Guest guest Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Dear all, A body burned on a funeral pyre is reduced to ashes, therefore such a body is clearly not eternal. Therefore how can mortal matter be the eternal Brahman? If matter is not Brahman, then Brahman is not everything but there is something outside Brahman. Is matter Brahman? Any ideas? Thank you Ju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Hi Ju-ji, Matter is mithyA – see the definitions at http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA.htm and http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/definitions/mithyA2.htm. It is neither real nor unreal (sat-asat-vilakShaNa); its essence is brahman only; it is merely name and form of this. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of ju_r1 Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:33 PM advaitin Matter Dear all, A body burned on a funeral pyre is reduced to ashes, therefore such a body is clearly not eternal. Therefore how can mortal matter be the eternal Brahman? If matter is not Brahman, then Brahman is not everything but there is something outside Brahman. Is matter Brahman? Any ideas? Thank you Ju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2009 Report Share Posted March 8, 2009 Thank you to Dennis for your reply. Can anyone please give me an example of where Shankara uses 'Sat-Asat-Vilakshana'? Does this mean that matter is neither eternal nor not eternal, or is it just not eternal?thanksJuDennis Waite <dwaiteadvaitin Sent: Sunday, March 8, 2009 7:11:32 PMRE: Matter Hi Ju-ji, Matter is mithyA – see the definitions at http://www.advaita. org.uk/discourse s/definitions/ mithyA.htm and http://www.advaita. org.uk/discourse s/definitions/ mithyA2.htm. It is neither real nor unreal (sat-asat-vilakShaN a); its essence is brahman only; it is merely name and form of this. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin@ s.com [advaitin] On Behalf Of ju_r1 Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:33 PM advaitin@ s.com Matter Dear all, A body burned on a funeral pyre is reduced to ashes, therefore such a body is clearly not eternal. Therefore how can mortal matter be the eternal Brahman? If matter is not Brahman, then Brahman is not everything but there is something outside Brahman. Is matter Brahman? Any ideas? Thank you Ju Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Dear All, is Matter Brahmin?This is a common doubt to many of us.But we must also know that Matter is also not in one form it changes from one form to another due to difference in temparature(solid,liquid and a gas)we can change its states.that does not mean that it is does not exists.it is only a transformation.similarly matter can be changed into energy according to Einsteins Mass enery relation E=mc.c.we all know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.so that which mas no birth or death(creation or destruction)must be Brahmin by definition. so matter also must be Brahmin.How can we expect the existance of anything other than brahmin. Sd/Sastry > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 PraNAms to all Matter, does not matter in form it exists that includes the energy form, is all inert. Brahman is pure consciousness - there is no inertness in Brahman. Hence matter has existence only at transactional level and is mithyaa - neither non-existent nor existent all the time. It has borrowed existence coming from Brahman. To understand these intricacies only we need to look carefully the dream world of creation where for a dreamer the matter that he sees is real and tangible as long as he is in the dream state. One can get hurt in dream if someone hits him hard with a stick or stone for which he has to go hospital in the dream and get dream medicines to cure. Hence reality is valid within the dream - only when awakened to the higher state of consciousness one recognizes that the so-called real matter is no more real - sa kaale satyavad bhaati, prabhode satyasat bhavet - says Shankara in Atmabodha - as long as dream lasts everything is 'as though' real and its unreality is recognized only when one is awakened to the higher state of reality. Carpet is real, until I pull all the fibers out- Now there is no carpet but bunch of fibers. Fibers are more real until I pull all the polymer chains out - polymer chains are more real than the fibers. Similarly molecules are more real than the chains and atoms are more real than the molecules; electron-protons-neutrons are more real than atoms - the jury is still out. What is real in all these is only the one analyzing these- the conscious entity - Without his presence, existence of none of them can be established. Ultimately he alone is real since he is the one who is waker, dreamer and deep sleeper and yet independent of any of the three states - states MunDaka Up. Hence Matter is Brahman but Brahman is not matter. Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is Brahman - neha naanaasti kincana - three is nothing other than Brahman. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Mon, 3/9/09, bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote: Dear All, is Matter Brahmin?This is a common doubt to many of us.But we must also know that Matter is also not in one form it changes from one form to another due to difference in temparature( solid,liquid and a gas)we can change its states.that does not mean that it is does not exists.it is only a transformation. similarly matter can be changed into energy according to Einsteins Mass enery relation E=mc.c.we all know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.so that which mas no birth or death(creation or destruction) must be Brahmin by definition. so matter also must be Brahmin.How can we expect the existance of anything other than brahmin. Sd/Sastry > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 Thanks to all for replies. Have I understood this correctly... Brahman is conscious and eternal; matter is neither conscious nor eternal, therefore matter cannot be Brahman. But matter comes from Brahman, therefore matter is also not not-Brahman. In the analogy of the dream, the dream images are not fully real, but the fact that there are any images at all (rather than nothing) is due to the dreamer (the conscious being who can dream), which is Brahman. Therefore the dream images are not the same as the dreamer but their limited existence is due to the 'greater' existence of the dreamer. Or here is another analogy. The hair on my head is unconscious matter. Therefore this hair is not me, the conscious being. However the hair grows out of me and is dependent on me for its existence, therefore it is not other than me. Therefore matter is neither real in the way that Brahman is real, nor is it non-existent, but has some kind of intermediate existence. thanks Ju advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > PraNAms to all > > Matter, does not matter in form it exists that includes the energy form, is all inert. > > Brahman is pure consciousness - there is no inertness in Brahman. > Hence matter has existence only at transactional level and is mithyaa - neither non-existent nor existent all the time. It has borrowed existence coming from Brahman. > > To understand these intricacies only we need to look carefully the dream world of creation where for a dreamer the matter that he sees is real and tangible as long as he is in the dream state. One can get hurt in dream if someone hits him hard with a stick or stone for which he has to go hospital in the dream and get dream medicines to cure. Hence reality is valid within the dream - only when awakened to the higher state of consciousness one recognizes that the so-called real matter is no more real - sa kaale satyavad bhaati, prabhode satyasat bhavet - says Shankara in Atmabodha - as long as dream lasts everything is 'as though' real and its unreality is recognized only when one is awakened to the higher state of reality. > > Carpet is real, until I pull all the fibers out- Now there is no carpet but bunch of fibers. Fibers are more real until I pull all the polymer chains out - polymer chains are more real than the fibers. Similarly molecules are more real than the chains and atoms are more real than the molecules; electron-protons-neutrons are more real than atoms - the jury is still out. What is real in all these is only the one analyzing these- the conscious entity - Without his presence, existence of none of them can be established. Ultimately he alone is real since he is the one who is waker, dreamer and deep sleeper and yet independent of any of the three states - states MunDaka Up. > > Hence Matter is Brahman but Brahman is not matter. Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is Brahman - neha naanaasti kincana - three is nothing other than Brahman. > > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > > > --- On Mon, 3/9/09, bagawan_sastry <bagawan_sastry wrote: > > > Dear All, > is Matter Brahmin?This is a common doubt to many of us.But we must also know that Matter is also not in one form it changes from one > form to another due to difference in temparature( solid,liquid and a gas)we can change its states.that does not mean that it is does not exists.it is only a transformation. similarly matter can be changed into energy according to Einsteins Mass enery relation E=mc.c.we all know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed.so that which mas no birth or death(creation or destruction) must be Brahmin by definition. > so matter also must be Brahmin.How can we expect the existance of anything other than brahmin. > Sd/Sastry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2009 Report Share Posted March 9, 2009 --- On Mon, 3/9/09, ju_r1 <ju_r1 wrote: Thanks to all for replies. Have I understood this correctly... Brahman is conscious and eternal; matter is neither conscious nor eternal, therefore matter cannot be Brahman. But matter comes from Brahman, therefore matter is also not not-Brahman. In the analogy of the dream, the dream images are not fully real, but the fact that there are any images at all (rather than nothing) is due to the dreamer (the conscious being who can dream), which is Brahman. ------------ JurI PraNams - I would be careful to say that dream images are not fully real- who says that? A dreamer or a waker? Dreamer will never say that dream world is not real. The hurt he got when someone hit him was real and he had to rush to the hospital for get a bandage or admitted into the hospital in the dream. The reality of the dream is dismissed only when he is awake and found himself sleeping comfortably in his bedroom than in the hospital bed. The analogy is exact. Until one realizes that the substantive of myself, the world and Iswara is Brahman, the pure consciousness, the world is real and the matter is real. The world is real, matter is real as long as we are in the real of transactional reality. The unreality of the world becomes known only with the knowledge that everything is nothing but Brahman. Then the world 'as though' reduces to just names and forms - just as once I recognize everything is nothing but electrons-protons and neutrons - the world is reduces to just names and forms with different packing of the same substantives. I can still transact differentiating food vs garbage knowing very well substantively they are all the same- only packings are differnt giving different attributives for each packing. It is as simple as that - we get carried away with names and forms as real forgetting the substantive of the world - and scripture says - the substantive is nothing but Brahman - Which we need to recognize by inquiry. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2009 Report Share Posted March 17, 2009 Dear all, Have I got this right... Name and form (= body, personality) is neither identical with Brahman nor other than Brahman. The essence of a person = atman (= consciousness??) is identical with Brahman. There is no duality between Brahman and name and form because while name and form is not identical with Brahman, neither is it other than Brahman. thanks Ju advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > It is as simple as that - we get carried away with names and forms as real forgetting the substantive of the world - and scripture says - the substantive is nothing but Brahman - Which we need to recognize by inquiry. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Dear all, Have I got this right concerning Shankara... Name and form (body, mind, personality etc) are not identical with Brahman but neither are they other than Brahman. The essence of the person, atman (= consciousness, or that which animates the person??), is (unlike name and form) identical with Brahman. thank you Ju advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > It is as simple as that - we get carried away with names and forms as real forgetting the substantive of the world - and scripture says - the substantive is nothing but Brahman - Which we need to recognize by inquiry. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 advaitin , " ju_r1 " <ju_r1 wrote: > > Dear all, > > Have I got this right... > > > Name and form (= body, personality) is neither identical with Brahman nor other than Brahman. The essence of a person = atman (= consciousness??) is identical with Brahman. > > There is no duality between Brahman and name and form because while name and form is not identical with Brahman, neither is it other than Brahman. > > > thanks > > Ju The first para above is absolutely coorrect. Name and form are only mAyA, which is neither identical with brahman nor different from it. The AtmA is nothing but brahman. v In the second para you seem to be only repeating what you have said in the first para. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Namaste. The word 'identical' can never be used in relation to Brahman, not because Brahman is something really unique but simply because there can't be anything aside from Brahman to compare It with. The Vedantic statement is " All this is Brahman " . Thus, the rose is Brahman, the star is Brahman and the ant too is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the rose, star and ant in the sense of names and forms. Madathil Nair _______________ advaitin , " ju_r1 " <ju_r1 wrote: > Have I got this right... > > > Name and form (= body, personality) is neither identical with Brahman nor other than Brahman. The essence of a person = atman (= consciousness??) is identical with Brahman. > > There is no duality between Brahman and name and form because while name and form is not identical with Brahman, neither is it other than Brahman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 So, Brahman is pure consciousness but is not inert. However anything inert (matter) owes its existence to brahman - meaning, without a conscious entity, its existence cannot be established. There is still one doubt: I am living and so can establish a black car that I own. I die tomorrow and cannot establish the existence of that car. But however, it continues to exist to others who use the car in the family (those who can establish because of their being conscious). Is'nt this a common experience of ours?. The world does exist as always as matter in different ways at different times - why then matter is not brahman also? What then is the meaning of " Brahman is both intelligent and material cause " ? - vish ===================== Posted through Grouply, the better way to access your like this one. http://www.grouply.com/?code=post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Namaste. Thank you for replies. With the statement 'all this is Brahman' does this mean that all is equally Brahman or is name and form Brahman in a lesser way to the way that consciousness is Brahman? Am I correct that consciousness is not name and form but is Brahman immediately or without qualification, whereas the body, the mind etc is name and form, which is Brahman in the qualified sense of 'not Brahman, but not other than Brahman'? Can I say for example that the ant's essence or atman is not his mouth, legs etc but his consciousness, and that therefore the ant's consciousness is Brahman in a more direct / immediate way than his legs etc are Brahman? thank you Ju advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste. > > The word 'identical' can never be used in relation to Brahman, not because Brahman is something really unique but simply because there can't be anything aside from Brahman to compare It with. > > The Vedantic statement is " All this is Brahman " . Thus, the rose is Brahman, the star is Brahman and the ant too is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the rose, star and ant in the sense of names and forms. > > Madathil Nair > _______________ > Re: Matter advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote: > > advaitin , " ju_r1 " <ju_r1@> wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Have I got this right... > > > > > > Name and form (= body, personality) is neither identical with Brahman nor other than Brahman. The essence of a person = atman (= consciousness??) is identical with Brahman. > > > > There is no duality between Brahman and name and form because while name and form is not identical with Brahman, neither is it other than Brahman. > > > > > > thanks > > > > Ju > > The first para above is absolutely coorrect. Name and form are only mAyA, which is neither identical with brahman nor different from it. The AtmA is nothing but brahman. v > In the second para you seem to be only repeating what you have said in the first para. > Best wishes, > S.N.Sastri > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that the one Brahman alone puts on all names, forms and does all actions in its own Being. Thus the whole universe is to be understood as a sport of the one Absolute which seems to play in Itself by revealing Itself in multifarious forms. Pranams Ramesh --- On Wed, 3/18/09, ju_r1 <ju_r1 wrote: ju_r1 <ju_r1 Re: Matteradvaitin Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 4:33 PM Namaste.Thank you for replies. With the statement 'all this is Brahman' does this mean that all is equally Brahman or is name and form Brahman in a lesser way to the way that consciousness is Brahman? Am I correct that consciousness is not name and form but is Brahman immediately or without qualification, whereas the body, the mind etc is name and form, which is Brahman in the qualified sense of 'not Brahman, but not other than Brahman'? Can I say for example that the ant's essence or atman is not his mouth, legs etc but his consciousness, and that therefore the ant's consciousness is Brahman in a more direct / immediate way than his legs etc are Brahman?thank youJuadvaitin@ s.com, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair@ ....> wrote:>> Namaste.> > The word 'identical' can never be used in relation to Brahman, not because Brahman is something really unique but simply because there can't be anything aside from Brahman to compare It with.> > The Vedantic statement is "All this is Brahman". Thus, the rose is Brahman, the star is Brahman and the ant too is Brahman. But, Brahman is not the rose, star and ant in the sense of names and forms.> > Madathil Nair> ____________ ___> Re: Matteradvaitin@ s.com, "snsastri" <sn.sastri@. ..> wrote:>> advaitin@ s.com, "ju_r1" <ju_r1@> wrote:> >> > Dear all,> > > > Have I got this right...> > > > > > Name and form (= body, personality) is neither identical with Brahman nor other than Brahman. The essence of a person = atman (= consciousness? ?) is identical with Brahman. > > > > There is no duality between Brahman and name and form because while name and form is not identical with Brahman, neither is it other than Brahman.> > > > > > thanks> > > > Ju> > The first para above is absolutely coorrect. Name and form are only mAyA, which is neither identical with brahman nor different from it. The AtmA is nothing but brahman. v> In the second para you seem to be only repeating what you have said in the first para. > Best wishes,> S.N.Sastri> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Dear Vish , The so-called inert things are not really physically inert ..When everything is contained in Brahman , how can anything whether " inert " or " living " be excluded from Brahman ? This is what a physicist has to say : In the 1930s Einstein (and Podolsky and Rosen) refuted Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle that said, in part, that quantum events must occur locally within the space-time continuum. In the 1980s John Bell and Alain Aspect proved Einstein right. In what is called the Proof of Bell's Theorem, two photons from the valence electron of a calcium ion are emitted with opposite polarities. Using a polarization filter, Alain Aspect flipped the polarity of one of the photons and monitored the paired photon. At that same instant the paired photon spontaneously flipped its polarity to maintain coherency. How did it know to do that? And how did one photon communicate with its partner in no elapsed time? Physicists call this a "non-local" effect. Ten years later, four different physicists (Capra, Zukav, Goswami and Herbert) published books on this event and suggested that consciousness is the universal (non-local, transcendent) field that is not bound to the space-time continuum. They further suggest that consciousness is the groundstate from which all energy and matter arise, so that ultimately all matter and energy is not different than consciousness itself. This is how the paired electrons know to maintain coherent polarity: they are simply vectors of consciousness itself. Now; can inert matter be conscious? How can it not be conscious? That is its nature ! Pranams Ramesh --- On Wed, 3/18/09, vish_ramabhatta <vish_ramabhatta wrote: vish_ramabhatta <vish_ramabhatta Re: Matteradvaitin Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 3:31 PM So, Brahman is pure consciousness but is not inert. However anythinginert (matter) owes its existence to brahman - meaning, without aconscious entity, its existence cannot be established. There is stillone doubt: I am living and so can establish a black car that I own. Idie tomorrow and cannot establish the existence of that car. Buthowever, it continues to exist to others who use the car in the family(those who can establish because of their being conscious). Is'nt thisa common experience of ours?. The world does exist as always as matterin different ways at different times - why then matter is not brahmanalso? What then is the meaning of "Brahman is both intelligent andmaterial cause"?- vish============ =========Posted through Grouply, the better wayto access your like this one.http://www.grouply. com/?code= post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 18, 2009 Report Share Posted March 18, 2009 Vish - PraNAms  You have raised an important question. Your statement that without a conscious entity the existence of an object and thus the world cannot be established.- that is fundamental. The next statement - the world continuous to exist for others - should be examined in the light of the above statement. First let us ask - how would I know that world continuous to exist after I die, and even further the others exist after I die? You may say that you see that others are dying and still see that the world continue to exist after their death - But that seeing others dying and seeing the world existing are all because I, the conscious-existent entity, present to see and be conscious of – is it not? I die everyday as go from waking state to dream state and deep sleep state - where are the others in my dream and deep sleep? Is it not the existence of others established only because I am the conscious and existent entity - without 'I' present, can you establish the other (that includes both so-called conscious and inert entities), even dying and the world surviving after their death? Hence 'I am' - is the only conscious-existent entity in the world - This is the essence of ManDukya Upanishad. Hari Om! Sadananda  ----------------------- There is stillone doubt: I am living and so can establish a black car that I own. I die tomorrow and cannot establish the existence of that car. But however, it continues to exist to others who use the car in the family (those who can establish because of their being conscious). Is'nt this a common experience of ours?. The world does exist as always as matter in different ways at different times - why then matter is not brahman also? What then is the meaning of " Brahman is both intelligent and material cause " ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Namaste, advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Vish - PraNAms >  > You have raised an important question. > > Your statement that without a conscious entity the existence of an object and thus the world cannot be established.- that is fundamental. > > The next statement - the world continuous to exist for others - should be examined in the light of the above statement. First let us ask - how would I know that world continuous to exist after I die, and even further the others exist after I die? You may say that you see that others are dying and still see that the world continue to exist after their death - But that seeing others dying and seeing the world existing are all because I, the conscious-existent entity, present to see and be conscious of †" is it not? I die everyday as go from waking state to dream state and deep sleep state - where are the others in my dream and deep sleep? > > Is it not the existence of others established only because I am the conscious and existent entity - without 'I' present, can you establish the other (that includes both so-called conscious and inert entities), even dying and the world surviving after their death? Such would be illogical to hold, for no proof of existence of any object first brings the object into existence and then proves it. " Proof-of-Existence-of-Objects " is quite different from " Existence-of-Objects " itself. While former requires later + a sentient entity, later does not require either former or the a sentient entity. Otherwise we have a case of anvasta (infinite regress) here. How? Proof-of-existence (of any object) itself must " exist " first in order to establish anything. If so, then according to claimed docrine, such existence of the proof can not be established unless we have yet another sentient establihing the proof for the first proof. Again for the second proof, we need third sentient...hence anavsta. Regards, Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 > Proof of Bell's Theorem, two photons from the valence electron of a calcium ion are emitted with opposite polarities. Using a polarization filter, Alain Aspect flipped the polarity of one of the photons and monitored the paired photon. At that same instant the paired photon spontaneously flipped its polarity to maintain coherency. How did it know to do that? And how did one photon communicate with its partner in no elapsed time? Physicists call this a " non-local " effect. > Now; can inert matter be conscious? How can it not be conscious? That is its nature ! Well put, Rameshji. I certainly find that science explains what happens in Maya/Mithya well, and it can answer many questions. But those aspects which it can't address are well-answered by mysticism/Advaita. The great discoverers of quantum physics, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Planck, Pauli, etc. were all mystics, and Schroedinger wrote explicitly about Brahman and Maya. It sometimes seems unfortunate that science/physics and religion/non-duality are seen as incompatible when those most familiar with both see that they are not and instead complement/fulfill one another. But, that seems part of the hide-and-seek of Lila. Lema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 My friend, Honestly, I couldn't understand your message. However, I am getting a feeling that you are trying to contain a big inflated balloon within your palm. No wonder, therefore, you have unending doubts. I would like to look at the issue from a different angle, which I have presented here many times before. When you say `the ant is', what is implied is that `you KNOW that the ant is'. Now, please go to a scenario where all living things in this universe, which are sentient, have been totally destroyed. What will remain? The obvious answer would be a barren universe of matter and energy. We don't normally think about the implications of such an answer. Can such hell of a lot of matter and energy exist without there being an intelligence to appreciate (KNOW) their so-called existence? No. They can't. So, for anything to be there, an appreciating intelligence is a must. Even in a scenario of the whole remaining universe of matter and energy totally getting obliterated, an intelligence would be needed to appreciate the existence of the remaining `nothingness'. That intelligence is the Consciousness of Advaita, which is Brahman and you are That. The two mahAvAkyAs, prajnAnam brahma and tat-twam-asi, tell you exactly that. Now we can sum up the situation as: Consciousness is or You are, the Universe of diversity is or all names and forms are. Thus names and forms have no independent existence apart from Consciousness, which You are. They are verily in Consciousness and that Consciousness should be one without a second as otherwise we would land in a non-situation of infinite regress. A one-without-a-second cannot have a beyond. Something without a beyond cannot have an inside or parts. It has to be homogeneous. How can something homogenous have parts such as a Universe of names and forms inside it? That is impossible. Thus, we are bound to conclude that there is an error in our understanding and experience. A universe of infinite variety as we encounter simply cannot be. The creation that we see is just an error or rather seeming. In fact, in reality, no creation of names and forms has ever taken place at all. There is only Consciousness (Brahman) or everything is Brahman and That You are without a second. You are the knower-knowing-known fused into One without any scope for divisions. You are the ALL there is. If you find this understanding plausible, please contemplate on it and try to apply it to the so many questions vexing you. You may then not have to tear the poor ant apart. Madathil Nair ____________________ advaitin , " ju_r1 " <ju_r1 wrote: > With the statement 'all this is Brahman' does this mean that all is equally Brahman or is name and form Brahman in a lesser way to the way that consciousness is Brahman? Am I correct that consciousness is not name and form but is Brahman immediately or without qualification, whereas the body, the mind etc is name and form, which is Brahman in the qualified sense of 'not Brahman, but not other than Brahman'? > > Can I say for example that the ant's essence or atman is not his mouth, legs etc but his consciousness, and that therefore the ant's consciousness is Brahman in a more direct / immediate way than his legs etc are Brahman? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Dear Lema , The article below may be of interest to you .. Best Wishes Ramesh Physics And Vedanta By John Dobson Physics And Vedanta Copyright 2002 John Dobson "The constitution of the Universe may be put in first place among all natural things that can be known." - Galileo That, of course, is the task of the physicist, to see if he can figure out the constitution of the Universe. And I went to the University of California in 1934 to study bio-chemistry in the hope of keeping Einstein alive, so the he could figure it out. But I now believe that it is impossible to figure it out without the help of the Vedantins. What we now call the philosophy of Vedanta (and I don't mean the practice, but the philosophy behind the practice of what we call Advaita Vedanta) was apparently invented by some very sharp physicists in India a long time ago, because a great deal of that old physics, including the identity of mass and energy (which, in modern times, went from Swami Vivekananda through Tesla to Mileve Einstein) is built into the Sanskrit language, and the language is very old. And those physicists discovered some very interesting and important physics, which we desperately need now if we're going to figure this thing out. The Sanskrit word for this Universe if Jagat, the changing. But those old physicists were smart enough to see that, since change is seen against the changeless, there must be, underlying this changing Universe, an existence not in time and space, and therefore, neither changing, finite, not divided. That they called Brahman. The problem then arose, "How, then, do we see change? If what exists is changeless, how do we see a Universe of change?" and they said, "It can only be by mistake." So they studied mistakes, if they hadn't studied mistakes, they might not have seen it. They pointed out that in order to mistake a rope for a snake, there are three things that one must do. First, one must fail to see that it's a rope. (That they called the veiling power of the mistake, Avarana Shakti.) Next, one must jump to the conclusion that it's a snake. (That they called the projecting power of the mistake, Vikshepa Shakti.) And finally, one must have seen the length and diameter of a snake. (That they called the revealing power of the mistake, Prakasha Shakti.) And that is what is so very important to our physics. It is because of the revealing power, the changeless, the infinite, the undivided must show in the physics. Those old physicists sometimes referred to these three aspects of a misperception as red, white, and black. Black refers to the darkness of evening twilight; white, to the partial light of twilight (if you hadn't seen the rope, you never would have mistaken it for a snake), and red, to the fact that the perception was colored by imagination. They also referred to these three aspects as the three Gunas (Tamas, Raja, and Sattva). The mistake of seeing the underlying existence in time and space they called Maya or Prakriti, the first cause, and it is said to made of these three Gunas. Tamas is said to have the veiling power. Rajas is said to have the projecting power. And Sattva is said to have the revealing power. (The veiling and projecting powers are presumably native to the genetic programming, but the revealing power, which is important to our physics, is native to sentiency itself.) To quote the Panchamahabhuta Sutras, "As if, being hidden, through the veiling power of Tamas, the nature of Brahman, through the revealing power of Sattva, shone in the otherness for which, through the projecting power of Rajas, it is, as it were, mistaken." What we see as energy is the result of this mistake, because the underlying existence (the changeless, the infinite, the undivided) must show through in what we see. The concept of energy did not arise in European physics till 1845 with Thomas Young, but htose older physicists saw that the whole Universe is made out of energy, which they called Shakti. According to them, energy is that underlying existence, which they called Brahman, as seen in time and space. And they could see that the underlying existence has to be changeless, has to be infinite, has to be undivided, and that it has to show through in our physics. According to the Vedantins, the first cause of our physics is Vivarta, apparition. It is the mistake of seeing the underlying existence as in time and space. After that, things proceed by Parinama, transformational causation, because the underlying existence shows through in the mistake as energy, as gravity, electricity and inertia, which cause the transformations. Parinama is what we European physicists usually think of as causation. It is governed by the conservation laws. The form of the energy may change but the amount of energy, in any change, does not change. The electrical energy of an electrical particle would go to zero if, and only if, the size of that particle went to infinity, and the gravitational energy of the Universe would go to zero if, and only if, the dividedness of the Universe went to zero. (Infinity and undividedness are written into our physics. And changelessness is written in as inertia.) Had those old physicists known what we know now, that the Universe is made of hydrogen and that the hydrogen is made of electrons and proton, they would have seen that the changeless shows through in the hydrogen as its inertia; the infinite, as its electricity; and the undivided, as its gravity and attraction between opposites. Richard Feynman has pointed out that although we (in Europe) know how things fall, we have kno knowledge of why they fall, and that although we know how things coast, we have no knowledge of things coast, we have no knowledge of why they coast. And Einstein has made a similar remark about electricity, namely, that we cannot comprehend, on theoretical grounds, why matter should appear as discrete electrical particles. Those older physicists knew why. Only the primordial hydrogen arises by Vivarta from the changeless, the infinite, the undivided showing through in time and space. Everything else that we see arises from that hydrogen by Parinama. And the details are in Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler and Hoyle, "Synthesis of the Elements in Stars." We know now that the hydrogen falls together by transformational causation to galaxies and stars, planets, and people. Even the bodies of living organisms arise by transformational causation, but the notion that one is such a body is, again, a Vivarta, a personal mistake. The practices of the Advaita Vedantins take all this old physics for granted. It is even taken for granted that there is but one reality behind both the individual and the Universe, Ayam Atma Brahma, this Atman is Brahman. (Atman is the reality behind the ego, and Brahman is the reality behind the Universe.) And it is taken for granted that if seeing it thus is a mistake, it must be possible to see through it; that it must be possible to see through the ego to the Atman, and through the Universe to Brahman. Now those old Vedantins were not content simply to understand all this in their intellects. When they discovered that there must be an existence underlying the world which we see, their question was, "Can we teach it?" That was the effort that swept India in those days, and may yet sweep Europe and America. And that is why we have the Upanishads with all those stirring declarations. "All this Brahman. Let a man meditate on that visible world as beginning, ending and breathing in it, the Brahman." "Not there the Sun shines, nor moon nor star. There the lightning does not flash, how could this fire? That shining, after-shines all this. By its light all this is lit." "That which is beyond this world is without form and without suffering. Those who know it become immortal." "I know that great Purusha of sun-like luster beyond the darkness. A man who knows Him truly passes over death. There is no other path to go." "Only when men shall roll up the sky like a hide will there be an end of misery unless That has first been known." "The infinite alone is happiness. There is no happiness in the small." But still, for us physicists, there is a question. Why is that underlying existence seen as hydrogen? Perhaps those older physicists would have pointed out that in order to see, in space and time, that which is not in space and time there is a problem. If the one were to be seen as two, the undividedness showing through, would bring the two together. What could stop it? Similarly, if the one were to be seen as many, the undivivedness, showing through, would bring the manyness together. But if the one were to been as a duality within a plurality, as we see it in hydrogen, then the plurality could keep the duality up, and the duality could keep the plurality up, because neither can be seen alone. This would not be interesting, of course, if it didn't show up this way in our physics, but it does. What we see in this Universe is an electrical duality (the electrons and the protons of the hydrogen atoms) against a gravitational plurality (the dispersion of the atoms through space). And the undividedness shows through as gravity (in the plurality) and as the attraction between plus and minus (in the duality). But the collapse of the electrical duality in the hydrogen atom is prevented by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, because the proton is involved in the gravitational plurality and the electron is not. And the collapse of the gravitational plurality is prevented by Pauli's exclusion principle, because the neutrons have only one half of a spin duality. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not prevent the collapse of the duality of the electron and the positron (an electron with a positive charge) because gravity is not involved in the rest energy of either particle. But it does prevent the collapse of the electrical duality in the hydrogen atom because the rest energy of the proton is related to its gravitational separation from all the rest of the matter in the observable Universe. As Richard Feynman has pointed out, "The electron is purely 'electrical' the proton is not." And Pauli's exclusion principle does not prevent Bose particles (without the spin duality) from sitting together. The spiritual practices of the Advaita Vedantins follow the cosmology of those old physicists. If we have mistaken the real for the make believe, there are four things to do about it. First, discriminate between the real and the make believe! Next, give up the make believe! Give up the attachment to the fruits of your actions! Give up the expectation that through transformational causation you'll reach the underlying existence! That's Karma Yoga, the path of action. And finally, keep your body and mind in such fantastic shape that you can get the job done! That's called Raja Yoga, the royal path. Sri Ramakrishna saw the underlying existence, manifest in time and space, as Mother, and said that we are not the doers. Mother is the doer. And Lao Tzu said, "To Her only I bow, trusting Her now and forever." If it were impossible to see through this mistake to the underlying existence, we would not have the Upanishads and the lives of the saints. Mother is the hydrogen. Mother is the star. She fall it all together to make us what we are. She makes the heavy elements and throws them to the ground. To make the rocky planets with soil on the ground. She scatters the ingredients across the planet Earth. Assembling them with sunlight to give us all our birth. She shines the sun on all these plants; the oxygen is waste. We munch the plants, and huff and puff, and run around in haste. But we, poor dears, so mean of heart, assume we're in the know, And thinking we can manage, fail to see Who runs the show. If, in time and space, the changeless didn't show through, we wouldn't have inertia. If the infinite didn't show through, we wouldn't have electricity. And if the undivided didn't show through, we wouldn't have gravity and the attraction between opposites. Also, if the duality didn't keep up the plurality, we wouldn't have the atomic table. And if the plurality didn't keep up the duality, we wouldn't have atoms at all. That's how I see it. "Space is not that which separates the many, but that which seems to separate the one. And in that space that oneness shines, therefore falls whatever falls." John L. Dobson February 28, 2002 --- On Thu, 3/19/09, lema0000 <lema0000 wrote: lema0000 <lema0000 Re: Matteradvaitin Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 11:58 AM > Proof of Bell's Theorem, two photons from the valence electron of a calcium ion are emitted with opposite polarities. Using a polarization filter, Alain Aspect flipped the polarity of one of the photons and monitored the paired photon. At that same instant the paired photon spontaneously flipped its polarity to maintain coherency. How did it know to do that? And how did one photon communicate with its partner in no elapsed time? Physicists call this a "non-local" effect.> Now; can inert matter be conscious? How can it not be conscious? That is its nature !Well put, Rameshji. I certainly find that science explains what happens in Maya/Mithya well, and it can answer many questions. But those aspects which it can't address are well-answered by mysticism/Advaita. The great discoverers of quantum physics, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Planck, Pauli, etc. were all mystics, and Schroedinger wrote explicitly about Brahman and Maya.It sometimes seems unfortunate that science/physics and religion/non- duality are seen as incompatible when those most familiar with both see that they are not and instead complement/fulfill one another. But, that seems part of the hide-and-seek of Lila.Lema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Namaste Rameshji. Excellent article. Thanks. Heartening to note that there great minds among the scientific fraternity who can relate advaita to physics so brilliantly. And, what a telepathic coincidence that you should be quoting Dobson at a time I was vainly struggling to express the same idea in my 44169! You scientists are indeed making this List really interesting. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote: > > Dear Lema , > > The article below may be of interest to you .. > > Best Wishes > > Ramesh > > Physics And Vedanta > By John Dobson > > Physics And Vedanta Copyright 2002 John Dobson >............................... > " Space is not that which separates the many, but that which seems to separate the one. And in that space that oneness shines, therefore falls whatever falls. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Dear Nairji, Thanks indeed for the encouraging words .. Am not a scientist , but am supposed to be a mechanical engineer .. Am of firm belief that nature exposes herself bit by bit to our scientists as she deems fit ..It will not be very long when all the science students end up having to study Advaita as well ! Pranams ramesh --- On Thu, 3/19/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair Re: Matteradvaitin Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 3:40 PM Namaste Rameshji.Excellent article. Thanks.Heartening to note that there great minds among the scientific fraternity who can relate advaita to physics so brilliantly. And, what a telepathic coincidence that you should be quoting Dobson at a time I was vainly struggling to express the same idea in my 44169!You scientists are indeed making this List really interesting.Best regards.Madathil Nair____________ __advaitin@ s.com, ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv@ ...> wrote:>> Dear Lema ,> > The article below may be of interest to you .. > > Best Wishes> > Ramesh> > Physics And Vedanta> By John Dobson> > Physics And Vedanta Copyright 2002 John Dobson >........... ......... ......... .. > "Space is not that which separates the many, but that which seems to separate the one. And in that space that oneness shines, therefore falls whatever falls." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 Srinvas - PraNAms We have discussed this many times already. I see the problem in your arguments. --- On Wed, 3/18/09, Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote: Srinivas: Such would be illogical to hold, for no proof of existence of any object first brings the object into existence and then proves it. " Proof-of-Existence -of-Objects " is quite different from " Existence-of- Objects " itself. While former requires later + a sentient entity, later does not require either former or the a sentient entity. ---------- Not true. For argument sake - How do you know, that the 'later does not require former or the a sentient entity? Logically? Logic itself depends on perception for validation. You are back to square one. In other words how can you establish object exists independent of a conscious entity as the very statement pre-supposes the conscious entity? It will reduce what I called as 'inderminate problem' since any determination presupposes a conscious entity. The second problem I see in your first statement is you are coupling the object and its existence. Existence is all pervading - and we do not bring object existence into existence - we can say existence in the form of an object is perceived - For that not only a conscious entity, but the mind and the senses have to operate for perception or deduction based on perception. Even if other say there is an object there, I have to be conscious to grasp that knowledge from the hear-say. That is one of the reasons why scripture has to come and tell us about the creation of the universe. Otherwise, without pre-existing consciousness, the problem reduces to indeterminacy - That is why science will have a problem to account the origin of the universe without pre-existent consciousness present. Sat eva idam agra aseet and tat aikshata - bahusyaam - prajaayeya. Existence alone was there in the beginning - it visualized - it wanted to become many and it became many. As you see, the scripture first establishes the conscious-existence before perception of any inert existence - tat aikshataa - bahusyaam - prajaayeya. All inert entities are not self-existing. Only Brahman is self-existing and that Brahman is conscious entity (prajnaanam). Hence scripture starts with self-existent ant conscious entity before creation is accounted. All inert objects can only be either Iswara sRiShTi (vyaavahaarika) or jiiva sRiShTi (praatibhaasika) - and Jiiva sRishTi indirectly depends on the knowledge gained from Iswara sRishTi - Hence ultimately back to Iswara only. Hence from the point Iswara's creation -self-existent-conscious entity presupposes any apparent objects' existence (apparent only because infinite Brahman alone is real and inert object appearance is appearance to a conscious-existent entity). Thus apparent existence of inert entity presupposes the existent-consciousness, which scripture says infinite. Now looking even from an individual point (from which point I answered about the death etc),ultimately even the existence of the universe is established by the knowledge of its existence - either perceptually or by logical deduction (again based on perceptual data) or by aapta vaakyam with the belief on the authenticity of that source of knowledge. Otherwise existence of any object - including my famous ‘gaagaabuubu’ - remains as indeterminate. By the by that is also the essence of Mandukya Upanishad. The anavasta dosha ends with the self-existing conscious entity that does not depend on anything for its existence - For all other objects, 'I am' has to provide the basis. That is Vedanta and advaita Vedanta too. naishaa tarkena matiraapaneya - logic itself presupposes a conscious entity. Finally prove or disprove to me that there is an object 'gagaabubu' with out conscious entity coming into picture. The ball is in your court. Hari Om! Sadananda -------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 PraNAms In my last post in response to Shree Srinivas question, I forgot to state one important thing. The statement that existence of an object is established by the knowledge of its existence - that is absolutely right. That does not include the creation of the object - that only mention about knowledge of its existence - creation involves action. knowledge is not an action. Creation of an object is an independent aspect - where Iswara sRiShTi and jiiva sRiShTi come into picture. There again, as I emphasized, the creation involves knowledge of creation. Creator should have the knowledge of creation that brings out its potential form into concrete form of its existence, if he has skill to create. Creator has to be a conscious entity. Either way pre-existent consciousness cannot be circumvented for any objects existence. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2009 Report Share Posted March 19, 2009 advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote: >nature exposes herself bit by bit > to our scientists as she deems fit ..It will not be very long when all the science > students end up having to study Advaita as well ! > Namaste, John Dobson also wrote 'Advaita Vedanta and Modern Science' in 1979. The book is online at: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/9535/Vedanta/vedanta.html Regards, Sunder 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.