Word

[Guest guest]

Namaste CNji,

I know what you're getting at with the eternality of

name and form. If the world or the

transmigratory state is beginningless: an inference

drawn from the doctrine of karma (B.S.B.II.i.35)

then name and form are beginingless. This

beginingless nature is also deduced from the eternal

nature of the word i.e. abstract nouns such as

cowhood and universals (cf.B.S.B.I.iii.28 for

discussion on this) "for the individual forms of

substances, qualities, and actions alone can

have origin, but not their distinguishing (general)

characteristics (i.e. genus)."

 

Let me try to offer a distinction between

names and forms and words as Shankara uses

those expressions. Name and Form may refer

to actual instantiated reality. With the realization

of Brahman "this individuated existence is destroyed

with them".

 

The word is the creative word of Brahman of which

it is said "In the beginning, He created from the Vedic words

themselves, the names of all beings, and

all actions separately, as also the separate modes

of life" (Manu l.21)

 

How does this picture of creation accord

with the scientific knowledge we have of

evolution? Does it not assume that creation

was of the evolved world as we now know it

and not via cosmic soup etc.? Is any interpretation

offered which lines up with evolution, that the

Vedic account is a pre-scientific symbolic story

perhaps?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste CNji,

> I know what you're getting at with the eternality of

> name and form. If the world or the

> transmigratory state is beginningless: an inference

> drawn from the doctrine of karma (B.S.B.II.i.35)

> then name and form are beginingless. This

> beginingless nature is also deduced from the eternal

> nature of the word i.e. abstract nouns such as

> cowhood and universals (cf.B.S.B.I.iii.28 for

> discussion on this) "for the individual forms of

> substances, qualities, and actions alone can

> have origin, but not their distinguishing (general)

> characteristics (i.e. genus)."

 

Shankara also says that particulars (individuals) are not different

from general characteristics:

 

"And an effect is not separate from its cause. Also particulars are

included in the general. How does the relation of general and

particulars apply here? It, sound in general, is their Saman, so

called because of sameness. For it is common to all names, which are

its own particular forms. Another reason is that the particular

names, being derived from it, are not different from it. And we see

that something that is derived from another is not different from it,

as a jar, for instance, is not different from clay." (Br.Up.I,VI,1)

 

> Let me try to offer a distinction between

> names and forms and words as Shankara uses

> those expressions. Name and Form may refer

> to actual instantiated reality. With the

> realization of Brahman "this individuated

> existence is destroyed with them".

 

The way Advaita uses names and forms has a parallel (somewhat) with

modern modal logic. Whereas modal logic differentiates the

eternal 'form' as an 'other universe' and the forms that we perceive

as 'this universe', Advaita explains the difference as pertaining

to 'conditions of speech'.

 

"The condition in which name and form become evolved is different

from the condition in which name and form is not so evolved. Hence

although the effect exists as non-different from the cause before

creation, still from the standpoint of this difference in conditions

the effect is declared to be non-existent before creation." (BS.

II.1.17)

 

The difference is the conditions of speech is vivarta. The difference

does not pertain to the object that persists in all the conditions,

but to the difference of modality of cognition. The cognising mode

called vaikhari is that mode in which we predicate perception and

existence to the object (we say it is perceived and it exists), the

cognising mode called madhyama is that mode in which we predicate

imagination and non-existence to the object (i.e., we say that it is

merely imagined and doesn't exist), and the cognising mode called

pashyanti is that mode in which we predicate unseen-ness and non-

existence to the object (we say that it is unborn or destroyed and

doesn't exist).

 

> The word is the creative word of Brahman of which

> it is said "In the beginning, He created from the

> Vedic words themselves, the names of all beings, and

> all actions separately, as also the separate modes

> of life" (Manu l.21)

 

Ishvara has aishvarya - controllership. He brings forth the universe

by His speech. Not so in the case of a jiva whose speech lacks vigour

(viryatva).

 

> How does this picture of creation accord

> with the scientific knowledge we have of

> evolution?

 

It does not.

 

> Does it not assume that creation

> was of the evolved world as we now

> know it and not via cosmic soup etc.?

 

Vedic philosophy does not agree with scientific theory which says

that creation evolves out of an inert cosmic soup. Vedic philosophy

recognises that activity has to have a sentient locus. In the Vedic

account, creation does not evolve out of the cosmic soup, but out of

Will of a Conscious Being.

 

> Is any interpretation offered which lines up

> with evolution, that the Vedic account is a

> pre-scientific symbolic story perhaps?

 

No such interpretation is offered. Neither is an apology offered.

Science is one of the purva-pakshas of Vedanta.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Ref. Post 30273

 

Namaste Chitta-ji and Michael-ji;

 

I may be hitting the same note over and over again with what i am about to

say (as was with the big-bang theory discussion), however, even though i am

not an authority on neither "subjects" (science and vedanta) i have my

intuition to rely on, and so i shall speak only on its behalf.

 

I don't think that science stands as a dignified purva-paksha of Vedanta,

simply because insofar as my perception can grasp, scientists deal

exclusively with phenomena, never attempting to find, or for that matter

even discuss the objective cause. Vedanta deals exclusively with the cause,

which to my perception encompasses general phenomenon description.

 

I cannot state that i have been disappointed by finding out a generalized

scientific inadequacy to relate to the cause, but for instance, reading Kant

was to me a great exponent of how far the intellect, abiding exlcusively by

logical standards, as in raw rationality, can go. Even though exposing with

mind-boggling depth such bewildering subjects as "the division in

transcendental logic between analitic transcendental and dialectic

transcendental", the complete focus on the object (even though seeking a

relation to the subject, but apparently mis-judging the subject to be the

ego) dictates the outcome of the exposition to be either too vague, or

simply inexistent. And for that matter, i was left with the impression that

Kant was the real nihilist, on the account that such was the effort put in a

logical existential analysis, leaving no room whatsoever for any poetry (in

my limited understanding, of course), that the outcome was a logical

dead-end, rather ultimately unrelated to either subject or object.

 

This to me is a precious hint of scientific inadequacy to analyse reality

(as we seem to deem to be outlined in vedanta, more or less in a cohesive

"intuitivity"). Science always leads to the dead-end of creation and cause

(and this very much fits in accordance to the scriptures, with the

over-stressed prerogative that logic alone cannot resolve into moksha).

 

On account of this difference in depth (i am not trying to propose any

revolutionary theory to conciliate vedanta with science), and mostly

standing on the fundamental issue that science never (ever) assumes the

possibility that the ego is an impression, therefore inexistent, so both are

ultimately unrelated subjects, and in my view cannot contradict each other.

I stick to the impression (though assumed thru logic and intuition) that

thru inquiry in the vedantic path, upon knowing "that" everything else

becomes known (not excluding science). Following this line of reasoning, it

could also be assumed that vedanta encompasses science, better yet, precedes

science (for dealing with the cause, or subject, that generates the

scientific object).

 

Metaphorically speaking (because this reality is most certainly to be

ascertained upon experience alone), to think about creation as the outcome

of brahman's creative speech, is not at all incompatible with evolution. The

earlier may be understood as the cause, while the latter as the effect that

can be contemplated in our limited (time and space-wise) perspectives.

Again, thru reasoning alone one might infer that the stages of evolution,

starting from cosmic soup, should fully encompass our creation. However, set

apart from time and space, brahman's creative speech can be understood to

cause the waves of consciousness starting from cosmic soup, leading to us,

while "beyondness" of time grants the absolute full "knowledge"

(omniscience) over past, present and future (thus having contained within

itself evolution, along with any aspect of time and space). Simultaneously

(since "absolute" is always simultaneous in perspective to those subject to

time) being "subject" to time and space, also dictates that to the apparent

individual the nature of evolution should be progressive, geographical etc.

So brahman and evolution are only incompatible if we forget that the

absolute is beyond limits and attributes, while evolution to the individual

is a mere descriptive approach that attempts to reach out as far as logic

can go (which we vedantins know not to be enough), falling short right

before the cause.

 

Finally, i'd like to quote a few lines from the preface of Nietzche's

Zarathustra, which got me thinking about the "scientific" value of a

nihilistic interpretation on the author's views (pardon me for translating

to english a portuguese translation from german...).

 

" Man is a rope, tied between the animal and the beyond-man - a rope over an

abyss."

 

" What is grand about Man, is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can

be loved in Man, is that he is a passing and a succumbing."

 

" I love those of the great despise, because they are of the great respect,

and darts of aspiration to the other shore."

 

" I love Thee that lives to know and wants to know so that one day the

beyond-man lives. And thus he wants to succumb."

 

" I love Thee that works and invents to build a house for the beyond-man,

and prepares for him the earth, animal and plant: thus he wants to succumb."

 

" I love Thee that doesn't reserves one drop of spirit to himself, but wants

to be whole the spirit of his virtue: thus he passes as spirit over the

bridge."

 

" I love Thee whose soul is full, in a way that he forgets himself, and

everything in him: thus all things become his succumb."

 

" I love all those that are like heavy rain drops falling one-by-one from

the dark cloud that hangs over Man: they announce that lightning comes, and

go to the depth as announcers. See, i am an announcer of the lightning, and

a heavy drop from the cloud: but this lightning is called the beyond-man."

 

Namaste and my warmest regards to all...

 

 

 

 

_____

Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis. Instale o discador agora!

http://br.acesso.