-> Tanvir * sciene of 'karma' and faith in vedas

[Guest guest]

Dear Tanvir,

 

it wasn't my intention to blame science, as I am a researcher and

inventor myself, living science everyday.

 

But also for some 20 years I have studied the shastras under the

guidance of sadhus.

 

I only wanted to inspire other on this group to have more faith in

vedic science than in ordinary science, in which people have deep

faith in.

Germans like to say that 'not all what shines is gold'.

 

What is the definition of science? In my eyes it is truth, which is

eternal, and never will be changed. This cannot be said about our

today's science... we speculate how things could be.

 

You ask who the authorities of shastras were or jyotish... it is the

supreme Lord who gave the shastras to us.

 

So among us, if you could now ask Lord Narayan, Lord Krishna, Lord

Siva or Lord Caitanya, who birthplace you recently had visited,

about science and creation, or our nowadays scientists - whom would

you ask?! Those who created life and matter or those who speculate

on how this all could function, rejecting the creators of matter.

 

The vedic scriptures already thousands of years ago it spoke about

atoms and particle physics, in a time where here, the so-called west

and civilized part of the world, where today's science was born,

primitive apes and Neanderthals jumped from tree to tree.

 

Also the vedas cannot be merely understood by mental speculation or

logical thinking. Only the service to the Lord and the sadhus can

open our mind and make us understand shastra.

 

I don't know how things stand in jyotish, but if it is a

transcendental thing, as I see it, also here one would need a

qualified guru to properly study and understand jyotish.

 

What I wanted to say in short is that modern existence has existed

for some hundreds of years, whilst vedas existed even before

creation of this universe, and practically written still are the

oldest scriptures on this planet.

 

We should and actually must have more faith in shastra and the

evidence will then be revealed to us by the authorities of the

vedas.

 

Best regards,

Shad

 

 

 

, "Tanvir" <ultimate@s...>

wrote:

> I guess science is not a *person* to state anything but whatever

*it* has to state, is stated by the scientists :-)

>

> Scientists are the one who gave birth to science and science

develops through them and talk through them.

>

> One may say that science existed always but that is not true.

Gravity always existed but not the knowledge related to this. And

the *knowledge* related to this is called science not the gravity

itself.

>

> The disagreement among many astrologers is a lot different from

the disagreement among scientists. There can *not* be as much

disagreements among scientists as there are among astrologers. Some

take 9th house for the fathers, some 10th. Some take eight karakas,

some seven. These are basic disagreements.

>

> This is because the application of astrology and proof of the

theories is sometimes very hard to prove. Astrology is an irregular

area of study, there is no fixed course, nor there is any *standard*

set of rules and not even an authority to decide who is an

astrologer and who is not.

>

> That is why many crooks come up with their own theories and

*establish* them same way.

>

> Science does not have this limitation.

>

> The problem is that science does not accept anything unless it is

proved. So a true but not-yet-proved phenomena is meaningless to the

eye of science.

>

> A scientist might believe in astrology but NOT science approaves

it because it was not established scientific by any standard

authority yet. Thus science rejects astrology though many scientists

might believe in it.

>

> Tanvir.

>

>

>

> What can not happen, can never happen.

> Which is mine, is forever mine.

>

> Tanvir Chowdhury

> Cellular: +88 0189407202

> Mail: lord_narayana@l...

> Website: http://www.jyotish-remedies.com

> Forum:

>

> -

> rohiniranjan

>

> Monday, September 27, 2004 12:11 AM

> Re: 2-Shad & All, > Mark Kincaid....9/26, re.

liberation from karma...&sciene of 'karma'

>

>

> Dear friend,

>

> One slight correction, if I may?

> It is generally scientists who say that there is no soul, etc.

> Science does not! Science only can say what has been examined

and

> documented. It is a fine distinction. Like all other humans,

> scientists often say things that are beyond their domain of

research.

> However, that must not be confused with what Science says or

> maintains!

>

> It is just like some jyotishis have their own views about

science,

> diseases, other worldly and non-worldly issues. Those are their

> opinions, not the opinions or conclusions stated in Jyotish.

>

> Fine but important detail, methinks!

>

> RR

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shad,

 

I have a bit of problem with the statement towards the end of your

quoted email, namely,

 

<<We should and actually must have more faith in shastra and the

> evidence will then be revealed to us by the authorities of the

> vedas.>>

 

My understanding is that shastra are more like science (or should be)

and so there is not the issue or need for 'belief' but reasoning and

facts (that can be tested and examined and validated). Mind you,

chemistry is a pure science (rasayan shastra) but its precursor

alchemy was not fully a science and was partly based on facts, tests

and partly belief etc. Jyotish as currently known is a curious

mixture of facts, testable tenets and some unclear or questionable

issues, as well. In other words, we need to work harder and put in

more than belief into this great discipline that we love and live by.

 

RR

 

, "Shad" <waterpowers>

wrote:

> Dear Tanvir,

>

> it wasn't my intention to blame science, as I am a researcher and

> inventor myself, living science everyday.

>

> But also for some 20 years I have studied the shastras under the

> guidance of sadhus.

>

> I only wanted to inspire other on this group to have more faith in

> vedic science than in ordinary science, in which people have deep

> faith in.

> Germans like to say that 'not all what shines is gold'.

>

> What is the definition of science? In my eyes it is truth, which is

> eternal, and never will be changed. This cannot be said about our

> today's science... we speculate how things could be.

>

> You ask who the authorities of shastras were or jyotish... it is

the

> supreme Lord who gave the shastras to us.

>

> So among us, if you could now ask Lord Narayan, Lord Krishna, Lord

> Siva or Lord Caitanya, who birthplace you recently had visited,

> about science and creation, or our nowadays scientists - whom would

> you ask?! Those who created life and matter or those who speculate

> on how this all could function, rejecting the creators of matter.

>

> The vedic scriptures already thousands of years ago it spoke about

> atoms and particle physics, in a time where here, the so-called

west

> and civilized part of the world, where today's science was born,

> primitive apes and Neanderthals jumped from tree to tree.

>

> Also the vedas cannot be merely understood by mental speculation or

> logical thinking. Only the service to the Lord and the sadhus can

> open our mind and make us understand shastra.

>

> I don't know how things stand in jyotish, but if it is a

> transcendental thing, as I see it, also here one would need a

> qualified guru to properly study and understand jyotish.

>

> What I wanted to say in short is that modern existence has existed

> for some hundreds of years, whilst vedas existed even before

> creation of this universe, and practically written still are the

> oldest scriptures on this planet.

>

> We should and actually must have more faith in shastra and the

> evidence will then be revealed to us by the authorities of the

> vedas.

>

> Best regards,

> Shad

>

>

>

> , "Tanvir" <ultimate@s...>

> wrote:

> > I guess science is not a *person* to state anything but whatever

> *it* has to state, is stated by the scientists :-)

> >

> > Scientists are the one who gave birth to science and science

> develops through them and talk through them.

> >

> > One may say that science existed always but that is not true.

> Gravity always existed but not the knowledge related to this. And

> the *knowledge* related to this is called science not the gravity

> itself.

> >

> > The disagreement among many astrologers is a lot different from

> the disagreement among scientists. There can *not* be as much

> disagreements among scientists as there are among astrologers. Some

> take 9th house for the fathers, some 10th. Some take eight karakas,

> some seven. These are basic disagreements.

> >

> > This is because the application of astrology and proof of the

> theories is sometimes very hard to prove. Astrology is an irregular

> area of study, there is no fixed course, nor there is any

*standard*

> set of rules and not even an authority to decide who is an

> astrologer and who is not.

> >

> > That is why many crooks come up with their own theories and

> *establish* them same way.

> >

> > Science does not have this limitation.

> >

> > The problem is that science does not accept anything unless it is

> proved. So a true but not-yet-proved phenomena is meaningless to

the

> eye of science.

> >

> > A scientist might believe in astrology but NOT science approaves

> it because it was not established scientific by any standard

> authority yet. Thus science rejects astrology though many

scientists

> might believe in it.

> >

> > Tanvir.

> >

> >

> >

> > What can not happen, can never happen.

> > Which is mine, is forever mine.

> >

> > Tanvir Chowdhury

> > Cellular: +88 0189407202

> > Mail: lord_narayana@l...

> > Website: http://www.jyotish-remedies.com

> > Forum:

> >

> > -

> > rohiniranjan

> >

> > Monday, September 27, 2004 12:11 AM

> > Re: 2-Shad & All, > Mark Kincaid....9/26, re.

> liberation from karma...&sciene of 'karma'

> >

> >

> > Dear friend,

> >

> > One slight correction, if I may?

> > It is generally scientists who say that there is no soul, etc.

> > Science does not! Science only can say what has been examined

> and

> > documented. It is a fine distinction. Like all other humans,

> > scientists often say things that are beyond their domain of

> research.

> > However, that must not be confused with what Science says or

> > maintains!

> >

> > It is just like some jyotishis have their own views about

> science,

> > diseases, other worldly and non-worldly issues. Those are their

> > opinions, not the opinions or conclusions stated in Jyotish.

> >

> > Fine but important detail, methinks!

> >

> > RR

> >

> >

> >

> >