Guest guest Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 --- 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 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.