Dear Sreenath,

I wish you all the best in sharing your perspective of the reality with the rest of us all.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

It is no reply, because it is a self-contradictory statement. Even Veda says "Neti-neti", meaning it cannot be fully explained. Why don't you admit your ignorance and refrain from showing off your "vast knowledge"? It is bringing a bad name to our Shastras.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sridattadev,

I read your enchanting essay. In my essay, if the word 'mind' is replaced by 'Atman' in your essay then we are on the same plane travelling to reach our preordained destination, The Absolute or The 'Brahman'. And I know that you are yearning for that.

warmest regards,

sreenath.

Dear basudeba,

You are right, this absolute state can not be explained in words or theories. We as humans are gifted to enjoy this blissful absolute state if we so choose to. That is all trying to convey to the beings of my kind, that we are all capable of and enjoying the divinity or absolute equilibrium with in our self. Shastras or not for any particular ethnicity or religious group, they are a scientific theories from a different time. To think that you belong to a particular sect is to limit your consciousness, to know that we are all the same irrespective of religion, region, race, even though from different place and time is to expand your consciousness to the universal consciousness.

We are all free to choose on how we want to perceive the world, and that is the absolute beauty of the conscience or will. I wish you all the best in what ever you are trying to convey to the scientific world. All I have to share is self realization.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sreenath,

Yes indeed and I want all of our kind to yearn for and enjoy this divine equilibrium or singularity with in the self.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

We are not "free to choose on how we want to perceive the world". We must see through our eyes and hear through our ears. We must see white as white and red as red, otherwise, there is some defect in the functioning of our eyes. In essence, the self observes or witnesses reality "as it is", and not "as we want to perceive". If we want to perceive ourselves like a donkey, we may emulate like a donkey, but our self will not become a donkey, because it is immutable.

Self being immutable, its realization also cannot be shared, it has to be experienced. Sharing means dividing something into parts. This is impossible for self or its realization. You may see something and tell others to see it, but you cannot make them see it. They have to see for themselves. As the Mundaka Upanishad says: "naayamaatmaa ...." etc., which means, self cannot be realized through discourse, intellect, or reading and listening to others. Only if one relentlessly pursue it, the self reveals itself to him. So, you even do not see it. It reveals itself to you when it blesses you. Then how can you share it with others?

The same Upanishad also says: The fools think that they know everything and declare themselves as knowledgeable. But it is like one blind man offering other blind men to show the way. When you are trying to link shastras to science without understanding it, and showing off your "knowledge" to others, you are doing just that. As you can see, none of what you see is correct. This way you are demeaning shastras that hurts us. Hence please talk either about shastras if you have studied it properly (the answer is obviously no) or talk only about the science you have read without linking it to shastras.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear basudeba,

You are absolutely right about self being immutable, there is only one absolute self or singularity in the universe. We are all just different manifestations of the same self. What I meant was to share the "joy" of self realization and that is the purpose of human being to enjoy the self.

I know nothing but thy self and that knowing is absolutely blissful.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

Once again you have made wrong statements.

If you know or realized self, you would not be writing here. There is no need for you to. Because everything we do is need based. If you realize self, you will have no need. Hence you will not get involved in these transitory mundane affairs. But since you are trying to show off your knowledge of the Shastras, it shows that you have not realized self nor know anything about it.

Realization of self leads to "Anand". Once you reach that state, you will not want to do anything, because that will change your state from "Anand" to misery. Hence you cannot share the joys of self-realization. Please stop this showmanship and concentrate on the self, so that someday you may be blessed.

Regards.

basudeba

Dear Sridattadev,

I will rate your essay soon.

Wishing you all the best in the contest.

Sincerely,

Sreenath.

Dear basudeba,

Thank you for your best wishes and you are right about the "Anand". Yes I am still in the transitory state and still trying to attain that absolute Anandam and I will stop writing when I do and that could be what is expected of this body and mind to convey this message till then, that we should all strive for that absolute Anand. Even the pursuit of attaining the absolute is also Anand.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sridattadev,

I have a book on Vedic mathematics and I can give it to you if you like.

For that give me your e- mail address. Mine is, bnsreenath@yahoo.co.in

love,

sreenath

    Dear Kancherla

    Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon. Singularity is not GOD, it is mathematical problem, if we solve it will be solved......

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

      Dear Sreenath,

      Sure, if you felt like sharing it with me i will take it, my email address is sridattadev@gmail.com.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      Dear Satya,

      Truth is there is only i or absolute conscience in the universe. Energy (information or bits) or matter (it) are just mere manifestation of the absolute.

      It seems that absolute is non existent in the relative world and hence it seems to be zero. To the one who realizes there is nothing but the absolute and is infinite and everywhere. The perception of this absolute is the only difference between different beings in existence. Singularity is not just relative infinity as the scientific community perceives, it is the absolute equality. Singularity is not just some where in space-time, it is the space-time itself. In that sense singularity does not exist at all or it is the singularity that only exists.

      So you can either believe in God and that it is everything or do not believe in God at all and it is nothing. If you absolutely believe only material reality, that is absolutely fine. That becomes your reality. I does not see any difference between energy, matter, space and time. They all arise from one and the same source or i or singularity or conscience or god.

      Love,

      Sridattadev.

      Dear Sridattadev,

      I enjoyed your essay more than I thought I would. You have explained your views very clearly and beautifully. I liked the story of the turtles. Kind regards, Georgina

        Dear Georgina,

        I am glad that you enjoyed the story and the essay. We are all made for and of that absolute enjoyment.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        Sridattadev,

        If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

        Jim

        16 days later

        Dear Sridattadev,

        I always enjoy approaches that involve consciousness, as I noted the importance of observation in my essay, which hopefully you find time to read. I'd be honoured if you could.

        I think your essay is both relevant and interesting and deserves a high score, so hopefully my rating has helped.

        Best wishes,

        Antony

          Dear Antony,

          I have ready your essay and liked the way you have interpreted Fibonacci series application on the "relative" reality. I would like to convey a simple truth that singularity is not only a relative infinity or zero, but absolute equality of everything. Absolute truth is that there is only singularity everywhere and all the relativity is an illusion. This is the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity. There is only I or singularity in the universe. I creates (Generates), sustains (Orders) and Destroys (Dismantles) everything. I is GOD.

          Love,

          Sridattadev.

          Dear Sridattadev,

          I have also found that 0 can display infinite characteristics. I agree that zero/singularity such as that we envisage at the start of time, is still mathematically conserved.

          Good points and thanks for reading and commenting on my essay too,

          Antony