Theory of Everything by Sridattadev Kancharla

Dear All,

I am concluding my conversations in this contest and these are my final thoughts regarding our quest to realize the truth. Now that I know absolutely nothing, I do not care for how many dimensions there are or what reality is made of. I have come up with n-sphere representation of the universe, so as to put a conclusion to enquiry in to the unknown. I have said in the original essay, there is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. If we just look around at all other different species of living beings on this planet, this simple truth becomes apparent. We are caught up in this black hole of quest to realize how everything works and ignoring the beauty of the singularity of love in all of us. I hope if we just start loving and caring for each other and other beings on this plaent we will be in more touch with reality (be it analog mode or digital mode) and that is the closest we can get to the ultimate truth of love.

Be in Love to Rest in Peace,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

You are associated with science and try to be a good scientist. A good scientist doesn't talk without proof. Have you ever "let go off ones body and mind" to experience what you are talking about. If not, how can you know about what you are talking about that state. Have you ever died to have proof about what you say. If so, after death, how did you retain that memory? Can you produce your proof for scientific scrutiny? Are you proclaiming yourself to be God, which you obviously are not.

Once again we request you please not to sully the image of this great Country as a land of fraudulent Godmen. There are plenty of people who are already doing that. We also happen to know something of the Upanishads and Darshan. We posit that you do not have any knowledge of these subjects and only quote select portions incoherently to impress the gullible public. We challenge you for a public debate on any subject to prove this point. This is not to prove our superiority, but only to show that you are trying to use the name of our shaashtras to gain name and fame for yourself thereby discrediting them.

Hope you will see reason. "Ya pashyati sa pashyati".

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sridattadev,

Your message is well received! We share in our passion to know and understand our world and "everything in it". To paraphrase an ancient Greek saying, "A Universe unexamined is not worth having!". And we agree with another ancient Greek saying, equally powerful and most relevant to physics, that,"Man is the Measure of All Things". These have guided my thinking and outlook as I seek to better understand our physical world and the human beings in it.

In my essay, I show that it is possible to mathematically derive Basic Law of Physics starting with the undefined and undefinable 'prime physis quantity eta'. That this quantity is undefined, makes the results in my essay a "Theory of Everything".

More recently I posted a mathematical proof of the following proposition so central to modern Physics: "If the speed of light is constant, then light is a wave".

These results are profound and iconoclastic. I need your support in bringing my essay before the panel of experts for serious review. Please help ...

... in Unity and Love,

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

You are the one mathematician that will ever get closest to what I am trying to convey spiritually / philosophically. I wish you all the best in your pursuit to make the scientific world see what we are trying to convey. I know that you will climb that mountain and that day my friend please remember to spread the word of true love of singularity and see that there can be peace on this earth. I will definitely rate your article very high.

Love and Peace,

Sridattadev.

Greetings,

I only got to read this after the deadline, and I'm not certain I would have graded it approvingly, but I wanted you to know I appreciate what you wrote.

I especially like the column of observations contrasting the individual and pervasive descriptions of various qualities. The difference between saying "I am" and "I is," for example, is a profound shift of mind-set. It is a shame, and a betrayal of our infinite nature, that it is considered improper to use word constructions like "I is good," when speaking of identity more broadly or spiritually (referring to the universal I).

I always liked the way that Rastafarians speak, as it honors this perception of reality, or makes the perceptual shift clearly verbalized. They might say "I and I go to the store, Mon" when they want you to come along or to bring them there. Another phrase would be "I said to I" when saying you told something to a friend or when he was saying he told something to you. In any case, there is some wisdom to expanding concepts we generally view from the limited personal perspective.

I talk a little about this in my essay as a contrast between left-brain and right-brain thinking. But I did enjoy what you wrote, not so much because I thought it was a great essay, but because it really made me think - and expanded the range of comprehensibility for some ways of thinking.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

I intend to share the ultimate truth that is in all of us and nothing more or less. I in me thanks I in you for reading and understanding what I has to convey. Simply put, I thanks I.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Basudeba,

Everything and nothing is god, god is absolute state of mind, which is the soul in its absolute form. One needs to look inside of one self to realize this state and yes I have experienced the soul inside this entity Sridattadev and found that there is only one absolute soul in this universe. Please know that you are also the same soul or God. All I is conveying is that every one should realize this truth in themselves and that they are no less or more than any one else and this experience is the singularity. I in you is just testing if this body and mind of so called Sridattadev thinks itself as important and I do not consider this person is of any importance, it is just a vehicle for the universal I or god.

I am not a pandit of shastras or vedas but I do know that, "Tat tvam asi" is the essence of all vedas and it means that you are god once you realize the truth. All I want is for everyone to realize this simple truth about themselves.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sir,

God cannot be love for the simple reason that they exhibit different characteristics. Love always implies duality trying to unite. It has an opposite - hate. God is supposed to create many out of Himself - one becoming dual and so on. God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. His opposite has to be non-existent, non-sentient and non-reactive. Such a being is impossible to exist. Thus, your description is not correct.

Love belongs to the 24 Tattwa division, which are known as Atma Tattwa. Then there are seven Vidyaa Tattwas and five Shiva Tattwas. God can be explained through the last category. Adwait also belongs to this category.

In case you want to know more about this, you may contact us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

It is true that "Tat tvam asi" is the essence of all Vedas, but what are the meanings of "tat", "twam", "asi" and "Tat tvam asi"? These are four serious questions that are discussed in the Rik, Saama, Yajus and Atharvan Vedas respectively. That is the reason it is said that: "Richaa moorthih, Yaajunshi gati, Saama maya tejah, Athavaangirasam aapah". But none of the existing commentaries on the Vedas including that of Saayana deal with this interpretation. Unless one understands these correctly, one cannot talk about them authoritatively.

Hence please try to understand these properly first. Then your entire idea will change.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

We have defined infinity in many of our threads and cannot leave it out of physics, because no physics is possible without space and time, both of which are infinite.

The problem arises when we mix up science and spirituality, both of which have contradictory characteristics. Science is related to knowledge about worldly things for our possible use. This implies indulgence. Spirituality implies renunciation from worldly things. Only that way we can distance our concept of ownership and move towards universal feelings.

If someone says that he is indulging in science for the sake of knowledge only, then again it is a wrong statement. Knowledge is the opposite of action. We have knowledge about something only after we measure something at a designated instant. The object is not in the same temporal state when we use the information, but we have frozen the result of measurement at a particular instant and use it at subsequent times and call this knowledge. This proves our statement.

Hence we request again not to mix both, which shows ignorance and treat each separately, which only is wise.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Sir,

Spirituality leads to renunciation. Science leads to indulgence. Hence both are contradictory. When you talk of "Spirituality starts where science ends", what it means is not singularity, but "renunciation starts where indulgence ends". Since end of indulgence is gradual with increase of renunciation, one can give up science as one moves towards spirituality. You must remember that science is "vignyaanam" - "vishishta gnyaanam" and not "gnyaanam". The word "vishishta" points to its special characteristic, which attracts towards worldly objects. At best you can equate singularity with "moksha" - the ultimate liberation, not spirituality.

If you read our comments below the Essays of Mr. B.N. Sreenath, and Mr. Peter A Jackson, you will realize that we are using many terms found in the Vedas. This shows that we are familiar with the Vedas, Braahmanas, Aaranyakas and Upanishads. We know that all translations available as on date are wrong. Hence we dot blame you, because you are following wrong descriptions. We only tried to prevent you from bringing it to international scientific community, because while in our country we ignore these, there is a great demand for these books abroad. In fact one publisher told us that there is so much demand that he is unable to meet the export orders. The people abroad - many of them - will see the fallacy or be misguided like the development of string theory from the Upanishad dictum of "tat sootram", which has been wrongly interpreted. It actually referred to the three fold structure of atoms - the center of mass with the nucleus, the orbits and the energy that binds these two. Without this energy, no particle will be stable. Hence sootra vaayu has been given due importance. However, this has been misunderstood in QM.

If you want to progress in spirituality, you must renounce not only science, but the world also, which includes love. Because love implies duality of the lover and the loved. Thus, it creates bondage. At the adwait stage, there is no duality - hence no love also.

Regards,

basudeba.

Dear Basudeba,

You are absolutely right about Singularity and Adwait and we are in total agreement, there is no more lover and the loved as they are one and the same at that state. I have not read any vedas or books but experienced this state in my life and wanted to convey to the scientific world that singularity is the ultimate reality and that it is right with in us. I am just connecting the dots of observed facts in cosmology to my self, black hole to death, singularity to immortality. According to me one who has realized this state becomes spiritual or conscious of one self and continues to live and share this truth with others out of love, which is the first and the foremost fundamental force that comes out of singularity and is the source of all existence.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Singularity is absolute and it is space-time itself.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear All,

As scientific community is trying to understand what gives particles their mass, I or Singularity or Conscience gives mass to the particles.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Basudeba,

One can only know the truth and it will happen when all the thoughts or ideas have ended. I thank you for sharing your knowledge in this regards and I know that you are also pointing towards the same ultimate truth which I have experienced inside of me. Let there be love and peace everywhere.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear All,

A great scientist once thought what would it be like to travel at the speed of light and came up with the theory of relativity, now its our time to wonder on what would it be like to be the space-time itself or singularity and realize the absolute theory of everything.

Who am I? I am in space-time, I is the space-time.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear All,

Intelligence arises from conscience (birth or white hole or entaglement) and results in duality or virtual reality. Intelligence merges back with conscience (death or black hole or enlightenment) and results in singularity or absolute truth. Intelligence is relative and variable. Conscience is absolute and constant. Intelligence is digital in nature. Conscience is analog or continuous in nature. Intelligence is complex. Conscience is simple. Wisdom is the knowledge of conscience and application of intelligence in pursuit of peace and joy.

Conscience is the cosmological constant.

Love,

Sridattadev

Dear All,

One is still in duality if one still thinks there is space and time besides one self. One attains singularity by knowing there is no space and time other than one self.

Duality is voluntary like raising a thought in the brain, singularity is involuntary like a heart beat. Life is a combination of both of these experiences.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear All,

A simple mathematical equation of zero = infinity represents the truth, and will help in solving all other complex equations involving infinity and this can be proved as follows.

0 0 = 0

0 - 0 = 0

0 * 0 = 0

0 / 0 = 0

and so on....

Zero remains constant in relation to itself, no other integer can satisfy all the conditions.

I will use the character "~" to represent infinity and express the following

~ ~ = ~

~ - ~ = ~

~ * ~ = ~

~ / ~ = ~

and so on....

also infinity is similar to zero and remains constant in relation to itself.

This proves that 0 = ~ or "absolutely" nothing = "relatively" everything

Love,

Sridattadev.