You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00045 Apr 2003

 
Apr 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list