Advaita and Einstein

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

 

Several times I have referenced Einsteen's quotations during the

discussions. The purpose of those quoatations were to indicate that

Einstein had a good understanding on the important roles of both

religion and science in human life and human aspirations. From his

work, we can conclude that Einstein had a clear vision of the

importance of scientific thoughts in religous philosophy. I do

believe that Vedanta philosophy contains both religion and science in

equal foot and to that extent we can infer that Einstein may be more

agreeable with Vedanta.

 

The statements of Einstein as quoated by you are:

1. Light travels with respect to an observer

2. Space is curved

3. There is no such thing as simultaneity

 

The question, do the above statements agree with advaita darshana

depends whether the question is with respect to vyavaharika level or

in the paramarthika level of reality. I don't see any contradiction

at the vyavaharika level of reality! At the absolute level they are

absurd. At paramarthika level all theories and notions are infact

absurd!!

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> The name of Einstein often appears in this group and usually the

posted

> message carries with it a hint that Einstein was in agreement with

the

> principles of Advaita.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram Chandran-ji,

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

>

> Several times I have referenced Einsteen's quotations during the

> discussions. The purpose of those quotations were to indicate

> that Einstein had a good understanding on the important roles of

> both religion and science in human life and human aspirations.

 

Einstein had faith in God and he was a great scientist, but science

has its limits and it is constrained to operate within those limits.

Einstein's theories are bound by the limits that scientific theories

have by the very nature of their assumptions and symbolic framework.

They cannot compare with Vedanta. It is for this reason that when

Einstein's words are brought in to support Advaita - quite often on

the basis of some vague plausible resemblance - that we need to keep

the discriminative flame of Vedanta burning in our hearts.

 

> From his work, we can conclude that Einstein had a clear vision

> of the importance of scientific thoughts in religous philosophy.

 

According to Vedanta, any thought outside of sruti, scientific or

otherwise, may be allowed entry into philosophy only after it has

passed the test in the fire of Nyaya.

 

> I do believe that Vedanta philosophy contains both religion and

> science in equal foot and to that extent we can infer that

> Einstein may be more agreeable with Vedanta.

>

> The statements of Einstein as quoated by you are:

> 1. Light travels with respect to an observer

> 2. Space is curved

> 3. There is no such thing as simultaneity

>

> The question, do the above statements agree with advaita

> darshana depends whether the question is with respect to

> vyavaharika level or in the paramarthika level of reality.

> I don't see any contradiction at the vyavaharika level of

> reality!

 

Advaita does not merely say that this world is a feature of

vyavaharika-sathya and leave it at that. It has something very

definite to say about the world in vyavaharika sathya. Sri

Shankaracharya debated with the Buddhists to show that space is not a

non-entity. The arguments that the Buddhists brought forward – that

space is merely the absence of objects – is the same assumption that

Einstein brings into the Special Theory of Relativity – that space is

the relation between mass-points. In Vedanta, space is not merely the

relationship between mass-points, it is a tattva, an objective

existential. (It may be noted that in the General Theory of

Relativity, Einstein had to modify his views.)

 

Let us look at these three points from the Advaita perspective of

vyavaharika-sathya.

 

In so far as the world is concerned, the frame of reference is

Ishwara.

 

Ishwara is all pervasive, He is the One observer in all (even in the

vyavaharika world). Therefore light does not travel with respect to

the observer. Ishwara is all-pervasive. There is no near and far from

Him for he is in every single thing as its very Self. He is the Light

of light, and no light travels towards Him or away from Him.

 

Ishwara has brought forth akasha as the first of the maha-bhootas.

Akasha has the attribute of sound, but it has no visible form. That

which has no visible form cannot be curved.

 

Simultaneity is not a matter of synchronising clocks, but of two

events being manifest as simultaneous. What Ishvara brings forth as

simultaneous is simultaneous for He is the One frame of reference for

things to be as they are. There are things we see in this world as

simultaneous and this simultaneity cannot be negated on the grounds

of a theory of perception that says that light rays reach the sense

organs in our bodies. In Advaita, perception occurs due to the mind

and the senses going out to make contact with the object, and the

mind is not restricted to the limiting velocity of 1,86,000 miles per

second!

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjan:

 

Thanks for the enlightened insights and thoughtful anlaysis,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji

 

Can you please explain what is meant by paramarthika/vyavaharika. Also

there seems to be two theories explaining vedic Cosmology:(a) Akasha

and Prana theory (b)Mahat/Ahamkara/Tanmataras theory

are these alternative explanations?

 

I am also a bit confused with the frame of reference being Ishwara. Is

not Ishwara our highest mental conception of Brahmin. In that case it

becomes our (subjective) mental concept and the frame of reference is

us (since it is our mind that conceives of Ishwara) and we are then

again subject to relativity.

 

regards

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

> Can you please explain what is meant by paramarthika /

> vyavaharika.

 

According to my underastanding of Advaita, Paramarthika and

Vyavaharika are not two separate realities. Vyavaharika sathya is

Paramarthika sathya seen through the lens of avidya.

 

Avidya is not a thing; it is the deep sleep of ignorance. We look at

the world through unseeing eyes, as it were, and then see it for what

it is not. That which we look at is Paramartha, and that which we see

in vyavahara is Paramartha coloured by avidya.

 

When we look at a thing through the veil of sleep, it presents the

notion that we do not know it. That is the nature of avidya (the no

thing). It presents the fiction that we do not know what we do indeed

know (because the Self is all-knowing). Now, when we look at

something with the notion that we do not know it, then we attribute

some contrary nature to it, and that nature which we attribute to the

thing is another form of avidya - it is called adhyasa,

superimposition.

 

According to Advaita, avidya is avyakta. It is the

undifferentiatedness of deep sleep. Because avyakta is the latent

notion of prakriti as separate from Purusha, it is the primal latent

adhyasa or superimposition.

 

You may find that my understanding of Advaita is somewhat different

from those of some others, and if you are interested to know what it

is, a summary of it is available at:

 

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/summary_chittaranjan.htm

 

____________

 

> there seems to be two theories explaining vedic Cosmology:

> (a) Akasha and Prana theory (b)Mahat/Ahamkara/Tanmataras

> theory are these alternative explanations?

 

I'm afraid you credit me with more knowledge than I actually have. I

do not know what the 'Akasha and Prana' theory is. It would be nice

if you or somebody in the list could briefly explain what it is.

___________

 

> I am also a bit confused with the frame of reference being

> Ishwara. Is not Ishwara our highest mental conception of

> Brahmin. In that case it becomes our (subjective) mental

> concept and the frame of reference is us (since it is our

> mind that conceives of Ishwara) and we are then again subject

> to relativity.

 

Ishwara is He who has absolute control over the universe. Aishwarya

is the power of absolute control, and He who has aishwarya is

Ishwara. If Ishwara is my own mental conception, then in so far as I

create Ishwara through my mental conception, my power should be

greater than Ishwara's. But I have no control over my own conceptions

in as much as I cannot bring my conception to conceive that I am

happy when I am sad, or that I am healthy when I am with disease. I

am a mere spectator of much that is happening against my wishes in

this world. I am sure that everybody here will grant that I have no

aishwarya. If Ishwara is said to be a product of my own mental

conception, then he is certainly not Ishwara in so far as he is a

product of the mental conception of a helpless being like me. Such

an 'Ishwara' does not deserve the name of Ishwara.

 

Ishwara in Truth is the Creator. The world of forms belongs to the

created universe. If Ishwara has form, how can He be the creator? He

cannot be prior to His own Being. He would instead become a part of

the created universe because His form would have to await creation

for Him to come into being. Since Ishwara is the Creator of the

Universe, He is necessarily the Formless Being, the One who creates

forms. It is we who cannot conceive a Formless Being that conceive of

Him in terms of form, and that is how it may be said that Ishwara is

Brahman seen through our mental conception, but in reality He is the

One Formless Being. Again, you may find my interpretation somewhat at

variance with what is commonly held to be the Advaita interpretation,

and again if you are interested in my understanding of Ishwara, I

would refer you to the following article:

 

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/ishvara_chittaranjan.htm

 

 

(Note: Both these articles are part of the discussions that took

place in this group in July-Aug 2004 and may also be found in the

Files section, but since the entire presentation is in one single pdf

file I will not be able to refer you to particular sections in it.)

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear Chittaranjan,

 

In message 28033 of 12th Oct 2005, you ask about the affinity

between Einstein and Advaita. In particular, you ask about

Einstein's theoretical principles, which you describe as follows:

>>

1. Light travels with respect to an observer

2. Space is curved

3. There is no such thing as simultaneity

>>

 

First, it may help to point out that though Einstein's theories are

known as theories of "relativity", they arise from a philosophical

position which is very definitely and emphatically "realist". That

position recognizes that our observations of the world are different

from one viewpoint to another; and it looks for an invariant reality

which is shown in common by these different points of view.

 

In particular, Einstein viewed space, time, matter and energy as

relative measurements; and thus he approached reality as essentially

immaterial. In a book called "The Evolution of Physics" (written

with Leopold Infeld), he speaks of "The Decline of the Mechanical

View" (this is a chapter heading) and he points out that what our

senses crudely see as pieces of matter are more correctly

manifestations of an underlying field.

 

Moreover, he attempted to describe the field in a way that was

geometric rather than mechanical. In a mechanical description, the

world is divided into objects that are pieces of matter, and these

pieces are interrelated by conceiving that they act through force

upon each other. Einstein sought to replace this description with an

immaterial geometry, where the notions of matter and force are shown

to be a crude and misleading appearance of a universal continuity.

 

That universal continuity he described as the space-time continuum.

The continuum is not made up of material objects, but instead of

space-time events. Each event is a four-dimensional point, specified

by three co-ordinates of space and one of time.

 

In this pure geometry, there is no matter and no force. Instead of

objects that move through space in the course of time, there are

space-time paths which appear to our senses as the movement of

objects that force each other into accelerated and curved motions.

However, more accurately seen, all space-time paths are straight.

They always take the shortest and thus the most natural path between

their separated points. The paths only appear forced because the

space-time geometry is curved.

 

Beneath this appearance seen by our crude and partial senses, nature

stays in herself exactly what she always is, completely natural and

unforced. This is what occurs to me in response to your point number

2 (that "Space is curved"). As I see it, Einstein's space-time

continuum is very much in accord with the ancient notion of "ether"

or "akasha", which is essentially advaitic at its root (as described

in the dialogue between Gargi and Yajnyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka

Upanishad, chapter 3).

 

In response to your point number 1 (that "Light travels with respect

to an observer"), I must tell you that your description can be a

little misleading. Einstein's view was that all movement takes place

with respect to an observer. He did indeed pay special attention to

the movement of light, but that was not to emphasize relativity. In

fact, it was just the opposite. He paid special attention to light

precisely because it shows an invariant principle that is not

relative. He saw that the speed of light is the same for all

observers.

 

This is because light travels in empty space with a speed that is

determined solely by the electromagnetic properties of space. These

electromagnetic properties follow the basic laws of physics, which

must be the same for all observers. In a sense, each observer

carries the basic laws of physics, along with that observer's frame

of reference. Each observer is always still with regard to her or

his own frame of reference. So, the speed of light, as determined by

these invariant laws, must be the same for each observer, no matter

how fast one observer moves in relation to another.

 

In response to your point number 3 ("There is no such thing as

simultaneity"), I would say that Einstein is here emphasizing the

relative nature of time. It is a measurement that pertains

specifically to the observer, even to the extent that two observers

may differ in the observation of whether two events take place at

the same time. The implication is that time (like matter and energy

and space) does not belong to reality itself, but only to our

relative and partial observations. Reality itself is thus implied to

be beyond time (and space and matter and energy).

 

But then, what is reality itself? Well, Einstein speaks as a

physicist, not as a philosopher; so he doesn't answer such questions

directly. But we get hints of an answer in his theoretical concepts

and in some reflective writings.

 

In the concept of the space-time continuum, one thing is quite

clear. Space and time occur within the continuum, or to put it more

exactly, within each observer's description of the continuum. But

the continuum itself does not exist in time and space. In itself, it

exists all at once, in its complete totality.

 

And further, in the quotation below (from Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam:

Querido Verlag, 1934), you will see that Einstein did reflect on a

spiritual aspect of reality, an aspect that advaitins might describe

as an impersonal subjectivity:

 

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific

minds without a religious feeling of his own. But it is different

from the religiosity of the naive man. For the latter, God is a

being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one

fears; a sublimation of feeling similar to that of a child for its

father, a being to whom one stands, so to speak, in a personal

relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.

 

"But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.

The future to him is every whit as necessary and determined as the

past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human

affair. His religious feeling takes the form of rapturous amazement

at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such

superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and

acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This

feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as

he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire.

It is beyond question closely akin to that which has possessed the

religious geniuses of all ages."

 

Ananda

 

PS: In trying to respond specifically to Shri Chittaranjan's

points, I am afraid that the description may have got rather

complicated. For a simpler description of Einstein's approach, I am

reproducing below a short article which was published in the Times

of India some years ago. Sorry that this further lengthens an

already long posting.

 

Nature's secret is her "essential loftiness"

-----------

 

Was Einstein a "relativist"? Curiously enough, the answer is not

quite yes.

 

He did of course show that space, time, matter and energy are not

real in themselves. They are only relative observations, made in

relation to our varying points of view.

 

But, from here, Einstein went on to ask: if all our observations of

the world are relative, then what isn't? As we see things in

different ways, what common reality is the same, no matter how some

person may happen to be looking at it?

 

All Einstein's work was founded upon this search for an invariant

truth, beneath the variations of relative appearance. What came to

be called "the theory of relativity", he originally preferred to

call "invariantentheorie" or "the theory of invariance".

 

To our usual way of thinking, the world seems made of various

objects, which have somehow been differently placed in space. But

this is only a momentary picture, which changes from one moment to

the next.

 

To this momentary picture, of matter placed in three dimensional

space, we add a fourth dimension, of time as a succession of

moments. Thus we build a composite picture -- of matter driven by

energy, to move in space and time.

 

The theory of relativity does not see the world like this -- as made

by adding different things together. Instead of treating matter and

energy as somehow added into space and time, they are all treated as

showing a single totality. They are only differing manifestations --

of a single continuity that extends through all events, throughout

the past, the present and the future history of the universe.

 

This continuing totality of events is called "the space-time

continuum". In the course of experience, as we seem to travel

through space and time, we each get a very partial and changing

view, of a few small localities. But mathematically, the continuum

is described as a seamless whole; through a four dimensional

geometry, with three dimensions for space and one for time.

 

In this "space-time" perspective, each object travels along a path

of events. And this path is always a straight line, in four

dimensional space-time. However, near the places where matter

appears, the continuum itself is curved and its geometry gets

complicated -- thus giving the appearance of movement that is

accelerated by force.

 

Such seemingly "forced" movement is just a misleading appearance,

seen from the narrow perspective of visualizing only the three

dimensions of space at each particular moment of time. When a single

continuity is considered, extending through both space and time,

then all movement can be understood as naturally straight, at its

location within the continuity. Thus, the idea of "force" is shown

up as superficial.

 

The mathematical details can be horribly difficult, but Einstein's

underlying approach is simple and clear. Reality is essentially

invariant and definite; and the way to truth is basically a search

for unity and certainty, beyond the disjointed and uncertain

appearances produced by our limited perceptions of the world.

 

When quantum physics was in its infancy, he enthusiastically joined

in, making some major contributions, for one of which he got the

Nobel prize. But he always regarded quantum theories as

provisional -- as showing up the discontinuities and uncertainties

of current perception, in order to look further, for a deeper

principle of truth that would resolve them.

 

When quantum theory made discontinuity and uncertainty its

fundamental principles, he was appalled. This was blaming nature for

imperfections that belong to our petty and superficial perception of

the world.

 

As he put it himself: "Nature hides her secret because of her

essential loftiness, not by a cunning strategy."

 

He thought it quite wrong that a theory should legislate on final

barriers of uncertainty, which nature will not allow us to get past.

After all, wherever we find uncertainty, that just shows up our

ignorance, and ignorance shows unreality. No such ignorance or

unreality can ever be final. To take it as such is to shut the door

blindly on deeper knowledge.

 

Einstein refused to shut any such door. He recognized that quantum

physics had shown up a difficult barrier to his further work -- on a

"unified field theory" that would go on from gravitation to include

other forces as well. He continued with this work for the rest of

his life, cheerfully accepting that no great breakthrough was in

sight. His real interest was not in spectacular or imposing

theories, but in a dedication to underlying truth, which is its own

reward.

 

In his later years, he said: "One thing I have learned in a long

life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive

and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

[ Ref: Message 28064 of 28068

 

 

Dear Chittaranjan,

 

In message 28033 of 12th Oct 2005, you ask about the affinity

between Einstein and Advaita. In particular, you ask about

Einstein's theoretical principles, ]

 

 

For those who would like to delve further along these lines,

the following site has a treasure of essays on Philosophy of Science:

 

http://www.friesian.com/science.htm

 

 

Perspectives from Einstein, Godel, Friese, Russell, and a

host of others, are here. One of them discusses intuition

(? 'medhA').

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Atmandaji,

 

There was a time when I used to believe that Einstein was on to

something profoundly spiritual and true. But over the years this

belief began to evaporate until I was left with a feeling that

Einstein was a man with a profound sense of the Spiritual but that

the theory of relativity he postulated was neither as profound nor as

true a depiction of reality as I had thought it to be. Relativity

Theory was, at most, as Wittgenstein says 'a net laid out over

reality'. But the theory of relativity is an excellent predictive

model and it is therefore an excellent scientific theory because the

paradigm of science considers 'theories that work' to be excellent

theories.

 

I shall in this post try to point out why I think the Theory of

Relativity does not have as much affinity with Advaita Vedanta as is

made out to be.

 

 

advaitin, Ananda Wood <awood@v...> wrote:

>

> First, it may help to point out that though Einstein's

> theories are known as theories of "relativity", they arise

> from a philosophical position which is very definitely and

> emphatically "realist". That position recognizes that our

> observations of the world are different from one viewpoint

> to another; and it looks for an invariant reality which is

> shown in common by these different points of view.

 

I agree with you. Einstein clearly states that his goal is to derive

(discover) the invariant laws of the universe.

 

 

> In particular, Einstein viewed space, time, matter and energy

> as relative measurements; and thus he approached reality as

> essentially immaterial. In a book called "The Evolution of

> Physics" (written with Leopold Infeld), he speaks of "The

> Decline of the Mechanical View" (this is a chapter heading)

> and he points out that what our senses crudely see as pieces

> of matter are more correctly manifestations of an underlying

> field.

 

It would be a bit far-fetched to say that Einstein approached reality

as something essentially immaterial. His approach does not have the

qualifying mark of being directed to something essentially

immaterial. His approach was directed to the replacement of discrete

objects in space with a continuum, and that is the reason he used the

Maxwellian concept of the 'field' to depict reality. Again, this

concept attained maturity only in the General Theory of Relativity.

If we look at the genesis of this idea through an Advaitic

perspective – a perspective that regards objects are things standing

to consciousness - then 'discrete concrete objects' and

the 'continuum of the field' are both objects. Einstein was therefore

building a model of the universe wherein what is commonly

called 'objects' by the scientific community (the reified meaning of

the word 'object') was being reduced to an aspect of a continuous

field. There is nothing immaterial about this field because it

continues to be matter - for it is that which 'matters' to the

conscious subject.

 

 

> Moreover, he attempted to describe the field in a way that was

> geometric rather than mechanical. In a mechanical description,

> the world is divided into objects that are pieces of matter,

> and these pieces are interrelated by conceiving that they act

> through force upon each other. Einstein sought to replace this

> description with an immaterial geometry, where the notions of

> matter and force are shown to be a crude and misleading

> appearance of a universal continuity.

 

Einstein works with the assumption that the intrinsic nature of space

is described by geometry. That is how the terms 'Euclidian Space'

and 'Reimannian Space' gained currency during the time. But,

according to Advaita, space is neither Euclidian nor Reimannian;

geometries are adjuncts in space because space is partless and has no

visual formal attribute. In the Special Theory of Relativity,

Einstein considered space to be the relationship between mass-points,

a conception that had been proposed by Liebnitz. But Einstein was

later forced to give up this idea because it could not account for

the momentum of a rotating body if the rotating body was considered

as the only body in the universe.

 

There is another reason why Einstein gave up the conception of space

that he had espoused in the special theory. He was uncomfortable with

the notion of 'action at a distance'; he wondered how something could

possibly 'act' upon another thing when it was at a distance and

unconnected to the first object. The very idea was counter-intuitive,

and he felt that the concept of 'field' was an elegant solution to

the problem, especially as objects could be considered as dense mass-

points within the field. That is how matter and force became features

of the continuum and qualified themselves to be termed 'crude and

misleading appearance of the universal continuity' of the field. That

is, material things, or objects, reduce to high densities in the

field-dispersions of the continuum. Einstein incorporated this

conception into The General Theory of Relativity. But this notion

does not accord with Advaita. Matter and force in Advaita are not

crude and misleading appearances of a universal continuity, but are

objects of the sabda that is eternally existent in Brahman. Energy,

or Shakti, does not create them, but projects them from the wells of

Eternity (from para-sabda) into manifest form (vaikhari-sabda). I

shall quote here from Sri Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashya

(II.1.vi.17) to substantiate this assertion:

 

"The condition in which name and form become evolved is different

from the condition in which name and form is not so evolved. Hence

although the effect exists as non-different from the cause before

creation, still from the standpoint of this difference in conditions

the effect is declared to be non-existent before creation.....

Therefore this declaration of non-existence of the effect before

creation is made from the standpoint of a difference of conditions.

Since in the world a thing is said to exist when it manifests itself

through name and form, therefore, as a concession to common sense,

the universe is said to be non-existent before being evolved through

name and form."

 

In Advaita, objects are the forms of vrttis. Knowledge of objects is

vrtti-jnana. It is the name and the form that is true to the name. To

know an object is to let the vrtti shine in the Light of

Consciousness. When the form of the vrtti presents a hidden-ness of

the object, the vrtti is not pure and the object is not revealed.

That hidden-ness attributed to an objective reality is the motive

force to look for it in the world when its truth lies within the Self.

 

Again, in Advaita epistemology, an object is just what it is seen to

be. The object is a fact of perception, and a fact of perception may

not be denied on the grounds of inference i.e., on the ground that it

is an impure presentation of an inferred entity, though the inferred

entity may be a continuum.

 

 

> That universal continuity he described as the space-time

> continuum. The continuum is not made up of material objects,

> but instead of space-time events. Each event is a four-

> dimensional point, specified by three co-ordinates of space

> and one of time.

>

> In this pure geometry, there is no matter and no force. Instead

> of objects that move through space in the course of time,

> there are space-time paths which appear to our senses as the

> movement of objects that force each other into accelerated and

> curved motions. However, more accurately seen, all space-time

> paths are straight. They always take the shortest and thus the

> most natural path between their separated points. The paths

> only appear forced because the space-time geometry is curved.

>

> Beneath this appearance seen by our crude and partial senses,

> nature stays in herself exactly what she always is, completely

> natural and unforced. This is what occurs to me in response to

> your point number 2 (that "Space is curved").

 

It would be fruitful here to trace the genesis of the space-time

continuum. The conception that all events can be described in terms

of four coordinates (x,y,z,t) is due to Minkowsky. Lorentz had

provided a formal device to fit the results of the Michaelson-Morley

experiment (that the velocity of light is constant irrespective of

the frame of reference) into a mathematical transformation. But when

the Lorentz transformations were applied, length and time failed to

be invariant features of the universe. This led to the three-

dimensional orthogonal transformations of the classical law becoming

variant. In order to arrive at an invariant form of the equation

(law), Einstein employed the four-dimensional coordinate system of

Minkowsky and fitted the transformations of the four coordinates to

the Lorentz transformation so that they were invariant with respect

to the linear transformations of length and time. Now, it is

interesting to see how this form of the invariant equation was

interpreted in terms of the physical world, and I reproduce here

below the words of Bergmann from his book 'Introduction to the Theory

of Relativity' which has an introduction by Einstein himself and may

therefore be taken as representing the correct position on the theory:

 

"The four dimensional continuum (x,y,z,t), with its invariant form

r12**2, can be treated as a four dimensional 'space', in which r12 is

the 'distance' between the two 'points' (x1,y1,z1,t1) and

(x2,y2,z2,t2). This procedure permits the development of a sort of

vector calculus in the 'Minkowsky world', and the formulation of all

invariant relations in a clear and concise way".

 

It is clear that the term 'space' as used in this interpretation is

not space as we know it or as given to us by natural language;

neither is distance distance, nor is point point. They are 'space'

and 'distance' and 'point' only when the original meanings of these

words are given up in favour of reified meanings introduced by the

paradigm of science. There is in actuality no four-dimensional point

(x,y,z,t); there is only the four-dimensional momentary event

(x,y,z,t) which is the manifestation of the point (x,y,z) when seen

at time t. And there is another four-dimensional momentary event

(x1,y1,z1,t1) which is the manifestation of the point (x1,y1,z1) when

seen at time t1. What does it all mean? Very simply, if at some

particular point in my room yesterday there was the tail of a fly,

and when I walked into the room today and found that at that same

point in the room there was the tip of a rose petal because the bud

that was beneath the point where the fly was flying yesterday had now

bloomed into a flower thus showing me today the tip of a rose petal

where there was yesterday the tail of a fly, then I have observed two

events (x1,y1,z1,t1) and (x2,y2,z2,t2). But to call these

events 'points' is a corruption of the meaning of the word 'point'.

And then to say that this space-time 'point' is an esoteric

underlying reality which we are constrained to see in a warped manner

through our limited senses and intellects is, I believe, the saddest

commentary on how equivocations on the meaning of words in science

can lead to a complete corruption of word-meanings as well as of our

understanding. There is no esoteric objective reality hidden behind

phenomena except for the nexus that the darkness of the mind places

in the world. There is an attempt in these theories to reduce the

natural schema of the world into graphs that would fit into

scientific papers and to consider the warps introduced during the

process of conception as some esoteric feature of reality. Even

scientists are, generally, not perspicuous about the equivocation

that goes on regarding word-meanings (it having become a part of the

scientific culture), and when they pass on the reified terms to those

that have only rudimentary knowledge of science but a great deal of

veneration for it, these terms, and what they are supposed to mean,

take on the fixations of dogma. There is in the theory of relativity,

a reduction of space to coordinate systems, which, I believe, is not

justified. Space simply is not curved. Some concept that science

insists on calling 'space' may have curvature as an attribute of the

mental conception, but not the space that we see.

 

 

> As I see it, Einstein's space-time continuum is very much in

> accord with the ancient notion of "ether" or "akasha", which

> is essentially advaitic at its root (as described in the

> dialogue between Gargi and Yajnyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka

> Upanishad, chapter 3).

 

Gargi said: "Yajnavalkya, what pervades that (Sutra) which is above

heaven and below the earth, which is heaven and earth as well as

(what is) between them, and which – they say – was, is, and will be?

 

He said: "That, O Gargi, which is above heaven and below the earth,

which is heaven and earth as well as (what is) between them, and

which – they say – was, is, and will be, is pervaded by the

(unmanifested) akasha".

 

"What pervades the akasha?"

 

He said: "That, O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman call the

Imperishable. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long,

neither red nor moist; It is neither shadow nor darkness, neither air

nor akasha; It is unattached; It is without taste or smell, without

eyes or ears, without tongue or mind; It is non-effulgent, without

vital breath or mouth, without measure, and without interior or

exterior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anyone."

 

The Reality of Advaita is not akasha but Brahman. Akasha is certainly

Vedantic in its roots, but the conception of the space-time continuum

as given to us by the theory of relativity is far removed from the

conception of the Vedantic akasha. Akasha is not a field that is

subject to field densities and concentrations; it is akasha that is

without form and is ethereally the same everywhere. Again, kaala

(time) in Vedanta is distinct from akasha. Akasha is the primal maha-

bhoota out of which the other elements evolve. The term 'evolve'

properly belongs to parinama-vada and not to the vivarta-vada of

Advaita in which Time is the play of Maya wherein Vak (speech) brings

forth forms already existent in Reality into manifest form. The forms

brought forth are not corruptions of Reality, but different

conditions of the same form (object) that lies in Reality as para-

sabda. The two extreme conditions of form are para and vaikhari.

(Anandaji, you know this better than I do for you have done the great

task of translating Bhartrahari's Vakyapadiya).

 

 

> In response to your point number 1 (that "Light travels with

> respect to an observer"), I must tell you that your description

> can be a little misleading. Einstein's view was that all

> movement takes place with respect to an observer. He did indeed

> pay special attention to the movement of light, but that was

> not to emphasize relativity. In fact, it was just the opposite.

> He paid special attention to light precisely because it shows

> an invariant principle that is not relative. He saw that the

> speed of light is the same for all observers.

 

But Einstein surely slipped up in his speculations, having become a

victim to acculturations engendered by the historical development of

thought as it unfolded in the West. We shall see how he became the

victim of an old misbegotten idea.

 

The frame of reference in The Theory of Relativity is the observer.

An observer may see light travelling from one observed thing to

another (and such light would be an object because it is observed),

but is there any justification to say that light travels with respect

to the observer himself? This is a very crucial point, because it

points to a momentous error that was behind the turning point in the

history of science. Einsteins' hypothesis (that light travels to the

observer) is based on the presumption that the human mind is a tabula

rasa reacting to sensory signals coming in from the world. In such a

model, the human sensorium lies (inertly) waiting for light to reach

it from the manifold objects of the world before it can perceive

these objects. What it observes is therefore not what happened in the

world as and when it happened, but sensed by the observer when light

reached it maybe long after it actually happened in the world, and

maybe sensed in a manner that is completely different than what

happened because the signal is now transformed by the sensory

mechanisms of the observer. We have here Locke's dualism in another

guise. And there is in this assumption a thousand years of dogma that

originated with the Epicurians and found its way into Einstein's

theories and thus changed the course of human history. Einstein may

have been a genius as a scientist, but he was sadly mistaken with

regard to some of his hypothetical conjectures.

 

 

> This is because light travels in empty space with a speed that

> is determined solely by the electromagnetic properties of space.

> These electromagnetic properties follow the basic laws of physics,

> which must be the same for all observers. In a sense, each

> observer carries the basic laws of physics, along with that

> observer's frame of reference. Each observer is always still

> with regard to her or his own frame of reference. So, the speed

> of light, as determined by these invariant laws, must be the

> same for each observer, no matter how fast one observer moves

> in relation to another.

 

I agree that the observer carries the basic laws of physics, but then

one observer does not move in relation to another observer because

there is only One Observer. The pots move, not the space that

pervades the pots. Each individual, with his or her own persona

presenting the notion of individuality, does not have a witness that

is a tabula rasa; the Observer that is same in all individuals drives

the mind of each to see objects in relation to itself as an

individuated body residing at a place and time. Light may be observed

to travel, but such observation would amount to light as an object

travelling from one object to another and not as something travelling

to or fro from the Observer.

 

 

> In response to your point number 3 ("There is no such thing as

> simultaneity"), I would say that Einstein is here emphasizing

> the relative nature of time.

 

Time is the reference against which change is seen and measured. In

Advaita Vedanta, time itself does not change for it is not a temporal

thing. Kaala is that which presents the illusion of change in

Eternity.

 

 

> It is a measurement that pertains specifically to the

> observer, even to the extent that two observers may

> differ in the observation of whether two events take

> place at the same time.

 

When I am talking to another person, would he and I differ that we

are speaking to each other at the same time? My mind and senses have

reached him when I see him talking to me. The intractable problem of

simultaneity in Einstein's Relativity Theory is due the stimulus-

response theory of perception and not due to synchronisation of

clocks or things of that nature!

 

 

 

I believe it is now time to stop..... this message has already become

too long. I do not believe that science has much to say regarding the

domain of the Spiritual. If some scientists have become spiritual it

is because they have become so in their individual capacities and not

because science points to anything spiritual. I do admit however that

the theories of modern science have created so many paradoxes that

they have acted like Zen Koans on the minds of some scientists and

turned them to the path of Spirituality. On the other hand we have

Stephen Hawking who says: "The universe of Eastern mysticism is an

illusion. A physicist who attempts to link it with his own work has

abandoned science."

 

Thank you Ananda-ji for giving me an opportunity to pen some of my

thoughts. There is much more to say on this topic of course, but that

would mean bringing in language philosophy for investigating the

linguistic structure of scientific propositions. A thesis lies in my

mind as an embryo that has still to take birth. Perhaps some day I

shall be able to write it all down clearly.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Respected Chittarajanji & Atmandaji:

 

Atmandaji wrote “In particular, Einstein viewed space,

time, matter and energy as relative measurements; and

thus he approached reality as essentially immaterial”.

 

The inadequacy of this immateriality derived from

relativity theory is that the basis of that

perspective is not explained with respect to any other

non-immaterial frame of reference and thereby suffers

from the same axiomatic proposition offered by the

theory. In contrast according to Advaita Vedanta the

world as we perceive is Maya and at the same time not

merely a figment of ones imagination. World is real as

longs as non-dual Brahman is unknown. Advaita is

conceptually sound and scores over relativity by

mentioning that the perceived reality of world is

unreality only when there is a higher experience.

 

Chitaranjanji wrote “that is how matter and force

became features of the continuum and qualified

themselves to be termed 'crude and misleading

appearance of the universal continuity' of the field.

That is, material things, or objects, reduce to high

densities in the field-dispersions of the continuum.”

 

A corollary of the above statement is to claim all

physical action in space-time continuum is not a

physical reality as perceived but abstract and

mathematical. This view of relativity sounds more to

me as one of the Buddhist proposition’s or views of

world rather than Advaita. Whereas Advaita associates

an apparent reality of the world denoted as

Vyavaharika.

 

Pranam,

RR

 

 

 

 

 

Music Unlimited

Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

http://music./unlimited/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sunder-ji,

 

In 1979, I had picked up a second-hand book from a pavement

bookseller in Bombay. The book had once belonged to Dr. Sethna and

had somehow found its way to the pavement. It was a book titled 'The

Sciences and Philosophy' by an author named J.S.Haldane and it

comprised a series of lectures delivered by the author during the

beginning of the twentieth-century when the medical sciences were

turning away from the conception of the human body as something

animated by a vital principle towards a conception of the body as

something completely mechanical. The author had delivered a series of

spirited - and anguished - lectures based on the philosophy of Kant

trying his utmost to retain the holistic perspective of physiology as

given by the older tradition. The book contains some brilliant essays

showing how the various component parts of the human body can never

function mechanistically to provide a directedness towards the

maintenance of the body as a single entity unless there is a single

vital life-principle that holds it together. The author's philosophy

is idealistic, but he nevertheless provides a brilliant analysis of

physiology. It was a work on the philosophy of science that I would

consider much greater than those of Popper or Kuhn though it is

restricted to the field of physiology; unfortunately its message was

not heeded. What survives is not necessarily the best, but what can

easily be sold. It is the age of marketing!

 

Thank you for the links.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> [ Ref: Message 28064 of 28068

>

>

> Dear Chittaranjan,

>

> In message 28033 of 12th Oct 2005, you ask about the affinity

> between Einstein and Advaita. In particular, you ask about

> Einstein's theoretical principles, ]

>

>

> For those who would like to delve further along these lines,

> the following site has a treasure of essays on Philosophy of

Science:

>

> http://www.friesian.com/science.htm

>

>

> Perspectives from Einstein, Godel, Friese, Russell, and a

> host of others, are here. One of them discusses intuition

> (? 'medhA').

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Sunder-ji,

>

> In 1979, I had picked up a second-hand book from a pavement

> bookseller in Bombay. The book had once belonged to Dr. Sethna and

> had somehow found its way to the pavement. It was a book

titled 'The

> Sciences and Philosophy' by an author named J.S.Haldane and it

> comprised a series of lectures delivered by the author during the

> beginning of the twentieth-century when the medical sciences were

> turning away from the conception of the human body as something

> animated by a vital principle towards a conception of the body as

> something completely mechanical. The author had delivered a series

of

> spirited - and anguished - lectures based on the philosophy of

Kant

> trying his utmost to retain the holistic perspective of physiology

as

> given by the older tradition.

 

Namaste

 

Is this the same as J.B.S. Haldane the famous British Biologist who

finally settled in India to do research in Calcutta and who died in

1964?

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> > In 1979, I had picked up a second-hand book from a pavement

> > bookseller in Bombay. The book had once belonged to Dr. Sethna

> > and had somehow found its way to the pavement. It was a book

> > titled 'The Sciences and Philosophy' by an author named

> J.S.Haldane and

> Namaste

>

> Is this the same as J.B.S. Haldane the famous British Biologist

> who finally settled in India to do research in Calcutta and who

> died in 1964?

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

 

Dear Proj Vk-ji,

 

I think J.B.S. Haldane was the son of J.S.Haldane.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

>

> > > In 1979, I had picked up a second-hand book from a pavement

> > > bookseller in Bombay. The book had once belonged to Dr. Sethna

> > > and had somehow found its way to the pavement. It was a book

> > > titled 'The Sciences and Philosophy' by an author named

> > J.S.Haldane and

>

> > Namaste

> >

> > Is this the same as J.B.S. Haldane the famous British Biologist

> > who finally settled in India to do research in Calcutta and who

> > died in 1964?

> >

> > PraNAms to all advaitins.

> > profvk

>

> Dear Proj Vk-ji,

>

> I think J.B.S. Haldane was the son of J.S.Haldane.

 

Namaste,

 

That is correct;

 

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/causes-of-evolution/

 

"....This theory, known as ``neo-Darwinism'' or ``the modern

synthesis,'' was founded by three men: Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright,

and J. B. S. Haldane. Of the three, Haldane was by far the most

interesting. He was the son of J. S. Haldane, eminent in his own

right as a physiologist and an Idealist philosopher; he took first

honors in both mathematics and classics at Oxford; was an infantry

officer in France during the First World War, and was probably the

only person to publicly claim he enjoyed the experience; he was for

many years a devoted Communist, writing a science column for the

British Communist paper, the Daily Worker (he abandoned Communism

somewhat after the Lysenko affair); in addition to his work on

evolutionary theory, he was an excellent biochemist, and his last

years were spent in India, where he did biochemical research, became

an Indian citizen, and wrote amusing poems about the growth of his

tumors..........."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder