
By Brajahari das
In this article, I compare the origin of universe as described in the Srimad Bhagavatam (SB) and the Big Bang (BB) theory .
1. The initial state
According to SB, the initial state of matter immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhÄna (SB 3.26.10p). In the BB theory, this initial state is called the singularity. The table below compares these two states:
|
PradhÄna SB 3.26.10p, SB12.4.20,21 |
Singularity ref : [1]-[4] |
|
*Unmanifested/undifferentiated form of matter. *No manifestation of gross/subtle element (i.e. no space, air, fire, etc). |
*No formation of matter or space. |
|
*Undifferentiated, yet total material elements are contained therein. *Void & No space. Total matter in zero space=infinite density |
*Contained all of the matter of the universe, condensed in an infinitely small point of zero space. Total matter in zero space=infinite density |
|
*No manifestation of cause/effect. No reaction of material elements. |
*All the laws of physics break down. |
|
*No time. |
*time=0 |
|
*Indescribable
|
*Cannot be described by any mathematical/physical model. Defies our current understanding of physics & common sense. |
|
*Original substance, it is the actual basis of material creation. |
*The origin of universe. |
|
*No consciousness/soul |
*N.A. |
Table 1: The comparison of pradhÄna from SB and the singularity from BB. All descriptions of pradhÄna are almost verbatim from SB 3.26.10p & SB12.4.20,21.
The table indicates a clear similarity between these two initial states. Both states, i.e. pradhÄna and singularity, refer to a condition where no matter/space is manifested. Since, not even space is manifested, it is just an infinitely small point. SB describes it as void. Although no manifestation of matter/space, yet the total matter is contained and densely packed therein. It is a state where all physical laws break and thus beyond our ability to perceive.
2. In the beginning
According to both SB and BB, the process starts with introduction of time.
|
Srimad Bhagavatam SB3.26.17, SB 2.5.22 |
Big Bang Theory ref : [1]-[4] |
|
Time is injected into the pradhana. The pradhÄna (unmanifested matter) is agitated and it begins to manifest.Thus creation/activity begins. |
Time starts and the process begins.
|
|
Cause: Time is injected by the glance of the Lord Mahavisnu. |
Cause: The cause for Bing Bang is admitted as unknown by modern science.1-3
|
|
By glancing the Lord also injects souls with their respective karma. |
N.A. |
Table 2: Time causes the transformation of the initial state into manifested universe.
- âEvents before the BB, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them… These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency.â Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time [4].
- There are many speculative proposals regarding the origin of BB: quantum fluctuation, big bounce, multiverse, quantum gravity loop, M-theory, God etc. None of these has any evidence yet.
- There are various of interpretations quantum mechanics, e.g. The Copenhagen, Many World, Hidden Variable, de BroglieâBohm, Von NeumannâWigner, ect – on how matter takes a specific state. According to Von NeumannâWigner interpretation, a conscious observation is required for matter to take a specific state. One criticism against this interpretation is: âthere was no observer during BBâ. The SB emphasizes on âthe glance of the Lord over pradhanaâ. However, it is worth noting that none of these quantum interpretations has been accepted unanimously by scientists.[6]
3. Transformation of matter
According to SB, once time is injected, material nature is agitated and thus transformation begins. First, modes of material nature interacts, manifesting subtle and thereafter gross matter. In various sections of SB, the evolution of gross matter is presented consistently, i.e. space –>air –>fire –>water –>earth. The BB also agrees that with time the universe begins to evolve. BB is an empirical theory, based on methodology which deals only with gross matter. I have compared the transformation/evolution of gross matter in both the SB and BB, in the table below:
|
Srimad Bhagavatam SB 2.5.25-29, SB 3.26.32-44 |
Big Bang Theory ref : [1]-[4] |
|
First: Interaction of the modes of material nature and manifestation of the subtle elements occurs. |
N.A. |
|
From false ego, the first of the five elements, namely the sky, is generated. |
First the universe expands exponentially from an infinitely small point creating space. |
|
Because the sky is transformed, the air is generated. |
As space expands, the universe cools down enabling formation of fundamental particles and eventually lighter atoms such as hydrogen & helium. Due to gravity, these elements clusters together in space forming gas clouds. |
|
When the air is transformed in course of time and natureâs course, fire is generated.
|
As the gas clouds become denser, gravitational collapse causes atomic fusion, and thus forming stars, which releases light and heat. This is the end of the âdark age of the universeâ as the universe begins to have visible light. |
|
Since fire is also transformed, there is a manifestation of water. |
Within the core of the star, atomic fusion generates heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen (upto iron). When the star dies, it explodes (supernova) releasing these elements into space . Water is formed here, due the chemical reaction between oxygen and hydrogen. [5] |
|
Thence the earth becomes manifest. |
Due to gravity, exploded star dust further clusters together forming planets. In âearthlyâ planets geological/weathering process forms soil/earth. |
Table 3: The transformation of matter in time.
Disclaimer : I compiled Table 3 based on my overall & limited understanding of SB. As the SB is very deep and large, there could be details that may either enhance, raise questions or invalidate these comparisons. However the individual details are accurate, and as such, I leave it to the readerâs discretion to make the comparison.
FAQ
- Explosion only destroys, cannot create order.
Scientists generally consider âexplosionâ as a misnomer for BB, in the sense, there was no space to explode into. Rather, BB is an expansion of space from singularity, and evolution of matter thereafter. This is similar to the âagitation of pradhanaâ and transformation into manifested prakrti, with space being the first manifested gross element. In other words, âBB explosionâ is similar to âagitation of pradhanaâ in SB. In fact, Srila Prabhupada had called the âBB explosionâ as ânot theory, but factâ, and compared it with the âagitation of pradhanaâ (refer below).
- How can everything starts from nothing?
PradhÄna is also described as void (SB 12.4.20), and yet total matter is contained therein (SB 3.26.10). Similarly, the singularity is an infinitesimal point, containing total mass of the universe. Singularity/pradhÄna is described as ânothingâ/âvoidâ as it has no space or manifestation of matter. Yet it contains total matter for the manifestation of the universe.
- Srila Prabhupada (SP) criticized BB as bogus.
SP did not reject, rather often points out the limitation of the theory. SPâs focus was to establish Lord Krishna as the cause of all cause. For example, in the following lecture, when SP was asked about the âBB explosionâ, SP accepted it as ânot just a theory but factâ, comparing it to SB, emphasizing on the cause:
âExplosion, yes. So they are seeing that explosion and the chunk, but they cannot explain how the chunk became exploded. …Material energy itself cannot explode. The explosion theory is there… Not theory, fact. But the total material energy, mahat-tattva, when it is glanced over by MahÄ-ViáčŁáču, then it becomes agitated, and the modes of material nature begins to act. So then these activities are executed by MahÄ-ViáčŁáču, by His glancing, simply by His glancing… So simply by glancing, He can agitate the material energy, and the creation begins.â Srila Prabhupada, Lecture CC Adi 01.12
Note that, SPâs arguments are in line with the limitations accepted by modern science :
- âEvents before the BB, are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them…These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency.â Stephen Hawking, The Beginning of Time [4].
- âWhat caused the BB?Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only after the BB occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.â [2]
- BB is based on many assumptions and could be proven wrong in the future.
This could be true. But the details in SB always remain as facts, independent of the BB.
- God personally creates the universe, magically by his mystic potencies. He does not use scientific rules/laws.
Material manifestation is taken care by the external energy of the Lord. i.e. material nature :
Bg 9.10 â This material nature, which is one of My energies, is working under My direction, O son of KuntÄ«, producing all moving and nonmoving beings. Under its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.
SB 2.10.45 â There is no direct engineering by the Lord for the creation and destruction of the material world. What is described in the Vedas about His direct interference is simply to counteract the idea that material nature is the creator.
Conclusion
I have compiled the origin of universe based on the SB and the BB theory. The BB theory is based on empirical science which could deal only with gross matter. As far as evolution of gross matter is concerned, both SB and the BB appear to be in good agreement. SB gives further information regarding subtle elements, consciousness as well as the supreme cause.
The cause for the BB is admitted as unknown by todayâs science. Moreover, scientists believe that the cause must be beyond space and time, outside our experience and due to external agency [2],[4]. At present there are many speculative theories, i.e. quantum fluctuation, big bounce, multiverse, quantum gravity loop, M-theory, God etc. As far as science is concerned, the idea that God caused the BB, is just as speculative as the other theories. From scientific perspective, this idea does not carry any additional weightage, and contains similar pros & cons compared to the other theories.
However, here we find an ancient text, SB – giving knowledge consistent with a modern scientific theory. Note that, this BB theory is less than one century old and it was developed based on complex physics and using high-tech equipments. The state of singularity in BB, which is a prediction Einstein’s theory of general relativity and is beyond the ability of any human mind to grasp – is strikingly similar to the state of pradhÄna as detailed in SB. Doesnât all these indicate the credibility of SB? Wouldnât SB be a reasonably valid source to gain knowledge which are beyond the scope of empirical science?
Hare krshna.
I highly recommend the readers to watch the following short clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY
http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html
And read the following verses & purports:
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/12/4/20-21
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/3/26/10
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/3/26/17
Reference for BigBang:
I have provided simple/non-technical references which can be easily understood:
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY
[2] http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-caused-the-big-bang.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
[4] http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html
[5] http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/physicsuniverse.html
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
References from SB are given within the article.

Pranams. In my humble opinion, there is no need to try to prove that what SB states matches with modern scientific theories since the knowledge contained in SB is beyond any doubt coming from the literary incarnation of the Lord, Srila Vyasadeva. On the other hand, we should falsify modern theories like BB theory for lack of evidence, being vague and unscientific. The proponents of modern theories should prove that their theories match with what is given in SB. If they don't want to do it now, eventually they will find that what is given in SB is correct. Till then we have to keep telling them they are Doctor frogs.
I have found few devotees familiar with the " origin" of the living entities as described in SB 3.26.20-24.
When He breaths out, unlimited universes arise from the pores of Maha Visnu's skin. When He breaths in, the living entities are extracted, and the material energy collapses into pradhana.
SB 2.10.6 says at the end of the universe, the living entities "merge" into Maha Visnu, with their conditioned tendencies. Then He breaths out and material universes again begin.
SB 3.26.22 explains that " originally" right after the begining of creation, the living entities has pure consciousness. Srila Prabhupada comments: " In pure consciousness, one can perceive a slight reflection of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." In these verses, it is described that the living entities misuse their free will and become covered by false ego.
Similar description of the " beginning" are found in Jaiva Dharma, and writings of Srila Bhaktisidhantha. Unfortunately some devotees confuse this with the origin of the living entities.
If we were more familiar with Srila Prabhupada books we would could quickly see the previous Acharya's are describing this event- the beginning of creation, which is not the ULTIMATE ORIGIN of the living entity. And if we had grasp of the fundamental ontology- that the living entity has no beginning in time( although the body and mind does) we would not be befuddled by those attempting to create a distinction between the statements of Srila Prabhupada and the previous Acharya's.
Hare Krishna. I don't think this argument is valid. We do not have any proof to what Srimad Bhagavatam says. Your statement of BB theory lacks evidence, being vague and unscientific is equally applicable to Srimad Bhagavatam descriptions according to the scientists. It is based on the devotee's faith that Sri Vyasadeva is an infallible personality and nothing more. You have faith in Sri Vyasadeva and the scientists have faith in their scientific process. Can you please tell how you can falsify the modern theories? Calling doctor frogs does not cut any ice with anyone other than devotees.
Modern theories are not provable because no one can directly observe the creation. Beyond that, the scientific paradigm is that theory should be rooted in observable facts. There is no observation of life arising from a chemicals alone. Scientists cannot create even the simplest prokaryotic bacteria from chemicals. Life is produced from seeds from other living organisms only. The only valid scientific theory would be to look for the original life form.
An infinite, all powerful God can reveal the facts. Krishna explains in BG 9.2 that devotional service gives direct perception of the self by realization, and spiritual happiness. This is distinct from material happiness, which pales in comparison. Thus one has firm grounds to accept the descriptions given by realized souls. And it is obvious that the intellect of Vyasadeva is unrivalled by modern speculators.
Theory is a proposition which has to be proven by experimentation. Theory is not a law. I did not say anything about origin of life. Your assumption that the only valid scientific theory to explore is original life form is again your belief only.
I said nothing about the nature of what is real happiness. Your statement that the intellect of Sri Vyasadeva is unrivaled is again your belief only which you can never prove. One has to study and understand how the scientists go about proving the theories. Without knowing that and declaring it is all unscientific is illogical.
You can have faith in Vyasadeva's intellect is unrivaled, nothing wrong in that. But then it cannot be said that it is a fact as it is not provable by any means. While you state your belief to be a fact , you say that what the scientists say is illogical without knowing how they arrive at their conclusions. This is most illogical.
Scientists while not knowing the origin of the laws of nature do have a good understanding of these laws and how they work. To some extent they can use these laws to manipulate matter. That knowledge cannot be thrashed. I am sure that you use the results of modern technology like mobile, flying in an aeroplane and similiar other technologies. So, would you say all this is illogical and unscientific.
You have stated scientific theories need to be falsified. Please propose how you would go about it. Simply stating something with is easy and it does add any value.