http://thebigthinkg.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/03/aum-om-an-analysis.htm
http://thebigthinkg.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/04/gayatri-the-big-bang.htm
http://thebigthinkg.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/09/new-revelations-in-purusha-suktam.htm
http://thebigthinkg.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/10/the-zudra-of-purusha-suktam.htm
Suktam simply means recitations. Purusha Suktam is recitations about The Purusha. Nasadeeya Suktam derives its name from the fact that it starts with Na Sada', which means Not ever'. It is in a way Na Sada-eeya suktam. Everything in this universe is Not ever', including the very Purusha Himself.
Purusha Suktam says the entire universe is excreted from one-quarter of Purusha who stood ten fingerbreadths long and goes on to describe the steps in which the Universe came from Purusha. It also talks about seven black holes that anchor the universe that are like aerial roots that are growing back towards purusha.
The meaning of Purusha is a bit in dispute. Some people say it is Pur-Isa, which became Purusha. If it is Pur-Isa it is about the One who fills up everything, everywhere. That raises the question from where this came, which fills up everywhere. Some people say it is Puro-usha, which means one who existed before dawn. That raises the question what existed before the dawn.
Nasadiya Suktam - Summary
Nasadiya suktam answers it in either case. It goes one step before Purusha suktam. It talks about from where Purusha, the one who fills up everything everywhere came and the big bang explosion that evolved all the natural forces.
The key point is Not ever'. Nothing here is ever'. Everything changes. Everything changes fast. That is the nature of this universe. There is nothing ever' including the primordial purusha.
"Vyom formed by consuming all the fires that raged outside to come to a stable state. And Vyom shone like a blissful woman at that time and it was darkness everywhere else, as there was nothing outside vyom at that time.
The nature of Vyom was plasmic(not always bounded, not always unbounded).
From the word Vyom I interpret it as Vayu+Aum, which means gaseous universe.
Vyom does not have death nor does it have life for ever. It keeps changing ever. In that night, as darkness kept surging as vyom consumed every little thing outside it there came a time that nothing existed outside vyom. At that time, first appeared a penis-head at the bottom of vyom. Though its nature was monstrous in that it encapsulated so much of heat that can give birth to millions of galaxies and stars, it was trifle in its appearance.
That penis-head had a hole that connected to the womb of vyom where the Primal Egg was situated as the real' mind of vyom. That mind of vyom strives to continuously seek the intelligence of evolution. The womb of vyom is the virtual' heart of vyom. (Mind exists in the heart!)
The penis head got cut up and contents of top and bottom portions of vyom fused at the meeting point, producing a huge explosion with light and sound. This sound (I interpret) is the AOOM, as normally a BOOM sound is produced when explosion rips off something. But when there is nothing to rip off, AOOM sound is produced (it can be mimicked by saying BOOM with lips open).
The power of that explosion produced a huge unbounded fire which further exerted on and on and moved away.
We all know that from this unbounded fire all natural forces were produced. But who can proclaim with certain knowledge what sparked this unbounded fire..?
Based on the completely observable part of vyom, the one who emits this unbounded fire is only partly known or not known at all."
From the above description my inference is that the vyom with the penis head below looks like the conch of Vishnu. The Penis head alone may look like the Linga.
My inference also is that while vyom is the original outer form that appeared when everything outside was consumed, purusha is the inner form or content of vyom, which was produced when contents of upper and lower portions of vyom fused and exploded. We are all the manifestations of purusha. It is not known what vyom (the one who encapsulated and gave rise to purusha) is.
Nasadiya Suktam - In Detail
nAsadAsIn no sadAsIt tadAnIM nAsId rajo no vyomAparo yat
kimAvarIvaH kuha kasya sharmannambhaH kimAsId gahanaM gabhIram
Not always bonded, Not always unbounded, at that time, there was no unrestrained fiery activity moving beyond that gaseous universe. What makes this space that shines like a blissful woman/mother..? What restrains/controls this deep abyss..?
Key to note here is Vyom. Vyom, I have interpreted as gaseous universe. (Vayu + Aum). It is the combination of Vayu and Aum. Aum is Universe and Vayu is gas. Another point is the nature of this Vyom. It was not always bonded (solid). It was not always unbounded (liquid). It was probably plasmic.
So vyom could be defined as Plasmic Universal seed.
And there was no fire beyond this Vyom, which means everywhere else was darkness.
This plasmic vyom shines like a blissful woman/mother indicates beautifully that it was red hot (contended) but not burning. And then it was so deep that we wonder how it is really controlled.
Na - not, sadA - ever, sin - tie, bond, fetter (chained), no - not, sadA - ever, asita - unbound, tadanIm - at that time, then, na Asid - not imprisoned (not controlled), not restrained, rajo - fiery, active, no - not, vyoma - gas cloud, gas bag, paro - other side / outside / beyond, off, away, yat - moving, going, KimaVariv - What makes room (creates this space), Kuha - where, Kasya - to go, to shine, to beam, approach, to move, Zarman - shelter, protection, refuge, safety, joy, bliss, happiness, One who is at peace/bliss/rest, graceful, Pride, ambah - mother, woman
na mRtyurAsIdamRtaM na tarhi na rAtryA ahna AsItpraketaH
AnIdavAtaM svadhayA tadekaM tasmAddhAnyan na paraH kiM canAsa
Neither mortality controls it, nor immortality. And it does not have the appearance of one who dwells in darkness. (It shines like a blissful woman). That one fetched all the fires/heat till the end to conciliate (make peace) with itself. Hence there was nothing outside of this rich being whatsoever.
This vyom is not immortal because, it is soon going to give way to something else. This is not mortal because, it is never going to cease to exist. After several forms and shapes the vyom will appear again. How..?
It is dwelling in darkness now. But then has the appearance of a blissful mother and not the appearance of who dwells in darkness.
It is because this vyom arose out of fetching of fires/heat till the end (till any fires/heat lasted outside) and came to a steady state. It has risen out of consuming what it has given rise to. In other words everything in this universe went back into this vyoma. Hence it will keep appearing again and again.
At this time, after it has consumed everything outside, there was nothing outside it. And this vyom is at peace after having consumed everything that existed outside. And it is all darkness outside, while vyom shines like a blissful mother.
na - Not, mRtyur - death, Asid - control/restrain, amRtam - nectar /life, na - Not, tarhi - at that time, then, at that moment, in that case, na - not, rAtrya - at night, by night, darkness/stillness, ahna - instantly, fast, immediately, Asit - at rest, seated, abode, one who dwells, Praketa - appearance, sight, apparition, intelligent, knowledgeable, perception, Ani - to fetch, to lead, near, pour, mix, to carry, Davathu - fire, heat, pain, Aanidhavatam - not to cling on till exhaustion, Nidhavate - to rub into one's person, to press one's self on, cling to, Tam - till exhaustion, till end, Svadhaya - propitiate, conciliate, make peace, Tadekam - That one, tasmAd - therefore, on that account, from that, dhAnyan - richy one, na - not, parah - outside
tama AsIt tamasA gULamagre.apraketaM salilaM sarvamAidam
tuchyenAbhvapihitaM yadAsIt tapasastanmahinAjAyataikam
In that darkness dwelling night of the surging/unsteady universe, first appeared the glans penis (head of penis) (or head of a globular structure). That one was a trifle concealing its monstrous/immense nature which sat on (hid inside) heat that could throw off mighty birth of natural forces.
From the vyom which was shining appeared the head of penis like structure. If Vyoma is globular and penis like structure appeared below (why below in the next stanzar), it would look like the Conch in the hands of Vishnu. If only the head of penis like structure is considered, it would look like the Linga of Shiva, but then it is small.
This suktam says that though the penis head like structure was a trifle compared to its monstrous nature. It hid all the heat that is going to result in the birth of all Devas. Devas of fire, thunder, lightning, air, water and so many other natural forces. All such natural forces are regarded as Devas in our scriptures.
tama - night, Asit - dwells, tamasA - darkness, gULam - globular, pill like, penis, gudham- secret invisible, agre - first, in the beginning, praketam - appearance, salilam - flowing, surging, unsteady, sarvamidham - this universe, tucha - empty, trifle, 14th lunar day, ena - that one, abhva - monstruous, immense, apihitaM - put into, placed into, shut, covered, concealed, yad -who whichever whatever, Asit -seated, Tapas - heat, Astan - thrown off, left off, set aside, given up, Mahina - great, mighty, jAya - birth, bringing forth, taikam -of ganas
kAmastadagre samavartatAdhi manaso retaH prathamaM yadAsIt
sato bandhumasati niravindan hRdi pratISyAkavayo manISA
That lowly head offers at first a hole (an opening) to the womb(beginning) place, which looks like peaked mountain, where its mind is the principal egg which is seated real connecting to the virtual mountain-heart that seeks the intelligence of the evolutionary.
The penis head had appeared on the lower side. It offers an opening to womb place that is situated inside the peaking-mountain structure. And in that womb place the principal egg that evolves this universe is situated.
Typically, what is perceived outside is only the mind and not the heart of a being. Our logics perceive the mind of others and not their heart. Logically, mind is real and heart remains virtual. But heart is physically real and mind is physically virtual.
Similarly our logical understanding is that the principal egg resides in that heart of that mountain, as its mind that seeks the intelligence of the evolution.
kA - lowly, masta - head, da - giving, offering, agre - first, samavarta - uniform prime vertical circle (uniformly round urethra), ta - womb, Adhi - beginning, place, situation, Manaso - intellect, mind, retaH - egg, pratamam - foremost, first, chief, principal, excellent, yada - who, whichever, whatever, Asit - seated, sato - like, real, Bandhum - connection, bonding, asati - not real, Niravindan - of a mountain, mountaneous one, hRdi - heart, heartful, pratISyA - strive, seek, receive, accept, to regard, mind, attend to, obey, kavayo - fish that lives in land and water (the learned), manISA - thought reflection wisdom intelligence
tirashcIno vitato rashmireSAmadhaH svidAsI.a.a.at
retodhAAsan mahimAna Asan svadhA avastAt prayatiH parastAt
The lower portion cut up with a horizontally spreading rays of light, producing an inarticulate sound, impregnating (fusing) that great one's mouth with the power attained from below, exerting that power further on.
The penis head that appeared for some reason got cut with light and sound (exploded) thus producing a huge amount of power at the mouth of this great one and exerting the power of that mouth further on.
When explosion occurs light and sound are produced and the exploding part is blown to pieces. The important thing is to notice the sound that is produced.
When explosives explode blowing off something around them, a BOOM' sound is produced.
But in the explosion that occurred when nothing was there, there was nothing to break and it produced a AOOM' sound. Try producing a BOOM' sound when lips are open. Only AOOM' will be produced.
The suktam says the lower part has not been blown to pieces. It exists. It just got cut up and probably the contents of the lower and upper parts fused at the joints and produced a great explosion, which moved horizontally with an AUM sound.
Combining this with purusha suktam, the three quarters of purusha still exists inside this Vyoma. Only one quarter of purusha expanded to form all this material universe and its beings. In the plasmic universe seed of Vyom, purusha is the material content that formed of the fusion of some materials inside.
The mind of this vyoma, the egg strives to achieve the higher intelligences of evolution. In that process, this explosion, evolutions of material universe and its beings happen.
According to Purusha Suktam, at some point of time they get burnt up like samith, loose their energy, become black-holes and move back into the vyoma. This process is like the inverted banyan tree with roots up and branches down, with aerial roots moving up.
And then the process described here in Nasadiya Suktam starts.
tiraschcIno - horizontal, transverse, across, vitato - spread out extended, razmi - string, cord, rein, bridle, ray of light, splendour, resham- howl or produce an inarticulate sound, adhas - lower portion, vidasi - cut up, retodhA - impregnating, fertilizing, Asan - mouth, entry, mahimAna - great one's, Asan - entry, mouth, Svadha - inherent power, nature of material universe, Avastat - before time, below (attained from below), Prayati - offering, gift, donation, intention, will effort, exertion, parastAt - futher away, beyond, further on
ko addhA veda ka iha pra vocat kuta AjAtA kuta iyaMvisRSTiH
arvAg devA asya visarjanenAthA ko veda yataAbabhUva
Who in this place with certain knowledge can proclaim from whom was born, from whom this discharge happened. All natural forces (Devas are gods of natural forces and hence represent natural forces) were born of this emptying is the current knowledge of this unbounded fire.
From the vyoma (gas cloud/gaseous universe that shone like a blissful woman) appeared a lowly head, which got cut up and the contents fused to explode to what the suktam calls as Aba Bhuva', an unbounded fire, producing the sound Aum' and light.
The entire universe came from this Aba Bhuva. This is also repeated in Gayatri. It is said "Aum bhu bhuva swa'. Aum (Aum represents creation of this Universe) came into being (bhu means comes into being) from fire (bhuva means fire) on its own (swa means on its own).
All natural forces came out of this fire. Why did they came out..? It is because the mind of this vyoma continuously strives to seek the intelligence of the evolution. Evolution of intelligence is sought by the mind of this vyoma and hence natural forces evolved.
The suktam says it is not certain knowledge to proclaim from whom this emission happened from which all natural forces appeared along with the unbounded fire.
ko - who else, of, addhA - in this way, manifestly, truly, veda - knowledge, ka - who, which, what, iha - here, in this place, pravocat - proclaim before, kuta - from whom, AjAta - born, Kuta - from whom, Iyam - this, this here, visRSTi - letting go, discharge, emission of semen, arvAg - hither (located on the near side), devA - god, asya - mouth, visarjanena - evacuation, evacuating one, atha - now, ko - oh no, veda - knowledge, yata - governed, controlled, Aba - unbounded, Bhuva - fire
iyaM visRSTiryata AbabhUva yadi vA dadhe yadi vA na
yo asyAdhyakSaH parame vyoman so aN^ga veda yadi vA naveda
The one who is emitting this unbounded fire is put in place or not by this observable complete vyom is part knowledge if not knowledge at all.
In the previous verse, the suktam raised a doubt stating who can say with complete knowledge from what this unbounded fire unfolded..? It stated something fused between the lower and upper parts. But what fused...? How the fire started was not known.
In this verse it says that if the observable vyom puts in place the one that emits this unbounded fire is only a part knowledge. It may not be even knowledge at all, meaning it could be even wrong. It is because what makes up this vyom is not known.
And probably vyom has not also been completely observed and known.
iyam - this here, visrstiryata - emitting one, AbaBhuva - unbounded fire, Yadi - as sure as, surely, if, whether, Va - either, Dade - put, sets, lays, put in a place, holds, Yadi - if, Va - or, Na - not, Yo - one who, Asya - of this, Adhyaksa - perceptible to the senses , observable ; exercising supervision, Parame - chief, primary, most distant, remotest, excellent, Vyoman - gas bag, gas clouds, So - bestowing, preserving, Anga - part, Veda - knowledge, Yadi -if Va -or, Na - not, Veda - knowledge
-TBT
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Lije, 2010-10-30 03:39:42
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-30 02:54:18
Over the last few thousands of years, there have been many more people who do not subscribe to the methodology of Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism than who do and they also claim that their way is the one true way. So from A and B, it can be deduced that Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism are not valid sources of knowledge
I echo mogambo's question. Does not subscribing to the methodology mean the same thing as having tried and proved ineffective? Also, the Dharmic traditions never claim exclusivity...all three paths say that anyone can reach enlightenment, not necessarily only those who follow these systems.
The vedic sages said "Ekam Sat Vipraha bahuda vadanti"..."the truth is One but the wise refer to it by different names"
To address TbTg's statement of argument and debate being in the "middleware" level...I agree. This type of argumentation happens when experience is misisng. Sometimes on part of one party and sometimes on part of all parties involved.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mogambo, 2010-10-30 02:41:17
A. Subjective experience forms a stronger epistemological base than objective evidence.
B. Subjective experience of one person is not valid. But the subjective experience of many people over a period of time is valid. I think you will agree if I generalize this in saying subjective experience of the majority is more valid than that of a minority.
Now given that,
C. Over the last few thousands of years, there have been many more people who do not subscribe to the methodology of Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism than who do and they also claim that their way is the one true way. So from A and B, it can be deduced that Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism are not valid sources of knowledge.
mogambo understands that subjetcive experience is called subjective because it is the first-person individual experience and as such all experience is subjective
to state that there is experience that is objective is like saying there is a cloud without a sky or a moon without the space
objectiveness is a framework that is used by scintists to do the enquiry into things they are studying and even while doing the study or being objective they need subjective experience becoz experience can only be subjective
when ever a subject is involved experienced is subjective
subject is experiencer object is experiencee or experienced
so what mogambo is asking is not question why people dont follow vedas/taoism/buddhism but why should they be considered invalid becoz people dont follow them?
is not following the same as tried and proven by experience as invalid?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 20:10:13
This a perfect example of how people can take specific parts of another's argument and make a feeble attempt at defending their position.
I have not taken a specific part of an argument. I have taken a shot at what I consider is the biggest shortcoming of subjective experience. I am not even involving science here. This is just basic logic.
Tell me if I am doing this wrong. According to you:
A. Subjective experience forms a stronger epistemological base than objective evidence.
B. Subjective experience of one person is not valid. But the subjective experience of many people over a period of time is valid. I think you will agree if I generalize this in saying subjective experience of the majority is more valid than that of a minority.
Now given that,
C. Over the last few thousands of years, there have been many more people who do not subscribe to the methodology of Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism than who do and they also claim that their way is the one true way. So from A and B, it can be deduced that Vedas/Taoism/Buddhism are not valid sources of knowledge.
-
- +0
-
-
written by thebigthinkg, 2010-10-29 18:02:55
Lot of arguments and discussions. Good.
Though I am not that much knowledgeable 'spiritually', I know my physical and mental beings are too small for many things I see in this planet. I realize that whatever I have learned, blocks usage of my natural consciousness and using it could have been better in many circumstances.
In computer parlance, the ability of applications (thoughts in our brain/heart) to use the Kernel/Hardware (natural consciousness/brain) is greatly reduced as we build up a huge middleware (our acquired knowledge). It is not that it cannot be used. But we do not know the methods to use them.
We evaluate the applications (thoughts), based on what middleware (acquired knwoledge) we have. Hence in my view, no thought is a junk thought. The junk sand became silicon and gets to rule the world today. Similarly every thought will have its time. Hence no need to accept, no need to reject. If you have storage space, store them for later processing. If you are lucky you will get to use them.
Often spiritual debates are middleware (acquired knowledge) debates. Difficult to synchronize as the softwares and versions are totally different between the people.
Does spiritual debates happen between the people of the Nicobar tribes which escaped tsunami..? They live a life with much less middleware and have applications (thoughts) that better use their kernel (consciousness). Is it not..?
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 14:04:35
So it comes down to a popularity contest. There are billions of people who do not accept the subjective reality that the Vedas talk about. So by your logic, Vedas are not valid. Anything believed by a majority becomes sound epistemology. I think you just made the case against the validity of subjective experience.
So if you can tell me how I can experience enlightenment and deduce what you (Neo) have deduced, I will be compelled to agree with you.
It's really simple. Take a mind altering drug like LSD and watch the movie The Matrix. That is the quickest path to enlightenment.
This a perfect example of how people can take specific parts of another's argument and make a feeble attempt at defending their position.
No, popularity doesn't make it right. What makes it right is that the same methodology was employed by innumerable individuals across the wide expanse of time to get to the same realization. This is not only true for the Vedas but also of Taoism and Buddhism (to a great extent). What people did with the experience is different and their perspectives and interpretations are different.
Your idea of taking LSD and watching the Matrix makes me laugh. Why? Because I have done similar things in the past and that hasn't changed my concept of reality. What did was a good solid basis in meditation practice...when your entire life and reality as you know it crumbles before you, you have no choice but to accept the possibility of other aspects to reality.
And once one understands the ephemeral nature of things and that everything in this material world is phenomenal, there remains no doubt whatsoever that those who talked about a a-phenomenal reality were onto something.
Since you like to take LSD, try this (though it will be hard to keep focus while stoned):
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 11:23:35
If over the thousands of years many have experienced x & y then that is considered valid.
So it comes down to a popularity contest. There are billions of people who do not accept the subjective reality that the Vedas talk about. So by your logic, Vedas are not valid. Anything believed by a majority becomes sound epistemology. I think you just made the case against the validity of subjective experience.
So if you can tell me how I can experience enlightenment and deduce what you (Neo) have deduced, I will be compelled to agree with you.
It's really simple. Take a mind altering drug like LSD and watch the movie The Matrix. That is the quickest path to enlightenment.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 10:22:50
If over the thousands of years many have experienced x & y then that is considered valid.
So if you can tell me how I can experience enlightenment and deduce what you (Neo) have deduced, I will be compelled to agree with you. But you cannot, so I won't. However, I can tell you very simply how to experience true Non-Dual reality and you can achieve it if you dedicate time and effort towards it. Then you won't have an option but to agree.
But dear Scientific person, you don't want to...because you will say "extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence" and the onus of convincing you of something is on me. In spiritual work however it is the individual effort that defines the experience...unless one is willing to submit to the "method" one cannot know.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 08:33:29
You mistake your mind for your consciousness.
Why do you say I'm mistaken? I have realized consciousness. I have found enlightenment. That is why I am Neo.
Having said that, the point I am trying to make is, by preferring subjective experience over objective evidence, you have no choice but to accept .
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 08:13:43
Dear Lije,
So if I say that we inside a matrix and that I am Neo and that the Absolute Reality described by the Vedas is only an illusion put in the The Architect, am I correct? Because that is what my consciousness is telling me right now.
You mistake your mind for your consciousness. Consciousness is the background on which everything is being played out. It is the observer and the screen. The mind (which the field of thoughts that arise and fall) is what is "telling" you that you are Neo and the Vedas are an illusion put in by the Architect. When you can silence your mind is when you really get in touch with your consciousness. The mind is in the consciousness, but your consciousness is not your mind (and thoughts)...
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 07:22:34
So if I say that we inside a matrix and that I am Neo and that the Absolute Reality described by the Vedas is only an illusion put in the The Architect, am I correct? Because that is what my consciousness is telling me right now.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 07:00:04
Coming to noumenon, by your definition, by articulating or even expressing the possibility of the Absolute Reality in the Vedas which were carried in the physical brains of humans first by oral transmission and then in writing, doesn't the Absolute Reality become non-noumenal by virtue of the idea of itself having crossed over into the natural world? In short, I'm referring to Nietzsche's critique of the noumenon - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Noumenon#Nietzsche.27s_critique
Dear Lije,
There in lies the rub! The Tao that is named is not the real Tao...Brahman is Silence. The masters who went before us (like Lao Tzu, The Upanishadic rishis and Shankaracharya) clearly state that dualistic paradigms (and categorical frameworks) cannot encompass or represent the Absolute Reality. Even in our dualistic world, you can describe Tea till the cows come home, but you cannot communicate it's taste and flavor. The core and ultimate qualifier and arbiter is the experience which is dependent on the experiencer.
So without Consciousness ( the problem you said cannot be explained away by Objectivity) nothing is possible. Not even Objective observation or measurements.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 05:14:10
That is not what I meant. I should have added the qualifier "as far as we know". I apologise for not being clear. Please treat all of my claims with that qualifier (the qualifier is implicit in any knowledge gained from science). I know that absense of evidence does not mean that it is evidence of absense, but at the same time we should also not forget that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An infinite number of false but non-falsifiable statements can be made. In the name of keeping an "open mind" should all them be entertained?
As to your other claims, I will eagerly await for your evidence. Until then, I do not agree that knowledge of Vedas is anywhere near to that of science; nor did they come from any higher intelligence.
-
- +0
-
-
written by thebigthinkg, 2010-10-29 05:06:36
While I can't dispute or accept that if Vedas are many things to many people, as my knowlege is very limited, I would like to stick to my translations that say Vedas are indeed science.
My gut-feel is they are indeed scientific texts that we received from higher intelligent beings and Aryan civilization and way of life itself was synchornized with the Universe and its evolution in every way through these.
I have several new finds which I will tabulatte later and ask help of scientific communities to validate..
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by thebigthinkg, 2010-10-29 04:55:53
Is your surmise that humans are only capable of language in the entire Universe correct..?. Universe is so big and humans have no way to reach even outside solar system. So here itself our knowledge is limited.
Here is where science works. In science, based on observations we propose models and theories and evaluate them with available evidences to prove and disprove. The Vedas are a revelation was our belief.
After studying several vedic slokas, I am intending that Vedas were indeed revelations and from people who have had higher intelligence than human beings who received them. I have some evidences in Rg Veda, Vishnu Purana etc.
For long 'scientists' of the then world proposed that earth is flat. For long 'scientists' ridiculed the idea of for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So science will find its proof on this theory sometime later. So what I am doing is not a pointless exercise.
When Boolean algebra was developed it did not have any takers. Today it is a very vital concept. There are several new learnings that I see for science from my Vedic translations and there are ample opportunities for this proving/disproving to take place.
Till now, with what I read, I could not talk about measuring the red-shift of a galaxy. But I had an interesting find that dark matter influences the matter. Today science does not believe so. If my interpretation holds good, then dark matter influences spin of matter. There are several findings that I could infer, which I will tabulate.
For eg Nasadiya Suktam says evolution of intelligence and realization of the 'Self' through the evolution of intelligene is the whole objective of evolution of Universe. Science does not say so today. May be it will tomorrow. Purusha Suktam says Universe is like a woman with seven holes (It has seven bottomless pits/black holes) and keeps creating under the influence of Purusha (which I interpret as dark matter) (while Purusha itself does not undergo any change).
By the way I did not claim that Vedas are an answer all science questions. I just said their contents were science in nature.
And mind you, hogwarts can also become reality. Our scriptures say in Kali Yuga, lamps will burn upside down.
For a moment think of the 'scientists' who lived few hundred years back. For them lamps burning upside down would have been simply magical non-sense. They would have rubbished the lamps burning upside down idea as foolish and without any evidence. Is it magical non-sense today..?
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 04:27:13
Coming to noumenon, by your definition, by articulating or even expressing the possibility of the Absolute Reality in the Vedas which were carried in the physical brains of humans first by oral transmission and then in writing, doesn't the Absolute Reality become non-noumenal by virtue of the idea of itself having crossed over into the natural world? In short, I'm referring to Nietzsche's critique of the noumenon - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Noumenon#Nietzsche.27s_critique
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 03:57:56
Please go through this article of mine, that discusses Scientific Method and it's efficacy (or lack of it thereof)...
http://www.medhajournal.com/sc...-yoga.html
As you are probably well aware, this kind of discussion is not new...we've been having these for years.
WRT Noumenon and Harry Potter's universe. By definition, Noumenon is something that is beyond perception and conception, so Harry Potter's universe is clearly not noumenal, because even though it doesn't have a material reality (as in touch/feel/taste/see), it is tangible in the sense that it can be conceptualized and evidently articulated.
The Absolute Reality that is expressed in the Vedas is not that way...it can neither be effectively conceptualized nor perceived via standard faculties. It can only be "Known" via Direct Intuition (called Prajna).
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-29 03:17:26
Using the modern definition of science, that is the one which hinges on the scientific method, the Vedas are not scientific.
I am also questioning the epistemology of the Vedas - on what basis should the Vedas be considered as a true source of knowledge? Saying that the Vedas are noumenal doesn't make a strong case as the same can be said for other falsifiable belief systems like, for example, a world view derived from the Harry Potter books.
I don't disagree with when you say anyone who reads the vedas can draw their own opinion, if that is indeed what you meant. My only point of contention is that those opinions cannot be scientific going by the definition of science. They can only be subjective.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2010-10-29 02:19:23
The Vedas are many things to many people. The reason why someone can read it and find profound spiritual wisdom, or deep scientific wisdom or something else is because of the nature of the content of the Vedas. The Vedas are called Shruti because they are attempts by Rishis to capture in words something beyond perpection and conception (ie noumenal reality). The knowledge of this appears in the form of prajna, or direct intuitional wisdom (when prajna rises no doubts exist, one just knows, without need for rational faculties).
Since that which is revealed through the Vedas is noumenal, it contains all the knowledge in the world...because based on which framework (model) applied to IT (Tat), the result changes. If you apply scientific framework you get science, if you apply spiritual framework you get spirituality, if you apply primitivity framework you get primitivity. At the end of the day, what we see in the Vedas is a result of our circumstances, psychological make-up and level of consciousness. An artist might see great poetry in the Vedas, a scientist great science, a spiritual person great spiritual wisdom...
if you want to learn more about this, read Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla's book titled Jnana Yoga -- The Way of Knowledge.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-28 19:55:14
And science is not faith. The constant proving and disproving that goes on in science is antithetical to faith. In faith, evidence does not matter. Whereas the entire system of science hinges on evidence. The philosophy of science is humble enough to accept that it is defeasible. It is more than happy to entertain any idea, the only caveat being there be some supporting evidence. So for something to be called science, it is not enough to propose a model. The model needs to be tested and it has to conform to reality. Else any model can be called science, including the model of the world which consists of muggles, wizards and witches.
3. Let's say some of my translations end up in realm of science or someone in scientific community has his/her thoughts triggered due to these translations or finds something that could provide a breakthrough, then the whole notion of vedas could change.
You just retrofitted your interpretation of Vedas with science. For it to be valid, it should at least be able to model the Universe as we know today. For example, can you, based only on the knowledge contained in the Vedas measure the red shift of a galaxy and hence the rate at which it is moving away from us? It should be trivial for a knowledge source that you claim knows about the big bang theory and black holes.
4. Let me put it this way. Do not have radical faith in anything and keep evaluating your faith. Have Saativk Faith not Rajasik or not Tamasik faith. That's what Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita.
No. I do not have cling to faith in any form. I am a naturalist and know that the philosophy I subscribe to is very much defeasible. At the same time, I also do not entertain notions which have no basis in reality. Else I would be dreaming of enrolling in Hogwarts.
-
- +0
-
-
written by thebigthinkg, 2010-10-28 15:37:24
Simply, there is a lot of belief and faith in science too (which are called models and propositions), which gets proved or disproved during the course of time. This is also same as that. For eg our understanding of todays Universe is based on a model. Just because it is a model, it cannot be said, it is not science.
2. While what you are saying is true, that the 'Who knows' statement opens up a lot of wishful thinking, some meaningful analysis into anything could open up a lot of possibilities. Think about it.
For several thousands of years, a certain oral tradition has been set up to transfer the 'revelations' (as our ancestors called them). Assuming somebody has written something, there is no need for them to call it revelations and invest huge amount of human lives and generations in it, given the primitive/natural way of life that existed in those days. They would have better spent their time enjoying their life.
Communities were dedicated to learning these though it didn't make any meaning to them. Though several attempts have been made to understand what is in them, lot of interpretations had to come up as the translations appeared to be not making any sense at all.
Vedas can be visualized as a 'fortune' which was recognized as a 'fortune' as they have been communicated by someone possibly higher up in the plane and not because of their meanings. The idea could have been if this fortune was carried over several generations, as the intelligence grew, people would make use of this fortune. Now, this is a surmise. I am not saying it is absolute truth. It could be a possibility.
3. Let's say some of my translations end up in realm of science or someone in scientific community has his/her thoughts triggered due to these translations or finds something that could provide a breakthrough, then the whole notion of vedas could change.
4. Let me put it this way. Do not have radical faith in anything and keep evaluating your faith. Have Saativk Faith not Rajasik or not Tamasik faith. That's what Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita.
And that includes rubbishing vedas too, as treating these scripts as not useful to science is your 'faith'. So keep your eyes and ears open. It could change, as science is all about learning to change and coping with change.
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-28 08:42:32
1. Vedic texts are no religious texts, as no 'religion' existed at that time.
The defining aspect of religion is faith. There is no evidence that Vedas are not man made. But you believe otherwise. Accepting something even in the absence of evidence is faith. Vedic thought was not a religion when it was invented. But it does qualify as religion today.
2. They are recorded as 'Srutis' or 'Revelations'. Since there are several other texts that are recorded as 'Smritis', we cannot brush down this aspect of them as a later day glorification. Vedic texts were revelations as heard by Rishis of those days. So I don't think any human being wrote them.
If not humans who? Why isn't there any evidence for that?
3. It is possible that they were heard from beings of higher intelligence and maintained orally. Who knows..?
I agree that Vedas were orally transmitted for a long time before they were written down. That is why the sounds of the verses form error correcting codes so that a mispronunciation can be rectified. As to the higher intelligence and "Who knows...?" part, that argument opens up a lot of room for wishful thinking. A few hundred years from now, somebody may read a Harry Potter book and say "People back then could fly on broom sticks. Maybe they had some assistance from a higher intelligence. Who knows?". I think I have made my point on the importance of evidence.
My only complaint is that there is no evidence that the Vedic people knew anything at all about the big bang or energy matter equivalence or black holes and yet that is what you imply in your articles. The only evidence I see is your interpretation of vedic metaphysics which is not good enough.
-
- +0
-
-
written by thebigthinkg, 2010-10-28 05:49:40
What you have expressed is the 'Common sense' approach of common man. But I beg to differ with you, as like any others, you do not really know about the vedas.
1. Vedic texts are no religious texts, as no 'religion' existed at that time.
2. They are recorded as 'Srutis' or 'Revelations'. Since there are several other texts that are recorded as 'Smritis', we cannot brush down this aspect of them as a later day glorification. Vedic texts were revelations as heard by Rishis of those days. So I don't think any human being wrote them.
3. It is possible that they were heard from beings of higher intelligence and maintained orally. Who knows..?
4. Last but not the least, if you can pin-point where this translation has gone wrong, that would be more useful. Just because you think vedas were 'written' and by 'ignoramus', you cannot discount my translation.
I have NOT interpreted largely. I have translated largely without any change. Very few places I had mapped the meanings. Hence I differ with you. You can check it with anyone who knows the meanings or check my translation with Saskrit dictionaries such as Monier Williams.
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lije, 2010-10-27 22:25:16
-
- +0
-
-
written by TheBigThinkg, 2008-12-07 00:42:40
Thanx for ur comments.
As u said gUla seems to represent a penis type structure. But I am not sure of the length part. Uru means great. So no wonder UrugUla is used to denote serpent. Similarly lAnG means limp/lame. No wonder tail is called as limp penis.
Since the suktam says the penis head that appeared ( I had mentioned it as penis head as it fits in both penis type and part globular structures)was a trifle in comparison with its power, I am not sure of the length of it.
I had visualized it as a Conch type structure along with other details mentioned over there.
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-12-06 22:08:24
Regards again. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-12-06 22:04:59
An original and very competent work. The parallel to the big bang is strikingly well taken up.
Since Sanskrit was a constructed rather than naturally evolved language, word meanings are often derived from word roots and while words do have rich variety in meaning, they also confer limits on fertile interpretation. Several scholars do not bother about this restraint.
Your own break from 'tradition' in this regard is also of course welcome.
gula is probably a penis, while it is also the word for anything at least partly spherical. gola is derived from this word.
gUla however does not mean this. As a suffix, it seems to indicate great length rather than any spherical nature, as in the name of the serpent variety urugUla and in one of the words for a tail, lAngUla.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by TheBigThinkg, 2008-12-06 19:21:09
Thanx for ur comments.
The interpretation by Ralph Griffith is the only interpretation that is making the rounds on Nasadiya Suktam almost everywhere.
Unfortunately our people instead of understanding the srutis that were well protected and handed down generations after generations to them by their very own ancestors, have been going through what Ralph Griffith have written about them and have been building variety of philosophical connotations on top of it.
No original work is being done on these srutis.
Griffith is a scholar. I am neither a scholar nor even an amateur. Sometimes I have made usage of the fact that many of these sanskrit words have been 'felt' by me in our household day to day usage (much more than an outside understanding).
Sanskrit is a symbolic, picturesque language. You can apply a word to mean multiple things based on context. Griffith choses to interpret gahanaM as water, as in lake of unknown depth, as that's what gahanaM means. I chose to interpret it as abyss, as that's what I think it means.
-TBT
-
- +0
-
-
written by rudra, 2008-12-06 10:51:45
Here's another interpretation (don't know if you have seen it yet) --
http://medhajournal.com/content/view/345/157/
Excellent article if I might add. I will post more comments later.
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
