...does not exist?

[smaranam]

praNAm

What a thread.

Is it not amazing , that scientists have made such accurate strides studying Prakrti , and doing a wonderful job.

However, erroneously thinking that the highest magic of Prakruti is supposed to be claimed as Purusha by religion - well , certainly not by SanAtan Dharma.

Whereas, as Yajvanji points out, the Vedas and our ancient Rshis (seers) told us about Existence, Conscious Being as THE CANVAS of reality thousands of yrs ago.

Ishvara is proud of His scientists in one way, despite the BIG mistake they make make by claiming He does not exist. While this is quite amusing to Ishvara, He is happy they have come close to what Veda and Shrimad BhAgvad tell us about creation.

SCIENTISITS' CALCULATION OF AGE OF THE EARTH

4.6 billion earth yrs (Is this right ?)

VEDIC CALCULATION - Shrimad BhAgvatam

1 day of Lord BrahmA = 1 'Kalpa' of 1000 Chaturyugas [14 manwantaras]

1 Chaturyuga = 4 Yugas (Krit, Treta, Dwapar, Kali Yuga)
and lasts for 4,320 million earth yrs

= 4.32 billion earth yrs

** How close is that to the scientists' figure **

So dissolution occurs per ChaturYuga ? SandhyAs included ? Not sure of this, but let's continue....

The day of Lord BrahmA = 1000 * 4.32 = 4320 billion earth yrs
It is followed by an equally long night when creative activity is at a standstill. This night period is Naimittika Pralaya, when all the categories merge back into the VirAt Purusha in their suble aspects. When BrahmA wakes up next morning, all categories with their residual tendencies manifest and further evolutions take place.

1 year of Lord BrahmA = 360 Brahma days

Life of BrahmAji is 100 Brahma yrs.

** At the end of Lord BrahmA's lifetime, the entire material universe gets destroyed.

At the end of Lord BrahmA's lifetime, all the universe created by Him dissolves into the Virat Purusha along with Himself.

When the VirAt Purusha merges back with all categories and worlds into the Supreme Lord (Shri Hari) - Atyantika Pralaya takes place. The Supreme Lord alone remains (in Yoga Nidra) and no one knows when the next creation will take place.

------------------------

Lord BrahmA's life consists of 2 'Parardha-s' , each being 50 Brahma yrs long.

Our present BrahmAji has entered His 51st year - 1st day 1st yr of the 2nd 'Parardha'.

We are in the 7th Manwantara (period of Manu) - half way since there are 14 Manwantaras.

- Ref : "Glory of Krishna" - by Swami ChinmayAnanda Mission

>>PurAna Basics

Shri Hari , MahAvishnu lies in the transcendental 'waters' , hence nArAyana (nara = water/fluid) and
BrahmA is born from His navel in a Lotus. BrahmA is really Lord's creative power, and is assigned the
specific task of creating the Universe.

------------------------------------------------

Scientists , even those who claim to be atheists are indirectly glorifying the Lord with their efforts. He is the one who gifted them with the impetus, curiosity and scientific minds. He (or MA DurgA ) surely must be smiling at the fact that they have made His creation a playground for their scientific curiosity.

If you made pieces of clay and put them on the floor, and your son comes and grabs them, starts solving the "puzzle", wouldn't that make you smile ?

[smaranam]

....
1. Will this increase the atheistic population ?
Or
2. Will it make atheistic scientists bump into a dead-end wall only to learn a lesson : that the dead-end remains in the realm of Prakruti , telling them that there is Purusha beyond , who cannot be caught. Like Einstein and Newton of the past were wise to admit.

The fact that the Lord is smiling, tells us there is hope for the latter to happen.
Perhaps it will serve to convert more atheists into theists, but with a more and more scientific backing.

[sanjaya]

....
1. Will this increase the atheistic population ?
Or
2. Will it make atheistic scientists bump into a dead-end wall only to learn a lesson : that the dead-end remains in the realm of Prakruti , telling them that there is Purusha beyond , who cannot be caught. Like Einstein and Newton of the past were wise to admit.

The fact that the Lord is smiling, tells us there is hope for the latter to happen.
Perhaps it will serve to convert more atheists into theists, but with a more and more scientific backing.

Perhaps it will. Here in the West people are rapidly abandoning "religion" in favor of science. Sadly they categorize all theism as "religion" because they are not familiar with Eastern religion. Hopefully these spiritually-hungry people will see the wisdom of Hinduism and reap the blessings of God through devotion to him.

[Einherjar]

...and the earth did not experience a giant flood that destroyed nearly all life.

While the story in the Old Testament is likely drastically exaggerated, there is scientific evidence for massive floods occurring shortly after the last ice age (along with several other theories of potential massive flooding varying from tsunamis created by earthquakes to ones created by the impact of an asteroid or comet with the Earth). There are also many stories dating from similar periods that also speak of massive floods causing mayhem and destruction in ancient civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

[sanjaya]

While the story in the Old Testament is likely drastically exaggerated, there is scientific evidence for massive floods occurring shortly after the last ice age (along with several other theories of potential massive flooding varying from tsunamis created by earthquakes to ones created by the impact of an asteroid or comet with the Earth). There are also many stories dating from similar periods that also speak of massive floods causing mayhem and destruction in ancient civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth

Yes this is true. There is indeed evidence of greater than average flooding throughout various parts of the world, and it's possible that the world's flood myths derive from this historical truth. But to attribute any historicity to the Bible on this basis would be quite illogical. First, flood myths equally validate other religions, including Hinduism. Secondly, there's no evidence for a flood which destroyed all life on earth. There is great evidence to show that life on earth arose from biological evolution, and this process requires hundreds of millions of years. The floods, however, are dated to somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of years ago, and thus could not destroy all life on earth. I'm thankful that we Hindus don't have some "Scriptural inerrency" doctrine which states that our Scriptures must be either literally true, or utterly false.

You and I are probably in agreement here, but I just wanted to mention this so that an outside reader doesn't get the impression that flood myths validate the Bible.

[Einherjar]

Yes this is true. There is indeed evidence of greater than average flooding throughout various parts of the world, and it's possible that the world's flood myths derive from this historical truth. But to attribute any historicity to the Bible on this basis would be quite illogical. First, flood myths equally validate other religions, including Hinduism. Secondly, there's no evidence for a flood which destroyed all life on earth. There is great evidence to show that life on earth arose from biological evolution, and this process requires hundreds of millions of years. The floods, however, are dated to somewhere on the order of tens of thousands of years ago, and thus could not destroy all life on earth. I'm thankful that we Hindus don't have some "Scriptural inerrency" doctrine which states that our Scriptures must be either literally true, or utterly false.

You and I are probably in agreement here, but I just wanted to mention this so that an outside reader doesn't get the impression that flood myths validate the Bible.

Yeah, that's definitely understandable. You also need to take into consideration that when those myths were written down people had a much smaller understanding of the world, and if all the animals fled and moved out of the immediate area where the people spent most of their time, it's understandable they would wrongly assume that most life on Earth was destroyed. Just some food for thought.

[ScottMalaysia]

I personally like the way that American Creationist Kent Hovind explained it to a young boy who said "There is no God."

Hovind: Do you know everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Do you know half of everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Well, let's say you did know half of everything, could it be possible that God is in the other half that you don't know about?

[sanjaya]

I personally like the way that American Creationist Kent Hovind explained it to a young boy who said "There is no God."

Hovind: Do you know everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Do you know half of everything?
Boy: No.
Hovind: Well, let's say you did know half of everything, could it be possible that God is in the other half that you don't know about?

Hi Scott. I don't mean to jump on this or anything, but I don't know how much people abroad know about American evangelicals, so I feel a need to say this whenever Kent Hovind is brought up.

Kent Hovind is an American conservative evangelical, i.e. he's part of the crowd that's out to convert Hindus. He has a fake doctoral degree from a diploma mill called "Patriot University," and falsely calls himself "Dr. Kent Hovind." Like most evangelicals, he's also a Christian hypocrite. He's currently serving a prison sentence for tax evasion, because he claimed that he shouldn't pay taxes for doing the Lord's work.

I agree with you that atheism is sometimes the result of arrogance. But I just thought I should mention this.

[Nara]

.... I agree with you that atheism is sometimes the result of arrogance.

Dear sanjaya, greetings!

Well, you have hedged with the prefix "sometimes", so what can I say.

I am new to this forum. But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!

From my limited experience, the true atheists are the ones who are really humble. They don't have a dogma or doctrine to peddle. They just love life, because, well, just because.

regards...

[sanjaya]

Dear sanjaya, greetings!

Well, you have hedged with the prefix "sometimes", so what can I say.

I am new to this forum. But when I read the postings in general, it seems many of them are declarations. Here, take it, this is "the" truth -- what arrogance!

From my limited experience, the true atheists are the ones who are really humble. They don't have a dogma or doctrine to peddle. They just love life, because, well, just because.

regards...

Hello Prof. Nara.

My usage of the word "sometimes" was intentional. I know many atheists who do not appear to be atheists due to any arrogant posture. And some of the most arrogant people I know believe in God. Granted, all of these people are evangelical Christians, so I don't know if that counts.

There are many possibilities we need to consider here. Today in the West, we have the so-called "New Atheism" movement. These are the atheists whose spokespeople are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris, etc. These individuals do precisely what you've objected to. They declare "the truth" that there is no God, and vilify those who don't share their views. On the other side of the spectrum we have religious people who do precisely the same thing, except that the truth they peddle is different. I don't know any Hindus who do this, but I'll grant that such people exist.

As people who believe in logic and reason, we have to accept the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth. However, this truth is difficult to discern, especially with regard to spiritual matters. So it's important that we not impose some absolute truth on others unless we can back up that imposition with convincing evidence. In Hinduism, spiritual experiences with God are usually specific to the individual, so this proof is hard to convey to others. That may be why Hindus tend to be more tolerant of other religious views. We Hindus tend not to be quite so tolerant of atheism. However, I can only speak for myself, and say that I do understand why some people do not believe in God. The evidence for his existence (besides personal religious experiences) is somewhat wanting. I don't think I could prove the existence of God via any scientific procedure.

If I may ask, with what religion do you have the most interaction? The sorts of things you say about religion typify certain other religions I'm familiar with, but not Hinduism. Again, I'm sure these types of Hindus exist, and that I've just never met them. But I would be interested to know what religion primarily shapes your view of theism.