In2-MeC

Amsterdam, the Netherlands
4 December 2004

Had a recent email exchange with HG Jayatirtha Caran Prabhu. He uses these interesting definitions in his preaching:

Mantra: is from the Sanskrit prefix "MAN" (mind) and the suffix "TRA" (tool) is literally the science of using sound vibration, audible and inaudible, to bring about the physical, psychological and psychic changes. Our Guru often used to refer to Mantra as a "psychic elevator'" that changes levels of consciousness.

Yantra: is from the Sanskrit prefix "YAN" means "to conceive", a mental conception. So Yantra is also a "tool" or more accurately an "instrument" that allows us to visualise a complex geometrical form (RUPA) or trace out a two-dimensional psychic circuit, otherwise known as a "magical diagram".

Tantra: is the "tool" for dealing with Prakrit or the solid physical world as manifested by and experienced through the Annamayakosha (literally, "the food sheath or physical body"). The Sanskrit root "TAN" suggests extension and attenuation, giving us such English words as "tender". Hence, I will define Tantra as TANgible, TRAnscendence utilising Prakrit as it manifests though the five senses. In other words TAN-TRA is the sublime state that ensues when the mind [Manes], the Ego (Ahamkara and the intellect (Buddhi), become quiescent through a (W)holistic, Sattwic, aesthetic experience of sensory fusion.

Cosmology--the branch of modern science that attempts to inform us about the nature of the universe--is theory-based. That means that cosmologists start with a speculation. They add to that some observational data, and hey presto: here's a recipe for what the universe is and where it came from.

For 20 years, the Big Bang theory has been the only scientifically respectable explanation of the origin of the universe. It used to have a competitor, called the steady-state theory, but that fell by the wayside when the so-called background radiation of the universe was measured. This background radiation--a sort of heat signature supposed to pervade all of space--was identified as the leftover "bang" from which universe arose. It serves as the main evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.

Like women's hats, theories, however fashionable, gradually lose their hold on the mind until they look ridiculous. The prestigious science magazine Nature of 22 May 2004 published a statement signed by 33 prominent international scientists arguing that it is high time for the Big Bang to go the way of the leopardskin pillbox hat. Their main objection is that it continues to stand on center stage only because its advocates keep it propped up by some very big and very hypothetical assumptions.

These assumptions are 1) dark energy, 2) dark matter, and 3) inflation. None of these have actually been observed. Without the first, Big Bang theory predicts a universe younger than many of the stars in it. Without the second, it makes wildly wrong predictions about the density of the universe. As it stands, the matter of our material world is 20 times less dense than it should be according to Bangism. So Bangists have to draw dark (i. e. invisible) matter up from the wishing well to make up the shortfall. Most interestingly, the third item, inflation, is needed to account for the smoothly-distributed background radiation. In other words, even the foremost proof of the Big Bang does not actually support the theory except for the pulling of the inflation rabbit out of the magician's hat.

Yes, but as somebody might argue, better to believe in the Big Bang than to wear the label of a fundamentalist who believes in the Bhagavatam explanation of cosmic creation. All right, instead of acknowledging Brahma-Visnu-Siva as the cosmic creator-maintainer-destroyer, you can do your puja to the metaphysical trimurti of dark energy, dark matter, and inflation.

In addition, the 33 scientists point out that there is a wealth of inconvenient data from outer space that does not fit the Big Bang model. Another problem is that from its beginning it predicted exactly nothing that was later observed to be true. Even its old rival, the steady-state theory, made predictions that have been verified. �

<< Back