Comment

Comment by David Reigle on February 26, 2011 at 9:45pm

I am a bit surprised that there are not more replies to the excellent material posted here by Jacques and Capt. Anand Kumar. There must be many people here on this forum who have some acquaintance with modern science. Today's science is quite different from when I took physics in college in the 1970s. I, for one, would be glad to read some more of this updated material discussed here in relation to Theosophy.

There is one more thing that I would like to add to my previous two posts here. I had first mentioned the book by Y. Karunadasa, Buddhist Analysis of Matter. Then I mentioned J. C. Sikdar's book, Concept of Matter in Jaina Philosophy. To complete the picture of how matter was understood in ancient India, I must add a book representing the Hindu tradition. It is: Conception of Matter according to Nyaya-Vaisesika, by Umesh Mishra. The Nyaya-Vaisesika is considered to be the school of realism within the Hindu tradition, so would be where matter is described there. Besides these three excellent sources, there is another excellent book that includes in a single place material from all three religio-philosophic traditions of ancient India. It also adds material from other schools of Buddhism than were used in Karunadasa's book, and material from the Mimamsa and Vedanta schools of the Hindu tradition. It is: Indian Atomism: History and Sources, by Mrinalkanti Gangopadhyaya.

Comment by David Reigle on February 23, 2011 at 11:59pm

Amidst the very interesting material posted here by Capt. Anand and Jacques, I just want to insert a small note. I had mentioned the book, Buddhist Analysis of Matter. There is another excellent book on this, Concept of Matter in Jaina Philosophy, by J. C. Sikdar (Varanasi, 1987). It is now available online:

http://jaindarpan.com/Jain/Ebooks/Ebooks_English/Concept_Of_Matter_...

It also describes the resistance (pratighata) of matter (pudgala), pp. 282-284.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on February 23, 2011 at 3:18pm

(cont'd)

In fact, the theory stops short before reaching the starting point, because there is no physics models available to cope with the extreme conditions at this point. Many theorists are trying to develop the needed theory (quantum gravity) but not yet with success.

What is very interesting for our quest is the initial sequence of events that this theory (quantum cosmology) brings :

 

From the quantum void (full of pure energy), and initially from a point-like place, before anything else, Space emerges and expand exponentially at an incredible pace (10^-32 seconde). The energy of the void was transformed in the energy of the universe.

 

Sounds familiar, isn't it ?

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on February 23, 2011 at 3:17pm

.. and then Albert Einstein came on stage and revolutionizes the Newton physics

 

As Capt Anand rightly quoted : Space and Time are no more absolute, but totally entwined in an embrace which link them together (for the best and the worst). Since this time (1905) the scientific community talk about the space-time continuum and the motion is expressed between what is called “events” in this space-time. And when we consider gravity in this space-time, we discover that Matter modify Space : “ Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. In turn, matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve – John Archibald Wheeler”. This is the beginning of an interesting story : Space is now alive ! It can change its “shape, form”, whatever we call it, when subject to the presence of matter. It is no more an absolute concept but a living substratum. From this new paradigm, now we move to the general relativity concept, proposed by Einstein in 1915. Based on this, Einstein , and others, proposed a cosmogonic model for the universe. It will became later on known as the Big Bang theory. In fact there has been many “big bang theories” superseeding each other. The basis of this theory start from the current observation of the visible universe (throughout all scales of frequencies, not only visible) and, using a “reverse engineering process”, has described what should have been the “birth of the universe”, some 18 billions years ago. Knowing that all stars, galaxies and nebulaes are receding from each other in all directions, one can imagine that by reversing the time, one can go back to the initial point. In fact, the theory stops short before reaching the starting point, because there

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on February 23, 2011 at 12:00am

continued...

 

Based on above, it would appear that Philosophy and Science are truly one. It is our own (and our pseudo-teacher's) inability to interpret the ancient texts correctly that creates the artificial distinction between the two The true teachers like Gautam Budha, Gaudapadacharya, Adi Shankara, Gargayana and many others would probably be pleased to see science make so much of progress in understanding their teachings correctly. So, in this thread let us keep a truly  "Open Mind" and treat each topic on its merit as apparent to us rather than beginning with declaring the limits for science.  

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on February 22, 2011 at 11:59pm

continued...

 

Actually, the value of Pi is given in the well-known Anustub metre and is couched in the Alphabetical Code-Language (described in an earlier chapter):

Gopibhagyamadhuvrata - Shringishodadhishandiga

Khaljivitkatava Galhalarasandhara

It is so worded that it can bear three different meanings— all of them quite appropriate. The first is a hymn to the Lord Sri Krsna ; the second is similarly a hymn in praise of the Lord Shri Shankara; and the third is a valuation of —to 32 places of Decimals! (with a "Self-contained master-key" for extending the evaluation to any number of decimal places !

As the student (and especially the non-Sanskrit knowing student) is not likely to be interested in and will find great difficulty in understanding the puns and other literary beauties of the verse in respect of the first two meanings but will naturally feel interested in and can easily follow the third meaning, we give only that third one here :
Pi= 3. 14159265358979310 238462643 3 83 27.9 2..}

on which, on understanding it, Dr. V. P. Dalai (of the Heidelburg University, Germany) felt impelled—as a mathematician and physicist and also as a Sanskrit scholar—to put on record his comment as follows:

"It shows how deeply the ancient Indian mathe- maticians penetrated, in the subtlety of their calculations, even when the Greeks had no numerals above 1000 and their multiplications were so very complex, which they performed with the help of the counting frame by adding so many times the multiplier ! ..... "

Based on above, it would appear that Philosophy and Science are

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on February 22, 2011 at 11:57pm

 continued...

 

LIMITS OF SCIENCE:

  Philosophers begin with a very distinct advantage of, "Freedom of Interpretation". They can interpret any expression in any way they like and come out with conclusions. They don't always have to submit to the rigorous test of "Pramana (proof)" and traditionally most of us will accept it only because someone respectable said it, but we will question the scientists because they are lesser mortals. Issac Newton or Albert Einstein or countless others did not merely give the laws, but the complete mathematical proof for it. Those were then subjected to observations and experiments. Only then, science accepted it.

Teachings of HPB or the Mahatmas indicate "take it or leave it " approach as they never felt the need for "Pramana". So, it is easy to form an impression that when they asked the reader for an "open minded approach", they actually meant open the mind to let only our thoughts in and shut the rest out. However, not everyone has been like them.  Late Jagadguru Swami Bharati Krishna Teerath Ji Maharaj, a former Shankaracharya of Govardhan Peeth in Puri, found in some vedic suktas, hidden mathematical treasure. Excerpt from Page 362 of "Vedic Mathematics", published by Motilal Banarasidas, Delhi, 1981 edition:

Actually, the value of Pi is given in the well-known Anustub metre and is couched in the Alphabetical Code-Language (described in an earlier chapter):

Gopibhagyamadhuvrata - Shringishodadhishandiga

Khaljivitkatava Galhalarasandhara

It is so worded that it can bear three different meanings— all of them qui

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on February 22, 2011 at 11:52pm

 

 SPACE, TIME & MOTION:

 

Science does not accept them as ABSOLUTE any more. Following excerpt from the Stephen Hawking's most popular "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 2 titled, "Space & Time" should clarify:

 

Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. This was true even of the special theory of relativity. Bodies moved, forces attracted and repelled, but time and space simply continued, unaffected. It was natural to think that space and time went on forever.

The situation, however, is quite different in the general theory of relativity. Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time – and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act. Space and time not only affect but also are affected by everything that happens in the universe. Just as one cannot talk about events in the universe without the notions of space and time, so in general relativity it became meaningless to talk about space and time outside the limits of the universe.

LIMITS OF SCIENCE:

Philosophers begin with a very distinct advantage of, "Freedom of Interpretation". They can interpret any expression in any way they like and come out with conclusions. They don't always have to submit to the rigorous test of "Pramana (proof)" and traditionally mo

Comment by David Reigle on February 22, 2011 at 3:39pm

These laws formulated by Isaac Newton seem to provide us with a very good starting point for this discussion. Your concluding paragraph, noting that these laws do not explain the causes of these observations, raises good questions. HPB's whole theme on Theosophy and science is that science, in not recognizing anything beyond the physical, has necessarily limited its observations to the physical plane. Therefore, the realm of causes is at present beyond its reach.

 

You cite Newton's Definition III, that the innate force of matter is a power of resisting. The Buddhist Abhidharma (which we have been discussing on the Stanzas forum in relation to its major school, the Sarvastivada) classifies the world into its elements of existence, called dharmas, much like Western science does. The difference is that the Buddhist dharmas are almost all psychological states. Only one of these dharmas is physical matter (rupa). It is defined as having the characteristic of resistance (pratigha). Interesting that Newton did the same. There is an excellent book on this titled, Buddhist Analysis of Matter, by Y. Karunadasa (Colombo, 1967).

 

Joe noted the need to relate these things to daily experience. It is perhaps this that has given Buddhism, with its psychologically-oriented Abhidharma teachings, a considerable degree of popularity in the world today. As the Sarvastivadins count the dharmas, besides the one that is physical matter (rupa), there are seventy-four more pertaining to consciousness and its analysis into psychological states.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on February 21, 2011 at 3:23pm

Space, time and motion (cont'd - cont'd)

 

These laws, together with the Gravitational Attraction Law are based on observation and computation. We experiment them on a daily basis : airplanes are propelled by jet engines using Law III, and if you smashed your angry fist on a table, you'll feel the reaction of the table (ouch!) Any movement benefits in terms of energy from Law I, and you know how it is difficult to get out of bed and stand up in the morning, thanks to Gravitation.

 

These laws do not give any explanation about the causes of these observations. We may want to keep these in mind, because, as of 2011, there are still no explanation. We will see how the model evolved through Albert Einstein and others, changing dramatically the landscape and the metrics, but still with no clues about what is behind the curtain. We still search for gravitons, the interaction vectors for gravitation, we still search for gravitational waves, and we do not have an explanation for inertia or the force of reaction.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page