Krshna, in my not humble opinion, Richard Dawkins is an idiot who
thinks that the definition of intelligence is small pieces of non-
intelligence.
Dawkins wrote a book called the BLIND WATCHMAKER..
blind!
--- In sathyasaibaba2@
<krshna78@..
>
> I know Aishwarya Means Wealth ,
> Divine Mahalakshmi
>
> not heard of Dawkins Syndrome chitta
>
>
> --- In sathyasaibaba2@
> <chittaranjan_
> >
> >
> > --- In sathyasaibaba2@
> > <krshna78@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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