Krishna Jayanti Post

Dedicated to அமலனாதிபிரான் (Amalanadipiran - One who is devoid of any impurity).

I was thinking of posting something dedicated to Sri Krishna on Janmashtami. Sri Krishna was born on 'Rohini' star which coincides with the star of Thiruppanazhwar (one of the 12 great saints of Sri Vaishnava tradition). So, I thought it would be fitting to write about Amalanadipiran - a beautiful composition of Thiruppanazhwar.

The charm of Amalanadipiran goes beyond description. This set of 10 short poems (paasurams) describe the beauty of Sri Ranganatha in Sri Rangam. Starting from His Lotus Feet to His Beautiful Eyes, Thiruppanaahzwar sings in praise of His Looks. When it comes to the last poem, he merges with the Lord. The following is the last poem and its translation.

கொண்டல் வண்ணனை கோவலனாய் வெண்ணெய்
உண்ட வாயன் * என் உள்ளம் கவர்தானை *
அண்டர் கோன் அணி அரங்கன் என் அமுதினைக்
கண்ட கண்கள் * மற்றொன்றினைக் காணாவே ||

Translation : He who has the form of a moisture laden cloud, who has the mouth with which He ate butter when born as a yadava, who stole my heart, who is the Lord of the nithyasooris, who rests in Srirangam which is an ornament to this world, who is nectar to me, the eyes which saw Him, will not see anything else.

The appeal of this poem is amplified if one goes through the rest of the poems where he always says "My mind", "My heart" where ever he is engrossed in the beauty of the Lord (this is not despicable, when one is enlightened). But, when it comes to the last line where he completely loses himself to Him, he says "kaNdakaNkaL", instead of "En kaNkal" or "My eyes". There is no longer distinction. Also, Amalanadipiran is unique among the works of azhwars. In the works of every other azhwar, when the compositions are coming to an end, they say so and so praises Him. But, Thiruppanazhwar forgets even that which ascribes full glory to Him. There are other interesting features in Amalanadipiran. The initial three words of first three poems are amalanAthipirAn, uvantha, manthipAy respectively. When we take their first letters we get AUM - the pranava. Similarly, there are continuous stanzas which begins as pAramAya, thundaveNpiRaiyan, kaiynAr and if we take the first three letters they give raise to Pathukai - or the Divine Feet. More than these things, the grandeur of the composition lies in places where he himself finds the Lord beyond description and thus finding it difficult to replace by words, he says "aiyO" (seyyavAy aiyO). In short, Amalanadipiran symbolizes the epitome of Bakthi that mankind can ever comprehend.

Science and Religion

The theory of relativity acknowledges the existence of the relative world. Although, I haven't studied the theory, I am sure it involves highly complicated mathematical equations. These equations in math rely heavily on axioms. And axioms are self-evident truths that needs no explanation/proof. Thus, science comes up with the notion of the relative world by assuming an absolute (self-evident truths or axioms). Is it not the same case with religion which assumes an Absolute and tries to come up with explanations to the manifold of relative phenomena? Isn't God a self-evident truth ?

Being Impersonal

The following is a verse from Nasadiya Sukta - the 129th sukta of the 10th mandala in Rig Veda.

i`yaṁ visṛ̍ṣṭi`ryata̍'āba`bhūva̍ yadi̍ vā da`dhe yadi̍ vā` na |
yo'a`syādhya̍kṣaḥ para`me vyo̍ma`ntso'a`ṁga ve̍da` yadi̍ vā` na veda̍ || 7 ||

The meaning is as follows :

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or may be even he does not know.

I could appreciate something really interesting here. The verse shows the height of being impersonal and having a scientific frame of mind and not yielding to the cherished opinion that "It is God who made everything". Who ever came up with this verse, seems to be a theist. But, he never claims his God created the universe and things. He says God just surveys everything and he also may or may not 'know' who created the universe. Such an unbiased attitude. Great indeed are the seers.

Aham Brahmaasmi.

I am inspired to take this post following Anand's critical review of "Aham Brahmaasmi" or "I am Brahman". He beautifully draws interesting parallels in mathematics for the mahavakya. I concur with his views and I want to put it in my way of understanding.
The statement "I am Brahman" is different from the statements like "I am a man" or "I am a woman". These are clear statements because all of us know what "man" or "woman" means. But the very word "Brahman" for most of us mean different things and the statement "I am Brahman" cannot stand alone without substantiating what "Brahman" means. So the truth of the statement lies in saying

S1 : I am Brahman
S2 : Brahman is so and so...

This is analogous to the following scenario. Consider statement T1,

T1 : The following statement is true.

This is a true statement, in the sense that it has a truth value to it. Now, I introduce another statement.

T2 : The preceding statement is false.

Consider T1 and T2. Now, what happens to the truth of the statement T1 ? Is T1 true or false ? We can see T1 is no longer true. Thus, the validity of the statement T1 is not just restricted to T1 but lies on what statements that follow T1. If we say "I am Brahman" and say "Brahman is so and so" then the validity of the statement "I am Brahman" lies on the attributes of Brahman like "Brahman is so and so" rather than the word "Brahman" itself. Or in other words, "Brahman" is inseparable from his attributes for a consistent valid statement "Aham Brahmaasmi".

Knowledge - Transcendental and Intellectual

This is a passage I liked from the book "Human Being in Depth : A Scientific Approach to Religion" by Swami Ranganadananda. This is a *highly* recommended book for people interested in the synthesis of science and religion.

################

In the Mundaka Upanishad [I.1,3], we find this question put by a earnest student to a great teacher : "What is that reality, O blessed One, by knowing which we can know all that there is in this manifested universe ?"
Is there such a unique reality by knowing that we can understand all the manifestations of nature, internal as well as external ? Is there a unity behind this diversity, a One behind the many ? To this the teacher gave a very significant reply:

There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired by man; so say the knowers of Brahman. One is called transcendental knowledge (para vidya), the other is knowledge of intellectual nature (apara vidya).

Both must be cultivated. Of these, intellectual knowledge, says the teachers of the Upanishads, consists of the sacred Vedas, phonetics, the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, prosody, and astronomy. In fact it comprises what we today would call the "entire gamut of positivistic knowledge," including the secondhand knowledge of the experience of religion contained in the sacred books of all religions. Here in this Upanishad we have a scientific mind of the highest order-impersonal and detached. There is no desire to put forth a cherished opinion. Truth alone is the motive power, even if that truth goes against one's attachments and aversions. The teacher says that even the Vedas, the sacred book of the Indian people, belong to the category of ordinary knowledge. Who would dare say that one's own sacred books are ordinary, except one who is of a detached and scientific frame of mind, who is in search of truth and not dogma; who has nothing to hide, no opinion to uphold, no prejudice to defend, who just wants to know the truth and is prepared to sacrifice everything else in the bargain.
No religion except that derived from the Upanishadic tradition has practiced this bold detachment. The follower of every other religion, if asked what is ordinary knowledge, would unheisatingly reply: All the sacred books of all religions except my own. But this teacher of the Upanishads has the detachment and boldness, proceeding from the love of truth, to say that even the Vedas, held in such veneration by all, are secondary; all the sacred books and all the positive sciences and the arts are of a lower nature**.

##################

** - Here lower nature doesn't mean science is inferior. It just means there is a higher knowledge which is transcendental. I could really appreciate our attitude towards science. We have given equal emphasis to science as well.

Numbers and Vedanta.

A set of numbers, in general, can be classified into three types in mathematics. They are as follows :

Finite Sets : These are finite in the sense that they have a starting value and an ending value. For example, {1,2,3,4,5,6}.
Countably Infinite Sets : These are infinite but can be counted, like for instance {1,2,3,4,...,}.
Uncountably Infinite Sets : These are also infinite but they cannot be counted. For example, numbers between 1 and 2 (They include fractions and non-fractions like sqrt(2)).

A simple observation behind these numbers leads to the following philosophies.

Philosophy of Finite Sets : Finite set of numbers can never become infinite.

Philosophy of Countably Infinite Sets : Countably infinite set of numbers are infinite but each number maintains their 'individuality' in the sense that there is a clear notion of separability between two numbers (i.e, two numbers are not that close, there are a unit distance away in the above example).

Philosophy of Uncountably Infinite Sets : Uncountably infinite set of numbers are infinite but two numbers can be as close as possible. There is no clear notion of 'individuality' between two numbers (for example, sqrt(2) and 1.41421356, the difference is almost zero).

Let's now see three major philosophies of Vedanta in crude terms.

Dvaita : Jiva-atmans can never become Parama-atman.
Visishtadvaita : Jiva-atmans are also Parama-atman but they maintain their individuality.
Advaita : Jiva-atmans and Parama-atman are one and the same (there is no notion of individuality).

Assuming Parama-atman to be infinite and Jiva-atmans to be set of numbers.

Dvaita : Jiva-atmans are like finite set of numbers and they can never be infinite, which is Parama-atman - Philosphy of Finite.
Visishtadvaita : Jiva-atmans are like countable set of numbers, they are infinite (Parama-atman) but they maintain their individuality - Philosophy of Countably Infinite.

Advita : Jiva-atmans are like uncountable set of numbers, they are infinite (Parama-atman) but there is no clear notion of individuality - Philosophy of Uncountably Infinite.

Oh, how similar !

On the Existence of God.

Recently, I had been asked an explanation for the existence of God. It is my humble opinion that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved at least according to Hinduism . This is because of the limitaions of logic. God according to Hinduism is beyond space and time and whatever we come across in logic is constrained to space and time. Having said this, is it at least possible to "prove" (prove formally) that the existence of God can neither be disproved nor proved ? I definitely think yes-it can be proved. I think the crux of the proof would involve Godel's theorem. The essence of Godel's theorem is that truth is different from provability. Something which can be proved (or disproved) does not mean it is true (or false) universally. If at all anything is proved, it just means that it is true within the "context" and the truth cannot be held universal. Thus, if the existence of God is proved (or disproved) then it means that God is true (or false) within the context of space and time. But, God according to Hinduism is beyond space and time. So, I think it can be formally deduced (this needs rigorous research) that the proof of existence of God cannot exist (if God is taken to be beyond space and time according to Hindu theology ).

Sankhya and Sambhar.

Sankhya is a philosophical school of thought in India that was established by Sage Kapila around 10th century BC. This philosophy talks about the origin of the universe. Initially, there were two things : primordial matter (prakriti) and pure consciousness (purusha). When they came in contact with each other, this universe began its evolution. It is important to note that purusha doesn't act on prakriti. The mere presence of purusha made prakriti to evolve just like the mere looks of a lover makes the loved one happy. This concept is also akin to the process of making sambhar. When we bring the pan with vegetables, water, spices etc. close to the flame, we have sambhar. Here too, the flame (consciousness) doesn't act on the stuffs (matter) in the pan. The very presence of the flame 'cooks' the contents. Although, the process of making sambhar was started with a good intention of making it edible, the appreciation highly depends on the person who is tasting it !

Scriptures Vs Science

We have been seeing some analogies between Vedanta and Science (Godel, Darwin etc). The last post showed some parallel between Newton and Upanishad and I saw couple of comments along these lines...
"If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular? In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law. Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too. "

I thought these are good questions and they need a separate post.

Before I take a guess into the answers, I wish to point out that these analogies were drawn just to emphasize the existing ideas in our scriptures. It was never intended to downplay modern science or anything. I really think Newton, Godel or Darwin require honor and praise as they had put forth a great deal of effort in understanding the external world. They are sages (aka wise men) and their intellectual ability surpasses normal man. So, we should never discredit them.

First Question: If it was said in our scriptures, why were the scriptures not popular?
Scriptures are different from scientific theories in the sense that they deal more with internal science than dealing with nature (there are some exceptions to this like the sankhya philosophy that discusses nature as well). The simple reason why scriptures are not so popular as science, is that, each person perceives the object of perception in his own way although the object of perception is the same. For instance, you may look at tree and notice its leaves and I may look at its bark. While both of us are looking at the tree (the object of perception being the same), what you perceive is different from what I perceive. Scriptures essentially deal more with the subject than with the object and this may differ from person to person. Generalizing the scriptures to satisfy the masses is a very difficult task although I wouldn't say it is impossible.

Second Question: In general, I wonder why the content of our scriptures (scientific or spiritual) have not reached the public compared to Newton's law.
I think modern day science is a product of the big boom that happened during the period of renaissance when several people like Newton, Leibniz, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Kepler etc. suddenly started working on the nature. As a result things got heated up and continues till this day. While scriptures are time tested for a long time, its a fact that things are slow if they are not sudden. Anything that has a beginning in time will also have its end and the modern day science will have its culmination. Whether the culmination would mark the merging of scientific truths with the scriptures, time will only answer.

Third Question: Is there a basic flaw in our system? If so, why don't we work towards rectifying it? Maybe we had vision, but to complement it, we need implementation too.
I don't know whether its a flaw. Irrespective of whether its a flaw or not, its always good to understand and relate things. It doesn't matter whether the scriptures are true or false as long as it appeals to logic and scientific truths. In that case, I guess we should accept it. Yes, I agree implementation is good to convince the masses, but it is our internal satisfaction that's going to last.

Newton and Prasna Upanishad.

In Sanskrit, "Prana" means the life-energy that goes up and "Apana" is the one that pulls down. The following is a verse from Prasna Upanishad (to be precise Prasnopanishad 3.8) which comes under Atharva Veda.

"Adityo ha vai bahyah prana udayatyesa hyenam caksusam pranamanugrhnanah Prthivyam ya devata saisa purusasyapanamavastabhyantara yadakasah sa samano, vayur-vyanah"

The following is the translation.

"The sun rises as the external Prana, for it assists the Prana in the eye. The deity that exists in the earth, is there in support of man's Apana (down-breathing). The ether between (sun and earth) is the Samana (on-breathing), the air is Vyana (back-breathing)."Sri Adi Sankara in his commetry for the above upanishad says "the earth has apana-sakti". Further he declares, just as an object thrown up is attracted by the earth, so prana that goes up is pulled down by apana. Did we already know gravitation ? Probably, we didn't bother about it too much.

On Bashing Gandhi.

Often I have heard people bashing Gandhi. For them, I would want to tell only one thing : Try to fast for just two days and tell me how it feels like. While Gandhi as a politician is debatable, I am sure Gandhi as a human is a noble soul. The aphorisms of Patanjali (The Yoga Sutras) talk about Yamas or physical disciplines out of which Truthfulness and Bramacharya being very important virtues. Gandhi in that sense is a true yogi (and I guess that's one of the reasons for earning the title "Mahatma"). Also, it is not so easy to think of God when one is dying. Let's first try to be humans than being politicians.

Infinite and Finite.

God in Man...ha...ha...you must be kidding. How real is the infinite occupying a finite position ? I would question, is it not as real as the idea of infinite contained in the finite letters i,n,f,i,n,i,t,e ? Is it not as real as the world of letters contained in the world of words? Is it not as real as the world of words occupying the world of reasons ? Or is it not as real as the world of reasons seated on the realm of thoughts ? Let's see an analogy.

Consider the infinite to be an endless straight line. Also, consider a semi-circle in some place on the line. Now, I draw tangents from the semi-circle to meet on the line, so that, each point on the semi-circle correspond to a point on the line as in the below figure.

Thus, each point on the semi-circle is just a representation of a point on the straight line. Okay, what does the point 'P' represent ? Doesn't it represent the infinity ? Lo ! We have captured the infinity. Just as how 'P' is the representation of the infinity in the straight line, God is just a representation of the highest ideal in Man. Some of you, who have studied some higher math, may identify this with the idea of streographic projection/one-point compactification. The one-point compactification (or as in the above figure, just as how we captured infinity by identifying the endless straight line with a compact semi-circle) leads us to an interesting parallel that if we make all our thoughts into a single point (thought) we can know what the infinite God is all about.