Guest guest Posted May 30, 2003 Report Share Posted May 30, 2003 Hi Greg, I propose that you do the one that you had scheduled for October - i.e. existence of objects (or however it was phrased). Wouldn't be too upset if we had a rest for a month, though! Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2003 Report Share Posted May 30, 2003 As I was going through some of my past posts that I have stored in my files from adviataL list - I found this one and this may be of some interest to all destinity people- not intended for churning the topic again though! Hari OM! Sadananda ----------------- >Shri Gurubhyo' Namah: >I came across this quite interesting verse when I was reading on my current research topic. And I figured it would be interesting to post it too.!! >(It is basically about science, and specifically, it is about the importance of trying to solve the N-body problem, with several bodies interacting with each other and we are trying to solve Newton's equation of motion.) >Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it - an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to anlysis - it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to it's eyes. >- de Laplace P.S., A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities >Dover, New York, 1951. >Vaidya. I could not comprehend this quote. The last statement "; for it nothing ...." does not follow the rest of it. Probabilities of particular events are related to the uncertainties of the future. If there are several event probabilities, the course of events that can be charted out by the intelligence as the most probable sequence of events into the future with uncertainty factor hooked up with the probabilities. But the problem in the vision of de Laplace is to consider the intelligence that is submitting the data to analysis is separate from the data itself. This is the fundamental problem of dRik and dRisya distinction and advaita Vedanta addresses the very essence of this problem. In addition, the very analysis of the data by that intelligence itself perturbs the system and the data that is being analyzed such that the one of the biggest uncertainty gets built into the system. This is where system (or input data) as prarabda and analysis as purushaartha gets combined to give future prarabda- to express simply in the vedantic terminology. It is a trasitory system with data continouly being modified by the very analyst who is trying to analyze the system - it is not only interaction of the N bodies but interaction with intelligence who is the observer of the N body system. If the interaction is preordained then the socalled superior intelligence is no more superior intelligent. This is where there is lot of confusion in the advaitic discussions on free will or the lack of it. The data is perturbed by the intelligence by his very observation and analysis, but the inteligence is not perturbed by the data. (unless he imagines himself to be the perturbed data). Hence he is real and the other is transitory or maaya. One can imaginge the total confusion that can arise when the system being analysed is mistaken as the subject who is analyzing the system - as I am the body etc. Stimulated quote to think of the glory of our Vedantic analysts who have combined the analyst and the analyzed system into one! - advaita! I must have successfully confused everybody now with the analysis of the quote. But remember I am not confused, but it is only the system that is confused by my analysis! Could this confusion also be predicted with no uncertain terms by the superior intelligence! - we can provide an operating definition for that superior intelligence - as the one who could have predicted with no uncertain terms that is with 100% probability - That is the defition of Iswara - Since it is not probable, it is only an operating definition from the point of jeeva who imagins that such a probability exists. But the definition that appeals to me is that superior intelligence is one who recognizes himself not perturbed even though his very observation of the system perturbs the system observed with all its uncertanities. That is possible only if (a) system being observed is not independent of him and (b) most importantly it is unreal since real would make the system independent of the intelligence and can never be predicted with any degree of probability! I stop this without causing any further confusion. Hari Om! Sadananda ===== What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift to Him - Swami Chinmayananda. Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook. http://calendar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2003 Report Share Posted May 30, 2003 Namaste, Sadananda-ji Thank you for the clarification which is much appreciated. The topical approach is valuable for the reasons you mentioned, but I had noticed a few instances in which persons were chided for departing from the topic. I hope your comments will keep the floor open to more varied contributions in addition to the designated topic. Sri Ramakrishna Tat Sat Shivaram On Fri, 30 May 2003 03:20:21 -0700 (PDT), kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > Shree Shivaram Das > > The topic idea is only to concentrate on one topic since we keep > discussing again and again in bits and pieces. Some topics may be of > interest to some and not for others. But by focussing on one aspect we > tend to bring information that is relavent which we overlook otherwise. > For example, j~nana-Bhakti topic we were exposed many other related > topics - discussion of Bhakti in Yoga VasishhTa, or teachings of Sage > Kabir etc., which many would not have been able to get hold of but for > the efforts of some who took interest. The purpose the list serve is > learn from each other. > > This, of course, does not prevent anyone to discuss any other topic and > those who are interested in the other topics will contribute. > > Hence any topic on Advaita can be posted irrespective of the central > topic for that month. So do not feel constrained to discuss only the > topic of that month. If the topic of the month is of interest to you, > feel free to contribute or express your opinions. > > Hari OM! > Sadananda -- The brain is just the weight of God, For, lift them, pound for pound, And they will differ, if they do, As syllable from sound. --- Emily Dickinson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2003 Report Share Posted May 30, 2003 Namaste Shivaram, The approach Sadananda outlined is indeed the viewpoint of the list, as regards topics. A topic provides a focus and a gathering for discussion. And anyone is free to contribute to the topic, or outside it. The only chiding that should happen should be reserved for posts going outside the guidelines of the advaitin list itself! Hari OM! --Greg At 09:03 AM 5/30/2003 -0500, Shivaram Das wrote: >Namaste, Sadananda-ji > >Thank you for the clarification which is much appreciated. The topical >approach is valuable for the reasons you mentioned, but I had noticed a few >instances in which persons were chided for departing from the topic. I >hope your comments will keep the floor open to more varied contributions in >addition to the designated topic. > >Sri Ramakrishna Tat Sat >Shivaram > > >On Fri, 30 May 2003 03:20:21 -0700 (PDT), kuntimaddi sadananda ><kuntimaddisada wrote: > >> Shree Shivaram Das >> >> The topic idea is only to concentrate on one topic since we keep >> discussing again and again in bits and pieces. Some topics may be of >> interest to some and not for others. But by focussing on one aspect we >> tend to bring information that is relavent which we overlook otherwise. >> For example, j~nana-Bhakti topic we were exposed many other related >> topics - discussion of Bhakti in Yoga VasishhTa, or teachings of Sage >> Kabir etc., which many would not have been able to get hold of but for >> the efforts of some who took interest. The purpose the list serve is >> learn from each other. >> >> This, of course, does not prevent anyone to discuss any other topic and >> those who are interested in the other topics will contribute. >> >> Hence any topic on Advaita can be posted irrespective of the central >> topic for that month. So do not feel constrained to discuss only the >> topic of that month. If the topic of the month is of interest to you, >> feel free to contribute or express your opinions. >> >> Hari OM! >> Sadananda >-- >The brain is just the weight of God, > For, lift them, pound for pound, >And they will differ, if they do, > As syllable from sound. > --- Emily Dickinson > > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2003 Report Share Posted May 30, 2003 Namaste Sadanandaji, I tried my best not to get confused...but all in vain ! First you said : "It is a trasitory system with data continouly being modified by the very analyst who is trying to analyze the system - it is not only interaction of the N bodies but interaction with intelligence who is the observer of the N body system." This means that the system is trasitory because it is perturbed by the analyst. Then you said : "But the definition that appeals to me is that superior intelligence is one who recognizes himself not perturbed even though his very observation of the system perturbs the system observed with all its uncertanities. That is possible only if (a) system being observed is not independent of him and (b) most importantly it is unreal since real would make the system independent of the intelligence and can never be predicted with any degree of probability!" Does this imply that the superior intelligence will be able to predict even the uncertainities that arises because of the perturbance caused by its own analysis?? I think I missed that part somewhere. This will also suggest that as his analysis goes deeper and clearer the perturbance and uncertainities in the system will increase proportionally ! This reminds me of Heisenberg !! :-) Om ranjeet 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.