Religion /Science

Submitted by rudrax singh on Sun, 2009-11-29 07:10.

Time frame for vedas

I think we are going in circles around the issue in this discussion
instead of discussing the real issue i.e
whether we should take it as fact or not, what is mentioned about the age
of universe according to vedas and the subsequently the transfer of the
knowledge to the four rishis in the very beginning as claimed by you.
And we found it different based on our observation through scientific
process, which you claim can be wrong, because there can be gross amount
errors in that calculation, scientist can be biased in there studies too
as there are just mortals as any other human beings living on this earth.
Well, I never made claim that scientist can not biased? But theories are
not formulated that way, if you know the process, in if the theory is
proved theoretically, and accepted by the scientist working on that
particular field. and that's not the end of it, so scientist to further
research on that based on earlier finding, if they found something new
which contrast with the earlier finding, then we do validation of course
through scientific experiments. what to take as true for the time being
until further development, that's how science work.
You know what's that beauty of science it gives freedom to ask the simple
and the most important question Why? In science you don't blindly believe
or have faith in something because it was written somewhere?

Q. Do you believe or accept that vedas contains the absolute truth about
the creation and all other things in this whole universe as it clams or
at least its followers? and There is nothing outside the domain of the
vedas , nothing to be discovered, and that is it for all humans being to
know about this universe.There is nothing left to be known about the
universe as you claim vedas contain the absolute truth.
Vedas contain all that human being can possibly know about the universe
or creation per se?

If you say yes to above statements,

Q. Could you please tell us why In the vedas the issue of origin of
universe is written in Qs Ans form?
As you claimed that this absolute knowledge was given to the 4 rishis by
God based on their level of purity or karma in the very begining?
so could you tell who has asked the question as mentioned in the veda?
and why?
If it is asked by the rishis then your claim that God has given this
knowledge in the beginning to these 4 worthy rishis among the humans
seems to fall apart, as it more seems like these rishis asked the
question in samadhi and got the Answers?

please tell us or its the other way around?I mean
Q. Did the God told them to ask the question so the God can answer their
queries?

I don't understand why there is Q n A round given in the Vedas?
If God has given this knowledge there should not be any question in the
first place,as God knows each and everything?
Don't you think it should be in the form of statement as you claim its
the absolute knowledge?

It mentioned in the rig vedas about the names of 6 manvantra (svyambhav,
svarochish, autami, taamas, revat, chakshush respectively) that has
already been passed and the one(vaivusvath) which is going on but there
is no mention about the names of the rest of the seven manvantras which
are going to happen? except the (Sarvani)
Q. Could you please explain why is that So? if the origin of the universe
is elaborated thoroughly?
Or the God don't want to tell us about them at the time of origin? and
left it for us to discover or ponder upon? Or may be God will tell us
when either they would be finished or going to be started through his
divine intervention to some worthy and pure souls like God did at the
begining?

Q. could tell us why is it mentioned that aryas formulated the time scale
for the measurement for year and shan?
could tell us if this knowledge is received by the rishis straight from
god, from where the Aryas came in to play?

Q. could please show some light on this:
its mentioned that age of universe is equal to 14 manvantars and each
manvantar is divided into 71 chaturyugis?
So this comes out to be 14X71=994 chatarygis.

And there is written in the later part of this elaborate discussion that
One thousand chataryugis is equal to one Braham din and one thousand
chataryugis equal to the one Braham ratri. and God operates this unverse
for 1000 chataryugis or one braham din and then God dissolves the
creation for the same period of time i.e one thousand chatarugis or
braham ratri.

here you can see that there is contrast between the age of universe
between the former and later part of this elaborate explanation because
as mentioned above the 994 chatarugis could not possibly equal to 1000
chatarygis as mentioned in the later half.

There is difference of 6 chataryugis (i.e 6 X 43,20,000= 25,92,0000
years) in the calculation of the age of creation according the
information mentioned in the vedas.

Q. my simple question is why is that so? or did the God has kept this
time of 6 chatarygis so that God can prepare for the process of
dissolution and creation?
or is it so, so that God can rest before starting the next creation?

As you can see there is a grave miscalculation!!
Now tell us whose to blame for this either God who gave this absolute
knowledge according to you or the rishis who messed up in receiving this
knowledge?

Further, tell us why its mentioned that 1,96,08,52,976 years have been
passed and this much time has been passed since the origin of Vedas and
2,33,32,27,024 were remaining years of this creation.

so the whole age of creation comes out to be 4,29,40,80,000 years.

Now please show some light of dev yugas what's there relevance to above
calculation of the time frame for creation.

Q could please tell us why its said we can't count how many times the
creation has happened, or did the God don't want to tell us that
secret,wants to keep it to himself? that sounds pretty absurd because
here the God has given the elaborate account of creation, for just one
creation and why not for the rest of the creation that he has created or
does God forget the total no. of creation he as has done in the mist of
work of creation?

This also shows that these vedas were not god given words as you claim
but these were written by human beings based on their intuition that they
have received in deep meditation?

Well further its written there that this time frame of manvantar and
braham din was given for human understanding only. So there is no real
significance of this? As this satisfy the human intellect or to mystify i
would say.

Could you tell us why the god did not gave us the actual calculation? why
God want to conceal it, as it challenges god's superiority?

Well this calculation is based on the astronomical studies done by vedic
rishis?
and they can be wrong too for reason that you have sited applies to them
also as they are human beings too.don't you think so?
if you have any other explation please tell us.
you can see there are many loopholes?

Q. Could you please tell in this elaborate account of origin why God
forgot to tell us about the Origin or Galaxies, blackholes, dark energry,
dark matter, quantum voids, spread through out in the universe.
or why God forget to tell us about the time frame for the evolution of
solar system and earth. so that we can save our energy resources for more
useful purpose instead of trying hard to find out the age of the solar
system and earth.

This shows that God didn't forget to tell us, its just that there were
not created at that time with some special creation. but gradually came
into existence as we can see today through the cosmological and
astronomical studies.

God also hadn't told us about the species which were originate? solely
left that for us to discover through our studies. or may god might have
thought that's not necessary for us to know the evolutionary history of
the earth and solar system. instead we should focus on the bigger
picture, that is origin of universe or creation.

*************************************************************************
******
**To achieve results we have to train the mind , intellect, pranas in
accordance with laws of nature to create and achieve the various effects.
Like a computer, we have to feed it with the Gyan which you can
understand as a software for the body, mind etc Here the activities &
results are occuring in a nano invironment, which may be more minuter
than the outside sub atomic activities ? Even scientist also have to
visualize the things in brain , before trying them outside. The Rishis
aquire the ability to visualize the effects inside and may not require
experimenting outside. You can observe that every thing we are able to
perceive is through our inside perceptions and nothing can be achieved
without it. The fact that the Human body is a mini Universe in itself, is
I think, still an allien thought for the scientists.

# Well you said activities and results are occuring nano environment,
for sake of information the nano is just one billionth of a meter so its
not minute as you think to be because science has discovered the electron
3x10^-15 meters, proton, neutron, and quarks which are still smaller in
size.
size doesn't matter when we are talking about the subatomic particles, as
you might know these waves of energy based on findings of particle
physics.

So these activities that your are talking are taking place in still
smaller environment beyond the grasp of current technological
advancement.

"you said human body is a mini Universe in itself is I think, still an
allien thought for the scientists" please explain in what sense its said
that? as far i know you haven't said it in literal context. because you
can't correlate the mysteries of human body with universe in its literal
context. because the two are entirely different?

I agree with you that we are still searching the mysteries of human body
particularly the brain. and we don't have absolute knowledge about the
human body
and science is not making claim for that either too.

** I think assuptions about what is absolute and what is not still hounds
the scientific world ?

# As i have already said science is not based on mere assumption. nor its
following the God given words to be absolute truth.
I think your above statement has no legs science absolute hounds the
scientific world as that is not the case I have already mentioned before
that scientific world is not making a claim to possess the absolute
knowledge as we are still in the process of discovering, it is you people
whose making the claim about that.

** if you can believe in the Big bang theory,{and all your present
submissions are based on this only, which has not become a law so far,
but still you are using it with full confidance ?] then you ought to
believe in all the other odd theories. You may ask how ? Pl. see, as per
this theory before the big bang there was no matter, all was energy, all
was enclosed in a zero space with enormous heat & enormous weight but no
volume ? Today you describe energy in terms of movement of particles,
then how are you going to desribe it before the Big bang when there were
no particles ? will you kindly describe this , the form of energy without
any associated matter form ?? You are unable to believe in ways which may
be possible, but you readily believe in this because it has a name
attached to it i.e., it is scientific.

#though its just a theory not accepted you said I am using it with full
confidence?
though I don't agree that this is the ultimate theory that explains the
intricacies of universe!

you know what, the reason is bellow

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and
subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most
comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence
and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang
generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a
primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the
past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years
ago[3]), and continues to expand to this day.

Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the
origin of the Universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the
primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's
general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity
and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by
Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the
distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their
redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken
to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent
velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the
higher the apparent velocity.[4] If the distance between galaxy clusters
is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the
past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme
densities and temperatures,[5][6][7] and large particle accelerators have
been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in
significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have
limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any
evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big
Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an
initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general
evolution of the Universe since that instant. The observed abundances of
the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated
predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in
the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the Universe, as
logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang
nucleosynthesis.

Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term Big Bang during a 1949 radio
broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an
alternative "steady state" cosmological model, intended this to be
pejorative, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a
striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two
models.[8][9][10] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to
understand stellar nucleosynthesis, the nuclear pathway for building
certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the
cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its
spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength)
sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by
the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

Underlying assumptions

The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of
physical laws, and the Cosmological Principle. The cosmological principle
states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

These ideas were initially taken as postulates, but today there are
efforts to test each of them. For example, the first assumption has been
tested by observations showing that largest possible deviation of the
fine structure constant over much of the age of the Universe is of order
10−5.[36] Also, General Relativity has passed stringent tests on the
scale of the solar system and binary stars while extrapolation to
cosmological scales has been validated by the empirical successes of
various aspects of the Big Bang theory.[notes 3]

If the large-scale Universe appears isotropic as viewed from Earth, the
cosmological principle can be derived from the simpler Copernican
Principle, which states that there is no preferred (or special) observer
or vantage point. To this end, the cosmological principle has been
confirmed to a level of 10−5 via observations of the CMB.[notes 4] The
Universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales at the
10% level.[37]

# If someone want to read more about this they can read about this topic
on wikipedia, nasa.org, or similar site of European space agency

There is another theory put forward in 80s you might not know and
that is string and M theory. Please go read about these you will find
your answer.

You said I believe in Big bang theory because it has word attached to it
scientific.

# Well for you knowledge I never said I believe in the Big Bang theory
nor ever intend to. I don't know from where you come to this conclusion.
Well make conclusion for their own sake and the reasons you himself
mentioned. I don't need to elaborate that the divert the topic.

# I just accept for the time being these above mentioned theories to be
rational explanation ;scientifically derived possibility for the origin
of universe till further development.

#and that's how the science works and not otherwise, enforcing a belief
system; the one of them that you are advocating.

** Well, the process of construction is said to be complete only when
finally we are in a position to use it, before that it is called as a
construction stage. Hence when man arrived on this planet, for all
purposes as far as the man is cocerned, it can be said that the creation
was complete. If you don't consider this then the creation can never be
called as complete as always some changes will continue to take place.

#Well instead of giving the answer to my question you put this forward.
as you said with the creation of human beings the creation was complete,
and you are want us to believe this.
so for your information the change is still going on though its invisible
our naked eyes because its happening at the genetic level. if you know
these changes takes place over thousands of years in accordance with laws
of genetic mutation and certain other factors,that's how human beings
have evolved and not appear from nowhere.

* [so please tell me where were the man was residing for the period of
time it took
for the formation of galaxies solar system and earth,]

** well,the man is, if you are a believer of ATMA (soul), not a body
alone but the soul provided with body. I think the answer for this should
be provided by you ?

# I think you don't have the answer that's why your introducing the atma
factor.
so if your above statement is true, it means that God has transmitted the
knowledge to atma(soul) of human being through his divine grace while
earth has become habitable. then he transfered the human beings on earth.
is this what you want to say or the other way around?
Please be sure what you want to say because earlier you said god gave the
knowledge in the very begining. now you are saying got transmitted the
knowledge to atma. not the actual flesh and blood man. please decide
which statement of yours is true. because both these are contradicting
and ambiguous.
why should I provide the answer I am person whose inclination are more
towards scientific fact rather than blindly believing everything that has
been written time immorial as claimed by you.
as you got the absolute knowledge of veda, in my view you are in better
position to answer the question rather than twisting it for your own use.

** If the man evolved from these species only and lastly from ape, then
would you pl. tell, why not the primitive species have vanished one by
one giving way to new species and also why the transformation has stopped
now, why the apes no longer are changing into man and why not the apes
have vanished from this planet.

# As i have said before please go through some good books on the theory
of evolution and specially on genetic principles. you will come to know
why apes no longer changing into man, though change is still going on but
the not the way you want to see it, because nature has strange laws
beyong our comprehension, some of them we have found.

I am not accepting anything blindly that's why this conversation is going
on the first place other wise you don't have stress upon the issue so
much and so far.

** if evolution doesn't mean the way it is being described.

Q. please show some light on the evolution the otherway around as you are
suggesting?

**So if you say the universe evolved, then it means that there was no
knowledge existing at that very time, just every thing was evolving to
reach to some stage ? This means you are contradicting your own statement
that knowledge is always existing and doesn't vanish. If knowledge of
constrction process is existing, then the process of construction is a
set process and not an evolving process

# so you think or rather believe that the universe is as it is from the
beginning there is no change in its constitution since then. if you think
so please go through material evidence painstakingly gathered from the
study of universe by scientist over all these years. please take some
time to go through latest astronomical studies.

#as I have said before knowledge is always there in terms of phenomenons
and laws. we are just researching and discovering them. as in accordance
with the first law of thermodynamics that "energy is never created nor
destroyed". so the knowledge is always present in the form for subtle
vibration.

#and so to say these laws were operating the in the universe from the
beginning we just rediscovered them. and God forbid even if human
civilization ceases to exist, these laws will remain operational.

** Why you are feeling strange " Can you tell whether egg came first or
the hen in the present form ?

# from where comes the issue whether chicken comes first or the egg. well
this is good argument for the purpose of amusement. but we know that egg
can't come in the middle of knowwhere as you are considering it to be in
the case of human. I think you have read books on biology. particulary
the very theory you are trying to prove wrong. if would have studied that
you woudn' have put forward the chiken n egg Qs.

**Well if man didn't came in existance at Tibbet then it would have been
some other place, then why can't it be Tibbet ?

#well my concern is not about the place of origin of man whether it
happened in Tibet or anywhere else on this earth for this matter? I think
you are diverting the issue. issue is about the time frame not the place.

** Can you tell where the first man originated i. e., the man with full
mental ability ? and how much period back ?

# well you would have gone thoroghly gone through what I have written,
you woudn't have asked this silly question. As know can tell you that
with %100 accuracy!
though there is consensus that it has to be africa where humans might
have first evolved, I not saying to believe that as or accept that as
ultimate truth.

** I think you are still believing in the Darwin theory of evolution.

# please tell me if you have a better theory for evolution not merely
based on the scriptures but the material evidence. you are most welcome
to send your desertation to any of the universities or scietific
authorities around the world. so that it can be beneficial for the human
kind toward the better understanding of the world we live in.

**If that’s so, can you pl. tell what shall be the ultimate or atleast
next product after man, because Darvin I presume never predicted it as a
cyclic process ?

# I think you have studied the Darwin but to a lesser extent, that's why
you have put forward this question. please go through it thoroughly. as I
have said changes are still going on genetic level its almost impossible
to for the current advancement to predict those changes. because of the
life span of human, if you can see the genetic principles for further
clarification otherwise it will turn out to be science class.

** From where the question of a virgin has arrived ? should we discuss
Kunti or mother Marry here ?
# I wrote these just to correlate with what you have said that humans are
created as adult. so if that can be possible why virgin marry can't give
birth to child and why kunti can't be unmarried mother?
as this seems against natural process, so is your claim.
and if God can creat adult human beings why can't he send his son to the
womb of virgin women as the christian claims.

**Have you seen any complex firma for creating a product in a factory ?
After all the preliminaries are carried out and the formation of firma is
complete, the end products can be pruduced without any problem and
absolutetly not by first producing a miniature form and then creating
bigger & bigger forms. If human bein can do this , why can't God ? But
for this to believe, you have to have a belief in God, the Creator.

#first tell please tell what you mean by firma because i haven't found
that word.

well if the production starts in the factory, the owner don't usually
throw the machines that he has originally used to produce the finished
product.

the example sited by you is not relevant because evolution, creation is
more complex a process than establishing a manufacturing unit by human
being.

or if you consider this analogy so could you tell me from where god has
got the primary mould (womb) to produce the so many different kinds of
adult human being on this earth.
this is just like your above chicken and egg question. would you suggest
that god created a super size egg with all the nourishment in it to be
finally turn out to be human, and then goes the sexual life cycle of
human evolution.as we know this is not the case.

** Do you want earth to be resurrected, so that you can see this
phenomina for yourself ?

# well don't want that as we have material evidence how earth evolved to
its present stage and the research process is still continue.

**When a factory is installed the starting process is different, but
after the factory is commissioned the manufacturing process is different.

# please explain why the manufacturing process should be different, lets
say machines are installed to produced toy gun, after some time machines
will automatically will start to produce real guns.

**When the car is started you have to ignite the fuel separately, but
once the car starts the ignition is not required separately but becomes
an automatic process. This is how the creation of Universe take place.

#Thanks for enlightening us by siting this simple, terse analogy between
the car engine and process of creation of universe.

#for your information ignition is required in the ignition chamber or the
cylinder so the gases compressed by the movement of piston can inturn
push the piston so that movement continues.
though initial spark comes from the battery.

if the process becomes automatic once where is the need of God?

**The man was created as an adult at the time of his origin, because a
man's child can't survive without a mother.
# what you have to say about the orphans, don't they survive, don't you
heard about the single parents.

**Well I feel you don't believe in the theory of God creating the
Universe, otherwise all these questions don't arise.

#well this your conclusion based on this talk,and I have already said
people derive conclusion which later on turn out to be there firm beliefs
which they afraid to forsake for the something new.

I'm not a atheist or theist.You can say I'm neutral or what I believe is
based upon my intuition, what ever pitty intellect i have and what i
Observe.

and I believe in the creation of the universe by the God but not the you
want me to believe? or rather I should say I am still searching for the
possble answer.

**Now if it is so pl. tell whether the universe is evoluting by itself ?
# as i have said before universe is expanding based on scientific
findings. we know very less about this, much of it is concealed in the
form of what we call dark energy and dark matter.

**if so what are we ? , what our qualities like love, hate, desires,
ambitions etc mean ? how all this evolved in us and why these qualities
are not evolving in material things like say our chairs, tables,
buildings and so on ?

## well you can find answer for this by studing science how these
qualities evolved.

and about the material things you yourself gave the answer because these
are material things not living.

**Is consciosness evolving from material things or is there a difference
between a conscious & non conscious thing ?
# well I think your not sure about the consciousness as well.
where the point comes in your mind of evolving consciousness from
material things, non living things.
though there is consciousness or I would say energy vibration that are
dormant in case of material objects.
as you can see in humans, animals and plants the consciousness is there
but not developed up to the level of human beings.

** First pl. complete the Zigsaw puzzle. The theory is same for all the
species , but it is not the way my friend , as you are describing it. Pl
refer to answer above.

# do you think just because science is not able to able to discover the
missing link of evolutionary history. You can suggest your theory of
special creation for man on the earth.

** This is same when I said that science is the knowledge we acquire
through our senses & efforts. Naturally it includes all that you are
imagining above.

#first of all what I have said is not figment of minds. if that's others
wouldn't be able to observe it the same way.

** Correct, but are you not contradicting this in the theory you are
following ?? if nothing comes out of nothing, how come you have
CONSCIOUSNESS out of INERT MATERIAL ?

# i don't know from where you have drive that I meant say that
consciousness evolved from inert material. offsprings comes from their
parent whether animal or human. don't you believe that they have
conciousness.
as i have said consciousness also evolved from lower to higher as we
observe in the world unless you turn your back to this fact.

**How matter has evolved from ENERGY, when energy is the capacity to do
work and is not a matter in itself ?

# could tell us have heard about the cosmology and E=mc2 the famous
Einstein equation. which think every child is familiar with if doesn't
understand the deeper meaning. don't ask me to explain it to you rather
pick a good book on quantum physics. as I said i don't want to turn this
discussion into a science class because to most of the people its boring
that's reason very few are involved in it.

**But the evolution doesn’t mean evolution of soul from matter and vice
versa

# well I haven't disscused this, anywhere that soul evolved from matter
and vice versa in my discussion this topic nor I even point to this.
so from where this comes into play or just inserted it.

** The process remains same for any Creation. The two processes can't be
contrary to each other.

#well if you think process of remains same for any creation. Do you think
the humans might have been created in other parts of the universe,as you
firmly believe god created humans on earth. so it might possible that god
has also created the humans on other distant planets as well. Because
don't you think if pretty unnatural for the god to create humans being
just on this planet earth and leave the rest of the whole universe as it
is. because for the exploding human population this galaxy is enough or
may few million galaxies were enough for accomodation.
and if according to your above statement other alien species are existent
on other planets. it nearly impossible for us to communicate
with them with current technological advancement. It the moral
responsibility of the god to tell us about them as well, as god gave us
the true knowledge about his creaotion.

** When you can believe in a Big bang theory, whereby every thing came in
to existence in a few minutes,

# How you derive that Big bang theory tells that everything came into
existence in a few minutes. well you should first under the big bang
theory, as i have mentioned above in brief.

**its not understood why you have a hesitation to accept that man can
appear in an adult form.

#well first of all i am not hesitant to accept anything as far as its
based on rational intead for some kind of magic trickery.

**Regarding your hesitation to accept Tibbet as the place of origin, well
if it’s not Tibbet, it will be elsewhere. You can enlighten us as to
where the first human appeared in the present form and how many years
back ?

#well its not the question of place of origin if read what i write. for
further clarification you can check above.

** Well if only three basic partcles, or if we have to believe in current
scientific theory, only from energy the whole Universe can evolve with
all the variations, I don't understand why you have a problem accepting
the fact that a few adult pairs at the begining can create the variations
unlimited. Pl. refer again to what I wrote above "There were a number of
adults which were created at the time of origin and not one and that's
how the difference was created from man to man by the nature without any
difficulty and so conveniently."

#well the possible explanation you are giving for difference in the
humans species doesn't seems right, as we know from our studies of
genetics and law of variatiions.
moreover, i guess god created a number of caucassians, oceanian,east
asian, native americans , africans from them present population evolved
is that what you mean to say.
this is wrong because according to the scientific studies this is not the
case. we have evidence for that.
we are not claiming it because its written somewhere.

**Pl. don't think all people who wok as a scientist are the enlightened
souls, they also can have their own ambitions which can make them behave
in a similar way as others do.

# well i have explained this above. where you get the idea that scientist
are enlightened souls or did mention that. ofcourse as human beings we
have certain inclination based on our past karmas. it applies to all of
us not particulary to scientists.

as i have said before science is based on the contribution of many people
its logical, its not that if some scientist say this is the law of
evolution the all the other scientist are bound to follow the suit.

and I think that's the beauty of it because science doesn't advocate any
belief system like the one you are advocating rather it pushes us to

» rudrax singh's blog | login or register to post comments

well i have got this strange

Submitted by rudrax singh on Sun, 2009-11-29 10:27.

well i have got this strange feeling that you are diverting the on going discussion.

please answer my aforesaid question that I have asked about the chronology of vedas; based on your belief of vedas and don't make this healthy discussion ambiguous.

so that I might be able go forward and ask some other question?

I am put up these question again if someone would like to answer.

*************************************************************************
Q. Do you believe or accept that vedas contains the absolute truth about
the creation and all other things in this whole universe as it clams or
at least its followers? and There is nothing outside the domain of the
vedas , nothing to be discovered, and that is it for all humans being to
know about this universe.There is nothing left to be known about the
universe as you claim vedas contain the absolute truth.
Vedas contain all that what human being can possibly know about the universe
or creation per se?