|
|
| Hi Friends,
There are several views on how this world got created. It would be interesting to know the Yogic point of view on this subject. This science is called as Panchikarana in Yoga. I wrote an article about it which you can read at http://www.bipinjoshi.com/displaythread.aspx?threadid=240&forumid=13
|
|
| |
|
| always a pleasure
ty |
|
| |
|
| Where's the science? |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2006-07-20 10:56 AM
Where's the science?
in the written vedic literature that dates back thousands of years, and the oral tradition that these aforementioned texts are based on, that go back more than just a couple thousand years.
if you wish, i could send you some links and you could spend a lifetime drinking from the fountain of vedic knowledge until your thirst is quenched. 
but, you could certainly find them on your own if you feel motivated to do so.
good luck |
|
| |
|
| very interesting, but my feeling is, what difference does it make how the world was created? i accept that fact that everyone and everything is all energy that continues to change. there is nothing that would make that any different if we cognitively knew how it all came to be. i guess it helps some people to have a belief in how things happened in the past. for me, i just try to live life now and not contemplate the past. |
|
| |
|
| I love creation stories, and they are all so different. Thank you Bipin Joshi for writing up this version. I was wondering why did space used to be referred to as ether? Just curious. Also, I noticed a word I'm unfamiliar with, could you define chitta for me, I'd appreciate it. I thought it was interesting in Tuesday's Toronto Star, they announced they were combining their Science and Religion departments into one. I guess we'll have to wait and see how that develops. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2006-07-20 9:56 AM
Where's the science?
The word science is often defined as follows:
1. a process for evaluating empirical knowledge
2. A branch of knowledge based on objectivity and involving observation and experimentation
3. systematically acquired knowledge that is verifiable.
The Panchikaran certainly adhares to these definitions. My article was a short overview of the topic but there are books written on that subject.
|
|
| |
|
| Krislouise2002 - 2006-07-20 12:18 PM
very interesting, but my feeling is, what difference does it make how the world was created? i accept that fact that everyone and everything is all energy that continues to change. there is nothing that would make that any different if we cognitively knew how it all came to be. i guess it helps some people to have a belief in how things happened in the past. for me, i just try to live life now and not contemplate the past.
It can make a big difference. Let me tel you a recent incidance...
Recently I met one of my frient who practices Ayurveda. While discussing he mentioned about a patient who was suffering from frequent colds and cough. After taking treatment for a long time he was unable to get rid of the problem. After thorough investigation my friend came to know that the patient's mother used to ate lots of Guhava fruits during pregnency. This fruits is treated as "cold" and Kapha causing substance as per Ayurveda. Suddenly his angle of treatment changed and he altered his medicines accordingly.
I am not claiming whether Ayurveda approach is right or wrong. I am just trying to emphasis that our past can reveal a lot for us.
As far as five elements are considered they are of extreme importance in Tantrik sadhana. Bhuta shuddhi, Tatwa Shiddhi process is used to purify them. We are composed of these five elements. That means if we can control these elements we can control ourselves! In the absense of any knowledge about them their purification, control and self-realization becomes extremely difficult.
|
|
| |
|
| bstqltmkr - 2006-07-20 5:46 PM
I love creation stories, and they are all so different. Thank you Bipin Joshi for writing up this version. I was wondering why did space used to be referred to as ether? Just curious. Also, I noticed a word I'm unfamiliar with, could you define chitta for me, I'd appreciate it. I thought it was interesting in Tuesday's Toronto Star, they announced they were combining their Science and Religion departments into one. I guess we'll have to wait and see how that develops.
Here Chitta refers to memory (the function of reflection and recollection).
|
|
| |
|
| so anyway, referring to these myths as science is incorrect. Science deals with things that are measurable, quantifyable, and repeatable. Science is based on the emperical philosophy, which is antithetical to the rationalist approach - the closest western philosophy to eastern thinking. The emperical philosophy is inherently dualistic, as is science. Thus to call a nonDualistic creation myth Scientific is to call it dualistic, which should annoy those who hold that view.
Creation myths are inherently not susceptable to scientific analysis, because they are not repeatable. Calling them scientific annoys those of us who understand science and the philosophical basis of science. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2006-07-23 1:13 AM
so anyway, referring to these myths as science is incorrect. Science deals with things that are measurable, quantifyable, and repeatable. Science is based on the emperical philosophy, which is antithetical to the rationalist approach - the closest western philosophy to eastern thinking. The emperical philosophy is inherently dualistic, as is science. Thus to call a nonDualistic creation myth Scientific is to call it dualistic, which should annoy those who hold that view.
Creation myths are inherently not susceptable to scientific analysis, because they are not repeatable. Calling them scientific annoys those of us who understand science and the philosophical basis of science.
In all of my physics and chemistry and math and biology and philosophy classes that I've taken over the years and in all of the Scientific Papers that I've read for sheer enjoyment, because I am a scientist by profession and nature, I've come across no reason to see contradiction in the scientific foundation that the Vedic literature has provided to us.
If you want to find Duality it is there for you, just realize that it is illusion when you don't see the common denominator in all things.
Good Luck. |
|
| |
|
| elson - 2006-07-22 12:13 AM
so anyway, referring to these myths as science is incorrect. Science deals with things that are measurable, quantifyable, and repeatable. Science is based on the emperical philosophy, which is antithetical to the rationalist approach - the closest western philosophy to eastern thinking. The emperical philosophy is inherently dualistic, as is science. Thus to call a nonDualistic creation myth Scientific is to call it dualistic, which should annoy those who hold that view.
Creation myths are inherently not susceptable to scientific analysis, because they are not repeatable. Calling them scientific annoys those of us who understand science and the philosophical basis of science.
I think you are confusing two things. In my article I am calling Panchikaran as science. The creation and Panchikaran are different things. Panchikaran is the process of combining the five elements to form a body where as creation tries to explain from where these five elements came.
It depends on your attitude to look at the things. Nobody can force you to believe on something. Modern science can always verify the claims made by ancient traditions. In fact that is what is required in today's world. No body is asking yout to believe it blindly. But have you or modern science varified the process of panchikaran (I am not referring to creation or dualism)? On what basis you are calling it non scientific? Just because modern science says something different doesn't make other approaches wrong. I myself have engineering background and work in software field. So I have also studied your modern science  .
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-07-23 11:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| bipinjoshi - 2006-07-23 10:20 PM
elson - 2006-07-22 12:13 AM
so anyway, referring to these myths as science is incorrect. Science deals with things that are measurable, quantifyable, and repeatable. Science is based on the emperical philosophy, which is antithetical to the rationalist approach - the closest western philosophy to eastern thinking. The emperical philosophy is inherently dualistic, as is science. Thus to call a nonDualistic creation myth Scientific is to call it dualistic, which should annoy those who hold that view.
Creation myths are inherently not susceptable to scientific analysis, because they are not repeatable. Calling them scientific annoys those of us who understand science and the philosophical basis of science.
I think you are confusing two things. In my article I am calling Panchikaran as science. The creation and Panchikaran are different things. Panchikaran is the process of combining the five elements to form a body where as creation tries to explain from where these five elements came.
It depends on your attitude to look at the things. Nobody can force you to believe on something. Modern science can always verify the claims made by ancient traditions. In fact that is what is required in today's world. No body is asking yout to believe it blindly. But have you or modern science varified the process of panchikaran (I am not referring to creation or dualism )? On what basis you are calling it non scientific? Just because modern science says something different doesn't make other approaches wrong. I myself have engineering background and work in software field. So I have also studied your modern science .
Just to add - the fact that the concept of five elements and Panchikarana is accepted by Ayurveda is another reason for me to consider it as science. You are of course free to disagree with this.
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-07-24 3:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Today's scientists are riding on the shoulders of the giants of history that came before them.
The foundation for today's scientific achievements was laid and reinforced for over 5,000 years |
|
| |
|
   
Location: London, England | Hi Bipinjoshi,
You refer to the five elements as earth, fire, water, air and space-I have never come across any belief system which includes these-in asian philosophy they usually refer to metal, earth, fire, metal and water-but I've seen different interpretations-which one does yours come from.
Also, does sound travel through space? I thought there had to be molecules, and in space, are there molecules?
Nick |
|
| |
|
| Nick - 2006-07-24 12:13 PM
Hi Bipinjoshi,
You refer to the five elements as earth, fire, water, air and space-I have never come across any belief system which includes these-in asian philosophy they usually refer to metal, earth, fire, metal and water-but I've seen different interpretations-which one does yours come from.
Also, does sound travel through space? I thought there had to be molecules, and in space, are there molecules?
Nick
Space=Ether
yes, sound travels through space, just like any wave, be it radio, xray, sound, light, so on and so forth.
In space there are molecules, and there is space in molecules, then atoms, then bits of atoms and..... and there are bits in that space and in those bits there is space and in that space there are smaller bits......and so on and on and on
The Rishis laid a foundation for so much of the discovery that occured in the past one hundred years.
The further we look back the further we move forward. |
|
| |
|
| Nick - 2006-07-24 11:13 AM
Hi Bipinjoshi,
You refer to the five elements as earth, fire, water, air and space-I have never come across any belief system which includes these-in asian philosophy they usually refer to metal, earth, fire, metal and water-but I've seen different interpretations-which one does yours come from.
Also, does sound travel through space? I thought there had to be molecules, and in space, are there molecules?
Nick
Hi Nick,
The concept of Pancha Maha Bhutas (Five Great Elements) is found in abendance in ancient Indian Yogic, Tantric, Vedantic and Ayurvedic litrature. Shri Adi Shankaracharya also explained them in his writings (e.g. Tattwa Bodha). His texts on Panchikarana are widely accepted by experts in the field.
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-07-25 12:09 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Nick - 2006-07-24 11:13 AM
Hi Bipinjoshi,
You refer to the five elements as earth, fire, water, air and space-I have never come across any belief system which includes these-in asian philosophy they usually refer to metal, earth, fire, metal and water-but I've seen different interpretations-which one does yours come from.
Also, does sound travel through space? I thought there had to be molecules, and in space, are there molecules?
Nick
Though I am not a space scientist as far as I know - In the space there is no air but there are other gases. In the space there can be sound waves but they are not captured by human ears. So it is not strictly true that sound vibrations can not travel through space at all but it is true that human ears would not be able to hear any sounds in space.
Also, modern science knows how to convert sound waves into radio waves so that they can be transmitted and heard by humans in space also. So in essence it is the sound that is travelling in space though in some different form.
The word space element is the translation for Sanskrit word Akasha Tattwa. That's why, I guess, Akasha is often translated as sky, space or ether and not as vacuum in english.
Edited by bipinjoshi 2006-07-25 1:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: London, England | Hi Steven,
I just downloaded this;
"Because sound is the vibration of matter, it does not travel through a vacuum or in outer space. When you see movies or TV shows about battles in outer space, you should only be able to see an explosion but not hear it."
Nick |
|
| |
|
Location: London, England | Hi,
Is space also called"ether"?
Nick |
|
| |
|
Location: London, England | Sorry, posted that before I read the succeeding posts 
Nick |
|
| |
|
| Nick - 2006-07-25 2:00 AM
Hi Steven,
I just downloaded this;
"Because sound is the vibration of matter, it does not travel through a vacuum or in outer space. When you see movies or TV shows about battles in outer space, you should only be able to see an explosion but not hear it."
Nick
There is matter in space, and the term vacuum is relative.
To refer to an absolute vacuum might be something like the opposite of a black hole, maybe, but there really is so much we still have to learn.
Deep Space doesn't really seem so empty when you start counting stars, but if you focus on the distance between the stars, maybe it is empty?
Certainly, outside of our atmosphere there is a less dense concentration of matter, I'm not arguing that. But from a different perspective, say 100 light years away, maybe the milky way looks like a dense cluster of matter and there are sound waves much larger that will vibrated through the milky way that we can not comprehend with our tools or our senses.
Like Really Big \/\/A\/ES--waves--hi |
|
| |
The Science of Panchikarana
