mmm 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 hi can anyone help to get more information about ether. would like to see what phisycist think about that. ciao Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 5, 2006 what is called "ether" in our sacred literature is also sometimes called "sky". it is the empty space that things are contained within. According to Thakura Bhaktivinode, in the book Sri Tattva Sutra, SPACE and TIME were both created by Vishnu at the beginning of this universe. Before then, space did not exist. Space is a material thing and it exists as a material reality while this dream-reality of the material world is in existence. But ultimately the physical world around us is a dream. Dreams are real while they last, what more can we say of this physical life? Only the transcendental plane of existence known as Vaikuntha where GOD is ever-present is REAL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Avinash 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 hi can anyone help to get more information about ether. would like to see what phisycist think about that. ciao Do you want to know about "ether" (earlier spelt "aether") as used in literature on Physics? Or, are you talking about "ether" as used in scriptures? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gHari 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 <center>kham</center> kham — ether; BG 7.4 kham ca — outer space also; SB 1.7.30 kham — ethereal; SB 2.2.28 kham — the sky; SB 3.3.6 kham — the sky; SB 3.5.32 kham — the sky; SB 3.6.27 kham eva — towards the sky; SB 3.11.5 kham — apertures; SB 3.26.53 kham — the sky; SB 4.6.27 kham — the sky; SB 4.10.6 kham — the sky; SB 4.24.63 nava-kham — having nine apertures; SB 4.29.7 kham — the sky; SB 5.18.32 kham — the sky; SB 5.20.45 kham — the sky; SB 6.1.42 kham — the sky; SB 7.8.33 kham — the sky; SB 8.2.2-3 kham — all-pervading like the sky; SB 8.5.27 kham — the sky; SB 8.5.38 kham — the sky; SB 8.6.2 kham — outer space; SB 8.10.38 kham — the sky; SB 8.11.26 kham — in the vast sky; SB 8.12.11 kham — the sky; SB 8.15.10-11 kham — in the sky; SB 8.19.11 kham ca — the sky also; SB 8.19.34 kham — the sky; SB 8.20.21 kham — the sky; SB 8.21.31 kham — in the sky; SB 9.9.23-24 kham — the sky; SB 10.7.35-36 kham — the sky; SB 10.8.37-39 kham — the sky; SB 10.20.43 kham — the sky; SB 10.25.25 kham — the sky; SB 10.37.3 kham — ether; SB 10.40.2 kham — the earth; SB 10.42.18 kham — the ether; SB 10.47.29 kham — the sky; SB 10.66.39 kham — the sky; SB 10.77.14 kham — ether; SB 10.82.45 kham — ether; SB 10.84.12 kham — the ether; SB 10.85.9 kham — ether; SB 10.85.25 kham — ether; SB 11.2.41 kham — the sky; SB 11.5.10 kham — the sky; SB 11.11.12-13 kham — the sky; SB 11.11.42 kham — the ether; SB 11.28.24 kham — the sky; SB 11.29.12 kham — into the sky; SB 11.30.44 kham — the sky; SB 12.4.11 kham — the ether; SB 12.4.15-19 kham — the ether; SB 12.4.15-19 kham — ether; SB 12.4.20-21 kham — the sky; SB 12.9.16 kham — the sky; SB 12.9.28-29 kham — ether; CC Madhya 6.164 khe — in the ether; BG 7.8 khe — form of space (virāṭ-rūpa); SB 3.5.6 khe-carāṇām — flying in the sky; SB 3.19.6 antaḥ-khe — in the middle of the sky; SB 3.19.14 khe — in the air; SB 3.21.11 khe-caraiḥ — by the demigods who fly in the sky; SB 3.24.8 khe — in the sky; SB 4.1.56 khe-carāṇām — of those who were flying in the air (the Gandharvas); SB 4.3.5-7 khe — in the sky; SB 4.4.28 khe-carān — human beings who travel in space; SB 4.8.53 khe — in the sky; SB 4.10.25 khe-carāḥ — demigods traveling in outer space; SB 4.15.19 khe — in the sky; SB 4.22.48 khe — in the sky; SB 6.8.13 khe — in the sky; SB 6.12.3 khe — in the higher planetary systems in the sky; SB 6.12.34 khe — in the sky; SB 7.12.25 khe — in the sky; SB 8.3.32 khe — in the sky; SB 8.19.4 khe — in the sky; SB 9.7.25-26 khe — in the sky; SB 9.8.12 khe — in the sky; SB 9.20.20 khe-carī — who traveled in outer space; SB 10.6.4 khe — in the sky; SB 10.12.33 khe avasthitaḥ yaḥ — this person Brahmā, who was situated in the higher planetary system in the sky; SB 10.13.15 khe — in the sky; SB 10.14.7 khe-cara — traveling in the sky; SB 10.33.18 khe-carāḥ — and travelers of the sky (minor demigods and demons); SB 10.74.52 khe — in the sky; SB 10.77.14 khe-carāḥ — demigods who fly in the sky; SB 10.82.7-8 khe — in the sky; SB 10.87.41 khe — within the inner space; SB 11.11.43-45 khe — in the space within wood; SB 11.12.18 khe — in the sky; SB 11.22.31 khe — in the sky; SB 12.6.14 khe — in the sky; CC Madhya 21.11 khe — in the sky; CC Madhya 21.15 nabhaḥ — the sky; BG 1.19 nabhaḥ-spṛśam — touching the sky; BG 11.24 nabhaḥ-lińgam — personified by sound; SB 1.6.25 nabhaḥ — sky; SB 1.18.23 nabhaḥ-guṇatvam — identification of ether; SB 2.2.29 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 2.5.25 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 2.6.36 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 2.9.13 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 3.5.33 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 3.5.37 kañja-nābhaḥ — the Personality of Godhead Nārāyaṇa; SB 3.9.44 nabhaḥ — the small quantity of air; SB 3.15.33 aravinda-nābhaḥ — with a lotus growing from His navel; SB 3.15.37 abja-nābhaḥ — Lord Viṣṇu; SB 3.21.22 nabhaḥ-sthaḥ — in the sky; SB 3.23.38 nabhaḥ — ether; SB 3.26.12 nabhaḥ — ether; SB 3.26.32 nabhaḥ-guṇa-viśeṣaḥ — the distinctive characteristic of sky (sound); SB 3.26.47 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 3.29.43 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 4.3.12 nabhaḥ-valayasya — of outer space; SB 5.22.5 nabhaḥ-vīthyām — in outer space; SB 5.22.6 nabhaḥ-maṇḍalam — outer space, between the upper and lower world; SB 5.22.7 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 5.26.40 nabhaḥ — in the skies; SB 6.4.19 nabhaḥ-ghanaiḥ — by the dense clouds; SB 6.10.24 nabhaḥ — like the sky; SB 6.12.27-29 nabhaḥ — to the sky; SB 6.13.14 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 7.2.43 nabhaḥ — toward the sky; SB 7.3.2 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 7.4.16 nabhaḥ-chadiḥ — all-pervading like the sky; SB 7.14.13 abja-nābhaḥ — the Supreme Personality of Godhead, from whose navel sprouts a lotus flower; SB 8.4.13 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 8.7.27 nabhaḥ — the whole sky; SB 8.20.24 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 8.20.32-33 nabhaḥ — in the sky; SB 9.4.51 nābhaḥ — by the name Nābha; SB 9.9.16-17 nabhaḥ — Nabha; SB 9.12.1 nabhaḥ-gataḥ — went up to the top of the sky; SB 10.7.26 nabhaḥ-talam — the sky; SB 10.15.38 nabhaḥ-talā — the sky; SB 10.20.3 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 10.33.3 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 10.37.1-2 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 10.40.13-14 abja-nābhaḥ — the lotus-naveled Supreme Lord; SB 10.44.37 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 10.54.44 nabhaḥ — ether; SB 10.59.30 nabhaḥ — in the sky; SB 10.61.33 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 10.63.35-36 nabhaḥ — space; SB 11.3.14 nabhaḥ — the ethereal sky; SB 11.7.43 nabhaḥ — ether; SB 11.22.14 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 11.28.26 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 11.31.4 nabhaḥ — the ether; SB 12.4.15-19 nabhaḥ — the sky; SB 12.11.6-8 nabhaḥ-nibham — just like the sky; SB 12.11.14-15 nabhaḥ-tattvam — the element ether; SB 12.11.14-15 nabhaḥ-māsam — the month of Nabhas (Śrāvaṇa); SB 12.11.37 nabhaḥ — the sky; CC Adi 1.73-74 nabhaḥ — the ethereal sky; MM 14 viyat — the sky; SB 3.8.32 viyat-vyāpi — extensively widespread; SB 3.10.7 viyat — the ether; SB 3.20.13 viyat — ether; SB 3.32.9 viyat — declining; SB 7.6.14 viyat — sky; SB 7.9.48 viyat-vittasya — of Rantideva, who received things sent by providence, just as the cātaka bird receives water from the sky; SB 9.21.2 viyat — the sky; SB 10.8.37-39 viyat — to the sky; SB 10.11.25 viyat — the lightning; SB 12.9.8-9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 first of all-thanks for answers ______________ Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight constitute My separated material energies. 1. actually im interested if this ether is the same ether which Nikola Tesla was talking about? 2. what is ether made of? is there a scientific word for this? 3. as i read- these are the lower energies- all material energies, known as apara-prakrti para-prakrti is antimaterial where can i find more information about that? 4. and an off-topic question voice within, which im "talking with"- what is it called in sacred texts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gHari 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 4. and an off-topic question voice within, which im "talking with"- what is it called in sacred texts? ahankara ..... http://vedabase.net/a/ahankara Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kulapavana 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 sanskrit words "akasa" and "kham" are often translated as "ether". it is usually a lot more than our three dimensional space. it is the totality of multidimensional "folds" of space - where all material worlds exist, of which our earthly realm is just one of many paralel worlds. there are other worlds even within the vedic middle (bhuvah) realm, existing side by side with ours, let alone the higher (svar) and lower (bhur) realms. in the Rig Veda (1.185) there is a hymn in which the "monstrous abyss" (abhvam) is invoked. abhvam denotes a pure yogic perception of the ether - a terrifying void in which all worlds are suspended, the basis for all spatial existence. this is where the lotus flower in which Brahma was born is located, along with whe Garbhodaka Ocean and Lord Garbhodakasayi Vishnu. we could call it the "sub-space". yogis can travel instantenously to a differen place by going through that abhvam. yet, it is a rather unnerving experience even for a mature yogi. the meaning of the word ether is thus difficult to explain properly, as we have no direct perception of that element. subsequently many translate it as "space", yet that is a somewhat misleading term. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zjj 1 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 Haribol! I'm happy to see that I have something to add to this discussion. I was watching a documentary on the science channel a few days ago entitled 'Most of our universe is missing'. What it was talking about is how, when some scientist years ago tried to build a model of our galaxy on a computer, the galaxy fell apart. What they realised is that the amount of visible matter there is in the galaxy is not sufficient for the amount of gravity present. This means that there must be some other matter that is invisible and undetectable that is holding the universe together. The scientists then came up with the theory of dark matter, matter that pervades the universe that provides the gravity necessary to keep the stars and planets and moons in their orbits. Otherwise, the entire universe would just fly apart. As I was watching, I thought about 'akash' and how it is the fifth element, the space in which the other four elements reside. It struck me that what the scientists call dark matter is probably what we know of as akash. There are other theories and some scientists disagree with the theory of dark matter but it makes sense to me and fits in with the vedas and the idea of the fifth element, akash. Jai http://www.trafford.com/06-0382 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 5, 2006 The scientists then came up with the theory of dark matter, matter that pervades the universe that provides the gravity necessary to keep the stars and planets and moons in their orbits. Otherwise, the entire universe would just fly apart. As I was watching, I thought about 'akash' and how it is the fifth element, the space in which the other four elements reside. It struck me that what the scientists call dark matter is probably what we know of as akash. There are other theories and some scientists disagree with the theory of dark matter but it makes sense to me and fits in with the vedas and the idea of the fifth element, akash. maybe, but that is unlikely. ether is a very fine element, most likely without any mass. air is likely the last vedic element with any mass. air actually refers to all tiny gaseous particles in the universe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight constitute My separated material energies. can sth be material and not have mass? material=has mass (?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 4. and an off-topic questionvoice within, which im "talking with"- what is it called in sacred texts? ahankara ..... what happen with ahankara at the moment of death? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kulapavana 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego — all together these eight constitute My separated material energies. can sth be material and not have mass? material=has mass (?) photons and neutrinos are material but have no mass. mind is material but has no mass. you have to study the vedic definition of elements to deepen your understanding - there is a lot more there than meets the eye. vedic element water is not just H2O. anyway, it is a deep subject. as to ahankara, it is part of your subtle body (psyche). it moves on with you to the next physical body. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 5, 2006 photons and neutrinos are material but have no mass. mind is material but has no mass. Sorry I know this isn't a science board but neutrinos DO have mass. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, hence, neutrinos have mass. Photons on the otherhand do travel at the speed of light and have no mass. The amount of energy required to make ANYTHING with mass move at the speed of light is infinity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kulapavana 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 Sorry I know this isn't a science board but neutrinos DO have mass. Nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light, hence, neutrinos have mass. Photons on the otherhand do travel at the speed of light and have no mass. The amount of energy required to make ANYTHING with mass move at the speed of light is infinity. thank you for pointing that out. indeed recent (late 1990's) experiments indicate neutrinos have a very small mass, but it is mass nonetheless. I stand corrected Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 5, 2006 Sorry about going off topic. Thank you for being so humble. But material = mass.... well it depends on what you define as material. For example would you class light as something material? If you do, then material = mass is incorrect. There are things in existence which you cant dircetly see, but do exist. For example wind, gravity, electrostatics and electromagnetism etc. So its possible that mind could be material... Hari Bol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishadi 0 Report post Posted December 5, 2006 hi can anyone help to get more information about ether. would like to see what phisycist think about that. ciao Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 12.4.13 tata ekodakaḿ viśvaḿ brahmāṇḍa-vivarāntaram At that time, the shell of the universe will fill up with water, forming a single cosmic ocean. Here is the ether that is being mentioned in physics; that all mass and energy are within an ether and hence the ‘waves’ of matter. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time. (Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture) Spoken by a couple of the greats!! :>:> But still misunderstood so let’s help out a bit. That ether is ‘time.’ Solution; nothing can be measured without time. No define; no time! It is why ‘everything’ is as One: any descriptions; a time constraint. Ask the master or Guru of choice this question; ‘is time is not measured, in reality?’ “My dear King Parīkṣit, these modes are further overtaken by the original unmanifest form of nature, impelled by time. That unmanifest nature is not subject to the six kinds of transformation caused by the influence of time. Rather, it has no beginning and no end. It is the unmanifest, eternal and infallible cause of creation.” Although interpretations will vary please trust me and ask something of substance but please I am agreeing with the guru just with ‘understanding’ within the final framework of knowledge. I was watching a documentary on the science channel a few days ago entitled 'Most of our universe is missing'. ……………..The scientists then came up with the theory of dark matter, matter that pervades the universe that provides the gravity necessary to keep the stars and planets and moons in their orbits. Otherwise, the entire universe would just fly apart. …………………………. There are other theories and some scientists disagree with the theory of dark matter but it makes sense to me and fits in with the vedas and the idea of the fifth element, akash. No Dark Matter or this so called Dark Energy……. Do not exist. One problem is Planck’s constant, not so much ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:City><st1:place>Newton</st1:place></st1:City> laws of classical motion, until full scales or even entropy and life are to be observed. At even the molecular level the energy upon the mass is not taken into account. Energy upon mass associates; spectrum and properties have not finished and/or equated within theorem. All mass associated or ask the Guru; ‘ is all mass associated?’ Or read in any language… But I like to add a twist, for example; discussion can cause difference of mass momentum. Associations of mass must be in regard to life; life; ‘the law breaker of entropy.’ This is the concept lost in physics and the medical sciences. Whereas all change is said to increase entropy but when energy associates upon mass, entropy can be slowed and even cause a reversal within causality. Like growing grain, measure what you sow by how good the choice of soil. In all cases of growth, if the association is good for quality growth of the ‘total’ it will remain and continue, if not it will wither and go extinct laying foundations for the next within the confines of the suffering or quality generations. This will share the same question; has there ever been scientific acknowledgement of how energy associates by the properties of the energy itself within a cosmic observation? In chemistry do neighborhood molecules become a part of the equation in metabolic processes? For example; phospholipid bilayers are thought to associate by a chemical property of ‘water and oil’ hydrophobic and whatever, when it is actually the resonance of the energy upon the structure that causes alignment, association and repelling. The ‘fire of water’; diatomic reactions of h2 and O2 offers an energy release that is one of the best friends of life. So it can be easily recognized it is not the element but the energy that is the intent of the association. Imagine that, I could ‘maybe’ suggest that is why you are reading this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 6, 2006 thanks for answers! i must say that ive got problems with understanding english- i like to read very simple sentences with simple words. is next sentence correct- everything is energy. energy is divided in two groups- one is para-prakrti, second is apara-prakrti. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 6, 2006 why cant i remember ahankara from "my previous body"- memoryes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 6, 2006 If you have children you will notice that every child has his/her own temperament. Every child has their own likes and dislikes. They have natural tendencies. We remember our tendencies to be argumentative, gentle, greedy, sharing and so forth from our last lives, because these tendencies are a part of our nature. But the things you saw and did in the past lives - the events of your past life - they are not a part of YOU and they don't stay with you when you are reborn. -murali Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishadi 0 Report post Posted December 6, 2006 thanks for answers! It’s alright! How could one police the police without good basics, eh! i must say that ive got problems with understanding english- i like to read very simple sentences with simple words. Nothing really unique coming from me other than the language; English. All over the globe the teachers talk funny and why there are so many differences in the message. I think you understood the idea mentioned without being too far gone. At least I am not suggesting little blue men or Immaculate Conception. is next sentence correct- everything is energy. energy is divided in two groups- one is para-prakrti, second is apara-prakrti. No speakee tat lingo … If you were to split everything in half as far as you can go, yep … “everyting a wave dude.’ Like the rock thrown onto the pond ….. it continues with or without ‘you’ knowing it. why cant i remember ahankara from "my previous body"- memoryes Memories are what this body (you) experienced but yet once ‘felt’ the ‘total’ also knew. ( a conscious thought ) If you have children you will notice that every child has his/her own temperament. Every child has their own likes and dislikes. They have natural tendencies. Instinctive! Yet to understand how energy is affected by other energy upon other mass, then when a body is born within a time period or as currently suggested astrological ‘date,’ upon your conscious birth these can have effects to the born ‘personality.’ We remember our tendencies to be argumentative, gentle, greedy, sharing and so forth from our last lives, because these tendencies are a part of our nature. But the things you saw and did in the past lives - the events of your past life - they are not a part of YOU and they don't stay with you when you are reborn. -murali No ‘remembered’ anything. Memories are fixed within the Glial of the brain/nervous system; fact! Everything else is immediate and if set as predetermined; instinctive; to survive or compassionate; observant to the ‘total’ or ‘other than the self.’ It is why a baby can slap his lil’brother for a toy and the parents just says, ”don’t do that, play nice and treat him as you would like to be treated,’ Instinctively; that baby is surviving …. But to be correct we cannot survive without the brother and why compassion became increasingly important for life to continue; so the parent within conscious understanding knows to teach the babe to create the memories none are born with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 6, 2006 Memories are fixed within the Glial of the brain/nervous system; fact! Everything else is immediate and if set as predetermined; instinctive; to survive or compassionate; observant to the ‘total’ or ‘other than the self.’ That is not the full story. When I was doing my Psych degree (15 years ago) we examined the controversy about whether some forms of knowledge are innate, or whether all knowledge is learned. The scientific evidence is indisputible now. Much of what we know is innate knowledge. And where does that knowledge come from. Different theories have been proposed such as this: ======== In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary. How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments? Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and René Descartes, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which could not be empirically derived. The environment is too variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraodinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics has provided a window into the human mind, and has established scientifically theories of innateness which were previously merely speculative. One implication of Noam Chomsky's innatism is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in <b>cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it</b>. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for the these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions. - m. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 6, 2006 thx for posts;) 1.) what i wanted to say is- that things we are talking about are complex. ive got problems even in my own language (discussing and thinking about them)- we probably use different words for same "things"... and i probably dont get the message you would want me to get. (when english is not my mother language, things are even harder (for me)- that is why i like the most simple sentences). so- thanx again for your replies- perhaps.. if you find any good links or documentaries about ether, please "bring" them here. also other interesting documentaries (vedic) are welcome. ________________ 2.) about ahankara are there any good sites on internet talking about this basic concepts, ideas- what is what (again-simple and- is there an internet site where all this "words" are used, to get the whole picture) ________________ 3.) ww.crystalinks.com/vedas2.jpg is this "the whole picture about vedic literature"? and question here is- is Krishna mentioned in Vedas (Rigveda, Yajurveda etc..) in one encyclopedy i found that there is a difference between Vedic Gods and Gods of Hinduism. is ISKCON hinduism? can you please answer clearly- yes/no. with best regards M. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 6, 2006 "Is ISKCON hinduism?" -------------------- near the top of the second page in the Newsletters and Journal section of this site, the is an article called: Hinduism and Krsna Consciousness by His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mmm 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 just wanna add sth- where i live, people probably dont know much about the questions that i wrote up, so i came here- some of my questions might be "stupid" for you, but i asked them and i think here is the place to get answers from "the first hand" as i said-please: Yes/No peace, M. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bishadi 0 Report post Posted December 7, 2006 Originally Posted by Bishadi Memories are fixed within the Glial of the brain/nervous system; fact! Everything else is immediate and if set as predetermined; instinctive; to survive or compassionate; observant to the ‘total’ or ‘other than the self These are real facts not misunderstood stories …. That is not the full story. You are correct ‘the full story’ has so much more but the items stated are true and offer a nice parameter to use until the full story is recognized. How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments? Step one ………….. Not baby can even say one freaking word without the parent let alone find the nipple. The human baby is extremely dependant as we a species are also now quite dependant on each other; religions were born from community, setting predetermined understanding. Until a setting of basics is gained your kid, my kid, every kid, would most probably perish …… in fact most on this globe would most probably perish without community …….. Can you deliver a baby? Make penicillin? Or even locate salt? It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Please my friend, that is like saying I can go to China and have a conversation with anyone. We all have this ability but just like descriptions of the old prophetic visions, most have no idea how to communicate otherwise this game of ‘understanding’ and the continuous search, would have been over generations ago, my friend! The problem is the interpretations have been miscued and basically because of shortfalls in descriptive languages but be certain all of men have been on the same quest with the same sites but how to articulate, that has been a wee bit of a problem. One implication of Noam Chomsky's innatism is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. What does that mean to you? To me that suggests we have ‘cognitive’ abilities, but never recognized at what level? I agree with ‘abilities’ being a conscious part of the total, but if ‘memories’ were recognized then why the heck is the species still chasing its tails? Why would there ever be a need for a rebel to shake up this taco stand? You bet, they saw it coming but why would is ever have been known and how does that work? These are the missing questions I like to play with. “, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it.” Developed by or learned from the environment (teachings) “but not determined by it.” Exactly ……. “life the law breaker” and “consciousness is the ability to consider others before thy self.’ So we are capable to decide by other then the environment but our ‘environment’ is what helps us describe or measure. Please do not be fooled. What is being said is that we can chose other that what would be instinctive and that is because we are conscious of what could occur, either of good or of bad. We can know but it is clearly of our associations that we become aware of defining but as this knowledge becomes grounded then a responsibility become inert. In other words, what you are describing is that wonderful gift we evolved within consciousness, not memories. And be certain that ‘consciousness’ is both a gift and the curse. Neither Good or Evil has ever been known until ‘that’ became! It is when we became liberated and selfish. We were able to isolate ourselves and think we are someone special, all our defined ‘evils’ came from our selfishness but we are also conscious and why we can feel of another, know the ‘total’ and exist within this existence caring and nurturing for or prolonged continuance…. Ah .. we are of the ‘total.’ We are of one; God; some define but how to describe it? From mmm just wanna add sth- where i live, people probably dont know much about the questions that i wrote up, so i came here- some of my questions might be "stupid" for you, but i asked them and i think here is the place to get answers from "the first hand" as i said-please: Yes/No peace, M. I Love “THE HUMBLE” First, asking questions is how we learn so please never feel as if your questions are stupid just be certain of the honesty when asking. You know this within. There is really no need to tell you this, my friend, correct? You are who this is for, the truly caring, the ones who can make a difference, the generations to bring the peace we all seek. In a real sense, I live for you! As for ‘the first hand’ ……… ‘You have asked, with a pure heart’ ….. You bumped into the truth, is it by chance, are you supposed to deal with an arrogant gorgeous stud muffin who has spend most of his life trying to answer a simple question, why am I alive? If so …. Take a seat Not a Guru, a scientist, the pope or president can mess with the story that is true, it is both heard and applied or the listener is of selfish pursuits. I ask any tell me when I lie but be sure the debate is real and not base from just “stories.” None can deny once known and none can withstand responsibility once known. And the funny part is, not one is without! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
