M
malgova.mango
Guest
Sesh!
Let's go to the next.....
Let's go to the next.....
Hi malgova,
Please do not assume that I have not read the Brahma Sutras… The point am trying to make here is the validity of the fundamental premises. Human mind always sees logic in everything… and that is why we assume a logical source to creation (even after attributing it to be beyond logic!!!).[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]What I meant “Truth” is knowing oneself - Normally our inquestivness is tuned to know the world, we want to know how the system works? Any thing form electricity to working of universe. We want to understand the law, the order . We want to to know the logic of things - so we seek logic – because that's the way we understand. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Only from this premise we start to engage. So our seeking of rational reasoning, a logic is a very fundamental thing isn't that so?[/FONT]
Another reasoning...
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]See if we see two things put together – like a simple Wheel and axle – we automatically conclude there is an intelligence presuppose that – Don't we? - In the same vein We see the world , with Sun Moon stars – our society, living things, non-living things all put to-gether – You can say that is “Nature” . But to me it stopping to think. Nature so what – I see intelligence premeating nature, there should be an intelligence that presuppose the nature . Why not?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This intelligence "IS" the thing beyond the horizon – Infact it is boundless, it premeates everywhere –“ Aganda Satchitanada Brahmam “[/FONT]
When we set out to understand any thing we go as far as we could reason out - beyond a point - we gladly accept the limitation and suggest , it may be "HIS" sport. . - Advaita Vedanta gladly accepts that it couldn't answer the Why question? So Advaita stops there and suggest could be HIS sport.
You want to take it take it , leave it leave it.
One cannot doubt the logic of the Brahma Sutras if one agrees with the Vedas and Upanishads; but then, speaking as a detached individual (from any of the beliefs), one has to question the validity of the premise itself.
I think I covered this in my last but one post. Mahavakyas are like mathematical equation , no use in believing it, must understand. Ofcourse you start any endeavour with a belief.
You have not answered my doubts on the validity of the fundamental premises as pointed out in my earlier post. You are only repeating what I know – I have read about the life of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya and their philosophies.
Oh did I miss something ? Let me review again.. too many threads might have missed...
I have also gone through the “answers” that supposedly refute the other theories… and I have to say that some of the answers are not satisfactory; they presuppose logic, for e.g.:
The doubt - There is no creator and all things have evolved by view of their inherent properties.
The counter - If everything is capable of creating itself, then why do we not see creation now…? Why is there only one sun and not two or more?
My view - This is an absurd way to counter the question; it is causality that matters which is not bound by logic or consistency or pattern. We are talking as if the universe is a 80 GB hard disk and nothing can exist outside. The universe is infinite – there may be millions of solar systems that could house two or three suns!!! Again, the atom is unstable as long as its positive and negative charges are not balanced. Similarly the spontaneity of creation does not stop until there is some sort of balance.
See charavakas say - there is nothing subtle than that meet the head. to counter that if there is no intelligence or an order that prevades the assembly of things , there couldn't be any orderly function possible. The implicit explanation given is the very order that balance many things is seen as a creator.
If there are any more answers, I would genuinely like to know.
?Janmadhyasya yathaha
Brahman is that from which the likes of origin etc (i.e., all activities) emanate
My view - This is a presupposed logic, which assumes cause and effect, though Brahman is defined as beyond cause and effect!!! Why should there be a reason? Why should there be a source? Why not causality
This is the Buddhist Madhyamika line of argument. It only leads to Nihilistic view.
The way shastra handles the words "Brahman" and "Atma" in a unique and delicate way - you need a guide to get the clear explanation. Then you will understand what is being said.
You see logic can go to a extent, you need the expertise of your Guru to understand the subtelty involved.
It is human nature that we interlink things and come out with the best possible logic that could explain the way things are (for we believe that there is a cause and effect). We always try to define something using human logic - how we perceive things is as far as how our logic can go. So we are obsessed with the fact that there must be “something” beyond the horizon. What if there is indeed nothing?
refer the earlier part. What if there is onething?
I am not trying to disprove the infallibility of the Vedas/Upanishads, but they too are subject to the confinements of logic.
You need a logical approach - no doubt about it ,That's why we have Nyaya Shastra has a part of Veda. But all I suggest is why not seek a help from a competent guide?
So, all your posts hold good if and only if we accept that there is a logic which drives all entities.
I covered this part earlier...
Again this does not explain the Why of things…
Same as above.
Regards,