Reimagining Our Engagement with the Advancements in Contemporary Physics on Our Own Terms

It is our tradition to begin all works with a vandanam (a celebration of our iṣṭa devatā and brahman). Thus...

yasmājjātaṃ jagatsarvaṃ yasminneva pralīyate। yenedaṃ dhāryate caiva tasmai jñānātmane namaḥ॥

Salutations to that jñānātman from which the entire universe emanates, that jñānātman into which everything the entire universe dissolves, and that jñānātman that sustains the entire universe.

śrīmacchaṅkarabhagavatpādācārya in his commentary on the taittirīyopaniṣat¹

Rapid and rampant proliferation of technology is the most obvious and ubiquitous measure of today’s standard of living across human societies. Therefore it is understandable that the technologically lagging societies have an urge to conclude something about the validity of the underlying framework of thought - the philosophical/metaphysical underpinning - that is driving technology and continuously improving our lives. However, the method of honest inquiry unequivocally demands the contrary position of not succumbing to this urge to conclude with insufficient information. After all, in dim light we will incorrectly conclude that a rope is a snake1. So to uncover fundamental truths about our connection with the physical reality, we must not be hasty to draw conclusions and instead shine light on important aspects through honest inquiry. Physics (natural philosophy) is by far the most successful edifice that supports and continues to push the boundaries of the understanding of our physical world. Every other branch of science dealing with the physical world emanates from this foundational natural philosophy. Unfortunately, the nuances and the open problems within physics - particularly in connection with how they impact our theology and vice versa - are hardly ever found in common public discourse even among the most vocal and sophisticated sections of our society. One wonders... was this indifference always the case in bhārat? does language play a role in all this? In this article, we will attempt to explore the answers to these questions in the context of some of the latest developments in physics. We will also attempt an inquiry into whether there exist deeper connections between operational physical principles, natural philosophy and our theology, that we can take advantage of immediately.

Figure 1: A basic map of the way we experience the impact of natural philosophy in our daily lives.

Physics vis-a-vis Śāstras

Natural philosophy or physics is currently accepted as an epistemological approach to the knowledge of the bhautika or the physical. However, Albert Einstein was of the view that natural philosophy is an epistemological tool to approach the knowledge of reality or sat. The contradiction expressed by the previous two statements continues to be the subject of debates concerning the validity of quantum mechanical foundations of physics. It is important to note that the view in our śāstras is clear - sat is a deeper reality of which the physical world is a reflection². Reconciling quantum mechanical workings of the subatomic with the relativistic/geometric workings of the cosmos is yet another fundamental open problem in physics.

The latest advances across both theoretical and experimental physics definitely address these open questions of physics. Moreover, the research conducted to provide clarity into the relationship between the observer and the observed by examining the question of whether there are certain hidden variables within the framework of classical physics seem to point towards a “non-locality” that has increasing consistencies/symmetries³ with our śāstras - at least across both purāṇas and upaniṣads. This should not be surprising given there are several examples⁴ across the rich dhārmik corpus of knowledge clearly demonstrating such consistencies across physics and mathematics. Presently, we will narrow our focus to two direct examples of such consistency and show how they enable a deeper understanding of certain key concepts within the major open problems of physics. In brief, the ideas are as follows:

According to the latest theory of the evolution of our universe (Conformal Cyclic Cosmology), conformal mappings are crucial to describe the geometry of our universe. The proponent of this theory was awarded the physics Nobel Prize in 2020, for a related result that demonstrated that black holes were a result of Einstein’s equations of general theory of relativity. We will see that we have a beautiful allegorical parallel with the concept of conformal mapping when we think about how the universe can fit into the mouth of śrīkṛṣṇa as seen by mātā yaśodā in śrīmadbhāgavatam. In addition, in vedānta the firm belief is that the universe is created and dissolved into the brahman - as we saw in the opening śloka of this article.
Experiments were conducted through the 80’s and 90’s to understand the nature of the subatomic physical world as it pertains to quantum theory’s implications on non-locality and completeness. The experimental physicists leading the charge were awarded the physics Nobel Prize in 2022. vedāntik analysis of the observer and the observed (drawn from dṛgdṛśyaviveka in this article) provide a surprisingly consistent extension of these physical theories into the metaphysical. We will see that natural philosophy neatly fits into the vedāntik framework without imposing any strong conditions on locality or completeness. The inquiry into - what is “reality”? is avoided by physicists⁵ and is forbidden by the dogmatists. However, this inquiry is extensively dealt with, in vedānta, head-on.

The bad news is that the discussions relating to connecting these scientific breakthroughs with our śāstras have been surprisingly sparse; even in the dhārmik sections of Bhārat. Most informal conversations about the relationship of śāstras and science often begin and end at claims over certain specific “technologies”. Technologies have a short shelf-life, and therefore so do claims on them. We also are painfully aware that those discussions about technology often end in ridicule and a demand for non-existent archaeological/physical evidence. This is highly unfortunate; especially since this type of discourse results in a trivialization of dhārmik knowledge systems in the best case and outright ignorance of their existence in the worst case.

The good news is that despite the continuous physical and emotional onslaught faced by our com- munity for centuries, we have managed to preserve a good portion of the robust systems of knowledge. These systems of inquiry into fundamental truths of our universe are still at our disposal to allow us to comprehend and reconcile our understanding of physics in the backdrop of our śāstras. We also have an established process to generate allegorical representations in the form of our purāṇas and itihāsas.

These representations serve to communicate truths about reality to all people. No matter who we are, there is a joy and wonderment that naturally occurs in us when we meaningfully and freely contemplate our existence and creation. In dhārmik civilization, this joy is not limited to an elite few; nor is this joy bound and suffocated by dogmatic prohibitions of what/how one approaches it. This joy of finding things out is demonstrably accessible to all human beings who endeavor to start on the journey. Regardless of ritual, prose, poetry, mathematics, or philosophy, the only rule seems to be to place truth (sat) higher than the wishes/material preferences of the bhakta i.e. the person on the path to realize the ultimate truth⁶. It is also relevant to remind ourselves that prior to the advent of the “modern” times in Bhārat, vedic scholars like Nīlakaṇṭha Somayāji, Jyeṣṭhadeva, and others have been actively involved in discovery of physical theories including predicting planetary positions with great accuracy. There has been a continuous tradition of accurate prediction of movement of cosmic bodies spanning millennia⁷ all the way up to the 12th century of the “common” era.

With that overview and background, we are now ready to outline the issues with the prevalent/conventional relationship between the physical & the metaphysical. Then we will explore the details of how the latest experimental and theoretical results have elegant consistencies with our śāstras. Consistencies which may encourage us to revisit our conventional views. We will conclude this article with a reflection on how we can better reorient ourselves through karma and actively reengage with the latest scientific developments on our own, dhārmik terms

Needless Tension Between the Physical and the Metaphysical

What will be the outcome of this impact of special branch of modern science on different powerful old traditions?...the change in the concept of reality manifesting itself in quantum theory is not simply a continuation of the past; it seems to be a real break in the structure of modern science.
Werner Heisenber

Those immersed in dhārmik cultures seldom have any discomfort with the process of general scientific inquiry and new discoveries about the physical world. The absence of any “resistance” to concepts like gene mutation, evolution, theories around origins of the universe, and quantum mechanics is a clear indicator of a deeper connection between physical and the metaphysical within the dhārmik framework.

We also find a clear and continuous thread of metaphysical resistance to the same scientific concepts within cultures which attempted to induce certainty⁸ as a way to establish social order and manufacture consensus. Figure 2 illustrates this fissure between the OET (Ontology/Epistemology/Theology) of the prevalent system to understand reality and the latest OET in Bhārat which is advaita vedānta of ādi śaṅkara. Here, we will explore specific examples of consistency between Bhāratīya philosophical systems & physical observations without the need for any tension within OET.

Figure 2: Comparison between the prevalent and vedāntik views on the connection between Ontology, Epistemology, and Theology.

Śāstras and Physics: A Clear Picture of Consistency

Aupaniṣadika Example #1: Dṛgdṛśyaviveka and Quantum Mechanics

What is quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is an area of physics that deals with the behavior of matter and energy at a sub- atomic level. It is a branch of physics that attempts to explain the behavior of particles and waves on a scale so small that we cannot apply our usual principles of how matter works, to make meaningful predictions. The foundational principle being that ultimately when we sub-divide natural gross matter continuously, we reach a point where nature does not express herself in a continuum. Instead, nature expresses herself in a rule-governed discrete “quanta” of energy and other physical quantities. Quantum mechanics provides a framework for describing (but not fully understanding) phenomena such as wave- particle duality, entanglement, tunneling, and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. The theory explains how particles (including light) interact with each other and how they can be manipulated to create new materials or technologies. Since its discovery, quantum mechanical predictions and calculations of phys- ical systems have resulted in many important developments in areas such as computing, cryptography, nanotechnology, and medicine. Therefore to say that this branch of natural philosophy is relevant to our species is a gross understatement. The outcomes of quantum theory have enabled technologies like semiconductor transistors which form the bedrock of today’s society.⁹

While we will not describe the exact mathematics (which is the only known way to work with the theory of quantum mechanics) here, in this article, it is important to note that in quantum mechanics, the concept of “states” and “superposition” is fundamental to understanding how particles interact with each other. Broadly, a state can be thought of as a mathematical description of the physical structure of any system. As the system evolves through time, the evolution of this state is governed by certain mathematical rules. Through these mathematical calculations, scientists observe and explain the seemingly bizarre behavior of particles being able to exist in a “combination” of different states simultaneously − this is the phenomenon known as superposition. Superposition is at the crux of where a lot of confusion arises about the nature of reality.

EPR Paradox and Bell’s Theorem - Questions About the Nature of Reality

The EPR Paradox and Bell’s Theorem are two of the most important concepts in quantum mechanics dealing with superposition and what that might mean. They both pose questions about the nature of reality, and have been discussed by physicists for decades with the hope of arriving at a clear picture of reality itself. The EPR Paradox suggests that two particles can be entangled¹⁰ in such a way that they behave as if they were one particle, even when separated by large distances. Bell’s Theorem states that any theory which attempts to explain the behavior of particles must be non-local, meaning that it must take into account all possible interactions between particles regardless of distance. Together, these two theories have implications for our understanding of the universe, and have sparked debates among physicists about the nature of reality.

Physicists have long been debating the fundamental nature of reality. From debates about the wave- particle duality of light, to arguments over the interpretation of quantum mechanics and even discussions about whether space-time is a physical or mathematical structure, these debates have greatly shaped our current understanding of physics and the universe. As we continue to make new discoveries in the field, these debates have been changing in form and scope while remaining within the European philosophical and theological boundaries. One of the main challenges to this mode of evolution of our understanding of reality has been that the metaphysical counterpart has been at loggerheads with natural philosophy since the European Renaissance. This leads to many contemporary physicists to steer clear of questions about the nature of reality/any metaphysical conversations¹¹ and focus instead on the precision of calculation methodologies.

The Bohr-Einstein Debate

In 1935, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr wrote a series of letters to each other exploring the implications of the newly proposed EPR paradox. These letters discussed their respective interpretations of quantum mechanics, with Einstein defending realism and Bohr advocating for a more probabilistic view. Through their correspondences, they explored how quantum entanglement could be used to explain the paradoxical behavior of particles on a subatomic level. The exchange between these two giants in physics has been remembered as one of the most influential debates in science history.

One of the most striking aspects of this debate is consistent with the already prevalent view on the nature of reality within the dhārmik worldview. In the seminal EPR paper, the word “reality” is used to indicate the object that natural philosophy was describing. However, it is worth noting that Bohr switches this word up with the phrase “physical phenomena” in his subsequent response. In Bhārat we would refer to this switch as the distinction between bhautika i.e. physical existence and everything else including that which caused/occurred prior to the creation of our Universe. Given the latest 2022 Nobel Prize for Physics awarded to the experiments that continue to confirm that nature i.e. the physical world indeed behaves per the predictions of quantum mechanics and all its glory and “spookyness”¹², we can have more confidence in Bohr’s semantic correction. Given this consistency, we can use the tools like nyāyaśāstra and tarkaśāstra in Bhārat to create a more complete picture of reality while also accepting the quantum mechanical results. The same cannot be said for the metaphysics of cultures that either prohibit probing into the nature of the physical world or view the physical world as something for human beings to use. Moreover, in Bhārat we are also intimately familiar with the worldview that everything - including the physical - is divine and we are actively encouraged to inquire into any aspect of reality that we wish to pursue. In fact, readers would be glad to know that this type of probing into the nature of reality has already been done extensively in Bhārat. Here, we will restrict our exploration to the parallels between the concept of the observer and the observed within one very important vedāntik work called dṛgdṛśyaviveka.

We will simplify the framework of thinking from dṛgdṛśyaviveka for the lay audience to facilitate easy visualization of the fissure in the OET we are experiencing today and comment on what can be done to mend this gap. We will also notice the assertions outlined in tarkaśāstra (specifically in vaiśeṣikaśāstra portion of our philosophy) that examining gross matter alone may not be efficient in comprehending our reality.

Dṛgdṛśyaviveka and the Concept of an Observer

Dṛgdṛśyaviveka, the title of the work attributed to the advaita vedāntik philosophical school¹³ is a Sanskrit term which translates to “the discernment between the observed and the observer”. Needless to say there are layers of observation (see Figure 3 for the broad structure of this observer-observed ladder). This concept of an observer has been implicitly applied to many fields, including quantum physics, psychology, linguistics, and other areas of research. dṛgdṛśyaviveka thus provides us with a powerful model for understanding our place within the universe.

Upon careful inspection of the framework used in dṛgdṛśyaviveka, without diving deep into the mathematical representation of quantum mechanics, we already begin to see an expected limit to how much we can understand. This is outlined in the physical evidence-based process that is at the core of how we approach natural philosophy today (follow the red line in Figure 3). Today, even the cutting edge theoretical physicists are grappling with the problem of consciousness. For example, Sir Roger Penrose (who we will return to in our discussion of Conformal Mappings and the creation of the universe) is actively pursuing the answer to the question of “How can consciousness emerge from quantum mechanical principles?”. While we may choose to remain optimistic that there will one day be a way to deduce consciousness from physical/gross matter, the indications from Indian philosophical systems in general, and dṛgdṛśyaviveka in particular, have cautioned against relying on gross external matter to understand the subtle internal consciousness while also not putting any prohibitions/imposing dogma on our inquiry into physical world. The inquiry into the physical world is also discussed in the śāstra of vaiśeṣika is considered one of the six āstika darśanas and is widely accepted in Bhārat. Here, once again, we see a beautiful consistency with the physical results. The assertion that there is a limit to how much we can understand by cataloging viśeṣa i.e. particular/specific qualities of existing entities (in the physical world, we might think of these viśeṣas as spin, mass, etc.) again points to the results of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) where we don’t seem to be finding answers to what reality is despite conducting the most meticulous and careful cataloging ever known to humans. vaiśeṣikaśāstra simply accepts the existence of a countable set of viśeṣas as a working principle and orients the inquiry into the nature of reality towards consciousness from the get go.

So, we have seen, at a glance, that the philosophical systems that were developed in Bhārat (but unfortunately, are no longer taught in our schools¹⁴) are very effective in giving us the language needed to process the quantum observations in the larger context of inquiring about the nature of reality. We will now turn our gaze towards the cosmos.

Figure 3: High-level representative framework in the introductory vedānta treatise - dṛgdṛśyaviveka

Pauraṇika Example #2: Śrīmadbhāgavatam and Conformal Mappings

itihāsapurāṇābhyāṃ vedaṃ samupabṛṃhayet bibhetyalpaśrutādvedo māmayaṃ prahariṣyati

The meaning of Vedas is to be understood with the help of purāṇas and the itihāsas. Vedas themselves are afraid of those who are unaware of the itihāsas and purāṇas for these ignorant people may end up attacking the Vedas incorrectly.
Mahābhārata 1.267

What is Conformal Cyclic Cosmology? Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) is a cosmological model that suggests the universe is the same at all times and places, while still allowing for some evolution. This model was proposed by Roger Penrose in 2004 and has since been further developed by several researchers. CCC challenges traditional notions of time and space, proposing a cyclic universe in which Big Bangs are conformally related to Big Crunches. This concept provides an intriguing explanation of the origin and evolution of the universe, and has implications for our understanding of dark energy, black holes, inflationary models, quantum gravity, and even string theory. It is important to note that Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) has been met with considerable criticism. Proposed by Roger Penrose, one of the Nobel Laureates for Physics in 2020, the theory suggests that the universe goes through an infinite cycle of expanding and collapsing universes. Critics argue that CCC cannot explain core cosmological questions such as why the universe is so homogeneous, why the universe appears to be accelerating in its expansion and why certain fundamental physical constants have the values they do. However, our goal here is not to develop a new physical theory or challenge Sir Roger Penrose’s claims or the claims of his critics. Instead, we will explore a very pleasing analogy between the underlying proposed geometrical structure behind this theory of the cosmos and a very popular story of śrīmadbhāgavatam. The underlying geometry is that of conformal mappings.

Conformal Mappings - The Geometric Idea Behind CCC. Conformal mappings are a powerful tool used to transform complex geometries and intricate shapes from one “domain” to another. By using these mappings, mathematicians can visualize infinity inside a finite boundary. Conformal mappings also allow us to map one geometric figure onto another while preserving angles and shapes. Practical examples of conformal mappings can be found in fields such as architecture, engineering, and cartography. By using these mappings, architects can create more efficient and aesthetically pleasing structures, engineers can design innovative products with fewer constraints, and cartographers can produce accurate maps with a greater level of detail. One of the most beautiful examples used in engineering to calculate impedances of transmission lines is called a Smith-chart.

We can now extrapolate the idea into 3 dimensions and can enjoy the analogy of this concept with the incident between jagadguru śrīkṛṣṇa and mātā yaśodā found in the śrīmadbhāgavatam.

Śrīkṛṣṇa and Mātā Yaśodā - An Allegorical Representation of Conformal Maps. In the previous section, we have explored the beauty of consistency in our rigorous philosophical systems but is the same level of enjoyment present in allegorical forms within our culture? Can we intelligently and more importantly without making any compromises, relate to the latest mathematical and physical concepts using analogies that fuse the insights of physical theories while also connecting with our core human experience?

Figure 4: Entire 2 dimensional infinite plane is fit inside a unit circle in the Smith chart. The unit is arbitrary, so we can recursively fit the entire plane in smaller and smaller circles if we wish.

We find that in the case of Conformal mappings, the answer is a yes. The essence of the parable is captured in these 10 beautiful verses composed by Melpatūr Nārāyaṇabhaṭṭādiri in his brilliant nārāyaṇīyam -

ayi deva purā kila tvayi svayamuttānaśaye stanandhaye।

parijṛmbhaṇato vyapāvṛte vadane viśvamacaṣṭa vallavī॥ 46-1॥

punarapyatha bālakaiḥ samaṃ tvayi līlānirate jagatpate।

phalasañcayavañcanakṛdhā tava mṛdbhojanamūcurarbhakāḥ॥ 46-2॥

ayi te pralayāvadhau vibho kṣititoyādisamastabhakṣiṇaḥ।

mṛdupāśanato rujā bhavediti bhītā jananī cukopa sā॥ 46-3॥

ayi durvinayātmaka tvayā kimu mṛtsā bata vatsa bhakṣitā।

iti mātṛgiraṃ ciraṃ vibho vitathāṃ tvaṃ pratijajñiṣe hasan॥ 46-4॥

ayi te sakalairviniścite vimatiścedvadanaṃ vidāryatām।

iti mātṛvibhartsito mukhaṃ vikasatpadmanibhaṃ vyadārayaḥ॥ 46-5॥

api mṛllavadarśanotsukāṃ jananīṃ tāṃ bahu tarpayanniva।

pṛthivīṃ nikhilāṃ na kevalaṃ bhuvanānyapyakhilānyadīdṛśaḥ॥ 46-6॥

kuhacidvanamambudhiḥ kvacit kvacidabhraṃ kuhacidrasātalam।

manujā danujāḥ kvacitsurā dadṛśe kiṃ na tadā tvadānane॥ 46-7॥

kalaśāmbudhiśāyinaṃ punaḥ paravaikuṇṭhapadādhivāsinam।

svapuraśca nijārbhakātmakaṃ katidhā tvāṃ na dadarśa sā mukhe॥ 46-8॥

vikasadbhuvane mukhodare nanu bhūyo'pi tathāvidhānanaḥ।

anayā sphuṭamīkṣito bhavānanavasthāṃ jagatāṃ batātanot॥ 46-9॥

dhṛtatattvadhiyaṃ tadā kṣaṇaṃ jananīṃ tāṃ praṇayena mohayan।

stanamamba diśetyupāsajan bhagavannadbhutabāla pāhi mām॥ 46-10॥

The english translations of the above verses taken from Jaishree Iyer are as follows:

Oh Lord! Once, when, sucking at Thy mother’s breast, Thou lying flat on her lap, opened Thy mouth to yawn, the entire Universe was seen by yaśodā, in it.
Oh Lord of the universe, at another time, you were playing with your friends, plucking fruits, cheated them and ate the fruits gathered by them. Angry with Thee, they went and complained to your mother that you ate mud.
O Lord! At the time of the deluge Thou do consume everything earth water etc. Yet Thy mother was frightened that Thou may fall sick by eating mud and so she became angry with you...
Oh Lord! When your mother asked you with concern, “Is it that you have eaten mud??”. Thy mother questioned Thee, for a long time, Thou kept on denying and smilingly kept silent, making her feel that her anger is without any effect.
Thy mother, not believing Thee, because all the other children had convinced her of it, asked Thee “Little one, if you do not agree with what all these children are telling with certainty, please open your mouth, let us see.” And without any hesitation, you opened, Your mouth which was like a lotus flower blooming.
Thy mother was eager to see just a trace of mud in Thy mouth. As though to please her, and to give her abundant satisfaction Thou showed her in Thy mouth not only this whole earth but the entire universe.
At that time, in Thy mouth what not was seen by yaśodā? She saw in your open mouth, in one place forests, In another place sea, yet another place the sky, In yet another place nether world, men, asuras and devas, And there was nothing that she was not able to see in your mouth, For all the fourteen worlds and their things were there.
Yaśodā saw Thy manifold forms in Thy mouth; In your mouth again she saw you as the one Who sleeps in the ocean of milk, As the divine one who lived in vaikuṇṭha, And also you as a baby just standing in front of her. And was there any form of yours that she did not see there?
Seeing in your mouth, where the whole universe shone clearly, she saw yet another similar face and open mouth, with the whole universe shining in it; within that yet another mouth, displaying the whole universe and thus an endless revelation of Thy infinite quality. And this clearly explained to her that, All this world is limitless and temporary. Wonderful indeed!
At that time for a moment, yaśodā returned to the world of realty, You charmed her with the very affectionate illusion, And asked from her more milk and lay on her lap, Oh Lord ! who took the form of that wonderful child, please protect me.

The bold sections are of particular relevance in the above since they describe two fundamental aspects of the Conformal mappings - one being projecting an infinite structure into a finite space and the other being the inherently recursive and cyclic quality. This brings our explorations to connect our cultural moorings to the ongoing advances in our understanding of the physical world to an end for now. Having had a taste of what a consistent OET does for strengthening our understanding of Physics, we will now discuss some implications from this brief study.

Implications on Bhārata

Two things should now be clear to us.

Adding the metaphysical layer from our śāstras to physics enriches our experience of learning about our physical world in a meaningful way and helps us reconcile some of the questions posed by quantum mechanics.
The artificial separation between theology and physics is an outdated artefact from a model of thinking that is prevalent in the world but not necessarily helpful in processing the nature of infinities in our universe.

These statements should not be a surprise to anyone subscribed to the dhārmik worldview. We already know this intuitively because we are surrounded by this message of oneness. We see it in the seam- less integration of architecture, material science, beauty in form, engineering, and mathematics in our temples that still stand before us after millennia. We see it in how our mathematicians invented the kaṭapayādi system¹⁵ to express themselves on their own terms and without any forced restrictions on their potential. All the examples in this article have been compiled with the hope of creating excitement within the dhārmik fold and starting a conversation around the question of “We might be free but are we independent?” in our minds. This question was posed by pūjya śaṅkarācārya of the kāñci maṭha in 1947. In the domain of natural philosophy, we must address this question at least in 2023.

Endnotes

This is a very common example used to show the fallibility of hasty conclusions with insufficient understanding. For example, we can see “asarpabhūtāyāṃ rajjau sarpāropavat vastuni avastvāropaḥ - adhyāropaḥ” from vedāntasāra
dakṣiṇāmūrtistotram contains this vedāntik view in – viśvaṃ darpaṇadṛśyamānanagarītulyaṃ nijāntargataṃ paśyannātmani māyayā bahirivodbhūtaṃ yathā nidrayā। yaḥ sākṣātkurute prabodhasamaye svātmānamevādvayaṃ tasmai śrīgurumūrtaye nama idaṃ śrīdakṣiṇāmūrtaye॥
It is important to not confuse this for “sameness”. The subsequent sections should help add more to the form and meaning of these consistencies/symmetries.
Some well-known examples include - geological phenomena discussed with great clarity in the taittirīyopaniṣat, calculations and plane geometry results discussed in taittirīyasaṃhita, useful approximations of √2 across the vedic corpus in discussions regarding constructions of fire altars, an algorithm for the conversion of decimal to binary numbers and vice versa in a discussion about chandas or poetic meter, clear and consistent definitions of in the īṣa upaniṣat that can also help deepen our understanding of Georg Cantor’s transfinite numbers and so on.
In Neils Bohr’s response to Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr swapped “reality” with “physical phenomena” thereby hinting at the limits of physics as an epistemological tool.
bhakta’s root word is bhaja (kalpadruma) and the vedāntik definition of bhaja is “to realize” - realize the ultimate truth
Sūryasiddhānta and its continuous usage and evolution in Bhārat is taken as evidence.
Often by way of asserting historicity and a mandate for faith.
Incidentally, Bhārat is now (35 years after the world witnessed its first dedicated semiconductor foundry in Taiwan - TSMC) making a big push to boost semiconductor manufacturing in the country for national security and economic reasons today.
Briefly, Entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics that occurs when two particles interact, become correlated and remain so even after they are separated by a great distance. Entangled particles instantly respond to each other’s changes, regardless of the physical distance between them, seemingly violating Einstein’s assertion that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light ∼ 299,792,458 m/s.
Richard Feynman - one of the most brilliant physicists is famously known to take this stance quite vociferously - for example in his famous Feynman Lectures on Physics, he says “We might ask: was there a sensation of sound? No, sensations have to do, presumably, with consciousness. And whether ants are conscious and whether there were ants in the forest, or whether the tree was conscious, we do not know. Let us leave the problem in that form.”
Einstein famously used ‘spooky action at a distance’ to describe entanglement in the context of the EPR paper in 1935.
There is some debate on whether this work was created by ādi śaṅkara or by vidyāraṇya but it would not make sense to debate on this since what is important is the idea itself and not the exact details of who the composer was. That is how exploration is usually done in Bhārat with paying respects to the ancient guru-śiṣya paramparā. Needless to say that both of these great sons of Bhārat, who fought for the integrity and unity of our civilization in their own unique ways, will need us to pay attention to what they are teaching us, and not waste time on digressions.
It can be verified that the traditional bhāratīya gurukulam systems had taught the ṣaḍdarśanas including tarkaśāstra and the navyany¯aya system of inquiry until the gurukulam system was relegated to an “informal” system of education with the advent of the Central Board of Secondary Education (which was the new name given to the British Government established boards of education in the United Provinces (1921) and Rajputana (1928), pre-independence) and subsequently the establishment of the state-boards in the 1950’s with roughly the same model. Today, tarka´s¯astra is the culmination of a typical course in learning saṃskṛtam.
gopībhāgya madhuvrātaḥ śruṃgaśodadhi saṃdhigaḥ khalajīvitakhātāva galahālā rasaṃdharaḥ encrypts the value of π to 31 decimal places using the kaṭapayādi system fusing precision in calculation with devotion, poetic awareness, and grammar.