KJM@mfs1.ballarat.edu.au (Kevin Moore) wrote:
>In article <xZnglelgYn2S079yn@calvados.apana.org.au>
>madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa) writes:
><piffle deleted, but the following riled me again>
>
>>> Hence, even though these may be logical questions to ask, the answers
>>> don't have to be "common-sensish."
>> This is the escape of one who doesn't know the answers and who can never
>> find them out. There is nothing which is not "common-sensish" one simply
>> has to understand the science of it -- that's all.
>Given that what you seem intent on doing is to fit science neatly into your
>set of beliefs, ignoring the bits that don't fit, the idiocy of this statement
>is breathtaking, Madhudvisa. Having accepted your religion, you have ceased to
>question. How, then, can you expect to know answers? You have traded your
>chance at wisdom for the cheap rhetoric of the priesthood.
The statement is "There is nothing which is not 'common-sensish' one
simply has to understand the science of it -- that's all" is quite
valid. There are so many examples one could quote. In India when the
British started the railway system the trains were not initially very
well understood by some of the villagers. But now they understand [more
or less] how the trains work so it's not a problem any more. You may
consider the big bang not "common-sensish" at the moment but when you
understand the science of it it will become "common-sensish".
Science is knowledge of matter only [at least at the moment]. Science
closes its eyes completely to the vast amount of evidence pointing to
the existence of a spiritual component. I suggest you are the ones in
darkness. You only accept the things you can directly perceive with
your senses even though [for example] it seems quite apparent that
consciousness [the difference between a living body an a dead one] is
something real that can't be explained by a combination of chemicals.
As for your attack on religion and spirituality as being unable to
provide answers to questions, this is your own personal opinion. Many
people do not share your opinion. How can you say you are correct and
they are wrong? Is this not a subjective judgement?
As far as "ignoring the bits that don't fit". That is quit an
acceptable policy within science now. But everything fits very nicely
within the philosophy of Krishna consciousness. That's one of the main
things which attracted me to it.
Thanks for the question. Hare Krishna.
>> Please chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
>Why? I'm happy enough as I am.
That is maya. Everybody thinks they are happy [or at least they will be
happy in the future]. Just go to the hospital and ask the people who
are suffering there, "How are you today Mrs. Such&such", "Oh today I'm
much beter..." It's what enables us to go on struggling in the material
world. It's not a happy place. We don't want to get old, but we are
forced to, we don't want to get sick, but we are forced to, we don't
want to die but we have to. There are also three other types of
problems here; our mind is always causing problems, even when there is
nothing to worry about we are anxious about something; the other living
entities cause us distress [other people, mosquitoes, flies, etc.]; and
so many problems are imposed on us by nature [too hot, too cold,
earthquakes, fires, etc...]
To consider oneself happy surrounded by so many problems is not so
intelligent.
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) /sudarsana
All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org