ವೇದಸುಧೆಗೆ ನಿಮಗೆ ಸ್ವಾಗತ.ವೇದಭಾರತಿಯ ಮತ್ತು ಪತಂಜಲಿ ಪರಿವಾರದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ವೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿ.ಯೋಗಮಾಡಿ,ನಿರೋಗಿಯಾಗಿ. ವೇದದ ಅರಿವು ಪಡೆಯಿರಿ. ನಿರ್ಭೀತರಾಗಿ.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Discussion on Blog post "Perception"


ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಡಾ.ಸುಬ್ರಹ್ಮಣ್ಯ ಬಿ.ಆರ್. ಅವರ  perception   ಬರಹಕ್ಕೆ ವೇದಾಧ್ಯಾಯೀ ಶ್ರೀ ಸುಧಾಕರಶರ್ಮರ ಮತ್ತು ಹಲವಾರು ಚಿಂತಕರ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳನ್ನು  ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಓದುಗರೂ ಸಹ     ಚರ್ಚೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲ್ಗೊಳ್ಲಲು ವಿನಂತಿಸುವೆ

-ಹರಿಹರಪುರಶ್ರೀಧರ್   
ಸಂಪಾದಕ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This blog is just an individual opinion of mine,not to offend or hurt anyone.
I would be more than happy if someone can correct me if they find anything wrong.
    Look around,what do u percieve?seeing or hearing is different from perception,perception is a function of mind.you can give any kind of perception to a recieved stimuli or even desist to give any.When u look at a book,u know its a "book" cause u had learnt, book is a collection of facts,it has sentences arranged in it as  chapters,the words follow grammar,if you finish reading this book it might help you in a certain way,and so on.All these learnt perceptions act subconsciously when you look at a book.In reality that book is nothing,it has no meaning to it when u look at it from an absolutely unlearnt eye.Show the book to a baby,its just like any other thing ,it is no different from a toy.As the baby grows it learns the difference between a toy and the book,this is how learning develops based on perception.If u had taught the baby toy as book and book as toy,it would ve learnt it sameway.Eventually the babay lives in a "percieved world".
      What about the world we see ,feel n hear?the world is just there, its dead,its your perception that makes it lively,colurful,sad,miserable etc,You are choosing to give it meaning.If you dont believe it, work backwards and you will see,how "your world" has emerged.Our intelligence arises similarly,its like decieving ourselves twice. On a nothing,we assume something because of desire or inquisitiveness and then work backwards to find a relation,because that gives harmony to the mind.All our laws ,postulates, theorems are created on an assumed "something".So in reality there is no absolute law, ethics,mathematics,logic etc,law and ethics give harmony to assumed society and relations.Maths n logic give harmony to the assumed numbers and concepts.All these law and  maths are not wrong but only work for assumed concepts.They themselves are pointing backwards,telling us this is how you assumed things and this is how you find harmony.So everything emerges from "nothing".So this "nothing" denotes absolute harmony.For example ,we introduce the non existant "1" on  a truly existant "0",and when tried to relate them, a law emerges(subtraction) pointing the origin. This is like knowing all the laws and theorems to all possible assumptions ever made.This is nothing but OMNISCIENT. This is what Buddha called "shunyavastha",and Adi shankara called "Brahman".This is paramarthika satyam,'Brahma satyam jagat mithya' and our laws are vyavaharika satyam."Tat Tvam asi" is a mahavakya from Chandogya Upanishad.You dont have to believe it because someone says it or is told in vedas,when you yourself look thru a discerning unbiased eye,you ll see the world to be untrue and is based on assumptions, appearing falsely true(maya) and is a reflection of something truely true.What i have presented is a logical framework,i dont know what is it like to drop all assumptions.To really feel how is it to be to be "nothing",you should try droping all conscious and subconscious assumptions,this path is called raja yoga.and what Buddha described as Zen.All other paths eventually lead to Raja yoga,be it jnana yoga or karma yoga,and Raja yoga leads to absolute truth..
         Each human being represents a thought, and thats all he is,and thoughts emerge when mind uses its imagination,all three can be used interchangebly.just as our thoughts cease to exist on proving the contrary,every human can unlearn his false existence.As J krishnamurthi says, by observing his mind as an outsider,the observer eventually becomes the observed


This is a common problem with those who understand and advocate Shankara wrongly!
They speak of vyavaharika sathya and paaramarthika sathya.
But they miss the point as to where they are standing at the time of speaking.
If they are in vyavaharika base their experience of paaramarthika sathya is questionable!  At the same time they fail to quote the VEDAS in support of their theory!!
If they are in paaramarthika sathya base, there exists only one Brahman and there can not be one who speaks and one who listens!!  There can not be 'the perceiver, the perceived or the process of perception'!!
The theory that the world is just an illusion and just a 'perceived world' without real existence makes one inactive, lazy and lethargic.  Because actions do not find a place in an illusionary world!!  But why the very propounders of this theory are doing so many actions to fill their bellies, accumulating wealth and owning them?!!!!!  Does not this amount to double standards.
VEDAS are clear that. we have to live in this REAL world and labour and work to gain spiritual strength and 'perceive' the world as it is!!  "Kurvanneveha Karmaani jijeevisheth Shathagam samaaha" (Yajurveda.40.2.) - Perform your duties wishing to live for Hundred years & "Maa cchiththaa asmaath Lokaath" (Atharvaveda.8.1.4.) - Sever not yourself from this world.
It is true that Buddha and the like have uttered many words of wisdom, but their words are not infallible as compared to the VEDAS.
Human beings do perceive many things rightly and wrongly.  The process of unlearning has to be with reference to wrong perceptions!!
Shankara, a great VEDIC scholar was only speaking of the world wherein we have to distinguish between FACE VALUE and INTRINSIC VALUE that things and theories have.  When we are clear about the intrinsic value the face value can not mislead us or attract us!  Hence the face value is just superfluous and illusionary.
Now it is open for the readers - for me readers are there, notes to be read too are there and the process of reading too is there - to "perceive" the essence of the above remarks, which I promise is perfectly in good faith and with an open mind.

- Vedadhyaayi Sudhakara Sharma.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respested Sharmaji, Thank you for your vauable inputs.Grateful to hear from you sir.I am sure confusion helps me grow.I still feel ""for an assumed world and society", following its rules and ethics,planning,making money for a better living

is absolutely true,which is nothing but adopting double standards with respect to Paramarthika satyam.Kind of fooling ourselves twice is apparently correct.If we wish to follow something other than Raja Yoga,which is nothing but accepting the society,all these seem to be true.
I would also like to quote Albert Einstein's statement here who went above all human imaginations.He said Speed of light is fixed,time is relative.Which means there is no absolute space time or cosmic time,because "time" is our creation,it is not present truely.This indicates all our creations are imaginary be it the most basic concept of time.This is Paramarthika Satya.Now if we consider the first half of his statement,Speed of light is fixed,this is also true because while defining speed we have assumed time,this is like Vyavaharika Satya.
In absolute true terms,there is Raja Yoga or Zen as our path,but if we cant drop our assumed society and assumptions,we are free to "live" in it following its rules and ethics.

-subramanya b r October 16, 2012 2:53 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
It is indeed thought provoking going through the "pereceptions" of friend Devasudha.
May I add my thoughts on this:
"So everything emerges from "nothing" says our friend.
Something canNOT arise out of nothing. Something can arise ONLY out of something existing. That "existing" thing may not be perceived or may be in unmanifested/unperceivable condition. Butter comes out of milk, when it goes through the stages of curd forming, churning and filtering before butter can be perceived, which therefore was already there in unmanifest form. Similarly a murthy is a stone for an unbeliever, but a holy God for a believer! The former cannot perceive what the latter does! A child enjoys the sound of a breaking glass which it throws, whereas to an elder it is annoying destructive noise! No doubt perception is the point; but the Material Energy in the glass and the contacted Earth Energy as the glass fell on it, had converted into Impact Energy and resulted in the form of Sound Energy. Energy was already present and kept changing before finally its one form was perceived, that is all. Before the Universe was created, it was present in capsular Energy form in Brahman and by a Sankalpa He gave it the form that is perceived by us, as and when, we "discover" it, when not ordinarily seen!
Regardful wishes.
-Major Ramanujam
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Sir, when you say,"something cannot arise out of nothing" its absolutely true.Thats an excellent point.But I said our mind or consciousness or perceptions arises out of "nothing".That seemingly "nothing" is "nothing" with respect to the mind because it has worked backwards.But "everything" when the mind is transcended.THE VERY QUALITY OF MIND IS TO LOOK OUTWARDS,GIVING A SENSE OF ITS EXISTENCE ALL THE TIME.When it negates itself,to it,it appears as though "nothing" is reached, for an outside observer on a truly cosmic scale,it appears as though "everything" is reached,something similar to theorey of relativity.:).
-subramanya b rOctober 17, 2012 6:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respected Sharmaji,kindly accept my salutations.Though it took some effort and time,I now kind of realise why DVAITHA and ADVAITHA are both true.Advaitha explains events on a macro level,Dvaitha on a micro scale,neither can be considered wrong.Confusion arises when trying to know which is better amongst the two.The two Paramarthika and Vyavaharika base truly exists.On standing at a Vyavaharika base and accepting Advaitha seems incorrect similarly we cant accept Dvaitha on Paramarthika base.Thank you again for those insightful words.It really helped me.
-subramanya b rOctober 18, 2012 8:25 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting discussions!
In physics, similar confusion exists. Is light a particle or a wave? Is electrons particles or clouds? In fact, it is both. How can one appear as two at the same time?
When I as one, can be the grandfather, father, husband and son at the same time, when my grandchild, my son, my wife and my mother are present at home; definitely one can appear as many. This is “Vyavaharika Sathya”

From the stand point of “Paramarthika Sathya”, “Who am I?” Who in me “perceives”?
Eye is a camera, mind is the screen, memory is the data bank and intellect is the sorter.
I am sure the perceiver is beyond all these.
The moment I perceive the perceiver that becomes an object of perception, and cannot be the “ perceiver” anymore.
As per the “paramarthika Sathya” rightly stated by Sri. Sudhakara Sharma. Reply dated 16th Oct 2012.
“There exists only one “Brahman” and there cannot be one who speaks and one who listens.”

The mission of my further existence is only to “experience” this “Eternal Truth”

Regards,
P.R.Thiagarajan

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


My thinking on the portion of the article of Shri Sudhakara Sarma (referred by HNP) “This is the common problem” – The common problem is not clear from this portion of the article. However, I understand the premise as follows and comment further: Opinion 1: Argue that whatever one observed, comprehended based on the current knowledge and has scientific and logical explanations are truths. Opinion 2: Argues that the Option 1 arguments are based only on “Vyavaharika Satya”. The “Paramarthika Sathya” are different form this. They believe that Vedas have all knowledge in it and the hymns should be properly interpreted for every proofs regarding Paramarthika Satya (absolute truth?) and the “truths” should always be substantiated by Vedas. They also argue that Advaita Siddantha by Adi Shankara is based on Vedas and contains conclusive knowledge of the absolute truth. If I agree with the Option 1, I have to explain the following important points among others:
1. There is nothing separately called Paramarthika Sathya.
2. Vedas need not contain all the knowledge in the world and can not establish all the truths in the world.
3. All truths are subject to logical and scientific explanations.
If I agree with Option 2, I have to explain the following:
1. The modern scientific knowledge is frivolous, baseless and useless to pursue the absolute truth.
2. What you sense is not what you get and all the vyavaharika sathya (worldly truth) are virtual and misconceived. You should always look for intrinsic truths and never believe the truths on its face value.
3. The only logic to be applied to understand Brahma is that as applied in Vedas (however subjective, contradictive and illogical they are from the modern logics point of view).
4. Advaita Siddhanta explains all the truth in the world unambiguously, comprehensively and can not be refuted by any other philosophy/siddhanta like that of Dwaita, Vishisthadvaita, Jaina, Buddha, Charvaka, Vaihseshika, Sikh, Saiva, Ganapathya, Pagan, Christian, Islam, Judaism etc….
It would be an onerous task for me to conclusively write an article with the above premises as it encompasses the whole theology and modern science and also need to extensively quote and refute from magnum opuses like the Vedas, Bible, Avesta, Quran, Tripitika, Darshana, Grantha Sahib etc etc.
However, in a bid to rationalize and channelize the thoughts when one bumps on to such a topic which is the philosophy of our lives, I present the following comments for your further analysis. I assume that some important points selected for discussions amply demonstrates the logic one should adopt for analyzing the larger issues in the field like examining few rice grains are sufficient to decide the rice is completely baked in the cooker or not.
1. Separation of Vyavaharika and Paramarthika truths
Why these should be separated at all? Every truth is a part of the span of the truth tree. Does or not the Vyavahara of the individuals living in this world (Iha) designed, destined, controlled, known, monitored and maintained by Brahman? Do Vedas endorse omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience of Brahman? Does Brahman endorse the happenings on earth (this world) and elsewhere (Para)? If not then existence of Para is suspect and if yes then Vyavaharika and parmarthika truths can not be separate sets of truth but must be part of the truth called Brahman. Can any one brush away the vyavaharika sathya like the “fire burns” and put one’s hand in to it? What is the necessity for Brahman to keep the Paramarthika Sathya away from the sensory organs, perception and comprehension of a thinker? After all, all these senses and the brain to interpret the stimulants these sensory organs sense are supposed to be given by Brahman himself. If giving capability to accumulate, use and comprehend Vyavaharika truths by the individuals as per Brahman’s order, where is the need of obtaining the Paramarthika truths by the individuals? Why Brahman created individuals with radically different and mutually contradictory Parmarthika Philosophies (to explain his own nature, properties and designs) through his own parts (Atmans – aren’t they? – Recall the Mahavakya, Ayam Atma Brahma) in the form of philosophers and non-philosophers as well and get criticized, abused and contradicted? One Vyavaharika Satya is startling: Shankara’s Advaita was created around 1200 years back. He has based the theory of Advaita on just 4 essentially similar sentences from the Upanishads (not mainstream Vedas that is Samhita or divine Shrutis). (The four Mahavakyas are: Prajnanam Brahma – Aitareya, Ayam Atma Brahma – Mandukya, Tat Tvam Asi – Chandogya, Aham Brahmasmi – Brihadaranyaka). The Upanishads are about 4000 years old. Before these compositions, there is no evidence of any Veda based paramarthika Jnana or any reference to finding the paramarthika Sathya in the world. None of the philosophies of the world date too much earlier to that. Why Brahman was not interested in giving the Vedic knowledge to the human-kind (or other animal kind for that matter!) earlier?
With the above analysis I (rather abruptly fearing digression) opine that the Paramarthika Sathya is invented by the humans based on the Laukika/vyavaharika Jnana they have accumulated since the stone age to rationalize the observations they made and in search of their quest to understand the meaning of life and death. It continues to change even today – Note that many of the Vedic gods (like Vishvedeva, Mitra, Savitr, Rudra, Purusha, Indra, Agni) are no more important in the present day (even) Vedic based cultures and present day asthika (believers in Veda) deities (like Ravi Ganapathi Ambika shiva Vishnu) were not there (at least in the current form) in Vedic times. The rituals and practices (like Grihashanti, Sudarshana Havana, Jyotisha and Yoga) and deity worship (by Shodashopachara pooja) are based on vyavaharika sathya or paramarthika sathya or the combination? Note that Acharya Trayas established Mathas and coined elaborate rituals which, to me, appears very mundane, worldly, based on vyavaharika sathya rather than paramarthika sathya and has no connectivity to the philosophy like Advaita/dwaita … they invented.
2. How one knows the existence of Brahman
Well, you should just blindly believe that he exists because Vedas told you to believe! They also cautioned you that you need not further question his existence as they declared that Brahman can not be perceived or subject to the Process of perception. How the Vedas declared the existence of Brahman? Those who created the Vedas had somehow perceived the unperceivable! Or more philosophers like Shankara, Madhva etc., are specially blessed by Brahman (who gave Vedas to world through Rishis who uttered them in trance (Samadhi sthiti) and their Shishyas herd the Shruti) find them. Is it not partiality?! How and why can Brahman shy away from showing up as-he-is to every individual (having an Atman but he himself is present in all of them in some non-cognizable form) rather than forcing those selected few who are supposed to follow some seemingly unconnected rituals like Tapas, Yajna, Havana, Yaga, Yoga etc.? Advaita Siddhanta or any other Siddhanta have necessarily embedded lot of Tarka (logic) in them. Shankara himself used great analysis of the Mahavaakyas in his Vaakya Vritti and also other Vaada (arguments like Neti) and Pramaanas to decide the nature and properties of Brahman. But when it comes to the natural ability of the individual human beings to perceive the world and see God in the similar manner, the unperceivable and beyond-logic (tarkateetha) arguments are put forward. That is how the legacy of Vedic Paramarthika Sathya is guarded!
3. “Do Your duties”
This is the most contradictory concept but widely quoted statement without bothering about the implications of it by the Asthika Philosophers. Let us examine:
1. Who decides the set of “duties” to the individuals? Who will tell me that these are my duties? The father’s profession is all that, that constitute my duties (Arjuna has to fight because he was born Kshatriya and scavengers scavenge because they are born Chandala)? Is everyone has a statute that they must consult a Jagadguru or Some God-man or somehow get a list of his duties in life? Are the Dharmashastras relevant, consistent with Vedas and clear enough to guide every Atman to do their duty? How animals do their duty? Am I supposed to do “My Duty” even if it is righteous or wrongful thing to do? Are there right and wrong duties. Am I free from Vidhi, God, God’s representatives and enemies of God while doing my duty? What are my rights when I am carrying out my duty? Who grants my rights and means to do my duty? Is it not just a oral assurance that if you do your duty you will reap the benefits that are granted by watchful God?
It may appear that these are too many questions one should be bothered about. But see around, these are the questions whose ambiguous answers are the root cause of the majority of the problems the world is phasing today.
2. What happens if one doesn’t do his duty? The individual will be punished in not-very-clear/arbitrary way (in some other world – Naraka or some other birth – may be in a dog’s or a bacteria’s birth)? The Punya/Papa are for the individuals who are the part of Brahman (albeit the individual Atmans are created out of himself and by himself) is not given the understanding that he would experience the Punya and Papa on doing/not doing something that are perceived by the individuals based on his vyavaharika Sathya Jnana? How such a punishment that cannot be connected with the crime committed would correct the way others behave among the huge set of Atmans (both Vedic believers and non-vedic believers, everyone will have Atman) floating around the world in one body or the other
3. What if I cannot do my duty because of others? Especially when the God-men who describe the properties of Brahman to the individuals oppose the duties as perceived by the individual by birth or otherwise? For example, if a butcher is prevented from butchering by the God-men, is he doing his duty or not? A thief may believe that what he is doing may be correct duty to do as he may have been destined to do that by the Brahman? Is there any universal objective list of good duty or bad duty? In the absence of a standard assignment of duties anything an individual does could be his duty he is doing and anything one does can be said as good/bad
karma. Also since one is not supposed to bother about the outcome of one’s duty (karmanyevadhikarsthe Ma Phaleshu Kadachana) one will not have a means to assess what he is doing is righteous or wrongful, sinful or virtuous etc.
4. Can anyone select a duty of his choice, even when one feels the duties he inherited due to his birth sinful or wrong? Krishna tells Arjuna to fight war as it his duty. Could Arjuna stop doing his duty of fighting if he chose to do so? Krishna has maneuvered to kill Bhishma, Karna, Drona etc for doing their respective duties? Finally when all these people are part of Krishna himself (Vishwaroopa) and doing their duties, nobody killed anyone else, no body died in the Mahabharatha though no Kaurava survived in their current form. Then what way one should do his duty when he is not he and he is part of the Brahman who is telling him to do his duty? Lot of confusion or non-sense? The Acharyas are asking us perceive the unperceivable!
5. The animals are bound by their duties? Can abstain from doing their duty and go in to lower birth or do good duty and obtain higher birth? If all their acts are considered good then all of they should have become humans (as only in Marthya Loka one can do Karma (good/bad) and attain Moksha or Sarga/Naraka) which clearly are not the case on earth!
My opinion on this point is that if individuals carryout their duties on humanitarian and not in too selfish manner, and smartly and without harming the society in which they live (if not help to improve it) based on their perceivable vyavaharika sathya, it assures some fruitful returns rather than spoiling one’s perhaps the only life they got rather than doing illogical things hoping on unperceivable paramarthika sathya. It is wise to marry a beautiful girl rather than believing “looks are not important but the behavior” and ending up with a wife who is neither well behaved nor beautiful!
4. “Non Infallibility” of Buddha and other’s wisdom
How to conclude one’s philosophy is not infallible or infallible compared to other’s? It has to be on application of Logics. Now the logics applied in arriving at a philosophy by the scholars like Shankara, Buddha or Charvaka are vyavaharika or paramarthika? A simple scan of their works tell that it is both, it is worldly logic to start with and when things cannot be explained with the worldly logic a paramarthika logic based on so called revelations by the Brahman or his incarnations like Krishna, Rama, Yajnavalkya, Vashistha, Vishwamitra etc. The former led to the later, not the other way. How could this be? It is the similar kinds of logic in Astrology that a Grahana is computed based on astronomical calculations of moons movements in the sky due to gravitation and declaring that
Rahu and Ketu engulfed the moon, so Grahana happened! A story of Samudra Mathana was created for converting Vyavaharika Sathya to Paramarthika Sathya! We can see this phenomenon of converting Vyavaharika Sathya, found based on the day-to-day observation and worldly (some times by the scientific inventive activities), will be forcefully and deliberately converted to have Paramarthika hue. The conversion of astronomical findings of Indians to Indian Astrology and medicinal findings in to Dhanvantari’s blessings based Ayrveda, Viseshika findings of Kanada in to a Vedic Darshana, Kapila Muni’s Nasthika findings as Samkya Darshana, are the examples of this process. Paramarthika sathya concept arrived just because the defender of a philosophy could not do so by depending only on the worldly (scientific) logic and so resorted to say that the Brahman is unperceivable and beyond logic. By doing so burden of believing on a truth or the cause-effect logics now fell on the hapless common individuals rather than scholarly individuals!
After all, why a philosopher should try and prove/disprove a philosophical concept? It is to spread the knowledge of the absolute truth in to the world and convince the people believing in the alternate philosophy are suffering because he does not know the real truth. If that is the case, why middlemen (or the Brahman taking the form of middlemen among his own taking the form of individual Atmans – Tat Tvam Asi) should inculcate a new religious philosophy every now and then rather than the Brahman himself give the capacity for the individuals to know the truth and behave accordingly? If the absolute truth should ultimately be understood by the Atman why create birth cycle for Atman (Punarapi Jananam Punarapi Maranam …) and keep him ignorant of Paramathika Sathya in every birth? The movement one says that the Siddantha perpetuated by a rival philosopher is not infallible, one just depends on the worldly (vyavaharika) logic of proving/disproving as the paramarthika sathya is unperceivable and beyond logic. Therefore in my opinion, if one believes in the worldly logic and existing of Brahman/Atman is proved by such logic, it becomes a scientific fact and one can keep debating, improving, utilizing such a fact just found. Otherwise you have only one choice – BLINDLY believe in what a popular scholar says without trying to apply logic anymore.
5. Unlearning the right and wrong perceptions!
Why and how anyone unlearns a thing? How do you know an act is right or wrong? Why right and wrong things or even wrong perceptions exist in this world? Some perceptions are right just because some one with mesmerizing logics (it would definitely be the vyavaharika kind) had asked you to
believe in it? Why the truth is kept away from the pieces of Brahman called Atmans through inexplicably thrown-in concept of Maya? God can’t be fooling himself!
If one has to believe the stories perpetuated by Vedas and Puranas it is not just humans who perceive things rightly or wrongly. Every kind of creation by Brahman (Deva, Asura, Kinnara, Kimpurusha, Yaksha, Rakshasa, Gandharva, Naga …) all have right and wrong perceptions and behave according to human conceivable vyavaharika sathya. Consider the philosophical concept of the Brahman in the following list in which only one among them has to be correct and rest are all wrong as their perceptions are mutually contradictory, never complementary (even though some claims that it is and invented something like “trimata sthapana” on advaita+dwaita+vishisthadwaita) and radically different from each other: Shankara, Madhva, Ramanuja, Chaitanya, Basaveshwara, Buddha, Jaina, Nanak, Jesus Christ, Mohammad Paigambar, Kapila, Charvaka… Individuals in the following list must be either wrong or idiots as they are known to have not perceived the Brahman the way Shankara or any of the known religious philosophers and believed in vyavaharika sathya:
Edison, Newton, Einstein, Charvaka, Kanada, Aryabhata, Shushruta, Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russel, A N Murthy Rao, H Narasimhayya… The following list has some names who claim that they believe the philosophy created by Sanatana Dharma (Veda/Vedanta based religion) and do things that other big list of followers of the same philosophy do not agree!: Satya Saibaba, Nityananda, Rishi Kumara, Chandraswamy etc. The following set of socially revered philosophers privately believes in the kind of religion created by Shankara and publicly defies it creating a new unsubstantiated religious discourse which reflects neither Vyavaharika Sathya nor Paramarthika sathya: Visveshwara Thirtha, Mahesh Yogi, Ravishankar Guru, Deepak Chopra, Amrithananda Mayi …
Why am I interested in the lists of people when they need not be considered as the representative practitioners of the philosophy under consideration? If they are not and we think they are not good enough to consider as the practitioners of known philosophies who else could be and why I should be? I am highlighting that vyavaharika sathya only prevails in this world over the so called paramarthika sathya as far as vast majority of people both mundane and scholarly. The concept of paramarthika sathya is, most often than not, used by vested interests to satisfy their ulterior motives rather than used for personal paramarthika purpose. There is no relationship
between the theory and practice from the ground level to world level. Why would God let that kind of situation to prevail even in the Laukika world?
6. Paramarthika incarnation in the vyavaharika world – Intrinsic versus face values
It is interesting to note that how Adi Shankara established the system of followers of his philosophy. Take for example the Dakshinamnaya Shringeri Matha Jagadguru Peetha and its Peethadisha. The Shringeri Shankaracharya is same as God (Tat Tvam Asi) and same as me (Aham Brahmasmi) or the other philosophers like Jesus, Mohammad or Buddha? “If not” is a trivial situation of violation of Advaitha. If yes then why should the Shankaracharya behave in a strange way compared to me, in terms of wearing Kavi, head tonsure, administering the Matha, daily rituals which cannot be traced to Advaita Siddhanta and keeps himself untouchable to me, the other part of the Brahman of whom he is also a part? Assuming the direct perpetuators of the philosophy of Shankara like the Jagadgurus, are the other philosophers like Jesus, Mohammed, Confucious are not Prajnanis? Are they not Gods (Prajnanam Brahma)? If every Atman is Brahman albeit covered by Maya, why a few are anointed as Jagadgurus who are considered special agents of the God? Could there be public set of Atmans and Privileged set of Atmans? On being anointed as Sanyasi/Jagadguru, his Atma becomes better Atma than me? What is the secret intrinsic value attached to a Jagadguru culture, just to take an example of arbitrary nature of declaring something as intrinsic and some are face value and advising that we should only take the former one? My opinion on this point is that since the beginning of the civilization many thinkers tried to find answers to pressing question of existence and sustenance of this very, very complex world. In the absence of scientific methodologies and tools to arrive at a consensus proofs and facts, the brilliant individuals perpetuated whatever they discovered and believed are the absolute truth and expected others also believe in the same way as them. They rationalized everything to the best of their ability, prevailing knowledge, prevailing environment and including satisfaction of their ulterior motives. They had to close further probe in to the question of what and how is the Brahman, to defend their philosophy and beliefs. Therefore Vedas are considered ultimate truth by Sanathanis and Bible by Christians and Quron by Mohammadens.
Science is the only means which provides a platform for comments, criticism, and probity open. Any “established” fact also can be questioned, corroborated, improvised, disapproved and reinvented. Hence all of us should develop rational and scientific temperament and adopt them in daily life with multi-level thinking.


-  Umesha,Bangalore  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, though I am not a student of pure science(physics),I felt dual nature of light and Theory of Relativity were on similar lines to Dvaitha and Advaitha.It looks to me now they are similar to that.Secondly we dont have to believe whatever we read or hear,be is Charvaka or Vedas or Shankara or Madhva.If we apply our mind and go on rationalising,you will surely find a harmonious explanation for all your doubts.This is for sure.Unless we rationalise completely,we will be stuck in no man's land.This again depends on "US".The best way is,take your doubts to every school of thought and see whether it gives you the answer.For me,after wandering here and there,the VEDAS have it all,if you are ready to spare time and understand.Though I have not consulted all the schools of thought in the world,the VEDAS seem to explain better and explicitly my doubts.It again depends on "US" and should be ready to rationalise completely.If we find VEDAS as incomplete,we can go and explore other schools.For the common confusion,the best analogy I can give is,While looking thru telescope,we see only celestial objects,like earth and moon,and it does not matter what exists on earth or moon,how are they related,they are "negligible" and kind of non existant.This is the "paramathika" stand point.From Brahman's view, we are just a thought,be it correct or incorrect,it does not matter.I tried to explain the the same in the blog "perceptions",this is what Advaitha tells.Now what about looking thru a microscope?!,if you are in this world,from your point of view,you only look at things like society,law ,ethics,money etc,the other part of the universe is like non existant,this is the Vyavaharika view point,Dvaitha explains it harmoniously as pointed by Sharmaji.The problem arises when we when we consider vyavaharika concepts at paramathmika point and vice versa.This if we are clear,it answers almost any question that arises.

-subramanya b rOctober 19, 2012 12:00 PM


No comments:

Post a Comment