[Advaita-l] Logic and shastra
mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Wed Oct 19 06:32:47 CDT 2005
I agree to your points (possibly missing the gist of the dark room story a
bit) except the last suggestion:
"While many a things in shastra-s are beyond even experience, how can words
or logic infer it?"
I don't intend to describe it by "capturing Brahman in an equation". All I
am trying to say is if advaita claims that "Brahman is all there is" then
what is the justification for this? Becuase it's in the book and I take
based on faith? Not something that is agreeable to me.
I know that science is far from answering the basic question: "What is
consciousness?" Infact people like Roger Penrose have claimed that a new
physics is need to describe the phenomenon of consiousness. So, I don't mean
to have a "short and concise" answer to my question but have you been able
to justify to yourself the conclusion of Advaita? IIf so, I would be curious
to know how?
Humble pranams, Mahesh
On 10/19/05, praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com <praveen.r.bhat at exgate.tek.com>
> Mahesh-ji wrote:
> While you cannot effectively describe how a gulabjamun tastes, the idea is
> that one can infer from science that the certain chemical constituents of
> the sweet cause the sweet taste. In fact, one could, in a laboratory,
> breakdown the 'taste' portion of the sweet only and give it to a person
> say that due to this chemical, you get the said taste.
> I may be digressing here, sorry if so. I would say that although one can
> infer "the how and what" of the sweetness, one definitely doesn't know
> depth" of sweetness or if I may, "the sweetness of the sweet". Its like
> seeing the green leaf, but what I may be seeing is a different greenness
> than you see. So, the logic in science also goes thus far. Then, you have
> take the scientist's words for the instrument that can measure the hue of
> the greenness of the leaf.
> Mahesh-ji wrote:
> My whole point in relation to science and shastras is that can we infer
> consciousness is the reality that talked of in the shastras through a
> scientific approach. We might now realize it but can it be inferred?
> The other day I was reading advaita bodha deepika and what I understood in
> the course of it is something that I'll *try* to express with a basic
> "stupid") example: Consider yourself in a pitch-dark, huge, empty room.
> can't see a thing, feel a thing, etc. None of your senses tell you there's
> anything out there, except for empty space. Now, one has to conclude it to
> be a *void*. When this void is experienced, similar to what may be
> experienced in many a spiritual paths, one might err to conclude that its
> big void. But if the focus is clear that one who's experiencing the empty
> room out there is the one and only *consciousness*, then its like
> that, at this stage. One may call that by any other name, but in common
> parlance also when one says s/he is aware of things, eg, when coming out
> fever, shock or coma, the inference is one's *consciousness*. All words
> this basic limitation when in comes to expressing any experience. While
> a things in shastra-s are beyond even experience, how can words describe
> or logic infer it?
> shivam shaantam advaitam,
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list