Mail Archive

Ether

• Subject: Ether
• From: Ray T
• Date: Tue Jun 13 13:11:21 1995
• Message-Id: id515

Dear Ray,

Thanks for the reply...

>> >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 interpret
>> >as multiplying by 360).
>> >
>> >Most (if not all) of the other cycles that you mention will make
>> >sense based on the above interpretation.
>
>I had hoped for a comment on the above paragraphs.

It does seem that 360 plays an important part in the cycles... But I haven't
really grasped the significance of it all...

I am interested in how a 360 day year could be valid. Surely that would mean the
months and the sun-signs would no longer be synchronized? They would have to add
an extra month or something every so often...

>
>> >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 figur
>> >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?
>
>Yes.  The only thing is that it is a time since the cycle started
>rather than the length of a cycle.  Does it mean that we have only
>300,000,000 years to the end of Brahma's next day?

No. Unfortunately Brahma is not that old yet!  How did they come up with their
figure? It seems to me that there is in the order of 2 billion years since the
last "partial devastation"... Which would certainly mixed things up a bit... The
whole universe is flooded up to just below Lord Brahma's planet. But when the
water goes down again Brahma superintends the "clean up" and gets the ball rolling
again. So it seems to me, although there have been many of these partial
devastations the earth should be much older.

>
>
>> >...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.
>
>OK, I didn't know enough to interpret it correctly.  The levels in
>my theory are observable for 10 levels altogether, with possibly one
>more at the sub-atomic-particle level.  There is absolutely no evidence
>that I can find beyond that.  There is however a strong indication in
>the theory that additional levels are possible (in sets of 9 probably).

I think we are talking of different levels here. The levels of planets are all
more or less the same as this earth. The heavenly ones are better situated; the
people have longer lives, the weather is better, there is better food, the women
are moore beautiful... and the hellish planets are worse [generally] than here.
But they are made of the same earth, water, fire, air, and fields[you know
ether!]...

I think your nine levels probably refer to the three subtle elements:
intelligence, mind and false ego and the five gross elements: ether, air, fire,
water, earth. These elements all evolve from one to the next so [as I think you
said later] you can see all the material elements come from ether... So in one
sense they are all ether.

>Our universe could be an atom (or particle) in a larger one.  This is
>speculation, but Inflation theory (an offshoot of the Big Bang) has
>come up with a similar possibility.  Likewise, each atom (or particle)
>could contain another universe which goes from beginning to end in
>about one million million million millionth of a second.

It does exhibit the same properties in many ways.. That's where I think the idea
of similarity at different levels from the fractal theory is a good theory.

All the universes are coming from the breathing of Maha-Vishnu. When He breathes
out they are all created and when He breathes in they are all destroyed. So the
life of Brahma(and therefore the life of the universe) [311 trillion years] is
just one breath to Maha Vishnu...

>
>> 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?
>
>That sounds about right.  Different scientists have slightly different
>ideas, and the ideas change with time.  Part of it is fashion.

>A field would most likely be considered a property of space.
>Modern physics has got more and more fields, each of which has
>certain properties at every point in space.  The idea is to try and
>reduce the number of fields to one, but at present it is growing
>and somewhere near 17.  This is regarded as a failure to discover
>the truly fundamental aspects by most theorists.  Fields are not
>material which is what distinguishes them from the ether which was.
>But ultimately matter is fields, so in a sense it is material also.
>Modern physics is full of dualities like this...  particle/wave
>matter/energy and so on.
>
>In my view there is only one thing in existence, the ether.
>Everything else is a property of how the ether behaves.

As I said before this is in accord with the Vedic understanding. First ether is
there [space] then the sound is vibrated in the ether causing air then the
friction in the air causes electricity [lightning or plasma]. The fire reacts with
the air to produce water then the land comes out of the water... So ultimately
everything comes from the ether. Also the forms of the species I talked about
before exist in the ether and are manifest from the ether as required.

>As a sort
>of example, consider water.  In it there can be waves, currents,
>eddies and whirlpools, waterfalls and raindrops.  The various
>things that we know as matter, electricity and magnetism are then
>various forms or movements of the ether in the same way.

Yes.. There are five things: form, taste, touch, smell, sound. As the elements
develop from the ether one perception is added. So in sound there is only sound.
When the air is created touch is added so in the air there is sound and touch.
When the fire is created form is added so then there is sound, touch and form.
When the water is created there is taste, so in water there is sound, touch, form
and taste. When the land is created there is smell also. So all the sense
perceptions: sound, touch, form, taste and smell are present in the earth...


By the way, in your opinion is it possible the universe is not expanding? Do the
red-shifts actually prove it is expanding? And could we be in the center of the
universe?


Looking forward to your reply...

• Prev: endangered?
• Next: Ether
• Alpha: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Alphabetical Index
• Date: Sudarsana Mail Archive - Date Index