PDA

View Full Version : Scientific cause for universal destruction?



Adhvagat
11 January 2011, 05:41 PM
I'm intrigued by the passage of Nataraja destroying the material manifestation...

However, if we were to witness it with our material eyes, what would be the perceived cause? Perhaps some kind of explosion or supernova? I'm not very well versed in astronomy so I leave the speculation to someone who may contribute better.

;)

yajvan
11 January 2011, 09:37 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If we consider the Supreme's 5 fold act, pañcakṛtyavidhiḥ ¹, it includes saṁhāra or contraction; drawing in (like an elephant's trunk);
fetching back. Note many like to use the word destruction (vilaya - dissolution , liquefaction , disappearance , death , destruction ).

Yet let me offer , if I may, a view on ~destruction~ in one's daily experience. Lets consider the 3 operators - creation, maintenance and destruction.
They work together; sometimes one may be a bit more vigorous then another, but they work as a team. Lets take the simple
idea of seeing.

We look at an object. This object is 'created' in our mind from sight. It is maintained as we view it, yet when we look to another ( new)
object, the old one is destroyed and the new one is created. How many times to you view objects in a single day?
These 3 operators are in force.

Lets say you are walking forward. With one step a new step is created; now as your other leg comes forward, there is a place where
no stepping occurs (maintenance, a balance between step and no step) , then your other leg moves forward . the last step
is destroyed and a new step has begun. Like that, these 3 operators are in play.

Think of a child growing up. You see more creation , going from a small body to big body.
Yet as that body grows old cells are ~destroyed~ , cast off for new one's e.g. bones, blood cells, etc. Yet to keep that balance so one
does not outpace the other ( too much growth or too much debris and destruction) the maintenance roll is of key import, no?
The child grows, is maintained, then begins to grow old and decay. Yet in this life cycle, all 3 operators are there. Even
in the decay - the decay has to be created!

In our daily life if we look there is brahmā, viṣṇu and śiva ( some say rudra) alive and well in each and every moment of life and all its rhythms.

So, now the question - what is nāṭarāja ( some write nartarājan) doing... is He only saṁhāra (contraction) , without ~ creating and
maintaining ~ an orderly drawing in ?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OdkhqK534ls/SUe0dCNJZVI/AAAAAAAAATw/nLdwMIM7IVg/s400/Natraj+Dance+Form.jpg

praṇām


1. pañcakṛtyavidhiḥ - consider this HDF post for reference: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55015&postcount=7 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=55015&postcount=7)

Tapasya
12 January 2011, 06:32 AM
Namaste,

The following is my interpretation of Hindu cosmology and how Nataraja's dance of creation sits within it:


· Nataraja and the dance of creation, as I see it, is a reflection of the 14 dimensions of the current universe.

a. Why does the Hindu model of the current universe suggest 14 dimensions? For this we ned to deconstruct the symbolism. The form of Mahadeva, as Nataraja, dancing on the demon of ignorance (Apsmarapurusha) has enormous teleological and psychological importance and reflects a significant variant in Hindu cosmology. As we know, the lower right-hand is held in abhaya-mudra and in His right hand the deity holds a Damaru (a two-headed, hour-glass membranaphone). Percussion is achieved through a binary twisting motion, representing the pre-conditioal vibration that exists at the moment of the creation of the Gross and Subtle universe. The object is held with a damaru-hasta mudra. The tala (time kept by it) is aligned to the feet movement of the dance. The dance itself is watched by the primordial Rishi Sanaka and his brother Rishis through their divine eye (divya-caksus). During the dance Vishnu plays the maddala (a heavier percussion instrument) and Brahma keeps time. The concluding beats of the dance creates fourteen vibrations – navapanchavaram (nava + pancha or 9+5). This represents reality and the means by which reality can be understood. There are numerous versions of the Tandava – suggesting variants of the cosmological cycle. The number 14 here is particularly significant and is repeated elsewhere in various aspects of Hindu soteriology, involution metaphors and cosmogony.

b. Each cycle sits within a cycle – so even Brahma’s life (311 trillion + years) must sit within a larger cosmogony. One can view this as a series of concentric circles. Within each cycle creation, sustenance and annihilation occur simultaneously.

· The cosmogonic cycle
a. Hinduism suggests that the current cosmological cycle is one variant type of innumerable number that has occurred and will occur. Our Rishi’s have stated that there have been more creations-sustenance-annihilation cycles than drops of water in the Holy Ganga. Each creation may be different – though there is a commonality in the underlying substratum. This commonality lies in the fact that the underlying Vyavaharika substratum is seen as an “ocean of vibration” (though clearly this state is aspatial and atemporal). From this “fluidic space” is projected a Bindu (an infinitesimal point of unimaginable geometry). This geometry then expands to fill the universe. Hence, as we know, the Sanskrit name for the universe is Brahmananda - being a compound of the root Br (to expand) and Anandam (Bliss).

· My view then is that the fundamental discrepancy between modern science and Hinduism may be summarised as follows:

a. Hinduism cannot accept a physicalist/ materialist view of consciousness

b. Hinduism, as I see it, will state that scientists
i. Do not understand the definition of “everything” (even by their definition) and in any case
ii. Cannot have a theory of “everything” (i.e. empirical substrate of Vyavaharika) without having recognised consciousness as an integral element.

c. Thus, the Vyavaharika universe, which itself only possesses a transactional reality, is a projection from an underlying fluidic Vibration (Aum), where consciousness is an integral part. [The cessation of this vibration (i.e. reversal of creation) must be seen as the ultimate aim of involution]

d. The scientific method is fundamentally flawed because it sits within a relational frame. All scientific models are partial equilibrium models (by definition). In fact this applies to all knowledge models within Vyavaharika.

· “Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one” (Einstein)

a. There may be physicists whose ideas appear to resonate with some of the above: David Bohm, Eugene Wigner (Consciousness); Ed Witten (the universe as an illusion); Roger Penrose (on Holographic universe) and of course Erwin Schrodinger.
I think it is also interesting to speculate on the processes that balance the Gunas at the "moment" of prakriti pralaya (311+ trillion years in one of the concentric circles).

Adhvagat
14 January 2011, 10:26 AM
Tapasya a lot of interesting elements that you provided me!

However this notion of the universe as a persitent illusion like you and Yajvan propose confuse me a bit... So if I don't look at some object he doesn't exist anymore but just to me? And If I touch it suddenly exists again or is generated to my personal experience? I'm not completely missing the point... But I guess I just miss out on the philosophical premisses behind it.

Could you expand on the 14 dimensions and the concentric circles?

Regarding what you said:


b. Each cycle sits within a cycle – so even Brahma’s life (311 trillion + years) must sit within a larger cosmogony. One can view this as a series of concentric circles. Within each cycle creation, sustenance and annihilation occur simultaneously.

I began reading the Brahmanda Purana, is there information about this topic there? What do you recommend on this subject?

Sorry for only contributing with doubts and questions.

Om Tat Sat

Adhvagat
14 January 2011, 01:16 PM
A friend of mine just sent me this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG1JpC5jels

And yesterday I favorited this: http://pedrumgolriz.com/blog/?p=225

Tapasya
17 January 2011, 12:17 PM
Namaste,

The problems with language as a means of communication to elucidate Hindu metaphysical truths is that analogies, metaphors and imageries used are rarely useful in all circumstances. Truth (Sat) must be experienced under the guidance of an appropriate Guru - a Brahmajnani (He who has knowledge of Brahman).
“Illusion”
Einstein’s quote only works to a point. In the Devi Bhagavata purana there is a story of Bhagavan Sri Krishna teaching the Sage Narada the concept of Maya through experience. I think it is well worth reading this.
What is Reality? From the perspective of an advaitin, the object that you have referred to you has a relative existence but it is not ultimately real. Reality here is defined as a permanent state. Your object exists but its existence is transitory –i.e. it does not exist in all three time period (past, present and future). However, all objects have adhistana (an underlying substratum). Ultimately this adhistana is Brahman. Brahman alone is atemporal and thus, Brahman alone is Real.
In the Mandukya Upanishad it stated that the Self is possessed of four quarters. The first of these is our waking state (Jagrita). What happens in our waking state? Well, we have external awareness (Bahisprajna) i.e. awareness of that outside of the Self. Thus, in your waking state you “see” your object.
The second quarter of the Self is our dream state (Taijasa or swapnastana). In our dream state we have awareness of internal objects (antahprajna). In your dream state the object is enjoyed in a subtle form - is based on an impression of the object.
What is the distinction between objects in the dream state and the waking state? The obvious answer is that the objects in the dream state cease to exist in the waking state. But this is also true vice versa (objects in the waking state cease to exist in the dream state). One could also argue that objects in the waking state have a relative-permanence (at least within temporal parameters). However, the same may be true of the dream state. Thus, objects in our waking state are sensed as “real” but then so are objects in the dream state.
Can the human senses be fundamentally flawed at a genetic/ evolutionary level? If this is so what is the nature of “reality”?
Let us consider the process of visual perception. Before you perceive your object certain events occur. Firstly, photons are reflected by the object must travel to your eye lens where it is focussed to your retina (technically part of the brain). Photochemical changes in the retina then occur and an electric impulse is generated by the retina and travels via the optic nerve to the diencephalon of the brain. Anyway, at the end of this route there is cognition of the object by the brain. We are seeing through the brain and we know that bio-chemical changes can affect how the brain deals with information.
Furthermore if, hypothetically, we were capable reengineering the sensory processing of the brain we would get some interesting “illusions”. Thus, for example, if we can somehow connect the olfactory part of our brain with the visual or the auditory part, I posit that we will be able smell the colour of your object or smell its sound! The point of this is to note that the human brain has been already been engineered, as it were, by evolution. The only reason that we believe that the human brain is not telling us lies sits in the fact that there is perceptual consistency across the species.
Tactile sensation can also be fooled by bio-chemistry. Consider the case of consciousness of lost limbs. There have even been cases where a stimulus applied to a severed limb was felt by the amputee. In a similar was we can look at the gustatory, auditory and olfactory systems and consider how easily they can be fooled. Bio-chemistry is relevant in the functioning of all – some being directly chemosensory in nature.
Is the fact that there is constancy in human perception within the species not consistent with the object being real? The point here is that consistency in human perception has been dictated by evolutionary biology. This does not necessarily mean that what we are seeing is true. To me all it suggests is that other modes of perception that may have existed in the distant hominid past is no longer extant.
I think one way to consider this is to look at the object at hand through the lens of an alien. Will an alien species that has evolved on an alien planet cognise your object in the same way? I do not believe so.
Multiple dimensions
See the Maheshvara sutras which originate in the Lord Shiva’s Tandava. I do not think Panini’s revelations were simply about grammar.
Other cosmologies – Hindu scriptures:
Purusha Sukta, Nasadiya sukta , Brihadaranyaka Upanishad,Prashna Upanishad , Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahmananda Purana, Siva purana, Vishnu purana, Devi Purana, Agni purana and so forth.
Concentric circles:
When I referred to concentric circles I meant, in the first instance, the notion that cosmological cycles exist within cycles. This is simply looking from the centre outwards. But see the Taittiriya upanishad for the far deeper truth of Pancha Kosha’s where the outer sheaths have to collapse to reveal the inner truth.
Science operates in the “known” universe and it offers us the advantage of consistency across its disciplines. It also offers knowledge through language. However, its capacity to extrapolate its theories to beyond the empirical universe is limited by the finiteness of collective experience. Our Maharishi’s experienced the deepest cosmologies trans-sensory manner. The difference with scientific knowledge is that it can be understood through language. Hindu paroksha-jnana (indirect knowledge) cannot be understood this way, let alone Aparoksha-Jnana (Direct knowledge) cannot be understood in this way.