96% missing knowledge...

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste,

Its of great interest to me that our science of today is based upon what we can see and measure. 'See' in this case also means measure from the micro to the macro. As we cannot 'see' quarks and subatomic particles with our eyes but can with our scientific equipment. As we cannot see a black hole but watch the dance of the objects around it to infer the existence of one.

So, all we know from a scientific perspective and what we say is 'fact' is based upon observation, experiments, testing, and the like. And this (western) scientific method has been around for a short time as compared to the age of the earth, let alone the age of the universe.

So, here's my point. Science today says we know the 'truth' on how nature functions based upon our observations, testing, etc. Yet this part of the universe only occupies ~ 4% of it. That is the measurable universe is 4% ( matter, light waves, solids, liquids, gas, sub atomic particles, radio wave , the electromagnetic spectrum, all that stuff). There is 96% of the universe that is missing.

That is, to keep the Galaxies moving in the manner we see today, it requires more mass then we can see or measure. That other 'stuff' that is missing, they have named dark matter ( 21% of the universe) and dark energy (75% of the universe).

When you put this all together it's called cosmology's Standard Model e.g. the proportions of 4%, 21% and 75%.

Here's the pickle - they know (they think) its 75% dark matter but have not seen it or measured it. And the 21% they believe is made of neutrinos, WIMPs and axions which is not directly measured but 'observed' through interactions with other sub-atomic particles.

So their truth on how this universe all works is based upon just 4% of the stuff in it. Well, one can say, ' ya know, statistically that is a nice sample size of 4%'. True, yet the sample is homogeneous, from one barrel of the same stuff.

It's as if you went to the zoo, and entered into the Lion's Section. You knew there existed other parts of the zoo ( the 96%) but just stayed in this one area. You then surmised that the other parts of the zoo must just be more lions with lots of variation, but just more lions. That is what is happening here in our universe. We only see lions!


So based on this observation we think the universe is ~ 13 to 14 billion years old. Well only the 4% is. And it came about in a big bang, etc. etc. I think there is some data and facts missing.


My point is this: when we look to the Veda's and various shastras, their measuring stick of time is in zillions of years. The risi's world of experiments is in consciousness, unbounded by time or space. And they operate from Ritambhara prjana or that which only knows the truth.
The stuff that is missing the 96%, subtle energy, subtle matter - sure 'feels' like prana to me. Would it not be a boon to have the scientists talk with the rishi's as an adviory board to give them clues on where and how to look at the Universe?


I say It is in space, It is in every nook and corner, in every pinpoint of space. There is no space where It is not; there is no space which It does not occupy." Risi SANATKUMARA, Chhandogya Upanishad 3.24


pranams


reference on dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

The measurable universe measures 4% of the immeasurable universe, which has been measured to be 24 times greater than what we are able to measure (??)

The whole 100% has not (and will never be) directly observed, but it has been logically inferred.

Should we insist that direct physical observation is the ONLY test of true knowledge?

The immeasurable 96% is particularly referring to unobserved (but inferred) mass. So are you suggesting that prANa has mass?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

The measurable universe measures 4% of the immeasurable universe, which has been measured to be 24 times greater than what we are able to measure (??)

The whole 100% has not (and will never be) directly observed, but it has been logically inferred.

Should we insist that direct physical observation is the ONLY test of true knowledge?

The immeasurable 96% is particularly referring to unobserved (but inferred) mass. So are you suggesting that prANa has mass?

Namaste sarabhanga,
Let me address a few of your questions, yet not I am not sure what your question/position is on point 1 below.

• " of the immeasurable universe, which has been measured to be 24 times greater than what we are able to measure (??)"
  I assume you are saying .04 X24 = .96 and therefore ____?
• Should we insist that direct physical observation is the ONLY test of true knowledge?
  Absolutely not. That is the point of my post. That satyam is beyond just physical measurement, because of the subtleness of the subject at hand.
  > Dark Matter is inferred; Dark Energy is inferred. It is what makes the calculations work and as of yet without quanta, less neutrinos which have been indirectly measured; Neutrino's answers lots of spiritual questions for me yet we will leave that for another time.
• The whole 100% has not (and will never be) directly observed, but it has been logically inferred.
  While I respect your opinion, I have a different view on this matter. For me, 'directly observed' also means cognized in consciousness. I think you were leaning to mean directly observed via instruments or the individuals eye. Yes, I see your point. Yet I wish to add that consciousness, a field of all possibilities is also a tool for metrics; many will think this to be the verjuice of the conversation.
• Are you suggesting that prANa has mass?
  Ya know, I really don't know; Prana is a substance of finer resolution. It is a reality and our physical body uses it; perhaps it has a physical composition that is even beyond subtle. Yet it really exists and may have a manifest quality in prakrti. Can the rishi's tell us if this is the essence of this dark energy or a component of dark matter? That was my point without all the verbiage.

I continue to think of what one of my teachers told us again and again:

There is nothing in the cosmos, either in the material plane or in the spiritual plane which cannot be directly cognized. [The] Veda's provide a direct method of direct cognition of material existence in this unlimited cosmos and also they provide a direct technique to cognize that which is evenly permeating, evenly pervading the entire physical structure of the cosmos; That all pervading reality, Almighty God.


pranams,

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan & Sarabhanga


Very interesting this debate and i want to pose two questions. But before that let me make a small introduction to the subject of the questions.
When i do pranayama, deep relaxation, kirtan or just focus my attention ( concentrate ) on it i see an infinity of small points of dancing light every were as far as my eyes can see. I have been taking that as prANa. Normally i.e. in my day in day out life i don't see that flashing lights but i see them in a trance state ( focus). The feeling is, after and during the experience, of great joy and strength and my health tends to increase during the periods when i experience that.
Now the question! Is that what the sages call prANa?
Can prANa be equated with the tellurgic energies, know to the ancients, as putted by Mircie Eliade in is book about shamanism?
In what concerns Quantum Science the results of it always depend on the observer and yes they are a product of measurement and consciousnesses as it's results are always dependent on a philosophical and historical interpretation.

Thank you guy's!

Om namah shivaya!!!

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan & Sarabhanga


When i do pranayama, deep relaxation, kirtan or just focus my attention ( concentrate ) on it i see an infinity of small points of dancing light every were as far as my eyes can see. I have been taking that as prANa. Now the question! Is that what the sages call prANa?
Om namah shivaya!!!

Namaste Nuno,

I cannot tell you with any degree of certainty regarding your expereince. Meditiative techniques and light are associated regularly e.g. the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra [ some write Vijnanabhairava Tantra] where Siva is talking to Parviti suggests this as a technique:

Attention between the eyebrows. Let mind be before thought. Let form fill breath essence to the top of the head and there shower as light.

This location is ajna [आज्ञा ājñā] cakra or Shivanetra. Why do I mention this? Note that Siva calls out - let form fill with breath essence to the top of the head , is prana. Then there is a shower of light.

IMHO prana stimulates this experience... is the prana the light? That is a different matter. When threre is light ( even in dream state) Surya is the core provider. Surya ( sun) is the Atmakaraka. Surya is associated always weith light, tejas, agni.

Perhaps others have an opinion....and fyi , I have a simular experince of a zillion points of light. Sometimes the sky-star field. Is it the destination of ones sadhana? Nope, just a mile marker or raod sign at best.

I prefer not to discuss my experiences as one can mis-take it as a brag, and I need not start that type of conversation.

pranams,

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan


Thank you for your reply but i am not talking about the same thing.I know that experience you mention you had ( with closed eyes?) but this is constant and with open eyes when focused and yes you can [peek] one and follow that route into nirvakalpa.




Om namah shivaya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan
Thank you for your reply but i am not talking about the same thing.I know that experience you mention you had ( with closed eyes?) but this is constant and with open eyes when focused and yes you can [peek] one and follow that route into nirvakalpa.
Om namah shivaya

Namste Nuno.
thank you for your clarification... i now understand what you are saying.
Were I am at a loss is your data point ' tellurgic energies, known to the ancients, as offered by Mircie Eliade in is book about shamanism?' I am not aware of this information... perhaps others can advise.

Yet that said, my teacher has said the eyes (and ears) are capable of perceiving the finest levels of relative existence with the proper 'mechanism' , that of this pure consciousness.

What is the finest levels? One sisya ( happens to be a PhD no less in biochemistry) suggested one photon of light; that is pretty refined. He said the eye has that capacity. Yet can we be aware of this?

I know from reading the sutra's of Patanjali that we can sense ( during samyama) the smallest fraction of time, called a moment. So, the quality of consciousness is key.

If I hear any more, I will pass on.

pranams,

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Yajvan

"Namste Nuno.
thank you for your clarification... i now understand what you are saying.
Were I am at a loss is your data point ' tellurgic energies, known to the ancients, as offered by Mircie Eliade in is book about shamanism?' I am not aware of this information... perhaps others can advise."

Mircea Eliade talks about telluric or tellurgic energies in one of is books here goes what wikipedia says about that;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current, and that seems to me to be what we Hindus call prANa.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

1. What is measurable is supposedly 4% of the whole, and the unmeasured portion has been measured at 96% (which is 24 times greater than 96%). The numbers are unimportant, but the idea of precisely measuring the immeasurable seems questionable!
   
   
2. The �immeasurable 96%� is particularly referring to unobserved (but inferred) mass. So, by suggesting that this apparently missing mass could (even partly) be accounted for by prANa, surely you are implying that prANa has mass (?)
   

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

1. What is measurable is supposedly 4% of the whole, and the unmeasured portion has been measured at 96% (which is 24 times greater than 96%). The numbers are unimportant, but the idea of precisely measuring the immeasurable seems questionable!
2. The “immeasurable 96%” is particularly referring to unobserved (but inferred) mass. So, by suggesting that this apparently missing mass could (even partly) be accounted for by prANa, surely you are implying that prANa has mass (?)

namaste sarabhanga,

re: point 1... yep , measuring the unmeasurable.
re: point 2 ... I put prana into the unmeasureable, but part of the equation for consideration (again, I do not know nor profess to say that prana has mass).

Yet if we look at the equation for the total quanta of mass/matter/energy in the uninverse (seen and unseen, measurable and unmeasurable) lets call that N at 100%.

So N = M(what is measurable) + X (that what is unmeasurable at this time in history)
Could some portion of X that is unmeasurable be prana ? Could this prana hold mass ? I do not know, yet I see how it can be inferred by what I have said.

Now why did I say it? Because as I see it prana is holds a part in the relative field of creation. Just as akasha is part of the relative field of creation, it exists , yet has no mass. Like that , my thoughts were, can this prana be something that makes the galaxy rotation curve work? I was hoping to say it in a way that was as simple as possible, without a service call from Carl Sagan .... That said, what is your take?


pranams


galaxy rotation curve ferrets out the need for more mass:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem