part and whole

[Guest guest]

(Sorry for changing the subject, I'm on a new mail package)

 

Madathil wrote:

> Swamiji shows a flower and asks his audience what it is. They answer

that it is a flower. Then he removes one of the

pollen grains and

asks what it is. The obvious answer is pollen

grain. Then the

pollen stem receives his attention and the

audience is in agreement

with him that it is the pollen stem. This process

is repeated

through the petals and their supports until only

the flower stem

remains in his hand and his listeners rightly call

it flower stem.

Swamiji then breaks into a cackle and asks them

where the flower is.

The flower of nAmA rUpA is thus shown as miTyA (It

is there and it is

not there!) and this analysis can be applied to

all the objects in

this universe. MiTyA is also what is not there,

what is there and

again what is not there. It is conditioned by

space and time while

it apparently exists as a nAma-rUpa.

 

The entire gamut of advaita aims at showing that

miTyA is dependent

on something else for its apparent existence and

that something is

the all-pervading Consciousness like gold is the

substratum for all

the nAma-rUpAs of gold like chains, rings and

bracelets. Thus,

Consciousness is, miTyA is. It can never be the

other way round.

There isn't anything at all in this universe that

can run contra to

this rule because all its objects are dependent on

Consciousness for

their apparent existence. Hence, the universe is

mItyA – jaganmiTyA -

totally dependent on Consciousness for its

manifestation.

 

It is in this context that I like to refer CN's

reality-divide as

miTyA.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair>

 

Namaste Madathil,

What Swamiji is expressing in his example

there is a version of the part/whole analysis of the Madhyamika

Buddhist. You may recall the dialogue between King Milinda and Nagasena

in which a chariot is shown to be nothing more than the integration of

its parts and that therefore the concept chariot is contentless or is

empty in the jargon of Madhyamika. Likewise and similarly 'flower is

mitya'.

 

It is my belief that this is a fallacy. When you dissect out the pistil

of a flower and ask 'what is that?' you may answer in the short version

- 'a pistil'. The correct long answer would be 'It's a piece of organic

matter that has the shape and form of the pistil of a flower'. In

short it is the pistil of /a flower because it only becomes a pistil

when it is in a flower, as do stamens, petals etc.

 

I put the slash in 'the pistil of/a flower' in order to bring out the

sense of the meaning of pistil as being similar to 'the square root

of/4 or Function and Argument. Saying 'the square root' on its own is

meaningless, it points to nothing.

 

Accepting the argument of Swamiji leads one down the primrose path to

other fallacies and paradoxes such as how motion is impossible, how

there is no such thing as past and future (momentariness), how

self-identity is impossible etc. I'm not saying that such was his

intention just that an innocent example can be loaded.

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael-Ji:

 

The question of flower not being real / not-really true / false /

mithyaa could also be explained as follows:

 

Any thing that changes in relation to time is false or un-true

(mithyaa)(as it is not trikaala abaadita), because that flower

(regardless of it's beauty) is not permanent, as sooner or later it

gets transformed into a fruit or rots away, which in turn helps

mature the seeds for propagating the next generation (different naama

ruupa).

 

Each pollen has the complete genetic template for it's replication.

This is what I think is an example of the concept of re-incarnation;

because the evolved genetic template has the genetic make-up of the

original with the added information of having exposed to the new

environment it may have experienced.

 

Even in our lives the death of our childhood results into the birth

of a young man/women (different naan/ruupa). The evolution / aging

continues. Our decisions are often based on the previous experiences

for successful survival.

 

Once one realizes the reality of truth then this automatically

eliminates the attachment to something that was "false/untrue" to

begin with. That is why detachment has been preached by the ancient

seers.

 

However, if one never grows-up and then he/she remains a "grown-up-

kid". I am sure we can all identify many examples of this.

 

Just a thought !!

 

Regards,

 

Yadunath

 

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

> (Sorry for changing the subject, I'm on a new mail package)

>

> Madathil wrote:

>

> > Swamiji shows a flower and asks his audience what it is. They

answer

> that it is a flower. Then he removes one of

the

> pollen grains and

> asks what it is. The obvious answer is pollen

> grain. Then the

> pollen stem receives his attention and the

> audience is in agreement

> with him that it is the pollen stem. This

process

> is repeated

> through the petals and their supports until

only

> the flower stem

> remains in his hand and his listeners rightly

call

> it flower stem.

> Swamiji then breaks into a cackle and asks

them

> where the flower is.

> The flower of nAmA rUpA is thus shown as

miTyA (It

> is there and it is

> not there!) and this analysis can be applied

to

> all the objects in

> this universe. MiTyA is also what is not

there,

> what is there and

> again what is not there. It is conditioned by

> space and time while

> it apparently exists as a nAma-rUpa.

>

> The entire gamut of advaita aims at showing

that

> miTyA is dependent

> on something else for its apparent existence

and

> that something is

> the all-pervading Consciousness like gold is

the

> substratum for all

> the nAma-rUpAs of gold like chains, rings and

> bracelets. Thus,

> Consciousness is, miTyA is. It can never be

the

> other way round.

> There isn't anything at all in this universe

that

> can run contra to

> this rule because all its objects are

dependent on

> Consciousness for

> their apparent existence. Hence, the universe

is

> mItyA – jaganmiTyA -

> totally dependent on Consciousness for its

> manifestation.

>

> It is in this context that I like to refer

CN's

> reality-divide as

> miTyA.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair>

>

> Namaste Madathil,

> What Swamiji is expressing in his

example

> there is a version of the part/whole analysis of the Madhyamika

> Buddhist. You may recall the dialogue between King Milinda and

Nagasena

> in which a chariot is shown to be nothing more than the integration

of

> its parts and that therefore the concept chariot is contentless or

is

> empty in the jargon of Madhyamika. Likewise and similarly 'flower

is

> mitya'.

>

> It is my belief that this is a fallacy. When you dissect out the

pistil

> of a flower and ask 'what is that?' you may answer in the short

version

> - 'a pistil'. The correct long answer would be 'It's a piece of

organic

> matter that has the shape and form of the pistil of a flower'. In

> short it is the pistil of /a flower because it only becomes a pistil

> when it is in a flower, as do stamens, petals etc.

>

> I put the slash in 'the pistil of/a flower' in order to bring out

the

> sense of the meaning of pistil as being similar to 'the square root

> of/4 or Function and Argument. Saying 'the square root' on its

own is

> meaningless, it points to nothing.

>

> Accepting the argument of Swamiji leads one down the primrose path

to

> other fallacies and paradoxes such as how motion is impossible, how

> there is no such thing as past and future (momentariness), how

> self-identity is impossible etc. I'm not saying that such was his

> intention just that an innocent example can be loaded.

>

> Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael,

 

I have a clarification to seek on your mail to Nairji.

 

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Namaste Madathil,

What Swamiji is expressing in his example

there is a version of the part/whole analysis of the Madhyamika Buddhist. <snip>

<snip> <snip>

 

 

Accepting the argument of Swamiji leads one down the primrose path to other

fallacies and paradoxes such as how motion is impossible, how there is no such

thing as past and future (momentariness), how self-identity is impossible etc.

I'm not saying that such was his intention just that an innocent example can be

loaded.

 

Venkat - M

 

Could you please explain a little more to me on how the example of the flower

leads to other fallacies like impossibility of Motion, self-identity etc.

 

Many thanks and regards,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun!