word

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Michaelji,

 

I don't want to stretch this discussion, but there are two points

which I think may be relevant here:

 

1. I don't think it is compassion for the devotees that makes

Shankara use these analogies, but that it is the rules of Nyaya that

allows him to do so. In tarka-shastra, one is allowed to use a tenet

that is common to both parties without further analysis, especially

during aviroda.

 

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

 

Namaste CNji,

I never said, intimated or suggested that

Shankara was using those analogies from compassion

for his devotees. He uses those analogies because it

seemed to him that they were valid

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

 

2. When you say: "Now it takes very little research into the annals

of pre-scientific people to realise that such beliefs (about cranes)

are entirely possible", I detect a valuation that loads the term "pre-

scientific" with the idea of "human progress". This idea (which is

usually implicit in the term) needs to be critiqued through a logical

investigation. I am not saying that the idea is false per se; what I

am saying is that we need to hold our valuation in suspension till we

investigate the idea fully. I would say that the idea of space being

curved is a superstition promoted by scientific people, and that it

can, with as much justice, be taken as a sign of "human regress".

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

 

M: On a careful rereading you will see that

I propose that philosophy is perennial and perenially

interesting whereas science is constantly changing.

Attributing meliorism to me is a projection of your

own and is a wholly different issue. I would say that

being embarassed by pre-scientific beliefs in a spiritual

master shows more attachment to up to the minute

knowledge and the consideration of its lack as a deficency.

Ask yourself whether Ramana knew as much about

nuclear physics as Richard Feynmann or Einstein.

It's an absurd question so what's the problem with

cranes and thunder?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael

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

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Michaelji,

 

advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste CNji,

> I never said, intimated or suggested that

> Shankara was using those analogies from compassion

> for his devotees. He uses those analogies because it

> seemed to him that they were valid

 

Okay.

 

> M: On a careful rereading you will see that

> I propose that philosophy is perennial and perenially

> interesting whereas science is constantly changing.

> Attributing meliorism to me is a projection of your

> own and is a wholly different issue.

 

Okay. It was my adhyasa. :-)

 

> I would say that being embarassed by pre-scientific

> beliefs in a spiritual master shows more attachment

> to up to the minute knowledge and the consideration

> of its lack as a deficency.

 

This was not the consideration. The problem is with the qualificatory

term 'pre-scientific' which has many connotations.

 

> Ask yourself whether Ramana knew as much about

> nuclear physics as Richard Feynmann or Einstein.

 

That would be like asking whether one who has realised the rope would

be knowing that it is a snake.

 

It is not reasonable to expect Ramana (or any jnani) to know nuclear

physics because nuclear physics has two interleaved strands in it -

one is the strand of logic and truth, and the other is the strand of

illogic and conflation. The illogic and conflation (in it) is the

basic illogic and conflation that the entire framework of science is

riddled with. True physics never deviates from what Aristotle

called 'natures' which is the same as what Vedanta calls 'dharma'.

Sri Ramana Maharshi's jnana is not without the knowledge of dharma,

the true natures of things (the true physics), even though we may not

see this knowledge manifested through the body that we continue to

call 'Ramana'. The lower vidyas (the true sciences of particular

domains) are never deviant from the universal meanings (Ritam) that

are One with Brahman. It is the basis of Shankara saying that not

even the Vedas can change the nature of a thing (such as a rose).

What a rose is, is given in its own nature, and its own nature is the

universal 'rose' that we call 'roseness' that abides in Brahman.

Every relation (sambandha) that a rose has with anything else arises

from the relations that abide in the rose itself, and the

coordinations that these relations have with other objects is the

coordination that comes by virtue of the existence of the rose being

Brahman Itself in which all coordinations meet. But this is too big a

topic to be dealt with here. Maybe we should take it up some day (I

am sure Anandaji would be interested in discussing it too) as it

relates to certain aspects of science that properly falls in the

domain of philosophy of science. But I would hesitate to start a

discussion on this topic without first writing a detailed

introduction because the investigation would entail venturing into

uncharted territories which the philosophies of science have so far

failed to penetrate.

 

> It's an absurd question so what's the problem with

> cranes and thunder?

 

No problem.... unless you were to say that Shankara's words relating

to 'cranes and thunder' proves that he was unaware of the lower

vidyas. Shankara is Mantra Maheswara, the author of Saundarya Lahari,

and his knowledge of the mantras is his knowledge of the lower vidyas

as well because mantras are the root of the lower vidyas.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan