Infinity and brahman

[Guest guest]

I was browsing through the advaitin archives. First thought: I have

missed an enormous amount of useful discussions and

presentations. Well, that is the price I pay for having been indifferent

to the advaitin postings all these months. Second thought: Can I

cover the backlog systematically? Very soon I discovered that this

is impossible. So I decided to choose my subject and search for the

relevant articles. As I was browsing I bumped into the expression:

'Definition of brahman'. Even here I found the archives do not allow

me to get all the articles on this subject. Instead it took me on to all

articles which had even a passing reference to this subject. That was

again an enormous task for me to cover!. So I decided to read a few

articles by Sadanandaji, and some responses to them by other

esteemed members. So in writing this article of mine on Infinity and

brahman, I might have missed some key observations made by

several members. Please pardon me for the same. I am therefore

amenable to corrections and will be thankful to members if they refer

me to the relevant postings that I should read but have missed.

(Incidentally I do not yet know how to use the archives to quickly

get at a particular posting by a member on a particular date on a

particular keyword).

Here I go. The concept of Infinity (in Mathematics) and the concept

of 'anantam' (in the Vedantic description of 'brahman' as it is --

technically known as 'svarUpa lakshaNa') are radically different. In

Vedanta there is only one 'anantam'. That is the Absolute. Because it

is absolute infinity, there should not be anything missing there and

so it is full and therefore it is Bliss Supreme. (Because if it were not

Bliss Supreme, then it would be lacking something!). Thus 'anantam'

and 'Anandam' are only two ways of saying it. You cannot define it,

because you would then be delimiting it. You cannot prescribe it,

because you would then be circumscribing it. You cannot specify it

because you have to go outside it to do so.

In Mathematics on the other hand Infinity can be defined,

prescribed and specified very precisely. Of course it took more than

twenty centuries of groping in the dark for mathematicians to come

to this stage of defining it precisely. Finally they came to grips with

the problem in the 19th century starting from the work of Cantor.

First, we have to recognise that in our ordinary scientific work we

bump into two kinds of infinities. One is the answer to the question:

How many numbers are there in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... .? Let us

call this aleph-nought. The second occurs in trying to answer the

question: How many points (geometrical) are there in the line

segment from the number 0 to the number 1 represented on the line

in any scale? Let us call this Omega.

Cantor proved that Omega is strictly 'greater than' Aleph-nought.

Well, I do not intend to give a lecture on the mathematics of infinity

through this posting. I am only saying these things to tell you (those

of you who have not rubbed shoulders with Mathematics) that there

are very precise definitions of these infinities. In fact the definitions

are so precise that mathematicians have gone very far now from

those early musings of Cantor. The question whether there exists

another infinity between Aleph-nought and Omega was 50 per cent.

answered in the thirties by Godel and the remaining 50 per cent. was

answered by Cohen in the sixties. The resulting answer was so

thrilling that it shook the very foundations of mathematics. That

answer was: Whether there exists another infinity or not between

Aleph-nought and Omega is unanswerable by the logic that was

responsible for all Mathematics; In other words, both the answers

would be consistent with the rest of Mathematics. Therefore the

question is undecidable. This concept of 'undecidability' is now an

important one in the fields of Mathematics as well as theoretical

computer science.

Now comes the beautiful parallel between Mathematical Infinity and

the Infinity concept embedded in 'brahman'. The Vedantic Infinity

concept embedded in brahman leads after a few steps of logic to

the statement that 'brahman' is the material cause of the universe. In

another posting I shall try to give you seven reasons why this

should be so. But 'brahman' being the material cause of the universe

is perplexing to our intellect. It is this very perplexity that causes

Vedanta and particularly advaita to postulate 'mAyA'. mAyA

therefore is Perplexity Supreme and in technical jargon it is

described as 'anirvacanIya' -- the English translation for this word

could be the word 'undecidable'! What a coincidence!

Why is mAyA undecidable? Vidyaranya in pancadaSi clinches the

issue:

nAsadAsIt vibhAtatvAt no sadAsIt-ca bAdHanAt. (Ch.VI - 2nd

part of sloka 128)

Meaning: Because it manifests (as the universe), we cannot say it

never exists;

Because it disappears (at the onset of Enlightenment), we cannot say

it always exists.

This is the undecidability.

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

You may access three on-line books of mine at the following site:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk

The books are:

Science and Spirituality - A Vedanta Perception

Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision & Practice

Overview of Hindu worship with spl. refce. to South India

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

>profvk

........

>I was browsing through the advaitin archives. First thought: I have >

>missed an enormous amount of useful discussions and presentations. Well,

>that is the price I pay for having been indifferent to the advaitin

>postings all these months.

 

Prof. VK -It is very obvious from your mail, we missed your wisdom.

>In another posting I shall try to give you seven reasons why this should be

>so. But 'brahman' being the material cause of the universe is perplexing to

>our intellect. It is this very perplexity that causes Vedanta and

>particularly advaita to postulate 'mAyA'.

 

We will be looking forward to the post. As you are aware Bhagavaan Ramanuja

approached the problem differently to explain how Brahman is the material

cuase of the universe and also how one can explain - knowing that one knows

everything. Only Bhagavaan Madhva of the three aachaarya-s does not agree

that Brahman is the material cause.

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp