07-17-2004, 10:50 AM
Thanx Sunder for that scintillating post! I'm still ruminating over it -- like a cow chewing cud -- trying to grasp it fully and refine my crude understanding. But that did clarify a lot of things. Its amazin how much one learns from such interactions --to me its like a fresh zephyr blowing into a musty room!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Atman IS ATOMIC, and because it is atomic, it is infinite. Atomic really means indivisible. Something that cannot be further subdivided. If there is something that Absolutely cannot be further subdivided, then, there can only be ONE of it's kind. There cannot be two of it. If there is two of it, then it's already divided. Thus Brahman is Atomic, and hence infinite. (Anor aneeyaan, mahatho maheeyaan.) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm.... quite a remarkable statement! I think it effects a reconciliation between the Vedantins and the Atomists. I wonder why then the grouse of the Vedantins towards the Atomists. But when you say "Atomic" you probably mean it in the sense "un-differentiated" rather than "particulate". For, anything which has dimensions like length etc can be further divided and subdivided -- and that process is theoretically endless. Say we reach the limits of that process, can we say that the resulting particle encapsulates the Atman? Can we equate the Atman with the most fundamental particle in Nature?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This 'life form' is distinguished from other inanimate/inert matter by it's unique quality called 'Consciousness'. This consciousness is possible in matter which has hydrocarbons, and has water content in them. These oraganic conglomerations of matter are called 'organisms'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose a sticky situation would arise when we consider viruses which lie on the fringes of what we call life : on the one hand they are just molecules and can't make more of themselves without a host cell; they do not contain the enzymes needed for the complex reactions which take place within the cell. Yet, even the simplest viruses contain enough RNA or DNA to encode four proteins. The most complex can encode 100 200 proteins!
[ Here is something quite remarkable: The nucleic acid of a virion is enclosed within a protein coat (or capsid) composed of multiple copies of one protein (or a few different proteins) each of which is encoded by a single viral gene. Because of this structure, a virus is able to encode all the information for making a relatively large capsid in a small number of genes. ]
And is there any <b>relation between "information content" and consciousness? </b>There are some other fascinating instances of information encoding like in the case of protein folding -- all the information required for the 3-d conformation of a protein is encoded within its primary sequence. So, they are able to put themselves together in a jiffy : less than a minute after they are formed, proteins automatically fold into their preordained shape. (Lo! a string of beads becomes a globular mass!)
I wonder what level of "consciousness", if any, is involved here? Is "information" something purely quantitative without any semantics or significance attached to it? Sometimes I wonder whether nature has any immanent predilection for structures like the icosahedron <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is so, then the "I"-ness which is constant throughout one's life does not change with change in harmone levels. (The consciousness is same in Waking, dream and deep sleep, and during happiness,anger, and depression alike.) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just thought I'd adduce a few quick notes references from the text :
Yes, the author of the Panchadashi says that that subtle force/entity which caused you to realize, upon waking up, that "I was in deep sleep" is itself Consciousness. In other words, it is thru consciousness that the absence of knowledge in deep sleep is perceived. [P.I.5]
And he goes on to say:
The underlying entity which supports the sense organs and causes them to function is Consciousness. Prajnanam is another name for that consciousness. The same consciousness is said to dwell in living beings. That consciouness is verily Brahman. [P.V.1]
While differentiating between the MIND and consciouness, Vidyaranya uses an interesting analogy :
In P.I.3 he says words to the effect : "It is consciousness which perceives the sensory objects, but it is different from the objects perceived" (P. I.3)
"On the other hand, to understand an object the mind has to assume <i>that</i> form. Acharya Sankara and Sureshwara have supported this view [IV.27] "
"Molten copper when poured into a mould assumes the form of the latter. Similarly, the mind assumes the form of the object perceived by it. [IV. 28 ]
(But that which actually perceives is Consciousness)
In 4.30 he gives a succint explanation of the phenomenon :
" Jeeva prompts the mind to modify itself. This modifcation moves thru the nerves and senses towards that object and assumes the form of the object " [IV.30]
(Vidyaranya's theory of perception!)
But I think this is a rather unsystematic way to discuss things. To carry this thread further, we could perhaps lay the plinth by fixing the meaning of the great dicta which form the bedrock of Vedanta :
1. Prajnanam Brahma
2. Aham Brahmasmi
3. Tattvamasi
4. Ayamatma Brahma
I believe that these sayings were not intended as fundamental dogmas, but they were subject to active debate and logical analysis by the ancients. It would be of great help if somebody could provide succint explanations for these sayings.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Here it's worth mentioning that Bhakthi is the Bottom-up approach where the water drop says, "I am a tiny drop, you are the Ocean, O Lord", and then merges into the ocean. Thus losing it's identity. While Gnana is the top-down approach where the OCEAN recognizes itself and thus all waterdrops (jeevas) instantly is recognized as it own self. That's all the difference there is. (I did not lift this off any book.. ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glorious! What a profound analogy! Reminds me of the song of the lovesick maid of Vraja, which in its own ingenuous way, is in consonance with the philosophy of Advaita.
<i>In whichever direction I look, I find
the landscape full of Shyama (dark blue).
The bowers and the groves are dark;
The water of the Yamuna is dark,
The sky and the clouds are dark;
All colours seem merged in that dark hue.
People say this is something novel.
Am I mad? Or is it that the dark pupil of
the peoples' eyes is changed?
The heart of the Moon and the scion
of the Sun are dark, the musk too is dark;
As well as Cupid (Manmatha), the conqueror of the world!
Lo! The neck of Mahadeva is also dark (Nilakantha).
Indeed, as if the dark colour has been broadcast all over the world,
the letters of the Vedas appear dark;
Even the point of the tapering beam of light also seems dark to me.
Not to speak of men and gods, the formless Brahman Itself
seems to have assumed a dark form! </i>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Atman IS ATOMIC, and because it is atomic, it is infinite. Atomic really means indivisible. Something that cannot be further subdivided. If there is something that Absolutely cannot be further subdivided, then, there can only be ONE of it's kind. There cannot be two of it. If there is two of it, then it's already divided. Thus Brahman is Atomic, and hence infinite. (Anor aneeyaan, mahatho maheeyaan.) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmmm.... quite a remarkable statement! I think it effects a reconciliation between the Vedantins and the Atomists. I wonder why then the grouse of the Vedantins towards the Atomists. But when you say "Atomic" you probably mean it in the sense "un-differentiated" rather than "particulate". For, anything which has dimensions like length etc can be further divided and subdivided -- and that process is theoretically endless. Say we reach the limits of that process, can we say that the resulting particle encapsulates the Atman? Can we equate the Atman with the most fundamental particle in Nature?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This 'life form' is distinguished from other inanimate/inert matter by it's unique quality called 'Consciousness'. This consciousness is possible in matter which has hydrocarbons, and has water content in them. These oraganic conglomerations of matter are called 'organisms'. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose a sticky situation would arise when we consider viruses which lie on the fringes of what we call life : on the one hand they are just molecules and can't make more of themselves without a host cell; they do not contain the enzymes needed for the complex reactions which take place within the cell. Yet, even the simplest viruses contain enough RNA or DNA to encode four proteins. The most complex can encode 100 200 proteins!
[ Here is something quite remarkable: The nucleic acid of a virion is enclosed within a protein coat (or capsid) composed of multiple copies of one protein (or a few different proteins) each of which is encoded by a single viral gene. Because of this structure, a virus is able to encode all the information for making a relatively large capsid in a small number of genes. ]
And is there any <b>relation between "information content" and consciousness? </b>There are some other fascinating instances of information encoding like in the case of protein folding -- all the information required for the 3-d conformation of a protein is encoded within its primary sequence. So, they are able to put themselves together in a jiffy : less than a minute after they are formed, proteins automatically fold into their preordained shape. (Lo! a string of beads becomes a globular mass!)
I wonder what level of "consciousness", if any, is involved here? Is "information" something purely quantitative without any semantics or significance attached to it? Sometimes I wonder whether nature has any immanent predilection for structures like the icosahedron <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If it is so, then the "I"-ness which is constant throughout one's life does not change with change in harmone levels. (The consciousness is same in Waking, dream and deep sleep, and during happiness,anger, and depression alike.) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just thought I'd adduce a few quick notes references from the text :
Yes, the author of the Panchadashi says that that subtle force/entity which caused you to realize, upon waking up, that "I was in deep sleep" is itself Consciousness. In other words, it is thru consciousness that the absence of knowledge in deep sleep is perceived. [P.I.5]
And he goes on to say:
The underlying entity which supports the sense organs and causes them to function is Consciousness. Prajnanam is another name for that consciousness. The same consciousness is said to dwell in living beings. That consciouness is verily Brahman. [P.V.1]
While differentiating between the MIND and consciouness, Vidyaranya uses an interesting analogy :
In P.I.3 he says words to the effect : "It is consciousness which perceives the sensory objects, but it is different from the objects perceived" (P. I.3)
"On the other hand, to understand an object the mind has to assume <i>that</i> form. Acharya Sankara and Sureshwara have supported this view [IV.27] "
"Molten copper when poured into a mould assumes the form of the latter. Similarly, the mind assumes the form of the object perceived by it. [IV. 28 ]
(But that which actually perceives is Consciousness)
In 4.30 he gives a succint explanation of the phenomenon :
" Jeeva prompts the mind to modify itself. This modifcation moves thru the nerves and senses towards that object and assumes the form of the object " [IV.30]
(Vidyaranya's theory of perception!)
But I think this is a rather unsystematic way to discuss things. To carry this thread further, we could perhaps lay the plinth by fixing the meaning of the great dicta which form the bedrock of Vedanta :
1. Prajnanam Brahma
2. Aham Brahmasmi
3. Tattvamasi
4. Ayamatma Brahma
I believe that these sayings were not intended as fundamental dogmas, but they were subject to active debate and logical analysis by the ancients. It would be of great help if somebody could provide succint explanations for these sayings.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Here it's worth mentioning that Bhakthi is the Bottom-up approach where the water drop says, "I am a tiny drop, you are the Ocean, O Lord", and then merges into the ocean. Thus losing it's identity. While Gnana is the top-down approach where the OCEAN recognizes itself and thus all waterdrops (jeevas) instantly is recognized as it own self. That's all the difference there is. (I did not lift this off any book.. ) <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Glorious! What a profound analogy! Reminds me of the song of the lovesick maid of Vraja, which in its own ingenuous way, is in consonance with the philosophy of Advaita.
<i>In whichever direction I look, I find
the landscape full of Shyama (dark blue).
The bowers and the groves are dark;
The water of the Yamuna is dark,
The sky and the clouds are dark;
All colours seem merged in that dark hue.
People say this is something novel.
Am I mad? Or is it that the dark pupil of
the peoples' eyes is changed?
The heart of the Moon and the scion
of the Sun are dark, the musk too is dark;
As well as Cupid (Manmatha), the conqueror of the world!
Lo! The neck of Mahadeva is also dark (Nilakantha).
Indeed, as if the dark colour has been broadcast all over the world,
the letters of the Vedas appear dark;
Even the point of the tapering beam of light also seems dark to me.
Not to speak of men and gods, the formless Brahman Itself
seems to have assumed a dark form! </i>