[Prev][Next][Index]
Math and Aham Brahmasmi
> From: Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu>
> > From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
> > the big.) Essentially it is the infiniteness. In infinity there are no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > parts, even mathematically.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I was on my way to becoming a theoretical mathematician before deciding
> to become an electrical engineer, so please explain what you mean here. In
> mathematics, infinity very definitely has parts, and there are even different
> levels of infinity, named as X_0, X_1, etc (the X is a crude approximation
> to the Hebrew character "aleph"). Similarly, the infinity used to describe
> integers is strictly smaller than the infinity used to describe reals, and
> so on.
Now I've figured out what Sadananda's mathematical definition of "infinity" is.
You see, in mathematics, people perfectly accept that infinity does have finite
parts and is divisible. In fact, mathematicians accept different quantizations of
infinity and so forth, and can also see structures with infinitely great number of
elements but finite area, infinite perimeter but finite area, etc. So, infinity
certainly has parts, levels, instantiations, and so forth.
However, the analogy that Sadananda provided "there are no parts, even mathematically"
applies to _zero_, not infinity. The empty set is the same size regardless of its
domain. Zero is the same zero no matter how you use it (usually).
In other words, Sadananda proved the aphorism "mayavadam pracchanam-bauddham" by
converting the perfectly infinite Vedic understanding of Brahman into the Buddhistic
view of sunya-tva (emptiness). Either advaita _is_ covered Buddhism, or Sadananda
has failed to "properly deliver" the advaita message & everything he said about us
misunderstanding advaita should be cast in the dustbin as he himself has also been
unable to properly present the advaita philosophy.
Any questions?
Yours,
Vijay
> Yours,
>
> Vijay
