vijnAnavAda and advaita

[Guest guest]

Vinayakaji asks:

Here I would like to ask (as mentioned by sadaji earlier), Is there

any real object whose nature can be strictly defined and which lies

'out there' and exists 'independent of mind'?

 

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

 

Namaste all followers of this thread,

When there is an object, it is an object for some subject or some

potential subject. Does it exist independent of any mind that might know

it? Yes, obviously, the world is full of items which pre-existed the

advent of man upon the earth. Did the Himalayas not exist before there

were humans with minds around? Am I then saying that although the

Himalayas existed they were not an object (a mountain range)? In a sense

yes because they had not become an object of consideration for some human

intelligence and they thus were not detached from the totality of existing

things, the plenum if you like. Their being was the being of the cosmos.

 

(1) What then is the being of the object based upon?

(2) How is the object known.

 

The answer to (1) is just the primary being of things. If they are in

existence they have being and can be known.

 

The answer to (2) brings in the notion of the occult real object or the

noumenon or the anirvacanaya aspect which is greatly overstressed. Let

me try to clarify. If we believe that our knowledge of the object must

come about through an acquaintance with an empirical input, a notion which

seems undeniable, and if we also believe in the individuality of our sense

organs, also undeniable, it seems logical to assume that we are all using

different information in the identification of any object. Where then

does the very concept of an object come in. Can it really be based on

experience? It is a complex area to investigate but it seems to be the

case that our concept of red or apples is linked to a general human

capacity which is hard wired. So then, in short, you have generic

capacity as well as individual experience which falls within a certain

range. That allows us to say to the child - 'you know what an apple is'.

 

Refer to B.S.B. I.iii.28 for Shankara's account of the relation between

the generic and the specific. It is perhaps worth quoting a section for

those who have not the text to hand.

 

" Vedantin: No, since the relationship between such generic words and

their meanings, as for instance cowhood and cows, is seen to be eternal

(i.e. beginning-less). Not that the distinguishing characteristics (i.e.

genus) of the cows etc. are created afresh each time these cows etc. are

born, for the individual forms of substances, qualities and actions alone

can have origin, but not so their distinguishing (general characteristics)

i.e. genus. "

 

Shankara declared that these generic words or vedic words are eternal and

so the idea of the noumenon which is unknowable or not determinable as

such and such, drops out of consideration as important.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> Swami Vivekananda says:

>

> " When men are in a certain frame of mind, they see this very existence

> as the earth, as the sun, the moon, the stars; and all those who are

> in the same state of mind see the same things. Between you and me

> there may be millions of beings on different planes of existence.

 

Sri Vinayakaji, some informal opinions. This statement of Swami Vivekananda is

quite

reasonable; if you read any of my other recent posts, I was probably saying the

same with

this " referential context of upadhis " business. That " frame of mind " is

determined by

karma and Ishvara reveals accordingly. Naturally the dna, senses, etc are all

part of that

determination. As Swamiji says, if we had the electric sense, a different world

would

correspond.

 

 

>It is this universe which, from the human plane,

> is seen as the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, and all such

> things

 

So do stars exist independently of your seeing them? If a human is supposed to

answer

this, then naturally the right answer is YES and they are just as bright. Your

question has

already determined what is " stars " , and the notion of objective existence

independent of

subject is also pre-admitted implicitly. All that is part of the upadhis

determining you and

your experience of Ishvara. But if you demand that the answer must come from a

" frame

of mind " that cannot have the eyes for upadhi, then the right answer is YES but

the

question of brightness is inapplicable. Think of writing a computer program for

a robot

and add the upadhis one by one; at each step what is its view of the world? That

is its

reality then. No more, no less.

 

It is this simple fact of non-absoluteness in " what is the Seen " that makes us

categorize

that aspect as unreal. But there is the essential Sat that is constant in all

contexts; that is

the Real. (I am just thinking of Shankara's commentary to Nasatho Vidhyate

Bhavo...). The

intermediary question as to whether the stars exist in an absolute sense is

inapplicable;

any answer will belong to some relative context. So the question is improperly

put, it is

mixing up things.

 

Have no doubt: for you Vinayakaji, the stars do exist even when you don't see

them. That

answer is as fixed (for your mind-rationality) as the stars in front of your

eyes. But when

you don't see them, let us admit: they don't exist for your eye-vision then.

 

 

 

>Those who

> have been dreaming of going to a God who is sitting on a throne, and

> of standing there praising Him all their lives, when they die, will

> simply see a vision of what they have in their minds; this very

> universe will simply change into a vast heaven, with all sorts of

> winged beings flying about and a God sitting on a throne. These

> heavens are all of man's own making. So what the dualist says is true,

> says the Advaitin, but it is all simply of his own making. "

 

" his own making " is karma-karmaphala. But one can hold the viewpoint: karma-

Ishvaraanugraha. The word " mind " can be used in other ways: why, if the Lord

reveals as

the world to the human frame of mind, then that Lord reveals as sitting on the

throne, to

another frame. We can affirm the non-absoluteness (not true for all), we can

even say that

the Lord reveals one way to eye and as another to mind's eye, and in many other

ways

simulataneously, but no need to undermine the revelation by calling it

imagination: that is

just a different name for the same.

 

The subject-object line is unreal. Based on that line, you see Him.

 

 

>

> Swami Shivananda says:

>

> " The astral plane, or Bhuvarloka, interpenetrates the earth plane and

> extends for some distance beyond it. The mental plane interpenetrates

> the astral but also extends further into space than does the latter.

> The vibrations of the astral world are more rapid or quicker than

> those of the physical plane. The vibrations of the mental plane are

> more rapid or quicker than those of the astral plane. The vibrations

> of the Satyaloka are more rapid or quicker than those of the mental

> plane. In each plane the soul develops a new and higher sense of power.

 

Objective truths? I don't know; for Putranji's frame of mind, this astral plane

stuff appears

make-believe. But it is not my main concern either. Let it work as it must.

 

 

>

> When you pass from one plane to another you do not **move in space**.

> You simply change your consciousness. You change your focus of

> consciousness. You can have different sorts of vision through the

> telescope or microscope by using lenses of different degrees of

> potency or power. You have got different vehicles within yourself

> which correspond to different planes and which can function in

> different planes. "

 

This seems brilliant; I can relate to it from the philosophical position. The

focus for us is

Consciousness as Reality, not the particular appearance. So even

change/relativity is to be

discussed from the standpoint of Consciousness, and not from the appearance

standpoint.

See also how I defined " Individual " in Part II of my anirvachaniya definition.

 

 

>

> Here I would like to ask (as mentioned by sadaji earlier), Is there

> any real object whose nature can be strictly defined and which lies

> 'out there' and exists 'independent of mind'?

 

I tried to answer that above with the stars example.

 

>

> Shankara also says in sUtra bhAshya:

>

> " Fictitiously **imagined** by avidyA as though they were identical

> with the omniscient lord, name and form **undefinable** either as

> (ishwara)himself of distinct from Him, the cause of this manifold

> world of mundane life, are called in the shruti and smriti, mAyA,

> causal potentiality and prakriti. "

>

> S.Bh.2-1-14

>

> Considering all these can't we say that we perceive same brahman or

> consciousness as objects/name and form according to our own state of

> mind/level of evolution which gets sublated for each jiva(?) on the

> dawn of knowledge?

 

 

Is this something Advaitins object to? It seems an innocent and natural

assertion.

 

 

>

> Or as I had quoted sometime earlier, do we have to accept that

> according to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

> universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

> completion of their evolution; i.e. when they attain liberation?

 

Sri Vinayakaji, I don't think there is such a necessity. The focus you

understand is on the

latter point of Self-realization. Whether or not the manifest universe follows a

cyclic

process back to " God " , should not afflict the Advaita satya of " tattvamasi " . The

former is

not known to you and it belongs to the context of upadhis. If you accept, well

it is your

belief -- the Lord thus reveals to your mind; if you can prove it, then you know

it is true in

the " human frame of mind " . The latter " tattvamasi " is claimed as the essential

Truth of

You, something true in all contexts and independent of the frame of mind. That

we are

supposed to realize.

 

My opinion: one can ask Him to appear as you please; it is true to your mind.

" Imagine " as

you please; it is dvaita, but focus that dvaita towards advaita-jnaana.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Vinayakaji,

 

" Here I would like to ask (as mentioned by sadaji

earlier), Is there any real object whose nature can be

strictly defined and which lies 'out there' and exists

'independent of mind'? " (UNQUOTE).

 

I think the answer to this depends on what you define

as the 'mind'.

 

1. If 'mind' is defined in the traditional sense, i.e.

limited to the gross body, or as the mind-intelligence

sheath, then there are real objects out there, and

they affect the mind.

 

This is shown by this example in Panchadasi

 

" A liar told a man whose son had gone to a far-off

country that the boy was dead, although he was still

alive. The father believed him and was aggrieved.

 

35. If, on the other hand, his son had really died

abroad but no news had reached him, he would have felt

no grief. This shows that the real cause of a man’s

bondage is his own mental world.

 

36. (Objection): This amounts to pure idealism and it

deprives external objects of all significance.

(Reply): No, because we accept the fact that external

objects give shape to the modifications of the mind

(which create the mental world).

 

37. Or, we may admit that external objects serve

little useful purpose, yet we cannot dispense with

them altogether. In any case, cognition is concerned

with the existence of objects and not with their

utility. "

 

Thus, at this state of mind, or level of evolution,

the mind is an instrument, and the external objects

create vrittis on the mind, thereby modifying it. The

objects are definitely 'out there' and have a real

existence.

 

 

2. If the mind is defined as being a part of Cosmic

mind, or the Mahat, then there is nothing 'outside'

it. As per Sankhya philosophy, all creation comes out

of this Mahat.

 

Hence Swami Vivekananda says in one of his lectures:

(The Powers of the Mind)

 

" This mind is a part of the universal mind. Each mind

is connected with every other mind. And each mind,

wherever it is located, is in actual communication

with the whole world.....

 

.....This shows that there is a continuity of mind, as

the Yogis call it. The mind is universal. Your mind,

my mind, all these little minds, are fragments of that

universal mind, little waves in the ocean; and on

account of this continuity, we can convey our thoughts

directly to one another. "

 

When the Yogi has realized that the individual mind is

a part of the Universal Mind, rather the individual

mind is a small wave on the ocean of universal mind,

all the objects which earlier lied outside become the

part of his mind. The yogi realizes the mind is not

affected by anything from without, but rather the

whole mind is a whirlpool with little individual

minds. However, he himself, the yogi is beyond this

whirlpool, and is the sat-chid-ananda Brahman.

 

 

Thus, the answer to your question depends on which

level one is asking it from. For the individual level,

there are objects 'outside'. For the universal level

everything is a creation of 'mind', since everything

IS mind.

 

Hope that helps. It is of course only my

understanding, so please clarify if any part of it is

wrong.

 

Hari Om.

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Now you can chat without downloading messenger. Go to

http://in.messenger./webmessengerpromo.php

[Guest guest]

The

objects are definitely 'out there' and have a real

existence.

 

Still, unless there is mind to perceive, then nothing

exists! It seems the objects are not 'out there' if

there is no mind to perceived them.

 

I think we're stuck with the absolute interdependence

of the perceiver and the perceived. Neither seems to

exist without the other. And neither can BE the other.

Usual disclaimer...one guy's opinion.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

--- vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

 

> " Here I would like to ask (as mentioned by sadaji

> earlier), Is there any real object whose nature can

> be

> strictly defined and which lies 'out there' and

> exists

> 'independent of mind'? " (UNQUOTE).

 

Vaibhav - PraNams.

 

I did state clearly that objects have to exist

independent of the mind - mind does not create

attributes of the object and then know the attributes

that it has created. That is a circular argument. The

total mind (Iswara) creates the objects including the

mind that observes. Ontologically mind and the objects

are in the same level.

 

--- Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

 

> The

> objects are definitely 'out there' and have a real

> existence.

>

> Still, unless there is mind to perceive, then

> nothing

> exists! It seems the objects are not 'out there' if

> there is no mind to perceived them.

>

> I think we're stuck with the absolute

> interdependence

> of the perceiver and the perceived. Neither seems to

> exist without the other. And neither can BE the

> other.

> Usual disclaimer...one guy's opinion.

 

steve - PraNAms

you have hit the problem correct. This is

interdependence or anyonya aashraya - makes the mind

and the object that it observes on the same par.

 

The interdependency comes as you have also rightly

pointed out that if the mind is absent, can one

establish independent existence of the objects. No,

that mind that folded cannot - In deep sleep - I saw

nothing - no kancana kaama kaamayata - I have no

desire for objects only because I have no knowledge of

the existence of the objects. Do the objects exist or

not is inderminate problem from the point of the mind

but from the point of total mind - Iswara, yes the

object and the world exist - But to know the mind of

the Iswara, we need scriptural pramaaNa.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vaibhav-ji.

 

Your message # 38492.

 

I can certainly go with you.

 

Our problem is that we like to embrace the second definition, utter

all the mahAvAkyAs and then try to understand/interpret their import

using the first one!

 

We tell ourselves: Look, the body is gross. It is an object. Look,

you know your thoughts, you know you have intellect, you know you

have ego; these are objects and thus your mind is an object. You

are the ineffable subject for all these objects. You are Brahman,

the Truth that upholds all this.

 

Then, the very next second, we keep the mind on the dissection table

for analysis and spend days without end explaining its working

quoting innumerable bhAshyAs interpreted in innumerable different

ways by innumerable enlightened ones! We don't do the same with the

body. We leave it aside like an untouchable just because it is gross

and don't refer to it without reference to the mind.

 

I don't mean that the body should be our preoccupation. I can

understand that the subtle is always closer to the truth and

therefore demands more attention. However, we seem to be happy to

have subtler sharIrAs and preoccupy ourselves with them knowing fully

well that all of them are objects and very conceptual. We also

forget the fact that they are just models used to elucidate certain

vedantic thoughts.

 

If you ask me for my personal feeling, I would boldly say: " Mind,

properly understood, is Consciousness. It is in the mind that the

final dissolution of duality and my unfortunate individuality is

going to take place as it goes Universal. The whole Universe of

manifestation (internal as well as external) is in it. In fact,

there is no internal or external to it. In ultimate analysis,

external space is a continuity of mental space. There can't be a

boundary between them operated by the batting of eyelids. We are

never going to realize this truth if we cling to the first definition

and spend all our time on analyses. Mind as per the first definition

is, therefore, best ignored. A mind which recognizes its true nature

and yearns to be its Universal self is the essential pre-requisite

for advaitic sAdhana. The rest is a big distraction - an academic

one. "

 

There is therefore no objects out there. There are no objects, in

fact.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

 

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

....................

> I think the answer to this depends on what you define

> as the 'mind'.

>

> 1. If 'mind' is defined in the traditional sense, i.e.

> limited to the gross body, or as the mind-intelligence

> sheath, then there are real objects out there, and

> they affect the mind.

...........................

>

> 2. If the mind is defined as being a part of Cosmic

> mind, or the Mahat, then there is nothing 'outside'

> it. As per Sankhya philosophy, all creation comes out

> of this Mahat. ........................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

I would like to look at this issue from a different angle.

 

The perceiver is a perceiving individuality. It is, therefore, an

object to the subject " I " am.

 

It is this perceiving indivudality made of salt that loses itself in

the ocean that " I " am every time I enter the realm of slumber. I

have no desire in sleep because the perceiving individuality, the

desiring entity, is quiescent. What remains then, the " I " am, is

desirelessness. Yet, " I " am aware of " Myself " there. That knowledge

is not available to the the individuality that has drowned itself in

the ocean. That is why it says " I didn't know anything " when it is

awake and back in operation.

 

The seeming inter-dependency between the perceiver and the perceived

is again an object and it is there only because " I " am. It is an

inter-dependency between objects and not between a subject and object.

 

The subject is " I " alone always and the objects are because " I "

am. " I " am, the world is; not vice versa, therefore.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

>> --- Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

> > The

> > objects are definitely 'out there' and have a real

> > existence.

> >

> > Still, unless there is mind to perceive, then

> > nothing

> > exists! It seems the objects are not 'out there' if

> > there is no mind to perceived them.

> >

> > I think we're stuck with the absolute

> > interdependence

> > of the perceiver and the perceived. Neither seems to

> > exist without the other. And neither can BE the

> > other.

> > Usual disclaimer...one guy's opinion.

>

> steve - PraNAms

> you have hit the problem correct. This is

> interdependence or anyonya aashraya - makes the mind

> and the object that it observes on the same par.

>

> The interdependency comes as you have also rightly

> pointed out that if the mind is absent, can one

> establish independent existence of the objects. No,

> that mind that folded cannot - In deep sleep - I saw

> nothing - no kancana kaama kaamayata - I have no

> desire for objects only because I have no knowledge of

> the existence of the objects. Do the objects exist or

> not is inderminate problem from the point of the mind

> but from the point of total mind - Iswara, yes the

> object and the world exist - But to know the mind of

> the Iswara, we need scriptural pramaaNa.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms.

 

Here is my understanding.

 

Take the dream, for example. Now there can be two

visions of that dream - from the point of the waker's

mind - which is projecting the whole thing of

plurality - that is called vision from the samaShTi.

 

The second is the vision from the vyaShTi point that

is the vision from my mind who is one of the many

subjects that are created in the dream world. From

that tiny mind if one looks at the total creation of

the dream world - I may say dream world is because I

see it. But it is there because the total mind, the

waker's mind has created not the tiny mind that has

created. Other tiny minds in my dream could be

interpreting the world differently. The locus of the

tiny mind is the tiny subject that I am as dream

subject. There are other minds whose locus different

my tiny body - they have their own bodies. Hence the

mind of the tiger that is chasing me is different from

me who is running away from that tiger. This tiny mind

did not crate that tiger to chase him. It is the

creation of the total mind that is the waker's mind.

If the tiny mind closes its eyes hoping that the tiger

would disappear - at least it will hope, but the tiger

will jump on him before he opens his eyes again - only

because he is not the creator of that tiger. It

boils down to difference between vyaavahaarika and

praatibhaasika. The snake will disappear when I have

correct vision but rope does not disappear because it

is not my creation it is the creation of the Lord.

That is precisely the difference between vijnaanavaada

and advaita. Vijnaanavaada results in circular

arguments - mind has created the world which is in

that mind itself- mind itself is locussed in the body

and body is part of the world that mind has created.

 

VyashTi and samashTi is clearly stated in the advaita

as the states of consciousness is analyzed clearly in

the Mandukya.

 

I think shree Sampathji has discussed this aspect

differentiating vyaShTi and samaShTi points. Mandukya

5 and 6 presents both from jiiva's laya point and

Iswara's pralaya's point.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

 

> Namaste Sada-ji.

>

> I would like to look at this issue from a different

> angle.

>

> The perceiver is a perceiving individuality. It is,

> therefore, an

> object to the subject " I " am.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

namaskAraH SrI Vinayaka ji,

 

Swami Vivekananda makes his stand clear about Idealism and Realism as

below:--(I request you to read this long essay with all patience. It

contains most wonderful insights!!) -- I believe, we can understand

Swamiji's analogy of [X(external)-- Mind -- Y(Internal); (X = Y)]

better *only* after reading the following essay, but *NOT* before that!!

 

>> Whether the external conforms to the internal, or the internal to

the external, whether matter conforms to mind, or mind to matter,

whether the surroundings mould the mind, or the mind moulds the

circumstances, is old, old question, and is still today as new and

vigorous as it ever was. Apart from the question of precedence or

causation — without trying to solve the problem as to whether the mind

is the cause of matter or matter the cause of mind — it is evident

that whether the external was formed by the internal or not, it must

conform itself to the internal for us to be able to know it. Supposing

that the external world is the cause of the internal, yet we shall of

have to admit that the external world, as cause of ours mind, is

unknown and unknowable, because the mind can only know that much or

that view of the external or that view which conforms to or is a

reflection of its own nature. That which is its own reflection could

not have been its cause. Now that view of the whole mass of existence,

which is cut off by mind and known, certainly cannot be the cause of

mind, as its very existence is known in and through the mind.

 

Thus it is impossible to deduce a mind from matter. Nay, it is absurd.

Because on the very face of it that portion of existence which is

bereft of the qualities of thought and life and endowed with the

quality of externality is called matter, and that portion which is

bereft of externality and endowed with the qualities of thought and

life is called mind. Now to prove matter from mind, or mind from

matter, is to deduce from each the very qualities we have taken away

from each; and, therefore, all the fight about the causality of mind

or matter is merely a word puzzle and nothing more. Again, throughout

all these controversies runs, as a rule, the fallacy of imparting

different meanings to the words mind and matter. If sometimes the word

mind is used as something opposed and external to matter, at others as

something which embraces both the mind and matter, i.e. of which both

the external and internal are parts on the materialistic side; the

word matter is sometimes used in is the restricted sense of something

external which we sense, and again it means something which is the

cause of all the phenomena both external and internal. The materialist

frightens the idealist by claiming to derive his mind from the

elements of the laboratory, while all the time he is struggling to

express something higher than all elements and atoms, something of

which both the external and the internal phenomena are results, and

which he terms matter. The idealist, on the other hand, wants to

derive all the elements and atoms of the materialist from his own

thought, even while catching glimpses of something which is the cause

of both mind and matter, and which he oft-times calls God. That is to

say, one party wants to explain the whole universe by a portion of it

which is external, the other by another portion which is internal.

Both of these attempts are impossible. Mind and matter cannot explain

each other. The only explanation is to be sought for in something

which will embrace both matter and mind.

 

It may be argued that thought cannot exist without mind, for supposing

there was a time when there was no thought, matter, as we know it,

certainly could not have existed. On the other hand, it may be said

that knowledge being impossible without experience, and experience

presupposing the external world, the existence of mind, as we know it,

is impossible without the existence of matter.

 

Nor is it possible that either of them had a beginning. Generalisation

is the essence of knowledge. Generalisation is impossible without a

storage of similarities. Even the fact of comparison is impossible

without previous experience. Knowledge thus is impossible without

previous knowledge — and knowledge necessitating the existence of both

thought and matter, both of them are without beginning.

 

Again generalization, the essence of sense-knowledge, is impossible

without something upon which the detached facts of perception unite.

The whole world of external perceptions requires something upon which

to unite in order to form a concept of the world, as painting must

have its canvas. If thought or mind be this canvas to the external

world, it, in its turn requires another. Mind being a series of

different feelings and willing — and not a unit, requires something

besides itself as its background of unity. Here all analysis is bound

to stop, for a real unity has been found. The analysis of a compound

cannot stop until an indivisible unit has been reached. The fact that

presents us with such a unity for both thought and matter must

necessarily be the last indivisible basis of every phenomenon, for we

cannot conceive any further analysis; nor is any further analysis

necessary, as this includes an analysis of all our external and

internal perceptions.

 

So far then, we see that a totality of mental and material phenomena,

and something beyond, upon which they are both playing, are the

results of our investigation.

 

Now this something beyond is not in sense-perception; it is a logical

necessity, and a feeling of its indefinable presence runs through all

our sense-perceptions. We see also that to this something we are

driven by the sheer necessity of being true to our reason and

generalising faculty.

 

It may be urged that there is no necessity whatsoever of postulating

any such substance or being beyond the mass of mental and material

phenomena. The totality of phenomena is all that we know or can know,

and it requires nothing beyond itself to explain itself. An analysis

beyond the senses is impossible, and the feeling of a substance in

which everything inheres is simply an illusion.

 

We see, that from the most ancient times, there has been these two

schools among thinkers. One party claims that the unavoidable

necessity of the human mind to form concepts and abstractions is the

natural guide to knowledge, and that it can stop nowhere until we have

transcended all phenomena and formed a concept which is absolute in

all directions, transcending time and space and causality. Now if this

ultimate concept is arrived at by analysing the whole phenomena of

thought and matter, step by step, taking the cruder first and

resolving it into a finer, and still finer, until we arrive at

something which stands as the solution of everything else, it is

obvious that everything else beyond this final result is a momentary

modification of itself, and as such, this final result alone is real

and everything else is but its shadow. The reality, therefore, is not

in the senses but beyond them.<<

 

=============================

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

[Guest guest]

It is,

> therefore, an

> object to the subject " I " am.

 

I've seen this statement: " There is only one " I " in

the whole universe " .

 

Meaning, I think, that that in me which can say and

feel " I " is that the same " I " in " you " and " you " and

" you " . The same subject " I " , is no different in " me "

than it is in " you " .

 

This is sort of hard to imagine but I grapple with it

by thinking that the " I " , by virtue of being the

subject which can have everything " not I " as objects

is the same exact " I " in Dennis, in Steve, in

Sadananda, in Buddha, Mohammed, Elvis Presly and

Brittney Spears. The subject is only " I " where ever

it's found and is alway ONE, whereas the objects are

infinite...Urrrrrggggg!!! Makes " my " mind tired to try

to fathom this!!!

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> >

> > Or as I had quoted sometime earlier, do we have to accept that

> > according to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of

the

> > universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

> > completion of their evolution; i.e. when they attain liberation?

>

> Sri Vinayakaji, I don't think there is such a necessity. if you can

prove it, then you know it is true in

> the " human frame of mind " .

 

Phew! No one objected to my post: it must be perfect!! :-)

 

Sri Vinayakaji, I actually missed your 'absolute and total' emphasis

to the return. Perhaps that can be logically dismissed. I think in

Sampathji's post, Swami Vivekananda's paragraph: " Nor is it possible

that either of them had a beginning. ... " might suggest that the

return or origin cannot be absolute and total. The dvaitins often put

forward: " How can Nirguna Brahman become Saguna? " I don't think that

is exactly what we mean either.

 

Swamiji makes it appear that this " something beyond " is a logical

necessity. I would doubt this assertion although he presents cogent

arguments, for then it must fit all our human " frames of mind " ; the

Buddhists won't find it so, etc. Ofcourse, he mentions this fact as

well, right after.

 

Point is: whether we can take a limiting argument is itself a place

where each person's logic differs; that becomes a hypothesis. For

instance, on the question of 'absolute return', this argument is not

done (by most) in this sense. Similarly this 'absolute unity' is an

assertion that is " beyond the senses " but for which " a feeling of its

indefinable presence runs through all " . Ultimately scripture

and 'experience' of the Truth ourselves. (This is not to say Swamiji

was wrong, etc. You saw in my previous post on how I would interpret

such differences.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Steveji,

 

you wrote:

> The subject is only " I " where ever

> it's found and is alway ONE, whereas the objects are

> infinite...Urrrrrggggg!!! Makes " my " mind tired to try

> to fathom this!!!

 

May " i " add to " your " tired mind? (just jocking...)

The subject " I " is not One.

It's NOT-TWO!!

 

Respectfully,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Hi Mouna,

 

The subject " I " is not One.

It's NOT-TWO!!

 

Whoops! You're right!

 

" I " does not = 1

 

" I " = not-two

 

1 = ?/unknown

 

Strange mathematics in Advaita!

 

Looks like the quantum world to me.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

______________________________\

____

Never miss a thing. Make your home page.

http://www./r/hs

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Steve:

 

The mathematics of advaita is simpler than arithmatic.

 

" I " equals to the ONE and the ONLY ONE

 

There is no need to bring a new notion of TWO and negating it by " NOT

TWO. "

 

The saying - " the YOU in ME is seeing the ME in YOU " provides the

essence of advaitic mathematics of the TRUTH!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandan

 

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

>

> " I " does not = 1

>

> " I " = not-two

>

> 1 = ?/unknown

>

> Strange mathematics in Advaita!

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Ram Chandran,

 

" I " equals to the ONE and the ONLY ONE

 

Very well! A mathematics with one number only should

be very interesting...

 

Actually, though, the number 1 is really not a number

at all. And this tallies with what you're saying.

There is no relation ship with the non-number 1 and

anything else. For 1 to be a number there would have

to be other numbers also.

 

If " I " = 1, then " I " is not really related to anything

else...and I think that's what Advaita at the most

basic, rock-bottom level, says.

 

Best,

Steve

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

Dear Sri Putran-ji & Group Members,

 

Just wanted to tell that I am held up in some work and will not be

able to participate in the discussions for couple of days. Shall try

to reply as soon I find time. Sorry for the inconvenience caused.

 

Best Regards,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

> Hello Ram Chandran,

>

> " I " equals to the ONE and the ONLY ONE

>

> Very well! A mathematics with one number only should

> be very interesting...

 

Here is more philosophical mathematics from the previous kanchi

acharya.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Concept of Maya

 

In the Mangala Sloka(invocation) to this Beeja Ganita(algebra),

Bhaskaracharya says that supreme which is Infinite, does not suffer

diminution when creating the world out of Himself, or gain addition

when the created word attains Laya(merger) in Him. For, if the

addition of even a fraction can make a difference to the infinite,

then it could not have been infinite before such addition. Similarly

infinite cannot become less than the infinite when any thing is taken

away from it. The Infinite is poorna, full and limitless Supreme. The

Prapancha (Universe) which is infinitely varied, is also limitless

Supreme, the limitless Supreme will remain intact. Therefore, if this

Poornam ( the infinitely varied form of the objective Prapancha) is

taken away from that Poornam (the subject which is Infinite), that

Poornam, the subject Infinite, alone will remain.

 

This may be illustrated mathematically as follows : if 2 is divided

by 2, the quotient is 1. With 2 as the dividend, if the divisor is

progressively reduced as 1, 1/2, or 1/4 etc., the quotient will

respectively be 2, or 4, or 8,etc., Thus the divisor becomes less and

less, the quotient will become more and more. When the divisor is the

least, that is infinitesimal, approximating to Zero, the quotient

will be infinity. This is known as the Khaharam - Kha standing for

Aakas, signifying poojyam (zero), haaram, meaning taking away or

dividing.

 

How do we verify the correctness of an arithmetical question in

division? We multiply the quotient with the divisor and check whether

the resulting is equivalent to the dividend given in the question. In

this Khaharam, or division. In this Khaharam, or division of any

number by zero, the number that is divided stands for the Prapancha

9the pluralistic universe of infinite variety), the divisor, zero or

Poojyam, which in mathematical language is an indefinable factor,

approximating to nothingness, stands for Maya, and the quotient is

the Infinite, that is Brahman. For the purpose of creating the

Prapancha, which is dividend, Brahman , which is the quotient ,

multiplies itself by Maya, which is divisor. Even as I divided by

Zero, or 2 divided by Zero, or 3 divided by Zero, will give the same

quotient, when the Infinite is multiplied by Zer, it is

undeterminate, and therefore, it can take the values 1,2,3 etc.,

which are Bheda sankhyas, or numbers connoting differences, standing

for the plurality of the world. The Upanishad says that the One

Absolute determined to become many, and for that purpose. It

associated itself with Maya, and become Many. When this Absolute

Infinite multiplied Itself in association with Maya, which is

tantamount to zero, it appears as 1,2,3,4 etc., the several objects

of this Prapancha. But when any number is multiplied by Maya. The

dividend, which is the plurality of the prapancha is the Infinite

variety. The quotient, which is Brahman, is Real Akhanda and Ananta.

In the Saanti Mantra, Poornam adah is the quotient , Absolute

Infinity, and Poornam idam is the dividend, pluralistic Infinity.

Advaita anantam multiplied by Poojyam is Dvaita anantam. if the

latter is divested of is Maya -- by a process of Khaharam-dividing by

Poojyam which is Maya -- we get the Advaita anantam. Maya multiplies

the formless Infinite which is One only without a second , into an

infinity of finite forms. Th One alone , that is real, has value; the

Many, which are products of Maya, are like Maya, without ultimate

value. So Brahman is not affected either by diminution from It

(creation or Srsti) or by the addition to It(merger or Laya) of

Prapancha, which has no ultimate value.

 

The Divine Mother is the Creative Principle of the universe, the Maya

Sakti aspect of Brahman, which makes the Infinite One appear as the

Infinite Many. She presents the formless Supreme in finite forms. It

is only by her grace that one can transcend the Maya and obtain the

advaitic realisation of the One without a second.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

Your Beeja Ganita quote had been quoted here at least three times in

the past (Ref: Ramji's # 11233, Sankararamanji's # 16442 and

Sunderji's # 22138). In respnose to # 22138, I raised a doubt in my

message # 22147 quoted below:

 

________

 

QUOTE

 

Namaste Sunderji.

 

Interesting to see you back from holidays with bIja gaNita.

 

There is a hitch in the quoted commentary, Sunderji. This guy here

at http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/8R69.html in his rule # 4

says Infinity multiplied by zero is zero. Have I misunderstood the

commentary? So, Brahman courting MAyAji will tend to nothingness!

 

Personally, it is unbearable for me to see Smt. MAyAji equated to

zero even for the sake of an explanation because She is our Mother!

She is Infinite.

 

By the way, I had always believed (or so I have been taught) that

bIja gaNita originated in the Middle-East as the name Algebra (Al-

Jaber) suggests. Bhaskaracharya, I am sure, preceded Al-Jaber and,

as such, Algebra is nascent to India. Am I right?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

UNQUOTED

_____________

 

My doubt about infinity * zero has remained unresolved todate.

 

I have searched the web for an answer and find that another guy at

http://www.philforhumanity.com/Zero_Times_Infinity.html has tried to

contest the widely held view that infinity * zero = zero. His answer

is an " undefined real number " .

 

However, in mathematics zero times infinity *by convention* is zero.

This view is yet to be dethroned.

 

I can also philosophize on this issue by asking where in hell can one

have a zero (a nothing) outide infinity as infinity will naturally

encompass everything and nothing. Nothing is a conceptual something.

 

These mathematical interpretations are, therefore, unnecessary

brainstorming and pales into insignificance against insightful

knowledge that occurs through advaitic reflection.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

On 12/12/2007, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> Personally, it is unbearable for me to see Smt. MAyAji equated to

> zero even for the sake of an explanation because She is our Mother!

> She is Infinite.

>

 

Madathil-ji, pl read through the quote by Putran-ji once more. It just

dawned on me that shUnyaM is also called pUjyaM. So the divine mother

mAyA, though shUnya, is pUjya !!

 

The mathematical analogy referred to in Putran-ji's post is indeed profound.

 

The insight of the sages never ceases to amaze.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Ramesh-ji, I am afraid pUjyaM for shUnyaM applies only in our mother-

tongue Malayalam. Let our scholars confirm if it does in Sanskrit.

 

Thanks for the observation.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

> Madathil-ji, pl read through the quote by Putran-ji once more. It

just

> dawned on me that shUnyaM is also called pUjyaM. So the divine

mother

> mAyA, though shUnya, is pUjya !!

>

[Guest guest]

pUjyaM is commonly used in modern Tamil & Malayalam to denote zero. To

my knowledge, it is also used in Sanskrit for the dot symbol that was

originally used to denote zero.

 

 

On 12/12/2007, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

>

> Ramesh-ji, I am afraid pUjyaM for shUnyaM applies only in our mother-

> tongue Malayalam. Let our scholars confirm if it does in Sanskrit.

>

> Thanks for the observation.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _______________

>

> advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

> <rkmurthy wrote:

> > Madathil-ji, pl read through the quote by Putran-ji once more. It

> just

> > dawned on me that shUnyaM is also called pUjyaM. So the divine

> mother

> > mAyA, though shUnya, is pUjya !!

> >

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Ramesh-ji, I am afraid pUjyaM for shUnyaM applies only in our mother-

> tongue Malayalam.

 

Namaste,

 

It is interesting that the word pUjya in Sanskrit only

means worthy of honor, etc., but in Marathi also it has the added

meaning of zero! If zero is worthy of honor it must be pUrNa in some

sense!!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> My doubt about infinity * zero has remained unresolved todate.

>

> I have searched the web for an answer and find that another guy at

> http://www.philforhumanity.com/Zero_Times_Infinity.html has tried to

> contest the widely held view that infinity * zero = zero. His answer

> is an " undefined real number " .

>

> However, in mathematics zero times infinity *by convention* is zero.

> This view is yet to be dethroned.

 

Sri Nairji, if it is *by convention*, then it is a starting point used

by mathematicians to develop their subject. Do you know if they have

objective reasons for choosing their convention?

 

We have reasons for choosing our convention; it is the advaitic

knowledge of the rishis. Our convention regards 0*infinity as

indeterminate, and the acharya has given the " math of the infinite " as

it applies to Vedanta.

 

For us, the word poornam is not a numerical infinity: it is infinitude,

wholeness, completeness, referring that the substratum is Real and

devoid of separation. The multiplicity that we deem as real is in truth

poornam. When we see otherwise, we refer to this fact as due to an

inexplicable principle of maaya. Maaya is not zero for us; it is the

very basis of existence. We see Shiva as Shakthi; She is the all in

all, and creating, preserving and destroying are Her Play. But for the

sage who cannot associate reality to the multiplicity and is ever aware

of poornam, then the principle of maaya is no longer in question, has

vanished (in some sense; i cannot fathom it!). As maaya vanishes along

with its creations upon the dawn of Knowledge, it is referred to as

pujyam.

 

That sage will tell this enquirer: The poornam advaitic substratum

Infinite (Shiva) in association with the pujyam maaya (Shakthi) appears

dvaita Infinite (jiva-jagat); the latter is still poornam in truth.

 

The purpose of the mathematical analogy is not to say mathematics is

same as advaita. It can be parallel to a good extent. As you point out,

mathematics has its starting points (the conventions/axioms) which

predetermine the worlds it will explore, and that world will belong in

the Divine Mother's realm. Brahman is the only starting point for all

such worlds that She creates, due to which each reflects the advaita

satya. We are only trying to grasp that Truth through the reflections

She brings about.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

PS I know you know all the advaita stuff; just trying to give my

perspective.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

Your post 38534.

 

1. Mathematicians should be having solid objective reasons for

accepting [infinity * zero = zero]. I am not a mathematician. *By

convention* is thier phrase. As a layman, I understand it to mean a

general agreement or customary practice. Even today, maths students

are taught [infinity * zero = zero]. I would request mathematicians

in this List to comment.

 

2. I fully understand the import of the pUrNamadaH verse. I notice

that you have read our discussion of April 2004 on this topic.

 

3. Maths belongs to finitude. To me the pUrNamadaH verse seems to

laugh at the naivety of maths. How can then there be a mathematic

parallel for the great SAntipAth?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Putran-ji.

>

> Your post 38534.

>

> 1. Mathematicians should be having solid objective reasons for

> accepting [infinity * zero = zero]. I am not a mathematician. *By

> convention* is thier phrase. As a layman, I understand it to mean

a

> general agreement or customary practice. Even today, maths

students

> are taught [infinity * zero = zero]. I would request

mathematicians

> in this List to comment.

Sri Nairji,

 

 

Actually I have learnt some higher mathematics but never focussed on

this stuff at the time; maybe if I get info later, will let you know.

Till then, I reject this idea that mathematicians should have solid

objective reasons for their convention. The basis for understanding

infinity need not be universally same. Our reason is pretty solid as

well, in fact most solid if we accept that it represents Truth.

 

" By convention " means exactly that; mathematicians are not seeking

justification in some final Truth for their convention: that is their

starting point: the upadhi through which their subject develops.

 

> 3. Maths belongs to finitude. To me the pUrNamadaH verse seems to

> laugh at the naivety of maths. How can then there be a mathematic

> parallel for the great SAntipAth?

 

What I said was that we can catch the glimpse of the nondual truth in

every finite representation: that poornam is also in this. See God in

man and all that.

 

Couple of others (not precisely described; just for the idea).

 

" The space in the heart is as big as the Space outside " Ch. Up. The

number of points in the interval (0,1) is " same " as in (-oo, oo).

The two intervals are essentially same in some mathematical sense.

 

We cannot understand a surface directly. We get functions going from

pieces of the plane to the surface and our understanding of the

surface comes from the functions relating them to the plane. And

there is no only One way of seeing the surface; different groups of

functions give different views. Similarly we " see " Brahman only in

the referential context of upadhis (the functions) and the same

Reality is shown differently according to the upadhis used.

 

Anycase I am pressed for time now; thanks for your and Sadaji's

responses.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu