Flaws in Advaita - Real or Perceived?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Time passes in different speeds on different occasions. More or less everyone would have had the above experience. If time were a reality this difference should not happen. How quickly time passes for one depends on whether one is happy or sad, whether one is sleeping or awake etc. Also when one is thinking it passes quickly. The basis seems to be being in happy mental state and being divorced from physical reality. So if there were a perfectly blissful and solely mental experience, time will not be perceived. In other words it strongly supports space and time being perceptions.

 

[Nara]

The conclusion of your response is exactly the objection I raised. .

sravna, I have no idea what you are saying here. Time and time again you are side stepping the questions I have posed. I have persisted way too long, at the risk of exposing myself to the exasperation of other members.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't want to accept any framework for reasonable exchange. You are unwilling to cite any Shruti evidence for your views. You obviously can't deal with observation as it so very readily contradicts your views. In as much as anumanam has to start from observable and mutually agreeable premises, it is a nonstarter.

So, all this boils down to your personal pet theories. Given that you have to choose between your own pet theories and what I am saying, I daresay I am at an extreme disadvantage. So, I have no option but to say that your views will always prevail when you are the final arbiter choosing between these two.

Thank you ...

 

[sravna]

sravna, I have no idea what you are saying here. Time and time again you are side stepping the questions I have posed. I have persisted way too long, at the risk of exposing myself to the exasperation of other members.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't want to accept any framework for reasonable exchange. You are unwilling to cite any Shruti evidence for your views. You obviously can't deal with observation as it so very readily contradicts your views. In as much as anumanam has to start from observable and mutually agreeable premises, it is a nonstarter.

So, all this boils down to your personal pet theories. Given that you have to choose between your own pet theories and what I am saying, I daresay I am at an extreme disadvantage. So, I have no option but to say that your views will always prevail when you are the final arbiter choosing between these two.

Thank you ...

Shri Nara,

If you only call your arguments logical and those of others as pet theories or assertions, there indeed can be little progress in the discussions.

I want to get back to the point that space and time are not realities. To resolve the issue of what causes the first cause(s), is to conclude that it is by an undifferentiated cause and effect. This automatically destroys the notion of space and time

Do you agree ?

 

[Nara]

If you only call your arguments logical and those of others as pet theories or assertions, there indeed can be little progress in the discussions.

I am not presenting any arguments at all, you are the one proposing a theory and the onus is upon you to provide acceptable evidence.

I want to get back to the point that space and time are not realities. To resolve the issue of what causes the first cause(s), is to conclude that it is by an undifferentiated cause and effect. This automatically destroys the notion of space and time

Do you agree ?

I don't even understand what this means to tell you whether I agree or not. IMO, we don't have sufficient verifiable data from time tending to zero to say anything about what was the primordial cause. Unlike you, I don't wish to make any definitive assertion.

My personal opinion is it just happened due to natural forces. This is just my personal opinion based on what I consider reasonable.

Thank you ...

Cheers!

 

[saarangam]

It's a purely belief system,which can be proved when you have faith to understand.

If advaitha philosophy is purely a belief system then all the arguments to establish the existence of brahman, its saguna or nirguna aspect, the effect of maaya etc become a futile exercise.Sankara could very well have said: "brahman is the absolute reality.I am a brahma jnani . So you believe me." It would be like the Christian prononcement:"viSvAsikaL rakshikkappeTunnu" (Those who have belief in Jesus are saved).

 

[subbudu1]

Dear subbudu sir, it is my understanding that Appaiah Diskthithar (AD) was more into Saivam than Adivaitam per se. In fact I have heard that his vedantic outlook was the same as VA, except that he took Shiva to be the supreme Ishwara rather than Sriman Narayana, but this may simply be a claim by the SVs. It is my understanding that he did not attempt to answer any of the questions raised against A by the proponents of VA.

SVs often say AD had enormous respect for Swami Sri Desikan (SSD). AD is supposed to have conferred the title "kavi-tarkika-simham" for SSD. He is supposed to have observed that SSD built an impenetrable fence around the green grass of VA, but for this, the grass would have been grazed away.

Cheers!

Dear Nara, Appayya was an advaitin with high devotion for Lord Shiva.
This quote should explain enough about him
Appayya Dikshita

Dikshitar graphically describes dvaita as the lowest step, vishishtadvaita as the middle step and sivadvaita and advaita which are very close to each other as the highest steps. He makes it clear in his work that Srikantha-Bhashya on the Brahmasutra has been written in very close approximation to the trend of thought of Adi Sankara in his own bhashya. Srikanta, according to Dikshitar, propagated his cult on the understanding that sagunopasana (Worship of name and form) is only the first step to nirgunopasana (Propitiation of the nameless and formless), and that it was the real intention of Srikanta that the final truth lies only in shuddhadvaita. Dikshitar's great dialectical skill is fully reflected in the work called 'Anandalahari chandrika', where he tries to narrow down the differences between the apparently divergent schools of thought and tries to show that the advaita of Sankara is the real eternal truth to which all others try to approximate.

Appayya was indeed a follower of advaita. His descendants continue to follow one or the other Shankaracharyas. The Tanjore branch of his descendants are closely associated with Kanchi Acharyas. The tirunelveli Branch of his brother's family are closely linked with the activities of Sringeri Acharyas. The well known Sivananda of Rishikesh , a follower of advaita, is believed to be a descendant of Appayya.

What I like about him personally was that he seemed to be broadminded towards the different sects of the time. He has showered lavish praises on Vedanta Desikar. He also seem to have enjoyed a good relationship with Vaishnavas in general.
Of course his background might have helped, his grandmother had come from a Sri Vaishava family, married to his grandfather due to the orders of the Vijayanagar administrator - so the legend goes and shown in the family tree of the descendants.

 

[sravna]

I am not presenting any arguments at all, you are the one proposing a theory and the onus is upon you to provide acceptable evidence.

I don't even understand what this means to tell you whether I agree or not. IMO, we don't have sufficient verifiable data from time tending to zero to say anything about what was the primordial cause. Unlike you, I don't wish to make any definitive assertion.

My personal opinion is it just happened due to natural forces. This is just my personal opinion based on what I consider reasonable.

Thank you ...

Cheers!

Let me try to make sense. Let us say the following cause and effect is seen in the physical world:

?---A-->B-->C

That is C was created by B and B by A. But who created A?

Consider something where effect is not separable from cause. This is required because we need to answer who caused A. That is represented as follows:

ABC,

which means that A and B and C which were separate in the physical world exists in unity here because cause and effect are the same. If we now ask the question who created A, the answer would be ABC. The answer would be similar for B and C, though one would say B and C created A and B respectively in the physical world.If one asks who created ABC, the answer is, it existed that way because of cause and effect being the same.

In the physical world, this cause and effect connection gets severed.

Thus the buck stops with ABC.

 

[sravna]

I am not presenting any arguments at all, you are the one proposing a theory and the onus is upon you to provide acceptable evidence.

I don't even understand what this means to tell you whether I agree or not. IMO, we don't have sufficient verifiable data from time tending to zero to say anything about what was the primordial cause. Unlike you, I don't wish to make any definitive assertion.

My personal opinion is it just happened due to natural forces. This is just my personal opinion based on what I consider reasonable.

Thank you ...

Cheers!

My question to you is if space and time are caused is there not something beyond them that is the cause?

 

[subbudu1]

Let me try to make sense. Let us say the following cause and effect is seen in the physical world:

?---A-->B-->C

That is C was created by B and B by A. But who created A?

Consider something where effect is not separable from cause. This is required because we need to answer who caused A. That is represented as follows:

ABC,

which means that A and B and C which were separate in the physical world exists in unity here because cause and effect are the same. If we now ask the question who created A, the answer would be ABC. The answer would be similar for B and C, though one would say B and C created A and B respectively in the physical world.If one asks who created ABC, the answer is, it existed that way because of cause and effect being the same.

In the physical world, this cause and effect connection gets severed.

Thus the buck stops with ABC.

Dear Sravna,

Much of what you are saying seems to be your own explanation for a theory. I request you to re-read some advaita works. Please provide your explanations based on real works on advaita. Your explanation would then be comprehensible.

At the moment many of us here fail to understand what kind of advaita is being explained by you or if you are explaining advaita at all, in the first place.

Thanks,

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Much of what you are saying seems to be your own explanation for a theory. I request you to re-read some advaita works. Please provide your explanations based on real works on advaita. Your explanation would then be comprehensible.

At the moment many of us here fail to understand what kind of advaita is being explained by you or if you are explaining advaita at all, in the first place.

Thanks,

Shri Subbudu,

Advaita is based on certain premises. I understand that vedas are taken as a source of authority to support one's arguments. In such cases you just have to refer to the vedas to show that your premises are true.

But I find to support your premises by logic is to provide a scientific basis to the whole exercise which I thought was worthwhile. So when I try to prove that an eternal entity exists and has the said nature as attributed to it in the vedas, I am not dealing with advaita proper. I am just creating the grounds for defending it.

So esteemed members need not get exasperated when it seems that advaita proper is being not debated.

 

[sravna]

sravna, I have no idea what you are saying here. Time and time again you are side stepping the questions I have posed. I have persisted way too long, at the risk of exposing myself to the exasperation of other members.

You have clearly demonstrated that you don't want to accept any framework for reasonable exchange. You are unwilling to cite any Shruti evidence for your views. You obviously can't deal with observation as it so very readily contradicts your views. In as much as anumanam has to start from observable and mutually agreeable premises, it is a nonstarter.

So, all this boils down to your personal pet theories. Given that you have to choose between your own pet theories and what I am saying, I daresay I am at an extreme disadvantage. So, I have no option but to say that your views will always prevail when you are the final arbiter choosing between these two.

Thank you ...

You want me to argue logically but when I do so, the arguments become pet theories. I am willing to face your objections if they come with substance. Other than saying that I am just asserting and developing my own theories, there are no substantive objections that are forthcoming from you. I sensed some sincerity in one or two posts but they remain as exceptions rather than becoming the norm.

 

[sravna]

Here is a list of what I think needs to be discussed to get into the core of advaita.

1. The reality is non-dual
2. Brahman is eternal and nirguna
3. Avidya or maya is a power of brahman
4. Avidya is neither real nor unreal and is incomprehensible
5. The effect of avidya is ignorance
6. Brahman is not affected by avidya
7. The relationship of brahman to the world

If light is thrown on the above in the discussions using a logical approach, I think a fresh and clear perspective on advaita is possible

 

[subbudu1]

Time passes in different speeds on different occasions. More or less everyone would have had the above experience. If time were a reality this difference should not happen. How quickly time passes for one depends on whether one is happy or sad, whether one is sleeping or awake etc. Also when one is thinking it passes quickly. The basis seems to be being in happy mental state and being divorced from physical reality. So if there were a perfectly blissful and solely mental experience, time will not be perceived. In other words it strongly supports space and time being perceptions.

This is one good example of a confused logic.
Let me explain my comments to this

Time passes in different speeds on different occasions

This is a statement which is not proven to be true. There is a perception that time passes by sooner or later. It is the state of the observer. Nothing to do with time. Time is just being measured using different measuring scales. Who measures when gives the notion of time. The irony of the statement Time is related to inverse of time( speed is inversely related to time and you said time is dependant on a speed factor). I get what you say but you need to phrase your statement correctly.

If time were a reality this difference should not happen.

What is not a reality?This is a logical leap. What difference should not happen ?The difference in observation or passage of time? The conclusion is baseless. Something is happening to the observer and he cannot keep track of time. So he says there is some wierd thing happening with time. Even if it is true that something weird is happening with time, one must look at the definition of time. One must explain this weirdness or prove this weirdness is inconsistent with the concept of time. It will then abolish the concept of time. But still time exists and its definition has altered. It does not go away. Please tell me how such an unreasonable conclusion has been made.

Also when one is thinking it passes quickly. The basis seems to be being in happy mental state and being divorced from physical reality. So if there were a perfectly blissful and solely mental experience, time will not be perceived. In other words it strongly supports space and time being perceptions.

You are copying ideas from Relativity. All this is the state of the observer and the time measured by this observer. It does not abolish the concept of time being independant of observers.

Yes there is perception of passage of time. It is the perception of time which is changing. It does not mean that time itself is a perception. You surely cannot expect people to take such arguments as logic.

 

[sangom]

Shri Subbudu,

I have come to the conclusion, after reading most of his 392 posts from day one here, that he must be living in his own mental world; this is a luxury which almost none of us can afford because the so-called relative realities of this world will not allow us to live in our mental world of fancy even for an hour at a stretch !

Possibly Shri Sravna is unique in getting more than enough time to so spend. This privilege has possibly made him convinced about all that others perceive as "relaities" as only relative realities, including the notion about passage of time; when, for us lesser mortals, one hour passes probably it is just five minutes or five weeks for him

In these circumstances it will be beneficial for all of us to get the full description of advaita from Shri Sravna and this forum archive will also benefit from it IMHO. Hope yourself and Shri Nara will prod Sravna to give a complete exposition of his advita.

 

[Nara]

.... I sensed some sincerity in one or two posts but they remain as exceptions rather than becoming the norm.

sravna, I repeatedly asked you to declare the sources of authoritative knowledge. You are yet to do so. You just ignored it and kept stating your conclusions as though they were established facts. Most people would have just given up and walked away. That would have been the wise thing to do. Yet, I took the risk of annoying other members of this forum and kept responding to your posts. After all this you say the above. Now I am kicking myself why I didn't have the good sense to walk away much earlier.

sravna, the seven points you have listed in your post #62 are all assertions with not a shred of evidence to establish any of them as logically derived facts. you are unable to distinguish between what are assertions and logically established statements based on agreed upon premise.

Thank you ....

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

If you are asking why the perception of a jiva is inferior compared to that of brahman, it is because brahman is nirguna and is not affected by anything unlike that of jiva which can be affected by sufferings and have adverse experiences. The experience of brahman can be thought of as the sum of experiences of all the jivas.

If you connect all the expereinces of a jiva that it underwent in all its lives the result would be one of peace /bliss. This is because the expereince of a jiva at any birth I would think, depends on the totality of the experiences it underwent.

To sum up it is the nirguna feature of brahman that is the reason for its blissful existence.

Let us put it this way. It would be wonderful if I can convince myself that as a nirguna brahman, I am not affected by the world. Good theory! It would even more wonderful if by convincing myself I am not affected by pain, suffering and I am immortal. Unbelievably Good Theory!!!!!!

But it is theory no Sravna? End of the day it is theory. Even if we accept our vedas, so many Devas, Rishis even the famous Dhruva is there. What are they doing? They are living this reality of pain and suffering even though they have access to all the teaching of Shankara. Ultimately looks like people are reduced to the mercy of God no matter what they convince themselves. Sisupalan became one with God. Dhruva is hanging around as a Star for millions or billions of years!

Is it a logical theory? I dont know. Atleast that would have been hope giving.

If you are asking why the perception of a jiva is inferior compared to that of brahman, it is because brahman is nirguna and is not affected by anything unlike that of jiva which can be affected by sufferings and have adverse experiences. The experience of brahman can be thought of as the sum of experiences of all the jivas.

I can understand this. but here we are talking not of the merit of such a situation. It is with regard to the probability of that experience being really true. That is where you need to show that by means of some logic that experience of a brahman is somehow more likely to be true than an experience of jiva.

 

[sravna]

This is one good example of a confused logic.
Let me explain my comments to this
This is a statement which is not proven to be true. There is a perception that time passes by sooner or later. It is the state of the observer. Nothing to do with time. Time is just being measured using different measuring scales. Who measures when gives the notion of time. The irony of the statement Time is related to inverse of time( speed is inversely related to time and you said time is dependant on a speed factor). I get what you say but you need to phrase your statement correctly.




What is not a reality?This is a logical leap. What difference should not happen ?The difference in observation or passage of time? The conclusion is baseless. Something is happening to the observer and he cannot keep track of time. So he says there is some wierd thing happening with time. Even if it is true that something weird is happening with time, one must look at the definition of time. One must explain this weirdness or prove this weirdness is inconsistent with the concept of time. It will then abolish the concept of time. But still time exists and its definition has altered. It does not go away. Please tell me how such an unreasonable conclusion has been made.


You are copying ideas from Relativity. All this is the state of the observer and the time measured by this observer. It does not abolish the concept of time being independant of observers.

Yes there is perception of passage of time. It is the perception of time which is changing. It does not mean that time itself is a perception. You surely cannot expect people to take such arguments as logic.

Shri Subbudu,

For something to be called a reality should be experienced in the same way by everyone everytime. If time were a reality the duration or passage of time should not alter. Since it has to do only with the person experiencing is not due to the nature of the time, it is only a perception. Time is totally a mental construct and is related to mind in the way space is related to body.

What do you mean by, perception of time changes? It could only mean you are viewing it as more real or more unreal. It has no relation to the passage of time. Only perceived duration changes. When it is zero, duration of time perceived is zero or in other words you have gone beyond time.

As a digression, as consciousness is more evolved any mental experience becomes more satisfactory because such consciousness is the result of the ability to have experience of time in a more unified manner

 

[sravna]

The case for an Eternal being

Here is some logic to deduce the presence of an eternal being:

1. Any being that exists in the physical world comes in to existence because of a cause
2. The beings at the beginning of the universe also need to be caused
3. But it cannot be due to any being that exists in the physical world because such being too need a cause and so the problem will never end
4. The alternatives - (a) There is no cause. The initial beings as a special case could have spontaneously emerged. But truly spontaneous emergence without any underlying basis sounds more like a magical theory than a logical theory. (b) reality could have been created in a way so that the infinite regress problem is addressed. Cause is there but cause effect relation does not exist. Thus regress would stop at such a point.
5. In the reality where cause effect are inseparable , space and time do not exist as their presence implies passage through them and the existence of cause effect relation.
6. A reality which has no space and time is an unified and an eternal reality.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,

For something to be called a reality should be experienced in the same way by everyone everytime. If time were a reality the duration or passage of time should not alter. Since it has to do only with the person experiencing is not due to the nature of the time, it is only a perception. Time is totally a mental construct and is related to mind in the way space is related to body.

How do you know the duration or passage of time alters?

Since it has to do only with the person experiencing is not due to the nature of the time, it is only a perception.

If you want to interpret it that way everything is perception. But matter exists. It is not because of your perception that it came up. To give you an example. Suppose I and Nara secretly plan and let loose a dog in your bedroom, it is not perception. It is real. You see the dog and then your mind adapts to this material information. Now I and Nara ask the dog secretly to move next to you and sit beside you. Again your mind has reacted to it. Then the dog leaves the room and you are relieved.

First, the dog made an appearance unexpected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

Second, dog comes close to you unexpected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

Third, dog leaves room. That was not expected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

In the meantime you saw the wall clock. The clock hands have moved from the first event to third event. That is not just your perception. We knew it and you saw it.

In the meantime your heart has beat 1000 times. That is not just a perception. You knew it something happened to your bp and something else happened. After first event some sweat started coming. We saw it also. The dog left the room and sweat stopped. We saw it.

As you can see matter is related to body, but not only your body everybody can perceive change to it if they are there when the event occurs. The transformation between the two events is called time. You can use a clock , you can use the sun to measure its change. But yes when the dog came, you were so scared. One hour seemed like one day. But the clock small leg moved only by one number. Suppose someone came to your room just before the dog came and made note of the clock and left. Then after one hour after the dog had left they saw the clock again. It had moved by one measure. They neither saw the dog come nor leave. Let us make it even more complex. Let us say the person who saw the clock first was different from the person who saw clock last. Both did not know what each had in mind. Still the facts are that the clock had moved only by one measure.

Now you will have a theory that since everybody is the same brahman a unified perception (based on advaita) has led to such imagination of clock motion. Isnt it just a theory? How you can expect this theory itself to be used as an argument to support advaita?

What I have heard is that depending on frame of reference , the length of interval between events change. This is the relativity principle. However no matter which frame of reference you are , event 2 does not happen before event 1. If that happens then we can say time is a perception. Similarly if event 1 and event 2 cannot simultaneously happen. This would happen if it is a perception.

So using such logic is injustice to Advaita.

Advaita probably says time is because of perception. But this cannot be proven this way. Time is a perception only if change in matter itself is just a perception. Change in matter is only a perception if you can prove that no snake is a snake but only a rope. That is left to experience. To some it is always a snake. To some it is always a rope. How do you decide who is correct. If the rope can move by itself , crawl on the floor , without your intervention ?

 

[nachi naga]

Without a reference Brahman exists.Time is measured based on celestial objects even in this age and day.what if celestial objects vanish,does time vanish too?.the spark of divinity that exists within all is the sagunam brahman.to understand this this shanthi mantra may help readers om poornamada poornamidam poornath poornamudachayathe poornasya poornamadaya poornamevayaa vasishyathe shanthi shanthi shanthi hi.

 

[nachi naga]

If advaitha philosophy is purely a belief system then all the arguments to establish the existence of brahman, its saguna or nirguna aspect, the effect of maaya etc become a futile exercise.Sankara could very well have said: "brahman is the absolute reality.I am a brahma jnani . So you believe me." It would be like the Christian prononcement:"viSvAsikaL rakshikkappeTunnu" (Those who have belief in Jesus are saved).

Everything is a belief system,even when you believe that she is my mother and he is my father,ain't it?the term brahma gyaani was conferred to adi sankara acharyal by others,afaik he never made a claim to it.by following the philosophy of adi sankara acharyal,people became/become living enlightened, not after death of the body.as anything which comes out of brahman is brahman only,that is the realisation tool given in advaitham,imho.as far as christians are concerned,its an ishta devata concept,wherein verily lord jesus christ is the only god in human form,as everything that exists is only god and for christians he is son of god.then he and god are one and the same and finally only god exists,as in advaitham,only brahman exists.because of language differences then, in english we say god and in samskritham we say brahman.

 

[sravna]

How do you know the duration or passage of time alters?

If you want to interpret it that way everything is perception. But matter exists. It is not because of your perception that it came up. To give you an example. Suppose I and Nara secretly plan and let loose a dog in your bedroom, it is not perception. It is real. You see the dog and then your mind adapts to this material information. Now I and Nara ask the dog secretly to move next to you and sit beside you. Again your mind has reacted to it. Then the dog leaves the room and you are relieved.

First, the dog made an appearance unexpected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

Second, dog comes close to you unexpected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

Third, dog leaves room. That was not expected. That is not just a perception. We knew it and you also saw it.

In the meantime you saw the wall clock. The clock hands have moved from the first event to third event. That is not just your perception. We knew it and you saw it.

In the meantime your heart has beat 1000 times. That is not just a perception. You knew it something happened to your bp and something else happened. After first event some sweat started coming. We saw it also. The dog left the room and sweat stopped. We saw it.

As you can see matter is related to body, but not only your body everybody can perceive change to it if they are there when the event occurs. The transformation between the two events is called time. You can use a clock , you can use the sun to measure its change. But yes when the dog came, you were so scared. One hour seemed like one day. But the clock small leg moved only by one number. Suppose someone came to your room just before the dog came and made note of the clock and left. Then after one hour after the dog had left they saw the clock again. It had moved by one measure. They neither saw the dog come nor leave. Let us make it even more complex. Let us say the person who saw the clock first was different from the person who saw clock last. Both did not know what each had in mind. Still the facts are that the clock had moved only by one measure.

Now you will have a theory that since everybody is the same brahman a unified perception (based on advaita) has led to such imagination of clock motion. Isnt it just a theory? How you can expect this theory itself to be used as an argument to support advaita?

What I have heard is that depending on frame of reference , the length of interval between events change. This is the relativity principle. However no matter which frame of reference you are , event 2 does not happen before event 1. If that happens then we can say time is a perception. Similarly if event 1 and event 2 cannot simultaneously happen. This would happen if it is a perception.

So using such logic is injustice to Advaita.

Advaita probably says time is because of perception. But this cannot be proven this way. Time is a perception only if change in matter itself is just a perception. Change in matter is only a perception if you can prove that no snake is a snake but only a rope. That is left to experience. To some it is always a snake. To some it is always a rope. How do you decide who is correct. If the rope can move by itself , crawl on the floor , without your intervention ?

Shri Subbudu,

I am not saying what we see, hear etc are not connected to reality. They are a reality but you are making use of sensory organs whose ability of grasping reality is restricted. For a better grasp of reality you use your mind. Agreed I see the dog, the clock moves etc, they all are perceived in the same way by others too. But what changes is how I interpret those physical events and the way I respond to them.

Also, as long as you are using the 5 senses you will perceive the physical reality just as others. But in that reality you get to see only the gross information and your physical self is more like an interface which picks up that gross information, passes it on to the mind and let it do the rest.

The fact that I say time is a perception doesn't mean that the perception can be arbitrary. When I talk about the perception I talk about how two events with the same duration in the physical world can give vastly different mental perception of the duration. The shorter perceived duration generally indicates higher quality experiencing of the event.

 

[subbudu1]

Shri Subbudu,


The fact that I say time is a perception doesn't mean that the perception can be arbitrary. When I talk about the perception I talk about how two events with the same duration in the physical world can give vastly different mental perception of the duration. The shorter perceived duration generally indicates higher quality experiencing of the event.

Nobody here is disputing the notion of perception which creates an imaginary view of time. This neither matches with the duration of day using sun as a measure nor the movement of a clock which is not related to celestial world.

But here we need two differentiate two things
Perception of time
Interval between two material events measured by physical or non physical system.

The first is related to mind. But that is the perception of time not time itself. Second is used to define the concept of time and does not need a human mind. I can place a machine which will do the measurement. After 1000 years also the readings can be seen by somebody to understand the material event intervals.

You yourself have answered the question You said - two events with the same duration in the physical world can give vastly different mental perception . We are not concerned with mental perception we are concerned only with duration in the physical world. Regardless of your perception these events occur and they can be studied even millions of years after they occur if they leave a trace. How can then they be related to perception unless you preconsider advaita? If you preconsider advaita you need some other basis for proving advaita not using notions of time and matter. Infact no acharya or scholar is making use of such vague assertions to prove advaita.

The problem is you have preconsidered advaita as true and you are explaining about the world , how it functions on that theory. It is not bad, but not good enough for others to consider advaita too. This entire writeup is to show that you are not using proper arguments to represent advaita.


I reiterate Sravna. Lot of thinking has gone in these philosophies. It will be good as suggested by others that you begin with the explanation and citation of real advaitic scholars. Then you can use your science and logic whereever you need to convince others regarding certain points. You are not developing a logically consistent viewpoint. As Nara put it , you are confused between logical arguments and assertions. My best advice is to start with the advaita acharyas. Then slowly explain the questions that come up with regard to the answers of advaita-acharya.

 

[KRS]

Folks,
In just came across this thread.

I feel sorry for Sri Sravana Ji, who got in to a subject, in my opinion, without adequate preparation and is not ready to defend a Philosophy on Epistomoligal terms. Sorry, Sri Sravana Ji. Belief and Pramana are different. Unfortunately, here you are dealing with three non believers, one approaching the question from SV viewpoint, another drawing all sorts of inferences from his assumptions and the third drawing conclusions without proper grounding.

Let us reset this thread.

So, I request you, Sri Sravana Ji,

to state your first thought on Advaitha. Let us see how these 3 pundits respond to it. Professor Nara Ji makes all sorts of statements based on his knowledge of SV and his current mind set as an agnostic, Sri Sangom Ji makes all sorts of inferences tat are not supported by any recorded history and Sri subuddu1 Ji, makes statements with his fragmented knowledge.

Advaitha Philosophy is as valid as any of the other two major philosophies of our tradition.

What is actually amusing to me is Sri Sangom's assertion that Dwaitha is an allied philosophy of Visishtadwaitha as opposed to Advaitha!

Let the games begin, with these folks! If they have any integrity, they would not mind starting in the beginning. Especially Sri Sangom Ji, who makes all sorts of assertions, without providing any concrete proofs.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sravna]

Nobody here is disputing the notion of perception which creates an imaginary view of time. This neither matches with the duration of day using sun as a measure nor the movement of a clock which is not related to celestial world.

But here we need two differentiate two things
Perception of time
Interval between two material events measured by physical or non physical system.

The first is related to mind. But that is the perception of time not time itself. Second is used to define the concept of time and does not need a human mind. I can place a machine which will do the measurement. After 1000 years also the readings can be seen by somebody to understand the material event intervals.

You yourself have answered the question You said - two events with the same duration in the physical world can give vastly different mental perception . We are not concerned with mental perception we are concerned only with duration in the physical world. Regardless of your perception these events occur and they can be studied even millions of years after they occur if they leave a trace. How can then they be related to perception unless you preconsider advaita? If you preconsider advaita you need some other basis for proving advaita not using notions of time and matter. Infact no acharya or scholar is making use of such vague assertions to prove advaita.

The problem is you have preconsidered advaita as true and you are explaining about the world , how it functions on that theory. It is not bad, but not good enough for others to consider advaita too. This entire writeup is to show that you are not using proper arguments to represent advaita.


I reiterate Sravna. Lot of thinking has gone in these philosophies. It will be good as suggested by others that you begin with the explanation and citation of real advaitic scholars. Then you can use your science and logic whereever you need to convince others regarding certain points. You are not developing a logically consistent viewpoint. As Nara put it , you are confused between logical arguments and assertions. My best advice is to start with the advaita acharyas. Then slowly explain the questions that come up with regard to the answers of advaita-acharya.

Assume our consciousness is enlarged and we perceive 20 min experience as a unified one instead of present one which is in seconds, I assume, in humans. Will it have any impact on your theory of time? It should as I suppose your notion that clock measures something fixed or measures a reality would become false. It is because you are now viewing the universe differently and this undermines the physical basis of time. Extend this logic. As your consciousness keeps expanding and is large enough to cover the life span of the universe. Would you see the universe in the same way, if at all you see anything physical?