-subramanya b rOctober 19, 2012 12:00 PM
My response for the above comments:
Even after thinking hard I failed to relate Dual Nature of light with the Philosophy of Advaita-Dwaita. To my knowledge, Adi Shankara and Madhwacharya didn’t claim Brahman sometimes behaves like Paramatma (Wave Nature?) and some times Atman (Particle Nature?). Advaita perhaps tells us that the vyavaharika world (Iha) is the Brahman himself albeit wrapped up in something called Maya. With in the Maya envelope, Atman takes many, many forms and births that do not resemble the Brahman at all. In addition some of them keep searching the parent material called Brahman in vain. In Dwaita, Atman exists (only in) Atman form albeit under full control of Brahman and get completely merged if Atman attains Moksha, thereafter it is no more Atman (again it is not dual nature simultaneously like that of light).
Well, what if even the philosophies match with the dual nature of light? Does that mean that the modern science found the nature of Brahman without the means, methods, methodology and facts contained in Vedas? Should we consider Adi Shankara as the inventor of Modern Science and his Advaita siddantha to be studied as an alternative methodology to understand the nature of the light? Should we consider the Acharyas’ perceptions of the Para consistent with the perception of the world by modern science? Then the Brahman is perceivable by modern science and logic?
This is a general drawback of finding analogies in the Vyavaharika world to justify theories of Paramarthika world. They are not analogous. We should be very careful in finding analogies in the logical world, as, if they do not match, the inference would be arbitrary. For example, many people declare “Can you see the wind? So is the Brahman, but he exists”. Another popular analogy regarding the “Uniqueness of God” is the Shloka – Akaashatpatitam toyam yathaa gacchati sagaram, sarva deva namaskaram keshavam prati gacchati”. No need to explain the silliness of these analogies. (Once I suggested to a Madhva to replace “Keshavam” word in the shloka as “Shivam” or “Allaham” which will not alter the meaning of the Shloka).
Coming to the degree of rationalization one can practically achieve. I just agree that you can not rationalize everything. Yes! That is it! You can not rationalize everything by the current knowledge possessed with the human kind. They are evolving. The all important point here is, It is not possible to rationalize everything by Vedas and other school of philosophies as well. If someone finds answers to all his/her questions in Vedas and could rationalize everything through the Vedic Knowledge, it is very, very subjective (as rightly pointed out in the comment as “US”) and can not be considered as either vyavaharika sathya or paramarthika sathya by others. However, people do not stop at finding an answer for themselves. They perpetuate it as universal truth and want others to follow it exactly the way they understood it. Therefore, when we talk of “absolute truth”, finding of which is the lifetime goal of every asthika and following of the associated rituals is almost mandatory societal requirement, we can not depend upon the subjective understanding of the individuals. It has to be objective analysis and the truth should be declared when subjectivity factors are removed to the best of concurrent knowledge. When we observe the sky with a telescope, we declare the objects observed with the associated properties. We never declare the nature and properties of the celestial bodies that are never observed by the telescope or even inference based on the previously observed facts without logical conclusions.
Note that the instruments like microscope and telescope shows whatever comes with in their range to reveal the vyavaharika sathya, where as the Vedic instruments (if any) has so far not shown the paramarthika sathya which are consistent, objective and conclusive.
The question of whether Vedas are incomplete – If one should consider that the Vedas are incomplete, all the Veda based philosophies instantly crumble. Looking in to other school of philosophies may not help as they are not really alternatives and equally non-logical, inconclusive and fraught with contradictions. If any school of thought is able to rationalize everything in the world, all the religions and science in the world will have to accept the philosophy as true (vyavaharika or otherwise) and that knowledge automatically becomes science. Then the whole world would have been necessarily harmonious!
The comments insist that the Vyavaharika Sathya and Paramarthika sthaya be separated. I differ and have explained it in my write-up.