Guest guest Posted September 24, 1999 Report Share Posted September 24, 1999 > Some devotees suggested that whilst modern science can predict eclipses > and other astronomical phenomena with astonishing accuracy, we > nevertheless ought to regard the alleged contribution of Rahu to equations > of motion and gravitation. With sufficient manipulation and number > juggling, a random constant can be added at one place and subtracted > elsewhere, one supposes, if there is such an irrepressible desire to > produce a more complicated formula than necessary to account for observed > events. I think there is also another point in your reasoning that I cannot accept. You mistake claculations for explanations. These are two different faculties. It is not true that if I can measure something, it automatically means I know the nature of the phenomenon, and I have a sole right to give an explanation of it. I can see that people die because of an illness, I can predict on the basis of observation when they will die, what would be the symptoms in the specific points of time of their illness, but it does not mean I know the cause of the illnes, the mechanism behind the symptoms. When the Newton has presented his laws of dynamics, he described the physical events by formulas. To give the physical meaning to those formulas he introduced the gravitational force as the cause, but he wrote he does not believe in that force, which acts from the distance. Pretty amazing! But the popular meaning of gravitation has spread around the globe for centuries. We all know that usually everything falls down, but why? It is gravitational force! But then Einstein came with his relativity theory, which made the Newton dynamics more universal and precise in computation. But what was the cause of the physical bodies motion, then? Well, it was not gravitational force anymore, but bent space, that comes from the mass of the physical bodies. It is called gravitational field now! (Can you prove that the space is bent and measure how much?) On the basis of observation one can come to a quite precise levels of predictivity. But in no way does it say anything about the nature and the causes behind. In no way I can understand how predictive ability concerning eclipses has to eliminate Rahu's and Ketu's roles given them by Vedias for understanding the phenomenon. I think that the Vedic brahmanas were far superior from the modern scientists, being equipped with clever mind for calculations, and strong faith for understanding. It is quite a pride, that if I can follow the ways of the Lord's creation by means of abstractive mathematics, I think I can usurp right to know everything about it. Thanks God he put some entropy (chaos) into this world, that forces me to use probability instead of certainty. In this way I can assure innocent masses of people that I know everything, although I know really nothing. I am happy that Occam's Razor principle was reminded by Ananda Prabhu. It is certainly a good tool from Krsna for the devotees's pride intoxicated with freedom of probability. When you cut the probability out, the exessive freedom goes away. With that intoxication dwindles and makes pride turn into submissiveness, faith, love and devotional service. "My kingdom is as wide as the whole world, and my desire knows no limit. I always step forward, freeing the minds, weighting the worlds, without fear, without compassion, without love and without God. People call me Science." Gustave Flaubert "I finished my search of the mystery of life on atoms and electrons, which are not alive at all. Somewhere on the way the life has slept through my fingers. So, in my oldage I turn away from that path." Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Nobel prize laureate in medicine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 1999 Report Share Posted September 24, 1999 > This is pure speculation. Every part of of the Bhagavatam is bhakti because > it's in relation with the Supreme Lord. And the instructions are telling us > to accept it all whether it tallies with our imperfect mind or not. If you > don't follow the method of bhakti, what are you following?? Your mind? Can > your imperfect limited mind understand the glories of the super intelligent > Lord Krsna??? If so, it makes your mind>God. Than what type of God is He? > First thing is, do you believe in God? >From my text you are deriving conclusions which I did not write and then you are blaming me for these conclusions. 1. That I do not follow method of bhakti. Method of bhakti means that a primary way of existence of the living entity is to establish and maintain a loving relationship of some kind (santa, dasya, sakhya, vatsalya, mathurya or some of 7 additional rasas). Nowhere did I said anything against that. Bhakti does not have anything with astronomy. 2. That my mind can understand the glories of the Lord. Nowhere did I say so. He Himself can't fully understand His own glories, so how could I? But we were talking about distance between Sun and Moon and that is something within capability of our minds. > > > We can see in ISKCON's everyday life that indeed such things as > > > "moon paranoia" or anything out of common sense did never bring > > > anyone "closer to developing love for Krsna". This is a hard fact. > > Is it devotional service to read the Fifth Canto??? This "hard" fact he's > talking about is his speculation and biased observation. The fifth canto was > my main attraction for reading the Bhagavatam so much so that I made a > multimedia CD out of it! If you are a devotee and brought to that by 5th Canto, I congratulate - you are an exception. But I have observer, talked to, lived with, worked with, served with, a number of devotees of all ages, both genders, different levels of education, in the course of a number of years, and what I said did not came whimsically. > > > If we ask modern scientists to give good proofs for what they say > > > and if we blame them for cheating when they are wrong (or sometimes > > > intentionally cheat) then we must apply the same system for our set > > > of knowledge and beliefs. > > WRONG! Modern scientists follow the method of observe and test so whatever > they want us to accept, they have to show us how to observe and test it. > However, they are not doing that (i.e., distances to planets, Big Bang, > Evolution, etc.) Our method is that you approach a person who knows the > Absolute Truth and inquire from him and by rendering of devotional service, > the Absolute Truth is revealed. WHY SHOULD WE FOLLOW THEIR > METHOD??? THEY DON'T FOLLOW THEIR OWN METHOD. That's hypocracy. > The problem is YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING YOUR OWN METHOD and due to > your lack of realizations, you have to adopt the imperfect method of the scientists. 1. The fact that you accept certain method does not mean that it is the correct one. Anyone can take some heritage of knowledge (Islamic? Christian? Hebrew? Ancient Egyptian or Greek?) and say "I accept this and therefore whatever comes from this source is correct". 2. It is true that if you find a person who posesses absolute knowledge it is accepted as a good method of ascertaining the truth. But first you would have to prove that this person really posess complete and absolute knowledge. Accepting persons as posessing absolute knowledge and general goodwill without checking it first will lead to disaster. Certain persons in ISKCON were accepted as such and what is the result? Out of 11 first GBCs/gurus, 7 is not here any more, and what did they do? Do I really have to remind you? Does the name "Kirtananda" ring a bell? Or "Hamsadutta"? "Jayatirtha"? I will intentionally not go into those closer to present date - too much bad feelings is still around. Can anyone who has a title of "guru", maybe even with ISKCON stamp on it, be accepted as a source of supreme absolute truth, without proving that he is? 3. As for the scriptures, we know that some scriptures (eg Bhavisya Purana) could not be trusted in every place. So far SP books are not on the list, but this heritage was transferred through thousands of years, and human tendency is to add or remove or change. So a desire to check if something is true is normal. No sane person will, of course, check if we should really have a good relationship with God. Anyone knows that much from his inner self. But for practical things of this (material) world it is a good idea to check. > > > If "accept it as it is" is not "blindly", then what is "blindly"? Blind > > > acceptance is when one accepts something without asking for any evidence, > > > either a direct, substantial evidence that can be observed (pratyaksha) > > > or an evidence of logic and reasoning (anumana) or in religious case an > > > evidence from the knowledge which came from God (sabda). > > Again speculation. Blind means there is no method of verification ever. If I > tell you, the Big Bang occurred and you accept it; that's blind because it's > something that scientists are NOT offering us a method to oberve. However, if > I tell you that you can also come to this stage of Krsna consciousness by > practicing such and such thing and reading such and such books; that's > verfication. It's called DIRECT PERCEPTION BY THE SELF not perception through > imperfect senses. How do I know that everything that the physics books is > teaching is true??? I have not done observations on any of their statements. 1. We did not speak about how to achieve psychological or spiritual changes but what is the distance between celestial bodies. Neither did we speak about Big Bang. Big Bang theory is just a theory since it cannot be fully proved. The distance between Sun and Earth can. > > > potential fanatics, who will in the course of time do more damage than good. > > It's people who pretend to be devotees while rejecting their spiritual masters > who are the dangerous elements of the Krsna consciousness society. People who > mix up two different processes by picking and choosing what they like through > their imperfect minds and thus rejecting Krsna's system. 1. Those who reject their gurus although gurus are ok, are indeed dangerous. Fortunately I am not one of them. But they are not the only danger. I have seen the people who would glorify their gurus without any problem, but after 5 minutes of conversation, or even faster, you can see they're psychiatrist cases. So far, intelligent ones in ISKCON still outnumber loonies; but if we don't care, what can happen in the future? 2. Everyone must use his mind. When you see or hear any system of spiritual improvement, you must use your mind to understand if it is a good system or just a cheating. You may say that another person, an authority, can tell you; but then you must first check that person before believing him/her. And once in the process, you must continue checking. The practice in ISKCON has shown that there were people who were gurus at some time in the past, but then fell down. So one must keep his intelligence constantly alert, because the fact that something was ok in the past does not make an absolute guarantee for the future. So you can see that you simply can't escape use of your own mind - or you will be cheated sooner or later. Using one's own mind is not irreligious or heretic thing. > Okay, tell me the formulae; I want to calculate the distance myself rather > than BLINDLY follow your foolish statements. Uh oh. Now my statements are "foolish". I don't remember telling anything such about you. I apologize if I did. But of course I can offer you the math, and a simple version of it, easy to understand. I'll make a separate letter for that since this one already has a lot of topics. > > mathematics is widespread at least in the United States and Canada. The > > situation in Europe, Japan and China is probably not so bad, because the > > secondary schools there are more rigorous. > > No material qualifications need to realize Krsna. I know calculus and > differential equations, but I don't see how the scientists' observations can > be considered the ultimate answer given their constantly changing nature and > assuming conditions that they know nothing about. 1. No one considers them ultimate answers about God. 2. No one considers them ultimate answers at all. 3. I just consider them as best answers so far, and if anyone claims his answer is better, I ask him to prove his answer. 4. We do not speak about constantly changing things. Distance between celestial bodies is as it is and no scientist changed it ever since it was calculated. For calculation you need basic trigonometry and trigonometry itself did not change at all. So what changes do you talk about? > > When we read "athato brahma jijnasa," this is an appeal to reason, not > > the diktat of a closed mind... > > Stop speculating. It means to search out the cause of all causes not to > BLINDLY accept some scientist who is constantly changing his theories. I > still am waiting for proof that the physics books is accurate. I have no > time to conduct the millions of experiments to prove it. So tell me, what > method do I use to verify it except for just accepting it blindly! "athato brahma jijnasa" means that now when we got an intelligent form of body we should search for spiritual realizations and not remain satisfied with material life. But no one said anything against that. The above sentence (from the letter of Ananda prabhu) was intended to say that we should search for spiritual realization in an intelligent way, not in a way of blind acceptance and fanaticism. God is not a leader of a sect; He loves us more than that. > > Srila Prabhupada once told me: "You have a good brain. Krsna has given > > you a good brain. You must use it for His service. Don't just be blind follower. > > Exactly! You should take Srila Prabhupada's advice; use your brain to serve > Krsna not the scientists' speculations. Propagate His message not theirs. > Take help from those who have realizations in Krsna consciousness not from > those who constantly revising their theories. 1. Now you are extending SP's sentence to what he did not say. 2. We should serve Krishna and not serve speculations. But not all that comes from scientists is a speculation (though some things are) and not all scientists are equal. God gave us brain to make a difference. 3. I myself would not take help from someone who changes his theory every year. But Earth-Sun distance and basic astronomy in our solar system are not constantly revised, so your comment is out of place in that. > > > And it would not be the proof to say "explanation A is absolutely right, > > > ergo, anything that differs from it must be wrong. And since explanation B > > > does differ from explanation A it is therefore wrong and A being right > > > and B being wrong, we conclude that A far surpasses B". > > Krsna consciousness surpasses modern science; any fool can see that the > process of Krsna consciousness demands no change and scientists are constantly > updating and changing. So best to avoid changing theories until you have > fully examined the unchanging ones. And the taste of the pudding is in the > eating [those who are fully following]. True Krishna consciousness truly surpasses anything else; but what is a true Krishna consciousness? Every time someone thinks he defined it, it proves more complex... We (I got tired of repeating) did not speak about changing parts of scientific theories. So all comments about such parts are out of place. > > > While giving a proof one must observe all standard rules of logic,... > > Yes, the logic is "I am imperfect and suffering. Is there anyone who is > perfect and in a better condition who can help me?" Nice words, but they do not negate need for logic even one bit. > > microscopes, X-rays, etc.., is adequate and satisfactory, leads us to > > external ridicule and disastrous internal disjunction between (alas, all... > > Just choose your authority. Your imperfect mind or one who has seen the truth > and can show you the truth. Oh? Who would that be? > When I entered the physics class, no one proved every single statement to me, > everyone in class sat like ZOMBIES and accepted blindly whatever the teacher said. But in due course of time most of it gets proved. And the theory that Moon is farther from the Earth than the Sun is did not get proved so far. yours, DVD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.