[Advaita-l] Logical Basis of Apaureshyatva
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Mon Nov 7 11:00:31 CST 2011
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > perspective. I request the members to review this and point out
> > flaws as well as suggestions to improve the same.
> Rajaram, may I suggest the following? If you have already approached Sri
> Mani Dravid Sastri to learn something about these issues in a traditional
> please wait to digest all that is taught before formulating your writings.
> I do
> not mean to put a damper on your youthful enthusiasm, but sometimes, well
> reasoned reflection is an absolute must.
*I met him this summer and he is open to teach me. And plan to reach out in
December when I will be there. My intent of learning from his was to
present the gist traditional defenses in a historical context. However,
from my reading so far, I do not think Mimamsa reasoning will apply in
modern context because it is based on premises that are not acceptable to a
modern mind (e.g. eternal varna). Hence my attempt to create a logical
defense. I am happy to be corrected. *
> I am going to address only a few basic issues below, for want of time on my
> part. As you want to come up with a more or less independent defense of the
> veda and its apaurusheyatva and nityatva (these two attributes are
> by the way), my comments are also going to be divorced from any traditional
> discourse about the veda.
> > 1. All sounds, whoever or whatever makes it, are vartransformations of
> > the frequency of a fundamental sound. Let us call that hum as Om.
> Define vartransformation and fundamental sound above. Also, by frequency,
> do you mean the unit known as Hz, 1/second? It is not clear to the reader
> if this is the case. If yes, how do consonontal stops originate and how do
> they correlate with this frequency? Sound is nothing more than a name to
> describe traveling pressure waves in a medium, so how do you propose to
> explain the existence of a sound as fundamental at the moment of the origin
> of the universe (presuming you want to align your explanation to the Big
> Bang theory)? Why is it a hum and do you conceive of it as possessing a
> pure frequency? Why not a clatter of noise, involving multiple discordant
> Finally, even if so, explain why the existence of such a fundamental sound
> should be accepted by anyone and why it should further be accepted to be
> the same as Om. Explain why this first postulate of yours, which involves a
> lot of concepts, needs to be accepted on a logical basis, without any
> in these concepts and in the symbolism of Om-kAra.
> *By sound I mean that which can be heard by the human ear. Whatever
> theory you adopt (e.g. quantum or wave), it is possible to show that all
> the frequencies that you hear are specific instances of the general
> equation. A clatter of frequencies will be sum of individual frequencies,
> which as we saw above are specific instances of a a general equation. They
> are therefore transformable from one another. So, any one of the pure
> frequencies will be as good as the other as a starting point to
> create transformations to come up with other frequencies. A pure frequency
> will be a hum. I can call it the primordial hum but am choosing to call it
> Om. It is a cultural preference - that is all. The sound itself is a
> transformation of energy and can be traced back to the very point of origin
> irrespective of the theory of origin. I am happy to be corrected. *
> All the other points that you have elucidated can wait...
> ps. Does your formulation have anything to do with Pythagorean notions of
> the music of the spheres?
> 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