Mr. Hawking's view

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Stephen Hawking suggests in his book¹ "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt.
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going," he writes.

Denis Alexander , director of The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, addresses this:
"Hawking's god is a god-of-the-gaps used to plug present gaps in our scientific knowledge.
"Science provides us with a wonderful narrative as to how [existence] may happen, but theology addresses the meaning of the narrative," said Alexander.

Another view:
Mr. Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God. But, he said, "a creator God provides a reasonable and credible explanation of why there is a universe, and ... it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not.
That view is not undermined by what Hawking has said."

My views:
From where does 'existence' itself come from so all the laws of nature may take their actions? Existence itself is the canvass for all to exist.
How can science pass up this question?

From where did the rules and order of nature come from?
From where does this gravity arise? What is the source?

praṇām

source: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/02/hawking.god.universe/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)

[charlebs]

haha I just wanted to post that.

gravity is a field with holes and bumps, how can gravity cause nothing affected by it to spontaniously create all matter?

I thought the big bang theory with the reason of the last universe exploding was more plausible. that the universe is in a constant cycle of expanding and retracting.
but apparently we should believe gravity is our God.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté charlesbs


haha I just wanted to post that.

gravity is a field with holes and bumps, how can gravity cause nothing affected by it to spontaniously create all matter?

I thought the big bang theory with the reason of the last universe exploding was more plausible. that the universe is in a constant cycle of expanding and retracting. but apparently we should believe gravity is our God.

This I do not know, but I will assume Mr. Hawking has the mathmatics for this assumption.
As I understand it gravity was 'produced' at 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. This 'big bang' is now trying to be renamed to cosmic genesis in the literature I read.

I am not a fan of this big bang view, but that is me. My issue with the whole line of scientific thinking is scientists seem not to question existence itself, the 'pure white board' that is the back ground for all things to take place.
Its like a person writing on a while board with a marker and saying, 'see , each letter comes out and is indepentent of any creator' yet they fail to recognize the board they write on, the 'existence' that allows the letters to flow onto the board.

If we look at the laws of nature - there is specific intelligence there, no? What I mean is there is order and structure to all of nature that is inherent from the sub-atomic particles to galaxies that are spinning. They all follow the rule of physics. This 'intelligence' this, is the Being I am suggesting. This infinite intelligence that need do nothing for all things to work perfectly within the boundaries of all the laws of nature. Scientists will say ' well the unfoldment of sub-atomic particles, atoms, make up this structure, there is no need for a God to do this' , yet they never question how & why this natural stucture occurs. I will not even mention pure space ( ākāśa ) which provides room for all things to exist. Was that there before the big bang?

It's as if scientist think God as some person with a long white beard directing traffic of the universe sitting on a throne in heaven. The Supreme I am attesting to is in every fibre, every thing and every -no thing that is , that exists and does not exist. This is that infinite intelligence that with no effort unfolds the universe by its own natue. No decisions, no project map , it spoontaneously occurs.

But scientist say ' well thats nature' - yep it is , and that is a part of the Supreme Intelligence - not all of it, just a finger nail of the Supreme.

praṇām

[charlebs]

Yes, a lot of sceptics see God as a bearded man sitting in the clouds. But we know better. God is beyond the demi gods of hinduism. Even the Gods answer a higher being. I've read that multiple times.

But the big bang theory was always well enough for me. There's a theory about all souls reaching enlightenment and coming together in the size of a thumb before they all explode and catch all kinds of impurities.
Impurities that keep us away from our God, which we have to shake off with all the lives we live.

Actually I believe all actions might have been done before, when there was past universe. That all that happens happens at all time! I know this sounds pretty odd, but I could explain it better in dutch. :/

[Govind Joshi]

Well, I do not know how someone can have a view that God doesn't exist or in the above discussion not the creator. It is said even the atheist in their low moments invoke him, though many would not admit it including the famed scientists.

Science has not been able to answer so many of the questions everyone wants to know not to talk of this which many will not even bother to know.
There was a time when I was young and hadn't stepped into the spiritual path when I was an avid science fan. But as the life progressed, and things happened, I slowly realized science was not the answer to what I was seeking. Spirituality was.
Today I am happy not because of science but because of spirituality though science does makes me happy on the surface for a brief duration.

[charlebs]

discussed this with a friend of mine with an iq of 135 and he believes in the string theory. he says maybe before the big bang the unending strings began to vibrate like a universal breath taking. the awakening of the universe.

it's hard to explain though.. he was kinda high. but he doesn't believe in God. however he does believe in souls and reincarnation. :)

[atanu]

Namaste All

I think we should integrate Kallol's thread here.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6311

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Here is another point from my perspective I do not get. In this grand universe the astrophysicists and cosmologists have calculated or inferred that ~ 84%
of the mass of the universe is missing i.e. dark matter. They also calculate that 70% of the energy is missing that i.e. dark energy.

How do they come to this conclusion - by inference. They cannot measure it 'cause they cannot see it. But it must be there otherwise the universe does not 'add up'.
Their views of the cosmos is missing 84% of it, yet they are able to deduce the nature and character of this grand universe?

If I use the same tools of logic and inference on coming to the conclusion that the Supreme must exist and in fact direct evidence is offered by our great ṛṣi-s ( rishi's)
from their direct cognition of Being, of tad-ekam ( That One), it is discounted.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - when I use inferences and logical judgement to clearly suggest the Supreme in this delightful world, I hear , well nice idea but it cannot be measured ,
from the science community. Yet I read and hear as a matter of fact that there must be this dark matter, yet never measured, and their must be dark energy ( yet never captured).
What's wrong with this picture?

praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

What's wrong with this picture?




Vannakkam:

Historically, scientists have always thought they knew ... until the next better theory came along. This hasn't changed. So there's really nothing wrong with the picture from this point of view. A better theory will make the two 'add up'. Fun to watch. I can't wait until they can measure more subtle energies. Then I and a billion others will say, "Sheesh, we could have told you that."

Aum Namasivaya

[sanjaya]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Here is another point from my perspective I do not get. In this grand universe the astrophysicists and cosmologists have calculated or inferred that ~ 84%
of the mass of the universe is missing i.e. dark matter. They also calculate that 70% of the energy is missing that i.e. dark energy.

How do they come to this conclusion - by inference. They cannot measure it 'cause they cannot see it. But it must be there otherwise the universe does not 'add up'.
Their views of the cosmos is missing 84% of it, yet they are able to deduce the nature and character of this grand universe?

If I use the same tools of logic and inference on coming to the conclusion that the Supreme must exist and in fact direct evidence is offered by our great ṛṣi-s ( rishi's)
from their direct cognition of Being, of tad-ekam ( That One), it is discounted.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury - when I use inferences and logical judgement to clearly suggest the Supreme in this delightful world, I hear , well nice idea but it cannot be measured ,
from the science community. Yet I read and hear as a matter of fact that there must be this dark matter, yet never measured, and their must be dark energy ( yet never captured).
What's wrong with this picture?

praṇām

Heh, it so happens that some of my research in the near future may involve dark matter searches. I'll let you know if we find any!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya,


Heh, it so happens that some of my research in the near future may involve dark matter searches. I'll let you know if we find any!

If it can be found, you are the right person for the job...Where will you begin to look? Do you think it is quantifiable?

Keep us informed. Oh, and if I find any I will inform you too :) .

praṇām

[Ao]

Namaste all,

Although I generally agree with Yajvan's POV, I think there is much to be said for science's noble, if sometimes plodding and stubborn, approach.

I have recently been reading about supermasive black holes; there are new ideas regarding such that have sufficienct amounts of cool gas near them to be able to suck in that gas, heat it to extraordinary temperatures, and then shoot out matter in jet streams that approach the speed of light for many light years, hence making them reach far out into space. Should one of these streams of matter hit a cloud of gas, that gas will in turn heat up and began producing stars, which gives rise to galaxies. Alternatively, since some of these jet streams can conceivably continue for hundreds of millions of years, they could emit enough matter to create galaxies from scratch without needing to hit another gas cloud.

All of these ideas are still in their infancy to my knowledge (fill me in if I'm wrong, please), but provide interesting food for thought. If such matters are the case, then the universe itself could have born out of a supermassive black hole--which of course begs the question: Where did that come from? Much more research will be needed, but in the meantime I am content to rest in the knowledge that brahman unfolded all of this out of Itself as a way to know Itself, while of course remaining well beyond being a simple primordial supermassive blackhole! :)

[kallol]

I thought this view of Stephen Hawkings gives us an opportunity to evaluate it with respect to our position on the creation of the Universe and see whether the thought process in the correct direction.

As per my understanding it might be in the correct direction.

Love and best wishes

[kallol]

Namaste all,

Although I generally agree with Yajvan's POV, I think there is much to be said for science's noble, if sometimes plodding and stubborn, approach.

I have recently been reading about supermasive black holes; there are new ideas regarding such that have sufficienct amounts of cool gas near them to be able to suck in that gas, heat it to extraordinary temperatures, and then shoot out matter in jet streams that approach the speed of light for many light years, hence making them reach far out into space. Should one of these streams of matter hit a cloud of gas, that gas will in turn heat up and began producing stars, which gives rise to galaxies. Alternatively, since some of these jet streams can conceivably continue for hundreds of millions of years, they could emit enough matter to create galaxies from scratch without needing to hit another gas cloud.

All of these ideas are still in their infancy to my knowledge (fill me in if I'm wrong, please), but provide interesting food for thought. If such matters are the case, then the universe itself could have born out of a supermassive black hole--which of course begs the question: Where did that come from? Much more research will be needed, but in the meantime I am content to rest in the knowledge that brahman unfolded all of this out of Itself as a way to know Itself, while of course remaining well beyond being a simple primordial supermassive blackhole! :)

Thanks AO for moving ahead on this thread. This thread gives us an opportunity to ask a few questions and see if there might be connections to the theories of creation as provided in the Sanatana Dharma.

If we accept the big bang theory then there is a question. The big bang happened out of energy concentration. We know forces move particles or physical bodies. But what moved the energy to concentrate ?

The answer is there in the scriptures.

The vast endless ocean of cosmic energy and consciousness is dotted with enumerous minds (point sources) which, depending on the state they are, create the point vibration.

Some minds have bodies and majority does not. The mind with bodies (living and non living), particularly the human can change the status of the mind but others cannot (to that extent). Mind without bodies cannot anyway change its status.

These minds creates the vibration and keep the total cosmic energy in vibrant conditions. Possibly the dance of Shiva is a depiction of this. The turbulence in the mind creates the turbulence in the energy. That might also be the reason that mind is called subtle body and not gross body or physical particle. It is so subtle that it can move energy.

1. This flux creates condition for concentration and thus the creation of the physical universe takes place. Thus we only contribute to the creation of universe.

2. Again at the begining there were only 8 entities which combined together to create the different matters. Are these so called 8 entities the god particles, we are in search for ?

3. As the different lokas are different unconnected (space, time and material) worlds, the present universe is not real but is in virtual form of other lokas. Just like dream is so real when we are in it but mithya when out of it. Then how to define this universe in terms of the permanent entities of cosmic energy and consciousness ? For that permanent world, our real universe should be mithya.

This explains why the whole scripture focuses on the mind and how to clam it down to make the turbulence zero. Then one will not contribute to the turbulence in cosmic energy and thereby the creation. It also attains moksha in the process.

Then another question come up. Is mind the connecting factor for the different lokas ?

Love and best wishes

[Ao]

We know forces move particles or physical bodies. But what moved the energy to concentrate ?


Here is a tiny side-bit, only meant to stimulate further discussion from those members more knowledgeable than I.

It seems that in the early universe, heavier elements had not yet been formed, thus giving hyper-massive stars made entirely of helium, hydrogen, and lithium the chance to form. These stars, in their death-throes, gave birth through their fusion to the heavier elements that therefore precluded their re-forming, hence in the universe around us today we can only find traces of such massive stellar furnaces in dwarf galaxies. Could this be evidence of the Vedic Hiranyagarbha?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,



If we accept the big bang theory then there is a question. The big bang happened out of energy concentration. We know forces move particles or physical bodies. But what moved the energy to concentrate ?


And where is this intelligence found in the laws of nature that directs, lays the rules, for concentration as a natural phenomenon to occur?
This always seems to be discounted. Event A occurs and event B happens, yet there seems to be a blind-eye cast ( in science) that does not address the underlying intelligence of the physical laws to apply. If they were completely random, chaotic, then I would have no issue. Yet these laws occur consistently 100% of the time.


Take a watermelon seed. Plant the seed. What do you get? A watermelon, not a goat, mule, or a palm tree. There is order to this universe. From where is this order ( my teacher calls creative intelligence) derived from? From this Universal Intelligence. It is at the very core of a sun's fission ( or fusion ?) process, in the galaxies rotation, in orbits, in the sent of a flower, in the path of a fish, in the lifting of brick. The rules occur consistently with precision and with order and discipline. This is the Cosmic Intelligence that is the wonder. The 'code' that is in everything to operate according to specific laws, that is the intelligence.

praṇām

[satay]

namaste,

Indeed. If there is code, there must be a coder.
:cool1:

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
The 'code' that is in everything to operate according to specific laws, that is the intelligence.

praṇām

[Ao]

namaste,

Indeed. If there is code, there must be a coder.
:cool1:

Well, not necessarily an intelligent coder, but at least a process whereby a code is engaged. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of overly-simplistic language here.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Ao,

you mention

Well, not necessarily an intelligent coder, but at least a process whereby a code is engaged. I think it is easy to fall into the trap of overly-simplistic language here.

I see it from a different POV. The code and coder are One. The coder has 1,000 eyes and ears and feet and hands i.e It is everywhere, it is tad-ekam, That One.
The code is perfect because it is the coder - no flaws, no blemishes, perfection without of 1º of effort , ever.

The word is satatoditam comes to mind . Svāmi laksman-ji offers this word from the tantrāloka. It is that which has no pause, no break.
This for me really captures the essence of this totality, the fullness.

Svāmi-ji says ' It is breakless and unitary. Hence the code and coder are One Being of perfect Infinite Intelligence.


praṇām

[Ao]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Ao,

you mention

I see it from a different POV. The code and coder are One. The coder has 1,000 eyes and ears and feet and hands i.e It is everywhere, it is tad-ekam, That One.
The code is perfect because it is the coder - no flaws, no blemishes, perfection without of 1º of effort , ever.

The word is satatoditam comes to mind . Svāmi laksman-ji offers this word from the tantrāloka. It is that which has no pause, no break.
This for me really captures the essence of this totality, the fullness.

Svāmi-ji says ' It is breakless and unitary. Hence the code and coder are One Being of perfect Infinite Intelligence.


praṇām

Namaste Yajvan,

I actually think we are approaching this issue from the same POV. I am simply trying to employ a more technical, exact, language to the discussion. Probably due to the kind of academic writing I sometimes use at work.

You and I are on the same page, I believe.

[kallol]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,



And where is this intelligence found in the laws of nature that directs, lays the rules, for concentration as a natural phenomenon to occur?
This always seems to be discounted. Event A occurs and event B happens, yet there seems to be a blind-eye cast ( in science) that does not address the underlying intelligence of the physical laws to apply. If they were completely random, chaotic, then I would have no issue. Yet these laws occur consistently 100% of the time.


Take a watermelon seed. Plant the seed. What do you get? A watermelon, not a goat, mule, or a palm tree. There is order to this universe. From where is this order ( my teacher calls creative intelligence) derived from? From this Universal Intelligence. It is at the very core of a sun's fission ( or fusion ?) process, in the galaxies rotation, in orbits, in the sent of a flower, in the path of a fish, in the lifting of brick. The rules occur consistently with precision and with order and discipline. This is the Cosmic Intelligence that is the wonder. The 'code' that is in everything to operate according to specific laws, that is the intelligence.

praṇām

Dear yajvanji,

There is no denying that there is the intelligence behind any cause and effect. Neither I have overlooked the fact. Rather these cause and effect are inbuilt into the system. That is the oscillations from permanent to temporary to permanent. Many are it's derivations and many subtler variations. However as said by Krishna the material and the intelligence to have the cause and effect are all embedded in the single system. The consciousness by itself has no attributes and is an enabler. The actions are done by the prakriti / aparaprakriti after being enabled by purusha / consciousness / paraprakriti. The actions are based on the derivatives of the higher rule of permanent to temporary to permanent (that is if you deviate from permanent you have to come down to permanent).

The code is written by coder - it is us through the karma create the so called permanent cycle of manifestation and unmanifestation. All the minds with the karma phals contribute to the vibration intensities which decides the rate of manifestations and unmanifestations. These all on the base rule as said earlier.

Just like God (made of purusha & prakriti) all others have the same constituents - purusha and prakriti. Thus the elements remain. So watermelon becomes watermelon. That is the other rule.

The vision is not from micro to macro but from macro to micro. In the first case there are chances that we might get mired in the maze and lose the sight of the top. If we percieve from the top we can drill down with derivations to the bottom.

Love and best wishes

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,


Dear yajvanji,

The code is written by coder - it is us through the karma create the so called permanent cycle of manifestation and unmanifestation.

What you offer makes sense , yet please consider the following.
Karma of cause-and-effect only resides in ignorance , there is no cause and effect for the Supreme. If there were then there would be attachment , (some call rāga - being colored by) . The paramount quality of the Supreme is svātantrya. What is this svātantrya ? It is complete freedom, with no boundaries with no attachment; total freedom of will.


Yet you may ask how can there be no karma? For karma to take hold and bind it needs the formula of duality - a cause and effect. If there is total Oneness, where can there be 'another' for an effect to take place. All is one continuous consciousness of the Self. Where would there be not-Self for a reaction to occur ? In Ignorance there is duality. In Fullness of the Self this duality is no more and there is noting to bind the person as he/she is now associated with the Supreme.

Well actions continue don't they? Yes, actions continue yet the seat of repeated actions within the individual is no more, like a seed that has been roasted, it no longer can sprout. Like that, the individual now associated with the Supreme via the Self, and the binding influence of karma is no more.
Only nature is now doing all the actions , and the person now the jñānī resides outside all of these actions and outside of ignorance. Karma brings one back to this word, the jñānī does not return.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~
namasté



This is the Cosmic Intelligence that is the wonder. The 'code' that is in everything to operate according to specific laws, that is the intelligence.

Where is this code you speak of ?
The veda-s and upaveda-s are the code book and IMHO so is matṛikācakra and mālinīcakra ( the science of sound via saṃskṛtam)

I do not see this a 'code' ?
This knowledge outlines and describes on how this universe functions.

It takes the wise to understand the true meaning . Just as you look at a computer code, say FORTRAN or C++, you do not understand what it says. Yet to the experienced programmer the language is clear and understands what the program is suppose to accomplish.

The Code in life we are told is at the DNA strand level. That is where the Divine has put much of the intelligence. It is found on all levels of life, plants, animals, bacteria, genes, etc.
Within the galaxies it is found at the sub-atomic levels , the building blocks of grand systems.

Hence this Intelligence works on multiple levels.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

namasté Ao,



,
I actually think we are approaching this issue from the same POV. I am simply trying to employ a more technical, exact, language to the discussion. Probably due to the kind of academic writing I sometimes use at work.

Yes, I can see how this may be attractive - to be exact. Yet this is a pickle. If someone says where exactly is this Cosmic Intelligence. Is it here ? ( and they point to a rock) . Yes, it is there, and also on the ground the rock sits, and in the eye that one sees the rock and in the awareness that allows this perception to take place.
But it is just a rock not a living entity. What holds the rock together? What strong force/weak force ( from physics) keeps the rock a rock?
That is the intelligence.

Well, lets try this again , what about the moon ? ( and the person points to the full moon in the sky). Yes, it is there. But it also is in the light that falls on it from the sun, and the gravity that keeps the moon in its circular orbit 'round the earth, and within the solar system and galaxy it resides in. The total system is an expression of this Cosmic intelligence.

As I see it , it's a bit difficult being exact. Why so? Due to satatoditam - that which has no pause, no break. The exactness is difficult to manage as it is everywhere and that exactness kind of loses its meaning.
Does that mean we do not try and articulate this Comic Intelligence in a meaningful and purposeful way with specificity? Sure , we try. Yet the ~right answer~ is it ( this Comsic Intelligence) is exactly everywhere. From the smallest of the small to the bigest of the big.

praṇām

[kallol]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,



What you offer makes sense , yet please consider the following.
Karma of cause-and-effect only resides in ignorance , there is no cause and effect for the Supreme. If there were then there would be attachment , (some call rāga - being colored by) . The paramount quality of the Supreme is svātantrya. What is this svātantrya ? It is complete freedom, with no boundaries with no attachment; total freedom of will.


Yet you may ask how can there be no karma? For karma to take hold and bind it needs the formula of duality - a cause and effect. If there is total Oneness, where can there be 'another' for an effect to take place. All is one continuous consciousness of the Self. Where would there be not-Self for a reaction to occur ? In Ignorance there is duality. In Fullness of the Self this duality is no more and there is noting to bind the person as he/she is now associated with the Supreme.

Well actions continue don't they? Yes, actions continue yet the seat of repeated actions within the individual is no more, like a seed that has been roasted, it no longer can sprout. Like that, the individual now associated with the Supreme via the Self, and the binding influence of karma is no more.
Only nature is now doing all the actions , and the person now the jñānī resides outside all of these actions and outside of ignorance. Karma brings one back to this word, the jñānī does not return.

praṇām

Dear Yajvanji,

I feel honoured to discuss these with you. At first go, I thought there is no difference in what you think and I think. Then I came to the last part of the 2nd stanza where I find a variation.

I will take an example, which you know for sure.

I had mentioned that the base rules of the entireity are like :

1. Unmanifested aparaprakriti (energy) and paraparakriti (is in permanent unmanifested form) is the permanent state. Any deviation from there is a temporary state which is not stable and will be coming back to permanent state.
Even in the next level this balancing factor happens, which is why we have the Avatar factors

2. The constituents remain the same. So in all manifested entities we have part aparaprakriti and part paraparakriti.

3. By itself aparaprakriti is inert and does not have means to do anything. By itself paraprakriti cannot anyway do anything (no karma). But with the enablement of paraprakriti, the aparaprakriti does the karma it is meant for. Like fan, light, motor, heater, etc in presence of electricity does their own karma. Even the knowledge of the presence of the aparaprakriti is because of the enablement by paraprakriti.

Now let us take the example.

Under the rule of gravity, the huge ocean and the air over it interact. Due to the different parameters (the state of mind), the air and the ocean, interact and create waves. Now these waves, when they go up, it will seem they are defying the rule !!! But if we increase the time of study, this again comes down to the permanent state.

Again this goes on hapening, but to have the manifested aparaprakriti it needs to cross the threshold limit. This we see, when in the high waves, the water mixes with the air to create the froth (manifested part). The individual parts of that wave do not follow the rule of gravity apparently. The parts contain a mixture of water and air in different proportions.

The micro behaviour (while going up or coming down) also may not be apparently predicted exactly but all works under the overall rule of gravity.

The intelligence is inherent and the material is inside. As Krishna said it is like the spider which spawns out the web from itself and absolves unto itself. At the highest level it is the same. The intelligenec and the material all built into the system, which takes the manifested forms temporarily.

I do not think God intervens in each and everything. I believe, the rules are set which takes care of the system automatically. Just like an automated intelligent system. The micro intelligence works under the macro intelligence (rules) and are the causes and effects we create through the minds.

Your last stanza is correct theoritically. I have put my thought in another thread. Paraprakriti, aparprakriti and mind are permanent entities. The feeling of "I" is only possible to have through mind and consciousness. Without mind there is no "I" as cosciousness / paraprakriti is attributeless and undetermined. The "I" being permanent, pervades the life and death, birth and rebirth. This is only shifting the position of "I" from the body to the permanent consciousnes. But all these shifting is through the permanent mind.

However we need to keep in mind that even Bramha has to take birth and it is not possible to reach the ideal state of God. What we can do is to try to make the mind as neutral as possible, which will lead to almost nil contribution to the vibration. Or in other words, will take a long time to get attached with a compatible body. Higher the intensity of charges faster is the attachement to a body.

Looking for your comments

Love and best wishes

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,


You have said much in your post above. Let me if I may just offer a few ideas in principle that may add to the conversation. My intent is to extend the thinking and ideas, not correct or suggest your POV is without merit.


I always appreciate the wave analogy - yet I am reminded that no matter what that wave does it is still the ocean, it is still the expression of the fullness of that ocean , yet it may think it is just a wave.
re: Intelligence - yes I see your point . It is part-and-parcel part of the total system. This is found in the components and in the whole.
re: rules are set , you mention. Yes, like auto-pilot that is driving. Makes sense to me. Yet does the Supreme intervene at times? Yes we are told this and for good reasons - to uphold dharma says Kṛṣṇa ( some prefer Kṛṣṇ).
regarding 'I' - we should talk a bit more as we need to define if the 'I' you mention is indicating the individual or the Universal SELF. If Universal, this ahaṃ's nature is svātantrya and does not need 'mind' to exist.
regarding brahma - yes I agree brahma is 'born' , but is not the same as brahman that is aja (unborn), akṣara ( imperishable) & akula (without form).
regarding reaching the ideal form of the Supreme - this I have other views. In duality view of Reality, I can see this point of view. Yet we are an extension of the Supreme. We can experience this fullness of being. There are some blemishes that remain while we are in the body, yet the SELF is non-different then the Supreme.What is the blemish in the body ? I have been taught that the 'frame' remains due to leśāvidya .

leśa + avidya gives leśāvidya
leśa = a small part or portion , particle , atom , little bit or slight trace
avidya = ignorance Hence we remain in this frame due to the remains ( a small portion) of ignorance. Some small atomic part. The awareness is perfect and stainless completely residing in the SELF/brahman, yet there are other
parts perhaps that still are infused with ignorance.
Then yes, I agree we are not 100% converted to the Supreme, yet this is remedied ( say the wise) in maha-samādhi.

praṇām

[kallol]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté kallol,


You have said much in your post above. Let me if I may just offer a few ideas in principle that may add to the conversation. My intent is to extend the thinking and ideas, not correct or suggest your POV is without merit.

I always appreciate the wave analogy - yet I am reminded that no matter what that wave does it is still the ocean, it is still the expression of the fullness of that ocean , yet it may think it is just a wave.
re: Intelligence - yes I see your point . It is part-and-parcel part of the total system. This is found in the components and in the whole.
re: rules are set , you mention. Yes, like auto-pilot that is driving. Makes sense to me. Yet does the Supreme intervene at times? Yes we are told this and for good reasons - to uphold dharma says Kṛṣṇa ( some prefer Kṛṣṇ).

regarding 'I' - we should talk a bit more as we need to define if the 'I' you mention is indicating the individual or the Universal SELF. If Universal, this ahaṃ's nature is svātantrya and does not need 'mind' to exist.
regarding brahma - yes I agree brahma is 'born' , but is not the same as brahman that is aja (unborn), akṣara ( imperishable) & akula (without form).
regarding reaching the ideal form of the Supreme - this I have other views. In duality view of Reality, I can see this point of view. Yet we are an extension of the Supreme. We can experience this fullness of being. There are some blemishes that remain while we are in the body, yet the SELF is non-different then the Supreme.What is the blemish in the body ? I have been taught that the 'frame' remains due to leśāvidya .

leśa + avidya gives leśāvidya
leśa = a small part or portion , particle , atom , little bit or slight trace
avidya = ignorance Hence we remain in this frame due to the remains ( a small portion) of ignorance. Some small atomic part. The awareness is perfect and stainless completely residing in the SELF/brahman, yet there are other
parts perhaps that still are infused with ignorance.
Then yes, I agree we are not 100% converted to the Supreme, yet this is remedied ( say the wise) in maha-samādhi.

praṇām



Dear yajvanji,

thanks for continuing the discussion. I will try to provide some more inputs to bring in more clarity (hopefully).

1. The wave analogy (point#1) : you are right and this is what it should be. however much of the times the individual particles lose sight of the totality and start see the actions in terms of micro levels whether it is time, space, material and consciousness. When we move to infinite the whole of these attains a different understanding.

2. Yet does the Supreme intervene at times ? Yes he does in the form that is required. But how this intelligence is inbuilt in the system ? I had started a thread " Avatar - How & Why this phenomenon happens ? (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=48791#post48791) "
I had put some of my understanding in tp://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=48791&postcount=2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=48791&postcount=2)

Look forward to your suggestions on that.

3. Regarding "I" : You are right the Brahman does not need the mind to exist. No question about it. Again by itself it cannot be known, felt or determined as it is attributeless. It is the enabler and is the source of the knowing. The feeling of "I" comes from there through the mind. Neither can we move (what will move ?) beyond the mind to the undetermined, unfathomable, attributeless brahman. The feelingless feeling is at least difficult to behold.

4. No this is not duality. The whole is a system. The system has prakriti, and purusha. Prakriti contains the fixed number of minds also, which is permanent. It is through the minds the purusha enables the prakriti to act both at macro and micro levels. The mind is the filament fo the bulb, where bulb is the prakriti and electricity is the purusha.

Looking for your comments.

Love and best wishes

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

Mr Hawkings is entitled to his view. I do not think we should become too preoccupied with what Hawking believes. The ex-nihilo hypothesis is common to Western science and religion. In Western religion god creates the universe out of nothing. In Western science the universe comes out of nothing.

Our ancient Hindu scientists knew that the notion of something coming out of nothing was completely illogical. None of the Darsanas accept this common Western fallacy. The law of cause and effect is central to every darsana(however, they approach cause and effect in different ways) If there is a effect, then there is definitely a cause as well. The Hindu scientists described three types of causes: material cause, efficient cause and instrumental cause. This mirrors the three conditions of knowledge: object of knowledge, knower and instrument of knowledge.

The material cause is what Hawking is dealing with. This is Prakriti and before Prakriti is manfiest she is avyaktam(undifferentiated) This is described in the Nasadiya suktam in the Rig Veda. In her avyakt state prakriti is a in state of pure potentiality. The gunas are in a state of complete equilbruim. Now, as prakriti is in a state of complete equilbruim, she is not capable herself of collapsing her own equilbruim. This collapse only takes place when purusha observes prakriti, as a result prakriti collapses and becomes vykatam and then through the actions of the gunas evolution of the cosmos begins(simultaneous evolution of the mental and physical universe) Thus purusha is the efficient cause. The instrumental cause are the devas which are the cosmic laws which guide the evolution process in order to maintain dharma. The first deva is Brahma(the creative principle)

Hawking has some idea about the material cause and some idea about the instrumental cause, but it is completely ignorant of the efficient cause which is the very first condition(Aristotle's unmoved mover: prime cause) needed to collapse the universe out of its potential state. In quantum mechanics exactly the same problem presents itself on the question of the collapse of the wavefunction. It is observed in the double slit experiment that the collapse seems to take place only upon observation. However, materialist scientists cannot accept this conclusion, so they posit that the collapse must take place prior to observation through hidden variables. However, despite their best efforts, every test of quantum mechanics has shown that the observer is required to collapse the wavefunction. It cannot collapse itself.

In summary: The universe did not just come out of nothing by itself. It was caused to come into being by purusha.

[atanu]

Namaste,

Mr Hawkings is entitled to his view. I do not think we should become too preoccupied with what Hawking believes. The ex-nihilo hypothesis is common to Western science and religion. In Western religion god creates the universe out of nothing. In Western science the universe comes out of nothing.

Our ancient Hindu scientists knew that the notion of something coming out of nothing was completely illogical. None of the Darsanas accept this common Western fallacy. The law of cause and effect is central to every darsana(however, they approach cause and effect in different ways) If there is a effect, then there is definitely a cause as well. The Hindu scientists described three types of causes: material cause, efficient cause and instrumental cause. This mirrors the three conditions of knowledge: object of knowledge, knower and instrument of knowledge.

The material cause is what Hawking is dealing with. This is Prakriti and before Prakriti is manfiest she is avyaktam(undifferentiated) This is described in the Nasadiya suktam in the Rig Veda. In her avyakt state prakriti is a in state of pure potentiality. The gunas are in a state of complete equilbruim. Now, as prakriti is in a state of complete equilbruim, she is not capable herself of collapsing her own equilbruim. This collapse only takes place when purusha observes prakriti, as a result prakriti collapses and becomes vykatam and then through the actions of the gunas evolution of the cosmos begins(simultaneous evolution of the mental and physical universe) Thus purusha is the efficient cause. The instrumental cause are the devas which are the cosmic laws which guide the evolution process in order to maintain dharma. The first deva is Brahma(the creative principle)

Hawking has some idea about the material cause and some idea about the instrumental cause, but it is completely ignorant of the efficient cause which is the very first condition(Aristotle's unmoved mover: prime cause) needed to collapse the universe out of its potential state. In quantum mechanics exactly the same problem presents itself on the question of the collapse of the wavefunction. It is observed in the double slit experiment that the collapse seems to take place only upon observation. However, materialist scientists cannot accept this conclusion, so they posit that the collapse must take place prior to observation through hidden variables. However, despite their best efforts, every test of quantum mechanics has shown that the observer is required to collapse the wavefunction. It cannot collapse itself.

In summary: The universe did not just come out of nothing by itself. It was caused to come into being by purusha.


Namaste Surya

Your post is excellent and comes closest, IMO, to the structured knowledge of drishti shristi versus shristi drishti.

1. However consider the fact that under primeval situation, the being was not a being, since there would be none else. Under such condition, the being is not a being and nor a non being -- indefinable. Thus it would be, in a way, wrong to say that a being caused the being of Universe.

2. As per Nasadiya, Gods came later. So, Stephen is not entirely wrong when he says "God is not necessary for creation" And He probably means the God of christian concept.

3. Stephen does not propound ex-nihilo concept.

4. Also how will the understanding alter if we consider the following two?

ajAtivAda
Brahman is one whose all desires are fulfilled so why should He/It bring out a world?.............


I am not providing any answer because i do not know either the truth or Stephen's mind. But I feel that he is close to ajAtivAda of vedanta.
One who clings fast to Eternal Truth
Will attain Ultimate Truth Itself.
The strength of Rta, Eternal Order, is far reaching
It brings wisdom to those that pursue it.
Earth and Heaven owe their existence to Rta.
And the Supreme Powers yield their ambrosial milk,
their treasured contents,
In perfect obedience to the Lord of Eternal Existence.
(Rg Veda.IV.23.1):
Does Stephen appear to say something similar to the red highlighted portion?
...............

In my understanding, the immutable eternal has two products: satyam (the Lord of eternal existence) and ritam (the eternal way). The Earth and Heaven owe their existence to the Rta.

Om Namah Shivaya

[kallol]

Namaste,

The material cause is what Hawking is dealing with. This is Prakriti and before Prakriti is manfiest she is avyaktam(undifferentiated) This is described in the Nasadiya suktam in the Rig Veda. In her avyakt state prakriti is a in state of pure potentiality. The gunas are in a state of complete equilbruim. Now, as prakriti is in a state of complete equilbruim, she is not capable herself of collapsing her own equilbruim. This collapse only takes place when purusha observes prakriti, as a result prakriti collapses and becomes vykatam and then through the actions of the gunas evolution of the cosmos begins(simultaneous evolution of the mental and physical universe) Thus purusha is the efficient cause. The instrumental cause are the devas which are the cosmic laws which guide the evolution process in order to maintain dharma. The first deva is Brahma(the creative principle)


Dear Surya Deva,

I find the portion highlighted bit confusing and dfficult to percieve. The rest part does align with the vedic theory of creation.

Vyaktam : Known - can be known with an enabler of knowing i.e. purusha
Avyaktam : Unknown - without purusha the prakriti is unknown.

Gunas : Yes the gunas are in a state of equllibrium. Why ? The gunas belong to the properties of the mind. Once the mind is devoid of the body (mainly human form - as rest of the forms are not enabled with "choice" capability and are meant for bhog), there is no way the state of gunas can be altered. So the summation of gunas are in a state of equillibrium.

But this gunas of the mind are also the movers of the prakriti in unmanifested form (energy). This creates the churning to form the cosmos or the universe.

Purusha / consciouness only enables the knowing / experiencing part but is not a cause for the creation.

It is the body mind complex, who is responsible for the creation and the creation cycle. The body mind complex (BMC) is the karta.

The purusha always remains the akarta - pure and pristine, unblemished.

If purusha becomes the cause he will be the highest karta and the highest sansari. He will be responsible for what we (BMC) do and should be blamed for all wrongs. But that is not so. He is only an eabler. He is the provider of the field for BMC to play. He is the provider of the conciousness for BMC to be alive, to know, to feel, to talk, to hear, to sense, etc and carry out its duties.

How can power be a cause for what a computer or fan or bulb or fridge does ? Power only enables them to function - what they do is as per their dharma. If they do not follow dharma, they are rejected or downgraded.

Love and best wishes

[nirotu]

Mr Hawkings is entitled to his view. I do not think we should become too preoccupied with what Hawking believes.
I agree. Unfortunately, some of Hawking’s misguided claims are hardly new to scientific community.


The ex-nihilo hypothesis is common to Western science and religion. I disagree. It is absolutely wrong to assume his concepts are somehow common to western religion.

His view generally pits theist against atheist and certainly not eastern against western thoughts. Much of his rationale behind his argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. (Check British Mail Online: Prof John Lennox). He asks us to choose between God and the laws of Physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

One thing to remember is that physical laws themselves neither create anything nor do provide explanation to the existence; they are merely a description of what happens to existing things under certain conditions. Gravity is one such thing that explains why we don’t fall off the edge of the earth but cannot explain how it came into existence. We are very good at explaining how a rocket propels in the atmosphere with Physics – but the task of building or creating a rocket needed a genius of Von Braun as its agent. Likewise, laws of physics could never have built or created the universe. Some agency (I like to refer to as God) must have been involved. I don’t think you can explain Universe without God. As for which God, I leave that to your imagination.



In Western religion god creates the universe out of nothing. In Western science the universe comes out of nothing.I have to disagree. Why is it difficult to conceive God as the one who can create out of nothing? Is He not Omnipotent?If in some inscrutable manner God is able to fashion the world out of atoms without a body, would it be any hard to imagine that He can create also the Universe without any pre-existing material?


Hawking has some idea about the material cause and some idea about the instrumental cause, but it is completely ignorant of the efficient cause which is the very first condition(Aristotle's unmoved mover: prime cause) needed to collapse the universe out of its potential state. In quantum mechanics exactly the same problem presents itself on the question of the collapse of the wavefunction. It is observed in the double slit experiment that the collapse seems to take place only upon observation. However, materialist scientists cannot accept this conclusion, so they posit that the collapse must take place prior to observation through hidden variables. However, despite their best efforts, every test of quantum mechanics has shown that the observer is required to collapse the wavefunction. It cannot collapse itself.
Very interesting indeed! Do you believe the moon is Not there if nobody is looking at it?

Einstein's ironic statement was "Does the moon disappear when I'm not looking at it?" This was stated in order to show the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which states that there are no particles in the universe until scientists perform experiments; i.e. the experiments themselves 'create' reality ahead of them, creating an illusion that scientists are exploring a reality that is independent of their mental existence.

Our view on this reality is biased from the start, and we are limited to some extent. To me it makes sense for nature to only provide a tangible reality for what is absolutely necessary.


In summary: The universe did not just come out of nothing by itself. It was caused to come into being by purusha.
I have to agree with you on this. Yes, the Universe did not just come out of nothing “by itself”(note my emphasis on “by itself”) and there was a primal cause or prime mover behind it. Regardless, the fact remains, it came out of nothing as shown by epoch making “Big Bang“ event that, I might say, happened not by itself. Thus, prior to the existence of the Universe, the singularity did exist. A singularity is simply that where all the potential mass (matter), energy, and dimensions (including time) of the cosmos, reduced down to an infinitely small point of “zero” volume.

Interestingly, for those who believe in the Bible, this same concept is brought out again in Hebrews 11:3 which declares that "the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." The original starting-point for the universe was invisible, and had zero volume. Likewise, those who believe in the Rg Veda may also find it comforting know the creative power of God through the Hymns about creation in Chapter X. However, the Upanishads discuss creation at a philosophical level, quite different from some of the hymns of the Riga Veda and also different from the narratives of creation in the later Puranas.

Finally, despite Einstein’s remarks, “Scientists make bad philosophers and philosophers make bad scientists”, I have a great respect for those who attempt to use science to arrive at philosophic conclusions. I admire you using Quantum mechanics to explain the reality. It is admirable that you go beyond the symbols in mathematical equation and attach a deeper meaning to them, although, it is given that the theory of quantum mechanics is a confusing beast to say the least. As I have read somewhere, on many occasions, many who struggled with its philosophical implications such as– wave/particle duality, the effect of an observer on the observed, collapsing wave function, hidden variables, probabilistic or deterministic and so on – have, in the end, taken refuge in Feynman's adage "shut up and calculate". Whether you believe in Bohr or Einstein way of describing reality using QM will probably depend on how sympathetic you are to the "shut up and calculate" school of quantum mechanics.

In the end, I have to agree with Feynman’s attitude. After all, this universe, this creation, this life is not a bunch of problems to be solved but the mystery to be experienced!

Blessings,

[saidevo]

namaste Nirotu.

Welcome back! Nice to see you posting after a long time.

I can't agree less on your statement that physical laws do not create, only describe, and that it requires an agent to do the creation using them.

But then I can't understand your statement as to why could not God create the Universe out of nothing. Even God needs to exist/dwell somewhere to do his creation and since God is infinite, there is no possibility of his existing inside a point of singularity with zero potential or dimensions becaue that would be detrimental to God's power of omnipotence and omniscience. Further, it would mean that God himself expanded as he created the universe, which concept would be against the very nature of God being infinite.

This is where the Advaita philosophy makes sense that God created the Universe, not out of nothing, but out of his own Self, and then pervaded through all his creation to be immanent and transcendental in it.

[sanjaya]

His view generally pits theist against atheist and certainly not eastern against western thoughts. Much of his rationale behind his argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. (Check British Mail Online: Prof John Lennox). He asks us to choose between God and the laws of Physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

I'm not so sure that Dr. Hawking's ploy is quite that deep. From what I can tell, it's not religion he opposes (though he may use that general term). It's Christianity. And this makes sense, since he's a Westerner. Indian atheists intellectually attack Hinduism in much the same way, albeit not without a certain level of respect for Hindu culture which is absent in their Western counterparts. If I may play psychologist, I have noticed that the so-called "New Atheists" take offense to Christianity's attempts to explain the mechanisms of nature. Christianity relies on historicity, so of course a reasonably literal interpretation of your scripture is required. Sometimes it is taken too literally, and this results in incorrect scientific statements, e.g. geocentricity, young/old earth creationism, and various other things that the angry atheists would likely cite. I think Hawking is ultimately trying to take away Christianity's ability to explain anything about the universe. It's actually an insidiously clever idea on his part. If he can show that physical laws do not require the assumption of God's existence to make accurate predictions, then he feels that he can tear the foundation of historicity from Christianity and make it impotent to pronounce any moral judgments.

I'm not sure what the appropriate analog for science vs. religion conflict would be in a Hindu context. I've noticed that although we have our own problems with people who lobby to teach astrology in science classes (and have succeeded), there doesn't appear to be as strong an opposition.


One thing to remember is that physical laws themselves neither create anything nor do provide explanation to the existence; they are merely a description of what happens to existing things under certain conditions. Gravity is one such thing that explains why we don’t fall off the edge of the earth but cannot explain how it came into existence. We are very good at explaining how a rocket propels in the atmosphere with Physics – but the task of building or creating a rocket needed a genius of Von Braun as its agent. Likewise, laws of physics could never have built or created the universe. Some agency (I like to refer to as God) must have been involved. I don’t think you can explain Universe without God. As for which God, I leave that to your imagination.

If I may play devil's advocate, I don't think that's what Hawking is necessarily saying. Or if that's what he is saying, then he needs to work on his English. Inflationary cosmology allows for the universe to be created out of quantum fluctuations. This doesn't mean the laws of quantum mechanics created the universe, but the fluctuations exist whether or not we choose to describe them. I'm not saying I believe this, but that's an example of how the universe could possibly be created without even referring to God.


But then I can't understand your statement as to why could not God create the Universe out of nothing. Even God needs to exist/dwell somewhere to do his creation and since God is infinite, there is no possibility of his existing inside a point of singularity with zero potential or dimensions becaue that would be detrimental to God's power of omnipotence and omniscience. Further, it would mean that God himself expanded as he created the universe, which concept would be against the very nature of God being infinite.

Hello Saidevo. Question for you: Hawking's zero starting point of the universe refers only to spatial and temporal dimension. Must this exclude God, who transcends those descriptions? I eagerly await your thoughts.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


If we condense the universe to a single point , bindu, that does not infer that the Supreme need reside in that point. In fact there are some views that all the power
or śakti of the universe is nāda ( sound ) and this condenses to a center or point, bindu. Now what is esoteric is this bindu is not in time or space. This is where the brain cramp begins.

It is the source of all manifestation - note I say manifestation and not creation. This universe comes forth , emanates from the Supreme , so says kaśmir śaivism's view of
Reality ( others may vary). This then leads to ṣaḍadhvā¹ ( 6 paths) of the decent of the Supreme.

So , here is my point - these paths are extremely pregnant with multiple levels or bhuvana-s ( worlds, abodes, place of being). As we evaluate this universe we are within
the world of matter ( being quite fine or gross) , of thought and the like, a bhuvana. We are not cognisant of the other bhuvana's.

This knowledge goes deeper and deeper - and to suggest I have a total ( even partial) understanding of this profound wisdom would be
a misnomer. Yet some years back svāmi lakṣman-jū called out 118 bhuvana-s. This wisdom comes from abhinavagupta-ji and part of svāmi-ji's tradition.

He (svāmi lakṣman-jū ) never got too detailed about these 118 levels. It is only recently that by my good fortune I have found some knowledge on this matter.
That of all of creation that we talk about and Mr. Hawkin's universe just may be contained on a very few levels.
The Supreme is not bound by any one level or bhuvana - He needs no universe ( as we think of it) to reside in, because of His complete and utter independence.

The total of 118 = 16+56+28+18. These are called out as kalā-s - an emission, division, a tone. All these kalā-s correspond to the
36 tattva's called out in kaśmir śaivism ( vs. 24 , some say 25 , in the saṃkhyā philosophy). What I am better trying to understand is svāmi lakṣman-jū comments that
these bhuvana's are worlds onto themselves. They are not part of other worlds the way we think of as levels, but complete in themselves. This is where my studies have
brought me and I still continue to look for a deeper understanding.

praṇām

words
ṣaḍadhvā = ṣaḍ + adhvā ; ṣaḍ = 6 + adhva = road, journey, orbit

[saidevo]

namaste Sanjaya, Yajvan and others.

I agree with Yajvan's point that the Supreme has no need to reside in the starting point of nothingness of creation of the universe. It seems to me that this starting point of nothingness is more like the state in our suShupti--deep sleep, and once the creation/manifestation proceeds, the Supreme pervades it and settles in the state of turIya, standing as a witness, while the forms and indidivual selves it spawns, go through their daily existence in the cycle of jAgrat-svapna-suShupti, in time and space.

Some information I could dig up on the nAda-bindu-kalA aspects of Creation:

• Shiva or Brahman is in his nirguNa--attributeless, state is pure consciousness which is passive, with only actionless awareness. He has a saguNa--with attributes, state where he is energized consciousness, possessing Shakti, who is responsible for the Creation.

• In the unmanifest state, Shiva and Shakti are perfectly balanced. A sphoTa--cosmic vibration, arises between them and this is called NAda, which is still in the undifferentiated state.

• Getting consolidated, this nAda gives rise to the Shabda Brahman (differentiated sound energy), which is the cosmic sound symbolized by AUM.

• Shabda Brahman, which is the first creative aspect of the Creator, gives rise to three forms of energy: ichChA-shakti--energy of will, jnAna-shakti--energy of knowledge, and kriyA-shakti--energy of action.

• The three forms of energy represent the three guNas tamas, sattva and rajas in that order.

• It is these three forms of enery that are referred to as bindu--seed, kalA--growth by waxing and waning, and nAda--vibrative manifestation in matter and energy.

More details here:
http://www.bipinjoshi.com/articles/30552bd2-7eda-40ec-8b2a-c1c97a5221e9.aspx

*****

"Hawking's zero starting point of the universe refers only to spatial and temporal dimension. Must this exclude God, who transcends those descriptions?"

As to my thoughts on this question of yours, Sanjaya:

• I guess that the zero-starting-point must exclude God who transcends it. Although most scientists may not agree, we might say that this zero-starting-point existed only in the consciousness of the Supreme, another way of saying that instead of God residing in the starting point, the point resided in him.

• With this view, we can say that the formation of physical laws preceded the creation of time and space, all these aspects of creation being still in the consciousness of the Supreme in the form of nAda-bindu-kalA.

• It would be interesting to speculate which originated first from the zero-starting-point: time or space? Since time is a state of change in space, and that change in the consciousness of the Supreme precedes manifestation of space, we might say that time was created first. But then, there is no concept of time where there is no space with states to change (as in our deep sleep state), so should we say that space was manifested first?

• Physical space is essentially a field of varying states of physical energy, manifesting as matter and energy. As was discussed in the 'Just Thinking...' thread, time is mapped from its present state to past state across space, seemingly being propagated through it. The age of this Universe of ours is estimated to be around 14 billion years (Wiki). Since everything in space can be construed digitally, would this mean that the zero-starting point is still there, mapped somewhere in space?

Whatever physics and astronomy I read during my college days forty years ago is very rusty now, and at this stage/stage in life, I have no inclination to explore it further, so whatever I write about science here are purely my thoughts which may or may not be accurate.

[nirotu]

I can't agree less on your statement that physical laws do not create, only describe, and that it requires an agent to do the creation using them.

Dear Saidevo:

Hawking’s argument is hoisted on a faulty premise. Perhaps, you or someone can explain this to me. Taking his argument to its logical conclusion leads one to believe that the existence of Gravity means the creation of the Universe is inevitable. Isaac Newton was humble enough to admit that he can only explain “how” aspects of the nature and not the “why” aspect because he knew very well that the laws of nature were adequate only to explain how existing objects function but cannot be the reason for their existence.

Hawking is confusing law with agency. He is asking us to choose laws over agency that created laws in the first place. Religious experiences of millions of believers cannot be lightly dismissed just because the support for the existence of transcendent force moves far beyond the scientific laws.


But then I can't understand your statement as to why could not God create the Universe out of nothing. Even God needs to exist/dwell somewhere to do his creation and since God is infinite, there is no possibility of his existing inside a point of singularity with zero potential or dimensions becaue that would be detrimental to God's power of omnipotence and omniscience. Further, it would mean that God himself expanded as he created the universe, which concept would be against the very nature of God being infinite.
A 14th century Advaitin scholar Vidyaranya says:

निरूपयितुमारब्धेनिखिलैरपिपण्डितै：।अज्ञानंपुरतस्तेषांभातिकक्ष्यासुकासुचित्॥
निरूपयितुमारब्धेनिखिलैरपिपण्डितै: ।अज्ञानंपुरतस्तेषांभातिकक्ष्यासुकासुचित्॥

Translation: "Even if all the learned people of the world try to determine the nature of this world, they will find themselves confronted at some stage or other by ignorance".

This was said in 14th century, which to a large extent true even today. If we can describe God as Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent, many of His activities resulting from having these attributes will be very difficult to comprehend. For example, we all accept that God is able to observe affairs of all souls in this world simultaneously. I have no explanation to this, yet I believe that to be true. We have accepted scientifically that the Universe is expanding, yet we are not able to explain what it expands into. In spite of technological and scientific advances since Vidyaranya’s time, our knowledge of God still remains limited.

Rather than feel discouraged by his statement, man has known to overcome lots of hurdles with ingenuity and perseverance. Here again as a consolation, I might take his statement to imply that God reveals to us what is needed for us to progress spiritually at appropriate time and space as He wills. Not every thing is revealed to us and certainly not all at once. Thus, by using our logic to explain the non-intuitive mystery of God may run us into roadblocks primarily because of the inherent bias with which we start with. Instead, I would pray for revelation.

Therefore, I do believe, more I know of science, perhaps, more of God will be revealed to me. Until such time, I have no problem in taking that leap of faith to understand Him.


This is where the Advaita philosophy makes sense that God created the Universe, not out of nothing, but out of his own Self, and then pervaded through all his creation to be immanent and transcendental in it.
With all due respect, while it may appear to make sense on surface, at a deeper level, Advaita fails to adequately address the creation. Let us revisit the singularity spoken about just prior to the Big-Bang. In cosmic physics it is related to the “material-singularity”. Following the Big-Bang event, the multiplicity of objects took place, which is “real” and not “unreal” as in Advaitic sense. Advaitic thesis is based on “God and God alone”. While focusing only on the singularity of God, Advaita treats the "material singularity" as unreal and non-existent. To Advaita the “many” is super-imposed on one and “unreal” and only God is “real”. Science on the other hand treats this “many” as real objects derived from the single point of infinite density. Science does not speak about super-imposition but the transformation into real objects like stars, galaxies, etc.

Now, we ask ourselves, if Advaita treats anything "material" as “un-real” and “non-existent”, how can it ever associate itself to science when science on the other hand talks only about “real” matter and “real” objects?

Blessings,

[nirotu]

I'm not so sure that Dr. Hawking's ploy is quite that deep. From what I can tell, it's not religion he opposes (though he may use that general term). It's Christianity. And this makes sense, since he's a Westerner.

Dear Sanjaya:

Sorry to rock your boat. I respect your view but do not agree with it. If I agree with you, I am afraid, we both will be wrong!

First, perhaps another read of his new book will reveal what his arguments are. He has brought in gravity without even describing its origin and expects us to believe in creation as an inevitable consequence of having gravity.

Second, when Hawking refers to deity, divine, super natural power, he refers to God in general not to God of any certain religious persuasion. On the other hand, he could very well have been referring not to any traditional medieval God of Judaism or Christianity, but an impersonal God identical with nature: Dues Sive Natura – God or Nature – as described by the seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza.


Christianity relies on historicity, so of course a reasonably literal interpretation of your scripture is required. Sometimes it is taken too literally, and this results in incorrect scientific statements, e.g. geocentricity, young/old earth creationism, and various other things that the angry atheists would likely cite.In the Bible, a verse in Hebrew 11:3 clearly declares,” By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Underline is my emphasis).

It clearly speaks to me that it is by faith we understand that God commanded creation and not in literal days! Either you are reading it wrong or you are misguided by the evangelical surroundings.

So often we see bad testimony from seemingly good people is because of the way they interpret the Bible. In the Bible, God does not make statements that we have to follow literally; if He did we would not grow in His grace.


I think Hawking is ultimately trying to take away Christianity's ability to explain anything about the universe. It's actually an insidiously clever idea on his part. If he can show that physical laws do not require the assumption of God's existence to make accurate predictions, then he feels that he can tear the foundation of historicity from Christianity and make it impotent to pronounce any moral judgments. Good Luck to Hawking !


If I may play devil's advocate, I don't think that's what Hawking is necessarily saying. Or if that's what he is saying, then he needs to work on his English. Inflationary cosmology allows for the universe to be created out of quantum fluctuations. This doesn't mean the laws of quantum mechanics created the universe, but the fluctuations exist whether or not we choose to describe them. I'm not saying I believe this, but that's an example of how the universe could possibly be created without even referring to God.Yikes!

Professor John Lennox writes in mail Online; “Hawking’s argument gets even more illogical as you read more about it. Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for “the blue touch paper” to be lit to “set the universe going”, the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?”

Talk about random fluctuations, if it were so, we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of mindless process, undermining the very rationality we need to study science. If creation and its contents (we) are merely a result of random fluctuations and if our brains were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell the truth.

Blessings,

[Tapasya]

I personally do not feel that Hindu cosmogony necessarily fits within modern cosmological models. This variance arises, in my view, because at the root of Hindu cosmogony rests consciousness itself.
Let us consider gravity, highlighted earlier in this thread, from the standpoint of empirical forces from within the Hindu prism. Gravity is a force that, according to General Relativity, occurs as a result of the curvature of space-time. Bhaskaracharya in the Surya Siddhanta viewed gravity as a force of attraction (a few hundred years before Newton) but I think this view, from a Hindu perspective, is superficial. The pertinent question here concerns whether this is how the Puranas see it. I am inclined to think that if we considered a few of the ithihasa’s or Puranas (e.g. Vishvamitra’s creation of a duplicate universe for King Trishanku) we will reach a different conclusion. Abstracting from the psychological perspective of this Purana and focusing on the empirical we could, for example, view gravitational force in a different light. It may be seen as:
a. Dependent on consciousness and
b. Manipulable (through Tapasya)
c. Both force for attraction and repulsion (possibly simultaneously)
Can Hindu’s view Gravity differently? If we start off with the fundamental identity of Vyavaharika universe: Empirical universe (Gross) and Non-empirical universe (Subtle) is identical to Vyavaharika, It is clear that the immediate adhistana of the two elements have a profound connection. It is then a simple step to view Gravity as the manifestation of a sub-quantum force that connects the Empirical and non-empirical adhistana of Vyavaharika. (Please note that I am referring to what is within Vyavaharika, hence the plural adhistana).
Why is this model more consistent with Hindu beliefs? Firstly, Hindu beliefs inform us that mantra siddhi enable one to overcome gravity. There are countless occasions in the Puranas where the earth and heavens have been subject to chaotic shocks because of ascetic tapasya on earth. This suggests that there is a subtle connection between a point in empirical space and another in non-empirical space. Gravity does not exist outside duality – i.e. it exists only in Vyavaharika.
Secondly, Hindus scriptures state that the empirical universe is a ¼ of the total (the balance being the non-empirical) – all of which is a projection whose ultimate adhistana is Brahman.
sarvaṁ etat brahma I
ayam ātmā brahma I
sah ayam ātmā catuspāt II
All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman. This Self has four quarters. (Agama Prakarana, Mandukya Upanishad – Swami Gambirananda’s translation). (Of course the Mandukya Upanishad refers to the Self but it must apply also to Brahmananda by definition).
One could posit that individuation causes the expansion of the first pada (¼) like the bahir prana until it reaches the point when it is superseded by antar prana. [Bhagavatpada Shankaracharya’s commentary of this Upanishad analyses Bahisprajna (outside+ awareness) within the context of Self]. We know that the universe is expanding at accelerating rate. From the Hindu perspective this can relate to Br + Aham i.e. all expansion occurs because of the individuation. The individuation process adds layers of apparent complexity to the perceived universe (like layers on a cosmic onion). It is therefore not a coincidence that the Hindu term for the universe is Brahmananda. If we assume that the non-empirical universe is also expanding then the connection between empirical and non-empirical will be continuously stretched – perhaps through all 14 dimensions that represent “reality” (from the navapanchavaram of Nataraja’s Tandava). Of course, this connection, as does all attachment and repulsion, arises as a result of ignorance.
There is no need for dark energy in our model, non-empirical space is not “dark”, nor is it simply energy and the use of darkness, as a metaphor, is in appropriate since it is not even necessarily invisible. Once again most important of all here is that consciousness is pervasive in non-empirical space.
What about other aspects of Hindu cosmology – well, speed of light and sound are not necessarily constant; sound (vibration) preceded light at point of creation; there are at least 14 dimensions to creation; the underlying adhistana is a fluidic state of vibration (AUM); each process of creation (of Brahmananda) may be different; each cosmological cycle is 311 trillion and 40 billion years and so on and so forth.
Finally, Vyavaharika is impermanent and therefore not ultimately real. The human propensity to investigate its apparent properties is itself a function of our ignorance. As Shankaracharya Bhagavadpada states, in his Vivekachudamani, mere indulgence of thought does not give us Samadhana (self-settledness).

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Here is another point from my perspective I do not get. In this grand universe the astrophysicists and cosmologists have calculated or inferred that ~ 84%
of the mass of the universe is missing i.e. dark matter. They also calculate that 70% of the energy is missing that i.e. dark energy.

How do they come to this conclusion - by inference. They cannot measure it 'cause they cannot see it.

Today I am reading Science News ( October 2010) and my ears perk up as I read ' It is essentially critical to show that black holes really exist. It has become so common to talk about them. Their existence is the simplest assumption to make. We couldn't test it, so we internalized it as fact.' . This is from a team member of the Institute for Theory and Computation , at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

There are scientific efforts on the way to measure / find the suspected black hole at the center of the Milky Way . According to them it will only cost ' A few tens of millions of dollars, not much at all' says Shepard Doeleman, one of the colleagues on the project.

So, what's my point? We have been talking of black holes for so long that the 'just gotta be real', yet they have not been measured or observed but inferred.
How then can the Supreme not be real and also discounted by a majority of the scientific community , as they say there is no evidence, yet will accept a black hole as real?
How , by deduction, observation, and the direct personal experience of muni's , svāmī's, ṛṣi-s-and yukti that reside on this good earth come to the conclusion that the Supreme is Reality, but the science community ( not all) are able to discount this?Why - because it cannot be measured? Does this not hold true for the black hole, that comes into reality by inference.

It is said the breaking point of physics occurs at a black hole , all the 'rules' that we know do not apply. What then? We must rely on hypothesis that is not cooberated by direct measurement?
When talking of the Supreme there too is the hypothesis of Its nature, but one thing is different there can be direct personal experience ( lab work) that the Supreme exists if one wishes to pursue it.
Two things we know of the Supreme, the Highest, the unsurpassible ( uttara & anuttara)

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha, self + proven i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedIt cannot be uttered it is aghoṣa meaning voiceless, but we talk of it. Where the scientist finds difficulty is looking ( initially) for the Supreme outside of one's own self. In reality this is very possible and a personal direct experince for those realized beings on this earth. But for the scientist looking to put this Being into a test tube - they will find it easier to clap with without hands.


praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

There is a significant difference between having no belief in a God and believing there is no God - Michael Shermer (author)

praṇām