Rig Veda 1.01.164.4...how the formless One supports the formed?

[atanu]

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4 enquires "Who hath beheld it as it sprang to Being, seen how the formless One supports the formed?" and answers it.

Recently Ulrich Mohrhoff, a quantum physicist, has written a text book titled "The World according to Quantum Mechanics" that has a similar question. Mohrhoff says that the central question that QM attempts to answer is why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? He has attempted to answer the question. I cite the link to the text below.

15 Quanta and Vedanta – This Quantum World

 

[Kapalika]

I started to read this and became unsure about it... I'd need to do some research to know what I think about this. It was a little hard to find information on Mohrhoff's credentials but whenever someone sets out to find a link, that's what worries me as per their objectivity. Also I like to think I have a basic conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics but I think that alone is not going to really give me or most of us a proper way of addressing the claims in this.

 

[George-ananda]

I read some of this and feel it will be the metaphysics of the future. I see the Vedas and post-materialist science as being on the same page.

 

[atanu]

I started to read this and became unsure about it... I'd need to do some research to know what I think about this. It was a little hard to find information on Mohrhoff's credentials but whenever someone sets out to find a link, that's what worries me as per their objectivity. Also I like to think I have a basic conceptual understanding of quantum mechanics but I think that alone is not going to really give me or most of us a proper way of addressing the claims in this.

I agree with most of what you say, except the part highlighted in blue which I do not follow.

 

[atanu]

I read some of this and feel it will be the metaphysics of the future. I see the Vedas and post-materialist science as being on the same page.

Yes. Yet, I do not think that mental efforts can unravel the truth of the source of mind.

 

[David T]

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4 enquires "Who hath beheld it as it sprang to Being, seen how the formless One supports the formed?" and answers it.

Recently Ulrich Mohrhoff, a quantum physicist, has written a text book titled "The World according to Quantum Mechanics" that has a similar question. Mohrhoff says that the central question that QM attempts to answer is why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? He has attempted to answer the question. I cite the link to the text below.

15 Quanta and Vedanta – This Quantum World

Consciousness means different things it's a relative term. It's not that I disagree it's not clear. It's always the problem with such linguistic structures. It's like we want to be clear but the clearer it is the less truthful it is or the more abstractively muddled it is. Zen is a fascinating way of approach for me.
What can make total sense is this reality but it is not zen:

What happens is, when this, which is reality, is approached, what has been said before makes no sense, because we now have zen. If zen negates it zen is thus primary, and the other reality is mearly expressive intellectual window dressing to zen. It's not that zen is superior to any religion it's that all religions work to a state zen in context to nature regardless of the above reality. It attempts to reorder back to origination. Body, mind, enviroment the trinity Holy and wholy complete. Only then is truth regardless of all traditions. A coming to, not an intellectual understanding of.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness means different things it's a relative term. It's not that I disagree it's not clear. It's always the problem with such linguistic structures. It's like we want to be clear but the clearer it is the less truthful it is or the more abstractively muddled it is. Zen is a fascinating way of approach for me.
What can make total sense is this reality but it is not zen:

What happens is when this which is reality is approached what has been said before makes no sense because we now have zen. If zen negates it thus is primary and the other reality is mearly expressive intellectual window dressing to zen. It's not that zen is superior it's that all religions work to a state zen in context to nature regardless of the above reality. It attempts to reorder back to origination. Body, mind, enviroment the trinity Holy complete.

Yes. It is said that word and mind return from it.

 

[David T]

Yes. It is said that word and mind return from it.

Yes it's an arriving to rather than a wandering from. The intellect wanders about. It creates but in the process we begin to get lost in it. Like I paint the landscape. I pass it to my child and say paint the landscape, and the child paints my painting. On and on it goes till someone says stop we are painting paintings and nothing more. Buddha was a stop!!!! In Hinduism itself. . It's believed buddhism is not Hinduism!!!! Ha. It's like saying Christianity is not jewish!!!! Ha. Look match match!!! These sparks where it happens is always always of nature in nature by nature regardless how lost we get in our paintings of paintings of paintings. All of us. We share globally one reality we are dumb!!!!!

 

[David T]

Yes. It is said that word and mind return from it.

I wanted to add the Christian story is the Hindu story. It's just manifest into real life birth, life death renewal instead of story archetypes. It's the root of all religions in structure. It's older than all written religions. It is what existed before all religions. I, this place, are one, my home, and home is where my heart is. Home, all faiths, are a call home at their shared root but lost today in houses of the intellect. Destroy the houses all of them and discover home.

 

[Kapalika]

Can we ban the use of stock photos?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Can we ban the use of stock photos?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4 enquires "Who hath beheld it as it sprang to Being, seen how the formless One supports the formed?" and answers it.

Recently Ulrich Mohrhoff, a quantum physicist, has written a text book titled "The World according to Quantum Mechanics" that has a similar question. Mohrhoff says that the central question that QM attempts to answer is why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? He has attempted to answer the question. I cite the link to the text below.

15 Quanta and Vedanta – This Quantum World

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. I plan on sitting down when I have time to read this book in its entirety.

I find QM fascinating, likely because as I see it, if science can explain the existence of consciousness and metaphysics, it will in all likelihood be through this method.

 

[sayak83]

Rig Veda 1.01.164.4 enquires "Who hath beheld it as it sprang to Being, seen how the formless One supports the formed?" and answers it.

Recently Ulrich Mohrhoff, a quantum physicist, has written a text book titled "The World according to Quantum Mechanics" that has a similar question. Mohrhoff says that the central question that QM attempts to answer is why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? He has attempted to answer the question. I cite the link to the text below.

15 Quanta and Vedanta – This Quantum World

I could not understand anything written in the article.

 

[Jainarayan]

It seems this has been floating around for a while. I'm not surprised if it becomes the standard model for trying to understand existence and consciousness.

Quantum Physics and Vedanta – Part 4/4 | Science and Nonduality
Quantum Consciousness | Quantum Consciousness

 

[atanu]

I could not understand anything written in the article.

Ha ha. It’s elementary, dear Watson.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I could not understand anything written in the article.

Unfortunately, due to my rudimentary understanding (at best) of QM, I may be reading things into this that aren't there. Admittedly, I haven't yet read past the original article, but I'm curious to know from someone who is more educated in the sciences than I am what practical issues exist in the article. What am I missing?

 

[sayak83]

Unfortunately, due to my rudimentary understanding (at best) of QM, I may be reading things into this that aren't there. Admittedly, I haven't yet read past the original article, but I'm curious to know from someone who is more educated in the sciences than I am what practical issues exist in the article. What am I missing?

I could not find a single line in there (in that article) that has anything to do with quantum mechanics or physics of any kind.

 

[atanu]

I could not find a single line in there (in that article) that has anything to do with quantum mechanics or physics of any kind.

Yes. That particular section has nothing to do with QM. But the point of the article is not only different but just the opposite. Please read the first 3 -4 lines.

QM does not answer: But why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? Not really.

 

[sayak83]

Yes. That particular section has nothing to do with QM. But the point of the article is not only different but just the opposite. Please read the first 3 -4 lines.

QM does not answer: But why are objects that have spatial extent composed of finite numbers of objects that lack spatial extent? Not really.

I not at all certain that the article provides any explanation either. Just saying everything is a manifestation of Brahman over and over again (which is what he does) is not an explanation. It's like saying grass is green and flows are red because the ultimate supra-conscious unitary Brahman differentiates in successive stages to create physical reality.
The answer in quantum mechanics is kind of obvious. Particles are separated by spaces between them that they can't breach due to high repulsive forces between them. That's why extended objects are really collections of almost pointlike particles and lots of empty (but actively interacting) space between these pointlike particles.

 

[atanu]

I not at all certain that the article provides any explanation either. Just saying everything is a manifestation of Brahman over and over again (which is what he does) is not an explanation. It's like saying grass is green and flows are red because the ultimate supra-conscious unitary Brahman differentiates in successive stages to create physical reality.
The answer in quantum mechanics is kind of obvious. Particles are separated by spaces between them that they can't breach due to high repulsive forces between them. That's why extended objects are really collections of almost pointlike particles and lots of empty (but actively interacting) space between these pointlike particles.

That is true.

But, if knowledge of Vedas and Upanishads could be rationally explained then those would not be Sruti. To upanishadic sages, vijnana is science of divided consciousness in contrast to jnana which is wisdom of indivisible consciousness. The latter cannot be known through divided consciousness.

The UR -- the Ultimate reality, the author talks about is just a pointer to Brahman that science cannot measure or explain, since it is Brahman that is seeing, knowing and explaining.

One should not stop at reading Chapter 14 but should proceed further and especially to Chapter 16.