Vedic knowledge at the foundation of modern science

Originally posted by souverein
If Vedanta is your way to develop to a harmonious and good being so be it. But the rude way you are pushing Vedanta here is counterproductive and harmful.

There is not one malicious bone in my body......but when I am constantly bombard by angry aggressive persons defending their error to the death, then I presents my comments without any sugar coating.

If you read any of my posts that say fool or dishonest or manipulative, then I am simply stating what the other is doing.

I am only declaring what is so....but it is the other that is doing all the agitating, and I only respond to that agitating in a direct truthful manner.....calling a spade a spade.

Originally posted by Dasa
There is not one malicious bone in my body......[...] .....calling a spade a spade.

Calling what you think is a 'spade' a 'spade' hasn't worked out very well for you in this community. Do you think you have been promoting Vedanta effectively here?

Originally posted by Dasa
There is not one malicious bone in my body......but when I am constantly bombard by angry aggressive persons defending their error to the death, then I presents my comments without any sugar coating.

If you read any of my posts that say fool or dishonest or manipulative, then I am simply stating what the other is doing.

I am only declaring what is so....b ...[text shortened]... , and I only respond to that agitating in a direct truthful manner.....calling a spade a spade.

You keep defending your attitude and picture the whole community here as a dark force against your good will and deep insights. You better open your eyes and see what you are harvesting with your bitter remarks. Your approach harms the spirit of Vedanta.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think he is pointing out he said AT the foundation, where the other post said IS the foundation. Nitpicking maybe, but it does slightly change the character of the post. At the foundation would refer to possible correlation of knowledge of early times with modern knowledge. Saying it IS the foundation is much more sweeping, saying they knew about stuff li ...[text shortened]... s or research on HIV or genetics or celestial navigation techniques or transistors and so forth.

I think both ways of putting it imply that modern science comes from Vedic knowledge. This is not true and he hasn't even attempted to show that it is.

In addition, if that one word was the reason he denied making the claim, he could have clarified it. Instead he simply denied making the claim.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think both ways of putting it imply that modern science comes from Vedic knowledge. This is not true and he hasn't even attempted to show that it is.

In addition, if that one word was the reason he denied making the claim, he could have clarified it. Instead he simply denied making the claim.

One also has to bear in mind that he has frequently asserted that science which does not coincide with Vedic "knowledge" is "cheating science", "falsity", "error" and that the propagation of it is "criminal".

Originally posted by Dasa
If you read any of my posts that say fool or dishonest or manipulative, then I am simply stating what the other is doing.

I am only declaring what is so....but it is the other that is doing all the agitating, and I only respond to that agitating in a direct truthful manner.....calling a spade a spade.

If there are two people who are each confident of their opposing opinions and each calls 'a spade a spade' in the manner that you do, then how can their differences be resolved?
You say you are right and that everyone else is 'dishonest'.
I say I am right and you are 'dishonest'.
So what now? How do we resolve this? Do we simply keep calling each other a spade forever, or is there a way to find out which is the real spade?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there are two people who are each confident of their opposing opinions and each calls 'a spade a spade' in the manner that you do, then how can their differences be resolved?
You say you are right and that everyone else is 'dishonest'.
I say I am right and you are 'dishonest'.
So what now? How do we resolve this? Do we simply keep calling each other a spade forever, or is there a way to find out which is the real spade?

Vote on it.

Originally posted by souverein
You keep defending your attitude and picture the whole community here as a dark force against your good will and deep insights. You better open your eyes and see what you are harvesting with your bitter remarks. Your approach harms the spirit of Vedanta.

I am different than other Vaisnava,s, and I present in my own unique way......true, it is probably rough, but that's because I am responding to rough people who constantly agitate.

Originally posted by FMF
One also has to bear in mind that he has frequently asserted that science which does not coincide with Vedic "knowledge" is "cheating science", "falsity", "error" and that the propagation of it is "criminal".

But if you look closely , you will see that science is cheating the people with falsity.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there are two people who are each confident of their opposing opinions and each calls 'a spade a spade' in the manner that you do, then how can their differences be resolved?
You say you are right and that everyone else is 'dishonest'.
I say I am right and you are 'dishonest'.
So what now? How do we resolve this? Do we simply keep calling each other a spade forever, or is there a way to find out which is the real spade?

Well what is the subject matter at hand?........I say science is cheating to present that the creation is a random accident, and they say it is....who,s right?

Someone says dead bodies jump out of the grave.....I say they dont...who,s right.

Originally posted by Dasa
Well what is the subject matter at hand?........I say science is cheating to present that the creation is a random accident, and they say it is....who,s right?

Someone says dead bodies jump out of the grave.....I say they dont...who,s right.

In the case of abiogenesis which says that life originated from more or less random combinations of amino acids and sugars that have been proven to be able to make at least one chink of the piece that becomes RNA, all without introducing living cells, so these scientists are making headway answering the question of whether life could form without supernatural intervention. Are you saying all the results so far are bogus and they are lying about the entire branch of research involved? Mind you, this has nothing to do with evolution, which is the study of what life became through time after life managed to appear, however that may have been. So is abiogenesis a lie? Do you deny the intermediate results already achieved?

Originally posted by sonhouse
In the case of abiogenesis which says that life originated from more or less random combinations of amino acids and sugars that have been proven to be able to make at least one chink of the piece that becomes RNA, all without introducing living cells, so these scientists are making headway answering the question of whether life could form without supernatur ...[text shortened]... t may have been. So is abiogenesis a lie? Do you deny the intermediate results already achieved?

It's really not worth your time or effort. This has been ttied before with him, you can't have a rational conversation with someone who is irrational.

Originally posted by Dasa
Well what is the subject matter at hand?........I say science is cheating to present that the creation is a random accident, and they say it is....who,s right?

Someone says dead bodies jump out of the grave.....I say they dont...who,s right.

Well I say I'm right, you say your right. Asking 'whose right' doesn't resolve it does it?
Insulting each other and accusing each other of being 'dishonest' doesn't resolve it either.
So how do we proceed?

Surely the best way would be a rational discussion where we both explain our point of view, listen to the others point of view and then see which one makes sense or is supported by evidence or is supported by something else. If we still fail to persuade the other then there is sometimes no option but to go our separate ways with differing opinions as to what a spade really is.

You however seem very unwilling to engage in any form of rational discussion. You are only ready to state your claim then accuse anyone not agreeing with you of being dishonest. How you know they are dishonest you are yet to divulge. I have asked if you are a mind reader, but I don't think you have answered that one.

Maybe you are so clever that you assume that everyone else is nearly as clever as you and has come to the same conclusions but is for some inexplicable reason lying about it. I assure you this is not the case. Some of us really do believe that creation is a random accident (or rather the universe is a random accident, I prefer not to confuse matters with the word 'creation'.) and some of us (not myself though) genuinely believe that dead bodies jump out of the grave.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In the case of abiogenesis which says that life originated from more or less random combinations of amino acids and sugars that have been proven to be able to make at least one chink of the piece that becomes RNA, all without introducing living cells, so these scientists are making headway answering the question of whether life could form without supernatur ...[text shortened]... t may have been. So is abiogenesis a lie? Do you deny the intermediate results already achieved?

The scientist engineers the specific conditions to yield the data that they require......or in other words they use an atmosphere specifically engineered to produce amino acids.

You fail to understand that life is spiritual and not material.....so you cannot start with material and get spiritual.

Without the presence of the soul ....there can be no life.

So the question is, can the scientist create the soul.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well I say I'm right, you say your right. Asking 'whose right' doesn't resolve it does it?
Insulting each other and accusing each other of being 'dishonest' doesn't resolve it either.
So how do we proceed?

Surely the best way would be a rational discussion where we both explain our point of view, listen to the others point of view and then see which ...[text shortened]... me of us (not myself though) genuinely believe that dead bodies jump out of the grave.

We can have a discussion when things become complicated, but when things are simple and persons are rejecting..... what would be the use of proceeding into more complicated discussions.

For example..... science says that the cosmos and everything in it is coming from an explosion, so where are we seeing anything useful coming from an explosion....No where, but persons argue that everything has come from an explosion, so how can it be possible to discuss with that?

You want to discuss, and I also want to discuss....but if you hold to the falsity that an explosion is responsible for everything....then I cannot discuss, because I cannot discuss absurdity.

Its like discussing the tooth fairy.....what would we say about it, there's nothing that could be said.