PDF here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s0PVe-oASEJE56ggvAw_ClIsRfaiZdG8/view?usp=sharing
Quantum Physics and Vedanta: A Perspective from Bernard d'Espagnat's Scientific Realism (Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 2011)
However, there is divergence on more specific issues. AV is in line with naıve realism regarding its conception of empirical reality. The objects perceived are conceived as concrete entities existing independently of the individual mind and senses, which apprehend objects directly as they are (Satprakashananda [1965] 2005, 66). In contrast, coemergence implies a reciprocal relationship between empirical reality and consciousness; the world perceived is not independent of but “built up” and “generated” out of sense perception and reasoning. Moreover, when d’Espagnat discusses consciousness, he means individual consciousness (especially featuring in quantum measurement) and not the pure, undifferentiated, and “cosmic” kind of consciousness featuring in AV. For d’Espagnat, consciousness “emerges” from ontological reality and is not fundamentally identical with it as in AV. Accordingly, it also differs from the Advaitic “witness-consciousness” insofar as the latter, though it underlies every individual act of knowing, is essentially nondifferent from Brahman.
Another point of divergence concerns the epistemic access to the nonconceptualizable element of reality. Can reality be known at all, and if so, how? D’Espagnat holds that ontological reality is “veiled” and not hidden, which involves the conjecture that the universal laws of physics are “highly distorted reflections—or traces impossible to decipher with certainty—of the great structures of the ‘the Real’” (d’Espagnat 2006, 455). Thus, ontological reality is structured whereas Brahman, by virtue of its nondual nature, is neither structured nor structureless. On this specific point, Herve Zwirn’s conception of a radically unknowable and ´ indescribable “something” seems closer to Brahman than d’Espagnat’s ontological reality. Also, d’Espagnat’s vague “glimpses” of the structures of the Real through the intermediary of the laws of physics is at variance with AV in that paravidy ¯ a¯ is incommensurable with aparavidy ¯ a¯. Empirical knowledge is of no avail to attain knowledge of Brahman. However, and this is another departure from d’Espagnat’s thought, knowledge of the nonconceptualizable Brahman can be fully gained according to AV. Whereas veiled reality, “same as horizon,” always remains a mystery beyond the scope of scientific knowledge, Brahman-knowledge can be unfolded through an adequate spiritual practice. Through proper ethical discipline, reflection, and meditation, Brahman can be realized in the immediate, intuitive, and nonconceptual experience of one’s innermost self. It is significant that d’Espagnat relies on specific scientific results of quantum physics to infer his notion of ontological reality. Here, knowledge of the world is conducive to knowledge of the “nonconceptualizable,” though there is ultimately no positive truth claim about the latter.
The Abrahamic God is not immanent, but transcendent.
ReplyDelete