A very Scary Question!!

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Respected Vaishnavas,

 

When I ponder over this question that I am

going to present, I always get a very unsettling, unhappy, even a shocking or a

jittery feeling. The question is this: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOD??

 

Well, every "thing" should have an origin, atleast according to human

perception. If Sriman Narayana is God, what about his origins, I mean, has he

always been resting on the bed of Sesha?? The question thats arising in my mind

is, shouldn't he have an origin, or something that created him??

 

Well, if you cite the First Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Energy can

neither be created nor be destroyed", and somehow relate that energy to God,

then I can be partially convinced. Only partially because, the human

intelligence (ahem!!) in me will then question the origin of that energy!!

 

Can I take convunce myself by saying that since I am only "human" and anything

that's linked to being human, be it thoughts, perception, or whatever, is

subject to being imperfect?? And therefore understanding those high issues is

beyond the realm of my limited, imperfect intelligence??

 

I was thinking about this last night when I was just about to sleep, "who

created God??", and trust me, I didn't have good sleep at all, infact I woke up

to a nightmare.

 

I request all of you learned souls to kindly address my question,

 

1) Philosophically

 

2) Logically

 

3) Scientifically,

 

or anything that best addresses the issue.

 

AzhwAr EmperumanAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigalE Saranam.

 

Adiyen Yathindra Pravana Dasan,

 

Kidambi Soundararajan.

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Moderator's note:

 

This post by srI rAmachandran is a very thought provoking piece.. Some of the

contents of the mail do not represent the rAmAnuja sampradAyam's views, and

some of his views, I believe, can be questioned/argued from our standpoint.

Nevertheless, our AchAryAs have considered similar, if not the exact

question brought up by srI. vimalkumAr, and I request learned members

to post on them.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

 

-- post by srI rAmachandran

Respected Sir :

 

Your question is not at all scary. Why should it be? it signifies a sane,

enquiring mind. However, before proceeding - not that this ignorant writer

wants to commit anything concrete so as to raise any hopes in any of you

about a possible answer, with regard to the points you have raised - one

would like to ascertain the quality of such a mind as yours which is in an

enquiry mode.

 

You may well ask why the motive needs to be known. Point is, what the mind

searches for, the mind will find. In that sense all search(es) are futile.

Assume for a second that you have found God or know about his origins in a

logical, scientific manner. What then? Will you be able to recognize

through your normal cognative 5 senses God or even intellectually

understand the logic/scientific explanation?

 

No offence meant, but this is vital. If you reply in the affirmative, then

your are lost because recognition is within the field of the

mind/experience and memory. In other words, you are still wobbling within

the limited circumference of the known, knowledge. If on the contrary your

reply is in the negative, then a new issue crops up namely, your original

question will continue to be unanswered and the search will go on.

 

Where does this end? and ultimately lead to ? Therefore, it is essential

to know the motive, reason, rationale for your wanting to find out.

Invariably, 99.9999% of us, not excluding the writer in the least, common

folks create a desire first and then set out to achieve it methodically,

systematically, scientifically, logically, rationally. We try to fit the

findings into our pattern of experience/memory/knowledge.

 

In a state of non-desire, where there is no reason but an earnest enquiring

open mind and approach perhaps one may find an inkling of an answer!!. In

this state thoughts do not function. Thought is a by-product of

knowledge/experience and is always limiting because its parents (knowledge)

is limited. When thought is not, then that which ought to be may perhaps be

visible.

 

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali Chapter I,Sutra 3 says " Tada drushtu

swarupe avasthanam", meaning "then i.e. when the mental modifications

(outlined in the previous Sutra) are ceased or calmed then the Seer abides

or resides in the original form". What is this original form ? Note, this

is genderless. No size, description, boundaries is given anywhere.

 

This also is not to be taken as "whether Patanjali is suggesting that the

individual is God etc..". No Sir, this is far from the Truth.

 

When silence abides in the mind, then a newness occurs and this newness

will perhaps give you some insights into some of the questions you have

raised.

 

The writer is acutely aware that to some of you the above may seem somewhat

vague, mysterious or downright meaningless, but WHAT IS IS. Full Stop.

 

Such an enquiry should be the base for an ongoing discovery. Are you dead

serious? The level of seriousness one is talking is : "if one were to push

your head into a bucket of water and hold it, after a few seconds you will

struggle, the mind will become numb and there will be a deep desparation in

your entire being, every nerve center will yell for life". Once your head

is taken out you will breath a sigh of relief and then your knowledge will

take over and thoughts will once more start playing with your mind.Are you

this desparate? You need to be, incidentally. If yes, if you can muster

such a lion hearted courage, then through these fora all of us,including

this writer can take a deep journey into eternity.

 

Finding answers to questions which you have posed imply an journey where

there is no termination, but only arrivals. Long time may have to be given

to proceed.

 

Hope the writer is not trying to either frighten or make things difficult,

but believe the writer Sir, Neither are things very easy. The subject

covered in your question includes the entire cosmos and beyond.

 

By the way the writer hopes you are a practitioner of the Nitya karmas,

especially the Sandhyavandanam and Gayathri? Are you regular? What is your

Bhava or attitude? Routine, mechanical gestures or deep reverence - please

do not answer on this mail, but ask yourself. This is extremely vital and

relevant for discovering the right answers. Note the grammer , it is

present continuing It is a constant journey. The more you chant the more

clarity may reign. Occasionally, you may come across an iota of the answer

through a flash. Do not try to capture and store in your memory. IT is not

the stuff experience, memory, knowledge is made of.

 

More importantly, what is your approach to the -generally avoidable by

many - question of Death. Are you afraid to die?

These are essential preliminary questions which you need to discover and

answer within yourself. Is your quest something to do with a remote

feeling of having got lost in this 'big bad' world?

 

To come to your need to have a rationale, logical, scientific reply. See

the immediate fallacy of this query? Do not be upset, because this is a

normal query. But see for yourself that when you ask you want to find an

answer, store it away into your memory and then go to sleep i.e. get

involved in routine. Even if by chance you manage to find the answer you

want to explore further? What if you come to the end of the whole thing?

Becuase the next logically question will be where is the beginning etc.

 

How much are you interested in the Vedas? The Vedas can be your best Guru.

Can you question when the Vedas were created? where is their end? what is

their form? Beyond a certain point, even science cannot answer.

Intelligence, knowlege are of little use here.

 

Does this imply that we should not enquire at all ? No Sir, by all means,

enquiry is must. Discontentment is highly desirable than contentment.

Contentment is stagnation. constant discontentment is welcome. It assures

constant renewed discovery. But the spirit of enquiry must be tempered

with many other factors which in Yogic principles are called "ashtanga" or

8 limbs (ashta - eight, anga- limbs). These are Yama, Niyama, Asana,

Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi.

 

Does it mean the writer is indicating that everyone takes up Yoga and finds

an answer? No Sir, this is not a propaganda or justification for Yoga or

anything else. The point is, Yoga as a physical, mental and spiritual

discipline helps one to some extent to progress in the right direction, if

one may put it briefly. The progress is constant until one drops dead

naturally. There is no assurance but with the end (of the body) being

assured and certain, the mind gets into a delusion and hence constantly

churns out such queries. Yoga focuses on these aspects and to some extent

helps man get rid of time, space and other disburbances so that in the end

the Reality, whatever you may call it, whatever name you may give - you

call this Narayana, Mr.John will call This "Jesus", Ibrahim may choose to

call HIM as "Allah" or someone else may choose to call it the nameless.

 

One hopes the thread is kept active by interested members.

 

Tat Tvam Asi.

Om Tat Sat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vimalkumar

ranganathan

bhakti-list,

<panardasan@yaho ramanuja,

oppiliappan,

o.com>

cc:

03/21/03 10:44 A very Scary Question!!

PM

Please respond

to bhakti-list

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Respected Vaishnavas,

 

When I ponder over this question that I

am going to present, I always get a very

unsettling, unhappy, even a shocking or a

jittery feeling. The question is this:

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOD??

 

Well, every "thing" should have an origin, atleast according to human

perception. If Sriman Narayana is God, what about his origins, I mean, has

he always been resting on the bed of Sesha?? The question thats arising in

my mind is, shouldn't he have an origin, or something that created him??

 

Well, if you cite the First Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Energy can

neither be created nor be destroyed", and somehow relate that energy to

God, then I can be partially convinced. Only partially because, the human

intelligence (ahem!!) in me will then question the origin of that energy!!

 

Can I take convunce myself by saying that since I am only "human" and

anything that's linked to being human, be it thoughts, perception, or

whatever, is subject to being imperfect?? And therefore understanding those

high issues is beyond the realm of my limited, imperfect intelligence??

 

I was thinking about this last night when I was just about to sleep, "who

created God??", and trust me, I didn't have good sleep at all, infact I

woke up to a nightmare.

 

I request all of you learned souls to kindly address my question,

 

1) Philosophically

 

2) Logically

 

3) Scientifically,

 

or anything that best addresses the issue.

 

AzhwAr EmperumanAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigalE Saranam.

 

Adiyen Yathindra Pravana Dasan,

 

Kidambi Soundararajan.

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------

- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

Group Home: bhakti-list

Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

 

 

Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

What/Who is the origin of God ?

Let me try to add to the discussion to the little extent I understand.

We are used to the experience of relative truth where cause and effect are

observed in every phenomenon. But this is true only in the relative sense and as

a result the truth that we know through empirical evidence is only relative. But

there is an absolute platform which is beyond the confines of cause and effect.

God, the Lord is on this platform. The dynamics of this platform is not

understood through empirical but through the eyes of sastras and by progress

self-realization.

 

so

 

s.ramachandran wrote:

 

Respected Sir :

 

Your question is not at all scary. Why should it be? it signifies a sane,

enquiring mind. However, before proceeding - not that this ignorant writer

wants to commit anything concrete so as to raise any hopes in any of you

about a possible answer, with regard to the points you have raised - one

would like to ascertain the quality of such a mind as yours which is in an

enquiry mode.

 

You may well ask why the motive needs to be known. Point is, what the mind

searches for, the mind will find. In that sense all search(es) are futile.

Assume for a second that you have found God or know about his origins in a

logical, scientific manner. What then? Will you be able to recognize

through your normal cognative 5 senses God or even intellectually

understand the logic/scientific explanation?

 

No offence meant, but this is vital. If you reply in the affirmative, then

your are lost because recognition is within the field of the

mind/experience and memory. In other words, you are still wobbling within

the limited circumference of the known, knowledge. If on the contrary your

reply is in the negative, then a new issue crops up namely, your original

question will continue to be unanswered and the search will go on.

 

Where does this end? and ultimately lead to ? Therefore, it is essential

to know the motive, reason, rationale for your wanting to find out.

Invariably, 99.9999% of us, not excluding the writer in the least, common

folks create a desire first and then set out to achieve it methodically,

systematically, scientifically, logically, rationally. We try to fit the

findings into our pattern of experience/memory/knowledge.

 

In a state of non-desire, where there is no reason but an earnest enquiring

open mind and approach perhaps one may find an inkling of an answer!!. In

this state thoughts do not function. Thought is a by-product of

knowledge/experience and is always limiting because its parents (knowledge)

is limited. When thought is not, then that which ought to be may perhaps be

visible.

 

In the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali Chapter I,Sutra 3 says " Tada drushtu

swarupe avasthanam", meaning "then i.e. when the mental modifications

(outlined in the previous Sutra) are ceased or calmed then the Seer abides

or resides in the original form". What is this original form ? Note, this

is genderless. No size, description, boundaries is given anywhere.

 

This also is not to be taken as "whether Patanjali is suggesting that the

individual is God etc..". No Sir, this is far from the Truth.

 

When silence abides in the mind, then a newness occurs and this newness

will perhaps give you some insights into some of the questions you have

raised.

 

The writer is acutely aware that to some of you the above may seem somewhat

vague, mysterious or downright meaningless, but WHAT IS IS. Full Stop.

 

Such an enquiry should be the base for an ongoing discovery. Are you dead

serious? The level of seriousness one is talking is : "if one were to push

your head into a bucket of water and hold it, after a few seconds you will

struggle, the mind will become numb and there will be a deep desparation in

your entire being, every nerve center will yell for life". Once your head

is taken out you will breath a sigh of relief and then your knowledge will

take over and thoughts will once more start playing with your mind.Are you

this desparate? You need to be, incidentally. If yes, if you can muster

such a lion hearted courage, then through these fora all of us,including

this writer can take a deep journey into eternity.

 

Finding answers to questions which you have posed imply an journey where

there is no termination, but only arrivals. Long time may have to be given

to proceed.

 

Hope the writer is not trying to either frighten or make things difficult,

but believe the writer Sir, Neither are things very easy. The subject

covered in your question includes the entire cosmos and beyond.

 

By the way the writer hopes you are a practitioner of the Nitya karmas,

especially the Sandhyavandanam and Gayathri? Are you regular? What is your

Bhava or attitude? Routine, mechanical gestures or deep reverence - please

do not answer on this mail, but ask yourself. This is extremely vital and

relevant for discovering the right answers. Note the grammer , it is

present continuing It is a constant journey. The more you chant the more

clarity may reign. Occasionally, you may come across an iota of the answer

through a flash. Do not try to capture and store in your memory. IT is not

the stuff experience, memory, knowledge is made of.

 

More importantly, what is your approach to the -generally avoidable by

many - question of Death. Are you afraid to die?

These are essential preliminary questions which you need to discover and

answer within yourself. Is your quest something to do with a remote

feeling of having got lost in this 'big bad' world?

 

To come to your need to have a rationale, logical, scientific reply. See

the immediate fallacy of this query? Do not be upset, because this is a

normal query. But see for yourself that when you ask you want to find an

answer, store it away into your memory and then go to sleep i.e. get

involved in routine. Even if by chance you manage to find the answer you

want to explore further? What if you come to the end of the whole thing?

Becuase the next logically question will be where is the beginning etc.

 

How much are you interested in the Vedas? The Vedas can be your best Guru.

Can you question when the Vedas were created? where is their end? what is

their form? Beyond a certain point, even science cannot answer.

Intelligence, knowlege are of little use here.

 

Does this imply that we should not enquire at all ? No Sir, by all means,

enquiry is must. Discontentment is highly desirable than contentment.

Contentment is stagnation. constant discontentment is welcome. It assures

constant renewed discovery. But the spirit of enquiry must be tempered

with many other factors which in Yogic principles are called "ashtanga" or

8 limbs (ashta - eight, anga- limbs). These are Yama, Niyama, Asana,

Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi.

 

Does it mean the writer is indicating that everyone takes up Yoga and finds

an answer? No Sir, this is not a propaganda or justification for Yoga or

anything else. The point is, Yoga as a physical, mental and spiritual

discipline helps one to some extent to progress in the right direction, if

one may put it briefly. The progress is constant until one drops dead

naturally. There is no assurance but with the end (of the body) being

assured and certain, the mind gets into a delusion and hence constantly

churns out such queries. Yoga focuses on these aspects and to some extent

helps man get rid of time, space and other disburbances so that in the end

the Reality, whatever you may call it, whatever name you may give - you

call this Narayana, Mr.John will call This "Jesus", Ibrahim may choose to

call HIM as "Allah" or someone else may choose to call it the nameless.

 

One hopes the thread is kept active by interested members.

 

Tat Tvam Asi.

Om Tat Sat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vimalkumar

ranganathan

bhakti-list,

<panardasan@yaho ramanuja,

oppiliappan,

o.com>

cc:

03/21/03 10:44 A very Scary Question!!

PM

Please respond

to bhakti-list

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Respected Vaishnavas,

 

When I ponder over this question that I

am going to present, I always get a very

unsettling, unhappy, even a shocking or a

jittery feeling. The question is this:

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOD??

 

Well, every "thing" should have an origin, atleast according to human

perception. If Sriman Narayana is God, what about his origins, I mean, has

he always been resting on the bed of Sesha?? The question thats arising in

my mind is, shouldn't he have an origin, or something that created him??

 

Well, if you cite the First Law of Thermodynamics which states, "Energy can

neither be created nor be destroyed", and somehow relate that energy to

God, then I can be partially convinced. Only partially because, the human

intelligence (ahem!!) in me will then question the origin of that energy!!

 

Can I take convunce myself by saying that since I am only "human" and

anything that's linked to being human, be it thoughts, perception, or

whatever, is subject to being imperfect?? And therefore understanding those

high issues is beyond the realm of my limited, imperfect intelligence??

 

I was thinking about this last night when I was just about to sleep, "who

created God??", and trust me, I didn't have good sleep at all, infact I

woke up to a nightmare.

 

I request all of you learned souls to kindly address my question,

 

1) Philosophically

 

2) Logically

 

3) Scientifically,

 

or anything that best addresses the issue.

 

AzhwAr EmperumanAr Jeeyar ThiruvadigalE Saranam.

 

Adiyen Yathindra Pravana Dasan,

 

Kidambi Soundararajan.

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------

- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list

Group Home: bhakti-list

Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oppiliappan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear Soundararajan,

Accept my pranams. I'm trying to answer your questions

based on my limited knowledge and hence advanced apologies for any

errors introduced.

 

 

> When I ponder over this question that I am going to

>present, I always get a very unsettling, unhappy,even a shocking or

>a jittery feeling. The question is this: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOD??

 

Many people would have undergone the same scenario as you

do. So there is no need to feel scary or jittery about it:-)

 

 

> Well, every "thing" should have an origin, atleast according to

>human perception. If Sriman Narayana is God, what about his origins,

>I mean, has he always been resting on the bed of Sesha?? The

>question thats arising in my mind is, shouldn't he have an origin,

>or something that created him??

 

Perception(prathyaksha) and Inference(anumAna),the two

sources of knowledge,can lead to misunderstanding(due to the

limitations of the senses)and hence instead of gaining knowledge we

may gain ignorance in abundance. It is only vedas/shruthi,the third

source of knowledge,which is authentic and real knowledge. When

solving the time-dependent cosmological problem(you have to prescribe

the initial and boundary conditions),one assumes that the boundary

condition of the universe is that "there is no boundary". Physicists

debate whether our universe is like an open loop,or closed loop or a

Mobius strip(similar to conveyor belt). So one can assume that the

answer to "what/who is the origin of God?" is "there is no origin".

Which came first: "seed" or the "tree"? But you can think that both

co-exist but are not manifest simulataneously to the naked eye. In

the very early stages(first few seconds),of the Big Bang,all the four

fundamental forces were unmanifest(unbroken symmetry). It is because

of this symmetry(Einstein believed that Universe loves/preserves

symmetry)that we are not able to distinguish the forces. But as

temperature drops with increase in time,we observe spontaneous

symmetry breaking and slowly we observe the strong,weak,

electromagnetic and gravity resply.,as dominant forces as universe

expands.

 

>Well, if you cite the First Law of Thermodynamics which

>states, "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed", and

>somehow relate that energy to God, then I can be partially

>convinced. Only partially because, the human intelligence (ahem!!)

>in me will then question the origin of that energy!!

 

Even in physics,according to Newton time was absolute but

Einstein's Relativity Theory had completely changed the concept of

time and time is only relative. We have control over space

(scientifically and theoretically speaking)but not over time in this

universe but it is the reverse in the case of black hole where time

is frozen. Imagine the entire universe being a black hole and there

is "nothing"(no mass/particles/observer/light) outside of it that can

be sucked into the black hole. I guess,the Lord talks about "absolute

time" in BG and He must have made time frozen(to all the observers)

when He was giving upadhEsha to ARjuna. Arjuna tells the Lord that

the former sees the Universe being crushed into a small tiny ball,all

the mass confined to a point density, in His body and he sees himself

and everything in Him.

 

Our mind is tuned to think in terms of cause and effect.

The human mind thinks of the material cause only but not the

spiritual cause. There is a human mind behind every observation! Sir

Isaac Newton named law of universal gravitaion,after his name,for the

mere observation of the falling apple and what makes them fall but he

neither created the universe,the gravity nor planted the apple tree.

Why can't there be a mind(God's)behind this material cause,namely

spiritual cause? You said you can correlate energy to God based on

First law of thermodynamics but your mind would then question the

origin of that energy. I see a falacy in your statement. Matter is a

form of energy and vice versa. Suppose if I ask you the question "are

you the matter/body?" what would be your answer? You would say that

you are not this body,right? Probably we can talk more along these

lines through private communucation otherwise we may bore the readers

by bringing physics and moreover it is a ramanuja forum not a physics

forum.

 

> Can I take convunce myself by saying that since I am only "human"

>and anything that's linked to being human, be it thoughts,

>perception, or whatever, is subject to being imperfect?? And

>therefore understanding those high issues is beyond the realm of my

>limited, imperfect intelligence??

 

See whether you can clearly see with your naked

eye,objects of all small sizes that are 100 ft far from you. See

whether you can hear infrasonics whose frequency are below the

frequency audible to human ear. These are all limitations of the

sense organs. Mind has pre-conceived notions and that is its nature!

It is because of this,the entire analysis goes wrong. We can not

express God in terms of human inventions. We fail miserably because

we are trying to restrict Him to our capacity. This is the

fundamental flaw in our approach.

 

> I was thinking about this last night when I was just about to

>sleep, "who created God??", and trust me, I didn't have good sleep

>at all, infact I woke up to a nightmare.

 

Just remember that there are problems(in science) which

have no solutions:-) In IISc, in one course(gas dynamics) we were

given a problem by a Prof, who is not an expert in gas dynamics. None

of us got the solution(very strange)and hence we went to the Retd.

Prof. who is an expert in that area and told our problem. He just

looked at the problem and asked "who gave this problem?" and

immediately said "this problem does not have a solution" The Prof.

got furious about the other prof for not having verified the problem

before giving it to the students and we all cribbed together that we

are not learning anything from that course and then the Prof. agreed

to give some lecture series on the subject to benefit us. We can

consider God as one such problem:-) You being a physics guy,should

think in terms of physics and you will no longer have nightmares but

wonderful and mysterious feelings about God's greatness and you will

laugh at yourself thinking "how He defies the human mind".

 

Please forgive for all nonsensical writings and a lengthy post.

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Shri Soundararajan,

I am apoligizing immediately because, I am not going to reply based

on our scriptures & tradition but solely based on my views.

 

> When I ponder over this question that I am going to present, I

always get a very unsettling, unhappy, even a shocking or a jittery

feeling.

 

- I can empathize with you. I have been through the same exact thing

sometimes back.

 

> The question is this: WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF GOD??

This question presupposes that GOD "exists" and only his origin is a

mystery. Now, how conclusive are you about your premise?

 

> Well, every "thing" should have an origin, atleast according to

human perception.

 

Nietzsche calls this the deception of language and grammer. GOD

becomes a "thing" ( a false premise ) and hence every "thing" must

have an origin ( false inference from a false premise ).

 

> If Sriman Narayana is God, what about his origins, I mean, has he

always been resting on the bed of Sesha?? The question thats arising

in my mind is, shouldn't he have an origin, or something that created

him??

 

How sure are we that Shriman Narayana is God? Why not Allah or

Yahweh?

We can trace the origin & worship of an Indian God called Vishnu-Hari-

Narayana-Vasudeva etc. from literature and history, but we cannot

prove that he is the God (with bit 'G').

 

> Well, if you cite the First Law of Thermodynamics which

states, "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed", and somehow

relate that energy to God, then I can be partially convinced.

 

According to quantum physics, energy could come out of nowhere even

in vacuum and then disappear. Well, you shouldn't take it as a

refutation of the First Law of Thermodynamics though. I have trouble

calling the physical quantity "Energy" (measured in Joules or

Calories) as God. To quote a physicist (was it Steven Weinberg?), "If

you say God is energy, you can find him in a lump of coal".

 

> Only partially because, the human intelligence (ahem!!) in me will

then question the origin of that energy!!

 

It is a 400 year old question now! Why there is "something" instead

of "nothing" ? I haven't come across a single convincing answer.

 

> Can I take convunce myself by saying that since I am only "human"

and anything that's linked to being human, be it thoughts,

perception, or whatever, is subject to being imperfect??

And therefore understanding those high issues is beyond the realm of

my limited, imperfect intelligence??

 

What are we going to do? Our sense organs are (ahem) flawed indeed,

but they are the only instruments we have got!

 

> I was thinking about this last night when I was just about to

sleep, "who created God??", and trust me, I didn't have good sleep at

all, infact I woke up to a nightmare.

 

Believe me, I can relate to these words. I had exact same experience

some 3 years back. It was actually depressing ( the fundamental

meaninglessness of this universe and existence. All our beliefs are

arbitrary and whimsical. It really doesn't matter if I accept Jesus

as my Savior of Hari as my Lord. I had chosen Lord Narayan previously

because I come from a family of Shri-Vaishnavas. Would I have done

the same thing, if my parents were, say Roman Catholics? ).

 

I apologize to everybody for this off-beat reply!

 

Warm Regards,

KK

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear KK,

This is in response to your post. Did you choose your

parents? NO. Similarly you didn't choose Lord Narayana rather He

chose you:-) Had your parents be roman catholics,your chances of

becoming a SV,mathematically speaking, is 50-50. Otherwise it all

depends on His grace. No religion is as subtle and profound as our

religion. In the case of chiristianity,it is not enough if I have

faith in Jesus but I need to get converted/baptised and only then can

I go to heaven or attain salvation. So is true with other religions.

But this is not the case in our religion. A person becomes a SV by

conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The samAshrayaNam or

pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain salvation b'coz

of these!

 

Conversion does not work in our case. Without forcing others

we have been sustaining for ages without any external support. We had

been ruled by many but still our religion is rich and hasn't lost any

of its spiritual richness due to foreign invasion. Just because we

are not able to comprehend this universe,it doesn't mean that it's

existence is meaningless. Scientists forget the fact they are trying

to solve the mystery/problem of this universe of which they

themselves are a part of the solution to be determined:-)

 

Best regards

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

 

> Believe me, I can relate to these words. I had exact same

experience

> some 3 years back. It was actually depressing ( the fundamental

> meaninglessness of this universe and existence. All our beliefs are

> arbitrary and whimsical. It really doesn't matter if I accept Jesus

> as my Savior of Hari as my Lord. I had chosen Lord Narayan

previously

> because I come from a family of Shri-Vaishnavas. Would I have done

> the same thing, if my parents were, say Roman Catholics? ).

>

[Guest guest]

Shrimate ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear nappinnai_nc:

 

> This is in response to your post. Did you

> choose your

> parents? NO.

 

Let us call it statement-A.

 

Similarly you didn't choose Lord

> Narayana rather He

> chose you:-)

 

Let us call it statement-B.

 

I accept statement-A to be true. Even so, how

statement-B logically follows from statement-A? The

chooser might be Allah or Yahweh instead of Lord

Narayana right

 

Had your parents be roman

> catholics,your chances of

> becoming a SV,mathematically speaking, is 50-50.

 

The odds are sadly stacked against us and in favour of

christians. Lot of people are converting to

christianity than people converting to vaishnavism (

and even less if any to Ramanuja Siddhantam )!

Refer theses sites They seem to have a clear-cut

plan!

1) http://www.ad2000.org/uters1.htm

2) http://www.goodnewsforindia.org/about.htm

 

> Otherwise it all

> depends on His grace. No religion is as subtle and

> profound as our

> religion.

 

A claim that could be made by a christian, Muslim or

Zorastrian

 

In the case of chiristianity,it is not

> enough if I have

> faith in Jesus but I need to get converted/baptised

> and only then can

> I go to heaven or attain salvation. So is true with

> other religions.

 

Right-on!

 

 

> But this is not the case in our religion. A person

> becomes a SV by

> conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The

> samAshrayaNam or

> pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain

> salvation b'coz

> of these!

 

 

Probably this is our weakness!

 

>

> Conversion does not work in our case.

> Without forcing others

> we have been sustaining for ages without any

> external support.

 

Yes! But for how long? Pakistan and Bangladesh were

carved out of Bharat only recently. Foreign forces are

feeding anti-Indian sentiment to North-East Indian

tribals and they want a separate Isiastan or

christistan ( NLFT, ULTRA, ULFA terrorists anyone ? )

 

> We had

> been ruled by many but still our religion is rich

> and hasn't lost any

> of its spiritual richness due to foreign invasion.

 

Past success is noway an indication of future

performance ? The Greek civilization thrived for

many centuries. What happened to it now? Is it

anything more than a mere museum curiosity?

 

> Just because we

> are not able to comprehend this universe,it doesn't

> mean that it's

> existence is meaningless.

 

I do not understand Swahili. So, I cannot understand a

Swahili sentence from a meaningless blabbering.

So, if you yourself agree that we cannot comprehend

the meaning of universe, "for all practical purposes"

it is meaningless right ?

 

 

>Scientists forget the fact

> they are trying

> to solve the mystery/problem of this universe of

> which they

> themselves are a part of the solution to be

> determined:-)

 

This is a statement that could mean a lot of things.

Please be more specific

 

I apologize if my reply was offensive in any way.

 

Regards,

KK

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

i didn't pose any questions?! yet quite interesting explanation. I was

waiting for a reply from chinnajeeyar swami and i got reply from your

humbleness!

 

jaisrimannarayana

 

Sasi

 

 

 

 

 

 

>"nappinnai_nc" <nappinnai_nc

>ramanuja

>ramanuja

>[ramanuja] Re: A very Scary Question!!

>Tue, 08 Apr 2003 19:32:04 -0000

>

>Sri:

>Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

>Dear KK,

> This is in response to your post. Did you choose your

>parents? NO. Similarly you didn't choose Lord Narayana rather He

>chose you:-) Had your parents be roman catholics,your chances of

>becoming a SV,mathematically speaking, is 50-50. Otherwise it all

>depends on His grace. No religion is as subtle and profound as our

>religion. In the case of chiristianity,it is not enough if I have

>faith in Jesus but I need to get converted/baptised and only then can

>I go to heaven or attain salvation. So is true with other religions.

>But this is not the case in our religion. A person becomes a SV by

>conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The samAshrayaNam or

>pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain salvation b'coz

>of these!

>

> Conversion does not work in our case. Without forcing others

>we have been sustaining for ages without any external support. We had

>been ruled by many but still our religion is rich and hasn't lost any

>of its spiritual richness due to foreign invasion. Just because we

>are not able to comprehend this universe,it doesn't mean that it's

>existence is meaningless. Scientists forget the fact they are trying

>to solve the mystery/problem of this universe of which they

>themselves are a part of the solution to be determined:-)

>

>Best regards

>AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

>NC Nappinnai

>

> > Believe me, I can relate to these words. I had exact same

>experience

> > some 3 years back. It was actually depressing ( the fundamental

> > meaninglessness of this universe and existence. All our beliefs are

> > arbitrary and whimsical. It really doesn't matter if I accept Jesus

> > as my Savior of Hari as my Lord. I had chosen Lord Narayan

>previously

> > because I come from a family of Shri-Vaishnavas. Would I have done

> > the same thing, if my parents were, say Roman Catholics? ).

> >

>

>

 

 

_______________

Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to

http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri Amshuman Swamin,

 

adiyEn's praNams.

 

adiyEn did not want to post on this subject before

because of the strictly personal opinion that

discussions of this nature are best conducted with

an acharya or a scholar directly. But adiyEn wanted

to make one quick post and then stop.

 

It appears to me that you are approaching this topic

from an agnostic view point (forgive me if I am wrong

in this thought) rather than as a follower of Ramanuja

Sampradhaya. adiyEn remembers Sri PBA Swami's point

in one of his articles where he mentions that one

has to take a stand based on one's conviction. Having

done that there is no need to try to think of

everyone's view on that topic.

 

What we need is complete faith in Sriman Narayana, in

our sampradhayam and why we are here today and

following what we do. If we start thinking that others

too are equally right because they are convinced by

what they do, then we will get nowhere.

 

Other religions might propagate fast - but this too

is His leela. Azhvar says "elleerum veedu peRRAl

ulagillai enRE". Therefore, it is His game to keep

this world going as it is. That does not mean, we

simply do nothing. We need to follow what our

acharyas and scholars teach us and continue to do

our duty.

 

Finally, there is a leap of logic in saying that

since we cannot comprehend the universe, the

universe is practically meaningless. The statement

by Smt Nappinnai clearly had implied that the

universe cannot be fully comprehended by us who are

a small part of it. It is however well understood

by one who Himself is the universe. Therefore, it

is meaningful to at least one. And, certainly there

are others (in many worlds) who have a far greater

understanding than us of the universe. The danger

lies in thinking that with our limited faculties

and tools that we can comprehend everything; and

when failing to do so, give up and say that the

whole thing is meaningless.

 

adiyEn did not mean to hurt your feelings by this

post. So kindly accept my apologies if I did so in

any way.

 

Azhvar Emperumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

--- Amshuman K <amshuman_k wrote:

> Shrimate ramanujaya nama:

>

> Dear nappinnai_nc:

>

> > This is in response to your post. Did you

> > choose your

> > parents? NO.

>

> Let us call it statement-A.

>

> Similarly you didn't choose Lord

> > Narayana rather He

> > chose you:-)

>

> Let us call it statement-B.

>

> I accept statement-A to be true. Even so, how

> statement-B logically follows from statement-A? The

> chooser might be Allah or Yahweh instead of Lord

> Narayana right

>

> Had your parents be roman

> > catholics,your chances of

> > becoming a SV,mathematically speaking, is 50-50.

>

> The odds are sadly stacked against us and in favour of

> christians. Lot of people are converting to

> christianity than people converting to vaishnavism (

> and even less if any to Ramanuja Siddhantam )!

> Refer theses sites They seem to have a clear-cut

> plan!

> 1) http://www.ad2000.org/uters1.htm

> 2) http://www.goodnewsforindia.org/about.htm

>

> > Otherwise it all

> > depends on His grace. No religion is as subtle and

> > profound as our

> > religion.

>

> A claim that could be made by a christian, Muslim or

> Zorastrian

>

> In the case of chiristianity,it is not

> > enough if I have

> > faith in Jesus but I need to get converted/baptised

> > and only then can

> > I go to heaven or attain salvation. So is true with

> > other religions.

>

> Right-on!

>

>

> > But this is not the case in our religion. A person

> > becomes a SV by

> > conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The

> > samAshrayaNam or

> > pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain

> > salvation b'coz

> > of these!

>

>

> Probably this is our weakness!

>

> >

> > Conversion does not work in our case.

> > Without forcing others

> > we have been sustaining for ages without any

> > external support.

>

> Yes! But for how long? Pakistan and Bangladesh were

> carved out of Bharat only recently. Foreign forces are

> feeding anti-Indian sentiment to North-East Indian

> tribals and they want a separate Isiastan or

> christistan ( NLFT, ULTRA, ULFA terrorists anyone ? )

>

> > We had

> > been ruled by many but still our religion is rich

> > and hasn't lost any

> > of its spiritual richness due to foreign invasion.

>

> Past success is noway an indication of future

> performance ? The Greek civilization thrived for

> many centuries. What happened to it now? Is it

> anything more than a mere museum curiosity?

>

> > Just because we

> > are not able to comprehend this universe,it doesn't

> > mean that it's

> > existence is meaningless.

>

> I do not understand Swahili. So, I cannot understand a

> Swahili sentence from a meaningless blabbering.

> So, if you yourself agree that we cannot comprehend

> the meaning of universe, "for all practical purposes"

> it is meaningless right ?

>

>

> >Scientists forget the fact

> > they are trying

> > to solve the mystery/problem of this universe of

> > which they

> > themselves are a part of the solution to be

> > determined:-)

>

> This is a statement that could mean a lot of things.

> Please be more specific

>

> I apologize if my reply was offensive in any way.

>

> Regards,

> KK

>

>

>

> Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and

> more

> http://tax.

>

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more

http://tax.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear KK,

Accept my pranams. Statement B is "analogous" to statement

A but not a "consequence/logic" of A. Hope this is clear to you.

 

> I accept statement-A to be true. Even so, how

> statement-B logically follows from statement-A? The

> chooser might be Allah or Yahweh instead of Lord

> Narayana right

 

Before making this statement,one should know "reasonably" well

about one's own religion "first" and then keep one's hands and legs

in other religions. Your statement is like saying Newtonian

mechanics,Maxwel's theory of electricity and magnetism,Einstein's

Relativity theory and Quantum Mechanics are all "one and the same".

 

> The odds are sadly stacked against us and in favour of

> christians. Lot of people are converting to

> christianity than people converting to vaishnavism (

> and even less if any to Ramanuja Siddhantam )!

> Refer theses sites They seem to have a clear-cut

> plan!

> 1) http://www.ad2000.org/uters1.htm

> 2) http://www.goodnewsforindia.org/about.htm

 

I guess it was GB Shaw(he only dares to pass highly critical

quotes/remarks/comments). One brainy fellow can equal hundreds of

guys. Why do you think our universe is still stable despite all

the odds. It's because of this. It's easier to convert a person who

doesn't ask any question and who is satisfied with any answer. Ask

all those christians whether their religion enjoins meat-eating,and

liquor-drinking(also what exactly Jesus has said about mercy;whether

mercy should be shown to only human being or all creatures).

Lastly love should flow from within instetad of forcing the person to

love someone(be it a human being or Lord Himself).

 

> A claim that could be made by a christian, Muslim or

> Zorastrian

 

There are levels of thinking. If you can understand this

statement,you will understand that a "thoery/religion" which

answers or atleast tries to answer each and every question from

universal stand point(should be applicable to all) is "complete" in

itself. Sun gives you(good) and me(bad) the same amount of light.

Rains and so many other natural processes do not seek human

permission to do their duties. Similarly the Lord's grace(of any

religion)should be spontaneous. BTW,Islam has borrowed so many ideas

from other religions and it(quran)is dated in AD by researchers. How

authentic it is that I do not know. That way Christianity is much

older but it doesn't address some fundamental issues.

 

> > But this is not the case in our religion. A person

> > becomes a SV by

> > conduct and of course faith in Sriman Narayana. The

> > samAshrayaNam or

> > pancasamskAram is not the "means" and I don't attain

> > salvation b'coz

> > of these!

>

> Probably this is our weakness!

 

Let us the classic example of Mother-baby relationship(similar to

ParamAtma-jivAtma relation). A true mother, out of her own love for

the baby,feeds the baby not because the baby makes an "effort" in the

form of "crying/means". So whether the baby cries or not for milk the

mother will apply "brute force" and feed it. This highlights the

greatness of the mother(God) not that of the "mere" effort(of crying)

on the part of the baby(jIvAtma).

 

 

> Yes! But for how long? Pakistan and Bangladesh were

> carved out of Bharat only recently. Foreign forces are

> feeding anti-Indian sentiment to North-East Indian

> tribals and they want a separate Isiastan or

> christistan ( NLFT, ULTRA, ULFA terrorists anyone ? )

 

What is the scenario in those countries? Is it very rosy? Don't

mix up spiritual issues with politcal issues(in the hands of some

bunch of fools who are after power,money and etc). The latter is

ephemeral but former should hold true for "ALL TIMES". This will tell

you what religious values are!

 

> Past success is noway an indication of future

> performance ? The Greek civilization thrived for

> many centuries. What happened to it now? Is it

> anything more than a mere museum curiosity?

 

The answer lies in your own statement. All those countries ruled

some other countries in one form or the other except ours. All those

countries have taken a back seat now. One simple reason that

physicsts(physics is "the" fundamental subject as far "matter" is

ocncerned)are appreciating our religion a lot is enough to tell how

profound our religion is.

 

> I do not understand Swahili. So, I cannot understand a

> Swahili sentence from a meaningless blabbering.

> So, if you yourself agree that we cannot comprehend

> the meaning of universe, "for all practical purposes"

> it is meaningless right ?

 

Watch the usage of english word "able" whcih doesn't affirmatively

say that we "can't". Any theory again presupposes how much

the "theorist" can see "far" into the "actual" reality. Here "senses"

are involved. If you're a student of mathematicas you will catch this

point. No mathematician(of the highest rank)has ever given any

definition for Infinity as well as Zero. One can introduce lot of

jargons to explain this(and also to confuse the audience thoroughly)!

Suppose I go to the eye specialist and say taht I am not able to read

(just a lie). He is going to prescibe glasses for me(he will strictly

go by allopathy!). He sees(perception) me and believes(inference)that

I'm telling him the truth(actually I have told him a lie!)

and "concludes" that I really can't see things. This is called

the "limitation of the senses". Then imagine if one wants to look far

and wide into the Universe,how his senses should help/prohibit him

seeing into the "actual" reality.

 

 

> This is a statement that could mean a lot of things.

> Please be more specific

 

Problem-solving the mystery of the universe scientifically(why the

hell this universe exists in te first place/ab initia and is there

a cause behind it). As far SV is concerned we know why this universe

exists! Whether you go by Darwin theory some other evolution

theory,we human beings fall somewhere in the middle of the

hierarchy of size. We are also part of the universe. When solving the

problem,we have to make sure that the solution holds true whether

we are present in it or not. Mathematically one can find an exterior

solution(universe without the observer)and an interior solution

(with the observer)and then find the "matched condition" for the two

solutions.

 

Einstein's theory supposes two things:(1)nothing can travel faster

than the speed of light. The so called hypothetical "tachyons"(faster

than speed of light)have not been observed so far. So is the case

with quarks(which make up the protons and neutrons in the nucleus

of an atom)which has not been detected in the laboratory and infcat

some physicists have rejected this theory. (2) the world that we live

is an "objective reality". Meaning it is real and exists independent

of the observer(it supports visishtadvaitic view). Mind you this is a

single man(Einstein)'s contribution.

 

The other revolutionary theory is Quantum Mechanics which defies

everything(causality,determinism,realism). This theory is a

contribution by many but the main proponents of the theory were

Niels Bohr,Heisenberg,Schroedinger,Pauli and Dirac including Max

Planck and Einstein who(esp. Eintesin who daringly put forth his

views which Planck hesitated as he couldn't believe) initiated the

birth of Quantum Mechanics with "black body radiation(of Planck)"

and "photoelectric effect(of Einstein)". Initially Einstein was alone

refuting quantum mechanics as the "most absurd theory" that anyone

can think of but later on Schroedinger(founder of wave mechanics)

and Dirac(Transformation Theory)happily joined hands with Einstein.

But Niels Bohr,the spokesperson for defending quantum mechanics as

the ultimate theory,was of firm view that nature itself is uncertain

and fuzzy and this world of reality(or rather non-reality)does not

exist independently of the observer. This interpretation is

called "Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics" because

Bohr was from Copenhagen and his institute was a place for doing

research in quantum mechanics. This is similar to advaitic view that

this "world" is maya(does not exist independent of the observer)!

 

This crazy idea was persisting for decades(due to Bohr)and then one

physicist dared to disprove either Einstein or Bohr. Only one of

the two views can come out successful! The current day research

supports Einstein's first view(so far no experiments had proved

Einstein wrong). So Einstein is saved wrt his first postulate!

Quantum mechanics gives results "correctly". All the four different

versions of Heisenberg,Shroedinger,Dirac and Feynman gives the

identical results to the same problem. The problem liles only in the

interpretation! Some physicists don't want to give up reality and

so stick to second view of Einstein thus by violating QM regarding

the existence of reality and also violating the first view of

Einstein. And some others stick to the first view of Einstein and

forgo the second view thus by supporting QM as far "reality" is

ocncerned.

 

Physicists who had been brainwashed by Bohr for decades have atleast

taken the right direction now(by accepting one of the conditions

of Einstein's theory). It's again a matter of time to accept the

other one:-) This is where Einstein's genius lies in. Dirac made a

statement:if Einstein had not proposed his "special" theory of

relativity someone else would have done. but if he had not proposed

his "general(all observers)" theory of relativity we would still

be waiting for that theory. Dirac was positive and Bohr skeptical

about QM initially. But after a decade both took 180 degree turn.

Dirac,despite his contribution to the theory,disliked quantum

mechanics totally and everyday he would torture himself to come up

with a theory to refute QM and Bohr was very sure about it that he

literally shut the mouths of people who came forward with

a "different" approach. Scientists are not excempted from

prejudices! Once in a while, if somebody poses on physics coupled

with philosphy it's fine but let us not make it a routine and instead

learn more about the Ramanuja sampradayam. If you want to have

further communications,please respond to my personal id.

 

> > I apologize if my reply was offensive in any way.

 

Not at all:-) Knowledge never expands without the mind thinking or

questioning. Kindly forgive if anywhere my post sounded harsh.

 

Best regards

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri Venkatesan,

Please accept my pranams and promise me that you

won't offer any more apologies in future with an

assumption that you might have offended my feelings.

 

You are correct. I did not offer my comments based on

Ramanuja Sampradayam. As you pointed out I am agnostic

- even boderline atheist. I do not believe in a

personal God or God is somebody who listens to our

prayers.

 

You can then ask, what I am doing here if I don't

believe in God. Well, I am a nominally a

Shri-Vaishnavan in the tradition of Shri Ramanuja and

Shri Manavala Mamunigal. I have a soft corner for

Desikacharya too ( and I am aware of the differences

between us and vadakalais ) and I've read his

commentary on Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam and Gitartha

Sangraha Rakshai ( part of the reason for my reverence

- the rest being his acumen as a chitra kavi in

Paduka Sahasram and rightly you may infer, I have a

soft corner for Bharavi and kiratarjuneeyam ).

 

My loss of faith is a different story. I wrote the

previous paragraph, so that I don't want to give out a

vibe of "modern young kid knowing nothing of our

sampradayams - brash and self-righteous - but

ultimately lost" :-). To keep my ramblings short, I

joined this group to get in touch with my "roots".

 

 

> What we need is complete faith in Sriman Narayana,

> in

> our sampradhayam and why we are here today and

> following what we do. If we start thinking that

> others

> too are equally right because they are convinced by

> what they do, then we will get nowhere.

 

I *do not* believe that "all religions are equal" or

the corollary, the religions are interchangeable. But

you have to agree that a christian has equally strong

if not more conviction regarding his religion as a

Shri-Vaishnavan has. So, as a neutral third party, why

should I choose Narayana instead of Jesus or vice

versa?

 

>

> Other religions might propagate fast - but this too

> is His leela. Azhvar says "elleerum veedu peRRAl

> ulagillai enRE". Therefore, it is His game to keep

> this world going as it is. That does not mean, we

> simply do nothing. We need to follow what our

> acharyas and scholars teach us and continue to do

> our duty.

>

 

Even if we become a minority and become an object of

ridicule ? Don't tell me it won't happen. It happened

in Kashmir. It happened in North-East states. It is a

matter of time before it spreads to the rest of India.

I am not prepared to take a defeatist stance that "It

is all his will". ( You may see a contradiction - If I

don't believe in God, why should I be bothered if

Christianity wipes out Vaishnavism. I'll explain later

)

 

> Finally, there is a leap of logic in saying that

> since we cannot comprehend the universe, the

> universe is practically meaningless. The statement

> by Smt Nappinnai clearly had implied that the

> universe cannot be fully comprehended by us who are

> a small part of it. It is however well understood

> by one who Himself is the universe. Therefore, it

> is meaningful to at least one. And, certainly there

> are others (in many worlds) who have a far greater

> understanding than us of the universe. The danger

> lies in thinking that with our limited faculties

> and tools that we can comprehend everything; and

> when failing to do so, give up and say that the

> whole thing is meaningless.

>

 

I've seen this sort of explanation before. My comment

on this would warrant a lengthy post. So, I'll come

back to this when time permits.

 

 

Warm Regards,

KK

 

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear nappinnai_nc:

Forgive me for the belated reply. As you said, we

can certainly continue our "fight" outside the forum

(no offense intended).

 

Due to the time factor, I am going to skip commenting

most of the post. I'll concentrate on the part of your

reply regarding physics. You are speaking my language

there.

 

>All those

> countries have taken a back seat now. One simple

> reason that

> physicsts(physics is "the" fundamental subject as

> far "matter" is

> ocncerned)are appreciating our religion a lot is

> enough to tell how

> profound our religion is.

>

 

I beg to disagree. Please give relevant details when

you say that physicists are appreciating our religion.

I've read Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawkins, Penrose, Weinberg

( all physicists ) and Darwin, Dawkins and countless

other evolutionary biologists ( Physics & Biology are

my current favorite pure sciences. I started my

fascination with chemistry though - I have to admit

I've read books on chemistry only through Mir

publication ). I can cite time and again that they all

favor atheism. Einstein believed in God, but not in

our everyday sense. He called the "underlying symmetry

in nature" as God.

 

( the message was truncated. so I'll try to quote what

you said and offer my comments ).

1. Your comment of "scientists" trying to find

"solutions" to "universe".

 

I think the question is still out there. To be

specific, science should still find the answer of

these questions.

 

1. Origin of universe - Why there is something instead

of nothing. Once we "know" that universe exists,

physics can tell us how things started rolling from

big bang. Read a beautiful book by nobel laureate

Steven Weinberg called "The first 3 minutes".

 

 

2. Einsten, constance of speed of light, tachyons.

Tachyons is science fiction. It's presence is not

required by standard model.

 

 

3. Absence of quarks.

You are wrong! Yes, for 30 gruelling years, labs

did not confirm the presence of quarks. But by 1994,

all the 6 quarks are detected and Fermilab reported

them If you are still referring to out dated

quantum mechanics books, you should update your

personal library

 

4. World as objective reality.

Sure! Einstein believed in this. I'll reserve my

comments for quantum mechanics.

 

5. Quantum mechanics ( There is a saying - you are

preaching to the converted )

 

Einstein disliked inherent randomness of reality as

supposed by quantum mechanics - True.

Schrodinger was unhappy that his wave mechanics is

used or abused ( famous schrodinger cat mental

experimet) - True

Dirac did not disavow quantum mechanics. ( Infact he

is my role model. He is a staunch atheist. )

 

6. Neils Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation.

Your comments are quite wrong. Bohr pointed out that

it is meaningless to ask questions like - "What is the

position and momentum of an electron before I make a

measurement". He proposed that "position" and

"momentum" form complimentary pieces of a puzzle and

knowledge of one excludes the knowledge of other.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

It is a stretch of imagination to extend copenhagan

interpretation to mean that Bohr denies reality

altogether.

 

7. Crazy idea of Bohr, vindication of Einstein.

Quantum mechanics does not disprove Einstein's theory!

Infact, Einstein was trying to show that quantum

mechanics was incomplete and propsed a thought

experiment to "disprove" quantum mechanics. ( A juicy

anecdote - Einstein would propose lot of thought

experiments that purportedly disproves QM. By

afternoon Bohr would point out the flaws in Einstein's

argument )

Also, Einstein's thought experiment was carried out

in reality ( in late '70s I think ). Refer

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, Bell's inequality and

Aspect Experiment. To keep things short, QM emerged

triumphant and not Einstein

 

 

8. Well, I wouldn't call Bohr brainwashed physicists.

He merely pointed out, it is futile to engage in wild

speculations and philosophies if you cannot prove by

experiment. I think he follwed occam's razor

principle.

Also note that "reality denial" is only one

interpretation of QM. You have not one not two but

infinite realities in "Many worlds interpretation"

proposed by Everett.

 

9. To sum up, the verdict is, it is Einstein's

relativity that should be modified to accommodate QM

and not vice versa ( I am simply quoting nobel

laureates in physics ). There is a branch of

theoretical physics called superstring theory - If you

apply rigid constraints on a vibrating string, you

would see Einstein's relativity emerging from the

solution ( They didn't deliberately do it. Physcisits

were actually surprised when they saw this. This alone

tells me that supersting theory is worth taking

seriously ).

 

10. My conclusion, let us leave physics alone. We are

not going to find sanction of Vishisthadvaita

siddhantam in Quantum physics or Relativity or as a

matter of fact, superstring theory.

 

KK

 

[Moderator- Adiyen's humble request for the SriVaishnavas to limit the

discussion mainly on the Sampradayam matters, though we can say this is also in

the same line,its in a round about way and such looping to diff topics (Physiscs

in this case) to be avoided in future, Thanks for understanding..]

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

Dear KK,

I am restricting my replies here(with the exception of few)

and would prefer private communication if there is a need to stretch

the topic.

 

> I beg to disagree. Please give relevant details when

> you say that physicists are appreciating our religion.

> I've read Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawkins, Penrose, Weinberg

> ( all physicists ) and Darwin, Dawkins and countless

> other evolutionary biologists ( Physics & Biology are

> my current favorite pure sciences. I started my

> fascination with chemistry though - I have to admit

 

My professor(retired now) is a particle physics guy. He used to tell

lot of stories about these physicists. I only said quarks had not

been detected in laboratory. Did I say "directly" or "indirectly"?

It has not been detected directly.............I may skip many things

when I write for brevity to save time. It is the reader who has to

cross check. This is the "standard problem" that comes up when a

reader "reads" a book by an author. This can highly lead to

misunderstanding. In the recent years,physicists have got some

exposures to other religions. In the olden days,there were very few

who really used to read and one among the few was Oppenheimer. He

used to read BG and even on the day he died,he had Bhagavad Gita in

his hand. His classes always used to be packed and would quote BG

(apart from physics) to the students. I have lot of foreigners who

ask me about our religion.

 

Einstein did believe in God apart from his fascination for symmetry.

 

Whether Science finds the solution or not,God only knows(I'm not

going to live long to see who wins the race!). Science goes by

evidence! The very EPR argument suggests,for the example that

Einstein suggested,the twin particles which are separated far off can

not affect each other's measurement instantaneously,because nothing

can travel faster than light. Alain Aspect's findings might confirm

once again QM yet it has not confirmed staunchly that there are

independent particles that can move faster than the light. QM deals

with statistical averages. Some individual particles may travel

faster than light but the statistical average is always less than or

equal to c,the speed of light.

 

Yes. Bohr brainwashed many. So many articles even after his death

(till 1960's when Bell came up with his inequality) would be turned

down if it was any way related to Copenhagen Interpretation. Don't

forget Eddington was a block for Chandrashekhar. Chandrashekhar used

to shift his field itself every decade. Einstein's theory is not

tested in a "very strong" gravitational field. To test

theories,sphisticated instruments are needed. Newtonian theory

couldn't answer the "perihelion of mercury" and for

particles/observer at the the speed of light Newtonian thoery fails

to answer. To confirm this,it took almost two centuries. Yet on a day

to day scale it/Newtonian Mechanics is still valid.

 

For example,time clock of a person standing on 100th floor will be

different from that of a person who is standing in the basement and

this time difference due to gravity can be measured by sensitive

nuclear clocks to confirm Einstein's thoery about the effect of

gravity on matter but this time difference is so small that it can be

neglected in classical sense. Similarly QM(probabilistic theory)only

has to be the limiting case of EInstein's theory not the other way

round. Again this depends on what one wants to see/believe in

reality. BTW I have read Weinberg's on First three minutes and is an

interesting book.

 

 

 

> 6. Neils Bohr, Copenhagen interpretation.

> Your comments are quite wrong. Bohr pointed out that

> it is meaningless to ask questions like - "What is the

> position and momentum of an electron before I make a

> measurement". He proposed that "position" and

> "momentum" form complimentary pieces of a puzzle and

> knowledge of one excludes the knowledge of other.

> Nothing more. Nothing less.

> It is a stretch of imagination to extend copenhagan

> interpretation to mean that Bohr denies reality

> altogether.

 

This is the precise incompleteness in thought or whatever you call it

that Einstein disliked it to the core and he also said it will

crumble like Newtonian Mechanics after some years. Any theory which

has statistics/probability as a building block can not sustain for

long. That was Einstein's view. It all depends on one's experience(in

reality!)what to believe/expect and what not to believe about reality.

 

 

> 8. Well, I wouldn't call Bohr brainwashed physicists.

> He merely pointed out, it is futile to engage in wild

> speculations and philosophies if you cannot prove by

> experiment. I think he follwed occam's razor

> principle.

> Also note that "reality denial" is only one

> interpretation of QM. You have not one not two but

> infinite realities in "Many worlds interpretation"

> proposed by Everett.

 

I only mentioned Copenhagen(Bohr) according to which the reality is

denied. Now you have so many versions of even superstring theory but

nothing is yet concrete to favor one or the other. Even when the "so

called" quantum gang of 1920's and 1930's were all involved in

nuclear physics,it was "only" Einstein who started thinking about

Unifying gravity with other forces. It is this gravity which poses

lot of difficulty as it's strength is way off from the strengths of

the other three. The other three have been unified sucessfully but

still the quest for the "superforce" is ongoing.

 

Last but not the least science is full of surprises. One fellow will

propound the theory and another may prove/disprove that theory. It is

a matter of time. No matter how far they succeed still scientists can

not explain certain things. Whether or not, Bohr believed that it is

futile to engage in wild philosphical speculations,the Quantum theory

leads to philosophical implications only.

 

Best Regards

AzhvAr EmperumAnAr JIyar thiruvadigaLE sharaNam

NC Nappinnai

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Amshuman K,

 

I was going to reply to you in private, but I thought

it fit to do so on the group so as to bring closure

to it from my side for those who have been following

this topic.

 

As I said before, I do not want to discuss this topic

in length with you because I think for the kind of

mindset you are in, it is better for you to talk to a

scholar/acharya than with a beginner like me.

 

I find it interesting that you say that you are an

agnostic, a borderline atheist, one who does not

believe in God, and finally one who speaks of God

as one who exists. Sounds like you are confused and

looking for answers. But I also feel that you have

a sizeable amount of scepticism and agnostic in you

that prevents you from accepting many things. This

cannot be resolved, in my opinion, through

discussions on an email group.

 

There are certain things in my earlier post that you

have misunderstood. I did not say that we have to

take a defeatist stance. In fact, I said we have to

keep our duties which includes supporting the

sampradhayam, keeping up our temples and culture,

spreading Sri Ramanuja's message, etc - but with the

understanding that nothing happens without His

involvement. These are the kinds of subtle

information that you need to gain and answered from

an authority.

 

In your last point you are talking about a lengthy

post on the logic of perception of the universe and

its reality. It sounds like you want to debate based

on logic rather than a sampradhayic interpretation.

While it is interesting in itself, adiyEn does not

want to get into it for a number of reasons. My only

point to you was that you were making a leap of logic

by partially using Smt Nappinnai's statement. Nothing

more.

 

I do hope that you find others in the forum who can

provide the answers that you seek. And more so, that

you go seek a scholar and try to get your doubts

answered (this would be the right way).

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

 

--- Amshuman K <amshuman_k wrote:

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

>

> Dear Sri Venkatesan,

> Please accept my pranams and promise me that you

> won't offer any more apologies in future with an

> assumption that you might have offended my feelings.

>

> You are correct. I did not offer my comments based on

> Ramanuja Sampradayam. As you pointed out I am agnostic

> - even boderline atheist. I do not believe in a

> personal God or God is somebody who listens to our

> prayers.

>

> ...

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.