23 Jul 10
1 edit
Unseen Shiva Dances On
—There stands at CERN, the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, located outside Geneva, Switzerland, a large statue of Shiva Nataraja who, according to the inscription, “dances the Ananda Tandava in the twilight”.
Unseen Shiva dances on
in the throb of a pulsar
or of the sun—galaxies
and dreams whirl, worlds within worlds—
bright strings of energy spin
far-flung chakras into bloom,
wild and wordless harmonies
forming and unforming forms,
flashing, ever-changing chains,
bundles of universes
beginning to beginning
throughout the unbounded round
—and the consciousness that weaves
meaning in the dancing mind
from a matrix of sparkling
figures, projected against
the expressive unseen ground—
All—the cosmic tandava
of shiva-shakti-spanda,
power, vibration and sound.
Om namaha Shivaya
Ayam atma Shiva om
________________________________________________
Note: In Kashmir Shaivism, despite its use of theistic symbolism, there is no exogenous god-being as in western monotheism. It is as non-dualistic as Advaita Vedanta.
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdSo what does putting this statue outside of a scientific institue mean?
[b]Unseen Shiva Dances On
—There stands at CERN, the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, located outside Geneva, Switzerland, a large statue of Shiva Nataraja who, according to the inscription, “dances the Ananda Tandava in the twilight”.
Unseen Shiva dances on
in the throb of a pulsar
or of the sun—galaxies
and dreams whirl, wor ...[text shortened]... is no exogenous god-being as in western monotheism. It is as non-dualistic as Advaita Vedanta.[/b]
Surely the scientists are not paying homage to the great avatar of hinduism and admitting that what the ancients have been saying has been right all along; it is just now that we are able to prove it(?!)
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelOn the one, hand, you’d have to ask them (I haven’t researched that question). On the other hand, I’d speculate that their studies in quantum physics, and string theory and the like, suggest some metaphorical parallels.
So what does putting this statue outside of a scientific institue mean?
Surely the scientists are not paying homage to the great avatar of hinduism and admitting that what the ancients have been saying has been right all along; it is just now that we are able to prove it(?!)
Anyway, my wife came across the CERN Shiva while I have been reading texts of Kashmir Shaivism (the Shiva Sutras and the Spanda-Karikas).
24 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI suspect the same,( thay are acknowledging the links between quantum and eastern spirituality). There are strong implications there, I wonder if our scientific/aethiest friends will pick up on them? 🙂
On the one, hand, you’d have to ask them (I haven’t researched that question). On the other hand, I’d speculate that their studies in quantum physics, and string theory and the like, suggest some metaphorical parallels.
Anyway, my wife came across the CERN Shiva while I have been reading texts of Kashmir Shaivism (the Shiva Sutras and the Spanda-Karikas).
Do you feel it was coincidence that you were reading Kashmir Shavism while you wife came across shiva? How do you feel about "coincidences"?
24 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelFirst of all, I don’t believe there is an exogenous-to-the-universe god-being. I am a nondualist. So I think the real problematic dichotomy is between those who insist on literality in various spiritual/religious expressions, and those who don’t.
I suspect the same,( thay are acknowledging the links between quantum and eastern spirituality). There are strong implications there, I wonder if our scientific/aethiest friends will pick up on them? 🙂
Do you feel it was coincidence that you were reading Kashmir Shavism while you wife came across shiva? How do you feel about "coincidences"?
With regard to coincidence—well, maybe it’s a matter of Jungian synchronicity: coincidental events that, because of the apparent context, we are able to read subjective meaning into (someone else might read something different). Also, it’s just possible that many events are causally complex, in inter-related ways, so that we cannot identify all the connections. It's fun when it happens, though--and may lead to some insights, and that's enough.
Here is my underlying position (which I have not yet found a satisfactory—to me—way of expressing): spirituality, for wont of a better word, is fundamentally about our aesthetic-existential response to the ineffable Real that precedes all our conceptualizations and attempts at describing or explaining (let alone systematizing!) it—and includes us even in those activities! That is why I prefer the open-ended expressions found in poetry and art and (especially) music.
I of course argue—you know that! What attempts at conceptualization that I make I wish to be reasonable, and I know of no better way to test that (and perhaps argument can have its own aesthetic). But I try not to confuse the thoughts with the thing. And when I use allusive, elicitive and aesthetic speech (such as a poem, or a koan, or a paradoxical aphorism), I am not arguing a proposition: those are intended just as “fingers pointing to the moon”. They are two different modes of discourse; and I think that literalists sometimes get them confused.
________________________________________________________
EDIT:
Hafiz once wrote a wonderful poem about a bunch of intoxicated insects singing and dancing under the moon. Two of them, tired out, sat down. One pointed to the moon and asked “Now what are we to do about that moon?!” (LemonJello originally introduced me to that poem.)
Hafiz lamented that people so often lay aside the music of life to ask such questions, that end up leading to all kinds of speculations. No harm in that, per se—but it also leads to doctrines and dogmas and the like.
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdNo harm ,per se, but it just leaves us with more "branches" to cut down,(rather than attacking the root 😉 )
First of all, I don’t believe there is an exogenous-to-the-universe god-being. I am a nondualist. So I think the real problematic dichotomy is between those who insist on literality in various spiritual/religious expressions, and those who don’t.
With regard to coincidence—well, maybe it’s a matter of Jungian synchronicity: coincidental events that, be ...[text shortened]... speculations. No harm in that, per se—but it also leads to doctrines and dogmas and the like.
So what about Jungs archetypes? Do you think they are accurate?
(I was going to start a thread about archetypes but perhaps I could hijack this one🙂 )
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdAn explanation for the monument can be found here -
[b]Unseen Shiva Dances On
—There stands at CERN, the world’s largest particle physics laboratory, located outside Geneva, Switzerland, a large statue of Shiva Nataraja who, according to the inscription, “dances the Ananda Tandava in the twilight”.
Unseen Shiva dances on
in the throb of a pulsar
or of the sun—galaxies
and dreams whirl, wor ...[text shortened]... is no exogenous god-being as in western monotheism. It is as non-dualistic as Advaita Vedanta.[/b]
http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva.html
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobThank you. A partial quote:
An explanation for the monument can be found here -
http://www.fritjofcapra.net/shiva.html
...Fritjof Capra explained that "Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter," and that "For the modern physicists, then, Shiva's dance is the dance of subatomic matter."
It is indeed as Capra concluded: "Hundreds of years ago, Indian artists created visual images of dancing Shivas in a beautiful series of bronzes. In our time, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient mythology, religious art and modern physics."
26 Jul 10
"The Tao of Physics" by Fritjof Capra is an interesting book...about the relationship between mysticism and quantum physics.
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" is another good one.
Nikolai Tesla was also interested in mysticism. He was a big fan of Swami Vivekananda, an Indian saint who came to the West around 1900. He was one of the few people that Mahatma Gandhi recognized as a saint.
26 Jul 10
Originally posted by r99pawn77I am not convinced that any such relationship exists. As humans, we readily see patterns and recognize similarities between branches of science and religious beliefs, but that does not mean that one reflects the other or that they are related.
...about the relationship between mysticism and quantum physics.
Too often, people think that the religious belief somehow correctly guessed or predicted the reality of science, when it is not the case at all. Even worse, they misunderstand the science because they are too focused on finding a relationship.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs anthropomorphists, we readily see patterns...
I am not convinced that any such relationship exists. As humans, we readily see patterns and recognize similarities between branches of science and religious beliefs, but that does not mean that one reflects the other or that they are related.
Too often, people think that the religious belief somehow correctly guessed or predicted the reality of science, ...[text shortened]... en worse, they misunderstand the science because they are too focused on finding a relationship.
All things are related.
The ten thousand things come from the one thing, and vice versa.
Coincidence is just a nice way of explaining Maya...
Man, I'm so depressed.
Nevertheless, no amount of explaining will convince you that all is one. This is something you experience for yourself.
Do you want this experience, or do you want to remain on the outside with your peer-reviewed critiques?
I really dont care- All I know is that before I experienced "one-ness" I didn't know anything either. Now I know even less.
26 Jul 10
Originally posted by karoly aczel😵
As anthropomorphists, we readily see patterns...
All things are related.
The ten thousand things come from the one thing, and vice versa.
Coincidence is just a nice way of explaining Maya...
Man, I'm so depressed.
Nevertheless, no amount of explaining will convince you that all is one. This is something you experience for yourself.
Do you want th ...[text shortened]... is that before I experienced "one-ness" I didn't know anything either. Now I know even less.
01 Sep 10
Originally posted by vistesdWhat is the view of material/physical reality in Kashmir Saivism? Is it maya (illusion) as in Sankara's Advaita or realist as in Ramanuja's Qualified Advaita?
Note: In Kashmir Shaivism, despite its use of theistic symbolism, there is no exogenous god-being as in western monotheism. It is as non-dualistic as Advaita Vedanta.