Comment

Comment by morry secrest on June 11, 2011 at 4:49pm

Jacques,  Thank you for your brief wrap-up.  This is a fascinating topic, and the discussion thus far is most interesting.

However, I find that there is one aspect of this topic which has not yet been put forward.

It bears directly on the Third Object:  To investigate the unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in man.

We have been told that the Book of Dzyan is ancient, and comes itself from even older traditions.  Perhaps it would be useful to consider how those ancient students of the world, ancient scientists if you will, came to know those things. 

I suggest that those ancient scientists came to know some of the deepest secrets of the universe by virtue of the powers of their minds.  (Hence, the "powers latent in man.")  If we could understand more clearly how those ancients worked, how they made their discoveries, it would further our comprehension of what they meant when they told others of what they had discovered.  What were they seeing, when they made their discoveries?  Why did they choose the words they used?  Did the translators introduce unfounded assumptions, as the written word was transferred from one language to another?

It is a fundamental tenet of the scientific method that a discovery be replicated before it is put forward as valid.  We cannot think of ourselves as scientists until we are willing to make an effort to duplicate those ancient, original discoveries. 

I finally suggest that we make an effort to duplicate these discoveries for ourselves.

Morry

 

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on June 11, 2011 at 9:31am

Dear Friends,

 

A brief wrap-up of what we have discussed so far on Traditions and Science :

 

We've started with basic physics concepts like Space, Time, Motion. Going along the history, we met with Sir Isaac Newton, Mr Albert Einstein, and a first similarity was identified - « 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 to the minus 32 seconds) »

Big Bang Theory and Cosmogenesis as described in the S.D and some Indian traditions bear some similarities, specially since recent physics works are now analyzing and publishing theories which move away from the “singularity event” as a unique starting point for the creation of the Cosmos, but rather to a recurring event of creation(Martin Bojowald – Zurück vor den Urknall, Francfort, 2009)

 

Another similarity with Universal Mind / Conscience was brought on Mass definition as “Platonic information embedded at the Planck scale, the fundamental level of the Universe”.

We briefly went around the Black Hole concept, the wave/particle duality

 

We discussed Hylozoism and move toward discussing Atomism
To go further on Atomism, some traditions were proposed to be analyzed : the Upanishads, the Kashmir Shaivism , the Jaïna , and the Vaisheshika texts.

 

A lot of subjects have been briefly approached and many promising trails were opened. To go further now need some streamlining and focus on specific subjects.

One of the potential pitfall, as already alluded in the start of this thread, is the immense field of research in which we can easily get lost. We may want identify the subjects we want to concentrate on and the champion for each of them.

 

The Atomism subject being already well started, we may want to make it our main stream of research and subdivide it into its various aspects (initial field, particles genesis, characteristics, behavior, ...) keeping in mind that these sub-trails should lead us to similarities enoughly convincing between Science and Wisdom Traditions.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on June 3, 2011 at 9:02pm

The Mind and Life initiative of HH Dalai Lama together with some of the leading scientists appears to be one of the most significant efforts in bringing Quantum Physics and Budhism understand each other and build upon the knowledge, thus gained. Thanks to David Reigle for introducing it in the Stanzas of Dzyan...... blog. The topic is perhpas more relevant here.

The discussions of HH Dalai Lama with the leading scientists brings out recognition of many important facts. That the philosophers and the scientists need to collaborate. That while Philosophy is good in general and broad picture, science is very good in working out the details and physical experimentation. That new concepts and knowledge is required in both science and philosophy.

There appears to be a definite movement towards unity.

Comment by David Reigle on May 30, 2011 at 11:53pm

Thank you, Morry, for reporting on this book, which I otherwise would have never known about. It is very helpful to get reports like this, on books that most of us may never get a chance to read. Great that it supports the ideas of The Secret Doctrine on the fifth root race.

Comment by morry secrest on May 9, 2011 at 11:35pm

I'm currently reading the book "The Horse, the Wheel and Language--How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern world" by David W. Anthony, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford, copyright@2007 by Princeton University Press.

Anthony sets forth a likely scenario for who spoke the IE (Indo-European) language (the Aryans), when and where, together with population movements of all the contributors to IE, and the population movements of its daughter languages.  Using the latest (in 2007) archaeological information, Anthony shows that the Aryans domesticated horses and learned to ride them in Southern Russia. They later spread west to Eastern Europe and south to Persia and India.  Anthony also identifies some of the ways in which these Aryans seemed to be more adaptable, and more capable, than their predecessors and contemporaries.  My first impression is that the evidence of Archaeology seems to support many of the claims made by HPB for what she has called "The Fifth Root Race".

 

 

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 25, 2011 at 9:18pm

Christian, the Samkhya-Yoga system does accept the unmanifested, versus the manifested. As I understand it, they are saying that the manifested exists in potential in the unmanifested, like a tree exists in potential in a seed. It is in that sense that the manifested cannot be said to be non-existent, according to them.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 24, 2011 at 8:26am

Here is an article on the research about what goes on inside the brain when people meditate.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12661646

Comment by Christian von Lahr on April 24, 2011 at 1:06am

This is in contrast to the standpoint of the Samkhya-Yoga system, which teaches that everything pre-exists in its cause, like a tree in a seed. So there is never really the abhāva or "non-existence" of things ultimately. The universe is a transformation (parināma) from already existing purusa (spirit) and prakriti (substance) in conjunction. These do not disappear even during the pralaya or night of the universe. They are eternal, and the effect (the universe) is inherent in the cause (eternal purusa and prakriti). Things always exist in this way; there is no non-existence in this sense.

 

Would this be suggesting there is NO un-manifested vs. manifested in the sense that the Universe and its seven (varies) Planes of Existence/Consciousness are a manifestation resulting from an expression through the "Trinity" of the Absoluteness ... as we might encounter in classical Theosophy? 

One of the characteristics of the Theosophical perspective is its association to seven(7) and how it seems to be [universally] expressed in such a way that it provides [reason] that there is intelligence to the Universe. 

Of some concern is that magi’s to philosophers to scientists can make [use] of that seven (and this can, of course, very depending upon a perspective someone or another might selectively choose for convenience of communication) in philosophy arguments and theories ranging from the Cabala to music.

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 23, 2011 at 9:59pm

The idea of abhāva, "non-existence," in the Vaisheshika worldview perhaps needs a little context. As laid out by J. C. Chatterji at the beginning his book, The Hindu Realism, there are three standpoints from which the Indian schools gave their teachings. The first, which is that of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system, is that existing things are absolutely new productions (ārambha), although out of pre-existing materials. The things, as such, did not exist previously. Hence, the idea of abhāva, the previous "non-existence" of things.

This is in contrast to the standpoint of the Samkhya-Yoga system, which teaches that everything pre-exists in its cause, like a tree in a seed. So there is never really the abhāva or "non-existence" of things ultimately. The universe is a transformation (parināma) from already existing purusa (spirit) and prakriti (substance) in conjunction. These do not disappear even during the pralaya or night of the universe. They are eternal, and the effect (the universe) is inherent in the cause (eternal purusa and prakriti). Things always exist in this way; there is no non-existence in this sense.

The third standpoint, that of Vedanta (specifically Advaita Vedanta), is that there is only one unchanging reality. The diversity we see is only apparent. It is a maya, an illusion, in its diversity. It is actually all only the one brahman. There never was any really new production, as in Nyaya-Vaisheshika, nor was there every any real transformation, as in Samkhya-Yoga. All diversity is only superimposed on the one unchanging reality. It is a mere false appearance (vivarta).

Chatterji points out that these three standpoints are not mutually exclusive, not really mutually contradictory, when we recognize that they are just different perspectives, different ways of explaining things depending on our orientation. The first is taking things from a more realistic or physical perspective. The second is taking things from a more subjective or psychological perspective. The third is taking things from an ultimate perspective.

The abhāva or "non-existence" or "negation" teaching in Vaisheshika is given at the beginning of the ninth chapter of the Vaisheshika-sutras. It has come to have the status of the seventh padartha, or category, of the Vaisheshika teachings, thanks to the influential book, Sapta-padarthi, by Shivaditya-mishra. In all the older Vaisheshika writings, there are only six Vaisheshika categories. These are: substance (dravya), quality (guna), action (karma), generality (samanya), particularity (vishesha), and inherence (samavaya). Interestingly, there is a very old and unique Vaisheshika text that was translated into Chinese in the sixth century C.E., the Dasa-padartha-sastra. As the name tells us, it accepted ten (dasa) categories (padartha), the tenth of which is "non-existence" (abhāva).

Non-existence in Vaisheshika, then, is similar in perspective to the perspective of our modern physical sciences. Whatever exists is an absolutely new combination of pre-existing materials. It, as such, has never existed before. So non-existence (abhāva) is an important category in the Vaisheshika metaphysics.

For those who are following the Stanzas discussion, we have there been speaking of Tsongkhapa's denial of the ālaya-vijñana. Once the ālaya-vijñana or foundation consciousness is denied, which is how the working of karma was explained, Tsongkhapa was obliged to give a new explanation of how karma works. He did this by positing "destruction" or "disintegration" as a real entity. That is, when an action is completed, it is over, or is in a sense destroyed, or has disintegrated. It no longer exists. This "destruction" is a non-existence that paradoxically exists and brings about the karma or recompense for that action at a later time. It is kind of like a sub-atomic particle disappearing from the screen being watched by physicists at a particle accelerator, and then re-appearing at a different place on the screen some amount of time later. Tsongkhapa's Buddhist critics have accused him of introducing a non-Buddhist idea into the Buddha's teachings, namely, the Vaisheshika idea of "non-existence" (abhāva) as a real entity.

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on April 22, 2011 at 1:30pm

And suddenly, what may look like a pillar appears from the deep jungle...could it be the beginning of a bridge ?

 

Roopa Hulikal Narayan, who was introduced by John on this forum some time ago, published papers on Indian tradition of physics, and the third one – Indian Cosmological Ideas – is rigging some bells in contemporary science which deserves to be shared.

 

Drawing from Nyaya-Vaisheshika indian school, and specially from Kanada's sutras, R.H. Narayan (R.H.N) elaborates on abhava, creation or dissolution, cosmic energy, multiverse and time. These are key concepts we want to explore on this forum.

 

Let's start with abhava as the non-bhava : it is described by Kanada as “other than bhava/existence” . R.H.N came to the conclusion that “abhava referred here has to be that which precedes the existing universe in time which is the cosmic creation or a later point of time in the universe which is cosmic dissolution. The countless universes are continuously created and destroyed without knowledge of each other's existence, which means this process of attributable matter reaching non-attributable state is part of a recursive cycle of bhava to abhava.”

 

It looks quite similar to the svabhava(t) of the S.D.

 

From that concept, we move to the Cycle of creation/dissolution of the universe as a continuous process with a key concept shared by both indian tradition and modern science : the conservation of energy. It is interesting here to quote R. Feynman (Lectures on Pysics) : “We have absolutely no knowledge of what is energy” and “We don't understand energy conservation”

 

R.H.N, referring to the Puranas, Samkhya, etc, tells us that “ the universe is being created and absorbed back in to a kind of ground-stuff reality. The only category which transcends all paradoxes and oppositions and is ground stuff reality is called cosmic energy”.

 

It may sounds like what Quantum Field Theory calls the energy of the vacuum.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page