PDA

View Full Version : Is the end of kaliyuga and the night of Brahma the same?



Hiwaunis
29 August 2007, 12:19 AM
Om Shanti,
I remember reading or hearing something about the day and night of Brahma. Is the night of Brahma considered to be the end of the world (earth) or just the end of this cycle?

Even in kaliyuga the earth is such a beautiful planet. I'd hate to see it destroyed.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Agnideva
31 August 2007, 11:11 AM
Namaste Hiwaunis

I remember reading or hearing something about the day and night of Brahma. Is the night of Brahma considered to be the end of the world (earth) or just the end of this cycle? Even in kaliyuga the earth is such a beautiful planet. I'd hate to see it destroyed.

Short answer: Day/night of Brahmā and end of kaliyuga are not the same, and end of the present kaliyuga does not indicate the beginning of the night of Brahmā.

Long answer: A day of Brahmā is called a kalpa and is 4,320,000,000 years long (the night of Brahmā is equally as long). At the end of each day of Brahmā comes a pralaya, a cycle of world dissolution, followed by a new cycle of creation at the beginning of the next day of Brahmā.

Each day of Brahmā consists of 14 manvantaras (306,720,000 years each) + 15 manvantara twilight periods (1,728,000 years each) that flank the manvantaras. Each manvantara period is characterized by a new Manu (leader/progenitor of mankind) and new Indra (leader of Devas). A manvantara itself is made up of 71 mahayuga cycles. A mahayuga cycle is 4,320,000 years long, and consists of satya-yuga (1,728,000 yrs) + treta-yuga (1,296,000 yrs) + dvapara-yuga (864,000 yrs) + kaliyuga (432,000).

The present kalpa (day of Brahmā) in which we live is called the Shveta-Varaha Kalpa (Kalpa of the White Boar). Within that kalpa, this is the seventh manvantara called the Vaivasvata Manvantara, named after Manu Vaivasvata, the son of the Sun (Vivasvan). Within that, this is the kaliyuga of the 28th mahayuga cycle, which began at 00:00 (midnight) February 18, 3102 BCE. In other words, there is a lot of time left before the world is destroyed!

Hope that wasn’t TMI!

OM Shanti,
A.

Nachiketa
31 August 2007, 11:26 AM
Namaste Hiwaunis,
IMHO, we should not worry about the end of this earth. For all this is verily the Lord.
Let HIM worry about creation and destruction.:p (Paramahamsa Nithyananda's quote)
Thanks

Hiwaunis
01 September 2007, 12:32 PM
Om Shanti Agnideva and Nachiketa,
Thank you for the eternal knowledge. I think I have it clear now. Please correct me if I am wrong. There are 3 mega cycles, (day, dissolution, and night). The day cycles are divided into 29 cycles (14 inner and 15 outer). Each of the 14 inner cycles are divided into 4 cycles. Each of the 4 cycles are divided into a couple hundred thousand years.

I am not too worried about the end of the world. Sometimes I feel that I am a traveler through time and sometimes I feel that time is the traveler through me. So every now and then I like to look back through time to see where I really came from. I wasn't always feeling and thinking this way and am somewhat regretful. I have accumulated habits that I now find hard to get rid of. But now that I have access to this knowledge I am very grateful for receiving it.

I love this world. Words cannot explain how I adore the light and warmth from the sun. I am so grateful to be able to breathe in the coolness of the air. That feeling of cold water on my face just leaves me speechless. I don't even understand what my attraction to water is. I have two 30 gal fish tanks that I find myself constantly staring at (and 6 big, beautiful goldfish). I can't wait for the day when I can afford 150 gal tank.

I don't know if I'll ever see the end of the world, I do thank God for letting me experience the love and beauty of life in this world.

Please let know if my simple understanding of the day and night of Brahma is correct? As I was reading it I was also trying to picture it.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Agnideva
08 September 2007, 09:05 AM
Namaste Hiwaunis,

I think I have it clear now. Please correct me if I am wrong. There are 3 mega cycles, (day, dissolution, and night). The day cycles are divided into 29 cycles (14 inner and 15 outer). Each of the 14 inner cycles are divided into 4 cycles. Each of the 4 cycles are divided into a couple hundred thousand years.
Yes, you got it! Except the 14 inner cycles have 71 sets of periods divided into 4 yugas each.

OM Shanti,
A.

Khadgar
08 September 2007, 12:33 PM
Om Shanti,
I remember reading or hearing something about the day and night of Brahma. Is the night of Brahma considered to be the end of the world (earth) or just the end of this cycle?

Even in kaliyuga the earth is such a beautiful planet. I'd hate to see it destroyed.

Namaste,
Hiwaunis


I'm fairly certain the Kali Yuga wasn't meant to be taken literally. From what I can understand, it just alludes to the general ignorance of mankind due to self indulgence and self tendencies.

One full Mahayuga, from what I understand, again is symbolic isn't it? To try and explain the age of man? It's about 4 mln years old, and as it turns out our earliest common primates in Africa turned up around that time..

yajvan
08 September 2007, 02:01 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I'm fairly certain the Kali Yuga wasn't meant to be taken literally. From what I can understand, it just alludes to the general ignorance of mankind due to self indulgence and self tendencies.

One full Mahayuga, from what I understand, again is symbolic isn't it? To try and explain the age of man? It's about 4 mln years old, and as it turns out our earliest common primates in Africa turned up around that time..

Namaste Khadgar,
I read your post and there is many posts on this that you can search on.
Here is just one of many discussions: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1784
Yet the 432,000 years of Kali is considered authentic. As is the other 3 yugas that are multiples of Kali.

But let me ask, in your opinion if this was not a literal piece of info, how do you view it? That is, the value of this yuga system? What if ( and this is just throwing an idea out) the yuga system was not earth-centric, buy Galaxy centric?
Then the time scales are in sync with the billions of years and the Day and Night of Brahma.

According to the wise Kali was to have begun in 3102 BC, the day Krsna left this earth.

pranams,

Khadgar
08 September 2007, 02:20 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Khadgar,
I read your post and there is many posts on this that you can search on.
Here is just one of many discussions: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1784
Yet the 432,000 years of Kali is considered authentic. As is the other 3 yugas that are multiples of Kali.

But let me ask, in your opinion if this was not a literal piece of info, how do you view it? That is, the value of this yuga system? What if ( and this is just throwing an idea out) the yuga system was not earth-centric, buy Galaxy centric?
Then the time scales are in sync with the billions of years and the Day and Night of Brahma.

According to the wise Kali was to have begun in 3102 BC, the day Krsna left this earth.

pranams,

Namaste yajvan,

That's just it, I view the Yuga system, in terms of the calculations as a means of dating the universe.. I think a day of Brahma is symbolic for the age of the Earth [4 bln yrs]. I think the Kali Yuga is symbolic of the age of man and man's general ignorance. I don't doubt it is authentic, but it is authentic with respect to the mythology. And since mythology itself is used symbolically to convey the spiritual message, I take the Yugas to be so as well.


I made a thread somewhat relating to this too, perhaps you can take a look at it: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1964

Khadgar
08 September 2007, 06:22 PM
I don't think I've said anything too out of line, no? =|

Agnideva
08 September 2007, 06:33 PM
Namaste Khadgar,

I don't think I've said anything too out of line, no? =|
No! At least for me :). When we read and interpret scripture, we as individual and independent followers of Sanatana Dharma have the intellectual freedom to take anything we please as symbolic or literal, as the case may be. This, however, changes when we accept a guru in which case it is deemed essential that our thoughts, ideas and interpretations be in line with the guru's and that particular spiritual lineage.

OM Shanti,
A.

Khadgar
08 September 2007, 07:19 PM
Namaste Khadgar,

No! At least for me :). When we read and interpret scripture, we as individual and independent followers of Sanatana Dharma have the intellectual freedom to take anything we please as symbolic or literal, as the case may be. This, however, changes when we accept a guru in which case it is deemed essential that our thoughts, ideas and interpretations be in line with the guru's and that particular spiritual lineage.

OM Shanti,
A.

Namaste, Agni

I do agree with you on everything you said. As for me, I don't have a particular guru but my inspiration and thrust is based on several members of the local branch of the Vedanta society whom I've spoken to =)

I wish to see more organizations as such take a more active role in the western world that we can share our Eastern traditions with the west.

yajvan
09 September 2007, 03:37 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I don't think I've said anything too out of line, no? =|

Namaste khadgar,
you are fine in your observations, and amongst friends too. Do not hesitate to stretch your thinking an poke around at these things.

Here's our pickle. We bathe in lots of knowledge. We know of the wholeness of Brahman, yet we are still stuck in duality. That is, there is me, and the universe. We know better that me is also THAT, and this is the start to moksha. We know better, but do not have the experience of 'better' of this moksha all the time, as it can be one thought away or one life away.

Like that , until we can see forward and backwards in time, as 'now' then we do the best we can with the knowledge we have. This now, is eternity that the wise speak of. When one is established in 'now' then this time thing becomes just a concept, a tool for us.

Till then we take a stab of being open ,indeed - this is Agnideva's suggestion and a good one too. A fresh look at the world, and knowing we are moving forward.

I always think of what Aristotle said, It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
For me, it is also the the option of and the exercise to hold two competing ideas in the mind at the same time to compare and contrast them, and not worrying about accepting any.

This is the great notion then of these yugas. We are only here for a blink of an eye, yet these yugas are in billions and zillions of years. How can we fathom this? These sizes (zillions and trillions, and ...) are an eternity in size. Exactly! When we become this 'now' this eternity, then we are on the same footing and will know the truth.

pranams,

Khadgar
09 September 2007, 05:26 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste khadgar,
you are fine in your observations, and amongst friends too. Do not hesitate to stretch your thinking an poke around at these things.

Here's our pickle. We bathe in lots of knowledge. We know of the wholeness of Brahman, yet we are still stuck in duality. That is, there is me, and the universe. We know better that me is also THAT, and this is the start to moksha. We know better, but do not have the experience of 'better' of this moksha all the time, as it can be one thought away or one life away.

Like that , until we can see forward and backwards in time, as 'now' then we do the best we can with the knowledge we have. This now, is eternity that the wise speak of. When one is established in 'now' then this time thing becomes just a concept, a tool for us.

Till then we take a stab of being open ,indeed - this is Agnideva's suggestion and a good one too. A fresh look at the world, and knowing we are moving forward.

I always think of what Aristotle said, It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
For me, it is also the the option of and the exercise to hold two competing ideas in the mind at the same time to compare and contrast them, and not worrying about accepting any.

This is the great notion then of these yugas. We are only here for a blink of an eye, yet these yugas are in billions and zillions of years. How can we fathom this? These sizes (zillions and trillions, and ...) are an eternity in size. Exactly! When we become this 'now' this eternity, then we are on the same footing and will know the truth.

pranams,


Namaste yajvan,
While I agree with your assertion of 'now', I'd like to propose something even more radical, yet in my opinion deeply rooted still in Vedic Philosophy. Not only that, but an emerging concept in cutting edge physics [Astrophysics and Quantum Theory]:

The 'Now' and the 'Past' and 'Future' are not only relative, but in fact 'One'. We can only conceptualize the 'now', because we has humans are limited, as you say, in our understanding to fathom the entirety of the 4th Dimension [Time]. But I also believe with modern science and understanding we can uncover the mysteries that the Vedic Sages of old Self Realized. As did Buddhist Monks, and as they do to this very day; as do Hindu Sadhus, Sikhi Gurus, Jaina Monks, etc. I am bewildered and awestruck, and elated when I realize that they knew the inner workings of the universe so far FAR ahead of their time. I feel it is up to science to proceed on and uncover the universe. To the Sages and Monks, this understanding of the intricacies of Reality was THE Spiritual Experience. I wish for science to bring that personal experience and translate it into social knowledge. Knowledge is a RIGHT that all beings should have. And it is inevitable that we see science do its work and unlock the universe for is.

When I take the Yugas and Aryan/Hindu mythology as symbolic instead of the literal mythology, [and I do believe the Sages meant it to be symbolic rather than literal], I see so much that correlates with modern science. So much. So much so that I am FORCED to conclude that the mythology indeed is meant to be purely symbolic.

As an example; let's look at the Age of Brahma. Let's take it out of the mythological context [Brahma's life lasting for hundreds of trillions of years], and into a scientific context:

Currently, the Expanding Model of the Universe suggests that celestial objects are moving away from each other at an accelerating pace. On top of which, we know that as energy is dispersed from stars along this vacuum of space within which we are expanding away from each other, we will end up in an slow ice death before two Membranes collide and the Universe is reborn again. [See Quantum Theory, M-Theory and SuperStringTheory]

As it turns out, the estimated time for the entire universe to go into an icey death is roughly the same amount of time of the Age of Brahma!!

The astonishing accuracy of the Sages of old humbles me! The Sages Realized this and so to protect this knowledge they returned back to Aryan society from their aescetic abode and incorporated this into the songs of existing Aryan mythology. They took the god Brahma and created such a song, and such an idea which incorporated those very astronomical numbers and calculations into the mythology of the Yugas.

In light of the stark similarities between Modern Physics and Vedic Philosophy, I can't help but hypothesis that that is what indeed happened.

I hope Modern Science continues to make pursuits in cutting edge understanding of Reality, such that we confirm what Vedic Philosophy and the Sanatani, Buddhi, Jaina, Sikhi teachings already knew long before our time.

yajvan
12 September 2007, 01:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste yajvan,

The 'Now' and the 'Past' and 'Future' are not only relative, but in fact 'One'..

Namaste Kha-d-gar,

I typed your name thus, as the Upainshads suggest Kha is another name for Brahman ( as Kham - from the Om Kham Brahma Bramana of the Khila Kanda, Found in the Brihardaranayaka); This Kham is the bija for akasha or pure space and is considered the perfect example of the infinite and Brahman. And in fact, in the Brahma Sutras is explained as Brahman.

So what does this have to do with this post? The notion of 'Now' is timeless, this is what makes it eternity.
That is past , present and the relative now that people discuss e.g. ' lets do this now' , is played out in the eternal 'Now', that never erodes.

'Now' is not bound by past or present, It exists without constraints. Even if you say 'now' is the time of you reading this , that lasts for less then a truti* and it is gone. The 'present' leaves a trail of the past, and happens instantaneously.

Yet this 'Now', is always now with no remnants or left-overs of 'past'.
So, as Timelessness = Now, as Kham = Brahman. Together they give one a sense for the infinite. No constraints, no boundaries, that of Bhuma or a fullness or plenum some say, that is just fullness without any seems. The seems would suggest a beginning or end.

Its a delight to see this in your name, timeless Brahman-akasha.


*small is considered 1 truti. One hundred truti's = 1 tapal. Thirty tapal's = 1 nimesha or the blink of the eye. So if you work backwards , a truti equals about ~ 0.00001 to 0.00003 seconds


pranams,

Khadgar
12 September 2007, 06:38 PM
Namaste yajvan,

Wow, I didn't even know that. I learn something new everyday :) Thank you.

saidevo
12 September 2007, 11:23 PM
Namaste Khadgar.



The astonishing accuracy of the Sages of old humbles me! The Sages Realized this and so to protect this knowledge they returned back to Aryan society from their aescetic abode and incorporated this into the songs of existing Aryan mythology. They took the god Brahma and created such a song, and such an idea which incorporated those very astronomical numbers and calculations into the mythology of the Yugas.


Vedas and other Hindu Scriptures do contain symbolism, allegory and mythology but the Trinity and other members of the hierarchy of 'Brahmanhood' are not just symbols. Brahma, Vishu and Shiva are not mythical Gods created as symbols to express the nature of Brahman to the public by the Rishis. They are as real as you and I are and do exist to administer the universe and its creations during its every cycle.

Just as every discovery in science is verified and corroborated, the existence of these Gods and their hierarchy has been verified and corroborated by competent sages throughout the history of Hinduism. You and I too can verify and realize those Gods if we acquire that level of competence.

You can read about the nature and authenticity of Hindu scriptures in this link:
http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/

Realization of Brahman is a progressive journey that leads through the colorful world of Bhakti and Karma Yoga--not a flight from here to the Eternity in a rocket.

Madhavan
12 September 2007, 11:53 PM
.



Vedas and other Hindu Scriptures do contain symbolism, allegory and mythology but the Trinity and other members of the hierarchy of 'Brahmanhood' are not just symbols. Brahma, Vishu and Shiva are not mythical Gods created as symbols to express the nature of Brahman to the public by the Rishis. They are as real as you and I are and do exist to administer the universe and its creations during its every cycle.



This is a good point. Is God is a figment of man's imagination? The truth is just opposite of this view. The correct view is that you are a product of God's imagination...You do not imagine the existance of God, but the otherway around, your existance is imagined by God. The imagination of God is so powerful, that his mere thoughts(wish) create the world that appear to be real for us.

If we consider creation by Brahma to be only symbolic, we are just returning back to atheism. How could life(consciousness) originate from matter(unconsciousness)? Mind cannot create God, because mind itself was created by God, otherwise we are forced accept the hypothesis that mind came out of nothing!

That there is one supreme God who exists in many forms, and that there are many gods and they have a hierarchy - cannot be denied in the phenomenal reality. All vedic gods exist and are as real as everybody else on this planet.

Khadgar
13 September 2007, 05:36 AM
Namaste Khadgar.



Vedas and other Hindu Scriptures do contain symbolism, allegory and mythology but the Trinity and other members of the hierarchy of 'Brahmanhood' are not just symbols. Brahma, Vishu and Shiva are not mythical Gods created as symbols to express the nature of Brahman to the public by the Rishis. They are as real as you and I are and do exist to administer the universe and its creations during its every cycle.

Just as every discovery in science is verified and corroborated, the existence of these Gods and their hierarchy has been verified and corroborated by competent sages throughout the history of Hinduism. You and I too can verify and realize those Gods if we acquire that level of competence.

You can read about the nature and authenticity of Hindu scriptures in this link:
http://www.encyclopediaofauthentichinduism.org/

Realization of Brahman is a progressive journey that leads through the colorful world of Bhakti and Karma Yoga--not a flight from here to the Eternity in a rocket.

Namaste saidevo,

I've heard/read those corroborations too, but from what I can tell.... at least in my opinion, it seems like the Sage's accounts were recorded down in symbolic form. I'll take a look at that site though.

One thing you mentioned about the gods being as real as you and I. Well... remember that the individual self is a delusion. We are in essence both existent and non-existent ... the gods may exist only as part and parcel of our individualistic understanding of reality. We have to be very careful when we make these kinds of assumptions.

SuperString Theory and M Theory does point towards Vedic Philosophy and Eastnern and Karmic spirituality being TRUE as well as Brahman/Monistic Ultimate Reality being TRUE. But as for individual gods, of Aryan mythology... or even the individual gods of other mythologies as well as the Abrahamic mythologies, there is no empirical evidence to show their existence by any stretch.

Which is why I always seek to read between the lines. The way the Sages have described the functions of the Trinity leads me to believe that the gods were in fact meant to be taken symbolically.

Let me clarify my above position further: the Trinity essentially refers to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Of course, I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes here, if one wants to BELIEVE in the gods, that is certainly fine, but I'm presenting the scientific angle.

My thread here shows what I'm getting at:

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1894

Thank you again for your insight. :)

yajvan
13 September 2007, 09:35 AM
hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste saidevo,

Let me clarify my above position further: the Trinity essentially refers to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Of course, I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes here, if one wants to BELIEVE in the gods, that is certainly fine, but I'm presenting the scientific angle.


This is a reasonable view . This is more akin to Samkaya philosophy. One of the 6 systems of Indian Philosophy. It has the power to take one from where they are at and deliver Moksha. So if this is your orientation - consider reading Samkaya Philosophy if there is interest.

If this is your starting point and orientation then this is reasonable. From my view Siva-Visnu-Brahma are expressing their value in these physical laws. We co-exist [ your views and mine ] just fine and I see these laws of physics play out every day. How else would I view a flower if not by these laws?

Yet for me, and my advaita orientation, the seer , the object being seen and the method of seeing are all one homogeneous thing, consciousness. It does not suggest that the laws are not there playing and displaying this expression of creation. Consciousness exercises these laws to display itself.

We ( your notion of the universe ) and mine co-exist nicely. One way does not have to trump the other. There is much flexibility in advaita ( non-duality) ... and we (me) loves the expression of this value in the physical universe as string theory, quantum mechanics, etc. as it gets closer to pure consciousness, which the scientists are looking at the best they can with the tools they have.

For me, the additional scientist are the kavi's (~ poets) the rishi's and muni's of the vedas. Their instrument is Ritambhara-prajna - lit. full of unalloyed truth - their laboratory is unbounded consciousness.

pranams,

Khadgar
13 September 2007, 09:42 AM
hari Om
~~~~~


This is a reasonable view . This is more akin to Samkaya philosophy. One of the 6 systems of Indian Philosophy. It has the power to take one from where they are at and deliver Moksha. So if this is your orientation - consider reading Samkaya Philosophy if there is interest.

If this is your starting point and orientation then this is reasonable. From my view Siva-Visnu-Brahma are expressing their value in these physical laws. We co-exist [ your views and mine ] just fine and I see these laws of physics play out every day. How else would I view a flower if not by these laws?

Yet for me, and my advaita orientation, the seer , the object being seen and the method of seeing are all one homogeneous thing, consciousness. It does not suggest that the laws are not there playing and displaying this expression of creation. Consciousness exercises these laws to display itself.

We ( your notion of the universe ) and mine co-exist nicely. One way does not have to trump the other. There is much flexibility in advaita ( non-duality) ... and we (me) loves the expression of this value in the physical universe as string theory, quantum mechanics, etc. as it gets closer to pure consciousness, which the scientists are looking at the best they can with the tools they have.

For me, the additional scientist are the kavi's (~ poets) the rishi's and muni's of the vedas. Their instrument is Ritambhara-prajna - lit. full of unalloyed truth - their laboratory is unbounded consciousness.

pranams,


Namaste yajvan,

There is a book called Vedic String Theory. Have you had a chance to read it? When I get more free time I'll certainly take a look it. :)

yajvan
13 September 2007, 11:42 AM
hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvan,

There is a book called Vedic String Theory. Have you had a chance to read it? When I get more free time I'll certainly take a look it. :)

Namaste,
one more book to add to my list!

http://www.amazon.com/Vedic-String-Theory-Anant-Bhakta/dp/1419631004/ref=sr_1_3/104-2739441-3322346?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189701585&sr=1-3


"We are used to thinking of fundamental particles (like electrons) as point-like 0-dimensional objects. A generalization of this is fundamental strings that are 1-dimensional objects. They have no thickness but do have a length, typically 0.000000000000000000000000000000001cm [that's a decimal point followed by 32 zeros and a 1]. This is very small compared to the length scales that we can reasonably measure, so these strings are so small that they practically look like point particles." http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/physics.htm


Can you help me understand the notion of 11 dimensions called out in super-sting theory? after 4 or 5, I am scratching my head of what dimension is being referred to.. and not just a conceptual idea.

thank you,

saidevo
13 September 2007, 11:46 AM
Namaste Khadgar.



Let me clarify my above position further: the Trinity essentially refers to the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Of course, I certainly don't want to step on anyone's toes here, if one wants to BELIEVE in the gods, that is certainly fine, but I'm presenting the scientific angle.


There is no denial that everything is essentially energy in this universe and beyond. What science cannot answer as yet (and possibly never if it takes only a physical view) is: why should all this energy be in physical form and why there cannot be forms that are trans-physical.

Those who adhere to the scientific view miss the big picture that is defined and ruled by Consciousness, which is energy alright but never physical.

How does an atom remain intact in its shape and form? How does a living organism such as the human cell which is essentially a conglomeration of atoms maintain its form and contents in tact when everything around it is vibrating at different frequencies, switching between particle and energy states? Why doesn't the contents of an atom or a cell just dissipate? What determines the different patterns of these atomic conglomerations that form human, and animal organs differently and subtly differentiate their patterns among humans?

If you talk about sub-atomic forces what actually is the nature of these forces? What exactly is a force, if it is not another form of energy? How and why does one form of energy (force) maintain another form (the cell or the atom)? In a human body, how do the cells of different organs identify themselves and always aggregate to give the shape and function of the organs?

What is the (nautre of the) human soul that survives the death of its physical body? How and where does it survive? If science does not believe in trans-death survival, why is so much of its technology wasted to produce a never-ending ballyhoo of Hollywood horror and occult movies with absurd themes such as zombies having the intelligence to chase and attack living humans smashing the barriers with the facility of decaying flesh and bones of dead bodies?

The Human Mind

What is the nature of the human mind? Neuroscience tries to explain mind and thoughts in terms of the matter of the physical brain, as a result of neurochemical processes. Is this a plausible and complete explanation?

Think of a horse. This thought immediately brings up the figure of a horse that you can virtually see in your mind. The figure might be vague, but still you can recognize it. As you concentrate on this figure, with eyes open or closed, the figure gradually gets painted into a picture. Not just a two-dimensional picture of a photograph, but a cinematic, three-dimensional one.

Apart from seeing, you can also 'feel' the horse that your mind is seeing. And from the model horse you are seeing, you can easily derive and imagine other horses--larger horses, smaller ones, horses with different hues, and horses in action! You are 'seeing' the horses, which means you are employing the visual sense (the mind's eye) to recognize them.

The impulse of a small thought has brought up so much of a visual scenery of living horses in the mind! Such is the power of thought.

Obviously, the horses you see with your mind, occupy some space. Can this space be purely physical, made of the grey matter of the brain and nerve cells, and located inside the brain? If the space and the processes are purely physical, they should account for where and how the past impressions of a set of horses are stored, how these impressions are retrieved from their storage and how and where they are displayed for visually sensing them.

A holistic view of this universe and the God behind it cannot be obtained by the subtlest physical abstractions of the physical science. This is because the lowest physical abstraction is the highest in trans-physical worlds, and the Absolute Truth is inconceivably beyond yet unbelievably immanent the subtlest trans-physical abstractions. As the Katha Upanishad says, this Truth is

aNoraNiyAn mahato mahIyAn Atmasya jantor nihito guhayAm

"Smaller than the smallest atom is the Atman. Most expansive is He, greater than the great. Because He is the innermost existence in every thing, He is seated in the hearts of all beings. -- Swami Krishnananda's commentary"

Read the book Beyond the Physical by Donald J. DeGracia, that tries to give a holistic picture through a synthesis of physical science, occult science, philosophy and mysticism. This book can be downloaded at: http://www.geocities.com/octanolboy/bpweb/BP_Index.htm

Khadgar
13 September 2007, 01:24 PM
Namaste yajvan,
Namaste saidevo,

saidevo believe it or not you're essentially asking a very similar question to what yajvan is asking in terms of trying to understand the fundamentals of SuperString Theory and M Theory. I'm going to post some documentaries below which I absolutely hope will clear up those answers. And, as you watch the documentary always keep in mind Vedic Philosophy. Keep in mind what Buddha, Krishna, Mahavir, Guru Nanak Ji, and the many many great Sages, Rishis, Gurus and Monks of Eastern spirituality and philosophy taught.... and be astounded at how science is revealing to us just how true our Eastern spirituality and our Philosophy is :)



The Elegant Universe [parts 1, 2, and 3]:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1322493346942339345


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1220029554914167356&q=The+Elegant+Universe&total=117&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1736748358304155609&q=The+Elegant+Universe&total=117&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3



Parallel Universes:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4158787819977146893&q=Parallel+Universes&total=175&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8

Each documentary is about an hour long. The first part has a bit of a commercial at the beginning but the documentary starts after that.


edit- as you watch the very last documentary about Parallel Universes, keep in mind the Karmic understanding of infinite Universes floating in the Causal Ocean. :)


Enjoy :)

yajvan
13 September 2007, 04:57 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste yajvan,
Namaste saidevo,

saidevo believe it or not you're essentially asking a very similar question to what yajvan is asking in terms of trying to understand the fundamentals of SuperString Theory and M Theory. I'm going to post some documentaries below which I absolutely hope will clear up those answers. And, as you watch the documentary always keep in mind Vedic Philosophy. Keep in mind what Buddha, Krishna, Mahavir, Guru Nanak Ji, and the many many great Sages, Rishis, Gurus and Monks of Eastern spirituality and philosophy taught.... and be astounded at how science is revealing to us just how true our Eastern spirituality and our Philosophy is :)



The Elegant Universe [parts 1, 2, and 3]:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1322493346942339345
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1220029554914167356&q=The+Elegant+Universe&total=117&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1736748358304155609&q=The+Elegant+Universe&total=117&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3


Namaste Khadgar,
Yes, I have seen this series on TV (PBS) and watched it 2X times.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

Yet when it comes to the explanation of the 11 dimensions, they get started yet never finish the 11 in a comprehensible format - usually they are most excellent at doing this ( or my pea brain missed it?)...

I also watched What the bleep http://www.whatthebleep.com/ thinking this will assist me. It does a nice job with quantum theory and nicely explains the coming -and -goings of particles e.g. the universe being created and destroyed on a regular basis...this makes sense.
I have also posted to other web sites, wrote Discover Magazine, etc. yet have not been fulfilled with the answers.


Any way- if you come across a site that explains this in a 'Lincoln logs' e.g. step-by-step manner , I will be all over it.


thxc again.

Hiwaunis
24 September 2007, 03:58 PM
edit- as you watch the very last documentary about Parallel Universes, keep in mind the Karmic understanding of infinite Universes floating in the Causal Ocean. :)


Enjoy :)

Om Shanit Khadgar,
Please explain the above comment? I'd would like to know more information on "infinite Universes floating in the Causal Ocean?"

Namaste,
Hiwaunis

Khadgar
24 September 2007, 10:34 PM
Om Shanit Khadgar,
Please explain the above comment? I'd would like to know more information on "infinite Universes floating in the Causal Ocean?"

Namaste,
Hiwaunis


Namaste Hiwaunis,

There is a Vedic theory about there being "infinite universes" floating in a Causal Ocean, which mirrors the very nature of the 11th dimension insofar as Quantum Theory, SuperString Theory and M-Theory is concerned with respect to parallel universes.

yajvan
25 September 2007, 03:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Hiwaunis,

There is a Vedic theory about there being "infinite universes" floating in a Causal Ocean,

Namaste Khadgar & Hiwaunis
I hope its ok I join this conversation... I have often wondered about this notion. I myself have great difficulty comprehending "infinite universes". How so?

By definition the Univese it that which holds everything Uni + verse = Unity or a One Whole + diversity or the multiple expressions of this creation; from sub-atomic to maco-galactic. from pure mass and 100% density to pure akasha ( both of elemental and consciousness). So , as I see it, this a plenum, this Bhuma or Fullness, or completeness.

I cannot comprehend another universe out side of this one because the engulfing-one-principle does not apply. Now I do not suggest or imply in this conversation I am discussing the Absolute or aksara [ a = not + ksi = destroy or perish = the non-perishable, transcendental Being ]

So , could there be multiple dimensions? sure. A zillion galaxies, absolutely. A black hole that takes one to another part of the universe... I guess so.

Yet at the end of the day, this whole thing we call Universe is is that which encompasses every thing... for me how then can there be multiple 'encompassing every things'?

I ask you the to stretch my understanding on this ... even if the 11 super-string theory attempts to define this ( and my pea brain does not get any string idea past 5 or 6 ) - it still resides in the Universe.


pranams,

Nuno Matos
25 September 2007, 05:30 PM
Namaste

From a strictly dual perspective science as come to this paradox. One world many observers, one observer many worlds. The first resembles classic dualism like sankhia the second resembles classic non dualism like advaita. Both putted together look like what has been discussed on the import of turiya trend about saguna and nirguna brahman.

1º
One world=Prackrti ( discrete /indiscreet )
Many observers= the many Purushas( evoluting), if i am not mistake the Purusha is know has KsheetraJnana or the lord of a territory. So according to it there is only one world of matter but many points and scales of view and power about that world.

2º

One observer= adyatman (static, unchanged)
Many Worlds= Lokas,Patalas,Varnas, etc...(all revealed and encompassed)


World(s)=Universe=Absolute Brahman=cosmos=fullness=adyatman; not necessarily by this order or by any order at all.

This is a naive explanation it requires a further examination to become a integrated theory.This is based on science and spirituality but is not a scientific theory not even a spiritual one.I am speculating over spiritual and scientific data.

Om namah shivaya!!!

Khadgar
25 September 2007, 06:09 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Khadgar & Hiwaunis
I hope its ok I join this conversation... I have often wondered about this notion. I myself have great difficulty comprehending "infinite universes". How so?

By definition the Univese it that which holds everything Uni + verse = Unity or a One Whole + diversity or the multiple expressions of this creation; from sub-atomic to maco-galactic. from pure mass and 100% density to pure akasha ( both of elemental and consciousness). So , as I see it, this a plenum, this Bhuma or Fullness, or completeness.

I cannot comprehend another universe out side of this one because the engulfing-one-principle does not apply. Now I do not suggest or imply in this conversation I am discussing the Absolute or aksara [ a = not + ksi = destroy or perish = the non-perishable, transcendental Being ]

So , could there be multiple dimensions? sure. A zillion galaxies, absolutely. A black hole that takes one to another part of the universe... I guess so.

Yet at the end of the day, this whole thing we call Universe is is that which encompasses every thing... for me how then can there be multiple 'encompassing every things'?

I ask you the to stretch my understanding on this ... even if the 11 super-string theory attempts to define this ( and my pea brain does not get any string idea past 5 or 6 ) - it still resides in the Universe.


pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

I think if you take a look a closer look at the documentaries, you'll see what I mean. "Universe" insofar as it relates to us, refers to the vibrations from our particular Membrane... which floats, [sometimes placidly, sometimes turbulently], in the Causal Ocean [11th dimension].. Now, the Causal Ocean is certainly a greater reality... but it wouldn't be "universe" in the way that we know the convention of what that entails...
Is that what you were essentially asking? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand :P

yajvan
25 September 2007, 07:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

I think if you take a look a closer look at the documentaries, you'll see what I mean. "Universe" insofar as it relates to us, refers to the vibrations from our particular Membrane... which floats, [sometimes placidly, sometimes turbulently], in the Causal Ocean [11th dimension].. Now, the Causal Ocean is certainly a greater reality... but it wouldn't be "universe" in the way that we know the convention of what that entails...
Is that what you were essentially asking? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand :P

Namaste Khadgar ( and Nuno, thxc for your insights on this).

I was trying to express the point that I cannot conceive of more then one universe. I Can see multiple points of view as Nuno alludes to.

Idea 1
For each human on this earth they see the universe differently. So one may contend there are multiple universes based upon perception - this I can see, yet at the end of the day the 6 billion ± on this planet still reside in one universe, and view it 6 billion ways differently.

Idea 2
I am sure you have heard of the book , Flatland. For those that have not, its the story of perspectives. One person lives on a 1 dimensional plane, with 2 directions. That is, the X axis[ +X and -X direction ] in the cartisean coordinate system. He knows only length.
Another person lives on the X and Y axis. To the guy on the X axis, this other person is from another universe, as he can move in 4 directions - that is +X -X, +Y and -Y.
Another person lives on the X,Y and Z axis and has 6 directions he can move [ +X -X, +Y-Y, +Z-Z] and for all the folks below him, this guy is truely from another universe. Add another time past, present, future + all the dimesions discussed above. This guy is from another universe.

Now , here's my point. No matter how many dimensions you wish to add, and their names, They only reside in the One Universe that houses all these permutations.


Idea 3
String theory and superstring theory with 11 dimensions. Some may say this could be multiple universes. Yet I do not get it. I think I have the comprehension capacity, if explained clearly, when one gets into the 7th, 8... 11th dimension. But IMHO it does not suggest multiple universes, just multiple planes of possibilies, existence, etc etc.

So - lets go back to my original quandary:
'Vedic theory about there being "infinite universes" floating in a Causal Ocean' .
Causal Ocean from my studies is consciousness. All this is Consciousness says Vasisthi muni, in the Yoga Vasisthi. I can see this, and experience this from time to time.

I cannot get/comprehend multiple universes...perhaps multiple planes of existence, sure. Some even use the word galaxy for the word universe, so multiple galaxies is a known fact and I can see the comparisons.

Net net:
My brain cramp is all definition. Uni + verse = Unity or a One Whole + diversity or the multiple expressions of this creation. There can be only one ( for me). It would be like saying there are multiple spaces... that is, take a jar or pot with a top on it. One would say, the space in the jar is different then the space (akasha) outside the jar. How can this be? There cannot be two spaces.

By definition akasha is that space which allows (affords) everything to exist in. It provides boundaries to exist while it is boundless. There cannot not be two. So, break the jar... where did the space go? It was always there. We live in space, travel in space, and we never occupy the same space even for one milli-second as we are all moving though space on this earth and solar system and galaxy - all moving through this akasha. It holds the whole universe; it is the perfect example on a physical level of Brahman.

I hope I was able to state my orientation? and my brain cramp. I always look for expansion of ideas...so if you can assist me with examples and picture-words to get me to multiple-universes, I will go along for the ride.

pranams,

Khadgar
25 September 2007, 08:07 PM
Namaste Yajvan,

I'll have to analyse each point bit by bit, but I'll definitely get back to you. :)

pranams,

Nuno Matos
25 September 2007, 08:25 PM
Nmaste yajvan


This universe being singular or plural is what it is a point of view, there would not be no universe without some one to accertain it's existence.


quoting " My brain cramp is all definition. Uni + verse = Unity or a One Whole + diversity or the multiple expressions of this creation. There can be only one ( for me). It would be like saying there are multiple spaces... that is, take a jar or pot with a top on it. One would say, the space in the jar is different then the space (akasha) outside the jar. How can this be? There cannot be two spaces. "


Never the less the scriptures talk about three kind of spaces:

1º Volumetric directional space ( composed of the four elements )
2º akasha or "just space"
3º Shunya emptiness or absent space

you can add a 4º that is vacuum ( space without obstacles or dead space) and a 5º turya that is space without space.

If inside the jar the space is of the vacuum Kind( it is possible) you can say that it is a different space from akasha.

The best spiritual description for the theory being discussed here is the image of Vishnou floating over the many worlds (universe) uniting and maintaining them. Another valid description at a macro level is the classical ball inside another ball inside another ball meditation. And at a macro level this universe of ours is just like a particle at a micro quantum level.It makes me wonder!

Now in vacuum as far as i know objects ( witch are volumetric space ) behave differently from when they are in normal space i.e. akasha.

Never the less this are all particularisms.

yajvan
25 September 2007, 08:49 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Nmaste yajvan

This universe been singular or plural is what it is a point of view, there would not be no universe without some one to accertain it's existence.
quoting " My brain cramp is all definition. Uni + verse = Unity or a One Whole + diversity or the multiple expressions of this creation. There can be only one ( for me). It would be like saying there are multiple spaces... that is, take a jar or pot with a top on it. One would say, the space in the jar is different then the space (akasha) outside the jar. How can this be? There cannot be two spaces. "

Never the less the scriptures talk about three kind of spaces ( description not in order):

1º Volumetric directional space ( the four elements )
2º akasha or "just space"
3º Shunya emptiness or absent space

you can add a 4º that is Vacum ( space without obstacles or dead space) and a 5º turya that is space without space.

If inside the jar the space is of the Vacum Kind you can say that is a different space from akasha.

The best spiritual description for the theory being discussed here is the image of Vishnou floating over the many worlds (universe) uniting and maintaining them. Another valid description is the classical ball inside another ball inside another ball meditation .

Never the less this are all particularisms.


Namaste Nuno,
thank you for your post... the space I was referring to is akasha. That is pure space , you may reference it as vacuum, but it is everywhere, in every crack and crevice, between every particle and neutrino . It includes the other particulars ( less turya) you call out. Everything lives in it. Without this , nothing has a place to reside. As with your body or the jar, the space inside and outside is the same. IMHO I would call it perfect space vs. 'dead space', but that is just me.

Yet our question at hand is multiple universes and the example, multiple akasha, was offered as a obtuse point of view. Multiple akasha's is up-side-down. That said, and lets not divert this too much, there is 3 types of space as I have been taught, but we can leave it for another posting.

Last what is subtler then this pure akasha? pure consciousness. Again another post, as we need to finish the multiple universe concept.

pranams,

Nuno Matos
25 September 2007, 09:29 PM
Namaste yajvan

Akasha=aether=sky=atmosphere. The terrible aether of the ancient greeks for me is different from the scientific, non terrible, clean and unsubstantial vacuum.

Khadgar
25 September 2007, 10:29 PM
There's one thing I'll just add here, I apologize I'm so busy that I can't give a more detailed description:

The 11 dimensions... anything beyond the 3 physical and the 1 temporal dimension would obviously be something we can't see as we're only limited to five senses that are only geared for 3D. We do know so far that the 4th spatial dimension is the "hypercube's" dimension... and it goes from there. The rest of the spatial dimensions are curled up upon our Membrane. They are infinitely long... but are curled up infinitessimally small: think of one infinitely long strand of hair.... except the width of one hair is about a trillion times wider than the wide of these dimensions. And so we have 11 of these... and, while visually it doesn't make sense, the math IS there to support this. And so, when we are looking at things on the 11th dimension... we're actually looking at them from the perspective of the Causal Ocean. It is an 'existence'. But it is not really a 'universe' perse, because insofar as SSTheory and M Theory is concerned, one specific 'universe' is just a result of a vibrating membrane. And certainly there are parallel universes out there, etc.

I'll explain more when I get time :)

yajvan
25 September 2007, 11:27 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste yajvan

Akasha=aether=sky=atmosphere. The terrible aether of the ancient Greeks for me is different from the scientific, non terrible, clean and unsubstantial vacuum.


Namaste Nuno,
I respect your views, yet my view is slightly different yet not opposed to your offering.

आकाश ākāśa - as the pure space, without constraint. Some may call it ether as you point out, yet once sky or atmosphere is introduced, it takes on new meaning. Let me offer this:

Akasa is without bounds. Yet, the akasa holds the sky and the atmosphere and to this I agree and enjoy looking up.

If we click down one level and say I am Tantric for this part, then we have prakasa , or the Absolute. As It moves or vibrates, it becomes the first element, akasa. Now some call the mid-region antariksa, which akasa is at its core, and some call this sky.

At another level this is Supreme akasa or paramam vyoma. Staying a Tantric, this akasa is known as Bhuvanesgwari, others know her as Aditi ( A = not + diti = limit, or without limit, like akasa). The sound one offers ( bija) for this Bhuvanesgwari/Aditi is Hrim and is equal to Om.

If we again look to akasa as vyomam, it is considered the undifferentiated, and some called avyakrita, or the Unmanifest. Hence in this orientation it is Supreme Brahman. This is why the Brahma Sutras points out akasa+Brahman as the same, indeed, as called out in the Upanishads. This is why I think it is worth the effort to define this akasa the best we can and get a good understanding, hence my additional typing on this post.


We see this akasa as bhrat, as the vast, some call it Varuna , and is considered uru, wide, and what is the widest? the Vast? Akasa or the Infinite. And in us? It is considered dahrarea akasa, found within the heart.

So let me take the role of the Vedantist and view this akasa I am so fond of. We have Bhutakasa, Chittaksasa, and Chidaksasa.

Bhutakasa is the tattva, or element of pure space that contains all energy and matter this universe offers...that is, the universe resides in and exists in akasa.
Chittakasa is the mental space - the world of thought, inspiration, etc.
Chidakasa is considered the knowledge space, and pure knowledge space is equal to vyoman, it is considered the undifferentiated, and some call this avyakrita.Some say this Supreme space, this vyoman is dahrarea akasa, found within the heart space. This place Krsna calls, where He resides as paramatma. [Bhagavad Gita Chapt 10.11, 10.21, 6.13-14]

This is my orientation on this matter... perhaps I have offered a POV that adds some value for your consideration.

pranams,

Nuno Matos
26 September 2007, 12:04 AM
Namaste Yajvan


Yes, indeed it adds.


Thank you!

yajvan
26 September 2007, 11:41 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

There's one thing I'll just add here, I apologize I'm so busy that I can't give a more detailed description:

The 11 dimensions... anything beyond the 3 physical and the 1 temporal dimension would obviously be something we can't see as we're only limited to five senses that are only geared for 3D. We do know so far that the 4th spatial dimension is the "hypercube's" dimension... and it goes from there. The rest of the spatial dimensions are curled up upon our Membrane. They are infinitely long... but are curled up infinitessimally small: think of one infinitely long strand of hair.... except the width of one hair is about a trillion times wider than the wide of these dimensions. And so we have 11 of these... and, while visually it doesn't make sense, the math IS there to support this. And so, when we are looking at things on the 11th dimension... we're actually looking at them from the perspective of the Causal Ocean. It is an 'existence'. But it is not really a 'universe' perse, because insofar as SSTheory and M Theory is concerned, one specific 'universe' is just a result of a vibrating membrane. And certainly there are parallel universes out there, etc. I'll explain more when I get time
Namaste Khadgar,
Thank you for your post ... I understand your explanation. Yet can you offer more definition on the following:

1 temporal dimension - what is the 'temporal' dimension? space , or time or ___________?
4th spatial dimension is the "hypercube's" dimension - what is the spatial dimension and what is the definition then of a hyper cube? A Cube suggests volume ( X,Y and Z dimensions) - what makes it hyper and what is hyper about it?
Causal Ocean - what is your definition here as you understand it?That said, IMHO after reading the above, there is no multiple universe being offered - but multiple dimensional states - and I can get that.

Last , for your kind consideration. You mention 'we're only limited to five senses that are only geared for 3D'. I have a different view on this matter and thought to offer it. Yes, there is no doubt we have 5 senses. We are also called the city ( puri) of 11 gates ( Various orifices and input sites throughout our body i.e. eyes, ears, mouth, nose, etc).

That said, we have intuition that crosses all boundaries and is not limited to the sense mechanics of learning-and-input. As we are not limited by Intellect (dhi shakti) and discrimination ( viveka). So this evens the score with the senses of being able to go beyond sight, taste, smell, etc.

And a rishi/muni that I respect says 'there is nothing in the cosmos, whether in the material plane or in the spiritual plane which cannot be directly cognized'.

This can happen in a few ways...

Brahma Sakshtkara ( Self Realization) or turiyatit chetana (sustained turya)
By successfully exercising specific siddhis of the Patanjali muni
By His GraceSo, science today is hypothesis, proof or dis-proof, instrumentation and measures of the phenomenal world, and the conclusions and results that can be drawn. This is good.

If there is a basis to the physics behind string, M theory, SS theory, etc. it should be able to be perceived, no matter how subtle , with the right instrument - And I believe that instrument is consciousness and Ritambhara Prjana that is the tool.

This is the exciting part of enlightenment - the windows of perception is beyond the just the senses.

dhanyavadah,

Khadgar
28 September 2007, 06:56 AM
Namaste yajvan,

I'll get back to this when I have a little more time.

Thank You. :)

Khadgar
01 October 2007, 09:44 PM
Namaste yajvan, sorry for the late reply. I'll do the best I can here.
:


Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Khadgar,
Thank you for your post ... I understand your explanation. Yet can you offer more definition on the following:

1 temporal dimension - what is the 'temporal' dimension? space , or time or ___________?Yes, time is the temporal dimension.




4th spatial dimension is the "hypercube's" dimension - what is the spatial dimension and what is the definition then of a hyper cube? A Cube suggests volume ( X,Y and Z dimensions) - what makes it hyper and what is hyper about it?

Hypercube is just the term physicists have named it. One dimension has a line; 2D: square, 3D: cube, 4D: hypercube.




Causal Ocean - what is your definition here as you understand it?

Essentially it is the 11th dimension.



That said, IMHO after reading the above, there is no multiple universe being offered - but multiple dimensional states - and I can get that.


But these multiple dimensional states exist in our specific Membrane: our universe. There are an infinite number of Membranes out there floating in the Causal Ocean [11th dimension].



Last , for your kind consideration. You mention 'we're only limited to five senses that are only geared for 3D'. I have a different view on this matter and thought to offer it. Yes, there is no doubt we have 5 senses. We are also called the city ( puri) of 11 gates ( Various orifices and input sites throughout our body i.e. eyes, ears, mouth, nose, etc).

That said, we have intuition that crosses all boundaries and is not limited to the sense mechanics of learning-and-input. As we are not limited by Intellect (dhi shakti) and discrimination ( viveka). So this evens the score with the senses of being able to go beyond sight, taste, smell, etc.


Well true, I agree. Vedic Sages, Hindu Rishis, Sikhi Gurus and Buddhist and Jain Monks and Scholars have all meditated, and thus, letting go of the shortcomings of the physical self, the delusional self, have come to Realize the greater realities of the other dimensions and universes that exist in the Causal Ocean, on their journey to the Ultimate Reality..




If there is a basis to the physics behind string, M theory, SS theory, etc. it should be able to be perceived, no matter how subtle , with the right instrument - And I believe that instrument is consciousness and Ritambhara Prjana that is the tool.

This is the exciting part of enlightenment - the windows of perception is beyond the just the senses


I think I absolutely agree with you. I think the aformentioned Sages and Scholars above do in fact Realize M Theory, SS Theory, Quantum Theory, et. al. on a subtle level.