crock of gold

[Guest guest]

Vaibhav-ji wrote:

Michael,

You said:

 

By the way this category of 'exists for me' is a

dubious one that I

accepted for the sake of argument. Are we to say

that radiation did not

exist for folks before the advent of Ms.Curie?

====

 

Consider this example if you will:

(the classic example to demonstrate frame of reference

in physics).

 

X is traveling in a train which runs by a row of trees

Y is standing right besides one of the trees.

 

Assume the train is running smooth, and X can see only

through the window.

 

For X: the trees are moving.

For Y: the trees are NOT moving.

 

So, are the trees really moving?

**That depends on one's frame of reference.**

-------------

 

I think the same applies in your case.

For the person who knows the crock of gold, it exists.

For the person who doesnt know, it doesnt exist.

 

So, does it really exist?

**That depends on one's frame of reference.**

 

The thing to keep track of here is that there is only

one stationary, unchanging frame of reference here,

and it is the Brahman. All other reference frames are

changeable, and 'knowledge' obtained from them isnt

absolute.

 

From the frame of reference of Brahman, only THAT

exists.

 

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

 

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

 

Namaste Vaibhav-ji,

Relativity is one thing, existence is quite

another. Existence is not an attribute of a thing but the condition for

any attributes. A thing exists as a limiting adjunct of pure

consciousness according to advaita. It is not brought into existence by

someone's personal awareness of it or banished into non-existence by

unawareness of it.

 

Are you tending to say that radon emission under your house will not have

negative effects if you don't know about it?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

Your earlier sub-terranean seam having had a very fair treatment from

all of us, I don't understand the relevance of this current crock of

gold. Perhaps, I am missing something due to my intermittent absence

from the goings-on.

 

The basic question is the angle from which we are looking at these

questions. I can't be very epistemic because I lack knowledge and

disciplined competence in that field. I see that in your latest post

you have mentioned that the angle of your enquiry is strictly

advaitic.

 

If it is so, i.e. if advaita is the accepted premise in your probe,

then I, i.e. X, is most important and encompasses within his advaitic

whole both Y and the crock of gold to which he is privy. Thus, if Y

knows the existence of the crock, then it derives that that existence

is really there in the advaitic wholeness of X as an unknown waiting

to blossom forth as knowledge when the crock is revealed. Therefore,

the crock EXISTS, for it is verily Brahman and not alien to the

wholeness of X! In fact, everything that is known as well as unknown

thus exists.

 

Radiation existed before Madam Curie. It was already in the Lord's

bosom - poetically. Curie just happened to be the chosen one to

first notice it. Apples used to fall straight down and never go up

(unless thrown) even before Newton. Newton discovered the Lord's Law

of Gravitation (not Newton's Law). Y, in your case, safeguards the

Lord's crock of gold. If the Lord wills, I (X) will know of its

existence one day. Nevertheless, Advaita will say I am fullness

irrespective of whether or not I am aware of the existence of the

crock and in that fullness the crock is very much there together with

Curie, Newton, radiation and the falling apples whether I am aware of

them or not.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Hello Michael,

 

Are we to say that radiation

did not

> exist for folks before the advent of Ms.Curie?

 

Seems everything that can exist does exist. Radiation

did not exist, though, until it was defined, its

properties measured, etc. Effects of something later

called " radiation " existed before the concept of

radiation was invented to describe WHAT was causing

the effects. Mankind is the definition of everything.

Nothing exists--for us-- until we define it and

therefore we wait for " future discoveries " assuming

there's more out there that needs to be discovered.

 

Really, though, what does discovery amount to? We

already have every possible discription for anything

to be " discovered " in our heads. All we can " discover "

is something we already know or already have the

capacity to describe. We can't discover anything at

all other than our own already existing capacities to

project out that which is within us. Nothing " new "

will be discovered. All we'll find is what's already

in our heads. I'm thinking that " discovery " is just

the ability to overlay our concepts on bits and pieces

of something called " the universe " , although that,

too, is a concept.

 

Anyway, this is another take on the subject and

reality does seem to by utterly and totally

subjective. Without a subject where is the object?

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

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

[Guest guest]

ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote

" Relativity is one thing, existence is quite another. Existence is not an

attribute of a thing but the condition for any attributes. A thing exists as

a limiting adjunct of pure consciousness according to advaita. "

 

 

Michael,

Exactly what IS an object?

Is there a single entity, object, thing which remains unchanged even for a

moment? For example, consider a block of gold. Each and every moment (however

short a time interval you consider) there is air flowing in it and out. Same is

true about human body, a block of any metal etc. What we normally perceive as an

object (such as a crock of gold) is simply a small assembly of molecules, the

so-called characteristics of which are familiar to us (such as shine of the

gold), and we give it a name called 'gold'. But even this set of molecules

changes, so much so that it is theoretically impossible to pinpoint the number

of molecules!

 

So, if there is no clear-cut definition of an object, if there does not exist a

single entity which remains same in time, how do we talk about whether it exists

or not?

 

If I am not wrong, the Buddhists call this property of 'melting away' of matter,

or there simply being waves of matter and no 'object' as nothingness or

shunyavaaada.

 

But Advaita goes beyond one step to say, it is wrong to say 'nothing' exists,

rather we say 'One' exists, which is the Brahman. This is how we can say

'everything is Brahman', and at the same time 'It has not shape, size etc.'

Since all perceivable forms are nashwara, transient, like waves. All objects

are waves, the One beyond that is the water.

 

So what you say as 'existence' is a property ONLY of what is referred to as

Brahman. For all else, it is neither existence nor non-existence (since for

existence, time is necessary and for non-existence, it should not exist or have

any effect). And this situation is Maya.

 

 

" Are you tending to say that radon emission under your house will not have

negative effects if you don't know about it? "

 

Again, dont you have to define 'me' and the 'emission? All that would happen

again is an interaction of molecules, of the light affecting the body. Of

course, the mind and ego, and the avidya will make me feel the 'pain' and

'death'. But that is again my temporary/transient frame of reference.

 

Please let me know what you think of this.

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Save all your chat conversations. Find them online.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

>

> Sadaji wrote:

> I can stretch this statement to relate to the one I have been making, that

> the existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its

> existence.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

Actually I did not have to stretch the statement. VP makes the following

statement

in the perceptuality criterion.

– ‘perceptual object has no independent existence apart from the existence of

the

subject’, ‘pramAtRi satta Eva ghaTAdhi satta, na anyaH’ -VP here is very

emphatic

that existence of the knower alone is expressed as the existence of the pots,

etc.

 

Unless one perceives it, the existence of the object is not established. That

does

not mean it does not exist nor does it means it exists either. Who knows? Unless

one

perceives there is ignorance about its existence. Ignorance is as per advaita -

sat

asat vilakshanam - it is mithyaa only. Hence it is indeterminate.

 

About radiation, radium etc. Until the atomic numbers and the periodic table

started, the possibility of its existence was not established. Does it mean the

radiation and radium was not there - no it does not mean that either. Does it

mean

it is there - who know it was there? It may be there in God's vision. But who

would

know God's vision? If one know, who would believe that he knows God's vision? We

have to have a faith or he has to prove and when he proves he establishes the

existence definite.

 

We are back to the same situation.

 

Remember Knowledge (of an object's existence or its non-existence) is eternal.

But

it is not known until the ignorance covering is removed by pramANa. Therefore,

until

the ignorance is removed the knowledge of the object's existence or its

non-existences is not revealed. Hence existence of the object is established by

the

knowledge of its existence.

 

Personally I do not see any problem in this. I find VP is also saying the same

thing.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda