Follow by Email

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Proper understanding of the 'Ultimate Principle'

Shri Sabhlok replied as follows to the 'Ultimate Principle'.

Dear Ramesh, thanks for the detailed note you sent. Just a few points (I'll also send by email).
Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created
True, in a closed system energy can’t be created. However, as Rajaji notes in one of his books, “Out of nothing, nothing can come. The causeless beginning was Sat, being with consciousness”. Anyway, this is the whole point. I have no answer on this. Your assumption is yours. I don’t comment on it.
Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist.
Clearly, I’m lost. Just because energy (according to you) could not have been created, it doesn’t make it non-real.
Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth. And Dvaita states that Maya is truth. The secret is that one is non-existent without the other. 
All this is a philosophical viewpoint. I have no comment since this doesn’t interest me.
Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings. However you put up the theory of creation all hold equally good. It needs only to satisfy the common sense of the common man. Its purpose can’t be more than that.
I talk for the benefit only of common men and women. I don’t care for uncommon men and women. If these theories can feed them, please use them. Else this information is irrelevant. 
Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings. 
I disagree. I need to ask many, many questions! Who is this Gnani? You? Then please write a book explaining how to create a wealthy and healthy India using your principles.
Regards
Sanjeev

I replied it as follows:

Dear Sabhlok,
Please proceed to read the following only if you think the ‘Creation, Stardust and Carbon’ is an essential and serious enough chapter of your DoF. Or else I suggest you to acknowledge in DoF itself that this chapter is not of that substantial nature and the discussion on this may be avoided.
I regret my last comment failed miserably to kindle and arouse the much expected curiosity and get the same quenched adequately about the very basic question of scientific creation of universe which, in your view, however, turned out to be a pure personal matter which bothered you the least.
Before I post my future comments on this blog I expect a healthy, deep and sincere attitude as the same has come under doubt for the reasons detailed below and since these may have a lasting effect on both your books.
1.      Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created…….You replied ending that it is my personal assumption and that you have no comments and that further you did not elaborate on ‘sat and consciousness’. May I request you to read the same once again and see whether it is scientific or personal one? Just because it is beyond your personal comprehension doesn’t make it necessarily a personal thing and devoid of the pure science and which at the same time is so relevant to your concerned chapter. Don’t you think you are insincere in accepting your inability to comprehend the same? Don’t you think this attitude of yours make this chapter of yours less serious and devoid of adequate responsibility?
2.      Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist…..You replied that it doesn’t make the universe a non real. Note that ‘Things do not exist’ is a result of the above science (the principle - which you should either understand or be unable to do so but could never call it personal) and that ‘universe is not unrealis what we see and perceive. The secret of universe and also the success of science lies in reconciling these seemingly contradictions which are a result of the same scientific approach. You have poorly failed to realise this implication of the comment and comment on it accordingly.
3.      Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth and…….you ended saying these are philosophical views. Here you have safely ignored the scientific answer provided to the above contradiction by the Advaita and Dvaita. Here you failed to draw a proper line of difference between philosophy and science. It is a result of you strong pre-conviction that these (Advaita etc) are only philosophy- a personal and private things! Do you have any right to call a thing a philosophy when it is in consonance with the science simply because of your pre-conceived ideas and your inability to see the pure science in so called philosophy?
4.      Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings… You replied that you care only for commons….and that my comment is to feed those who feed on it. Is not your theory of Capitalism and Freedom for the commons ones? Then why does not it find instant acceptance by the common Indians/and elsewhere? The answer is- to begin with, every common thing is an uncommon thing till the common understands it. Thus you failed badly to understand that ‘it is a matter of understanding by the common one’ and not a matter of ‘commons and uncommons’ itself. You also indirectly meant (by ‘all are common’) that all men are equal in intelligence and wisdom and in similar respects. They why this different opinions and debates in real life? And why one should listen to Swami Vivekanand and similars? Why not leave all our efforts to set the things right, right now if all are equal? Being all equal there won’t be any cause to fight for!!!. My essence is that all men are not equal, but some are more equal and among these again some are more equal and so on. Thus it forms the pyramid and not a flat in r/o ability, intelligence, qualifications, skills (and also in r/o of governance to be discussed separately) etc. You took the things entirely wayward!!!
5.      Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings……… here you decried the Gnani as defined by me (or rather by the principle) and instead exhorted to me to use the above principles to create wealthy and healthy India.  Do you means that in this blog and other similar things we are trying to play against each other and making a time-pass? You fail to see that seating somewhere on the scale of knowledge, wisdom, understanding etc we are not only writing a book but also trying to create a great wealth and health and much more for the Indians through this blog and my comments (ultimate principle – outcome of your chapters insufficient approach) are part of that effort and thus discharging our duty as a Gnani (at least to some extent- till it finds total acceptance)
Thus don’t you think such a sort of understanding on your part is something unmaking of you? My last comment (The ultimate principle as a pure science- and never as a personal thing even though it is my version) is likely to have a lasting effect on your approach (and not in r/o the goal of eradication of all the ills which human is suffering from- with which I myself have identified long ago) and everything in the world. However I do don’t expect this sort of the attitude and superficial level of depth of understanding on your part as detailed above since it will make our effort more tedious and exhaust us unproductively.
In case you find anything in the above comment anything such as a personal (remarks) or private things, then you or me or anybody else will have to forfeit his right to think about the others since the life itself is a thing of personal/private concern (whether it affect the other or not~ treating human unsocial)! I hope you will never agree to this!
I will be grateful to you if you let me know how I misunderstood you or lack the sufficient knowledge in the above reasoning if any (except a sort like yours as above!)

No comments:

Post a Comment