Partha Biswas

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Relationship between the luminiferous ether and Sankhya ether #14628
    Partha Biswas
    Participant

    Thank you very much.

    in reply to: Relationship between the luminiferous ether and Sankhya ether #14626
    Partha Biswas
    Participant

    Thank you for the drill. I understand the subject is pretty complex and would require a progressive refinement of understanding.

    Would you mind listing down ALL the books that might go along with the sequence of study you have listed (First numbers, then atoms, then space and time, then logic, then epistemology, then perception, and so on.)?

    Did I capture the following sequence right?

    Godel’s mistake (numbers)

    Quantum meaning (atoms)

    Six causes (Space and time)

    ? (Logic)

    ? (Epistemology)

    Sankhya and science (Perception)

    Please clarify further.

    I liked the pixel analogy. I do have a CS background and so I appreciate the examples you bring in from the CS domain. I also noticed that when talking about the hierarchy, you do bring the notion of Object oriented inheritance hierarchical notion to drive home the point.

    in reply to: Relationship between the luminiferous ether and Sankhya ether #14624
    Partha Biswas
    Participant

    I would like to edit my following statement:

    We need to develop a totally new semantics of Akash and using any English term will only aggravate our misunderstanding.

    What I meant is:

    We need to develop a proper conception of Akash and using any English term will only aggravate our misunderstanding.

     

    in reply to: Relationship between the luminiferous ether and Sankhya ether #14623
    Partha Biswas
    Participant

    Thank you for your detailed response – it was fascinating to read your chain of thoughts.

    To summarize, Sankhya Akash is neither luminiferous ether nor Euclidean space. Translating it as “sky” also does not help because we already carry a conception of sky, which is not what is conveyed by Akash. We need to develop a totally new semantics of Akash and using any English term will only aggravate our misunderstanding.

    What I understood is that the following statements are different ways of expressing the same thing:

    • “Sankhya” Akash or space is a domain of potentialities (encapsulating different dimensions) within Krsna’s energy. [Krsna is the sumtotal of all potentialities.]
    • Akash is a domain of every kind of experience conceivably possible to experience.
    • Akash is a space of all sentences (or vakya or uttered sounds). This space is absolute because of having all the potentialities. The objects within the space are actually fixed but appear to move (depending on the nature of interactions and the strength of interactions is adjusted by prana, which is under individual control).

    Kindly correct me as you may deem appropriate.

    One observation:

    In this write-up, you referred to the ether as object and sabda as its properties. In the following article, you referred to sabda as a property and ether as the value of the property.

    https://blog.shabda.co/2017/04/03/sankhya-theory-of-five-elements

    Kindly clarify further.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to respond.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)