Why Darwinism Is Quite Tricky

[bhaktajan 0]

Bishadi, you do know that you are an atheist.

 

Your idea of God and knowledge equates to Zero-ness/The empty void/A black void.

 

Do you realize this?

 

Your intellectual capacity does not remind one of Kalil Kabran or Blake.

 

The "words" are "what came in the beginning" --henceforth, came all other forms.

 

Your sense of religion and Dharma and Godhead is atheistic.

 

So, I am telling you this, 'out-of-compassion' for you.

 

Stop babbling and Chant the name of Krishna and teach your neighbors to Chant the name of Krishna until you die.

 

You do not possess philosophical truths --you are speculating and hiding behind poetic prose as an excuse to appear sincere with a license to be whimsical.

 

"Absolute" is a universal truth that is real --even if you are bereft of a real teacher who has revealed real truth.

 

There is religious faith in three modes:

1. religious faith in goodness.
   
2. religious faith in passion.
   
3. religious faith in ignorance.

These modes of operation allow all levels of beasts and animated life forms to do something progressive during each life time while thus progressing toward future births ultimately leading up an "Absolute Truth".

 

This is the revelation from God to Humanity. So at the end of the day you will bow to Krishna, Yes?

 

ham'dhula habibi,

Bhaktajan

[Bishadi 0]

 

Bishadi, you do know that you are an atheist.

Your idea of God and knowledge equates to Zero-ness/The empty void/A black void.

Do you realize this?

No as the progress of knowledge enables mankind to comprehend existence (Vishnu).

 

Your sense of religion and Dharma and Godhead is atheistic.

It is the combination of truth and dharma, that allows comprehension to be personally experienced rather than a sought objective.

Such to literally experience an event we combine the occurrence with knowledge to define that experience. The sense of religion returns to faith versus truth maintains integrity to that internal (Krshna) experience over and above learned material.

Stop babbling

then what is it that is misunderstood, specifically?

You do not possess philosophical truths --you are speculating and hiding behind poetic prose

No intent of trying to speculate, just sharing words that apply and can be used; as summary to unifying truths. For example; light is energy upon mass. OR compassion is Love; these are pretty universal but the sciences do not comprehend the importance of light between mass in their cosmological frameworks of even chemistry. Purely put Max Planck was incorrect in maintaining entropy in the ‘constant’; the math is incorrect. This was understood at the age of 16 and a framework on how the human brain works (Photo Neuron Conduction; exchanges between neurons are light, not electrical) was prepared for publication. To shorten the story a promise to existence itself was made that the devoted application of time, energy and cause was to learn and finish the ‘truth’ so that never again will any kid ever have to go through what every person, born, has had to deal with in understanding life. No where in existence does comprehending life, how it works, what ‘good and bad’ are and exactly how we exist been provided so that every person can equally comprehend.

The math is done (name of God) and has been for over 25 years but no where was the knowledge to be sold or played upon for fame as it is the comprehension and the children that all is for. These 2 decades have been to combine and comprehend how all the religions have all pointed to ‘light’ and how important that concept is and then how many of the rendition are speaking of exactly ‘how the operation works’ but often appear as a riddle since the concept of encompassing literal truths of physical application has been clouded in beliefs, faiths and that nasty acceptance of ignorance.

IN most all the religions, they speak of the light but most had no realization as to exactly how close and important that concept literally changes all of human understanding.

The understanding of ‘Light’ is that missing link the sciences are all looking for. The reason is that the property of ‘entanglement’ is not included and completely omitted in any relevant application.

 

Such the same as words ‘entangle’ the teacher and the pupil even transcending time.

 

"Absolute" is a universal truth that is real --even if you are bereft of a real teacher who has revealed real truth.

So this goof made a promise and is just recently finding out, that it is what the whole world is awaiting.

The truth is Absolute!

 

I submit to existence, all that is 'i' for the 'good' of the total.

 

let it be

[Amlesh 1]

Well, did you ever ask the question, how SP ever thought about himself. Just try to investigate, all those who are against SP saying Rascal will stop blabbering abou this issue and will be happy to be proclaimed as 3rd Class Rascals.

 

And don't you all worry, no one can surpass me in that order. just to make you all relieve about it.

[Sephiroth 0]

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.

 

Do you prefer that Hindus get down on their knees and beg for recognitions despite of the knowledge and wisdom they have process in Vedas?

 

You know something, IF the knowledge of Vedas were given to Chinese, all the patents in the World could be in their hands and they could be making millions.

 

If the knowledge of Vedas are in the hands of the Europeans, we all still be their slaves. If the knowledge of Vedas are in the hands of Americans, we all could be Christians by now.

 

And if the knowledge of Vedas are in hands of Muslims .... never mind, they would still be in the same state as they are in now - backward, stupid and warmongering. Some species doesn't change.

 

In summary, DON'T beg for recognition. Step forward and take the recognition from others, whether they give or not. Hindus need to step forward and show the Vedic knowledge if Hindusm are to survive.

[suchandra 1]

 

Do you prefer that Hindus get down on their knees and beg for recognitions despite of the knowledge and wisdom they have process in Vedas?

 

You know something, IF the knowledge of Vedas were given to Chinese, all the patents in the World could be in their hands and they could be making millions.

 

If the knowledge of Vedas are in the hands of the Europeans, we all still be their slaves. If the knowledge of Vedas are in the hands of Americans, we all could be Christians by now.

 

And if the knowledge of Vedas are in hands of Muslims .... never mind, they would still be in the same state as they are in now - backward, stupid and warmongering. Some species doesn't change.

 

In summary, DON'T beg for recognition. Step forward and take the recognition from others, whether they give or not. Hindus need to step forward and show the Vedic knowledge if Hindusm are to survive.

Thanks Sephiroth, good points. Actually, same theft of intellectual property - the whole Ayurvedic movement profited from the purity based upon austerity as taught by the Vaishnavas and gained global attention. Nobody ever mentioned this.

 

Meanwhile members like Tackleberry seem bewildered if monkeys are our relatives because science takes him by surprise. Monkeys prefer cooked food.

 

Nothing beats a home-cooked meal – even for apes

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13999-nothing-beats-a-homecooked-meal--even-for-apes.html

• NewScientist.com news service<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans all seem to prefer cooked food to raw forms of meat, sweet potatoes and carrots, a team of anthropologists has found.

This suggests that our ancestors had an innate preference for cooked meals, and probably started cooking as soon as they wielded fire, says Richard Wrangham, an anthropologist at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, who led the new study.

"It would not be long before bits of food would get accidentally cooked and if they liked it they would do it again," he told New Scientist.

Wrangham is using the finding that apes liked cooked food to support his argument that cooking was pivotal in human evolution.

Cooked food is easier to digest, he says, and eating it helped propel anatomical changes in Homo erectus around 1.8 million years ago, including bigger brains, smaller guts and weaker teeth. But other anthropologists say data supporting the claim is scant.

First fires

 

After about 250,000 years ago there is good evidence, in the form of the charred remains of hearths, that our ancestors controlled fire. Further back in time, though, the evidence isn't so strong.

Wrangham, however, argues that darkened patches of dirt near fossil bones are evidence that pre-humans harnessed fire more than 1.6 million years ago.

To determine whether prehistoric hominids might have quickly used fire to cook their food because it improved taste or texture, Wrangham and colleague Victoria Wobber, of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, tested whether several species of great apes chose cooked foods over raw items.

"We wanted to see if we could regard the ancestors of humans, the australopithecine ancestors, as pre-adapted to enjoy cooked food," he says.

When presented with carrots and sweet potatoes, either raw or cooked, captive chimps showed preferences for the cooked food. The chimps had tasted cooked food before, which may have influenced the outcome, and Wrangham says the novelty of cooked food could also have influenced the results.

Physical proof

 

Another experiment with captive chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans also found the apes had an affinity for cooked meats, even though they had probably never tasted cooked meat before.

Experiments to determine why apes liked cooked foods – because they were sweeter or softer, for instance – were inconclusive.

If apes take to cooked foods quickly, then our ancestors probably did too, Wrangham reasons. "I can't imagine that it would have taken more than a generation for these apes to discover that their food tasted better when it was warmed," he says.

However, Henry Bunn, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, US, says Wrangham's early cooking theory is based on too little physical proof.

"Chimps are not australopithecines or early Homo, and their food preferences don't constitute evidence of what happened," he says.

Journal reference: Journal of Human Evolution, DOI: 10.1016/j.hevol.2008.03.003

Human Evolution - Follow the incredible story in our comprehensive special report.

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Considering the hateful, bigoted speech above, is it any wonder that religious people aren't taken seriously? Calling someone 'rascal' is hardly the way to convince people...but then again, religion and tolerance don't go together.

 

That speech is not really hateful or bigoted. Srila Prabhupada would often 'shoot from the hip' in such debates, not bothering to check the facts or trying to understand the issue on hand in a deeper way. He simply wanted to make his own point, and to promote Krsna consciousness.

 

To claim that Darwin took the idea of evolution from the Vedas is not based on facts. Number one: there is no mention of this type of evolution in the Vedas, and number two: Darwin did not know the Vedas.

 

Prabhupada was not a hater but he was a passionate debater. He was pretty much criticizing everybody and everything in these debates, but only to promote Krsna consciousness. He was also not a bigot. Bigotry is defined as irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. I do not see that in Prabhupada. His embracing of Christianity and Islam as some low form of Vaishnavism is a good example. Prabhupada was not irrational.

[suchandra 1]

 

Srila Prabhupada would often 'shoot from the hip' in such debates, not bothering to check the facts or trying to understand the issue on hand in a deeper way. He simply wanted to make his own point, and to promote Krsna consciousness.

 

 

Thanks Kulaji, you seem to say, thank God, that this nightmare of Prabhupada's era is gone forever.

From all religions it seems that the Vaishnavas are now the most liberal to make friendship with Richard Dawkins and co and even praise their highly developed atheistic intelligence as brilliant.

Could be that present Vaishnava generation will even warn their children to become preachers of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's sankirtan movement? Reminding their kids, you will lose all material wealth when surrendering to Visnu, even Sukracarya told this important lesson to this Bali Maharaja. And although he was warned he walked right into the trap and lost everything, don't be so foolish....?

 

Are there Vaishnavas actually preaching nowadays? Zurich Daily News, Switzerland, reports, ISKCON Switzerland, once a stronghold of bookdistribution and preaching has only 10 members left who changed the temple into an info center for the local Tamil immigrant community, opening on Sunday.

Swiss people are moved to tears and weep into their handkerchiefs - no more devotees with bookbags, all sankirtan vans sold.

However, ISKCONITES seem to more happy than ever about this development.

 

Could be that for genuine preaching spirit we have to look meanwhile somewhere else. May be here is one.

 

 

The intelligent design case in Dover, Penn., was the stuff of tabloid dreams: a community divided when a school board led by religious fundamentalists tried to bring creationism into the local biology curriculum. But look beneath the surface, and it was hardly the two-dimensional "science versus religion" narrative favored by the press. As Lauri Lebo, a local reporter who covered the trial, writes, the "'Darwinism'-spouting teachers were preachers' kids; the 'atheist' plaintiffs taught Sunday school; the 'activist' judge was a Bush-appointed Republican; and the journalists labeled 'liars' were willing to go to jail for the truth."

In her new book, The Devil in Dover: An Insider's Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America, Lebo writes of her journey through a familiar town made alien by a handful of school board members willing to, as Lebo puts it, "lie for Jesus." Lebo closely follows the story of how a handful of fundamentalists, pushing to include the teaching of creationism in school biology courses change their tack when the conservative Christian Thomas More Law Center gets involved.

Full article: http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87876/?ses=05f6ce90127b35a567cef0bd19f816de

[cbrahma 0]

 

That speech is not really hateful or bigoted. Srila Prabhupada would often 'shoot from the hip' in such debates, not bothering to check the facts or trying to understand the issue on hand in a deeper way. He simply wanted to make his own point, and to promote Krsna consciousness.

 

To claim that Darwin took the idea of evolution from the Vedas is not based on facts. Number one: there is no mention of this type of evolution in the Vedas, and number two: Darwin did not know the Vedas.

 

Prabhupada was not a hater but he was a passionate debater. He was pretty much criticizing everybody and everything in these debates, but only to promote Krsna consciousness. He was also not a bigot. Bigotry is defined as irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion. I do not see that in Prabhupada. His embracing of Christianity and Islam as some low form of Vaishnavism is a good example. Prabhupada was not irrational.

 

The point that Prabhupada was making (which is obvious to me) is that the Vedas already have the knowledge we need, that even the correct idea of evolution (that is the evolution of the soul through all the species of life) is there.

It's not exactly that Darwin literally consciously stole the idea from the Vedas, but that it was already in existence in the Vedas, and that he was purporting it to be his original theory which he misapplied and distorted n some deterministic, materialistic way. That is sufficient qualification for his rascaldom.

It is not the result of Prabhupada's bigotry or hatred, but of his Vedic and spiritual vision.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Thanks Kulaji, you seem to say, thank God, that this nightmare of Prabhupada's era is gone forever.

 

I never even remotely suggested that...

 

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory...

 

The question is, whether Darwin took his idea from the Vedic literature as Prabhupada says. And the answer is NO, as I have shown above. Thus it is true that Prabhupada did not bother to check the facts before making this statement.

 

If you want to be taken seriously by the scientific comunity, you have to say things which are based on facts.

 

Prabhupada wanted his scientist disciples to present KC in a rational and scientific way to the world. One of the reasons it did not happen is the reluctance of his disciples to contradict Prabhupada precisely by presenting KC in a rational and scientific way.

 

Do you see me support the theory of evolution, Darwin or Dawkins on this forum or anywhere else? No, you don't. But I will also not support statements of Prabhupada or other devotees which are not based on facts.

[AncientMariner 0]

 

I never even remotely suggested that...

 

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory...

 

The question is, whether Darwin took his idea from the Vedic literature as Prabhupada says. And the answer is NO, as I have shown above. Thus it is true that Prabhupada did not bother to check the facts before making this statement.

 

If you want to be taken seriously by the scientific comunity, you have to say things which are based on facts.

 

Prabhupada wanted his scientist disciples to present KC in a rational and scientific way to the world. One of the reasons it did not happen is the reluctance of his disciples to contradict Prabhupada precisely by presenting KC in a rational and scientific way.

 

Do you see me support the theory of evolution, Darwin or Dawkins on this forum or anywhere else? No, you don't. But I will also not support statements of Prabhupada or other devotees which are not based on facts.

 

 

That sounds reasonable to me. I have never seen any evidence that Darwin was aware of the concept of evolution as presented in the Vedas before he came up with his theory of evolution.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It's not exactly that Darwin literally stole the idea from the Vedas, but that it was already in existence in the Vedas, and that he was purporting it to be his original theory which he misapplied and distorted n some deterministic, materialistic way.

 

<DT>evolve <DD>1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" . Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution. </DD>

 

These are the FACTS. What commonly passes as the Darwinian theory of evolution is a highly modified and refined concept that Darwin himself developed. Certainly in no way connected with the ideas presented in Vedic literature, which were completely alien to Charles Darwin.

 

Criticize the man for his real crimes, not for what you blame him for. Criticize Darwin for being a materialist, not for stealing something from the Vedas.

 

And again, what is present in the Vedas has nothing to do with material bodies (forms) evolving gradually over time. The Vedic idea is that all physical bodies come from Prajapatis and their wives uniting to generate various species of life. You cant even claim that the soul is evolving because the soul is ever the same, changeles.

[cbrahma 0]

 

<DT>evolve <DD>1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" . Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.

 

These are the FACTS. What commonly passes as the Darwinian theory of evolution is a highly modified and refined concept that Darwin himself developed. Certainly in no way connected with the ideas presented in Vedic literature, which were completely alien to Charles Darwin.

 

Criticize the man for his real crimes, not for what you blame him for. Criticize Darwin for being a materialist, not for stealing something from the Vedas.

 

And again, what is present in the Vedas has nothing to do with material bodies (forms) evolving gradually over time. The Vedic idea is that all physical bodies come from Prajapatis and their wives uniting to generate various species of life. You cant even claim that the soul is evolving because the soul is ever the same, changeles.

 

 

 

<DD>I know the about the theory of evolution. I have a science degree.

 

 

 

<DD>I already made the distinction of which I am fully aware, between the evolution of the soul and evolution of the species.

 

 

 

<DD>But the basic concept of evolution is the same, simply applied in two completely different ways, the one valid, the other invalid.

 

 

 

<DD>It's like the Hegelian spiritual dialectic being appropriated by Marxist materialism. And yes I know that in that case, there was a clear borrowing, but the relationship between the two theories is analogous.

 

 

 

<DD>We don't want to be asses taking things in a stupid literal way. Prabhupada was making a philosophical point about the primacy of the Vedas. To turn around and fault him for not being academically factual is myopic like Dr. Frog in the well.

 

 

 

<DD>

 

 

 

<DD>

 

 

 

<DD>

 

 

 

</DD>

[Bishadi 0]

 

<DT>evolve <DD>1641, "to unfold, open out, expand," from L. evolvere "unroll," from ex- "out" + volvere "to roll" . Evolution (1622), originally meant "unrolling of a book;" it first was used in the modern scientific sense 1832 by Scot. geologist Charles Lyell.

will look at this and thanks

 

<DD>

Criticize the man for his real crimes,.

Makes sense.

 

 

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, an to reflect that these elaborated constructed form, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth and Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction: Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.

That was quoted from the last paragraph of Origins of Species. The point was to share his recognition; that there is an underlying set of rules that governs. That foundation can be realized and what the truth reveals.

In the glossary, the word evolution does not appear nor in the index.

<FONT face="Times New Roman">

The sixth edition, which is usually regarded as the last, appeared in February 1872. ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com</FONT></FONT></P><P></P><P><FONT face=' alt='P><P><FONT face='>Isn’t learning just the best for removing the foolish ignorance of opinions.

Did anyone else experience a little evolution to their knowledge?

</DD>

[cbrahma 0]

The sixth edition, which is usually regarded as the last, appeared in February 1872. Murray's accounts show that 3,000 copies were printed, but this total presumably included both those with eleventh thousand on the title page and those with twelfth, the latter being notably less common. It is again extensively revised and contains a new chapter, VII. This was inserted to confute the views of the Roman Catholic biologist St George Mivart. The edition was aimed at a wider public and printed in smaller type, the volume shorter again and giving the general impression of a cheap edition, which at 7s. 6d. it was. The title changes to The origin of species, and a glossary, compiled by W. S. Dallas, appears. It is in this edition that the word 'evolution' occurs for the first time. It had been used in the first edition of The descent of man in the previous year, but not before in this work. 'Evolved' had been the last word of the text in all previous editions, but 'evolution' had been omitted, perhaps to avoid confusion with the use of the word by Herbert Spencer or with its more particular embryological meaning. The word had however been used in its transformist sense by Lyell as early as 1832 (Principles of geology, Vol. II, p. 11). In this edition it occurs twice on page 201 and three times on page 424. The title page reads 'Sixth edition, with additions and corrections. (Eleventh thousand

[Bishadi 0]

 

<DD> <DD>We don't want to be asses taking things in a stupid literal way.

 

<DD>

</DD>

can you clarify what the comment was about in a literal way?

 

are you going to suggest that what Darwin contributed in his writtings are simply to plagerize? Meaning his life was simply to tic off the religious right and take the credit from the vedas in some evil communist plot....?

 

Please enlighten us all with your insights as the thread has basically shared that SB was not familiar with evolution nor Darwin as many others who have read this thread probably have a little better understanding then last week on these same facts.

[cbrahma 0]

This is the text in question

 

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge.

 

Now Prabhupada appears to be literally forming a conspiracy theory about 'Britishers'. That they just used the Vedas to their advantage.

Britishers were Indologists. They had been to India , were familiar with the culture. It isn't obvious that they didn't plagiarize.

But that idea aside, we need to look at the point, the spirit of the statement rather than its technical truth. The Vedas do trump so many materialist theories. All knowledge comes from the Vedas. In fact Veda means knowledge. That is the philosophical principle Prabhupada is applying here.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

Now Prabhupada appears to be literally forming a conspiracy theory about 'Britishers'.

 

"Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge."

 

I think he is talking about the pride of British people and their belief that they are the best in everything. Sort of like Americans now.

 

I do not get the drift that this is some conspiracy theory.

[cbrahma 0]

 

"Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge."

 

I think he is talking about the pride of British people and their belief that they are the best in everything. Sort of like Americans now.

 

I do not get the drift that this is some conspiracy theory.

It could be taken that way 'The British are trying to take over the world'. They didn't literally steal from the Vedas...did they?

[Bishadi 0]

 

But that idea aside, we need to look at the point, the spirit of the statement rather than its technical truth. The Vedas do trump so many materialist theories. All knowledge comes from the Vedas. In fact Veda means knowledge. That is the philosophical principle Prabhupada is applying here.

 

There is huge truth to this; meaning most 'good' knowledge transcends time.

 

But since the vedas cannot explain the metobolic processes of living things, then the knowledge needs another chapter.

 

Not that we stop learning and contributing because many of faith think magic created mankind and all of nature (the universe).

 

Or simply to think the vedas are the last word, then why are any of us writing?

 

Why is there one book past the original words?

 

Why is anyone waiting for another avatar?

 

If the vedas were perfectly finished, then why are there dozens of various religions from the same literature?

 

Why do people still wish for world Peace if all the answers can be found in any single religion on this beautiful earth?

 

Darwin is tricky because to be honest, with integrity, the knowledge will unfold how ignorant we as a species can really be with retaining a religious belief of how we came to be.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

It could be taken that way 'The British are trying to take over the world'. They didn't literally steal from the Vedas...did they?

 

They were tryining to take over the world, but in an old fashion imperial way, not through secret conspiracy way. They were quite open about it.

 

As to British trying to steal from the Vedas - that never happened, as they were too stupid to recognize its value. British despised the Vedas. Germans on the other hand were fascinated by the Vedas and tried to take the fullest advantage of its wisdom. they were the smart bunch.

[cbrahma 0]

 

They were tryining to take over the world, but in an old fashion imperial way, not through secret conspiracy way. They were quite open about it.

 

As to British trying to steal from the Vedas - that never happened, as they were too stupid to recognize its value. British despised the Vedas. Germans on the other hand were fascinated by the Vedas and tried to take the fullest advantage of its wisdom. they were the smart bunch.

How do you know?

[shvu 1]

 

Below it says, Darwin stole parts of his theory from the Vedas and combined it with his speculation. Because his theory contains parts of vedic knowledge people became bewildered and declared Darwinism as science.

 

Prabhupāda: Before, it is described, before human birth, monkey, either monkey or lion or cow. Sattva-guṇa, rajo-guṇa, tamo-guṇa. Monkey’s tamo-guṇa, cow is sattva-guṇa, and lion is rajo-guṇa. This is the last animal life before human life, gradually. Everything is described. Darwins want to take credit, nonsense.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: But he could only see as deep as the body. He could not see it was the soul…

Prabhupāda: Hm. He was rascal speculator. He took the idea from the Vedic literature, and he wanted to take the credit himself, and the different hodgepodge theory, this is… Britishers took the idea from Vedic literature and presented in British way. Britisher wanted that, “We are the monopolizers of all scientists, all big men.” Sir Isaac Newton, then the, who is that, Darwin, big politicians, Gladstone, everything big—British. They wanted it. “British means all big men. Therefore we must rule over the world.” All Lords, Sirs, and this and that… They wanted to prove, “The only big men of the universe, they take birth in England, and therefore we should rule over the world.” And this was their pledge.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: For a while they did a pretty good job.

Prabhupāda: No, artificially you can do for a while. Unless it is sound footing, it cannot stay. You can cheat some people for some time…, no, all time. You can cheat some people for all time, and all people for some time, not all people for all time. This is the… That was their business, to cheat some people for all time and cheat all people for some time. But not all people for all time. That is not possible.

 

 

 

Morning Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 23, 1977, Vṛndāvana

http://causelessmercy.com/t/t/770623rc.vrn.htm

 

Elsewhere on this forum, someone once posted a Prabhupada comment that according to Darwin, his grandfather was a monkey per his evolution theory. Apparently, that was funny to Prabhupada, which means he must have thought the Vedas are funny too (by the above comment). Anyway, as long as it is fun....

 

But I remember his staunch "Every Prabhupada statement is flawless and we will defend them till the end by adding any spin as necessary" disciples have in the past, mocked Darwin and evolution scientists, calling them fools and atheists who lacked the superior intelligence posessed by our high school dropout friends. Evidently, these gentlemen were not aware of the above Prabhupada theory or they would have been a tad more careful in their criticism.

 

I guess it is ok to keep fooling ourselves as long we are doing it convincingly.

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

 

Do you prefer that Hindus get down on their knees and beg for recognitions despite of the knowledge and wisdom they have process in Vedas?

 

What knowledge and wisdom may that be?

 

 

You know something, IF the knowledge of Vedas were given to Chinese, all the patents in the World could be in their hands and they could be making millions.

 

Hmm....you are right. The recent blackberry patent war, microsoft patent wars, etc., have their roots in the Satapatha Brahmana and the Taittirieya Upanishad. And you know all about this.

 

Sometime back, you made a comment on this forum that Kalki was predicted in the Gita. When asked for proof, you vanished. You have not even bothered to read a simply 700 verse poem and here you are, commented about patent material in the Vedas.

 

Good for you!

 

Cheers

[shvu 1]

Was Prabhupada, the Gaudiya Vaishnava, even aware of how the Vedas are classified at their highest level? How could he, when he belonged to a tradition that all but completely ignored the Vedas in favor its own proprietary concepts, while still using the label 'Vedic' as a sales pitch? To criticize Newton and Darwin for plagiarism from the Vedas shows a deep level of ignorance and a lack of responsbility in making such careless accusations. He could get away with such nonsensical accusations, as he was surrounded by bumbling idiots who had no serious knowledge themselves and believed everything he told them.

 

The Vedas are religious texts dealing with Gods, prayers and procedures for social life and rituals in a primitive society - most of which has been obsolete for a long time. They were not dealing with science and math. They were certainly not dealing with 803.11 protocols or nano-technology as some gentleman seems to think above. They did not deal with gravitation for Newton to steal information nor with evolution for Darwin to steal.

 

Varahamihira the celebrated astrologer from the Gupta period thanks the Greeks for giving us the knowledge of astronomy. Now our patriots will claim that the Greeks got this knowlegde from the Rig Veda and passed it back to us. How is is that the Greeks can get it, but we cannot and have to rely on a foreign source for the same info? People who talk about advanced sciences in the Vedas are those who have no idea what these texts are. When challenged, they engage in tap-dancing about lost portions, hidden meanings, etc. Be honest and admit you do not know. Or you can always prove me wrong - not by quoting Bengali Babus, but with proper evidence.

 

Oh and just in case, for the curious, all the four samhitas and a couple of Brahmanas are translated on sacred-texts.com. The main Upanishads have been available online for a long time. In due course, the Aaranyakas will be out too.

 

Cheers

[suchandra 1]

 

Was Prabhupada, the Gaudiya Vaishnava, even aware of how the Vedas are classified at their highest level? How could he, when he belonged to a tradition that all but completely ignored the Vedas in favor its own proprietary concepts, while still using the label 'Vedic' as a sales pitch? To criticize Newton and Darwin for plagiarism from the Vedas shows a deep level of ignorance and a lack of responsbility in making such careless accusations. He could get away with such nonsensical accusations, as he was surrounded by bumbling idiots who had no serious knowledge themselves and believed everything he told them.

 

The Vedas are religious texts dealing with Gods, prayers and procedures for social life and rituals in a primitive society - most of which has been obsolete for a long time. They were not dealing with science and math. They were certainly not dealing with 803.11 protocols or nano-technology as some gentleman seems to think above. They did not deal with gravitation for Newton to steal information nor with evolution for Darwin to steal.

 

Varahamihira the celebrated astrologer from the Gupta period thanks the Greeks for giving us the knowledge of astronomy. Now our patriots will claim that the Greeks got this knowlegde from the Rig Veda and passed it back to us. How is is that the Greeks can get it, but we cannot and have to rely on a foreign source for the same info? People who talk about advanced sciences in the Vedas are those who have no idea what these texts are. When challenged, they engage in tap-dancing about lost portions, hidden meanings, etc. Be honest and admit you do not know. Or you can always prove me wrong - not by quoting Bengali Babus, but with proper evidence.

 

Oh and just in case, for the curious, all the four samhitas and a couple of Brahmanas are translated on sacred-texts.com. The main Upanishads have been available online for a long time. In due course, the Aaranyakas will be out too.

 

Cheers

Thanks Shvu from Lone Star State. Hope you don't feel lone with your understanding. It is of course right what you say, the presentation of vedic knowledge as a scientific platform of modern standards - and the propensity to invest into the processing of vedic information was somewhat till now not taken very seriously.

Science admits presently that they cannot answer several of their questions, for example they struggle to find out how out of energy matter was generated, so all planetary systems, the whole universe could come into being. The research presently done in Geneva is the biggest and most expensive experiment ever done by modern science. Meanwhile leaders of the church say the same what Prabhupada was saying all the time, this is no science, since they cannot prove anything, why there's matter, whereto anti-matter disappeared - since they believe that matter originated from an energy what they call anti-matter. Then, why matter could evolve out of energy? And how the universe could evolve out of a vacuum?

 

Abhay Ashtekar

 

Now Abhay Ashtekar is about to prove by combining relativity theory and quantum mechanics that before this universe was created there was another universe. In other words, Abhay Ashtekar is trying to translate vedic parameters into modern scientific understanding. But as you see, as soon someone like Abhay Ashtekar is on the way to translate vedic knowledge into modern science, he immediately has a whole gang of "friends", "helping" him to get the job done.

''We have two wildly successful theories that have defined 20th-century physics,'' said Dr. Gary Horowitz, a physicist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where the workshop is being held through July. ''These theories are fundamentally incomplete and inconsistent with each other, and we just can't go on like that.''

In other words, that again, as soon things get precise, the Abhay Ashtekars are brought down and the Gary Horowitzes are receiving the Nobel Prize.