An unanswerable question for both atheists and Abrahamics

[Sahasranama]

Study the Grammarians like the famous Bhartrihari, here it is the archetypal word arrangements that create the physical reality. Later in Tantra and Agamas these principles where modified into differnt layers of speech and ideologies how from archetypal speech or sound (nada) i.e. abstractions, the imperfect human speech and the imperfect physical universe is created by deduction from primal letter arrangements.
The abstraction, the letters F I S H put together are the "real" fish not the million different imperfect varieties that swim in our ponds and seas. Everything that can be "spelled" can theoretically become a physical reality. Platonic and neoplatonic thought is very similar to Hindu philosophy and a knowledge of "pagan" philosophies helps to see that Hindu philosophy is not a local phenomena but part of a larger heritage of human thought. The apurusheya concept of the vedas and the eternality, also are related to the primal creative force of abstractions, as a more foundational eternal reality vs. the imperfect imitation of the physical world. Aristotles still followed a deductive and inductive logic, but in search for the universal law, not the empiric reality, being a disciple of Plato, but later western logic has become solely based on the physical realty not deducting anymore from the archetypal ideas, but inducting from the empirical facts, so reducing Platos transcendental logic who began by deducting from the abstraction, the archetype down to the lower realms of physical realty. That means in modern logic abstractions have no reality a such anymore, from originally being understood as creative forces (especially by platonics and neoplatonics) they have now become products of the mind.

Letters are called "Bijas" (seeds) and "Matrikas" (mothers) for a reason.

That is very helpful, I'll look into Bhartrihari, do you have more recommended readings on this subject? My math professor is very adamant on making clear that language and mathematical ideas do not have any inherent reality or meaning to them. Would you say that this paradigm of denying the existence of mental concepts in physical reality is more inline with Buddhist thought?

[Adhvagat]

My math professor is very adamant on making clear that language and mathematical ideas do not have any inherent reality or meaning to them. Would you say that this paradigm of denying the existence of mental concepts in physical reality is more inline with Buddhist thought?

But since these concepts manifest themselves naturally through other constructs of physical reality itself, like beings and their consciousness organs, how can one say they're not part of physical reality?

Or is "physical reality" only matter in the form of particles?

It reminds me of the example you gave on the Yoga Forums of the not so bright yogi who dissected a corpse looking for the chakras. They might not be physically present as in a particle organization in our body, but consciousness function in the way the tantriks described in the chakra system.

I'm just saying this because I don't agree with this notion that reality is only the grossest possible level of existence.

[Sahasranama]

But since these concepts manifest themselves naturally through other constructs of physical reality itself, like beings and their consciousness organs, how can one say they're not part of physical reality?

Or is "physical reality" only matter in the form of particles?

It reminds me of the example you gave on the Yoga Forums of the not so bright yogi who dissected a corpse looking for the chakras. They might not be physically present as in a particle organization in our body, but consciousness function in the way the tantriks described in the chakra system.

I'm just saying this because I don't agree with this notion that reality is only the grossest possible level of existence.

I think the position of my math teacher is that these concepts exist only as beliefs/ mental constructs, but not outside that confinement. This is opposite to Plato's teachings. I don't necessarily agree with it, simply pointing it out.

[saral]

Namaste

Yes

1 > 0

Might I propose for your kind consideration:

e^(pi i) +1 = 0

I think in the basic of this equation is

0 (a)+0(b) =o (ab=X=1) a different Zero (correct me if I am wrong here)

According to this there is no “nothing” exists in this universe. There is always something in nothing and nothing is nothing. Means there is nothing which we call absolute 0 or emptiness or Blank

Than a person like me who don’t know much about veds, physics, mathematics, logics etc. can easily say ‘If this statement is true then all the calculations, all logics, all theorems, all equations and all the principle are mare illusions and imaginary thoughts they can reach you somewhere but not there where you exactly want to go. Dear friends if we don’t know what is 0 (absolute one) then how can you come up to any solutions with the help of the study we have started by the 0 (knowing one).

First define the zero and you will get the universe.

Saadar
Saral

[MahaHrada]

That is very helpful, I'll look into Bhartrihari, do you have more recommended readings on this subject? My math professor is very adamant on making clear that language and mathematical ideas do not have any inherent reality or meaning to them. Would you say that this paradigm of denying the existence of mental concepts in physical reality is more inline with Buddhist thought?

Yes modern western buddhism tries to cherry pick buddhist logic to find correlations to western rationalism but i think that is already an adaption of buddhism to western standards, rather than true to more ancient buddhist thought.
My main reason for that opinion is that buddhism does not accept empirical reality. Buddhism denies the self as well as the matter, if it accepts the existence of matter it only does so reluctantly.
Buddhism accepts the correlation between etymology or language and reality but only to deny reality, so the thinking goes, reality is an illusion based on illusive abstractions and wrong concepts, so when we blot out the wrong concepts the universe and the self vanish at the same time.

So they do criticise the concept of the self existence of abstractions, sounds, words and letters, as eternal archetypes, like western logicians, but say concepts are illusive they are only mind constructs, but for completly other reasons than the empirical western approach, since they usually deny the reality of the empirical universe as well and add that the the world exists solely because of illusive concepts in the mind So in a way they share the idea with certain Hindu schools that concepts, abstractions, sounds, word and letters are connected with the creation of the universe. Western buddhist are too stupid to get the difference.

Many schools of buddhism are what i can term "Mind only" traditions these negate the modern science. Science has proven long ago that the universe is more than an illusive appearance on the canvas of the 5 senses only, by proving that there are wavelengths we cannot feel taste or other wise perceive.

Thats why "Mind only" traditions like some schools of Buddhism or Kevala advaita are ignoring modern findings of science much like christians who would still belive that the earth is flat or was created 6000 years ago, or Muslims that belive that god sits on a throne in heaven and throws stars at the demons when they attack these are the stars we can see as shooting stars in the Nightsky.

Since the creative and archetypal power of words and letters was also part of christian theology also because greek philosophy and especially neoplatonism heavily influenced early church fathers like Origines, therefore modern science, influenced by the age of enlightment and their fight against christian superstitions, have an ideological axe to grind with what they belive to be theistic or christian concepts. Besides meditereanean influences these idaes were also already deeply embedded in semitic thought, even the association of sound, words, letters and photisms is already present in Judaism and more ancient semitic pagan thought long before christianity assimilated these ideas from the neoplatonics.

There are even influences that can be traced from semitic greek and pagan thought via the Manicheans, an iranian,syncretical, gnostic, buddhist-christian sect that apparently did influence the indian tantric kalachakra tantra with gnostic ideas about photism, sound power of letters in relation to time.
We also find all these elements in the kaula philosophy especially in kashmir achara and srividya, up to the fact that the shape sound and form of the short a is related to the unsurpassable, the anuttara or akula shiva and at the same time to light and sound, the exactly same ideas can be found in esoteric judaism and can be traced back to earlier pagan(semitic as well as indoeuropean!) sources. Just think of the importance of vac devi in the creative process in the vedas so these concepts are clearly as well indoeuropean as indigenous to india as well as a part of the semitic cultures.
That may smack of universalism but in all fairness i must admit these are the facts.

Check this and the bibliography for the Grammarians:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bhartrihari/
I recommend:
Harold G. Coward & K. Kunjunni Raja (1970). The Philosophy of the Grammarians. In Karl H. Potter (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Motilal Banarsidass.

On the tantric thought(Kashmirachara) about that topic i recommend: A.Padoux: vak
http://books.google.de/books?id=JqHC...page&q&f=false

I don´t know enough of mathematics to understand this but it is probably something you can appreciate:

http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf...olli_proof.pdf