vijnAnavAda and advaita

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>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.

 

On the same token, the analogy attempts to use the mathematical

language; in general the notion of multiplication is well-defined in

mathematics. We are using it only for the benefit of understanding the

underlying truths of advaita.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> > 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].

> " By convention " means exactly that;

 

 

Sri Nairji, one thought based on memory; have to check. Infinity is not

a real number whereas 0 is. The usual multiplication is used for real

numbers where 0*x= 0 for any real x. In higher set theory, they define

all sorts of infinities, one stacked on top of the next, but I don't

recall the notion of multiplication defined as a natural extension of

the real-number situation.

 

So when trying to deal with Infinity as if it is a real number, a

convention is brought in. This may be for convenience in algebra, for

strictly speaking one should not be treating infinity as a real number

and doing multiplication with it. The reasoning for the convention may

be as follows: well 0*x=0; let x become larger and larger and the value

remains 0; so assign 0*I = 0: such may be useful in places where it

will be quicker to plug in I. For instance,

 

where is 0*x going as x->I? Answer 0*I = 0, or

 

where is 1/x going as x->I? Answer 1/I = 0.

 

So we just plugged in I in the denominator. Actually a bad example for

hooray: therefore 1 = I*0 and similarly 2/I = 0: so 2 = I*0, and so on.

That is the acharya's argument for why I*0 is indeterminate. I think it

is a pretty reasonable convention: unlike in mathematics, let us give

the same status for 0 and Infinity. One is infinitesimal and the other

infinite. Why give a special " real " number status to 0? In philosophy,

fullness and emptiness are just two sides of the same coin. So we start

there and find (as in the website you gave) reasonable ways of deciding

that I*0 should be indeterminate.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

The infinite of vedanta is not the opposite of zero (shUnya). It has

no opposite or even a second. I have nothing more to say on this

topic.

 

Either we go the algebra way or the vedanta way. The two don't seem

to mix.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>..........

> That is the acharya's argument for why I*0 is indeterminate. I

think it

> is a pretty reasonable convention: unlike in mathematics, let us

give

> the same status for 0 and Infinity. One is infinitesimal and the

other

> infinite. Why give a special " real " number status to 0? In

philosophy,

> fullness and emptiness are just two sides of the same coin. So we

start

> there and find (as in the website you gave) reasonable ways of

deciding

> that I*0 should be indeterminate.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Putran-ji.

>

> The infinite of vedanta is not the opposite of zero (shUnya). It has

> no opposite or even a second. I have nothing more to say on this

> topic.

>

> Either we go the algebra way or the vedanta way. The two don't seem

> to mix.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _____________

 

(First my thanks to Sadaji for his extensive reply in the other thread.

I will take some time and contemplate on that.)

 

Sri Nairji,

 

Ok. I was perhaps careless and ignorant on that point.

 

I think the mathematical analogy does work fine, if we take the analogy

in the right spirit (as we do with any other analogy).

 

Some points I would recap here:

 

1. *by convention* means only that.

 

2. Mathematics of real numbers starts with " there is a number called 0 "

and it behaves with other real number x by 0+x =x, 0*x=0, and so on. So

0 is the special starting point (as also 1).

 

The motivation we may expect for 0: " you have an apple and you eat it,

so how many apples do you have? " First answer: I don't have any apple;

so the question does not apply. Second answer: I have 0 apples.

 

So the number 0 allows us to fill the gap and extend the range of

questions that can be attacked through mathematics. Therefore

mathematicians (i.e. I believe the Indian ones first) assigned the

number 0 as the basic starting point.

 

3. In mathematics, there is no real number called Infinity. So 0*I has

no sense unless by convention. I gave some reasons as to why

mathematicians may choose their convention. From a layman's perspective

(starting with 1's and 2's, positive reals), 0 can be thought of as

infinitesimal (instead of prefixing it as a special number) and I as

infinity, and we can show (as in the website you mentioned) that 0*I

can be reasonably argued as indeterminate. That convention is justified

as well.

 

4. As you say and I also said, the poornam of Vedanta need not be an

exact match to the I of mathematics. Similarly for shunya and 0. But we

need not say " algebra way " is incompatible simply because the

mathematicians have a convention that 0*I=0. Bhaskaracharya was clearly

motivated to develop his algebra by referring to the sages'

realizations.

 

5. Finally, this is perhaps not the only way to develop a mathematical

analogy for our verse, but it is a nice way to bring in the concept of

maaya (objections notwithstanding).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> (First my thanks to Sadaji for his extensive reply in the other

thread.

> I will take some time and contemplate on that.)

 

I am going into silent/off mode for a while. My thanks to all who

discussed on these topics.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

My fellow advaitins:

 

i am not an expert on 'mathematics' - rather , i am not an 'expert'

on anything, for that matter ! However , i would make bold to ask to

what is Zero Divided by Zero ? Well, as per the great mathematics

wizard Shri Srinivasa Ramanujam Zero Divided by zero is Infinity !

Well, to a goddess worshipper like Shri Ramanujam - The Zero

REPRESENTED ABSOLUTE REALITY and the Infinity Reprsented the many

manifestations of that Reality ! Yes ! the this great mathematical

genius Sri Ramanujam always said " An equation for me has no meaning

unless it expresses a thought of God. " No wonder , this great genius

had the full blessings of his family deity Namakkal Namagiri Amman

who wrote the solutions to complex mathematical problems on his

tongue during his sleep !

 

Putranji , you are slowly growing on me ! i never knew you are a

worshipper of the Divine Feminine as is obvious from some of your

posts ! May i also tell you that there is an intimate connection

between Mathematics and Devi , the mahamaya ?

 

well, The goddess is reprsented by many symbols from Geometry ! cs !

 

Our Divine mother Srimati Mahatripurasundari is symbolized by a

downward pointing triangle , the representation of 'yoni' - the

Great Creatrix who gives birth to this entire creation - JAGAT

JANANI ! 'Trikona DEEPIKA - THE LIGHT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE

TRIANGLE OF EXISTENCE!

 

and the great Devi is a 'straight' line for she plays the role of a

preserver to perfection! THERE IS NO 'CRIOOKEDNESS ' - she is

blemishless !

 

Then , our beloved Devi dons on the symbol of a 'circle ' - YES !

THE CICLE OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS .... NEVER ENDING !

 

and then of course she is 'poojyam' or 'bindu ' the Dot ! YES! seed

state of Her Being ! iN TANTRIC PHILOSOPHY , " I Bindu is held to be

the point at which begins creation and the point at which the unity

becomes the many " ! when i was in my teens , i used to sing this

song " Nada Bindu, Kalatheetha Namo, Namo " (Salutations to the

One,who is beyond Nada, Bindu and Kalaa ) WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE

MEANING .... NOW I KIND OF KNOW ! how can we finite mortals ever

describe the Infinite ? sure , She is is 'anirvachaniya' ! Maya is

beyond measure ment - she cannot be described by a mathematical

jargon! our maya shakti is s 'anirvachaniya' - she cannot be

explained nor can she be explained 'away '!

 

Putranji , i havenot had a chance to read your definition on

Anirvachaniya as yet but i really congratulate you for taking the

initiative to do this and thereby enriching Dennisji's efforts to

prepare an on line dictionary on 'Advaita for the novice' !

 

Devi is a Mother of all Languages - She is VAAG DEVI ! and guys ,

who says Mathematics is not a Language ? IT IS A UNIVERSAL

LANGUAGE ! enjoy the lighthearted comment!

 

ps - wow ! i never thought the 'advaitin' group van be so

addictive ! i am already having 'withdrawal' symptoms ! i just got

my copy of Sri Anandaji's 'ways of Truth' .... that should keep me

busy when i am off the net ! btw , for those of you , who do not

know Sri Anandaji is a Cambridge scholar with a wonderful background

in all Sciences /Arts ETC ...

 

 

love and blessings

 

 

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair "

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Putran-ji.

>

> The infinite of vedanta is not the opposite of zero (shUnya). It

has

> no opposite or even a second. I have nothing more to say on this

> topic.

>

> Either we go the algebra way or the vedanta way. The two don't

seem

> to mix.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _____________

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >..........

> > That is the acharya's argument for why I*0 is indeterminate. I

> think it

> > is a pretty reasonable convention: unlike in mathematics, let us

> give

> > the same status for 0 and Infinity. One is infinitesimal and the

> other

> > infinite. Why give a special " real " number status to 0? In

> philosophy,

> > fullness and emptiness are just two sides of the same coin. So

we

> start

> > there and find (as in the website you gave) reasonable ways of

> deciding

> > that I*0 should be indeterminate.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> I am going into silent/off mode for a while. My thanks to all who

> discussed on these topics.

 

Before taking a posting break, I want to hightlight another

mathematical analogy that I had mentioned in a post to Sri Nairji

38552 and which makes better sense in the light of Sadaji's post

38560: the first lesson as I understand (or misunderstand) is not to

mix Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.

 

Consider the interval (0,1) and (-oo,oo). The two are clearly

different. One is contained in the other, is smaller (has finite

size) than the other (of infinite size).

 

If we take the standpoint of (0,1) and assess (-oo,oo), we will get a

particular vyavahaarik picture, say that it is (-oo,oo) " = " {(-oo,0),

(0,1),(1,oo)}. If we take the standpoint of (-4,7), then the picture

may be (-oo,oo) " = " {(-oo, -4), (-4,7), (7,oo)} . So long as we talk

of the reality in the duality-picture presented by the boundary

points (upadhis), the reality is only saguna brahman: the pictures

change but the vyavahaarika reality is the same saguna brahman.

 

Mathematics says that the intervals (0,1), (-4,7) and (-oo,oo) are in

essence the same. Although they differ from the outer sense, they are

the same in " being " as `open' intervals and if one takes this " being "

standpoint (of course, well-defined within mathematics), then the

differences (due to nama-rupa) are dissolved: advaita. This is

similar to the paramaarthika standpoint where no differences exist,

and the essential Being that IS is Nirguna Brahman.

 

I don't want to write more lest I start (continue?) blabbering; but

there are good parallels here that can aid in

contemplation/meditation.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

PS Sri Bhaginiji, yes the Divine Mother is very much a part of my

Bhaktha-psyche. My ishta-devata is Shiva, so how can I escape Her

(coming as I do from Shankara sampradaya)? My daily sthotras always

end with the famous one on Mahishasura-mardini.

[Guest guest]

Sorry to butt in to this discussion so late. I have learnt a bit of

Mathematics and remember that 1/0 = oo (by definition). When it comes

to a question of 0 * oo,

0 * (oo) = 0 * (1/0). Since multiplication is transitive, this is the same as

(0 * 1) /0 which is 0 / 0.

 

By definition 0/0 is UNDEFINED. i.e., we were taught that this is a

meaningless number.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Sai

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> Dear Advaitins,

>

> What is the exact the difference between the vijnAnavAda of Buddhism

> and advaita philosophy? Is it only the presence or the absence of the

> substratum as accepted by the philosophers of these schools? Advaitins

> also say that as long as ignorance/upAdhi persists one sees the world.

> Is not the world then projection of our own mind? Or does it has some

> sort of reality and exists outside?

>

> What is the real nature of the world? Is the concept of world

> according to advaita lies somewhere between idealism and realism?

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

While pondering over the above subjcet, I was looking for good

material which deals with this subject and found an excellent one. The

title of the book is Methods of Knowledge by Swami Satprakashananda,

published by Advaita Ashrama.

 

The author says that:

 

" The advaita view of the sensible universe may be defined as

metaphysical or absolute idealism. It is neither objective realism nor

subjective idealism "

 

An excerpt under the above caption is as under:

 

" According to vedAnta the difference between the subjective and the

objective is quite valid on the relative plane. One cannot be reduced

to the other. vEdAnta recognizes the empirical reality of individual

selves, internal ideas, and external objects. These three orders of

existence are distinct from one another as facts of experience and are

interrelated. They form triple existence. To deny any one of the

three, or to identify one with another, is not right. None of them, as

such, is ultimately real. From the absolute standpoint all the three

are non-existent. Non dual brahman or pure consciousness being the

sole reality. vEdAnta may be characterized as metaphysical or absolute

idealism, inasmuch as it manifests the ultimate reality of one

undifferentiated supreme consciousness and views everything as

identical with it in essence. But the point is that its world-view

differs fundamentally from subjective idealism on the one hand and the

objective realism on the other. As observed by Prof. Radhakrishnan,

'The essential correlativity of subject and object, which is the

central truth of all idealism, is accepted by shankara, who rests

aside both mentalism and realism as inadequate to the facts of

experience.' The mental ideas and physical objects are both

appearances from the standpoint of fundamental reality. But so far as

the phenomenal order is concerned they endure as distinct entities. In

the words of Swami Vivekananda:

 

'Thought is as much material and as much in nature as body is. Both

matter and mind exists in a third, a unity which divides itself into

the two. This unity is Atman, the real self' " (CW. VII p.99)

 

The introductory words of Sri TMP Mahadevan is worth noting, which are

as under:

 

" Advaita epistemology is not easy to expound. How the one non-dual

consciousness that is the self appears split into cognizer, cognition

and the object congnized, it is not possible to explain. To say that

this apparant splitting is the work of mAyA is to say that it is

inexplicable. The purpose of which a study of the problem of knowledge

is undertaken is not to solve the problem but to go beyond it. The

empirical situation in knowledge which demands the distinction of

three factors, cognizer, cognition, and object cognized, does not

admit a satisfactory explanation. While the system of philosophy that

are opposed to advaita imagine that they have offered an explanation,

advaita shows that the problem is inexplicable on the level of

relative existence. When this level is transcended in the plenary

non-dual experience, there is no longer any problem to be solved..... "

 

The author has compared the views of western philosophers with that of

the advaita and this makes the book very interesting and thorough. I

am sending this message hoping that the book will be of interest to

the members who want to study the captioned issue in a detailed manner.

 

Some lectures of Swami krishnanandaji is also are of great help.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.