# Ancient Science: What is distance and direction

As I have indicated in many of my previous blogs and books, we sense raw data, but experience derived data. Distance and direction are derivatives that are known only in the analytical fifth dimension which is caused because of storage and analysis. This derivatives then leads us to the formation of the derivatives of space and time. Space is caused by our ability to assign a specific distance and direction to locate any external observable (external to ourselves) w.r.t ourselves in the Akasha dimension. Time is caused by our ability to analyse the change in distance and direction w.r.t ourselves due to persistence of a prior location of the same observable. So, to understand how we work and the formation of this “I” in that indeterminate Brahman we need to understand exactly what “distance” and “direction” are? How do these derivatives work i.e., what are the original raw sensed data that cause them and what are the transformations that are applied to the raw sensed data to form them?

It should be noted in the above, I have indicated that “distance and direction is in the Akasha dimension”. Typically Akasha is translated as space, but the BHPS gives the definition as that which is formed when rendering is limited to light beams. The question that needs to arise, which we seldom realise, is, “If distance and direction are derivatives, then why will they be limited to just the Akasha dimension?” According to the Sanskrit texts there are supposed to be 4 dimensions that are perceived by thoughts, in which case all these 4 dimensions should have some or other form of distance and direction.

But, before we start looking at the various forms of distance and direction, we need to understand why the definition of distance and direction is not such a simple definition as we think. Distance and direction ** SEEMS** to be very intuitive to us and something that should need no explanation to understand. That is because we see it in the higher already analysed dimensions and have not thought about the problems involved in the concept when we look at it from the lower unanalysed raw data dimensions. So, here goes the explanation of the problem itself that needs an in-depth understanding. Sometimes the best that can be done to understand a problem

*is to take the subject out of the picture*. The reason that we find the concept of distance and direction, very simple, is because we as the subject are always the implicit reference point for everything we understand. Only when we remove this subject of “I” from the picture does the problem become evident. Hence, this problem is best understood by looking at raw data that is used in computers for data analytics. Let’s say we have a table of data as below:

# | Location | Latitude | Longitude |

1 | Essential hospital | 12.97570 | 77.50954 |

2 | Saibaba temple | 13.00923 | 77.46899 |

3 | Panchami college of law | 12.97147 | 77.46607 |

4 | ISKCON | 12.97469 | 77.47633 |

By purely looking at this raw data we cannot determine what the distances and direction of each of these location w.r.t each other are. Or we cannot start understanding that they represent distance and direction. Since, we have knowledge of latitudes and longitudes and have assigned that meaning to the data, we are possibly say they represent distance and direction. Yet we will not be able to place them correctly w.r.t each other. But, if we plot the same on a map we can see the distance and direction between each of these places easily, since we have mapped them on a planar surface giving them a representation in the space dimension as below.

It should also be noted that both the distance and direction change depending on the reference points taken. So, if we moved from Point 1 to Point 4 to Point 3, distance and direction are different from when we move from Point 1 to Point 3 to Point 4.

If we convert this map to be without any marking for reference, as a raw image of just roads and terrains, we find that unless we can locate a reference point based on some terrain characteristic we know, we cannot understand the map at all and it is just pure raw data which is indeterminate to us. Such an unmarked map with just terrains and roads, is similar to the expanse of indeterminate Brahman. Take this with the fact that the “I” that is formed is also just a “location” within the same “indeterminate Brahman” and not external to it, as “we are when we are reading the map”, that makes the problem of distance and direction even more complex.

So, how then can that “I” know “distance and direction”? For example, in the above map / dataset, say the point marked “ISKCON” is equivalent to the “I”, how can ISKCON know about “Panchami college of law” and its distance and direction from ISKCON? Again as I have indicated in many other blogs, the main unforgettable fact that we are always forced to consider when understanding the formation of reality and concepts in it, is that we are looking at “** raw data with nothing in it from which all this reality is formed**“. Hence there can be NO knowledge pre-assumed at all.

As I have said before, we understand distance and direction from the higher analysed dimensions, rather than the raw lower dimensions. Why does this make a difference? Understanding it by looking at the above example: When we look at the data on the map, we find when approaching “Point 3” from “Point 1”, we can pass through “Point 4”. But, in the data sequence “Point 3” is got before “Point 4”. This shows that we can potentially have attached a meaning or transformation to data that can potentially even invert the sequence of data between the “analysed rendering i.e., the fifth dimension” and the “underlying raw data”. So, the question now becomes how does the raw data for the distance and direction that we are observing in the fifth dimension look like? Can we even know this?

Now coming to the different forms of distance and direction. As I said before, if distance and direction are derivatives, they need not be limited to the Akasha dimension. They can be assigned meaning in other dimensions also. If a thought has 4 dimensions (Shakti or capability, Tejas or entropy, Balam or force and Akasha or space), then we must be capable of deriving a version of distance and direction for all these four dimensions and not just the Akasha dimension. Yet, to us in reality, the prominently visible version of these concepts are only in the Akasha dimension.

Perhaps distance computation is the simpler than the direction computation. So considering what distance can be: “distance can be considered as the amount of variation from the origin point of computation”, we find this definition can be applied to variation of any data. Let us apply it to “Tejas or entropy”. To do this, we need to understand what Tejas indicates w.r.t the “I” or “the path of existence” which is the definition of an individual. Say we described Tejas or entropy as the amount of uncertainty that the path will continue in its current path of extension and expansion. With this definition, if we apply the definition of distance, then we find that “distance represents the changing uncertainty of the path from the origin to continue in its path”. Say, we apply it to Balam or Force, describing force as the momentum of the establishing order to cluster a given change into the path of the “I”. Then, applying the definition of distance to this, “distance represents the changing force of the order to accumulate multitude into itself in the given path”, similarly applying it capability “distance becomes the strength of the capability to be retained in the path of existence”.

Coming to direction computation. Why this is more difficult is because we are present in a random set of changes where any direction travelled becomes the forward or the reverse direction equally. Hence, in the Sanskrit texts, we find that when direction is talked about, it is only talked about as the forward direction and reverse direction. Note, given that we are in an infinite-dimensional raw data, there is no concept of a straight line unless we have a multiple points combined together. In-fact, according to the texts, curvature is itself considered a derived concept because of the self detecting focal points which forms a knowledge and curvature is a necessary requirement to form thought. But, coming back, a forward direction can then only be described as “a chosen change by rejecting all other changes that are possible from the origin or the previous state”. It should again be noted that there is no question of a “possible forward direction i.e., a correct forward direction” and an “incorrect forward direction”. ** ANY** change chosen is considered the “forward direction”. Trying to apply this definition now to the various dimensions, we get stuck with the question, “why does a path chose one change over the other?” This according to the texts is called “pleasant or agreeable change”. There are many Sanskrit words for this, “Shubham” or “Madhu” and so on.

When we apply this definition of direction now to “Tejas or entropy”, we find that the “direction of change in uncertainty chosen” gives us an idea of how far a specific path of change will go towards “a become change”. Smaller the uncertainty, higher the probability of the goal of that change to become and higher the uncertainty, lower the probability that it will become. Apply it to “Tejas or force”, we find the direction of change in strength for a specific change to become and apply it to “capability”, we find that it gives the direction of change in capability.

Thus we see that rather than applying “distance and direction” as a concept within the frozen frame of space that we currently are apt to apply, if we started looking at “distance and direction” as relative concepts they really are and applied on all of the dimensions of existence rather than just Akasha, we get a better picture of where we are and where we are headed. In such a scenario distance becomes a representation of “how far away we to going towards a capability to come into reality, the strength of the change that forces it to become a reality and the location (space & time) when it can potentially become a reality”. The direction when considered along with this gives us an indication of “the probability of the capability to come into existence, if the strength is sufficient to get it to reality and which capability change to the required capability in reality”.

When we look at jyothiSha, which as I have said before is really a “control of the distribution of seeking”, if we really want to control the distribution of seeking and hence the formation of reality around us, controlling the parameters of various dimensions become a primary requirement. Hence understanding and mapping distance and direction correctly w.r.t the working of reality becomes a necessity.

Pingback: Exploring science in ancient scriptures | Research of Ancient Philosophy

Pingback: Ancient Science: Revisiting vijnana or coherence | Research of Ancient Philosophy