PDA

View Full Version : Science Is Getting Closer...



yajvan
08 March 2009, 07:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


As I listened to several science programs this week, I am seeing a shift in thinking ( for the positive as I see it). Some years ago, many cosmologists took the universe to be ~ 8 billion years old. Then it became 9, 10, 11 and this week I now heard 13.7 billion years old.

On the next program they talked of time and postulated that perhaps the universe did not have a beginning ( and therefore not an end) and existed for all 'time' if there is such a thing.

Years ago, the going theory was the universe is slowing down and would then come to a halt and reverse the process and fall back onto itself ( the oscillating universe idea). Well this too is no longer the going theory, as observers find that not only is the universe expanding, but its velocity is increasing ( they have yet to figure out the rate of change of this velocity).

Another program also offered that this universe is not a one time deal, but additional levels of creation happening again and again. This concept ( from the best of my comprehension) is called membrane theory ( part of string theory) - where membranes come together and when they touch, a whole new level of creation takes place, yet the other 'creations' are still out there, doing what they are suppose to do, expand and evolve.

Since the universe is infinite there is plenty of room for multiple manifestations. They also coined the phrase multi-verse ( not my favorite word, but offer it as part of their rhetoric). vs. Universe.
So this process ( creation) occurs again and again… this solves the problem of no ultimate beginning , but individual beginnings where two membranes collide and produce off-spring. They in turn do not get consumed ( as far as I understood), but when they touch they would create the ~ same~ event like a big bang.

Why is this worthy of discussion? I see more 'enlightened' thinking beginning to occur. The notion of expansion is at the core of Brahman. Brahman ब्रह्मन् means expansion, growth, swelling of the spirit. It is rooted in bṛh बृह्- increase , expand , further , promote, to grow great or strong. Just as the universe continues to expand , it is reflecting the nature of Brahman.

Now that is mildly interesting, yet this śloka offered by Kṛṣṇa in the Bhāgavad gītā ( chapter 8 , 9th śloka) says the following:

prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||

What does this say in a nut-shell? It is Kṛṣṇa's Self-referral quality…
He says, curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).

For me, this is the notion the scientists are discussing regarding multiple creations, occurring again and again (punaḥ punaḥ) ; as the 'membranes' come together, more manifestion/creation occurs. Without effort and at the will (vaśāt) of the Supreme.

Why does this occur? For His enjoyment, for His sport say the wise. This is the part the scientists will need to work on.


praṇām

words

prakṛti प्रकृति- the original or natural form or condition of anything ; original source ; the original producer of the material world consisting of 3 guṇas ( sattva , rajas and tamas); Nature (distinguished from Puruṣa , Spirit)
svām or sva स्व- my own, ones own SELF; at times this word is used as a pronoun for ātman
avaṣṭabhya अवष्टभ means to be seized or stopped, yet it also leads us to avaṣṭambha अवष्टम्भ- leaning or resting upon ; having recourse to anything
visṛjāmi - visṛ विसृ to come forth , issue from, expand ; to open or unfold one's self + jā जा- is born, produced
punaḥ is púnar पुनर् - again and again , repeatedly
bhūta-grāmam - bhūta भूत- existing , present ; that which is or exists + grāma ग्रामan inhabited place , a multitude , class , collection or number
imaṁ - is idam इदम् this, this here; some may look at it as imathā इमथा or in this way or manner; ( also used as - now , even , just ; there)
kṛtsnam कृत्स्न - all , whole , entire
avaśaṁ or avaśa अवश - independent , unrestrained , free
prakṛter or prakṛti प्रकृति - as mentioned above, yet this is also considered the personified will of the Supreme in creation i.e. energy or force.
vaśāt or vaśa वश - authority , power , control, command

atanu
09 March 2009, 09:36 AM
hariḥ oṁ

Why does this occur? For His enjoyment, for His sport say the wise. This is the part the scientists will need to work on.



Namaste yajvan ji,

I do not deny that science, physics especially, has been covering a lot of ground, and it appears that the twain of science of mental realm will meet the science of meditative knowledge. But alas, I think it is like two parallel lines, never coming close. And there is scriptural evidence that "----the Mind Returns --".

Science will never be science without the mind, which however, will always be repelled by the Truth, subject to one exception alone. Gurus do talk of using the mind like a piece of wood used to light up the funeral pyre or like camphor -- which finishes itself.

Science and Truth can meet if the mind pursuing the vedic method of enquiry into its source, dissloves itself unto the Self -- and that is very unscientific thing for a scientist to do.

But it is true that many scientists, while pursuing their svdharma, have come to intuit of the above.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
09 March 2009, 10:00 AM
Namaste Yajvan.

1. For all the constraints imposed by physical science and its emphasis on empirical research, modern science has come a long way and perhaps, as you say, is getting closer to the experiential revelations expressed in the highest form of philosophy found in our Upanishads. And the postulation that perhaps this universe did not have a beginning might be the discovery of the tip of the iceberg in the time scales of creation.

However, science has a formidable limitation to get past: mind, which is an implement as well as an impediment in the search for Truth. All the ideas, speculations, hypotheses, and theories of science are nothing more than the mind-work of a few superiorly talented scientists; they can hardly be reasoned out--unlike the philosophical ideas of our Upanishads--by ordinary minds. I find that Stephen Hawkins has a point here. I understand tha he concludes his book A Brief History of Time with the following words: (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/hawking.html)

"However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193)"

The current computation of the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years old falls enormously short of the Hindu computation with reference to the age of Brahma:



The time elapsed since the current Brahma has taken over the task of creation can be calculated as

432000 x 10 x 1000 x 2 = 8.64 Billion Years (1 Kalpa and Pralaya of Brahma)
8.64 x 109 x 30 x 12 = 3.1104 Trillion Years (1 year of Brahma)
3.1104 x 1012 x 50 = 155.52 Trillion Years (50 years of Brahma)

(6 x 71 x 4320000 ) + 7 x 1.728 x 106 = 1.973 billion years elapsed in first six Manvataras, and Sandhi Kalas in the current Kalpa
27 x 4320000 = 116.640000 million years elapsed in first 27 Mahayugas of the current Manvantara
1.728 x 106 + 1.296 x 106 + 864000 = 3.888 million years elapsed in current Mahayuga
3012 + 2008 = 5020 years elapsed in current Kaliyuga.

So the total time elapsed since current Brahma is
155.52 x 1012 + 1.973x109 + 0.00012053302 = 155.52 Trillion Years

The current Kali Yuga began at midnight 17 February / 18 February in 3102 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Time_Cycle)


No wonder then that by this computation, the universe is bound to expand with increasing velocity for an enormously long time to come.

However, the scientists have done great work inasmuch there is nothing physical--like the fossils--to carbon-date the age of universe. All their computations have to depend on instrumental astronomical observations and mathematics with the final result perhaps reduced to a mathematical expression.

2. I am not sure if our Hindu Puranas (such as Srimad Bhagavadam) talk about multiverses in God's scheme of creation. However, I think that Swamy Vivekananda favoured the idea of creation and dissolution of parts of the universe at different times rather than the creation of the creation of the entire universe in one stretch of time.

However, let us remember, as Atanu might be quick to point out, the universe is only in our mind--thereby God's mind--as Einstein said.

saidevo
09 March 2009, 10:03 AM
Atanuji, I am happy that you are quicker than I thought to respond with a glimpse of the Absolute Truth of things, thank you!

atanu
09 March 2009, 12:20 PM
Atanuji, I am happy that you are quicker than I thought to respond with a glimpse of the Absolute Truth of things, thank you!

Namaste saidevoji,

Thank you. But I was slow. The true answer to yajvan ji's query "Why does this occur? --------", will come from the rebound query "To whom does this occur?"

Everyone will need to work on this question, eventually.

A physicist had a discussion with Shri Ramana. The physicist was praising Vedanta and particularly Advaita, citing professor Einstein that different frame of reference of two observers make their observations different, relative to each other. Physicist thought that Shri Ramana will be a novice to understand how science and vedanta correlated. But to his surprise, recorded by the physicist himself, Shri Ramana quipped with lightning like speed "Who is observing both the observers and what is his frame of reference?"

Yoga Vasista is replete with stories how time itself is dynamic -- having different measuremet spans for different circumstances and different perceivers. For example, in a petty way, the time lapse perceived under joyful and painful conditions will be different. The actual examples in Yoga Vasista are much more severe. Now the question is: what is correct? The time elapsed measured by a mechanical ticking machine or the time lapse perceived through perception? Apprently, the time lapse measured by a mechanical device is correct, since it appears to be independent of the observer.

But Einstein exactly showed that such time lapse as measured by a mechanical device will be dependent on the speed of the observer. Again the speed is measured by a mechanical device that appears to be independent but actually may not be.

It will go on like this till we realise the role of consciousness in expanding or contracting space and thus altering time lapse. Veda knows this as Vishnu. That is how, I think, one wink of Shiva is whole epoch.

This brings us back to the question: To whom does this occur? He is the fixed truth. He is the Seer present at all times and at all places. He is present in right eye and He is present in the Sun. But He is not two. Will science know the seer? In that case who will do the experiment and observe the results?


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
09 March 2009, 01:21 PM
Namaste Atanuji.



The real answer to yajvan ji's query "Why does this occur? --------", the true answer will come from the rebound query "To whom does this occur?"


'Why, when and how' are in the realm of science; and their 'what' stops with the physical, which is the reason science is unable to figure out the 'why, when and how'. 'Who, whom and how' are in the realm of metaphysics and philosophy; and their 'what' goes beyond the physical, which is why they can give a holistic approach to the Absolute Reality and Truth.



Yoga Vasista is replete with stories how time itself is dynamic -- having different measuremet spans for different circumstances and different perceivers.


The Hindu system of time scale with its units of measurement is a holistic expression of the relativity of time in different worlds of space, both outer and inner. We can very well feel the subjective relativity of time: when two people chat heartily, time passes quickly for them, but when the power is off, the same time crawls. Subjective time passes haphazardly in our dreams, and completely stops in deep sleep.



But Einstein exactly showed that such time lapse as measured by a mechanical device will be dependent on the speed of the observer. Again the speed is measured by a mechanical device that appears to be independent but actually may not be.


With the earth rotating and trotting in space at an incredible speed, our solar system moving about and the universe itself expanding, there is no absolute rest in space, so there could be no absolute objective measurement of time.

There were some amusing sci-fi themes based on space travel at velocities approaching the speed of light. What happens when one among the twin brothers goes on distant space travel and returns to earth? Here is a quote from an old illustrated book titled The Science in Science Fiction (which I bought some twenty years back and still keep somewhere).

"This astronaut has returned to Earth after a 5-year trip to the stars at near light-speed. Fifty years have passed on Earth and his identical twin brother who has come to the spaceport to meet him is now 75. The reunion is a strange one for both twins--in effect, one is seeing himself as he was, the other sees himself as he will be."

In this way, in Robert Heinlein's Time for the Stars, the hero cheerfully marries his great-great-niece!



This brings us back to the question: To whom does this occur? He is the fixed truth. He is the Seer present at all times and at all places. He is present in right eye and He is present in the Sun. But He is not two. Will science know the seer? In that case who will do the experiment and observe the results?


Unfortunately, physical science has no objective, empirical means to answer this question for fear of its whole edifice crumbling when it seeks the right answer for the question.

yajvan
09 March 2009, 05:51 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté atanu and saidevo,

thank you for your posts and insights. Yes I see your points made.

This 'mind' can be friend or foe. I am happy to see the scientists stretch their minds to the notion of new possibilities.

saidevo writes

With the earth rotating and trotting in space at an incredible speed, our solar system moving about and the universe itself expanding, there is no absolute rest in space, so there could be no absolute objective measurement of time.
No absolute measure , no doubt. As the only thing 'time' measures (IMHO) is the moment-to-moment of the infinite. What is 'big' and what is 'small' is all a matter of who is looking , no?

This time seems real as we go from birth-to-death and something changes... we call this time, a rate of change. Yet in and of it self, of what cosmic value does a minute have? or an hour or day. This is only based upon the physics of our planet, which made sense at the time of the concept of time was put in place - as a tool.

Atanu writes


Yoga Vasista is replete with stories how time itself is dynamic -- having different measurement spans for different circumstances and different perceivers
Yes this Yoga Vasiṣṭha is most descriptive on the layout of the cosmos. I most enjoyed this reading.
One part germane to this conversation Vasiṣṭha-ji says, In Brahman, the infinite consciousness, the image of creation exists even now. However though it is true that creation and non-creation exist in Brahman everywhere at all times, they do not exists independently of Him, non-different from Him. Therefore creation is without beginning and without end, and that is Brahman. (Chapter 6.2.212)

Why is that of any import? There is a view that this whole creation comes about, that we come about, for Brahman just to know more about Himself. It is this Self-referral quality. To delight in the expansion and to have 'beings' find out more about Himself, by Himself - for who can we be other then THAT.

Some that are 'enlightened' know this better then those that are not, yet both are encapsulated within Brahman; Brahman enjoys discovering Him-Self as full, going for the notion of not-full (moha) to full (mokṣa). Yet how can Brahman ever be not full? and how could He ever expand into fullness - His Fullness is always there on the Grand Scale.

Now if we (I) buy into this (and I do) then the scientist just as the yogi are playing their roles of discovery and unfoldment. That is why seeing some of the scientists view the universe in a much broader manner is a delight.

The enlightened ones call it pure consciousness, the ignorant call it the world ... 6.2.161


praṇām

saidevo
09 March 2009, 09:33 PM
Namaste Yajvan.

Nice points you have given, to which I would like to add some.



No absolute measure, no doubt. As the only thing 'time' measures (IMHO) is the moment-to-moment of the infinite. What is 'big' and what is 'small' is all a matter of who is looking, no?


You are 'absolutely right' with the concept of time measuring the 'moment-to-moment of the infinite'! And this accounts for its subjectivity.

What is a 'moment', a 'kShaNa'? Any instantaneous point of time; and the dictionary defines an 'instant' as "a point or very short space of time, moment"! So time is some change of state in a point of space, measured subjectively by that which is affected by the change.

It is not that just man or god measures time in their own concepts of 'moments'. Even an ant can and perhaps does have its own measures of time and space, for they too have communities and rule themselves with sufficient intelligence. A timer chip in a computer measures its own moment of time. An atom, subatomic particle, in fact every point of matter and wave of energy, imbibed with the consciousness of Brahman, have their own measurement of moments of time and they keep at it.

What would our solar time seem like to a deva, suppose he is stranded here on earth? If a deva, a man, an ant and an atom were to come together and discuss their own concepts of time in a mutually understandable language, how would that discussion be? And how far would each party understand the time concepts of the other?

To understand the differential concepts of time, one needs to acquire and get into the consciousness of the subject that is investigated. An accomplished yogi can do it with his/her siddhis, (a deceased person might do it because of state of disembodiedness), but a most talented scientist cannot because he/her does not understand the true nature of consciousness, and thinks it is only brainy, physical, at best an electro chemical reaction brought about by neurons.



In Brahman, the infinite consciousness, the image of creation exists even now. However though it is true that creation and non-creation exist in Brahman everywhere at all times, they do not exists independently of Him, non-different from Him. Therefore creation is without beginning and without end, and that is Brahman. (Chapter 6.2.212)


So, instead of researching Consciousness, a scientist researches the outer space using his mind, senses, instruments and the speed of light as standards. This is why science comes up with weird concepts such as anti-matter, parallel universes, black matter, the membrane theory--just physical names for concepts unexplainable with mind and speech.

Consciousness is the true vehicle gifted to a man to traverse the remotest points of outer and inner space. It is the unfailing instrument that can sense the nature of the Absolute Reality. Everything else are just bubbles of energy and matter projected on the consciousness of Brahman by Brahman and for Brahman.



Now if we (I) buy into this (and I do) then the scientist just as the yogi are playing their roles of discovery and unfoldment. That is why seeing some of the scientists view the universe in a much broader manner is a delight.


There is a subtle difference, however. A person 'playing a role' would know that the real he/she is different from the role. While even a common person knows this difference, a scientist (perhaps due to his ego and calling) stubbornly refuses to submit to this knowing, which is pathetic. The English poet Alexander Pope hit the nail on the head when he said:

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man."
--Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man

yajvan
10 March 2009, 07:43 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté saidevo,
thank you for your post , i find what you write interesting.

You mention,


What is a 'moment', a 'kShaNa'? Any instantaneous point of time

'kShaNa' = 18 nimeṣa; 1 nimeṣa = a blink/twinkling of the eye and for some this has been defined as 'a moment.'
Yet this nimeṣa निमेष can also be broken down further… I will save you the details, yet it can be torn ( truṭ त्रुट्) to a truṭi त्रुटि - an unfathomably small amount of time. One definition I heard was a truṭi = the time it takes light to pass the width of 1 atom; another is the time it takes an atom to leave one point in space and move to the ajacent point = 1 moment.

This 'moment' concept can also be found in Patañjali's Yogadarśana , no so much as a discussion or ~philosophical~ item but as a concept
for contemplation ( saṁyama ).

you also mention


So, instead of researching Consciousness, a scientist researches the outer space using his mind, senses, instruments and the speed of light as standards

Yes, this makes sense. I have had the opportunity to listen to some scientists from several fields (disciplines) that also understood the connection to consciousness. They understood the relationship between the observed and the observer.

This was achieved by them listening to and conversing with Mahaṛṣi Mehesh Yogī, who was able to tie the two together with little effort.

Once the scientists got this part, they saw the connection. Many were practitioners of various meditative methods. This was very interesting to listen to them break down the boundaries between science and Being (sattā). I just wish there were more in this 'community'.

you also mention


There is a subtle difference, however. A person 'playing a role' would know that the real he/she is different from the role. While even a common person knows this difference, a scientist (perhaps due to his ego and calling) stubbornly refuses to submit to this knowing, which is pathetic.


Yes - and for us, it's an exercise in patience.

praṇām

yajvan
11 March 2009, 11:00 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté

One other point of view worth consideration…what of scientists and thinkers that are somewhat ignorant ( or avoiding ) Being (sattā¹) as a fundamental building block of creation?

First, I applaud their efforts in uncovering any truths and laws of nature they discover. I applaud their willingness to move to another view of the world and discard older ideas that just might not define the phenomenal word accurately.

There are some that say, now that I have this new data, how does it fit within the knowledge set of what we know today?. It is when this fit does not occur that the boundaries are broken, and a ' aahhhh !! ' moment occurs - there is a shift in consciousness, and a greater understanding now prevails.

It is like walking into a home and looking at the home and thinking , this is all there is to this house - the walls, the paint, the windows, yet what remains hidden, but vital to the home, is the foundation. Without the foundation, the walls are shaky and with a good wind will not stand the test of time. This foundation say the wise is Being, pure consciousness, pure awareness.

It is this thought ' this world is all that there is, and there is nothing beyond ' keeps one embedded in moha मोह - bewilderment , perplexity , distraction , infatuation , delusion; some consider these people mūḍha-s मूढ perplexed or confused, or gone astray, adrift in foolishness.

Yet , scientists have not cornered the market on this ignorance. This avidya¹ is not uncommon today. So why are we aghast when scientists do not recognize ( or shun) the notion of a greater truth behind all of creation? It is due to their great intellect and reasoning power. We think , how can such great minds miss this most fundamental ideal?

As I see it this is the crux of the conversation… How do some we believe are dhīra¹ continue to wander (bhrama) within the world of science to find the essentials (tattva or that-ness) of creation and miss sattā ?

IMHO it is simple… Being is finer then the finest. We can get close to and infer this Being by experiments yet in the final analysis , this sattā is a direct experience , svatāsiddha¹ , self-proven, self-experienced.

The telescope, the microscope, the measurements of the intellect need to turn inward, into Consciousness and awareness (as the tool) to experience this. One comes closer to the truth and kuśala¹ ( right, proper + well being) is infused into the intellect.

praṇām

words

sattā सत्ता - existence, Being;
avidya अविद्य - unlearned, unwise of the Truth.
dhīra धीर - intelligent , wise , skilful , clever , familiar with , versed ; well-bred
bhrama भ्रम - wandering or roaming about
svatāsiddha स्वतासिद्ध - svatā स्वता the state of belonging to one's self , ownership + siddha सिद्ध gained, aquired; accomplished , fulfilled; from sidh सिध् - to accomplish, succeed. Hence self-aquired.
sva स्व - own , one's own , my own , thy own , his own , her own
svatā स्वता the state of belonging to one's self , ownership
kuśala कुशल - right, proper, yet this word also means well-being, happiness, etc. Also a noun for śiva

Ganeshprasad
12 March 2009, 05:44 PM
Pranam Yajvan ji and all



hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

It is like walking into a home and looking at the home and thinking , this is all there is to this house - the walls, the paint, the windows, yet what remains hidden, yet vital to the home, is the foundation. Without the foundation, the walls are shaky and with a good wind will not
stand the test of time. This foundation say the wise is Being, pure consciousness, pure awareness.

It is this thought ' this world is all that there is, and there is nothing beyond ' keeps one embedded in moha मोह - bewilderment , perplexity , distraction , infatuation , delusion; some consider these people mūḍha-s मूढ perplexed or confused, or gone astray, adrift in foolishness.

Yet , scientists have not cornered the market on this ignorance. This avidya¹ is not uncommon today. So why are we aghast when scientists do not recognize ( or shun) the notion of a greater truth behind all of creation? It is due to their great intellect and reasoning power. We think , how can such great minds miss this most fundamental ideal?




asatyam apratistham te
jagad ahur anisvaram
aparaspara-sambhutam
kim anyat kama-haitukam

They say that this world is unreal, that there is no foundation and that there is no God in control. It is produced of sex desire, and has no cause other than lust. (16.08)

These high academic talks flies over my head most the times, having said that I must agree the science has made great strides in many fields so it seems, but will they unravel the mysteries of creation, I don’t think so.
Science has progressed leaps and bounds in material sense and has made us slaves of it success, further we progress more entangled we become, will it ever succeed in finding the answer dissecting the matter, to find the consciousness (spirit) that makes everything tick?
So long as they believe in chance or a big bang theory, such mysteries will for ever remain hidden
Funny thing is they will take credit for all their innovation but when it comes to creation it- self, how on earth can they justify chance as a possible reason or a big bang that would suddenly put everything in order just beggars belief. As per Darwin’s theory of evolution remains just that, a theory and no proof.
We appreciate the invention of aeroplane, not without some apprehension every time I travel in it but do they ever wonder how we are travelling at great speed round the sun. the auto pilot never lets us down

The other day I was watching a program about giant oil rigs platform floating in the sea, it was really fascinating how they remain fix at the bottom using vacuum technology, it was really impressive, one might wonder how does this massive concrete survive constant belting by giant waves, yet their worry was not the giant waves but calm ocean, if it some how replicate the frequency of the platform then just as a glass would break at the same frequency that it would resonant.
Off course they overcome this by changing the notes. I could applaud their ingenuity and rightly so but then I think about the giant universe floating in space and I am expected to take that for granted and worse made to believe that there is no intelligent behind them.

I stop to think how Lord Shiva brings about the pralay or how sound aum, plays it parts in creation but then I head the advise of Lord Krishna in the Gita when he says;

na rupam asyeha tathopalabhyate
nanto na cadir na ca sampratistha
asvattham enam su-virudha-mulam
asanga-sastrena drdhena chittva

Neither its (real) form nor its beginning, neither its end nor its existence is perceptible here on the earth. Having cut these firm roots of the Ashvattha tree by the mighty ax of (Jnana and) Vairaagya or detachment; (15.03)


Jai Shree Krishna

TatTvamAsi
13 March 2009, 08:30 PM
Namaste,

What a great thread!

This is the most important reason I was so drawn towards Sanatana Dharma; it complements Science so well and in fact it seems as if the further scientific research is done, the closer it gets towards proposing the same 'truths' as Sanatana Dharma. Although one approach is experiential, the other is empirical.

I vote for this thread to become a STICKY! It is a great read.

Namaskar.

yajvan
14 March 2009, 05:59 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté Ganeshprasad (et.al)

a fine post - thank you.
When I read your post I think of dhātuprasāda. This can be looked at in 2 ways:

The grace (prasād) of dhātā or dhā धा the bestower , holder , supporter i.e. the Sustainer, Brahmā.
Or the grace (prasād) of dhātu-s धातु elements or essential ingredients of the body - rasa (fluids), rakta (blood), mamsa (flesh), medas (fat), asthi ( bones), majja (marrow) and śukla (semen). What is given (prasād) in the cosmos by the Sustainer (dhātā) is also given within us (dhātu-s) to support us. So many times we think we are the authors and this is were the stife and grief occurs. It is when we become non-authors ( or we get out of the way), the wise call akratu अक्रतु - free from desire, then this Full Intelligence blossoms in us. Then this same intelligence that keeps the earth and solar system in balance, keeps the seasons intact, the galaxy rotating, the flowers blooming on time, etc. then we become that extension or exponent. Then the 'science' that would be done would be His science, His will. All done within the laws of nature that support the world.

I also have an opinion of what is real and unreal from my studies and what I observe. I have thought about this much. I am of the opinion that all that I see IS in fact real, as it is the extension and the expansion of Brahman, of Śiva. This does not infer you have to share the same notion as I.

If I take this world and manifestation to be unreal, it says ( to me) that Brahman, or Śiva is unreal. I cannot see how this can be true, as creation is the extension of Him.

What is unreal as I see it, is to observe (creation) a compilation of parts that are fragmented into objects and the objects to be real of themselves.
If we consider Brahman to be all pervading (vibhu¹) , then there is no place it is not, so it is here, in every-thing. It is the ear of the ear, the eye of the eye , the mind of the mind, etc. says the Kenopaniṣad. The SELF enters (all bodies) and fills it up to the nail-ends, says the Bṛhadaraṇyaka Upaniṣad.

So, from one view what is 'unreal' is we do not have full view of what Reality really is or consists of i.e.
It is like walking into a home and looking at the home and thinking , this is all there is to this house - the walls, the paint, the windows, yet what remains hidden, but vital to the home, the foundation. Without the foundation, the walls are shaky and with a good wind will not stand the test of time. This foundation say the wise is Being, pure consciousness, pure awareness.

From the śāstra-s we are taught of the 'foundation', so we have the concept. What is ~missing~ now is the direct experience. The wise say this consciousness permeates every fibre of creation. This is how one's perception changes when the fullness of Being becomes part of daily life i.e. The enlightened ones call it pure consciousness, the ignorant call it the world ... Yoga Vasiṣṭha 6.2.161

praṇām

words
vibhū विभू - to pervade, fill; being everywhere , far-extending , all-pervading , omnipresent , eternal