[Advaita-l] Science and Advaita

[Naresh Cuntoor]

>
> 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
>