Guest guest Posted May 20, 2001 Report Share Posted May 20, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > Attempting to post this for the second time <snip> > My dear Sadananda, It is just so amazing, and wonderful to me, that you have posted this message at this particular time. It is truly grace! For I too have just spent much of the past week delving into the writings and analysis of Ramanuja, working from the URL's that were so kindly given me a week or so ago by you and others here in order for me to learn more about Dvaita and VishishhTadvaita. Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the logic and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for more close up and detailed study. But even from this first encounter, I have to say that, truly, Ramanuja has to be one of the greatest intellects (and great hearts) in world history. The depth, thoroughness, and comprehensiveness of his thought is simply remarkable. While I know I have barely scratched the surface of his thought, even the synopses of his works are proving quite formidable in the power of their critique. You obviously have spent much more time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I can see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique? Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would be lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data. What do you think? Whether the One includes the many, whether the divine Mind includes infiniite individual reflection in infinitude of expression, seems to me a point beyond debate or scientific analysis, one way or the other, even though we can bring logic and scientific scrutiny to our words and mental constructs *about* the unsayable and humanly incomprehensible. And if that is so, what can't finally be scientifically "proven" must finally be a matter of the heart (or spiritual sense, as I would put it), it seems to me. Ramanuja's logic, finally, speaks to my heart (and rings true to what I can report back about what I've "seen" or "felt" or "known" in the Quiet), and so his logic and analysis finally seems more pesuasive and "right" to me than Sharkara's does alone, without Ramanuja's critique. > I found in my studies Bhagavaan Ramanuja does a superb job in criticizing > Adviata puurvapaksha in his Shree Bhaashya - through Laghu puurvapaksha and > Mahaapuurvapaksha and associated his corresponding siddhaanta-s. I also > found Madhva criticism is somewhat more vehement and subjective but lacks > throughness that Ramanuja provides. Interestingly, I too found this so, with no offense mean to Madhva's brilliant critique or his followers. I am > looking Ramanuja's shree bhaashya more closely now and I find if we apply > the sharp tools of scientific logic and current understanding of jagat, > Bhagavaan Ramanuja's and Bhagavaan Madva's criticisms of advaita do not > stand the rigour of current scientific understanding of the nature of the > universe. Could you please amplify? I found this statement odd. I happen to have been a physics major in college, and as a "hobby" have kept up with the latest advances in quantum physics since college. In my view, our "current understanding of the nature of the universe" (if by this you mean modern-day physics and mathematics) doesn't lay a finger on Ramanuja or Madva or Shankara, (or Buddha or Christ, or any other spiritual sage) for that matter. At best, some of the views in books like "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" and "The Tao of Physics" which try to popularize the "new physics" and seek to find coincidence between Eastern thought and quantum physics, can only offer some interesting parallels. But as Ken Wilbur, for one, has so brilliantly pointed out in his "Quantum Questions" and as the philosophical writings of Schrodinger and Heisenberg themselves point out, quantum physics can neither prove or disprove something like Advaita, or Buddhism, or whatever, because they simply describe different realms of reality and thought. So, if you are saying that Ramanuja and Madhva don't stand up to "current scientific understanding" of *physics* I would have to heartily disagree. If you are saying that they don't stand up to advances in modern thought about Hinduism, or the Gita, or whatever, then that is of course, another matter, and I would like to understand what "scientific" proof you have to offer for this assetion, because as I said earlier, I have yet to find flaws in Ramanuja's critique, even though I don't agree on all points. > The most beautiful aspect of adviata that is impressive and fundamental is > the oneself - that is non-negatable. Everything else including the theories > and even Veda from which adhyatimika data is gathered can be dismissed but > what cannot be dismissed is oneself. One's existence is beyond any pramaaNa > - prathyaksha, anumaana and shabda. While everyone knows that they exist > and consciousness, sat and chit, they donot realize that they are ananda > too. That is the basic adyaasa that Shankara discusses - Since limitless is > ananda, and limitless is Brahman, aham brahaasmi follows naturally. If that > is also what scripture says then that is the fundamental truth beyond logic, > beyond any means of knowledge. Hence Shankara emphasizes the adhyaasa > bhaashya before he proceeds the discussion of suutra-s. I agree, but I don't see how what you say here at all negates the critique of Ramanuja. Could you elaborate? > I have great respect for all achaarya-s - Shankara, Ramanuja and Madva. They > are like true scientist analyzing the data and proposing the theories. One > should question these thories and accept that is what one is convinced. By > studying the criticism of advaita by Ramanuja and Madva one will have better > grasp of advaita too, provided one disects these objections to see if these > objections are valid or not. I just love your point here, and couldnt' agree more. And I've only just begun to do this, in all fairness. >One's conviction follows more firmly by doing > that and that is part of mananam. But before one approaches these studies > one has to be very objective in the interest of the truth and not in the > interest of who is right. That is truly and honestly what I have been trying to do, in so far as I can be aware of my own proclivities and prejudices. Until last week, I had never heard of Dvaita or VishishhTadvaita, and it was only through the good graces of you and others that I have been introduced to these great thought systems and the sages Mahdva and Ramanuja. Not having any vested interest in a particular school, I was surpised myself that I was so hugely impressed by Ramanuja and his critique. Intellectually, he seems every bit the equal of Shankara (I hope I am not offending anyone by this statement but that is my impression.) How I would love to have heard the two of them talk and question one another! In a way, one can hear a present-day debate, by reading as opening and honestly as one can the writings of both, and then letting the True Light inform and discriminate the mind. Ultimately one has to know oneself by oneself > through contemplation of oneself. Yes, this is the "final frontier." The fact that one as great as Shankara and one as great as Ramanuja did this, and brought back reports, so to speak, from the "final frontier" that differ so fundamentally on some very basic points about the final nature of the I, makes me feel very humble indeed. While it is good to argue over and analyze logic and semantics, and utilize the Light within to see the truth and falsity of all things, this should never quench the love we should have one to another, whether we believe this love is of the one Self or whether it is because we believe we are giving glory and respect to an individual expression of the infinite One. In either case, as my great teacher said, "love your neighbor as yourself." Find and enter the infinitude of what *that* Self/self love means, and in that all-encompassing Love all debate ends and Love alone reigns supreme, and is not that bliss and heaven? I always love seeing your posts, dear Sadananda. I look forward to further sharing, and hope my comments are received in the love and honest spirit of inquiry with which they were sent. Alleluia! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2001 Report Share Posted May 20, 2001 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > >Steve - Alleluia too and very happy to read your post. >Yes Ramanuja's criticism of adviata is very objective. >when I was in India at my home place, my elder >brother who passed away used to organize my >vedanta lectures. This time his close friends organized >the talks in his memory. I ended up taking on >Ramanuja's theories -Although I am still trying to grasp >the essence of his theory, I found teaching is the best >way to learn since I have to integrate the thoughts in a >coherent manner before I can present. I'm sure it would be a great joy to be in one of your classes. Your openness and intellectual honesty are the hallmark of good teaching. >I would like to present his criticism and the some of the >problems in it. But I would like to do that after I >complete the Shankara bhaasya or at least most of it. Again, your understandable reticence is the hallmark of academic and intellectual integrity. I totally understand and agree. >Mean while I am solidifying my thoughts to insure I >have correct import of his theories and implications. >Jiiva bhinnatvam or intrinsic differences between jiiva >and jiiva - I am not sure I am clear of what exactly >Ramanuja implies. They are sat, chit and ananda >swaruupa-s (intrinsic qualities). But how does one jiiva i>s differentiated from the other - are there gradations in >jiiva-s and on what basis and on what basis these >gradations or intrinsic qualities differentiated - >essentially measurement norms. - to be more specific >how does one jiiva recognizes another jiiva in moksha. >I have yet to find a clear description for my >understanding. I also have been thinking about this particular point, i.e., how does on jiiva recognize another jiiva in moksha. I don't know enough (and the language/semantical problems are very high for an English speaking person, even one who has done a lot of reading in this area) to have a grasp of this yet. At one point, Ramanuja seems to be saying that its the very nature of consciousness (and Consciousness) to differentiate -- that consciousness without differentiation is an absurdity (if I understand what I read so far.) It seems to me that if one comes at the problem from the "bottom up" or how does jiiva recognize jiiva in moksha, the problem becomes insuperable, but "top down" not so. In other words, might it not be that jiiva recognizes another jiiva in moksha because "this" or "that" jiiva ultimately reflects the very Mind or divine Consciousness that knows (dare I say, "creates") that difference in the first place? Might not Self-recognition simply be reflection of Mind's own infinite individuality, or infinite variety of Oneness? If individual jiiva had minds of their own, instead of being individual reflections of the infinite One, that is, individualization of that one infinite Mind, then there would be no Oneness, Mind would not be All, and each jiiva would be locked within its own self-reifying limited consciousness of itself, with no sense of "other" or possibility of ever truly knowing another. But to my understanding (and I am not at all saying that any of this is what Ramanuja taught or explained), it seems logical that the infinite Mind that knows Itself will also know its own "content" (so misleading a word, but I can find no other). And the reflection of this mutual Mind of the All will "know" the great fact that, as we now humanly might say it, God knows me, and God knows you, and God knows one and all. That's just what Mind does. It knows its infinite Self (not many selves, however many in number, but rather infinite Self-expression.) I couldn't even know you, if Mind didn't already know you, so to speak. It's not something I do, even as jiiva in moksha; it's something Mind does, reflected in jiiva. In this divine sense, identity is not illusion or maya. It simply reflects the nature of the Self to be One and All. Put poetically, in the fullness of individual being, "we" ("we" isn't quite right -- it implies a plurality, rather than one, but I have to use it) are the individual reflection of the divine One -- a symphony of infinite Love, not just one single nameless eternal note (or, put another way, we are that One note, in infinite diversity of expression and variation on an infinite Theme). Perhaps this is one possible "solution" or path to the "how a jiiva knows a jiiva in moksha" problem. I have often felt that if we believe that our philosophical words about such ineffable things can be critiqued, or at least can be fingers or signs or maps pointing in the right (or wrong) way, then so can mathematics. And it is in mathematics, that I, as a student of physics, have seen found some of the most clear sign-posts to the understanding this most difficult problem of the One and the Many, the individual and the All. In mathematics there are infinitesimals as well as integers, the infinite and even mind-boggling transfinite numbers. (See the great work of G. Cantor on transfinite sets and transfinite numbers.) Even though in mathematics one is still working with symbols and symbolic sets, isn't that is exactly what Shankara and Ramanuja are doing in their own realm of work when they are trying to present the right "maps" to us? Might not then mathematics point to truth? History shows that some of the greatest mathematicians (and physicists) have had moments that are truly pure selfless satori, (so far as I or they can tell), but filled with content, filled with "entities" and "universes" that have no limitation of space or time or matter, entities and universes with no physical form or limitation or locus, but which have relationship and individuality of unbelievable beauty and elegance and depth. I, for one, cannot assume that these "reports" from the frontiers of thought aren't every bit as informative about the final nature of the divine Mind as that of a Shankara or Ramanuja. (I hope that doesn't seem disrespectful.) I would also be willing to make the same argument about the most sublime music of East and West. The greatest composers almost all report that in the depth of creativity, all sense of personal ego disappears. They know they are not the source of the music. Nonetheless, when music and listener or composer become one, there is no loss of notes or individuality, just of the false ego and brain-based self-consciousness that prevent true communion with the celestial music of the One and All. The result for us is a taste of heaven or bliss, and it is not delusion or illusion, even if it "doth not yet appear" what the divine music might be when not mediated and conditioned and filtered by the ego. >I have several other conceptual problems in >understanding his theories, but since you are >gathering information I would refrain from raising those >here at this time so that you can learn without my bias. I greatly respect this and appreciate your care for me. > I am >discussing some of these issues with some experts in >the VishishhTadvaita. There is a separate list - bhakti >list where lot of posts on VishishhTadvaita takes place >but most of them are tuned to bhakti aspect rather >than philosophical discussions. Yes, I discovered this too, and found as you said the discussions to be mostly devotional, rather than intellectual or philosophical. I simply don't have time to see if other kinds of posts there would be worthwhile for my special purposes, or even inappropriate given the bhatki focus that is there. (Many of the posts are deeply moving; when the words cease, it is the Love we live and the Divine Romance that matters. <g>) >Anyway I hope we can learn from each other as we go >along. I will be putting in writing as understand more >and more of vishishhTadviata from my perspective. I do hope you will feel free to share your studies if and when this seems appropriate to you. If you wish to comment on anything I have additionally said, I truly welcome it. I hope I haven't been too long-winded. Postscript: Looking back over my words to you, I feel a bit like a silly man standing at our American Grand Canyon, gesticulating wildly and trying to describe it with words, when all the while the Canyon itself sits there in all its glory! It's not that one wouldn't want, perhaps, to know the geology, what all the strata mean, how to get to the bottom of the canyon, and all of that. But in doing so, we should not lose sight of the Canyon itself! I hope I haven't done that. I fully realize there are certainly much better and more learned "tour guides" and "geologists" than I to do the other part. Still, I have in fact (and in metaphor) seen the "canyon" (I even hiked to the bottom of the real one as a teenager) and the things I've seen! I would love to walk there with you and other seekers of Truth and talk of the deep things of God, or just share the incredible silence of the place. But for now, our mutual words hopefully touch the heart, and that is enough! With affection, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 21, 2001 Report Share Posted May 21, 2001 > > > > >In other words, might it not be that jiiva recognizes another jiiva in >moksha because "this" or "that" jiiva ultimately reflects the very >Mind or divine Consciousness that knows (dare I say, "creates") >that difference in the first place? Might not Self-recognition >simply be reflection of Mind's own infinite individuality, or infinite >variety of Oneness? If individual jiiva had minds of their own, >instead of being individual reflections of the infinite One, that is, >individualization of that one infinite Mind, then there would be no >Oneness, Mind would not be All, and each jiiva would be locked >within its own self-reifying limited consciousness of itself, with no sense of "other" or possibility of ever truly knowing another. > >But to my understanding (and I am not at all saying that any of >this is what Ramanuja taught or explained), it seems logical that >the infinite Mind that knows Itself will also know its own "content" >(so misleading a word, but I can find no other). And the reflection >of this mutual Mind of the All will "know" the great fact that, as we >now humanly might say it, God knows me, and God knows you, >and God knows one and all. That's just what Mind does. Steve - thanks and you have raised quite a lot of issues involved. I am not sure I know enough to dissect all these in a systematic manner. 'Jiiva-s minds of their own' etc. Mind being an equipment - subtle body - in this world or leela vibuuti - is dictated by ones Vasana-s . But in moksha all this are sublimated. Jiiva exists in his intrinsic nature which is - anu pramaana or very small size and j~nana swaruupa. If he needs a mind to see others then one goes to the next question, what dictates the nature of his mind since he has no more karmaphala as in this jagat to dictate the size and nature of his mind which is different from his neighbor's. If one's mind is superior to the other then we are back to tara tama bheda-s or gradations of jiiva-s based on his equipments and we are back samsaara stage where one thinks one is superior to the other based on upaadhi-s. Unfortunately I have not found clear exposition of these in vishishhtaadvaita books and I do not want to do my speculation before I get a clear picture of what exactly Ramanuja meant- I am going to pose this question in the VishishhTadvaita list see what kind of answer I get. Hari Om! Sadananda > > >With affection, >Steve -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 Namaskarams, This thread on the various interpretations of our scriptures is being very informative. >You obviously have spent much more >time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I can >see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of >identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be >Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique? >Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would be >lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja >brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data. What >do you think? Here I would wish to direct your attention to the following message that has been posted in this group by our learned Sri Sadananda. http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1505.html In this message Sri Sadananda has clearly shown how Acharya Ramanuja's critique of Advaita can be easily answered from an Advaita point of view. As has been mentioned by various members before, each Acharya has tried to systematize the teachings of the Vedas. In doing so each has chosen a 'Key Concept' to resolve most of the apparent contradictions in the various statements in the Vedas. Acharya Shankara uses the concept of Avidya as his key concept whereas Acharya Ramanuja uses the body-soul relationship as his key concept. One could always argue endlessly about how one key is more appropriate than the other. One could also show how from within one school the concepts used in another schools appear to be flawed. These however do not 'prove' or 'disprove' one school or another. Whether a key concept is appropriate or not should be based on it's ability to lead one to realize the Brahman. Here I would also like note, for the benifit of the international audience, that each of these philosophical systems have been accompanied by a tradition that has enabled an implementation of the teachings of the Acharyas. Different people find different traditions and different philosophical systems satisfactory. To me it does not seem necessary to 'prove' the superiority of one system over another for all people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 22, 2001 Report Share Posted May 22, 2001 advaitin, padmashreem wrote: > Namaskarams, > > This thread on the various interpretations of our scriptures is being > very informative. > > >You obviously have spent much more > >time and thought on the subject, but I have yet to find what I can > >see as flaws in his logic or critique of Advaita on the issue of > >identity and plurality in the One. Would Advaita no longer be > >Advaita if it were to incorporate or reflect Ramanuja's critique? > >Oddly enough, I don't think Advaita's essential genius would be > >lost -- in fact, I think it would be enhanced by what Ramanuja > >brings in terms of scientific analysis of the essential data. What > >do you think? > > Here I would wish to direct your attention to the following message > that has been posted in this group by our learned Sri Sadananda. > > http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m1505.html > > In this message Sri Sadananda has clearly shown how Acharya > Ramanuja's critique of Advaita can be easily answered from an Advaita > point of view. > <SNIP> Dear One, Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in which Sadananda offers his truly brilliant counter argument.. While I can often follow the gist of his "song," I simply don't know enough of the "technical" or semantics of the language in order to assess the veracity of his lyrics, if you get my gist! <g> Insofar as I could grasp it, the argument is logically formidable, and I would love to have heard Ramajuna's reply to it -- as I'm sure dear Sadananda would too, being so scientific and honest in his approach to this matter. What I do see happening, both with Ramajuna and with Sadananda's reply is however logical the thought structure of an argument, one always get's back to "first meanings" -- what is Real or not real, what is changing or not changing, what is illusion and what is God, or Brahman. And this is always a point beyond logical argument -- it is in fact, a point of "faith" (as we Christians would say) or of spiritual sense, or spiritual intuition, or of the ability of one to have knowledge of self -existent or pre-existent facts. (And Lord knows the arguments that *these* philosophical proposition has produced in Western philosophy!) For example, at one point Sadananda says: "Ramanuja's statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the true sense of the word." In all due respect to my dear colleague, this is finally simply a statement of belief, not of fact, as no doubt Ramajuna would reply. Saying that this "first meaning" is "absolutely wrong" our friend S. then brilliantly deconstructs what he perceives to be a falsity *on the basis* of the pre-conceived (or initially propounded) "wrongness" of the others proposition. Of course, in fairness to Sadananda, he gives some brilliant *reasons* for his rejection of Ramajuna's initial proposition, which is powerfully bolstered by his analysis of what goes wrong *if* you accept Ramajuna's (purportedly) "absolutely wrong" proposition. I, for one, found S's critique quite convincing, and made all the more so by the humility and love and spirit of '"science" with which he offered it. In fairness, Ramajuna does much the same thing with "first meanings," as S. points out, when he points out: "But Ramanuja denies the existence of undifferentiated{nirguna} Brahman, arguing that whatever exists has attributes: Brahman has infinite auspicious attributes." As Sadananda observes, this is not a critique of Advaita, but an "axiomatic statement" of Ramajuna. I would assume, just as with Sadananda's own "axioms," that Ramajuna felt he had very good reason for holding this "axiom" but I don't know if in fact he does defend and explicate this "first meaning" in his critique of Advaita, or elsewhere. I would be surprised to find that Ramajuna's "axiom" was not scriptural, or based on scripture, *as he undestood it.* To Sadananda, this assertion that Brahman has "infinite auspicious attributes" does not "taste" right, but it may well be beyond all logical argument or philosophical test of "truth" content as a pure statement. Personally, this particular statement of Ramajuna's "tastes" very good to me! <g> It accords with my own spiritual encounters and whatever measure of awakening I now may have. On the basis of this "good taste" I would probably offer up many arguments (as I did in my earlier post to Sadananda) that the One need not at all be contradictory with infinite attributes and individual divine reflection of the One. Transfinite mathematics hints at this. So does the divine "music" that is not physical sensation or the product of mortal thought, however mediated the "divine symphony" may be to the human mind. Can I "prove" this? Can I "prove" that Brahman, God, Divine Love, is so? Not logically, anymore than one can "prove" the Divine is not so. Nonetheless, just because we cannot conceive of how the Divine could have attributes, since this is the hallmark of limitation and attachment of the so-called human mind, doesn't mean that the divine Mind knows this limitation of Itself. Who can say what the infinite calculus of Mind might be? I say, let's see what the way of Love and the way of awakening show us. For me, the attributes of God are very precious; they reveal in one and All the very nature of God as infinite intelligence, even though God is always One, reflecting Himself. But that, of course, is another "unprovable" statement of faith. <g> What is wonderful about this whole discussion is how everyone finally comes to say, in one way or another, that finally we must find the One for ourselves, and while we may be edified and inspired by our commentary and analysis, the signposts and pointers must finally give way to the Now and Here of the divine itself. I so appreciate this love and practicality of Love in our discussions. God bless! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 On Sat, 19 May 2001, stevenfair wrote: > Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the logic > and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the > complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for more > close up and detailed study. Hello Steve, Thanks, I am learning a lot from the postings. I donot know somehow I am scared to make any comment coz. of my limited scope of knowledge in both advaita & vishitadvaita philosophies. Hope you get it!! Regards nilesh ____ 123India.com - India's Premier Portal Get your Free Email Account at http://www.123india.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 advaitin, nileshkmehta@1... wrote: > On Sat, 19 May 2001, stevenfair wrote: > > > Like Nilesh (hello!) , I have been hugely impressed by the logic > > and critique of Ramanuja, and have been trying to locate the > > complete text of his "magnum opus" critique of Advaita for more > > close up and detailed study. > Hello Steve, Thanks, I am learning a lot from the postings. I donot know somehow I am scared to make any comment coz. of my limited scope of knowledge in both advaita & vishitadvaita philosophies. Hope you get it!! > > Regards > nilesh > Nilesh, Well, as you can see, my relative ignorance has not stopped me from jumping right in! <g> My spiritual teacher used to say that there were no wrong questions -- just ask! There is such a helpful spirit of love and friendship here, I am sure you questions and comments would be most welcome, and would add to the light. What's more, spiritual sense is in no way limited to erudition and learning; it is native to the Spirit within us. I have often be amazed at the insight the so-called "untutored" may have. God bless! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > > >Dear One, > >Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in which >Sadananda offers .. I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I felt little bad that my arguments could have been less aggressive and more to the point. > >What I do see happening, both with Ramajuna and with >Sadananda's reply is however logical the thought structure of an >argument, one always get's back to "first meanings" -- what is >Real or not real, what is changing or not changing, what is >illusion and what is God, or Brahman. And this is always a point >beyond logical argument -- it is in fact, a point of "faith" (as we >Christians would say) or of spiritual sense, or spiritual intuition, >or of the ability of one to have knowledge of self -existent or >pre-existent facts. (And Lord knows the arguments that *these* >philosophical proposition has produced in Western philosophy!) I would recommend the study the anumaana prakaraNa (Ch II) and adhyaasa bhaashya (Ch. III of the Brahmasuutra notes) that discusses validity of the logic in these arguments and also fundamental human problem in terms of error or adhyaasa. > >For example, at one point Sadananda says: "Ramanuja's >statement that all cognitions are either of the real or unreal is >absolutely wrong. In fact it is the other way around. Only >Brahman alone is real, and Brahman cannot be cognized in the >true sense of the word." In all due respect to my dear colleague, >this is finally simply a statement of belief, not of fact, as no doubt >Ramajuna would reply. Steve - as I understand all vedantins - that includes Ramanuja and Madhva agree that Brahman is real. For them - not only Brahman real, but jiiva and jagat - the individual soul and the universe also real. What is real and what is unreal and what is illusion or bhrama has been exhaustively discussed in the epistemological issues in Vedanta before they discussed ontological issues. Some of these concepts are also evolved from Sankhya philosophy that we will be discussing exhaustively from Sutra 5 on of Brahmasuuutra. From scientific point - there are three entities that can be defined -(1) That which exist but never under go any change - (hence we provide a definition for it as trikaala abhaaditam - that which remain the same in three periods of time), (2) that which never existed or no locus for their existence ever - ever implies past, present and future - and typical example is gagaabuubu or son of a barren woman or my horns (some people may think that I have them but really I do not have, either in the past, now or they are not likely to grow in future!) and 3) those that have locus temporally - like a pot or cloth etc that we perceive - or the whole world, which is changing continuously. Clearly there is a distinction between these three entities - those that exist all the time, those that never existed and those that exist temporally. The first one is definitely real and the second one is definitely unreal and only the question of the third one - under what category we can put them - They are there temporally and hence they exist but they are not there as such eternally since they are changing like ring into necklace etc. Sankara puts them under the category of mithya or neither real nor unreal but in between. They are there because we perceive them but when we inquire into them they are not there in essence as such. Since you are a physicist, let us examine what is a cloth? Is cloth real or not? Yes of course is real since you can wear it or stitch into something you can wear. But cloth is nothing but bundle of fibers arranged or assemblage of something different from cloth - if I pull each fiber apart I will reach a stage there is no more cloth there - cloth was there but cloth is no more and I am left with bundle of fibers. Now are these fibers real? If I keep analyzing I will end up with no fibers but chain of molecules - Are the molecules real? - they degenerate further to atoms - atoms to electrons, protons - further down to more and more fundamental particles -and we do not have the final answer about the truth of the cloth - But if you go further deep, what remained the same in these analysis is - it is not the cloth or the fibers or molecules etc it is the observer who is the conscious entity. without him neither the cloth, fibers nor molecules nor the fundamental particles can be proved to exist. Now is the world real or just in the mind of the observer. I am sure you are aware that in the final analysis we are coming to the stage in Physics that the observed is not completely independent of the observer. What remains the same in all the three periods is the conscious observer and the observed cannot be observed without the observer present. Also there is a fundamental fact the observer himself cannot be observed that is the subject can never be an object of observation. (this is where you get into problem of jiiva-jiiva bhinnatvam or how does one jiiva know other jiiva? in Ramanuja's Philosophy). Before we can analyze the reality of the observed we need therefore look at the reality of the observer first since the validity of observed rests on the validity of the observer. Let me approach the subject little differently - Let us ask more fundamental question. Can I ever see any object to say that the object exists? What I see are the attributes of an object through the senses - the eyes can see only forms and colors, ears the sound, tongue the taste, nose the smell and the skin the touch - these are not the objects but the qualities or attributes of the objects. Now where is the object and how is it seen? - object being the very substratum to which these attributes belong - it is the locus of these attributes but then where is that object - can I ever "see" that object to say yes that object exists and thus the world which is an assemblage of objects exists. If one looks at carefully - the object is segment of the imagination of the observer. There is inference of a conscious entity is involved and that is since we "see" the attributes there is an methodical inference brought up from childhood that there cannot be attributes with out an object present. The point is - an inference by the mind is involved to establish that the world "is". Second the mind (since it is an inferential statement - is involved in this inference)- no mind no inference and no world to be recognized. Hence in the deep sleep space and time both are folded and what remains is the conscious entity - Hence the discussion of "who slept well" -in the past week posts. Hence ontological issues related to reality and unreality and mithya have been analyzed deeply by the achaarya-s each taking their sides. But from modern understanding of the truth we have no absolute world - space and time are relative and ultimately they are subjective as Vedanta shows that without observer who is independent of space and time there is not space and time independently or absolutely. You can see why Sankara and Bhagavaan Ramana emphasizes to investigate the reality of ones own self before we look out to examine the world and the creator of the world. For spiritual growth the concept of the God and Love etc are O.K. Ultimately no one loves any body other than oneself - that is again because there is nothing other than oneself! - Vidyaranya says in panchadasi - ayam aatma paraanandaH parama premaspadam yataH| One self is the source of supreme bliss and hence one loves one self most. All others one loves only because one loves one self - Since one concludes that others that he loves brings happiness that he really loves! Hence in Br. Up. Yagnavalkya says to his wife Maitreye - aatmanastu kaamaya sarvam priyam bhavati - All others things becomes likable things only because they being him happiness that he really loves. What he loves is happiness and not other things - which include God too - God is not god sake but for my sake since in the love of God I love myself which is source of happiness. Hence Bhagavaan Ramana says - analyze the annalist. > > >What is wonderful about this whole discussion is how everyone >finally comes to say, in one way or another, that finally we must >find the One for ourselves, Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for samsaara is again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but that I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence emphasis is knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and complete surrenderence at His feet. Hari Om! Sadananda > and while we may be edified and >inspired by our commentary and analysis, the signposts and >pointers must finally give way to the Now and Here of the divine >itself. I so appreciate this love and practicality of Love in our >discussions. > >God bless! >Steve > > Sponsor ><> <> > www. > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of >nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: ><http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advait\ in/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: ><advaitin/messages>\ advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the ><> -- K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > > > > > >Dear One, > > > >Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in which > >Sadananda offers .. > > I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I > felt little bad that my arguments could have been less aggressive and > more to the point. > <BIG SNIP> My dear Sadananda, Your respone is wonderful and illuminating. It clarify's many points for me that I didn't grasp before. As a physicists, I will love to get into the questions your raise about the observer/object connundrum. In your analysis of the cloth, you did indeed burrow your way down to the "a prioris" and the imponderables. In physics, there are a number of schools as to whether or not there is a "deep reality" beyond the phenomnena we can measure with our instruments. Sorry to say, it may be a week or so before I can address this fascinating subject, because of some time consideration I have right now, and of course, I will be mindful to not turn this into a discussion of physics, per se, but try to limit scope to how what you asked about the cloth might relate to metaphysical issues viz a vis what quantum physics may show us in relation to Advaita. And of course, the question of how and if something exists independent of the observer -- that is, is there an "objective" reality "out there" is something some fairly decent <g> thinkers in the West -- Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, etc. -- have given some of the best philosophical analysis mankind, East or West, has yet to produce. Indeed, whenever I read these discussions here in the forum (especially that latest one where I asked the question about "upaasanaa" -- thank you for your quick help on that -- and now that I understand the term, I believe I totally agree with the arguments made) , I am, as a Western trained thinker, often struck by the thought that these very same metaphysical issues, and semantical issues, have been deeply explored in the West as well. Maybe this shouldn't surprise, since we are all humans! I laughed out loud at your "horned man" self-reference, by the way. I loved your dry humor! When I think of you, it's not horns, but halos! <G> You are an "angel" in terms of helping others and in terms of bringing the cool light of wisdom to our discussions. Those that would see you as a "devil" are merely seeing self-projections -- pun intended! Finally, you wrote: >Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for samsaara is again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but that I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence emphasis is knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and complete surrenderence at His feet. But that is exactly what I meant by finding out who the One is -- finding out what what the one God, divine Love is. What you say here certainly is a statement at the very heart of the Christian tradition. As the Psalmist sang: "I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else." To the Christian, to know the Lord is all and everything, as Jesus said: " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." I hope to have time to get into the details later, when I have time. With affection, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Hari OM! Naryana Smrithis Blessed Self, "RELIGION STARTS WHERE THE SO CALLED HIGHTECH SCIENCE ENDS" With love & OM! Krishna --- stevenfair wrote: > advaitin, "K. Sadananda" <sada@a...> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Dear One, > > > > > >Thanks for your response, and especially for the URL in > which > > >Sadananda offers .. > > > > I forgot completely about that post. Now I look back and read, I > > > felt little bad that my arguments could have been less > aggressive and > > more to the point. > > > > <BIG SNIP> > > My dear Sadananda, > > Your respone is wonderful and illuminating. It clarify's many > points for me that I didn't grasp before. As a physicists, I will > love > to get into the questions your raise about the observer/object > connundrum. In your analysis of the cloth, you did indeed burrow > your way down to the "a prioris" and the imponderables. In > physics, there are a number of schools as to whether or not > there is a "deep reality" beyond the phenomnena we can > measure with our instruments. Sorry to say, it may be a week or > so before I can address this fascinating subject, because of > some time consideration I have right now, and of course, I will be > mindful to not turn this into a discussion of physics, per se, but > try to limit scope to how what you asked about the cloth might > relate to metaphysical issues viz a vis what quantum physics > may show us in relation to Advaita. > > And of course, the question of how and if something exists > independent of the observer -- that is, is there an "objective" > reality "out there" is something some fairly decent <g> thinkers in > > the West -- Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein, > etc. -- have given some of the best philosophical analysis > mankind, East or West, has yet to produce. > > Indeed, whenever I read these discussions here in the forum > (especially that latest one where I asked the question about > "upaasanaa" -- thank you for your quick help on that -- and now > that I understand the term, I believe I totally agree with the > arguments made) , I am, as a Western trained thinker, often > struck by the thought that these very same metaphysical issues, > and semantical issues, have been deeply explored in the West > as well. Maybe this shouldn't surprise, since we are all humans! > > I laughed out loud at your "horned man" self-reference, by the > way. I loved your dry humor! When I think of you, it's not horns, > > but halos! <G> You are an "angel" in terms of helping others > and in terms of bringing the cool light of wisdom to our > discussions. Those that would see you as a "devil" are merely > seeing self-projections -- pun intended! > > Finally, you wrote: > > >Ramanja disagrees -according to him the root cause for > samsaara is > again avidya or ignorance but that ignorance is not who I am but > that > I am very small and depend on the Lord who is all powerful and > without his help I cannot cross this samsaara - Hence > emphasis is > knowledge of not oneself but that of the Lord's true nature and > complete surrenderence at His feet. > > But that is exactly what I meant by finding out who the One is -- > finding out what what the one God, divine Love is. What you say > here certainly is a statement at the very heart of the Christian > tradition. As the Psalmist sang: "I am the Lord, and there is > none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou > hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the > sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the > Lord, and there is none else." To the Christian, to know the Lord > is all and everything, as Jesus said: " Thou shalt love the Lord > thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy > > mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second > is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." > > I hope to have time to get into the details later, when I have > time. > > With affection, > Steve > > > > > Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 advaitin, Krishna Prasad <rkrishp99> wrote: > Hari OM! Naryana Smrithis > > Blessed Self, > > "RELIGION STARTS WHERE THE SO CALLED HIGHTECH SCIENCE ENDS" > > With love & OM! > > Krishna > > Greetings, Blessed One! I understand your sentiment -- the limitations of physical science are indeed "built in" to the very system, which is ultimately self-referential and self-reifying and limited in space/time. That is to say, it cannot see beyond its own built in limitations, as the very best scientists have always admitted, from Einstein to Heisenberg. Nonetheless, I think in its most fundamental sense, the scientific method is somehow inherent in all search for and finding of truth. True religion is true science and true science is true religion may also point to a truth worth pondering. In my reading of the many sages of mankind, I have more than a few times come across this idea of there being a "science" of truth, that is a knowable and discoverable divine Principle, which we call God or the Self. When the Truth that is God is understood in this blessed light, then "religion" (in the highest, non-partisan sense of that work) doesn't just "start where high tech science ends," it actually precedes and is *a priori* to even physical science. Indeed, the great mathematician and physicists will tell you that science doesn't have a leg to stand on this is, ultimately, metaphysical. Thus, we need not have the human mind's dualism of science versus religion, (even thought *scientism* and materialism are utterly to be rejected) but rather can see the One immanent in all search for truth. I can tell you that many scientists find their scientific research and desire to bless mankind with technology (like the internet and the very computers that we are both using) their way of praising God and doing Dharma. They would both agree that "religion" starts up where high-tech science leaves off *and* they would say that "religion" is the very inspiration and "starting point" of their scientific work! Such scientists do not confuse the *method* of science for the *domain* of science, and thus do not fall into scientism and materialism. Let me end with this excerpt from Albert Einstein, in his wonderful short essay, "Cosmic Religious Feeling" After discussing how religious feeling evolves to where "Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole," he writes: "The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image;...How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another if it can given no definite notion of God and no theology? In my view, the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it. [that is why] I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research....Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have show the way to kindred spirits scattered throughout the world and the centuries. Only who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to stay true to their purpose in spite of failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that give a man such strength." Alleluia! Steve 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.