Vinaire's Blog

The word “atman” from Hinduism is translated as “soul” in English. But this is an incorrect translation. “Atman” is different from “soul” the way “doughnut hole” is different from the “doughnut.”

A soul is something. It is like the doughnut made up of thought material (ideas, visualizations, assumptions, etc.). But an atman is nothing. It has no substance. It is like the doughnut hole surrounded by the thought material of the doughnut.

A soul is that “I,” “will” or “intention” that one feels subjectively. It seems that there is a permanent self there. From this self-centric viewpoint, the ultimate reality is the “perfect self” of God. When undesirable thought material is purged and the soul is purified, it goes to heaven to be with God. The soul and God do not merge because different selves maintain their integrity.

However, an atman is surrounded by thought material that presents itself as a relative, conditioned and impermanent self. From this reality-centric viewpoint, one arrives at the ultimate reality by “neti, neti” (shedding all that is relative, conditioned and impermanent). As the conditioned reality of self is purged, atman merges with the ultimate reality.

So, soul becomes the best it can be, while atman sheds all its conditioning to return to what it basically was all along.

 

.

Reference: William James – American Philosopher

My introduction to Epistemology has been through the Wikipedia article on William James (see above). Below are excerpts in italics from the section Epistemology from William James’ article followed by my comments…

… in bold color:

(1)  “James defined true beliefs as those that prove useful to the believer.”

I think so too. A person will keep a belief because it is restraining some confusion. It helps him to think.

(2)  “Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as the extent to which they “hang together,” or cohere, as pieces of a puzzle might fit together; these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.”

Exactly so. Reality is what it is. Truth is the consistency among what is. This consistency exists between the thoughts and actual things. This consistency also exists among the thoughts themselves. An inconsistency indicates the presence of arbitrary assumptions.

(3)  “The most ancient parts of truth . . . also once were plastic. They also were called true for human reasons. They also mediated between still earlier truths and what in those days were novel observations.”

All truths are relative to each other. They are also consistent with each other. This is the case no matter how far back one goes. There is no absolute truth.

(4)  “… the value of any truth was utterly dependent upon its use to the person who held it.” 

Yes, that  would be personal truth. There is also broader truth that is based on reality regardless of personal viewpoint. The broader truth may be different from personal truth.

(5)  “… the world is a mosaic of diverse experiences that can only be properly interpreted and understood through an application of “radical empiricism.” [… the mind and its experiences, and nature are inseparable.]”

It is true that actual things and how they are perceived cannot be separated. No observation is truly objective. However, as we remove inconsistencies one by one, any observation can be brought closer to being objective.

(6)  “James’s emphasis on diversity as the default human condition—over and against duality, especially Hegelian dialectical duality—has maintained a strong influence in American culture…” 

That is correct. Awareness of ‘inconsistency’ is not necessarily a conflict between two opposites. It could be a more involved interaction. The inconsistency may not be resolved by a two- or multiple-valued logic. It may need to be approached with the infinite-valued logic of scales.

(7)  “The ‘facts’ themselves meanwhile are not true. They simply are. Truth is the function of the beliefs that start and terminate among them.”

Yes, the facts simply ARE. The truth lies in the interpretation that demonstrates consistency among them. Any inconsistency shall reveal arbitrary assumptions.

(8)  “James seems to speak of truth in relativistic terms… he supported an epistemological realism position.” [Epistemological realism holds that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind.]

When facts are simply taken for what they are, and the truth is measured in terms of consistency, or coherency, then it doesn’t matter whether an object exists independently of the mind or not.

.

From Wikipedia:

Epistemology (… from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning “knowledge, understanding”, and λόγος, logos, meaning “study of”) is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge and is also referred to as “theory of knowledge”. It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired, and the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired. Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. The term “epistemology” was introduced by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808–1864).

.

I shall now like to explore the subject of Epistemology through the Wikipedia article. Please see the comments below, which will be made over time.

.