Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 Perhaps you might have been bothered by the implication that the universe never was according to Advaita Vedanta. I confess I'm still bothered by it but the following quote from Amit Goswami's website ("Science Within Consciousness" http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/members/9802/) seems to corroborate this? More knowledgeable list members might elucidate the point... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ According to the equations of Special Relativity, as an observer's speed increases, time slows down, and length (in the direction of motion) contracts. At the speed of light, time has slowed to a standstill and length contracted to zero. Although no object with mass can ever attain the speed of light (the equations predict that it would then have an infinite mass), light itself does (by definition) travel at the speed of light. From light's point of view-and this after all must be the most appropriate perspective from which to consider the nature of light, not our matter-bound mode of experience-it travels no distance and takes no time to do so. This reflects a unique property of light. In the spacetime continuum, the interval between the two ends of a light ray is always zero. How can we interpret this? We probably should not even try to interpret it. Any attempt to do so would make the mistake of applying concepts derived from our image of reality to the underlying reality. All we need to recognize is that, from light's perspective, this zero interval manifests as zero space and a corresponding amount of zero time. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ intriguing huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 At 11:15 AM 7/19/99 -0700, a c wrote: >Perhaps you might have been bothered by the >implication that the universe never was according >to Advaita Vedanta. When I first heard this years ago, it felt liberating, not bothering. The Mandukya Upanishad does say the same thing, in terms of cause and effect not being real or operative. Ajata vada, the "highest" creation theory in advaita vedanta, is the theory of non-creation. There was never anything that was created. So the universe never was. >I confess I'm still bothered >by it but the following quote from Amit Goswami's >website ("Science Within Consciousness" >http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/members/9802/) >seems to corroborate this? More knowledgeable list >members might elucidate the point... I have no information on the front of physics, but it is wonderful that science is pointing in this same direction. Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 Hi Greg, > > When I first heard this years ago, it felt liberating, not bothering. > If the "universe never was" how could you have "heard this" or "felt" anything at any time? If there was no universe (therefore no hearing or feeling) - why now say there was hearing and feeling? If there was actually hearing and feeling why say there wasn't [ a universe which includes such things as hearing and feeling ] ? Asserting the non-existence of the universe is, by inclusion, also asserting the non-existence of that very assertion - which seems ridiculous on the face of it. Saying the universe is merely apparent is one thing, but to say this appearance does not exist just can't be true (according to me). I agree we are mere appearances and if that's all Advaita means by the "universe never was" then I have no problem with it but does Advaita also deny the appearance of appearances? I thought (perhaps incorrectly) they do and that's the part that bothers me. Can someone fix this for me? thanks, -A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 19, 1999 Report Share Posted July 19, 1999 At 02:29 PM 7/19/99 -0700, a c wrote: Greg wrote: >> When I first heard this years ago, it felt >liberating, not bothering. >If the "universe never was" how could you have >"heard this" or "felt" anything at any time? If >there was no universe (therefore no hearing or >feeling) - why now say there was hearing and >feeling? If there was actually hearing and feeling >why say there wasn't [ a universe which includes >such things as hearing and feeling ] ? Good points. Saying anything (even this!) about what "is" or "was" or "felt" or "believed" is just a manner of speaking, conventional, not ultimate, and will not withstand analysis. >Asserting the non-existence of the universe is, by >inclusion, also asserting the non-existence of >that very assertion - which seems ridiculous on >the face of it. Sounds like Buddhism's Middle Way (see below). >Saying the universe is merely >apparent is one thing, but to say this appearance >does not exist just can't be true (according to >me). Sounds more like advaita vedanta, which says that phenomenality is real (or existant) AS consciousness, but not as any kind of thing apart from consciousness. Not real or existent as something independent. Illusory, which Shankara said was unspeakable I believe. Middle-Way Buddhism (a la Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle Way) says that it is neither existent nor non-existent. Like you said, it would be ridiculous to say of an X that X does not exist. What this means is: Somehow there is an X. Non-existence is a property of this X. According to Nagarjuna, a phenomenon neither exists nor doesn't exist. And what existence means in this context is being inherently present, or having the quality of being in-and-of itself. If something exists according to the Middle Way, then this means inherent existence, as the nature of the thing. Then we couldn't account for the impermanence or the appearance of passing away of phenomena. If something DIDN'T exist inherently, we could never account for the apparent arising of phenomena, because inherent non-existence means that it is an inherent property of X not to appear or exist in any way at all. >I agree we are mere appearances and if that's all >Advaita means by the "universe never was" then I >have no problem with it but does Advaita also deny >the appearance of appearances? I thought (perhaps >incorrectly) they do and that's the part that >bothers me. Can someone fix this for me? Appearances is an OK way to think about it. Appearance means somehow other than reality. In advaita, the standards of reality are eternality, immutability and non-compoundedness. No phenomenon (appearance) has these characteristics. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.