Avinash

Content Count
2,138 
Joined

Last visited
Posts posted by Avinash


Does somebody have authentic translation of Valmiki Ramayan?
Please let me know what the verse 33 of chapter 55 of Ayodhya kand says?

Time in spritual world? Before discussing that, is it not important to know what is time here in this material world?

Lo, main bhi aa gaya.

Wow Amlesh. Beautiful poem.

I wish I also had NDE. But I do not want to try to have that experience.

To ARZ,
Even Valmiki has written about agni pariksha.

It is said that you should listen to your consicence  also called as the inner voice, the voice of God.
But often there are so many voices inside our head. One says  do this. Another says  do that. More than one of these seem to be correct.
So, how do you know which of these voices is the voice of conscience?

There is a story that Krishna met a hunchback woman and cured her because of which she again looked beautiful.
Can you tell me what she was in her previous birth? Is it written in any scripture?
I remember reading in Brahm Vaivart Puran that Surpanakha was reborn as Kubja. Somewhere (don't remember where), I read that Manthara was reborn as Kunja. I have also read that she was an expansion of Satyabhama. Are all these correct? If yes, how do you reconcile these?

The reason I mentioned the analogy of blind men is because scientists are talking about a unified theory. Superstring theory being the strongest contender for the theories at present. But my point is that we do not even understand what the elementary particles are. Therefore, is it not important to first understand them correctly and then attempt unified theory? Experiemental results match with Mathematics of quantum mechanics. But what about Physical significance? Therefore, first the basics are to be corrected. By basics I mean understanding what these particles are. As I said, waveparticle duality explains observed phenomena. But this is a false duality.

Consider double slit experiment. A very common interpretation of quantum mechanics says that if experiment is set up to observe particle property, then a photon behaves like particle and goes through one slit. And if we set up the experiment to observe wave behavious, then the photon behaves like wave and goes through both slits.
But, I personally do not believe at all that the experimental setup affects whether a photon should behave like wave or like particle. I do not believe that a photon can hit a screen, the behaviour of a photon is affected by what is there in that screen.
Rather, I believe that photon is neither a particle nor a wave. It is something entirely different. It is just that there are some experiments in which we get the same results which we would have got if photon had been a particle and there are some experiments in which we get the same result which we would have got if we photon had been a wave.
I am reminded of the analogy of an elephant and blind men. One blind man touches one of the feet of the elephant and says that elephant is a pillar. Another touches one of its ears and says that the elephant is a large winnowing fan.
Is elephant a pillar? Answer is no.
Is it a winnowing fan? Answer is no.
Is it a duality of the two? Answer is no.
It is something entirely different. It is just that the first blind man did an experiment and got the same result if he had done the experiment on a pillar. The second blind man got the same result if he had done his experiment on a large winnowing fan.
So, I believe that we are the blind men and photon is the elephant.
I used photon only as an example though I could have used elecron, proton, neutrino and many others.
Our current scientific understanding is heavily dependent on the understanding of elementary particles (or rather, so called 'particles'). It is important to first understand what these particles are. As I mentioned earlier, we are like the blind men of that story when it comes to interpreting what these elementary particles are.

Dear Ravindran,
For simplicity, I was using probability to mean probability amplitude though I accept that it is complex quantity as opposed to real number between 0 and 1 as used in Probability theory. But the two are related in the sense that if we know probability amplitude values of positions, then we can find the probability of the occurence of a particle in a given region.
Yes, it is true that Schrodinger's equation determinines the values of probability amplitude for all times to come. But this does not guarantee us precise determination of measurable quantities like position, momentum, energy etc.
I agree with you that position is a property of particle and not of wave. I also agree that if we consider wave property like amplitude instead of particle property like position, then there is no uncertainty. But why should we not consider particle property? And what is the realworld significance of this amplitude? These are important questions.

The quantum state of a physical system actually evolves completely deterministically, and is exactly described by the Schrödinger equation.Yes, but what is the meaning of that state? In Schrodinger's equation, it is wave function. As per Born's interpretation, this wave function represents probability. Irrespective of whether it is probability or not, just because wave function evolves deterministically, we cannot say that position, momentum etc. evolve deterministically.
Ravindran already mentioned this in post #14. Probability only enters the system in the measured state, e.g., when we try to measure the state of a quantum particle (i.e., what it is).Physical quantities have various probable values before they are measured but they get one precise value once measured. This is called as collapse of wave function. May be this is what you are also saying.
Max Born interpreted this as a ‘probability amplitude’, but Schrödinger himself opposed such a statistical or probabilistic approach.Yes, Schrodinger opposed but it has been mathematically proven that his wave equation is equivalent to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
And Einstein believed that quantum mechanics is just a statistical approximation of an underlying deterministic theory. The chaotic system model of reality, proposed in this thread, indicates that such a deterministic theory may in fact exist.Yes, it is possible to have an underlying deterministic theory. But, could you explain how the chaotic system model leads to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle as approximation?

Bart,
In your model, material reality is completely deterministic. But, according to quantum mechanics, quantities like position, momentum, energy etc. are not deterministic. The probability value of any of these quantities is deterministic but these quantities themselves are not deterministic. Then, how can material reality be deterministic?

go4harish,
Vali was Indra's son and Sugreev was Surya's son.

Is it Petre or Peter?

It was hunter Jara (and not Arjuna), who was Vali's rebirth.

How do you pronounce a in Kashi and Talshi? Is it short a or long a sound?
I am assuming that last i is pronounced like ee of see.

Thanks. Very nice site. I could get Mahopanishad and many other upanishads as well.

In 1st chapter of 5th canto of Vishnu Puran, Parashar tells Maitreya that a black hair of Lord Vishnu incarnated as Krishna and a white hair as Balarama.
In 3rd verse of the same chapter, the word viSNoraMshaaMshasambhUticaritaM is mentioned.
As you can see the word aMsha comes twice in this word. It is aMsha + aMsha, meaing part of part.
Krishna is supreme. Then why does Vishnu Puran call Krishna as part of part of Vishnu? And why does this Puran say that just a black hair of Vishnu incarnated as Krishna?

Thanks, Baobab.
Yes, Maha + Upanishad = Mahopanishad.
It is sandhi.
Can you post the link of that site?

Thanks, DW. One more.
Is "eko va hai narayana..." the first shlok of Mahopanishad or some other?

Is there a single upanishad called Mahopanishad or is there a class of upanishads called Mahopanishad?
Did Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhava quote "eko ha vai narayana ..." shloka?

I saw "eko ha vai narayana..." being quoted a few places in this board.
From where has this verse been taken? If it is from an upanishad, then what is the name of that upanishad and which shloka (number) in that upanishad?

I wonder how you people are able to bring up such an old thread?
Did Rama eat Meat?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
Does somebody have authentic translation of Valmiki Ramayan?
Please let me know what the verse 33 of chapter 55 of Ayodhya kand says?