前言：吠檀多哲学、虚拟现实与阿凡达的轮回
在这篇同时涉及到比较哲学、心灵哲学和技术批判的文章里，哲学家AkhandadhiDas尝试以印度古老的吠檀多哲学传统为切入点，加入到对心灵哲学、计算机技术和虚拟现实的讨论中来。AkhandadhiDas首先指出了古老的印度哲学，尤其是作为一种二元划分的东-西哲学笼罩下的印度哲学的当代价值（尽管这种辩护终究有些无力），随后便快速切入了对心灵哲学——尤其是对机器功能主义的有限批判，并通过这种反驳自然地引出了吠檀多哲学。（在机器功能主义中，心与脑的关系类似于计算机软件与硬件的关系，人类就如同集成了硬件和软件的计算机）
在吠檀多哲学看来，人的意识和心灵由阿特玛（atma）组成，世界本质上是虚假的，而阿特玛沉浸其中，产生了阿汉卡拉（ahankara），一种虚假的自我。换句话说，现实本身就是“虚拟的现实”，而没有人察觉这一点，他们没有发觉到自己的阿汉卡拉。VR技术则展示给了我们虚拟中的虚拟，这多少给了我们一些对现实的洞察力。随着讨论的进一步深入，Akhandadhi Das逐渐让吠檀多哲学的问题性和世界观显现出来，并以这种方式重新审视了当下的虚拟现实技术，他引导我们使用化身（“阿凡达”）、转世等概念重新看待虚拟现实技术，并且重新思考吠檀多对现实的虚假性的看法。
总体来说，本文的特点是通过吠檀多哲学对心灵哲学主题的重构，重新审视和规划了虚拟现实技术和现实之间的关系。尽管一些段落体现了不友好的观点（例如称一些玩家是“病态的”），但依旧有阅读的价值。
最后，我要感谢有道词典的人工智能，是智慧的它翻译了本文80%的内容，而不是我。赞美机神。
原文地址：https://aeon.co/ideas/modern-technology-is-akin-to-the-metaphysics-of-vedanta
是为前言。
……
作者介绍：Akhandadhi Das是一名吠檀多哲学家、毗湿奴派神学家和Buckland Hall（巴克兰德大厅）的主管，那是威尔士地区的会议和静修中心。他还是Scienceand Philosophy Initiative的一名成员，以及BBC印度哲学和精神传统栏目的播音员和顾问。
Akhandadhi Das is a Vedanta philosopher andVaishnava Hindu theologian. He is director of Buckland Hall, a conference andretreat center in Wales, a member of the Science and Philosophy Initiative, anda broadcaster and advisor to the BBC on Indian philosophical and spiritu altraditions.
正文：
你或许会认为，数字技术，作为一种西方的产物，会加剧东方哲学与西方哲学之间的分歧。但是，通过学习印度古老的吠檀多哲学，我看到了事物相反的一面。或许，通过对计算机技术、虚拟现实（VR）和人工智能（AI）的逐渐熟悉，“现代”社会将会发现，他们尚未真正意识到古老的吠檀多哲学在现代状况下的可取之处。
You might think that digital technologies,often considered a product of ‘the West’, would hasten the divergence ofEastern and Western philosophies. But within the study of Vedanta, an ancientIndian school of thought, I see the opposite effect at work. Thanks to ourgrowing familiarity with computing, virtual reality (VR) and artificialintelligence (AI), ‘modern’ societies are now better placed than ever to graspthe insights of this tradition.
吠檀多哲学总结了《奥义书》的形而上学，包括一些梵文的宗教文献的结集，大约写于公元前800年到前500年之间。它们形成了印度次大陆的哲学、宗教和神秘主义的传统的基础。《奥义书》同样启发了一批现代科学家，例如爱因斯坦，薛定谔和海森堡，他们努力发展了20世纪的量子物理学。
Vedanta summarises the metaphysics of theUpanishads, a clutch of Sanskrit religious texts, likely written between 800and 500 BCE. They form the basis for the many philosophical, spiritual andmystical traditions of the Indian sub-continent. The Upanishads were also asource of inspiration for some modern scientists, including Albert Einstein,Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg, as they struggled to comprehendquantum physics of the 20th century.
吠檀多学派的追求始于它所认定的逻辑**:我们自己的意识。他们渴望理解这个难题。当我们尚未了解何为观察和分析时，我们怎能对通过观察和分析所得来的结果投去盲目而未经审视的信任呢？看起来我们需要提高对意识问题的警惕性。人工智能、神经网络和深度学习的进步，使一些现代观察家倾向于认为，人类思维仅仅是一台复杂的、有机的计算机——而意识，如果它真的存在的话，可能只是一种从过度复杂的信息中涌现出来的属性。然而，这种观点并不能解释一些棘手的问题，比如我们的主观自我和我们感受到的体验，以及我们在所体验到的诸如“红色”或“甜蜜”这样的心灵内容。总的来说，弄清物质如何产生意识现象，这仍然是一个所谓的“难题”。
The Vedantic quest for understanding beginsfrom what it considers the logical starting point: our own consciousness. Howcan we trust conclusions about what we observe and analyse unless we understandwhat is doing the observation and analysis? The progress of AI, neural nets anddeep learning have inclined some modern observers to claim that the human mindis merely an intricate organic processing machine – and consciousness, if itexists at all, might simply be a property that emerges from informationcomplexity. However, this view fails to explain intractable issues such as thesubjective self and our experience of qualia, those aspects of mental contentsuch as ‘redness’ or ‘sweetness’ that we experience during conscious awareness.Figuring out how matter can produce phenomenal consciousness remains theso-called ‘hard problem’.
吠檀多提供了一个模型来整合主观意识和我们身体和大脑的信息处理系统。它的理论将大脑与心灵的感觉分开。但它也将心灵和意识的功能区分开来，后者被定义为体验心智输出的能力。从数字设备中，我们已经熟悉了这个概念。与电脑相连的照相机、麦克风或其他传感器收集有关世界的信息，并将各种形式的物理能量——光波、气压波等——转换成数字数据，就像我们身体的感觉一样。中央处理器处理这些数据并产生相关的输出。我们的大脑也是如此。在这两种情况下，主观经验在这些机制中发挥作用的空间似乎很小。
Vedanta offers a model to integratesubjective consciousness and the information-processing systems of our body andbrains. Its theory separates the brain and the senses from the mind. But italso distinguishes the mind from the function of consciousness, which itdefines as the ability to experience mental output. We’re familiar with thisnotion from our digital devices. A camera, microphone or other sensors linkedto a computer gather information about the world, and convert the various formsof physical energy – light waves, air pressure-waves and so forth – intodigital data, just as our bodily senses do. The central processing unitprocesses this data and produces relevant outputs. The same is true of ourbrain. In both contexts, there seems to be little scope for subjectiveexperience to play a role within these mechanisms.
虽然计算机可以在没有我们帮助的情况下处理各种各样的运算，但我们为它们提供了一个屏幕，作为机器和我们自己之间的接口。同样地，吠檀多假定意识实体——它称之为阿特玛（atma）——是心灵的输出的观察者。阿特玛，据说是由意识的基本属性组成的，这个概念在许多东方的冥想传统中被探索和实践。
While computers can handle all sorts ofprocessing without our help, we furnish them with a screen as an interfacebetween the machine and ourselves. Similarly, Vedanta postulates that theconscious entity – something it terms the atma – is the observer of the outputof the mind. The atma possesses, and is said to be composed of, the fundamentalproperty of consciousness. The concept is explored in many of the meditativepractices of Eastern traditions.
你可以这样来理解阿特玛（atma）：想象你正在电影院看一部恐怖片，你正担心主角被困在一个房间里。突然，电影里的门被粗暴地撞开了，你因此跳了起来，被吓了一跳。对你来说，真正的吓你一跳的是什么呢?通过在电影中暂停对你身体的意识，认同于屏幕上的角色，我们允许我们的情绪状态被操纵。吠檀多认为，阿特玛，即有意识的自我，以类似的方式与物质世界相一致。（暗指我们与电影院中的人一样，把自己“认同于屏幕上的虚拟角色”，而忽视了我们真实的内在。正如前文所言，阿特玛是心灵的输出，是我们自身心灵的观察者，近似来看，这里的“阿特玛”类似于印度次大陆传统的“自我”的概念。换句话说，阿特玛就是吠檀多哲学里的心灵、意识和“自我”。需要注意，作者在上一段中使用了心灵哲学和功能主义的概念来帮助理解阿特玛——译注）
You might think of the atma like this.Imagine you’re watching a film in the cinema. It’s a thriller, and you’reanxious about the lead character, trapped in a room. Suddenly, the door in themovie crashes open and there stands… You jump, as if startled.But what is thereal threat to you, other than maybe spilling your popcorn? By suspending anawareness of your body in the cinema, and identifying with the character on thescreen, we are allowing our emotional state to be manipulated. Vedanta suggeststhat the atma, the conscious self, identifies with the physical world in asimilar fashion.
这一理念也可以在VR的领域中得到探索。在进入游戏时，我们可能会被要求选择我们的角色或“阿凡达”（化身，avatar）——这最初是一个梵文单词，意思是“来自更高维度的人”。在较早的文献中，这个术语通常指的是神的化身。这个词源同样适合玩家，因为他或她选择从“正常”的现实世界下降，进入“虚拟”的现实世界，也就是虚拟现实世界。在明确了我们的化身的性别、身体特征、属性和技能之后，我们接下来学习如何控制它的四肢和使用工具。很快，我们的意识从我们的身体转移到虚拟现实中的化身。
This idea can also be explored in theall-consuming realm of VR. On entering a game, we might be asked to choose ourcharacter or avatar – originally a Sanskrit word, aptly enough, meaning ‘onewho descends from a higher dimension’. In older texts, the term often refers todivine incarnations. However, the etymology suits the gamer, as he or shechooses to descend from ‘normal’ reality and enter the VR world. Havingspecified our avatar’s gender, bodily features, attributes and skills, next welearn how to control its limbs and tools. Soon, our awareness diverts from ourphysical self to the VR capabilities of the avatar.
在吠檀多的心灵理论中，这种情形类似于阿特玛的心理人格，称为阿汉卡拉（ahankara）或“假我”。在现实生活中，我们根据我们的社会关系和身体的物理特征来定义我们自己，而不是把自己视为一个此世的超然的观察者。因此，我开始用自己的性别、种族、大小、年龄，以及家庭、工作、社区的角色和责任来认同自己。在这种条件下，我沉迷于相关的情绪中——有些是快乐的，有些则令人痛苦——这些情绪都是由我所目睹、我所经历的环境所生产的。
In Vedanta psychology, this is akin to theatma adopting the psychological persona-self it calls the ahankara, or the‘pseudo-ego’. Instead of a detached conscious observer, we choose to defineourselves in terms of our social connections and the physical characteristicsof the body. Thus, I come to believe in myself with reference to my gender,race, size, age and so forth, along with the roles and responsibilities offamily, work and community. Conditioned by such identification, I indulge inthe relevant emotions – some happy, some challenging or distressing – producedby the circumstances I witness myself undergoing.
在虚拟现实游戏中，我们的化身（avatar，“阿凡达”）只是对现实中的自我的苍白模仿。在我们与别的化身的互动中，我们可能很少透露自己的真实个性，相应地，他人也并不对我们打开心扉。的确，化身之间的遭遇——尤其是在竞争性较强的场景下——常常是尖酸刻薄的，似乎没人在乎化身背后的那个人何感何想。通过网络游戏建立的联系并不能代替其他社会关系。相反，正如约翰霍普金斯大学(Johns Hopkins University)的研究人员所指出的，拥有充足而美好的现实生活的游戏玩家（例如现充——译注）不太可能沉迷于游戏并患上抑郁症。
Within a VR game, our avatar represents apale imitation of our actual self and its entanglements. In our interactionswith the avatar-selves of others, we might reveal little about our truepersonality or feelings, and know correspondingly little about others’. Indeed,encounters among avatars – particularly when competitive or combative – areoften vitriolic, seemingly unrestrained by concern for the feelings of thepeople behind the avatars. Connections made through online gaming aren’t asubstitute for other relationships. Rather, as researchers at Johns HopkinsUniversity have noted, gamers with strong real-world social lives are lesslikely to fall prey to gaming addiction and depression.
这些观察反映了吠檀多学派的观点，即我们建立有意义的关系的能力会因为对阿汉卡拉(ahankara，伪自我)的专注而减弱。我越认为自己是一个物质实体，需要各种形式的感官满足，我就越有可能物化那些能满足我欲望的人，并在相互自私的基础上建立关系。但是吠檀多认为爱应该从自我的最深处散发出来。它声称，爱是一种灵魂对灵魂的体验。在阿汉卡拉（ahankara）的基础上与他人的互动只是一种感情的戏仿。这是不真实的。
These observations mirror the Vedanticclaim that our ability to form meaningful relationships is diminished byabsorption in the ahankara, the pseudo-ego. The more I regard myself as aphysical entity requiring various forms of sensual gratification, the morelikely I am to objectify those who can satisfy my desires, and to forgerelationships based on mutual selfishness. But Vedanta suggests that loveshould emanate from the deepest part of the self, not its assumed persona.Love, it claims, is soul-to-soul experience. Interactions with others on thebasis of the ahankara offer only a parody of affection.
作为阿特玛（atma），我们在整个生命中始终保持着相同的主观自我。我们的身体、心理和个性会发生巨大的变化，但在整个过程中，我们知道自己是一个持续的观察者。然而，当我们看到周围的一切都在改变时，我们怀疑自己也会受到变化、衰老和毁灭的影响。瑜伽，由帕坦伽利(Patanjali，一位或多位作家，就像公元前2世纪的荷马)所系统化，旨在成为一种实用的方法，将阿特玛从无情的精神磨难中解脱出来，并恰当地置于纯粹意识所看到的现实中。
As the atma, we remain the same subjectiveself throughout the whole of our life. Our body, mentality and personalitychange dramatically – but throughout it all, we know ourselves to be theconstant observer. However, seeing everything shift and give way around us, wesuspect that we’re also subject to change, ageing and heading for annihilation.Yoga, as systematised by Patanjali – an author or authors, like ‘Homer’, wholived in the 2nd century BCE – is intended to be a practical method for freeingthe atma from relentless mental tribulation, and to be properly situated in thereality of pure consciousness.
在虚拟现实中，我们经常被召唤去与邪恶势力作战，一路上面对危险和死亡。尽管我们努力了，不可避免的事情却总是发生:我们的化身会被杀死。游戏结束。众所周知，游戏玩家，尤其是有一些病态的游戏玩家，会对他们的角色产生深深的依恋，当他们的角色受到伤害时，他们会感到痛苦。幸运的是，我们通常会得到另一个机会:“你想再玩一次吗?”确实如此。也许我们会根据上次的经验教训，创造出一个新的化身，一个更熟练的角色。这反映了吠陀关于转世的概念，特别是它的转世形式:轮回的意识进入一个新的物质载体。
In VR, we’re often called upon to do battlewith evil forces, confronting jeopardy and virtual mortality along the way.Despite our efforts, the inevitable almost always happens: our avatar iskilled. Game over. Gamers, especially pathological gamers, are known to becomedeeply attached to their avatars, and can suffer distress when their avatarsare harmed. Fortunately, we’re usually offered another chance: Do you want toplay again? Sure enough, we do. Perhaps we create a new avatar, someone moreadept, based on the lessons learned last time around. This mirrors the Vedanticconcept of reincarnation, specifically in its form of metempsychosis: thetransmigration of the conscious self into a new physical vehicle.
一些评论者将吠檀多解读为，它暗示没有真实的世界，所有存在的都仅仅是意识的觉知。然而，对《吠陀经》文本更广泛的理解更类似于VR这样的虚拟现实技术。虚拟现实世界完全是数据，但当这些信息通过屏幕或耳机以图像和声音的形式呈现给我们的感官时，它就变成了“真实的”。同样地，对吠檀多来说，外部世界作为可观察对象的短暂显现，使它不如观察它的意识的永恒不变的本性那样“真实”。
Some commentators interpret Vedanta assuggesting that there is no real world, and that all that exists is consciousawareness. However, a broader take on Vedantic texts is more akin to VR. The VRworld is wholly data, but it becomes ‘real’ when that information manifestsitself to our senses as imagery and sounds on the screen or through a headset.Similarly, for Vedanta, it is the external world’s transitory manifestation asobservable objects that makes it less ‘real’ than the perpetual, unchanging natureof the consciousness that observes it.
对古代哲人来说，将自己沉浸在朝生暮死的世界中意味着允许阿特玛屈服于一种幻觉:我们的意识在某种程度上是外部世界的一部分，并且必须与它一起痛苦或快乐。想想帕坦伽利和吠檀多先祖们会如何看待VR：或许是幻觉中的幻觉。但这也许能帮助我们理解他们信息中的力量。
To the sages of old, immersing ourselves inthe ephemeral world means allowing the atma to succumb to an illusion: theillusion that our consciousness is somehow part of an external scene, and mustsuffer or enjoy along with it. It’s amusing to think what Patanjali and theVedantic fathers would make of VR: an illusion within an illusion, perhaps, butone that might help us to grasp the potency of their message.