In search of 'TRUTH'

[Shakthiprabha.]

Lets discuss about WHAT WE UNDERSTAND in the process of this journey towards truth.

THIS THREAD IS BEYOND religion and kindly lets refrain from religius talks, UNLESS to quote relevant thigns froM ANY RELIGION.

[Shakthiprabha.]

nantragna n bahishpragna nomyatragna n pragnandhanan n pragna napragnam |
adrushtam-vyavharyam-grahyam-lakshanyam-chintyam-vyapdeshyam-ekatmpratya-yasarn- praptrochopashamn shant-shivmdait chaturth manayante sa atma sa vigneya: || 7 ||

- Mandukya Upanishad.

So whats ur understanding!?

[Badri]

Nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness
na bahih prajnam = Not outward focussed consciousness
no'bhayatah- prajnam = Not a combination of the two
na prajnanaghanam = not the dark mass of consciousness or ignorance
na prajnam = not knowing
na-aprajnam = not not-knowing
adrishtam = unseen
avyavaharayam = indescribable
agrahyam = ungraspable or intangible
alakshanam = devoid of attributes
acintyam = unthinkable
avyapadesyam = indefinable
ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence
prapancopasarnam = the sublimation of Prapancha or the world
santam = peaceful
sivam = auspicous
advaitam = non-dual one
caturtham manyante = this fourth state
sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known

[Badri]

The Mandukya is a very significant Upanishad that reveals the truth about practical Advaita.

The Mandukya Karika written by Gaudapada the Mahaguru of Adi Sankara is considered to be a beautiful exposition and commentary on the essence of the Upanishad.

Seekers of the Truth in the Advaitic tradition always hold this Upanishad in the highest regard.

[Shakthiprabha.]

Badri, looks like u are well versed with sanskrit, and hence can stand to clarify any doubts if arising.
_________-

na (न) - No/Not
antah (अन्तः) - Inside/Inner/Internal
pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Knowable/Acquaintable/Knowing
bahis (बहिस्) - Outside/Outward/Outer/Excluded/External
ubhayatah (उभयतः) - On both side/In both cases
pragyaan (प्रज्ञान) - Cognisance/Knowing
ghanam/ghana (घनम्/घन) - Dense/Dark/Solid/Hard
apragyam (अप्रज्ञम्) - a (अ) + pragyam (प्रज्ञम्) - Non-knowable/Non-knowing - Unknowable
adrishhtam (अदृष्टम्) - a (अ) + drishhtam (दृष्टम्) - Non-seeable/Non-viewable - Invisible
avyavahaaryam (अव्यवहार्यम्) - a (अ) + vyavahaaryam (व्यवहार्यम्) - Non-actionable/Non-interact-able.
agraahyam (अग्राह्यम्) - a (अ) + graahyam (ग्राह्यम्) - Non-grasp-able/Non-comprehensible - Imperceptible/Incomprehensible
alakshanam (अलक्षणम्) - a (अ) + lakshanam (लक्षणम्) - Non-characteristic - Not having any characteristics.
achintyam (अचिन्त्यम्) - a (अ) + chintyam (चिन्त्यम्) - Non-reflection-able/Non-thinkable - Inconceivable
avyapadeshyam (अव्यपदेश्यम्) - a (अ) + vyapadeshyam (व्यपदेश्यम्) - Non-mentionable
ekaatma (एकात्म) - eka (एक) + aatma (आत्म) - Single self
pratyaya (प्रत्यय) - Conception/Conviction/Notion/Idea
saaram (सारम्) - Substance/Quintessence
pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness
shaantam (शान्तम्) - Peaceful
shivam (शिवम्) - Auspicious/Kind/Friendly/Gracious/Happy
advaitam (अद्वैतम्) - a (अ) + dvaitam (द्वैतम्) - Non-dual
chaturtham (चतुर्थम्) - Fourth
manyante (मन्यन्ते) - Deem/View as
sah (सः) - He
aatmaa (आत्मा) - Self/Soul/Spirit
vigyeyah (विज्ञेयः) - To be known


__

This is something I got from a website.

Shivam - explanation is given as auspicious(as said by u too), kind, gracious etc.

I have a doubt if Shiva also means STATIC?

Also,

pra (प्र) - To/"used as prefix"
pancha (पञ्च) - Five
upashamam (उपशमम्) - Cessation/Abatement/Extinction/Calmness

states CESSATION of prapancha. Since prapancha is nothing but pancha bootha in its various proportions, its nothing but CESSATION of external world

cessation here DOES NOT MEAN NON-EXISTING. but rightly may be comprehended as exalted in state ?

But then THIS TURYAM IS NOT A STATE at all!
its transcends all states too Its JUST BEING.

As rightly the verse says...

TRUTH cannot be KNOWN... but it is not that
IT IS NOT-KNOWN too.

It is something which KNOWN yet NOT-KNOWN (not-known is not UNKNOWN here! )

[Badri]

Shivam is auspiciousness. I havent come across the other meaning of static.

Upashamam maybe rightly translated as being withdrawn into, where the notion or the idea of the world merges back into the Being from which it emerged.

The knowing-not knowing has a deeper significance. Knowing implies someone to know. Then once again we end up with the triad of knower-known-knowledge.

Not knowing implies once again a triad of knower-known-ignorance. Truth being one, therefore it cannot be subject to the Triputis or the triads.

[Rohit]

nantah-prajnam = Not inward turned consciousness (Inward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

na bahis prajnam = Not outward focused consciousness (Outward of what and whose consciousness? Who says this and to whom?)

no'bhayatah-prajnam = Not a combination of the two (Combination of which two-dualism? Where and/or how are the two located and/or organised? Who says this and to whom?)

na prajnanaghanam = not a dark mass of consciousness (What is meant by dark and mass here? Where does ignorance reside? And who says this to whom?

Note: ghanam = volume or mass; therefore, na prajnanaghanam = not a volume or mass of consciousness

na prajnam = not knowing (About what is not knowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

na-aprajnam = not unknowing (About what is not unknowing and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

adrishtam = unseen (What is unseen and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyavaharayam = not describable (What is not describable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

Note: avyavaharayam = beyond empirical dealings, not related to any worldly dealings.

agrahyam = beyond grasp or intangible (What is beyond grasp and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

alakshanam = devoid of attributes (Well, what are we all doing here anyway?)

acintyam = unthinkable (What is unthinkable and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

avyapadesyam = inexpressible (What is inexpressible and by whom? Who says this and to whom?)

ekatmapratyayasaram = of the nature of its own essence (What is 'its'? Who says this and to whom?)

prapancopasarnam = Negation of all phenomena (Is it really so? I don't think so)

santam = peaceful (Is it really so? I don't think so)

sivam = auspicous (Is it really so? I don't think so)

advaitam = non-dual (Well, who is debating here and with whom? Who is contradicting whom and on what?

caturtham manyante = this fourth state (What is this fourth? What does it relate to? Who says this and to whom?)

sa atma sa vijneyah = is the Atma to be known (Who says this and to whom?)

Since Atma is already assumed, the fallacy of false dichotomy is already committed; and the whole definition becomes the fallacy of 'begging the question' or the fallacy of 'circular reference'.

I have spent enough time on this, please refer to my posts in the following threads and read what I have said and proved.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...r=asc&start=30

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...er=asc&start=0

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=150

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=450

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...=asc&start=465

Therefore, I do not think discussing this topic once more is going to bring anything new and serve any purpose.

However, the rest of you may continue. I may pay occasional visits when I have something to say.

Enjoy the discussion.

[pradheep]

here is a nice article on Einstein telling that he is not an atheist. His beautiful quaote is

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...7298-2,00.html

[Rohit]

Spinoza's God was refuted by the Big Bang

First of all, Einstein’s religious beliefs had kept changing over time. From the beginning, Einstein believed in a static universe that operated under deterministic laws of physics; and therefore he rejected the belief in a Creator God. But he was impressed with Spinoza’s concept of God as described in the article, which allowed him to continue his religious beliefs as well as a determinist.

Later, Einstein applied his own field equations of general theory of relativity with the insertion of a cosmological constant to develop a static model of the universe. But Hubble’s observational evidences of redshifts of cosmic structures falsified Einstein’s belief of a static universe and proved that the universe was not static but it was expanding.

Einstein’s own field equations of general theory of relativity were used to develop the Big Bang model of an expanding universe, which remains valid for our universe.

Einstein later realised his mistake and admitted that he committed the biggest blunder of his life by introducing the cosmological constant in his field equations.

Also, the ever-mounting success of quantum theory issued even a bigger and fatal blow to Einstein’s deterministic beliefs.

With all these mounting evidences, Einstein had no choice but to admit to the beginning of the universe, which also refuted his belief in the Spinoza’s God.

Thus, with all these changes and new developments in theoretical and experimental physics, Einstein’s religious beliefs also kept changing over time.

Finally, Einstein settled his religious feelings in Buddhism; and that is how he remained for the rest of his life.

The entire collection of Einstein’s quotes in circulation, clearly shows how his religious beliefs gradually changed and drifted over the time.

There are numerous books and articles that give clear account of how new developments in physical science changed Einstein.

The following two references are just exemplary two references from the set of many, which clearly describes Einstein’s struggle in coming to terms with his beliefs.

• 1. "A Brief History of Time" - By Stephen Hawking
  
  2. "The Universe Unfolding" - Edited by Hermann Bondi and Miranda Weston-Smith

[nemesis786]

Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory
Sean at 6:21 pm, February 4th, 2006

You’ve heard, I hope, about NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who the Bush administration tried to silence when he called for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. Cosmology, as it turns out, is not exempt from the radical anti-science agenda. The New York Times, via Atrios:

In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.

…

The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the “war room” of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen’s public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word “theory” needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is “not proven fact; it is opinion,” Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, “It is not NASA’s place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator.”

It continued: “This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.”

Emphasis added. Draw your own conclusions, I’m feeling a bit of outrage fatigue at the moment.

Update: Phil Plait has extensive comments at Bad Astronomy Blog. Also Pharyngula, Balloon Juice, Stranger Fruit, Gary Farber, Mark Kleiman, World O’ Crap, and Hullabaloo.

Update again, for our new visitors: Folks, of course the Big Bang model is a theory, and of course it is also correct. It has been tested beyond reasonable doubt: our current universe expanded from a hot, dense, smooth state about 14 billion years ago. The evidence is overwhelming, and we have hard data (from primordial nucleosynthesis) that the model was correct as early as one minute after the initial singularity.

Of course the initial singularity (the “Bang” itself) is not understood, and there are plenty of other loose ends. But the basic framework — expanding from an early hot, dense, smooth state — is beyond reasonable dispute.

It’s too bad that scientific education in this country is so poor that many people don’t understand what is meant by “theory” or “model.” It doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04...just-a-theory/