If we could only see what the material univese really looks like?

[Dark Warrior]

 

I grew up an atheist not a Christian.

 

Why are you so fixated on me? I will have to put you on my ignore list and hope you just go away someday.

 

An atheist in a Christian Background. Whatever.

 

In any case, I have seen your posts.

 

I am not fixated on you. Trust me, devotees like you, I could certainly do without (Ignore list? Nobody gives a damn!!). But since this is a forum in which you have expressed your views, there is a necessity for correction, or it will simply mislead more people.

 

But your contradictory views stand out plainly. You appear to be the type who simply formulates his own views and then convinces everyone that yours is the right way. Look at the Literary Incarnation thread. Firstly, you haven't even understood what the meaning of 'Literary Incarnation' is, and then you keep raising objections.

 

Even in the past threads, I have noticed that you kept asking sincere believers, 'Why did Ugrasena have so many bodyguards?' Apparently, this question was not posed only to me. Shows your juvenile understanding of sastras. You have been going at this for a long time, haven't you?

 

Bottomline - Just stop bandying your opinions as the logical conclusion. We already have enough people distorting the message of our acharyas. Don't need more.

 

The fact that Bhagavatalover agrees with you shows exactly how distorted your reasoning is (no offense to you). It should be apparent to everyone that Bhagavatalover has dung for brains. At least in that sense, Theist does not disrespect acharyas or talk nonsense about Vaishnavism being unvedic.

 

Coming to that moron, Bhagavatalover, he has been exposed to be a prat, who doesn't even have the necessary brainpower to sustain an argument. No sense in reasoning with him. You only have to take a look at most of his posts to see the nonsense he spews out. Apparently, he worships Max Muller, and disrespects Vaishnava acharyas. That's the sorry state of affairs nowadays.

[guliaditya]

I think this thread should be stopped here only.

There have been enough debate on the topic.I would request Loverofthebhagavataji, Dark Warriorji & theistji not to indulge further in debate.Lets have peace of mind.

 

Pranaam

[Dark Warrior]

Scriptures say that those who insult acharyas are the lowest of the low. Therfore, I have no problem in denouncing Bhagavatalover as a worthless piece of trash, as he has insulted Vaishnava acharyas. Such scum shouldn't even be endorsed by Vaishnavas.

 

In addition, his retarded views on Vaishnavism being 'sectarian', that advaita is superior to all other philosophies and that the Vedas are contradictory in portions is enough to substantiate that. Given the time, I could dismantle his views, but of course, what is the need? Bhagavatalover is like an ingrown toenail...he should be discarded and disregarded, rather than being considered seriously.

 

I am quite surprised that this forum, which is supposed to be full of sattvik people, harbors such low-lives. This pathetic loser, Bhagavatalover, has just accumulated a life's worth of bad Karma by his utter disregard for respected teachers. An animal has more sense than he does.

 

Remember the Upanishadic injunction, 'Guru Sakshat Parabrahman'. Never commit the mistake of insulting Bhagavatas. The Lord never forgives, nor forgets offenses to His devotees. One of His avatars, ie, Narasimha Avatar was entirely for destroying such a lowlife, ie, Hiranyakasipu. Even if you differ in philosophy, attack only the philosophy, not the acharya, if he is a Vishnu Bhakta.

 

I do not harbor any sort of hate as far as Theist is concerned (except some random name calling). I only have issues with him freely distributing opinions to everyone, without sastric basis.

[cbrahma]

 

Scriptures say that those who insult acharyas are the lowest of the low. Therfore, I have no problem in denouncing Bhagavatalover as a worthless piece of trash, as he has insulted Vaishnava acharyas. Such scum shouldn't even be endorsed by Vaishnavas.

 

In addition, his retarded views on Vaishnavism being 'sectarian', that advaita is superior to all other philosophies and that the Vedas are contradictory in portions is enough to substantiate that. Given the time, I could dismantle his views, but of course, what is the need? Bhagavatalover is like an ingrown toenail...he should be discarded and disregarded, rather than being considered seriously.

 

I am quite surprised that this forum, which is supposed to be full of sattvik people, harbors such low-lives. This pathetic loser, Bhagavatalover, has just accumulated a life's worth of bad Karma by his utter disregard for respected teachers. An animal has more sense than he does.

 

Remember the Upanishadic injunction, 'Guru Sakshat Parabrahman'. Never commit the mistake of insulting Bhagavatas. The Lord never forgives, nor forgets offenses to His devotees. One of His avatars, ie, Narasimha Avatar was entirely for destroying such a lowlife, ie, Hiranyakasipu. Even if you differ in philosophy, attack only the philosophy, not the acharya, if he is a Vishnu Bhakta.

 

I do not harbor any sort of hate as far as Theist is concerned (except some random name calling). I only have issues with him freely distributing opinions to everyone, without sastric basis.

Unlike Dandavats which is an Iskcon-contollled forum in which opinions are filtered to only admit the narrow party line, this is an open forum.

Theist and others have a right to state their opinions in as non-offensive and logical way as they choose. Nobody has the right to dictate what they may or may not say, just because they disagree, or their guru disagrees or whatever. Religious affiliation has not been stated anywhere as a condition for posting.

 

Dark Warrior elevates logical fallacy to the level of self-righteous diatribe.

Phrases like "that kind of person...' , 'low life', 'moron' are not arguments. They are 'ad hominem' attacks. A smear campaign of the lowest calibre.

To pronounce somebody stupid simply because his views differ from your own is not proper debating form ,especially when the peron who is being attacked has not typically responded in kind. This is Vaisnavism? This is satvic? How disturbing.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Theist and others have a right to state their opinions in as non-offensive and logical way as they choose. Nobody has the right to dictate what they may or may not say, just because they disagree, or their guru disagrees or whatever. Religious affiliation has not been stated anywhere as a condition for posting.

Yet, they have no right to claim that theirs is the most logical opinion. Kapish?

 

 

Dark Warrior elevates logical fallacy to the level of self-righteous diatribe.

Phrases like "that kind of person...' , 'low life', 'moron' are not arguments. They are 'ad hominem' attacks. A smear campaign of the lowest calibre.

To pronounce somebody stupid simply because his views differ from your own is not proper debating form ,especially when the peron who is being attacked has not typically responded in kind. This is Vaisnavism? This is satvic? How disturbing.

Is disrespecting an acharya simply because you disagree with his philosophy justified then? If any Vaishnava acharya is called 'foolish', you expect me to respect the person?

 

Anyone who disrespects an acharya is a lowlife. If you have a problem with that, it can't be helped.

 

And indeed, the 'persons I attacked' have responded with their own diatribe, so no issues for you.

[cbrahma]

 

Yet, they have no right to claim that theirs is the most logical opinion. Kapish?

 

 

 

Is disrespecting an acharya simply because you disagree with his philosophy justified then? If any Vaishnava acharya is called 'foolish', you expect me to respect the person?

 

Anyone who disrespects an acharya is a lowlife. If you have a problem with that, it can't be helped.

 

And indeed, the 'persons I attacked' have responded with their own diatribe, so no issues for you.

 

I notice, that the only persons arguing with me are Christians and ignorant Hindus. Typical.

I noticed that people who can't support their claims use dismissive personal labels as an argument. An on line forum gives you the right to be as foolish as you like as long as you are not abusive and 'flaming'. Actually I'm suprised that the administrators are allowing these flame wars to go on as long as they have. In any other forum they would have been stopped immediately.

Theist has quoted Prabhupada on the subject of the Bhagavatam. He has not been offensive to the acaryas. Your opinion of the Bhagavatam may be based on some acarya's teaching, but simply the fact of having a differing opinion is not tantamount to disrespect. Futhermore, most people in the West are or have been Christians. They were the target population of Prabhupada's mission. He would have not tolerated such constructions as 'You are Christian...therefore you are stupid wrong etc.." Certainly Bhaktivinode Thakur would have been angry with language that turned a sectarian or religious affiliation into a categorical insult.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I noticed that people who can't support their claims use dismissive personal labels as an argument. An on line forum gives you the right to be as foolish as you like as long as you are not abusive and 'flaming'. Actually I'm suprised that the administrators are allowing these flame wars to go on as long as they have. In any other forum they would have been stopped immediately.

 

Flame Wars aside, neither you nor your buddies have come up with a reasonable explanation of your stance.

 

 

Theist has quoted Prabhupada on the subject of the Bhagavatam. He has not been offensive to the acaryas.

 

And I have proven that Theist has simply taken Prabhupada's quote out of context. If you have eyes, search and see.

 

These christians who convert also carry with them their prejudices often. Proof of that is here in this thread.

 

That lowlife comment was directed at Bhagavatalover, not Theist. Again, read the thread before posting.

[cbrahma]

 

Flame Wars aside, neither you nor your buddies have come up with a reasonable explanation of your stance.

 

 

 

And I have proven that Theist has simply taken Prabhupada's quote out of context. If you have eyes, search and see.

 

These christians who convert also carry with them their prejudices often. Proof of that is here in this thread.

 

That lowlife comment was directed at Bhagavatalover, not Theist. Again, read the thread before posting.

I didn't say you called Theist a 'lowlife'. Read my post.

I don't have 'buddies'. I don't speak for or from a group. Another dismissive (and invalid) presupposition.

I have read Theist's post and quotation which is why I know. Many people agreed with him that the quote was definitive.

As far as Christians carrying prejudices over, what prejudices could those be? Why are you entrenched in the idea that being a Christian is incompatible with Vaisnavism? That is NOT the opinion of the acaryas and that is easily provable.

Nevertheless you are making a sweeping pronouncement of the majority of Western devotees. For somebody who is so sensitive to affronts against acaryas that is fairly reckless behavior.

[Dark Warrior]

 

I didn't say you called Theist a 'lowlife'. Read my post.

I don't have 'buddies'. I don't speak for or from a group. Another dismissive (and invalid) presupposition.

I have read Theist's post and quotation which is why I know. Many people agreed with him that the quote was definitive.

As far as Christians carrying prejudices over, what prejudices could those be? Why are you entrenched in the idea that being a Christian is incompatible with Vaisnavism? That is NOT the opinion of the acaryas and that is easily provable.

Nevertheless you are making a sweeping pronouncement of the majority of Western devotees. For somebody who is so sensitive to affronts against acaryas that is fairly reckless behavior.

 

That's all I needed. cBrahma has effectively proven my point quite inadvertantly.

 

For one thing, it is to be noticed that cBrahma plays the good samaritan act. He says we shouldn't argue. Then, he keeps arguing and counter arguing to show why we shouldn't argue. Similarly, he starts a thread on why brahminical debates are useless, only to keep arguing.

 

As far as I am concerned, in order to reply to this, I need to repeat whatever I have said in this entire thread, and elsewhere. So, I see no need to do that, and hence, shall desist. cBrahma can stick to his own conclusions for all I care.

 

EDIT: Just one thing. The stuff about Prabhupada saying that the 'Essence' and not historicity is important is extended by Theist to the Rasa lila and Kurukshetra War. However, Prabhupada was explicitly clear that these two were historical, and shouldn't be taken in any other way. No acharya supports such views of Hare Christnas.

[cbrahma]

 

For one thing, it is to be noticed that cBrahma plays the good samaritan act. He says we shouldn't argue. Then, he keeps arguing and counter arguing to show why we shouldn't argue. Similarly, he starts a thread on why brahminical debates are useless, only to keep arguing.

 

.

You still haven't addressed the issue of why Christianity is a disqualification and are stubbornly dedicated to your 'ad hominem' attacks proving the gross inadequacy of your debating skills.

Of course, misrepresenting what people say is the oldest trick in the book, another fallacy (you are a vertiable expert in the field) called the 'straw man'.

This misrepresentation that I said people shouldn't argue is the 'fallacy of composition'.

 

 

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This fragment of metal cannot be broken with a hammer, therefore the machine of which it is a part cannot be broken with a hammer." This is clearly fallacious, because many machines can be broken into their constituent parts without any of those parts being breakable.

This fallacy is often confused with the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which an unwarranted inference is made from a statement about a sample to a statement about the population from which it is drawn.

The fallacy of composition is the converse of the fallacy of division.

Example

Atoms are not visible to the naked eye

Humans are made up of atoms

Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye

 

 

 

1. Vedic textual wrangling is not Vaisnava

2. Vedic textual wrangling is arguing (Vedic textual wrangling is an instance of argumentation)

3. Therefore arguing is not Vaisnava

Please study this carefully, so as not to continue in pointless and misleading argumentation.

 

And give up your pontifiicatory tone pronouncing to all the world what so-and-so is like, as though you were on the vyasana in front of so many submissive disciples. That only testifies to your delusional state.

[realist]

 

 

 

 

Theist contribution to this website is fantastic, the amount of people he has encouraged, including myself, is enormous, so many people have been introduced to Prabhupada because of his selfless dedicated preaching about Krsna and Lord Caitanya whom he is only devoted to share with others. Being a devotee, he is not interested if the topic somehow does not relate to Krsna. He will be known historically as one of the first pioneers to recognise the enormous preaching power and potential of the Internet

Glorious to Theist Prabhu who has realized something even many ISKCON Temple devotees HAVE NOT REALIZED - THE WORLD WIDE WEB OF PREACHING TO THE MANY NON DEVOTEES.

For this reason of allowing questions and debates to help refine our understanding of Prabhupada’s books, Vaishnavism and the gripes of devotees, aspiring devotees and seekers of truth, this site is a better preaching tool than Dandavats.com that only allows one to write a blog that preaches to the converted. A great website regardless

THE WONDERFUL ADMINISTRATORS OF Audarya Fellowship ARE RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINES OF PREACHING WITH THE AMAZING DEDICATED BBT BOOK DISTRIBUTORS

It would be nice for more advanced ISKCON and Gaudiya math devotees, other than the ones sharing their realizations on this site, to also leave their often proud egos at the Temple and also share their wonderful association and realizations (like Krsna) on this site as well

[cbrahma]

My understanding is that Vaisnavism is non-sectarian and inclusive. It should welcome all questions from every corner without sectarian bigotry and flaming attacks.

Those whose knee-jerk reaction is to flame somebody who doesn't immediately capitulate to a certain self-professed Vaisnavas opinion about what a Vaisnava has said makes this site a war zone, rather than a forum devoted to the pursuit of spiritual knowledge.

[AncientMariner]

 

 

 

 

 

Theist contribution to this website is fantastic, the amount of people he has encouraged, including myself, is enormous, so many people have been introduced to Prabhupada because of his selfless dedicated preaching about Krsna and Lord Caitanya whom he is only devoted to share with others. Being a devotee, he is not interested if the topic somehow does not relate to Krsna. He will be known historically as one of the first pioneers to recognise the enormous preaching power and potential of the Internet

Glorious to Theist Prabhu who has realized something even many ISKCON Temple devotees HAVE NOT REALIZED - THE WORLD WIDE WEB OF PREACHING TO THE MANY NON DEVOTEES.

For this reason of allowing questions and debates to help refine our understanding of Prabhupada’s books, Vaishnavism and the gripes of devotees, aspiring devotees and seekers of truth, this site is a better preaching tool than Dandavats.com that only allows one to write a blog that preaches to the converted. A great website regardless

THE WONDERFUL ADMINISTRATORS OF Audarya Fellowship ARE RIGHT ON THE FRONT LINES OF PREACHING WITH THE AMAZING DEDICATED BBT BOOK DISTRIBUTORS

It would be nice for more advanced ISKCON and Gaudiya math devotees, other than the ones sharing their realizations on this site, to also leave their often proud egos at the Temple and also share their wonderful association and realizations (like Krsna) on this site as well

 

 

Gotta agree with you here. I have been reading theists posts for years and have really learned a lot from them.

[realist]

Could this be a dipiction of one of the many billions of non Krishna Conscios heavenly worlds within the mahat-tattva, a material world on a higher celestal dimensional plane than our gross secular world, where the bodily vessel is ethereal, without the gross biological covering we are further trapped in.

 

Their the life span is 10,000 years, other heavenly material planets offer a life span of 10 million years, but it's still the material world on that higher mystical lever and therefore only a temporary and frustrating exitence for the living entities who go to the heavenly planets

 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=AuPsKwRaMt0&feature=related

[Beggar]

All Glories to the eternal Theist inside all of us, and his original form:

 

 

 

[realist]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Theist

 

We don't climb our way into the sphere of the Absolute. That plane is beyond the reach of our towers, space ships and intellectual constructs.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->We cannot even see the material heavenly celestial worlds or the sub-space material hellish worlds with our advanced material technology that built the Hubble telescope and the Electron microscope, let alone Vaikuntha.

 

We cannot even percieve the subtle ethereal material body that is covered by the gross biological material body with such mundane primitive technology either.

 

And mundane science will never ever view even the subtle material universe with such mundane science

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[bhaktajan]

On this planet we are unable to prove to others the full picture of the material universe through the medium of our mundane biological bodies.

[Sarva gattah]

[theist]

It says the inner diameter of the universe is only 4 billion miles. Anybody here really believe that?

[Avinash]

 

It says the inner diameter of the universe is only 4 billion miles. Anybody here really believe that?

 

I do not. Light can cover this much distance in just 6 hours.

[theist]

 

I do not. Light can cover this much distance in just 6 hours.

 

Six hours. So then according to the Bhagavatam the idea of a light year is not realizable. So then if the Bhagavatam is wrong on this point what does that say about the rest of it's cosmology as explained in the 5th canto?

[Avinash]

Let us do some calculation: -

 

Speed of light = 1,86,000 miles/second

This means time taken by light to cover 4 billion miles = 4 billion/1,86,000 second

= 4,000,000,000/1,86,000 second = 21,505 second = 21,505/3,600 hour (because 1 hour = 3,600 second)

= 6 hours (approximately)

But the actual universe is far far bigger.

[Avinash]

Of course, Sun is a star. But, if we ask what is the star (other than Sun) closest to the Earth, then the answer is Proxima Centauri. That itself is much farther than 4 billion miles. Proxima Centauri is approximately 4.5 light years from Earth. This means that 4 billion miles is a very small part of our galaxy alone (what to think about whole universe)?

Suppose we measure 4 billion miles from Sun. Then we will get just a little beyond dwarf planet Pluto. Pluto's distance from Sun is about 3.7 billion miles.

[Avinash]

BTW, what is the meaning of inner diameter of the universe? What is "inner" here?

[Sarva gattah]

 

It says the inner diameter of the universe is only 4 billion miles. Anybody here really believe that?

 

I share the below views

 

Carana Renu dasi - "As a “Hare Krishna” (ISKCON member) and a scientist, I would just like to say, for the record, that the krishnascience.com website does not reflect my views on science. I also doubt that it properly reflects the views of other scientists who are Hare Krishna devotees, at least the ones I know.

Therefore, the title “The Hare Krishna Views On science” is probably misleading. I would not like for people I know to read the content of the site and consider that I, as a Hare Krishna, share those views.

Also, I noticed that the owners of the website are using the name “Bhaktivedanta Institute” but, as far as I know, they have no official connection with the Bhaktivedanta Institutes in Mumbai/Berkeley and in Kolkata, and therefore the website should not necessarily be taken as representing the views of the Bhaktivedanta Institute.

Aside from the content, I would advise the owners of the krishnascience.com website to study the presentation style of successful scientific websites.

The current design is very off-putting and the result is that the krishnascience.com website is unlikely to be taken seriously by most readers. It could also result in ISKCON scientists being taken less seriously in the scientific world.

By Carana Renu dasi