Responses:
Dialogue 1
Back to contents
Response to Alaric: - Saturday, 31-Oct-98 14:27:53
Vj ~ It would help a great deal if we keep in mind the means by which truth can be ascertained. In the absence of correct knowledge, the immutable laws of nature must be your guide.
Al:- "Why would the same species have to evolve again to prove that it happened once?"
Vj ~ It is not a matter of proof, but a law which must never cease. Rain did not come from the clouds once, cause of the physical bodies from the reproductive element did not occur once, death did not occur once, etc., etc., all these are steady occurrences (a law) of creation and so must we accept that evolution of the human species from a lower creature cannot be one-time event.
Al:- "Why would we expect two separate episodes of speciation to produce two identical species?"
Vj ~ The law either works one way or the other, but never both ways and since the majority speaks of it in constant occurrences then we will have to accept it as such.
Al:- "Why do you think that humans evolved from monkeys?"
Vj ~ It is not I, who think so - it is the claim of evolutionists - but if you disagree, then you have proven that there are also disagreements among evolutionists.
Al:- "And finally, how do we know that species didn't have identical evolution? (If they were the same species, they would be identical, if not they would be different species)"
Vj ~ Nature recurrent indicates that all species had a distinct beginning.
Al:- "These questions and yours tend to illustrate that what we already know is not diminished by what we have yet to know."
Vj ~ Vj- And how do you know that it is not more like what we already know being diminished by what you don't want to know.
Dialogue 2
Back to contents
Response to Alaric: - Saturday, 31-Oct-98 15:32:57
Al:- The points I raised were phrased in the form of questions to assist you in better understanding what science can and cannot do.
Vj ~ The answer I gave were phrase so to assist you to better understand that science, going it alone, does not have all the answers. It would help a great deal if we keep in mind the means by which truth can be ascertained. In the absence of true knowledge, the immutable laws of nature must be your guide.
Al:- I get the feeling that we are talking about different "immutable laws of nature". We're talking about science only if we are talking about the observable ones.
Vj ~ You must understand this much that the laws of nature, however different their applications, are all unchangeable.
Al:- To continue with your "Rain did not come from the clouds once..." analogy, my point is that rain never came from the cloud exactly the same way twice.
Vj ~ I have to admit that this is a childish response. The same maybe said of death, that not everyone dies the same way, the point is we die and rain always comes from the clouds. It is the law.
Al:-I'll refer you to your first statement: What method are we using to know? If we're talking about the scientific method , theories do not answer everything. They only explain what has been observed.
Vj ~ Doesn't it then make sense to look somewhere else to find the 'missing link'?
Al:- Naturally, there are many other methods of "knowing" that are not bound by this constraint. We are free to choose whatever method of knowing that we like.
Vj ~ Certainly we are free to choose our own methods, but how do we ascertain the results to be true? You can build a car by your own method but it would still be car by a method that has already been established. Similarly, your own method to ascertain the truth will also have to be established by an existing truth.
Al:- "But if you want to challenge the theory of evolution from a scientific standpoint, you must be prepared to support yourself using the scientific method only."
Vj ~ It is obvious that science doesn't have all the answers so how is your scientific method is going to prove what we are looking for? Al:- (PS The theory of evolution does not imply that humans evolved from apes, but that both had a common ancestor.)
Vj ~ Well then the question of the source of our common ancestors still remains. Isn't it?
Dialogue 3
Back to contents
Response to Jon: - Sunday, 01-Nov-98 10:36:49
J:- "The answer is really rather simple. Yes, evolution behaves according to certain rules, just like any other natural process."
Vj ~ It is not like any other process, which has only one rule - repeated occurrences.
J:- "Your error is in thinking that those rules are simple. Evolution isn't like rain falling from the clouds. It's more like water flowing in a river. You can tell with considerable accuracy where it's going to end up, and you can backtrack easily to where it started, but you can't ever tell exactly what path any given water molecule might take to get from point A to point B."
Vj ~ Who doesn't know that rain comes from the clouds, water forms a river, flow into the ocean, sucked up by the sun and fall back as rain? Now you know its path.
J:- "Evolution can only work with the raw material that it's given."
Vj ~ What is the source of this raw material and who was there to give it?
J:- "There's an essentially random element to genetic variation, so there's an essentially random factor in evolution. That means that evolution will never take the exact same path twice. The over-all end results will often be the same, but the specific pathways normally don't repeat themselves. And the patterns can't repeat if the starting conditions are significantly different."
Vj ~ Then you are saying that if the act of raising the dead occurred once, then it is a law and it is not necessary that it be repeated to prove it so?
J:- "Humans evolved when we did, not before, because only in the early Pliocene did one particular primate line find itself in a situation where increased intelligence was both possible and a useful adaptation. Intelligence may have evolved other times, in other ways, in other species, but not from other primates because older primate lines simply weren't in a position to follow that particular evolutionary pathway. You might as well ask the Mississippi River to start forming waterfalls as ask a Miocene primate to evolve directly into a hominid. It isn't going to happen, because the conditions are all wrong."
Vj ~ You might as well ask the jungle to give a child your intelligence, undisturbed by modern conditions. It isn't going happen either, because man must be taught. Evolution is definitely a failure since it cannot trace the origin of the human language, let alone Divine knowledge which is peculiar to mankind only.
Dialogue 4
Back to contents
Response to Adrian: - It still remains questionable - Tuesday, 16-Mar-99 09:04:17
A:- Evolution happens, and that is undeniable. It is not open to debate, sorry.
Vj~ If it is not open to debate then it still remains questionable. I could say the same that evolution is a failure, a fact, and is not open to debate. Case closed. But this is not the way of the wise.
A:- As for the theory of evolution (which describes the fact of and evidence for evolution)
that is being constantly challenged by evolutionary biologists, who are testing, poking
and trying to break the theory every day.
Vj~ Scientific truths are always in dispute even among scientists themselves because what is true today, as were a century ago, could be wrong in the future. Isn't it an injustice alone that science has deprived so many of these 'truths'?
A:- Unfortunately for the willfully ignorant among us, the theory is standing up quite well.
Vj~ Sure, Christianity stood up very well too until some Greek philosophers decided to poke some holes in it.
A:- Do you actually understand the difference between the fact and theory of evolution, and
what they both mean?
Vj~ All I have to understand is the immutable laws of nature and any 'theory' or 'fact' that breeches it, is not valid.
A:- Or are you simply another clueless creationist who likes the sound of his own voice and is too lazy or stupid to pick up a "Dick and Jane Learn Evolution" book?
Vj~ Anyone who is proud of the fact that the source of his or her intelligence is from a monkey is a "clueless" evolutionist, in short a fool. It is blatant stupidity that leads men to read such books
A:- Just curious...
Vj~ Warning! Never heard of "curiosity kills the cat".
A:- There is no question among scientists (or anyone else who cares to examine the overwhelming evidence) that evolution exists.
Vj~ There is also no question among the saints and sages of yore (or anyone else who genuinely cares to examine thoroughly the overwhelming evidence) that the Vedas are not the true source of only ethics and morals, but all sciences.
A:- You evolved from an ape-like ancestor, whether your local superstitions say so or not.
Vj~ Atleast be thankful to us, the created beings, for creating educational institution so that those who evolved out of monkeys can think and act like a human.
A:- Oh, of course. They should pray and wait for revelations instead.
Vj~ Perhaps you should try praying one day, who knows it may make you a complete human.
A:- In what way does the observed, natural phenomenon of evolution breech any laws of nature?
Vj~ That man evolving from ape is repeated occurrences. It is also a fact, that man must be taught, so who taught the first man? Certainly not the task of a completely illiterate primate.
A:- Do you understand what evolution is, or what the theory of evolution is?
Vj~ A lot more than you understand of natural laws and creation, as revealed by Vedic revelation?
A:- You clearly don't actually know anything about the subject, do you?
Vj~ Enough to have you hopping around like a monkey, and you are doing a splendid job of it too and that is because you are yet to refute the Vedic view of creation and the immutable laws of nature.
A:- Maybe you should go and learn something about it before you embarass yourself even more in such a public way?
Vj ~ Where have you refuted my creationist view to cause me embarassment? Looks you are like the one facing embarassment right now. Response to Adrian:- An insensible reaction? -Wednesday, 17-Mar-99 10:03:29
Vj ~ An intelligent debate requires an honest opinion of every rebuttal made by all parties, be it negative or positive. It is necessary not only to bring the truth out of the subject matter at hand but to ascertain the integrity of the participants. If thereis insincerity in you, reasoning for the truth would forever evade you.
A:- Hmm... So you evidence against evolution is that no-one has refuted your particular creation susperstition? Have you ever heard of something called "the scientific method"?
Vj~ Have you ever heard of something called "the abstruse scientific method" knowledge by mundane principles and that of the Divine?
A:- Is there any useful evidence to support your myth? Is this evidence observable, reproducible and falsifiable?
Vj~ Obviously none of these are to an idiot? Do you think it would make any sense for a scientist to lay his theory by a formula before a complete idiot as evidence?
A:- You must come up with the extraordinary evidence to refute the theory of evolution.
Vj~ I agree, but if you are completely stupid of where (Vedic philosophy) I am coming from how would it make any sense to you?
A:- The same applies to your myths and superstitions
Vj~ Your myths and superstitions are limited to what you already know of religions and not what you know of the Vedic philosophy.
A:- Without solid evidence, you're just saying "It's true because I say it is. So there!"
Vj~ No, I am saying the evidence is there, but your ego is an impediment to finding it.
A:- Why should anyone take your ranting seriously if you can't back it up with
anything solid?
Vj~ Matter is not solid in its primitive state but we know of its existence because of subjective (invisible) evidence or knowledge; the same can be said when it comes to God
A:- Evolution is a fact of nature. The theory of evolution is the single best
explanation of that fact.
Vj~ The "fact" violates natural laws and so it cannot be a fact of nature.
A:- What's your problem with this, apart from it offending
your delicate religious sensibilities?
Vj~ Truth can never be offended by stupidity as stupidity is by truth.
Response to Adrian:- Incoherent gibberish - Thursday, 18-Mar-99 07:04:20
A:- Your replies have become so nonsensically garbled that there is little
point in even trying to respond to them.
Vj~ If you think it is that bad, just immagine how terrible it was for the first homo sapiens trying to understand the human language while still acting as an ape.
A:- I think that your grasp on logic, reason and high-school science speaks for itself.
Vj~ Well early man were deprived of it so I should be more than thankful. But the point you made is quite clear that man needs to be taught even though it is in contradiction to evolution.
Dialogue 5
Back to contents
Response to Adrian:-I wonder why you went to school? - Tuesday, 16-Mar-99 09:16:42
A:- I looked at your webpage, and I'm not overly impressed.
Vj~ Ever heard of one becoming a doctor by merely looking at a book on anatomy?
A:- Wild assertions based on yet another ancient mythology just aren't as helpful as actual physical evidence
Vj~ And how helpful was physical evidence to those who at one time saw the earth was flat and the sun was moving?
A:- Is there any physical evidence that unambiguously supports your creation mythology?
Vj~ Only if you believe that all that glitter are gold.
A:- Meanwhile, as (brief and simple) introduction to evolution, you might be interested in my page
Vj~ I will also "look" at it.
Response to Marty:- Down Here For stupidity. - Wednesday, 17-Mar-99
A:- Evolution isnt a wisdom,
Vj~ So is Christianity to us, but what does that prove?
A:- The Theory:All life originated from a bunch of chemicals
produced from simple amino acids, which form whenever there are simple chemicals like H2O
CO2 and some other stuff.
Vj~ Wonderful! Now that you have got all the ingredients why can't your genius scientist create life from these simple chemicals? As a matter fact, forget about life, how about a strand of hair, or a blade of grass?
A:- Find a better theory which fits all our evidence and then come back and tell use evolution is wrong
Vj~ I just did! And don't tell me your truth is possible at sometime in the future! Then you will have to admit that they could also find God sometime in the future and that He exists now as the chemicals do.
A:- So you believe it makes more sense that everything around you was created for mankind's benefit by some creator(s) which didnt leave any solid evidence behind
except for the fact that things work so well?
Vj~ The same could have been said of a 747, seen by members of a bush tribe somewhere in Africa, where there were no solid evidence of who created it, except that it flies very well. If you insist that the evidence was out of their reach, then perhaps the same can be said of you.
Dialogue 6
Back to contents
Response to Alan:-The wanker replies! - Tuesday, 16-Mar-99 11:07:40
A:- I don't have to defend evolution against religious fanatics like you.
Vj~ Where did I say that I would cut your throat if you don't? Since it needs to be defended, something must be wrong with it
A:- You don't understand the science well enough to be able to effectively refute it
Vj~ If I know enough to tell you that you are ignorant of the immutable laws of nature, I must know something.
A:- and there is nothing on your website worth reading that will make me retract anything I have said
Vj~ Hardly a feat that can be accomplished in a day. Incredible I would say, for one whose ancestor was a monkey, to accept the theory of evolution in a day.
A:- Evolution is real and observable and good enough for every university in the world to be teaching it
Vj ~ I am not in opposition to such a move, but in the same way, all religions should have been a necessary criterium for the exploration of the ultimate truth.
A:- How many universities teach creationism among their science courses?
Vj~ It is ok to teach creationism among science but based on what - false religions? Is it a wonder you are an evolutionists.
A:- And now that I know that your comments WERE a creationist slap at science, I will know how to address you from now on - wanker.
Vj~ It is only a slap because you are ignorant of what the truth really is. It has been out of the reach of so many and for many centuries, that it must be very difficult for you to believe that it really does exist.
Dialogue 7
Back to contents
Response to Dante:-I am sorry Dante I didn't.........! - Tuesday, 16-Mar-99 13:55:22
Vj~ There is also a lot more to the human intellect than its evolution from a monkey.
D:- Not really. The human intellect serves the same purpose as any other survival mechanism in any other animal.
Vj~ I am quite sure you are aware that one is stupor as opposing the other; that one acts according to instinct as oppose to the other; and that one can achieve great intellectual heights by learning as oppose to the other.
D:- It serves to give us an advantage in gathering food and evading predators.
Vj~ I am sorry Dante, I didn't know you weren't fully evolved yet!
D:- Everything else, and most certainly any religious myths, are nothing but fluff, designed to make us feel good.
Vj It can't be all that bad then, since there is some “good” in it. ~
D:- So tell me what's it like to live in a world of ignorance, where you can make things up to make you feel more secure?
Vj~ I thought you would know better since it is ignorance to exists without a purpose. I really don't know why you evolutionists don't practice the art of masturbation since there is really no purpose for reproducing.
D:- It is pretty sad that you need to believe that some outside force has bestowed a purpose on you.
Vj~ No Dante, it is bestowed on you also but unlike me , you can’t tell me what else doesn’t have a purpose except you.
D:- Is that what you are really afraid of, that your life will have no meaning, that you'll have no reason for living?
Vj~ There is meaning because of instructions from a superior being. I know where I came from and I know where I am going, but even more interesting I also know where you are going and doesn’t look pretty good for you.
D:- Is that why you incessantly hold on to your irrational, ignorant beliefs about life's origins?
Vj~ Maybe it is ignorant but how would an idiot with his brains buried in a monkey's pass, would know?
Response to Dante:- It's pretty sad...for Dante - Thursday, 18-Mar-99 09:26:24
Vj ~…but even more interesting I also know where you are going.
D:- Disneyworld?
Vj~ Makes a lot of sense if they have a zoo there.
D:- At this point, the only reason to respond to you is because I want to see your pathetic attempts at insulting me with your flailing grasp of the english language.
Vj~ Better to be a created being, I have surpassed the state of insult.
D:- I just wish you would be creative enough to make it worth my while.
Vj~ Sounds more like disappointment, sorry you weren’t thrown a banana.
Dialogue 8
Back to contents
Response to Glenn:- Self-absorbed and arrogant - Friday, 19-Mar-99 17:52:41
G:- In fact, I don't know of anyone (no matter what their educational background, credentials, religious affiliation, etc.) who claims to have "no questions left unanswered". Except you! Only YOU!!!
Vj~ I thought a non-self-absorded would be curious to check it out.
G:- What an incredibly, self-absorbed, arrogant, miscreant you are!
Vj~ Thanks man, you make me feel so good.
G:- "Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom." - F. Zappa
Vj~ He must be one of your early ancestors. Make sense coming from some one whose brain was undergoing the changes of evolution.
G:- I personally would add to that: "Especially when you're in complete denial, can't even begin to get your facts straight, and are suffering from some undefined, bizarre, messianic complex".
Vj~ Yours are still way out in Kalahari somewhere but slowly coming around.
G:- As far as atheists begging, borrowing and stealing in order to have a good time at all costs...utter nonsense!
Vj~ Shows you don't know much about your flock
G:- And I deeply resent your implying that my lack of belief in some myth makes me somehow predisposed to commit criminal acts!!!
Vj~ It would make no difference, since there is no purpose or expectation of any reward or punishment in end.
G:- !!! It's precisely this attitude of yours that inspires my semi-nasty tone...you deserve it!
Vj~ Deserve it! I love it!
G:- Far worse, actually. Frankly, I marvel at my own restraint!
Vj~ Greedy! Now I am beginning to feel sad. Why you had to tell me you have more. Now I won't get it.
G:- Oh! One more thing then I'll let you get back to being smug
Vj~ Oh! what a nice guy. Thanks so much.
G:- If you never, ever manage to get one other single thing about evolution straight...try to wrap your head around this one simple fact: MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM A MONKEY!!!
Vj~ How come you fellas are behaving like them?
G:- With the possible exception...of yourself!
Vj~ So what lame-brain evolutionist would call one who evolved from a lower being, "an incredibly, self-absorbed, arrogant, miscreant"? Need any more proof of the poor results of evolution?
Dialogue 9
Back to contents
Rebuttal from:Draygomb - May 20th 1999
[i]
Dray: The Creation theory has the fact that we are here, for evidence and requires that we believe in the illogical concept of a concious creator.
Vj ~ It is illogical until we are faced with the question of who taught the first man? Dray: Evolution on the other hand has the fossile records and embrionic development as evidence and is supported by the logic that a given coin flipped enough times will eventually land on it's edge.
Vj ~ The flaw is that the evidences are always subjected to changes in the future, an injustice that those in the past and now, were and would always be denied the true facts.Dray: The logical conclusion is Universe 1 - God 0.
Vj ~The logical conclusion is Universe 1 created by God 1.
[ii]
Dray: The 1st learned by observation and taught what little he could to the 2nd. As a result the 2nd got a better start and learned more. Which he taught to the 3rd. The 3rd learned even more. and so on until today where our knowledge has become so vast no one person knows it all. And we still add to it by observation. So how does that make god1 logical?
Vj ~ Excellent, so why do we need schools if we can learn by observation?Dray: You've admitted that god1 is illogical if there is no good answer for who taught the first man. I've provided you with a good answer. You must now find another way to make the concept logical or abandon your position.
Vj ~ For you it is good, but for a wise man it sounds idiotic. What can a human brought up by apes or wolves learn of ethics, morals and science by observation? Why are the tribesmen of the Kalahari not yet versed in science as you are by observations?
[iii] - June 11, 1999
Dray: Consider that all life has a soul and that those souls are evolving.
Vj ~ All life form do have a soul, which move on from body to body according to actions sinful and virtuous.Dray: Or do you have another explaination for the increasing population of man?
Vj ~ There are no shortages of souls. They are beyond counting, they are trillions and trillions floating in the atmosphere awaiting the proper condition according to their deeds, good or bad, to take a physical body (vegetation, animals and human) again.Dray: Ever notice how some people seem more conscious/enlightened than others?
Vj ~ This is due to previous virtuous condition of the soul. Likewise, the souls of sinful actions occupies the less intelligent, maimed, etc. It is our duty to know what is the cause of happiness, and pain and suffering that we can better our lives guided by the correct knowledge , at the least, to know why some inclinations are higher than others.
Dialogue 10
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Oinkus - June 1st 1999
Oinkus: Evolution is not an unceasing law that operates under any conditions. It's hard to even figure out what Vijai means.
Vj ~ The cause of the physical body is the reproductive element, it has been so in the past, now and will be in the future. It is a law. If man evolved from a lower specy and it does not show repeated occurrences then it is a breach to immutable laws of nature. Oinkus: "In the 'thousands of years past' no lower creature evolved into a human being". I am not at all sure what this means. In the past human beings did evolved, and now our species is here.
Vj ~ Since it was only a onetime and not a steady occurrence, then humans could not have evolved from lower creature. Oinkus: although clearly our cultures have grown more complex and our technology is changing incrediably fast.
Vj ~ Then again who taught the first human, since it is a proven fact that man had to be taught.Oinkus: The statement under religion is strange also.
Vj ~ Or is it the operations of the immutable laws of nature are strange to you.Oinkus: Evolutionary theory describes the fossil record and the structure of DNA and its changes.
Vj ~ As science is being re-discovered the theory of evolution also keeps changing, so how can you determine truth by it? Oinkus: Evolutionary theory makes no statements about "going up or down".
Vj ~ Then the theory is only a theory in name, not genuine enough to established truth by it since it breaches natural laws. Oinkus: This has got to be the poorest anti-evolution statement I've ever seen.
Vj ~ It would be, when you are completely ignorant natural laws and its immutable functions.
[ii] - June 5th 1999
Oinkus: Soory Vj, I think I'll try to make you understand something. Please try to follow me on this. "Who taught the first man?". I'll use an example. "Who was the first Native American (NA)? and who taught him?". NAs came from Asia into N. America about 12,000 years ago. One single person did not come over. A group of Asians migrated across a land-bridge to N. America. Once they arrived they were now NAs by virtue of their loacation. However, by culture and race they were still Asians. Over 12,000 years this population of Asians changed and lost contact with Asia. they developed about 8,000 different langauges and changed racially as well and no longer look like Asians. As they changed from being Asians to being NAs, they taught each other along the way. Over 12,000 years they became a seperate people that are not Asians, although they can from Asia.
Now, the "first man" in evolution is like this first population of NAs.
Vj ~You are an idiot by your own analogy. The NA's had a source for their learning, Asia. What was the source of learning for the first man? Oinkus: The "first man" was a population of individuals who were all teaching each other and learning from each other.
Vj ~ They can only do that from what they were taught previously, and since their ancestors were animals thay is all they would have learnt. Just like a child brought up by wolves or apes, wouldn't know anything else but their habits an thinking (stupor). Oinkus: Over time this population changed from the original population that it came from and became our species.
Vj ~ It still is a breach to natural law since it only happen once and even worst points to progression as upwards. Oinkus: A seperate and new species, just as NAs came from Asia and became a new group that, with time, were no longer Asians, but a new people.
Vj ~They maybe new groups but they all came from human ancestors.Oinkus: "Who taught the first man?" is not logical as the questions assumes something false about evolution.
Vj ~I see it as very sensible, since no human being, even evolutionists themselves, can learn without being taught. Oinkus: It assumes that evolution teaches that our species started with a single individual. Evolution does NOT TEACH THAT. I have made an effort here. I hope that you will try to understand.
Vj ~ Your effort has made you a fool, is that what you were trying to do?
[iii] - June 6th 1999
Oinkus: Please read #68 and my previous posts. If you respond without thinking about it, I won't bother any further.
Vj ~ How can you be a Christian and argue for evolution of man from a lower creature. A true imbecile?Oinkus: I think that your admitting that evolution has occurred would hurt you beleif system and you cannot argue on thi issue rationally.
Vj ~ And what is rational of your bible? You are perhaps sitting on your brains, whenever you get up it might wake up. You know nothing of the immutable laws that govern our universe and you speak of rationalism
Dialogue 11
Back to contents
Hello revpaulstephen - December 22, 1998
If The object of your faith is your faith then I am questioning your faith when I question the object of your faith.
Vj ~ I doubt whether you truly understand the object of my faith. What I question is the math involved in a calculation done before 500BCE when Pythagoras began teaching complex math.
Vj ~ And what calculations were involved before Pythagoras's complex math?
Today our scientists use the speed of light and the "doppler" effect to measure the distance to the farthest reaches of the universe. Their results are published and accepted with very little margin of error.
Vj ~ Since you are slow to grasp, which is understandable, I will repeat it again. It is accepted today as it were in the past, but as science is progressing you will have to admit that today's acceptance might not necessary be tomorrow's. Therefore, the truth by your scientific methods may not be or never known somewhere in the future. This is not so with the calculation by Vedic methods. The counting has been consistent with no changes to the formula adopted which justify the age of creation for all from the beginning of creation to now and so will it continue till the end. I doubt (with good reason) the people of the ancient earth (who had no way to view the stars and planets) had any way to do anything but guess at the size of the universe they were a part of.
Vj ~ And what, is that a good reason? There was no necessity to guess since they knew more than we do by the studies of abstruse science of the Vedas.
Since you can't share the formula used I will assume that you are operating only on faith based on word of mouth and back out of the discussion which has become an argument on the basis of faith that we don't have in common.
Vj ~ Would you think the same of an idiot (illiterate) who might ask a scientist for a formula to prove his scientific capabilities or achievements?
The chronological formula:-
Om! Tat Sat (i.e., in whose name is Om, is the true Lord). In the second division of the first half of the day of Shri Brahma, in the second foot of the Kaliyaga of the 28th Vaivaswata, in such-and-such a part of a year, in such-and-such a season, paksha, divas, nakshatra, lagan, mahurat, this act is performed, and shall continue to be daily performed, in future, by the eldest as well as the youngest member of the family. This furnishes a system of calculation in connection with the age of the world. It is consistent with the mode of counting days, etc., set forth in the Sankalpa, and is identical with that given in the astronomical works. If you can't figure this out my question makes a lot sense doesn't it?Hello Rev. paulstephens - December 24, 1998
Since the vedas that you are supposedly quoting from were written between 1000 and 600 BCE it is easy to see why there is such a discrepancy in the number of days
Vj ~ Western historians have placed it at 1500 BCE. So where is the discrepancy?
And as 600 BCE being the newest veda complex math wasn't begun until 500 - 550 BCE by Pythagoras.
Vj ~ Speaking of western progress of course.
The Vedas are written in sanskrit, the four major veda are: 1. Rigveda; a collection of sacrificial hymns that are addressed to the Gods 2. Yajurveda; containing prayers and litanies 3. Samaveda; a book of hymns that are for the most part honoring Indra. 4. Aharvaveda; the book of spells - incantations and charms which is the last book written by the Aryan peoples of India
Vj ~ If this is your accomplishments of Vedic studies, no one need to explain the awful state of India?
The Upanishads are sometimes wrongfully connected to the Vedas but are actually a completely separate work.
Vj ~ I am truly happy that they cremated Swami Dayanand otherwise he would have been rolling in his grave in awe of your vedic wisdom.
The faith that you have is an old and wonderful one that would shun your impudent behavior towards others.
Vj ~ What's next! Accusing the Vedic God of "impudent behavior" in shunning forgiveness of sins towards you and others?
You either don't completely understand your place under the heavens or are yourself ignorant of the great religion you defame through your actions.
Vj ~ The true religion of the Vedas (truth), unlike the others, cannot be defamed or desecrated, and if it is, it can only be the opinions and actions of fools.
Dialogue 12
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Harryll
[i] - June 6th 1999
Harryll: It is a moral dilemma with no easy answers...
Vj ~ There are answers but your monkey-brain is an impediment to finding it. Harryll: ...It is almost impossible to tackle real world problems when so many blindly refuse to understand just HOW the world operates...
Vj ~ And you are a perfect example why fools are always blind to how the world operates. Harryll: They don't learn because they're to busy PREACHING....
Vj ~ Isn't that what you're doing, preaching instead of listening? Even a jackass has better brains, you don't see it perturb over the operations of the world.
[ii] - June 11th 1999
Harryll: singhvj...It's not simply "writing" that interests me, it's discussion, ideas and logic.
Vj ~ If you don't have a source for your ideas and logic then it is all trash, which makes no sense to the intelligent mind. Harryll: ..I seem to have hit a nerve but it's not empty words that irritate you,
Vj ~ If it was irritation I would have been dead already, since almost 6 billion are steadfast fools like you. Harryll: it's the fact that they are not empty...
Vj ~ You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not the way I see it, since it must conform with natural laws which you know nothing of. Harryll: The things that you must fear the most are reason and logic, since you have all but abandoned them both...
Vj ~ Hardly a fact since I have a reliable source for my knowledge and you don't. When reasoning is guided by the correct knowledge, in perfect harmony with science and in conformity with the immutable laws of nature, only then it called logical reasoning. This truth was known from the beginning until now. If you don't know it then you can learn by reading my site.
Dialogue 13
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Gauh20 - June 11, 1999
Gauh20: The steady increase in human population is difficult to explain in such a short time;
Vj ~ Souls are eternal and they are beyond counting. They occupy life-form that grows which means the life is the soul. They take different bodies according to their actions, virtuous and sinful.
Gauh20: But, I will try to pass along what my guides have given me.
Vj ~ To ascertain truth, you must listen to what other guides have to say also. Gauh20: Man is born with a creating soul. This soul creates the Karma that is to control this life time.
Vj ~ Incorrect assertion of karma. Previous actions good or bad of past lives are what we are in these lives as human beings. What we accomplish in this life, through virtue or sin decides what our next lives will be.
Gauh20: Another soul is created between the time of birth for this lifetime and death from this lifetime.
Vj ~ Souls are not created, they are eternal. Had they been created, they would have to suffer death, like everything else that is created or finite. There is only one soul to one life and never two. This one soul is transient and moves from body to body according to its actions (virtuous and sinful).Gauh20: When we die if neither soul is prepared to return to be at one with the universe, then two(2) souls Re-incarnate into two(2) separate bodies thus we get a steady population growth.
Vj ~ I hope you will take some interest and read the links I have given you, instead of arguing blindly. There are no shortages of souls floating in the atmosphere to take birth whenever the condition is ready. This is how the population grows, not only among human life forms, but those of animals, vegetation, etc. Gauh20: The more enlightened people are people who have spent more lives on earth and have searched for enlightenment during each lifetime. These are the people who have evolved most.
Vj ~ Enlightened souls mostly come in the beginning, Sat Yug or the Golden Age where all were imbued in total righteousness (universal). The majority that comes in our present prevailing condition, the age of Kaliyug, the dark age or iron age as it is called, are fully attached to materialism by the greatest numbers, declining further into pain and misery. The few who survives this ordeal are the ones who can find truth, the one true religion of the Vedas.
Gauh20: Vj, I am sorry if my words lead you to think that I believe that man evolved from bacteria, Etc. Darwin was right man evolved from monkeys.
Vj ~ And today, he is also proven to be incorrect by his own evolutionists.
Gauh20: Greek Mythology and your Veda says that man was helped in this evolution by the GODS.
Vj ~ The Vedas declared that man was created and were given a revelation which came down through the ages until now. For those who reject this truth, there is nothing but pain and misery and for those who seek it, emancipation of the soul.
Dialogue 14
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Harryll - June 14, 1999
Harryll: singhvj....I suppose that your saying "immutable laws" of nature are to mean that you alone understand
Vj ~ So far on this board yes, I am the only one and you can too, if you can bury your ego and make good studies of my site."But there is another prejudice which is cherished by many scholars evidently under the impression of its being a well-recognized scientific doctrine. It is that in the ruder stages of civilization, when laws of nature are little known and but little understood, when mankind has not enough of the experience of the world, strict methods of correct reasoning are very seldom observed." Life and Teachings of Swami Dayanand.
Harryll: or know reality and that anyone who doesn't hold to your "sources", has any validity at all....
Vj ~ If there were validity you would not have been such an idiot to challenge me in the first place, without investigating my source. Harryll: It would be nice to be able to dismiss all views other than your own as being "reality", but life is never that simple...
Vj ~ Well doesn't it prove my point. "Life is not that simple" because you don't know the source of true knowledge. So why do you object to my views of the source? My life is simple and yours is not and yet you reject mine. Isn't this typical of a fool? Harryll: Reality, being the most immutable of all things, must be confronted in any search for wisdom or understanding.
Vj ~ Then how come you haven't found it (wisdom) yet? And since you don't know what it is, how would you know that I haven't found it? Harryll: ..No book or writing has all the answers...
Vj ~ An intelligent person will never make such a statement. It simply means that you have already read all the books or writings in the world to come to such a conclusion. Harryll: ...because they were written by men whose own understandings are limited to their own times and their own limited abilities...
Vj ~ And since you are fully aware of all these men with limited understanding, your own would have to be above them all, isn't it? Harryll: True knowledge for Mankind is a continuous and ongoing effort, a progression that gains from the time and experience of millions of people through all generations who all look for answers in their own way...
Vj ~ According to your assessment of this truth, no one will ever find it since more generations are yet to come to make gains in more time and experience. Then again how could it be true knowledge when earlier civilizations were deprived of what you now know? Harryll: Their "answers" are only accepted when they pass the hurdle of "proof" by performance over time...
Vj ~ Which means "over time" there is a chance that the truth will be known to those in the future, which begs the question, what good then is this truth to you or those in the past? Harryll: Those who egotistically and stubbornly insist the "theirs" alone is correct knowledge have been the only true "roadblocks" to knowledge and enlightenment throughout history...
Vj ~ Very true and it is you who have insisted that you have read all the books in the world, so when are you going to stop being an egotistic and stubborn jackass, which is the "roadblock" to a functional intellect, and read one more book.
Dialogue 15
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Draygomb - June 15, 1999
Dray: So just what are these "Immutable Laws"?
Vj ~ 1. The laws of creations or manifestations are steady or repeated occurrences. Rain comes from the clouds, a steady or repeated occurrence, it is a law. The reproductive element is the cause of the human body. It has been so from the beginning and will be until the end. So evolution of man from lower creature breaches this law since it only occurred once in the past.
2. Progression is always from perfection to imperfection. All things created are purest or new in the beginning and then start to decay. Evolution breaches this law since man has progressed upwards, from animals to a primitive age (cavemen), medieval and now to a civilized or scientific age. Dray: Evolution in single cell organisms has been witnessed in a lab in a repeatable experiment.
Vj ~ Does this single cell belong to a monkey? Dray: A single cell organism is a plant or animal that consists of just 1 cell. So no it wasn't a monkey, which is a multi celled organism.
Vj ~ I glad you noticed that it didn't belong to a monkey.
Dray: So since evolution occurred in the past and is still occurring it will continue to occur.
Vj ~ And did the cell evolve into a human being? If it did then I must apologize for misleading you and if no human was produced from that monkey's cell then your knowledge of natural laws is still in disarray.Dray: No.
Vj ~ Well now you know that the evolution of man from lower creatures is not a steady occurrence which is not a law and could have never occurred. Dray: Incorrect. Evolution is ongoing. But things don't evolve into niches which are already filled. And since the intelligent Earth dominator niche is already filled nothing can move into it.
Vj ~ The subject is evolution of man from lower creature. It happen once and didn't happen again a breach to natural law, as it should have been steady.
Dray: But it did adapt to a hostile environment in which it now thrives and without which it dies.
Vj ~ This is irrelevant to our discussion of evolution of man from lower creatures as repeated occurrences. Dray: Do you concede that the single cell evolved?
Vj ~ Of course evolution or what I call manifestation is always occurring because of changing conditions. I see no wrong in that as nature, as the origin, is still laden with many manifestations yet to come.
Dray: What makes you think that the universe started out perfect and is running down?
Vj ~Very simple my friend, name me one thing that man has created that didn't begin and end that way. Now you can infer that everything created is subjected to natural laws the same way. Dray: Easily done. Math, Science and Philosophy. These are things which started out less than perfect and are getting better.
Vj ~ Man did not create math, science or philosophy. If they did, what were they created out of? How could the less perfect have created something perfect? All things created must come into effect by these three causes - efficient cause, material cause and a common cause (knowledge, time, space, labor or instrument).Dray: Hmmm... I don't seem to be familiar with those terms though I may know them by another name.
Vj ~ If you were familiar you would not have been an evolutionist. Dray: Please define all 3 causes
Vj ~ The efficient cause is two-fold, the primary which the Supernatural and the secondary which is the soul. For everything that is made there is a Maker. Nothing can be made without material and lastly knowledge, space and time, the common cause is necessary to make any thing. For more on this subject go to Creation. Dray: and explain why anything that is created has to have all 3 causes.
Vj ~ Show me what isn't?
Dialogue 16
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Draygomb - June 22, 1999
Dray: Vj, You are correct that all material things which are created must have A Maker, A Material, and A Method.
Vj ~ If you have come this far then Draygomb, take a hard look into the Light of Truth and it will enlighten you more on this subject. Even though you know it to be correct you still will not be able to make a valid case out of it unless you are familiar with the source of this knowledge. Otherwise how can you convince yourself or anyone else that it is a truth which is applied to all things created? Dray: And knowledge isn't a material thing and so it was discovered not created.
Vj ~ If you don't know who discovered it then it was not discovered. Knowledge was revealed and it is eternal, not created. Knowledge is useless unless it is practice and when it is practiced it is called wisdom. Wisdom is the first principle that is created from the subtle primitive ether. Dray: But I still don't see any evidence of man's Devolution from perfection.
Vj ~ In the absence of the correct knowledge in this matter, which is the "Light of Truth" since all things (car, house, watch, etc.) created are in perfect condition and then decay starts, then you would have to infer that even creation or mankind in the beginning was also perfect and now we are on course to decadence.
Dialogue 17
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: harryll - June 17, 1999
Harryll: Hello again...Singhvj tries to wear the robes of the intellectual, suggesting that he fully understands the world around him and is angered by those who easily show him otherwise..
Vj ~ Still better than a jackass who sees the robe and stubborn enough not to look at what is under it. Harryll: .His "philosophies" on how science works are a joke...
Vj ~ It is even a funnier joke when the jackass claimed to have read all the books in the world. Harryll: It is REALITY that singvj must confront...
Vj ~It is even a greater reality being confronted by a two-legged jackass. Harryll: There is hardly any part of nature, seen daily, that doesn't totally dispute his foolishness about regression of life forms, starting as "perfect" (at Creation) then degenerating...
Vj ~ And yet it continues to fail evolution by not bringing about another human from a lower life form. Harryll: All life forms evolved over many millions of years, a process that is still ongoing and easily observable and confirmable.
Vj ~ And if the jackass Harryll could only understand that the subject is not about all life forms, but that only of human evolution which is not ongoing, observable and confirmable everyday in the forest or laboratory. Harryll: ..Singvj is never truly discussing science, only defending his religious based beliefs while trying to appear "scientific"......
Vj ~ Whatever it is, it bore me fruits how else would I know that you are a jackass who would not read and investigate my faith, the source of all sciences. Oinkus: Harryl. VJ is an idiot.
Vj ~ Amazing! How does a jackass know that? It is obvious two jackasses would understand each other anyway. The wise use the same statement, but the difference is, they are consistent. Oinkus: Try writing on the Evolution and Creationism II board
Vj ~ Two jackasses having a discussion still wouldn't make them anything else but dumber jackasses. Harryll: Hi oinkus....I have no doubt that vj is beyond help and reason,
Vj ~ Why would I need help to become a jackass like you? Had it not been for me how else would you have known that you are a jackass? Harryll: his responses,(which are what I really wanted to see), should make that plain to any casual reader here...
Vj ~ A casual and intelligent reader can see nothing more than you being an idiot who have read all the books in the world. Harryll: I wasn't saying anything that most reasonable recognise as plain fact,
Vj ~ What was reasonable about saying that no books have all the answers, when you haven't read them all? Harryll: it was done to demonstrate how vj is 180 degrees out of phase with reality...
Vj ~ More like the reality of you being an ass.Harryll: He was doomed as soon as he himself believed that he had discovered the sole source of all knowledge....
Vj ~It is you the jackass who is really doomed, since you would not be able to recognize truth much less the source. Oinkus: I agree harryl. VJ seems to like insults mostly.
Vj ~ "Let him say what is good for another, even though it may offend him." The Light of Truth. Some day if you should ever read the Light of Truth and fully understand it, you will forever thank me. Oinkus: But he doesn't seem all bad.
Vj ~ How could I be when my intentions are only good ones? You call me an idiot and I know that I am not one, so why would I be offended? It is simple logic's and it is totally foolish to let anyone disturb your peace of mind by mere words. It simply means that you are not in control.Oinkus: His insults are mild and he doesn't go for being obscene.
Vj ~ It shows how compassionate wise men are, that they know if they go for being obscene, you would be totally destroyed. It would be impossible for them to save anyone then.
Oinkus: VJ: Hee-haw!
Vj ~ Come on now Oinkus, I thought you said you were a scientist. Know yourself as such and behave like one, and not like what others may call you.
Dialogue 18
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: harryll - June 21, 1999
Harryll: Hello oinkus....VJ may be harmless in and by himself, but those who think like him are as harmful today as they have been throughout history....
Vj ~ That would depend on where your history begun. If its from some monkey in the past, then you know little of true history. Harryll: The difference between him and others is that we can put are beliefs to "the test", VJ could not, would not and dare not...
Vj ~ A static intellect is best suitable for a belief sytem since that is all it will be in the end for them, just a "belief". My site is my test and I dare you to refute it. Harryll: His "source" of all knowledge would not pass the most fundamental of honest inquiry...
Vj ~ And I wonder as brilliant a scientist as you are, why you have refused so far to refute it? Harryll: Everyone wants to control his own life and destiny but this effort requires real and honest effort for acquiring knowledge, NOT DELUSION...
Vj ~ It is belief without reasoning that leads to delusion and believe me you haven't got the brains to reason.Harryll: I am a scientist and I used to say that science was my greatest love, but know I realize that the love of nature and life are why I love science so much...
Vj ~ And yet you don't know the source of nature or life or matter. Who would love life so much and not wanting to know its origin?Harryll: People are themselves, the most fascinating of all things in nature, but the many all-knowing "sage's” of past "scriptures" have nothing but hatred and distrust of Mankind....
Vj ~ I guess you are above all sages, like reading all the books in the world, to come to such conclusion. I wonder why you are not recognized as one. Could it be that the sages were right, but you and your fascinating people of nature are the ones who distorted their true teachings? Harryll: The real goal of those who promote these "sources" is control and domination of all thought and reason....
Vj ~ Aren't we all taught by some one, in some way or the other? You didn't become a scientist all by your own observation, did you? And those who taught you science have also controlled and dominated you, since they could have let you do it all by yourself. Whatever conditions we are born is beyond our control, but to sit idle and accept it as the truth without any further inquires is a travesty to the innocent soul.
We are created out of matter, know its source; we are alive with a soul, know its source; for all things made there is a Maker, know the source; there are causes to the creation of an effect, know the causes and the universe is govern by the immutable laws of nature, know these laws and its operations. This is the only way truth can be determined.
Dialogue 19
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: harryll - June 22, 1999
Harryll: Hello VJ....I appreciate the time and effort that you have put into your responses...
Vj ~ If you do why are you letting it go to waste? Try to subdue your ego for a little while and take a hard look into my site again and ask questions pertaining to it. It is you who have much to gain from it. Harryll: I only wish that you can "step back" from your "devotion" of your position to consider this...
Vj ~ When one is on the path of true knowledge one does not step back into ignorance. It must be true since you are yet to challenge it in any form or the other. Harryll: We live in free societies that allow us the privilege of having our own obsessions and/or beliefs...
Vj ~ And where have I shown that I am in disagreement with this. Am I not free in mine also? Souls are independent and free to act in anyway they want but they are subjected to the justice of God in the end. If your science does not provide you with the truth of God in this life, it won't happen in your next life either and perhaps for many births to come. It is certainly you who is free to make this choice.Harryll: For far to many, their one and only goal is to have their own "obsessions" be the only one recognized thus forcing all of the rest of us to think, feel and behave like them, or else...
Vj ~ Sound like you Harryll. Charles Manson also had freedom to his own obsession but who suffered because of it? Obsessions can only be beneficial to mankind by reasoning guided by the correct knowledge.Harryll: It is important to remember that the reason that there are "two sides" to most every issue is that the each side must have an element of truth or it wouldn't exist at all..
Vj ~ This element of truth must not only exist but each side must to some degree be acquainted with each others element of truth. I am with yours but you are not with mine. Have you seen your fault yet? Harryll: It would be comforting to simple pick some "side", or "source" as being the ultimate but the truth us that none of them have shown that they deserve to be recognized as such,
Vj ~ It is not to you, but it is for me because I am acquainted with both sides but you are not. I know the source of all sciences, matter and life, which you don't know yet since your science has the answer at sometime in the future. Harryll: the DIVINE revelations of God...Science, like any and all collections of data and information, is NOT under the control of any single person or groups of persons...
Vj ~ But it can only have one source and this is what the discussions are all about. So far you have made no effort looking into this source to refute it and yet you are claiming how everyone have their rights to their own. What good is their own if they don't know of the others? Isn't the Nobel prize awarded to the top scientist only when the accomplishments of all are examined?Harryll: Science is REALITY by it's own definition and by it's own purpose...
Vj ~ Science is not a reality on its own since it's findings are subjected to changes in the future. It is not reality to deprived those in past of the truth it may come up with in the future. Harryll: It is the search for TRUTH of God's world without preconception, without fear, and especially without domination of thought....
Vj ~ Perhaps it is, but, is it not an injustice that you and so many before you were deprived and are still are being deprived of this truth so far. God is Just, so how do you explain His injustice of not providing this truth for mankind from the beginning? Harryll: Science encompasses the elements of REALITY, TRUTH and the FREEDOM so as to honorably pursue them without fear....
Vj ~ Science is lame without religion and religion is blind without science. This is a statement made by Albert Einstein and he also said, that true religion can only be ennobled by science. But what truth and freedom can it bring to those who haven't found it yet? Do you honestly feel free in spite you don't know the source of science - life and matter or where you came from and where you are going? Harryll: To deny the realities that science has afforded us is the same as trying to try to live a lie...
Vj ~ And what are you denying when the realities of science so far cannot tell you the source of life and matter? Your own scientific realities are a living lie (to you and those you are teaching), because you will be dead and gone like those in past and still will not know the truth - the source of all sciences.Harryll: Where is the honor or the morality in rejecting reality or truth.????..
Vj ~ And what is this truth, that science one day, will provide us with all that weren't known in the past and what we don't know today sometime in the future? Is this what you call honor and morality, when billions are deprived of what they should have known from the beginning? Harryll: That is truly being ungodly...
Vj ~ What do you know of God anyways, to make such a statement, keeping in mind that science is yet to determine who is God?
P.S. I took the time to separate these discussions in such away so that a scientist would not have any difficulty in responding directly to every one of my rebuttals.
Dialogue 20
Back to contents
Rebuttal from: Draygomb - June 22, 1999
Dray: Vj, Now I see where we went wrong.
Vj ~ Perhaps you mean where you went wrong.Dray: Name something that was created perfect.
Vj ~ The first humans, they were the purest of all. God is All-Perfect but yet what He has created must also come to an end. All that is created of matter is finite and must decay. It is a law.Dray: Now keep in mind that by definition if it is perfect it won't decay, run down, or wear out.
Vj ~ It doesn't matter how perfect we are or the things we or God create, all are subject to decadence. When I said perfect, it works and look the best in the beginning but decays with age or work.Dray: But how does that mean that man as a whole must desolve?
Vj ~ The physical body is finite, created out of matter and must return to matter like everything else. The soul is eternal but passes on from bodies to bodies depending on its previous actions (virtuous and sinful). Similarly our actions are finite also and cannot reap eternal rewards or punishments. Dray: But how does that mean that man as a whole must devolve?
Vj ~ You can best answer this when you answer nature's call, the means by which food as a whole must devolve. Dray: Vj - Digestion? Digestion causes people to desolve? Explain
Vj ~ The physical body is composed of matter and it digest trillions of new atoms every second while disposing of the old ones. This process is called aging and continues while the amount it takes in keep diminishing. Dray: So it's because people age that we are turning into apes?
Vj ~ Oops! Sorry is that what happened to you? (smile). No, the physical body devolved back into matter. Man did not evolve from apes but specially created.Dray: You mean DeSolved not DeVolved.
Vj ~ I am glad that you figured it out without my help.Dray: So because things get recycled there is a god?
Vj ~ No, because things get created there is a God. It is obvious that it had to be created first before it can be recycled.Dray: So How do you know things were created?
Vj ~ By testimonies of the Rishis.
"Nothing in this world can be produced without the proper applications." Mimansa. - “Nothing can be done or made without the expenditure of time.” Vaisheshika.
- “Nothing in this world can be produced without the material cause.”Niyaya.
- “Nothing can be made without the requisite skill, knowledge and thought.” Yoga.
- “Nothing can be made without the definite combination of atoms." Sankhaya.
- "Nothing can be made without a maker." Vedanta.
Dray: Why have you chosen to take these mere mortals' word for it, that things were created?
Vj ~ I chose them because their knowledge and reasoning are all in harmony with each other, from the beginning of creation until now. Dray: Why not take science's word for it, that it all just happened?
Vj ~ While it is the opposite among mortals' scientists who are opposed to each other on all or most scientific evidences, the trend continues, at present as it was in the past, and there is no hope that it will ever change in the future, near or far.
Regards, Vijai. Dray: But most theologian disagree with these men. How then can you know it is they who are right?
Vj ~ I am speaking of the Rishis, try to know what they said then compare them to your theologians. There are also inconsistencies or disagreements among these theologians themselves, so how are they going to be in agreement with "these men".
Dray: Vj, I was in a hurry and My last Question came out poorly worded. Allow me to try again.
Vj ~ Seems more like it came about after my last response. Anyway I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Dray: Your small group of theologians are the Rishis. There are other small groups of theologians that agree with one another. Even though they disagree with the other small groups.
Vj ~ You have answered your question here.
Dray: So from all of the groups that agree with one another but disagree with the other groups,
Vj ~ Your groups of theologians are many and their disagreements come about as result as science is 'improving' and this will lead to more disagreements in the future.
Dray: How did you select the Rishis group as being right.
Vj ~ Because the Rishis' group is only one and there is no disagreements amongst them, since their knowledge is guided by reasoning with the correct knowledge and in conformity with natural laws. These truths existed from the beginning and is for all ages. They already know what the future holds, so there can be nothing new to change that.
Dray: Vj,I see your using the old I'm right because I'm right argument. How very convenient.
Vj ~ At least I am consistent since the Vedic knowledge and the Rishis are all old. Since their arguments are all in harmony with each other, then it is sensible to assume that they are right, which makes me right also. How can I go wrong? Actually, it is convenient to those who really thirst for the truth.
Dray: Vj,I've already pointed out that there are many small groups that have internal agreement just like your Rishis.
Vj ~ The point is, they are many and all have disagreements. Whereas, the Rishis from the beginning until the last one (125 years ago) still belong to one group and are in harmony with each other.
Dray: But you've failed to see the significance of this fact
Vj ~ I saw the insignificance which is asking me to agree with you and I can't, since you know nothing of the Rishis.
Dray: so I bid you Farewell.
Vj ~ Thank you for a very intelligent discussion and good luck my friend. |
|
"Just as color cannot be perceived by ears, nor sound by eyes; in like manner, the Eternal Supreme Spirit is not perceptible to the senses. He can only be seen by a pure soul through the purity of heart, acquisition of knowledge and the practice of yoga. Just as one cannot reap the advantages of knowledge without acquiring it, likewise the Supreme Spirit cannot be seen without the practice of yoga and gaining the highest knowledge." The Light of Truth Translation
|
|