Doing - me or God

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis, Sadananda and all:

 

We all agree that human agency is

illusory, that the gunas alone act.

But how does it come to pass that

the gunas act in one way rather than

another?. If the 'divine will'

(with apologies to Sadananda and Frank

--- this phrase is useful and well

sanctioned in other traditions so I

propose to use it)

is arbitrary and incomprehensible how is

it possible for us to acquiesce or

submit

to it? In other words, if things are not

to our liking and we believe

that Ishwara could have willed them to

be otherwise is there any reason other

than slavish obedience why we should not

revolt against them?

Frank suggests that this is not an

important question but it seems clear to

me that it is.

 

Spinoza proposed a rather drastic

solution to this problem: it is part of

the

perfection of God's creation that it is

logically impossible for things to

be other than they are. (In modern terms

this is Penrose's 'strong determinism'.)

 

Note, Dennis, this is stronger than the

painting metaphor (which might be called

'classical determinism')

because, in your presentation, the

painting is not the only one which is

logically possible.

And note that to say that strong

determinism is a limitation on 'God's

free will' doesn't

make sense unless an embargo on

logically impossible behaviour is a

limitation. Likewise

I would refute Sadananda's objection

> Since he has all the capacities that one can dream off,

> he can create more than one universe or universes with many histories.

 

by pointing out that is not imposing a

limitation on Iswhara to say that he

only conceives

universes which are logically possible.

I also think that the suggestion here

that

that there are opportunities for

creation that Ishwara fails to avail

himself of (by exercising

his 'free will' and choosing to create

one universe rather than another) must

be wrong ---

surely *this* is a limitation on his

creativity.

 

I hope this provides some food for

thought.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis, Patrick, Sadananda, frank, and others,

 

Welcome Patrick!

 

Had to join this fascinating discussion. I agree with frank's intuitions

of God being construed as Isvara, Hiranyagarba, Avalokitesvara, Jaweh or

JHVH, Allah, etc. And that this is a relative entitification. These are

all characters, many are anthropomorphic. How could they not be within the

relative?

 

As to whether God (construed this way) has free will -- this character

lacks free will for the same reason we do. Any movement or action or

thought associated with this divine character is again characterizeable by

the whirling of the gunas. This isn't to deny, however, that there are

teachings whose efficacy depends on our human belief that God has free

will! Just like there are teachings that depend on our belief that *we*

have free will! These teachings are beautiful and profound and

inspirational, and are part of the magnificent display. God, beliefs in

God, seeking God, devotional actions towards God, are all part of God's

wonderful display!!

 

Maybe I'm coming into this too late to know what the painting metaphor is,

but Patrick mentioned that the painting metaphor of determinism allows for

alternative paintings to exist, and is therefore not as strong as strong

determinism. Is this the same one that Ramesh Balsekar talks about? The

50-mile-long painting that represents all of phenomenality, that is already

set, but it is looked at from left to right, through time, so that there is

the appearance of sequentiality and cause-effect? If so, then it's

certainly strong enough. Going by the evidence within the painting, which

is all the evidence there is - there is no evidence of the existence of

another painting.

 

Maybe you could summarize the "logical impossibility" argument of

Spinoza's. Does it depend on a particular definition of God?

 

It is a very useful was to characterize determinism as that description of

phenomenality in which no two historical narratives can be true. No

alternate histories. On the micro level, this translates to there being no

true counterfactual statement, and no cause-effect relations. "No

alternate history" means nothing can be/could have been different from the

way it is now. Is-ness. Simultaneity. We can *say* things like "I would

have liked to go to Cancun instead of Guadalajara," but upon analysis, this

makes no real sense. It is an evocative statement, not pointing to any

counterfactual state of affairs. Basically, in this kind of determinism,

there are no woulda-coulda-shoulda's, no if-then's, no why-and-because's.

A true intuitive understanding of this usually serves to calm the mind's

seeking impulse to ask "why" questions about the way phenomenality is.

 

But in advaita it's not called determinism. The insight in advaita or

non-dualism is not that entities are determined -- but rather that there

are no separate entities. Nothing exists such that it could either have

free will or be determined. It is for *that* reason that it is said that

there's no free will. But there's really no determinism either. About

*what* would that statement be made?

 

Welcome again, Patrick! Nice to hear your interesting and sophisticated

thoughts on these issues.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 10:04 AM 8/17/00 -0400, you wrote:

>>>>

Dear Dennis, Sadananda and all:

 

We all agree that human agency is

illusory, that the gunas alone act.

But how does it come to pass that

the gunas act in one way rather than

another?. If the 'divine will'

(with apologies to Sadananda and Frank

--- this phrase is useful and well

sanctioned in other traditions so I

propose to use it)

is arbitrary and incomprehensible how is

it possible for us to acquiesce or

submit

to it? In other words, if things are not

to our liking and we believe

that Ishwara could have willed them to

be otherwise is there any reason other

than slavish obedience why we should not

revolt against them?

Frank suggests that this is not an

important question but it seems clear to

me that it is.

 

Spinoza proposed a rather drastic

solution to this problem: it is part of

the

perfection of God's creation that it is

logically impossible for things to

be other than they are. (In modern terms

this is Penrose's 'strong determinism'.)

 

Note, Dennis, this is stronger than the

painting metaphor (which might be called

'classical determinism')

because, in your presentation, the

painting is not the only one which is

logically possible.

And note that to say that strong

determinism is a limitation on 'God's

free will' doesn't

make sense unless an embargo on

logically impossible behaviour is a

limitation. Likewise

I would refute Sadananda's objection

> Since he has all the capacities that one can dream off,

> he can create more than one universe or universes with many histories.

 

by pointing out that is not imposing a

limitation on Iswhara to say that he

only conceives

universes which are logically possible.

I also think that the suggestion here

that

that there are opportunities for

creation that Ishwara fails to avail

himself of (by exercising

his 'free will' and choosing to create

one universe rather than another) must

be wrong ---

surely *this* is a limitation on his

creativity.

 

I hope this provides some food for

thought.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

----------

<http://click./1/7748/6/_/489436/_/966521057/>

 

----------

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/ To from the list, send Email to

<advaitin- > For other contact, Email to

<advaitins

 

 

<<<<

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

I am very pleased to have engaged your interest in this question and I

look forward to your contributions.

> As to whether God (construed this way) has free will -- this

character

> lacks free will for the same reason we do. Any movement or action

or

> thought associated with this divine character is again

characterizeable by

> the whirling of the gunas.

 

OK so Iswhara is conditioned by the gunas. But surely the gunas are

not free agents?

> Maybe I'm coming into this too late to know what the painting

metaphor is,

> but Patrick mentioned that the painting metaphor of determinism

allows for

> alternative paintings to exist, and is therefore not as strong as

strong

> determinism. Is this the same one that Ramesh Balsekar talks

about? The

> 50-mile-long painting that represents all of phenomenality, that is

already

> set, but it is looked at from left to right, through time, so that

there is

> the appearance of sequentiality and cause-effect? If so, then it's

> certainly strong enough. Going by the evidence within the painting,

which

> is all the evidence there is - there is no evidence of the existence

of

> another painting.

 

Interesting point. We'll have to ask Dennis (it surely wasn't what he

had in mind!)

> Maybe you could summarize the "logical impossibility" argument of

> Spinoza's. Does it depend on a particular definition of God?

 

Unfortunately I don't buy Spinoza's argument myself and I wouldn't be

able to defend his metaphysics in open court, but to answer your

questions in 100 words or less:

 

Spinoza's God is the totality of all that is, understood as an

individual being ('the infinite and eternal being who is God or

nature') apart from whom there are no other beings. (This doctrine is

known as the 'uniqueness of substance'.) God is the sole free cause,

beyond good and evil and wholly immanent. He is knwowable to us

through two attributes, thought and extension, and these are parallel

so that whatever is known under one attribute can be translated to the

other. Thus for Spinoza it is equally correct to say that God is the

World (the extended thing) and God is consciousness (the thinking

thing) and physics and logic are co-extensive. The argument for strong

determinism ('Things could not have been brought into being by

God in any order or in any manner other than that which has in fact

obtained') is based on the perfection or maximality or uniqeness of

God: if another universe is logically possible but not realized then

God, the extended thing, is not all that he could be.

 

The idea that all things follow from the divine nature in an

absolutely necessary way is central to his philosophy which he is

brazen enough to cast as a way to salvation. Man's 'freedom, salvation

or blessedness' lies in the constant and eternal love of God, and this

'intellectual love' is *nothing other* than the pleasure of

understanding how individual things (and in particular our emotions)

arise with inexorable logic from the 'necessity of the divine nature'.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Patrick worte:

>

>We all agree that human agency is

>illusory, that the gunas alone act.

>But how does it come to pass that

>the gunas act in one way rather than

>another?.

 

Since that one way includes all the one ways, in any particular way they

act, the same question remains as to why did they act that way and not

another way. The question may cease only when the actions are random and

unpredictable. We will come back to this but first a little clarification.

 

First let us be clear from Advaita point - Brahman is the absolute state

beyond descriptions - one without a second. All discussions of wills and

no-will actually at the next level - vyavahaara

 

Here we talk about Iswara, the creator, the Jagat, the universe, and jiiva,

the individual. We have already come down to next level and what we talk

has no relavance at the Brahman state. Things get muddy if we keep

changing these reference states- jump from Iswara to Brahman sometimes

without realizing it - this is just for clarificaition.

 

When we say prakriti acts with its guna's behind, it acts as per the laws

of nature established with the creation. Since there is the intelligence

behind the prakriti propelling it to act, and the intellegent or

intellegence being what it is, cannot act unintelligently - is that a

limitation? No it is its glory. Hence creation is not a random process

but well ordered or behaved thermodynamic system. Randomly typing

somethings and expect to have an order in the results is not possible.

That is why it is called creation rather than random process. Laws that

are discovered in a corner of laboratory are universal and valid galaxies

and galaxies away implies that the sytem is well behaved.

Hence there is always a perticular way, the way is propelled by the results

of the previous action and the expectation of the results for the future.

Only otherway is an unintellegent random way and that is washedout since

intelligence is behind the prakriti with its Guna-s.

 

If the 'divine will'

>(with apologies to Sadananda and Frank

>--- this phrase is useful and well

>sanctioned in other traditions so I

>propose to use it)

>is arbitrary and incomprehensible how is

>it possible for us to acquiesce or

>submit

>to it?

Divine will is O,K since we are now taking at the level of Iswara and not

Brahman. No need for apology. At the Iswara level there is a divine will.

It is sanctioned in the Advaita too.

In Ch. Up - bahusyaam prajaayeyeti - He wanted to become many and He became

many - That was a willful action - 'nowill' 'no action' etc are at Brahman

level as long as we donot get these concpets mixed up there is no problem.

 

Now 'divine will' is not random or arbitrary and incomprehensible either

from Iswara point. He follws the laws laid down by himslef. Just as there

is no arbitraryness and inconsistencies in the laws governing our dream

creations from dremers point of view. Waker may have a different openion or

limited subject in the dream may have a different openion about it.

Creation being a creation, it is as I said has to be a well behaved system

and cannot be arbitray impling randomness. Otherwise the scientists will

be out of jobs.

>From our limited intellect, yes we may see orbitraryness but that is the

limitation of our intellect and not the limitaion of the Iswara or

creation. Hence basis for your question is itself is invalid.

 

In other words, if things are not

>to our liking and we believe

>that Ishwara could have willed them to

>be otherwise is there any reason other

>than slavish obedience why we should not

>revolt against them?

 

No need to be slave either - by all means revolt - Suppose I donot like

'gravitaional force'. I donot like to be slave to that force - so what do I

do - I can not jump from the fouth floor just becuse I donot like the

gravitaional force. Of course I can use my intelligence and try to

udersand the laws governing the gravitation and make use of it to overcome

it. Hence it is not slavish obedience to Iswara, but appreciation of His

laws and use the very intelligence that He has given to do what I like.

Revolt if you can and if that helps to conquer the laws you will. But then

even that capacity to overcome are already there in the Iswara's creation.

I wouldnot call it revolt any more but use of proper intelligence to arrive

what you want - since such possibilities already exist in the Iswara

creation. I would thank him for that.

 

>Frank suggests that this is not an

>important question but it seems clear to

>me that it is.

>Spinoza proposed a rather drastic

>solution to this problem: it is part of

>the

>perfection of God's creation that it is

>logically impossible for things to

>be other than they are. (In modern terms

>this is Penrose's 'strong determinism'.)

 

I donot know what Spinoza's theory - but based on what you wrote - I donot

see any dramatics involved. A solution to any problem in the creation are

part of the creation too. There is nothing absolutely man made - the

possiblilites for man to make or in the above case the posibilities for any

drastic solution is not out side the scope of creation - it all follows the

laws of nature hence within the creation. I am missing the profoundity of

Spinaza's statement.

 

Likewise

>I would refute Sadananda's objection

>

>> Since he has all the capacities that one can dream off,

>> he can create more than one universe or universes with many histories.

>

>by pointing out that is not imposing a

>limitation on Iswhara to say that he

>only conceives

>universes which are logically possible.

 

I donot imply exactly that - He being the cretor and system being a

creation, to be qualified to be called as creation - it is not random and

hence follows as a well behaved thermodynamic system - Logic is only from

our level - Some time our intellect cannot apprehend what people call

'miracles' which does not seem to be logical - From large pedastal these

possiblities are also exist in the creation follows their own laws which

are with in the system. From the total intellegence one can use your

teminology that everything is logical since intellience is behind it -

otherwise it is only be illogical - then it is not a creation but random

and no intellgence can be behind the illogical. This is a fundamental

contradition - intelligent doing unintelligent - not a limitation of Iswara

>I also think that the suggestion here

>that

>that there are opportunities for

>creation that Ishwara fails to avail

>himself of (by exercising

>his 'free will' and choosing to create

>one universe rather than another) must

>be wrong ---

>surely *this* is a limitation on his

>creativity.

 

How do you know what opportunities that he did not exercise. The point is

all opportunities are with in the creation itself. If there are such

possiblilities that exists then he has created those possiblities and

therefore they are within the system. Sitting inside the sytem one never

think of any possiblities beyond the system and one goes out of the sytem

then one discovers that there is no system to be outside or inside to

concern about. This is the nature of the problem here.

 

I am not sure we are communicating on the same wave length - but I am sure

we will merge even if we do not agree on the subject..

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

>I hope this provides some food for

>thought.

>

>Regards,

>

>Patrick

>

>

>

>Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

>focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

>are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ To

>from the list, send Email to <advaitin- > For other

>contact, Email to <advaitins

>

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Patrick Kenny wrote:

>

> [...] ....if things are not

> to our liking and we believe

> that Ishwara could have willed them to

> be otherwise is there any reason other

> than slavish obedience why we should not

> revolt against them?

> Frank suggests that this is not an

> important question but it seems clear to

> me that it is.

>

 

namaste

 

well, it has relative importance, and

this in contrast to 'Absolute importance'

--if i may put it this way for argument's

sake [because 'Absolute importance' is an

incongruency of terms! as ramji emphasized,

the paramarthika (Absolute) and vyavaharika

(Relative) levels cannot be intermixed]...

that is, no adjectives or adjuncts can

go with the Absolute--really has no

consequential weight!

 

in other words, once the ineffable brahman

fills the Heart, one's svabhavana (self

feeling-essence) soars *far* beyond the

joys and sorrows experienced in the mental

ruminations of [what i'll call] 'ordinary

awareness,' and the matter of worldly likes

and/or dislikes are experienced as merely

superficial playthings! yes. the world

no longer has the intensity or gravity it

formerly carried. therefore the questions

of whether one should revolt are dependant

upon whether any consequential problems

are perceived to begin with! this is why

i maintain the world is perfect *as is*

and is indeed the product of a permanent,

universal archetype in Relativity--which

requires [in order to function]--the forces

of light and darkness. this is why the

sages and sruti have viewed the projection

of brahman into Life as Leela (the Play).

 

OM shaanthi

[Guest guest]

Hi Patrick,

 

You know, now that I see your summary of Spinoza's argument, I don't buy it

either. Thanks for sharing it. The soundness of arguments depends on

their definitions being true, and intuitive. What I'm not crazy about is

Spinoza's definition of God...

 

You ask,

>>>>

OK so Iswhara is conditioned by the gunas. But surely the gunas are

not free agents?

 

God is not conditioned by the gunas. God doesn't control the gunas (there

are some teachings that say that God wields the gunas), and the gunas don't

control God. Rather, God's actions *just are* actions of gunas. Whatever

is attributed to God, whatever God is said to do, is actually guna-whirling.

 

And the gunas themselves are not free or unfree agents, nor do they control

anything else. They just *are*.

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram, Sadananda and Greg,

 

Thank you for your replies. I'm pressed for time right now so I can

only respond to Sadananda. (I think this is important since we are

definitely talking at cross purposes.)

 

Two types of determinism (at least!) need to be distinguished:

 

(1) Classical Determinism (often associated with Laplace). According

to Newtonian physics, a complete knowledge of the state of the

universe at any instant together with the laws of physics is

sufficient to determine the entire history of the universe (past and

future). Newton and apparently Sadananda (you are in eminently good

company) believe that the laws of physics are decided by the whim of

the Creator, so that many different universes are logically possible.

 

(2) Strong Determinism (raised as a possibility by Penrose in the

book "The Emporor's New Mind" but unfortunately not mentioned in the

review that Ram has referred us to) says that there is only one

logically consistent set of physical laws and constants and hence only

one logically possible universe. (Spinoza's proposition that 'Things

could not have been brought into being by God in any order or in any

manner other than that which has in fact obtained' is an equivalent

formulation in terms which are more familiar to members of the list.)

 

Personally I would very much like to be convinced of the truth of (2)

but trying to settle this question in the current state of physical

knowledge seems hopeless (although string theorists have been known to

dabble with it).

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick,

 

Sorry to jump in, I know you were talking to Sada-ji...

 

You wrote:

 

Personally I would very much like to be convinced of the truth of (2)

but trying to settle this question in the current state of physical

knowledge seems hopeless (although string theorists have been known to

dabble with it).

 

Have you read the Mandukya Upanishad, Nisargadatta, Ramesh Balsekar?

Krishna Menon's ATMA DARSHAN will help a lot too. It's not really a

scientific question, more a philosophical one. The choice between (1) and

(2) is not a matter of predictability or empirical evidence. Even if you

knew "in advance" every phenomenal outcome and every phenomenal

description, in other words, if you were omniscient, it still wouldn't

decide between (1) and (2). Because the question of whether there exists a

history alternative to the present one is just like the question whether

there exists a thought alternative to the current thought....

 

Om!

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Patrick Kenny wrote:

> the only answer I can offer is that any

> personal experience that I have of the

> ineffable Brahman filling the heart came

> about as a result of wrapping my

> mind around the problem that I raised.

>

 

namaste

 

yes, patrick, quite so. as i'm sure you're

aware, this is part and parcel of the path

of jnana, which primarily uses the Mind as

the instrument leading to Self-discovery.

(i'll elaborate on this, but first i'd like

to make the following point.)

 

consider how virtually everyone experiences

that 'brahman in the Heart' to one degree

or another...but unawares they attribute

it ordinarily to the by-product of a life

condition and how they relate to it. that

is, they interpret a given wave of pleasure

or joy they might be feeling at a given time

to a fulfillment of a desire in one way or

another--which although has a component of

relative truth to it, the real source of the

joy being experienced is a leak--as it were--

emanating from the Self Itself, having such

an insignificant connection to the Mind, per

se, as to be, from an overview perspective,

comparatively irrelevant.

 

now, for one who's on the path of jnana, it

becomes more and more evident that these

'leaks' or visitations into one's oceanic Self

are precipitated specifically when the Mind

is *not* engaged in the relative spectrum.

the path of jnana eventually reveals that it

is a process of the logical Mind eventually

having to exhaust its energy. in due course,

over time, it starts coming closer and closer

to reaching critical mass, whereupon it's

ready to finally yield out of an unmistakeable

insight that it has been trapped in a vicious

circle where questions answered breed the

pattern of infinite questions to be answered.

where, as greg mentioned, in the end they're

only called theories anyway! viz. the so-called

'superstring theory' (or 'theory of everything,'

formerly the 'unified field theory') that wants

to tie in the 'general theory of relativity'

with 'quantum partical theory.'

 

this is why the esoteric teachings behind all

religions implicate a state of no-Mind as a

pre-requisite and simultaneous condition to

that 'experience' of brahman in the Heart.

therefore, as i've pointed out numerous times

on our List, the philosophical/speculative Mind

has to be finally relinquished...is the very

culprit king janaka spoke of as "...the enemy

to be dealt with summarily." this is what is

referred to as manonasa (Mind destroyed) by

the vedantins; mu-shin (no-Mind) by the zens;

"having the mind of a child" by jesus; "be still

and know that I am God" (where 'be still' refers

to not the body obviously but the Mind) by the

hebrews; "ain soph" (void of thought) by the

cabalists; "islam" (i surrender my [thoughts])

by the sufis; "stopping the internal dialogue"

by the toltec shamans; etc...

 

it's important to know that the subconscious

goal we're all seeking has not to do with

reaching a state of philosophy, but a state

of Being. of course most philosophers recognize

this, but they tend to get so captured by the

process of speculation, thatt they forget what

they're really striving to finally achieve!

 

in light of this, i'm neither implying that

one's philosophical pursuit be abandoned at all.

i'm only pointing out that the above observation

should be considered and perhaps planted as a

seed in back of one's mind--in the course of

one's philosophical pursuit.

 

regards,

frank

[Guest guest]

Patrick wrote:

>Two types of determinism (at least!) need to be distinguished:

>

>(1) Classical Determinism (often associated with Laplace). According

>to Newtonian physics, a complete knowledge of the state of the

>universe at any instant together with the laws of physics is

>sufficient to determine the entire history of the universe (past and

>future). Newton and apparently Sadananda (you are in eminently good

>company) believe that the laws of physics are decided by the whim of

>the Creator, so that many different universes are logically possible.

 

I was not aware of the two determinations. But my comments still stands.

I donot imply that the laws at the whims of the creator in the sense that

creator is different from creation. It cannot be, at least as per Vedanta.

- Hence if one talks about creation with one or many histories, clasical or

strong determination etc as for as Vedanta is concerned they are all not

out side the system of investigation, explanation differ but that makes no

difference. One logically consistent or many logically consistent sets -

would it make difference as long as they are logical and self-consistent.

Logicality and self-consistencey itself are the fundamental laws and do

they make it as the whims of the creator - Since that it is the part of

the system deduced either clasical or strong determination - all Vedanta

claims is that they should be logical and self-consistent - does that

aspect come under 'whims of the creator' - I donot think so - That is what

precisely I mean by logical system or laws of creation which are within the

creation and again creator is not different from the system since for

logical consistent system there is an intelligence involved. - Vedanata

insists the intellegent cause and the material cause are one and the same -

there is no Iswara separate from the system.

 

Hence I still donot see how specifically Strong Determination makes any

difference from the totality.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

>

>(2) Strong Determinism (raised as a possibility by Penrose in the

>book "The Emporor's New Mind" but unfortunately not mentioned in the

>review that Ram has referred us to) says that there is only one

>logically consistent set of physical laws and constants and hence only

>one logically possible universe. (Spinoza's proposition that 'Things

>could not have been brought into being by God in any order or in any

>manner other than that which has in fact obtained' is an equivalent

>formulation in terms which are more familiar to members of the list.)

>

>Personally I would very much like to be convinced of the truth of (2)

>but trying to settle this question in the current state of physical

>knowledge seems hopeless (although string theorists have been known to

>dabble with it).

>

>Regards,

>

>Patrick

>

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg, Sadananda and Frank,

 

Since the question that I raised

(whether it is logically

possible for things to be other than

they are)

is not one that Advaita has preoccupied

itself with, I am not surprised that you

do not generally

consider it to be of great importance.

When Sadananda writes

> Hence I still donot see how specifically Strong Determination makes any

> difference from the totality.

 

I understand him to mean that he

personally doesn't find the question

interesting. I would not presume to

quarrel with this judgement but merely

point out that my own personal

experience has been that the question is

enormously interesting. Again, when

Frank writes

> once the ineffable brahman

> fills the Heart, one's svabhavana (self

> feeling-essence) soars *far* beyond the

> joys and sorrows experienced in the mental

> ruminations of [what i'll call] 'ordinary

> awareness,' and the matter of worldly likes

> and/or dislikes are experienced as merely

> superficial playthings!

 

the only answer I can offer is that any

personal experience that I have of the

ineffable Brahman filling the heart came

about as a result of wrapping my

mind around the problem that I raised.

 

To keep you on your toes, Greg, I have

to insist that the question of strong

determinism *is* a scientific one

(albeit not an empirical one). The whole

project of string theory is to enumerate

all possible sets of physical laws

and constants (and hence all possible

universes).

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Hey Patrick,

 

I'm there! Thanks for the info. I'm glad that scientists are researching

this question. I agree with you, empirical research won't be the method!

 

May I ask, as this question seems to have spiritual significance to you,

why not intensely undertake the investigation yourself? Why wait for the

results of others' work? Aren't you investigating something even prior to

what the string theorists are looking into? They've enumerated what they

take to be more than one set of laws. Aren't you looking into the question

"Is possibility possible?" Go for it!!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

At 10:26 AM 8/18/00 -0400, Patrick Kenny wrote:

 

 

To keep you on your toes, Greg, I have

to insist that the question of strong

determinism *is* a scientific one

(albeit not an empirical one). The whole

project of string theory is to enumerate

all possible sets of physical laws

and constants (and hence all possible

universes).

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

<<<<

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

In case you are interested in a very

well-written, non-mathematical

introduction

to string theory go to

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393046885/metaprices/002-7030790-7412035

 

A cursory perusal of this book will be

enough to convince you that these

problems

are not going to be solved any time

soon. This may not be a bad thing

because it

is not clear what our finest minds will

do with their time if they ever do

succeed

in hammering out the Final Theory of

Everything.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

> Hey Patrick,

>

> I'm there! Thanks for the info. I'm

> glad that scientists are researching

> this question. I agree with you,

> empirical research won't be the

> method!

>

> May I ask, as this question seems to

> have spiritual significance to you,

> why not intensely undertake the

> investigation yourself? Why wait for

> the

> results of others' work? Aren't you

> investigating something even prior to

> what the string theorists are looking

> into? They've enumerated what they

> take to be more than one set of laws.

> Aren't you looking into the question

> "Is possibility possible?" Go for

> it!!

>

> Om!

>

> --Greg

>

> At 10:26 AM 8/18/00 -0400, Patrick

> Kenny wrote:

>

> To keep you on your toes, Greg, I have

> to insist that the question of strong

> determinism *is* a scientific one

> (albeit not an empirical one). The

> whole

> project of string theory is to

> enumerate

> all possible sets of physical laws

> and constants (and hence all possible

> universes).

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

> <<<<

>

> -----

>

> -----

> Discussion of the True Meaning of

> Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

> focusing on non-duality between mind

> and matter. Searchable List Archives

> are available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To from the list, send

> Email to

> <advaitin- > For

> other contact, Email to

> <advaitins

>

[Guest guest]

God Bless them! Thanks for the link. Several people I know who are

interested in Advaita are also interested in string theory. When/if

scientists ever come up with a Final Theory of Everything, that's just what

they'll have. A theory. Then what??

 

Regards,

 

--Greg

 

At 11:36 AM 8/18/00 -0400, Patrick Kenny wrote:

>>>>

 

Dear Greg,

 

In case you are interested in a very

well-written, non-mathematical

introduction

to string theory go to

 

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393046885/metaprices/002-7030790-74

12035>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393046885/metaprices/002-70307

90-7412035

 

A cursory perusal of this book will be

enough to convince you that these

problems

are not going to be solved any time

soon. This may not be a bad thing

because it

is not clear what our finest minds will

do with their time if they ever do

succeed

in hammering out the Final Theory of

Everything.

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

> Hey Patrick,

>

> I'm there! Thanks for the info. I'm

> glad that scientists are researching

> this question. I agree with you,

> empirical research won't be the

> method!

>

> May I ask, as this question seems to

> have spiritual significance to you,

> why not intensely undertake the

> investigation yourself? Why wait for

> the

> results of others' work? Aren't you

> investigating something even prior to

> what the string theorists are looking

> into? They've enumerated what they

> take to be more than one set of laws.

> Aren't you looking into the question

> "Is possibility possible?" Go for

> it!!

>

> Om!

>

> --Greg

>

> At 10:26 AM 8/18/00 -0400, Patrick

> Kenny wrote:

>

> To keep you on your toes, Greg, I have

> to insist that the question of strong

> determinism *is* a scientific one

> (albeit not an empirical one). The

> whole

> project of string theory is to

> enumerate

> all possible sets of physical laws

> and constants (and hence all possible

> universes).

>

> Regards,

>

> Patrick

> <<<<

>

> -----

>

> -----

> Discussion of the True Meaning of

> Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

> focusing on non-duality between mind

> and matter. Searchable List Archives

> are available at:

>

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/

> To from the list, send

> Email to

> <advaitin- > For

> other contact, Email to

> <advaitins

>

 

----------

<http://click./1/8117/6/_/489436/_/966612998/>

 

----------

Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy

focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives

are available at:

<http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/adv

aitin/ To from the list, send Email to

<advaitin- > For other contact, Email to

<advaitins

 

 

<<<<