LOGIC,MOON LANDING,DIVINITY OF GURU(please use this one)

[Guest guest]

My latest comments are in red, (the earlier ones are in blue followed) by

Reference Notes in brief

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

In each science there are certain principles or laws, which are recognized as

fundamental within that science. Every conclusion which it claims to have

demonstrated depends for its validity on the truth of those principles.

 

In each case the principles have their own sphere of application. They are

principles of this or that science, and beyond it they are not operative.

 

 

 

There are, however, certain laws, which are not confined within the limits of

any one of the special sciences, but which apply to all that is, to all that has

a right to the name of Being or Thing.

 

Logic is similar. It can be seen in

 

1. Principles of Mathematics

 

2. Science

 

3. Principles of Audit -Quality Process Management (ISO 9000-2000

guidelines)

 

4. Jurisprudence (in “procedure established by law” and in “due process of

law”)

 

5. Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic – Western Philosophy

 

6. Nyaya shastras

 

7. etc

 

 

 

 

 

*My earlier statements*

 

> The Atomic model has been reviewed repeatedly for better

undertanding beginning from

> 1) Thompson

> 2) Bohr - who won a Noble prize and then

> 3) Schrodinger.

>

> New Theories replaced old ones. The zeal to understand better drove

the scientists for further study.

>

> Similarly in Mechanics :

> 1) Galileo

> 2) Newton - classical mechanics

> 3) Einstein - mechanics at speeds near the speed of light

> 4) Schrodinger, Planck, etc - Quantum mechanics.

>

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

It is not clear to me what the above has to do with moon landings or

lack thereof.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

A prudent mind will easily catch that one is hinting at possible double

standards in applying “scientific approach” in “study of atom” and in “study of

moon” as the following statement clearly mentions

 

 

 

*My earlier statements*

> Respecting the scientific approach a question comes:

> Assuming that man did land on moon in 60s and 70s - why is an

expedition not organized now ?

> Computers have advanced relatively a lot from 60s and 70s.

> An expedition now for better study would itself prove (how ethical

were the acts)of the Governments who claim that they were and that

they are commited to science and that they did not play any hoax.

> The fact is that it is not being done - no one even talks about it -

------------??????

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

There are any number of logical reasons why moon landings are no

longer undertaken:

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

The above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “are” and “logical”.

 

Logic accepts the use of the words ‘are’ and ‘logical’ only when it is backed by

substantial supportive evidence.

 

According to Principles of logic the appropriate words are “can be” and

“practical”.

 

Not doing so shows a bias.

 

The entire sentence would correctly read:

 

There can be any number of practical reasons why moon landings are no longer

undertaken:

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

1) The missions are expensive

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

True. After the “stated” moon landings there were much hyped reports about

future space & moon travels – many rich people gave lot of donations to book

their seats just to see moon as was reported in newspapers – the whole tempo

later went into cold storage. Newspapers & magazines did not report about what

happened to all the collected cash

 

>From an ISO 9000-2000 perspective a mission can be accepted as expensive w.r.t

funds available only if it is supported by documents (created, reviewed &

aproved) on

 

detailed expense forecast (based on past history, current costs & technology

)

weak customer demand (i.e from public)

possible benefits (in case of Science Research as Edison said I have

discovered 999 ways in which a bulb cannot work. Later he invented the bulb.

Note that Edison did not consider his 999 attempts to be without any gain.

History of Science shows many risks being taken few of which resulted in usable

results.)

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

2) There is no financial gain (of course, there is always the chance

to gain in knowledge, but here too there is nothing new to gain since

already many expeditions have been sent).

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the word “is”

 

Logic accepts the use of the word ‘is’ only when it is backed by substantial

supportive evidence.

 

 

 

Just because Edison tried 999 times & failed he did not give up saying that it

was illogic to explore further.

 

The argument that there is nothing new to gain since already many tries have

been done logically fails miserably in case of Thomas Alva Edison’s invention &

was rightly rejected by him inspite of the repeated rebukes from his

contemporaries.

 

“There is nothing new to gain since already many expeditions have been sent” is

an illogical statement

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

3) NASA does not enjoy the generous funding these days which it had during the

Cold War era.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

This “may be” accepted as a practical statement if and only if it is supported

by

 

documents about all the funding that NASA has got till date

a comparative study exists and has been reviewed and published of the way the

funds have been (and are being) used by NASA

Method by which NASA gives priorities to its different possible projects is

documented, published and has been consistently religiously followed

Documents exist & are publicly published which state why the advertised space

trips & moon trips were shelved

Documents exist which show that all the above were reviewed & approved by

relevant competent authorities

Review records which show evidence that the above has been consistently done

by NASA for ALL its projects for ALL the years till date.

 

(Please refer

 

· ISO 9000- 2000 guidelines which discuss about the validity & criteria

for acceptance of a statement given by any company

 

· Evidence act in Jurisprudence

 

· Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic - Philosophy)

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

The logic that "we don't go there now, therefore it must have been a hoax in the

past" is highly questionable at best.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

The above words clearly show The Fallacy of Excluded Middle.

 

(Please refer

 

· Laws of Thought in Principles of Logic - Philosophy Evidence act in

Jurisprudence

 

· Mathematics

 

· Statistical approach, etc)

 

 

 

The words that I had written were:

 

 

 

An expedition now for better study would itself prove (how ethical were the

acts) of the Governments who claim that they were and that they are committed to

science and that they did not play any hoax. The fact is that it is not being

done - no one even talks about it --??????

 

 

 

I have NOT written that “we don't go there now; therefore it must have been a

hoax in the past”

 

Explanation:

 

There are

 

+ve similar to - it has happened

0 similar to - it may or may not have happened – a state of doubt

–ve similar to - it has not happened

 

(Please refer “NOTES IN BRIEF FOR REFERENCE” in the end)

 

I had written : if we go now it would prove (when most of the countries

including India are sufficiently technologically advanced to scientifically &

technically review by observing ON THEIR OWN). Till that is not being done the

entire “moon landing display” rests in a state of doubt.

 

Wrong interpretations of my direct words prove the degree of existence of

“logical brain” in the commenter.

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

It is a public embarassment for the devotee community

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

I accept that I have always been and am still a public embarrassment to my Guru

Maharaj (though he mercifully does not think that way) inspite of him taking

eternally every possible painful effort to help and improve me. I have a long

long way to go till I learn to not misrepresent him. Please pray for me.

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

when some devotees adopt conspiracy theories based on questionable logic or bad

science.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

I accept that there is a need for both me and you and infact for all of us to

develop “strong logic” and “good science”

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

However, all of this is besides the point. The point of this group is

not to discuss moon landings or conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Thank you. It would have been more appropriate if you had mentioned this in your

first posting itself. I accept that it is a waste of time to discuss “moon

landings”

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

The point is to discuss the original issue - which is the guru's infallibility

or

omnisicience. The moon landing issue was merely an example.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

I am sorry. Based on my limited understanding “an aspiring or an elevated or

even a pure devotee is strongly FORBIDDEN to talk or EVEN THINK about

FALLIBILITY OF ANYONE what to speak about the GURU”

 

As bible also says “Thou shall not judge”

 

 

 

An intelligent faith mandates one to differentiate between

 

“the PROCESS” and

“the PERSON executing the process”.

 

One can talk about the applicability of a process based on time, place

circumstance but never ever talk or think about the fallibility of a person

unless one is doing the service of a Guru.

 

The Process can be:

 

the process of thinking (logic, rationality –its limitations in LOVE) (w.r.t

time, place & circumstance.)

the process of willing (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the process of feeling (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the process of speaking i.e the choice, tone of words used (w.r.t time, place

& circumstance.)

the process of acting (w.r.t time, place & circumstance.)

the mood involved

the consciousness involved

the different cases corresponding to each of the above

the risks and limitations involved in each of them noting that it is not

possible to represent sufficiently adequately the ABSOLUTE TRUTH – its

manifestation (creation, etc), name, forms, qualities, pastimes, etc

the contingency and mitigation strategies to handle the above risks based on

diff time, place & circumstance as given by

arthshastras

dharmashastras

jnanashastras

bhagavad shastras

 

 

corresponding to sattva, raja and tama as witnessed in Pancharatrika schools and

Bhagavad schools of learning

 

possible packaging of the above based on the contemporary terminologies and

methodologies used or a combination of them for educating & preaching.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*My earlier statements*

 

 

> As a thumb rule it is always advisable to trust people (for their

ethical approach) who have dedicated their life and senses in the

service of the Lord.

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

I am not clear on what ethics has to do with it. Srila Prabhupada

voiced a doubt as to how astronauts could land on the moon when the

Vedic view holds that one can only reach Chandra Loka via pious

activites and sacrifice.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

A devotee left the movement on hearing Srila Prabhupada on moon landing. Srila

Prabhupada cried and said that he was just speaking shastras.

 

 

 

**In the postings submitted by H H Bhakti Vikas Maharaj it can be clearly seen

that Srila Prabhupada doubted the ethical behavior of false scientists. (if one

is simple enough to accept the direct meaning)**

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

In response to this, some devotees have adopted poor scientific reasoning to

argue that the moon landing was indeed a hoax.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Please forgive me.

 

Indian reports say that Jagdish Chandra Bose was the first person to demonstrate

“wireless transmission”. The western scientific community did not allow him to

demonstrate it in front of them. He was NOT ALLOWED to show that “what he said”

was repeatable.

 

Later “Graham Bell” was attributed this invention.

 

 

 

What is a poor scientific reasoning?

 

Scientific reasoning mandates repeatable performance of an event. (n number of

times – n can be any number)

 

If an event cannot be reproduced or reperformed in an experiment due to

practical limitations (could be cost) a scientific decision cannot be reached.

 

It rests in a state of doubt.

 

Personally I used to always wonder even as a child that:

 

1. just to send a spacecraft into a particular orbit requires so many

constant calculations & monitoring to be done by ground staff along with 3

stages in the rocket (at that time) which used to give the required thrust.

Still there were failures many times.

 

2. For argument sake even if one does accept that man did land on moon it

is a dream to accept that to come back to earth from the moon one does not

require a base on the moon with proper infrastructure or a rocket with 3 stages.

 

Again I am hinting at a state of doubt and not proving or disproving anything

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

It was they, and not Prabhupada, who made the definitive statement on the

matter.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “It was they,

and not Prabhupada”

 

Logic accepts the use of the word ‘was’ only when it is backed by substantial

supportive evidence.

 

According to principles of logic the appropriate words are “may be”. The entire

sentence would read “It may be they, and not Prabhupada, who made the definitive

statement on the matter. “

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

Mental speculation is still mental speculation, regardless of the source.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

I agree. Mental speculation is still mental speculation irrespective of whether

the source is you or me.

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

Sadaputa dasa, on the other hand, gave an explanation in _Vedic

Astronomy..._ that reconciles both views nicely. In his view, Chandra

Loka and the moon are indeed the same, but the astronauts who reached

the moon saw only the airless, lifeless rock that we see, because

they had not sufficient pious activities to see the civilization

there. He uses the example that a microbe may perceive the world in

two dimensions, and thus when confronted with a skyscraper, would

only be able to appreciate its length and width but not its height.

 

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Very clearly explained. Thank you.

 

Seeing and communicating with life forms in different dimensions is also the

principle used by qualified exorcists.

 

Even pure devotees see Radha Krishna leela in Vrindavan

 

 

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

Similarly, ordinary living entities may see the moon as a lifeless

rock, but may not see the "extra dimension" in which the Chandra Loka

civilization can be perceived.

 

Very appropriate use of the words “may see”. I accept that this is a possibility

 

*Rejoinder to my earlier statements*

 

Admittedly, this is also speculation, but it happens to be more

consistent with what has been observed to have happened.

 

 

*My latest statements*

 

Again the above sentence shows a major fallacy in using the words “what has been

observed”

 

1. Scientific Logic accepts the use of the word ‘observation’ only when it

has been sufficiently shown to be “repeatable” without any element of doubt.

 

2. ISO guidelines accept the use of the word ‘observation’ only when it has

been reviewed and approved by competent authorities repeatedly and review

records exist for the same.

 

3. Nyaya shastras give detailed guidelines about “Errors in Pramanas”

 

 

 

Another possible explanation can be as discussed in IIT ’s popularly known as

the “Columbus effect”. Columbus landed in West Indies and proclaimed that he was

in India.

 

 

 

I rest my case.

 

 

 

I have realized that I have to get purified a lot and still I will NEVER EVER be

purified enough to speak or discuss about “fallibility of Srila Prabhupada”.

 

 

 

Thank you for giving me this realization.

 

 

 

Though I have read the “principles of Tarka” as given in the Nyaya shastras (a

brief overview of which has been given in “Straight Thinking and Strong

Speaking” written by H H Jai Advaita Maharaj) I am not competent enough to

participate in any discssions.

 

 

 

I have decided that I shall not submit any posting on any devotional group in

future because I am so fallen that I should devote my time and energy to learn

how not to get carried away in a debate or waste precious time.

 

 

 

I beg all of you, my dear friends to please bless me with the dust from your

lotus feet. Hare Krishna!

 

 

 

All glories to my Guru Maharaj. All glories to H H Bhakti Vikas Maharaj. All

glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

****************************************************************

 

 

 

NOTES IN BRIEF FOR REFERENCE

 

 

 

The Fallacy of Excluded Middle.

 

Between the true and false there is a third possibility, the Unmeaning.

 

 

 

Of more moment perhaps is the Hegelian objection. The very basis of the Hegelian

philosophy is the reconciliation of opposites. Becoming is supposed to owe its

origin to the union of Being and Not-Being, and the whole of Nature is regarded

as constituted by this dialectic development. Hegel himself argues against the

principle of Excluded Middle by pointing out that between + A and -A lies A.

 

 

 

As against this view, it is urged that in Hegel's system the opposites are in

fact contraries not contradictories, and that the individual does not owe its

origin to them, but that they are obtained by abstraction from the individual.

 

Thus if it be urged that at dawn we can say with equal truth 'It is day' and 'It

is not day,' and that the state of dawn is constituted by these opposites, it is

answered that the two moments are not, as alleged, contradictory opposites, but

the contraries 'dark' and 'light': and that dawn is not in any sense constituted

by a dialectic development out of darkness and light, though we can mentally

abstract these concepts from the state of dawn.

 

 

 

Nyaya accepts the existence of error. Most discussion of error in Indian

philosophy centers on the possibility and the nature and explanation of

perceptual error. There is little difficulty in accounting for error that arises

from use of unsound forms of reasoning or from misuse of sound forms. Perceptual

error is more problematic.

 

 

 

Does it even make sense to think of the senses as deceiving us? How can I

possibly perceive something that is not there? What am I perceiving if I do?

 

 

 

The Nyaya account of perceptual error is that error consists in perceiving

something as other than it is. Error is always subjective. It arises from three

causes:

 

 

 

Ø defect of a sense-organ,

 

Ø perceiving only a part (and erring because you do not realise that what

you perceive is only a part of something)

 

Ø habit or expectation interfering by rousing inappropriate

recollections..

 

One standard example of perceptual error is the rope-snake. Nyaya explains the

rope-snake as arising from the third cause; I fear to encounter snakes in dark

corners and see a coily something lying in the shadows as a snake.

 

 

 

Traditional management v/s Quality Management

 

Control each result v/s Use the process

 

Who made the error? v/s What allowed the error?

 

Correct the error v/s Reduce variation and prevent

the error

 

People are the problem v/s Refine the process

 

Competition v/s Team work

 

Motivation from fear of failure v/s Motivation from within

 

Focus on detecting defects v/s Focus on preventing defects

 

Meet short term quotas v/s Meet long term objectives

 

****************************************************************

 

Please forgive me for any offence.

 

Radhe Radhe! Hare Krishna!

 

 

 

Your servant,

 

Jeetendra

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If God brings you to it, He will bring you through it."

ALWAYS REMEMBER KRISHNA AND NEVER FORGET HIM

 

 

 

The all-new My – Get yours free!

 

 

[Guest guest]

I really have neither the time nor the interest to put this article

and others like it through the level of hair-splitting analysis it is

due. Obviously, I can quote specific evidence to back up my

responses, if I wanted to do the research and thought it were

relevant to this forum. However, I was speaking in a general way

since these points are not really disputed. Besides which, the

Achintya list is not the forum for moon-landing conspiracy theories

or the like.

 

For the record, I really do not care about this issue one way or

another. However, since Srila Prabhupada did express some views on

the subject, I am ok with members discussing his views (so long as

they are quoted precisely) with respect to scientific evidence. Let

us have fact, not hearsay - quote specifically what Srila Prabhupada

said so we can make sure we are not discussing strawmen.

 

I think it would also be ok to discuss the issue of how literal one

accepts a guru's words on material subjects, and what is the right of

a guru operating under Vedic understanding of the universe to

question the possibility of a moon landing. For what it's worth, I

have no problem with Srila Prabhupada questioning the possibility of

moon-landing since it was a new concept at that time, and based on

Vedic descriptions one has every right to be skeptical. Let us keep

in mind that shaastric descriptions can be interpreted in multiple

ways, and it is acceptable to correctly use pratyaksha and anumaan to

select the correct interpretation out of a range of other possible

interpretations. When Srila Prabhupada doubted the moon landing, I

doubt he was trying to reconcile the literalist interpretation and an

interpretation that took into account valid information gathered by

the senses and deduction. For that matter, it is only fair to

question whether the information gathered via the senses has led us

to a correct conclusion (i.e. the distance of moon from Earth, etc),

but this should take place in the context of what Srila Prabhupada

wrote, so as to avoid turning this forum into something that it is

not.

[Guest guest]

Mr Susarlu wrote:

Obviously, I can quote specific evidence to back up my responses, if

I wanted to do the research

and thought it were relevant to this forum.

*My response*

Your words say that to OBVIOUSLY provide SPECIFIC EVIDENCE you will

have to search to back "your responses supporting Moon

Landing".

(obviously if you wanted to).

This means that all along you were asserting the "limitation of

Srila

Prabhupada's words" on the basis of something for which you

NEVER HAD

AN EVIDENCE and NOW to provide an evidence you have to search.

And for this you say that OBVIOUSLY you do not have ANY time

So much for scientific approach and reasoning and so much for BIG

WORDS ABOUT LOGIC.

 

Scrutinizing your words in detail ----

You wrote

*************************************************************

Mr Susarlu wrote:

I really have neither the time nor the interest to put this article

 

*My response*

The fact that you are still responding by submitting this posting

contradicts your above statement

 

Mr Susarlu wrote:

and others like it through the level of hair-splitting analysis it is

due.

*My response*

Hair-splitting analysis is a characteristic of TRUE Complete, Accurate

& Timely application of Logic.

 

Mr Susarlu wrote:

Obviously, I can quote specific evidence to back up my responses,

*My response*

Its not so obvious to me as I accept that I am a fool. I need evidence

to be convinced.

Please justify the use of the word "Obviously" &

"specific" by

actually submitting BONAFIDE evidences TO BACK YOUR EARLIER RESPONSES

& CONCLUSION REGARDING support of Moon Landing and using it to assert

limited application of Srila Prabhupada's words.

 

Personally I remember being advised by my Guru Maharaj to follow :

whenever I realise that I have used the words

"obviously I can…. If I wanted to…" in my conversation

I ought to later repent because these words prove how proud I am.

I ought to pray to rectify myself & educate myself that:

"If Krishna desires based on my Guru Maharaj's wishes &

grants me

causeless mercy ONLY & ONLY than will I be used as an instrument by

Him .

The external world may wrongly conclude that I am the doer & give the

credit to me…. but it is an eternal fact that I am always

insignificant, powerless and cannot even lift a blade of grass if

Krishna & Srila Prabhupada do not saction"

Mr Susarla I am surprised that you are the same person who was

demanding evidence from others but are yourself not following the

same.

Quoting your own words:

[

1. When someone makes a claim without giving evidence, why must we

give

you evidence to refute it? You should ask your friends to provide the

evidence for their claims. If they have no evidence, then they have no

argument.

2. It is extremely odd to me that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can say,

"Oh,…. I heard that (insert ludicrous rumor here)" and people,

taking

this seriously without any discrimination, come here

saying, "How do I refute this?"

The answer is, you don't bother yourself with people who do not

provide evidence for their claims

]

I think we should all learn to "Practise what we Preach"

 

Mr Susarlu wrote:

if I wanted to do the research

*My response*

Logic mandates speaking based on research.

A person who actually posseses a heart of a true scientist will either

do research & if he/she cannot do it (because of practical reasons or

lack of interest) than he / she would keep his mouth shut and not

comment in an authoritarian language in a skeptical way on statements

& views of saintly people like Srila Prabhupada.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

and thought it were relevant to this forum.

*My response*

You should have mentioned it in your first posting

Mr Susarlu wrote:

However, I was speaking in a general way since these points are not

really disputed.

*My response*

On what basis do you claim that the points on Moon landing are not

really disputed?

Please see the History of "Wave Theory of light"

Before Huygen & Fresnel the so called scientific community used to

SPEAK & ACCEPT "in a general way" : Newton's theory of

wave

transmission & (..using your words) his points were not really

disputed specially because of the clout that Newton held because of

"Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" and

"Theory of

Classical mechanics".

Later his theories were rejected & Huygen & Fresnel's views were

accepted AFTER MUCH DELIBERATION.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

Besides which, the Achintya list is not the forum for moon-landing

conspiracy theories

or the like.

*My response*

You should have mentioned it in your first posting. Any way Thanks for

getting reminded atleast NOW & also Thanks for reminding us.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

For the record, I really do not care about this issue one way or

another.

*My response*

Please accept my humble obeisances. NO *ASPIRING DEVOTEE* SHOULD CARE

ABOUT THIS ISSUE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. All Aspiring Devotees Should

Keep This On Record.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

However, since Srila Prabhupada did express some views on the subject,

I am ok with members discussing his views (so long as they are quoted

precisely)

*My response*

Please accept my humble obeisances. Thanks

Mr Susarlu wrote:

with respect to scientific evidence.

*My response*

This shows double standards. You want others to provide scientific

evidence wheras you yourself have stated before that you do not have

time to provide "bonafide evidence" for your authoriatarian

statement

stating that "MAN LANDING ON MOON" is a bonafide SCIENTIFIC

OBSERVATION

Mr Susarlu wrote:

Let us have fact, not hearsay - quote specifically what Srila

Prabhupada said so we can make sure we are not discussing strawmen.

*My response*

Please accept my humble obeisances. Thanks. All of us should accept

this instruction as it is bonafide

Mr Susarlu wrote:

I think it would also be ok to discuss the issue of how literal one

accepts a guru's words on material subjects,

*My response*

It maybe forgivably OK and conventionally excusable provided one also

discusses (on the basis of guidelines of logic in ISO, Jurisprudence,

Science, etc) on how literal one can accept a so called groups of

scientist's words on material subjects.

Your statements definitely hint at a valid point:.

e.g Please note the following sequence

1. Srila Prabhupada says that his english is not perfect

2. Hearing Srila Prabhupada's lectures or reading his transcripts

show

that technically some "rules of english grammar" are not

followed

(this is an observation based on review parameters as specified by

"English language") . In that sense Srila Prabhupada's

words that

english is not perfect is correct because they do not follow the

process defined by the language BUT

3. Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures have created a spiritual

revolution in the entire globe. In that sense Srila Prabhupada's

works

have "perfected the English language" because of the mood and

purpose

and the effect

Please compare this with Srila Prabhupada crying on knowing that one

of his discipples had left on hearing him not accepting moon landing.

It seems foolish to think and accept that Srila Prabhupada would not

prevent a disciple from leaving him if it required him to just state

that "Man may have landed on moon but ..different dimensions"

..

Srila Prabhupada treasured and treasures ALL HIS disciples (in fact

every living entity). Based on Principles of Love (not rationality) it

can be assumed that Srila Prabhupada would have definitely clarified

and said "Man may have landed on moon but ..different

dimensions" if

it could prevent someone from going away from Krishna IF AND ONLY IF

it did not mean comprising basic tenants.

 

 

 

Mr Susarlu wrote:

and what is the right of a guru operating under Vedic understanding of

the universe to question the possibility of a moon landing.

*My response*

I am surprised to know that someone can have the audacity to question

a Guru's right on the basis of unprovable statements (unprovable

on

the basis of guidelines of logic formulated by the so called logicians

themselves -Refer Principles of Audit -ISO, Jurisprudence, etc)

Mr Susarlu wrote:

For what it's worth,

*My response*

It is of zero worth just like any statement without support of

substantial evidence

Mr Susarlu wrote:

I have no problem with Srila Prabhupada questioning the possibility of

moon-landing

*My response*

It does not matter whether you or I have a problem or not.

What matters is whether "the issue is of substance or not"

based on

objective principles of review.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

since it was a new concept at that time, and based on Vedic

descriptions one has every right to be skeptical.

*My response*

By the same Logic everyone in the world has a right to be skeptical

about the entire moon landing claim based on audit principles of ISO,

Evidence Acts- Jurisprudence.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

Let us keep in mind that shaastric descriptions can be interpreted in

multiple ways,

*My response*

Correct they can be interpreted in multiple ways ONLY BY COMPETENT

SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY and not by fools like US.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

and it is acceptable to correctly use pratyaksha and anumaan to

select the correct interpretation out of a range of other possible

interpretations.

*My response*

Correct it is acceptable to correctly use pratyaksha and anumaan to

select the correct interpretation out of a range of other possible

interpretations ONLY BY COMPETENT SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY WHO HAVE DIVINE

SENSES that are not imperfect , are not in illusion, do not make

mistakes & do not cheat others.

Fools like me and you should use SHABDA PRAMANA and ACCEPT THE

INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY COMPETENT SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

When Srila Prabhupada doubted the moon landing, I

doubt he was trying to reconcile the literalist interpretation and

*My response*

You have used the words "I doubt he was trying……." in

reference to

Srila Prabhupada.

One is advised to NEVER EVER doubt a bonafide spiritual authority.

I should rather doubt my own fallible understanding & impure heart

because of which I cannot understand the proper import & applicability

of a pure devotee's words

Mr Susarlu wrote:

an interpretation that took into account valid information gathered

by

the senses and deduction.

*My response*

I had asked evidence from you that proves your claim that the so

called "moon landing" information

· Was gathered by senses and deduction

· Was verified repeatedly

· was not a masterminded hoax

· and was in fact VALID.

You have not provided the same & have also stated that you neither

have time nor interest to do the same. At the same time it is ironic &

painful to note that you have time to harp your same old tune

"claim

of moon landing is a valid information " So much for scientific

reasoning.

Mr Susarlu wrote:

For that matter, it is only fair to question whether the information

gathered via the senses has led us to a correct conclusion (i.e. the

distance of moon from Earth, etc),

*My response*

YOU ARE CORRECT. The concluded distance of moon from Earth is wrong!

Here is the scientific proof as backup.

1. An eternal question could be about the so called theory used to

conclude + instruments used. Even if one assumes that they were and

are correct still

2. The calculation of distance asumes gravitational constant

"G".

Please study new scientific reports which state that the value assumed

was always wrong. In fact the community in IITs INDIA (who are

considered to be scientific) laughingly call it "the gravitational

variable" because of the number of times it has changed just like

the

Hubble constant

One of the New reports on gravitational constant G:

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/GAIA_f

iles/LATEX2HTML/node143.html

One of the Old reports on gravitational constant G:

http://frederic.malmartel.free.fr/Fin_des_dinosaur

es/eeconstante%20G.htm

3. Another argument to cast a doubt on the moon landing drama is (to

add to very many ) :

If the value of G taken in calculations itself was wrong then how

could one have arrived at the proper speed, landing,etc results

 

Mr Susarlu wrote:

but this should take place in the context of what Srila Prabhupada

wrote,

*My response*

Everything THINKING, FEELING, WILLING, ACTING ANYWHERE EVERYWHERE

should take place in the context of what Srila Prabhupada wrote,

Mr Susarlu wrote:

so as to avoid turning this forum into something that it is not.

*My response*

You should have mentioned this in your first posting that "MOON

LANDING IS SUCH AN INSIGNIFICANT TOPIC THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE DISCUSSED

IN REFERNCE TO DIVINITY OF GURU"

Please forgive me for any offence.

 

H H Radhanath Swami Maharaj says:

In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna says, "prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih

karmani sarvasah ahankara- vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate". It

is

because of illusion - false ego, ahankar that we think we are doers of

the activities when actually everything is done by God. He is giving

us the power to see, the power to hear, the power to think, the power

to breathe, the power to move, it's all His power, and one who

claims

credit for what belongs to God, that person is a thief, and that

person must undergo great tribulation by the laws of mature nature.

But our true nature is to see everything in it's reality and then,

naturally we become humble. People ask how to become humble? Simply

to see everything in reality, naturally, we become humble. Because at

every moment we are being supported and maintained, by the grace of

God and whatever we have, in regard to our intelligence, our wealth,

our abilities, is all the property of God. And we use it in the

service of God. This activity awakens our natural love for God and we

become freed from all sufferings and entanglements in material

existence. But when we claim, this is mine, that I am the benefactor,

that I am the protector, then we become implicated in the Laws of

Karma. And the real treasure of our own spiritual heritage is

forgotten and practically lost.

 

 

 

A professional reciter or a person who has ulterior motives may speak

very specifically through quotations, the scriptures, verses, with so

many elaborate explanations. But unless they are genuinely blessed by

the great souls to deliver this message with humility and devotion,

the potency of that transcendental knowledge cannot be disseminated

and in order to realise the truth we must engage in the application of

that knowledge which is, humble service, for the pleasure of Krishna

and for the pleasure of His devotees. 'tad viiddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darsinah'.

One who wants to know the truth must hear submissively from a genuine

spiritual master and then must render service.

So Sri Narada Rsi is here describing how he heard that confidential

knowledge but along with hearing from them he became their menial

servant. In fact, he became the servant of the servant because it was

his mother who was directly serving them and he was simply assisting

his mother in their service and by performing this act, he pleased

them and when you please a great devotee of the Lord, that devotee

becomes favourably disposed towards you.

That is really the meaning of a blessing.

 

 

guru-mukha-padma-väkya, cittete koriyä aikya, är nä

koriho mane äsä

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Jeetendra Verma" <jeetuv1>

wrote:

 

> Your words say that to OBVIOUSLY provide SPECIFIC EVIDENCE you will

> have to search to back "your responses supporting Moon

> Landing".

> (obviously if you wanted to).

> This means that all along you were asserting the "limitation of

> Srila

> Prabhupada's words" on the basis of something for which you

> NEVER HAD

> AN EVIDENCE and NOW to provide an evidence you have to search.

> And for this you say that OBVIOUSLY you do not have ANY time

> So much for scientific approach and reasoning and so much for BIG

> WORDS ABOUT LOGIC.

 

I have been a tireless defender of Srila Prabhupada's conclusions for

over 10 years now. I have put my name and my time on the line to

defend his conclusions from ritviks, sahajiyas, Advaitins, caste-

gosvamis, and even liberal deviants within ISKCON. I have nothing

personally to gain from this; I do it out of obedience to principle.

 

Right now I am involved on a different forum in defending Srila

Prahupada's views on culture and dharma against liberals within

ISKCON who seek to reinterpret them. If you do not believe me, there

is at least one senior devotee and GBC member on this very list who

can vouch for me.

 

Given the above, I really see no reason to respond to your innuendos

about my views regarding Srila Prabhupada's words. Nor am I much

interested in your self-righteous criticism based on words of mine

taken completely out of context (sometimes taken out of the sentences

in which they were spoken). In fact, as much of your message is

difficult to read owing to poor indentation and sloppy formatting,

and as you seem to perpetually misspell my name, I really don't have

much interest in reading this at all.

 

Nor am I prepared to approve more postings like this which are

difficult to read, needlessly argumentative (as in, responding to

points without taking the time to understand what is said), and laced

with innuendos. This forum is not the proper place for fanatical

posturing.

[Guest guest]

> I have been a tireless defender of Srila Prabhupada's conclusions

for

> over 10 years now. I have put my name and my time on the line to

> defend his conclusions from ritviks, sahajiyas, Advaitins, caste-

> gosvamis, and even liberal deviants within ISKCON. I have nothing

> personally to gain from this; I do it out of obedience to

principle.

>

> Right now I am involved on a different forum in defending Srila

> Prahupada's views on culture and dharma against liberals within

> ISKCON who seek to reinterpret them. If you do not believe me,

there

> is at least one senior devotee and GBC member on this very list who

> can vouch for me.

 

Please forgive me. I did not know your background. I shall be doing a

great offence if I do not believe you. Just as you have written even

I wish to submit at your feet that even I was writing out of

obedience to principle.

You have written that you have defended Srila Prabhupada's

conclusions from ritviks, sahajiyas, Advaitins, caste-gosvamis, and

even liberal deviants within ISKCON.

I bow down at your lotus feet. I wish to humbly approach you to learn

how to do the same from you.

 

 

 

 

 

> Given the above, I really see no reason to respond to your

innuendos

> about my views regarding Srila Prabhupada's words.

 

I am sorry if I have hurt you. I accept that I have a long long way

to go to learn to speak in a manner which nourishes the listener's

heart and which does not hurt.

I accept that my views or anybody's views are of zero significance.

What matters is Krishna's views.

 

 

 

 

 

> Nor am I much

> interested in your self-righteous criticism based on words of mine

> taken completely out of context (sometimes taken out of the

sentences

> in which they were spoken).

 

Please forgive me for my offence. I had no intention of hurting you.

I did not know your background. In any case I believe both you and I

desire to defend Srila Prabhupada's conclusions. In that sense we are

soldiers of the same army and also that you are much senior than me.

You mentioned that you have in the past and are still fighting many

battles for Srila Prabhupada in many forums. Please bless me with the

dust of your lotus feet.

Please pray for me that I go beyond just using such words of humility

(which I have learnt) & actually start feeling that I am fallen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>In fact, as much of your message is

> difficult to read owing to poor indentation and sloppy formatting,

> and as you seem to perpetually misspell my name, I really don't

have

> much interest in reading this at all.

 

Please forgive me.

I am comfortable in writing in MS Word. I used to write my responses

in Word and then paste them which may have resulted in poor

indentation and sloppy formatting.

I accept that I have misspelled your name. Please trust me that I

just realised it after you mentioned it and I did not do it on

purpose. I am sorry I hurt you.

 

 

 

 

> Nor am I prepared to approve more postings like this which are

> difficult to read, needlessly argumentative (as in, responding to

> points without taking the time to understand what is said), and

laced

> with innuendos. This forum is not the proper place for fanatical

> posturing.

 

I accept that I had used innuendos.

Your statement

" It is a public embarassment for the devotee community that some

devotees adopt conspiracy theories based on questionable logic or bad"

is also an innuendo on the entire devotee community and is of a very

bad taste.

I accept that just because you had done it, it does not justify my

remarks. I am sorry to have hurt you. Please forgive me for my

offence.

 

I repeatedly tried to submit this posting using my id but was

always unsuccesful.

Hence I created a new id so that I could submit the same.

 

Begging forgivance at your feet. Hare Krishna!

Your aspiring servant,

jeetendra