Ancient Science: Studying thoughts

In this 6th part of the series Exploring science in ancient science, I will write about “thought”. In the previous blog, Understanding Transformation, I had written how everything around me is just a transformation of some underlying, which appears to me as either matter, light or any other observable that I can observe around me. As I had indicated in the previous blog, according to ancient science, that something which appears to me as this reality around me is “thought”. So, the question arises “What is thought?”

In modern science “thought” is said to be formed by patterns of electrical signals in neurons. This definition is more physical in nature. As I have indicated in the book “Surya Siddanta: Emergence of empirical reality“, we need to question ourselves if we have not “reversed the cause and effect” in the observable universe? We have to ask ourselves: “Is thought a response to electrical signals in the neurons” or “are the electrical signals in the neurons a response to the formation of thought?” In modern science, there is no way to find the answer to this question. While it is definitely possible that electrical signals produced in the brain can be tapped into to interact with a computer or electrical signals can be observed and the neurons that are involved in it be traced when a specific thought occurs, it should be noted they can just as well be a reaction as opposed to being the actual cause or the thought itself. The fact that we measure is indicative of nothing of the process or the definition.

As I have said in my book “A Research of Shiva: The Enigma“, there are limitations when we study with the manas. When we study with our manas, we are dependant on the sensors that detect or observe. Observers can only observe what has already happened, never during or before the fact. A thermometer can detect temperature, that temperature already is in the now as opposed to what it will be in the next instant. Further it should be noted that in all these cases, the sensor is just detecting a property related to the observed not the actual. For example, if we picked up a piezoelectric element and tried to measure pressure using it, we can only measure the pressure that is greater than the sensitivity of the piezoelectric element. So, what we are really measuring is the effect of pressure on the piezoelectric element as opposed to pressure itself. Similarly in the case of thought, viewing an electrical signals using the sensors can only detect after the fact of formation of a thought, i.e., the effect of the electric signals produced due to a thought on the neuron not the thought itself. Further this is dependant on the sensitivity of our neurons as well as the electric signal detector that we have. A double redirection. Our science simply does not have the observing capacity to observe this or the fundamentals necessary to logically analyse and reason out the answer to this question.

Thought has a further disadvantage. We need to recognise that we understand everything via “thought”. To know “matter” a thought has to be formed. To know colour, a thought has to be formed. To know a scientific concept such as newton’s law, concepts in physics, chemistry, maths, technology, any concept, a thought has to be formed. Further it should be recognised that these “thoughts” have no clue whether any of these have an existence if the “thought of it is not present”? So, do I know if “matter” has an existence if the “thought of matter” is not present? Do I know if “colour” has an existence if the “thought of colour” is not present? The catch-22 situation here is that “if I have to know, definitely a thought has to be formed”. But, “I want to know what exists when that thought is not present”. How can I know it? It can be argued that “when I am dead, I have no thought of it, yet it exists”. The point to note here is “thought existing need not be just in this I”, “thought existing in any I becomes an observable”. So, what happens when there is no thought at all of any specific concept or thing? For this, we need to understand what a thought is, independent of the “individual”.

To go further to understand thought, we need to ask ourselves the question “Is thought purely a sentient (what we call sentient) concept or do non-sentient also have thoughts?” Before scoffing it off as a silly question, ask yourself this: If I drop water on copper what happens vs if I drop nitric acid on copper what happens? In the first there is no reaction while in the second nitrogen-dioxide is released. The core question here is how does the atoms of copper know whether it is water or in nitric acid that being dropped on it? While there can be a number of answers to this ranging from based on valency, atomic reaction blah, blah.. the truth is, all these are descriptions or explanations given after an observation of the result by the human intelligence. It does not explain how a “redox” is recognised by the elements, atoms or electrons inherently? Isn’t this similar to taking a human being and putting them into a new surrounding and studying how they react? Ins’t the process the human intelligence goes through to adapt to the environment is a slowed down version of the process the copper goes through to adapt to the environment change when nitric acid or water is added? Why aren’t these considered similar situations? Humans form what they call “intelligent thoughts”, the key word being “they call intelligent”. So why not a similar process occur when an inanimate has its surrounding changed? What is that process of adaptation? Isn’t that similar to formation of a thought? This in ancient science is called knowledge. Knowledge of the environment. I have explain this in both my books. So, how is this knowledge formed? Studying this leads us directly to thoughts. In ancient science thought is a “construct of change” or what is called “prANa”.

When we research thoughts, we need to acknowledge the fact that we are actually forming other thoughts about thoughts which by themselves also have the same composition. There are two qualities of thought that are detrimental to such a research.

The first and foremost is the cascading quality of thoughts. What does cascading mean? We often find that one thought leads to another which leads to another and this chain goes on before long we find that the mind has shifted focus and sometimes the topic of thought also has completely changed from the original. Very often we will start with observing the thoughts and subsequently have migrated away from it to imagination. So, we need to consciously prevent the cascading of thoughts which goes into imagination.

The next quality of thought that is a problem is the formation of a thought of “discomfort” or “any emotions”. We find that we have this inherent quality of judging which is very important to maintaining the logic that we have established for existence as I have indicated in the topic on logic. Emotions, judgmental thoughts, expectational thoughts are all part of this inherent process that we have for existence of weeding out thoughts that don’t match our logic of existence. “Studying thoughts” is not obviously not a part of the logic. Hence, when we start observing thoughts, the thought formed inherently is classified using our judgement and emotions arise to either weed out the thought or integrate the thought into our logic. When this occurs, we find that we are not observing the thoughts objectively to research and study, but we have fallen into the trap of the comfort thoughts that we always like and this takes us nowhere.

When we remove all these above from the thought observing other thoughts and focus on a single thought and ask ourselves “How did that thought form?”, we find that the first starting point is when there is small piece of triggering information that allows us to consciously realise that there is a difference between what we currently know and what is being presented to us. When this epiphany occurs and we seem to focus on that difference and it blows up into a full blown thought. Subsequently that goes further into a path of its own, triggering other thoughts. What is that smallest difference that we could detect and triggers a thought? According to ancient science that quantity of change is called “viNADi” and 6 of which forms “prANA”. If we see here, we have two necessary pieces “a reference agains which change can be measured” and “the change itself”. So, what is that which is changing which allows us to detect it. That is the underlying truth.

To follow through the sequence, according to ancient science, there is a change which can be accumulated together to form a root thought, these root thoughts come together in some logic to form groups of thoughts and establish a path for themselves and become existent, these then bind to each other in bonds to form a network which then undergoes a transformation to appear as space and nodes of thoughts appearing as matter. In this individuals arise to be able to identify external and internal and thus starts reality.

One Comment on “Ancient Science: Studying thoughts

  1. Pingback: Exploring science in ancient scriptures | Research of Ancient Philosophy

%d bloggers like this: