Did NASA land men on the Moon?

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

Haribol, Vikram, I am being very serious here. You insist that my views must comply with the latest scientific journals, but this is what I contend as not science, but rather bling belief in convention.

 

If science is not cutting edge, then it is academics. Academics is just a temporary fact, to be disproved by real science at a later date. Piltdown Man is a prime example, but there are millions of others.

 

Modern scientists refuse to say, "It is beyond me." Therefore, they are inelligible to participate in any scientific debate, because they place too much value on their faulty ionterpretations. I recommended Velikovsky, but you pooh pooh without comment, probably because of the widely published countra proposals of the 50s. Yet, by the 60s, these ideas have been actually the basis for progressive theoretical scientific processes that have given rise to that which may be convention in another fifty years. I mean really, Dick Tracy's watch is so passe, yet was such novelty. Star Trek Enterprise was on the megabite level compared to the gigabyte generation that is also soon to be obsolete.

 

Velikovsky actually used his scientific observations of the solar system structure to surmise cataclysm which todays scientists still have no real grasp on. Velikovsky actually proved that what you may refer to as myth as actual witnessed scientific observations by predecessor humanity that is perhaps much more advanced that todays pygmy world. (BTW, did I not say that Mauritius was too young to make the trip north?) He actually came to see the puranic histories as not only possible from a scientific analysis, but probable as well. Maybe one cannot perceive of the personal activities of King Prthu, but the result is there for all to witness. A theist/scientist understands that energy cannot stand alone, that energy is manipulated by the Energetic Being. Even modern science journals have authenticated the science of plate techtonics, effects of cosmic rays, planets in chaos, wobbling, flipping over, spinning backwardss, travelling in orbits aloof from the plate of the solar system. The only thing what you call mythology adds is the personal touch. And if one is a true scientist, they will give credit to the energetic, not come up with hair-brained schemes that have never undergone true scientific testins and positive result. The "energy only" theorists cannot make a grain of rice, cannot fabricate any new material from nothing. There are no creators among the scientists, only technicians that move about stuff already created by another.

 

Just because someone has branded the histories written on the walls of holocaust survival caves as mythology, there is no scientific evidence available to disprove any of it as fact. Giants and centaurs and leprichans and druids moving huge stones with their mental mantras have never been disproven, but evidences of their actual existance abounds, sure as the visible bridge tro Lanka of the Waves.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

 

Thank you for this reasonably comprehensive exposition of your worldview, Mahakji. For all the modernistically-inclined agnostic that I am, I too am intrigued by traditional Indian thought, which is the reason why I take part in the discussions here. You are entitled to your ideas just as I am to mine, but perhaps because I am truly a product of the modern world in almost every way imaginable, I hesitate to publicly support conspiracy theories, and that even when I personally tend towards a "reality" which is somewhat at variance with the officially-reported story (which does happen to me for sure: the formal versions of the Nazi Holocaust, the deaths of Diana and Dodi on 31/08/1997 as well as 911 are all partially veridical and part myth, in my mind).

 

As individuals, we can freely believe nearly anything we want, but that liberty doesn't entail attempting to force our prejudices on others, nor getting fanatical and dogmatic, least of all in relation to conceptions which can hardly be proved using empirically-accepted methodologies. In the eventuality that you MAY be right, you shall still NEVER be in a position to provide verifiable evidence to that effect. Therefore, insisting on the veracity of your multiverse filled with oceans of milk and treacle, with the moon being perched on top of a golden inverted cone inhabited by Devas and Upadevas, and here comes the icing on the cake - contemporary global society being under the thumb of semi-alien illuminati dictated by extra-dimensional reptilian Prison Wardens a la David Icke just doesn't become the gentleman that you obviously are.

 

Regarding Velikovsky, thanks for mentioning him. I will try to explore his works in some detail. Haribol Prabhu

[sevabhakta]

You are forgetting the humble Gaudiya brahmana's who you have never heard of, and most people have not.

 

In collusion with one of the few truly pious local Ksyatrias whose family has heard from descendents of those directly preached to by Mahaprabhu, the actual writings of Vyasadeva and the real vaisnava translations and commentaries all preserved, carefully, and they just don't tell any of the german or british scholars about it, never will, they are guided by supersoul in the heart to only reveal it to the right folks.

 

Everyone else can speculate their lives away about the psuedo translations and replicas of the Bhagavatam written after Vyasadeva.

 

There may only be a handful of such extreme loyalists, but exactly what kind of Vaisnava group do you think Abhay Caran and his father were a part of anyway. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada worked these insiders and kept the family secret close to the vest.

 

Vaisnava's take no pleasure in seeing others squirm in their doubtful speculations, but they also know when to throw the pearls before the swine for maximum effect, so give em their due eh?

 

Hare Krsna

[mahak]

Thus we are taught by our guru maharaja to become paramahamsa and dhira, swanlike and unconfused. As Vedesu has shown, there is another authentic version. The dynasty in which King Nebudcadnezzar reigned was at the end of their cycle. The history of King Tut can be compared by humanist researchers to mirror that of Lord Jesus Christ. The Sumarians have similar lore.

 

We do not discount cultural interpretation of the same thing, that whenever there is a decline of inhumanity and the world gets to be too burdened by its citizens, intervention takes place. Maui riding the sky with his fiery chariot, Gilgamesh crashing into the surface, Ragnarok. Then there is always the greatest and hidden culture of them all, the Mdogonnes of western Afrika, plying the global seas while the euro stock was living in fear in their survival caves.

 

All have their lore, and all can rightfully be considered accurate descriptions of witnessed events. If their is litewrary license on the walls of the caves, maybe so, but one needs experiance before any imagination can take place. Plato did not pull Atlantis out of the air, he worked from documents of writing and of sound, the lore passed from generation to generation by the storyteller, the minstrel, the guru, the shaman.

 

I accept modern science WITH these other accounts, not over and above them, being so puffed up that it is almost cultlike in their demands for allegiance and acceptance of their view as the only truth. If they had one truth that held up to the test of time, Id consider. But their presentation is beyond all arrogance and presumptiveness, and I refuse to accept their mastery. Ill use their internet, but its rather primitive in comparison with Lord Brahma and company approaching Svetadvip or Narada appearing at will to whomever. Even Mother Mary has full reign of both the material and spiritual strata, and back to NASA, they cannot even go 200 miles up without losing half their astronauts in fiery failures.

 

Back to the topic, if they went, why did they stop? Not lack of funding, America was never more wealthy or had a greater tax base than the decade following Nam. I know what you mean about those who see conspiracy everywhere, but just because Im paranoid doesnt mean they arent out to get me. My objection to the way the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used is a conspiracy in itself, an official US Government policy of Ridicule. Anyone with anything to say outside the box of convention can be shut down, shut up, and laughed out of the room for doubting their god. And this, my friend, is anti-scientific. Proposals should be investigated, not dismissed out of hand. The former is research, the latter is fanatic close-mindedness.

 

Thanx for discussing, at least we can do such. If you were debunker and I was conspiracy theorist, there would only be the discord, not a sensible discussion of all ideas laid out on the table (Of the laboratory). Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[mahak]

Icke and jones and the others with their views are very important to science. In fact, a program employed by the US Dept of the Navy, the Demming program of quality management, included brainstorming as the very first step to development of policy. I actually facillitated many of these brainstorming sessions which included top brass, chief executives, engineers, technicians qand deck plate labor. In these sessions, everything blurted out, even off the wall humor, was duly recorded initially. Later, as development took place, more often than not these silly ideas got developed into substantial gains. The stealth of submarines, for instance, grew from a funny guy who said that the subs needed a rubber (prophylactic). I cant say more, but this was actually done, and woulda been fool-proof if not for the misdeeds of the Falcon and the snowman (of laguna beach brotherhood of eternal light fame.) There is no science without testing in the laboratory and a record of accuracy. 50% of what is called science has failed this primary criteria, especially in the field of pharmaceuticals.

[davidbrucehughes]

If you study Jyotish, Vedic astrology, then in that context, the cosmology of the Srimad-Bhagavatam makes perfect sense. The idea is that we are here on the Bhu-mandala, and from this point of view the cosmos appears as described. Our Western assumption is that any description of the cosmos has to be heliocentric. But from a scientific or mathematical point of view it really makes no difference where you place the point of reference. A geocentric system is just as valid as a heliocentric view.

 

There is also little question that the Z-axis in the Bhu-mandala refers to advancement of consciousness, not any physical dimension. So why should it be a problem that the Bhagavatam's description of the cosmos looks different from what we see when we look through a telescope? The description of the universe given by Quantum Mechanics also looks a lot different from gross physical sense perception, but when we test it in a laboratory, it does tend to predict what will happen, at least at certain scales of phenomena.

 

Similarly, when we test the Vedic cosmology in the laboratory of authentic Vedic astrology such as the system described in Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra, it predicts our experience quite well. That is scientific enough for me.

[suchandra]

 

If you study Jyotish, Vedic astrology, then in that context, the cosmology of the Srimad-Bhagavatam makes perfect sense. The idea is that we are here on the Bhu-mandala, and from this point of view the cosmos appears as described. Our Western assumption is that any description of the cosmos has to be heliocentric. But from a scientific or mathematical point of view it really makes no difference where you place the point of reference. A geocentric system is just as valid as a heliocentric view.

 

There is also little question that the Z-axis in the Bhu-mandala refers to advancement of consciousness, not any physical dimension. So why should it be a problem that the Bhagavatam's description of the cosmos looks different from what we see when we look through a telescope? The description of the universe given by Quantum Mechanics also looks a lot different from gross physical sense perception, but when we test it in a laboratory, it does tend to predict what will happen, at least at certain scales of phenomena.

 

Similarly, when we test the Vedic cosmology in the laboratory of authentic Vedic astrology such as the system described in Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra, it predicts our experience quite well. That is scientific enough for me.

Thanks so much prabhu, great work you're doing, nice informative videos, spot on at times like these! Go on with the good work!

NASA seems working to full capacity to watch all these many huge icebergs ( length up to 80 miles) drifting away from the poles.

 

Image above: This image taken aboard the International Space Station shows melt water pooled on the surface of iceberg A-39D, currently drifting near South Georgia Island. Credit: NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/IPY/earth/index.html

 

NASA's Role in IPY

 

NASA scientists discuss the role of the agency in the International Polar Year. NASA will study the polar regions of Earth and

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="516"><tbody><tr><td height="20" valign="bottom" width="400"><!-- Page Title Image starts --><!-- Page Title Image ends --></td><td height="20" valign="bottom" width="116"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" bgcolor="#cccccc" height="1"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" height="10"></td></tr><tr><td align="left" width="400"><!-- Title starts -->NASA Snow Data Helps Maintain Nation's Largest, Oldest Bison Herd

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/yellowstone_bison.html

</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Avinash]

 

I being a girl have seen with my own experience how untrustworthy and unintelligent women are. And I don't doubt that my brain is half the size of that of a man.

 

There are many men and many women. You are less intelligent than some men and more intelligent than others. You are less trustworthy than some men and more trustworthy than others.

[tackleberry]

 

There are many men and many women. You are less intelligent than some men and more intelligent than others. You are less trustworthy than some men and more trustworthy than others.

 

And a man has to make her understand that. See where I am going with this?

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

And a man has to make her understand that. See where I am going with this?

I'm sure that if Prabhupada said that women are more intelligent than men, she would be singing a different song. But that's a different story.

 

It takes a man to tell a woman that she is intelligent when it is drilled into her head that she isn't. It takes a woman to tell another woman that she is what she is - a human being.

 

Men cry, women cry. Men are stupid, women are stupid. When does the 3rd sex come into play?

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

I'm sure that if Prabhupada said that women are more intelligent than men, she would be singing a different song. But that's a different story.

 

It takes a man to tell a woman that she is intelligent when it is drilled into her head that she isn't. It takes a woman to tell another woman that she is what she is - a human being.

 

Men cry, women cry. Men are stupid, women are stupid. When does the 3rd sex come into play?

 

Spot on. It is flabbergasting indeed to see a female resorting to such uninformed, backward reasoning in 2007. Prabhupada was quoting Vishnugupta (Kautilya for the Western academic practitioners) when he made those outrageous comments. Whilst the latter may have been a formidable political advisor and remarkable scholar, his views reflected the social mores and attitudes of his own era, i.e. the 4th century BCE. We now know from thousands upon thousands of research experiments conducted in the 20th century that there is no difference in the overall intelligence level of men and women really. If a discrepancy does exist between male and female faculties, it is concerning the development of the regions of the brain which tend to be geared towards different abilities and skills. Hence, one finds that, generally, guys do better in the fields requiring abstract and mathematical skills, whereas ladies often possess striking superiority in language and the humanities. Of course, as always, there are many, many exceptions to this rule of thumb.

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

Maybe so. Vyasadeva maybe is a general name for a collection of different authors. Personally these things don't matter to me in the slightest. What matters is the truth contained therein and I have yet to see another work that is even slightly comparable to the Srimad Bhagavatam. Not even close.

 

The eternal truth that is contained within the Srimad Bhagavatam is immune to all such controversies.

 

I have often said I accept those truths as they are and don't care if the Bhagavatam fell from the sky yesterday.

 

It should be said that I don't accept all the stories in the Bhagavatam as literal as most here do. Or the Mahabharata either. I don't believe in a literal battle of Kuruksetra for example which leaves me outside the fold and awkwardly in a position opposite the Gaudiya Acaryas.

 

Nevertheless the fact that we are spiritsoul and not this physical body remains. That God must be the Supreme Person and not just an impersonal energy field called Brahman. I also accept that the spiritual world is variegated and the jivas are meant for an eternal rasa of love exchanges with the Supreme Lord. I accept those relations as described in Krsna lila to be of the most intimate nature and in fact I accept Krsna lila as a literary incarnation of the Supreme Lord in His most attract form as Sri Krsna.

 

So I am a bit orthodox and a heretic at the same time.

 

I am hoping that you can reconcile your doubts with the essence found in the SB. Keep your doubts even. But please investigate the theistic side of vedic wisdom as inunciated in the SB.

 

That is my only request.

 

Hare Krsna

 

Thanks a lot, Theist. Yours is without a shadow of a doubt one of the most reasonable and balanced voices on these forums. And the above piece of advice is immensely appreciated by me. I shall try to focus on those esoteric components of shastra that enunciate the theology that has captivated you and so many others so powerfully.

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

If you study Jyotish, Vedic astrology, then in that context, the cosmology of the Srimad-Bhagavatam makes perfect sense. The idea is that we are here on the Bhu-mandala, and from this point of view the cosmos appears as described. Our Western assumption is that any description of the cosmos has to be heliocentric. But from a scientific or mathematical point of view it really makes no difference where you place the point of reference. A geocentric system is just as valid as a heliocentric view.

 

There is also little question that the Z-axis in the Bhu-mandala refers to advancement of consciousness, not any physical dimension. So why should it be a problem that the Bhagavatam's description of the cosmos looks different from what we see when we look through a telescope? The description of the universe given by Quantum Mechanics also looks a lot different from gross physical sense perception, but when we test it in a laboratory, it does tend to predict what will happen, at least at certain scales of phenomena.

 

Similarly, when we test the Vedic cosmology in the laboratory of authentic Vedic astrology such as the system described in Brhat Parasara Hora Sastra, it predicts our experience quite well. That is scientific enough for me.

 

You're correct with regards to the irrelevance of the heliocentrism versus geocentrism debate. It is as a matter of fact more a question of perspective and purpose in connection with one's objectives more than anything else, as you accurately stated. Just to elaborate on this point, I am hereby reproducing a few paragraphs from a previous post by myself on a related topic. Haribol

 

 

]Concerning the cosmological system described in the fifth canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, it has been a source of confusion even to Indian thinkers for many hundreds of years, even way before Western thought had any significant influence on India's intellectuals. Whilst many theories and counter theories have been written on the uselessness or validity of the astronomical and other information contained in the Bhagavatam, for me, the work of Sadaputa Prabhu (Richard L. Thompson) is, to date, the most convincing and scholarly position ever developed on this whole subject matter. I am not a big fan of ISKCON in any way, as anyone who has read my previous posts here will undoubtedly know, but I do give credit where I believe credit is due. And Sadaputa is one man with the sympathizing sensibilities of a devotee and the rigorous scepticism of a professional mathematician, both of which he is.

 

He has published two books on Bhagavata cosmology: (i) Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy, and (ii) Mysteries of the Sacred Universe. I have copies of both books and have read them, and would recommend them to anyone interested in this topic. In Mysteries..., which came out more than a decade after the first of these works, he postulates a very cogent and well-developed thesis which goes as follows - in the 5th canto, Srila Vyasadeva described the world and the universe by making use of a composite structure, in which different elements depict a number of possible models. This is indeed in line with something that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, namely that in basically each and every verse of scripture, several valid meanings can be extracted. After a couple of decades of simultaneous academic research and devotional practice, Sadaputa posits in Mysteries... that the cosmology of the Bhagavatam is amenable to at least four major interpretations, which maintain the sanctity of this Purana as a whole and preserve the value of the fifth canto. These are:

1. an accurate map of the solar system as determined from a geocentric point of view;

2. a polar projection map of the earth globe;

3. a topographical map of a large region of South and South Central Asia; and,

4. a map of the celestial realm of the Rishis, Devas, Upadevas and other subtly embodied beings described in the Vedic literature.

 

Sure, fanatics like Danavir have criticized Sadaputa/Thompson for "daring" to interpret the Sanskrit slokas of the Bhagavata rather than accepting a bland, sterile literal rendering. However, I would urge those seriously interested to read the books I have cited above, and discover for themselves what a committed Vaisnava and no-nonsense scholar Sadaputa is. In any event, there is nobody as well educated in modern scientific teachings nor as well acquainted with the Vedic worldview who has devoted half as much time, effort and energy in comprehending Puranic astronomy and cosmology, so logically I find it highly reasonable to defer to his findings. Of course, one has to be completely self-realised in order to understand reality, and Thompson himself states that his research no doubt APPROXIMATES the meaning that Vyasa originally intended when he was composing the Bhagavatam, but that ultimately, the material cosmos is indescribable, and the human intellect can at best only grasp limited aspects of it.

 

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

Icke and jones and the others with their views are very important to science. In fact, a program employed by the US Dept of the Navy, the Demming program of quality management, included brainstorming as the very first step to development of policy. I actually facillitated many of these brainstorming sessions which included top brass, chief executives, engineers, technicians qand deck plate labor. In these sessions, everything blurted out, even off the wall humor, was duly recorded initially. Later, as development took place, more often than not these silly ideas got developed into substantial gains. The stealth of submarines, for instance, grew from a funny guy who said that the subs needed a rubber (prophylactic). I cant say more, but this was actually done, and woulda been fool-proof if not for the misdeeds of the Falcon and the snowman (of laguna beach brotherhood of eternal light fame.) There is no science without testing in the laboratory and a record of accuracy. 50% of what is called science has failed this primary criteria, especially in the field of pharmaceuticals.

 

So, as you can deduce from the above postings, Mahakji, I don't blindly trust modern scholastic paradigms just for the sake of them. Neither do I pretend that they have explained away all the dynamics at play in nature nor understood all of its workings. We undoubtedly have a long, long way ahead before we can evolve into the superhuman, inter-galactical species that some visionaries have in mind for humanity. Our technology is still at an embryonic stage to all intents and purposes, but I, for one, can only commend and admire those who keep slogging away relentlessly in order to reach greater heights and assist homo sapiens sapiens grow as a species.

 

You were mentioning that astronauts haven't been to the moon again after 1969, when in your own estimation, space flights to our planet's satellite should've become commonplace by now. I won't delve in your words at much depth, but will confine myself to making a few simple remarks: are you privy to NASA's highly confidential space programme, how can you be cognizant of their priorities and targets? Perhaps, moon travel was just not a sufficiently feasible pursuit. For all I know (not a lot, I confess), attempting to bend our spatio-temporal plenum is what has occupied space scientists most in recent years, as a vital step in paving the way for rapid, convenient commuting to the stars one of these days, without the need to contend with the limitations posed by the speed of light and the cosmic distances involved. Rather than mock with derision and glee a technical glitch which blows up a shuttle taking the lives of several hard-working, dedicated top brass professionals, we should consider the incident for what it is, a tragedy, with the loss of many human lives and billions of dollars of your nation's taxpayers' money up in smoke.

 

Until proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt, I shall persist in my opinion that yes, we did go to the moon, as we sent an unmanned probe to Mars only a few years ago, and there is no sinister confederacy of some of the world's governments and Lucifer's henchmen to control our lives to whatever end that may be. Cheers Prabhu

[krishnadasa]

 

Prabhupada stated many times which I'm paraphrasing as -- Either you believe the Scientists who change their theory constantly or you try to have constant faith in the Vedic scriptures which do not change.

 

So, it is upto the individuals to decide which path they want to take...

 

Thats the right path and way to debate:)

[krishnadasa]

Disgrace to my country,, and now listen, " Vysasadeva has told me that he had written Bhagavatm "!!! Now do you think I should believe on fickle so called scientific thoery of bla bla bla....

[krishnadasa]

 

You're correct with regards to the irrelevance of the heliocentrism versus geocentrism debate. It is as a matter of fact more a question of perspective and purpose in connection with one's objectives more than anything else, as you accurately stated. Just to elaborate on this point, I am hereby reproducing a few paragraphs from a previous post by myself on a related topic. Haribol

 

poti poti pade jag muha,,

Pnadith hua na koi

 

dhai achar prem ka pade so pandith hoi...

[skp]

 

Spot on. It is flabbergasting indeed to see a female resorting to such uninformed, backward reasoning in 2007. Prabhupada was quoting Vishnugupta (Kautilya for the Western academic practitioners) when he made those outrageous comments. Whilst the latter may have been a formidable political advisor and remarkable scholar, his views reflected the social mores and attitudes of his own era, i.e. the 4th century BCE. We now know from thousands upon thousands of research experiments conducted in the 20th century that there is no difference in the overall intelligence level of men and women really. If a discrepancy does exist between male and female faculties, it is concerning the development of the regions of the brain which tend to be geared towards different abilities and skills. Hence, one finds that, generally, guys do better in the fields requiring abstract and mathematical skills, whereas ladies often possess striking superiority in language and the humanities. Of course, as always, there are many, many exceptions to this rule of thumb.

 

Ok there may be many exceptions -- Agreed! But give an example of a man who becomes pregnant? Just like the physicalities of man and woman differ, similarly the mentalities would also differ. What is the difficulty in understanding this?

 

In fact, the mentality of woman is in some cases more favourable for devotional service because majority of women tend to be simple and can accept the simple Absolute Truth, As It Is.

[theist]

 

Ok there may be many exceptions -- Agreed! But give an example of a man who becomes pregnant? Just like the physicalities of man and woman differ, similarly the mentalities would also differ. What is the difficulty in understanding this?

 

In fact, the mentality of woman is in some cases more favourable for devotional service because majority of women tend to be simple and can accept the simple Absolute Truth, As It Is.

Exactly. They have softer hearts. Bhakti is a "religion" of the pure heart. The intellect can only take us to the point of understanding that we need to give our hearts to Krsna. Also valuable for preaching. But it is not intellegent to give more importance to intelligence than the heart.

 

The purifed heart must rule the head or one becomes a dry academic or the proverbial Nowhere Man from Yellowsubmarine.

 

 

[Arjuna Haridas]

 

Ok there may be many exceptions -- Agreed! But give an example of a man who becomes pregnant? Just like the physicalities of man and woman differ, similarly the mentalities would also differ. What is the difficulty in understanding this?

 

In fact, the mentality of woman is in some cases more favourable for devotional service because majority of women tend to be simple and can accept the simple Absolute Truth, As It Is.

 

Pregnancy is physical. [True] love is spiritual. Similarily, a woman may have a different mindset than a man, but all of us are the same gender (neuter) when it comes to our soul, and it is from our soul that devotion to a specific God/Goddess comes from.

 

As a matter of fact, women are nearly impossible to convert. I tried it with my mother - she's stubborn as a mule. Men, meanwhile, are easier to convert (I myself have bounced back and forth between religions before settling on Hinduism in general). As said before, there are many exceptions.

[gHari]

Elephants have much larger brains than Einstein had, but we don't see them publishing any meaningful papers in relativistic physics. Some whales have brains almost twice the size of elephants, but to date none have proven themselves smarter than a fifth grader.

 

I can see that while those brains may be of different quality, still body size must influence a brain's overall functional megahertz rating or at least the available processing power free for thought. That and hair colour.

[Vikram Ramsundar]

In the passages under discussion, Prabhupada doesn't seem to be referring to the differences you guys are stressing above. His tone was unambiguous - women have got brains half the size of those of men and are usually dumb, unreliable and untrustworthy. Likewise, if a sexual union results in a baby girl, that means that the woman was more dominant that the father, whereas the opposite holds true in the case of a male child.

 

THIS is the garbage that anyone in his right mind would and should not swallow. Or is it that your knowledge of eugenics and behavioural genetics chimes with the foregoing?

[gHari]

So transparent. Copy, click, click, paste, save and the pain is gone. Life is too short.

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/profile.php?do=editlist

[krishnadasa]

 

In the passages under discussion, Prabhupada doesn't seem to be referring to the differences you guys are stressing above. His tone was unambiguous - women have got brains half the size of those of men and are usually dumb, unreliable and untrustworthy. Likewise, if a sexual union results in a baby girl, that means that the woman was more dominant that the father, whereas the opposite holds true in the case of a male child.

 

THIS is the garbage that anyone in his right mind would and should not swallow. Or is it that your knowledge of eugenics and behavioural genetics chimes with the foregoing?

 

I understand your point of view in relation to whatever Srila Prabhupada says, but it does appear that you have engrossed yourself much into the material science that you are not in a position to appreciate the very essence of spirit. Everybody says and inteprets according what one sees, so does a telescope or a microscope, or perhaps a normal human being. To percieve what Srila Prabhupada said I guess first and the foremost thing , is humility.. You seem to completely miss it.. Spiritual knowledge cant be obtained by reading some books here and there , it should be guided thru a spiritual master, perhaps thats the differnce b/w material and spiritual. I have seen many people coming here on this forum with an effort to prove something against to Krishna or srila prabhupada for that matter by reading few paragraphs here and there in some of his books,,great lord ! they lack patience, they are not ready to read it completely.....and ultimately go off the thread without achieving anything.... Afterall you are trusting that science (I am very well aware of the contributon and respect that fully)which keeps on chanigng its theories every now and then more than the spiritual science the science of the sould which, is unchanging....

 

You ask someone to trust, that which was seen by a telescope millions of light years away and mistrusting the jewel in the hand?

 

Vikram, first read the stuff fully, follow the procedue then I am sure you will appreciate more Srila prabhupada than now,, and also your confusion about his saying just vanish....

 

Hari bol

[Kulapavana]

 

In the passages under discussion, Prabhupada doesn't seem to be referring to the differences you guys are stressing above. His tone was unambiguous - women have got brains half the size of those of men and are usually dumb, unreliable and untrustworthy. Likewise, if a sexual union results in a baby girl, that means that the woman was more dominant that the father, whereas the opposite holds true in the case of a male child.

 

THIS is the garbage that anyone in his right mind would and should not swallow. Or is it that your knowledge of eugenics and behavioural genetics chimes with the foregoing?

 

As Prabhupada said himself, it is easy to see spots on the full Moon because it is otherwise so bright. In the same way it is easy to see "spots" on Prabhupada because he is otherwise truly extraordinary.

 

Yes, some of Prabhupada's views on women and science reflect a particular social conditioning of upbringing and education. To accept his views on such matter as perfect and absolute would be very naive and illogical. Yet to dismiss the points he was trying to make is like breaking a window because the glass in it has smudges...

 

You are an inelligent guy, Vikram, you will eventually figure it out.

 

My complaint and objection is usually not with Prabhupada, but with his disciples who surrendered their intelligence not to Prabhupada, but to the mythical idol they have created in Isckon to replace him.

[mahak]

Haribol, vikrama. I dont object to your posts, but I do want to clarify two things. Srila Prabhupada spoke, of course, of how indiscriminate intimate association with women was detrimental to spiritual growth. This is not discriminatory, but a fact. Even martial art practitioners are told this, wasted sex life has no benefit if one wants to conc4entrate on anything.

 

That said, some followers of Srila Prabhupada have never risen to aham brahmasmi status. In other words, gender issues are often a shambles in his society of devotees. Because they have not yet grasped the very rudimentary prerequisite of understanding that these forms do not constitute the self in any way. So, if we hear devotees speaking of inferiority of women, this is because they are not yet even able to understand the basic premise of bhagavad gita.

 

Prabhupada is being blamed for something that is simply not true. His disciples are all vaisnavas, therefore, if one judges them due to their material form, they are actually offensive, very much so. We are told not to associate with women, but we are told that we must associate with vaisnavas. When one says a vaisnava in a female form is lust, maya devi, all these ignorant terms, this only indicates the inherant lust in the male who makes these assertions, not the innocent female who is being subtly raped by such losers.

 

While I always reafd about the brain size and other things, it is never said that Srila Prabhupada also made it very clear that female disciples possess many times more of two special qualities, so much more important than insignificant brain size (BTW There is a form of encephilitis that makes one have no brain at all, only spinal fluid, and these folks are mensa qulaity.) These qualities of loyalty and devotion are things that men only wish for. No man in the stories possesses such devotion as Queen Draupadi, who krsna served as a menial servant, at her beck and call throughout, regardless of what he was doing at the time. No one has a better grasp on loyalty as do the great queens of our literature.

 

So all this mysogenistic arguement is a bunch of meaningless crap, and Im actually ashamed of those who should know better. Srila Prabhuopadas female disciples are such great queens and we have lost out by mistaking them for their temporary material forms. And Srila Prabhupada thought this way as well. He always asked about govinda dasi's welfare before he even thought of Goursundara, this is my experiance, and it was first hand.

 

Hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa