Topic started by Shiva Gautam (@ 203.106.70.21) on Mon Feb 3 04:44:35 .
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.
Introduction
One invariably bumps into the Gita in one way or the other if she/he comes in contact with or develops a curiosity about the society, culture and philosophy that dominated the ancient Indian subcontinent. Since the pre-text of the Gita is a battlefield and a baffled mind of a warrior who is about to fight with his relatives on the subject of what is right and wrong, it must be a concise summary of collective thinking, wisdom, philosophy and understanding of life accumulated through the ages up to that point in time. There may be some challenges in delving into the Gita for a person whose Sanskrit -- language of Gita -- is quite rusty and, therefore, must rely on translations.
A comparison of several translations of the Gita may show that often the translations differ significantly from one another on the meaning of a verse. While writing this article, I first looked at the translations of each individual word and then examined the complete translation of the verse that I thought was interesting in the present context. Surprisingly, quite often word by word translations also seem to differ from the translation of the whole verse. A translator will now and then insert his/her own word giving a completely different meaning of the verse than the meaning implied by the individual words put together. What I am afraid of is that I might have done the same thing unintentionally. It is interesting to observe how a translator introduces the word “Atma” and refers to it even though the verse in question does not seem to do anything with the way the word is understood today ( I think). When two translations differed significantly, then I focused on word by word translations and sometimes tried to use an online Sanskrit–English dictionary without much success. Finally, I chose the meaning that made sense to me. My interest was limited to only a couple of verses.
Mother of all the laws of conservation
The Gita is by no means a book that lays foundations for the laws of physics. But my observations have been that there are some parallels between a few verses of the Gita and some fundamental laws of physics. It does not mean that those laws were taken from the Gita by the western scientists and philosophers.
One of the well-known laws in elementary physics (or chemistry) is the conservation of matter (or mass) usually attributed to Lavoisier from the late eighteenth century. Simply put, the law states: “Matter can neither be created nor be destroyed.” There are other laws of conservation found in science textbooks, but the law of conservation of matter is perhaps the most well known.
The Gita has 18 chapters and it is believed that the second chapter in some sense summarizes it. One of the interesting verses of the Gita is the 16th verse of the second Chapter.
“What is not will never be, what is will never cease to be …”
(Chapter 2, Verse 16)
This actually can be regarded as the mother of all conservation laws. When applied to matter, it simply will state that if there is matter it will always be there. In other words, it cannot be made to cease to exist. It may take different forms, but it will always be there. Similarly, if something is not there, it will never be there (or something cannot be created). Note that other verses around this verse of the Gita go to an extent in explaining that: the same thing (whatever the thing is) continues to exist, but it may change its forms. When I first learned the law of conservation of matter, I did not understand it and felt uncomfortable in accepting or rejecting it. At that time, perhaps I had neither accumulated enough observations or the logic to see it nor did I have the courage to question a thing mentioned in a 'science' book. I memorized it as all my friends did. I had to believe in it like a faith or a religious belief without questioning it. But I did not know what would make sense or what modifications in the law would make sense to me.
Although originally it was accepted that matter is indestructible, it is accepted now that matter can be destroyed to give out energy, and energy can be 'destroyed' to make matter. It is said that the amount of energy released from the destruction of matter is given by E = MC2 where M represents mass lost and C represents the speed of light. The same formula is said to give the amount of mass converted into energy when it gets trapped in a blackhole. In that sense, matter and energy are two different forms of the same thing. The law did not have the energy component when it (the law) was first proposed. From the original standpoint, the law turned out to be wrong when it was discovered that matter could be destroyed to release energy. Then the theory was put back together by augmenting the energy part. However, the verse in the Gita does not have to go through such a revision with each new revelation, as it does not direct this law to a particular form of the contents of this universe but rather takes a general approach. It was ironical that the law of conservation I read in scientific books sounded like a religious tenet or belief, while the verse in the religious book -- the Gita -- sounded logical and scientific.
What is being conserved?
When the law of conservation of matter was first proposed, the idea was that matter may change its forms, but it is always there and preserved in its core form. Obviously, if there is a thing that is being conserved, then it must be indestructible in that conserved form. For example, wood is being conserved in trees, logs, chairs, tables, planks, etc. In other words, 'wood' is not destroyed in these things and they are different forms or qualities of the same thing, namely the wood. Iron and gold have the same subatomic particles but in different quantity. In other words, iron and gold are different qualities of the same electrons, protons, neutrons inside their atoms. A mountain is just a quality emanating from its contents (rocks, dirt, trees, height, etc.) At one point, scientists thought that the atom (which literally means that which cannot be cut further, or 'destroyed') is the ultimate entity. If it were true, then what is being conserved in the universe would have been the atom. However, later it was discovered that an atom is also made up of even finer things. In other words, an atom is simply a 'form' or a quality emanating from something else. If a form can be destroyed, then obviously it is not being conserved. If one proceeds from an object to electrons and protons and further by destroying the previous quality at each step, then there must be something which cannot be destroyed any further. And that will be the ultimate thing that is being conserved. The Gita in verse 3 of Chapter 8 names that thing as 'Brahman'. Ancient Hindu thinkers have coined a symbol AUM to represent it (just like Ca is used for calcium, for example). Actually, such an indestructible thing by which the universe is pervaded is mentioned in verses 17 and 18 of Chapter 2 right after the conservation verse.
“Know that which pervades all this is indestructible, no one can destroy it.”
(Chapter 2, Verse 17)
“Only the forms (bodies) of this everlasting (eternal) indestructible (thing) are destructible…”
(Chapter 2, Verse 18)
“The indestructible is called the Brahman…”
(Chapter 8, Verse 3)
“…Brahman is the origin as well as the dissolution of the entire universe.”
(Chapter 7, Verse 6)
The introduction of the intangible and mystical Brahman (it could have been any name, but there must have been some particular reason for coming up with this symbol and sound) as the ultimate entity of the cosmos perhaps gave the same sense of completeness of the universe as does the notion of infinity or its reciprocal in number theory (or mathematics). Although the concept of infinity (or infinitely small) is somewhat intangible and mystical, we make use of it while solving real mathematical problems all the times.
The First Law of Motion
Newton laid out three laws of motion by refining the ideas of Aristotle and Galileo. The first law of motion states that if an object is in a state of motion (or rest) then it will be in the state of motion (or rest) forever (unless an external force is applied to the object). Aristotle was of the opinion that any object in motion will eventually come to rest. Thus Newton formulated the theory while Aristotle based his idea on observations. Although the creator of the Gita probably never had the concept of the motion of objects in mind, the first law of motion becomes very easy to understand if one tries to see it through the conservation verse mentioned above ( Chapter 2, verse 16). In other words, if there is a state of motion then it is there forever; if there is a state of rest it will be in that state forever.
However, an interesting observation emerges in light of the above conservation law in the context of the state of motion or rest of an object. An object in motion can be brought into the state of rest or vice versa by 'destroying' the state it is in. Thus, from the 'conservation' viewpoint, states of motion and rest either do not exist or are simply two forms of the same thing. As a matter of fact, something that seems in rest may be in motion and something that seems in motion may be at rest. A person in a 'moving' train is both at rest and at motion depending on the frame of reference.
Thus, this verse of the Gita, in addition to the first law of motion, implies that states of motion and of rest are just relative forms of the same thing. To say that the first law of motion could have been an obvious derivation from the Gita may be stretching it a bit too far. However, it would not be completely wrong to say that one could easily see the truth of the first law of motion in the light of the Gita, but not the other way around. It will never be known whether ancient Indian mathematicians could have come up with the first law of motion from this verse of the Gita had they been meditating upon motions of objects around them.
The Third Law of Motion
The third law of motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Karma and its result (or fruit) mentioned in the Gita can be considered equivalent to an action and its reaction, respectively. Since the Gita does not particularly focus on motion of objects, the assessment of the physical direction of an object due to reaction from an action will not be applicable in general. Except for the direction, the Gita seems clearer and more on par with the observation regarding the relation between action and reaction. Action-reaction mechanism is introduced in Verse 39 of Chapter 2. Then in the next verse it is mentioned that action is never diminished.
“In this endeavor/effort there is no loss or diminution….”
(Chapter 2, Verse 40)
Of course, there should be no loss or diminution of any action applied otherwise it will contradict the conservation verse (Chapter 2, Verse 16) mentioned above. Since there is no loss, any reaction must be equal to the action. In this sense, action and reaction are simply different forms of the same thing.
The Gita goes beyond physics and maintains that although there is an equal reaction to an action, there is also an element of uncertainty attached to reaction as there is no control over it.
“ “You have control over your action, but you do not have control over the result ( reaction ) ….”
(Chapter 2, Verse 47)
It is worth noting here that this verse is probably one of the most often quoted verses of the Gita, but with a slightly different meaning. The Sanskrit word “Adhikar” used in this verse is generally translated to mean 'right' (e.g. you have the right to an action but not to its result), but the verse makes sense (at least to me) only if it means “control”. Although this verse has a considerably spiritual as well as behavioral overtone, it can be presented in a non-spiritual realm also. If one plants an apple tree, then the growth of the tree depends on so many things, not all of which are under anybody's control. One may be able to control one's action, but may not be able to control the results emanating from that action. The Gita goes further in asking one to not give up action although there is an element of uncertainty regarding the result.
Uncertainty plays an important role in the modern decision-making process. If an action is represented by I (input) and reaction or result by O (output), then the above logic may lead to equations I = O, and O = P + E where P is the portion of intended (useful) result, and E is the noise or error which presents the element of uncertainty. For example, if a rubber ball is thrown at a wall, the ball will bounce back as a reaction, but some of the action will be lost in the form of sound, heat, and friction with the air. So the reaction may have both a deterministic and a probabilistic (uncertain) part.
Conclusion
This is not another interpretation of the Gita or an attempt to use science as a crutch to elevate the Gita. It is very difficult to provide an accurate interpretation of the intention of the original writer of the Gita. One reason being: it was written/told so long ago, in a completely different societal, temporal and behavioral setting than today; the meanings may have been altered due to its poetic form although the form may have made it easier to remember it from generation to generation, etc.
These are just a few simple observations I happened to make unintentionally (and I am sure others have noticed it too), and to some extent I was fascinated by them. Of course, the parallels between physics and metaphysics are plenty (I am told so). There are lots of similarities between a bird and an airplane, and yet they are different. But I still thought that deriving elementary laws of physics (science) in this manner almost solely from Chapter 2 of the Gita with some insights might be interesting. Also, people are thinking about their surroundings and things they may have been influenced by since the beginning. It might be worth presenting to them in an integrated fashion (e.g. in textbooks). There seem to be few accomplishments in this regarding ideas of non-Greek (or non-European) origins.
Tell your friend about this topic