--- In sathyasaibaba2@
<krshna78@..
>
> CHitta, and all,
>
> WHen you have time, post those messages of yours
>
> and on ENTROPY and Spiritual ALCHEMY.
ENTROPY, DAWKINS' SYNDROME AND AISHWARYA
------------
There is in science a principle called the Law of Entropy that states
that the world continuously tends to chaos and disorder. Evidence of
this universal tendency towards disintegration is everywhere - cars
rust, stereos break down, people become old, mountains erode, and
buildings collapse. If one were to place the parts of a clock in a box
and shake it, the probability of the pieces falling together as a
working clock is so negligible that it can be discounted. Yet, if we
open our eyes and look around us, we see that the principle of entropy
is being violated with such impunity that it is astonishing that we
don't see it. The evidence is all around us - ordered structures of
beehives come into existence, honey is gathered from diverse flowers
and accumulated, anthills come into being, seeds germinate and grow
into beautiful trees, cars get made, particles of sand turn into
microchips, aeroplanes fly and reach their intended destinations,
activities coalesce into coherent organisations, human beings are born
and grow - the list is endless. The loci of these tendencies to order
are living beings - wherever we find life there we find that the most
wondrous order of things are brought forth from the chaotic
dispersions of inanimate matter. The element that makes this possible
is life, for intelligence is the mark of life.
If one who wanted to make a clock were to sit shaking the pieces in a
box hoping that they would become a clock, we would not called such a
person intelligent. On the contrary, it would be quite fitting with
his actions to call him 'ignorant'. It is possible to create things
only by discerning the operative causes and acting accordingly. In
Shankara's words:
"We have already said that an effect which is patent in the cause
serves as an obstruction to the manifestation of the other effects. So
if one tries only to destroy the previously manifested effect such as
the lump or the two halves which stand between it and the jar, one may
also have such effects as the potsherds or tiny pieces. These too will
conceal the jar and prevent its being perceived; so a fresh attempt
will be needed. Hence the necessary operation of the factors of an
action has its utility for one who wants the manifestation of a jar or
any other thing."
(Br.Up.I.2)
Discussions on efficient causality have often been obscured because
words are used in manners that violate their meanings. Thus it is said
that omniscience is to be understood as being contained in the
manifestations of avidya. It is not reasonable to speak of omniscience
as being a manifestation of avidya, for that is a mere application of
the word 'avidya' without a consideration of its meaning. It is as if
one who, on seeing a remarkably beautiful woman, were to state that
that beauty is contained in, or is a manifestation of, ugliness. Apart
from the wounded reaction that this might draw from the charming woman
in question, it would only go to show that the person who speaks thus
is not speaking meaningfully. Words must be employed in consideration
of their meanings; otherwise one may as well call a cow a horse and a
horse a door and say that flying is a kind of walking, and the only
thing that this manner of speaking would achieve is universal
confusion.
One does not attain to the desired result through avidya, for by
definition avidya is lack of knowledge. Driving a car without knowing
how to drive would most likely result in a consequence that is graver
than the intended one of reaching the destination. Attempting to cook
without knowledge of cooking may result in something not quite
palatable to the senses. But when these same tasks are undertaken with
knowledge, they lead to the intended goals even if the law of
probability does not give them much of a chance. Intelligent goal-
oriented actions are disruptive of the closed systems within which the
principle of entropy operates. Moreover, the law of probability would
completely rule out the possibility of repeatability.
It may happen by a rare chance that one clock may somehow fall into
place and get assembled, but the chances of clocks getting repeatedly
assembled with clocklike regularity would need an extraneous factor
for sure. That extraneous factor is the directedness to the result
that is provided by intelligence. Order and regularity can only be
brought about by vidya. The word vidya has all these connotations - of
intelligence, design and goal-orientation, etc. Avidya on the other
hand has neither intelligence nor directedness. Avidya is darkness,
sloth, sleep, inertia. Avidya may contribute to the rise of chaos, but
would certainly not account for the regularity that we see in the
world. Therefore, it is Intelligence rather than avidya that is the
efficient cause of the universe. And Maya is to be understood as the
power through which Brahman brings forth this universe. Maya is not
avidya. The efficient cause of the universe is the Intelligent Brahman
and Brahman only.
The confusion between avidya and Maya arises from a misinterpretation
of the bhashya, wherein it is stated that the omniscience and
omnipotence of God are contingent upon the nescience of the jiva. How
is this statement to be interpreted? The word 'contingent' here
implies a condition upon which something else happens. Avidya is the
condition and what happens is the response of Reality to that
condition. And that response springs by its innate power given the
contingency of avidya and the accumulations of karma caused by avidya.
Just as in the Yoga Sutra it is mentioned:
"Good and bad deeds are not the direct causes in transformations, but
they act as breakers of obstacles to nature, as a farmer breaks the
obstacles to the course of water, which then runs down by its own
nature."
(YS,IV,3).
Similarly avidya is not the cause, but is the contingent factor upon
which the very nature of Brahman 'acts'. And it is because Brahman
acts by His nature that Brahman is actionless in His actions, because
that action is not through the sense of agency but by His own
immovable nature, for His nature is unmoved even by the greatest of
deeds and is hence truly omnipotent. He does the greatest of deeds
with the greatest of ease - without the least affection to His being.
That is His Aishwarya - His controllership. Therefore He is called
Ishwara, for Ishwara is the repository of Aishvarya.
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment