I should say a million times, that Advaita is not physics. Especially after the publication of such books as "The Tao of Physics" and the endless Deepak Chopra stuff there is a great danger that what I have to say here will be misunderstood.
Superstring Theory says that everything in the universe and the space-time within which everything in the universe exists is a manifestation of superstrings.
In this sense, string theory is a monistic theory.
The only reason to mention string theory is to remind people that they are familiar with monism, even if they didn't know it.
Advaita is a monistic philosophy. It however takes consciousness to be the root of everything, not strings. In a physical theory like string theory, consciousness is a side-product of sufficiently complex agglomerations of matter, like our brains and accompanying bodies. In Advaita, space, time, matter are side-products of consciousness.
Advaita cannot be a theory of physics, nor be mathematical.
The last thing to mention is that as per Advaita, this insight into the nature of things is available directly to the awareness. It does not require mathematics, or particle colliders to confirm this, as per Advaita, it takes a prepared mind.
A whole system of ethics and an entire culture flow from the (Hindu) accretions around this core idea. However, Hinduism is much more than Advaita and includes denials of the core idea as well.
Note that just as one could have and does have several religions around the transcendent personal god of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, one could have several religions about this absolute monism. The "religious" component of Advaita comes from the specific practices and traditions that it has bound to itself from Hinduism.
So is my current understanding. It is of course, subject to revision, upon greater understanding.
Is Advaita true? Fortunately, it doesn't matter. Yes, I know I have made an extremely provocative statement. The point is that there is no value in belief or non-belief in Advaita, what matters is what you do. Following the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have done unto you") is an excellent starting point, for instance. There are many "derivations" of the golden rule in different cultures. In Advaita, the derivation is that the others **are** you. You have to see this directly, and making a habit of the rule helps, supposedly.
RAINSBERG Photo-X Backpack (Save up to $140)
3 hours ago
1 comment:
I realise this is an older post. But interesting for me.
As you will find people carry multiple interpretations of the superstring theory depending on how close or farther away they are with the theory, the same holds for Advaita. As a means of understanding it requires a certain amount of personal discipline to understand and work with, similar to the effort a scientist puts to understanding a theory. In that context, it appears your comments on Advaita show the understanding is not complete in some places.
To define it as a monistic theory/philosophy itself is clearly dealt with and logically surmised as incorrect in many well established schools of thought. If one understands Advaita it is very clear how it is not monism (monism still requires the acknowledgement of truth based on a subject).However I will not draw attention to this part. I would rather draw attention to 2 points you make:
1. Consciousness being a side-product in string theory, while it is the starting point/root in Advaita:
Advaita does not treat anything as a side product, that would be contrary to its premise. In its truest sense it simply is interested in establishing the Truth through means available to human capacity. Yes Advaita is not physics or mathematics, but not being able to classify it itself does not make for a point. It acknowledges the 'buddhi' through which physics or mathematics is a discernable means of understanding the physical world. Where it points to is that any way of studying the physical world needs to assume both the object and subject. Scientific approach completely ignores the subject, or at best makes an assumption on its behalf. It cannot grapple with the 'fact' any objective fact or observation is totally irrelevant and immaterial without the subject. While it tries to find a consistent story in the objective realm, it simply assumes the subject is a constant or ignores it. Advaita uses the means of scientific reason and logic to address this study.(it uses the same tools that a scientific mind uses viz direct observation, inferential capacity (indirect), proof through axiomatic assumption (pramana) to address this study.It is not interested in postulating anything eventually.Infact, when understood, it in essence negates itself.
2.As with the second point on needing a prepared mind to experience insight into nature on things - it is established right in the beginning that the Truth or reality is not experiencable through the mind. If it is experiencable (in any way) then there is subject-object. A prepared mind is required not to realise gain the insight, but to really undertake a genuine self-equiry. And that is a study, a logical, clinical process of uncovering and bringing the ignorance to light. That is about it.
As with the 'religious' practices, rituals and ceremonial aspect around this path, infact it has very less to do with the Advaitic study itself. Advaita does not reject anything including any kind of practise or study. It however does not recommend any specific approach or path over the other. That is not of interest.
Post a Comment