Why should things exist?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

You wrote:

 

You have the pre-historic swarming gods and

> then the curiously world wide emergence of the search

> for the single principle of intelligence. You have

> the One, the True and the Good and the One without a

> second.

 

This is speculation. It is difficult for us to see how the world

appeared through the eyes of the ancients. The romantic idea of

historical progress is of recent origin.

 

 

 

 

 

It is not of much concern to me what Louis McNeice says about the

Greeks. Sorry Michaelji, the greatness of Plato is what comes across

to me when I read the dialogues and it needs no Classics Professor to

tell me about it. :-)

 

********************************************************************

 

 

Thanks for your careful and prompt response. Let me

clear up a few points. My remark about the Hawking/Godel related to the

fact that a grand unified theory, a theory of theories is illicit. Just

that.

 

I offered various speculations as is my wont. That is one of the functions

of reason. It generally proceeds on the basis of evidence however slight.

We infer to the best explanation and from there on to theory. Speculation

is not automatically baseless, it can also be well-founded or informed etc.

 

Philosophy as a gnostic transmission is not true to the actual practice and

in fact it could be harmful. A great philosopher may be a terrible teacher.

Wittgenstein was such, his class was known as the toothache class. Lesser

philosophers might be better teachers and perfectly enlightened people might

offer philosophy which was incoherent.

 

As to Greek society, I think it is important to be aware that their

lifestyle was based on slavery. That gets into the writing too. The

Republic was a manifesto for a totalitarian society as well as great

philosophy, poetry and myth.

 

Now as to the question 'why is there something rather than nothing' what is

to be made of the advaitin who will tell you - 'well actually nothing is in

reality, all this is a mere illusion it is not real'. Why should we not

suppose that his use of the words 'real' and 'illusion' was a special

jargon. My point is that if you cannot be rationally persuaded of this then

what you take to be philosophy is a laying on of hands. Sankara certainly

believed that the central tenets of Advaita were demonstrable and not a

matter of faith. If enlightenment can happen without an understanding or

agreement with Advaita then it may be that an understanding or agreement

with Advaita does not lead to enlightenment automatically.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittranjanji

 

I agree with you.

 

Actually whatever i said may or may not be of any use.

I was just trying to show the similarities between Advaita and sunyavAda.

>From the pramArthika level, 'I' exist. But that existence cannot be known or

proved in that level(after videhamukti). In that level there is no way to

differentiate between exitence and non-exitence.

 

exitence = non-exitence

infinity = 0

 

So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada are similar at the

very fundamental level. Difference arises only when we try to explain it words.

It is indeed anirvacaniya.

 

It is a very subtle thinking. we have to divest our minds from previous

conditioning and preconcieved notions. That will help us to appreciate and

comprehend unity in all and help us in removing all duality and understand that

monism and nihilism are two different aspects of same thing.

 

Once we understand this, we can follow either of the path, since both are

equally correct at fundamental level.

But, i think, it is preferable to follow the path of Advaita, as the human mind

in made in such a way that through this path liberation will be faster :-)

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Namaste Vishalji,

 

advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4>

wrote:

> praNams to all

>

> 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.

>

 

Whatever you said does not go against the tenets of Advaita. Remember

what the Acharya says about Maya - it is neither real nor unreal, nor

is it not real or not unreal, it is anirvacaniya.

 

The "truth" of the world here is truth-falsity; divest it of truth

and it is false, or divest it of falsity and it is truth. In the

final analysis, falsity does not exist, it cannot exist - otherwise

it cannot be falsity. Therefore, the world is real only, which is the

truth. It can't be the truth that the world is false because the

truth cannot point to anything false!

 

In vyavahariika sathya, which means not fully sathya, the "truth" is

truth-falsity, but in paramarthika sathya it is truth alone. Then

Maya is not perplexing, it is simply magical. Magic is perplexing

when seen through the structures that the misdirected reasoning mind

likes to create, and that misdirection is the falsity of viparya /

vikalpa. When no alien structure is imposed on to it, it is Sheer

Magic. This Magic creates the human mind such that it doesn't accept

magic, what to do? She is like that only! :-)

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get better spam protection with Mail

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thank you for reminding me that this site still exists. I had

forgotten about it.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> > Namaste Michaelji,

> >

>

> > > The important question for us on this list is what are

> > > Indian professional philosophers who draw from the

> > > Advaitic tradition at. They are shy pilgrims on the

> > > net as regards on line papers. Any knowledge of their

> > > wherabouts?

> >

> > I don't know where they are, or what they are at.

>

> Namaste,

>

> The Indian Council of Philosophical Research web-site:

>

> http://www.icpr.nic.in/project.htm

>

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishalji,

 

SankarAchArya doesnt think so.

You may please refer His BrahmasUtra BhAshya.

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Vishal D" <vishaldeshpande4

>

> So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada are similar at

the very fundamental level. Difference arises only when we try to explain it

words.

> Om tat-sat

> Vishal

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> Forgive my third message in a day. I cannot resist a few brief

> comments to you too.

 

I am already on my third message of the day, and I can foresee a

fourth. After that, mouna.

> >I wasn't talking about succumbing to the analytical,

> >but about the loss of meanings from ancient philosophy

> >in the contemporary world. Substance, or "ousia", is a

> >good example.

> I must differ. It was a great moment in philosophy when

> Berkeley and Hume exposed the emptiness of words

> like 'substance', 'matter', even 'self' in the sense of ego.

> These are all arbitrary and meaningless constructs of the mind,

> and the mind is the source of delusion according to Advaitins

> and Buddhists alike. However, you may attach some unusual

> connotations to the word 'Substance', making it more

> like 'Self'. I advise sticking to 'Self'. :-)

 

 

Substance is truly the sticking to "Self". Unfortunately, modern

philosophers have been busy trying to find an alien something called

substance within the matter of objects, but substance is not a

separate thing to be found in objects -- it is the existential core

of the object itself. It is the unity of existence in which

attributes inhere, and since existence is the essence of substance,

it is none other than the grounding Self itself. This is a kind of

Vishistadvaita. There cannot be two substances because substance, qua

substance, is indivisible, and it is this insight that led Spinoza,

that brave Jewish philosopher, to propound God as the only substance -

a thinking and an extended substance - of the universe. In this

Vishistadvaita-like vision, Nature is the attributive aspect of God

as substance.

 

I agree that Berkeley's idealism was a great moment in philosophy,

but I think the greatness lies more in the discovery that the

universe is not apart from the mind than in calling the world mind.

There is a tendency in Berkelian idealism to give more prominence to

what is sensed as form, and to dilute what the mind gives over to the

world as its noematic structure. This dilution goes to the extreme in

Hume where everything is only sensation and things like causality

become mere forces of habit. Let me take a Kantian approach to

explain what I am saying. I think the Berkelian kind of Idealism

gives prominence to the forms of the transcendental aesthetic while

it dilutes or denies the categories of the transendental analytic.

But they are both equally the apriori paraphernalia of the mind that

go to construct the furniture of the world, and it by their binding

in the synthetical unity of consciousness that objects and the world

become what they are. Therein lies the significant contribution of

Kant, who by showing how apriori synthetic judgments are possible,

goes to provide the foundations for an architectonic of the world.

 

> >I have tried Heidegger and failed to understand him.

> Heidegger schmeidegger, as we say over here. You have

> good taste and a clear head. Don't damage your brain with this.

 

Thank you, I'll take your advice. :-)

 

> I am glad you like Plato. I would reject many of his actual

> arguments, such as his curious notion of 'ideas' ... at least

> if his words are taken literally. But it would be interesting

> to discuss in what sense his spiritual view is compatible

> with Advaita. After all, he 'invented' the ideas in order to

> determine the 'truth' in changing phenomena. The truth,

> according to him, must be unchanging and without multiplicity.

> This clearly does remind one of Shankara. But Shankara did

> not invent a strange world of ideas floating no one

> knows where. He took nonduality seriously, to the limit in fact.

> So Shankara wins, by the old Ockham's razor!

 

I agree about Shankara. But Socrates was not far behind. If one reads

the Theaetetus, the ideal forms are the impress of jati on the wax of

Being, and they provide the samanya whereby the sameness of things in

the world is perceived. They are the universals that Shankara holds

as the denotations of words. For Socrates, Being is the immutable

unchanging Reality, which is brought out clearly in the Eleatic

dialogues of Theaetetus and Sophist.

 

> Also, Michael mentions 'Process and Reality' by A.N. Whitehead.

> There may be something of spiritual value in Whitehead's

> sophisticated thought. The 'Guide to Philosophy' by C.E.M. Joad,

> which I mentioned earlier, has a good discussion of Whitehead.

 

Noted. Right now, I'm in the middle of Kashmir Shaivism by Lakshman

Joo which is pure Advaita from the tradition of Tantra.

 

> Roger Penrose has some really wild ideas about consciousness

> arising in the quantum mechanical contortions of certain brain

> proteins, or something like that. Sounds like more misguided

> materialism to me...

 

I agree.

 

> I suggest that we NOT discuss how the morning star is the same

> as the evening star.

 

If Michaelji agrees, we will not.

 

> That is the kind of analytic-linguistic wilderness which made

> poor Greg suffer in graduate school.

 

If I'm right in my belief that logic in vyavaharika sathya is tainted

with the shadow of obscurity, it would only result in my infecting

Michaelji with perplexity. :-)

 

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

I'll try the canvas ( or screen on which films play) analogy.

I am also trying to read the underlying anxiety in the question.

 

we must remember that we are trying to get an 'insight' into Brahman-

as if, only if i were convinced of the greatness of the destination

will i be willing to/ able to make the journey. I am assuming here

that there is an underlying anxiety - unless I have the right idea

about Brahman, the goal, my journey could be miserable, or I could

find myself in a descipable destination.

 

The canvas can be thought of as blank/white - Soonyavada

or

as the unmanifest state of all the zillions and more of possible

paints and strokes of infinite number of artists great and not so

great... ( not being satisfied, going further) and three quarters

more.... ( still not a complete expression) , infact purna,fullness.

 

As to which one of these 'conceptions' we should follow and which

will lead to a better destination, the answer really rests with each

one of us. Depending on the curvature of the mind-intellect

equipment, vasanas etc. the 'guru' within will make one or the other

appealing and take one on a journey accordingly. I suspect being

drawn to advaita means developing faith in Acharya Shankara's vision

of the destination.

I could imagine a person with a different mind curvature/ vasana

store, follows the Shoonyavada conception and still his self would

navigate him in a different way to self realization.

 

(It is promised that sooner or later, self realization has to happen

for all beings).

 

My question would be ' What is the consequence to a seeker of

following one conception instead of the other'

 

Many Pranams to all

Sridhar

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Vishalji,

>

> advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Chittranjanji

> >

> > So the two different philosophies of Advaita and sunyaVada are

> > similar at the very fundamental level. Difference arises only

> > when we try to explain it words.

>

there is a vast difference between Advaita

> and Sunyavada which comes to the fore if one considers that Brahman

> is Satchitananda. When we speak through the instruments of logic,

we

> forget that Brahman is living, vibrantly living.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

> I offered various speculations as is my wont. That is one of the

> functions of reason. It generally proceeds on the basis of

> evidence however slight. We infer to the best explanation and

> from there on to theory. Speculation is not automatically

> baseless, it can also be well-founded or informed etc.

 

True. But speculation is often selective of the information that it

wants to see. Isn't there a grain of truth to what Schopenhauer says

that reason is (often) the apology of the will?

 

> Philosophy as a gnostic transmission is not true to the actual

> practice and in fact it could be harmful. A great philosopher

> may be a terrible teacher. Wittgenstein was such, his class was

> known as the toothache class. Lesser philosophers might be better

> teachers and perfectly enlightened people might offer philosophy

> which was incoherent.

 

In a sense you are right. But there are different ways of looking at

this situation. What is the practice of philosophy? If truth is

philosophy's aim, then it is transmitted when the truth is

transmitted, not when a philosophical system is written down on

paper. In this conception, gnostic transmission is the actual

practice of philsophy, where even if the master may appear a fool, he

has the wherewithal to lift the veils of the disciple's ignorance by

the "touch" of his mystical power. But there is a different way of

looking at the same situation. In the Indian tradition, there is a

difference between a guru and an acharya. While both may have

knowledge, the acharya is the public philosopher, and in this sense

what you say is right.

 

> As to Greek society, I think it is important to be aware

> that their lifestyle was based on slavery. That gets into the

> writing too.

 

Yes, we need to be aware, but we also need to be free of the impulse

to impose our own valuations, as far as possible, on the subject that

we are trying to understand.

 

> The Republic was a manifesto for a totalitarian society as

> well as great philosophy, poetry and myth.

 

The Republic begins with an investigation into the good in man. If

the Polis enters the picture, it only as an analogy, as a picture of

man made large in the city, (interestingly, in Indian philosophy,

Purusha is the dweller in the city) so that it may be easier to

analyse the good and see where evil begins to come in. The Republic

is not a manifesto for a totalitarian society. It is only incidental

that the dialogue of the Republic results in the conception of an

ideal republic, and after having analysed the republic it returns, at

the end of the dialogue, back to the question of the good in man.

 

> Now as to the question 'why is there something rather than

> nothing' what is to be made of the advaitin who will tell

> you - 'well actually nothing is in reality, all this is a

> mere illusion it is not real'. Why should we not suppose

> that his use of the words 'real' and 'illusion' was a

> special jargon.

 

I agree with you, that is why I am a realist Advaitin.

 

> My point is that if you cannot be rationally

> persuaded of this then what you take to be philosophy is a

> laying on of hands. Sankara certainly believed that the

> central tenets of Advaita were demonstrable and not a

> matter of faith.

 

Yes the central tenets of Advaita are demonstrable. But I think we

need to carefully analyse this thing called faith. Do we really have

that kind of freedom from faith? We are all caught in the webs of

faith, it is only a question of what faith it is, or how much the

faith is fractured. Faith gets in surreptiously into the premises we

begin with. It becomes what the Logical Positivists called theory-

ladenness. It is the reason why the endeavour to find

a "verifiability criteria" for science was a failure.

 

> If enlightenment can happen without an

> understanding or agreement with Advaita then it may be that

> an understanding or agreement with Advaita does not lead

> to enlightenment automatically.

 

An understanding of Advaita is complete when there is no separation

of one's action from one's understanding, else it is not a proper

understanding. It is not nirvikalpa samadhi, but that spontaneous

action in everything that is the mark of Advaitic realisation.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

For a succinct overview of Comparative Philosophy:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/comp_00.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Suinder

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Thank you for reminding me that this site still exists. I had

> forgotten about it.

> > > I don't know where they are, or what they are at.

> >

> > The Indian Council of Philosophical Research web-site:

> >

> > http://www.icpr.nic.in/project.htm

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear friends:

 

Why should any thing exist?

 

May be should also discuss why does it matter to me/us as an

individuals?

 

Because, If you are not there where you are then you ain't any where?

 

Although individually we are all plural but as "ADVITIN" we are still

the one, thus answer could apply across the board.

 

My apologies if this was already discussed? In that that it would

not matter to any body. Being away from the list for a while did not

really affect or mean it to me as an individual.

 

Travel is always fun and enjoyable only if you have a good place to

return to.

 

Just a thought?

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> For a succinct overview of Comparative Philosophy:

>

> http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/comp_00.html

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Suinder

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> >

> > Thank you for reminding me that this site still exists. I had

> > forgotten about it.

>

> > > > I don't know where they are, or what they are at.

> > >

> > > The Indian Council of Philosophical Research web-

site:

> > >

> > > http://www.icpr.nic.in/project.htm

> > >

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> For a succinct overview of Comparative Philosophy:

>

> http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/comp_00.html

>

>

>

 

Namaste

 

Thank you Sunderji for a timely reference. What a wonderful site it

is!

In addition I would like to draw the attention of those interested

to the chapter 30 of "Your questions answered". It deals with

Eastern and Western thinking.

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/ans/ans_30.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk