Mr. Hawking's view

[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/3...97a5221e9.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 � of the total (the balance being the non-empirical) � all of which is a projection whose ultimate adhistana is Brahman.
sarva[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']ṁ[/FONT] 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 (�) 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
~~~~~~

namast�

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-accomplished

It 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
~~~~~~

namast�

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

praṇām