Re: Nothing becomes everything
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
Originally Posted by
Ananda
I have to disagree with what you are saying here; I think you are stretching the cosmologist's assertions out of context. Lawrence Krauss, a pre-eminent theoretical physicist is one of the leading proponents of the idea that the Universe came from 'nothing' - and by nothing, he doesn't mean 'no-thing' in the sense of 'pure being' that you are suggesting, he means
nothing, non-existence. You can watch one of his talks here;
Perhaps he means nothing and I respect your offer and his approach... yet my orientation is of the upaniṣad-s. My approach is to find similarities & the jury is out on this notion of non-existence. It is again addressed in the upaniṣad-s on several occasions.
The ~argument~ they offer is how can something come from nothing? The point to be made is this nothing is existence itself and it is in fact lively in and of its Self. Let me offer this POV. This is for appreciation purposes and not to defend or cajole: bhāgavad gītā , chapter 9 , 8th śloka:
prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||
This says curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).
It is the notion of this Self-referral ability of Being that creation comes forth.
That said, I can see how a scientist would not use the term Being - they're not there yet. I suspect they will be , but that is my opinion only.
praṇām
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
Bookmarks