Welcome to AstaHost - Dear Guest , Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply w/o Sign-Up!
Alternate Theory Of Creation A theory about the birth of the universe
Posted 11 July 2005 - 02:26 PM
Posted 11 July 2005 - 06:03 PM
one of the basic premises abt vedic cosmology is that the universe is eternal, it was never created and will never be destroyed, how that works is a long explanation i shall give in the coming posts. but anyways this eternal universe exists due to a balance of 3 states called the 3 Gunas ( 'u' pronounced as 'u' in ubermenschen and 'a' as 'o' in son):
Rajas: action, activity
Tatva: inaction, idleness
The equilibrium of these 3 states maintain Existence. When one state exists more than the other 2 a different form of matter or consciousness is created.
Guna in the vedic language of Sanskrit means a string, or strand. I have not found anything to back this up but im developin my own theory of connection between this meaning of Guna and the nascent String Theory. Vedic cosmology says that the universe is maintained by a balance of 3 strings where if one string is more a different matter or consciousness is produced and String Theory says that the most fundamental particle is 2 strings vibrating in different frequencies to produce different dimensions and sorts of matter. I find this similiarity highly intriguing and seek to find more. Any opinions are highly welcome.
Ofcourse there is more to Vedic cosmology and what happens as a result of the balances of these 3 strings i shall explain in the coming posts as the complete overview of our cosmology is quite long.
One thing i would like to mention is that vedic cosmology is completely independent of the hindu and vedic religions. One can explain this philosophy without ever mentioning hindu Gods and i shall try to do the same to as to keep religion out of this discussion at least on my part.
Posted 11 July 2005 - 06:19 PM
We, as humans, can only provide explanations. But we cannot give solid facts as to how the universe was created and how it would be destroyed.
If the sources of the answers to my questions exists in Hindu Scriptures, please inform me, because I would like to learn more about Vedic Cosmology.
Posted 11 July 2005 - 06:47 PM
Coming to the issue at hand, the Vedics hold the belief that this is not the only universe in existence, there are infinite existing presently, were infinite existing before, and infinite will exist in the future. The possibility of infinite universes is incidentally emerging out of quantum physics and einsteinian philosophy too.
Moreover, one can say that there universe cannot be eternal as 'God' must have created it, someone must have created it! But then who created God, an often asked question i admit.
Now, first let me give the allegory of a bacteria that lives for 10 seconds and a civilisation that lives for 10000 years. Can the bacteria even begin to fathom the time the civilisation lives for? Is not the civilisation immortal and eternal for the bacteria? mere semantics you might say.
Take mankind as the bacteria now. There exists the Primordial Being (call it God, Allah, or Vishnu, whatever pleases you) which is primordial not because it was created first, but because it just was there before us. This Primordial Being is the universes and it manifests itself as the 3 gunas i mentioned, as humans, as stars, as protons and electrons. In short this Being is Everything; That Which There Is.
Everything comes from the Being and shall go back to the Being. now 20^12 human years is the time this Primordial Being takes to blink an eyelid (this is an approximate of a calculated number). Modern physics proves that it is highly possible in the gravitational and time-dilating world for beings to exist that live at a time scale entirely faster or slower than us. To us they may take a second to do wat takes us days but to them everything goes as normal.
The time taken to blink an eyelid is called a Nimesh and the Primordial Being lives for a 100 years. So 20^12 Human years is 1 Nimesh for the Primordial Being. If you can calculate how many human years the Being lives for, then you might have decoded Vedism, but there is a catch: Vedism believes that time and life is a circle, a cycle. Before this age of humanity there was another and there will be one after.
Similiarly before this Primordial Being there was another and there will be either. If i give u a circle can u tell me where it starts? If i draw a circle before your eyes you might tell me where I started the circle from but this circle of existence was not drawn by us or in front of our eyes, hence we cannot determine where it started from or where it shall end. That the galaxies are forever expanding might be proof of Big Bang but Jain philosophies says that even the universe is still under construction. A tenet of String Theory says that universes are being constructed even now! One might take birth right under your legs but it would not affect our space and time.
It is by this philosophy that Vedism says that the universe is eternal and immortal. It is backed by 2 basic laws of physics of conservation of energy and mass; neither can be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. Thus this universe was never created, it came out of a previous one, the previous one came out of its predecessor and we go on without reaching an end point.
This concept is totally different and new to you i understand and i felt equally bewildered and confused when i heard it for the first time but i see the sense in it now and have come to believe it, fuelled by the amount of scientific laws and findings that back it or are similiar to it atleast.
More on vedic cosmology coming in further posts. In the meantime does anyone know of other theories apart from this and the Big Bang and the 6 days of creation ones?
Only God knows, (referring to Judaism, Christianity, Islam's God ...) what was before us, and what will be after us.
Truly, only God can know, but Vedism believes that our real Self is our soul, the physical body is only a vehicle for the driver. This soul or Real Self is a part of that Primordial Being, that Divine, and hence if a human can attain the recognition of his Real Self and free himself from the recognisation of the Self as the physical body, he becomes one with the Divine and witnesses the Ultimate Reality that is known to 'God'. This viewing of Ultimate Reality is what happened to Buddha when he attained Nirvana. Only God can know but since 'I and my Father are One' I can know what my father knows by practicing the told methods.
small correction, i mentioned the 3 Gunas as rajas, samat, and tatva but they are rajas, sattwa, and tamas. sorry
Posted 21 July 2005 - 06:21 PM
Posted 24 July 2005 - 04:56 PM
I don’t think of the universe as an infinite universe – I believe it ends somewhere. My favourite creation theory says that the universe is one out of many “universe bubbles”. Try to imagine an empty black (maybe infinite) space. Now, imagine thousands, millions, maybe even billions of ball-shaped bubbles – each is an independent universe.
There has got to be something between these “bubbles” – tachyons are a considered suggestion. Tachyons are hypothetical particles which travel faster than light. They can do this because of their mass being less than zero!
These bubbles are surrounded by a sort of sphere making them able to keep their “own” galaxies, stars, etc. inside them.
Now, occasionally some of these bubbles will bump into each other – a collision which would produce an extreme amount of energy. A little calculation shows that this collision would be powerful enough to produce a “big bang”. Only this big bang wouldn’t start with a small particle but with the two bubble shell smashing into each other.
As I said, this is my favourite explanation also because it explains where background radiation from the big bang, we can measure today, comes from. Too many theories can’t explain the background radiation.
Sorry, I made a mistake about the tachyons. It is the mass squared that is less than zero (m^2 < 0).
Now, this would seem rather odd to us who have just a little mathematical understanding, but it has something to do with irrational numbers – which haven’t been a part of my education yet so I’ll let somebody else explain them!
As I said these particles are hypothetical, i.e. they have never been measured. There are some measurements that could indicate that they exist, but so far no proof has been seen. But if they are discovered they could explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster instead of slower and slower.
I found this site helpful if you want to find out more about tachyons.
Posted 26 July 2005 - 07:21 PM
Although I don't really believe in any of the theories, i also don't NOT believe ... Basically I don't know, I'm not going to believe something until I can say without reasonable doubt that it's true, same goes for the other way, I can't discredit a theory unless i know for a fact it's untrue, so I am always open to listening to new theories and ideas.
As for the big bang theory, i can't comprehend creating something from nothing, I can't accept the fact there there was ever "nothing", the existence of nothing is actually a very hard and complex to visulize absolute nothingness. I understand principals of chemistry and atomic structures, but can't grasp how they came about out of nothing.
Then that the universe was already here... well, there we go for another mind trip. For something to be eternal means that it has no end, and no beginning.. Wow. For something to continually exist in both ways in our rationale of time is perplexing to say the least.
Anyways, I'm going to stop thinking about it, or I'll probably end up going insane.
Posted 27 July 2005 - 09:07 AM
Anyhow, later I thought the Big Bang was caused by God. I thought the six days in the Bible were actually billions of years. Nice theory.
But now, I think the Big Bang was a mysterious bang (a big one) that created everything. And we created God and how he created the world. It makes sense, because when we knew nothing about thunder and lightening, Wodan was the dude that made that happen. So when we didn't understand where Earth came from, we invented a Creator. Actually, dozens of creators. When people found out about lightening and stuff, they stopped believing in Wodan. Let's hope that we find out about the Big Bang soon...
Posted 04 August 2005 - 12:18 AM
ne of the basic premises abt vedic cosmology is that the universe is eternal, it was never created and will never be destroyed,
then how do you explain the fact that the universe is expanding ?
yesterday the universe was smaller than it is today.
last week it was smaller still
last year smaller still
millenia smaller still.
600,000,000,000 years ago smaller still...
so at some point in time, it must have been a point, or non existant ?
Posted 07 August 2005 - 06:14 PM
Posted 18 August 2005 - 07:24 AM
Yet, if there is God, then my theories are automatically void.
Posted 18 August 2005 - 10:39 AM
The interesting part of the the vedict theory is its idea of the universe being eternal. Surely, universe is eternal. Matter can not be destroyed or be created. It might be hard for us to comprehend the idea becuase we live in a world were nothing last forever, and if universe were a concious being it would be a very lonely and sad being we wouldnt want that
The part that didnt interest me about the Vedict theory is when it tried to sanctify man. It tried to give mans life a meaning when in reality there is none. Trying to make man immortal, when man is not. But the matter that composed man is immortal. Not man. It tried to put man in the center of the universe, when man and its planet is just another planet in our unfatomable universe. We couldnt just accept the fact that we are just another product of the complex bonding of matters that already exist. We always try to make ourself important or devine. Thus we created God, souls, heaven and hell. Man cannot accept the fact that when he dies, its the end. There is no afterlife knor any kind of preservation of its being, we all will always go back to the simplest form which is matter. OUr consciosnes (whats the spelling by the way ) were the product of electrical impulses. Man is a sophisticated computer, but however sophisticated he is, when he dies, he is nothing. Does not exist and will never exist again. And that is not acceptable to us for we know that the most beautiful thing is living and there is nothing after it.
well, all those things I wrote above are nonsense
Posted 18 August 2005 - 11:01 AM
You would never know. This God figure is in my theory created by mankind to be the reason to create the universe since there's nothing for them to support the "truth". According to Christians, they say that someone like me can't seek the truth and come up with millions of theory. Which this is false. It is religion that humans created and not religion created us. The artificial figure of God is just a reassurance to fill the void of knowledge. It just a temporary filler until the final block has been discovered.
I agree with you. Man in his desperate moments in seeking for the truth created devine being to answer all his questions. Religion is jus the expression of man's faith to a devine being, nothing more nothing less. We always wanted to know what is the begining. How did everything came to be. But this is an endless quest. Becuase if we will ever find out how the universe is created, then another question will surface that again will bother us. So, we created God, for a shortcut. Of course God as devine being is not created by someone, so all our question ends in Him. Simple yet effective. Even if we have infinity to understand the creation of all things we could not still comprehend it.
Posted 18 August 2005 - 12:39 PM
(Source: The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, book version)
Posted 17 September 2005 - 09:11 PM
It is something I have thought about for quite some time actually, I have always wondered how all this was created, and somehow I started to think of it as a living organism able to create, it could be possible after all what we do know about the Universe itself isn't much.
And what we do know about the Universe is almost mere speculation, what we know about it could be all wrong.
Posted 17 September 2005 - 10:19 PM
We will never know, yet religion still insisted that it is created by God, but when the law of mass conservation states "matter cannot be created or destroyed", then they're wrong. It is still strange to me how Christians thought of the world being created in 7 days, while we all know that Earth was created in 3 billion+ years.
Science vs. Religion, an endless debate...
Posted 19 September 2005 - 08:27 AM
My theory begins, like Aristotle, with some kind of Unmoved Mover, some what like the Christian idea of God as all powerful, all knowing, infinite and perfect in knowledge and being. Now the christian believes that such a being created the world, but I would like to stop before this, and first consider the question of action. If a being like this should act, from what fountain of motivation does his action spring? In other words, why do anything? Apparently this being is complete and sufficient of himself and it is inconceivable that he would act out of need. I suggest that the only conceivable motivation is to give from that overwhelming abundance which is his being. But if this is the case, then to whom or to what shall he give. In this initial state of unlimited omnipresence and power, is there anything or anyone which is not him that he can give anything to? I think not.
Therefore if this being should act at all it must be to create something other than himself and because this creation is intended to receive, it must be animate to that extent. Now consider what kind creation seems likely? Something that would receive only a little that he has to give or something that could eventually receive all. It seems to me that the second is only logical for the first would quickly become obsolete - a mistake. But if something animate had the capacity to receive all that this infinite being could give then does it not seem to be infinite itself in some sense? It must have infinite potential, so that the more does receives from this creator, the greater its capacity to receive grows to become. Now what do you think this thing would be, this animate being of infinite potential separate from its creater? Now some of you might assume, ok right, here it comes, he is going to say ... man... right. But you would be incorrect.
No, what I have in mind is something that springs a bit more directly from the requirements outlined above. Consider what this being must do to acheive his end. To be something apart from himself this thing which he creates must have its own substance and this substance must take shape and act on its own, apart from the direction of his will. Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so. Often simple rules can lead to a neverending increase in complexity which can surprise us especially if the process is not completely deterministic. Considering his objectives, the rules or laws he would choose would have a potential for unbounded complextiy. But more importantly it must have the capacity to support something of infinite potentiality. What could this thing be? It must be something with ability to become more than it is. It must be able to increase itself in every way conceivable, to grow, to learn, to adapt, to evolve. It seems obvious, to me at least, that what we are talking about is life.
For me it is a logically inescapable conclusion that if such a being as described above were to act, then it must be to create life. And the universe is nothing more than the cradle or egg in which he can bring life into being. Life is his perfect compliment - infinite potentiality to go with his infinite actuality. Life is something to which he could give endlessly in care and guidance to cultivate and to teach. So after creating this cradle of life he would naturally continue helping life to grow and help it to become more and more able to receive everything which he has to give. We are certainly a part of this because we are alive. But considering how vast the universe is I think we can discount the incredible arrogance of man in supposing that the success of God in any way depends on this particular mote of dust we call the earth.
But this is a far cry from saying that he is disinterested. Here is life, and in it is all potentiality for which he created the universe. Consider that one way or another everything we are comes from this creator. In us he cultivated the love and care we feel for each other. In us he grew the beauty that we see in each other. In us he raised the minds that judge the value we perceive in our fellow man. Is this a product of fantasy or delusion or could this be only smallest hint of the love and care that he feels for us, and the beauty and value that he sees in us. The fantasies and delusions of man are legion, but there is a foolish and childish feel to them. The foolish and childish things all seem to come out when we fail to care for and love each other, when we fail to see the value and beauty in other human beings.
Posted 20 September 2005 - 08:21 AM
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users