Sunday, July 31, 2005


I have been following the dialogue on the apparent inconsistency between the empiric, observable material world and the description of the material world given in the Srimad Bhagvatam, Canto 5. I am in my own procrastinating, undisciplined way, eventually going to write an article about why the two differ, and it will be based largely on the Flatlanders, a book written about a 100 years ago that still is widely used and quoted in physics circles. Here is an animated site with music (which means slow loading for us underprivelidged, miles of copper wire from the fiber optic lines, dialup internet users) that covers the basic premise.


At 9:28 PM, Blogger trivas7 said...

Thanks for your blog, prabhu. I find independent minds among Vaishnavas refreshing and always inspiring.

I have also been at my "thinking lab" re the choice one must make to believe that what the Bhagavatam is saying is that the stars we see at night are much closer than we have been told by scientists. All I can say is that the conclusions of science are always tentative; but also the conflict remains. Must I have to choose which I believe?

Your friend,

Tom Rivas

At 10:17 AM, Blogger Madhava Gosh said...

1.)I don't think a choice is necessary. Will it really matter in your daily life whether or not you chose?

2.) I think the concept of acintya bheda bheda can also apply here. Both science and relgion can be true at the same time.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

3.) Yes, true science IS always tentative. Only exploiters are promoting that it is definitive. It is tentavie in its incompleteness.

4.) Empiricism has to do with the limited senses and mind. SB is a poetic work trying to convey larger ideas than the mind can comprehend.


Post a Comment

<< Home