Guest guest Posted February 9, 2000 Report Share Posted February 9, 2000 namaste, This reminds one of Shankara's 'dashashlokii': na saa~Nkhya.n na shaiva.n na tatpaa~ncharaatram.h na jaina.n na miimaa.nsakaadermata.n vaa . vishishhTaanubhuutyaa vishuddhaatmakatvaat.h tadeko.avishishhTaH shivaH kevalo.aham.h .. 4.. "Neither the doctrine of Sankhyas nor that of Saivas, nor that of those Pancharatrakas nor that of the Jainas nor that of Mimanasakas and others is sound, because Brahman is proved by a special realisation to be of the nature of extreme purity. I am That One, Auspicious and Pure who ever remains over." [from Sw. Chinmayananda, "Prayers Unto Him",2nd ed. 1985, p. 354,] >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda >advaitin >"Self Knowledge List" <selfknow-l, "list" ><ramakrishna > > Ref Science and Spirituality >Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:28:26 -0000 > >"Vivekananda Centre" <vivekananda > >Science and Spirituality: > >I received an interesting posting from Pundit Pravien Jyotishi on this >subject >He seems to come from the Jain tradition. Some of the point were relevant >to our earlier postings - hence I enclose part of his postings for the >list. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2000 Report Share Posted February 9, 2000 Science and Spirituality: I received an interesting posting from Pundit Pravien Jyotishi on this subject He seems to come from the Jain tradition. Some of the point were relevant to our earlier postings - hence I enclose part of his postings for the list. jay --------Posting from Pt Pravien Jyotishi--------------------- Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a "perhaps." If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not. It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?" Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity. Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: sapekshawad -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events. That's what modern science is saying, that there are no things in the world, but only events. And we cannot say anything absolutely, we cannot say, "This is so." Whenever somebody says absolutely, "This is so," he is behaving foolishly. In the past he was thought to be a man of knowledge; the more certain he was, the more it was thought that he knew. The uncertain person, the hesitating person, was thought to be ignorant. That's why Mahavira could not influence the world very much; he came too early, he arrived before his time. Now is the time for him -- now he will be understood by the scientist. He was talking to people, the ordinary masses, who could not understand his syadawad -- his perhaps-ism. People wanted certain knowledge: "Is there a God?" And Mahavira would say, "Perhaps. Yes -- in one way it can be said yes, and in another it can be said no. And both are right together, simultaneously." Now the time has come. Don't try to reconcile things -- that will be a false phenomenon. Just watch, just look deep into things as they are. They are already reconciled; there is no conflict in existence. All contraries are complementaries. very kind regards, Pt. Pravien Mahabier, Jyotishi. 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.