[Prev][Next][Index]
Vedanta (2 of 4)
-
Subject: Vedanta (2 of 4)
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 22:26:48 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Thu Mar 16 17: 18:07 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
namo om vishnu padaya krishna prasthaya bhu tale
srimate bhaktivedanta swamin iti namine
om ajnana timirandhasya jnananjana salakaya
caksur unmilitan yena tasmai sri- gurave namah
om brahman satyam jagan mithya
Brahman alone is (formless and unmanifested)
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: The bangle, the ring, and the gold itself, its all gold!
Shankaracharya explained this in the Swarna Gita
To this we reply:
samSaya: One this is a bad example because jivas have life whereas gold/bangle
ect. is all dead matter. The existence of -self- is axiomatic but
the existence of neither gold nor bangle nor ring is axiomatic. Even
to prove that the self does not exist, you have to accept that it
exists which is not the case with gold or bangle. You can actually
chemically and physically destroy gold and then prove that is does
not exist.
For this reason, any conclusion drawn from a deam matter analysis is
less than ideal for living beings.
Two, gold isn't any -one- thing as Shankara is trying to make you
believe. Gold is made up of gold atoms, each of which is a
fundamental unit of the metal gold and is individual. Just like two
pencils when put together don't become -one Pencil- gold atoms
don't combine together to form and -one- thing either. It is only
because of our limited visionary senses that we cannot see individual
atoms that we use the proper noun Gold to refer to a lump of
gold as gold and not golds. In reality it is no different that a
set of pencils or stack of papers so the analogy collapses !!!
But, let us give the benefit of doubt to Shankara because chemistry
and physics wasn't very advance then so the poor guy couls have made
better choice otherwise.
Looking a little closer, even the gold atoms aren't a fundamental
unit either, they themselves are composed of sub-atomic particles.
Now these subatomic particles are themselves nothing but a
transformation of energy.
So there is no One unit of matter out there that Shankara's analogy
would fit in, hence it is useless.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Well it is the underlying energy (matter <=> energy) that is the One
To this we reply:
samSaya: No. There is the positive energy (matter <=> energy) as defined in
classical physics and negative energy - gravity per the theory of
relativity and the two are fundamentally different.
So there are again two.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: The positive and negative energy is really all one.
To this we reply:
samSaya: No. 0 = (+1) + (-1) is the latest theory in this regard.
so you are now reduced to sunyata and if you want to use that as an
argument for oneness than you are yourself equating mayavad to soonyavad, which we said in the very beginning that your theory is
prachanna buddha.
Moreover, why would "0" split into +X and -X ?
Since 0 implies "literally nothing" there must be an external cause
for creating something out of nothing.
And not to forget that this whole idea of +ve and -ve energy
cancelling each other is just a theory put forward by the atheistic
physicists and there is no experimental verification for that. Also
it would really require measuring the absolute mass and positive
energy (heat etc.) and the total gravitational energy in the
Universe to see if they equal, something which is even theoritically
quite impossible!
Besides, this only tells about matter/energy, not the living beings
who are conscious and hence lie outside of the realms of QM, ToR etc.
Again there is two.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Well there is Brahman that causes 0 to appear as many.
To this we reply:
samSaya: Not so. The argument leaves out the living entities, because if it
causes 0 to appear as many, who does it causes this to appear to?
And how are those that see it as many themselves come into being?
"Absolutely no human reason...can hope to understand the production
of even a blade of grass by mere mechanical causes. That crude matter
should have originally formed itself according to mechanical laws,
that life should have sprung from the nature of what is lifeless,
that matter should have been able to dispose itself into the form of
a self-maintaining purpose - is contrary to reason."
-Emanuel Kant, Critique of Judgement
Even scientists accept their vulnerability when it comes to the "why"
question, i.e. why did it all came into being.
"The why question [why the Big Bang happened i.e. how/why initial
conditions manifested] is for the theologians and philosophers to
answer ... For a scientist, it is like he reaches to the top of a
mountain only to find that the theologians have been waiting there
for ever with stones [the why question] in their hands for him. What
happened before time t=0 is beyond the limits of science to tell."
-George Smoot, Wrinkles In Time.
[the much talked about book on COBE results]
The bottomline is that no example dealing with matter/space/energy
can be used to justify one-ness as concocted by Shankara.
The only possibility is to then accept the existence of jivatmas/
atmans as eternal concsious living beings (nityo nityanam cetanas
cetananam)
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Well all that just proves that Oneness is incomprehensible and can
only be realized not understood.
To this we reply:
samSaya: Not so. (1) Incomprehensible to whom? that implies two again.
(2) Since advaita-vadins say self is just illusion, trying to prove
something is incomprehensible to what is illusory is like running in
circles.
Also, understanding and realization only pertains to different levels
of awareness/consciousness, example I understand you are present and
I realize your presence.
And finally, for a realization, three things must be present:
1. The realizee
2. That which is to be realized
3. The realization itself
So again there are many, not one!
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Well after realization, the realized, the realization and that which
is realized all becomes one.
To this we reply:
samSaya: ouch! How would you know that the realization has occured? Since no
realized person would than exist, how would and who would lead the
unrealized?
This also implies that all that has been said by all the acharyas
must be wrong because they must all have been unrealized (save for
chance) since the realized cannot exist seperately.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Well, the unrealized can see a person getting realized (if he doesn't
returns) and follow suite.
To this we reply:
samSaya: A person jumps into the ocean and drowns and another thinks since he
didn't return, he must have realized. The unrealized making decisions
about the realized, that is contrary to reason.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Sruti is the teacher!
To this we reply:
samSaya: Not all by itself, if it were, we wouldn't be arguing here over the
interpretations.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: There are many paths. All roads lead to Rome!
To this we reply:
samSaya: That is very unscientific. There are interpretations that are
fundamentally different and even mutually exclusive.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: Why are you debating about the incomprehensible?
To this we reply:
samSaya: athato brahmn-jijnasa.
The advaita-vadins say:
viShaya: tat tvam asi!
To this we reply:
samSaya: aaagggghhhhhhhhh Back to square one !!!
Anyways, this point onwards was elaborately analyzed by Jhanava-Nitai
das so I am not going to repeat that.
Also, I wrote on "tat tvam asi" in the light of acintya bheda-abheda
and can forward a copy to anyone who wants it.
========================================================================
Epilogue: The swarnagita of jagadguru bhagavan adi Shankaracharya deserves a
place in the trash can for it draws conclusions from dead matter
(which is not true either anyways because there is no one Au out
there) and applies them on conscious living beings (jivas).
We reject it on the grounds of its absurdity and technical fallacies.
The advaitans if they really want to be Brahma-vadi's should follow
liberated personalities like Sanat Kumara or Sukadev Goswami who
have raisen beyond the limited realm of Saguna and Nirguna Brahman
and not mayavadi's like Shankara who say the world is false or that
Isvara is saguna Brahman thus cast their own concoted theories on
the sruti.
Thus ends Part 2 of Shankaracharya's puppet show.
*** Om namo bhagvate vasudevaya - janmady asya yatah ***
