What is the "official" position of Devotees regarding our Universe?

[theist 1]

ethos,

 

I can't show it to you in the Bhagavatam, but if you have access to a deep space telescope... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

I can't understand what is being said in the fifth canto.

 

A couple of nights ago I was lying in bed watching some show on Discovery Science channel. It went into how they theorize black holes swallow up matter by this incredible gravitation force. Galaxies being broken down into separate atoms and for a second I felt like these were like the pores of Vishnu as universal matter was being inhaled back into Him. Just rank speculation I know. Pretty trippy though.

[Avinash 0]

By sun here I mean the start that is revolved around by planets.

 

In that sense there are many suns, not just one.

 

What is the meaning of the word moon? If moon means a natural satellite of some planet, then there are many moons. But, it by moon, one means the natural satellite of the planet on which we are residing, then of course, there is only one moon.

[Avinash 0]

Dont forget to answer me with that proof I requested. Just saying the stars are suns proves nothing. Science can't prove that.

 

How do you define "sun" and how do you define "star"?

[ethos 0]

"I can't show it to you in the Bhagavatam, but if you have access to a deep space telescope..."

 

You are regurgitating the SAME arguments. You sound like the scientists.

 

As for the rest of you... Later, under better circumstances.. In a few days. Remind me if I forget.

 

For now, I'm tired of this material worship.

[ethos 0]

The following are some thoughts I included in a reply attempt. but I'm not happy with it and too tired and uncaring to develop it. I made some points:

 

 

When Mt. St. Helens errupted, the scientists were surprised to see 2 prominent things:

1) The volcanic magma seperated into layers as it settled much as oil and water might seperate according to weight. Previously it was thought the different layers corresponded to different erruptions over time.

2) Life magically rebounded on the barren landscape with stuptifying urgency simply due to the fact that the wind blew in seeds and insects which supported the higher life forms.

 

Both observations caused "quiet" scientific upheavals in modern theory. "Our scientific processes have revealed this refined reality." Never mind the ignorance their last objective claims caused. And this was evidence by direct perception:

 

What about all the scientific contradiction in Sadaputa's Forbidden Archeology?

 

What about Beale's moleculary chemistry in "Black Box"?

 

The Christians for the most part tried to coincide their creation theories with the scientists. And look where they are! Are we to be intimidated by science? Is our understanding and faith no better?

 

What about Prabhupada's analogy of the three phases of God realization as if seeing a mountain from different perspectives? What you see from a distance may be completely different from a more intimate view.

 

What about the very common sense analogy of the consistency of consciousness as contrasted with the changing body and the lack of scientific comprehension?

 

Scientific substance is ultimately chance which totally contradicts the science of cause and effect.

 

I thought devotees believed in karma and not chance.

 

What about all the empirical crap of proof when you can't even prove ethics or the concepts of government laws?

 

I can go on and on like this for quite a while––I really can––without even revisiting the basic defects of a conditioned soul.

 

You "believe" that the scientists are giving you objective information about the world surrounding us. We like the little technology taste we bite off and accept the whole thing––by varying degrees.

 

We tend to see the world––at least potentially––as meant for our enjoyment. Is that objectively true?

 

In a courtroom, two scientists testify against each other over the same evidence. It happens all the time. And these are professionals with credentials out the ying-yang disputing the same evidence.

 

What you see is not necessarily what you get! But we get what we deserve.

 

Given your reply's finale, I'm quite confused where your science ends and your religion begins.

 

Modern scientific methods and theory are not proof! the senses cannot be trusted.

[theist 1]

 

"I can't show it to you in the Bhagavatam, but if you have access to a deep space telescope..." /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

You are regurgitating the SAME arguments. You sound like the scientists.

 

 

I attempted to lighten it up with a joke. Not everthing is a crusade or a call to arms ethos, sometimes its nice to just talk.

 

 

As for the rest of you... Later, under better circumstances.. In a few days. Remind me if I forget.

 

For now, I'm tired of this material worship.

 

 

That's good, we shouldn't worship matter.

 

I believe in giving each person their due. I am not threatened by the intelligence of the scientists or anyone else. Krishna says He is the intelligence of the intelligent. I try to apreciate their efforts in that light.Krsna afterall is the Supreme Scientist.

 

Krsna says He is the light in all luminous objects. Easy to see that in the blazing Sun, but can we appreciate that also in the sunlight as it is reflected through a piece of broken glass laying in the muddy road?

 

I am amazed by everything these days. A butterfly gliding along, the space shuttle cruising around the globe. Its all wonderous.It's all a manifestation of Krsna's energy. I don't worship the butterfly or the scientist, rather Krsna in both.

 

The urge to know about the world around us is very natural. I admit the scientists are wasting a lot of energy and time by only concentrating on the exterior world.But that is their problem. Every discovery they may make I can use to enhance my appreciation for the Lord's awesome potencies.

 

Now some of their conclusions we must battle against for sure. And it doesn't hurt to speak out against their excesses and even madness. But I think we should be discriminating in picking our battles.

 

For instance, the basic knowledge of metabolism is a perfect example to show that the consciousness exists separate from that process. Material science gives a fuller explanation of that process, meaning more detailed.

 

All my life it seems I needed to identify some outer foe and rail against them.In the 60's it was the capitalists.Then I became a theist and hated the materialist communists. Then it was the evil mayavadis and those with other religious conceptions in general. And of course the evil scientists etc.

 

I still try to counter falsehoods where I can perceive them but I no longer feel the need to be motivated by the sense of warring with the enemies.In fact my past enemies are now becoming my teachers in a way. I recognize my true enemy now and that enemy is me.

 

Hare Krsna

[Jagat 1]

How does your motto match the statement, "Empirical science is next to zero in my book when describing things beyond their experience. And don't tell me they've verified it by telescopes and radio waves."

 

This kind of backward thinking relegates Krishna consciousness to the very margins of religiosity in the modern world. This attitude means eternal sect, never universal religion.

 

[ethos 0]

Jagat, pull your pants up! I'll get back with you when your descent.

 

(I'm too busy to help you now)

[RIFamily 0]

Krsna says He is the light in all luminous objects. Easy to see that in the blazing Sun, but can we appreciate that also in the sunlight as it is reflected through a piece of broken glass laying in the muddy road?

________

 

Below is an interesting, scientific web sight where the nature of light is discussed... What is discussed is just how much we don't understand about light -- one of the most fundamental properties in this universe, a property that scientests have been observing for hundreds of years. Yet, even today, it is mysterious and beyond our grasp of understanding. We have made wonderful advances in understanding the properties of light, but the mechanics behind it are still beyond us.

 

How much so the all other aspects in this universe? We have advanced greatly in observations of effects, but still understand very little regarding the mechanics behind the observations.

 

http://www.nobeliefs.com/light.htm

[ethos 0]

Just a quick reply. I'm about to take this computer down for a day or two.

 

Pursuing quantitative knowledge by observing entities, charting the consistencies and deriving laws does not give us any significant knowledge--especially not about God.

 

Science is the same knowledge acquiring skills any conscious being demonstrates, it's just more methodical. Thus we call it a science. We actually don't even know what science is! Is it scientific to be obsessed with endless adjustments to a temporary situation?

 

Anyway, modern scientific dogma still has all the refelective deficiencies inherent in conditioned beings because they are speculative processes of imperfect beings.

 

You are making the same mistake Western empirical science has made regarding theistic vision through material processes. These redundant arguements appear to be incomprehensible to you.

 

We have done very little good overall with these scientific advancements. If you add up all the benefits like air-conditioners, computers and plastic surgery on the one hand,and then on the other hand all the problems of pollution, empowerment of the unqualified, and general ignorance scientific world views create, we can very easily conclude that we are destroying ourselves with this science.

 

Modern science certainly hasn't been a catalyst for theistic understanding or even facilitating the enrichment of mankind. If you don't know who you are before what you do, then maybe everything you're doing is wrong.

 

Your proposal is a bluff. Practically, our disease is to exploit the world and material science is an indulgent methodology for cultivating that.

 

Even Sadaputa and such "devotee experts" are simply tearing down intrenched material faith by negation of existing dogma. They are not preaching positively with direct descriptions of God.

 

If they were so expert at understanding God through material nature as you suggest, then they could lead us to Krsna as Prabhupada did.

 

All your empirical knowledge is lost with the body. So why endeavor so hard for it?

 

It is a form of worship to devote so much time and energy to an actyivity. Krsna says a person worships Him with their mind just by reading the Bhagavad-gita. It is also a form of worship to give undue attention to movie stars or politicians––or scientists or sports or anything.

 

You cannot worship material nature and Krsna together. And Krsna is not impressed with your quantitative knowledge.

 

It is a simple point.

[ethos 0]

RiFF,

 

Uh, sorry about the reply. I was in a hurry and didn't even notice your content so much as your title… and it wasn't even directed at me. My mistake.

 

My circumstances are very hectic right now.

 

The context of my reply is no longer appropriate for the circumstance. I grossly erred in judgement.

 

Still, Theist and Jagat might learn something from it. Probably not. We have a miserly capacity for influencing each other and agreeing. Therefore we are not making it as Prabhupada's family.

[ethos 0]

Theist,

 

"The universe is God's presentation. That's my point. Any clarification of that presentation I accept as a sort of divine revelation."

 

You don't get that divine revelation from material processes.

 

Understanding Jesus Christ as the son of God is not mundane history. The spiritual depth and prowess of Prabhupada is not mundane history. Mundane history or information or processes cannot help us understand these things.

 

Again, for the slow people out there: The beginnings of modern material science began with this intent of theistic understanding and they have yet to succeeded with all their contemplation and influence. In fact, they claim God is not even relevant to their processes now. So they have achieved just the opposite.

 

We become entangled in contemplating the world. Material science simply increases your ignorance as seen from this philosophical and religious reality. Practically, we have historical information in the scriptures of very religious people falling prey to their desires even as they act them out. Even we are ineffective as devotees, and our engrossment isn't even official.

 

Your lower knowledge and purposes may be subsumed within your higher theistic purposes, but that is only evidenced by your theistic knowledge from transcendental sources. You will not see––as a general rule––behind the veil without significant success in the higher realm. And that you cannot get that verification from empirical observation.

 

Nature will befriend and reveal her maya and God's play to a confidential devotee. But for the mundane worker… beware! Theist, I think you are sincere and definitely have established some relationship with the Supreme. But I think you are wrong if you advocate material science to facilitate that understanding.

 

You seem to be dovetailing. But atheistic methodologies and philosophies will certainly not agree with you or even acknowledge that you see what you claim by their self-imposed and limiting standards. Scientifically--as the word is generally understood--you are crazy.

[ethos 0]

Shiva, under your "Vedic Conception" post on page 1 you wrote this:

 

"We today can observe the cosmos with help from modern

technology, in vedic times this was impossible.

 

So the vedic conception on the literal level is

for the audience of the vedic age,or the residents of the spiritual world."

 

You immediately contradict yourself.

 

"So the true situation of the galaxy is not neccesary to

be known to those people, they see the world through the lens of the pure vedic conception, this is for the

purpose of enhacing their lifestyle, which is

full of magical events and transcendental ecstacy.

 

At least thats the way I see it."

 

This is true of beginners like us. It is certainly not true for advanced souls.

 

I suspect Prabhupada knew alot more about this than he cared to explain… perhaps for similar reasons that he did not display yogic powers. He only wanted to attract the purely motivated.

 

If you can believe that Prabhupada was traveling on sunshine, it's easy to believe he might know more than he reveals. Christ certainly did this.

 

In any case, Arjuna, Narada and so many others certainly knew all this quantitative knowledge in a practical way.

[ethos 0]

Theist,

 

In your "calling Avinish" thread:

 

"Yeah I can't accept that. This universe is very very big. To think that it is lit by only one sun seems implausible to me. Those stars to me are just other suns. Not planets reflecting back light from the sun close to us."

 

To me that is just a material conception. Is the sun not known to have a trajectory or coarse in Vedic literature… moving very fast?

 

The planets may or may not be reflecting the sun light in my estimation. I just know it's beautiful.

 

"One moon? How can that be? There are already 17 moons known to us just orbiting around Uranus."

 

What you may accept as a moon as stated by the scientists may not be such at all.

 

I seriously doubt the moon is a satellite of earth. So you are talking to a real nut case.

 

I only see two distinctly visible objects in the sky; sun and moon. I see no other comparisons, no matter what you call them.

 

If you can convince me with something other than official government or scientific data, then I will relent.

 

As far as the official version goes, there is incessant cheating. You just may be looking at some fractal program or something when you see these space images. Does Mars look suspiciously like the Moon?

 

Even if we accept these space pictures as true, there's no verifying what we think we see from a distance if we cannot get closer. Whom or what do you accept as authority? The photographer, the pictures, the scientific analysis?

 

Are professional sound-bytes or popular belief the measure of all things? You are demonstrating blind faith. You simply believe what they tell you. You cannot practice it as you can Krsna consciousness.

[ethos 0]

"Is my reality the same as yours? Are there multiple realities? Here we are: Is my reality at the at the same time the same but yet different from yours? (Where have you heard a similar phrase like that before?)"

 

Truth is both subjective and objective. For scientific discourse, it is more objective. When accepting the authority of impeccable personalities it is more subjective.

 

We share common realities like the universal or earthly configuration. Yet, even in that, our capacity to experience it or know more about it can vastly differ according to our advancement. Narada Muni certainly has a different "reality" of the universe than we do.

 

Subjectively, there are things that happen between you and God, or say a spiritual master, that are more real to you and "only to you" than anything else.

 

"Then ZING! my reality solified and the universe was made up of millions of galixies of suns. But I did see that there are many things I don't know about."

 

You may know something I don't. How is this corroborated with sastric evidence?

[Avinash 0]

What you may accept as a moon as stated by the scientists may not be such at all.

 

What do you call as moon?

 

I seriously doubt the moon is a satellite of earth.

 

Do you doubt that moon revolves round the Earth?

 

Are professional sound-bytes or popular belief the measure of all things? You are demonstrating blind faith. You simply believe what they tell you. You cannot practice it as you can Krsna consciousness.

 

Blind faith? You have written that you want evidence from shastras. Why is it not blind faith to believe that shastras can not be wrong? You may say that they are God's word. But, what is the evidence that these are God's word? You may say that great acharyas consider these as infallible. But what is the evidence that these acharyas are not wrong? or popular belief the measure of all things? You are demonstrating blind faith. You simply believe what is written in some books.

[Guest guest]

what contradiction,i see no contradiction,

contradiction schmontradiction...

 

The obvious is not not always obvious, for you

the universe may be what the shastra states,

good for you, it really doesn't matter

one way or the other.

 

For others who have no such absolute faith, what i said

i believe has merit, putting the vedic conception

into perspective to modern astronomy.

[Guest guest]

that wuz moi, fergot to sign een

[ethos 0]

Avinish,

 

No. It is not blind faith because it has been verified by systematic study and practice.

 

You try practicing it and you can verify it too because Krsna does give experiences to people who treat Him personally.