[Advaita-l] Science and Advaita

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

Dear Michael,
 
>'fishing for ideas' and seeking to harmonize different held views of the cosmos, in 
one truth..
 
I agree that great ideas may arise anywhere; arts & music was discovered by all
cultures. Basic human traits are everywhere and the connection to divine is also
there. So there is nothing wrong is sharing and exchanging ideas. 
 
But while your three-world model denies some previleges to ordinary humans, what
is the point of using ideas from elsewhere from other systems where it is common
for people to identify with universal self? 
 
>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... 
 
Advaita is reached only after argumentation. It is a tedious process, unless the
person is a genius who can think in a fraction of second. Otherwise if you touch a
snake thinking it is a rope it can bite you. 
 
>surely we have passed beyond the rivalry of faiths ?
 
Maa vidvishavahai. No dispute with any one. At the same time no accpetance of
ideas without discussion. 
 
>Otherwise, 'advaita' would just be theory ? 
 
No. Advaita rebutted sankhya, dvaita as highest etc and included them as special
cases at the end. I do contend your opinions you express here do not qualify for
the highest as I see it, and I don't even see a harmony other than that we two are
humans. 
 
>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 ?
 
You did not mention Cusanus. You mentioned some other lower concept: 'people
can only imitate' etc. 
 
>I don't know whether it is my idea of 'three worlds' or yours that is
>crude..
 
I never said it is crude. I just said it is different. There are dozens of models out
there, and interpreting each model needs its own appraoch. 
 
In fact a model similar to your three-world model you mentioned was incidentally
developed (with several modifications) by Swami Chinmayananda: Body, Mind,
Intellect, which was an instant hit among youth. Now I understand why.. the ruling
paradigm of western evolution of sciences came with this model and youth found
this explanation easy because it resonates with the ruling paradigm (your model).
But Swamiji taught this in a different way wherein at each level/world human and
divine merge together instead of being separated.  (Hmm, I would now call it fishing
of west to east, no offence meant to Chinmaya mission. Several other thinkers did
this, like JK.) 
 
>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..
 
You are wrong. Rgveda has a verse which doubts Indra's existence, and this is
agreed to be an atheist's view. 
>Your comments on 'Why?' seem to contradict those of others here ?
 
I am not a Sanskrit scholar, and sanskrit may not have the word why as it was
mentioned, but I suppose 'what is the cause' is same as why. Sankara asked this a
million times.  
 
>I hope we can agree more than we disagree.. I find these exchanges useful.
>It tests buddhi !
 
Sure it does. 
 
Regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. 
http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_howitworks_012009