Vedic Claustrophobia

[shambu 0]

Is there any case possible in which a person could be said to be suffering from "Vedic Claustrophobia"? Do the Vedas give room enough for anybody, no matter how broadminded this person tends to be? My impression is that certain subject matters are hardly discussable here since there is no proper Vedic reference for them. Am I wrong? Any ideas? Is anything that could possibly make one doubt in the validity and absolute authority of the Vedas automatically a taboo? Should a person who asks questions that apparently can't be answered within the Vedic context be "kicked out" or just ignored? Mental speculation? Even though the facts are there?

[Guest guest]

 

Is there any case possible in which a person could be said to be suffering from "Vedic Claustrophobia"? Do the Vedas give room enough for anybody, no matter how broadminded this person tends to be? My impression is that certain subject matters are hardly discussable here since there is no proper Vedic reference for them. Am I wrong? Any ideas? Is anything that could possibly make one doubt in the validity and absolute authority of the Vedas automatically a taboo? Should a person who asks questions that apparently can't be answered within the Vedic context be "kicked out" or just ignored? Mental speculation? Even though the facts are there?

 

What are you talking about????

 

What questions do you have?

 

Every religious text is faulty depending on how you look at it. Perspective matters, since much of the language in these texts is poetic in nature and its meanings are often hidden.

[shambu 0]

 

What are you talking about????

 

What questions do you have?

 

Every religious text is faulty depending on how you look at it. Perspective matters, since much of the language in these texts is poetic in nature and its meanings are often hidden.

 

I am especially referring to the non-religious portions of the Vedas. Those subject matters that are related to history, science, cosmology and biology that seem to contradict the findings of modern science. I wouldn't like to dispute the religious contents of the Vedas, since that's on an entirely different level. As an example I could give the Vedic idea that Indian kings once ruled the entire planet. The question that arises with me is if this is to be taken literally, since there is not a shred of evidence in my opinion that supports this "theory". If only 5000 years ago a king named Pariksit ruled the entire Earth planet, there should be some evidence to be found, I mean archaeologically or otherwise. If this is not there, my conclusion is that this is not to be taken literally. Every people or tribe has or had the tendency to put itself right in the center of the universe. This is just one example. The Vedas also claim that the Sun is rotating around the Earth, which was also believed in medieval Europe. It is simply not a fact. And just a fraction of logical thinking makes the idea that there is only one Sun in this entire universe unacceptable, apart from what modern telescopes reveil. I hope you are getting my point. I am not qualified to engage in discussions of spirituality, so please forgive me for being so materially obsessed.

[Guest guest]

 

I am especially referring to the non-religious portions of the Vedas. Those subject matters that are related to history, science, cosmology and biology that seem to contradict the findings of modern science. I wouldn't like to dispute the religious contents of the Vedas, since that's on an entirely different level. As an example I could give the Vedic idea that Indian kings once ruled the entire planet. The question that arises with me is if this is to be taken literally, since there is not a thread of evidence in my opinion that supports this "theory". If only 5000 years ago a king named Pariksit ruled the entire Earth planet, there should be some evidence to be found, I mean archaeologically or otherwise. If this is not there, my conclusion is that this is not to be taken literally. Every people or tribe has or had the tendency to put itself right in the center of the universe. This is just one example. The Vedas also claim that the Sun is rotating around the Earth, which was also believed in medieval Europe. It is simply not a fact. And just a fraction of logical thinking makes the idea that there is only one Sun in this entire universe unacceptable, apart from what modern telescopes reveil. I hope you are getting my point. I am not qualified to engage in discussions of spirituality, so please forgive me for being so materially obsessed.

 

 

You have to quote the text, and within context to get at what they really mean. Perhaps they are simply wrong, or perhaps you are just not interpreting it correctly. The error could be on either end.

 

Regarding claims of king of the world and stuff, you should take that lightly, as that's clearly impossible. Many different cultures existed around that time, each one probably had a ruler of the world type in it. It's ethnocentrism, that's all.

 

Parikshit's existence, also, should be in doubt, as there is no archaeological evidence to be found from what I know that would indicate his presence. He could simply be a fabricated character or he exists maybe in some other plane of reality, and the rishis perceived him and the other gods through their meditation.

 

We don't know even half of what went on in ancient times to begin with, since there were very few records, and there is still much debate going on about the nature of the ancient empires, especially in India. Again, you have to remember though India was not simply the subcontinent we know today, it was far more expansive, and stretched into Afghanistan in ancient times.

 

As for the idea of one sun the whole universe revolves around, while not likely, the universe and all its bodies are in perpetual motion around each other. There are some things in Hinduism, not sure if it's stated in the Vedas, that turn out to have strong parallels in science, but there's also ideas that just do not correlate well if at all with what we know now. For instance, the idea that the universe is egg-shaped, that there are many realities, many planes of consciousness, the idea of a vibratory nature of the universe, the universe is cyclical, etc.

 

I don't think these ideas actually come from direct experience in any case, rather they are probably extrapolations based on what they have experienced. Even if the experience MAY be real, the extrapolations that they make from there could be faulty or flawed in some shape or form.

[Guest guest]

The sun rotating around the earth does depend on perspective as well. If you're on the Earth, you're going to observe the sun rotating around you. So as far as you're concerned the sun does rotate around the Earth.

 

In any case, I'd like to see the text you're taking this idea from, particularly the passage this comes from.

[theist 1]

 

Is there any case possible in which a person could be said to be suffering from "Vedic Claustrophobia"? Do the Vedas give room enough for anybody, no matter how broadminded this person tends to be?My impression is that certain subject matters are hardly discussable here since there is no proper Vedic reference for them. Am I wrong? Any ideas? Is anything that could possibly make one doubt in the validity and absolute authority of the Vedas automatically a taboo? Should a person who asks questions that apparently can't be answered within the Vedic context be "kicked out" or just ignored? Mental speculation? Even though the facts are there?

 

I can only share my opinion on your questions as I am no authority on the Vedas having never read them let alone realized them. My experience is limited to Gita and Bhagavatam and I am no authority there either.

It is commonly accepted here that vedic knowledge has been given to us by God realized souls who have seen the truth, so that is the reason for vedic knowledge to be taken as the proper reference point.

 

Anyone can raise objections and reasons for their doubts and won't be kicked out. Those doubts should be voiced politely and in a way where dialouge is possible.If ignored or not is up to each individual to decide. Make it interesting and people are more likely to engage with you. But if challenging remember no one is obligated to defend their faith to anyone else.

 

There is mental speculation and philosophical speculation which both involve the mind. Devotees are reluctant to accept conclusions based on the mind alone and feel more confident when they use the mind to gain understanding of great teachers who have left us this spiritual wisdom. The feeling is they have already given us the essence of what we need to understand our existence and our relation to God so why spend time trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak.

 

Sometimes someone will say something that does not disagree with the vedas but because of our inexperience we may not regonize that fact. That is due to our inexperience and for our spiritual safety we don't want to stray from our trusted shelter. I see it like a small inexperienced child is told not to leave the yard until he grows up a bit. When he does then he can travel all over without getting lost. Most of us are small children still.

But the vedas are more then a set of books. Veda means knowledge. And knowledge is all-pervading because God is all-pervading. At this level one can see receive veda from anywhere. Veda is all expansive and without limits. But we see Veda to be in the Vedas more than any other source on the planet so we are no longer searching for a source of knowledge outside of the vedas but rather to know the veda more completely. This is not the same as sectarianism although some try to make it into that and give a false impression.

 

Hare Krsna

[shambu 0]

 

The sun rotating around the earth does depend on perspective as well. If you're on the Earth, you're going to observe the sun rotating around you. So as far as you're concerned the sun does rotate around the Earth.

 

In any case, I'd like to see the text you're taking this idea from, particularly the passage this comes from.

 

I'm sorry but I couldn't find this specific quote. This indeed is the typical geocentric conception of the universe that has more astrological than astronomical value. Only modern science has seperated these two scientific disciplines, whereas in Bhagavatam they are still interwoven. Bhagavatam says [sB 5.21.7] the Sun is revolving around some mountain named Manasottara, and travels through the signs of the Zodiac with a specific speed. It also says the Moon is radiating warmth, is bigger than the Sun and beyond the Sun also. So this is not in accordance with the physical reality as perceived through our normal senses. In fact the whole cosmology according to the 5th Canto of Bhagavatam is plainly absurd from any modern scientific perspective, no matter how screwdly and cleverly devotees have tried to "harmonize" these vastly remote conceptions (Sadaputa and the like). Mountains and oceans of liquor, honey and ghee are not the first things one would expect to encounter while on a cruise through the universe. Prabhupad even said that the planets were "floating in the air". So if I were a bird then theoretically I could fly to let's say Venus, then. Anyway, these are all externals.

 

Regarding the supposed world-reign of King Parikshit, it says in Bhagavatam [sB 1.16.12]: "Maharaja Parikshit then conquered all parts of the earthly planet -- Bhadrasva, Ketumala, Bharata, the northern Kuru, Kimpurusa etc. -- and exacted tributes from their respective rulers."

 

The purport to this verse in the BBT publication mentions that with Uttarah is meant the Northern Regions, and especially Ilavrta-varsa or the Mediterranean (according to Sridhar Svami, the Bhagavatam commentator).

 

To keep my story short and to the point: If this were true, and King Parikshit conquered the Mediterranean some 5000 years ago, there should be some physical evidence. In fact archaeologists are finding objects that are older than 5000 years, but do not look Vedic at all. I mean, some inscription in Devanagari writing, a small Shiva Lingam or statue of Narayan, that would be real evidence, wouldn't it? It's simply not there, it seems.

[Guest guest]

the biggest evidence as i see it for him have conqered other parts of the world is the other religions, that is very similar to the vedic religion.. u have sun gods, rain gods etc in other religions but under different names.. thats a good evedence for me..

 

the next thing about space.. we havent even learned to travel longer then the moon with humans, so how can we talk about other planet systems etc? many things may be symbolic also in the scriptures..? for example the mountain, if one look at the magnetic energy in the univese, that are like a pole in the middle, that makes things revolve around it, its like a mountain.. but we cant see radition for ex so how can we see things in the 4th or 5th dimension?

[Yegan 0]

I think people at those time were dealing a lot with other dimensions.

The moon is also known to be inhabited according to scriptures and most probably once again in a dimension which we cannot perceive.

Who knows in another dimension the sun does rotate around the earth or King Parikshit did ruled the whole earth but once again not in our dimentional realm.

If my memory is good ,in the mahabharat it had been mentioned that dhurhudan was fooled ( I forgot how but it has some connection to dimension) and that yudisteer have kingdoms in another dimension.

Dont forget one thing... Some few years back everyone believed the earth was flat and thinking otherwise was pure madness.Could our present so called modern science be as foolish?

Could the real truth/science yet to be discovered?

[Guest guest]

To the Original Poster

 

Modern science as we know today is evolving. Having said that, what has been discovered and invented till today is an epitome of human thought, logic and creativity. Human thought, logic and creativity is the basis of scientific theories (sane and insane ones). But, one should not fail to recognize that humans themselves with all their best capacities are at flaw and are prone to numerous errors. The human senses are dependent upon the external elements of nature to guide one's quest for deeper understanding of things around us. Because of that deeper understanding we have so many advances in fields of inquiry from sociology to bio-physical sciences to architecture.

 

An astute student of science will not fail to recognize the limitations of modern inventions/discoveries as they are but a representation of the larger population. in other words, in every field of research there are anomolies or outliers if you will. Why?....one should ask. If modern science is the all-in-all to the problems man is facing today, then why do we have a Nasa Shuttle explosion in mid-air killing everyone aboard or why do we have a building-structure failure or why can't we find the cause this planet (let alone our universe) or at a microlevel why doesnt my cell phone not recieve signals inside my house when i specifically bought it for that purpose. Science is fundamentally at an angle trying to solve all problems. Scientists have created, in todays world, a false sense of security and hope among the general public when in reality there is a lot to be asked.

 

Recently, as we all know about the Da Vinci Code and the apparent doubts it is creating. We also know the Gospel of Judas and how it relates to the Biblical scriptures. What people believed for 2000 years all of a sudden has come under intense scrutiny under different leading scholars and theologians. Science could not ascertain for sure one or the other about the "Shroud of Turin". There is deep polarity between the scientific and religious world about this Shroud. There is also a difference of opinion among the religious circles about this shroud. Scientists analysed this shroud to death and are still unable to prove its authenticity. We all know about the Egyptian Pyramids, however, there are many theories floating around the scientist community about how the Pyramid was built in the first place, this uncertainty extends from the Sphinx in the West to the Thanjavur Periya Kovil in the East. There is still speculation as to how the pinnacle on the top of the Gopuram of Tanjavur was hoisted that high especially the pinncale wieghing approximately 1000 tons of monolith stone.

 

So science is at bay when it comes to key questions about the past and finding desparate solutions for man of the present.

 

Arguing about Parikshit Maharaj's existance and the question about his rule, modern history dates back to only 2500 years or so. There is no clear evidence of the socio-economic and political structure of people who lived 3000 to 4000 years ago. We do not have clear archeological evidences or material finds about the existance of Jesus Christ. We have documents and books dating back to Jesus period but we do not have any material evidence Jesus Himself used in His times. So, does it mean we doubt the existance of Jesus. Below is the basis for archeology

 

"Archeology assumes an underlying coherence to the discursive materials it analyses, seeking to reduce internal contradictions and dissonances to mere defects or mistakes and thereby revealing a deeper level of unity. This is both a prerequisite to research in the history of ideas and an end-product of that research"

 

Archeology by its very nature makes some assumptions (intrapolations if you will) and once the premise is set, the finds and evidences are used to corroborate its original hypothesis. However, the evidences can disprove the original hyposthesis. My point is without a certainl level of uncertainty and speculation the science of archeology cannot exist as we know it today. If not, why is there a difference of opinion among archeologists about the sphinx and the stone hinges.

 

Based on pure archeological evidences one cannot ascertain the rule and power of a figure (Parikshit Maharaj) who once existed on this planet. This is the same for cosmology of the universe. Sun rotating the planet or the earth is deeper than you or i think. If you are a curious person, you should read the book written by Richard L Thompson on the "Cosmology of the Universe based on Bhagavata". It demystifies many concepts in the Bhagavatam about the universe that contradicts modern science.

 

Proof or no proof, vedic science was given to man by God. It boils down to that, whether we have faith in God's work (Vedic scriptures) or man's work (modern science).

 

Coming from a scientific backgorund, we all are, it is very healthy to ask the right questions about the Bhagavatam but are we doing the same to the scientists who propose theories or do we even dig into science ourselves to find the answers?

 

Modern Science has its limitations....finally i would like to end this essay with a couple of notes

 

"It has always seemed to me extreme presumptuousness on the part of those who want to make human ability the measure of what nature can and knows how to do, since, when one comes down to it, there is not one effect in nature, no matter how small, that even the most speculative minds can fully understand" - Galileo Galilei

 

"Science is the tool of the Western mind and with it more doors can be opened than with bare hands. It is part and parcel of our knowledge and obscures our insight only when it holds that the understanding given by it is the only kind there is. ." Carl G Jung

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[Guest guest]

 

"As an example I could give the Vedic idea that Indian kings once ruled the entire planet. The question that arises with me is if this is to be taken literally, since there is not a shred of evidence in my opinion that supports this "theory". If only 5000 years ago a king named Pariksit ruled the entire Earth planet, there should be some evidence to be found, I mean archaeologically or otherwise."

 

That's is quite ridiculous. Has not Dwarka been discovered just like the epic Mahabharata states its location? This is just one example, there is much more evidence than this. Perhaps you should research more instead of just presuming something.

[shambu 0]

 

That's is quite ridiculous. Has not Dwarka been discovered just like the epic Mahabharata states its location? This is just one example, there is much more evidence than this. Perhaps you should research more instead of just presuming something.

 

I was talking about statements in the Vedic literatures (or made by guru-acharyas) that Vedic kings once ruled the entire world, and that there should be, logically spoken, some evidence that supports this proposal. Dwarka having been discovered doesn't contribute to the acceptability of this. In fact it's just off the coast of India, so what? Archaeological research has also proven that old Biblical stories are true, but the Jews don't claim to have ruled the earth.

[Guest guest]

 

I was talking about statements in the Vedic literatures (or made by guru-acharyas) that Vedic kings once ruled the entire world, and that there should be, logically spoken, some evidence that supports this proposal. Dwarka having been discovered doesn't contribute to the acceptability of this. In fact it's just off the coast of India, so what? Archaeological research has also proven that old Biblical stories are true, but the Jews don't claim to have ruled the earth.

 

"some evidence that supports this proposal."

 

I believe there is. Is there not an a strong affinity between ancient governmental structures and ancient India's Vedic governmental structure? This is at least a little proof that there were Indian kings ruling the world. At some point there occurred a breakdown in this world wide rule and the Vedic culture disintegrated into these various civilizations/cultures we have nowadays.

 

The Dwarka archaelogical evidence gives strong credibility to the Mahabharata. The heavenly weapons it that epic (I believe their weapons were imported from heaven) mean that there was no empire even close to the power Bharata possessed at that time. This is a little proof that Bharata was ruling the world at that time.

 

I am not an expert on this subject, I just know from basic logic that Indian kings were ruling the world; and I am absolutely sure that more archaelogical evidence regarding this fact will be found in the future.

[Guest guest]

 

I think people at those time were dealing a lot with other dimensions.

The moon is also known to be inhabited according to scriptures and most probably once again in a dimension which we cannot perceive.

Who knows in another dimension the sun does rotate around the earth or King Parikshit did ruled the whole earth but once again not in our dimentional realm.

If my memory is good ,in the mahabharat it had been mentioned that dhurhudan was fooled ( I forgot how but it has some connection to dimension) and that yudisteer have kingdoms in another dimension.

Dont forget one thing... Some few years back everyone believed the earth was flat and thinking otherwise was pure madness.Could our present so called modern science be as foolish?

Could the real truth/science yet to be discovered?

 

"The moon is also known to be inhabited according to scriptures and most probably once again in a dimension which we cannot perceive."

 

I don't know Sanskrit so I am unable to research this properly. But I believe the 'moon being inhabited' referenced in the Vedas refers to a planet in heaven not this solar system. Ditto for people leaving inside the sun globe.

[Guest guest]

 

I was talking about statements in the Vedic literatures (or made by guru-acharyas) that Vedic kings once ruled the entire world, and that there should be, logically spoken, some evidence that supports this proposal. Dwarka having been discovered doesn't contribute to the acceptability of this. In fact it's just off the coast of India, so what? Archaeological research has also proven that old Biblical stories are true, but the Jews don't claim to have ruled the earth.

 

These links don't work, but it is a starting ground for further research. But I just want to make sure that your claim that: "there is not a shred of evidence in my opinion" is completely false and ignorant.

 

{www}.{vedicempire}.{com}/indextopic.mht (i cannot post URLs due to my Guest account)

[shambu 0]

 

These links don't work, but it is a starting ground for further research. But I just want to make sure that your claim that: "there is not a shred of evidence in my opinion" is completely false and ignorant.

 

{www}.{vedicempire}.{com}/indextopic.mht (i cannot post URLs due to my Guest account)

 

On the website you referred to I found no clue as to what I was hinting at, namely some proof that once Vedic kings ruled the Earth. I only found this statement regarding their definition of what is Vedic Empire:

 

"The Bhagavad-Gita is an Empire of thought and in its philosophical teachings ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comKrishna</st1:place> has all the attributes of the full-fledged monotheistic deity and at the same time the attributes of the Upanisadic absolute." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Vedic Empire Productions uses the term Empire in the same sense as Ralph Waldo Emerson. When I founded the Vedic Empire Productions in 1996, I contacted Vedic Historian P.N.Oak. I sent him our TV shows, Articles etc. He appreciated our efforts but suggested we drop the term Empire. He offered us the name, “The Fraternal Association of Vedic Culture.” Besides being for all creation, not just human males, the name just does not have the right ring to it. As a Former member of Netaji’s Indian National Army and a Freedom Fighter against the <st1:place w:st="on">British Empire</st1:place>, it seemed that P.N. Oak attached the colonial abuse of the British to the term Empire. For Americans, the term Empire usually brings to mind George Lucas’ Star Wars epics. Yet the our use of the term Vedic Empire is in no way referring to Imperial colonial efforts but rather it is that very same Empire of Thought that Emerson praised.

 

So my conclusion is that "Vedic Empire" is an Empire of Thought, and not a factual world-rulership, as is sometimes suggested. I am sorry. And your "heavenly weapons" belong to that very same empire.

I just wanted to add that the similarities in religion, culture, governmental organization etc. with especially European peoples is not at all a proof that they were once ruled by Vedic kings. It just points to the fact that these peoples are related, share the same roots. This is also confirmed by Prabhupada, who said they (the European peoples) may be descendants from ksatriyas who once fled India. Well, that's another "theory" of course, but fact is that Europeans and Aryan Indians are related - so their superficial similarities have nothing to do with one people "ruling" or have conquered the other one. Most European languages are related to Sanskrit, but that isn't caused by having been conquered by foreign people. And in fact ALL cultures and religions of the world have many similarities, even when they are seperated by big oceans and mountains. This is because we are all people and are living in the same universe, I suppose. Some may be godly and others demoniac to some extent, but that's also universal.

[Guest guest]

 

On the website you referred to I found no clue as to what I was hinting at, namely some proof that once Vedic kings ruled the Earth. I only found this statement regarding their definition of what is Vedic Empire:

 

So my conclusion is that "Vedic Empire" is an Empire of Thought, and not a factual world-rulership, as is sometimes suggested. I am sorry. And your "heavenly weapons" belong to that very same empire.

I just wanted to add that the similarities in religion, culture, governmental organization etc. with especially European peoples is not at all a proof that they were once ruled by Vedic kings. It just points to the fact that these peoples are related, share the same roots. This is also confirmed by Prabhupada, who said they (the European peoples) may be descendants from ksatriyas who once fled India. Well, that's another "theory" of course, but fact is that Europeans and Aryan Indians are related - so their superficial similarities have nothing to do with one people "ruling" or have conquered the other one. Most European languages are related to Sanskrit, but that isn't caused by having been conquered by foreign people. And in fact ALL cultures and religions of the world have many similarities, even when they are seperated by big oceans and mountains. This is because we are all people and are living in the same universe, I suppose. Some may be godly and others demoniac to some extent, but that's also universal.

 

"On the website you referred to I found no clue as to what I was hinting at, namely some proof that once Vedic kings ruled the Earth."

 

Correct, like I said the links don't work. That means you have to research it further, perhaps via Google.

 

I also recommend P.N. Oak's "World Vedic Hertiage" book. I don't have it, but I have seen it and it has a lot of evidence. Unfortunately, I believe it is out of print so you will have to contact a scholar who has it to get access to it.

 

I am not an expert on this topic; perhaps J.N. das can help you further because he wrote an essay about this topic {www}.{indiadivine}.{org}/hinduism/articles/6/1/Mahabharata%3A-The-Great-War-and-World-History

[Guest guest]

For me, the links on the page work, but because they come up as popups (which many browsers block) i recieved a note to hold down the Ctrl key while clicking on the links, if i wanted them to come up.

[Guest guest]

Here is A LINK to pictures of Vedic Influences although not direct evidence of vedic rulership in Europe and Ancient Egypt. Please not I am not allowed by administrator to give links so I have written the address in non url format

 

stephen-knapp dot com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence

 

I have recently read a diary of an 1800 french traveler in India, who came across a long cylindrical iron column and this is what he said:-

"- a simple iron column on which the tourist would scarcely cast a careless glance, but which is none the less one of the wonders not only of India but of the world."

 

" It is a smooth cylndrical shaft of solid metal, from the pavement to the elegant top measuring 22 feet. The reader may say that this is not a matter to raise much enthusiasm ; a column of cast iron 22 feet in height in no great wonder.

True ; But this column is sunk in the earth to a corresponding depth, which

thus give it an entire length of 44 feet. When I record that this gigantic piece of cast iron was moulded in the 4th century of our era - that is at a period when half the nations of the world were ignorant even of the extraction of this metal - and when I add that our own manufacturers with all the improved processes (NB!!! 1800's) only dared to attempt a work as considerable as this for the first time about twenty years ago, it will not be disputed that the iron column in Delhi may be classed among the most marvellous works of antiquity."

 

"It is almost impossible to understand what means the Indians could have employed at a time when cranes and pestle-hammers were unknown. The column bears a short inscription relating to King Dava, worshipper of Vishnu erected this monument in the year 317 to commemorate his victory over the Bhalikas"

 

The reason for my inclusion of this interesting article is to say that you should not to try and deride Vedic science because it does not fit with the thinking of modern science.

 

Hare Krsna

Jay Prabhupada

[Guest guest]

"Mountains and oceans of liquor, honey and ghee are not the first things one would expect to encounter while on a cruise through the universe."

 

How do you know what you would encounter travelling through the universe .

So called scientist have not even fully explored this planet let alone the vast ocean floor. The Hubble telescope can only give a short glimps into the vastness of outer space. According to infra red sensors of certain telescopes a vast quantity of Ethanol has been detected in outer space so this actualy confirms the Vedic accounts of ocean of liquor.

 

So please tread lightly when accusing Vedic Science as being absurd. If you want absurdity than just look at some of the theories on origins of the universe.

 

Hare Krsna

Jay Sirla Prabhupada

[mahak 0]

Merely children with no intellect. The hypothesize, then make conclusions that fit the hypothesis, which is not science, rather simply a waste of time and energy.

 

Not all scientists are like this, but the ones who arent are considered "kooks" by those who comprise the cabal of accepted science (ie graham hancock, michael cremo, et al).

 

If one understands what constitutes the ages and the partial annihilations that end such ages, one will understand that there is little evidence left from age to age. If we accept science and all their bones, why isnt the earth covered with dinosaur bones. These RARE finds are near tar pits, brine sumps, and peat bogs, so the only bones found are from those who ended up in these places (not good hangouts for any living entity). What is found is mammoths with fresh flowers still in their mouths, bones wedged into rocks thousands of miles away from their habitat, etc. This tells of annihilation where the winds blew thousands of MPH, axis reversals and shifts, planets and comets invading our space, etc. The so-called "kook" scientists all refer to veda and other indigenous writings to verify their findings, which I greatly appreciate and honor as more fact-filled than the Darwinian "out popped and arm" philosophy that cannot be reproduced in the lab despite over a hundred years of intense experimentation.

 

I actually appreciate the study of the person (who Ill reference later if interest is shown) that tells of a planet resting atop Mount Meru, and beings moving from that travelling planet to this one. His study is very compatible with the cosmology of vedic science, thus my appreciation.

 

A point about the sun revolving around the earth, this is quite astute, because this is what we see. It is certainly more real that spinning over 1000 MPH, which the scientists have come up with, which cannot explain why it takes five hours to fly from seattle to Hawaii, only 2000 miles away.

 

King Yudhisthira has the best answer concerning all cosmology. When asked what is the universe, with his brothers at stake for a correct answer, he correctly answered, "Dark, empty space, and nothing more." The truely great scientists have the answers after spending their lives studying, they realize they know nothing, therefore, they surrender to the fountainhead of knowledge, the Supreme person.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guest guest]

 

For me, the links on the page work, but because they come up as popups (which many browsers block) i recieved a note to hold down the Ctrl key while clicking on the links, if i wanted them to come up.

 

Yes, it is working. However, the pictures are missing though.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

To Mr.Shambu

 

I posted earlier and thought Shambu will react to it but he did not do so. I would be interested to get his views on certain things.

 

Agreeing that MODERN SCIENCE is inherently based on certain assumptions, i want to know why you are so bent upon trying to prove something perfect (Vedic Science) with imperfect (modern science).

 

If you claim vedic science is not perfect, then in your opinion please reveal its imperfectness. I have claimed that modern science is imperfect and in my previous post i have mentioned why. Now, you please try to show the imperfectness of Vedic Science based on modern day logic and practicality.

 

So, my questions are

 

1 Why do you want PROOF for Vedic Science?

2 If you think there is flaw in Vedic Science, explain why?

3 If you think Modern Science is NOT FLAWED, explain why?

4 If you want to VALIDATE Vedic Science with modern science, do you think it is a valid methodology (especially since modern science has its limitations)?

 

Thanks

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[shambu 0]

Why I want proof for Vedic science (in this case historic information)? Well, it's in the human nature I would say to be curious.

I never said there is a flaw in Vedic Science. Only sometimes I doubt if it is really a science or just a system of believe.

I am far from thinking that Modern Science is NOT flawed - it is flawed in many ways. They still don't have a clue about the origins of this creation, Big Boom and Primeval Soup are just simplistic superstitions, evolution theory remains a theory.

To validate Vedic Science through Modern Science could I think in some cases be a valid possibility; it would be nice if one could confirm the other to some extent, but this would be possible only on some gross physical level and not while speaking on "other dimensions". Let's start in the three-dimensional sphere. For instance historical evidence.

You assume readily that Vedic Science (as if this were the subject) is perfect, and Modern Science is imperfect. But you can't proof that Vedic Science is perfect, because maybe there is no proof. Scientists however can clearly proof that their science is imperfect in many ways.

[Avinash 0]

Your questions were to Shambu. But let me also allow to respond.

 

 

Agreeing that MODERN SCIENCE is inherently based on certain assumptions, i want to know why you are so bent upon trying to prove something perfect (Vedic Science) with imperfect (modern science).

 

I agree modern Modern Science is perfect. But why should we believe that Vedic Science is perfect? In a previous post you wrote, "Proof or no proof, Vedic Science was given by God." But if there is no proof, then why should we believe that Vedic Science was really given by God?

 

 

If you claim vedic science is not perfect, then in your opinion please reveal its imperfectness.

 

There are many things in Puranas, which have been found to be wrong. For example, the geography mentioned in Bhagavatam is contradictory to what we have observed. Moon is shown farther than Sun. The hight of Himalayas is given several times more than what it really is. There are many other such examples.

I know that some people will justify all these statements in Puranas by making ad-hoc assumptions. For example, by saying that Himalayas are really far higher than we see, but only some siddhas can reach there. Fine. It is possible. But the problem with such kind of explanation is that we can explain almost anything by it. Even if Bhagavatam contained something entirely different, we could justify even that by invoking higher dimensions, by saying that we think Bhagavatam is wrong because of our imperfect senses etc.

 

 

1 Why do you want PROOF for Vedic Science?

Why should anything be accepted without proof? If we are not ready to believe in something given by Modern Science without proof, why should we believe in Vedic Science? Saying that Vedic Science has been given by God is no proof because we can ask, "What is the proof that Vedic Science was given by God?"

 

 

2 If you think there is flaw in Vedic Science, explain why?

Many things in Vedic Science run contradictory to direct observations.

 

 

3 If you think Modern Science is NOT FLAWED, explain why?

Modern Science is flawed.

 

 

4 If you want to VALIDATE Vedic Science with modern science, do you think it is a valid methodology (especially since modern science has its limitations)?

It is not necessary that Vedic Science must be compatible with modern Science. But it should at least be compatible with what we directly observe to be correct. As an example, if I release something it falls. If there is a theory, which is not compatible with current theories of gravity, then fine. But if the theory says that things do not fall but move up, then we have to reject the theory. Likewise, if Vedic Science is not compatible with modern theories, then fine. But it should at least be compatible with observations.