hypothesizing the following premises: (i) In soul (if it indeed exists after
death!)121, the mental aspect Puruṣa (consciousness) is dominant and its physical
aspect Prakṛti (matter) is latent/recessive or is in potential form. This is in
analogy to: some traits are dominant and hence are expressed, whereas some are
recessive and hence they are not expressed as per genetic theory. At deep
66
Dvi-Pakṣa
ontological level in quantum physics, entities are mindlike (Stapp, 2009a,

2009b), so mental aspect (Puruṣa) is dominant, and the physical aspect (Prakṛti)
is latent. On other words, the soul if exists might be mindlike quantum dual-
aspect entity after death. (ii) In the dead body or its constituents, Prakṛti
(physical aspect) is dominant and its mental aspect Puruṣa is latent.
In the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, the post-death state of jīvātman (soul) has
dominant mental aspect and latent (potential) physical aspect. During conception
in the reproductive process, when sperm and egg interact, the dual-aspect ‘soul’
might also interact with them and is then embodied as self (i.e., the aspects
change their dominance with the states of soul; in other words, the physical
aspect of the state of soul changes its dominance from latent to some appropriate
higher degree of dominance as needed). One could argue that the physical aspect
of the potential state of soul is realized via the interaction with the physical
aspects of various states of interacting egg and sperm. This is because of the
doctrine of inseparability between the physical aspect (structure) and the mental
aspect (functional and experiential sub-aspects of consciousness) of a brain-
state. This triad (structure, function and experience) needs to be tightly linked to
avoid problems such as the relevant problems of interactive substance dualism.
To avoid category mistake (Feigl, 1967), it is necessary that interactions

should be between the aspects of the same category, i.e., mental-mental or
physical-physical interactions are allowed, but cross-interaction (mental-physical
or physical-mental) is not allowed. This is another reason for the ‘soul’ being a
dual-aspect entity. In other words, the physical aspect of the state of soul that
has been latent after death has to increase its dominance so that it can interact
with physical aspects of the states of sperm and egg. Similarly, the mental
aspects of the states of sperm and egg that have been latent before interaction
need to increase their dominance for interacting with mental aspect of the states
of ‘soul’. It should be noted that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of
soul after death; so the above is just a speculation.
The soul before death is the self that has scientific evidence; there are three
stages of self: protoself, core self, and autographical self as discussed in
(Damasio, 2010) and summarized in (Vimal, 2013). In the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (atheist version of the eDAM framework), the self arises later during
development—which involves cortical midline structures (Northoff, 2007; Northoff
& Bermpohl, 2004; Northoff et al., 2006)—via matching and selection mechanism
as discussed in (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c). Again, interactions should be mental-
mental and physical-physical type, but not mental-physical type between egg and
sperm to avoid category mistake.
67
Dvi-Pakṣa
(B) Materialism (science) can be derived by hypothesizing the following

premises: (1) The physical aspect (Prakṛti) is dominant and its mental aspect
(Puruṣa) is latent in inert matter or dead body; (2) both are equally dominant
when a subject is alive. This then is Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, which is
completely scientific.
(C) Idealism (matter from mind) can be derived by hypothesizing the following
premise: At deep ontological level in quantum physics, entities are mindlike
(Stapp, 2009a, 2009b), so mental aspect (Puruṣa) is dominant, and the physical
aspect (Prakṛti) is latent. The same is true for soul (jīvātman) and God
(unmanifested Brahman). This then is the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
The view of Śankarāchārya and Neti-Neti, namely the aspectless Brahman,

can be derived from the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) as a special case as
follows: In this framework, the mental and physical aspects of the states of each
entity including the fundamental primal entity (that has many names: Brahman,
Implicate Order, empty-space at ground state of quantum field with minimum
energy, unified field, and so on) are inseparable and their degrees of dominance
vary with the levels of entities. The state of this fundamental primal entity at the
unmanifested state before Big Bang has latent physical and mental aspects. That
is the reason this primal entity appear aspectless. In Brahma Sutra, this primal
entity is called kāran Brahman, which is the same or similar to Śankarāchārya’s
Brahman or its Neti-Neti definition. When the primal entity is manifested after Big
Bang, it has innumerable states; these are called the states of kārya Brahman.
Thus, the dual-aspect monism addresses the explanatory gap problem (how
mind can arise from matter) of materialism and that of idealism (how matter can
arise from mind). This is because matter can arise from the physical aspect and
mind can arise from the mental aspect.
The eDAM framework can address the critique on interactive substance

dualism related to health issue (Mehta, 2011). Moreover, scientists/atheists can
argue that about 9-magnitude earthquake in Japan triggering tsunamis (that
caused over 10,000 deaths and billions of dollars damage) is not consistent with
God as a savior. Perhaps, theists need to redefine the functions of God and how
He operates to satisfy critiques.122 The scientific version of the eDAM framework
(Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) can explain tsunamis and similar incidents better
than the theist version Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
68
Dvi-Pakṣa
Table 1. Relationship of Brahm, Jīva, and matter (Jagat):

Premises of various metaphysics
Theist Metaphysics Brahm Brahm jīva jīva Matter jīva-body- ISD, M, I,

and and and and and separation problems?
jīva Matter jīva Matter Matter at death?
Gītā/Vedas/ N/Y Y N Y Y Y ISD/I: Y
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
Advaita N Y? N Y? N? Y/N? I/ISD?:Y
Trika Kashmir Shaivism N Y/N N Y/N N? Y? ISD/I: Y
Viśiṣṭādvaita Y N N Y? N? N? ISD/I: Y
Dvaitādvaita D/Y D/Y Y Y Y Y? ISD/I: Y
Dvaita Y Y Y Y Y Y ISD: Y
Shuddhādvaita N N/D? N? Y? N? Y? ISD/I: Y
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Y/N Y/N Y Y N? Y? ISD/I: Y
Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Nm Ym,p in N Ym,p in N Yd N
(आितक िप ाैत ) Yp in degree degree
degree
(proposed)
Atheist Metaphysics
Sāṃkhya N Y N Y Y Y ISD: Y
Lokāyata/nāstika/Cārvāka N, na N Y? N Y na M: Y
Buddhism na na Y? Y Y? N? MI?: Y
Jainism na na Y Y Y? Y? ISD: Y
Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Nm Ym,p in N Ym,p in N Jīva (soul) N
Advaita (नाितक Yp in degree degree does not
degree exist after
िप ाैत ) death
(proposed)
Legend: Brahm: Brahman/Brahm/God/Puruṣa/fundamental entity, where the

mental aspect is dominant and the physical aspect is latent in the eDAM
framework. Jīva: Jīva/Jeeva/soul/self, where the mental aspect is dominant and
the physical aspect is latent in the eDAM framework. Matter=Prakṛti/Jagat,
where the physical aspect is dominant and the mental aspect is latent in the
eDAM framework. Jīva-body-separation: Do Jīva & body/matter get separated at
the time of death? Y = Yes = distinction exist. N = distinction does not exist, or it
is dual-aspect or inseparable. Nm : no distinction between mental aspects; Np : no
distinction between physical aspects. Ym : distinction exists between mental
aspects; Yp : distinction exists between physical aspects; Ymp : distinction exists
between mental aspects and between physical aspects. Yd : distinction exists but
they remain dual-aspect entities with varying degrees of dominance depending
on levels. D = Jīva or matter derived from Brahm. ? = unclear/controversial. na =
not applicable. ISD = Interactive substance dualism. I = Idealism. M =
materialism.
69
Dvi-Pakṣa
5.2. Theist/atheist phenomenon

5.2.1. God gene and acquired traits
Some of the problems of Advaita were addressed by Viśiṣṭādvaita, where
Brahman is assumed to have dual-aspect (mental and physical) and is both
cause and effect (implying ‘all in one and one in all’ view).
Table 2. Theist versus Atheist Phenomenon
Theism Atheism
Vedas/Bṛhadāraṇyaka Sāṃkhya
Upaniṣad
Gītā Lokāyata/nāstika/Cārvāka
Advaita Buddhism
Viśiṣṭādvaita Jainism
Dvaitādvaita
Dvaita
Shuddhādvaita
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda
Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa

(आितक िप ाैत ) Advaita (नाितक िपक् षाैत )
(proposed) (proposed)
However, this has the problem of theist-atheist phenomenon because

Viśiṣṭādvaita is a theist framework (assumes Brahman as God) and unable to
address atheist/science’s framework. We simply cannot ignore the contribution
of science in our lives.
The problems of Viśiṣṭādvaita can be addressed by the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita

(eDAM framework). Here, it is assumed that the theist-atheist phenomenon is a
subject-specific because scientists seem to have speculated about the existence
of ‘God gene’, which when expressed entails subjects to be theist (it may also be
70
Dvi-Pakṣa
acquired); otherwise subject is atheist.123 Moreover, the existence of soul, spirit,

and God is NOT mind-independent because atheists do not accept their
existence, i.e., these assumptions are mind-dependent. In other words, we can
have a compromise to live peacefully until things are crystal clear: theists can
assume the dual-aspect Brahman as God (then this framework is Āstika Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita) and atheist can assume Brahman as dual-aspect entity at
fundamental level (such as physicist’s vacuum, deep quantum potential or
Bohm’s Implicate Order) from where all universes (including human beings)
emerge via co-evolution (then this framework is simply the atheist version of the
eDAM framework or Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita).
Theist versus atheist phenomenon is also consistent with various ṛṣis who
were founders of various philosophical views and theist and atheist religions. It is
assumed that they were accomplished yogis with samādhi state as shown in
Table 2.
5.2.2. God Gene hypothesis

(Hamer, 2005) proposes the followings, where information is also from other
sources; pages are from (Hamer, 2005) unless mentioned explicitly :
(1) Spiritual Convictions as of 2005 (p.4-6 of (Hamer, 2005) )

It is indeed strong; as per surveys, more than 95% of Americans believe in
God; 90% meditate or pray; 82% believe in miracles performed by God; more
than 70% believe in life-after-death.
(2) Spirituality genes and religious memes (p.13-14)

Spirituality is different from religions. Spirituality is (a) an ultimate mental
(non-material) reality that involves private feelings, thoughts, mystical
experiences, and revelations (p.13), (b) associated with religion (p.13), (c)
believing in something larger than oneself (p.6), (d) an inner path that enables
individuals to discover the essence of their existence, and/or (e) the “deepest
values and meanings by which people live” ((Sheldrake, 2007).p.1-2). Whereas,
religion is a collection of (a) cultural systems, (b) belief systems, and (c)
worldviews, which relate humanity to spirituality and/or moral/ethical values.
Spirituality is heritable and has stronger genetic component than religion.
Religion is mostly transmitted by memes, which are “self-replicating units of
culture, ideas that are passed on from one individual to another through writing,
speech, ritual, and imitation” (p.13). As per Albert Einstein (1879-1955),
“Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”
71
Dvi-Pakṣa
(3) The God gene hypothesis

There is a biological mechanism for spirituality: “we have a genetic
predisposition for spiritual belief that is expressed in response to, and shaped by,
personal experience and the cultural environment. These genes … act by
influencing the brain’s capability for various types and forms of consciousness,
which become the basis for spiritual experiences”(p.8). Many different genes are
involved in spirituality, and environment influences are equally important.
(4) Essential premises for the proof of a genetic component to

spirituality: For this, there are five premises (p.9-13)
(i) Measurement: The self-transcendence scale of (Cloninger, Svrakic, &
Przybeck, 1993) was used to measure spirituality in a questionnaire called the
Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) that has a 240-question true-
false quiz assessing 7 dimensions of personality including 3 components of
spirituality: self-forgetfulness (11 questions), transpersonal identification (9
questions), and mysticism (13 questions). This scale provides (a) a numerical
measure of subject’s capacity to reach out beyond oneself, (b) an experience of
all entities being as parts of whole or one great totality or at-one-ness, (c) a
yardstick for faith and enlightenment.
(ii) Heritability: Twin studies (comparing identical twins with fraternal

twins) were used to determine if spirituality is inherited and to what extent.
(iii) Identifying a specific gene: A specific individual gene (God gene) was
identified that is associated with the self-transcendence scale of spirituality
and codes for the ‘vesicular monoamine transporter 2’ (VMAT2). The VMAT2 is
an integral membrane protein that controls the amount of monoamines to
transport —particularly neurotransmitters such as dopamine,
norepinephrine, serotonin, and histamine—from cellular cytosol into synaptic
vesicles. Many other genes and environmental factors might be involved in
spirituality.
(iv) Brain Mechanism: The monoamines influence spirituality by altering

consciousness (awareness/subjective-experiences of self and objects,
thoughts, memories, emotions and perceptions), which includes mystical
experiences and self-transcendence. Monoamines link objects and experiences
with emotions and values (Edelman, 1989; Edelman, 1992).
(v) Selective Advantage: God genes offer some direct evolutionary

advantage: They, in natural selection, provide innate sense of optimism, which
(a) gives the willpower to live and procreate at the psychological level and (b)
72
Dvi-Pakṣa
promote better health and quicker recovery from disease at the physical level.
This would prolong life, help raise children and pass on the genetic heritage.
(5) Self-Transcendence (p.18-20)

This term describes spiritual feelings that can be independent of traditional
religiousness. In this state of mind, subjects feel that they themselves and others
(people, places, and objects) are unified and are parts of one whole (universe).
Self-transcendent subjects (self-actualizers) feel compassionate with other living
beings and to nature in general. They experience “a sense of wholeness and unity
with the universe, with everything and everyone” (p.20).
(6) Three components of spirituality (p.23)

There are three subscale of self-transcendence in TCI, namely, self-
forgetfulness, transpersonal identification, and mysticism. Men scored 18% lower
on self-transcendence than women (p.36).
(i) Self-forgetfulness (p.23-25): This trait includes, for example,

sometimes (a) deeply immersing in work to the extent forgetting place and time,
i.e., the ability to get entirely lost in an experience; (b) falling in love deeply to the
extent forgetting the boundary between the two lovers, and (c) feeling of not doing
wrong in work, sports, or music. Spiritual people have such type of feelings more
frequently.
(ii) Transpersonal identification (p.26-28): This trait includes, for

example, (a) risking life to make the world better place to live; (b) feeling of a
sense of unity with all surrounding things; (c) a concern for protecting animals
and plants from extinction; (d) a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe and
everything in it, such as human and nonhuman, animate and inanimate,
anything and everything that can be heard, smelled, or seen; (e) a feeling of deep
and emotional attachment for other people, animals, trees, flowers, streams, or
mountains; (f) a feeling that everything is part of one living organism; and (g)
making personal sacrifices to help others, such as fighting against war, poverty,
or racism. As per Einstein, “Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets
of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there
remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force
beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in
point of fact, religious” (Kessler, 1988).
(iii) Mysticism or Cloninger’s ‘spiritual acceptance versus rational

materialism’ (p.28-34): This trait includes, for example, (a) an openness to
things not literally provable, (b) finding oneself moved by a fine speech or piece of
poetry, (c) feeling of a spiritual link with other people that is ineffable, and (d)
73
Dvi-Pakṣa
getting fascinated by data that are unexplained by science. Einstein was

profoundly spiritual but not conventionally religious (he rejected the Orthodox
Judaism at age 12). As per Einstein, “There is a central order to the universe, an
order that can be directly apprehended by the soul in mystical union.” He
connected mysticism, creativity, and spirituality as, “The most beautiful and
most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the
mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such
concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have
fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for
this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are
able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.” As per Hershey (who won Nobel
Prize for showing that DNA is genetic information), “To find one good experiment
and then keep on repeating it over and over again.”
If we combine all above, we come as close as science can measure ‘what it

feels like to be spiritual’. In this way, we can experience religious ecstasy.
(7) Inherited disposition (p.39-55)

University of Minnesota researchers calculated heritabilities 41-52%, which
suggested that genes were responsible for 41-52% of the variation in
religiousness from one twin to next in their study of 53 pairs of identical twins
and 31 pairs of fraternal twins (that are equivalent to regular siblings) (Bouchard
Jr., Lykken, McGue, Segal, & Tellegen, 1990). This implies that the reason of
believing that religion can help in answering life’s questions is partly their DNA
and partly environmental (such as non-heritable biological, physical, and
intellectual). The self-transcendence scores were far more alike for identical twins
(correlations: 40 for males, 49 for females) than that for fraternal twins
(correlations: 18 for males, 26 for females). Shared environment (such as same
general parenting style, income level, social class, schooling, and religious
upbringing) had no significant effect; unique environment (factors not shared by
twins, such as different schoolteachers, one gets measles and other does not)
accounted for 42-52% of variance. (Kirk, Eaves, & Martin, 1999; Kirk, Maes et
al., 1999) reported that 43% of the variation in church attendance is more likely
to be due to shared data, not genes; the remaining variation was due to the
combination of the unique environment and a limited genetic component. Thus,
spirituality (measured by the innate self-transcendence that arises from within
but still needs to be developed like any other talents but genetic predisposition is
present from the beginning) and religiousness (measured by church attendance
and learned from parents, teachers, religious leaders, and peers) are
fundamentally different. As per William James, “I myself believe that the evidence
74
Dvi-Pakṣa
for God lies primarily in inner personal experiences”, and spirituality comes from
within.
(8) A God gene (P.56-78)

A gene is a molecular unit of heredity of a living organism. It is a name given
to some stretches of DNA and RNA that code for a polypeptide or for an RNA
chain that has a function in the organism. A gene is in relation to the double
helix structure of DNA and to a chromosome. DNA consists of two long polymers
of simple units called nucleotides, with backbones made of sugars and
phosphate groups joined by ester bonds. These two strands run in opposite
directions to each other and are therefore anti-parallel. Attached to each sugar is
one of four types of molecules called nucleobases (informally, bases: adenine (A),
cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T)). It is the sequence of these four
nucleobases along the backbone that encodes information. This information is
read using the genetic code, which specifies the sequence of the amino acids
within proteins. The code is read by copying stretches of DNA into the related
nucleic acid RNA in a process called transcription. Within cells, DNA is organized
into long structures called chromosomes. During cell division these
chromosomes are duplicated in the process of DNA replication, providing each
cell its own complete set of chromosomes.
The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes
humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The God gene hypothesis is
based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological
studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified
by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is
partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene
VMAT2; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual
individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an
innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical
and psychological level.
The information in DNA is stored in the form of 4 bases (A, G, C, and T),
which punctuate the long string/strand of the DNA molecule at regular intervals.
Each DNA molecule consists of two strings wound around each other in the
double helix. Every time there is an A on one strand, a T appears on the other,
and every time there is a G on one strand, it is matched with corresponding C.
These base-pairing rules allow the DNA to be faithfully copied when cells divide.
The information content is derived from the order of bases. Three bases specify
one of the 20 amino acids, a building block of a protein (such as hormones and
neurotransmitters). For example, ATG is methionine and GTA is valine. The
75
Dvi-Pakṣa
conversion of DNA-information to protein-information involves transcription and

translation. Our DNA has about 35000 genes each code for its own distinct
protein. The differences between individuals are due to variations
(polymorphisms) that occur approximately once every 1000 bases between
unrelated humans. Each human contains about 3 billion bases of DNA. This
implies that there are about 3 million differences between DNAs of two unrelated
humans.
A God gene is the VMAT2 (vesicular monoamine transporter 2) gene. VMAT2

polymorphism is clearly associated with self-transcendence. Polymorphism
occurs when two or more clearly different phenotypes124 (form or morph) exist in
the same population of a species; it is related to biodiversity, genetic variation
and adaptation; it is genetic variations. One of the polymorphisms of VMAT2
gene is A33050C: a single base, which could be either a C or an A; it is related to
chromosome 10. This VMAT2-polymorphism is clearly associated with self-
transcendence. For example, subjects with a C in their DNA (on one or both
chromosomes, C/C and C/A genotypes) scored significantly higher than those
with an A (A/A genotype), on overall self-transcendence and self-forgetfulness
scales. The effect was in the same direction but “just short of statistical
significance” with mysticism and transpersonal identification. Thus, this single-
base change somehow affects every feature of self-transcendence: (a) “from
feeling at one with the universe to being willing to sacrifice for its improvement”
and (b) “from loving nature to loving God”. This one gene is enough to predispose
subjects toward spirituality, although it might not make the subject a saint, a
prophet or a seer.
(9) Monoamines and mysticism (p.79-89)

(Pahnke, 1966; Pahnke & Richards, 1969), based on the writings of yogis,
saints, seers, and scholars, proposed 9 components of mystical experience (that
has universal fundamental characteristics not restricted to any particular culture
or religion): transcendence of space-time (~ self-forgetfulness), unity (of subject
and objects ~ transpersonal identification), sacredness, positive mood, and sense
of objective reality (this triad ~ Cloninger’s ‘mysticism’), ineffability (part of self-
transcendence), persistent positive change in attitude and behavior, transiency,
and paradoxicality. Self-transcendence being part of subject’s character is long-
lasting, whereas mystical experiences being extraordinary are transient. The drug
psilocybin (mimic of the monoamine serotonin) leads to some of the above
experiences and altered-consciousness, and supports the link between
spirituality and altered-consciousness.
76
Dvi-Pakṣa
(10) Consciousness that is altered during mystical experiences

via God gene (p.90-118)
Our wakeful consciousness is selective, continuous, and personal. It is a
process (not a ‘thing’) with two stages: (i) core/primary consciousness that
interprets raw sensory data as integrated scene, which is required for (ii)
higher/secondary/autographical consciousness that recognizes self acts and
feelings, cognizes mental images, and conceives past, present and future.
Dominant view of science is materialism. For example, materialist (Edelman,
1992) proposes that consciousness arises from the interactions/communication
both within and between the thalamocortical system and limbic-brain stem
system using principles of re-entrant and neural-Darwinism (Edelman, 1989,
1993).
Our emotions and feelings (such as happiness, sadness, being excited, and
anxiousness) and values are mediated by monoamines (catecholamines such as
dopamine for ‘feeling good’, adrenaline, and noradrenaline related to unexpected
stress and alertness; and indole-amines such as serotonin that relieves feelings
of depression) wrapped and unwrapped, as a gift, via the encoding by gene
VMAT2. Monoamines alters the consciousness, increases sociability and
intimacy, and eventually leads to mystical experiences (boundless joy/bliss,
inner light perception, and unification of subject and objects).
(Olds, 1956; Olds & Milner, 1954) activated medial forebrain bundle of mice
that stimulated dopamine neurons leading to the nucleus accumbens (pleasure
center) in the basal forebrain; the release of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens
produces great pleasure and feeling of good (such as in sexual climax). Further
investigations revealed that the pleasure center of the human brain is a
distributed system of brain regions, which include subcortical regions (such as
the nucleus accumbens and ventral pallidum) and cortical regions (orbitofrontal
cortex and anterior cingulate cortex) (Kringelbach, 2009). In samādhi/mystical
state, one experiences bliss; perhaps, this may be related to activating pleasure
center.
(11) How the brain sees God, God spot, and premises of God gene
theory (p. 119-139)
As per (D'Aquili & Newberg, 1999; Newberg, d’Aquili, & Rause, 2001), after 1
hour meditation, there is increased activities in (i) the frontal cortex and the
thalamus, (ii) the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, (iii) the inferior and orbital
frontal cortex, and sensorimotor and dorsomedial cortices, all partly responsible
for thinking and planning. (iv) The thalamus and cingulate gyrus (components of
limbic system) also has increased activities. However, (v) there was decreased
activities during meditation in posterior parietal lobes. There was a strong
correlation between decreased activity in the left superior parietal lobe and
increased activity in the left prefrontal cortex. The posterior parietal lobes are
orientation-association areas and responsible for situating/orienting the self in
environment. The information from vision, hearing, and touch is received by this
part of brain and is organized in 3D picture of body and its position in space. The
right parietal lobe locates the body within space and left parietal lobe is
77
Dvi-Pakṣa
responsible for defining the limits of the body. The overall effect is to distinguish
self (subject, body) and nonself (objects in environment or nonbody). In other
words, the diminution in activity in left and right parietal lobes implies the
experience of the unification of subject and objects. The mechanism is as follows:
Meditators focus all of their mental energy on primary consciousness
(thalamocortical attention system), they decrease their secondary consciousness
(parietal-limbic system responsible for discriminating self and nonself) to clear
their thoughts and emotions and lose the usual sense of self. Meditators become
one with the world and the world becomes one with them by redirection of a few
nanovolts of electrochemical energy. In other words, there is the unification of
subject and objects. There is a gradient of self-transcendence starting from the
aesthetic appreciation at one end to Absolute Unitary Being at the other and all
other intermediate steps in between. It should be noted that sexual drives are
controlled by the hypothalamus, which mediates emotional value of mystical
experiences. The Sex-to-Samādhi yogic technique of Osho (Osho, 2012) might be
based on this pathway. This is one of the three meditative experiences at
samādhi-state. The second experience is boundless joy/bliss due to the
activation of pleasure center as discussed above. The third experience is inner
light perception, which may due to the activations of visual areas and frontal lobe
area.
God Spot (p.135-137): Nonbeliever Persinger stimulated his own temporal
and parietal lobes (God spot) using TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) and
experienced God and others had mystical experiences (feeling of rising, floating
away into space) (Persinger, 1987). Temporal lobe response is specific for religion
(Persinger, 1983, 1987; Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998; Ramachandran,
Hirstein, Armel, Tecoma, & Iragul, 1997).
Three premises of God gene theory (p.137-9): (i) The central to spirituality
is the sense of self. (ii) The brain process of consciousness entails our sense of
self and of the world around us, which is related to the primary consciousness.
(iii) Monoamines play central role in feelings, emotions, and values via VMAT2
gene, which is related to the secondary consciousness. Once meditation starts,
the meditators focus all of their mental energy on the brain’s association area.
This results the partial shutdown of parietal lobe orientation area that is
mediated by thalamus. This in turn sends off signals to the limbic system via the
limbic system via the hippocampus, amygdala, and hypothalamus. This results
in varying degrees of mental excitement depending on the individual. The feeling
of spirituality is related to emotions, not intellect. It is the subject’s genetic
makeup that determines how spiritual s/he is. We feel God, we do not know
Him.
(12) Evolving faith (P.140-160): Evolution of God genes (p.141-2): (Wilson,

1998) proposes multiple mechanisms for the evolution of God genes: (i) Genes,
which make people open or susceptible to religions/spirituality, might have
evolved through the selection of tribes competing against one another. (ii)
Genes, which relieve anxiety, might have evolved by allowing people to become
members of a cohesive group. (iii) Some religious traditions (such as dietary laws
78
Dvi-Pakṣa
of Judaism kosher: what foods to eat or not to eat) have direct advantage for
natural selection. (iv) As per (Dawkins, 1998), genes’ role is only indirect in
spirituality and religion by enabling the neural-networks of brains to transmit
information related to culture.
(v) Faith Healing, religion and health, placebo, power of prayer,
monoamine effects, nocebo effect, and selfish spiritual gene: As per
((Hamer, 2005).p.143-6), faith and beliefs certainly have placebo effect. If
spirituality and religion can improve human health and prolong life, God genes
certainly have selective advantage. Frequent visitors to religious places (such as
temple, church, mosque and so on) lived longer because they have good health
habits such as no smoking. Religious organizations promote good health habits
and lifestyles (such as work out, get married and stay married, refrain from
alcohol consumption, develop a greater number of friendships, and so on). If God
genes improve health and longevity and promote spirituality and faith, people will
less likely to become ill and die early. Therefore, it will be more likely that they
will pass on these genes to their children. Evolution cares only how many
children one produces, not how long one lives. (Harris et al., 1999) suggested,
“prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.” Prayer is popular
because of its irrefutability, economical (does not cost money, time, and effort),
feeling good; it releases dopamine (‘feel good’ chemical). As long as patients
believe that they are getting real drug or treatment, placebo treatments (such as
sugar pills) can relieve symptom or even cure a disease (such as depression,
Parkinson disease, pain management, ulcers, rheumatism, dysmenorrhea,
herpes, asthma, seasickness, acne, migraines, and various neurological
conditions); they are about 60% effective as the real medicine. Therefore, faith in
God should have the same effect as placebo and perhaps more. For example,
placebo release dopamine in Parkinson’s disease as does the medicine levodopa;
dopamine is ‘feeling good’ brain chemical; dopamine is one of several
monoamines that are influenced by VMAT2 gene. Nocebo is the opposite of
placebo and its effects are the causation of sickness, or even death, purely by
expectation/belief; for example, evil-tāntrik’s sickness and death and ‘voodoo
death’. These might be related to shift in serotonin level, which is ‘feel bad’ brain-
chemical and may lead to negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, hostility, and
pessimism; these effects have poorer recovery from disease and shortens life
span. In other words, faith or belief including God alters the brain.
(13) Religion from genes to memes (P.161-179): Although gene-based

spirituality is private and related to inner feelings and beliefs, it is entangled with
meme-based religion that is more public and structured form. As per (Dawkins,
1998), memes are transmittable unit of culture, such as songs, poems, articles,
books, and advertising jingles. (Blackmore, 1999) defines memes as “instructions
for carrying out behaviors, stored in brains (or other objects) and passed on by
imitation”. Memes, like genes, are selfish because they only care if they are
efficiently copied from one brain to another; they do not care about the harm
done to the copier/brains, such as meme ‘smoking cigarettes is cool’. As genes
are useful for understanding biology, memes are useful for understanding the
79
Dvi-Pakṣa
transmission of culture. The differences are as follows: (i) genes are for all living
beings whereas memes are limited to human except some simple memes (such as
British swallows open milk bottles) that lack complexity and richness of human
memes. (ii) Gene-copying is limited (a female cannot have more than 20 children),
whereas meme-copying is unlimited (30-sec interesting advertisement can be
copied over millions). (iii) Genetic evolution is slow, whereas meme can change
overnight. One could ask if memes are purely cultural, genetic, or mixture of
both. The research of identical twins seems to imply that memes are cultural, but
the predisposition to believe them may be partly genetic. In other words, both
memes (culture) and genes contribute on personal religious beliefs. Parents have
little impact on children; if they try to impose their beliefs, result is opposite to
their expectation because children want to establish individual identity. Many
religious beliefs, such as existence of life after death, soul, God, and continuance
of consciousness, are due to the power of cohesion, which can be achieved by (i)
their mutual support for other beliefs, and (ii) tendency or sometimes
requirements that one should marry and have children with people of one’s own
faith.
(14) DNA is carrier of information (P.180-196): Both functional and

historical cellular information are carried by DNA. The functional cellular
information consists of instructions that certain types of proteins and RNA
molecules make certain cells and tissues at various stages of development. Since
the DNA contains also the historical cellular information and is the product of
evolution and reproduction, which links each organism to its preceding
generation, person’s immediate ancestors (such parents, grandparents, and so
on) and long-term biological ancestors and cousins (such as chimpanzee, gorilla,
and other creatures) can be determined using, for example, Y chromosome
markers for males. The complicated dance between genes for spirituality and
religious memes, such as DNA studies of Jews and Hindus show sociocultural
religious practices related to marriages.
(15) God is still alive (P.197-215): One could argue that as science and
technology progress, faith in God will decrease. However, this hypothesis seems
rejected. Peking man was homo erectus (1.5 MYA), who evolved smarter than his
ancestor 500,000 year ago in China; he engaged in mystical belief system: ritual
cannibalism and skull preservation. For Azetics (in central Mexico), cannibalism
represented direct route to divinity; Binderwurs (in India) ate dead to please the
goddess Kali. Our own species, Homo sapiens, appeared in Africa 150,000-
200,000 years ago. Neanderthal man appeared about 100,000 years ago in
Europe and Near East, who began to bury his dead. In Europe, they appeared
60,000 years later. They were primarily hunters and gatherers. Then about
32,000 years ago, there were the portraits of lions, bears, rhinos, and
mammoths; this implies that Homo sapiens admired their strength and inner
power; one bear skull placed on a rock altar; this suggests a cult of cave bear
worship. Then spirituality and mysticism were well developed starting from 6000
80
Dvi-Pakṣa
years ago in the Vedic system of India and various other parts of world. All these
suggest that God is still alive.
Science and religion: There is no way to test objectively if life-after-death,
the continuation of consciousness, soul, and rebirth exist. (Dawkins, 1998)
argues that there is no reason to believe gods exist and quite good reason for
believing that gods do not exist. Evolution is sufficient to explain life, but cannot
reject God. Hamer argues three ideas: (i) The hypothesis of a God gene VMAT2 is
silent on the existence of God; it only suggests that a subject is predisposed on
spirituality or not. It is beyond theism and atheism. Atheists can argue that
spiritual experiences like all other experiences must be interpreted in terms of
biologically constructed brains. Theists can argue that God let us recognize his
presence via God gene and prewired God module and the brain-scan experiments
of Persinger, Ramachandran, and Newberg (Newberg, d’Aquili, & Rause, 2002;
Persinger, 1983, 1987; Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998; Ramachandran et al.,
1997). (ii) Spirituality is partly genetic; this does not mean that it is hardwired.
Spirituality enlightenment is based on practice; it takes lots of time and practice
to attain samādhi/enlightened state; there is significant positive correlation
between meditation practice and self-transcendence. (iii) Spirituality is based in
consciousness and is genetic (such as God gene) and universal; whereas, religion
is based in cognition and is memetic (such as culture, traditions, beliefs, and
ideas) and cultures have their own forms of religion. Both are beneficial to our
physical, mental, spiritual, and social health; both make us feel better and
actually make us better people; they mutually help each other. The self-
transcendence (self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification, and mysticism) is
measure of spirituality is partially inherited; VMAT2 is one of the God genes that
codes for a protein, which control the flow in and out of monoamines that
modulate consciousness and emotions. Spirituality is about the way we perceive
the world and our role in it, which is a consciousness mediated process.
Religions survive because they provide essential social services, confidence,
guidance in life, and solace from life’s calamities. However, established religions
have negative sides as well, such as wars, crusades, and jihads (such as 9/11).
Our genes (such as God gene) can predispose us towards spirituality; but do not
tell us what to believe in; faith and beliefs in any religion are cultural and evolve
over time.
Critique and limitations: (1) A less misleading and more precise title of (Hamer,
2005) might be: “a Self-Transcendence Gene: How Self-Perception Is Hardwired
into Our Genes” in place of “the GOD gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our
Genes”.
(2) (Hamer, 2005) does not explain spirituality completely, which is too
complex to elucidate by a single measure.
81
Dvi-Pakṣa
(3) (Hamer, 2005) does not elucidate species-specific (such as human in

general) spirituality. Perhaps, the reason is that it is based on behavioral genetic
research that can explain only individual differences in spirituality.
(4) (Hamer, 2005) does not address if human beliefs are true; it explains to
some extent why humans believe. Atheists can argue that God gene can entail
that God does not exist, whereas theists can argue that God gene is another sign
of creator’s ingenuity to acknowledge and embrace His presence. One could
argue that spiritual beliefs and feelings are product of brain.
(5) This is a long way from a ‘God Gene’, as PZ Myers notes: “It's a pump. A
teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during
brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during
higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god
gene’.”
(6) Walter Houston, the chaplain of Mansfield College, Oxford, and a fellow in
theology, told the Telegraph: “Religious belief is not just related to a person's
constitution; it's related to society, tradition, character—everything's involved.
Having a gene that could do all that seems pretty unlikely to me.” However, as
per (Hamer, 2005), “This book is about whether God genes exist, not about
whether there is a God”.
(7) As per Neil Gillman, “God is not something that can be demonstrated
logically or rigorously […] [The idea of a God gene] goes against all my personal
theological convictions. […] You can't cut [faith] down to the lowest common
denominator of genetic survival. It shows the poverty of reductionist thinking.”
However, as per (Hamer, 2005), “My findings are agnostic on the existence of God
[…] If there's a God, there's a God. Just knowing what brain chemicals are
involved in acknowledging that is not going to change the fact.”
(8) John Burn, medical director of the Institute of Human Genetics at the
University of Newcastle in England, said, “If someone comes to you and says,
‘We’ve found the gene for X,’ you can stop them before they get to the end of the
sentence.” Hamer also emphasizes that a genetic root for spirituality is not the
same as a genetic root for religion. “Spirituality is a feeling or a state of mind;
religion is the way that state gets codified into law. Our genes don't get directly
involved in writing legislation” (Kluger, Chu, Liston, Sieger, & Williams, 2004).
According to Hamer, "Spirituality is intensely personal; religion is institutional.”
(9) (Kluger et al., 2004) asked, “Which came first, God or the need for God? In
other words, did humans create religion from cues sent from above, or did
82
Dvi-Pakṣa
evolution instill in us a sense of the divine so that we would gather into the
communities essential to keeping the species going? […] If some people are more
spiritual than others, is it nature or nurture that has made them so? If science
has nothing to do with spirituality and it all flows from God, why do some people
hear the divine word easily while others remain spiritually tone-deaf?”
They address the above questions by hypothesizing the followings (double
quotes are from the above article):
(i) Spirituality in our genome: “Far from being an evolutionary luxury then, the
need for God may be a crucial trait stamped deeper and deeper into our genome
with every passing generation. Humans who developed a spiritual sense thrived
and bequeathed that trait to their offspring. Those who didn't risked dying out in
chaos and killing. The evolutionary equation is a simple but powerful one.”
(ii) Spirituality as an adaptive trait: “Hamer not only claims that human
spirituality is an adaptive trait, but he also says he has located one of the genes
responsible, a gene that just happens to also code for production of the
neurotransmitters that regulate our moods. Our most profound feelings of
spirituality, according to a literal reading of Hamer's work, may be due to little
more than an occasional shot of intoxicating brain chemicals governed by our
DNA. ‘I'm a believer that every thought we think and every feeling we feel is the
result of activity in the brain,’ Hamer says. ‘I think we follow the basic law of
nature, which is that we're a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a
bag’.”
(iii) Faith is beyond cause and effect: “The very meaning of faith, after all, is to
hold fast to something without all the tidy cause and effect that science finds so
necessary.”
(iv) Many possible God-genes: “Hamer is careful to point out that the gene he
found is by no means the only one that affects spirituality. Even minor human
traits can be governed by the interplay of many genes; something as complex as
belief in God could involve hundreds or even thousands.”
(v) Spirituality is genetic but religion is cultural (memetic): “As it turned out, the
identical twins had plenty of remarkable things in common. In some cases, both
suffered from migraine headaches, both had a fear of heights, and both were nail
biters. Some shared little eccentricities, like flushing the toilet both before and
after using it. When quizzed on their religious values and spiritual feelings, the
identical twins showed a similar overlap. In general, they were about twice as
likely as fraternal twins to believe as much—or as little—about spirituality as
their sibling did. Significantly, these numbers did not hold up when the twins
were questioned about how faithfully they practiced any organized religion.
Clearly, it seemed, the degree to which we observe rituals such as attending
services is mostly the stuff of environment and culture. Whether we're drawn to
God in the first place is hardwired into our genes. ‘It completely contradicted my
expectations,’ says University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard, one
of the researchers involved in the work. Similar results were later found in larger
twin studies in Virginia and Australia.”
(vi) The three types of experiences in Samadhi/mystic/revelation state125 are
83
Dvi-Pakṣa
bliss, inner light percept and feeling of unity with universe: “The deeper that
people descend into meditation or prayer, Newberg found, the more active the
frontal lobe and the limbic system become. The frontal lobe is the seat of
concentration and attention; the limbic system is where powerful feelings,
including rapture, are processed. More revealing is the fact that at the same time
these regions flash to life, another important region--the parietal lobe at the back
of the brain--goes dim. It's this lobe that orients the individual in time and space.
Take it off-line, and the boundaries of the self fall away, creating the feeling of
being at one with the universe. Combine that with what's going on in the other
two lobes, and you can put together a profound religious experience.”
(vii) God as an artifact of the brain: “ ‘In India in Buddha's time, there were
philosophers who said there was no soul; the mind was just chemistry,’ says
Thurman. ‘The Buddha disagreed with their extreme materialism but also
rejected the 'absolute soul' theologians.’ Michael Persinger, professor of
behavioral neuroscience at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ont., puts the
chemistry argument more bluntly. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is an artifact of the brain.’ […]
If human beings were indeed divinely assembled, why wouldn't our list of parts
include a genetic chip that would enable us to contemplate our maker? ‘Of
course, concepts of God reside in the brain. They certainly don't reside in the
toe,’ says Lindon Eaves … ‘The question is, To what is this wiring responsive?
Why is it there?’ ”
(viii) God gene central to survival: “Those religious believers who are
comfortable with the idea that God genes are the work of God should have little
trouble making the next leap: that not only are the genes there but they are
central to our survival, one of the hinges upon which the very evolution of the
human species turned.”
(ix) God-concept preloaded in genome: “For one thing, God is a concept that
appears in human cultures all over the globe, regardless of how geographically
isolated they are. When tribes living in remote areas come up with a concept of
God as readily as nations living shoulder to shoulder, it's a fairly strong
indication that the idea is preloaded in the genome rather than picked up on the
fly. If that's the case, it's an equally strong indication that there are very good
reasons it's there.”
(x) God experience as an adaptation and a built-in pacifier: One of those
reasons might be that, as the sole species--as far as we know--capable of
contemplating its own death, we needed something larger than ourselves to make
that knowledge tolerable. ‘Anticipation of our own demise is the price we pay for
a highly developed frontal lobe,’ says Persinger. ‘In many ways, [a God experience
is] a brilliant adaptation. It's a built-in pacifier.’
(xi) Religion as social organizer: “But the most important survival role religion
may serve is as the mortar that holds a group together. Worshipping God doesn't
have to be a collective thing; it can be done in isolation, disconnected from any
organized religion. The overwhelming majority of people, however, congregate to
pray, observing the same rituals and heeding the same creeds. Once that
congregation is in place, it's only a small step to using the common system of
84
Dvi-Pakṣa
beliefs and practices as the basis for all the secular laws that keep the group
functioning. … religion as social organizer […] ‘Religions represent an attempt to
harness innate spirituality for organizational purposes—not always good,’ says
Macquarie University's Davies.”
(xii) Religious wars as adaptive way of keeping population down: ‘All religions
become a bit secular,’ says Wilson. ‘In order to survive, you have to organize
yourselves into a culture.’ […] In a culture of Crusades, Holocausts and jihads,
where in the world is the survival advantage of religious wars or terrorism? One
facile explanation has always been herd culling—an adaptive way of keeping
populations down so that resources aren't depleted.”
(10) (Silveira, 2008) analyzes the God Gene in a Nonmajors Laboratory Course
as follows (double quotes from this article):
(i) Controversial spiritual gene VMAT2: “In his book [(Hamer, 2005)], Hamer
contends that one’s predisposition toward spirituality is influenced by genetic
factors. More controversially, he proposes that the VMAT2 gene is one of many
potential genes that impinge on spirituality. Hamer identifies one particular
variation, a change from an A to a C, present in 28% of the alleles in his data set,
as a marker for the more ‘spiritual’ version of this gene” (Silveira, 2008).
(ii) VMAT2 gene contributes to the variation in receptiveness to spiritual belief:
“Hamer used the self-transcendence scale of the TCI as a measure of spirituality.
The test does not focus on a belief in a higher being or religious practice, but
rather the ability to be immersed in the moment, identification of oneself as a
part of the universe as a whole, and one’s degree of openness to the unexplained.
The self-transcendence score has three subscores: ST1, creative self-forgetfulness
versus self-consciousness; ST2, transpersonal identification; and ST3, spiritual
acceptance versus rational materialism. The ST1 subscale probes a person’s
tendency to ‘lose oneself’ in an experience. The ST2 facet measures how strongly
one feels connected to nature and the universe, including the physical
environment and people. Finally, the ST3 ‘mysticism’ subscale assesses the
subject’s acceptance of things that cannot be rationally explained, such as
miracles or a ‘sixth sense’ (Cloninger et al., 1993). […] the self-transcendence
score is drawn from 33 questions, the majority of which must be answered
“true” for a point to be awarded. […] The first chapter overviews the book,
outlines the idea that there may be a genetic component to spirituality, and
describes some caveats about the study and its findings. These caveats raise
important issues, such as the very limited contribution that any one gene,
including VMAT2, would have to the complex trait of spirituality, and that the
study does not address the validity of any particular belief. […] Finally, it is
important to emphasize, as Hamer does, that the project is not seeking to
investigate whether any particular spiritual belief is valid. Rather, Hamer’s book
and this project explore whether there is a genetic component underlying some of
the variation in people’s receptiveness to spiritual belief and whether VMAT2 in
particular contributes to that variation. […] is this particular variation in the
DNA correlated with the variation that is seen in the personality test scores?
85
Dvi-Pakṣa
Hamer’s preliminary work provides a motivation for focusing on VMAT2

variations, but it is not proscriptive; he notes that the variation he sees could at
best explain only a small fraction (<1%) of the variation in spirituality. Along with
exploring the effects of other genes on spirituality, an understanding of the
changes, or set of changes, in VMAT2 that contribute to spirituality would be a
valuable addition to Hamer’s work” (Silveira, 2008).
(iii) Polymorphism, VMAT2, genotype and phenotype: “Because the change is in
an intron, any observed significant correlation would presumably reflect other
associated changes in the gene’s coding or regulatory sequences. This
consideration presumably also affects Hamer’s work, as the known A/C
transversions all fall in introns or the 3’ untranslated region (Edwards, 2001;
dbSNP, 2006), except for three in the promoter region, none of which have
similar frequencies to Hamer’s SNP (Lin et al., 2005). There is substantial linkage
disequilibrium among the SNPs in this gene (Lin et al., 2005), so it is likely that
one polymorphism is coinherited with other changes to form a haplotype. In his
book Hamer explains that he examined a single SNP as a means to test an
associated set of changes in VMAT2. As noted previously, the indirect nature of
potential correlations between genotype and phenotype is actually an advantage
in our case” (Silveira, 2008).
(11) God gene undermines faith: (The Washington Times, 2004) reports as, “An
American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000
DNA samples that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain
chemicals. His findings have been criticized by leading clerics, who challenge the
existence of a ‘God gene’ and say the research undermines a fundamental tenet
of faith -- that spiritual enlightenment is achieved through divine transformation
rather than the brain's electrical impulses. […] Hamer, who in 1993 claimed to
have identified a DNA sequence linked to male homosexuality, said the existence
of the ‘God gene’ explained why some people had more aptitude for spirituality
than others. ‘Buddha, Muhammad and Jesus all shared a series of mystical
experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene,’
he said. ‘This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic makeup.
This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could
skip a generation. It's like intelligence.’ […] Hamer insisted, however, that his
research was not antithetical to a belief in God. ‘Religious believers can point to
the existence of God genes as one more sign of the Creator's ingenuity -- a clever
way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence,’ he said.”
(12) (Doughty, 2005) raises the following questions and then comments on
(Hamer, 2005): “Why do human beings appear universally to believe in God? […]
why human beings developed the concept of the supernatural, spirituality and
God in the first place.”,
(i) Religion’s functions: “Religion is useful as a sort of social cement, as a
support for certain moral values, and as a way to resolve the problem of mortality
by giving the appearance of meaning to our individual and communal lives.
86
Dvi-Pakṣa
Religion, in one way or another, promotes personal and social steadiness or, seen
from a slightly different perspective, religion is an essential ideological
instrument of social control. Whether established and maintained through
consensus or coercion (though normally both), religion matters.”
(ii) Science and religion: “Nature is amoral and scientists ought not to
extrapolate ethical lessons from their studies; religion, on the other hand, is a
quest for ethical and metaphysical knowledge and ought not to tread upon the
territory reserved for science.”
(iii) Science and religion as the dual-aspect of life: “These two great ‘magisteria,’
as Gould called them, are dual aspects of human life and should both be revered
as long they do not trench upon each other's turf.” This is very close to the idea
of this book, i.e., science and religion of inseparable physical and mental aspect
of each state of human life. There is no problem, as long as each observes its own
domain: (a) science explaining the physical aspect such as the neural-networks,
chemicals and electrical attributes, and their activities of brain; and (b) religion
explaining the mental aspect such as consciousness/experiences. If they cross
their domains, the explanatory gap problem appears and category mistake is
made. For example, when science starts explaining the
experiences/consciousness, then (Levine, 1983)’s explanatory gap problem of
materialism occurs: how can experiences be explained by the non-experiential
matter like brain? In addition, the mind arising from brain makes the category
mistake. Similarly, if religion crosses to explain physical matter-in-itself from
consciousness then explanatory gap of idealism arises and category mistake is
made.
(iv) Self-transcendence, twins, and genes: “Hamer, praised by E. O. Wilson, the
putative patriarch of sociobiology, is a ‘leading laboratory researcher’ in the field
of ‘genetics, molecular biology, and psychology.’ His most recent quest is for a
biological explanation of faith. The search begins with a review of some scales
developed by psychologist Roger Cloninger that purport to measure the concept
of ‘self-transcendence.’ Composed of three sub-sets, self-transcendence is
composed of ‘self-forgetfulness’ (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in
some activity such as reading); ‘transpersonal identification’ (a reported feeling of
unity in the universe); and ‘mysticism’ (a willingness to believe in extra-sensory
perception, and so on). Here we seem to have empirical measures of warm and
fuzzy feelings. Hamer is careful to state that these three scales combine to
indicate a predisposition toward religion but not any particular relationship to
any organized faith. The next step was to discover if these behavioural or
attitudinal tendencies were the product of nature or nurture. Hamer assures us
that Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus and Mohammed all had plenty of self-
transcendence. […] Lo and behold! A connection was found by studying pairs of
twins who had been separated and raised in different families.”
As per (Hamer, 2005), “we rounded up a bunch of people and measured their
self-transcendence. Then we looked at a bunch of genes and looked for
differences. And we found this one gene that was at least correlated with self-
transcendence. It's called VMAT2, which stands for ‘vesicular monoamine
transporter no. 2.’ It handles one type of brain chemical, monoamines, that have
87
Dvi-Pakṣa
a lot to do with emotional sensitivity.”

“Hamer assures us that Siddhartha Gautama, Jesus and Mohammed all had
plenty of dominant VMAT2”.
(v) Alternative title of (Hamer, 2005): Hamer writes. “What I meant to say, of
course, was ‘a’ God gene, not ‘the’ God gene.”
“Given the weakness of its conclusions, Hamer might better have entitled his
book: A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in
Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called
Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green
Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study.”
[…] Most of all, though, it is important to look on pages 211-212 of The God
Gene, where Hamer also retreats from his subtitle. ‘Just because spirituality is
partly genetic doesn’t mean it is hardwired,’ he says. ‘Spirituality takes practice’.”
(vi) Memes and genes: “The concept of a ‘meme’ was formulated by fellow
selfish-gene geneticist Richard Dawkins [(Dawkins, 1998)]. A meme is a little
chunk of culture (e.g., natural gas furnaces, the concept of zero, chariots,
tuxedos or McDonald's golden arches). Dawkins claims that genes and memes
share the capacity to be replicated and are passed down by a sort of natural
selection. According to Hamer, whether memes are true or false, tonic or toxic,
brief or enduring is of no consequence. What matters is that ‘if a meme can
efficiently colonize the human brain, it will.’ God, we must imagine, is a very
successful meme.”
(vii) Gay gene, God gene, VMAT2, faith, and problem: “First, in 1993, Dean
Hamer [(Hamer, Hu, Magnuson, Hu, & Pattatucci, 1993)] first became famous for
discovering Xq28, the so-called ‘gay gene.’ His claim still awaits replication. […]
Hamer's previous causation theories to eugenics at least as persuasively as
Hamer links VMAT2 to God. […] He admits that moving from slight correlation to
clear causation is difficult. He says that VMAT2 amounts to no more than a
genetic predisposition, and that faith also takes practice. […] In the end,
however, Hamer has produced a flawed work not only insofar as scientific
method is concerned, but also in the basic conceptual instruments with which
human thought and behaviour are to be understood.”
(13) (Koenig & Bouchard Jr., 2006) argues for genetic contributions to
religiousness, “religiousness and related variables are formed by socialization
processes within the family and that genetic influences are largely irrelevant.
Despite this perception, there are reasons why one should examine the
possibility of genetic influence on religiousness. First, religiousness may be a
biological adaptation, and it may be worthwhile to try to understand it from this
perspective. Second, studies that control for or estimate genetic influence provide
a clearer picture of the true environmental influences on the trait. Finally, unless
religiousness is unlike most other psychological characteristics, it should be
heritable. […] Is Religiousness a Biological Adaptation? […] Universality and
complexity of a trait or characteristic strongly suggests that it is an evolutionary
adaptation (Buss, Haselton, Shackelford, Bleske, & Wakefield, 1998; Williams,
1966). Yet it is also clear that religious fervor can lead to genetic extinction for
88
Dvi-Pakṣa
particular individuals as witnessed by celibate religious orders over the centuries

and suicide bombers in recent years. […] religiousness could influence
reproductive fitness by encouraging (a) families to have more children, (b) better
health practices (avoidance of alcohol and drugs), or (c) greater paternal
involvement in the care of children […] If Religiousness Is Just Another Trait, It
Should Be Heritable … “all human behavioral traits are heritable.” Religiousness
and related variables are no exception and should not be left out of the purview
of behavior geneticists. As Lynch and Walsh (1998) have pointed out, “Almost
every character in almost every species that has been studied intensively exhibits
nonzero heritability” (p. 174). […] religious affiliation, the religion that one
practices, is cultural and little influenced by genetic factors. Genetic influence is
more specific to religious behaviors and traits. […]
Hamer (2004) has written a book with the title The God Gene. Hamer,
however, is a careful investigator and in the text makes it clear that individual
genes will account for only a tiny fraction of the variation in a trait. The gene he
discusses (VMAT2, also called SLC18A2) may be important in influencing the
kinds of traits we are discussing, as their products modulate mechanisms
through which psychoactive drugs work on the central nervous system. […] In
conclusion, religiousness and the rest of the TMVT [Traditional Moral Values
Triad: religiousness, authoritarianism, and conservatism] are moderately
heritable, especially in adulthood. Certainly, family influences are important in
childhood, and further research should be carried out to determine the specific
factors at work. More research also needs to be done to explicate the genetic
influences seen on these traits. A moderate heritability for a trait does not mean
that there is one gene for that trait. The influence is quantitative; that is, there
are many genes, acting within the context of the environments, that support the
development of these traits.”
(14) Religiousness is heritable: (McNamara, 2006b) argues that

religiousness is heritable as follows:
(i) Religion has cultural (memetic) and genetic components: “Religion appears to
be a cultural universal. […] Twin studies have shown that religiousness is
moderately to highly heritable (see volume I, chapter 3). Genetic studies have
implicated specific genes in religiousness (mostly genes that code for regulatory
products of monoamine transmission in limbic-prefrontal networks; for reviews,
see Comings, Gonzales, Saucier, Johnson, & MacMurray, 2000; D’Onofrio,
Eaves, Murrelle, Maes, & Spilka, 1999; Hamer, 2004; see also volume I, chapter
3).”
(ii) Neural correlates and neurochemical mechanisms: “Consistent with these
preliminary genetic studies, neurochemical and neuropharmacologic studies
have implicated limbic-prefrontal serotoninergic and dopaminergic mechanisms
in mediation of religious experiences (see volume II, chapters 1 and 2; volume III,
chapters 1 and 10). Neuroimaging and neuropsychologic studies have implicated
a consistent set of neurocognitive systems and brain activation patterns in
religious activity (mostly limbic-prefrontal networks (see volume II, chapters 2, 3,
8, and 9; volume III, chapter 7).”
89
Dvi-Pakṣa
(iii) Religious cognition: “A cognitive psychology of religious belief has revealed

both the unique aspects of religious cognition as well as its commonalities with
other basic cognitive processing routines (see volume I, chapters 6, 9, and 10;
volume II, chapter 10). Finally, changes in self-reported religious experience by
individuals suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder; schizophrenia,
Parkinson’s disease, and temporal lobe epilepsy are in the expected direction if
the previously mentioned neurocognitive networks (limbic-prefrontal) do in fact
mediate core aspects of religiousness (see volume II, chapters 1 and 8; volume III,
chapter 1).”
(iv) Evolution of religiousness: When it comes to biologic correlates of
religiousness, the best available theory is evolution. Thus, several of the essays in
these volumes discuss potential evolutionary and adaptive functions of religion.
[…] For those scientists who think the evidence supports some variant of an
adaptationist position (see volume I, chapters 4, 5, 7, and 10; volume II, chapter
4; volume III, chapter 6), the questions shift to what part of religiousness is
actually adaptive and what functions might religiousness enact? Some theorists
suggest that it is reasonable to speak about a “common core” religious experience
fundamental to all forms of religiosity (see volume I, chapter 7; volume III,
chapters 5 and 6). Some investigators suggest that the aspect of religiousness
that was “selected” over evolutionary history was the capacity for trance, placebo
responding, or altered states of consciousness, or ASC (see volume I, chapters 5
and 7; volume III, chapter 6). The capacity for trance, placebo responding, and
ASC, of course, would yield both health benefits and a rational or even irrational
belief states over time. […] There may therefore be enough data to reconstruct the
evolutionary history of ritual practices in certain human lineages. […] While
tremendous progress has been made in identifying neurobiologic correlates of
religiousness, it will be a challenge to place these findings in new theoretical
frameworks that can do justice to the richness and complexity of the religious
spirit.”
(15) God module’ and God gene have misled scientists: (Kirkpatrick, 2006)
critiques as, “Just as evidence for a ‘God module’ [(Persinger, 1983, 1987;
Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998; Ramachandran et al., 1997)] in the brain has
misled scientists into shaky speculations about what that module ‘is for,’ Hamer
[(Hamer, 2004)] and others have been misled into speculating about why we have
genes ‘for’ religion. Although Hamer [(Hamer, 2005)] explicitly acknowledges that
this is a fallacious line of reasoning, he inexplicably succumbs to temptation and
offers wild speculations about the evolutionary function of religion and the genes
alleged to produce it.”
5.2.3. God Module hypothesis

(1) God modules/religion regions: If some neural structures (such as
temporal lobe, especially left side) are stimulated, subjects have intense religious
90
Dvi-Pakṣa
experiences (Persinger, 1983, 1987; Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998;

Ramachandran et al., 1997). Such neural structures are called God modules.
(Haarsma, 1999) elaborates further and provides critique on (Ramachandran
et al., 1997): “Experiments were performed on three patients suffering from a
type of temporal lobe epilepsy in which seizures are often accompanied by
intense mystical or religious experiences. Patients were sometimes preoccupied
with mystical thoughts between seizures as well. The scientists found that
increased activity in a particular brain circuit was associated with a heightened
involuntary response to religious symbols and words. […] Christians do not (or
should not) believe that our relationship to God occurs entirely within immaterial
souls, of which our bodies are mere vessels. Our whole being --- soul and body,
mind and brain --- should respond to God. Nor do our brains have a singular
‘God module’ as the site of all religious activity. Our relationship to God is
personal and complex, not limited to just one kind of experience. No doubt many
parts of our brain participate in many kinds of religious experiences. The
temporal lobe [religion region], for example, is known to be important for intense
emotional experiences. We should expect it to participate in intense religious
experiences. It is certainly intriguing that a particular sub-region is rather
specialized, at least in these patients, for religious imagery.” 126
(2) Religion is not an adaptation: (Kirkpatrick, 2006), summarizes some of

existing views, critically examines them, and discusses the problems with the
hypothesis of religion-as-adaptation, and then proposes multiple–by-products
hypothesis for religion, which implies that religion is not an adaptation, rather it
is just the by-products of a variety of psychological mechanisms that evolved for
other purposes.
2.1. Religion, spirituality, evolution, natural selection, God
modules, God genes, and religion-as-adaptation: (i) One could argue that
religion/spirituality is a product of evolution, natural selection, and adaptation
and hence has adaptive benefits. (ii) This argument in neuroscience and genetic
researches suggests ‘God modules’ in our brain and ‘God genes’ in our DNA. (iii)
From above, the claim is that our religious beliefs and behaviors and spiritual
experiences can arise from our mind-brain-environment-culture system. (iv) If
scientifically useless idea of ‘intelligent design’ is rejected, only the theory of
evolution by natural selection and adaptive benefits can coherently explain the
complex ‘design’ of living organisms. (vi) The Homo religiosus notion is that
religion or its some specific aspect(s) is an adaptation. In other words, a universal
trait or feature of species (such as spirituality/religiosity) is favored over a long
time by natural selection. This is because it solved one or more adaptive
problems in human ancestral environments. (vii) The religion-as-adaptation
hypothesis is that religion is (a) somehow inherent in human nature or (b) part of
the evolved design of the human being. (viii) The functions of
religiosity/spirituality ranged from the reduction of anxiety (such as fear of
death) to providing various meaningful worldviews to the promotion of group
solidarity.
91
Dvi-Pakṣa
2.2. God Modules in the Brain: (i) A specific patterns of neural activities in
temporal lobe is associated with spiritual experiences, which suggests a ‘God
module’ in the brain (Persinger, 1987; Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998)
implying evolution-selection-adaptation function of this brain mechanism. (ii) In
general, there is no simple 1-1 mapping between a specific
function/behavior/experience and specific anatomical brain area(s)/module(s),
although the brain/mind is highly modularized. Therefore, a ‘God module’ for a
specific religious experience is not tenable. (iii) One could argue that religious
scientific data can be explained as a by-product of some other functions. For
example, spiritual-mystical/religious experiences and their neural correlates
might represent a sort of mis- or hyper-activation of other adaptive functions
designed for other (nonreligious) purposes by evolution and natural selection.
2.3. God Genes: Religiosity/spirituality demonstrates heritability because
some people are more religious/spiritual than others because of genetic
differences based on the study of twins reared apart and together (Waller,
Kojetin, Bouchard, Lykken, & Tellegen, 1990) and on the basis of molecular
human genetic such as a ‘God gene’/VMAT2 (Hamer, 2005).
2.4. Problems with religion-as-adaption hypothesis: (Kirkpatrick, 2006)
argued that the issues with religion-as-adaption hypothesis can be grouped in to
three categories: identifying the phenomenon, identifying the adaptive function,
and identifying the design of the purported mechanism.
2.4.1. Identifying the Phenomenon: Religion has multiple aspects and
hence has definitional problem: (i) Belief/faith: One aspect of religion involves
certain beliefs, for example, belief in an afterlife or supernatural
deities/God(s)/Brahman/Allāh. (ii) Behavior: Second aspect involves certain
behavior, for example, participation in group rituals or prayer. (iii) Experience:
Third aspect involves emotion or phenomenological experience, for example,
powerful spiritual/spiritual/religious experiences. (iv) Social structure: Another
aspect involves a social structure and institutional forms, where there are
hierarchies of power and influence and specific roles. Each research usually
investigates one aspect and ignores others. For example, a research focused on a
group behavior such as rituals argues for adaptive functional benefit of increased
solidarity. It is possible that each aspect has its own adaptive function, related
benefit, and underlying mechanism.
2.4.2. Identifying the adaptive function: (i) The criterion of the natural
selection is that the adaptive genetic instructions are more widely copied in
successive generations and the less widely copied genes are selected out. This is
because evolution by natural selection is fundamentally is about successful
production of children who in turn are reproductively successful and so on; it is
not about survival. (ii) Scholars argue that religion has many psychological
benefits, such as alleviating fears about death, providing comfort, raising self-
esteem, making more optimistic. In other words, religion makes us happier,
which is unclear how it will lead to producing more children. Since natural
selection is blind to purely psychological effects, such as happiness that does not
in itself cause more copies of happiness promoting genes to dominate successive
92
Dvi-Pakṣa
generations. Perhaps, happiness has indirect effect on higher success in

reproduction.
2.4.3. Identifying the design of the claimed mechanism: (i) The
adaptationist theory of religion must address the design-problems of the
psychological mechanism(s) that produce it: (a) how it works, (b) what its
subsystems or components are, (c) how they are interrelated, (d) the kinds of
inputs it responds, and (e) what inferential rules it operates on for producing
outputs such as religious thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. (ii) The design of a
religious adaptation must distinguish behavior from its generating mechanism(s)
(Tooby & Cosmides, 1990). (iii) Genes are instructions for building functionally
organized biological structures in the developing organism. Genes code for
specific psychological mechanisms that reliably produce specific behaviors under
certain conditions. Genes do not code for behavior directly. (iv) Therefore, the
task would be to develop hypotheses about how the mechanisms or systems in
the brain/mind are designed for the related behavior. (v) Religious faith and
belief are adaptive because they provide relief from anxiety, they bring comfort,
they unify communities, and they teach moral values.127 (vi) Evolution and
natural selection could reduce anxiety by simply modulating one of its
parameters to be less reactive to threats or appropriately recalibrate it.
2.5. The multiple–by-products hypothesis: (i) (Kirkpatrick, 1999, 2004,
2006) proposed the multiple–by-products hypothesis, where “religion represents
a collection of by-products of a variety of psychological mechanisms that evolved
for other purposes”; this is similar to an independently derived view (Atran, 2002;
Atran & Norenzayan, 2004). (ii) Kirkpatrick argues that a diverse collection of
specialized psychological systems was evolved for other purposes from which the
various aspects of religion were assembled. In other words, no new adaptations
have since evolved that were specifically designed to create any specific aspect of
religion. (iii) According to (Boyer, 1994, 2001), majority of religious beliefs can be
explained by combining other evolved psychological mechanisms in a specific
manner, which are supported by specific cultural contexts. There other
mechanisms were designed for other purposes such as for the understanding of
the various aspects of our physical, biological, and interpersonal domains. (iv)
Multiple–by-products hypothesis addresses problems of religion-as-adaptation,
such as: (a) The ‘by-products’ aspect of the multiple–by-products resolves the
numerous problems related to identification of adaptive function and design by
shifting the problems to other systems (e.g., attachment, kinship, and so on)
from which religion arises. (b) The ‘multiple’ aspects address the intractable
problem of defining religion or identifying any single central, fundamental
characteristic that is shared by all religious aspects. (c) The multiple–by-
products framework addresses the problems of the huge individual and cross-
cultural differences in religion. For example, the individual or cultural differences
can be interpreted as the differences in the specific psychological systems or their
relative weighting, which are involved in the processing of religious information in
different people. In some societies/religions, since God is perceived as nurturing
and loving caregivers, beliefs about God might be embedded primarily in their
attachment system. Whereas in other societies/religions, gods are perceived as
93
Dvi-Pakṣa
social exchange partners who can help us only if we meet certain conditions or
perform certain kinds of rituals or sacrifices. (d) Religion is adaptive,
maladaptive, or adaptively neutral depending on circumstances. This data is
consistent more with the multiple–by-products framework than religion-as-
adaptation hypothesis. This is because if religion is a by-product of other
mechanisms, there is no reason to expect that it will always produce
systematically adaptive effects. (v) Thus, the multiple–by-products hypothesis
addresses the problems of religion-as-adaptation and retains the many strengths
of evolution-selection-adaptation framework.
(3) Religiosity as an adaptation for health and cooperation: Contrary to

(Kirkpatrick, 1999, 2004, 2006), (Bulbulia, 2006) argues for the religion-as-
adaptation hypothesis. The followings are mostly adapted from (Bulbulia, 2006)
but some of the information is also derived from other resources.
3.1. Religiosity as an adaptation for health and cooperation—self-
healing placebo hypothesis and costly signaling hypothesis: (a) The two
hypotheses related to the biological functions, which strongly motivate religious
commitments (based on imaginary supernatural worlds) that strongly influence
how believers lead their lives, are as follows: (i) The healing placebo hypothesis
postulates that religiosity evolved, adapted, and selected, as a mechanism for
self-healing as nature’s medicine. (ii) The costly signaling hypothesis proposes
that “religiosity evolved as a hard-to-fake signaling system to motivate trust,
solidarity, and cooperation among nonkin in the ancestral world.” (b) One could
argue that cultural processes (such as memes) cannot explain religiosity
(Blakemore, 2000; Dawkins, 1976). (c) Self-healing placebo hypothesis: A
hypothesis for the mechanism for the religious predispositions becoming
ingrained in human nature is that the religiosity evolved to nurture placebo
health (McClenon, 1997, 2002). Placebos are “beliefs and attitudes whose
nonspecific causal properties make us better”. (d) (Bulbulia, 2006) proposes a
hypothesis that “selection amplified dispositions to believe in gods because such
beliefs helped our ancestors live longer and healthier, leaving more god-believing
progeny.” (e) Costly signaling hypothesis: Since the costs of religion in terms of
time, effort, money, and risk is very high in some respect, some naturalists (such
as (Dawkins, 1976)) view religion as disease, a form of mental harm (‘barking
madness’) caused by persuasive rationally disabling ideas or ‘memes.’ Since
religious ideas are brutally successful at reproducing and spreading, they swamp
the mind of religious agents and are adapted for their own success (not ours).
Therefore, religious life lacks prosperity intrinsically (Dawkins, 1976).
3.2. Benefits of religion: However, the data on religion and health are
against the views of Dawkins that the religion is not intrinsically beneficial. For
example, the data indicate less immune system dysfunction, hypertension,
cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, and functional impairment, fewer
negative health behaviors (such as, drugs and alcohol abuse, smoking, risky
sexual behaviors, and inactive lifestyle), and lower overall mortality ((Koenig,
McCullough, & Larson, 2001), p. 394). (g) In the majority of studies, with respect
94
Dvi-Pakṣa
to mental health, religious involvement correlated with: (i) well-being, happiness,

and life satisfaction, (ii) hope and optimism, (iii) purpose and meaning in life, (iv)
higher self-esteem, (v) adaptation to bereavement, (vi) greater social support and
less loneliness, (vii) lower rates of depression and faster recovery from
depression, (vii) lower rates of suicide and fewer positive attitudes toward suicide,
(viii) less anxiety, (ix) less psychosis and fewer psychotic tendencies, (x) lower
rates of alcohol and drug use or abuse, (xi) less delinquency and criminal
activity, and (xii) greater marital stability and satisfaction.
3.3. Problems of religion: The religious data are ambiguous on its adaptive
design. Benefits and problems depend on (a) different forms of religiosity and
practice (Park, Cohen, & Herb, 1990) and (b) different age-groups (Neighbors,
Jackson, Bowman, & Gurin, 1983). Some studies such as (Strawbridge, Shema,
Cohen, Roberts, & Kaplan, 1998) suggest that religiosity may worsen stress.
Religious placebo healings that is based on imaginary supernatural worlds do not
reveal why religion heals rather than secular placebos. One could argue that
some of religious beliefs and rituals are unhealthy, such as consuming the flesh
and blood of the deity, ritually chopping bits of penis off, and believing in
Judgment Day.
3.4. The architecture of religious error (religious healing): There are three
hypotheses for using evolutionary cost-benefit analysis of religious error (healing
religiosity) instead of hypothesizing religion as an adaptation: (i) When we are in
doubt and cannot decide, then the default is to follow what successful people
selected the path. This thumb rule on average may bring success, but it can
easily propagate error, i.e., superstitions are very risky for cultural/religious
agents. Natural selection may tolerate such perceptual error but within adaptive
thresholds. (ii) Since we are imperfect beings, the natural selection may actively
nurture an error-prone design, such as religious errors as emerging from an
architecture wired for safety (not accuracy) that is an actively cost-prone
psychological design (Atran, 2002; Guthrie, 1993, 2001). (iii) The third
hypothesis proposes that error itself is inherently more beneficial than accuracy
in a Darwinian world, where natural “selection has been able to trial, develop,
and preserve an intricate error-prone psychological design”. This is because (a)
“actively distorting the world may be intrinsically beneficial to duped organisms,”
(b) structured “error itself may bring powerful reproductive advantages to an
error-prone organism”. Examples are self-deception and religious error. Self-
deception is an adaptive error, which is a cognitive strategy to deceive oneself
and works best when the agent remains unaware of the error. Similar is the case
for religious error. If the agent knows that the supernatural entities (such as
God, soul, life-after-death, which are the main premises) do not exist, then s/he
(such as atheists/scientists) will not believe firmly on supernatural entities (such
as God) and the placebo faith healing will not work and the benefits of religions
will be reduced or eliminated. This means that errors must be encapsulated
(concealed) from such problems to work properly.
3.5. Optimal psychological design for religious healing through stress
mitigation, confidence and beliefs: The placebo response pathway to the
95
Dvi-Pakṣa
evolution of religious error might be through stress mitigation (McClenon, 1997,

2002). The psychological stress harmfully affects our health leading to poor
health (Rabin, 2002). Religious beliefs often imply that the world is a less
stressful place because religious practices calm us (Newberg et al., 2002). Stress
typically emerges from the stressor-related judgments of how things stand in the
world. In ancestral world, life was significantly harsher and hence natural
selection has plentiful opportunity to act on our misinterpretation of miserable
reality. Such mistakes are called ‘religious healing errors’ or RERRORS, which
results good health. Therefore, natural selection could have acted to promote
such error to provide hope even if it is based on false reality. A few examples are
as follows: (i) If RERROR is the belief that stressors are unreal, the stress and
anxiety will decrease. For example, varieties of Buddhism and Advaita believe
that we live in a world of appearances, where the reality our senses express is
illusionary, which hides a deeper, truer, better, but less stressor-infected reality.
In other words, if we firmly believe that our suffering is based on this
misunderstanding, it will reduce. (ii) If RERROR is the belief that stressors are
real but not genuinely stressful in proper perspective. For example, varieties of
Christianity believe that “whatever happens, this real world is only passing, and
that there is a better world to come, one lacking stressors”. In other words, if we
firmly believe that our suffering, although real, is only temporary; therefore,
nothing to worry about as it will go away soon. (iii) If RERROR is the belief that
stressors are real but necessary for better life. For example, varieties of Western
monotheisms believe that if we interpret the ups and downs of life as tests and if
successfully pass them, a better life will be rewarded by God. (iv) If RERROR is
the belief that stressors are real, but the gods or ancestors will help us combat
them. For example, many Eastern and African religions believe that “the gods
have given us healing substance that we can use to fight disease. Here the gods
are like antibiotics, real but hidden from view”. The agents prone to RERROR are
called religious healers, who must make sure that RERROR must remain vague
to escape empirical disconfirmation; otherwise, its beneficial effects will be
decrease and faith healers will be out of business. Sometimes cost is low and
benefits of religious placebos are high, and sometimes it is other way around. As
long as beliefs are firm, failure does not discourage agents from their religious
healing; usually failures are considered as God is testing their patience and
commitments.
3.6. Informational Encapsulation: (i) RERROR must be significantly
encapsulated from its problems for its evolution. Religious healers are in hostile
world; so they must detect real threats and avoid them; otherwise, it will not
work. (ii) “Paradoxically, religious healers should both believe in the gods where
doing so is functional and not believe in the gods where doing so is disastrous.”
(iii) Religion should be considered as last resort, i.e., after natural health care
fails. (iv) McClenon’s design composed of confidence and encapsulation
constraints and a guidance system that tracks healing domains, which is
insufficient in explaining religious experiences.
3.7. Religious and secular placebos, and health-damaging nocebo effects:
(i) Religion is enormously costly because practitioners spend massive resources
96
Dvi-Pakṣa
such as time, energy, and material outpouring through the course of their
religious practice. (ii) Natural non-religious secular placebo healing (such as
sugar pills and meditation) is more economical; it does not depend on this costly
practice; and appear fully sufficient to reduce stress and release the body’s
healing powers (such as relaxation responses). (iii) Given “the two variants,
religious placebo and secular placebo, it would appear that, all things
considered, selection will favor dispositions to the less costly secular
alternatives.” (iv) Health-damaging nocebo effects: (a) Aztecs practiced blood
sacrifices. (b) Wandering Thai Buddhas meditate in front of vicious animals to
focus their hearts (Tiyavanich, 1997). (c) “At one end of the spectrum, we find
extraordinary risky and painful ordeals—trials by needles and fire, teeth
punching, nonsterile circumcisions, practices of leaping from great heights, soul
quests in hostile environments, potent drug use, lifelong celibacy, and much else.
At the other end, we find apparently fruitless investments of time and energy
through long, tedious rituals for which agents incur massive opportunity costs.”
(d) The “foot-blistering traditions of fire walking, ritual scarification, tattooing,
and bodily mutilation are common throughout religious cultures. These are far
from healthful modes of acting. Even beyond the potentially health-damaging
effects of religious ritual, very often religious representations are terrifying,
literally, as hell.” (e) These types of terror are incompatible with stress mitigation;
this fact is often ignored in religious healing discussions. Therefore, one could
argue that religious agents can be prone to health-damaging nocebo effects. (f)
Thus, one needs to address how the reproductive costliness of religiosity was
tolerated by evolution, adaptation, and natural selection. (v) Religion functions as
a placebo at some times and as a nocebo at others. Since, in general, it appears
successful, so placebo dominates nocebo effects.
3.8. Healing and policing functions: (a) Since we live in a hostile world, both
healing and moral religious representations must be strongly encapsulated from
their problems for the evolution of religion. This is because religion cannot evolve
well if it impairs survival and if god loving and fearing causes us to forget about
the necessities of life. (b) If a religious viewpoint encompasses both healing and
moral-policing functions, then the costs associated with RERROR are minimized.
(c) If the healing-gods and the policing-gods (that enforce reciprocity) belong to
the same theological viewpoint, then it may support each separate function
through integration. (d) One can experimentally test these relations from the
responses of religious persons (as compared to nonreligious controls) to various
forms of supporting and unsupportive signals. For example, if !Kung can show
the healing dance cures miraculously desperately ill patients, it will reinforce
!Kung social existence and increased solidarity.
3.9 Placebo Health as a Reproductively Beneficial Costly Signaling
Device: (a) “The most important benefit to integrating the health and moral
hypotheses for the evolution of religiosity is that it exposes a powerful selection
pressure acting to favor religious placebos over their merely secular alternatives.”
(b) !Kung shamans increases the risk of pathogen infection in themselves, which
is a costly signal of commitment to him or her. (c) “Far from damaging a religious
97
Dvi-Pakṣa
agent’s reproductive interests, religious healing enhances those interests by

restoring and maintaining health and well-being.”
3.10. Conclusion: (Bulbulia, 2006) concludes as follows: (i). Better health
for religious agent and self-deception: (a) Both religion and self-deception are
based on false premises but are evolved, adapted and selected. One could ask
why. Perhaps, both are useful in our lives. Religion helps in restoring and
maintaining individual well-being. Religious people live longer, healthier, and
better-adjusted lives, even though religion is costly and risky. (b) Both have
optimal design. For example, self-deception works best when it is complete,
targeted to exchange, and encapsulated from other problem domains. Religion
works best when it is certain, targeted to stress reduction, and encapsulated
from other problem domains.
(ii). McClenon’s hypothesis about the evolution of religious healing: (a) If
we firmly believe in supernatural entities (God, soul, and life-after death), we will
be able to adjust to hardship and disease more effectively than nonreligious
secularists will. (b) Believers are evolved to distort and bias experience to support
religion and religious healing. (c) The hypothesis related to the features of the
information processing design that control religious healing is “in promoting well-
being, religious healing actually does make the world a less stressful place, and
this evidence will be reintegrated into the systems that promote religious
conviction and certitude.”
(iii). Why religious healing is an adaptationist explanation for human
religiosity: (a) One could ask if there is any intrinsic relationship between
religious placebo healing and god worship when nonreligious sugar pills placebo
effect does not need any deity. However, both involve firm belief. (b) It is unclear
why then evolution-adaptation-selection hypothesis of religiosity would be
favored over nonreligious healing belief, when religious placebo healing is risky,
often unhealthy (sometimes leads to early death), and costly in effort and time. In
addition, celibacy and unhealthy rituals in religion are against reproductive germ
lines.
(iv). Benefits of cooperation and high risk of commitments: (a) Religiosity
generates intense individual and group-level benefits by helping individuals to
cooperate rather than defect. (b) Enhanced cooperation and coordination among
members of society due to religion provide powerful incentives to the blind
evolution, selection, and adaptation of religious dispositions in us. (c) The
benefits of cooperation and religious healings require firm commitments from
members, which in turn require hard-to-fake high religious costs, such as risky,
time-consuming ritual participation, emotional display, and high stress in
defectors in the same family (for example, highly religious spouse is busy in
rituals and its consequences that may offend the other non-religious spouse).
(v). Natural selection of religious placebo healing: (a) If moral religiosity
and faith healing originate from the same collection of supernatural
commitments, religious healing can be a hard-to-fake signal of the cooperative
commitment (see also (Irons, 2001)). (b) The main requirement of religious
placebo healing is the truly firm belief and faith; it works for cooperators; it does
not work for defectors. (c) Natural selection has a powerful incentive to preserve
98
Dvi-Pakṣa
tendencies to religious placebo healing. This is because it is not costly in terms of

reproduction and is very useful. (d) We have physiological constraints on our own
ability to heal ourselves, so religious placebo healing is useful.
(vi). Test for the hypothesis that believers are better than non-believers
Scientific experiments can be designed to test the hypothesis that strong
religious believers do better in health (physical, mental, social, and spiritual
health), moral values, stressful conditions, and healings compared to irreligious
controls; similarly, for spirituality.
(vii). Optimal design for religion as health and healing: There are two
claims: (a) the optimal design suggests that religiosity has indeed evolved to help
make us healthy: “religiosity is a remedy in nature’s medical bag.” (b) “It appears
that the psychosomatic systems regulating health and healing are optimized for
social inputs as well as for personal expressions of care and concern.” (c) If
scientific empirical testing cannot reject these claims, health care advocates
should reconsider the evolutionary approaches to religious healing. (d) Modern
healing environments, such as hospitals, are not structured to accommodate
religious healing. (e) Researchers should reconsider the empirical studies of the
cognitive design that supports nature’s medicine religious healing and elaborates
the intriguing pathways related to the evolutionary study of religion and mind.
Summary: If one of the spouse is a non-believer or agnostic and the other is
very religious; then stress is usually generated between them. The point is that
religion can also create problems; it is all placebo effect; for example, !Kung’s
shamanism and its healing method has placebo effect and costly method in
terms of time, effort, and possible pathogenic infection due to close contact with
patients during rituals. Perhaps, spirituality is more secured than religion. For
this, practicing meditation and attaining the samādhi state is better method
because one enjoys 3 kinds of experiences: (1) bliss (million times regular
happiness) because limbic-amygdala-nucleus-accumbens (pleasure center) in the
basal forebrain are activated; (2) inner light perception (yogi experiences pleasant
light everywhere with eyes closed: visual areas are activated leading to cortical
phosphenes); and (3) the unification of subject and the objects when yogi opens
his eyes, which is due to the deactivation of parietal lobe (responsible for subject-
object discrimination) and activation of frontal lobe.
(4) The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion: (Pinker, 2006) evaluates God

gene and God module claims as follows.
(i) God gene and God module claims: One could ask: do we have a ‘God
gene’ or a ‘God module’? Some scientists say YES: (Hamer, 2005) for God gene
and (Persinger, 1983, 1987; Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998; Ramachandran
et al., 1997) for God module. The God module is a subsystem of the brain that is
shaped by evolution and causes us to have a religious belief and affect religious
intensity.
(ii) Prediction of the claims of religions: (a) Apparently irrational
beliefs/faith must have evolved. (b) Religious/spiritual claims/predictions can be
tested. (c) Some of predictions are as follows: suffering should be proportional to
sin; success in life should be proportional to virtue; miracles should be
99
Dvi-Pakṣa
observable; religion gives comfort; religion brings a community together; religion

is the source of our higher ethical yearnings and so on. (d) One could ask why
the mind should find comfort in false beliefs. Is this because of evolutionary
adaptation and natural selection? Perhaps, YES.
(iii) Moral values, religious belief as a byproduct, and wish list to God:
(a) We can certainly learn morality from our religion; however, psychology has
also identified universal moral feelings such as generosity, compassion, love,
guilt, shame, and righteous outrage. (b) Religious belief is a by-product of
predisposed emotions that are evolved for various reasons. (c) As per
ethnographic surveys, people pray to communicate with God for their wish list
such as acquiring job, successful marriage, recovery from illness, success in
enterprises, success in the battle field, and so on.
(5) Traits (language, spirituality), gene(s), neural correlates, God part of

brain, and dealing with the fear of death: (Mathews, 2008) proposes the
followings: (i) A specific gene or set of genes are responsible for the emergence of
a specific trait or universal physical characteristic, which has its neural
correlates. For example, our linguistic characteristic is a genetically inherited
trait; it has cognitive function, which has neural correlates such as the
Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. (ii) Similarly, spirituality is
also a genetically inherited trait; it has specific gene(s) (such as VMAT2 gene or
God gene); it has spiritual cognitive function of experiencing self-transcendence;
and it has neural correlates such as God module(s) from which spiritual
cognition, sensation and behavior somehow arise. (iii) The belief/faith in gods,
soul, life-after-death, prayers, burying or cremating dead-bodies with rites for
next life, and so on indicate a behavior. This behavior appears universal
trait/characteristic; and is the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation,
which exists within the human brain; it is related to spirituality, which has
genetic contribution. In other words, we are perhaps ‘hard-wired’ to experience
such spiritual feelings, in analogy to honeybees are forced to construct hexagonal
shaped hives. (iv) “God is not necessarily something that exists ‘out there,’
beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited
perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the
human brain.” When self-awareness128 emerged/arose in us, we faced our
unique and devastating awareness of death, which is a state of constant mortal
threat and unceasing anxiety. It was critical to avoid being extinct that we should
be modified in some way to maintain self-conscious and deal with this death-
threat. Therefore, we have evolved such an apparently abstract trait of being
religious/spiritual to enable us to deal with this unceasing anxiety related to
death. (v) “Here lies the origin of humankind’s spiritual function, an evolutionary
adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies
will one day perish, our ‘spirits’ or ‘souls’ will persist for all eternity. Only once
our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is
something more ‘out there,’ that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive
our debilitating awareness of death.”
100
Dvi-Pakṣa
(6) God helmet: As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology (3Feb11),

‘Neurotheology, also known as spiritual neuroscience [(Biello, 2007)], is the study
of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality
and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. […] Persinger stimulated the
temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field using an apparatus
that popularly became known as the ‘God helmet’ [(Persinger, 1983)]. His
subjects claimed to have a sensation of ‘’an ethereal presence in the room’. […]
The first researcher to note and catalog the abnormal experiences associated
with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) was neurologist Norman Geschwind, who noted
a constellation of symptoms, including hypergraphia, hyperreligiosity, fainting
spells, and pedantism, often collectively ascribed to a condition known as
Geschwind syndrome. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explored the neural basis of
the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE using the galvanic skin response, which
correlates with emotional arousal, to determine whether the hyperreligiosity seen
in TLE was due to an overall heightened emotional state or was specific to
religious stimuli. By presenting subjects with neutral, sexually arousing and
religious words while measuring GSR, Ramachandran was able to show that
patients with TLE showed enhanced emotional responses to the religious words,
diminished responses to the sexually charged words, and normal responses to
the neutral words. These results suggest that the medial temporal lobe is
specifically involved in generating some of the emotional reactions associated
with religious words, images and symbols [(Ramachandran & Blakeslee, 1998)].
[…] McKinney's primary thesis that feelings associated with religious experience
are normal aspects of brain function under extreme circumstances rather than
communication from God. […] an increase of N-Dimethyltryptamine levels in the
pineal gland, or stimulation of the temporal lobe by psychoactive ingredients of
magic mushrooms mimics religious experiences.’
(7) Mystical experiences such as sensed presence and the out-of-body

experience: As per (Persinger, Saroka, Koren, & St-Pierre, 2010), “The human
brain is the locus of all human experiences. The substantial microstructural and
neuroelectrical differences between the two cerebral hemispheres predicts two
major classes of mystical experiences which involve the sensed presence and the
out-of-body experience. Their occurrence and their attributions to cosmic origins
have been reported for centuries and have been the bases for social belief
systems. Direct cerebral electrical stimulation during the 20th century evoked
these experiences. In the 21st century the non-invasive, external transcerebral
application of complex, physiologically-patterned weak magnetic fields has been
shown to produce similar experiences that can be correlatively mapped by
quantitative electroencephalographic inferences of interhemispheric coherence.
The experimental production and control of these powerful experiences by more
sophisticated technologies might be employed to understand the intricate nature
and function of mystical/altered states within large populations of human
beings.”
101
Dvi-Pakṣa
5.2.4. God Particle hypothesis

(1) Mass from Higgs field, Higgs boson, and God particle: As per
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson), ‘The existence of the Higgs boson
and the associated Higgs field would be the simplest of several methods to
explain why some other elementary particles have mass. According to this theory,
other elementary particles obtain mass by interacting with the Higgs field which
has non-zero strength everywhere, even in otherwise empty space. […] Because of
its possible role in producing a fundamental property of elementary particles, the
Higgs boson has been referred to as the ‘God particle’ in popular culture,
although virtually all scientists regard this as a hyperbole. […] On 4 July 2012,
the CMS and the ATLAS experimental teams at the Large Hadron Collider
independently announced that they each confirmed the formal discovery of a
previously unknown boson of mass between 125–127 GeV/c2, [a mass of about
125 GeV/c2 ~ about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10−25 kg ] whose
behaviour so far was ‘consistent with’ a Higgs boson, while adding a cautious
note that further data and analysis were needed before positively identifying the
new particle as being a Higgs boson of some type.’
(2) Higgs field, Higgs Boson (Higgson), and Brahman: I provide the
proposal of (Hu & Wu, 2012) along with information from other sources and my
view based on the eDAM framework as follows: (i) The discovery of Higgs Boson
(or Higgs-like particle or ‘higgson’) is made by CERN, Fermilab, people at LHC,
people at Tevatron and all the theoretical and experimental physicists over the
last 50 years. (ii) Higgson can be thought of the shadow of universal
consciousness. (iii) (Lederman & Teresi, 1993) appears to equate Higgs Boson
with the God Particle, perhaps inappropriately.129 This is because God (or
universal consciousness) is presumably responsible for the creation of universe
and our consciousness. A genuine God particle is an entity from which our
Universe was born. If Higgs field is the fundamental unified field in unmanifested
state (same or similar to unmanifested state of Brahman) and its manifestation is
the Higgs Boson (Higgson), then all four major forces, fermions, and bosons
should be somehow derived from it. (iv) Higgs Boson is a scalar particle of no
spin (spin 0), which may be different from fermions (spin ½, 3/2, …) and bosons
(spin 1, 2, …) if experiments prove that a fundamental scalar particle such as the
Higgs boson has different statistical behavior from that of a boson. (v) Gravity is
instantaneous and might be the manifestation of quantum entanglement. (vi)
Higgson as the manifestation of universal consciousness: One could that higgson
is the manifestation of a more fundamental entity (see also (Zeps, 2012)), namely,
the universal consciousness. (vii) (Hu & Wu, 2010, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) have
argued that a particle with zero spin (such as Higgs boson or the ‘God Particle’)
governed by a matrix law is the precursor of fermions and other bosons; this is
further detailed in their principle of existence. (viii) As per (Hu & Wu, 2012),
“The principle of existence is a unified principle and model of elementary
particles, four forces and consciousness and illustrates how self-referential
hierarchical spin structure of the universal consciousness provides a foundation
102
Dvi-Pakṣa
for creating, sustaining and causing evolution of elementary particles through

matrixing processes embedded in universal consciousness (Hu & Wu, 2010,
2011c)”. (ix) (Hu & Wu, 2011b) have conjectured that the new particle discovered
at the LHC, if real, is possibly the manifestation of the zero-spin particle of the
proposed principle of existence. (x) The candid ‘God particle’ should (a) explain
the creations of bosons and fermions, the gravitational force, the strong force, the
weak force, the electromagnetic force, the origin of the Universe, the universal
consciousness, and our consciousness and experiences. (xi) The God particle is
mathematically omnipotent, omni-active, omnipresent and omniscient, which is
Einstein’s ether that is the foundation of existence. It creates, sustains and
makes elementary particles.
(3) Conclusion: In the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita), each fermion or boson including Higgs boson and field has inseparable
mental and physical aspects. Higgs field may be related to primal dual-aspect
entity (such as dual-aspect unmanifested Brahman) from which universe arose
via quantum fluctuations in primal empty-space (ground state of quantum field
with minimum energy or zero energy with zero space-time).
5.2.5. Neural correlates and neurochemistry of religiosity

(Paloutzian, Swenson, & McNamara, 2006) proposed the neural correlates of
religiosity as follows: (i) The frontal lobes and posterior cortical sites (including
the temporal lobes, the hippocampus, amygdala, and the limbic system) are in
mutual inhibitory balance (Goldberg, 1987; Lhermitte, 1986). (ii) For example, if
the temporal cortical areas were activated then a compensatory inhibitory
response would be generated in the frontal lobes. This implies that the neural
correlates of religiosity might be frontal-temporal areas, not just neuroanatomical
supposition temporal areas or just orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). (iii) The OFC
directly modulates (mutually inhibits) temporal and limbic cortical areas. For
example, the damage of OFC leads to social and emotional dis-inhibition, which
indicates that OFC inhibits limbic and temporal lobes (Chow & Cummings, 1999;
Schnider & Gutbrod, 1999). (iv) The superior temporal lobes send projections to
the OFC. The medial OFC both sends and receives projections to limbic and the
temporal limbic regions (Chow & Cummings, 1999; Nauta, 1979; Zald & Kim,
1996). (v) The OFC directly inhibits the amygdala, including the caudal OFC
inhibiting central nucleus of the amygdala, which sends efferents to the
brainstem and hypothalamus. Thus, medial OFC indirectly controls a range of
endocrine and autonomic behavioral responses. (vi) For example, the reactive
aggression is due to the OFC inhibitory control of a limbic system behavior via
medial OFC to medial amygdala through the stria terminalis and the medial
hypothalamus to the peri-aqueductal gray. (vii) To sum up, the functional
neuroanatomy and clinical temporal lobe epilepsy supports the argument that
behaviors linked to the limbic temporal lobes, such as spiritual transformation
and religious conversion, require densely interconnected and functional neural
networks (NN), such as OFC-limbic-temporal lobe NN system. (viii) This is
103
Dvi-Pakṣa
because spiritual transformation and religious conversion may be related to a

series of neural networks contained in limbic and OFC areas because limbic
system normally mediates emotional states, medial temporal lobe mediates
language comprehension, hippocampus mediates memory, and OFC mediates
personality. (viii) As per (McNamara, 2006a), the PFC has a supervisory or
regulative role because it receives input signals from mediodorsal nucleus of
thalamus and sends output signals to the dorsal and orbital prefrontal areas
(which sends inhibitory efferent signals to other areas of brain and spinal cord),
primary motor cortex, premotor, and supplementary motor areas. (ix) (Newberg,
Alavi et al., 2001) reported greater prefrontal activation during meditative states
using SPECT imaging techniques. (x) (Azari et al., 2001) reported activation in
frontal–parietal circuit (dorsomedial frontal, dorsolateral frontal, and medial
parietal cortex) during religious recitation using neuroimaging techniques. They
argued that (i) these areas are involved in sustaining reflexive evaluation of
thought, (ii) the commonsense view is that religious experience is a
preconceptual and immediate affective event, and (iii) the philosophical and
psychological view is that religious experience is an attributional cognitive
phenomenon. Therefore, (iv) religious experience may be a cognitive process
which, however, feels immediate.
(Murakami et al., 2012) reported the followings (with a few quotes): (i) The
Buddhist meditation technique of mindfulness is defined “as bringing one’s
complete attention to the experiences occurring in the present moment in a
nonjudgmental or accepting way [(Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney,
2006)] …, which decreases emotional reactivity”. (ii) In voxel-based morphometry
MRI technique, they used the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire: non-
reactivity to inner experience; non-judging of experience; acting with awareness,
automatic-pilot, concentration, and/or nondistraction; describing: finding the
words to describe one’s own feelings; and observing: noticing and paying
attention to one’s own emotions, feelings, body experience, and behavior. (iii) The
meditators with mindfulness practice had positive correlations between the score
of the describing facet and the gray matter volume in the right anterior insular
cortex and in the right parahippocampal gyrus/amygdala. (iv) “The right anterior
insula contains interoceptive rerepresentations that substantialize all subjective
feelings from the body and perhaps emotional awareness [(Craig, 2009)] … The
developed right anterior insula volume in individuals with a higher describing
score in the present study may facilitate more awareness of their own emotional
states, and awareness of their own stressful states may enable them to exert
cognitive control over their emotions”. (v) “The amygdala is well known to play a
primary role in psychological and physiological emotional responses … The
orbitofrontal cortex is related with emotion and emotion regulation … gray matter
volume in the hippocampus declines by chronic stress … The amygdala is under
tonic inhibitory control via c-aminobutyric acid-ergic mediated projections from
the prefrontal cortex … the basolateral amygdala receives inhibitory input from
the prefrontal cortex … Taken together, the developed amygdala volume, if it
includes the basolateral amygdala, in individuals with higher describing scores in
the present study may allow superior cognitive control of emotional responses by
104
Dvi-Pakṣa
the prefrontal cortex. (vi) “The amygdala and anterior insula related with the
describing facet of mindfulness tendency are parts of the somatic marker circuit.
The amygdala is trigger of emotional/bodily states in response to environment,
and the anterior insula is mapping of bodily/emotional states gives rise to
conscious ‘gut feelings’”.
Neurochemistry of religiosity: (McNamara, 2006a) discussed serotonin and
dopamine involvement in religiosity and spirituality as follows: (i) Serotonin (5-
HT, ‘feeling bad’ chemical) inhibits tonically dopaminergic system especially in
the limbic system. Hallucinatory drugs enhance dopamine (DA, ‘feeling good’
chemical) transmission and also religious and/or mystical experiences.
Therefore, the removal of the inhibitory 5-HT influence enhances DA activity,
which results religious and hallucinatory experiences (Borg, Andree, Soderstrom,
& Farde, 2003; Iqbal & van Praag, 1995; Robert, Aubin-Brunet, & Darcourt,
1999). (ii) Dopamine is released during meditation (Kjaer et al., 2002) and hence
DA may be related to spirituality and religiosity. For example, the loss of striatal
and prefrontal dopamine in patients with moderate to severe Parkinson’s disease
is the reason for low levels of religiosity (McNamara, Durso, & Harris, 2006).
5.2.6. Conceptual analysis of theist/atheist phenomenon

(1) Theists reject atheism and science’s materialism (by definition).
(2) Atheists and science’s materialism reject theism (by definition).
(3) (1) and (2) are in conflict and increase the likelihood of wars.
(4) The eDAM framework (dual-aspect monism with dual-mode and varying
degree of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities)
encompasses both views (1) and (2).
(5) Theist-atheist phenomenon is subject-specific.
(6) (4) and (5) predict peace.
(7) Therefore, (4) should be examined further to determine if it is the truth.
To sum up, the fundamental Truth should be independent of theist/atheist

phenomenon. We could call the dual-aspect Brahman as God/Ishvara/Allah if we
are theists or we could interpret the dual-aspect Brahman as the fundamental
dual-aspect quantum field, empty-space (Krauss, 2012) with ground state
quantum field with minimum energy, or the dual-aspect Bohm’s Implicate Order
if we are an atheist/scientist.
105
Dvi-Pakṣa
5.3. Evolution of Universe
(Pal & De, 2012) summarizes the materialistic view as, ‘General view for the
evolution of universe: Big Bang → Universe → [Fields + Particles & Antiparticles
+ STC] → [Matter and Fields + STC] → Matter and Fields + STC + Life as well as
consciousness. […] The brain can also somehow ‘tune into’ fundamental proto-
consciousness built into the quantum geometry of the universe’, where STC is
space time continuum. However, there is no scientific evidence for the tuning
mechanism. Moreover, one could argue that the proto-consciousness (all
subjective experiences potentially superposed) in the mental aspect of the state of
each entity in eDAM framework. In analogy to this, the eDAM view can be written
as follows.
The evolution of universe in the eDAM framework
The evolution of universe in the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) is
the co-evolution of the physical and mental aspect of the state of universe
starting from the physical and mental aspect of the state of quantum empty-
space at Big-Bang to finally the physical and mental aspect of the states of
brain-mind over 13.72 billion years can be summarized as (Vimal, 2013): [Dual-
aspect unmanifested state of Brahman, dual-aspect Śūnyatā, dual-aspect
quantum empty-space/void, or dual-aspect Implicate Order: same entity with
different names] → [Quantum fluctuation in the physical/mental aspect of
quantum empty-space] → Big Bang → [Very early dual-aspect universe (Planck
epoch, Grand unification epoch, Electroweak epoch (Inflationary epoch and
Baryogenesis)): dual-aspect universe with dual-aspect (unified field → four-
fundamental forces/fields: gravity as curvature of space, electromagnetic, weak
and strong) via inflation in dual-aspect space-time continuum] → [Early dual-
aspect universe (Supersymmetry breaking, Quark epoch, Hadron epoch, Lepton
epoch, Photon epoch (Nucleosynthesis, Matter domination, Recombination, Dark
ages)): Dual-aspect ‘fundamental forces/fields, elementary particles (fermions
and bosons), & antiparticles (anti-fermions)’ in dual-aspect space-time
continuum] → [Dual-aspect Structure formation (Reionization, Formation of
stars, Formation of galaxies, Formation of groups, clusters and superclusters,
Formation of our solar system, Today): Dual-aspect ‘matter (fermions and
composites, galaxies, stars, planets, earth, and so on), bosons, and fields’ and
dual-aspect ‘life and brain-states (experiential and functional consciousness
including thoughts and other cognition as mental aspect and neural-networks
and electrochemical activities as physical aspect) in dual-aspect space-time
continuum] → [Ultimate fate of the dual-aspect universe: Big freeze, Big Crunch,
Big Rip, Vacuum metastability event, and Heat death or dual-aspect Flat
Universe (Krauss, 2012)]. In the eDAM framework, the dual-aspect unified field
has the inseparable mental and physical aspects, which co-evolved and co-
developed eventually over 13.72 billion years (Krauss, 2012) to our mental and
physical aspects of brain-state. The mental aspect was latent until life appeared;
106
Dvi-Pakṣa
then its degrees of dominance increased from inert matter to plant to animal to
human; for awake, conscious, active humans, both aspects are equally
dominant; for inert entities, the mental aspect is latent and the physical aspect is
dominant.
In the eDAM framework, the dual-aspect quantum empty-space/void at the Big

Bang evolves into the space-time continuum. The dual-aspect unified field is a
dual-aspect entity, which evolved to dual-aspect bosons and fermions. Their
mental aspects are ‘latent’. When the life with brain appeared, the brain has
many dual-aspect states depending on exogenous stimuli and endogenous
activities. A brain-state has inseparable mental and physical aspects: its mental
aspect includes experiences, thoughts, cognition and so on, and its physical
aspect includes neural-nets and their electrochemical activities.
As per (Hawking, 1989), ‘The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle established that

the Void is filled with infinite pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles. These
pairs would have an infinite amount of energy and therefore, by Einstein’s
equation: E = mc2, they would have an infinite amount of mass’ (reproduced from
(Pal & De, 2012)). Thus void/empty-space/vacuum/Śūnyatā contains
innumerable virtual particles, which come into existence and then disappear
within Planck time (5.39 x 10-44 s) and cannot be measured, and hence the name
‘virtual particle’; real particles are those which can be measured.
One could argue for the following hypothesis that combines both science and
Hinduism views for the evolution/creation of universe in the eDAM framework:
(i) We can hypothesize that there was a primal entity/field from which somehow
other entities arose. We can call this entity by any name you like. Let us call it
Brahman.
(ii) We can categorize all entities in two categories: mind/non-matter and

matter/non-mental. Since both mind and matter somehow arose from Brahman,
one could attribute inseparable dual-aspect to this primal entity and every other
entity. This is needed to eliminate many problems such as category mistake. In
other words, we can consider that Puruṣa/Self/Ātman is the mental aspect and
Prakṛti is the inseparable physical aspect of the states of Brahman, which had
cause and effect combined. Here, the term ‘Brahman’ is the dual-aspect
fundamental energy that is inherent in each entity.
(iii) A spontaneous perturbation—including peculiar adjustment of

consciousness and/or quantum fluctuations (Vimal, 2010g) or ‘cosmic Desire’ in
the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman—led to the separation of
effect from cause.
107
Dvi-Pakṣa
(iv) Since both aspects are inseparable, the physical aspect of the unmanifested
state of Brahman was also perturbed. The perturbation in both aspects in turn
led to the evolution of a dual-aspect Hiraṇyagarbha (Cosmic egg)/Mahat. This
then led to the evolution of the dual-aspect Virāt (the initial state of manifested
Brahman). The perturbation has chaotic butterfly effect (as per chaos theory)
leading to Big Bang (Cosmic Fire). In other words, Virāt was further evolved
through Cosmic fire such as Big-Bang/quantum bounce (Vimal, 2010g): The
physical aspect of Virāt co-evolved into the various entities of physical universe
(Adhibhūta) with related inseparable mental aspect (Adhyātma/ Adhidaiva) of
each entity.
(v) Both aspects co-evolved to various states of manifested Brahman. Over

billions of years (about 13.72 billion years) various dual-aspect galaxies, stars,
planets and so on were formed. Eventually our dual-aspect earth was formed and
dual-aspect single cell appeared. In other words, further evolution/creation of
lower levels kept the inseparable dual-aspect intact with varying degrees of the
dominance depending on the levels of entities (physical aspect is dominant in
inert entities and both aspects are equally dominant in us when we are fully
awake).
(vi) Then there was Cambrian explosion about 542 MYA (millions years ago): a
profusion of dual-aspect animals with shells and skeletons began to appear (as
in the fossil record). So many dual-aspect life forms appeared during this time.
Eventually modern brain was co-evolved with its mind as a dual-aspect entity,
which may the latest manifested state of Brahman.
(vii) Inert entities including DNA, RNA, proteins and all molecules has dual-
aspects where the physical aspect is dominant and the mental is recessive/latent
in them. In neural-network(NN)-states, both aspects are equally dominant when
we are fully conscious and awake. So when we see red rose, we experience
redness, its fragrance, warm feeling (this is the mental aspect of related NN-
state); its related neural-network and activities in brain are the physical aspect.
Both are equally dominant because we can experience the mental aspect and
objectively measure the physical aspect using functional MRI.
To sum up, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad claims that all entities including our
souls/selves are in God/Brahman and vice versa. This is consistent with Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita: Brahman is the fundamental dual-aspect ‘energy’, which is
inherent in each dual-aspect (mental and physical) entity and takes on various
forms. Brahman always exists in various manifestations or transformations via
evolution.
108
Dvi-Pakṣa
5.4. In search of equivalence between science and religions to

bring them closer
In Dual-Aspect Monism (DAM), each entity-state has inseparable mental and

physical aspects. This is elaborated in 3 essential components of eDAM
framework: [1] DAM (Vimal, 2008b) with [2] dual-mode (Vimal, 2010c) and [3]
varying degrees of aspects depending on the levels of entities (Vimal, 2013).
Here, the fundamental entity—such as unmanifested Brahman, empty space with

quantum fluctuations (Krauss, 2012), Implicate Order/quantum potential
(Bohm, 1980; Bohm & Hiley, 1985), and so on: the same entity with different
names—has inseparable mental aspect (‘cosmic mind’) and physical aspect
(‘cosmic quantum structure’ or physical empty space with quantum
fluctuations). Since aspects are inseparable, one can start from the fluctuation in
‘cosmic mind’, which will automatically translate to the quantum fluctuations in
physical aspect of dual-aspect empty space. Either way is fine in the eDAM
framework. Modern physicists, such as (Krauss, 2012), start from quantum
fluctuations in physical empty space; it is not really empty; it is the ground state
quantum field with minimum energy; Krauss has done good job in this, but his
framework is materialism, which has problems. Our
mind/consciousness/subjective-experience (mental aspect of NN-state) and
related neural-network (NN) and its activities are the result of co-evolution and
co-development of mental and physical aspects of unmanifested Brahman,
respectively.
109
Dvi-Pakṣa
Table 3. Science versus Religion

Parameters Science/atheism: Nāstika Religions/theism:
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita
1. The fundamental entity The evolution (without God/Creator as the mental
involved in the evolution external agent such as God) aspect of unmanifested state
and/or creation of of the physical aspect of of dual-aspect Brahman.
universe and perturbation unmanifested state of dual- Since the physical and
aspect Brahman which could mental aspects are
be the dual-aspect empty inseparable, the quantum
space at ground state of fluctuations in empty-space
quantum field with can be translated
minimum energy (Krauss, automatically as the
2012). The random process fluctuations in the cosmic
such as spontaneous consciousness
quantum fluctuation or (Brahman/God) (a peculiar
slight asymmetry (matter adjustment of
being more than antimatter consciousness130 in the
leading to instability in mental aspect of
empty space) in the above unmanifested state of
empty space leading to Big Brahman (kāran-Brahman))
Bang and then further for the creation and then
evolution. Physical and evolution of universe via Big
mental laws. Nature. Bang.
Quantum fluctuation in
empty-space could be the
act of Nature as the brute-
fact (that is the way it is!) at
quantum level for the
creation/evolution of
universe via Big Bang.
2. Life-after death If soul exists to account for Soul/jīvātman
the karmas, it must be a
new dual-aspect entity that
science still needs to
discover directly or indirectly
by its effect. (Hari, 2008,
2010a, 2010b, 2011a,
2011b) proposed that it
might be the tachyon.
3. Big Bang Consistent Consistent
4. Flat universe Consistent Not inconsistent, but cyclic
universe is better
5. ‘something’ (universe) Consistent Consistent
out of ‘nothing’ (empty
space)/Śūnyatā
110
Dvi-Pakṣa
5.5. Future Researches
1. Brute fact investigation

The dual-aspect monism framework has the problem of dual-aspect ‘brute’ fact
(that is the way it is!), although it is justified as we clearly have neural-networks
in brain (physical aspect) and related subjective experiences (mental aspect);
however, it is indeed an assumption. This assumption is similar to the
assumption of God, soul, Brahman, physics’ vacuum, strings in string-theory,
and other fundamental assumptions in all frameworks. Further investigation is
needed to address the brute fact problem.
2. Origin of subjective experiences

It is unclear where subjective experiences (SEs) come from? The hypotheses of
the origin of SEs are: (i) All SEs are derived from God/Brahman/Allāh as in all
theist religions. (ii) All SEs pre-exist as superposed in the mental aspect of each
entity (Vimal, 2009h). (iii) Only cardinal SEs pre-exist as superposed in the
mental aspect of each entity and rest are derived from them (Vimal, 2009i,
2009j). (iv) All SEs are derived from the interaction between one proto-experience
(PE) and 3 gunas (qualities), which are superposed in the mental aspect of each
entity (Vimal, 2009b). Or (v) SEs potentially pre-exist as superposed in the
mental aspect of each entity-state and somehow actualized during matching and
selection processes (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c). The last one is still mysterious, but
should be acceptable by most science based investigators because one could
argue that every entity that empirically exists must potentially pre-exist in
analogy to a tree potentially pre-exists in its seed. Further research is needed to
investigate which hypothesis is correct.
111
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 6
Critiques
6.1. Discussion with Steven Kaufman (SK)
RLPV (RLP Vimal, the author): You have done excellent job explaining māyā
(Kaufman, 2013a) (Kaufman, 2013b) and Advaita (Kaufman, 2013b), where
consciousness is the fundamental reality. It is indeed very interesting. As
elaborated in Section 2.3, this view has serious problem: how matter-in-itself can
arise from non-material consciousness. This problem is reverse of the problem
(Section 2.2) of materialism (Cārvāka philosophy: dominant view of science): how
experiences/consciousness can arise from non-experiential matter. Problems in
the metaphysics used in Hinduism including Vedānta are discussed in Section 4.
The solution of problems of all views is given in Section 5 of the book using
extended dual-aspect monism (Dvi- Pakṣa Advaita), where Brahman is a dual-
aspect primal entity.
SK: Because you have asked for comments I will explain my philosophy or
metaphysics as it relates to what you have written with regard to their being a
problem with regard to how "matter-in-itself can arise from non-material
consciousness," as it really has been my life's work to solve that problem, i.e., to
figure out how that which is material can arise from that which is immaterial.
And having solved that problem to my satisfaction I made it my next project to
figure out why or how Consciousness, in giving rise to the experience of material
reality, loses sight of Itself as That of which the universe is actually composed.
Personally, I no longer see this as a problem, i.e., how matter-in-itself can
arise from non-material consciousness, as in both "Unified Reality Theory" and in
"Existential Mechanics" I explain how that which is the basis of what we
apprehend or experience as matter arises from non-material Consciousness,
through the iterative and progressive relations of Consciousness-Existence to
Itself. (It is explained much more clearly and fully in "Existential Mechanics" than
in "Unified Reality Theory," which I have attached to this email.)
I will attempt to summarize what is meant by this below. Consciousness-
Existence evolves into what we experience as both mental and material reality
through a process of iterative and progressive Self-relation, somewhat analogous
to taking a rubber band and twisting it upon itself repeatedly.
The relations of Consciousness-Existence to Itself create two very different
things: Relational Structures composed of Consciousness-Existence as it is being
in relation to Itself, and relative existences that are not composed of
Consciousness-Existence that the Consciousness-Existence involved in the
relation apprehends as an experiential reality.
The "thing in itself," to the extent the phrase "thing in itself" refers to what is
actually there, is always composed of Consciousness-Existence. The difference
112
Dvi-Pakṣa
between different things is not in what they are composed of, but is in how what
they are composed of is arranged in relation to Itself, i.e., the specific
configuration of the Relational Structure in question.
All relations are ultimately relations of Consciousness-Existence to Itself, as
that is all that actually Exists, since the relative existences that are the basis of
experience do not actually exist but only seem to exist, in as much as their
existence, such as it is, depends upon a relation.
So, the relations of Consciousness-Existence to Itself create Relational
Structures and experience. Once Consciousness-Existence is being in relation to
Itself and so Exists as a Relational Structure, Consciousness-Existence can then
be in relation to Itself as that Relational Structure and thereby form a new
relation with Itself, and so create both a new Relational Structure as well as a
new experience. This process goes on without end and is going on now and is the
basis of what we apprehend as the evolution of both organic and inorganic
matter. That is, underlying what we apprehend as organic and inorganic
evolution is Consciousness-Existence being iteratively and progressively in
relation to Itself, evolving into higher order Relational Structures and creating
progressively higher order experiences along the way.
The first and most basic and fundamental relations of Consciousness-
Existence to Itself create the Relational Structure I refer to as the Relational
Matrix while at the same time creating what Consciousness-Existence
apprehends as emotional experience.
Once the Relational Matrix Exists, i.e., once Consciousness-Existence is
involved in this set of relations with Itself, a second level of Existential self-
relation becomes possible, creating new Relational Structures and new
experiences. The experiences created as the result of these second level relations
are what we apprehend as mental experiences or thoughts. The Relational
Structures created through these second level existential relations are the basis
of what we then, at the next and third level of Existential self-relation, apprehend
as material reality or physical experience.
The Relational Structure is never Itself apprehended, as that is composed of
Consciousness-Existence and so is of a different Nature than the nature of
experience. In terms of the rubber band analogy, The Relational Structure,
regardless of level, is analogous to the rubber band, which also corresponds to
the "thing in itself," again if the "thing in itself" refers to what is actually there,
and experience is analogous to the lines or boundaries that arise where the
rubber band comes to be in relation to itself.
We are Consciousness-Existence involved in first, second, and third level
Existential self-relations, creating for ourselves emotional, mental, and physical
experiences. As Consciousness-Existence that has evolved Itself through iterative
and progressive self-relation into a specific Relational Structure, apprehended as
our organic bodies, we occupy a position and so perspective within the overall
Relational Structure of Reality as we become involved in relations with other
Relational Structures and so create what we experience as reality.
Space and mind are not two different things, but are opposite perspectives
upon the same thing, opposite perspectives upon the same Relational Structure.
113
Dvi-Pakṣa
Specifically, they represent opposite views or perspectives upon the Relational

Matrix. The Relational Matrix is the Relational Structure from which both
mental and physical reality extend and within which they evolve.
From our perspective within the Relational Structure of Reality as we look
outward we see space, and as we look inward we see mind. Looking outward we
see the emptiness from which physical reality seems to spring forth and within
which it evolves, and looking inward we see the emptiness from which mental
reality seems to spring forth and within which it evolves.
The difference between space and mind is not in what is actually there,
because in both cases what is actually there is Consciousness-Existence being in
relation to Itself and having evolved Itself or configured Itself into a Relational
Structure. In fact, underlying what we apprehend as space and mind is the same
fundamental Relational Structure, which I refer to as the Relational Matrix.
The difference between space and mind is not in what is there, rather the
difference is in how they are apprehended, how they appear, how they are
experienced, because how they are experienced is a function of how we, as
Consciousness-Existence here, are being in relation to what is there as
Consciousness-Existence. Space is simply how the Relational Matrix appears
when viewed as the product of an outward or third level Existential relation,
whereas mind is how the Relational Matrix appears when viewed as the product
of an inward or second level Existential relation. That is why space and physical
reality seems or appears outer whereas mind and mental reality appears inner,
because these experiential realties are the products of opposite perspectives, i.e.,
opposite directions of Existential relation, from the same position within the
overall Relational Structure of Reality.
Experiential reality appears fractal because underlying experiential reality is a
multi-leveled Relational Structure composed of Consciousness-Existence that
has evolved into that Relational Structure as the result of iterative Self-relation.
Iterative mathematical processes are what create fractals. Thus, the Relational
Structure of Reality is fractal, and we occupy a position within that Fractal
Structure, and from that position we become involved in particular relations and
so create particular experiences depending upon the particular relations in which
we become involved. And if we turn our attention outward and become involved
in third level relations we create physical experiences and apprehend the Fractal
Structure of Reality as space. And if we turn our attention inward and become
involved in second level relations we create mental experiences and apprehend
the Fractal Structure of Reality as mind. But neither space nor mind is what is
actually there. What is actually there is Consciousness-Existence being in
relation to Itself, and as a result evolving into a Relational Structure composed of
Itself while at the same time creating what it apprehends as emotional, mental,
and physical experience.
As Consciousness-Existence we are all "inside" the Relational Structure of
Reality because that Relational Structure is composed of what we ultimately are.
The question is, are we inside looking out, or inside looking in. Are we inside
looking out, in the direction toward which we are evolving as we become involved
in progressively higher order third level Existential relations, and so create higher
114
Dvi-Pakṣa
order physical experiences, or are we inside looking in, in the direction from
which we are evolving, as we become involved in progressively higher order
second level Existential relations, and so create higher order mental experiences.
We are Individual points of Consciousness-Existence that Exist within a
Matrix of Consciousness-Existence and we create what we apprehend as
experience according to the relations in which we become involved with the other
Relational Structures that Exist within that Matrix.
Thus, it is only the appearance of matter that arises from Consciousness-
Existence, as Consciousness-Existence becomes involved in relations with Itself
in a way that creates what the Individual apprehends as matter. What is actually
there is always the same non-experiential, non-material, non-mental non-thing
referred to by the words Consciousness-Existence.
All that having been said, this does not mean that I think that you are wrong
or that your central idea is not without merit. One must approach Reality from
their own Individual perspective and within their own framework. To explain this
I will just use my last paragraph from the recent article on maya.
"However, no matter how accurate a reflection of Reality an Individual is able
to create, there will never be just one accurate reflection of Reality, one depiction,
description, or explanation that will satisfy everyone or perhaps even very many,
because each Individual must approach the Tree of Reality from a unique
perspective, meaning that there are as many possible accurate reflections of
Reality as there are Individual's that can create and apprehend such an
experience-reflection. This is why religions and philosophies always end up
branching off in countless directions. Further, an Individual's perspective will
change over time, meaning that what an Individual at one time feels to be an
accurate reflection of Reality may, at a later time, be felt to be a less accurate
reflection, and so be replaced by a reflection that is felt to be more accurate. And
so, the measure of the accuracy of one's conception of Reality does not lie in how
many people one can get to agree with them regarding that conception, for that is
out of one's control and need bear little if any relation to the accuracy or not of
one's conception of Reality. Rather, the only real measure of the accuracy of one's
conception of Reality lies in how good one feels when conceiving of it, for
experience is, in its particulars, a kaleidoscopic image that is ever changing,
while it is also, in its general nature, more or less illuminated according to the
orientation of the Individual with respect to That which is simultaneously both
the Source of their Individuality, as well as an Indivisible Aspect of their
Individuality."
RLPV: Thanks for further elaboration of your framework. Here are my comments:
[1] You have told me how an experience/appearance of a table-in-itself, for
example, can be constructed from the Consciousness-Existence. You have told
me how we apprehend or experience a table-in-itself. You have NOT told me how
the table-in-itself (mind-independent reality: MIR) can be created from our
experience of the table. Another example, how can the red-green cortical neural-
network-in-itself (such as V4/V8/VO-NN-in-itself, i.e., related neurons and their
activities) be created from our experiences of redness and greenness? Please
115
Dvi-Pakṣa
note that MIR (such as what the table-in-itself) is unknown by definition because
knowing involves our mind. There is no way, in my view, we can do that (creating
MIR for matter-in-itself from the related mind-dependent reality (MDR)). This is
the explanatory gap problem of idealism, where experiences/consciousness is the
fundamental reality (this is called ‘brute fact assumption of idealism: that’s the
way it is, nothing much we can do about it!). This is reverse of the explanatory
gap problem of materialism where matter-in-itself is the fundamental reality (this
is called ‘brute fact assumption of materialism: that’s the way it is!): how can the
experience of a table be created from the non-experiential matter table-in-itself?
These two metaphysics (idealism and materialism) are on two opposite poles.
Both have their own serious explanatory gap problem and both make massive
category mistake. Mind and matter-in-itself are of two different categories, one
cannot be created from other; one cannot interact with other either. To address
these problems, we need the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework.
[2] Space and mind are opposite perspectives upon the same Relational
Structure; this is still unclear to me. As you know, gravity is a curvature in
space-time as per General Relativity. So I am unable to relate mind with gravity.
SK: It appears that I do not understand what you mean by the phrase "in-itself,"
e.g., table-in-itself or matter-in-itself, which means that I also do not understand
what you mean by "mind-independent reality." Therefore, I would ask for you to
please define exactly what you mean by these terms in order to make sure that
we are talking about the same thing.
RLPV: Thanks for asking excellent questions. I have been asking them for many
years to myself and still I do not know if my answers are complete or correct.
However, let me try.
If one tries to categorize all entities, one can come up with (1)
material/physical entities (P), such as table, electron etc. and (2) mental entities
(M) such as subjective experiences (SEs), thoughts etc.
Then ask what these entities actually are: let us call these actual entities
(whatever they may be) as: (1) matter-in-itself (such as table-in-itself, electron-in-
itself): call it P0) and (2) mind-in-itself (such as SE-in-itself, thought-in-itself: call
it M0).
We ask these questions to all billions of people in our planet Earth. Everybody
will have his/her own answers. If we categorize their answers, we will come up
into 4 major categories. Let us call each of these categories as ‘metaphysics’.
Thus, the four metaphysics are:
(1) Advaita (close to Idealism) would say that M0 is the fundamental and P0
somehow emerges from it. However, the ‘how’ is unclear: this is explanatory gap
problem of Idealism.
(2) Cārvākas (materialists) would assume just opposite: P0 is the fundamental
and M0 somehow emerges from it. However, the ‘how’ is unclear: this is
explanatory gap problem of Materialism.
(3) Sāṃkhya (close to interactive substance dualism: ISD) would assume that
both P0 and M0 are fundamental and can exist independent of each other but
116
Dvi-Pakṣa
they can somehow interact when we are alive. However, the ‘how’ is unclear: this
is explanatory gap problem of ISD.
In addition, all above 3 metaphysics have more problems, such as all make
massive category mistake.
(4) Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (close to cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir Shaivism, and
Dual-Aspect Monism) assumes that both P0 and M0 are fundamental but they are
inseparable aspects of each entity. In addition, the dominance of aspects varies
with levels of entities. This framework is called eDAM, which has the least
number of problems.
P and M are derived from P0 and M0, respectively. Let us suppose for few
thousands of years we all analyze, test, and do whatever is necessary to
investigate which metaphysics is correct to the best of our abilities and let us
suppose we come up with consensus that eDAM is the best. Then, one could
argue that the eDAM metaphysical framework is telling us the Fundamental
Truth, (the reality/actuality) because all have consensus, in analogy to if we turn
the electric-switch ON, the lamp will light up (assuming we have normal electrical
connection).
However, how do we know that eDAM is REALLY telling us the truth? One
could argue that we used all the MINDS available on planet Earth and we tried
our best. This means that this truth/reality is based on our minds in our
conventional normal wakeful daily lives; call it conventional Mind Dependent
Reality (c-MDR).
Well, one could argue that our mind might be biasing the Fundamental Truth.
Therefore, we ask, what would the reality/truth if we do not use our minds? Call
it, Mind Independent Reality (MIR). However, this is unknown because by
definition the process of knowing involves mind.131
Well, then we try to invent techniques to delete mind totally, which is
impossible. However, we can try inventing (and we have invented yogic
techniques) techniques that tries to quiet or still our minds to various levels.
However, then mind will still be present but its activities will be at the lowest
level. Let us call the reality discovered at this level as ultimate Mind Dependent
Reality (u-MDR); ultimate means this is the best we can do at present time,
which will get better as our minds evolves and keep on inventing better
techniques. We do this research for next billions of years (as long as our universe
is alive) and keep on asking question: is u-MDR = MIR?
SK: Having read it I believe we simply are operating from different conceptual
frameworks. I recognize only two categories, Reality and reality, or Existence and
experience, or Consciousness and experience. In my metaphysics and
philosophy everything is one or the other. In my metaphysics, as space is the
framework within which physical experiences seem to arise and within which
they seem to exist, mind is the framework within which mental experiences seem
to arise and within which they seem to exist, and underlying each is the same
Relational Structure composed of Consciousness-Existence being in relation to
Itself.
117
Dvi-Pakṣa
I do not see mind as being fundamental, but rather see mind as composed of
Existence that is being in relation to Itself. To the extent that mind is composed
of Existence, which is fundamental, mind could be considered fundamental, but
more fundamental than mind is the Existence that through relation to Itself
evolves into and becomes mind, becomes the Relational Matrix within which
thoughts arise.
The most fundamental relations of Consciousness-Existence to Itself, the first
relations of Consciousness-Existence to Itself, create what Consciousness-
Existence apprehends as emotional experience. Those fundamental relations of
Consciousness-Existence to Itself, which represent the first level of Existential
self-relation, produce a Relational Structure composed of Consciousness-
Existence as it is being in relation to Itself. Once that Relational Structure Exists
it can be in relation to Itself, and those second level Existential relations create
what Consciousness-Existence apprehends as thought or mental experience.
Thus thought arises from and within the first level Relational Structure, which
first level Relational Structure then underlies what we apprehend as mind.
The second level Existential relations that create what Consciousness-
Existence apprehends as thought or mental experience also produce second level
Relational Structures composed Consciousness-Existence as it is being in
relation to Itself in the way that is necessary to create the experience of thought.
Those second level Relational Structures then allow for a new level of Existential
self-relation, for a third level of Existential self-relation, which third level of
relation creates what Consciousness-Existence apprehends as physical
experience. And those third level relations and the physical experiences they
produce arise within the framework of the same first level Relational Structure in
which thought arises.
At the physical level we look out and that framework is apprehended as space.
At the mental level we look within and that framework is apprehended as mind.
It is the same framework, the same Relational Structure, apprehended within
different experiential contexts, from different experiential perspectives. And what
we actually are that is looking both outward and inward and so conscious of
emotional, mental, and physical experience is the Consciousness-Existence of
which all of this is actually composed and which underlies and is the basis of
every experience of every sort.
I see no gap. I see only a continuity of Consciousness-Existence evolving
through progressive and iterative Self-relation through different levels of
Existential relation, built progressively upon each other, and while becoming
involved in those different relations at those different levels creating what it
apprehends as different types of experience, from the emotional, to the mental, to
the physical.
Emotional experience, being a product of the most fundamental Existential
self-relation, has no form, but only a wantedness or unwantedness. Mental
experience being a product of the second level of Existential self-relation has
form. Physical experience being a product of the third level of Existential self-
relation has both form and tangibility. The experiences themselves become more
structured as the Consciousness-Existence that underlies those experiences
118
Dvi-Pakṣa
Itself becomes more Structured as it evolves into more highly iterated and
complex second and third level Relational Structures as it becomes involved in
the higher order relations with Itself necessary to create those higher order and
more structured experiences.
In all of this I am not saying that your framework is wrong, only that it is
different from mine. No two people who look at the same tree will describe it the
same way because each has a different perspective upon the tree. I believe it is
the same with regard to analyzing and describing the nature of Reality and
reality in that we each have a unique perspective. I would encourage you to
pursue your line of reasoning if it feels good and right to you.
RLPV: Let us investigate which metaphysics out of 4 major metaphysics or their

combination your framework falls under. I guess, your framework seems to fall
under Advaita (close to Idealism), which seems to evolve into Sāṃkhya (close to
Interactive Substance Dualism): is this correct? To make sure, here are some
queries:
Q1. How do you define ‘Existence’? Is this physical aspect of the primal entity
(Brahman)? Is this ‘sat’ aspect of sat-cit-ānanda (Brahman)? Brahman is
aspectless/attributeless in its unmanifested state.
Q2. How do you define ‘Consciousness’? Is this mental aspect of the primal
entity? Is this ‘cit’ aspect of sat-cit-ānanda (Brahman)?
Q3. How do you define space (is this different from Relativity space-time) and
how do physical experiences (do you mean appearances of external objects) arise
in space and from where?
Q4. How do you define mind (is mind different from eastern ‘manas’: see
Section 2.1) and how do mental experiences (do you mean thoughts) arise in
mind?
Q5. Relational Structure composed of Consciousness-Existence: does
‘Relational Structure have two aspects: ‘cit’ (Consciousness) and ‘sat’ (Existence)?
Q6. How can Consciousness-Existence relate to Itself (i.e., self-interaction)?
Q7. Did Consciousness (like our wakefulness consciousness or higher such as
samadhi-state consciousness) exist before Cosmic Fire (Big-Bang), the point
where manifestation of Brahman starts? If not, then what was Consciousness
like?
Or Consciousness (or consciousness) started over billion years after Big-Bang
(some time Cambrian Explosion) and we have (after 13.72 billion years after big-
Bang) the conventional consciousness (your 3 levels of experiences: emotional,
mental and physical experiences) during wakefulness and higher at samadhi-
state at present time and we humans are the most evolved entities in this
universe.
---xxx---
RLPV: [1] As per (Kaufman, 2013a), “The term maya, as it has been used
historically, has two related meanings. One meaning is as the illusion that hides
Existence from Itself, and the other meaning is in reference to the overall process
119
Dvi-Pakṣa
by which Existence creates the illusion whereby it becomes hidden from Itself.
[p463…] That is, the concept of maya, in both meanings or usages, involves
something appearing to be there that is different or other than What Is Actually
There. [p463…] However, became the functioning of maya hinges upon an
Individual conceiving of physical reality, or some more subtle experiential reality,
as being what is actually there, which conception itself hinges upon the
Individual conceiving of physical reality or experiential reality as being
Experiencer independent, i.e., existent as it is experienced to exist in the absence
of the Individuals experience of it as such [p475…] Put another way, it is the
actual Experiencer dependent nature of experience that is the basis of its
seeming Experiencer independence. Specifically, the reason experience seems
Experiencer independent is because consistent Existential relations occurring at
different times for the same Individual, or at the same time for different
Individuals, create consistent relative existences that are then apprehended by
the Individual or Individuals from consistent perspectives as consistent and
seemingly identical experiences, thereby creating the illusion that what we
experience as physical reality exists as that, i.e., as a physical reality, whether we
are experiencing it or not. [p476…] thereby reinforcing the illusion of the
seemingly Experiencer independent nature of experience in general and physical
reality in particular. [p478]”
RLPV: This seems that the reality without māyā is mind-independent reality
(MIR) or thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) of Kant, which is unknown or partly
known via mind-dependent reality (MDR) as per neo-Kantians. The western term
‘mind’ includes all non-material mental entities and is different from the eastern
term ‘man’ or ‘manas’, which is a subtle matter from Prakṛti. In other words, the
first meaning of ‘without māyā’ is mind-in-self and the second meaning of
‘without māyā’ is matter-in-itself.
[2] As per (Kaufman, 2013a), “… it is therefore the positive experiential limitation

that is the basis of the phenomenon of quantum non-locality displayed by
entangled systems, i.e., systems that are functioning as a single Underlying
Actuality. [p472…] so making some experiences impossible to create and
apprehend, thereby producing the phenomena of wave-particle duality and
quantum uncertainty, while making others impossible not to create and
apprehend if they are to be created and apprehended at all, thereby producing
the phenomena of quantum non-locality.[p472]”
RLPV: In the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework (Vimal, 2008b,

2010c, 2013), the two entangled-particles can be considered as a single system
with a single dual-aspect ‘Underlying Actuality’. Its mental aspect of the
composite state or wavefunction can carry mental (or mindlike) information (such
as correlation between A and B and angular difference between detectors at A
and B) that can be known to the particle A from spacelike particle B at faster
than light (FTL), perhaps instantaneously because it is the same mind in
entangled particles, in analogy to same mind in a brain. The physical (material)
120
Dvi-Pakṣa
information cannot travel FTL via the physical aspect the composite state or
wavefunction of the entangled particles because of the Relativity constraint.
[3] As per (Kaufman, 2013a), “It is also the functioning of the negative
experiential limitation that is the basis of most, if not all, interpersonal conflict,
because most, if not all, interpersonal conflict has as its basis the complete
inability and utter impossibility of each Individual involved in the conflict to see
the other's side, to experience what the other is experiencing as reality, as long
as each is unwilling to let go of their own reality. Because as long as each
Individual involved in the conflict clings to their reality, they are each obligated to
remain involved in the relation that is creating that experience as their reality, in
which case it is simply not possible for either of them to become involved in the
opposite, mutually exclusive relation in which they must be involved if they are
to apprehend what the other Individual is apprehending as reality. In addition,
because almost no one understands this, and even if they do, they can quite
easily lose sight of it, each Individual involved in the conflict cannot understand
how the other Individual can be so blind as to not see what is to them so very
clear and simple. But what they do not know, and what almost no one knows, is
that because experience does not just already exist waiting for us to happen
across it, but rather is created by us according to a relation in which we, as
Individuals, must be involved, it is simply not possible for two Individuals that
are actively involved in creating opposite experiences to apprehend as real, i.e.,
realize, what the other considers to be their reality.[p473]”
RLPV: This is interesting. In eDAM framework, these opposite differences may be

because of how two individuals are raised (e.g., one is very social and other is
asocial) as memory traces of childhood activate to decide to have a party or not to
have. This theme can be used in psychotherapy in interpersonal relationship
problems.
[4] As per (Kaufman, 2013a), “What we experience as physical reality in general

is the product of the relation of those sensors [sight, sound, smell, taste, and
touch], which are themselves Relational Structures, to the Relational Structure
that is actually there where the physical experience seems to be.[p477]”
RLPV: It is unclear where experiences do come from? Do they potentially pre-

exist or really pre-exist? In eDAM framework, the relational view is also
consistent with the matching and selection mechanisms for the realization of a
specific subjective experience during the interaction of stimulus-dependent feed
forward system (Relational Structure that is actually there) with cognitive
feedback neural-network(NN)-system including self-related NN-system (Relational
Structure related to sensors/brain-NNs). Here, the self is brain-based and is the
mental aspect of the state of self-related NN (such as cortical midline structures)
and its activities. The experiences presumably potentially pre-exist, in analogy to
a tree potentially pre-exist in its seed (Vimal, 2013).
121
Dvi-Pakṣa
[5] As per (Kaufman, 2013a), “Although the illusion of experience as Experiencer

independent is generally upheld in the creation of gross physical experience, that
illusion breaks down in the creation of quantum experience, i.e., in the creation
of physical experience at the sub-microscopic level, revealing experience to be
Experiencer dependent. [p479…] the reason experiences created at the quantum
level reveal the Experiencer dependent nature of experience is because in
relations occurring at that level, unlike relations occurring at the gross physical
sensory level, the Individual that is creating and apprehending the experience,
i.e., the experimental result, is able to adopt opposite perspectives at different
times with respect to the Underlying Actuality they are being in relation to in
order to create the relative existence they are apprehending as an experience, i.e.,
as an experimental result, and so can, at different times, create opposite
experiences, e.g., wave and particle, as a result of their involvement in those
opposite and therefore mutually exclusive relations. … the Individual must use
intermediary sensory devices, rather than just the physical senses [p479…]
thereby creating opposite or complementary experiences as a result of their
involvement in those opposite relations with that Underlying Actuality … the rock
would seem soft and the water, in liquid form, would seem hard. However, these
reversals of relation and perspective, and so of created experience, do not occur
in everyday sensory experience, but they are able to occur in the creation of
quantum experience, i.e., in the creation of quantum experimental results, owing
to the Individual's unavoidable use of intermediary devices to become involved in
the relations that create what that Individual ultimately apprehends as quantum
experience or quantum reality. … Thus, no matter how much it may seem or
appear that experience is Experiencer independent, [p480] experience of every
sort, i.e., emotional, mental, and physical, is always actually Experiencer
dependent. [p481]”
RLPV: One could argue that the above rejection/breakdown of illusion/māyā is

based on collapse non-local theories such as Copenhagen and von Neumann
interpretation (CI-vN) of QM. It is unclear if ‘mind-independent realty (MIR) exists
and is the same as mind-dependent reality (MDR)’ or ‘MIR does not exist’ at
quantum level. If MIR does not exist at quantum level, then where does MIR arise
from at classical level? It should be noted that observer experiences the outcome,
such as the direction of pointer, for example, rightward if spin-up, leftward if
spin-down. Moreover, no-collapse local theories, such as Many-World or Many-
Mind interpretation and Bohm’s hidden variable interpretation of QM, seem to
imply that MIR exists. There is no consensus on non-locality of QM. Therefore,
one could argue that the existence of māyā and MIR is debatable at quantum
level, which cannot be resolved until we have clear consensus in the
interpretation of QM. Furthermore, if an electron is prepared to have spin-up, it
will certainly show up spin-up when measurement is performed, but we will
never know the ‘Underlying Actuality’ related to electron: what really electron-in-
itself is because knowing electron we need to use our minds, which is MDR.
Creating opposite or complementary experiences will create more confusion (i.e.,
more māyā/illusion) for the ‘Underlying Actuality’, rather than revealing us what
122
Dvi-Pakṣa
it really is. Thus, māyā and MIR cannot be rejected at any level (classical,
quantum, or sub-quantum) because the subjective experiences are always
Experiencer dependent, which are main cause of māyā/illusion. As long as mind
(not eastern subtle matter ‘man’ or ‘manas’) is present, māyā; even at Samadhi
state, where mind is presumably still, māyā is present because experiences are
there, especially experiences of ānanda (bliss), the third aspect of sat-cit-ānanda.
Strictly speaking, MIR (Underlying Actuality) will never be known because of the
presentence of māyā and/or experiences/mind.
[6] As per (Kaufman, 2013b), “The reason that scientists, as Individuals, are not
able to apprehend what these phenomena [of wave-particle duality, quantum
uncertainty, and quantum non-locality] reveal about the nature of experience,
and by extension the nature of reality, is that what these phenomena reveal
about reality is that there really is no such thing as an objective reality [existing
independent of thought or an observer as part of reality], no such thing as a
reality that can be experienced or said to exist as an object, or as any sort of
experience, independent of an Individual's experience of it as such. … the notion
that there is any objective experiential reality of any sort, at any level, is an
illusion, because there is no such thing that actually exists as described by the
definition of the word ‘objective,’ as that word is used by science to indicate what
it is that science, through its analysis, comes to know. […] With the partial
exception of quantum physics, in which field scientists cannot completely avoid
the non-objective nature of what they study, scientists think that what they
study is already there as that, as they observe it or experience it to exist,
independent of their observation of it as such”.
RLPV: There are quantum theories without observers (Goldstein, 1998; Sulis,
2013)132, such Bohm’s hidden variable theory (Bohmian Mechanics) decoherent
histories, and spontaneous localization. CI-vN-QM accepts that the non-objective
(observer/thought dependent) nature of what one studies cannot be avoided.
This seems to imply that CI-vN-QM acknowledges QM-outcomes are observer
dependent. This does not mean (a) that experimenters have realized what
Underlying Actuality is (What Is Actually There) and (b) that MIR is rejected. One
could argue that the quantum particles before measurements may be considered
as a part of MIR, which remains unknown to us. In the eDAM framework,
subjective is related to first person perspective that is private, and objective is
related to third person perspective for public; both are mind-dependent.
[7] As per (Kaufman, 2013b), “There is no avoiding or getting around experience.

If Existence wants to feel something, to know something, to see something, it has
to use the vehicle of experience, and in using that vehicle there are, as has been
pointed out, some limitations. […]
123
Dvi-Pakṣa
RLPV: This is similar to neo-Kantian view: MIR (thing-in-itself) is unknown, but

we might partly know ‘What Is Actually There’ via MDR (experiences) because
mind is also a product of Nature so it must be revealing something to us.
[8] As per (Kaufman, 2013b), “…these two poles of Existence, i.e., the Individual
and the More Fundamental Individuality, correspond to the Atman and
Brahman, respectively, and the indivisibility and identity of these two poles of
Existence is recognized in the Vedantist philosophy of non-duality, which holds
that what appears to be these two different things are ultimately both the same
thing.”
RLPV: This is Advaita (non-duality between Brahman and Atman), which is close
to idealism/neutralism that has serious problem: how can matter-in-itself arise
from non-material consciousness or aspectless, attributeless Brahman/Atman?
This problem is addressed, to some extent, by cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (close to dual-
aspect monism), where mind (cit) and matter (acit) are qualifiers of Brahman.
---xxx---
6.2. Discussion with Graham Smetham (GS)
RLPV: You do not believe MIR (mind-independent reality). However, māyā

(illusion) related to our experiences hides MIR as per Vedantists (Kaufman,
2013a), in addition to Kant’s thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich). If you still reject
MIR, then you have to reject māyā.
GS: Reply still awaited.
6.3. Discussion with J. I. (Hans) Bakker, Ph.D. (Sociology) (Hans-JIB)
Hans-JIB: I read through it quickly and got the gist of it. Your thinking is very
logical and the distinctions are fairly clear most of the time. However, there is
much repetition. Here are some initial suggestions. (1) Go over the English
language usage some more. There are still errors that would keep a native
speaker of American English or British English from being able to read it fluently.
For example, the use of the verb to be should always be conjugated for singular
nouns ( the car is ...) versus plural nouns ( the cars are ...).
(Along similar lines, someone who does not know the difference between the
plural "data" and the singular "datum" is often a sign of lack of sophistication,
although I did not notice you making that specific mistake. e.g. “The data are
useful.”) (2) Start much more slowly. You jump right into it in the Prologue. That
is a stylistic mistake. Start with a story. Give the less sophisticated reader a little
narration about how you learned something very basic. Build up to the
terminology slowly. You use Sanskrit terms not familiar to the sophisticated
psychologist, much less the general reader or university/college student (outside
124
Dvi-Pakṣa
India). Introduce each and every Sanskrit word slowly, like a language teacher.
Also, a complete and detailed glossary of all Sanskrit terms (at the back of the
book) is absolutely necessary. (3) Do not immediately make any argument about
ALL religions. That simply will turn off most Christians, almost all Muslims, and
many Buddhists, Jains, Shintoists, Daoists, etc., not to mention aboriginal,
indigenous religions, New Age religions, etc. Stick to "Hinduism" per se until a
final chapter. You make arguments that are acceptable to many Hindus. But
even to accept that Brahman is a suitable word for God, Allah, the Dao, etc., is a
major impediment to many people. (4) Having once introduced your key terms do
not constantly repeat that introduction to those terms. Extended Dual-Aspect
Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is a key term, of course. Give it a simple label, e.g.
EDM or maybe DPA. Then stick to it. An ordinary reader can remember DPA but
not Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. (Most North Americans do not know the term Advaita! You
could simply write: "non-dualism." Dvaita, of course, is “dualism.” (5) I very
humbly urge you to carefully read Randall Collins (1998) The Sociology of
Philosophies (Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press). He covers
dualism, non-dualism, and modified dualism very clearly. But he gives it a spin
you do not seem to have fully grasped. You tend to write as if "Hinduism" is
something that exists in some kind of static sphere, unchanged. (Yes, you do
include some references to debates, etc., but often your wording is static.)
Sociologically speaking, all religious institutions change over time. What is
considered to be Christianity in the U.S. today, for example, is far different from
various forms of Christianity in the past (e.g. Roman Empire of 5th century).
Collins is very clear and I accept his essential argument, although I disagree on
some details. (I have discussed some of those issues with him.) I hope these
remarks are helpful to some extent. Of course, you should feel perfectly free to
just ignore any or all of them! I will continue to read your excellent manuscript. It
certainly goes into far more depth than many books about Hindu philosophy and
theology that I have read.
RLPV: If it is okay with you, I would like to (i) acknowledge your effort at the end
of Prologue and (ii) include our email conversation as one of the endnotes. You
can edit them as you like. I would request you to read the three articles (Vimal,
2008b, 2010c, 2013) for understanding the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM
or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework), which is basis for the unification of ‘real’
science and religions by letting them to ride in the same boat of this
metaphysics. At present, science is mostly riding on materialism and religions on
idealism and interactive substance dualism; both are sailing in opposite
directions and hence it is not possible to unite them. These three major
metaphysics have serious problems. The eDAM framework has the least number
of problems, which are justifiable. Scientists are now started to be sympathetic to
dual-aspect monism (see (Vimal, 2013)), and a part of some religions (such as
Kashmir Shaivism, and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita) is also sympathetic to the theist
version of this framework to some extent. I hope that this book may help further
in this endeavor.
125
Dvi-Pakṣa
6.4. Discussion with Louise Sundararajan, Ph.D., Ed.D. (LS)
LS: I would like to draw your attention to a relevant work—Physics Professor V.

V. Raman’s “Indic Visions in an Age of Science.” The following paragraphs are
from a review of this book, posted in Amazon.com:
“The Indian subcontinent is a cradle of human civilization with a rich history

stretching back some 5,000 years. Today it is home to a quarter of the world's
population. While the boundaries and identities of the modern states of India,
Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives are recent
inventions, the history, cultures, languages, and religions of South Asia are a
single tapestry woven from many colored threads over the long millennia of
cultural evolution.
South Asia is the home to four great religious traditions -- Hinduism, Buddhism,
Sikhism, and Jainism -- but it also has the largest population of Muslims in the
world. South Asia is home to many Christians who trace their lineage back to the
Apostle Thomas, who is said to have settled in Kerala in 52 CE. A scene of epic
wars and foreign invasions, the conquerors and colonialists were invariably
themselves won over, and they were as much changed by India as they
themselves changed India's history.
In turn, missionaries and traders from the Indian subcontinent-Hindu, Buddhist,

and Muslim- spread their religions and cultures throughout Southeast and East
Asia, leaving a profound mark on the cultures of Burma, Malaysia, Indonesia,
Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Tibet, China, Korea, Japan, and the Philippines.
Today, South Asia is a nexus in a global civilization, its children and

grandchildren having traveled to every corner of the world, frequently joining the
educated elites abroad and making significant contributions to arts and letters,
science and industry, politics and finance. The continued story of Indian
civilization is now a global and cosmopolitan enterprise and can no longer be
contained in geographically boundaries in one corner of the world.
The history and complexity of this cultural tapestry is daunting to the outsider
unfamiliar with the geography, languages, and idiosyncrasies of the region. And
even those raised and schooled in South Asia generally only grasp a small
portion of the whole fabric. To this end, we must add the recent exponential
growth in scientific knowledge and the new understandings that this science and
history bring to our different regional and religious narratives. All of this is also
accompanied by new technologies and new values that threaten to undermine
traditional cultures. India, Pakistan, and the other countries of the subcontinent
are in the throes of fundamentalist reactions to modernity and globalization,
much as we find throughout the world today in other settings and other idioms.
126
Dvi-Pakṣa
We have in the person of Varadaraja V. Raman, a gifted and gracious guide, who
helps us understand the whole fabric and see the rich details of Indic civilization
in this age of universal science. In so doing, he offers us also a way out of
dangerous culture wars and clashing civilizations. A wiser and more peaceful
man I have never met.
In this book, Indic Visions, you have an extraordinary guidebook to the history,
culture, religions, and sciences of India from a guru like no other. Your guide --
V.V. Raman -- is a rigorous scientist and thoughtful humanist, conversant in
multiple languages and disciplines, a bridge builder and peacemaker, a
whimsical wordsmith and an activist for peace and compassion, a loving
husband and father, ..... And no matter where you were born, what languages
you speak, what beliefs you profess, what disciplines you practice, India is your
civilization too. It is time you got to know her better, and take pride in your
neighbor and yourself as we seek together to craft a safer and healthier world at
an extraordinary moment in the cultural evolution of our species and the natural
history of our planet.
RLPV: Thanks for your excellent information and letting me know the work of
Prof. V. V. Raman. Kindly forward it to Prof. Raman. His comments will be very
valuable and are most welcome.
127
Dvi-Pakṣa
CHAPTER 7
Epilogue
1. My framework is eDAM (Dual-Aspect Monism (Vimal, 2008b) with dual-mode
(Vimal, 2010c) and varying degrees of the dominance of aspects depending on
the levels of entities (Vimal, 2013), where each entity has inseparable mental and
physical aspects. So Brahman is a dual-aspect fundamental entity. It has two
versions atheist (Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) and theist (Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita)
because atheist-theist phenomenon seems to be genetic and/or acquired (Vimal,
2011h); therefore the fundamental framework should encompass both.
2. The Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (nāstika/atheist/scientific version of the eDAM

framework) can be described better by comparing with the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (which is close to cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita) as follows:
2a. Creation of Universe: In the eDAM framework, Brahman is fundamental

dual-aspect primal entity; in its unmanifested state (before or at Big Bang),
Brahman has dominant physical aspect and latent mental aspect; this is
called kāran Brahman.
The physical aspect of the unmanifested state of empty-space (at the ground
state of quantum field with minimum energy) with quantum fluctuations
leading to Big Bang for the creation and then evolution of universe in the
Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is equivalent to the fluctuations in cosmic
consciousness (the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman
(kāran-Brahman)) leading to the creation and then evolution of universe in the
Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. This is because the mental and physical aspects of
unmanifested state of Brahman/Śūnyatā/void are inseparable and hence
fluctuations in physical aspect can be translated automatically to that in
mental aspect and vice versa.
A manifested state of Brahman is called kārya Brahman that started after Big
Bang. There are innumerable manifested states of Brahman. Kārya Brahman
has varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of
entities. Inert entities have dominant physical aspect and latent mental
aspect. Over 13.72 billion years after Big Bang, kārya Brahman eventually
evolved into us; when we are awake and conscious, both aspects are equally
dominant; when we in deep sleep, our physical aspect is more dominant than
our mental aspect, that is why we are non-conscious; in the dream state, both
128
Dvi-Pakṣa
aspects seem dominant to some extent because we experience something, but

it is different from wakeful state. In samādhi-state, both aspects are dominant
and we experience (a) Bliss (atishaya Ānanda), (b) the unification of the self
with surroundings objects/environment, and (c) ‘inner light perception’; this
triad, especially the Bliss, is called God/Ishvara/Parmātman/Sat-cit-ānanda.
Therefore, we should meditate and reach to this state and meet our God living
in each of us; this is our final goal of life as per Vedānta. This is rigorously
consistent with modern science because yogis have experience them over
6000 years and we can also measure its physical aspect (activities in the
related NN) using functional MRI.
2b. The manifestation of self/jīvātman in the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita from

the unmanifested state of Brahman is the same as that in the Āstika Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita.
2c. Parmātman (kārya-Brahman) as the manifestation of kāran-Brahman of

the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, living in us, is equal/equivalent to the highest
state of consciousness in the Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
2d. The merging of mukta-jīvātmā in Brahman in the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita

is equivalent to the merging of mukta-jīvātmā in the mental aspect of the state
of its dead body-brain system as every entity is Brahman. In other words, this
event is equivalent to the superposition of potential subjective experiences
(SEs) of objects and subject (self) in the mental aspect of the unmanifested
(potential) state of Brahman (kāran-Brahman) after death in the Nāstika Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita. It is unclear what happens to unliberated soul/jīvātman and
its remaining karmas and intense unfulfilled desire presumably embedded in
the subtle-body of soul after death because of the lack of scientific evidence
for ‘soul, Parmātman (kārya-Brahman), and the life-after-death’ after death.
3. From Table 1, Vedas, Gītā, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Sāṃkhya, Jainism,

Buddhism, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaitādvaita, Dvaita, Shuddhādvaita, Achintya-Bheda-
Abheda and Trika Kashmir Shaivism have the ‘built-in’ interactive substance
dualism because they imply that soul (self) separates from its dead body after
death and hence they are two separable substances; but they interact when we
are alive. Advaita is based on Idealism and has the reverse of the explanatory gap
problem of Materialism, namely, how matter-in-itself (not its appearance) arises
from consciousness (mind). Lokāyata/nāstika/Cārvāka has the explanatory gap
problem of Materialism.
4. Interactive substance dualism has the seven problems; mentalistic idealism

and materialism have their explanatory gap problems.
129
Dvi-Pakṣa
5. From (3) and (4) all theist and atheist religions and
Lokāyata/nāstika/Cārvāka have problems.
6. In the eDAM framework, each entity has two inseparable aspects (mental and
physical) with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of
entities. The theist version of this framework is called the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita
(िप ाैत , or Dōharī-Pahalū Advaita). This framework does NOT have those
problems. This is because we argue that in the post-death state of soul (if it
indeed exists after death!), the mental aspect is dominant and its physical aspect
is latent/recessive. Whereas, in the dead body, it is other way around (the
physical aspect of the state of the dead body-brain is dominant and its mental
aspect is latent).
7. The seven problems are addressed by replacing the built-in interactive

substance dualism with the eDAM framework.
8. From (3)-(7), Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (िप ाैत , or Dōharī-Pahalū Advaita) resolves

the problems of various frameworks.
9. The theist/atheist phenomenon is subject-specific because it has genetic

disposition or acquired traits. In other words, the fundamental truth (the dual-
aspect Brahman) is independent of mind-dependent theism/atheism.
10. The doctrine of ‘All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One (Brahman) in All
(entities)’ is still maintained.
11. The interactive substance dualism is built-in in all religions; if it is replaced

with the eDAM framework, then the criticism of the related seven problems is
addressed in all religions, as further discussed in (Vimal, 2011i).
12. Conscious robot/artifact is consistent with the eDAM framework and

Materialism, somewhat consistent with Idealism, but it seems inconsistent with
interactive substance dualism and theism.
13. Our goal is to bring science and Hinduism (and also all religions: see (Vimal,
2011i)) closer by including ‘real’ science (not just logic based pseudo-science) in
Hinduism. The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita indeed accomplishes this goal. This is because
Hinduism (and also all other religions) starts from the mental aspect of the
unmanifested primal entity (idealism: matter from mind, Brahman/cosmic-
consciousness, subjective first person perspective), whereas science starts from
the physical aspect of the unmanifested primal entity (materialism, mind from
matter, objective third person perspective). However, these two aspects are
inseparable in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework). In other words, one
can start from either aspect, but it is translated automatically, appropriately, and
faithfully to other aspect because of the doctrine of inseparability (1-1
130
Dvi-Pakṣa
correspondence). Thus, the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework) unifies

Hinduism (and also all other religions) and science rigorously.
131
Dvi-Pakṣa
BIBLIOGRAPHY
't Hooft, G. (Ed.). (2005). Fifty years of Yang-Mills theory. Hackensack, NJ and London: World
Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Achar, B. N. N. (2010). The Mahabharata War: Its Date on the basis on Astronomical References.
In B. R. Singh (Ed.), Origin of Indian Civilization (1st ed.). New Delhi, India: D.K. Printworld
(p) Ltd.
Ādi Śankarāchārya. (788-820a). Vivekachudamani (Swami Madhavananda, Trans.). Kolkatta:
Advaita Ashram. <http://sankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani1.php >.
Ādi Śankarāchārya. (788-820b). Works of Adi Shankara. Kolkatta: Advaita Ashram.
<http://www.sankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php# >.
Ādi Śankarāchārya. (1950). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (S. Madhavananda, Trans. 3rd ed.).
Mayavati, Almora, Himalayas (India): Swami Yogeshwarananda, Advaita Ashrama.
Ādi Śankarāchārya. (1988). Vedanta Sutras with the Commentary by Sankaracarya (trans.
George Thibaut). In F. Max Muller (Ed.), Sacred Books of the East (Vol. Vols. 34 (Part I)
and 38 (Part II)). Delhi, India: Motilal Banarsidass.
Almeder, R. (1997). A Critique of Arguments Offered Against Reincarnation. Journal of Scientific
Exploration, 11(4), 499-526.
Anthony, F.-V. (2009). Consciousness: The Vedantic Approach to Life and Reality. In G. Derfer, Z.
Wang & M. Weber (Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between
Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology Nexus
Studies, pp. 25-33). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Apte, V. S. (1987). सं)कृत ह;द< कोश . Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Atmanspacher, H. (2007). Contextual Emergence from Physics to Cognitive Neuroscience. J
Consciousness Stud, 14(1-2), 18–36.
Atran, S. (2002). In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Atran, S., & Norenzayan, A. (2004). Religion's evolutionary landscape: counterintuition,
commitment, compassion, communion. Behav Brain Sci, 27(6), 713-730; discussion 730-
770.
Azari, N. P., Nickel, J., Wunderlich, G., Niedeggen, M., Hefter, H., Tellmann, L., Herzog, H.,
Stoerig, P., Birnbacher, D., & Seitz, R. J. (2001). Neural correlates of religious experience.
Eur J Neurosci, 13(8), 1649-1652.
Azevedo, F. A., Carvalho, L. R., Grinberg, L. T., Farfel, J. M., Ferretti, R. E., Leite, R. E., Jacob
Filho, W., Lent, R., & Herculano-Houzel, S. (2009). Equal numbers of neuronal and
nonneuronal cells make the human brain an isometrically scaled-up primate brain. J
Comp Neurol, 513(5), 532-541.
Baars, B. J. (2005). Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of
human experience. Prog Brain Res, 150, 45-53.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27-45.
Baker, L. R. (2011). Christian materialism in a scientific age. Int J Philos Relig,
lrbaker@philos.umass.edu.
Balasubramanian, R. (2011). Consciousness, Cognition and the Cognitive Apparatus in the
Vedānta Tradition. In A. R. Singh & S. A. Singh (Eds.), Brain, Mind, and Consciousness:
An International, Interdisciplinary Perspective, MSM (Vol. 9(1), pp. 54-78).
Barrow, J. (1992). Pi in the Sky. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The architecture of the colour centre in the human visual brain:
new results and a review. Eur J Neurosci, 12, 172–193.
132
Dvi-Pakṣa
Beauregard, M., Courtemanche, J., & Paquette, V. (2009). Brain activity in near-death
experiencers during a meditative state. Resuscitation, 80(9), 1006-1010.
Beck, F., & Eccles, J. (1992). Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 89, 11357-11361.
Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bem, D. J., Palmer, J., & Broughton, R. S. (2001). Updating the Ganzfeld database: A Victim of
Its Own Success? Journal of Parapsychology, 65, 207-218.
Benedetti, F., Mayberg, H. S., Wager, T. D., Stohler, C. S., & Zubieta, J. K. (2005). Neurobiological
mechanisms of the placebo effect. J Neurosci, 25(45), 10390-10402.
Bergenheim, M., Johansson, H., Granlund, B., & Pedersen, J. (1996). Experimental Evidence for
a Synchronization of sensory Information to Conscious Experience. In S. R. Hameroff, A.
W. Kaszniak & A. C. Scott (Eds.), Toward a Scientific Basis for Consciousness (pp. 303-
310). Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Berman, M. S. (2009). On the Zero-energy Universe. International Journal of Theoretical Physics
[arXiv:gr-qc/0605063], 48(11), 3278.
Berman, M. S., & Trevisan, L. A. (2010). On the Creation of Universe out of Nothing.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104060.pdf.
Biello, D. (2007, Oct. 3). Searching for God in the Brain. Scientific American,
<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain >.
Blackmore, S. (1999). The Meme Machine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blackmore, S. J. (1996). Near-death experiences. J Roy Soc Med, 89(2), 73-76.
Blackmore, S. J. (2003). Consciousness: an introduction (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
Blakemore, S. (2000). The meme machine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bohm, D. (1990). A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philos Psychol, 3(2), 271-
286.
Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1985). Unbroken quantum realism, from microscopic to macroscopic
levels. Phys Rev Lett, 55(23), 2511-2514.
Bohm, D., & Hiley, B. J. (1993). The Undivided Universe: An Ontological Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics. London: Routledge.
Borg, J., Andree, B., Soderstrom, H., & Farde, L. (2003). The serotonin system and spiritual
experiences. Am J Psychiatry, 160(11), 1965-1969.
Bouchard Jr., T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N. L., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of
Human Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Twins Reared Apart. Science, 250, 223-
238.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic
Books.
Braude, S. E. (1992). Survival or super-psi? Journal of Scientific Exploration, 6(2), 127-144.
Bruzzo, A. A., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2007). Self: An adaptive pressure arising from self-organization,
chaotic dynamics, and neural Darwinism. J Integr Neurosci, 6(4), 541-566.
Buckner, R. L., & Petersen, S. E. (1996). What does neuroimaging tell us about the role of
prefrontal cortex in memory retrieval? Seminars in the Neurosciences, 8, 47-55.
Bulbulia, J. (2006). CHAPTER 5 Nature’s Medicine: Religiosity as an Adaptation for Health and
Cooperation. In P. McNamara (Ed.), WHERE GOD AND SCIENCE MEET: How Brain and
Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. VOLUME 1: EVOLUTION, GENES,
AND THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN (Vol. 1, pp. 87-122). Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
<http://mirror.lib.unair.ac.id/bahan/EFOLDER/Where%20God%20and%20Science%20
Meet.pdf >.
Cacha, L. A., & Poznanski, R. R. (2014). Genomic instantiation of consciousness in neurons
through a biophoton field theory. J Integr Neurosci, 13 (3), 1-40.
Caponigro, M., Jiang, X., Prakash, R., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2010). Quantum Entanglement: can we
"see" the Implicate Order? Philosophical Speculations. NeuroQuantology, 8(3), 378-389.
133
Dvi-Pakṣa
Caponigro, M., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2010). Quantum Interpretation of Vedic theory of Mind: an
epistemological path and objective reduction of thoughts. J Consciousness Exploration &
Res, 1(4), 402-481.
Carruthers, G. (forthcoming). Who am I in Out of Body Experiences? Implications from OBEs for
the explanandum of a theory of self-consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive
Sciences [http://philpapers.org/rec/CARWAI;
http://www.academia.edu/4097980/_in_press_Who_am_I_in_Out_of_Body_Experience_Im
plications_from_OBEs_for_the_explanandum_of_a_theory_of_self-
consciousness_in_Phenomenology_and_the_Cognitive_Sciences].
Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Consciousness Stud
<http://consc.net/papers/facing.html>, 2, 200–219.
Chethimattam, J. B. (1971). Consciousness and Reality. An Indian Approach to Metaphysics.
Tenbury Wells: Fowler Wright Books.
Chopra, D. (2015, 8-13 June). One Universe, One Mind. Paper presented at the Toward a Science
of Consciousness 2015
<http://www.helsinki.fi/tsc2015/materials/TSC_2015_Book%20of%20abstracts.pdf>,
University of Helsinki, Main Building.
Chow, T. W., & Cummings, J. L. (1999). Frontal-subcortical circuits. In B. L. Miller & J. L.
Cummings (Eds.), The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders (pp. 3–26). New York:
Guilford Press.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and character. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 50(12), 975-990.
Cohen, O. (1999). Counterfactual Entanglement and Nonlocal Correlations in Separable States.
Phys. Rev. A [arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9907109], 60, 80.
Collins, R. (2011). The Energy of the Soul. In M. C. Baker & S. Goetz (Eds.), The Soul Hypothesis:
Investigations into the Existence of the Soul (pp. 123-137). New York: The Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Craig, A. D. (2009). How do you feel--now? The anterior insula and human awareness. Nat Rev
Neurosci, 10(1), 59-70.
Craig, W. L. (1979). The Kaläm Cosmological Argument. Library of Philosophy and Religion.
London: Macmillan.
Crane, T. (1994). Against physicalism. In S. Gutterplan (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of
mind (pp. 479-484). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
Crick, F. (1994). The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York:
Scribners.
Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003). A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci., 6(2), 119-126.
D'Aquili, E. G., & Newberg, A. B. (1999). The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of religious
Experience. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
D'Souza, D. (2009). Life After Death: The Evidence. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.
Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (Kindle ed.). New York:
Pantheon Books.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of
consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Danino, M. (2009, August). Landmark of science in early India. Available:
http://www.iisc.ernet.in/prasthu/pages/PP_data/105.pdf; micheldanino@gmail.com
[2012, June, 1].
Dasti, M. R. (2011). Indian Rational Theology: Proof, Justification, and Epistemic Liberality in
Nyāya's Argument for God. Asian Philosophy, 21(1), 1-21.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1998). Unweaving the Rainbow: Science. Delusion, and the Appetitie for Wonder. New
York: Houghton Muffin Co.
de la Fuente-Fernandez, R., Ruth, T. J., Sossi, V., Schulzer, M., Calne, D. B., & Stoessl, A. J.
(2001). Expectation and dopamine release: mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's
disease. Science, 293(5532), 1164-1166.
134
Dvi-Pakṣa
Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J. P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in
effortful cognitive tasks. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 95(24), 14529-14534.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Deutsch, E. (1980). Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction: University of Hawaii Press.
Donald, M. J. (1999). Progress in a Many-Minds Interpretation of Quantum Theory.
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904001>; <http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-
ph/9904001v1.pdf>.
Doughty, H. A. (2005). Reviews: The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired into Our Genes
Dean Hamer New York: Doubleday, 2004. College Quarterly, 8(1),
<http://www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2005-vol2008-num2001-
winter/reviews/doughty2003.html >.
Eastman, C. I., Young, M. A., Fogg, L. F., Liu, L., & Meaden, P. M. (1998). Bright light treatment
of winter depression: a placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 55(10), 883-889.
Edelman, G. M. (1989). Neural Darwinism: The Theory of Group Neuronal Selection. Oxford.:
Oxford University Press.
Edelman, G. M. (1992). Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Edelman, G. M. (1993). Neural Darwinism: selection and reentrant signaling in higher brain
function. Neuron, 10(2), 115-125.
Eerikäinen, A. (2000). Time and Polarity: The Dimensional Thinking of Karl Heim. University of
Helsinki, Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.
Fauvel, S. (2013). Quantum Ethics: A Spinozist Interpretation of Constructive Quantum Field Theory
on the Lattice: <http://quantum-ethics.org/Quantum%20Ethics.php>.
Feigl, H. (1967). The `Mental' and the `Physical', The Essay and a Postscript [Available:
<http://ebookee.org/dl/Feigl-H-The-Mental-and-the-Physical-The-Essay-and-a-Postscript-
1967/ >]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. See also, The `mental' and the
`physical'. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2, 370-497.
Feynman, R. P. (1950). Mathematical Formulation of the Quantum Theory of Electromagnetic
Interaction. Physical Review <http://authors.library.caltech.edu/3528/1/FEYpr50.pdf>,
80(3), 440-457.
Feynman, R. P. (1962-63). ”Lectures on Gravitation” class notes taken by F.B. Morinigo and W.C.
Wagner: Addison Wesley.
Feynman, R. P., & Hibbs, A. R. (1965). Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. New York: Mc-
Graw-Hill.
Filliozat, J. (1970). The expansion of Indian medicine abroad. In Lokesh Chandra (Ed.), India's
Contributions to World Thought and Culture (pp. 67-70). Madras: Vivekananda Memorial
Committee.
Fingelkurts, A. A., & Fingelkurts, A. A. (2009). Is our brain hardwired to produce God, or is our
brain hardwired to perceive God? A systematic review on the role of the brain in mediating
religious experience. Cogn Process, 10(4), 293-326.
Flanagan, O. (1991). The Science of the Mind. Cambriadge, MA: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. (1994). The Mind-Body Problem. In R. Warner & T. Szubka (Eds.), The Mind-Body
Problem. Oxford: Blackwell.
Fontana, D. (2009). Life beyond death: What should we expect? London: Watkins Publishing.
Fowler, M. (2008). The Energy-Time Uncertainty Principle: Decaying States and Resonances.
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/751.mf1i.fall02/EnergyTimeUP.pdf.
Fox, O. (1962). Astral projection: a record of out-of-body experiences. New York: University Books.
Fracasso, C., & Friedman, H. (2011). Near-death experiences and the possibility of disembodied
consciousness: Challenges to prevailing neurobiological and psychosocial theories.
NeuroQuantology, 9(1), 41-53.
French, C. C. (2005). Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors, Progress in Brain
Research: The Boundaries of Consciousness: Neurobiology and Neuropathology; Chapter 25
(Vol. 150, pp. 351-367): Elsevier B.V.
Gisin, N. (1991). Bell inequality for arbitrary many settings of the analyzers. Phys. Lett. A
<http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9905062.pdf>, 154, 201.
135
Dvi-Pakṣa
Globus, G. (2006). The Saltatory Sheaf-Odyssey of a Monadologist. NeuroQuantology, 4(3), 210-

221.
Globus, G. G. (2005). The being/brain problem. NeuroQuantology, 4, 256-263.
Globus, G. G. (2007). Mind, Matter, and Monad. Mind and Matter, 5(2), 201-214.
Goldberg, G. (1987). From intent to action. Evolution and function of the premotor systems of the
frontal lobe. In E. Perceman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 273–306). New York:
IRBN Press.
Goldstein, S. (1998). Quantum Theory Without Observers. Physics Today, Part One: March 1998,
42–46. Part Two: April 1998, 38–42.
<http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/papers/qts/qts.html>.
Goswami Tulsīdāsa. (1574/2004). Śrī Rāmacaritamānasa. Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India: Gita
Press.
Grange, J. (2009). Vedanta, Process, and Psychotherapy. In G. Derfer, Z. Wang & M. Weber
(Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies
and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 219-231).
Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Greenaway, K. H., Louis, W. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2013). Loss of Control Increases Belief in
Precognition and Belief in Precognition Increases Control. PLoS ONE, 8(8)(8), e71327.
Greene, B. (1999). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the
Ultimate Theory. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. <
http://www.sciencelib.net/files/The%20Elegant%20Universe%20-
%20Brian%20Green.pdf >(see also video:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKxLpeYISE>).
Greyson, B. (1983). The Near-Death Experience Scale: Construction, reliability, and validity.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 369-375.
Greyson, B. (1990). Near-Death Encounters with and without Near-Death Experiences:
Comparative NDE Scale Profiles. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 8, 151-161.
Greyson, B. (2010). Seeing dead people not known to have died: “Peak in Darien” experiences.
Anthropology and Humanism, 35(2), 159-171.
Guth, A. (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The quest for a new theory of cosmic origins.
Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Guthrie, S. (2001). Why gods? A cognitive theory. In J. Andresen (Ed.), Religion in mind (pp. 94–
111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Haarsma, L. D. (1999). A "God-module" in the human brain? Perspectives: A Journal of Reformed
Thought, 14(2), 17,23.
Hadjikhani, N., Liu, A. K., Dale, A. M., Cavanagh, P., & Tootell, R. B. (1998). Retinotopy and color
sensitivity in human visual cortical area V8. Nat Neurosci, 1(3), 235-224; Comment in: Nat
Neurosci 1998 Jul;1991(1993):1171-1993. Comment in: Nat Neurosci 1998
Sep;1991(1995):1335-1996.
Hamer, D. (2005). The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes. New York: Anchor
Books. See also Hamer, Dean H. 2004. The God gene how faith is hardwired into our
genes. New York: Doubleday. Pages 211-12.
Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A. M. (1993). A linkage between
DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261(5119), 321-
327.
Hameroff, S. (1994). Quantum coherence in microtubules: A neural basis for emergent
consciousness? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 1(1), 91-118.
Hameroff, S. (2009). Microtubule super-lattices, Fröhlich coherence and Orch OR (Reply to
Reimers et al, PNAS). http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/PNAS.htm.
Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (1996). Orchestrated Reduction Of Quantum Coherence In Brain
Microtubules: A Model For Consciousness? In S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak & A. C.
Scott (Eds.), Toward a Science of Consciousness - The First Tucson Discussions and
Debates (pp. 507-540). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
136
Dvi-Pakṣa
Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (1998). Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–
Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of consciousness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 356,
1869–1896.
Hameroff, S., & Powell, J. (2009). The Conscious Connection: A Psycho-physical Bridge between
Brain and Pan-experiential Quantum Geometry (Chapter 5). In D. Skrbina (Ed.), Mind
That Abides: Panpsychism in the New Millennium (pp. 109–127). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haque, N., & Banaei, M. (2011). New Proofs for the Existence of God (Part III): The Teleogenical
Proof. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(2), 105-132.
Haraldsson, E. (1997). Psychological comparison between ordinary children and those who claim
previous-life memories. Journal of Scientific Exploration
[http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/cort/pslcompar.pdf;
www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_3_haraldsson.pdf], 11(3).
Haraldsson, E. (2003). Children who speak of past-life experiences: is there a psychological
explanation? Psychol Psychother
[https://notendur.hi.is/erlendur/english/cort/explain.pdf], 76(Pt 1), 55-67.
Hari, S. (2008). Eccles’s Psychons could be zero-energy tachyons. NeuroQuantology, 6(2), 152-
160. www.neuroquantology.com.
Hari, S. (2010a). Consciousness, Mind and Matter in Indian Philosophy. Journal of Consciousness
Exploration & Research, 1(6), 640-650. <www.JCER.com >.
Hari, S. (2010b). Eccles’s Mind Field, Bohm-Hiley Active Information, and Tachyons. J
Consciousness Exploration & Res, 1(7), 850-863.
Hari, S. (2011a). Mind and Tachyons: How Tachyon Changes Quantum Potential and Brain
Creates Mind. NeuroQuantology, 9(2).
Hari, S. (2011b). Zero-energy tachyons and mind field. http://mind-and-tachyons.blogspot.com/.
Hari, S. (2015). How Vedanta Explains Conscious Subjective Experience. Journal of
Consciousness Exploration & Research, 6, (4), 209-221.
Harris, W. S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J. W., Strychacz, C. P., Vacek, J. L., Jones, P. G., Forker, A.,
O'Keefe, J. H., & McCallister, B. D. (1999). A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of
remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit.
Arch Intern Med, 159(19), 2273-2278.
Hartle, J. B., & Hawking, S. W. (1983). Wave function of the Universe. Physical Review D
(Particles and Fields), 28(12), 2960-2975.
Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time (Vol.): Bantam Books. 2nd ed:1996. A Brief History of
Time: The Updated and Expanded Edition. Available:
http://vaghelasv.com/Documents/Stephen.Hawking.A.Brief.History.Of.Time.pdf.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books.
Hawking, S. W. (1989). Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes. 666 fifth Avenue,
New york 10103: Bantam Books.
Hawking, S. W., & Penrose, R. (1970). The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences,
V314(1519), 529-548.
Hiley, B. J., & Pylkkänen, P. (2005). Can Mind Affect Matter Via Active Information? Mind Matter,
3 (2), 7-27.
Hilgevoord, J. (1996). The uncertainty principle for energy and time. Am. J. Phys.
<http://www.stat.physik.uni-
potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/ajp_uncert_energy_time1.pdf>, 64(12),
1451-1456.
Hu, H., & Wu, M. (2010). The Principle of Existence: Towards a Science of Consciousness. Journal
of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 1(1), 50-119.
Hu, H., & Wu, M. (2011a). The Dawn of a Brave New World in Fundamental Physics. Journal of
Consciousness Exploration & Research, 2(5), 784-790.
Hu, H., & Wu, M. (2011b). If the LHC Particle Is Real, What Is One of the Other Possibilities than
the Higgs Boson? Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 2(10), 1555-1556.
137
Dvi-Pakṣa
Hu, H., & Wu, M. (2011c). The Principle of Existence II: Genesis of Self-Referential Matrix Law, &
the Ontology & Mathematics of Ether. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research,
1(9), 1149-1148.
Hu, H., & Wu, M. (2012). Dawn of a Brave New World: Higgs Discovery & the “God Particle”.
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 3(7), 758-769.
Hyman, R. (2007). Evaluating Parapsychological Claims. In R. J. Sternberg, H. L. Roediger & D.
F. Halpern (Eds.), Critical Thinking in Psychology (pp. 219-223). Cambridge (UK):
Cambridge University Press.
Ifrah, G. (1994). Histoire Universelle des Chiffres. Paris: Robert Laffont. English translation, The
Universal History of Numbers (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2005, 3 vols).
Iqbal, N., & van Praag, H. M. (1995). The role of serotonin in schizophrenia. Eur
Neuropsychopharmacol, 5 Suppl, 11-23.
Irons, W. (2001). Religion as a Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment. In R. M. Nesse (Ed.), Evolution
and the Capacity for Commitment (pp. 292-309). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (1998a). SrImadbhagavadGItA: SanskritHindi
SrIRAghavKripABhAsyaSahitA (Dviteeya Khandah) [Commentary]. Chitrakoot and VarAnasi, India:
SrITulsiPeethaSevAnyaAsh and PandyA Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (1998b). SrImadbhagavadGItA: SanskritHindi
SrIRAghavKripABhAsyaSahitA (Prathama Khandah) [Commentary]. Chitrakoot and VarAnasi, India:
SrITulsiPeethaSevAnyaAsh and PandyA Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000a). Aitareyopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
SrIRAghavKripABhAsyam [Commentary]. Chitrakoot and VarAnasi, India: SrITulsiPeethaSevAnyaAsh and
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000b). Chāndogyopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000c). IshAvAsyopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000d). Kathopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000e). Kenopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000f). Mundkopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000g). Prashnopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000h). ShvetAshvataropaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, S. R. S. M. (2000i). TaittirIyopaniṣadi VishisTAdvaitaparkam:
RAghava Offset.
James, W. (1890/1952). Principles of psychology (2 Vols.). New York: Holt. Reprinted,
Chicago:Encyclopaedeia Britinnica
<http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/James/Principles/index.htm >.
Jones, P. G. (2013). The Metaphysics of Consciousness. Philpapers: Online research in philosophy
<http://philpapers.org/rec/JONTMO-8>.
Kabīrdāsa. (1977). Satya Kabīr kī Sākhī. Mumbai, India: Khemrāja Shri Krishnadāsa Shrī
Venketeshwar (Steam) Press.
138
Dvi-Pakṣa
Kak, S. C. (1987). The Paninian approach to natural language processing. Intl. Journal of
Approximate Reasoning, 1, 117-130.
Kak, S. C. (1994). The evolution of writing in India. Indian Journal of History of Science, 28, 375-
388.
Kak, S. C. (1997a). On the Science of Consciousness in Ancient India. Indian Journal of History of
Science, 32, 105-120.
Kak, S. C. (1997b). Science in Ancient India. In S. R. Sridhar & N. K. Mattoo (Eds.), Ananya: A
portrait of India (pp. 399-420). New York: American Institute of Architects (AIA).
<http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/a3.pdf>.
Kak, S. C. (2009). The Universe, Quantum Physics, and Consciousness. Journal of Cosmology,
<Available: http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents3.html >, 3, 500-510.
Kak, S. C. (2010a). Chapter 23: Machines and Consciousness. In P. K. Sengupta (Ed.), History of
Science and Philosophy of Science (pp. 585-610): CSC and Pearson Longman (pp. 559-
584).
Kak, S. C. (2010b). The Great Goddess Lalitā and the Śrī Cakra. Available by email:
subhashk@cs.okstate.edu.
Kant, I. (1929). Critique of Pure Reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). London: McMillan.
Kaufman, S. E. (2013a). The Experiential Basis of Maya: How the Limitations Inherent in the
Individual's Creation of Experience Function to Conceal the Nature of Reality (Part I).
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research
<http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/issue/view/35>, 4(5), 458-481.
Kaufman, S. E. (2013b). The Experiential Basis of Maya: How the Limitations Inherent in the
Individual's Creation of Experience Function to Conceal the Nature of Reality (Part II).
Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, 4(5), 482-.
Kaul, J. K. (2002). Fundamental Aspect of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivis (A comparative view of
the two Philosophies). In Swami Lakshman Joo Maharaj Raina (Ed.), Kashmir Saivism (pp.
33-38): KASHMIR NEWS NETWORK (KNN): Available: http://download-
book.net/Lakshmanjoo-Maharaj-pdf.html.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the
government: testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external
systems. J Pers Soc Psychol, 95(1), 18-35.
Kazim, R., Tauqir, I., Tariq, S., & Matt, A. (2007). A contemporary understanding of logic in Nature
and its evolution to consciousness: God as the unified logic of Nature. Paper presented at
the Toward a Science of Consciousness' conference, Budapest.
Kessler, C. H. (1988). The Diaries of a Cosmopolitan: 1918 to 1939. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, p. 322.
Kim, J. (2005). Physicalism, Or Something Near Enough. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Kirk, K. M., Eaves, L. J., & Martin, N. G. (1999). Self-transcendence as a measure of spirituality
in a sample of older Australian twins. Twin Res, 2(2), 81-87.
Kirk, K. M., Maes, H. H., Neale, M. C., Heath, A. C., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (1999).
Frequency of church attendance in Australia and the United States: models of family
resemblance. Twin Res, 2(2), 99-107.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion. Journal of Personality,
67, 921-952.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2006). CHAPTER 8: Religion is not an adaptation. In P. McNamara (Ed.),
WHERE GOD AND SCIENCE MEET: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our
Understanding of Religion. VOLUME 1: Evolution, Genes, and the Religious Brain (Vol. 1,
pp. 159-179). Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
139
Dvi-Pakṣa
Kjaer, T. W., Bertelsen, C., Piccini, P., Brooks, D., Alving, J., & Lou, H. C. (2002). Increased
dopamine tone during meditation-induced change of consciousness. Brain Res Cogn Brain
Res, 13(2), 255-259.
Klemenc-Ketis, Z., Kersnik, J., & Grmec, S. (2010). The effect of carbon dioxide on near-death
experiences in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors: a prospective observational study.
Crit Care, 14(2), R56.
Kluger, J., Chu, J., Liston, B., Sieger, M., & Williams, D. (2004). Is God in our genes? Time
magazine (U.S.
edition).<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995465,00.html >, 164, 62-
72.
Koenig, H. G., McCullough, M. E., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Handbook of religion and health. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Koenig, L. B., & Bouchard Jr., T. J. (2006). CHAPTER 3: Genetic and Environmental Influences
on the Traditional Moral Values Triad—Authoritarianism, Conservatism, and
Religiousness—as Assessed by Quantitative Behavior Genetic Methods. In P. McNamara
(Ed.), WHERE GOD AND SCIENCE MEET: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our
Understanding of Religion. VOLUME 1: EVOLUTION, GENES, AND THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN
(Vol. 1, pp. 31-60). Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
Kohut, P. (2011a). The Nature of God: Part I. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(1), 56-67.
Kohut, P. (2011b). The Nature of God: Part II. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(1), 68-79.
Kohut, P. (2011c). The Nature of God: Part III. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(2), 80-90.
Kokiloo, M. L. (2002). Salient Features of Kashmir Monistic Shaivism. In Swami Lakshman Joo
Maharaj Raina (Ed.), Kashmir Saivism (pp. 21-25): KASHMIR NEWS NETWORK (KNN):
Available: http://download-book.net/Lakshmanjoo-Maharaj-pdf.html.
Krauss, L. M. (2012). A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New
York: Free Press.
Kringelbach, M. L. (2009). The pleasure center: Trust Your Animal Instincts. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lange, R., Greyson, B., & Houran, J. A. (2004). Rasch scaling validation of a 'core' near death ‐
experience. Br J Psychol, 95, 161-177.
Laws, V., & Perry, E. (2010). Near Death Experiences: A New Algorithmic Approach to Verifying
Consciousness Outside the Brain. NeuroQuantology
<http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/view/280/278 >
<Reprint request: valaws@yahoo.co.uk>, 8(2), 142-154.
Lederman, L., & Teresi, D. (1993). The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the
Question? New York: A Delta Book, Dell Publishing.
Leggett, A. J., & Garg, A. (1985). Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux
there when nobody looks? Phys Rev Lett, 54(9), 857-860.
Levin, J. (2006). What is a Phenomenal Concept? In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal
Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New essays on Consciousness and Physicalism (pp.
87-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levin, J. (2008). Taking Type-B Materialism Seriously. Mind Lang, 23(4), 402-425.
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pac Philos Quart, 64, 354–361.
Lhermitte, F. (1986). Human autonomy and the frontal lobes. Part II: Patient behavior in complex
and social situations: The “environmental dependency syndrome”. Annals of Neurology,
19(4), 335–343.
Libet, B. (1996a). Conscious mind as a field. J Theor Biol, 178(2), 223-226.
Libet, B. (1996b). Solutions to the hard problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness
Studies, 3(1), 33-35.
Libet, B., Wright, E. W., Jr., Feinstein, B., & Pearl, D. K. (1979). Subjective referral of the timing
for a conscious sensory experience: a functional role for the somatosensory specific
projection system in man. Brain, 102(1), 193-224.
Linde, A. D. (1983). Chaotic inflation. Physics Letters B, 129(3-4), 177-181.
140
Dvi-Pakṣa
Loar, B. (1990). Phenomenal states. Philosophical Perspectives, 4, 81-108.

Loar, B. (1997). Phenomenal states. Revised edition. In N. Block, O. Flanagan & G. Güzeldere
(Eds.), The Nature of Consciousness (pp. 597-616): MIT Press.
Long, J. D. (2009). The Paradoxes of Radical Asceticism: Jainism as a Therapeutic Paradigm. In
G. Derfer, Z. Wang & M. Weber (Eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue
Between Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead
Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 71-84). Frankfurt / Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Lowe, E. J. (2000). Causal Closure Principe and Emergentism. Philosophy, 75, 574.
Lowe, E. J. (2006). Non-Cartesian substance dualism and the problem of mental causation.
Erkenntnis. Available:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c8r7878877865575/fulltext.pdf, 65(1), 5-23.
Luisi, P. L. (2008). The Two Pillars of Buddhism — Consciousness and Ethics. Journal of
Consciousness Studies, 15(1), 84–107.
MacGregor, R. J., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2008). Consciousness and the Structure of Matter. J Integr
Neurosci <Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2008-MacGregor-Vimal-
CSM-JIN.pdf
>, 7(1), 75-116.
Mádhava Áchárya. (1996 [1882]). The Sarva-darsana-samgraha: or Review of the Different
Systems of Hindu Philosophy (E. B. Cowell & A. E. Gough, Trans.). Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass [Cārvāka, the first Chapter of The Sarva-darsana-sangraha of
Madhavacharya: <http://www.humanistictexts.org/Carvaka.htm >].
Margenau, H. (1984). The Miracle of Existence. Woodbridge: Oxbow Press.
Mathews, A. (2008). The "God" Part of the Brain: A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality
and God. Naperville, Illinois, USA: Sourcebooks, Inc. (originally published in 1996 by
Rogue Press).
Maturana, H. (2002). Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other
notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernet Human Knowing, 9 (3-4), 5-34.
McClain, E. G. (1978). The Myth of Invariance. Boulder: Shambhala.
McNamara, P. (2006a). CHAPTER 9: The Frontal Lobes and the Evolution of Cooperation and
Religion. VOLUME 2 The Neurology of Religious Experience. In P. McNamara (Ed.),
Understanding of Religion. VOLUME 2: The Neurology of Religious Experience (Vol. 2, pp.
189-204). Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
McNamara, P. (Ed.). (2006b). WHERE GOD AND SCIENCE MEET: How Brain and Evolutionary
Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. 3 volumes. Westport, Connecticut; London:
Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
McNamara, P., Durso, R., & Harris, E. (2006). Frontal lobe mediation of the sense of self:
Evidence from the studies of patients with Parkinson’s disease. In A. P. Prescott (Ed.), The
concept of self in medicine and health care. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
McTaggart, J. (1927). The Nature of Existence
[http://books.google.com/books?id=1m45AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_s
ummary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false] (Vol. II). New York: University of Cambridge. pp.
385-96.
McTaggart, J., & McTaggart, E. (1906). Some Dogmas of Religion [http://www.amazon.com/Some-
Dogmas-Religion-McT-McTaggart/dp/B000H5G6RE#reader_B000H5G6RE]: Edward Arnold
(reproduced by BiblioLife); pp. 127-37.
Mehta, N. (2011). Mind-body dualism: A critique from a health perspective. In A. R. Singh & S. A.
Singh (Eds.), Brain, Mind, and Consciousness: An International, Interdisciplinary
Perspective, MSM (Vol. 9(1), pp. 202-209).
Mishra, G. (2003). A Journey through Vedantic History - Advaita in the Pre-Sankara, Sankara
and Post- Sankara Periods.
141
Dvi-Pakṣa
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060622102818/http://ochs.org.uk/downloads/classes/g
mishra02mmas04.pdf >.
Mohrhoff, U. (1999). The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics. arXiv:quant-
ph/9903051: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903051.pdf>.
Mohrhoff, U. (2001). Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness: Fact and Fiction. arXiv:quant-
ph/0102047: <http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0102047.pdf>.
Murakami, H., Nakao, T., Matsunaga, M., Kasuya, Y., Shinoda, J., Yamada, J., & Ohira, H.
(2012). The structure of mindful brain. PLoS One, 7(9), e46377.
Muslim, M. (2011). New Proofs for the Existence of God: Part I: The Sesamatic Proof. Scientific
GOD Journal, 2(1), 4-17.
Nauta, W. (1979). A proposed conceptual reorganization of the basal ganglia and telencephalon.
Neuroscience, 4(12), 1875-1881.
Neighbors, H. W., Jackson, J. S., Bowman, P. J., & Gurin, G. (1983). Stress, coping, and black
mental health: Preliminary fi ndings from a national study. In R. Hess & J. Hermalin
(Eds.), Innovation in prevention (pp. 5–9). New York: Haworth Press.
Newberg, A., Alavi, A., Baime, M., Pourdehnad, M., Santanna, J., & d'Aquili, E. (2001). The
measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during the complex cognitive task of
meditation: a preliminary SPECT study. Psychiatry Res, 106(2), 113-122.
Newberg, A., d’Aquili, E., & Rause, V. (2001). Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the
Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine <http://www.andrewnewberg.com/why.asp>.
Newberg, A., d’Aquili, E., & Rause, V. (2002). Why God won’t go away: Brain science and the
biology of belief. New York: Ballantine.
Newen, A., & Vogeley, K. (2003). Self-representation: Searching for a neural signature of self-
consciousness. Consciousness and Cognition, 12(4), 529–543.
Northoff, G. (2007). Subcortical regions and the self. Behav Brain Sci, 30(1), 100-101.
Northoff, G., & Bermpohl, F. (2004). Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci
<http://www.imhr.ca/research/northofflab/documents/cms_and_the_self.pdf >, 8(3), 102-
107.
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., de Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006).
Self-referential processing in our brain--a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the self.
Neuroimage
<http://www.imhr.ca/research/northofflab/documents/self_referential_processing_in_our_
brain.pdf >, 31(1), 440-457.
O'Connor, T., & Wong, H. Y. (2005). The Metaphysics Of Emergence. Noûs
<http://mypage.iu.edu/~toconnor/MetaphEm.pdf >, 39, 658-678.
Olds, J. (1956). Pleasure centers in the brain. Scientific American, 105-116.
Olds, J., & Milner, P. M. (1954). Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of
septal area and other regions of rat brain. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 47, 419–427.
Oliver, A. J. (2012). On the Subject of Consciousness in Samapatti. Journal of Consciousness
Exploration & Research, 3(11), 1238-1241.
Oliver, A. J. (2015). Some Thoughts on Samapatti. Journal of Consciousness Exploration &
Research <http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/457>, 6(4), 250-252.
Osho. (2012). From sex to supercosnciousness [2012, July 17].
Pahnke, W. N. (1966). Drung and Mysticism. Int J Psychol, 8, 295-313.
Pahnke, W. N., & Richards, W. (1969). Implications of LSD and Experimental Mysticism. J
Tanspers Psych, 1, 69-102.
Pal, D., & De, A. U. (2012). The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Temperature Signifying
the Existence of the Thought-Carrying Particle, Thought Retaining Particle and Thought
Force. NeuroQuantology [submitted], Available from dhananjay.pal123@gmail.com.
Pal, H. S. (2010a). GOD, Scientists & the Void. Scientific GOD Journal, 1(6), 428-432.
Pal, H. S. (2010b). Timeless & Climax. Scientific GOD Journal, 1(7), 492-496.
Pal, H. S. (2011a). God of the Gaps. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(6), 635-637.
Pal, H. S. (2011b). How to Prove that There Is a God, God Is Real & the Universe Needs a God.
Scientific GOD Journal, 2(4), 327-333.
142
Dvi-Pakṣa
Pal, H. S. (2011c). Something versus Nothing & Some Thoughts on Proof of No God. Scientific
GOD Journal, 2(2), 188-193.
Pal, H. S. (2011d). Stephen Hawking’s Hotchpotch. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(6), 629-634.
Pal, H. S. (2012a). One More Proof that There Is a God. Scientific GOD Journal, 3 (2), 217-219.
www.SciGOD.com.
Pal, H. S. (2012b). Various Thoughts on God & Science. Scientific GOD Journal, 3(1), 132-137.
Paloutzian, R., F., Swenson, E. L., & McNamara, P. (2006). CHAPTER 7 RELIGIOUS
CONVERSION, SPIRITUAL TRANSFORMATION, AND THE NEUROCOGNITION OF
MEANING MAKING. In P. McNamara (Ed.), WHERE GOD AND SCIENCE MEET: How Brain
and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion (Vol. 2, pp. 151-170).
Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
Papineau, D. (2006). Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.),
Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New Essays on Consciousness and
Physicalism (pp. 111-144): Oxford University Press.
Park, C., Cohen, L. H., & Herb, L. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness and religious coping as life stress
moderators for Catholics versus Protestants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 77-89.
Parsons, K. M. (2006). No Creator Need Apply: A Reply to Roy Abraham Varghese.
<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/varghese.html>.
Pascual, O., Ben Achour, S., Rostaing, P., Triller, A., & Bessis, A. (2012). Microglia activation
triggers astrocyte-mediated modulation of excitatory neurotransmission. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A, 109(4), E197-205.
Pereira Jr., A. (2012). Triple-Aspect Monism: A Conceptual Framework for the Science of Human
Consciousness. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of Mind, Brain and World:
Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness.
Persinger, M. A. (1974). The paranormal: Patterns (Part 1). New York: MSS Information.
Persinger, M. A. (1983). Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function:
a general hypothesis. Perceptual and motor skills, 57(3 Pt 2), 1255-1262.
Persinger, M. A. (1987). Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Persinger, M. A. (1994). Sense of presence and suicidal ideation following traumatic brain injury:
indications of right hemispheric intrusions from neuropsychological profiles. Psychological
Reports, 75, 1059-1070.
Persinger, M. A., Saroka, K. S., Koren, S. A., & St-Pierre, L. S. (2010). The Electromagnetic
Induction of Mystical and Altered States Within the Laboratory. Journal of Consciousness
Philippi, C. L., Feinstein, J. S., Khalsa, S. S., Damasio, A., Tranel, D., Landini, G., Williford, K., &
Rudrauf, D. (2012). Preserved Self-Awareness following Extensive Bilateral Brain Damage
to the Insula, Anterior Cingulate, and Medial Prefrontal Cortices. PLoS ONE
<doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038413>, 7(8), e38413.
Pinker, S. (2006). CHAPTER 1: The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion. In P. McNamara (Ed.),
Understanding of Religion. VOLUME 1: EVOLUTION, GENES, AND THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN
(Vol. 1, pp. 1-10). Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., Gianotti, L., Koenig, T., Tanaka, H., Wackermann, J., & Brugger, P.
(2000). Brain electric correlates of strong belief in paranormal phenomena: intracerebral
EEG source and regional Omega complexity analyses. Psychiatry Res, 100(3), 139-154.
Popescu, S., & Rohrlich, D. (1992). Generic quantum nonlocality. Phys. Lett. A
<http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/people/popescu_s/papers/Sandu-6.pdf>, 166, 293.
Prakash, R., & Caponigro, M. (2009). Inner Light Perception as a Quantum Phenomenon-
Addressing the Questions of Physical and Critical Realisms, Information and Reduction.
NeuroQuantology, 7(1), 188-197.
143
Dvi-Pakṣa
Prakash, R., Haq, Z. U., Prakash, O., Sarkhel, S., & Kumar, D. (2009). Inner Light Perception of
Vihangam Yogis A Qualitative Study. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16(2-3).
Rabin, B. S. (2002). Understanding how stress affects the physical body. In H. G. Koenig & H. J.
Cohen (Eds.), The link between religion and health: Psychoneuroimmunology and the faith
factor (pp. 43–68). New York: Oxford University Press.
Radhakrishnan, S. (1923). Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Oxford University Press (Vol.1: 738 pages;
Vol 2: 807 pages).
Radhakrishnan, S. (1960). Brahma Sutra: The Philosophy of Spiritual Life. London: Ruskin House,
George Allen & Unwin Ltd. <http://www.archive.org/stream/Sarvepalli.Radhakrishnan-
Brahma.Sutra-The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life/Radhakrishnan-Brahma.Sutra-
The.Philosophy.of.Spiritual.Life#page/n560/mode/1up>.
Radhakrishnan, S., & Moore, C. A. (1957). A Source Book in Indian Philosophy. Princeton:
Princeton University Press; paperback 12th edition, 1989. p. 227.
Raina Swami Lakshman Joo. (1985). Kashmir Saivism: The Secret Supreme. Srinagar and New
York: Universal Shaiva Trust and State University of New York Press.
Raju, P. T. (1985). Structural Depths of Indian Thought (S U N Y Series in Philosophy). New York
and New Delhi: State Univ of New York and South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
<http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wZ_iahRQomwC&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=true
>
<<http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wZ_iahRQomwC&pg=PA304#v=onepage&q&f=tr
ue>>.
Ramachandran, V. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the
Human Mind. New York: HarperCollins Publisher, Inc.
Ramachandran, V. S., Hirstein, W. S., Armel, K. C., Tecoma, E., & Iragul, V. (1997, October 25-
30). The Neural Basis of Religious Experience. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
27th Annual Conference of the Society for Neuroscience (abstract 519.1, Vol 23, p.1316),
New Orleans, LA (October 25-30).
Rāmānujāchārya. (1904). Ramānujāchārya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya: SriBhashya - Ramānujā's
Commentary On Brahma Sutra (Vedanta Sutra) (G. Thibaut, Trans.): <
http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/sribhashya_ramanuja/vedanta_
sutra_commentary_ramanujaindex.php >;
<http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/sribhashya_ramanuja/vedanta
_sutra_commentary_ramanuja023.php>, and
<http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/sribhashya_ramanuja/vedanta
_sutra_commentary_ramanuja024.php>.
Rao, K. R. (1998). TWO FACES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: A Look at Eastern and Western
Perspectives. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(3), 309-327.
Rees, M. (1999). Just Six Numbers. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1997). Near-death and out-of-body experiences in the blind: A study of
apparent eyeless vision. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 16(2), 101-144.
Robert, P. H., Aubin-Brunet, V., & Darcourt, G. (1999). Serotonin and the frontal lobes. In B. L.
Miller & J. L. Cummings (Eds.), The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders (pp.
125–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Robinson, W. (2011). Epiphenomenalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition)
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/epiphenomenalism/>.
Rosen, S. (2007). Krishna's Song: Greenwood Publishing Group (p. 70).
Ross, H. (1995). The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the
Century Reveal God. Colorado Springs: NavPress.
Rowlatt, P. (2009). Consciousness and Memory. Journal of Consciousness Studies: Special Issue
on Defining consciousness (Ed. Chris Nunn), 16(5), 68-78.
Ryback, D. (1988). Dreams That Came True. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.
Sanborn, A. N., Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). High-level effects of masking on
perceptual identification. Vision Research, 44(12), 1427-1436.
144
Dvi-Pakṣa
Sarasvati, D. (1974-89). The Rig-Veda: Maharisi Dayanand Sarasvati's commentary ([Acharya

Dharma Deva Vidya Martanda for volumes 1(edition 1:1974), 2(1978), 3(1984) 4(1986),
5(1989); these volumes have Mandala 1 to 6. Manadal 7: translator: H.D. Velenkar, 1963,
Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan Chowpati Bombay]; For "Being the first, he is the Adishiva" see
also < http://groups.yahoo.com/group/0-spiritone/message/178 >, Trans.). Dayannand
Bhavan Ramlila Ground New Delhi 110002 India: SarvDeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha
International Arya League.
Saroj Bala. (2012). Historicity of Vedic and Ramayan Eras: Scientific evidences from the depths of
oceans to the heights of skies. Delhi: I-SERVE
<http://sarojbala.blogspot.com/2012/06/my-book.html> and
<http://sarojbala.blogspot.com/>.
Saroka, K., Mulligan, B. P., Murphy, T. R., & Persinger, M. A. (2010). Experimental Elicitation of
an Out of Body Experience and Concomitant Cross-Hemispheric Electroencephalographic
Coherence. NeuroQuantology, 8(4), 466-477.
’
Scharf, D. (2010). Why Jaegwon Kim s Physicalism is Not Near Enough An Implicit Argument
‐
for a non Cartesian Interactionism Part I. NeuroQuantology, 8(3), 337-353.
Schnider, A., & Gutbrod, K. (1999). Traumatic brain injury. In B. L. Miller & J. L. Cummings
(Eds.), The human frontal lobes: Functions and disorders (pp. 487–508). New York: Guilford
Press.
Schulter, G., & Papousek, I. (2008). Believing in paranormal phenomena: relations to asymmetry
of body and brain. Cortex, 44(10), 1326-1335.
Schwalbe, M. L. (1991). The autogenesis of the self. J Theor Soc Behav, 21, 269-295.
Schwartz, J. M., Stapp, H. P., & Beauregard, M. (2005). Quantum physics in neuroscience and
psychology: a neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B
Biol Sci, 360(1458), 1309-1327.
Searle, J. R. (2007). Biological naturalism. In M. Velmans & S. Schneider (Eds.), The Blackwell
Companion to Consciousness (pp. 325-334). Oxford: Blackwell.
Seidenberg, A. (1978). The origin of mathematics. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 18, 301-
342.
ṃ
Sen Gupta, A. (1986). The Evolution of the Sā khya School of Thought. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
Sharma, B. N. K. (1986). The Philosophy of Madhvacharya: Motilal Banarsidass.
Sharma, B. N. K. (2000). The History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature (3rd ed.):
Motilal Banarsidass.
Sharma, R. M. G. (1968). The system of Suddhadvaita vedanta of Sri
Vallabhacharya:Brahmavada. The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Baroda,
Gujrat, India.
Sheldrake, P. (2007). A Brief History of Spirituality. Maden, MA, USA; Oxford, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Sherwood, S. J., & Roe, C. (2003). A review of dream ESP studies conducted since the
Maimonides studies. Journal of Consciousness Studies(10), 85-109.
Silveira, L. A. (2008). Experimenting with Spirituality: Analyzing The God Gene in a Nonmajors
Laboratory Course. CBE—Life Sciences Education
<http://www.lifescied.org/content/7/1/132.full.pdf+html>, 7(Spring), 132-145.
Singh, P. H. (2002). A History of the Carvakas. http://evans-
experientialism.freewebspace.com/Singh01.htm.
Skrbina, D. (2009). Minds, objects, and relations: Toward a dual-aspect ontology (Chapter 19). In
D. Skrbina (Ed.), Mind that abides: Panpsychism in the new millennium (pp. 361–382).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slife, B. D. (2012). Are the natural science methods of psychology compatible with theism?
Retrieved April 25, 2012, from
http://brentslife.com/article/upload/religion/Natural%20Science%20Methods.pdf.
Smith, S. P. (2011). Review of William A. Dembski’s Book: Intelligent Design: The Bridge between
Science & Theology. Scientific GOD Journal, 2(1), 96-97.
145
Dvi-Pakṣa
Smith, W. D. (1998). The Enery-Time Uncertainty Principle. typeset

<http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Smith,+W.+D.+(1998).+The+Energy-
Time+Uncertainty+Principle&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=HPzVT4r7PI
Hk0QG5r7WpAw&sqi=2&ved=0CAgQgQMwAA>, 766(6), 1-4.
Sri Madhvacharya. (2011). Works of Madhvacharya. < Sri Madhvacharya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_Madhvacharya >.
Staal, F. (1988). Universals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stapp, H. (1995). Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but
Quantum Mechanics Can. Psyche, 2(5), Available:
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html and
<http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9502012 >.
Stapp, H. P. (1996). The hard problem: a quantum approach. Journal of Consciousness Studies,
3(3), 194-210.
Stapp, H. P. (2006). Quantum Approaches to Consciousness. In M. Moskovitch & P. Zelazo (Eds.),
Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge U. K.: Cambridge Univ. Press
[http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/stappfiles.html].
Stapp, H. P. (2009a). Nondual quantum duality. Plenary talk at Marin Conference "Science and
Nonduality" on Oct 25 <http://www-
physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/NondualQuantumDuality.pdf>.
Stapp, H. P. (2009b). Quantum reality and mind. J Cosmology
<http://journalofcosmology.com/QuantumConsciousness105.html>, 3, 570-579.
Stenger, V. J. (2000). The other side of time.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html.
Stenger, V. J. (2011). Life After Death: Examining the Evidence. In J. Loftus (Ed.), The End of
Christianity (pp. 305-332). New York: Prometheus Books.
Stevenson, I. (1992). Survival or super-psi: A reply. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 6(2), 145-
149.
Stevenson, I. (1995). Twenty cases suggestive of reincarnation, Charlottesville: University Press of
Virginia. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Stevenson, I., & Keil, J. (2000). The Stability of Assessments of Paranormal Connections in
Reincarnation-Type Cases. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(3), 365-382.
Strawbridge, W. J., Shema, S. J., Cohen, R. D., Roberts, R. E., & Kaplan, G. A. (1998). Religiosity
buffers effects of some stressors on depression but exacerbates others. Journals of
Gerontology. Series B. Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53(3), S118–S126.
Sulis, W. H. (2013). Quantum Mechanics Without Observers. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4156.
Swami Chinmayananda. (2000). The holy Geeta. Mumbai, India: Central Chinmaya Mission
Trust.
Swami Krishnananda. (1983). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Rishikesh, Himalayas, India: The
Divine Life Society <http://www.swami-
krishnananda.org/brdup/Brihadaranyaka_Upanishad.pdf>.
Tart, C. T. (1967). A second psychophysiological out-of-the-body experience in a gifted subject.
International Journal of Parapsychology, 9, 251-258.
Taylor, E. F., & Wheeler, J. A. (1992). Spacetime Physics (second ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
The Washington Times. (2004). Geneticist claims to have found ‘God gene’ in humans. The
Washington Times <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/14/20041114-
111404-8087r/ >.
Thompson, E., & Varela, F. J. (2001). Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness.
Trends Cogn Sci, 5(10), 418-425.
Thurston, H. (1994). Early Astronomy. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tipler, F. J. (2000). Does Quantum Nonlocality Exist? Bell's Theorem and the Many-Worlds
Interpretation. <http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0003146v1>.
Tīrtha, S. O. (2007). Pātañjalayogapradīpa (in Hindi: Patanjali Yoga Pradip). Gorakhpur: Gita
Press. (pp. 74-123).
146
Dvi-Pakṣa
Tiyavanich, K. (1997). Forest recollections: Wandering monks in twentieth-century Thailand.

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the
individual: the role of genetics and adaptation. J Pers, 58(1), 17-67.
Tootell, R. B. H., Tsao, D., & Vanduffel, W. (2003). Neuroimaging Weighs In: Humans Meet
Macaques in “Primate” Visual Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(10), 3981–3989.
Trehub, A. (2007). Space, self, and the theater of consciousness. Conscious Cogn, 16, 310-330.
Trehub, A. (2009). Two arguments for a pre-reflective core self: Commentary on Praetorius (2009).
Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 339-340.
Tucker, J. B. (2007). Children Who Claim to Remember Previous Lives: Past, Present, and Future
Research. Journal of Scientific Exploration
[http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_21_3_tucker.pdf], 21(3), 543-552.
University of Liège. (2008, October 8). Human Brain Still Awake, Even During Deep Sleep.
ScienceDaily. Available: URL
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081008101740.htm> [2012, accessed
May 11, 2012].
van Nooten, B. (1993). Binary numbers in Indian antiquity. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 21, 31-
50.
Varela, F. G., Maturana, H. R., & Uribe, R. (1974). Autopoiesis: the organization of living systems,
its characterization and a model. Curr Mod Biol, 5(4), 187-196.
Varela, F. J. (1981). Autonomy and autopoiesis. In G. Roth & H. Schwegler (Eds.), Self-Organizing
Systems: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 14-24). Frankfurt and New York: Campus
Verlag.
Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy to the hard problem. J
Consciousness Stud, 3, 330–350.
Vartak, P. V. (1989). The Scientific Dating of the Mahabharata War. Pune: Veda Vidnyana
Mandala, Vartak Ashram <http://www.scribd.com/doc/23134614/The-Scientific-Dating-
of-the-Mahabharata-War-P-V-Vartak>.
Vartak, P. V. (1999). The Scientific Dating of the Rāmāyaṇa & the Vedas. Pune: Veda Vidnyana
Mandala, Vartak Ashram <http://www.scribd.com/doc/23133909/The-Scientific-Dating-
Ramayana-and-the-Vedas-P-V-Vartak>.
Velmans, M. (2000). Understanding Consciousness. London: Routledge/Psychology Press.
Velmans, M. (2008). Reflexive Monism. J Consciousness Stud, 15(2), 5-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2008a). Attention and Emotion. The Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences (ARBS)
[Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2008-Vimal-Attention-and-Emotion-
ARBS-139.pdf; updated and extended version is available at
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-Attention-and-Emotion-LVCR-3-
8.pdf], 10, 84-104.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2008b). Proto-experiences and Subjective Experiences: Classical and Quantum
Concepts. J Integr Neurosci [Available at
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2008-Vimal-PE-SE-classical-quantum-JIN-
0701-P49.pdf >; Latest update: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-
PE-SE-classical-quantum-LVCR.pdf >], 7(1), 49-73.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009a). Dependent Co-origination and Inherent Existence: Dual-Aspect
Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research
[Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Coorigination-LVCR-2-
7.pdf], 2(7), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009b). Derivation of Subjective Experiences from a Proto-experience and three
Gunas in the Dual-Aspect-Dual-Mode Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision
and Consciousness Research [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-
Guna-LVCR-2-5.pdf], 2(5), 1-140.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009c). Dual Aspect Framework for Consciousness and Its Implications: West
meets East for Sublimation Process [Available:
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Consciousness-and-its-
implications-recent-version-LVCR-2-11.pdf]. In G. Derfer, Z. Wang & M. Weber (Eds.), The
147
Dvi-Pakṣa
Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and

Eastern Worldviews (Vol. 3 of Whitehead Psychology Nexus Studies, pp. 39-70). Frankfurt
/ Lancaster: Ontos Verlag.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009d). Interpretation of Empirical Data of Samadhi State and the Dual-Aspect
Dual-Mode Optimal Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
Research [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Samadhi-LVCR-2-
3.pdf], 2(3), 1-130.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009e). Linking Dynamic Systems theory & Fractal Catalytic Theory with
Standard Representation Theory using PE-SE framework. Vision Research Institute: Living
Vision and Consciousness Research [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-
Vimal-DST-SRT-PESE-LVCR-2-6.pdf], 2(6), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009f). Meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness': an overview. J
Consciousness Stud <Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-
Meanings-LVCR-2-10.pdf >, 16(5), 9-27.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009g). Necessary Ingredients of Consciousness: Integration of Psychophysical,
Neurophysiological, and Consciousness Research for the Red-Green Channel. Vision
Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available at
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Necessary-Ingredients-
Conciousness-LVCR-2-1.pdf >], 2(1), 1-40.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009h). Pre-existence of Subjective Experiences in Type-B Materialism: Bridging
Materialism and Anti-materialism via Dual-Aspect Optimal Framework. Vision Research
Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Bridging-Materialism-and-
antiMaterialism-LVCR-2-2.pdf >], 2(2), 1-85.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009i). Subjective Experience Aspect of Consciousness Part I - Integration of
Classical, Quantum, and Subquantum Concepts. NeuroQuantology [Available:
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-PE-SE-SQ-Part1-LVCR-2-8.pdf >],
7(3), 390-410.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009j). Subjective Experience Aspect of Consciousness Part II: Integration of
Classical and Quantum Concepts for Emergence Hypothesis. NeuroQuantology
[http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-PE-SE-Emergence-Part2-LVCR-2-9.pdf],
7(3), 411-434.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2009k). Subjective experiences of space and time: Self, Sensation, and
Phenomenal time. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research
[http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-SE-Space-Time-LVCR-1-12.pdf],
1(12), 1-25.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010a). Consciousness, Non-conscious Experiences and Functions, Proto-
experiences and Proto-functions, and Subjective Experiences. J Consciousness Exploration
& Res [Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-Consciousness-
Experience-LVCR-3-6.pdf >; <http://jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/37/35 >], 1(3),
383-389.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010b). Interactions among Minds/Brains: Individual Consciousness and Inter-
subjectivity in Dual-Aspect Framework. J Consciousness Exploration & Res [Available:
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-Interactions-among-Minds-Brains-
LVCR-3-7.pdf], 1(6), 657-717.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010c). Matching and selection of a specific subjective experience: conjugate
matching and subjective experience. J Integr Neurosci
[<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2013-Vimal-Matching-Selection-LVCR-3-1.pdf
>], 9(2), 193-251.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010d). On the Quest of Defining Consciousness. Mind Matter (Available: <
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-DefineC-LVCR-3-2.pdf >), 8(1), 93-
121.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010e). Towards a Theory of Everything Part I - Introduction of Consciousness in
Electromagnetic Theory, Special and General Theory of Relativity. NeuroQuantology
148
Dvi-Pakṣa
[Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-NQ-Vimal-TOE-Part-I-LVCR-
3-3.pdf >], 8(2), 206-230.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010f). Towards a Theory of Everything Part II - Introduction of Consciousness in
Schrödinger equation and Standard Model using Quantum Physics. NeuroQuantology
[Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-NQ-Vimal-TOE-Part-II-LVCR-
3-4.pdf >], 8(3), 304-313.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010g). Towards a Theory of Everything Part III - Introduction of Consciousness in
Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory and Unification of Experiences with
Fundamental Forces. NeuroQuantology [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-NQ-Vimal-TOE-Part-III-LVCR-3-5.pdf >;
for longer version see <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-NQ-Vimal-TOE-
Part-III-LVCR-3-5.doc >], 8(4), 571-599.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2010h). Variable Concept of Free Will: Semi-Free Will in Dual-aspect Dual-mode
Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research
[Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-FreeWill-LVCR-3-
10.pdf>], 3(10), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011a). Bridging Materialism and Anti-materialism via Dual-Aspect Monism.
Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Bridging-Materialism-and-
antiMaterialism-LVCR-4-2.pdf >], 4(2), 1-100.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011b). Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita,
>वप?ा>वैत ). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
Research [Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-
Brihadaranyaka-Upanishad-DAM-4-12.pdf>]. In preparation, 4(12), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011c). Introducing Dual-Aspect Monism (modified-Vishishtadvaita) Framework
in Religion: Prana Pratistha. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
Research [Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Dual-
aspect-in-religion-4-3.pdf >]. In preparation, 4(3), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011d). Love and Compassion (Prem Yoga): Dual Aspect-Monism (modified-
Vishishtadvaita) Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness
Research [Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Love-and-
Dual-Aspect-Monism.pdf >] In preparation, 4(4), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011e). Necessary Ingredients of Consciousness: Integration of Psychophysical,
Neurophysiological, and Consciousness Research for the Red-Green Channel. Vision
Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research
[<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Necessary-Ingredients-
Conciousness-LVCR-2-1.pdf >], 2(1), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011f). Origin of Subjective Experiences: Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research
Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Origin-of-SEs-LVCR-4-6.pdf>].
4(6), 1-90.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011g). Origin of Thoughts: Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living
Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Origin-of-Thoughts-LVCR-4-
11.pdf>]. In preparation, 4(11), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011h). Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer via Extended
Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and
Consciousness Research:<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-Dvaita-
Advaita-Visistadvaita-DAM-4-9.pdf >, 4(9), 1-130.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011i). Scientific Religions: Science-Religion Unification through Extended Dual-
Aspect Monism and its Novel Critiques. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and
Consciousness Research: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-
Problems-Dualism-Religions-DAM-4-8.pdf, 4(8), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011j). Towards a Theory of Everything Part IV: Information in Dual-Aspect
Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 4(7), 1-50.
149
Dvi-Pakṣa
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011k). Unpacking the Mysterious Emergence partly via Matching and Selection
Mechanisms of Dual-Aspect Monism. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of
Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness (Vol.).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2011l). Western Metaphysics and Comparison with Eastern Metaphysics. Vision
Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2011-Vimal-West-East-Metaphysics-4-5.pdf
>]. In preparation, 4(5), 1-50.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2012a). PRIMAL ENTITY and SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONS: Science-Religion
Unification through Extended Dual-Aspect Monism and its Novel Critiques. Vision
Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2012-Vimal-Bringing-Science-and-Religions-
closer-DAM-5-3.pdf >] [DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1471.5847], 5(3).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2012b). Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer through
Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṇa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Scientific-Hinduism-Bringing-
Science-and-Hinduism-closer-eDAM-5-4-book.pdf >] [DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1982.0485], 5(4).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2013). Emergence in Dual-Aspect Monism. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.),
The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness
(pp. 149-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Longer version is available for
comments: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2012-Vimal-Emergence-
UMBW-CUP.pdf >].
Vimal, R. L. P. (2014). A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: segregation and integration of
information and necessary conditions of consciousness. Vision Research Institute: Living
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2014-Vimal-IIT-in-eDAM-LVCR-4-1.pdf >],
6(3).
Vimal, R. L. P. (2015a). Biological Naturalism in Extended Dual-Aspect Monism and Conscious
Robots. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-eDAM-BN-LVCR-7-3.pdf >], 7(3),
1-23.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2015b). A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: segregation and integration
of information. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research
[Available: <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-IIT-in-eDAM-LVCR-4-
1.pdf >], 7(2), 1-33.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2015c). Necessary conditions of consciousness: Extended Dual-Aspect Monism
framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Necessary-Conditions-Conciousness-
1.pdf >], 7(1), 1-28.
Vimal, R. L. P. (2015d). Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer through
Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṇa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living
Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: <
<http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Scientific-Hinduism-Bringing-
Science-and-Hinduism-closer-eDAM-5-4-book.pdf >] [DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1982.0485], 5(4).
Vimal, R. L. P., & Davia, C. J. (2008). How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal Time and
Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. Quantum Biosystems <Available:
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2008-Vimal-Davia-PhenomenalTime-QBS2-
20102-151.pdf >, 2, 102-151.
Vimal, R. L. P., & Davia, C. J. (2010). Phenomenal Time and its Biological Correlates. J
Consciousness Exploration & Res <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-
Vimal-Davia-Phenomenal-Time-and-its-Biological-Correlates.pdf >, 1(5), 560-572.
Vimal, R. L. P., & Pandey-Vimal, M.-U. C. (2007). Ancient Historical Scripture and Color Vision.
Color Research and Application [Pre-print is available:
http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2007-Vimal-Pandey-Vimal-
AncientHistScriptColVis-CRA.pdf], 32(4), 332-333.
150
Dvi-Pakṣa
Vimal, R. L. P., Pokorny, J. M., & Smith, V. C. (1987). Appearance of steadily viewed light. Vision
Res. [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1987-Vimal-steadily-viewed-light-
VR.pdf], 27(8), 1309-1318.
Visser, D. (2011). Evidence for a closed-curved and cyclic Double Torus Universe.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0005v1.pdf.
Vitiello, G. (1995). Dissipation and memory capacity in the quantum brain model. Int J Mod Phys,
B9, 973–989.
Wallace, B. A. (1989). Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind. Chapter 23: A
Contemplative View of the Mind. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion. Available:
http://www.alanwallace.org/ChoosingReality23.pdf.
Wallace, B. A. (1999). The Buddhist Tradition of Samatha: Methods for Refining and Examining
Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(2–3), 175–187.
Wallace, B. A. (2007). Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Wallace, B. A. (2009). Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity. New
York, USA: Columbia University Press.
Waller, N., Kojetin, B., Bouchard, T., Jr., Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Genetic and
environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes, and values: A study of twins
reared apart and together. Psychological Science, 1, 138-142.
Walsh, R., & Vaughan, F. (1993). On transpersonal definitions. Journal of Transpersonal
Psychology, 25(2), 125-182.
Wandell, B. A. (1999). Computational neuroimaging of human visual cortex. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.,
22, 145-173.
Westen, D. (1999). The scientific status of unconscious processes. Paper presented on June 13 at
the Annual Meeting of the Rapaport-Klein Study Group:
<http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewaters/345/1_2009_freud/weston_status_of_unco
nscious.pdf >.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). PART V: FINAL INTERPRETATION: CHAPTER I:THE IDEAL OPPOSITES.
In D. R. Griffin & D. W. Sherburne (Eds.), Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology
(1979 corrected ed., pp. 337-392): Free Press
<http://www.forizslaszlo.com/filozofia/folyamat_es_valosag/Whitehead_PR_Part5_Final_I
nterpratation.pdf>.
Wilberg, P. (2008). Heidegger, Phenomenology and Indian Thought. UK: New Gnosis Publications,
www.newgnosis.co.uk.
Wilczek, F. (1980, December). Cosmic Asymmetry Between Matter and Antimatter. Scientific
American, 82.
Wildman, W. J. (2006). CHAPTER 11: The Significance of the Evolution of Religious Belief and
Behavior for Religious Studies and Theology. In P. McNamara (Ed.), WHERE GOD AND
SCIENCE MEET: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion.
VOLUME 1: EVOLUTION, GENES, AND THE RELIGIOUS BRAIN (Vol. 1, pp. 227-272).
Westport, Connecticut; London: Praeger
Meet.pdf >.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Woerlee, G. (2011, June 20). Review of Chris Carter book Science and the Near-Death
Experience, and Chris Carter's reply.
<http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/2011/06/review-by-gerald-woerlee-of-chris.html>
and <http://anesthesiaweb.org/hypoxia.php>.
Wolf, F. A. (1999). A Quantum Physics Model of the Timing of Conscious Experience. Towards a
Science of Consciousness III; Section 8: The Timing of Conscious Experience; CogNet
Proceedings, <http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Wolf.html >.
Zald, D. H., & Kim, S. W. (1996). Anatomy and function of the orbitofrontal cortex: Anatomy,
neurocircuitry and obsessive compulsive disorder. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical
Neurosciences, 8(2), 125-138.
151
Dvi-Pakṣa
Zeps, D. (2012). Crossroads on Way to Single Mathematical Particle. Journal of Consciousness

152
Dvi-Pakṣa
ENDNOTES
1 Critique6 (a mystic) comments, “I have never needed a religion to teach me how

to live my life nor any other man, woman, or institution. I got born onto this
world and I live it. Simple as that. No religions or philosophies or institutions or
beliefs or crutches needed for the job. All I have needed has been learned from
living life itself. […] And my job is not uniting science with religion. And I see no
reason why they need to be united AT ALL. Should Chess be united with Golf?
Two different things.” It may be true that for some people religion may not be
needed that teaches them how to live; however, in general, it is useful; that is
why evolution did not select it out and we still have religion. Spirituality that
includes mysticism has genetic traits, for example, some of us have ‘God gene’.
Since science and religion/spirituality are inseparable aspects of our lives, they
should be united. You may not be religious, but you are spiritual because you
are a mystic as per the definition of spirituality which includes self-
transcendence (such as self-forgetfulness, transpersonal identification, and
mysticism) (Hamer, 2005). Critique6 replies, “OK, I would not argue with that”.
2 In the eDAM framework, Brahman is the fundamental dual-aspect primal

entity. The unmanifested state (before or at Big Bang) of Brahman has dominant
physical aspect and latent mental aspect; this state is called kāran Brahman. The
innumerable manifested states of Brahman are called kārya Brahman, which
started after Big Bang. A kārya Brahman has varying degrees of dominance of
aspects depending on the levels of entities. The states of inert entities—kārya
Brahman—have dominant physical aspect and latent mental aspect. Over billions
of years after Big Bang, kārya Brahman evolved into us. When we are alive,
awake, and conscious, both aspects are equally dominant. When we are in deep
sleep, our physical aspect is more dominant than our mental aspect, and hence
we are non-conscious. In dream state, both aspects seem dominant to some
extent because we experience something, but it is different from wakeful state. In
samādhi-state or perhaps mystic-state, both aspects are dominant and we
experience BLISS, unification of self with its environment, and ‘inner light
perception’ (Caponigro, Jiang, Prakash, & Vimal, 2010; Prakash & Caponigro,
2009; Prakash, Haq, Prakash, Sarkhel, & Kumar, 2009); this triad, especially
bliss (ānanda) is called God/Ishvara/Satcitānanda. So we should meditate and
reach to this state and meet our God; this is our final goal of life as per Vedanta.
After death, in liberated soul, the post-death state of soul has dominant mental
153
Dvi-Pakṣa
aspect and latent physical aspect. In un-liberated soul, the latent physical aspect
(subtle body) carries traces of karmas, unfulfilled intense desire, and so on.
However, the state of the dead body—also that of inert entities—has dominant
physical aspect and latent mental aspect. It is unclear if soul indeed exists after
death: see (D'Souza, 2009) for some debatable evidence and (Stenger, 2011)’s
rejection of the life after death. One could argue that all entities are Brahman in
different forms and Brahman is in all entities in various forms (All in One and
One in All).
3 Crtique1: I have continued difficulty with the terminology, ‘acit’. You may
forward to me any original scholarly document that uses and analyzes the word.
Author: The term ‘acit’ was used in (Radhakrishnan, 1960)’s Brahma Sūtra (BS)
(pages: 45, 53, 54, 71, 78, 79), BS? I.2.9, BS II.3.14, Bhāskara,
Rāmānujāchārya-Rāmānandārchārya-Rāmabhadrāchārya’s cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita,
and Nimbārkāchārya’s Dvaita-Advaita.
As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “Yādav Prakāśa … does not recognise any
fundamental distinction between cit and acit; acit is only cit in an unmanifested
state. While Bhāskara believes that the individual soul is one with Brahman and
the world of matter, acit, is both different and non-dfferent from Brahman. …
Brahman exists as God or Īśvara, and individual souls or cit and the world or
matter, acit. [p.45 …] [Rāmānujāchārya, B.U. III.7: Antaryāmin Brāhmaṇa]
Brahman comprises within himself all elements of polarity, matter with its
various modifications and souls of different classes and degrees. These are real
cosntituens of Brahman. Cit (soul) and acit (matter) are the body of the Lord.
[p.53 …] According to R. [Rāmānujāchārya] there are three kinds of acit, prakṛti
or matter, kāla or time and śuddha-tattva or pure matter. Acit is prakṛti or primal
matter ands its modifications. [p.54 …] Brahman is the controller of all sentient
entities and non-sentient world. He is both knowledge and knower. Cit and acit,
the sentient and the non-sentient, are the powers of the Lord. Cit-śakti consists
of three factors, knowledge, jňāna, volition, icchā, and the action kriyā. The acit-
śakti consists of the elelments, earth, water, fire, air, and ether. [p.71] According
to Nimbārka there are three equally real and coeternal realities (tri-tattva),
Brahman, cit, and acit. While Brahman is the controller, niyantṛ, cit is the
enjoyer, bhoktṛ, and acit is the enjoyed, bhogya. Acit or non-sentient reality is of
three kinds, (i) prākṛta or what is derived from prakṛti or primal matter, (ii)
aprākṛta or what is not derived from prakṛti but derived from a non-material
substance of which the world of Brahman is made and (iii) kāla or time. There is
154
Dvi-Pakṣa
a difference of nature between them, svarūpa-bheda. Souls and matter, cit and
acit, have a dependent reality, para-tantra-tattva [p.78-79].”
NM: The word “acit” is found in dictionaries and also in philosophical texts. Refer
the Apte dictionary and also the Monier Williams dictionary. In the
Śrīrāghavakṛpābhāṣya of Guruji, Srībhāṣya of Rāmanujācārya, Tantrasāra of
Abhinavagupta, and the Pāñcarātra text Sātvatatantra attributed to Nārāyaṇa,
the word “acit” means inanimate or “Jaḍa”. “Cit” means animate or “cetana” and
“acit” means inanimate or “Jaḍa”.
Critique1: Grammar: cit as we were saying is a noun; acit can be an adjective

reference, not the opposite of cit as a noun. Sat has the opposite asat - both are
nouns. Sukha has the opposite asukha - both are nouns. Acit (classical aceta)
can represent an object that is devoid of cit and is an adjective (bahubrīhi); here
cit is individual consciousness, not the cosmic source in cit-ānanda.
Author: From references, it depends on the context. For example, (i) in the
phrase ‘cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita’, both cit and acit are used as viśeṣaṇas (adjectives,
qualifiers). (ii) In Nimbārka’s tri-tattva (Brahman, cit, and acit), all appear nouns.
Perhaps, NM can verify this. In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework), cit
can be used as the mental aspect of a state of Brahman (first person perspective)
and acit can be used as the inseparable physical aspect of the same state of
Brahman (third person perspective), i.e., as adjectives/qualifiers of a state. If you
claim otherwise, then you need to give us authentic references as we gave you.
NM: अ2चद1यA
ु ते नञ ् (२-२-६), नलोपो नञः (६-३-७३) एतयोः पाणनस
ू योः नKत1पL
ु षसमासो
भवत, न तु बहुMीहसमासः। म;येऽहं यQव;तः नKत1पL
ु षनKबहुMी'योमRये संSा;ताः।
तयोभTदबोधनाय सं)कृतUयाकरण)य Vकमप प)ु तकं WXटUयम ्। अप च भवQराYZलभाषायाः
$स.ा;तान सं)कृत उपय\
ु य;ते , "noun" च "adjective" चे1याYZलभाषायां श]द ◌ानांधम_ , न तु
सं)कृते येकैव श]दो एकि)म;स;दभT वशेXयो भवत स;दभTऽपरे च वशेषणो `भवत। यद न
म;यसे तह सं)कृतेन स`माणम1ु तरं द<यताम ्।
अ2चत ् is नञ ् त1पL
ु ष (nañ tatpuruṣa) compound by the Paninian rules "nañ" (2-2-
6) and "nalopo nañaḥ" (6-3-73) and not बहुMीह समास (bahuvrīhi) compound. I
think Critique1 is confusing नञ ् त1पुLष with नञ ् बहुMीह . And applying English
grammatical concepts to Samskrita - "noun" and "adjective" are properties of
words in English, not in Samskrita where the same word with no change can be
155
Dvi-Pakṣa
the Viśeṣya in one context and Viśeṣaṇa in another. On disagreement, Pramāṇa is

needed. See (Apte, 1987).p.11.
As I mentioned, in Samskrita the same word can be used as what one calls
"noun" in one context and as what one calls "adjective" in another context. The
difference exists in English but not in Samskrita.
1. रमेशः वजयते - रमेश, the Lord of रमा is victorious, here रमेश is what one calls
noun in English.
2. रामं रमेशं भजे - I sing of राम, who is रमेश. Here रमेश is an adjective of राम.
The confusion arises since Critique1 is applying English concepts to grammar.
One problem I find with Advaita is that it bloats the believer’s ego in some cases
(not all cases). “I am Brahman so I am always correct, I do not need to learn from
others … whatever I say is correct even if I know Samskrita or not". .. So I would
not bother convincing such people.
Critique1: That's Ok. Mīmāṃsā (मीमांसा) will be helpful.
Author: It seems that Critique1 accepts acit. Furthermore, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita

unifies science and all religions and has the least number of problems. It is
consistent with Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (वसधु ैव कुटु$बकं : the whole world is one
single family): Maha Upanishad (Chapter 6, Verse 72): अयं बधुरयं नेित गणना लघुचेतसां
उदारच.रतानां तु वसधु ैव कुटु$बकं : Only small men discriminate saying: One is a relative; the
other is a stranger. For those who live magnanimously the entire world
constitutes but a family. Therefore, it is beyond (and does not discriminate with
respect to) national origin, race, creed, color, caste, religion, and so on. It
searches for the Fundamental Truth that encompasses all views including
Critique1’s view of Śankarāchārya’s Advaita.
4 Summary of Metaphysics: Metaphysics is the foundation of everything. All

entities of this universe can be categorized in two categories: mind and matter.
This leads to 4 major metaphysics: [1] materialism: mind from matter (brain); [2]
idealism: matter from mind; [3] interactive substance dualism: mind and
matter can exist independent of each other but can interact for example in us
when we are alive and awake; and [4] extended dual-aspect monism (the eDAM
framework: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): each entity has inseparable mental and physical
aspects with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the levels of
entities. Frameworks [1]-[3] have problems; [4] is the best so far.
5Currently, where could be the unmanifested state or initial manifested state of

dual-aspect Brahman? It could be (i) in the (empty) space between the quarks
156
Dvi-Pakṣa
inside a (dual-aspect) proton where virtual particles emerge and disappear un-
predictively, which makes up 90% of the weight of proton
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY), (ii) it could related to (dual-
aspect) Higgs-field, and (iii) many other places in all over universe where entities
are still evolving.
6 The inseparable mental and physical aspects are latent (in potential form) in the
unmanifested (avyakta, potential) state of Brahman. Our SEs (ourselves and
experiences) were potentially superposed in the mental aspect of the
unmanifested state and other manifested states of Brahman. They are realized in
us and to some extent in animals. We, i.e., our SEs and brains-bodies are co-
evolved (over billions of years since Big Bang) and co-developed realized
manifested (vyakta) entities from the mental and physical aspects, respectively,
of the unmanifested state of Brahman. To address the continuity of self across all
states of brain-mind, the proto-self (brain-stem as its neural correlates) is active
in all states (such as deep sleep, dream, wakefulness, and samādhi states) of
brain until death (Damasio, 2010; Vimal, 2013).
Brahma-sūtras seems to claim that (a) the individual-unliberated self/soul in
all states of brain (including the state of deep sleep as well as at the time of
departure/dying) is different from (or a subset/part of) the unmanifested state of
Brahman (but see BS:I.4.18, below); and (b) “R. [Ramānujāchārya] states that we
have here declarations of general unity, that all conscious and non-conscious
beings are the effects of [kāran] Brahman and have [kārya] Brahman for their
inner self” ((Radhakrishnan, 1960).(BS:I.3.42-43:p311-312), which is consistent
with (Rāmānujāchārya, 1904).(BS:I.3.43-44:p352-353)); and (c) the soul at
samādhi-state (final release or mukti, when we are conscious and blissful) and/or
mukta/liberated soul is in contact with [kāran] Brahman (Radhakrishnan,
1960).(BS:IV.4.17:p560-561): “the released souls have all powers except those of
creation, preservation and destruction of the world” (p.560); see also
(Rāmānujāchārya, 1904). (BS:IV.4.17:p766-767); Śankarāchārya seems to argue
for equality in all respect (mukta-jīvātmā = kāran Brahman).
In the eDAM framework, māyā (material universe, jagat) is transiently real (in
the sense that the world—our brain-body, earth, planets, sun, our solar system,
galaxies, and so on—will die one day; it is not eternal) but it is not a defect. The
māyā contains all physical universe(s) + cognition and other mental entities
except soul/jīvātman (if it exists after death!). In other words, māyā is a dual-
aspect entity and is the manifested dual-aspect Brahman. The physical aspect of
the state of world is the physical universe including brains-bodies; and its
157
Dvi-Pakṣa
inseparable mental aspect is the cognition of all beings including proto-self, core-
self and autobiographical self in each individual, and the ‘mind’ of universe—the
first person experience of universe. For knowing that one has to be universe
which is not possible; so, we do not know how our universe experiences; for us,
the mental aspect appears as latent in our objective third person perspective.
As per (Rāmānujāchārya, 1904).(BS:I.4.18:p384), “the abode of deep sleep is
the intelligent Self which is different from the individual Self, i.e. the highest Self
[…] the highest Self which then is the abode of the individual soul”. As per
(Radhakrishnan, 1960).(BS:I.4.18), “It is Vedānta view that during sleep the soul
becomes one with Brahman and it is from Brahman that the world and the prāṇa
proceed. [p323 …] All these lead to the conclusion that the Self [Brahman] exists
beyond both prāṇa, life-principle, and jīva or the individual soul [p324 …] the
souls spring from and merge in Brahman … The souls are one with Brahman in
so far as they are its effects … [as per Bhedābheda Advaita, individual soul] is
neither absolutely different nor non-different from Brahman, as sparks are
neither different nor non-different from fire [BS:I.4.20:p326] … Audulomi teaches
that the soul is altogether different from Brahman up to the time of its final
release when it is merged in Brahman [identity] … When the erroneous
knowledge of jīva is removed, jīva realizes its identity with Brahman … The
individual soul is described as non-different from the Highest Self for it is the
Highest Self that lives in the form of the soul … Ś [Śankarāchārya]. believes in
absolute identity. The individual soul and the Highest Self differ only in name.
[BS:I.4.21-22:p326-8]”.
From above, the state of brain at non-conscious deep sleep seems equivalent
to a state of manifested Brahman.
As per (University of Liège, 2008, October 8), “By using functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) combined with electroencephalography (EEG),
researchers have evidenced that … slow oscillations are associated with brain
activity increases during non-REM sleep …, therefore discarding the concept of
brain ‘quiescence’ that prevailed for a long time in the characterization of non-
REM sleep. Besides, these activity increases are located in specific brain areas,
including the inferior frontal gyrus, the parahippocampal gyrus, the precuneus
and the posterior cingulate cortex, as well as the brainstem and cerebellum”.
Brain-stem is also assigned as neural-correlates of proto-self (Damasio, 2010),
which is active during all states of brain including non-conscious non-REM deep
sleep until death. In the eDAM framework, dream is due to random fluctuation of
neural activities as the physical aspect of dream-state and the related SEs are its
mental aspect; brain has ability to make up some story based on them. From
above, the proto-self seems is a state of manifested Brahman.
158
Dvi-Pakṣa
As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “Brahman alone is both the efficient [such as

potter] and material [such as clay being the cause of pot] cause of the world
[BS:I.4.23:p329]. [Brahman is the origin (from which world emerges) and the
dissolution of world (which gets absorbed in Brahman) (BS:I.4.25:p331) … ] R.
[Ramānujāchārya] holds that Brahman has for its body the entire universe with
all its conscious [cit] and non-conscious [acit] beings and constitutes the Self of
the universe. These beings abide in a subtle condition and become one with the
Supreme Self in so far as they cannot be designated as something separate from
him. When this Brahman resolves to become many, it invests itself with a body
consisting of all conscious and non-conscious beings in their gross manifest
state which admits of distinctions of name and form and thereupon transforms
itself into the form of the world [BS:I.4.26:p331].”
Thus, Bohm’s dual-aspect Implicate and Explicate Orders and String Theory
remove the brute fact (that is the way it is!) assumption of qualitative aspect; and
hence we argue that qualitative aspect is as fundamental as the physical aspect
is; this is because a matter (physical aspect) at all levels (ultramicroscopic
fundamental string (or loop) level, microscopic quantum elementary particles
level to macroscopic objects level) has an inseparable ‘form’, which is a
qualitative aspect and is consistent with ‘form’ described by Aristotle (384-322
BC), Yājñavalkya (c. 1000-700 BC)’s Rūpa (form) in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
(III.8.20) (Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p195,328,364 and Bādarāyaņa (c. 500-
400 BC) in (Brahma-Sūtra.I.4.26) ((Radhakrishnan, 1960).p331).
As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “[Ramānujāchārya] holds that Brahman has
for its body the entire universe with all its conscious [cit] and non-conscious [acit]
beings and constitutes the Self of the universe. … When this Brahman resolves to
become many, it invests itself with a body consisting of all conscious and non-
conscious beings in their gross manifest state which admits of distinctions of
name and form and thereupon transforms itself into the form of the world
[BS:I.4.26:p331].”
“The Sankhya-tattva-kaumudi … argues that a perfect God can have no need
to create a world and if God's motive is kindness, Sāṃkhya questions whether it
is reasonable to call into existence, beings who while non-existent had no
suffering. Sāṃkhya postulates that a benevolent deity ought to create only happy
creatures, not a mixed world like the real world. Almost all modern scholars are
of view that the concept of Ishvara was incorporated into the nirishvara (atheistic)
Sāṃkhya viewpoint only after it became associated with the Yoga, the Pasupata
and the Bhagavata schools of philosophy. This theistic Sāṃkhya philosophy is
described in the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Bhagavad Gita”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankhya).
159
Dvi-Pakṣa
Conclusions: (1) The inseparable mental and physical aspects of the

unmanifested state of the fundamental primal entity (kāran-Brahman) are latent
and hence it appears as aspectless and attributeless. (2) The mental aspect of
the unmanifested state of Brahman (kāran-Brahman) co-evolves and co-develops
with its physical aspect and eventually (over 13.72 billions of years) we (our mind
and brain) are the final products so far. Its mental aspect (such as potter) is the
efficient cause and the related inseparable physical aspect is the material cause
(such as clay-pot system) of our universe which includes us (our mind and brain-
body). A wakeful working brain has both aspects equally dominant. At samādhi
state, the self = Paramātman (a state of kārya-Brahman/manifested-Brahman) in
the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework, which is another name for the ‘self at
samādhi state’. Some areas of brain are active in deep sleep and dream. Since
the dead-body does not satisfy the necessary conditions of consciousness (C) as
there are no neural activities, no C, i.e., there is no separate self in Nāstika Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita. After death, our constituents return to Nature for recycling as
dual-aspect entities, so NO pain/pleasure; at end of universe, all manifested
entities return back to unmanifested Brahman. The soul/self will also return
back to the mental aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman, in
superposed/latent form. (3) Brain has innumerable states, which can be
categorized in four: deep-sleep, dream, wakeful, and samādhi states. In samādhi
state, we feel highest degrees of bliss/ānanda, the unification of subject and
objects, and we have ‘inner light perception’; this realization is called
mukti/liberation. Theist/āstika religions have assigned this bliss/ānanda to an
arbitrarily assumed entity called God or Parmātman (kārya-Brahman = a
manifested state of kāran-Brahman) for many useful reasons, such as (i)
reduction of sufferings including the fear of death, (ii) presumed life after death,
(iii) rebirth, (iv) the object of meditation, and so on. Some have assumed that
Parmātman resides within us along with the self/jīvātman to help us further, for
example, in meditation. Nāstika/atheists feel that this is not necessary because
one can achieve the above by other more appropriate means; for example, Bliss
can be realized by intense meditation at samādhi-state. Sāṃkhya also denies the
existence of Ishvara/Parmātman (God) or any other exterior influence. Thus,
attaining the samādhi-state is the life’s ultimate goal for experiencing BLISS,
which is a kārya-Brahman.
7 At samādhi/mystic/revelation state, compared to normal wakeful state, (a) the

areas in the parietal lobe (responsible for situating the self in space) are
significantly less active that entails the loss of discrimination of self from the
environment resulting the feeling as if the self merges/unifies with the
160
Dvi-Pakṣa
surrounding objects, (b) the happiness center (amygdala system) is more active,
leading to the feeling of bliss, love, and care for all, (c) visual areas including
frontal lobe are more active leading to the ‘inner light perception’, (d) temporal
lobe interacting with frontal lobe activates the feeling of being religious and
spiritual that entails as if God exists.
8 This is consistent with (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “The difference between the

individual soul and the Absolute Self cannot be regarded as fictitious according
to this sūtra [B.S. I.1.17], though Ś. [Śankarāchārya] holds that there is no
difference in reality between the individual soul and Brahman. [p260…] [Ś] holds
that Brahman as the foundation is the indeterminate [unmanifested, noncausal,
chance-based, kāran-Brahman with unlimited potentialities] Brahman and
ānanda-maya-ātmā [आन+दमय -आमा ] is only the determinate [manifested, causal,
kārya-Brahman with limited realities] Brahman. [p261 …] Ś. Makes out that the
Imperishable [Bhūta-yoni, the source of all] is the unmanifested entity which
represents the seminal potentiality of all names and forms, contains the subtle
parts of the material elements, abides in the Lord [Brahman], forms limiting
adjunct [non-essential appendage] and being itself no effect is high when
compared to other effects.”
It appears that Śankarāchārya’s Advaita implies that Paramātmā (kārya-
Brahman, ānanda-maya-ātmā) is artificially inserted by hand (by
Ramānujāchārya and others) which is unnecessarily extra parameter. This (Ś.
believes in mukta-jīva/liberated-soul = Brahman), to some extent, in the sense of
fundamental entity (unmanifested Brahman), seems consistent with Buddhism
(no soul, but Śūnyatā ~ Brahman) and Nāstika (no soul, but physics-vacuum ~
Brahman) system (including Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita: no soul, but the
fundamental dual-aspect primal entity ~ dual-aspect Brahman). Self at samādhi
state realizes bliss (Parmātman, the manifested Brahman in each individual); but
this is different from unmanifested Brahman which does not know anything but
has potential of everything. In other words, we just need (i) unmanifested
potential Brahman and (ii) the manifested/realized Brahman, which is Jagat and
us. We do not need the same Paramātmā in each of us because this entity
presumably then know our personal stuffs of all beings simultaneously (fiction!)
that violates privacy. If this entity was inserted in the system for the object of
meditation and placebo-effect (such as in bhakti-yoga: going to temple for prayer,
which in reality includes useful events such as socialization) for reducing our
suffering and the fear of death, then we can achieve the same by other means.
161
Dvi-Pakṣa
9 See (Radhakrishnan, 1960).p204.footnote.3: Chāndo.U. V.3.3 and V.9.1;

Bṛhad.U. IV.4.3, 5 and 6; VI.2.4 and 15; Maitri U. VI.10; B. Gītā XV.7 and 8;
Manu XII.16-17; Brahma S. III.1.1-7.
10 There are two hypotheses for the empty-space and the creation of universe: (I)
the empty-space with space and with ground state minimum energy and (II) the
empty-space without space and without ground state minimum energy (see
(Krauss, 2012) and (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010)).
(1) Empty-space with space and with ground state minimum energy: Before
beginning of universe (before Big Bang), there was infinite empty-space that did
not have matter and/or radiation. Empty-space (Śunyatā, unmanifested state of
Brahman, many other names) is the ground state of quantum field with
minimum energy (that could be zero: zero point energy or ZPE). Quantum
fluctuations in this empty-space led to Big Bang and multiverse. The nothing
with the ground-state minimum energy of quantum field in empty-space is as if
all energies of the infinite empty-space are sucked in at one point to result the
Big Bang.
(2) Empty-space without space and without ground state minimum energy: As
per (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010), “As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the
laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously
from nothing. Spontaneous creation [natural phenomena arising from internal
forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting] is the reason
there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It
is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe
going.”
To sum up, there was a dual-aspect primal entity. There are many names for this
entity, such as (1) quantum-vacuum/void/empty-space in physics, and (2)
Brahman, Buddhist Śunyatā, Allāh, God and so on in religions.
(1) Science: dual-aspect primal empty-space might be (a) ground state of
quantum field with minimum unrealized physical potential/latent energy and
infinite space without matter/radiation, or (b) without space-time, zero
unrealized physical potential/latent energy. In both cases, empty-space has
quantum fluctuations in its physical aspect.
(2) Religions: Brahman is aspect-less entity in its unmanifested state in
Advaita Vedanta.
In the eDAM framework, the states of all entities including Brahman always
have inseparable physical and mental aspects, but the dominance of aspects vary
depending on the levels of entities. Both aspects are latent in the unmanifested
state of Brahman; therefore, Brahman appears as aspect-less entity. There was a
peculiar change in cosmic consciousness or its mental aspect, which is
equivalent to quantum fluctuations in its physical aspect because aspects are
inseparable as per the doctrine of inseparability.
162
Dvi-Pakṣa
In Muslim religion, the peculiar change of cosmic-consciousness is equivalent

to the ‘Will/Command of Allāh’.
Human beings appeared 13.72 billion years after Big Bang. The dual-aspect
unmanifested state of Brahman (called kāran Brahman) is a pre-Big-Bang state.
The kāran Brahman (that has latent aspects, so it appears aspectless) is eternal.
The manifestation of Brahman starts at cosmic-fire (Big Bang), and then both
aspects of innumerable states of universe (manifested states of Brahman) co-
evolve. The latest manifested state of Brahman (called kārya Brahman) is at
samādhi/mystic/revelation/sufi state. Mystics are very lucky people who can
experience their mystic state without doing any hard work; a yogi spends all
his/her life for this.
Before Big Bang, there cannot be realized physical energy/matter/radiation
and cannot be realized space-time; they will be all in potential latent/hidden
state; only the unmanifested state of dual-aspect (appearing aspectless) Brahman
eternally exists. The mental and physical aspects of the unmanifested state of
Brahman are latent so it appears aspectless as in Śankarāchārya’s Advaita.
It should be noted that volume, energy, matter, radiation, space-time were
presumably (theoretically) zero before Big Bang (BB). After BB, the total energy
(matter/radiation energy minus gravitational energy) of our universe is zero;
however, space-time is not zero; currently, 'time' is about 13.72 billion years;
space is almost infinite, so 3D and 4D volume is also close to infinite. Your
volume, the volume of India or earth, sun, galaxy etc is not zero; how could it be?
If cyclic model of universe is correct, then perhaps after Big Crunch, everything
will return back to what it was in pre-BB era. In the flat universe, the volume of
universe will never be zero.
Originally there was nothing. Total energy of universe was/is/‘will remain’
zero; so no violation of conservation of energy. Matter consists of fermions
and/or their composites, but matter arose with the help of bosons (see below) as
explained elsewhere. Gravitational energy is bosonic energy. In other words,
Matter-energy = |Gravitational energy|. Thus, after BB and currently total
matter of universe is NOT zero; so total space in not zero; so total volume of
universe is not zero.
Where did the matter in the universe come from? “In the beginning, there
was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light,
which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough
energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An
antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a
proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed
today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-
antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that
the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this
manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic
that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons
(remember, E=mc2, so to make a particle with a large [relativistic] mass m [ = ((1-
v2/c2)-1/2) m0, where m0 is invariant/rest mass], you need a boson with a high
163
Dvi-Pakṣa
energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays”
<http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=631/>.
“The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why
we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a
4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it
makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be
connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the
increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric
properties of spacetime itself” (Taylor & Wheeler, 1992).
For matter to be zero after BB, you need antimatter with equal amount; i.e.,
symmetry; but there is asymmetry; there is more matter than antimatter;
otherwise there would not be matter like sun, moon, galaxy, you and me, USA
and India. Source of everything is the dual-aspect unmanifested state of
Brahman.
Before BB: there was no matter, no space, no volume, no time, no mass; total
energy = 0
At BB (time = 0): there was no matter, no space, no volume, no time, no
mass; total energy = 0; but there are quantum fluctuations.
After BB: Total energy of universe = 0 because energy is conserved.
Total (relativistic) mass (m) of universe = 0 because E=mc2=0. Total matter of
universe is not zero because total matter energy = |gravitational energy|= not
zero. Total matter is not conserved. Total space of universe is not zero; it is
increasing because of inflation; it is very large. Total volume of universe is not
zero because total space is not zero; it is very large.
The following critiques on (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010) and (Hawking, 1988;
Hawking, 1989) related to cosmology are from (Pal, 2011d) and other sources: (I)
Scientists’ claim that the universe arose from nothing is merely a speculation
because (a) this ‘nothing’ is the ground/vacuum state of quantum field with
minimum energy (zero-point energy); (b) quantum fluctuations (vacuum energy
fluctuation in a void) do exist in it; (c) some scientists (such as the ‘pop up
model’ of (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010) and (Krauss, 2012)) assume that there is
the absolute beginning of universe from ‘nothing’—with no memory, no pre-
history, no prior-universe that has left its seed at its death; (d) some propose no
beginning and no end (such as (Hawking, 1988; Hawking, 1989) in his ‘no-
boundary model’ for eternal cyclic universe with the cycles of endless expansion
and contraction along with all the physical laws of the earlier universe remain
intact); and (e) God has not yet been eliminated from the creation event (Pal,
2011d), which seems to imply God may exist also in the void and causing
quantum flucutations in energy. Therefore, this ‘nothing’ is not a real
void/empty-space. The term ‘pop up’ is used in (Pal, 2011d).
(II) As per an atheist philosopher (Parsons, 2006), “prima facie the most
promising location for a Creator would be in the ‘creation’ event itself, the origin
164
Dvi-Pakṣa
of the universe.” In other words, “the matter regarding the existence or

nonexistence of God can only be settled at the creation event itself” (Pal, 2011d).
(III) As per (Pal, 2011d), “[As per Hawking] in no boundary model the universe
will have no beginning. Or if it was having a beginning, then that beginning was
governed by the laws of science and does not need to be set in motion by some
god. This generation of the universe cannot be called a spontaneous generation
from nowhere, because the seed of the universe was already there. Therefore an
atheist scientist who is advocating the no-boundary model [(Hawking, 1988;
Hawking, 1989)] cannot at the same time say that as because there is a law such
as gravity, so the universe can and will create itself from nothing. A universe that
would simply be cannot again pop into existence from nothing [(Hawking &
Mlodinow, 2010): pop up model]. Whence appeared those laws that governed its
beginning?”
(IV) (Pal, 2011d) argues that Hawking’s no-boundary model (Hawking, 1988;
Hawking, 1989) is invalid in ‘real’ time because it is valid only for imaginary time
(without singularity) that is like a space dimension, i.e., we can also visit our past
in time. However, this is empirically impossible in ‘real’ time. Moreover, Hawking
seems to believe that the universe had beginning in real time at the Big Bang;
however, one needs to address the origin of physical laws (such as general
relativity and quantum theory) and the singularity where all physical laws break
down (Hawking & Penrose, 1970). One could try to address the origin of physical
laws by assuming that they may not there in a realized/expressed form, but they
must be there in the potential/latent/unexpressed form at and/or before the Big
Bang.
The endless debate between scientific theories and God-theory can be
addressed by the the eDAM framework, where (a) the empty-space/void is dual-
aspect entity with the inseparable physical and mental aspects, (b) scientific
theories can address the physical aspect of the states of universe and God-theory
can address its inseparable mental aspect as long as God is a part of universe
and not an external entity, and (c) the quantum fluctuations in the physical
aspect of the unmanifested state of universe (i.e., empty-space at ground state of
quantum field with zero-point energy) are equivalent to God’s desire/will or a
peculiar adjustment of cosmic consciousness in its inseparable mental aspect.
In other words, Pal’s God theory is somewhat consistent in the theist version of
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework), where the creation/evolution of
universe can be explained from the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of
universe (it is somewhat equivalent to God being in the empty-space and causing
quantum fluctuations) as elaborated before; whereas, the scientists’ models of
165
Dvi-Pakṣa
cosmology are related to its physical aspect in the atheist version of Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (the eDAM framework).
In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, God is part of the universe (not an external agent);
for example, Sankarāchārya’s Brahman is the unmanifested state of
Brahman/empty-space/universe (called kāran Brahman) that appear aspectless
because its mental and physical aspects are latent/hidden before the Big Bang
(Virāt: the cosmic fire). After the Big Bang, the latent physical aspect becomes
dominant for its manifestation; the manifested-universe co-evolved with both
physical and mental aspects of its innumerable states over 13.72 billion and
eventually we appeared. There are innumerable manifested states of kārya-
Brahman/manifested-universe in the eDAM framework, which is close to
Rāmānujāchārya-Rāmānandāchārya-Rāmbhadrāchārya’s cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (cit
= mental aspect) (acit = physical aspect). In us, God (as an experience of bliss at
samādhi state = the final state of kārya Brahman) resides with the self all the
time and is experienced by us as the mental aspect of
samādhi/revelation/mystic-state of mind-brain system, which is consistent with
the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita.
(Pal, 2011b) summarizes multiverse theory as follows: “Multiverse theory has
successfully shown that no intelligent designer is needed for explaining the fine
tuning of certain fundamental physical constants. If the value of these constants
were not within certain stipulated range, then the universe we are in would have
been a completely different place, barren, lifeless, dead. As per the British
cosmologist Martin Rees the number of these physical constants are six. Values
of these six constants must be finely tuned in a universe in order that life can
emerge in that universe. If there is only one universe, then it is not conceivable
how merely by chance, or by sheer accident, all the six constants will be fine-
tuned at the same time in that particular universe. So existence of an intelligent
designer will have to be posited whose job will be to do this fine-tuning. In
multiverse theory this problem has been successfully overcome by positing an
infinite number of universes in place of just only one. In each of these universes
these constants will take different values after each big bang, and therefore there
will be an infinite number of possible combinations of the values of these six
constants, out of which there will be at least one right combination just suitable
for producing life. The universe in which there will be this right combination will
produce life, and we will also find ourselves in that particular universe only, and
thus there will be nothing unnatural in it. So no supernatural agency will be
required for explaining as to how these physical constants in our universe are
having just those values that are needed for bringing us on earth, because in
multiverse theory we find a natural explanation of this phenomenon.” However,
(Pal, 2011b) argues against multiverse theory as follows: “Actually what has
multiverse theory done in the case of six fundamental physical constants? It has
merely transformed an unnatural event into a natural event. What appeared as
166
Dvi-Pakṣa
unnatural in the context of a single universe appeared as quite natural in the

context of an infinite number of universes. So its task was to transform an
apparently unnatural event into a natural event. That is all, and nothing more
than that.” See also Notes below.
11 (Swami Krishnananda, 1983).I.2.1.p30.
12 Creation of Universe: As per: (i) (Craig, 1979) uses ancient Kalām

cosmological argument as simple syllogism (Stenger, 2000): (A) Whatever begins
has a cause. (B) The universe began to exist. (C) Therefore, the universe has a
cause.
(ii) (Ross, 1995).p80 argues that the time proceeds always in forward
direction; therefore, it has a beginning. This empirical fact implies that our
universe also has a starting point, such as Big Bang for its creation. The Big
Bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations, such as: (a) Cosmic
Microwave Background (CMB) radiation to validate the remnant of Big-Bang’s
heat, (b) galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to
their distance as per Hubble's Law, and (c) light elements such as Hydrogen and
Helium are abundant in observable universe (www.big-bang-theory.com).
(iii) (Stenger, 2000) provides argument against Craig’s Premise (A) as follows:
The fundamental to quantum electrodynamics is that the electron-positron (anti-
electron) pairs spontaneously appear momentarily out of ‘nothing’. This ‘nothing’,
however, the empty-space at ground state of quantum field with minimum energy
and one could still argue that the quantum processes are still causal, even they
are though random.
(iv) The classical (including general theory relativity: GTR) and/or quantum
physics do not make any fundamental distinction between the backward and
forward time directions (with no arrow of time) in the time-symmetric universe. If
needed, this distinction is put in by hand as a boundary condition. Let us
assume that at some point of time, universe was empty/void (no matter, energy,
and radiation: nothingness). This void can still be described by GTR as flat
universe with time axes from -∞ to +∞ (Stenger, 2000).
(v) There could two possibilities about the universe (Stenger, 2000): (a)
universe with eternal void: The energy-time uncertainty principle for (Fowler,
2008; Hilgevoord, 1996; Smith, 1998) (∆t.∆E ≥ h) allows for the spontaneous
uncaused/random appearance of energy (matter as rest energy or radiation as
kinetic energy of massless particles like photons) for very short time (so that
energy conservation is not violated) in a tiny region of space throughout the
spacetime void; this is a universe with eternal void without any significant
167
Dvi-Pakṣa
permanent result. (b) Universe with matter and radiation: It is possible that a
‘bubble of false vacuum’ can appear, which is the quantum fluctuation of energy
in empty-space (void) as spacetime curvature within a small region of region. This
bubble is not a true vacuum due to the spacetime curvature (expressed by a non-
zero cosmological constant), but it still does not contain matter or radiation. This
bubble will will expand exponentially in ‘inflation’ as per de Sitter solution,
eventually leading to our current universe. In other words, for the time-
symmetric universe, at time = -∞ (our deep past), the universe deflates
exponentially to the void before the quantum fluctuation and then the universe
inflates to our current universe manifested with matter and radiation. This
possibility is for a beginningless, infinite, eternal, and symmetric universe. The
quantum fluctuation can also occur many spatial points in the infinite void
leading to multiverses, consistent with the (Linde, 1983)’s chaotic inflationary
model, anthropic coincidences, and non-supernatural alternative to the theistic
creation (Stenger, 2000).
As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “Creation of the world out of nothing describes
the absolute independence of God [Ῑśvara] as Creator, the absolute dependence of
creation and the distance between them. [p141 …] The doctrine of creation out of
nothing insists that God is not limited by a pre-existent matter or by any
conditions external to himself. God’s will the meaning of the world and it is
sovereign over both nature and history. [p142 …] The world is not a completed
act, it is still in the process of completion [quantum fluctuation still going on, for
example, in the space between quarks]. … Nothingness is the veil of Being
[existence] according to Heidegger. Being conceals itself behind nothingness.
Nothingness is most intimately united with Being. It proceeds out of Being and
yet conceals it. [p143 …]” Here, God’s desire/will or a peculiar adjustment of
cosmic consciousness (the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of universe)
is equivalent to the quantum fluctuation in empty-space/void (the physical
aspect of the unmanifested state of universe).
In the eDAM framework, the quantum fluctuation is in the the physical aspect
of the unmanifested state of dual-aspect ‘void’/‘empty-space’/kāran-Brahman.
Since its both mental and physical aspects are inseparable, one could argue that
this fluctuation is automatically and appropriately translated in to the
fluctuation in its mental aspect (‘the consciousness of kāran-Brahman’—this is
different from wakeful human-consciousness). This is precisely the hypothesis of
the fluctuation in the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman (called
kāran-Brahman) in Vedic science.
Pal, a mystic who witnessed inner light perception and bliss (atishaya
ānanda) (personal communication in 2012), argues for the existence of God
168
Dvi-Pakṣa
(~light) as follows (Pal, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a): (I) (a) universe is either created by
God, or (b) not created by God (assuming God does not exist). (II) If God created
the universe, then there are three possibilities after creation of universe: God (a)
does not intervene, (b) barely intervenes from time to time, or (c) frequently
intervenes. In case of (IIa), scientists will be able explain everything in the
universe after its creation; however, they will fail to explain the creation of
universe by natural scientific models. To reject God and His creation of universe
(IIa), scientists must provide explanation for the origin of universe. If they are
successful then they are allowed to claim (Ib), i.e., God does not exist. Otherwise,
they cannot reject the existence of God. As per Pal, scientists (such as (Krauss,
2012)) have not yet succeeded in explaining the origin of universe clearly that
has consensus. Furthermore, Pal argues that light in its own frame of reference
is spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless, and motionless, which are the
properties of his definition of God. Therefore, he proposes that light is God and
God exists, although traditionally “God is described in this way: Before creation
there was only one God, and there was nothing else, no space, no time and no
matter” (Pal, 2012b).
In a moving frame of reference at speed c, the clock in the rest frame of
reference appears not ticking because of the time dilation of Special Theory of
Relativity, but that clock in the rest frame of reference is still ticking. Therefore, it
is unclear how time can be immortal (deathless). Only unmanifested state of
dual-aspect primal entity (Upaniṣhads call it as 'Brahman') is eternal/deathless;
Brahman appears aspect-less because aspects are latent. All manifested states of
Brahman are transient and have to face death. You must know that the slogan of
Śankarāchārya in Advaita is Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā (only Brahman is
eternal whereas world is transient/illusion).
---xxx---timeless-Pal
However, there was no light before or at Big Bang; light arose 10-32 seconds
after Big Bang. Electroweak epoch (between 10-36 seconds (or the end of
inflation) and 10-12 seconds after the Big Bang): In traditional big bang
cosmology, the Electroweak epoch begins 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, when
the temperature of the universe is low enough (1028 K) to separate the strong
force from the electroweak force (the name for the unified forces of
electromagnetism and the weak interaction). In inflationary cosmology, the
electroweak epoch begins when the inflationary epoch ends, at roughly 10-32
seconds. Photon epoch (between 10 seconds and 380,000 years after the Big
Bang): After most leptons and anti-leptons are annihilated at the end of the
lepton epoch the energy of the universe is dominated by photons. Therefore, light
is NOT changeless and it is not deathless in other than light’s own frame of
169
Dvi-Pakṣa
reference. Furthermore, any entity in its own frame of reference is motionless. As

per Stenger (1999), “Mystics state that their experience of oneness with God and
the universe cannot be described in scientific terms. The more rational statement
is that this experience is all in their heads.” This seems correct because there are
3 major experiences at samādhi/mystic/revelation state: (i) the unification of self
with its environment, (ii) bliss (the SE of the happiness of highest degree), and
(iii) the inner light perception.
If the hypothesis ‘God Himself was that light’ is derived from the subjective
experience of ‘inner light’ at mystical or samādhi state, then this subjective
experience is equivalent to the mental aspect of the manifested state of the dual-
aspect Brahman. Is it possible to experience, in samādhi or mystic state, the
quantum fluctuations in empty-space (void) that presumably caused the creation
of universe?
All EMRs including light arose from empty-space (with ground state minimum
energy and quantum fluctuations) via Big Bang and inflation; c is speed of
light/EMR in vacuum; the spaceless and timeless properties of EMR/light might
have derived from the spaceless and timeless empty-space at Big Bang (for
special case of v=c). Consciousness cannot give this property to EMR/light
because of category mistake (mental entity cannot cause or interact with physical
entity and vice-versa; otherwise, it is a category mistake). We have
consciousness. Can we give this property to EMR/light? But does empty-space
means spaceless and timeless?
13 Another example is our mind-brain system: Any modulation in the physical

aspect of brain-state is automatically and rigorously translated to its mental
aspect, and vice versa. This is because both aspects are inseparable (the Doctrine
of Inseparability in the eDAM framework). Thus, the modulations of
neurotransmission by microglia and astrocytes leading to fine control of neural
activity (Pascual, Ben Achour, Rostaing, Triller, & Bessis, 2012) (the physical
aspect of brain-state) get translated to modulations in consciousness; for
example, modulations is subjective experiences (its mental aspect).
14 Some investigators consider the quantum entanglement as proof of God, which

may be not correct. (Pal, 2012a) summarizes the quantum entanglement as
follows: “Let us suppose that a test has been conducted on earth in which two
particles have interacted with each other, and then they are separated by a long
distance. One particle remains on earth whereas the other particle goes to the
outside space. In spite of that the two particles will remain entangled even if
distance between them is billions of light years. Measurement of any property of
the particle on earth will instantaneously determine what will be the property of
170
Dvi-Pakṣa
the other particle at the distant end. If one particle here on earth is found to be
in a state of spin up after measurement, then the other particle will
instantaneously take a state of spin down. Now we know very well that nothing
can move faster than light. If this is indeed the case, then how does the
information that the particle on earth has gone to a state of spin up after
measurement travel to the other particle instantaneously causing it to go to a
state of spin down immediately? Now this is a well-known fact that such things
really happen in nature, that two systems remain somehow correlated with each
other even if they are separated after their interaction. This is called quantum
entanglement.”
(Pal, 2012a) then argues for the existence of God because scientists are
unable to explain the quantum entanglement satisfactorily as follows: “Now
scientists have merely stated the fact, but they have not given any explanation as
to how the two interacted particles remain entangled after they are separated. …
So from this we can conclude that any point on the surface of earth is potentially
entangled with each and every point in the outer space. But the question is:
how? […] If we accept the fact that there is a God who is equally present at each
and every point of this universe, then it is due to His presence that distance from
any point of space to every other point of space in this universe will always be
zero. […] So the conclusion of this essay is this: the phenomenon of quantum
entanglement clearly shows that basic characteristic of space of this universe is
A [spacelessness], which further shows that there is a God.”
What is the underlying mechanism behind quantum entanglement or
nonlocality in Quantum Mechanics? As per (Cohen, 1999), “It is well known that
all entangled pure quantum states imply the presence of nonlocal correlations,
because any such state must violate some Bell inequality (Gisin, 1991; Popescu
& Rohrlich, 1992)].”
As per ((Collins, 2011).p132), “Bell’s theorem rules out any explanation of
these [quantum entanglement related] correlations by means of energy exchange.
[…] There have been two main responses to these correlations in the literature: (i)
the causal realist response, according to which these correlations are grounded
in some instantaneous causal connection between the two particles or in some
non-local and thus instantaneously acting common cause; and (ii) the causal
anti-realist response, according to which these correlations are not grounded in
any further causal facts.”
Therefore, one could argue that, in entanglement or nonlocality, it may be the
correlations (the instantaneous or faster-than-light acausal relations) that exist
between physically separated entities, rather than any causal information
transmission because information cannot be transmitted faster than speed of
171
Dvi-Pakṣa
light. Furthermore, one could argue for Higgs field everywhere, which may be
involved in the entanglement. Thus, we do not need to invoke external agent God;
God needs to be a part of universe such as the mental aspect of states of
universe.
As per Pereria, “I am not delegating the Holy Spirit the creator task. I am
saying that the world is eternal, and all creation emerges from immanent factors.
God is inside, not outside the world (this is Spinozian). […] I am arguing that
there is no Creator, only a potentiality in Nature for Evolution to follow the path
towards peace, love, etc. The place of the Father [Brahman/Isvara] is practically
empty; the Father is a virtual entity. Any person who brings the message of
peace, love, etc. takes the place of the Son. God only becomes real if people follow
the message and live accordingly. The Holy Spirit is the result of people's actions.
The Spirit is the only aspect of God that is really actualized. It is made of people's
prayers and feeds back positively on people's prayers. This is how religion
effectively works! However, if someone kills or does other kinds of evil in name of
God, there is a negative feedback - this person is actually acting against God.”
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online/message/9832>.
Vimal: Bhakti yoga is also a kind of meditation. Metaphysics of worship, I meant

which of four major metaphysics of is closest to worshiping God Ganesh for
example: materialism, idealism, interactive substance dualism or dual-aspect
monism (DAM). The first three have serious problems. As per eDAM, God is
inside us, which means whatever we experience (such as bliss) in samadhi state
is God. So Lord Ganesh is inside you, meaning God Ganesh is you yourself at
samadhi state; this means you are worshiping yourself for knowledge and
removing all obstacles unknowingly (which are the main attributes of God
Ganesh). This act of worshipping has psychosomatic effect of re-organizing your
mind-brain system to give you positive energy to reach to your goals. There is no
God Ganesh outside, except everybody has his or her God inside him or her. My
God, who lives inside me is of course outside of you, but of no use to you, except
via my behavior towards you, and vice-versa. Usual mundane understanding of
God is incorrect; that is superstition.
15 Critique3 (July 16th 2013 at 11:51): Do you actually believe in reincarnation?

I am about to prove a recurrence theorem (that can be derived formally in my
framework) according to which any thought that has been thought once will be
thought again in the history of the universe with probability 1 – but presumably
172
Dvi-Pakṣa
by another body/brain. The theorem is, in a sense, an extension of the “Soul

immortality theorem” you can already find in my book (section 7.5). It is not
exactly about reincarnation in the usual sense (Punarjanma), since no entity
(soul) transports this thought from one “incarnation” to the other, but it is
possibly related to the Hindu cycle of the universe?
Vimal: If you give me some empirical evidence for reincarnation, then I can
believe. So far, we do not have concrete evidence. Therefore, it is an interesting
topic and further research is needed. If you are interested, then I would say go
ahead, I will certainly read it.
Critique3 (July 17th 2013 at 09:29): We definitely have a misunderstanding; the

relation between quantum and mental states in my framework implies that no
mental entity can exist without the corresponding material substrate. So there is
nothing like life after death or anything like that. I guess my question about
“reincarnation” came ways too early.
Vimal: Then what happens after death in your framwork? In theist version of
eDAM framework, if soul exists, then it must be dual-aspect entity with its
physical aspect latent. Hinduism and Islam hypothesize that a soul (mental
aspect of the state of entity) acquires subtle body after death. The life-after-death
hypothesis is very controversial. You may like to look at the soul-related
paranormal Indian Z-TV fear files episodes (based on interactive substance
dualism/Sāṃkhya), which claims that they are based on real story; however, I
am not sure about its authenticity and I am skeptical; these data (or any data!)
can also be explained by other metaphysics.
Critique3 (July 18th 2013 at 04:23): That’s why my framework remains very
neutral about questions like “What happens after death?”, for instance. I only
define the pure form of the mind-body relation, but I remain absolutely neutral
about its details. The framework is agnostic regarding the definition of what it is
to be “dead” or “alive”, or if subjective experience has anything to do with life in
the first place. I just assume as a working hypothesis that brains with specific
activity patterns (I remain vague on purpose) are related to subjective experience,
but this point in not essential to the framework. It is rather your domain of
expertise.
Vimal: What happens after death easily decides what the metaphysics is. If the
mental and physical aspects are separable, then the metaphysics might be
173
Dvi-Pakṣa
interactive substance dualism and mind/soul can exist without body-brain. In

eDAM framework, if soul exists (no scientific evidence so far!) after death, then it
must be a dual-aspect entity with its physical aspect latent.
Critique3 (July 19th 2013 at 04:25): Well, in a more general fashion and in a
monist metaphysics, you could still suppose that subjective experience (not to be
confounded with the material (biological) aspects of functional consciousness)
could be associated with a functionally dead body/brain (which, by the way, is
not biologically dead at all levels, since there is still, to some extent, cellular life
within the organism itself as well as myriad of microorganisms still living
within/over the body after its death). So why should the material aspect become
“latent” after death? I think this idea arises from burial ceremonies in dualist
cultures, where corpses are being put aside and denied existence, so to say.
In my framework, there is no continuity at the mental level, so there cannot
be any mental entity (like a soul) having a continuous existence across time. This
is a direct consequence of the stochastic aspect of quantum physics (stochastic
processes are, by nature, discrete in the mathematical sense). Continuity only
prevails on the material level (the unitary evolution of the quantum state) and is
being interrupted by collapse processes in which a random “snapshot” of the
quantum state becomes translated to a mental state. So there is, basically, an
asymmetrical causality from the material to the mental world, but the form of
this (non-deterministic) causality is determined by the possible mental states and
their material realization.
In this framework, you cannot think in terms of “entities” below the upmost
level of “God”/Nature: The only entity you can consider is the whole universe,
with a material aspect described by the quantum state of the universe and a
mental aspect described by the (collective) mental state of the universe. The
different subjective experiences/individual mental states within this collective
mental state are being experienced “separately” because of their very form, I
guess. I’ve read a (quite obscure) sentence in line with this idea in Kant’s
“Critique of Pure Reason”, which states (as far as I can remember) that all our
thoughts appear to us as a subjective unity because they all enclose the same
representation that I am. So maybe we don’t notice the subjective experiences of
“other people” because their thoughts group together around different
representations of the self? But that is highly speculative metaphysics.
Vimal: In the eDAM framework, in its theist version, soul (if it exists, no scientific
evidence so far) is a dual-aspect entity; it acquires subtle body as per religions;
its 3pp-physical aspect of the post-death-state is latent to us because we cannot
174
Dvi-Pakṣa
do experiment as we do during when the subject is alive. The dead body

disintegrates into its dual-aspect entities; these are inert entities so each of them
has its 1pp-mental aspect latent to us. The acronym 3pp is third person
perspective, which is objective, and is for public; 1pp: first person perspective,
which is subjective and private.
Consistent with (Tipler, 2000), uncertainty is in our thought processing (not
outside!), so stochastic processes are property of our minds; they are due to our
ignorance and part of measurement; external entities have precise locations and
momentum (so Heisenberg uncertainty is in our minds because of our ignorance
during measurment, not out there!) and are deterministic as in Schrödinger
wavefunction in mind-independent reality (MIR). Do you agree?
---xxx--- Reincarnation/rebirth hyptohesis
Reincarnation/rebirth hyptohesis: As per (Stevenson & Keil, 2000), “The

phrase ‘case of the reincarnation type’ refers to any child who has information
and/or other characteristics that suggest a paranormal connection between
himself and a particular person who has died before he was born. By a
‘paranormal connection,’ we mean the communication of information without the
recognized sensory channels. Initially unintentionally, several cases previously
studied by one of us (I.S. ) were investigated by the other (J.K. ) about 20 years
after I.S.’s first investigation. Additional cases were then intentionally
reinvestigated to test the stability of the paranormality assessments of 15 cases.
All but one of the cases investigated 20 years later received the same or a lower
paranormality rating. These results support the view that such case studies,
even if carried out 2 decades after the relevant events occurred, do not generate
inflated paranormality assessments. […] For cases of the reincarnation type, the
paranormality components in the connection between a person who has
previously died (the previous personality) and a child (the subject ) is the most
important aspect. […] Cases of the reincarnation type are not always regarded by
the families involved as definite manifestations of rebirths of previous
personalities. […] the letter S stands for the subject, PP for the previous
personality, and PL for the (claimed) previous life. […] The S provides information
about something not known to anybody—except, in the past, to the PP—that can
be verified, such as some item hidden by the PP and recovered by the S. […] For
example, the S is able to speak a language or dialect that is not spoken by people
with whom the S had contact. […] The S has birthmarks and/or malformations
that correspond to injuries or other peculiarities of the PP. […] a small number of
statements based on fantasies could, by chance, agree with some aspects of the
PP’s life. In addition, we need to evaluate the
175
Dvi-Pakṣa
barriers—geographical and social—that may have made it impossible or at least

unlikely that seemingly paranormal connections between the PP and the S
occurred by normal means. […] There were no cases of the sex-change type in
the group, i.e., cases in which the subject claimed to remember the life of a
person of the opposite sex. […] [1: Nürsel Karaali, female, Turkey] The S’s
grandfather, however, did know the PP’s father from their military service. When
the S became able to speak, she told her father that he was not her father and
that her father was in another village, which she named. She stated some names
of other members of this family and threatened to run away if she were not taken
to them. … Both I.S. and J.K. were told that at birth [1963], the S’s fingers were
colored in agreement with the henna color that was applied to the PP’s hands
after the PP had died. I.S. was told that in about 1967 (at the age of 4½), the S
recognized (in her village) some musicians who had played at the PP’s funeral.
This was not mentioned during the later study of J.K. In 1973 [10 year old] as
well as 1990, I.S. and J.K. learned that the S had recognized the PP’s old house.
… Nürsel’s correct statements as a young child before contact was established
with the PP’s relatives cannot be easily explained as normal information and
fairly strongly suggest a paranormal connection between her and the PP. […] [2:
The Dellâl Beyaz Case, female, Turkey] The S’s father probably knew the PP’s
village … The S conveyed most of the information related to the PP when she was
less than 2 years old. She had started to talk about a previous life as soon as she
had learned to talk. … This nephew, I.S. was told, arranged the first meeting
between the two families when the S was about 2 years old. … the informants did
not clearly link the S’s birthmark with the PP’s fatal fall … some connections
existed prior to the S’s birth […] [3: Ratana Wongsombat, female, Thailand]
The S’s family did not know the PP at all, but the S’s step-grandfather knew a few
people who previously had some contact with the PP when the PP visited a
particular Wat (Buddhist temple) in Bangkok. … The information provided by
the S—when she was a young child—supports the paranormality hypothesis
mainly because her family did not know the PP or the PP’s relatives, and because
the S gave many correct details, including the PP’s name when the S was only 2
years old. […] [4: Bongkuch Promsin, Thailand] The two families were not
related and did not know each other. The PP’s relatives had never visited the S’s
village. The S’s father had traveled to the small town where the PP lived. …
Contact between the two families was established only after the S had started to
talk and had made a number of statements about the PP. The PP’s relatives then
learned about these statements. … He mentioned the PP’s name, possessions of
the PP, such as a bicycle and a gold chain, and how PP had been killed. The PP’s
relatives confirmed these statements during their first meeting with S. They
176
Dvi-Pakṣa
conducted a “test” by presenting the S with—according to I.S.’s notes—two

bicycles or—according to J.K.’s notes—three bicycles, from which the S selected
the PP’s bicycle correctly. The increase from 2 bicycles to 3 most likely is an
embellishment and not a simple error. Both I.S. and J.K. heard that the S used
Laotian words not used in the S’s family and preferred sticky rice (a distinctly
different rice preparation) in agreement with the PP’s background, which was
Laotian and not Thai. … that the S remembered the names of eight people from
the previous life and that he had referred to the PP’s watch, gold ring, and knife,
and to the way the PP was dressed when he was killed. […] Both parents of
Anurak mentioned to J.K., but not to I.S., that as a young child, Anurak found a
special spoon that the PP had placed on a high shelf and that Anurak apparently
found without prior information or access to the place in which it was kept. It
seems unlikely that this incident was invented. On the other hand, it apparently
occurred before I.S. investigated the case.”
Vimal: Skeptics can argue as follows: The subject S (Nürsel Karaali, female,
Turkey)'s grandfather knew the previous personality (PP)'s father before S’s birth
so they might have communicated the incident happened in nearby village and
hence might have directly or indirectly communicated to intelligent young child S
with high auditory sensitivity and strong memory! Similarly they can argued for
S(Dellâl Beyaz Case, female, Turkey).
In other words, in future researches, researchers must be involved directly when

such re-incarnation type events occur (when Ss tell about PPs, researchers such
as non-believer materialists, must be present) rather than based on stories told
later by Ss and relatives.
Let us suppose the reincarnation data are authentic and true. Memories of S
must have neural correlates. In other words, those memories must have neural
basis, otherwise, S would not tell anything to investigators. Reincarnation
experiences are the mental aspect of a state of the memory related neural-
network that has inseparable physical aspect in the extended dual-aspect
monism (eDAM) framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2012a, 2012b, 2013). One
needs to investigate further how and where did the information related to those
memories come from in S’s brain. When did S’s brain acquire that information?
Perhaps, functional MRI will help and data must be collected scientifically and
directly, i.e., researchers must be present whenever reincarnation-type events
happen. If soul exists (no scientific evidence so far!), then it must be a dual-
177
Dvi-Pakṣa
aspect entity with its physical aspect (subtle body) latent, where memories might
be encoded somehow, and/or Global/Cosmic storage area might exist.
---xxx---
As per (Almeder, 1997), “There is something essential to some human

personalities ... which we cannot plausibly construe solely in terms of either
brain states, or properties of brain states ... and, further, after biological death
this non-reducible essential trait sometimes persists for some time, in some way,
in some place, and for some reason or other, existing independently of the
person's former brain and body. Moreover, after some time, some of these
irreducible essential traits of human personality, for some reason or other, and
by some mechanism or other, come to reside in other human bodies either some
time during the gestation period, at birth, or shortly after birth.”
As per (Haraldsson, 1997), “It has been proposed that some normal-
psychological factors may explain why some children speak of having had a
previous life. Some of these and other psychological factors, which may further
our understanding of children claiming prcvious-life memories, were ihe siibjeci
of this siudy. Psychological tests were administered to 30 children in Sri Lanka,
aged 7 to 13, who at an earlier age had claimed to remember a previous life, and
a control group of equal size. Children claiming previous-life memories show a
higher level of cognitive functioning; perform much better in school, have a larger
vocabulary, obtain higher scores on the Raven Progressive Matrices (brief test of
intelligence), have better memory, and are not more suggestible than their peers.
As a group they are gifted children. Parents found them to argue a lot, prefer
being alone, be more nervous and stubborn than their peers, more
perfectionistic, and more concerned about cleanliness. Teachers found them
excellent to be pupils. As research continues the alleged memories of
these children are found to be only one part of a pattern of characteristics that so
far seem to defy a normal explanation.”
As per (Haraldsson, 2003), “Children who claim to remember fragments of a past

life are found in some countries. Various explanations have been put forward as
to why the alleged memories develop, ranging from reincarnation to 'therapeutic
resource'. This study puts to the test the role of some psychological
characteristics and the circumstances in which the children live, such as
fantasy, suggestibility, social isolation, dissociation, and attention-seeking. Thirty
children in Lebanon who had persistently spoken of past-life memories, and 30
comparison children, were administered relevant tests and questionnaires. The
178
Dvi-Pakṣa
target group obtained higher scores for daydreaming, attention-seeking, and

dissociation, but not for social isolation and suggestibility. The level of
dissociation was much lower than in cases of multiple personality and not
clinically relevant. There was some evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder-
like symptoms. Eighty per cent of the children spoke of past-life memories of
circumstances leading to a violent death (mostly accidents, also war-related
deaths and murder). It is discussed if this imagery-when experienced repeatedly-
may serve as a stressor. […] The previously hypothesized psychological
explanations may be satisfactory for unsolved cases and cases in which there is
minor correspondence between the past-life statements of the child and facts in
the life of an identified person who has died. But what about those cases (e.g.
Haraldsson, 1992, 2000; Haraldsson & Abu-Izzeddin, 2002, in press; Stevenson,
2001), in which a high degree of correspondence is found, and no connection can
be traced between the child’s family and the previous person which might explain
the correspondence? To uphold the psychological explanation it has to be
assumed that these are chance correspondences. Is that tenable? Also posing a
problem are those rare cases with striking correspondence between birthmarks
or deformities (and statements) and fatal woulds of a deceased person, for
birthmarks form before a deceased person, for birthmarks form before a child is
born (Haraldsson, 2000; Stevenson, 1997a, 1997b).”
As per (Tucker, 2007), “Ian Stevenson began researching cases of young children
who claimed to remember previous lives in 1961. His approach involved a
rational, scientific attempt to discern exactly what the children said about a
previous life and how much of it could be verified to be accurate for one
particular deceased individual. He discovered that cases could be found all over
the world. He also learned that memories were not the only items that seemed to
carry over for these children. A number had birthmarks that matched wounds
suffered by the previous person, and many demonstrated anxieties or emotional
longing that appeared to be derived from the previous events that they described.
Researchers have now studied over 2500 cases in a project that is still ongoing.
This review traces the history of these investigations and presents the current
work, which includes increasing use of a database containing over 200 variables
for each case. The conclusions that can and cannot be drawn from the research
are examined, and future studies to be done in this area are considered. […] The
strength of cases did correlate with the amount of acceptance by the previous
personalities' families, suggesting that those families used criteria similar to the
ones in the scale to assess the children's claims. The strength of the cases also
correlated with the age that the children began talking about the previous life in
179
Dvi-Pakṣa
a negative direction (so the children started earlier in the stronger cases), the
amount of emotion that the children demonstrated when discussing the
memories, and the amount of facial resemblance between the children and the
deceased individuals. These findings were consistent with the idea that in the
stronger cases, more past-life residue had carried over to the new life. […]
Approximately 20% of the children in these cases make such reports, some
describing terrestrial events such as funerals and some reporting activities in
other realms. […] Normal and paranormal explanations for the phenomenon
warrant consideration. The normal explanation that appears most likely for many
of the cases is that faulty memories by the children's families cause them to
believe that their children knew more about a previous life than they actually did.
Researchers have not investigated most of the cases until after the previous
personality has been identified. Thus, the possibility exists that after children
make a few general statements about having had a previous life, their parents
find another family that has lost a family member, and once the two families
exchange information, they come to think that the children demonstrated specific
knowledge about the
previous life beforehand that they in fact did not (Brody, 1979). […] Thus, the
findings were the opposite of what would be expected if informants were crediting
the children with more, and more correct, statements than they had actually
made before the families met. […] Currently, the best explanation for the
strongest cases appears to be that memories, emotions, and even physical
traumas can, at least under certain circumstances, carry over from one life to a
subsequent one. This is not to say that such carryover is universal or even
common, since children with apparent memories of previous lives may well be
the exception rather than the rule in many ways. The cases also do not
necessarily confirm religious doctrines such as karma, and ‘carryover’ may be a
better description of the process than ‘reincarnation,’ a term that has those
doctrines associated with it. Regardless of the term used, the cases contribute to
the evidence for survival of consciousness after death. […] Possible studies
include evaluation of parents to determine if particular parental traits are
associated with the reports as well as a potential attempt to ask young children
who have not spoken about a previous life about any memories they may have.”
Vimal: It would certainly be interesting to investigate how the information related

to deceased individual (PP: previous personality) is transmitted to young subject
(S) and how birthmarks similar to PP appear in S. Information related to PPs
were certainly present in environment (any entity other than S’s brain) before
and after the birth of Ss. For example, information were certainly present in the
180
Dvi-Pakṣa
minds of PP’s friends/relatives in Darbhanga (Bihar, India) in Kumkum (S)’s

case. An interesting question is how they were transferred to Ss from the
environment assuming there is no oral communication to S. Sometimes people
communicate and do not tell to make their beliefs more effective and ‘real’ to
others especially in cultures/families, where reincarnation is firmly accepted and
related stories are certainly told to children because it is engrained in religions.
For example, ‘Lord Rama was the incarnation of Lord Vishnu’ is told to children
starting from day 1 in rituals: there is a birth ritual in religions! Sometimes, such
stories are read by mothers during her pregnancy with the belief that unborn
child will hear; there is a belief and also somewhat scientific evidence that fetus
feels pain and hears after some developmental age. Birthmarks and face of S
matching with PP during death may have other explanations, such as similar to
usual birthmarks and face-resemblance as in other children plus by-chance-
coincidence-hypothesis. The memories of S in the duration between PP’s death
and S’s birth can be argued out because of the training/education/sanskār given
by mother and relatives to young children about reincarnation and life-after-
death mythology written in religious literatures such as Garuda Purāna and
many other scriptures in religions. Thus, it is very risky to conclude for previous-
life (reincarnation/rebirth) or the data as ‘the evidence for survival of
consciousness after death,’ which implicitly entails that the highly problematic
Cartesian interactive substance dualism or Sāṃkhya metaphysics is the only
metaphysics that can explain the data. This metaphysics has seven serious
problems ((Vimal, 2010d) and (Vimal, 2012a, 2012b)), which have never been
addressed to the satisfaction of all investigators.
In our conventional mind-dependent reality, information-transfer from

environment to brain is via our sensory systems. Do these young subjects have
some extra-sensory system (which may be lost or reduced in sensitivity after
storing the relevant information is S’s brain) that other control children do not
have? We need to demystify/unpack the so called mysterious reincarnation-past-
life hypothesis.
For this purpose, experimenters need to design experiments without any

loopholes in future researches. We also need to list the possible loopholes.
Skeptics will argue that not all loopholes are closed. Once this is accomplished
then it would be useful to propose an appropriate metaphysics. On the other
hand, theoretical investigators should critically investigate the best metaphysics
that can explain the data claimed as the reincarnation/rebirth/past-life along
with all other the data related to all sciences and other areas.
181
Dvi-Pakṣa
There are four major metaphysics. So far, only one metaphysics has the least
number of problems, which is the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM)
metaphysics (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2012a, 2012b, 2013).
Other three metaphysics, namely materialism, interactive substance dualism,

and idealism have serious problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010d). There are
two possibilities about the self/soul: (A) it does NOT exist after death or (B) it
exists after death. In both cases, self/soul is a dual-aspect entity: In first case,
self is brain-based and depends on the interaction of brain and environment. In
the second case, soul presumably acquires ‘subtle body’ after death that is
equivalent to saying physical aspect of post-death state of soul is latent and its
mental aspect is dominant; whereas, both aspects are dominant when we are
alive, awake, and conscious. The future rigorous empirical data will decide which
one (A or B) is correct.
Critique3 (July 30th 2013 at 00:29): Thank you for the “reincarnation” links you
sent me in the last few days! I’m still working on my “Reincarnation theorem”
(https://github.com/quantum-ethics/quantum-ethics/issues/24), but I’m
currently lacking motivation (and time), because it is very similar to what I’ve
already done in the section “Soul immortality theorem” (with minor technical
differences in the proof) – but it will generalize it and I will probably end up by
deriving the “Soul immortality theorem” from the “Reincarnation theorem”. I’ll
have to be careful about which parts of the proof I put to separate lemmas in
order to derive both from the same basic results.
Honestly, I don’t think I need to read many testimonies about near death/out
of body experiences and reincarnation, I think I can imagine myself very well how
it feels like. And since these experiences are reportable, they have left traces in
the brain/body of the concerned persons, and are therefore nothing but the
usual subjective experiences with material substrate. Nothing new under the
sun. PS: Did you get a notification for https://github.com/quantum-
ethics/quantum-ethics/issues/27 ? Could you briefly comment on it?
As per (Fauvel, 2013), “The initial mental state Mi will therefore be experienced
again in the future with certainty”.
Critique3: After a transition from a mental state A to a different mental state B,

• Soul immortality theorem #22: The mental state B will be eventually left
with probability 1
182
Dvi-Pakṣa
•Recurrence theorem: The mental state A will be experienced again with

probability 1
The proof should be quite similar for both theorems.
Vimal: Your metaphysical framework seems to be the highly problematic

interactive substance dualism because (a) mental space has only mental aspect
and does not have its inseparable physical aspect, (b) which also implies that
these two aspects are separable at death. You may like to rewrite ‘soul
immortality’ and ‘recurrence/reincarnation’ theorems using the least problematic
eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), where soul (if it exists: there is no
scientific evidence for its existence!) is a dual-aspect entity with mental aspect
dominant and physical aspect (subtle body) latent. In this framework, the states
of mental and physical spaces need to be replaced with dual aspect states. In
other words, there should be just only one kind of space that contains only dual-
aspect states.
Critique3: I think we already discussed this issue, which will be addressed

in #30?
The (explicitly monist) physical space you are looking for is the union of all
spaces of the form {M} x H_M, where M is a mental state and H_M the
corresponding mental subspace. It will become explicit after #30 that these are
the only physical states that can exist.
#30: This issue concerns principally the section "Quantum metaphysics". The
question of the status of the quantum state between two collapse and mental
state selection processes has to be addressed explicitly. Since these quantum
states, per definition, cannot be experienced, the interpretation would probably
be more understandable if we denied them any reality. This would imply:
• That time can be described in a discrete way, as a sequence of instants
labeled 0, 1, 2, ..., t, ...
• That the physical (=quantum + mental) state is always such that the
quantum state belongs to the mental subspace corresponding to the
mental state, so that "virtual" physical states have no reality
• That the physical state itself evolves iteratively, so that its evolution is
rather algorithmic/algebraic that continuous/analytic
• That the physical state at time t + 1 depends, in a stochastic way, on the
physical state at time t only
• That "breaking down" the elementary evolution operator to durations
smaller that the elementary time step doesn't have any physical meaning
183
Dvi-Pakṣa
This would also emphasize the monist character of the underlying metaphysics.
Once this has been done, we will have to replace the notion of "initial quantum
state of the universe", used in several places, by an "initial physical state". It
would be useful, too, to drop the precision "quantum state of the universe" and
just make a short remark on this subject in the first chapter, since we're never
describing subsystems quantum physically.
Vimal: In eDAM framework, the physical aspect of a specific brain-NN-state is

from 3pp, which can be measured using objective methods such as functional
MRI. The related inseparable mental aspect can be experienced from 1pp and is
private (not accessible to public). Such innumerable dual-aspect states of all
entities are in the state-space. The temporal evolution of these states, in mind-
independent reality (MIR), is deterministic and follows Schrödinger wave function
and there is no uncertainty. The uncertainty is in the measurement process and
is in the minds of experimenters in mind-dependent reality (MDR). Born’s rule is
the part of our thought processing because for example, in singlet, the two
branches (up-down and down-up) are like two thoughts, which generates
uncertainty in our minds. Therefore, stochastic process is part of our thought
processing. When we look at the result of the measurement, these two thoughts
collapse/reduce to one specific thought related to the result of measurement, for
example, up-down (if Bob measures spin-up then Alice will certainly measure
down-spin). This is somewhat elaborated in (Tipler, 2000) where we need to
replace ‘world’ or ‘universe’ with ‘thought’; for example, replace ‘Many Worlds
Interpretation (MWI)’ with ‘Many Thoughts Interpretation (MTI)’. MWI does not
make sense to me. MTI is a part of eDAM framework, which is also consistent
with Copenhagen-Von_Neumann Interpretation because both interpretations give
the same results. Since we do not have scientific evidence of soul, at present, we
are limited to the atheist (no-soul or anātman in Buddhism) version of eDAM
framework, i.e., the soul immortality and reincarnation theorems need authentic
data. It would be interesting to investigate if we can get just one single such
authentic data, for example, in parapsychological/paranormal researches.
Furthermore, you may like to investigate if your framework is consistent with the
eDAM framework.
14Jan15: It is unclear if there is any ‘real’ (not ‘pseudo’) scientific evidence (such
as reproducibility in space-time) for soul and re-birth/re-incarnation. Therefore,
at present time, it would be unscientific (in the sense of ‘real science’) to conclude
that they exist.
184
Dvi-Pakṣa
Critique3: As per (Fauvel, 2013), “In a monist framework, contrary to the dualist
conceptions of most religions supporting the idea of reincarnation, there is no
mental entity like a soul which could be reincarnated in another body after the
death of the last one. […] Now the theorem states that, once a mental state has
been experienced, the probability that, in the natural evolution of the physical
state via physical interactions and collapse processes, this mental state be never
experienced again, vanishes in the limit of an infinitely long time. So if we take
for granted the fact that the physical state will keep evolving forever the way it
does today, – and in particular if there is no sudden and unpredictable ‘end of
the world’ standing before us, – it is certain that a mental state that has been
experienced once will be experienced again in the future. This is all the
reincarnation theorem is stating; it is a mere recurrence theorem for mental
states, quite similar in this respect to the Poincaré recurrence theorem for the
state of classical systems in Hamiltonian dynamics. But it is not a recurrence
theorem for quantum states: The same mental state can be experienced in an
infinite number of different quantum states belonging to the corresponding
mental subspace, and even quantum states that differ very slightly from another
can yield to very different evolutions on the long term, as we know from quantum
chaos theory. Now it follows trivially from the reincarnation theorem that every
single subjective experience, once it has taken place for the first time, will be
repeated again and again an infinite number of times. Every single instant of
your own mental life, in particular, will be experienced again and again in an
infinite number of lives. This is the point where we are getting very near to usual
notions of reincarnation. If you identify yourself with your subjective experiences,
then you can say that you will be reincarnated in an infinite number of lives. […]
Now this notion of reincarnation has nothing supernatural; it happens, so to say,
at random, whenever the physical evolution of the universe produces again a
brain with an activity pattern corresponding to a subjective experience that has
already taken place before. It differs in this regard from the Buddhist conception
of reincarnation, for instance, where the soul continues after death its journey on
Earth by reincarnating in the body of another, possibly very different living being.
[…] This would be king of a ;big crunch’ event (but not due to a contraction of
space-time) which would be followed by another ‘big bang’ event that could
possibly yield to the formation of another Milky Way and of another Earth on
which your subjective experiences
could be ‘reincarnated’. This conception is quite similar to the Buddhist
cosmology, in which the world is supposed to be periodically destructed and re-
created. There are several ways of questioning the reality of this ‘reincarnation’ in
185
Dvi-Pakṣa
a purely scientific approach. The reincarnation theorem relies on the finite

dimensionality of the Hilbert space of quantum states, and thus on the
assumption that the physical space itself is discrete and finite, which has elusive,
but in principle measurable consequences. […] On the other hand, in a
theoretical approach, fulfilling the program of constructive quantum field theory
– constructing a well-defined theory of interacting fields, compatible with the
Standard Model, on the four dimensional Minkowski space-time – would provide
an alternative to our model where the Hilbert space presumably wouldn’t be
finite dimensional, so that the reincarnation theorem probably wouldn’t hold.”
Vimal: It will be less confusing if the ‘recurrence’ is used in place of

‘reincarnation’ because that the latter is used by religions in ‘Interactive
Substance Dualism’ metaphysical framework. Fundamental subjective
experiences (such as redness) can be experienced by all subjects (such as
trichromats) in all times (past, present and future); however, the derived
information (not the fundamental information) that are specific brain-based can
re-occur as long as that brain is alive and functioning normally. The term
‘recurrence’ of the dual-aspect state of an entity may be used in dual-aspect
monism framework: as long as the entity (such as brain) is alive/awake and
functioning normally, then the specific state of the entity can re-occur. For
example, the redness-related neural-network (NN)-state related to viewing ripe
tomato can re-occur as long as redness-related NN can satisfy the necessary
conditions of consciousness (such as wakefulness, working memory, re-entry,
attention, and so on: (Vimal, 2011e)). However, if the related brain (of the dead-
person/previous-personality: PP) is dead, so is its related memories, then the
information contained in that memory is also lost unless the relevant information
is preserved in other brains (such as in relatives, friends and other peoples
known to PP). If pertinent information exists, then it may be possible for a
subject S (such as young children in reincarnation literature) with extra-sensory
ability to pick up somehow that information, in dual-aspect monism framework.
This hypothesis needs to be tested by further research (including functional MRI
in Ss).
It is unclear how to calculate the probability for the physical evolution of the
universe producing again a brain (of a subject S) with an activity pattern
corresponding to some of subjective experiences that have already taken place
before (corresponding to a previous personality PP).
186
Dvi-Pakṣa
Critique3 (Email:14-Aug-13): I think it is interesting, though, to elaborate a

monist (and secular) notion of “reincarnation”. I do it in the proof of this theorem,
this probability is 1.
Vimal: In that case, the term ‘reincarnation’ should be explicitly defined and
contrasted with relgious definition based on interactive substance dualism
and/or idealism. To me, probability of 1 means reincarnation should occur for all
of us when we were kids (2-10 years old), which is not the case. Empirical
probability is perhaps 7000 (assuming 7000 reported cases, which are
veridical)/7 billion (population of world) ~ 10-6.
Critique3 (Email:15-Aug-13): Isn't it what I'm doing in the introduction of the

theorem as well as at the beginning of the commentaries? Generalizing the soul
immortality theorem, we will derive here a general theorem on the recurrence of
mental states, that we will call “reincarnation theorem” because of its similarity
with usual conceptions of reincarnation. A discussion of its precise meaning follows
the proof. [...] In a monist framework, contrary to the dualist conceptions of most
religions supporting the idea of reincarnation, there is no mental entity like a soul
which could be reincarnated in another body after the death of the last one. The
only thing that can be “incarnated” are mental states, i.e. the totality of all
subjective experiences taking place at a given instant. And a mental state is being
experienced whenever the quantum state, representing the state of affairs in the
whole universe at the material level, becomes projected into the corresponding
mental subspace, in which there is exactly one brain presenting the corresponding
activity pattern for each subjective experience in the mental state. This projection,
or “collapse”, is a stochastic process following the Born rule, which has been
validated uncountable times by all quantum experiments.
It looks like you completely misunderstood which probability we are
calculating here. It is not the probability that, within any single human life, some
of the subjective experiences that are being made are "reincarnating", that is,
have already been experienced by someone else before. On the contrary, it is the
probability that a subjective experience that is taking place right now be
experienced again (by anybody) in the future:
Now the theorem states that, once a mental state has been experienced, the
probability that, in the natural evolution of the physical state via physical
interactions and collapse processes, this mental state be never experienced again,
vanishes in the limit of an infinitely long time. So if we take for granted the fact
that the physical state will keep evolving forever the way it does today, – and in
particular if there is no sudden and unpredictable “end of the world” standing
187
Dvi-Pakṣa
before us, – it is certain that a mental state that has been experienced once will be
experienced again in the future.
In other words, the reincarnation theorem is stating that any potential mental
state will either never be experienced in the whole history of the universe, or be
experienced an infinite number of times. So it states the impossibility that a
mental state be experienced a finite number of times and then never ever again.
Is it becoming clearer when I formulate it this way?
By the way: The whole subjective experience is "reincarnating", not single
memories of someone else which are mixing up with your own. And it is only
"reincarnating" if the normal physical evolution of the universe yields to the
formation of a brain with activity patterns corresponding to this subjective
experience. So it doesn't feel strange at all to have a "reincarnating" subjective
experience, it is perfectly normal and there is nothing special to "report" about
it... Probably I should add a short remark on that in the commentaries.
Vimal: Yes, it is becoming clearer now: When a potential subjective experience

(SE, such as redness) is somehow (such as matching and selection mechanism:
(Vimal, 2010c)) realized in any entity (such as the redness-related V4/VO/VO-
neural-network of a trichromatic brain), then that SE (such as redness) will be
realized in similar entities (such as the redness-related V4/VO/VO-neural-
network of other trichromatic brains) at present and future. Am I understanding
correctly? If this is correct, then your ‘Reincarnation Theorem’ is not saying
anything new; it is just putting the above fact in mathematical language with
probability = 1: is that right? This is very different from the term ‘Reincarnation’
used in religions, where empirical probability of ‘Reincarnation’ of PP (previous
personality) in S (subject) is very low, perhaps close to zero if the reported data
are not authentic: This is because the million dollar award to produce a single
scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena (including reincarnation) has
never been collected so far
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge]. So I
assume the reincarnation data are not authentic so far. That is why I suggested
for using ‘Reoccurrence Theorem’ to avoid confusion and to keep up scientific
authenticity.
Critique3: It looks like you understand better what the reincarnation theorem is
about, but that you haven't realized its significance yet. First, you should
remember that I am never using the term of “subjective experience” for single
qualias, like “redness”, but for the whole content of your experience of
(phenomenal) consciousness. This encompasses the conscious representations
188
Dvi-Pakṣa
you have of the external world and of yourself, as well as everything you are
thinking about. Now it is trivial that, if your brain happened to be again in
exactly the same physical state as now, you would have exactly the same
subjective experience, but this will probably never happen again in your life. The
theorem is stating that this will happen, though, with certainty, an infinite
number of times – most probably in other lives than your current one: Exactly
the same subjective experience will take place again and again. Well, exactly
speaking, this is not what the theorem is stating, but only a consequence of it.
The theorem is not about your single subjective experience, but about mental
states, that is, about all subjective experiences taking place at a given moment.
The few billions of (human) subjective experiences taking place right now will
take place again with certainty – exactly the same number of subjective
experiences, exactly the same ones. This implies that the quantum state will
belong to the corresponding mental subspace then, which doesn't mean that the
universe will be exactly in the same state at the material level, but that it will be
very similar to what it is now at the macroscopic scale in the environment the
subjects are interacting with. So there will probably be exactly the same number
of people, with the same names, very similar personalities, personal histories and
relationships etc.
This will most probably not happen on this Earth, but on another planet quite
similar to ours, probably after a few "cycles" of the life of the universe,
punctuated by "big bang" and "big crunch" events. The reincarnation theorem is
a way of expressing the cyclical character of the evolution of the universe, and I
proved that the physical model I am proposing definitely has this feature. I think
that this notion of "cyclicality" is part of the traditional Hindu cosmology, can you
confirm this?
Since this recurrence theorem is about the mental state, and since
reincarnation is about conserving somehow your "mental aspect" after the death
of your material body, I think that the name "reincarnation theorem" is not that
misleading actually. Of course, there are lots of conceptions of reincarnation, so
that the term "reincarnation" is ambiguous by itself, but it is not reason enough
not to use it. I think that, in the traditional Buddhist conceptions of
reincarnation, the "true" self (whatever this exactly is) is supposed to reincarnate,
while the "false" self, or "ego" (social status, habits, memories...), gets lost with
the death of the material body.
The examples you have already given (a child "inhabited" by the own
memories of his dead grandfather) are not examples of "reincarnation" in this
traditional sense. And the notion of "reincarnation" used in my theorem isn't
either – since many details of the "false" self are being experienced again, too. But
189
Dvi-Pakṣa
I don't think that anyone really knows what the "true" self actually is... So the
traditional idea of reincarnation, though it may have some healing power if you
believe in it, doesn't really have a definite meaning which could be expressed
scientifically, in my opinion. This is basically the reason why my "reincarnation
theorem" cannot be about reincarnation in that specific sense.
Vimal: Yes, the cyclical character of the evolution of the universe is part of the
traditional Hindu cosmology and symbolically represented by the ‘damaru’ (small
drum) of Shiva. However, I am not sure if this is the dominant model of our
cosmology. There can be three types of geometries of our universe depending
upon the total amount of matter in it (represented by the curvature Ω): closed,
open, or flat. In a closed universe, the density of matter (such as stars, galaxies,
dark matter) and energy is sufficient to cause space to close back upon itself, i.e.,
as per General Theory of Relativity, the total energy is zero, curvature Ω>1, and
our universe eventually recollapse in the process of Big Crunch (the reverse of a
Big Bang); this is cyclic model of universe. In an open universe, the density of
matter (curvature Ω<1) is such that our universe will continue expanding forever
at a finite rate. In a flat universe, the total energy is zero, curvature Ω=1, and the
expansion of universe slows down, but never stops. (Krauss, 2012) assumes flat
universe arising from ‘nothing’.
It is unclear how the empirical probability of repeating the subjective
experiences of billions of peoples at any moment could be 1. It is highly unlikely
because if you turn your head, the state of universe will be different. I cannot
imagine that the state of universe will be precisely repeated. This is because if we
do ‘and’ operation (A and B and C …. over innumerable combinations of
innumerable states of brains of billions of people) probability will be very close to
zero.
I can agree for fundamental subjective experiences such as redness, but not
the derived ones you have in mind in our whole visual fields that has collection of
fundamental subjective experiences. This is because there are innumerable
possibilities of combinations of fundamental subjective experiences when we all
(billions of people and innumerable animals) look at outside.
As you noted, that the term ‘reincarnation’ is already confusing and has
multiple meanings depending on investigators, in analogy to the term
‘consciousness’ (Vimal, 2009f). Therefore, I would use precise, authentic,
scientific term ‘reoccurrence’ and at the end, I would reluctantly say that this
might be useful in ‘reincarnation’ hypothesis used in religions.
190
Dvi-Pakṣa
Critique3: Now that we have clarified to some extent the interpretation of the
theorem, we could start with its actual discussion: As a matter of fact, in the
model I am proposing, any mental state having occurred once will, with certainty,
occur again (but we don't know when) in the future history of the universe. If you
cannot believe it, and if you have good reasons not to do so, then you must
disagree with at least one of the hypothesis of the model. Now the questions are:
a) Which one(s)? and b) Which experiment(s) could help us finding out if this
hypothesis actually holds or not?
Vimal: Let us suppose that I experience that I am holding a teapot with my hand
at time tpresent. Let the probability be pi for ith subjective experience (such as the
SE of teapot), pj be for jth SE (such as the SE of my hand), and pk be for kth SE
(such as the SE of ‘holding’), then the joint probability of the SE of holding a
teapot with my hand will be (pi.pj.pk) for all these three SEs simultaneously at
time tfuture. Let in future, I am dead, i.e., my body was disintegrated, which
cannot be reconstructed by any means in future because, so far, there is no
scientific evidence of reconstruction of me after death or me being re-born
precisely with the same body/hand and mind in future), so pj = 0 at time tfuture.
Thus, the SE of holding a teapot with my hand will be zero at time tfuture.
Critique3: And yet, in my (theoretical) model, this will happen with certainty. It
must not be exactly the same body/hand/brain on the material (quantum) level,
but the quantum state will be again (perhaps in 1'000 billion years, I don't know)
in the mental subspace corresponding to exactly the same "composed" (in your
terms) subjective experience than before. So if you don't believe it, the question
is: What's wrong with the model? Iḿ repeating myself, but now you must disagree
with at least one of its hypothesis, since you disagree with one of its
consequences.
• Which hypothesis do you disagree with?
• Which experiment(s) could help us finding out if this hypothesis actually
holds or not?
• Can you propose any (serious) alternative theory?
Personally, I can imagine a few ones, but I don't want to develop them in my
book. I think this book should rather be the starting point of what actually is a
new branch of theoretical physics. Could you suggest a name for this new
discipline? Any idea?
Vimal: My justification is that there is no scientific eveidence of resurrection.

Fauvel’s Hypotheses are quoted as follows: As per (Fauvel, 2013), “As a working
hypothesis [H1], I shall assume that a mental state M = (Nm) is being realized
191
Dvi-Pakṣa
physically by any quantum state describing a universe containing, for each

subjective experience [SE] m, exactly Nm human or animal brains presenting the
specific activity pattern corresponding to m. [p.30…] As a working hypothesis, we
assume that the period τ of this process is of the order of the Plank time [p32…]
In the frame of the theory developed in this book, it could be formulated as the
hypothesis that no subjective experience is possible, since this would be
equivalent to denying the existence of the mental world, which is of another
nature as the material one. [p50…] [H2] Now the recurrence hypothesis yields P(n)
|ψ> = |ψ> so that P(n+1) |ψ> = |ψ>, which proves the recurrence. [p59…] The
recurrence hypothesis yielding |ψ> є H(n), we have therefore |ψ> є H(n+1), which
proves the recurrence. [p.60…] This proof of the reincarnation theorem relies on
the hypothesis that the Hilbert space be finite dimensional… [p62]”.
Critique3: This assumption [H1] seems correct for any moment t for all
innumerable living beings (all animals and all humans), but then next moment t1
the SE of universe will change. The probability for maintaining the constant SE
with time or its repetition/reoccrrence in future will be close to zero because the
total probability of all living beings’ SEs is product of the probabilities related to
each living being’s SE. If any living being is dead then its SE will also be dead
(the dead living being can not be resurrected to experience!) and hence related
probability will be zero. Since total probability is product, it will also be zero. For
example, as elaborated before, just consider 3 probablities: total (pi.pj.pk) = 0 if pj
= 0 at time tfuture. Thus, hypothesis [H2] is untenable.
Critique3: “My justification is that there is no scientific eveidence of

resurrection.” You mean “experimental evidence of reincarnation”, I guess?
Because there is a theoretical proof, which I've just published... Are you aware of
the fact that your critique doesn't involves any logical argument at all? You
assume that no living being's subjective experience can reoccur after the death of
this living being, and then conclude that the probability of this reoccurrence is
zero. But your initial assumption has no experimental basis whatsoever, it is a
mere belief... As a scientist, you should take care of remaining open-minded
towards such questions. In the reincarnation theorem, I'm not calculating the
probability p(x) that a given mental state will be "reincarnated" within the next x
years, because this probability depends on the initial quantum state and on the
details of the physical interactions (summarized in the operator U_tau). Maybe
the probability that your current subjective experience will take place again
within the next 100 billion years is only of one part in a billion, I don't know; how
are you supposed to prove it or refute it experimentally then? I only proved that,
192
Dvi-Pakṣa
for any initial quantum state, p(x) converges towards 1 as x approaches infinity,
and though this statement has a precise objective meaning and could be, in
principle, refuted experimentally, we will not able to do so in practice – basically
because we are mortal. By the way, did you read the section I've written about
philosophical skepticism? I think it would be worth thinking about it... We
cannot learn any definitive truth by the means of experimental science; not only
the Taoist tradition, but also every quantum physicist must acknowledge this
fact. It looks like experimental science has reached the end of the road now,
maybe it's time to move over to the pathless path.
Vimal: Why do think my critique is illogical? If there is no scientific evidence of

resurrection of the dead jth brain, then how can we have the reoccurrence of jth
brain-NN-state in future to experience the jth SE? If this is not possible, then pj =
0 in my example, and hence total p = (pi.pj.pk) = 0. The pathless path seems
similar to samadhi (our 4th state of mind-brain system) state knowledge,
elaborated to some extent in (Vimal, 2009d). For that, we need acquire this very
difficult state first. My critique is based on our 3 conventional states
(wakefulness, dream, and deep sleep) of mind-brain system.
Critique3: Well, your argument goes this way: "If there is no scientific evidence of
X so far, then the probability for X to occur in the future is 0." That's not what I
call a logical statement... For instance, a few years ago, you would have said with
this logic: "There is no scientific evidence for the existence of planets outside of
the solar system so far, so the probability that there will be planets outside of the
solar system in the future is 0." That's illogical and simply wrong.
Vimal: Well, then your reincarnation theorem will be only logic-based and hence
it will fall under ‘psedo-science’. In ‘real-science’, we need both logic and
empirical scientific evidence.
Critique3: Do you already know the Poincaré recurrence theorem? It has been
proved in 1890 and has a (much simpler) quantum mechanical version proved in
1957 by Bocchieri and Loinger. These theorems state basically the same than
[as] mine, and as far as I know, nobody considers them to be “pseudo-science”.
Vimal: In mathematics, the Poincaré recurrence theorem states “that certain

systems will, after a sufficiently long time, return to a state very close to the
initial state. The Poincaré recurrence time is the length of time elapsed until
the recurrence. The result applies to physical systems in which energy is
193
Dvi-Pakṣa
conserved.” If Poincaré recurrence theorem does not have empirical scientific

evidence, then it would be considered, by definition, pseudoscience. However,
this theorem seems to have a scientific evidence: for example, “the deterministic
baker's map exhibits Poincaré recurrence”. Pseudoscience “is a claim, belief, or
practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific
method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or
otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the
use of vague, contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance
on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness
to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to
rationally develop theories.”
Critique3: The Poincaré recurrence theorem, as well as mine, are typical

examples of what is called "mathematical physics". Although this is definitely an
important branch of science. It is actually a branch of mathematics, which are
not experimental science, as you know, but still science - you can falsify any
theorem by constructing a counter-example. In my case, to do so, you just have
to specify:
• a value for N (the lattice size, which can be any positive integer),
• a set of particle fields (which can be any finite set), together with their
• maximum occupation numbers (which can be any positive integers),
• an elementary evolution operator (which can be any unitary operator on
the Hilbert space defined in Part I, section "Many particle states"),
• a set of potential mental states (which can be any finite set),
• a set of mental subspaces (which can be arbitrary subspaces of the Hilbert
space decomposing it into a direct sum), and finally
• a function mapping mental subspaces to mental states (which can be
any bijection)
That's all you need to construct a specific physical model like the one I'm
proposing. In order to construct a counter-example, you'll have to find an initial
quantum state (any non zero element of the Hilbert space belonging to one of the
mental subspaces of your model), calculate the probability of a recurrence of the
initial mental state after any numbert of evolution steps (with the formula given
in Part II, section "Mental evolution"), and prove that this probability doesn't
admit 1 as a limit asttends to infinity.
As you can see, my theorem is falsifiable by anyone who understands

mathematics, and if someone comes up with a counter-example, I will
194
Dvi-Pakṣa
acknowledge it (but my proof makes me confident that this will never happen). So
it's definitely not pseudo-science, just mathematics.
It's important for you to understand that neither the Poincaré recurrence
theorem nor mine are making any claims about the physical reality; I am neither
claiming that reincarnation is a reality, nor that it isn't. Both theorems are
assertions that can be proved, with the only usage of logic, in the frame of a
mathematically well-defined physical model, and thus they reveal properties of
the models that might not have been obvious at the first glance. That's all there
is about it. The model is not the reality, it is only our mathematical description of
it. And history has always learned us that our models are wrong, all of them.
They all fail to pass the reality test at some point. Because physical models are
falsifiable - experimentally. Maybe not every single logical consequence of the
model can be, in practice, falsified experimentally, but some of them can, and
when they are, the whole model has to be considered to be wrong. But the
theorems stay, at least as expressions of properties of the models, even if these
properties have been falsified as properties of the physical reality.
Now the physical model I'm proposing is, in my opinion, the best one we
currently have, and it definitely has this "reincarnation" property. This situation
is intellectually stimulating and quite ironic, I think, because science (theoretical
physics) is finally supporting (although perhaps against her will) old pseudo-
scientific claims (religious beliefs in reincarnation). And it won't be easy to
construct a physical theory as good as the model I'm proposing (encompassing
both quantum field theory and subjective experience) which doesn't exhibit this
"reincarnation" property. It's possible, though, but a bit artificial. I think that the
theorem wouldn't hold if the duration of the elementary evolution step would be a
random number following a negative exponential distribution, for instance. But
this would make the theory artificially complicated, in my opinion, and would
make a difference that would be very elusive to measure experimentally.
That's the reason why I asked you I you could work out alternative physical
models in which the reincarnation theorem wouldn't hold.
Vimal: [1] In my view, ‘real’ science is based on both logic and empirical
evidence, and ‘pseudoscience’ is based on only logic. Both are, of course, science.
[2] Furthermore, in my extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework, there is
no separate mental state or mental space because of the doctrine of
inseparability. All states are dual-aspect (1pp-mental and 3pp-physical) states. In
your framework, mental and quantum states together are called physical state,
please note the terminology to avoid confusion; you then try to associate a
195
Dvi-Pakṣa
quantum state with mental state, which can violate the doctrine of inseparability.
Thus, in my eDAM framework, it will be dual-aspect states, which are contained
in Hibert space generalized for dual-aspect monism. [3] My problem is NOT in the
reoccurrence of fundamental experiences (such as redness, greenness, and so
on); here your reoccurrence theorem is fine; these fundamental subjective
experiences (SEs) certainly reoccur in space and time (in past, present and
future), otherwise we, as trichromats, will never agree that a ripe tomato looks
red. Problem is when you consider a derived transient and intermediate SE for
whole universe that contains innumerable SEs experienced by innumerable
living entities, as elaborated before. It fails, on the combination of even two
entities: one SE (with probability pj) and a process of holding (with probability
pk). If there is no scientific evidence of resurrection of the dead jth brain, then
how can we have the reoccurrence of jth brain-NN-state in future to experience
the jth SE? If this is not possible, then pj = 0 in my example, and hence total p =
(pj.pk) = 0. Thus, the probability of reoccurrence theorem for whole universe is
very close to zero, unless you consider initial state as unmanifested state of dual-
aspect primal entity; this of course will reoccur in next cycle if cyclic universe is
correct. However, as per (Krauss, 2012), ‘flat’ universe hypothesis is preferred
over ‘cyclic’ universe. [4] FYI: If you believe in the resurrection of Jesus, then it is
just your belief. There is some evidence that the Jesus never died. After
crucifixion, his friends treated him with medicine for few days and hence
reappeared. His friends secretly brought him to Kashmir (India) and he then
learned Vedas. He implemented them in his Christianity because the
metaphysics is precisely the same for Hinduism and Christianity, and also other
major religions.
Critique3: [1] Pseudoscience is science?!! Don't you think you should be a bit
more careful when using such concepts? Pseudoscience is rather something
that lacks scientific character, I think everyone agrees about that. [2] a) I see no
point on arguing on that. I am not claiming that resurrection is real, as I've just
told you. So what do you have a problem with actually? With the reality of
resurrection? It's fine! But why don't you also have a problem with the
impossibility of resurrection, then? Do we have any scientific proof of the
impossibility of resurrection? No! So please, be consequent and doubt both the
reality and the impossibility of resurrection. This is the only
possible scientific attitude towards this question. b) "There is no evidence for X"
is not the same as "There is an evidence for non X". Before 1992, some people
believed that there were exoplanets (planets outside of the solar system), some
other believed that there were none, while the rest didn't have any opinion on
196
Dvi-Pakṣa
this question. Nobody had a scientific (empirical) evidence of the existence of

exoplanets, nor of their non-existence. Would you have said, then, "If there is no
scientific evidence for exoplanets, then how could there be exoplanets in the
future?" It is exactly the (pseudo-scientific) argument you are putting forward
against resurrection. And history would have proved that you were wrong,
since 940 exoplanets have been identified scientifically in the meanwhile.
Vimal: My definition of pseudoscience is the science (organized knowledge) that

is based on logic only without real-scientific empirical evidence. Yes,
pseudoscience lacks real-scientific character. Some of the religious knowledge
(such as Vedānta’s samādhi state) is indeed ‘real science’ because it is
reproducible and activates pleasure center and hence gives liberation from our
conventional sufferings, but some (such as life-after-death, reincarnation, etc.)
are also organized logical knowledge that lack real-scientific empirical evidence,
so it falls under pseudoscience. Both pseudoscience and real-science are
organized knowledge so they are science as far as I am concerned.
---xxx---Fauvel--- Reincarnation
Vimal: Is there any authentic data related to life-after-death?
Critique4 (July 19th 2013 at 04:49): Well, there definitely is! Some interesting
references are: (Braude, 1992; Fontana, 2009; Fracasso & Friedman, 2011;
Greyson, 2010; Ring & Cooper, 1997; Stevenson, 1992, 1995).
Vimal: Can materialism explain these data? Or you need interactive substance
dualism to explain them.
Critique4 (July 20th 2013 at 07:27): I guess materialism can explain everything
in away! Or, better, explain them away! Anyways, you’d better have an
(unbiased!)
---xxx---NDE/OBE
As per (Fracasso & Friedman, 2011), “Claims from those having near‐death
experiences (NDEs), as well as those sympathetic to such claims, challenge the

prevailing assumption that consciousness is dependent on a functioning brain.
197
Dvi-Pakṣa
Extant theories, both neurobiological and psychosocial, that attempt to explain

NDEs are examined and found unable to adequately account for the full range of
NDE reports, especially electromagnetic after‐effects and out‐of‐body experiences
with veridical perception. As a result, many leading NDE researchers have

proposed that a new model is needed to explain how consciousness could
possibly exist independently of the brain, mainly relying on theories from
quantum physics. Our paper critically evaluates a range of extant neurobiological
and psychosocial theories of NDEs, as well as examines theories that might offer
more promise in fully explaining NDEs, especially those using insights derived
from quantum physics. We conclude that the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness is
not yet solved, but that NDEs provide an important avenue for exploring the
relationship between consciousness and brain, as well as possibly understanding
a disembodied concept of consciousness. […] Lorber’s (1980) classic paper, for
example, showed that individuals with greatly diminished brains can still
function adequately or, in some cases, even superiorly. Perhaps the most
promising of these lines of evidence for examining this pivotal question involves
near-death experiences (NDEs) in which consciousness appears to persist during
the temporary absence of signs of brain functioning or so called ‘brain death.’”
Neurobiological and Psychosocial Theories and their problems: As per

(Fracasso & Friedman, 2011), “[1: Natural Opiates] Blackmore (1993) and Carr
(1982) suggested that natural opiates released under extreme stress account for
the feelings of peace and joy reported by many NDErs. According to Blackmore,
excessive amounts of released endorphins cause temporal and limbic lobe
seizures in areas affecting memory, accounting for phenomena such as a ‘life
review’ in which NDErs commonly report re-experiencing their past through vivid
memories. As for the commonly reported ‘tunnel experience,’ Blackmore and
Troscianko (1989) proposed that these are hallucinations that result from a
disturbance in the visual cortex, possibly from excessive endorphins that create
the illusion of a break-down in time and dissolution of the self (i.e., a mystical
experience). One limitation of this theory is that endorphins and other opioids
that are naturally released for pain control last for many hours, whereas the
pleasant feelings experienced during NDEs are very brief in duration (Fenwick, et
al., 2007; Greyson, 2009). As of this date, this theory has also failed to account
for out-of-body experiences (OBEs) with reports of veridical perception where
198
Dvi-Pakṣa
NDErs have accurately described resuscitation efforts that have allegedly been
verified by medical staff (Greyson, 2009; 2010; Holden, 2009; Holden et al.,
2006). […2: Ketamine] Rogo (1984) suggested that NDEs may be a chemically-
induced experience that occurs when ketamine is administered by clinicians as
an anesthetic in emergency situations. … many NDEs occur without any drugs
being administered, so it is difficult to attribute NDEs to anesthesia effects,
something also mentioned by others (e.g., Twemlow and Gabbard, 1997). […3:
Temporal Lobe] NDErs had increased temporal lobe activity solely in the left
hemisphere, not the right hemisphere (note: temporal lobe activity in the right
hemisphere is more common among patients with epilepsy). […4: Altered Blood
Gases] Several theorists suggested that NDEs are a result of anoxia or hypoxia in
the dying brain (Blackmore, 1983; Whinnery, 1997). … [but] none of the
participants in Whinnery’s study reported experiencing a life review, OBEs,
seeing non-physical beings, having a conversation with a being of light, along
with reporting significant changes in spiritual or life values, which are all
commonly reported by NDErs […] many NDEs occur without increased carbon
dioxide levels, which suggests hypercarbia is not necessary for NDEs to occur.
[…5: REM Intrusion] cardiac arrest can evoke REM intrusion, explaining NDEs.
However, Greyson (2009) pointed out it is not known whether REM intrusion
contributed to the NDEs or was a result of the NDEs. […6: Ocular
Physiological] when arterial blood pressure drops, the eyes become ischemic
and hypoxic, disturbing the retina and that may result in visual sensations
reported by NDErs. … However, this model fails to account for OBEs that were
reported during the NDE […7: Depersonalization] Noyes and Kletti (1977)
proposed a depersonalization theory of NDEs as a form of detachment that
occurs as a psychological defense against the fear of death. However …
depersonalization … include feelings of strangeness, a sense of decreased reality
or loss of reality, and detachment from one’s body. In contrast, common reports
from NDErs state that NDEs seem more (not less) real than consensual reality
[…8: Personality Factors] Gabbard and Twemlow (1984) proposed that NDEs
are more likely to occur in individuals who have personality characteristics prone
to dissociation, absorption, or fantasy-proneness. … NDE is simply a
psychological defense that occurs under a high state of stress or trauma.
However, studies have shown contradictory results and do not reveal significant
relationships between the NDE and absorption or fantasy-proneness personality
traits … Greyson suggested studies are inconclusive, since it has not been
determined whether dissociation was a trait prior to the NDE or a result of the
NDE or due to any number of other factors, such as lack of social validation or
support for the experience. […9. Attribution:] Norton (1995) suggested that how
199
Dvi-Pakṣa
individuals interpret NDEs are a result of how they make sense out of and
simplify the experience, as well as resolve ambiguities associated with it. …
However, Greyson (2009) pointed out that this theory fails to take into account
why there appears to be universal themes consistently reported by NDErs,
although it may be useful in explaining how each individual subjectively
interprets and finds meaning in their experience. [10. Expectation:] Rodin
(1980; 1989) proposed an expectation theory that NDEs are a psychological
response to the fear of death, which culminates from social and cultural
expectations. … a growing body of research has revealed cross-cultural
similarities of NDE reports … Furthermore, several other researchers have found
that individuals who have no prior knowledge of NDEs report the same
phenomenon as individuals who are familiar with NDEs prior to their NDE
experience … children who
presumably have not developed cultural or social expectations about NDEs
report the same type of NDE phenomenon that adults report [… 11. Birth:]
Sagan (1979) suggested that cross-cultural reports of seeing a bright light at the
end of the tunnel are universal due to simply remembering of one’s birth, which
is a universal experience. … Greyson pointed out this theory does not account for
NDErs who were born through a Cesarean section, yet still report seeing a bright
light and floating through a dark tunnel. […OBEs with Veridical Perception]
NDErs commonly report the occurrence of OBEs with veridical perception both
locally (i.e., reporting about the immediate surroundings during brain death,
such as resuscitation efforts) and non-locally (i.e., reporting being in another
place, such as accurately describing what relatives were doing and/or saying at a
physical distance, as in a waiting room). However, this is where great debates
ensue: some suggest that these reports are ‘proof’ that consciousness was
separate from the brain (Carter, 2010; Greyson, 2010) [A reported NDE must
have 3pp-physical aspect of the state of a NDEr's brain-NN; otherwise the NDEr
cannot report these kinds of NDEs. This implies eDAM not ISD], while others
remain skeptical (Laws and Perry, 2010) and argue that more rigorous scientific
methods need to be developed (e.g., that there needs to be better ways to
establish that the brain was actually dead during the OBE to rule out factors
such as so-called ‘anesthesia awareness’). … What is particularly compelling is
that Pam stated that she was vividly able to see Dr. Spetzler use the bone saw to
make an incision in her scalp … under general anesthesia … her eyes were taped
shut … Holden separated
these into material and ‘transmaterial’ aspects. Those with material aspects are
anecdotes reported by NDErs that involve seeing/hearing aspects of the physical
world, while transmaterial aspects are reports that involve experiencing a
200
Dvi-Pakṣa
different “realm” (e.g., seeing a light, seeing deceased relatives/loved ones, etc.).
Holden (2009) then broke these down even further by discussing apparently
nonphysical veridical NDE perception (AVP): In AVP, NDErs report veridical
perception that, considering the positions and/or conditions of their
physical bodies during the near-death episodes, apparently could not have been
the result of normal sensory processes or logical inference – nor, therefore, brain
mediation – either before, during, or after these episodes. Thus, AVP suggests the
ability of consciousness to function
independent of the physical body. (p.186) […Call for a New Paradigm] a number
of writers have been calling for scientific theories that could possibly better
answer the hard problem, which might also help explain how consciousness
could exist independently of a functioning brain during NDEs. [… Conclusion:]
On one hand, advocates of the validity of NDEs assert that the existing findings
challenge the prevailing materialistic paradigm and have already been validated
numerous times, providing sufficiently credible evidence that a disembodied
consciousness can operate separately from a functioning brain (Carter, 2010;
Greyson, 2010; van Lommel, 2006). However, counter-advocates argue that the
sheer number of reports of these phenomena, which are thought to be in the
millions, still do not meet the threshold to be considered scientifically validated
(Laws and Perry, 2010; Lynn et al., 2010). … Despite that many have proposed
innovative scientific theories to solve the hard problem, (such as electromagnetic,
quantum mind, reflexive monism, and space-time theories of consciousness; e.g.,
Stapp, 1993), it remains unsolved, but we think that NDEs provides one of the
most opportune access points to explore it and related important concerns.”
Vimal: The following for addressing NDE/OBE data can be added in the list for
‘Neurobiological and Psychosocial Theories’.
The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework: [1] The eDAM (Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita) framework is the extended dual-aspect monism (both aspects are
inseparable and are basic) that has 4 components: The eDAM framework has 4
components: (i) Dual-Aspect Monism framework (Vimal, 2008b), where each
entity-state has inseparable physical and mental aspects along with (ii) dual-
mode (conjugate matching between stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-
related-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-mode and then the selection
of a specific subjective experience) (Vimal, 2010c) and (iii) varying degrees of
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities (Vimal, 2013). The
mental aspect is from the subjective first person perspective (1pp) and the
physical aspect is from the objective third person perspective (3pp) for biological
entities. (iv) The fourth component includes (a) the segregation and integration of
dual-aspect information and (b) the necessary conditions of consciousness. “The
201
Dvi-Pakṣa
necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are: formation of

neural-networks, wakefulness, reentry, attention, information integration,
working memory, stimulus contrast at or above threshold, and potential
experiences embedded in neural-network. Attention is not necessary for
phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness” (Vimal, 2014). The eDAM framework
in temporal domain is further elaborated to some extent in (Vimal & Davia, 2008,
2010).
This framework has the least number of problems compared to all other
frameworks.
[2] As per (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007), “Self is considered as the subjective experience
of a subject.” As per (Vimal, 2013), “The Self, in the eDAM framework, is the
mental aspect of the self-related NN[neural-network]-state; its [this NN-state’s]
physical aspect is self-related NN [such as cortical midline structures] and the
related activities. Self is inside the brain where it roughly seems to be. […] the
mind-brain equivalence hypothesis (Damasio, 2010) … proposes (a) the two
stages of evolutionary development of the self: the self-as-knower (‘I’) and the self-
as-object (‘me’) and (b) the three steps of the self-as-knower: protoself, core self,
and autographical self. […] Damasio elaborated in detail the physical aspect of
the three steps of self-as-knower (Damasio, 2010): (i) protoself (generated in
brain-stem for the stable aspect of the organism with primordial feelings such as
hunger, thirst, hot, cold, pain, pleasure, and fear; it is independent of the
organism-environment interaction); (ii) core self (“generated when the protoself
is modified by an interaction between the organism and an object and when, as a
result, the image of the object are also modified” (p.181); it involves the ‘feeling of
knowing the object’, its ‘saliency’, and a sense of ownership (p.203)) [core self
involves brain-stem and thalamus]; and (iii) autobiographical self (“occurs
when objects in one’s biography generate pulses of core self that, subsequently,
momentarily linked in a large-scale coherent pattern” (p.181), allowing
interaction with multiple objects [and involves brain stem, thalamus, and
cerebral cortex]).
[3] The NDE, OBE, reincarnation and life-after-death data can also be explained
by the brain-environment-interaction based extended dual-aspect monism
(eDAM/Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework: (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) and (Vimal,
2012a, 2012b). There are two possibilities: The self is brain-based, as discussed
above in [2], or is independent of brain (so far no scientific evidence!). In latter
case, self is related to soul/ātman/ruh, which is a dual-aspect entity with its
physical aspect latent (~ ‘subtle body’).
[4] One could argue that although there is some evidence for states that appear
to be disembodied, but this is different from the evidence for disembodiment
(where self can be separated from its body). In any case, the state of self-related
entity has always dual-aspect: mental and physical.
202
Dvi-Pakṣa
[5] In the eDAM framework, for OBE/NDE, the mental aspect of the relevant
neural-network (NN)-state (a psychophysical entity) appears projected outside, as
we experience outside objects. However, the physical aspect (NN and related
activities) of this state is inside the brain.
Furthermore, in NDE/OBE, activities (such as visual and auditory) in NNs still go

on (but not detected clinically). It will be useful if subject wear eye-patches and
earplugs so no external stimulus-information can travel inside visual and
auditory system. Under these conditions, one can predict no visual and auditory
OBE/NDE related to external objects; however, endogenous OBE/NDE can still
occur. It is puzzling: Pam’s eyes were taped shut but she was vividly able to see
that Dr. Spetzler used the bone saw to make an incision in her scalp. This has an
explanatory gap problem: how can she ‘see’ all that when eyes were taped? Even
the ‘consciousness independent of the brain’ (interactive substance dualism)
hypothesis needs brain to perceive anything. One could argue that she might
have heard the noise of bone saw and then she made up a story that she saw it.
Is she synesthetic? This data needs to be replicated many times with care before
concluding anything.
[6] Materialism is certainly rejected because of the explanatory gap problem: how
can experiences arise from non-experiential material entity? However, this does
not entail that consciousness exists independent of the brain because the eDAM
framework (where 1pp-subjective-mental and 3pp-objective-physical aspects of a
state of an entity including brain are inseparable) can explain the short-duration
NDEs and OBEs data. For example, these (NDEs/OBEs) experiences must have
correlated neural-networks (NNs: such as left-temporal lobe, limbic lobe, and
visual areas) and activation-deactivation profile. The hypothesis ‘consciousness
independent of the brain’ can be tested: if brain activities during NDEs are the
same as during without NDEs (say using highly sensitive and high strength
fMRI), then one could try investigating where from NDEs arise. Until then this
hypothesis is untenable because it is a part of interactive substance dualism,
which has serious problems as discussed in (Vimal, 2010d) and Section 2.4 of
this book.
Critique4 : Is transpersonal psychology consistent with a materialist account of

consciousness? “…Thereupon, it could be concluded that both a non-reductive,
though philosophically debatable (Crane, 1994), materialistic approach and the
transpersonal orientation may be equally useful and functional; nevertheless for
different levels of observation, analysis and explanation.”
Vimal: Transpersonal psychology is “a school of psychology that studies

the transpersonal, self-transcendent or spiritual aspects of the human
experience. Transpersonal experiences may be defined as ‘experiences in which
the sense of identity or self extends beyond (trans) the individual or personal to
203
Dvi-Pakṣa
encompass wider aspects of humankind, life, psyche or cosmos’ (Walsh &

Vaughan, 1993). Issues considered in transpersonal psychology include
spiritual self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences, mystical
experiences, systemic trance and other sublime and/or unusually expanded
experiences of living.”
Materialism (including non-reductive physicalism) certainly has serious problems

as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010d); therefore, it has to be rejected. [Non-reductive
physicalism is “the idea that while mental states are caused by physical states
they are not reducible to physical properties (i.e. of a different ontological class)”.]
This does mean that Interactive Substance Dualism, Idealism (matter arises from
mind: opposite of materialism), and/or transcendentalism is correct because they
also have serious problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010d). On the other hand,
the eDAM framework has the least number of problems compared to all other
metaphysics as elaborated in 3 articles (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013). This
framework is implemented in religions (Vimal, 2012a, 2012b), which can be
extended to transpersonal psychology with various levels. The higher levels are
mostly related to altered (fourth) state of mind-brain system, such as samadhi
state (Vimal, 2009d) that also activates our pleasure center. In other words,
transpersonal psychology is incompatible with materialism; however, it is
comaptible with the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013).
To sum up, I am skeptical about the proposal of ‘consciousness being

independent of brain’ (that is part of Interactive Susbtance Dualism: ISD) based
on data related to reincarnation and NDEs/OBEs because data collections have
loopholes, which entails this misleading proposal. All the possible loopholes need
to be listed first and then must be closed before any conclusion can be made.
Some of the loopholes are: (i) Subjective bias/belief loophole: unbiased
experimenters were not present since mother conceive baby to when a young
child subject S claims PP’s information for the first time. Skeptics can argue that
subjects may be biased: Ss may have reported the PP’s information that they
already might have known from others because firm beilievers just want to make
their beliefs on reincarnation and life-after-death stronger so that others could
also believe (this is called ‘Gīta ka satya’: some people misinterpret Gīta’s
suggestion that telling lies is fine (equivalent to ‘practical truth’) under some
circumstances!). (ii) Missing neural correlates of NDE/OBE loophole:
NDE/OBE experiments should have fMRI data (which is difficult, but not
impossible) for NDE/OBE-subjects to compare with control. If there is a
signficant difference in neural acitivities between NDE/OBE-subjects and
controls, then (i) ISD cannot be maintained, and (ii) the claim that NDEs have no
apparent neural correlates (Blackmore, 2003) is untenable. (iii) Metaphysics-
selection loophole: Even if the reincarnation and NDE/OBE experiements
closes all the loopholes, the best metaphysics with least number of problems
should be selected, such the eDAM framework, certainly NOT the ISD that has 7
204
Dvi-Pakṣa
serious problems elaborated in (Vimal, 2010d) and Section 2.4 of this book
(Vimal, 2012b).
Critique5: As per (Carruthers, forthcoming), “Contemporary theories of self-

consciousness typically begin by dividing experiences of the self into types, each
requiring separate explanation. The stereotypical case of an out of body
experience (OBE) may be seen to suggest a distinction between the sense of
oneself as an experiencing subject, a mental entity, and a sense of oneself as an
embodied person, a bodily entity. Point of view, in the sense of the place from
which the subject seems to experience the world [objects other than body?], in
this case is tied to the sense of oneself as a mental entity and seems to be the
‘real’ self. Closer reading of reports, however, suggests a substantially more
complicated picture. For example, the ‘real’ self that is experienced as separate
from the body in an OBE is not necessarily experienced as disembodied. Subjects
may experience themselves as having two bodies. In cases classed as there is
considerable confusion regarding the apparent location of the experiencing
subject; is it the ‘real mind’ in the body I seem to be looking out from, or is it in
the body that I see? This suggests that visual point of view can dissociate from
the experience of one’s own ‘real mind’ or experience of self-identification. I
provide a tripartite distinction between the sense of ownership, the sense of
embodiment and the sense of subjectivity to better describe these experiences.
The phenomenology of OBEs suggests that there are three distinct forms of self-
consciousness which need to be explained. […] the ‘real’ self that is experienced
as separate from the body in an OBE is not necessarily experienced as
disembodied. The subject may, for example, experience themselves as having two
bodies. […]‘The sense of embodiment’ refers to the feeling of being an embodied
subject, ‘the sense of ownership’ refers to the feeling of owning or possessing a
body and finally ‘the sense of subjectivity’ refers to the feeling of being a subject
of experience. Self-identification, according to these distinctions, appears tied to
the sense of embodiment and the sense of subjectivity, but not the sense of
ownership. A consideration of the phenomenology of OBEs thus suggests that
there are (at least) three forms of self-consciousness to be explained. […] two
forms of self-consciousness. … we appear to be (in self-consciousness) embodied
persons and subjects of experience [of objects other than body?]. Call these the
sense of bodily self and the sense of mental self. […] Metzinger says “attentional
agent”—as the seen body can be represented as an agent of bodily action […]
This impression probably did not persist for more than 15 seconds, but for that
time, it was as though my `body’ was down below the real `me’, continuing to
deliver the prepared speech, while `I’ was watching from above […] I felt as if
something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking
at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well […] two distinct forms of
self-consciousness. First is the experience of the self as an attentional agent and
subject of experience, in other words as a mental entity. This is distinct from the
ways in which one is conscious of one’s body. […] the basis subjects have for
205
Dvi-Pakṣa
identifying the body as their own is a feeling of identification and not the
recognition of features of the body. This is rather more like normal self-
consciousness. […] Blanke and colleagues (2002) describe a subject who reported
seeing only the lower half of her body. […] subjects experience the seen body as
their own body but it is not the case that this is based on the mere recognition of
the visual features (as may happen when one comes to identify oneself in a
photograph one didn’t realise was taken). It is just felt to be one’s own body. […]
Self-identity is instead tied to the sense of mental self, i.e. it is the apparently
disembodied subject that seems to be the ‘real’ self. […] Denying that such
experiences are veridical again leaves us in a position where we seem to
represent ourselves in two dissociable ways. […] Normally, we experience the
mental self as being ‘within’ the bodily self, but in OBEs these two selves are
represented as being at different locations. […] The phenomenology of out of body
experiences and the insufficiency of distinctions between a mental and bodily self
[…] Normally, these two selves are represented as being spatially overlapping—
with the location of the subject being within the boundaries of the body. But, in
OBEs the two selves are represented as being at different locations. […] First,
subjects frequently experience not one, but two bodies during an OBE with the
subject seeming to be embodied in the second [illusory?] body. […] Second, by
considering reports of heautoscopy and not just classic OBEs we see that feelings
of self-identification are not necessarily tied to the self as a mental entity or sense
of subjectivity. […] I conclude that OBEs suggest that there are three forms of
self-consciousness, not two, which need to be explained. […] The subject can
seem to be embodied during an OBE … In these cases the subject does not appear
embodied in the seen body, but rather in a second illusory body. […] In other
words OBE subjects often report seeing their body from within another version of
their own body. […] Blackmore (1984) also found that OBErs often experience
themselves as embodied in an illusory body during OBEs. […] Sense of self-
Identity is not always tied to the sense of subjectivity … subjects always feel that
their self-identity is tied more strongly to their mental self than their bodily self
[…] In cases of heautoscopy subjects seem to see themselves not from an external
perspective nor as-if in a mirror but as though their entire self has been
duplicated (Blanke, 2012, p. 562; Brugger, 2002, p. 182). Unlike the classic OBE,
subjects experience two bodies both of which are identified with the self. […]
Importantly, during heautoscopy subjects are confused [certainly because of the
superposition of self-in-real-body and self-in-illusory-body] about the location of
the ‘real’ self despite the fact that the subjective point of view is located within
the real body. […] She saw herself not from an elevated visuo-spatial perspective,
as in out of body experience, but in front of her in normal size and colour without
a definable facial expression. … projected out of her body […] Interestingly,
however, this subject appears to experience both herself and her mind, her
thoughts and the like, as located at two places. As such, it is still possible to
interpret this report using the assumption that self-identity is always tied to the
mental self. If the mental self seems located at two places at once, then the
subject’s ‘real’ identity will seem similarly split. […] reports from subjects in
206
Dvi-Pakṣa
which feelings of identity are not necessarily tied to the subject’s experience of a
mental self […] Toward a more complex view of the phenomenology of self-
consciousness … ‘self-identification’ to refer to that aspect of self-consciousness
in which the subject feels that they identify with the body (be it real or illusory) …
self-identification can be tied either or both of the self as body and the self as
subject … This notion thus refers to the representation of the spatial location of
the origin of an egocentric reference frame, i.e. the point in space from which the
world seems to be perceived […] First is the tying of self-location and self-
identification to the body and volumes of space Blanke and Metzinger lack the
tools to describe those OBEs in which the subject seems to be located at a point
in space and not a second illusory body. […] ‘sense of embodiment’ … Most
definitively it is the experience of oneself as an embodied subject, i.e. the feeling
that one’s body is oneself. In the first person it is the feeling that I am this thing,
this body, in the world […] ‘sense of ownership’ … A sense of ownership
represents the owned object, i.e. the seen body, as an object external to the self
to whom it is self-attributed […] ‘sense of subjectivity’. This is the experience of
oneself as a subject of experience, that is, as a self to whom experience occurs …
The subject is experienced as, at least in principle, separable from the body […]
To be a subject of experience is to be a mental entity, so to experience oneself as
a subject implies that one experiences oneself as something which has a mind,
that is, something that has perceptions, thoughts, plans etc., which are not, or at
least not in the same way, accessible by others […] Both the sense of
embodiment and the sense of subjectivity represent the self qua a self. The sense
of ownership, however, seems to represent the self in a different way. In
experiencing a sense of ownership I do not experience my body as myself, but
rather as an object which is attributed to me. […] First are cases of OBEs in
which the self, separated from the seen body, is felt to be embodied in a second
illusory body. […] Such subjects, in cases where they see their body, experience
their body as their own, but clearly they do not feel embodied in it. […] two kinds
of body experience … first type of OBE [different spatial location and body-part-
size] … In the second type of OBE, subjects report not that they experience two
bodies separated in space, but rather that they are a point in space from which
they see the world which is separate from their body. … In the first type of OBEs
those selves seem to spatially overlap, as in normal experience. In the second
type the sense of embodiment is apparently absent and so self-identification is
attached to the sense of subjectivity alone. […]by proposing a tripartite
distinction between the sense of embodiment, the sense of ownership and the
sense of subjectivity, a more accurate description of the phenomenology of OBEs
can be given. A consideration of OBEs thus suggests that a theory of self-
consciousness should explain at least these three forms of self-consciousness.”
Vimal: Heautoscopy is reduplicative hallucination of "seeing one's own body at a

distance: the phenomenon of the double. Heautoscopy is considered as one
possible explanation for the doppelgänger phenomena It also describes the
sensation of having glimpsed oneself in peripheral vision, in a position where
207
Dvi-Pakṣa
there is no chance that it could have been a reflection. Recent scientific

experimentation has duplicated several doppelgänger effects when electrical
stimulation was applied to the left temporoparietal junction of the brain of a
patient.
[1] [1.1] Subjective experience (SE) of body as object is the ‘experience of the self
as a bodily being’. SE of objects other than body is the ‘experience of the self as a
mental being’; both body and other objects have representations in our brain
with different neural-networks (NNs) and their activities; self is represented in
self-related areas such as cortical midline structures (CMS).
[1.2] Thus, there are three types of signals (self-related, body-related, and other-
objects-related signals) and two types of interactions: (i) self-related signals
interacting with other-objects-related signals, and (ii) self-related signals
interacting with body-related signals. The self acts as an agent in both (i) as
mental-self and (ii) as body-self, respectively.
[1.3] Moreover, self is embodied in the brain-body system in normal healthy

subjects for evolutionary advantage; for that, TPJ (temporal-parietal junction)
remains deactivated. In OBEs, the self is disembodied because somehow TPJ is
activated. It is unclear if head and backside are seen during OBEs; both not seen
in normal SEs!
[2] [2.1] In other words, various NNs and related signals are: (A) self-related NN
and signals, (B) other-object representation: stimulus-dependent feed forward
and cognitive feedback NN and signals, (C) body-object representation.
(i) The A↔B interaction entails (a) SE/sense-of-subjectivity/mental-self and (b)

sense-of-ownership of SE (such as my experience). (ii) A↔C interaction entails (a)
sense-of-embodiment/body-self and (b) sense-of-ownership of body/body-part as
object (such as my body, my hand).
[2.2] If A↔C interaction is slightly disturbed to totally abolished/lesioned then

various degrees of two types of OBEs to total disembodiment and that of the
disturbance of sense-of-ownership of body occur.
[2.3] The two types of OBEs are: (1) bodies being at different spatial locations and
both types of self (mental-self and body-self) is embodied in the illusory body and
experiencing different body-part-size of real body, And (ii) subjects experience
that they are a point in space (i.e., sense-of-embodiment in both illusory and real
bodies is lost and hence self-identification is attached to the sense of subjectivity
alone); from this subjects see the world which is separate from their body.
Critique5: [1.1] I'm not sure I quite understand this "SE of objects other than
body is the experience of the self as a mental being"- whilst it is possible that any
208
Dvi-Pakṣa
experience of an object (other than the body) also involves experience of the self
as a mental being (the sense of subjectivity) those are still distinguishable
feelings.
[1.2] I agree there are both mental and bodily forms of agency (as well as
experiences of agency).
[2.1.(i).a] I'm not sure that a sense of subjectivity is entailed by this
interaction alone, it depends on the details of what 'self-related signals' are; can
you say a bit more on that?
[2.1.(i).b] Again I think this depends on the details of self-related processing.
[2.2] Something like that is probably right, but I'd like to see more on what
the A-C interaction you are proposing amounts to, e.g. what contents are being
processed?
[2.3] I agree that those are the two types of OBEs.
Vimal: How do we define subject? If subject includes subject’s body then this
body and its parts have representations in our brain and have related signals.
These signals interact with signals from self-related areas (such as CMS). If
subject does not include its body and parts, then just interactions are limited to
self-related areas. Other objects (other than body and its parts) have
representations in feed forward areas and related signals. Thus, one could argue
for two aspects of self (SE of subject): with or without subject’s body and its
parts. Furthermore, SEs of objects (other than body and its parts) are different
from SE of the subject (self) because of different interactions. Self-related areas
are defined in (Northoff, 2007; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004; Northoff et al., 2006).
---xxx---MARepa, Carruthers
16 In general, one can explain the creation of Universe from nothing (i.e., without
initial energy or mass) using classical and/or quantum approach. (Berman &
Trevisan, 2010) proposes classical approach as follows: one can apply General
Theory of Relativity (GTR) (or other classical theories) to understand the evolution
of Universe after Planck’s time (t ~ 10−43 second). For t < 10−43 second, one needs
to accept that Einstein’s field equations results the average values for the
fluctuating quantities. For example, the quantum fluctuations in empty-space
before Planck’s time can be averaged using those equations. This is like the Path
Integral theory of Feynman (Feynman & Hibbs, 1965), which proposes that paths
fluctuate around the average trajectories; this average trajectory can be
estimated using classical physics. In other words, the exponential expansion in
inflationary phase of the very early Universe can be studied by the equation of
state. Classically, total energy = |energy of all matter| − |energy of the
gravitational field| = 0. In other words, the creation of the Universe does not need
energy or mass as long as it is Machian (see (Feynman, 1962-63)) Thus, one can
explain the creation of the Universe, out of ‘nothing’ using classical physics.
209
Dvi-Pakṣa
(Krauss, 2012), a nonbeliever-physicist, summarizes the debate between

science’s evolution hypothesis and religions’ creation hypothesis and proposes
universe(s) from ‘nothing’ on the basis of science; this endless debate is
addressed by the eDAM framework. They along with information from other
sources are given as follows:
(i) The debate between science and religions: One could ask interesting
questions related to the origin of universe(s) and physical laws in science and
that of the external agent creator (Brahman, God, Allāh, and so on) in religions.
One could argue for eternal universe with or without Creator. If we compromise
that creator is also universe itself or at the least a part of universe, then we can
easily address this debate by the eDAM framework, where each entity-state has
inseparable mental (M) and physical (P) aspects with varying degrees of the
dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities. The domain of science
is the physical aspect and that of religions is the mental aspect. As long as the
crossing of domains is prohibited (i.e., materialistic science must not try to
explain mental aspects and religions must not try to explain physical aspects),
science and religions can develop their models of the creation/evolution of
universe(s) without any contradiction because of the doctrine of the inseparability
of aspects. In other words, for example, the information provided by science
related to the physical aspect will be faithfully, automatically, rigorously
translated in to the mental aspect because the aspects are inseparable (both
aspects are in 1-1 correspondence in this sense). That debate will re-start if we
make category mistake by crossing of domains, i.e., science starts explaining our
consciousness and religions start explaining our material brain. In other words,
same-same (P-P and M-P) explanations are allowed but cross explanations (M-P
or P-M) are prohibited to avoid category mistakes.
In the unmanifested state of universe/creator/empty-space (pre-Big-Bang
state), the aspects are latent, so this state appears aspectless. The manifestations
of universe start after the Big-Bang and there are innumerable manifested states
of universe.
(ii) Laws and entities: From scientific point of view, universe can
spatiotemporally infinite and physical laws could be like the layers of onion, with
new laws operating at a new scale/entity-level; for example, classical physical
laws at larger classical scale and quantum laws at very small quantum scale. In
the eDAM framework, all laws and entities potentially pre-exist in the
unmanifested state of universe; otherwise they will never be realized after the
manifestion of universe.
(iii) Definition of nothing: (a) for some believers, nothing is ‘nonbeing’ (non-
existence), in vaguely ill-defined sense; (b) for some believers, nothing is ‘as it is’
(exactly as one finds/sees it now without changing anything; (c) for some
believers, nothing is that from which only God can create something; (d) for some,
nothing is the ‘absence of something’; (e) for some classical scientists, nothing is
purely empty space without any real matter and/or radiation; (f) for some
quantum scientists, nothing is a quantum vacuum: the quantum state with the
lowest possible energy, i.e., the ground state of quantum field with minimum
210
Dvi-Pakṣa
energy without matter nad/or radiation; it is not truly empty but contains virtual
particles (fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of
existence); and (g) for some physicists nothing is no space, no time, no matter, no
radiation, no gravitational energy, no energy, no anything and total empty, but
virtual particles can exist. The eDAM framework is sympathetic to the definitions
(e), (f) and (g).
(iv) Potential pre-existence: One could argue that if entities and laws
potentially pre-exist in the unmanifested state of nothingness, then it is not a
state of true nothingness even if they spontaneously arise. In that case, even God
cannot create anything if there is no potential for creation. Therefore, the
potential pre-existence is a brute fact in the eDAM framework.
(v) Philosophy of science: It is based on three key premises: (i) we should follow
the scientific empirical evidences that are spatiaotemporally repeatable; (ii) we
must test our hypotheses and theories rigorously; and (iii) scientific experiments
are the ultimate judge/referee of truth.
(vi) Fundamental constants of universe: There are 6 fine tuned fundamental
costants of universe, which are fundamental to present-day physical theory and
the known structure of the universe; even a slight change will abolish life. As per
(Rees, 1999), the fine-tuning of the Universe requires six dimensionless
fundamental constants: (a) N = ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of
electromagnetism ≈1036, which governs the relative importance of gravity and
electrostatic attraction/repulsion in explaining the properties of baryonic matter;
(b) Epsilon (ε) = strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei = 0.007, which
governs the energy output of stars; (c) Omega (Ω) = relative importance of gravity
and expansion energy in the Universe ≈ 0.3, which determines the ultimate fate
of the universe; (d) Lambda (λ) = the ratio of the energy density of the universe
(due to the cosmological constant) to the critical density of the universe ≈ 0.7; (e)
Q = ratio of the gravitational energy required for breaking up and dispersing the
largest known structures (such as galactic cluster or supercluster) to the energy
equivalent of its mass ≈ 10–5; (f) D = number of spatial dimensions in spacetime =
3. In the God-theory, Creator planned to select each constant of above value, but
nothing is explained or predicted. The eDAM framework, since the constants are
related to the physical aspect of manifested states of universe, follows science.
(vii) Multiverse hypothesis: This hypothesis avoids external agent (God) for the
fine tuning of the fundamental constants. In other words, our universe is not
unique on large scale. There are presumably 10500 different possible consistent
4D universes, which could result from a single 10D string theory.
(viii) Geometries of universe: Our universe is expanding starting from the
extremely hot, dense Big Bang about 13.72 BYA. Our sun is one of 200–400
billion stars in our milky-way galaxy, which is one of about 400 billion galaxies in
the observable universe. These entail 3 types of geometries of our universe
depending upon the total amount of matter in it (represented by the curvature
Ω): closed, open, or flat. In a closed universe, the density of matter (such as stars,
galaxies, dark matter) and energy is sufficient to cause space to close back upon
itself, i.e, as per General Theory of Relativity, the total energy is zero, curvature
211
Dvi-Pakṣa
Ω>1, and our universe eventually recollapse in the process of Big Crunch (the
reverse of a Big Bang); this is cyclic model of universe. In an open universe, the
density of matter (curvature Ω<1) is such that our universe will continue
expanding forever at a finite rate. In a flat universe, the total energy is zero,
curvature Ω=1, and the expansion of universe slows down, but never stops.
(ix) Flat universe from nothing: Some theists argue that the average total
Newtonian gravitational energy of each galaxy being zero in a flat, expanding
universe is arbitrary, but that scientists use zero energy to argue against God;
this is unclear; it is the total energy (the positive matter/radiation energy plus
the negative grativational energy) of universe that is zero. (Krauss, 2012)
assumes that empty-space (without any matter or radiation) and the laws of
physics pre-exist. (Guth, 1997)’s ‘the ultimate free lunch’ implies that universe(s)
can be created from such ‘nothing’/empty-space, which can have a non-zero
energy (even in the absence of any matter or radiation) such as the ground state
of quantum field with minimum energy. Since the General Theory of Relativity
(GTR) suggests that space will expand exponentially and rapidly to encompass
our whole universe, which will get flatter and flatter as the minimum ground
state energy of empty space grows. This is because the related gravitational
‘pressure’ in empty space is negative, which implies that the rapid expansion
stores energy into space but not vice versa. At the end of inflation, this stored
energy of empty space is converted into the energy of real particles and
radiations. This effectively creates our universe with the present expansion of the
Big Bang. Since the inflation effectively erases the memory of the state of the
universe before it began, it is the traceable beginning of the Big Bang. If the
initial preexisting universe or metaverse were large, the complexities and
irregularities are initially in large scales. After sufficient inflationary expansion,
they are smoothed out and/or driven outside of the horizon today to the extent
our universe is almost uniform. Eventually, we will have flat universe with the
average Newtonian gravitational energy of all objects (total energy =
|matter/radiation energy| – |gravitational energy|) being zero. Thus, a universe
can begin as a microscopically small region of empty space and expand to our
observable universe with matters and radiations from nothing. This is because of
the dynamics of gravity and quantum mechanics. The process of inflation the
energy of empty space (nothing) converts into the energy of something/everything
(matters and radiations) in large and flat universe. The major assumptions are (a)
space with nothing (no matter and no radiation, but has minimum ground state
energy of quantum field) pre-exists (i.e., before Big Bang), (b) it can store energy,
and (c) the laws of physics like general relativity and quantum mechanics also
pre-exist that lead to the consequences of creating our universe. In quantum
world, the empty space is “a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out
of existence in a time so short we cannot see them directly. Virtual particles are
manifestations of a basic property of quantum systems. […] These ‘quantum
fluctuations’ imply something essential about the quantum world: nothing
always produces something, if only for an instant” (Krauss, 2012).p153. The
nothing with the ground-state minimum energy of quantum field in empty-space
212
Dvi-Pakṣa
is as if all energies of the infinite empty-space are sucked in at one point to result
the Big Bang.
As per (Wilczek, 1980, December) “One can speculate that universe began in
the most symmetrical state possible and that in such a state no matter existed;
the universe was a vacuum. A second state existed, and in it matter existed. The
second state had slightly less symmetry, but was also lower in energy. Eventually
a patch of less symmetrical phase appeared and grew rapidly. The energy
released by the transition found form in the creation of particles. This event
might be identified with the big bang … The answer to the ancient question ‘Why
is there something rather than nothing?’ would be that ‘nothing’ is unstable”.
(x) General Theory of Relativity (GTR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) in the
creation of Universe from nothing: Einstein once asked “whether God had any
choice in the creation of universe” (Krauss, 2012).p.160, where Einstein’s God
was related to the existence of order in the universe. God/Nature had choices if
multiverse model is true because our universe is a part of infinite multiverse of
universes with an infinite set of different combinations of laws and varieties of
particles and substances and forces; so our universe would not be unique.
However, if our universe is unique then God/Nature did not have choice. One
could argue that theists’ God (external agent) is unnecessary or redundant.
The GTR could address the dynamics not only of objects moving through
space, but also that of space itself (how it evolves). Therefore, the quantum
theory of gravity should explain both the properties of space and objects
existing/moving in space from micro/subatomic to macro/cosmological levels. In
the quantum electrodynamics (QED, the quantum theory of electromagnetism)
(Feynman, 1950), virtual particles/photons can pop out of empty space
spontaneously (at will) but they need to disappear in very short time calculated
from the Uncertainty Principle. This entails that small compact spaces may pop
in and out of existence (virtual universes) consistent with the Feynman quantum
sum over possible space-time configurations. (Hawking & Mlodinow, 2010)
implies that the quantum theory of gravity allows for the momentary creation of
space from nothing. However, the power for explaining universe from nothing by
this hypothesis is equivalent to that by the hypothesis of the virtual particles that
populate empty space. In QED, the charge can emit coherently many virtual zero-
energy-photons that do not have to disappear for a long time. This is because the
Uncertainty Principle (∆E.∆t ~ h) implies that the uncertainty in energy from its
zero average value (slight change of energy by the emission and absorption of
virtual particles) is inversely proportional to the time-period/duration of its
observation/measurement. Therefore, virtual particles with zero energy can exist
for arbitrarily long time and can travel for arbitrarily long distance before its
absorption leading to the possibility of long-range interactions between charged
particles. This process can lead to a nonzero real electric field observable at large
distance from a charged particle. Similarly, one could argue that a compact
universe (such as the one we live in) with zero total energy can spontaneously
appear from nothing and live for a long time without violating the energy
conservation.
213
Dvi-Pakṣa
As per (Hartle & Hawking, 1983), “There are excited states which represent
universes which expand from zero volume, reach a maximum size, and then
recollapse”. The Hartle-Hawking state is related to the state of the universe prior
to the Planck epoch, which is a no-boundary proposal that (a) the universe is
infinitely finite and (b) the time did not exist before the Big Bang. This is because
time started after the Big Bang; time did not exist before the formation of
spacetime linked with the Big Bang and then the expansion of the universe in
space-time. They propose that if we could travel backward in time toward the
beginning of the universe (Big Bang), there was first only space and no time, i.e.,
the notion of a beginning of the universe is meaningless, the universe has no
origin/beginning, it has no initial boundaries, and the universe was a singularity
in both space and time. The implications for the ‘boundary conditions’ on
universes (Hartle & Hawking, 1983) that can emerge from nothing are as follows:
(i) Since the total energy of a universe is zero, universes can spontaneously
appear from nothing with matter and radiation or without them (i.e., empty-
space). (ii) The process of inflation will be needed for creating a long-lived
universe from nothing using the above process; this universe that we live in
appears flat.
Thus, quantum gravity (GTR+QM) is prerequisite for the creation of universe
(that we live in) from nothing, where nothing means no space, no time, no
matter/radiation, no energy, no anything, but virtual particles can pop in and
pop out of existence and physical laws (GTR+QM) preexist; but this nothing is
unstable. This nothing is different from the quantum vacuum that contains
empty-space with the ground-state of quantum field with minimum energy; this
nothing is something; it has preexisting space, virtual particles, and physical
laws (such as GTR and QM). One could argue that virtual particles are
spontaneously created, which is acceptable to many. In addition, one could argue
for the creation of universe from preexisting empty space. However, then one
needs to hypothesize the origin of empty-space from ‘no space’ by postulating the
more fundamental nothingness (such as atheist Buddhist Śūnyatā) from which
empty space may have emerged, which eternally preexisted. In reverse process,
our universe may one day return to fundamental nothing via comprehensible
processes that do not require any external control/direction, such as God.
Everything appears as a miracle without science, whereas with science, nothing
is miracle as everything can be explained one day. However, we still need to
address the origins of physical laws.
(xi) Origins of physical laws: Theists can argue that the origin of physical laws
and other unknown entities is God (an agent external to universe). However, this
argument is not acceptable because it has an explanatory gap problem: precisely
how God can do it, i.e., the mechanism of origin of physical laws is unclear.
Alternatively, one could argue that the origin of physical laws can be
addressed by multiverse model, where innumerable universes are created from
nothing with their own physical laws on arbitrary basis. One of those universes is
our universe with its own current physical laws. The multiverse can be either (a)
in the form of a landscape of universes existing in more than 3D space (such as
214
Dvi-Pakṣa
in 10D string theory), or (b) in the form of a possible infinitely replicating set of
universes in a 3D space (such as in eternal inflation). There is no prescribed
cause for our universe if the physical laws are random and stochastic. This
allows a universe, such as our universe, would arise with its physical laws. This
is because nothing is required to fix the physical laws as they are. The physical
laws can vary with the levels (such as classical vs. quantum levels), in analogy to
an onion with millions of layers, as Feynman noted. There could be an infinite
number of infinitesimally small to infinitely big regions in a multiverse; some
regions may have nothing and some may have something (e.g., our universe). The
physical laws and the fundamental forces and constants of nature are merely
accidents correlated to our existence in this landscape of multiverse-anthropic
model. For example, life as we know it could not have evolved in our Earth if it
were located at a different distance from Sun.
However, all our scientific hypotheses require the potential for existence in the
fundamental nothingness, i.e., the potential for all matters, radiations, conscious
subjective experience, and so on.
(xii) The potential for existence in the fundamental (true) nothingness: If one
defines true nothingness that does not even have the potential for existence, it is
unclear that even God, as the First Cause (a supernatural agent external to
universe), can create universe from this true nothingness. This is because it is
unclear if the supernatural potential for existence is different from regular
natural scientific potential for existence as there is no empirical basis. One could
argue that atheist Buddhist nirvana is the state of true nothingness, which
involves the concept of Śūnyatā. As per some string theorists the empty-space
with positive minimum energy cannot be stable, which must decay to a state with
negative energy. This implies that our universe will then recollapse inward to a
point and our universe will disappear.
(xiii) Summary: The afterword by atheist-scientist Dawkins in (Krauss, 2012)
summarizes as follows: (a) the age of universe is 13.72 billion years; (b) since
nothingness is unstable, something (such as our universe) is bound to emerge;
(c) virtual particles (particles and antiparticles) pop in and out of existence
momentarily from nothing; (d) something (universe) from nothing spontaneously
happened at the beginning of space and time, via the doctrine of virtual particles,
at the Big Bang (singularity); (e) this is followed by the inflationary period, in
which our universe and its content took a fraction of a second to expand through
28 orders of magnitude; (f) Stenger, Weinberg, Peter Atkins, Martin Rees, and
Stephen Hawking also argue against external agent such as God; and (g) (Krauss,
2012)’s ‘A universe from Nothing’ for cosmology is the equivalent to the Darwin’s
‘On the Origin of Species’ for biology; both argue against supernaturalism.
17As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960).p271, “God resides in the body but he is outside
as well and is all-pervading. [p271 …] The objection that the Highest Self cannot
be a ruler for he has no organs of action is untenable because organs of action
may be ascribed to him since who he rules possess organs of action. [p278] […]
215
Dvi-Pakṣa
Ś. [Śankarācharya] believes that the declaration of the difference between the

embodied soul and the Indwelling Spirit has its reason in the limiting adjunct
consisting of the organs of action presented by ignorance, and is not absolutely
true. For the Self within is one only; two internal selves are not possible. But
owing to its limiting adjunct the one Self is practically treated as if were two, just
as we make a distinction between the space in the jar and the universal space. R.
[Rāmānujāchārya] uses this to establish the difference between the individual
soul and the Indwelling Spirit, the Supreme free from all evil. The two are
different because the individual soul is the abode and the Indwelling Spirit is the
one abides therein [p279-280]”.
Similar to the organs of action, one could argue for thinking and experiences
that the Highest Self has access to our brain’s NNs related to our thoughts and
experiences. However, do we have scientific evidence for such
Paramātman/Highest-Self? The debate between Śankarācharya and
Rāmānujāchārya regarding two selves (individual self and Indwelling
Paramātman) residing in us all the time can be addressed by Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita,
by hypothesizing that the Indwelling Paramātman is the individual self at
samādhi state (the mental aspect of relevant brain-state) having 3 major
experiences as reported by yogis: bliss, inner light perception, and the feeling of
unification of subject with all surrounding objects and space.
18 As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960).p250, “If we accept the view that the Scriptures
of the world are the records of the experiences of the great seers who have
expressed their sense of the inner meaning of the world through their intense
and deep imagination, we will not adopt an attitude of dogmatic exclusiveness.”
Therefore, seers’ hypotheses emerge from their intense and deep imagination
and hence they need to go through the same critical examinations as all
scientists’ hypotheses go through. There is no evidence that there exists an entity
God who knows what all humans are thinking and experiencing; so God’s
omniscience attribute is debatable. However, if God is the three major
experiences at samādhi state then one could argue that śrutis are hypotheses
directly from God (kārya Brahmin at samādhi state).
19As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960), “The Buddhist view that there is no permanent
Self cannot account for the feeling of self-identity. The Self cannot be reduced to
series of passing ideas. On such view it would be impossible to account for the
recognition of mental states and their differences. [p.31-32 …] Ś.
[Śankarāchārya who was the founder of Advaita] says we have refuted the
Buddhist theory of momentary existence for we have proved the eternal
216
Dvi-Pakṣa
continued existence of cause. [p.352 …] Ś. refers to the different developments of

Buddhism and mentions three, the Sautrānitaka and Vaibhāṣika which believe in
the reality of every object, sarvātivāda; and the Vijñānavāda which opines that
thought alone is real. For the nihilists everything is void or unreal; they adopt
Śūnyavāda. […] A series of cognitions of one’s self cannot be the cause. If the
series is different in character from the several momentary cognitions of which it
is made, then this is to admit a permanent self. If the series is momentary, it
cannot be active and bring into being the external and the internal worlds”.
Moreover, (Radhakrishnan, 1960) discussed arguments from Rāmānujāchārya
against Buddhist view as, “R. [Rāmānujāchārya] asks how on the doctrine of
momentariness, the aggregates the theory postulates can ever come into being. If
we are referred to the doctrine of dependent origination, pratītya-samutpāda, it
does not solve the difficulty. For though ignorance may lead to desire and so on
as they say and in the end to ignorance once again, this does not explain the
origination of the aggregates about which there is ignorance. To take the shell for
silver may be an act of ignorance. [p378 …] everything being momentary, the
subject who experiences the silver in the shell passes away with that experience”.
However, (Damasio, 2010) implies that the proto-self is permanent until death.
Furthermore, (Radhakrishnan, 1960) uses Brahma Sūtra (BS) to argue against
the doctrine of universal momentariness, “[as per BS: II.2.19:] If it be said that
(groupings of atoms and skandhas are possible) on account of mutual causality (of
avidyā and the rest), (we say) they are the cause only of origin (and not of
groupings). [as per BS:II.2.20:] Because on the origination of the subsequent
(moment) the preceding one ceases to be (therefore there can be no causal relation
between avidyā and the rest). … Between two momentary things, there cannot be
any relation for the first has ceased to be, when the second comes to exist. If we
say [p.379] that every consequent has in it the essence of the antecedent, we
deny the doctrine of universal momentariness. If origin and destruction are the
earlier and the later stages of one and the same thing, then the thing is assumed
to exist for three moments of time. [as per BS: II.2.21:] When (the cause) is
absent, (if the effect is present) there results the contradiction of the admitted
principle or else simultaneously (of cause and effect). … If it be said that there
may be an effect, even when there is no cause, the main principle of the school
that the mind and its states arise on account of the four causes, material cause
(ālambana), impression (samanantara), sense (adhipati) and auxiliary cause
(shahakāri) will have to be given up. If no cause is required, anything may come
into being at any time. If it is said that the antecedent continues to exist until the
consequent is produced, we accept the simultaneous existence of cause and
effect and reject the theory of universal momentariness. [p380]”
217
Dvi-Pakṣa
20 How should we interpret differences in views? One could argue that differences
in information obtained at samādhi/revelation/mystic state by various
ṛṣis/prophets/seers represent different aspects of the same fundamental dual-
aspect primal entity (such as unified field, unmanifested Brahman) because at
this state they presumably have 'direct perception' (consciousness-as-such). For
example, atheist religions such as Buddhism perhaps represent more of physical
aspect so it is closer to science, whereas theist religions represent more of its
mental aspect, so they are closer to God-theory. This is consistent with Toney
Nader’s (scholar in Vedic Science, personal communication on 10-May-12) view
on differences in different ṛṣis/prophets/seers.
21 Paranormal phenomena: As per <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal>,

“Some scientists have investigated possible neurocognitive processes underlying
the formation of paranormal beliefs. In a study (Pizzagalli et al., 2000) data
demonstrated that ‘subjects differing in their declared belief in and experience
with paranormal phenomena as well as in their schizotypal ideation, as
determined by a standardized instrument, displayed differential brain electric
activity during resting periods.’ Another study (Schulter & Papousek, 2008) wrote
that paranormal belief can be explained by patterns of functional hemispheric
asymmetry that may be related to perturbations during fetal development. […]
The survey found that 73 percent of those polled believed in at least one of the
ten paranormal items presented in the survey. The ten items included in the
survey were: extrasensory perception (41% held this belief), haunted
houses (37%), ghosts (32%), telepathy (31%), clairvoyance (26%), astrology (25%),
communication with the dead (21%), witches (21%), reincarnation (20%),
and channeling spiritual entities (9%). … Only one percent of respondents
believed in all ten items. […] 80% have reported having a premonition, and
almost 50% stated they recalled a previous life.”
Telepathy: “[Telepathy] is the transmission of information from one person to

another without using any of our known sensory channels or physical
interaction. [… It is] the transference of thoughts or feelings between two or more
subjects through Psi or extrasensory perception. […] One subject said to gain
information from another that was shielded from their traditional senses by
distance, time, or physical barriers. […] A physical model of telepathy, whether
described as radiational or in other terms, assumes that transference is effected
by means of a vibratory current linking one brain to another.[18] William
Crookes proposed a ‘brain wave’ theory in which he claimed telepathy might
occur due to high frequency vibrations of the ether. Crookes had stated that
there may be parts of the human brain that may be capable of sending and
receiving electrical rays of wavelengths.[19] William Fletcher Barrett and Frederic
William Henry Myers however pointed out problems in a physical theory for
218
Dvi-Pakṣa
telepathy and instead advocated psychical theories.[20] In the early 20th century,
there were two other prominent concepts of telepathy: the spiritualist position
which claimed telepathy was the result of external spirits, and a view claiming
interactions between two or more subconscious minds.[21] The subconscious
mind view was advocated by psychical researcher Thomson Jay Hudson who
wrote that the mind is a duality and actually consists of two minds: the objective
mind (conscious) and the subjective mind (subconscious).[22] The psychical
researcher John Arthur Hill wrote regarding telepathy ‘No physical theory of
telepathy has been worked out — there are no ‘brain-waves’ known, and no
receiving stations yet discovered inside our skulls.’[23] George N. M. Tyrrell also
claimed that a physical basis for telepathy was untenable as ideas can not be
transmitted from one mind to another by any physical means without being first
translated into a code.[24] H. H. Price also suggested that telepathy was
incompatible with any material explanation, as a physical theory of telepathy
would reveal radiations detectable on physical instruments but none have ever
been detected.[25] Some parapsychologists still proposed that telepathy may have
a physical explanation. The Italian neurologist Ferdinando Cazzamali in the
1920s had claimed that telepathic communication occurred due to a type
of electromagnetic radiation.[26] However the neurophysiologist William Grey
Walter in his book The Living Brain (1953) wrote that electrical ‘brainwaves’ are
too weak to explain telepathy. Hans Berger also held this view but extended the
theory by proposing that telepathy occurs when ‘electrical energy in the agent’s
brain is transformed into ‘psychic energy’ which can be diffused to any distance,
passing through obstacles without attenuation’.[27] In 1974 Michael
Persinger proposed that extremely low-frequency (ELF) electromagnetic
waves may be able to carry telepathic and clairvoyant information.[28] Johnjoe
McFadden has written ‘the em field outside the head is far too weak and it is
highly unlikely that any other brain could detect it, and still more unlikely that
the other brain could decode the em field information that was encoded by your
brain’.[29] Gerald Feinberg suggested that telepathy may exist due to as yet
undiscovered elementary particles which he called ‘psychons’ or ‘mindons’.[30][31]
In recent years the parapsychologist Charles Tart has accepted the existence of
telepathy but claims that it is nonphysical in nature and can not be fitted into
any physical theory.[32]”
Clairvoyance: “The term clairvoyance … is used to refer to the ability to gain

information about an object, person, location or physical event through means
other than the known human senses,[1][2] a form of extra-sensory perception. […]
Within parapsychology, clairvoyance is used exclusively to refer to the transfer of
information that is both contemporary to, and hidden from, the clairvoyant. It is
very different from telepathy in that the information is said to be gained directly
from an external physical source, rather than being transferred from the mind of
one individual to another.[8] […]Outside of parapsychology, clairvoyance is often
used to refer to other forms of anomalous cognition, most commonly the
perception of events that have occurred in the past, or which will occur in the
219
Dvi-Pakṣa
future (known as retrocognition and precognition respectively),[8][9] or to refer to

communications with the dead (see Mediumship). […] There are four primary
channels, clairsensing, trance, healing and physical […]Clairvoyance (seeing) and
clairaudience (hearing) for example are both kinds of clairsensing and belong in
that main group. […] Trance is the ability to communicate with, and mainly to
receive from, other entities, incarnate and discarnate, and may sometimes be
independent of time […]Healing is the ability to induct health benefits from some
usually unspecified higher source where the healer can direct the effects to the
beneficiary. Contact healing involves the healer being in the closest proximity but
not necessarily touching. Absent healing is explained by its alternative name of
distant healing and is independent of spatial distance. Physical mediumship
includes events such as table turning, production of quasi-physical objects (even
personages) and sometimes involving so-called ectoplasm. It is often said to
require either total darkness or at the most a weak red light. […] According to
skeptics, clairvoyance is the result of fraud, self-delusion,[9] Barnum
effects, confirmatory biases, or failures to appreciate the base rate of chance
occurrences. […] There have been anecdotal reports of clairvoyance and 'clear'
abilities throughout history in most cultures. Often clairvoyance has been
associated with religious or shamanic figures, offices and practices. For example,
ancient Hindu religious texts list clairvoyance amongst other forms of 'clear'
experiencing, as siddhis, or 'perfections', skills that are yielded through
appropriate meditation and personal discipline. […] For example, many people
report seeing a loved one who has recently died before they have learned by other
means that their loved one is deceased. […] During treatment, Race reportedly
would go into trance and undergo a personality change, becoming fluent and
articulate, and giving diagnosis and prescription for his own disease as well as
those of others. When he came out of the trance state he would be unaware of
anything he had said or done. […] A three-step process was used, the first step
being to randomly select the target conditions to be experienced by the senders.
Secondly, in the viewing step, participants were asked to verbally express or
sketch their impressions of the remote scene. Thirdly, in the judging step, these
descriptions were matched by separate judges, as closely as possible, with the
intended targets. The term remote viewing was coined to describe this overall
process. […]In order to explore the nature of remote viewing channel, the viewer
in some experiments was secured in a double-walled copper-screened Faraday
cage. Although this provided attenuation of radio signals over a broad range of
frequencies, the researchers found that it did not alter the subject's remote
viewing capability. They postulated that extremely low frequency(ELF)
propagation might be involved, since Faraday cage screening is less effective in
the ELF range. Such a hypothesis had previously been put forward by telepathy
researchers in the Soviet Union.[16] The first paper by Puthoff and Targ on
psychic research to appear in a mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journal was
published in Nature in March 1974; in it, the team reported some degree of
remote viewing success.[17] One of the individuals involved in these initial studies
at SRI was Uri Geller, a well-known celebrity psychic at the time. The research
220
Dvi-Pakṣa
team reported witnessing some of Geller's trademark metal spoon-bending

performances […] Electroencephalography (EEG) techniques were also used by
team to examine ESP phenomena. […] The researches were unable to identify the
physical parameters by which the EEG effect was mediated.[18] […] His
paper,[22]published in February 1982, includes numerous references to remote
viewing replication studies at the time. Clairvoyance experiments involving Zener
cards currently exist on the Internet. […] Parapsychological research is regarded
by its critics as a pseudoscience.[24] In 1988, the US National Research Council
concluded that it ‘...finds no scientific justification from research conducted over
a period of 130 years, for the existence of parapsychological phenomena.’[25] […]
Skeptics say that if clairvoyance were a reality it would have become abundantly
clear. […] According to David G. Myers (Psychology, 8th ed.): The search for a
valid and reliable test of clairvoyance has resulted in thousands of experiments.
One controlled procedure has invited 'senders' to telepathically transmit one of
four visual images to 'receivers' deprived of sensation in a nearby chamber (Bem
& Honorton, 1994). The result? A reported 32 percent accurate response rate,
surpassing the chance rate of 25 percent. But follow-up studies have (depending
on who was summarizing the results) failed to replicate the phenomenon or
produced mixed results (Bem & others, 2001; Milton & Wiseman, 2002; Storm,
2000, 2003). One skeptic, magician James Randi, has a longstanding offer—
now U.S. $1 million—“to anyone who proves a genuine psychic power under
proper observing conditions” (Randi, 1999). French, Australian, and Indian
groups have parallel offers of up to 200,000 euros to anyone with demonstrable
paranormal abilities (CFI, 2003). […] Randi’s offer has been publicized for three
decades and dozens of people have been tested, sometimes under the scrutiny of
an independent panel of judges. Still, nothing. "People's desire to believe in the
paranormal is stronger than all the evidence that it does not exist." Susan
Blackmore, "Blackmore's first law", 2004. […] In
mainstream psychiatry clairvoyance is considered as hallucination. [26] […]
clairsentience is a form of extra-sensory perception wherein a person
acquires psychic knowledge primarily by feeling [and/or touching].[27] […] For
example: clairsentience is one of the six human special functions mentioned or
recorded in Buddhism. It is an ability that can be obtained at advanced
meditation level. Generally the term refers to a person who can feel the vibration
of other people. There are many different degrees of clairsentience ranging from
the perception of diseases of other people to the thoughts or emotions of other
people. The ability differs from third eye in that this kind of ability cannot have a
vivid picture in the mind. Instead, a very vivid feeling can form. […] Clairaudience
is essentially the ability to hear in a paranormal manner, as opposed to
paranormal seeing (clairvoyance) and feeling (clairsentience). Clairaudient people
have psi-mediated hearing. Clairaudience may refer not to actual perception of
sound, but may instead indicate impressions of the ‘inner mental ear’ similar to
the way many people think words without having auditory impressions. But it
may also refer to actual perception of sounds such as voices, tones, or noises
which are not apparent to other humans or to recording equipment. For
221
Dvi-Pakṣa
instance, a clairaudient person might claim to hear the voices or thoughts of the
spirits of persons who are deceased. In Buddhism, it is believed that those who
have extensively practiced Buddhist meditation and have reached a higher level
of consciousness can activate their ‘third ear’ and hear the music of the spheres;
i.e. the music of the celestial gandharvas. […] clairalience … is a form of extra-
sensory perception wherein a person accesses psychic knowledge through the
physical sense of smell.[30] […] claircognizance … is a form of extra-sensory
perception wherein a person acquires psychic knowledge primarily by means of
intrinsic knowledge. It is the ability to know something without a physical
explanation why you know it, like the concept of mediums. […] clairgustance is
defined as a form of extra-sensory perception that allegedly allows one to taste a
substance without putting anything in one's mouth. It is claimed that those who
possess this ability are able to perceive the essence of a substance from the
spiritual or ethereal realms through taste.”
Past life regression: “Past life regression is a technique that uses hypnosis to
recover what practitioners believe are memories of past lives or incarnations,
though others regard them as fantasies or delusions. Past life regression is
typically undertaken either in pursuit of a spiritual experience, or in
a psychotherapeutic setting. […] The technique used during past life regression
involves the subject answering a series of questions while hypnotized to reveal
identity and events of alleged past lives, a method similar to that used
in recovered memory therapy and one that similarly misrepresents memory as a
faithful recording of previous events rather than a constructed set of
recollections. The use of hypnosis and suggestive questions makes the subject
particularly likely to hold distorted or false memories.[3] The source of the
memories is more likely cryptomnesia and confabulations that combine
experiences, knowledge, imagination and suggestion or guidance from the
hypnotist than recall of a previous existence. […] Experiments with subjects
undergoing past life regression indicate that a belief in reincarnation and
suggestions by the hypnotist are the two most important factors regarding the
contents of memories reported.[1][4][5] […] Chinese numerologists use
the Buddhist/Taoist text the Three Lives Book to describe details of past
lives.[16] Teachers of Eastern religion claim to be able to use siddhi or abhijna
abilities to regress past lives (pubbenivāsānussati[17] ).[18] […]Scientific consensus
is that the memories are the result of cryptomnesia, narratives created by the
subconscious mind using imagination, forgotten information and suggestions
from the therapist.[1][2][3][20][21][22][23] Memories created under hypnosis are
indistinguishable from actual memories and can be more vivid than factual
memories.[2][24] The greatest predictor of individuals reporting memories of past
lives appears to be their beliefs about the existence in reincarnation—individuals
who believe in reincarnation are more likely to report such memories, while
sceptics or disbelievers are less so.[1][5]”
222
Dvi-Pakṣa
Cryptomnesia occurs when a forgotten memory returns without it being

recognized as such by the subject, who believes it is something new and original.
It is a memory bias whereby a person may falsely recall generating a thought, an
idea, a song, or a joke,[1] not deliberately engaging in plagiarism but rather
experiencing a memory as if it were a new inspiration.
The third eye is often associated with religious visions, clairvoyance, the ability to
observe chakras and auras,[4] precognition, and out-of-body experiences.
As per (Pizzagalli et al., 2000), “The neurocognitive processes underlying the

formation and maintenance of paranormal beliefs are important for
understanding schizotypal ideation. Behavioral studies indicated that both
schizotypal and paranormal ideation are based on an overreliance on the right
hemisphere, whose coarse rather than focussed semantic processing may favor
the emergence of 'loose' and 'uncommon' associations. To elucidate the
electrophysiological basis of these behavioral observations, 35-channel resting
EEG was recorded in pre-screened female strong believers and disbelievers
during resting baseline. EEG data were subjected to FFT-Dipole-Approximation
analysis, a reference-free frequency-domain dipole source modeling, and Regional
(hemispheric) Omega Complexity analysis, a linear approach estimating the
complexity of the trajectories of momentary EEG map series in state space.
Compared to disbelievers, believers showed: more right-located sources of the
beta2 band (18.5-21 Hz, excitatory activity); reduced interhemispheric differences
in Omega complexity values; higher scores on the Magical Ideation scale; more
general negative affect; and more hypnagogic-like reveries after a 4-min eyes-
closed resting period. Thus, subjects differing in their declared paranormal belief
displayed different active, cerebral neural populations during resting, task-free
conditions. As hypothesized, believers showed relatively higher right hemispheric
activation and reduced hemispheric asymmetry of functional complexity. These
markers may constitute the neurophysiological basis for paranormal and
schizotypal ideation.”
As per (Schulter & Papousek, 2008), “The goal of this study was to investigate the
possible relationship between established measures of body and brain
asymmetries and individual differences in paranormal beliefs. In addition to
behavioural measures of cerebral laterality, measures of facial features and finger
length were taken to calculate body asymmetry scores and indicators of
fluctuating asymmetry (average absolute differences between left and right body
features). Both the direction and degree of laterality measures were used. In
addition to that, quantitative measures of inconsistency of cerebral lateralization
were obtained. Results indicated that a stronger belief in paranormal phenomena
was associated with fluctuating asymmetry of finger length, and that this aspect
of body asymmetry may be related to greater intraindividual variability in the
degree of 'atypical' functional lateralization. This intraindividual variability index,
in turn, significantly predicted strength of belief in the paranormal. Belief in the
223
Dvi-Pakṣa
paranormal was also higher in women than men and it was negatively correlated
with the education level. In sum, these findings suggest that a part of the
variance of strength of belief in paranormal phenomena can be explained by
patterns of functional hemispheric asymmetry that may be related to
perturbations during fetal development.”
As per <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception>, “Extrasensory

perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the
recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind. The term was adopted by
Duke University psychologist J. B. Rhine to denote psychic abilities such as
telepathy, clairaudience, and clairvoyance, and their trans-temporal operation
as precognition or retrocognition. ESP is also sometimes referred to as a sixth
sense. The term implies acquisition of information by means external to the basic
limiting assumptions of science, such as that organisms can only receive
information from the past to the present. […] Parapsychologists generally regard
such tests as the ganzfeld experiment as providing compelling evidence for the
existence of ESP. The scientific community rejects ESP due to the absence of an
evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain ESP, the lack of
experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results, and
considers ESP a pseudoscience. […] An advantage of ESP cards is that statistics
can easily be applied to determine whether the number of hits obtained is higher
than would be expected by chance. Rhine used ordinary people as subjects and
claimed that, on average, they did significantly better than chance expectation.
[…] 61% of these independent studies reported significant results suggestive of
ESP. […] Replication failures encouraged Rhine to further research into the
conditions necessary to experimentally produce the effect. He maintained,
however, that it was not replicability, or even a fundamental theory of ESP that
would evolve research, but only a greater interest in unconscious mental
processes and a more complete understanding of human personality. […] Soal
sought to confirm this finding by testing these participants in new experiments.
Conducted during the war years, into the 1950s, under tightly controlled
conditions, they produced highly significant results suggestive of
precognitive telepathy. […] the subjective experience involved in making ESP
responses, and the role of ESP in psychological life. Memory, for instance, was
offered as a better model of psi than perception. […] These procedures included
relaxation, meditation, REM-sleep, and the Ganzfeld (a mild sensory deprivation
procedure). These studies have proved to be even more successful than Rhine's
forced-choice paradigm, with meta-analyses evidencing reliable effects, and many
confirmatory replication studies [(Bem, Palmer, & Broughton, 2001; Sherwood &
Roe, 2003)]. […] The study of psi phenomena such as ESP is called
parapsychology. The consensus of the Parapsychological Association is that
certain types of psychic phenomena such as psychokinesis [the direct influence
of mind on a physical system that cannot be entirely accounted for by the
mediation of any known physical energy. Examples of psychokinesis could
include distorting or moving an object, and influencing the output of a random
224
Dvi-Pakṣa
number generator ], telepathy, and astral projection [astral projection (or astral
travel) is an interpretation of out-of-body experience (OBE) that assumes the
existence of an "astral body" separate from the physical body and capable of
traveling outside it. Astral projection or travel denotes the astral body leaving
the physical body to travel in the astral plane] are well established. A great deal
of reported extrasensory perception is said to occur spontaneously in conditions
which are not scientifically controlled. Such experiences have often been reported
to be much stronger and more obvious than those observed in laboratory
experiments. […] Critics of experimental parapsychology hold that there are no
consistent and agreed-upon standards by which ‘ESP powers’ may be tested. It is
argued that when psychics are challenged by skeptics and fail to prove their
alleged powers, they assign all sorts of reasons for their failure, such as that the
skeptic is affecting the experiment with ‘negative energy’ or their cellphone is
causing interference.”
As per (Sherwood & Roe, 2003), “We review the dream ESP studies conducted
since the end of the Maimonides research programme. Combined effect size
estimates for both sets of studies (Maimonides r = 0.33, 95% C.I. 0.24 to 0.43; post-
Maimonides r = 0.14, 95% C.I. 0.06 to 0.22) suggest that judges could correctly
identify target materials more often than would be expected by chance using
dream mentation. Maimonides studies were significantly more successful (p< 0.05)
than post-Maimonides studies, which may be due to procedural differences,
including that post-Maimonides receivers tended to sleep at home and were
generally not deliberately awakened from REM sleep. Methodological shortcomings
of some studies are discussed. Nevertheless, home dream ESP research has been
successful and continues to be a less expensive and less labour-intensive
alternative to sleep-laboratory-based research. We hope that interest in dream ESP
research will be re-awakened.”
As per (Bem et al., 2001), “The existence of psi—anomalous processes of

information transfer such as telepathy or clairvoyance—continues to be
controversial. Earlier meta-analyses of studies using the ganzfeld procedure
appeared to provide replicable evidence for psi (D. J. Bem & C. Honorton, 1994),
but a follow-up meta-analysis of 30 more recent ganzfeld studies did not (J.
Milton & R. Wiseman, 1999). When 10 new studies published after the Milton-
Wiseman cutoff date are added to their database, the overall ganzfeld effect again
becomes significant, but the mean effect size is still smaller than those from the
original studies. Ratings of all 40 studies by 3 independent raters reveal that the
effect size achieved by a replication is significantly correlated with the degree to
which it adhered to the standard ganzfeld protocol. Standard replications yield
significant effect sizes comparable with those obtained in the past.”
225
Dvi-Pakṣa
Precognition: As per <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition>, “Precognition

… is a type of extrasensory perception that would involve the acquisition or effect
of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and
normally acquired sense-based information … A premonition … and
a presentiment are information about future events that is perceived as
emotion. […] precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur
before its cause. However, there are established biases, affecting
human memory and judgment of probability, that create convincing but false
impressions of precognition […] Dunne concluded that precognitive dreams are
common occurrences… a 1933 independent experiment failed to replicate his
findings […] The test of precognition was based on the fact that these ‘guesses’
were made before the deck was shuffled by the experimenter. […] Selection
bias where people remember the ‘hits’ and forget the ‘misses,’ […] Human
memory, it is argued, has a tendency to record instances when the guess was
correct, and to dismiss instances when the guess was incorrect. Unconscious
perception by which people unconsciously infer, from data they have
unconsciously learned, that a certain event will probably happen in a certain
context. […] Self-fulfilling prophecy and Unconscious enactment in which people
bring events that they have precognized to pass, but without their conscious
knowledge. Some psychologists have explained the apparent prevalence of
precognitive dreams in terms of memory biases, namely a selective memory for
accurate predictions and distorted memory so that dreams are retrospectively
fitted onto subsequent events. […] When subjects were asked to recall the
dreams they had read, they remembered more of the successful predictions than
unsuccessful ones. […] 8.8 percent of the population was having actual
precognitive dreams [(Ryback, 1988)]. […] Dreams which appear to be
precognitive may in fact be the result of the "Law of Large Numbers". Robert Todd
Carroll, author of "The Skeptic's Dictionary" put it this way: ‘Say the odds are a
million to one that when a person has a dream of an airplane crash, there is an
airplane crash the next day. With 6 billion people having an average of 250
dream themes each per night, there should be about 1.5 million people a day
who have dreams that seem clairvoyant.’
[http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html].”
As per (Hyman, 2007), “No standard procedure exists for evaluating a

parapsychological claim. At a very general level the basis for each claim is
similar. The claim is supported by evidence that the guesses or the wishes of
certain individuals correlate with a set of targets to a significant degree beyond
chance. Moreover, all normal explanations for this correspondence have been
ruled out by the experimental controls. At the level of the specific materials and
methods, however, the basis for the claims varies over time and experiments. At
the level of specific evidence, evaluating parapsychological claims has to change
with the times as well as deal with the specifics of the technology, methodology,
and the underlying logic of the argument. Coping with a given claim may require
226
Dvi-Pakṣa
a completely different approach from dealing with another parapsychological

claim. In this chapter, I try to provide some general guidelines not by precepts
but by briefly describing a few specific examples of actual evaluations of claims.”
(Hyman, 2007) suggested that the positive results not attributable to error were
more likely the result of deliberate fraud.
As per (Greenaway, Louis, & Hornsey, 2013), “Every year thousands of dollars
are spent on psychics who claim to ‘‘know’’ the future. The present research
questions why, despite no evidence that humans are able to psychically predict
the future, do people persist in holding irrational beliefs about precognition? We
argue that believing the future is predictable increases one’s own perceived
ability to exert control over future events. As a result, belief in precognition
should be particularly strong when people most desire control–that is, when they
lack it. In Experiment 1(N = 87), people who were experimentally induced to feel
low in control reported greater belief in precognition than people who felt high in
control. Experiment 2 (N = 53) investigated whether belief in precognition
increases perceived control. Consistent with this notion, providing scientific
evidence that precognition is possible increased feelings of control relative to
providing scientific evidence that precognition was not possible. Experiment 3 (N
= 132) revealed that when control is low, believing in precognition helps people to
feel in control once more. Prediction therefore acts as a compensatory
mechanism in times of low control. The present research provides new insights
into the psychological functions of seemingly irrational beliefs, like belief in
psychic abilities. […] Although precognitive abilities would confer decided
adaptive advantages from an evolutionary perspective, current scientific
knowledge indicates that humans do not and probably cannot predict the future
through psychic means […] From a psychological perspective, it makes sense
that beliefs that help people attain a desired end state such as feeling happy,
safe, and secure will be differentially endorsed. […] belief in precognition …
reveals that such beliefs are not necessarily an irrational response to loss of
control, but serve a psychological purpose of boosting perceived control in times
of uncontrollability. […] Belief in precognition was measured using four items
from the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale ([46], ‘Some people have an
unexplained ability to predict the future’; ‘Astrology is a way to accurately predict
the future’; ‘The horoscope accurately tells a person’s future’; and ‘Some psychics
can accurately predict the future’ […] Participants in the precognition condition
read a paragraph stating that researchers had found evidence for the existence of
precognition. … Participants in the no precognition condition read that
researchers had debunked the notion that precognition exists. … Following the
precognition manipulation, perceived control was measured using three items ( ‘I
am in control of my own life’; ‘I am able to live my life how I wish’, ‘My life is
determined by my own actions’ … on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
7 (strongly agree). […] when people lack control, believing in precognition helps
them to feel in control once more. […] The present research demonstrated that
loss of control increases belief in precognition and belief in precognition increases
227
Dvi-Pakṣa
perceived control. […] the boost in control may be shortlived. There may even be
a distal cost to embracing a belief in precognition specifically as a defence against
control deprivation. If this belief is subsequently disconfirmed, the threat to
control may be even more intense. […] Conclusions The present research has
shown that beliefs about psychic predictability can provide the psychological
system with a compensatory boost in perceived control. We found that people
were drawn to predictability when they experienced loss of control–even to the
extent of endorsing seemingly irrational beliefs about precognition. We propose,
therefore, that these kinds of beliefs are not an unreasonable response to control
deprivation. Indeed, to the extent that belief in precognition increases perceived
control, people could be described as becoming functionally irrational by holding
this or related beliefs when control is threatened. On a practical note, our
findings help to explain why interest in the predictive arts is highest in times of
threat and uncertainty … It is at these moments that individuals most feel the
need to control the course of their lives. Belief in precognition meets this need by
enabling people to feel that the future is predictable, and can therefore be
controlled. Regardless of whether precognitive abilities actually exist, therefore,
belief in their existence serves an important psychological function of boosting
perceived control in times of uncertainty.”
Vimal: If precognition prediction fails, then some religions (such as Hinduism)

suggest that one should have trust and patience in God and keeps on worshiping
and eventually everything will be fine. Thus, this superstition is secured both
ways: whether or not predictions are veridical. However, superstitions are
superstition. Subjects must be trained to take care of themselves based on truth.
Critique7: Thanks for your interest, Ram! I have attached a paper about loss of
control and religion by Aaron Kay that you might like to read if you are interested
in this area.
As per (Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008), “The authors propose that
the high levels of support often observed for governmental and religious systems
can be explained, in part, as a means of coping with the threat posed by
chronically or situationally fluctuating levels of perceived personal control. Three
experiments demonstrated a causal relation between lowered perceptions of
personal control and the defense of external systems, including increased beliefs
in the existence of a controlling God (Studies 1 and 2) and defense of the
overarching socio-political system (Study 4). A 4th experiment (Study 5) showed
the converse to be true: A challenge to the usefulness of external systems of
control led to increased illusory perceptions of personal control. In addition, a
cross-national data set demonstrated that lower levels of personal control are
associated with higher support for governmental control (across 67 nations;
Study 3). Each study identified theoretically consistent moderators and
mediators of these effects. The implications of these results for understanding
why a high percentage of the population believes in the existence of God, and
228
Dvi-Pakṣa
why people so often endorse and justify their socio-political systems, are
discussed. […] Rothbaum, Weisz, and Snyder’s (1982) influential two-process
model of perceived control suggests that when people’s means of primary
control—that is, people’s ability to directly influence their environment in line
with their personal desires—are thwarted, they may engage in any number of
secondary control strategies […] In three experimental studies, we demonstrated
that a manipulation designed to remind people of their lack of personal control
led to increased beliefs in the existence of a controlling God and increased
defense of the overarching sociopolitical system. In a fourth experiment, we
demonstrated that the converse is also true: A manipulation designed to
challenge the usefulness of external systems of control led to increased illusory
perceptions of personal control. […] In situations in which personal control is
threatened to an extreme level, for example, people may respond with equally
extreme levels of endorsement of external sources of control. The noted trend of
increased rates of religious extremism, and even terrorism in the name of
extreme religious ideology, among members of populations in which personal
freedom is particularly restricted (Krueger & Laitin, 2004; Krueger & Maleckova,
2003; Kruglanski & Golec, 2004) may be one such example of this process. […]
endorsing external systems of control may play a much more significant role
than feelings of personal control. Moreover, in some cultural contexts the
meaning of personal control may be quite different than how we have
operationalized it in our studies. For example, members of low socioeconomic
status (SES) and high SES groups, because of their very disparate experiences
with the material and social world, tend to view control and personal agency
quite differently from one another (Snibbe & Markus, 2005), with members of
lower SES groups placing more emphasis on their ability to control integrity-
based attributes, such as honesty, reliability, consistency, and loyalty, than on
constructs such as free choice and environmental influence, which tend to be
favored by members of higher SES groups. […] As we observed in Study 3,
members of countries known to have more corrupt governments appear less
likely to compensate for lowered levels of personal control with increased support
for their government. Perhaps in regions such as these, people are more likely to
rely on other external sources, such as religious beliefs or ethnic and cultural
norms, to compensate for lowered levels of personal control. […] According to the
two-process model of perceived control (Rothbaum et al., 1982), when people’s
means of primary control—people’s ability to directly influence their environment
in line with their personal desires—is thwarted, they may engage in any number
of secondary control strategies (for a review, see Morling & Evered, 2006;
Rothbaum et al., 1982). Most relevant to this line of research, however, is
Rothbaum et al.’s notion of vicarious control, a secondary control strategy in
which people are presumed to gain a sense of personal control by identifying with
powerful others. Although both the uncertainty hypothesis and the two-process
model of perceived control, like the one presented here, begin with the
assumption that people will engage in motivated processes of coping following
experiences that threaten personal control, neither is redundant with what we
229
Dvi-Pakṣa
are proposing. According to the uncertainty hypothesis, people are said to rely on
superstition as way to regain personal control (i.e., by enacting superstitious
behavior, people find a way to feel they personally, but indirectly, are controlling
their outcomes even in uncontrollable situations). Likewise, Rothbaum et al.
(1982) proposed that people may identify with powerful others to psychologically
share in the powerful others’ control and thereby regain personal control. Both of
these notions are qualitatively different from what we are proposing regarding the
endorsement of external systems. In particular, we are not suggesting that by
endorsing external systems of control people are trying to regain personal
control, but that they are instead trying to affirm the more general and
overarching belief that things are under control, even if not by their own means
(see Antonovsky, 1979). […] In such models, people compensate for their
reductions in control in a given domain by focusing their control on other areas
that they can control. Thus, they are compensating for their lack of personal
control in one domain by increasing their personal control in other domains. This
is different from the model proposed here, which suggests that people
compensate for decreases in personal control via increases in the endorsement of
broad external systems that impose a particular social order.”
Vimal: It is unclear if superstitious-people’s beliefs in the external system of

control (such as beliefs in God and/or sociopolitical system) fail to fulfill their
beliefs, then what happens to their superstitious beliefs. Do these subjects
realize that their beliefs are superstitious, and give up the related superstitions
and try hard on their own by non-superstitious methods (such as working and
thinking hard to address the crisis, indentfying with powerful ideals, by focusing
their
control on other areas that subjects can control, meditation, counseling, and so
on) to enhance their lower personal control? Or there are mechanisms in the
external system of control that effectively still maintain those superstitious
beliefs in some people. For example, some religions seriously suggest that one
should have trust and patience in God and keep on worshiping and following His
rules and eventually everything will be fine soon, and hence the hope for the
fulfillment of their 'wish list' is still maintained. Thus, their superstitious beliefs
are secured in both ways: whether or not their beliefs ('wish list') are fulfilled.
What do you say?
---xxx---precognition-ESP-paranormal
22 As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960) analyzes virtues, meanings of life, ethics,
morality, and rebirth hypothesis from both eastern and western perspectives as
follows:
(i) Virtue, ethics, morality, and meaning of life: Atheists and agnostics can also
be virtuous, ethical, and moral; however, the mechanism behind these attributes
could be God. The existentialists of the school of French philosopher Sartre
made effort to investigate the meaning of life in absence of God, and proposed
230
Dvi-Pakṣa
that if universe has meaning then it should have a purpose as well. In

existentialism, the individual and his/her experiences is the fundamental to
understand human existence and hence authenticity (being true to one's own
personality, character, or spirit) in addition to moral thinking and scientific
thinking is an essenetial ingredient.
(ii) If the source of all goodness is God, atheism and agnosticism may not
entail the suspension of divine acting. Worship (Bhakti) is “conscious recognition
of and wholehearted response to the source of all goodness, Devine” [p167].
(iii) The hypothesis of rebirth: Onr could argue that the incarnation is a
continuous process of self-renewal. The rebirth theory hypothesizes the following
premises: (a) Self (ātman) continues to exist after death.
(b) Our consciousness is breached at death.
(c) We lose memory of the detailed knowledge and the skill and the habits at
death.
(d) Our dispositions and tendencies, traces of our karmas and intense desire
persist after death.
(e) We “start our next life in consequence of having possessed these with more
efficient dispositions and a greater power to reacquire the detailed knowledge and
insight [(McTaggart, 1927; McTaggart & McTaggart, 1906)]” [p.200].
(f) If we still think that present life has meaning and positive values, the
absence of previous life memories need not be taken as serious objection.
(g) “While memory fades, the modifications remain” [p.201].
(h) The attitude of mind, the disposition of character, and the habit of
judgement of previous life continues to form the basis of present life.
(j) The development of psychic powers illuminates us to recollect our
memories of previous lives, for example, Buddha, as per Aśvaghosha,
remembered his previous births and deaths (such as his birth name and place).
(k) There are many views for the mechanisms of rebirth. For example,
“McTaggart argues that ‘souls somehow steer their way back to a suitable
rebirth’. ‘Each person enters into connection with the body that is most fitted to
the connected with.’ As there can be no continuity of life without of continuity of
organism, a subtle body which carries the impress of its past tendencies is
assumed” [p204].
(l) When the gross body is dead, the soul acquires a subtle body (a shadow of
gross body), which is transparent and invisible though it is material.
(m) (Hari, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b) proposes that tachyon might be
related to soul and subtle body.
(n) We cannot localize subtle bodies that survive physical death. “The subtle
body [symbolized as the size of a thumb] is the reflex image of our personality in
231
Dvi-Pakṣa
all its phases. The liṅga-śarīra is the carrier of karma and assumes a body which,
though different from the present one, is not altogether discontinuous with it”
[p.205].
(o) Śankarāchārya accepts that “the individual, when he passes from one
body to another, possesses primary prāṇa, senses, and manas, also avidyā,
karma and previous experience. The jīva carries with it the subtle elements
forming the basis of the body” [p205].
(p) “For McTaggart, the universe is not a person but a society of persons,
eternal and perfect, each of whom is in love with one or more of the others.
Moreover, it is probable that each human mind, as it really is, is identical with
one of these persons. Each one of us is, therefore, eternal in reality and this
eternity probably appears sub specie temproris as persistence throughout the
whole of past and future time. This existence is split up into a sequence of many
successive lives each beginning with a birth and ending with a sequence of many
successive lives each beginning with a birth and ending with a death. Belief in
rebirth seems to be the least unsatisfactory of the views held about the future of
the human being after death” [p.206-7]
(q) “Even as the Supreme Reality is envisaged in the four forms of the Absolute
Brahman, Personal Ῑśvara, the world-soul and the world, liberated has the feeling
of oneness with Brahman, communion with Ῑśvara and co-operation with the
world-soul for the betterment of the world” [p207].
(r) “For R. [Rāmānujāchārya], the distinction between the individual soul and
the Universal Self is real and so the two can never become one”, whereas, for
Śankarāchārya, soul/jīva is the same as Brahman
(s) “The liberated souls are active wherever a tear falls, wherever an act of
injustice or brutality is committed, wherever a heart is seized with despair. [p214
…] Release relates to the frame of mind. It does not depend on embodiment or
non-embodiment. Even after physical death, the released soul may assume
individual form to work for the world. That is why it is sometimes said that the
released soul becomes one with Ῑśvara, the creative dynamic side of Brahman”
[p216]
(t) The “world will persist as long as there are souls subject to bondage. It
terminates only when all are released, i.e. absolute salvation is possible with
world-redemption” [p223]. This is debatable because the life on Earth will end
when Sun runs out of its energy/fuel/hydrogen in about 5 billion years.
(u) One could ask (a) what is the source of goodness if it is not God. (b) Are the
reports of the individual cases of the memory of past lives authentic and
reproducible?
232
Dvi-Pakṣa
---xxx---
23Incompatibility of natural science with theism, and their unification via

dual-aspect monism: As per (Slife, 2012), “The natural science methods of
psychology – underlain as they are with the philosophy of reductive naturalism –
cannot be compatible with the theism of theologians such as Murphy.” Therefore,
natural science methods of psychology is incompatible with theism.
The main reason for the incompatibility of natural science with theism is that
they use of different metaphysics: the dominant metaphysics of natural science is
materialism/Cārvāka (mind from matter) whereas that of religions are Interactive
Substance Dualism/Sāṃkhya (mind and matter can be independent but they can
interact when we are alive) and/or Idealism/Advaita (matter from mind).
However, if we base science and religions on common metaphysics such as the

extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM)/Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework, it is
possible to unite them.
The eDAM framework is extended dual-aspect monism (both aspects are

inseparable and are basic) that has 3 components: (i) Dual-Aspect Monism
framework (Vimal, 2008b) with (ii) dual-mode (conjugate matching between
stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-mode and cognitive-feedback-
signals-related-mode and then the selection of a specific subjective experience)
(Vimal, 2010c) and (iii) varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the
levels of entities (Vimal, 2013), where each entity-state has inseparable physical
and mental aspects. The mental aspect is from the subjective first person
perspective (1pp) and the physical aspect is from the objective third person
perspective (3pp).
I have tried to implement the eDAM framework for uniting science and religions
in two books (Vimal, 2012b) and (Vimal, 2012a).
Critique8: I haven't read your work (yet), but from what you've said (above) I
believe I agree with you completely. Thank you for writing, and I look forward to
reading your books.
Vimal: The dual-aspect monism (middle-way) is now accepted by many

neuroscientists including hard core materialists Koch and Tonini and to some
extent Damasio, as elaborated in (Vimal, 2013). The metaphysics of most of the
religions are the same as elaborated before. Some of the investigators in religions
(such as cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, Kashmir Shaivism, modern Buddism etc) have also
accepted the theist version of dual-aspect monism as elaborated in (Vimal,
2012b) and (Vimal, 2012a). There is a great hope that this metaphysical
framework will unite both and resolve some of the problems of our lives.
233
Dvi-Pakṣa
---xxx--- Slife
24 (Saroj Bala, 2012) used astronomical planetarium software to estimate the

astronomical-sky-view dates (that is further supported by sedimentology,
hydrogeology and drilling data) and proposes the followings: (i) the development
of indigenous civilization in India might be even before 6000 BC; (ii) Rigveda era
might be 8000-4000 BC; (iii) a mighty river system Saraswatī referred in Vedas
and Epics might be around 6000 BC as per Remote Sensing pictures taken by
Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and corroborated by geological
reports; this river system slowly dried up and almost disappeared around 3000
BC; (iv) Vālmiki Rāmāyaṇa around 5000 BC; (v) Mahābhārata around 3000 BC;
(vi) the paleobotanical research reports suggest that certain cultivated varieties
of plants, trees and herbs that are mentioned in Vedas and Epics existed in for
more than 8000-10000 years: for example, the remains of cultivated rice, wheat
and barley around 7000 BC; melon seeds, lemon leaf, pomegranate, coconut and
date palm around 4000 BC; lentils, millets and peas from 3000 BC; use of
reetha, amla and shikakai for making shampoo since 2500 BC; (vii) the
anthropological research reports the DNA dating for Paleolithic continuity started
from 60000 BC; (viii) the Genome studies during the Holocene suggest that the
genetic profile of all Indians (in north, south, east and west) is the same and has
remained the same since 11000 years; (ix) the inhabitants of the Harappan
civilization were indigenous people of northwestern region of the Indian
subcontinent; (x) Thus, both north (Āryans) and the south (Dravidians) Indians
are indigenous, have common genetic profile, and hence had common ancestors.
25See (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas,

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda
26 As per (Saroj Bala, 2012), the date of birth of Lord Rāma was 9th tithi of
Chaitra month during day time with: (i) Sun in Aries, (ii) Saturn in Libra, (iii)
Jupiter in Cancer, (iv) Venus in Pisces, (v) Mars in Capricorn, (vi) Lunar month
of Chaitra, (vii) Ninth day after no moon, (viii) Lagna as Cancer (Cancer was
rising in the east), (ix) Moon on the Punar vasu (Gemini constellation and Pollux
star). This data was translated by the ‘Planetarium Gold’ software as 10th
January 5114 BC at noon. Similarly, the date of exile was 5th January 5089 BC,
the date the death of Rāvaṇa was 4th December 5076 BC, and the date of return
to Ayodhyā was 2nd January, 5075 BC when Rāma was 39 years old.
27 Vartak used astronomical method for scientific dating to estimate various

dates as follows: (i) Mahābhārata War seems to be about 5561 BC (Vartak, 1989),
(ii) Rāma’s period appears to be around 7500 year BC (Vartak, 1999), and (iii)
Rāmāyaṇa was before the Mahābhārata and after Taittiriya Samhitā (8357 BC),
so Rāmāyaṇa period was 8000-6000 BC (Vartak, 1999).
234
Dvi-Pakṣa
28 Dr. Narahari Achar (Achar, 2010) showed with astronomical analysis that the
Mahabharata war was in 3,067 BC. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gita and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyasa.
29As per (Vartak, 1989), the scientific dating of the Mahābhārata War was 5561
BC.
30 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Eastern_philosophers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya,
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/311732/Kapila.
As per Nityanand Misra (NM, personal communication in May 19, 2012),
Sāṅkhya predates Vedānta and Gītā. This is because, in the Bhāgavatam, Kapila
is listed as the fifth avatāra (SB 1.3.10) and Vyāsa as the seventeenth (SB
1.3.10). Therefore, as per the Bhāgavatam, Sāṅkhya propounded by Kapila came
before Vedānta propounded by Vyāsa. In the Gītā the Lord says, siddhānāṃ
kapilo muniḥ (BG 10.26) - I am Kapila amongst the Siddhas. Also see BG 3.3:
loke'simandvividhā niṣṭhā purā proktā mayānagha
jñānayogena sāṅkhyānāṃ karmayogena yoginām ॥
31http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bṛhadāraṇyaka_Upaniṣhad: Author: Yajnavalkya,

date of composition: Mid-first millennium BC, place of composition (ancient
name): Videha, Mithila (Southern Nepal).
32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabha_(Jain_tirthankar)
33 See http://www.humanistictexts.org/Carvaka.htm,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokayata,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barhaspatya_sutras,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautilya, and (Mádhava Áchárya, 1996 [1882]).
34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha ; see also for 6th centrury BC for

Buddha’s birthdate: http://news.yahoo.com/hunch-led-stunning-claim-buddha-
birth-date-064120436.html
35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
36 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ
37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
38http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara; see also Adi Sankara belongs to

8th century[ 788-820.A.D]- Evidence produced.
235
Dvi-Pakṣa
39http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasugupta
40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramānujāchārya
41http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaitadvaita,
42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Madhvacharya
43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddhadvaita and (Sharma, 1968).
44http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu
45 Ātman is elaborated in Brihadāranyaka Upaniṣhad ((Swami Krishnananda,

1983).V.6.1.p318-318) as follows: (i) the Ātman (self) is Brahman; (ii) the Ātman
appears to be located in our own brain-body system as if it is finite, but is really
the infinite cosmic consciousness which is Brahman; (iii) the Ātman is the
smallest entity and Brahman is the biggest entity; (iv) since psychological
functions such as intellect, feelings, will, etc. are all absent in deep sleep but we
(self) still exist, Ātman is independent of our mental functions; (v) the Ātman is
the subtlest of rationality in us and is external to the deepest in us; (vi) the
Ātman is subtler than the subtle, deeper than the deep, smaller than the small;
(vii) the Ātman is not small in a mathematical sense, rather smallness is in the
sense of subtleness; (viii) the largeness attributed to Brahman is due to its
infinitude; (ix) the deepest and subtlest Ātman in us is the same as the Cosmic
Ruler, Īshvara, or Brahman; (x) the Ātman is indivisible; it does not have
parts/components and any internal distinctions; and (xi) if our consciousness
were limited to our own brain-body system, then consciousness of external
objects would not be possible, so consciousness is also outside of brain-body
system.
If Ātman is the same as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Brahman,
then the individual Ātman should have these attributes; however, this is not the
case. For example, do you know what is going on other people’s mind? The
answer is negative. So the Ātman is subject-specific and we know only what is
going on in our mind; we can only guess what might be going on other’s mind by
interacting with them. In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, Ātman/self is the mental aspect
of the state of self-related neural-network.
46http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara: Ahaṃ refers to the concept of the Self

or "I" and kāra refers to the concept of “any created thing” or “to do”. Ahamkara
is one of the four parts of the antahkarana (inner organ). The other three parts
are Buddhi, Citta and Manas. When one's mind was in a state of ahamkara, one
236
Dvi-Pakṣa
was in a state of subjective illusion (maya), where the mind had bound up the
concept of one's self with a created thing. The created thing is usually a
phenomenon which can be thought of as external to the self. It could be a
tangible, concrete (material) thing - e.g., a motor car - or an intangible thing -
e.g., such as a concept or idea (as in, for example, the concept of the fight for
peace). The ego is involved in constructing the illusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhi: buddhi is that which is able to discern
truth (satya) from falsehood and thereby to make wisdom possible. Buddhi
makes its first scriptural appearance in the Katha Upanishad (I,3), where it is
compared in a famous simile to the driver of a horse and carriage. The reins held
by the driver represent the lower mind (manas), the horses represent the five
senses (indriya), and the carriage represents the body
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citta: “Citta” primarily represents one's
mindset, or state of mind. Citta is the term used in to refer to the quality of
mental processes as a whole. Citta is neither an entity nor a process. citta is
more the emotive side of mind as opposed to manas as the intellect or mind-
sense in the sense of what grasps mental objects.
(Oliver, 2012) reports empathy related experiences during altered state of his
mind-brain system, perhaps somewhat close to samāpatti (samādhi) state of
yogi’s mind-brain system. Such empathy may involve (a) mirror neurons and/or
(b) separate neural pathways activating reciprocal suppression in different
regions of the brain associated with the performance of “social” and “mechanical”
tasks. These findings (b) suggest that the cognition associated with reasoning
about the “state of another person’s mind” and “causal/mechanical properties of
inanimate objects” are neurally suppressed from occurring at the same
time.[43][44]
47 See ('t Hooft, 2005).p4 for ‘primitive’ quantum field, (Bohm, 1990) for quantum
potential, and (Hiley & Pylkkänen, 2005) for “primitive mind-like quality at the
quantum level via active information”. The primal entity has many names
depending on science and religions. For example, Brahman in Hinduism, Allāh in
Islām, God in Christianity, Sunyatā in Buddhism, the fundamental dual-aspect
entity/Brahman in our eDAM/Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework, empty-space or
quantum vacuum in physics and so on
48 As per (Jones, 2013), “Chalmers (Chalmers, 1995) proposes that we cannot

hope to do in scientific consciousness studies what we cannot do in metaphysics
and must settle for a nonreductive theory. He names this approach naturalistic
dualism. The name suggests that we cannot transcend dualism for a
fundamental solution without abanding the conception of Nature that currently
prevails in scientific consciousness studies. […] This muddle can be disentangled
only if we concede that science is a method and not a set of preconceptions about
Nature, and that ‘naturalism’ is a rejection of the miraculous and paradoxical
and not otherwise a limit on our imagination as we try to understand ourselves
and our world. […] ‘Mind’ and ‘Matter’ are categories within which we can place
237
Dvi-Pakṣa
all natural phenomena. […] the problem of consiousness appears as the problem
of matter-mind causation. The idea that a corporeal phenomenon can act
causally on a mental phenomenon goes largely unquestioned in the sciences, but
it is no less problematic than the idea that mind can act on matter. The
mismatch of phenomena is the same in both directions. One is material and the
other is not, and we have no theory for how this gap can be bridged by any form
of causation even at the moment of their creation. Not even the existence of
consciousness can be established in physics. But we can use our reason. In
metaphysics we find it impossible to reduce Mind and Matter one to the other or
to make them identical, and their causal relationship seems to be miraculous.
Unless, that is, we hypothesise another phenomenon, something that cannot be
classified as Mind or Matter. Given an extra ingredient we no longer have to
suppose that there is a paradoxical causal link between the physical and the
mental worlds, nor that one is fundamental and the other emergent. This is a
plausible solution because it represents a paradigmatic change of approach. For
the prevailing view we must assume that one or both of Mind and/or Matter
takes precedence in the evolution of the universe. Usually one would be original
and cause the other. As this idea does not make sense all sorts of problems arise
for it that seem impregnable to human reason and cannot be solved in
metaphysics, consciousness studies or physics. It cannot be a correct
assumption. The present state of western academic metaphysics and
consciousness studies represents a highly successful reductio argument against
it. With a third phenomenon ontologically prior to mental and corporeal
phenomena, however, we can suppose that these two emerge as dual-aspects in
mutual-dependence and can be described within a dual-aspect theory very much
as Chalmers proposes. We need not imagine that either can exist independently,
that one or the other sprang into existence from nothing at all, nor that one
directly causes the other. They would share a common source and a mediated
relationship.This is mysticism, of course, the ‘nondual’ or advaita view, the
doctrine of ‘dependent origination ’, the realm of Lao Tsu’s Tao. In the context of
consciousness studies it has been called ‘relative phenomenalism’. It would also
be very nearly the solution proposed by Chalmers’ with his dual aspect theory of
information, where these two aspects would be the mental and the corporeal. It is
only that now it would contain an extra ingredient, a third theoretical primitive,
one that would allow
the theory to be fundamental. As well as the parts there would be the whole. So
similar is this to Chalmers’ theory, being merely an extension of it, and so
obvious is it that it might be a solution for the problem, that it can only be an
unnecessarily narrow interpretation of the words ‘scientific’ and ‘naturalistic’ that
prevent it from being a well-regarded theory in scientific consciousness studies.
In one of its guises it is Middle Way Buddhism, and so the reason cannot be a
lack of publicity. Its lack of credibility seems more likely to be due to certain
assumptions about science and naturalism that prevent those who make them
from seeing the full possibilities of Nature.It is at least possible, therefore, that
the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness is a tractable one and even, at the level of
238
Dvi-Pakṣa
principles, a fairly straightforward one. The solution would be to assume that the
Buddha and Lao Tsu knew what they were talking about. It is often forgotten
that they predicted the Mind-Matter problem, our inability to reduce this
dualism, and all such metaphysical dilemmas, when they told us that the
categories of thought are not fundamental, that all distinctions are emergent.”
49 Critique3 (July 16th 2013 at 11:30): I like “mind (cit) and matter (acit) are
adjectives of Brahman”, which translate in Spinozist terms into “Thought and
extension are attributes of God”. See
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm, Part II “On the
Nature and Origin of the Mind”, Propositions I and II, for a formal demonstration
of this fact).
Vimal: Thanks. So far, QM has been unsuccessfully interpreted in terms of three

major metaphysics that have serious problems: (i) materialism/Cārvāka as in
EPR and MWI, (ii) interactive-substance-dualism/Sāṃkhya as in CI (Copenhagen
Interpretation), and (iii) idealism/Advaita as in PIQM (Pondicherry Interpretation
of QM) (Mohrhoff, 1999, 2001). Do you think it will be useful to interpret QM in
terms of the fourth metaphysics dual-aspect monism (eDAM framework) (close to
Spinoza’s framework, Kashmir Shaivism, and Viśiṣṭādvaita), which has the least
number of problems?
50 Adapted from (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism):

[1] Axial Age (ca. 800 BC-100 AD): During Axial Age, the term coined by Karl
Jaspers, materialism developed, perhaps independently, in many countries of
Eurasia, such as India, China, and Greek.
India (ca. 800-100 BC): The materialism, in Ancient Indian philosophy,
developed by the proponents of the Cārvāka (800-500 BC, discussed in Section
3.2) school of philosophy, Ajita Kesakambali (~600 BC), Payasi (perhaps a
contemporary of Buddha (563-483 BC), Kaṇāda (200 or 600 BC), and so on.
Ajita Kesakambali, perhaps the first Indian materialist, proposed the
followings: (i) As per Brahmajala Sutta (Theravāda), Ajita
propounded Ucchedavāda (उ/छे दवाद , materialism: the Doctrine of Annihilation after
death) and Tam-Jivam-tam-sariram-vada (the doctrine of identity of the soul and
body), which denied the separate existence of eternal soul. (ii) We are made of
four elements (earth, water, fire, air). When we die, our earthly element returns
and relapses to the earth, the fluid to the water, the heat to the fire, the wind to
the air, and his faculties pass into space.
Payasi Payasi-suttanta and Rayapasenaijja (a Jaina work) were devoted to
the refutation of Payasi's views. According to Payasi-suttanta (a Buddhist work),
there is no other world (such as heaven and hell) beyond our own, no rebirth
after death other than usual mechanism from parents (such as transmission of
genetic information), and there is no consequences of bad or good karma after
death (except name and fame left after death) ((Chattopadhyaya, 1964) P.195); in
addition, there is no life after death as per Payasi Sutta.
239
Dvi-Pakṣa
Kaṇāda was an advocate of atomism (the natural world consists of two

fundamental components: indivisible atoms and empty void; atoms move in void,
interact, and form clusters of various sizes). The Nyaya–Vaisesika school (600-
100 BC) also developed one of the earliest forms of atomism, but their proofs of
God and their hypothesis of consciousness not emerging from material entities
excludes them being materialists. Buddhist atomism and the Jaina (900-600 BC)
school carried forward the atomism.
China (ca. 312–100 AD): Xun Zi (ca. 312–230 BC) developed the Confucian
doctrine based on realism and materialism. Yang Xiong (53 BC–18 AD) and Wang
Chong (27–c. 100 AD) were other notable Chinese materialists.
Greek (ca. 500–270 BC): Ancient materialistic Greek philosophers were
Anaxagoras (ca. 500–428 BC), Epicurus (341–270 BC) and Democritus (ca. 460-
370 BC). Their view was atomism.
[2] Common Era (ca. 100-1500): Indian materialist Jayaraashi Bhatta (6th
century AD) in his Tattvopaplavasimha (‘The upsetting of all principles’) refuted
the Nyaya Sutra (ca. 200 BC) epistemology. Ibn Tufail (Abubacer: ca. 1105–
1185), the Arabian philosopher and physcian, discussed materialism in his
philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqdhan (Philosophus Autodidactus), where he
vaguely foreshadowed the concept of a historical materialism (it looks for the
causes of developments and changes in human society).
[3] European Enlightenment (ca. 1500-1872): Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655)
represented the materialist tradition to oppose the interactive susbtance dualism
of René Descartes (1596-1650) for the natural sciences with dualist foundations.
The materialism was followed by Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Julien Offroy de La
Mettrie (1709-1751), Paul-Henri Thiry Baron d'Holbach (1723–1789), Denis
Diderot (1713–1784), Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), and John "Walking"
Stewart (1747–1822: all matter is endowed with a moral dimension that
influenced the philosophical poetry of William Wordsworth: 1770–1850).
Schopenhauer (1788–1860) argued that a materialist forgets to take account of
himself or herself. He hypothesized that an observing subject, in objective third
person perspective, can only know material objects through the mediation of the
brain. However, in subjective first person perspective, the subject experiences the
appearances of material objects. This seems to imply that materialism has
problem of explaining experiences, which is currently called the (Levine, 1983)’s
explanatory gap problem of materialism.
[4] Marx's materialism (1818-1900): Materilists Karl Marx (1818–1883) and
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) argued against the idealist dialectics of Hegel
(1770–1831). They proposed two distinct concepts: dialectical materialism
(every economic order grows to a state of maximum efficiency, while
simultaneously developing internal contradictions and weaknesses that
contribute to its systemic decay, i.e., we originate History through active
consciousness: originated by Moses Hess (1812–1875)) and historical materialism
(the materialist conception of history); they are related to Marxism, Scientific
socialism, and Communism. As per Marx, physical labor and practical productive
activity are required to produce economic needs. Scientific socialism holds that
240
Dvi-Pakṣa
social customs, values, cultural traits and economic practices are the products of
the social environment and are not the property of some immutable natural law
(as in idealism).
[5] Scientific materialists (1900-present): Many current physicalists or
materialists—such as Willard Van Orman Quine (1908 –2000), Donald Davidson
(1917–2003), John Rogers Searle (1932-), Jerry Fodor (1935-), and Daniel
Dennett (1942-)—trying how best to accommodate mind—functionalism,
anomalous monism, identity theory and so on. Scientific 'Materialism' is
somewhat reductive materialism. Paul (1942-) and Patricia Churchland (1943-)
proposed eliminativist materialism: some mental phenomena (such as belief, will,
consciousness) simply do not exist at all, they are a spurious folk psychology and
Introspection illusion. Reductive materialism is at one end of a continuum
(theories will reduce to facts; also called mind-brain identity theory that asserts
that mental events can be grouped into types, and can then be correlated with
types of physical events in the brain. For example, mental pains is correlated
with C-fiber firings) and eliminativist materialism on the other (certain theories
will need to be eliminated in light of new facts), Revisionary materialism is
somewhere in the middle (a concept is only partially incorrect because it ignores
a few important causal factors).
xxx
51 As per (Chopra, 2015), “The possibility of a conscious universe has tantalized
cosmologists who believe that the mind-matter divide is unsatisfactory.

If consciousness is non-dual, a belief shared by Planck and Schrödinger, then
a “mind first” approach must solve the same inherent complexities as the current
“matter first” cosmology.
This session aims to examine the principles that might govern a conscious
universe, bearing in mind that if it is truly monistic, consciousness must pertain
from the Planck scale to the macro scale, from the earliest instant of creation to
the present day. In a word, it must be the “constant of constants.”
Despite enormous advances in mapping out the neural correlates of
consciousness (NCC) and explorations into the fundamental nature of matter in
the universe through particle physics, there remains no explanation of reality
itself.
If reality is consciousness-based and non-dual, the following axioms should
be admitted:
1. The universe doesn’t contain consciousness, nor is consciousness in it as a
property. Everything is consciousness and its modulations.
2. Consciousness is acausal, holistic, non-local, and dimensionless.
3. In its expressed forms, consciousness is dynamic but at the same time
sentient, recursive, synchronous, and complementary. These properties exist
intrinsically in creation, whether manifest or unmanifest.
4. Consciousness differentiates as knower, process of knowing and known
(observer, process of observation, observed objects), with the proviso that the
observer is not necessarily human or even individual.
5. Consciousness is self-regulating, self-evolving, and self-aware.
241
Dvi-Pakṣa
6. Consciousness is creative.
7. Among living things, the evolution of species is driven by the evolution of
“species of consciousness.”
8. The evolution of the universe is essentially mental and perceptual. Each
species of consciousness organizes reality around its perceptual/mental capacity,
and these capacities evolve.
For participants who wish, a contemplative meditation on non-duality will be

offered, with the aim of giving the actual experience
of the axioms just listed.”
52 Comments and Replies related to the seven problems of Interactive Substance

Dualism (ISD) are as follows.
(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem: If nature has two
distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects
of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009)?
SH (Syamala Hari): As I read the Stapp reference, it did not seem to me
that Stapp is asking this question. Rather, he thinks that Von Neumann whose
physics and philosophy Stapp fully accepts, has answered the question. To
quote Stapp from this reference: “Quantum mechanics is therefore dualistic in
one sense, namely the pragmatic sense. It involves, operationally, on the one
hand, aspects of nature that are described in physical terms, and, on the other
hand, also aspects of nature that are described in psychological terms. And these
two parts interact in human brains in accordance with laws specified by the
theory. In these ways orthodox quantum mechanics is completely concordant
with the defining characteristics of Cartesian dualism.”
Author (RLPV): It is unclear what those laws are that can address the
association or mind-brain interaction problem at brain level, neural-network-
level, neural-level, molecular-level and electron/ion-level. I had email discussion
with Stapp (see Section 2.2 of (Vimal, 2011a)). Von Neumann and Stapp’s views
appear to claim the existence of independent conscious observer (soul/Ātman,
independent of matter) that is necessary in measurements. They make a massive
category mistake because mind interacts with matter whereas mind and matter
are of two different categories (Feigl, 1967). Interactive substance dualism,
materialism (mind from matter), and idealism (matter-in-itself from mind)
certainly make category mistake; cross interaction is not allowed.
The ‘dual-aspect monism framework with dual-mode and varying degrees of
the dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities’ (eDAM) (Vimal,
2010c) does not have this problem. Same-same (mind-mind or matter-matter)
interaction is allowed because it does not make category mistake; thus, the
eDAM framework is a better option which also makes Von Neumann and Stapp’s
view less problematic because the mental aspect of observer can interact with the
mental aspect of entity that is being measured; same with physical aspects.
(2) Problem of mental causation
242
Dvi-Pakṣa
SH: On pages 20-22 of (Hiley & Pylkkänen, 2005), Hiley and Pylkkänen say
the following: Eccles drew on a proposal by (Margenau, 1984), according to which
the … mind may be regarded as a field in the accepted physical sense of the
term. But it is a nonmaterial field, its closest analogy is perhaps a probability
field. It cannot be compared with the simpler nonmaterial fields that require the
presence of matter (hydrodynamic flow or acoustic). . . Nor does it necessarily
have a definite position in space. And as far as present evidence goes it is not an
energy in any physical sense.
Eccles suggested that this non-material field could change the probability
of synaptic vesicular emission, provided that one appeals to quantum principles.
He went on to propose that particular quantum effects can be used to control the
frequency of exocytosis without violating the conservation of energy. (Beck &
Eccles, 1992) concentrated on the function of spine synapses. Here the
regulatory function that results from exocytosis occurs only with probabilities
much smaller than one for each incoming nerve impulse. They therefore regarded
this exocytosis as a candidate for quantum processes to influence neural activity.
The appearance of the low transition probabilities in synaptic exocytosis implies
that there exists an activation barrier against the opening of an ion channel in
the presynaptic vesicular grid. Such barrier transitions can occur either purely
stochastically by thermal fluctuations or by stimulation of a trigger process. Beck
and Eccles proposed a two-state quantum trigger which activates the gating
process by means of quasi-particle tunneling. The calculations given by Beck and
Eccles suggest that this is an appropriate place for quantum tunneling to occur,
so that the probabilities of exocytosis could be changed by a “mind-field”.
Hiley and Pylkkänen consider this in light of the Bohm approach. They say
that if the “mind-field” can be seen as containing active information which
contributes to the quantum potential then the quantum potential effectively
reduces the height of the barrier to increase the probability of exocytosis. Thus
they regard the “mind-field” as initiating a subsequent neural process which
finally activates the motor neurons to produce the outward behavior. Thus they
think that Eccles's view of the effect on the brain of a nonmaterial mind-field
without violating laws of conservation of energy and momentum is possible in
reality.
I wish to point out that this intuitive picture of the above action of the
mind on its brain is realized in concrete mathematical terms in my paper “Mind
and Tachyons: How Tachyon Changes Quantum Potential and Brain Creates
Mind” accepted for publication in the Neuroquantology journal. You may a take
a look at the paper on
http://mind-and-tachyons.blogspot.com/ .
Author: Mental causation if has same-same then there is no problem, but
if it is cross (mind causing matter or vice versa), then there is the category
mistake problem.
Beck and Eccles’ Mind-Field, Interactive Dualism, and the dual-aspect
monism framework (Vimal, 2010c): (Beck & Eccles, 1992) might be correct as
243
Dvi-Pakṣa
for as quantum process in synapses is concerned for the information transfer

between neurons via classical axon-dendritic neural firing (spikes) sub-pathway
of both feed forward and feedback pathways.
However, as far as the subjective experience aspect of consciousness is
concerned, Beck and Eccles’ mind-field (Beck & Eccles, 1992) has substance-
dualism that has problems, so it is controversial. Stapp (Stapp, 1996, 2006)
appears extending Beck and Eccles’ framework while addressing some of the
problems of substance-dualism; some argue that Stapp’s view is close
to solipsism (the skeptical philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain
to exist). However, because of these problems, I have avoided this approach. In
neuroscience community (mostly materialists), Eccles’ framework is regarded
controversial and there is no general consensus on it.
If we combine our eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) and Beck and Eccles’
quantum process in synapses (Beck & Eccles, 1992), then it would have fewer
problems. This is because it will avoid category mistake.
Bohm is clearly dual-aspect monist (Vimal, 2010c). If tachyons (Hari, 2008,
2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b) exist, they should be dual-aspect entities; the
mental-aspect of zero-energy tachyon field is the related mind-fields, which
should interact with the mental-aspect of related neural-network(NN)-state to
avoid category mistake. Similarly, the physical aspect of tachyon should interact
with physical aspect of related NN-state.
(3) ‘Zombie’ problem
SH: The assumption that nothing exists which cannot be verified by
scientific verification which always takes the third-person point of view, or that
outward behavior is important but not subjective experience is one of the
assumptions of Dennett's theory and what Searle considers as the deepest
mistake in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained. Moreover, creation of a
zombie itself is a problem that is being debated. A robot which simulates any
given behavior of a human being can be constructed for sure, but first of all, it
has to be constructed by conscious human beings; the robot does not come into
existence all by itself. (Actually the purpose of creating robots is to have them
carry out tasks without human intervention!). I would think neither can zombies
come into existence on their own, at least we have not seen that happen. As far
as I know, it is not yet a proven fact that a biological duplicate of a human being
but which has no consciousness can be created; even if it is proved that it can be
created by human beings, for that very reason, it presents no argument against
mental causation in dualist theories. The “subtraction of the mind from the
brain” has to be done by very intelligent minds with motivation to do it.
The remark “it makes no difference what happens in the world, because it
does not cause behavior” is confusing. Even a zombie, if it exists, exhibits
behavior which means responds to changes in the external circumstances.
On the other hand, how does a dual-aspect theory show that a duplicate of
the neurophysical configuration of a given human being cannot be created or can
be born somewhere else in the world by mere chance? A dual-aspect theory can
244
Dvi-Pakṣa
only say that if a duplicate exists it is a complete duplicate of that person in both
physical and mental make up.
Author: Materialism has problem; I agree. However, substance-dualism’s
‘zombie’ problem implies epiphenomenalism, which is also a problem.
I re-wrote this section as: ‘Zombie’ problem: Substance dualism allows
brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the
former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical
events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson,
2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences
(Eerikäinen, 2000).
Yes, the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) rejects zombie because the
molecule-by-molecule replication of human will be conscious as the mental and
physical aspects are inseparable. The eDAM framework predicts conscious
robots.
(4) ‘Ghost’ problem: The suggestion here is that a dualist theory would allow
for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been
scientifically verified.
SH: The primary objection to a dualist theory is in fact that it can never be
proved scientifically. That is true if the mental aspect is not scientifically defined.
The tachyon hypothesis mentioned under problem (2) [the problem of mental
causation] above provides the possibility to overcome this objection. As a matter
of fact, even dual-aspect theories have not been experimentally verified as yet
and neither does a completely monist theory exist which can claim that it has
solved the mystery of consciousness. On the other hand, there are scientific
experimental results which support dualist theories; for example, the delay and
antedating of peripheral sensations experiments by Libet (Libet, 1996a, 1996b;
Libet, Wright, Feinstein, & Pearl, 1979) cannot be explained by monist or dual-
aspect theories but their results are possible in a dualist theory! (The paper
referenced under problem (2) actually explains the Libet paradox.) Also, what
about unconscious thought? For example, see (Westen, 1999).
Author: Libet is sympathetic to materialistic emergentism. As per (Wolf,
1999), “The ‘delay-and-antedating’ paradox/hypothesis refers to the lag in time of
measurable cerebral electrical activity associated with a conscious sensory
experience following a peripheral sensation. To account for this paradox, Libet
suggested subjective antedating of that experience. In a series of studies (Libet et
al. 1979, Libet 1996) several subjects' brains showed that neuronal adequacy
(critical neural activity) wasn't achieved until a significant delay time D as high
as 500 msecs following a stimulus. Yet the subjects stated that they were aware
of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation. Put
briefly, how can a subject be aware of a sensation, that is, be conscious of it, if
the subject's brain has not registered that ‘awareness’?: Many plausible
arguments have been offered and refuted by (Libet, 1996a, 1996b; Libet et al.,
1979) and others (Bergenheim, Johansson, Granlund, & Pedersen, 1996).”
As per (Libet et al., 1979): (i) Subjective experience of a peripherally-
induced sensation does not have significantly delay compared to the experience
245
Dvi-Pakṣa
of a cortically-induced sensation. (ii) However, the putative delay is up to about

500 ms to elicit the peripherally-induced experience for achieving the required
‘neuronal adequacy’. (iii) A hypothesis is proposed to explain this puzzle: “for a
peripheral sensory input, (a) the primary evoked response of sensory cortex to
the specific projection (lemniscal) input is associated with a process that can
serve as a 'time-marker'; and (b), after delayed neuronal adequacy is achieved,
there is a subjective referral of the sensory experience backwards in time so as to
coincide with this initial 'time-marker'.” (iv) This hypothesis was experimentally
tested in human subjects by appropriately implanted electrodes on the medial
lemniscus (LM) and the surface of somatosensory cortex (C); the results
maintained the hypothesis. The LM is the pathway in the brainstem that is
composed of medulla oblongata, pons, and midbrain and carries sensory
information from the gracile and cuneate nuclei of medulla oblongata to the
thalamus. The midbrain is comprised of tectum/colliculi, tegmentum, ventricular
mesocoelia, cerebral peduncles, and several nuclei and fasciculi. (v) In this
experiment, the test stimuli to LM and C were arranged to require the minimum
train duration of 200 ms or more for producing any conscious sensory experience
in each case. (vi) “Each such cerebral stimulus could be temporally coupled with
a peripheral one (usually skin, S) that required relatively negligible stimulus
duration to produce a sensation.” (vii) “The sensory experiences induced by LM
stimuli were found to be subjectively timed as if there were no delay relative to
those for S, that is, as if the subjective experience for LM was referred to the
onset rather than to the end of the required stimulus duration of 200 ms or
more.” (viii) “On the other hand, sensory experiences induced by the C stimuli,
which did not excite specific projection afferents, appeared to be subjectively
timed with a substantial delay relative to those for S, that is, as if the time of the
subjective experience coincided roughly with the end of the minimum duration
required by the C stimuli.” (ix) “A temporal discrepancy between corresponding
mental and physical events, i.e., between the timing of a subjective sensory
experience and the time at which the state of 'neuronal adequacy' for giving rise
to this experience is achieved, would introduce a novel experimentally-based
feature into the concept of psychophysiological parallelism in the mind-brain
relationship.”
As per (Libet, 1996b), “I had previously proposed a hypothetical ‘conscious
mental field’ as an emergent property of appropriate neural activities, with the
attributes of integrated subjective experience and a causal ability to modulate
some neural processes.” This implies that mind causes modulations in neural
processes, which seems to make category mistake. This mistake can be avoided
by the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework, where the changes in mental aspect
of neural-network(NN)-state is faithfully, rigorously, and automatically translated
into the modulations in the inseparable physical aspect (neural processes) of that
NN-state because of the doctrine of inseparability of mental and physical aspects.
Substance dualism can also explain the Libet’s paradox, but two different
kinds of substances are needed, which is not necessary and less parsimonious as
per the Occam’s razor. If Atman exists after death then it must be a dual-aspect
246
Dvi-Pakṣa
entity because it carries the Karmic-impressions in the subtle body (physical

aspect) for re-birth if Brahman is not realized and/or the intense desire for
worldly entities still remains.
The dual-aspect monism (Vimal, 2010c) can address Libet’s paradox as
follows: The phenomenal subjective experience (SE) of the sensation within a few
msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation is the mental aspect of related
phenomenal-neural-network(NN)-state and the activity and this NN is the
physical aspect. We need to investigate this early NN for faster route. Perhaps,
this phenomenal awareness does not require re-entry and attentional related NN,
which is time consuming as it may take up to 500 msec. The temporal delay of
about 500 msec gives enough time to activate many re-entry and attentional
related NN and hence this SE might be access awareness/consciousness that
can be reported precisely. Again, both aspects of related access-NN-state are
involved, which needs further investigation. The atheist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (eDAM) framework rejects ghosts because the mental and physical
aspects are inseparable.
The data related to unconscious processing (Westen, 1999) can be
explained by the eDAM framework. A unconscious thought, in the eDAM
framework, is the mental aspect of the NN-state related to unconscious thought
and its physical aspect is the related NN and activities as in conscious SEs
(Vimal, 2010a, 2010b, 2010d, 2011g).
(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem
SH: Whatever the theory of consciousness one may be pursuing, monist,
dual-aspect, or dualist, the mental state is not directly accessible by scientific
instruments. A monist claims that the phenomenal information of Chalmers, is a
property of the physical brain states; a dual-aspect theorist believes that a given
mental state is the other aspect of the mind/brain with a corresponding physical
state; a dualist believes that mental and physical states are states of different
substances with some rules of correspondence. No matter what the theory is,
the relation between mental and physical states whether one-to-one, many-to-
one or many-to-many, it can only be inferred in experiments in which the human
subject whose brain is being measured reports his/her mental state to the
experimenter. The experimenter only measures the physical state but not the
mental state directly. So what is the difference between the various theories as
regards neurophysiological testing? If the relation is not one-to-one, so be it, let
the truth reveal itself.
A mental state is similar to a state of software in a computer; a
corresponding hardware state (a neurophysical state in the case of the brain) is
one which is a mapping of the software state. A computer's software can be
coded in different languages. Depending upon the design, the same computer
may carry more than one physical representation of the software like binary,
hexadecimal, etc. But the brain's material is not electronic; hence the relation
could be different (many-to-one, one-to-many etc.).
Author: The many-to-one or many-to-many relation is not unique type of
relationship; it is less parsimonious. The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c,
247
Dvi-Pakṣa
2013) has inseparable mental and physical aspects and hence has 1-1
relationship and does not have this problem. Psychophysical data are mostly
from first person perspective, such as in color matching, which can be objectively
recorded and analyzed as in (Vimal, Pokorny, & Smith, 1987). It is unclear what
the advantage of interactive substance dualism (ISD) is if the eDAM framework
can explain everything what ISD can. The criterion of the selection of
metaphysics can be the lesser number of problems when two or all views can
explain all the empirical data. The eDAM framework has the least number of
problems, compared to all other views, which is the one of the main points for
selecting it.
(6) Causal pairing problem
SH: Quite a few researchers have presented rebuttals of Jaegwon Kim's
((Kim, 2005).p78-83) arguments about this problem. Starting from birth, the
mind/brain keeps learning by receiving sensory inputs from the environment
(including interactions with other living beings) and keeps accumulating
experiences and strategies to respond to future inputs, in other words,
information. This is a neurophysically proven fact. Hence the mind IS emergent
and therefore overcomes the pairing problem according to (O'Connor & Wong,
2005). Why do you assume that the emergence is only materialistic? It is so in
an electronic computer which does not have any phenomenal information to
begin with but the brain is different from the computer in this very aspect. For
example, see my article referenced under problem (2). It shows that more mental
substance (in the form of tachyons) is created in every interaction with the
environment. So a dualist theory does not assume that the emergence of
brain/mind is purely materialistic. Along with materialistic emergence, new
phenomenal information is also created and accumulated in the brain.
Author: Both materialistic and mentalistic emergences have their own
explanatory gap problems. Emergentism is a mysterious view. ISD has causal
pairing problem because of its own explanatory gap: how the separable mind
(Ātman) can pair with matter (neural-network, neural, molecular, and
electronic/ionic levels). The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) does
not have this problem because of the inseparability of aspects.
(7) Developmental problem
SH: Life begins with the interaction of a certain mind (a chunk of some
phenomenal information or mental substance) with some matter. Just like a
complex program cannot be loaded into a pocket calculator, all the complex
features present in the initial chunk of mind cannot function until the physical
brain develops adequately. As life goes on, the brain gradually develops and is
gradually able to manifest all the features that are dormant initially and at the
same time, the mind also learns and accumulates more and more information.
What the mind in a brain learns depends upon what it receives from outside as
well as what its content already is at that time. (A computer's response depends
upon both the input and the software content of the computer.) However, this
does not necessarily mean that the self is powerless and is a slave of the physical
system. Even twins brought up in a similar environment and looking alike may
248
Dvi-Pakṣa
develop different behavioral tendencies if the initial content of their minds is

different. For example, one may turn out to be a musician while the other is not;
hence the development of the physical system itself could be guided by the initial
mind or what you call self. So, the self starts life by starting interaction with
matter and moulds the physical development later on as well. Of course, all this
has to be proved scientifically but the point is that dualism does not necessarily
imply that self is powerless as you say.
In a dual-aspect theory, the mental aspect acts on the physical aspect, for
example, in a way similar to the quantum wave acts upon its particle in Bohm's
theory. But to create a new mental feature, a new physical configuration has to
be created first by interacting with some external material agent, which is then
accompanied by its mental aspect. So, the emergence of self does depend upon
material interactions. In the twins example above, a dual-aspect theory cannot
accept the fact that one is a musician and the other is not.
Author: The objection related to the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework
is not tenable. The Cross interaction (mind on matter or vice versa) makes a
massive category mistake. ISD (mind interacts with matter), materialism (mind
from matter), idealism (matter from mind) all makes category mistake. The eDAM
framework (the dual-aspect monism framework with dual-mode and varying
degrees of the dominance of aspects depending on the levels of entities) does not
make this mistake because aspects are inseparable, mind does not act on matter
or vice-versa. Furthermore, there is no mysterious emergence in the eDAM
framework as discussed in (Vimal, 2013) because a specific SE is selected from
the SEs embedded in the mental aspect of neural-network-states via the
matching mechanism. The eDAM framework accepts the fact that one is a
musician and the other is not because the NN-states of twins can be different.
To sum up, The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) is a better
framework and is a middle path between materialism and interactive substance
dualism (ISD) & idealism. It is unclear why we still need ISD instead of the eDAM
framework.
SH: It does not seem to me that you addressed any of the various points I
mentioned except for the one disagreement that substances of two categories
cannot interact; this could be the basic assumption of eDAM which a dualist
theory does not accept.
Tachyonic matter is above the light barrier whereas ordinary matter is
below the barrier. The relativity theory says neither one can ever cross the barrier
to go to the opposite side. Tachyon theories consider them as different
substances and that interaction is possible; they do not say that a tachyon
inevitably accompanies a material particle. So if you say tachyons and ordinary
matter are dual aspects of the same thing, it may be so in a philosophical sense
because everything is an aspect of the absolute Brahman but in scientific sense,
one has to show first theoretically how a tachyon inevitably accompanies a
material particle.
Author: I think that I have addressed all relevant issues. The doctrine of
inseparability of aspects is for each entity; an entity could be the fundamental
249
Dvi-Pakṣa
primal Brahman, tachyon, or any other entities. The degrees of the dominance of
aspects vary with the levels of entities. In other words, the mental (M) aspect a
brain-state can be a specific SE and its physical (P) aspect can be related NN and
its activities; so both aspects are dominant in the wakeful conscious state of
brain/mind. The mental aspect of the state of an inert matter appear latent in
third person perspective; however, we need to be that matter to understand what
its first person perspective might be. Its physical aspect appears dominant. We
know from physics with evidence that physical aspects (P-P) interact, i.e., same-
same interactions (P-P and M-M) are allowed. Cross-interactions (M-P or P-M)
are prohibited because there is no scientific evidence and they make category
mistake. Perhaps, interactive substance dualism, materialism, and mentalistic
idealism do not honor category mistake. They allow subjective experiences (SEs)
(such as redness) to interact with matter (such as redness-related-V4/V8/VO-
neural-network); please give us some evidence for SEs interacting with matter
and precisely how.
SH: In our experience of the world, we have not seen a purely material
interaction that is, an interaction involving only lifeless matter ever generate
phenomenal information. So even in a dual-aspect theory in which you say the
mental aspect is dominant in living matter but not in lifeless matter, at least one
participant in an interaction should be living matter for the result to produce
recognizable experience. So, for example, when one sees a red flower first and
then a blue flower later, and recognizes that the latter color is different from the
former, this awareness is the result of an interaction in which the red experience
and the blue experience both must have been participants. Because a computer
on the other hand, can also tell the outside world that the latter color is different
from the former but it never has any experience. When the new awareness of
blue color is produced in the brain, in all quantum theories of consciousness I
know, there should be an accompanying quantum collapse of the physical brain
(for example, (Stapp, 1995)). What the quantum theories do not say is why a
quantum collapse of the physical brain should produce awareness when no
collapse of a lifeless quantum system ever produces awareness. At least we have
not so far seen that happen. In my paper mentioned in my comments, I showed
that new tachyons (new SEs) are produced when the collapse occurs.
Author: In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), the mental
aspect is from the subjective first person perspective and the physical aspect is
the objective third person perspective. This means, we do not know what the
subjective first person perspective might be for inert entities, we have to be them
to know (if any!).
I agree with you that materialism (that uses classical physics) cannot
explain subjective experiences. In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c,
2013), I have precisely and rigorously shown how a specific SE is selected via
quantum conjugate matching mechanism. I had long email discussion with
Stapp related to quantum collapse, which is given in Sections 1.3 and 2.2 of
(Vimal, 2011a). For example in Section 1.3:
250
Dvi-Pakṣa
(I) Since horizontal cut is needed to conform to quantum mechanics (QM),

there are 4 possible horizontal cuts in the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b,
2010c, 2013):
(HC1) Mind-Matter Interaction: The Heisenberg type horizontal cut between
(a) the mental aspect (‘abstract ego’) of observer-dependent cognitive feedback
signals related higher level brain areas including cortical midline structures
(CMS) for self and their neural activities and (b) the physical aspect of stimulus-
dependent feed-forward signals related lower and intermediate level brain areas
and their neural activities/representations. This is close to Stapp’s framework in
QM.
(HC2) Matter-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical
aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the
mental aspect of feed-forward stimulus-dependent part of neural-network. This
cut does not appear interesting and relevant.
(HC3) Matter-Matter Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical
aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the
physical-aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This
is usual neurophysiological feedback-feed-forward signal interaction.
(HC4) Mind-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the mental aspect
of cognitive feedback observer dependent part of neural-network and the mental
aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This is a novel
mind-mind interaction and is proposed in the eDAM framework.
The horizontal cuts (HC1) and (HC2) involve ‘category mistake’ (Feigl, 1967;
Vimal, 2010c) because mind and matter are two different categories and it is not
crystal clear how the observer-dependent mental aspect can interact with
stimulus-dependent physical aspect. Orthodox QM assumes that they simply
interact, as the brute fact, is not sufficient because of the failure of “principle of
understandability” for many investigators; it is also mystery to me.
One could argue that if the ‘abstract ego’ acts by her ‘intention’ to make
measurements and to perform experiments in a certain way, then this intention
has to be expressed in terms of neural-activities, and brain areas must be
involved for generating certain action. In other words, HC1 has to take the help of
HC3 for the interaction of ‘abstract ego’ with matter, where HC3 is a matter-
matter interaction. The horizontal cuts (HC3) and (HC4) are less objectionable
because they avoid category mistake.
HC3 and HC4 are precisely and rigorously implemented in (Vimal, 2010c).
Furthermore, if the matter-matter matching via the interaction between the
physical aspects of neural signals as in HC3 is accomplished then mind-mind
matching is automatically, rigorously, precisely, and faithfully accomplished.
This is because the physical and mental aspects of an entity are in 1-1
relationship and cannot be separated because of the doctrine of inseparability. If
there is any change in one aspect then that change will be reflected in other
aspect faithfully, precisely and automatically. Similarly, vice-versa, i.e., if mind-
mind matching via the interaction between the mental aspects of neural signals
as in HC4 is accomplished then matter-matter matching is automatically
251
Dvi-Pakṣa
accomplished because physical and mental aspects of an entity-state are

inseparable.
(II) The eDAM framework maintains that (i) the mental and physical
aspects of an entity never get separated and (ii) have 1-1 relationship, and (iii) if
any change occurs in its physical aspect (in the objective third person
perspective) that change will be reflected in its mental aspect (in the subjective
first person perspective) and vice-versa. Thus, this framework maintains the
principle of the causal closure of the physical-mental (not just physical).
Therefore, the mystery of ontology is uncovered. In other words, the mental part
could NEVER veer of in some completely tangential direction because both
aspects will never get separated as this is substance monism and property
dualism in the sense of inseparable dual-aspect (the eDAM) framework. However,
in substance dualism or materialism this mystery remains.
(III) In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), the physically
described aspect, evolving in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, matches
the experienced reality via the matching and selection mechanism as briefly
elaborated above in (I). The details are given in (Vimal, 2010c). My use of the term
‘soul’/ ‘jīvātman’ has the same meaning as ‘abstract ego’ because both have
independent existence and independent ontology.
(IV) Please note that, in the eDAM framework, both aspects never get
separated from each other; both aspects co-evolve and co-develop very closely as
detailed in (Vimal, 2008b). Therefore, I do not see any failure.
(V) The matching mechanism involves the interaction between stimulus-
dependent feed-forward signals and cognitive feedback signals in a re-entrant
neural-network. Then the selection of specific subjective experience (SE) out of
many possible SEs occurs; this is what I mean by the term ‘collapse’ of many SEs
to one specific SE. It takes time for these neural processes. I agree that there are
problems with Penrose-Hameroff OR-Orch model (Hameroff & Penrose, 1996;
Hameroff & Penrose, 1998; Hameroff & Powell, 2009) but they are trying their
best to address them (Hameroff, 1994; Hameroff, 2009; Hameroff & Penrose,
1998). My framework involves 5 pathways. If their quantum pathway turns out to
be wrong, then there are still 4 more pathways to work on.
(VI) I do not see that my framework is not compatible with physics. Details
are given in (Vimal, 2010c, 2010e, 2010f, 2010g).
Furthermore, Brihadāranyaka Upaniṣhad that has ISD and idealism
honors category mistake and implicitly implies the eDAM framework. For
example, the following implies the dual-aspect nature of light and our visual
system. “The sun connects itself with the eye by the rays that he projects. The
rays emanate from the sun and impinge on the retina of the eye. Then the eyes
begin to see the brilliance of the light of the sun, and the same light when it falls
on an object of sense becomes responsible for the perception of that object
through the eye. But, it is not merely the light of the sun that is responsible for
this perception of the object outside. There is something inside us without which
perception would be impossible. The conscious element within us that peeps
through the eyes and receives the impressions of light emanating from outside
252
Dvi-Pakṣa
brings about connection with the form of light outside. It may appear for all
precise purposes that light is inert and unconscious and that we are conscious;
that the perceiving individual is conscious and that the light that is responsible
for the perception of an object is inert, physical. The Upaniṣhad, at least, does
not believe in an ultimate physicality of things. Even the so-called physical
objects are ultimately spiritual in their nature, because logic and ratiocination
compel us to accept that dissimilars cannot come together and coincide.
Consciousness cannot come in contact with that which is dissimilar in its
character. Light and consciousness cannot come in contact with each other if
consciousness were something different in nature from the light through which
perception is made possible. If light is wholly material, unspiritual, or non-
spiritual, bereft of the element of consciousness, consciousness cannot come in
contact with it. Then there would be no such thing as the perception of an object.
So the Upaniṣhad says that the idea that light outside is physical, and not
endowed with consciousness, is erroneous. There is a Puruṣha in the sun as well
as in the eye. The consciousness that is responsible for the action of the eye in
the perception of an object, the consciousness which actually becomes aware of
the presence of an object, is connected with the Puruṣha, or the consciousness in
that which emanates the light, or projects the light. ‘The Puruṣha in the sun is
the Puruṣha within you.’ Dakṣiṇe’kṣan puruṣaḥ tāv etāv: That which is within him,
that which is within me, that which is within you and that which is within the
sun—they are one. If the two are not one, there would be no connection between
light and eye. The connection between the light and the eye and the correlativity
of the action of light and the action of the eye implies that there is a similarity of
structure, similarity of being, similarity of essence and reality between the sun
and the eye” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.5.2.p313). These arguments can be
for both ISD and the eDAM framework, but latter has the least number of
problems so it is better.
53 The color area ‘V8/V4/VO’ refers to visual area V8 of Tootell-group

(Hadjikhani, Liu, Dale, Cavanagh, & Tootell, 1998; Tootell, Tsao, & Vanduffel,
2003), visual area V4 of Zeki-group (Bartels & Zeki, 2000), and VO of Wandell-
group (Wandell, 1999); they are the same human color area (Tootell et al., 2003).
VO is ventral-occipital cortex.
54 In the eDAM framework, for OBE/NDE, the mental aspect of the relevant NN-
state (a psychophysical entity) appears projected outside (as we experience
outside objects). However, activities (such as visual and auditory) are still going
on in NNs (but not detected clinically). To reject this hypothesis, subject must
wear eye-patches and ear-plugs effectively so no external stimulus-information
can travel inside visual and auditory system. Under these conditions, the eDAM
hypothesis predicts no visual and auditory OBE/NDE related to external objects;
however, endogenous OBE/NDE can still occur.
xxx
55 The hypothesis of life-after-death based on Out of Body Experiences (OBEs)
253
Dvi-Pakṣa
and Near Death Experiences (NDEs) is pseudoscience: the science-like that is

based on logic without scientific solid evidence for the interpretation of data.
OBEs/NDEs as discussed by (Laws & Perry, 2010) and others along with my
comments are as follows:
(i) OBEs are “episodes, during which a person’s consciousness seems,
according to their subjective recall afterwards, to ‘leave’ the body, and therefore
the physical brain, remaining aware of physical surroundings.”
(ii) OBEs frequently combine NDEs. NDEs appear “to transcend physical
surroundings and enable subjects to perceive an ‘after life’ scenario.”
(iii) OBEs are usually associated with extreme emotional/physical factors
such as (a) NDEs: survival after death, actual short periods of brain death, or flat
lining, which less open to delusion, fraud, or contamination by sensory input
during minimal consciousness; and (b) extreme stress, drug intoxication,
shamanic journeys, and telepathy.
(iv) OBE/NDEs are reports have been accumulated over many years and
across many cultures; they are now increasing because of improved technology
for resuscitation of patients.
(v) OBE/NDEs usually “include the sensation of ‘rising’ out of one’s body, and
actually being able to ‘hover’ above it and look down on it, being still visually and
aurally aware of surroundings even if unconscious, from a viewpoint outside the
physical body, somehow independent of physical eyes or ears.”
(vi) “Sometimes this disembodied consciousness moves to another room or
place, even outside. Especially if the subject is in extremis, in a coma or
flatlining, the experience may then go on to the classic NDE. The subject moves
through a dark tunnel, with a light at the end. They may ‘see’ their life history,
the ‘life review’ feature. They emerge into this light, to awareness of feelings of
peace, happiness, an awareness of a benign intelligence, a state they would wish
to stay in. Typically, they encounter loved ones who have previously died, who
explain to the subject, that they can’t stay but must return to their body until the
time is right.”
(vii) “These experiences occur in many cultures, indeed, sometimes a culture-
or religion-specific figure is present, but generally, the experiences do not
conform to the taught dogmas of the subject’s religion or culture. There is often a
‘boundary’ between the subject’s state and that of their loved ones, which may be
culturally determined, eg a river, a line, a wall, that must not be breached.
Instead, the subject is guided or sent back into the body. The conscious subject
typically recalls their experience as very clear, detailed, and coherent. The
individual commonly reports this as a life-changing experience, with feelings of
peacefulness, lack of fear of dying, and happiness which remain with them and
shape the rest of their lives.”
(viii) “It has to be said that sometimes the experience of the OBE/NDE is not
so positive. Frightening, ‘warning’ experiences are also reported. There is a
tendency to associate these with would-be suicides, being ‘warned’ against self-
slaughter, or drug fuelled states, but there are some instances of negative NDEs
not associated with these states. These instances are not so often cited, for
254
Dvi-Pakṣa
obvious reasons.”
(ix) “We’d all like to think that if consciousness survives death, of which those
who have NDEs become subjectively convinced, it will be a pleasant experience.
This feature of ‘wishful thinking’ can become a distorting factor, in the Chinese
Whispers effect.”
(x) (Greyson, 2000) found that 98 reported NDEs and 38 did not. These NDEs
were linked to dissociative experiences, such as periods of time unaccounted for,
feeling unfamiliar with one's surroundings even one's own body or amnesia.
These were not psychiatric disorder, rather they were non-pathological responses
to stress.
(xi) (Lange, Greyson, & Houran, 2004) surveyed using the Greyson’s NDE
scale (Greyson, 1983, 1990) reported that NDEs reflect peace, joy and harmony
with increasing intensity. As per QM, the observer influences and determines the
observed. However, the interactive substance dualism (truly detached
independent scientist/observer) has problems.
(xii) (French, 2005) proposed the following explanations of NDEs: (a)
Spiritually, consciousness detaches from its neural correlates that presumably
provides glimpse of afterlife. (b) Psychologically, NDEs can be considered as the
defense mechanism in extreme danger. (c) Biologically, NDEs may be due to
anoxia, cerebral hypoxia, hypercarbia, which cause the release of endorphins
and other brain neurotransmitters; these induce temporal lobe hyperactivity and
hallucinations. (d) Rationale: A patient with near-death brain does not show any
measurable activity (such as ‘flatlining’). Therefore, This type of patient’s
experiences may not be sensory-stimulus dependent. To test this hypothesis
patient should have ear plugs and eye patches; if NDEs disappear then NDEs
could sensory-stimulus dependent. Otherwise, one of the factors for NDEs might
be the physiological effects of anoxia/hypoxia. (e) Furthermore, similar
experiences are reported during the electromagnetic stimulation of the brain, the
use of drug ketamine, and extreme fatigue. Therefore, one could argue that NDEs
might be hallucinations (not real experiences) induced in a damaged brain.
(xiii) One could argue for NDEs/OBEs/consciousness may be outside of the
brain because these experiences have well-organized narrative, great clarity of
thoughts, and recall, whereas hypoxia has mental confusion. To test this
hypothesis, authentic empirical verification of some of NDEs/OBEs (such as
seeing doctors, nurses, and things outside of room and so on) is needed. If
verified rigorously, then it will not be easy to reject interactive substance
dualism.
(xiv) Some of NDEs/OBEs may not be easy to verify scientifically, such as (a)
peaceful ‘out of body’ experience, (b) the tunnel, (c) the wonderful light holding
‘god’ like intelligence and love, (d) deceased loved ones waiting for us, (e) the life
review, and (f) the feeling that everything that happens actually makes sense.
(xv) (Yamamura, 1998)’s Japanese-study reported that 14 out of 48 deep
coma patients, who subsequently reported NDEs, such as (a) flying in a dark void
with a light ahead, (b) encountering relatives and friends, and (c) returning to the
world in response to a voice calling, (d) finding ‘sincere values’ afterwards, and
255
Dvi-Pakṣa
(b) viewing death as a peaceful calm experience.

(xvi) (Lai, 2007) Taiwanese-study reported that 45 (young, religious women
were usually in this group) out of 710 dialysis patients reported NDEs, such as
(a) OBEs, (b) precognitive visions, (c) tunnel experiences. After effects were (a)
being kinder to others and (b) being more motivated towards better life. These
effects suggest that NDEs have (a) evolutionary advantage and (b) real
psychological positive effects, even if we do not know NDE’s intrinsic underlying
mechanisms. For example, if in NDE, the patient’s deceased mother is waiting for
him/her at the end (real or hallucination does not matter much if belief is
strong), a sense of good feeling arises and the fear of death reduces.
(xvii) Consciousness outside vs. inside: OBEs/NDEs are reported (a) under
extreme stress, such as traumatic childbirth, (b) during fleeting brain death or (b)
the use of shamanic plants, drugs, meditation and so on. Subjects report ‘seeing’
people, light, rivers, walls, and so on. How could someone ‘see’ with non-
functional physical eyes and cortex?
One could speculate that some form of consciousness operates outside the
brain-body system and perceives in more than 3D (10D in string theory). One
could further speculate that returning patient’s brain ‘translates’ what was
perceived ‘outside’ 3D perception into ‘normal’ 3D using their own culturally
influenced imagery in just a few seconds.
On the other hand, if NDEs/OBEs are just brain-constructs, the whole NDE
happened in seconds as consciousness returned from the unconscious state and
nothing happened during the state of clinical death. The brain tried to make
sense of the interruption in self-consciousness. One could argue that afflicted
brain may have tendency, developed through natural selection, to help the
species live less traumatized lives after major trauma. However, NDEs/OBEs are
for very few patients, not all. In other words, this hypothesis of NDEs/OBEs is
true for very few priviledge patients, not all. Patients who do not have
NDEs/OBEs and who have PTSD will contradict this hypothesis. Therefore, it is
unclear if the natural selection is the underlying mechanism of NDEs/OBEs.
(xviii) Brain and Quantum Processes: One could argue that the brain itself
uses quantum processes, which could range up to 10-15 s. (Persinger and Koren,
2007; Persinger et al., 2008) argue that brain-space can contain very large
amount of information and space-time increments. (Radin, 1997; Radin, 2006)
argue for QM to explain psychic phenomena scientifically. (Schwartz, Stapp, &
Beauregard, 2005) have proposed neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction
using quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology.
(xix) Remote viewing as NDEs/OBEs: NDEs/OBEs also include remote viewing
when clinically dead, such as (a) rising out of the body and ‘seeing’ the doctors
and nurses in the ICU, (b) ‘listening’ their conversation and/or nurse’s remark,
and (c) ‘seeing’ if doctor drops something. As per orthodox thinking, patients
should not have no coherent thoughts or experiences during clinical death. In
the ‘standstill’ procedure (in 1991, patient PR), for brain surgery to take place, (a)
the body is deeply chilled, (b) the brain is drained of blood, (c) the heart is
stopped, (d) anaesthesia is applied (so it is not near death procedure), and (e) PR
256
Dvi-Pakṣa
entered the room while awake. The period for the actual ‘standstill’ and flatline
was only a few minutes. (Sanborn, Malmberg, & Shiffrin, 2004) described a clear
timeline of events in the operating room and PR’s reported OBEs that
presumably occurred during flatline; however, one could raise questions on the
authenticity of the PR’s report although it has witnesses. PR observes her own
operation or part of it from outside her own body such as: (a) ‘hearing’
instruments and conversations of medical staff, (b) ‘seeing’ procedures applied to
her own operation including the bone saw, (c) ‘hearing’ remarks made on the
smallness of her veins, and (d) ‘experiencing’ the classic transcendental NDEs.
PR’s hearing may be due to incomplete anaesthesia and earplugs without
soundproof (Augustine, 2007) and other OBEs may be due to hypoxia (Woerlee,
2011, June 20).
(xx) Speculations: One could further argue that: (a) brain may still be
functional in some relevant way in clinical death; (b) there may be some forms of
consciousness that may be detectable as science advances, such as related to
quantum processes at subatomic levels or superfast speeds; and (c) gamma
brainwaves were recently detectable, so as technology advances, other waves may
be detected. If we have even one case that could be scientifically/empirically
verified, then we may be able to model better. Other parapsychological
phenomena (shamanic journeys, telepathy, and telekinesis) and models may be
interesting as well. It would be interesting to investigate biological equivalents of
quantum tunnelling, the uncertainty principle, and string theory. (Sheldrake,
2005: Schmidt, 2004) found small but statistically significant effects of mind on
mind and (Radin and Ferrari, 1991) seems to find the effect of mind on matter.
These may involve non-local indirect interactions; currently understood
mechanisms cannot explain them. The ‘influence of the observer on the observed’
is one of the premises of QM. In other words, just one verifiable case of OBE
could revolutionize biomedical science as quantum physics did to classical
physics.
(xxi) Alternative explanations: One could argue NDEs/OBEs might be
hallucinations; signals might have come from their long-term memory to some
extent. In other words, OBEs/NDEs are all long-term memory activated
information remain intact after clinical death, it tries its best to survive by
making up stories. This means we have excellent protective system. In OBE, the
patient’s brain-mind-state may construct experiences that appear as OBE in its
mental aspect, but its physical aspect may still be some relevant NN and their
residual activities.
(Beauregard, Courtemanche, & Paquette, 2009) measured brain activity in

subjects with NDEs using fMRI and EEG during Meditation and Control
condition. In the Meditation condition, subjects mentally visualize and
emotionally connect with the ‘being of light’ supposedly encountered during their
NDEs. In the Control condition, subjects mentally visualize the lamp light. The
fMRI-activated areas were right brainstem, right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, right
medial prefrontal cortex, right superior parietal lobule, left superior occipital
257
Dvi-Pakṣa
gyrus, left anterior temporal pole, left inferior temporal gyrus, left anterior insula,
left parahippocampal gyrus and left substantia nigra. The EEG-activated (a) theta
power were detected at FP1, F7, F3, T5, P3, O1, FP2, F4, F8, P4, Fz, Cz and Pz;
(b) alpha power at FP1, F7, T3 and FP2; and (c) gamma power at FP2, F7, T4 and
T5. These brain regions are also involved in positive emotions, visual mental
imagery, attention or spiritual experiences.
(Fox, 1962) proposed that OBEs are related to astral projection that is a
record of OBEs. (Tart, 1967) analyzed the content of OBEs that include: (a)
possessing a nonphysical body, (b) floating, (c) ‘seeing’ one's physical body from
the outside such as by hovering over it, (d) thinking of a distant place while
‘outside’ and suddenly finding oneself there, and (e) being absolutely convinced
the OBE was not a dream.
(Persinger, 1974) analyzed the temporal sequence of OBEs as: (a) a
progression from ‘being pulled by a force’, (b) awareness of the ‘consciousness’
looking down on the physical body, (c) floating sensations ‘like the wind’, (d)
movement through space by ‘thinking’ or ‘willing’, and (e) a voice telling the
person to ‘return’ or ‘go back’ to the body. In the lifetime of a normal person,
OBEs are not expected except when a brain is in pathological state, such as in
the acute minor functional reorganization of the right hemisphere (a) during
extreme metabolic states that typically diminish the blood flow or perfusion rates,
(b) after mild brain injury (Persinger, 1994), or (c) during appropriate electrical
stimulation within the temporoparietal regions.
(Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010) produced artificial OBEs (such
as the self detached from the body and moving through space) in normal subjects
using a brief exposure to the magnetic field generated from 64 solenoids designed
to affect the brain-fields. Wthin a few seconds after the 5-min stimulation, (a)
subjects felt mild lightness followed by (b) the feeling of floating, then (c)
intermittent ‘rushes of anxiety or sensations of falling’ similar to motion sickness,
(d) these ‘rushes’ became more and more frequent and were associated with
feelings of dissociation from the body and a loss of body image and awareness, (e)
the experience lead to the feeling thar subject’s head was floating above the spot
where his body was sitting, (f) then subject could not distinguish between his
limbs, his torso, or the surrounding space and objects in the room, and (g)
subject asked to terminate the expriement, and then he felt fatigue and
headache. Left temporal lobe (linked with the sense of self and consciousness)
and right prefrontal areas (associated with spatial navigation) had high EEG-
activities in 4-7 and 15-21 Hz band. The signals for the ‘left temporal-right
prefrontal coherence’ started from left temporal areas to left frontal areas to the
right frontal areas. This reconstructs the autobiographical memory about where,
when, and with whom an event occurred (Buckner & Petersen, 1996) and then
‘mental timetravel’ could entail OBEs. The above coherence entails (a) the feeling
of separation of the self from the body, (b) the ‘movement in space’, (c) ‘thought’
as the central frame of reference to control this movement, and (d) the feeling of
being somewhere else. If the magnetic field stimulation is stopped suddenly,
OBEs decreased. Furthermore, one could argue that the states of consciousness
258
Dvi-Pakṣa
are analogous to quantum states embedded with cerebral fields, where the fields
contain quantized points.
Transcedental Mediatation Siddhi also leads to the feeling of lightness and
flying/floating. The intrusion of left hemispheric field in right hemisphere space
can be interpreted as: (i) the intrusion is the physical cause for OBE as per
physicalism, (ii) soul/self can be separated from its body (disembodiment) as per
interactive substance dualism or theist religions, (iii) OBE is the mental aspect of
the state whose physical aspect is self-related neural-network that also involves
left-temporal and right-frontal areas along with CMS, and is caused by the
intrusion as per dual-aspect monism. The interpretation (iii) is optimal because it
has the least number of problems. It is indeed amazing how powerful the brain
is.
An alternative hypothesis: At near death state, system may become introverted
(immersed in thinking and experiencing process for survival purpose, in analogy
to head of the state is put into best protected cell from war. Outside, there may
be no sign of life, but self might still be alive with intact memory before
information-theoretic death and with very little nutrients in analogy to
hibernation. I might be thinking/experiencing deeply but outside I might appear
unconscious or dead. Varied experiences might occur for the survival of the
system.
56See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyagarbha and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology
57 One could ask: the mental or physical aspect of ‘what’. Strictly speaking, it is
the mental or physical aspect of the state of an entity (or the state of the
representation in the brain/mind system (Velmans, 2008)), such as mental or
physical aspect of neural-network (NN)-state. However, ‘the mental or physical
aspect of entity’ is also sometimes used in my other articles with the same
meaning. A subjective experience (SE) is an expressed/actualized/realized first
person conscious experience that occurs/arises/emerges during interaction
between feed-forward signals and feedback signals in a NN, which satisfies the
necessary ingredients of consciousness (Vimal, 2011e) such as the formation of
NNs, wakefulness, re-entry, attention, working memory (Rowlatt, 2009), stimulus
at above threshold, and NN-proto-experiences (PEs). In general, PEs are
precursors of SEs. In hypothesis H1, PEs are precursors of SEs in the sense that
PEs are superposed potential SEs in unexpressed form in the mental aspect of
the state of each entity, from which a specific SE is realized through the
matching and selection processes in brain-environment system (Vimal, 2010c). In
hypotheses H2 and H3, PEs are precursors of SEs in the sense that SEs somehow
arise/are realized/emerge from PEs, as elaborated above and in (Vimal, 2013)
and (Vimal, 2009i, 2009j, 2010e).
259
Dvi-Pakṣa
58 The dual-mode concept is derived from the framework of thermofield

dissipative quantum brain dynamics (Globus, 2006; Vitiello, 1995).
59 Entropy is related to time in the thermofield dissipative quantum brain

dynamics (Globus, 2006; Vitiello, 1995).
60 We categorize all entities of our universe into two categories: mental (M) and
physical (P) entities. Then reductionism (M reduces to P), physicalism (M from P),
idealism (P from M), and non-Cartesian interactionism (James, 1890/1952;
Lowe, 2006; Scharf, 2010)/interactive-substance-dualism (M-P or P-M
interactions) make category mistake because of the cross-interactions (such as
M-P or P-M). Only dual-aspect monism with inseparable mental and physical
aspects, with same-on-same (M-M or P-P) interactions, is free from such mistake.
61 As per (Swami Krishnananda, 1983), “In this [liberated or Samādhi state] state,
all social relationships also get engulfed. All feelings which are associated with
the human personality are transcended once and for all. All the values that you
regard as worthwhile in life are superseded at one stroke. You have feelings for
father, mother, brother, sister, high, low, etc. in waking life in this individual
state, but when you reach the Absolute you have no such relationships. All
relationships are completely overcome in the unity of that Being. There is neither
father nor mother. Atra pitᾱ’pitᾱ bhavati, mᾱtᾱ’mᾱtᾱ, lokᾱḥ alokᾱḥ: The father
becomes no father; the mother becomes no mother; and the worlds cease to be
worlds. Though these worlds, these universes are present there, no doubt, they
are no more called worlds; they become the very substance of that experience of
liberation. [22.p244…] ‘While one does not see anything there, one sees
everything there’— yad vai tan na paśyati, paśyan vai tan na paśyati. Seeing, one sees
not. It is enigmatic no doubt, very difficult to understand how it is that seeing,
one sees not. One sees all and yet sees not anything as a particularised entity. It
is a single comprehension and not a perception in succession. It is not looking at
things, seeing objects one after another in a linear series. It is a total,
instantaneous awareness of all things. You cannot say that anything is being
seen there, because anything that is to be seen has become a part of the Seer
himself. [23.p245…] Na tu tad dvitīyam asti, tato’nyad vibhaktam yat paśyet …
The being of the object has become the being of the Self which sees and which
has to see. Inasmuch as there is a total transcendence of duality, a complete
abolition of the distinction between one and the other, the desire to perceive
ceases. And so, there is a ‘non-seeing’ of anything, and yet a seeing eternally of
everything. [23.p246…] If you can station your consciousness in this feeling of
unity with things, if you can fix yourself in this identity and free yourself from the
trammels of desire for external objects, you are in Brahma-loka just now.
Brahma-loka is not the distant world of Brahma. It is the world which itself is
Brahman, the Absolute— eṣa brahma-lokaḥ. The two, the world and Brahman,
260
Dvi-Pakṣa
become one. … All the joys of the entire cosmos put together would be only a
small drop of the bliss of this Supreme Being. … The Supreme Being is the
pinnacle of happiness. The Absolute is the climax of all joys. Nothing can be
compared to that state of perfection. [32.p247]” ((Swami Krishnananda,
1983).IV.3.22,23,32.p244, 246, 247).
In samadhi state, there are three kinds of experiences: the Bliss, the inner
light perception, and the unification of self/subject with environment/objects.
62 Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad: V.5.1: Satya: Sa-ti-ya vs. KANT's noumenon-

phenomenon-noumenon: As per (Swami Krishnananda, 1983), “Truth is an
object of meditation. […] Sa [MIR-truth], ti[cMDR=untruth], ya [MIR-truth]—these
are the three letters which form the word Satya.’ Now, symbolic is the
interpretation of the meaning of these three syllables. The Upaniṣhad tells us that
truth envelopes everything and there is that particular character about truth
which is encompassing everything. It is present everywhere, in every part of this
world, and what you call untruth is a meagre frail existence in the middle of this
all-consuming, all-enveloping Being which is truth. Or to put it in more plain
language, the phenomenon [appearance: cMDR] that we call this creation, which
is sometimes called the unreal or the relative, is enveloped by the real or the
neomenon [noumenon: thing-in-itself: MIR]. The neomenon is real; the
phenomenon is the unreal. But the phenomenon is enveloped by the neomenon.
Reality encompasses the whole of existence. It is present everywhere, it covers
untruth from all sides as if to swallow it and to give it only the character of an
appearance. Even what you call appearance or phenomenon has an element of
reality in it. So the Upaniṣhad says that truth is present even in untruth. The
Absolute is present even in the relative; the neomenon is present even in the
phenomenon; reality is in the appearance also. If reality were not to be in the
appearance, there cannot be any appearance at all because appearance must
also appear. If the reality element were not to be present in appearance,
appearance will not appear even. Then there would be no such thing as
appearance. The relative reality that we attribute or conceive to what we call
appearance is due to the presence of a degree of reality in it. So, reality is present
everywhere. It covers unreality from both sides, from every side. Likewise, is the
import of the syllables of this word Satya. Sa is reality; Ya is reality; the middle
one, Ti, is unreality. […]
The commentators tell us that the middle syllable, Ti, is called phenomenal, a
form of death or unreality, because this letter Ti occurs in such words as Mṛtyu,
Anitya and such other words which denote unreality or phenomenality. So the
Upaniṣhad apparently suggests that those who cannot conceive the magnificence
of truth, as it is in itself, may do well to contemplate at least the etymological
significance of the word […]
The first and the last letters of the word Satya may be contemplated as the
periphery of this universal manifestation of truth; the circumference as it were;
the aspect of reality which covers unreality from both sides, within as well as
without. Satya, or truth, is inside as well as outside. It is only in the middle that
261
Dvi-Pakṣa
it does not appear to be. But even this appearance is made possible only on
account of the preponderance of an element of Satya in it, says the Upaniṣhad.
Prathama uttame akṣare satyam. Madhyato’nṛtam: ‘Only in the middle there is an
apparent unreality.’ Tad etad anṛ tam ubhayataḥ satyena parigṛhītaṁ: ‘From both
sides untruth is covered by truth’ as it were, overwhelmed by truth and flooded
by truth. So even where you see impermanence, there is permanence hiddenly
present. Even where you see transciency, there is eternity manifested. Even in
temporality, there is the presence of Absolute Being because even the conception,
the sensation, the perception, etc. of what is not real is made possible only
because of the presence of the real. So, on either side there is truth and in the
middle only there is a phenomenal experience which is regarded by us as
untruth” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).BU:V.5.1.p310-311).
Critique1: If you analyze carefully, you discover that ‘untruth’ as an object does
not exist. So many of the statements here would need rephrasing.
Author: The statement is from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad translated by

Swami Krishnananda ji; it is not mine. But it looks logical to me and makes this
Upaniṣhad consistent with Kant; East meets with West, which is good news.
Critique1: The concept is from Br U. he should keep the word asat that doing a
translation. Some of the words defy appropriate translation. As I said, English is
not a concept language! There are many people like these. They copy from Max
Müller etc., erroneous! In Kant and the western literature, untruth is evil.
Bipolar, truth and untruth, good and evil. In Br U etc., no evil, it's nonexistence
due to misperception. Big difference!
NM: First of all, I find no problem with Swami Kirishnananda Ji's translation.
Here is the full mantra
āpa evedam agra āsuḥ । tā āpaḥ satyam asṛjanta । satyaṃ brahma ।

brahma prajāpatim । prajāpatir devān । te devāḥ satyam evopāsate ।
tad etat tryakṣaraṃ sa-ti-yam iti sa ity ekam akṣaram ।
tīty ekam akṣaram । yam ity ekam akṣaram ।
prathamottame akṣare satyam madhyato'nṛtam ।
tad etad anṛtam ubhayataḥ satyena parigṛhītam ।
satyabhūyam eva bhavati ।
naivaṃvidvāṃsam anṛtaṃ hinasti ॥
Bṛhadāraṇyaka 5.5.1 ॥
When the Upnishad uses the word "anṛtaṃ" (which your mail faithfully quoted), I
262
Dvi-Pakṣa
have no idea why Critique1 says "he should keep the word asat". Where does the
word "asat" come into the picture? This is arguing for the sake of arguing, it is
like saying "I disagree with you because I must disagree with you."
"anṛta" is a concept which is also present in our well known national emblem -
"satyameva jayati nānṛtam" (Muṇḍaka 3.1.6). If Critique1 thinks the concept does
not exist, but our Upanishads say it does, their commentators expound on it,
then I would trust the Upanishads and their commentaries than Critique1.
Secondly it is ludicrous to suggest that Swami Krishnananda copied from Max

Mueller. Swami Krishnananda authored no less than 50 books, his knowledge of
Samskrita and Vedas is well known. The problem with Critique1's arguments is
that he even does not bother to read before responding. At least he could have
googled Swami Krishnananda to know about the author before making
comments like this.
Lastly, I am seriously surprised with the way Critique1, without doing any
homework at his end, goes about trashing the opinion of scholars who have
spent tens of years mastering Samskrita, analyzing, meditating, thinking, as if
they were school kids - be it Guruji or Swami Krishnananda (or even Max Mueller
whose knowledge of Samskrita is widely respected even if one does not agree with
him). What makes it worse is that Critique1 himself hardly knows any Samskrita
- as has been exposed in multiple emails with him. I think he has a bloated ego,
which gets punctured again and again by what he calls parroting kids, but he
bloats it up again - if he really thinks English is not a concept language and he is
particular about words, he should spend 12 years learning Panini's grammar and
then talk.
To sum it up, what you have quoted from Swami Krishnananda looks like a good
translation to me, and I would not bother with either the opinions of or the
unwillingness to agree by Critique1.
Author: Thanks. I agree with NM.
63 According to the historian (Thurston, 1994), “Not only did Āryabhata believe
that the earth rotates, but there are glimmerings in his system (and other similar
systems) of a possible underlying theory in which the earth (and the planets)
orbits the sun, rather than the sun orbiting the earth. The evidence is that the
basic planetary periods are relative to the sun.”
64http://www.amartya.de/ayurv2.htm and (Barrow, 1992; Filliozat, 1970; Kak,

1987, 1994; McClain, 1978; Seidenberg, 1978; Staal, 1988; van Nooten, 1993).
65 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Yantra
263
Dvi-Pakṣa
66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%81rv%C4%81ka
67 The 6 pramāṇas are: pratyakṣa (perceptual subjective experience), anumāna

(inference), Upamāna (analogy), arthāpatti (superimposion of known apparant
knowledge), Anupalabdhi (skepticism in the face of non-apprehension), and
Āgama (knowledge using texts such as Vedas; Āptavākya, Śabda pramāṇa).
68 http://prajnaquest.fr/blog/prehistoric-svabhavavada/
69When the constituting elements naturally come together, interact, and create
the forms without any purpose (Cārvākas were opposed to teleology/purpose),
then it is simply accidental/chance. This accidental/chance view of the world is
the mechanistic on the whole or the yadṛcchāvāda.
70 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
71 According to P. Carruthers (personal communication), “very few materialists

endorse a brute identity claim. Most are reductive representationalists of one sort
or another.” However, the contextual emergence of higher-level stable mental
states from lower-level neurodynamics is a non-reductive framework (in analogy
to temperature as an emergent property), where contingent contextual conditions
are necessary (Atmanspacher, 2007).
72 Levine’s argument is in the context of Philosophy of Science. One could ask:

what is the impact of a detected problem in scientific explanation for a
metaphysical view? Is science relevant to metaphysics? Why? In my view, for
consciousness research, borders between various departments should melt and
one should able to take advantage of critical information from one department to
another. Therefore, argument in the context of Philosophy of Science should be
relevant to metaphysics, and vice-versa.
73 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya : Hindi version.
74 As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960).(BS:II.2.1-10), “Even according to Sāṃkhya, the

original disturbance of the three guṇas [sattva, rajas, tamas] from the condition
of equipoise which is essential for creative manifestation cannot be due to the
unintelligent pradhāna [which is Prakṛti with 3 guṇas]. Clay does not change into
pots without the help of a potter… So pradhāna cannot be the cause of the world
[and emotions] unless there is an ultimate intelligent principle. [p367…] R.
[Rāmānujāchārya] says that the Sāṃkhya assumes three guņas and not one
ultimate cause [Brahman] … if they [guņas] are unlimited and therefore
omnipresent, then no inequality can result and so no effects can originate. To
explain the origination of results, it is necessary to assume limitation of the
guņas. [p368…] Puruṣa is indifferent and so cannot cause action or cessation
264
Dvi-Pakṣa
from activity. God [kārya Brahman], on the other hand, as a principle of

intelligence, can act or not[,] as he chooses. [p369…] If nearness [of Puruṣa/soul]
to prakṛti makes the soul capable of fruition, i.e., of being conscious of pleasure
and pain which are special modifications of prakṛti, it follows that as prakṛti is
ever near, the soul will never accomplish emancipation. … how can the
indifferent Puruṣa move the Pradhāna? [p370 …] Pradhāna is non-intelligent and
Puruṣa is indifferent [inactive] and there is no third principle and so there can be
no connection between the two. If the soul sees and pradhāna is capable of being
seen, then capacities which are permanent imply the impossibility of final
release. For Ś [Śankarāchārya], the Highest Self [Brahman] endowed with māyā is
superior to the Puruṣa of the Sāṃkhya. … Pradhāna cannot be active as the three
guṇas, sattva, rajas, and tamas abide in themselves in a state of equipoise
without standing to one another in the relation of principal and subordinate. For
activity the equipoise should be disturbed. There is no external principle to stir
the guṇas. … so the world cannot originate. If it be said that there is a certain
inequality even in the state of pralaya, then creation would be eternal. … We may
infer the nature of the guṇas from that of their effects and say that guṇas are of
an unsteady nature and so enter into a relation of mutual inequality even while
they ate in a state of equipoise. Even then … non-intelligent Pradhāna cannot
account for the orderly arrangement of world. [p371 …]
[Critiques on Sāṃkhya:] [1] Ś. points out that the Sāṃkhya mentions seven
senses and sometimes eleven. In some places it teaches that the subtle elements
of material things proceed from the great principle, mahat, at others from the
self-sense or ahaṁ-kāra. Sometimes it speaks of three internal organs, and
sometimes of one only. Besides, it contradicts Scripture which declares that the
Lord is the cause of the world. … [2] R. criticizes … the Sāṃkhya view. The
eternally non-active, unchanging puruṣa cannot become witness, an enjoying and
cognizing agent. It cannot be subject to error resting on superposition for these
are of the nature of change. Mere proximity to prakṛti cannot bring about
changes. The Sāṃkhya teaches that prakṛti, when seen by any soul in her true
nature, retires from that soul … But as the soul is eternally released and above
all change, it does not see prakṛti; nor does it attribute to itself her qualities.
Prakṛti cannot see herself as she is non-intelligent; she cannot impute to herself
the soul’s seeing of itself as her seeing of herself. R. says that these difficulties
are to be found in the theory of an eternally unchanging Brahman which, being
conscious of Avidyā, experiences unreal bondage and release. He feels that the
Advaita doctrine is more irrational than the Sāṃkhya which admits a plurality of
souls. [p372]”.
The atheist and theist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework can
address these problems easily because the intelligent self and subjective
experiences are potentially superposed in the mental aspect of the unmanifested
state of Brahman.
75“From the causal [cause-effect, subject-object] condition there is a descent into

the subtle state [Cosmic-Mind (Mahat/Hiraṇyagarbha), Cosmic-‘I’-sense (Cosmic-
265
Dvi-Pakṣa
Ahamkāra/Virāt), transcendent (Adhidaiva), mental (Adhyātma), and physical

(Adhibhūta)], and from the subtle there is a descent further into the grosser
condition which we call the five elements—earth, water, fire, air and ether, and
everything that is constituted of these five elements” (Swami Krishnananda,
1983).p400-401).
Condensation process: “we have some description of the condensation of the
dense form of things, gradually taking place in the process of creation—the
subtle becomes gross. The cosmic waters hardened, as it were, became solid,
gradually, and the Earth [physical universe] element was formed. […] The
condensation of the cosmos, right from the causal condition down to the
physical, through the subtle, may be said to be the manifesting activity of God
[unmanifested state of Brahman]. [I.2.2.p38…] Not merely astronomers of ancient
times, but even modern scientists have come to the conclusion that even our
physical personality, this bodily individuality can be regarded as nothing but a
condensation of cosmic stuff [but this stuff is material stuff] which has been
projected by the forces of Nature, and which emanated from the interstellar
space, and that the body can be reduced to an ethereal substance so that it loses
its substantiality and solidity, a concept to which we cling so much. [IV.2.1.p218-
9 …] The entry into a new body is also a great mystery. It is a gradual
condensation of material forces into solidified matter in the way in which it is
necessary for the fulfilment of the desires present in the subtle body. And at that
time, the Prāṇas that were withdrawn from the previous body are once again
released into action. [IV.3.36.p257…]
It is something like the ideas present in the mind of a painter. The baby has
not been projected yet on the canvas, but what will appear on the canvas or a
cloth outside is already present in his mind. That ideation which is to project
itself externally in the shape of visible objects—that is Īshvara; that is truth for
all practical purposes; that is Brahman itself. It is called Saguna Brahman, or
Kārya Brahman. It is the manifested form of Brahman— satyam brahma. That
creates Prajāpati, Hiraṇyagarbha, the subtle form of things which as an outline of
the future universe to be manifested is visible. In the beginning it is only in a
form of thought; only an idea in the Cosmic Mind. Now it is appearing outside as
a bare outline, like the drawing with a pencil which the painter sketches on the
canvas before the actual painting is started. The idea of the painter is visible now
in the form of outlines in pencil. They have been projected into a grosser form,
yet they have not taken a complete form. That Hiraṇyagarbha becomes Virāt, the
projected universe. The whole painted picture of the universe in its completed
form is what is called Virāt. [V.5.1.p309-310]” (Swami Krishnananda, 1983).
In the atheist and theist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework,
the above view of condensation process of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
metaphysical cosmology is related to the subjective mental aspect of the
unmanifested and various manifested states of dual-aspect Brahman. Since
aspects are inseparable, this can be automatically and faithfully translated into
objective physical aspect of modern physics’ cosmology starting from quantum
fluctuations in empty-space to Big Bang to evolution of universe to ourselves.
266
Dvi-Pakṣa
76 ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p397-406) provides interesting information from

Nāsadīya-Sūkta and Puruṣha-Sūkta of the Veda, and Puruṣhavidha Brāhmaṇa of
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad as follows:
(i) The term ‘nothing’ is defined as imperceptibility of objects: “originally, it
appeared as if there was nothing, there was just non-being. […] It is not that
something comes out of nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. It is not
nothingness that ‘was’, it is rather an imperceptibility of things. Originally, it was
nothing in the sense of an imperceptibility of all things, because space, time and
objectivity of things were all comprehended in the bosom of what are called the
‘original waters’, the ‘cosmic waters’, a symbology which is familiar to all religious
and mystical doctrines. There was, therefore, nothing visible, because nobody
was there to see things. The seer and the seen were clubbed together into a
single mass of content, which could not be described in any other way except
that it was non-being. It was imperceptible not because it was really so, but
because it was not an object of the perception of anyone. Neither was it an object
of the perception of anyone, nor was there any chance of its being perceived by
anyone, on account of the absence of subjects, and therefore absence of objects.”
((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p397-8).
(ii) He then relates nothingness with unmanifested state of Brahman and
discusses the process of creation as, “This supreme imperceptibility was the
Supreme Being Himself, who revealed Himself as this creation, gradually, in
grosser and grosser forms, in various degrees of manifestation, known to us
these days, in philosophy, as Īshvara, Hiraṇyagarbha, Virāt, and the diversity of
experiences. He became the supreme seer and ‘consumer’ of everything […] He
was the Subject of everything; there was no object before Him. As He was the
experiencer of all things in an identity of Himself with all things, He could not be
regarded as an individual subject, and the objects could not stand outside Him;
hence He was in a position to convert everything into the Subject of experience in
the sense of ‘Identity of Being’. [p397-8 …] [T]here was One Being at the origin of
things and It is the Cause for the Primal Will to create. So the ‘Will-to-create’ is
the expression of the Universal Being, whose identity with this Will is of an
inscrutable nature. [p399…] The characteristic of the Supreme Being is said to
be an eternal ‘I’, or the Consciousness ‘I-Am-That-I-Am’, ‘I-Am-What-I-Am’, or,
merely, ‘I-Am’, or even the word ‘Am’ is redundant; there is just ‘I’, the Absolute.
This was the Primary Status of Being. [p400…] One tended to become the many
in the form of space, time and objects. … The One does not suddenly become the
multitude. According to the Upaniṣhad, the One becomes two. There is a split of
feeling or experience, as it were, which alienates the Self into the subject and the
object. It is a peculiar state of consciousness where oneself becomes the object
one’s own self. The Absolute is neither the subject nor the object, because these
appellations, subjectivity and objectivity, do not apply to a state where
Consciousness is not thus divided into two self-alienated aspects. The Supreme,
somehow, becomes Its own Object. This is what we call [the condition of] the
state of Īshvara” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p397-400).
267
Dvi-Pakṣa
(iii) He elaborates further the process of creation of separate subject and

objects from inseparable subject-objects consciousness as, “There was, thus, the
beginning of a cosmic subject-object consciousness, inseparable one from the
other. Now, this split becomes more and more accentuated as time passes, so
that there is a greater and greater intensity and density of this feeling to isolate
oneself from oneself, into the object of one’s own perception and experience. It is
oneself experiencing oneself—the subject deliberately condescending to become
an object of its own self for purpose of a peculiar kind of joyous experience,
which the scriptures describe as Lilā, or play of God. What else can be the
explanation for that tendency in one’s consciousness where one begins to will the
objectivity of one’s own Universal Subjectivity? This is apparently a logical
contradiction, but the whole of creation is nothing but that; it is a logical
contradiction, indeed; logically it has no meaning, and it cannot be deduced; but
yet it is there. The relationship between the individual and the Absolute is not
logically inferrable from any kind of premise, it cannot be deduced from any kind
of assumption, nor can we argue it out by any kind of inductive process. But we
have to take things as they are [p400 …] There is, therefore, a split of the One
into two, and the two becomes a multitude with the same creative urge,
continuing in every part of the manifested individualities; that means to say,
there is a tendency to go down and down into greater and greater forms of
objectivity. From the causal condition there is a descent into the subtle state,
and from the subtle there is a descent further into the grosser condition which
we call the five elements—earth, water, fire, air and ether, and everything that is
constituted of these five elements [this is just reverse of materialistic
science]”((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p400-1).
(iv) Swami Krishnananda elaborates manifestations in Adhibhūta (external
universe), Adhyātma internal perceiver), and the Adhidaiva (the link) further from
the Upaniṣhad as, “the manifestation was twofold and then it was threefold, and
then it was multiple. It was twofold in the sense that the Subject became the
Object, and the whole universe was its own Body which it opposed to its own
consciousness as that on which it contemplated as ‘I-am-I’. Then the
consciousness of the threefold creation came into being; the threefold creation
being called, in the language of the Upaniṣhad, the Adhibhūta, or the physical,
external universe; Adhyātma, or the internal, individual perceivers; and the
Adhidaiva, or the connecting link between these two. The transcendent spiritual
presence which connects the subject of perception with the object of perception is
the Adhidaiva. There is a peculiar principle which operates between the seer and
the seen, on account of which this seeing becomes possible, but that
transcendent element in the process of perception and external experience is
always invisible to the normal ways of consciousness”((Swami Krishnananda,
1983).p401).
(v) He then elaborated how objects are interconnected as, “It is not true that
finite objects are complete in themselves; it is also not true that they are merely
interconnected and therefore one is hanging on the other. […] All this creation is
the manifestation of the One Supreme Being; nevertheless, not one particular
268
Dvi-Pakṣa
object can be taken as the ‘All’. Why? Because, the Supreme Being is … in every
particular object. It cannot be regarded as an object, because the Self is not an
object. [p402 …] the causal, the subtle and the gross appearances are nothing
but the appearances of Brahman in space and in time, by means of causal
connection. There was an Awareness, says the Upaniṣhad, at once generated at
this stage of creation when Consciousness rose to its status and identified itself
with all the multiplicity of creation and knew ‘I-am-I’. This Consciousness of ‘I-
am-I’, in spite of the multiplicity of objects, is called Virāt; this is Hiraṇyagarbha;
this is Īshvara; this is what we call God, or the Creative Principle. […] There
cannot be success in any walk of life where objects are regarded as non-selves …
No object is an object in or to itself; it is a Self by itself, from its point of
view”((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p402-3).
(vi) He then discusses human desires as, “The movements of the human
nature in the form of desires, called Eshanas [The three Eshanas/desires:
Arthaishana/Vittaishana (the desire for wealth), Putraishana/Daraishana (the
desire of wife and children), and Lokaishana (the desire for name and fame and
heaven)], or the primal urges of the personality, are the gropings of the very same
cosmic force, attempting to unite itself with every blessed thing in creation,
searching for the Selfhood in things. These are the functions of hunger, sex and
renown. [p405 …] It is an unawakened urge of the Universal, and these are the
blind forces of Nature; they are also the Absolute Law working, only they are not
conscious of themselves. [p406]” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p405-6).
77 As per ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).I.2.1.p30), “The effect gets isolated from

the cause by a peculiar adjustment of consciousness within the cause, not
necessarily involved in change or modification of the cause, but only a state of
mind or consciousness. Now, when the effect gets psychologically isolated from
the cause, there is the seed sown for the further diversity of creation.”
In the eDAM framework or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, since the mental and physical
aspects are inseparable, ‘a peculiar adjustment of consciousness’ in the mental
aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman/empty-space is automatically,
faithfully, and rigorously translated into the quantum fluctuations in the
physical aspect of unmanifested state of empty-space/Brahman.
78 The highest Reality is Brahman, Purusha, or the Absolute ‘I’ (Swami

Krishnananda, 1983).(p.72) who existed before the creation of universe (space,
time, and objects) and He knew only Himself (tad ātmānam evāvet: knowledge of
the Self) ‘I am the All’ (it did not exclude anything) (Swami Krishnananda,
1983).(p.89). Brahman is eternally devoid of relative attributes (such as all SEs
(e.g., hunger, thirst, sufferings, happiness etc), perceptions, functions, actions,
cognition, thoughts, and so on that are based on brain as in humans) (III.5.1)
(Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1950).p480. The hypothesis of Purusha might have an
empirical basis because of ‘self’ in us. The Ṛṣis empirically might have observed
gross phenomena, such as there are a large number of humans and subjectively
each has ‘self’ in our daily conventional mind-dependent reality (cMDR). Then
269
Dvi-Pakṣa
they might have thought that one could combine all selves to one single ‘Self’
such as Purusha, i.e., every self can be derived from Him. Similar rationale could
be true for the physical entity Prakṛti. Then they empirically might have observed
how baby is born by the interaction of man and woman. So Ṛṣis hypothesized
that Purusha and Prakṛti interacted and the latter metaphorically became
pregnant and this state was called Hiraṇyagarbha (Cosmic Egg: (Swami
Krishnananda, 1983).p.79) and then Virat (cosmic fire, Big Bang) was born with
Purusha and Prakṛti as His parents for further creation (see I.4 of (Swami
Krishnananda, 1983)). In samādhi state, Ṛṣis have three experiences or empirical
observations: (i) the bliss, (ii) the inner light perception, and (iii) the unification of
subject/self and objects. These could have been extrapolated to (i) ānanda part of
Sat-cit-ānanda (सिbचदान;द : eternal bliss consciousness), (ii) light as God, and (iii)
unified monistic primal entity Brahman, respectively. The neural-correlates (the
physical aspect of the samādhi state of brain-mind system) include (i) happiness
center in amygdala-NN, (ii) visual areas, (iii) parietal lobe deactivation for losing
discrimination of subject and objects, and the activation of frontal lobe for
unification of subject and objects, respectively.
Thus, Ṛṣis generalized their empirical observations (such as ‘self’/’being’ is
more potent than thought that is more potent than action) of our daily cMDR in a
straight forward manner to cosmic level.
79As per ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).p.82), “This universe, which is the grand
manifestation of God, which is the miraculous manifestation of Him, was once
upon a time unmanifest; and He was withdrawing all these forms into Himself
before creation took place. After the creation, He has become the colours and the
sounds and the pageantry of creation.”
80 It seems that Virat had inseparable mental and physical aspects: mind (from
the father Purusha) and matter (from the mother Prakṛti) emerged from Mula-
Prakṛti (unmanifested undifferentiated state of Brahman) as elaborated in
((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.5.1.p308-309): (i) Cosmic Waters of the
potentiality: “In the beginning, what was there? There was an undifferentiated,
unmanifested, indistinguishable something. Āsīt idam tamo bhūtam aprajātam
alakṣanam apradartyam avijyān prabhūtam sarvogata: It was as if there was a Cosmic
sleep. It looked as if it was darkness. It was of the characteristic of darkness
because there was no light of sense perception. There was no one to see
anything. That which was to see and that which was to be seen, both were
resolved into that which is now designated here as apparent darkness. How can
you designate it except as absence of light, because we always define light as the
instrument of perception and perception does not exist there. There were no
objects because there was no world. There was not this manifestation. It was like
a Cosmic ocean. It was like water spread out everywhere, not the waters that we
drink, but a symbolic term applied to designate the undifferentiated condition of
matter, the potential state of Being, Mula-Prakṛti in its essentiality where the
270
Dvi-Pakṣa
Trigunas—Satva, Tamas, Rajas—are in a harmonised state. There is Gunatamya

Avastha; there is a harmonisation of the three Gunas, so that you do not know
what is there. Everything is there and yet nothing appears to be there. Such a
condition of homogeneity of potential being is usually called, in philosophical
symbology, ‘Cosmic Waters’. They are called Nāraḥ in Sanskrit, and one who is
sporting cosmically in these Universal Waters is called Narayanaya. So Īshvara
Himself is called Nārayanaya. Nārayanaya is that Being who sleeps, as it were, in
the Cosmic Waters of the potentiality of being. Such was the state of affairs
originally. Āpa evadaṁ agra ᾱsuḥ : So, in all these cosmic, cosmical and
cosmogonical descriptions in the scriptures of different religions we are told that
in the beginning there was a universal state of liquidity, as it were, a symbolic
way of putting into language the condition of homogeneity of the Ultimate Cause
of the universe” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.5.1.p308).
(ii) Virāt as projected universe, which is the projection of Divine Will: “Tᾱ
ᾱpaḥ satyam aṣrjanta, satyam brahma, brahma prajᾱpatim: That condition becomes
the precedent to the manifestation of something which we call the Creator of the
universe. The Creator of the universe, or the Divine Will which projects this
whole universe, is a blend of this universal potentiality and the great Absolute.
That particular state where the Absolute appears as a Will to create or manifest
is, for all practical purposes, the original creative condition [perturbed state].
That is called Satyam because there the true state of affairs can be seen. The
original condition of all those things that are to be manifested are to be found
there in their originality, in their archetypal being. It is something like the ideas
present in the mind of a painter. The baby has not been projected yet on the
canvas, but what will appear on the canvas or a cloth outside is already present
in his mind. That ideation which is to project itself externally in the shape of
visible objects—that is Īshvara; that is truth for all practical purposes; that is
Brahman itself. It is called Saguna Brahman, or Kārya Brahman. It is the
manifested form of Brahman— satyam brahma. That creates Prajāpati,
Hiraṇyagarbha, the subtle form of things which as an outline of the future
universe to be manifested is visible. In the beginning it is only in a form of
thought; only an idea in the Cosmic Mind. Now it is appearing outside as a bare
outline, like the drawing with a pencil which the painter sketches on the canvas
before the actual painting is started. The idea of the painter is visible now in the
form of outlines in pencil. They have been projected into a grosser form, yet they
have not taken a complete form. That Hiraṇyagarbha becomes Virāt, the
projected universe. The whole painted picture of the universe in its completed
form is what is called Virāt” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.5.1.p308-9).
(iii) Virāt is the origination of gods: “From that Being, all the gods come—
devᾱḥ satyam evopᾱsate. What are these gods doing? They are contemplating their
own origin. The first manifestation in individual form are the celestials. The
celestials are supposed to contemplate a Universal Sacrifice. This Universal
Sacrifice contemplated in the minds of the gods is the subject of the Puruṣha-
Sūkta of the Veda. It is a Universal Sacrifice, a sacrifice performed without any
271
Dvi-Pakṣa
kind of external materials. All the materials necessary for the sacrifice were
present in the minds of the gods, says the Sūkta. The gods performed the
sacrifice through the materials culled from the body of the Puruṣha Himself, who
is the Supreme Sacrifice. ‘So the Devas performed this Upāsana in the form of
meditation on their own cause, the Virāt, by attuning themselves to its Being.
They contemplate the Satya, or the truth which has manifested itself as Īshvara
Hiraṇyagarbha, and Virāt’— devᾱḥ satyaṃ evopᾱsate” ((Swami Krishnananda,
1983).V.5.1.p309).
81 Madhu-Vidyā as subject-object/organism-environment interaction: (i)

“Usually, consciousness and object are regarded as exclusive of each other. The
one cannot be in the position of the other. The perceiver is conscious, and the
object is what is experienced by consciousness. The two are categorised as two
distinct characters in the field of experience. Where the subject is, the object
cannot be; and vice versa. The object cannot be the subject and the subject
cannot be the object; consciousness cannot be matter and matter cannot be
consciousness. This is our usual notice of things and our practical experience,
too. But the Madhu-Vidyā gives us a revolutionary idea in respect of what we
usually regard as a field of the duality of subject and object. The Madhu-Vidyā is
an insight into the nature of things, which reveals that there are no such things
as subjects or objects. They are only notional conclusions of individual subjects
from their own particular points of view, the one regarding the other as the
object, so that there is a vast world of objects to a single individual perceiver, and
this is the case with every other perceiver, also. The fact of experience itself is a
repudiation of the phenomenal notion that subjects are cut off from objects, as if
the one has no connection with the other. If there has been a gulf of difference,
unbridgeable, between the experiencing consciousness and the object outside,
there would be no such thing as experience at all. The great revelation of the sage
Dadhyaṅṅ Ātharvaṇa is that the Adhyātma and the Adhibhūta are linked together
by the Adhidaiva, and a transcendent Divine Presence connects the phenomenal
subject and the phenomenal object, through an invisible force, so that we have a
universe of interrelated particulars, one entering the other, one merging into the
other, one coalescing with the other like the waves in the ocean, and not the
universe we see with our eyes, as a house divided against itself. […] So, the
Madhu-Vidyā reveals to us the truth of the immanence of the Reality that is
universal in every particular, so that there can neither be an ultimate cause nor
an ultimate effect in a world of mutual dependence and correlativity of things.
Madhu-Vidyā is the knowledge of the correlativity of the subject and the object in
such a way that they merge one into the other, cancelling the subjectness and
the objectness of each, embracing each other in a union of their particularities,
and revealing their inner essence called the Madhu. This applies to everything
that is outside in the world called Adhibhūta, everything that is inside called
Adhyātma, and everything that is transcendent called Adhidaiva. So, from three
points of view the sage describes the correlativity of everything in the universality
of being” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).II.p408-409).
272
Dvi-Pakṣa
(ii) At samādhi state, subject and objects appear to merge with each other.
Madhu-Vidyā seems the extrapolation of this observation to normal wakefulness
by the ṛṣi Dadhyaṅṅ Ātharvaṇa. Mutual dependence is similar to
Pratītyasamutpāda (1ती3यसमु3पाद or dependent co-origination: (Vimal, 2009a) by
Buddhist Nāgārjuna and organism-environment interaction in modern science.
82 (a) The four Mahāvākyas are: (i) prajñānam brahma - "Consciousness is

Brahman" (3ा नं 45 = आमा ही 45 है) (Aitareya Upaniṣhad 3.3 of the Rig Veda), (ii)
ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (अयम् आमा 45 : यह आमा 45 है)
(Mandukya Upaniṣhad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda), (iii) tat tvam asi - "Thou art
That" (तवमिस : तमु वही हो) (Chandogya Upaniṣhad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda), and (iv)
aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (अहं #(ाि%म : म4 #ह् म ह5)ँ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣhad
1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda).
(b) “He knew, ‘I Am the All, the Absolute’; and whoever knows thus, becomes
the All. This is the essence of Brahma-Vidyā, the highest wisdom of life” (Swami
Krishnananda, 1983).p.88.
(c) Ātma-Vidyā or Adhyātma-Vidyā is the knowledge of the Self, which is ‘I
am the Brahman’ because Śankarāchārya equated Ātma-Vidyā (knowledge of the
Self) with Brahma-Vidyā (knowledge of Brahman). Brahma-Vidyā/Ātma-Vidyā is
very useful in meditation.
(d) This is also related to Madhu-Vidyā: “The earth [whole physical creation]
is the honey of all, and everyone is the honey of the earth. […] Just as the
objective world and the subjective individual are organically connected, so is this
animating consciousness in the objective world correlated with the individual
consciousness. One is hanging on the other, one is connected with the other, one
is dependent on the other, one is incapable of being without the other. That
Being which animates the cosmic and the individual aspects of creation is called
the Luminous Immortal Being [Puruṣha/Brahman/Ātman or the Self of all
beings]” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).II.5.1).p132-3).
Similarly, Madhu-Vidyā is that each entity (such as water, fire, air, sun, moon,
laws, directions, mind, truth, human, self, and so on) is the honey of all beings
and all beings are the honey of that entity, i.e., (i) “the contemplation of all things
by the contemplation of anything” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).II.5.15.p137), (ii)
“the knowledge of the interdependence of things and the vital connection of
everything, under every condition, at every time, everywhere” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983).II.5.16.p138), and (iii) “In every form He appears in a
corresponding form” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).(II.5.19.p139).
(e) The nature of the inner controller: Moreover, ṛṣis asked what is the
nature of the inner controller (Brahman), the Immanent Principle, and the sutra
(thread) in which all the worlds are strung together? The answer is: “the Supreme
Vital Force of the cosmos [the force of Brahman] can be regarded as the thread on
which everything is strung, because all bodies, whatever be their structure, are
formed in the mould of this Vital Energy. It is this Vital Force of the cosmos that
has taken the shape of all these forms, whether they are the forms of the world or
273
Dvi-Pakṣa
are the forms of individual beings. Outside, the very same Energy looks like the
world, and inside, as a content thereof, it looks like individuals. It is the subtle
constitutive Essence of the whole universe. […] That universal Vital Force is the
thread. It is a thread in the sense that it is the power which holds all bodies in
proper positions. And every body, individual or otherwise, is strung on this
thread in the sense that everything is a form taken by it, and therefore,
controlled by it. So, you will not find a place where this is not, and you will not
find anything operating unless it Wills. It is His Will and His Action that appears
outside as the action of people” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).(III.7.1-2).p169).
The Madhu-Vidyā is consistent with the doctrine of dependent-co-origination
(Pratītyasamutpāda) of Nagarjuna (Vimal, 2009a).
(f) Vital Force and Vital Energy: Furthermore, “When a person is alive, why
does that person look whole and complete and integrated? And why is it that
when something happens at the time we call death, there is dismemberment of
the body and parts of the body get dislocated and hang loosely without being
held firmly? What is the cause? The cause is that this Vital Force was holding the
limbs of the body in unison and harmony when the body was alive. What we call
life is nothing but the operation of this universal Energy through a particular
body. When the particular function through this individual body does not take
place, the Energy withdraws itself. There is then no sustaining power left in the
building-bricks of the body. So the bricks collapse. There is, therefore, the return
of the constituents of the physical body to their sources. They cannot be held in
the form which they were assuming when the body was alive. So the body of an
individual is nothing but a form assumed, or taken by certain elements. And it
begins to function by the action of this Vital Energy. When this action of the Vital
Energy is withdrawn, it is called death, or demise of the individual. So, we say
that the parts of the body of a dead person get loosened and they are not able to
perform the functions that they were doing earlier, merely because this principle
is absent. […] The Immanent Principle is the Antaryāmin [Brahmin/Ātman], the
one that controls everything from within. It is a very peculiar something, whose
existence cannot be known for reasons which will be obvious, as we go further.
Yet, nothing can be more powerful than that. That which is most powerful and
capable of controlling everything is that which cannot be observed by anything,
or seen or known. What is that? That is what we call the internal Reality of the
cosmos. That we call the Antaryāmin, the Immanent Reality [Brahmin/Ātman]
[…] This is the Antaryāmin, or the internal ruler of everyone—earth, water, fire,
air, ether; everything that is external everything that is internal also, like the
physical organs, etc. […] This description of the Antaryāmin, or the internal
Ruler, is given from three standpoints—the transcendent, or the Adhidaivika
description, the physical, or the objective, known as the Adhibhautika, and the
internal or the subjective, known as the Adhyātmika. All the gods, all the
celestials are controlled by this principle. All the elements are controlled by this
principle. And every individual being also is controlled by this principle. […]
Every being is controlled by it. […] This is the Self; this is the internal Ruler; this
is the Reality. This is immortal, O Uddālaka. Everything else is useless. Other
274
Dvi-Pakṣa
than this, nothing has any sense or meaning,— ato’nyad ārtam. This is the only
Being that is worthwhile considering and approaching and realising” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983).(III.7.2-23).p.169-173).
(g) Unmanifested primal entity (Brahman): Unmanifested ether pervades
everywhere in space-time. “The manifested universe consisting of the Sutra exists
in the unmanifested ether … in the past, present and future, in its origin,
continuance and dissolution” ((Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1950).(III.8.4).p.515). “This is
strung in a subtle ethereal principle. You cannot call it by any other name. That
ethereal principle has not the distinction of pervasion of objects. It is subtler
than that which pervades. And that which you are speaking of as what is above
and what is below and what is between and what is the past, present and future,
that is rooted in some undifferentiated something. That undifferentiated reality
can be designated as ether. It is not the physical ether; it is an unmanifest
ether— avyākrita ākāṣa. […] What is this Avyākrita Ākāsa? … This principle
which you call unmanifest ether, the undifferentiated background of that which
is everywhere, (as a matter of fact, Gārgi is referring to the very same ‘Sūtra’ of
which Uddālaka spoke earlier. This ‘Sūtra’, or the thread in which everything is
strung, is that which is above and below and between and it is the past, present
and future. It is rooted in something. That something is an indescribable,
unmodified and homogeneous substance, they call it Avyākrita) in what is that
rooted? Has it also some foundation? […] This foundation is nothing but the
Absolute. Beyond that, there can be nothing. That is the immaculate Absolute …
It is imperishable. … The final point of all answers to every question is the
imperishable Reality. That is the last resort of all thought, all speech and all
definition. The great ones say, this is Akṣara” ((Swami Krishnananda,
1983).(III.8.4-8).p.175).
83 Prāṇa: “The Universal Being manifests itself in various ways, as has been
mentioned, and one of the forms in which it is manifest is the Cosmic Prāṇa, the
universal energy which functions not only in organic beings, but also in
inorganic objects. The tendency to life, the urge for self-perpetuation, is an
indication of the operation of the Prāṇa in everything. There is an effort exerted
by everyone and everything in this world to exist. There is an incessant struggle
for existence. This attempt to exist somehow, to live and to perpetuate oneself, is
the action of the Prāṇa in all created entities. This Prāṇa is universal; it is
everywhere. What we call cosmic energy is ultimately identifiable with the
creative principle, Hiraṇyagarbha. It is universally present, and is equally spread
out in everything. Life and non-life are only the manifestation or non-
manifestation of it, or the higher degree or the lower degree of manifestation of it,
but not the absence of it. Prāṇa is not absent even in so-called inorganic things.
The vibratory activity that we discover even in lifeless matter is the action of
Prāṇa. The gravitational pull exerted by objects, though they are inanimate, is the
work of Prāṇa. The cohesive force that we discover in chemical elements, or
physical objects, any kind of attraction, pull, whether it is organic, inorganic or
even psychological, all this is the work of the universal Prāṇa. It exists in
275
Dvi-Pakṣa
everyone. In the human individual, particularly, it is markedly manifest.” ((Swami

Krishnananda, 1983).II.2.p384-5).
84 Liberated Ātman: Why is the self not conscious (of objects, actions and their
results) after attaining oneness with Brahman/Purusha (this occurs when Ātman
is liberated or mukta Ātman when samādhi state is realized). This because
everything is the Self without objects, actions, and results (Ādi Śankarāchārya,
1950)p375. “Knowing of objects only is there before liberation [death]. With
liberation, that object has become part of knowing itself; It has become one with
the Knower. The Knower alone is; there is no such thing then as ‘knowing’.
Therefore, … it is not possible to have cognition and perception and mentation
and understanding, in the usual sense, in that Absolute which is Supernal
Felicity of Plenum […] The reason why you cannot have perceptual knowledge or
cognitional awareness in the totality of things is because of the fact that
everything is connected with everything in that knowledge” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983).II.4.12-14.p131).
85 Cyclic Universe: “With this [V.15.1-4] prayer, the soul leaves the body and
then it is taken over to the realm of Agnī, or Flame, or the god of Fire. Then,
upwards, through the passage of the Sun, it reaches Brahma-loka, or Prajāpati-
loka, the realm of the Creator, through several further stages, and then it attains
the Supreme Absolute. The opinion is generally held that the soul will be in
Brahma-loka till the end of the universe. When the universe is dissolved,
Hiraṇyagarbha, Brahma, also gets back to the Source. At the end of the cosmic
dissolution, the soul, with Brahma, the Creator, goes back to the Absolute. Until
that time, it remains there. This is the belief of some teachers of the Upaniṣhads”
((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.15.4.p341-342). This is consistent with cyclic
(closed) universe (Visser, 2011).
86Other explanatory gaps are:

(2) Originally, if there was ‘nothing’, then how can Purusha be present?
(3) How can the purely mental entity Purusha interact with purely physical
entity Prakṛti (this is massive category mistake) to result the cosmic state
Hiraṇyagarbha? How can it, in turn, result the inseparable dual-aspect entity
Cosmic Ahamkāra/Virāt that has both mental and physical aspects?
(4) The separation of Adhidaiva aspect seems to suggest that God is not
responsible for our sufferings. This implies that we are responsible for our own
sufferings. Thus, it is unclear if worshipping Him will end our sufferings except
the placebo effect of doing pooja in terms of the reorganization of brain through
belief system. Belief indeed works; there are scientific evidences for treating
Parkinson’s disease (de la Fuente-Fernandez et al., 2001) and depression
(Eastman, Young, Fogg, Liu, & Meaden, 1998) using placebo (Benedetti,
Mayberg, Wager, Stohler, & Zubieta, 2005).
We “should worship Him as the Self of beings—Ātmetyevopāsīta” (p.84); He is
everything and is everywhere; “He is also immanent, i.e., indwells everything”
276
Dvi-Pakṣa
(p.84). “The one Lord [Brahman] is hidden in all beings, all-pervading and the Self
of all (Sv. [Svetasvatara Upnissad].VI.II)” (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1950).p117. Thus,
He transcends suffering and happiness. If this important concept is not
understood well, it will lead us to superstitions and blind faith, which is NOT
useful and sometimes lead us to darkness (just opposite of ‘Tamaso mā jyotir
gamaya’: from darkness, lead us to light): “correct understanding alone can lead
to our well-being” (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 1950).p44. Therefore, to address this
explanatory gap problem, one could argue from Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita that (a) since
rituals are exoteric symbolic expression of esoteric thoughts and hypotheses
related to cosmology and to our daily lives and (b) socialization in positive
environment is useful, it is worth doing rituals as an active process (i.e.,
understanding the meanings and actively applying in our daily lives
appropriately) even if they have passive placebo effects with respect to our
sufferings. To end sufferings, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita recommends to follow Buddha’s
4 noble truths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths) and 8 noble
paths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path). “Any object to which
one clings [leading to bondage], other than the Self, shall be the object of sorrow,
one day or the other” (I.4.8:p86).
(5) The order of creation (in creation theory) at lower levels (below Virāt) is
humans, animals, plants, and then five elements- ether, air, fire, water, earth
((Swami Krishnananda, 1983)p.79) without any acceptable
explanation/justification. This is inconsistent (as the order is reversed) with the
theory of evolution.
For example, “the soul can assume various forms, psychic as well as physical
[presumably by condensation process]. First, there is a manifestation of the
intellect. That is the Jīva-Bhāva or the individuality in us. The root of
individuality is the intellect, and it grossens itself into the mind, the Prāṇas, the
senses, and lastly the physical body. It is not the physical body that is
manufactured first. It is the intellect that is manifested first. The cause comes
first, the effect afterwards. The subtlest cause is the intellect principle. Then
there is the grosser one—the mind; then the still grosser one—the Prāṇas; then
the senses; then the physical body. All this takes place in a very inscrutable
manner. It does not mean that the intellect is there, clearly observing things as it
does when it is very active in a physical body after rebirth. It is in a potential
state, just as the tree is present in a seed. Its manifestation is supposed to be
prior to the manifestation of other things, namely, Prāṇas, body, etc. So there is
first Vijñāna or the intellect, then the mind, the Prāṇas, the senses, and only
lastly the physical body constituted of the gross elements—earth, water, fire, air
and ether— pṛthivīmaya āpomayo vāyumaya ākāśamayas” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):IV.4.5.p262).
In the eDAM framework: (a) Hinduism and other religions (that usually involve
creation theory) can start from the mental aspect of the unmanifested
fundamental primal entity (such as dual-aspect Brahman) and evolve it to
innumerable manifestations in terms of only mental aspects (without worrying
about physical aspects) and eventually to our mental aspect of brain-states (i.e.,
277
Dvi-Pakṣa
the functional and experiential aspects of consciousness) because all the

manifestations can be translated to related physical aspects automatically,
faithfully, rigorously because of the doctrine of inseparability. (b) Science (that
usually involves evolution theory) can start from the physical aspect of the
unmanifested fundamental primal entity (such as dual-aspect Brahman) and
evolve it to innumerable manifestations in terms of only physical aspects (without
worrying about mental aspects) and eventually to our physical aspect of brain-
states (i.e., structures: the brain and its activities) because all the manifestations
can be translated to related mental aspects automatically, faithfully, rigorously
because of the doctrine of inseparability. In that way, there is no category
mistake. In other words, the process is co-evolution of mental and physical
aspects of unmanifested state of primal entity Brahman into innumerable
manifested states of Brahman.
(6) It is claimed that Brahman/absolute does have ‘eyes’ as we do, but He is
able to see whole universe (Brahmanda); similarly for other perceptions,
experiences, and thought processes (He does not have brain-based ‘mind’ as we
do but It is omniscience). This claim has an explanatory gap: what are
mechanisms for these abilities? One might argue: since Brahman is in each of us
and in each entity, He might be seeing, perceiving of sensory experiences,
feelings, thinking, knowing through us; this is because we are Him and He is us.
However, there is binding/unifying problem: how can all of us (our minds) be
bound in a single Brahman? There is a sort of discussion on this topic in ((Ādi
Śankarāchārya, 1950):III.9.28.7.p565-8): “there can be no knowledge in the
absence of the body and organs. […] to say that the liberated man knows the
blissful Self is meaningless. […] ‘Knowledge, Bliss,’ etc., must be interpreted as
setting forth the nature of Brahman [as brute fact assumption], and not
signifying the bliss if the Self is cognised.”
(7) Another claim is that Karma is the cause of rebirth ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):III.2.13.p157), which requires presumably the existence of
soul/Ātman. However, one could argue that the consequences/effect of good or
bad Karma can be experienced in current life (in wakefulness and dreams: see
IV.3.10-12.p232-235), and hence rebirth (and hence the existence of Ātman) is
not necessarily justified. For example, “What desires you cannot fulfil in waking,
you can fulfill in dream by creating a mental world of your own and
manufacturing those objects which you need but which you could not have in
waking life. Whatever you need, you can manufacture out of your own mind, and
then, of course, your desires are fulfilled” (IV.3.12.p234).
Furthermore, a related claim is: “when the body, which has been
manufactured for the purpose of serving as an instrument for the fulfillment of
these impulses [of unfulfilled desires], gets exhausted and becomes finally unfit
for action, then there is what is known as death. There is a period of transition,
which varies from person to person and from condition to condition, between
physical death and the time of rebirth. And then, those impulses which could not
be manifested for action through the previous body, regain their strength and
project themselves through the new body that is fitted into the mental structure
278
Dvi-Pakṣa
by the circumstance of rebirth.” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983):IV.3.7.p228).

However, it is unclear how and where those impulses will be preserved after
death and before rebirth (if any!).
“The experience of these three states, waking, dream and sleep, one not
identical with the other, each differing from the other in every respect, would be
impossible unless there be a uniform feeling of identity of personality, which
passes through all these states. This is proof enough of the independence of
consciousness [immortal Ātman] from the psychophysical personality” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):IV.3.16.p238). One could argue it is the ‘proto-self’
(Damasio, 2010) and/or ‘core-self’ (Damasio, 1999; Newen & Vogeley, 2003;
Trehub, 2007, 2009) that is continuous across various states of mind and across
life-time; the assumption of independent immortal Ātman is not necessary.
(8) It is claimed that it is all God’s Līlā (play) or God’s Will; He created us and
the world (via creation theory) because He was a sort of getting bored being just
by Himself. If the goal of life is to merge with Him, then what is the point of
creation as we were already merged with Him before creation? On the other
hand, the evolution theory suggests we (our ‘mind’) are evolving more and more
every day and at samādhi state we can experience the triad SEs: the bliss, the
inner light perception, and the unification of subject and objects; this state with
the triad SEs is called the fullest state kārya Brahman, Īshvara, God in us; this is
because it generates loving care for all, and all the God-like qualities in us.
(9) Since Brahman is in each entity including matter, metaphysical views
could also be panpsychism, materialism, dual-aspect monism, and so on in
addition to idealism and interactive substance dualism. Therefore, it is unclear
which view is the correct one. The critical criterion could be the number of
problems. The eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) has the least number of
problems, so it is the best framework so far.
(10) Another claim is that self/jiva is closer to Brahman/Self during deep
sleep compared to wakefulness and dream. The justification as given below needs
reconsideration as per current neurophysiology of deep sleep: “The external form
of the individual, which has an apparent consciousness, intelligence and a
capacity to act, is not the true Self of the individual, because all these
appurtenances of action, and the so-called individuality of ours, cease to be self-
conscious in sleep. The energy is withdrawn; consciousness is withdrawn; the
ability to perceive is withdrawn. It appears as if life itself has gone. There is a
practical non-existence of the individual for all conceivable purposes. What
happens is that the central consciousness, which is the Self, draws forth into
itself all the energies of the external vestures, viz. the body, the Prāṇa, the
senses, the mind, etc., and rests in itself without having the need to
communicate with anything else outside. It is only in the state of deep sleep that
the self goes back to its own pristine purity. […] in the waking state the self is
entangled in object-consciousness, whereas in sleep it is withdrawn into itself.
[…] It [self] is in the cosmic space, the ether of consciousness [during deep sleep]
— eso’ntar-hṛdaya ᾱkᾱṣaḥ tasmiñ chete. [II.1.17.p.378…] in dream what happens is
that the impressions of the experiences one had in waking become objects of
279
Dvi-Pakṣa
experience. So the world of dreams is nothing but the world of impressions of

past experience. [II.1.17.p379…] the activity of the mind [manas] which is the
medium [liaison] between the physical body and the self inside. The mind is not
conscious by itself. […] the mind is a kind of transparent substance, we may say,
through which the light of the self passes. And it completely absorbs the
consciousness into itself. It becomes apparently self-conscious. […] The body is
charged with the force of the self by means of the mind which moves through the
currents called Hītas […] The body had no consciousness even before, and its
real nature is exposed now in sleep. It appeared to be conscious on account of
the vibration of consciousness which was communicated to it through the mind.
The mind having been withdrawn in sleep, consciousness also automatically
withdraws itself, because the consciousness we have is nothing but mental
consciousness. And when the mind is thus withdrawn, everything that is
sustained by the mind also is put to sleep. You cannot know that you are
breathing; you cannot know that you have any personality at all. The senses also
cease to act. The eyes, the ears and the other organs of perception are active
consciously on account of the operation of the mind, again. The eyes cannot see
really, because they are, in fact, unconscious substances. They are fleshy bodies;
they are made up of the five elements, they are not conscious entities. But how is
it possible that they are seeing, hearing, etc.? That is because they are charged
with consciousness. [II.1.19.p380…] The Self is a Universal Being which
manifests itself as individuals in dream and waking. But in sleep these
distinctions get abolished, or obliterated, on account of the return of all
particularity into the Universal being which is the true Self of all. But this true
Self in sleep remains unconscious of itself due to strange reasons. If only we are
to be awake in sleep, we would be universally aware at one stroke, and we would
not be aware of individualities; we would not be aware of space, time and
objectivity. There would be an oceanic awakening into a Being which is the Being
of each and every one. That would be the status we would achieve if we are to be
conscious in sleep, but, unfortunately for us, we are not conscious in sleep. So
we go like fools, and come back like fools, as if nothing has happened. Some
wondrous thing has actually happened. A tremendous change has taken place in
sleep, but we are totally unaware of this marvellous event. [II.1.19.p381…] This is
an indication to you … as to what the Ultimate Reality is. This is the state into
which one enters in sleep, and it is not any particular form or a shape. It is
Universal Existence. This is the Ātman; this is Brahman. [II.1.19.p382…] there is
an exhaustion, a fatigue at the end of the day, and then the mind goes back to
that source from where it has come originally and to which it really belongs. […]
We do not know whether to call it a soul, or a mind, or an ego, or a personality,
or what. Some mix-up and a mixture of everything is there which we call the
individual. It returns to its source for the sake of refreshing itself from the
exhaustion to which it has been subjected by the search for happiness in the
outer world. Other people are of the opinion that it is the Reality that pulls the
individual back to itself, in sleep. Whether one is aware of this state or not is a
different matter, but the pull is there. [II.1.19.p383…] the Self is the Ultimate
280
Dvi-Pakṣa
Reality from which everything proceeds in various ways [II.1.20.p384]” ((Swami

Krishnananda, 1983):II.1.17,19,20.p378-384).
(11) The hypothesis of Jagadguru Rāmbhadrāchārya is: God can remove
suffering of a person. See
http://www.jagadguruRāmabhadrāchārya.org/videos/sundar_kand?id=1.
However the hypothesis of Jagadguru Kripālu and also Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣhad is: God cannot eliminate suffering of a person, He can only guide us
how to remove suffering. It is the responsibility of that person then whether s/he
wants to follow the guidance to remove her/his own suffering. See in the last
video #3 (To establish and maintain) of http://www.jkp.org/home.html. Who is
correct and why?
NM (A disciple of Jagadguru Rāmbhadrāchārya): I am sure the contradiction
is only apparent, and the statements are made in a specified context. Can you
please cite the exact quotes in Sanskrit or Hindi with verse numbers and time in
video?
Even in RCM [RāmCharit Mānas], there are apparent contradictions, like
Karma pradhan bisva kari rakha
Jo jasa karai taasu phala chakha
This means that lord Rama has himself made the law of karma rule for the
happiness and suffering of beings.
But, also
Rama raja nabhagesa sunu sacharachara Jagath maanhi
Kala karma svabhava guna krita dukha kahuhu naanhi
For the Kripā of lord Rama is capable of "kartumakartumanyathaakartum,"
which is why Tulsidas ji calls the lord as "gayi bahora". There are many verses in
vedas and puranas which say that the bondage of karma goes away when the
Lord shows his Kripā - that is my interpretation. "tasmin drishte paravare".
Author: Thanks for elaborating. I got an impression after listening the video
carefully, especially when he explains the power of Ram ji and Hanuman ji; if we
pray them on regular basis they will remove our sufferings.
My interpretation of both Jagadgurus and a neuro-mechanism might be as
follows: during prayers, our brains get re-organized and we have psychosomatic
effects that help in minimizing our sufferings. If we actively follow God’s and
Guru’s guidance in every moment of our lives, then it is faster; if we are passive,
then it takes long time; there is also placebo effect. Buddhism’s 4 noble truths
and 8 noble paths (which are active processes) are useful in reducing suffering.
To sum up, if we want to see the faster effect, we really need to put right efforts,
rather than waiting for God to help us out (like a lazy person). This active
approach is consistent with the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework and also
with both Jagadgurus.
NM: There are rules and there are exceptions. Newtonian mechanics rules have
quantum mechanics as exceptions when speed of matter approaches speed of
light. Even in Paninian grammar you have rules and exceptions.
281
Dvi-Pakṣa
Similarly karma is the general rule, while Kripā is the exception. Which is why
Tulsidas says in the episode of Ahalya
asa prabhu diinabandhu hita kaarana rahita dayaala
The lord is compassionate on some beings like Ahalya and Ajamila without
reason. Kripā in that sense is like a random variable. Also one does not get either
Guru or knowledge of god without Kripā.
Binu hari Kripā milahin nahin santaa
And
Raama Kripā binu sunu khagarai
Jaani na jaaya raama prabhutai
That is my view.
Author: Perhaps, Kripā is a chaos related random variable, which may have
‘butterfly effect’. However, then Jadaguru Kripālu interprets Kripā in a little
different way. Please listen him between 3 and 4:30 mins of the last video #3 (To
establish and maintain) of http://www.jkp.org/home.html, and let me know if
you agree with him and me for the active approach.
NM: I am not qualified to agree with or comment on the discourse of Kripālu ji,
but as I understood it, there is no contradiction. Kripālu ji says that God and
saints do not shower Kripā on everybody (sab par Kripā, sab ka Kalyan). This per
my understanding is the general rule of karma which is the deterministic
component of the Jiva's path to paramartha which is what you call as the active
approach. Kripā of Rama can then be thought as the exception of the general
rule or the random variable added to the deterministic trend. When the random
noise is too high, like a ten sigma or six sigma event, then the output is much
further from the deterministic trend, in other words the Kripā of Lord is a force in
the same or opposite direction as the force of karma. The vector addition of forces
produces a net force which determines final result. But since Kripā is only on
rare individuals like Ahalya and Ajamila, the active approach is to be followed as
you say - i.e. one has to perform sadhana as prescribed by Vedas and guru, and
follow the path of saints. To sum it up, I see no contradiction. Note that once the
Jiva comes face to face with Lord Rama, the karma bondage is no longer there.
As Mundaka Upaniṣhad says (2.2.8): kshiyante chaasya karmaani tasmin drishte
paravare.
Author: As long as we agree that the active approach is necessary, in general, for
reducing suffering, there is no contradiction. In rare cases also, devotees, such
as Ahalya and Ajamila, must have gone through sublimation process (converting
negative energies into positive), which also involves serious active effort.
87 What happens during and after death, and then rebirth: The
Brihadāranyaka Upaniṣhad (Br.U.) hypothesizes what happens during and after
death as follows. The soul (if exists) is separated from its dead-body at death.
Then soul acquires a subtle body with Karmic impressions along with its
282
Dvi-Pakṣa
unfulfilled intense desires, i.e., the forces of Karmas cling with it. Then rebirth
occurs depending on the Karmas and desires. However, this hypothesis cannot
be proved or disproved. Therefore, we do not know if it is true.
[1]. Process of death: The Br.U. hypothesizes the process of death by giving
an example: “Just as a bullock cart which is heavily loaded with material, almost
beyond its capacity, dragged by two powerful bulls, creaks and groans because it
is heavily loaded and moves slowly and reluctantly because of the weight,
somewhat in a similar manner this individual about to expire moves out of the
body reluctantly like a heavily ladened cart, pulled by forces which belong to the
other world, with creaks and groans caused by the weight of attachment that he
still has to this world. That weight does not allow him to go freely. So he makes a
kind of ‘creaking’ sound, as it were. There is difficulty in breathing, or hard
breathing. The Prāṇas depart; they are about to leave the body. In sleep, the
Prāṇas do not leave the body. Though the mind is withdrawn from the body, the
Prāṇas are not withdrawn. So there is no death in sleep. Life is still present,
though the mind is absent. But in the death condition, Prāṇas also are
withdrawn. So, there is no connection between the subtle body and the physical
body at the time of death. In sleep the connection is maintained, and so you
return to waking life once again through this body only. But when the Prāṇas are
withdrawn, the last connection that obtains between the subtle body and the
physical body is snapped, and the two are separated. At that time of the
separation of the Prāṇas from the physical body there is inordinate breathing.
What kind of breathing it is will differ from person to person. When a person is
about to depart, indications will be seen in the physical body as well as in the
mind. The person becomes emaciated and weakened in every respect. When the
soul, with the subtle body, is about to leave the physical body, several
phenomena take place. The physical body shows a tendency to disintegrate, and
the mind shows a reluctance to the maintenance of it. The senses become feeble
and they refuse to energise the body, as they had been doing before” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):IV.3.35.p254). Since there is no scientific evidence for soul
after death, it is unclear if these processes of death are correct, as implied by the
atheist version of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
[2]. Processes after death and before rebirth: Simultaneously to the
process of death, “another activity goes on in another atmosphere, in a very
subtle and unconscious manner. There is a desire in the soul that departs, to
materialise itself in another form. The subtle body accordingly, even before
leaving the present body fully, begins to draw to itself the necessary material
forces available to it at that particular spot or atmosphere where it can continue
its activities and fulfill its desires which are yet unfulfilled” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983): IV.3.35.p254-255). Since there is no scientific evidence for
soul after death, it is unclear if these processes exist, as implied by the atheist
version of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
[3]. Nature of subtle body: “The subtle body will be wrenched from every
limb of the physical body. At present the subtle body has become one with the
physical body … the subtle body permeates the physical body and has got
283
Dvi-Pakṣa
identified with the physical body. That is why we have sensation. If you touch a
finger, you can feel the sensation; there is the feeling of touching. The feeling is
not of the physical body; it is of the subtle body only … the sensation that you
feel in the body is not the sensation felt by the physical body. It is the sensation
conveyed through the instrumentality of the physical body to the subtle body. So
the feeler, the experiencer is the subtle body whose presiding deity is the mind.
But, at the time of death, the subtle body is withdrawn. During life, it has
become one with the physical body in every detail; it has become one with every
cell of the body. It has become identified with every limb of the body—with the
eyes, with the ears, with every sense-organ. When, at death, it is withdrawn from
the physical body, it becomes a kind of painful experience, because it is not a
natural separation. It is a separation caused on account of unfulfilled desires
which the present physical body cannot fulfill. It is not a separation caused by
exhaustion of desires. There is a difference between a dry leaf falling from a tree
and a green leaf being plucked. The physical body is dropped, not because the
desires have all been fulfilled, and there is no further need for a body, but
because this body is unsuitable for the fulfillment of the remaining desires. And
so, there is a handing over charge by one officer, as it were, to another one. The
function is not finished, only the personality changes. After death also, there is a
continuity of the same activity of the mind, but there is a little awkward feeling in
the middle, when the physical body is dropped.
‘The body becomes thin.’ There is an experience of various ups and downs in
the physical body at the time of death. As a fruit may be plucked from a tree, the
subtle body is wrenched out of the physical body from every limb, from every cell,
every sense, every organ, and it departs. It, the subtle body, then gravitates
automatically by the law of the universe, to the spot where it can find its new
habitation. The elements which are the building bricks of the new body, the
future body, get collected by the force of the pull of this magnet, which is the
subtle body. The subtle body is like a magnet which pulls the iron filings which
are around. The iron filings are the elements—earth, water, fire, air, ether. The
necessary part or aspect of the elements is pulled, dragged, withdrawn from
Nature’s storehouse and absorbed into its being by the subtle body. It does not
absorb everything and anything, only that which is necessary. Individuals vary in
their physical form and shape, etc. because their subtle bodies differ in their
nature. According to the need felt, the quantity of material that is drawn varies in
shape and proportion. So individuals differ, one from the other” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):IV.3.36.p255-256).
Furthermore, the relationship between subtle body and mental impressions is
elaborated as follows: “Tasya haitasya puruṣasya rῡpam: This Puruṣha within us
manifests himself in the subtle body as various colours. Now, these colours
mentioned here actually represent the various types of impressions out of which
the subtle body is made. It is difficult to distinguish between the impressions of
the mind and the constitution of the subtle body. Well, something like the
threads and the cloth which are related to each other, the mental impressions
and the subtle body are related. The whole range of activity of the mind is what is
284
Dvi-Pakṣa
called the subtle body, like the magnet[ic] field of a electromagnetic installation.
It is not a substance in the ordinary sense; it is a limitation set upon the mind by
its own activities in the form of impressions of experience. They are compared to
colours because they are constituted of the three Guṇas of Prakṛiti—Sattva, Rajas
and Tamas. Sattva is generally said to be white, Rajas reddish, and Tamas is
black. And by mutual permutation and combination of these three properties, we
can have other colours also. So, the subtle body is a mixture of these three
Guṇas in various intensities or degrees, on account of the difference in the
intensity of the thoughts of the mind, the feelings of the mind and the
impressions created by mental activity” ((Swami Krishnananda,
1983):II.3.6.p393).
If soul exists after death (but there is scientific evidence), subtle body is the
physical aspect of soul, as per the theist version of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
[4]. Process of rebirth: “The entry into a new body is also a great mystery. It
is a gradual condensation of material forces into solidified matter in the way in
which it is necessary for the fulfillment of the desires present in the subtle body.
And at that time, the Prāṇas that were withdrawn from the previous body are
once again released into action. As in an airplane, when it takes off, the wheels
are pulled up, and when it lands, the wheels are thrust back once again so that it
may land on the ground, likewise the Prāṇas are withdrawn when there is a take-
off from the physical body by the subtle body which runs like a plane to the new
habitation which it has to go and occupy, and when it comes to the spot it
projects the Prāṇas once again, and catching hold of the elements makes them its
own in the form of a new physical body. These elements become the new body.
That is called rebirth. The manifestation of a new physical form by the
gravitational force of the subtle body, which is determined by the intensity of
unfulfilled desires, is the process of rebirth.
The Upaniṣhad says, just as when a king leaves his palace and goes out on a
journey, the news about his departure is conveyed to various parts of the country
and the officials everywhere get ready to receive him with all the necessities such
as boarding, lodging, security and various other needs of the king in that
particular place towards which he is moving, likewise, the particular realm of
beings, the particular atmosphere towards which the soul is gravitating, gets
stirred up into activity because of its impending departure from here. “The king is
coming. We have to make ready several amenities for his stay, etc.” The officials
confer among themselves and prepare the things that are required for his
reception. Likewise, the forces of Nature begin to act in respect of this soul,
which has to materialise itself in a new form, in the particular realm where it is
going to take birth. [IV.3.36.p256 …]
‘At the birth of every event the whole universe is in travail undergoing the
birth pang.’ The whole universe begins to feel that some event is taking place,
and so the necessary contributions are made from every quarter of the universe.
[IV.3.37.p256 …] The forces that work for the purpose of the materialisation of a
new body for the individual that departs from the present body are stimulated by
cosmic purposes. It is the whole universe that acts IV.3.37.p257 […] when the
285
Dvi-Pakṣa
soul is about to depart from the body, all the energies in the system get gathered
up. The distractions of the senses and the Prāṇas cease, and there is a sort of
centralisation of all energy. The faculties of the ears, the nose and the various
other senses together with the Prāṇas, centre themselves in a particular place.
[IV.3.37.p257-8 …] The Prāṇas do not work in the usual manner. They withdraw
themselves from the limbs of the body, and the senses also withdraw themselves
from the various organic parts. There is thus a centralisation of activity, and
everything comes together [IV.3.37.p258…]
There is then an urge to get expelled from this body. The subtle body wishes
to get out of the physical body. That aperture through which it is to go out, gets
opened up by the force it exerts, and the way in which the subtle body seeks exit
from the physical body varies. They call this exit the departure of the Prāṇa, for
the Prāṇa is the vehicle of the subtle body. The Prāṇa leaves the physical body.
Through any one of the various orifices of the body, it may find its exit according
to the nature of the destination that it has to reach. The energy of the eyes, etc.
gets withdrawn, so that one cannot see properly at that time, one cannot hear
properly, one cannot smell, one cannot taste, one cannot speak, one cannot
think, one cannot understand, because these senses which were placed in
various locations of the body for the purpose of discharging certain duties
through the organs, have fulfilled their duties. The officials are withdrawn to the
centre, as it were, because their work in the outlying areas is finished. This is
what happens at the time when the soul departs from the body. [IV.3.38.p258
…]” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983):IV.3.36-38.p256-258). Since there is no
scientific evidence for soul after death, rebirth of some of the attributes is
possible via genetic transmission in children to some extent, as per the atheist
version of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
[5]. The process of death, the nature of desire, and the fate of
unrealized and realized soul after death: (Swami Krishnananda, 1983)
interprets the process of death proposed in Br.U. as: “It is said that all the
energies get centred in the heart. The brain also stops functioning [during death].
There is no thinking faculty at that time. There is feebleness. The breathing
becomes slow. There may be a heaving just at the time of the exit, but otherwise,
there is a slowing of the breath on account of the withdrawal of the activity of the
Prāṇa from the various parts of the body. What happens when the energies get
centred in the heart? […] Then there is no seeing. So, even if the eyes are open,
there is no seeing at that time [IV.4.1.p258-9 …]
He [dying man] cannot touch; he cannot think; he cannot smell; he cannot
hear; he cannot understand … There is a flash of light, as it were, bursting forth
through some part of the heart. That is the only consciousness that he has, not
the consciousness of body, not the consciousness of sense-activity, not the
consciousness of people around, of objects around, etc. There is only a feeble,
meagre, failing self-consciousness. He cannot even feel that he exists … The
belief is that if the departs through the crown of the head, one reaches Brahma-
loka … if it passes through the eyes one goes to the sun, and so on and so forth.
If it is a vertical movement, it is supposed to be the indication of ascending to a
286
Dvi-Pakṣa
higher region. If it is a horizontal movement or a downward motion, then it is

supposed to be a descent to the lower worlds or to this particular world itself.
Tam utkrᾱmantam prᾱṇo’nutkrᾱmati : When the centre of consciousness, which is in
the form of this little light, rushes out of the body, the Prāṇa goes with it. When
the Prāṇa goes, all the energies of the senses also get gathered up together and
leave with the Prāṇa.
Prᾱṇam anῡtkrᾱmantaṁ sarve prᾱṇᾱ anῡtkrᾱmanti: Now this term vijñāno bhavati
has a special sense. It seems to imply that there is a feeble consciousness of the
future stage that is Vijñana. There is a total unconsciousness of the previous
condition. One loses touch with the earlier body and, therefore, there is no
connection with the previous life at all. Inasmuch as the senses have been
withdrawn from the previous body, there is no recognition of the previous world,
the previous relations, the previous society, etc., etc. There is a tendency to
recognise the presence of a new atmosphere. That is the functioning of the
Vijnana. The intellect slowly stirs into action when there is a possibility of fresh
materialisation, that is, the preparation for a new body— sa vijñᾱno bhavati, sa
vijñᾱnam evᾱnvavakrᾱmati; taṁ vidyᾱ -karmaṇī samanvᾱrabhete pῡrvaprajñᾱ ca: When
there is such a departure of the individual, something must be going with the
individual. What is it that goes with us when we leave this world and enter the
other world? Do we take something when we go? We have a lot of property, many
possessions and acquisitions. We have cherished many values in this life. Do
they all come with us? The Upaniṣhad has a simple answer to this question.
Whatever knowledge has become part of your life, that will come with you, not
the knowledge that is in the books or in the libraries. This knowledge is not going
to come with you. The knowledge that has become part of your actual daily life,
through which you have been thinking and working, that knowledge will come
with you. That action that has become a part of your very life itself, not merely an
externally compulsive action, but an action that is voluntary, of your own accord,
which you have done and you like it, which you feel has a meaning in it, which
you feel is your action, which you have done with a purpose, will produce a
result in a very fine form. And that form which is very fine is called Apūrva,
something subtle and invisible. It is of the form of energy. This Apūrva comes
with you. The impressions which have been accumulated by the mind by various
thoughts of perception, cognition, etc., called Vāsanas or Samskāras, they
accompany the departing individual. It is a psychic complex that actually departs
from the body. Whatever is our mind in its complex state goes with its own
constituents. Nothing extraneous will come with it. We cannot take anything
from this world which has not become a part and parcel of our own minds, our
own feelings. That is the meaning of saying, that which has become part of your
life will come with you. Nothing else comes with you. Many things there are in
this world which cannot be regarded as part of our life. They are extraneous
appurtenances. They do not come with us. But that which is absorbed into our
own life by the feelings, that will come with us. [IV.4.2.p259-260 …]
287
Dvi-Pakṣa
There is an activity, as we observed, taking place in the other realm at the

time of the departure from this body … There is an activity, as we observed,
taking place in the other realm at the time of the departure from this body …
even without your consciously thinking of the destination, forces of nature begin
to work for you. They spontaneously work, and that preparation that is being
made there to receive you to another realm is the foot that you have kept there
already before you lift the other foot from this world. It is not a physical foot that
you have placed, but a feeler which has connected you with the future realm in a
very subtle manner. This shows the interconnectedness of all things. We are not
cast into the winds by forces of which we have no knowledge. Everything is
connected with us, and all the forces of nature keep an eye over us. Exactly in
the manner in which it is necessary for us to have experiences in the future life,
in that particular manner alone do the forces of nature work [IV.4.3.p261 …]
a new body is formed out of the ingredients collected from nature … the
material forces, earth, water, fire, air, and ether are the elements out of which
bodies are formed. The present body is made up of these elements. The future
body also will be made up of these elements … But the wood is the same. It is not
new wood that he is using. Likewise, they are the same elements that work
wherever you go, whatever be the birth that you take, and whichever be the
shape the soul assumes in whichever realm, in its new incarnation. Even if it is
in a very highly elevated state like that of a Gandharva, or a Pitṛ, or a celestial in
paradise, even if such a lustrous body is to be assumed by the soul, it is made of
nothing but this same material. It is formed of these elements only in their finer
essences. When they are gross, they look like the bodies we have. When they are
fine, they begin to be transparent like glass … one can take any form; one can be
reborn in any shape, maybe a Gandharva, a celestial, or any other being. You
may even go to the realm of Hiraṇyagarbha, assuming the subtlest form of matter
known as the Prakṛitis. Any form the soul can take. It can adjust and readjust
the material elements according to the need which is indicated by the nature of
the mind that actually reincarnates. [IV.4.4.p261-2 …]
The deepest longings of the human individual are supposed to determine his
future. Sa yathᾱkᾱmo bhavati, tat kratur bhavati, yat kratur bhavati, tat karma kurute,
yat karma kurute, tat abhisampadyate: ‘Whatever is your deepest desire will decide
the nature of your determination, of the way to act.’ [By the time we are fed up
with even a few things, the body also goes. But the desire has not gone. Last
wishes should be fulfilled otherwise rebirth will occur to fulfill theses wishes.]
The deepest longing of the soul, the desire of the mind or the urges of one’s
personal nature will influence the will, the volition. The will is nothing but the
exoteric function of the desire within. ‘As the desire is, so the will is; as the will
is, so is the action. And as is the action, so is the consequence, or the result
thereof.’ Everything seems to be in our hands. Our weal and woe, our future, our
destiny is actually operated upon by the deepest mechanism that is inside us.
The switchboard of the cosmos, as it were, seems to be inside our own hearts.
[IV.4.5.p263 …]
288
Dvi-Pakṣa
When we leave this world, we take nothing [physical, social, etc] with us. […]
But we take something with us. Like an encrustation that has grown upon us,
the forces of Karma cling to our subtle body which alone departs when the
physical body is shed. Liṅgam mano yatra niṣaktam asya: ‘The mind which is the
ruling principle in the subtle body carries with it the result of its actions, the
Karma-Phala’ which clings to it like a leech. It will not leave it, wherever it goes.
[…] our Karma will find us wherever we are. […] the laws of the cosmos catch
that individual who has been responsible for the particular action. […] the subtle
body is taken to the exact spot where it can fulfil all its wishes. […] The fulfilment
of a desire is not the way to freedom from desire. […] fire is never satisfied by any
amount of clarified butter that you pour over it. It can swallow numerous
quintals of clarified butter. The more butter you pour on it, the more ferocious
does the fire become. So is desire. […] A person who does not desire, who is freed
from desires, whose desires have gone, whose desires have been fully satisfied,
whose desire is only for the Self […] If your desire is for anything other than the
Self, it is not going to be fulfilled, because you are asking for that which is not
there. […] one who has desire centred in the Universal Self is one whose desires
are all fulfilled at one stroke, which in other words means that all desires have
left him. Why have all desires left that person? Because all desires have been
fulfilled, the reason being that the desire itself has become merged in the
Universal Self. […] If a person is to shed his physical body in that circumstance,
without any desire remaining except for the desire of the Universal Being, what
happens is that his Prāṇas do not move hither and thither in search of a new
location; they do not move. The subtle body does not depart in space and in time;
on the contrary they, the Prānas, and the senses dissolve like bubbles in the
ocean then and there— na tasya pr ᾱṇᾱ utkrᾱmanti, brahmaiva san brahmᾱpyeti . ‘He
has been contemplating throughout his life on the Absolute Self. He gets
identified with the Absolute Self then and there.’ This is called in the terminology
of the Upaniṣads and the Vedanta philosophy Sadyamukti, instantaneous
liberation. It is an immediate salvation of the soul, which is attained on account
of freedom from desire that has arisen on account of desire for the Ātman. This is
the glorious destination of the spiritual adept who spends his life in
contemplation on the Universal Being” ((Swami Krishnananda,
1983):IV.4.6.p265-267). Since there is no scientific evidence for soul after death,
everything (brain, body, mind, self, etc.) merges with Nature after death as
discussed in the atheist version of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
[6]. Mortality and Immortality: “Mortality is a condition that is imposed
upon the spirit due to the encrustation of desire. It is in its essential nature. We
are not mortals, essentially. Our essential nature is that of immortality,
deathlessness, eternity, that of a durationless Being. If we were really mortal, we
would not be capable of becoming immortal. […] We are free souls. And we are
going to assert the freedom of our real nature by uncovering it through the
practice of Yoga. The mortal does not become immortal, really. The immortality
that has been hidden under the cover of mortality gets revealed or manifested.
That is actually what happens when it is said that one becomes immortal. It is by
289
Dvi-Pakṣa
transcending mortality that one reaches immortality” ((Swami Krishnananda,

1983):IV.4.7.p267). In my view, doing good karmas and giving good sanskārs to
children is essential for the attaining immortality to some extent via genetic
transmission if soul does not exist as argued in the atheist version of Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita.
[7]. Experiences during Meditation and Guṇas: “The lights and sounds, etc.
that we experience in meditation are caused by that effect of Sattva, Rajas and
Tamas [Guṇas] in us. […] We are not wholly Sattvic; wholly Rajasic or wholly
Tamasic we are not. None of us is constituted entirely of one quality. We are an
admixture of one, two or three in different proportions. According to the
proportion of admixture of these properties of Prakṛiti—Sattva, Rajas, Tamas—we
have different experiences in meditation. We sometimes see yellow, sometimes
white or blue or green, etc., hear sounds of various types and intensities, feel
touches or various other sensations, all mentioned in the Yoga Śāstras. They are
not indications of any final achievement, but only symbols of our having attained
some success in deep concentration of the mind. One should not mistake visions
of colours and auditions, etc., for achievement of Brahman, Brahma-
Sākshātkāra, or liberation. They are only symbolic of your concentration of mind.
You have succeeded to some extent in fixing your attention upon the object, and
so a particular quality of yours has come to the fore. When it acts, it produces
these experiences. They are sort of light posts which only indicate what is
happening to you on the way, and are not signs that you have actually reached
the goal ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983):IV.4.9.p270). In my view, yogic meditation
to attain samādhi-state via Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita is the optimum goal of life.
[8]. Avidyā, extroversion, introversion, and suffering: “Avidyā or ignorance
is the concept that the action, the notion and the external movement are all
based on the presumption or assumption that Reality is externally present, and
can be contacted only through the senses and through externalised activity [this
is called extroversion]. This is one extreme movement, and the result of this kind
of engagement is supposed to be suffering in future lives on account of
entanglement in the urges of the senses, bereft of the knowledge or the
enlightenment of the Self. The other extreme is total withdrawal from externality
into internality. This is called introversion. […] It is capable of producing a result
much worse than that produced by the ignorance of the person who believes in
an externality of activity. That man of knowledge is an egoistic man, generally,
because of the presumption that he knows everything. But, what he knows is
substanceless. It is mere information. […] may go to a still worse darkness”
((Swami Krishnananda, 1983):IV.4.11.p271-2). Therefore, a middle path (such as
Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is the best.
[9]. Samsāra, Bondage, Objects, Subjects, Mokṣha, End of Karma and
suffering, and Brahma-loka: “When you consider everyone as an object, you
are in Samsāra. That is called bondage. Everyone is an object. I am an object for
you and you are an object for me. So, everyone is an object only. The whole world
is filled with objects. The consideration of the whole world as a conglomeration of
objects merely, and nothing more than objects, is called Samsāra, or bondage.
290
Dvi-Pakṣa
But you can shift your emphasis to the subjectness of beings. Why should I
regard myself as an object of you? Am I not a subject by myself, so also you? So,
if everyone is a subject, there is only subjectivity everywhere. Look at the wonder.
The moment you shift your emphasis of consideration, the very world of objects
has become a world of subjects. That is called Mokṣha. So, in one and the same
place there is bondage and liberation at one stroke, and in the same person you
can see both object and subject, both friend and foe. Viewed as an object he is an
enemy, and viewed as a subject he is a friend. This is the great point of view
taken by the knower of Brahman. In his case no Karma arises, either good or
bad, because these appellations are inappropriate in that supreme condition of a
person —eṣa nityo mahimᾱ brᾱhmaṇasya na vardhate karmaṇᾱ no kanīyᾱn—as he only
sees subjects and no objects. […] He sees himself in himself’, nothing else. He
does not see people; he does not see the world; he sees himself in himself. Now,
does it mean that he sees only the personal self? […] ‘He sees the Self in
everything’, not looking at himself only as the Self but looking at everything as
the Self. […] This is Brahma-loka, the world of Brahma. It does not mean some
distant world of Brahma; it means the world itself is Brahma” ((Swami
Krishnananda, 1983):IV.4.23.p289-291). Since samādhi-state has 3 major SEs
(bliss, inner light perception, and unification of subject and objects), which
entails maximum possible happiness, it is useful to attain this state to minimize
suffering consistence with Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
88 See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana that describes 5 prāṇas or vital

currents: (i) Prāṇa: “Responsible for the beating of the heart and breathing. Prana
enters the body through the breath and is sent to every cell through the
circulatory system.” (ii) Apāna: “Responsible for the elimination of waste
products from the body through the lungs and excretory systems.” (iii) Uḍāna:
“Responsible for producing sounds through the vocal apparatus, as in speaking,
singing, laughing, and crying. Also it represents the conscious energy required to
produce the vocal sounds corresponding to the intent of the being. Hence
Samyama on udana gives the higher centers total control over the body.” (iv)
Samāna: “Responsible for the digestion of food and cell metabolism (i.e. the
repair and manufacture of new cells and growth). Samāna also includes the heat
regulating processes of the body. Auras are projections of this current. By
meditational practices one can see auras of light around every being. Yogis who
do special practise on samana can produce a blazing aura at will.” (v) Vyāna:
“Responsible for the expansion and contraction processes of the body, e.g. the
voluntary muscular system.” “In Yoga the Prāṇa is further classified into [five]
subcategory Upa-prāṇa with following items”: (a) Naga: Responsible for burping.
(b) Kurma: Responsible for blinking. (iii) Devadatta: Responsible for yawning. (iv)
Krikala: Responsible for Sneezing. And (e) Dhananjaya: Responsible for opening
and closing of heart valves.
89 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_Shaivism
291
Dvi-Pakṣa
90 Adapted from http://www.kashmirshaivism.org/introduction.html
91 As per (Kak, 2010b), “According to the Vedic view, reality, which is unitary at
the transcendental level, is projected into experience that is characterized by
duality and paradox. […] The bindu or dot in the innermost triangle of the Śrī
Cakra represents the potential of the non-dual Śiva-Śakti. When this potential
separates into prakāśa (the aham or I-consciousness, Śiva) and vimarśa (the
idam or this-consciousness, Śakti) it is embodied into nāda, kalā and bindu.
Nāda is the primal, unexpressed sound (interpreted by human ear as oṃkāra)
and kalā is the “kāma kalā,” the desire to create, which the Vedas tell us is the
desire “May I be many” (Chāndogya Up. 6.2.1.3). Bindu, as the potential universe
ready to separate into various categories is Mahātripurasundarī. Śiva as Prakāśa
(luminosity or consciousness) has realized himself as “I am”, through her, the
Vimarśa Śakti (Nature as the reflector). It must be stated that within the Yogic
tradition, it has always been believed that Tantra is a part of the Vedas itself. In
the Devī Sūkta (Ṛgveda 10.125), the Goddess describes herself as supreme. In
the Śrī Sūkta of the Ṛgvedic hymns (appendices), the goddess Śrī is associated
with prosperity, wealth, and fortune, and she is spoken of as deriving joy from
trumpeting elephants. The Śrī Sūkta, addressed to Jātavedas of Fire, was
invoked at the fire ritual. In Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra (14.117.1) there is reference to
the goddess being invoked for the protection of a fort. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad 7.4 there is a reference to the goddess Vāc. The Vedic triads, together
with the dyadic male and female components, enlarge through expansion
(prapañca) so the universe is a projection (vimarśa) of the Absolute’s self
illumination (prakāśa). […] The three cities in the name of Lalitā Tripurasundarī
are that of the body, the mind, and the spirit, or that of will (icchā), knowledge
(jñāna) and action (kriyā). They may also be seen as the knower, the means of
knowledge, and the object of knowledge; the three guṇas of sattva, rajas and
tamas; agni (fire), sūrya (sun) and candra (moon); sṛṣṭi (creation), sthiti
(preservation) and laya (dissolution); intellect, feelings, and sensation; subject
(mātā), instrument (māna), and object (meya) of all things; waking (jāgrat),
dreaming (svapna) and dreamless sleep (suṣupti) states; as ātma (individual self),
antarātma (inner being) and paramātma (supreme self) and also as past, present
and future.”
It is unclear how does the non-dual Śiva-Śakti divide into Śiva (I-
consciousness or the mental aspect in 1st person perspective) and Śakti
(this/object-consciousness or the physical aspect in 3rd person perspective).
92 As per Kak (personal communication in April, 2011), “Re your question on how
to classify the Trika system with its dichotomy of Puruṣa and Prakṛti, I can only
say that this is consistent with the Vedic view of the transcendent ‘ground’
getting projected in these dual categories. My intuition (not just understanding)
of the Vedas as well as Trika is that one cannot build linguistic or materialistic
models of explanation related to the relationship between the transcendent and
the projected. The ‘mental’ (one must separate it into the instrumented mind
292
Dvi-Pakṣa
[functional aspect of consciousness] which is governed by physical processes and

that of ‘enclosing’ ‘awareness’ – the Śiva within) is thus partly connected to the
physical. What is the evidence of these connections? I provide this evidence in
(Kak, 2009). I don't say the jagat is ‘unreal’ in the normal meaning of the term
‘unreal’. It is ‘unreal’ only in its transitoriness but otherwise it is a projection of
the Brahman. What is the relationship between jīva and Paramatmā? The answer
to this is in the Ṛgvedic hymn as well as the Upaniṣhad that compares these to
the two birds on the tree. The projection is Māyā which is the net that separates
the jīva-bird from Śiva [Paramatmā].”
However, what is the mechanism of projection? This metaphysics is either (a)
the neutral monism (a branch of dual-aspect monism) that has explanatory gap
problem (how aspects are derived from transcendent ‘ground’) or (b) dual-
perspective/dual-aspect monism, but it is unclear if both aspects/perspectives
are inseparable.
As per (Kak, 2009), “In the view that consciousness is complementary to
space, time and matter, it needs material support to be embodied as ‘awareness’.
Conversely, it is meaningless to speak of a universe without observers. […]
observers are essential in the universe. […] the brain-machine has awareness
whereas the computer does not […] In the archaic view, the universe is
conscious. In more sophisticated versions of this archaic view, consciousness
itself is the ground stuff of reality and on this ground the complex of space, time
and matter is seeded. […] One cannot speak of information in a universe without
observers. […] If the set of choices is infinite, then the ‘information’ generated by
the source is unbounded […] The increase of information with time is a
consequence of the interplay between unitary (related to pure states) and non-
unitary (related to mixed states) evolution, which makes it possible to transform
one type of information into another. This complementarity indicates that a
fundamental duality is essential for information […] The receiver can make his
estimate by adjusting the basis vectors so that he gets closer to the unknown
pure state. The information that can be obtained from such a state in repeated
experiments is potentially infinite in the most general case. But if the observer is
told what the pure state is, the information associated with the states vanishes,
suggesting that a fundamental divide exists between objective and subjective
information. […] Some ascribe awareness of the brain to the fact that the brain is
a self-organizing system which responds to the nature and quality of its
interaction with the environment, whereas computers can’t do that. […] self-
organization is a necessary pre-requisite for consciousness, it is not sufficient.
[…] Quantum mechanics is not a local theory in the sense that parts far apart
cease to be causally connected to each other; entanglement between particles
persists no matter how apart they are. It cannot be assumed that as the universe
evolved, interaction between different isolated parts of it came about in a non-
293
Dvi-Pakṣa
unitary manner, leading to creation of information. The entropy at the origin

should not change as the universe evolves. […] The working of the ‘consciousness
principle’ in the laboratory may be seen in the quantum Zeno effect in which the
process of observation increases entropy. This principle, rather than the creation
of complex molecules by chance, leads to the rise of life in the universe.
Consciousness interpenetrates the universe, but it needs appropriate physical
structures to be embodied.”
It is unclear how the life and consciousness (experiences) arise from the
observation-process and how space-time and matter arise from consciousness.
As per (Kak, 2010a), “In India, the Vedas declare reality as transcending the
subject-object distinction and then self-consciously speak of their own narrative
as dealing with the problem of consciousness. […] Parallels between the Vedic
view and quantum theory are well known. For example, both suggest that reality
is consistent only in its primordial, implicate form. The Vedas insist that speech
and sense-associations cannot describe this reality completely. […] Vedic
narrative insists that ordinary linguistic descriptions of reality will be
paradoxical. In quantum physics also use of ordinary logic or language leads to
paradoxes such as: the present can influence the past, effects can travel
instantaneously, and so on. The Vedic model of mind provides a hierarchical
structure with a twist that allows it to transcend the categories of separation and
wholeness. In it, the lowest level is the physical world or body, with higher levels
of interface forces, the mind, intuition, emotion, with the universal self sitting a
top. The lower levels are machine-like whereas the self is free and conscious. The
individual’s idea of consciousness arises out of associations with events,
illuminated by the consciousness principle. The most striking part of this model
is the nature of the universal self. Considered to transcend time, space and
matter, the self engenders these categories on the physical world. Mind itself is
seen as a complex structure. Although it is emergent and based on the physical
capacities of the brain structures, it cannot exist without the universal self. One
implication of these ideas is that machines, which are based on logic, can never
be conscious. The Vedic theory of mind is part of a recursive approach to
knowledge. The Vedas speak of three worlds, namely the physical, the mental,
and that of knowledge. Consciousness is the fourth, transcending world. […]
These questions are examined in the later Vedic tradition within the frameworks
of both Vaişṇavism and Śaivism. […] The 25 categories of Sāṃkhya form the
substratum of the classification in Kashmir Śaivism. […] In Vaiśeşika, the mind
is considered to be atomic and of point-like character, anticipating Leibnizís
theory of monads, although it is different from it in a crucial sense. According to
the Vedic traditions, mind itself must be seen as a complex structure. Whereas
mind is emergent and based on the capabilities of neural hardware, it cannot
exist without the universal self. […] We argued that machines fall short on two
counts as compared to brains. First, unlike brains, machines do not self-organize
294
Dvi-Pakṣa
in a recursive manner. Second, machines are based on classical logic, whereas

nature’s intelligence may depend on quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics
provides us a means of obtaining information about a system associated with
various attributes. A quantum state is a linear superposition of its component
states. […] The counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics arises from the
collapse of the state function by the observation. This renders the framework
nonlinear, and irreversible if the time-variable is changed in sign. […] The
strangeness of quantum mechanics is a consequence of its superpositional logic.
But quantum mechanics has characteristics that are intuitively satisfying and it
may be interpreted in a manner that allows free will and consciousness. The
evidence from neuroscience that we reviewed showed how specific centres in the
brain are dedicated to different cognitive tasks. But these centres do not merely
do signal processing: each operates within the universe of its experience so that
it is able to generalize individually. This generalization keeps up with new
experience and is further related to other cognitive processes in the brain. It is in
this manner that cognitive ability is holistic and irreducible to a mechanistic
computing algorithm. Viewed differently, each agent is an apparatus that taps
into the universal field of consciousness. On the other hand, AI machines based
on classical computing principles have a fixed universe of discourse so they are
unable to adapt in a flexible manner to a changing universe. This is why they
cannot match biological intelligence. […] Second, the material world is not
causally closed, and consciousness influences its evolution. Matter and minds
complement each other. […] It is most fascinating that starting with the machine
paradigm one is led to the ultimate end of a universal mind, whereas in India the
traditional view is to postulate a universal mind in the beginning out of which
emerges the physical world!”
As long as primal implicate form has dual-aspect (mental and physical) and
category mistake is not made, the co-evolution of consciousness from the mental
aspect of unmanifested implicate state and brain from its physical aspect is
possible without making category mistake. However, both idealism-based
quantum physics (such as (Stapp, 2009a)) and Vedic system involve idealism at
the deepest level and substance dualism at classical level, which have problems.
93 See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara . Brahman alone is truth, the jagat
is unreal [i.e., not eternal, rather jagat is transitory], individual self is none other
than Brahman
<http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4629>.
94 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayavadi
95 See Śankara’s adhyāsa-bhasya in his commentary on the Brahma-sutra:

http://nisargadatta.wordpress.com/2006/01/16/an-article-on-adhyasa-bhasya-
sankaras-introduction-to-brahma-sutra/.
295
Dvi-Pakṣa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhyasa: Adhyāsa (अRयास ) means

“superimposition or false attribution of properties of one thing on another thing.”
96 “In metaphysics, pluralism claims a plurality of basic substances [such as fire,

air, water, earth] making up the world. … Descartes defined each substance as
that analytical point at which "we can understand nothing else than an entity
which is in such a way that it need no other entity in order to be." Monism holds
a godlike oneness of being in an existence of a single substance. Dualism
visualizes two substances — material and mind”
<(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(philosophy)> ).
97 Critique1 seems to be a very faithful Advaitist, where Brahman is an aspectless

primal entity and provides critique on the definition of Brahman based on the
dual-aspect monism.
Critique1: Advaita has no color. It's not One, but that all is whole, akhanDa.
Any differentiation is local perception. Any separation between jîva and body
such as at the time of death is not Advaita. Separation is perception. The body
never existed; it is an illusion. That's the trap. Theory is not based on experience.
Advaita is what's. There is no value judgment. It's a definition of a concept.
Author: The attributeless, colorless, and aspectless Brahman in
Śankarāchārya’s Advaita is a special case of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita when both
mental and physical aspects of unmanifested state of Brahman are latent before
manifestation; that is why this state of Brahman appears aspectless. The
innumerable manifestations of Brahman occur after Big Bang (cosmic fire, Virāt
state). Moreover, the phrase ‘the body never existed; it is illusion’ really means
that the body is not eternal as jīva is; rather body is of transitory nature; it dies
so it is considered illusion with respect to eternal jīva. Furthermore, our
differences are because we are thinking in different domains of reality. My view is
mostly in our daily conventional mind dependent reality (cMDR) and addressing
our daily problems and we all know that our body-brain system exists although it
is not immortal as it dies. I am not defining Brahman based on the ultimate mind
dependent reality (uMDR) of samādhi state, where yogis experience the
unification of subject (self) and objects. I am also not defining Brahman based on
the mind independent reality (MIR), which is either unknown or partly known via
cMDR/uMDR.
Kapila ṛṣi who gave us Sāṃkhya, the founders/authors of Buddhism, Jainism,
Brihaspati-sutra, and so on were accomplished yogis and presumably achieved
the samādhi state also. Their views are different from Advaita, even
Ramānujāchārya and Madhvāchārya differ. Thus, truth is controversial; perhaps,
each view highlight different attributes of the same unmanifested Brahman or
unified field.
In cMDR, body and jīva do get separated; we all witness during death; dead-
body is cremated. [We do not know if soul and/or God even exist and perhaps
that does not matter much.] That is where interactive substance dualism comes
296
Dvi-Pakṣa
in. In cMDR, matter and dead-body are NOT illusion. Illusion in cMDR is just like
imagining an elephant that is physically not there; or optical illusions as in magic
show or illusions in science museum. Otherwise, our daily activities are real in
cMDR although they are not eternal. I think that everybody will agree on this.
As per Critique1’s interpretation of Advaita, our bodies and whole material
world are illusion and never existed, so the question of the separation of jīva and
body does not arise during death. Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva
nāparah. Does this mean death, birth, life, and the jagat are all maya (illusion)?
Perhaps, they are considered māyā, mithyā, or illusion because they are
transitory in nature, i.e., they are not eternal.
I do not know what happens in uMDR; I never been there. Perhaps, if one
were in uMDR, it will be easy for to agree with Advaita his/her body never
existed. Neo-Kantians argue that MIR is partly known via cMDR/uMDR because
mind is a product of Nature. Of course, it is all appearances (mind constructs our
perception of objects); in that sense it is all maya (illusion). If this is what
Advaita says, then it is close to idealism (consciousness is the fundamental
reality) and has well known explanatory gap problem: how matter-in-itself can
arise from non-material consciousness. Just saying matter-in-itself arise because
it is congealed mind, in hand waving way, is NOT going to satisfy many
researchers; we have to show precisely how mind congeals to matter-in-itself. For
example, how color neural-network (anatomical) will arise from color
consciousness.
Our goal is to bridge science and all religions for world peace in cMDR to
address terrorism and wars based on religions. The problems of interactive
substance dualism (ISD) are genuine and neurophysiology has rejected ISD;
neuroscience will certainly reject if we claim our bodies, car, table, temple,
church, brain etc. never existed.
Critique1: You are working hard on this, but the basic fundamentals go wrong.
Brahman has no definition. It's a perception, a realization, has no description.
Whatever you describe is not Brahman. There is a built in mathematical beauty
in this. This is not religion or a matter of argument. Because it's so, there is no
counting. All counting is only in this universe and limited by time. Brahman has
no time. One gets a thrill when one conceives this! I don't know who had this
masterful idea. Upaniṣads ascribe it to Yajnavalkya.
Brahman is unmanifest. When manifestation occurs we have Īshvara, God or
theism (mono, poly whatever). Manifestation is an extrapolation because
"creation" has to take place. People can differ if the "creation" is an illusion or if
it's sensory. They do, so we have Advaita, Dvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita etc.
Author: I agree with you in that sense, but the aspectless Brahmin can derived
from the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita by considering both the mental and the physical
aspects latent at the primal unmanifested state of Brahmin. It appears that there
are multiple meanings attributed to the term ‘Brahman’. The meanings attributed
to the term ‘Brahman’ by you from various sources are: Brahman (i) is a
297
Dvi-Pakṣa
subjective (direct) perception by a subject (kārya Brahman), (ii) is a subjective

realization by the subject, (iii) has NO (reportable) description by the subject who
realizes Brahman, (iv) has no time, i.e., is timeless or beyond time (and perhaps
space-less/beyond space), (v) the subject gets a thrill/bliss when s/he conceives
Brahman, (vi) is aspectless, attributeless, colorless, etc (also called kāran
Brahman). and (vii) is also an unmanifested entity (kāran Brahman): is this
correct? Theism (or atheism), such as Advaita, Dvaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita etc. (or
Sāṃkhya, science, Buddhism etc.) arises after manifestation of Brahman: is this
correct? This is your understanding, and I agree with you in the sense of special
cases of Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework) as elaborated before.
The eDAM framework has attributed additional and perhaps extended
meaning to it: ‘Brahman’ is a fundamental dual-aspect entity (primal entity in its
unmanifested state), where mental and physical aspects are inseparable (and
latent at its unmanifested state). From its physical aspect, physical universe
including our brain co-evolved. From its mental aspect our consciousness
including our personal first person experiences co-evolved with its physical
aspect (neural-networks of our brain), which is the best product of evolution, so
far, that has ability to conceive Brahman/God/Īshvara. In other words, a brain-
state has two inseparable aspects: (i) personal first person subjective experiences
(SEs) and (ii) the related public third person perspective neural-network and its
activities as its inseparable physical aspect that can be empirically measured by
functional MRI. There are innumerable brain-states. If any change occur to one
aspect, that change gets translated into other aspect faithfully, automatically,
and rigorously with 1-1 correspondence.
As per living Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, Rāmānandāchārya’s cit-acit-
Viśiṣṭādvaita (about 1300 AD) attributes a different meaning to the term
‘Brahman’: Brahman has ‘cit’ (chit, mind) and ‘acit’ (achit, matter) as adjectives
(viśeṣaṇas), which is somewhat close to the first component (dual-aspect monism)
of the eDAM framework, namely, mind and matter are the two aspects of the
states of Brahman. The inseparability of aspects is unclear although soul
acquires subtle body that has traces of karmas, which seems to imply that
mental and physical aspects are inseparable.
The second component of the eDAM framework is that there are two modes for
acquiring ‘NOW’: The two modes are: (1) the non-tilde mode that is the physical
and mental aspect of cognition (memory and attention) related feedback signals
in a neural-network of the brain, which is the cognitive nearest past approaching
towards present; and (2) the tilde mode that is the physical and mental aspect of
the feed forward signals due to external environmental input and internal
endogenous input, which is the nearest future approaching towards present and
is a entropy-reversed representation of non-tilde mode. When the conjugate
match is made between the two modes, the world-presence (Now) is disclosed; its
content is the SE of subject (self), the SE of objects, and the content of SEs. The
dual-mode concept is derived from the framework of thermofield dissipative
quantum brain dynamics. This is highly mathematical and discussed in (Vimal,
2010c).
298
Dvi-Pakṣa
The third essential component of the eDAM framework is that the degrees if
the dominance of aspects vary with the levels of entities. For example, (i) in the
unmanifested state of Brahman, both aspects are latent so it appears as if it is
aspectless; (ii) in classical inert matter (including a dead body), physical aspect is
dominant and mental aspect is latent, whereas (iii) at deep quantum level, (a)
mental aspect is dominant and physical aspect latent and (b) entities behaves
mindlike as in entanglement phenomenon of quantum particles (information is
transferred instantaneously across universe). (iv) When we are fully awake
conscious and active, the both aspects are dominant. (v) When a human dies,
his/her dead body is like a classical inert entity. (vi) If soul exists, then a soul
has dominant mental aspect and inseparable latent physical aspect where the
traces of our karmas and unfulfilled intense desires are encoded for the next
birth. (vii) When mother conceives a baby, there may be the tuning among the
respective physical aspects (and/or inseparable mental aspects) of (1) sperm, (2)
egg, and (3) relevant soul (it exists!) for its re-birth.
Critique1: Feel free to coin new words [terms] suiting to the concept but you
need to leave the frozen words [such as Brahman] alone. Vedanta philosophy is a
general knowledge philosophy, this universe is one of the many universes that
Brahman creates and could be creating. Multi-verses is a latest mathematical
speculation and is in tune with the Vedanta. Any perception of ours as regards
"mind", "body" is only local. There is a difference when we say "mind" in the
terrestrial sense and "mind" in the Brahman sense. The latter has the attribute of
incomprehensibility and the former is unlimited though confined in the body. By
stating "Bṛhadāraṇyaka" got it wrong etc doesn't do well to your paper or theory.
Such distortion is unwarranted.
Author: Some terms such as sun and earth, are frozen, but there attributes
changed; for example, in ancient time it was assumed that sun orbits around
earth; but later it was found earth orbits around sun. The meaning attributed to
the term Brahman varies depending on the commentators; for example, Brahman
is aspectless for Śankarācharya in Advaita but has two aspects (cit and acit) for
Ramānujāchārya. There are over 40 different with some overlapping meanings
attributed to term ‘consciousness’ (Vimal, 2009f). Thus, unless there is a
consensus, the terms cannot be considered frozen. The meaning attributed to the
term ‘mind’ varies with the levels of entities as per the third component of the
eDAM framework, where the degrees of the dominance of aspects vary with the
levels of entities. This means, the mental and physical aspects of the
unmanifested state of Brahman are certainly not the same the mental and
physical aspects of our brain-states. It is good idea not follow any view blindly
and criticism is not distortion as long as justifications are provided because
criticism improves our views; here goal is to investigate the fundamental truth; so
if Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, our religions, and science have problems so we
should have courage to say so and try our best to address those problems. This
is what I have done in this book and I found a framework that tries to unify
science and religions.
Critique1: Brahman has no aspect, mental or physical.
299
Dvi-Pakṣa
Author: If the unmanifested state of Brahman has no aspect, then where do

mental and physical aspects arise from? And precisely how? In my view,
aspectlessness is just a special case of the eDAM framework as explained above,
i.e., the unmanifested state of Brahman appears aspectless because both aspects
are latent/hidden at this state.
Critique1: Now you got it. Brahman doesn't create the universe and has
nothing to do with it. The manifestation is done by a quantity called Mahat which
emanates from Brahman in an undefined manner (assumption). This takes us to
Sāṃkhya and to humans. As far as Brahman is concerned, the universe doesn't
exist, there is no differentiation. No guru, no chelā.
Author: Your claim is: an entity ‘Mahat’ emanates from Brahman in an
undefined manner. This is a fundamental assumption, i.e., it is a ‘brute fact’
(that is the way it is!). What are the justifications and/or evidences? This is an
explanatory gap problem of this view (Mahat from Brahman)? You proceed step-
by-step, I will show you the problems of this view (Idealism).
Critique1: No evidence. It's the theory. Modern string theory is leading
towards it. I don't know how the early philosophers deduced it. This throws away
the non-uniqueness of the present
universe and everything connected to any nonsensical theology. You have to dive
into mathematics and cosmology to admire the beauty of this speculation.
Author: What is the connection between Mahat-from-Brahman and string
theory. In addition, string theory can also lead to other views, such as
materialism and dual-aspect monism (Vimal, 2010g). How could we decide which
one is the best framework?
Critique1: I want to reiterate again my old observation on the nomenclature
of the word Brahman through etymology. Brahman is not an object to have
manifestation. Brahman "is". All objects, manifested or unmanifested, make
Brahman. It's a collective noun, and not quantifiable. While I admire your deep
pursuit to create bridges, I would think you appreciate the terminology. Ram is a
concept, so it's with Brahman. The only difference is we can call many objects as
Ram, but Brahman is singular. Nomenclature is important in furthering
knowledge.
Author: You are claiming the Brahman ‘is’, which seems to imply that
whatever exist today is Brahman, which includes its both manifested and
unmanifested states: All is Brahman. In this sense, I agree; I would also agree
with the phrase ‘All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One in All’. However, we
have the difference of opinion in details. You strictly, rigidly, and faithfully follow
Śankarāchārya. I am not a follower of anybody blindly. My goal is to understand
the fundamental truth and unify science and religions. My framework is the Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM framework); its theist version is close to cit-acit
Viśiṣṭādvaita and also has addressed its problems and problems of all other
theist views. In the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, the dual-aspect Brahman in its
unmanifested state appears aspectless because both aspects are latent; it is
called kāran (causal) Brahman. However, after the Big Bang (Virāt, cosmic fire), it
manifested in innumerable states, they are called kārya (active, effect) Brahman.
300
Dvi-Pakṣa
If you read (Radhakrishnan, 1960) BrahmaSutra, you might agree with me. It
should be noted that the theist-atheist phenomenon is genetic and/or acquired,
so the Fundamental Truth should encompass both; and it is not possible to
change anybody's inherent view and it is not needed either.
Critique1: It's the use of words. "Sky" and "ocean" are different words.
Brahman is a singular word. It "is," not here or there, not now or earlier.
Anything you think is not Brahman!
Author: In (Radhakrishnan, 1960)’s Brahma Sūtra and other authentic
references mentioned in various sections of the main texts, Brahman is defined in
various ways by various āchāryas. The theist Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita was even verified
personally by Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya ji that it is same or very close to the
cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. You have not given me even one authentic reference for your
definition. Your definition is vague that “anything you think is not Brahman”. If
your Brahman is mind-independent entity then it is unknown (because to know
anything you need to use your mind) and hence not very useful. If it is your own
definition then you need to justify its utility. You also need to discuss with
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya why his or the cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita of
Rāmānandāchārya and/or Ramānujāchārya is wrong and your definition
(“anything you think is not Brahman”) is the only definition that is correct. I
leave the validity of your definition to Shri Nityānanda Misra (the disciple of
Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya). I think that he already said that you are wrong
and he gave you many authentic references. Please see his previous email.
Critique1: Scholarship is not arbitrary interpretation. As long as you keep the
terminology clear, you would be readable. There was a prominent Indian painter
who wanted to "paint" the genitals of Indian icons. Some in the west and in India
thought it was "freedom of speech." Such efforts do not last. Many interpretive
Rāmāyaṇas have been written, they die. By keeping the tradition which is the
understanding, you would make a readable essay. Lately I am hearing of some
Christian Bhāratanātyam. Trying word manipulation to distort a concept is a
missionary method of creating confusion and I oppose. You should too. All
concepts and remnants of colonialism must end! Distortions are subtle, but are
political in intent!
Author: I have tried to define my terms at appropriate places. If you find
anywhere that my terminology is unclear, let me know. My goal is to unify
science and all religions. My approach is to find the metaphysics (the foundation
of everything) that is close to the Fundamental Truth and that supports all views
by deriving them as special cases. The eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) does
a good job on this. For example, your and Śankarāchārya’s view of aspectless
Brahman can be derived from it as a special case as follows: In the Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita, the mental and physical aspects of the states of each entity including
the fundamental primal entity (that has many names: Brahman, Implicate Order,
empty-space at ground state of quantum field with minimum energy, unified
field, and so on) are inseparable and their degrees of dominance vary with the
levels of entities. The state of this fundamental primal entity at the unmanifested
state before Big Bang (cosmic fire) has latent physical and mental aspects. That
301
Dvi-Pakṣa
is the reason this primal entity appear aspectless. In BrahmaSutra, this primal
entity is called kāran Brahman, which is the same or similar to yours and
Śankarāchārya’s Brahman or its Neti-Neti definition. When the primal is
manifested after Big Bang, it has innumerable states; these are called the states
of kārya Brahman. The rest of story is in the main texts of this book.
Critique1: Again you have to come out of the time concept, Big Bang etc.
These are extrapolated ideas, neither physical nor metaphysical; for example, see
‘From Unmanifest to Manifest’
at https://www.dwarkamai.com/articles/69-from-the-unmanifest-to-manifest.
Author: As per above reference, “The ‘unmanifest’ is eternal and is not
conditioned by time. The ‘manifest’ is always glorious at birth and then subject to
demise. The transition from ‘unmanifest’ to ‘manifest’ is an individual
comprehension which is different in different human beings. In Sanskrit, the
‘unmanifest’ is termed asat, one that is unphysical, and the ‘manifest’ is termed
sat, one that is physical. Brahman is a repository of sat and asat. All sat
manifests from asat. […] The natural question is if we have access to the
"unmanifest." We have to understand that the "unmanifest" is not sensible to our
senses, hence the only possibility of comprehending the "unmanifest" is to go
beyond our sensory perception.”
This does not explain the mechanism of transition from unmanifest to
manifest and how universe is created or evolved from the unmanifested state of
Brahman to its innumerable manifestations. In addition, it is unclear how sat
(physical) manifest from asat/(unphysical). It is claimed that sat and asat
originate from Brahman, which seems to imply ‘Neutral Monism’ (close to dual-
aspect monism) that mental (unphysical) and physical aspects can be derived
from third neutral entity: Brahman. In other words, Brahman has the mental and
physical aspect in hidden form; this is what I am also trying to say.
I think that you have misunderstood the eDAM framework; it does not have
any problem and the best framework so far; you need to seriously study (Vimal,
2008b, 2010c, 2013) before reading (Vimal, 2012a, 2012b) for the search of the
fundamental truth. Your explanation is just a half story and has severe
metaphysical problems of idealism (and interactive substance dualism), which
has been rejected long time back because of the problems. If you agree with
‘Neutral Monism’, then it is close to the eDAM framework but it has the
explanatory gap problem.
Critique1: All "frameworks" are speculative; I am not wedded to any. My
difficulty is with the nomenclature. Names are created and get frozen after
acceptance. New names can be created, but not distorting the existing ones. "Air"
is a name, there is no "causal" air, and so is the case. Such things may
occasionally happen in poetry, but shāstra is different than sāhitya.
Author: Well, in metaphysics and philosophy, names are NOT frozen unless
there is clear consensus; they can have multiple meanings depending on the
investigators. For example, the term ‘consciousness’ has over 40 different (some
overlapping) meanings (Vimal, 2009f). The same is true for Brahman. If you
carefully with open-mindedness read (Radhakrishnan, 1960)’s Brahma Sūtra and
302
Dvi-Pakṣa
its commentaries by various āchāryas, Brahman has multiple definitions

depending on āchāryas. Nityānanda Misra (NM) and Jagadguru
Rāmbhadrāchārya (guruji) can affirm this. As a matter of fact, when I met guruji,
his first sentence reflected this that every bhāsyakāra interprets the same sutra
in his own framework.
Rajendra M. Trivedi (RMT): I fully agree with guruji and your telling to
Critique1.
NM: I also agree with RMT and the Author.
Critique1: On could argue that Sanskrit has precision and there is one-to-one
correlation. Sanskrit to English Translation may lead to confusion.
Author: I agree that sometimes translation may lead to confusion. I like
unique terms with 1-1 correspondence. However, unfortunately, this is not the
case and also this is not practical. This is because all terms are mind-dependent,
and we cannot expect that the minds/thoughts of all of us must remain the
same. If we do functional MRI on a specific term, we will find different brain-
areas will get activated depending on an individual; of course, there are some
common areas, such as Broca's area (BA 44) for the production of language and
Wernicke's area (BA 22) for the understanding of written and spoken language.
Even hard science, like physics, does not have consensus on the definition of
certain terms, such as empty-space/vacuum. There is hardly any consensus on
the definitions of certain terms like ‘consciousness’, ‘Brahman’, ‘God’, ‘self’ as I
discussed before. That is why we are doing research with the hope that one day
we will have consensus.
Śankarāchārya’s Nirviśeṣādvaita defines ‘Brahman’ as an aspectless entity.
However, Ramānujāchārya and Rāmānandārcharya/Rāmabhadrāchārya have
found serious problems in Śankarāchārya’s Nirviśeṣādvaita. Therefore, the
definition, in cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, that Brahman is a dual-aspect entity; so are
the definitions by other remaining 4 sub-schools of Vedanta including many ṛṣis
and philosophers such as (Radhakrishnan, 1960). It is different matter whether
one agrees with others. Disagreement is allowed until we have consensus.
Some terms indeed have 1-1 correspondence, such sun, moon, earth and so
on because there is consensus.
In my view, as long as terms (that do not have consensus), are precisely
predefined, we should be free to use them because there will not be any
confusion (at the least there should be consensus on this proposal!). For
example, in the eDAM framework, if I predefine that the state of Brahman has
inseparable mental and physical aspects and then use it, nobody should have
confusion on what I am proposing. It is fine if you reject it as long as you give
justifications so that I can sharpen my thinking process.
RMT: As per Swami Tejomayananda, “Disciplined person knows true
Freedom. For an undisciplined person, majority of time goes in to searching; not
searching for the Brahman, but searching for misplaced things.” English and
Sanskrit or Vedic Culture and Thinking had and has misunderstanding. The
meaning does not translate the same from Sanskrit to English which creates
confusion. To find the truth we all need to be open and understand that limits
303
Dvi-Pakṣa
which depends on one’s cognition. Brahman, to understand the universe, and to

find the same within take a process. Discuss with Dr. Tony Nader, M.D. PhD or
some Jagadguru who can show the path of truth—Light. One has to start the
journey in the Jungle and find the wisdom - Devine light.
Author: I agree with you. My source of information for Brahman is from
Jagadguru Rāmbhadrāchārya ji and (Radhakrishnan, 1960), as I detailed above
and the main texts of this book. I do not have email id of Dr. Nadar, but
discussing with him in seminar at Dwārkāmayī seems that he would agree with
me because Transcendental Meditation (TM)-group tries to relate unified field (the
unmanifested state of Brahman) with String Theory and he seemed to imply that
various views reflect different aspects of the unified field.
98 Discussion with Dr. Hari: (query on (Hari, 2015): 20-May-2015): To sum up,
the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c) has the least
number of problems compared to other metaphysics; therefore the eDAM should
be considered as the preferred framework. The five-component eDAM is
summarized in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2015a).
Hari (21-May-2015): I agree with your descriptions of Advaita, Vishitadvaita,

dvaita, and so on. They do have differences in their views about the relation
between God and individual soul: whether they are one and the same or they
have separate existence, whether Enlightment is to see oneself as identical with
everything else in the universe and the universe in onelself, or whether it is to see
God and see oneself as part of God along with all other souls, and so on.
But all branches of Vedanta have some common themes also. If we call the
manas, buddhi, chitta, and ahankara together as the mind, the mind covers all
cognitive and psychological aspects we know such as ego (sense of I and agency),
intellect, thoughts, desires, emotions, and experiences all of which require a
memory. Such a mind is considered as the 11th sense and part of Prakriti and
Prakriti is supposed to be insentient in all branches of Vedanta. The Personal
God of Prabhupada or Madhvacharya or nirguna Brahmam of Shankaracharya
are both supposed to be beyond the reach of physical body and senses and the
logic or imagination belonging to the mental realm. To see God in Vishitadvaita
or Dvaita, or to realize Aham Brahmasmi in Advaita, one is supposed to
surrender ego or dismiss it as an unreal illusion as the case may be. They all see
ego or ahankara as the "false I" and the soul as the real self different from ego
and the mind.
Samadhi is a state where the false ‘I’ has somehow disappeared in any branch
of Vedanta. All these philosophies agree also about the principles of karma and
reincarnation. They say that jiva survives death of the physical body and some
vasanas (mind stuff) do so too as long as jiva is attached to them and not
liberated; jiva is supposed to take a new life into which he carries vasanas and
karma for fulfilment of desires and to suffer consequences of past karma.
The survival of mind stuff after death is what I mean by mind-body
dualism. My attempts at scientific explanation do not go beyond the mind and
304
Dvi-Pakṣa
the consciousness living beings experience in wakeful and dream states. So, if
you say Paramatma and Jivatma sit close together like two birds and are dual
aspects of one Reality I do not have a problem but both of them are beyond
matter, mind, senses, and logic according to whatever branch of Vedanta they
might have been named. As such, they cannot be predicted by any scientific
theory (which necessarily consists in logic) and no scientific experiments (which
necessarily use matter and material energy) can be designed to detect
Paramatma and jivatma and verify whether they are identical or inseparable or
distinct! So the dualism at the level of mind-body interactions is not in conflict
with any theories of God-soul identity or distinction in different branches of
Vedanta. I will read Vimal 2015a sometime and let you know my comments.
Vimal: We both agree that subjective Upanisdic meditative data (such as in

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad) have been interpreted in terms of Sāṃkhya (mind-body
dualism that is close to interactive substance dualism), Advaita (idealism), and
cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (to some extent, close to the eDAM). However, dualism and
idealism have serious problems and the eDAM has the least number of problems.
My point is that the eDAM (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013, 2015b, 2015c) should be
considered as the preferred framework. This five-component eDAM is
summarized in Section 1 of (Vimal, 2015a).
ddd
99See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viśiṣṭādvaita, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja .
100Fundamental Truth: relationship between four states of brain-mind system

and religion: Vedānta gives an example of two birds sitting very close to each
other all the time in each of us. One is jīvātman that is explicit in three states of
mind-brain system (such as sleep, dream, and wakefulness). The other bird is
Parmātman (sat-chit-ānanda: sat=physical aspect such as brain; chit=mental
aspect such as consciousness; ānanda=bliss when pleasure center is activated)
in Dvi-Pakṣa-Advaita. If we attain samādhi state, we will be on equal status to
God (kārya Brahman or Ishvara) because that is the definition of Parmātman as
per Vedānta such as cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. In other words, Parmātman is inside us
and resides at pleasure center.
Therefore, we do not need to search Parmātman outside (such as in temples)

because He/She is always inside us watching everything we think, speak or do,
so we have to be careful; otherwise negative effect (shrāp) may occur; we can lie
or be dishonest to others without knowing them but we cannot do that to our
inside Parmātman because He/She keep record of every moment using our
memory-traces. If we want to worship; worship the inside Parmātman. He/She
will certainly help us by re-organizing our brain to aquire whatever we want. If
we want to search for happiness, search inside we will certainly get happiness.
305
Dvi-Pakṣa
We will never get happiness outside because there is no pleasure center outside
as it resides in nucleus-accumbens-amygdala-neural-network inside our brain
(not outside).
Once we reach to the fourth (samādhi) state jīvātman meets to Parmātman, this
is mukti (liberation) from all sufferings because our pleasure center gets activated
and we feel happy (ānanda) all the time; that is why yogis/yoginis don't care
about marriage/sansārik life that always involves sufferings. Buddha's four noble
truths and eight noble paths designed to reduce sufferings are based on this
Fundamental Truth.
[Thus, Sai (Parmātman/Ishwar/God) is inside and we must follow His three

principles: Shraddha (trust), Saboori (patience, tolerance), sakba malik ek hae
(everybody’s Sai is the same) in husband-wife relationship as well. In other
words, husband-wife's Sai is the same so this unit Sai has two aspects: husband
aspect and wife aspect (ardhNariEshwara concept) in eDAM framework. We
should have trust and tolerance in our relationship. We should meditate to
activate our pleasure centers to meet our Sai-inside.]
In Advaita and Sāṃkhya metaphysics, Saccidānanda is “Eternal (that never

changes) Bliss Consciousness”. Satcitānanda, Satchidānanda, or Sat-cit-
ānanda (सिbचदान;द )[note 1] “being, consciousness, bliss”,[1] is a description of the
subjective experience of Brahman.[note 2] This sublimely blissful experience of the
boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality.[5] Etymology: The
description comprises the three Sanskrit words sat-chit-ananda: sat सत ् (present
participle); [Sanskrit root as, "to be"]: "Truth",[note 3] "Absolute Being",[web 2] "a
palpable force of virtue and truth".[6] Sat describes an essence that is pure and
timeless, that never changes.[web 2] cit 2चत ् (noun): "consciousness",[web 2] "true
consciousness",[citation needed]"to be consciousness of",[7] "to understand",[7] "to
comprehend".[7] ānanda आन;द (noun): "bliss",[web 2] "true bliss",[citation
needed]"happiness",[web 3] "joy",[web 3] "delight",[web 3] "pleasure"[web 3] "Sat-Chit-
Ananda" or "Saccidānanda" is the Sanskrit compound form of the word,[note
4] which can be translated in various ways:[note 5] "Eternal Bliss Consciousness"[8]
"Absolute Bliss Consciousness"[web 2] (adj.) "Consisting of existence and thought

and joy" [web 4]
Question (Vivek Dubey): Can we enhance the potentials of our mind by

adopting certain practices and change our destiny or things are predetermined in
life?
Author: There two views: (1) Classical Mechanics (CM)'s view is deterministic; (2)
Quantum mechanics (QM)’s view is stochastic. QM is considered more
fundamental and more accurate. Thus, if QM is correct, then ‘life is like a game
306
Dvi-Pakṣa
of chance’ (Donald, 1999). This means we can change our destiny by sankalpas
(solemn vows) and rigorously following it because we have at the least semi-Free-
Will if our Free Will not completely free. We all need moksha/mukti (liberation
from our daily suffering) and we must try our best by sankalpa, hath-yoga,
pranayama, and meditation to reach samadhi state, which activates our pleasure
center and gives us liberation from our daily suffering and irritations. This can
change our destiny and we can achieve whatever we want.
---xxx---
101 As per <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja>, “In contrast to Śankara,

Ramanuja holds that there is no knowledge source in support of the claim that
there is a distinctionless (homogeneous) Brahman. All knowledge sources reveal
objects as distinct from other objects. All experience reveals an object known in
some way or other beyond mere existence. Testimony depends on the operation
of distinct sentence parts (words with distinct meanings). Thus the claim that
testimony makes known that reality is distinctionless is contradicted by the very
nature of testimony as a knowledge means. […] Inference depends on perception
and makes the same distinct things known as does perception. He also holds
that the Advaitin argument about prior absences and no prior absence of
consciousness is wrong. Similarly the Advaitin understanding of a-vidya (not-
Knowledge), which is the absence of spiritual knowledge, is incorrect. ‘If the
distinction between spiritual knowledge and spiritual ignorance is unreal, then
spiritual ignorance and the self are one’.”
“Adi Shankara says in his Introduction to his commentary on the Brahma
Sutras, "Owing to an absence of discrimination, there continues a natural
human behaviour in the form of 'I am this' or 'This is mine'; this is avidya [māyā,
ignorance, delusion, jagat?].” <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avidy%C4%81>
The Seven objections to Śankarāchārya's Advaita: As per
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanuja> (with minor modification),
“Ramānujāchārya picks out what he sees as seven fundamental flaws in the
Advaita philosophy to revise them. He argues:
I. The nature of Avidyā. Avidyā must be either real or unreal; there is no other
possibility. But neither of these is possible. If Avidyā is real, non-dualism
collapses into dualism. If it is unreal, we are driven to self-contradiction or
infinite regress.
II. The incomprehensibility of Avidyā. Advaitins claim that Avidyā is neither
real nor unreal but incomprehensible, [anirvachaniya]. All cognition is either of
the real or the unreal: the Advaitin claim flies in the face of experience, and
accepting it would call into question all cognition and render it unsafe.
III. The grounds of knowledge of Avidyā. No pramāṇa can establish Avidyā in
the sense the Advaitin requires. Advaita philosophy presents Avidyā not as a
mere lack of knowledge, as something purely negative, but as an obscuring layer
which covers Brahman and is removed by true Brahma-vidya. Avidyā is positive
nescience [lack of knowledge or awareness: ignorance] not mere ignorance.
Ramānujāchārya argues that positive nescience is established neither by
307
Dvi-Pakṣa
perception, nor by inference, nor by scriptural testimony. On the contrary,

Ramānujāchārya argues, all cognition is of the real.
IV. The locus of Avidyā. Where is the Avidyā that gives rise to the (false)
impression of the reality of the perceived world? There are two possibilities; it
could be Brahman's Avidyā or the individual soul's [jiva]. Neither is possible.
Brahman is knowledge; Avidyā cannot co-exist as an attribute with a nature
utterly incompatible with it. Nor can the individual soul be the locus of Avidyā:
the existence of the individual soul is due to Avidyā; this would lead to a vicious
circle.
V. Avidyā's obscuration of the nature of Brahman. Śankara would have us
believe that the true nature of Brahman is somehow covered-over or obscured by
Avidyā. Ramānujāchārya regards this as an absurdity: given that Advaita claims
that Brahman is pure self-luminous consciousness, obscuration must mean
either preventing the origination of this (impossible since Brahman is eternal) or
the destruction of it - equally absurd.
VI. The removal of Avidyā by Brahma-vidya. Advaita claims that Avidyā has
no beginning, but it is terminated and removed by Brahma-vidya, the intuition of
the reality of Brahman as pure, undifferentiated consciousness. But
Ramānujāchārya denies the existence of undifferentiated [nirguna] Brahman,
arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious
attributes. Liberation is a matter of Divine Grace: no amount of learning or
wisdom will deliver us.
VII. The removal of Avidyā. For the Advaitin, the bondage in which we dwell
before the attainment of Moksa is caused by Māyā and Avidyā; knowledge of
reality (Brahma-vidya) releases us. Ramānujāchārya, however, asserts that
bondage is real. No kind of knowledge can remove what is real. On the contrary,
knowledge discloses the real; it does not destroy it. And what exactly is the
saving knowledge that delivers us from bondage to Māyā? If it is real then non-
duality collapses into duality; if it is unreal, then we face an utter absurdity.”
102 The doctrine of ‘neti neti’ (not this, not that: expressing the inexplicable
Ultimate, the Absolute, the transcendental, the Divine, God) has limitations; for
example, it cannot and do not tell us the real nature of Brahman or ultimate
reality (Balasubramanian, 2011) .
103 Adapted with some modification from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viśiṣṭādvaita
104 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadguru_Rāmabhadrāchārya and

http://www.jagadguruRāmabhadrāchārya.org/. Jagadguru Rāmbhadrāchārya
follows cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, which is close to the theist version of Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (dual-aspect monism) metaphysics (foundation of everything). This
metaphysics has the least number of problems compared to other three
metaphysics (materialism/Cārvāka, interactive substance dualism/Sāṃkhya,
and idealism/Advaita). From Vedānta, he gives an example of two birds sitting
308
Dvi-Pakṣa
very close to each other all the time, one is ātman (self in the three states of our
mind-brain system, namely sleep, dream and wakefulness) and other is
Paramātman (self in the 4th samadhi state). This is consistent with ‘Sai inside’ in
all of us, i.e., anybody who reaches to the samadhi state is equivalent to
Paramātman (the highest evolved or manifested state of Brahman), consistent
with ‘real’ science.
105See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramananda and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanandi_sect
106 As per Śankarāchārya’s Nirviśeṣādvaita, “The world does not exist of itself. It
is derived from and dependent on Brahman” (Radhakrishnan, 1960). The major
problem is: precisely how is the world (the mithyā jagat) derived from the
aspectless attributeless Brahman? How is the ‘thing-it-self’ (the mind-
independent reality (MIR)) derived? If we remove the cup, its appearance also
disappears, which means there exists a ‘cup-in-cup-itself’.
In the eDAM framework, thing-in-self (MIR) is derived from the physical aspect
of the unmanifested state of Brahman. The appearance of thing-in-itself is
derived from the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman. This is in
the conventional mind-dependent reality (cMDR), which is māyā (illusion,
transitory nature, not eternal) because if we remove the cup, its appearance will
also disappear.
107As per Chāndogyopaniṣadi (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya,

2000b).(commentary in Hindi part), “hamāre yanhā [cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita men]
Jīvātman cit aur Parmātman acit hae aur yahee dono bhanvān ke shrīra haen […]
es darshan men Prakṛti, jīva, Brahman ye teen tatva haen … parinām bhagavān
ke sharīrabhūta Prakṛti men hotā hae [p.8 …] jīva aur Brahman nitya sattāye
haen–‘nityo nityānām’| apanī sattā ko chhor jīva Brahman kaise ban saktā hae
aur nitya sattā ka kabhī vināsh hotā nhī [p.69…] janhā jākar jīva laotkar nhee
ātā vah merā paramadhāma hae [p.96…] sabhī charāchar prāṇiyon men
Brahman vyāpta hae jīvon ko Aupashilaṣta [औपि/लXट ] karke antaryāmīrūpa se
Brahman virājmāna hae ….vah til men tel kī bhānti, dahī men ghī kī bhānti
vyāpaka hone ke kāran sabmen vyāpta hae [p.106 …] Parmātman ke … bārah
viśeṣaṇa … Monomayah Prāṇasharīro Bhārūpah SatyaSankalpa
Ākāshātmā Sarvakarma Sarvakāmah Sarvagandhah Sarvarasah
Sarvamidamabhyāttowākyanādarah [1] Monomayah- bhagavān mana ke
samāna sūkshma haen … bhagavān ke pāsa prakṛta mana aur prāna nhee hote
… [2] Prāṇasharīrah- prāṇo ke prāṇa jīvātman hee bhagavān kā shrīra hae … [3]
Bhārūpah- prakāsha [bhakti-rūpa] hee bhagavān kā rūpa hae …jīva mujhe
bhakti-rūpa se hee jān saktā hae … [4] SatyaSankalpah- bhagavān kā Sankalpa
satya hotā hae … bhagavān kā Sankalpa santo ke liye hitaiṣee hotā hae … [5]
Akāshātmā- bhagavān [kā swarūp (neela) aur svabhāva (nirmal) Ākāsha ke
309
Dvi-Pakṣa
samāna hotā hae] … [6] Sarvakarma- sabhee shrutivihita karma bhagvān ke liye
kiye jaate haen aur bhagvān ke dwarā kiye jāte haen … [7] Sarvakāmah [jisame
saba ka prema ho] – sabhī loga bhagavān kī hee kāmanā karte haen aur sabhee
kāmanāyen bhagavān men hī nihita hotī hae … [8] Sarvagandhāh- Parmātman
me hī sāre sambandha [sugandha padārtha] nihita hote haen … [9]
Sarvarasahāh- sabhee ras [6 svāda-rasa: madhura, amla, lavaṇa, katu, kaṣāya,
tikta; 12 kāvya-rasa: sringār, hāsya, vīra, bībhtsa, karuṇ, shānta, raudra,
bhayānaka, adbhuta, sakhya, vātsalya, bhakti] bhagavān men hī hae [10]
Sarvamabhyātah- bhagavān apanī mahimā se sabako vyāpta kiye haen [apne
men sameta kar virāja rahe haen] … [11] Āwākī- apne bala par vāṇī bhagavān kā
nirvachana nahī kar sakatī [prabhu vāṇī ke vishaya nahī haen … [12] Anādarah-
bhagavān kisi ke Ādara[-samān] se santustha nahī hote … kise se thorā bhī
bhaya nahī hae [p.109-113 …] vasatu-vasatu men bhagavān kā darshan
Viśiṣṭādvaita hae| usame cit-acit ye dono bhavān ke viśeṣaṇa haen|cit arthāt jīva
bhagavān ke samāna nitya hae| acit arthāt māyā jaḍa [जड़] hae|En dono kā
bhagavān ke sātha sharīrasharīribhāva sambandh hae | bhagavān sharīri haen
aur jīva tathā māyā sharīra [माया शर<र] । … jagat Brahman ka parinām hae| jaise
ki mittī ke dhele kā gharā parinām hae [p.203 …] [bhagavān jagat ke parināmī
banakar avikṛta [unchanged] bane rahate haen] यद वह जगत ् $मfया है तब &gह को
ढ़क नह< सकती । [p.205 …] jīva kā pralaya nahī kahā gayā kyoki jīvatmā nitya hae
esliye uskā parātmā men pralaya ho hī nahī sakatā| Antara etnā hī padtā hae ki
sṛsti ke parmātmā jīvatmā ke sātha hote haen aur pralaya ke samaya jīvatmā
parmātmā ke sātha [p220 … ] pralaykāla men sabhī jīvatmā parmātmā men hī
vishrama karte haen [p.224] parmātmā aur jīvatmā ke bīch bheda siddha ho jātā
hae | Vastava men jīva aneka hee haen ve pralayakāla men ek jaise ho jāte haen
[p.227] pralayakāla men bhee jīva नXट nahī hotā vaha kewal parmātmā se
chipaka jātā hae [p.228] ab parmātmā kī sattā men jīva kī sattā hae aur jīva kī
sattā men hī jagat kī sattā hae [p.229] jīvātmā se alag hone par sharīra mar jātā
hae [jīva (cit) gets separated from sharīra (acit)] aur jīvātmā ke rahne par jīvita
rahatā hae [p.230] Jagadvismaraṇpūrvaka bhagavdvishayaka pardevatābuddhi
hī vigyāna hae authavā Viśiṣṭādvaita paddhati se sewaksevyabhāv
sambandhamūlaka bhavattatvabuddhi hī vigyāna hae [p.249] chetan hī chetan
ke pāsa se jā saktā hae [ M-M, P-P, no M-P or P-M p.272…] jiske guṇa nirupama
haen use nirguṇa kahate haen| ‘nirupamāh guṇāh yasya tat nirguṇam’ [p.273 …]
BrahmaSutra men bhī ‘karmakatṛvyadeshāt’ kahakar bhagvān VedVyāsa ne bhī
Jīvātman aur Parmātman ke bīch swarūptah bhed siddha kiyā [p.299…] ‘Sah
uttamah Puruṣah’ Chāndogyopaniṣad (8/12/3) kā tātparya yah hae ki Jīvātmā
kabhī Pramātmā nhee banatā parantu mukta hokar vah Paramātmā ke samāna
bhoga avashya bhogatā hae| Bhagvān VedaVyās bhī BrahmaSutra men kahate
haen- ‘bhogamatra sāmyalingāchcha’ (BrahmaSutra 4/4/21)| Jīvātmā bhogon
men Paramātmā kī samānatā karake bhī Paramātmā ke samāna sṛsti kī rachanā
nahī kar sakatā [p.315]”.
310
Dvi-Pakṣa
Jīva and Brahman are eternal, but NOT the same. It is unclear: how
Parmātman can be acit when it is ‘kārya Brahman’ as per Ishāvāsyopaniṣada
(Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000c)? One could argue that acit and cit are
adjectives of Parmātman.
108 Critique1: Sāṃkhya has no Parmātman.

Author: So you reject the 26th tatva: the unmanifested Brahman: many
names; some investigators call it Parmātman to make it as a part of theistic
philosophy. Some claim that Gītā was before 3000 BC and Sāṃkhya (1000–600
BC?, Kapila: 550 BC?) came later. Krishna declared himself as Parmātman with
Puruṣa and Prakṛti as part of him. Kapila seems atheist but some sub-school of
Vedanta coined 26th tatva and made Sāṃkhya also part of theist Vedanta. It is
unclear how this happened.
NM: On the two versions of Sāṅkhya, I can confirm that two traditions do exist
in the Sāṅkhya lineage. In the atheistic version there are 25 elements, and in the
theistic one 25 elements + Paramātman as 26th. The original aphorisms (Sūtras)
of Sāṅkhya by Kapila are almost entirely lost and only some of them are available
today. What we see as Sāṅkhyasūtras today are widely believed to be composed
by Vijñānabhikṣu in 15th century.
An introduction to the two traditions can be found in (Raju, 1985).(p.304-
335). You can see this on Google Books under
http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wZ_iahRQomwC&pg=PA304
Raju also discusses the two possibilities, whether Sāṅkhya was originally
atheistic, and later turned theistic, or if it was originally theistic, turned atheistic
in the middle, and later returned to its theistic roots. The last part of (Tīrtha,
2007) presents many arguments in favour of Kapila being theistic. However, no
doubt that the Sāṅkhya system as expounded in later commentaries is theistic,
and it is counted as one of the Āstika systems today.
Author: Thanks for the precise and interesting information with references.
As per (Tīrtha, 2007).p.305, “The Yoga philosophy of Pantaňjali … is also called
by the name theistic Sāṅkhya (seśvarasāṅkhya), for Pantaňjali explicitly accepts
the reality of God and the only main difference between the two schools is the
rejection or acceptance of God. […] So far as the general practice goes, it is
customary to present mostly the views of the atheistic Sāṅkhya of Īśvarkṛṣṇa as
the main Sāṅkhya; for his work is the main authoritative one now available. […]
The Sāṅkhya accepts three valid means of knowledge—perception, inference, and
verbal testimony. […] indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka)
perception … There is … the contact between sense and object, and then between
sense and the inner sense (antahkaraṇa), and then some kind of relation between
inner sense and the ātman, which the Sāṅkhya calls generally by the word
Puruṣa, before knowledge of the object becomes a full cognition.”
Krishna declared himself Parmātman with Puruṣa and Prakṛti as part of him.
Did Sāṃkhya come later than Gītā? If this is correct, then ṛṣi Kapila and other
Sāṃkhya followers might be aware of Gītā’s theist view of Puruṣa and Prakṛti
metaphysics. What caused them to reject it and delete Parmātman? The
311
Dvi-Pakṣa
metaphysics of Puruṣa and Prakṛti as derived entities from Parmātman has

explanatory gap problem of neutral monism: how Puruṣa and Prakṛti can be
derived from the third neutral entity Parmātman? Is this a reason for rejecting
Parmātman?
NM: I might be wrong, but I believe Sāṅkhya predates Vedānta and Gītā. Here
is my reasons: In the Bhāgavatam, Kapila is listed as the fifth Avatāra (SB 1.3.10)
and Vyāsa as the seventeenth (SB 1.3.10). So as per the Bhāgavatam, Sāṅkhya
propounded by Kapila came before Vedānta propounded by Vyāsa. In the Gītā
the Lord says, siddhānāṃ kapilo muniḥ (BG 10.26) - I am Kapila amongst the
Siddhas. Also see BG 3.3 loke'simandvividhā niṣṭhā purā proktā mayānagha
jñānayogena sāṅkhyānāṃ karmayogena yoginām ॥
Author: Your reference seems authentic. If you are correct, then Kapila might
be before Gītā (Mahābhārata war: 3067 BC, 5561 BC, Vyas). Further research is
needed, such as astronomical analysis as done by Vartak and Achar on
Mahābhārata.
Critique1: Since I don't have an understanding why universe must exist I
would like to hear any closure theory (could be erroneous in language but might
have a physical meaning!).
Author: 'Why universe must exist the way it is' is an interesting question.
There is no satisfactory answer. For some, God-theory says that God was very
lonely before universe was created, so He created universe the way it is. So that
people can interact with Him by worshipping Him and by always begging Him to
fulfill their wish-lists. Scientific hypothesis is multiverse theory.
Critique1: The multiverse theory doesn't explain life.
Big Bang itself is artificial.
Author: The Big Bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations. A
hypothesis for life in our universe is the anthropic principle.
109 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimbarka
110 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaitadvaita with my italics and some

corrections.
111 In my view, the term, ‘Brahman’ has multiple meanings:

(1a) One interpretation of Brahman for some is Sat-cit-ānanda, where Sat =
creation or manifested universe, Cit = creator, and ānanda = pure joy (personal
communication with Critique1 in January-March 2011). However, the doctrine of
‘neti-neti’ suggests that Brahman has no attribute!
(1b) Alternative meaning for some investigators is Sat = truth, Cit =
consciousness-as-such, and ānanda = bliss, which are the subjective experiences
at samādhi state for ultimate reality, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sat-cit-
ananda).
(2) For some, ‘Brahman’ is not ‘monism’ as some in the west and some Indian
scholars characterize; the only statement is ‘Brahman is’, there is no qualifier or
312
Dvi-Pakṣa
equivalence. The term Brahman is a concept; it is singular; it is neuter; it is all-

pervasive; it has no origin and no manifestation; it just exists (personal
communication with Critique1 in January-March 2011).
(3) Therefore, in my view, the conceptual entity ‘Brahman’ can be used by both
theists (as God) and atheists (as a fundamental dual-aspect entity from which
universes including us with mind and matter arise via co-evolution).
(3a) For theists, Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and
transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time,
space, being, and everything beyond in this Universe; the nature of Brahman is
described as transpersonal, personal, and impersonal by different philosophical
schools (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman).
(3b) For the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita framework, the term Brahman is a dual-aspect
monistic entity with varying degrees of dominance of aspects depending on the
levels of entities. At its unmanifested state, Brahman is the fundamental primal
dual-aspect entity, which is also called kāran (causal) Brahman from which
universe(s) arises. There are innumerable manifested state of Brahman, which
are called kārya (active, effects) Brahman.
Advaita is a monistic system of thought and refers to the identity of the Self
(Ātman) and the Whole (Brahman) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita).
Viśiṣṭādvaita is a non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone
exists; Brahman is both the cause and the effect
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viśiṣṭādvaita), which implies the doctrine of ‘All
(mental and material entities) in One (Brahman) and One in All’. Thus, for me,
the mental aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman can cause all mental entities
and its physical aspect can cause material entities without category mistake.
Since aspects are inseparable, a physical manifestation automatically, faithfully
and rigorously entails the related mental manifestation and vice-versa. Since
Brahman is both cause and effect, every entity including us, fermions, and
bosons are Brahman and vice-versa.
Critique1: Consciousness is not a Vedic term, vijnāna is. In the attempt to
find a God mapping through the vedānta, the road has been distorted. Some of
the late Indians accept things passively with little thinking (hence the phrase
“mechanical brain”). Vedas (specially vedānta) were done and are meant for
“active” analysis. Each word is formed with contemplation and carries its
meaning. jnāna is always unknown and not perceptual. Hence, the difficulty of
discovering rules through the known rules, and the application of meditation for
discovering unknown. “Sat” is physical, but satyam is a concept. We “use” our
senses to perceive sat, we “block” our senses to realize satyam, so the phrase
satyam brahma(n).
Possibly I should added that sat, cit and ānanda are not attributes and [hence
Brahman is consistent with the doctrine of ‘neti neti’ (not this, not that)].
Attributes are what we can conceive, and these “objects” we can only realize and
can't express. We are writing limited by our words, that's the essence of the
theory. There is no “Creator” in this, but an extrapolation that a “creation”
happened, because we exist. From “here”, we go “there”, and “there” is
313
Dvi-Pakṣa
inconceivable and we describe what we think! It's thrilling if you examine, it's
open-ended and hence powerful! Sound is important, no word exists, it's all
sound (nāda and dhvani!)
Author: Yes, we are “here” and we want to find out our origin. But, do we
need God for that? The reproductive process is enough. If we want, we can call
God as a Big Bag of all the processes related to Generation, Operation
(maintenance), and Destruction (annihilation). Yes, Gītā (before 3000 BC) is very
informative and tell us how to live, but it can be made better if we implement
over 5000 years of researches in it. Since mind is evolving, so today’s minds are
more evolved compared to our ancestors; our children are smarter than we are.
We do not have to be rigid on old stuff. We need to move on with time; otherwise,
time will leave us behind. New knowledge needs to update old knowledge.
Critique1: You are always free to find new things and that's vedānta. It's a
metaphysical concept, not a physical one. Questions like: does mind exist and
where we go after death or where genes come from are the inquiries and not how
our eyes see objects. Once we have a theory of mind and a theory for life and
death, vedānta may die. It just gives a bridge between the known and unknown.
When we make effort to map vedānta to a theistic or atheistic world we get into
trouble. If anyone has a full cosmology of his/her “being”, the person does not
need a theory. I do see most people think partially and that's where I get
fascinated with the Vedas. Any closed theory is not knowledge and most live
there. Ask yourself what's the cause of gravitation, and why not the reverse, or
in phases? One should mediate hard and then develop a theory. Jnāna is
internal and not external. Knowledge gives you happiness, jnāna gives you
thrill!
Author: I agree. In addition, if the dual-aspect monism is implemented in
Vedānta, as the Dvi-Pakṣa-Advaita, it will be significant accomplishment because
it will address the problems of the built-in interactive substance dualism of Gītā,
Sāṃkhya, Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita and Dvaita, and it will be closer to science.
112See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Madhvacharya .
113 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuddhadvaita and (Sharma, 1968)
114 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda,
115 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Mahaprabhu
Bhaktivijnana Muni (email correspondence on 26 Sept 2013): It is good to learn

that you are trying to understand Vedanta. You have further written that you
find some insufficiency in its monistic interpretation. You also have an interest in
consciousness. This is quite natural because Vedanta asks one to study the
ontology of consciousness in search for ultimate truth. Sri Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu, has given the actual purport of Vedanta and it is recorded in the
314
Dvi-Pakṣa
Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita composed by Srila Krishna Das Kaviraj Goswami.

Mahaprabhu explained that the monistic school’s monistic interpretation is like a
cloud which covers the eyes of a conditioned soul. Therefore one must follow the
school of Srila Sridhar Swami and only by that mercy the real meaning of
Vedanta is realized. Further Srimad Bhagavat is the natural commentary on the
Vedanta Sutra and therefore as Vedavyas is the author of both Vedanta Sutra as
well as Bhagavat, it is natural to realize that Srimad Vedavyas who is an
incarnation of Narayan has given the actual meaning of Vedanta Sutra in
Bhagavat. So although the scholarly community may have been enamoured by
the monistic interpretation, the bonafide Vaisanava Acharya have given the real
meaning in their explanations. Sriman Mahaprabhu’s philosophy is called
Achintya Bheda-Abheda tattva. Or Inconceivable and simultaneous identity and
distinction. So you may like to study the meaning given by Mahaprabhu under
the direction of a bonafide vaisnava Acharya or teacher who is established in
Mahaprabhu’s teachings and mercy through bonafide Gaudiya Guru Parampara.
Vimal: Please let me know if you agree: In Achintya-Bheda-Abheda, answers to

the question “does distinction exist between…?” are as follows: (a) Brahm and
jīva: yes/no, (b) Brahm and Matter: yes/no, (c) jīva and jīva: yes, (d) jīva and
Matter: yes, and (e) Matter and Matter: no. Is there separation between jīva-body
at death?: yes. Its metaphysics are: Idealism (consciousness/mind(not manas) is
fundamental reality) and Interactive substance dualism (or Sāṃkhya: mind and
matter are independent entities but they can interact).
116 Sankhya philosophy (Long, 2009; Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1957; Rao, 1998;
Sen Gupta, 1986), atheist religions, such as Jainism (Long, 2009) and Dalai
Lama’s dualistic interpretation of Buddhism ((Luisi, 2008).pp.102-3:
consciousness vs. matter) also have built-in interactive substance dualism, but
see (Wallace, 1989, 1999, 2007; Wallace, 2009) and his personal communication
in (Vimal, 2009j). As per (Long, 2009), “In Buddhism, karma is more of a
psychological reality. Instead of a self, it is karmic energy that is reborn and that
must be resolved for nirvana to occur.” See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya, and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapila . One could argue that theory of rebirth in
all religions is simply for encouraging us to do good karmas and for being a moral
and ethical person.
117As per (Balasubramanian, 2011), “The Vedānta tradition holds that the mind,
the senses and the body are essentially different from the Self or Consciousness.
[…] the mind, though material, is able to reveal things, borrowing the light from
consciousness.” This implies ‘built-in’ interactive substance dualism in Vedānta
tradition.
315
Dvi-Pakṣa
118 Author: Metaphysics is the ROOT or the foundation on which everything is

built. If the foundation is strong (i.e., problem free), building will be strong. The
information related to three living Jagadgurus are as follows:
(i). Jagadguru Rāmānandācharya-Swami-Rāmabhadrāchārya:
http://www.jagadguruRāmabhadrāchārya.org; namoraghavay@gmail.com
(ii). Jagadguru Shree Kripāluji Maharāj: http://www.jkp.org/home.html;
brajrani@radhaMadhavDham.org; shailee@jkyog.org
(iii). Jagadguru H. H. Sri Bhārathi Thīrtha Mahāswamiga:
http://www.jagadgurus.org/; H. H. Sri Bharathi Theertha Mahaswamigal;
acharyal@vedas.com
We are fortunate that they have excellent websites where we can learn and get
some guidance. However, if we, very carefully, listen their discourses and study
their write-ups with critical analysis and open-minded, all 3 Jagadgurus seem to
be extremely faithful to some of our 6 sub-schools of Vedānta and our theist
Vedic system. Unfortunately, this means, in terms of metaphysics, that they
seem to make category mistake and have problems of interactive substance
dualism and idealism. Thus, our religion (and also other religions) is open to
criticism in west and from scientists. However, if we implement Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita, these problems will be resolved and our religions will be closest to
science. I hope that all Jagadgurus seriously consider the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita
framework with open-mindedness to take care of above problems. In my view,
this is the demand of modern scientific age from all religions.
NM: If you could explain the “category mistake” in some detail it would be
good. My view is that scriptures and Gurus are beyond analysis and criticism. To
me, the Vedas and Upaniṣhads contain all knowledge of Self, Brahman and
metaphysics - which the Āchāryas have explained in different ways. It is like
same painting being described by different aesthetes in different words and
expressions. Surely our Vedas and Upaniṣhads are open to ever new
interpretations for which your study is commendable, but it is currently beyond
me to comment on which interpretation is right and which has problems (if any),
as I am still learning.
Author: All entities can be categorized in two categories: mental (M) and
physical (P) entities, where (a) mind is western term (not equal to eastern term
manas) and comprises non-physical entities that also include self/soul, God,
cognition, etc., and (b) physical entities include both fermions (material particles)
and bosons (force carrier). Category mistake is made if we assume that physical
entities arise from mental entities (different category) and vice versa. Thus, all 3
metaphysics (i) the materialism (mind from matter), (ii) the idealism (matter from
mind) and (iii) interactive substance dualism (mind and matter are two
independent entities/substances but they can interact) make category-mistake.
The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita does not make such mistake because only same-same
interactions (M-M or P-P) are allowed and cross-interactions (M-P or P-M) are
prohibited. In addition, the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita addresses problems of other views.
In my view, everybody and everything should be open to criticism if we want
to progress further. My metaphysical framework is ‘Dual-aspect Monism with
316
Dvi-Pakṣa
dual-mode and varying degrees of the dominance of aspects depending on the

levels of entities (eDAM)’. The eDAM framework has two versions: (a) theist Dvi-
Pakṣa Advaita and (b) atheist Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
Truth must be independent of beliefs such as theism (Āstika) and/ot atheism
(Nāstika, e.g.: Buddhism) as these are genetic and/or acquired phenomenon.
Everything is subject to criticism; one should not take anything for granted in
search of Truth; otherwise, we cannot improve our religion and cannot bring it
close to science. Blind faith is very risky and is a roadblock for progress.
It should be noted that Vedānta seems to imply that Brahman (God), Jīva
(soul), and Māyā (world) contain each other (i.e., Jīva and Brahman are present
in Māyā, Brahman and Māyā are present in Jīva, and Māyā and Jīva are present
in Brahman). They seem to be inseparable, which is close to Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita.
Vedas/Vedānta also seem to hypothesize that (i) if we turn our ‘manas/mana’
towards samsāra/world then we will NEVER get eternal happiness because
samsāra inherently lacks happiness, but (ii) if we turn our ‘manas/mana’
towards Brahman/God then we will surely get eternal happiness because He
is/has eternal happiness. Viśiṣṭādvaita is also close to the theist Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita; however, none satisfies atheist’s requirements (no eternal self: such as
Buddhism). It should be noted there are already 6 sub-schools in Vedānta, and
we cannot ignore Buddhism and other systems. Truth must encompass all.
119 Critique2 is a theist layperson (neither philosopher nor scientist), as majority

of us are, so his comments are useful. He believes in Advaita in different sense.
On the one hand, he accepts that Brahman is an aspectless primal entity; on the
other hand, he believes that Brahman has infinite (not just two) aspects and
provides critique on the definition of the dual-aspect-monism based Brahman.
Critique2: One may confine one's discussion on a limited scope by just
looking at two aspects of an infinite system. But to imply that the infinite has
only those two is totally erroneous. That is because the Advaita has infinite
aspects. It is the infinite aspects of that singularity [the single fundamental
entity] that makes the world so interesting. In the same singularity, mind and
matter are not two different and separate items. They are both the same in that
system. But when mind and matter, are standing side by side, and looking at
that singularity that surrounds them, then the two looking at each other and the
system, will have a hell of a time to accept that the two can be the same in that
singularity, when the two look at each other and the singularity surrounding
them. By only separating the I "aham" from the equation of mind and matter, by
understanding how and why they are the same, an evolution within the "one"
and only "one", then it would be possible to ride over the error of perception.
However, if one does want to insist on aspects, then it is not dual, but it will have
to be triple aspect Singularity, or monistic start. The three aspects being Shakti,
Prakṛti and Akash (Energy, Laws of nature, and Space). You may add a fourth
aspect, though it is a derivative of the first three, the "Lila", or the "Writ" of the
drama, which we all are looking at. That drama is the transformation by
interaction of Shakti and Prakṛti, energy and nature. We all, matter and non-
317
Dvi-Pakṣa
matter, are that transformation within the ball of singularity. We did not come
from anywhere nor are we going anywhere, but are doing our part in accordance
with the writ, or the laws of nature. Kindly note, that this description is not mine
but it is well explained in various parts of Gītā, and more particularly in the 18th
chapter summary.
Author: The meaning attributed to the term ‘aspect’ by Critique2 is equivalent
to my (author) term entity (energy, Ākāsh), laws of nature (Prakṛti), and/or action
(Līlā). My meaning attributed to the term ‘aspect’ is different. In the eDAM
framework, all (infinite in number or innumerable) entities are arbitrarily
categorized in two categories: mind and matter. Thus, for eDAM framework, an
entity has two inseparable aspects with varying degrees of the dominance of
aspects depending on the levels of the entities. In other words, entities, Shakti or
the energy Ball, Prakṛti (if it means matter), Ākāsh, and so on, each has two
aspects: mental and physical with varying degrees of the dominance of aspects.
For example, Shakti (energy) has two inseparable aspects: mental Shakti and
physical Shakti with varying degrees of dominance depending of the Shakti in
question. Inert matter component of Prakṛti (inert matter) has dominant physical
aspect and latent mental aspect. Similarly one can describe for other entities.
Our Brain has innumerable states, which can be categorized as deep sleep,
dream, wakeful, and meditative states. When we are awake, conscious, and
active, then our brain has a specific state depending on what we are doing (thus,
brain has innumerable states). Each brain-state, in wakefulness, has two equally
dominant aspects: its mental aspect is our personal first person specific
subjective experience and the physical aspect of this brain-state is
public/objective third person perspective related neural-network of brain, related
chemicals, and related activities that we can be experimentally measured using
functional MRI.
The singularity (single entity) can be called the unmanifested state of
Brahman that has two aspects: latent mental and latent physical (in that sense
the unmanifested state of Brahman is aspectless. However, one could argue that
Brahman is in all entities and all entities are in Brahman.
The eDAM framework has 3 essential components: (1) the dual-aspect
monism (each entity has two inseparable aspects: mental and physical), (2) two
modes, and (3) varying degrees of the dominance of aspects depending on the
levels of the entities.
Gītā has been re-interpreted using Jagadguru Rāmānandārcharya’s
Viśiṣṭādvaita (about 1300 AD) by the living Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, who
has provided very nice critique of previous interpretations of Gītā using
Śankarāchārya’s Advaita. In this Viśiṣṭādvaita, Brahman has two adjectives
(viśeṣaṇa): acit (matter) and cit (mind). This is somewhat close to the first
component of eDAM framework.
Critique2: If you have created two arbitrary concepts and apply them to
various issues for your personal fun, then God bless you as long as you are
happy. But that, I hope you realize, cannot be passed on as universal truth,
when it is only an arbitrary designation for author's personal convenience. Thus,
318
Dvi-Pakṣa
I hope you do realize, that unless you first define the scope of the two aspects in
details and explain how according to your definitions everything in the universe
can be fitted into one or the other, it will stay as an irrational concept. Onus of
clarification and proof lies with the one who asserts the hypothesis. The only
surprise I had was why your imagination only picked two aspects, when the
same entity can be defined in infinite aspects, and you could as easily have
reached for the stars. Thanks for the clarification.
Author: Again, your term ‘aspect’ also equivalent to my term ‘entity’, so your
infinite number (innumerable) of aspects = my infinite number (innumerable) of
entities. Each entity has two aspects (my term): mind and matter. Arbitrarily
categorization is not mine; it is whole western philosophy’s categorization and
now accepted by our living Jagadguru Rāmbhadrāchārya (PhD, Dlitt). It is useful
to categorize all kinds of metaphysics based on above categorization of entities
into 4 categories: (1) materialism: mind from matter (as in science), (2) idealism:
matter from mind (as in Advaita and Gītā), (3) interactive substance dualism (as
in Gītā), and (4) dual-aspect monism (as in the eDAM framework and
Viśiṣṭādvaita).
Critique2: Thank you very much for clarifying the personal and arbitrary
scope of the meanings of mind and matter. It is a stretch of imagination and logic
to conclude that these arbitrary concepts suffice to delimit Advaita to two
aspects, and definitely they cannot within the classical meaning of "mind" and
"matter". Just as a side issue, could it be that this attempt at labeling "dual
aspect" to a well defined singularity of "monistic" concept, Advaita, by hook or
crook, by matter and mind, is to accommodate or appease the irrational duality
of two dominant western religions, humans on earth and God in heaven.
Author: Please note that we are no way limiting Advaita by categorizing
innumerable entities in two categories: mind and matter. It is neither personal
and nor has arbitrary scope. If you can come up with 3rd category, I will
investigate further if that is redundant or non-redundant category. It should be
noted again that your-aspects has different meaning as elaborated before and
mostly equivalent to my-entities. My term entity has dual-aspect. Dr. Alfredo
Pereira Jr. has introduced Three-Aspect Monism (TAM): physical, non-conscious
mental and conscious mental. The latter two can be categorized in to mental
aspect in my view. For summary see (Vimal, 2013). To sum up, Critique2 who is
neither a philosopher or a scientist, is confused with term metaphysical term
‘aspect’; to emphasize again, his aspect is mine entity; when he says infinite
number of aspects, it means innumerable entities; each entity has two aspects:
mental and physical. Once this is understood, there is no contradiction.
120See also (Ādi Śankarāchārya, 788-820a, 788-820b; Anthony, 2009; Baker,

2011; Chethimattam, 1971; Dasti, 2011; Deutsch, 1980; Grange, 2009; Haque &
Banaei, 2011; Hari, 2010a; Kazim, Tauqir, Tariq, & Matt, 2007; Kohut, 2011a,
2011b, 2011c; Mishra, 2003; Muslim, 2011; Pal, 2011c; Rāmānujāchārya, 1904;
Rao, 1998; Rosen, 2007; Sarasvati, 1974-89; Sharma, 2000; Smith, 2011; Sri
319
Dvi-Pakṣa
Madhvacharya, 2011; Swami Chinmayananda, 2000; Vimal, 2009c; Whitehead,

1929).
As per (Pal, 2011c), “Even if it is claimed by the scientists that the universe
has actually started from nothing, and not from something as claimed by the
believers, the inevitable conclusion is that in both the cases there must have to
be some sort of consciousness at the beginning”. In my view, this may be cosmic
consciousness, which is different from our individual consciousness that is the
latest co-evolution and co-development from the unmanifested state of Brahman,
rather than the primal consciousness at the beginning.
Pal argues further: “I will also argue that the conclusive or decisive proof for
God’s non-existence can only be a natural explanation for the origin of the
universe and nothing else. […] When scientists say that they do not need any
God-hypothesis, they are actually saying that God is not the explanation for the
things we find in nature, and that God is not the explanation for the origin of the
universe as well. […] Darwin’s theory of evolution has proved that God does not
exist, or that Crick-Watson’s discovery of double helix has proved that God does
not exist, or that some other scientific discovery has proved beyond doubt that
God does not exist, then I will only say that these are all nonsensical arguments
that have been put forward so far as genuine proof for God’s non-existence. But if
we find that scientists have been able to give a NEFOU [natural explanation for
the origin of the universe], then we will have to reckon it as a genuine and
conclusive proof for God’s non-existence. So here we are getting another strong
reason as to why we cannot, and should not, accept the scientific theory that
states that the universe has originated from nothing due to a vacuum fluctuation
as a genuine scientific theory, because here what is intended to be proved has
been proved based on the assumption that it has already been proved.”
It seems that both scientific theory and God theory may be correct in their
own way in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita if we accept that science starts from the
physical aspect of the unmanifested state of the fundamental primal entity ends
to our physical aspect of brain-state; whereas, religions starts from its mental
aspect (cosmic consciousness) and ends to our mental aspect of brain-state (i.e.,
our individual consciousness); thus, no category mistake is made. In other
words, cosmic consciousness (God) is the mental aspect and physical universe is
the physical aspect of the unmanifested and manifested states of universe.
Problems occurs when science tries to explains consciousness and religions tries
to explain physical universe; this is because both make category mistake (mind
from matter and matter-in-itself from mind, respectively).
121 As per Brihadāranyaka, “The physical body, having been cast off, the soul
assumes a new body of an ethereal character. A subtle body is there no doubt,
but it is not the physical body. The Sukshma Śarīra, or the body that is
characterised by mere mind, Prāṇa and senses, remains even after the physical
body is cast off. As there is a gradual ascent from the lower to the higher; there is
also a gradual effectuation of the transparency of this body. The soul’s body
becomes more and more pellucid, more and more transparent, more and more
320
Dvi-Pakṣa
capable of reflecting Reality in itself, which it was most incapable of doing while
in the physical plane.” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.10.1.p323). This implies
that soul has also physical aspect, which is very subtle (close to latent), whereas
the soul’s mental aspect is dominant.
122 See theists' explanation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-

sj/why-is-there-suffering_b_835427.html .
123 Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in

an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related)
addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist
phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as
some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails
him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near
death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible
neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-
parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing
being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara,
2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case,
the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider
Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect
entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.
As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene, “The God gene hypothesis
proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards
spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a
combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The
major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by
psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is
partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene
VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts
by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because
spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this
hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces
the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the
presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e.
it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker).
[…] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in
regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and
norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an
important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs.
[…] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more
optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […]
Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a
gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine
neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”
321
Dvi-Pakṣa
124A phenotype is the organism’s observable characteristics or traits, such as, its
biochemical or physiological properties, behavior, morphology, development, and
products of behavior (such as a bird's nest). Phenotypes result from the
expression of the genes of an organism's, the influence of environmental factors,
and the interactions between the two. The genotype of an organism is the
inherited instructions that it carries within its genetic code.
125 Vimal: My understanding about samādhi-state (Vimal, 2009d) is that it has 3

major attributes:
[1] It activates our pleasure center (nucleus accumbens network) so our
sufferings do not bother us because of the highest level of happiness (bliss).
Buddha called this phenomenon, moksha or liberation, but this is simply
liberation from suffering (as you felt bliss that liberated you from the suffering of
your coma-state daughter: (Oliver, 2015)) on which Buddha worked in his whole
life. This is the major achievement one can have.
[2] A samadhi-state yogi observes pleasant light everywhere with eyes closed.
[3] When the yogi opens his/her eyes, the yogi the subject) and all external
objects are unified, even if enemy is present in front of him/her. This is what
might have happened when Oliver’s and his daughter’s state of mind unified
(Oliver, 2015).
I guess, if manas (assuming it is the same as western term ‘mind’) is at rest
(i.e., totally stopped), then as per attribute [3], the samāpatti/samadhi-state of
yogi’s mind-brain system should reveal what an external object-in-itself (Kant’s
‘Ding an sich’ or noumenon: such as chair-in-itself) is. If not then either yogi is
not in samadhi-sate or manas is different from western term ‘mind’ which
includes all mental entities including self, consciousness, experiences, and so on.
What do you say?
Oliver (22-May-2015): I think the western term, mind is different because it has
developed these concepts and really believes them. Self seems to consume most
of western thinking and much technology has grown up because of that self-
obsession.
My understanding of that article was that one can understand quantum
events provided our information system is able to have all of the parameters
involved. In other words, we can have a better understanding with seeing all of
the influences at work in an experiment.
In Samapatti the seer, not the subject, will have access to her/his own
information and that of the subject. At the conscious level the seer can
differentiate between both of these inputs. These inputs are the information
streams provided by the two bodies concerned and can be seen to be distinct
from the conscious information.
So for me Anil Anathaswamy’s article suggests that a wider frame of reference
allows me to make that distinction in understanding Samapatti. This leads me to
the view that within this distinction between the information I experience and
322
Dvi-Pakṣa
that of the subject lies a further distinction between the body’s information and
the conscious information.
Since Samapatti is an aspect of Samadhi we can only understand this model
as one of the duality described in the Hindu tradition.
Whether there is a universal ‘witness’ or the brain has its own duality of
information processing is open to conjecture.
I cannot, with my limited training, see how one would detect this through
conventional scientific apparatus as I fail to see how one would be able to
discriminate between the two sets of brain activity in the case of the seer. If
however one considers the universal witness as a latent consciousness within
space then one could also expect this to be accessible in Samadhi, exactly as
Patanjali says in that Yoga Sutra 1.41.
Vimal (22-May-2015): I would say that substance dualism (Sāṃkhya) and

idealism (Sankarāchārya’s Advaita) has serious problems; extended dual-aspect
monism (the eDAM or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) that is close to cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita) has
least number of problems so it is preferred framework.
QM have over 40 interpretations based on materialism (such as Einstein's),
substance dualism (such as Bohr), and Idealism; all have serious problems.
Therefore, we need to interpret QM in the eDAM.
Oliver (24-May-2015): I don’t know much about how much opinion Quantum
physics might have on consciousness. Yes, I do take the Advaitin position that it
is both mono and dual. I believe that mind is mostly mono since it is part of the
material reality while consciousness is dualistic as it in the awareness
component in the mind as well as the position of being with and without identity.
And I can be wrong. I am only trying to understand this from the experiences
while in Samapatti, which seems to be my natural state
Vimal (24-May-2015): Sankarāchārya’s Advaita (monism) is close to idealism

and Sāṃkhya (dualism) is close to interactive substance dualism; both have
serious problem as mentioned before. The eDAM framework or Dvi-Pakṣa
Advaita (both monism and dual-aspect together) has the least number of
problems and hence it must be considered as preferred view to interpret the data
of samādhi/ Samāpatti.
Oliver (26-May-2015): Your earlier comments seem to indicate I had said I had
read the subject’s mind. Not so. What I experienced was their brain activity, i.e. a
feeling or familiarity with the garden scene or a pain etc.
Vimal (26-May-2015): I agree with this because the seer (subject) at samadhi
state only 'feels' unification with objects; there is no scientific evidence for
reading others' mind except guessing based on many factors.
323
Dvi-Pakṣa
ddd
126 (Haarsma, 1999) provide critique on (Ramachandran et al., 1997) further with
respect to Christianity: “This experiment did not prove that God exists and
communicates with us. Neither did it prove that God doesn’t exist, and that
religious experiences are reducible to nothing but brain chemistry. The scientists
themselves cautioned against any such sweeping conclusions. […] Questions of
God’s existence and human accountability have been debated for millennia. In
the last centuries people have used and misused scientific results to argue for
their beliefs. Such arguments will intensify as neuroscientists study the
biological basis for our memory, decision-making, and self-awareness.
Although neuroscience cannot answer those age-old questions, these sorts of
experiments can and should prompt us to consider other potentially troubling
questions. These patients, due to a brain abnormality, had strengthened
involuntary responses to religious words and symbols. What does that imply for
all of us, and our responses to God? It may be true that much of our initial,
emotional response to any situation, religious or otherwise, is strongly influenced
by factors outside our conscious control.
Our genes and childhood experiences have shaped our personalities. […]
During seizures, these patients had what they described as religious experiences.
[…] If religious experiences have a neurological basis, where does the soul fit into
the picture? This question points to another age-old debate: Is human nature
fundamentally dualist (immaterial soul animating a material body) or monist (all
of one united nature)? Some ancient Greek philosophers and some medieval
scholars chose dualism, and hypothesized about which functions are performed
by our immaterial souls. Modern neuroscience is finding that those same
functions appear to be done by our brains, and so seems to favor monism.
God’s revelation does not clearly spell out which is the best picture of human
nature. God’s revelation does clearly teach that our continued existence, both in
this life now and in life after death, depends upon God’s constant sustaining
grace. That is surely true no matter how we define the ‘soul’ or imagine its
relationship to the body. God’s revelation also clearly teaches that our bodies and
souls will continue after death. We will be resurrected into new forms. God's
promise is certain, despite our limited understanding of how it might be
accomplished. […] No doubt more wonders await discovery as we study our
astonishingly complex brains. Not only will what we learn enable us to help
people suffering from mental illness, but also what we discover might challenge
some of our presuppositions about human nature and the means God uses to
interact with us. These challenges are also a gift, if used the right way, which will
prompt us to greater understanding and mature faith.”
127 According to (Wildman, 2006), “Pinker helpfully lists four adaptationist

explanations for the pervasiveness of religious belief: religious beliefs are adaptive
because (a) they truly describe the environment of human life, (b) they bring
324
Dvi-Pakṣa
comfort, (c) they forge unified communities, or (d) they answer our need for moral
values [see also (Pinker, 2006)]”(p.249).
128As per (Philippi et al., 2012), “It has been proposed that self-awareness (SA), a
multifaceted phenomenon central to human consciousness, depends critically on
specific brain regions, namely the insular cortex, the anterior cingulate cortex
(ACC), and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Such a proposal predicts that
damage to these regions should disrupt or even abolish SA. We tested this
prediction in a rare neurological patient with extensive bilateral brain damage
encompassing the insula, ACC, mPFC, and the medial temporal lobes. In spite of
severe amnesia, which partially affected his “autobiographical self”, the patient's
SA remained fundamentally intact. His Core SA, including basic self-recognition
and sense of self-agency, was preserved. His Extended SA and Introspective SA
were also largely intact, as he has a stable self-concept and intact higher-order
metacognitive abilities. The results suggest that the insular cortex, ACC and
mPFC are not required for most aspects of SA. Our findings are compatible with
the hypothesis that SA is likely to emerge from more distributed interactions
among brain networks including those in the brainstem, thalamus, and
posteromedial cortices.”
129Critique3 (July 16th 2013 at 11:06): I wonder why you spent so much time
arguing about the name “God particle” the Higgs boson is sometimes being
dubbed. I think it should be clear to everyone that this name was only intended
to be taken as a joke? Exactly like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-
God_particle.
Vimal: Thanks for the excellent comment. I agree with you. I just wanted to
make it clear that equating Higgs Boson with the God Particle (Lederman &
Teresi, 1993) is inappropriate and misleading. This is because Higgs Boson is one
of innumerable manifestations of unmanisfested primal entity (kāran/causal
Brahman), whereas a genuine ‘God particle’ is an entity from which our Universe
was born, which may be earlier (than Higgs Boson) manifestation of aspectless,
attributeless kāran Brahman. In the eDAM framework, the primal entity Brahman
appears aspectless in its unmanifested state because both mental and physical
aspects of its unmanifested state are latent (hidden).
130 (Swami Krishnananda, 1983).I.2.1.p30.
131 The term table-in-itself or matter-in-itself is similar to Kant’s thing-in-itself

(das Ding an sich). ‘What is actually out there without using mind’ is mind-
independent reality (MIR). One could argue for two perspectives: (i) objective
third-pp (3pp)-physical that is for public and (ii) subjective first person
perspective (1pp)-mental that is private such as our SEs. Here ‘objective’ 3pp-
physical can be further divided into mind-dependent and mind-independent. For
example, consider a brain-state. This brain-state can be considered to have two
325
Dvi-Pakṣa
aspects: 1pp-mental (such as experience of redness when we view ripe tomato)

and 3pp-phyiscal (such as redness related brain’s neural network(NN) and its
activities). If you, as third person, open up my brain you will not see what I have
experience such as redness related to viewing ripe tomato; you will see related
grey matter and related activities. However, this 3pp-physical is a construct of
your mind so it is mind-dependent reality (MDR). If you do not open my brain,
the NN will still be there (because I will have 1pp-SEs), but you will not know
what that is. This is mind-independent reality (MIR-NN-in-itself), which will
remain unknown to you. There is no way of knowing what this is because by
definition, you cannot use your mind. The process of ‘knowing’ will always
involve mind. So MIR is always unknown. We can imagine what that might at the
best. But again that imagination is MDR. In other words, MIR (matter-in-itself
(such as NN-in-itself) and mind-in-itself (such as redness-in-itself)) is always
unknown to us. We can make assumptions what that (MIR) might be as a brute
fact (that is the way it is!) as done in 4 major metaphysics.
132 As per (Sulis, 2013), “The measurement problem and the role of observers
have plagued quantum mechanics since its conception. Attempts to resolve these
have introduced anthropomorphic or non-realist notions into physics. A shift of
perspective based upon process theory and utilizing methods from combinatorial
games, interpolation theory and complex systems theory results in a novel realist
version of quantum mechanics incorporating quasi-local, nondeterministic
hidden variables that are compatible with the no-hidden variable theorems and
relativistic invariance, and reproduce the standard results of quantum
mechanics to a high degree of accuracy without invoking observers. [p1…1]
Bohm and Hiley [(Bohm & Hiley, 1993)] make the important point that the
quantum potential acts upon the particle not as a form of energy but rather as a
form of information. Such information is not to be understood in the Shannon
sense as a reduction of uncertainty but rather in the semantic sense as providing
knowledge about the physical environment within which the particle is moving.
… This quantum potential is decidedly nonlocal in its effect which appears to
occur instantaneously. … the ontological character of this quantum potential.
While relativity limits the speed at which any signal may propagate there is no
suggestion that the information provided by the quantum potential propagates as
a signal. [p5…] Bell showed that, if an additional assumption of locality is made
(meaning that the expectation values of one system must be independent of both
the angles measured and the measurement received in the other system [no
cross-talk]) … Since Bell’s original work, two specific forms of nonlocality have
been identified, parameter independence and outcome independence. Parameter
independence means that the behavior of one system does not depend upon the
particular choice of property to be measured on another system. Outcome
independence means that the behaviour of one system does not depend upon the
particular outcome of a measurement of another system. As Shimony points out
[23, pg. 90], a violation of parameter independence would permit a form of
controllable nonlocality which could lead to a violation of relativistic constraints.
326
Dvi-Pakṣa
A violation of outcome independence can at most lead merely to a form of non

controllable nonlocality, and indeed the phenomenon of entanglement provides a
prima facie case of violation of outcome independence. … While the phenomenon
of entanglement demonstrates that nonlocality must be a feature at the
observable level, the Bell and Leggett-Garg [(Leggett & Garg, 1985)] results show
that nonlocality must be a feature of any model at any level. [p6 …] Nonlocality is
not required in order to obtain those [Born’s rule] results. … the quantum
mechanical formalism allows for the phenomenon of quantum interference. [p8
…] Instead this very simple example urges us to accept the existence of non-
Kolmogorovian probability theories, even in the classical setting, and in
situations in which the basic elements of observations are derived from prior
conditions that are able to interact or superpose in some manner. Such
possibilities are abundant in quantum mechanics but also in the life and social
sciences. [p9…2] In physics the notion of process generally refers to an
interaction between entities that unfolds in time. Processes may change certain
dynamical parameters associated with continuous symmetries such as energy,
position or momentum. Examples of these include scattering, state transitions,
capture and emission. Processes may change certain discrete parameters
associated with intrinsic characteristics like charge, charm, strangeness, lepton
or baryon number. Creation, annihilation and decay [what about quantum
fluctuation?] are examples of these. Conceptually, fundamental physical entities
enter into or emerge from various processes but their very existence is not viewed
as arising out of process. … From a process perspective all matter would be
viewed as emergent, arising from the evolution of actual occasions. These actual
occasions would not be accessible to material entities in much the way that mind
is incapable of sensing the actions of individual neurons, even though mind is
emergent from the actions of neurons. Being emergent, the laws governing the
behaviour of actual occasions need not be those of quantum mechanics, though
the behaviour of entities emerging at the lowest spatiotemporal scales should
obey those laws. Likewise, entities emerging from these fundamental quantum
entities need not obey the laws of quantum mechanics, or at least quantum
mechanical laws need not be relevant for understanding their behaviour, just as
the laws governing the action of mind are not the same as the laws governing the
neurons giving rise to it. This is a common situation in the theory of emergence.
Although lower level entities may give rise to higher level entities, the relationship
between these two may be such that there is no one-one correspondence between
the behaviours at one level and those at the other level, so that the laws
governing the lower level become irrelevant for understanding behaviour at the
higher level. [p13 …] Classically it is a fairly straightforward matter to determine
whether a particle is bound to another particle because the trajectory of the
bound particle will form a closed path with the binding particle lying in the
interior of the path. In quantum mechanics this is not so straightforward since
particles do not follow trajectories that can be mapped. A free or a bound particle
can, in principle, be found anywhere in space. Its mere detection says little about
its dynamical state. [p14 …] Suppose that the wave function actually describes
327
Dvi-Pakṣa
information about the process responsible for the generation of a single particle.
Suppose further that the probability interpretation arises in an emergent manner
in the context of a statistical ensemble of particles. … the wave function enters
into the Lagrangian, usually coupled either to itself or to the wave function of
another particle. Suppose, therefore, that the wave function describes some kind
of ‘strength’ of the generating process. Different processes would then couple
through these different process strengths. Positional probability arises merely
when a fundamental particle couples to a position measurement device, and that
turn out to be a fairly basic coupling dependent upon a term of the form Ψ*Ψ. In
this sense the probability aspect is not an intrinsic feature of the wave function
but rather an emergent feature arising out of the interaction between the particle
and the measurement device. Given such an interpretation, a single particle
could indeed possess a physical wave function, which describes not the particle
per se but rather the process that generates the events that we ultimately
interpret as a particle. Contradictions arise because we attribute the wave
function incorrectly to the particle rather than to the process. … Assume a
collection of observations [z1, . . . , zn} such that the corresponding intervals …
are disjoint. Then by the Shannon-Weiner-Kotel’nikov theorem, as the number of
observations increases, the resulting sum of contributions will converge to a
function Ψ(x) = Σ Ψz(x) defined on the entire real line. This interpolated function
becomes the wave function of the particle. The particle thus moves discretely but
due to the small scale we only observe and interact with the interpolation - the
wave. In this way a particle has both wave-like and particle-like aspects but there
is no contradiction and no paradox - it is merely a question of scale. [p16 …]
Emergence is viewed as a fundamental aspect of reality, with entities arising out
of a co-creative interplay between realization and interpretation, which serves to
stabilize the conditions for their existence and persistence. … Entities are
conditional and therefore transient in nature. Entities, information, and meaning
come into existence, persist, and fade away. There is a notion in the physical
literature of a law of conservation of information but this is a bizarre idea derived
from the unitary evolution of quantum systems and which certainly does not
apply to meaning laden information. … It posits a reality that is always in the
process of becoming, that is always changing, that is fundamentally transient.
[p22 …3] set G represents all of the information entailed within those prior
informons (actual occasions) that materially contribute to the creation and
existence of the current informon (actual occasion). … The global the reality game
arises from the interactions among all of these individual process games.
Processes generate actual occasions but processes themselves may be rendered
active or inactive through the arising and fading away of configurations of actual
occasions. [p25…] Thus in NRQM the system evolves from one causal slice to the
next, in other words from one transient now to the next. The situation is more
subtle in the case of relativistic quantum mechanics where the content set must
come (nontrivially) from the past light cone of each informon and the embedding
into the causal manifold takes a more complicated form. … This means that the
particle itself is never in a superposition of ontolgically distinct states; it is only
328
Dvi-Pakṣa
the process that generates the particle that can be in a superposition. … The idea
is that an extension of a process from the causal past into the future involves a
transition from informons previously generated by the process to informons
currently being generated by the process. This process is somewhat akin to a
percolation front except that the updating of the front occurs sequentially and in
a saltatory manner. Informons thus propagate outwards from informons of
origin. [p28…] As play proceeds the particle will manifest all of the eigenstates
individually and distributed throughout the causal tapestry, and so effectively
throughout the causal manifold. At the level of the observer one will observe only
the interpolated wave function, which will correspond to a superposition of these
eigenstates. There is no paradox here. The problem arises as a result of the
inherent inability to resolve reality at the level of the individual actual occasion.
One can have a realist dynamic operating at the lowest level even though at the
level at which we can observe reality one sees only these seemingly paradoxical
superpositions. The superpositions reflect the nature of the generating processes,
not the nature of the reality being generated. … The basins [of attraction] should
be stable, attracting, and separated. In particular they should not be tangled or
lead to chaotic behaviour. The size of the basin determines the resolution of the
apparatus. Once a triggering or interaction has taken place the apparatus should
evolve within the selected basin until the fixed point has been reached. In other
words the potential well associated to the basin should be sufficiently deep so as
to prevent the apparatus from jumping from one basin to another [p29…] While a
change of basis in a finite dimensional vector space can be viewed merely as a
change of reference frame, or perspective, a change of basis in quantum
mechanics represents a change of measurement serving as the underlying basis
for the observation. It does not merely represent a change of observer or of
position of an observer. It reflects, rather, a fundamental change in how the
observation is being carried out and what kind of measurement apparatus is
being utilized to carry out the observation. … In the reality game perspective, a
decomposition of a wave function as a sum of the form Ψ = Σ wi φi implies that the
actual occasions that underly the particle are being generated by a process which
can be decomposed into a sum of simpler processes as P = Σ wi Pi where each
subprocess wi Pi generates the wave function contribution wi φi. A change of basis
therefore implies not merely a change of perspective but a change in the very
processes that are generating the actual occasions. That is, a change of basis
carries ontological significance and is not simply epistemology. … We say that the
reality games (processes) P, P′ are Ψ-equivalent and write P ≡Ψ P′. Note that under
a different context it may be the case that these reality games no longer generate
the same wave function. This is a result of the non-commutativity of many
quantum mechanical operators. … In the first stage, prior to the initiation of any
interaction between the particle and the apparatus, the two games are played
freely … In the second stage, the particles enters into the region of the
measurement apparatus. In this stage there is no exchange of physical attributes
such as energy, momentum, spin, mass etc. Instead the measurement apparatus
329
Dvi-Pakṣa
establishes a new set of boundary conditions which results in a purely

informational effect upon the processes generating the particle. … Although the
processes generating the wave function have changed, the observed wave
function remains unchanged. …. In the third stage the particle enters into the
region in which a physical interaction with the measurement apparatus becomes
possible. The actual initiation of interaction becomes a function of the coupling
between particle and apparatus. [p30…] The particle process has undergone a
transition which means that the descriptor no longer refers to the original
generative process but only to the current process. As a consequence there will
no longer be any play to those informons whose descriptors are for the previous
process and its subprocesses. The same is true for the measurement apparatus
as its generative process is now restricted to the interactive version … Repeated
plays of the game will yield different outcomes. The apparent stochasticity of the
quantum system arises from the inherent non-determinism of the game, not from
an inherent indeterminism in the actual occasions themselves - the level of
ultimate reality. Moreover the collapse that is observed in the wave function is
not a collapse at the level of ultimate reality, which only ever manifests single
informons, but rather at the level of process and merely reflects that fact that any
interaction between processes potentially alters those processes. … One last
point concerns the issue of “quasi-locality”. The informons being generated to
form the new causal tapestry utilize information that is entirely local to each
individually. [p31…] They are described, however, as being quasi-local because
the process or processes that generate them act non locally in that they are free
to add to the content of any informon on any given play, regardless of which
informons have already been generated and where they are located in space-time.
The processes exist in a mathematical universe that is outside of space and time.
… [4] Note that while the processes may generate any informon on any play, no
information is passed between these informons and so the non local actions of
the processes do not induce any non-ocal information exchange between
informons and thus the constraints of special relativity are not violated. [p32…]
Informons provide a form of quasi-local hidden variable. … That content appears
to be nonlocal … In that sense it is local. There remains an element of
nonlocality, however, in the manor of play which (borrowing a term from the
author Alfred Bester) jauntes from one space-time location to another. But no
information is transmitted through this nonlocality. Indeed in the space of
processes there is no space-time. The processes and games exist outside of
space-time … One should view process as being atemporal and it is the creation
of actual occasions that results in an emergent space-time. The jaunting
associated with process does not violate special relativity since it conveys no
signal and does not occur in space-time but rather pre-space-time. … K-S and
GHZ type results assume that the functional analytic formulation holds at the
lowest level of reality, but this is an assumption not a fact. If indeed quantum
phenomena are emergent phenomena then there is no a priori reason to assume
this. Indeed in the model presented here, the dynamics at the level of ultimate
reality is described by combinatorial forcing games with tokens, and the standard
330
Dvi-Pakṣa
functional analytic formulation is viewed as an emergent interpretation of this

lower level dynamic. [p34…] there is a fundamental flaw in Bell’s argument,
namely the implicit assumption that the statistical structure of any form of
classical hidden variables must conform to the laws of Kolmogorov probability
theory. This assumption is false, and depends upon the dynamics and types of
interactions governing these variables. … This in turn results in many
paradoxes. Shifting to a particular class of combinatorial forcing games with
tokens results in a non-Kolmogorov probability structure and enables one to
exhibit a quasilocal, realist, hidden variable model capable of reproducing NRQM.
[p34…] by shifting to the mathematics of combinatorial games it becomes
possible to bring
realism back into quantum mechanics. The model 0incorporates ideas of process
theory: becoming, persisting, fading away and a transient now, all compatible
with relativity. The price to be paid is to postulate the existence of an underlying
layer of ultimate reality manifesting at Planck scales and which is inherently
unobservable. This lower level is discrete, but fuzzy, and motion consists of
discontinuous saltatory jauntes. Observable phenomena, events and space-time
itself, are emergent from this lowest level. The experience of continuity is also
emergent, arising though a process of interpolation. NRQM must be viewed as an
effective theory, not an ultimate theory. Following Whitehead’s process theory,
the model proposes that there are two components to reality: the actual
occasions which superpose to create through interpolation an emergent
observable reality, and the processes that generate these occasions. These
processes exist in an aspatial, atemporal algebraic universe whose structure
conforms in part to a configuration of Lie algebras. … It has a fundamentally
discrete character which may help to eliminate the infinities that hound
quantum mechanics, especially quantum field theory. It provides a realist view of
ultimate reality which is quasi-local (local at the level of actual occasions but
non-local at the level of process or game play) and which avoids anthropomorphic
and solipsistic thinking and ever more fanciful constructions that stretch
credulity. In doing so it follows the principle of Occam’s razor, finding a simpler
model that produces the same results. The disadvanage of the model is that one
must accept that quantum phenomena are emergent upon an underlying
(inherently unobservable) layer of reality manifesting at Planck scales, and that
quantum mechanics, like general relativity, must be
understood as an effective theory. In this model continuity is the illusion and
time has a definite orientation and flow. This appears to be a small price to pay
for the eradication of the measurement problem and the various paradoxes, for
eliminating wave-particle duality, for potentially eliminating the various infinities
and for giving
a sense of reality back to quantum phenomena. The next step is to attempt to
extend this model into RQM and eventually to QFT. That work is hampered in
part by the current state of the art in interpolation [p35]”.
331
Dvi-Pakṣa
[1]. A form of information can be interpreted as the mental information as it

provides knowledge about the physical environment within which the particle is
moving.
[2] Actual occasions are sub-quantum entities, which have their own laws
different from QM's and CM's laws. However, it is unclear how precisely quantum
and then classical entities mysteriously emerge from actual occasions.
[3] How the processes are created, which generate actual occasions? Are these
processes generated spontaneously/randomly?
[4] If information cannot be exchanged across space-like Alice and Bob, then how
to explain the coincident detection in EPR-Aspect-et-al type experiment that
depends on the angular difference between orientations of the space-like
separated detectors.
[5] Whitehead’s process theory is also consistent with dual-aspect theory as

discussed in (Vimal, 2009c), where each ‘actual occasion’ has two inseparable
aspects: mental and physical. QM- and CM-entities can be derived from these
sub-quantum entities.
As per (Leggett & Garg, 1985), “It is shown that, in the context of an idealized
‘macroscopic quantum coherence’ experiment, the predictions of quantum
mechanics are incompatible with the conjunction of two general assumptions
which are designated ‘macroscopic realism’ and ‘noninvasive measurability at the
macroscopic level.’ The conditions under which quantum mechanics can be
tested against these assumptions in a realistic experiment are discussed. Despite
sixty years of schooling in quantum mechanics, most' physicists have a very non-
quantummechanical notion of reality at the macroscopic level, which implicitly
makes two assumptions. (A1) Macroscopic realism: A macroscopic system with
two or more macroscopically distinct states available to it will at all times be in
one or the other of these states. (A2) Noninvasive measurability at the
macroscopic level: It is possible, in principle, to determine the state of the system
with arbitrarily small perturbation on its subsequent dynamics. A direct
extrapolation of quantum mechanics to the macroscopic level denies this.”
As per (Goldstein, 1998), “After all, the latter [Einstein] denied merely that the
wave function is a complete description of an observer-independent physical
reality, while the former [Bohr and Heisenberg] seemed to deny that there is any
such reality, at least insofar as atomic phenomena are concerned! […] What
Einstein desired and Bohr deemed impossible--an observer-free formulation of
quantum mechanics, in which the process of measurement can be analyzed in
terms of more fundamental concepts--does, in fact, exist. Moreover, there are
many such formulations, the most promising of which belong to three basic
categories or approaches: decoherent histories, spontaneous localization, and
332
Dvi-Pakṣa
pilot-wave theories. … These approaches can be regarded, each in its own way,
as minimal responses to the problem of formulating a quantum theory without
observers. Each of these, I will argue, can also be regarded as realizations of
Einstein's insight that the wave function does not provide us with a complete
description of physical reality, and of his belief that a more complete theory is
possible. […] DH [decoherent histories] is primarily concerned with histories of
observables, not of wave functions, which play only a secondary role, as a
theoretical ingredient in the formulation of laws governing the evolution of
quantum observables via the probabilities assigned to histories. Thus DH avoids
the measurement problem in exactly the manner suggested by Einstein. […] The
spontaneous localization (SL) approach, initiated by Philip Pearle around 1970,
may be regarded as concerned with a minimal modification of the Schrödinger
evolution into one in which wave functions of macroscopic systems behave in a
sensible way. This goal proved elusive, but in 1985 a breakthrough [20] occurred:
GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tulio Weber (GRW), by appreciating the
privileged role somehow played by positions and thus focusing on the possibility
of spatial localization, showed how to combine the Schrödinger evolution with
spontaneous random collapses--given by ‘Gaussian hits’ centered at random
positions occurring at random times t--to obtain an evolution for wave
functions that reproduces the Schrödinger evolution on the atomic level while
avoiding the embarrassment of macroscopic superpositions. Thus [1, page 204,]
‘any embarrassing macroscopic ambiguity in the usual theory is only momentary
in the GRW theory. The cat is not both dead and alive for more than a split
second.’ Similarly, measurement pointers quickly point. Moreover, it is a more or
less immediate consequence of the GRW dynamics that when a macroscopic
superposition collapses under the GRW evolution to one of its terms, the
probability that ψα is the term that survives is ||ψα||2, precisely as demanded by the
collapse postulate of standard quantum theory. […] Therefore Ghirardi [21, page
8,] rightly emphasizes the importance of specifying what he calls ``the physical
reality of what exists out there.'' For this he chooses the mass density function
[…] Moreover, we must also specify, for a quantum theory, the relationship
between the wave function and this primitive ontology, which for SL will be
provided by a mapping or code connecting the evolution of the wave function to a
story in space and time. Different such specifications define different
theories. They might also have different observable consequences. […] It is clear,
however, because of its abrogation [cancellation] of the Schrödinger evolution,
that SL (in whatever version and with whatever choice of primitive ontology) must
disagree somewhat with the predictions of orthodox quantum theory. […] In the
pilot[/guiding]-wave (or Bohmian) approach, quantum theory is fundamentally
about the behavior of particles, described by their positions--or fields, described
by field configurations, or strings, described by string configurations--and only
secondarily about wave functions. In this approach the wave function, obeying
Schrödinger's equation, does not provide a complete description or
representation of a quantum system. Instead, the wave function choreographs or
governs the motion of the more fundamental variables. Bohmian mechanics (or
333
Dvi-Pakṣa
the de Broglie-Bohm theory) is the minimal completion of Schrödinger's equation,

for a nonrelativistic system of particles, to a theory describing a genuine motion
of particles. For Bohmian mechanics the state of the system is described by its
wave function ψ = ψ(q1, ..., qN) together with the configuration Q defined by the
positions Q1, …, QN of its particles. The theory is then defined by two evolution
equations: Schrödinger's equation for ψ(t) and a first-order evolution equation
dQk/dt … for Q(t) […] This deterministic theory of particles in motion completely
accounts for all the phenomena of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from
interference effects to spectral lines [23, pages 175-178,] to spin [25, page 10 of
[1],], and it does so in a completely ordinary manner. […] Bohmian mechanics
provides us with probabilities [ |ψ|2] for completely fine-grained configurational
histories that are consistent with the quantum mechanical probabilities for
configurations, including the positions of instrument pointers, at single times.
[…] Bohm's formulation involved unnecessary complications and could not deal
efficiently with spin. In particular, Bohm's invocation of the ‘quantum potential’
made his theory seem artificial and obscured its essential structure. For more on
this, see [31].) Its principal advocate during the past three decades was Bell [1].
Impelled by the evident nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics, Bell [17] established,
using the ‘no-hidden-variables theorem’ based on his famous inequality, that this
feature was unavoidable by any serious theory accounting for the quantum
predictions. The possibility of a deterministic reformulation of quantum theory
such as Bohmian mechanics has been regarded by almost all luminaries of
quantum physics as having been conclusively refuted. […] what Bell
demonstrated with his theorem was not the impossibility of Bohmian mechanics
but rather that its most radical implication, namely nonlocality, was intrinsic to
quantum theory itself. […] Bohmian mechanics is just such a deeper explanation
(as is SL, of which, however, Feynman could not have been aware). It resolves the
dilemma of the appearance, in one and the same phenomenon, of both particle
and wave properties in a rather straightforward manner: Bohmian mechanics is
a theory of motion describing a particle (or particles) guided by a wave. In
Figure 1 we have a family of Bohmian trajectories for the two-slit experiment.
While each trajectory passes through but one of the slits, the wave passes
through both; the interference profile that therefore develops in the wave
generates a similar pattern in the trajectories guided by this wave. […‘]And so
influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is
attracted to where they cooperate [’ (Bell, 2004).p191 … ] Nonetheless, it would
appear that inasmuch as orthodox quantum theory supplies us with probabilities
not merely for positions but for a huge class of quantum observables, it is a
much richer theory than Bohmian mechanics, which seems exclusively
concerned with positions. […] Bell's point here is well taken: the usual
measurement postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave
function and probabilities for measurement results given by the absolute square
of probability amplitudes, emerge [23] as soon as we take seriously the equations
of Bohmian mechanics and what they describe--provided that the initial
334
Dvi-Pakṣa
configuration of a system is random, with probability distribution given by

ρ = |ψ|2 . [… Reality and the Role of the Wave Function] Bohmian mechanics has
seemed to most physicists to involve too radical a departure from quantum
modes of thought. The approaches of spontaneous localization and decoherent
histories have achieved much wider acceptance among physicists, the former
because it ostensibly involves only wave functions, effectively collapsing upon
measurement in the usual text-book manner, and the latter because it
apparently is defined solely in terms of standard quantum mechanical
machinery--i.e., the quantum measurement formulas of the orthodox theory,
involving wave functions and sequences of Heisenberg projection operators. […] I
have also argued that neither for DH nor even for SL can the wave function be
regarded as providing the complete description of a physical system. […]None of
the theories sketched here is Lorentz invariant. There is a good reason for this:
the intrinsic nonlocality of quantum theory presents formidable difficulties for
the development of a Lorentz invariant formulation that avoids the vagueness of
the orthodox version”
------ The End ------
335

Scientific Hinduism Bringing Science and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientific Hinduism Bringing Science and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and

and Hinduism Closer via Extended Dual-

For the cover of the book

Copyright © 2012 by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal and Vision Research

For referring, the following content should be included:

[Last update: Sunday, October 18, 2015, 12:41 PM]

A simple idea is to consider science and religions (such as Hinduism) as the

In science’s materialism, matter is the fundamental reality. The mind (including

interaction of stimulus dependent feed forward signals and cognitive feedback

However, interactive substance dualism has seven problems: (i) association or

In Sankarāchārya’s Advaita (Brahma satyaṃ jagat mithyā, jīvo brahmaiva

These problems are addressed by replacing the built-in interactive substance

This new Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita or extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM)

We propose Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (significantly different from cit-acit3

In Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita,4 Brahman is the eternal, fundamental, dual-aspect,

In the Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (āstika/theist version of eDAM framework),

The Nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (nāstika/atheist/scientific version of eDAM

the unmanifested (potential) state of Brahman after death in nāstika Dvi-Pakṣa

One could argue that the status of unliberated–jīvātman in unclear because so

after-death and the jīvātman/soul after death is unclear (don’t-know-status)

In both versions of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework, it is unclear if

views represent different aspects of the unmanifested state of Brahman or unified

Furthermore, the problems (such as category mistakes and metaphysical

Furthermore, it is argued that theist/atheist phenomenon is subject-specific

To sum up, as science progresses and provides explanation of paranormal

Boston, USA 2012 Prof. Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph. D.

eDAM: extended Dual-Aspect Monism or Dual-Aspect Monism with dual-mode

God = Paramātman = Ishawar = Bliss (atishay ananda), the feeling of merging of

MIR: Mind Independent Reality

2. The Four Major Metaphysics: Western Metaphysics and

3. Science and its problems

4. Hinduism and its problems

(i). The doctrine of inseparability of aspects

5. Solution of the Problems of Science and Hinduism by Seventh Sub-

test in addition to the relationship between Brahm/Brahman/God,

The Four Major Metaphysics:

2.1. The four major metaphysics from the categorization of

In Western/scientific Metaphysics, we categorize all entities in just two

Matter: This is a western/scientific term for matter-in-itself and includes all

The western/scientific term ‘mind’ is different from eastern term ‘manas’ or

The above categorization entails four major scientific/western/eastern

(2) P from M: M is primitive. Matter-in-itself is ‘congealed’ mind. This

2.2. Materialism and its problems

If matter is fundamental reality then it is materialism or monistic materialism

My working hypothesis is that the western/scientific materialism is close to the

2.3. Idealism and its problems

If mind is fundamental reality then it is idealism (Kant, 1929), where matter

non-experiential matter-in-itself such as neural-networks of our brain emerge

2.4. Interactive substance dualism (ISD) and its problems

(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem

(2) Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy

(3) ‘Zombie’ problem

(4) ‘Ghost’ problem

(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

synapses are related to many experiences. Thus, many-one and many-many

(6) Causal pairing problem

(7) Developmental problem

(8) Legal Problem

2.5. Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM) Framework

The extended Dual-Aspect Monism or the eDAM framework is the ‘Dual-Aspect

2.5.1. The dual-aspect monism and the doctrine of inseparability

In H1, a specific SE arises (or is realized) in a neural-net as follows: (i) there

For example, when we look at red ball, it generates a state/representation in

states. The buddhi, discriminative in nature (बु. न/चयाि1मका 2च1त -विृ 1त ),

Cārvāka/Lokāyata (चावाक: 800-500 BC) is a system of Indian philosophy that