30 Nov 10
Originally posted by ua41But for something to be true or real does not need and observer in order for it to be real or true. The atom did fine without any observation from us for 1000's of years but this does not negate it's existence.
For things to be true, there must be certain conditions in order to consider it to be true e.g. references of comparisons, the contexts of the scenario etc. Even if we were to consider the existence of something- surely the existence of something must be true? Well what is there to interpret its existence? It's existence is reliant upon observation, a source wh ...[text shortened]... We are all painting on a blank portrait, each contributing their part and affecting the whole
Manny
30 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71The atom did fine without any direct human observation, but it was still interacting with everything and vice versa. It was still affecting and being affected.
But for something to be true or real does not need and observer in order for it to be real or true. The atom did fine without any observation from us for 1000's of years but this does not negate it's existence.
Manny
Edit: Also, I want to say that if we consider truth to be relative, it doesn't mean we have to negate somethings existence.
01 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuOk, I will be specific with my questions if you keep your answers relatively short.
The atheists in this forum have only one approach, and that is to deny and attack everything that supports the reality of God, anyway if I start putting out a particular name, they will start to attack that, and goggle everything about that name, to try and find something to argue about.
You ask about Krishna.......well Bhagavad Gita says,..... and it ...[text shortened]... uld cut and paste 100 pages about that, so you need to be specific with your question please.,
I heard that at some time when krsna ,incarnated as the blue dude depicted over and over in Hindu Myhtology , was by a river (or body of water), and some "spiritual stuff" went on. Apperently there were 16000 disciples of krsna there, half male and half female, and they all had sex (tantric sex?) all at the same time, but only with their partners.
Does this story have any truth to it (either as allegory or as a literal intepretation)?
And if so, what is the "spiritual stuff" that went on? Do you know this story? If not I'll try another, or you could give me a simlar story (if there is one). Cheers🙂
01 Dec 10
Originally posted by ua41Agreed with the first part of your statement.
The atom did fine without any direct human observation, but it was still interacting with everything and vice versa. It was still affecting and being affected.
Edit: Also, I want to say that if we consider truth to be relative, it doesn't mean we have to negate somethings existence.
01 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe story has no truth, but there is some info that needs clearing up...
Ok, I will be specific with my questions if you keep your answers relatively short.
I heard that at some time when krsna ,incarnated as the blue dude depicted over and over in Hindu Myhtology , was by a river (or body of water), and some "spiritual stuff" went on. Apperently there were 16000 disciples of krsna there, half male and half female, and they ...[text shortened]... y? If not I'll try another, or you could give me a simlar story (if there is one). Cheers🙂
Firstly, the 16000 persons, were Gopis (female) associates who are intimately in relationship with Krishna, in a spiritual dance called the Rasa dance. (no tantric sex)
This dance is an eternal spiritual dance, and is described as spiritual sex, but without the sex.
Tantric sex is not authorized in the true spiritual life. (never was)
Krishna doesn,t incarnate as the blue incarnation because the blue form is the original form of God in the spiritual world.
Bhagavad Gita is declaring that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead , from which all incarnations are coming from.
The Vedanta Sutra has nothing to do with mythology, and nothing to do with Hinduism..... but the Vedas do give great detail of demigod worship (which is where Hinduism comes from).
But lets be clear about something.....Hinduism is a word that is not found in the Vedas, because it was only introduced recently into the English language.
But Indian scholars, have embraced the word Hindu, and now we are stuck with it.
The real bona fide spiritual process is called Vaisnavism or Santana Dhama. (not Hinduism)
Anyone today saying they are a Hindu, are not following the bona-fide spiritual religion, but something else.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelNow you're catching on!
Thats a great quote, but where to next?
Are you trying to imply that because I dont believe in absolute (written) truths that whatever I think may be a bit true is actually a "whole lie" ?
Logically, if something isn't 100% true, then it is false.
But, if something isn't 100% false, it is still false.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuIn regards to Hinduism I dont know enough to be dictating any of their philosophies directly.
The story has no truth, but there is some info that needs clearing up...
Firstly, the 16000 persons, were Gopis (female) associates who are intimately in relationship with Krishna, in a spiritual dance called the Rasa dance. (no tantric sex)
This dance is an eternal spiritual dance, and is described as spiritual sex, but without the sex.
Tantric ...[text shortened]... saying they are a Hindu, are not following the bona-fide spiritual religion, but something else.
Seem there was some truth to that story after all. Not literal, but dont you think it was a good example of how a story can be distorted, especially by people repeating the story without actually knowing what they are talking about?
Yep, a great example and a reminder that there are many similar distortions with the reading of the bible as well.