vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>>>I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE MODELS MYSELF ON THE COMPUTER!
>
>>With all due respect, I don't think you have the mental capacity to
>>even understand how the NASA computer models are done...
>
>With all due respect, the method of science indicates one should
>observe and test. And I don't need to take their complicated models
>blindly. You are already blindly assuming that what they say is
>beyond my mental capacity! So how do you know they are right???

I'm not blindly assuming that it's beyond your mental capacity, it's
what scientists would call an educated guess: since you displayed
ignorance about the basics of physics and mathematics, it is not very
likely that you would be able to understand the most advanced works in
computer modeling of the orbital mechanics.

>>but now it's pure SF for me. The thing is damn accurate, practically
>>flawless. If a comet hits Jupiter, they can tell you how this will
>>affect the orbits of every known object in the solar system...
>
>As I said before, if phenomena A occurs and you assume explanation B
>and then conclude, if B then A, it follows that B is still a
>hypothesis. Right??? That is, I can say if C then A and it's quite
>possible that C is a better explanation if it takes into account more
>phenomena more so than what some scientists have observed. You have
>not proven B by explaining some observation A! There can be unlimited
>explanations of A.

It's a standard deduction vs. induction argument, and induction
already won so it's actually nothing to discuss; induction goes from
the reality and forms conclusions made from observation, and deduction
goes from fixed premises and attempts to apply them to an individual
case. So deductive method deduces particular from common, while
induction observes the particular and derives common rules from that.
Since induction is based on reality, and deduction is based on the
mind, deduction remains a sterile mental speculation, while induction
can give us a clearer image of God's work.

>>That is not completely true, it was true before Einstein and those
>>after him, but it's not true now. Today's physics and mathematics are
>>much more flexible and dependent on the circumstances.
>
>But it's impossible for them to take all circumstances into account by
>means of observations because they have no time or capacity to
>consider all possible circumstances of the universe.

So what? That would be a problem if there was a better method around,
but there is not.

>>the constant, and lots of other factors; I can't calculate it, but
>>there are people who can...
>
>See but this is not the scientific method.

I already explained what _is_ the scientific method, I don't intend to
repeat.

>We say you go to a person
>WHO HAS SEEN THE TRUTH.

And that is supposed to be the scientific method?

>And for one who has met such people, this is
>no myth. As far as your procedure goes, unless I can observe for
>myself, why should I blindly accept that someone else can calculate
>it?

Why should you blindly accept that someone knows the truth?

>>but it is even more true for you when you read Srimad Bhagavatam.
>>First, how do you know who wrote it and why? You don't know. How do
>>you know that it isn't just a sophisticated lie...
>
>Certainly, you can say this about anything equally well.

My point exactly.

>the Bhagavatam to be truth which initially seemed hard to believe. I
>can explain all of the phenomena in the universe just using the
>principles of the Bhagavatam.

:))))))))

>>tunneling microscopes that can see and move individual atoms (and
>>write "IBM" with them), radars and computers. It's all still
>
>First of all, both sides have things that are observable and things
>that seem far out. We offer a method of verification, but you don't.

And your method of verification is...?
How do you verify that what is written in SB, actually happened? How
do you prove that Pariksit really existed?

>>of mass. The theory is just wonderful, it is simple, very universal
>>and poetically balanced, and that's why the scientists love it...
>
>Sorry, poetry doesn't have to correspond to reality. How do you know
>Einstein's theory is reality?

It is not the reality. It just tries to explain what happens in some
cases, and it does it better than any alternative theory.

>>Einstein's theory is proven hundreds of times every day in the
>>accelerators around the world; his concept of the energy turning to
>>mass is the basic foundation of those experiments; his anticipation of
>>the relativistic time shift was also proven experimentally.
>
>You keep speaking of someone else having done the experiments, but
>that does not prove the model! All the genuine gurus have also
>realized God and how His creation works by following the method of
>Bhakti. You quote your authority, I will quote mine.

Science does not consist of quoting the authorities, that was done in
the dark ages and abandoned, since it resulted in total collapse.
Scriptures do not give the ultimate reality, the ultimate reality
gives the scriptures; the reality is always bigger than Srimad
Bhagavatam or any other scripture, because there is always more and
better where that came from. The scientific method is about exploring
that ultimate reality, understanding it as far wider than any piece of
literature. Those pieces of literature can help, they can inform and
guide, and that is their purpose. They are meant to help people
experience the spiritual realms. Honor them as such.

>>No, actually those theories are both correct but they aren't
>>interested in the same aspects of the reality, Newton's theory can be
>>seen as a special case of Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic
>>timespace.
>
>Wrong! If Newton cannot explain particles at high speed, it means it
>is imperfect WHICH they thought was good for all particles when he
>first came up with it.

As I said, "Newton's theory can be seen as a special case of
Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic timespace", and you would
understand the implications if you had any scientific education,
because it's the 1st year of college stuff.

>>Of course, that's how it works. We have something less perfect and
>>then we improve it, or reject it for an entirely different approach.
>>It's the learning curve, we don't claim to know all the answers, we're
>>trying to figure them out gradually.
>
>Okay, you don't know. But how do you know that the Bhagavatam is not
>the Absolute Truth? Unless you follow the process/experiment, you can
>never deride it.

That is completely non sequitur - what the hell are you talking about?
What absolute truth? We were talking about astronomy, what absolute
truth? I already told you that you should differentiate between
science and spirituality - in spirituality Srimad Bhagavatam is
probably the highest scripture ever written; in science, it is
completely worthless. That's what I'm saying. It's a holy scripture,
not a scientific text.

>>rejected. It can thus be said that everything that can be
>>experimentally proven is based on reality.
>
>But you don't know what ACTUALLY has been experimentally proven. You

I can experimentally prove that a brick is hard. I can't
experimentally prove something that is beyond my intellectual
potential, like the information that Sun's spectrum is G2. I can only
take someone's word for it because I'm stupid and I can't read the
spectral analysis.

>are taking their word for it. Bhagavatam is also saying that many
>great sages and saints have REALIZED this knowledge as FACT. You just
>have BLIND FAITH in your authorities.

:))

>It's also possible that some
>experiments are just false (like cold fusion) and they may not know
>about them. But we are actually following a process that is gradually
>revealing the Absolute Truth.

You are following something that you think will bring you somewhere,
but it doesn't, and instead you are getting screwed. There's nothing
that resembles the Absolute Truth in you; you are the exact opposite
of the real spirituality. The real spirituality is not inferior to the
common sense, it is superior. The real spirituality does not oppose
the science, because science is based on the reality and explores it;
instead, it acknowledges it and expands it with new horizons and
previously unknown views. The real spirituality does not attempt to
limit the reality to fit into some scripture; instead it understands
the reality in its vastness and expands the views of the soul beyond
the limits of the previously known, and sees the scriptures as the
guides on the path to the goal. The path and the goal are enormous,
and all the milestones and signposts are precious, but they do not
limit the path and they do not limit the goal, they just show the
direction.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>>Then why are you so invested in mixing unrelated issues? Leave the
>>astronomers do their work, accept their results with a grain of salt,
>>and read Srimad Bhagavatam as a spiritual text, not as a science
>>manual.
>
>Because Srimad-Bhagavatam explains everything.

Oh shit, you should have told me that yesterday, I've been trying to
install WinGate on my LAN all day and help files and FAQs were not
very helpful; if I knew that Srimad Bhagavatam explains everything, I
could have looked and saved myself lots of trouble with DNS
configuration.
;>>>>>>

>I don't need the
>astronomical texts which are full of changing speculations.

It's better to have an astronomical text that is 98% true, and full of
changing speculations, than one that is 23% true, but is constant and
unchanging.

>Bhagavatam is science, but since you have not read it, keep your mouth
>shut.

My friend who read this while I wrote this reply thinks that you lack
basic manners, and I agree with her.

>I was replying to Ananda who claims to have read it. I don't
>know why you are replying on his behalf.

Unfortunately he has been silent since, but I hope he'll rejoin the
discussion.

>>Looking at it this way, nobody really knows anything, ..
>
>Speak for yourself. Bhagavatam teaches us a method to attain
>perfection by the process of bhakti-yoga in which the Absolute Truth
>is revealed to the practitioner. You don't know anything, but don't
>say nobody else does.

If I start taking your lines out of context, and applying reductio ad
absurdum, it won't be nice, so I advise you to restrain yourself from
such methods of discussion.

>>>What is reality??? Do you know?
>
>>Accidentally I do, because I teach yoga.
>
>No you don't. You just said above that nobody really knows anything.

:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To refresh your memory, I'll repeat the exact quote:
--
>I have no evidence of the numbers given by scientists as reality.

Looking at it this way, nobody really knows anything, we could be
monkeys plugged into a computer on an alien spaceship, which projects
the artificial reality upon us to test our reactions. You can't prove
this false, you can only say that this assumption doesn't look like a
good model of the reality.
--

So, in the context of you saying that you can't know that the
scientists tell the truth, I said that you can't know that anything is
truth, that the only measure of truth for you can be your experience,
and your experience can be an utter illusion. In that context, the
knowledge is a very problematic category which can easily be
manipulated. You have to assume many things - for instance that your
experience is based on reality, and not on illusion; if your
experience is based on illusion, then your reading of Srimad
Bhagavatam can't represent an exception; it, too, must be an illusion,
so you are essentially fucked. So you have to assume that what you
experience is a view of the reality, of a sort, and not some sort of a
dream. If it's related to the reality, then we can speculate about the
accuracy of that perception.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Lupio

Lupio wrote:
>> Jebes prazninu. To je samo stanje astrala, nista vise. Bitan je Bog.
>> Boga se dostize razumijevanjem biti najljepseg, najsvjesnijeg,
>> najmocnijeg i najjasnijeg. Boga se dostize opazanjem stvarnosti i
>> putem od stvarnosti ka visoj stvarnosti. Razumijevanjem Boga dolazi do
>> predanosti Bogu, a predanost Bogu dovodi do istinskog prosvjetljenja.
>> Sve ostalo je prodavanje neke vrste magle.
>
>Praznina se ne može promatrati odvojeno od Božanske suštine,

Moze itekako, moze se promatrati kao stanje uma ispraznjenog od
dojmova, koji ne sudjeluje ni na koji nacin u Bozanskom, a praznina o
kojoj Ti govoris upravo to jest.

>Tema ovog foruma je RELIGIJA, a ta rije? izvorno iz latinskog zna?i Re
>(ponovo) - Ligere (spojiti se), zna?i spojiti se sa Bogom, a to je
>spajanje s Prazninom,

Te stvari nisu istoznacnice.

>svjesnost toga je potpuno prosvijetljenje.

To nije istina.

>Prazninu je teško intelektuano/filozofski objesniti, nju treba direktno
>DOŽIVJETI.

Takav dozivljaj nije nista posebno, ja bih savjetovao svakome da to
proba kako bi mogao odbaciti.

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Vladimir Kovacevic

Vladimir.Kovacevic@sprint.pub.hr (Vladimir Kovacevic) wrote:
>Zemlji, umjesto unutar raketoplova ili svemirske stanice. Oni, zapravo, vjeruju
>da se tim zemaljskim oblikom "svemirskih" istra`ivanja mo`emo pribli`iti
>znanstveno-fantasti~nome protugravitacijskome stroju. (SdP)

Ma nije to to, ovo je maglev fenomen (MAGnetskaLEVitacija), ne
antigravitacija, to nema jedno s drugim veze. To je samo varijacija na
temu levitacije supravodica iznad magneta.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>The astronomical observations do not threaten Srimad-Bhagavatam.

Then why are you so invested in mixing unrelated issues? Leave the
astronomers do their work, accept their results with a grain of salt,
and read Srimad Bhagavatam as a spiritual text, not as a science
manual.

>I have no evidence of the numbers given by scientists as reality.

Looking at it this way, nobody really knows anything, we could be
monkeys plugged into a computer on an alien spaceship, which projects
the artificial reality upon us to test our reactions. You can't prove
this false, you can only say that this assumption doesn't look like a
good model of the reality. The scientists are supposed to be aware of
their limitations and take their own results skeptically, but
unfortunately most of them don't, they are doing the same thing you
are: they are drawing spiritual conclusions from the material
observations, and you are drawing material conclusions from a
scripture. That is the wrong approach, those things should not be
mixed, or we'll have serious problems.

>What is reality??? Do you know?

Accidentally I do, because I teach yoga.

>[rest of the garbage deleted]

Ditto, my friend, rest of the garbage deleted.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>>degree of error, or it is not scientifically accepted). I don't know
>>the actual numbers, but I don't think that the modern computer models
>>have errors of more than several centimeters in the orbits of planets
>>around the Sun; the calculation is very accurate and includes all
>>sorts of Newtonian and relativistic corrections.
>
>I HAVE DONE SOME OF THE MODELS MYSELF ON THE COMPUTER!

With all due respect, I don't think you have the mental capacity to
even understand how the NASA computer models are done. I for sure
don't, and I've studied physics for a while, before abandoning it and
dedicating my life to God. In my time I could get a reasonably good
idea about those calculations, I could even perform some simpler ones,
but now it's pure SF for me. The thing is damn accurate, practically
flawless. If a comet hits Jupiter, they can tell you how this will
affect the orbits of every known object in the solar system. They use
the gravity of the planets to accelerate spacecrafts with complete
accuracy. It's not based on speculations, because if it were so, it
wouldn't work, and it works damn well.

>They ASSUME conditions on earth apply to conditions in ALL of space.
>They ASSUME conditions on earth are similar to conditions on other
>planets.
>They ASSUME the formulas that they use are accurate for all time,
>place, and circumstance.
>etc.etc.

That is not completely true, it was true before Einstein and those
after him, but it's not true now. Today's physics and mathematics are
much more flexible and dependent on the circumstances.

>Let me give you one example: Let's say you see a star in the sky.
>They use the brightness factor in some equations to determine the
>distance. So how does one tell the difference between a star that is
>nearby with higher intensity of light than a star that is far away
>with low internal intensity?

It's a good question, and I can't remember the answer, I would have to
go through the books and remember how it's done; it's not just the
brightness, it's the spectrum, spectral shift (usually red) which
gives us the speed relative to the observer, there's the lightspeed as
the constant, and lots of other factors; I can't calculate it, but
there are people who can. Those factors that you've mentioned are
valid in extreme examples, but in most cases the spectral analysis can
give us very detailed answers, if some basic assumptions are correct.
(i.e. that c=const.)

>Anyway, I have thrown away most of their
>garbage, but if you post your equations here and tell me how they are
>not assuming many conditions, then we can have an intellectual
>discussion.

You are also assuming many things. You are saying that scientists use
the imperfect senses and the imperfect minds to observe. That is true,
but it is even more true for you when you read Srimad Bhagavatam.
First, how do you know who wrote it and why? You don't know. How do
you know that it isn't just a sophisticated lie (some truths, some
lies, just enough to trick you)? You don't know. How can you check
that things said in there are true? You can't. Everything that you
base on Srimad Bhagavatam is just a mental speculation, a belief that
something makes sense and something doesn't, and that belief is based
on your imperfect mind, and soul attached to the lower material
qualities and lower senses. Basically, you don't know anything.
Scientists are at least honest (they should be, at least), they say
that they don't know anything about the world, that they are trying to
figure it out, and they didn't get any answers from anyone. They don't
even believe that their senses observe the real world, they know very
well the limitations of the senses, and they are able to produce the
amplifiers for the senses and the mind - Hubble Space Telescope,
tunneling microscopes that can see and move individual atoms (and
write "IBM" with them), radars and computers. It's all still
imperfect, but it's better than nothing, much better than mere
assumptions based on a scripture, that can never be verified, but only
believed in.

>>The simpler theory is the one that explains ALL THE OBSERVATIONS in
>>the SIMPLEST possible way. This means that two basic conditions must
>>be met for a theory to be accepted as good: it must explain everything
>>that is known, and it must do it in a simpler way than the alternative
>>theory. Einstein's theory explained everything that the Newton's
>>theory could explain, and it also explained some things that Newton's
>>theory _couldn't_ explain - for instance an error in Mercury's orbit
>>caused by the timespace bend caused by the proximity of the Sun's mass
>>- and therefore it's simply a better theory.
>
>No, they accepted Einstein and later on found more observations. They

There was a full solar eclipse in the pre-WW2 times, and there was an
observation of the gravity lensing, and Einstein's special theory of
relativity (the early version) was the only one capable of explaining
the phenomenon; there was also a mismatch between the observed Mercury
orbit and the Newtonian calculations, and again Einstein was the only
one with the theory capable of explaining it exactly. Basically, those
two things were the reason for its acceptance; combined with the
famous e=mc^2, which is just a small derivation from the theory, and
gave the theoretical explanation of the nuclear energy, and the defect
of mass. The theory is just wonderful, it is simple, very universal
and poetically balanced, and that's why the scientists love it. There
still isn't much to be added to it, except for the attempts to make a
GUT, a quantum theory of gravity, which will supposedly to unite
Planck, Heisenberg and Einstein.

>did not apply Occam's rule when they accepted Einstein. Even now,
>when a particle is accelerated close to the speed of light or
>theoretically equal to it, they claim it follows Einstein's theory
>rather than Newton's laws. But they never accelerated particles close
>to the speed of light until recently. And THEY STILL HAVE NOT reached
>the speed of light, so why did they accept Einstein's theory back when
>they had no observations or evidence???

Einstein's theory is proven hundreds of times every day in the
accelerators around the world; his concept of the energy turning to
mass is the basic foundation of those experiments; his anticipation of
the relativistic time shift was also proven experimentally.

>And if Einstein's theory is
>more accurate for a greater number of phenomenon it means NEWTON was
>wrong!

No, actually those theories are both correct but they aren't
interested in the same aspects of the reality, Newton's theory can be
seen as a special case of Einstein's theory applied to the isotropic
timespace.

>So how do you know Einstein's theory is reality????

I don't, but it's better than the alternative explanations.

>>ground in physics. As for the Newtonian physics, it's still good if
>>you don't travel too fast and don't get too close to the black holes.
>>It isn't abandoned, it's simply corrected in the extremes by discovery
>>of some other laws of nature that act in such extremes.
>
>So is it possible that they are completely wrong and their is superior
>model that explains the current phenomenon and more???

Yes, it is possible.

>That's what
>they are telling us- that what we *know* now can change with a better
>equation.

Of course, that's how it works. We have something less perfect and
then we improve it, or reject it for an entirely different approach.
It's the learning curve, we don't claim to know all the answers, we're
trying to figure them out gradually.

>This means that the equation itself is not a reflectance of
>reality but their speculation based on their biased sample of
>observations.

Maybe, but if it isn't based on reality it can't be proven by
experiment and thus it fails the scientific method of approval, and is
rejected. It can thus be said that everything that can be
experimentally proven is based on reality.

>>If we have imperfect senses, we invent a doppler radar and similar
>>gadgets. There are gadgets like computerized color doppler ultrasound
>>scanner, which can observe the blood flow in a fetus inside a womb,
>>with such precision that would make your jaw drop. Our senses aren't
>>infallible, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their field of
>>application...
>
>So can you say you are observing reality or something that the doppler
>radar is reporting???

Why are you using the increasingly greater number of question marks?
Is that supposed to make me question harder, or take you more
seriously?

If the doppler radar's reports were in serious disagreement with
reality, it wouldn't be used. However, it is true that the radar can
be wrong in its assessment of the situation, because it is just
another physical sense, although more sophisticated in some respects
compared to the human senses. It is fallible, but represents an
improvement. With it, you can see underground objects, you can analyze
the spectrum of some object and determine some qualities of the
material, and it can be used to visually observe the flow of blood
within the body, telling you even the temperature of blood in each
blood vessel. Its results can be tested with other methods, and that's
how it's determined if they're true or false.

>You have faith that the doppler radar is giving
>accurate readings.

Yes. For instance it tells you that there's an underground river at
some place. You can dig and see if there really is a river, and thus
experimentally prove its existence. It isn't always based on faith,
and the faith is well argumented, because if you see that it works
well in nine cases, if it tells you something in the tenth case,
you'll be very inclined to take it seriously. It isn't all built on
clouds, you know.

>Let's stick to one point at a time: in astronomy,
>how do you know that the conditions of the doppler radar apply equally
>well in space and other planets?

It uses the doppler effect, which basically says that the spectrum of
the objects that move towards you shifts to violet, and the spectrum
of the objects that move away from you shifts to red. The example of
that is an ambulance car, if you heard its siren while passing you by
- the sound becomes deeper as it moves away. That effect is universal
for all the waves, including the electromagnetic waves. That is one of
the main proofs for the wave nature of the light. Depending on the
specific conditions and the environment, the computer in the radar
(which is the main thing, since the picture is the computer-made
analysis of the observation) and the sensory equipment (ultrasound,
sound or EM spectrum) have to be adjusted accordingly - the radar
mounted on the space shuttle, that scans the underground objects using
the microwaves isn't the same as the scanner used in medicine, but the
Doppler effect and the Fourier's analysis are universal. (Damire, ako
Ti se da, dopuni me ovdje malo, lagano sam tanak na tom
hardveru/Damir, if you feel like it, fill me in a bit here, I'm a bit
thin with that hardware).

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
From the Bhagavatam's point of view, the scientists are subject to the
>four defects so even the experiments can be wrong;

>The numbers given by scientists are just AVERAGE numbers not EXACT and
>their formulas are questionable.

This is a gross inaccuracy. The truth is that they can be wrong, but
in what sense and to what degree? You say that the scientific
calculation of the planetary orbits are inaccurate; I believe that
they are, but if you ask a kind question to some person at
www.nasa.gov , I think they will give you the degree of error in their
calculations (yes, every scientific calculation must also give the
degree of error, or it is not scientifically accepted). I don't know
the actual numbers, but I don't think that the modern computer models
have errors of more than several centimeters in the orbits of planets
around the Sun; the calculation is very accurate and includes all
sorts of Newtonian and relativistic corrections. Even the light bend
around the Sun and the planets can be calculated very accurately. The
science has its blind spots, it has its stupidities, but it is so
widely accepted exactly because of the enormous precision of some of
its branches, like physics and mathematics, and if you are going to
attack science, please don't try it with the astronomy, because you'll
look like a moron.

>> There is a principle called Occam's Razor, that should be invoked in
>> such cases. Basically it means that, when there are two explanations
>> proposed for a phenomenon, the simpler one is the one more likely to
>> be correct...
>
>Is Occam a liberated soul that we should accept his rule? Even modern
>science rejects it! Previously they thought they have all the
>solutions with Physics and later Einstein came along and introduced
>formulas more complicated than Newton. Using this rule, they should
>reject Einstein right?

##"%$#%#/ :((((((
The simpler theory is the one that explains ALL THE OBSERVATIONS in
the SIMPLEST possible way. This means that two basic conditions must
be met for a theory to be accepted as good: it must explain everything
that is known, and it must do it in a simpler way than the alternative
theory. Einstein's theory explained everything that the Newton's
theory could explain, and it also explained some things that Newton's
theory _couldn't_ explain - for instance an error in Mercury's orbit
caused by the timespace bend caused by the proximity of the Sun's mass
- and therefore it's simply a better theory. Occam's razor could apply
if there was another theory alternative to Einstein's, which would
attempt to explain the mystery. Einstein's theory is mathematically
complex, but it is, in scientific terms, very simple, because it
explains lots of things with very little basic assumptions and
problems, it says that timespace is non-isotropic and it can be bent
proportionally to mass; it also says that time slows down and your
mass grows as you speed up, and those basic assumptions cover lots of
ground in physics. As for the Newtonian physics, it's still good if
you don't travel too fast and don't get too close to the black holes.
It isn't abandoned, it's simply corrected in the extremes by discovery
of some other laws of nature that act in such extremes.

>> conscious devotees need to abandon perverse anti-science world views
>> fostering over-credulous gullibility, and cultivate an understanding
>> of the scientific method, including a sound knowledge of observation
>> based astronomy.
>
>If you have perfect sense perception, go for it. As far as I know,
>when I see a mirage, it definitely looks like water to me. Using
>Occam's trash rule, it IS WATER! But scientists give a much more
>complex explanation of why it's not water.

If we have imperfect senses, we invent a doppler radar and similar
gadgets. There are gadgets like computerized color doppler ultrasound
scanner, which can observe the blood flow in a fetus inside a womb,
with such precision that would make your jaw drop. Our senses aren't
infallible, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their field of
application. If I smack your head with a brick, it will hurt, and your
senses will be very accurate.

>master and your spiritual life. Again, the same example, NEWTON'S
>LAWS WERE EXPLAINING EVERY EXPERIMENT, so what was the use of

No they were not, go back to school and learn, then come again.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

vdayal@castle.net (Virender Dayal) wrote:
>dturina@geocities.com (Danijel Turina) wrote:
>
>>I must compliment you on the wisest and clearest post that I have read
>>in a long, long time. I agree with you completely and it makes me very
>>glad to see the balance in your logic. Again, you have my most sincere
>>compliments and best wishes.
>
>That was the biggest bag of garbage I have read here on this
>newsgroup. Blasphemy of all pure devotees of Lord Krsna and their
>sastra.

Would you please be so kind to elaborate on that? Personally, I saw
none of that in his post, it is very well grounded in reality and has
a healthy balance, unlike all the spitting work that I encounter on
this NG all the time, and I'm very happy that people like him write
here, because they are unlikely to respond with a pack of insults and
flames copied from some book.
As for his arguments, they can be found insulting only if an impartial
observation of the reality threatens your philosophy, and if that is
the case, you would be better off without your philosophy. If you
think that astronomical observations threaten Srimad Bhagavatam, then
it's either that Srimad Bhagavatam is a holy scripture, and you didn't
understand its message so you think it is in conflict with reality, or
Srimad Bhagavatam is not a holy scripture, and it tries to describe
the reality, making serious mistakes in the process, thus discrediting
itself. It's one of those two, you take your pick.

>The fifth Canto was one of the reasons I was attracted to Krsna
>Consciousness. I have 4.0 in calculus, Physics, mathematics, etc. I

That means nothing, some of the most ignorant people I know, members
of some "born again Christian" cults, who defended utter nonsense on
hr.fido.religija newsgroup, were college students, training to be
engineers, with very good grades.

>didn't rely on any blind foolish belief system. It makes complete
>sense what is stated in the Fifth Canto. People who cannot understand
>it should keep their mouths shut or find someone who does understand
>it.

We had such discussion before on hr.fido.religija; it was not about
Srimad Bhagavatapurana, but about the Bible. Some creationists had a
serious problem with the evolution, they couldn't accept it so they
tried to prove that the science got it wrong - they couldn't; they
also tried the argument about the imperfection of the human senses,
claiming that all the bones of the older versions of man were somehow
a hallucination, or a work of devil, trying to seduce pure men from
firm belief in the word of God (!).

Here's what my friend Ratko Jakopec, who studies Catholic theology
with the Jesuits, said, paraphrased from my memory. He said that the
basic mistake of the protestants is the misunderstanding of the nature
of the Bible. The Bible originates from a Semite culture, where people
expressed their views of the reality in images, whereas the Greek
culture tends to form definitions of the terms.
The Bible is history of human relationship with God, that relationship
evolved to reach its perfection in the appearance and the life of
Jesus Christ; in the New Testament God's will is expressed perfectly,
whereas in the Old Testament it is not, and therefore the Old
Testament should be read in the light of the New, and thus correctly
interpreted. If the Old Testament says "eye for an eye", and Jesus
says "love your enemies", then Jesus has the priority.
Furthermore, it is a common mistake to view the holy scriptures as if
they were some sort of an encyclopedia. They are not. They do not
consist of terms and their definitions which could apply to the
reality; on the contrary, they consist of images that are meant to
bring man closer to God, by forming higher images in his
consciousness. Jesus didn't speak in definitions, he spoke in images,
giving people the images that will clarify his point - giving examples
of situations that conveyed the point he was trying to make.
People also expect the holy scriptures to be some sort of books of
law, with regulations that must be observed or dire consequences will
arise; that is also not true. If that were so, Jesus could be seen as
just another prophet who repeated God's law, and a quote from John
could be seen as of equal importance as one from Jonas. But it is
exactly the opposite - Jesus came to _free_ people from the concept of
the law, and introduced the concept of mercy and love. He simplified
the concepts and said that the most important things are to love God
with all our being, and love our neighbor equally, and all the law and
the prophets can be derived from that. Love does no evil, love does
not harm. Lovers do not hurt the ones they love. This is the key to
perfection, and conveying that is the purpose of the holy scriptures.

Srimad Bhagavatapurana is in that respect no different from the Bible,
it also consists of the images and stories that are meant to introduce
the love of God into a person's heart; bringing it there, they make it
grow and spread, purifying a human being into a living perfection of
the highest consciousness living in a body. This is the purpose of
this scripture; it is not an encyclopedia, because it is written in an
environment which does not know the encyclopedia as in the Greek
philosophical circles: as a set of precise definitions of terms.
Bhagavatapurana doesn't give the exact information that a book of
maths written by Demidovich gives; it doesn't have the accuracy of any
scientific material, compared to those materials it is grossly
inaccurate and false, and contains nothing of value to an astronomer
or a physicist. It is not meant to be read by the astronomers and the
physicists, it is meant to be read by the devotees, and to them it
brings, in images and stories, the vision of the inner spiritual
realm. And there, it is the best, it is probably the highest spiritual
material that I've ever had the privilege to read; it begins where
most holy scriptures end, and Sri Vyasa's insight and abilities to
express the inexpressible are the honor to the human race (and of
course his son Suka is included in that praise). They are the proof
that even the highest states of consciousness can be brought into a
form that can be written on the paper, without just saying that those
are the matters about which nothing can be said, as most mystics do.
If you do not see his work in the context it was written, you are the
one who blasphemes, because you make him look ridiculous in comparison
with scientific material which describes the precise facts about the
laws of physics and their application. So, please, if you want to know
how God's inner being works, read Srimad Bhagavatam, and if you want
to know if Sun is closer to Earth than the Moon, go study physics on a
college, and leave Srimad Bhagavatam alone, and spare Maharsi Vyasa
the agony of seeing you butcher his honorable work.

--
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Miroslav Ambrus Kis

Miroslav.Ambrus.Kis@sprint.pub.hr (Miroslav Ambrus Kis) wrote:
>RP> "Ja preuzimam na sebe teret svih patnji, odlucan sam da to
>RP> cinim, istrajuci u tome. Ja se ne okrecem niti bjezim, ne
>RP> drhtim, ne plasim se niti bojim, ne predajem se, niti se
>RP> kolebam.
>
>MAK>Krist onda bas i ne bi odgovarao toj definiciji ;-) (vidi pod
>MAK>dogadjajima u Getsemaniji)
>
> RP> Ne citati doslovno ;)))))))))
>
>Nego kako?
>Onaj "strah i drhtanje" Kristovo u Getsemaniji, ono "kolebanje" o tome da
>"ako je ikako moguce da me mioidje ova casa... ali ne kako ja hocu..." itd...
>ono lomljenje... nekako mi je nespojivo s onim koji se "ne okrece, ne bjezi,
>ne drhti, ne plasi se niti boji, ne predaje se, niti se koleba"...
>Dakle, usporedno, kako to onda treba citati?

Mislim da uopce nema paradoksa. Naime prije izbora odredjene staze
postojat ce sumnja, postojat ce dvojba i postojat ce kolebanje, ali
uoci kako je Isus nosio svoj kriz nakon sto je donio odluku - tada je
svakog traga dvojbe i kolebanja nestalo.

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net

X-Ftn-To: Lupio

Lupio wrote:
>> Esencijalna pogreska u takvom naucavanju je nerazumijevanje
>> sveprisutne Bozanske naravi koja prozima sve stvoreno, i koja nije
>> nesto protiv cega bi se covjek trebao boriti ili to nadvladavati, nego
>> nesto cemu bi se trebalo predati i s tim se uskladititragaoci za ih
>> Iskreni tragaoci sebe zele nadici, a ne afirmirati.
>
>Potpuno se slažem sa re?enim, i mislim da je svaki korak na stazi treba
>biti uskla?ivanje i predavanje Božanskom.
>I smatram da je trik zvan Lan?ana meditacija samo jedan korak
>predavanja Božanskoj suštini, Sunyati. U Praznini/Sunyati nema ega,
>nema niti dobra niti zla, samo ogoljena Istina.

Jebes prazninu. To je samo stanje astrala, nista vise. Bitan je Bog.
Boga se dostize razumijevanjem biti najljepseg, najsvjesnijeg,
najmocnijeg i najjasnijeg. Boga se dostize opazanjem stvarnosti i
putem od stvarnosti ka visoj stvarnosti. Razumijevanjem Boga dolazi do
predanosti Bogu, a predanost Bogu dovodi do istinskog prosvjetljenja.
Sve ostalo je prodavanje neke vrste magle.

-----
Web (Kundalini-yoga): http://danijel.cjb.net