Murali_Mohan_das

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

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

Which tales are fables then? Gajendra the elephant? Maha-avatars? etc.

 

How do we identify the fable from fact? What stops us saying that the entire purana is simply a fable to help lesser minds understand God in a form they can understand?

 

Im not trying to offend anyone, and im sorry if i have. Im just curious.

If you claim that nothing is verifiable by direct experience and faith is all we've got then you are rejecting our siddhanta which lists three legitimate methods for aquiring knowledge: shabda, pratyaksa, and anumana.

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.

They seem to be the majority and view those who think differently as heretics.

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?

The errors and mistatemnts are always on the immaterial (material), trival things of life while they speak from realization on things of transcendence. Is this what BR Sridhar meant by guru having a relative and absolute side I wonder?

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.

Third, the moon controversy was initiated by Srila Prabhupada, for better or worse, and I personally disagree with his opinion on that matter (Moon further than the Sun), but again - as a movement - we dont have the courage and honesty to address this issue in public and the controversy and ridicule persists.

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).

Second, I never said or believed that the speakers or writers of Bhagavatam knew every detail of material existence - but yes, there are many devotees who believe just that.

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.

SB 3.31.5: Deriving its nutrition from the food and drink taken by the mother, the fetus grows and remains in that abominable residence of stools and urine, which is the breeding place of all kinds of worms.

SB 3.31.6: Bitten again and again all over the body by the hungry worms in the abdomen itself, the child suffers terrible agony because of his tenderness. He thus becomes unconscious moment after moment because of the terrible condition.

 

 

From the American Pregnncy Association

 

What is the amniotic sac and what does it do?

 

The amniotic sac is filled with the amniotic fluid. This sac is your baby's home, gymnasium, and protection from outside knocks, bumps, and other external pressures. The amniotic sac allows the fetus ample room to swim and move around which helps build muscle tone. To keep the baby cozy, the amniotic sac and fluid maintain a slightly higher temperature than the mother's body, usually 99.7 F.

At week 10, there is around 30 ml of fluid present. The amniotic fluid will reach it's peak around weeks 34-36 at about 1 liter. When your water breaks, it is this sac that ruptures and this fluid that leaves the body. Your baby's life is still being supported by the umbilical cord, and you should be meeting your baby soon!

 

 

 

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

Yes birth and death are miserable. But that is not the question. Please answer the question.

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

Minamata disease (水俣病, Minamata-byō^?), sometimes referred to as Chisso-Minamata disease (窒素水俣病, Chisso-Minamata-byō^?), is a neurological syndrome caused by severe mercury poisoning. Symptoms include ataxia, numbness in the hands and feet, general muscle weakness, narrowing of the field of vision and damage to hearing and speech. In extreme cases, insanity, paralysis, coma and death follow within weeks of the onset of symptoms. A congenital form of the disease can also affect fetuses in the womb

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

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/

Abstract Organ distribution of mercury after in utero mercury vapor exposure was investigated in neonatal guinea pigs. Mother guinea pigs in late gestation were exposed to 0.2–0.3 mg/m³ mercury vapor 2 h per day until giving birth.Mercury concentrations in neonatal brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, plasma and erythrocytes were much lower than those of maternal organs and tissues. Neonatal liver, however, showed a mercury concentration twice as high as maternal liver. Mercury concentration ratios of erythrocytes to plasma in offspring were quite different from those of mothers, being 0.2–0.4 for offspring, and 1.3–3.0 for mothers.

 

These results suggested that mercury vapor metabolism in fetuses was quite different from that in their mothers. This may be due to the different blood circulation, as mercury vapor transferred through the placental barrier would be rapidly oxidized into ionic mercury in fetal liver and accumulated in the organ.

 

The different mercury vapor metabolism may prevent fetal brain, which is rapidly developing, and thus vulnerable, from being exposed to excessive mercury vapor.

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).

Nothing wrong with loving your parents. Just try to see it all in it's proper context. They really aren't your parents. Afterall in your last birth they may have been your children.

 

Love them, respect them ,show gratitude for all the sacrifices they made for you and simultaneously work on realizing them as spiritsouls, parts and parcel of Krsna and realize also the family bit is an illusion.

 

Try also to repay them with something that will benefit them spiritually. While playing the dutiful role of their offspring get them some maha-prasada and speak whatever philosophy they will take without making waves. In this way be the perfect son so that they might praise Krsna through you.

Very inspiring reading I love reading your posts

I concur. Theist rocks!!

However,

Blind faith is not enough for spreading God realization.

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.

Sure, just as long as you understand that Einstein's E=mc²only accounted for<sup>

</sup> about 10% of the energy discovered in a nuclear fission reaction and that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

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..."

Well, not exactly.......

 

<table align="left" border="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td align="left">From E=mc² to the atomic bomb

 

</td> </tr> <tr><td height="5">

</td></tr> <tr> <td align="left"> <!--Bildleiste--> When Einstein's most famous formula E=mc² is mentioned, the atomic bomb is usually not far behind. Indeed there is a connection between the two, but it is subtle, and sadly, some popular science texts get it wrong: they will tell you that a nuclear explosion is "caused by the transformation of matter and energy" according to Einstein's formula, and that the gigantic conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense power of such weapons.

 

<!--Bildleiste--> <center><table border="0"><tbody><tr><td>

Ten seconds after the ignition of the first atomic bomb, New Mexico, July 16, 1945

[image: Los Alamos National Laboratory]

</td></tr></tbody></table></center> But first things first. Let's have a look at what Einstein really did say about the relation between mass and energy.

Equivalence or transformation?

 

For Einstein, mass (more precisely: relativistic mass; the property that determines how difficult it is to change a body's speed or its direction of motion) and energy are simply two different names for one and the same physical quantity. Whenever a system has an energy E, it automatically has the relativistic mass m=E/c²; whenever a system has the mass m, you need to assign it an energy E=mc². Once the mass is known, so is the energy, and vice versa. In that context, it makes no sense to talk about the "transformation of mass into energy" - where there's one, there's the other.

The context in which "transformation of mass into energy" does make sense is a bit different. It is intimately connected with the fact that there are different kinds of energy. Already in classical, pre-Einstein physics, the concept of "energy" comprises a plethora of sub-definitions for different sorts of energy, sub-definitions like those for the kinetic energy associated with any moving body, the energy of electromagnetic radiation, thermal energy or the binding energy that needs to be taken into account whenever there is a force holding together two objects to form a composite object. Yet all these different definitions can be viewed as facets of a single physical quantity, energy. The reason is the possibility of transformations between the different energy forms. For instance, you can increase a body's temperature (and thus its thermal energy) by letting it absorb electromagnetic radiation energy. In these transformations, the total sum of all the different kinds of energy - the total energy - is constant over time. Energy can be transformed from one variety into another, but it can neither vanish nor be created from nothing.

A new kind of energy

 

This conservation of energy holds not only in classical physics, but also in special relativity. However, in relativity, the definitions of the different species of energy are a bit different and, most importantly, there is a completely new type of energy: even if a particle is neither moving nor part of a bound system, it has an associated energy, simply because of its mass. This is called the particle's rest energy, and it is related to the particle's rest mass as

<center> rest energy = (rest mass)· c². </center> Compared with other types of energy, rest energy is very much concentrated. For example: If you use a television tube to accelerate an electron to 20,000 kilometers per second, the kinetic energy gained is still only about five hundred times smaller than the electron's rest energy. Also, this rest energy is about a hundred times larger than the radiation energy of a high-energy X-ray photon. This high concentration is important for processes where rest energy (or, equivalently, rest mass) is converted to more common forms of energy. For instance, when a particle and its antiparticle annihilate and vanish in a puff of electromagnetic radiation, comparatively little matter is transformed into rather a lot radiation.

Studying the masses of different types of atomic nuclei, you will find that in nuclear fission - the process that powers an ordinary atomic bomb -, some "nuclear rest energy" or "nuclear rest mass" is transformed into other forms of energy. For example, the rest mass of a nucleus of uranium-235 is slightly larger than the combined rest masses of the nuclear fragments into which it splits during nuclear fission. Here's where E=mc² comes into play: This mass difference corresponds to the energy set free during nuclear fission. So is it, after all, true that Einstein's formula explains the power of the nuclear bomb - and that the large conversion factor c² is responsible for the immense amounts of energy released?

Binding energies: nuclei vs. molecules

 

Not at all. Different process, same calculation: For chemical reactions, there are tiny mass differences as well. To pick an example: When hydrogen and oxygen explosively combine to make water, the sum of the rest masses of the initial hydrogen and oxygen atoms is just a little bit less than the sum of the rest masses of the resulting water molecules. The same is true for the chemical reactions involving spontaneous oxydation - in other words: burning. The same formula applies: The mass difference, multiplied by c², gives the energy set free during the chemical reaction. Same formula, same conversion factor - yet chemical reactions are much less violent than nuclear explosions. Which clearly shows that the difference must be due to something other than E=mc².

To see where the difference lies, one must take a closer look. Atomic nuclei aren't elementary and indivisible. They have component parts, namely protons and neutrons. In order to understand nuclear fission (or fusion), it is necessary to examine the bonds between these components. First of all, there are the nuclear forces binding protons and neutrons together. Then, there are further forces, for instance the electric force with which all the protons repel each other due to the fact they all carry the same electric charge. Associated with all of these forces are what is called binding energies - the energies you need to supply to pry apart an assemblage of protons and neutrons, or to overcome the electric repulsion between two protons. (More information about these binding energies and their role in nuclear fission and fusion can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

Only with the systematics of these forces and binding energies well understood were physicists able to uncover the laws behind nuclear fission and fusion: The strength of the nuclear bond depends on the number of neutrons and protons involved. It varies in such a way that binding energy is released both in splitting up a heavy nucleus into smaller parts and in fusing light nuclei into heavier ones. This, as well as the chain reaction phenomenon, explains the immense power of nuclear bombs.

Einstein's formula plays second fiddle in that derivation - it's all about different kinds of energy. Sure, there are some radioactive decay processes following nuclear fission, and, if so inclined, one can view the decay of a neutron decaying into a slightly lighter proton as a transformation of rest energy into other energy forms. But these additional processes contribute a mere 10 per cent of the total energy set free in nuclear fission. The main contribution is due to binding energy being converted to other forms of energy - a consequence not of Einstein's formula, but of the fact that nuclear forces are comparatively strong, and that certain lighter nuclei are much more strongly bound than certain more massive nuclei.

Still, E=mc² had a supporting role in the story of nuclear fission research. Not as the mechanism behind nuclear power, but as a tool: Because energy and mass are equivalent, highly sensitive measurements of the masses of different atomic nuclei gave the researchers important clues about the strength of the nuclear bond. (More about this application of Einstein's formula can be found in the spotlight topic Is the whole the sum of its parts?)

In fact, Einstein's politics played a more decisive role in the story of the atomic bomb than his physics. Following a request by the physicist Leo Szilard, Einstein wrote a letter to president Roosevelt, explaining about the potential power of nuclear weapons and the possibility of Nazi Germany developing such weapons, and urging the president to take action. Einstein's letter played its part in setting into motion the political process that culminated in the Manhattan project - the development, construction and testing of the first nuclear bombs.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

What are they teaching you guys in Australia?

Robert Oppenheimer was the principle scientist behind the development of the atomic bomb.

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.

If all the stars were suns the universe would be like an oven and you would be a crispy critter.

The who? the Smiths? Nah never heard of them. The first concert I went to was Roy Orbison (heard of him) :-). But i was the youngest guy in the crowd at least.

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.

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)

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 just need a frigin Job. !!!

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 ?

Didn't Srila Prabhupada risk his life in trying to give Krsna Conciousness to the world?

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:

As anti-Darwinians like to do, West has combed the vast corpus of Darwin's writings to find the creepiest possible examples of the great man's cold-bloodedness. Darwin himself apparently didn't believe that scientific questions of natural selection and political questions of human social arrangements were wholly unrelated. In pointing out how vaccinations had saved thousands of otherwise infirm people from death, he wrote:

 

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

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.

Charles Darwin surely became the most important figurehead of modern governments/politicians because that the universe is a random, directionless process, that human existence has no point or purpose, that free will and the sanctity of the self are ultimately illusions, perfectly fits into present rascal governments whose only goal is to exploit the citizens. The problem is that people have become so much foolish that they accept more and more to be treated by their leaders that way: "What's so sacrosanct about existing human dispositions and capacities, since they were all produced by such a purposeless process?"

 

Original article: Darwinism and its discontents.

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.

Well, kiddies, one thing we have to start to understand is that everthing in the universe is not made of gross matter like what is called earth.

 

The "bhumir" element is the grossest element, what makes up the gross forms of matter.

A soon as you get a little higher in the energy range of the Lord, these other elements start to replace "bhumir" as the primary consituent element.

 

After "bhumir" or earth is the watery element and then fire, air, ether, mind, ego and then intelligence.

 

There is other dimensions of this universe beyond the gross earthly element.

 

For example, the beings on the Moon have bodies made of "mano" or mental energy.

We can't see them with our eyes, but if we have the siddhi, then we could see them with our mind.

 

So, there are mountains, planets, beings etc. etc. that are made up of higher elements that are more subtle than the gross earthly element.

 

What Sukadeva Goswami describes about the universe contains many planets and beings that are not grossly formed, but are subtle forms beyond our seeing capacity.

 

So, just because we can't verify what is in the bhagavatam with our eyes and our telescopes, that does not mean that these things don't exist.

 

They just exist in higher dimensions than the gross element that we are so habituated to and so conditioned to think of a the most real things.

 

Just because things have a more gross composition, that does not mean they are superior to the subtle material energies.

In fact, these gross planets and gross forms of life are inferior to higher beings who have bodies of water, fire, air, ether, mind, ego or intelligence.

 

The highest beings on Satyaloka don't have gross bodies.

Their bodies are made of a solid form of intelligence that is every bit as real to them as is our gross bodies made of earth.

 

Here on Earth we have bodies of earth.

But, as soon as you start to get beyond Earth the bodies start to become made of the subtle elements.

 

So, what Sukadeva is describing can be very confusing to the conditioned mind who is prone to think that gross forms of earth are the only forms in the universe.

 

The demigods don't have gross bodies made of Earth.

There could be a demigod looking over your shoulders right now and you could never see him with you physical eyes unless he wanted you too.

You need to understand that Sukadeva was explaining the universe/creation to Pariksit in a manner so that he could understand it as the "body of God". He did this because Pariksit asked him to. Then follows all those planetary descriptions, etc. One ought to realise that they conflict with modern science findings because they are not "modern science" in the first place. What is being described is the divinisation of the creation and how we can perceive God in it.

I like your first point, Gaurasundara Prabhu. In particular, the way this verse is phrased is rather elegant:

SB 5.20.38: Learned scholars who are free from mistakes, illusions and propensities to cheat have thus described the planetary systems and their particular symptoms, measurements and locations. With great deliberation, they have established the truth that the distance between Sumeru and the mountain known as Lokāloka is one fourth of the diameter of the universe — or, in other words, 125,000,000 yojanas [1 billion miles].

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.

Spiritual counterpart of this universe in the spiritual sky? What?

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?

If the scientists don't know how far away the Moon is, in material terms, then how do you explain this:

EME (communications)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earth-Moon-Earth is a radio communication which relies on the propagation of radio waves from an earth based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the moon back to an earth based receiver.

History

The use of the moon as a passive communications satellite were proposed by Mr W. Bray of the British General Post Office in 1940. It was calculated that with the available microwave transmission powers and low noise receivers, it would be possible to beam microwave signals up from earth and reflect off the moon. It was thought that at least one voice channel would be possible. [1]

The "moon bounce" technique was developed by the United States Military in the years after World War II, with the first successful reception of echoes off the moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana. This was followed by more practical uses, including a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC. In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary.

EME was also in use aboard the NSA listening ship Liberty when it was attacked by the Israel Defense Forces during the Six Day War.

Later, the technique was used by non-military commercial users, and the first amateur detection of signals from the moon took place in 1953.

FAQ

As the albedo of the moon is very low (around 12%), and the path loss over the 770,000 kilometre return distance is extreme (around 309 db).

· High power (100w+) and high gain antennas (35db+) must be used.

· In practice, this limits the use of this technique to the spectrum at VHF and above.

Current EME communicatons

Recent advances in digital signal processing have allowed EME contacts, admittedly with low data rate, to take place with powers in the order of 100 Watts and a single Yagi antenna.

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

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Antya 1.162

 

sad-vaḿśatas tava janiḥ puruṣottamasya

pāṇau sthitir muralike saralāsi jātyā

kasmāt tvayā sakhi guror viṣamā gṛhītā

gopāńganā-gaṇa-vimohana-mantra-dīkṣā

 

 

"'My dear friend the flute, it appears that you have been born of a very good family, for your residence is in the hands of Śrī Kṛṣṇa. By birth you are simple and are not at all crooked. Why then have you taken initiation into this dangerous mantra that enchants the assembled gopīs?'