Vedanta and science (Buddhism, reincarnation, followers, translation, evolution)

[Aupmanyav]

'Advaita Vedanta has influenced modern scientists. Erwin Schrödinger claimed to have been inspired by Vedanta in his discovery of quantum theory. According to his biographer Walter Moore: "The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material particles. During the next few years, Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg and their followers created a universe based on superimposed, inseparable waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.". Additionally, Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics is one among several that pursues this viewpoint as it investigates the relationship between modern, particularly quantum, physics and the core philosophies of various Eastern religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. Unfortunately, such writings by western authors often run the risk of oversimplifying and ignoring important differences between Eastern religions. For instance, pre-modern Vedantins argued for the existence of an eternal self, or atman, while Buddhists have denied this possibility. But as more and more translations of Vedantic works become available, modern students of the many schools of Vedanta are able make up their own minds regarding the claims of authors like Schrödinger and Capra.'

As mentioned in the sticky (I appreciate the efforts of Feathers in Hair, the writer to explain it without any distortion), I have considered the various questions are have arrived at these conclusions. Your discussions are welcome:

1. Existence of God: Since one substrate constitutes what is percieved as substance, energy, and gives rise to time, and space, there is no reason to pre-suppose anything like God. As per our current knowledge the substrate is quantum field. I will be open to further advances in science (if it proves there are nine type of strings, I will adjust my belief accordingly). Human happiness or misery does not effect any change in the way of things, so I guess that this substrate has no connection with human affairs, other than the common changes in quantum field. It is not cruel, it is not kind, it is not miserly, it is not munificient, etc. Trying to impute human attributes to it has consistently failed in history.

2. Ribirth/Reincarnation: Again no reason to accept anything like that. Atoms coming from various sources make our beginning, during the time humans are in the womb and later in life, our constitution changes slowly, at death these atoms are recycled into many things.

3. Our consciousness: We percieve ourselves as something definite with particular trains of thought. Percieving ourselves as entities is a temporary and imaginary. Really we are just quantum fields. With our death, just as this entity ceases to exist, our consciousness also ceases to exist.

4. Meaning of life: None. Evolution will go on to (most probably) erase us from this planet where we are captives. We may go to moon, Venus, or Mars, but that is about all. It has done that with all the species, and there is no reason, why we should be exceptions. Our family, our society, our culture, our country, these things give us a purpose. If it is possible to go beyond these without harming these, we may do that, but not at their cost.

5. Karma: Nothing like it. No reason to accept the existence of heaven and hell. Our actions need to be tailored to the needs of our family, our society, and the world in general, because we are parts of it. That is termed in Hinduism as 'dharma' (roughly duty).

6. Enlightenment/Understanding: Closing your eyes or even your mind to thinking in meditation does not get you any understanding. It is clear and focussed thinking (meditation may help) which tells us the way of the world and our position in it. That is enlightenment, it is not that it changes us into a Godman or avatara. Enlightenment is when you have answers to all answerable questions. Nirvana, Moksha, does not mean going to heaven and be with your personal God, though becoming 'Brahmaleen' (being merged with Brahman, the substrate) is much closer (really, you were never separated from it).

I suppose that would be enough for a beginning. Let us discuss this to the best of our ability, as they say 'Tejaswi Navadheetamastu', without being acrimonious to each other, 'Ma Vidvishamahi'.

[mahesh]

http://www.krishna.com/e-books/Perfe...ct_Answers.pdf

[Seyorni]

You are treating time as a reality, as perceived by our senses, Aupmanyav-ji. I see time as a Relativistic dimension. In Reality, there is no past, present or future. There is only a cosmic Now. All things that are happening, ever happened, or ever could happen, are happening NOW, have always been and always will be happening Now.

After death, nothing changes. Change only occurs with Samadhi or Enlightenment, when the totality of the 11-dimension, timeless quantum Universe directly perceived.

A love scene in a film is not finished and forever relegated to the past once the film has advanced past the frames in question. The love scene frames existed before and continue to exist in their entirety even after we've viewed them. The Past-present-future illusion lies in our inability to perceive more than a single frame of Reality at a time, and our being locked into a unidirectional, single-speed, single timeline perception of Reality. In Hinduism this illusion is called Maya.

[xexon]

I entered my path through science first. Einstein's unified field theory. I was in pursuit of the highest form of energy. The "source", from which everything else is derived.

Around age 19, I made the jump from physics to meta-physics. It was in Hinduism that I found the connection that bridged our world with the divine. The ancient rishis were actually the first particle physicists. I understood them. Whereas physical science is limited to the material plane, their science was not. I took what they offered and ran with it.

Since we are each the embodiment of awareness, we will each see the path somewhat differently based upon whatever filters we still cling to in this life. As the decades have passed, I cannot help but grin knowing that science is playing catch up to a bunch of old men sitting under the trees somewhere thousands of years ago.

If you consider waves upon the ocean as creation, the sea becomes more calm the closer you get to the source.

In that place, where the sea is like glass, you will find me there.


x

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, Seyorni, for the nice reply. I also view time-space in a relativistic manner. That is why I said 'one substrate constitutes what is percieved as substance, energy, and gives rise to time, and space'. It is an illusion of illusions, double illusion. If there is nothing else but the 'cosmic now', then the film with the love scenes cannot exist. It is created by probability and chance at any time.

I agree that nothing changes after death, apart from the regular changes that happen all the time, and which is a property of Brahman known to hindus as Maya and as the percieved frolicking of sub-atomic particles by science (aptly named by Carl Segan as Shiva's dance). Death also is an illusion of illusions. IMHO, even with samadhi or enlightenment (when the universe is no more, and only Brahman remains), it cannot be percieved directly (we do not have the wherewithalls to percieve a quantum field). Brahman can be percieved only indirectly, as you rightly said, because of 'our being locked into a unidirectional, single-speed, single timeline perception of Reality'.

Xexon, are you trying to be another 'Parabrahman' like Swami Sahajananda?

Where did you run away? There is nowhere to run. Kanada, the other hindu wise men, and Buddha, are sure venerable for me, but the knowledge in science has certainly advanced from their time. And don't be too proud of your decades, there are others also with decades. Knowledge has no decadial limitation, Sankara was just 32 when he died.

[xexon]

To "run with it" is a figure of speech. American slang. In this case, it means to embrace something, such as I did with the Vedas. Their scientific overtones agreed with me.

As long as I wear this body, I have to speak as humans speak. In terms of time and space and things that can be identified with. And you can't do it with sterility. You must be a human, with feelings. Science by itself is terribly cold. And besides, people don't like to be preached to. It is best to speak as they do.

I have no desire to be Parabrahman, but if it should find me, what am I going to do, say no?

I don't try to be anything, and as a result, I am everything.


x

[Aupmanyav]

Agree, you are none other than Brahman.

[mahesh]

Yeah you are teh Jeev wanting to become Brahman and our aim is to serve Parbrahm.

[xexon]

The only way to serve the ParBrahm is to serve your fellow man.

The best way to serve your fellow man is to become ParBrahm.


x

[Aupmanyav]

Here, here.