Printable View
Namaste,
As some members are already aware, there has never been any conflict for me between my devotion to Devi, and the scientific method;
there has been lately some news blurbs concerning developments in the Holographic Principle , which appear to strengthen its viability.
I have found the idea of it to be fascinating, and yet again find no conflicts; rather, it makes firmer my steps along the path.
What, if any, thoughts might other members have regarding the concept?
JAI MATA DI
Namaskaar,
According to me, Holographic Principles deals with matter part of Universe. It has got nothing to do with religion and spirituality to a very large extent. Some people (not scientists/ researchers/ inventors) like intuitive folks have tried to relate it with Structure of Universe and then to the basic theories on Universe given in different religion but it hardly makes any sense if you read it through. It is like their imagination supported without proper reasoning. I would be interested in knowing what Holographic Principle means to you, and, why is it a cause of conflict with your devotion?
Pranaam.
Namaste follower12,
I humbly ask that you please re-read my post, and note that it is the absence of conflict with my devotion that I mention.
As for what it means to me, perhaps it is worth pointing out that, in my particular Shakta path, the concept of rejecting the material world/maya as merely an obstacle to moksha is not followed;
while it is not to be preferred, maya as Devi's veil is not taken to be less "real", and there is no emphasis to shun it.
I understand the viewpoint that science and religion are like apples and oranges, and also that many laymans' attempts to connect the dots between a scientific theory and theological cosmology
are often cases of seeing things that aren't there, or projections of wishful thinking.
I have found the Holographic Principle to lend an interesting perspective on my path's concept of maya; if others agree with the thought of "One has nothing to do with the other", that is fine, that is an answer to the question ;)
JAI MATA DI
Namaste JaiMaaDurgaji,
I misread the first post. Apology for misinterpreting it. Yes, it is clearly written there,i.e., absence of conflicts. I read the wikipedia page that you had mentioned in first post but I am still unable to find how Holography relates to religion or Maya concept. If you could, please explain. As they say, truth has infinite perception and everyone has a limited potential to see it normally. So, knowing others' perception just opens up a new side of truth.
I think your vision is absolutely right about Maya & relative world. Maya is not hindrance. Even scriptures mention that root cause of Maya is ignorance, not Maya itself. If ignorance of reality vanishes, Maya itself starts leaving. It would be wrong to blame Maya for miseries that it brings to us.
I like your comparison of science and religion to apple and orange as somewhere it is true.:) Both are complementary to each other. I mean, science and religion explain the same reality in different ways. Present science has laws for matter part of Universe & it is still developing. So, sometimes people criticize it as it can not alone lead us to liberation.
But its like- how can be a child studying in class V blamed for not knowing something of PhD. level? But if someone insists that religion can take to the last point of liberation, then he is again mistaken as journey of liberation starts from spirituality, which itself begins where all religions end.
Pranaam
Namaste follower12,
I am glad there is more clarity; perhaps with also a better understanding of your thoughts concerning science and religion (and how you differentiate between religion and spirituality), I can point better to what I am seeing as worthwhile
or interesting between my Shakta view of maya, and this Holographic Principle.
Please grant forgiveness in advance, for it is difficult for a clumsy one like me to attempt to explain better; there will probably be much meandering of thoughts, there is a good chance of muddying the issue, but the attempt will be made ;)
It could be that a more productive angle of examination would be the similarity in a question often asked by those unfamiliar presented with any conception of maya, as well as those unfamiliar presented with this Holographic Principle:
"So, is this supposed to mean that the day-to-day world/existence is not really "real", or what, exactly? And, if so, what then is really "real", and how is this supposed to affect me?"
Some people are utterly terrified by the notion that every sense-experience to be had while one is alive, is in any way comparable to the play of shadows on the wall caused by sunlight passing through a tree stirring in the breeze...
Yet, people forget that, as infants, we all have to learn that just because Mother has left the room and is no longer visible, that does not mean that Mother no longer exists.
The point being, there is no need for terror- there is a point where grasping with the mind is pointless. As you say, a child can not be blamed for not possessing PhD-level knowledge;
consider the difference between an ant's understanding of the world around it, compared to a human's understanding; this still is nothing compared to the gulf that separates reality as it is, and the capacity of any human intellect.
While one is "here", in this world, in this body, limits will always exist- these limits are indeed "real".. all these myriad names and forms, the changelessness of change, this "maya that deludes even the wise"; it is a limit of space and a limit of time.
The key to the Holographic Principle's relevance can be found in the statement: The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and
the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary. To me, this is reinforcement of Devi in Her aspect of Mahamaya; even "knowing better", all must operate within the framework of Her veil.
However much one might contemplate the concept of living in a universe in which the concept of volume itself is illusory, doing so will not erase the day-to-day experience of a universe in which there are 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time.
Yet it is also true, the evidence of a veil leads to the awareness of Devi- though the delusion is inescapable, there is worth in learning what lies beyond the endless arguments over whether it is a rope or a snake ;)
Some things are easier to experience than explain, and perhaps this is one of them- I am not sorry for the chance to explore (as you say) new sides of truth :)
JAI MATA DI
Namaste JaiMaaDurgaji,
To some extent, it is clear to me now, how you were relating the two aspects. It though seems basically an axiomatic statement yet to be proven but it gives some insight into the matter.
Quote:
The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.
My understanding about this concept might sound funny and too unrealistic, being intuitive. I think both volume and surface are illusionary. As on one hand we have "Universe is expanding" theory which means its surface area is increasing and then there is "Entropy(disturbance) of Universe is increasing" or say, stability decreasing, it suggests volume too contributes to change in information on the surface as the change in surface is due to change in volume.
Why I feel the holography principle as quite an axiomatic but interesting approach is because I think they (scientists) need to first mark boundaries before talking about it, atleast theoretically. Boundaries are unknown, then how they can observe it from outside and determine philosophy on area;), (there might be some thickness of the surface too :) ). Rather I feel totally opposite about it if we take symmetry consideration, the volume information is something that reflects on the net total information inscribed on surface. More like human body, what goes inside reflects outside, under sane mindful conditions.
Are you referring Maya as Devi or real Goddess Shakti Ma as devi? Just asking to get little it more clarity of above posts.
Maya is something that mediates the happiness and miseries. So, should it be blamed for any of the too being just a simple medium of effects of causes we generate? The world is indeed a dream. Even Lord Shri Krishna said to Arjun, "The way a human sees dream while asleep all in absence of senses and ego and when awake, he rejects the dream as he knows that it was not a reality, similarly, I see this world as devoid of reality just like a dream while I am awake, in the presence of all senses but with absence of ego."
The state of Ego in normal human being during sleep state and awake state is its absence and presence respectively. Maya provides fruitful condition for evolution of this ego. So, I see the World & its assisting forces as, indeed, a very helpful entity for everyone.
Good insight of yours, I would not have read between the lines or introspected in this direction. Topic might require some science support and understanding to it which I might be lacking to an extent. Forgive me everyone for any naive comment I would have made. I am seeing this problem, font is not changing from Italics even after clicking "I". Some suggestions.
Hmm.....
Pranam
Namaste follower12,
I have occasionally had the "italics" problem on forums before, unfortunately the best I can tell you is to type all out as normal, then select afterwards only what you wish to be in italics, and make it so.
Many thanks for the compliment toward my observations; consider it some excitement upon discovering a spur toward connection and contemplation, that I wished to share and see what others would make of it.
The words of Lord Krishna you mention are good for anyone to consider; promoting reflection on the koshas, among other things.
I was referring to Mahamaya as an aspect of Devi, Adi Parashakti- hopefully this is clear now?
Thanks also for most thoughtful replies- part of what is enjoyable about HDF is while it may not be a furious beehive of activity, the signal-to-noise ratio is higher ;)
JAI MATA DI
Namaste JMD ji,
Dhanyawaad for the suggestion and you are right, this forum is peaceful one. I think it is because people cannot directly post without a check by moderator, which makes it disciplined.
Yes, now it is clear that Mahamaya has been described as an aspect of Devi in the posts. As I have always tried to understand terminology to depth for differentiating it,here is a question, what is the difference between Maya and Mahamaya? And same between Adishakti and Adiparashakti? I am almost unaware of these terminology except their usage in religious kathas (mythology*) which depicts the Mahamaya and Adi parashakti as intense form of Maya and Adishakti. Do correct me if it is wrong. I hope I am not going off the topic.
Pranam.
Pranam
*I find usage of 'mythology' as quite a derogatory representation of any religion, so I don't support it though using it here. Mythology is study of myths related to religions generally but almost all incidents quoted in religious scriptures are true as they are written by wise sages who were accomplished and ably discerned between myth and reality.
Namaste follower12,
You are most welcome, it has worked for me ;)
As for your question- your understanding is basically correct, "Maha-" meaning "great" and "Para-" meaning "beyond, highest, superior", etc.
I fully understand your view of the use of "mythology", as it is often used in a way to place the culture under question as being extinct, primitive, or both..
JAI MATA DI