ARS wrote on 06.01.2003 at 21:25:31:


ARS, zgrešila si smisel mojega odgovora, ki se je nanašal na Bardovo razlago evolucije. In ta je bila, da se vse spreminja in da gre za razvoj. In da vse temelji na razvoju. Napisal je tako:
Quote:


In če govorimo o razvoju to pomeni, da govorimo o nečem kar kar se je razvilo iz nečesa drugega. In to v evolucijski teoriji posplošeno pomeni, da se je človek razvil  iz ene same celice. In sama beseda "razvoj" tako kot "evolucija" vsebujeta začetek in konec. Najprej je torej bilo nekaj, potem nekaj drugega in konec je pač takšen kakršenega trenutno gledamo. In sprašuješ me, kako lahko pojasnim večnost ? Ne morem je, tako kot evolucijska teorija ne more niti približno zanesljivo dokazat, da takšna teorija drži. Še manj pa zna dokazat obstoj "začetka" ki je nujen pri razvoju. (kaj pa je bilo pred začetkom? ) Pomoje nam prav naša nezmožnost dojetja časa kaže, v kakšni zablodi morda živimo. En in edini odgovor je možen na vprašanje "kaj je bilo pred začetkom ?" in sicer, da se ta začetek lahko  pomika v neskončnost in kaj je večnost drugega kot neskončnost. ? Zakaj števila niso končna tako kot prostor ne ? Jaz edini odgovor vidim v neskončnosti oz. če to prenesem na pojem časa večnost. In point je, zakaj bi torej slepo verjel v evolucijsko teorijo ? Ne rečem, da jo 100% zavračam ampak samo dopuščam, da ne drži.




LP
 

mind wrote on 06.01.2003 at 21:57:44:

Teorija evolucije seveda ne more pojasniti začetka ali konca časa, saj to tudi ni bil ne njen namen ne ambicija. Njen namen je bil razložiti in razumeti, kako se lahko biološke vrste pod različnimi vplivi okolja spreminjajo v druge vrste, skratka, kako lahko nastajajo nove (živalske) vrste, od katerih je ena tudi naša, človeška vrsta.

O začetku in koncu časa zna več pojasniti fizika, saj nenazadnje je čas fizikalni pojem.

Mnogi filozofi, čeprav ne vsi, so dolgo predpostavljali, da je čas tako v preteklost, kot v prihodnost neskončen, a se je v prejšnjem stoletju izkazalo, da temu ni nujno tako. Najprej se spomnimo, da čas ni nekakšna absolutna ter od vsega drugega neodvisna filozofska kategorija. Kot fizikalno količino, se ga da natančno meriti, ima pa še eno, na prvi pogled manj očitno lastnost, namreč, da lahko obstaja le v tesni povezavi s prostorom, torej v vesolju. Zaradi tega se v novejših teorijah omenja prostor-čas, kot nekaj nerazdružljivega. Brez vesolja tudi časa ni. V kakšni odvisnosti je čas naprimer od hitrosti in od količine snovi obstajajo zelo natančne in v praksi preverjene relativistične formule. V bližini masivnih objektov teče čas počasneje. Znotraj tako masivnih objektov, da jim ne more ubežati niti svetloba (črne luknje), se čas celo ustavi, kar pomeni, da tam časa ni.

Da ne bi zašel v prevelike podrobnosti, naj omenim le še to, da so pri iskanju rešitev kozmoloških enačb že pred približno tridesetimi leti našli rešitve, ki poenostavljeno povedano pravijo, da ima lahko tudi čas svoj začetek in konec. Podrobnosti si lahko vsak poišče sam v številni literaturi, posebej zanimiva in od mene priporočljiva pa je pred kratkim v slovenščino prevedena knjiga S.Hawkinga: "Vesolje v orehovi lupini", kjer priznani znanstvenik na poljuden in lahko razumljiv način, ter z veliko tudi zabavnih ilustracij med drugim razlaga tudi teorije o začetku in koncu časa.

zdej smo ze tok delec prsli, da smo ugotovil da nam cutila ne morjo dat dokoncnega in zadovoljivga "videnja". nekateri se pol obrnejo na razum. nekateri pa se spustijo v meditacijo. meditacij pa je seveda vec vrst, glede na koncept itd itd. ker veste da je moj nick aryan ki pomeni da sledi Vede, vam bom spodi dal en odlomk iz ene knjige, v kateri je razlozen tocn okol tega. Vede so v bistvu "zapiski" Vyasadeva, ki so nastali po njegovih razlicnih meditacijah in njihovih razlicnih zmoznostih penetracije v trancendenco. upam da vam bo pomagal, tud jaz mam ze par izkusenj iz tega podrocja. upam da bosta vsaj titud in mind in pa tud gape in bardo_thodol pozorno prebrala, da bomo lahko skupi pol razlabljal. znotri vam bom pomagu se v oklepajih pomen ksnih besed da bo lazje. ne mi zamert prosim. sanskrit izraze bom dal v italic.

In the pramana-khanda division of Tattva-sandarba (to je ta knjiga), Jiva Goswami (avtor, in hkrati eden izmed najozjih ucencev Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu-ja) establishes his pramana (dokazilo, evidence) that which will serve as final and conclusive proof of his statements.

Throughout the Sat-sandarbha (vecja knjiga, 6 razprav o Absolutni resnici, med katerimi je tattva sandarbha ena izmed njih, ta iz katere odlomek je tuki), Sri Jiva puts forward many postulates (visaya) and many doubts (samsaya) that arise as to the validity of those postulates. He will also strengthen those doubts by arguing strongly (purvapaksa) against his own postulate. He then gives the proper conclusion validating his original postulate (siddhanta) and demonstrating as well that his conclusion has been arrived at in due consideration of context (sangati). In doing so, he cites his established pramana (dokazilo).

This section of Tattva-sandarba is vital to the entire Sat- sandarba, for without understanding it, one will not be able to appreciate the conclusive knowledge (prameya) which follows. Sri Jiva states, "To establish that which has just been mentioned....the standard of valid knowledge will be judiciously decided."

People who have misidentified themselves with the material body are subject to four defects: confusion (bhrama), inattention (pramada), deception (vipralipsa), and imperfect senses (karanapatava). As a result of this, Jiva Goswami concludes that their experience in and of itself is not acceptable as valid and conclusive knowledge. (to je vazn razumet)

That humanity is crippled by these defects should be apparent. Bhrama, or confusion, begins with the jiva soul's misidentification with the material body. We want to make our bodies perfectly healthy, beautiful, and so on, only because these are qualities of the soul, which is now identifying erroneously with the body. Because the soul is a unit of perfection, it wants to make the body as perfect, while unaware the the body is different from the self. One might question just what kind of perfection the soul has when it is capable of being deluded into misidentifying with the material body. This query is answered in the prameya section of Tattva-Sandarbha. At this point, Jiva Goswami merely wants to shed light on the imperfections of the materially conditioned state of consciousness, a state of confusion. Not only do we confuse ourselves with our bodies, we also sometimes mistake one material object object for another, as in the classic example in which one misidentifies a rope to be a snake. Thus bhrama, or the tendency to be illusioned, extends from our illusion about our own self to illusion about other material objects as well.

Pramada, or inattentiveness, occurs when the mind and senses are focused on the same sense object at the same time. For example, if our eyes are focused on a form but our mind is not, we do not experience everything that could about that form. This inattentiveness results in our making mistakes. Because we are not attentive in school, we make mistakes when tested. This attentiveness, or the tendency to make mistakes, is a natural condition of our material life. Vipralipsa, or cheating, occurs to the extent that we are in material consciousness, for material consciousness amounts to not acknowledging the proprietorship of God. Karanapatava, or imperfect senses, means that every sense is limited. With our eyes we cannot hear. With our ears we cannot see. Describing these limitations of the senses implies that there are senses that are not defective. This is so in the case of Krishna's senses, which are said to be interchangeable. Senses are also defective in terms of the particular function they are designed to perform. Eyes are designed for seeing, yet even when functioning in this capacity they often give us imperfect information. Sometimes their capacity is impaired by circumstances, such as the amount of light provided or the distance of the object from the viewer. Even under ideal circumstances, however, they can provide imperfect information. The senses also fail us when we attempt on their strength to understand spiritual subject matter, which lies beyond their jurisdiction. Thus one crippled by the senses cannot provide valid testimony as to the nature of truth. Therefore Jiva Goswami summarily rejects those who are handicapped by these defects and labels them as unreliable (nezanesljivi viri info). He finds reason, thereby, to conclude that sense perception (pratyaksa), the most common means of knowing, is not capable in and of itself to serve as valid and conclusive evidence. (to je taprvi nezanesljiv)

While animals are equipped with senses and little if any reason, humans are said to be rational animals. Dogs howl and jump up at the moon, assuming it is within reach. Lacking sufficient reasoning, they cannot under-stand that although the full moon appears within reach it is actually far, far away. The sun appears to our eyes as a glowing mass about the size of a basketball. With the help of reasoning, however, we can understand that the sun is larger than the earth on which we are standing, yet millions of miles away. The power of reasoning is great, greater than the power of the senses. Brain is more powerful than brawn (moc misicevja), and mind mightier than matter. Logic comes to our aid where the senses fail us.

In the Vedic tradition, logic (nyaya) is five-sided as opposed to three-sided logic most common in Western culture. In Western logic, an argument is supported by a major and minor premise (nacelo). The major premise contains the major term that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the minor term that is the subject of the conclusion. Common to both premises is the middle term that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical example is: "Every virtue is laudable, kindness is a virtue; therefore, kindness is laudable." The Vedic tradition's five-sided logic begins with a statement followed by a reason. This is followed by a major premise in the form of a rule, which is followed by an example. Lastly the conclusion is reached. For example, one can state that "behind the mountain there is fire." The reason in support of this is "because there is smoke". The rule is "wherever there is smoke, there is fire". This is followed by an example, from which the conclusion is drawn.

In either case, Western or Eastern, Sri Jiva contends that logic is not capable of delivering conclusive evidence as to the nature of truth. In the example of smoke and fire, universal application is lacking. One's premise may not be true in all instances, and it is virtually impossible to experiment in all circumstances to find out if this is so (tko kot v to upa znanost). Smoke can exist where there is not fire. Should rain put out a fire behind the moun- tain moments before the smoke comes into our view, we would be mistaken to conclude that there is fire behind the mountain merely because we can see the smoke. If we consider universal application imperative (nujna), inference (sklep) is inconclusive. Thus Sri Jiva also rejects anumana (inference) in his search for a perfect pramana. (to je tadrug nezanesljiv vir)

Sastra is the experience of eternal knowledge heard by realized souls and subsequently voiced by them. It was manifest in the heart of the creator Brahma, spoken by him to form the world, and later compiled and edited by God incarnate, Krishna-dvaipayana-Vyasa, and his disciples. Sastra comes to us as the voice of one who has seen something wonderful and is pressed to tell us about it. Hearing such may indeed afford the greatest impetus for one who has not yet seen reality. Sastra shows the way, upon which following one sees for oneself. It is in-depth speech about that which one can never say enough, iksater nasabdam.

The sastra implores us not to do away with language and logic, but to use them to their fullest potential. Study of the sastra reveals the necessity for adopting transrational means of knowing. The Vedas inspire their reader, theoretically as to the goal and practically as to the means of reaching that goal. In this way, through the medium of pen and paper, reality informs us about itself. Sastra thus directs us beyond its outer representation in words to embrace the spiritual reality its sound corresponds with. In doing so, it taxes the limit of our reasoning power. A doubt may arise as to how a mere book can be held so high. Books are usually a product of human thought and language, inadequate in so many ways. Are not the sastras also the product of human minds? Why should the sastras be considered differently? However divine their origin may be, even if we grant for the sake of argument that they are from God himself, books still have not arrested divinity and held it prisoner in human lang- uage. How can the sastra, while using though and language, be used to prove that which is beyond the reach of both mind and speech?

These are pressing questions. Their answers lie in proper acquaintance with the nature of consciousness. In short, the pure consciousness of the absolute is not restricted as matter is. It is beyond the jurisdiction of matter. It can do what matter cannot. It can take the form of that which is material and remain spiritual at the same time, appearing as the deity, the sastra, and so forth.

The divine word for Sri Jiva is itself Brahman. He advocates the doctrine of varnavada, originally developed in the Mimamsa school. Although Sri Jiva differs significantly from the Mimamsa school as to the import of the sastra, he concurs with them as to the eternal nature of the Veda. How is the sastra eternal? How does it differ from ordinary speech? It differs in two ways. Although its words are the same as those of ordinary speech (Sanskrit), its word order is different. The word order of the sastra is not dependent on the determination of any individual. As the sequence of the Vedic words is eternally fixed, so is the relationship between Vedic words and the objects they seek to describe. There is an innate relationship between the Vedic words and their objects. This relationship is not something determined by convention in human society. Sastra, the written form of the eternal sabda, is the faithful reproduction in a physical medium of that which has always existed. It is an empirical yet spiritual manifestation that occurs repeatedly. Sastra appears and disappears in time and space as the world of time and space itself appears and disappears in an endless cycle.

In the doctrine of Varnavada, divine sound has four dimensions, only one of which is the outer sound that the common person perceives. Because of sastra's particular arrangement of words and the innate relationship between those words and their objects, if one regularly recites the sastra and follows its directives, one can become acquainted with all the dimensions of sound and realize Brahman.

Yet sastra does not tell us that by reading or understanding its conclusions with our intellect the absolute will thus be realized. This is not it's claim. It does not seek to prove by its argument and reasoning that which itself is beyond proof, being eternally self-established. Proof lies in our experience alone of that which is, of that which we are in essence-units of consciousness. Proof of the validity of sastra itself as a valid means of knowing lies in those who have realized its subject through the means recommended therein. And they have not hidden themselves from us.

The sastra reasons with us to take up the means of experiencing its subject and thereby to experience our true self. Those who have realized such descend again to our human reality and speak to us in the common language of humanity, that of reasoning, as well as in joyful exclamations about what they have seen. They are the firsthand witnesses whose testimony is the final word. Printed, it becomes sastra, revealed knowledge, free from human defects.

Quote:


Bardo, verjetno ti je znano da je čas relativen oz. odvisen od percepcije. Zato tudi zival drugače doživlja čas. In zato ga tudi mi doživljamo različno, pa vendar zelo podobno. Podobno pa ga doživljamo zaradi učenja saj smo naučeni koliko traje 1 dan ali 1 ura. Verjetno ti je tudi znan primer dvojčkov, od katerih eden poleti v vesolje  z hitrostjo, ki se približuje svetlobni. Ko pride nazaj je njegov brat starejši on sam je mlajši. In kaj zdaj ? Se je za njega ustavil čas ? Čas se ni ustavil.  In relativnost časa nima ničesar skupnega z upočasnitvijo ali pospešitvijo časa. Gre za to, da se spreminja hitrost delovanja celotne materialne strukture ali sistema vse do najmanjših atomov. Torej tistemu dvojčku ki je poletel v vesolje se ni ustavil čas, ampak je njegovo telo (materialna struktura) delovalo počasneje, torej vse od bitja srca do pretoka krvi in seveda tudi rasti celic.

Glede same evolucijske teorije: Večina ljudi pač verjame različnim znanstvenikom ne računajoč na to, da tudi ti znanstveniki živijo v svojem  filozovskem in ideološkem svetu. Npr. čeprav je nekemu znanstveniku popolnoma  jasno, da slučajni oz. naključni dogodki ne dokazujejo ničesar razen zmede in nereda, bo ta isti znanstvenik-evolucionist  slepo trdil, da je ta čudežni svet kateri se kaže tudi v človeku nastal slučajno oz. da je vse skupaj bilo podvrženo naključju. Naprimer takšen znanstvenik-boiolog priznava, da obstaja "nerazumljiva" harmonija v molekuli proteina in da je je verjetnost, da je to nastalo slučajno čista nula. Ampak ta-isti znanstvenik kljub temu trdi, da je ta-isti protein nastal SLUČAJNO, bilion let prej v primitivnem zemeljskem okolju. In ta znanstvenik se ne ustavi tukaj, on brez dvoma trdi, da je nastal ne samo en, ampak milijoni teh proteinov, ki so se potem nekako čudežno povezali v eno celico. Vse to bo ta znanstvenik trdil z gotovostjo. In ta znanstvenik se imenuje evolucionist. Prav ta človek pa ne bi nikoli dejal, da so trije  cigli ki ležijo poravnani enden na drugem v takšno stanje prišli slučajno. Seveda, bil bi proglašen za bedaka. Ampak čudno je , da takšen človek zna racionalno ocenit vsakodnevne preprostejše situacije obenem pa dajati tako zelo neracionalne zaključke o svojem lastnem obstoju.

Teorija evolucije je torej zanikana v samem startu. Ali lahko verjamemo tej pravljici, da so nastali prvi proteini kot produkt miljontih slučajnosti in so se organizirali v eno harmonijo oz. celico in so se potem spet z produktom triliontih slučajnosti združile te celice v neko harmonijo - v živo bitje ? In iz tega kasneje spet na podlagi očitnega zanikanja verjetnostnega računa razvile ribe, ki so se potem preselile na kopno in iz katerih so nastali plazilci, ptice in miljoni drugih vrst ? Vse to je nastalo brez enega samega samcatega verodostojnega dokaza...vse to je le teorija. Znanstvenikom še do danes ni uspelo najti medvrst kot so naprimer pol-ribe ali  pol-plazilci. Poleg tega niso mogli dokazati v svojih zelo razvitih laboratorijih nastanek niti enega samega proteina ki naj bi nastal-tako trdijo sami v primitivnih pogojih. Oni torej sami sebe zanikajo in sami dokazujejo, da se niti v enem trenutku preteklosti ni niti se nikoli v prihodnosti ne bo zgodil proces evolucije. Seveda pa ne smemo evolucije enačiti z adaptacijskimi spremembami, ki so znanstveno dokazane in ki jih spremljamo v živo tudi dandanes.

Soočeni z vsem tem, se znanstveniki-evolucionisti opirajo le še na prihodnost. Da bodo v prihodnosti njihove teorije potrjene. Že zdaj pa jim bi moralo biti jasno da se to nikoli ne bo zgodilo. Tako je tudi bilo vse do danes. Čeprav je danes jasno (za časa Darwina se je pač to zdelo mogoče ) da je celica tako preveč "komplicirana" , da bi lahko nastala kot plod nekih slučajnosti.

No obstoj Boga se mi  po vsem tem zdi enako ali pa celo bolj verjeten kot evolucijska teorija. Bo pa mi seveda (upam) samo življenje in izkušnje pokazale KDO SEM, ali pa tudi ne Ampak predvsem se mi zdi pomembno, da se slepo ne poslužujem znanstvenih teorij (dokler niso vedeli da je zemlja okrogla so verjetno imeli zelo popačen pogled na to Kdo smo) zato sem pripravljen najprej predvsem poslušati še druge razlage tega Kdo smo in se potem ravnati v skladu z vsemi informacijami, ki jih imam. Imam pa med drugim tudi informacije o raznoraznih fanatizmih, in zato tudi to informacijo jemljem z vso resnostjo in pod čim širšim zornim kotom.




LP

tuki morm dat bonsensu prav ... zaradi takih in podobnih ogromnih textov men ne znese sodelovat v debati, v realnem času, ampak grem pol z zaostankom čez ... kar ni nič narobe ... mogoče tko tud mora bit ... definitivno pa si ne morem med šihtom prvošt brat tiste angleščine zgoraj ... ostalo nekako še gre ... to pa ni varjante ... pa kasneje, tko kot vedno pri aryanovih temah ... dej aryan, probi več slovenščine uporabljat, če ni v slovenščini to napisano, napiš ti, če bi nam rad pomagu da razumemo kar kdo še ne razume.

Little!

Saj niti ne rabiš imeti težko preizkušnjo, da vidiš tunele in ostalo kar sledi, da se zaveš kdo smo.  
Na forumu vem za vsaj tri uporabnike, ki so bili pred tem že skupaj. Nekoč pač, v davnih časih.

Andres

Andres wrote on 07.01.2003 at 12:51:52:


Aja?



Quote:


Obljubiš?