Is it a Sin to kill small insects knowingly or unknowingly as per Hinduism?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

What I mean is the experiences are assimilated when the jivatma or the individual soul is bereft of the association of the body i.e., between births.

Since our mind cannot associate the reaction to a karma with the karma, they should be done by the jivatma. Otherwise there is no meaning to the laws of karma.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

To those who subscribe to the existence of soul and several births, the problem of knowing about the cause of sufferings is solved as the real self is the soul and it does know why there are sufferings and it does evolve and 'correct" the wrong in the ensuing births.

Dear sri. Sravna, Greetings.

Sir, unfortunately, your reply doesn't address the situation where there may not be a reincarnation. I agrue for the case of just one birth, as we see now. But although you don't know for sure about reincarnation you are not addressing the possibility of no reincarnation situation.

In our life we just go through events. we don't really know what is good and what is not. Honestly we don't even know what is good for us. Personally, in the past I faced certain failures and lamented them at that time. I even grew a beard like Devadas for sometime. But later on I realised I should have been happy for the failures. During those years I was so much bloated with my ego, any such success would have only incresed my ego. I probably would never have recovered.

Pain is not always pain. In certain situations, more pain equals to more pleasure.

We don't own this body. This body is made of individual cells. It is meaningless to except this body to pay the price for any wrong doing commited by an other body in a different janma if there was one.

If you seperate yourself from your body and contemplate, you may find karma theory useless.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Yes it is a matter of belief. Some believe in rebirths while others don't. I think given the intelligence in nature it does seem there is some purpose to existence. But what would be the purpose of life when something is not going to be eternal?

There need not be any moral or ethical laws. The recognition by self of the need for moral code is itself an indication that there is something more to life than just physical existence.

Regarding body suffering for the wrongs committed in another body, the body too is selected that fits the history of the soul. I do not want to speculate too much here. But I hope you get the idea.

 

[Raghy]

Dear sri. Sravna,

I think given the intelligence in nature it does seem there is some purpose to existence. But what would be the purpose of life when something is not going to be eternal?

If one goes by the law of the nature, purpose of existence may very well come down to survival and procreation. Anything beyond that purely depends upon the individuals. One may try to to improve the life of just one person per year; one may use the opportunity to amass wealth for his descendents in every which way; one may like to set an example by following decent ethics in their life.... many possiblities. Personally I think, just to strive to have a meaningful purpose in life itself is very good. Most persons don't have that.

The recognition by self of the need for moral code is itself an indication that there is something more to life than just physical existence.

That is true. Most persons who have the financial and/or political power seem not to have any moral code. That is very unfortunate.

Regarding body suffering for the wrongs committed in another body, the body too is selected that fits the history of the soul. I do not want to speculate too much here. But I hope you get the idea.

I do get the idea. but only I can't accept it. That doen't make sense to me. Of course, this is not something one can debate about.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Look at it this way. Universe started with something purely physical. But evolution happened and resulted in the creation of the human species and possibly similar to it in other parts of the universe. The uniqueness of the humans is that they have mind. That is something which transcends space. FYI, thoughts when they emerge are instantly everywhere.

Space and time are the dimensions of the universe. So mind being something which transcends space, we can strongly say that time also can be transcended which is nothing but a proof for the spiritual.

Thus there is a strong support for something eternal. I also find that one can reach a logical conclusion of all that are said in the scriptures, I personally am sure that what the scriptures say are the truths.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Look at it this way. Universe started with something purely physical. But evolution happened and resulted in the creation of the human species and possibly similar to it in other parts of the universe. The uniqueness of the humans is that they have mind. That is something which transcends space. FYI, thoughts when they emerge are instantly everywhere.

Space and time are the dimensions of the universe. So mind being something which transcends space, we can strongly say that time also can be transcended which is nothing but a proof for the spiritual.

Thus there is a strong support for something eternal. I also find that one can reach a logical conclusion of all that are said in the scriptures, I personally am sure that what the scriptures say are the truths.

Dear sri. Sravna,

Humans have not evolved yet. Have not evolved in intelligence. That's why we imagine we are unique. I don't think, we are. In my opinion, we are much less evolved than the humble ant, for example. For their size, ants are much more brilliant and efficient than humans. I actually think, humans are the dumbest of the species. They can't even eat proper food; can't stay away from getting obese; can't stay healthy with natural resouces; can't share natural resouces with all living things or even amoung themselves..... they don't even know when a natural calamity like earth quake or storm approach them.

Sure, space and time are two dimensions of which we have no idea in travelling in time dimension. If we manage to travel in time, how can that be 'spiritual'?

One can very easily live a moral and ethical life, can contribute meaninfully to the future generation without reading a word from the scriptures. I fail to see the importance of scriptures here.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Greetings.

I was watching an interesting Q & A beween Richard Dawkins and Cardinal George Pell ( Australia). One hour long. I enjoyed it.

One of the comments -

It baffles me how the Catholic hierarchy can concede most of the bible stories are myths, but continue to teach it as fact in Sunday school, religious schools and in church. The only part of the bible the Catholic church stands by is the death and resurrection of Christ. If the most senior catholics dont believe 99% of the bible why should anyone else?

[video=youtube;tD1QHO_AVZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD1QHO_AVZA&feature=related[/video]

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear sri. Sravna,

Humans have not evolved yet. Have not evolved in intelligence. That's why we imagine we are unique. I don't think, we are. In my opinion, we are much less evolved than the humble ant, for example. For their size, ants are much more brilliant and efficient than humans. I actually think, humans are the dumbest of the species. They can't even eat proper food; can't stay away from getting obese; can't stay healthy with natural resouces; can't share natural resouces with all living things or even amoung themselves..... they don't even know when a natural calamity like earth quake or storm approach them.

Sure, space and time are two dimensions of which we have no idea in travelling in time dimension. If we manage to travel in time, how can that be 'spiritual'?

One can very easily live a moral and ethical life, can contribute meaninfully to the future generation without reading a word from the scriptures. I fail to see the importance of scriptures here.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I am not talking about travelling in space or time. I am saying there is something called as mind that is one step over the body. Thoughts caused by the mind transcend space because they are instantly everywhere once they are produced. A mind from which effects don't separate is what I call a spiritual mind because time has been transcended. It is still and imperturbable.This is not time travel. I personally believe time travel is not possible. Anyway that is a different topic.

So in the case of humans we already have an entity called mind that has transcended space and therefore transcending of time should also be possible once we evolve further. Scriptures say that something beyond space and time is Brahman.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I am not talking about travelling in space or time. I am saying there is something called as mind that is one step over the body. Thoughts caused by the mind transcend space because they are instantly everywhere once they are produced. A mind from which effects don't separate is what I call a spiritual mind because time has been transcended. It is still and imperturbable.This is not time travel. I personally believe time travel is not possible. Anyway that is a different topic.

So in the case of humans we already have an entity called mind that has transcended space and therefore transcending of time should also be possible once we evolve further. Scriptures say that something beyond space and time is Brahman.

Dear Sri.Sravna,

I was taking about the mind too. For the thoughts to spread horizontally across, we need a medium. Without the medium, for example, internet we can't spread across the space. But we haven't conqured time in our mind too. That's what I meant. What scriptures say about Brahman may be true in some instances; but that does not mean scriptures are true at all times. If I am going to accept one set of scriptures verbatim, then I would be required to accept other scriptures from around the world too; I can not do that. So, I accept scriptures only when they make sense to me.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Look at it this way. Universe started with something purely physical. But evolution happened and resulted in the creation of the human species and possibly similar to it in other parts of the universe. The uniqueness of the humans is that they have mind. That is something which transcends space. FYI, thoughts when they emerge are instantly everywhere.

Space and time are the dimensions of the universe. So mind being something which transcends space, we can strongly say that time also can be transcended which is nothing but a proof for the spiritual.

Thus there is a strong support for something eternal. I also find that one can reach a logical conclusion of all that are said in the scriptures, I personally am sure that what the scriptures say are the truths.

Dear Shri Sravna,

Though I wanted not to continue our dialogue in this thread, and requested that we "agree to disagree", the above post from you compels me to record certain of my views.

There are many assumptions in the above post which cannot be substantiated from a purle rational or even philosophical/spiritual point of view. I give them below with my remarks:—

1. "Universe started with something purely physical."

This is how science says and believes. But even that belief will have to be modified when one comes to the realm of fundamental particles and divisions thereof. When we talk of the ‘wave nature’ an electron, are we confirming that it looks like the skin of a drum, the string of a veena or a sea wave? No, I think. We have no other way to express certain aspects of the effects (behaviour) of electrons. Similarly, when we talk of ‘spin’ in Quantum Mechanics, do we assert that the fundamental particle actually “spins” like a ball or spinning top? Again, to the best of my knowledge, no; we are referring to a property of the space at the center of a charged particle composed of converging and diverging quantum waves, imho. In the words of a lay person all these descriptions are no more than mathematical abstractions and we have no holistic (meaning complete – combining the particle and wave natures) image of any fundamental particle which are the building blocks of the universe. And, scientists today agree that the very initial moments of this universe could have been a thich soup or cloud of fundamental particles of both matter and anti-matter. It, therefore, appears to me that the origin of this universe was in mathematical abstraction about which the human cognition is unable to fathom; and now scientists have begun talking about more than one universe!

Hence it is not correct to hold that “Universe started with something purely physical”.

2. "But evolution happened and resulted in the creation of the human species and possibly similar to it in other parts of the universe."

I agree that humans made their appearance at a very late stage of this earth. But did we “evolve” as per the Darwinian Hypothesis? Why is there no evidence of any “evolution” or natural selection ever since recorded history? Why is it that we have not yet found any Great ape with changes in its chromosome structure/number? What evidence have we to even believe that similar evolution based on survival of the fittest, might have happened in other parts of the universe? And, if that be true, is it not possible that humans have come from some other part of the universe, a notion which seems to get support from the scriptures themselves (the nāsadīya sūktaṃ, for example)?

3. "The uniqueness of the humans is that they have mind."

I think we cannot make such a statement. How do we prove that other creatures do not possess a “mind”? Almost all animals, birds, reptiles, etc., seem to me to possess mind because they exhibit mental characteristics like kāma, krodha, mātsarya, etc. They mate and reproduce and even look after their young ones up to some stage. So, they must be having minds.

4. "That (mind) is something which transcends space."

Mind may be said to transcend space only partially, in a figurative way. Yes, we can imagine about persona, objects and/or places very far away (including other galaxies or universes) but if you are asked to tell what colour of pants your son living in the US, is wearing right now, our mind is pathetically unfit to give a correct answer; possibly skype + internet may be said to be more powerful than the human mind.

5. "thoughts when they emerge are instantly everywhere."

Once again, this is a fallacy. Is there any proof? May be some thought-reading experiment under controlled or laboratory conditions might have succeeded but as a normal human ability our thoughts cannot be discerned even by one sitting next to us and we should thank Nature for that; otherwise there would be many more murders and criminal assaults through out the world, imo.

6. "Space and time are the dimensions of the universe. So mind being something which transcends space, we can strongly say that time also can be transcended which is nothing but a proof for the spiritual. "

I don’t agree that the scriptures are about transcending Time. Secondly, ability to transcend space does not, ipso facto, lead anyone to the logical conclusion that Time also can be transcended.

Thus there is a strong support for something eternal. I also find that one can reach a logical conclusion of all that are said in the scriptures, I personally am sure that what the scriptures say are the truths.

Here you are suddenly jumping from ‘transcending Time’ to ‘eternal’, which means “continuing forever or indefinitely”; an object which is eternal cannot therefore know about its future and may be, going by human experience, this eternal thing just tends to forget most of its past!

Your concluding sentence is disjointed from all the preceding items/points. It is your personal opinion and you are free to hold that.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Ok I agree that humans may not be unique in the possession of mind. But I think it cannot be denied that appearance of mind was after the appearance of matter. So the order of evolution is physical first and mental next.

I have read that thoughts transcend space. I am not sure where I read this and I would be happy if any of the members can help me out on this. Anyway here's my argument that thoughts transcend space:

Mind is more evolved than matter and when something is more evolved I assume it is also more potent. Based on this assumption, I say that mental energy is more potent than any physical energy and hence travels faster than any of the physical energy. But according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Juxtaposing both the arguments, the solution would be thoughts just don't travel in space but transcends it and therefore instantly everywhere when produced.

As I pointed out we started with matter then came the mind which transcends space and the logical conclusion would be time can also be transcended. I say logical because in physics, time and space are treated in the same way.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri.Sravna,

I was taking about the mind too. For the thoughts to spread horizontally across, we need a medium. Without the medium, for example, internet we can't spread across the space. But we haven't conqured time in our mind too. That's what I meant. What scriptures say about Brahman may be true in some instances; but that does not mean scriptures are true at all times. If I am going to accept one set of scriptures verbatim, then I would be required to accept other scriptures from around the world too; I can not do that. So, I accept scriptures only when they make sense to me.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

Since I follow the word of the scriptures that space itself along with time is a relative reality, the question of a medium required does not arise when they are transcended. All the scriptures in fact have a lot in common when they talk about universal and eternal truths. Of course there are differences. But imo, the gist is the same.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Ok I agree that humans may not be unique in the possession of mind. But I think it cannot be denied that appearance of mind was after the appearance of matter. So the order of evolution is physical first and mental next.

I have read that thoughts transcend space. I am not sure where I read this and I would be happy if any of the members can help me out on this. Anyway here's my argument that thoughts transcend space:

Mind is more evolved than matter and when something is more evolved I assume it is also more potent. Based on this assumption, I say that mental energy is more potent than any physical energy and hence travels faster than any of the physical energy. But according to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Juxtaposing both the arguments, the solution would be thoughts just don't travel in space but transcends it and therefore instantly everywhere when produced.

As I pointed out we started with matter then came the mind which transcends space and the logical conclusion would be time can also be transcended. I say logical because in physics, time and space are treated in the same way.

Dear Shri Sravna,

In my humble view, mind and intellect are a duo controlling the body. Back in the early 1960’s ­­I had heard Swami Chinmayananda with his popular BMI (Body – Mind – Intellect) hierarchy; but since I was not knowledgeable in such topics, I did not think much about whatever the Swami said. But, later studies and observations have given me the confirmed view that Mind & Intellect work in tandem and not one above the other, as a hierarchy. In some instances the mind makes the final choice or decision, while in the rest, the intellect makes the decision and the mind puts it into operation through the organs.

Whether mind evolved out of matter is also something about which we cannot be sure. My own view is that mind, intellect, ego etc., are aspects of the kāraṇa śarīra or causative body
which is at the root of rebirth. The M-I-E get transferred from the dead old body to the newly forming (formed?) body in the womb along with the Karma backlog to be experienced in the new birth; all these may be imagined to be like branches of the kāraṇa śarīra, very similar to the organs of the physical body. We cannot say when, at what stage did these aspects like Mind, Intellect, Ego, etc., came into being. But I would hazard to say that these must have evolved from rudimentary MIE in primitive life forms, as the living beings became more and more complex and evolved.

Mind is not comparable to body or physical matter because mind is something which even we cannot describe or ‘perceive’ through our mind. It truly is an abstraction as far as humans today are concerned. We identify the mind through some of its functions which have a direct impact on the body, that’s all. Though Intellect is, of late, being dealt with as a function of the brain and the brain cells and brain structure, etc., my view is that the “Intellect” or Buddhi proper is a very different thing from the brain. Since both Mind & Intellect seem to rule the body but they do not belong to the physical plane at all. Therefore, there cannot be any comparison of the mind-energy/ intellectual-energy with physical energy; and when you talk of physical energy are you thinking of the E=m X c-squared? If so, we cannot even know how (on what basis) to determine ‘mental energy’ on a comparable basis. So, we will be wrong to conclude, prima facie, that since ‘mental energy’ is more potent than physical energy (this itself being unproved) mental energy will travel faster than light and radiate in no time throughout the entire universe. The very fact that this universe will, at any instant, have infinite number of mental energy waves present at any point in space, but Man is even now not able even to detect its “humming”, goes to show, imo, that there is no mental energy of the type you propose. But ‘mental strength’ (grit, fortitude or determination) – yes but that’s a different matter, I suppose.

Space and time may be analogous in theoretical physics but in our three-dimensional world, don’t you these two are entirely different cups of tea? In my previous post #85, I said that mind has not yet transcended space, and whatever we or the scriptures talk of manovegam etc., are mere references to its capacity to imagine, and not to mind’s capacity to really reach across spatial divides. The case of Time is much more difficult, even in the case of the past and not at all possible for the future.

If you try to make a dispassionate (and this is the important condition – one should not approach with the fixation of mind that the scriptures cannot err) study of our original scriptures, you will find that they truly reflect advanced thinking of their time. But I do not believe that there is any reason for our believing that everything that is written down in the scriptures is an everlasting truth. The frontiers of human knowledge have widened a lot during the last 3 centuries or so; it did not attain even a fraction of this progress during all those millennia when our scriptures were held inerrant and supreme. Therefore, we need not be under the erroneous belief that our scriptures are eternal and everlasting truths.

 

[renuka]

. Based on this assumption, I say that mental energy is more potent than any physical energy and hence travels faster than any of the physical energy.

Dear Sravna,

Energy is energy...I don't think there is something called Mental Energy as far as I know(correct me if I am wrong).

I feel the correct terminology would be Mental Activity.

In Mental Activity there is increased Neuronal activity.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thoughts exists because we are conscious of it. Assuming we restrict ourselves to the concept of energy and matter as constituents of the universe, thoughts should be considered as energy.

Now,

(1) physical energy has force. Undeniable. It exerts force because it moves through space.
(2) Any energy when produced propagates itself
(3) (i) Thought doesn't exert the kind of force that physical energy does. This might mean it doesn't propagate itself, but
(ii) being energy should propagate itself when produced.
To reconcile (i) and (ii), we need to come to the conclusion that thoughts travel instantly everywhere when produced.

The import of transcending is in accordance with giving it a status of higher reality.

Finally each brain might be tuned to receive its own thoughts only and so we don't perceive the other thoughts.

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thoughts exists because we are conscious of it. Assuming we restrict ourselves to the concept of energy and matter as constituents of the universe, thoughts should be considered as energy.

Now,

(1) physical energy has force. Undeniable. It exerts force because it moves through space.
(2) Any energy when produced propagates itself
(3) (i) Thought doesn't exert the kind of force that physical energy does. This might mean it doesn't propagate itself, but
(ii) being energy should propagate itself when produced.
To reconcile (i) and (ii), we need to come to the conclusion that thoughts travel instantly everywhere when produced.

The import of transcending is in accordance with giving it a status of higher reality.

Finally each brain might be tuned to receive its own thoughts only and so we don't perceive the other thoughts.

Dear Sravna,

The Mind is the seat of thoughts.(according to philosophy).

The Brain is verily a gross organ that transmits impulses received from the body to the Mind and the Mind in turn conveys the decisions made to the Brain which in turn again relays it to the body.

Eg..I want to type in forum..I read your post...thought of an answer..my mind transmits my decision to type an answer to my brain and my brain gives out impulses to initiate my fingers to type.

OK now back to philosophy....the bridge between Mind and Brain is Prana.

Brain is physical/gross hence comes under Annamaya Kosha.

Mind comes under Manomaya Kosha and in between these 2 Koshas we have the Pranamaya Kosha(also known as the Energy Sheath).

So by knowing this arrangement of Koshas we get a rough idea where the energy sheath is situated and understand the happenings in our body.

By this Pancha Kosha diagram we get to know that there is actually no such thing as Mental Energy.
Pranamaya Kosha (Energy Sheath ) is a separate sheath by itself.

Koshas or Sheaths of Yoga Vedanta

 

[sravna]

Also consider this. The intensity of thoughts as reflected in the emotions evoked, is determined more by content than by how forcefully the content is put across. For example our emotions will rise high more by what one says than the way it is put across. So the mechanics of the production of thoughts is not driven by force as in the case of physical energy. Since only force produces force, one may assume that thoughts do not propagate in the way physical energy does.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,What is thought? Since it is real how would you classify it? Let us first agree on an answer based on science.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,What is thought? Since it is real how would you classify it? Let us first agree on an answer based on science.

Dear Sravna,

From Wikipedia:

Thought generally refers to any mental or intellectual activity involving an individual's subjective consciousness.

Will continue later..its 12.48 am here now.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Thoughts exists because we are conscious of it. Assuming we restrict ourselves to the concept of energy and matter as constituents of the universe, thoughts should be considered as energy.

DearShri Sravna,I believe (because, this is all I can say; there is no other proof for it) that thought is a product of the Mind-Intellect duo and though the physical body may be expending some energy all the time, we have no ready data - at least I am not aware - as to how much energy is actually spent in thinking per se. Granting, for the sake of argument, that we know the amount of energy actually spent in "thinking", it will be clear that the amount of energy packed into the thought cannot in any case, exceed the energy input by the body into the thought. I hope you will agree this far.

So, we come to the question whether some energy which is given to a certain thought by our body, can make the thought travel faster than light and transcend both space and time. I personally feel that unless the human body can be proved to convert thoughts invariably into electrical/electro-magnetic waves which can be detected by at least some super-sensitive instrument, we will have nothing more to contend than merely treating "thoughts" as mere in-house manifestations within the human body only, and to disabuse ourselves from thinking of thoughts to be like e.m. waves propagated by radio/tv antennae.

Thought is an abstract 'thing' of which humans have very little idea and humanity is yet to bestow its "thought" to unravelling the mystery that is thought.

Now,

(1) physical energy has force. Undeniable. It exerts force because it moves through space.

A lump of clay definitely has immense energy. But does it have force when this lump is at relative rst wrt its surroundings? Does this lump of clay exert any "force" except the one caused by gravitation?

(2) Any energy when produced propagates itself

Suppose a river is dammed; a huge mass of water is prevented from flowing down to the sea and the water is the dam has a very huge potential energy (which, when properly channelized gets transformed into electricity. But the water in the dam by itself is not known to propagate its potential energy. So, how do you explain this failure of your generalization?

(3) (i) Thought doesn't exert the kind of force that physical energy does. This might mean it doesn't propagate itself, but
(ii) being energy should propagate itself when produced.
To reconcile (i) and (ii), we need to come to the conclusion that thoughts travel instantly everywhere when produced.

We have seen that "physical energy" by itself does not exert any kind of force except the one caused by gravitation. We have also seen that energy need not necessarily propagate. Thus both the conclusions above are disproved.

The import of transcending is in accordance with giving it a status of higher reality.

Finally each brain might be tuned to receive its own thoughts only and so we don't perceive the other thoughts.

Dear Sravna,

I know well that you have these notions of graded realities right from some of your initial posts in this Forum. While your mind is, due to some strange reason, acclimatized to this kind of thinking, even a person like AdiSankara could not visualize this (sort of 50% reality, 60% reality, etc., or if you mean height by the word higher - in your 'higher reality' - reality at 1000kms AMSL, 2000kms AMSL, etc.) and he just said Brahman is the ONLY reality and all the rest is unreal (brahma satyaṃ jaganmithyā). So, you will now have to expound, afresh, your philosophy of relative Realities for other people like me to understand .

 

[prasad1]

Dear Renuka,What is thought? Since it is real how would you classify it? Let us first agree on an answer based on science.

What is real?
Anything that changes over time and space is not real. The only thing that can remain same at all time is real.
Real = Sat.
Unreal = Asat.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

I really appreciate the effort you put in to respond to my posts. This is refreshingly different from the way many of the exchanges have been taking place in the past.

I have an intuitive feeling that I am right but right now I do not have a compelling argument to establish that

Let me get back to you soon

Regards

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

1) When any physical energy moves through space its mass increases. This is true of all physical energy. Photons are assumed to be massless though I suspect they are also subject to the above law. But they may possess the lowest mass of all physical energy.

2) So for any energy to transcend space it should be really massless. So when the mass of energy cannot be increased it can be said to transcend space

3) It is reasonable to assume that thoughts being a product of mind as distinct from matter which have mass, thoughts can be said to be massless

4) So thoughts do transcend space

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

1) When any physical energy moves through space its mass increases. This is true of all physical energy. Photons are assumed to be massless though I suspect they are also subject to the above law. But they may possess the lowest mass of all physical energy.

2) So for any energy to transcend space it should be really massless. So when the mass of energy cannot be increased it can be said to transcend space

3) It is reasonable to assume that thoughts being a product of mind as distinct from matter which have mass, thoughts can be said to be massless

4) So thoughts do transcend space

Sravna,

Photon is said to be massless though, now, it is said that an upper limit of < 3×10[SUP]−27[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2 [/SUP]
or some alternative values derived in different types of experiments/observations, are being put forward. But the essential aspect to be considered is whether the photon is a particle or wave? Science cannot be sure of this and so we cannot talk of "mass" of a photon in the same way as we may speak about the mass of, say, a pumpkin . When we come to fundamental particles, concepts like 'mass' are to be considered to be more in the nature of mathematical abstractions, imho.

Saying "really massless" is not sufficient; is it rest mass or relativistic mass? As long as there is a momentum, there will be mass according to the equation, P (momentum) = mv. Hence any particle which travels has a mass. Therefore, equating weightlessness with the ability to transcend space and/or time, etc., can at best be pseudo-scientific only.

I know that there are some schools of thought which try to spread impressions about 'thought waves' and all, more or less in the manner being followed by you. But the ground truth is that thoughts create some very faint electrical impulses travel through the neurons; whether this can create space-and-time-transcending massless particles etc., can at best be considered only within the realm of scientific fantasy or fiction at the moment, imho.

 

[sravna]

My reply in italics


Photon is said to be massless though, now, it is said that an upper limit of < 3×10[SUP]−27[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2 [/SUP]
or some alternative values derived in different types of experiments/observations, are being put forward. But the essential aspect to be considered is whether the photon is a particle or wave? Science cannot be sure of this and so we cannot talk of "mass" of a photon in the same way as we may speak about the mass of, say, a pumpkin . When we come to fundamental particles, concepts like 'mass' are to be considered to be more in the nature of mathematical abstractions, imho.

Saying "really massless" is not sufficient; is it rest mass or relativistic mass? As long as there is a momentum, there will be mass according to the equation, P (momentum) = mv. Hence any particle which travels has a mass. Therefore, equating weightlessness with the ability to transcend space and/or time, etc., can at best be pseudo-scientific only.


Dear Shri Sangom,

We at least can be sure that there is a continuum of existence from photon which is almost massless to more massive ones and to matter which definitely is considered to have mass.

So let us not worry about the terminology now. But when you say a "particle" it means something which is localized in space and doesn't propagate in all the directions and moves along a particular direction.

When you see Einstein's equation you see that mass when multiplied by square of velocity gives you the corresponding energy. How particles were formed is still elusive to the scientists. May be it is due to the interlocking of energies travelling at great speed with the speed being converted to mass that makes a particle. At least that's one possibility when we see Einstein's equation But that is not very relevant to our present discussion

The point is it doesn't matter whether light is made of particles or is a wave because what we consider as wave is also not totally massless. Mass is necessary for movement through space and movement through space increases the mass. When the rest mass is really zero unlike the hypothesized zero rest mass of photon, the mass cannot increase. This is contrary to what happens to all physical energy.

I know that there are some schools of thought which try to spread impressions about 'thought waves' and all, more or less in the manner being followed by you. But the ground truth is that thoughts create some very faint electrical impulses travel through the neurons; whether this can create space-and-time-transcending massless particles etc., can at best be considered only within the realm of scientific fantasy or fiction at the moment, imho.

I am not using the term transcending with a religious connotation. What I mean is thoughts do not move through space but are instantaneously present everywhere once they are produced.