- Prev: Re: Abortion is Murder!
- Next: Re: When the Universe was Dark...
- Index: The Sudarsana Archive -- Date Index
- Thread: The Sudarsana Archive -- Topic Index
Date Index | Topic Index
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org
bromage@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Bromage) wrote:
>bromage@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Bromage) wrote:
>>Scientists have created many new subatomic particles (only recently,
>>we heard about the new quark) and new elements (eg Plutonium) and
>>other materials (eg trinitite) from explosions. So your challenge
>>"anything" has already been met.
>madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>> I was really thinking of something more tangible. Did they actually
>> create them or did they just discover them?
>They created them in the sense that Plutonium does not occur in
>nature (owing to its short life). The top quark can only exist at
>high energy levels. Scientists produced the conditions required
>for these things to form which means, basically, explosions. The
>conditions at the big bang were, again, the correct conditions for
>matter to form.
We accept mass can be created from energy as the Vedas describes sound
as the original cause so undoubtedly it is possible...
<<snip>>
>> Yes, everything we need is there. There are so many, Aurya-Veda for
>> medicinal knowledge, Joyti-Sastras for astronomy and astrology,
>> Manu-Smriti for social rules and regulations,...
>Which scripture should I consult if I have a problem with my
>thesis, on strong subtype systems for logic programming languages?
We have developed a small area in the Vedic scriptures into a very big
one. You won't find to much to directly help you because yours is a
very specialized subject. It's technical knowledge. That type of
knowledge was taught from one technical man to another. It's not so
important really. We take technical knowledge very seriously but in the
Vedic culture they take spiritual knowledge very seriously.
>> Of course so many things are said "somewhere" but that doesn't make it
>> correct.
>Ah. So you _don't_ believe in the inerrancy of the Vedas, then?
I didn't say "somewhere in the Vedas". The authorized Vedic scriptures
are perfect but our interpretation of them may not be. If you study
them you may find some apparent contradictions but that is a problem
with our understanding rather than a problem with the Vedas.
There ard different types of Vedic scriptures. Some contain purely
material knowledge and some contain recommendations that one perform
all sorts of activities to help improve his material life. They provide
information for everyone. But these "material" Vedic scriptures are not
as perfect as Srimad Bhagavatam. The Vedas was written down by Srila
Vyasadeva and he wrote many books but he was still unsatisfied so he
asked his spiritual master, Narada Muni, what was the cause of his
dejection. Narada replied:
"Although, great sage, you have very broadly described the four
principles beginning with religious performances, you have not
described the glories of the Supreme Personality, Vasudeva.
"Those words which do not describe the glories of Lord, who alone can
sanctify the atmosphere of the whole universe, are considered by
saintly persons to be like the a place of pilgrimage for crows. Since
the all-perfect persons are inhabitants of the transcendental abode,
they do not derive any pleasure there.
"On the other hand, that literature which is full of descriptions of
the transcendental glories of the name, fame, forms, pastimes, etc., of
the unlimited Supreme Lord is a different creation, full of
transcendental words directed towards bringing about a revolution in
the impious lives of this world's misdirected civilization. Such
transcendental literatures, even if they are imperfectly composed, are
heard, sung and accepted by purified men who are thoroughly honest."
(Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.5.8-11)
>Saying that they are absolutely perfect and saying that they may be
>individually errant but still "correct" in a global sense are two
>entirely different things.
Even the material ones are "perfect" but they describe material
activities. So saintly persons are not so interested...
>> Our philosophy is in conflict with Sankara's.
>Ah. Well in that case, I would be interested to know exactly what
>are the connections and differences between Krishna consciousness
>and more "orthodox" Hinduism. Do you think of yourselves as Hindu,
>an offshoot of Hinduism, perhaps a "completion" of Hinduism?
We are Viasnavas, devotees of Visnu. There are many Viasnavas in India
and they accept us, we have the same philosophy.
Hinduism is not a religion. It's a term that describes the people
living in a certain geographic region. The Mohamadans would call the
people on the other side of the "Indu" river "Indus" and it became
"Hindu" in time. There are many different systems of religion among
Hindus. Many follow Sankara, their system of worship is Pancopasana,
they worship different "gods" - Visnu, Shiva, Surya [sun god], Ganesh,
etc. They consider all the gods equal. They don't differentiate. Some
are Shivites, they worship Lord Shiva as supreme. But there are many,
many Viasnavas who accept Krishna as the Supreme Personality of
Godhead.
You won't find any Hindus who don't accept Krishna, but there are
differences in how they understand Him.
>> We don't read these people's books! We like to hear about Krishna from
>> the pure devotees. There is great spiritual ecstasy to be found in this
>> exercise. These other books, by the mental speculators, just give you a
>> headache.
>Sounds like Farenheit 451. If you don't want a person to be confused,
>only give him one point of view. Better yet, give him none. You don't
>get any progress, but society is much more ordered that way.
No. We know what they are saying in their books. You can post some of
it if you like and I will refute it. It's just not very good reading.
There's no transcendental bliss there!
Hare Krishna.
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