I am a fan of "Telugu Alchemist" who posts videos on youtube about "mainstream science" which give me an opportunity to cogitate over vedic science. In a recent video he talked about the Law of Conservation of Energy where he translated "energy" to "sakti", perhaps a term used in academic curriculum. I will come to the Law a little later, but first I would like to clarify on "sakti" which primarily means female principle in hinduism but has other derived meanings like the connection between mind, god, etc. with matter.
It is believed that yogis possessed yoga sakti using which they could bend solid objects or travel to the place of their choice instantaneously. Whether one believes in such metamagical themes, one has to be generally receptive to the female principle and the interaction between mind and matter to appreciate the wisdom of the rishis.
For instance, what is the sakti that makes firewood useful for cooking? A rishi would say firewood has "agni tattva" whereby prayer or its equivalent such as rubbing flint stones initiates the combustion process that manifests as light and heat. Why is rubbing flint stones the same as prayer? Simply, the "agni" in flint stone was discovered by someone using their mind! If you say, the search engine told you
"The discovery of fire was attributed to Homo erectus, during the Early Stone Age. They likely first discovered fire through natural events such as lightning strikes or volcanic eruptions and learned to control it for warmth and cooking."
Therefore, there was no serendipity and a "discovery" was made, which is ipso facto mind!
To understand the female principle of sakti requires abstract thinking. In Sankhya, mentioned in Bhagavad Gita, Prakruti, which is sakti, comes in contact with Purusha, which is consciousness or spirit, to energize the Jiva. In other words, sakti is necessary for the creation and sustenance of jiva. Though Prakruti is commonly referred to as nature or matter, ultimately it is a manifested female principle.
Did our rishis miss the "energy" concept altogether? The mention of agni in hundreds of veda mantras and the various references such as sapta jihva, aapaye, indhanaya, jaataveda, vanaspataye, etc. attributed to agni, apply to energy as well. When you have a boundless entity manifesting in various forms, including terrestrial and celestial objects, what would one have to say about its conservation? The saanti mantra puts it succinctly "Aum! That is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.The infinite proceeds from the infinite. (Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe), It remains as the infinite alone."
But what about the law? Alchemist uses time and space symmetries of physics to explain the law. He gives an example of a compressed spring that has the same energy whether it is transported in space or measured at various times. However, tell that to people making perpetual motion machines, liquid water fuel, and replacing silicon chips with biological brains.
One thing overlooked is energy is not a vector and inert. It can't make objects move which can only be done by a vector like force, for instance, but gets consumed in motion. Simply put, unless energy is released by either a vector or a process such as combustion, it remains latent and unmanifested.
In the terrestrial frame of reference, for example, when we consider a coal fired steam engine, the energy released by burning coal, converts water to steam that moves its wheels. Suppose someone tells you to put miniature wind turbines along the railway tracks, and recover some of the energy released by the coal whenever a train passes causing wind turbulence, one would say that is ludicrous! In other words, the law was established for the convenience of fitting mathematical formulations, rather than real life.
Finally, I would like to comment on those who stick to time and space symmetries as the golden standard and there is no symmetry in "Artha-naareeswara" for why would a half-male and a half-female together give rise to a symmetric form? I think the rishis are telling us "don't be fooled by the outer appearance" and the form that seems asymmetric and self-contradictory is indeed Brahman who was described by Adi Sankara in various ways in Nirvana Shatakam that begins as:
"Mano-Buddhi-Ahankaara, Chittaani Naaham Na Cha Shrotra-Jihveh, Na Cha Ghraan-na-Netre Na Cha Vyoma Bhoomir, Na Tejo Na Vaayuh Chid-Aananda-Roopah, Shivoham Shivoham"
"I am not the Mind nor Intelligence the Ego, or the faculty of recollections. I am not the faculties of Hearing, nor that of Tasting, the faculties of Smelling or Seeing. I am not the Sky, nor the Earth, Neither the Fire nor the Air"
Regards
No comments:
Post a Comment