--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > OK, just for fun, I think I've hit upon a way of explaining the > "mulitple- and separate-reality" model to those who prefer > to believe that when it comes to Reality, "There can only > be One." > > My idea (and remember, this is just for fun) is to try to explain > to those who are not database dweebs the difference between > hierarchical and relational databases. My opinion is that the > problem with most religious or spiritual models is that they > are hierarchical, whereas the universe they are trying to > describe or "define" is relational. > > From Wikipedia: "A hierarchical data model is a data model > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_model> in which the data is > organized into a tree <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_data_structure> > -like structure. The structure allows repeating information using > parent/child relationships: each parent can have many children but each > child only has one parent. All attributes of a specific record are > listed under an entity type." > > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/Hierarchical_M\ > odel.jpg/320px-Hierarchical_Model.jpg] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hierarchical_Model.jpg> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hierarchical_Model.jpg> Notice the > tree structure? Now put "Brahman" in the top (parent) > box and everything else in the lower (child) boxes and you have > the Vedic or Hindu view of the universe. Put "God" in the parent > box and everything else in the child boxes and you have Judaism > and Christianity and all theist religions. > > And, in my opinion, you *also* have the basis of their view of what > "Reality" entails. In their view, "there can be only One" because > they perceive the universe hierarchically, all "descended" from one > "parent" that resides at the top of the tree structure. > > Again, from Wikipedia: "The relational model for database > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database> management is a database model > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_model> based on first-order > predicate logic <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic> , first > formulated and proposed in 1969 by E.F. Codd > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd> . Its core idea is to > describe a database as a collection of predicates > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_%28mathematical_logic%29> over > a finite set of predicate variables, describing constraints > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_%28database%29> on the > possible values and combinations of values. The content of the database > at any given time is a finite (logical) model > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28logic%29> of the database, i.e. > a set of relations > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_%28database%29> , one per > predicate variable, such that all predicates are satisfied." > > > [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Relational_Mod\ > el_2.jpg/280px-Relational_Model_2.jpg] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relational_Model_2.jpg> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relational_Model_2.jpg> In the > relational model, different elements are *not* necessarily > bound in a parent-child relationship. Any type of relationship is > possible, including equal-to-equal. The links between different > tables (elements of the database or, in this analogy, elements of > creation) exist only to provide access from one element to another, > not necessarily to define any kind of hierarchy or dependency. > > I think that the universe is relational, not > hierarchical. > > I think the same thing about realities. That they > all exist, as separate elements, linked only by > one's ability to access one from another, not by > any kind of hierarchy or parent-child relationship.
You do realize that you've just described One Reality, one meta-Reality or Ultimate Reality, right? > In a relational universe, the fact that one person > (call him a "seer" in the Vedic or mystical sense, > in that he "sees" things differently than others > around him, and talks about it) perceives the > universe differently than others does NOT imply > that he is "seeing" the top level of a hierarchical > tree, the "Brahman" or "God" box in the tree > structure. Unless he is. Whatever the relationship or lack of same between and among multiple realities, there's always going to be a meta-Reality (which in Vedanta is called Brahman).
