Another point, the symptoms of a disease in a particular dhatu(which maybe vata, pitta or kapha dosha) will manifest in various areas of your body seeminglyl unrelated. So for example you may develop certain marks on your hands for a brain disease(!) The lines on your hand correspond to brain connections. This is because of the pranic pathways which connect various parts of your body together. Hence why through acupressure or acupuncture of key points energy related to the symptoms energy can be redirected and symptoms will disappear.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32483]Another point, the symptoms of a disease in a particular dhatu(which maybe vata, pitta or kapha dosha) will manifest in various areas of your body seeminglyl unrelated. So for example you may develop certain marks on your hands for a brain disease(!) The lines on your hand correspond to brain connections. This is because of the pranic pathways which connect various parts of your body together. Hence why through acupressure or acupuncture of key points energy related to the symptoms energy can be redirected and symptoms will disappear.[/QUOTE]
Ok, thanks for developing the subject. But I just want to clarify that because wanted to check and clarify the “mechanistic perception” issue. So, if my blood is purpose driven and is the manifestation of prana, then, since a blood can be clearly perceived in mechanistic terms (composition, function, interaction with other organs) then prana should be as well. So, I was correct saying that prana can be viewed in mechanistic terms and loose its “spiritual flavor”.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32483] This is one of the main reasons why Hindu science does not indulge in speculation or mathematical formalism. The Vaiseshika are very strictly empirical and then use empirical data to make inferences and do not go beyond that. So I can infer for example there is fire on the mountain by seeing the smoke, based on past empirical evidence. I can infer for example that the empirical is made out of atoms by empirical evidence which shows that things have different magnitudes(grain of rice, mountain) So there are many invalid inferences I can make based on observational data. Speculation, however, is an illegal move and science ceases being science as soon as we allow that. [/QUOTE]
That?s why I like mathematical description as language of physics. You investigate relationships between observables and elements of structures (or more abstract concepts like wave function in quantum mechanics ? but sooner or later arriving to more tangible quantities). And in some sense you don?t have to worry about nature of the existence of those observables and objects. You observe that atom is composed out of 3 types of particles, ok. You characterize their properties and for some time you think that wow, this is the basic element of matter. Then someone proposes a theory that there are even more elemental ones and proposes an experiment to verify it. And so on.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32483] If we model this in terms of dimensions it can be represented as 3D(empirical space) 4D(time) 5D(pranic) 6D(astral or sensory) 7D(mental) 8D(causal) 9D(individual consciousness) and 10D(Absolute cosciousness) And there you have it a complete map and description of reality. [/QUOTE]
I like models. But, since I am just ignorant westerner, of course I?m confused with it. So could you clarify a bit? Does it mean that prana is additional ?geometrical? dimension of the world? (in the same way as time is an additional dimension to 3 dimensions of space?). I always thought that prana is more of substantial nature and exists in 4 dimensions (because it has distribution in the body and temporal changes over time). So for example if I want to write down coordinates of my pen I write (x,y,z,t,p)? (p would be a number corresponding with position in prana dimension?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32483] Then after it has exhausted the quantum it moves onto studying how there coud be an observer and object at all and then shows that primarily it is language that creates both the observer and the object and reality actually exist as only pure consciousness alone across a spectrum of states of consciousness(waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep) which we merely access. [/QUOTE]
Do you want to say that physical objects around me are created by the language in my head? I heard this before and was interested what does it actually mean. For example, if I would send something to someone without telling what it is, what the recipient would find? An object related to his/hers language or exactly the same physical object I send?
[QUOTE=Pawel;32484]Ok, thanks for developing subject. But I just want to clarify that because wanted to check and clarify the “mechanistic perception” issue. So, if my blood is purpose driven and is the manifestation of prana, then, since a blood can be clearly perceived in mechanistic terms (composition, function, interaction with other organs) then prana should be as well. So, I was correct saying that prana can be viewed in mechanistic terms and loose its “spiritual flavor”.[/QUOTE]
Well no, because prana is not mechanistic. It is fluidic, dynamic and vital. If something is mechanic it is modelled as a particle which interacts with other particles by determinism. In this scheme something is always required to start the process so for example in a series of connected cogs the the other cogs will not make until the first moves. So the traditional understanding of biology is mechanic in that everything begins with the brain(first cog) which turns all the other cogs. It is seen as a completely blind process operating purely by the laws of causation and the random chance that all cogs just happen to be connected. The answer is that other arrangement of cogs died out by natural selection and best remained.
In the pranic model there are no cogs there is a vital energy that interconnects the entire system of the body for the the purpose of optimum functioning and maintains this balance by regulating and organizing everything in the body to maintain harmony with itself and with its enviroment. In other words with the pranic model has an a priori with body is already predisposed to working in a particular way that is optimum for the needs of a living organism. This changes our views radically of our body, rather than it being a blind machine as traditional biology models it, it is a dynamic, self organizing and intelligent system which is driven by purpose. So if there is purpose then it means there is a self-aware entity or controller of the body for which the body is an extension which meets its requirements. This is as far from a mechanic view as the ground is from the sky.
The Hindus have a scientific view of how the body works but not a mechanistic view. The higher self sends the command, the command is a vibration or frequency which vibrates the quantum field, this activity in the field creating the first unit thought energy(vrittis) The vrittis solidy into pranic energy and the pranic energy then become solid matter which aggregates into the 7 dhatus which make up the body. Those commands are caused by latent samskaras(karmas). So this is why we have psychosomatic disorders. The thinking patterns create samkaras the samkaras create karmas which create vrittis which create prana which create solid matter which create dhatus. At the pinnacle of this is the higher sef. This is the unconscious aspect of us that is guiding us towards the absolute.
Sorry, I used wrong term then. By mechanistic perception I mean a perception which can be broken down into elements and concepts and showed how those elements interact with each other. Sort of structure-dynamics description of the phenomena. Which is in fact the picture you just described. It has a structure, relation with other elements of reality, deterministic dynamics (since it is started by vibration of higher self - it is causal and temporal mechanism which is therefore deterministic in nature). I don’t see anything “intelligent” in it yet - rather that it is at “service” of the higher self.
That’s why I like mathematical description as language of physics. You investigate relationships between observables and elements of structures (or more abstract concepts like wave function in quantum mechanics – but sooner or later arriving to more tangible quantities). And in some sense you don’t have to worry about nature of the existence of those observables and objects. You observe that atom is composed out of 3 types of particles, ok. You characterize their properties and for some time you think that wow, this is the basic element of matter. Then someone proposes a theory that there are even more elemental ones and proposes an experiment to verify it. And so on.
It serves a practical purpose no doubt but it is a formalization of natural principles which do not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Some formalizations are just wrong like “gravitaional fieds” if gravity is not a field then how can there be such a thing as a gravitational field? In any the use of mathematical formalism seems to be a cultural pecularity of Western science. Hindu science is more observational, which is a cultural pecularity of Hindu science seeing as the observer is so central in it.
like models. But, since I am just ignorant westerner, of course I’m confused with it. So could you clarify a bit? Does it mean that prana is additional “geometrical” dimension of the world? (in the same way as time is an additional dimension to 3 dimensions of space?). I always thought that prana is more of substantial nature and exists in 4 dimensions (because it has distribution in the body and temporal changes over time). So for example if I want to write down coordinates of my pen I write (x,y,z,t,p)? (p would be a number corresponding with position in prana dimension?
No, this is the problem with using dimension because it presupposes geometry. Space and time end at the 3rd and fouth dimension, after that there is no more space and time. This is why Hindu science uses the plane scheme. The prana exists in the 5th plane of reality which corresponds to the quantum world. As as soon as it enters our fourth and 3rd plane of reality it has changed phase. It is longer quantum but physical.
Do you want to say that physical objects around me are created by the language in my head? I heard this before and was interested what does it actually mean. For example, if I would send something to someone without telling what it is, what the recipient would find? An object related to his/hers language or exactly the same physical object I send?
It is simplistic to say it is all language, because obvious brains decode information in a similar way and thus at a perceptual level everybody is going to get the same sensory data. However, they are likely to interpret it in a different way, for example if you give something like a watch to an animal, the first thing they are going to do is perhaps bite or lick it to see if it edible. If you look at the clouds different people will see different imagery based on their culture.
What is really creating your view of reality is divided into 5 categories in Hindu science: valid knowledge, fallacious knowledge, memories, imagination and sleep. All of this is vritti activity(mental activity) which is connected to your identications. So for example you may see a snake, but there is actually a rope. This is when two ideas become superimposed. So your perception here is vritti activity. Similarily all your perception is just vritti activity where your consciousness which is originally undifferentiated has split and developed egoism: me and not me which allows you to reference an “external” and reflect on it. This ability is largely missing in most animals because they don’t have developed egos. It is like putting a divide in a box so that it seems like there are two spaces in the box, when it there there is only one space.
This happens in dreams as welll something causes our reality to split during dreaming where we see a whole external world made out of things and then we see ourselves referencing it, but there is no such real world, it’s taking place in the mind. There can splits within splits(dreams within dreams) Likewise, what Vedatna is saying that all of reality is taking place within consciousness and there is a split that has taken place due to the thought of “I-am arising” and this I am begins to reference itself and creates an external perspective which it identifies with and then splits and splits and split, until there is a completey fragmented view of reality of several different names and forms.
We are doing it consciously all the time as well by creating new words, for example popular people and unpopular people, hot and cold, light and dark, good and bad and we soon forget and become enmeshed in these linguistic realities. The same happens in science it becomes enmeshed in theortical constructs and models and starts to think they are real entities; such as gravitational forces.
I think the best way to illustrate what Vedanta is driving at is to imagine a television. The television has many channels and each channel is on a distinct bandwidth and does not interfere with one another. However, many people can tune the same channel and see the same thing, but they cannot see the channel other people are watching. Likewise in this vast field of consciousness there are several frequency ranges and we share can these frequency ranges and see the same reality(intersubjective reality) This does not mean any of those are real, because they are just modifications of the same consciousness field.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32491]It serves a practical purpose no doubt but it is a formalization of natural principles which do not behave in an ideal mathematical way. Some formalizations are just wrong like “gravitaional fieds” if gravity is not a field then how can there be such a thing as a gravitational field? In any the use of mathematical formalism seems to be a cultural pecularity of Western science. Hindu science is more observational, which is a cultural pecularity of Hindu science seeing as the observer is so central in it. [/QUOTE]
True, lots of concepts are demonstrated to be incorrect. Gravitational field wasn?t the worst, because at least maths was correct. Force proportional to 1/square of distance is quite correct whenever you think it is field or invisible pixies. But principles of nature (if you mean by that laws of physics) are very precisely following mathematical description. I still remember calculations of the planetary orbits. If exponent (1/r^2) was something else than EXACTLY two, planetary orbits would be unstable - planets would either collapse or escape. It?s a bit freaky in fact…
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32491]No, this is the problem with using dimension because it presupposes geometry. Space and time end at the 3rd and fouth dimension, after that there is no more space and time. This is why Hindu science uses the plane scheme. The prana exists in the 5th plane of reality which corresponds to the quantum world. As as soon as it enters our fourth and 3rd plane of reality it has changed phase. It is longer quantum but physical. [/QUOTE]
Ok, so I believe term dimension is incorrect in this context. It has a specific meaning when applied in description of the world ? maybe ?plane? is better. So, if something exists in this plane, does it mean that it is not present in 4D of space-time? Does it violate energy conservation if it appears in 4D? Also, is this prana plane also dimensional or without such characteristics? E.g. if you would want to describe it, would you use e.g. prana density function such as p(d1,d2,…) where d1, d2 would correspond with sort of coordinates in this plane?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32491]I think the best way to illustrate what Vedanta is driving at is to imagine a television. The television has many channels and each channel is on a distinct bandwidth and does not interfere with one another. However, many people can tune the same channel and see the same thing, but they cannot see the channel other people are watching. Likewise in this vast field of consciousness there are several frequency ranges and we share can these frequency ranges and see the same reality(intersubjective reality) This does not mean any of those are real, because they are just modifications of the same consciousness field. [/QUOTE]
Hm… Now I?m thinking whether it applies more to perception/interpretation of reality than reality itself. Because physical reality has nasty property to be bit consistent in time. If someone has financial problems they would not go away when he wakes up (in any sense). TV can be switched off and all contents will disappear. But taxes and electricity bills wont… Whatever language I will use ? sooner or later I will be faced with exact numbers. Even in dreams if you want to read something again there is a different text. But bills show the same amount every time.
And this cloud example: if all people would make pictures of this cloud? Those pics would show pretty much the same cloud. So what is more relevant in description of the world: dependency of people’s interpretation on language or consistency of the reality when translated into physical measurements?
True, lots of concepts are demonstrated to be incorrect. Gravitational field wasn’t the worst, because at least maths was correct. Force proportional to 1/square of distance is quite correct whenever you think it is field or invisible pixies. But principles of nature (if you mean by that laws of physics) are very precisely following mathematical description. I still remember calculations of the planetary orbits. If exponent (1/r^2) was something else than EXACTLY two, planetary orbits would be unstable - planets would either collapse or escape. It’s a bit freaky in fact…
The mathematical equations work because they are set to work. The equation Gmm/r^2 to calculate gravitational field strength works based on Newton equations of motion. Even the constant G being used here is a mathematical fabrication. So how mathematical formalism works is to explain the empirical world by using math, and deriving facts about the empirical world, by deriving new equations from old equations. Allow me to explain through illustration
O | W
The observer is looking at the world and he notes a phenomena say gravity. It is valid so far because the observer is only saying what they see. However, then the observer makes an illegal move he conceptualizes the phenomenon and comes up with a theory to explain the phenomenon. He then formalizes this theory and creates equations to make predictions about how the phenomenon will behave. To his delight, the equations are working and he can use this knowledge for useful applications like building bridges. He then discovers his equations can be used to explain and predict other phenomena like electricity, magnetism, by just tweaking the old equations, calculating new constants. From this the observer develops a working model of the world.
Then one day the observer makes a new observation that does not seem to fit well into their model. The observer convinced of the validity of their model ignores the observation as an anamolie. Later, he makes more observations that again do not fit the model, so he tweaks the old equations and adds more variables to normalize the new observations. Then there comes a point when the new observations are so fundamentally contradicting the model, that the observer has no choice but to accept their model is wrong and discard it.
This is very much what has happened in the history of physics. Newtonian mechanics failed to give accurate predictions on objects travelling very fast, on microscopic objects and on calculating orbits of bodies in space. Then Einstein came to the rescue completely redrafted Newtons equations, added new variables(space-time) and made it work. This paradigm came to be known as classical physics. Then there came a point where new observations were made that were radically different and could not be explained using classical physics, leading it to be discarded and a whole new model created called quantum mechanics. This lead to completely opposite conclusions about about what was really happening: causal determinism was contradicted by uncertainty; locality was contradicted by non-locality and objectivity was contradicted by weak objectivity(where the observer played a role)
We still use classical physics today but only because it is useful. As far as our current model of physics QM we know it is wrong.
What the above shows us is that mathematicalism formalism is an invalid epistemology. It does not give us anymore knowledge about the empirical world, but rather gives us derivations of our own concepts about the world. So it is not real science. On the other hand, the Hindu scientific methods stick to the empirical world and do not say anything or infer anything which cannot be empirically or rationally demonstrated. All hindu logic consists of valid statements.
I mean you cannot deny for example that you would have no perception of reality if you had no consciousness. You cannot deny for example that everything you know about the empirical world is based on 5 perceptual categories. You cannot deny that there is something called mind and it is not an empirical object. You cannot deny that prior to your perception of an object an interaction takes place between you the observer and the object where your mind receives the sensible data and represents it. You cannot deny the law of cause and effect. You cannot deny that the “you” is something distinct from both your body and mind, because you are the one that knows the body and mind.
So Hindu science is all based on valid statements and facts. There is no speculation, conceptualization, faith and mathematical formalism.
So, if something exists in this plane, does it mean that it is not present in 4D of space-time? Does it violate energy conservation if it appears in 4D? Also, is this prana plane also dimensional or without such characteristics? E.g. if you would want to describe it, would you use e.g. prana density function such as p(d1,d2,…) where d1, d2 would correspond with sort of coordinates in this plane?
The best way to explain how this plane scheme works is to imagine a russian doll which contains dolls inside dolls. The outer most part of the doll contains all of the dolls, but the inner most doll contains no more dolls. So the inner is in the outer but the outer is not in the inner. Just as the mirage is a reflection of the oasis but the oasis is not a reflection of the mirage.
So all objects we see will exist in all planes at once, but the preceding plane will not exist in the proceeding plane. For example the plane in which mind exists is clearly not in the physical plane, otherwise we would be able to measure mind, see each others thoughts and feelings. However, all physical objects will have a representation in the preceeding plane. This is why thoughts also have a physical state.
Prana and other entities beyond the physical cannot of course be described with any kind of formalism because prana does not work in isolation, but it a mutual set of relationships with everything else in the universe. It is infinitely complex to measure and represent. I am afraid beyond the physical plane mathematics and physics end. The rest of science is purely observational in that it is based on the mental lab of the observer.
Hm… Now I’m thinking whether it applies more to perception/interpretation of reality than reality itself. Because physical reality has nasty property to be bit consistent in time. If someone has financial problems they would not go away when he wakes up (in any sense). TV can be switched off and all contents will disappear. But taxes and electricity bills wont… Whatever language I will use – sooner or later I will be faced with exact numbers. Even in dreams if you want to read something again there is a different text. But bills show the same amount every time.
The only difference between dream and waking is that time behaves very differenty. In dream it is very fast and in waking it is slow, but change is common to both. It may not seem like the paper, ink and numbers on yours bills have changed, but in fact there is change. The molecules in the paper and ink are slowly but surely decompsing, the paper will have decomposed in 500 years. There could be a freak accident and a micro wormhole opens and the paper vanishes. The numbers on your bill could change too if suppose there is a computer error which changes the number, if the company becomes bankrupt, or if somebody working at the company loves(lessens your bill) or hates you(increases your bill)
I know extremely unlikey but not impossibe. It may seem impossible that you could walk through a wall, but there is a possibility in quantum physics that if the atoms in the wall became aligned in a certain way, you could pass right through. The truth is there nothing which is substantial in the world, the notion that it has substance is a perceptual error. It’s just as unreal as your dream is. However, as this perceptual error has relative stability we can expect some level of consistency such as the numbers on our bill remaining the same, but it is not certain it will remain consistent.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32606] What the above shows us is that mathematicalism formalism is an invalid epistemology. It does not give us anymore knowledge about the empirical world, but rather gives us derivations of our own concepts about the world. So it is not real science. On the other hand, the Hindu scientific methods stick to the empirical world and do not say anything or infer anything which cannot be empirically or rationally demonstrated. All hindu logic consists of valid statements. [/QUOTE]
Well, you can look at that like that. I personally look at it from different perspective: as getting closer to the truth (or at least obtaining more accurate model). Newtonian mechanics was not falsified by theory of relativity. It rather showed that it was a SPECIAL case of more GENERAL theory. For very low velocities theory of relativity will reduce to Newtonian mechanics. So since in Newton times people didn?t have technology and knowledge to found those ?anomalies? they didn?t change theory. Later on they found, so new, more broader theory was developed (in pain and confusion of course). So instead of chain of errors I see rather that theories get more and more closer to the reality we observe. Because it is true that more advanced theories predict and model reality in more accurate fashion ? there is no doubt about that. And it means something ? that despite the errors there is something very important about the ability of mathematics do describe properties of the observed universe. So for me rejecting the observation that gravitational masses attract with force proportional to 1/r^2 (and predict from obtained equations trajectories of planets, comets etc.) just because it is just conceptualization of reality would be a mistake overlooking something very profound. Also science is clear about field of its competence. No one in right mind is claiming that science can explain nature of the existence ? this is not subject of science.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32606] Prana and other entities beyond the physical cannot of course be described with any kind of formalism because prana does not work in isolation, but it a mutual set of relationships with everything else in the universe. It is infinitely complex to measure and represent. I am afraid beyond the physical plane mathematics and physics end. The rest of science is purely observational in that it is based on the mental lab of the observer. [/QUOTE]
Mathematical formalism can describe sets of relationships ? it is not limited just to isolated objects (e.g. statistical physics, I?m sometimes surprised how accurate and advanced predictions you can obtain knowing only few facts about interactions between elements). However, if you can sense prana: is prana in your body geometrically related to your body? Do chakras have specific location in your body? If yes, they are in geometrical relation with your physical body and this relationship can be described in geometrical terms. Also, if prana activity changes over time, it has a temporal characteristic and properties of those temporal changes can be combined with geometrical properties to give first approximations of prana dynamics. Unless prana and chakras are just concepts which have no consistent representation in reality.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32606] The only difference between dream and waking is that time behaves very differenty. In dream it is very fast and in waking it is slow, but change is common to both. It may not seem like the paper, ink and numbers on yours bills have changed, but in fact there is change. The molecules in the paper and ink are slowly but surely decompsing, the paper will have decomposed in 500 years. There could be a freak accident and a micro wormhole opens and the paper vanishes. The numbers on your bill could change too if suppose there is a computer error which changes the number, if the company becomes bankrupt, or if somebody working at the company loves(lessens your bill) or hates you(increases your bill)
I know extremely unlikey but not impossibe. It may seem impossible that you could walk through a wall, but there is a possibility in quantum physics that if the atoms in the wall became aligned in a certain way, you could pass right through. The truth is there nothing which is substantial in the world, the notion that it has substance is a perceptual error. It’s just as unreal as your dream is. However, as this perceptual error has relative stability we can expect some level of consistency such as the numbers on our bill remaining the same, but it is not certain it will remain consistent. [/QUOTE]
There are plenty of other, very serious differences between waking reality and dream. In dream you can modify content at will (or at least in a reaction to the contents of a dream). I waking reality you can?t change physical laws and make something disappear only because you are scared or recalled something funny from last day. Also, content of the waking reality has physical properties which can be observed and verified by more than one person. I can?t communicate in dream with anyone from waking reality so can?t check how it would go in a dream ? but I would expect that since contents are changing tom me (consecutive observations) they would also change if someone else would watch. Waking reality follows set of strict physical rules. World in a dream doesn?t have this property ? objects appear and disappear, whole worlds change in a second, there is no conservation of anything extending beyond one scene of a dream (and if you look closely you see that things grow and change within period of single scene). If there would be some gradual change of physical laws, or if dreams could be described by other set of laws then I would accept that waking state and dream are two facets of the same phenomena. But since in one hand I have sometimes annoying clockwork of waking reality and in other total lack of laws governing substances in dreams (and sometimes obvious connection with my emotional state and wishes), I?m concluding that there are different things. Putting equality between such different phenomena is illogical for me. Or at least not supported by experience.
So instead of chain of errors I see rather that theories get more and more closer to the reality we observe. Because it is true that more advanced theories predict and model reality in more accurate fashion – there is no doubt about that.
The historical view of science is a common misconception which was debunked by Thomas Kuhn with his philosophy of incommensurability. Even I held onto this misconception the first time came I across it and vehemently defended the historical view. To say that science is getting closer to the truth presupposes that each preeceding theory is commensurabe with one another and the proceeding theory is simply a more accurate version. This is a rather romantic view of reality and unfortunately it is not real. Newton did not just advance on Aristotle’s physics, he completely did away with it and created a new theory of mechanics based on gravitation, mass and forces. In like manner, Einstein did not just advance on Newton’s physics, he did away with it and and created a whole theory of mechanics based on space-time geometry which would have been unrecogniable to Newton as much as Newton’s theory would have been unrecognizabe to Aristotle. Finally quantum mechanics does not advance on Einstein in fact it completely gets rid of space-time geometry and creates a whole new mechanics based on wavefunctions, which was just as unrecognizable to Einstein and hence why he hated it.
The romantic view that Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger would stand on each others shoulders is not real. In reality they would be pulling each other down 
Rather than a neat progression, Kuhn shows there are entire shifts in perspectives which he calls a gestalt switch which happen all of a sudden and completely transform our understanding of the world.
The common mistake made by Aristotle, Newton, Einstein and Schrodinger is that they base their theories only on the observable universe. To Aristotle it made perfect sense an object will only move if you push it and that the speed it moves at it is inversely proportional to the density of the medium as it is so clear that an object travels slower in liquid than in air. To Newton it made perfect sense that objects fell due to the force of gravity and had weight due to gravity and from this he could develop his methods of calculus to calculate the trajectory of an object and the orbits of bodies in space. To Einstein it made perfect sense that all objects had their own frame of reference in space-time, so the frame-of-reference of a particle travelling close to the speed of light, was different to the frame-of-reference of an everyday object travelling at low velocities. In all cases theories are derived from whatever is observable, but what they do not realise it is a perceptual error. The first scientists to realise this is Bohr and Heisenberg. That is, that our entire observable world is only true insofar as we perceive it as such.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the most honest admittance modern science has ever made about its ability to know the truth. It cannot. Instead it has simply revealed just how ignorant we are about our world and how it works. We are no more wiser about this than we were 300 years ago.
The reason for this is because of our fatally flawed epistemology and methods.
I have critically compared and contrasted Hindu science with Western science, and found Hindu science to be superior and its explanations of the world empirically and logicaly sound with no problems in explaining any phenomena physical, mental or spiritual. Western science fails on all three counts.
Here is what I recommend based on the strengths in Hindu science that Western science needs to adopt.
-
It needs to put the observer in a central position. I mean lets face it there is no science in the first place without an observer.
-
It needs to develop rational methods to investigate empirical phenomena. In other words it needs a scientific method on how to reason(currently it is pure conjecture) The study of the vast school of Hindu logic will help develop such methods.
-
It needs to accept meditation as a valid research method in order to explore the unobservable world within the observer itself
-
It needs a consistent scientific ethic whereby it will reject a hypothesis if the empirical data contradicts it, rather than ignore the data(pretend it does not exist) and normalize the data(make it fit by modifying the data) There are thousands of scientific studies done in the paranormal sciences which have produced very positive results, but just because current theories cannot explain them, they are discarded or paranormal researchers are accused of fraud or improper scientific methods.
At the moment science is in a very bad health. It has been taken over by economic and political bodies(feudalized) and now scientists work not out of the love to know the truth about the world, but work to push economic and political agendas. The only reason materialism is still here despite the fact it suffered a fatal blow in 1920, and since has suffered one blow after the other, is because materialism is in the political and economic interests of the authorities. They have deliberately prevented research into quantum technologies because they want us to rely on old technologies so we remain dependent on them. Who needs to rely on fossil fuels when we can simply tap the quantum vacuum and get a limitless supply of energy.
Mathematical formalism can describe sets of relationships – it is not limited just to isolated objects (e.g. statistical physics, I’m sometimes surprised how accurate and advanced predictions you can obtain knowing only few facts about interactions between elements). However, if you can sense prana: is prana in your body geometrically related to your body? Do chakras have specific location in your body? If yes, they are in geometrical relation with your physical body and this relationship can be described in geometrical terms. Also, if prana activity changes over time, it has a temporal characteristic and properties of those temporal changes can be combined with geometrical properties to give first approximations of prana dynamics. Unless prana and chakras are just concepts which have no consistent representation in reality.
It can describe a set of relationships within the observable world based on variables we can measure. However, we cannot explain something which is in relation with everything in the universe at once and based on infinite variables. This is why mathematics works on the basis of space-time, it cannot work for something which is not in space-time. Prana and chakras(which are just pranic plexuses) have no location within space and time because they are rather a dynamic of energy interaction between an observer and the observed and the resultant of that dynamic exchange is space-time. So there is only one way to empirically know pranas and chakras and that is through a phenomenological scientific method i.e, you directly experience it. Pranic flows can be felt as surges of energy through your body. You can measure the effects of this by measuring physical indices, but you will not be able to measure the prana itself.
If there is a mathematics that will be able to formalize pranas it will be based on some kind of frequency dynamics of sound. There is a provision for this in Tantric Hinduism where form is directly correlated to sound and very elaborate yantras are drawn which corresponds to the form that is mentally experienced by meditating on a particular sound(such as om) Recall, the Hindu theory is ultimately all form is just guna vibrations within the consciousness field. I am not sure how the mathematics of this works and whether it is possible to have an ultimate mathematical equation to explain these dynamics. String theory seems to be heading in this direction, and what is very interesting string theory makes heavy use of a Hindu mathmatical genius, who received his mathematical equations in dreams!
Read about him here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15270043/Ramanujan-by-Michio-Kaku
Now that is very interesting all of the special numbers 8, 10 and 24 are sets used in Samkhya(Hindu quantum physics) where 24 is a set comprising of the number of evolutes in the known universe. Some modern Samkhya philosophers suspect some hidden mathematcs in the Samkhya philosophy.
I am not a mathmatician so I can’t get my head around anything that involves numbers! This is why I am first and foremost a philosopher. I studied physics of course, but I did not want not become a physicist, because I prefer the theory of physics to the actual practice of it. It is too mathematical for me to relate to.
If there would be some gradual change of physical laws, or if dreams could be described by other set of laws then I would accept that waking state and dream are two facets of the same phenomena. But since in one hand I have sometimes annoying clockwork of waking reality and in other total lack of laws governing substances in dreams (and sometimes obvious connection with my emotional state and wishes), I’m concluding that there are different things. Putting equality between such different phenomena is illogical for me. Or at least not supported by experience.
The difference is mainly in magntitude, not in quality.
In the waking you can modify content with your thoughts. It is very clear the observer have some effect on matter, which maybe rather weak, but it is still present. There are tons of studies done in parapsychology which affirm this, by institutes like Stanford, Harvard etc. We need not even look at parapsychology, we can simply look at psychosomatic disorders where the thoughts of the subject can manifest physically.
Matter does respond to mind. They are always interacting with each other.
In the waking you can in fact modify the so-called physical laws. Like I said it is possible to walk through a wall, it is also possible to teleport objects or yourself from one place to the other, it is possible to go back and forward in time, it is possible to levitate and fly. None of these possibilities are ruled out in quantum physics and many of these can be achieived using quantum technologies. Quantum teleportation and levitation is already possible, and it’s only a matter of time before it can be done with maco-objects.
Quantum physiscs does not deal with laws of space-time(thats classical physics) it deals only with possibilities. Yoga is absolutely categorical that Yogis can do do all these feats(telelport, levitate, go back and forward in time) and the literature contains tons of stories of yogis who could do this. How they can do this, described in the Yogasutras, is identical to how quantum physics does it(the mechanics of it) For example in order to levitate Yoga says that one must perform samayama(perfect mental control) on udana vayu(upwards flowing prana) which is a quantum force this causes the body to rise. In order to teleport one perform samayama on akasha and their position within it, via which they gain enter into the quantum channels(of the akasha) and can travel using them into any known location in space.
There is no smoke without fire. Yoga is describing more or less exactly the correct mechanics of how to use pranic science.
In dream you can in fact have intersubjective reality and you can indeed describe its properties. Have you not just describes the properties of dream to me(time is fast, things change based on your thoughts and feelings, there are no space-time restrictions, objects can appear dissappear suddenly) As dream is a phenomenological phenomenon(not physical) we need to look at phenomenological data. Having dreams where you meet other people is rather common, and sometimes people remember the same dreams. People who have out of body and near death experiences describe the reality they encounter has remarkably similar characteristics, like they are describing the same place. It is possible to travel around in the physical whilst in your subtle body. None of this would have been possible if the dream reality did not in fact have objective properties. So the dream world and the waking world are just as real and unreal as each other. The only difference is in magnitude.
In Hindu logic this is rather obvious you are accesing two different planes of reality. In the waking level of consciousness you are accessing the physical plane and in the dream level of consciousness you are accessing the mental plane. You do not own the physical plane right? So why should you own the mental plane? Again the fact that we think we have a private world where our thoughts, desires, memories feelings reside and are outside of the access of others is a perceptual error. If you go into the mental plane your thoughts, desires and feelings can be read like a book.
I am not a mathmatician so I can’t get my head around anything that involves numbers! This is why I am first and foremost a philosopher. I studied physics of course, but I did not want not become a physicist, because I prefer the theory of physics to the actual practice of it. It is too mathematical for me to relate to.
I get it, of course! It’s all just talk. Sorry for the cynicism, but I like practical applications. To me thats the difference between philosophy and science. In philosophy, you can talk all you want, but talk is cheap. In science you have to back up your words with results.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32294]
Medicine:
The Suśrutasamhitā is notable for describing procedures on various forms of surgery, including rhinoplasty, the repair of torn ear lobes, perineal lithotomy, cataract surgery, and several other excisions and other surgical procedures. Most remarkable is Sushruta’s penchant for scientific classification: His medical treatise consists of 184 chapters, 1,120 conditions are listed, including injuries and illnesses relating to ageing and mental illness. The Sushruta Samhita describe 125 surgical instrument, 300 surgical procedures and classifies human surgery in 8 categories [4]
Ironically, procedures used in modern plastic surgery are based Sushruta’s techniques
[/QUOTE]
Can you please be more specific about the time period you are referring to here. Surely you are not attributing this work of medicine to the Indus Valley culture. One of the arguments used against the Aryan invasion theory is that the Aryans did not possess weapons of iron, as had been asserted by the AIT proponents. So this work of Sushruta raises lots questions:
[ul]
[li]What materials were used for surgical instruments and what was the method of manufacture?
[/li][li]What did they use for anesthesia and how was it administered?
[/li][li]How were they able to control infections?
[/li][li]Were these surgeries performed in daylight?, candle light ?
[/li][li]What were the methods of diagnosis?
[/li][li]What was the rate of success?
[/li][li]How were physicians trained?
[/li][/ul]
How do you reconcile this great work of medicine with the work of Mother Theresa, whose mission was to help people who were left to die in the street?
In the order you asked the questions:
- The instruments were made out of metal and wood.
- They used certain intoxicating herbs for the anesthetsia
- The instruments were sterlized and the wounds treated with medicated herbs
and bandaged. Hygiene was a top priority. - I don’t know.
- The methods of diagnosis was based on very keen observation, identifying the symptoms and then diagnosing the ailment based on an existing database of diseases. In some cases the diagnosis would be obvious such as treating people with wounds, amputated limbs.
- The surgeries were very succesfull. They continued to be practiced in India for thousands of years, and then spread to the Middle East and Europe. Sushruta was particularly renowned for reparing noses. His techniques are used in modern surgery.
- They were trained in special medical schools and had to get 7 years training. They
also practiced surgery on dummies and dead bodies.
As AIT is false and we know the Aryans were in India long before, the revised dates would put Sushruta in the late IVC phase between 2000BCE-1500BCE. There is evidence now there was iron working in the subcontinent during this phase.
Sushruta has pointed out that haemorrhage can be arrested by apposition of the cut edges with stitches, application of styptic decoctions, by cauterisation with chemicals or heat. That the progress of surgery and its development is closely associated with the great wars of the past is well known. The vrana or injury, says Sushruta, involves breakdown of body-components and may have one or more of the following seats for occurrence, viz., skin, flesh, blood-vessels, sinews, bones, joints, internal organs of chest and abdomen and vital structures. Classically vrana, the wound, is the ultimate explosion of the underlying pathological structure. It is, in Sushruta's words, the sixth stage of a continuous process, which starts with sotha (inflammation). Sushruta says that in the first stage, the ulcer is unclean and hence called a dusta-vrana. By proper management it becomes a clean wound, a suddha-vrana. Then there is an attempt at healing and is called ruhyamana-vrana and when the ulcer is completely healed, it is a rudha-vrana. Sushruta has advocated the use of wine with incense of cannabis for anaesthesia.[3] Although the use of henbane and of Sammohini and Sanjivani are reported at a later period, Sushruta was the pioneer of anaesthesia.
Sushruta describes eight types of surgical procedures: Excision (chedana) is a procedure whereby a part or whole of the limb is cut off from the parent. Incision (bhedana) is made to achieve effective drainage or exposure of underlying structures to let the content out. Scraping (lekhana) or scooping is carried out to remove a growth or flesh of an ulcer, tartar of teeth, etc. the veins, hydrocele and ascitic fluid in the abdomen are drained by puncturing with special instrument (vyadhana). The sinuses and cavities with foreign bodies are probed (esana) for establishing their size, site, number, shape, position, situation, etc. Sravana (blood-letting) is to be carried out in skin diseases, vidradhis, localised swelling, etc. in case of accidental injuries and in intentional incisions, the lips of the wound are apposed and united by stitching (svana).
To obtain proficiency and acquiring skill and speed in these different types of surgical manipulations, Sushruta had devised various experimental modules for trying each procedure. For example, incision and excision are to be practised on vegetables and leather bags filled with mud of different densities; scraping on hairy skin of animals; puncturing on the vein of dead animals and lotus stalks; probing on moth-eaten wood or bamboo; scarification on wooden planks smeared with beeswax, etc. On the subject of trauma, Sushruta speaks of six varieties of accidental injuries encompassing almost all parts of the body.
[QUOTE=Asuri;32634]How do you reconcile this great work of medicine with the work of Mother Theresa, whose mission was to help people who were left to die in the street?[/QUOTE]
What is there to reconcile? It is a different time period. Ancient India was more prosperous than modern India. The British did a right job on India.
As I said, you have a problem with credibility,as it is a long way from not possessing iron weapons to having the ability to make surgical instruments. This is not to denigrate Sushruta’s work as it really is quite old, but still primitive by today’s standards. While it’s true that the Indian “sciences” may have been more advanced than the west in their time, they never produced anything like what we have today. So if they had the seeds of this great science, what prevented it from developing further?
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32676] The historical view of science is a common misconception which was debunked by Thomas Kuhn with his philosophy of incommensurability. Even I held onto this misconception the first time came I across it and vehemently defended the historical view. To say that science is getting closer to the truth presupposes that each preeceding theory is commensurabe with one another and the proceeding theory is simply a more accurate version. This is a rather romantic view of reality and unfortunately it is not real. Newton did not just advance on Aristotle’s physics, he completely did away with it and created a new theory of mechanics based on gravitation, mass and forces. In like manner, Einstein did not just advance on Newton’s physics, he did away with it and and created a whole theory of mechanics based on space-time geometry which would have been unrecogniable to Newton as much as Newton’s theory would have been unrecognizabe to Aristotle. Finally quantum mechanics does not advance on Einstein in fact it completely gets rid of space-time geometry and creates a whole new mechanics based on wavefunctions, which was just as unrecognizable to Einstein and hence why he hated it. [/QUOTE]
Ok, now I understand better how you see it. However, I find it absolutely not supported in reality. I remember that during studies each lecture on some area of physics was concluded by demonstration how under specific conditions this theory is reduced to less advanced or links with different perspective. How relativistic theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics when velocity is very small. How quantum mechanics generates classical physics after decoherence. How statistical physics is equivalent with thermodynamics. I went through all equations and once I saw how it goes, I really don?t see how this perspective that those theories are contradictory is valid (except Aristote physics ? sometimes he didn?t bother to perform measurements so his theories are rather speculative and intuitive and contain errors). When there is a period of emergence of new paradigm of course there is a lot of confusion and conflicts. But when dust settles one can see that there was no need to fight ? that new theory is just more deep and general approach. As a proof, I can tell you that when engineers construct bridges, they use Newtonian mechanics. They don?t use general theory of relativity or Schroedinger equation (e.g. to take possibility of teleportation into account). And no one is accusing them that they use invalid physics. Development of science is not a line, rather steps with emergences of new paradigms, but new paradigms are not overthrowing old ones. Earth and Sun attract each other with force GMm/r^2 and there is no revolution that will change this observation. So, if I know maths showing correspondence between theories I just don?t see how can this view of conflict between theories is true.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32676] Prana and chakras(which are just pranic plexuses) have no location within space and time because they are rather a dynamic of energy interaction between an observer and the observed and the resultant of that dynamic exchange is space-time. So there is only one way to empirically know pranas and chakras and that is through a phenomenological scientific method i.e, you directly experience it. Pranic flows can be felt as surges of energy through your body. You can measure the effects of this by measuring physical indices, but you will not be able to measure the prana itself. [/QUOTE]
Its a bit contradictory. Once you say that Prana and chakras have no location within space and time and later on that pranic flows can be felt as surges of energy through the body. Do you mean that what you feel is not prana itself but rather its effect on the body? Then, how can you claim that prana is known through phenomenological scientific method - direct experience? If you experience surges of energy then you should say that surges of energy are your experience, not prana that has no relation to space and time. And that you experience something that IS related to space and time (since you feel it in e.g. in your belly especially intensively during given practice).
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32676] In dream you can in fact have intersubjective reality and you can indeed describe its properties. Have you not just describes the properties of dream to me(time is fast, things change based on your thoughts and feelings, there are no space-time restrictions, objects can appear dissappear suddenly) As dream is a phenomenological phenomenon(not physical) we need to look at phenomenological data. Having dreams where you meet other people is rather common, and sometimes people remember the same dreams. People who have out of body and near death experiences describe the reality they encounter has remarkably similar characteristics, like they are describing the same place. It is possible to travel around in the physical whilst in your subtle body. None of this would have been possible if the dream reality did not in fact have objective properties. So the dream world and the waking world are just as real and unreal as each other. The only difference is in magnitude. [/QUOTE]
Those observations of the dream world rather show that there are no fixed properties, no consistent laws which would work independently of observer (such as laws of waking reality ? stars in other galaxies follow specific laws whenever someone is watching or not, and it can be checked and their position verified anytime). Laws of the dream world shows a clear dependency on psychological state of the dreaming person. This is something UNIQUELY different from waking reality.
Also, people reporting near death experience do not describe the same place. Some see Jesus, others old granpa, angels or light. Some are in beautiful garden and some go through stages of hell. And sometimes god says things strangely similar to contemporary view on religion and spirituality ? with all silly antagonisms and rebellion betraying subconscious projection. There are underlying similarities but their experience is not the same.
Also, talking about out of body experience I didn?t encounter report about changing contents of the reality at will. Someone flying to neighbour house and turning on alarm for example.
I think they may be different experiences ? dreaming, near death experience and out of body experience.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32676] They have deliberately prevented research into quantum technologies because they want us to rely on old technologies so we remain dependent on them. Who needs to rely on fossil fuels when we can simply tap the quantum vacuum and get a limitless supply of energy. [/QUOTE]
Do you know any experiments showing this tapping to limitless supply of energy of quantum vacuum? I haven?t heard about those and it sounds interesting (especially since you said ?simply tap? so it doesn?t sound difficult).
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;32676] Quantum physiscs does not deal with laws of space-time(thats classical physics) it deals only with possibilities. [/QUOTE]
Just for the record and clarification ? quantum physics deals with laws of space and time. Schroedinger (or even better, the relativistic versions) are defined in space-time domain and describe observations obtained in space-time.
As a proof, I can tell you that when engineers construct bridges, they use Newtonian mechanics. They don?t use general theory of relativity or Schroedinger equation (e.g. to take possibility of teleportation into account). And no one is accusing them that they use invalid physics. Development of science is not a line, rather steps with emergences of new paradigms, but new paradigms are not overthrowing old ones. Earth and Sun attract each other with force GMm/r^2 and there is no revolution that will change this observation. So, if I know maths showing correspondence between theories I just don?t see how can this view of conflict between theories is true.
General relativity reduces to special relativity only when we do not consider relavistic variables. The relavistic effects of objects travelling at low velocities are so neglibile that one can get away with using Newtonian mechanics, but this does not mean the theory of Newtonian mechanics is right that the world is made out of objects with forces acting on them. In fact according to general relativity the theory is completely wrong because gravity is not a force but a distortion in space-time. Similarly, after decoherence one can use classical physics and model the world as being made up of atoms with electrons, protons and neutrons(which in turn consist of quarks) but this does not mean the theory is correct that the world is made out of atoms with electrons, protons and neutrons. In fact according to quantum mechanics it is completely wrong it is wavefunctions and there is no separability.
There are not several truths. It is not possible for Newtonian physics to be right and general relativity to be right as well. General relativity is obviously a more universal theory than newtonian mechanics. Likewise it is not possible for both general relativity to be right and quantum mechanics to be right, quantum mechanics is obviously a more universal theory than general relativity.
The best theory is the theory that can explain all previous observations and new observations. Newtonian mechanics failed to explain new observations so general relativity was developed to explain it. Then general relativity failed to explain the new observations made at the subatomic level, so quantum mechanics was developed to explain it.
Quantum mechanics radically changes our conception of reality in a way that would have sounded like magic and witchcraft to Newton. The fact that particles are mysteriously communicating with each other across galaxies, and energy can be pulled out of empty space, objects can be teleportated and levitated and we could walk through walls using mysterious forces is sheer witchcraft.
However quantum physics is clearly not the best theory because it cannot explain how and why the observer should collapse the wavefunction and how the waves gain their mass and stability. This can be explained by Hindu science with its guna theory. Then a whole new mental physics will be born and forget witchcraft, then there will be magic.
Its a bit contradictory. Once you say that Prana and chakras have no location within space and time and later on that pranic flows can be felt as surges of energy through the body. Do you mean that what you feel is not prana itself but rather its effect on the body? Then, how can you claim that prana is known through phenomenological scientific method - direct experience? If you experience surges of energy then you should say that surges of energy are your experience, not prana that has no relation to space and time. And that you experience something that IS related to space and time (since you feel it in e.g. in your belly especially intensively during given practice).
Simple, I direct my consciousness to any area of the body I want. So what is travelling there? It is prana. You will be able to see the prana and chakras as well the more adept you become at Yoga. The flow of the blood, the electricity passing through the nerves are all effects of pranic flows. The fact of the matter is you this takes place only after you send the intention. This intentional impulse is the prana. The intention arises in your mind which is either conscious, subconscious or unconscious and they regulate your entire body.
However, I can categorically say the prana is not in space and time so it cannot be measured.
Those observations of the dream world rather show that there are no fixed properties, no consistent laws which would work independently of observer (such as laws of waking reality ? stars in other galaxies follow specific laws whenever someone is watching or not, and it can be checked and their position verified anytime). Laws of the dream world shows a clear dependency on psychological state of the dreaming person. This is something UNIQUELY different from waking reality.
Like I said the difference is only in magnitude and this magnitude is due to perception. So the stars do seem like they are fixed, but we know that nothing is actually fixed but is in incessant motion. The earth seems like it is fixed and flat but actually it is a spinning sphere hurtling through space at 70,000 miles per hour. So surely our perception is very unreliable and gives us a wrong image of how things are. We know for a fact today nothing in the universe is separate and in isolation but connected by quantum channels, but we cannot see it right?
So the dream world is no different. Just as the physical world is not solid but incessant motion. So is dream. The only difference is the rate of change in dream is much faster than it is waking.
Likewise, just as the dream world responds to mind, so does the physical world. However, again the magnitude is different.
Also, people reporting near death experience do not describe the same place. Some see Jesus, others old granpa, angels or light. Some are in beautiful garden and some go through stages of hell. And sometimes god says things strangely similar to contemporary view on religion and spirituality ? with all silly antagonisms and rebellion betraying subconscious projection. There are underlying similarities but their experience is not the same.
Yes, definitely it is subconscious projection. It is the mental plane and that reality has both subjective and objective properties. In fact so does the physical plane, nobody has exactly the same experiences, and again the difference is in magnitude only. In scientific studies on near death experiences many similarities have been found in cross-cultural studies:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research10.html
So once again there is no valid reason to say the waking is different from dream. The properties of dream and waking are the same, the only difference is in magnitude.
Do you know any experiments showing this tapping to limitless supply of energy of quantum vacuum? I haven?t heard about those and it sounds interesting (especially since you said ?simply tap? so it doesn?t sound difficult).
It is not really a theoretical issue right now but a technological one. When will we develop the technology to tap the energy from the quantum vacuum which is potentially infinite. This is the birth of pranic science for modern times.