Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Many pranams everyone. I must confess at the out set that I am a seeker taking the first few steps. I trust the question I have is relevant and that I am not getting bogged down by technicalities and missing the spirit. I was reading a Commentary on Tattvabodha. The Shloka is: Tatah aakasah sambhutah: Aakashat Vayuh: The commentator says , "Space is the first element created through the power of Maya. It has the quality of sound and can therefore carry sounds. >From Space came Air...." >From what I know Sound cannot travel through vacuum and needs air or molecules or some other such medium. Refer http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound.htm Is it correct then to say that space can carry sounds. Warm Regards Sridhar A Mudhan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Dear Respected SridharJi: There is a perfect scientific explanation for this. You can get the answer if you look at what really makes (creates) music out of the sound !! It is the silence between the two notes that creates the music. For any effective communication, there has to be some space between to two entities that are trying to communicate between each other. For two people to communicate there has to be some space between. Even neurons to communicate there is a space at the junction, called synapse. If we try to eliminate this gap then there is short circuit. This degeneration manifests in Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease. Thus space is quite critical for any communication. I hope this help. Regards, Dr. Yadu advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote: > Many pranams everyone. > I must confess at the out set that I am a seeker taking > the first few steps. I trust the question I have is relevant and that > I am not getting bogged down by technicalities and missing the spirit. > > I was reading a Commentary on Tattvabodha. The Shloka is: > Tatah aakasah sambhutah: Aakashat Vayuh: > > The commentator says , "Space is the first element created through the > power of Maya. It has the quality of sound and can therefore carry > sounds. > From Space came Air...." > > From what I know Sound cannot travel through vacuum and needs air or > molecules or some other such medium. > Refer http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound.htm > Is it correct then to say that space can carry sounds. > > Warm Regards > Sridhar A Mudhan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 Namaste Sridharji. The original statement in Sanskrit doesn't say "It has the quality of sound and can therefore carry sounds". I believe we discussed the creation of space (AkAsha) with prakAsha (light) towards the end of our September 03 discussion on 'Light in Enlightenment'. Space is understood as the separation between two objects like time is the separation between two consecutive events. Both get killed when objectification stops. So, space has no validity without matter and time without events. Vayu (air) is matter in gaseous state. That is the subtlest of the three states of matter. Gases, when they are colourless and odourless, are available only for our tactile objectification. I would therefore take the Tatwabodha statement to mean that matter in its subtlest state (as vAyu) was first born simultaneously with space and then the rest of the grosser states (liquid and solid)followed. I am subject to correction in this understanding. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote: > I was reading a Commentary on Tattvabodha. The Shloka is: > Tatah aakasah sambhutah: Aakashat Vayuh: > > The commentator says , "Space is the first element created through the > power of Maya. It has the quality of sound and can therefore carry > sounds. > From Space came Air...." > > From what I know Sound cannot travel through vacuum and needs air or > molecules or some other such medium. > Refer http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/sound.htm > Is it correct then to say that space can carry sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 Namaste, Sri Nairji, & Sridharji, and all It means first, tanmatra, of Akasha/space (?) was created, followed by other elements. These tanmatras are in very subtle form. By a process called Pancheekaranam, gross elements such as Akasha, Vayu, Agni, Apa and Pruthvi were created. Akasha means, that accommodates (Avakashapradatad) everything, so it can accommodate everything. Space is not the correct meaning for Akasha. Another point which equally confuses me also, how space is vacuum, because all the stars, plants, etc. are all in space. I think Akasha is not the Space referred in English language. Akasha as mentioned above, accommodates everything In Sanskrit “Anthariksham” is space i.e. what is perceived in between two, two objects we perceive, or between the subject and object. I think the space referred in ordinary language is not Akasha. We also come across “Chidaakasham’ that is, I think chit is akasha, because chit, consciousness accommodates everything. I am sure some of the members of group can clarify the above. Hari Om Mani Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:Namaste Sridharji. The original statement in Sanskrit doesn't say "It has the quality ofDiscussion 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 The New with improved product search Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2003 Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 Namaste Maniji. Please read Shri Ananda Wood at http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITwoodarticlesframeset.htm, particularly his essay on Nature of Consciousness. Details of Pancheekarana are at Advaitin files section. However, I am yet to see an intellgible interpretation of it. This matter was discussed earlier on this Forum and remains inconclusive. Shri Wood rightly interprets AkAsha as space-time continuum. Space and time cannot be separate. When space is born, therefore time also is born. Matter (objects) provides the reference scale for the former whereas events validate the latter. So, one has to assume that matter was also born *simultaneously* with space-time. I am using the word 'simultaneously' just to point out that the expressions 'first', 'followed by', 'next', 'after' etc. have no validity 'when' time itself was unborn or 'being' born. Besides, without events, time cannot be cognized. Similarly, without matter space also cannot be cognized. That takes us to "matter-events continuum" which cannot be different from "space-time continuum". About antarIksham, I see that it is used in Malayalam to denote atmosphere. Monier-Williams is no help. (Perhaps, I am not able to do a proper search there.) However, I note that it is made of two words 'antar' (in, amidst, between etc.) and 'Iksha' (seeing). In Sanskrit at least, it could therefore mean only something like 'seeing inside' or 'seen inside'. Perhaps, Sunderji can help us here. I would like to understand chidAkAsha as mental space-time continuum where thoughts, fantasies, ideas, concepts, apparitions, hallucinations, the dreamworld etc. are projected. In meditation, we understand the external AkAsha as a natural extension of this chidAkasha when the apparent boundary line between the two dissolves without a trace. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, "R.S.MANI" <r_s_mani> wrote: > > It means first, tanmatra, of Akasha/space (?) was created, followed by other elements. These tanmatras are in very subtle form. By a process called Pancheekaranam, gross elements such as Akasha, Vayu, Agni, Apa and Pruthvi were created. Akasha means, that accommodates (Avakashapradatad) everything, so it can accommodate everything. Space is not the correct meaning for Akasha. > > Another point which equally confuses me also, how space is vacuum, because all the stars, plants, etc. are all in space. > > I think Akasha is not the Space referred in English language. > > Akasha as mentioned above, accommodates everything > > In Sanskrit "Anthariksham" is space i.e. what is perceived in between two, two objects we perceive, or between the subject and object. I think the space referred in ordinary language is not Akasha. > > We also come across "Chidaakasham' that is, I think chit is akasha, because chit, consciousness accommodates everything. > > I am sure some of the members of group can clarify the above. > > Hari Om > > Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote:Perhaps, Sunderji can help us > here. Namaste, I shall give it a try! These are the dictionary definitions - Cologne Digital Sanskrit Lexicon Entry AkAza Meaning m. (Ved.) or (later) n. (ifc. f. %{A}) a free or open space , vacuity AitBr. S3Br. MBh. &c. [127,1] ; the ether , sky or atmosphere Naigh. S3Br. Mn. &c. ; (%{am}) n. (in philos.) the subtle and ethereal fluid (supposed to fill and pervade the universe and to be the peculiar vehicle of life and of sound) Veda1ntas. &c. ; Brahma (as identical with ether) L. ; = %{AkAza-bhASita} below Comm. on S3ak. ; (%{e}) loc. ind. in the air (a stage direction implying something said by or to a person out of sight) Mr2icch. S3ak. &c. ================================================================== anta4rikSa Entry antarikSa Meaning n. the intermediate space between heaven and earth ; (in the Veda) the middle of the three spheres or regions of life ; the atmosphere or sky ; the air ; talc. ====================================================================== The sense in which I have understood panchikarana is that it is a heuristic device in Vedanta. Other hypotheses can be advanced, but the progression to the more subtle levels of analysis of pancha- koshas and avastha-trayas till the jiva-brahma-unity(aikyam) has to be undertaken. The Tantra and Yoga approaches have described other 'tattvas'(upto 36!), and Vedanta has limited itself to the minimium five. Shankara Vedanta seems to have made a concession here, as its firm siddhanta (conclusion) that srishti-vichara 9nature of objects) can never be conclusive without atma-vichara (nature of one's self). Regards, Sunder 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.