nugget of sense

[Guest guest]

Sada-ji wrote:

To say that the reality of

gold and the ring that made of that gold both ontologically same, is

illogical

at best - avyaya vyatireka logic establishes one can be negated while the

other

is not and that which cannot be negated any time is satyam - trikaala

abhaadhitam.

 

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

 

Namaste Sada-ji,

The ring and the gold. Their reality is not the same we are told. Their

reality is ontologically different. But is that the case? Ontology is

about being. Ontos = being in Greek

 

Looking at it from a physical point of view we can say that both the ring

and the gold nugget are both particulars, they can both be described using

the same categories, weight, size, shape, specific gravity, monetary value

etc. On some of these the values will be the same, on others they will

differ but we never leave the realm of particularity in our assessment.

 

I think that the confusion with ontology comes in when gold in the lump is

viewed as ?matter? that is yet to be given a specification, sort of

amorphous material so to speak. There may be some traces in this way of

thinking of the doctrine about ?matter? that is associated with the

thought of John Locke but Berkeley put his finger on the problem there by

his pointing out that matter which is not this or that piece of particular

matter is immaterial. It all may have arisen as the Lockean mistake about

the Aristotelian concept of ?prime matter?. He forgot that it cannot

exist on its own but must be allied with ?substantial form?. Because it

is intelligible as a concept does not mean that it has the capacity to

exist as an entity. Similarily and likewise the notion of gold as such is

intelligible but it cannot exist but as this or that shaped or shapeless

piece of gold.

 

So ?gold? is always this or that particular piece of ?gold? with either a

totally individual shape or a generic one. The most that you can make of

the conventional illustration is that it is an analogy that helps us to

conceive of the connection between ?being? and ?beings?, ?existence? and

?existents?. That is its ontological import.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

----------

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 8.5.375 / Virus Database: 270.13.86/2355 - Release 09/08/09

20:45:00

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- On Sun, 9/13/09, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

 

The ring and the gold. Their reality is not the same we are told. Their

reality is ontologically different. But is that the case? Ontology is

about being. Ontos = being in Greek

 

Looking at it from a physical point of view we can say that both the ring

and the gold nugget are both particulars, they can both be described using

the same categories, weight, size, shape, specific gravity, monetary value

etc. On some of these the values will be the same, on others they will

differ but we never leave the realm of particularity in our assessment.

 

..........

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

I was going to write more elaborately on it, since I was not clear also about

your others posts on the topic.

 

I do not know much about the western philosophy - but taking the meaning of

Ontos as -being- as you mentioned, and which implies the existence, what is

implied is, it is that that because of which a thing exists – This forms the

basis for anvaya-vyatireka logic too. In navya nyaaa too what is defined as

inherence is the ultimate indivisible atoms from which the particular object is

made-up. In this case, the inherence provides the very existence for the object

- that which it is made up of and forms the reality or ontos for the object.

Current scientific investigations are still looking for the ultimate indivisible

particles, by which the universe exists or ontos or the ultimate reality of the

universe.

 

Vedanta goes one step further and this is where Scripture becomes a pramaaNa. It

addresses the question of existence or ontos of the consciousness itself which

forms the basis for the creation – hence says ‘bahu syaam – prajaayeya’

– I want to become many and I became many. In contrast to creation which

involves intelligent cause like carpenter creates the furniture, the word

–become- involves material cause. Wood became furniture. Carpenter creates

furniture, wood becomes furniture. Wood is inherent in the products of wood

(carpenter is not). The scriptures uses both words for Brahman since it is one

without a second– both as creator (nimitta kaaraNa) as well as uses the word

-become or became - as the world too as the material cause or upaadaana kaaraNa

- with the example of spider in Mun. Up.

 

What is defined as the substantive cause for the universe is the ultimate cause

because of which all the other names and forms are only products that exist -

the substantive being inherent in all of them - the products being only the

names and forms or only naama and ruupa without the substantive of their own,

but which have inherent in them the ultimate substantive that is indivisible.

That is the kaaraNa-kaarya sambandha established in the Ch..Up. which Tai. Up.

endorses as – tasmaat vaa etasmaat aatmanaH aakaasha sambhutaH, etc. Hence

ontos, if you want to define as being, as in the existence - that which cannot

be negated or further differentiated or that which inheres in all transformation

is the real- while that undergoes birth and death - such as ring, bangle etc are

only names and forms (relative attributes) that only belong for transactional

purposes (Vyaavahaarika satyam). Thus ring and bangle have no substantive of its

own and their ontos

is based on gold. Here Uddalaka justifies his statement – that knowing the

cause, all the products are as good as known. The gold, mud, iron are relative

examples where the substantive for their products is provided by the material

cause, which inheres in all their products. The substantive (relatively

speaking) is indestructible during the transformation from ring to bangle or

bracelet – that the ontos of the ring, bangle and necklace are less relative

in comparison to the gold that does not undergo any transformation in the

product transformation of ring into bangle or bangle into bracelet. The naama

and ruupa (attributes of ring vs attributes of bangle) keep changing but not the

inherent attributes of gold (its chemical and physical properties). Hence ring

can be negated by changing into bangle but not gold that inheres with the ring.

 

Now, what is fundamental or that which inheres in gold, mud and iron? - That is

where science states that it is electrons, protons and neutrons which inhere in

all of them – And we are still trying to determine what is ultimate

substantive for these so called fundamental particles that inhere in all the

products?. ( I did not want get into arguments with Shree Srinivas on the

trivialities while ignoring the fundamental logic). There are two things in the

example – the kaaraNa or substantive, clay and the kaarya the products, pots,

etc. of the two, scripture says clay alone (eva) is satyam. By pariseshanyaaya,

the pot is not satyam or real but it does not say it is unreal also, since pot

exists. Its existence or ontos is due to the existence of clay only since it has

no inherent substantive of its own, other than clay. It is the clay that inheres

in the pot not the other way around. If I remove clay out of pot, there is no

pot left while I destroy

the pot, clay still remains – this is what one has independent ontos which

inheres in all products of clay while the pots etc depend on clay (their

inherent matter) for their existence. It is the same thing as waves and the

ocean. Existence of a wave depends on the ocean but ocean's ontos or existence

does not depend on wave. If I understand that I am water neither wave no ocean,

then both, jjiva, the wave and the Iswara, the ocean, depend on me, the water.

That is the essence of advaita. Hence ontological or the degree of being are

differentiated between that substantive and the superimpositions.

 

If you look at the sat vidya of Ch. Up carefully, the logic is brought very

systematically before establishing the cause or kaaraNa is satyam while the

kaarya is mithyaa. It is only under that condition, eka vijnaanena sarva

vijnaanam bhavati is valid. Hence the statement Sat eva soumya idam agra aseet

– existence alone was there before the creation – as the very material cause

for the creation – ultimately leading to tat tvam asi – swetaketu.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda