word

[Guest guest]

C.Nji wrote

"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)

||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste C.Nji (and whoever wishes to comment)

 

So it seems that you are going back even

further into the theory of word. Sound is the

basis of the word. If one were to put it in

terms of a Venn diagram, the outer circle would

contain sount, inside that you would have

word, inside that you would have nameform

(I run them together like spacetime). This

corrosponds to the order of business of creation

and allies itself to the trope of emanation.

 

There is a conflict between the Isvara and Brahman

with respect to the nature of creation which surfaces

in the perennial discussions about ajativada. We are

told repeatedly that Brahman is all this, that there

is nothing but the Self and that unity is the answer.

In that vision of things can anything be inert? There

is only one Being, the Being of Brahman and that is

Sat cit anandam (or anantam cf. discussion on Satyam

jnanam anantam Brahma in Tai.Up.) By straight logic

which you hold to be the only logic there is, that must

be the case. The higher teaching of Brahman, if it takes

precedence, must mean that the notion of anything that

*is* being inert is false. That assumes that the logic of

shruti is the same as ordinary logic which operates

by the two poles of P.N.C. and P.E.M. This is

Maitreyi's sticking point cf.Brh.Up. Not so much the

puzzle about how the self is without consciousness

after realisation but the status of the manifest world.

Following the logic of Creation or the path of Isvara,

creation will be taken to be other than the creator

and thus inert. This is the path that is immediately

accessible to the plain reader of scripture. This is the

path that is ordinarily traced to get to the point of

liberation viz. the progressive dissolution of upadhis.

 

By the other path of Brahman nothing is inert

and therefore its (creation's) dissolution requires

that in some manner it never really was. As ever

there is tension between the immanent and

transcendent aspects of religion. This surpasses

normal logic which I maintain happens in ordinary

life also. Take something very straightforward -

pre-cognition. If you experience something before

it happens then it is clear that in some way you

were in two places, spacetimewise, at the same time.

By ordinary logic no can do! I personally have no

trouble believing in these sorts of experience for

the excellect reason that I have experienced them.

The envelope of intelligibility sometimes herniates.

 

Now to the matter of Darwinian Evolution. I

remarked above that the notion of creation as

inert has the conter thesis that if anything is

then it is conscious or rather is consciousness.

Yet at the same time because it (creation) is not

Brahman its being must be qualified. In some

readings that qualification turns into anihilation,

in others inscrutable but existent. My own

predeliction is for the position that everything

is consciousness, and reflects that consciousness

up to the level of its complexity. Natural selection,

mutation and adaption keeps driving that level

of complexity until human consciousness is reached.

Then it, because of its capacity to hold a thought,

can begin to retrace its footsteps. That no doubt

is unorthodox but is my way of dealing with the

giant fact of D.E.

 

How do you deal with it? Don't apologise or

explain, expatiate a little. What's the leading

Vedic thinking on it, why has the progress of

creation taken the form it has - is this a contingent

 

fact; does the doctrine of transmigration suggest

anything. It is worthwhile pointing out that

Christians had a long lead in period before they

accepted it. The folks of Cobb County,

Georgia together with ISKON are mounting

a case for the inclusion of Creationism both Vedic

and Christian in the curriculum. That'a curly

bracket to be in.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael