Shankara on Need of Food for Life-force in phenomenal world

[Guest guest]

Respected All,

 

In the world we live (phenomenal, causal, dream, illusory, unreal --

whatever term one may choose) " Life " as we know it can exist if and

only iff it has some food.

 

My Question is: Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his

works as to why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

 

[Note: we all know " Brahmarpanam, brahma havih.....B-G IV-24.

Saying everything is Brahman does not explain the need

for 'dependencies'. I also know that Aitariyopanishad talks of

food, how food was chased and finally caught through mouth trying all

other means including anus. I could not decipher if it has some

hidden meaning. But on the face of it, I felt that the Upanishad did

not explain how that very first creature came about and how different

organs took shape and designed for in it so that it could use food

in later times. I am sure those familiar with the Aitareya

understand what I am referring to.]

 

I have been searching for an authentic source document / or

explanation / commentary of Shankara with regard to the dependency

of food for basic " life-force " (prana).

 

As you may have gathered by now, my question is a bit at the

fundamental level and I am not looking for superficial justifications

or explaining " away " things at an elementary level.

 

Please do not interpret that my question emanates out of arrogance.

I have been genuinely searching for an answer for a long time and

discussed it with some learned Pundits I knew locally. But I culd

not get so far clear response. Hence I decided to post it here.

 

I will be obliged to all learned Sirs / Ladies for providing me any

info on this.

 

If the List Moderators feel that the question is far too academic and

beyond the objective of the List, I will be grateful for a personal

reply to my private e-mail. I am seeking primarily info and not an

open protracted discussion. I hope my intentions are clear.

 

With warm regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

--- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

 

> In the world we live (phenomenal, causal, dream, illusory, unreal --

> whatever term one may choose) " Life " as we know it can exist if and

> only iff it has some food.

>

> My Question is: Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his

> works as to why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

 

Shree Ramesam- PraNAms

 

I am not sure I fully understand what exactly you are looking for.

 

What it says from food the life starts - since upaadhiis are required to express

the life

force.

 

In Tai Up - in the sRiShTi prakaraNa - starts with space - aatmanaH aakaaShaH

sambhuutaH

.... etc the pancabhuutas - then it says pRitvayaH OShadayaH - OShadhiibyonnam -

anaat

puruShaH - after the earth - from earth the vegetable kingdom and from vegetable

kingdom

- human being is born - hence it says saha eShaanaarasamayaH - hence he is full

of food!

 

 

In ch. Up - the teacher asks the student to starve for 15 days - but he can

drink as much

as water - in this experiment he proves not only the gross body but even the

mind is made

of matter and by starving for 15 days mental functions or at its lowest. Mind

also

nourishes on the food - but in subtle form. He divides the food into three parts

- the

subtlest forms the mind, the middle forms the flesh and bones and the grossest

becomes

excreta. Hence food has direct relevance on mind and Vedanta insists on type of

food

that is not good for the mind - for those who want to be saatwic.

 

Life constitutes all the physiological functions - the panca praNaas - bhoutica

prapanca

is formed from the panca bhuutas by grossification - hence all the five elements

are

there in forming the body, mind and intellect.

 

I am not sure if this is want you are looking for.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Honoured Ramesam

 

Why food and eating are thought of as dependency?

 

The reason is the " false idea " that I exist and I am alive in

 

this world. When eating becomes as natural as seeing or touching,

 

this question will not arise.

 

If we eat through our minds and intellects, this question will

 

always pop up, Why? What am I going to do when I die and loose this

 

body and then feel the hunger of the subtle body and being

 

incapable of getting food? So man carries his deep rooted

 

false idea of " I exist " along, even after death, what a torment!!!

 

The Hell in Islam is descibed as hungry poeple having nothing to eat

 

and whatever they eat their hunger is never satisfied.

 

 

hsin

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> Respected All,

>

> In the world we live (phenomenal, causal, dream, illusory, unreal -

-

> whatever term one may choose) " Life " as we know it can exist if and

> only iff it has some food.

>

> My Question is: Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his

> works as to why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

>

> [Note: we all know " Brahmarpanam, brahma havih.....B-G IV-24.

> Saying everything is Brahman does not explain the need

> for 'dependencies'. I also know that Aitariyopanishad talks of

> food, how food was chased and finally caught through mouth trying

all

> other means including anus. I could not decipher if it has some

> hidden meaning. But on the face of it, I felt that the Upanishad

did

> not explain how that very first creature came about and how

different

> organs took shape and designed for in it so that it could use

food

> in later times. I am sure those familiar with the Aitareya

> understand what I am referring to.]

>

> I have been searching for an authentic source document / or

> explanation / commentary of Shankara with regard to the

dependency

> of food for basic " life-force " (prana).

>

> As you may have gathered by now, my question is a bit at the

> fundamental level and I am not looking for superficial

justifications

> or explaining " away " things at an elementary level.

>

> Please do not interpret that my question emanates out of

arrogance.

> I have been genuinely searching for an answer for a long time and

> discussed it with some learned Pundits I knew locally. But I culd

> not get so far clear response. Hence I decided to post it here.

>

> I will be obliged to all learned Sirs / Ladies for providing me

any

> info on this.

>

> If the List Moderators feel that the question is far too academic

and

> beyond the objective of the List, I will be grateful for a

personal

> reply to my private e-mail. I am seeking primarily info and not

an

> open protracted discussion. I hope my intentions are clear.

>

> With warm regards,

> ramesam

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

....

Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his works as to

why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

 

> ....

> I am not sure I fully understand what exactly you are looking for.

>

> What it says from food the life starts - since upaadhiis are

required to express the life force.

>

> In Tai Up - .... from earth the vegetable kingdom and from

vegetable kingdom - human being is born - hence it says saha

eShaanaarasamayaH - hence he is full of food!

>

> In ch. Up - .....Mind also nourishes on the food - but in subtle

form. He divides the food into three parts - the > subtlest forms the

mind, the middle forms the flesh and bones and the ......bhoutica

prapanca is formed from the panca bhuutas by grossification - .... I

am not sure if this is want you are looking for.

 

 

Respected Dr. Sadananda,

 

Sir, please let me thank you for your kindness to spare your time and

thought on the issue I have posed. I also thank you for accepting

and retaining my question as a thread.

 

I am writing this post a bit hesitatingly because anything I say may

appear as prolonging an open discussion and violating some

sensitivities. I trust that my statements will not enthuse a few

members to react rather spiritedly or project their own long-held

convictions as explanations. My intention is to give more clarity to

the expression of my question and obtain more relevant answer.

 

Trying to bring in a little more clarity to my question:

I am aware upadhis are required for the expression of " life. " But I

am interpreting in my question upadhi to mean life-form in a much

broader sense, in biological sense; not restricting it to mean `man'

only but all life-forms – including plants and microbial life.

 

[One may say plants are different from animals (and man) because

plants are autotrophic (self dependent for energy source) unlike

animals (mostly) which are heterotrophic (effectively steal the

stored food of plants). But plants by themselves are not totally

independent because they need nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.

Therefore, they are also dependent on some other `life-form =

upadhi'.]

 

I am aware of Tai Up. Right from " Sah akamayata….prajayea,

spandena. " The main method for bahusyam is `spandena'. Instead of

merely adopting spandana, the necessity of food has crept in.

 

I am not differentiating `mind' and body in my question. When I

talked of the need of food for `life form', I meant both for mind and

body. So when I looked in the Ch Up, it did not prove helpful. I am

also aware of B-G (III-14): " Annat bhavanti bhutani Parjanyat

annasambhavah,…. " But as I already said, I am considering `anna'

(vegetation) also as a life-form.

 

If we go by Samkhya philosophy and come up with an evolutionary tree

right from space etc, tanmatras, atoms, and so on or any other

sequence of one thing evolving into another, the latter entity does

not have to depend on the earlier one for ever. E.g. I (my body =

upadhi) came into existence because of my parents. After they are

gone, my body is still continuing. Even accepting that `bhutas'

happened to come from anna, or some previous entity, the subsequent

entity need not depend on the earlier one in the sequence for its own

continuity in a Darwinian sense.

 

Sir, have I clarified or made it muddier for any possible reply? Or

should we stop here?

 

With best of regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

--- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

 

> If we go by Samkhya philosophy and come up with an evolutionary tree

> right from space etc, tanmatras, atoms, and so on or any other

> sequence of one thing evolving into another, the latter entity does

> not have to depend on the earlier one for ever. E.g. I (my body =

> upadhi) came into existence because of my parents. After they are

> gone, my body is still continuing. Even accepting that `bhutas'

> happened to come from anna, or some previous entity, the subsequent

> entity need not depend on the earlier one in the sequence for its own

> continuity in a Darwinian sense.

>

> Sir, have I clarified or made it muddier for any possible reply? Or

> should we stop here?

 

Ramesanji - PraNAms

 

There is a fundamental problem as I see. First we do not know what life means

other than

through its expressions or physiological functions and response to stimulus and

reproduction capability.

 

As per Vedanta - there is no origin for life, if life is defined as expression

or

reflection of consciousness in the medium that has capacity to reflect -

essentially a

subtle body consisting of nineteen gates ways that ManDukya defines. There is no

origin

for it in terms of its structure - the contents are defined by the karma or

vaasanaas -

sanchita-praarabdha-aagami - which forms the root cause for the continuous of a

particular jiiva life after life - punarapi jananam punarapi maranam ...

 

The upaadhis that the life form takes depends on the Prarabda.

Upaadhis depend on the food - food comes in the sustenance of the upaadhis

required for

exhaustion of karma. During deep sleep or laya or during cosmic sleep (pralaya)

- they

all merge into potential forms ready to sprout when the conditions are ready.

Evolution

of jiiva is of main concern of Vedanta.

 

In elementary life forms they can go hibernation where life can still exists

without

gross expression of life - Polar bears for example. Freezing the unicellular

organisms

one can preserve the life until they can be revived under proper conditions.

 

Bottom line is life itself is not quite clear - there was some discussion in

terms

whether virus have subtle bodies to call them living entities.

 

AS I see, as long as the upaadhis are conducive to sustain life, the life

expresses

itself depending on the karma of that life form, expressing itself in that

upaadhi.

 

Darwin’s evolution is only anatomical evolution but not evolution of a

particular jiiva.

Vedanta has no problem with it. But Vedanta also talks about evolution of

particular

jiiva depending on its karma. Anatomically it can transgress in any life form as

Vedanta

gives some example where from human form animal forms are taken as a detour to

exhaust

some pressing vaasanaas.

 

Anyway I have exhausted my knowledge of biology.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Ramesam:

 

Let me provide my understanding of your questions and these are just

my opinion. If my answer is not satisfactory, one of the reasons for

it is that my non-comprehension of your questions. Knowing my

limitation, I am willing to accept any corrections that may be

forthcoming from you or from others.

 

You have loaded with questions related to Vedantic principles with

respect to Life and Food. Bhagavad Gita does explain in greater

length on the relationship between Food and Life Path chosen by the

Jivas. Sankara's commentary (Sankarabhashya) of Gita on the

relationship between food habits and the attitudes of people. Annam

(Food) determines the form and shape of the Body, Mind and Intellect

and it includes the food for the stomach, skin, the eyes, the ears,

the mind and the intellect. From the Vedantic perspectives, Atman

(soul or life) does not depend on the food and it witnesses the

consumption of food by the Body, mind and intellect. This is the

Paramarthika Satya (reality at the absolute level). The worldly life

that you refer to corresponds to the Vyavaharika Satya (relative

reality) where the Jiva identifies life through Body, Mind and

Intellect. For everyone engaging in the worldly life, " Brahmarpanam "

provides the understanding that the Brahman is everything including

the Annam, the body, mind, intellect and the character and destiny of

the Jiva. The body, mind and intellect (worldly understanding of

life) will exist iff Atman exists and Vedanta has no quarrel with

this assertion. The main focus of Vedanta is to make the Jiva (the

worldly person) to understand the distinction between the transient

(body, mind and intellect) and transcendent (Atman). The worldly

person understands life through body, mind and intellect and the

spiritual person (transcendent understanding of life through Atman)

does not depend on food. When I consider my identity as body, mind,

and intellect, I am limited and my survival as body, mind and

intellect requires food. When I recognize my true identity as Atman,

I am able to discriminate between my transient reality of life and my

transcendent reality of the Brahman. The physical, biological and

psychological science only deals with the body, mind and intellect

and Vedanta rightly focuses on the Atman and leaves the rest to the

science. I am of the opinion, even with the help of a powerful

google//others search engines or using encyclopedias of Sanskrit

literature, you will not be able to find an answer to your question.

All that you need is inward search and not outward search of finding

the Truth.

 

The bottom-line is quite simple – Please do not look for answers to

scientific questions in Vedanta – science deals with the object and

the Vedantic enquiry pertains to the subject who asks all these

questions!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: According Vedanta most of the arrogance originates

from `ignorance' and the scriptures treat those subjects

understandably with lots of compassion.

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

 

Respected All,

 

In the world we live (phenomenal, causal, dream, illusory, unreal --

whatever term one may choose) " Life " as we know it can exist if and

only iff it has some food.

 

My Question is: Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his

works as to why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

 

[Note: we all know " Brahmarpanam, brahma havih.....B-G IV-24.

Saying everything is Brahman does not explain the need

for 'dependencies'. I also know that Aitariyopanishad talks of

food, how food was chased and finally caught through mouth trying all

other means including anus. I could not decipher if it has some

hidden meaning. But on the face of it, I felt that the Upanishad did

not explain how that very first creature came about and how different

organs took shape and designed for in it so that it could use food

in later times. I am sure those familiar with the Aitareya

understand what I am referring to.]

[Guest guest]

Ramesamji,

 

You said: " Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his

works as to why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food? "

 

What is the definition of 'life' and 'food' as per Vedanta? Irrespective of the

fact that these things are 'intuitive', I think once you define them, only then

would you find the answer. Thats just my opinion.

 

Ramchandranji,

 

You said: " Please do not look for answers to

scientific questions in Vedanta – science deals with the object and

the Vedantic enquiry pertains to the subject who asks all these

questions! "

 

Isnt it contrary to say this when the goal is to realize that the subject and

object are the same? Isnt finding unity the goal rather than compartmentalizing?

 

Anyway, and this is strictly my opinion, science need not be limited to studying

only the objects but an investigation in the study of one's mind, intellect and

means of controlling it should be in the realm of science. Separating

spirituality from science is not just wrong but impossible. Please do not take

it otherwise or get offended, but I just feel this distinction in the two

unnecessary.

 

Sorry for the digression.

 

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Vaibhav-ji:

 

Ram-ji was simply pointing out what our sages have said many times and

what is well established and stated in the Bhagavad-Gita. Mind has to be

introverted from its tendency to go out towards many different

curiosities. When Arjuna states that this mind is difficulty to control,

Sri Krishna agreed but says that gradually it has to be tamed.

 

It is only right when the wise members of the list point out that

certain lines of questioning may not bear fruit in terms of ripening of

wisdom for Self-Realization Scriptures say that the human life is short

and one gets it due to good merits.

 

Upanishads have said, " Know That by which everything else is known " . The

focus of the scientist is on the " known " and there is no end to the so

called " known " . The " known " or the " to be known " is only the mind

parading in its many disguises. The focus of the sage remains on " That "

by which everything is known.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

vaibhav khire wrote:

> Ramchandranji,

>

> You said: " Please do not look for answers to

> scientific questions in Vedanta – science deals with the object and

> the Vedantic enquiry pertains to the subject who asks all these

> questions! "

>

> Isnt it contrary to say this when the goal is to realize that the subject and

object are the same? Isnt finding unity the goal rather than compartmentalizing?

>

> Anyway, and this is strictly my opinion, science need not be limited to

studying only the objects but an investigation in the study of one's mind,

intellect and means of controlling it should be in the realm of science.

Separating spirituality from science is not just wrong but impossible. Please do

not take it otherwise or get offended, but I just feel this distinction in the

two unnecessary.

>

> Sorry for the digression.

>

> ~Vaibhav.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

First, I am not offended by your statements. We have difficulties in

understanding our language, the framework of our understanding and

definitions. At paramarthika level, there is no distincition between

object and subject because there will be no object! At the Vyvaharika

level, they are different. What I try to say is that Science is

empirical where as Vedanta is metaphysical. Science does look into

subtler elements such as mind and intellect and it doesn't deal with

(as for as I know) on the subtlest - the Atman.

 

Once again, these are my understanding with my framework of thought

and consequently they are subject to contradiction with another

framework of mind!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Ramchandranji,

>

> You said: " Please do not look for answers to

> scientific questions in Vedanta – science deals with the object

and

> the Vedantic enquiry pertains to the subject who asks all these

> questions! "

>

> Isnt it contrary to say this when the goal is to realize that the

subject and object are the same? Isnt finding unity the goal rather

than compartmentalizing?

>

> Anyway, and this is strictly my opinion, science need not be

limited to studying only the objects but an investigation in the

study of one's mind, intellect and means of controlling it should be

in the realm of science. Separating spirituality from science is not

just wrong but impossible. Please do not take it otherwise or get

offended, but I just feel this distinction in the two unnecessary.

>

> Sorry for the digression.

>

> ~Vaibhav.

>

>

>

> Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

Science does look into

subtler elements such as mind and intellect and it doesn't deal with

(as for as I know) on the subtlest - the Atman.

 

Once again, these are my understanding with my framework of thought

and consequently they are subject to contradiction with another

framework of mind!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

----------

 

Ram Chandranji,

Thanks for your candid reply. But I feel science has changed a lot from the

traditional focus, which was specifically to try and understand the external

nature, As Swami Vivekananda says at one place, 'if one can go deep within

oneself and come face-to-face with the truth, it is equally possible to go

deeper and deeper outside and find the same truth'. (not exact words). Because,

as far as truth is concerned; there is no 'inside' and 'outside', or 'gross' or

'subtle'. It is all continuous.

 

And there are hints that science IS getting atleast a small glimpse of the same

truth which was found by the ancient rishis. In his book, " The Tao of Physics " ,

the author and particle physicist Frijtof Capra draws parallels between modern

science and Eastern philosophies (and quotes generously from Upanishads and

Shankara's and other acharya's works). The great physicist Erwin Schrodinger was

deeply influenced by Vedanta, and used to say he could see parallels in Quantum

Mechanics and Vedanta.

 

My only point was it is not necessary to compartmentalize knowledge. If a

scientist is open-minded and sincere, he/she is bound to reach the end, for

truth is only One.

 

 

Anyway, pardon me for the digression again. I feel guilty for hijacking

Ramesamji's original query and think we should either stop this discussion, or

carry it under a different subject.

 

 

Pranam,

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

(P.S. This is an interesting link showing Advaita's influence on Schrodinger and

subsequently quantum mechanics.

http://www.photonics.cusat.edu/article2.html )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. Click here to know how.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Ramesam-ji

There are references to both annam and prana in multiple Upanishads -

the Section dealing with annamayakosha in the T.Up, [which Shri

Sadananda-ji has already referenced,] probably has the most extensive

discussion about this. Interestingly annam or food is talked of as

both atti as well as adyam - what is eaten and what eats are both annam.

 

When you talk about a " fundamental " level, what Bhagwan Shankara and

Vedanta talk about at a fundamental level is the dharmadhyasa of the

dehatmabuddhi - where aham-asmi is projected onto the body - this is

the only " projected long-held conviction " in the world!

 

As Shankara asserts in the T.Up(I think in the Bhrigu valli?) from

Brahma-ji down to to a worm no jiva is ever born, what is born is only

the deha or shareera which by its very definition is meant to decay

and die - food or no food.

 

What you need to decide, for yourself is, - are you willing to accept

the contention that there is a indwelling spirit, call it whatever

name you want, that is separate from this body-mind-complex, and that

survives the death of this body?

 

If yes, then the survival of this " life-entity " becomes independent of

the shareera - its emancipation then is the subject-matter of every

religion or school of spirituality - and at a fundamental level this

is where objective science and spirituality seem to have a different

focus and course. The objective of Vedanta, nay of all the Vedas!, is

to help man achieve this emancipation or freedom in the " here " and

" now. "

 

If no, if this is not acceptable to you, then trying to decipher what

Shankara or Vedanta has to say about anything, i daresay, will be of

little benefit to you. You will of course then be looking to answers

as to how inert atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen can mutually

interact to produce " life " , as Shri Ananda-ji also alluded to in a

recent post.

 

Let me also take this opportunity to offer you my salutations at

accomplishing the wonderful task of translating the Yoga Vashishta, a

work that I personally like a lot.

 

Humble pranams

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

 

>

> Has Shankara commented or explained in any of his works as to

> why " Life " (as we know it) has to depend on food?

> E.g. I (my body =

> upadhi) came into existence because of my parents. After they are

> gone, my body is still continuing. Even accepting that `bhutas'

> happened to come from anna, or some previous entity, the subsequent

> entity need not depend on the earlier one in the sequence for its own

> continuity in a Darwinian sense.

> With best of regards,

> ramesam

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Vaibhav:

 

One of the easiest ways to understand the difference between Science

and Religion could be stated as follows: Science tries to understand

the Truth about 'Matter,' and Religion explores the Truth about

the 'Spirit.' From the Vedantic point of view, ultimately matter

doesn't have a separate existence from the Spirit. Then one could

argue that both approaches ultimately should be equivalent. But we do

need to recognize the fact that the two approaches are different at

least at the starting point!

 

The entire 'subject matter' is quite complex and it is definitely

beyond the scope of this list if we divert on the academic side.

There will be no end to such discussions and hence this will be my

last post on this subject. This University of Georgia Website

contains a beautiful discussion on What is Science?

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html

 

Specifically read the sub-categories:

What Science is not?

Within this category: Science is not Religion or a Religion

 

This does not mean that scientists should not believe Religion or

religious philosophers should not look at religion with a scientific

frame of mind. Alford Einstein's famous quotation: " Science without

religion is lame, religion without science is blind " explains the

position beautifully. The following excerpts from the University of

Georgia Website may be useful for our understanding.

 

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

" Science and religion are very different, both in what they try to do

and in the approaches they use to accomplish their goals. Science

seeks to explain the origin, nature, and processes of the physically

detectable universe. Religion seeks (or religions seek) to explain

the meaning of human existence, to define the nature of the human

soul, to justify the existence of an afterlife for humans, and to

maintain devotion to a diety or deities. Their goals are thus very

different.

Thier methods are also very different. Science uses physical evidence

to answer its questions and relies on modern humans to make

inferences from that evidence. Religions, on the other hand, use

divine inspiration, interpretation of ancient texts, and (in some

cases) personal insight as the source of the answers to their

questions. Science and religion thus are not, or should not be,

competing approaches, because they seek to accomplish different

things, and by different methods. In light of these fundamental

differences in goal and method, science and religion are distinct but

mutually compatible paradigms (a term we will explore further in the

next section)

Consideration of these goals and methods shows that science and

religion have little overlap. Science has no business making

inferences about souls, about afterlives, and about deities, because

those are not physically detectable or measurable entities about

which hypotheses can be tested. Many religions correspondingly make

few claims about the origin and nature of the physically detectable

universe. Religions that do make such claims generally do so because

of their acceptance of the entirety of an ancient text that includes

stories about the origin of the earth and its life. Religions that

treat their ancient texts' stories as allegorical rather than literal

have little or no conflict with science. " (Source: University of

Georgia) "

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

 

In conclusion, we do need to be careful while making any claims that

we make regarding either on religion or science – such statements

always are subject to ifs and buts and with appropriate caveats. One

of our problem in expressing the religion is that our only media

is `words of language' and most of the time our comprehension of the

subject matter and the language is insufficient!

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

>

> Thanks for your candid reply. But I feel science has changed a lot

from the traditional focus, which was specifically to try and

understand the external nature, As Swami Vivekananda says at one

place, 'if one can go deep within oneself and come face-to-face with

the truth, it is equally possible to go deeper and deeper outside and

find the same truth'. (not exact words). Because, as far as truth is

concerned; there is no 'inside' and 'outside', or 'gross'

or 'subtle'. It is all continuous.

>

[Guest guest]

I would add that anyone interested in this as I am there is a brilliant book by

Ken Wilber called " The marriage of Sense and Soul " which talks about how

Science and Spirituality must come together to enlighten us all. He is talking

more about the scientific method which is what we are all using here to

determine what we accept or not, well i won't speak for all of you but we hear

or read, try things, experiment with them and accept what is true to us, or that

is how i do it.

 

With regard and respect to all,

 

John Miller

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

>

> One of the easiest ways to understand the difference between Science

> and Religion could be stated as follows: Science tries to understand

> the Truth about 'Matter,' and Religion explores the Truth about

> the 'Spirit.' From the Vedantic point of view, ultimately matter

> doesn't have a separate existence from the Spirit.

 

The difference between objective sciences vs. spiritual sciences can be stated

simply as:

 

The investigation of objective sciences would be analytical where one dissects

to

understand the fundamental truth - One becomes specialist of narrower and

narrower area

in any field of investigation. The mystery is the more you unravel the more

there is to

unravel. No scientific paper if you see is conclusive since there will be lot

more

questions to be analyzed to understand than what is known. That is true in any

scientific

field - the more you know the more ignorant one becomes. In Vedanta the mind

required for

scientific investigations is teekshNa buddhi - or sharp intellect that divides -

providing hair-splitting arguments. Even some of the dialectic arguments end of

splitting

lot of hair only. In these you are becoming expert in smaller and smaller area

of

specialization - called delta function - infinite knowledge about infinitesimal

area.

 

In contrast the spiritual science are synthetic - it unifies than divides - the

mind that

is required is called suukshma buddhi - a subtle intellect that sees the unity

in

diversity-to see the oneness in the multiplicity. That is the integrating mind

than

diving mind.

 

We have a student in the Upanishad who wants to know that knowing which he will

know

everything. kasminno bhagavo vijnaate saram idam vijnaatam bhavati - Oh teacher

please

teach me that knowledge knowing which I will know everything - and he was taught

Brahma

vidya.

That is different from knowing everything about nothing.

 

Objective analysis excludes the subject while subjective analysis will end up

including

the objective world.

 

The reason is simple - one is a depedent entity and the other is indepedent

entity. I am

there whether the objects are there or not. Objects are there I am there,

objects are not

there I am still there. 'I am' forms the fundamental truth and all other is

dependent on

I am.

 

Hence Ramana says first find out who you are before you investigate the validity

of the

universe.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

In conclusion, we do need to be careful while making any claims that

we make regarding either on religion or science – such statements

always are subject to ifs and buts and with appropriate caveats. One

of our problem in expressing the religion is that our only media

is `words of language' and most of the time our comprehension of the

subject matter and the language is insufficient!

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

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

Namaste Shri Ram Chandranji,

 

Sir, dont you think the definition of 'religion' given on the site is a very

narrow one? And specifically, that Vedanta does not fit in it? " .........to

define the nature of the human soul, to justify the existence of an afterlife

for humans, and to maintain devotion to a diety or deities. " Advaita clearly has

none of these restrictions, nor attempts any of these things.

 

 

What I was trying to say in the last post and before that is, that science is

perhaps finally at the frontier where it HAS to deal with consciousness, define

'object' and understand whether the interaction of each of these affects one's

observation. When Newton formulated his theory, he had an " inertial frame of

reference " , i.e. a set off co-ordinates using fixed stars which never moved.

Today, we know such a thing is impossible, every object moves. Nay, rather,

every motion is relative. In fact, science reached the conclusion long ago that

nothing observable in this world is absolute, a conclusion reached by the rishis

long ago, which made them call this world " samsara " .

 

There are several places where the scientists " feel " the impossibility of

explaining everything in terms of physical objects, or having a completely

unaffected observer. Please see Anandaji's writing on 'Reality in modern

physics', or see the implication of Bell's theorem on physics. Of course, with

their traditional arrogance and understanding, scientists try to come up with

millions of theories to explain these phenomena. But as Anandaji put it in some

place, the mechanical view of universe cannot explain everything, one has to

have an organic view, or a view where a single consciousness acts through all

objects.

 

 

I am not claiming religion is same as science. But I am saying that

compartmentalizing science and religion as separate fields is not a right

approach. Of course, a religion of book, or one depending on the sanctity of

book and a prophet does not fit this description. But Vedanta does.

 

Hari Om.

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know? You can CHAT without downloading messenger. Click here

 

 

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>[Posting 39745]

 

Dear Sri Vaibhav Khire,

 

The field of science is " The Known " viz.kShEtra

 

The field of Vedanta is " The Knower of the Known "

Viz.kShEtraj~ja

 

Vedanta starts with the enquiry about 'The Knower' and

when once the true nature of 'The knower' is established/comprehended

it will be realized that 'The known' is none other than the 'Knower'.

It is the 'Knower/ PERCEIVER' of the 'Known' who manifests ITSELF as

the 'Known'. [ Kindly refer to the mantras 7-25-1, 7-25-2 and 7-26-1

of Chandogya Upanishad.]

 

When once the true nature of the " Knower " is realized, there will be

an end to all such doubts and questions which are being

entertained/encouraged. That is what the SAGES/Upanishads

proclaim .

 

Tri-Basic View of Life will help one to see the above stated

facts.A study of the book " Vedanta or the Science Of Reality " ,

written by K.A.Krishnaswamy Iyyer and available at Vedanta Book House,

Bangalore will be of immense help in this regard.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

> Respected All,

>

> In the world we live (phenomenal, causal, dream, illusory, unreal --

> whatever term one may choose) " Life " as we know it can exist if and

> only iff it has some food.

>

Hare Krishna, Namaskarams

 

Why food is necessary for life.

 

It is the eater and eaten principle of creation by the lord.

 

[Lord Krishna says in Gita ch.15-sl.14.

Becoming the fire (VaisvAnarh) of life in the bodies of living beings

and mingling with upward and downward breaths, I digest the four kinds

of food.]

 

The Eater and the Eaten principle by the lord is to maintain the

creation in balance. If food is not necessary for living then every

being would become immortal and no creation as such will be there.

Neither you can have only birth for then the world will be filled with

everything from a worm to humans and it is not difficult to imagine

what will happen in such an eventuality. Equally you cannot have death

alone. Hence between birth and death you need growth, sustenance,

decay to have the cycle going endlessly. The cycle of creation,

sustenance and destruction is maintained by the lord only through this

eater and eaten principle. He is annam (food) and he himself the eater

of annam.

 

baskaran

[Guest guest]

Respected All,

 

1. APPEAL:

 

My original Question sought merely bibliographic citations to

Shankara's texts that possibly refer to the need of " Life " having to

depend on `Food' for its manifestation and continued existence.

 

But the debate has turned to a very interesting aspect concerned with

the very basic principles and philosophy of methodology followed in

Science and Vedanta.

 

The moderators have been very kind and large-hearted to accommodate

this debate because it was said that removal of doubt was an

important part of `sadhana' and such debates as these were helpful

towards that end. Moreover, there is an obvious interest in this

topic as many members are participating.

 

While I thank the Moderators for this gesture, I appeal to them that

we may be allowed to pursue this meandering to a logical conclusion

keeping the main question on the back burner for the time being.

 

It appears to me that there are some fundamental misunderstandings

about scientific approach. My attempt here is to clarify on some

points, which I felt to be relevant. I accept I am no authority and

I am open to correction.

 

2. OBJECTIVE:

 

The word science is derived from Latin sciere = to know (the truth);

and,

The word religion is derived from religio = to bind very strongly to

Truth.

Thus both science and religion aim at reaching the truth.

 

So their objective cannot be said to be different, one material and

another spiritual.

 

 

3. REFERENCES:

 

During the discussions, our attention was drawn to three links on the

net.

 

a.) QP and Vedanta:

http://www.photonics.cusat.edu/article2.html

This is by a Prof. Girija Vallabhan, in Kerala. It is short and

specific to the point of Indian influence on Quantum Physics. Brings

out well the views of Schrodinger on Vedanta.

 

b.) What is Science?

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html

Please DO NOT READ THIS, if you can. It is very naïve, simplistic

and, if I am allowed to say, it's dated material. I have taken up

issue with Prof. Bruce Railsback, the site owner and I shall report

to you if and when I get a response.

 

c.) Advaita Vedanta and Science:

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/9535/Vedanta/vedanta.html

 

I read this book some 30 years ago. Prof. Dobson, an Astrophysicist,

who became a Ramakrishna Monk made two very significant observations

(amongst many):

 

(i) Just as we see a snake instead of rope, so we see gravity

instead of " Oneness " , inertia instead of " Changelessness " and

electricity instead of " Infiniteness. " Thus we have an illusory

perception of Brahman.

 

(ii) Nirvana is akin to counter-cheating of `genes'.

 

Science has progressed now much beyond some of the concepts in the

book (unless he revised it since then!). E.g `acausal' origin of

hydrogen.

 

If I have to suggest, perhaps the works of Profs. Brain Greene,

Michio Kaku would provide a good idea of what " scientific method is

in actual practice. " Also:

 

Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve's " Life Evolving: Molecule, Mind and

Meaning " , 2002.

 

Our own Ramachandran's sprightly presentation at Reith Memorial

lectures on " Emergent Mind " at BBC in 2003.

 

Journalist J. Horgan's " Rational Mysitcism " , 2003.

 

Quantum Physicist, Prof. Henry Stapp's " Mindful Universe " , 2007.

 

Philosopher Prof. Owen Flanagan's " The Really Hard Problem: Meaning

in a Material World " , 2007.

 

Dr. Alain Morin, " Language and self-awreness " , 2007.

 

These are just for starters. I do not mean that I agree with all of

them. But they give a flavour of scientific method as practiced by

reputed Scientists.

 

 

4. VEDAS ARE FINAL, Science is Exploratory:

 

This is another view often expressed.

 

Our friend Vyasa clearly stated that " Vedas deal only with the three-

fold forces of Nautre. You should go beyond them, Arjuna! "

 

Shankara comments: traigunyam samsarah vishayah prakasitavyah yesham

te vedha traigunya vishayah. Tvam tu nistraigunyah bhava, Arjuna,

nishkamah bhava ityarthah….. " BG II-45.

 

The verse at BG XI-53 (Naa ham vedairna tapasaa na daanena na

chejyayaa) repeats that Vedas cannot take you to be with that

ineffable ultimate `Oneness'.

 

The above statements do not support that Vedas are final. Similar

statements are also made in Vivekachudamani, Ashtavakra gita etc.

 

[Note: I described Vyasa as a `friend' on purpose. Usage of

epithets like Bhagavan are likely to preempt and intimidate the

seeker and give up his spirit of inquiry. The scenario will be worse

when it is further added (as some do), papoham….papasambhava……traahi

maam……anyatha saranam naasti!), demeaning oneself as good for

nothing, and totally dependent. Surrender of `ego' is a different

matter where subject-object distinction is lost giving raise to

oneness – it is not supplication or subordination but full

understanding. ]

 

Scientific method is to keep the spirit of inquiry ignited and not

shut out. As the inquiry gets turned on to inquirer itself with the

same openness (like we do assess Instrumental error, Observer error,

Sampling error etc. in an experimental set up), we will arrive at

truth, or whatever that remains.

 

Thus what is important in science is to keep an OPEN mind. The

moment we start with a preconceived belief or concept, our mind is

always so very clever that we often end up proving what we start

with!!

 

The moment we have the state of knowledge encapsulated in a text

within closed covers, it is like closing all our windows and doors to

any new light. So let us not get confused by the content of Science

at any given time to understand " scientific method. "

 

The scientific spirit of discovery is an ever-open, esoteric

fragrance, a drifting wave, an ineffable experience. If you ride

with the wave, or swept by it, you have lost it. You only watch it

and see the music in its twists and turns, in its ups and downs and

just notice never trying to imprison it in your fist.

 

Let us also bear in mind that just by giving a name to anything, we

do not understand what it is. Quantum Physics called light quanta

as `wavicles'; still we do not know whether they are waves or

particles or something else. Similarly, calling food as " adyati iti

and atti iti " does not clarify anything to me.

 

Some members wanted that I should swear an `Oath of Allegiance " to

certain stipulated concepts. Some were kind even to almost declare

me `mindless' (Ah! a state I would love to be in!) on my speaking

about Vedanta. To my understanding, Vedanta does not require you to

have a god. Vedanta invokes a god to explain creation and

immediately then declares that you, yourself, are God.

 

Mindless or not, I admit I am `heartless'. So I cannot even say that

Respected Dr. Vaibhav Khire's postings re: Science and Vedanta are

close to my heart! I can only say they are closer to reality.

 

Yes, heartlessness implies unemotional, detached and unbiased

observation. That is the crux of scientific approach.

 

 

5. REDUCTIONISM VS. SYNTHESIS:

 

Some members said that the distinction between Science and Vedic

approach comes from the fact that Science is reductionist – narrowing

investigation to smaller and smaller entities – unlike Vedas which

integrate and present an over-all approach. This is not correct.

 

In Upanishads too we have reductionist approach: Bring the fruit;

does it answer you? Break the fruit, does it answer you? Pick up the

seed, does it answer you? Break the seed etc. etc. is a methodology

seen in the Upanishads.

 

On the other hand, tremendous amount of research goes on building an

integrative `big picture science'. Plate Tectonics, Shifting of

magnetic poles and so on emerged from integration. Forecast models,

epidemic identification, cure, ecological studies etc are also

highly integrative. Some noise detected in telecommunication has

been integrated to the Origin of Universe, winning Nobel to the

engineers! Scientific method cannot be straight-jacketed.

 

6. What I submitted above is incomplete as a more exhaustive account

is beyond the scope of the context here. I shared some of my

thoughts. Perhaps all this is a `meditation.' As I already said, let

me repeat, I am open to correction.

 

Thanking you and with best of regards to all,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

--- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

>

> But the debate has turned to a very interesting aspect concerned with

> the very basic principles and philosophy of methodology followed in

> Science and Vedanta.

 

Ramesamji - PraNAms -

 

Refreshing. Thanks.

 

I think there is distinction to be made in terms of scientific thinking

involving inquiry

vs. Science as viewed as objective science that we are familiar where subject is

excluded

- until one gets into uncertainty states. Objective science relay mostly on

deductive and

inductive logic - While Vedanta as pramaaNa goes beyond logic and in fact the

ultimate

truth as per Vedanta is beyond logic - Hence it is considered as separate

pramANa. Vedas

do not take you to truth but they are pointers to the truth since truth is

aprameyam.

 

If one is looking for unified theory in science, with consciousness excluded, it

cannot

but divide. There was a question that was raised before what is the fundamental

matter

that science can come up with. As long as consciousness is excluded in the

observations

the ultimate truth can never be found –and if one includes consciousness then

consciousness is no more consciousness - I have a feeling that this we have to

be

conscious of in the differentiating objective analysis from adhyaatma vidya.

Differentiation involving cause-effects forms a basis in the objective science

although

one may integrate locally to arrive at some general concepts.

 

Yes, one can have lot of discussions and opinions -on science and Vedanta.

Vedanta is

not unscientific but goes beyond the logic of science. Hence subjective

experiential

knowledge has to come in the discovery of truth.

 

That is my current understanding.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Respected Ramesam-ji:

 

I will leave it to the moderators to consider your appeal. You clearly

have a strong appetite for discussions of this nature and hope you are

able to satisfy it, either here or somewhere else. This is the nature of

our karma. It helplessly propels us in various directions, physically,

mentally, intellectually. The wise accept the ride with grace and

equanimity.

 

We bow to the great sages, who have pointed out that the Self is the

ultimate simplicity, to be realized where we are, here and now. Home is

where the Heart is. Self is found in one's own Heart.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

ramesam wrote:

> Respected All,

>

>

> 6. What I submitted above is incomplete as a more exhaustive account

> is beyond the scope of the context here. I shared some of my

> thoughts. Perhaps all this is a `meditation.' As I already said, let

> me repeat, I am open to correction.

>

> Thanking you and with best of regards to all,

> ramesam

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ramesa and other Members:

 

First, the moderators wants to express their thanks for your kind

words. The moderation board always encourages discussions with good

insights on subject matters closely associated with Vedanta. When a

member goes out of focus and targeting the personalities instead of

subject matter, the moderators reclutantly intervene. Most of the time

the individual member who is subject to such violations will be

contacted through private emails. In some urgent situations, they post

the policy and list guidelines and remind members to stop the

discussion thread. Since Vedanta is closely related to other

philosphies (also to a limited extent to science) the moderators are

quite receptive and flexible with respect subject matter.

 

We hope that this clarifies the stand taken by the members. We do

appreciate members' inputs all the time and please forward your

suggestions and comments to the moderators through private email to

advaitins.

 

Thanks again,

 

Advaitin List Moderators

 

 

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

>

> The moderators have been very kind and large-hearted to accommodate

> this debate because it was said that removal of doubt was an

> important part of `sadhana' and such debates as these were helpful

> towards that end. Moreover, there is an obvious interest in this

> topic as many members are participating.

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams Ramesam-ji

A few clarifications.

_________

4. VEDAS ARE FINAL, Science is Exploratory:

>

> This is another view often expressed.

>

> Our friend Vyasa clearly stated that " Vedas deal only with the

three-

> fold forces of Nautre. You should go beyond them, Arjuna! "

______________

 

Many times in the vedic literature, we will find the same word used

to connote different things and ideas - words like atma, manas, etc

can only be understood with reference to the context.

In this contect of what you have just quoted from the Bhagawad Gita,

what Bhagwan Krishna is saying is that the ritualistic portion of

the vedas - the karma-kanda - deals with the material world, with

fulfilment of desires, with heaven as a goal, etc - and as the

materialistic realm consists of the three Gunas(no english

translation exists for this word)he exhorts Arjuna to shun away from

a materialistic approach to Life and embrace a spiritual outlook.

If you would read the preceding shloka the context becomes not only

clear but also relevant to this discussion.

One of the most important qualities in this path of self-knowledge

is a one-pointed intellect that is committed to self-knowledge -

vyavasayatmika buddhih - the goal or purpose of life has to be very

clear. The affairs of the material world and its machinations then

are irrelevent to such a one.

Men devoid of discrimination - avyavasayinam - get impelled into a

innumerable avenues of thought and action and get thereby sadly

caughtup in flowery language and multi-pronged desires, losing sight

of the sole purpose of life.

In matters related to self-enquiry the ONLY pramana is the shruti

mahavakyas contained in the Vedas. Logic/Direct Cognition, etc are

not pramanas by themselves.

___________

> [Note: I described Vyasa as a `friend' on purpose. Usage of

> epithets like Bhagavan are likely to preempt and intimidate the

> seeker and give up his spirit of inquiry.

advaitin , " ramesam " <ramesam wrote:

>

____________

 

Water can only flow from a higher to a lower level and hence so can

knowledge. Hence it is that in our tradition of not just respecting

but revering our teachers - Guru sakshat Parabrahman - hence

epithets like Bhagawan. Unlike in the West, a Guru or teacher is

a " friend " , an almost-equal, in our tradition we do not regard a

Guru as merely a friend - someone you can discuss say economic

theories or cardiovascular physiology over a cup of cappucino. Be it

spiritual or secular - be it music, dance, creative arts, math or

science - what a Guru imparts is Knowledge or " Vidya " and any Vidya

is nothing but Mother Divinity Herself. Hence a Guru is always

prostrated to. Hence alone in our tradition if we set foot on a book

we immediately touch it to our eyes, as what the book contains is

knowledge which is as sacred to me as my own eyes. And as far as

Brahma-vidya is concerned in particular, the Guru is accorded a

status of Ishwara Himself. Similarly when we speak of Seers - that

too spiritual giants such as Bhagwan Vyasa and Bhagwan Shankara -

our attitude for our own benefit better be one of reverence and

devotion - it is no secret that for knowledge to take hold, besides

a intellect what is needed is both Ishwara's and Guru's Grace. It is

erroneous to think that this seemingly servile attitude in any way

is a impediment in the path of enquiry or may make us lose our

objectivity - our teachers themselves will say that even the word of

Brahma-ji is to be rejected if it is not in line with what is

logical - the only thing is we use logic to better understand what

the Guru, or Bhagwan Shankara, or Bhagwan Vyasa, are trying to teach

us instead of using it to decide if they are right or wrong.

Hence alone before taking up a study of the Brahmsutras for example

we pray -

Shankaram ShankarAchAryam

KEshavam BAdarAyanam

SUtrabhAshya kritau vandE

Bhagavantau punah punah

- we pay our obesciances to these Great Masters. Such a attitude

stems from a self-assured and positive intellectual and emotional

maturity.

_

> Scientific method is to keep the spirit of inquiry ignited and not

> shut out. As the inquiry gets turned on to inquirer itself with

the

> same openness (like we do assess Instrumental error, Observer

error,

> Sampling error etc. in an experimental set up), we will arrive at

> truth, or whatever that remains.

_______________________________

Let us not forget for a second, that the mind that throws up various

vikalpas and doubts, and the very intellect that decides what is

right and wrong, what makes sense and what does not, are are both

byproducts of the very ignorance they are steeped in. Hence alone

logic, bereft of a means of knowledge that is extraenous, cannot

deliver the goods - whatever we keep arriving at will always have an

extra layer of ignorance which will need further clarity. Until we

acquire " that knowledge knowing which everything else becomes known "

this will go on - and for brahmavidya, once again, there is no

recourse but Vedanta.

__

>

> Thus what is important in science is to keep an OPEN mind. The

> moment we start with a preconceived belief or concept, our mind is

> always so very clever that we often end up proving what we start

> with!!

________________________________

 

That I do not have a concept is itself a concept and like any other

concept it is preconceived. Even in Science certain concepts are

taken for granted in order that hypotheses be generated. An open

mind does not mean a concept-less mind - such a mind is quite

mindless.

______

> Let us also bear in mind that just by giving a name to anything,

we

> do not understand what it is. Quantum Physics called light quanta

> as `wavicles'; still we do not know whether they are waves or

> particles or something else. Similarly, calling food as " adyati

iti

> and atti iti " does not clarify anything to me.

______________________________

Words in Vedanta are carefully used. When annam is talked about as

both the eaten and the eater - the Shruti is trying to point us in a

direction which enhances our understanding about ourself.

 

WHen you ask " the need of food for life " - you already have a

preconceived notion that " food " and " the living thing " are distinct

entities with separate orders of reality - the food being inert and

the living thing being a.sentient, and b.dependent on food for its

survival.

What the Shruti says is that which is engaged in the act of eating,

is a.nothing but the body, and is interrelated and of the same order

of reality as the food or annam - and b.it is different from

the " living entity " which vedanta calls a " jiva " . This jiva is never

born. What is born is only the body or shareeram - and the annam or

food is what the shareeram came from, is what constitutes the

shareeram and will be what the shareeram will dissolve back unto.

Upto a point, the food ensures the survival of the shareeram, beyond

that, the very same food leads to the demise or decay of that body.

It is all part of the Cosmic Order - where-in food, and hunger,

birth and death are intertwined. I hope the matter is a little more

clear as is the significance of using the words atti and adyam.

____

 

> To my understanding, Vedanta does not require you to

> have a god. Vedanta invokes a god to explain creation and

> immediately then declares that you, yourself, are God.

_____

 

Vedanta neither requires you to " have a God " (whatever that may

mean) nor does it " invole a God " as a conceptual crutch " to explain

creation " Vedanta helps you understand and appreciate God. The

declaration that you are God or tat tvam asi does not mean that you,

the ego, is God or Ishwara. Understanding this one sentence is what

Vedanta is all about. It requires Grace and a mind prepared for a

one-pointed, objective, dispassionate, enquiry. The goal is not a

mindless state - moksha is not a " state " - it is in fact an

understanding, which certainly requires the mind.

_______

 

> Thanking you and with best of regards to all,

> ramesam

__________________________

Humble pranams

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Hari OM

Shyam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

>

> > quite receptive and flexible with respect subject matter.

>

> We hope that this clarifies the stand taken by the members. We do

> appreciate members' inputs all the time and please forward your

> suggestions and comments to the moderators through private email to

> advaitins

>

 

Respected All,

 

I would like to report that Prof. Bruce Railsback has been kind to

promptly respond to my email. From his reply, it looks to me that

the course lecture was structured by him largely keeping the local

needs in mind. While I am still in correspondence with him on some

details, I am giving below the opening intro of his response:

 

Quote: " Dear Ramesam,

Thanks very much for your message. I'm

afraid my responses below are less than

supportive, because I come from such a different

environment, where religion is different. In the

United States, the religious view leads us to the

conclusions that . . .

1. that humans are the one and only

soul-bearing creations of a loving god,

2. that the world is only six thousand years old,

3. that the world will come to an end soon, and

4. that any adherent of any other religion is not deserving of

respect.

 

This leads to the policy conclusions that . . .

1. that our dominant religious group

should be free to consume in few decades the

resources the Earth has actually accumulated over

billions of years (rather than 6000 years),

2. that our dominant religious group

should be free to despoil the Earth because the

Earth will not be needed soon,

3. that our dominant religious group

should be free to abuse all other peoples because

they are not the children of this loving god.

 

That's religion here, and if you

don't believe me, bear in mind that religion is

the reason, and the only reason, that George W.

Bush is President of our country, and that we

ended up with Abu Ghraib...... " Unquote.

 

His letter continues. But I am not sure the rest of the discussion

between us both has to appear here.

 

With thanks and best of regards,

ramesam

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

>

 

Respected Sirs,

 

I have been guilty of not acknowledging the very kind and benevolent

inputs from many of the learned and respected members in response to

my postings.

 

I sincerely apologize this lapse of mine particularly to Respected

Dr. Shyam, Dr. Harsha, Dr. Baskaran, Dr. Sreenivasa Murthy, Dr. Hsin

Sir, Dr. Khire, Dr. Ram Chandran, Dr. Sadananda because my response

has been long over due. All of you have been able to spare time for

elaborately explaining many issues. I thank you for your patience

and thought.

 

I have been wondering how to wrap up my reaction in a couple of mails

a day on all the diverse issues. In the meanwhile, more water has

flown below the bridge as they say. However, many of the points made

appear to be well-known and well-recognized traditional topics on

Vedas and Vedanta highlighted for my benefit. I do not think they

need to be debated and I have to say I am aware of most of them and I

have taken note where I do not know.

 

Questions on definitions of " Life " and " Food " were also raised.

Hopefully we shall be able to look into the pending matters.

 

Once again thanking you all and with best of my regards,

ramesam

(P.S. Respected Dr. Shyam was kind to make a reference to

Yogavaasishta. I am grateful for the comments. Yes it is a great

book that goes with thorough logic).

[Guest guest]

--- ramesam <ramesam wrote:

 

Questions on definitions of " Life " and " Food " were

> also raised.

> Hopefully we shall be able to look into the pending

> matters.

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

 

Dear sir,

 

You are perhaps aware of this (or I am not sure if

someone mentioned it in this thread.)

Prasna Upanishad says: " Food is, indeed, all

this—what has form and what is formless. Therefore

everything having form is, indeed, food. " (I-5).

 

My humble understanding of this is that, anything

which the life-force (or which the Upanishad mentions

as prANa) uses to express itself is food.

Traditionally, food is anything which is eaten to

sustain the body. But we can extend the same

definition to 'anything that is required for the

survival of life'. And indeed, the same Consciousness

extends throughout the universe through every atom.

The Consciousness is the unmanifest, and the Universe

is the Manifest. By saying 'food' as anything which

the Unmanifest uses to Manifest, we see that every

manifestation is indeed food. The One manifesting is

beyond it.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong in the reasoning, or

if another reasoning exists.

 

Also, the Sanskrit word used here is 'rayi' and all

translations of the verse mentioned above which I

could find translate it as " food'. Can someone explain

the verb here, or rather how 'rayi' translates as

food?

 

Pranam.

~Vaibhav.

 

(P.S. Sir, please do not address me as Dr. in your

posts. While, with everyone's blessings here I soon

hope to get the degree, I am too young in age,

understanding and maturity to be addressed with any

kind of prefix. Thanks.)

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. To know how, go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html