Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Buddisum and Science

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts


A wise Man said- 'The Big bang took place, but also did not take place'.


'Evolution is evolving, but also not'.


'Dinosaurs are old, but we are not'


'We landed on the moon but, also did not'



I actually made those up but you get my point. /images/graemlins/wink.gif


All Glories to Lord Buddha!



CC:9.49 Purport extract www.vedabase.net About Buddisum:

Their first principle is that the creation has always existed. But if this were the case, there could be no theory of annihilation. The Buddhists maintain that annihilation, or dissolution, is the highest truth. If the creation eternally exists, there is no question of dissolution or annihilation. This argument is not very strong because by practical experience we see that material things have a beginning, a middle and an end. The ultimate aim of the Buddhist philosophy is to dissolve the body. This is proposed because the body has a beginning. Similarly, the entire cosmic manifestation is also a gigantic body, but if we accept the fact that it will always exist, there can be no question of annihilation. Therefore the attempt to annihilate everything in order to attain zero is an absurdity.



This is same as Mayavada Philosophy. Let's get to know this. It's not hard. It's practical.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



This is the total basics of the Mayavda Doctrine as Propagated by Srimad Adi-Shankrachara.


Posted Image


Now you can see. Logically speaking. According to Vedas God [be it Impersonal or Personal]

is Eternal and Unchanging. This picture shows



In The Bhagavad-gita it says [most impersonalists and mayavadis always intrepretate the words of Gita]:


Translation [Prabhupada]:

For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.



Even though that Translation is by Prabhupada, the Original Sankrit wording cannot really be denied. For both parties. I read one Mayavadi intrpretation before, and it says the opposite [takes about Brahman*] as Being Eternal. So before they have started they have defeated thier own philosophy. IF [it is] Eternal then how can it be changeable? [i know what your thinking, oh maybe it took on some forms]. But it is unchangeable. So how can it take on form? You can go around and round in a cicle if you like. But the fact is, Brahman [whether you see it has impersonal or personal] is Unchanging and eternal according to Bhagavad-gita [mayavada Gita or Impersonal or Vaishnava]. So you cannot but reject Mayavada because it is telling some untruth. I'll come to impersonal conception later..



*Brahman is said to be Impersonal aspect or to Vaishnava the Brahmajyoti.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites




The above still doesn't make you see God is Personal. But it does make you realize that you are something else.


Now that we have rejected the Mayavada philosophy, with simple argument. Where do you go from here? Do you become a Buddist? Please read the above arguments for this.


Now what? Shall I become an impersonalist and desire mukti? To become one with the Supreme? But we already defeated this. We cannot become one. So I tend to lean towards the fact [by deductive theory with the help of Guru [Prabhupada, My Guru blessings, Guru varga] that God maybe is personal. You cannot really deny it.


Download Bhagavad-gita As It Is


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your a Muslim who is wanting heavenly [or whatever else] enjoyment? But thinks God is Impersonal. ? Then that is another problem.


You will have to I feel go back to the Original teachings. That God is eternal. Everything in this universe is always dying. Which is 'meant' to be God. If you understand what I'm saying. So just like Prabhupada says this Universe is temporary, [but eternal] but also not false. This is the basics I think. The Universe IS eternal but temp, this tells you something special. Please try to think about this concept with the philosophies discussed above.


Eternal yet temprary [look around it's a fact]. If you accept the Muslim way, [islam] you cannot deny it.

You cannot say that God is Impersonal and at the same time say He is not? [Please refer to the Buddist concept for this] and some commen sence. Scientists often tell you that you cannot use commen sence in understanding, but without how did the question come 'wherefrom did we come?'.


Gauranga Mahaprabhu often used commen sence to defeat the Buddists and Mayavdis. And I am also finding it a great tool to defeat my misconceptions. The Universe was exsisting even before Scientists came about! Unfortulaity trying to figure all this out [mayavada and impersonal etc] does make me feel a bit Athiestic, so I lean towards science. So it's like a merry go around. But when you have a choice between Athiesum and Vaishnavisum. Then I am sorry to say 'oh mind' but it is just too attractive and sublime.



SP said:




Rüpänuga: An explosion, a big bang.

Prabhupäda: Eh?

Rüpänuga: A big bang. An explosion.

Haàsadüta: There were some chemicals.

Prabhupäda: So wherefrom the chunk came? That is not... That is their brain fag, that they are simply trying to get everything from matter. That is their material brain. But we see here that the origin is not matter. Origin is Viñëu, Mahä-Viñëu. So Mahä-Viñëu is the supreme soul, mahä, Mahä-Viñëu. So we cannot accept such nonsense theory, that chunk exploded. Where is the evidence that a chunk explodes automatically? How nonsense theory it is. We haven’t got experience. There is explosion of big, big mountains when there is dynamite, and the dynamite is given by some person. So how explosion can take place without the hand of somebody else, some living entity? This simple theory they cannot understand, that where is the evidence that matter acts automatically? Where is the evidence? How you can say that there was a chunk? Suppose there was a chunk. First of all, the question will be: “Who made this chunk?” And then again, next question will be: “How explosion took place unless there was some living being to explode, as we have got experience that sometimes we explode, explode the mountain with dynamite, and that is arranged by a living being?” So they have no common sense even, and they are passing as big, big philosopher, scientist. Then where is the evidence? Can anyone say? Is there any evidence that matter explodes without a living being’s touch? Is there any? No.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.9

Mayapur, April 2, 1975



Matter cannot come from matter. Get your head around that concept. Also Scientists claim that this Big Bang took place inside 'nothing' it had no space around it. So it took place in some vortex. Some unknown place. Where time and space didn't exsist [maybe that's a new concept]. So they are basically saying the Big Bang took place where no time exsisted. [eternality?]. I don't know how you can deny this. If it took place like that it means was there time before it took place? It's a load of hogwash. How long before it took place? When? [NB: SP says it is Sudra brain who understands in this way, they don't question anything,heh. [scientists being sudras].



Prabhupada says who created it?. Must have been somebody, so I been trying to figure it out. Also SP says where is the evidence ? This is what I am asking myself /images/graemlins/grin.gif. How can a Universe be created from a single atom? ANyway the simple thing is 'who created the big bang?'. I think for that I need to use commen sence. /images/graemlins/grin.gif


Ps. The GREATEST and most conclusive thing is, <font color="red"> how do Scientists know the Big Bang was created? </font color> I think it is just a thoery.


Hope I am not repeating myself [is this a blog!?].


Also if the Big Bang took place in Eternality space, then that makes this Universe eternal. [but is it?]. YES. But temporary. Things are dying everyday, so it is both eternal [since it came from something eternal] and temp.


Now Scientists will not accept this, because they are no bloody commen sence. They say it came from eternity so what is the problem? How does something which comes from eternity have a temp life? This means the creator is still in exsistance. Hare Krishna.






Please read Prabhupada Books to find all this out.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read Prabhupada Books or Buy them





READ. And don't forget one thing, you need

very advanced devotee association. Blessings,

etc etc. I am tired now! And i wrote 2 pages. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif


What would we do without these Books? /images/graemlins/confused.gif


Gaura haribol. Nitai /images/graemlins/grin.gif





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I got an e-mail through the post [lol post.] It said to approach a spiritual master, and not read on your own. It is probably the most simplish instruction in exsistance. But the most difficult to understand I feel. [well is for me anyway]. For example I can read at home. On my own. And I get soooooooo many questions, I have google, and Vedabase. But still something missing? Association of Sadhus. If i went to association of devotees, and I saw a copy of Bhagavatam and a devotee. Would I ignore the devotee and start reading Bhagavatam? If the devotee was advanced. [sorry if that sound dumb]. Haribol.




"Because the spiritual master is the representative of the Supreme Lord, his direction is directly the direction of the Supreme Lord. The spiritual master, saintly persons and scriptures direct in the same way. There is no contradiction in these three sources. All actions done under such direction are free from the reactions of pious and impious activities of this material world." (Bhagavad-gita 10.3, purport)



Ps. Even though I am dumb I do try to ask questions. Mostly in private. I guess what I am saying is when Prabhupada is writing things here. It's even everybody, I mean to say. Erm even for initiated devotees. Anyway, I am only saying because we Book is okay. [even if your initiated]. But at the end of the day, have you ever tried to ask a book something? Plus the pure devotees Vani [speech] is animated [as Sridhara Maharaja says]. Anyway, I am not knowing about it. SO i shall stop.







Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when you Worship the impersonal aspect, which is impossible. Because it is not pure or the souls constitutioal position, it doesn't have the spiritual 'rasa'. But the Personal Form of God with His many variengated pastimes does for me anyway. Even using my commen sence, IF I am attracted to these pastimes, again and again and again and again, without ever being tired, how is it that the impersonal aspect can hold attraction for me? Conclude..

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...