Monday, October 29, 2012

Discussion on Blog post "Perception"- Part-2

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

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.

ವೇದ ಪಾಠ-8

ಈ ಮೇಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಪಾಠವನ್ನು ತರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವವರಿಗೆಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಇಂದು  ಮೇಲ್ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ತಲುಪದಿದ್ದವರು  ತಿಳಿಸಿದರೆ ಕೂಡಲೇ ಮೇಲ್ ಮಾಡುವೆ.
ಸಂಪಾದಕ, ವೇದಸುಧೆ

ಯೋಚಿಸಲೊ೦ದಿಷ್ಟು... ೬೧

೧.ಮೋಸದ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದ ಮಹಡಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಶೋಷಣೆಯ ಮೇಲೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿದ ಸೌಧಗಳು ಎ೦ದಿಗಾದರೂ ಕುಸಿಯುವ೦ಥವೇ- ಡಾ|| ಶಿವಮೂರ್ತಿ ಮುರುಘಾ  ಶರಣರು
೨.ಹೊಟ್ಟೆಗೆ ಕಿವಿ ಇಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿ೦ದ ಹಸಿದವರ ಮು೦ದೆ ಭಾಷಣ ಮಾಡುವುದು ವ್ಯರ್ಥ!- ಪ್ಲೂಟಾರ್ಕ್
೩. ಸೂರ್ಯ ,ಚ೦ದ್ರ ಮತ್ತು ಸತ್ಯ- ಇವು ಮೂರನ್ನೂ ದೀರ್ಘಕಾಲ ಮುಚ್ಚಿಡಲಾಗದು!- ಗೌತಮ ಬುದ್ಧ
೪. ಮಾತನಾಡದೇ ಇರುವುದೆ೦ದರೆ ಮಾತನಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕಿ೦ತಲೂ ಕಷ್ಟವಾದುದು!
೫. ದೇಹಕ್ಕೆ ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿ , ಚರ್ಮವೆಲ್ಲಾ ಸುಕ್ಕುಗಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರೂ ಒಳಗಿನ ಆಸೆಗಳಿಗಿನ್ನೂ ಯೌವನ ಕಾಲವೇ!
೬. ಮೃದುವಾದ ಮಾತುಗಳೊ೦ದಿಗೆ, ಕ೦ಕುಳಲ್ಲೊ೦ದು ದೊಣ್ಣೆ ಇದ್ದರೆ ಜಯ ನಿಮ್ಮದೇ- ರೂಸ್ ವೆಲ್ಟ್
೭. ಕೇಳುಗರಿಗೆ ಮುಖ್ಯವಾಗಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಹೇಳಬೇಕೇ ವಿನ: ನಮಗೆ ಮುಖ್ಯವೆನಿಸಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಉಪದೇಶಿಸುವುದಲ್ಲ!
೮.ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ೦ದು ಹೊರಡುವುದು ತಪ್ಪಲ್ಲ.. ಆದರೆ ಮಾಡದೇ ಇರುವುದು ತಪ್ಪೇ.
೯. ಜಗತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಹೆಚ್ಚಾಗಿದೆ..   ತಿಳಿಯಬೇಕಾದುದು ಕಡಿಮೆಯಾಗಿದೆ!
೧೦. ಮಾಡುವವನ ಮು೦ದೆ ಇರಬೇಕು.. ಹೊಡೆಯುವವನ ಹಿ೦ದಿರಬೇಕು!
೧೧. ಮೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಆಗಬೇಕಿದ್ದರೂ , ಅದು ಮನದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೊಳೆತು ಬೇರೂರಬೇಕು. ಹಾಗಲ್ಲದೆ ಹೊರಗಡೆಯಿ೦ದ ಹೇರುವುದು ಬೇಗನೇ ವಿಫಲಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ!- ಕುವೆ೦ಪು
೧೨. ಬಡಜನರಿಗೆ ನೆರವು ನೀಡುವ ಸಜ್ಜನರೂ  ದೇವರ ಸಮಾನರೇ!
೧೩. ಕೊನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಉಳಿಯುವುದು ಶ್ರದ್ಧೆ, ಭರವಸೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರೇಮಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ!  ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಪ್ರೇಮವೇ ಸರ್ವಶೇಷ್ಠವಾದುದು!
೧೪.ಪೆಮವೆ೦ಬ ಎರಡೂವರೆ ಅಕ್ಷರಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಜವಾಗಿ ಅರಿತು, ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊ೦ಡವನೇ ನಿಜವಾದ ಪ೦ಡಿತ!- ಕಬೀರ್ ದಾಸರು
೧೫. ಮಾನವೀಯತೆಯೆ೦ಬುದು ಬಹು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಸಾಗರವಿದ್ದ೦ತೆ. ಅದರ ಕೆಲವು ಬಿ೦ದುಗಳು ಕೊಳೆಯಾದ ತಕ್ಷಣ, ಅದು ಇಡಿಯಾಗಿ ಕೊಳೆಯಾಗದು!- ಗಾ೦ಧೀಜಿ