Comment by chandureddyvari | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chandureddyvari | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

chandureddyvari

There’s a relevant quote from Swami Vivekananda on this

From Karma Yoga, Chapter: I, Karma in its effect on character—

What we say a man “knows”, should, in strict psychological language, be what he “discovers” or “unveils”; what a man “learns” is really what he “discovers”, by taking the cover off his own soul, which is a mine of infinite knowledge.

We say Newton discovered gravitation. Was it sitting anywhere in a corner waiting for him? It was in his own mind; the time came and he found it out. All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind; the infinite library of the universe is in your own mind. The external world is simply the suggestion, the occasion, which sets you to study your own mind, but the object of your study is always your own mind. The falling of an apple gave the suggestion to Newton, and he studied his own mind. He rearranged all the previous links of thought in his mind and discovered a new link among them, which we call the law of gravitation. It was not in the apple nor in anything in the centre of the earth.

Whenever I read about Ramanujan having divine revealing formulas in his dreams, I remember Swami Vivekananda’s quoute on consciousness and mind.

edit: found another relevant quote from Upanishads on tapping the infinite knowledge:

Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.9:

“Eṣa sarveṣu bhūteṣu gūḍhātmanā prakāśate, dṛśyate tvagryayā buddhyā sūkṣmayā sūkṣmadarśibhiḥ”

Translation: “The Self hidden in all beings does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their one-pointed and subtle intellect.”

Explanation: The ultimate knowledge or truth is hidden within all beings and is revealed through subtle inner perception. The idea is knowledge is latent within the mind, and it is discovered, not externally found.

Not sure I follow the explanation. And apologies cause I’m not that familiar with these texts, but afaik it talks about “soul” here, not information? Words like Brahman, Atman come to mind.

In case I mistook it, ignore the above.

All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind

Doesn’t it come from the mind’s interaction with the world? I don’t think that any important knowledge comes from doing nothing (apart from psychology due to its nature). It all sounds like a typical religious salad, tbh. “You” discover from your “mind”, but then some seers understand that “you” and “all” and “mind” are the same, etc. Well, you don’t have to be a seer to see it. “You discover from your mind” is a useless semantic loop that creates all this unnecessary complexity, imo.

>> All knowledge that the world has ever received comes from the mind

> Doesn’t it come from the mind’s interaction with the world?

There is no difference between these concepts, is there? In both cases knowledge comes from the mind.

Also, you can come up with ideas without interacting with the outside world, can you not? This feels like nitpicking.

The mind quickly falls apart when interaction-deprived (at least human one). This whole “comes from the mind” is just a metaphor, because the mind is also the arriving point, so it’s like “knowledge is defined by and comes from where it arrives to, on itself”. This semantic no-op nonsense originates in taking this metaphor literally, which one should not do.

What physically happens is that a mind accumulates and (sometimes) systematizes information from outside, and knowledge is the result of this concentration process. Akin to a puddle collecting water from higher grounds. But it doesn’t synthesize water by simply being concave.

Blowing ideas out of poor metaphors is a regular thing in religious texts, so be careful with that if you want to build some practical world view.

I think you're too hung up on the mind part. I don't understand this as saying the mind synthesizes knowledge from nothing. That's why I said, there is no fundamental difference for me - whether the mind conceives of something new, or synthesizes knowledge from outside information is not very interesting a difference, since a mind is required to grasp this knowledge.

Maybe a better term would be information vs. knowledge.

That’s beautiful, thanks for sharing. I’ve seen that firsthand growing up. It’s like when you hear a song as a kid, and it just sounds cool. But then, later in life, you hear the same song, and it hits you on a whole different level—like the meaning was always there, but you had to live through stuff to really get it.

The master appears when the student is ready.

> Translation: “The Self hidden in all beings does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their one-pointed and subtle intellect.”

That doesn't look sound to me. If the "seers" are seeing "The Self", are they beyond and separate from "The Self"? If they do so with their "subtle intellect", is that intellect outside of "The Self"?

If affirmative, then "The Self" is something external to the seer, making the term a misnomer. And furthermore, there is something outside of The Self (that which is seeing The Self), which remains to be explicated.

I'll try to slightly dive into Advaita philosophy here. Both the Upanishads and the Yoga Vasistha affirm that the distinction between the seer and the Self is an illusion created by the mind. When this illusion is dispelled, the oneness of the Self is realized. The intellect, which seems to function as a separate tool, is ultimately part of the same illusion. True knowledge is realizing that there is no separation—everything is the Self.

Quoting one from Katha Upanishad 1.3.10:

"Indriyebhyaḥ parā hy artha, arthebhyas ca param manah, manasas tu parā buddhir buddher ātmā mahān parah"

Translation: "Beyond the senses are the objects, beyond the objects is the mind, beyond the mind is the intellect, beyond the intellect is the Self."

This quote emphasizes that the intellect is still a part of the illusion. Beyond even the intellect lies the Self, which is one and undivided.

Stupid question but why didn't Newton come up with Relativity instead?

Likely because it's far more complicated than Newtonian gravity and he wouldn't have been aware of the shortcomings of his theory e.g. Mercury's orbit. Also, the study of light was only just beginning in Newton's era - Ole Rømer's measurement of the speed of light was in 1676, but Maxwell's theories didn't come out until 1865.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com