Message-Id: <199606280456.AAA05578@pinky.ac.duke.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 01:00:02 -0700
From: Smedley <jk7@acpub.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
To: Jahnu@wineasy.se
Subject: Re:VEDANTA
References: <61b7cc$91f3a.35f@news>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-------------------------------------------------------
Smedley <jk7@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

Dear Smedley,

(Just curious--what is your real name?)

This was not Jahnu but me, Jan. I'm his friend. Just for fun I tried
to respond as if on his place taking your answers as directed to me.
He explained it in the beginning of my answer and wrote his own answer.
Here are my answers:

>>Pointless and unecessary accusations.

>Such ideas are lunacy.  Period.

This sounds like an absolute statement. Based on what?
Everyone sane knows how the media distort the truth all the time.
It's their job. So what is their authority?

Although I didn't mention "conspiracy" as a product of a specific
group of people there are evidences that hiding of the truth is
going on. It is one of imperfections of conditioned beings--
to cheat--and this process happens automatically when something
collides with the accepted paradigms.

You should check out the book "Forbidden Archeology" by Thompson,
and Cremo which on its cca 900 pages gives abundant documentation
of such cheating (information filter). This book is a nightmare
for "scientific" establishment. That's speaks for itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------

>>Let's see how Webster defines this creature:
>>
>>"The person who denies or disbelieves the existence of supreme person
>>or persons." So the verbs "denies" or "disbelieves" express a
>>negation. The negation obviously comes as a reaction on something
>>existing - there is no use to negate something which doesn't exist,
>>right?
>
>Shall I respond to this?  I mean, if somone actually writes that,
>is it even possible that they are intelligent enough to understand
>how stupid it is?  Oh what the heck...Ok, new word:  Asmurfist (a la
>McCoy).  I guess since we have defined the word: Asmurfist, smurfs
>now exist.  Well maybe they do according to the Vedas...

I spoke about historically and widely accepted dictionary words--
theism/atheism--not some manufactured neologisms unacceptable for
being known as scientific terms.

Generally speaking, what is the use of creating any new word if
one has no subject to designate by it anyway? Hence "Asmurfist"
(whatever it may be) must designate something, right?

And why should a subtraction from ANY word have a meaning on its own
as you try to claim? Is there such thing as "stronomy" as opposed to
"astronomy"? Your logic is obviously erroneous.
------------------------------------------------------------------
>>So you have to have some idea of God in your mind which you negate.
>>My question is: what is that idea and why do you negate it? Give some
>>reasonable evidences, please.
>
>Can you say IPU?
>I have seen no evidence for invisible pink unicorns
>so I don't believe in them.  I have seen no evidence of invisible
>pink Krishna's either, so I don't believe in them.  I have seen
>no evidence of ANYTHING that is god-like, so i disbelieve in gods.

Although IPU is your artificially composed term everybody has some
idea what the word "invisible", "pink" and "unicorn" means. Otherwise
there would be no point of putting them together.
BTW Krishna is blue--its His sweet will to be like that. 8-)

Just wonderin how you can claim--not knowing God--that you have never
seen anything god-like? "If God was one of us", for example your
neighbor, how would you know he is/is not a God?

Again, what is your idea of "god-like"?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Now Jahnu really goes off the deep end.  I know of no other way
>to explain such deeply incorrect thinking:

Do you by saying "incorrect" claim that this instinct doesn't exist?

>>If afterlife is not necessary then why do all the living entities have
>>their inborn instinct to live as long as possible? Why do you so
>>carefully maintain and protect your body (food, medicare, old age
>>insurances of all kinds etc.)?
>
>I don't believe in an afterlife, so I want to do as much as I can
>in this life.  To do that requires living a long time.

Intelligent person asks why many people die untimely not having enough
time to fulfil their desires in spite of advanced medicine.

Do you think you will make it?

>What is so difficult to understand about this?  You really have
>to wonder sometimes whether or now we are even speaking the
>same language....

Same language (although I'm not an native speaker) but different
paradigms. I try to empathize into your position being an atheist
before.

It is impossible to prove a blind man that there is a sun if he doesn't
want to be cured of his blindness being stubbornly convinced about sun's
nonexistence. He actually doesn't want to see the sun. He is unfortunate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>At this point Jahnu makes it clear that further discussion is pointless.
>He declares that just because there is absoutley no evidence
>for a phenomena, we should still accept that phenomena.  What?  You
>don't believe someone could actually think this way??? Read on...

You are putting  words into my mouth I didn't say.
I didn't say that lack of evidence is a proof but that it "doesn't prove
anything". That's a world of difference.

Please read carefully. Thus you'd also learn that I'm not Jahnu. 8-)

>>Lack of evidence doesn't
>>prove anything. In medieval ages the people didn't know about nuclear
>>reaction (although in Vedic times they did) but that can't prove its
>>nonexistence.
>
>No, but in the medieval ages no one claimed the existance of
>nuclear reations.  Duh.  Can you give an example of something
>for which there was no evidence that someone claimed existed, and
>ended up being shown to exist?  Don't bother...there are no examples
>of this.

When the first indologists read the Vedas (esp. Mahabharata) they
rejected them because they described for them unbelievable things
(hi-tech weapons, space travels, immense time scales, etc.). But these
things are not at all uncommon now. If they exist now why not in the
past? Just because anyone labels them as mythology?

Traveller Rehmann (spelling?) was the first Westerner who claimed that
he saw a mountain in Africa with a summit covered by ice (Mt. Kilimanjaro).
All scientists ridiculed him because none could imagine how there can be
an iceberg on the equator... Then they underwent a scientific process (an
expedition) and changed their opinions.

Or take many examples of later discovered but formerly fabulous animals
which were always known to local aborigines. They openly claimed their
existence and it was proven.

So your absolute statements as "...there are no examples of this."
have no grounds. You put yourself into the position of Omniscient whose
existence you try to deny.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>I guess it should come as no surprise that you have not been able
>to feel the enjoyment of discovery, of giving, of loving
>unconditionally, of earning respect for youself, of earning
>respect from your peers, of creating art and music, of making
>someone else a little happier, of telling a good joke, of hearing
>a good joke....and so on and so on.  All of these are far
>more important to me than "sense gratification" is.

Enjoyment of this material body includes both gross (eating, sleeping,
mating and defending) and subtle sense gratification (your examples.)
They can be classified as belonging to the modes of goodness (giving--
without expecting of return; loving unconditionally--like mother loves her
child; art and music--mainly classical and folkore; making others
happier--depends how you do it, but the motivation is nice; good joke--
humor without intentions to harm anyone) and passion (rest of your
examples).

If you cultivate those in the mode of goodness you'll become better
person and you'll be more happy. But one has to know HOW to do it. It is
described elaborately--together with scientific description of the modes
of nature--in the Bhagavad-gita. This study gives a firsthand experience
of Vedic truth.

>Heck, if I were devoid of all these experiences, I might
>search for a god to give me some happiness too.

How can you claim that anyone else is devoid of them?
They just didn't give me the best and permanent satisfaction.

One should try to go further. Isn't it a purely scientific approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsupported "facts" follow:

>>It's true that 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago people were smaller than
>>now but they were basically the same until the half of this century.
>>But you don't know about previous age, called Dvapara-yuga, which
>>ended 5000 years ago. At that time people lived longer and were taller
>>than present day people. Then they gradually became smaller.
>>Recently they started to "grow" because of drastic changes of
>>lifestyle and environment as well as food. Now you can enjoy genetic
>>manipulated food which allows you to grow very much but at the same
>>time suffer many unapalatable consequences of it.

In all cultures all over the world are found references to humans of
sometimes tall stature and their monumental architecture and civilization
(Stonehenge, India, Toltec culture in Mexico, Tiwanaco city, Easter
Island, New Caledonia, etc.) So there is no lack of support.

Do you think a prehistoric people carried out a worldwide conspiracy
manufacturing all these--from the Vedic point of view perfectly
compatible--"legends" and achievements? Modern science can't explain it.

Mad cow disease and its origins are supported very well...
-------------------------------------------------------------

>It weird...he really thinks that I am going to believe
>unsubstantiated claims by someone who has made such
>little sense thus far...

These claims are substantiated for those who experienced them. And
they were many great persons in all genuine spiritual traditions.
They were able to go beyond generally perceived reality. Anyone can
follow in their footsteps provided he wants. None is forced to
simply "believe" anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------

>>How can you avoid rotting away?
>
>I didn't say I can't, but it isn't one of my goals either.
>You can't seem to avoid making claims no one will believe, but
>is that your goal?

If it is your goal or not doesn't matter. That everyone is subject
to disturbances of nature, disease, old age, and death is not
a belief but a fact. You can only close your eyes before it.

>>There is no other solution to the the material problems of life than a
>>spiritual one.
>
>I've solved many of my problems.  

Your solutions are impermanent. You are controlled by nature and time.

>No spirits have come to help me yet.

Again absolute claim from one who can't see anything beyond matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Science in your hands will not help anyone--that's for sure.
>
>It's "for sure" is it?  Do you know what I do?  How can you
>be sure?

I'd like to know what's your job.

But I can generally see from your atheistic statements that your
actions are limited to gross and subtle material sphere.

On that platform no real help can be carried out because all
material arrangements are destined to fail. Material world and
everything made of material energy is gradually destroyed: you
buy a car but after a few years it's scrap. Same with your body.
Think about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>You should scientifically explain
>>the difference between the living and the dead body. If you can't,
>>then the real Vedic science is beyond you because to explain that is
>>just the first step in it.
>
>Ok, so you made up an answer and I didn't.  That makes you right
>i guess.  Christians think they know all the answers too...Funny,
>their answers are different from your answers and your answers are
>different from the answers provided by the Moonies.

Where did I say that I know all the answers? At least I know the
important ones, I've realized they are true and thus can continue
on the safely proven scientific path.
------------------------------------------------------------

>>I guess I explained this point sufficiently. Who can help you to get
>>it? Well, you have no idea about the Vedas. Never checked out
>>anything, right? ( except the TV guide)
>
>I never checked the Vedas out, but in the past few days
>I have learned alot about
>the stupidity of those who believe in them.

Can you quote some of the supposedly "stupid" arguments? The fact is
that you and other atheists can't refute them.

Again, here is no question of "belief" in the Vedas in a sense of being
blind and unsupported. Following the Vedas is a scientific process--
verifiable and predictable. Who undergoes it has his individual
experience. It is meant for scientifically oriented persons.
------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Weak solace. It can't help anyone to deal with the cause of his
>>situation. He can only try to be comforted by the idea that he could
>>suffer even more. Some, due to ignorance of the law of karma, blame
>>their suffering on God. That's not very intelligent though.
>
>Dwelling on how shitty one's situation is and what caused it
>never helped anyone.

It helps those intelligent persons who start to question their
situation. Obviously not everyone can do it and thus he is left with
your atheistic "solace".
--------------------------------------------------------------

>>>Really, I
>>>have to say that your true colors are finally showing:
>>>
>>>JAHNU BELIEVES IN GODS BECAUSE HE IS AFRAID OF LIFE
>>>WITHOUT THEM.
>>
>>I wonder how you will behave in your last hour. Then your clueless
>>arguments won't help you. You have to bow down before Krishna --either
>>voluntarily or involuntarily as you are being cut down by Him in the
>>form of death.
>>
>
>Yeah, yeah...heard it before.

Yes, this is obvious. I've seen and heard atheists who after their NDE
(near-death experince) became a very humble theists, like Krishna's
devotees. They didn't think at all it was a dream, a hallucination
influenced by mythology. They didn't try to reject their experience by
atheistic arguments as well.

An experience is a must for stubborn individuals. This is not to scare
you but the plain facts of life.

>Apparently you will be begging Christ for forgivness for
>believing in Krisha BS.

Are you becoming a Christian? 8-)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

>>The real point is
>>that our scientific advancement has not stopped or even mitigated the
>>real problems of life; disease, birth, death, old age. People still
>>get sick like anything, despite your lame examples, and they still
>>die.
>
>I guess this guy doesn't ever take antibiotics.

I do but I don't rely on them. Terminally ill people get cured even
without medicine and much more people die on common diseases like
flu. The science is not in control of the situation--that's obvious.

You again fail to see the point--how to avoid suffering completely.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

>jahnu claims that western medical research CAUSED most of
>the diseases...

Wrong. The whole Western materialistic society--of which the medicine
is just a part--should be blamed for this.

>>You again missed the point--who caused these terrible conditions to
>>occur in the first place? This just shows that science is out of
>>control of the situation--they opened Pandora's box but they can't get
>>rid of the consequences. Isn't that pretty obvious?
>
>Regardless of which culture (if any) is responsible for
>the worlds problems, how is this related to the supposed existance
>of god?

Here we don't speak about existence of God but about the harms done by
materialistic society. Clear?

>>>In India human beings go starving while food is given to feed
>>>fatally ill cows and chickens. Such inhumane practices
>>>are not the result of atheistic thinking.
>>
>>You speak about something you have no idea of. This only makes you
>>look pretty foolish.
>
>I saw a special about it on television recently.  It was
>a program which discussed animal rights and animal research.

What you can expect from TV? Whose interest it supports?

>Now what exactly makes me look foolish?  The fact that you
>say i look foolish?

Your speaking without knowing the facts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

>>You forgot to mention the information filter involved. This makes the
>>whole show a farce. Blind faith is required from the people who are
>>indoctrinated over and over again. If one rejects to conform he is
>>labelled by different not very savory names.
>
>Show me the science text where it teaches how to properly use:
>"the information filter method" please.

How to use it are the students taught in their practical education.
For example, they have to disregard the archeological findings contrary
to the accepted paradigm (personal experience of my friend and others),
change the datations accordingly etc.
Those who disagree with mainstream position can't publish anything in
official sources, get fired, their findings get mysteriously lost etc.

The above mentioned book by Thompson and Cremo is full of such
filtered-out material. Highly recommended.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

>Well, its been fun.  But I cannot spend so much time
>debating such ridiculousness.  Don't bother
>responding to this post on my account.  I honestly
>was not sure whether or not the eastern philosophies
>had more to offer than the bs Christianity has to
>offer.  But I thank you for showing me that religion
>is BS regardless of which hemisphere it comes from.
>
>Thank you for this insight,
>Smedley

Fun it really was. I also don't have time to repeat again again
the same basic points.
But because you ask for answers, explanations and proofs I must
reply. Otherwise it would look as if I ran out of arguments which
is not at all the case. 
I would just welcome some shorter texts and strictly philosophical 
arguments. So far I haven't seen any worthy of serious analysis. 
Actually I'm convinced there is nothing like arguments for 
nonexistence of God.

I recommend you again to get informed about the Bhagavad-gita etc.
Then you can have full insight which I--imperfect as I am--can't
provide.
Otherwise you would just "lick the honey jar from outside" which 
is highly unscientific activity.

Re your criticism of the Vedas you should follow the advice of Bob 
Dylan who sings:

"O mothers and fathers all over land
DON'T CRITICIZE WHAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND..." (Times They Are A-Changin')


Thanks for your attention,

Jan <Jan.Mares@com.bbt.se>