Tue, 월 22, 2007 에서 5:27 AM
Maya를 만드는 과정이 있음을 시사하는 최초의 시작부터, 공간과 시간에 대한 경이적인 개념에서 왜 빛이 그렇게 특별한지를 알 수있는이 과정을 이해함으로써,,en,결론적 인 주장은 왜 빛이 그렇게 특별한지를 완전히 설명하지 않고 가늘어지는 것이다.,,en,이 이메일에 일부 부분을 빠뜨린 것 같습니다.,,en,왜 빛이 그렇게 특별해야합니까?,,en,의심 할 여지없이,,en,아인슈타인 이론에 특별한 장소가있다.,,en,그것은 현재 세계에서 물체의 움직임 속도에 제한을 두는 것으로 이해되고 있습니다.,,en,이 한계에 도달 할 수 있도록 만들어진 질량이 적은 물체,,en,모든 매체와 모든 좌표계에서 불변 속도를 가진다.,,en,그것은 시각적으로 인간의 가장 중요한 감각 양상으로서 공간적 도달 때문에 특별한 의미를 지닌다.,,en,범위,,en. 그러나, the concluding argument tapers off without completely explaining why light is so special. You probably left out some parts in this email?
예, 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.
I don’t suggest that the absolute reality can be understood or known using our investigations in our phenomenal world. 하지만, it may be possible use the fact that the abs. reality IS different from our perception of it. 예를 들면, if we model (for the sake of argument) an absolute reality that obeys classical (갈릴리) 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. 하지만, 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. With this knowledge or distinction seriously applied to astrophysical phenomena, we can already come up with good explanations for GRB and radio jets. 사실, 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.
음, 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. 이러한 상호 작용은 개인과 사물의 동일시와 이들 개인의 생존의 필요성을 식별하는 특정한 차별을 낳는다.,,en,이러한 차별화의 탄생은 경이로운 세계의 시작입니다. 여기서 나는 삶의 진화 또는 출현에 관해 이야기하지 않습니다.,,en,우리가 실제로 전체의 일부라는 비판적인 통찰력은이 차별의 죽음이며, 브라만에 대한 재 제출은이 사실을 Atman,,en,이것은 우리에게 일어나지 않는다.,,en,주장한 바에 의하면,,en,극한 상황을 제외하고는,,en,이른바 너바나 (Nirvana) 또는 사마 디 (Samadhi),,en,확실하게 지속적인 방법으로는 아니된다.,,en,그리고 그러므로,,en,우리는 끊임없이 개인주의적이고 다른 존재가되어야하며 우리의 차이점을 증명하고 우리 주변에있는 세계에 대한 이론을 만들어야합니다.,,en,그것을 요 약하기,,en. 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. The critical insight that we are actually part of a whole is the death of this differentiation and the resubmission to the Brahman the realization of this is called Atman. 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, 지식 등. 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.
그래서, to sum it up, 내가하고자하는 요점은 현실과 분리 된 절대 실체의 개념이 결함이 있다는 것입니다,,en,R의 더 나은 분석을 통해 AR에 도달 할 수 있다는 개념은 더욱 결함이 있습니다,,en,그게 우리를 떠나는거야?,,en,뭔가 설명하면,,en,GRB와 같은,,en,AR과 R이 서로 얽혀 있기 때문에 설명하고 있습니다.,,en,어떤 이론이라도 상상할 수있는 그 아름다움,,en,입증되었거나 반증 됨,,en,과학적 방법으로 반박 할 수있는가,,en,AR과 R 모두를 설명합니다.,,en,설명은 우리의 감각과 지성의 산물이기 때문에,,en,우리 세계의 일부입니다.,,en,우리가 그것을 감지했다면,,en,세계 AR 또는 R에 있어야합니다. 그렇지 않으면,,en,인수가 갈수록 충분하지 않을 수도 있습니다.,,en,하지만이게 내가 생각해 낼 수있는 최선이야.,,en,광산,,en,혼란과 bewilders는 설명보다 더,,en.
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. (또는, 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.
그래서, 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. 또한, 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, it should be in the world AR or R or otherwise.
내 관점에서, 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, 저는 믿습니다, 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. We can come up with different views and beliefs and methods to attack our ignorance, 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.
– 의 Manoj