Is there 'light' in Enlightenment? (Sept. 03 discussion topic)

[Guest guest]

Hello Madathil,

Following the course of the discussion

on LIE many interesting ideas have come into purview,

some taking a literal and others a figurative view of

this light. Taking light as a metaphor for all sorts

of awareness and states of consciousness and

remembering the point which has been made that

enlightenment itself is not an experience the question

may be taken to mean 'is the world of the senses/mind

contradicted by Enlightenment? Is it set at naught, is

it annihilated, rendered void or meaningless by the

onset of Realisation. For the ajativadin adept perhaps

the entire universe, poor Bradley and the coins in the

back of the sofa are fractionized by his tapas.

 

For myself I have lately been intrigued by a word which

Swami Gambhirananda uses in relation to the dream -

'sublate'. B.S.B. II.ii.29 ...the perceptions of the

waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream.

Why?

Because of difference in characteristics; for waking

and dream states are really different in nature.

In what does the difference consist?

We say that it consists in being subject to sublation

or not. To a man, arisen from sleep, the object

perceived in a dream becomes sublated. Falsly did I

imagine myself in contact with great men......But a

thing seen in the waking state, a pillar, for instance,

is not thus sublated under any condition.

 

In B.S.B. II.i.14: For even when a man knows after

waking that the acts of snake-bite and bathing in water

etc., experienced by him in dream, were false, he does

not surely consider the knowledge of those acts to be

false as well. By this - the non-sublation of the

knowledge acquired by a dreamer - it is to be

understood that the doctrine of the identity of the

Self with the mere body is also discarded.

 

That the translator should have chosen the very

uncommon word 'sublate' to express the exact nuance

that he wished to take from the original is very

significant. It is a term from the Logic of Hegel.

The Penguin dictionary of Phil. defines it as a special

term used to translate 'aughebung' The overcoming of

the contrast between a thesis and its antithesis in

their synthesis. The German word suggests

cancellation, elevation, supersession.

 

There is a dialectical transition from lower to higher

viewpoints. Sublation suggests not contradiction but a

greater comprehension at a new level. It brings in the

dynamic of atma vichara and the meditation of sucessive

objectification as urged by Sankara in

Br.Up.II.iv.11/12 in his commentary.

 

So then light is comprehended and enriched in an

eternal vision of 'the Light that never was on land or

sea'.

 

Best Wishes, Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...>

wrote:

> Hello Madathil,

>>

> For myself I have lately been intrigued by a word which

> Swami Gambhirananda uses in relation to the dream -

> 'sublate'. B.S.B. II.ii.29 ...the perceptions of the

> waking state cannot be classed with those in a dream.

> Why?

> Because of difference in characteristics; for waking

> and dream states are really different in nature.

> In what does the difference consist?

> We say that it consists in being subject to sublation

> or not. To a man, arisen from sleep, the object

> perceived in a dream becomes sublated. > Best Wishes, Michael

 

-----------------------

 

Namaste, Michaelji

 

I had a quick look at the original of B.S.B. II ii 29. The original

of -- I quote from your paragraph above of Gambhirananda -- "We say

that it consists in being subject to sublation or not" is as follows

"bAdhAvabhAdhAu iti brUmah". So the word 'sublate' has come from

the Sanskrit word 'bAdha'. This latter word means 'refutation'. So

I think 'refutation' could be (for us) a more comfortable

translation, but from the time of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan onwards, all

experts have been using the word 'sublation'.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

My brother, Shri Narendran, who has read my post # 19067 about the

Theory of Relativity has commented as follows. I believe his views

would be of interest to our Members. (Since he is not a Member of

this Group, I am relying on permission granted before by our

Administrator to quote him.):

 

QUOTE

 

Interesting indeed is the article. Some of these thoughts had also

occurred to me earlier, when I first came across the theory of

relativity.

You will note that mass is actually an impediment to velocity - that

is

why

I took the meaning of light as an adjective as appropriate in defining

enlightenment. The mass is the 'tamas'or Ego and light is

the 'satva'

or

knowledge. This is probably the parallel between the Theory of

Relativity

and the Advaita Philosophy. Satva is self-existent whereas Tamas is

created. Disengage from creation or sankalpaas (Rajas), tamas

vanishes

by

itself. Self is pure satva, without any trace of Rajas. Even while

remaining as Satva he holds within him (Rajas as an accompaniment) as

His

power to play with himself. Therefore while engaging in creation (or

playing with yourself. that is what life is all about) do not ever

forget

what you really are. That is exactly the purpose of namajapa or

chanting of

mantras etc.

 

As far as a common man is concerned, this means do not forget God

wherever

one is. Because God is the goodness in self, He is one's true form

and

He

teaches that all that is created is His, and there is nothing better

to

do

than serving Him which means engaging in creation for the benefit of

all

creatures rather than one's own small self (the Vaishnavite way), or

disengaging from creation as far as possible with only his thought in

mind

(the Sivaite way).

 

Exploring the outer world, like Einstein very well did, will not take

you to

this Truth, despite the greatness of Theory of Relativity.

Therefore,

there

may be some striking parallels in the physical sciences to the Advaita

Philosophy, but please do not mistake them for absolute truths.

 

Because, God (the cosmic Self) who created this universe through his

sankalpas (and science is nothing but a study of his sankalpas), if he

wishes, can transform the universe to a different set of sankalpas,

in

which

case the present science will become totally invalid. Advaita says,

the

Cosmic Self (Siva) alone is truth. His power (Devi) of sankalpa is

infinite. She is both Vidya and Avidya. Hold her as Mother of the

Universe

and you are lead to Truth. Understand her chaste devotion to Siva -

which is

Soundarya Lahari is about. Hold her as anything else, one is bound in

Maya.

Understand Narayana to be Devi's own part (Amme Narayana) Puranas

call

him

brother. Narayana is Siva's own consciousness about what he is (i.e.

Sivoham). Therefore Aham merges with Siva only with the blessing of

Narayana. Narayana is the Guru that gives one the knowledge of

Self.

Siva

is never without that knowledge of Sivoham (which is Narayana). That

is

why

Vaishnavites argue that Moksha is possible only through Narayana.

Siva

is

Self, Devi is Infinite Power, Narayana is knowledge about Self (These

three

are inseparable). Therefore, Adi Sankaraachaarya had no hesitation in

singing praise to the various dieties. Let Advaita philosophy ever

retain

its purity and holiness that Sankara gave it. It is Unity that can

absorb

all the varieties of creation, because it knows that Creator is one

and

Creation is nothing but His Leela with His Consort. None of the

creation is

ever without Father, Mother or Guru. Father gives one Vairaagya,

Mother

Bhakti and Guru the Jnaana - the three essentials for self-realisation

(merging with the Cosmic Self).

 

Let me quote a sloka from Sivananda Lahari here.

 

Eko vaarijabhaandava kshithinabho vyaaptam tamOmandalam

Bhitvaa lOchanagOcharobhi bhavathi Tvam koti SUryaprabha:

VEdya kim na Bhavasyaho ghanatharam kIdrgbhavenmatthamas,

Thatsarvaram VyapanIya me PasupathE saakshat prasanno bhava

 

Just One Sun (the friend of Lotus) is able to split the darkness and

spread

its light all over the earth and sky, but O' Lord You with the

Brightness of

a crore Suns is not visble to me. How dense is the tamas that

envelopes me?

O' Lord of all Beings, be pleased to remove all this darkness.

 

Well, I am for "light in enlightenment" though its acronym may be

"LIE".

Well, a lie can exist only within truth - because lie needs a truth

which it

can deform.

 

UNQUOTE

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Nair,

 

Here is a somewhat delayed response to your message of 26th September about

light in Einstein's theories of relativity and in advaita.

 

Einstein worked from an intuition that electromagnetic light is not carried

through a material medium, but rather through the basic continuity of space

and time. It had been noticed that light can travel through the

electromagnetic properties of empty space, without any matter in it. But

space and time, as Einstein clearly saw, are always seen through

measurements made relative to differing observers. As each observer measures

space, that measurement shows space itself as unmoving, around the observer.

Through this unmoving space, observed objects and other observers are seen

moving. Thus, each observer sees an unmoving background of space and time,

through which all objects and observers are seen to move.

 

As light moves through empty space, its movement is determined only by the

electromagnetic properties of space, which is quite still as each observer

measures it. The speed of light must therefore be the same for different

observers, no matter how fast they may go towards an oncoming beam of light

or run away from a pursuing beam. This was the starting point from which

Einstein brought about his 'dematerializing' revolution in modern physics.

 

Einstein's basic approach was simply to ask what reality is seen in common,

beneath the varying appearances that depend on different points of view. And

he saw that while space and time are varying measurements, light shows us a

background continuity that does not vary in this way. That continuity is

called the 'space-time continuum'. It is made up from events, which are

geometrically connected to each other, in the four dimensions of space and

time. The connection is not a gross material one, in which one piece of

matter acts with force upon some other object. Instead, the connection is

more subtly made between events, which carry subtle influences through a

field conditioning of space and time.

 

As light travels, it transmits information from elsewhere. This is one

meaning of the word 'prakasha' -- as the 'shining forth' of propagating

light, whose information joins together different things and brings us

knowledge the world. But propagation in its turn implies a background

continuity, whose nature shows through travelling light. That light-bearing

continuity is called 'akasha', where the prefix 'a-' implies and 'intimate

proximity' to the 'shining' that's implied by '-kasha'. Objective physics

goes so far, but can go no further.

 

But Einstein saw that something deeper was implied, in the intuitions that

enable scientists to form their theories. As he said (in Mein Weltbild,

Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934): 'You will hardly find one among the

profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his

own.... His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement at the

harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority

that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human

beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding

principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself

from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely akin to

that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.'

 

The implication here is subjective, in an advaitic sense. In order to see

further and more accurately into the objective world, scientists fall deeper

back into subjective experience. That implies a subjective light (Einstein's

'intelligence of such superiority ...') which underlies the world's

intelligibility to us (Einstein's 'harmony of natural law'). Such a

subjective light is indicated by another and a deeper meaning of the word

'prakasha'. For the prefix 'pra-' has a double meaning. It means both 'pro-'

or 'forward' and 'pre-' or 'prior'. (Etymologically, both 'pro-' and 'pre-'

are cognate with the Sanskrit 'pra-'. The earlier form of 'pre-' was

'prae-'). So 'prakasha' does not only mean a 'shining forth', but also a

'prior shining' or a 'shining underneath'. The second meaning is advaitic.

It refers to an impersonal depth of consciousness, where no duality is left

between what truly knows and the complete reality of all that's known.

 

It's only thus that I would try to relate advaita and physics. Advaita

belongs to a completely different level of consideration, where knowledge is

no instrumental action, but only light in which all instruments and actions

are dissolved. Of that light, Einstein's own description shows its relation

to instrumental sciences. As he says, it is 'of such superiority that,

compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is

an utterly insignificant reflection'.

 

Ananda Wood

[Guest guest]

My 2c as I understand

 

The discussion will lead to triviality if we discuss the creation from

the absolute sense. Ajaata vaada may be a fact from reality but the

fact that ajaata vaaada itself is created to account the non-creation of

the creation - there is an apparent self-contradiction in the ajaata

vaada. There is no need to go to November topic right away as Benjamin

suggested since there is no November either! In fact there is no need to

go anywhere since anywhere or everywhere do not exist! (or do they

really exist!)

 

The problem does not end with the declaration that there is no world of

creation. Problem which is remains fundamental human problem is then

whey do I see or experience the world which is not there and what do I

really experience in the experience of the world and how and why. What

constitutes the definition of reality and why?

 

Hence is it Advaita - when dvaita seems to exist and Advaita denies the

reality to the existence of the dvaita. In its denial, it still has to

account how and why it denies - otherwise it is just axiomatic. Advaita

and Vedanta do not deny the world of creation, it is real within the

realm of transaction - one sleeps and awakes - with the cycle of birth

and annihilation of the world. Vedanta says it is apparently real but

not really real. One has to understand the truth behind the appearance

of relatively real as absolutely real. There lies the problem and the

solution - what makes something apparently real and really real

(satyasya satyam).

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> My 2c as I understand

>

> The problem does not end with the declaration that there is no

world of

> creation. Problem which is remains fundamental human problem is then

> why do I see or experience the world which is not there and what do

I

> really experience in the experience of the world and how and why.

What

> constitutes the definition of reality and why?

 

Namaste,

 

The sages responded: Gita -

 

jaraamaraNamokShaaya maamaashritya yatanti ye .

te brahma tadviduH kR^itsnamadhyaatmaM karma chaakhilam.h .. 7\-29..

 

"....for liberation from decay and death...."

 

anityamasukhaM lokamimaM praapya bhajasva maam.h .. 9\-33..

 

"....reaching this transient, joyless world......"

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda Wood.

 

I feel superemely honoured by your profound consideration of a

thought that initially seemed outrageously preposterous.

 

Your views, to say the least, are brilliant and lucid. They have

supplemented and straightened my indequately lay view of the great

Theory of Relativity.

 

I have inserted my further thoughts in brackets in the body of

your post and shall be grateful if you ponder them and tell me what

you think. Please take your time as I am aware you are pretty

tightly preoccupied.

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

 

Here is a somewhat delayed response to your message of 26th September

about light in Einstein's theories of relativity and in advaita.

 

Einstein worked from an intuition that electromagnetic light is not

carried through a material medium, but rather through the basic

continuity of space and time. It had been noticed that light can

travel through the electromagnetic properties of empty space, without

any matter in it. But space and time, as Einstein clearly saw, are

always seen through measurements made relative to differing

observers. As each observer measures space, that measurement shows

space itself as unmoving, around the observer. Through this unmoving

space, observed objects and other observers are seen moving. Thus,

each observer sees an unmoving background of space and time,

> through which all objects and observers are seen to move.

 

 

[but, this is the very light that makes observations possible as the

principle of our eyes. Does it not then derive that LIGHT IS,

OBSERVATIONS ARE, or, in other words, LIGHT IS, EVENTS ARE? I am not

talking about the advaitic light within us. I am only pointing at

precedence, i.e. light comes first in creation (Let there be light!),

followed by the rest. We will come to the main light later.]

 

 

As light moves through empty space, its movement is determined only

by the electromagnetic properties of space, which is quite still as

each observer measures it.

 

 

[space being the separation between objects (Can there be space

without objects?) and objects being the subject of observation, we

have to conclude that space is also made evident by light. Then,

don't we have to think that LIGHT IS, SPACE AND ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC

PROPERTIES ARE.]

 

 

The speed of light must therefore be the same for different

observers, no matter how fast they may go towards an oncoming beam of

light or run away from a pursuing beam. This was the starting point

from which Einstein brought about his 'dematerializing' revolution in

modern physics.

 

Einstein's basic approach was simply to ask what reality is seen in

common, beneath the varying appearances that depend on different

points of view. And he saw that while space and time are varying

measurements, *light shows us a background continuity that does not

vary in this way*.

 

 

[!!! Asterisks mine. Does this (*..*) not point at what I wrote

above? Can the background continuity find meaning without there

being light in the first place? Can light find expression without the

continuity? Both questions are difficult to answer. We may,

therefore, have to ask: Are they, i.e. light, space and time, just

one entity finding simultaneous expression as two (light and space-

time continuum)? I admit the temporal word 'simultaneous' has no

meaning when we are talking about a 'stage' where time is yet to take

birth.]

 

 

That continuity is called the 'space-time continuum'. It is made up

from events, which are geometrically connected to each other, in the

four dimensions of space and time. The connection is not a gross

material one, in which one piece of matter acts with force upon some

other object. Instead, the connection is more subtly made between

events, which carry subtle influences through a field conditioning of

space and time.

 

As light travels, it transmits information from elsewhere. This is one

meaning of the word 'prakasha' -- as the 'shining forth' of ropagating

light, whose information joins together different things and brings us

knowledge the world. But propagation in its turn implies a background

continuity, whose nature shows through travelling light. That light-

bearing continuity is called 'akasha', where the prefix 'a-' implies

and 'intimate proximity' to the 'shining' that's implied by '-kasha'.

Objective physics goes so far, but can go no further.

 

 

[WOW! This, I would say, is the best and deepest insight this

discussion on L.I.E. has brought about! You have beautifully

elevated our mundane understanding of light by delving deep into the

meaning of the word prakAshA. Yet again, isn't this prakAshA the

ultimate revealer of the background continuity of AkAshA as you said

the nature of AkAshA shows through praKAsha. Can we, therefore,

think: PRAKASHA IS, AAKASHA IS? It cannot be: AKASHA IS, PRAKASHA

IS. Am I right? Or, does it mean the same both ways? AkAshA and

PrakAshA seem an inseparable bundle!]

 

 

But Einstein saw that something deeper was implied, in the intuitions

that enable scientists to form their theories. As he said (in Mein

Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934): 'You will hardly find one

among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious

feeling of his own.... His religious feeling takes the form of

rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an

intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the

systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly

insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of

his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself

from the shackles of selfish desire. It is beyond question closely

akin to that which has possessed the religious geniuses of all ages.'

 

The implication here is subjective, in an advaitic sense. In order to

see further and more accurately into the objective world, scientists

fall deeper back into subjective experience. That implies a

subjective light (Einstein's 'intelligence of such superiority ...')

which underlies the world's intelligibility to us(Einstein's 'harmony

of natural law'). Such a subjective light is indicated by another and

a deeper meaning of the word 'prakasha'. For the prefix 'pra-' has a

double meaning. It means both 'pro-' or 'forward' and 'pre-'

or 'prior'. (Etymologically, both 'pro-' and 'pre-' are cognate with

the Sanskrit 'pra-'. The earlier form of 'pre-' was 'prae-').

So 'prakasha' does not only mean a 'shining forth', but also a 'prior

shining' or a 'shining underneath'. The second meaning is advaitic.

It refers to an impersonal depth of consciousness, where no duality

is left between what truly knows and the complete reality of all

that's known.

 

 

[May I, therefore, extend prakAshA to mean the primary manifestation

of that subjective Light? The primary manifestation then goes on to

erect AkAshA (space-time continuum) with the world of objects and

events in it.]

 

 

It's only thus that I would try to relate advaita and physics. Advaita

belongs to a completely different level of consideration, where

knowledge is no instrumental action, but only light in which all

instruments and actions are dissolved. Of that light, Einstein's own

description shows its relation to instrumental sciences. As he says,

it is 'of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic

thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant

reflection'.

 

 

[Yes. It is in that Light that is within us or that we really are

that all phenomena including prakAsha ultimately resolve and abide in

peace.]

 

[Thanks. There is Light in Enlightenment. Enlightenment is Light!

With these wrods, permit me to wrap up this discussion on L.I.E.

L.I.E. cannot remain metaphorical if the primary meaning of prakAshA

is well understood.]

 

[Nevertheless, Shri Ananda Wood,I would like to listen to you on my

thoughts mentioned above as the Light in Enlightenment cannot go off

come end-September!]

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair