Re:Waves in the Total Mind (MTS-5: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaita)

[Guest guest]

On 11/10/05 Ben writes: “..Now one question one might ask is whether the

distinct axis of the seer or Self violates the advaitic

unity of Brahman”…..”

 

“Bondage exists only from the level of ignorance which seems to confirm what I

said above.”

 

Also “..Thus each point of the wave is associated

with one point on the horizontal OET axis...”

 

Ben:

 

The seer and seen are but One, as you correctly surmise, at the paramaarthika

level. The model, however, is at the vyavahaarika level only, as mentioned in

the first or second posting. At the highest level, there is Brahman only and

there is nothing that can be shown on a piece of paper to indicate That.

However, at the lower level where the seen – seer duality (apparently) exists,

we show these two in orthogonal axes. We show them in orthogonal axes following

the mathematical convention to reflect their (apparent) mutual independence.

Where is Brahman in this representation in Fig 3? Answer of course is that It is

everywhere, as Ishwara, Hiranyagarbha and Virat in the first quadrant and as

Itself in the other three quadrants. The origin “A” in Fig 3 represents the

beginning of creation. At that instant, the manifest and unmanifest are all

together as just one point. Before that (i.e. before creation starts) It is not

even a point perhaps, as you have pointed out.

 

The O-E-T, by the way, is not just a 4 dimensional space, since each point in

that continuum must represent the physical-emotional-intellectual status of all

things and beings at a given time. It is a multi dimensional space of very

large number of dimensions.

 

“Bondage exists only from the level of ignorance”- that is true. A key result of

the model is in fact the demonstration of a jeeva’s decreasing bondage to samsar

as its Self-Knowledge increases. I hasten to add that the model has not

discovered here anything previously unknown to Vedantins. It is nevertheless

gratifying that the model is consistent with this fundamental assertion of

Advaita and indeed of all spiritual traditions.

 

Your other question regarding projection of each wave on the horizontal axis may

be the result of misunderstanding some details of the model, which are yet to be

discussed in these postings. Each wave in the Total Mind represents the various

possible states the cosmos can be at that time. This is not unlike the thoughts

of various options existing in our mind when we have to make a decision. Only

one of these possibilities will be realized and that is what shows up in the

O-E-T and that is what the jeevas in samsar will get to experience. To be more

specific, in Fig 3, at time=1, DH is the wave representing all possible states

and the point D, at the “foot” of that wave in the horizontal axis, is the state

actually realized. Whereas before actualization the whole wave DH exists, after

actualization the wave collapses into a single point D. Thus, there is only one

point in O-E-T corresponding to each wave. I hope this helps.

 

Hari Om!

 

- Raju Chidambaram

[Guest guest]

Hi Raju,

 

I agree with you on the paramarthika/vyavaharika

distinction, as well as on the >4 dimensional

nature of OET. I forgot that it includes the

psychological realm of thoughts and emotions.

 

As for the projection question, it would seem

that your axes are not quite the same as

standard cartesian axes. Any point on the

quadrant will have coordinates corresponding

to the horizontal and vertical projections, as

you know. Hence, my impression of what a

point represents will be the one most people

assume. An avant-garde usage of axes is fine,

as long as carefully defined. Modern math is

full of inovative formal structures, but their

careful definition and consistency is crucial.

 

Also, I would like to know, does one continuously

traverse all possible states as one traverses the

quarter-circle from D to H? This looks like a

1-dimensional path, but the space of possibilities

surely has a high dimension too.

 

Hari Om!

Ben

[Guest guest]

Benjamin Orion <orion777ben wrote:

Hi Raju,

 

I agree with you on the paramarthika/vyavaharika

distinction, as well as on the >4 dimensional

nature of OET. I forgot that it includes the

psychological realm of thoughts and emotions.

 

As for the projection question, it would seem

that your axes are not quite the same as

standard cartesian axes. Any point on the

quadrant will have coordinates corresponding

to the horizontal and vertical projections, as

you know. Hence, my impression of what a

point represents will be the one most people

assume. An avant-garde usage of axes is fine,

as long as carefully defined. Modern math is

full of inovative formal structures, but their

careful definition and consistency is crucial.

 

Also, I would like to know, does one continuously

traverse all possible states as one traverses the

quarter-circle from D to H? This looks like a

1-dimensional path, but the space of possibilities

surely has a high dimension too.

 

Hari Om!

Ben

 

Jai Sadguru

 

The appropriate model is something like this.

 

The Origin is O. The X axes , are I am this in the positive and I am not this in

the negative. The Y axes are "this belongs to me or I own this" in the positive

and "this does not belong to me or I am not the owner of this". The Z axes are

in the positive, I want this-desire, and in the negative, Imust get rid of this

or that-fear:

 

So the model is complete . Any movement from "I" the origin, creates the world

of BMI, OET and PFT, which is Swami Chinmaya's model. Stay put at the origin, is

staying in the profound peace and deep silence of the Atman. As ben has rightly

put, in this multidimensional model, this pseudo-entity, the presumed "I" swings

from one axis to other and from one dimension to the other at such speeds, it is

hardly noticed. Meditation is unburdeneing of these notions and presumptions,

and an attempt to stay put at the Origin. To what extent one can be succesful is

one's own destiny.

 

Being aware of three axes butremaining in the Origin is Savikalpa samadhi.Not

being aware of these three axes but being aware of presence in Origin is

Nirvikalapa Samadhi. Not being aware of the axes or the origin is Deep Sleep.

 

Namasthe

 

JS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religion and spirituality Advaita Bhagavad gita

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enjoy this Diwali with Y! India Click here

 

 

[Guest guest]

Respected Dr. Raju Chidambaram-ji.

 

Sir, I went through your paper "Geometric Representation Of Advaitic

Principles And Its Relevance To Modern Physics". As I was off the

List for some time, I hadn't had the opportunity to go through your

first few posts and the responses thereto. As such, I didn't know

that you have initiated this thread on the request of our respected

Ramji. Well, I was baffled with a mathematical model coming up for

Advaita and my bafflement resulted in certain tangential remarks in

the List questioning the validity of such an attempt.

 

I apologize sincerely for my hasty remarks. Having read your paper

and the circumstances of your presenting it on the List, I now feel

that I should better have controlled my eagerness to express.

 

I am no mathematician. I was rather very poor in maths in my school

days. It was only in later years that I developed some fascination

for the subject. That can be called a flirtation without a solid

basic foundation. Yet, I should perceive that my later liking for

the subject has helped understand various scientific principles to at

least a healthy lay level.

 

It is with this meager resource that I am going to present my

observations on the geometric model. If I am wrong, please bear with

this layman's apparently impertinent foray into the lofty citadel of

mathematics.

 

Besides, our Benji has stated that the discussions so far have been

only peripheral. I notice from your acknowledgements that he was

associated with the project. He is a professional too. He is

therefore in a position of advantage to be really incisively

insightful about the mathematical nuances of the model. Being a

layman, I would restrict myself to the basics – the very foundations

of the model - and avoid the mathematical equations, which I can

safely assume are strongly well-built on your mathematical prowess

and accomplishments.

 

Many doubts cropped up in my mind as I progressed through your paper

until I reached the derivation of the mathematical equations and your

brilliant conclusion "Self = Space, Maximum Knowledge of Self =

Maximum Speed in Space, Knowledge of Self = Speed in Space". I had

your paper printed out in hard copy and, as I progressed through the

pages, I jotted down my doubts. Fortunately most of them cleared as

I reached the equations leaving only one behind unresolved and that

is the main theme of this post.

 

To illustrate this lingering doubt, let us take an ordinary graph

where time (t) is plotted on one axis (vertical) against the movement

of an object (displacement) (d)on the other (horizontal). It is a

very simple graphical representation and each plotting on the graph

represents the position of the object at a given time. This means

that there are always two coordinates for the position of the object –

t and d. The two axes on your graph represent change on the

horizontal and "Experiencer/Awareness" on the vertical. The state of

a jIva in the field of all potential experiences should, therefore,

have two coordinates. This is fine till the jIva reaches the

vertical axis. When it reaches the vertical axis, the value on the

horizontal will be 0, whereas the value on the vertical can be an

immeasurable anything. On the simple graph of time against

displacement, this can never happen because when the object reaches

(returns to) 0 on the horizontal, it would logically mean that it has

reached the point from where it started. The time in which the

object reached its original position can be read from the vertical.

 

On the simple graph, time is progressive. That is why we are able to

assign values to it and plot it on a graph, whereas, in your model,

Awareness takes the place of time. In order to interpret your model

logically, we will have to consider Awareness as progressive.

Advaita will not accept such a proposition of a progressive Awareness

with definite values on the vertical.

 

I am sure you are aware of this drawback because you have explained

on page 15 that "It (the erstwhile jIvA who is now enlightened) is

everywhere along the vertical axis at the same time. It witnesses

all cause-effect waves from beginning to end of creation at the same

experienced time".

 

Well, the explanation is quite advaitic and acceptable on its own

merit. But, it looks like having been imposed on the geometric model

by assigning an axis (vertical) to Awareness, which is neither

progressive nor can be empirically measured. If the model is really

geometric, both the axes should be measurable or at least conceivable.

 

On the time/displacement graph, when the object returns to its

original position, it is back at zero after a lapse of measured time

on the vertical. In the geometric model, therefore, we have to

assume that when the jIvA's path touches the vertical, creation

(horizontal) is folded up (0) after "a lapse of measured

Awareness". Isn't 'measured Awareness' a very outlandish thought?

Moreover, it would also mean that the kalpa has ended as far as that

jIvA is concerned whereas it continues for others. Is the ending of

the kalpa, self-realization?

 

The number of years in a kalpa is quoted in the paper. So, that is a

very mathematically conceivable (if not measurable) entity, which

finds support in BG 8-17. I notice that Sankara has not interpreted

this verse or the one following it elaborately. The horizontal in

the geometric model represents this kalpa, which means you have a

very conceivable horizontal by virtue of BG 8-17. However, the

vertical remains inconceivable. Can any geometric model have a

conceivable axis against an inconceivable?

 

There is another major problem. Creation is conceived to begin at 0

on the horizontal. Geometrically, it is 0 on both the vertical and

horizontal. What is 0 meant to represent in maths? To my lay mind,

it is nothing. Nothing is not really nothing epistemologically. It

is the absence of something. Something therefore gives sustenance to

nothing or something and nothing are mutually indispensable.

Mathematically, 1 has its validity because it is flanked by 0 and 2.

0 should therefore derive its validity from -1 and + 1. That points

at the possibility of a universe in the opposite direction. We can

call it anti-universe or (-) creation, which is another dimension to

the so-called reality we perceive. We need not restrict ourselves to

just a second dimension only. There could be an infinite number of

dimensions sprouting from 0.

 

What I am driving at is that our mathematical 0 is a 'something' in

the `field of all potential experiences' irrespective whether the

field is positive or negative or any of the infinite number of

dimensions. Advaita concerns Consciousness which lends sustenance

to this `0'. 0 can at best represent a body at rest in any of the

dimensions and about to be displaced but not creation conceived as

progressive against the backdrop of inconceivable Awareness. I have

laboured with these thoughts on this List in my post # 15052 in

October 2002. I would request you to kindly take a look at it, Sir,

if you have time for this layman's curiosity. Incidentally, the tool

I used in that post is a hypothetical graph with conceivable axes.

 

This is the major problem I perceive with the geometric model. I,

therefore, have reason to believe that the spectacular conclusions

you have reached about the coming together of science and

spirituality are not based on a solid foundation. The twain shall

never meet although they `seem' to do so in the glittering light of

recent advances in scientific research.

 

Another interesting point is your conclusions about language of

advaita and language of physics (page 18). In one of my earlier

vagrant posts in September 2003 in our discussion on `Light in

Enlightenment' (Post # 19067), I had raised the questions: "In

Enlightenment known as Self-Realization, where duality is effectively

undone, are we virtually *becoming* prakAsha whereby there is

cessation of apparent duality?" and "Isn't *being* prakAshA the same

as the hypothetical travel at the velocity of light?".

These questions have striking resemblance to the conclusions you

reach through your equations although I did not ask them with any

mathematical support.

 

Our Shri Ananda Wood-ji, a physicist with whom this List is very

fortunate to associate with, had then provided a brilliant reply

(Post # 19111) in which he had cautioned us as follows:

 

"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'.

 

I am yet to see any comments from Shri Ananda-ji on the geometric

model. It would be very interesting and enlightening if he joins in.

 

There is yet another problem. It is said in vedanta and affirmed by

sages like Sankara that the ignorance that results in the projection

of an objectified world has no beginning. How can a geometric

horizontal axis, which has a definite beginning mathematically,

explain this statement?

 

Further, the jIvA is a fallen being and has to virtually struggle

back through the `field' is just one school of interpretation. This

geometric model thrives on such a scenario. Personally, I do not

know whether to accept this view or not. However, may I request you,

Sir, to read Sw. Dayanandaji's exposition of Panchadasi 7-51 in post

# 27817 where he has effectively refuted this contention. The right

understanding of what he says, I am afraid, invalidates the need for

a geometric model where the jIvAs, starting from the horizontal, sail

on the crests of different waves of projection to reach the vertical.

 

When the jIvAs reach the vertical, they are assumed to be Self-

Realized. Well, Advaita says a knower of Brahman becomes verily

Brahman. So, the vertical cannot be considered as falling in the

vyAvahArika level as you have clarified, Sir, in your reply # 28672

to Benji. The vertical is Brahman and, in that case, how is it

possible to conceive the self-Realized jIvA (J3 – a fully Self-Aware

Being) as `advancing' on the vertical from one point to another (page

15, under the section "Degree of Establishment In The Self Or

Relative Awareness). There is no coming and going in or for Brahman

(IsAvAsyopanishad). I am afraid, the Relative Awareness equation

therefore has no mathematical validity.

 

There are a few more minor doubts. I would not like to dwell on them

as this post is already very lengthy. Let me, therefore, conclude

requesting your kind forbearance. Thank you, Sir.

 

Om Anekakoti BrahmAndajananye Namah.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Sri Madathil Rajendran Nair-ji,

 

If I may be so impertinent as to speak for Raju,

this certainly qualifies as a serious (and detailed)

response!

 

Not to mention eloquent. Chittaranjan can also

speak like this, as I remember. And Sri Aurobindo.

I'm always impressed when Indians learn to speak English

better than almost all Americans and Brits of today!

 

Benjamin

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair>

wrote:

>

> Respected Dr. Raju Chidambaram-ji.

>

> Sir, I went through your paper "Geometric Representation Of Advaitic

> Principles And Its Relevance To Modern Physics". As I was off the

> List for some time, I hadn't had the opportunity to go through your

> first few posts and the responses thereto. As such, I didn't know

> that you have initiated this thread on the request of our respected

> Ramji. Well, I was baffled with a mathematical model coming up for

> Advaita and my bafflement resulted in certain tangential remarks in

> the List questioning the validity of such an attempt.

>

> I apologize sincerely for my hasty remarks. Having read your paper

> and the circumstances of your presenting it on the List, I now feel

> that I should better have controlled my eagerness to express.

>

> I am no mathematician. I was rather very poor in maths in my school

> days. It was only in later years that I developed some fascination

> for the subject. That can be called a flirtation without a solid

> basic foundation. Yet, I should perceive that my later liking for

> the subject has helped understand various scientific principles to at

> least a healthy lay level.

>

> It is with this meager resource that I am going to present my

> observations on the geometric model. If I am wrong, please bear with

> this layman's apparently impertinent foray into the lofty citadel of

> mathematics.

>

> Besides, our Benji has stated that the discussions so far have been

> only peripheral. I notice from your acknowledgements that he was

> associated with the project. He is a professional too. He is

> therefore in a position of advantage to be really incisively

> insightful about the mathematical nuances of the model. Being a

> layman, I would restrict myself to the basics – the very foundations

> of the model - and avoid the mathematical equations, which I can

> safely assume are strongly well-built on your mathematical prowess

> and accomplishments.

>

> Many doubts cropped up in my mind as I progressed through your paper

> until I reached the derivation of the mathematical equations and your

> brilliant conclusion "Self = Space, Maximum Knowledge of Self =

> Maximum Speed in Space, Knowledge of Self = Speed in Space". I had

> your paper printed out in hard copy and, as I progressed through the

> pages, I jotted down my doubts. Fortunately most of them cleared as

> I reached the equations leaving only one behind unresolved and that

> is the main theme of this post.

>

> To illustrate this lingering doubt, let us take an ordinary graph

> where time (t) is plotted on one axis (vertical) against the movement

> of an object (displacement) (d)on the other (horizontal). It is a

> very simple graphical representation and each plotting on the graph

> represents the position of the object at a given time. This means

> that there are always two coordinates for the position of the object –

> t and d. The two axes on your graph represent change on the

> horizontal and "Experiencer/Awareness" on the vertical. The state of

> a jIva in the field of all potential experiences should, therefore,

> have two coordinates. This is fine till the jIva reaches the

> vertical axis. When it reaches the vertical axis, the value on the

> horizontal will be 0, whereas the value on the vertical can be an

> immeasurable anything. On the simple graph of time against

> displacement, this can never happen because when the object reaches

> (returns to) 0 on the horizontal, it would logically mean that it has

> reached the point from where it started. The time in which the

> object reached its original position can be read from the vertical.

>

> On the simple graph, time is progressive. That is why we are able to

> assign values to it and plot it on a graph, whereas, in your model,

> Awareness takes the place of time. In order to interpret your model

> logically, we will have to consider Awareness as progressive.

> Advaita will not accept such a proposition of a progressive Awareness

> with definite values on the vertical.

>

> I am sure you are aware of this drawback because you have explained

> on page 15 that "It (the erstwhile jIvA who is now enlightened) is

> everywhere along the vertical axis at the same time. It witnesses

> all cause-effect waves from beginning to end of creation at the same

> experienced time".

>

> Well, the explanation is quite advaitic and acceptable on its own

> merit. But, it looks like having been imposed on the geometric model

> by assigning an axis (vertical) to Awareness, which is neither

> progressive nor can be empirically measured. If the model is really

> geometric, both the axes should be measurable or at least conceivable.

>

> On the time/displacement graph, when the object returns to its

> original position, it is back at zero after a lapse of measured time

> on the vertical. In the geometric model, therefore, we have to

> assume that when the jIvA's path touches the vertical, creation

> (horizontal) is folded up (0) after "a lapse of measured

> Awareness". Isn't 'measured Awareness' a very outlandish thought?

> Moreover, it would also mean that the kalpa has ended as far as that

> jIvA is concerned whereas it continues for others. Is the ending of

> the kalpa, self-realization?

>

> The number of years in a kalpa is quoted in the paper. So, that is a

> very mathematically conceivable (if not measurable) entity, which

> finds support in BG 8-17. I notice that Sankara has not interpreted

> this verse or the one following it elaborately. The horizontal in

> the geometric model represents this kalpa, which means you have a

> very conceivable horizontal by virtue of BG 8-17. However, the

> vertical remains inconceivable. Can any geometric model have a

> conceivable axis against an inconceivable?

>

> There is another major problem. Creation is conceived to begin at 0

> on the horizontal. Geometrically, it is 0 on both the vertical and

> horizontal. What is 0 meant to represent in maths? To my lay mind,

> it is nothing. Nothing is not really nothing epistemologically. It

> is the absence of something. Something therefore gives sustenance to

> nothing or something and nothing are mutually indispensable.

> Mathematically, 1 has its validity because it is flanked by 0 and 2.

> 0 should therefore derive its validity from -1 and + 1. That points

> at the possibility of a universe in the opposite direction. We can

> call it anti-universe or (-) creation, which is another dimension to

> the so-called reality we perceive. We need not restrict ourselves to

> just a second dimension only. There could be an infinite number of

> dimensions sprouting from 0.

>

> What I am driving at is that our mathematical 0 is a 'something' in

> the `field of all potential experiences' irrespective whether the

> field is positive or negative or any of the infinite number of

> dimensions. Advaita concerns Consciousness which lends sustenance

> to this `0'. 0 can at best represent a body at rest in any of the

> dimensions and about to be displaced but not creation conceived as

> progressive against the backdrop of inconceivable Awareness. I have

> laboured with these thoughts on this List in my post # 15052 in

> October 2002. I would request you to kindly take a look at it, Sir,

> if you have time for this layman's curiosity. Incidentally, the tool

> I used in that post is a hypothetical graph with conceivable axes.

>

> This is the major problem I perceive with the geometric model. I,

> therefore, have reason to believe that the spectacular conclusions

> you have reached about the coming together of science and

> spirituality are not based on a solid foundation. The twain shall

> never meet although they `seem' to do so in the glittering light of

> recent advances in scientific research.

>

> Another interesting point is your conclusions about language of

> advaita and language of physics (page 18). In one of my earlier

> vagrant posts in September 2003 in our discussion on `Light in

> Enlightenment' (Post # 19067), I had raised the questions: "In

> Enlightenment known as Self-Realization, where duality is effectively

> undone, are we virtually *becoming* prakAsha whereby there is

> cessation of apparent duality?" and "Isn't *being* prakAshA the same

> as the hypothetical travel at the velocity of light?".

> These questions have striking resemblance to the conclusions you

> reach through your equations although I did not ask them with any

> mathematical support.

>

> Our Shri Ananda Wood-ji, a physicist with whom this List is very

> fortunate to associate with, had then provided a brilliant reply

> (Post # 19111) in which he had cautioned us as follows:

>

> "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'.

>

> I am yet to see any comments from Shri Ananda-ji on the geometric

> model. It would be very interesting and enlightening if he joins in.

>

> There is yet another problem. It is said in vedanta and affirmed by

> sages like Sankara that the ignorance that results in the projection

> of an objectified world has no beginning. How can a geometric

> horizontal axis, which has a definite beginning mathematically,

> explain this statement?

>

> Further, the jIvA is a fallen being and has to virtually struggle

> back through the `field' is just one school of interpretation. This

> geometric model thrives on such a scenario. Personally, I do not

> know whether to accept this view or not. However, may I request you,

> Sir, to read Sw. Dayanandaji's exposition of Panchadasi 7-51 in post

> # 27817 where he has effectively refuted this contention. The right

> understanding of what he says, I am afraid, invalidates the need for

> a geometric model where the jIvAs, starting from the horizontal, sail

> on the crests of different waves of projection to reach the vertical.

>

> When the jIvAs reach the vertical, they are assumed to be Self-

> Realized. Well, Advaita says a knower of Brahman becomes verily

> Brahman. So, the vertical cannot be considered as falling in the

> vyAvahArika level as you have clarified, Sir, in your reply # 28672

> to Benji. The vertical is Brahman and, in that case, how is it

> possible to conceive the self-Realized jIvA (J3 – a fully Self-Aware

> Being) as `advancing' on the vertical from one point to another (page

> 15, under the section "Degree of Establishment In The Self Or

> Relative Awareness). There is no coming and going in or for Brahman

> (IsAvAsyopanishad). I am afraid, the Relative Awareness equation

> therefore has no mathematical validity.

>

> There are a few more minor doubts. I would not like to dwell on them

> as this post is already very lengthy. Let me, therefore, conclude

> requesting your kind forbearance. Thank you, Sir.

>

> Om Anekakoti BrahmAndajananye Namah.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>