Of all the things the mind can perceive, that enable us to decide what is and what isn't. If it isn't, isn't it real? What is reality? how do we understand it? What is consciousness, our ability to be aware? This is an effort to collect some information I have stumbled upon in my amazing voyage of discovery. This is a blog about the Vedas and the String theory, the observer and the observed, the phenomenon and perception and finally about the amazing masters who saw it and their teachings.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Amazing series of documentary movies investigating the nature of reality

All 4 parts of the film can be found at www.innerworldsmovie.com
Music from the film can be found at http://www.spiritlegend.com
Sacred geometry posters and products can be found at: http://www.zazzle.com/awakentheworld

Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds – Part 1: Akasha (2012)
Part one of the film Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds. Akasha is the unmanifested, the "nothing" or emptiness which fills the vacuum of space. As Einstein realized, empty space is not really empty. Saints, sages and yogis who have looked within themselves have also realized that within the emptiness is unfathomable power, a web of information or energy which connects all things. This matrix or web has been called the Logos, the Higgs Field, the Primordial OM and a thousand other names throughout history. In part one of Inner Worlds, we explore the one vibratory source that extends through all things, through the science of cymatics, the concept of the Logos, and the Vedic concept of Nada Brahma (the universe is sound or vibration). Once we realize that there is one vibratory source that is the root of all scientific and spiritual investigation, how can we say "my religion", "my God" or "my discovery".

Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds – Part 2: The Spiral (2012)
The Pythagorian philosopher Plato hinted enigmatically that there was a golden key that unified all of the mysteries of the universe. The golden key is the intelligence of the logos, the source of the primordial om. One could say that it is the mind of God. The source of this divine symmetry is the greatest mystery of our existence. Many of history's monumental thinkers such as Pythagoras, Keppler, Leonardo da Vinci, Tesla and Einstein have come to the threshold the mystery. Every scientist who looks deeply into the universe and every mystic who looks deeply within the self, eventually comes face to face with the same thing: The Primordial Spiral.


Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds – Part 3: The Serpent and the Lotus (2012) 
The primordial spiral is the manifested world, while Akasha is the unmanifested, or emptiness itself. All of reality is an interplay between these two things; Yang and Yin, or consciousness and matter. The spiral has often been represented by the snake, the downward current, while the bird or blooming lotus flower has represented the upward current or transcendence.The ancient traditions taught that a human being can become a bridge extending from the outer to the inner, from gross to subtle, from the lower chakras to the higher chakras. To balance the inner and the outer is what the Buddha called the middle way, or what Aristotle called the Golden Mean. You can be that bridge. The full awakening of human consciousness and energy is the birthright of every individual on the planet. In today's society we have lost the balance between the inner and the outer. We are so distracted by the outer world of form, thoughts and ideas, that we no longer take time to connect to our inner worlds, the kingdom of heaven that is within

 Inner Worlds, Outer Worlds – Part 4: Beyond Thinking (2012) 
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We live our lives pursuing happiness "out there" as if it is a commodity. We have become slaves to our own desires and craving.
Happiness isn't something that can be pursued or purchased like a cheap suit. This is Maya, illusion, the endless play of form. In the Buddhist tradition, Samsara, or the endless cycle of suffering is perpetuated by the craving of pleasure and aversion to pain. Freud referred to this as the "pleasure principle." Everything we do is an attempt to create pleasure, to gain something that we want, or to push away something that is undesirable that we don't want. Even a simple organism like the paramecium does this.
It is called response to stimulus. Unlike a paramecium, humans have more choice. We are free to think, and that is the heart of the problem. It is the thinking about what we want that has gotten out of control.The dilemma of modern society is that we seek to understand the world, not in terms of archaic inner consciousness, but by quantifying and qualifying what we perceive to be the external world by using scientific means and thought. Thinking has only led to more thinking and more questions. We seek to know the innermost forces which create the world and guide its course. But we conceive of this essence as outside of ourselves, not as a living thing, intrinsic to our own nature. It was the famous psychiatrist Carl Jung who said, "one who looks outside dreams, one who looks inside awakes." It is not wrong to desire to be awake, to be happy. What is wrong is to look for happiness outside when it can only be found inside.


Read more...

Letting go of attachment

http://tinybuddha.com/

“Most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities.” ~Dalai Lama


If there’s one thing we all have in common it’s that we want to feel happy; and on the other side of that coin, we want to avoid hurting. Yet we consistently put ourselves in situations that set us up for pain.

We pin our happiness to people, circumstances, and things and hold onto them for dear life. We stress about the possibility of losing them when something seems amiss. Then we melt into grief when something changes—a lay off, a break up, a transfer.

We attach to feelings as if they define us, and ironically, not just positive ones. If you’ve wallowed in regret or disappointment for years, it can seem safe and even comforting to suffer.

In trying to hold on to what’s familiar, we limit our ability to experience joy in the present. A moment can’t possibly radiate fully when you’re suffocating it in fear.

When you stop trying to grasp, own, and control the world around you, you give it the freedom to fulfill you without the power to destroy you. That’s why letting go is so important: letting go is letting happiness in.

It’s no simple undertaking to let go of attachment—not a one-time decision, like pulling off a band-aid. Instead, it’s a day-to-day, moment-to-moment commitment that involves changing the way you experience and interact with everything you instinctively want to grasp.

The best approach is to start simple, at the beginning, and work your way to Zen.

Experiencing Without Attachment

Accept the moment for what it is. Don’t try to turn it into yesterday; that moment’s gone. Don’t plot about how you can make the moment last forever. Just seep into the moment and enjoy it because it will eventually pass. Nothing is permanent. Fighting that reality will only cause you pain.

Believe now is enough. It’s true—tomorrow may not look the same as today, no matter how much you try to control it. A relationship might end. You might have to move. You’ll deal with those moments when they come. All you need right now is to appreciate and enjoy what you have. It’s enough.

Call yourself out. Learn what it looks like to grasp at people, things, or circumstances so you can redirect your thoughts when they veer toward attachment. When you dwell on keeping, controlling, manipulating, or losing something instead of simply experiencing it.

Define yourself in fluid terms. We are all constantly evolving and growing. Define yourself in terms that can withstand change. Defining yourself by possessions, roles, and relationships breeds attachment because loss entails losing not just what you have, but also who you are.

Enjoy now fully. No matter how much time you have in an experience or with someone you love, it will never feel like enough. So don’t think about it in terms of quantity—aim for quality, instead. Attach to the idea of living well moment-to-moment. That’s an attachment that can do you no harm.

Letting Go of Attachment to People

Friend yourself. It will be harder to let people go when necessary if you depend on them for your sense of worth. Believe you’re worthy whether someone else tells you or not. This way, you relate to people—not just how they make you feel about yourself.

Go it alone sometimes. Take time to foster your own interests, ones that nothing and no one can take away. Don’t let them hinge on anyone or anything other than your values and passion.

Hold lightly. This one isn’t just about releasing attachments—it’s also about maintaining healthy relationships. Contrary to romantic notions, you are not someone’s other half. You’re separate and whole. You can still hold someone to close to your heart; just remember, if you squeeze too tightly, you’ll both be suffocated.

Interact with lots of people. If you limit yourself to one or two relationships they will seem like your lifelines. Everyone needs people, and there are billions on the planet. Stay open to new connections. Accept the possibility your future involves a lot of love whether you cling to a select few people or not.

Justify less. I can’t let him go—I’ll be miserable without him. I’d die if I lost her—she’s all that I have. These thoughts reinforce beliefs that are not fact, even if they feel like it. The only way to let go and feel less pain is to believe you’re strong enough to carry on if and when things change.

Letting Go of Attachment to the Past

Know you can’t change the past. Even if you think about over and over again. Even if you punish yourself. Even if you refuse to accept it. It’s done. The only way to relieve your pain about what happened is to give yourself relief. No one and nothing else can create peace in your head for you.

Love instead of fearing. When you hold onto the past, it often has to do with fear: fear you messed up your chance at happiness, or fear you’ll never know such happiness again. Focus on what you love and you’ll create happiness instead of worrying about it.

Make now count. Instead of thinking of what you did or didn’t do, the type of person you were or weren’t, do something worthwhile now. Be someone worthwhile now. Take a class. Join a group. Help someone who needs it. Make today so full and meaningful there’s no room to dwell on yesterday.

Narrate calmly. How we experience the world is largely a result of how we internalize it. Instead of telling yourself dramatic stories about the past—how hurt you were or how hard it was—challenge your emotions and focus on lessons learned. That’s all you really need from yesterday.

Open your mind. We often cling to things, situations or people because we’re comfortable with them. We know how they’ll make us feel, whether it’s happy or safe. Consider that new things, situations and people may affect you the same. The only way to find out is to let go of what’s come and gone.

Letting Go of Attachment to Outcomes

Practice letting things be. That doesn’t mean you can’t actively work to create a different tomorrow. It just means you make peace with the moment as it is, without worrying that something’s wrong with you or your life, and then operate from a place of acceptance.

Question your attachment. If you’re attached to a specific outcome—a dream job, the perfect relationship—you may be indulging an illusion about some day when everything will be lined up for happiness. No moment will ever be worthier of your joy than now because that’s all there ever is.

Release the need to know. Life entails uncertainty, no matter how strong your intention. Obsessing about tomorrow wastes your life because there will always be a tomorrow on the horizon. There are no guarantees about how it will play out. Just know it hinges on how well you live today.

Serve your purpose now. You don’t need to have x-amount of money in the bank to live a meaningful life right now. Figure out what matters to you, and fill pockets of time indulging it. Audition for community theater. Volunteer with animals. Whatever you love, do it. Don’t wait—do it now.

Teach others. It’s human nature to hope for things in the future. Even the most enlightened people fall into the habit from time to time. Remind yourself to stay open to possibilities by sharing the idea with other people. Blog about it. Talk about it. Tweet about it. Opening up helps keep you open.

Letting Go of Attachment to Feelings

Understand that pain is unavoidable. No matter how well you do everything on this list, or on your own short list for peace, you will lose things that matter and feel some level of pain. But it doesn’t have to be as bad as you think. As the saying goes, pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

Vocalize your feelings. Feel them, acknowledge them, express them, and then let them naturally transform. Even if you want to dwell in anger, sadness or frustration—especially if you feel like dwelling—save yourself the pain and commit to working through them.

Write it down. Then toss it out. You won’t always have the opportunity to express your feelings to the people who inspired them. That doesn’t mean you need to swallow them. Write in a journal. Write a letter and burn it. Anything that helps you let go.

Xie Xie. It means thank you in Chinese. Fully embrace your happy moments—love with abandon; be so passionate it’s contagious. If a darker moment follows, remember: it will teach you something, and soon enough you’ll be in another happy moment to appreciate. Everything is cyclical.

Yield to peace. The ultimate desire is to feel happy and peaceful. Even if you think you want to stay angry, what you really want is to be at peace with what happened or will happen. It takes a conscious choice. Make it.

Zen your now. Experience, appreciate, enjoy, and let go to welcome another experience.

It won’t always be easy. Sometimes you’ll feel compelled to attach yourself physically and mentally to people and ideas—as if it gives you some sense of control or security. You may even strongly believe you’ll be happy if you struggle to hold onto what you have. That’s OK. It’s human nature.

Just know you have the power to choose from moment to moment how you experience things you enjoy: with a sense of ownership, anxiety, and fear, or with a sense of freedom, peace and love.

The most important question: what do you choose right now?

Read more...

Monistic idealism

Monistic idealism
In the words of physicist Amit Goswami, who wrote a book The Self-Aware Universe (1993) on this concept:

The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents — building blocks — of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary
particles. This is the belief — all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings — you and I think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.

Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency — it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation — but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness.

Read more...

Dokkodo (独行道 Dokkōdō; The Path of Aloneness

Miyamoto Musashi (1584–1645), also known as Shinmen Takezō, Miyamoto Bennosuke, or by his Buddhist name Niten Dōraku, was a Japanese swordsman and samurai famed for his duels and distinctive style. Musashi, as he was often simply known, became renowned through stories of his excellent swordsmanship in numerous duels, even from a very young age. He was the founder of the Hyōhō Niten Ichi-ryū or Niten-ryū style of swordsmanship and the author of The Book of Five Rings (Go Rin No Sho), a book on strategy, tactics, and philosophy that is still studied today.

 

The precepts

  1. Accept everything just the way it is.
  2. Do not seek pleasure for its own sake.
  3. Do not, under any circumstances, depend on a partial feeling.
  4. Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world.
  5. Be detached from desire your whole life long.
  6. Do not regret what you have done.
  7. Never be jealous.
  8. Never let yourself be saddened by a separation.
  9. Resentment and complaint are appropriate neither for oneself nor others.
  10. Do not let yourself be guided by the feeling of lust or love.
  11. In all things have no preferences.
  12. Be indifferent to where you live.
  13. Do not pursue the taste of good food.
  14. Do not hold on to possessions you no longer need.
  15. Do not act following customary beliefs.
  16. Do not collect weapons or practice with weapons beyond what is useful.
  17. Do not fear death.
  18. Do not seek to possess either goods or fiefs for your old age.
  19. Respect Buddha and the gods without counting on their help.[1]
  20. You may abandon your own body but you must preserve your honour.
  21. Never stray from the Way.
Also checkout this excellent Video lecture on Dokodo. (Thanks for the comment Zhao An Xin)

Read more...

Buddhism and Quantum Physics

News Article on Lankaweb
Buddhism and Quantum Physics A Strange Parallel of Two Concepts of Reality by Christian Thomas Kohl

What is reality? The mindsets of the modern world provide four answers to that question and oscillate between these answers:

1. The traditional Jewish, Islamic and Christian religions speak about a creator that holds the world together. He represents the fundamental reality. If He were separated only for one moment from the world, the world would disappear immediately. The world can only exist because He is maintaining and guarding it. This mindset is so fundamental that even many modern scientists cannot deviate from it. The laws of nature and elementary particles now supersede the role of the creator.

2. René Descartes takes into considering a second mindset, where the subject or the subjective model of thought is fundamental. Everything else is nothing but derived from it.

3. According to a third holistic mindset, the fundamental reality should consist of both, subject and object. Everything should be one. Everything should be connected with everything.

4. A fourth and very modern mindset neglects reality. We could call it instrumentalism. According to this way of thinking, our concepts do not reflect a single reality in any one way. Our concepts have nothing to do with reality but only with information.

Buddhism refuses these four concepts of reality. Therefore it was confronted with the reproach of nihilism. If you don't believe in a creator, nor in the laws of nature, nor in a permanent object, nor in an absolute subject, nor in both, nor in none of it, in what do you believe then? What remains that you can consider a fundamental reality?

The answer is simple: it is so simple that we barely consider it being a philosophical statement: things depend on other things. For instance: a thing is dependent on its cause. There is no effect without a cause and no cause without an effect. There is no fire without a fuel, no action without an actor and vice versa. Things are dependent on other things; they are not identical with each other, nor do they break up into objective and subjective parts.

This Buddhist concept of reality is often met with disapproval and considered incomprehensible. But there are modern modes of thought with points of contact. For instance: there is a discussion in quantum physics about fundamental reality. What is fundamental in quantum physics: particles, waves, field of force, law of nature, mindsets or information?

Quantum physics came to a result that is expressed by the key words of complementarity, interaction and entanglement. According to these concepts there are no independent but complementary quantum objects; they are at the same time waves and particles. Quantum objects interact with others, and they are even entangled when they are separated in a far distance. Without being observed philosophically, quantum physics has created a physical concept of reality.

According to that concept the fundamental reality is an interaction of systems that interact with other systems and with their own components. This physical concept of reality does not agree upon the four approaches mentioned before.

If the fundamental reality consists of dependent systems, then its basics can neither be independent and objective laws of nature nor independent subjective models of thought. The fundamental reality cannot be a mystic entity nor can it consist of information only.

The concepts of reality in Buddhism surprisingly parallel quantum physics.


The Metaphysical Foundations of Quantum Physics

This is no presentation or criticism of quantum physics but a discussion of the metaphysical mindsets that underlie quantum physics. The concept of reality in quantum physics can be expressed by the key words: complementarity, four interactions, and entanglements [entanglements will not be explained in this paper. According to Roger Penrose “Quantum entanglement is a very strange type of thing. It is somewhere between objects being separate and being in communication with each other” (Roger Penrose, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, Cambridge University Press 2000, p.66)].

In the long prehistory of Quantum Physics it could not be proved experimentally whether the smallest elements of light are particles or waves. Many experiments argued in favor of one or the other assumption. Photons are sometimes acting as waves and sometimes as particles. This behavior was named a wave-particle-dualism. The idea of dualism used to be understood as a logic contradiction: only one or the other could apply but paradoxically both appeared. Photons cannot be both. These are the expectations according to atomism. According to atomism a scientific explanation consists in a reduction of a contradictory object into its permanent components or its mathematical laws. This is the fundamental dualistic concept that modern atomism and modern physics have adopted from ancient Greek philosophy of nature: substance and permanence can not to be found in objects of perception in the world we are living in, but in the elementary elements of objects and in mathematical order. These material and immaterial foundations keep the world together; they do not change while everything else is changing.

According to atomism it should be possible to reduce an object to its independent elements or to its mathematical laws or to its simple and fundamental principles and according to these the fundamental elements should be either particles or waves, not both.

What is to be understood by independent elements? Plato made the difference between two forms of being. In the second part of his 'Parmenides' he distinguished between single objects, which exist exclusively by partaking and insofar they have no own being and ideas, that have an own being. Traditional metaphysics adopted this dualism from Plato. An independent own being is characterized in traditional metaphysics as something that, as an existing thing, is not dependent from anything else (Descartes), existing by itself, subsisting through itself (More), which is completely unlimited by others and free from any kind of foreign command (Spinoza), and exists by itself without anything else (Schelling). Albert Einstein was following this metaphysical tradition when he wrote: For the classification of things that are introduced in physics, it is essential that these things require for a certain time an independent existence, as far as these things lay 'in different parts of space'. Without the assumption of such an independent existence [of 'So-seins' as Einstein called it, this expression can be translated by a word like 'likeness' or 'to be like this'] of things being distant from each other in space, physical thought in the usual sense would not be possible“.

This idea of an independent reality was projected to the fundamental elements of the material world by atomism. For atomism, a scientific explanation means to reduce the vicissitude and variety of objects and conditions to its permanent, stable, independent, undividable elements, or mathematical laws. According to the expectations of atomism all changes of nature can be explained as separation, connection and movements of unchanged and independent atoms or still more elementary components. They and their mathematical laws are the core or fundamental reality of objects. They keep the world together. The question whether the fundamental objects are particles or waves was an explosive issue: the traditional concepts of reality, that had been made available by metaphysics, were at stake. Maybe the fundamental reality could not be grasped by traditional concepts of reality. Of which value of explanation was atomism, if it should turn out that there are no independent atoms or elementary particles and that objects have no stable core? Are quantum objects objective, subjective, both, or none of both? What is reality? Is there a difference between the quantum world and the world we are living in?

Niels Bohr. In 1927, the physicist Niels Bohr introduced the concept of complementarity into quantum physics. According to this concept the picture of wave and the picture of particle are not two pictures that contradict and exclude each other but two (contradictory) pictures that complete each other, only concertedly they can give a complete description of physical phenomena. According to Bohr, complementarity meant that in the quantum world it is impossible to speak about independent and objective quantum objects because they are in an interactive relation with each other, as well as with the instrument of measurement. Bohr considered the interaction between the object and the instrument of measurement as an inseparable element of quantum objects, because the interaction itself is important for the existence of some features of these objects: some measurements set photons as particles and destruct the interference that characterizes objects as waves. Other measurements set objects as waves. That was the new concept of reality by Niels Bohr. Bohr did not transform the concept of complementarity into the instrumentalist conclusion: there were no quantum objects [at least when his argumentation was one of a physician’s view. However, when he talked on a metaphysical level about quantum physics, he took the position of an instrumentalist approach]. In a physical sense the fundamental physical reality consists for Niels Bohr of interacting complementary quantum objects.

Interaction in the standard quantum model. In the meantime the concept of the four interactions was introduced to the standard quantum model. These four elementary interactions do not permit the reduction of quantum objects to their elements – as Democritus proposed. Interactions, the forces that act between the quantum objects, cropped up to the elementary particles. As elementary objects, not single independent objects were being established, but two-body-systems, multi-body-systems or complete assembles of elementary particles. Between its components, forces of interaction are effective which keep the components together. They are parts of the components. Mostly they are forces of attraction. In the case of electro-magnetic forces they are also repulsive. It is possible to think of the interactions between the elementary particles as an exchange of elementary particles. The physicist Steven Weinberg writes about this: „Today we come within reach of a standardized view of nature, if we think in concepts of elementary particles and interactions between them. (...) Best known are gravitation and electro-magnetism that belong to the daily world of experience because of their range. Gravitation keeps our feet on earth and planets on their path. The electro-magnetic interactions between electrons and atomic nucleus are responsible for all well known chemical and physical qualities of usual solid bodies, liquids, and gases. The two nucleus powers belong to a different category in respect to reach and familiarity. The 'strong' interaction that keeps protons and neutrons inside the nucleus together has a reach of about 10-13 centimeters. So it goes down in daily life and even in the realm of an atom [10-8 centimeters]. The 'weak' interaction is the least familiar. It has such a short reach [less that 10-15 centimeters] and is so weak, that it probably does not keep anything together“. Sometimes explanations go very far into difficult and subtle details. How does an electron interact with another quantum object if it exists of one part only? Which part it should emit if it exists of one part only? There is an answer to these questions by the concept of interactions. An electron does not exist of one single part only, because the interaction is a part of the electron. In an article about super gravitation of 1978 the two physicians Daniel Z. Freedman and Pieter von Nieuwenhuizen write about it: „The observed mass of electrons can be described as the sum of a 'naked mass' and the 'self-energy' that is based on the interaction of the electron with its own electro-magnetic field. Individually none of these parts are observable“.

The knowledge of quantum physics about the particles that carry the interactions, shall be mentioned here in the words of the physicist Gerhard’t Hooft. He writes, "that an electron is surrounded by a cloud of virtual particles, which are permanently emitted and absorbed. This cloud does not exist of photons only, but of pairs of charged particles, for example electrons and their anti-particles, the positrons“. (...) "Even a quark is surrounded by a cloud of gluons and pairs of quark-anti-quark“. Individual, isolated, independent quarks were never been observed. This phenomenon is named confinement. This means quarks are captives, they cannot appear as a single quark but as a pair or a trio only. If you try to separate quarks by force, there will appear new quarks between them, which unify into pairs and trios. Claudio Rebbi and other physicists reported: „Between quarks and gluons inside an elementary particle, permanently additional quarks and gluons appear which disappear again after a short time“. These clouds of virtual particles represent or produce interactions.

We now arrived at the centre of quantum physics. It consists of a new physical concept of reality, that does no more consider single and independent elements as the fundamental reality but two-body-systems or two states of quantum objects or two concepts like earth & moon, proton & electron, proton & neutron, quark & anti-quark, wave & instrument of measurement, particle & instrument of measurement, twin photons, superposition, spin-up & spin-down, matter & anti-matter, elementary particle & field of force, law of nature & matter, symmetry & anti-symmetry etc. These systems do not break up into independent parts. They cannot be reduced into two separated independent bodies or states with one part being fundamental and the other one deduced, as it is the case with substantialism's and subjectivism’s either-or-scheme. Together they are not a mysterious unity, they are not ‘one’ and identical as holism tries to convince us. Furthermore, we cannot claim that they are nothing but constructed mathematical models and that no physical reality corresponds to them, what has been claimed by instrumentalism. Exactly the latter is claimed by Stephen Hawking who does not consider himself as an instrumentalist but as a positivist. In a discussion with the mathematician Roger Penrose, Hawking said: "I am a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct; and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whether they predict observations“.

It is not meaningless to ask for the correspondence between model & object. If a model of thought is accurate it has a structural similarity with the phenomenon that it constructs, otherwise it can lead to calculations without any meaningful physical explanation, because they cannot correspond to any reality.

Physically, a fundamental reality is not a one-body-system but a two-body-system or an assemble of bodies that surrounds the central or the 'naked' body. Between quantum particles there is an interaction that is part of these particles. That's the way it is but all our metaphysical schemes put up a real struggle. This 'cloud' does not correspond to our traditional metaphysical expectation of everything that should represent order and should be fundamental. How can 'clouds' be that which we are used to call the basic elements of matter? How can this little vibrating thing be what generations of philosophers and physicists were looking for? Is this supposed to be all? From the little 'cloud' we try to filter with metaphysical interpretations what has substance and what maintains. Completely for the purpose of Plato’s substance metaphysics Werner Heisenberg called elementary particles 'the idea of matter'. The philosopher and physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker named mathematics 'the essence of nature'. According to the physicist Herwig Schopper, fields of force are the ultimate reality. Some of us like to consider the fundamental reality as a whole [holism] and according to others all is nothing but a construction and no reality correspond to this construction [instrumentalism]. Why all these extreme metaphysical positions? Just because we cannot easily admit that complex interactions of the world we are living in, have a foundation that is a complex reality by itself. It is impossible to get out of the entanglement of this world by quantum physics. It is impossible to find an elemental quantum object that is independent from other quantum objects or from its own parts. It is impossible to dissolve the double-sided character of quantum objects. The fundamental physical reality consists of 'clouds' of interacting quantum objects.

4. Results. Reality is nothing static, firm or independent. It does not consist of single, isolated material or immaterial factors, but of systems of dependent bodies. Most of the systems consist of more than two bodies but there are no systems that consist of less than those two bodies. In quantum physics we call such fundamental two-body-systems earth & moon, electron & positron, quark & anti-quark, elementary particle & field of force. Nagarjuna calls his systems walking person & way to be walked, fire & fuel, action & actor, seer & object of seeing. Both of these models describe two body-systems which have objects that are separate and at the same time in communication with each other. They are neither identical with each other, nor do they break up into parts. The bodies are not independent and individually none of these parts are observable because in their state of existence they are dependent from each other and cannot exist independently. They are entangled by interactions, even in a far distance. One body cannot be reduced to the other. The systems have a fragile stability that is based upon four well known, sometimes not completely known and sometimes completely unknown interactions [in the case of entangled and separated photons] and mutual dependencies of their components.

What is reality? We are used to being on our feet on terra firma and to see fugacious clouds in the sky. The concept of reality in the philosophy of Nagarjuna and the physical concepts of complementarities and interactions in quantum physics, tell us something different that could be expressed as follows: all is build upon sand and even not the grains of sand have a solid core or nucleus. Their stability is based on instable interactions of their components.

Read more...

Osho on Love

Love walks on earth but it doesn't belong to us, it belongs to the sky. And it is starry;

all else is darkness
except love.

Only love has light in it,
only love is luminous.
When you are in love
there is light and life:

when love disappears
there is darkness,


utter darkness. Hell is the space where love does not exist; heaven is the space where only love exists and nothing else. These are the names of spaces within our being. Love opens doors to the whole Milky Way. Love is the bridge between earth and heaven, between man and god. Let love be your only law; there is no higher truth. If a man can love, then nothing else is needed; that will transform. But a few things to be kept in mind about love.
Love should not be a demanding love; otherwise it loses wings, it cannot fly. It becomes rooted in the earth, becomes very earthly; then it is lust and it brings great misery and great suffering. Love should not be conditional, one should not expect anything out of it.
It should be for its own sake
not for any reward,
not for any result.
If there is some motive in it,
again, your love cannot become the sky.
It is confined to the motive;
the motive becomes its definition,
its boundary.
Unmotivated love has no boundary: it is pure elation, exuberance, it is the fragrance of the heart.
And because there is no desire for any result, it does not mean that results do not happen; they do, they happen a thousandfold more, because whatsoever we give to the world, it comes back, it rebounds. The world is an echoing place: if we throw anger, anger comes back; if we give love, love comes back. But that is a natural phenomenon, one need not think about it. One can trust: it happens on its own. This is the law of karma: whatsoever you sow, you reap; whatsoever you give, you get. So there is no need to think about it, it is automatic. Hate, and you will be hated. Love, and you will be loved.
And the third thing: let love become more and more conscious. When it is unconscious it remains entangled with sexuality. Nothing is wrong in sexuality but that is the lowest form of love, the first rung of the ladder. It is good in itself but to remain confined to it is not to grow: there are higher rungs in the ladder. The ladder reaches to the ultimate and sex is the first rung. Use it to go beyond it. Love should be more conscious. When it is conscious it is less sexual. I am not saying that there will be no sex: sex will be there but it will not be sexual. It will be pure sensuality; that is a totally different phenomenon. It will be sheer joy, sensitivity, but there will be no sexual mind behind it.

Read more...

The Spectacular Zero

The class 6 student history text books in India make the following proud statement about the glorious days of ancient India. “Ancient India was a pioneer in science and mathematics. We invented the zero….” The lesson goes on to state various accomplishments in medicine, astronomy and mathematics. All of these are amazing accomplishments in their own right but it is the statement about the zero which has always intrigued me. What are we proud of? of inventing nothing? of inventing a mere symbol for nothing, which is probably the most insignificant number of all? At that time, for the little me, it was even a little embarrassing. We are the proud owners of the sunya (zero). Is that Indicative of how we are a big zero in contribution to modern science, sports, medicine or industry? Yet, the statement was never once retracted. Everybody seems to think that it is an important claim, but nobody seems to explain its importance. So, what is the importance of the discovery of zero? The answer to this question nagged me for quiet a while until I wandered into the fantastic world of Indian philosophy. Its here I realized the true brilliance and the absolutely stunning beauty of the mighty zero.

It is said that the introduction of zero into the decimal system was the most significant achievement in the development of a number system, in which calculation with large numbers became feasible. Without the notion of zero, the descriptive and prescriptive modeling processes in commerce, astronomy, physics, chemistry, and industry would have been unthinkable. The lack of such a symbol is one of the serious drawbacks in the Roman numeral system. In addition, the Roman numeral system is difficult to use in any arithmetic operations, such as multiplication. In India a simple but stunning number system was developed; the ingenious method was of expressing all numbers by means of ten symbols, each symbol receiving a value of position as well as an absolute value. This was a profound and important idea which appears so simple to us now that we ignore its true merit. But its very simplicity and the great ease, which it has lent to computations put our arithmetic in the first rank of useful inventions. We should appreciate the grandeur of the achievement the more when we remember that it escaped the genius of Archimedes and Apollonius, two of the greatest men produced by Greek antiquity.

It sounds like a very basic property of a simple but natural counting system escaped the brilliant minds of society everywhere else in the world except in India. It’s like somehow the Indians stumbled upon the idea which was the most natural counting system possible. It is descriptions like these that undermine the importance of zero to the discovery of fire or the wheel by cavemen. What’s the big deal? These are natural phenomenon which existed from eternity. This is the way things are, eventually a self aware being was bound to stumble upon these principles. So, Hello! what’s all the hype about?

The reverence for the zero is not about its use as a void place holder in a decimal counting system, the secret of the zero is in its very meaning. The invention of the zero should actually be the “revelation” of the zero, not a mere discovery, a revelation nothing less! Considering the true meaning of the zero, this revelation is perhaps the single most important of all ideas ever conceived by the human mind. Its incredible implications on our very existence and the conflicts that it evoked in belief systems of other cultures, led to the furious suppression of the true meaning of zero. The meaning of the zero to this day remains the niche knowledge of the most advanced of spiritual seekers.

Charles Seife in his book “Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea” says “Cultures girdled themselves against zero, and philosophies crumbled under its influence, for zero is different from the other numbers. It provides a glimpse into the ineffable and the infinite….Zero is powerful because it is infinity’s twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang. They are equally paradoxical and troubling. The biggest questions in science and religion are about nothingness and eternity. …yet through all its history, despite rejection and exile, zero has always defeated those who oppose it. Humanity could never force zero to fit its philosophies. Instead zero shaped humanity’s view of the universe and of god.”

Charles then starts the first chapter of his book with a hymn from the Rig Veda.

“There was neither non existence
Nor existence then;
there was neither the realm of space
nor the sky which is beyond.
What stirred? Where?”

The humble zero demands such reverence, fear, unease, confusion and mystery. No wonder mystics from all lands and all cultures have strived to understand it and command the power of its knowledge. Zero is known by various names as the Hindu sunya, meaning "void" or "empty" , Arabic sifr, meaning "vacant", Roman cifra, Latin zephirum or zephyrum , zeuro, zepiro, cifre , English zero and cipher and several other forms: naught, tziphra, sipos, tsiphron, rota, circulus, galgal, theca, null, figura nihili and zilch.

The Zero is a representation of what does not exist. It is used in our numerical system to denote the non existence of a place. Example 101 has no tenth component unlike 111 which has one tenth component. 121 has two tenth components. For the number 101 to make sense, you need the zero to indicate that this is a 3 digit number and not the two digit number - eleven. So what you need is a “Void Place Holder”. The tenth place is occupied but the value is nothing. This goes to number systems of any base like binary(base 2) or hexadecimal (base 16).

On the land we now call Iraq, much of Western civilization first flowered. The Greeks called it Mesopotamia, “the land between the rivers,” (Tigris and Euphrates) Sumer was the first Mesopotamian civilization dating back to 5000 BCE. The Babylonian civilizations date from about 500 BCE. As known in the western world, the Babylonians first used the notation of a “void” place holder. This placeholder used to be a blank space but was replaced with a symbol. This was strictly a positional notation. Their system was sexagesimal (base 60) Unlike our decimal value system which uses nine distinct signs to represent numbers 1 to 9, the Babylonian sexagesimal place-value system has only two numerical signs, not fifty-nine, as one might expect. It uses only two signs: a vertical wedge for 1 and a crescent for 10. According to a Babylonian legend the original shape of the zero was said to be derived from the teachings of the Buddha.

The zero was discovered in India by the Arabs who understood the stunning simplicity and practicality of its use in mathematics. It is the Arabs who taught the European tribes about the zero. There is still a huge debate about when this happened, was this as recent as the 13th century CE? It cannot be because In 500 BCE the Persian empire has spread to the very borders of India. if the Babylonians knew about the zero in 500 BCE, roughly the time of the Buddha. It had to have happened at around that time. As knowledge evolved, it unavoidably had to be influenced by the tyranny of the ignorant. The Roman empire existed from about 300 BCE to 400 CE. The Roman numeral system completely banished the zero. Such a stupid idea! Why do you need a symbol to denote “nothing”? and why a zero placeholder? Hence the Roman numeral system did not use the zero. This more than anything else sealed the fate of the Roman numeral system.

Buddha was a breakaway radical from the much older and the incredibly complex Vedic system. The earliest estimated date of the Vedas is 6000 BC. He rebelled against the increasingly abstract definitions of the infinite in the Vedas. Many Hindu sects were headed in one direction exploring the complex nature of existential reality when Buddha went to the opposite extreme – nihilism, exploring the void. Ironically what he discovered about the void turned out to be as complex as the teachings in the Vedas. His efforts to bring the higher knowledge to the millions were not successful. The majority of humanity was not ready, prepared or capable of assimilating the highest knowledge from the Buddha. Buddha had to devise simple, understandable statements that were palatable to the masses. Exactly like the later Christianity or Islam. His deepest teachings in the Buddhist sutras were reserved to the more prepared; the more trained monks who dared to go all the way. According to the Babylonian legend the shape of the zero is derived from the Buddha. When he was meditating he formed a circular shape with his index fingers and thumbs meaning void. By doing this he was saying that in prayer you should make your mind blank. This void was the same idea as the blank space between numbers. So in order to be able to define the number of blanks they used the symbol in the shape of a 0.

Amazingly the mighty zero was lying quietly for thousands of years in India unknown to the rest of the world. The Shape of the zero itself is that of a circle, the only shape with no beginning and no end, the very definition of the sanathana dharma- The Indian philosophy of the Eternal way of life, The only way of existence from eternity till eternity, without beginning or end. The zero existed long before man was born and will remain long after man is gone. Why is it so intriguing, why do Indian mystic philosophers and an ever increasing number of western intellectuals go gaga over the zero.

Here are some equations from commonly accepted principles. It is expected that these can never been proved. They are “assumptions” made in order to enable mathematics to exist. For all observable phenomenons, except the strangest hypothesis in Quantum Physics, these assumptions seem to have worked.

2/0 = Infinity (generally held Taboo, the division by zero rule, cannot be defined, understood or comprehended)
2*0 = 0
2+0 = 2
2-0 = 2
0+0 = 0
0/0 = Infinity (this is a profound result but is only academic, safely ignored because division by zero is not allowed )
2+Infinity = Infinity
2/Infinity = 0
2*Infinity = Infinity

Zero is a symbol for "nothing.". As easy as the concept sounds, this has posed numerous problems to conventional arithmetic. Consider 4/2 = 2, what number will you get if you break 4 into 2 equal parts? The answer is 2. Now What number will you get if you break 4 into zero equal parts? Many thinkers including mathematicians presume the answer to this question as, “it is impossible to break anything into zero equal parts”. Try to break an apple into zero equal parts! That is the reason division by zero is Taboo. It’s referred to as “undefined” and hence this division is forbidden. Interestingly an answer can be found in the hypotheses of Indian philosophy. The infinite exists right within the zero. Its sounds incomprehensible because of the strong rooted assumption that something that exists cannot be divided into zero parts. The problem is right there, the assumption that something exists. How can you convert something that exists into something that does not exist? (zero – the void). If you let go of the assumption that something exists, then nothing exists!!! The apple does not exist, hence it can be divided or multiplied by anything and will still remain how it was before and will always be part of the infinite existence which is one with non existence or zero. Thus anything divided by zero will dissolve into infinity. Infinity is that which nothing can distort, nothing can add to it and nothing can subtract from it. only from it can all other numbers be derived from, It is eternal, and unchangeable. The definition of the absolute entity in Indian philosophy, the Brahman, the eternal self out of which all material existence manifests. God himself!

Another argument is that if you have a 1 in 10 chance of something happening then you have a 1/10, or 10% chance of it happening. It's inconsistent and can't be defined what odds of 1/0 (1:0) are. Out of 0 events an event happening one time is just erroneous and invalid. Or is it? Consider the current understanding of the creation of the universe - the big bang theory. This is one theory which has stood through the most severe scientific scrutiny not to mention condemnation and ridicule by the Christian church because the theory contests the 6 day creation theory of the Bible. The theory has stood the critical examination by eminent physicists and had common acceptance over all. Yet still, nobody knows what happened at the exact moment of the big bang. The theory breaks down totally at the very event of the big bang. This theory is forced to stop speculation at the infinitesimally small point at which supposedly all the matter and all the energy in the universe was condensed to! Imagine that! Imagine condensing the weight of this room, this building, this city, this country, the earth, this galaxy, the billions of other galaxies to one single point smaller than the tip of a pin? This point should contain infinite mass and infinite energy! Because one step beyond that the point would disappear, there will exist nothing but a void, a true state of nothingness, not even space.

From common perception how can anything get created out of nothing? Impossible! All known mathematics breaks down at the exact point of creation. All equations of the big bang run into “undefined” territory Thus to explain the big bang theory mathematically it is essential to have his infinitesimally small point from which the universe emerged. The logical conclusion seems to indicate that the universe was created from absolutely nothing! the void – zero. It’s only within our narrow understanding of existence that all mathematical knowledge makes sense to us, hence the ancient treatise of existence – reality and Maya. All science and mathematics known to man is successful within the realms of Maya. It breaks down miserably once reality is reached. When you reach zero or infinity every theory blows up.

The Vedas say that the universe was created out of the actions of prana the life force acting on akasha the ever present body of potential spread across the entire universe. What is perhaps referred to as dark energy in current quantum mechanical models of the universe. Einstiens in 1917 created a cosmological constant Lambda in his general theory of relativity. For his theoretical static universe to exist Einstien had to add a mathematical fudge to align the equations. Later when Hubble discovered that the universe was not static at all but is expanding at mind boggling speeds, Eienstien withdrew this mathematical fudge and called his failure to predict a dynamic universe the biggest blunder of his life. Now cosmologicts have discovered by the study of 1A (one A) supernovas that the universe is expanding at a much higher rate of expansion than what the quantum mechanical equations predict. The only explanation seems to be an invisible low density energy source exerting negative force on the universe causing galaxies to move away from each other at a much faster pace. This energy is predicted to occupy 73% of the known universe. In fact the matter that we know of constitutes only 4% of the entire universe. The remaining 23% is said to be in the form of Dark matter as that in black holes.

The current Quantum mechanical model of the universe proposes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle Nuclear physicists today say that every atom in the universe right now is being sustained in its known form by the continuous creation and destruction of elementary particles out of empty space! These elementary entities appear out of nothingness and disappear out into nothingness. It is said that this is what the Vedas refer to as the eternal cosmic dance of Shiva. Who is also called Nataraja the lord of the dance. This is happening every nano second in every atom in the universe. The position and angular momentum of any fundamental particle cannot be known at the same time. The state of a fundamental particle can only be predicted as one of the states in the so called probability density cloud. The entity that collapses these probabilities into one reality is held to be the observer the act of observation or consciousness.

The void space between these sub atomic particles inside every atom at any given point of time, is so vast that it can be concluded that atoms contain 99% empty space! so you and me are 99% empty space at this instant. So who or what am I? If I exist only one percent and all I can see is nothing but 100% existence. I can imagine why maya or illusion is so powerful. 99% of what I think I am, does not exist according to Quantum physics! So yes, it appears that an event can occur where the probability of occurrence is zero. In fact the probability of an event occurring out of zero possible events is infinite! thus 1/0 = Infinity. The probability is impossible only if we assume that nothing can be created out of nothingness. This has been proved wrong by quantum physics. The universe is continuously being destroyed and recreated from nothingness. Starting from there, every molecule, every cell, every muscle, every body is being continuously created and destroyed every nano second of existence. This has been happening from eternity and will continue to do so till eternity.

Consider the Vedic proposition that there exists nothing but “that”. We have infinity as the only thing that exists; all theorems are mere representations of interplay of its infinite sub elements. No wonder in ancient India the approach to knowledge has always been all encompassing and all integrated - religion, philosophy, theology, mathematics, astronomy, ayurveda, medicine, art, music, astronomy, sex, yoga, surgery… each one rooted in the eternal truth, each one connected to the other, which is finally one with “that” - existence itself. It looks like the grand unification theory, the present holy grail of science was already well formed in the Vedas. This is the truth, the eternal way of existence, the sanathana dharma.

The Indian belief system collectively called the sanathana dharma places knowledge above all else, above all things which command respect, above all human goals and aspirations. It is said that the gods bow down to a learned man. It was in this land that sages and philosophers dared to defy mighty kings and emperors, long before JRR Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings. In India, all ideas, all knowledge is derived from the knowledge of the Brahman, the eternal self who is everywhere. It is the source of infinite knowledge and wisdom. All knowledge was accumulated by direct observation of existence, of reality. Perhaps it was considered impolite to flaunt knowledge of something which is very visible to anyone who truly seeks? How can you take pride in the fact that you can see in the land of the blind? How would you explain what light is? to the blind? How would you document such an experience? The only way is for you to teach them how to see. The first symptom of the truly learned is humbleness. The more you know, the more you realize how much more there is to know. The great poet Rabindranath Tagore cried at this realization of the infiniteness of knowledge and the humble stature of the human mind. Thus to be able to realize any portion of this infinite knowledge one has to transcend the limitations of the human mind. The yogi declares that this is possible and that the only way to accomplish this is to become part of that infinite itself. Further he declares that one is already a part of the infinite, one just need realize this by reducing the infinite manifestations of maya (illusion) to zero. This is the spectacular relation between infinity and zero. It is said that if one observes with a still mind by moving the mind towards the void, towards nothingness, eliminating every thoughts that rises and be in a state of pure consciousness, all laws of nature will be revealed. For thousands of years this teaching was imparted by word of mouth and by memory (Shruthi and Smrithi) it is only in the last couple of thousand years that people began writing these Ideas down.

Quantum physics predicts the existence of an underlying sea of zero-point energy at every point in the universe. This is different from the cosmic microwave background and is also referred to as the electromagnetic quantum vacuum since it is the lowest state of otherwise empty space. This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe that even though zero-point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of elementary quantum theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations. The basis of zero-point energy is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one of the fundamental laws of quantum physics. According to this principle, the more precisely one measures the position of a moving particle, such as an electron, the less exact the best possible measurement of momentum (mass times velocity) will be, and vice versa. The least possible uncertainty of position times momentum is specified by Planck's constant, h. A parallel uncertainty exists between measurements involving time and energy. This minimum uncertainty is not due to any correctable flaws in measurement, but rather reflects an intrinsic quantum fuzziness in the very nature of energy and matter.

The existence of an actual vacuum was a subject of debate among scientists from the period of Aristotle all the way till this century. Since light, magnetic fields and heat all travel through a vacuum, something must be there. Borrowing a word from Aristotle, scientists described various kinds of 'aethers' that exist in even the hardest vacuum and that pervade space. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism reduced these different types to just one, called the ether. Various experiments were developed to detect this ether, of which the most famous was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which failed to find it. Finally, in 1905, Einstein banished the ether by means of special relativity and allowed the true vacuum to exist but not for long. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle of 1927 led particle physicists to predict that particles would arise spontaneously from the vacuum, so long as they disappeared before violating the uncertainty principle. The quantum vacuum is a very active place, with all sorts of particles appearing and disappearing. Careful experiments have demonstrated that the quantum theorists are correct in this interpretation of the vacuum... Furthermore, starting in 1980 with the theory of the inflationary universe, particle physicists have told us that the entire universe was created as a 'false vacuum', a quantum vacuum that has more energy in its nothingness than it should. The decay of that particular vacuum to an ordinary quantum vacuum produced all the mass in the universe and started the Big Bang.

"He who is beyond all exists as the relative universe.
That part of Him appears as sentient and insentient beings.
From a part of Him was born the body of the universe,
and out of this body were born the Gods, the earth and men."

- Rig Veda

Osho Rajneesh reads this about sunya-the zero from the Buddhist Heart Sutra , "Shunya means emptiness; but not negative, very positive emptiness. It means nothingness, but it does not mean simply nothingness; it means no-thing-ness. Shunya means void, void of everything but the void itself is there, with utter presence, so it is not just void. It is like the sky which is empty, which is pure space, but which is. Everything comes in it and goes, and it remains. Shunya is like the sky -- pure presence. You cannot touch it although you live in it. You cannot see it although you can never be without it. You exist in it; just as a fish exists in the ocean, you exist in space, in shunya. Shunyavada means that everything arises out of nothing"

- page 48 The Heart Sutra

The Casimir effect refers to the tiny attractive force that appears between two uncharged plates in a vacuum. This Casimir force is only measurable when the plates are extremely close together (several atomic diameters). This force was predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir, a Dutch theoretical physicist. It was experimentally verified in 1958 by Marcus Spaarnay, again at Philips in Eindhoven while he was studying the properties of colloidal solutions. The recognized cause of the Casimir effect is the quantum vacuum fluctuations (zero-point fluctuations) of the electromagnetic field between the plates.

Yes, it was known for sometime that there might exist infinite energy in the vaccume! The classical void, where there exists no known molecules of anything. Its pure nothingness. In 1957, Lee and Yang, initiated a great revolution across physics by suggesting the strong prediction of broken symmetry. Its experimental proof was provided by Wu the same year. Lee and Yang won a nearly instant Nobel Prize in December 1957. That asymmetry is used by charges and dipoles for extracting and pouring out Electromagnetic energy from the vacuum!

Reference: (a) T. D. Lee, "Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions," Phys. Rev., 104(1), Oct. 1, 1956, p. 254-259. Errata are given in in Phys. Rev. 106(6), June 15, 1957, p. 1371; (b) T. D. Lee, Reinhard Oehme, and C. N. Yang, "Remarks on Possible Noninvariance under Time Reversal and Charge Conjugation," Phys. Rev., 106(2), 1957, p. 340-345.

In the words of Swami Vivekananda “According to the raja-yogi, the external world is but the gross form of the internal, or subtle. The fine is always the cause, and the gross, the effect. So the external world is the effect, and the internal, the cause. Therefore the external forces are simply the grosser parts of that of which the internal forces are the finer. The man who has discovered and learnt how to manipulate the internal forces will get the whole of nature under his control. He wants to arrive at the point where what we call nature's laws will have no influence over him, where he will be able to go beyond them all. He will be the master of the whole of nature, internal and external. The progress and civilization of the human race simply mean controlling nature. The yogi proposes to himself no less a task than to control the whole of nature, to master the entire universe!”

It was not until 1997 that the precise magnitude of the Casimir force was measured by Steve K. Lamoreaux of the Los Alamos National Laboratory along with Umar Mohideen and Anushree Roy from UC Riverside. Because using two parallel plates would require impractically high standards for precise alignment, a plate and a nearly perfect sphere were used. Within a margin of error of 5%, the intensity was found to be just that predicted by quantum theory; defined as the zero-point energy of the Fourier modes of the electromagnetic field between the plates.

Today there are major scientific experiments in progress to harness the infinite potential of what is being called the “Zero point Energy” http://www.zpenergy.com/

consider the commonly accepted principle 4/0 = Infinity. What we are saying is if you are able to break anything into zero equal parts you realize nothing less than infinity itself!. This is the very challenge of the Raja Yogi. The shunya, that is, the voidistic state of the Buddhists, and the brahman or ethereal plane of the Hindus (of Shankaracarya) are not different. Therefore, the Buddhist’s shunyavada, the philosophy of voidism or nihilism, and the Hindu's or Shankara's brahmavada, the philosophy of monism, are simply different words that mean the same thing. Infinity and zero are the expression of the same thing - “that”. And as the Upanishad proclaims “Tat Tvam Asi” – “Thou art That”

Another explanation of how the infinity of possibility is hidden in the zero is in Taoism. Taoism states that by 'doing nothing' one could 'accomplish everything.' Lao Tzu writes:

The Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
In this way all things would be at peace.

Lao Tsu , literally “old sage” the commonly accepted founder of Taoism, taught that all straining, all striving are not only vain but counterproductive. One should endeavor to do nothing (wu-wei). But what does this mean? It means not to literally do nothing, but to discern and follow the natural forces -- to follow and shape the flow of events and not to pit oneself against the natural order of things. It says first and foremost to be spontaneous in ones actions. In this sense the Taoist doctrine of wu-wei can be understood as a way of mastering circumstances by understanding their nature or principal, and then shaping ones actions in accordance with these. This understanding has also infused the approach to movement as it is developed in Tai Chi Chuan. This has been perfected by Buddhist monks like those of the Shaolin temple in martial like Kung Fu. In Taoism the central vehicle of achieving tranquility was the Tao, a term which has been translated as 'the way' or 'the path.' Te in this context refers to virtue and Ching refers to laws. Thus the Tao Te Ching could be translated as The Law (or Canon) of Virtue and it's Way. The Tao was the central mystical term of Lao Tzu and the Taoists, a formless, unfathomable source of all things. The definition of the Tao is eerily similar to the zero point quantum state with infinite energy predicted by Quantum Physics.

The Tao-

There is a thing, formless yet complete.
Before heaven and earth it existed.
Without sound, without substance,
it stands alone and unchanging.
It is all-pervading and unfailing.
One may think of it as the mother of all beneath Heaven.
We do not know its name, but we call it Tao.

25. [Bodde].

Deep and still, it seems to have existed forever.
4.

Look, it cannot be seen - it is beyond form.
Listen, it cannot be heard - it is beyond sound.
Grasp, it cannot be held - it is intangible.
These three are indefinable, they are one.

From above it is not bright;
From below it is not dark:
Unbroken thread beyond description.
It returns to nothingness.
Form of the formless,
Image of the imageless,
It is called indefinable and beyond imagination.

Stand before it - there is no beginning.
Follow it and there is no end.
Stay with the Tao, Move with the present.
Knowing the ancient beginning is the essence of Tao.

Quantum physics is like the fantastic teachings of the core of all religions. The infamous JZ Knight of the Ramtha School of enlightenment proclaims “Quantum Physics is the science of the gods”. It is a collection of postulates and theories, a collection of hypotheses that cannot be verified by external scientific instruments. The only way to verify these is through the mind. Richard Feynmann gives this introduction to a lecture about quantum theory - "Do not take the lecture too seriously . . . just relax and enjoy it. I am going to tell you what nature behaves like. If you will simply admit that maybe she does behave like this, you will find her a delightful, entrancing thing. Do not keep saying to yourself "But how can it be like that?" because you will get . . . into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that."

David Quinn, in the Wizard Forum posts this

“The core delusion of the mind, which forms the basis of all other delusions, is the belief in inherent existence. I refer here to the instinctive and deeply-held belief that things really exist in an independent, objective manner. From this core delusions spring the thousands of beliefs which make up religion, science, agnosticism and atheism. In each case, one is creating imaginary entities (such as God, matter, objective existence, etc) in order to explain a "reality" which is falsely imagined to exist in the first place. As soon as this core delusion is eliminated, every other delusion concerning the nature of existence naturally falls into a heap - like the sudden collapse of a stack of cards - and it is here that the mind experiences enlightenment. What the enlightened person perceives, in his enlightenment, is the formlessness of Reality, sometimes referred to as "emptiness" or "the Void". He perceives that everything is causally created and an illusion of the moment, including his own self. He sees that there is nothing at all which is objectively or fundamentally real. There is nothing to seek or grasp, nothing to explain or resolve, nothing to uncover or know. There is only the purity of Nature relentlessly producing whim after whim after whim. This is Nature as it really is. This is Ultimate Reality.”

So it seems, that after enlightenment, one realizes that the infinite forms of existence which has blinded us, deluded us, made us kill each other in greed or rage, made us scheme and plot for land or gold, made us hate and strive for illusory glory, made us wage war for wealth or women was all actually contained in the one infinite, unchangeable and ultimate reality. The sunya!

Read more...

Is the truth out there?

There is no "Out There" out there independent of the "In here" so the truth is not our there, it' in here...

Read more...

John Dobson - Equations of Maya

Modern cosmologists usually take non-existence for granted and hope to get the Universe out of nothing. But must we assume that in the absence of the Universe and in the absence of space and time there would be nothing? Or can we, without so rash an assumption, find clues to what might remain if instead we take existence for granted but leave out space and time? Could what remains, through apparition or maya, appear as this Universe? Can we, from what remains, get a Universe of gravity, electricity and inertia?

Swami Vivekananda said in one of his lectures (6) that the Universe is the Absolute seen through the screen of time, space, and causation (kala, desha, nimitta). He said that time, space, and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen, and when It is seen on the lower side, It appears as the Universe. So not only is the Universe apparitional, it's the Absolute seen through time and space, and that allows us to understand why the physics of the Universe takes the form that we see.

Read the rest of the article here

Read more...

Article - Physics And Vedanta by John Dobson

John Dobson is the creator of the "Dobsonian" telescope mount, co-founder of the Sidewalk Astronomers Organization.

John Dobson's scientific musings are very thought provoking and, like Einstein's Relativity, require us to re-examine many of our long-held views. His theories in physics and cosmology boldly break new ground and significantly challenge the scientific orthodoxy.

Article - Physics And Vedanta

Read more...

The Philosophy of India

About the philosophy I’m reading, it was such a tremendous rush for my one sided brain, crammed with the wonders of scientific inquiry and the “miracles” of science and technology obtained through books, encyclopedias, news paper articles, the discovery channel, the BBC nova and horizon, national geographic etc. I realized that I had dedicated all my life starting from my high school days in selective study of all things which are logical and scientific as described by our current school of thought on what is scientific. I had completely rejected my religion as being unable to explain anything logically. let alone elucidate that stupendous claim for an explanation of the “truth”.

About science, it’s only recently that I discovered that all along (like the erstwhile Roman catholic church), we have still been operating in a ruthless narrow minded investigation of nature. We were limited by our own physical makeup - Our sense organs. We are unable to transcend our human limitations in our study of things. When you think of it, how could we? So is modern day science becoming a dogma and modern day scientist’s fundamentalists? The dictionary describes the word science as “the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment”. A vast amount of what we term scientific knowledge is still speculations, agreed upon by a sizable number of scientists with authority on the subject. Acceptability is solely based on verifiability and repeatability. Thus for ages we have been sticking to pushing under the rugs, things that does not conform to our narrow perception of what is scientific truth. We stand just steps away from burning at the stake, people with alternate ideas derived from non conforming means. We gracefully sweep alternate explanations of what science has not explained under the rug. Like an embarrassed house wife in the presence of guests. We neatly label such people as eccentrics and probable lunatics. In lesser refined cultures of the west such ideas would be termed blasphemous and the practitioners heretics and occultists.

It seems too soon, but fundamental science has already reached the upper threshold of credibility from its methods. Quantum mechanics has accumulated several idiosyncrasies generated by its most fantastic hypothesis. We have reached a point where the accumulated peculiarities from this theory has thrown open the whole approach of quantum physics into independent inquiry. The entire gamut of philosophical explanations in the quantum theory is ridden with holes and the theory barely stands up in its attempt to connect observable phenomenon in the micro and macro cosmos. Eminent physicists are now looking at what has been preached in India for thousands of years about the basis of reality. India being the only place where every idea has been encouraged to take its natural course of completion either to stand alone tall and strong by it own merits of truth or perish completely into oblivion in the long forgotten annals of history

Read more...