Ishvara and mAyA

[Aupmanyav]

Because clearly a photon is an object of knowledge perceivable to the mind. Hence, not Brahman.

Why should you say that Brahman will always remain unknown? That is a prophecy. In science, there is no room for prophesy. The scientists are working hard and we are coming to know new things each day. Perhaps in a 100 or 200 years we will have better information.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science reveals nothing about Brahman. It is not the correct tool for knowing Brahman. Therefore, there is no obligation whatsoever to see what scientists have to say and adjust our views accordingly -

Maya is nice. It can zoom us through the air with a speed better than sound, in summers we put on ACs, travel by cars and not on horse-dwarn carriages, etc.

Science has revealed a lot about what things are constituted of. Is not that the definition of Brahman? We have an obligation to see what scientists say, otherwise time would leave us behind.

 

[Ravi500]

Did you study science in school or college? I do not claim to be a Ph.D. in Physics, but this kind of information is easily available to all through Wikipedia.

"A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions."

Atanu is saying this from the context of Advaita philosophy, where all objects are considered as manifestations of the mind.

The world is none other than the mind. The mind is none other than the heart. Therefore the entire story finishes in the heart. -- Ramana Maharshi

The impressions in the brain become manifest as the body and the worlds. -- Ramana Maharshi

From the Yoga Vasistha....

'This is wealth', 'This is body' and 'This is a nation' - all these are notions, O Rama, which are the manifestation of the energy of the mind and which are otherwise illusory.

The existence of a world independent of you or the mind is but the jugglery of the mind, it is nothing but the recognition of a notion as if it were a substance.

"Nothing whatsoever is born or dies anywhere at any time. It is Brahman alone, appearing in the form of the world."


"The moon is one, but on agitated water it produces many reflections. Similarly, ultimate reality is one, yet it appears to be many in a mind agitated by thoughts."

------------



As I stated before, Atanu is saying this from the context of Advaita philosophy, where all objects are considered as manifestations of the mind.

And mind you, Atanu is a scientist too, and well-versed in the field of science, as well. Still he is not advocating or even hinting your views , inspite of much superior knowledge to you.

The very fact that you cannot comprehend what he is saying as per advaitic philosophy, and even berating him for it, highlights your own incompetence in this area.

Hence the repeated pleas by all here to desist using the advaita tag and posting your illiterate views till you get more sound knowledge on the subject.

 

[Makaranda]

Why should you say that Brahman will always remain unknown?

Pardon? Where have I ever said that?

How does "Because clearly a photon is an object of knowledge perceivable to the mind. Hence, not Brahman." equal 'Brahman will always remain unknown'?

Please do not put words in my mouth, or at least ask me to clarify my position before you misunderstand it.

What I actually said was that Brahman cannot be known through the scientific method. That is not the same as saying Brahman can never be known. The scientific method which consists of repeatable and observable experimentation on objects known via the sense perception and inference is not the appropriate means of knowledge for knowing Brahman. It is not the right pramAna. That's not to say there is no pramAna.

Brahman can be known. Brahman can be known through Vedanta. That's the point of Vedanta. Prolonged shravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana on the Vedanta scriptures (in conjunction with a mind highly purified through karma, meditation etc) removes the ignorance which veils one's true nature as Brahman. There are some who say that these are auxiliary means and samAdhi is the primary means (my personal opinion lies between the two views), but whatever be the case there is general agreement that Brahman is not an object to be known through sense perception and inference. In order to know anything we have to wield the appropriate means of knowledge for knowing it. In order to know colour, form and shape, I need light in conjunction with the eyes. I cannot know colour, form, and shape through the sense of taste, for example. In the same way, there is a specific means of knowledge appropriate for brahma vidya, and that means is not pratyaksha/anumAna which are the basis of the scientific method.

There are some things that the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove, owing to the limitations of the scientific method. This includes such things as God, as reincarnation, as devas, as the Atma. Just because science cannot prove nor disprove these things, we should not therefore reject them as non-existent. There are more existent things than there are objects detectable to the senses organs and therefore available for inference. It is an extremely limited viewpoint to assert that only those things which can be known via sense perception and inference are the only things that exist. This assertion discounts the Vedic texts as valid pramAna, since the Vedic texts reveal the existence of many things not knowable to empirical methodology. We should therefore let the Vedic texts stand as an independent and valid pramAna, and not worry about what science can or can't prove about the entities revealed therein.

Further, Shankara has said that if one pramAna reveals that fire is hot, the shruti cannot say that fire is cold. In other words, one pramAna cannot interfere with what is revealed by another pramAna. Therefore, whatever is discovered via the scientific method does not contradict what is revealed by the shruti, and what is revealed by the shruti does not contradict the discoveries of the scientific method. They are both valid, independently. We need not be concerned about updating Vedanta to fit into modern science. By the same token, I do not believe we should focus our energies on cramming scientific discoveries into Vedanta. I think it does disservice to both.

Science has revealed a lot about what things are constituted of. Is not that the definition of Brahman?

The definition of Brahman is sat-chit-ananda, satyam-jnanam-anantam, neti-neti, etc.

We have an obligation to see what scientists say, otherwise time would leave us behind.

Scientists have said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Brahman. Brahman is not their area of expertise!

 

[Stormcry]

According to Aupmanyav's view, Brahma is a Physical Energy. Once he himself said this in a post. So other Advaitians have no need to get bothered. That so called Brahman ( Physical Energy ) is surely explainable by Science-Tamasa knowledge. It's obvious that that brahman is not Vedantik.

However I Request Aup to give us scriptural quotes supporting your Brahman ? It's my polite request.

Thanks. Hare Krishna

 

[John Doe]

A possibility yet to be confirmed or denied is that awareness is inherently an aspect of matter (which could also be expressed conversely ...).

Stands proved, and not conversely. Two quick grabs from Wikipedia:

"When Claus Jönsson of the University of Tübingen performed it with electrons.[16][17] In 2002, Jönsson's double-slit experiment was voted "the most beautiful experiment" by readers of Physics World."

"It was not until 1997, however, that a direct experiment, by S. Lamoreaux, described above, quantitatively measured the force (to within 15% of the value predicted by the theory), .."

That simply isn't correct, and the misunderstanding has been discussed many times here on RF, let alone in the world in general.

The double slit experiment does not establish anything about the nature of awareness.

The double slit experiment indicates that the process of observation requires the use of equipment which effects the outcome. It is this equipment which is referred to as 'observation', not human awareness. Because the equipment used to 'observe' the particles physically affects the behaviour of the particles, it is said that observation affects the outcome. Which has nothing to do with observation in the sense of consciousness/awareness.

 

[John Doe]

So do you wanna say we should change our dharma according to Scientists who are highly influenced by Maya ?

Always remember Science know things by our limited senses while our dharma sees Science through inner knowledge of inner senses.

Science says earth is round . ( Vedic scriptures say earth is flat ). Science says sun doesn't move. ( Veda says sun revolves around the earth ). No one can challenge Vedic knowledge. Even some scientists say that there are some things that goes against the common believe of earth's roundness.

Hare Krishna...

Apparently the Sun is closer to earth than is the moon, also.( Srimad Bhagavatam ? I forget the exact reference).

So all of the testimony of astronauts and scientists, and evidence from satellites and orbital cameras is what ? .... a vast conspiracy ?

 

[atanu]

Apparently the Sun is closer to earth than is the moon, also.( Srimad Bhagavatam ? I forget the exact reference).

So all of the testimony of astronauts and scientists, and evidence from satellites and orbital cameras is what ? .... a vast conspiracy ?

Sun is the Soul, the Hridaya and Moon is Manas, the Mind. The Hridaya is one's own. Moon is reflected, and hence it is called chidAbhAsha.

 

[John Doe]

Sun is the Soul, the Hridaya and Moon is Manas, the Mind. The Hridaya is one's own. Moon is reflected, and hence it is called chidAbhAsha.

It's fine to use astronomical names in a symbol system, as long as that system is not confused with astrophysics and astronomy.

Otherwise we may as well start training tables and chairs to run in the Olympics, because they have legs.

I did actually meet some vaishnavas who took that information literally. Not the legs They actually thought that the Sun was closer than the moon to the earth, because the text said so.

 

[atanu]

It's fine to use astronomical names in a symbol system, as long as that system is not confused with astrophysics and astronomy.

Otherwise we may as well start training tables and chairs to run in the Olympics, because they have legs.

Do we understand that the origin is the non graspable (of the nature of existence, knowledge, and bliss) and not the graspable that senses perceive?

RV 1.164.39 All the gods have taken their seats upon this supreme heaven, the imperishable (text) of the Veda; what will he, who knows not this, do with the Veda? But they who do know it, they are perfect.​

I did actually meet some vaishnavas who took that information literally. Not the legs They actually thought that the Sun was closer than the moon to the earth, because the text said so.

That is Ok. Have you contemplated that you also may be in error?

Sun may not be only the localised fire-ball that you see with localised eye, but its reach may be closer within Heart than that of the Moon? Do you take them as physical localised entities as you see with your eyes or do you see them as of infinite spread, as the aatman is?

The following is suurya, the Sun as the aatman... the Eye.

RV 1.115.1
ci\`traM de\`vaanaa\`m ud a\'gaa\`d anii\'kaM\` cakShu\'r mi\`trasya\` =
varu\'Nasyaa\`gneH |\\
aapraa\` dyaavaa\'pR^ithi\`vii a\`ntari\'kShaM\` suurya\' aa\`tmaa =
jaga\'tas ta\`sthuSha\'sh ca || \EN{1}{115}{01} \\


RV 1.115.1 THE brilliant presence of the Gods hath risen, the eye of Mitra, Varuna and Agni.
The soul of all that moveth not or moveth, the Sun hath filled the air and earth and heaven.​

And following is the primeval sacrifice, Soma, the Moon, Indu, Lord of the Word, the Mind (that is also aatman). Word issues from this and apparently divides the non dual into multiform.

go\`Shaa i\'ndo nR^i\`Shaa a\'sy ashva\`saa vaa\'ja\`saa u\`ta |\\
aa\`tmaa ya\`j~nasya\' puu\`rvyaH || \EN{9}{002}{10} \\

9.002.10 Indu, you are the giver of kine, of children, of horses, and of food; you are the primeval soul of the sacrifice.​

Kindly let us keep out the sarcasm, if we can.

 

[John Doe]

Do we understand that the origin is the non graspable (of the nature of existence, knowledge, and bliss) and not the graspable that senses perceive?


Kindly let us keep out the sarcasm, if we can.

Atanu, it is not unreasonable to roll one's eyes when symbolic terms in texts are mistakenly used to address astrophysical realities.

There is no disrespect for the symbolic meaning of a text in pointing out that it bears no relation to astronomy.

That is just common sense, surely.

I am not being sarcastic at all. I have made my statements to highlight the possibility of confusing a dharmic symbol-system with astrophysics. That can and does actually happen. If you see a hindu brother or sister doing this, then it is compassionate and wise to point out the error - as I have.

 

[atanu]

I did not specify you. I know you from before.

I am talking of parading of jnana-less brahman as a valid Hindu thought that is happening, and there seems no remedy to that. I was seeking your help.

 

[John Doe]

I did not specify you. I know you from before.

I am talking of parading of jnana-less brahman as a valid Hindu thought that is happening, and there seems no remedy to that. I was seeking your help.

I get that.

I certainly wish to help, if helping means assisting all beings to find repose in the bliss of the uncreated.

We are certainly an example of kalyanamitra in that respect. No doubt.

:bow:

namaste

 

[Sumit]

Atanu, it is not unreasonable to roll one's eyes when symbolic terms in texts are mistakenly used to address astrophysical realities.

There is no disrespect for the symbolic meaning of a text in pointing out that it bears no relation to astronomy.

That is just common sense, surely.

I am not being sarcastic at all. I have made my statements to highlight the possibility of confusing a dharmic symbol-system with astrophysics. That can and does actually happen. If you see a hindu brother or sister doing this, then it is compassionate and wise to point out the error - as I have.

That's right Puranas are not Astronomical text, Hindus always take puranas as symbolic texts. I don't think Hindus were confused b/w symbolism and astrophysics, We had many astronomical and mathematical texts in past like Aryabhatia, Surya Siddhanta, Sulabh Sutra and many more, So never required puranas to do such calculations.

 

[Ravi500]

There are some things that the scientific method can neither prove nor disprove, owing to the limitations of the scientific method. This includes such things as God, as reincarnation, as devas, as the Atma. Just because science cannot prove nor disprove these things, we should not therefore reject them as non-existent. There are more existent things than there are objects detectable to the senses organs and therefore available for inference. It is an extremely limited viewpoint to assert that only those things which can be known via sense perception and inference are the only things that exist. This assertion discounts the Vedic texts as valid pramAna, since the Vedic texts reveal the existence of many things not knowable to empirical methodology. We should therefore let the Vedic texts stand as an independent and valid pramAna, and not worry about what science can or can't prove about the entities revealed therein.

Very well stated , Makaranda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because clearly a photon is an object of knowledge perceivable to the mind. Hence, not Brahman.

Brahman is described variously in Shruti as: asthUlam anaNvam ahrasvam adIrgham, ashabdam asparsham arUpam avyayam tathArasam nityam agandhavacca, apUrvam anaparam anantaram abAhyam.

Clearly this rules out any kind of particle or object measurable or detectable via sense perception.

You say Brahman is not perceivable by mind, then how come you describe Brahman in these many words? 'Neti, neti'. You would say that you do not know, God said this in the Vedas.

This is no different from the christian or islamic "Goddidit". Stock answer for all which is unknown in the world - "Goddidit". You won't make even the slightest effort to know it because you know, IT CANNOT BE KNOWN. This is not working for them, it would not work for Hinduism too. I do not know if it is possible to make even the slightest advance with this kind of belief. Do you have a grudge with Hinduism and Hindus? You want to push us back in the dark ages?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It is Brahman alone, appearing in the form of the world.

I agree with that, but do not agree that they are manifestations of mind. Mind is the result of working of the brain. And the observed is what mind makes out of Brahman. There is a difference of opinion. Or is it a crime to differ with Ramana, my heart-felt homage to him? Wise old man. I already differ with Sankara and Buddha.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because the equipment used to 'observe' the particles physically affects the behaviour of the particles, it is said that observation affects the outcome.

I think that is what I am talking about, behavior of particles. Why don't they remain unaffected by observation?

I did actually meet some vaishnavas who took that information literally. Not the legs They actually thought that the Sun was closer than the moon to the earth, because the text said so.

It seems we have a few of them here also.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do we understand that the origin is the non graspable (of the nature of existence, knowledge, and bliss) and not the graspable that senses perceive?

Do we understand that it is better to try than to not try at all (because Vedas/God says so)? And how they who know come to know? Vedas/God.

Sun .. its reach may be closer within Heart than that of the Moon?

What does this sentence is supposed to mean? The rishis compared the rising sun to eye of their Gods, poetic fancy. Sure, all things are Brahman. No difference between the sun and the moon.

And following is the primeval sacrifice, Soma, the Moon, Indu, Lord of the Word, the Mind (that is also aatman). Word issues from this and apparently divides the non dual into multiform.

9.002.10 Indu, you are the giver of kine, of children, of horses, and of food; you are the primeval soul of the sacrifice.

Kindly let us keep out the sarcasm, if we can.

Sarcasm is natural when one comes across such passages and finds people taking it literally. So, Soma gives you cows and goats, children, horses and food. We have been living without Soma for at least the last 2000 years. Who, now, gives us all these?

 

[Stormcry]

Another gem from our friend. Science is tamas, therefore, science should not be studied, and only scriptures should be studied -Sattvic knowledge.

I think Bhagavad Gita has nicely explained what is Dnyana (Spiritual Knowledge) and Adnyana. Whatever other than Dnyana is classified into Rajas and Tamasa knowledge ie knowledge of materials .

And of course Science is a knowledge of matter. So it's Tamasik Knowledge. It is more than impossible to know Brahman from such material science.

Instead of making fun of me, read scriptures properly.

Btw, you didn't give us scriptural supports of your Brahman which you call it as a physical Energy.

Hari om ..