Peace: body, mind, spirit

Stress has been my favorite topic oflate. Why are we stressed, how do we get stressed, what can we do about it, are some of the questions that trouble me and most people these days.

Before I get to stress I thought I mention here about this lecture by Jayapathaka Swami Maharaja:

"Everybody wants pleasure, this whole world is pleasure seeking. But pleasure comes on different levels. There is physical pleasures, mental pleasures and spiritual pleasures.

If somebody is mentally pleased, they feel physically content also. If somebody is spiritually pleased, they feel mentally and physically.. things are open.

For instance, if somebody is not mentally pleased even if you give them a nice meal but they are very sad because a loved one is sick, they're not going to enjoy the meal. So the physical pleasure will not replace the mental agony they are felling because of worry for the well being of some relative.

So generally I go for a walk on the Durban beach front and there's a lot of people trying to sell pleasure. But the pleasure they're trying to provide is something for the tongue, something for the touch, something for the ear, something for the eye...superficial pleasure.

We are simultaneously trying to provide pleasure on all the levels. We also have food for the tongue, but it's also food for the soul. We also have certain cultural programs... dance, drama, music and more..

So these things are pleasing to see, at the same time they are spiritually gratifying because the topic is about KRISHNA! "


I will comment on this in a later post.

Does God Exist?

A new question revisited by every one of us atleast once in our lives I suppose. But it remains a fascination and mystery, which makes it even more interesting.

To start with I ask myself "What if God doesn't exist?". If God does not exist then several questions remain to be answered: Where did we come from? How has this Universe come into existence? How is the Universe being sustained, maintained? Why do we die? What happens after death? How are we born, what/where are we before birth?

Science seems to have an answer: God does not exist. There is no need for God to explain these questions. For the logically loaded scientific arguments, everything came from a "black hole" which was the reservoir of all energy. The Universe was created by a big bang from which came the planets and the comic energy. But, where did the "black hole" come from? How did it have that much energy stored, that has not exhausted for billions or years? How did life come from? Is life a mixture of chemicals and simple reaction of chemicals? If so, can we produce life? Can life come from non-life/Matter? Questions like these continue to trouble even the scientists.

So, even if everything came from the black hole, can we say that the source from which the black hole itself came into being is God? So, to start with, we could say that something existed before the black hole which should be inifintely more energetic than the energy stored in the black hole, because black hole had near infinite energy and this near infinite energy could not have come from a finite source. And, this infinite energy could have come only from an infinite (anantha)energy . As we trace back there should have existed an infinite aspect that ever existed, never creater (anadih adih). That which is the source of everything, from which everything must have come (sarva kaaraNa kaaraNam). Every aspect of the creation can then be traced back to that one source, which some prefer to call - God.

If that one aspect is God, then is that a person or just a ball of energy?

Scientists would be happy to call it a big ball of energy. But given the absolute wholeness and perfection of this system, the logical implausability of life coming from matter, this creation could not have been by accident but an "intelligent design". Nothing in this creation seems to happen by accident, there is always a cause and effect. What we see as effect is the creation and there must've been a cause behind it. Moreover, of all the planets only one planet has life of this form, Why? Could be yet another accident of sorts. Could be. A plausible argument from science is that the perfection that we see in the system is due to evolution and natural selection that has taken over a billion years to reach this state. So, at the beginning there was chaos which has evolved, corrected, and perfected itself into its current state :) Yes. But, where did everything start from? Hmmm A long pause pursues.

The other plausible argument then is the possibility of an super intelligent being (not a human being, ofcourse ;)) who a) created this wonderful system over a billion years back, or b) installed intelligence and order into the system so that it can carve itself into its current state. And everything came from that eternal being, who is full of knowledge.

So, I conclude that a) God exists, b) God is an infinite, eternal aspect, c) He is a highly intelligent being and not just a ball of energy.

Evolution or Devolution?

Sometimes this question surprises me: are we evolving or devolving? May be there are answers for these already, but need to find those.

First of all, if we are evolving then we should be moving from smaller forms to larger ones, or more fine tuned ones. But on the other hand we had huge dinosarus and we now have smaller version in lizards and other reptiles!! We had enormous mammoths that have become the miniscule elephants. We had powerful gorillas who have lost physical strength to gain some mental strength. The last example is certainly the poorest, I know, but in general what are we evolving into? What next? Will we continue to evolve, but evolve into what? or are we perfected? I dont think so, because science cannot digest the concept of perfection. Anyway, suppose that we are evolving, then why are our memories, life spans and everything else coming down (yes, our initial survival rates may have improved, so have worries, tension, stress, strain and other psychological issues more than ever before)? We have created the most problems known to mankind, destroying every possible resource. Morality and compassion is soon becoming a rarity. Should not evolution make us better, in improvements? So the question comes back to haunt us: are we evolving or devolving?

Our Universe

"There could be an infinite number of universes each with its own law of Physics. Our Universe could be just one bubble floating in an ocean of inifinite bubbles", recent discoveries seem to indicate. May be a breakthrough for scientific fraternity that has long been trying to understand the creation, the universe, and everything related to this. A fascinating basis of this scientific stand is that the Universe came into existence (i.e. it did not exist in its current form in the beginning), it came from nothing (or virtually nothing) on its own accord, it expanded from this virtual nothingness to billion trillion trillion times in a very short period of time, it was created merely by the law of physics, it sustains itself, continues to grow, and will eventually collapse to nothingess. What seems to have surprised scientists recently is its growth rate and that it continues to expand whereas it was supposed to slow down and collapse gradually.

First things first, this Universe may not be the only one, this could be just one bubble in an ocean of inifinite bubbles. This is not new to vedic scientists. This is in the scriptures, that millions of universes emanate (He does not create them) from the Lord. This universe is but a bubble in an ocean of bubbles. Not just that, the vedic scriptures go on to say that this material creation (that which the scientists deem to be infinite) is only 1/4 of the overall material creation, where as bigger chunck, i.e. 3/4th of the creation, belongs to a spiritual sky beyond the human sensory perceptions. Do we need any evidence? We may need to transcend the sensory limitations, move beyond pratyaksha pramaaNa (proofs through observations). There are levels of understanding any aspect, those that are pratyaksha (observable using sensory perceptions), paroksha (one that is outside the sensory perception, far away from one's self), and aparoksha (one that is outside the sensory perception, but within one's self). Shruti provides the pramaaNa for paroskha and aparoksha, but the later can be realized only through deep contemplation. Now, at what level are the scientists in, the basic pratyaksha level? How much have they understood out of the inifinite? Miniscule. But, they say proudly that they are not close to answer everything through science. And, are they humble about that?

Second question or assumption, that Universe came from nothing, through the laws of science/physics. But, how did the laws come to exist? how did the Universe embed those attributes/characteristics? can life come from nothing (yeah, there is life in near nothingness of a bacteria, but even that life could not have come from non life)? Some questions that scientists think will have answers for in the near future. Vedic science does not deny that everything came from nothing, but it goes beyond to say that everything came from nothing material.

If the universe grew from near nothingness to billion trillion trillion times then imagine the amount of energy and potential it had stored within itself. How did it have this potential, where did that come from? Energy exists by itself, it is just by the laws of physics and all such attempts at addressing these questions assume that something existed, they still cannot account for "how, why, from where" questions. So these answers complicate their own stances, because energy needs a source, an energetic. It thus appears that the scientists believe in magic, an imgination with dimensions greater than those of God; they take shelter of absurd assumptions (so called scientific) and mathemetical mesh in order to deny even the probabile existance of God. The denial of God is also not new to Vedic science, it has a long history that dates back to a billion years, the times of HiraNyakashipu and HiraNyaksha. One way to deny the authenticity of these historical evidences is to tag them as Mythology, a serious allegation from a Christian agenda (I am sounding like a religious fanatic here, I know that, but it is hard to close eyes for what has been conspired on the wonders of Vedic science).

The one thing that they seem to be close to a good answer is that the universe will eventually collapse into near nothingness, again. Vedic science also concurs with this conclusion, but it goes ahead to state that it is into that one that it collapses into from which it emanted from in the beginning.

Long way to go guyz, but we may have reached these scientific conclusions several times during the cycles of this creation; even the scientists may have started to see this in their fresh perceptions of parallel universes.

KrishNarpaNam.
GIrish

Comments from a blog reader

It looks like my comments are violating bloggers char limit rules. So could not comment there. Will paste the same here. But would appreciate if you could put it somewhere on the net as it will draw considerable healthy discussion... Thanks in advance


The following is just my view as how things might have unfolded:

when the first human being/group thought about "WHY DID I COME HERE(EARTH)? WHERE DID I COME FROM? and similar questions..." solutions followed.


A line of thought started with the belief that we are here. So what next? We will know how we came from only by simulating/experimenting the conditions which existed before we came here. So they made some assumptions and started developing theories on them and experimenting them. A theory got accepted universally only when it was experimentally correct. This is what famous physicist Feynman tells in his book. So as time progressed human beings evolved, and many theories were disregarded and replaced by more correct ones. I am using the adjective more rather than using the word correct directly because we do not know if there is a better theory to replace the existing ones. Only time will tell. So the bottom line is all theories were constrained not by the thought process but by the outcomes of experimentation. I am not pointing that experimentation is bad but what was used for experimentation was of limited scope which was causing hinderance to the thought process. If you ask how? Let me take the example of black hole. The scientists however cannot create an artificial black hole on earth or if they create one they will not be the blessed ones to view the result of the experiment. So they bank on catching radiations from them so on & so forth. But in early days we did not have setup to catch the radiations from black holes and experimentally prove that a black hole exists there.


Like other thoughts an aspect of this line of thought is that they start from an hypothesis which is declared unquestionable as every other theory follows it. If the hypothesis tends to fail all the theories fail!


The second line of thought which believed in individual experience said the so called "universe" originated from GOD. Why did they say so? They said it because they experienced it through a means which cannot be published as a research paper or can be patented. While commenting here i do not know what is that method formally. I strictly oppose when someone says this line of thought lacks experimentation and so is scientifically in-correct. My comments against this claim are:


It has experimentation. But unlike the experimentation mentioned in the prior line of thought this experimentation is not limited by the technology around. It is limited by the thought process or we can call it mind. The steps involved in the experimentation can be described and effects also explained but in order to experience the effect one has to do the experiment himself. The experiment not being limited to the worldly things cannot be put in a framework defined by the prior line of thought. Meaning one cannot put the this line of thought into some mathematical formulae or a theory which might just be more correct than its ancestors. Which is why they say it is scientifically incorrect. But the flaw here is we are comparing two line of thoughts which value two different things.


Like the prior thought this thought might also have been based on a hypothesis[ref Manusmriti] Again if we consider the hypothesis as wrong this theory may also fail. So my question to its critics is why always fail only this line of thought “even your theory fails!”. For e.g. If we reject the hypothesis of Big bang theory, earth will never exist.


So to conclude my view


D V G yavaru in the book “Baligondu Nambike” defines the objectives a man should have.


Dharma
Artha
Kama
Moksha


I do not want to elaborate on Dharma & Moksha. It is better understood if read in its mother tongue i.e. read from D V G's words. He says Artha and Kama are the ones sustaining this earth and the human beings on it and the two should be within the boundary of Dharma and Moksha. Science helps us inspire innovation, provide better society, improve theories, sustain ideas on this earth but it should be used only for betterment not the other way round.

Probably my comment is exceeding the author's write up. But inevitable. Since the above are my views there is always room for debate and experimentation ;-) !


Yours truely,

--
Udaya M V

Education Informal
http://www.educationinformal.in

Virodhi - Palguna - Krishna - Panchami

Black hole and creation!!

Black hole is a fascination with scientists; irrespective of whether one is interested in nuclear physics, astronomy, theoretical mathematics or whatever the modern theoretical fields have to offer. All of physics has been trying to understand this concept, to provide some theoretical explanation to this phenomenon that has piqued scientists left, right, bottom, and top. Of particular interest seems to be the notion of gravity; how it came into existence and why it is the weakest of the four known forces. There will eventually be some theory to explain the phenomenon, but can theory be termed an "answer"?

From what I read and understood: At the beginning (approximated to be 13.7 billion years), there was nothing but this black hole which was the reservoir of infinite energy. The universe was compressed into a size smaller than an atom. This condensed aspect blasted out and created the material world that we know of. This also is the causal source of stars, moons, planets, and their interdependent energies. The black hole was virtually a void, smaller than an atom. And, at the end of of it all, everything would collapse down and disappear into this (near) nothingness which is nothing but concentrated energy. Interestingly, black holes are not just the end points but also the beginning of everything; and also the center of all activities. Interestingly, the blackhole itself does not do anything but is the reason for everything around it. In addition, in the begining there was one "super force", which was the only force that existed at the begining, i.e. at the big bang, everything was one. But the big bang resulted into four fundamental forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetic, and 2 nuclear forces), all of which eventually melt into one that they came from. In essence, everything came from nothing (virtually nothing) and exists all on its own and everything will eventually merge into nothing; there is no need to conceptualize a creator because science can explain everything. But the question is, does it?

I wondered at the insights of our seers; this theory is not new to Indian philosopher who have long argued that everything came from virtually nothing. A common example given in this line is the idea of a seed, as if a tree was compressed within the seed. The tree was always there but in an unmanifested form. All that it took was the seed to open up and sprout the creation of that which in turn created more seeds, fruits, leaves, flowers and so on (the big bang of the seed). Seems logical, but where did the seed come from? how did the seed contain these characteristics/attributes? how did so many variegated seeds originate? and most of all, how did life come? from matter? Questions that continue to trouble scientists but theologians and philosophers seem happily sitting on a plausible theory.

Anyway. What is ever more interesting to me is from the theological angle. It is well known that Krishna means black. Krishna also means "all attractive", i.e. He attracts everything (and this insignificant universe) towards Him at the end of it all. Scriptures confirm that Krishna is the cause of all causes, the source of everything that is created and exists. Millions and millions of Universes EMANATE (it is not created by Him, but emanates from His body) and our Universe is but a tiny, insignificant portion of that near infinite material creation. Interestingly this entire creation (comprising of all these millions of Universes) is only 1/4th of the whole creation that can be perceived by scientists. Everything emanates from Krishna (displaying Himself as a black hole to the scientists?) and eventually everything dissolves unto Him (Bhagawad Gita and Bhagawatham statements support this). He is the source of all energies, all energies come out of Him alone. He is bigger than the biggest, smaller than the smallest (atom) - aNoraNeeyam, mahato maheeyaam. But, as He says, He is cause of everything but still does nothing.

Scientists seem to have taken one tiny step towards understanding one aspect of Krishna - the theory of the tiny, but they continue to struggle and will continue to struggle with what they call as the "theory of everything". Vishnu, an essence of Krishna, implies one that which is everything, in everything, pervades everything, and is the cause of everything! They seem to have partially understood (a drop of water from an ocean) the "anor" aspect of Krishna, the "mahato" aspect remains (and probably will) a mystery. When a simple energy of Krishna called "gravity" can defy all scientific logic, what to speak of the very source of everything, Krishna? It will be only by the mercy of the Lord that such secrets will be revealed within the heart of some great minds; all ideas that are revealed from within, in and from nothingness comes everything that is known and is to be known. But the one thing that is to be known continues to elude the seekers.

There is more to this than what I have dumped here, but given my limited knowledge of both the worlds I cannot expand any further. Lets see.

KrishNarpaNam.
Girish

God Exists! does He?

In the recent past I have debated on this point with several of my friends and some of my students. There seems to be an increasing trend in people (younger ones particularly) claiming or announcing themselves to be atheists, in the name of science. The logic is "Science can explain everything and thus there is no place for God." Does Science explain everything? hmmm may not be everything but it atleast tries to, seems to be the response. They say that the scientists atleast acknowledge that they do not know everything! Hmmm but does that stand any merit in the debate, I am not sure. Anyway, what does the so called science do? can it go beyond the physical evidences or observable phenomenon? No, science seems restricted to those aspects of this creation that can be observed, tested, or verified. Anything beyond this realm is too obscure to be discussed by science and is termed pseudo-science, which is the pseudo one here?! So, the scientists seem to have drawn some boundaries, of what is observable, beyond which everything is pseudo/non-science; what is interesting is that only fraction of 1/4th of the creation seems to be observable and the more than a huge chunk of the 3/4ths remain mystery. For example, science may not be able to explain the meaning of LIFE, can it explain LOVE? Yes, again, it "tries" to. But, science is a self limiting approach; what can be explained seems to be limited by what can be observed, and what can be observed is limited by the instruments or senses.

All that science does is provide some probabilities of certain events; example, the possibility of a certain way of creation of this universe, the theory of evolution. But, its followers seem to take these theories (which are supposedly supported by strong evidences, which I would like to talk a little later) as TRUTH and everything else as falsehood or nonsense. What is interested is these TRUTHS are proved wrong time and again, and new "truths" are established! So, a "truth" that is falsifiable, which is the key criteria for the definition of science. All that the theist do is to provide an alternative possibility, one which is beyond the realm of observable phenomenon; which also means that falisifiability argument of the science is questioned. This becomes immediately objectionable to the scientists and the very idea seems to lead to rejection. Both are about "possibilities", but strangely theists seem more confident in their assertions (example, about the link between life, creation and God) while the scientists are still not sure and this uncertaintiy in claims seem to be the cornerstone of "openess" of science. Scientists have some theories and some evidences that seem to support their theories (or can it not be that data/evidence are fitted to support absurd theories?). Theists have their own set of evidences too, which are unacceptable to the scientists. But, do not the science have holes or missing links too?