[Advaita-l] Discussion on pratitya-samutpada and Adwaita

[Amuthan]

hello all,
  i'd like to add to what SrI ananta bhagavat has written.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ananta Bhagwat <ananta14_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>  The pratItyasamutpAda has similar framework. This framework is quite rich and most of the  (if not all) perceivable-conceivable phenomenon can be expressed in this framework including physical and virtual processes.
>

pratItya samutpAda is a completely empirical and testable means of
cittavRtti nirodha and is a key component of the bauddha worldview.
variations of this approach occur in the vedAnta tradition also, for
instance, in the introductory part of SureSvara's naishkarmyasiddhi
('AbrahmastabmbhaparyantaiH ... sarvAnarthaheturAtmAnavabodha eva'),
the first metrical section of SaMkara's upadeSasAhasrI ('karmANi
dehayogArthaM ... saMsAraScakravadbhRSam') and in a different but
related sense in the bhagavadgItA ('dhyAyato vishayAn pumsaH ...
buddhinASAtpraNaSyati') etc. and is certainly implied in yogasUtra-s
like 'avidyAsmitArAgadveSabhiniveSAH kleSAH. avidyA kshetramuttareshAM
prasuptatanuvicchinnodArANAm'. moreover, the evolution of the
SaDAyatana-s and bhava from avidyA according to pratItya samutpAda has
an almost identical parallel in the evolution of the sthUla SarIra
from mUlaprakRti which is the equivalent of mAyA/avidyA in the sAMkhya
school. it can thus be seen that the systematic reduction of all
observed phenomena to its primary cause in avidyA is common to all the
early schools of thought.

>  2/ Fuzzy logic has not only two (Yes, No) type of states but multiple (often infinite) states in between. (Ref Text like Klir and Folger - Prentice Hall). We can say that mAyA doctrine is a doctrine of fuzzy logic; in that sense mAyA is sadasatvilakshaNa. Yes, the versatile syAdavAda of Jainism (what is sometimes known as saptabhangi or anekAntavAda) also comes close to fuzzy logic.
>

add to this the madhyamaka of nAgArjuna which admits 4 possible truth
values. given a statement P, a standard approach of nAgArjuna is to
deny the validity of P, not-P, P and not-P, neither P nor not-P. but
whether the logical framework of either madhyamaka or advaita can be
studied using modern logic is a different question altogether since
both these schools are primarily empirical and resort to logic only as
a means to cittanigraha and not as something important in its own
right.

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Ananta Bhagwat <ananta14_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>  4/ advaita is neither pure science nor pure metaphysics nor pure philosophy. It offers unique epistemological, ontological, and ethical (spiritual) unity. One should not read too much science in advaita, other wise the balance of this unity is disturbed.

true. too much of speculative garbage has been written in trying to
explain advaita 'scientifically'. i suppose this is fine for absolute
novices to science, but any sensible person who has studied both the
scientific and vedAntic approach to understanding reality will realize
at once that both their subject of enquiry and the means adopted for
that are quite orthogonal. i think it is best to follow the rigorous
scientific method when it comes to understanding the external world
and to follow the empirical and testable (although only subjectively)
methods of vedAnta or bauddha darSana when it comes to understanding
the mind or the self since these are outside the domain of science
(assuming for the moment that science admits that something called the
mind or a self exists apart from matter).

amuthan.