Murali_Mohan_das

Of course, perhaps, Vaishnava pissing contests are yet another form of "paroksa" instruction. I say this with all sincerity.

In one of my less sober moments recently, the following wild speculation entered my mind: What if the story of Sri Narasimhadev (half-man/half-lion incarnation) is also an allegory? Perhaps, rather than the fearful form depicted in the various paintings, when Hiranyakasipu smashed the pillar and the pieces crumbled to the floor, the Supreme Lord appeared in the form of Hiranyakasipu's mother-in-law standing there with her sari-bag in one hand and her cat Snookums in the other. Seeing the abuse her son-in-law was hurling at her grandson, Mother-in-Law began to mercilessly tongue-lash Hiranyakasipu as the great demon cowered in fear. After several hours of stern speech, Mother-in-Law delivered the coup de grace to the weeping demon on the front doorstep in front of all the gathered relatives and neighbors, at which time, Hiranyakasipu voided his bowels into his dhoti. *** Anyways, Guruvani Prabhu. That was a great start for a thread. Mega-dittos!! Of course, let's hope this thread doesn't degenerate into a pissing contest like so many others

This is exactly why I used the parenthetical qualifier regarding scientific rigor. I was not referring to spiritual inquiries. As for measuring the distance from the Earth to the Moon, of course, there are many scientific methods by which this may be done (though the only way to get a single number is to take an average since the moon's orbit around the earth is not circular, but elliptical--the distance is constantly changing). Any piece of scientific data, however, is only useful (in the scientific sense) if provided along with a margin of error--that is to say, science almost *never* states anything as absolute truth--rather it estimates the degree of certainty with which a statement can be made. Of course, the margin of error itself is an estimate, and it's always a possibility that the error is 100% or more. One of my fields of interest (personal, not professional) is climate science. I mentioned not long ago one of two different instances of erroneous data being collected. One was in relation to the Argos array of ocean sensors. The temperature data was found to be invalid due to miscalibration. The data indicated that the oceans were *cooling* not warming. The second instance relates to satelite weather data. Since the mid-1990's, satelite data has been used to measure the temperature of the upper atmosphere (where we previously only had weather balloon data). This data also failed to show the warming in the upper atmosphere that was expected from the climate models. After some investigation, the data were "corrected" and the desired result was obtained. Obviously, the global-warming skeptics jumped on this.

Be that as it may (and your experience and mine have varied greatly in this regards), to act in the way that you and Lowborn-ji have described certain aspiring devotees acting is not very much in keeping with Mahaprabhu's ideal of humility and tolerance is it? I think you're on to something there, Prabhu. I would qualify the words "errors and mistatements" with the word "apparent", however, since, as we cannot be certain (in the sense of scientific rigor) of the truth of any statement in this realm of matter and relativity, we similarly cannot be certain of the falsehood of any statement.

In a mathematics class, I came across a simple illustration that struck me as rather profound. The image illustrated that, in mathematics, the shortest point between two places in the "real" number domain can actually pass through the "imaginary" number domain. In the field of Electrical Engineering (and others no doubt), there are practical calculations which involve the imaginary number "i" (defined as the square root of negative one). As I mentioned in another post on this topic, the scientific fields of topography and string theory are looking at ways that surfaces and shapes can be manipulated (in ways we tend not to see in the "real" world). Space itself may be curved/folded/stretched in so many ways... What am I trying to say? While a theory that could harmonize scientific cosmology and Vedic cosmology in this instance may not be readily apparent, with informed (not blind) faith, it's safe to suspend our judgement that the shastra must be wrong and assume that, for the time-being, the reconcilliation is inconceivable (acintya).

Granted that, which of us can deny that the Sweet Lord (as Paramatma/ as "intuition") can reveal in the hearts of his Devotee any truth or wisdom which He so chooses. Even in science, the first thing is the conception in the mind. From that point experimentation proceeds. Theist Prabhu. I can see you are deeply scarred by the ontological traumas you have endured at the hands of fundamentalist aspirants back in the '70s. I can also see you implying all sorts of conclusions and attitudes than nobody in this discussion has expressed.

I missed one of your apparent misconceptions the first time I read this. You read the verse as saying that the fetus if falling unconscious and regaining consciousness due to the misery of being in the womb (which, no doubt *is* true--fetuses sleep too). I read it as saying that the material discomfort conditions the soul and causes her to fall unconscious of her true constitutional position as an eternal-conscious-blissful servant of the Supreme Lord.

I'm not one to side-step questions, Theist-ji, as you know. I agree with others that the question is a silly one. The answer was in my reply--if not explicitly stated. You simply need to do make some simple inferrence, just as we must read shastra using our God-given intelligence and hope to draw out some of the inner meaning as possible due to our sukriti (spiritual merit). The point of those two verses is not to give a lesson in anatomy. If the author of those verses cared to touch dead bodies, no doubt, a mother who had died in childbirth could have been found and examined post-mortem. The anatomy involved could have easily been examined without any advanced scientific instruments. Soooooooo...the point of those verses is to indicate that life in utero is not always pleasant (well-established), and that the time in the womb serves to condition the spirit soul. While the verse mentions nothing of the amniotic sac (it certainly does not *deny* the existence), it certainly *is* true that the fetus and the intenstines share the same body cavity regardless of any boundaries between them. Not having researched the topic exhaustively, I'm unwilling to assert that it's impossible for worms to attack a fetus in utero in the same way the scientists working for the Chisso Corporation in Japan asserted that the mercury they were dumping onto Minamata Bay was harmless. Sufficient answer, Prabhu?

Being bitten by worms seems like a minor annoyance when compared with Minamata Disease (caused by mercury poisoning): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

So, from the APA description, we are to assume that the womb is a nice, cozy country club of an environment, replete with margaritas by the pool? From news articles I've seen over the recent years, what we've scientifically assumed about the placental barrier between the baby and the mother and the protection it affords isn't all true. See this link for an example regarding mercury: http://www.springerlink.com/content/nm73j500063t5125/

If I may add to your kind comments, Theist-ji. Let's also be clear on just what "love" is. When we are truly loving we will love not just our families, but all living entities. What most of us call "love" is really just attachment, infatuation, intrigue, and often in the case of parent's "love" for their children--narcisism. A good indicator of what is really "love" is how many conditions we place on that love. If only love our parents when they are providing for our material sustenance, or if we only love our children when they are obedient, then how deep is that love? So yes, we are advised to free ouselves of our material attachments (while carrying out our prescribed duties), we *should* whole-heartedly love our familes, and, as Theist says, the best way we can love them is to share the Mercy of Mahaprabhu with them. As the father of two small children, I must say that, when I hear or read the childhood pastimes of Sri Krishna these days, I do so with a vastly different perspective than I did when I was a child myself (or before I had children of my own). Can I be so bold as to say, fatherhood has granted me greater insight into the mellows of vatsalya (parental) rasa (while I still aspire for even shanta (neutral) rasa).

I concur. Theist rocks!! However, This is true. For distribution, it has been said, "propaganda" may be employed. Obviously, some thought and consideration must go into the creation of this propaganda. Reasonable people will be attracted by preaching based on reason and not by pompous, self-righteous brow-beating. Of course, let us always remember that the Vaishnava's highest ideal is actually "jnana-sunya-bhakti", devotion untouched by the "pollution" of knowledge. This is the Bhakti of the Gopis. So, while blind faith may not be so useful for distribution, when it comes to our own spiritual practices,the Lord assures us that, if we have faith (however "sighted" or "blind"), we will be protected from harm.

Thanks for making that clear, Prabhu. Considering that Muralidhar-ji mentioned Einstein in passing as an analogy, I believe, in this thread we've taken the fine art of nit-picking to new heights!!!

Oh, no!!! It's the attack of the Wikipedia quotes!!!! Can we go back to the Vedabase, now? Did you actually read that whole article before you cut and pasted it in? I skimmed it, but the "clock says it's time to goooooooo now..."

Without "E=MC^2", no one would have had a clue as to just how much energy is contained within the atom and would not have known to pursue atomic fission and fusion for energy or weaponry. So, sure, Oppenheimer and Co. did the heavy lifting (I once attended a Computer Music class in Prentiss hall at 125th St and Broadway in NYC. Word was that building had played a major role in the Manhattan Project), but, without Einstein (or somebody like him doing the same work) the rest would not have happened. I can't think of a more appropriate response to this than a hearty belly laugh.

The Smiths are great!!! While he's no Krishna Bhakta (if he is, he never talks about it), the lead singer, Morrissey is an outspoken vegetarian. The Smiths album "Meat is Murder" is a classic. Sure, I've heard of Roy Orbison, Theist Prabhu. I raided my Dad's music collection long, long ago I even know ELO, Traffic, Love, Jefferson Airplane, Tim Buckley... My first rock concert was Simple Minds in 1984(ish). One of the devotees was travelling with the lead singer (Jim Kerr) and his wife (at the time) Chrissie Hynde (of the Pretenders) as their chef. We got to go backstage and watch part of the show from the wings (standing right behind Jeff Lyne (of ELO)). After the show, we met John McEnroe and Tatum O'Neil backstage (Little Stephen of Bruce Springteen's E-Street Band was also there). A devotee gave the couple a small picture of Parvati. "Poverty?!??!" John replied, puzzled, "you're giving us poverty?!?!?" My brief glimpse into the world of the Devas.

But, seriously, I never wanted a day job until my first child was on the way. I'd rather not be sitting here 40 hours or so per week, but I can't deny the benefit I've recieved from the discipline of it as well as the social contact (since, by nature, I'm a bit of a hermit).

I was looking for a job And then I found a job Heaven knows I'm miserable now -Morrissey of The Smiths (with my full concurrence) Theist-ji, are you too old to know the Smiths? HEAVEN KNOWS I'M MISERABLE NOW Artist(Band):The Smiths <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"> </td><td width="50%"> </td></tr></tbody></table>I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour But heaven knows I'm miserable now I was looking for a job, and then I found a job And heaven knows I'm miserable now In my life Why do I give valuable time To people who don't care if I live or die ? Two lovers entwined pass me by And heaven knows I'm miserable now I was looking for a job, and then I found a job And heaven knows I'm miserable now In my life Oh, why do I give valuable time To people who don't care if I live or die ? What she asked of me at the end of the day Caligula would have blushed "You've been in the house too long" she said And I (naturally) fled In my life Why do I smile At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye ? I was happy in the haze of a drunken hour But heaven knows I'm miserable now "You've been in the house too long" she said And I (naturally) fled In my life Why do I give valuable time To people who don't care if I live or die ?

He risked his life going outside in New York City to get groceries. You risk your life each time you go potty number two (lots of folks die of heart attacks on the toilet). Srila Sridhar Maharaj said "Die to live", but what did he mean by that? Did he mean to enlist in the US Army and go die in Iraq?

That's a fascinating article, Suchandra Prabhu. I have long lamented the way Darwin's thought has been misappropriated (from the scientific standpoint) to justify a position of social mercilessness (Social Darwinism). Simply put, Darwin observes that "random" mutations happen in nature, and that, while most of those mutations are not viable and may lead to the mutant's death, those mutations which confer upon the mutant a competitive edge will tend to survive and be propagated. Reasonable enough from the scientific perspective, and, if we see the Lord as the cause of all causes (i.e., the cause of all "random" mutations), it is reasonable from the theological perspective. What the theory *fails* to consider are the equally observable qualities of: love, affection, mercy, compassion, cooperation, etc. So, yes, it is despicable that a scientific theory has been embraced as an almost religious doctrine of "sink or swim". As to whether Darwin ever intended his thought to be so used, this passage from the linked article is revealing: If this is the worst of the worst of Darwin's thought--to observe (without explicit judgement) that humans are one of the few animals which "allow" unfit members of the species to breed--than I'd say the blame lain at his feet is largely undeserved.

Whether subtle or gross, material is material. Spiritual is something different. Any subtle material energy is fair game for science. Electromagnetic energy is certainly subtle energy (in comparison to a rock). Two hundred years ago, there was no radio, TV, etc. Through "progress", humanity has gained some mastery over these subtle energies. How can we say that, the Lord permitting, science will not gain some proficiency at manipulating so many other subtle material energies? If something is material, regardless of how subtle it is, reason dictates that it should be perceivable by material means. Spiritual realms, of course, are beyond the purview of science.

I like your first point, Gaurasundara Prabhu. In particular, the way this verse is phrased is rather elegant: Notice how the speaker points out that the description he gives is that given by the saintly persons. However, as phrased, it implies that, while it is a valid representation of reality, it is not necessarily the *only* valid way in which reality might be represented. However, to claim that the descriptions of the material universe from Bhagavatam and "modern science" are at odds is a specious claim based on limited vision. While the cosmology of the Bhagavatam is complete in it's scope and is truly "eternal science", it certainly omits many of the details (like, say, how food is converted to energy in the cell). It's one of my mantras, no doubt, but science is a tool, not a religion in opposition of the Vedic religion. Now, "materialism", the "religion" practiced by many scientists (while many other scientists nurture some faith in there hearts), certainly *is* at odds with Sanatan Dharma.

This is a reasonable assumption granted the statement that things in the material world are a hazy reflection of the sublime things in the realm of spirit.

No need for explanation. As I already mentioned, if we accept that God is the all-in-all, then simply by His sweet will, the very "laws of nature" can be altered. Why would the Lord mess around with half-baked illusions when, without a drop of sweat, a complete and full illusion can be manifested?

So, Muralidhar-ji, are you saying all my plans for material dominion and enjoyment are "doomed, dooooomed, dooooooomed"?