shvu

I watched a program titled 'Mystery of the Sphinx' which spoke about new evidence that seems to make the Sphinx older than currently accepted. How valid is this new evidence, is something that I am checking out. For those who are interested, the program will be aired again on the Travel channel [in the US] on Aug 4 and 5. [sat & Sun]. It is presented by Heston and has views from some of the top Egyptologists like John Anthony West, etc. Cheers

This is what every old civilization claims . According to each one of them, they were the center of the world. Their own place was something unique, and people living in that place somehow had a special previlige. The Jews believed that their land was the holy land, just like the Aryans believed that Aryavarta [the region in North India where they flourished] was a holy land. The christians until a couple of hundred years back, believed that Hebrew was the original language of the world and all other languages came from Hebrew. This was assuming the bible to be a source of historical truths [the tower of babel story, etc]. Later, when people studying ancient greek, Iranian and sanskrit together, they realized that there were lots of similarities between these languages indicating that they had a common ancestor which had nothing to do with Hebrew. That removed the myth of Israel being the origin of everything. Of course, there are many christains who still believe in it today and choose to ignore any evidence. They treat the bible as a source of history and archaeological evidence does not interest them. Likewise there are Hindus today who believe that North India was the source of everything and this idea again, is based on treating stories from Puranas as historical facts. Cheers

This is what every old civilization claims . According to each one of them, they were the center of the world. Their own place was something unique, and people living in that place somehow had a special previlige. The Jews believed that their land was the holy land, just like the Aryans believed that Aryavarta [the region in North India where they flourished] was a holy land. The christians until a couple of hundred years back, believed that Hebrew was the original language of the world and all other languages came from Hebrew. This was assuming the bible to be a source of historical truths [the tower of babel story, etc]. Later, when people studying ancient greek, Iranian and sanskrit together, they realized that there were lots of similarities between these languages indicating that they had a common ancestor which had nothing to do with Hebrew. That removed the myth of Israel being the origin of everything. Of course, there are many christains who still believe in it today and choose to ignore any evidence. They treat the bible as a source of history and archaeological evidence does not interest them. Likewise there are Hindus today who believe that North India was the source of everything and this idea again, is based on treating stories from Puranas as historical facts. Cheers

SD, Faith comes into the picture when something cannot be perceived with the aid of intellect. A good example is afterlife. No one can say what happens after death...not unless he has died, gone out to see what happens and comes back to tell people what he saw. This cannot be determined intellectually, for each person based on his background, intellect, etc will draw different inferences. For example, sometime back Maitreya once told me that he sees divine power everywhere. I on the other hand, see no such thing anywhere. Some other person will see things some other way. In general atIndriya [beyond senses] concepts cannnot be perceived thru intellect. This is where faith comes in, where we have a religious explanation which is supposed to tbe the word of God. Why? Because that is the only reliable source, from which one can know about such beyond_the_intellect concepts. Consequently, the Indians stated that the Vedas were the word of God, the Jews stated that the OT was the word of God and so on. That has been the trend. It is wrt atIndriya concepts only that Agama overrides pratyaksha and anumAna. But with everything else, pratyaksha is primary. Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-23-2001).]

I guess my question is, how do you view an accident? Do you accept it as a causeless random occurence or do you view it as an unavoidable effect of previous Karma? If it is the latter, you cannot blame yourself for what happened. There is a verse from the Bhagavatam in which Krishna says "whomsoever my grace falls upon, him I shall rob of everything." So by that verse, suffering and pain can be viewed as part of Hari's Lilas, where he is guiding the devotee by making his faith stronger. Cheers

Maitreya, How do you explain Gita 18.61 in relation to the above incident? What if it had happened accidentally without you doing a thing? Thanx [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-23-2001).]

Good point, but oo doesn't seem to be a complete solution for it can be pronounced as in hoover, hooper, google, etc [which is how I am inclined to read it]. Transliterating sanskrit into english seems to be a complex problem. Perhaps this is why, there exist so many different transliteration schemes. Cheers

Come on Puru, isn't it a good thing to feel concern for our fellow human beings? Don't you feel concerned about the fate of 'misguided' atheists? Thanx for the follow up on 'eternal birth'. Cheers

Let me clarify that Shankara when commmenting on the BS, refers to other statements from Smriti like Manu Smriti, etc. It was not his original suggestion that Shudras should be tortured for hearing the Vedas. Such an idea was already present in older literature written by someone else and was only quoted by Shankara for they were considered authority during his time. I would be highly surprised if other commentators [including Baladeva] disgreed with the Sutras that Shudras should not hear Vedas. Cheers

Haah !!! Nectar to my ears, I must say. So can I presume that you do not discard Mukti as something inferior basedo nsome west bengal literature? So it appears you do give credence to the Gita when it says param gatim, etc. udArAha sarva evaite gyAnI tvAtmaiva me matam | Asthitaha sa hi yuktAtmA mAmevAnuttamAn gatim || 7.18 || Concerning 'everything is Hari', I can produce a number of verses to with Shankara's justification, just like someone else can produce several of Madhva's commentaries to show otherwise. So it really means little. Cheers

Yeah, I had missed it. But can you explain how oo is better than u ? Thanx

You have seen lots of people in your lifetime, I am sure. Have you ever seen any blue colored people, till date? Cheers

That just about describes me. There is no such thing as spiritual to the materialist. There is just the body and there is no death. Au contraire, the materialist is clear that he has no beliefs in para-normal stuff. So if anyone is under a delusion, it is the religious guy who is willing to believe in things without proof so long as it sounds exciting enough. The materialist at times, feels sorry for such people...sorry to see them being taken for a ride. Cheers

SD, The answer to that question will be no. A bluish child of Yashoda cannot be the cause of life which was in existence before the child was born. 3 whole yugas had passed by then. In fact, bluish itself is impossible as you yourself will agree with, as a doctor. Krishna means dark, which means dark brown wrt to the color of a person, in this context. Cheers

Talasiga, Since you are particular about spellings, can you explain why write Sruti as Srooti? Why the double o's? Thanx

I'll state that the chicken came first. I will not offer proof and no one can prove me wrong either. Likewise if I had stated that the egg came first, no one could have disproved me either. The point is, anything that one says about such things is speculation and hence has no value. Anything goes. Cheers

What does 'eternal birth' mean? Isn't that an oxymoron? Thanx

Free world, Talasiga. Everything that any 'realized' man said is Sruti. Doesn't matter if they are all different. In fact, if I can manage to collect a set of gullible people as my followers and convince them that I am enlightened [a very easy task because I know most of the tricks in the bag], then according to your logic, my teaching will be Sruti too. Yeah baby !

To cry out sincerely to the Lord, one has to be sure that there is a Lord. According to you belief is necessary to know the truth, but for belief itself, one has to know the truth. It is a chicken_and_egg situation. Some people are able/willing to believe in in old books and in people who claim to be spiritual. For whatever reason, I cannot do that. Perhaps I cannot, because they are all so varied in their opinions? Or maybe all my research has led me to see that spirituality is a con game handed down over the centuries to con people who are loooking out for "something more" than material life. They want to believe in something extra-ordinary and this weakness is exploited by some capable worthies who know exactly what it takes to fool someone and have no scruples about talking people for a ride in the name of spirituality, God, a colorful heaven, eternal state, etc. There is one set of people in the world who are on the lookout for that magical 'something more' than material life. They are the ones who shell out the necessary dollars, time and effort which enable the Gurus to become famous and powerful by building temples, ashrams, meditation centres and by translating sanskrit books into english. All of which lures more people in, which means more dollars, and the story goes on... Cheers [This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-20-2001).]

Maitreya, Not all the people who believe in souls are of one opinion either. The christians believe that only humans have souls and not plants and animals, although plants and animals have life. Thus according to them, life is not connected to the soul. About people floating up to the ceiling, have you sen anyone do that? I am sure you watched the program in discovery on levitation, about the Brazil guy's photo where he was floating in mid-air in a church. The photo was found to be doctored. About pre-conceived notions, I am sure you will accept that plenty of 'religious' people have pre-conceived notions that there is life after death, so strong that they just do not want to acknowledge any alternate possiblity. In fact, they are so sure about it that nothing is going to convince them that it may be false. What about those people? The religious guy with his dogma, is much much worse than the 'confused' scientist. Cheers

Death is certainly a physical thing. Heart stops, brain goes inactive, etc. What is the doubt here, may I ask? They certainly do have lots of disdain. Let me know if you are interested and I will send you an article which is about Srila Prabhupada's opinion on science. You may have also seen people refer to scientists as confused, etc right on this forum. This is your opinion and let us agree to disagree on this. The devotee objects to anything that goes against his beliefs and calls it dogma all the while forgetting that it is he himself who is begin dogmatic. Just to make it clear, there is no place for dogma in science, unlike in religion. I trust you are aware of this, being a bio-chemist. For which he has no evidence and in the absence of evidence, it is all mere speculation. It may all be false. Which has resulted in all the modern day comforts that man enjoys. May I ask, what insight into life has been gained from the former type of inquiry? Show me irrefutable proof that there is a spirit/soul and I will believe in these 'spiritual scientists' [not sure what that means]. As simple as that. I will never use the word 'cannot'. Trust me, I can answer any question in the world, so long as it does not have to be proved, which is what the 'spirtualists' do. Nothing can be more easier. It does not require saffron clad people from mystical India to give answers that cannot be proved. Anyone can do it. All he needs is an audience who are willing to buy his talk. This is how the Gurus from India are making lots and lots of American dollars. I am conscious. What does that show? Cheers

Maitreya, I have heard a number of such stories and I will believe in them when I actually see one. Not until then, and I recommend that you do the same. See for yourself, someone floating in mid-air and then believe in it. It is enough if he goes one inch above the ground. That will do. Assuming that there is a soul and it went out of the old man's body, it cannot see a thing, for it's eyes are still back in the body. So I see no way of such a thing happening. The soul if there is one, has no sense organs which enable it to see anything like it happens in movies like Ghost. Cheers

We cannot do so today does not mean we can never do it. Let me quote my favorite flying example. A couple of hundred years back, the idea of man flying was a joke to many, just like genetics is to some today (The idea of migration patterns being genetic sounded funny to some people who are of the opinion that Krishna tells the bird where to go). Science is still in it's infancy and it has a long way to go. Cheers

Life goes out when the body cannot function anymore which can happen for various reasons. It is purely physical and is clearly obvious to anyone...when the eyes are open and the mind is unbiased, that is. Confused scientists? Science is used by the 'pure' devotees whenever it is convenient. But if there is any indication of it threatening their religious beliefs, they switch to contempt towards scientists. It is fear and nothing else. Fear that such a discovery will upset their cherished religious beliefs. Having the carpet pulled from under their feet is not what anyone would like. Cheers

Animesh, Ashoka's date is clearly known beyond doubt by his inscriptions. He was in contact with most of the big empires of his time and his inscriptions mention their names. The inscriptions also say that his coronation was 200+ years after the Buddha's death. This gives the Buddha's date beyond doubt too. Some Indian guys try to push Indian dates as far back as possible, having been inspired by the fancy dates that have been handed down in India by the older generations. They believe that the western scholars who dated ancient India were biased and their conclusions were incorrect and all this is based on stories from Puranas. Nothing could be more wrong, for the westerners have dated most of the famous old Indian personalities well before christ. These self-styled scholars now are treating the Bhagavatam etc as historic records and trying to rewrite Indian history. They do this by writing articles and putting them on web pages on web sites like www.swordoftruth.com. They seem to think that the older, the better. Why, I don't know. They are so taken up with such an idea that the stories of the Puranas override all kinds of evidences. Any evidence to show otherwise will be rejected as false. The 3102 BC date itself is highly dubious for it was not recorded anywhere until the time of Arya bhatta in 400 AD. That is not until 3400 years later! Add to it, the fact that there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to show that there were people living in these areas at that time as described in the mahabharata. The truth is, our Indian people had no sense of chronology at all. For them 'very old' and 'long ago' were good enough. How old, was something that they never bothered with. A lot of stuff was attributed to Vyasa to make it look authoritative. And any popular personality was connected to Vyasa or Suka. Gaudapada was Suka's disciple, Shankara debated with Vyasa, Madhva met Vyasa and is in fact serving him in person right now, according to his biography. This should give people an idea of how the people in India viewed history. Read "Studies in Indian literature and philosophy" by Ludo Rocher and any history textbook of India. Cheers