PDA

View Full Version : Of Physics and philosophy.



Mana
12 February 2013, 07:37 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste AG,

As YajvanJi has rightly pointed out, the welcome thread is not the best- place for this discussion. So I have
answered you here; I hope that you don't mind AG.

Interesting, by your definition of proof, you have just described Jyotish. One of the six limbs of the Vedanga.
Please take the time to read a little in the respective sub forum. It is the study of light and time, in a purely
relative context; very scientific.
It is a mathematical bridge between objective and subjective reality; believe it or not.

I dislike the elitism of science, and hold a healthy disdain for its consequent establishment.
Funnily enough, so did Dr. Feynman who had an aversion to anyone in a suite.
And to quote the great man himself ...

“Anyone who claims to have understood Quantum Electro Dynamics, clearly hasn’t”

So to what did he profess, and what can we conclude about physics from this statement? There is, it
would seem, a lot of very spooky goings on at the quantum level, can we really ignore this and only
see the material results?

What of particle physics? Which states that; the more that you know of the position of a particle, the less
you know of its speed; the more you know of a particles speed the less you know of its position. That said
Δt has always been rathar vague.

The fact that you we observe a particle, affects its state of spin, it “knows” that it is being watched.
Now if E=mc˛ then this particle is energy correlated to matter by space and time, as such, the faster it
moves the less material it becomes the slower it goes the more material it becomes or time changes rate.
Kashmiri Shavism and other philosophy’s* would agree with this in that the particle is consciousness, it
would appear that Physics may be arriving at a similar conclusion.

Some striking parallels, no?

Interestingly Newton was an astrologer, and the force of attraction between celestial body’s has been described
I believe 1200 years prior to Newton, but its value as a mathematical constant was not at that time realised,
the way of thinking being much more relative in nature at its outset. Interesting also that he was relentlessly
looking for a secret mathematical code within the Bible.

The maths of Einsteins relativity was largely conceived by Dr Maxwell pertaining to magnetic fields,
Dr Einstein turned it towards space and time and Einstein abhorred certain elements of his own work
exclaiming that God does not play dice!

Can you profess to believe in a science, if you do not attempt to grasp its most basic concepts, its finest
elements. That, to my mind, is blind faith, Which is something in which I do not believe.

You see sanAtana dharama is a path which helps one to realise their full potential and to do so in harmony
with their surroundings; to help them focus. Western culture treat Scientific Genius as if it is unnatural,
a bit crazy; it never quit understands where things have come from its rather haphazard an immature in
comparison.

This is exemplified by your veneration Dr Feynman and Dr Einstein, putting their ideas out of the reach of the
common man.

A few examples of other geniuses:
Dr Maxwell, who actually developed the field theory in electromagnetism.
Also we might consider Marie Curie; she was looking for “spiritual energy” when she discovered radioactivity.
Then there is Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, who proposed that the Sun consisted of burning Hydrogen, nobody
listed for years, due to the indoctrinated nature of the establishment.

In regards to you concern as to the importance of subjectivity and how it concerns gravity:

The subjective nature of gravity is relativity.
Anugraha is the Sanskrit word for this effect, in it’s finest detail ...
That’s grace in English. "Graha" is a grosser form.

To my mind, the principal point of relativity is that a planet, for example, its dimensions thus its gravity depend
entirely upon the subjective time frame of the observer; please do read and understand Einstein, before you put
your faith into his doctrine. If we apply this knowledge without fully grasping its implications. We end up with
an economy which depends on CFCs oil and the cutting down of forests to balance its workings, non of which
would have been possible with out scientific thought. Scientist really should assume all its Karmas.

I have nothing against science at all, I consider myself to be a theoretical physicist.
Many of the ideas of today's science, I had meditated upon at a young age; the nature of DNA as a field existing
in a different dimensional space, the resulting implications which are now shown to exist in the field of
Epigenetic's. But the realisation as to the manifold nature of nature which had appeared before me, resulted in
my being put into a mental hospital and drugged heavily; I was consequently told that I was mentally ill and
would be taking drugs for life.

I left Europe and my spiritually immature family; and after that was fine. Relatively, it does take some getting
used too ;)

So, I had a highly spiritual experience at 19, my family had me put into a mental institution and agreed to my
being drugged heavily with brain damaging drugs. I had ask for a spiritual guide at the time, because I knew that
this was perfectly natural experience, but the British cultural structure and my families limited knowledge of this
very basic, and fundamentally human trait, that of growing up, had so crumbled in adharma that their was no
help available.


I hope that I have expressed my thoughts and experience well enough; that you might see a little from my
perspective.


praṇāma

mana


* I must humbly request that the knowledgeable reader forgives my statement here as I am very much a student
of this enormous expanses of knowledge and as such can not easy refer to the other philosophise and schools of
thought, but I am studying.


ॐ नमः शिवाय

sanjaya
12 February 2013, 10:52 PM
Mana, correct me if I'm wrong here, but it sounds like your disdain is more directed at medical doctors than philosophy doctors (specifically physicists). :p

Mana
12 February 2013, 11:13 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,

Hello :)

Oh there is a little disdain, it is a reflection of that which I have been on the receiving end of. I have learned much since this first happened
and I still love physics an science just as profoundly.
To my mind, rightly or wrongly, a physician is a physician; phd's today are letters which are bought and sold; differentiated knowledge is
both bondage and ignorance. Chemists are physicists, physicists are astrologers, it is only the last 200 years which have seen the exponential
explosion of terminology around all the new fields of knowledge.

Differentiated knowledge is bondage; ignorance of undifferentiated knowledge; is bondage ...

kāla does as she must; I have no gripe, but I will speak my mind, especially after the administration of legalised dose of a poison which is the
chemical equivalent to a large hammer to the head. The effect of which was to remove my newly established belief, rather rudely.

I am overjoyed now to have discovered Jyotish, which explains quite wonderfully.


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Mana
13 February 2013, 04:56 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,


Of course; Astrophysicists have a special place in my heart. :p

What is your field of study or work, If you don't mind my enquiry?
What are you thoughts on Jyotish?
As you may have gathered, I am rather passionate about it.

praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Atheist Guru
13 February 2013, 07:17 PM
Namaste AG,

As YajvanJi has rightly pointed out, the welcome thread is not the best- place for this discussion. So I have
answered you here; I hope that you don't mind AG.


That's fine with me. Sorry to hear you had a bad experience with your health. I don't believe that disdain towards the scientific community is justified because of it, though.

It obviously sounds like you have a passion for this stuff, however if it's okay with you we can cut the waffle and discuss topics without rehashing the entire history of science, according subjective interpretations. Cool with you?

Thanks,
AG

Mana
14 February 2013, 12:08 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste,

I am fine thank you, my society is a little worse for wear though, which is a little irritating. I'm sure science has a cream for that though.

With all due respect, AG I have no problem with my health, that is your scientific perspective being projected upon me ...
The power of mantra. This took a very long time for me to undo; the Samskara thick like a treacle*.

The manta given by science; makes it infinitely more painful to for me, when I see how broken society is today. This has been highly
predictable for a long time, which is the cause; If you are awake long enough to see that. An art that I am now turning my analytical
disposition towards.

You have avoided continually my question pertaining to the language of maths; its axioms, a timely moment to bring it back up I feel.
please avoid use of the word "they" in your response, I want to know your thoughts and not those of an establishment of others ideas.
It leaves me with the impression that you are fast asleep.

Cantor would be a great example for this ...


praṇāma

mana

* "Hot tar" maybe a better description; especially given the origins of this expression, but it is a little too graphic, as the effect is reversible.

ॐ नमः शिवाय

sanjaya
14 February 2013, 11:33 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,


Of course; Astrophysicists have a special place in my heart. :p

What is your field of study or work, If you don't mind my enquiry?
What are you thoughts on Jyotish?
As you may have gathered, I am rather passionate about it






Haha, good to know your disdain for us is less than the rest of the scientific community. :)

Well my field is astrophysics, as you know. Specifically I study particle astrophysics, which has to do with the production of high energy particles by certain classes of objects in space, like supernova remnants, X-ray binary systems, quasars, and such.

As for Jyotish...not sure you want to know what I think, but since you asked I must be wrong. Let me put it this way: when you know as much astronomy as me, it's hard to believe that the positions of planets is indicative of one's karma. On the bright side I do believe in God and karma, but not that this is dictated by planetary positions. My issue here isn't the proposition of supernatural activity (I've got no problem believing in the supernatural). It's the mechanism. If you gave me some prediction and told me "God said so," there's a decent chance I might believe it. But by invoking astronomical readings, the prediction somehow becomes less plausible in my mind.

To be fair I don't know that much about Jyotish. I probably will never learn too much about it honestly, because if I investigated every pseudoscientific claim I was presented with, I wouldn't have time to either do real science, or my monthly pujas. Certainly I can respect Jyotish, since it's widely regarded among other Hindus as having a good deal of merit. Heck, my parents are into it, and these days I'm not even sure they believe in God. But it's not something I take too seriously.

Sorry, don't mean to trample on something you take so seriously.

Mana
14 February 2013, 11:53 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,

How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work! :)

God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
he permeates everything.
The Jyotish that I am studying currently, the philosophical framework is based upon Maharishi Parasara; there is a
most wonderful correlation between his model and that of Astrophysics; Black energy being Narayana shakti.

Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.
If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?
I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?
Jyotish examines light and the nature of time. By means of the neuro-endocrian system, so grasp of
neuroscience is needed to thoroughly follow my line of thought on this.
There is no action at a distance as everything is unified and is śiva. The same goes for electrons, when they interact at a distance,
to my mind, that's like saying that the planets effect us at a distance ...

Pleased to meet you! I am used to dealing with the strong opinions of fellow scientists. I enjoy discussing these matters weather
the views held are similar or opposing; it is admittedly rather difficult for me to find people who either understand or are interested
by these concepts, as they are all selectively filtered out of my community.

praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Atheist Guru
15 February 2013, 01:45 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,

How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work! :)

God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
he permeates everything.
The Jyotish that I am studying currently, the philosophical framework is based upon Maharishi Parasara; there is a
most wonderful correlation between his model and that of Astrophysics; Black energy being Narayana shakti.

Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.
If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?
I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?
Jyotish examines light and the nature of time. By means of the neuro-endocrian system, so grasp of
neuroscience is needed to thoroughly follow my line of thought on this.
There is no action at a distance as everything is unified and is śiva. The same goes for electrons, when they interact at a distance,
to my mind, that's like saying that the planets effect us at a distance ...

Pleased to meet you! I am used to dealing with the strong opinions of fellow scientists. I enjoy discussing these matters weather
the views held are similar or opposing; it is admittedly rather difficult for me to find people who either understand or are interested
by these concepts, as they are all selectively filtered out of my community.

praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Mana,

I am curious. Speaking in scientific terms, why is God such an important prerequisite to your thought? Let's keep the posts shorter this time. It's very difficult to respond to entire essays.

Sanjaya - If it's ok with you, I'd like you to weigh in on this scientifically.

Thanks,
AG

sanjaya
15 February 2013, 07:47 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,

How wonderful to study something so fascinating for ones work! :)

Definitely one of the reasons I decided to put myself through the hell of graduate school. It's worth it to feel like your job is meaningful. Also beats flipping burgers (or whatever real Indians have at McDonald's back home). :)


God is such a fundamental prerequisite to my thought that I do at times perhaps negate to mention, but I am Kashmir Shavite
he permeates everything.

It's good to hear that you have such a level of faith as to hold to God as a necessary prerequisite. This is the ultimate act of surrender to God at the intellectual level, and I'm sure is at the core of Sri Krishna's instruction when he says to abandon all worldly forms of religion. Honestly I wish I possessed such a level of devotion. At the moment I don't; I could stop believing in God right now and the philosophical underpinnings of my understanding of the universe would remain intact. I believe in God, mostly because I always have and don't really know or want to know how to. Might also be because most atheist apologists are graceless brutes who don't realize that even a good argument, when presented rudely, will fall on deaf ears (certainly not directed at our friend AG). Who knows? Perhaps I haven't yet accumulated the merit to be granted such faith as of yet.

As to this statement that God permeates everything. I suppose this could be a rationale for attributing Jyotish predictions ultimately to God. But how does this not distill down to fatalism, where everything that happens is directly attributed to God? Gita says that when there is a decline in dharma and an increase in adharma, the Lord manifests himself to correct human behavior. Furthermore it says that when he descends into Maya, he is not subject to it. That suggests to me that though God permeates the universe, he is in some sense also distinct from it.


Oh we are all free to perceive the world, as it presents its self to us but I will state that, you have misunderstood the nature
of Jyotish. The planets do not effect us; they merely reflect our state, as śiva folds back upon himself.
You seem to be surprisingly Newtonian in thought for a particle physicist, I am just a little surprised.

Well, I might argue that all humans are naturally disposed to Newtonian thought. When something good or bad happens, don't we naturally ask "why?" That suggests we believe in some sort of determinism. I wouldn't say I believe in a strictly deterministic universe. I do believe in a deterministic God though, if only because an arbitrary one would be quite frightful.

I will say that the notion of planetary positions reflecting the current state of things rather than determining them is slightly more plausible.


If I said to you that to my mind the heliocentric model of the solar system is physically impossible; would you call that pseudo
science? It is total nonsense from a relativistic point of view.
I would be very interested to hear your definition of time?

Depends on the evidence presented. If a weak case were made for heliocentrism, i.e. if someone suggested the model without doing a good year's worth of observations of the planets and the starfield, yes I'd say that the model is unscientific. But when you observe the planets with respect to the stars and recognize that epicycles must be introduced to preserve a geocentric model, you must change your mind and accept heliocentrism. Now with Jyotish, arguments have (presumably) been presented and rejected by scientists. I personally haven't examined them, but someone has, and the community of astronomers rejects the idea because of lack of evidence.

I think the key point here is that while most ideas are worthy of consideration, they aren't worthy of consideration by everyone. When new ideas are presented, there isn't enough time for every scientist to study every idea. That's why we divide into different fields, and we trust one another's findings. In principle you could classify this approach as appeal to authority, but the argument is one of practicality rather than logic.

As for defining time, my high school physics teacher asked me that. Still haven't come up with a satisfactory answer.

I struggle to accept delta t's everywhere, feeling that they leave massive holes in space; Perhaps their are more recent models
with which I am not familiar, that have replaced these tools?[/QUOTE]

I'm not familiar with the "delta t" terminology. Can you clarify?


Sanjaya - If it's ok with you, I'd like you to weigh in on this scientifically.

Go for it. I'd only consider it my "scientific duty" to object if you were publishing something in Astrophysical Journal, so I certainly wouldn't want to censor anyone.

Mana
16 February 2013, 02:11 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste AG,


Can you define God from a Kashmir Shaivite perspective? Best you read up on all the schools of Hinduism as your question is rather broad.
You see now I'm back to axioms which you keep avoiding.
Look at Cantors work on limits and infinity, this might be a good scientific starting point. Them read up on quantum effect, which you have
relegated to the minds of deities; and following that, relativity.

You see I firmly believe that E=mc˛, when seen from out side of the manifest universe; would resemble:

mc+1 = mc˛+Δt

Or some thing similar, "E" is God, and is simply reflecting himself from within.
As such he is both infinite and fractal. This can be confirmed of in personal experience, but is otherwise tricky to prove. Other than fractals popping
up all over the place and the quantity of black matter and energy, to me it seems obvious, the paradox here is that fractals have large expanses
of apparently linear surfaces, interconnecting the more detailed forms in which they are self evident; so one can be within a fractal and be completely
oblivious to its nature. Time flows in a fractal nature which is why there are periods when the total form is easier to see, Shiva reveals himself to us.
This is also why Jyotish works and is in consequence a proof of the nature of God.

Now start reading the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, but you must try a few different transcripts and annotations, listen to the words of some
enlightened beings.

And you will start to get a small gimps of the integrity of the Vedic thought which has been found by seer's within the fractal form of the unified
transcendent realisation of reality.

If you do find the rhythm of God, you will experience a massive influx of energy and a complete realisation of totally interconnected manifold
(see mathematical topology and string theory); nature of every thing, you realise that your thoughts are not your own they simply breath with
their surroundings an are a reflection of them. (See recent findings as to the nature of the time delay between the subconscious and the
concious mind, (psychological Δt).

You will start to get the idea. Please be advised to read a little of the yoga sutras, and be sure that your yama and niyama is well established,
else this energy can either kill you or put you in hell.

What ever you do, if this happens to you spontaneously, don't talk to a Western shrink, they are drug dealers. The best analogy I have heard is
that it is the medical equivalent of putting dirty socks in the mouth of someone, to stop them from being sick.

This awakening happens across the populous, in guess what, a fractal form, it has shaped and moulded our society since time began reflecting
our very genes. This is the Self.


God ∴ reality ...


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Mana
16 February 2013, 04:26 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste sanjaya,


I'm not familiar with the "delta t" terminology. Can you clarify?



Δt is the magic trick which make calculus possible, Newton's crowning glory, or was it Leibniz? If you like it is the time
equivalent of the statement that gravity is constant.

Allowing us to estimate the area under a gradient by reducing its curvature to infinitesimally small segments. Rather
like pixels in an image, you don't see them when their small enough.
Newton coined the word fluxion to describe this relative, quantitative effect, a word which was never taken up, a shame
really; It is so much more eloquent than the dy/dx of Leibniz.

ΔT, is the time difference obtained by subtracting Universal Time (UT) from Terrestrial Time.

This is quintessentially the squaring of the circle; which is related to precise knowledge as to the value of Pi, which is
of course irrational.

So we can see that time itself depends upon an irrational number and is very far removed from the liner time axis of a
polynomial equation relating to the movement of a body.

As for heliocentrisme, it is Surya's perspective, it will never be ours.
For an example please refer to Einstein's, paper on relativity, As the basis of his theory he uses, as an example of the
motion of a train relative to a station, to explain the nature of spacetime and its frames of reference; it is not
unreasonable then, to stretch this thought to the planets, Earth being our reference frame and realise that we can not
step out of this, as such the flow of time on any one body within the solar system is entirely different and is in fact highly
relative, dependant entirely on the motion of those body's; their relative speeds and positions. let us remember that this
is all brought together by the speed of light and most probably the electromagnetic field, so any light arriving on earth
from the sun or reflected from another plant; has passed through entirely differing time frames.
Why on Earth would you consider that it is unaffected by this change in time frame; when we take in to account the
bizarre nature of particle spin, and that of quantum effect?
This is also clearly related to the nature of the flow of time on earth as demonstrated by Relativity also.

As such we can never escape the Geocentric model; even if the heliocentric model "apparently" works like clockwork,
this is highly misleading.

I hope that this tickled your memory sanjaya :)


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

Atheist Guru
17 February 2013, 06:55 AM
Hi Mana,

It's becoming painfully clear that your posts are obfuscations upon obfuscations of straightforward concepts. What axioms am I supposed to be avoiding exactly? You've not provided any cohesive definition of what God is supposed to be, and suggested that its existence can only be understood from subjective experience. If you're seriously suggesting that anybody who believes in God does so because they are well versed in QED, Cantor's work and has read and understood entire catalogs of all religious and scientific literature - I'm sorry, you're just factually incorrect. Conversely anyone who HAS a full understanding of this remarkable reading list doesn't have any special license to invoke any supernatural creature either.

While it might look good to invoke fancy scientific concepts and throwing around equations, it doesn't necessarily make them relevant to this discussion and it certainly doesn't justify the existence of a super-being. Your equation that views E=MC˛ from OUTSIDE the manifest universe is also quite puzzling as it assumes that the same mathematical and logical principles apply there (if it even exists).

Let's dial it back a notch, since you firmly believe this equation can you please describe this realm that resides outside the manifest universe - as this seems to have eluded top astro and quantum physicists, who have rely on theory and math to rely upon?

Thanks,
AG

Mana
20 February 2013, 04:15 PM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste AG,


Sorry am I going to fast for you?


I asked a fair while back what you thought of the notion that mathematicians, by means of their subjective thought
experiments, were often hundreds of years ahead of physics. When you have said that you need objective proof
of everything.

let us assume now that physics is the root of, and as such can stand for all physical sciences.
I am, I suppose, inquiring as to why you feel the need for such material proof, when the Universe is so heavily
unaccounted for ... ?

I have used mathematics, Cantor in particular, as an example of how science can be dangerous if you are not
practising it in a environment which encourages spiritual growth, their are many other examples. As I have said,
I have first hand experience of this myself, caused directly by the Adharma of my society.

I am preparing an interesting astrological study of musicians which will serve to highlight this point nicely also,
a work in progress shall we say.

I really don't care for how this looks; it is about philosophy, communication and understanding, their is no
competition; that is in your mind.

You have asked me to slow down and expand and I will, I won't go into the deeper Kashmiri model as you wish to
take it down a notch. It is just as compatible and fully comprises of all the elements for a true understanding
of the fractal nature, but one really must experience this for them selves.

Modern Physics, using its latest model and estimations, NASA states that the Universe is: 74% Black energy and
22% Dark matter, the rest is the known universe.

Parasara tells us in the Vishnu Prana that Narayana is infinite, yet it is also divided into four parts, essentially
Narayana is Nirguna but it is also comprised of three shakti.
Bhu shakti, Sri Shakti and Nila Shankti.
This accounts for 75% of Narayana*. Note the greater detail here than is given by the physical model from NASA.
This was written down over 1000 years ago.

The last quarter is Vasudeva which is split into two halves, one of which is Prakriti perceptible as the experienced
universe of the shakti or energy which makes the elements. The other is Perusha which is Vasudeva or conciousness.

Strikingly similar already, don't you think?
Parasara give the material universes as being 1/8th or 12.5% of the whole.
NASA give 1/20th or 4% as being the material universe.

I personally equate the differance to Parasara's greater understanding of the relationship between conciousness and
matter, NASA as yet, has apparently not noticed the correlation between events, which inextricably link conciousness
and matter through time.

God takes differing forms depending on our level of readiness and our capacity for learning and understanding and
Śiva is the greatest teacher, above all other Gurus; He is Vasudeva, or Paramatma. Yet we can find him delightfully
reflected in our selves, remember Vasudeva is both Prakriti and Perusha, both matter and energy.

E=mc˛ ... conciousness is manifest as a shape upon this matter, rather like the shape of an electromagnetic recording.
It is neither electricity nor ferrous oxide, yet it exists upon this medium as a vibration. So it is outside of this equation,
yet permeating it.

mc(n+1) = mc(n)˛+Δt

this is not the "right" equation I am sure of that but this does explain the concept adequately.

Energy as an infinite expression of time. A mathematical Yantra which helps me to remember God conciousness.
Some prefer a picture, others a statue.
The maths may be far from the mark as yet but I shall continue playing with it, the point being that the maths is only
a language, it describes a vision; a vision which could also be depicted by a story.

To begin to understand this system, one must start by immersing ones self into it fully.

It wasn't thought up or invented, it is not contrived; it grew from the mind of God. This happens when the creativity
in man is given an open caring environment in which to flourish without aggressive competition.

This is dharma, it grows.


praṇāma

mana


*The Universe spelt with a capital U in astrophysics to imply the inclusion of dark energy and dark matter; where as
universe without the capital is the manifest universe.

ॐ नमः शिवाय