[Advaita-l] Science and Advaita
michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk
Mon Feb 2 13:15:10 CST 2009
How can Advaita be 'tedious' when it is the corner-stone of the universe,
present behind every thought ? Your views puzzle me.
From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
[mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: 02 February 2009 17:29
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Subject: [Advaita-l] Science and Advaita
>'fishing for ideas' and seeking to harmonize different held views of the
I agree that great ideas may arise anywhere; arts & music was discovered by
cultures. Basic human traits are everywhere and the connection to divine is
there. So there is nothing wrong is sharing and exchanging ideas.
But while your three-world model denies some previleges to ordinary humans,
is the point of using ideas from elsewhere from other systems where it is
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
Advaita is reached only after argumentation. It is a tedious process, unless
person is a genius who can think in a fraction of second. Otherwise if you
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
ideas without discussion.
>Otherwise, 'advaita' would just be theory ?
No. Advaita rebutted sankhya, dvaita as highest etc and included them as
cases at the end. I do contend your opinions you express here do not qualify
the highest as I see it, and I don't even see a harmony other than that we
>When Cusanus said 'There is no other' in 1400 CE and meant it and lived it,
>was doing pretty well ? he followed it up by saying that everything we see
>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
I never said it is crude. I just said it is different. There are dozens of
there, and interpreting each model needs its own appraoch.
In fact a model similar to your three-world model you mentioned was
developed (with several modifications) by Swami Chinmayananda: Body, Mind,
Intellect, which was an instant hit among youth. Now I understand why.. the
paradigm of western evolution of sciences came with this model and youth
this explanation easy because it resonates with the ruling paradigm (your
But Swamiji taught this in a different way wherein at each level/world human
divine merge together instead of being separated. (Hmm, I would now call it
of west to east, no offence meant to Chinmaya mission. Several other
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
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
mentioned, but I suppose 'what is the cause' is same as why. Sankara asked
>I hope we can agree more than we disagree.. I find these exchanges useful.
>It tests buddhi !
Sure it does.
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect.
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list