Evolution of Soul..

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Shatki (Momentum) or mAyA (Mass)..?

While positive responses give me energy (Shiva) to continue, dissent gives me momentum (Shakti) to respond with more details.

Shakti is Momentum in reality, while she is perceived as mAyA (rest-mass) by us. Science says what exists in reality is momentum (and energy). Rest-Mass is the perception that covers the Universe.

Our scripture also say the same. They say it is Shakti who appears as mAyA.

Now to see mAyA as an illusion of ‘life’ may be one view. To perceive mAyA as a perception of mass in place of Shakti (momentum), which is the reality, is science view.

Our scriptures say mAyA is feminine form of Vishnu and Brahma raises from the ‘Nabhi’ of Vishnu. We can see it as Mass being a feminine form of Inertia (that undergoes changes) and Gravity arising from its Center.

We can also see them as ‘God-forms’ and paint pictures of them as Brahma arising from the navel of Vishnu.


-TBT

I would like some clarification here.

Firstly from the definition of Rest Mass:

'Rest Mass' of an object is the inertial mass that an object has when it is at rest.

I would like to know how does this connect with Maya?

As far as I know religion perceives Maya in several ways as being the Dynamic Energy of God which subjects entire creation to the state of duality.

Technically can Maya actually ever be in a state of "rest"? that is can Maya be stationary when its the Dynamic Power of God?

Kindly clarify this..cos it does not really seem to co-relate cos if Maya is rest mass..that means its not Dynamic and it wont confer the effect of duality to entire creation as per religious views.

 

[sravna]

I don't really find anything wrong is combining religious ideologies with science as long one does not let superstition get into the way and not have pre conceived notions..cos that would lead to a biased result.

Everything in existence is connected in a unique way which we humans have not really fully understood.

Knowledge exist in various forms...its up to us to identify why and how this came about.

A human can not run away from philosophy of any kind in life....science is the rose and philosophy is the fragrance..you need both to admire the flower.

Very well said Renuka

 

[thebigthinkg]

I would like some clarification here.

Firstly from the definition of Rest Mass:



I would like to know how does this connect with Maya?

As far as I know religion perceives Maya in several ways as being the Dynamic Energy of God which subjects entire creation to the state of duality.

Technically can Maya actually ever be in a state of "rest"? that is can Maya be stationary when its the Dynamic Power of God?

Kindly clarify this..cos it does not really seem to co-relate cos if Maya is rest mass..that means its not Dynamic and it wont confer the effect of duality to entire creation as per religious views.

Visualize your body as a colony of atoms made of nucleus and electrons. In every nucleus protons and neutrons are zipping in near light speeds. Electrons are also moving around the nucleus. Essentially every part of atom is moving and has a great momentum (mass times velocity). (This is a simplification. Most 'mass' of nucleus comes from strong interaction. But that does not affect this thought process).

You are a colony of atoms possessing great momentum or Shakti.

But what you are perceived outside as a 'mass' of body of X kgs. . The mass perceived outside is the rest-mass or mAyA. The rest-mass or mAyA is in a way is an (illusory..) perception of momentum possessed by nucleus and electrons inside.

This is what I meant as Shakti (momentum) being perceived as 'mAyA' (Rest-mass).

-TBT

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri TBT,

Generally, to those who are steeped in science, any other attempt of others to present knowledge is not a serious one. That is the negative influence science has had on the development of knowledge. Intuitively your attempt seems to be a serious one and a praiseworthy effort.

I wish more people explore spirituality and see the potential it has to be not only relevant but also central to better understanding of the universe and our own selves.

 

[renuka]

But what you are perceived outside as a 'mass' of body of X kgs. . The mass perceived outside is the rest-mass or mAyA. The rest-mass or mAyA is in a way is an (illusory..) perception of momentum possessed by nucleus and electrons inside.

This is what I meant as Shakti (momentum) being perceived as 'mAyA' (Rest-mass).

-TBT

So that means the so called rest mass state is a relative state ..any relative state would have a standard reference as a comparison.

Its easy to have standard reference comparison for objects that are perceivable...now if you are applying the same logic to Maya..what is the standard reference comparison in the case of Maya?

 

[thebigthinkg]

So that means the so called rest mass state is a relative state ..any relative state would have a standard reference as a comparison.

Its easy to have standard reference comparison for objects that are perceivable...now if you are applying the same logic to Maya..what is the standard reference comparison in the case of Maya?

Well, I said Rest-Mass (mAyA) is what we see in the classical domain. It is our perception. What makes that in the Quantum domain is momentum (shakti) of nucleus and the electrons. For the purpose of this discussion, I neither said it is relative, nor I said it is a state. (though these could be applied in different contexts).

mAyA is what we perceived outside. Shakti is what is inside.

-TBT

 

[renuka]

For the purpose of this discussion, I neither said it is relative, nor I said it is a state. (though these could be applied in different contexts).

mAyA is what we perceived outside. Shakti is what is inside.

-TBT

Well....you mentioned about Rest-Mass.

Rest-Mass..we are talking about a state when an object is at rest relative to the observer isnt it?

So you need an object and you need an observer in the Rest Mass definition.

Now let me put it this way..if you feel Maya is Rest-Mass then What or Who is the Observer?

We can NOT say we humans are the Observers becos according to philosophy no one really knows anything about Maya...that translates as not being able to observe Maya cos you can not observe what you do not know about.

So can you name me an Observer here who observes Maya for Maya to qualify as Rest- Mass?

I feel your personalized theory of evolution of the soul has a real missing link!

 

[thebigthinkg]

Well....you mentioned about Rest-Mass.

Rest-Mass..we are talking about a state when an object is at rest relative to the observer isnt it?

So you need an object and you need an observer in the Rest Mass definition.

Now let me put it this way..if you feel Maya is Rest-Mass then What or Who is the Observer?

We can NOT say we humans are the Observers becos according to philosophy no one really knows anything about Maya...that translates as not being able to observe Maya cos you can not observe what you do not know about.

So can you name me an Observer here who observes Maya for Maya to qualify as Rest- Mass?

I feel your personalized theory of evolution of the soul has a real missing link!

Rest-mass is the inertial mass of an object when it is at rest. Non-Inertial frame of reference and relativity come in only when we deal with mass of sub-atomic range of particles.

I started with 'You' as an object. In that domain you can be an observer of yourself. Since any observer is going to be in the same inertial frame of reference and any relative movement is not going to be way off from the speed of light, we need not worry about the observer and observed.

I said 'You' as an object appear to be an object at rest with an rest-mass (mass measured through inertia or gravity), when looked from outside. But that is mAyA. You are a colony of atoms where in every atom the nucleus and electrons possess huge momentum (shakti). We perceive that Shakti/momentum of colony of atoms as the inertia/rest-mass (mAyA) of the whole object.

-TBT

 

[thebigthinkg]

From Opening Post



The above cannot be sustained in any logical framework.

1. If so called Supreme Self is Paramatma, it is the cause for appearance of time.
Evolution implies change with respect to time and space. Paramatma is not bound by space-time, being that it is the cause for appearance of space-time by definition. Therefore evolution of Paramatma is not logically supportable.

2. Any change of an entity with respect to time is perceivable only if there is a reference point to a changeless entity. Since there is but one Paramatma there cannot be an evolution of it, since changeless state is unavailable and hence change is not perceivable.

There are many more logical holes with the starting point. Therefore all subsequent 'conclusions' cannot be supported by any logic.

Our scriptures including Nasadiya Suktam does not imply anything stated in the OP.

I can offer these thoughts on your original post.

Question: Paramatma is the cause of appearance of time. Evolution implies change with respect to time/space. Since Paramatma caused space/time, it cannot be bound by space/time. Hence evolution of paramatma is not logical.

Answer: To put in a Vedantic terminology, Paramatma is Nir-Guna Brahman. The saguna brahman (which I called Brahman in my original post) evolves with respect to time/space. The evolutionary attributes of Saguna brahman are Vishu, Shakti/Maya, Shiva, Brahma, Skanda etc... Saguna Brahman evolves with time/space. The nature of paramatma (which I called Atma in original post) may never be known or partially known (if we believe Nasadiya Suktam). Simply put, Nirguna Brahman is the unchanging, unevolving reference point, outside of the saguna brahman.

Question: We perceive change with respect to time based on some reference point of time. If paramatma is evolving, then there is no reference point as that point is moving. Hence no change will be perceivable.

Answer: Paramatma or Nirguna Brahman (what i called Atma) probably created the spacetime in which Saguna Brahman evolves. It is behind all (according Nasadiya suktam) and none could probably ever know fully what it is. In the standard model the evolution of spacetime is measured from Big-Bang. In my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam, it depicts something similar to Big-Bang from which the Universal evolution (saguna Brahman) started. The Nir-guna brahman or Atma in my view is the unchanging, unevolving reference point you are looking for.

Since I wanted to re-write my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam, I did not share it here. Here is my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam (which I will be re-writing) written long back. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2011/12/nasadiya-suktam-before-big-bang.html

Question: Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan called the Indian Science Congress a 'Circus'.

While I have no opinion on Indian Science Congress, I would have expected Venky to contribute it by changing what he thinks could be made to improve it.

While it is true that we had a treasure house of knowledge in many domains, it is also true that we have lost probably their meaning and application in many places.

I would advocate modern tools of science like experimental evidences and peer reviews to prove theories derived from ancient knowledge. I would definitely be lifting my work to reviews of both Sanskrit scholars and Scientific community, though it is a tough journey. I think I have several conclusions that probably are yet not known or fully understood. Currently it is just a work-in-progress and i am putting them out here just to get some very initial and primitive feedback, new dimensions of thoughts. I write them in a blog style rather than a serious work.

I wholeheartedly understand the skepticism and negativism that would come into play into even looking into such works. But that's where places like Indian Science Congress could help if they follow modern constructs, methods and tools in evaluating such works on ancient knowledge.

-TBT

 

[Vaagmi]

TBT, Well presented. Thanks.

 

[auh]

There is nothing called "time".

All these contrived efforts at visualizing or understanding something that we "do not know" is akin to believing in a batman who lives in the city of Gotham !

 

[thebigthinkg]

There is nothing called "time".

All these contrived efforts at visualizing or understanding something that we "do not know" is akin to believing in a batman who lives in the city of Gotham !

Not sure what you meant.

If you meant Time is a relative experience, relative to a frame of reference, yes it is. It is a very popular misconception and psuedo-science that says Time does not exist and it is proved by Einstein. No. That is a fallacy. Time exists.

Einstein proved that time by itself is not an absolute quantity, but rather united with space to form spacetime and can be precisely mathematically measured.

If you meant Time does not exist at all, then that is not the modern physics. The 'arrow of time' so to say is in the direction of increasing entropy, in the second law of thermodynamics.

-TBT

 

[tks]

I can offer these thoughts on your original post.

Question: Paramatma is the cause of appearance of time. Evolution implies change with respect to time/space. Since Paramatma caused space/time, it cannot be bound by space/time. Hence evolution of paramatma is not logical.

Answer: To put in a Vedantic terminology, Paramatma is Nir-Guna Brahman. The saguna brahman (which I called Brahman in my original post) evolves with respect to time/space. The evolutionary attributes of Saguna brahman are Vishu, Shakti/Maya, Shiva, Brahma, Skanda etc... Saguna Brahman evolves with time/space. The nature of paramatma (which I called Atma in original post) may never be known or partially known (if we believe Nasadiya Suktam). Simply put, Nirguna Brahman is the unchanging, unevolving reference point, outside of the saguna brahman.

Question: We perceive change with respect to time based on some reference point of time. If paramatma is evolving, then there is no reference point as that point is moving. Hence no change will be perceivable.

Answer: Paramatma or Nirguna Brahman (what i called Atma) probably created the spacetime in which Saguna Brahman evolves. It is behind all (according Nasadiya suktam) and none could probably ever know fully what it is. In the standard model the evolution of spacetime is measured from Big-Bang. In my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam, it depicts something similar to Big-Bang from which the Universal evolution (saguna Brahman) started. The Nir-guna brahman or Atma in my view is the unchanging, unevolving reference point you are looking for.

Since I wanted to re-write my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam, I did not share it here. Here is my understanding of Nasadiya Suktam (which I will be re-writing) written long back. http://vedabhasya.blogspot.in/2011/12/nasadiya-suktam-before-big-bang.html

.
.
.

-TBT

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

There are more logical issues in the above purely from definition of items.

1. Our scriptures assert that there is but One Brahman. Your description of your understanding will suggest two Brahmans with variety of different roles.

2. NirGuna Brahman by very definition has no Gunas and hence not describable or imaginable. It cannot create anything. If it is the only Brahman there is, then it cannot bring about a Saguna Brahman.

3. Evolution of Saguna Brahman even if accepted would mean that it is under the control of Time and Space which would mean there are other entities like Time and Space created 'prior' to Saguna Brahman from your description.


Our scriptures do use the terms Saguna and Nirguna Brahman while asserting One Brahman.

This would mean

a. Our scriptures have definitions that have logical holes per your description of these terms
or
b. Your understanding as described by you has logical issues

I hope you would consider item b as a possibility.

============================


Just as FYI only: Regarding Nasadiya Suktam, there had been many threads of discussion in this forum itself over the years. Here is one that is readily available and hence I am providing the link to it. You may be able to search the forum for many more links.

//www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=19604&p=310243#post310243

Some time ago to describe the paradox implied in the last line of Nasadiya Suktam, I shared my notes of the translation. In this thread you will find other references to resources in the internet (offering interpretation of the current Scientific understanding of Space/Time in the context of Nasadiya Suktam).

I noticed that Sri Auh noted that time itself does not 'exist'. The scientific basis for this as well as Vedantic basis is discussed in the above thread as well.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

There are more logical issues in the above purely from definition of items.

1. Our scriptures assert that there is but One Brahman. Your description of your understanding will suggest two Brahmans with variety of different roles.

2. NirGuna Brahman by very definition has no Gunas and hence not describable or imaginable. It cannot create anything. If it is the only Brahman there is, then it cannot bring about a Saguna Brahman.

3. Evolution of Saguna Brahman even if accepted would mean that it is under the control of Time and Space which would mean there are other entities like Time and Space created 'prior' to Saguna Brahman from your description.


Our scriptures do use the terms Saguna and Nirguna Brahman while asserting One Brahman.

This would mean

a. Our scriptures have definitions that have logical holes per your description of these terms
or
b. Your understanding as described by you has logical issues

I hope you would consider item b as a possibility.

============================


Just as FYI only: Regarding Nasadiya Suktam, there had been many threads of discussion in this forum itself over the years. Here is one that is readily available and hence I am providing the link to it. You may be able to search the forum for many more links.

//www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=19604&p=310243#post310243

Some time ago to describe the paradox implied in the last line of Nasadiya Suktam, I shared my notes of the translation. In this thread you will find other references to resources in the internet (offering interpretation of the current Scientific understanding of Space/Time in the context of Nasadiya Suktam).

I noticed that Sri Auh noted that time itself does not 'exist'. The scientific basis for this as well as Vedantic basis is discussed in the above thread as well.

1. Can you quote any reference to Vedic scriptures that says Nirguna Brahman can or cannot create saguna brahman..?
I wrote Nirguna Brahman is Atma/ParamAtma and Saguna Brahman are the evolutionary attributes of that Atma.. I can quote Aitareya Upanishad for it.

2. According to the thread you quoted Nasadiya Suktam shows similarity with Big Bang (which is what I tried to explain with my own translation and not depending on what Griffith wrote).
Griffith translation that you quoted says "Who really knows, who can declare When it started or where from?And where will the creation end?". My translation says similar "Who in this place with certain knowledge can proclaim from whom was born, from whom this discharge (visRSTi) happened."
In either tranlsation it is recognized that something is behind. Aitareya Upanishad says it is the Atma that is behind, from whom came Purusha, Amba, Marici, Maram, Apa etc. This Atma is eternal, unchanging, the Nir-guna Brahman from which other evolutionary attributes of Saguna brahman came.

3. Time and Space are not two different identities. SpaceTime is an identity (you also point it out in the thread). The Inflationary epoch that you quoted in the translation of Nasadiya suktam is said to be the creator of this expansion of space in the early Universe, according to cosmic inflation theory. This is not a well proved theory, (as you also noted in the thread) but atleast science recognizes spacetime got created somehow in the early Universe.

In fact Universe is still 'stretching' (people talk of expanding) is clearly proven.

4. As I responded to Auh, saying Time is an identity dependent on reference frames or it is not a fundamental identity but part of spacetime is different from saying Time does not exist.

In fact modern science clearly says time does exist. Saying time does not exist currently is in the realm of psuedo-science or simple misconception.

The arrow of time moves in the direction of increasing entropy according to thermodynamics. But it is not a fundamental identity but part of SpaceTime. (as you described in the thread).

As Paul Davies (whom you quoted) famously said "I think time exists just as telephones do. It's a real thing and we can measure it. But it does suggest that the way it enters into our description of the world is different from other quantities we're used to." Like a block of rubber that has elasticity not due to atoms but due to the structure of arrangement of atoms, spacetime is an emergent property of Universe and is a result of the way Universe evolved out of BigBang. This is how Paul Davies explains spacetime.

Using it to extrapolate to a 'timeless' reality is an oversimplification at this Juncture, which I do not see any evidence either in scriptures or in science.

I welcome you to point me to more resources if you have any.

-TBT

 

[tks]

.
.
.

Question: Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan called the Indian Science Congress a 'Circus'.

While I have no opinion on Indian Science Congress, I would have expected Venky to contribute it by changing what he thinks could be made to improve it.

While it is true that we had a treasure house of knowledge in many domains, it is also true that we have lost probably their meaning and application in many places.

I would advocate modern tools of science like experimental evidences and peer reviews to prove theories derived from ancient knowledge. I would definitely be lifting my work to reviews of both Sanskrit scholars and Scientific community, though it is a tough journey. I think I have several conclusions that probably are yet not known or fully understood. Currently it is just a work-in-progress and i am putting them out here just to get some very initial and primitive feedback, new dimensions of thoughts. I write them in a blog style rather than a serious work.

I wholeheartedly understand the skepticism and negativism that would come into play into even looking into such works. But that's where places like Indian Science Congress could help if they follow modern constructs, methods and tools in evaluating such works on ancient knowledge.

-TBT

The contribution of Nobel Laureate Venky is to call out pseudo science for what it is.

Unlike ideas related to beliefs such as religious ideologies, Science and Vedanta (as meta Science) have a rigorous basis that is subject to understanding (and not beliefs).
Being rigorous and true to understanding truth is our Indian heritage. One has to only see Sri Sankara's commentaries to understand how opposing viewpoints are debated. Also atheist views (like those of Sankhyas etc) were welcome in debates because there was integrity in the search for the truth

In this thread/post I briefly touched upon how Swami Vivekananda was the first person to have raised the equivalence to mass and energy to Tesla long purely from reasoning found in our teaching.
//www.tamilbrahmins.com/showthread.php?t=22878&p=293109#post293109

Similarly Sri Sankara contributed as part of meta science to the nature of Space Time. Much of the philosophical implications of Quantum Mechanics have strong basis in vedantic thinking.

However all such rigor and heritage for search for truth in the Bharathiya nation is lost when some present psedo science that denigrates both the science and the seminal contribution of India to science and technology.

Therefore calling out the fake science for what it is , is a form of contribution (by Nobel Laureate Venky).

I do not agree with his comments about the action of scientists who offered prayers (or consulted some horoscopes) before the launch of the Mars probe. That part of action has nothing to do with the rigor of science and technology in launching the probe but was simply an expression that human mind cannot know all the hidden variables.

Finally rigorous science has no conflicts with humanistic approach to applications.

Gandhiji identified seven deadly sins, one of which is described below about science.

"Science Without HumanityIf science becomes all technique and technology, it quickly degenerates into man against humanity. Technologies come from the paradigms of science. And if there's very little understanding of the higher human purposes that the technology is striving to serve, we becomes victims of our own technocracy. We see otherwise highly educated people climbing the scientific ladder of success, even though it's often missing the rung called humanity and leaning against the wrong wall.
The majority of the scientists who ever lived or living today, and they have brought about a scientific and technological explosion in the world. But if all they do is superimpose technology on the same old problems, nothing basic changes. We may see an evolution, an occasional "revolution" in science, but without humanity we see precious little real human advancement. All the old inequities and injustices are still with us.
About the only thing that hasn't evolved are these natural laws and principles - the true north on the compass. Science and technology have changed the face of most everything else. But the fundamental things still apply, as time goes by."

Source for the above:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/mgmnt.htm#science

I do not think Nobel Laureate Venky was commenting about the above when he put down the psedo science afflicted by religious ideologies and politics.

 

[tks]

1. Can you quote any reference to Vedic scriptures that says Nirguna Brahman can or cannot create saguna brahman..?
I wrote Nirguna Brahman is Atma/ParamAtma and Saguna Brahman are the evolutionary attributes of that Atma.. I can quote Aitareya Upanishad for it.

2. According to the thread you quoted Nasadiya Suktam shows similarity with Big Bang (which is what I tried to explain with my own translation and not depending on what Griffith wrote).
Griffith translation that you quoted says "Who really knows, who can declare When it started or where from?And where will the creation end?". My translation says similar "Who in this place with certain knowledge can proclaim from whom was born, from whom this discharge (visRSTi) happened."
In either tranlsation it is recognized that something is behind. Aitareya Upanishad says it is the Atma that is behind, from whom came Purusha, Amba, Marici, Maram, Apa etc. This Atma is eternal, unchanging, the Nir-guna Brahman from which other evolutionary attributes of Saguna brahman came.
3. Time and Space are not two different identities. SpaceTime is an identity (you also point it out in the thread). The Inflationary epoch that you quoted in the translation of Nasadiya suktam is said to be the creator of this expansion of space in the early Universe, according to cosmic inflation theory. This is not a well proved theory, (as you also noted in the thread) but atleast science recognizes spacetime got created somehow in the early Universe.

In fact Universe is still 'stretching' (people talk of expanding) is clearly proven.

4. As I responded to Auh, saying Time is an identity dependent on reference frames or it is not a fundamental identity but part of spacetime is different from saying Time does not exist.

In fact modern science clearly says time does exist. Saying time does not exist currently is in the realm of psuedo-science or simple misconception.

The arrow of time moves in the direction of increasing entropy according to thermodynamics. But it is not a fundamental identity but part of SpaceTime. (as you described in the thread).

As Paul Davies (whom you quoted) famously said "I think time exists just as telephones do. It's a real thing and we can measure it. But it does suggest that the way it enters into our description of the world is different from other quantities we're used to." Like a block of rubber that has elasticity not due to atoms but due to the structure of arrangement of atoms, spacetime is an emergent property of Universe and is a result of the way Universe evolved out of BigBang. This is how Paul Davies explains spacetime.

Using it to extrapolate to a 'timeless' reality is an oversimplification at this Juncture, which I do not see any evidence either in scriptures or in science.

I welcome you to point me to more resources if you have any.

-TBT

1. There is but one Brahman. Without detailed discussions about what is Nirguna and Saguna Brahman and without detailed discussions about what existence itself mean (and there are rigorous definitions for these) it is not possible to go further. My suggestion was for any serious sadhakas to undertake a formal study with a qualified teacher. I concede my inability to alter the paradigm of understanding you have using this medium of this forum.

2. Please re-read the thread on 'Veda as brief history of time'. I have provided references (Scientific American articles which are written by scientists using the latest research). Even Boltzmann comments are referred to who was one of the architects of the current understanding of Thermodynamics. Time has only subjective existence. This is the current science. If you want clarifications on any specific statement let me know

Best,

 

[thebigthinkg]

1. There is but one Brahman. Without detailed discussions about what is Nirguna and Saguna Brahman and without detailed discussions about what existence itself mean (and there are rigorous definitions for these) it is not possible to go further. My suggestion was for any serious sadhakas to undertake a formal study with a qualified teacher. I concede my inability to alter the paradigm of understanding you have using this medium of this forum.

2. Please re-read the thread on 'Veda as brief history of time'. I have provided references (Scientific American articles which are written by scientists using the latest research). Even Boltzmann comments are referred to who was one of the architects of the current understanding of Thermodynamics. Time has only subjective existence. This is the current science. If you want clarifications on any specific statement let me know

Best,

I understand. I can't claim what I am saying is truth. Even Krishna says in Gita 'matam mama'. So whom am I..? Just for you to think about on point 1,

arvendriya-gunabhasam
sarvendriya-vivarjitam
asaktam sarva-bhrc caiva
nirgunam guna-bhoktr ca

​

We can talk of multiple scriptural references in different upanishads, where Atma and its evolutionary characteristics, yet its unchanging guna are elaborated,


On point 2, definitely that is not science. Definitely not current science. It is a mis-conception that people have reading articles on science without understanding them fully. That's why Davies was asked specifically (because he wrote 'About Time' and probably caused a lot of misconceptions) 'Do you say Time does not exist'. He specifically answered 'No. It does exist. The manifestation of it is as in the example of a rubber with elasticity, which is not a fundamental property, but that arises due to the structural arrangement'.

-TBT

​

 

[tks]

I understand. I can't claim what I am saying is truth. Even Krishna says in Gita 'matam mama'. So whom am I..? Just for you to think about on point 1,

arvendriya-gunabhasam
sarvendriya-vivarjitam
asaktam sarva-bhrc caiva
nirgunam guna-bhoktr ca

​

We can talk of multiple scriptural references in different upanishads, where Atma and its evolutionary characteristics, yet its unchanging guna are elaborated,


On point 2, definitely that is not science. Definitely not current science. It is a mis-conception that people have reading articles on science without understanding them fully. That's why Davies was asked specifically (because he wrote 'About Time' and probably caused a lot of misconceptions) 'Do you say Time does not exist'. He specifically answered 'No. It does exist. The manifestation of it is as in the example of a rubber with elasticity, which is not a fundamental property, but that arises due to the structural arrangement'.

-TBT

1. What I have pointed out are logical issues with what you have presented thus far in this thread. Assuming your search for understanding the truth is real, I wish you all the best in your quest.

2.My suggestion is not to go by reading some quotes that is taken out of context but to do your own search. There are wealth of research papers available online in the last 10 years all pointing to what was summarized in that thread. You will need a rigorous background in Physics to continue the discussion or even fully understand the scientific american articles that were published in 2014 (and cited in that thread). I am not sure if you are aware but it is harder to get one's research published in Scientific American because the articles usually represent often lifetime's work of groups of scientists.

I will stop my engagement here in this thread.

 

[thebigthinkg]

1. What I have pointed out are logical issues with what you have presented thus far in this thread. Assuming your search for understanding the truth is real, I wish you all the best in your quest.

2.My suggestion is not to go by reading some quotes that is taken out of context but to do your own search. There are wealth of research papers available online in the last 10 years all pointing to what was summarized in that thread. You will need a rigorous background in Physics to continue the discussion or even fully understand the scientific american articles that were published in 2014 (and cited in that thread). I am not sure if you are aware but it is harder to get one's research published in Scientific American because the articles usually represent often lifetime's work of groups of scientists.

I will stop my engagement here in this thread.

Thanks for your time. Appreciated.

I just want to reiterate this. In none of the Scientific Magazine articles that you quoted, I could find any conclusion that said 'Timeless reality'. They all were leading to notion that time in itself is not a fundamental entity, but is part of spacetime.

These two propositions are two entirely different, if not opposite propositions. I saw timeless reality in your conclusion only, in your understanding of these articles at the end.

Scientific American articles are meant for consumer (common man) audience though they are written by established authors from peer reviewed research papers. It is definitely not a peer reviewed Journal.

The quote from Davies is not out of context, but just to clarify mis-givings with people who read magazines like Scientific American or books like About Time and use it to extrapolate it to philosophical meanings.

Due to the nature of audience addressed and simplifications done in presenting, without the mathematical framework required to elaborate the concepts, it can cause a lot of questions, mis-conceptions and mis-understandings.

That aside, I really appreciate the interest, energy and time you spent with me and also on bridging the knowledge.

Thanks.

 

[auh]

Not sure what you meant.

If you meant Time is a relative experience, relative to a frame of reference, yes it is. It is a very popular misconception and psuedo-science that says Time does not exist and it is proved by Einstein. No. That is a fallacy. Time exists.

Einstein proved that time by itself is not an absolute quantity, but rather united with space to form spacetime and can be precisely mathematically measured.

If you meant Time does not exist at all, then that is not the modern physics. The 'arrow of time' so to say is in the direction of increasing entropy, in the second law of thermodynamics.

-TBT

Since we have defined time, it follows that we should be able to describe it mathematically since it is only a measure... similar to litres or metres. Yes, it is a relative reference, even when combined with space.

What would you think time means for the entirety of space?

Regards,