Guest guest Posted December 30, 2008 Report Share Posted December 30, 2008 Namaste Dennis-ji, Durga-ji, I concur with Durga. The alata cakra is merely an illustration and ought to be taken as such without any commitment as to its scientific accuracy. The B.S.B. has a few of these illustrations which though they may be indefensible from a scientific viewpoint get their point across. Does that corrupt the point that is being made? I would say not or not necessarily so because the intellectual import still remains. I associate the alata cakra illustration with the Buddhist view of personal identity. What appears to be personal identity/the circle is merely a series of impermanent states that we project identity/circularity onto. Sankaracarya rejects this idea by using the satkaryavada theory of the non-difference of cause and effect. Cf.B.S.B. II.i.18 Best Wishes, Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Dennis - PraNAms First I do not see any problem with the example and its application to Vedanta - In fact I must say, I find it as beautiful example of perception of the world as continuous patterns just as the perception of patterns by quick movement of alAta or firebrand. Only the cause for apparent continuity is different for the two - nevertheless the perception of the continuity is what is compared. For the perception of patterns from the quick movement of firebrand, the cause for continuity arises due to the frames that perceived are faster than the chemical processes and signal transport involved. Eye is not being a snap camera to take discrete shots, and there is overlap of the signal to give us continue giving rise to persistent vision. There are theories to explain these, but they remain as theories only. But the essence is continuity is established due to slowness in the signal input via optical signal processing in comparison to the input from the light from burning firebrand. One can make the explanation more sophisticated but the essence is the same. From the point of perception in the mind of the world - it is gain through somewhat similar signal processing only via neural network - when VRitti or thought is formed it is similar to one shot of the current position - when the next vRitti forms either of the same scene or altered seen the VRitti that is formed gets overlapped with the previous one giving us the concept of time and space and the movement of the world. We have two VRittis now and then giving the movement of time as well as space in the mind. This is exactly what I discussed in the 2nd or 3rd post in the knowledge series. The secret of japa yoga is to provide the same vRitti or thought with a gap in between to see or recognize the substantive consciousness because of which one is conscious of the japa as well as the gap in between. Patterns are different due to the designer who is moving the firebrand - in the case of the world - it is Iswara moving based on Karma - the pattern keep changing continuously creating the vision of past-present and projected future and the world around. When the mind goes to deep sleep - there is no vRitti leave alone their overlap - we fold the space and time too. It is as though the firebrand is frozen or put out for the time being or more correctly one is closing the eyes. The analogy is so perfect - I was overwhelmed when I studied it for the first time. It is true that some of the examples have limited application to illustrate a particular analogy. The best of course is what nature itself provides the dream example, for exact analogy in many respects. Vedanta is scientific, but the truth is beyond logic, even in science too. I do not see any conflicts. I do not that modern science and Vedanta are incompatible - It is in fact the other way. That is my view. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Tue, 12/30/08, 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 Namaste Dennis-ji. A metaphor is a metaphor and, in the context of explaining the Absolute, it, like any other metaphor or analogy, like rope-snake, gold-ornaments etc., has certain limitations. Then why discard it as long as it is very effective in knowledgeable hands and with sharp minds? You are describing the world as 'consciousness in motion'. Well, there is a consciousness apprehending the 'consciousness in motion' to which the organ of visual perception as well as the mechanism of visual perception are apprehensible. The rantings of science can never reach It because it is miserably yelling out all the time from within It thinking that it has seen Truth in the constantly shifting shadows. I believe I understood your question. Best regards. Madathil Nair _________________ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 31, 2008 Report Share Posted December 31, 2008 > --- On Tue, 12/30/08, 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. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Dennis - PraNAms > > Vedanta is scientific, but the truth is beyond logic, even in science too. I do not see any conflicts. I do not that modern science and Vedanta are incompatible - It is in fact the other way. > > That is my view. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda Namaste Dennisji and Sri Sadanandaji, I remember once Swami Dayanandaji was speaking about the scientific process which endeavors to break to all phenomena into molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. Then Swamiji said, " One step further and we have Vedanta. " It seems that scientists, when seeking to find the 'smallest particle of matter,' cannot make the leap to Vedanta. It seems that for most scientists matter must always as exist as matter, exist as some object to be perceived, (which may be what Dennisji is pointing out.) This is interesting to contemplate and points to something which the teachings tell us, that we have no means of knowledge available to us from within duality to arrive at nonduality, except for a given, or revealed, pramana. Self-knowledge cannot be arrived at from within the bounds of duality without pramana, because what pramana points out is not something dual, not an object, not available for sense perception, or any of the usual means of knowledge which we use, and yet the truth is entirely here to be known. (I know this is very basic Vedanta, but I find it useful to think and talk about) So, I don't think that Vedanta and science are in any way incompatible, I find that Vedanta is entirely compatible with science, in that it is in itself a scientific analysis, but we need to bring in another pramana (the pramana given to us through the Upanishada)to point us to the truth. My teacher has said that we cannot arrive at the existence of paramatma through our 'usual' means of logic alone, but using the logic supplied by Vedanta pramana, we can, and once recognized, logic entirely supports what we now know to be true. Pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 --- On Wed, 12/31/08, Durga <durgaji108 wrote: I remember once Swami Dayanandaji was speaking about the scientific process which endeavors to break to all phenomena into molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. Then Swamiji said, " One step further and we have Vedanta. " ----------- Yes Durgaji - only problem is you can go one step at a time further but there cannot be ultimate step in objective science - Now people are taking about dark matter and dark energy. Vedanta say ultimately Brahman is the substantive for the universe - Hence fundamental particle that is inert that is discovered will be final. As long as subject and object are separated there is no final answer in the objective science. Scientists are also trying to analyze 'consciousness' - but the very analysis makes not conscious - since any objectification of consciousness makes it as unconscious entity. Hence Vedanta says subject cannot be analyzed as object - yat adreshyam agraahyam agotram ... says Mundaka - that which cannot be 'seen' or grasped by any instruments etc is Brahmnan that is the substantive of the universe as well as that of the subject who is analyzing the universe. dRik dRisya viveka is required to recognize what is fundamental and what is changing. But within vyavahaara, one can operate and investigate science knowing very well that is not final. This I call as no swaruupa lakshaNa for any object in the world which is an assemblage of the objects. That is the reason I mentioned sometime back questioning about the claims that they are going to find fundamental matter using new accelerator that is suppose to run next year - (2009 has not yet come here in state!) Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > The rantings of science can never reach It because it is miserably > yelling out all the time from within It thinking that it has seen > Truth in the constantly shifting shadows. > > I believe I understood your question. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair Namaste! I think there is a fundamental limitation in scientific thinking today - that consciousness is a product of matter. IMHO, unless this view is discarded, science will not approach vedanta. In this connection, I found this articles interesting: http://www.peterrussell.com/SCG/EoC.php http://www.peterrussell.com/SP/PrimConsc.php Harih Om! Neelakantan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2009 Report Share Posted January 1, 2009 Namaste Neelakantan-ji. That is like asking science to discard itself by committing hara- kiri, which is never going to happen! Best regards. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin , " Neelakantan " <pneelaka wrote: > > I think there is a fundamental limitation in scientific thinking today > - that consciousness is a product of matter. IMHO, unless this view is > discarded, science will not approach vedanta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote: In advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:> > > --- On Tue, 12/30/08, 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. > > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda > <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > > Dennis - PraNAms > > > > Vedanta is scientific, but the truth is beyond logic, even in > science too. I do not see any conflicts. I do not that > modern science and Vedanta are incompatible - It is in fact the other way. Respected members, Science deals with things that appear within the manifestitation. Vedanta deals with that vastu which is PRIOR to manifestation. The fields of enquiry lie in opposite directions. Science deals with the OBSERVED which is time-space bound whereas Vedanta deals with the OBSERVER who transcends time and space. Let us not forget this funadamental fact. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.