What is Real? Discussions with Ranga.

Tue, May 22, 2007 at 5:27 AM

Permulaan pengenalan anda menunjukkan bahawa ada proses membuat Maya dan dengan memahami proses ini, seseorang dapat melihat mengapa cahaya sangat istimewa dalam konsep ruang dan waktu kita yang luar biasa,,en,hujah kesimpulannya hilang tanpa menjelaskan sepenuhnya mengapa cahaya begitu istimewa,,en,Anda mungkin meninggalkan beberapa bahagian dalam e-mel ini,,en,Walau apa pun,,en,mengapa cahaya harus begitu istimewa,,en,Tanpa ragu ragu,,en,ia mempunyai tempat yang istimewa dalam teori Einstein,,en,pada masa ini difahami untuk meletakkan had pada kelajuan pergerakan objek di dunia,,en,objek tanpa jisim diambil untuk dapat mencapai had ini,,en,ia mempunyai kelajuan tidak berubah di semua media dan dalam semua sistem koordinat,,en,ia mempunyai kepentingan khusus untuk penglihatan sebagai modaliti deria yang paling penting pada manusia kerana jangkauan ruangnya,,en,sejauh mana,,en. 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.

I don’t suggest that the absolute reality can be understood or known using our investigations in our phenomenal world. 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. With this knowledge or distinction seriously applied to astrophysical phenomena, 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. membawa kepada Maya atau ilusi,,en,Seseorang tidak boleh berharap dapat mengatasi masalah siapa yang mencipta Maya dengan menjelaskan dengan tujuan atau bentuk tertentu,,en,Sebanyak Brahman tidak dapat dihubungi dengan mengupas semua kesalahan persepsi,,en,Brahman atau noumenon juga tidak dapat dihubungi dengan menjumlahkan semua makhluk,,en,dunia fenomenal,,en,Anda mungkin membayangkan makhluk yang mempunyai semua deria dan akal,,en,ekolokasi kelawar,,en,infrasensing gajah dll,,en,Tetapi itu bererti anda akan mewujudkan seluruh noumena itu sendiri dalam makhluk itu,,en,Di sini saya mungkin tidak sesuai dengan anda kerana saya hanya menaip dengan cepat ketika fikiran muncul kepada saya,,en,Apa maksudnya bagi saya ialah,,en,Brahman dan Maya adalah satu dan sama,,en,Untuk menjadikan ini lebih difahami oleh diri kita sendiri,,en,dengan kos mengotorkannya,,en.

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 – ia dapat dilihat sebagai aliran berterusan di Brahman,,en,interaksi berterusan alam semesta objek dan makhluk di dalamnya sebagai manifestasi fenomena,,en,Interaksi ini menghasilkan pembezaan tertentu pengenalan objek dan makhluk sebagai individu dan keperluan untuk kelangsungan hidup individu-individu ini,,en,Kelahiran pembezaan ini adalah permulaan dunia fenomenal yang tidak saya bicarakan dari segi evolusi atau kemunculan kehidupan di sini,,en,Wawasan kritikal bahawa kita sebenarnya adalah sebahagian dari keseluruhan adalah kematian pembezaan ini dan penyerahan semula kepada Brahman kesedaran ini disebut Atman,,en,Ini tidak berlaku dalam diri kita,,en,kononnya,,en,kecuali dalam keadaan yang melampau,,en,dipanggil Nirvana atau Samadhi,,en,dan pastinya tidak secara berterusan,,en,Oleh itu,,en, 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. 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, keperluan berterusan kita untuk menjadi individualis dan berbeza dan membuktikan perbezaan kita dan membuat teori mengenai dunia yang kita lihat di sekeliling kita,,en,untuk meringkaskannya,,en,perkara yang ingin saya sampaikan ialah bahawa konsep Realiti Mutlak yang terpisah dari Realiti adalah cacat,,en,Gagasan bahawa seseorang dapat mencapai AR melalui analisis R yang lebih baik bahkan lebih cacat,,en,apa yang meninggalkan kita dengan,,en,Itu jika anda menerangkan sesuatu,,en,seperti GRB,,en,anda menerangkan kedua-dua AR dan R kerana ia saling berkaitan,,en,Lebih jauh,,en,keindahan ini yang boleh difikirkan oleh teori apa pun,,en,terbukti atau dibantah,,en,boleh dipalsukan atau tidak dalam kaedah saintifik,,en,menerangkan kedua-dua AR dan R,,en,kerana penjelasannya adalah produk dari akal dan akal kita,,en,yang merupakan bahagian dunia kita,,en,Sekiranya kita telah menyedarinya,,en,semestinya di dunia AR atau R atau sebaliknya,,en.

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, it should be in the world AR or R or otherwise.

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. 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.

– cheers,
– Manoj

Comments

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

Comments are closed.