Guest guest Posted March 21, 2003 Report Share Posted March 21, 2003 Namaste. On further reflection,it appears to me that we need only two axioms to derive the whole of Advaita: (1) The Brahman alone exists. (2) The Brahman is changeless. If Brahman alone exists, one can derive from this the postulate that Brahman is omnipresent. The use of the singular Brahman and saying that it is alone, means that it has to be homogenous. If it was not, it will be comprised of parts which will then be different from Brahman. This is not possible because Brahman alone exists. Birth and Death are aspects of change. So If Brahman is changeless, it follows that it is not subject to birth and Death. Axiom 1 makes the concept of Space redundant and axiom 2, that of Time and Causality. Without the concepts of Time, Space and Cuasality the entire world of phenomena and duality is dismissed. PranAms, Venkat > On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Ram Chandran wrote: > > > Namaste: > > > > Axioms: A set of postulates in simple English from the Vedas > > (Sastras): > > (1) The Brahman alone exists. > > (2) The Brahman is not subject to birth or death. (eternal) > > (3) The Brahman is changeless. > > (4) The Brahman is omnipresent. > > I would like to add a fifth postulate to that which is also there > in the shAstrA-s, and that is, "brahman is homogeneous and is > without parts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 Namaste: Honestly there is one and only axiom - "Brahman alone exists." The question of change occur when we introduce time. This does deomonstrate the (illusionary) creative power of human intellegence to further complicate the simple Truth! regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <venkat52@s...> wrote: > Namaste. > > On further reflection,it appears to me that we need only two axioms > to derive the whole of Advaita: > > (1) The Brahman alone exists. > (2) The Brahman is changeless. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, S. Venkatraman wrote: > Namaste. > > On further reflection,it appears to me that we need only two axioms > to derive the whole of Advaita: > > (1) The Brahman alone exists. > (2) The Brahman is changeless. > namaste. I am not a mathematician, hence cannot precisely define what an axiom is. But, taking "axiom" to mean something that is self-explanatory and that does not require a proof, I would say the only axiom there is is I am. Taking this as Atman, we need to extrapolate this to everything we see and perceive around us, and to come to the conclusion that all is Atman. The five postulates stated earlier, and that Atman is substratum for all perceptions follows from this axiom. The homogeneity, the omnipresence, the changelessness, the all-pervasiveness are all attributes of that fundamental axiom. > > PranAms, > Venkat > Regards Gummuluru Murthy --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2003 Report Share Posted March 22, 2003 Namaste, I am also not a mathematician but dabble in it a bit. As I understand Axioms are statements which are accepted as true without any proof and a whole system conforming to very strict requirements of mathematical proof ( a system like Euclidean Geometry) is built using those axioms. I understand that there is another mathematical theorem (I forget its name) which says that it is impossible to build a self contained system i.e a system where all the proofs are derived from within the system without having to depend on axioms which are taken to be true without proofs . Murthyji, you are very right when you say that the whole system of advaita can be derived from the one statement 'I am'. Also unlike axioms which are 'taken to be true' without any proof, this one, being self evident, does not even need a proof. Advaita, in that case, appears to me as a self-contained system because it does not depend on any statement that has to be 'taken to be true' but only on the statement 'I am' that is truth itself. I would request mathematicians on the list to come in and correct me if I am wrong. That however does not mean that other advaitins cannot do that. All are welcome to correct me. pranAms, Venkat advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote: > > I am not a mathematician, hence cannot precisely define what > an axiom is. But, taking "axiom" to mean something that is > self-explanatory and that does not require a proof, I would > say the only axiom there is is I am. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 Namaste Venkat, Not that I wish to encourage your taste for 'intellectual titillation', but the mathematical theorem you spoke about in message (16138) is called Godel's theorem. It applies only to certain kinds of arithmetical statements and is undoubtedly irrelevant to Advaita. It says that certain purely arithmetical statements cannot be proven from axioms. You can read more about it at: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/godels-theorem.html http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/godel.html Personally, I have severe doubts about a purely logical approach of any kind to spirituality. On the other hand, even though I am convinced that the Upanishads are some of the most profound and visionary spiritual testaments of mankind, I am a bit uneasy about the 'blind faith' that some Astika Hindus have in the Vedas. As a Westerner, I feel that the right approach is to listen to them and acquire faith that those people were as spiritually advanced as any the human race has produced. But then I think about it for myself as carefully as I can, and try to decide in my mind and heart what is the truth. One key point: Intuition is essential. Now there are many philosophers who say that intuition is just a 'cheap excuse' to believe whatever you want, but I distinguish valid from invalid intuition. One valid intuition, as far as I am concerned, is that what we see could not have arisen 'by itself' but requires a 'divine source' of some kind. Reality appears like a 'miracle' to me and requires a 'miraculous' origin. Of course, this notion of 'miracle' can get distorted and abused, and I would have to go into great detail as to just what I mean. But without some intuition, one won't get far in these matters. The discovery of the Self within is also intuition. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2003 Report Share Posted March 23, 2003 I have used the word "axiom" to mean a statement that is taken to be true without questioning (ie. without calling for proof) (regardless of whether it is obvious requiring no proof or whether one cannot provide a proof). If we were to take "I exist" as the only axiom, I do not understand how we resolve Sri Benjamin's question that started all this - namely, from the two statements, "X knows it exists" and "Y knows it exists", how do we infer that "X=Y"? Don't we need to assume (as an additional axiom) that "only one thing exists", which is what Sri Ram Chandran's first axiom "Brahman ALONE exists" implies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2003 Report Share Posted March 24, 2003 On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, eknath2k wrote: > I have used the word "axiom" to mean a statement that is taken > to be true without questioning (ie. without calling for proof) > (regardless of whether it is obvious requiring no > proof or whether one cannot provide a proof). > If we were to take "I exist" as the only axiom, I do not understand > how we resolve Sri Benjamin's question that started all this - > namely, from the two statements, "X knows it exists" and "Y knows it > exists", how do we infer that "X=Y"? > Don't we need to assume (as an additional axiom) that "only one thing > exists", which is what Sri Ram Chandran's first axiom "Brahman ALONE > exists" implies? > namaste. I think this was answered in some of the early responses to shri Benjamin Root's question a few weeks ago (by shri Madathil Nair-ji, I believe although not sure). The thread was so active and so voluminous at that time, that I missed keeping up fully with it. Let me put my understanding on this. The question is wrongly stated and does not have a basis. This is all a matter of superimposition (adhyAsa). You re-stated shri Benjamin Root's question as follows: "X knows it (X) exists. Y knows it (Y) exists. How do we infer X = Y?" The question already involved two superimpositions. You have superimposed X, the body-mind-intellect complex on the Consciousness. You have superimposed Y, the body-mind-intellect complex on the Consciousness. And you are trying to infer that the two superimposed entities are the same. The question that was stated above is equivalent to the following: On a dark night, John mis-took a rope in the corner to be a snake. At the same time, Robert mis-took the same rope to be a piece of scarf. You are asking how can we infer the snake and the scarf to be identical? Comparisons are made and identity is looked for in the upAdhi-s and not the substratum. How do the objects of the world come about? They come about because of the erroneous cognition. Without this erroneous cognition, the world of forms and names, the world of X's and Y's is not there. The fundamental superimposition which makes all the other superimpositions possible is the confusion between the SELF (the Atman) and the body/mind/intellect complex. When we say "X exists", there is already a superimposition. The body/mind/ intellect complex X has been given the nature of existence of the Consciousness. Existence is the property or nature of the substratum, the Consciousness, and that has been appended or given to the body/mind/intellect complex X (which does not exist). Hence, as per my understanding, the question that is asked is a non-question. Regards Gummuluru Murthy -------------------------------- 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.