Article comparing Shiva to the Higgs-Boson particl

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

A very interesting article ... Thanks a lot for sharing.

However, I do not agree with most of the explanations given linking science and spirituality - not because I don't accept science and spirituality are the same but because the concepts which the writer has associated with is entirely different in my opinion. No offense intended, I respect spiritual leaders but I do not agree with everything a person says unless I am convinced. But my mind is open to receive any explanation - I will listen, analyse and then decide.


For example, "Science has its value in terms of utility, but science cannot open up the existence for human experience. It will not, it can never do it because they are going with intellect. Intellect as an instrument works only to dissect. The only way intellect can approach anything is to break it up and see. If you ask a scientist to find out something about a flower for example, the first thing is he will break it up into pieces. If you break up the flower, you may know many parts of it, you may know the structure and chemistry of it, but you will not know the beauty of it; you will not know the completeness of it because the flower is an expression of a plant finding its fulfillment. It is the highest thing for the plant, the flowering of that life. You will not see the hand of the creator in this if you break it. But as a whole, if you are willing to pay absolute attention, if in your approach, you make this flower more important than yourself and keep your focus on it, you will see the whole universe in this."

Intellect is different from experimental knowledge, collecting facts and conducting experiments out of curiosity. A person's intellect can enable him/her to see the beauty of anything. It is while conducting an experiment or collecting data that we mechanically follow a procedure. Thus, breaking up a flower is not intellect. Admiring the flower, knowing about it like what its made up of, how many units it has, etc. and even correlating the two is intellect - it may be scientific, artistic or both.


@ about the Higgs boson:

It was called the God particle for the want of a fancy name - just like X-Rays. Roentgen discovered these rays and had never seen anything like them before. He didn't know how they could behave this way and hence named them X-Rays. Similarly, before its discovery, the Higgs particle was a proposed particle - if it existed, it could explain how matter has mass (and consequently inertia). For many years, physicists have been trying to find a proof for either the presence or absence of this particle. Either result would have been a major discovery. It was called the God - particle because it was so elusive and undetectable. (I wonder... Now that they have found it, would it still be called the God - particle?) Since the Higgs is proved to exist, physicists are happy that what was so long just a theoretical structure has now become a reality. Still, there are lots of phenomena that needs explaining. Everytime we discover something new, it is just the first step for something even more grand and interesting.


I can elaborate even further but will wait for more responses. Will post more when I get more time.

Originally posted by: pnars

Thanks for your thoughtful response. As a (n eternal) student of science myself, I don't agree with Sadguru's premise that there is no beauty in the scientific approach. The immense pleasure one derives when things fall into place in a complicated mathematical puzzle or when experiments verify theories to the T can only be experienced.

I understand what it feels like - the joy and satisfaction is incomparable when finally we get it right after ages of studying, learning, and all the confusion in the beginning without even knowing what its all about.

What I do believe however is that at some point the scientific quest for Universal laws will converge with the philosophy postulated by our ancient sages. What they "saw" in their transcendental states will be ultimately verified by scientific discovery and experimentation. That will be the ultimate beauty of this convergence.

I think it already does. When I read some theories, I am reminded of something or the other from our scriptures and vice versa. I believe what the sages saw in their transcendental states were explained by them as they understood it. So, if we can just sift off each one's specific way of understanding, all that is left will be the same even if it was said by different people.

I found the analogy between the Higgs particle and the Shiva/Jada/Rudra myths particularly striking in this regard.

Striking, yes but not convincing. The Higgs field is quantised so, associating Shiva with the boson and saying he is the field didn't make sense. But it is an intriguing notion in its own way (borrowing this quote for the moment 😉)

As an aside, the Higgs was first called the "Goddamn" particle by Peter Higgs I believe - something our Mahadev would probably smile at :)

Higgs was very modest and an atheist. He is said to have cringed whenever people referred to the particle as Higgs particle and certainly did not approve of his discovery being called the God's particle. I think the term was first used by Lederman in his book 'The God Particle'. An excerpt from his book:

"So Higgs is great. Why, then, hasn't it been universally embraced? Peter Higgs, who loaned his name to the concept (not willingly), works on other things. Veltman, one of the Higgs architects, calls it a rug under which we sweep our ignorance. Glashow is less kind, calling it a toilet in which we flush away the inconsistencies of our present theories. And the other overriding objection is that there isn't a single shred of experimental evidence."

All that we couldn't explain was simply put down to 'It must be because of the Higgs boson' because no one had any idea about it back then.

ETA: Talking of Deepak Chopra, I found this article by him about the Higgs Boson - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/god-particle_b_1674717.html. He speaks of a "conscious" universe of which we all are part of. Did anyone say Advaita? :)

Will read it and get back 😊

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Once I start on these topics, I'll never be able to stop ... 😳

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

Once I start on these topics, I'll never be able to stop ... 😳