The specialty of humans is the capacity for scientific enquiry into many aspects of reality. Humans consider themselves to be highly intelligent because they have the capability to study and propose various theories for the existence of sentient beings. Humans have the ability to apply various scientific concepts proposed to modify the environment around them to create “technology” to improve human life style. This type of study is a study of the evident or the observable and changing the observable to suit our purposes.
For example: We study the observable gravitational pull and use it to create a pendulum. We study the observable rotation and revolution of the earth around the sun and use it to divide our awareness into day and night or divide our life into years to simplify description or communication. We study the observable reaction between materials and create new materials such as steel to bend it according to our requirements. We study the observable play of light and use it to create telescopes, binoculars etc., to enhance observation. We study observable electrical charges and use it to create various devices using observable modified materials to enhance comfort of human life.
Mathematics is claimed to be the universal language. Yet, we need to note that “language” is also just an expression of some form of description of the observables around us. We may solve a number of equations, define a whole number of models, but every one of those equations and models represent the observable world around us. We can model the progression of a hurricane, a twister, model the forces on a pillar that is supporting a bridge, the wind flow, the weather change and many such things. Yet, all of these falls in the observable reality around us. We can model the routes between various places, optimize the route, forecast the probability of number of orders and hence pre-manufacture and many such applications of mathematics. But, at the end if we look back, we find that we are modelling and solving still only the observable universe.
While, empirical reality has been the focus of scientific study, humans have always been curious about how awareness, consciousness, sub-consciousness, the human brain or how the mind works. How are thoughts formed? Am I the mind? Is the brain responsible for consciousness? Are thoughts consciousness? Are there sub-conscious thoughts? Is the observable universe the truth? Is there a truth beyond reality? What is difference between a living being and a non-living being? What is the soul?
If it is not about consciousness, the next curiosity has been about space, time and matter. Is space finite or infinite? If space is expanding, where is it expanding into? What is time? Are there extra dimensions to space? Is time the 4th dimension? How many dimensions are present? How does space and time relate to consciousness? If consciousness was not present, would there be space and time? Is this whole universe just a thought? Is there a consolidated thought that ties all living beings together?
The answers for many such related questions have been explored by humans since times immemorial. In search of the answers to these questions, modern humans have explored all the way from the immense space beyond earth, with all its stars, planets, comets, asteroids, galaxies, clusters, background microwave radiation and so on, to the smallest atoms, protons, photons, neutrinos and quantum particles. Yet, we seem to be stuck studying only the so called “observable universe” that is visible to our naked senses or to some extended senses. These extended senses are tools that we have developed to translate and project the “properties observed by the tool” to our naked senses. We need to ask ourselves, what improvement does extended senses provide us, if they just translate observables to the naked senses. Have we not just tied ourselves to only those properties that can be translated to the naked senses? And moreover in the process introduced translation errors? For example: using the naked senses, electricity cannot be observed. What can be observed is just the reaction of the conductor to electricity passing through it. If we attached an oscilloscope to such a system and observed voltage, are we truly observing electricity in all its glory or just the projected “voltage” property of electricity? Obviously, it the later because we can also observe the “current” property related to the same electricity. So what we have achieved by creating an extended sense is, a way to input to our brains with that which the brain can currently recognize as opposed to extending the capability of the brain to include the perception of electricity.
It is no wonder then that we have not yet got to the root cause of even “matter”, which is plainly visible to our naked senses. It should be evident to us that we cannot seem to get to the root cause, not because of the lack of trying, but, because of the lack of flexibility on our part to allow ourselves to evolve with what we learn. We tend to evolve the observable environment around us rather than evolve our own selves. We search for that trust or belief factor that proves to our brains that something is real or true without enhancing its capacities. The proof that we search for is something that WE have defined as observable and reproducible with actions performed by us, using our external organs, actions external to ourselves, on an environment external to ourselves. Anything that is not observable or reproducible by us is discarded as not science, but pure conjecture or superstition. It should be evident to us that without us evolving ourselves, there exists a limit on the observable and reproducible actions that can be performed by us.
We observe light or absence of light from light years away, try to calculate accurate distance and direction, observe light changes and shifts, microwave backgrounds, microwave radiations to detect stars, quasars far away from earth. We have microscopes, electron microscopes and so on the instruments keep coming which can observe smaller and smaller components of matter or detect particles from farther and farther away. We have LHC that can collide protons and split matter into smaller and smaller pieces and study the particles generated. We have a standard model that describes quantum particles, we have measured the forces, momentum, spin and many such properties of these quantum particles, we have defined Higgs boson and Higgs field. We have defined various laws of physics, laws in mathematics, solved equations in various branches of mathematics, identified a huge number of living organisms, proteins, DNA, RNA, been affected by viruses, bacteria. We have created logic that are virtual and real, we have simulated intelligence in computers, created technology that seem very advanced.
Yet, we can keep studying the smaller and smaller or the larger and larger, but, given the analogous nature of space and time, it looks like we are going to keep finding more and more stars, galaxies, quasars or smaller and smaller quantum particles, strings or vibrations. It looks like we are stuck finding infinite observables and the infinite parameters associated with them without going any deeper from where we started. We seem to be no closer to explaining the core questions that started us on this journey. Can we, with any certainty, using the established laws, define what space and time is? Can we define what consciousness is? Do we understand the relation of consciousness to space and time? None of our original questions seem to have an answer with the theories observed in the observable universe.
We typically attribute these questions, their answers and other empirically unexplained occurrences to some unexplained superior power. It is strange also that, while we attribute the unexplained to superior power, in the same breath we discard the superior power as religious or non-scientific. Either we can give an explanation for the unexplained or attribute it to a superior power. We cannot attribute it to a superior power on one hand and disregard that same superior power on the other hand. That leaves our questions without any viable explanation.
While, these questions are classified to be in the realm of esoteric or mystic and shelved to be explained only by philosophers and any hypothesis provided for it classified as a philosophy, religion or plain non-scientific, strangely, at the same time, physics, chemistry, biology and other scientific laws, postulates and theories developed are over assumptions that belong to just these unexplained esoteric, mystic occurrences. For example, the atom based on which chemistry is defined, has no explanation of how it exists or what it is. Gravity, space and time on which every law of physics depend, has no explanation of how it exists or in fact what they are. Thus, what we research and explain as scientific, fall under only one category, the category of a “user”. This is a specific a category which tells us, “how, what exists can be used or modified to create technology that seemingly makes human existence comfortable”. Science, the way we have defined, does not even attempt to explain the internal workings of that which is used for the science, either in concept or matter. With the current definition of modern science and its scientific methodology, it cannot explain or even start studying the branch of science that explains how reality exists. Just because science discards the questions related to existence as non-scientific, does not stop the existence of consciousness or awareness or stop their role in the existence of reality around us or stop the questions from arising within all of us. It just shows us how shallow our definition of science is.
Sometimes it is not just esoteric or mystic occurrences that are discarded by us. We tend to discard too many common place occurrences as simple and already explained, but we appreciate magic by magicians who work by simply deceiving the senses of the observers. It is as if we prefer delusions to the truth. The below picture is all too true:
The explanations to these simple occurrences are best described as incomplete logic. Yet they are a better accepted event than a simple utilization of known science to deceive the brain. Simple questions such as, how do living things grow? How do cells seemingly violate gravity and grow opposite to gravity? Why does biodegradation only occur when there is no life in the material? What is that life force which prevents degradation of the body and how does it prevent degradation? We attribute growth to division of cells and discarded the various questions that arise because of it, as not requiring any scientific explanation or we are not inquisitive enough to want to understand it. Another example: matter grows with growth of cells, but according to our own science, all cells are not supposed to have the capability of intelligence. So, how does knowledge grow along with growth of matter? The only answer to that is growth of experience. But what is experience and how does it grow our intelligence? Can we explain this? Memory is just a storage for recalling experience. What puts it all together to make a decision? Can we answer this question?
Another innocent question: cells divide in every direction rather than just along the downward direction or the proposed direction of gravity. If gravity supposedly acts in the downward direction, why do we all not grow downwards? Why don’t plants grow downward? Why does sun light help plants defy gravity? If matter needs to travel at 11.2km/s to escape gravity, how does new cells formed by cell division not divide in the direction of greatest force that is gravity? We see unsupported branches of plants growing and balancing themselves in odd angles trying to grow towards the sun and yet not being weighed down by gravity. They grow to a certain extent before the weight overtakes and the branches seek support. Or, break the supply of food, so that branch loses its life-force and we see that it starts sagging as the branch dries out. This should imply that without some sort of force, that branch is going to get weighed down by gravity. What is that force? How does that force exist in these branches to defy gravity? At what point does weight overcome life force?
It is no wonder that human race with all its intelligence has not progressed any further than this material world. The answer as to why we are not progressing further seems to be simple. The science that we have accepted and the manner in which we have defined it, has stagnated the progress of knowledge. It has gravitated towards developing science that can be converted to technology and hence money or power, rather than learning, understanding and evolving. Lot of proofs of declared scientific theories, in the recent world resides in statistics. Sometimes it is a very poorly conducted statistical studies that are limited to an inadequate subset of the whole. With the advent of computers and with its “unlimited” computing power, statistical surveys, force-fitted curves and behavioural patterns by excluding outliers, mimicking of said intelligent human behaviour, mimicking of human or living being actions, forcing ideas on acquired large user-bases, social behaviours, communication, connecting human ideas as a network and many such technologies are considered to be more scientifically advanced. While these provide scope for imagination to grow, it should be recognised they cannot answer the underlying questions that started our scientific exploration. We can keep building out more and more technologies, from one phone to another, one computer to another, one comfort to another, yet, unless we understand the answers to our original questions, we will just be going towards a world that implodes under its own imagination.
It is time we started questioning our methodology of study and the methodology adopted for experimentation and proofs. When a methodology of study does not take us anywhere but only in circles, it should be recognised that the methodology of study and associated definitions have to be modified. It is necessary for us to identify that, while the tools and medium of study and proof that we have suffices to study the concepts within the environment of empirical reality, to study the formation of the empirical reality itself, the mode of study has to be changed. Expecting proofs within the environment of empirical reality for the working of that same empirical reality is paradoxical. What proof can there be of growth other than the already observed behaviour of everything growing in this universe? What proof can there be of consciousness working other than what is already existing within oneself? What proof can there be of knowledge other than what is used to define that same science that we elevate to exalted standards, standards over that knowledge which creates that same science?
Modern sciences use the empirical method of obtaining knowledge (Refer to scientific method in wikipedia). The scientific method generally agreed upon and used in research is called scientific inquiry which typically involves:
An alternate method is evidence-based research used in meta-science or medicine. Here evidence based on experience is used as an accepted practice. Some of the applications can be in medicine where practices are based on experience as opposed to a formal study. The scientific method used in research is not based on formal proof, but on evidence placed on results got from experience. But, what is strange is that amount of weightage given to experience is very discriminatory.
A very good example of such discriminatory weightage for experience can be seen in the pharmaceutical industry. Many branches of medicines exist, such as allopathy, homeopathy, ayurvedic and so on. Yet, prejudice of the modern world is towards allopathy which in fact is a highly intrusive method of curing. There exist false practitioners of medicine in all types of medical field including allopathy. There exists margins of error in all practices of medicine including allopathy. For example, a heart surgery, based on the complexity of the case has sometimes only 30% of success. A cancer operation, based on the type of cancer, lots of time have only 10% success rate. While, ayurvedic and homeopathy tends to try and invoke the body to auto-correct itself allopathy purely cuts off the diseased parts. While ayurvedic uses organic compounds, homeopathy uses mineral and allopathy uses a lot of inorganic compounds. Yet, all of them are materials that make a difference in our body. So, how can only type of evidence based research be prioritized over another? This shows us the inadequacy of such methodology and raises the doubt of the scientific nature of any of the so-called evidence based study.
But, in whichever type, modern science, research, study, hypothesis etc., is based on the empirical or observable reality around us. It explains why a phenomenon is observed in a certain manner, extends this hypothesis to other scenarios where a similar phenomenon can be reproduced. This cannot be used for studying the non-empirical or the science which is the basis of reality or observable universe around us. We need a different methodology for scientific enquiry and proof.
While, this book describes the science in the Surya Siddanta which describes the emergence of this empirical reality around us, it does not attempt to show how to validate this science. There is only one way to validate the description of emergence of reality presented is by observing our own thoughts. This is the same as debugging applications in computer parlance. It is equivalent to the various production performance monitoring solutions used in computer applications.
When an application is deployed into production, sometimes, it is very difficult to re-create the performance problems occurring in production in test environments. The only way to fix such problems is to debug the problem in the production environment. To do this, we need to introduce small spy programs that will hook onto the execution with the least bit of impact and continuously record important parameters such as state of heap, stack, methods execution times and so on. This collected data is then analysed offline to debug when problems occur. Similarly, we need to have such spy observers which are by themselves thoughts that are purely observing our other thoughts and continuously analysing those thoughts.
But, before we jump into the science in Surya Siddanta, we need to understand the differences and drawbacks in the approaches used by modern science. I will describe these in the next two chapters before describing the Surya Siddanta. If you want to skip you can skip these chapters to go directly to the Surya Siddanta, but I would suggest to come back and read these chapters to understand the depth of inaccuracies that we have in our scientific world. It is only when we accept that inaccuracies are present can we change and find alternatives to them.