RE: Infinity(To Nomadeva)

[Guest guest]

Dear Nomadeva,

 

How can the Infinite be revealed in totality by the finite, in this case by the Srutis?

As for the apparently circular logic on Infinity, indeed,

Infinity+ Infinity = Infinity, because Infinity = Infinity. This is similar to

the statements "I am the Alpha and the Omega, I am the begining and the End.

All these statements cannot be proved mathemathically, because we look upon time

(Kala) as linear. Yet time only appears as linear when viewed in the relative or

dualistic plane. For example, For something to be greater, there has to be

something that is lesser, otherwise the finite mind cannot conceptualize that

which it is trying to comprehend. This is the same problem with man's approch

to divinty( and this IS a critique of the puranas & Srutis) For not only is man

contend to subordinate himself to God, he has to create other God's to

subordinate to the One God and in doing so, not only do we have lesser gods,

but we have millions of gods, when in reality All there is One.

 

Rg

 

Ajith

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is another point you have missed. I have not usedlogic. On the other hand,

you did, in the course ofsolving the problem by equating both Shiva and

Vishnuto infinity. Let's see: We are both faced with the problem of sometexts

praising Shiva to be greater than Vishnu, someholding them to be same and some

holding Vishnu to begreater than Shiva.Your approach: All are correct (you

don't mean thisthough you say it), both are infinity, so it is OK tosay

infinity is less than/greater than/equal toinfinity.My approach: There is a

guideline in the Puranas as tohow to handle these contradictions. Your

objections tothese are actually objections to the Puranasthemselves. (Not that

your objections are dismissedJUST on that basis).It is clear, atleast to me, my

approach is faithful tothe Puranas while you are superimposing yours on

thePuranas. > It is simply unacceptable to me to think that one ofthem is

wrong.> Instead, any explanation that allows all of them tobe correct

simultaneously > without contradiction is the "simpler way" to me.Considering

Vishnu and Shiva > to be different forms of the same supreme

Brahman,considering them to be > incomparable (and hence considering each

assuperior), There lies the self-contradiction. They areincomparable and are

yet to superior to each other?Even Maths would disagree with you: if there are

twoinfinites, question of whether they are greater thanor lesser than simply

does not arise. This is why,though you claim that your interpretation makes all

ofthem correct, it is not so. The solution is not justself-contradictory, but

renders those purANas thatmake either of them to be superior to the other

asplain false. I find it very puzzling that a personsuch as you with a solid

background in Maths does notfind the idea of infinity being lesser than or

greaterthan infinity, repelling enough!!!I hope you are not accepting illogical

stuff under thebanner of mysticism.> considering Vishnu to have come from Shiva

and Shivato have come from > Vishnu and yet both to have no beginning or end is

a"simpler way" to > resolve the contradiction to me thanBut the solution has not

resolved any thing, insteadmade 2/3 (assuming an uniform distribution, which

isnot true) of the Puranas wrong.> to assume that some puranas Vyasa wrote are

"wrong".That is another point missed. Puranas are anAdi.Disagreeing is against

the traditional as well asPuranic view itself (I can get some references if

youwant). Sri Vedavyasa classified one single purana into18.> > That makes the

whole thing easier: Some texts are> > tAmasic. The stuff therein has to be

ignored.> > > > This position, being based on support from shrutiand actual

purANic> > quotes is better than your (incorrect)> > Firstly, this is all going

back to my originalmisgiving. The> prejudice against tamas (the most stable>

state of zero passion) is all too evident.But it appears to be your prejudice

or some notionabout tamas being whatever. Can you pls quote a textthat equates

tamas as the most stable state ... ?There are literally thousands of passages

in theliterature that equates tamas with something to beavoided; yes, even the

tamo prakriti guNa.> Secondly, if I am told to think that Vyasa wroteseveral

books to> "delude" some people, why can't I> instead think that the few stanzas

that make thatproposal were actually written to delude some otherpeople > and

not the whole books as proposed? Don't you thinkthat would be a much simpler

hypothesis?!The following can be noted:A. The few stanzas do not render 'whole

books' invalidas you have made out to be. It is not even that theseverses were

'written' later to clean up the first setof works (as you said in some other

reply).B. If simpler hypothesis that these few verses aredelusory appeals to

you, it implies that you have noproblems with the basic idea of delusion. In

whichcase, why impose one's biases and predilections on thescriptures and not

take the purANas as they stand (espwhen doing so does not contradict stronger

pramANa:shruti)?C. Vyasa is not the AUTHOR of puranas. He hasclassified them.

Puranas testify that. So, thequestion of 'how can the kind Vyasa do THAT' does

notarise? In any case, Vyasa should be accused ofcheating or whatever if he did

not tell all readersthat some of them should not be taken; hardly thecase.

Consider this: The initial chapters of thelectures on Physics by Feynman

(actually nearly thefirst volume itself) speaks in terms of classicalmechanics.

If one were to read just that and concludethat it is true, what would you tell

him? Moreover,Sri Vedavyasa's compassion cannot be doubted becauseof all this.

Stretching your expectations a bit, onewould expect that he writes purANas in

all languages,ensures that copies are available everywhere etc.D. Our

literature is full of pUrvapaksha and siddhAnta(take any commentary on the

Brahmasutra or any sUtrasor any text; perhaps even the

BrihadaranyakaUpanishad). Purvapaksha is a part of the text. If areader

confuses pUrvapaksha to be the siddhAnta, it isnot the fault of author.

Purvapaksha is anyway neededto clarify the need of siddhAnta. The same thing

hasbeen followed in purAnas. Those NOT extolling Vishnuare Purvapaksha

(rajasika, tAmasic). Those that do aresiddhAnta.G. You are uncomfortable with

the delusion stuff,perhaps because you are uncomfortable with the idea

oftAmasa. That is very surprising! I'd suggest you readthe Mahabharata, Gita

(17th and 18th chapters inparticular), Ishavasya Upanishad etc. That

somebodycan become deluded is not something extraneous ofVedanta. Consider the

Indra-virochana episode inChandogya. Virochana is eternally deluded over

there.> Bottomline: The difference between you and me isvery small, compared>

to the difference between me and> those who criticized Sanjay ji for

"recommending theworship of demigods", ostracized Sri Achyutananda Dasa> for

"worshipping Shakti" and criticized the recitalof Rudra Chamakam.I don't know

the history out there. Actually it doesnot matter. If you can actually refute

the points Ihave raised, using scriptures, it will be the best;you know, it is

easy to superimpose one's ideas intothe purANAs or scriptures. So far, you have

onlyprovided your personal preferences or theories thatyou are comfortable with,

instead of acceptingscriptures as they are.Finally this quote from Mahabharata

(ashvamedha parva,Bhishma says this):AloDhya sarvashAstrANi vichArya ca punaH

punaH |idamekaM suniShpannaM dhyeyo nArAyaNaH sadA

||Regards,NomadevaThe New

Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.http://search.

Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info:

vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank

mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light

shine on us .......

Biztools- Promote your business from just $5 a month!