Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Bart Happel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    188

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bart Happel

  1. Posted · Report reply

    Dear Bhaktajan,

     

    I’ve just finished eating a meal, consisting of mashed potatoes and vegetables, topped with a deliciously prepared piece of pork-meat. When I was eating, my thoughts were with the content of this topic. In fact, I noticed that my attention (appetite) was constantly drawn towards the meat; even though I clearly realized what might have been the ultimate fate of the animal that I was eating. And I really enjoyed eating the meat! Perhaps this particular piggy died (relatively) peacefully. I don’t know..

     

    I think I do know, however, that where I live, it is common practice in slaughterhouses, to first kill animals by electrocution, before they are boiled or butchered. Killing the animals first, is much more efficient, less noisy, and better for the worker’s peace of mind. Actually I don’t see why animals would be killed and processed for consumption (large scale) any other way, anywhere..

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  2. Posted · Report reply

     

    Dear Ravindran,

     

    There are many errors in your posts. I am going to take only some salient ones. For example, you say the pig, skunk, worm, desk, looney bins, commodes, humans are made of the same atomic particles.

     

    NO SCIENTIST WILL AGREE THAT AN ATOM IS THE SAME AS ANOTHER ATOM next to it.

     

    What makes an atom different from another atom? Every atom has a unique number of protons, and proton number equals electron number. EVERY ATOM RETAINS ITS INDIVIDUALITY INCLUDING DISTINCT PROTONS AND NEUTRONS.

     

    Also, the atomic mass for one atom may be different from another atom of the same element.

     

    What you are referring to and explaining is not Science but quackery. If you still didn't get the basics of science, I do not want to pursue clarifying quackery any further. There are fundamental flaws in your hypothesis. A 3rd grade science text book might help define an atom and its composition.

     

    Even if we consider Science to support metaphysics, Science is strongly dualistic. It involves the interaction of five or six kinds: matter, energy, forces, space, time, and laws. Each of these are radically different from another.

     

    The laws of nature regulate the behavior of all physical systems at every level. The laws cannot be God. They are controlled by Him. That itself is dualistic.

     

    Now the so-called quacks (or whom you call new-age scientists) who observe nature fail to understand that they are not viewing this underlying Reality. Monism itself states that the underlying reality (which it calls GOD) cannot be observed nor comprehended nor even explained by words. Ever heard of anirvachIniya?

     

    If you talk to an actual 21st century scientist, he will call new-age science a bluff. If you talk to a classical Advaitin or a Dvaitin, he will not agree with you because you haven't understood monism in the first place to correlate it to quantum science.

     

    As a blogger wrote: It’s somewhat incorrect to say physics is dualistic; it’s quadraplistic, pentuplistic, sextuplistic, or at least quintuplistic. If you throw in the geometric math of string theory with its eleven dimensions, it might even be hyperplistic.

     

    I see you didn't (re)read - or you didn't understand my posts (and related posts). ;)

  4. Posted · Report reply

    Perhaps this is a Key :):

     

    8.9 One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun and, being transcendental, is beyond this material nature.

  6. Posted · Report reply

     

    From your previous posts it seemed you were very depressed. Good to know you are keeping your cool :)

     

    For the last time :smash: I said science supports a philosophy based on reality than a philosophy based on illusion. Whether you think that reality doctrine is Dvaita is your prerogative. Looks like you are here merely to pick up a fight under your kaisersose id. You remind me of a split personality who takes on multiple ids in different forums. But of course as you said, I have no evidence to substantiate my claim. Its just a suspicion ;)

     

    Your style of debating is really interesting, but it will not provide real answers in my opinion. My advice is: Don’t continuously revert other people's arguments. Answer questions as they are stated, and pose questions when you genuinely do not understand something. Maybe then you will learn something..

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  7. Posted · Report reply

    Yet another analogy: In physics, systems containing 2 particles (that interact by means of some force) can usually be solved analytically. 3-particle systems, however, can't be solved analytically. The behavior of such systems is called 'complex' and is beyond mathematical analysis.

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  8. Posted · Report reply

     

    In the first verse itself, Krishna differetiates between Himself and the Jivas, 'Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor did you'. ...

     

     

    When, in this phrase, ‘you’ is part of ‘I’ (i.e., you are part of Krishna), then there is no conflict with advaita (monism). There may be a conflict with dvaita (dualism), however.

     

    I understood elsewhere, that the meaning of the Sanskrit terms may be different from the meaning of the English terms: The advaita/dvaita controversy denotes the question whether or not we can ‘become one’ with God. This seems to imply an initial difference. The monism/dualism controversy (in the same context), denotes the question whether or not we (and everything in our individually perceived reality, including ‘other’ perceiving, conscious living beings), are integral parts of a universal whole (God).

     

    Personally I adhere to the latter view. That is (apart from terminology): monism is the idea that everything is always part of God and as such everything is always ‘one’; and dualism is the idea that everything may be different from God and as such there may be at least 2 different forces in the universe.

     

    Herein, as a scientist, I opt for monism, because it is a much simpler solution, with equal (and possibly even better) explanatory potential of perceptual phenomena (Occam’s razor: the simpler model is always better). I also think this agrees much better with the ideas in the ‘Bhagavad Gita’.

     

    So, in my view, ‘you’ do not exist as an autonomous entity that is somehow not a part of the whole (God). There never was and there will never be, a time when ‘you’ exist without God.

     

    Perhaps a small, intricate thing that I like to call ‘free will’ also exists, but that’s probably largely irrelevant.. :)

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  9. Posted · Report reply

    Chapter 11 of the ‘Bhagavad Gita as it is’ deals with the ‘Universal Form’. The 4 verses below, describe what Arjuna saw when Krishna displayed His universal form to Arjuna. Did Arjuna see a large-scale ‘fractal geometry’ (like the Mandelbrot set in posts #79-80)? :)

     

     

    11.10-11 Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths and unlimited eyes. It was all wondrous. The form was decorated with divine, dazzling ornaments and arrayed in many garbs. He was garlanded gloriously, and there were many scents smeared over His body. All was magnificent, all-expanding, unlimited. This was seen by Arjuna.

    Purport: These two verses indicate that there is no limit to the hands, mouths, legs, etc., of the Lord. These manifestations are distributed throughout the universe and are unlimited. By the grace of the Lord, Arjuna could see them while sitting in one place. That is due to the inconceivable potency of Krsna.

     

    11.12 If hundreds of thousands of suns rose up at once into the sky, they might resemble the effulgence of the Supreme Person in that universal form.

    Purport: What Arjuna saw was indescribable, yet Sanjaya is trying to give a mental picture of that great revelation to Dhrtarastra. Neither Sanjaya nor Dhrtarastra was present, but Sanjaya, by the grace of Vyasa, could see whatever happened. Thus he now compares the situation, as far as it can be understood, to an imaginable phenomenon (i.e. thousands of suns).

     

    11.13 At that time Arjuna could see in the universal form of the Lord the unlimited expansions of the universe situated in one place although divided into many, many thousands.

    Purport: The word tatra (there) is very significant. It indicates that both Arjuna and Krsna were sitting on the chariot when Arjuna saw the universal form. Others on the battlefield could not see this form because Krsna gave the vision only to Arjuna. Arjuna could see in the body of Krsna many thousands of universes. As we learn from Vedic scriptures, there are many universes and many planets. Some of them are made of earth, some are made of gold, some are made of jewels, some are very great, some are not so great, etc. Sitting on his chariot, Arjuna could see all these universes. But no one could understand what was going on between Arjuna and Krsna.

  10. Posted · Report reply

     

    Neither inference nor perception was apparent in that thread :) You still have not answered my questions about how you reconcile quantum science with One reality. I suggest you re-read my posts.

     

    In those terms: quantum physical data = perception; seeing dynamical similarities between quantum physical data and chaos = inference (also via the working theory of quantum mechanics). Read my posts!

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  12. Posted · Report reply

     

    How valid is this statement "world is an illusion but our perception of the world is real"? Think about it. Let me explain. I have a perception that you have only a cursory or wrong knowledge of religions. Is my perception real or unreal? Do you deny that perception? Your assertion that reality much exist is also not true as Buddhists believe in nothingness.

     

    I guess, ‘nothingness’ still is something, or else you should have used the term ‘nothing’. The latter, of course, would be absurd. And Buddhism simply doesn’t deny that we perceive ‘something’ with our senses. That would be equally absurd. Consequently, Buddhists accept a reality, whether they like it or not.

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  14. Posted · Report reply

     

    Buddhism believes in the non-existence of matter. So your understanding of it is also incorrect!

     

    Buddhism doesn’t deny our ‘perception’ of what we commonly refer to as matter or ‘the material world’. It just sees this as illusory. Statements like: "this cosmic manifestation is false", imply that there is a perceptual cosmic manifestation, although it is false. So, in my understanding, Buddhism only denies the reality of what we perceive, but not the reality of the percept itself. Since there is a percept, there must at least exist some real ‘underlying mechanism’ that produces it. In this ontological sense, a ‘representation’ of everything in our perceived cosmic manifestation must somehow exist in reality. Ultimately, reality may even be ‘void’ in perceptual terms, but reality must exist.

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  18. Posted · Report reply

     

    ...

    {Nyaya philosophy [hindu school of thought classified as impersonalist/voidist/Atheist] believe that awareness is not an essential quality of the soul, they teach that a liberated soul has no consciousness. The Nyaya idea of liberation thus puts the soul in the condition of a dead stone}...

     

     

    Isn't there a semantical difference between the terms 'awareness' and 'consciousness'? Isn't 'awareness' more perceptual than 'consiousness'?

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  19. Posted · Report reply

    I have found 3 verses in the ‘Bhagavad Gita as it is’, that may be particularly relevant to the content of this thread. Most notably: the 3rd<SUP> </SUP>verse strikingly corresponds to the basic idea of the discussed model of quantum reality (in which a single point 'describes' the entire universe), when Krishna refers to himself as: “The Supreme Person, who is smaller than the smallest”. Also note the commentary here by Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!

     

     

    3.3 The Blessed Lord said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who realize the Self. Some are inclined to understand Him by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others are inclined to know Him by devotional work.

     

    4.35 And when you have thus learned the truth, you will know that all living beings are but part of Me--and that they are in Me, and are Mine.

     

    8.9 One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is smaller than the smallest, who is the maintainer of everything, who is beyond all material conception, who is inconceivable, and who is always a person. He is luminous like the sun and, being transcendental, is beyond this material nature.

     

    Commentary by Sri Srimad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

    The process of thinking of the Supreme is mentioned in this verse. The foremost point is that He is not impersonal or void. One cannot meditate on something impersonal or void. That is very difficult. The process of thinking of Krsna, however, is very easy and is factually stated herein. First of all, He is purusa, spiritual, Rama and Krsna, and is described herein as kavim; that is, He knows past, present and future and therefore knows everything. He is the oldest personality because He is the origin of everything; everything is born out of Him. He is also the supreme controller of the universe, maintainer and instructor of humanity. He is smaller than the smallest. The living entity is one ten-thousandth part of the tip of a hair, but the Lord is so inconceivably small that He enters into the heart of this particle. Therefore He is called smaller than the smallest. As the Supreme, He can enter into the atom and into the heart of the smallest and control him as the Supersoul. Although so small, He is still all-pervading and is maintaining everything. By Him all these planetary systems are sustained. We often wonder how these big planets are floating in the air. It is stated here that the Supreme Lord, by His inconceivable energy, is sustaining all these big planets and systems of galaxies. The word acintya (inconceivable) is very significant in this connection. God's energy is beyond our conception, beyond our thinking jurisdiction, and is therefore called inconceivable (acintya). Who can argue this point? He pervades this material world and yet is beyond it. We cannot even comprehend this material world, which is insignificant compared to the spiritual world--so how can we comprehend what is beyond? Acintya means that which is beyond this material world, that which our argument, logic and philosophical speculation cannot touch, that which is inconceivable. Therefore intelligent persons, avoiding useless argument and speculation, should accept what is stated in scriptures like the Vedas, Gita, and Srimad-Bhagavatam and follow the principles they set down. This will lead one to understanding.

  20. Posted · Report reply

     

    I believe,

    SATAN = Stop Absolutely Trying Absolutely Never.

     

    I assume numerical probabality and satanism deal with advanced action theory. Don't know much anything about that. :confused:

     

    Dear supercow,

     

    Don't worry. 'Advanced action theory' does not exist. ;)

     

    Kind regards, Bart

  23. Posted · Report reply

     

    I agree, this is why Srila Prabhupada and his ISKCON Movement (Sanatan Dharma) are NOT Hindu

    This is proved by the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. What Srila Prabhupada achieved since 1965, no other religious leader or teacher has achieved.

    Within a short seven years, he had temples in every major city on the planet.

    Neither any ‘Hindu’ teacher nor leader like Buddha, Jesus or sankaya could achieve this. It took thousands of years for their ideas to spread all over the world.

    On the other hand, Prabhupada had established Temples from Hobart at the far edges of the world to Moscow on the other side of the planet.

    Someone asked what his mystical power was, Srila Prabhupada said -

    '"Krsna has helped me with the ability to print these beautiful book, providing flying objects that takes me all over the world, provides me with a hand held object that lets me talk to anyone anywhere on the planet and capture the sound of bhajans and lectures that can be heard over and over again. No religious teacher in history has spread a religious tradition as fast and wide as our ISKCON has in such a short period of time, it is very historical".

     

    So, glory to the Internet. ;)

  24. Posted · Report reply

     

    Satan, a evil person who uses evil/pain on innocent souls.

    nonprobable means they should have no numerical probablility of executing their actions. how i don't know.

     

    --sc

     

    OK, my previous reply was apparently removed by the moderators.. So, let me state it differently: What do you mean with the term ‘Satan’ and how does it relate to something like ‘numerical probability’?

    Kind regards, Bart

×
×
  • Create New...