Skip to main content

ATA - Atom theory of atma

      I had earlier posted my views on atom theory of atma, and I have been asked to modify it by several people. Most found the reference to non-philosophical matters (RSS/VHP etc), gratuitous, and I agree with them. I do try to be objective about my posts, but I guess I cannot help being a human. Maybe a post about that later. Anyways, the modified post is given below:

      Well, as in many of my posts, let me start by asserting that I am a scientist (a thumpin good one too). So, I will share my thoughts on re-inventing the ‘atma’ theory of hindu philosophy in modern terms. I will briefly sketch the ‘atma’ theory as I am aware of it and then try and explain it in modern context.
      Atma or soul is present in everybody. It is indestructible and will ‘live’ forever even if we die. The atma comes from the ‘paramatma’ or god. So in a way, all of us have paramatma in us. This is how I understand the atma theory and this is what I will be discussing next.
      First, definitions are due. And you will realize that the definitions make everything quite understandable and make sense out of the religious mumbo-jumbo. So, we will define ‘we’ as an open system of atoms. The atoms are the ‘atma’ of hindu philosophy. It satisfies most of the criteria for being a soul. First of all, it is indestructible; although, fusion/fission disproves this notion (what did the ancients know about fusion/fission?). Even if fusion disproves this notion in principle, it does so only in case of hydrogen and non-biological atoms. We are still far from fission of atoms present in our body and fusion of all non-hydrogen atoms. So, for practical purposes, ‘atom’ is indestructible. Now, ‘paramatma’ is the super set of all atoms. Voila, we have explained everything. We all have a part of ‘paramatma’ in us because ‘we’ are composed of only atoms (which comes from the super set of all atoms). Now, ‘we’ die but the atma does not die. What about that? Easy peasy. You see, ‘we’ is a non-random assemblage of atoms. Once the order in this assemblage breaks down, ‘we’ no longer exist (this breakdown is also called as death). But, that does not mean that the atoms (or atma) will die with us. No sir, they are taken up by other organisms and the cycle of ‘karma’ continues. What is today a plant tomorrow becomes part of you. So the ‘atma’'s keeps cycling between various forms. Once one form is destroyed, it becomes part of another, or goes back to get incorporated into ‘paramatma’. How about that? Cool..... say hello to Swamy Dr Krishnadev…..

Comments

Unknown said…
Hi Self Certified Genius. This blog of yours sounding great peice of work. Its convincing theory. Now, I give you a cue for the extension of this theory. i.e. Atma bhatakti kyon hai. More so, why a atma haunts some one. Well, for the first part we can work in the direction that atoms remaining unconsumated by any other organisms, starts moving in a hapazard path in the space ( obviously Speed will be less than the escape velocity), Now u need to work on second part. Why atma haunts someone. As now Michael Jackson's soul is doing????

Don't get moved to see one more genius of same sort certified by same certification authority:)))

-Guess Who

Popular posts from this blog

Butter, Oil and Zephyr

    Well, have been doing a lot of a MD simulations lately. My current favourite is implicit solvent simulations. The entire explicit solvent thing always seemed too brute force to me. Its not elegant, and nor is it computationally feasible for larger systems. Implicit solvent simulations suffer from their own problems, but I would consider their future much brighter. This is simply sue to the larger time scales that you can access using these simulations even on a normal desktop system. Larger time scales means better averages and thermodynamic properties are always averages, so better match with experiment.    Speaking of Implicit solvent simulations, Gromacs does a good job, as well as any other currently. I especially like the OBC model for calculating Born radii which I am glad to say, I copied to MUST_READ folder when it first came out. It might still be lying there, that is another thing, but at least I can appreciate when a good...

An early essay on co-translational folding

   One of the earliest essays I wrote on the co-translational folding concept. This was for a course on protein folding that Prof Balaram takes at IISc. I am reproducing it in full, with missing punctuation marks added. At one point, I say that I have not been able to find out why it is assumed that refolding is a good substitute for in vivo protein folding. I did know even then, but I chose not to talk about it. I did so, since I cannot talk about the topic without calling everyone involved an idiot. Also, I have omitted the references as I cannot bring myself to format them properly. Rest assured that nothing I said in the essay is without literature support. Co-translational folding Introduction    Protein folding is one of the major unsolved problems of molecular biology. The problem is as follows : given that a gene encodes a unique structure (which performs a unique function), how does this information conversion take place ? it is assumed (barrin...

I am a Reverend now!!!

  I have been an atheist for most of my life. I have never truly believed that God exists or such thing. More recently, I have started looking down upon people that do believe in God. Not a hatred kind of looking down upon them, but rather a pitiful look down or maybe even a cuter look down upon. Like when you see a child earnestly insisting that Santa Claus exists. You pity the child's ignorance and you find it cute, but secretly you also get a bit tense knowing that his/her ignorance cannot last very long. And, you wonder if that earnest child could really handle the news when it hits them hard.   So, in summary all I am saying is, people who believe in a God are stupid. They should grow up and really think hard about what they mean when they say they believe in God. Half of them will mutter and sputter and fail to come up with what they really believe. Most would say something asinine like "I am sure there is something out there" or "There will be chaos if n...