mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Mon Mar 30 10:34:49 CDT 2009
Pranams Sri Gadkari:
>> If there is no sequencing from the absolute viewpoint I fail to
understand how the law of
>> karma can function at the level of vyavahAra.
What do you mean by "absolute viewpoint"? Isn't that inconceivable (viz.
neti, neti)? Also can you please elaborate why Time (absolute or otherwise)
is necessary for implementing the law of karma? I am unable to see your
Thanks & Pranams, Mahesh
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Shrinivas Gadkari
<sgadkari2001 at yahoo.com>wrote:
> Let me begin my admitting that my understanding of "time" is far from
> satisfactory both from tattva viewpoint and modern-science viewpoint.
> But here is the good news: (a) NOBODY understands "time" is a manner
> that is satisfactory from modern-science viewpoint.
> (b) There certainly have been RSi-s who understood and mastered kAla
> tattva. Yet, today, unless we understand "time" from both tattva view point
> and modern science viewpoint AND INTEGRATE these two viewpoints
> we cannot claim that we understand "time" in a convincing manner.
> 1. The relativistic-view of space-time is questionable - it cannot
> account for quantum mechanical "collapse of a wave-function" in a
> satisfactory manner. I do not mean relativistic view is wrong. It
> probably is incomplete. The way Newton's physics was not
> wrong, but a special case of relativistic physics.
> 2. The above point (from what I understand) is the main hurdle in
> of quantum theory and gravity.
> 3. From view point of tattvas too I am not sure if we can assume that
> is a product of mAyA. See bhAgavatam 3.26 shloka-s 15-18. The
> "time limitations" that we experience certainly are a product of
> mAyA. But "time" is more than just these limitations. It is the
> thread that sequences events. If there is no sequencing from the
> absolute viewpoint I fail to understand how the law of karma can
> function at the level of vyavahAra.
> hari om.
> Here - "to be seen simply as past, present, and future" cannot be taken as
> an answer because when we ask 'what is time?', it is equivalent to 'what is
> it that makes things appear as past, present, future?'
> I would like to share a quote of some relevance to this knotty problem:
> "What then is time? If no one asks me, I know, if I want to explain it to
> someone who asks, I do not know." - St Augustine
> While it may be reasonable to shrug the question saying Advaita doesn't
> one way or the other as Jaldhar feels, I think to make a complete theory,
> Advaita should have postulated something about it. If it can accept the
> elements of the world - earth, water, air, fire, AkAsha (which can be
> likened to solid, liquid, gas, energy & Space of modern physics), why not
> Thanks & Pranams, Mahesh
> 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