S
s007bala
Guest
Bhu-Gola Shastra by Mahaswamigal has more info on zero,i think.
sb
sb
Truth
- Thread starter pannvalan
- Start date
- Status
0^10 = 0^1000, because the result is '0', in both the cases. But, obviously 10 cannot be equal to 1000.
Similarly, 1^10=1 and also, 1^1000=1. But, 10 is not equal to 1000.
That's why in the equation given, 'x' can not assume the values of both Zero and 1.
In rest of the cases, if 'm' is to be equal to 'n', it could be something like this.
m = 4 and n = 2^2 or 8/2 and so many other probabilities.
1/0 = Infinity and 1000/0 = Infinity. But, can 1 be equal to infinity?
Those who have studied number theories in mathematics will easily understand these.
Similarly, 1^10=1 and also, 1^1000=1. But, 10 is not equal to 1000.
That's why in the equation given, 'x' can not assume the values of both Zero and 1.
In rest of the cases, if 'm' is to be equal to 'n', it could be something like this.
m = 4 and n = 2^2 or 8/2 and so many other probabilities.
1/0 = Infinity and 1000/0 = Infinity. But, can 1 be equal to infinity?
Those who have studied number theories in mathematics will easily understand these.
S
s007bala
Guest
>> But, can 1 be equal to infinity?<<
I have a doubt,hopefully i will get clarified.Only if we give 1 a value,we question how 1 can be equal to infinity.What if 1's value is infinity even though its not the accepted norm of Mathematics worldover.I think its crazy to think like that,since the thought popped in my head,thought will get it clarified .....
sb
I have a doubt,hopefully i will get clarified.Only if we give 1 a value,we question how 1 can be equal to infinity.What if 1's value is infinity even though its not the accepted norm of Mathematics worldover.I think its crazy to think like that,since the thought popped in my head,thought will get it clarified .....
sb
Bala,
1 is the first positive integer. Only an unknown quantity what we call 'x' can assume different values, provided it is a variable bounded between 'a' and 'b'. No harm, even if the limits (lower threshold and upper threshold) are not known.
Therefore, the number 1 cannot assume different values, because it is a constant
(having definite value) and not a variable.
Hence your doubt if 1 can become infinity is of no relevance.
1 is the first positive integer. Only an unknown quantity what we call 'x' can assume different values, provided it is a variable bounded between 'a' and 'b'. No harm, even if the limits (lower threshold and upper threshold) are not known.
Therefore, the number 1 cannot assume different values, because it is a constant
(having definite value) and not a variable.
Hence your doubt if 1 can become infinity is of no relevance.
S
s007bala
Guest
Shri pannvalan
Thank you.Actually,when i write "One is Infinity" where One = God,does it makes sense?Just kidding!!Your explanantion is just awesome.
sb
Thank you.Actually,when i write "One is Infinity" where One = God,does it makes sense?Just kidding!!Your explanantion is just awesome.
sb
Thank you, Bala. But, regarding the inner meaning of the subject under discussion,
one (not number 1) can attain/reach and merge into 'infinity' (anantham), but cannot
become that (infinity).
When one reaches and merges into infinite state, as many pseudo-swamijis think, they don't become that infinity itself or equal to infinity or replace that infinity and get seated in its place. It is sheer ignorance and self-deception too!
(One request: Please don't confuse here with the 'Tatvamasi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' concept).
one (not number 1) can attain/reach and merge into 'infinity' (anantham), but cannot
become that (infinity).
When one reaches and merges into infinite state, as many pseudo-swamijis think, they don't become that infinity itself or equal to infinity or replace that infinity and get seated in its place. It is sheer ignorance and self-deception too!
(One request: Please don't confuse here with the 'Tatvamasi' or 'Aham Brahmasmi' concept).
Last edited:
S
s007bala
Guest
Yes,i agree.Pannvalannukku Podu oru Namaskaram.
sb
sb
"0" is unmanifested energy; "1" is manifested energy.... the exponentials represent different combinations or transformations of 0 and 1.... These two by virtue of their inherent nature would remain the same even when multiplied "n" number of times...
If something is unmanifested, it remains so irrespective of its size or combination... similarly for the other...
If we want to substitute 0 and 1, the we need to look beyond simple numerical theories...
So the equation 1/0 here would mean manifested energy expressed as a product of unmanifested energy... and that is not infinity!!!
The zeros are ones aside, one guru gave a very simple explanation to the 'purnamadah purnamidam...purnamevavashiyathe'.
He said purnam (the whole) is the brahman. And when brahman is removed from brahman , brahman still remains. It simply relates to prakriti and purusha....meaning, when all matter is removed brahman still remains (can neither be created not destroyed)...
He said purnam (the whole) is the brahman. And when brahman is removed from brahman , brahman still remains. It simply relates to prakriti and purusha....meaning, when all matter is removed brahman still remains (can neither be created not destroyed)...
Prakrithi and Purusha are two separate identities... then if one is removed, the balance reflects the absence of the same...
Energy is conserved within matter... so even if we were to remove energy (and all its manifestations), it would still remain (in a conserved state)...
actually they are not saying prakriti and purusha are seperate entities....they are saying purusha is one who has connected with prakriti (something like an uttamapurusha is someone who understood his 'purushartha' or real reason for his birth)..
also they are not saying the balance reflects any absence...they say the vastness of the brahman is so much that no matter how much you keep removing from it, brahman remains the same (like aprameya or immeasurable)..
your last sentence is exactly what they convey..
(ps: 'they' here means yogis and gurus)
also they are not saying the balance reflects any absence...they say the vastness of the brahman is so much that no matter how much you keep removing from it, brahman remains the same (like aprameya or immeasurable)..
your last sentence is exactly what they convey..
(ps: 'they' here means yogis and gurus)
When we form a question, there evolves an answer...
This quest or curiosity of "knowing" is the reason for all schools of philosophies...
So then, is this nature of ours the only truth???
This quest or curiosity of "knowing" is the reason for all schools of philosophies...
So then, is this nature of ours the only truth???
In those days the folk were one with nature...they 'heard' nature a lot more than we do today - both within and without. They passed on their observations and over generations it became vid or knowledge..
All the tarka-vaad, arguments and parameters of logic were all designed for the vid of life and the after-life...
In the present times, we have all sorts of apparatus, equipment and what not..a human landing on mars is not far off...
So in fact we are far more advanced today technically than the old folk (though 'in ways' lacking in spiritual understanding) ...but then perhaps we may understand the 'spirit' by way of technology someday..
We also talk of immense wealth of the past, glorious kingdoms and all...perhaps we overlook that in those they were just tribal societies, not really as 'developed' as today and very likely there was no wealth in those times of the kind we see today.
Yeah, this quest of "knowing" is the reason for all schools of philosophies...it is also the reason of all forms of development man has ever known and will know..
It wud be tuf to answer is this nature of ours is the only truth. To define "nature" and the "truth" within a fixed compartment wud not be possible...
Nature is evolution and devolution. Man's nature has changed and tehrefore the kind of quest he goes after has also changed. From quadripeds we evolved to bipeds...evolution has not stopped...we do not know into what we may evolve over ages in future...then what would be the "truth" in future ?
All the tarka-vaad, arguments and parameters of logic were all designed for the vid of life and the after-life...
In the present times, we have all sorts of apparatus, equipment and what not..a human landing on mars is not far off...
So in fact we are far more advanced today technically than the old folk (though 'in ways' lacking in spiritual understanding) ...but then perhaps we may understand the 'spirit' by way of technology someday..
We also talk of immense wealth of the past, glorious kingdoms and all...perhaps we overlook that in those they were just tribal societies, not really as 'developed' as today and very likely there was no wealth in those times of the kind we see today.
Yeah, this quest of "knowing" is the reason for all schools of philosophies...it is also the reason of all forms of development man has ever known and will know..
It wud be tuf to answer is this nature of ours is the only truth. To define "nature" and the "truth" within a fixed compartment wud not be possible...
Nature is evolution and devolution. Man's nature has changed and tehrefore the kind of quest he goes after has also changed. From quadripeds we evolved to bipeds...evolution has not stopped...we do not know into what we may evolve over ages in future...then what would be the "truth" in future ?
nothing but the very nature...
That's brahman .
Last edited:
so nature is brahman?
yes and no.
for theoretical purpose, brahman is the universe, the nature of it and all.
for practical purposes, the vid of the nature and becoming it is brahman.
for theoretical purpose, brahman is the universe, the nature of it and all.
for practical purposes, the vid of the nature and becoming it is brahman.
- Status
