Mail Archive

Long Cycles and Ether

• Subject: Long Cycles and Ether
• From: Ray T
• Date: Mon Jun 12 14:25:59 1995
• Message-Id: id514

Dear Ray,

>Earlier you mentioned looking at my work as an example of science.
>It is probably a rather bad example.  My writing is very terse and
>so people seem to miss bits.  Also to most scientists I am near the
>fringe, but that is where all the breakthroughs occur.  Of course
>it doesn't guarentee breakthroughs to be there but it makes it
>possible.  I believe Fred Hoyle talks about this in his new book.

Yes... I saw one book in the library yesterday, a huge book, must have been 600-
700 pages about the "Formation of the Moon". Ho on earth can you write such a big
book about that? I think such books are of very little value. But your succinct
papers are nice because [although I can't understand much of it really] but you
have observed something and predicted the outcomes.. And your theory seems to
explain many things nicely. I think the theories accepted by science at a
particular time may have more to do with politics than the merit of the
theories...

>
>> So there is no chance. It wouldn't be fair if someone had to suffer
>> if he didn't deserve it. But we [devotees] don't want people to
>> suffer so we try to encourage them to stop performing the
>> activities that cause the suffering. There are the gross physical
>> laws that the scientists and the physicists deal with but there are
>> more subtle spiritual laws as well. Even the Bible says "what you
>> sow so shall you reap"
>
>Earlier on I forgot to mention an observation that I made.
>Newton had a law (the 3rd?) that for every action there is an equal
>and opposite reaction.  This is intended to be physical forces,
>but is the principle of karma if applied to spiritual things.

Yes. It is the same law... It acts on the subtle platform as well as the material
one.

>I know that the Egyptians used a 360 day year.  It is possible that
>this was also used by the Babylonians, because they invented degrees
>which are 1/360 of a circle.  Therefore it is quite probable that
>the Vedic cycles have a common origin with the Babylonian which
>date back 4 or 5 thousand years ago.  It is worth mentioning that
>Stonehenge was built about 4,500 years ago, so the western world
>was also active in astronomy at this time.  There was also some
>contact between the Britons and the Greeks at about this time.

According to the Vedas the Vedic culture was spread all over the world prior to
5,000 years ago. Over time the knowledge became lost and changed but whatever
knowledge we still have is remnants of it.


>
>Now comes the interesting bit.  If it is assumed that a 360 day
>year was used, then the 355 (modern) year cycle is an exactly 360
>(ancient) year cycle.  It therefore contains 360x360 days which
>is 129600 days!  I know that many of the longer cycles are
>arrived at by expanding days into years (which may now be interpreted

>as multiplying by 360).
>
>Most (if not all) of the other cycles that you mention will make
>sense based on the above interpretation.
>
>

>According to modern science the age of the Earth (not the universe,
>as the solar system came later) is 4,600,000,000 years.  This figure
>is known with much more confidence than the universe age.

It is very close to one day of Brahma (4,300,000,000) isn't it?

>
>> The Vedas says sound CREATES the air, electricity [fire, light]
>> comes from the friction of the air which CREATES the water which
>> CREATES the land... It's very nice. It's described in much greater
>> detail than this but sound [thunder] in the sky produces fire
>> [lightning or plasma] and the plasma or lightning react with the
>> air to produce water [by burning the hydrogen and oxygen in the air
>> together?]. Then the water somehow produces the land...
>
>


>...but there does seem to be a connection
>between the physical/spiritual description and the different types
>of waves which exist in the universe.  Another thing that comes to
>mind is the idea of additional planes of existence above ours.
>I recall some people saying 7 levels of spiritual planes I think.
>I don't know if this relates to Vedic doctrine or not.

Yes. We are in the middle. There are 7 "heavenly" levels up and 7 "hellish" levels
down... But that's all material. The spiritual  world is a different thing. It's
completely separate from the material universe.

                        paras tasmat tu bhavo 'nyo
                         'vyakto 'vyaktat sanatanah
                          yah sa sarvesu bhutesu
                           nasyatsu na vinasyati


                               TRANSLATION

Yet there is another unmanifest nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to
this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated.
When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. (Bhagavad-gita
8.20)



>  Anyway,
>above Z (which might be spiritual for us) there are 7 levels up to
>the universe which must be Brahma.  Does this make sense to you?
>What does your scripture have to say about additional levels of
>existence?

Yes, Brahma lives on the top level. But still the spiritual sky is beyond Brahma's
planet.

>
>My advice on this, for whatever it is worth, is to try and not
>use words like spiritual to start with, but to concentrate on
>the cosmology of your religion which has many numbers which are
>sensible to modern scientists.  This should at least get the interest
>of a few (who are open to it) in the fact that ancient knowledge
>could be so close to the mark.  This is what interests me, plus
>the cycles.  However I am a cycles nut, and there aren't many of us.

>I don't mean to be picky, but "either" is not the correct spelling.

>Either "ether" or "aether" (the older term) is correct.  I am
>laughing because the first word in my previous sentence is "either"!

Yes please tell me about these things... Otherwise how will I know?

>I mention this so that any postings you make will be understandable.
>It is worth mentioning that only a very small number of scientists
>today believe in the ether (I do).  It is considered disproven.
>Today they talk about "fields" instead.  It means the same thing
>but proves you are up with the times and not a crackpot.
>Perhaps some cynicism is showing here, but it is quite funny really.

I'm not sure that the Vedic concept of ether could be called "fields". It means
the sky or space. The sky, or the space within which the universe exists is
created first and that is called ether.. How does this compare with their fields
idea?

>
>I cannot see a direct link to the ancient elements (air fire water
>earth) from the ether in my theory.  However there is food for thought
>here definitely, and I find myself looking at the ancient ideas on
>the elements in a very new light.  Modern thinking definitely
>misinterprets them as elements in the modern sense.  I see that now.
>I think that this may relate to both my diagram above and the mention
>of light/sound/heat last time.
>
>It is interesting to have such discussions as we are where we do not
>close our minds to the differences, but let the different ideas
>mix and see what there is in common.  I am enjoying this.  Thank you.


It is also good for me to be able to discuss these things with a scientist who is
not closed to ideas outside the current views...

• Prev: A little Hare Krishna FAQ!
• Next: Lord Caitanya's Message of Tolerance
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index