alAta shAnti and modern science

[Guest guest]

I have on numerous occasions pointed out that modern science

and advaita are incompatible in that the former is about a subject

investigating an object. I do, however, have a bit of a problem with respect to

the alAta (firebrand) metaphor from the fourth kArikA of gauDapAda. The metaphor

relates to the fact that the patterns ‘created’ by the firebrand

have no substantiality of their own, being nothing other than the glowing tip itself

in motion. Similarly, the world has no substantiality of its own, being nothing

other than consciousness in motion, as it were. However, modern science tells us

that the patterns do not really relate to the tip itself at all but are brought

about by the ‘persistence of vision’ phenomenon as part of the

mechanism of visual perception. Can this modern understanding be incorporated

into the metaphor or do we have to discard this metaphor and look for another

one? Or does the fact that we now have an ‘explanation’ make any

difference at all? I would be very interested in hearing views on this.

 

Best Wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> I have on numerous occasions pointed out that modern science and

advaita are

> incompatible in that the former is about a subject investigating an

object.

> I do, however, have a bit of a problem with respect to the alAta

(firebrand)

> metaphor from the fourth kArikA of gauDapAda. The metaphor relates

to the

> fact that the patterns 'created' by the firebrand have no

substantiality of

> their own, being nothing other than the glowing tip itself in motion.

> Similarly, the world has no substantiality of its own, being nothing

other

> than consciousness in motion, as it were. However, modern science

tells us

> that the patterns do not really relate to the tip itself at all but are

> brought about by the 'persistence of vision' phenomenon as part of the

> mechanism of visual perception. Can this modern understanding be

> incorporated into the metaphor or do we have to discard this

metaphor and

> look for another one? Or does the fact that we now have an 'explanation'

> make any difference at all? I would be very interested in hearing

views on

> this.

>

>

>

> Best Wishes,

>

> Dennis

>

 

 

Namaste Dennisji,

 

I have a couple of thoughts about this. First of all,

as we all know, all illustrations used in Vedanta

have their limitations, so that's one way to look

at it.

 

Furthermore, this is not the only illustration used in a text

which is not scientifically correct. There is another

one in Aparoksha Anubhuti which Swami Dayanandaji pointed

out last October, having to do with a wasp, a worm and

a cocoon. I'd have to listen to some interviews he

gave to remember exactly what the illustration is and what

is wrong with it scientifically.

 

Even the way that Vedanta divides up the material world

into the three gunas, and then adds different percentages

of gunas together to come up with different types of

objects isn't really in accord with modern day science,

but then it serves as a model.

 

So, although I cannot give you a very good answer to

your question, other than making an observation, I do

know that there are other places where something similar

to what you have cited above is to be found.

 

Why not just say in Vedanta all illustrations have

their limitations, explain why and how that is true,

(which is always good to emphasize)

and then go on to explain that the illustrations

given in the texts may not always be scientifically

accurate based on the science of our era, but

at the time they were cited they were thought

to be accurate in terms of the phenomenal world,

and that they do serve an illustrative purpose.

 

BTW, I think the illustration you cited is also found

in either Kathopanishad or Manduka, because

I have heard it before, and I cannot remember

in which one.

 

Best wishes,

Durga