Wat is eg,,en,Besprekings met Ranga,,en,Hierdie boodskap is 'n lang bespreking per e-pos wat ek met my vriend Ranga gehad het,,en,Die onderwerp was die onwerklikheid van die werklikheid van dinge en hoe hierdie begrip in die fisika toegepas kan word,,en,Gaan weer deur die debat,,en,Ek voel dat Ranga homself beter bekwaam in die filosofiese aangeleenthede beskou as ek,,en,ek doen ook,,en,Ek beskou hom as beter gelees as ek,,en,Maar ek voel dat sy aanname,,en,dat ek nie soveel geweet het dat ek oor sulke dinge moes praat nie,,en,het miskien sy mening bevooroordeeld en hom verblind vir sommige van die werklik nuwe dinge,,en,na my mening,,en,Ek moes sê,,en,nietemin,,en,Ek dink daar is 'n hele paar interessante punte wat tydens die debat na vore gekom het wat van algemene belang kan wees,,en,Ek het die debat geredigeer en geformateer vir leesbaarheid,,en? Discussions with Ranga.

Tue,,en,Ek ondersoek die rol van lig in die waarneming en argumenteer dat die spesiale lig van die snelheid van lig in ons werklikheid afhang van die feit dat ons 'n werklikheid is wat geskep word deur lig,,en,Net soos die spoed van klank spesiaal sou wees in die werklikheid van 'n vlermuis wat met eggolokasie geskep word,,en,soos jy gesê het,,en,Klank is belangrik vir 'n vlermuis,,en,maar is nie die enigste manier waarop dit die eksterne wêreld waarneem nie, laat staan ​​nog sy eie liggaam,,en,So is ook lig vir mense,,en,Om op navorsing as 'n navorsingstrategie te fokus, is anders as om te sê dat lig fundamenteel vir ons spesiaal is,,en,in terme van AR of selfs R,,en,lig het geen spesiale plek as sodanig nie,,en,ook,,en,R moet duideliker gedefinieer word soos van toepassing op alle wesens,,en,of slegs vir mense,,en,of net vir jou,,en,Hierdie self is 'n konseptuele doolhof,,en,as u daaraan gedink het,,en, May 22, 2007 at 5:27 AM

Your introductory para starts-off suggesting that there is a process creating Maya and by understanding this process one can see why light is so special in our phenomenal notions of space and time. However, the concluding argument tapers off without completely explaining why light is so special. You probably left out some parts in this email?

Yes, what I quoted were a couple of paras from my article (http://theunrealuniverse.com/unreal-advaita.pdf). I go on to explore the role of light in sensing and argue that the specialness of the speed of light in our reality hinges on the fact that ours is a reality created using light. Much like the speed of sound would be special in a bat’s reality created using echolocation, as you said.

Ek stel nie voor dat die absolute werklikheid verstaan ​​of geken kan word aan die hand van ons ondersoeke in ons fenomenale wêreld nie,,en,dit mag moontlik gebruik word van die feit dat die abs,,en,die werklikheid IS anders as ons persepsie daarvan,,en,as ons modelleer,,en,ter wille van betoog,,en,'n absolute werklikheid wat klassiek gehoorsaam is,,en,Galilese,,en,relativiteit en werk die proses van sensasie deur lig uit,,en,ons kry 'n perseptuele werklikheid wat baie ooreenstem met wat Einstein in SR beskryf,,en,Dit moet aandui dat klassieke meganika 'n goeie model vir AR is,,en,soos u tereg opgemerk het,,en,klassieke meganika is 'n ander manifestasie van ons persepsie en dit kan nie alles wees om te AR.IOW nie,,en,ons hoef nie te weet wat die absolute werklikheid is nie,,en,ons moet net weet dat dit NIE is wat ons sien nie,,en. But, it may be possible use the fact that the abs. reality IS different from our perception of it. For instance, if we model (for the sake of argument) an absolute reality that obeys classical (Galilean) relativity and work out the process of sensing through light, we get a perceptual reality very similar to what Einstein describes in SR. This should indicate that classical mechanics is a good model for AR. But, as you rightly pointed out, classical mechanics is another manifestation of our perception and it cannot be all there is to AR.

IOW, we don’t need to know what absolute reality IS, we just need to know that it IS NOT what we perceive. Met hierdie kennis of onderskeiding word ernstig toegepas op astrofisiese verskynsels,,en,ons kan alreeds met goeie verduidelikings vorendag kom vir GRB en radiojets,,en,ons kan selfs kosmologiese kenmerke soos die CMBR en die groeiende heelal verklaar,,en,Hier moet jy die waters versigtig trap,,en,U kan geïnspireer word deur die metafisiese onderskeid tussen absolute en fenomenale werklikheid,,en,hierdie inspirasie lei jou om die aard en beperkings van die werklikheid wat ons raaksien te waardeer,,en,Hierdie waardering kan u help om dinge in 'n nuwe lig te sien,,en,By wyse van spreke,,en,Maar u verduidelikings van die fenomenale wêreld,,en,byvoorbeeld GRB's,,en,is glad nie op enige aspek van AR gebaseer nie,,en,aangesien dit nie vir ons toeganklik is nie,,en,volgens ons eie definisie,,en,begin met 'n raamwerk van AR,,en,soos in u blokdiagram van AR-,,en,Persepsie / Cognition-,,en,Waargenome werklikheid-,,en, we can already come up with good explanations for GRB and radio jets. In fact, we can even explain cosmological features like the CMBR and the expanding universe.

Brahman does not have to be seen as an agent with a purpose to cause the signals to fall on our senses which in turn create a model of the surroundings that in turn are presented to our conscious awareness etc. leading to Maya or illusion.

Well, if Brahman doesn’t cause Maya, who/what does?

What this means to me is that, Brahman and Maya are one and the same.

As all statements in Hinduism, this one also is mystical 🙂 They are the same, but they are also distinct from each other as you point out below.

To make this more understandable to ourselves, at the cost of fouling it up – it can be seen as the constant flux in the Brahman, constant interaction of the universe the objects and beings in it as manifestation of the phenomenon. This interaction begets a certain differentiation the identification of objects and beings as individuals and the need for the survival of these individuals. The birth of this differentiation is the beginning of the phenomenal world I’m not talking in terms of evolution or emergence of life here. Die kritieke insig dat ons eintlik deel van 'n geheel is, is die dood van hierdie onderskeid en die heruitsending van die Brahman, die besef hiervan, word Atman genoem,,en,Dit gebeur nie in ons nie,,en,bewering,,en,behalwe in uiterste omstandighede,,en,sogenaamde Nirvana of Samadhi,,en,en beslis nie op 'n volgehoue ​​manier nie,,en,En vandaar,,en,ons voortdurende behoefte om individualisties en anders te wees en om ons verskil te bewys en teorieë te maak oor die wêreld wat ons rondom ons sien,,en,Ek dink normale dood,,en,nie Nirvana of Samadhi nie,,en,is die einde van die individuele differensiasie,,en,kennis ens,,en,In die mate dat ons niks onthou en weet nie,,en,eerste hand,,en,niks voor ons geboorte nie,,en,ons kom uit niks,,en,En ons dood moet 'n samesmelting wees met niksheid of alles wat Brahman is nie,,en,'N Mens kan dit ook sê,,en. This does not happen in us, allegedly, except in extreme circumstances (so-called Nirvana or Samadhi) and certainly not in a sustained way. And hence, our constant need to be individualist and different and to prove our difference and make theories about the world we see around us.

I think normal death (not Nirvana or Samadhi) is the end of the individual differentiation, knowledge etc. To the extent that we remember nothing and know (first hand) nothing from before our birth, we come from nothing. And our death has to be a merging with nothingness or everythingness that is Brahman.

So, to sum it up, the point I would like to make is that the notion of Absolute Reality separate from Reality is flawed.

This point, I’m not sure I agree with. To the extent that Maya is a manifestation or projection of Brahman, they are the same. But they are also distinct as sound is different from air pressure waves or smell is different from chemicals. (Or, as a Njana yoga book put it, heat is different from fire).

The notion that one can reach the AR through better analysis of R is even more flawed.

This I agree with. But we may not have to get to AR to understand our perceived R better.

So, what does that leave us with? That if you explain something (such as GRBs), you are explaining both the AR and R because they are intertwined. Further, the beauty of this that any theory conceivable (proven or disproved, falsifiable or not in a scientific method) explains both AR and R, because the explanations are products of our senses and intellect, which are parts of our world. If we have perceived it, dit moet in die wêreld AR of R wees of andersins,,en,as u aan hierdie kwessies dink,,en,die gevaar bestaan ​​dat dit in een van twee idees sal stollig,,en,Een daarvan is dat AR of Brahman onbegryplik en ver buite ons bereik is en dat ons ons nie moet bekommer oor die eienskappe daarvan nie,,en,Die ander is dat PR of Maya al is waarmee ons moet werk,,en,ons teoretisering moet daartoe beperk wees,,en,Watter,,en,Ek glo,,en,is die basis van wetenskaplike realisme,,en,My boek is waarskynlik 'n ondersoek na 'n middelgrond,,en,suksesvol of nie,,en,Dit lyk asof u albei hierdie begrippe vermaak,,en,'N Mens hoef nie standpunt in te neem nie,,en,soos gewoonlik in die wetenskap gedoen word,,en,'N Mens kan met die teenstrydighede leef,,en,van die onbegryplike AR en die moontlikheid om met die beperkings van ons sintuie en intellek te werk,,en.

In my view, when thinking about these issues, there is a danger of coagulating into one of two notions. One is that AR or Brahman is incomprehensible and way beyond our reach and we shouldn’t worry about its properties. The other is that to the extent that PR or Maya is all we have to work with, our theorizings should be confined to it. Which, I believe, is the basis of scientific realism. My book is probably an exploration in finding a middle ground, successful or not. You seem to entertain both these notions.

In the end, what we don’t know is what we don’t know. Ons kan met verskillende sienings en oortuigings en metodes vorendag kom om ons onkunde aan te val,,en,maar in 'n stadium,,en,ons moet net aanvaar dat daar grense is vir wat ons kan weet,,en,Inderdaad,,en,Waarvan ek moet waak, is wetenskaplike arrogansie,,en,Arrogansie dat wetenskaplike metodes wat ons alleen voorgehou het, kan ons vrae beantwoord,,en,'N Sekere nederigheid en verwarring by dinge rondom ons sal ons almal goed doen,,en,In elk geval,,en,dit was 'n tydjie sedert ek sulke gesprekke gevoer het,,en,Dit is goed om hierdie gedagtes weer aan te wakker,,en,dankie,,en, but at some stage, we just have to accept that there are limits to what we can know.

Anyways, it has been a while since I had conversations of this kind. Good to rekindle these thoughts, thanks.

– cheers,
– Manoj

Comments

One thought on “What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.”

Comments are closed.