Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 The following article appeared in Economic Times today (24 Feb 04) ==== quote ==== REST IN PEACE Unlike science which investigates the "how" behind things and processes, philosophy generally tries to understand and answer the "why" instead. Why should there be morality? Why is one infinity greater than another when both are infinite? Why can we not tell when a foetus becomes a human being? Etc. All seemingly deep and profound questions. However, the super ultimate question though, is not whether there are other intelligent beings in the universe or what happens to us after death or even if God exists. According to Schelling, Schopenhauer and several others it is: "Why should something exist rather than nothing?" Those who believe that everything that exists today came into existence some 13.5 billion years ago after an event called the Big Bang, believe there was no-thing before that. Somehow, magically or at least mysteriously, something in the no-thing "banged" and therefore here we are today with our cable televsion, poets and books on metaphysics. Cosmologists tell us the some-thing was something called a "vaccuum fluctuation" which really tells us nothing about no-thing at all. ==== quote === And the article goes on to discuss "how everything will end" also. The article mentions something Einstein called " a cosmological constant" Jayaraman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Jayaramanji. Advaita has a very simple answer to your conundrum. Things exist because I exist. 'Nothing' is a thing here. Logically, before the 'big bang', something should have existed that gave rise to the bang. Some guys call it a meta-universe. It couldn't have existed without an appreciating intelligence. If the 'big bang' really occurred, that also couldn't have without that intelligence being present. If everything ends tomorrow, that ending will need an intelligence to appreciate it. Besides, an end cannot be thought of without a thereafter because any tomorrow has a day-after and that thereafter or day-after would cry for an inteligence to validate it. Advaita says that intelligence is ME - timeless, therefore, deathless and birthless. When everything is thus reduced to ME and so realized, cosmology will be understood as an inadequate tool with which we operate in ignorance. PraNAms. Madathil Nair _____________________ advaitin, "Jayaraman" <jayaraman.v@n...> wrote: > The following article appeared in Economic Times today (24 Feb 04) > > ==== quote ==== > > REST IN PEACE > > Unlike ...... .................................. > And the article goes on to discuss "how everything will end" also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Jayaramanji, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It was a medieval scholastic philosopher - I do not presently remember his name - and not Schelling or Schopenhauer, that first asked this question. But the question "why" is asked on the premise that there is a cause to that which is asked about. In this case, the questioner does not first go about to determine whether "existence" is something that can come about, or whether it can be the effect of a cause. In Advaita, "existence" is the very nature of the immutable substratum of the universe, and hence the question "why" is not applicable to it. If the question is understood as a formal question that demands an answer, then the problem lies with the questioning itself, but I think the question is more a rhetorical device of expressing wonder at the world rather than being a question in the formal sense. "Why can we not tell when a foetus becomes a human being?" This problem is known as the Sorites problem. When do the grains of sand become a heap? The problem here is more with modern philosophy that does not recognise that grains of sand never become a heap. The whole is distinct than the parts. The whole is not the sum of parts. The distinct thing that is the whole is manifested when seen, and once seen, the parts are also seen to be subsumed in the unity of the whole because the parts are constituted in the essence of the whole. Thus, there is no demarkating point at which the grains of sand become the heap. It is the heap when the heap is seen. The answer is not quantitative, but qualitative, and modern scientific thinking with its penchant for quantification distorts the problem and is then baffled. Similarly, the foetus becomes a human being when it is seen to become a human being. But this latter kind of question usually get masked by a definition of what a human being is which then becomes a scientific convention of word-usage. With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Jayaraman" <jayaraman.v@n...> wrote: > The following article appeared in Economic Times today (24 Feb 04) > > ==== quote ==== > > REST IN PEACE > > Unlike science which investigates the "how" behind things and processes, > philosophy generally tries to understand and answer the "why" instead. Why > should there be morality? Why is one infinity greater than another when > both are infinite? Why can we not tell when a foetus becomes a human being? > Etc. All seemingly deep and profound questions. > > However, the super ultimate question though, is not whether there are other > intelligent beings in the universe or what happens to us after death or even > if God exists. According to Schelling, Schopenhauer and several others it > is: > > "Why should something exist rather than nothing?" > > Those who believe that everything that exists today came into existence some > 13.5 billion years ago after an event called the Big Bang, believe there was > no-thing before that. Somehow, magically or at least mysteriously, > something in the no-thing "banged" and therefore here we are today with our > cable televsion, poets and books on metaphysics. > > Cosmologists tell us the some-thing was something called a "vaccuum > fluctuation" which really tells us nothing about no-thing at all. > > ==== quote === > > And the article goes on to discuss "how everything will end" also. > > The article mentions something Einstein called " a cosmological constant" > > Jayaraman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Jayaramanji, Nairji has nicely pointed out the absurdity of assuming in the first place that there is creation at all. In the vivartavada of Advaita, there is no creation. The Big-Bang Theory relies heavily upon Quantum-Relativistic physics to arrive at its conclusions. In both Quantum Theory as well as Relativity Theory, the key pivotal point is the observer. Science must first decide whether the observer is consciousness or the measurement system before it can pronounce coherent theories about creation. Science remains stuck on the "hard problem" of consciousness because it is looking for the origins of consciousness in the brain. Consciousness has no origin; therefore it is absurd to say that it emerged within life forms in the course of an evolutionary past. There are simply too many cobwebs within the paradigms of science. Science is great, and science is naive. There is a crying need today to separate the greatness of science from its stupidity, but science has become a religion, and one is easily inquisitioned if one questions its dogmas. It happened to Henri Bergson. With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Jayaraman" <jayaraman.v@n...> wrote: > The following article appeared in Economic Times today (24 Feb 04) > > Those who believe that everything that exists today came into > existence some 13.5 billion years ago after an event called the > Big Bang, believe there was no-thing before that. Somehow, > magically or at least mysteriously, something in the > no-thing "banged" and therefore here we are today with our > cable televsion, poets and books on metaphysics. > Cosmologists tell us the some-thing was something called a "vaccuum > fluctuation" which really tells us nothing about no-thing at all. > ==== quote === > > And the article goes on to discuss "how everything will end" also. > The article mentions something Einstein called " a cosmological constant" > > Jayaraman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Jayaramanji and Chittaranjanji. Here is a link you may find interesting, of course, not from the point of view of advaita but for the pains taken by the author in an earnest and sincere endeavour to analyze: http://www.geocities.com/roger846/theory.4.html Confessedly, I haven't gone through it completely. PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Chittranjanji. Did you mean Leibniz? Please look at this link: http://sun1.rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de/zeww/lecture_1.pdf PraNAms. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > "Why is there something rather than nothing?" > > It was a medieval scholastic philosopher - I do not presently > remember his name - and not Schelling or Schopenhauer, that first > asked this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Jayaramanji, Madathilji, Chittaranjanji, ... What a great topic! I could talk about this for hours. Let me try to be brief. >Unlike science which investigates the "how" behind >things and processes, philosophy generally tries to >understand and answer the "why" instead. As a serious student of science and physics in particular, I can assure you that this is entirely correct. Science only *describes* how the phenomenal world behaves. It makes statements like, 'If A is observed to occur, then B is observed to occur at some later time.' This is mere description. In no way does it *explain* at a deep level the mystery of being. Matter and energy remain terms that are defined only procedurally, e.g. as a quantified description of resistance or motion, and in no way is their mysterious essence explained. Those who think that science explains everything, and that religion and philosophy are therefore obsolete, are seriously mistaken. (Sorry, Chittaranjanji, but I feel that some kind of cause or explanation for the miracle is necessary. One cannot just sweep the mystery under the rug by saying that the concept of cause does not apply.) One under-appreciated detail I would like to make clear is that it is not sufficient to explain how the 'universe' started, e.g. by some big bang. It is just as much of a mystery that the universe *continues* to exist from moment to moment. (This is true even after Advaitins reduce the 'creation' to consciousness, in which an illusory creation is projected. The consciousness itself then becomes the mystery.) In my opinion, the miracle (yes miracle) of existence (or its synonym consciousness) requires something like Brahman to sustain it at every moment. And even ordinary people have the intuition that Brahman must be consciousness in some sense. It could not possibly be a machine or organism or anything material. The next step is to realize that the reality that Brahman sustains is no different from Brahman itself; it is none other than consciousness. All that seems to be material and objective is but a manifestation and projection of consciousness. But having said this, it remains as mysterious as ever. Therefore, I would take a slight exception with Madathilji when he says >Advaita has a very simple answer to your conundrum. >Things exist because I exist... Of course, this is perfectly true insofar as it goes, but it leaves the impression that the mystery of consciousness has been 'explained'. Nothing could be further from the truth! All that we can do is realize that consciousness IS and that we ARE that. This is a profound realization, but it hardly qualifies as an explanation. I would call it an impenetrable mystery, and at the risk of sounding blasphemous, I can even wonder whether Brahman can fathom its own mystery. Don't crucify me for saying that! There is precedent for such a musing in the Hymn of Creation: Rig Veda. Hymn CXXIX. Creation. 1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darknew this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? TheGods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Benjaminji, > (Sorry, Chittaranjanji, but I feel that some kind of cause or > explanation for the miracle is necessary. One cannot just sweep > the mystery under the rug by saying that the concept of cause > does not apply.) No, I wasn't saying that causality doesn't exist; I was saying that causality isn't applicable to what is inherently not in the realm of causality. In Advaita, "existence" is not other than Brahman. Existence, consciousness, bliss (Sat-chit-ananda) are the essential nature of Brahman. Therefore to ask "why is there something rather than nothing?" is in effect to ask "why is there existence?" which is an inapplicable question because "existence" is not in the realm of causality. The confusion with existence arises because it is used as a predicate of things. Kant realised that this is problematic, but he didn't supply a solution. Gottleb Frege did, but the solution was a reinstatement of the common notion of existence as the instantiation of objects. In Advaita, existence has two connotations. The first is the common notion of instantiation, or in Advaitic terminology, manifestation. The second, and one which conforms to paramarthika sathya, is that existence is the substantial ground and objects are the attributive nature. Indeed, the whole universe is the predication of Existence in a completely inverted manner of predication. The world is projected through words, and in this context, the world is the speech of Existence, as it were. I wouldn't say that causality doesn't exist. All words point to something existing. Therefore causality exists. According to the way I see Advaita, even this "illusory" world exists. :-) I agree with what you say about science. This is a subject that interests me too, and maybe we can discuss it in detail one day. With regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > > Namaste Jayaramanji, Madathilji, Chittaranjanji, ... > > > What a great topic! I could talk about this for hours. Let me try > to be brief. > > >Unlike science which investigates the "how" behind > >things and processes, philosophy generally tries to > >understand and answer the "why" instead. > > As a serious student of science and physics in particular, I can > assure you that this is entirely correct. Science only *describes* > how the phenomenal world behaves. It makes statements like, 'If A is > observed to occur, then B is observed to occur at some later time.' > > This is mere description. In no way does it *explain* at a deep > level the mystery of being. Matter and energy remain terms that are > defined only procedurally, e.g. as a quantified description of > resistance or motion, and in no way is their mysterious essence > explained. > > Those who think that science explains everything, and that religion > and philosophy are therefore obsolete, are seriously mistaken. > > (Sorry, Chittaranjanji, but I feel that some kind of cause or > explanation for the miracle is necessary. One cannot just sweep the > mystery under the rug by saying that the concept of cause does not > apply.) > > One under-appreciated detail I would like to make clear is that it is > not sufficient to explain how the 'universe' started, e.g. by some > big bang. It is just as much of a mystery that the universe > *continues* to exist from moment to moment. (This is true even after > Advaitins reduce the 'creation' to consciousness, in which an > illusory creation is projected. The consciousness itself then > becomes the mystery.) > > In my opinion, the miracle (yes miracle) of existence (or its synonym > consciousness) requires something like Brahman to sustain it at every > moment. And even ordinary people have the intuition that Brahman > must be consciousness in some sense. It could not possibly be a > machine or organism or anything material. > > The next step is to realize that the reality that Brahman sustains is > no different from Brahman itself; it is none other than > consciousness. All that seems to be material and objective is but a > manifestation and projection of consciousness. > > But having said this, it remains as mysterious as ever. Therefore, I > would take a slight exception with Madathilji when he says > > >Advaita has a very simple answer to your conundrum. > >Things exist because I exist... > > Of course, this is perfectly true insofar as it goes, but it leaves > the impression that the mystery of consciousness has been > 'explained'. Nothing could be further from the truth! All that we > can do is realize that consciousness IS and that we ARE that. This > is a profound realization, but it hardly qualifies as an explanation. > I would call it an impenetrable mystery, and at the risk of sounding > blasphemous, I can even wonder whether Brahman can fathom its own > mystery. Don't crucify me for saying that! There is precedent for > such a musing in the Hymn of Creation: > > > > Rig Veda. Hymn CXXIX. Creation. > > 1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of > air, no sky beyond it. > What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, > unfathomed depth of water? > 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was > there, the day's and night's divider. > That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from > it was nothing whatsoever. > 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darknew this All was > indiscriminated chaos. > All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of > Warmth was born that Unit. > 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed > and germ of Spirit. > Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the > existent's kinship in the non-existent. > 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it > then, and what below it? > There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and > energy up yonder > 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born > and whence comes this creation? > TheGods are later than this world's production. Who knows then > whence it first came into being? > 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or > did not form it, > Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, > or perhaps he knows not. > > > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair> wrote:> > http://sun1.rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de/zeww/lecture_1.pdf > > > advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" > <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > > > > "Why is there something rather than nothing?" > > > > It was a medieval scholastic philosopher - I do not presently > > remember his name - and not Schelling or Schopenhauer, that first > > asked this question. Namaste, In one sense this question is the start of 'Brahma-jijnasa'. The upanishads and all other scriptures are emphatic that without becoming qualified ('adhikari') through 'sadhana-chatushtaya' (4-fold discipline) there is NO hope of understanding the answer. So, until the scientific-intellectual-rational approach is willing to concede this much and practise it, the answers will only produce philosophers of gigantic intellect - but definitely not sages. Without defining a goal ('dhyeya'), any answer will fall short of satisfying the human aspirations. Physical immortality and perpetual happiness, and total control of nature, cannot be realistic aspirations knowing how Nature works. For a historical perspective on the existence problem in Western traditions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/ For more on Sorites paradox: http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol3/sorites.html "Puzzles', `word games', `logical anomalies', whatever we call them, they perplex us and challenge our familiar patterns of reasoning. One of these puzzles, among many others, originated from the mind of an ancient Megarian logician, Eubulides of Miletus, and endures to the modern day.1 Its name, `sorites', can be traced to the Greek word soros, meaning `heap.' ............................" Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Namaste Chittaranjanji This is an interesting topic and one worth pursuing a bit. >No, I wasn't saying that causality doesn't exist; >I was saying that causality isn't applicable to >what is inherently not in the realm of causality. >In Advaita, "existence" is not other than Brahman. I'm not really disagreeing with you. In particular, I accept that last sentence equating existence with Brahman. Let me explain my motivation. Many people look at the world and see no great mystery, much less a 'proof' of God's existence. Their 'common sense' attitude is that the world is 'just there'. They would totally reject the idea that the existence of the world requires anything like God or Brahman to 'make it happen'. I cannot accept this. The existence of the 'world' (whether you define it as matter or consciousness) is too miraculous and amazing for me to be satisfied with an answer such as 'it is just there', with the implication that its mere existence implies no kind of divine source. On the contrary, I believe that the miraculous fact of existence *requires* a divine source, namely Brahman. In this sense, Brahman is the cause. However, this 'cause' is not like the ordinary cause of science. In science, we say that A causes B when B is observed always to follow A. It is merely the observation of a certain observed regularity. But since Brahman is not different from the (apparent) world, from the nondual Advaitic point of view, it is not proper to say that Brahman 'causes' the (apparent) world in the narrow scientific sense of causation. So to this extent I agree with you. However, the fact remains that the mere miraculous presence of existence indicates Brahman, just as the waves indicate the ocean. I consider this a 'proof' of Brahman and an indication that there is more to reality than the dead matter of science. Of course, since the matter is illusory and dissolves into consciousness, and since consciousness is Brahman, the jump from existence to Brahman is no more than a tautology, which is basically what you were saying. However, this tautology is not self-evident to many people. Remember, I am offering my argument to the agnostic or atheist, who sees no reason to believe in anything divine. For him, the world is simply there. I claim that a deep understanding of the mystery of existence does provide that reason. Brahman is the 'cause' of existence in the sense of being its source, but even this language is misleading since it suggests some kind of distinction between the source and the existence. Substratum is a better word. You mentioned Kant, who rejected metaphysical arguments for the existence of God. He needs to read my message... Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > > You mentioned Kant, who rejected metaphysical arguments for the > existence of God. He needs to read my message... Namaste, Kant spent the last decade of his life working on this, and the manuscripts were not translated into English until 1992! The German original was edited by Eckart Forster, and translated by him and Michael Rosen, titled Opus Postumum, Cambridge University Press. Pages 200 onwards are a chapter - 'I am', and deals with God, Existence, and Consciousness. Kant himself considered this his most important work. (I came across this reference while reading some of Prof. Ranade's writings on Upanishadic Philosophy.) Hope Gregji will comment on this aspect some time. Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 > > Let me explain my motivation. Many people look at the world and see > no great mystery, much less a 'proof' of God's existence. Their > 'common sense' attitude is that the world is 'just there'. They > would totally reject the idea that the existence of the world > requires anything like God or Brahman to 'make it happen'. > > I cannot accept this. The existence of the 'world' (whether you > define it as matter or consciousness) is too miraculous and amazing > for me to be satisfied with an answer such as 'it is just there', > with the implication that its mere existence implies no kind of > divine source. On the contrary, I believe that the miraculous fact > of existence *requires* a divine source, namely Brahman. In this > sense, Brahman is the cause. > Hari Om! > Benjamin Many Pranams The 'many people' may be right in a sense. the miracle ('world')and the miracle maker ( Brahman/consciousness) are one!. The miracle could marvel contemplating on the maker or the miracle is the maker's natural expression,nay, the maker itself. I'd probably modify the last few words to 'in this sense, Brahman is.' Many many thousand namaskarams to all sridhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Namaste Gregji, What a great subject! Please allow me to offer a few more heartfelt comments. >But coming from a Western background I know what >it feels like to want to certify and prove existence. If existence is taken to mean 'consciousness', then there is no need to prove *that* it exists, since it is manifest. If existence is taken to mean 'matter', then there is no way to prove that it exists, and indeed the very notion of matter is meaningless, in my opinion. So let us agree that existence means consciousness, and let us accept the elementary fact that denying that it exists it would be absurd. However, the question of *why* it exists remains deeply mysterious and fascinating to anyone who is intelligent and perceptive. It is an utterly valid question that cannot simply be ignored. Indeed, this mystery is so powerful that it sweeps away all the logico-analytico-linguistico mumbo-jumbo of the 20th century anti-metaphysical and anti-idealistic European philosophers you were referring to. This mystery is the wellspring of religious feeling and distinguishes humans from mere robots or computers, which may be able to process information but which cannot wonder at the mystery of existence. The miraculous nature of existence is manifest to spiritual beings who have not been blinded by the sterile and mechanical conceptual thinking which says that the 'world is just there'. This is simply sweeping the mystery under the rug; it is darkness and ignorance. And the more one contemplates with intuition and insight regarding this unfathomable mystery and miracle, the more one realizes the necessity for something like a 'divine self-created source'. It is the only possible answer. It cannot really be argued; it is a matter of perceptive insight. >Basically, we want "existence" to do therapeutic work >for us. But this can only be done if we use the word >in a way that makes no metaphysical sense. The word 'therapeutic' is loaded and deceptive. It recalls the old atheistic canard that religion was invented as a delusion, an escape or as the opium of the masses. Aspiring to enlightenment is not a mental problem which needs to be treated! It is spirit manifesting its inner illumination, once the dark clouds of ignorance have been dispelled. And one of the darkest clouds is the dull, ignorant, prosaic attitude, often inculcated by so-called rationalistic and/or empirical thinking, which considers the world as a mere collection of facts to be described. >The only kind of use of the "existence" notion that >will give this cozy guarantee-feeling to us is the >predicate-use of existence (like Socrates is wise ... >which tells us something we did not know about Socrates). Any kind of existence or manifestation in consciousness proclaims the mystery just extolled. It is true that one can make a distinction between statements such as 'a circle is round', where 'round' is part of the definition of the circle, and 'the apple is red', where 'red' is an empirically observed property of some apples but is not inherent in its definition. This distinction is irrelevant to the present argument. What matters is that the circle or apple or whatever is actually manifesting in consciousness, and *this* is the mystery. Rather, consciousness itself is the mystery. >So why do we expect the predicate-kind-of-use from >"exists" as in (3)? Like Wittgenstein and others >(Berkeley 200 years before him) have said, we are >bewitched by language ... This is what the Western >philosophical spiritual seeker asks of this word. >And it can't do the work! Yes, language can be very misleading. Words such as 'matter' or 'substance' or 'cause' trick us into believing in entities which cannot be verified or which may not even be meaningful. But this is not the case with the mystery of existence. Since existence is consciousness, there is no question of postulating some unperceived or meaningless entity. The existence of consciousness is manifest, but the unfathomable mystery of that existence will not go away just because of some crusty old British or German philosophers, who were only reflecting the anti-spiritual mood of a very dark century. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 At 10:03 AM 2/25/2004 -0500, Benjamin wrote: >Namaste Gregji, > >What a great subject! Please allow me to offer a few more heartfelt comments. .... >And the more one contemplates with intuition and insight regarding >this unfathomable mystery and miracle, the more one realizes the >necessity for something like a 'divine self-created source'. It is >the only possible answer. It cannot really be argued; it is a matter >of perceptive insight. ===Is this an expression of the stirring of bhakti in our dear Benjamin?? >>Basically, we want "existence" to do therapeutic work >>for us. But this can only be done if we use the word >>in a way that makes no metaphysical sense. > >The word 'therapeutic' is loaded and deceptive. It recalls the old >atheistic canard that religion was invented as a delusion, an escape >or as the opium of the masses. ===This is not what I meant at all! I was actually saying pretty much what you are saying in this message. That the stirrings behind these heartfelt "existence" questions are not merely cold and intellectual. Rather, they come from the deepest parts of our heart, and speak to the profound mysteries you mentioned in your message. >What matters is that the circle or apple or >whatever is actually manifesting in consciousness, >and *this* is the mystery. Rather, consciousness itself is the mystery. ===This mystery is not like the mystery of the galaxies. The "answer" to this mystery is not going to be capture-able in a sentence or theory. It will not be a "causal" theory, or explained by anything "inside" consciousness. And it doesn't make sense to talk about anything "outside" of consciousness. Rather, this mystery dissolves into the light of consciousness itself, which shines "in its own glory," as Atmananda says. Pranams, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Namaste Benjaminji, I agree with you. I also agree that Kant needs to read your message. :-) > However, the fact remains that the mere miraculous presence of > existence indicates Brahman, just as the waves indicate the ocean. In Vedanta, this type of cause is called the material cause. With regards, Chiitaranjan advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > Namaste Chittaranjanji > > This is an interesting topic and one worth pursuing a bit. > > >No, I wasn't saying that causality doesn't exist; > >I was saying that causality isn't applicable to > >what is inherently not in the realm of causality. > >In Advaita, "existence" is not other than Brahman. > > I'm not really disagreeing with you. In particular, I accept that > last sentence equating existence with Brahman. > > Let me explain my motivation. Many people look at the world and see > no great mystery, much less a 'proof' of God's existence. Their > 'common sense' attitude is that the world is 'just there'. They > would totally reject the idea that the existence of the world > requires anything like God or Brahman to 'make it happen'. > > I cannot accept this. The existence of the 'world' (whether you > define it as matter or consciousness) is too miraculous and amazing > for me to be satisfied with an answer such as 'it is just there', > with the implication that its mere existence implies no kind of > divine source. On the contrary, I believe that the miraculous fact > of existence *requires* a divine source, namely Brahman. In this > sense, Brahman is the cause. > > However, this 'cause' is not like the ordinary cause of science. In > science, we say that A causes B when B is observed always to follow > A. It is merely the observation of a certain observed regularity. > But since Brahman is not different from the (apparent) world, from > the nondual Advaitic point of view, it is not proper to say that > Brahman 'causes' the (apparent) world in the narrow scientific sense > of causation. So to this extent I agree with you. > > However, the fact remains that the mere miraculous presence of > existence indicates Brahman, just as the waves indicate the ocean. I > consider this a 'proof' of Brahman and an indication that there is > more to reality than the dead matter of science. Of course, since > the matter is illusory and dissolves into consciousness, and since > consciousness is Brahman, the jump from existence to Brahman is no > more than a tautology, which is basically what you were saying. > However, this tautology is not self-evident to many people. > > Remember, I am offering my argument to the agnostic or atheist, who > sees no reason to believe in anything divine. For him, the world is > simply there. I claim that a deep understanding of the mystery of > existence does provide that reason. Brahman is the 'cause' of > existence in the sense of being its source, but even this language is > misleading since it suggests some kind of distinction between the > source and the existence. Substratum is a better word. > > You mentioned Kant, who rejected metaphysical arguments for the > existence of God. He needs to read my message... > > Hari Om! > Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Namaste Gregji, >And the more one contemplates with intuition and >insight regarding this unfathomable mystery and >miracle, the more one realizes the necessity for >something like a 'divine self-created source'. It >is the only possible answer. It cannot really be >argued; it is a matter of perceptive insight. ===Is this an expression of the stirring of bhakti in our dear Benjamin?? Well, if so, at least it's not a sentimental, gushy, lovey-dovey kind of bhakti. It is a sober, austere and dignified kind worthy of an ersatz Brahmin! :-) http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=10&q=ersatz And >Rather, consciousness itself is the mystery. >===This mystery is not like the mystery of the galaxies. As I see it, the mystery of the galaxies is the same as the mystery of a flower is the same as the mystery of consciousness. They are all the same in essence. Any manifestation, from sublime to humble, reveals this mystery, which is the mystery of consciousness/existence itself. But you are quite right that there is no causal explanation using anything like Hume's definition of causation (which is the appropriate one for science). I explained this in detail to Chittaranjanji: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m20760.html Yes, I agree with you. I doubt very much that the unfathomable mystery of Consciousness can be explained, since mere descriptive details are irrelevant to the task. That is why I voiced some awed doubt that perhaps even Brahman cannot 'understand' Brahman! See a classic precedent in the Hymn of Creation which I posted at the end of this message: http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m20755.html Yet even if Brahman is inexplicable, the necessity for Brahman remains... To this extent the Buddhists were wrong, or perhaps the Buddha's noble silence on the subject was the deepest form of respect and affirmation. Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 praNams to all why should things exist ? I think, the solution to the above mystery is to know and comprehend and contemplate that existence and non-existence are the same thing. It only depends on the way we look at them. everything is consciousness and existence. But there is no way to differenetiate it from non-existence. existence and non-existence are like two sides of same coin. like zero and infinity are two sides of same coin. It all depends on the way we think. we can say everything is existence, becomes manisfest from existence and dissolve in existence. or we can say everything is non-exitence, becomes manisfest temporarily and vanish, again non-existence. I personally look at it as existence. i know whatever i said may go against the tenets of advaita. i am open to corrections from learned members. Om tat-sat Vishal Get better spam protection with Mail 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.