Gender and Brahmam

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Apr 2007, 11:37

CML, I like your portrayal of the modulus operator as the paradigm for 'mAyA'. That came out of nowhere

Neat. Modulus has the property of increasing the entropy of a system (i.e. loss of information). So may be entropy ( and the second law of thermodynamics ) and mAyA have something to do with each other. ( here I am really at the edges of the limb ). Can you please translate the AcArya's sanskrit verse and explain the ( even if it is tangential ) modulus-mAyA relationship you have found.

Paddu, all this math and science are merely the descriptive tools and not the experientual tools. And these descriptive tools themselves say they can not go beyond that and how limited they actually are ( that is quite a show of humulity for a field that is sometimes mistakenly perceived as know-it-all ). As you rightly opined, Bhakti is the predominant path that everyone can follow for the actual experience, gyanam.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 23 Apr 2007, 14:44

Hmm. Very nice turn to the discussion. Vk- nice to see you coming out freely with ideas.

CML
I am trying to follow (with all my limitations) what is being said here.

I have an issue with representing the relationship between tat and tvam as a mathematical formula. tat=tvam or with a k(mod) on the side of RHS. Simply because the equation implies that things can be moved from one side to the other. If you can add something to the RHS, then by mathematical rules, the same can be subtracted from the LHS as well. Identity relationship is ok as VK says (Point 3)

3) Identity relationship. LHS and RHS are both the same but referenced through different names

pUrNamadaH pUrNamidam pUrNAt pUrNamudacyatE

I know this is "unscientific" and a circular argument, but Im afraid sometime thats the best we can do.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 23 Apr 2007, 14:47

The moment we think of "me" as a body, then the identity is gone. The soul is of course identical (So the seers have said). That brings back the vexing question, if the body is not tat, what is it? mAyA. But how can something not be a part of the all-pervasive brahman? And if it is, why is it pulling the soul away from tat? And why is "AtmA" more a part of tat than SarIra?

I can console myself by saying, If I knew the answers, i would not be discussing it here.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 23 Apr 2007, 18:10

tat=tvam

sAmudrO hi taranga: kvachana samudrO na tAranga: ||

(Shatpadi stOtram)

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 23 Apr 2007, 18:54

One act of 'stepping outside the human logical mind' is to experience Brahman and then come back to describe it all. Of course it can not be described with the human logical mind because that person is now back in the human system.

"Once a salt doll went to measure the depth of ocean. It wanted to tell others how deep the water was. But this it could never do, for no sooner dit it get into the water than it melted. Now who was there to report the ocean's depth?"
(Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna - pp 103)

"Once rAma asked hanumAn, 'How do you look on Me?' And hanumAn replied: 'O rAma, as long as I have the feeling of 'I', I see that Thou art the whole and I am a part; Thou art the Master and I am Thy servant. But when, O rAma, I have the knowledge of Truth, then I realise that Thou art I, and I am Thou.'"
(ibid pp 105)

The whole of 'Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna' is indeed the description of That which cannot be described.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:21

When you strike a piece of iron sparks fly in all directions! Each spark is potentially capable of a conflagration. I am glad we are getting stimulated and opening our minds to think of what our ancient seers said in the modern context. But let us be focussed and pursue one topic at a time. The language of science and maths have inherent limitations since they were developed to understand the 'material' world! We need to develop a 'new' math to understand the spiritual (nonmaterial). Wecan use analogies but they are imperfect. For example the equality sign ( = ) that I used is not a congruence in the strict mathematical sense. We need to invent new symbols and new operators to understand the spiritual maths. For example the 'Fuzzy Systems' approach as developed recently holds a lot of promise. Our seers relied largely on intuition rather than explicit formalized theorems and proofs. They resorted to sutras or aphorisms which succinctly summarized but a left a lot to intuition. One cannot understand the sutras without a guru (interpretor) which is akin to tranferring the complete OS from one machine to another whereas an itemized transfer will malfunction. We have lost that 'gurukula' system and must now find modern alternatives. The ancient system consisted of sUtra, vArtika, bhAShya and vyAkhyAna (and I could explain it elaborately if there is an interest). The point is that though the essence of the knowledge was transferred the individuality was not killed or suppressed. We need to rethink and rebuild on our ancient system of spiritual maths before it gets lost!

Now to your request for the translation of the dakShinamUrty stotram that I quoted. The running translation is:

"seeing the universe contained within himself (nija antargatam) like a city seen in a mirror (darpaNa dR^ishyamaana nagarii tulyam) but appearing ass if produced outside through Maya or illusion (maayayaa bahiH iva udbhuutam) as in sleep (yathaa nidrayaa (as being the real self in the dream state)) while one realizes at he time of Spiritual Illumination (saakshaatkurute prabodhasamaye) that His Self is immutable(svaatmaanam eva avvyayaM); to that Teacher, Sri Dakshinamurthy is this salutation (tasmai shrii gurumuurtaye nama idam) shriidakshiNaamuurtaye )"

This wonderful pithy verse provides the insight into the mechanics of the equation 'tattvamasi'. Maya is like our mod operator that maps the external universe (the seemingly infinite)onto you (tvam). In other words the limited self (you) is indeed the unlimited cosmic universe. Maya captures everything like the tiny little mirror (tvam) captures the whole universe (vishvam). It is experiential too as when during the dream state when the True Self controls the Maya one is able to identify himself with every object in the universe as 'self' (the limited body). Once the illusion of Maya dissolves 'tvam' discovers that it is indeed the immutable 'tat'.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Apr 2007, 21:28

DRS
I have partly answered you above. We need a new math to describe our philosophical concepts. The translation into conventional mathematical symbols has inadequacy. We have symbols for 'yes', 'no' ,'don't know' but we rule out 'yes and no' as inadmissible! Quantum maths indeed is dealing with such contradictions which is the basis of some of the 'fallacies' that we encounter; but are they fallacies or do they arise due to our inadequate descriptive mechanism?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 Apr 2007, 22:19

Vg

"Once rAma asked hanumAn, 'How do you look on Me?' And hanumAn replied: 'O rAma, as long as I have the feeling of 'I', I see that Thou art the whole and I am a part; Thou art the Master and I am Thy servant. But when, O rAma, I have the knowledge of Truth, then I realise that Thou art I, and I am Thou.'"
(ibid pp 105)

Though this is a digression I could not resist sharing the beauty of the sanskrit language encrypted in the original shloka:

When Rama asked Hanuman:
kastvam (who are you) he replied:
dEhabuddhyA tvadAsOsmi jIvabuddhyA tvadamshakaH |
AtmabuddhyA tvamEvAhamiti mE nishcitA matiH ||
which essentially means what you have quoted. But let me elaborate the padArtha for the benfit of those who do not know sanskrit
dEhabuddhyA = by my physical(corporeal) self
tvadAsOsmi = tva dAsaH asmi = I am your servant
jIvabuddhyA = by my living (holistic) self
tvadamshakaH = tvat amshakaH = I am a part of you (I am an extension of you!)
AtmabuddhyA = by my spiritual (innate/True) self
tvamEvAham = tvam Eva aham = I am thou
iti mE nishcitA matiH = such is my confirmed opinion/resolve

I reanalyzed the shloka and constructed the following scenario(the idea is my own

When RavaNa asked Hanuman the same question
kastvam (who are you) Hanuman (who is 'Sollin Selvan') replied exactly the same
dEhabuddhyA tvadAsOsmi jIvabuddhyA tvadamshakaH |
AtmabuddhyA tvamEvAhamiti mE nishcitA matiH ||

Now here is the analysis:
dEhabuddhyA = by my physical(corporeal) self
tvadAsOsmi = tu adAsaH asmi(note by sandhi tva =tu+a) = I am but 'not' your servant
jIvabuddhyA = by my living (holistic) self
tvadamshakaH = tva damshakaH = I am your eater (a stinger who has come to destroy you)
(note the self-effacing statement where he compares himself to a flea sent by the Lord)
AtmabuddhyA = by my spiritual (innate/True) self
tvamEvAham = tu ama Eva aham = I am but the terror/plague (for you)
(a fraction of the holocaust yet to come from the Lord)
iti mE nishcitA matiH = such is my confirmed opinion/resolve

What is the inherent beauty, power and depth of the Sanskrit language! Aren't we blessed by this divine gift from our forefathers?

karthik76 · Post by **karthik76** » 23 Apr 2007, 23:18

First of all, this is a wonderful discussion.

This roller coaster started slow for the first few seconds - 'What is the gender of brahmaN?'. Then it traversed the apparently fearless territory of rasas and how gender is related to them, on its way to the seemingly quiet standstill of 'Exactly what we are doing here in this thread!' for a few seconds; only to be followed by the thrilling deep plunge into metaphysics and metamathematics by CML and VK. I am not a fan of roller coasters, but on this one, I eagerly await the loops and corkscrews.

cmlover wrote:tat = tvam

CML's equation is very interesting. The '=' here is a very complicated operator with a variety of meanings based on everyone's point of view. But in each of these ideas, there's some assumption, condition, exclusion etc.

If '=' is equated to 'is', then 'time' alters the interpretation and validity of this equation, as CML beautifuly analyzed.
If '=' is equated to 'is a part of' or 'is a', then 'awareness of the self' would question the '='. As the self becomes more and more aware, the equation tends to invalidity or changes meaning.
If '=' is equated to an identity relationship, then understanding and proving the equation (for each individual) still depends on the awareness (of the individual). How difficult this is or long this takes solely depends on the individual.

Can we model the brahmaN as the sum total of our experience? Or even better, can our AtmA gradually mature by negating what it thinks as the 'I', and eventually find out as not? If so, could brahmaN be the negation of the sum total of all our experiences connected with all these variables - kAla, prakRti, bhUta etc?

I am thinking in the direction of shankara's nirvANa shatakam.

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 23 Apr 2007, 23:51

CML
Nice alternate expalanation and imagination. I have a doubt about the "tu". This does not affect the overall alternate analysis you have given. But tu is not "your", correct? The tva comes in the second bit so thats ok. tu can of course be accounted for in other ways without marring the overall meaning.

vasya10 · Post by **vasya10** » 24 Apr 2007, 02:00

cmlover:

the alternate scenario of Hanuman - Ravana is really very nice imagination. Hanuman's meeting of rAvana is one of the most captivating sections of the rAmAyaNa.

i have a question, when there was so much brevity in sutras and alike for economy of words, what was the necessity to even have "asi". For eg in several sutras, slokas, the "asti, bhavati" is altogether not required. So it could have been just "tattvam".

For eg, i pAniniya sutras, the "asti" is not used and not required, because he generally substitutes it with the genetive case, so the bhavati/asti is implicitly understood.

one explanation you already provided that asi doesnt have a future tense, so the rshis used "asi" to hilite the strict "present tense nature". But i feel, still there must be other thought processes which necessitates the inclusion of "asi".

Another question, the "tat" shabda is same for both objective case and subjective case. What case here is the "tat" ?

If its in first case, the equation tvam = tat is correct. But if "tat" is in 2nd case, its more like

tvam = f(tat)

(edit).. I think tat is probably in 1st case because of asi. But if the root "as" can mean "become" instead of "are", then tat would be a 2nd case. So is it possible to translate as "Thou become that!" ?

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Apr 2007, 02:16

Vasya- you are onto something perhaps.

tat tvam asi is famously translated as "Thou art That" (Or "That thou Art").

tat tvam would as such not give a clear or unambiguous meaning. It would just say "You That"
like "nInu adu" in kannaDa. "nInE adu" would of course clarify what is being said. The sanskrit equivalent would however be tvamEva tat. So "asi" is required to clarify the meaning? Also, I wonder if the "Verb" or "action" signifies something. Perhaps pointing to "being" rather than "non-being" (If you see what I mean). Meaning this is a vibrant truth, not jaDa. (But then brahman is neither jaDa nor cEtana is it not?)

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Apr 2007, 04:00

DRS

I agree there are several innovative ways of interpreting 'tu' though at times in sanskrit poetry it is treated occasionally as a filler particle. But our forefathers were not idle chatterers and did have inner meaning buried in those shlokas which an accomplished Guru can expound. Now consider this interpretation of 'tattvamasi'.

As I have already explained 'asi' is needed for encapsulating the time element whence tvam becomes redundant. So let us look for a meaning other than 'you' which is already in 'asi'. We can split tvam as 'tu'+'am'. We can write now (dissolving the sandhi)
tat tu am asi
Note that 'tat' is free of gender and we might very well interpret it as 'it'. So where is the 'brahmam' now? It is captured in 'am'. Recollect the primeval letter 'a' standa for ViShNu/Siva/Brahma.. or in fact the eternal divinity. That is not an avyaya and hence 'am' is 'brahmatvam' or the brahma tatvam (the essence of brahmahood). Now 'tu' as an indclinable primarily means 'but/on the other hand'; thus the recast sentence is:
tu tat am asi = But that/it brahmatvam you are
Or you are (but)indeed the essence of that brahmahood!
In this context even 'tat' becomes redundant but is needed to indicate the distinction between the seer and the seen (since 'you' being ignorant (due to avidya) are still under the impression that brahmam is something (granted gender free) out there). Once the avidya has melted away 'tvamasi' (you are but the brahmahood) will suffice!

Incidentally all the other mahAvAkyas are simple corollaries to 'tattvamasi' as can be easily shown by straight derivations and mathematical equivalences!

Moving along, just note that the 'am' brahmatvam is inert/neutre! If you enliven it with addition of energy symbolized by the vowel 'u' (which traditionally represents shakti (in tAntric contexts 'i' is used!) or representing caturmukha brahma, the creator) you get
am + u = aum the fully potent praNava Omkaara!
We can derive alternatively as:
'a' (Supreme/Siva) + 'u' (shakti) = O (praNava) which is distinct male/female bisexual principle. In fact in sanskrit only male or female words can end in 'O'. And hence to get the abstract genderlesss quality we neuterize with the case termination 'm'.
Om is the 'praNavahood' or the essence of praNava.
(This is only for analytic explanation, since Om is a nitya samaasa and even the traditional interpretation of a +u +m is inadmissible)

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 24 Apr 2007, 04:15

cmlover wrote:DRS

I agree there are several innovative ways of interpreting 'tu' though at times in sanskrit poetry it is treated occasionally as a filler particle. But our forefathers were not idle chatterers and did have inner meaning buried in those shlokas which an accomplished Guru can expound.

No, I was not talking about the original meaning but your interpretation of hanumAn's reply (To rAvaNa). It was in that context alone I raised the doubts about "tu". In any case, it led to you throwing new insights on tattvam asi. That isgood!

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 24 Apr 2007, 08:08

Bhakti is tool which anyone can use, through the act to acceptance (like in the sense, I know there is God, but I do not know what God is).

Marcus Aurelius (AD 121- 180)
Meditations Chapter 12
12.14
Either an ineluctable destiny and an order that none may overstep, or a providence that can be appeased,or an ungoverned confusion subject to nothing but chance.
If,then,an insurmountable destiny,why struggle against it ?
If, a providence that allows itself to be appeased,make yourself worthy of aid from the divine.
and If, a confusion without a Governor,be glad that in the midst of such heavy seas , you yourself have a guiding intellect within you.
Anf If, the billows sweep you away,let them sweep away your poor flesh, and breath,and all the rest ;
For your mind, they shall never sweep away.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 24 Apr 2007, 13:35

I still insist that ideas such as brahman, paramatma, etc. can be a hindrance to the true spiritual growth of a person. There's a wonderful Zen saying: 'If you see the Buddha on the way, kill him!' - that applies here too.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 24 Apr 2007, 15:23

kill him

ya Enam vEtti hantAraM yaScainam manyatE hatam |
ubhau tau na vijAnItO nAyam hanti na hanyatE || BG. II.19 ||

"He who takes the self to be the slayer, and who takes It to be slain, neither of these knows. It does not slay, not is it slain."

Buddha would have happily agreed to be killed whether it gives happiness or not to the killer. But the killer would be poorer because he would still cherish the doubt that there may be more Buddhas. You can kill an embodied person, but, how to kill the 'ghost' of doubt?

That's what hiraNya kaSipu wanted to do - to find viSNu and slay Him because he was afraid of his own death at the hands of his own son who could not be killed by any method. Ultimately he met his own fate.

But then, it is a different story that hiraNya kaSipu wanted to be an 'enemy' of the Lord so that he could reach Him earlier.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 24 Apr 2007, 15:50

"Chandogya Upanishad is one of the major Upanishads. The great sentence â€“ 'Tattvamasi' (thou art that) is found in the sixth chapter of this Upanishad. This sentence is like a crowning jewel of Vedanta Shastra.

This great sentence has made the Upanishad one of the most important Upanishads. The opening verse of this Upanishad is â€“ "Sadeva somyedamagra aseet â€“ Ekamevaadviteeyam". It means "before this world (came into being), there was only "Sat". It is only one. It is without a second". After this sentence, many other Vedantic aspects have been dealt with in this Upanishad. The concluding sentence is, "Eikadaatmyamidam sarvam â€“ tat satyam â€“ sa atmaa â€“ tattvamasi shwetaketo". The meaning of this sentence is, "the manifest universe is infact the primordial Sat itself. That Sat is Real. That itself is Atma. O!Shwetaketu, You are that Sat"

Thus, we can see that the Upanishad begins with the explanation of Sat and concludes with the same Sat. The theme of the Upanishad is also "Sat". We can therefore understand that to stress the fact "You are that Sat" is the purport (Tatparya) of this Upanishad. This method of narration is called Upakrama-Upasamhara."
Source http://www.dattapeetham.com/india/bhakt ... apr99.html

This mahAvAkya is part of dialogue and not a sUtra. Therefore, IMHO, 'asi'

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 24 Apr 2007, 16:12

For your mind, they shall never sweep away

sthitadhI: (steady wisdom) (BG. II. 56)

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 Apr 2007, 20:53

So far we have been in the realm of pure maths. One usually starts with the existence theorems. That is actually covered in several places in the Upanishads and Brahmasutra. For example the 'nEti nEti' of the upanishads (eg., BrihadAraNya 2.3.6) address the existence issue as does 'tattvamsi' more explicitly. We could discuss them more elaborately but they are quite 'boring' for those who are willing to accept existence (of God) as an element of faith and ready to move on. Folks are usually concerned with applied maths and would like to see the equations in action. In fact Einstein's famous equation (e = m*c^2) was just a paper tiger until it was verified on the cyclotron and the tiger literally roared at Los Alamos!

We have seen that 'tattvamasi' as the defining equation is valid but then there are practical difficulties inputting it to use. For once we find 'mAyA' shrouding the truth which has to be gotten rid of. We know that applied maths provides a variety of tools for practical appliication not all of which are foolproof! One approach was developed by Sage Patanjali elaborated in his Yoga Sutras. Lord Krishna himself recommends karmayoga as the means to gnaanayoga en route to liberation (tattvamsi). Narada BhaktisUtra recommend the bhaktimarga as the easy route available for everybody. Thyagaraja chose nAdOpAsana as the means of ultimate laya with divinity and there are others. In fact every religion has its own tenets for liberation and the attainment of Divinity and each claim that they have the right answer and all the rest are false! That is the problem with 'applied maths'. It may or may not work!(for example you may have a infinite series solution for an answer but whether it converges to the true value or not has to be established through pure maths only!).

Now I can stop here, or pursue one of the skeins of this thread with your collective inputs. I have no intention of carrying on a monologue

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 25 Apr 2007, 01:52

Buddha would have happily agreed to be killed whether it gives happiness or not to the killer.

Govindan, you may have missed the message of the Zen saying. What's meant is that on the spiritual path the last few obstacles are some of your favorite concepts, e.g. Buddha to the buddhist, Jesus to the Christian, Brahman to the Hindu, etc. And these are precisely the hardest ones to get past, because of one's stronger attachment to these.

'Killing' here refers to the dropping of these 'spiritual' attachments - in fact, going beyond all concepts.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Apr 2007, 09:59

Perhaps this will help
http://www.kwanumzen.com/primarypoint/v ... uddha.html

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 25 Apr 2007, 11:17

jayaram,
Thanks for clarification. Indeed the zen saying was very cryptic. I am in full agreement with you that the names - Brahman - Allah - Father etc are peculiar to each denomination of people and not universal.

However, I having been born as Hindu, the names of Allah and Father would not inspire me the way the name 'brahman' does. As kRSNa has said in Bhagavad-gIta, 'all paths lead to Him only', while I hold the names of Allah and Father to the fullest respect, I would still cling to the word 'brahman' because man's mind cannot think in vacuum. It must have something to hold on till the time the props themselves drop off.
From that angle, as almost all of us discussing the subject here are Hindus, there is nothing very wrong in using the name 'brahman'.
BTW, Buddha and Jesus are only incarnations of Supreme Self like kRSNa. I request you to differentiate the incarnations from Supreme Self which is common for the Universe.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 25 Apr 2007, 11:53

It must have something to hold on till the time the props themselves drop off.

There is a beautiful Chapter in the novel Brothers Karamazov,where such a set of props come crumbling down for the hero-Alyosha-When his master's body (at the Monastery) starts putreyfying,after his death..Set against a long held belief that Holy men's Bodies do not decay after death , this is the moment of reckoning for the disciple.
The entry in the wikipedia for this chapter is very illuminating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brothers_Karamazov

The book ends with the spiritual regeneration of Alyosha as he embraces the earth outside the monastery and cries convulsively until finally going back out into the world, renewed.

So it is always one set of props replacing another , I guess.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 25 Apr 2007, 15:54

So it is always one set of props replacing another , I guess.

"With great effort men dig a well for drinking-water, using spades and baskets for the purpose. After the digging is over, some throw the spades and other implements into the well, not needing them any more. But some put them away near the well, so that others may use them."
Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna pp500

I learnt 'fire' is 'f-i-r-e'; I also learnt 'f-i-r-e' is not 'fire'. I then experienced 'fire'; now, when I hear 'fire' I know it is not 'f-i-r-e'. Yet 'f-i-r-e' and 'fire' will continue to remain for ever what they were.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Apr 2007, 22:42

I wanted to see if there is other crazy talk on the net linking Kurt Godel and Brahman

I found one..

Ishavasja Upanishad:

Vidja cha avidja cha jast dwedobhaya sa ha
AvidjÃ¶ja mrtjum Tiirtva VidjÃ¶ja amritam ashnute
(Verse 11, note: ja has been used to denote the English phonetic ya)

CML, can you translate this and see in what way this is related to the Incompletness or Undecidability inherent in mathematical logic, similar to Kurt Godel ?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 Apr 2007, 23:16

VK

You have indeed posed an extremely complex question. I certainly need time to explain this in simple terms. Also you cannot discuss this out of context since this verse is linked to the previous ones! But I shall try my best though my explanations may be controversial and I do not want traditionalists to get offended! Let me wait for a day before making my input!

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 25 Apr 2007, 23:55

But some put them away near the well, so that others may use them."

Fancy concepts such as moksha, liberation, brahman etc etc seem to reflect the arrogance of the human being. Because we can think and have linguistic capability, we speak of these.

A flower blooms, then dies - no-one talks about moksha etc. for the flower. But we feel we are special, hence these concepts come into the picture.

And then we talk about droppping the ego, to attain moksha - strange are the ways of the human being...!

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 25 Apr 2007, 23:56

BTW, Buddha and Jesus are only incarnations of Supreme Self like kRSNa.

Hmm - methinks the dichotomy between self and supreme self is itself an illusion.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Apr 2007, 00:06

Fancy concepts such as moksha, liberation, brahman etc etc seem to reflect the arrogance of the human being. Because we can think and have linguistic capability, we speak of these.

Jayaram: Arrogance characterization aside, there are only a few species ( if at all any, other than humans ) that can reflect on their own mortality. That realization of the lack of permanence of one's own existence definitely has a role to play in wondering what this is all about.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 26 Apr 2007, 00:15

For the manuscript of Isa Upanishad (including verse 11 quoted by VK) please visit website - http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/prit ... atext.html

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 26 Apr 2007, 00:24

jaya jaya Ram

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Apr 2007, 01:39

VK,
Wondering what it's all about: your 'some species other than human beings' brings to mind instinctive behavior as well. Far from 'reflecting' on things, certain actions of lesser species speak of wisdom. The behavior of hermit crabs which die after giving birth and know (??) they can't fend for their offsprings for long, do not kill a caterpillar--lest they rot--but paralyse it as food bank for the baby crabs until the little ones can look for their own nourishment! An outrageous way perhaps, but if we look at it this way--we started off having wisdom just as the not-so-evolved creartures (considering for a moment that instinct is wisdom) and somewhere along the line we lost it and had to develop our minds to ponder over it all! After all, ants and other animals are karma yOgis. Tragedies don't lead them to withdrawal but to be mindful (aha!) of what is to be DONE--'no to be or not to be' in their cases as with the most developed of the species...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Apr 2007, 02:06

Arasi. Excellent. Thanks. I did not know about the behavior of the hermit crabs. Incredible!! That is definitely wisdom indeed. One interpretation is that they have some knowledge/instinct of their imminent demise. Quite mind boggling to think about what else they know!!

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Apr 2007, 02:26

Very interesting. Counterintuitive. Food for thought.

aridaridu mAniDarAyppiTRattal aridu!

arasi wrote:The behavior of hermit crabs which die after giving birth and know (??) they can't fend for their offsprings for long, do not kill a caterpillar--lest they rot--but paralyse it as food bank for the baby crabs until the little ones can look for their own nourishment!...

I know the wasps do this. Do hermit crabs do this too?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Apr 2007, 02:40

Wasps, eh? That is new to me! I haven't forgotten what in my undergrad years prof Dr. Wilhelmsson told us about instinctive behavior and the crabs did make an indelible impression. Now, time for a three liner, I suppose: the thinking animal eats crab, crab does NOT kill caterpillar, but babes eat it. Something for ramakriya here

We humans need food AND food for thought, DRS

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 26 Apr 2007, 02:46

vgvindan wrote:jaya jaya Ram

govinda govinda!

drshrikaanth · Post by **drshrikaanth** » 26 Apr 2007, 03:05

arasi wrote:Wasps, eh?

Yes. I can say with conviction as I have witnessed this in person- the wasps in action and those green larave in the nests. Why I had the doubt about the hermit crab is because it would be a hard task for a a hermit crab (Or anything else) to find insect "larvae" in the sea! There are some terrestrial hermit crabs yes, but not many of them. And I just checked the wikipedia(Not an authority!) and this does not list the behaviour in question too.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 26 Apr 2007, 03:38

Jayaram: Arrogance characterization aside, there are only a few species ( if at all any, other than humans ) that can reflect on their own mortality.

VK - wow, you may have hit upon something there!
-- Perhaps it's precisely because we humans are aware of our mortality that we try our best to 'extend' our existence in any way we can. Hence ideas like soul, after-life - even brahman - have been conceived by us, thus creating this whole 'spirituality' business. Other species that are 'blissfully' unaware of their mortality don't have any need for spirituality, etc.

Make sense?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Apr 2007, 04:50

Jayaram, Yes, an atheist can take that position. An agnostic ( who can take a lot of comfort in Kurt Godel ) may see that as a possibility. There are some evolutionary biologists who hypothesize about why the concept of God is of survival value. With functional MRI, scientists know which part of the brain lights up during spiritual thought, prayer and meditation and derive evolutionary clues based on that. Having said all that, it is not logical to conclude that just because humans are capable of abstract thought and have the capability to reflect on their mortality, they make up spiritual matters to get over their survival pangs. It does not pass both the 'necessity and sufficiency' test.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Apr 2007, 06:29

VK
I am posting some relevant passages from Isopanishad as also the approximate translations. Sorry I had to post the original shlokas in the devanagiri lipi for my convenience.

9. Those who worship avidya (ignorance) go to pitch darkness, but to a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to Vidya (knowledge).

10. Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by vidya and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by avidya. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.

11. He who knows both vidya and avidya together, transcends mortality through avidya and reaches immortality through vidya.

12. To pitch darkness they go who worship the Unmanifested. To a greater darkness than this go those who are devoted to the Manifested.

13. Different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Manifested and different indeed, they say, is the result (attained) by the worship of the Unmanifested. Thus have we heard from the wise who had explained it to us.

14. He who knows both the (Un)manifested and the destructible together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the (Un)manifested.

Let the discussions which are interesting proceed which i do not want to interrupt since these passages are highly controversial as far as I know!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Apr 2007, 08:17

CML, thanks very much. When I posted the request I did not quite realize what I was really asking

This is quite a mind bender and I do not know enough to fully realize the controversies surrounding this ( though I have some clues ). Please provide the commentary.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Apr 2007, 10:02

VK
You belong to the generation where rationalism rules. I come from one where tradition ruled. I was taught to accept vedas and AcArya on trust and implicit faith. Questioning was taboo even if there were contradictions and the explanations at times irrational. If you agree let us wipe our slates clean and look at these in the light of modern science (and keeping in mind Godel

.

Traditionalists follow the explanations of shankara who even took the liberty of correcting the upanishad to suit his interpretation

He has been questioned by lesser commentators (you can read about it in Radhakrishnans translation of The Principal Upanishads. Of course SarvapaLLi was careful not to take any sides! We however do not know what 'dadhya^Ng AtarvaNa' (author of the upanishad) had in his mind. We can do a simple lexical analysis and try to provide our own interpretation (which may not be palatable to the traditionals!). Unfortunately the westerners (who primarily regurgitated shankara or translated literally) have not analyzed in depth!

I don't intend to reproduce here the various commentaries (I think it is voluminous and pointless). I need the collective input from all of you (especially incisive comments from DRS (and coolkarni's classic quotes

and our srkris too if he is following!) who are worldly wise and well-read). It is OK to generate heat! But let there be no conflagration!

Are we game ?

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 26 Apr 2007, 12:55

"The legend about wasp turning other insectst as themselves may be based on the peculiar behaviour of wasps in laying their eggs - "wasps primarily parasitize eggs of moths and butterflies" â€“ Source â€“
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-6071.html

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 26 Apr 2007, 13:22

I happened to read about controversy surrounding 'vidya' and 'avidya' particularly with reference to verse 11 of IsOpaniShad. IMHO, a nice explanation as to what constitutes vidya and avidya is given in Introduction to the Book 'Brahma Sutras' authored by Swami Vireswarananda based on the commentary of Sri Sankara - pp 12 - 16. The relevant portion is as under -

How can ignorance lead to knowledge? Empirical knowledge can produce transcendental knowledge through its empirical validity. To put it in Sri Ramakrishna's beautiful language, 'when we run a thorn in our hand we take it out by means of another thorn and throw out both. So relative knowledge alone can remove that relative ignorance which binds the eye of the Self. But such knowledge and such ignorance are both alike included in avidyA; hence the man who attains to the highest knowledge (jnAna), the knowledge of the Absolute, does away in the end with both knowledge and ignorance, being free from all duality.' But before the dawning of real knowledge the authority of the vEdas stands unquestioned, for a knowledge that has not been realized cannot prevent a person from entering on ritualistic activities. It is only after realization that scriptural texts cease to be operative."

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Apr 2007, 19:39

VG
Good work!

Vk
how do you want to proceed? In abstract 'mathematical' terms or commonplace (nothing derogatory here!) language using quotes and references as authority (called 'aptavacana' which is usually the approach of shankara!).

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 26 Apr 2007, 19:57

fascinating thread - didnt even know it was going on the last few days:)

If i may just revisit a bit:

* i especially liked the godel theorem crossover to philosophy - that was a brilliant correlation vk!

* i did not get the time factor argument against the applicability of the equal sign in the tat = tvam. Wouldnt it be so only if we take identify tvam with the mortal, perishable body? But that is not implied here? I would take tattvam asi to mean (real) you are that, where (real) is implied. May be i am wrong or i misunderstood the argument.

Great thread - thanks to all participants!

Arun

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 26 Apr 2007, 19:58

how do you want to proceed?

VK
No matter HOW , Please keep proceeding !!
This is one fascinating ride !!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 26 Apr 2007, 20:06

My 2 cents - probably poorly made and so could be deemed worthless

11. He who knows both vidya and avidya together, transcends mortality through avidya and reaches immortality through vidya.

this could imply knowing avidya i.e knowing what lack of knowledge is dosnt mean he has vidya?

to know avidya: knows the ignorant way and thus knows to avoid it and look for the alternate way
to know vidya: knows the right way AND walks it.
transcend mortality : not afraid of death, it means still identifies a bit with mortal body but is not bothered by its limited life
immortality: knows that perishable body is NOT the real "I" and identifies with the real, immortal I

Arun

vasya10 · Post by **vasya10** » 26 Apr 2007, 22:09

Here is some blabbering...

What is avidyA, what is vidyA? Unless we define what they are in this particular context, it is difficult to base arguments on that. Are they really opposites to each other? Technically the na-vidyA is avidyA. But isnt avidyA not also a kind of vidyA? Discriminating avidyA itself isnt it vidyA?

Lets assume vidyA is an infinite set, avidyA is a finite set. Now to revisit #10 and #11.

#10. Different is the result, when an operation is applied to a finite set, and different if applied to infinite set. So the wise mathematicians like Godel have told us.

#11. (Together with knowledge of finite comes the knowledge of infinite). He knows finite set will conclude there is an inifinite set and viceversa. A mathematician tests his theorems by working on a finite set, then after prooving that, works with the infinite set (say via integration).

The point is, one has to crossover mortality using "avidyA".