Gender and Brahmam

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Apr 2007, 23:10

very good vasya:
You are thinking exactly like me! I shall post the defining equations soon and then we can discuss them in detail!
Thanks folks for talking an interest in a 'dry' subject like pure maths and phlosophy

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 26 Apr 2007, 23:50

vasya,
IMHO 'vidyA' and 'avidyA' do not have cut-and-dried definitions.
For example - 'This pearl is priceless' does not mean 'it has no value' but 'no value can be attached to it'. The definition 'no value' and 'no value can be attached' are antipodes.
I came across a nice word to day 'nothingness' and 'no-thingness'. How different they are!
Accordingly, 'vidya' is 'empirical knowledge'; but 'avidyA' means both 'lack of empirical knowledge' and 'beyond the realm of knowledge'. It all depends on which entity we are dealing with.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 27 Apr 2007, 03:27

OK! here we go!
I shall analyze equations/shlokas 9,10 and 11 first. The structure of 12,13 and 14 being same (with interesting twist) will be handled separately.
Now some preliminary:
A,B are primitives which are input variables
G,F and I are outcome variables.
The symbol -> is used to mean 'lead to'
For the purpose of 9,10,11 (equations will appear in parentheses) we have the following interpretations.
A = Vidya, B= avidya, G= darkness, F = death (mortality), I = immortality
Note that B /= Abar. It is non vidya and hence one can have both A and B. Just as A maybe maths and B maybe history which is nonmaths. Whereas
G = Ibar (not immortality)

The equations are now:
B -> G, and A -> G (9)
A /= B (10) ( A and B are not identical or they do lead to different intermediate outcomes)
A and B -> F -> I (11)

The notations are primitive due to the browser (I do not have access to a nice program like the one designed by Arun

Please check these out and I shall proceed to discuss the interpretaions and consequences in the next post!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 27 Apr 2007, 05:54

cmlover

B -> G is implied by 9 but A -> G is not i.e. the same both leading to the same. The word darkness here has different meanings atleast i think that is what is implied. At best B -> Gb , and A -> Ga, even that is misleading as it may imply Ga and Gb are similar in some respects. Might as well say B -> Y and A -> X

Also not sure if B -> F is implied by 11, which says a person who "knows avidya" transcends mortality. B -> F would imply "avidya/ignorance helps us transcend mortality as in a person who is ignorant transcends mortality because of ignorance".

Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 27 Apr 2007, 06:17

Now for the interpretations. We have to be careful to stick to the equations not to introduce logical contradictions. Also the inference will be valid only within the framework of this Isa upanishad logic system. We may ascribe values (adhyAsa) to the terms used herein but need not agree that those are valid. Now here is one way of ascribing values.

Let I, immortality be our goal.
A which is vidya be vedic knowledge (as shankara puts it)or g~naana.
B which is avidya be practical worldly knowledge (such as science, arts etc.,)or shankara calls it karma (good, bad and indifferent).
Since 'I' can be reached only through F, B is a necessary prerequisite but not sufficient. Similarly A is necessary but not sufficient.
Heuristically one may acquire A through B (though that is not postulated). But it appears that the survival skills of B are neeeded (essential) to reach F. Similarly shankara emphasizes the need for karma as the means for developing g~naana. In fact in equations 2 and 3 (not quoted here) the author says that there are no shortcuts to F. If one commits for example suicide(real or spiritual) he ends up in G. Again if one defaults on B he may not be able to acquire A (for example unable to find a teacher (guru) etc.,). Parenthetically note that this upanishad is narrated by a father to his son. So he naturally encourages his son to develop the survival skills to live well in this world (just like any other dad

). You may liken A as a flashlight that you acquire during the navigation which helps avoiding the path leading to G and which illuminates all the way from F to I. B however is not a prerequisite for A since one may be born with A (or through divine grace or purva karma etc.,) though that is irrelevant here.

Note now that F is kaalam in sanskrit (kaalan in Tamil) which indeed is the time parameter (let us denote it by T). B helps us to traverse T till its allotted end. T is not a parameter explicitly introduced in the equations cited. It is external (which in accordance with Godel is one of the extraneous undecidables imported into the axiom system).

Note that if T =0 then F=I (everything stands still without any change which is immortality)
If T is finite (if it had a beginning (origin) then we cannot answer what happened before that and hence it must be infinite without a beginning or end). Thus T=infinity again gives immortality (which is what is chosen to represent brahmam)
Can T be both '0' and 'infinite' since both fit the solution? That is an undecidable in the axiom system if we incorporate T into the above ( as Godel proved that every axiom system is incomplete within the constraints of the system!

For philosophiical purposes we can interpret T as 'mAyA' which creates the illusion of birth and death! That will take us deep into the philosophical systems of our AcAryas (shankara, rAmAnuja etc., or even outside to buddha, kapila...).

Let me stop here and let VK take over and when you are ready we can visit equations 12 to 14!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 27 Apr 2007, 06:24

Arun

we can argue about the shades of meanings. I have only tried to capture the essence. We do not know whether G is all or none or gradations. B helps to get to F (avoid falling into G and if accompanied by A leads to I). B by itself cannot lead to I!

vasya10 · Post by **vasya10** » 27 Apr 2007, 07:43

whoo. ive to read thru more than once to follow.

in anycase, i agree we have to stick within the vidyA/avidyA context of isha upanishad.

A which is vidya be vedic knowledge (as shankara puts it)or g~naana.
B which is avidya be practical worldly knowledge (such as science, arts etc.,)or shankara calls it karma (good, bad and indifferent).

Because, what is called avidyA here (science, arts etc), is mentioned as aparA vidyA in mundakopanishad.

cmlover: what is the vigrahavAkya of vidyA. (yA vidyatE sA vidyA) ?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 27 Apr 2007, 08:56

Vidya is derived from 'vid g~naanE' +kyap(ya) + tAp (A which makes it feminine). Traditionally they are fourteen: the four vedas, the six vedangas, dharma, mImAmsa, nyAya and the purANAs(collectively)
Shada^NgamishritA vEdA dharmashAstrm purANakam | mImAmsA tarkamapi ca EtA vidyA caturdasha ||

yes indeed everything else is aparA vidyA!

rajumds · Post by **rajumds** » 27 Apr 2007, 12:00

I attended a discourse by H.H. Sri Jayendra Saraswati yesterday & I am trying to correlate what I understood with this thread.

A man walking alone in a paddyy field in darkness steps on a something & feels a sharp pain in his foot. He immediately panicks that he had stepped on a snake & it had bitten him. He runs back to the village & asks his friend to go to the place with a lamp & runs to the doctor for treatment. His friend comes back & says that what he stepped on was only a rope & the pain was due to a thorn which was also lying there.

Now can you say that he didn't have gnana and hence acted out of ignorance. No ,because in that circumstance (in darkness) what he did was right & but it looked foolish when the light revealed that it was only a rope.

Similarly we do many things in life. We go to temple, we pray , we do our karmas in the ignorance of the absolute Truth or Brhaman . We can't simply say that all these are mAya & stop doing things that we do. What we do may look as agnana if we attain gnana but till then we have to believe in what we do so that we realise the Truth.

As your level of knowledge increases ,increasingly you feel that what ever you had done in the past was meaningless but it was those acts that helped you to increase your kwnowledge. You have to continously do these meaningless acts till you understand the ultimate Truth.

Whataever may look meaningless in future does have a meaning in the present.

jayaram · Post by **jayaram** » 27 Apr 2007, 19:01

Whataever may look meaningless in future does have a meaning in the present.

And vice versa too, surely?

In fact, all these 4 combinations are possible:
Meaningless(present) >> Meaningless(future)
Meaningless(present) >> Meaningful(future)
Meaningful(present) >> Meaningful(future)
Meaningful(present) >> Meaningless(future)

That's the beauty of life.

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 27 Apr 2007, 20:24

IMHO, reading verses 11 and 14 together, vidyA = sambhUti (asambhUti); avidyA = vinASa
As per http://tdil.mit.gov.in/isa/start.html - "... the word Sambhuti is an aphesis for Asambhuti . The taking away of a letter or syllable at the beginning of a word is aphesis . The letter 'a' in Asambhuti is taken away . Here Sambhuti really means Asambhuti"

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 27 Apr 2007, 21:21

The methodology of the Upanishads consists in treating these two alternatives in a dialectical manner, wherein thought moves backwards and horizontally first from the factual and actual and then to its own virtual counterpart. In the same way numbers can in principle be absorbed into imaginary numbers where such mathematical elements as -1 reside. It is this first degree of virtuality of the horizontal negative side that is absorbed into the richer and more inclusive negativity of the vertical axis at its lower pole, we have then the other second pair of antithetical elements coming into interplay. We have to think here in terms of a cancellation or exchange of essences from one side to the other so that, by transcending death as a middle zero point, thought ascends by a double assertion on to itself.

There are two striking examples of such an ambivalent process found in the Isa Upanishad referring to nescience (avidya) and knowledge (vidya) as well as to becoming, (sambhuti) and non-becoming (vinasa). The older way of giving primacy to the one or the other is definitely replaced here by a full dialectical methodology where both alternatives are treated together. The implied dialectics cannot be stated more clearly than what we read in the Isa Upanishad (verses 11 and 14 resp.):

495

"Knowledge and non-knowledge -
He who this pair conjointly (saha) knows,
With non-knowledge passing over death,
With knowledge wins the immortal

Becoming (sambhuti) and destruction (vinasa) -
He who this pair conjointly (saha) knows,
With destruction passing over death,
With becoming wins the immortal."16

http://advaitavedanta.co.uk/content/view/48/

karthik76 · Post by **karthik76** » 28 Apr 2007, 08:56

cmlover wrote:But it appears that the survival skills of B are neeeded (essential) to reach F.

While it seems that the cycle of birth and death can continually happen even without the presence of A (vidyA), B (avidyA) is inevitably present.

So, can A be attained only through B (recalling that even if one can be born with A, that may not happen the first time he/she/it is born) ? So, is there a time that only B exists?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Apr 2007, 10:16

If one is not born with A due to the 'puNya' from previous births he still has the opprtunity of acquiring the knowledge as he pusues B!

VG
The aphesis theory sounds hollow! There is no grammatical requirements for the elimination of 'a' in this context. Shankara uses it to twist the upanishad to suit his orientation! Apparently the author was not indeed conscious of a nirguna brahman but is looking towards 'saguNa brahman' ( see shlOka 15,16) The parallel construction in 12 to 14 in comparison with 9 to 11 indicates that the author is indeed straight forward thinking in his views!

vgvindan · Post by **vgvindan** » 28 Apr 2007, 13:43

cml,
While we are concentrating in the verses 9 to 14, IMHO, the thrust of the whole upaniShad is given out by verses 1, 2 and 15. The thrust, as I understand, is 'karma yOga' - a genuine understanding the scope of creation and furthering it without arrogating to ourselves more than what is due.
(mA gRdhaH - verse 1)
(na karma lipyatE narE - verse 2)
(satyadharmAya - verse 15)
The statements of verses 9 to 14 will fall in their places then.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Apr 2007, 20:30

The upanishads were written by different sages and each may not have been aware of what the other wrote. Each has presented an aspect of 'Truth' as he perceived in hiis vision. Truth indeed is 'manyfaced' as the proverbial description of the elephant by the blind seekers. Shankara had the advantage of looking at them as a whole and integrated them into a philosophy as per his vision. It is more like the 'meta analysis' which we perform in integrating our medical research. The same meta-anlysis was also applied by Ramanuja, mAdhva, Ragavendra... each arriving at his own description of the Truth and a philosophical system. It is this pluralism which is the strength of Hinduism.
akAshAt patitam tOyam yathA gaccati sAgaram
sarva dEva namaskArah shrI kEshavam prati gaccati
is quite valid; but each of us have the liberty to describe 'kEshavam' according to our personal vision! That is why a hindu is liberal and willing to accept other religious visions as just another facet of truth.

In short it is not necessary to interpret Isa upanishad to fit the mold of any particular thinking. We still can look at it in the modern light and arrive at our own interprtation instead of 'towing' the line! That is the reason I paraphrased the ideas in the language of science though it is still primitive. I did find the ideas of Godel quite fascinating in its application here as VK has discovered. Is this a blind alley?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 29 Apr 2007, 13:14

CML, Thanks for the mathematical representation and the analysis. It will take me quite a while to understand all this including your correlation with Godel. I will come back to this as I digest all this and reflect on this some more. vasya10's (post #100) formulation of 10 has some shades of the proof used by Godel. I need to think about that. The thing about Godel is, though the English statements of his theorem is relatable at many levels, his mathematical rigor is quite extraordinary and complex. The metaphor of the snake eating its own tail is what comes to my mind when I read that kind of stuff.

One question: In the parallel construction of (9 to 11) and (12 to 14), it looks like avidya is mapped to manifested and vidya is mapped to unmanifested. Am I reading that correctly? ( got confused because of the new term destructible and the 'un' in paranthesis in 14 ).
Just a few observations for now....

1) Godel did not concern himself with value judgements of course. For him incompleteness and undecidability are just 'dry' mathematical conclusions. Where as statements 9 thru 11, in addition to probably saying the same thing about limits of knowledge, makes strong value judgements. This is just my observation. It is really not a surprise or unexpected since these statements are 'revealed' ones and offered without proof since they were experientual.

2) Is this whole 'knowledge' contained in 9 to 11 vidya or avidya? Here is where we get caught up in the Godellian infinite regress.

3) One simple and straightforward ( and possibly dull ) way of looking at 9 thru 11 in terms of Godel is this. CML wrote that 'Avidya is necessary but not sufficient'. Mathematics belongs to Avidya ( or apAra vidya of mundakopanishad ) and the very declarationos of 9 thru 11 is the same statement as Godel's incompleteness theorem about Mathematical knowledge being incomplete. In other words, the principles expressed in vidya can not be derived using the tools and techniques of avidya and hence avidya is incomplete. ( and I realize 9 thru 11 states more than just this ).

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 29 Apr 2007, 20:49

VK
Obviously there are more questions than answers. We are trying to read the mind about 3000 years old using that of one about 100 years old! Shankara 1300 years ago has masterfully integrated (with obvious adjustements) these ideas into a coherent theme of advaitik philosophy. Our 20th century approach is more materialistic but concrete (?practical). Was the sage a poet speculating on the inner beauty of the unknown or was he giving a receipe for practical mundane living. We could read it bothwise and adopt whatever is appealing to each individual. It is the coexistance of both contrary conclusions as being logically admissible is the essence of Godel's masterful oeuvre!