I understand your answer. Main point I was trying to make that laws of science are human centric for a given frame of reference.

This may mean that gravity can be blinked out of existence by changing our frame of reference and also gravity may not exists for some non-humans.

Thanks,
Rajendra
Read More...

Dear Raju,
While Pradip will 'answer' you, I thought I will 'react', with permission from both of you.
I do not consider your question childish, even if ,with the limited info available to us about the intelligence of different forms of life, your question can be considered hypothetical.
I believe you have a great sense of humour, just like Sir Roger Penrose.
Read More...

Of late, when I see the proliferation of newer & newer (& more fanciful) "entities" to describe the "Universe & it's constituents", each set of entities riding on(nested in?) the previous set; I'm quite comfortable in Sri Nagarjuna's mode of argumentation where he'd show that a certain line of reasoning (or Scientific theorizing, in this case) led to the perils of INFINITE REGRESS ... hence renderiig itself "ipso facto Null & Void" ....

For other than keeping all legions of scientist/theorizers employed, what else is going on

Bit that's just plain 'ol me ...
Read More...

Medhavis are aware of the improvements in Myanmar junta's attitudes since Suu Kyi's release recently, now culminating in the potential of her actually standing for elections in April 2012!
Let us wish this great leader well in every way!
Read More...

This is addressed to tmj editorial team.
Have the typos indicated by Pradip and me been conveyed to RM? From a more recent posting by RM himself in the BD mailgroup, it appears that a number of sincere readers pf the book have brought his attention to the transposition of the two columns in the table. But perhaps no one else has referred to the fact that the name of the Vishishtadvaita Acharya is Ramanuja only, not Srinivasa Ramanuja or Srinivasa Ramanujan. RM would naturally like to know this before further copies are printed.
Read More...

I found Dr. Puligandla's coverage of this topic very enlightening in this book -

www.amazon.com/Jnana-yoga-Way-Life-Ramak...gandla/dp/0875730914
Read More...

Of course, Deshika. Our Upanishads and itihasapuranas have been inspiring sources of appropriate extracts for use in several contexts throughout the history of this land.

Let me try to give you a somewhat free (not very literal) translation of the four shlokas in the mantapushpanjali.


1. Devas performed yajna, offering yajna to yajna. These were their first acts of dharma (right conduct). As a result, they attained a higher state, much like other saadhyas (achievers) and Devas (superhumans) before them.
2. We salute the king of kings, capable of great endurance in his chariot flights, seeking to be blessed with wealth. He is our objective in our prayer and wealth is the object of our prayer. May this Lord of our desires, the great King Kubera, grant us our desires. Salutations to Lord kubera, Vaisravana, the Maharaja.
3. May the pranava mantra grant us well being. Let us rule over big empires with their subject- kingdoms and their rulers. Let our own nation (Svarajya) flourish. Let ourglorious government enjoy full power. Let the great Empire flourish till oceans last, with full powers and for a long time. Let the mighty kingdom stay as one with authority from the beginning of land to the edge of oceans.
4. This shloka, this prayer has evolved to grant that power, that bliss. In that house (the human body)the five pranic airs, the parabrahma and mareeci air which will sustain life forces for ever. They will protect Jiva and stay firmly fixed in paramatma. This air mix is more subtle than Pranavayu (oxygen). If this air is not circulated the Atma (and paramatma) will leave the body. They are visible to those who are desirous of seeing them. The visvedevas too can be visualized like members of an august council.
Read More...

I found the idea that gravity can be blinked out of existence by changing our frame of reference as of relevance in our debate between Advaita and Dvaita. It is possible that these different experiences are due to different frames of reference.
Read More...

This brief article is posted in www.edge.org. It is only one of 192 posts on this web site. I found this post on structural realism of great interest. I will post my comment after you have read through the piece.
*********************************************************************************************************************************************
Amanda Gefter

Consultant, New Scientist; Founding Editor, CultureLab"

Structural Realism

Structural realism—in its metaphysical version, championed by the philosopher of science James Ladyman—is the deepest explanation I know, because it serves as a kind of meta-explanation, one that explains the nature of reality and the nature of scientific explanations.
The idea behind structural realism is pretty simple: the world isn't made of things, it's made of mathematical relationships, or structure. A mathematical structure is a set of isomorphic elements, each of which can be perfectly mapped onto the next. To give a trivial example, the numbers 25 and 52 share the same mathematical structure.
When the philosopher John Worrall first introduced structural realism (though he attributes it to physicist Henri Poincaré), he was trying to explain something puzzling: how was it possible that a scientific theory that would later turn out to be wrong could still manage to make accurate predictions? Take Newtonian gravity. Newton said that gravity was a force that masses exert on one another from a distance. That idea was overthrown by Einstein, who showed that gravity was the curvature of spacetime. Given how wrong Newton was about gravity, it seems almost miraculous that he was able to accurately predict the motions of the planets.
Thankfully, we don't have to resort to miracles. Newton may have gotten the physical interpretation of gravity wrong, but he got a piece of the math right. That's why, at weak masses and small velocities, Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's. The problem, Worrall pointed out, was that we mistook an interpretation of the theory for the theory itself. The fact is, in physics, theories are sets of equations, and nothing more. "Quantum field theory" is a group of mathematical structures. "Electrons" are little stories we tell ourselves.
These days, believing in the reality of objects—of physical things like particles, fields, forces, even spacetime geometries—can quickly lead to profound existential crises.
Quantum theory, for instance, strips particles of any sense of "thingness". One electron is not merely similar to another, all electrons are exactly the same. Electrons have no inherent identity—a fact that makes quantum statistics drastically different from the classical kind. Anyone who believes that an electron is a "thing" in its own right is bound to lose big in a quantum casino.
Meanwhile, all of nature's fundamental forces, including electromagnetism and the nuclear forces that operate deep in the cores of atoms, are described by gauge theory, which shows that forces aren't physical things in the world, but discrepancies in different descriptions of the world, in different observers' points of view. Gravity is a gauge force too, which means you can make it blink out of existence just by changing your frame of reference. In fact, that was Einstein's "happiest thought": a person in freefall can't feel their weight. It's often said that you can't disobey the law of gravity, but the truth is you can take it out with a simple coordinate change.
Recent advances in theoretical physics have only made the situation worse. The holographic principle tells us that our four-dimensional spacetime and everything in it is exactly equivalent to physics taking place on the two-dimensional boundary of the universe. Neither description is more "real" than the other—one can be perfectly mapped onto the other with no loss of information. When we try to believe that spacetime is really four-dimensional or really has a particular geometry, the holographic principle pulls the rug out from under us.
The physical nature of reality has been further eroded by M-theory, the theory that many physicists believe can unite general relativity and quantum mechanics. M-theory encompasses five versions of string theory (plus one non-stringy theory known as supergravity) all of which are related by mathematical maps called dualities. What looks like a strong interaction in one theory looks like a weak interaction in another. What look like eleven dimensions in one theory look like ten in another. Big can look like small, strings can look like particles. Virtually any object you can think of will be transformed into something totally different as you move from one theory to the next—and yet, somehow, all of the theories are equally true.
This reality crisis has grown so dire that Stephen Hawking has called for a kind of philosophical surrender, a white flag he terms "model-dependent realism", which basically says that while our theoretical models offer possible descriptions of the world, we'll simply never know the true reality that lies beneath. Perhaps there is no reality at all.
But structural realism offers a way out. An explanation. A reality. The only catch is that it's not made of physical objects. Then again, our theories never said it was. Electrons aren't real, but the mathematical structure of quantum field theory is. Gauge forces aren't real, but the symmetry groups that describe them are. The dimensions, geometries and even strings described by any given string theory aren't real—what's real are the mathematical maps that transform one string theory into another.
Of course, it's only human to want to interpret mathematical structure. There's a reason that "42" is hardly a satisfying answer to life, the universe and everything. We want to know what the world is really like, but we want it in a form that fits our intuitions. A form that means something. And for our narrative-driven brains, meaning comes in the form of stories, stories about things. I doubt we'll ever stop telling stories about how the universe works, and I, for one, am glad. We just have to remember not to mistake the stories for reality.
Structural realism forces us to radically revise the way we think about the universe. But it also provides a powerful explanation for some of the most mystifying aspects of physics. Without it, we'd have to give up on the notion that scientific theories can ever tell us how the world really is. And that, in my humble opinion, makes it a pretty beautiful explanation.
Read More...

Thank you Partha - a useful clarification. (Glad to see you back on line!)

Vis the Maharashtrian flavour: It seems possible to me that both you and Mukund are right and I am wondering whether either of you or anyone else has any thoughts on this:

In my little experience, one has only to dig deeply with 'pure' motivation and one will find appropriate or almost appropriate shlokas in one of the scriptures. Could it be that the roots of this lie in the Rigveda and the Maharashtrians dug them out and incorporated them into the Mantranjali during Shivaji's time? Of course that then leaves me with a question mark concerning the Tamilian flavour.

I would still appreciate a gist of the text in English - cos I am also interested in the accepted interpretation.

Thanks
Deshika_
Read More...

Dear Deshika,
Shanti paath is always used at some suitable stage in a Puja.
Dear Mukund,
If all the texts originate from Rigveda, I should of course rest my speculations about the special Maharashtrian flavour of number 3. Of course I am open on this.
Thanks dear friends, for a very intersting feed.
Regards.
Read More...