Evolution of Universe in Dual-Aspect Monism

Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 2024

Abstract This volume explores the potential of Inseparable-Complementary Dual-Aspect Monism (ICDAM) and Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (DPV) to bridge the gap between science and spirituality. Through a series of in-depth discussions and analyses, it examines key concepts such as the dual-aspect state of entities, symmetry breaking in the transition from Nirguṇa Brahman to Saguṇa Brahman, and the implications for understanding consciousness, time, and the nature of reality. The work critically evaluates these frameworks in relation to other philosophical approaches like panpsychism, neutral monism, and hylomorphism. It also explores practical applications in fields including neuroscience, physics, family relationships, legal systems, economics, and environmental stewardship. By integrating insights from Vedāntic philosophy with modern scientific theories, this volume proposes a holistic paradigm that addresses fundamental questions about existence while fostering dialogue between scientific and spiritual perspectives. The discussions highlight both the promise and challenges of this integrative approach, offering a nuanced exploration of its potential to reconcile seemingly disparate worldviews and advance our understanding of consciousness and the cosmos. Conclusions 1. Two opposite sects: science and spirituality There are two opposite sects: science and spirituality. We should bring them closer through a nonsectarian approach such as elaborated in (Vimal, 2023a). 2. Consensus So far, both sects (science and spirituality) agree that (1) we came from the primal source and we will return to the same source, and (2) mortal active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) is brain-based, and hence it dies when we die. 3. PIS and ADS The main difference between them is that spirituality (such as Sankhya and Vedānta) claims that immortal/eternal fully conscious ātman (passive invariant self-as-subject: PIS); however, anātman Buddhism and science claim that there is no scientific evidence of PIS/ātman, instead there is scientific evidence of active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) 4. Nirguṇa Brahman (NB), neti-neti principle, Saguṇa Brahman (SB), and Saccidānanda Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) is defined to be without gunas, i.e., neutral (neither explicitly conscious nor explicitly non-conscious, neither explicitly subjective (s, mental) nor explicitly non-subjective (ns, physical)) using the neti-neti principle. Saguṇa Brahman (SB) is defined to have attributes/gunas . NB and SB are related ; SB is manifested from NB. Saccidānanda is Saguṇa Brahman (SB), which is manifested from Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) using the neti-neti principle. For details, see A12.6.12 of (Vimal, 2024). 5. Bridging Science and Spirituality: The Equivalence Hypothesis in DPV and ICDAM with Four Key Equations The DPV and ICDAM propose four key equations as the Equivalence Hypothesis for bringing spirituality and science closer. Equivalence hypothesis includes: • (1) NB ~ preBB_QVF, • (2) SB ~ all manifested entities at all levels (including subtlest Purusha, all deities such as tri-devas and tri-devies, gods , Prakriti, subtler causal, subtle astral, and gross physical levels), • (3) Mahāpralaya ~ BC/BR, and • (4) NB ↔ SB and BB ↔ BC/BR. Eq.(4) implies that all entities as SBs are manifested from the source NB~ preBB-QVF (pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field), and eventually SBs return to the same source NB as a cyclic process; BB: Big Bang; BC: Big Crunch (or equivalent such as BR: Big Rip). 6. The fundamental truth Both science and spirituality agree on two points: firstly, that we originated from a primal source and will return to it eventually, and secondly, that the active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) is brain-based and ceases to exist after we die. However, the main difference between the two is that spirituality (such as Sankhya and Vedānta) believes in an immortal/eternal fully conscious ātman (passive invariant self-as-subject: PIS), while anātman Buddhism and science claim that there is no scientific evidence of PIS/ātman. ABA: Achintya-Bheda-Abheda by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534) AV: Advaita Vedānta CAV: Cit-Acit Viśiṣṭadvaita by Rāmānujāchārya (1017–1137) DAV: Dvaitādvaita by Nimbārkāchārya (1130-1200) DPV: Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (Vimal) ICDAM: Inseparable-Complementary Dual-Aspect Monism KS: Shiva-Śakti Kashmir Shaivism by Utpaladeva (925–975) and Abhinavagupta (975–1025) VV: Vijñāna Vedānta by Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa (1836–1886) Question: What is the fundamental truth based on spirituality (CAV, VV, DAV, ABA, KS, and DPV) and science (ICDAM and DPV) together? Answer: All seven dual-aspect frameworks (spirituality-based: CAV, VV, DAV, ABA, & KS, spirituality & science-based DPV and science-based ICDAM science-based) conclude: • (1) All manifested living and non-living entities including us and deities (as Saguṇa Brahman) manifested from unmanifested Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) that is, in essence, the primordial neutral entity (pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field: preBB-QVF), and • (2) We will eventually return to the same primordial neutral source (NB/preBB-QVF) at the unmanifested state. Conclusions (1) and (2) bridge spirituality and science.

Materialism is sometimes wrong (regarding strings and consciousness) because it is incomplete ,since there are two aspects or perspective ways of viewing reality, originating from Plotinus and Leibniz, while materialism is single-aspect. There is an " inner " or nonphysical, mental or quantum one, and an " outer " or physical one. All causation is mental and so proceeds cybernetically, top down, from the inner perspective. Leibniz [Leibniz, Monadology] showed that both of these views are necessary, for without in inner view the universe is ungoverned. The nonphysical is the inner perspective and the outer perspective is the physical one. But according to materialism, the world is exclusively physical, despite the discovery of the necessarily accompanying nonphysical or inner aspect, the quantum. Thus current physics is only single-aspect physical, making it de facto only a partial view of reality. This makes it difficult to explain three critical topics today: quantum gravity, strings and consciousness. Here, based on Leibniz's dual-aspect universe, and Plotinus' doctrine of the priority of the Simple[], we propose a dual-aspect monistic metaphysics otherwise congruent with modern physics and divorced from the limitations of materialism and the incomplete empiricism of 19th century science, particularly that of empirical psychology, in which nonphysical consciousness cannot be explained. To guide our study, to bring Leibniz up to date with modern physics, and enable the possibility of consciousness, we have also made additions from Plotinus (the transcendental One) and CS Peirce (his Categories). In the course of the discussion, and in this new context, we briefly address the topics of strings, mathematics, consciousness, quantum gravity, the Big Bang, and the nature of life. With this more advanced outlook, strings are dual aspect monisms, not entirely physical, but mental (quantum) as well. Thus there is no problem in considering them to partly exist in mental space as they in fact are; one need not fold up dimensions or alter them in any way. The lowest 4 dimensions describe the associated particles moving in spacetime, a proof of string theory. The upper 6 or 7 describe characteristics of the particle quanta. Strings can then be described completely with the Calibi Yau manifold [ ].

Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research, 2024

Conclusions 1. Two opposite sects: science and spirituality There are two opposite sects: science and spirituality. We should bring them closer through a nonsectarian approach such as elaborated in (Vimal, 2023a). 2. Consensus So far, both sects (science and spirituality) agree that (1) we came from the primal source and we will return to the same source, and (2) mortal active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) is brain-based, and hence it dies when we die. 3. PIS and ADS The main difference between them is that spirituality (such as Sankhya and Vedānta) claims that immortal/eternal fully conscious ātman (passive invariant self-as-subject: PIS); however, anātman Buddhism and science claim that there is no scientific evidence of PIS/ātman, instead there is scientific evidence of active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) 4. Saccidānanda Saccidānanda is Saguṇa Brahman (SB), which is manifested from Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) using the neti-neti principle. For details, see A12.6.12 of (Vimal, 2024). 5. Bridging Science and Spirituality: The Equivalence Hypothesis in DPV and ICDAM with Two Key Equations To sum up, DPV and ICDAM propose two key equations for bringing spirituality and science closer: NB ~ preBB-QVF (1) NB ↔ SB and BB ↔ BC (2) Eq.(2) implies that all entities as SBs are manifested from the source NB~ preBB-QVF (pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field), and eventually SBs return to the same source NB as a cyclic process; BB: Big Bang; BC: Big Crunch (or equivalent such as Big Rip). 6. The fundamental truth Both science and spirituality agree on two points: firstly, that we originated from a primal source and will return to it eventually, and secondly, that the active dynamic self-as-subject (ADS) is brain-based and ceases to exist after we die. However, the main difference between the two is that spirituality (such as Sankhya and Vedānta) believes in an immortal/eternal fully conscious ātman (passive invariant self-as-subject: PIS), while anātman Buddhism and science claim that there is no scientific evidence of PIS/ātman. ABA: Achintya-Bheda-Abheda by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534) AV: Advaita Vedānta CAV: Cit-Acit Viśiṣṭadvaita by Rāmānujāchārya (1017–1137) DAV: Dvaitādvaita by Nimbārkāchārya (1130-1200) DPV: Dvi-Pakṣādvaita Vedānta (Vimal) ICDAM: Inseparable-Complementary Dual-Aspect Monism KS: Shiva-Śakti Kashmir Shaivism by Utpaladeva (925–975) and Abhinavagupta (975–1025) VV: Vijñāna Vedānta by Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa (1836–1886) Question: What is the fundamental truth based on spirituality (CAV, VV, DAV, ABA, KS, and DPV) and science (ICDAM and DPV) together? Answer: All seven dual-aspect frameworks (spirituality-based: CAV, VV, DAV, ABA, & KS, spirituality & science-based DPV and science-based ICDAM science-based) conclude: • (1) All manifested living and non-living entities including us and deities (as Saguṇa Brahman) manifested from unmanifested Nirguṇa Brahman (NB) that is, in essence, the primordial neutral entity (pre-Big Bang Quantum Vacuum Field: preBB-QVF), and • (2) We will eventually return to the same primordial neutral source (NB/preBB-QVF) at the unmanifested state. Conclusions (1) and (2) bridge spirituality and science.

In the philosophies of some religions , such as the Geeta, Samkhya, Dvaita , Advaita and Vishishtadvaita philosophy of Hinduism, dualistic philosophy of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the metaphysical frameworks include interactive substance dualism where mind (includes all mental entities such as Buddhi, Ahamkāra, Atman, Purusha, Brahman and so on) and matter (both fermions and bosons) are on equal footing; they interact (such as Purusha ‘shines’ on Prakriti for creation of universe) with each other but each can exist without other, i.e., they are separable and independent (Vimal, 2011c). This is because theist religions assume that soul (mental entity) separates from the dead body (physical entity) after death, but interacts when we are alive (Vimal, 2011c). However, this framework has problems such as the association or mind-brain interaction problem, the problem of mental causation, the ‘Zombie’ problem, the ‘Ghost’ problem, the neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem, the causal pairing problem, and the developmental problem (Vimal, 2011c).

Vol. 41, edição especial, 2018

In prior work, we reported the followings: (i) There are about forty meanings attributed to the term consciousness. They were identified and categorized according to whether they were principally about function or about experience. (ii) The frameworks for consciousness that are based on materialism, idealism, and dualism have serious problems. Therefore, an extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework was proposed for consciousness, where (a) the problematic materialism/ panpsychism based integrated information theory (IIT) was interpreted and (b) the inseparability between physical and non-physical aspect holds because none of the empirical fMRI/EEG data shows separability between aspects. This has the least number of problems compared to all other frameworks. It required a novel feature that the potentiality of primary irreducible subjective experiences co-exists with its physical aspect in nature. This missing information in science is provided by the eDAM, which addresses the hard problem of consciousness successfully, which is elaborated in detail in this article.

Previously, we proposed an extended version of dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework for consciousness. Here, consciousness is defined as the mental aspect of a state of brain-system or brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: conscious experience and conscious function from the first person perspective. The eDAM framework has five components: (I) Dual-aspect monism, where each entity-state has inseparable physical and qualitative/mental aspects and the potentiality of primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) pre-exists in Nature. (II) Dual-mode: There is a conjugate matching between stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-mode and then the selection of a specific SE by the self. (III) Varying degrees of manifestation of aspects depending on the levels of entities and contexts. (IV) The necessary conditions of consciousness, such as the formation of neural-networks, wakefulness, reentry, attention, information integration, working memory, and so on. (V) The segregation and integration of dual-aspect information. The eDAM framework: (i) has the least number of problems, (ii) supports conscious artifacts, (iii) attempts to address the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness (how SEs arise), (iv) is consistent with psychophysical, biological, and physical laws, (v) addresses the objections raised in Biological Naturalism by traditional views (dualism and materialism), (vi) is parsimonious; and (vii) can be tested scientifically. In this article, the possible criticisms against the eDAM framework are addressed rigorously.