Bart Happel

<br /> Dear Ravindran,<br /> That is amazing! Thanks for sharing. If we can perceive this, then maybe our notion of ‘empirical science’ must be broadened. Perhaps this is what Prabhupada meant when he referred to his method of getting enlightened as a 'scientific method'. <br /><br />Do you think you were inside your body when you consciously experienced this? And does this (2-dimensional) video resemble your experience in any way:<br /> <center> <br /><font size="2">(Note the 'fullscreen' option)</font><br /> <br /> <embed src=" " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></center> <br /><br /> Kind regards, Bart

Dear Justin, I’m asking people not to dismiss my proposal without arguments, i.e., not to waste my time (although I don’t mind too much). And it’s clear that you don’t have counter arguments. So please Justin, don’t waste my time. And if you think I’m making a mistake, I kindly ask you (again) to point it out to me. But I don’t think you can, for I’m quite sure that if you could, you would have done that already. And for your information; I’m a real genuine scientist. But is that relevant? A debate is about arguments, not about PhD’s. Kind regards, Bart

Dear all, Some of you may be familiar with the scientific term ‘quantum entanglement’. At a microscopic - or quantum scale, our perceived reality appears to be ‘non-causal’, i.e., not action/reaction-like. For example, the state of different quantum particles can be ‘instantaneously correlated’; when of two entangled quantum particles the state of one particle changes, then the state of the other particle changes accordingly and instantaneously. Such (non-causal) correlation of quantum state may persist even if the particles are miles or light-years apart. This is called quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement can only mean that what we perceive at a quantum scale as different or dual, is actually one or non-dual; spatially separate quantum events have a common cause. And since quantum reality underlies our entire perceived macroscopic reality, everything that we perceive as dual must actually be one. Can anybody argue that the above proof of fundamental non-duality of our perceived cosmic manifestation doesn’t prove that 'advaita' is true? Kind regards, Bart

I don’t claim to be anything. And I’m certainly not an expert on Vedic literature. My knowledge is scientific, i.e., based on observable and reproducible phenomena in our manifest reality. Although current scientific knowledge is obviously incomplete when it comes to the most fundamental principles of matter and mind, scientific experimental data can be verified by anyone and therefore it must be considered true knowledge. The scientific method may or may not lead to an ultimate theory to fit all the data and clarify everything in the universe and who we are, but scientific knowledge can certainly be used to dismiss apparent nonsensical ideas such as any claims about anti-matter being an essential part of our cosmic manifestation or even our mind and consciousness. I think current incomplete scientific theories of quantum reality reflect human ignorance. I argued, however, that a theory may exist that is not only a more complete model of quantum reality, but also seems to clarify the religious concept of ‘simultaneous oneness and difference’. Moreover, the model may explain the relation between matter and energy and between our ignorant perception and consciousness. Recently I noticed that this model corresponds remarkably well to Srila Prabhupada’s ‘advaitic’ ideas and even to the Buddhist notion of ‘form and emptiness’. The concept of mukti then also seamlessly fits in. This is not to say, however, that the model is the truth or even that it is a complete model of reality. But it might be interesting to see if it can resolve the dualism/monism controversy at least in principle and thus contribute to general religious understanding. Therefore, the model must be able to withstand criticism. However, to test the model against criticism, I need debatable counter arguments from scripture or science. Not just some half baked unfounded idea’s or loose terms or utterances. If you think I’m wrong, then you should be able to provide arguments in support of your position and/or against my position. Kind regards, Bart

I wouldn't know that. Tell me about it..

This is, indeed, exactly the confusion addressed in this tread. How can one be part of God? Let’s suppose you are part of God. Then who is experiencing? Both you and God are experiencing, although your experience may be different from God’s experience. If, on the other hand, you are not a part of God, then God would be ignorant of your experience, which is unthinkable because God is omniscient. Furthermore, you must be part of God because everything in reality is one. Kind regards, Bart

Mukti is not a myth. And your experience is always God’s experience. When you think you are fundamentally different from God, you are mistaken. Kind regards, Bart

Can you please elaborate a bit more on this, Justin? If your consciousness is (part of) God’s consciousness, then Srikanth’s conjecture does make sense, doesn’t it? Kind regards, Bart

Dear Suchandra, Do you really believe this is a correct description of the singular immaterial dynamic principle that underlies our manifest material reality, our soul and our consciousness? Obviously the notion of material aspects - versus non-material aspects of reality, as correctly described in the Bhagavad-gita, is wrongly mixed up here with the scientific notion of anti-matter. Anti matter exists. It can be artificially created and stored within a magnetic field. Anti-matter is exactly the same as normal matter, except for the observable fact that all its fundamental properties are opposite to the fundamental properties of normal matter. And when, for example, an anti-hydrogen atom comes into contact with a normal hydrogen atom, both particles are not only annihilated, but their summed mass is explosively converted into ‘normal energy’. There doesn’t exist anything like ‘anti-energy’. Both anti matter and normal matter exist of normal energy. So at the most fundamental level all matter is the same: energy. Furthermore, because of the explosive character of anti-matter/matter annihilation, we wouldn’t want this to happen at a rate anywhere near the point that it could be a relevant process in our cosmic manifestation. The distinction between material and non-material in Bhagavad-gita, simply serves to indicate the difference between our perceived material world and our non-material soul and consciousness. Never is the term ‘anti-matter’ used. Moreover, all matter in our material manifestation is explicitly and repeatedly described as an illusion created by our consciousness. At the most fundamental level everything in the universe is one (God). Call it energy, consciousness or spirit. No need for anti-matter. I really can’t see what motivates people to come up with distorted idea’s like this. It only confuses our understanding of who we are and it is very obviously not the truth. Kind regards, Bart

It's like turning a switch in your mind Your consciousness is God's consiousness, it's different but one. Your perception is, of course, ignorant. Kind regards, Bart

Dear Srikanth, Detailed analysis of the current paradigms of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) has been carried out in the past century by many great minds, and I doubt that anyone here will be able to provide a comprehensive presentation of this vast body of mathematics. And I don’t think it will be of much use in this discussion. If you want to know the details, you can look them up and study them. But allow me to make some general comments on the subject of (anti) matter, gravity and chaos. The relation between normal matter and energy is described by Einstein’s famous equation E = mc<SUP>2</SUP> (energy is mass times the squared speed of light). Anti-matter is the opposite of normal matter and it’s relation to energy can be described as E = -mc<SUP>2</SUP>. So there can be positively charged electrons and negatively charged protons. Such anti-particles can even form atoms such as anti-hydrogen - and anti-helium atoms. However, anti-matter can only be produced artificially in extremely small quantities at enormous costs by high-energy particle colliders (such as CERN). And when anti-matter comes into contact with normal matter both anti - and normal particles are annihilated in an explosion emitting pure radiation or energy. So for all practical understanding, anti-matter cannot exist in our universe, although it is speculated by some that other universes may exist that are entirely composed of anti-matter, in which normal matter can’t exist. Another physical notion (that is sometimes confused with the notion of anti-matter) is ‘dark-matter’. In physics and cosmology, dark matter is ‘invisible’ hypothetical matter that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter. According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter accounts for the vast majority of mass in the observable universe. The observed phenomena which imply the presence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted, however, that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter ). Moreover, a chaos model of reality may resolve all gravitational problems in cosmology, by postulating that gravity is a global dynamical property of the ‘chaotic attractor’ of a unitary chaotic oscillation. If you want to know more about the nature of chaos and chaotic processes at an introductory level, I can recommend the book "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick. Kind regards, Bart

You are (still) only saying: “I just don’t buy it!”. Why don't you simply present some (counter) arguments? Kind regards, Bart

Edit: I mean, if only consciousness exists and all material duality is a perceptual illusion, then all material communication or interaction between conscious individuals must be a perceptual illusion. So in order to experience communication, relevant changes of your consciousness must be very precisely synchronized with changes in my consciousness through this universal consciousness..

Dear Bija, I think the real 'miracle' is that I can communicate with You.

Agreed.

Ehh.. From God?

Dear Bija & Bhaktajan, We are getting to the core of this now. The answer has to do with ‘time’. Reality is always faster than our consciousness. If we ask a question, then the answer is already there. Therefore, reality is infinite. And if reality is infinite, then part of reality can contain the whole of reality (Edit: in time). I need some time, to think of a good analogy.. Kind regards, Bart

This is not true. Ravindran can provide you the logical prove that part actually can contain the whole in infinite structures (a hologram is not an infinite structure). And I can provide you with a computational model of reality that also proves that part can contain the whole. Kind regards, Bart

According to the 'chaos model', it's (of course) not a myth. And a chaotic system can't be analyzed by any calculus. That's the nature of chaos. Although any chaotic process displays a complex inherent order, it cannot be ‘solved’ analytically. We can only simulate it on a computer and study its properties (like a computer model of the weather on earth). Kind regards, Bart

@ Bija The key word is: ‘origin’. God is one and undividable, and simultaneously God is ‘the origin’ of everything in our cosmic manifestation. ‘Simultaneous oneness and difference’ may then be understood as follows. Because God is the origin of everything and God is one, everything is one; and because everything that we perceive ‘originates from’ God, everything we perceive is different from God. It’s like a television picture. The entire picture we see is described or projected by a single (fast moving) electron-beam on the television screen. The picture is, however, not the electron-beam itself, but the picture originates from the electron-beam. We may see separate visible forms in the picture, but it’s all an illusion created by a single beam of electrons. The problem is, where are we (the consciously perceiving souls) in the picture? In the above example, we are passively watching the television screen, physically separated from the television set itself. In reality, however, we perceive ourselves as integral parts of the picture, or the projection. And since the picture is created (projected) by the electron-beam, we must in fact be integral parts of the dynamics of the electron-beam. To take this analogy one step further, suppose the electron-beam is consciousness, then we may be conscious parts of the dynamics of this one consciousness, experiencing our own individual picture or projection of reality. Then there is even no longer a need for a television screen; our cosmic manifestation may simply be the product of our (partial) consciousness. Now, in the chaotic model of reality, the original singular consciousness is not a beam of electrons but a single oscillating point in a ‘state-space’. And perceived reality is not a television screen, but a ‘stroboscopic phase-projection’ of this chaotic oscillation. Such projections display self-similar (fractal) structures, in which parts of the whole are similar to the whole but different from the whole. Such parts, can be seen as the conscious cosmic manifestation of local complex dynamical regions (souls) within the conscious oscillation as a whole. So, simultaneous oneness and difference can be conceived, at least in principle. The only thing that remains inconceivable is how this universal oscillation can actually be consiousness. @ HeeHee I used the example of curing a disease in the body, by curing every single cell in the body, because we usually think of our body as one, i.e., a single unified whole. But you are right, individual cells in the body are separate parts of the body in our cosmic manifestation. However, the chaotic system analogy of reality that I explained above, indicates that this is an illusion, just as all conscious perception and all perceived duality is an illusion and everything is in fact one (consciousness). A key feature of any chaotic system is called ‘self-organization’. This means that everything in the cosmic manifestation (phase-projection) is an intricately interrelated organized dynamical whole. In this view, the process of curing every single cell in the body is just our consciously perceived manifestation of a self-organized healing process. Likewise, preaching to ‘others’ is just the perceived manifestation of a self-organized process of the propagation of religious insight or knowledge. Such processes may seem ‘causal’, i.e., action-reaction like, but that’s all an illusion because duality is an illusion. In the reality that underlies our conscious perception, there are no separate acting and reacting parts or entities. Kind regards, Bart

Justin, The term ‘oneness’ can only have meaning in relation to non-oneness or duality. If there was no perceived duality in our cosmic manifestation, the term oneness would not exist in the dictionary. The point is that this duality is only perceptual, it’s an illusion. In reality the universe is one (God). So why would one preach to ‘others’? It may be seen like curing a disease in your body. Your body is one, but personal knowledge of the disease, or curing just a single cell of the body, won’t stop the disease. The medicine must be transported to all cells of the body to cure the disease. Kind regards, Bart

No, no Bija! A theory or model is not an object; it is a conscious idea! The formalization of a theory can be viewed as a material object, written down on a piece of paper or published on the internet. But that’s just a material means to convey the idea. Kind regards, Bart

Maybe you should (globally) replace the term ‘vaisnava’ by the term ‘model’ or ‘theory’ in this post. And the model, indeed, strongly opposes your point 3. More specifically, a material form cannot be the origin of God (the universal whole) in the model. But God may have many forms that can be consciously perceived by us. Kind regards, Bart

Thnx Bija

Well, maybe you’re right about that. I ‘m actually trying to do that. I just wonder whether scientific knowledge about how everything in the universe must be one interrelated whole, would make it any easier and perhaps more acceptable for people in general to actively serve and become conscious of this universal whole (God). At least such knowledge seems to have the potential to change the way people view their world (in a positive way). I like to think of consciousness as a stroboscopic light that shines on a fast turning wheel. We may first see the wheel as just a spinning blur. However, at specific stroboscopic frequencies, the wheel appears not to turn and we can discern every single detail of the wheel. Maybe, analogously, the process of mukti can be understood as tuning our consciousness to specific dynamical aspects of the universal whole. Kind regards, Bart