confused and tired.

[needofhelp]

Please help me.

 

For the last 10 years, i have tried to get closer to Sri Krsna by daily chanting and offering my services to the local temple. I used to think that only Sri Krsna was the reason for my life. Things were fine until i started to get into Darwinism. Also, my brother is a final year medical student and an atheist. Whenever we have an argument about GOD and creation, he always has something to say that would make me look at creation in a way against our scriptures. At this point, i am soooooo confused that i now doubt everything. I cannot carry on like this. Was my last 10 years a waste? Please someone help. Has someone been down my path? I've tried daily chanting in the hope that things would clear up but they haven't. I used to be convinced that GOD was everywhere and in everything and now all i see is the products of evolution.

 

Please help

Kelly.

[Avinash]

If God is everywhere and in everything, then He can as well be behind evolution also. So, don't worry.

[passionate_freak]

You are on the ture path, keep it up. But was your love for Krsna so feeble that the false arguments of your brother making it shaky ??? How come? It shows you were then feeding yourself to your ego just trying a bit different thing from others.

 

You know the scriptures and the sayings but you never tried to know yourself. If you ever have tried to know yourself then nothing would ever could affect you the way your brother's words are doing.

 

Or it might be the cause that you need a Guru. If you are seeking to get further in Loving Krsna then you don't need to go to any temple.Just look him into your heart, into your whole entity. And, a capable Guru can relate you to him. The way Vaishnavas doing is only Bhakti and it doesn't ensure you the availability of Krsna or anyone else. But by Sadhana you are to accomplish what you desire. If you want Krsna, you''ll get closer to him and get him just everywhere. As you talk to your friends, your parents.

For it, too you need a devotional heart, with a lotta Bhakti. Not the kinda bhakti of many people today but THE BHAKTI of MEERA.

Try loving KRSNA like MEERA and nothing gonna bother you again. Make your naive heart brave in LOVE and you'll be astonished to possess KRSNA.

 

Evolution?? ? When there are lotta debates among scientists themselves how come anyone can be sure of it? ANd we know it is not evolution, even if it is :

 

as Avinash said :::

(((

If God is everywhere and in everything, then He can as well be behind evolution also. So, don't worry))))))))

 

With the Love of KRSNA , certainly a LOVE of SADGURU too,

PF, NP

[suchandra]

 

Please help me.

 

For the last 10 years, i have tried to get closer to Sri Krsna by daily chanting and offering my services to the local temple. I used to think that only Sri Krsna was the reason for my life. Things were fine until i started to get into Darwinism. Also, my brother is a final year medical student and an atheist. Whenever we have an argument about GOD and creation, he always has something to say that would make me look at creation in a way against our scriptures. At this point, i am soooooo confused that i now doubt everything. I cannot carry on like this. Was my last 10 years a waste? Please someone help. Has someone been down my path? I've tried daily chanting in the hope that things would clear up but they haven't. I used to be convinced that GOD was everywhere and in everything and now all i see is the products of evolution.

 

 

Please help

Kelly.

When associating with devotees in the temple we easily get so much into higher realms of bhakti-yoga that we lose contact with the so called reality of the karmi world. Loss of reality syndrome what materialists call it when talking with devotees. At this point we have to get to those facts which are understandable reality for the karmis who attack us.

What the karmis are living for doesnt relate to the immortal soul but to the material body - and this temporary vehicle, this material body, will end when death comes. The soul is like a bird that is presently caught in a cage, this body, and the foolish materialists are only trying to improve that cage, trying to have a golden cage. However, there's no difference if the cage is golden, brass, iron or plastic. So this is the materialists foolishness, he only takes care of his body although he knows that this body will end at the graveyard in a couple of years.

Is there any difference between the rich man's bones and the poor man's bones?

But why preach to such people? Better to stop preaching to such gross materialists and give them prasadam! Prasadam will gradually wake up his soul and then the preaching will be effective.

 

Devotional art by Jagattarini dd - http://www.gopinatha.net/

[needofhelp]

hi guys, thanks for the replies.

 

My problem is with the disagreement between our religion and science. Scientific theories seem to make more sense than what the scriptures say and so much so that i am finding it difficult to believe in the scriptures. This has come about from the numerous books i have read on Evolution, big bang etc (why did i do this ...). Now that i look back, i feel that the main reason i was devoted to Krsna was as a fall back. That is, if i did not worship Krsna and later on in the afterlife i found that there was a GOD after all, i would not be a sinner.

 

Kelly

[suchandra]

 

hi guys, thanks for the replies.

 

My problem is with the disagreement between our religion and science. Scientific theories seem to make more sense than what the scriptures say and so much so that i am finding it difficult to believe in the scriptures. This has come about from the numerous books i have read on Evolution, big bang etc (why did i do this ...). Now that i look back, i feel that the main reason i was devoted to Krsna was as a fall back. That is, if i did not worship Krsna and later on in the afterlife i found that there was a GOD after all, i would not be a sinner.

 

Kelly

 

You mean things like below - modern scientists now considering that peoples minds became so dull that they won't figure what is actually a living cell?

 

Scientists a step nearer to creating artificial life

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/06/2

 

 

New progress towards synthetic organism

· Hope of fuels, drugs and ways to fight pollution

• James Randerson, science correspondent
  
• The Guardian
  
• Thursday September 6 2007

To the untrained eye, the tiny, misshapen, fatty blobs on Giovanni Murtas's microscope slide would not look very impressive. But when the Italian scientist saw their telltale green fluorescent glint he knew he had achieved something remarkable - and taken a vital step towards building a living organism from scratch.

The green glow was proof that his fragile creations were capable of making their own proteins, a crucial ability of all living things and vital for carrying out all other aspects of life.

Though only a first step, the discovery will hasten efforts by scientists to build the world's first synthetic organism. It could also prove a significant development in the multibillion-dollar battle to exploit the technology for manufacturing commercially valuable chemicals such as drugs and biofuels or cleaning up pollution.

The achievement is a major advance for the new field of "synthetic biology". Its proponents hope to construct simple bespoke organisms with carefully chosen components. But some campaigners worry about the new technology's unsettling potential and argue there should be a moratorium on the research until the ethical and technological implications have been discussed more widely.

One of the field's leading lights is the controversial scientist Craig Venter, a beach bum turned scientific entrepreneur who is better known for sequencing the human genome and scouring the oceans for unknown genes on his luxury research yacht. The research institute he founded hopes to create an artificial "minimal organism". And he believes there is big money at stake.

In an interview with Newsweek magazine earlier this year, Dr Venter claimed that a fuel-producing microbe could become the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism. The institute has already patented a set of genes for creating such a stripped-down creature.

Ultimately, synthetic biologists hope to create the most efficient form of life possible, with the fewest genes needed to allow the organism to grow, replicate and proliferate. But researchers have approached the problem from two radically different directions. Dr Venter's team is starting with one of the simplest forms of cellular life known to science - the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, which causes urinary tract infections. By stripping out each of its 482 genes and observing the effect on the organism they have calculated that a core of 381 are vital for life.

In contrast to this top-down approach, Dr Murtas, at the Enrico Fermi research centre at Roma Tre University in Italy, and Pier Luigi Luisi aim to build a living thing from the bottom up. "The bottom-up approach has the possibility of creating living systems from entirely non-living materials," said Tom Knight, an expert in synthetic biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"That's the real power of synthetic biology ... If you can take it apart into little bits and pieces and shuffle things around and put it back together and it still works, you can have much more confidence that you really understand what is going on."

The Italian team's advance is to make simple cells which are essentially bags made up of a fatty membrane containing just 36 enzymes and purified ribosomes - microscopic components common to all cells which translate the genetic code into protein. The primitive cells are capable of manufacturing protein from one gene.

The team chose a fluorescent green protein found in jellyfish because it was easy to see, using a microscope, when the protein is being made. "We are trying to minimise any system we put in place for the cell," said Dr Murtas. "We can prove at this point that we can have protein synthesis with a minimum set of enzymes - 36 at the moment." He hopes the project will teach him about the earliest stirrings of life in Earth's primeval slime some 3.5bn years ago.

"It's impressive work," said Prof Knight. "Protein synthesis is a wonderful place to start, partly because it is so well understood and ... you can figure out what is going wrong relatively easily. But there is a lot more involved in making cells that are alive ... I think the bottom-up people have a long way to go."

Dr Murtas acknowledges that his bags of enzymes are a long way from a fully functioning cell, but it is an important proof of principle - being able to make proteins is key for the cell to acquire new functions. Giving it the ability to grow, divide, partition components into daughter cells correctly and replicate DNA will be a major challenge, though. The team will report the work in the journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications.

Dr Murtas is now working on making cells which are capable of division - crucial if they are to be truly alive. As the membrane grows, the team hope it will reach a point where the cell becomes too big and so gives rise to a pair of daughter cells.

In June, Dr Venter's research team announced that they had discovered how to carry out a "genome transplant". They showed they could move the genetic recipe of one species of Mycoplasma bacterium into another closely related species.

[mohankrishna]

Please check your "Private Messages" at the top right of your window.

 

 

Please help me.

 

For the last 10 years, i have tried to get closer to Sri Krsna by daily chanting and offering my services to the local temple. I used to think that only Sri Krsna was the reason for my life. Things were fine until i started to get into Darwinism. Also, my brother is a final year medical student and an atheist. Whenever we have an argument about GOD and creation, he always has something to say that would make me look at creation in a way against our scriptures. At this point, i am soooooo confused that i now doubt everything. I cannot carry on like this. Was my last 10 years a waste? Please someone help. Has someone been down my path? I've tried daily chanting in the hope that things would clear up but they haven't. I used to be convinced that GOD was everywhere and in everything and now all i see is the products of evolution.

 

Please help

Kelly.

[cbrahma]

How many non-scientists understand Darwinian evolution enough to accept or reject it? No contemporary biologist accepts classical Darwinism, primarily because of Darwin's ignorance of genetics. Most of the atheists I argue with are not scientists and accept the edict of Darwin as though it were sastra. Botany was my minor in college and believe me, it barely qualifies as a scientific theory. Where is the experimental evidence? Who has observed evolution? Why would fitness of survival necessarily lead to 'higher' species? Unicellular organisms are as nicely adapted to the same environment as we are. If the principle of 'natural selection' was sufficient to explain the emergence of new species, why is there so much diversity within the same environment?

Darwin's explanation does nicely once the persistence of new traits is assumed, but not so well on the emergence of exactly those traits that are 'successful' enough to persist long enough to create another species.

It's basically a biological or genetic crap shoot. Eons of time are necessary to 'select' just those small differences that add up to a whole new complex species. The scenario must happen millions of times and requires naive faith to believe it. That's what Darwinism is - faith, not science.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

That's what Darwinism is - faith, not science.

 

The last time I checked, science has a provision for *theories* which have yet to be proven (and, some of which, are not provable). That's what Darwin's theory is: a theory.

 

The only question the scientist should have regarding Darwin's theory is whether it is useful or not.

[Kulapavana]

 

My problem is with the disagreement between our religion and science. Scientific theories seem to make more sense than what the scriptures say and so much so that i am finding it difficult to believe in the scriptures.

 

Kelly, there is truth in both science and the scriptures. I am a scientist myself yet I dont believe in evolution. Why? Not because it is contrary to the scriptures but because it is a very flawed theory on scientific grounds.

 

I know many Vaishnavas who have no problem reconciling science and scriptures. Have some patience.

 

Feel free to ask specific questions but there are many threads on this forum that discuss these topics.

[cbrahma]

 

The last time I checked, science has a provision for *theories* which have yet to be proven (and, some of which, are not provable). That's what Darwin's theory is: a theory.

 

The only question the scientist should have regarding Darwin's theory is whether it is useful or not.

I'm aware of the role that theories play in science having studied a lot of it.

The number of unproven assumptions in the theory , not to mention the , to date, impossibility of first hand observation, raises (or lowers) it to the status of faith.

The way it is spouted like absolute truth by atheists places it firmly in the realm of faith.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

I'm aware of the role that theories play in science having studied a lot of it.

The number of unproven assumptions in the theory , not to mention the , to date, impossibility of first hand observation, raises (or lowers) it to the status of faith.

The way it is spouted like absolute truth by atheists places it firmly in the realm of faith.

 

I've railed against the abuse of Darwin's theories on many occasions, so I'm in full agreement with you in that regard.

 

Still, I object to extremism in either degree (support for or opposition to the theory of evolution). Rather than take a dogmatic approach to these issues, let us evaluate theories based on their merits.

[cbrahma]

 

I've railed against the abuse of Darwin's theories on many occasions, so I'm in full agreement with you in that regard.

 

Still, I object to extremism in either degree (support for or opposition to the theory of evolution). Rather than take a dogmatic approach to these issues, let us evaluate theories based on their merits.

 

Analyzing Darwinism on its merits is exactly what I did, in my post. There is no scientific idea of 'extremism' That is a moral/emotional term. Claiming that blind uninformed acceptance of a scientific theory is dogmatism, is neither extreme nor dogmatic.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Analyzing Darwinism on its merits is exactly what I did, in my post. There is no scientific idea of 'extremism' That is a moral/emotional term. Claiming that blind uninformed acceptance of a scientific theory is dogmatism, is neither extreme nor dogmatic.

We seem to be mostly in agreement.

 

I suppose what got my goat was:

 

> That's what Darwinism is - faith, not science.

 

If it's an "ism", then I suppose you are right. If it's "Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection", then it's a scientific theory that can sink or swim on its own merits and not a faith.

 

In any case, you might find this article very interesting. It has some significant implications for evolutionary biology and reinforces an intuition that I've had regarding symbiosis and cooperation in general in terms of evolution.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070830150118.htm

 

 

One Species' Entire Genome Discovered Inside Another's

 

<!-- BODY BEGIN --> Science Daily — Scientists at the University of Rochester and the J. Craig Venter Institute have discovered a copy of the entire genome of a bacterial parasite residing inside the genome of its host species.<!-- Originally posted on ScienceDaily 2007-08-31 -->

<!-- IMAGE BEGIN -->

Fruit fly ovaries showing wolbachia infection within. (Credit: University of Rochester)

<hr>

<!-- IMAGE END --> The finding, reported in Science August 30, suggests that lateral gene transfer--the movement of genes between unrelated species--may happen much more frequently between bacteria and multicellular organisms than scientists previously believed, posing dramatic implications for evolution.

 

Such large-scale heritable gene transfers may allow species to acquire new genes and functions extremely quickly, says Jack Werren, a principle investigator of the study.

 

The results also have serious repercussions for genome-sequencing projects. Bacterial DNA is routinely discarded when scientists are assembling invertebrate genomes, yet these genes may very well be part of the organism's genome, and might even be responsible for functioning traits.

 

"This study establishes the widespread occurrence and high frequency of a process that we would have dismissed as science fiction until just a few years ago," says W. Ford Doolittle, Canada Research Chair in Comparative Microbial Genomics at Dalhousie University, who is not connected to the study. "This is stunning evidence for increased frequency of gene transfer."

[new---new]

 

Please help me.

 

For the last 10 years, i have tried to get closer to Sri Krsna by daily chanting and offering my services to the local temple. I used to think that only Sri Krsna was the reason for my life. Things were fine until i started to get into Darwinism. Also, my brother is a final year medical student and an atheist. Whenever we have an argument about GOD and creation, he always has something to say that would make me look at creation in a way against our scriptures. At this point, i am soooooo confused that i now doubt everything. I cannot carry on like this. Was my last 10 years a waste? Please someone help. Has someone been down my path? I've tried daily chanting in the hope that things would clear up but they haven't. I used to be convinced that GOD was everywhere and in everything and now all i see is the products of evolution.

 

Please help

Kelly.

 

hello

 

both scientific theories and religious theories are based on so many unproovable assumptions that its easy to get hold of one point of view and

disproove others ............ if u want to look at faults ....you can find them in all religions and in all scientific theories.............simplistically speaking ...........religion assumes that chaos comes from order ..........ie god is the cause of all the shit in the world(devil cannot do anything in the kingdom of all powerful god and if he can do something against gods will then god is not all powerful......so all bad things happen because god chooses not to interfere(i doubt very much).......

 

on the other hand ....sciences assumes that .....order comes from chaos .... ..which again is difficult to believe ...because chemical can react .....but they dont react to form human beings .....or for that matter living beings.......besides how do we define what is living and what is not living ???............for example ..in our dream world .... our floors our houses ..etc are all imaginary and not alive ....but they are created in our minds ..l an illusion ....so is illusion dead or alive????..........

 

this question is important because scriptures define this world to be a dream of mahavishnu..........and just as in dreams ...things just happen ....god bad and ugly ......so also things happen in this world ......as this collective illusion of souls who are part and parcels of mahavishnu .............is made up of three gunas(qualities)....sattva(goodness) rajas(passion) and ignorance(tamas)..... and vishnu (mahavishnu is sleeping and dreaming and so the souls are under illusion and are asleep though they think they are awake.............the only beings awake in this collective dream....are those who know that this is a dream (maya).........and by practice and training..........the awake(buddhas,siddhas,gurus,goswamis..etc ) can to a certain extent exert their influence in this world...(like lucid dreamers influence their dreams)........however those who are truly awake dont feel the need to change anything in this world ....as they dont think it is real ...and the moment they start taking the world seriously ...they risk coming under the illusion...............so the shit exists in the world ...... without god intending it to be there........thats what i conclude........

 

 

even if u are satisfied with what i have just said........i personally think theories are prettymuch useless........i personally value experiences more than theory ..........and while i too have been throough what u are going through (and i had 3 fallback options which i ultimately rejected because when i was undergoing difficulties times i dug in my heels and started asking the difficult questions..............because i wanted to get to the bottom of things..........

 

ultimately however ....if u are willing to take my advice.............then i suggest u continue with you dicipline ....and follow the regulations (chanting ,sattvic food etc.....very very strictly.............because loss of faith and asking the difficult questions may help u find theoratically satisfying answeres but wont be much help when it comes to experiences..........)while having faith will help u know things with the help of personal experiences ........and if u have a qualified guru........that will help u a lot...................in fact it will be all the difference between success and failure .................

 

know that at this moment it is more appropriate for you to continue believing what you do ...........and the meanings will become clearer..as you progress.............what you believe now is not false .....but just that you are not familiar with the terminology used in the scriptures and so there is a lot of room for misunderstandings .........

 

all scriptures have many levels of understanding ........for example we have bhagvad gita interpreted by bhaktas,jnanis and kriayogis and their interpretation differs .......it doesnt mean that only one interpretation is correct and others are wrong ........though bhakta intrepretation generally claim that their interpretation is the only true interpretation.......

 

if mosts things in your life are otherwise fine ..........then stop doubting because it is such a waste of time ..instead ...keep following the regulations ....and take spirituality seriously ..........because if u are not serious now then when the difficulties come ..it will be difficult to keep the faith.................and experiences are easier to come by where there is faith.............i say this because i ve been there........

[shvu]

Kelly,

 

There are 4 categories of people. A big part of our reality and religion appear to be in stark contrast with each other. A contradiction that everyone deals with at some point. These categories are formed based on how an individual fares in his or her attempt to reconcile real life perceptions with religion.

 

1. The Atheist: Real life perception wins over religion due to lack of evidence in support of the latter.

 

2. The Agnostic: Cannot make a choice either way. In my opinion, the subject just does not interest him or her enough.

 

3. The Type A Theist: Reconciles reality with religion by not accepting everything in the religious books. Accepts religious books are embellished and are allegorical in several instances; differentiates between spiritual and material content in the books. A description of Vaikunta is acceptable as it is a spiritual realm, but a story of a 20000 year old man on earth or a talking monkey is not. However, the key is, lack of acceptance of these fantastic stories do not weaken faith.

 

4. The Type B Theist: Accepts religious books all the way - every line; the whole nine yards. Archaeological evidence, science, etc are rejected in favor of religious stories from hundreds of years ago when there are contradictions. Some examples, seen several times on these forums, are the moon landing episode, antiquity assigned to Indian civilization, and so on. Anything other than complete and absolute acceptance of the content of religious books is seen as a weakness that undermines faith.

 

Evolution v. Creationism is an issue only if you are the type B theist. For the type A theist, the truth of evolution or lack thereof is of no relevance. Evolution does not challenge his religious beliefs as the two are not related in any way. So if you have a difficult time being a type B person, you may want to consider switching to type A. You will still be religious and will also be at peace having freed yourself of such conflicts.

 

Good luck!

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Well, I'd like to think that I'm a type B theist by your system of classification.

 

I can pretty much accept the shastra word for word (to the extent that my puppy brain can comprehend it).

 

At the same time, I can accept science for what it is: a limited (but arbitrarily so) way to understand and model the universe that has certain practical and useful applications in the fields of engineering.

 

One can look at things in terms of paradigms, dimensions, layers of an onion, or what have you.

 

Just as many different radio, TV, cell phone, and other electromagnetic waves are simultaneously existing in the same "ether", so, there are possibly many simultaneous and distinct realities.

 

 

Kelly,

 

There are 4 categories of people. A big part of our reality and religion appear to be in stark contrast with each other. A contradiction that everyone deals with at some point. These categories are formed based on how an individual fares in his or her attempt to reconcile real life perceptions with religion.

 

1. The Atheist: Real life perception wins over religion due to lack of evidence in support of the latter.

 

2. The Agnostic: Cannot make a choice either way. In my opinion, the subject just does not interest him or her enough.

 

3. The Type A Theist: Reconciles reality with religion by not accepting everything in the religious books. Accepts religious books are embellished and are allegorical in several instances; differentiates between spiritual and material content in the books. A description of Vaikunta is acceptable as it is a spiritual realm, but a story of a 20000 year old man on earth or a talking monkey is not. However, the key is, lack of acceptance of these fantastic stories do not weaken faith.

 

4. The Type B Theist: Accepts religious books all the way - every line; the whole nine yards. Archaeological evidence, science, etc are rejected in favor of religious stories from hundreds of years ago when there are contradictions. Some examples, seen several times on these forums, are the moon landing episode, antiquity assigned to Indian civilization, and so on. Anything other than complete and absolute acceptance of the content of religious books is seen as a weakness that undermines faith.

 

Evolution v. Creationism is an issue only if you are the type B theist. For the type A theist, the truth of evolution or lack thereof is of no relevance. Evolution does not challenge his religious beliefs as the two are not related in any way. So if you have a difficult time being a type B person, you may want to consider switching to type A. You will still be religious and will also be at peace having freed yourself of such conflicts.

 

Good luck!

[vmsunder]

I think you have been deeper into the Dwaitha philosphy which is the first stage in devotion.

 

You have to doubt god you have to suspect his existence, you have to deeply question the rationale behind all the God related stories then only you can move out of dwaitha which is just the initial stage on the way to salvation.

 

Miracles by few masters - that moving things without physically connecting to it and appearing in many places at the same time and all are just a small sidhhies in yogic path. This power every one has got all that is needed is to tap it with right practice.

 

So question the rationale - the Darwins theory of evolution the Big bang theory all should confuse you and make you question whethe God can be a person sitting somewhere - it is not possible.

 

Every atom, every cell can evolve into supreme being - it is the proof that everything is finite and infinite in itself - just because one is in such and such form today - it wont remain in the same for ever - it will change - change - change - evolve to supreme levels.

 

All seekers of happiness are seekers of God only - this is truth. The whole living beings is after happiness - happiness is what - Godliness - the nature of God.

 

So all actions are to the way to reach happiness - to reach God - there is nothing called good or bad. Nothing called thiest and athiest. These are all jokes just mayas.

 

Come out of it. come out of all conditioning with relevent to God. Chanting Gods name is not to make God to come to you. Do you know - according to Patanjaly Yoga Suktham of Saivist philosophy - if you deeply meditate on any god/God form - the god will come to you in the same form. But the fact is that it is not God - it is your creature - you only created that god by your deep thinking. Deep thinking has got so much effect. Do you know there is a word in English - Telekenisis - by sheer thought you can move anything - even the earth - by thougts.

 

So - the god you see is your own creation - come out of all conditioning and definition - that God has to be like this - human form etc. come out of it.

 

Chanting- mantra - is Pranayama -its a indirect way to regularising breath - once you regularise breath in rithm with cosmos - then mind gets mixed with the universal mind (without the attributes of its own emotions and feelings) so your mind become the Universal mind.

 

That is the stage the budha says - "master of himself is the master of others"

Once you reach it - you know mind and maya concept - then ego nirudh has to be done.

that is the final stage - then you vanish - your god vanish - only Godliness is there - its not a new coming- new acquiring- its already there - it will ever be there - dawned on to you. Like you wake up from a deep dream.

 

Thanks & regards

vm sunder

[needofhelp]

Thanks for all your replies.

 

vmsunder - that philosophy is very disturbing. It does not help me distinguish whether or not the evolutionists are correct or whether our scriptures are correct.

 

Kulapavana - here are some evidences that specifically causes me some unrest.

 

Fossil record - shows evolution in action. These can be put into a chronological record and backed by carbon dating.

 

Antibiotic and pesticide resistance - bacteria are evolving to become resistance to antibiotics and pesticides (superbugs).

 

 

These are just a couple of examples i managed to dig up. Darwin puts a case across which gives an alternative answer to where we came from. We can see his theory in action today. Someone once said that if you had to chose between two theories, choose the one which is the simplest - or something like that. The evolution theory is the simplest as we can see it happening and is in our fiossil records. That presented in our scriptures can not be proved and therefore is not simpler than darwin's theory. Which one is correct? This is what causes me to believe that maybe evolution by natural selection is the real answer.

 

Kelly.

[vmsunder]

Yeah! it will be confusing..

 

See if you know and have even iota of doubt at heart the devotion will be incomplete. It is better to get convinced and the follow the path.

 

See - Everything has come from light this is what our scriptures say.

 

Do u know that this is true - as per science the earch was a thrown away piece from Sun (star). The Sun is full of fire and hence is almost in gas form - there is no solid items - all that you see on planet earth originally belong to fire - thats why u see lots of fire worship in Vedas and scriptures, In Saiva philosophy God Shiva is referred as Param Jyothi (ultimate Fire Ultimate Light). Truth can not be two. The core of our scriptures can not contradict, like sugar coated tablets - the quoting, by mixing certain stories and examples, they covered the truth.

 

See water is used to put off fire - but water itself is combination of two highly flammable gas.

 

Any solid matter crushed beyond a level form will get the form of gas.

 

Please go thru Saiva Sidhdhanthas and Aagama saastras and Patanjali yoga suktham and Sidhdhars songs (Thirumanthiram English translation) - the truth is apparent.

 

Any suspicion will lead to futility - only the sthithaprakjna's get salvation (a confused and doubting mind can not reach sthithaprakjna stage). even if you pretend it will fall at some point - so doubt and get cleared then only the SURRENDER WILL BE WHOLE HEARTED AND COMPLETE.

 

Thanks & regards

vmsunder

[gHari]

It is the evolution of the soul we see in the fossil record - the soul passing through 8,400,000 species of life.

 

The scientist will tell you that religion has no place in science. But please will they finally accept that science has no place in religion. Science cannot answer the question 'why' - that is religion. When they start speculating about about why evolution happens they are no longer scientists. They become cranks.

[matarisvan]

 

It is the evolution of the soul we see in the fossil record - the soul passing through 8,400,000 species of life.

 

The scientist will tell you that religion has no place in science. But please will they finally accept that science has no place in religion.

 

Sir,

 

What kind of argument is that? Which scientist claimed science has a place in religion to begin with? It is people of religion who try to introudce religion into scence. Scientists are only interested in pointing out faulty logic used by religious people to distort science.

 

 

Science cannot answer the question 'why' - that is religion. When they start speculating about about why evolution happens they are no longer scientists. They become cranks.

 

Religion answers the question of 'why', a question not answered by science? What is the answer? I know 2 answers

 

1. Krishna wanted to play games

2. The Hebrew God got bored and wanted company

 

You are accusing science of not coming up with such naive answers? Well...alright. Your reasoning may make perfect sense in your own world but it makes no sense to me at all.

[new---new]

i am really pressed for time ... so i guess i can only ask you to go through my previous post Kelly......

 

scriptures are not false ..but rather they are more advanced than science ...and explain advance concepts ........which today's scientists are slowly beginning to understand ..............

 

what we call classical science is really a house ......rather a mountain of cards.....and you just have to pull one card and all advance science comes crashing down.........

 

for example take the definitation of a 'point' and its relation to 'line'

 

now a line exists in one dimension (but what is the breadth of a line ????? breadth cannot be defined in one dimension... as in one dimension only length exists.....

 

now can you imagine a line with no breadth but only "length".....I.E ZERO BREADTH.....OR INFINITE BREADTH

 

"WHY DONT YOU TRY DRAWING ONE ....IT WILL REALLY BE INTERESTING ".......

 

 

NOW IF U CANT

 

EVEN DRAW A LINE AS DEFINED BY SCIENCE .......HOW MUCH IS ALL THE MATHEMATICAL AND GEOMETRICAL FORMULAE REALLY "WORTH"

 

 

I have given you just one example ........but if you apply your mind you can find such anamolies everywhere........for example in "numerical system".... what is the relation between 0 and 1..... how do you arrive at one ......what is absolute zero ........ is it possible to define absolute zero?.......

 

i am not going into detail because as i mentioned earlier i am pressed for time ............

 

now that u know that science is not foolproof ....and is based on lot of assumptions ......ie .."GOOD FAITH"......

 

so do you still believe in darwins theory ..i mean based on the chronological records backed by carbon dating.....??? but then isnt darwins theory based on the concept of linear time ???? now can time be linear AT ALL .......when in the above example we just prooved that EVEN A LINE CANT BE LINEAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT....

 

 

lets talk about scriptures .....

 

when scriptures say that at first vishnu was lying on the great ocean (read ocean=consciousness,visnu = vishwa(universe)+ anu(atom) i.e one that permeades every atom of the universe = SPACE)... lying on sesh......(sesh mathamatically means remainder ....I.E REMAINDER OF KARMAS WHICH MAKES SOULS TO BE BORN......(SESH IS TAMASIC)...... now from visnu's navel a lotus springs up and from lotus bhrama is born .....bhrama is the first indiavidual in space (duality has arrived)....... now bhrama is troubled by the two demons madhu(means too much ) and kaitabh(too little ) ie excess of indulgence and desire for more indulgence (what he has is perceived to be too little).........bhrama is the first fallen soul (according to prabhupada when a soul falls he first becomes bhrama).........now vishnu is god of maintainence because ... a world of duality can only exist(MAINTAINED)only in SPACE and TIME..............BHRAMA is the god of creation because the world exist only relatively (percieved by bhrama who see himself to be seperate from space(visnnu) and time(shiva,ie kala,ie maha kala) ........ now bhrama is the the lord of creation falls for saraswati his own daughter (saraswati is knowledge(GODDESS OF )(I.E ...RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE)....... saraswati is said to be bhramas daughter because she is born of him ....I.E. she is not created by vishnu(space) or time (kala ,shiva).......BOTTOM LINE = RELATIVE KNOWLEDGE IS BORN OF "THE KNOWER"..........

 

now shiva the god of destruction is a state where the difference between the perciever ,the percieved and perception ....is lost

(those who really want to understand please read the tripura rahasya........if you manage to understand it you will be very pissed to find out what you do ...it is an advaitic and a sakta text)..........

 

shiva is a state of monoism .....the scriptures say that there is no such thing as shiva and soul for where there is a soul shiva is not and where there is shiva there is no soul(duality ie the difference between the perciever and the percieved is lost)...it is the state of advaitic moksh or buddhist nirvana........it is beyond duality .....of existance and non existance............it is in this context that the statement (EKAM BHARM DWITIYA NASTI........is to be understood ..........EKAM BHRAM...ETC......DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ONE GOD ...........IT MEANS THERE IS ONLY "ONE".......call this "ONE" as god or bhram or parabhram or WHATEVER.........but where this "ONE" exists there is no other .........

 

 

also the superiority of one god over the other is relative superiority of one tattva over other ........when scripture say that shiva is supreme because neither vishnu or bhrama could find his beginning or end ........it means THE STATE OF SHIVAHOOD CANNOT BE PERCIEVED,OR KNOWN IN SPACE(vishnu)OR BY BHRAMA(relative knower)....BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS SHIVA THERE IS NO OTHER ............... WHEN SCRIPTURES SAY THAT VISHNU IS SUPREME ...IT IS INDEED TRUE BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS PERCEPTION OF VISHNU ....THERE IS NO SHIVA.................

 

AGAIN THE SCRIPTURES AT TIMES TALK ABOUT VISHNU AS space TATTVA and at other time as PARABHRAM .............at times they talk about SHIVA ..as TIME tattva ...and at other times as parabhram.......................all statement of scriptures are true when understood in the right context........but in this day and age people have neither time nor inclination to research everything ....

 

 

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES IS BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO THE "TATTAVAS"but there are many interpretations....based on jnana,bhakti,mantras,tantras,yagnas,kriyas(for kriya yogis).......etc......

 

 

 

the rishis who wrote the scriptures were GENIOUS....

 

but as JALALUDDIN RUMI ... the sufi mystic would say ......"we have all said and heard ..but as for the way to go Words are no prepration........

 

so my advice still is .. continue doing you daily practice sincerely ...... mantras etc .....stick to sattvic diet ...... avoid sex.......and as u progress .....you will have some experiences ....which will confirm many of the things in the scriptures.......if u find a great guru progress will be quick.....

 

PS : ON SECOND THOUGHTS ...WAS I SUPPOSED TO ASK YOU TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE BLUE PILL AND THE RED PILL....BEFORE POSTING THIS ........

[Guruvani]

 

It is the evolution of the soul we see in the fossil record - the soul passing through 8,400,000 species of life.

 

The scientist will tell you that religion has no place in science. But please will they finally accept that science has no place in religion. Science cannot answer the question 'why' - that is religion. When they start speculating about about why evolution happens they are no longer scientists. They become cranks.

 

At the same time, it is the evolution of the universe that we see in the "fossil record".

 

The universe is like the baby of God.

The baby grows, evolves and expands.

 

Everything in the material world is in a process of growth and evolution.

At first there was only Lord Brahma all alone on the lotus flower from the navel of Garbhodakashayi Vishnu.

 

The universe grows.

Lifeforms evolve.

 

Living entities from the brahmajyoti zero in on it as a place they want to exploit.

They come they see and they fail to conquer.

 

Krishna sends his devotees and avatars to the universe to educate and inform the misguided jivas falling from the brahmajyoti.

 

After billions of years of evolution the tiny spirit spark completes a journey to the human form of life.

If they get lucky they get spiritual knowledge and come to understand the why and how of life.

 

 

Then they chant Hare Krishna and attain the ultimate perfection of the soul and get a chance to serve God.

 

All is well than ends well.

 

Haribol!

[shiva]

 

Thanks for all your replies.

 

vmsunder - that philosophy is very disturbing. It does not help me distinguish whether or not the evolutionists are correct or whether our scriptures are correct.

 

Kulapavana - here are some evidences that specifically causes me some unrest.

 

Fossil record - shows evolution in action. These can be put into a chronological record and backed by carbon dating.

 

Antibiotic and pesticide resistance - bacteria are evolving to become resistance to antibiotics and pesticides (superbugs).

 

 

These are just a couple of examples i managed to dig up. Darwin puts a case across which gives an alternative answer to where we came from. We can see his theory in action today. Someone once said that if you had to chose between two theories, choose the one which is the simplest - or something like that. The evolution theory is the simplest as we can see it happening and is in our fiossil records. That presented in our scriptures can not be proved and therefore is not simpler than darwin's theory. Which one is correct? This is what causes me to believe that maybe evolution by natural selection is the real answer.

 

Kelly.

 

The fossil record does not support evolution, it contradicts it, anyone who says differently is either ignorant or a liar. There is no disagreemnt on this by experts.

 

 

Gradualism

 

“One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.” – Eldredge & Tattersall,The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46

 

“For more than a century biologists have portrayed the evolution of life as a gradual unfolding…Today the fossil record…is forcing us to revise this conventional view” – S.M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p 3

 

Simple to Complex

 

"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D.Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet

 

“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3

 

Clear-cut lineages

 

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” - David E.Schindel, Curator at Peabody Museum of Natural History

 

“Many fossils have been collected since 1859, tons of them, yet the impact they have had on our understanding of the relationships between living organisms is barely perceptible. … In fact, I do not think it unfair to say that fossils, or at least the transitional interpretation of fossils, have clouded rather than clarified our attempts to reconstruct phylogeny” – P.L.Forey, Neontological Analysis Versus Palaeontological Stories, 1982, p120-121

 

Identifiable Ancestors

 

“I agree…that ancestor-descendant relationships cannot be objectively recognized in the fossil record” – R.M. Schoch, ‘Evolution Debate’, Letterin Science, April 22, 1983, p360

 

“The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal” – R. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p 45

Now, regarding creation predictions/expectations of the fossils record:

 

Sudden Appearance

 

“For all of the animal phyla to appear in one single, short burst of diversification is not an obviously predicable outcome of evolution” - PeterWard & Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth, Feb 2000, p. 150

 

“One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups” - A. G. Fisher,Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, 1998, fossil section

 

Fully Formed

 

“…the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” – Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987, p 229

 

"Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." - Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution,1979, p. 266.

 

Stasis

 

"The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperors' new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way" - Eldredge and Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p 45-46

 

“The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record” - S.J. Gould, ‘Cordelia’s Dilemma’, Natural History, Feb1993, p 15

 

See also

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

 

As for bacteria or viruses developing resistance. First off they are not turning into new species. If you play guitar a lot then your fingertips will develop calluses because your body is developing resitance against the constant pressure to your fingertips. Secondly mostly the development of resistance in microrganisms to antibiotics is not done through mutations. It has other causes.

 

University of Bristol bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation (change of species) and concluded in 2001:

 

 

"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another ... Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Alan Linton, "Scant Search for the Maker," Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001, Book section, 29.)

 

Also see

 

http://www.idthefuture.com/

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/