Vedic Claustrophobia

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Avinash, Radhe Krishna.

 

Part of your argument I agree with.

 

I am not at all in agreement with the fact of calling vedas as science.

 

A place for everything and everything in its place.

 

Yes you would find lots of contradictions between vedas, puraanaas and science. This so happens with theories of science and Bible and Quoran also.

 

In science you accept something on the basis of proof.

 

In vedas and puraanaas you come across certain facts which are disproved in science as on date. Note it carefully. As on date.

 

Till it was proved that atom can be split, Scientists were under belief that an Atom can not be split. Proving and disproving facts is but a scientific process which would continue for ever.

 

That is the reason why I advocated in another thread also dont try to change the scriptures. Leave them as they are. For aftera all you study scriptures on the basis of faith and not at all on the basis of any scientific proof.

 

If you put Radha and krishna in pippet and puret you may conduct scientific experiment but you can not enjoy the bhakthi rasaa.

 

Leave everything in its place as they are.

 

If you dont agree with any thing or dispute any thing - nothing wrong in it - debate it ; put forth your points.

 

But, but, a place for everything and everything in its place.

 

Radhe krishna

[Avinash]

 

Yes you would find lots of contradictions between vedas, puraanaas and science. This so happens with theories of science and Bible and Quoran also.

 

Yes, in Science also sometimes we get contradictory theories. It is accpeted that there are contradictions and that we need a better theory. For example, scientists accept that they need a theory that combines general theory of relativity and quantum physics. They accept that they do not have any such theory.

 

 

In vedas and puraanaas you come across certain facts which are disproved in science as on date. Note it carefully. As on date.

 

Till it was proved that atom can be split, Scientists were under belief that an Atom can not be split.

 

There are certain things, which are observations. Then, there are interpretations of those observations. If Puranas do not agree with the interpretation given by modern Science, then fine. But what if they do not agree with observational facts? For example, Bhagavatam gives the hight of Himalayas far more than it actually is. In such a case, the phrase "as on date" is not relevant.

 

 

For aftera all you study scriptures on the basis of faith and not at all on the basis of any scientific proof.

 

If you put Radha and krishna in pippet and puret you may conduct scientific experiment but you can not enjoy the bhakthi rasaa.

 

I do not advocate putting everything written in scriptures under scientific scrutiny. After all, there are many things, which are beyond science. I will not put bhakti rasa, karma yoga, morality etc. under scientific scrutiny. I am ready to take those on faith. But if there are statements in scriptures, which can be verified using experiments, then I would not like to take those purely on the basis of faith.

 

I like reading Gita, Ramayana and Puranas (mostly Bhagavatam) a lot. I turn to these for learning spirituality and morality. But when material science is concerned, I turn to modern science. Therefore, I am not much concerned if the materials science given in scriptures is right or wrong, because I do not refer scriptures for this.

[Gaea]

 

I like reading Gita, Ramayana and Puranas (mostly Bhagavatam) a lot. I turn to these for learning spirituality and morality. But when material science is concerned, I turn to modern science. Therefore, I am not much concerned if the materials science given in scriptures is right or wrong, because I do not refer scriptures for this.

 

I have stayed out of this discussion but would just like to say that i think this is a good blend and attitude.

 

Yes, there are going to be contradictions etc. in scripture that do not hold scientifically but then again scripture, especially Vedic ones, are extremely poetic and wedo not always see the hidden meanings. But why should we care for such contradictions? Afterall the Vedas are a spiritual guide, not a scientific one.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I offer my humble obeisance unto him!

 

I would like to respond to Shambu and Avinash

 

Yes, i assume Vedic Science is PERFECT because i have faith it comes from GOD. GOD by definition is INFALLIBLE and MAN by nature is fallible. Man created modern science and GOD created Vedic science.

 

As of today, this very moment, in my opinion, science has not evolved/matured enough to validate Vedic Science.

 

There is a fundamental and obvious contradiction between the two. Vedic Science is entirely based on the FACT that we are SPIRIT SOULS and not lump of matter, where as modern science is based on "seeing is believing" which obviously is based on gross material manifestations.

 

Because modern science fails to recognize or atleast majority of modern day research schools do not teach spiritual reasoning behind material action, modern science in that sense is INADEQUATE. It can never, in my opinion, VALIDATE or can PROVE VEDIC SCIENCE because Vedic talks about spirit and matter but modern science only talks about matter. This is the basic contradiction. Unless modern scientists take into account the existance of spiritual dimensions, there is no way modern scientific theories can understand or even view spiritual literature as logical and factual. Rather modern scientists view them always as MYTHS or ALEGORY. This is because the science the scientists were taught in school never talk about spirit and hence modern scientists are bewildered and since none of them understand it, all of them agree VEDIC science is allegory or myth which by the way the scientific community has not proven it to be a myth or allegory. They say it is a myth just based on the fact that it does not fit into modern day scientific parameters.

 

Reagarding the height of the Himalayas or the cosmic description as per the Puranas seems contradictary to modern science. Again, please read a book written by Richard L Thompson who has beautifully explained the scientific logic behind the Cosmos as per the Bhagavata. Reading this book, we can appreciate the depth of knowledge Veda Vyas possessed to write on the Cosmos. So, knowledge is not always straight forward. It doesnt have to be straight forward. It can seem something and mean the other. So, asking for proof and just because we cannot find one does not give any objective scientific brain to discard or discredit literature we do not understand or that seems contradictary to modern observations.

 

For example, we cannot physically see any object without light....does that mean there is nothing out there...no....but when there is light we can see objects. This shows the inadequacy and limitations of the human senses and mind. So we should not discredit or question the VEDIC INJUNCTION just because modern science has no explanation to it. I say this because VEDAS were written by SELF-REALIZED souls such as Veda Vyas who Himself wrote it as GOD revealed it to HIM.

 

So, one should be very careful before questioning any thing let alone the scriptires. A proper student of learning will put-forth just arguments from both sides objectively and going forward will weigh them in equal light with OBJECTIVE reasoning.

 

As it stands today the stuff that is mentioned in the VEDIC LITERATURE is beyond modern scientific literature. In other words, MODERN SCIENCE has not grown enough to test VEDIC LITERATURE.

 

Why?.....because modern scientists NEVER analyse the SPIRIT behind MATTER which is the driving force for anything.

 

It is like analysing the concept of a CAR and creating a CAR based on that analysis but completely ignoring the concept of a driver. How can one create a car without thinking of the driver?

 

Similarly how can you talk about physics, chemistry and biology without talking about driving force behind all - THE SPIRIT.

 

Hence i believe and have 100% faith that SPIRITUAL SCIENCE (VEDIC LITERATURE) is far more advanced than modern science as the previous talks about SPIRIT, MATTER and its relationship but the later only talks about MATTER as all-in-all.

 

So comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges is the right comparison, similarly we should test Spiritual literature spiritually and materially literature materially. So, practice spirituality by coming in contact with the Supreme Spirit which is Krishna and chant his HOLY name sincerely and everything will be revealed and hence you will find VEDIC Literature is 100% true and more advanced than gross material science.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[shambu]

 

As it stands today the stuff that is mentioned in the VEDIC LITERATURE is beyond modern scientific literature. In other words, MODERN SCIENCE has not grown enough to test VEDIC LITERATURE.

 

Why?.....because modern scientists NEVER analyse the SPIRIT behind MATTER which is the driving force for anything.

 

 

Material science is one thing and spiritual science another. Spiritual science is -in my opinion- the knowledge of the difference between spirit and matter, how a human being can become free from matter through self-realisation etc. Material science studies the workings of the material universe in an objective and experimental way, even without regards for its origins and purpose.

 

Although the Vedas and related literatures claim to be mainly spiritual in nature, still a great portion of those literatures (such as the Srimad Bhagavatam) deal with material phenomena and describe them in detail. The problem here is that those descriptions do not seem to support the present scientific conclusions and observations. For instance it is stated somewhere that the unborn baby is bitten in the womb by worms. Fact is that there are no worms in the womb, worms are to be found in the intestines. So is this just a suggestive image of how terrible the baby must be suffering before even greater suffering befalls him at the time of birth? Scientifically it is mere rubbish. Another example is that it is said that pearls are created when it rains on the ocean during a specific astrological constellation. Is there any logic in this? Science has proved that pearls are made by oysters that produce some slime when some grain of sand or any other particle enter their shells. (Pearls are also not gems, as Vedic gemology claims.) Or that souls descend on the earth from heaven through rainfall, mystically being turned into grains that sprout into plants. It sounds unreal and according to scientific thinking it is an impossibility. And what about the Vedic idea that Solar eclipses are caused by some invisible planet named Rahu (the chopped off head of a demon btw) whereas it is clearly proven by modern science that it is nothing but the Moon that causes Solar eclipses (which according to Vedas would be impossible because the Moon is supposed to be at greater distance from the Earth than the Sun...)

 

Of course the Vedas also give some information, even though unverifiable, that moderrn science doesn't provide, such as that there are 8.400.000 species of life. But then again, when I ask what is meant by 400.000 species of human life, what makes them into seperate species, where they are living, what they all look like, and how many species of human beings are or once were on this Earth planet, nobody seems to be able to give any sensible reply. It's all too vague and unverifiable in my opinion.

 

So just rejecting modern science "because they never analyse the spirit behind matter which is the driving force behind everything" doesn't make any sense to me either. Actually you seem to be scared of modern science because in many ways it disproves a lot of statements made in books that are clearly not of this time and thus your holy faith may become affected.

 

And besides, it is another popular misconception that all modern scientists are atheists who don't believe in God and the existence of a soul - this is simply not true.

 

This is why I called this thread "Vedic Claustrophobia". Vedic fundamentalists believe they should take any damn thing which is written in old books literally and that it is a crime and dangerous thing to question anything that's in them, and that they should never take any serious notice of theories and findings that other sources provide, that might endanger their safe Vedic empire. It is just the same like Muslims who say that besides the Quran and Mohammed you don't need any other source of information, and anyone who doesn't follow this line is an "infidel", a disbeliever, and per definition a godless and sinful being. Or Christians who say the only Saviour is Lord Jesus Christ and all who don't accept this go to hell.

 

I hope you are not offended by this, and if this outrages you or anyone else, that is their problem.

[Guest guest]

 

Material science is one thing and spiritual science another. Spiritual science is -in my opinion- the knowledge of the difference between spirit and matter, how a human being can become free from matter through self-realisation etc. Material science studies the workings of the material universe in an objective and experimental way, even without regards for its origins and purpose.

 

Although the Vedas and related literatures claim to be mainly spiritual in nature, still a great portion of those literatures (such as the Srimad Bhagavatam) deal with material phenomena and describe them in detail. The problem here is that those descriptions do not seem to support the present scientific conclusions and observations. For instance it is stated somewhere that the unborn baby is bitten in the womb by worms. Fact is that there are no worms in the womb, worms are to be found in the intestines. So is this just a suggestive image of how terrible the baby must be suffering before even greater suffering befalls him at the time of birth? Scientifically it is mere rubbish. Another example is that it is said that pearls are created when it rains on the ocean during a specific astrological constellation. Is there any logic in this? Science has proved that pearls are made by oysters that produce some slime when some grain of sand or any other particle enter their shells. (Pearls are also not gems, as Vedic gemology claims.) Or that souls descend on the earth from heaven through rainfall, mystically being turned into grains that sprout into plants. It sounds unreal and according to scientific thinking it is an impossibility. And what about the Vedic idea that Solar eclipses are caused by some invisible planet named Rahu (the chopped off head of a demon btw) whereas it is clearly proven by modern science that it is nothing but the Moon that causes Solar eclipses (which according to Vedas would be impossible because the Moon is supposed to be at greater distance from the Earth than the Sun...)

 

Of course the Vedas also give some information, even though unverifiable, that moderrn science doesn't provide, such as that there are 8.400.000 species of life. But then again, when I ask what is meant by 400.000 species of human life, what makes them into seperate species, where they are living, what they all look like, and how many species of human beings are or once were on this Earth planet, nobody seems to be able to give any sensible reply. It's all too vague and unverifiable in my opinion.

 

So just rejecting modern science "because they never analyse the spirit behind matter which is the driving force behind everything" doesn't make any sense to me either. Actually you seem to be scared of modern science because in many ways it disproves a lot of statements made in books that are clearly not of this time and thus your holy faith may become affected.

 

And besides, it is another popular misconception that all modern scientists are atheists who don't believe in God and the existence of a soul - this is simply not true.

 

This is why I called this thread "Vedic Claustrophobia". Vedic fundamentalists believe they should take any damn thing which is written in old books literally and that it is a crime and dangerous thing to question anything that's in them, and that they should never take any serious notice of theories and findings that other sources provide, that might endanger their safe Vedic empire. It is just the same like Muslims who say that besides the Quran and Mohammed you don't need any other source of information, and anyone who doesn't follow this line is an "infidel", a disbeliever, and per definition a godless and sinful being. Or Christians who say the only Saviour is Lord Jesus Christ and all who don't accept this go to hell.

 

I hope you are not offended by this, and if this outrages you or anyone else, that is their problem.

 

"Of course the Vedas also give some information, even though unverifiable, that moderrn science doesn't provide, such as that there are 8.400.000 species of life. But then again, when I ask what is meant by 400.000 species of human life"

 

This is 8.400.000 types of consciousness not species of life; obviously there are much more than 8.400.000 species of life. 400.000 species of human life may include other universes also.

 

"The problem here is that those descriptions do not seem to support the present scientific conclusions and observations. For instance it is stated somewhere that the unborn baby is bitten in the womb by worms. Fact is that there are no worms in the womb, worms are to be found in the intestines. So is this just a suggestive image of how terrible the baby must be suffering before even greater suffering befalls him at the time of birth? Scientifically it is mere rubbish."

 

Please provide the acutal SB verse where the unborn baby is bitten by worms in the womb. I have not read SB so I cannot comment on this. A baby is obviously suffering in the womb. IT is confined there for several months. I do not think you were denying that though.

 

"Another example is that it is said that pearls are created when it rains on the ocean during a specific astrological constellation. Is there any logic in this? Science has proved that pearls are made by oysters that produce some slime when some grain of sand or any other particle enter their shells. (Pearls are also not gems, as Vedic gemology claims.) "

 

I would not take this literally. It may be more of a consequential reaction that a direction reaction. Again, never always take Vedic verses literally. Figurative language is heavily used in the Vedas to elicit the proper reaction in the sadhaka.

Pearls are not gems? Why not? This seems to be more a taxonomical issue than a scientific issue.

 

"Vedic fundamentalists believe they should take any damn thing which is written in old books literally and that it is a crime and dangerous thing to question anything that's in them, and that they should never take any serious notice of theories and findings that other sources provide, that might endanger their safe Vedic empire."

 

i think the responses were a little harsh but that was to be expected when you claim there is not a "shred of evidence" for a Vedic empire.

 

"I hope you are not offended by this"

 

No, not at all.

 

I would answer your questions in detail however I do not know Sanskrit and have not fully read SB. If you want real answers then you have to find a sad-Guru who knows everything about SB.

[Guest guest]

direction reaction --> direct reaction.

 

sorry.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I offer my humble obeisance unto him!

 

I am not offended in anyway. I am just presenting what my Guru Maharaj said. Thats all, not blindly but with faith and 100% conviction.

 

"Actually you seem to be scared of modern science because in many ways it disproves a lot of statements made in books that are clearly not of this time and thus your holy faith may become affected"

 

To that statement above, not as a mere defense, but just to give you my background. I am a "research associate" by profession, researching social phenomenon. I have a research background and i do involve in a daily basis on modern scientific research not in a controlled environment but more at the observatory level. I say this because i am not afraid as you may think.

 

The more i indulge in scientific research the more i see how modern science is limited. It takes a lot of reading and understanding to see how science has its flaws. One cannot just discard it as mere limitations. Also, in your reply, i sense that you do not weigh the concept of spirit so high/important.

 

In order to clearly understand the function of nature (physics, chemistry and biology), the best way is to analyse it at the fundemental unit of analysis such as atoms or subatomic particles and its inter-relatisionship with each other. This fundamental unit of analysis can be at the biological, chemical or physical level. It can be a gene, amino acid or no job (social measure).

 

The toughest part of research is to find the cause behind the actual action. Now days we use a lot of statistical models to make sure we are looking at the right causative factor behind an action which means any type of research study will try to prove A causes B and so if we change or moderate A...B will be changed eventually. This is how we find new medicines or new policies to reduce poverty. Now, these all are at the mundane materialistic level that A is causing B. But in reality, for even A to exist we need the spiritual spark to cause A and the spiritual spark to cause B and then A causing B. So by understanding the funademental unit of analysis for any entity which is the spirit, then A causing B can be better understood or in other words, a more realistic picture can be derived as far as A causing B.

 

Yes you are correct when you say there is an apparent contradiction between vedic literature and modern science.....there can be multitude of reasons and not just what meets the eye. You say there are no worms in the womb....well i say there are.........can you show me 100% proof there are no worms........worms can mean many things (depending on who reads it) worms is a species that can come under many categories as per modern day Linnaeus Taxonomy of classification. Worms can also exist in the blood...you think worms are only in the intestines...that is totally wrong....worms are in your feet, in your blood and basically anywhere blood can go in your body. How do you think worms go to the intestine in the first place...it is through the blood and dependent upon the type of worm....each one of them live in different areas. So your statement that worms are only in the intestines is completely not true as the blood can carry the worms wherever they want to go. Also...another big piece you are missing is the proper definition of terminology. If you know how modern research is done, the first thing a researcher does is to define the terms used in his research.

 

There is no one common definition that fits all types of research. The worm is an example, a worm is a broad classification of species like we say "cat". In modern day system, cats can range from domestic to tiger and so forth". So, you see if you say worm or cat...what exactly are you talking about?....so as a reseacher you have to define it more precisely.

 

Now, per the vedic literature....worm is an english word translated by Srila Prabhupada. In sanskrit, i dont know what word was used. If you know, not all word in sanskrit can be translated to english. For example....there is no one on one word for the sanskrit word DHARMA. We commonly say DHARMA means RELIGIION but actually DHARMA is a little deeper than that and one single word in english is not sufficient to explain DHARMA. So it is lterally not possible to describe the vedic literature to the english language as there are no EXACT english words to explain sanskrit words and so in that process of translation the original essence/intent can be mis-inerpreted. It is humanly impossible to resarch in this manner and make sure we got all translations for word to word and then read it and understand it. Not possible.....hence we have to accept from GURU as he is in disciplic succession and follows authority. For this....we need FAITH. You or I are not qualified to comment on vedic literature or modern resaerch as long as we are experts in either of them. So...please dont come to conclusions by mere superficial reading or understanding.

 

To reiterate one word has so many interpretations in both modern and vedic literature, it is not possible to truly judge the intent of both sides (Vedic and modern). So, the only way is to interpret Vedic Science as it is and accept the superior authority. For this one needs FAITH.

 

 

Even by modern research standards you are not adequatly explaining yourself. Modern scientists are bewildered because they only believe if they see the phenomenon...and that is based on an assumption that everything we see with our visiion is all there is in existance. That is why scientists cannot prove or for themselves see how evolution occurs from species to the other. If theory of evolution is true....why cannot the scientists simulate it artificially. They cannot....because it is not true or lets say they havent found the answer yet.

 

Science was worng and so were the scientists 210 years ago when Edward Jenner presented his theory of vaccination to a group of elitist whom at the first instance laughed at Edward Jenner. Why....because the people back then could not see with the naked eye the microbes and hence the entire concept of injecting live microbes into the body will protect us from that very microbe seemed ridiculous and insane. Now, we know it is true after modern day gadgets. Also, dont you think the concept of microbes was existing from time immemorial and did not come into existance after Edward Jenner made his discovery. So, all along till 210 years science and scientists were wrong in their understanding of biology at the microbial level. What gives you the guarantee after another 200 years we wont be wrong today on various phenomenon we think we have proof for????

 

 

What makes you so sure that modern day science should validate Vedic literature today and what makes you think it will not in the future. A soul is subtler than the smallest particle we know and hence no current gadget can measure it. Probably sometime in the future it can measure and science as we know it can change entirely. So please dont blindly believe that modern science can explain everything. As per the vedas, anything that changes is not true knowledge. Anything that is eternal is true knowledge and we should strive for that eternal position. Similarly, modern science changes as new inventions take place and as new theories are proved and as new evidences are unearthed. Always in a flux....so this is not true knowledge. Knowledge is something that should never change..that is true knowledge.

 

So please chant Krishna's name and attain an eternal platform which is true knowledge and please dont try to use speculative knowledge (modern science) to answer all phenomenon of life.

 

"There can be so much a slip between the cup and the lip"....so dont be sure with modern science. Vedic Science tells one thing....VASUDEVAM SARVAN ITI.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[shambu]

I like your conclusion (vasudevah sarvam iti). But worms are in my blood, in my feet and everywhere? I never noticed this... "Worms" could also mean "bacteria", maybe. But are there bacteria in the womb, biting an embryo? The baby is well protected in a special covering, kind of floating like Garbhodakasyi Visnu in a fluid, in somekind of mystic slumber or trance. If the living entity were tortured even before having been born, he would come out of the womb already traumatized and suicidal, perhaps. The womb is meant to be a protected place, not a place of harrasment. Some people even want to get back there......

 

And worms enter the intestines either through the anus or the mouth, don't you think?

[Guest guest]

I may add that heavier-than-air flying machines were considered impossible by Western scientists until the Wright brothers acheived it.

[shambu]

 

I may add that heavier-than-air flying machines were considered impossible by Western scientists until the Wright brothers acheived it.

 

Well, than these guys must've been quite stupid. Birds are also heavier than air, and still they're flying.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

Yes...what we think was impossible per the vedic literature has been done by the Wright brothers....i am concurring with the guest in the previous post.

 

As for worms.....thats my whole point........iam not sure...your not sure and even the scientists are not sure.......why? because modern science is in CHANGING EVEN AS WE SPEAK.

 

What we think is true proves to be untrue in a later date.

 

The term "worm" has a lot to be said about........what the sanskrit word and the original author meant and how modern day science defines worms leaves a lot of room for interpretation. For example....babies are "still born" or there are "blue babies". When a pregnant mother smokes.....the baby in the womb is affected. When a pregnant mother takes a lot of medicines or drugs....the baby is affected...why? because the blood that provides nourishment is filled with malific substances like low oqygen levels and microbes such as bacteria or virus impacting the baby in the womb. So there is distress to the baby. This both Vedic and modern science agrees upon. But what the modern science does not agree is the soul which is within the baby is suffering due to all this. For example, when we have fever or infection, we go to the doctor and express our distress. In other words...we have room for expression.

 

On the other hand....babies do not have this freedom to express their difficulty. The mother should be careful and take care. But still the baby cannot from the womb say anything due to its state. This is a agony for the soul within the baby. Modern science does not look at this soul and hence only defines pain as per bodily manifestations. If there are no external body marks...then the doctors think the baby is doing fine but in reality its very lack of movement for the soul is painful.

 

The aspect of biting....when microbes enter our system....it attacks our RBCs. Now....when modern biology uses the word attack....how do you percieve it? You can percieve it in anyway you want? But what modern biology is saying is microbes attack and try to destroy the RBCs. Looking still deeper...the cell of a microbe (can be a bacteria or any microbe) is designed to engulf the RBC. In other words....the microbe will first target the RBC and will deprive the RBC of its normal behavior and slowly the RBC will be engulfed by the attacking cell...this is a crude explanation of how foreign bodies attack. You have to read Physiology to actually understand the process of engulfing. Neverthless.......the whole act of engulfing will look as if the microbe is biting and the RBC is being bittten and eaten by the microbe.

 

So the baby which is in the womb and the organs and growth of the baby will be hampered if such foreign bodies enter the baby and starts engulfing its RBC. This literally will look as if worms are biting the baby. Obviously, if we look from a superficial level.....sounds odd.....but at the level of detail one examines this act.....viruses engulf local bodies and cause diseases and eventually death (like HIV). This is all more painful because the baby cannot express or move. The soul (which modern science does not talk) suffers immensly everyday by this act.

 

Remember.......even the air we breath has numerous foreign bodies. Although the WBC in the mother and placenta will defend the baby...the foreign bodies do attack the baby but a healthy mother and baby eventually will win the war due to healthy WBCs. So this war between RBC and foreign bodies is happening everyday in our body (even to healthy people).

 

Again....there is a lot to be desired in terms of defining terms as per the vedas and modern science. Technically , if we compare apples to apples in terms of terminology.....we pretty much get a close if not accurate picture of

the vedic literature.

 

On your comment on worms getting in through the feet.......yes.....it does. Hookworms enter through the feet. When we go to bathroom without slippers and if there is stagnant water (very common in indian bathrooms), the worms not visible to the naked eye gets in through our feet through the pores and into the blood stream and goes and attaches to the intestine and sucks more blood from the intestines. Amoeba proteus is one such single cell organism that enters like this like the hookworms.

 

Anyways...if we get the definitions of worms right and the act of engulfing as biting....then the vedic literature is true and accurate in my estimate.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[Guest guest]

 

Well, than these guys must've been quite stupid. Birds are also heavier than air, and still they're flying.

 

Well, that's what you think now. This pinpoints a problem in modern science. Whatever the de facto belief is that is the truth almost all scientists believe. E.g., Darwin's Theory Of Evolution (which will look very stupid in the future looking back to today), AIT, etc...

[shambu]

 

Well, that's what you think now. This pinpoints a problem in modern science. Whatever the de facto belief is that is the truth almost all scientists believe. E.g., Darwin's Theory Of Evolution (which will look very stupid in the future looking back to today), AIT, etc...

 

Sure they have their dogmas and stagnant believes and try to cling on to them as long as their ideas seem somewhat valid. But whenever some idea or dogma has become superseded by overwhelming evidence they are also capable of changing them. From one angle this makes their approach very "relative", but as seen from a more positive angle one could say that it's a DYNAMIC and evolving process of knowledge-acquisition.

[Avinash]

 

The sun rotating around the earth does depend on perspective as well. If you're on the Earth, you're going to observe the sun rotating around you. So as far as you're concerned the sun does rotate around the Earth.

 

I agree with you. It is perfectly consistent with modern science to fix the frame of reference on Earth if we want. If we fix the frame of reference on Earth, then it is the Sun which is moving. So, there is nothing wrong in saying that the Sun moves round the Earth.

[Yegan]

 

As an example, if I release something it falls. If there is a theory, which is not compatible with current theories of gravity, then fine. But if the theory says that things do not fall but move up, then we have to reject the theory. Likewise, if Vedic Science is not compatible with modern theories, then fine. But it should at least be compatible with observations.

What if our observations are incorrect?

In our inertial frame, time and space seem (observations) absolute but we know well that they are not.

In short, can we say that observations can be quite deceiving?

If yes, then vedic science need not to be compatible with observations to be accepted.

[Avinash]

 

To reiterate one word has so many interpretations in both modern and vedic literature, it is not possible to truly judge the intent of both sides (Vedic and modern).

Agreed.

 

 

Even by modern research standards you are not adequatly explaining yourself. Modern scientists are bewildered because they only believe if they see the phenomenon...and that is based on an assumption that everything we see with our visiion is all there is in existance.

 

I agree that many things may exist which we cannot see. But what about those statements in vedic science, which run contradictory to what we clarly see?

 

 

What gives you the guarantee after another 200 years we wont be wrong today on various phenomenon we think we have proof for????

I agree that it is highly likely that we will be proved wrong as we have been proved wrong in past. But if we observe something, which is contradictory to vedic science, why should it not been considered proof against vedic science?

 

You are using different standards. If modern science is found to be incompatible with observations, then you find it proof for the limitation of modern science. But if vedic science is found to be incompatible with observations, you say that it is because of limitations in our experiments or because we do not understand vedic science.

 

 

What makes you so sure that modern day science should validate Vedic literature today and what makes you think it will not in the future. A soul is subtler than the smallest particle we know and hence no current gadget can measure it.

No problem here. I do not find the concept of soul against modern science. It is just that it is beyond the realm of current science.

 

 

Similarly, modern science changes as new inventions take place and as new theories are proved and as new evidences are unearthed. Always in a flux....so this is not true knowledge.

Knowledge is something that should never change..that is true knowledge.

It is true that science keeps changing and therefore, it cannot be called as perfect. But it does not mean that just because some knowledge does not change it is perfect. If we believe in something and no matter how many proofs we get against that, we hold on to our belief, then this is not true knowledge.

 

 

So please chant Krishna's name and attain an eternal platform which is true knowledge and please dont try to use speculative knowledge (modern science) to answer all phenomenon of life.

 

No disagreement here. No problem with chanting Krsna's name. I also agree that speculative knowledge is not sufficient to answer everything.

[Avinash]

 

What if our observations are incorrect?

In our inertial frame, time and space seem (observations) absolute but we know well that they are not.

In short, can we say that observations can be quite deceiving?

 

Yes, observations can be quite deceiving. But then what observations will you call as real and what as deceiving?

 

Deceiving or not we know that we obbserve that things fall. If some theory says that we should observe things as not falling, then that theory should be rejected.

[Yegan]

 

Yes, observations can be quite deceiving. But then what observations will you call as real and what as deceiving?

Spot on.

I personally think what is real/not real cannot be based on observation.

 

 

Deceiving or not we know that we obbserve that things fall. If some theory says that we should observe things as not falling, then that theory should be rejected.

If the theory says we should observe things as not falling, but we do "actually" observe things as falling, then fine we can reject the theory.

But if a theory says things are not falling, then we cannot reject the theory based on our observation that things are falling around us.

I agree that many things may exist which we cannot see. But what about those statements in vedic science, which run contradictory to what we clarly see?

The bees "clearly see" the world around them which is somehow different from what we "clearly see".

Some animals clearly see the world in black and white and some animals can have completely diffrent vision from us. Which of those visions is true?

My point is we cannot arrive to a conclusion based solely on observations even if they are "clear" to our perspective or inertial frame.

[Avinash]

 

But if a theory says things are not falling, then we cannot reject the theory based on our observation that things are falling around us.

 

True, but then the theory should make it clear as to what it means by "falling".

 

 

 

My point is we cannot arrive to a conclusion based solely on observations even if they are "clear" to our perspective or inertial frame.

 

I agree but then the theory should make the meanings of terms used in it clear. It should explain clearly as to what perspective it is speaking from. Otherwise, the theory is of no use.

[Yegan]

 

I agree but then the theory should make the meanings of terms used in it clear. It should explain clearly as to what perspective it is speaking from. Otherwise, the theory is of no use.

So, the question is from which perspective has scriptures been written?

If scriptures are written down from the eyes of great saints (which they are) then their vision/perspective/way they see the world is different from ours.

Are their visions the absolute vision?

[Avinash]

 

If scriptures are written down from the eyes of great saints (which they are) then their vision/perspective/way they see the world is different from ours.

 

It is said that Ved Vyasa wrote Puranas for common folk. If so, then why did he write from the perspective of great saints and not ordinary people?

[Yegan]

 

 

It is said that Ved Vyasa wrote Puranas for common folk. If so, then why did he write from the perspective of great saints and not ordinary people?

 

May be someone who knows a bit on scriptures might clear this point.

 

[theist]

It's a question that needs to answered. Why would Vyasdeva write about things which are only seen as possible by those that accept string theory when addressing a kali-yuga audience? A theory most of us can't even talk about beyond saying it involves other dimensions?

 

People ask questions like how is it possible for King Ugrasena to have six billion bodyguards to protect him when he ruled in Mathura? And where are the artifacts that should be left over from their civilization? It was only 5 thousand years ago? How do we answer?

 

I don't worry about if the vedic civilasation existed in gross material form or if just in subtle material form as thoughts concepts and ideas. It's the eternal Absolute Truth we need to take away from vedic study that is essential I believe.