A Paradigm for O-E-T, the World of Matter and Mind (MTS-3)
Dr. Chidambaram's Post #3
From: aiyers@...
Date: Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:32 pm
Subject: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaitic Principles: A Paradigm for O-E-T, the World of Matter and Mind (MTS-3)
Ref: Advaita and Mathematics Paper (also in sidebar)
Figures 1 and 2 (in pages 3 and 6, respectively of the paper) are graphical representations of the paradigm of O-E-T (the perceived or experienced world of matter and mind) used in the paper. The concepts behind these representations are discussed in greater detail in the pages 39-46 and reviewed below. For members of the Advatin List, these concepts should be, by and large, very familiar.
“Sarvam Brahmamayam” was a favorite bhajan of Swamini Saradapriyanandaji – everything there is, is Brahman alone. This fundamental notion has been repeated countless times in many different words in the scriptures. The unmanifest Brahman, by power of Maya projects itself as Prakriti (the world of things, beings and vasanas) and, as Ishwara or the mayaadhipati, exercises control over Prakriti. The same Brahman “enters” the beings in Prakriti to experience the world. Therefore this world is seen as made of God (namely Prakriti), controlled by God (as Ishwara) and for the enjoyment or experience of God (as Brahman identified with beings of Prakriti). In short “this world is of God, by God and for God”.
This world of Prakriti is in constant motion. The forces or agents of change are the vasanas. Vasanas include the natural forces affecting gross things as well as the subtle forces affecting the mind-intellect of beings. At any given time “t”, there is conceptually a “state of the world” which in essence describes the physical, emotional, and intellectual state of all things and beings of the cosmos. As shown in Fig 2, this state is momentary and will change to some other state at time “t+” (i.e the “next” moment) under the pressures of vasanas.
A key point to note is that vasanas do not totally determine the change. Even if know the state of the world completely at time t, and know all the vasanas affecting the cosmos at that time, we cannot tell for sure where the world will be at time t+. There is an element of uncertainty. We can only state the possibilities and the probability associated with each possibility. In Fig 2 this is illustrated by showing 4 different possible “states of the world” at time t+. In reality, the number of possibilities is innumerably infinite. This uncertainty is theoretically well known to modern day scientists and experientially well known to all the jeevas.
But the world is not left hanging in a “cloud of probabilities” at any time – it does end up in one definite state at time t+. This is our experience. Who or what makes this choice of one out of the infinite many? Scientists may not concede, but as Advaitins, we can safely assume that it is Ishwara who makes this choice, using His Free Will. This is consistent with the notion of Ishwara as the controlling entity of the cosmos. Ishwara decides the path of evolution from moment to moment. And He does this while still working within the limits set by Prakriti and Her natural laws.
Fig 2 is to me thus a very pleasing paradigm of how Ishwara and Prakriti – the Father and Mother of our jagat – work together in harmony and with complete respect for each other. We tend to use the masculine gender for Ishwara and feminine gender for Prakriti only to be consistent with tradition. If only we realize how interdependent these two aspects of Brahman are, and how vital both are for the evolution of the jagat, there can be no room for useless disputations claiming superiority for one or the other. Our Father and Mother are One in the Brahman. May we bow down before Them. May They Bless Us All.
Hari Om!
- Raju Chidambaram
PS: Fig 2 will be revised soon, following a suggestion by our friend Greg. In the mean time, hope the shadowed letters and figures are not too difficult to read.
From: aiyers@...
Date: Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:32 pm
Subject: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaitic Principles: A Paradigm for O-E-T, the World of Matter and Mind (MTS-3)
Ref: Advaita and Mathematics Paper (also in sidebar)
Figures 1 and 2 (in pages 3 and 6, respectively of the paper) are graphical representations of the paradigm of O-E-T (the perceived or experienced world of matter and mind) used in the paper. The concepts behind these representations are discussed in greater detail in the pages 39-46 and reviewed below. For members of the Advatin List, these concepts should be, by and large, very familiar.
“Sarvam Brahmamayam” was a favorite bhajan of Swamini Saradapriyanandaji – everything there is, is Brahman alone. This fundamental notion has been repeated countless times in many different words in the scriptures. The unmanifest Brahman, by power of Maya projects itself as Prakriti (the world of things, beings and vasanas) and, as Ishwara or the mayaadhipati, exercises control over Prakriti. The same Brahman “enters” the beings in Prakriti to experience the world. Therefore this world is seen as made of God (namely Prakriti), controlled by God (as Ishwara) and for the enjoyment or experience of God (as Brahman identified with beings of Prakriti). In short “this world is of God, by God and for God”.
This world of Prakriti is in constant motion. The forces or agents of change are the vasanas. Vasanas include the natural forces affecting gross things as well as the subtle forces affecting the mind-intellect of beings. At any given time “t”, there is conceptually a “state of the world” which in essence describes the physical, emotional, and intellectual state of all things and beings of the cosmos. As shown in Fig 2, this state is momentary and will change to some other state at time “t+” (i.e the “next” moment) under the pressures of vasanas.
A key point to note is that vasanas do not totally determine the change. Even if know the state of the world completely at time t, and know all the vasanas affecting the cosmos at that time, we cannot tell for sure where the world will be at time t+. There is an element of uncertainty. We can only state the possibilities and the probability associated with each possibility. In Fig 2 this is illustrated by showing 4 different possible “states of the world” at time t+. In reality, the number of possibilities is innumerably infinite. This uncertainty is theoretically well known to modern day scientists and experientially well known to all the jeevas.
But the world is not left hanging in a “cloud of probabilities” at any time – it does end up in one definite state at time t+. This is our experience. Who or what makes this choice of one out of the infinite many? Scientists may not concede, but as Advaitins, we can safely assume that it is Ishwara who makes this choice, using His Free Will. This is consistent with the notion of Ishwara as the controlling entity of the cosmos. Ishwara decides the path of evolution from moment to moment. And He does this while still working within the limits set by Prakriti and Her natural laws.
Fig 2 is to me thus a very pleasing paradigm of how Ishwara and Prakriti – the Father and Mother of our jagat – work together in harmony and with complete respect for each other. We tend to use the masculine gender for Ishwara and feminine gender for Prakriti only to be consistent with tradition. If only we realize how interdependent these two aspects of Brahman are, and how vital both are for the evolution of the jagat, there can be no room for useless disputations claiming superiority for one or the other. Our Father and Mother are One in the Brahman. May we bow down before Them. May They Bless Us All.
Hari Om!
- Raju Chidambaram
PS: Fig 2 will be revised soon, following a suggestion by our friend Greg. In the mean time, hope the shadowed letters and figures are not too difficult to read.
posted by Benjamin at 8:16 PM
3 Comments:
From: "hersh_b"
Date: Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:37 pm
Subject: Re: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaitic Principles: A Paradigm for O-E-T, the World of Matter and Mind (MTS-3)
Nameste all Advaitins
"Brahman, by power of Maya projects itself as Prakriti (the world of things, beings and vasanas) and, as Ishwara or the mayaadhipati, exercises control over Prakriti."
This has been beautifully explained in ProfVK's translation of Kanchi Mahaswamigal's Discourses on Soundaryalahari at:
http://www.advaitin.com/Soundaryalahari1.pdf.
The following excerpt is from Page 15- 17 of the pdf:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Digest of more parts of pp.699-737)
There are two statements. One says: Even Shiva, only when united with you, Oh Shakti, is able to monitor the whole world. And the other statement says: The Triad formed of Hari, Hara and BrahmA worship Shakti. Both these statements are contained in the 1st shloka. Are Shiva and Hara different? Are they not the two names of the same deity? Why two names, and two actions? Is one the Prime Mover (corresponding to the word ?spandituM?) and the other the one who worships (corresponding to the word ?ArAdhyAM?)? Are they not both the same? stotra is not to stay at the level of advaita. Everything may be the same One ultimately, but on the surface, they are seen to be different. So Hara is one, Shiva is another. The Shiva who is said to be ?moved? is the ShivaM enunciated as the first principle in the scriptures of the shAkta and Shaiva schools. Hara is the ?Rudra? who is in charge of the function of dissolution among the five functions of the Almighty. ?Hara? comes from the root verb ?har? to destroy, to eradicate, to nullify. (At this point, the Maha-Swamigal begins to explain at length the technicalities about the ?five cosmic functions?.
It is the same paramAtmA who became the three members of the Triad for the discharge of the three functions of Creation, Sustenance and Dissolution. For all the three functions the power source is ambaaL, the parA- Shakti. It is the explicitly expressed power of Brahman. So we may call it para-brahma-Sakti. It is not only the power for the Triad but it is the power source for the entire universe of the animate and the inanimate. By calling it para-brahma-Shakti, let us not think it is different from para-Brahman itself. For, when the Shakti of an entity is separated from it, whatever it be, the very fact of its being that entity is lost. To give a mundane example, a ten-horsepower motor loses the very fact of motorship if the horsepower is taken away from it. Therefore the para-brahma-Shakti is para-Brahman itself. But the para-Brahman can also remain in itself without ?exhibiting? or ?exploiting? or ?manifesting? its power. When the paraBrahman so rests in itself by itself as itself, it is known in shAkta parlance as ?ShivaM?.
It is from that calm nirvikAra (changeless) state of the First Principle that we have all come to this jIva state with a mind and all its runaway associates called the senses. Only when we merge in that ShAnti (Peace) back again it may be said that we have reached our true state and transcended the MAyA effect, the bondage of samsAra. That blissful state of mokshha is so calm and peaceful because it is now the same as being Brahman, which naturally, is calm and actionless without exhibiting its latent Shakti. In our daily life we may observe that if somebody is totally inactive, unresponsive and unaffected by anything, we refer to him jocularly (at least in the Tamil world) as ?para-brahmam? ! Thus we are constrained to view Shiva as ?para-brahman? and ambaaL as ?para-brahma-shakti?. Though neither of them exists without the other, we may allow ourselves the privilege of speaking of them AS IF they are different. Without para-brahma-Shakti, the world would not be there. Now we have to consider two more cosmic functions in addition to the three well-known to all of us. We were nothing but the calm ShivasvarUpa once; from that state somehow the real nature has been forgotten and we have arrived at this ignorant state of a jIva and we find ourselves in a revolving cycle of samsAra without the knowledge of our true state. The power which has done this to us must also be the same para-brahma-Shakti. And by the example of several sages and saints who, though thrown into the vortex of samsAra like ourselves, have obtained the Enlightenment which took them back to that mokshha state, beyond the MAyA enchantment, it is clear that this function of gracing the spiritually merited ones with mokshha is also done by the para-brahma-Shakti.
These two functions are called ?tirodhAna? and ?anugraha? respectively. The meaning of the root verb ?tiras? is to be secretive or to hide. It is from the verb ?tiras? that the Tamil word ?tirai? (meaning, ?curtain?) has come. It is MAyA that blinds the real thing from us by a ?tirai? (curtain). Just as the three functions of creation, sustenance and dissolution have been assigned (by the para-brahma-shakti) to BrahmA, Vishnu and Rudra (Hara), so also Her assignee for the tirodhAna function is called ?Ishvara? (also ?maheshvara?) and that for the anugraha function is called ?SadAshiva?. The first three functions are subject to MAyA. This mayic activity is in the control of Ishvara. Release from MAyA is granted by SadAshiva.
These are the five cosmic functions. Together they are called the five-fold activity (pancha-kRtyaM) of the Lord. This concept of panchakRtyaM is also mentioned by the Shaiva schools. The very word panchakRtyaM means and involves activity. And as we know, no activity is possible without the kArya-brahman (para-brahma-shakti) coming in. So we can take it that the original source is parA-shakti. She does it through the five agents of Hers, namely the five forms of divinity mentioned above. The shAnta (calm) ShivaM in its nascent state cannot act. When action takes place it takes place through parA-shakti in the form of the five-fold functions. ShivaM by itself does not produce the action. But it is in ShivaM, the paraBrahman, that the first vibration for action sprouts, by its own Shakti. But even before the action there must have been a will. This will is called the icchA-Shakti. On the basis of this icchA -- the first wish, as it may be called, and the Upanishad also says: ?akAmayata? ?the kriyA-shakti (the power of Action) begins the panchakRtya- leelA. Thus, what was the paraBrahman by itself in itself, willed to ?become?. It is for this divine will that the Upanishad uses the word ?kAma?, meaning desire. This ?desire? is not to be taken in any derogatory sense. It is pure Divine Will from Being to Becoming. Thus the first evolute from Brahman is this divine kAma. So the Shakti that is the origin of this is called KAmeshvari and the ShivaM in which this kAma sprouted is therefore called KAmeshwara.
Regards
Hersh
From: "Benjamin Orion"
Date: Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaitic Principles: A Paradigm for O-E-T, the World of Matter and Mind (MTS-3
Hi Raju,
Some remarks:
>Ishwara chooses while "working within
>the limits set by Prakriti and Her natural
>laws..."
One might argue that it is Ishwara's free choice what those natural laws might be, in which case there is no real constraint! (There might be a mathematical constraint of consistency, so that he can't, e.g., make a circle with four corners like a square.)
Also, these vasanas would seem to be essentially the same as the 'natural laws'.
One might launch into a whole discussion of why there is ignorance and suffering, if Ishwara is choosing everything. This might get back to your positing natural laws as "constraints". Does Ishwara have any constraints whatsoever? However, this topic is vast and perhaps insoluble, and it would probably detract from your paper to spend much time on it.
Ben
From: aiyers@...
Date: Mon Oct 24, 2005 2:47 pm
Subject: Towards A Mathematical Theory Of Spirituality - Questions from Benjamin
The two questions raised by Benjamin are: ) are not nature's laws also determined by Ishwara and 2) if Ishwara is the one controlling the course of evolution, why is there suffering. Both are questions only to be anticipated and I am sure these have been debated before in this forum.
The view that nature's laws are also as per Ishwara's Will is certainly admissible- even science these days talks about alternate universes running on a different set of physical laws than our own. In other words, the laws prevalent in our universe do not have a logical imperative making them the only ones admissible. The point however is that, as long as nature's laws for a given universe have the appearance of being inviolable, our model must acknowledge that.
Uncertainty provides a way out even in a universe with invariant laws. Ishwara has the freedom to choose whatever He wills from among the many possibilities Nature allows Him. One can now ask another question: if the Ishwara must make the choice consistent with the probabilities assigned by Nature, does it not also constrain Him?
This question is anticipated with a response pointed out in the paper (page 43, footnote 37). Probability laws, it is argued, pose essentially no constraint in the short term in making individual choices. True, in the long term they are expected to follow the probability curve. Even this is only an expectation! Ishwara has thus ample room to display His sense of compassion and justice in individual instances and, yes, there is also room for Him to "perform miracles" (i.e. choosing possibilities whose associated a priori probabilities are extremenly small.)
An answer often given to the question regarding "suffering" is that there is, truly speaking, no suffering but that it is only a notion of the ignorant jeeva due attachment to O-E-T. This is a true, even if incomplete, answer. Once must also add that the world (with all its pleasures and pain) is seen in the scriptures as a sport. Pages 45 and 46 of the paper elaborate on this point, showing
a) certainty and uncertainty together make this world a spectator sport like none other, and
b) the world is indeed an enjoyable sport for God and God-realized people (who remain as mere spectators even as their B-M-I is getting beaten up in the field). For the rest of us, the world is a classroom filled with pain and pleasure where we will surely learn the way to god-realization and stop asking this question.
I also thank Hersh-ji for presenting the excerpt from Prof.V.K's commentaries. I, like others, enjoy reading his series and hope they will be compiled into a book in the future.
Hari Om!
- Raju Chidambaram
Post a Comment
<< Home