Re Stuff and Style of the Universe

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shrimati Vanaja, Thank you for the reference to the book Stuff and style of the universe, at the link:http://c-radhakrishnan.info/stuff.htmThe author of the book, C. Radhakrishnan, says: 'This is not an attempt to salvage the good old concept of ether.' And he suggests a theory of vortices (whirls of activity) as 'a simple physical model of a universe pervaded by the medium of akshara'. In this, he tells us he is 'taking a cue from the three layers of reality of the universe as propounded by Advaita Vedanta and presented in the Bhagavad Gita - the kshara (perishable), the akshara (imperishable) and aksharaatheetha (the ultimate force)'.Here, it may help to explain how modern physicists have made use of the ancient concept of 'ether' or 'akasha'. As the theory of electromagnetism developed, through the work of Faraday and Maxwell, the idea of 'ether' was conceived in a somewhat degraded way, as a material substance in which light travels as a wave vibration.This made the 'ether' rather confusing. On the one hand, such a material substance had to be extremely rigid, like a very hard solid, in order to account for the tremendous speed of light (wave vibrations travel faster in harder materials). But on the other hand, this same material substance had to be extremely rarefied, like a very thin gas which permeated all of space, so that the planets could move through it with no visible resistance. Conceiving 'ether' thus, as a thin gas, nineteenth century physicists reasoned that we should experience an 'ether wind', as our planet earth travels through this extremely rarefied but very rigid substance called 'ether'. Hence Michelson and Morely conducted their famous experiment, which showed that there was no 'ether wind'.What Einstein showed, through a more careful consideration, was that the 'ether' is not anything material. It is not any kind of matter that is found added into space, in the way that water has been poured into a bottle or chocolates and other provisions have been put into a kitchen cupboard.Instead of being any kind of external matter that has been extraneously added into space, the 'ether' is intrinsic in all space and time. It is an essential continuity, which carries on through different places we observe in space and changing periods we pass through in time. Without that continuity, no difference of place, nor any change of time can ever be experienced by anyone. That continuity is ultimately immaterial, beneath all difference of objects in structured space and beneath all change of happenings in passing time.In Einstein's theories of relativity, that continuity is described through an immaterial geometry of space and time. Thus described, it is called the 'space-time continuum'. There, modern physics has gone beyond a mechanical conception in which pieces of matter interact through force. A mechanics of matter and force is accordingly replaced by a geometry of interconnected events. Differentiated matter and changing happenings are thus treated as partial appearances of a single continuum that is seen differently through our variety of limited and changing observations.Considered as a single whole, the continuum is changeless in itself. It is thus 'akshara'. But it appears to be 'kshara' or 'changing', through our limited and variable observations. And that raises a question of what might be reality itself, beyond its changeable appearances and even beyond the changelessness that appears by contrast with apparent change. Hence we are led to notions like 'akshara atita' or 'that which is beyond even changelessness'.What I'm trying to say here is that when modern scientists think deeply, as Einstein did, they may well return to old conceptions which have been likewise deeply thought in the ancient past. The old conception of 'ether' or 'akasha' is a case in point. I would say that as Einstein conceived his theories of relativity, he was returning to an older and truer examination of this concept. In particular, there come to mind two examples from the Upanishads, where 'akasha' is thus shown conceived. These two examples are appended below.Ananda______

First example, from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Chapter 3Here, Gargi is questioning Yajnyavalkya. She first points out that the entire world of earthly things is actually made of the element 'water', as a cloth is woven warp and woof from thread. And then she asks about this element 'water'. Since all things of 'earth' turn out to be made of 'water', then what is 'water' made of?Here, there of course a metaphorical use of the words 'earth' and 'water'. By 'earth' is meant a material level of appearance, where it seems that a world is made up from pieces of matter. And Gargi is pointing out that when pieces of matter are examined more accurately, it turns out that they are experienced through change and transformation -- thus showing a deeper level of transforming energy, which is metaphorically described as 'water'. And she is asking further for a still deeper level of appearance, beneath the fluid transformations of this element 'water'.Yajnyavalkya replies that 'water' is made of the underlying element 'fire' -- thereby indicating a level of meaningful information, which burns itself up so as to throw a knowing light on something more than its uninterpreted appearance. When Gargi goes on to ask about 'fire', Yajnyavalkya answers 'air' -- thus indicating a further level of subtly influential conditioning, which is experienced as a climatic atmosphere. When Gargi asks in turn about 'air', Yajnyavalkya reply is 'ether' or 'akasha' -- thus indicating a pervasive continuity that must persist through all changes of conditioned character.Somewhat mechanically, Gargi asks about 'akasha', and Yajnyavalkya then launches in to various levels of mythology, leading finally to 'Brahman', where he tells her that her head will fall off if she asks any more questions. At this point Gargi falls silent, because she realizes that she needs to think more carefully, while other scholars carry on with their questioning of Yajnyavalkya.Having had time to think a little, Gargi returns to her questioning, with a more analytical approach. She asks:

 

yad UrdhvaM yAj~navalkya divaH yad avAk pR^ithivyAH,yad antarA dyAvA 'prithivI ime,yad bhUtaM ca bhavac ca bhaviShyac ce 'ty AcakShate,kasmiMs tad otaM ca protaM ce 'ti [3.8.3]'Consider all that's said to be:above the heavens, below the earth,in heaven and earth, and in between;including all there ever was,is now, and will in future be;in what is all that woven, warp and woof?'Yajnyavalkya replies (3.84):

 

AkAshe tad otaM ca protaM ce 'ti [3.8.4]'All of that is woven, warp and woof, in "ether".'Then Gargi repeats the same question which she has asked before:

 

kasmin nu khalv AkAsha otash ca protash ce 'ti [3.8.7]'In what is "ether" woven, warp and woof?'Now, at last, Yajnyavalkya gives her a satisfying answer. For she has now identified the 'ether' properly: as that which includes all space and time, in an unbroken continuum. The word 'akasha' is thus taken to describe a single background which continues through all different and changing appearances. It's only the appearances that differ and change, not the reality that they show differently and changingly in space and time. That reality stays always the same, at the background of experience, beneath each different point of space and each changing moment of time.So Yajnyavalkya can now say to Gargi that the space-time continuum shows everywhere a single reality, which may be described as 'akshara' or 'changeless'. He says:

 

etad vai tad akSharaM gArgi brAhmaNA abhivadanti,asthUlam anaNv ahrasvam adIrgham alohitam asnehamacchAyam atamo 'vAyv anAkAsham asa~Ngam arasam agandhamacakShuShkam ashrotram avAg amano 'tejaskam aprANamamukham amatram anantaram abAhyam, na tad ashnAtiki~ncana, na tad ashnAti kashcana [3.8.8] 'Those who investigate realitydescribe it as the 'changeless'.It is not coarse, nor yet refined;it is not long or short.No flame of passion colours it;no fond affection is involved.No shadow brings obscurity;there's no obstruction to be cleared.It is not 'air', nor 'ether'.Connection and relationshipdo not apply to it. Nor doany qualities, like taste and smell.It has no eyes, no ears, no speech,no mind; it is not sharp, nor has itvital energy, nor any face, nor measure.Nor does it consume, nor is consumed.It has no outside, no inside.'tad vA etad akSharaM gArgyadR^iShTaM draShTR^i, ashrutaM shrotR^i,amatam mantR^i, avij~nAtaM vij~nAtR^i;nAnyad ato 'sti draShTR^i,nAnyad ato 'sti shrotR^inAnyad ato 'sti mantR^i,nAnyad ato 'sti vij~nAtR^i;etasmin nu khalv akShare gArgyAkAsha otash ca protash ceti. [3.8.12]'This, Gargi, is just that which is not changed.It is not seen, but is the see-er.It is not heard, but is the hearer.It is not thought, but is the thinker.It is not known, but is the knower.Apart from it, there is no see-er.Apart from it, there is no hearer.Apart from it, there is no thinker.Apart from it, there is no knower.Gargi, in this alone which is not changed,all space and time are woven, warp and woof.'

 

Second example, from the Shvetashvatara Upanishad

 

yadA carmavad AkAsham veShTayishyanti mAnaVAhaH .tadA devam avij~nAya duHkhasyAnto bhaiShyati ..When human beings have rolled upall the extent of space and time,as though it were a kind of skin;then shall there be an end to grieffor the agnostic about 'God'.This stanza speaks of an 'end to grief' (duHkhasyAntaH), 'for those who don't distinguish God' (devam avij~nAya). It says that this is possible, when people roll up the 'continuing extent of space and time' (Akasha) as though it were a kind of skin (carmavad).I am inclined to interpret this to mean that space and time are not absolute. Their extension through the world is only a relative conception, which stretches an observing mind from narrow objects to the entire universe.When our minds are stretched out in this way, the concept of 'God' arises: as a universal consciousness that encompasses the universe. But when our minds reflect back deeply, beneath their superficial pictures, then all of space and time is seen enfolded there, in the microcosm of one's own individuality. The whole extent of space and time thus gets rolled up, and consciousness is seen unlimited in individual experience. Then there is no need to universalize consciousness, through the concept of God.In a far more limited and superficial way, modern physics also speaks of space-time as curved and thus liable to be rolled up upon itself, in circular models of the universe. But here, the direction of investigation is objective. It seeks to describe the world, in pursuit of a variety of limited objectives.In an advaita enquiry, the rolling up is achieved by turning all questions back upon themselves, so as to return back to their subjective origin. It's only thus that advaita asking can achieve its non-dual aim.