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