Cosmonaut scientists first announced in 1998 about an unexplainable energy called dark matter. Previous to this it was believed that space was static, Not expanding. This dark matter constantly activates sand expands pace and creates more and more planets. Scinetists percieve it as a kind of halo around galaxies. One of the quality of this dark matter is gravitational force, that holds the planets in position. Scientists believe that it takes up six times the amount of space as visible matter. “Dark Matter presupposes the existence of something we do not understand, a kind of gravity.” Anthony Tyson made a detailed map of dark matter around a titanic cluster of galaxies. “Whenever there is a big galaxy, there is a high concentration on dark matter. Without the help of dark matter, we would be living in a universe with no structure, no clusters, no galaxies, no stars, no planets.” These are the words of NY Planetarium head, De Grasse. “ But astrophysicists grow uncomfortable when they are confronted by concepts they don’t understand., even though this is not the first time they have done so. Could this dark matter be a manifestation of some force from another dimension?” Chapter 4 of the book Origins, by De Grasse. There is more if anyone wants to hear. My guess of an answer to De Grasse is that this ‘dark matter’ is possibly Vishnu shakti from whom the planets bubble out, and Ananta Sesa who holds the galaxies in position.
So, science is fallible, but your conclusions are infallible? At least the scientists have the humility to accept that they may not have the untimate answers and when they are proven wrong, they move on and accept the new evidence.
What is the threat of science to your faith? Why does your faith claim to have full and exclusive knowledge of everythlng including things that cannot be known by everyone. Why not let science deal with material matters which it has the better handle on, and let religion deal with spiritual matters, which it may have a better handle on? Rather engage in dialogue like showing the correspondances between dark matter, Vishnu and Shesha? Science accepts a multi-dimensional universe and there is plenty of room for God-dess. Science gives us facts and theories about creation. Religion gives meaning and purpose to it all. The old myths are based on the best science of their day, why not make them relevant using the best science of today?
Why not drop the heavy dualistic attitude and look at the beautiful oneness of all creation which is spiritualized in the light of God-dess. I thought this was all supposed to be playful bliss.
Post by harisarandas on Jul 26, 2007 23:22:53 GMT -6
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Madanmohan-ji.
You do not have to be cautious or afraid of being expelled from this website, it is an unrestrictive right that all members enjoy here.
I know the website you are talking about. It is really embarrassing and almost unthinkable to have to witness how a webmaster, who lives in the heart of 21 century society is but grotesquely dealing with the public.
What is embarrassing is how you and Nitai run around on everyone else's forum throwing tantrums then start your own and put on this false facade of clam and peace which is entirely different from how you both have behaved for years, a tad hypocritical I'd say.
Jijaji, first I would like to sincerely compliment you for your public apologies to Nitai and myself. And since you deleted my account in your website, I actually could not reply or get it to your attention. It actually would be wise if you do the same for Madanmohan-ji, he is such a great soul who has been helping many of these web forums with quality and integrity.
Now, let me tell you something, my believe is that a web forum is not made exclusively by the person who actually created it; no it is made and coexist by those who dedicate their time and attention towards that particular community. Those individuals are the MEMBERS and they do deserve the right and attention to freely express themselves, as do the webmaster and moderators.
I mean, people are people, they do differ from each other, but so what; it has been there forever. The formula is very simple, let’s talk and if we can’t get along try another peer, try another website, or simply take a break, but here we will not push the DELET or moderate button on anyone.
This means, we are all humans, who deserve respect and time to understand things in depth. Never forget that internet forum has not been there forever, it is actually a modern way of interaction and communication and will probably take at least one or two more generations to really assimilate its speed and facets and the impacts on the emotional level.
Therefore, let’s try to be reasonable with each other because it is all that takes to keep up a common ground for spontaneous communication, order and progress in this vast World Wild Web.
And definitely many thanks to Nitai Das-ji, the Powerhouse.
Last Edit: Jul 27, 2007 3:40:06 GMT -6 by harisarandas
Sorry it was cosmonaut Sunita Williams, not Chandra Williams who blasted into space for 3 months with her Gita. Thus, even scientists are curious about the cosmic form of Krishna.(described in chapter 11.) I am not defending anthing. I'm just presenting what is going on in the minds of some scientists. This is an interesting quote : "Equipped with five senses, telescopes, microscopes, spectrometers, etc, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure science." -- Edwin Hubble 1948
Post by harisarandas on Jul 27, 2007 17:21:12 GMT -6
Well its true Brahma is the Prajapatipati. If I'm not mistaken in general there are the prajapatis who peopled the world, Daksa being prominent as his daughters produced most of the brute creation. Brahma's offspring are all 'mind-born'. Perhaps it could be read both ways, but I was thinking, how does Brahma get two assigned places in the Virat. It's most likely one or t'other. The latter one as 'entering the intellect' is definite, but the former, 'entering the virile member' is doubtful, for the above mention reasons.
I think you gave a good reply in here, for Brahma is the Prajapatipati (father of all others prajapatis), he can possibly be assigned on two or more places on the Virat, he is depicted as the original creature, and the one who carries the Visarga, secondary creation, also known as Brahma-Kalpa. Yes he is the multitasking guy and has plenty of time to play around.
The virat rupa fits into my scheme of LOGIC. My body is a universe to millions of entities. It is the field of all kinds of activities. Thus it makes sense to me that virat rupa is someone's cosmic form. Most likely that of Vishnu.
Post by harisarandas on Jul 28, 2007 10:57:39 GMT -6
Here's some nectar. This is the padyAnuvad, the Bengali versification of the the sloka. It's from Raghunatha Bhagavat Acarya's Sri Krsna Prema Tarangini, which is a kind of Bengali Bhagavatam. Don't know if any one here is familiar with it, but I can tell you more about it later.
satya, para, nitya brahma kariba cintana/ yAhA haite utapati-pralaya-pAlana// carAcara jagate yAhAra paraveza/ jagatera bhinna nAhi, nAhi sanga leza// puruSa-prakrti-para, nitya parakAza/ sahaje karuNAnidhi, Ananda vilAsa// brahmAra Anane kailA veda samarpaNa/ ye vede mohita haya mahAmunigaNa// triguNajanita yata e bhava saMsAra/ michA hena jAni saba pAya yAhAra// nija teje kailA saba kapaTa khaNDana/ hena satya parAnanda kariba cintana//
Well my teenage son now demands internet access, which cannot be denied to such. So unless anyone else is inspired I'll come back to it later.
Madanmonhan-ji, we are always inspired by the ambrosial words from BP or any Vedic text; please share some more of those atemporal nectars.
Last Edit: Jul 28, 2007 11:01:42 GMT -6 by harisarandas
Post by harisarandas on Aug 1, 2007 0:33:29 GMT -6
Some commentators suggest that this first verse of the Bhagavat forms a brief explanation of the gayatri mantra. Sri Jiva says that the word 'dhImahi', 'we meditate', in the text alludes to the gayatri. I noted down a while ago another commentator's analysis, can't remember for sure, but I think it was Vira Raghava's commentary. Might as well cite the mula sloka;
janmAdyasya yato'nvayAditaratazcArtheSvabhijnah svarAT tene brahma hrdA ya Adikavaye muhyanti yatsUrayah/ tejovArimrdAM yathA vinimayo yatra trisargo'mRSA dhAmnA svena sadA nirastakuhakaM satyaM paraM dhImahi// 1.1.1
oM bhurbhuvahsvah tatsavitur-varenyaM bhargo devasya dhImahi diyo yo nah pracodayAt/
tatsavituh devasya...........................janmAdyasya yatah varenyam..........................................param bhargah............................................dhAmnA svena sadA nirasta kuhakam, and, svarAt diyo yo nah pracodayAt....................tene brahma hrdA ya Adikavaye dhImahi............................................dhImahi
I hope that I am not going off topic in here, but I read somewhere that "in order to purify the heart for better chant and realize the Maha-Mantra, one should first chant the Gayatri Mantra."
Interesting that ACBS says : "The Gäyatri mantra is very important in Vedic civilization and is considered to be the sound incarnation of Brahman." (ACBSP. 12th August 1976. Evening darshan. Tehran, Iran) www.salagram.net/sstp-Gayatri.html
Now, it appears that both ideas are somehow suggesting that in order to realize Bhagavan, one first realize Brahman...
I know that others would suggest that Gayatri is actually the effulgence of the lotus Radha-Krishna, and certainly I like that too.
What would you say, Madanmohan-ji?
Last Edit: Aug 1, 2007 0:36:52 GMT -6 by harisarandas