Wave Particle Duality & Hinduism

[Guest guest]

It is my personal expereince that to develop a better understanding

of the Indian Philosphy one needs to cleanse its mind

of Newtonian Model (en extension of Biblical worldview) of the

existence. It is must that one develop some feel of Qunatum physics

and see the limitations of Newtonian model. I hope follwoing

article will be a step in that direction. What propmted me to post

this article was the queation by one gentleman in another thread that

why Hindus worship animals, plants trees etc.

 

Hari Sharnam

Chandra

 

 

 

Wave Particle Duality & Hinduism

 

In 1905 Einstein published a paper about the "Photoelectric Effect"

which showed that electromagnetic radiation can behave as particles

rather than waves in some experiments. It was for this work that he

later won the Nobel prize for Physics even though he is more famous

for his work on Relativity (with its famous equation E=mc2).

 

Wave-Particle duality plays a big role in modern physics and Quantum

Mechanics in particular. In basics terms it says that when we get to

a really small scale, we can no longer picture the world as we

humans perceive it. Small fundamental "particles" like electrons can

be thought of as tiny bits of matter whizzing round at fast speeds

BUT they can also be thought of as waves which have no fixed

position but exist as disturbances in space. Similarly, something

like light which we have always thought of as waves can behave like

particles. The real problem in getting our heads around this that

something can behave as both a wave and particle and the way we see

it depends purely on the experiment we carry out.

 

For example, if we carry out any experiment involving electricity,

we "see" electrons behaving as particles. But the "two slits"

experiment can only be explained if we think of the electrons

behaving as a wave and the Photoelectric Effect is explained by the

introduction of "photons" whereas it was universally believed that

light consisted of waves.

 

This led to a big crisis in Physics. Not so much because the

theories we all believed are wrong (they aren't) but because the way

we think about the world and the nature of things was fundamentally

wrong. This relates to wider problem of how we can translate the

precise mathematically equations of theory and experiment into words

and ideas for explaining it. And it turns out that this is more a

problem of philosophy rather than science because the way we think

about the world is all to do with our philosophical outlook (or the

outlook of our teachers and ultimately the thinkers who came up with

the ideas we are taught).

 

Although much of Western science was against the teachings of the

Catholic Church, much of the thinking until about one hundred years

ago is actually largely based on Judeo-Christian ways of thinking.

For example, the Bible says that the world was created by an

absolute being called "God" and that he is separate from his

creation (i.e. He exists outside of the universe or even

irrespective of the universe). With this we can easily understand

the thinking of a great scientist like Newton. Although he made many

important discoveries and advanced Physics greatly, the principle of

a static universe and determinism underlies his work. Put more

simply, he looks at any experiment as if the observer is outside of

what is going on and can have no effect on the outcome once the

experiment is started off (unless he actually chooses to interfere).

This is rather like the idea of God setting off the universe and

then watching from outside and only effecting the universe when he

chooses to.

 

It turns out that the universe is a bit more complex than this and

we need to widen our frame of thought to explain the findings of

modern science. In particular how the same thing can appear to us in

completely different ways even when we are not doing anything to it

apart from looking at it in a different situation (experiment).

Within Hinduism we see a wide variety of deities which can be

thought of in animal, human or superhuman form or even without form.

Some systems of Hindu thought even think of the divine as without

attributes let alone without form - i.e. as a principle that

underlies all of reality. When we study the rich diversity of

various philosophies and schools within Hinduism we come to

appreciate the interchangeablity of deities throughout Hindu society

and history. When you think of the world like this, it is easier to

appreciate how the smallest building blocks of nature can also

interchange their appearance to us depending on how we choose to

look at them.

 

http://www.hinduvoice.co.uk/Issues/4/wave.htm

[Guest guest]

Namaste All

 

>For example, if we carry out any experiment involving electricity,

>we "see" electrons behaving as particles. But the "two slits"

>experiment can only be explained if we think of the electrons

>behaving as a wave....

 

Some echos of this in the following mantras...

 

OM RITANCHA SAT-YANCHAA BHEED DHAAT-TAPASO 'DHYA-JAAYATA

TATO RAATR-YA-JAAYATA TATAH SAMUDRO ARNAVAH - Ved

 

By God's command His Nature brought to light

The principles and the atoms of this earth.

Then came chaos and heat and motion bright,

And then the waves of ocean got their birth.

 

In the beginning, the Cosmic laws were first generated to govern the

order in which the universe had to be created; and then, the universe

itself became manifest, all through the conscious Creative Will-force

of God. After each cycle of creation, there follows a grand

dissolution of all created things, resulting in darkness. When this

prolonged period of dissolution comes to an end, new cycle of

creation begins, with atomic particles become agitated in one big

ocean-like mass.

 

 

Samudraad arnavaad adhi

samvatsaro ajaa-yata.

Aho-raa-traani vida-dhad

vishwasya mishato vashee

 

 

And after these the planets moved aright

Along the annual course of heaven blue.

The King of all creates the day and night,

Without effort and their order due.

The agitated, heated particles, in this ocean, combine in their own

way, resulting in the formation of the stars, planets and other

luminous bodies, and these begin to rotate in their own orbits. This

rotation causes the concept of Time to be born. The Controller of

this immense cosmos, as if without effort, causes this Time to be

divided into day and night.

 

 

>When we study the rich diversity of

>various philosophies and schools within Hinduism we come to

>appreciate the interchangeablity of deities

 

The statement above is indicative of Henotheism,  a term coined by

Max Müller, meaning belief in, and possible worship of, multiple

gods, one of which is supreme. In the four Vedas, Müller believed

that a striving towards One was being aimed at by the worship of

different cosmic principles, such as Agni (fire), Vayu (wind), Indra

(rain, thunder, the sky), etc. each of which was variously, by

clearly different writers, hailed as supreme in different sections of

the books. Indeed, however, what was confusing was an early idea of

Rita, or supreme order, that bound all the gods. Other phrases such

as Ekam Sat, Vipraha Bahudha Vadanti (Truth is One, though the sages

know it as many) led to understandings that the Vedic people admitted

to fundamental oneness. From this mix of monism, monotheism and

naturalist polytheism Max Müller decided to name the early Vedic

religion henotheistic.

 

This view is incorrect and is disputed by India thinkers like Sri

Aurobindo and Swami Dayanand (of the Arya Smaj). Only one God is

proclamed by the Vedas. The Devatas like Agani, Indra , Maruts ets

all connote the one God and are indicative of his specific

attributes. Please refer to my earlier post on

this :advaitin/message/30468.

 

There are numerous statements in the Vedas to support this contention

(i.e. that the Vedas recognise only One God ). A short selection

follows:

 

 

Rigveda (1.164.46) states: "The sages describe the One Being in many

ways". Also verse 10.121.10 "There is none beside Thee who pervades

the whole universe". The Yajurveda also says in verse 23.3: "God

alone has brought into existence the Kingdom of the animate and

inanimate world". The Atharva Veda verse 13.4.16 declares very

emphatically the existence of One God: "He is One indeed (Eka Eva).

There is no second, third, fourth or tenth. He is only One". There

are several such verses which are ample proof of the principle of

Monotheism in the Vedas. Conceding to this viewpoint, Max Muller

writes in his book, 'Science of Religion', "I add only one more hymn

(Rig 10.121.10) in which the idea of one God is expressed with such

power and decision that it will make us hesitate before we deny to

the Aryans an instinctive monotheism".

 

Some futher mantras in this vein...

 

"He who has created this multiform universe, and is the cause of its

sustenance as well as dissolution, the Lord of the universe in whom

the whole world exists, is sustained and then resolved into

elementary condition, is the Supreme Spirit. Know Him, O man, to be

your God and believe in no other as the Creator of the Universe." RIG

VEDA 10: 126, 8.

 

"In the beginning the whole was enveloped in utter darkness. Nothing

was discernible. It was like a dark night, Matter was in its very

elementary form. It was like ether. The whole universe, completely

overspread by darkness, was insignificantly small compared with the

Infinite God who thereafter, by His omnipotence, evolved this cosmic

world - the, effect - out of the elementary matter - the cause.* RIG

VEDA 10: 129, 3

 

"Love and worship that Supreme Spirit, O men, Who is the support of

all the luminous bodies (such as the sun), the one Incomparable Lord

of the present as well as of the future worlds, Who existed even

before the world came into being, and has created all things that

exist in space between the earth and heaven.* "RIG VEDA 10:121, 1.

 

 

Pranams

Hersh

[Guest guest]

"Only one God is proclamed by the Vedas"

 

Veda proclaims one reality not a God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

          On The Science Of Consciousness In Ancient India

 

The Vedic system, which was an earlier attempt to unify knowledge, was

confronted by similar paradoxes. It is well known that Schr�dinger's

development of quantum mechanics was inspired, in part, by Vedanta,8

the full-blossomed Vedic system. His debt to the Vedic views is

expressed in an essay he wrote in 1925 before he created his quantum

theory:

 

"This life of yours which you are living is not merely a piece of this

entire existence, but is in a certain sense the "whole"; only this

whole is not so constituted that it can be surveyed in one single

glance. This, as we know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred,

mystic formula which is yet really so simple and so clear: tat tvam

asi, this is you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and

the west. I am above and below, I am this entire world."9

 

Schr�dinger used Vedic ideas also in his immensely influential book,

What is Life?,10 that played a significant role in the development of

modern biology. According to his biographer Walter Moore, there is a

clear continuity between Schr�dinger's understanding of Vedanta and

his research:

 

"The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and

continuity of wave mechanics. In 1925, the world view of physics was a

model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material

particles. During the next few years, Schr�dinger and Heisenberg and

their followers created a universe based on superimposed inseparable

waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely

consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One."11

 

In view of this connection between the Vedic system and quantum

mechanics and the fact that quantum mechanical models of consciousness

are being attempted, it is important to see how the Vedic philosophers

developed their classification models of consciousness. A summary of

one classification model is the main focus of the paper. The question

of the history of ideas related to the notion of consciousness in

ancient India will also be touched upon briefly in this paper.

 

Terms of Service.

[Guest guest]

  Namaste Chandramauli.

 

   Truly, as I have studied Heisenberg´s principle of uncertainty

and duality of particle-wave, and then I came across Advaita, I

immeditely recognized that Heisenberg was saying nothing more than

the Upanishads said, using a western scientific language.

   Even the Yogachara or Chittamattra school of Mahayana Buddhism

which flourished around the 4th century a.D. had already stated in

many treatises - mainly the Abidharmakosa by Vasubandhu, that all

that is perceived from the five senses and mental phenomena are

inseparable from the perceiver. They exist because each other.

   Nevertheless, Yogachara Buddhism later was surpassed by

Madhiamika Buddhist philosophy exposed mainly by Nagarjuna. In my

opinion the Madhyamika view is a very confused and confusing

interpretation of truth, because it is only denial and dialectics

that Nagarjuna refuted the Yogacharin view. He used logic to refute

something which is beyond logic. Stating an emptiness in everything,

he really did a good job in confusing people.

   I myself believe that there is a substratum which is deathless,

and lower than that substratum there is a reincarnating soul.

   It is interesting how science can help spirituality and vice-

versa. I was impressed by a Johrei minister who was talking to me

about spirituality in a party I went to, and he said that meditation

on light is very good, because light is very rapid frequency

vibration, and that beyond light there are others still more subtle

frequencies that one can get tune into.

    Namaste,

    fred

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service.