Taittiriya Aranyaka III.iii.7, Purusha Suktam & Upanishad

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chitteranjan and Sanjay,

 

Chitteranjan in your discussion with Sanjay about the different

domains of discourse you seem to be backing

yourself into a position very much like

that of the literalist readers of the Bible.

Dicta (utterances) are only contra when they

are made within the same realm of reference.

For instance because the Upanishads make reference

to 5 Elements are you proposing that we revise

the periodic table? Do you think that

the word 'go' has more cowhood/cowness about it

than 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would

confirm the tower of Babel story :-)

 

This position seems not to cohere with the

one you took in relation to Frank Morales.

You scouted his argument that the Vedic

one reality many paths idea was distinctly

different from that of other religions

and that therefore the view that somehow

all religions are the same was false.

This is a unique notion which marks a

distinct and different religion said Frank. You

took the approach that contradiction was

merely apparent or many more words to that

effect. Now you are saying that contradiction

counts. Which is it?

 

Sanjay, your point about inference overcoming

perception as with heliocentrism is well

taken. It is the classic progress of science;

more subtle data forces us to revise what

seems clear and apparent. SpaceTime is not

in the least intuitive but it is truer on

its level.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> > What is sublated is avidya only. If you go by Advaita,

> > pratyaksha is never sublated by anumana. Please elaborate

> > on the nature of the vyapti which is the basis of anumana

> > and then we will take up this discussion further.

>

> > How do you get this conclusive knowledge of the rising

> > sun? Please elaborate.

>

> It would not be a single step of anumAna to arrive at the

> knowledge of rising sun but a series of deductive reasoning

> with each step having a different vyApti.

 

Okay. Please lay out the steps so that we can take them up for

examination.

 

> It is difficult for me to break up in parts the entire set

> of reasoning that goes into the conclusion that "sun does

> not rise". But I know that the knowledge that "sun does not

> rise" is not my pratyaksha knowledge (and it has not come

> to me through Agama either).

 

Of course not. The sun not rising is not prameya. Pratyaksha, which

is a pramana, shows you that the sun is rising. Anumana does not

contradict the perception of the sun rising. Theories about perceived

things ultimately have to return to the stark facts of perception.

When you say that the sun is not rising after arriving at such a

conclusion through a series of inferential steps, you ultimately have

to account for the fact that the conclusion of your theory is what

makes the sun appear 'as if' it is rising. The use of the words 'as

if' indicates the loss of nativity whereby we have given up the stark

fact that is perceived by Consciousness in favour of what is

constructed as a theory. Advaita abides by what is perceived exactly

as it is perceived and thereby it adheres faithfully to the

presentations of Consciousness. You cannot be speaking that this

world is Consciousness and then abandon this thesis when it comes to

explaining the things that you are conscious of. Tell me, does the

sun rising in your dream have causes such as the dream-earth going

around the dream-sun to make the appearance of the sun rising in the

dream valid? We speak so much that this world is like a dream and

then abandon our convictions to the allurements of scientific

theories.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michaelji,

 

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

>

> Namaste Chitteranjan and Sanjay,

>

> For instance because the Upanishads make reference

> to 5 Elements are you proposing that we revise

> the periodic table?

 

No, the elements of the periodic table are given in the further

evolution of the elements wherein the five primal elements first

arose. According to Advaita, the five elements combine to produce the

gross elements through a process known as quintuplication. The gross

elements further combine with one another in different proportions to

give us the elements that we know as the elements of the world such

as iron, gold, mercury, etc.

 

The five primal elements are the corresponding objects of the five

primal senses that we possess - the sense of hearing, the sense of

touch, the sense of sight, the sense of taste, and the sense of

smell. The objects that we perceive in the world around us are not

simple objects, but are the objects compounded of the objects of

different senses.

 

> Do you think that the word 'go' has more cowhood/cowness

> about it than 'bo', 'vache', 'vaccus' etc.? That would

> confirm the tower of Babel story :-)

 

I am unable to understand the question. There is no more or less to

cowness. More and less as seen in the world are particulars of

moreness and lessness.

 

> This position seems not to cohere with the

> one you took in relation to Frank Morales.

> You scouted his argument that the Vedic

> one reality many paths idea was distinctly

> different from that of other religions

> and that therefore the view that somehow

> all religions are the same was false.

 

The proposition that all religions are the same is not false. They

are same in terms of the sameness that is in them which is the Living

Principle (chaitanya). They are distinct in so far as they have

distinct attributes. That is what I had said in the article to

counter the view that the sameness of religions would negate the

distinctions between them.

 

> This is a unique notion which marks a

> distinct and different religion said Frank. You

> took the approach that contradiction was

> merely apparent or many more words to that

> effect.

 

No that is not what I had said. I had said that there are vishesha

religions and universal religion and that the vishesha religions do

not contradict the universal religion as they are particulars of the

universal.

> Now you are saying that contradiction counts. Which is it?

 

Contradiction counts. Brahman is not subject to contradictions

because contradictions are applicable to objects in the realm of

names and forms and not to the Ground of names and forms. That is

what I had said in the article.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste adi-ji!

Well, again another one of those "coincidences" that gradually try to

show me that there's no such thing as coincidence... I'll be reading the

links you posted shortly.

 

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan-ji!

As for jnana-marga and it's lack of a clearly defined path, i had felt

this coming, unfortunately... I must then only conclude that the path to be

taken is the same that has led me here, where "apparently different"

individuals congregate through the power of similar ideas, drawn together by

this power represented by knowledge?

 

As for one of your later posts, i beg to differ with you... Even though

creationism doesn't ranks as one of my main areas of interest (as i said

earlier, i "feel" created already, and don't know how the past could improve

the situation anyway), i believe that the theory of The Big Bang does not

contradicts the principles of Advaita. As you said to me earlier, making it

possible for me to objectify what i'll state now (and had felt before, after

reading Stephen Hawking's book), the theory itself dwells in the realm of

discursive thought. Upon being confronted on the subject, in an interview to

a brazilian general sciences magazine, the author replied "I not only

believe that god creates the dice, as i believe he throws them as well". In

his website, there's a specific article on this subject, from which i quote

the closing remarks

 

" One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite

predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined

by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. God still

has a few tricks up his sleeve. " - Indeed, spirituality soars among

sicentists...

 

To elaborate on this matter, what i mean by this is that his theory does

not tries to connect the cause to the effect, as it is a "mere" description

of the effect itself. It would be the same as, in the event of you reaching

out to grab a glass of water, a theory being derived to describe the

movement of your hand. However, not in a single moment would the theory

object wether you were thirsty or not. Furthermore, given the "timespam" of

the theory, wouldn't it reach a somewhat closer mark to that of BrAhma's

time in relation to ours? At this point, i must reiterate that even if so,

the theory would account only for a humanization and description of the

phenomena in human rational terms, never even getting close to the absolute,

the absolute being the cause of the phenomena and above human reasoning.

Thus, the theory being another theory arising in the maya of time, refering

to a somewhat lower level on the ladder when compared to the scriptures,

therefore not in direct contradiction. In other words, the theory being a

mechanical description of the mechanism, being it BrAhma's speech or

otherwise.

 

My warmest regards...

 

PS: If you would like to read the article, it's at

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis: Internet rápida e grátis.

Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastav-ji,

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Tell me, does the sun rising in your dream have causes such

> as the dream-earth going around the dream-sun to make the

> appearance of the sun rising in the dream valid?

 

Please read that as "dream-earth rotating on its axis" instead

of "dream-earth going around the dream-sun". My knowledge of science is

not as bad as the slip-up may have made it appear! :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan