Vedic cosmology and the Big Bang

[Guest guest]

What is Vedic cosmology?

 

What are the similarities and differences to the Big Bang theory?

[harish 0]

I am not that knowledgeable, however...

 

The Big Bang describes the universe evolved from a singular state. Vedas describe this as the Hiranya-Garbha (Cosmic Egg). Great if someone could throw light on the relevant verses.

 

The Lotus arising from Vishnu's navel in the Padmanabha form denotes creation of the universe containing Chaturmukha-Brahma. Lotus is a metaphor for the universe.

[gHari 0]

Innumerable universes are manifested by expanding a primordial energy from God called the maha-tattva. Then after 311 trillion earth years they are again contracted and reduced to energy beyond space. After a period they are again generated from another maha-tattva. So it is bang, bang, bang.

 

God is beyond space and time. When He breathes, universes are created and when He inhales, the energy and entities are again merged into His being beyond space and time. Bang, bang, bang, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out, breathe in. Like that forever.

 

Ting tang walla walla big bang.

 

The differences: science doesn't understand that there are many universes beyond ours nor does it understand the reason for and efficient cause of the material manifestation. Science says there was a big bunch of energy and it went boom, but how is it that space and time and the initial energy existed? How is it that anything exists? That is the big question. This is Dr. Frog's science, simply trivial.

More Vedic Cosmology

 

 

[harish 0]

Theoritically, astro-physics considers multiple universes a possibility.

How do you arrive at 311 trillion years?

[Guest guest]

don't bother about differences in detail

gHari has said it right - bang bang bang

In fact, infinite bangs

 

[Guest guest]

We went over this recently at

 

 

tiny bubbles

[gHari 0]

See link supplied.

 

[theist 1]

Whatever the mechanics involved are it is certainly a miracle.

 

Let us live in wonder.

 

 

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."

- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

 

 

[Guest guest]

"These Brane-iacs are trying to tell us that matter is routinely expanding then contracting, many big bangs and big crunch's, I wont go into the science here because it is to complex but the links above will show how these Big Bang and Brane theories have been totally discredited, the vedic version also disagrees with that idea of matter contracting and expanding.

 

The vedic version is that matter evolves from a subtle state to a gross state, like from a gas to a solid, from Brahman to matter, from the sub quantum to the quantum,

when Visnu dissolves a "universe" the matter returns to a subtle "brahman" state, it doesn't contract to a denser state like both the big bang and new many big bang theories state, it become less dense is the vedic version,in fact it loses it's material state altogether, Also when Visnu brings a universe back into existence it doesn't come from a dense state and expand into less dense instead Brahman simply transforms into a denser state, matter doesn't become less dense like the big bang theories state rather matter goes from sub quantum non matter and becomes MORE dense and doesn't expand anywhere."

 

 

Hasn't the vedic view just been disproven then, though? Because scientists have recently discovered the sound the universe made (it's not AUM either), based on the principle that the universe was far more dense in the earlier stages making it possible for sound to travel. It has become significantly less dense since, which is rather opposite to vedic cosmology which says the universe goes from lesser density to greater density.

[gHari 0]

That nonsense about the birth sound of the universe was the lamest thing I've heard in years. Dr. Frog really thinks the world is about twelve times bigger than his well ... or is it thirteen times as big? I'm sure all his colleagues just chuckled over his primal scream.

 

There is no reason not to expect that the material cosmos is rolled back into a ball of energy like the initial mahat-tattva. The breathing function itself suggests to me expansion and contraction. In motion, the mahat-tattva rolls out as per divine plan. Sound itself suggests motion to me. Not to be a Dr. Frog, but that is the image I get.

 

The scientists feel that everything is moving away from us. Either their red-shift hypothesis is flawed or the universe is expanding.

 

My chances of understanding the Vedic truth of it are perhaps just slightly better than science's chances of figuring it out. Both of us don't have a prayer in hell to really know. Fortunately I'm not being paid to pretend that I know.

 

[Guest guest]

The sound theory is pure speculation based on other speculations that have been proven wrong. It is a model of a house of cards, they create a theory to get famous, they build on past disproven theories that have retained credibility only in peoples minds who are not well informed. This tradition of keeping discredited theories as sacrosant and then building on them has been going on for quite a while. This is because once a theory is established as dogma the originator of the theory gains prestige and position within academia, they then gain control over where research grants go, what gets published in accredited journals and what does not get the good housekeeping seal of approval, this phenomena is the norm in many scientific fields, is is called the knowledge filter, the top academics are in charge of what gets official sanctioning or official "wacko status", it's all about money. Academics are given money by insitutions based on their fame and prestige, the institutions (foundations etc) are run by non academic rich people, they put the most famous academics in charge of deciding who gets grant money and how much for research. Cosmology is not the only field where dead theories are kept floating in order to retain positions and prestige for the academic big kahunas, if the reason they originally got their position as controller of grant money is exposed as a faulty theory, then they lose the prestige that gained them that position.

 

So what goes on is suppression of theories that can hurt the reputations of the big kahuna academics, and the publicizing of theories that shore up their discredited theories, since these are topics that the rich people and the public in general are not conversant with, there is a lot of room for dishonesty.

 

 

[Guest guest]

So you may ask why don't scientists protest ?

 

Some do, most won't, they are dependent on the top academics who control grant money, if you go against the pronouncements from on high on what is acceptable orthodoxy and what is wacko, then you are in a precarious position in terms of your job security.