Ancient science: View of matter and space

This is the first blog related to the topic “Exploring science in ancient scriptures“. The ancient science deals with a lot more than just science visible in space, time and matter. But, obviously anything beyond space, time and matter is beyond the grasp of the current capability of our brains. Hence, when any document starts with the “inconceivable” or the “incomprehensible”, our brain freezes and we tend to classify such topics as beyond the realm of our understanding. This directly leads us to classify them as philosophy, extra-sensory (ESP), psychic, paranormal and many such terminologies without actually trying to understand them. It has to be recognised that more than it being a problem in the concept explained, it is more a problem in ourselves as reader to understand it. Hence, the first and foremost requirement to understand this science is to break this conviction of the brain that anything that is not sensory in nature is not understandable by it. To do so, the best would be to start with what the brain actually sees and understands in the vague form and extend it towards the incomprehensible rather than move it more towards the comprehensible. Typically the ancient scriptures start at the incomprehensible and move towards to the comprehensible. This forces the brain to trust and believe first before getting to the point where the proclaimed concept is backed by the observable sensory seemingly rational conclusion of the natural brain. I think, it is because of this that they are considered religious, divine and many other such preconceptions. Such preconceptions are in fact blockers to moving beyond understanding purely based on sensory perception. Hence, I will start with space and matter rather than the incomprehensible as is usually done.

In modern science, we tend to put matter after space. The standard perception is that matter is anything that occupies space and has mass. In such a definition of matter, space has to exist for matter to exist. As studies in quantum physics started picking up pace, the mass was discarded since many quantum particles existed without mass. Hence, mass became a property associated with matter. Matter became any substance that occupies space. Yet, in all this space is considered a pre-cursor to matter. Now, the question to ask ourselves is why is this so? Is there any experiment or any indications that this is true? In fact, when we define it in this manner, we struggle to define space. What is space in this case? It is considered as just an unlimited extent in which distance, position and direction can be defined. In such a view what we find ourselves doing, is to collate quantum particles or atoms or molecules to form assembled masses or substances. Thus, for us matter represents that smallest particle that we can find.

Instead, the alternate view of this is the ancient science way of seeing it. In this alternate view we see first the connected whole as bhUmi or (becomes construct) and from that space and subsequently individual objects. To relate it back to what we know. If we put together our knowledge and understanding of the observable objects around us, we find that every object is from the smallest particle to the biggest object such as as star or planet and so on have attractive or repulsive forces between them. These forces can be called anything, adhesive, cohesive, gravity, magnetic attraction or magnetic repulsion, molecular bonds or anything. But, these forces exist between the various particles (small or big) and hence the universe is held together. So, why not view the whole universe as a single network of these particles (big or small or micro) being the nodes and the forces that tie them together as the bonds of the network. If we froze the system to not change and viewed such a network, what would be observe?

There would be nodes with various properties that in turn would really be just another network, the nodes bound together by some form or force and there would be gaps between these nodes and each node occupying some location at some distance and direction from the nodes exerting force on them. This network can be viewed as a single expanse. If we now add change to this network, we should find that the network takes on another dimension where the properties of the nodes move due to changes driven by the momentum to do work. The previous state and current state of the same node being connected by the force “momentum of work done”. This expanse now can be viewed as a differentially changing network with various points at different points in “time” as we define it. Thus, the gaps, nodes at distance and direction, the bonds that connect these nodes and changes in properties force this expanse to have the appearance of an expanse called space with movement and hence giving rise to the appearance of time.

In such a view, we find nodes, forces, changes, distance, direction etc come first, subsequently space and time appear. It also implies that space and time are purely appearances not actuals. In the ancient science, this underlying network is called “bhUmi or becomes construct” which is equivalent to matter that we have. The appearance as an expanse is vyoma or space and the changes is in actual a series of changes and is called “kAla”. How these are formed are another topic of study and why it is called “becomes construct” is a totally different study.

Now, in this network, if we are able to group together those nodes that move at a similar change rate and take on a logical seeking of path, then that becomes a way to divide this network into individual. This individual then has two “interior” and “exterior expanse” defined for it. The interior is the “group” that is changing together and the “exterior” is the rest of the expanse that is not included in that group. How this is divided into these groups and what are the rules that govern such a division is also big topic of study.

But, this is the primary difference in view of the two sciences. Both can lead to technologies, but definitely different technologies with different emphasis.

One comment

Comments are closed.