PDA

View Full Version : Concept of God



coolbodhi
13 April 2006, 12:08 PM
Do you guys ever feel that this concept of God is kinda overblown. I mean who in his right mind be playing a game like this. Is this all for entertainment, I wonder? Wouldn't god have made us 100 times better than we are now? Why didn't he give us all super powers of love and bliss to begin with?

Singhi Kaya
13 April 2006, 12:24 PM
As some will say - "why do you think he hasn't already given those super powers?"

ramkish42
13 April 2006, 02:56 PM
Question is very nice and easy to raise such question.

My response

1. Sages had determined many ways to understand a subject. Our perceptors classified them in three ways. They are Praatyaaksha, anumaana and Saastra. Presence of god can be determined only by Saastra and not by other two means. (request you to post a query separately to me in this forum or by email to me at ramkish42@toughguy.net if you have any queries on this three) As you are trying to understand lord by anumaana this is not allowing you to reach him. The basic idea is this - Praatyaksha and anumaana are limited and finite hence such things cannot refer to some thing that is infinite. Let me give you a practical example

I want to you make a infinite number by adding any number continously. all mathematicians will say as long as you add finite numbers you will get only finite answers. Suppose you try adding one infinity to anything immediately you will get infinity. This infinity is greatest knowledge - knowledge of soul, god and their relationship which can be obtained only by infinite source which Saastra. As Isha ritely points out

poornamataha poornamitam poornaath poornamadhayasyathe
poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaava sishyathe

Infinity emanates from infinity

2. Now to answer you question directly.

God has bestowed super powers on you. It is just hidden. Why it is hidden? if you fall back and become mischievous there is no point in giving you super powers. These super powers are terms as Asta Siddhi which you can obtain by performing different duties as prescribed by scriptures. This super power has another form called gnaana which you can get by reading many scriptures, being in satsanga , by loving god. This super power has another name called Yoga which you can practise. This super power has another name called aatma which you should realise by scriptures or all by yourself by abstaining from preyas and concenrating on sreyas. There are so many super powers like this

In case you do not understand any of my words in sanskrit, request you to bounce back

Last but not least,
asurya naamate lokaa, andheena tamasaavruta
thaanste pretyaapi gachanti ye ka cha aatmahane jana

Pls do not deny your soul what it rightly deserves

coolbodhi
13 April 2006, 06:16 PM
Question is very nice and easy to raise such question.

My response

1. Sages had determined many ways to understand a subject. Our perceptors classified them in three ways. They are Praatyaaksha, anumaana and Saastra. Presence of god can be determined only by Saastra and not by other two means. (request you to post a query separately to me in this forum or by email to me at ramkish42@toughguy.net if you have any queries on this three) As you are trying to understand lord by anumaana this is not allowing you to reach him. The basic idea is this - Praatyaksha and anumaana are limited and finite hence such things cannot refer to some thing that is infinite. Let me give you a practical example

I want to you make a infinite number by adding any number continously. all mathematicians will say as long as you add finite numbers you will get only finite answers. Suppose you try adding one infinity to anything immediately you will get infinity. This infinity is greatest knowledge - knowledge of soul, god and their relationship which can be obtained only by infinite source which Saastra. As Isha ritely points out

poornamataha poornamitam poornaath poornamadhayasyathe
poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaava sishyathe

Infinity emanates from infinity

2. Now to answer you question directly.

God has bestowed super powers on you. It is just hidden. Why it is hidden? if you fall back and become mischievous there is no point in giving you super powers. These super powers are terms as Asta Siddhi which you can obtain by performing different duties as prescribed by scriptures. This super power has another form called gnaana which you can get by reading many scriptures, being in satsanga , by loving god. This super power has another name called Yoga which you can practise. This super power has another name called aatma which you should realise by scriptures or all by yourself by abstaining from preyas and concenrating on sreyas. There are so many super powers like this

In case you do not understand any of my words in sanskrit, request you to bounce back

Last but not least,
asurya naamate lokaa, andheena tamasaavruta
thaanste pretyaapi gachanti ye ka cha aatmahane jana

Pls do not deny your soul what it rightly deserves

Very nice reply. But please, I do not understand the bolded words in your message. Please explain the meanin of these words and then I shall comment on your nice reply.

ramkish42
14 April 2006, 12:12 PM
Praatyaaksha, anumaana and Saastra
Sensing direclty, Inference and texts


poornamataha poornamitam poornaath poornamadhayasyathe
poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaava sishyathe
This is infinity; that is infinity; infinity emanates from infinity; if infinity removed from infinity infinity still remain.

Here the words infinity refers to Soul and God as per Masters

gnaana - Knowledge
satsanga - Good Company
aatma - Soul
preyas - Plesant Activities
sreyas - Good Activities

When you comment send me indication to ramkish42@toughguy.net pls

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 09:56 AM
Do you guys ever feel that this concept of God is kinda overblown. I mean who in his right mind be playing a game like this. Is this all for entertainment, I wonder? Wouldn't god have made us 100 times better than we are now? Why didn't he give us all super powers of love and bliss to begin with?


Is this when evolution should be brought up? If you think about it the evolution theory does sound someone intelligent created it, it seems like someone's plan, why would you put living things on a planet that changes without having the species adapt to the changing planet. Dinosaurs died out but more than likely became birds because the planet changed, giving rise to us. Evolution isn't as random as some people think. There's my theory on it, if we were 100% better so quickly than it would be too easy. Even Manu says that we evolved, if anyone has that quote from him feel free to do so if I don't find it. :)

Singhi Kaya
15 April 2006, 10:08 AM
Is this when evolution should be brought up? If you think about it the evolution theory does sound someone intelligent created it, it seems like someone's plan, why would you put living things on a planet that changes without having the species adapt to the changing planet. Dinosaurs died out but more than likely became birds because the planet changed, giving rise to us. Evolution isn't as random as some people think. There's my theory on it, if we were 100% better so quickly than it would be too easy.

Hindu's are most ancient believers in evolution. But not natural selection.
But I don't see a problem with natural selection at a purely physical level.

Singhi Kaya
15 April 2006, 10:12 AM
Dear Ramkish, can you please site some evidence why Praatyaaksha, anumaana are not valid path of God realization?

Needless to say, it makes no sense to me.

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 10:16 AM
Hindu's are most ancient believers in evolution. But not natural selection.
But I don't see a problem with natural selection at a purely physical level.

Darwin's theory is a bit flawed, he couldn't even explain flowered plants. Dinosaurs for instance: It's obvious that they became birds, during the Jurassic and Cretaceous period their skeletal system took on more birdlike features and even T-Rex has feathers on top of his body. Now my question is what form was between the scales and feathers. How did scales become feathers, where's the fossil record? Another thing about Darwin is that he didn't have the technology to view the complexity of the DNA molecule, especially human DNA. People just simply said, " oh humans and apes look similar therefore humans must come from apes". Not so, the lemur is a primate at first glance you would think it was related to a raccoon. Manatees are related to elephants, do they look that similar? Nope. The human genome project found out that humans are closer to dolphins than apes, has anyone heard of this?

Singhi Kaya
15 April 2006, 10:24 AM
Nope haven't heard. My biology days are long over, plus I hated it.

Humans genes closer dolphins sounds a bit crazy at first instance. Can you give us a link to this quite incredible discovery?

But I thought evolution of humans is pretty well researched with so many species of pre-historic human being confirmed? May be all missing links has not been set right.

At any rate, this only says current theory has not been able to explain evolution even at physical level. But a guy sapping finger in the sky is a poor alternative;)

nekozuki
15 April 2006, 10:39 AM
Well, they think the dolphin may have been on land at one time and dolphins and apes split off somewhere down the line and dolphins went back into the water. We happen to be the closest thing to a dolphin in the ape family. Its called the aquatic ape theory I believe.


http://www.planetpuna.com/siriusa/AQApe.htm

http://paulapeterson.com/dolphin_human_connection.html


Here are some links. It's still a theory so decide for yourself.

sarabhanga
16 April 2006, 01:09 AM
The Human Genome Project has NOT found that Humans are more closely related to Dolphins than to Primates, and the cited web-pages provide absolutely no evidence of this!

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 09:10 AM
Say what you want, but there's evidence proving we act nothing like apes.

Apes don't like water, we do and obviously dolphins.
Apes give birth in the dead of night, us and dolphins have them anytime
Apes normally copulate from behind, both humans and dolphins normally do it face to face
Humans and dolphins are the ONLY two animals that copulate for pleasure
Both dolphins and humans have difficult births, difficult births for apes are rare
When both dolphins and humans give birth the females assist.


There's a lot more than what I've mentioned above,but believe what you want. Those similarities just say it's in the genetics. Obviously you don't watch Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel they had something on it about a year ago.

Namo Narayana
16 April 2006, 09:28 AM
Well, they think the dolphin may have been on land at one time and dolphins and apes split off somewhere down the line and dolphins went back into the water. We happen to be the closest thing to a dolphin in the ape family. Its called the aquatic ape theory I believe.


http://www.planetpuna.com/siriusa/AQApe.htm

http://paulapeterson.com/dolphin_human_connection.html


Here are some links. It's still a theory so decide for yourself.

I have seen an NGEO Or Discovery that whales were once in land.

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 09:30 AM
Yes, and so did dolphins and they think that apes and hoofed mammals split off from the dolphin when it was on land and we happen to be the closest to the dolphin than any of the other apes.

Singhi Kaya
16 April 2006, 09:57 AM
I believe you neko, we came from a fish of some sort to start with;)

nekozuki
16 April 2006, 10:15 AM
Even though a dolphin is not really a fish but I see what you're saying. There was a certain fish millions upon millions of years ago that became what is called vertebrates today. Anything with a spine came from that fish. Regardless, we came from the ocean......period. There is evidence that the dolphin was once on land and that apes split off from them. A dolphin is way more intelligent than a chimpanzee wouldn't it make sense that we came from a dolphin and they're still finding out things about a dolphin's intelligence.

sarabhanga
17 April 2006, 12:22 AM
Namaste Nekozuki,

I have often seen monkeys swimming ~ and even swimming underwater!

Apes can give birth at any time!

Bonobo Chimpanzees regularly copulate from every direction, and generally only for pleasure and bonding!

Obviously you have not studied Biology ~ so please read on.

Humans are Primates ~ which includes Monkeys, Lemurs, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, etc..

The closest relatives of the Primates are the Tree-Shrews.

Primates, Tree-Shrews, Flying-Lemurs, and Bats, are all related.

Now, this group of Human relatives belongs to a broad group of more or less equally related animals.

Nearest our particular sub-group (including Humans, Lemurs, and Bats) are the Elephant-Shrews (and their relatives, including Rabbits and Hares and all of the Rodents) and the “Insectivorous” Shrews, Moles, Hedgehogs, etc..

No less related to Humans and Rodents are the “Carnivorous” Dogs, Cats, Bears, Racoons, Weasels, Mongooses, Hyenas, Seals, and Walruses; and another diverse group that includes the Pigs (and their relatives, including Deer, Cattle, Goats, Sheep, Hippopotamuses, Camels, etc.) and their next closest relatives, which are the Cetaceans (i.e. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises).

There certainly is a genetic relationship between Humans and Dolphins, but it is no more than that between Humans and Aardvarks!

The nearest relatives of Humans are the Great Apes, Gibbons, and Old-world Monkeys.

And among them, the Gorillas, Chimpanzees (Pan), and Orangutans (Pongo), are the closest to Humans (Homo).

And among those nearest relatives of Homo, both Gorilla and Pan are the most related.

And of all living things, it is Pan that is the nearest relative of Homo.

There are two living species of Pan ~ the Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) and the Bonobo (Pan panisus).

And the Bonobo (not the Dolphin or the Aardvark) is our very nearest living relative.

nekozuki
17 April 2006, 12:33 AM
I know what the primates are, I'm not an *****. What I mentioned above are scientific discoveries. It is a well known fact that only dolphins and humans have sex for pleasure. I have studied biology( i'm in nursing school FYI) and know well enough that if humans came straight from chimpanzees then where is the missing link? Why are there still chimpanzees? A 2% genetic difference is exactly what it is a big genetic gap. Obviously, you don't watch the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet and believe me I've learned a lot more from those two channels than the biology classroom because the textbooks aren't updated with last year's finds. Again believe what you want. I'm simply giving you information I've found, there's a lot to evolution we don't understand. We do come from apes and hoofed animals but we are also close with the dolphin.

sarabhanga
17 April 2006, 01:08 AM
It is a well known fact that Bonobos (our closest living relative) have an erotic social life that includes all kinds of sexual positions and techniques, and on most occasions it is only for pleasure and bonding. The only restriction is that mothers will not mate with their sons after they have reached sexual maturity.

Humans have NOT come straight from Chimpanzees! And nobody has ever seriously claimed such a thing! Chimpanzees and Humans have a common ancestor, which was neither properly Chimpanzee nor properly Human.

Gill Harley
17 April 2006, 03:51 AM
Obviously, you don't watch the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet and believe me I've learned a lot more from those two channels than the biology classroom because the textbooks aren't updated with last year's finds.

Nekozuki - you're cracking me up! That's the best laugh I've had for ages.

You're telling a highly respected saddhu who represents the tradition that made scientific discoveries about 5,000 years ago which the West are only now just catching up with, to watch the Discovery Channel! :) This is priceless stuff! :rolleyes:

Look, I'm assuming that you claim that you're a Hindu. If that is the case, then you might do well to go back to your own source literature, the Vedas. There you will learn that your ancient forefathers knew far more about the natural universe than the West will ever know.

This is because the West has set up its "science" in an objective way - in other words, it rules out the observer from the experiment.

The ancient rishis learned a lot from studying nature, and they put these findings into the Vedas. But they also learned even more from going within themselves to the "inner universe" that is within all of us, and seeing nature from that perspective.

The rishis who compiled the Vedic teachings put themselves (or their Self) in the middle of the scientific enquiry, rather than cutting themselves (or their Self) out of it. That gave them a much more holistic, and therefore, truer view of the universe than the Western scientist has, peering down his microscope in a laboratory.

By this more holistic method of enquiry, the Vedic sages discovered so much about astronomy, astrology, natural medicine and they even discovered mathematics - the same mathematics is used all around the world today and called 'mathematics' because it was first taught in 'maths', or yogic hermitages.

And especially as a health worker, you would do very well to read the works of Dhantanvari in the Atharva Veda: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/index.htm

Dhantavari was the discoverer of ayurvedic medicine, and all preventative (so-called complementary) medicine today is based on ayurveda.

By using the objective, scientific approach to medicine, the West has once again got it wrong. Never before has so much money been spent on healthcare in the UK and the US, and never before have the hospitals of those countries been full to overflowing with the ill and weak.

Your mission - if you choose to accept it :) - should be to read Dhantanvari and then start converting your healthcare colleagues to the advantages of ayurveda.

You will learn far more that way, and by meditating on what you read, imho, than you'll ever get from the Discovery Channel! :)

nekozuki
17 April 2006, 06:46 AM
Then where's the fossil record of this common ancestor? Yes, you will learn more through the Vedas and meditation and so forth, but we're talking about something completely physical. In my personal opinion I think we came from our own species because if we came directly from apes there wouldn't be any. I would like to go into ayurveda medicine but here I'm not going to make a living off of it unless you can give me some insight about it.

And I have no idea who I'm chatting with on here, it's the internet. I don't like arguing evolution on a spiritual Hindu site so how about we drop it since opinions are clashing.

But I do agree that Western science sucks :) All it can create are materialistic things. Their theories change constantly.

Singhi Kaya
17 April 2006, 09:28 AM
Science is cool. Math is cooler. Spirituality can be coolest to absurd~depends on the version#.

Western sceince doesn't suck~but how it has become the tool of market forces to enhance our physical comfort only (most of the time) sucks. ~S.A.D.H.U is cool for example (ok he does suck from time to time).

Btw, Aquatic Ape theory is much older than genome project. This wikipeda site has some history~but frankly I also don't find it too convincing.

Fianlly nothing wrong in discussing contemporary things in a hindu site~hinduism is not a closed box dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_theory
http://www.aquaticape.org/ (http://www.aquaticape.org/)

nekozuki
17 April 2006, 12:39 PM
I just wish Western science would find a way to make better space shuttles so humans can finally land on Mars, and it won't be just talk after that.

ramkish42
17 April 2006, 01:43 PM
Dear Ramkish, can you please site some evidence why Praatyaaksha, anumaana are not valid path of God realization?

Needless to say, it makes no sense to me.

I am not very sure whether I am exceeding my limits in discussing this topic here. But as I did to special few, I want to repeat it here too.

Maharishi Veda Vyasa has made Vedanta Sutras. It is popularly known as Brahma Sutras. (Discussions on Brahma Sutras in public forum is not encouraged but I trust it is no banned, hence I proceed further)

Many Aacharyas made commentaries to these Brahma Sutra. In this the very first says

1. Let us, then, ponder God
2. From whom the creation happened
3. Scriptures alone forms the source of this knowledge (Knowledge of god)

I had given you meaning for first three sutras.

As Rishi said, Scriptures alone are the source of knowledge that leads to understand Lord, thus I said, Pratyaksha, anumaana are not valid knowledge to realise lord.

This is further corroborated by Katopanishad ananya prokete gatiyaatra naasti - Self learning will not lead to eternity thus indicating self learning will not lead to knowledge of lord. (Shankara Bhashya on this is different, but people who read shankara Bhashya should read bhashya of Madhavaacharya on the same before coming to conclusion)

Let me give you an analogy.

Many say to me that this is a complex universe and this can only be created by Lord, hence lord exists. This is a combination of pratyaksha - see the world, and anumaana - concluding lord exits.

If we accept it as true, then we also know, sages like Viswamitra created a similar world like thing exclusively for one man, (for that fact, all brahma rishis are bestowed with such powers of creating universe), then we have to conclude that sage viswamitra is god for he created the world. As this is not true, concluding on basis of pratyaksha and anumaana might lead one to wrong conclusions, hence it is barred

Similarly with tadoore tadvantike people know the object that is far off cannot be near and vice versa. Logic gives not way for this. Many say, we have air which is far off as well as near, but I like to point out, beyond atmosphere where is air to indicate it is far off. For this entire earth, atmosphere i.e. air is only near but not far off. nature of lord should be same for all hence logic, induction, deduction are applicable to few but not for whole hence it fails utterly.

Hope I am clear, else buzz me

ramkish42
17 April 2006, 01:53 PM
I believe you neko, we came from a fish of some sort to start with;)

This is evolution

1. Macha - Fish - Pisces
2. Kurma - Tortoise - Amphibians
3. Varaha - Pig Vertebrates starts here
4. Narasimha - Combination of man and beast
5. Vaamana - Homo sapien

From here all homo sapiens and proceeds with political theory

6. Parasu rama - Might is right - (this might resemble communism idea - killing rich and powerful)
7. Shri Rama - Conquest of rich and polite people
8. Bala Rama - Conquest by polite people, need not to be rich enough
9. Shri Krishna - conquest by politically correct people

Further
10. Shri Kalki - we are yet to occur, hence let us not comment on it - could be restoring/creating golden ages

ramkish42
17 April 2006, 02:09 PM
Then where's the fossil record of this common ancestor? Yes, you will learn more through the Vedas and meditation and so forth, but we're talking about something completely physical. In my personal opinion I think we came from our own species because if we came directly from apes there wouldn't be any. I would like to go into ayurveda medicine but here I'm not going to make a living off of it unless you can give me some insight about it.

And I have no idea who I'm chatting with on here, it's the internet. I don't like arguing evolution on a spiritual Hindu site so how about we drop it since opinions are clashing.

But I do agree that Western science sucks :) All it can create are materialistic things. Their theories change constantly.

The problem is physical, emprical, analogical and calculated science.

This is clear case of perception - Pratyaksha. As our scriptures says perceptions is primary source of knowledge and we stop much with this and few occasions we stretch to logic - deduction and induction - Anumaana. When we reach this stage, many controversies arises, thus we do not move further.

This stumbles the entire movement. To make a break through either we have jump from first to last, or quickly pass the rest by.

When it comes to texts we often see, old is surpassed, old texts are replaced by new books - so on and so forth. Hence, we also say old books like vedas and its ideas are wrong for we direly want to replace it with something new ( in this case, we are not sure which is that new thing ). However, I would like to point out few old things which will never be old even years pass by,

1. Marriage
2. Our relations - father, mother, wife husband and love for them
3. money
4. Food - we eat - probably i think this is oldest practise
5. breath and sleep - this is old as food itself but when we understand protozoans age allocation is dubious

These old ideas or practises never fades.

We relate Vedas and other hindu texts with modern - erasable old ideas but not with the above.

I think it all depends on what you realte and how you understand. In confusion, it is better to seek a learned guru.

Jai shree krishna

Singhi Kaya
17 April 2006, 02:26 PM
10. Shri Kalki - we are yet to occur, hence let us not comment on it - could be restoring/creating golden ages
Shri Kalki...comes to.... Destroy Islam ;)...damn I'm obsessed

Singhi Kaya
17 April 2006, 02:29 PM
I just wish Western science would find a way to make better space shuttles so humans can finally land on Mars, and it won't be just talk after that.
That was a good one..LOL

nekozuki
17 April 2006, 04:39 PM
I know that Kalki may not come for thousands of years now but could it have any connection to 2012. According to Mayan legend we are in the fourth world (we're in the fourth yuga I believe) in 2012 we will enter the fifth world? :confused: Am I just thinking funny?

sarabhanga
18 April 2006, 12:34 AM
Namaste Nekozuki,

The entire classification previously outlined is supported by genetic analysis, and my only reason for entering this discussion was to point out that genetic research has NOT shown that Humans are particularly close relatives of Dolphins, any more than it has shown that Humans are closely related to Aardvarks or many other interesting Mammals!

Of course the theory assumes that there was once a common ancestor of both Dolphins and Aardvarks and also Humans ~ but as one might imagine, this creature was neither “Human” nor “Dolphin” in any normal sense.

If one looks for aquatic relatives, perhaps Seals and Walruses are a little more closely related to Humans than are the Dolphins.

Interestingly, it is uncommon for Primates to have skin with an overall subcutaneous fat layer, and unlike Humans, they may develop a fat belly but as far as I know they do not become fat all over. This deposition of subcutaneous fat is often characteristic of aquatic mammals (such as the Cetaceans), and some of these (such as the Cetaceans) have also mostly lost their original full covering of hair or fur.

These characteristics alone seem to point to some aquatic phase in the (comparatively recent) evolutionary history of our species. There is no sign in Humans of any special developments for a full-time aquatic life, but it is quite possible that our ancestors went through a period of at least temporarily water-based life (e.g. feeding or hunting in swamps, shallow lakes, estuaries, and coastal areas).

It is also possible that, at the same time as reducing our full covering of hair, the ability to store fat all over has also developed as an associated necessity of relative baldness.

Whatever the reasons, any superficial similarities between Humans and Dolphins are really only coincidental, and perhaps it is related to a shared history of aquatic life, or perhaps not.

There are definite genetic connexions between Dolphins and Humans, and at one time we certainly did have a common ancestor.

In my opinion, however, the close relationship between Humans and Bats is a more remarkable (and generally unknown) fact.

nekozuki
18 April 2006, 08:52 AM
This only shows me that there is a lot to evolution that we haven't discovered yet. Like I mentioned above with dinosaurs, how did scales become feathers? Where is the fossil record of the form between scales and feathers? Quite strange I would say.

Namo Narayana
18 April 2006, 09:57 AM
Sarabhanga, I recently came across a program on ancient man and it describes how man is supposed to have evolved from primates to homo erectus to homo sapiens. I found these programs base the hierarchy on the physical changes rather than genetic or DNA changes. if you take a DNA for that matter the neanderthal man's remains undug in germany had vast difference with the homo sapiens.

in physical features dolphin is not related to man. but in the development of brain it could certainly compete with the primates.

Singhi Kaya
18 April 2006, 11:45 AM
I know that Kalki may not come for thousands of years now but could it have any connection to 2012. According to Mayan legend we are in the fourth world (we're in the fourth yuga I believe) in 2012 we will enter the fifth world? :confused: Am I just thinking funny?

I'm pinning my hopes on Buddha boy of nepal in that case.;)

But yes the Shiva of Mecca was liberated (worshiped in vedachar as opposed to mlecchachar~worshipped with water instead of human saliva/kiss) sometime in early 1980's or late 1970's. So grace of Tamas Shiva (the 6th face of shiva) has left mecca. One can also reconstruct events leading to present day terrorism~a new resurrection of terror Islam from that period.

ramkish42
18 April 2006, 12:34 PM
This only shows me that there is a lot to evolution that we haven't discovered yet. Like I mentioned above with dinosaurs, how did scales become feathers? Where is the fossil record of the form between scales and feathers? Quite strange I would say.

This request for "between" scales and feathers will lead to perpetual impossibility.

Scale becomes some material, say ABC, then forms feathers, and now there is call for ABC. Suppose if someone produces ABC,if not neko, some one else will ask for in between fossil record of Scale and ABC, say let it the record be BCD, then some one will ask for in between record of Scale and BCD. The same is applicable for ABC and feathers.

This will go on and go on. The only way to stop this is to dispense with the record once a reasonable level of proof is reached

nekozuki
18 April 2006, 03:49 PM
Sarabhanga, I recently came across a program on ancient man and it describes how man is supposed to have evolved from primates to homo erectus to homo sapiens. I found these programs base the hierarchy on the physical changes rather than genetic or DNA changes. if you take a DNA for that matter the neanderthal man's remains undug in germany had vast difference with the homo sapiens.

in physical features dolphin is not related to man. but in the development of brain it could certainly compete with the primates.

There are certainly many similarities with humans and dolphins. Female dolphins assist a dolphin when she's giving birth, much like midwives of the old days. Both humans and dolphins have difficult births. It is rare for an ape to have difficult childbirth. This does need some serious investigating.

sarabhanga
19 April 2006, 09:03 PM
Namaste Nekozuki,

This only shows me that there is a lot to evolution that you haven’t discovered yet!

Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.

It is relatively simple to examine the embryology of any organism and to follow the development of its particular organization, and in the case of scales, nails, horns, hairs, feathers, and all of the diverse range of dermal ossifications that are found in various Vertebrates, the embryology is found to be identical, and the same materials derived by the same pathways are used, and modifications on the same suite of genes control the same processes in each case.

The chance preservation of exactly the right moment in evolutionary history is exceedingly rare, and the chance of those particular fossils becoming exposed for examination is exceedingly rare, and the chance of one of those available fossils actually being found by a Palaeontologist is also rare. Why do you require a perfect fossil, when the evidence is clear in so many other ways?

When a feather is in every way only a special kind of scale, how do you actually define the vital difference between “scale” and “feather”, which is apparently so controversial?

sarabhanga
19 April 2006, 09:15 PM
Namaste,

Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (and all possible species of Homo) are themselves Primates. And the Primate called Homo has evolved from other ancestral Primates, without ever ceasing to be a Primate. Sapiens means wise, and Humans are the true Wise Monkeys of Creation.

nekozuki
19 April 2006, 09:41 PM
Well, it is obvious and that's the problem, but doesn't someone also need fossil evidence regardless if it will ever be found or not? We already have fossil evidence that the skeletal system of dinosaurs is like that of a birds. Some dinosaurs even had feathers including tyrannosaurus rex which they have just found or is it just possible that dinosaurs never had scales at all. And I honestly don't think scientists know everything about evolution, everyone is ignorant at some point. There will always be a new discovery.

sarabhanga
19 April 2006, 11:58 PM
Please explain why fossil evidence is required?

Dinosaurs are extinct, and so we can only know them from fossils :rolleyes: which thankfully is not yet the case for either Humans or Dolphins!

Tyrannosaurs with feathers? This makes no sense to me! Who has just found this? Where have they published it?

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 06:59 AM
They had a special on tyrannosaurus rex on Animal Planet not too long ago and they showed what it looked like with feathers because they actually found a fossil showing feathers going down its back. Fossil evidence is required because you need evidence to collect data so you can make a point with your hypothesis, this is hard for fossils though. This is part of the reason why evolution is still a theory. There's not enough fossil evidence for the data and it can't really be tested so it stays a theory.

sarabhanga
20 April 2006, 04:57 PM
Tyrannosaurus rex has NOT been shown to have feathers! A much smaller, more ancient member of the same family of Dinosaurs, by the name of Dilong paradoxus has recently been found to have a partial covering of hair-like feathers.

Why are fossils necessary for a comparison of species that are alive today? :confused:

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 05:03 PM
Tyrannosaurus rex has NOT been shown to have feathers! A much smaller, more ancient member of the same family of Dinosaurs, by the name of Dilong paradoxus has recently been found to have a partial covering of hair-like feathers.

Why are fossils necessary for a comparison of species that are alive today? :confused:
You're sure about that? The T-Rex stuff is new information. And why are fossils necessary? I took Chemistry two years ago and learned the complexity of the scientific method, you just need data to test your hypothesis. That's how it works. How are you going to prove that dinosaurs became birds without some kind of fossil record, see?

Singhi Kaya
20 April 2006, 05:34 PM
Ok enough of evolution, let's bring ID (intelligent design) as well in this discussion about God, shall we?:)

Anyway I seriously wanted to know about this ID stuff? How much sceintific is it? Given that there is a missionary zeal behind it, I assume it will be tough logical nut...

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 05:38 PM
yeah but ID is pretty evident, it just can't be tested scientifically.

sarabhanga
20 April 2006, 07:33 PM
Namaste Nekozuki,


Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.

It is relatively simple to examine the embryology of any organism and to follow the development of its particular organization, and in the case of scales, nails, horns, hairs, feathers, and all of the diverse range of dermal ossifications that are found in various Vertebrates, the embryology is found to be identical, and the same materials derived by the same pathways are used, and modifications on the same suite of genes control the same processes in each case.

The chance preservation of exactly the right moment in evolutionary history is exceedingly rare, and the chance of those particular fossils becoming exposed for examination is exceedingly rare, and the chance of one of those available fossils actually being found by a Palaeontologist is also rare. Why do you require a perfect fossil, when the evidence is clear in so many other ways?

When a feather is in every way only a special kind of scale, how do you actually define the vital difference between “scale” and “feather”, which is apparently so controversial?

Dinosaurs are extinct, and so we can only know them from fossils ~ which thankfully is not yet the case for either Humans or Dolphins!

Tyrannosaurus rex has NOT been shown to have feathers! A much smaller, more ancient member of the same family of Dinosaurs, by the name of Dilong paradoxus has recently been found to have a partial covering of hair-like feathers.

Why are fossils necessary for a comparison of species that are alive today?

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 07:50 PM
Google Tyrannosaurus Rex feathers and you'll see that it says T-Rex and it's cousins,ancestors, and descendants had feathers even though it's still under investigation but with the possibility of T-rexes being related to the chicken or pigeon i wouldn't doubt it. The fact of the matter is you need solid proof for data not something that "seems" evident. I'm just typing what I learned my senior year in high school some two years back. Mind you I had the hardest teacher in the school and came out with a "B" so I obviously paid attention. :) Thank the gods.

sarabhanga
20 April 2006, 08:56 PM
It has long been known that Birds and Reptiles are closely related.

It has long been known that some Dinosaurs are very closely related to Birds.

It has long been known that some Dinosaurs even had feathers, and they have long been accepted as examples of the ancestors of modern Birds.

The whole group of Tyrannosaurids was discovered to have more recent connexions to Birds than did the other bird-like Dinosaurs which were already known to have feathers. And so it was assumed that at least some Tyrannosaurids must also have had feathers.

Dilong paradoxus is the first Tyrannosaurid to be found to have feather-like structures, and this was published in Nature in 2004.

Please point to some reference that actually claims to have found feathers or hairs on any species of Tyrannosaurus (not merely an ancestral Tyrannosaurid).

And you have not answered my question regarding the necessity of fossils for an effective comparison of living animals such as Humans and Dolphins.

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 09:23 PM
You need to find the missing link between them. :)

sarabhanga
20 April 2006, 09:50 PM
Ramkish has already noted that this attitude leads to an infinite regression of missing links that can never be satisfied; and I would add that it is a typical device employed by Creationists to squash almost any suggestion made by Evolutionary Biologists.

nekozuki
20 April 2006, 09:58 PM
Okay I'm getting really sick of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, it's getting old lol.

coolbodhi
25 April 2006, 11:52 PM
Question is very nice and easy to raise such question.

My response

1. Sages had determined many ways to understand a subject. Our perceptors classified them in three ways. They are Praatyaaksha, anumaana and Saastra. Presence of god can be determined only by Saastra and not by other two means.



Who decided that god can only be determined by Saastra? What is Saastra anyway? I will take an educated guess and say that it means scripture. Am I correct?

Now, if scripture is the only way to understand a subject as you say, this raises more questions.

Which scripture? There are many and to make things even more difficult some are contradicting others.

Is god a subject to be understood or do we feel him like we feel the cool breeze but never see him?



As you are trying to understand lord by anumaana this is not allowing you to reach him. The basic idea is this - Praatyaksha and anumaana are limited and finite hence such things cannot refer to some thing that is infinite. Let me give you a practical example


But reason and the ability to comprehend is all I have. All I have are my senses. Yes, they are finite but that's all I can count on. Why did god give us limited abilities if we can not understand him with such things?

Why must I rely on scripture? I have already dropped my scripture from another religion because using reason I found it to be opposite of my experience. What good is your scripture and which one?



I want to you make a infinite number by adding any number continously. all mathematicians will say as long as you add finite numbers you will get only finite answers. Suppose you try adding one infinity to anything immediately you will get infinity. This infinity is greatest knowledge - knowledge of soul, god and their relationship which can be obtained only by infinite source which Saastra. As Isha ritely points out

poornamataha poornamitam poornaath poornamadhayasyathe
poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaava sishyathe

Infinity emanates from infinity


You call scripture infinite source, on what basis? Isn't the scriptures written by humans that had the same abilities like you and I?



2. Now to answer you question directly.

God has bestowed super powers on you. It is just hidden. Why it is hidden? if you fall back and become mischievous there is no point in giving you super powers.


Why would I become mischievous especially if I am supposed to be part of god? Oh yes, I am a conditioned soul but then again why am I conditioned to begin with? The point of being conditioned is, what? Does it please god to see souls in conditioned life?



These super powers are terms as Asta Siddhi which you can obtain by performing different duties as prescribed by scriptures. This super power has another form called gnaana which you can get by reading many scriptures, being in satsanga , by loving god.


What is asta siddhi and what are the duties I can perform to get it?
How does one love god a thing that I have not seen?



This super power has another name called Yoga which you can practise. This super power has another name called aatma which you should realise by scriptures or all by yourself by abstaining from preyas and concenrating on sreyas. There are so many super powers like this


Have you attained any of these super powers that you talk about or are you just spitting out what you read in scriptures?






Pls do not deny your soul what it rightly deserves
what's a soul and how do I find it and more importantly how do I find out what it rightly deserves? Did you read in a scripture what a soul is and what it righly deserves or do acutally have an experience and you have realised or found it?

ramkish42
26 April 2006, 11:15 AM
Who decided that god can only be determined by Saastra? What is Saastra anyway? I will take an educated guess and say that it means scripture. Am I correct?

Now, if scripture is the only way to understand a subject as you say, this raises more questions.

Which scripture? There are many and to make things even more difficult some are contradicting others.

Is god a subject to be understood or do we feel him like we feel the cool breeze but never see him?

Welcome after a break Cool.

One thing I want to make clear at this junture, as I am already in a debate, I cannot afford to have another debate running parallely, hence do not count on me if your intentions are debating.

For clarifications I may respond or I may not, depending on time

Regarding who - Great Guru Maharishi Veda Vyasa, whom God has authorised to classify Vedas and puraanaas

Regarding Saastra - Fundamental scripture in general. For Hindus, it is Veda, Itihaasas and Puraanaas. For Muslim, it is Koran, Hadiths, Tafsirs and Fatwas. so on

Regarding Educated Guess - As long as you can make an infite guess, you can. But with finite mind, you can take only finite guess and not infite guess, which the finite science as acknowledged

Regarding feeling and subject of understanding - First you must acknowledge the presence before feeling it and understand it. To acknowledge the presence of it, you have to depend on Saastras - scriptures. Once you know what is god, then you can feel and understand it. Before Newton spoke about gravitational force, no one ever felt of talking about it including great Socrates and Archemides. Because you know newton law of gravity, you can feel it. If newton never been here, and gravity not yet discovered, you could still cannot corroborate why things in space stay at their own space and orbit


But reason and the ability to comprehend is all I have. All I have are my senses. Yes, they are finite but that's all I can count on. Why did god give us limited abilities if we can not understand him with such things?

The idea of god is verily a child like play in creation. If god created you for praising him verily he would had given all means and abilities to know him. When a child plays it makes it own rules, Static objects fly for the child and dynamic toys stay at one place. Highly dynamic objects are ignored by child - these rules are made by me but child wants to play whatever it feel like. You make a rule - child will object for it

Creation is child like game for god. As our scientific mind has objects the very game of child and dispenses it for ignorance, we miss to see the bliss of being a part of it. How to experience the bliss - set aside the thought that ignores it

The problem I can see, how you can count on your senses. All that with our senses we can count on is a reason for happening once a event had happened. Can the same reason help us in saying what is going to happen for sure. Point like would like to make is, we cannot count on our senses


Why must I rely on scripture? I have already dropped my scripture from another religion because using reason I found it to be opposite of my experience. What good is your scripture and which one?
Only reason you can apply before dropping a scripture whether it matches with standard of humanity. If a scriptures allows one to steal from others, kill others, intoxicate, destory people who do not concur, allows insulting women, attaches much importance with materialistic views for sex and money, such scriptures should be dropped.

I am sure what you dropped and why you dropped, but the fact is it is irrelevant to me as long the above rule is applied.

Some stretch this rule by giving the chance to the scripture to substantiate its view point

I am not asking you to go with my scripture, as you said you can educated, suggest you study some material and check for yourself. Once humanitarian cause is applauded, then we will discuss on philosophy


You call scripture infinite source, on what basis? Isn't the scriptures written by humans that had the same abilities like you and I?
Scriptures when considered all scriptures as a lot, it becomes infinite and verily few scriptures has infinite divine source, but not all scriptures. Many books are written by humans.

But abilities like you and I is the questionable thing. I never got any nobel for literature inspite of so many people managed to get one. Very recently we had one university professor who lived during the life time of Madan Mohan Malavia, who managed to byheart the entire encyclopedia britannica. I cannot corroborate why USA managed to make an Atom bomb first inspite of Germans trying to make the same with the same knowledge and ability




Why would I become mischievous especially if I am supposed to be part of god? Oh yes, I am a conditioned soul but then again why am I conditioned to begin with? The point of being conditioned is, what? Does it please god to see souls in conditioned life?

You will not be mischievous or otherwise based on your karma, a rule made by god for enable his child play. You are an automated part of the game, you wil decide what you are going to do.

It is immaterial of god whether a soul is conditioned or not, but verily how helpful you are for the game and how disturbing you are for the child game matters




What is asta siddhi and what are the duties I can perform to get it?
How does one love god a thing that I have not seen?

Some one else will guide you on that for my views on such siddhis are different


Have you attained any of these super powers that you talk about or are you just spitting out what you read in scriptures?

I have not got those siddhis, but I have seen people of great Gnanaa



what's a soul and how do I find it and more importantly how do I find out what it rightly deserves? Did you read in a scripture what a soul is and what it righly deserves or do acutally have an experience and you have realised or found it?
Hindu scriptures tells you what a soul is and what it rightly deserves

I did read what a soul is and what it rightly deserves

I have nearby experiences, yet have lot of wavering and distractions to realise in toto. On the path, hence, in nearby will realise in full

Jai shree krishna

TruthSeeker
28 April 2006, 10:56 AM
6. Parasu rama - Might is right - (this might resemble communism idea - killing rich and powerful)
7. Shri Rama - Conquest of rich and polite people
8. Bala Rama - Conquest by polite people, need not to be rich enough
9. Shri Krishna - conquest by politically correct people


Even by classical evolution-

Parasurama is an amsa avatara (atleast according to many Hindus, but not all)

Rama - purna avatara, but still apprently experiencing some human limitations. For eg, Rama was exiled to the forest, he was bound by Nagapasha etc.

Krishna - purna avatar who did what he pleased. There is not even a hint of Krishna being in distress from any point of view.(granting that Rama only pretended to be suffering)

Thus, even from Vamana, the homosapien, the evolution of the soul towards becoming God follows in Parasurama, the amsa avatar, Rama, the Nara-Narayana, and Krishna, the Narayana.(In Mahabaratha Arjuna is Nara, whereas in Ramayana, Rama represents both Nara and Narayana and hence his apparent limitations)

Obviously, this is an advaitic viewpoint.