Learn to Let Go and Outgrow What Troubles You

Learn to Let Go and Outgrow What Troubles You

by Guy Finley original link at http://www.guyfinley.org/free-content/content/1881

ED: Hello. I'm Dr. Ellen Dickstein and I'm here with inner life author, Guy Finley, to talk about letting go. Guy, some years ago you wrote a bestseller called The Secret of Letting Go that had a tremendous response all over the world, and you've just come out with a new book, Let Go and Live in the Now. There must be a lot of people all over the world who sense that they're hanging on to something that is hurting them, but they may not even be aware of what it is that they're hanging onto, what it is they need to let go of.

GF: It's true. We don't know. We think to ourselves, "When the time comes, I really need to let go of this person," "I need to let go of this career path that I've been on," "I need to let go of this pain that I've been carrying around." But those are always one step short of the real solution.

A nice feature of our spiritual work, of real interior work, is that gradually we begin to recognize that the experience we have of life outside of us is first and foremost a reflection and a result of an interior life, of something that is going on inside of us. We begin to recognize that the condition we blame for our unhappiness is never the cause of the unhappiness, but merely something that shows us a more persistent misunderstanding, a more persistent problem.

How many times have you let go of things, thinking that "when I get rid of this, I'm going to be different"? It's almost endless, isn't it? But the fact remains that we don't free ourselves. If I let go of you, then I get someone else.

ED: I let go of something and somehow I end up holding on to something else.

GF: That's right, and it's indicative of something that we need to understand at the root of letting go. The reason letting go is so hard, Ellen, is because what we have to let go of is not the person, the place, the position, the possession, but the sense of ourselves that is derived from thinking about that person, place, possession, or position. That's the real nut of it. I think my life depends upon something.

When I first meet the man or woman of my dreams, the new job -- whatever it is -- I'm glad that my life depends upon it. "This is the greatest thing that ever happened to me!"

ED: It gives meaning to my life.

GF: I have meaning now. I'm going to be a full, contented human being. But it isn't terribly long (and all of us know this very well), the person that we vest ourselves in, the sensation that we derive that was once full of happiness, begins to change and starts to become not so full of happiness. I start to become a little critical of the person. And gradually, the sensation of thinking they're super turns into a sensation of they're stupid. And, if you're honest about it, from super to stupid doesn't take that long, does it? Now I want to let you go, because it's too painful for me.

So finally that person goes away, but nothing changes, because it wasn't the person that was the issue. The issue is that the way our minds and our hearts work, this nature requires something outside of itself by which to know itself, believing that if it can find the right thing to know, my certainty, my confidence will be set, only to find out that I can't control the person or the thing outside of myself. As it changes, my sense of self is threatened, and now I want to let go, and I'm going to find someone better.

Real letting go begins with a kind of unraveling, a kind of uncovering where I begin to recognize that what I need to let go of is not the person or the place or the position, but this rather deep and pernicious sense of myself that believes without that person, without that condition, I will lose who I am.

You cannot lose who you are other than through thinking you're going to find yourself in someone or something outside of yourself. That's how we lose ourselves, which is the antithesis of the way the mind thinks about it. Can you see that? It's crazy.

ED: What you're saying is that what we have to let go of, on one level, is the identification we have with things outside of us, but on a deeper level, what we have to do is deal with this self that thinks it has to have something to identify with.

GF: Yes, It's so simple in some ways. If I had in my hand a porcupine, and I said, "Ellen, here's a porcupine." Would you reach out and grab the porcupine?

ED: Not if I saw what it was.

GF: Why?

ED: Because I know that it would hurt me.

GF: Because it would hurt me. I wouldn't have to think towards it. The nature of the porcupine is essentially to loose its quills on anything that touches it. Our nature tends to grab onto things that hurt us, believing it's how to heal us.

ED: We don't see it as something painful.

GF: I don't see it as something painful because I'm totally enamored with the sensation that I'm deriving from considering that person or that position.

If we could see how often it is that we pick up in our hand the thing that we say we wish we could let go of, and then when it's in our hand, we say "What's this doing in my hand?," if we could recognize that fact about our present nature, then we'd know that the self that picks up the problem, the worry, the grief, is not the same self that sits and goes, "No, no, no!"

So we need to connect that in our mind, and then we can begin to do the real interior work of letting go, because invariably it means that I'm going to have to be new, fresh, without a past... and in that moment, I am indeed starting over, because letting go and being new are the same thing.

And again, the reason is because within ourselves, there is a part of our nature that derives a very distinct sense of self from the attachments that it forms, so that the more in my mind I can see myself as belonging to a certain group, a certain school of thinking, or whatever it may be, then when that changes (naturally), I am at a loss, not because it's changed, but because I don't know who I am without what I was attached to that was secretly defining my sense of self and my purpose.

So from this attachment, we have to begin to recognize the process and realize, if I'm going to really learn to let go, it's going to require me understanding that I have to give up something of myself if I want to actually give up this pain, this problem that I have.

ED: We understand in our minds that it is wrong to hold on to things that are hurting us, but how do we translate this knowledge in our heads into actually doing it? How does it get from our head to our heart?

GF: I love that. How do we go from head to heart? When I was a boy, I had a pair of tennis shoes that I loved. My tennis shoes were the end of the world to me. They had died about a year before, but I still kept them. My mother couldn't stand these tennis shoes, and one day when I came home, they were gone...

The point is, when you're a child, you're attached to childish things. But we don't know that as adults, we're meant to outgrow childish things. The problem is that we don't recognize yet what it means to outgrow childish things. For instance, it's childish to be concerned about what anybody thinks about you. It's childish to be unhappy that you don't live in the kind of home that you think you're supposed to. It's not necessarily childish to want to live in a nice home, but it is childish to believe that who you are, the measure of your wealth, is determined by how you live and what people see you with. That's childish. It's childish to hold a grudge. I don't care what anybody on the earth ever did to you, it's childish to hate a human being. It's childish to fear.

"It's childish" means that we're intended to outgrow ourselves, all the time. What a nice thought it is. Every day it's possible that a person can see that what he or she formerly valued is no longer valuable to them, and it's a great process. It's a great purification process that this Intelligence that we live in has set up for us, because if we're awake and aware of ourselves, what we can't help but see is that to the degree that we're identified and attached to something is the degree to which we're punished by it.

We think to ourselves sometimes that the reason I'm in this pain is because I'm not attached enough, I'm not identified enough, meaning I need more of this image that I have of myself to make me happy, so I increase my efforts to get hold of what turns out to be a painful condition for myself.

So when we talk about these ideas, we talk about what it means to be aware of ourselves, to work on ourselves, to watch ourselves. And in that, we can do the wonderful work of starting to notice that if I'm suffering over something, the thing that I'm suffering over is not the thing but the sense of self that I am attached to through my imagined relationship with it. I know that's a lot of words, so I'll say it one more time simply: All we need to do to let go of something, Ellen, is to begin to realize that if I'm suffering from holding on to it, squeezing it tighter isn't going to help.

ED: When we really understand this, there isn't that struggle.

GF: To be aware of ourselves means in any given moment that we are conscious of our thoughts. Let's say I'm thinking, "Boy, I hope this interview comes out good." Whatever it is... the thought that comes along and tells you, "I hope this" or "I want that," promises in the very appearance in your mind that if you do what you picture, you're going to be in great shape. But what we can't see about ourselves in that moment is that the more we hold the idea of how things should be, the more we struggle with events as they are, and then wreck everything for the sake of what we wanted to take place around us.

So awareness of the moment includes awareness of the kind of thoughts that are going through me, the kind of emotions that I'm having, even my bodily sensations. All of that is what it means to watch and be aware of myself. And in that, I can learn to start valuing something else, because the part of me that is conscious of conflict in me is always greater than the conflict it's conscious of. So I need to place being conscious of myself above trying to prove myself to get rid of the fear I have of failing, of falling.

Letting go is a very whole movement. If it's not whole, it's not letting go; it's just substituting one desire for another.

ED: You said something earlier that I want to go into more deeply. You said that letting go is really the same as starting over.

GF: Let's do it right now. We have a little shadow following us that is unseen by us. We have something in us that's acting, and then we have something in us that's sitting there saying, "Cut! No good! Reschedule. Rewrite. Change the make-up." Something is always judging us, measuring us, so that our attention is never in the moment to what we're doing, but listening to these subtle off-stage hints and clues and poundings that come from this part of us that is always trying to decide how we did and what we need to do as a result of how we did. What a mess!

Starting over means I'm aware of that. It doesn't mean that I try to stop that. It means that I'm conscious of both this shadow -- this part of me that is measuring me -- and as I'm watching it, by the very fact that I'm aware of it, I'm letting go of it because I'm not identifying with its findings. So that's starting over, isn't it? It's fresh. I don't have to carry one thing with me.

ED: When we're looking at what we did and going over those findings, then we're not going forward at all. We're just continually living over and over in our past.

GF: If you had a suitcase, Ellen, and everywhere you went, you took your suitcase, and wherever you sat that suitcase down, it unzipped itself and out popped a large hammer and hit you on the head...

ED: I have that suitcase!

GF: I rest my case. That's what human beings do. A part of us we carry with us, everywhere we go. We're always thinking back on it, looking upon it, asking it, being measured by it, and all the time, whatever we do, without exception, we get a clop on the head by the content of our own past. The point is that a person doesn't have a painful problem without the past that they consult in order to find their future or define their present.

Now, a person says, "Well, what am I supposed to do?" Be in the present moment. Work to bring yourself back to now. What is now? Now is the awareness of the fact of that suitcase. Look, there's nothing wrong with that suitcase, because I need to know how to get home for instance. I need to know how many beans go in the casserole. These are practical things. But when what is practical turns out to be something that punishes me, it ceases to be practical and becomes personal. Our true life of letting go is not personal; it is an impersonal relationship with the present moment.

ED: There is something that you say over and over again in your book, The Secret of Letting Go, and that is "You are not your problem. You are not the event. You are not the fear." What does that mean?

GF: Did you know that since we sat down here, neither one of us have in us the same things that we did when we sat down? Not the same air, not even the same cells. The same blood isn't in the same place. Not one thing is the same. Even this chair. Everything, Ellen, is in constant change. We don't see constant change because our mind only knows itself and ourselves through images it creates, static images by which I measure myself and know myself.

When I say that you are not these things, what it really means is that your true nature is not contained or confined by any quality that our mind (that is part of that nature) defines us by.

Here is the problem with letting go. To truly let go, one has to become no one, and we don't want to be no one. We want to be someone who is no one. That's the fact. To be no one like I'm talking about is to be all things, is to be one with that which is all -- not as an intellectual exercise, not as a fantasy, but as a true reflection of our work, of dropping what comes up inside of us to be in the present moment. And when you're part of the present moment, you're part of the whole of the movement of the present moment, and there's no pain in that movement. There's change, but that change only becomes pain when one identifies with something in that movement that runs against their suitcase that is sitting at their feet.

ED: This reminds me of something you said in a recent talk about starting over. You said that starting over is to enter the unknown.

GF: Yes. That's what it is. To be new means to live in an unknown moment. The beauty of that, in its truth, is that the unknown moment does not mean scary, bad, empty, lonely. It means newly becoming.

ED: Why are we so afraid?

GF: Because there is a part of us that names that unknown moment. If I'm afraid of an unknown moment, is it unknown to me? I've filled it with something, haven't I? It's like a bad donut with an evil cream in it. I take a bite of it and think, "How did that get there?" And I stuffed it!

ED: So, would you say that a big part of letting go is to realize that there was never anything real to let go of?

GF: In one respect, yes. I'd say that part of our journey, part of the discovery process, part of our awakening is intimately connected with the idea of realizing that who we are, our true nature, can't be defined. And if it can't be defined, then that means anything in me that searches for myself or a sense of it through something that I've defined as being necessary, promising, powerful (or debilitating for that matter), that anything like that belongs to a surreptitious nature in me, a false self whose purpose is to produce a kind of constant pain that in turn gets me to search for pleasure that becomes the new attachment, the new identification that drives that circle of self through that pain. We see all of that for what it is and then drop it. Let it go. Then we begin to live as we're intended to.

This is the point of all the work that I do, in essence. I believe that the whole of life is a preparation for letting go. Said differently, that the whole of life is a preparation for Love, because when we finally begin to let go, what we discover is that we have always had a nature of love in us that didn't need something outside of us by which to give us our sense of self. Not that we don't have a relationship with another human being -- we learn about ourselves and this true nature and this false nature through relationships with one another. But when I name something outside of myself as being the secret source of myself, I have set myself up to suffer, no matter how else I cut it.

ED: So this has really taken us into a new place, because in order to let go, from what you said, I have to have a real self-honesty and a willingness to look inside myself.

GF: That certainly is part of it. Real letting go comes with reaching the point where I just can't hold on anymore. Anybody who has ever been through any kind of crisis and finally lets go, realizes it wasn't the thing that they let go of, it was their attachment to it, and the sense of themselves they felt they would lose forever by such a change. Again, why do I cling to begin with?

ED: Because I don't think I will have anything without that.

GF: That's right. I want to be someone. I want to feel like I'm someone. I want to fill myself with something. But when I finally (however long it takes) recognize that I keep putting things into this basket called myself, and no matter what I put in this basket, the bottom line is that the basket doesn't seem to hold anything, then I've got to go find something new to put in the basket.

It's that gradual recognition of how absolutely wasteful its been, how many enemies I've made, how many people I've hurt, and how much damage I've done to the planet itself, that begins to form in a person -- not an intelligence or strength by which they take an act of letting go, but a certain kind of understanding that it's impossible to continue being someone who believes that I can hold my life by holding something in my hand. It doesn't work. And one dies to the sense of self that is born out of blaming, judging, hoping... the whole process relative to divided thinking begins to fade when one sees that what one is vesting oneself in is not real but is merely an image or a projection of himself.

When those opposites begin to collapse, when one sees all of that, Ellen, one realizes, "I thought something terrible would happen to me, but it didn't. I thought I was going to die, but I didn't." And in that experience, as accidental as it is for most of us, begins the seed of something new where I am willing to go through that maybe a little sooner, test the waters a little bit earlier to see what will happen if I don't do what I've always done. Then a person grows in understanding. That wisdom grows, and it is that wisdom in the long run that actually helps a person through all of this.

ED: So this implies that if we let go of the small life that we have created with our thoughts, there is a larger life that we enter.

GF: Exactly. Let's say that I have someone hurt me badly and I have a resentment. As long as I hold that resentment and believe that the answer to the pain I feel has to do with getting you to do something or letting go of a situation that I believe you're somehow involved in and that will change the way I feel, what I'm really living in is the world of that little thought, that negative state. When I live inside of a negative state, that negative state tells me who I am, what I can do, what my choices are, how to handle things.

Little by little, we recognize that I'm not intended to be a captive of this condition. I know I'm not intended to be a captive of this relationship. No one sets out to be a captive of a relationship, but we wind up a captive of relationships. No one sets out to be a captive of their best ambitions, but we wind up captives of our best ambitions. Why? Because the content, all of the things that are vested in that idea that I have, I become dependent on for my sense of myself. As I see that, I want nothing to do with it. I'm willing to let go of that, and I'm willing to suffer the sense of loss of myself that comes with that. Then things change. We change nothing by changing our exterior circumstances.

ED: When I was thinking about the topic of letting go, I came upon this quote from a recent talk that you gave, and I saw a connection. You said, "You cannot be safe and have a spiritual life," which means that we have to let go if we want to have the deeper spiritual life that we long for.

GF: Yes. The sense of safety that we presently have is always connected to an idea, a condition outside of ourselves. I am this condition as long as that condition persists. I will fight to keep that condition in place, because by keeping that condition in place, I stay secure. The self that stays secure because of keeping a condition in place, itself not only isn't secure, but is a captive of the condition that it's trying to keep that way, so that while a person may be safe, they're dying, because they're cut off from life. They live in a little world of opposites, of me and the image that I hold in my mind. And while it seems safe, it strangles the spirit.

So we have to recognize the fact of something like that and then based on our understanding, Ellen, as spiritual aspirants, men and women who want to have a different life, a life centered in God, in Truth, we have to be willing to risk everything for the purpose of discovering what is true and what is not. You find a person who will not risk things for the purpose of discovering what is true, and you find a person who will be ringed in for the rest of their life by the falsehoods that are connected with the idea they have to have certain things to be who they are, and they're as good as dead.

ED: We want the familiar. That's what makes us feel safe, even though it could be something terribly painful.

GF: It's such a paradox, Ellen. It's so contradictory. Here's what you're saying, "I've gotta be me."

ED: Even if it kills me.

GF: "I've gotta be me," but I want to do everything I can to change me because I hate me... but I don't want to change anything about me unless what I'm changing turns out to be what I want to be me! Well, that's nuts, isn't it?

ED: Yes. So we're just hanging on to thoughts about ourselves, and in that we are preventing ourselves from experiencing the full life that we're supposed to know.

GF: Right here, right now, come back to yourself. The present moment, the Now is God's life, the life of Truth, the life of Light. Everything that ever was, or ever will be, everything that is wonderful, and everything that is dark, all is in this moment. I cannot know my true nature apart from knowing this moment. And as long as I live outside of this moment, which is all thought does by creating what was, what will be, I am isolated, and not only isolated, but connected to all of the objects that I form in my mind in that time. It's hard for a person to understand. That's why we have to go through so much suffering, it seems, to finally begin to recognize, "You know what? It's all right just to be here. I don't have to find a sense of myself anywhere outside of what this moment provides as it shows me what I need to see."

ED: I can actually start the process of letting go right now.

GF: This very moment. Learn to watch, be as awake as you can, and letting go comes naturally.

ED: Thank you, Guy. This has been a Fireside Chat with best-selling inner life author, Guy Finley. I'm Dr. Ellen Dickstein. Thanks for joining us.

Zoroastrismo

Zoroastrismo

O zoroastrismo, também conhecido como masdeísmo, apareceu na antiga Pérsia, actual Irã, no século VI a.C. e sua origem está directamente ligada ao contexto social da época, onde existiam três classes: A dos chefes e sacerdotes, a dos guerreiros e a dos criados. Esta divisão reflectia-se na religião onde cada casta possui seus deuses, cuja importância era proporcional à camada social. Zoroastro ou Zaratustra, fundador do zoroastrismo, ao observar esta realidade, sentiu-se insatisfeito com a situação social do seu país e com as posições filosóficas vigentes, resolveu então iniciar uma busca de respostas para suas indagações. Através de suas observações e estudos, Zoroastro concluiu que o mundo é um local bom, criado por um Deus bom, generoso e amoroso, cujo desejo é que todos os homens sejam felizes. Tendo chegado a estas conclusões Zaratustra, então com 40 anos, desenvolveu a nova religião que iria substituir o politeísmo praticado e que possuía um lado filosófico, mas também um carácter prático para a vida das pessoas.

Os princípios do zoroastrismo consistem na existência de um deus único (Ahura Mazda ou Ormuz Mazda), sábio, criador e guia de tudo, que não tem preferências, que acolhe a todos com o mesmo carinho. Ahura Mazda é ajudado por seis espíritos Amesas Spenta (Imortais Sagrados), que o auxiliam na realização de seus desígnios: Vohu-Mano (Espírito do Bem), Asa-Vahista (Retidão Suprema), Khsathra Varya (Governo Ideal), Spenta Armaiti (Piedade Sagrada), Haurvatat (Perfeição) e Ameretat (Imortalidade), que Juntos travam luta permanente contra o princípio do mal, Angra Mainyu (ou Ahriman), por sua vez acompanhado de entidades demoníacas: o mau pensamento, a mentira, a rebelião, o mau governo, a doença e a morte que procuram corromper os homens trazendo o mal para o mundo. O símbolo de Ormuz é o fogo, estando presente em todas as cerimónias como representação viva do deus maior.

Ao contrário de outras religiões, o zoroastrismo não atribui grande importância à fé ou a crença, o fundamental são as boas atitudes e os bons pensamentos, o homem é o responsável pelos seus actos e pelas suas escolhas e colherá o fruto delas, cabe a cada um lutar contra os maus pensamentos e as más acções, trabalho este que nunca está concluído, é um esforço diário e constante. Só através deste esforço o homem pode alcançar uma vida feliz. O zoroastrismo desenvolveu uma avançada visão metafísica, onde os pensamentos geram realidade. Quando o homem nutre bons pensamentos o universo passa a conspirar a seu favor, quando elabora maus pensamentos, isola-se e enfrenta toda sorte de dissabores.

Os ensinamentos desta religião estão contidos nas escrituras sagradas chamadas de Zend Avesta, que são compostas de três partes: a primeira chama-se Vendida e contém as leis religiosas e histórias míticas antigas; a segunda chama-se Visparad e a terceira Yasna, segundo a tradição este livro contém a conversa entre Zaratustra e Ormuz.

O zoroastrismo é uma religião positivista, ética, baseada no conhecimento e na responsabilidade individual, seus ensinamentos estabelecem a prática das boas acções, a pureza de pensamentos, palavras e obras, a pureza de coração, a verdade, a caridade, a bondade, a humildade, o respeito, a amizade, a felicidade.

As principais características deste sistema religioso são:

• Dualismo;
• Crença na imortalidade da alma, na vinda de um messias, na ressurreição dos mortos, no juízo final;
• Condenação da cobiça, calúnia, usura, ascetismo, jejum;
• Divindades não representadas em escultura;
• Inexistência de templos;

Actualmente o oriente médio foi convertido ao islamismo, entretanto ainda há seguidores do zoroastrismo, cujos princípios apesar de terem sido estabelecidos há milhares de anos, mostram-se bastante atuais, coincidindo com muitas ideias vigentes em vários sistemas religiosos modernos.

Fontes:

Zoroastrismo - Encyclopaedia Britannica do Brasil Publicações Ltda

Challaye, Félicien. As Grandes Religiões. (1998) IBRASA.

www.cacp.org.br/zoroastrismo.htm

www.conhecimentosgerais.com.br/religioes/religioes-do-ira-antigo.html

www.consulteme.com.br/3/histgeral/persiap.htm

www.sivananda.org.br/religioes/zoroastrismo.php

www.zoroastrismo.org/html/pensa/pensa.htm

Sobre as ondinas, sereias, ninfas

Ondinas - Vivem nos riachos, nas fontes, no orvalho das folhas sobre as águas e nos musgos. São reconhecidos por terem o poder de retirar das águas a energia suficiente p/ a sua luminosidade, o que permite ao homem, por muitas vezes, percebê-los em forma de um leve "facho de luz".

Sereias - São elementais conhecidos como metade mulher e metade peixe, delicados e sutis, com o poder de encantar e hipnotizar o homem com seu canto.

Ninfas - São elementais que se assemelham às ondinas, porém um pouco menores e de água doce. Apresentam-se geralmente com tons azulados, e como as ondinas maiores, emitem suas vibrações através de sua luminosidade. A diferença básica entre uma e outra, encontra-se na docilidade e beleza das ninfas, que parecem "voar" levitando sobre as águas em um balé singular.

Ninfas:

Todas, descendem de Geia. Da união de Oceano e Tétis nasceram as Oceânidas, ninfas dos mares; Nereu (o velho do mar) uniu-se a Doris e nasceram as Nereias, também ninfas marítimas; os Rios, unidos a elementos vários, geraram outras ninfas, como as Potâmidas, ninfas dos rios; Náiades, ninfas dos ribeiros e riachos; Crenéias e Pegéias, ninfas das fontes e nascentes; e as Limneidas, ninfas dos lagos e lagoas.

Estas eram as Ninfas que habitavam o elemento aquático e faziam parte frequentemente do cortejo de Hera e Artemis.

Desconhecido As ninfas da terra propriamente dita são as Napéias, que habitavam vales e selvas; as Oréadas, ninfas das montanhas e colinas; as Dríadas e Hamadríadas, ninfas das árvores em geral e especificamente do carvalho (árvore consagrada a Zeus). Há uma distinção entre Dríadas "carvalho" e Hamadríadas, "ao mesmo tempo". Quer dizer, as Dríadas são Ninfas, cuja vida depende da vida do carvalho e as Hamadríadas são as que "fazem corpo com o carvalho", isto é, estão incorporadas a esta árvore, já nascem com ela.

Em síntese temos os seguintes tipos de Ninfas:

Oceânidas (Ninfas do alto-mar) - Nereidas (ninfas dos mares internos) - Potâmidas (ninfas dos rios) - Náiades (ninfas dos ribeiros e riachos) - Crenéias (Ninfas das Fontes) - Pegéias (ninfas das nascentes) - Limneidas (ninfas dos lagos e lagoas) - Napéias (ninfas dos vales e selvas) - Oréadas (ninfas das montanhas e colinas) - Dríadas (ninfas das árvores e particularmente dos carvalhos) - Hamadríadas (ninfas dos carvalhos) - Melíades (ninfas dos freixos).

Ref. Bibliográfica:

BRANDÃO, Junito de Souza. Mitologia Greva Vol I. Petrópolis, Vozes, 2004;

Odsson Ferreira

Fonte: www.templodeapolo.net

Birth and Death of a Star

Birth and Death of a Star

Astronomers think that a star begins to form as a dense cloud of gas in the arms of spiral galaxies. Individual hydrogen atoms fall with increasing speed and energy toward the center of the cloud under the force of the star's gravity. The increase in energy heats the gas. When this process has continued for some millions of years, the temperature reaches about 20 million degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the hydrogen within the star ignites and burns in a continuing series of nuclear reactions. The onset of these reactions marks the birth of a star.

When a star begins to exhaust its hydrogen supply, its life nears an end. The first sign of a star's old age is a swelling and reddening of its outer regions. Such an aging, swollen star is called a red giant. The Sun, a middle-aged star, will probably swell to a red giant in 5 billion years, vaporizing Earth and any creatures that may be on its surface. When all its fuel has been exhausted, a star cannot generate sufficient pressure at its center to balance the crushing force of gravity. The star collapses under the force of its own weight; if it is a small star, it collapses gently and remains collapsed. Such a collapsed star, at its life's end, is called a white dwarf. The Sun will probably end its life in this way. A different fate awaits a large star. Its final collapse generates a violent explosion, blowing the innards of the star out into space. There, the materials of the exploded star mix with the primeval hydrogen of the universe. Later in the history of the galaxy, other stars are formed out of this mixture. The Sun is one of these stars. It contains the debris of countless other stars that exploded before the Sun was born.

In 2006, astronomers were excited about star formation in Arp 220, a super galaxy created by the collision of two other galaxies 250 million light-years from Earth. The Hubble Space Telescope has observed more than 200 huge star clusters, giving scientists a glimpse of what occurred when the universe was young. A surprising find was that the mix of gas and dust in this new galaxy is very similar to our own older Milky Way.

Read more: Birth and Death of a Star — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004429.html#ixzz15vZxTTPa

The Birth of a Star

Picture a huge dark cloud made up of gas and dust (a nebula)
in space. When a nearby star explodes, a shock wave travels through the
cloud. The cloud begins to shrink and divide into even smaller swirling
clouds. As the cloud collapses, energy is released, which causes it to
heat up. The centre of the cloud, called the prostar, gets hotter and hotter
to about 10 million degrees or more until it ignites and a new star is
born.

Most of the gas in interstellar clouds is hydrogen. And
at such high temperatures, the hydrogen atoms start to combine, or fuse
together. This fusion reaction produces enormous amounts of energy as light,
heat and other radiation. When this happens, the collapsing cloud starts
to shine as a star.

The outward "pressure" of the radiation coming from the
core of the new star acts against the matter that is collapsing under gravity.
Eventually the two balance each other, and the collapse ceases. The star
settles down and begins to shine steadily. It takes a star the size of
the Sun about 50 million years to reach this state.

The hottest stars are blue-white in colour and burn their
hydrogen fuel very quickly. The Sun, a small yellow star, burns hydrogen
more steadily. Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Sun, burns its
gas very slowly and is a cool, red star. The speed at which the stars burn
hydrogen determines how long they will live.

A Sun-sized star shines steadily for about 10,000 million
years, until the hydrogen fuel in its core is used up. The star then begins
to collapse again under gravity. The heat triggers off hydrogen fusion
in the gassy shell surrounding the core. The shell heats up, causing the
star to expand and brighten. But the core continues to shrink and get hotter.

Blue giants have a short life, and explode dramatically.
The Sun will continue to burn for another 5 billion years. Then it will
expand into a large red giant and finally shrink to a white dwarf. Proxima
Centauri, however, will remain unchanged for tens of billions of years.

How Does a Star Die?

Posted in: Astronomy by Fraser Cain (2 Comments »)

So a star has reached middle age by fusing hydrogen into helium. Then what happens? Once a star has run out of usable hydrogen that it can convert into helium, a star then takes one of several paths.
If the star is 0.5 solar masses (half the mass of our sun), electron degeneracy pressure will prevent the star from collapsing in upon itself. Due to the age of the universe, scientists can only use computer modeling to predict what will happen to such a star. Once it has finished its active phase (hydrogen to helium), it becomes a white dwarf.
A white dwarf can come about in one of two ways; first, if the star is very small, electron degeneracy pressure simply stops the collapse of the star, it is out of hydrogen, and it becomes a white dwarf. Secondly, and more commonly, the core of the star can still be surrounded by some layers of hydrogen, which continue to fuse and cause the star to expand, becoming a red giant.
A red giant is a star in the process of fusing helium to form carbon and oxygen. If there is insufficient energy to make this happen, the outer shell of the star will shed leaving behind an inert core or oxygen and carbon – a remnant white dwarf. If enough energy is involved in the casting off of stellar casings, a nebula can form. If said white dwarf is in a binary system, it could become a type 1A supernova, but this is very rare. Instead, it is thought that a white dwarf will eventually cool to become a black dwarf – in theory because there are no white dwarfs older than the universe, black dwarfs are theoretical only because there hasn’t been enough time for one to form.
If a star that has reached the end of its productive phase is below the Chandrasekhar Limit – 1.4 times the mass of our Sun – it will become a white dwarf; over this limit, it will become a neutron star. If a star is larger than about 5 times the mass of the sun, when the hydrogen fusing stops, a supernova will take place and the rest of the material will condense into a black hole.

THE DEATH OF STARS

Stars expand as they grow old. As their core runs out of hydrogen and then helium, the core contacts and the outer layers expand, cool, and become less bright. This is a red giant or a red super giant (depending on the initial mass of the star). It will eventually collapse and explode. A star's life span and eventual fate are determined by the original mass of the star.

Life span:

The most massive stars have the shortest lives. Stars that are 25 to 50 times that of the Sun live for only a few million years. They die so quickly because they burn massive amounts of nuclear fuel.

For example, Betelgeuse (the second-brightest star in Orion) is a red supergiant star that is about 20 times more massive than the Sun. It is about 14,000 times brighter than the Sun and burns nuclear fuel at a rate 14,000 times faster than than that of the Sun. The Sun will live about 7,000 times longer than a massive star like Betelgeuse.

Stars like our Sun live for about 10 billion years. Stars less massive than the Sun have even longer life spans.

Fate of a Star:

A star will become either a black dwarf, neutron star, or black hole, depending on how massive it was. .

Sun-like Stars (Mass under 1.5 times the mass of the Sun) --> Red Giant --> Planetary Nebula -->White Dwarf --> Black Dwarf

Huge Stars (Mass between 1.5 to 3 times the mass of the Sun) --> Red SuperGiant --> Supernova --> Neutron Star

Giant Stars (Mass over 3 times the mass of the Sun) --> Red SuperGiant --> Supernova --> Black Hole

EVOLVED STAR

An evolved star is an old star that is near the end of its existence. Its nuclear fuel is mostly gone. The star loses mass from its surface, producing a stellar wind (gas that is ejected from the surface of a star). Older stars produce more stellar wind than younger stars.

The Star Cycle


Sun-sized Stars

	The Nebula A huge cloud of hydrogen, helium and microscopic dust.
	The Protostar The centre of the nebula gets hotter as it shrinks, finally creating a new star.
	The Life of the Star The star may last for several billions of years, reamining unchanged.
	The Red giant The star expands up to 100 times while becoming a red giant.
	Planetary Nebula In time all the helium in the core is used up, and the star again begins to shrink. The star blows off its outer layer into space. Through the telescope the matter looks much like a planet and so early astronomers called it a planetry nebula.
	The White Dwarf Eventually gravity crushes the matter in the star into a small planet-sized body of immense density.

Stars smaller than the Sun (Brown Dwarf)

	The Nebula A huge cloud of hydrogen, helium and microscopic dust.
	1/20 Solar mass star The dust and gas collapse and forms a star.
	Brown Dwarf Star The star never shines brightly.

  Massive Stars (10 Solar mass stars)

	The Nebula A huge cloud of hydrogen, helium and microscopic dust.
	10 Solar mass star The nebula forms a star 10 times larger than the Sun
	Supergiant Star After burning a few million years, the star swells up into a supergiant
	Supernova The star explodes blasting itself apart spectacularly.
	Neutron Star The compressed core remains and forms a neutron star

   Very Massive Stars (30 Solar Mass Stars)

	The Nebula A huge cloud of hydrogen, helium and microscopic dust.
	30 Solar mass star The nebula forms a star the size 30 times the Sun.
	Supergiant Star After burning a few million years, the star swells up into a supergiant
	Supernova The star explodes blasting itself apart spectacularly.
	The Black Hole The core of the star becomes smaller and smaller until finally it is smaller than the head of a pin. The star, however, still has gravity which is so strong that a few kilometres around the star cannot escpae. This is called a black hole.

Star's Death Tables

Stars Die

The moon shook and curled up like gentle fire
The ocean glazed and melted wire
Voices buzzed in spiral eyes
Stars dived in blinding skies

Stars die
Blinding skies

Tree cracked and mountain cried
Bridges broke, and window sighed
Cells grew up and rivers burst
Sound obscured and sense reversed

Stars die
Blinding skies

[Richard Nixon Sample:
Hello Neil and Buzz, I am talking to you by telephone from the Oval Room at the White House, and this certainly has to be the most historic telephone call ever made from the White House.
I just can’t tell you how proud we all are of what you have done. For every American this has to be the proudest day of our lives,
Because of what you have done the heavens have become a part of man’s world, and as you talk to us from the Sea of Tranquility, it inspires us to redouble our efforts to bring peace and tranquility to earth]

Idle mind and severed soul
Silent nerves and begging bowl
Shallow haze to blast a way
Hyper sleep to end the day

Stars die
Blinding skies

Stars die
Blinding skies

Is the Big Bang a black hole?

This question can be made into several more specific questions with different
answers.

Why did the universe not collapse and form a black hole at the beginning?

Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole.
After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than
that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly.
At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the
Schwarzschild radius for its mass.  Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being
trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the
singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly.  How can this be?

The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly
near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down.  Space can be flat even
when spacetime is not.  Spacetime's curvature can come from the temporal parts of the
spacetime metric which measures the deceleration of the expansion of the universe.
So the total curvature of spacetime is related to the density of matter, but there is a
contribution to curvature from the expansion as well as from any curvature of space.
The Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static and demonstrates the
limits placed on a static spherical body before it must collapse to a black hole.
The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter.

What is the distinction between the Big Bang model and a black hole?

The standard Big Bang models are the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) solutions of the
gravitational field equations of general relativity.  These can describe open or
closed universes.  All of these FRW universes have a singularity at their beginning,
which represents the Big Bang.  Black holes also have singularities.
Furthermore, in the case of a closed universe no light can escape, which is just the common
definition of a black hole.  So what is the difference?

The first clear difference is that the Big Bang singularity of the FRW models lies in
the past of all events in the universe, whereas the singularity of a black hole lies in
the future.  The Big Bang is therefore more like a "white hole": the time-reversed
version of a black hole.  According to classical general relativity white holes
should not exist, since they cannot be created for the same (time-reversed) reasons that
black holes cannot be destroyed.  But this might not apply if they have always
existed.

But the standard FRW Big Bang models are also different from a white hole.  A
white hole has an event horizon that is the reverse of a black hole event horizon.
Nothing can pass into this horizon, just as nothing can escape from a black hole
horizon.  Roughly speaking, this is the definition of a white hole.  Notice that
it would have been easy to show that the FRW model is different from a standard black- or
white hole solution such as the static Schwarzschild solutions or rotating Kerr solutions,
but it is more difficult to demonstrate the difference from a more general black- or white
hole.  The real difference is that the FRW models do not have the same type of event
horizon as a black- or white hole.  Outside a white hole event horizon there are
world lines that can be traced back into the past indefinitely without ever meeting the
white hole singularity, whereas in an FRW cosmology all worldlines originate at the
singularity.

Even so, could the Big Bang be a black- or white hole?

In the previous answer I was careful only to argue that the standard FRW Big Bang model
is distinct from a black- or white hole.  The real universe may be different from the
FRW universe, so can we rule out the possibility that it is a black- or white hole?  I
am not going to enter into such issues as to whether there was actually a singularity, and
I will assume here that general relativity is correct.

The previous argument against the Big Bang's being a black hole still applies.
The black hole singularity always lies on the future light cone, whereas astronomical
observations clearly indicate a hot Big Bang in the past.  The possibility that the
Big Bang is actually a white hole remains.

The major assumption of the FRW cosmologies is that the universe is homogeneous and
isotropic on large scales.  That is, it looks the same everywhere and in every
direction at any given time.  There is good astronomical evidence that the
distribution of galaxies is fairly homogeneous and isotropic on scales larger than a few
hundred million light years.  The high level of isotropy of the cosmic background
radiation is strong supporting evidence for homogeneity.  However, the size of the
observable universe is limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe.  We
see only as far as about ten to twenty thousand million light years, which is about 100
times larger than the scales on which structure is seen in galaxy distributions.

Homogeniety has always been a debated topic.  The universe itself may well be many
orders of magnitude larger than what we can observe, or it may even be infinite.
Astronomer Martin Rees compares our view with looking out to sea from a ship in the middle
of the ocean.  As we look out beyond the local disturbances of the waves, we see an
apparently endless and featureless seascape.  From a ship the horizon will be only a
few miles away, and the ocean may stretch for hundreds of miles before there is
land.  When we look out into space with our largest telescopes, our view is also
limited to a finite distance.  No matter how smooth it seems, we cannot assume that
it continues like that beyond what we can see.  So homogeneity is not certain on
scales much larger than the observable universe.  We might argue in favour of it on
philosophical grounds, but we cannot prove it.

In that case, we must ask if there is a white hole model for the universe that would be
as consistent with observations as the FRW models.  Some people initially think that
the answer must be no, because white holes (like black holes) produce tidal forces that
stretch and compress in different directions.  Hence they are quite different from
what we observe.  This is not conclusive, because it applies only to the spacetime of
a black hole in the absence of matter.  Inside a star the tidal forces can be
absent.

A white hole model that fits cosmological observations would have to be the time
reverse of a star collapsing to form a black hole.  To a good approximation, we could
ignore pressure and treat it like a spherical cloud of dust with no internal forces other
than gravity.  Stellar collapse has been intensively studied since the seminal work
of Snyder and Oppenheimer in 1939 and this simple case is well understood.  It is
possible to construct an exact model of stellar collapse in the absence of pressure by
gluing together any FRW solution inside the spherical star and a Schwarzschild solution
outside.  Spacetime within the star remains homogeneous and isotropic during the
collapse.

It follows that the time reversal of this model for a collapsing sphere of dust is
indistinguishable from the FRW models if the dust sphere is larger than the observable
universe.  In other words, we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is a
very large white hole.  Only by waiting many billions of years until the edge of the
sphere comes into view could we know.

It has to be admitted that if we drop the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy then
there are many other possible cosmological models, including many with non-trivial
topologies.  This makes it difficult to derive anything concrete from such
theories.  But this has not stopped some brave and imaginative cosmologists thinking
about them.  One of the most exciting possibilities was considered by C. Hellaby in
1987, who envisaged the universe being created as a string of beads of isolated while holes
that explode independently and coalesce into one universe at a certain moment.  This
is all described by a single exact solution of general relativity.

There is one final twist in the answer to this question.  It has been suggested by
Stephen Hawking that once quantum effects are accounted for, the distinction between black
holes and white holes might not be as clear as it first seems.  This is due to
"Hawking radiation", a mechanism by which black holes can lose matter.  (See the
relativity FAQ article on Hawking radiation.)  A black
hole in thermal equilibrium with surrounding radiation might have to be time symmetric, in
which case it would be the same as a white hole.  This idea is controversial, but if
true it would mean that the universe could be both a white hole and a black hole at the
same time.  Perhaps the truth is even stranger.  In other words, who knows?

References

For the mathematical details of the FRW standard Big Bang models, black hole solutions
and, in particular, the model of stellar collapse that is a combination of FRW and
Schwarzschild's black hole solution, see:

Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, Freeman (1973).


An excellent book giving a comprehensive guide to inhomogeneous cosmologies including
white hole solutions is

Andrzej Krasinski Inhomogeneous cosmological models, Cambridge University Press
(1997).


For Hawking's suggestion that black holes are also white holes see

Hawking and Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton (1996).


The seascape analogy of Martin Rees can be found in his excellent book:

Before the Beginning, Our universe and others , Simon and Schuster,
(1997).


My thanks go to Andrzej Krasinski for useful information about inhomogeneous
cosmologies.

Are We Living in a Designer Universe?

ARE WE LIVING IN A DESIGNER UNIVERSE ? Article by Astronomer John Gribbin

Posted on September 5, 2010 by bhavanajagat

THE DESIGNER AND THE DESIGN :

A Designer Universe is described by a Greek word called 'COSMOS' which means Beauty and Order.

If an object comes into existence as a new object, and if it is unique, distinctive, and one of its kind, I would describe that object as a created object and it cannot be described as a manufactured object. The distinction between creating an object and manufacturing an object is that of inspiration; the action must be characterized by creative thought or influence. Astronomer John Gribbin in his article about the origin of Universe makes an attempt to discuss “Unknown” “Unknowns”. He considers that God is unknown and incomprehensible. Instead of discussing “Unknown” ‘Unknowns”, we may rather try to understand known “Unknowns”. If the Universe is a “Multiverse” with unknown physical laws operating equally unknown universes, the discussion would be futile. We are not present at the time of the birth of this Universe in which we exist today. The birth and the origin of this Universe is unknown. However, we know the Universe as it exists today and it is partly known and comprehensible. It is reasonable to reflect upon the known aspects of this known Universe.
PlANET EARTH IS A CREATED OBJECT :

Different planets have different rates of Rotation. Earth's Rotational Spin makes it a unique Celestial Body. This Rotational Spin is a characteristic of its Design with purpose, and imagination.

This is the photo image of a new Exoplanet. It is not an Earth like object. This new planet has a different rate of rotation.

There are good and valid reasons to believe that planet Earth is unique, distinctive, and one of its own kind. Man has not discovered any object in this Universe which could be comparable to planet Earth. Man is endowed with Sensory Perception, Mind, Intellect, and Consciousness. The sky that man visualizes while existing on Earth is BLUE in color and the color of the sky beyond planet Earth is BLACK. This Visual Sense Perception demands existence of special organs for Color perception and an appropriate physical medium that can scatter Light rays. Man has organs for Hearing, his environment has the natural ability to propagate Sound Waves, and several of the living entities have special organs to generate Sound. This ability to produce Sound, Propagate Sound Energy, and Perception of Sound is unique to our planet Earth. Unless demonstrated by evidence of Sound Recordings, this Auditory Sense Perception prevails only on planet Earth. Apart from the Soil of this Earth which has a unique fragrance of its own called ‘GEOSMIN’, Man exists in a fragrant world. This Olfactory Sense Perception is a unique experience and could exist only on planet Earth. For this Olfactory Sense function we need the simultaneous operation of physical, chemical, and biotic factors. The Fresh Water that supports Man’s Life has an original, and distinctive pure taste of its own. Man lives tasting unique organic molecules which produce the Gustatory experience. As the saying goes, ‘The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating’; we need acceptable proof about the existence of such unique organic molecules in the rest of the Universe. Today, planet Earth is the only place where Man can Dine and Wine. Man has the ability to actually experience the Power of Creation. The Tactile Sense Perception gives Man the ability to hold his own Baby in his arms and directly experience the New Product as a Created Object. Man always comes into existence as a new, distinctive, unique, and one of his own kind Object. The unique GENOME with which Man takes his birth and comes to Life has not existed before and would not exist again after his Death. 

Astronaut Edwin Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 Mission on Lunar Soil. Man has not yet discovered "BLUE SKY" in the rest of the Universe away from his Planetary Home.

INTELLIGENCE AND CONSCIOUSNESS :
Intelligence is the ability to acquire and to retain Knowledge. Hence, it may be stated that Intelligence is characterized by the presence of Knowledge. The Laws that operate in the material universe have no intelligence. Nonliving matter has no intelligence. Intelligence can only exist in living entities that have the abilities of Perception, Cognition, Awareness, and Consciousness. Knowledge means the Act of Knowing, the State of Knowing, and the Fact of Knowing a range of information. Man, and other living entities which are endowed with Intelligence can use and exploit the Natural Laws that operate in the material Universe to sustain their own existence. Physical Systems do not need Intelligence in their mechanical operations. I must also add that “Unintelligent Laws” that operate material Nature and Universe cannot give birth to “Intelligent” minds. Intelligence and Knowledge are Biological Functions and they characterize only Living Systems. Both Intelligence and Knowledge are revealed in application of information in a function/action/activity of a living organism. This ability which gives a sense of ‘Awareness’ of the environment in which a living organism exists is called ‘Consciousness’. The Living Organism is a Conscious entity, and it demonstrates its intelligence and knowledge in its living functions. Man uses his intelligence to exploit the Laws of Nature to his advantage. Man harnesses energy from wind, sun, flowing water, and surf. He generates a new form of energy using these resources of energy. He uses intelligence to transform coal energy into fossil fuel, or to generate electrical power. If water flows only in the direction of a natural gradient, man installs a pump and makes the water flow in the opposite direction. Similarly, plants trap light energy and transform radiation energy into chemical energy and create organic molecules. Man oxidizes these organic molecules and converts oxidative energy into chemical energy which he further uses for all of his living functions. A stone could also get heated by Sun and trap some light energy. Stone has no Intelligence or Knowledge and it cannot convert the energy it gained into a different form of energy and use it to build molecules of its own kind. Metals, liquids, and gases do physically expand upon heating and such expansion is not associated with addition of new molecules of their own kind. Only living entities have the “ability” to exploit energy from material nature. The “DESIGNER” who has Mind and Intelligence could be defined as a Living System as Life could be defined as “Knowledge in Action.”

The Mind and Intellect of the Designer is always imprinted on His Design. Man experiences his Life on planet Earth with the help of a 'Biological Clock' which acts as an internal timing mechanism.

Indian Tradition offers a very simple and reasonable explanation to all this. Bhagavad Gita, Chapter VII( Knowledge of the Absolute ), verses 4 and 5 states that “Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence, and false ego – altogether these eight comprise My separated material energies. ( Material Nature is known as ‘Prakriti’ ). There is a superior energy of Mine; which are all living entities who are struggling with material nature and who sustain the universe.” Further, verse 9 states that, “I am the life of all that lives.” Verse 10 states that, “I am the original seed of all existences.” Verse 8 affirms that, “I am …… ability in man.” If Mind, and Intelligence are viewed as forms of material energy, the embodied Soul has the “ABILITY” to exploit that energy apart from energies of material nature or Prakriti. The Knowledge of the Absolute describes Living entities as manifestations of Lord Krishna’s Superior Energy. Man is related to the Superior Energy and hence the Living Systems and the Absolute share the same characteristics like Knowledge, Intelligence, and Consciousness. The Bhagavad Gita in Chapter X ( The Opulence of the Absolute), verse 22 states that “……… in living beings I am Consciousness.” The Status of Man in Nature and his conditioned Existence on planet Earth describes the Design and testifies about the Mind and Intellect of the Designer, a Creator God.

The Bhagavad Gita reveals the Mind and Intellect of the Designer. The Design for this Universe and the Plan of Creation are Revealed in Chapter X ( The Opulence of the Absolute ), verse 8 states:"I am the source of everything; from Me the entire Creation flows."

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter XVIII ( The Perfection of Renunciation ) in verses 13 and 14 explains that there are five “causes” in the accomplishment of any action, or any kind of work including that of creation and designing the Universe and the living entities that struggle and sustain this Universe. If there are no living entities, there would be no struggle with material nature, and there would be no purpose for the Universe to exist. The five factors of action are 1. the Place of Action, 2. The Doer, 3. the Senses, 4. the Endeavor, 5. and ultimately the Super Soul (which is often stated as the PRIME CAUSE). The Absolute, or the Super Soul has functioning Sense Organs or a Sensory System, and has Intelligence, Mind, Knowledge, Ability, and Consciousness. Lord Krishna has described Himself as the “Consciousness in all the living entities.”

There are five factors of action; the place of action, the doer, the senses, the endeavor, and the Supersoul or Prime Cause. This Designer Universe in which Man exists reveals all the five causes that accomplished the Act of Creation.

Please review my blog post titled “I am Consciousness, therefore I am” for further discussion about ‘SOUL AND CONSCIOUSNESS’.
http://bhavanajagat.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/i-am-consciousness-therefore-i-am/
Dr. R. Rudra Narasimham,
Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India,
M.B.B.S., Class of April, 1970.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/508460-are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Are we living in a designer universe?

By JOHN GRIBBIN - THE DAILY TELEGRAPH

Added: Tuesday, 31 August 2010 at 4:41 PM
The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today.
As with much else in modern physics, the idea involves particle acceleration, the kind of thing that goes on in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Before the LHC began operating, a few alarmists worried that it might create a black hole which would destroy the world. That was never on the cards: although it is just possible that the device could generate an artificial black hole, it would be too small to swallow an atom, let alone the Earth.
However, to create a new universe would require a machine only slightly more powerful than the LHC – and there is every chance that our own universe may have been manufactured in this way.
This is possible for two reasons. First, black holes may – as science fiction aficionados will be well aware – act as gateways to other regions of space and time. Second, because of the curious fact that gravity has negative energy, it takes no energy to make a universe. Despite the colossal amount of energy contained in every atom of matter, it is precisely balanced by the negativity of gravity.
Black holes, moreover, are relatively easy to make. For any object, there is a critical radius, called the Schwarzschild radius, at which its mass will form a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is about two miles, 1/200,000th of its current width; for the Earth to become a black hole, it would have to be squeezed into a ball with a radius of one centimetre.
The black holes that could be created in a particle accelerator would be far smaller: tiny masses squeezed into incredibly tiny volumes. But because of gravity’s negative energy, it doesn’t matter how small such holes are: they still have the potential to inflate and expand in their own dimensions (rather than gobbling up our own). Such expansion was precisely what our universe did in the Big Bang, when it suddenly exploded from a tiny clump of matter into a fully-fledged cosmos.
Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology first proposed the now widely accepted idea of cosmic inflation – that the starting point of the Big Bang was far smaller, and its expansion far more rapid, than had been assumed. He has investigated the technicalities of “the creation of universes in the laboratory”, and concluded that the laws of physics do, in principle, make it possible.
The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an “intelligent designer” monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.
However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a “multiverse” where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more.
If such designers make universes by manufacturing black holes – the only way to do it that we are aware of – there are three levels at which they might operate. The first is just to manufacture black holes, without influencing the laws of physics in the new universe. Humanity is nearly at this level, which Gregory Benford’s novel Cosm puts in an entertaining context: an American researcher finds herself, after an explosion in a particle accelerator, with a new universe on her hands, the size of a baseball.
The second level, for a slightly more advanced civilisation, would involve nudging the properties of the baby universes in a certain direction. It might be possible to tweak the black holes in such a way that the force of gravity was a little stronger than in the parent universe, without the designers being able to say exactly how much stronger.
The third level, for a very advanced civilisation, would involve the ability to set precise parameters, thereby designing it in detail. An analogy would be with designer babies – instead of tinkering with DNA to get a perfect child, a scientists might tinker with the laws of physics to get a perfect universe. Crucially, though, it would not be possible in any of these cases – even at the most advanced level – for the designers to interfere with the baby universes once they had formed. From the moment of its own Big Bang, each universe would be on its own.
This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with “unintelligent” universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than “natural”.
While the intelligence required to do the job may be (slightly) superior to ours, it is of a kind that is recognisably similar to our own, rather than that of an infinite and incomprehensible God. And the most likely reason for such an intelligence to make universes is the same for doing things like climbing mountains, or studying the nature of subatomic particles – because we can. A civilisation that has the technology to make baby universes would surely find the temptation irresistible. And if the intelligences are anything like our own, there would be an overwhelming temptation at the higher levels of universe design to improve upon the results.
This idea provides the best resolution yet to the puzzle Albert Einstein used to raise, that “the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible”. The universe is comprehensible to the human mind because it was designed, at least to some extent, by intelligent beings with minds similar to our own.
The great British astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested that the laws of physics were so uniquely conducive to human existence that the universe must be “a put-up job”. I believe he was right: the universe was indeed set up to provide a home for life, even if it evolved through a process of natural selection, with no need for outside interference. It isn’t that man was created in God’s image – rather that our universe was created, more or less, in the image of its designers.
Dr John Gribbin is a visiting fellow in Astronomy at the University of Sussex and author of ‘In Search of the Multiverse‘ (Penguin), available from Telegraph Books for £9.99 plus 99p p&p. Call 0844 8711515 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk 

http://bhavanajagat.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe-article-by-astronomer-john-gribbin/