Does Big Bang refute Hinduism?

[Shuddhasattva]

Namaste

I feel some unwarranted assumptions are being made, mostly on the science end of the equation.

1. Science doesn't disagree with the cyclical model, in fact, it's a popular one among physicists.

2. It was not proven that the universe will keep expanding forever.

3. A big crunch is not required to cycle, it can result from a big rip too - the consequence of dark matter and unchecked expansion.

4. The statement about no space/time is ambiguous in science, and needs to be approached with a different logic than we consider space and time bound objects - very difficult, as all of our experience and ways of thinking deals with such object. A singularity essentially 'melts' all physical laws/constants, and so yes, there is no time or space, until it is once more projected.

Namaste

[themo]

Is there any verse in Shruti that says universe is cyclical? Because as fas as I can tell, in Rigveda (like Nasadiya sukta: Rig Veda 10:129) /Brahmanas and Upanishads, universe has an ultimate beginning, therefore not cyclical.

However, Puranas tells us otherwise. They say universe is cyclical contradicting what Shruti say.

[Vrindavana Das]

There is no contradiction. Only perspectives are different.

For anything to have an ultimate beginning, it has to be 'within' time. A universe is a material creation. It is created in time. Meaning, it is subject to time, therefore has an ultimate beginning, as pointed out by you.

However, after cosmic annihilation, time also ceases to exist. Only the timeless (beyond time) Lord (Maha-Vishnu) exists. This timeless Lord again creates the time-bound universes and then again annihilates them. So, it is cyclical as well.

So, both are correct.

[Shuddhasattva]

Originally Posted by themo

Is there any verse in Shruti that says universe is cyclical? Because as fas as I can tell, in Rigveda (like Nasadiya sukta: Rig Veda 10:129) /Brahmanas and Upanishads, universe has an ultimate beginning, therefore not cyclical.

However, Puranas tells us otherwise. They say universe is cyclical contradicting what Shruti say.

Namaste

I don't see how the Nasadiya sukta can be held up as showing an 'ultimate' beginning, rather than a beginning.

[Riverwolf]

If anything, the Nasadiya's final two lines seem to contain a hint regarding such matters: don't worry about them, because even the Gods don't really know.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by themo

Hello,

Some scientists and religious leaders claim that the Big Bang theory refuted Hindu models of the universe.

I don't see why they should be at odds.

But in 2011, it`s proven that universe will expand forever with accelerating speed so there won`t be a "big crunch", instead, the universe will continue expanding forever. (thus no another big bang)

Nothing is proven. There are only theories. So-called big bangs could be happening at this very moment, from the singularity of black holes in this and other universes. In fact that's becoming a commonly accepted idea among theoretical physicists, especially Dr. Michio Kaku. Essentially, this and other universes form a bubble and "pinch one off". Voila! Big Bang.

My questions are:

1) Science says that everything started with big bang, before that, there was nothing. (no space/time) So if that`s true, how can there be "cycles" ?

2) Let`s assume that there are multiple big bangs (Science doesn`t agree with that though) We know that there won`t be big crunch, universe will expand forever instead, so how this current cycle will end?

Thank you...

1. I believe there were other universes coming and going in and out of existence, and will infinitely. I believe that our big bang was the from the singularity of a black hole in another universe. So something did indeed exist before this universe. Remember, if one is panentheistic, God existed before and outside of this universe.

2. Again, there is no conclusive proof the universe is expanding forever. Dark energy and dark matter have to be accounted for, and as yet their effects are unknown. Dark matter may be sufficient to cause the gravitational collapse of the universe. Then again, the universe may not end in a big crunch. It could simply cease to exist. God can do anything He wants.

[themo]

Originally Posted by Jainarayan

I don't see why they should be at odds.



Nothing is proven. There are only theories. So-called big bangs could be happening at this very moment, from the singularity of black holes in this and other universes. In fact that's becoming a commonly accepted idea among theoretical physicists, especially Dr. Michio Kaku. Essentially, this and other universes form a bubble and "pinch one off". Voila! Big Bang.



1. I believe there were other universes coming and going in and out of existence, and will infinitely. I believe that our big bang was the from the singularity of a black hole in another universe. So something did indeed exist before this universe. Remember, if one is panentheistic, God existed before and outside of this universe.

2. Again, there is no conclusive proof the universe is expanding forever. Dark energy and dark matter have to be accounted for, and as yet their effects are unknown. Dark matter may be sufficient to cause the gravitational collapse of the universe. Then again, the universe may not end in a big crunch. It could simply cease to exist. God can do anything He wants.

Thanks Jainarayan, what do you personally think about Nasadiya Sukta? (Rig Veda 10:129) It talks about the ultimate beginning of everything or it talks about the beginning of a cycle?

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by themo

Thanks Jainarayan, what do you personally think about Nasadiya Sukta? (Rig Veda 10:129) It talks about the ultimate beginning of everything or it talks about the beginning of a cycle?

I've seen it before, and now that I have again put my cerebral cortex back into my skull and wiped the blood from my eyes from reading it, I think it's a dual mind-bender attempt at describing what cannot be described:

1. God, neither existing nor not-existing; neither beginning nor not-beginning; existence neither existing nor not existing;

2. As well as a cycle of the universe. Remember, between universe cycles, there is a period of nothingness. I think it's attempting to describe what the human mind cannot comprehend, not unlike the concept of achintya bhedAbheda does: inconceivable sameness and difference.

This is just how I read it.

[Satyamavejayanti]

themo;2993182]Thanks Wannabe-Yogi, I have an another question.

In Hinduism, the universe is cyclical, if that`s the case then what is that verse about?:

Rig Veda 10:129

This verse is an emphasis on Ishwar, and its quite clear by the first few mantras that this is a description of an eternal cycle.

"1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

This negates existence, but also negates non existence. so that means that there was something but was not distinguishable to be called existent as we know today nor was it absolutely non existent. Description of prakriti in my opinion. This first mantra clearly is describing something, not nothing.

What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

This clearly is talking about the first mantra, and notice in many translations this is addressing the subject of the first mantra, its like saying there was something but where was it.

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.

Here its clear that prakriti was in unmanifest form, because there was no bodies so no one could die if no one was born, and if there was no birth then no immortality.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

This is classic Hindu view, at dissolution all souls and prakriti are "resting', within the supreme Brahman, so it was the only thing that was doing something.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.

This is clear enough, and its quit in line with the next mantra, chaos creates friction which generates heat.

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

See again, this confirm the first mantra, all existed without form. Heat is generated from friction, and there needs to be something to cause the friction.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Another classic Hindu view that Atman desire Karma, and action. And this means that if Atman are eternal this cycle has to eternal as well.

Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. "

The rest is more concerning Ishwar, but few key elements that throw light on this is that the Classic belief that Atman is eternal, so all creation and dissolution must also be eternal or cyclic, as Atman desire for action and karma, so Ishwar provides for eternity.

that verse (and some others in Brahmanas and Upanishads) suggest the universe is not cyclical but have a beginning? Or it just explains the beginning of a cycle? Just how do you reconcile that kind of verses with cyclical view of Puranas?

No where does it suggest its not cyclic.

[apophenia]

Originally Posted by themo

So, Rig Veda 10:129 is not about the beginning of everything (like ex nihilo) but it is just about a cycle that is infinite?

The mindblowing part is this -

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

This is the possibility which almost no-one ever considers, or considers possible.

For some reason mortals who know they just don't know, insist that they know god knows !

They can't stand the idea of a limit to knowing. It is the ultimate aversion.This same aversion can be seen in the world of secular cosmology, big bang physics. There it is expressed as 'science will eventually explain everything'.

Manufactured certainty.

This verse is wonderful because it confirms that the intention of the author of the Rig Veda here is to communicate that our idea of omniscience is after all conceptual fabrication, it is speculative.

We can therefore conclude that the realisation described in the Rig Veda does not presume such knowledge is even possible to god, and does not convey that certainty even to the most enlightened sage.