Comment

Comment by morry secrest on April 10, 2011 at 5:32pm

Just finished reading "The Inflation Debate" in the current issue of Scientific American magazine.

Physicist Paul Steinhardt states that a key theory explaining cosmic evolution may be fatally flawed.

One element of the Big Bang theory describes "inflation", a process during the earliest fractions of a second during which the universe expands from a point.  While agreeing that the Big Bang theory dues indeed describe one way in which the universe could have come into existence, Paul challenges the logical foundations of the theory.  For example, there are essentially an infinite number of ways in which inflation could have proceeded, depending on the constants chosen for the equations at the beginning of the process.  Only one of them results in the universe that we see; and all the others result in a universe in which we (humans) could not exist, or, if we did, it would be only very briefly.  Thus, Paul says that it is highly unlikely that our universe could have come into existence.  The Big Bang theory, Paul suggests, is not so much inaccurate as it is incomplete.  Rather like the theory of gravity put forward by Galileo, as compared with its much more complete concept put forward by Einstein.  (See the article for a much more complete explanation.)

 

Here is my take on the situation:  The concept of "inflation" is rather like walking a tightrope.  Lots of ways to fall off, only one way to stay on.  It requires the combination of quick reflexes and intelligence found in mammals to negotiate a tightrope.  Paul Steinhardt is saying that since he sees no creature at the beginning with the capabilities of a mammal (or better), that the theory is flawed.  I would suggest that perhaps there was some sort of guidance at the very beginning.

 

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on April 9, 2011 at 6:41am

Pauli Exclusion Principle is one of the most challenging discovery which, as of now, is not really understood. To quote a recent publication on the subject (Pauli and the Spin-Statistics Theorem - Ian Duck & E C G Sudarshan - World Scientific - 1997) :

"Everyone knows the Spin-Statistics theorem, but no one understand it.

The question is whether physics contains this fact, and so how this comes about; or whether physics is merely consistent with the Spin-Statistics Theorem and that some deeper explanation exists. The Spin-Statistics Theorem could conceivably be an essential ingredient of a more fundamental view of the world, of which the last seventy years gives the currently observable manifestation.

What is proved - whether truly or not, whether optimally or not, in an acceptable logical sequence or not - is that the existing theory is consistent with the spin-statistics relation. What is not demonstrated is a reason for the spin-statistics relation."

 

It will be more than a challenge to get to understanding and then to elaborate on similarities..but we are warriors are'nt we ? :)

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 7, 2011 at 10:50pm

Another very close resemblance is found in the concept of  "Ring Pass-Not" of HPB and the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" of the modern Quantum Physics. More on this principle from wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 7, 2011 at 10:42pm

Thanks David.

 

Indeed, as we dig deeper, more similarities between ancient wisdom and Quantum Physics will be found. The real problem being how to decipher the ancient texts or develop on the just clues provided. 

 

Following from wikipedia on the "Three Generation of Particles" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_(particle_physics)

 

In particle physics, a generation (or family) is a division of the elementary particles. Between generations, particles differ only by their mass. All interactions and quantum numbers are identical.

There are three generations according to the Standard Model of particle physics. Each generation is divided into two leptons and two quarks. The two leptons may be classified into one with electric charge −1 (electron-like) and one neutral (neutrino); the two quarks may be classified into one with charge −¹⁄₃ (down-type) and one with charge +²⁄₃ (up-type).

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 7, 2011 at 9:14pm

By chance, I saw this book listing at Amazon while looking for something else: Particle or Wave: The Evolution of the Concept of Matter in Modern Physics, by Charis Anastopoulos (2008). The first reviewer said about it:

"However, in the later chapters he really gets into the big questions surrounding the standard model, such as the meanings of spin, phase, symmetry, and what these might mean in the description of the point-like mathematical objects that are posited to constitute the fundamental particles. His approach is to emphasize the field concept as the more basic concept compared to say particles traveling through absolute space and interacting with other particles. Nonetheless, the mystery of what a field 'really is' remains, as do all those other big questions in the standard model, such as the three generations, the number of constants that have to be put in by hand, etc."

The description, "point-like mathematical objects that are posited to constitute the fundamental particles," is directly parallel to both the Nyaya-Vaisheshika view of "atoms" or paramanus, and the view of them given in The Secret Doctrine. Then he mentions "all those other big questions in the standard model, such as the three generations." Does anyone know what "the three generations" are?

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 5, 2011 at 11:03pm

For those who may be interested, the book mentioned by David in the post below, "Reals in Jaina Metaphysics", is available for free download for private and personal use from the website of Jain ELibrary. One has to first register though at: http://www.jainlibrary.org/.

Comment by David Reigle on April 4, 2011 at 10:42am

I have now had a chance to look at the Kashmir Shaivism links in your Mar. 30 post, Capt. Anand. The atom (anu) or atomicity (anutva) idea, forming the third member of the Trinity, is quite suggestive. Your summary of it from your April 1 post makes a lot of sense to me:

"The ONE could be SHIV, the TWO could be the SHAKTI (The Potential) and the THIRD, the ANU (Life & Sentience) be the actual manifestation."

The very same idea is give by J. C. Chatterji, the same person who wrote The Hindu Realism, in his equally classic introduction to Kashmir Shaivism, the 1914 book titled Kashmir Shaivism, p. 69:

"Further, although counted as the third Tattva, the Sadakhya is, as a matter of fact, the first manifestation in the Universal process. For, as pointed out above, the Shiva-Shakti Tattvas are really eternally existent."

He is here describing the third of the thirty-six tattvas or principles taught in Kashmir Shaivism (of which the last twenty-five are the same as the twenty-five tattvas or principles taught in Samkhya). I assume that this third principle, called "sadakhya," is the same as "anu" or "atom."

Now, the question would be whether there is something in modern science that regards the manifestation of atoms  or atomicity as stage three of a process.

On your other point, agreeing with J. C. Chatterji's assertion that translating "dravya" as matter or substance is wrong: While this is no doubt true, I am not convinced that we have much real choice in this, since the meaning of "dravya" in other contexts is in fact "substance." So most translators still feel obliged to translate dravya as "substance." This is because, once a translator opens the door to interpretation rather than translation, where are the limits?

There is a book titled "Reals in the Jaina Metaphysics," where "reals" is the translation of dravya. Perhaps this is better. But only a minority of translators use it in place of substance for dravya.

HPB, too, had to deal with this difficulty of terminology. In the new Secret Doctrine Commentaries, p. 38, she says:

"There is more and more differentiation because what we talk about is the homogeneous substance, which we call substance from our conceit, because it cannot be any substance which we can conceive of. Later they become substance, if you like."

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 1, 2011 at 11:38pm

Thanks David.

 

I have not yet progressed to the level where I could attempt to summarize something as deeply esoteric as Kashmir Shavism. But, I could attempt to communicate my bewilderment.

On the surface, Kashmir Shaivism proposes the triune of Shiv-Shakti-Anu. This is what is given on the links I posted. Shiv is of course the undifferentiated reality. Shakti being the manifested aspect. But, ANU is proposed as monad or us, the human beings. The real meaning of this can only be deciphered by scholars well versed in the system.

And, one cannot but agree with J C Chatterjee's assertion that translating "Dravya" as matter or substance is wrong. Same could be true of the word "Dhatu" as well, upon which so much of discussion has taken place in the Stanzas of Dzyan section.

My own thoughts on the topic, without any serious textual backing leads me to:

1. That manifestation or undifferentiation is a long process. This process begins by introducing a disturbance to create vibrations or wave forms. The disturbance is "Aham Bahusyami" or "may I become many" of the vedic texts. Or, the first line darwn through the central point of the circle of the Senzar ideopgraph quoted in the SD.

2. The wave forms eventually go through the "Space, Fire, Air, Water & Earth" stages. So, these will be the stages of matter or even properties of matter, as each property is acquired by the matter in that particular stage, rather than matter itself. Since TIME (Kala), Dimensions (Dik) and motion, all play a role in the evolution, these have been included in the word "Dravya" as well. The Big Bang theory of Science describes evolution in similar terms. 

3. Lastly what it is that infuses Life (ability to replicate and die) and Sentience (ability to discriminate) into this matter? It is pertinent to quote what David wrote:

The one can never manifest. The two still shows only potential, but not actual manifestation. Only with three is there actual manifestation.

 

The ONE could be SHIV, the TWO could be the SHAKTI (The Potential) and the THIRD, the ANU (Life & Sentience) be the actual manifestation.

Is it pure speculation? 

 

 

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 1, 2011 at 11:33am

Interesting indeed that Kashmir Shaivism has its own doctrine of atomism. I have not yet had a chance to look at the links. Perhaps you could briefly summarize some salient points, Capt. Anand.

For several days I have been hoping to post something more on what might be called the "standard" Hindu view of atomism; namely, that which comes from the paired Nyaya-Vaisheshika system. It takes time to write these things up. First, I wanted to again recommend the 1912 book by Jagadisha Chandra Chatterji, titled The Hindu Realism: Being an Introduction to the Metaphysics of the Nyaya-Vaisheshika System of Philosophy. J. C. Chatterji had thoroughly studied the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system in the original Sanskrit sources with some of the best teachers in India. He then went to study at Cambridge, England, and saw the very different presuppositions of Western thought. In this book, he tried to explain the traditional Nyaya-Vaisheshika ideas in a way that would be understandable to those holding Western ideas. It is quite the best introduction to this complex system that I am aware of. I know that it has been reprinted in the U.S.A. and is available for purchase (http://www.jainpub.com/inc/searchresults?s=hindu%20AND%20realism&am...). Capt. Anand tells me that it is also available online (http://www.archive.org/stream/hindurealismbein00chatiala/hindureali...).

In this book, J. C. Chatterji describes the nine classes of realities, called dravyas, and usually translated as substances, that are taught in the Nyaya-Vaisheshika system. They are eternal and indestructible. The first four of these classes, called earth, water, air, and fire, consist of paramanus, usually translated as atoms. He has stressed that the paramanus are absolutely without magnitude. It is not that they are simply too small to see. They have no magnitude whatsoever. Therefore, they are not atoms in the normal Western sense, of being minute particles. Rather, says J. C. Chatterji, they are like mathematical points. This is exactly how HPB describes the atoms taught in the Secret Doctrine. To give just one quotation, here is what she says in The Secret Doctrine Commentaries, p. 137:

"The egg means the ever-eternal, existing, undifferentiated matter, which is not strictly matter as we ordinarily use the term, but which, as we say, is the atoms. The atoms are indestructible; and matter is destructible in form, but the atoms are absolutely indestructible.

"I do not speak about chemical atoms. I speak about the atoms of occultism, which certainly no chemist has ever seen. They are mathematical points."

A search in the Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge, found in the H. P. Blavatsky Collected Writings, vol. 10, will yield more such references. See also the section of The Secret Doctrine titled, "Gods, Monads, and Atoms," vol. 1, pp. 610-634. There is relevant material in Alice Bailey's A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, pp. 246, 527, 888, etc. On p. 246 of this book a list of references in The Secret Doctrine on the atom is given, and also information from Besant and Leadbeater's book, Occult Chemistry, is given. I have only the 2nd edition of Occult Chemistry, not the greatly expanded 3rd edition which should really be used if possible. In the 2nd edition is an appendix titled "The Aether of Space," which has much interesting information on the atom. By the way, I had earlier mentioned here that many students of Theosophy reject Besant and Leadbeater. I am not among those who do so. Their clairvoyant investigations into the nature of the atom are, to me, of very great value.

So the paramanu is a mathematical point. According to Nyaya-Vaisheshika, two of these associate to make a dvyanuka, sometimes translated as a dyad. This is still without magnitude. It is only when three of these dyads associate that what we may call objective matter comes into existence. It is only here that there is magnitude. This is called a tryanuka, sometimes translated as a triad. But it is a triad of dyads, so it consists of six paramanus, not three. This is the normal Nyaya-Vaisheshika interpretation. The numbers follow occult cosmogony. The one can never manifest. The two still shows only potential, but not actual manifestation. Only with three is there actual manifestation.

Lastly, I would call attention to the fact that I have begun to post English translations in the Online Sanskrit Texts Project. So under "Hindu Documents" one can now find an English translation of the Vaisesika-sutra with the Upaskara commentary. It was done by Nandalal Sinha, in the Sacred Books of the Hindus series. It may be useful to consult in conjunction with J. C. Chatterji's book, The Hindu Realism.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on March 31, 2011 at 2:14am

 

Interestingly, Kashmir Shaivism defines individual Monad as ANU (Atom) and there is a dcotrine of Atomicity (Anutva). Browsing through the links below may provide better background:

http://www.kashmiryoga.nl/en/kashmiryoga_en_perspective.isp

http://www.saivism.net/sects/kashmir/kashmirisaivism.asp

http://anahataprana.com/prana/2010/09/from-yoga-sutra-to-shiva-sutra/

http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/12/abhinavagupta.htm

http://www.koausa.org/Vitasta/4c.html 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page