[Advaita-l] Science and Advaita

[Dr D Bharadwaj]

Thank you Sri Naresh,

Happy to see your keenness.

I am aware of most of the facts you had written.
I generally agree with you.
The etymology of 'why' is news to me.

I never said, nor would say, that anything would render or denote why as
nonsensical. In fact I did agree that 'why'
is the English equivalent.

I was aware, even as I was writing, that I was in the grey area  and that
unless I stress at each 'why' that I was talking of the ancient Indian
'sense' and the modern western 'sense',
I am likely to be misunderstood. It was not possible for me to be very
accurate without being cumbersome. I was almost sure of a response similar
to yours.

I was  saying that the very approach to 'why' is different....
Pl understand the general thrust of what I was conveying.

 I feel sorry I had elaborated my first post as I am not
able to get enough motivation to carry the discussion further.

I beg to differ with you on the English equivalents of
draShTavyaH, shrotavyaH, mantavyaH,
nididhyAsitavyaH. These are 'well defined' processes in the SAstra obtaining
knowledge. The dictionary meanings of the words like contemplation do not
match with the definitions.

Here, as I understand, they prescribed to be followed with Sraddha not
with doubt. The very approach to knowledge is different. That makes all the
difference.





Regards,
Dr. D. Bharadwaj
drdbharadwaj at gmail.com


On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Naresh Cuntoor <nareshpc at gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Ancient Indian mind, being absolutely clear, avoided the 'why'
> > in the usual Western sense of investigating the possible reasons within
> the
> > ambit of the ill lit mind, and instead used, sensibly, the words like
> 'what'
> > is the cause, 'what' is the purpose, from 'what'
> > [kasmaat] etc. As Sri Bhadriah rightly pointed out is as good as
> > 'why'.....as in the English language there is no convention of using the
> > phrases  equivalents of kimartham and kutah/kasmat, the word 'why' is
> > passable, in discussions in English.
>
>
> Words in Sanskrit tend to have a larger vyaapti (denotion?) than their
> English counterparts.
>
> kasmaat = why=for what reason. As is kimartham.
> kasmaat, kutaH are also used to denote  'from where'.
>
> Saying that kasmaat/kimartham denotes "for what reason", but does not
> denote 'why' is nonsensical.
>
> Incidentally, the English word 'why' is etymologically equivalent to
> "for what purpose"!
>
>
> > 'is' with finality and certainity.....not an investigating, groping,
> > trail-and-error-based, hypothetical 'could have beens' and 'would have
> > beens'.
> >
>
> Investigation, contemplation, etc. are prescribed in the Indian
> systems as well. Eg., draShTavyaH, shrotavyaH, mantavyaH,
> nididhyAsitavyaH.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dr. D. Bharadwaj
> > drdbharadwaj at gmail.com
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Michael Shepherd <
> > michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Bhadraiah,
> >>
> >> Thank for for those interesting replies. However, I think I'm
> intelligent
> >> enough to appreciate the difference between 'fishing for ideas' and
> seeking
> >> to harmonize different held views of the cosmos, in one truth..
> >>
> >> Nor can I wish to find any difference between someone who calls
> themselves
> >> an advaitin, and someone who sincerely seeks 'not two' in some other
> faith
> >> or religion... surely we have passed beyond the rivalry of faiths ?
> >> Otherwise, 'advaita' would just be theory ? When Cusanus said 'There is
> no
> >> other' in 1400 CE and meant it and lived it, he was doing pretty well ?
> he
> >> followed it up by saying that everything we see is 'the face of God'.
> Not
> >> bad for a beginner ?
> >>
> >> I don't know whether it is my idea of 'three worlds' or yours that is
> >> crude..there is a longer history of devouotly religious men studying
> >> 'natural science' than of atheists and agnostice.. Darwin for instance
> was
> >> devout, tactfully not writing God into Evolution..
> >>
> >> Your comments on 'Why?' seem to contradict those of others here ?
> >>
> >> I hope we can agree more than we disagree.. I find these exchanges
> useful.
> >> It tests buddhi !
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> >> [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
> >> Bhadraiah Mallampalli
> >> Sent: 02 February 2009 15:57
> >> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> >> Subject: [Advaita-l] Science and Advaita
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Michael,
> >>
> >> >Thank you for all your helpful replies. I don't wish to waste anyone's
> >> time;
> >> >so perhaps I can attempt to sum up the typical state of Western science
> >> >and scientists as I understand it (there are of course many
> exceptions):
> >>
> >> As per evidence, the term 'Western science' is now questioned. There
> were
> >> two routes:
> >> India=>Arabs=>Europe, (700AD-1600AD)
> >> and India=>Europe (from 1700AD)
> >> I believe you meant 'western history of evolution of sciences'.
> >>
> >> >There is a tradition of non-duality in the West -- though its needs
> >> >loooking for ! It was establlished in discussion between 1200--1500
> C.E.
> >> >that there is one creator or Cause beyond the chain of cause and
> effect;
> >> >and that there is one intelligence -- and man can but imitate that in
> >> part.
> >> >However, it is difficult to convince materialists and atheists of this
> --
> >> >especially those who assume that their own 'mind' is identical to
> >> universal
> >> >mind !
> >>
> >> A person's limited mind is evidently not same as universal mind, but
> >> advaita
> >> accepts that every creature (including insects) can potentially realize
> the
> >> highest. So this "western non-duality or monism" is characteristically
> >> different from advaita.
> >>
> >> Convincing others can some times go the extent of inquisition, isn't it?
> In
> >> advaita dialog or for that matter any Hindu dialog, there is no
> >> "convincing"
> >> of any one else is involved. People express opinions, even apparently
> >> argue, but the idea is to check if there are any objections to one'w own
> >> opinions, so that a person can fix one's own sadhana. Convincing others
> >> and increasing the flock are immaterial to advaita. If I get my
> >> brahmajnanam I can create my own universe full of all kinds of
> >> creatures, so why do I care if any one agrees with me?
> >>
> >> >Also, it has been generally accepted for the sake of argument, that the
> >> >cosmos could be seen as three 'worlds' -- the physical or material, the
> >> >mental or 'subtle', and the 'causal' or spiritual. These 'worlds' are
> >> >understood to be 'monist' within their own laws; these laws being seen
> as
> >> >partial 'imitations' of those of the world above.
> >>
> >> There are several "three worlds" models in Hinduism like bhuh, bhvah,
> >> suvah  or bhumi, svarg, paataal and so on. I get it now. Your "three
> >> worlds"
> >> are specific to western evolution of sciences, in which religon
> monopolized
> >> spiritual, scientists are given material world to play with. We can no
> way
> >> generalize this to all cultures and models.
> >>
> >> >So the material world, observed by the minds of scientists, is entirely
> >> >valid for research within its own laws.
> >>
> >> This was already refuted by advaita. There is no separation of matter
> and
> >> consciousness. Higher developed organs like mind (intelligent agents)
> can
> >> be seen in developed organisms, otherwise it is just consciousness.
> >>
> >> >The sticking--point is, as has been mentioned, the distinction between
> >> >observer and observed. But that once acknowledged, the really
> >> >interesting questions emerge : of the relation between these worlds
> which
> >> >may reveal themselves to observation -- observation which is ultimately
> >> >divine and single..
> >>
> >> In advaita, observer and observed are one. When asked "Who are you?",
> >> Raikva replies "I am you". So all those interesting things are no
> >> consequence.
> >>
> >> >That's really my area of interest: the possibility that Advaita can
> enrich
> >> >with its tradition and terminology, the Western sense of non-duality
> which
> >> >some scientists and philosophers hope to bring to that science which
> >> >comprehends all worlds..
> >>
> >> So you want to fish for ideas that can be incorporated in a different
> >> philosophical system, whether they are relevant or not. You have to
> first
> >> inquire what are the preconditions of any philosophical system. Once you
> >> do that rest of the analysis for that system follows as a consequence.
> No
> >> need to look around for ideas.
> >>
> >> >I hope makes some sense; that's the best that I can offer from my
> >> >'non-scientific' philosophy. Satyam eva jayate !
> >>
> >> No, to me it doesn't make sense at all! You are welcome to explain
> further,
> >> while we continue to post on borrowed time.
> >>
> >> By the way, WHY is the most important question in advaita, more than any
> >> other questions. We have to keep questioning the cause of any effect
> >> going back to its root cause.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Bhadraiah
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Hotmail(R) goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone.
>  >>
> >>
> http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/versatility.aspx#mobile?ocid=TX
>
>
> >> T_TAGHM_WL_HM_versatility_121208
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> >>
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> >>
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> >>
> >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> >>
> >>
> >> For assistance, contact:
> >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>