06-20-2005, 07:31 PM
Carl, Here are some more detailed responses. I have been trying to comprehend what you meant by spiritual-variegatedness and difference between material and spiritual. And the possibility of a non-material, but non-unitary (variegated) Vaikuntha beyond the Nirguna Brahman.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??
By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This transcendental variegatedness is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, this forms a significant part of Vedic literature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMHO division between material and spiritual is an arbitrary division and quite artificial. What can be called spiritual by some can easily be considered material by others. Just to take an example, wireless communications would not have been classified as 'material' a few centuries ago. But an enhanced scientific understanding shows that they are very material. Plato's ideas of essential separation between mind and matter come against the biggest stumbling block when mind and matter actually are found to interact. <b>Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities. </b> In mechanics, Newtons' 3rd law implies that interactions are always both ways. It can't be that 'spiritual' can affect the 'material' but in turn not get influenced by it.
I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat). That was the approach taken by Shankaracarya too. If something 'is', that is enough. There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.
Nevertheless such divisions are often employed. In Samkhya manifestations of prakriti are taken as material. Even the highest category of Mahat is considered 'material'. The 'consciousness' part, the purusha is separate from prakriti. This dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'.
<b> If nirguna stands for no-attributes then Nirguna and 'variegated' are mutually contradictory. Since attributes are necessary for distinguishing one from another, attributes must be present for 'variegatedness'. Advaita nirguna is attributelessness, which implies, nirguna must be unitary. Apparentley, following your posts, vaishnava 'nirguna' is with attributes that can distinguish one from other.
Therefore it would be more correct to say that advaita nirguna, lies beyond the vaishnava nirguna, instead of the other way around. Vaishnava nirguna is quite saguna when seen from advaitic definition. And for a saguna, the infinite regress problem can be only resolved by sinking deeper to the level of advaitic nirguna.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an incongruous twist. It is anomalous at this height, it is a throwback. I hope you are understanding my point here. The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints on the same plane (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a gradual ascent on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).
But this throwback to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure I fully understand you here. Just like sciences, spirituality may have developed through gradual efforts of many. But the earliest efforts are not altogether useless. Kapila's separation of the self from mana-budhhi-ahamkara, was momentous one, which formed the basis of whole of Indian meditative systems. It is no surprize that the Yoga-darshana is clubbed together with Samkhya amongst the shad-darshanas.
Vedanta obviously uses samkhya and yoga. For a clear example consider, Shvetashvatara upanishad which can be considered the original yoga text which emphasized meditation and uses samkhya basics:
'te dhyana-yoga-anugatanupashyan'
For me Samkhya is pretty 'high level'. Vedanta combines Rishi Kapila's original views with the essential 'unity' of self seen by many other sages. A good marriage IMHO.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "material qualities" and "spiritual variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.
Note that in advaita philosophy, Brahman is the only 'sat' or existence, phenomenal multiplicity world as seen by an observer is 'apparently real'. If an unity is supposed as the substratum, then an apparent multiplicity must arise (for that particular observer), through an agency that can be described thus:
For a certain observer, the action of Maya is twofold:
1. It hides (covering aspect) the one underlying reality from the concerned observer
2. It projects (creative aspect) variegated forms that are 'apparently real' as perceived by the concerned observer
Apparently real (or appearances) are objects that are perceived to be real temporarily but which can be subrated by a higher experience/knowledge.
There are many realms of 'appearances' and one realm of unity through which any given observer's observations can run.
This two fold action of hiding and projecting is due to the 'illusion' or Maya. Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity. Other systems such as Shaktas go into much more detail into the specific 'covering' and 'creative' aspects of Maya or Shakti. But in advaita vedanta, these two aspects of Maya are simply proposed, and origin of Maya itself is called 'anirvachaniya'.
Note also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway. And play of Maya is only for an observer making observations in the world of appearances, not for an observer that has attained unity.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Time as we understand it must be linear (or 1-Dimensional, which includes cyclical time). If the so called time is not linear (or 1-D) then may be we should call it something else. For example if time were to be N- dimensional, then why not call the whole contraption a 1-D time+(N-1)-D space.
Lila or 'play' in timelessness is a contradiction. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'. I hope it is not like Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland, where due to claimed friendship with Mr. Time, the watch had stopped at tea-time and it was tea-time forever at the Mad-Hatter's.
But I suspect I have misuderstood you, please do clarify.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Just in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain ideas may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been a physicist for a big part of my life. Gone through whole of relativity, general relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory including quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, electro-weak unification, supersymmetry etc. Got introduced to string-theory more than a decade ago and worked through the strings, bosonic strings, superstrings etc. My considered opnion is that string-theory is pure mathematics, with pretentions of becoming physics someday. Watching its progress over decades, it is clear that String theory hasn't managed to produce any verifiable phenomenology. It miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now. And even the most ardent supporters don't foresee it predicting anything verifiable in near future. About only thing that has been promising about the string theories is the existence of spin-2 particle which could explain the graviton and perhaps lead to a renormalizable theory of quantum gravity and possibly a grand unified theory of interactions; and the modes of oscillations of string accounting for the mass spectra of particles. But the said promises have so far remained promises only, and haven't delivered.
Regarding "parallel" universes, this "explanation" was invented by Everett to explain the so called quantum-measurement paradox. This is not the only pssible explanation. And most physicists take the parallel universes idea with a generous pinch of salt. It is treated more as a theoretical curiosity rather than a statement about the universe per se.
I don't know what to make of "time being an independent actor" in physics. Could you further explain how "time" can be an actor. Take for example any of the main equations, Newton's, Schrodinger's, Dirac's, Maxwell's or Einstein's.
Regarding "intersecting" universes, if that were true then the principle of causality will have to bite the dust. That may be so, but again at present a sci-fi curiosity instead of "real" physics.
As of now, I choose to be a hard headed physicist regarding these matters, although there was a time when I was as flared up and excited about all the fancy stuff. This is my theory of "broken promises" instead of the usual theories of "broken symmetries".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) That you are making associations under very material assumptions, i.e. assumptios of rigid Time-bondage, etc. Please try to think more about this. All your theories involve Time-dependent event series. Try thinking outside this box for a moment.
2) Make a note that the Vedas are quite explicit that there are many different kinds of "liberation". Liberation means "liberation from the Time-bound material universe". "Truth" (sat) is defined as "eternal", and Untruth (asat, mithya) is defined as "transience". Therefore, as I've pointed out so many times in the last 2 posts, Time-bondage is the crucial factor here. Now all types of "liberation" are "eternal" in the sense that the Soul breaks free from Time-bondage, and free from all those constructs that depend on past-future for their existence (such as False Ego).
Yet, the Vedic literature is full of ordinal comparisons between the different types of "liberation". The significant point here is that there are virtually limitless possibilities in Universe, and it is at all times our spiritual aspirations that directly determine our destiny. Moreover, Universe is non-linear and cyclical in its workings, and what superficially might seem to be a development along a predetermined line, is in fact part of a much larger cycle that is invisible for our daily senses by virtue of its nonthinkable enormousness. Cyclic development, operative in a multitudinous array of Universes, is characterized by a limitless possibility of creation and manifestation. Thus, there is no line of development that is separated from or uninfluenced by our spiritual aims. It is of paramount importance to realize that it is up to us to create our destiny.
It is our Spirit that is the continuous Creator of our Path. This is our Marginal Free Will. And, as the Vedic literature clearly describes various paths, various loci of spiritual development, it means that each jiva has its own Marginal Free Will. Please take the magnificence of this fact into account. And note that "will" corresponds to Soul, not False Ego.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that liberations can be of many types. But why do they all have to be of timeless kind? There are many types of bondages and many types of liberations. Most of the liberations can surely be in time. And a timeless liberation must be unique.
I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me. On philosophical grounds I am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist. Unity or multiplicty are certain observables for an observer where he counts instances of an occurence. In timelessness, observation has to be steady unperturbed one. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation. I would argue that an observation in timelessness must be unitary as there is no way to "count" instances of something by making one's consciousness jump from one object to another.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me where it says that the Soul is another material kosha. A "kosha" is, by convention, material, i.e., made from the subtle elements from prakriti and pradhAna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anandamaya-kosha is often called the jiva too. As I mentioned earlier, divisions between material and spiritual can be arbitrary.. If a 'jiva' can have 'finiteness', can have 'motion' in space and can have 'transformations' in time, then it is quite material for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sat is eternality, asat is transience. "Eternal" means "beyond the dominance of Time". It doesn't mean something that goes on and on in a linear time-scale.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with the first statement, but am not sure whet to make of the second one in conjunction with the first one. If something is "eternal" for an observer within time, it must "go on and on in linear time". And if something has a beginning or end in time for an observer within time, then that object is within the dominance of time. What other definition of "dominance of time" there is? Are you saying that there are some objects that exist only for timeless observers and not for observers in time? It may well be. But as I already argued, observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Without being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense..."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same can be said about the observer-object pair. But only in the context of Self. Only the Atman or Self is self conscious. But as long as the observer-object "distiction" remains, the level is still a "saguna" one. It is possible to have a deeper "nirguna" level where the "distinctions" vanish.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Carl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refuting some two-legged asses? A fair debate will be where both sides recognize that other party may have some substance. The so called "Mayavadis" are not inconsequential just as the "Shunyavadis".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??
By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This transcendental variegatedness is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, this forms a significant part of Vedic literature.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IMHO division between material and spiritual is an arbitrary division and quite artificial. What can be called spiritual by some can easily be considered material by others. Just to take an example, wireless communications would not have been classified as 'material' a few centuries ago. But an enhanced scientific understanding shows that they are very material. Plato's ideas of essential separation between mind and matter come against the biggest stumbling block when mind and matter actually are found to interact. <b>Two things that can interact can't be two mutually exclusive realities. </b> In mechanics, Newtons' 3rd law implies that interactions are always both ways. It can't be that 'spiritual' can affect the 'material' but in turn not get influenced by it.
I consider the more pertinent classification 'real' versus 'unreal' (sat -asat). That was the approach taken by Shankaracarya too. If something 'is', that is enough. There is no need to break it up arbitrarily into material or spiritual.
Nevertheless such divisions are often employed. In Samkhya manifestations of prakriti are taken as material. Even the highest category of Mahat is considered 'material'. The 'consciousness' part, the purusha is separate from prakriti. This dichotomy in Samkhya is resolved in advaita through the questions of 'sat' (being) and 'asat' (non being), rather than 'material' and 'spiritual'.
<b> If nirguna stands for no-attributes then Nirguna and 'variegated' are mutually contradictory. Since attributes are necessary for distinguishing one from another, attributes must be present for 'variegatedness'. Advaita nirguna is attributelessness, which implies, nirguna must be unitary. Apparentley, following your posts, vaishnava 'nirguna' is with attributes that can distinguish one from other.
Therefore it would be more correct to say that advaita nirguna, lies beyond the vaishnava nirguna, instead of the other way around. Vaishnava nirguna is quite saguna when seen from advaitic definition. And for a saguna, the infinite regress problem can be only resolved by sinking deeper to the level of advaitic nirguna.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an incongruous twist. It is anomalous at this height, it is a throwback. I hope you are understanding my point here. The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints on the same plane (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a gradual ascent on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).
But this throwback to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not sure I fully understand you here. Just like sciences, spirituality may have developed through gradual efforts of many. But the earliest efforts are not altogether useless. Kapila's separation of the self from mana-budhhi-ahamkara, was momentous one, which formed the basis of whole of Indian meditative systems. It is no surprize that the Yoga-darshana is clubbed together with Samkhya amongst the shad-darshanas.
Vedanta obviously uses samkhya and yoga. For a clear example consider, Shvetashvatara upanishad which can be considered the original yoga text which emphasized meditation and uses samkhya basics:
'te dhyana-yoga-anugatanupashyan'
For me Samkhya is pretty 'high level'. Vedanta combines Rishi Kapila's original views with the essential 'unity' of self seen by many other sages. A good marriage IMHO.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Now when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "material qualities" and "spiritual variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By 'illusion' in advaitic context I meant the usual definition of illusion, as taking something for something else.
Note that in advaita philosophy, Brahman is the only 'sat' or existence, phenomenal multiplicity world as seen by an observer is 'apparently real'. If an unity is supposed as the substratum, then an apparent multiplicity must arise (for that particular observer), through an agency that can be described thus:
For a certain observer, the action of Maya is twofold:
1. It hides (covering aspect) the one underlying reality from the concerned observer
2. It projects (creative aspect) variegated forms that are 'apparently real' as perceived by the concerned observer
Apparently real (or appearances) are objects that are perceived to be real temporarily but which can be subrated by a higher experience/knowledge.
There are many realms of 'appearances' and one realm of unity through which any given observer's observations can run.
This two fold action of hiding and projecting is due to the 'illusion' or Maya. Note that Maya is defined indirectly throgh the need to rconcile the existence of experiences that an observer can have (as claimed in Upanishads) that include a range from the ordinary world of multiplicity all the way to unity. Other systems such as Shaktas go into much more detail into the specific 'covering' and 'creative' aspects of Maya or Shakti. But in advaita vedanta, these two aspects of Maya are simply proposed, and origin of Maya itself is called 'anirvachaniya'.
Note also that defined this way, action of Maya is specific to the observer in world of appearances. If that specific observer attains 'mukti' and sees the unity of brahman, that doesn't imply that the same thing happens simultaneously for all the observers as seen from the world of apparent realities. Mukti is an individual experience, as seen from the world of appearances. As seen from the unitary level of brahman, there is just one universal observer anyway. And play of Maya is only for an observer making observations in the world of appearances, not for an observer that has attained unity.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Time as we understand it must be linear (or 1-Dimensional, which includes cyclical time). If the so called time is not linear (or 1-D) then may be we should call it something else. For example if time were to be N- dimensional, then why not call the whole contraption a 1-D time+(N-1)-D space.
Lila or 'play' in timelessness is a contradiction. A play is a sequence of events. And time is nothing but a way to arrange a sequence of events. I don't understand what you mean by time being "subservient' to 'Lila'. I hope it is not like Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland, where due to claimed friendship with Mr. Time, the watch had stopped at tea-time and it was tea-time forever at the Mad-Hatter's.
But I suspect I have misuderstood you, please do clarify.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Just in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain ideas may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have been a physicist for a big part of my life. Gone through whole of relativity, general relativity, cosmology, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory including quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, electro-weak unification, supersymmetry etc. Got introduced to string-theory more than a decade ago and worked through the strings, bosonic strings, superstrings etc. My considered opnion is that string-theory is pure mathematics, with pretentions of becoming physics someday. Watching its progress over decades, it is clear that String theory hasn't managed to produce any verifiable phenomenology. It miserably fails Popper's Falsifiability criterion as of now. And even the most ardent supporters don't foresee it predicting anything verifiable in near future. About only thing that has been promising about the string theories is the existence of spin-2 particle which could explain the graviton and perhaps lead to a renormalizable theory of quantum gravity and possibly a grand unified theory of interactions; and the modes of oscillations of string accounting for the mass spectra of particles. But the said promises have so far remained promises only, and haven't delivered.
Regarding "parallel" universes, this "explanation" was invented by Everett to explain the so called quantum-measurement paradox. This is not the only pssible explanation. And most physicists take the parallel universes idea with a generous pinch of salt. It is treated more as a theoretical curiosity rather than a statement about the universe per se.
I don't know what to make of "time being an independent actor" in physics. Could you further explain how "time" can be an actor. Take for example any of the main equations, Newton's, Schrodinger's, Dirac's, Maxwell's or Einstein's.
Regarding "intersecting" universes, if that were true then the principle of causality will have to bite the dust. That may be so, but again at present a sci-fi curiosity instead of "real" physics.
As of now, I choose to be a hard headed physicist regarding these matters, although there was a time when I was as flared up and excited about all the fancy stuff. This is my theory of "broken promises" instead of the usual theories of "broken symmetries".
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1) That you are making associations under very material assumptions, i.e. assumptios of rigid Time-bondage, etc. Please try to think more about this. All your theories involve Time-dependent event series. Try thinking outside this box for a moment.
2) Make a note that the Vedas are quite explicit that there are many different kinds of "liberation". Liberation means "liberation from the Time-bound material universe". "Truth" (sat) is defined as "eternal", and Untruth (asat, mithya) is defined as "transience". Therefore, as I've pointed out so many times in the last 2 posts, Time-bondage is the crucial factor here. Now all types of "liberation" are "eternal" in the sense that the Soul breaks free from Time-bondage, and free from all those constructs that depend on past-future for their existence (such as False Ego).
Yet, the Vedic literature is full of ordinal comparisons between the different types of "liberation". The significant point here is that there are virtually limitless possibilities in Universe, and it is at all times our spiritual aspirations that directly determine our destiny. Moreover, Universe is non-linear and cyclical in its workings, and what superficially might seem to be a development along a predetermined line, is in fact part of a much larger cycle that is invisible for our daily senses by virtue of its nonthinkable enormousness. Cyclic development, operative in a multitudinous array of Universes, is characterized by a limitless possibility of creation and manifestation. Thus, there is no line of development that is separated from or uninfluenced by our spiritual aims. It is of paramount importance to realize that it is up to us to create our destiny.
It is our Spirit that is the continuous Creator of our Path. This is our Marginal Free Will. And, as the Vedic literature clearly describes various paths, various loci of spiritual development, it means that each jiva has its own Marginal Free Will. Please take the magnificence of this fact into account. And note that "will" corresponds to Soul, not False Ego.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that liberations can be of many types. But why do they all have to be of timeless kind? There are many types of bondages and many types of liberations. Most of the liberations can surely be in time. And a timeless liberation must be unique.
I can't comprehend 'events' beyond time. It just doesn't compute for me. On philosophical grounds I am willing to argue that in timelessness, multiplicity can't exist. Unity or multiplicty are certain observables for an observer where he counts instances of an occurence. In timelessness, observation has to be steady unperturbed one. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation. I would argue that an observation in timelessness must be unitary as there is no way to "count" instances of something by making one's consciousness jump from one object to another.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell me where it says that the Soul is another material kosha. A "kosha" is, by convention, material, i.e., made from the subtle elements from prakriti and pradhAna.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anandamaya-kosha is often called the jiva too. As I mentioned earlier, divisions between material and spiritual can be arbitrary.. If a 'jiva' can have 'finiteness', can have 'motion' in space and can have 'transformations' in time, then it is quite material for me.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sat is eternality, asat is transience. "Eternal" means "beyond the dominance of Time". It doesn't mean something that goes on and on in a linear time-scale.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agree with the first statement, but am not sure whet to make of the second one in conjunction with the first one. If something is "eternal" for an observer within time, it must "go on and on in linear time". And if something has a beginning or end in time for an observer within time, then that object is within the dominance of time. What other definition of "dominance of time" there is? Are you saying that there are some objects that exist only for timeless observers and not for observers in time? It may well be. But as I already argued, observation of a timeless observer is unitary. A timeless observer can make only "one" observation.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Without being one with the Supreme, the Absolute, one cannot render service unto Him. In the absolute conception, there is no difference between the served and the servitor; yet the distinction is there, in a higher spiritual sense..."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same can be said about the observer-object pair. But only in the context of Self. Only the Atman or Self is self conscious. But as long as the observer-object "distiction" remains, the level is still a "saguna" one. It is possible to have a deeper "nirguna" level where the "distinctions" vanish.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Carl, what is the use of such phrases? Did Shri Chaitanya have nothing better to do than to spent so much of his efforts on merely refuting some two-legged asses? A fair debate will be where both sides recognize that other party may have some substance. The so called "Mayavadis" are not inconsequential just as the "Shunyavadis".