RR * sciene of 'karma' and faith in vedas

[Guest guest]

Dear Rohini ji,

 

yes, I fully agree with you. But I wanted to say in common people

think that shastra is merely a myth, but in official science they

have deep faith and see it as fact, while shastra remains legends

and myth.

 

But every good jyotishi sees that how scientific shastra actually

is. Same with yoga practises, no matter what kind of. If properly

practised, one will receive the results, believe in it or not, there

will be proof.

 

So, in this sense it is science. With faith I meant that people

should take it more seriously.

 

Best regards,

Shad

 

 

, "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...>

wrote:

> 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

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >