The dance of Shiva..

[auh]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

And apparently it is only me who thought that post # 23 was sarcastic...

 

[thebigthinkg]

Coming to visit this site after a long time. But this thread is kind of a turn off.
Is there any science in any of this? Are there knowledgeable members that can comment on this?

My feeling is that there is no science in this thread and it is probably mockery of Indian philosophy. If someone who is a science expert comments on this thread positively I will withdraw my comment and even apologize to the author of the thread.

Somehow it seems one can write anything in this General Section - just dreaming up nonsense.

And there are followers. I never thought Mr auh would be joining the club of followers.

Welcome. thanks for your comments.

If there is anything 'WRONG' in any of the things that I talked about from a scientific perspective, please do highlight. I can think of giving away my certificates from IIT and IISC to you.

Passing a general comment, just deriding a view, is ok. Just doesn't help me.

thanks and regards

 

[thebigthinkg]

Dear a-TB ji,


Some of us have been participating in this thread and have been posing some questions too...that does not make any one of us "followers".


When anyone comes up with a new theory or a new speculation..there is absolutely no harm reading it and also pose a few questions if we have the interest.

To call something nonsense right away is not the style of everyone.

I personally do not agree with most views in this thread but nevertheless it made me think from a different point of view..read up a bit more on physics etc to re-enforce why I do not agree with the views expressed by the OP.

As I wrote in another thread, I see Vedas as Science and Vedanta as Philosophy. They are two different entities. We cannot mistake one for another.

Philosophy developing around a science always happens. It has happened in the past and is happening now with current science, when several philosophies are propagated around scientific facts.

I am not sure I am looking for agreements in this site. I am more looking for feedback, view-points etc.

As a-TB wrote, it should definitely appear as non-sense or great work unless someone has a scientific mooring and are able to understand the facts. Suuch works need to be peer reviewed between Sanskrit scholars and Scientific community which I am in touch with. There are several newer findings from my understanding which will be evaluated. It is a long work.

-TBT

 

[prasad1]

Coming to visit this site after a long time. But this thread is kind of a turn off.
Is there any science in any of this? Are there knowledgeable members that can comment on this?

My feeling is that there is no science in this thread and it is probably mockery of Indian philosophy. If someone who is a science expert comments on this thread positively I will withdraw my comment and even apologize to the author of the thread.

Somehow it seems one can write anything in this General Section - just dreaming up nonsense.

And there are followers. I never thought Mr auh would be joining the club of followers.

In post#23 Auhji, is questioning the OP not joining the club. And his subsequent post#26 shows that.
I was keeping away from this thread as it was well over my head. I have no idea of what is being discussed as it can not be proved. There is no scientific research done, so there is no validation by a third party.
One is allowed to speculate anything, and you throw in some truth, you may come out looking half descent theory or myth.
TBTji almost agrees to that.

 

[thebigthinkg]

In post#23 Auhji, is questioning the OP not joining the club. And his subsequent post#26 shows that.
I was keeping away from this thread as it was well over my head. I have no idea of what is being discussed as it can not be proved. There is no scientific research done, so there is no validation by a third party.
One is allowed to speculate anything, and you throw in some truth, you may come out looking half descent theory or myth.
TBTji almost agrees to that.

Well, As I wrote, I am not expecting people to agree to whatever I wrote. I don't expect 'Scientific community' in this site. Though someone could engage in a discussion with scientific terms, I am well aware that this is not the place for peer reviews or validation.

To call Vedas as science in a generic way is one thing, but to really assign equivalence of scientific terms to Shiva, Vishnu, Soma, Indra et al is a different thing. People have attempted such things in the past, but have not been able to do it coherently. Generally such works slip into philosophical domain more, as philosophies are easier to understand compared to science.

For people who viewed three quarked baryons as a God of Indraloka (around whom apsaras are always dancing), if I tell them we are made of these baryons or Indra, it is difficult to believe it. It will appear outlandish. It is easy to philosophize Indra, viewing the entire Universe as Indra's net, where Indra is the reflection in every joint of the web.

I am in touch with scientific community and community of sanskrit scholars, more due to my profession and I have to get them passed through there. Whether I will be successful, I am not sure. But there are people willing to look at and review such works both from scientific community and current spiritual community.

What I expect from this site is a lively discussion, with a lot of questions, so that I am able to write this work down in a way that even common people can understand. Generally I respond to such questions as much as possible.

But what I am presenting here is no speculation. It is the work out of translating a good amount of Rg and Yajur Vedic scriptures.

-TBT

 

[prasad1]

Well, As I wrote, I am not expecting people to agree to whatever I wrote. I don't expect 'Scientific community' in this site. Though someone could engage in a discussion with scientific terms, I am well aware that this is not the place for peer reviews or validation.

To call Vedas as science in a generic way is one thing, but to really assign equivalence of scientific terms to Shiva, Vishnu, Soma, Indra et al is a different thing. People have attempted such things in the past, but have not been able to do it coherently. Generally such works slip into philosophical domain more, as philosophies are easier to understand compared to science.

For people who viewed three quarked baryons as a God of Indraloka (around whom apsaras are always dancing), if I tell them we are made of these baryons or Indra, it is difficult to believe it. It will appear outlandish. It is easy to philosophize Indra, viewing the entire Universe as Indra's net, where Indra is the reflection in every joint of the web.

I am in touch with scientific community and community of sanskrit scholars, more due to my profession and I have to get them passed through there. Whether I will be successful, I am not sure. But there are people willing to look at and review such works both from scientific community and current spiritual community.

What I expect from this site is a lively discussion, with a lot of questions, so that I am able to write this work down in a way that even common people can understand. Generally I respond to such questions as much as possible.

But what I am presenting here is no speculation. It is the work out of translating a good amount of Rg and Yajur Vedic scriptures.

-TBT

You have no argument from I. I am neither a scientist nor a Scholar of vedas.
I do not have to prove anything. This discussion is above my pay grade and I can not contribute anything.
But in the present time everybody is trying to prove something. History is being overridden by mythology. Then again most of the History is an opinion with some facts thrown in.
In earlier days we used to get these books written (from USSR) that will claim every scientific discovery was made in USSR, may be true but ran contrary to our English based world view.
Did it change anything? As far as I know we still attribute discoveries to Newton, Einstein etc.

 

[thebigthinkg]

You have no argument from I. I am neither a scientist nor a Scholar of vedas.
I do not have to prove anything. This discussion is above my pay grade and I can not contribute anything.
But in the present time everybody is trying to prove something. History is being overridden by mythology. Then again most of the History is an opinion with some facts thrown in.
In earlier days we used to get these books written (from USSR) that will claim every scientific discovery was made in USSR, may be true but ran contrary to our English based world view.
Did it change anything? As far as I know we still attribute discoveries to Newton, Einstein etc.

I understand and 100% agree.

I am also least interested to prove anything. As you precisely wrote, even if I prove, it does not change anything.

Science has to be learnt the hard-way. Experiments and discoveries in physics can happen only in CERN labs. Theories based on Mathematics and subsequent observations to prove them only can drive science. Engineering and technological inventions/innovations only can drive new finds.

I started translating Mandukya Upanishad for a challenge and then figured out something missing in the conventional translations. From there started this journey. May be I will get something new. May be not.

I will neither be happy if I get something new, nor be sad if I don't get. I will neither be happy if I am proved right, nor will be sad if I am proved wrong.

I just love and enjoy what I am doing..

As I said earlier, the reason I posted them here is to have different perspectives and discussions, which would help me 'phrase' them better in a common man readable way.

-TBT

 

[a-TB]

Welcome. thanks for your comments.

If there is anything 'WRONG' in any of the things that I talked about from a scientific perspective, please do highlight. I can think of giving away my certificates from IIT and IISC to you.

Passing a general comment, just deriding a view, is ok. Just doesn't help me.

thanks and regards

Comments are directed only at what is presented not at 'you' the person!
So your certificates or my certificates have no purpose here. Besides certificates are different from degrees earned. Even that has not value here. Your writing is all that one can comment here.

I am not commenting as an expert at anything - science or philosophy. But sensing BS is my skill ! And this is one big load .

Taking a bunch of terms from mythology and calling them some terms from science is silly at best,
Gravity is big (far reaching?), Brahma is big - so Brahma is gravity or vice versa cannot be taken seriously by anyone.
Then you say our vedas and philosophy has figured it all out?? I am paraphrasing - but please try to see how silly all these comes across. This can be 'published' only here.

Well have fun with your following (some are sarcastic and some derive value) - More power to them.

 

[prasad1]

Other than bragging rights, what is the purpose of these claims? Will it feed one hungry child in India?
Yes in my social gatherings we people from India can brag about it. Our Hindutva leaders can make mockery of science and claim that we had Head transplant surgery (modi's claim) that an elephant head was transplanted on a human body. Or that we had aeroplane during Ramayana period.
Even if true we still have to buy them today in Dollars from Boeing or airbus industries.
What is the relevance of all these claims in today's world.
When we make these outlandish claims, we achieve nothing except strange look.
Does it impact our day to day living?
If we can improve a copied design and call it made in India, that would be better than these outlandish, UN-provable claims.

 

[renuka]

. Suuch works need to be peer reviewed between Sanskrit scholars and Scientific community which I am in touch with. There are several newer findings from my understanding which will be evaluated. It is a long work.

-TBT

I have interest in both fields...Science and Sanskrit..that is why I keep engaging in this thread.

I have asked you a question about the frequency of the Brahma-Hiranyagarbha waves..to which you had replied.

I then asked how did you arrive to that value..still waiting for reply.

Working formula would be very helpful.

 

[renuka]

Dear Bigthink Ji,

If the collision of two black holes produce gravitational waves...in your opinion what is the Vedic Equivalent of a Black Hole?

 

[sravna]

I do not understand the antagonism to knowledge that deviates from science. Shri TBT has valiantly given a radical perspective and I should say that some of this thoughts made me think deeply. It is sad that people's minds have become closed to fresh perspectives. I do not see anything BS in saying Vishnu is inertia or so on. He is talking a different language and trying to bring in all the connotations of that language. It is others who have preconceived notion of how Gods should be and how we can describe them that prompts them to make thoughtless comments.

I am sure there are people who would be interested in Shri.TBT's perspective and I hope learn something new from his presentations.

 

[renuka]

I do not see anything BS in saying Vishnu is inertia or so on.

Dear Sravna,


I somehow can not agree with a view that Vishnu is inertia.

This does not match with the Tattvavada philosophy...which stresses upon the Jada(insentient),Chetana(sentient) and Ishwara(Vishnu)


This philosophy goes into further detail about Jada-Ishwara Beda..the difference between insentient and Ishwara(Vishnu).


Now Jada as we know means inert.

Going by definition of Inertia...a tendency to do nothing or remain unchanged/inactivity.

The Physics definition is :

a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.

So how does all this link with Vishnu being Inertia?

The Trimurti Principle as we know is..

Brahma :Generation

Vishnu:Organization

Shiva: Dissolution


Ok lets get simple...the process of Generation,Organization,Dissolution goes on even in a microcosmic level for example in our body..cells are produced..organized and also undergo dissolution.

All three phases are in state of constant flux..there is no actual "inertia" in any of this states.


That is why technically the Vishnu principle being inertia does not seem to jive.

Previously I also mentioned if Vishnu is inertia..why is meaning of Vaikunta Without Inertia?

To which the reply given to me by the OP was not an accepted Sanskrit terminology.

 

[a-TB]

I do not understand the antagonism to knowledge that deviates from science. Shri TBT has valiantly given a radical perspective and I should say that some of this thoughts made me think deeply. It is sad that people's minds have become closed to fresh perspectives. I do not see anything BS in saying Vishnu is inertia or so on. He is talking a different language and trying to bring in all the connotations of that language. It is others who have preconceived notion of how Gods should be and how we can describe them that prompts them to make thoughtless comments.

I am sure there are people who would be interested in Shri.TBT's perspective and I hope learn something new from his presentations.

Mr Sravana:
My comment was about a set of posts, not about MrTBT.

Your comment (a pattern for sometime now ) is to do 'artful smear' (borrowing a phrase in American politics) calling people who disagree with you as closed minded.

Using words like knowledge, perspective and even antagonism is to dignify something that has no content . If you derive value please enjoy.

In open forums there will be many 'perspectives' - be open minded .

 

[a-TB]

Dear Sravna,


I somehow can not agree with a view that Vishnu is inertia.

This does not match with the Tattvavada philosophy...which stresses upon the Jada(insentient),Chetana(sentient) and Ishwara(Vishnu)


This philosophy goes into further detail about Jada-Ishwara Beda..the difference between insentient and Ishwara(Vishnu).


Now Jada as we know means inert.

Going by definition of Inertia...a tendency to do nothing or remain unchanged/inactivity.

The Physics definition is :



So how does all this link with Vishnu being Inertia?

The Trimurti Principle as we know is..

Brahma :Generation

Vishnu:Organization

Shiva: Dissolution


Ok lets get simple...the process of Generation,Organization,Dissolution goes on even in a microcosmic level for example in our body..cells are produced..organized and also undergo dissolution.

All three phases are in state of constant flux..there is no actual "inertia" in any of this states.


That is why technically the Vishnu principle being inertia does not seem to jive.

Previously I also mentioned if Vishnu is inertia..why is meaning of Vaikunta Without Inertia?

To which the reply given to me by the OP was not an accepted Sanskrit terminology.

While I do not understand much above I have to say this has 'some' content - some reasoning as well. But not enough to hold my interest in the thread.

 

[sravna]

Mr Sravana:
My comment was about a set of posts, not about MrTBT.

Your comment (a pattern for sometime now ) is to do 'artful smear' (borrowing a phrase in American politics) calling people who disagree with you as closed minded.

Using words like knowledge, perspective and even antagonism is to dignify something that has no content . If you derive value please enjoy.

In open forums there will be many 'perspectives' - be open minded .

Dear Shri a-TB,

There is a reason I use the term closed minded. I agree dissent and it is healthy. I would rather be happy f someone responds to my comment than if there is no response at all. But I believe that people should be constructive and not put down something just because they disagree. It would be to the benefit others also if you can reason out your dissent. That is the reason I prefer to engage with Smt.Renuka. She not just disagrees but provides a rationale to which I feel like responding.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

I will not go into the merits or demerits of the theory of Shri.TBT. He is the one who can defend it the best. But the point is I find something very novel in what he is trying to say and that sets me into thinking.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I will not go into the merits or demerits of the theory of Shri.TBT. He is the one who can defend it the best. But the point is I find something very novel in what he is trying to say and that sets me into thinking.

Dear Sravna,

So there is no "inertia" in thoughts at least!LOL

But there is no harm giving your opinion too especially if sets you into thinkng mode.

When we think..thought waves are produced..those thought waves are our opinions..therefore there has to be some amount of analysis done by you.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

There is a reason I use the term closed minded. I agree dissent and it is healthy. I would rather be happy f someone responds to my comment than if there is no response at all. But I believe that people should be constructive and not put down something just because they disagree. It would be to the benefit others also if you can reason out your dissent. That is the reason I prefer to engage with Smt.Renuka. She not just disagrees but provides a rationale to which I feel like responding.

Dear Mr Sravana:

Going from discussion of posts to attacking a person is not good way to engage.
We can call each other closed minded. So what?

My objection is that there is no content in Mr TBT's posts (I cannot even call it a theory or knowledge).
He has to prove value of his posts (Mr Prasad may have said something to this effect ).

I gave one reasoning - absurd to call Brahma (big) and gravity (big) to be same because they are big. Well, my house is big, Brahma is big so my house is Brahma by same reasoning.

why dont you defend content rather than going around calling people who disagree with you as closed minded. When Madam Renuka challenged you about Vishnu and inertia being same (which you had agreed earlier ) why dont you defend your 'knowledge' and 'fresh perspective'.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri a-TB and Renuka,

Let me give my understanding of Vishnu and inertia being related. Inertia is tendency to remain unchanged. Similarly spiritual energy is something that is unchanging. Since Vishnu represents the unchanging aspect, there is some relation to inertia. There is more explaining to be done here which I think Shri.TBT would be in a better position to do. But his intuition does not seem to be misplaced is what I think.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Comments are directed only at what is presented not at 'you' the person!
So your certificates or my certificates have no purpose here. Besides certificates are different from degrees earned. Even that has not value here. Your writing is all that one can comment here.

I am not commenting as an expert at anything - science or philosophy. But sensing BS is my skill ! And this is one big load .

Taking a bunch of terms from mythology and calling them some terms from science is silly at best,
Gravity is big (far reaching?), Brahma is big - so Brahma is gravity or vice versa cannot be taken seriously by anyone.
Then you say our vedas and philosophy has figured it all out?? I am paraphrasing - but please try to see how silly all these comes across. This can be 'published' only here.

Well have fun with your following (some are sarcastic and some derive value) - More power to them.

Firstly, I don't think I have a following here.. People are too big and sensible to follow anyone else. I don't want people commenting in this blog to be shamed for just commenting here.

You are absolutely right in your logic of House is Big. The way I translated Hiranygarbha from RgVeda references, Puranic stories and other slokas such as Aditya Hrdayam, I ended up calling Brhma as Gravity.

I tried to sum-up that understanding in this blog here.
http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2013/08/aditya-hrdayam-again-part-3.html

If interested, you can read up and comment. I have no issues with being called BS. I expect most perspectives to start like that.

If I switch off myself, my learnings and experience of the last decade and look at what I am writing now as a person ten years younger, I would definitely call my current writings a BS.

-TBT

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri a-TB and Renuka,

Let me give my understanding of Vishnu and inertia being related. Inertia is tendency to remain unchanged. Similarly spiritual energy is something that is unchanging. Since Vishnu represents the unchanging aspect, there is some relation to inertia. There is more explaining to be done here which I think Shri.TBT would be in a better position to do. But his intuition does not seem to be misplaced is what I think.

Dear Sravna,

The tendency to remain unchanged itself is undergoing constant change.

Going by that logic..even Inertia itself is in a state of "flux" to resist any change.

Becos Vishnu principle is seen as the Preserver..so there is an attempt to link inertia to Vishnu purely based on that fact that Vishnu seems to give the perception of a non changing state.

Further more can we actually describe anything or anyone with just one word?

Everything has some amount of duality when its able to be described.

So how can we only positively say Vishnu is Inertia?

Shouldnt Vishnu be sans Inertia too?


There is always 2 sides to a coin.

Pairs of opposites are inevitable when we describe anything.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

The tendency to remain unchanged itself is undergoing constant change.

Going by that logic..even Inertia itself is in a state of "flux" to resist any change.

Becos Vishnu principle is seen as the Preserver..so there is an attempt to link inertia to Vishnu purely based on that fact that Vishnu seems to give the perception of a non changing state.

Further more can we actually describe anything or anyone with just one word?

Everything has some amount of duality when its able to be described.

So how can we only positively say Vishnu is Inertia?

Shouldnt Vishnu be sans Inertia too?


There is always 2 sides to a coin.

Pairs of opposites are inevitable when we describe anything.

Dear Renuka,

We generally say that God is one but there are so many gods we worship. The reason is each represents a particular aspect and is worshiped for that. Even among the trinity each one does a specific job and Vishnu's job is to preserve.

So the possibility that Vishnu could be related to inertia stared at my face when Shri. TBT made that relation. Of course we may need to present the physics and spirituality in that in a deeper way so that we are really able to understand the link.

 

[thebigthinkg]

I have interest in both fields...Science and Sanskrit..that is why I keep engaging in this thread.

I have asked you a question about the frequency of the Brahma-Hiranyagarbha waves..to which you had replied.

I then asked how did you arrive to that value..still waiting for reply.

Working formula would be very helpful.

I will respond to you.. I am not sure you understood what I wrote.

I wrote Hiranyagarbha is Four dimensional spacetime curvature, Brhma is bending of that spacetime curvature (kA-Ancha) to Shiva/Shakti (Energy/Momentum). This bending travels like Hamsa in a pond, producing similar ripples in spacetime.

The frequency of such gravitational waves are expected to vary from 10^-7 to 10^11 hz. Is such a frequency derived from some vedic sloka..? No. It is an estimation of Hawking and others..

I have translating references to Hamsa across upanishads and I wanted to respond after that. I will do so..

-TBT

 

[sravna]

It is spiritual or the unchanging energy is what sustains the universe. So Vishnu being the preserver can relate to something that is unchanging.

The exciting part in Shri TBT's endeavor is that if we are able to somewhat logically map spiritual knowledge to science, there is a plethora of knowledge in spirituality, timeless ones which can have validity and hence so much practical value.

Our seers were able to see the knowledge without experimenting or doing any research. Ayurveda is one such practical example where the theory works.

I would urge people to be not discouraging even if they think they see no value. Personally I think a lot of good can come out of it.