Iyengars are weird

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

........

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-nature-of-maya_467200_blog

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

More cut and paste. Post your original thought on what you understand about the world being an illusion/unreal/maya according to Advaita. Let me cut and paste what i posted above to jump start your thinking process.

"llusion = something that is bound by time and space. Something that is not permanent or eternal. That is what it means by the world being an illusion. Everything is perishable in this world. The only permanent/eternal one is the Self/Atman/Consciousness etc. So why do you go after the impermanent or illusionary things which are going to be there today and gone tomorrow? Going after the impermanent ones is maya. Try to realize and dwell in the eternal and real one which is the Self. Reach That. That is what illusion and real in advaita mean."

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

Rashmun wrote:

that was an illuminating article. thanks.

i don't think it said anything profound. it simply stated that most national of academy of science members are non-believers.

in any case, i have no interest in or have the ability to make relative value judgments between different indian philosophical schools of thought. please continue your discussion with kinnera and TBT.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

What did you understand about the Advaitin's understanding of Maya? Let's not play around with words. Simple question: What is maya? Pls tell me that in your own simple words.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

that was an illuminating article. thanks.

i don't think it said anything profound. it simply stated that most national of academy of science members are non-believers.

in any case, i have no interest in or have the ability to make relative value judgments between different indian philosophical schools of thought. please continue your discussion with kinnera and TBT.

it was illuminating because a former colleague of mine told me that her professor in college had said out loud to the class that he did not believe in Darwinian evolution while he was teaching a course on evolutionary biology. this, i must add, was in a baptist college. Needless to say this flies in the face of the famous essay of Dobzhansky:

http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/Dobzhansky.pdf

The fight between creationism and darwinian evolution is not completely over in the U.S. In this respect India is better off because there is no confrontation in hinduism with the theory of evolution.

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Explain what you understand by Maya and why you think that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

What did you understand about the Advaitin's understanding of Maya? Let's not play around with words. Simple question: What is maya? Pls tell me that in your own simple words.

According to Advaita:

1. Maya is not a part of Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is something not worth inquiring about according to Advaitins because of point 2.
2. Maya is something neither real nor unreal. It is something indescribable.
3. Maya stands between reality as it is and reality as it is perceived to be.

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

What did you understand about the Advaitin's understanding of Maya? Let's not play around with words. Simple question: What is maya? Pls tell me that in your own simple words.

According to Advaita:

1. Maya is not a part of Brahman
2. Maya is something neither real nor unreal. It is something indescribable.
3. Maya stands between reality as it is and reality as it is perceived to be.

LOL! I'm sure you don't understand what you wrote above. It's again cutting and pasting some points from somewhere, probably from someone who is all confused about Advaita and who has no concept of what Maya is. You have no clue what it is either. Just going around in circles. Rashmun, quit talking about something that you have no understand of. Have inquisitiveness to learn/understand something so you can benefit from it. Don't try to get some half-baked knowledge only with the sole intention of discrediting it.

Bye. Have a wondeful day!

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:
Take Brahman and TP Ramachandran out of the picture. Pls tell me what YOU think maya is and why you believe that Advaita says that it is permanent and eternal?

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

What did you understand about the Advaitin's understanding of Maya? Let's not play around with words. Simple question: What is maya? Pls tell me that in your own simple words.

According to Advaita:

1. Maya is not a part of Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is something not worth inquiring about according to Advaitins because of point 2.
2. Maya is something neither real nor unreal. It is something indescribable.
3. Maya stands between reality as it is and reality as it is perceived to be.

LOL! I'm sure you don't understand what you wrote above. It's again cutting and pasting some points from somewhere, probably from someone who is all confused about Advaita and who has no concept of what Maya is. You have no clue what it is either. Just going around in circles. Rashmun, quit talking about something that you have no understand of. Have inquisitiveness to learn/understand something so you can benefit from it. Don't try to get some half-baked knowledge only with the sole intention of discrediting it.

Bye. Have a wondeful day!

The Advaita Vedanta which denies the reality of the external world, denies the law of causality, and denies the validity of the sources of knowledge like perception and inference continues to enjoy support and prestige in India even today.But with the passage of time, as science advances, will a day become when the Advaita will become an anachroinism? In other words, will Science kill Advaita?

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy_will-science-kill-advaita

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kinnera wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

i am trying to explain the Advaitin understanding of Maya for which reason i am relying on the explanation given by an expert. Personally i think the concept of Maya is nonsensical.

What did you understand about the Advaitin's understanding of Maya? Let's not play around with words. Simple question: What is maya? Pls tell me that in your own simple words.

According to Advaita:

1. Maya is not a part of Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is something not worth inquiring about according to Advaitins because of point 2.
2. Maya is something neither real nor unreal. It is something indescribable.
3. Maya stands between reality as it is and reality as it is perceived to be.

LOL! I'm sure you don't understand what you wrote above. It's again cutting and pasting some points from somewhere, probably from someone who is all confused about Advaita and who has no concept of what Maya is. You have no clue what it is either. Just going around in circles. Rashmun, quit talking about something that you have no understand of. Have inquisitiveness to learn/understand something so you can benefit from it. Don't try to get some half-baked knowledge only with the sole intention of discrediting it.

Bye. Have a wondeful day!

The Advaita Vedanta which denies the reality of the external world, denies the law of causality, and denies the validity of the sources of knowledge like perception and inference continues to enjoy support and prestige in India even today.But with the passage of time, as science advances, will a day become when the Advaita will become an anachroinism? In other words, will Science kill Advaita?

http://indiapulse.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy_will-science-kill-advaita

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/rashmuns-posts-on-adi-sankaras-enmity.html

I will not respond to any cut and pastes or mere references to an external link without your own thoughts in your own words. , neither in this discussion nor in any future discussions. Learn to do your own thinking and debating/discussing on your own. You have to have an understanding about what you are talking.

Adios!

Rashmun concludes and in my opinion very correctly too, that Adi Sankara ended up as being the veritable enemy of reason and inquiry.

Rashmun provides many citations and references to works and arguments of proponents opposed to Sankara's style of Vedantism.

In Rashmun's opinion, Sankara comes across as a very poor and mediocre philosopher in the sense that much of his central philosophy regarding the primacy and unitary nature of Brahman and the transience of the phenomenal world (Mayavada) is nothing more than a borrowing, with some terminological and superficial epistemic alteration, of the major tenets of Buddhist Madhyamika/Sunyavada theology.

But Sankara apparently makes up for this by his shrewd concealment of this plagiarism and aggressive debating and brow-beating skills (like condemning and dismissing his Madhyamika critics and making at times pompous declarations of the futility of debating with them), organizational skills like monastery and mutt-building and vigorous evangelizing of the Advaita dogmas.

Among other things, Rashmun severely denounces Sankara on his

   crypto-buddhist leanings
   contempt of shudras (dalits), and
   his running theme of discrediting valid sources (pramana) of knowledge in his desperation to establish the absolute truth of Brahman.


He also throws light on the many myths and anecdotal concoctions that the acolytes, supporters and advaita descendants of Sankara have made from time to time to build and sustain the awe-inspiring reputation of Sankara.

Since it is difficult to doubt that Adi Sankara's commentaries on the Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita (Prasthana trayi ) and their continuing popularity long after his demise, were almost surely the inspiration for emulation by later day leading religious figures like Ramanuja, Madhava and Vallabha, the contribution of the Sankara legacy in sustaining the mood of religiosity and social obscurantism is hard to dismiss.

Rashmun's posts are an important and valuable addition to the very limited material available in refuting the many irrational themes of ancient and medieval Indian tradition and philosophy.

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/2012/04/rashmuns-posts-on-adi-sankaras-enmity.html

why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

that article was not written by me.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

that article was not written by me.

Instead of making someone read a long article on how Rashmun feels, why dont you just say it in your own words in 2 sentences when asked DIRECTLY.

What Kinnera said is 102% correct.

Grow a spine and say it boldly even if it is wrong....

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why are you speaking about yourself in the third person?

that article was not written by me.

Instead of making someone read a long article on how Rashmun feels, why dont you just say it in your own words in 2 sentences when asked DIRECTLY.

What Kinnera said is 102% correct.

Grow a spine and say it boldly even if it is wrong....

That article is a compendium of various posts and blogs written by me on Advaita and Adi Sankara. So it is good reading for anyone wanting to know my views on this topic.

Isn't your cut and paste quota done for the day yet?

truthbetold wrote:Isn't your cut and paste quota done for the day yet?

why are you sounding so upset? Does learning more about Hindu philosophy displease you?

Rash
Take it easy. First learn to understand what learning is. Now give it a rest.

Here  again is Rashmun, in my opinion a very promising Indologist, and an erudite rationalist skeptic, with typical gusto, taking an analytical  swipe at the pretensions and motives of the legendary Upanishadic ideologue and theoretician, Yajnavalkya....

Without wasting any further time in effusive introduction, here is the opinion piece, with nothing more than my highlighting of some high points  of Rashmun's analysis...

Thus for understanding Yajnavalkya and his philosophy it is necessary to take note of his property and understand its sources. Where does it come from? The Upanisads are not at all vague about this. Here is a typical description of the general setting of his philosophical discourse (Brihad Aranyaka Upanisad iv.1.1):

Janaka, king of Videha, was seated. Yajnavalkya came up. To him the king said, 'Yajnavalkya, what brings you here? Is it because you want cattle or hair-splitting discussions?'
'Indeed both, your majesty', he said.

It should be noted here that in Upanishadic India, material wealth was largely measured by the number of cattle one possessed. Thus this great idealist philosopher, with his intense contempt for the material world shows no hesitation to admit that he is not merely interested in philosophy; he is also interested in the payment for it.

Metaphysically the cattle--like everything else in the world--are unreal no doubt. But these are not to be ignored for without these the meta-physician is not assured of his leisured existence which enables him to spin the world denying philosophy of Upanishads and Vedanta.

http://variedessays.blogspot.com/search?q=Rashmun

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Well said Merlot. That is what i have been trying to explain to this north indian.

truthbetold wrote:Rash
so you started with iyengars but arrived at what you always wanted i.e. criticism of Adi  Sankara and his advaita philosophy.

The more we understand matter the more it is clear that all matter in essence is made of similar sub atomic particles. That is more like advaita. then the complexity of atomic behaviour is so complex it is maya to represent it is beyond the comprehension.

may be Adi  Sankara is ahead of you and me.

The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Rash
so you started with iyengars but arrived at what you always wanted i.e. criticism of Adi  Sankara and his advaita philosophy.

The more we understand matter the more it is clear that all matter in essence is made of similar sub atomic particles. That is more like advaita. then the complexity of atomic behaviour is so complex it is maya to represent it is beyond the comprehension.

may be Adi  Sankara is ahead of you and me.

The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

are you saying that the other vedantists (the ones you like) were aware of post 19th century scientific developments, and consciously constructed a philosophy that will not be at odds with it?

Rashmun wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Well said Merlot. That is what i have been trying to explain to this north indian.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

b_A wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Well said Merlot. That is what i have been trying to explain to this north indian.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Please do not mock the sarcasm-challenged thus.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Rash
so you started with iyengars but arrived at what you always wanted i.e. criticism of Adi  Sankara and his advaita philosophy.

The more we understand matter the more it is clear that all matter in essence is made of similar sub atomic particles. That is more like advaita. then the complexity of atomic behaviour is so complex it is maya to represent it is beyond the comprehension.

may be Adi  Sankara is ahead of you and me.

The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

are you saying that the other vedantists (the ones you like) were aware of post 19th century scientific developments, and consciously constructed a philosophy that will not be at odds with it?

No I am not saying that. But of all the schools in Indian philosophy it is Advaita and also Mahayana Budhism which take the stand that the world as perceived is ultimately unreal. All other schools of Indian philosophy say that the world is real.

Rashmun wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Well said Merlot. That is what i have been trying to explain to this north indian.

Holy Allah...and I thought my boss was the dumbest guy...

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Rash
so you started with iyengars but arrived at what you always wanted i.e. criticism of Adi  Sankara and his advaita philosophy.

The more we understand matter the more it is clear that all matter in essence is made of similar sub atomic particles. That is more like advaita. then the complexity of atomic behaviour is so complex it is maya to represent it is beyond the comprehension.

may be Adi  Sankara is ahead of you and me.

The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

are you saying that the other vedantists (the ones you like) were aware of post 19th century scientific developments, and consciously constructed a philosophy that will not be at odds with it?

No I am not saying that. But of all the schools in Indian philosophy it is Advaita and also Mahayana Budhism which take the stand that the world as perceived is ultimately unreal. All other schools of Indian philosophy say that the world is real.

The question: is the world real or is it ultimately unreal neatly separates philosophies which are hostile to science with philosophies which are either science oriented or else which are indifferent to scientific progress.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:IMO it is futile to talk about science and vedanta in the same subject line or in the same discussion. there is science and there is the thing that lets you sleep better at night. the thing that lets you sleep better at night could be anything.

Well even 'science' let's some people sleep better at night and hopefully fits your 'anything'. If so, what is the need to single out science from others that let people sleep better?!!

Rashmun wrote:
To understand what Advaita means by the world being unreal or the world being illusory we have to first understand the meaning of the term 'Maya' in Advaita and then we can juxtapose this with the meaning of the same term in Dvaita. To understand the nature of Maya, as explained in the Dvaita and in the Advaita, i quote from T.P. Ramachandran's "Dvaita Vedanta" (pg 81):

You are intelligent enough to read a 'dvaita vedantin' to understand a 'dvaitin' interpretation of 'maya'. But idiot enough to stick to his interpretation to understand an 'advaitin' interpretation of 'maya'. What next, you'll ask a biologist for his understanding of relativity and quote that to put down physicists. Go fix that attitude first.

Rashmun wrote:If there is truth in it, why call it false at all? And, if it is really false, why call it a kind of truth?
Truth and falsehood, being mutually exclusive, there cannot be any factor called 'truth' as belonging in common to both--no more than there can by any common factor called 'treeness' belonging to both the tree and the lion, which are mutually exclusive.

Sun rises in the East. Without other qualifications attached to this can you state if it is truth or not?!!

Rashmun wrote:i disagree. Maya, as understood by Advaita, is permanent and eternal.

And this is according to which 'advaitin'?!!

Rashmun wrote:w.r.t. the definition of Maya in Advaita, i have nothing to add to TP Ramachandran's explanation which i have given in an earlier post in this thread. My understanding is that Maya, as per Advaita, co-exists with Brahman but does not belong to Brahman. The precise relationship of Maya with Brahman is, i believe, not clear to Advaitins themselves and for this reason they evade questions about the precise relationship of Brahman and Maya as TP Ramachandran explains.

So a 'dvaitin' doesn't grasp the subtleties of 'advaita' in general and its stand on the relationship between 'maya' and 'brahman'. Then he goes about claiming that the proponents themselves don't understand it instead of being honest enough to admit it was he who couldn't get it.

Rashmun wrote:The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

And what was it as understood a century ago and what will it be as of next century?!!

There is a very long section in Vadiraja's book about the refutation of Advatin epistemology; i am just posting one point of his in this connection. 

 
[Comments Vadiraja]:The procedure we will use here strikes at the heart of the Illusionist's retaliatory formula. This procedure of ours invalidates the vyahvarika position of the Illusionists and establishes the ultimate reality of the world appearance by using the very method which they use on others. Who could fail to admire this procedure of ours, which in the end only disposes of this method of the Illusionists. ... 


... Moreover, the Substrate-Consciousness would see the pot after having "superimposed" on the pot a sharing of its nature with it. If not, your guru would be angry.
 
 
Comment on above by Stafford Betty: In the introduction to his Commentary on the Vedanta sutra, Sankara [the guru of all Advaitins] says that the "real" and the "Unreal" have "superimposed upon each the characterestic nature and the attributes of the other." Vadiraja lets his opponent know that he expects him to adhere closely to this orthodox Non-dualist teaching--or "your guru would get angry."
[Vadiraja will now, as usual, make excellent use of this doctrine to reduce his adversary's position to adversity]:
 

 

Comments Vadiraja: In that case the thought "I am the pot" would be like the thought "I am fair skinned," and the soul abiding within the body should observe, "I am the pot". Why then does that soul act as if it were thinking, "I perceive the pot?" 

 
Comment on above by Stafford Betty: Non-dualists, he says, hold that the body, mind, etc. is superimposed on the Substrate-Consciousness just as objects like pots are. So why, he asks, should consciousness say on one occasion, "I am fair skinned" of the body superimposed on it, but not say "I am the pot" of the pot superimposed on it? After all, one superimposition is like another. So why in the second case does Consciousness say "I perceive the pot" rather than "I am the pot?" And why, moreover, does it act not as if it were the pot, but as if it saw the pot? This is just one more illogicality in the adversary's position.


http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-vadiraja-attacks-advaita-part-2_325381_blog

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:IMO it is futile to talk about science and vedanta in the same subject line or in the same discussion. there is science and there is the thing that lets you sleep better at night. the thing that lets you sleep better at night could be anything.

Well even 'science' let's some people sleep better at night and hopefully fits your 'anything'. If so, what is the need to single out science from others that let people sleep better?!!

why are you getting needlessly worked up? i was just making a simple point -- the world of science and religious philosophy have no intersection as far as i can tell. these arguments about quarks and the second law and their relationship to vedanta seem very far fetched and very contrived. i can't see that either has a bearing on the other.

the second law is about things like dissipation of the potential to do work, disorder, and loss of information. i can't for the life of me see any connection between it and sankara, madhava, or ramanuja. so i am not sure what rashmun was on about.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

smArtha wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:IMO it is futile to talk about science and vedanta in the same subject line or in the same discussion. there is science and there is the thing that lets you sleep better at night. the thing that lets you sleep better at night could be anything.

Well even 'science' let's some people sleep better at night and hopefully fits your 'anything'. If so, what is the need to single out science from others that let people sleep better?!!

why are you getting needlessly worked up? i was just making a simple point -- the world of science and religious philosophy have no intersection as far as i can tell. these arguments about quarks and the second law and their relationship to vedanta seem very far fetched and very contrived. i can't see that either has a bearing on the other.

the second law is about things like dissipation of the potential to do work, disorder, and loss of information. i can't for the life of me see any connection between it and sankara, madhava, or ramanuja. so i am not sure what rashmun was on about.

Vedanta is not the only school of hindu philosophy. the other major schools are nyaya-vaisesika, sankhya, mimansa, besides of course jainism and budhism. Even within Vedanta and also within budhism in particular there exist various distinct sub-schools. Now the point is that some of these philosophies are hostile to science and some are not. some are in fact 'scientific philosophies' in that the statements and observations they make is based on emperical evidence and/or or logical deduction or induction. Here is an example:

------
--> In Indian philosophy, the doctrine of sheer chance (called 'yadrccha' or 'akasmikatva'), has for its implications the doctrine according to which pure accident is the ultimate cause.


--> On the other hand, we also have in Indian philosophy a description of a doctrine called 'svabhava-vada' which is translated as 'doctrine of nature' or 'naturalism'.

---> According to the doctrine of yaddrchha, everything being fortuitous, it is futile to search for any cause of the world, either natural or supernatural.

--> In contrast, according to svabhava-vada although the supernatural cause is illegitmate, the natural cause is not so. In fact,according to svabhava-vada, the exclusive reality of natural causation is the ground for the total rejection of the possibility of any supernatural causation.

--> The two doctrines thus represent the alternative standpoints of pure scepticism (yadrccha) and positive science(svabhava-vada).

--> Note that both svabhava-vada and yaddrchha are atheistic.

--> A clarification: when i say both yadrccha and svabhava-vada are atheistic doctrines i mean that both deny God as being the efficient cause of the world. According to svabhava-vada, there is no question of assuming God to be the efficient cause of the world, because Nature by its own inherent efficacy accounted for its origin and maintainance. Or, in other words, svabhava-vada considers the concept of a first cause (God) over and above the natural laws to be fictitious.

-->From what we understand of svabhavavada, in its earliest stage, it was apparently some form of an independent world-view without any rigid affiliation to any philosophical system. In the later development of Indian philosophy, such an affiliation grew amongst those philosophies which saw in its naturalism a distinct possibility of fortifying their own philosophical positions on a scientific basis. This is obvious in the case of Sankhya and Lokayata/Charvaka, and also for the ancient Indian atomists (Nyaya-Vaisesikas).

--> For the present, let us confine ourselves to svabhavavada in Sankhya.Nilakantha, the traditional commentator on the Mahabharata, categorically declared that the doctrine of svabhava was that of the Sankhyas. Gaudapada and also Vachaspati Mishra, in their commentaries on the Sankhya Karika, also admitted that that according to the Sankhyas there was a cause in the form of svabhava.

--> Adi Sankara clearly explained why this admission of cause in the form of svabhava was logically necessary for the Sankhya philosophers. These philosophers, said Adi Sankara, would have argued thus (Adi Sankara on Vedanta Sutra ii.2,3 and ii.2,5). In what follows, pradhana= prakriti = primeval matter in Sankhya terminology:

As unconscious milk flows forth from its own nature (svabhavena eva) merely for the nourishment of the young animal, and as unconscious water, from its own nature (svabhavena eva) flows along for the benefit of mankind, so the pradhana also, though unconscious, may be supposed to move from its own highest nature (svabhavena eva) merely for the purpose of effecting the highest end of man....

Just as grass, herbs,water,etc. independently of any other instrumental cause (nimitta antara nirapeksa) transform themselves, by their own nature (svabhavat eva) into milk, so we assume, the pradhana also transforms itself into the Great Principle (Mahat) and so on. And, if you ask how we know that grass transforms itself independently of any instrumental cause, we reply 'Because no such cause is observed.' For, if we did perceive some such cause, we certainly should apply it to grass, etc. according to our liking, and thereby produce milk. But, as a matter of fact, we do no such thing. Hence, the transformation of grass and the like must be considered to be due to its own nature merely, and we may infer therefrom that the transformation of the pradhana is of the same kind.


--> Adi Sankara's own rebuttal of Svabhava vada is hardly satisfactory. Argues Adi Sankara:

grass becomes milk only when it is eaten by a cow or some other female animal, not if it is left either uneaten or is eaten by a bull. If the transformation had no special cause, grass would become milk even on other conditions than that of entering a cow's body
And further, that:

--> men are also able, by applying a means in their power, to produce milk from grass and herbs: for when they wish to produce a more abundant supply of milk they feed the cow more plentifully and thus obtain more milk from her.

--> In the arguments of Adi Sankara (in which he seeks to refute svabhava vada), the real point of svabhava vada has been somewhat distorted by him.

--> The question is, whether it is necessary to postulate any extra-natural cause, over and above the merely natural, to explain changes and modifications.The evidence of the necessity of the physiological apparatus of the female animal (for milk production) does not indicate any extra-natural cause.

--> From the point of view of svabhava vada, the cause of milk would not be grass as such but the entire natural complex consisting of gras-as-eaten-by-the-cow.Svabhava vada can only be refuted on the basis of the demonstration that some further spiritual factor is necessary for the causation of milk.


--> That men can get a more abundant supply of milk by feeding the cow more plentifully only proves that man can master the laws of nature only by recognizing and understanding the laws of nature.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-versus-indian-science_325347_blog

Rashmun wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Rashmun wrote:a problem arises if a north indian brahmin marries an iyengar and he does not want his children to think of Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman as strangers.

Oh yes, the fundamental basis for marriage is to beget children who believe in Lord Shiva and Lord Hanuman and see them as close confidantes. And if that objective can't be met, we have a very serious problem indeed, sufficient justification to review the basic premise of marriage in the first place.

Well said Merlot. That is what i have been trying to explain to this north indian.

i think this north indian should dump this iyengar woman - it always starts with something innocuous as differences in accepting gods but could easily lead to differences in accepting different flavours of rasam. i think it is better to walk away now than reach such a situation.

sorry rashmun my eyes just glazed over and i was going to fall down in a coma and hit my head or something before i stopped reading. i am sure this has nothing to do with your writing, just my innate aversion to philosophy as a formal subject.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:sorry rashmun my eyes just glazed over and i was going to fall down in a coma and hit my head or something before i stopped reading. i am sure this has nothing to do with your writing, just my innate aversion to philosophy as a formal subject.

Let me try to simplify the argument. Feel free to offer your comments from the perspective of a working scientist.

--------

1. In Indian philosophy there is a description in various texts of a doctrine called 'svabhava-vada' which is translated by modern scholars as 'doctrine of nature' or 'naturalism'. We find mention of this doctrine in the Upanisads, in the Mahabharata and in other texts. It seems to have been an independent world-view without any rigid affiliation to any philosophical system. In the later development of Indian philosophy, such an affiliation grew amongst those philosophies which saw in its naturalism a distinct possibility of fortifying their own philosophical positions on a scientific basis. This is obvious in the case of Sankhya and Lokayata/Charvaka, and also for the ancient Indian atomists (Nyaya-Vaisesikas).
2. It is important to note that Svabhava-vada is treated as a view belonging to the purva-paksa (view of the opponent which has to be refuted) in the Upanisads. In other words it was not the view of the orthodoxy; rather, it was the view of the heretics.
3. In explaining Svabhava-vada in the context of the Sankhya philosophy, Adi Sankara explains that just as (unconsious) milk flows from the cow to feed the calf without the need of an external agency and just as (unconscious) water flows along for the benefit of mankind without any external agency, so the pradhana (also known as prakriti = primieval matter) moves of its own accord although it does not possess the quality of consciousness. We can think of prakriti or pradhana to be equivalent to Nature which does not possess consciousness in contrast to a God who does possess consciousness.
4. Adi Sankara goes on to explain that according to the Sankhyas: Just as grass, herbs, water, etc. get transformed into the body of a cow to produce milk for the cow so primieval matter gets transformed into consciousness (in an individual calf or cow or human).

--> Adi Sankara's own rebuttal of Svabhava vada is hardly satisfactory. Argues Adi Sankara:

grass becomes milk only when it is eaten by a cow or some other female animal, not if it is left either uneaten or is eaten by a bull. If the transformation had no special cause, grass would become milk even on other conditions than that of entering a cow's body
And further, that:

--> men are also able, by applying a means in their power, to produce milk from grass and herbs: for when they wish to produce a more abundant supply of milk they feed the cow more plentifully and thus obtain more milk from her.

--> In the arguments of Adi Sankara (in which he seeks to refute svabhava vada), the real point of svabhava vada has been somewhat distorted by him.

--> The question is, whether it is necessary to postulate any extra-natural cause, over and above the merely natural, to explain changes and modifications.The evidence of the necessity of the physiological apparatus of the female animal (for milk production) does not indicate any extra-natural cause.

--> From the point of view of svabhava vada, the cause of milk would not be grass as such but the entire natural complex consisting of gras-as-eaten-by-the-cow.Svabhava vada can only be refuted on the basis of the demonstration that some further spiritual factor is necessary for the causation of milk.


--> That men can get a more abundant supply of milk by feeding the cow more plentifully only proves that man can master the laws of nature only by recognizing and understanding the laws of nature.

--------
For various reasons, reading up on the Sankhya or Nyaya-Vaisesika or Mimansa on the internet (like on wikipedia) will only end up confusing you. The situation is a lot better in the case of the schools of the Vedanta philosophy.

With respect to Advaita and thermodynamics, the Advaitins claim that:
1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

All theistic schools of hindu philosophy accept God to be the creator and moral governor of the world. But not Advaita since strictly speaking it is not a  theistic school if we accept theism as belief in a God who is the creator and moral governor of the world. In the Advaita, the world itself is looked at as being illusory and hence there can be no question of any real creation. This was the famous Advaitic view of ajata-vada--the doctrine that the world never came into being. Hence there is no scope in Advaita for admitting any actual creator and moral governor of such a non-existing world.Theologically, the standpoint Advaita Vedanta represents can perhaps be characterised as super-theism. The concept of God has all the validity imputed to it by the devout theists, though strictly from the emperical point of view of point of view of our practical existence (vyahvarika satya). Only from the transcendental point of view of the ultimate reality (parmarthika satya), the Advaita philosophy conceived something like a super-God--the non-dual Brahman--and attributed to it exclusive reality.

-------
Now since, in Advaita, the only reality is Brahman and Brahman is nirguna (devoid of any attributes) there is no question of entropy being involved in any way in this conception of the universe since any such entropy would have to be an attribute of Brahman. Furthermore, the idea of entropy constantly increasing, as per the second law of thermodynamics, is meaningless in such a conceptualization of the universe.

still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:still not getting it rashmun. this sounds like chopra on steroids to me.

What is it that you are not getting? Ask me some questions. Is it a word or term or phrase you are not getting? Is it a particular argument you are not getting? Could you understand for instance the fact that:

According to Advaita:

1. Brahman(God) is the only reality and that
2. Brahman is pure consciousness without any attributes.
3. Following from point 1, everything and everyone is Brahman. There is no difference between the creator and the created.

No wonder you think you are God.

For the record I am not a Brahman but a Goundar.

Brahman is the word used to denote God or the Ultimate Reality in the Upanisads. It is not the same word as the word used for the highest caste hindus. The word Brahmaand means the Universe.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

Also, Ayurveda had developed by the time of Sankara. The Indian physicians have no use for Sankara's philosophy although they find the philosophies of other schools useful.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote: The fundamental constituent of matter, as understood today, is the quark. There are six types of quarks. For Sankara's Vedanta to be valid there should have been only one type of quark. Further Sankara's Vedanta is proven wrong by the second law of thermodynamics which says the entropy of the universe is always increasing. The entropy of the universe would have to remain the same for Sankara's postulation and definition of Brahman (God) to be correct.

There is no logic in your analysis / critique of the works of a 7th century A.D. philosopher (Samkara) against the 21st century physics (in terms of entropy and quarks etc.).

If you really are serious, try comparing Samkara's splendid reasoning and thought (from 7th century A.D.) against the prevalent long-forgotten thinking and science of that period (7th century) which had the geocentric theory of the world (everything revolves around the stationary Earth), flat Earth concept and used witchcraft and witch's brew to cure people as a part of medicine.

Instead of doing what you suggest a better exercise is to counterpose Sankara's philosophy with the philosophies of those he attacks in his writings: Sankhyas, Nyaya-Vaisesikas, Charvakas, Mimansakas, Budhists.

That was simply a discussion (sometimes in the form of criticism) by Samkara and others on the nature of various philosophies and as to which school of thought is more complete in terms of explaining the Reality. Moreover, some of the ideologies which negated or overlooked the idea of soul and / or God as part of the overall Reality faced more criticism from those who did not overlook soul and God.

The method of argumentation used by Sankara in his refutation of rival philosophies is often logically repulsive. For instance:


Let us note one point here now. Plagiarising/Stealing certain readymade arguments of the Nyaya-Vaisesikas (without any acknowledgement) may simplify Adi Sankar's purpose of refuting the Charvaka view; but this also creates a grave risk for the internal consistency of his own philosophical position, according to which consciousness is the very essence of the soul and not a mere quality of a distinct substance called the soul.

It has been well said that the method of arguing not svamatena or in accordance with one's own views, but paramatam asritya or on the basis of others' views was not at all uncommon in the history of Indian philosophy. But the legitimacy of this method is itself questionable for, if extensively practiced, its result can only be arguments for the sake of arguments i.e. without the purpose of ultimately arriving at some self-consistent or coherent conclusion--a philosophical performance denounced in the Nyaya Sutra as sheer destructive criticism or vitanda (Nyaya Sutra i.2.3). The method is particularly repulsive when, for the purpose of refuting an opponent, one argues on the basis of some view that is destructive of one's own position--as is Adi Sankar's effort to refute the Charvaka view on the basis of the Nyaya-Vaisesika.

The arguments used by Adi Sankar presuppose that consciousness is only a transitory quality of an inert substance--a presupposition that completely negates the very essence of Adi Sankar's philosophy viz. that the ultimate reality is the soul identified with mere consciousness. In other words, EVEN admitting that the arguments offered by Adi Sankar are logically adequate for refuting the Charvaka view, we have to admit further that they are also adequate to reject Adi Sankar's own view.

http://creative.sulekha.com/adi-sankar-on-charvakas-2_325297_blog