Kulapavana Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Yeah, Science will make a better future for humanity ... at least till your dead and gone and your grandchildren can play video games while drinking highfructose corn syrups. You can use the internet to engage in Krsna katha or to look at porn - the choice is yours. Do not blame science for the stupidity, greed and laziness of modern people. If you do not like science why don't you go back to the stone-age ways? Vedic civilization included material science - great cities like Dvaraka or Ayodhya could not have existed without advanced science - just read their descriptions in the Puranas. Prabhupada travelelled the globe on a modern jet plane - not on a flowery vimana conjured by the vedic mantras. Unless you can do better, you should give credit where credit is due. Vedic science of cosmology is just as dead as the Vedic science of building flying vimanas, and there are no experts on these subject matters among contemporary Vaishnavas, Prabhupada included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 curmudgeon: A curmudgeon is a miser or an ill-tempered (and frequently old) person full of stubborn ideas or opinions; An ill-tempered (and frequently old) person full of stubborn ideas or opinions. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; Contrarian Extraordinaire! You go through Maha-Bhagavatas like they were just fodder for your musings. Modern Technology is for comfort first and then for defensive measure. And usually defensive measures are the 'ironic' mother of Invention(s); Kula, do you not know the History Of Japan's industrialisation? Kula, do you not know the old-time reputation of German Technology and its Fruits [karam-phalam]? Next time you watch your favorite STAR-TREK Movie --please recognise the absolute horrid & abominable conditions that the characters are confind to. An out-house is devoid of anti-floating crap vacuums. Gun-powder is made of pig crap. Colombus developed vernerial Diseases. The New World allowed for liberty from Dogma --the Price of Rice and Beans in India is superior to Jet-Fuel. BTW, Jet-Fuel & regular Diesel & regular petroleum is MUCH MUCH Cheaper than MILK; also Junk-foods & Hambergers Have MORE Calories, are cheaper, and more Time-Saving than cooking a meal at home [only Full-Time Tax payers & Lay-about benefit from these time saving gifts of Technology]. What the Hawaiian & Polynesians always say, "More fried SPAM © Please." Kulapavana, whenever he visits Nabraska Rendering Plants: "Oh, I wish I was an Oscar-Meyer Weiner, That's what I truely like to be...e...eee" "Vedic science of cosmology is just as dead" --Kulapavana. So, since 1965, you've formed you own opinions, Huh? You've been to the mountain and now you are Pontificator One Dasa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 curmudgeon: A curmudgeon is a miser or an ill-tempered (and frequently old) person full of stubborn ideas or opinions; An ill-tempered (and frequently old) person full of stubborn ideas or opinions. hypocrite <DL><DT class=hwrd>Main Entry: <DD class=hwrd>hyp·o·crite </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>noun </DD><DT class=ety>Etymology: <DD class=ety>Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai </DD><DT class=date><DD class=date>13th century </DD></DL>1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings Get off your computer Bhaktajan, leave your modern house, kick away your shoes and clothes, and go forage in the woods for some edible roots and acorns... or start farming on some vacant piece of land using a pointed stick and available beast of burden (see if your wife is available) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 "Twinkling effect results from the refraction of light by the optical lenses of the telescope ... with your ordinary camera. I KNOW THAT! [bTW, Is the image flipped up-side-down Too? ~FYI: this is a 'trick question'] THAT IS MY POINT! Our understanding is 'refracted' in soooo many ways! We are a miniscule 'refraction' ourselves. Who are you defending your ego from? Pretty Bimbos and College professors? Chatty Neighbor?--'Ooooh, Did you hear, Jimmyboy says the Stars in the sky don't emit light?--such Heresy!' We don't know NOTHING!*** Will your Grandparents be forced to seek bombshelters? Well, we better plan for what we do know perfectly well! Let's us stop proving how well we followed popular opinion as repeated & repeated over and over until WE KNOW IT'S TRUTH! Maybe Now, this thread will detour into Muslim Pathos . . . [. . . 'go figure'] ***Please excuse my rant, if you are qualified as followed: 1] You possessed a bonefide Phd in Astrophysics, and, 2] You have unlimited access and use of Mountain top Observatory Telescope, and, 3] You have worked Full-Time and are Familiar with the Observatory Telescope Archive Records of Photo-Topographic Mappings of the Milkyway et al, and, 4] You are a Lead Professor of the Physics Department of a University --presently conducting Federal Goverment Funded Research for the Military --regarding Deep Space Exploration. and, 5] You are an experienced Astronout who neglected to do your job while in space (ie: meter readings and record keeping) --so as to stare out the portal at the darkness[?] to keep a private log of YOUR acute observations. or, 6] You are: Dr Who (ID Required). also a space cadette, bhaktajan As Number 6 asked, "I want to Who is number One?" As you know, I actually agree with you. Stars don’t emit light. That is, in reality separate stars don’t exist and individual photons (light) do not exist. These are just our (discontinuous) conscious perception of (continuous) reality (or God). However, in terms of the physical models we have that accurately describe some observed regularities in material nature, I would say that stars emit their own light. That is, stars are like the sun. One day it may even be feasible to send a robotic probe to Proxima Centauri (the second nearest star at a distance of 4.2 light-years from Earth) to prove it. Space is black, because the number of stars in the universe is finite (about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) and the universe itself is finite, but very, very large (about 156 billion light-years in diameter). Furthermore, there are probably many more black holes in the universe than there are stars. And even light can’t escape from a black hole. Hence, space is predominantly black. Nevertheless, astronauts have to meticulously protect themselves from the deadly levels of radiation outside the Earth’s atmosphere.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 Stars don’t emit light. That is, in reality separate stars don’t exist and individual photons (light) do not exist. These are just our (discontinuous) conscious perception of (continuous) reality (or God). However, in terms of the physical models we have that accurately describe some observed regularities in material nature, I would say that stars emit their own light. What we see with our human senses is a mere simulation of the Universe, broadcasted on Channel 7 of the Universal Reality TV for us humans. Thus you can travel at the speed of light (or mind) in this simulated reality for billions of years and never leave the material Universe. There are no Langoliers in our simulation, just a vast dead space desert. Sages of old used the soma juice to transcend the boundaries set by their senses and explore higher worlds in their subtle bodies. Yogis mastered the kosmic energies to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted May 13, 2009 Report Share Posted May 13, 2009 hypocrite: 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings hypokrisis as "play-acting," i.e. the assumption of a counterfeit persona, that gives the modern word hypocrisy its negative connotation. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Let's be honest --There are hypocrites by way of liars & Cheats; and, there are hypocrites by way of foolishness. Ex-President Clinton Lied to the American People [hypocrites by way of liars & Cheats]. The Gangster boasts that he's innocent, as he is carried in shakles to prison [hypocrites by way of foolishness]. As Boris Pasternak has Yurii say in Doctor Zhivago, "Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike... Our nervous system isn't just fiction, it's part of our physical body, and it can't be forever violated with impunity." READ MY POST AND SEE YOUR FAULTY RANTINGS. Do you turn your intelligence from the GMO Seed forced upon Indian Subsistance farmers? The Airplanes flown into the WTC on 9/11 were by grandchildren of camel herdsmen. We Know nothing and we will awake tomorrow just as haplessly ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinglebells Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 In matters pertaining to the physical world, religious books must be discarded totally. Science alone has authority in this field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 In matters pertaining to the physical world, religious books must be discarded totally. Science alone has authority in this field. Medical science has found out that prayers, mantras and meditation can relieve mental stress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Actually one Brahmanda is One solar system or perhaps one galaxy. The encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism has proper information regarding this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Actually one Brahmanda is One solar system or perhaps one galaxy.The encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism has proper information regarding this. What encyclopedia is that? I sure hope it is not the Bhagavatam or the Navadwipa Dham Mahatmya. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 "...The supreme God Who controls the creation and the functioning of the entire universe is called Maha Vishnu. When the galaxies begin to assume their normal shape, at that point Maha Vishnu creates a great number of Divinely celestial spaces in the galaxies and He enters into those spaces. He then produces one Brahma in each section who controls the creation of the sun and its planetary system. Thus, in every planetary system there is one Brahma who is called the creator. Prior to the creation of the earth planet, Brahma extends the celestial space and creates celestial abodes of gods and goddesses. One planetary system with its celestial abodes is called one brahmand. In this way there are a great number of brahmandas in one galaxy. Celestial abodes are invisible as they are in a different space (dimension).... " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 i don't even want to reply to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 It is boring to see the Hare Krishnas doggedly continuing science-bashing, believing they are doing some kind of service to Prabhupada by keeping that nonsense alive. For the hundredth time, if it were not for science, you guys would have never heard of Prabhupada or Krishna. You would still be eating Sunday suppers at your local church and guess what would be on the menu? Be thankful for science, as 1) It made it possible for your Guru to print Books 2) Travel half way across the world 3) Help the HK organization go global through jet-setting Sanyasis 4) Made it possible for you to use Computers which is why you are posting here 5) It has also made it possible to increase lifespans or a number posting here may not be alive today. 6) Jndas would still be in America and there would be no forum to post! And now, here is a little exercise for you all. Why don't you put away your books, "learning", your deepset conditioning and try some independent thought for a change? You are adults after all, and should be perfectly capable of thinking for yourselves instead of parroting Indian Gurus on non-spiritual matters such as science. It will help reduce mental atrophy, widen your perspectives and broaden your horizons. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 The encyclopedia of authentic Hinduism wow ! such a book really exists ?? why didnt i hear it before . who wrote it ? they all must have consulted before writing it ? there must have been a council then , like the buddhist councils ? when was the first council held . last kalpa maybe ? who presided over it and who were the attendents ? sun god vivaswan , syayambhuva manu and seven trunked airavat ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Independent thought for a change? you are so full of it! I have not come to Srila Prabhupada because I am unable to think Independently! I have come to Srila Prabhupada because I was searching for the 'summon bonum' of knowledge --while the BOMBS WERE DROPING --I sought the mysteries of life, as a youth, and I found my self on a (not too unique) journey heading east. I had I sight set on lost knowledge of antiquity --and found it. I would have traveled to India had I not found Srila Prabhupada first. What is with the defense of science? Oh I see it's the abuse by a 'All-knowing' Clergy pontificating on all aspects of life --and young visitors to this Forum Site will not know to beware of "Bull S**t Artists"? Yes, Mr K, you are fearfull of the 'loss of control over Who you are' and thus you warn others [who are much less able to descriminate between the revelations of the Vedas and Svengali tactics] . . . the problem with your statements are that they are so shallow and petty and of no profit. For Example, I joined the Hare Krishna Movement straight out of School --and thus, my old friends and family mocked me and hid there knowledge of my actions --yet, after so many years pass . . . the children of my ol'school chums are heading to War with dopey maniacs while back home in my country the daily tabloids sell advert space while heralding all things mundane and petty "Man bites dog, yet again and again". Hey lets go on Holiday where the exchange rate is best--Iraq, Iran, Siberia, North Korea, Cuba, Venesuela or maybe someplace nice like the Riviera or Paris --all paid with proceeds from a salary earned by some technilogical advantage over the common laborer wits. With out the best of science --we'd be speaking German/Japanese & Arabic! Harray for the our Top Guns! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranjeetmore Posted May 16, 2009 Report Share Posted May 16, 2009 Dear Sambya, Encyclopedia of authentic hinduism is written by His Holiness Prakashanand Sarasvati and there is a website dedicated to the same.Accept what the book says or don't.I'm not really begging you to accept it now am I ? I'm simply quoting what another Vaishnava thinks about the cosmic arrangements. It's just like the Vaishnavacharyas explaining the reason for the Auspicious signs on the foot sole of Sri Krsna.There are innumerable different interpretations and the devotees accept whichever they find dearest to their sentiments. *** I still take the chance and ask you: Why has Vedavyasa declared that the Jeevatma is Atomic and REMAINS atomic even after Mukti?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ananta Sesa Posted May 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Stars have its own light. thats why they called satars. Otherwise planet.Studdied in my 3rd standerd 1985. And dont relate such scientific things with Gita or any puranas. So then Prabhupada was wrong when he wrote in the Gita that the light of the stars is the reflection of the Sun? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 So then Prabhupada was wrong when he wrote in the Gita that the light of the stars is the reflection of the Sun? I believe Prabhupada saw the overall spiritual picture correctly. The fact that he made some (minor) mistake in his many translations of the original Vedic texts doesn’t diminish that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 So then Prabhupada was wrong when he wrote in the Gita that the light of the stars is the reflection of the Sun? Was Krishna wrong when He told Arjuna that the sun alone illuminates the entire universe? Now what are we gonna do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandu_69 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Was Krishna wrong when He told Arjuna that the sun alone illuminates the entire universe? Now what are we gonna do? I don't know how this "entire universe" thing came. The word used is LOKAM. There are many Lokam(s). For example verse 9:33 also used the word Lokam. ki‰ punar brhma‹„ pu‹y bhakt rjar£ayas tatha anityam asukha‰ LOKAM ima‰ prpya bhajasva mm. iN THIS VERSE lokam is world.Temporary world. verse 9:20 also has lokam(surendra-lokam)...The world/planet of Indra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Does this verse say that there is only one sun in the universe which is the only source of universal light or that sunlight which illuminates all this universe only comes from sun alone of which there could be many? Clearly it is just an analogy to show the real point which is how consciousness radiates from and a specific point i.e. the soul of that body. TRANSLATION Bg 13.34 O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness. PURPORT There are various theories regarding consciousness. Here in Bhagavad-gītā the example of the sun and the sunshine is given. *As the sun is situated in one place, but is illuminating the whole universe, so a small particle of spirit soul, although situated in the heart of this body, is illuminating the whole body by consciousness. Thus consciousness is the proof of the presence of the soul, as sunshine or light is the proof of the presence of the sun. When the soul is present in the body, there is consciousness all over the body, and as soon as the soul has passed from the body, there is no more consciousness. This can be easily understood by any intelligent man. Therefore consciousness is not a production of the combinations of matter. It is the symptom of the living entity. The consciousness of the living entity, although qualitatively one with the supreme consciousness, is not supreme because the consciousness of one particular body does not share that of another body. But the Supersoul, which is situated in all bodies as the friend of the individual soul, is conscious of all bodies. That is the difference between supreme consciousness and individual consciousness. *Clearly Prabhupada is repeating the teachings of the vedas that the there is only one sun in the entire universe. Just as clearly this is not correct. The problem is if Krishna is actually teaching there is only one sun but there are actually billions then how do we accept that as God's word on the matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ananta Sesa Posted May 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 Does this verse say that there is only one sun in the universe which is the only source of universal light or that sunlight which illuminates all this universe only comes from sun alone of which there could be many? Clearly it is just an analogy to show the real point which is how consciousness radiates from and a specific point i.e. the soul of that body. TRANSLATION Bg 13.34 O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness. PURPORT "There are various theories regarding consciousness. Here in Bhagavad-gītā the example of the sun and the sunshine is given. *As the sun is situated in one place, but is illuminating the whole universe, so a small particle of spirit soul, although situated in the heart of this body, is illuminating the whole body by consciousness. .." *Clearly Prabhupada is repeating the teachings of the vedas that the there is only one sun in the entire universe. Just as clearly this is not correct. The problem is if Krishna is actually teaching there is only one sun but there are actually billions then how do we accept that as God's word on the matter? Thank you so much for dispelling my doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santdasji Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Shri Swaminarayan also stated that the sun illuminates the stars and the rest of the Brahmaand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 In Brahma-samhita it is stated that the workings of the supremely powerful superintendent, Durga, are but shadowy indications of the workings of the Supreme Lord. The sun works just like the eye of the Supreme Lord, and Brahma works just as the reflected light of the Supreme Lord. Does this mean there are actually two suns not one if the sun works just like the eye of the Supreme Lord? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 First of all, you have to look at the translation of this verse, BG 13.34. yathā prakāśayaty ekaḥ kṛtsnaḿ lokam imaḿ raviḥ kṣetraḿ kṣetrī tathā kṛtsnaḿ prakāśayati bhārata SYNONYMS yathā — as; prakāśayati — illuminates; ekaḥ — one; kṛtsnam — the whole; lokam — universe; imam — this; raviḥ — sun; kṣetram — this body; kṣetrī — the soul; tathā — similarly; kṛtsnam — all; prakāśayati — illuminates; bhārata — O son of Bharata. The word 'lokam' simply means 'this world' or 'this place', refering not necesarily to Brahmanda, but to our earthly realm. examples of translation of this word: http://vedabase.net/l/lokam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.