Comments Posted By Atmavidya Dasa
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 111 Comments
Prabhupada did not want divorce to exist in Iskcon, an intelligent husband should ensure that his wife is happy, knowing that an unhappy wife is much more prone to consider divorce.
Am I the only one who thinks that something doesn’t quite seem right about this statement. It sounds like a formula for disaster that now the husband has to fulfill every whim his wife has in order to keep her “happy.” The husband should provide what the wife “needs” but heaven help the man who tries to fulfill everything that his wife “wants.” She will never be happy in such a case since a woman’s kama - material desires (not neccessarily sex) — are 9 times that of a man’s.
Better not to marry than to become a “wallet” for fullfilling some woman’s material desires.
Somehow I find that this article is not balanced this is just one example. The whole peice just doesn’t sit well with me.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 04.09.2014 @ 08:40
Regarding text #10 http://www.dandavats.com/?p=12670#comment-19214
by Kanai Krsna Prabhu: It was Srila Prabhupada who made the statement not BVKS so for BVKS to make any comment on what Srila Prabhupada meant by it would be speculation.
Having said that Mahatma Prabhu made controversial statements without providing any pramana. So since he is the author of his statements you should ask him for his pramanas.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 07.06.2014 @ 00:04
Dusyanta Prabhu wrote:
‚ÄúDid Srila Prabhupada want Women Diksa Gurus‚ÄĚ from eye of the storm books. In this download it came across that the book was biased towards trying to prove that Srila Prabhupada did want women Diksa Gurus. And I think that when you try to prove a point in this way the article takes on a biased colour and this colour shone through the whole download, unfortunately.
What you are describing is a classical case of Confirmation Bais
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).
A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.
Full text at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 26.11.2013 @ 16:50
Brilliant points by Sitalatma Prabhu in #38. You can know if a pot of rice is cooked by testing just one grain. A reader of this book will not find an unbiased scholarly presentation of both sides of the issue meant to inform us of the relevant strengths or weaknesses of the opposing views despite Urmila mataji‚Äôs glowing review that it does just that.
Urmila devi dasi: What an incredible book. I believe this answers just about everything and considers every angle about women being gurus. A free download, too.
Rather what we get is a political propaganda piece with all the apparatus in place to give a distorted and biased view as Sitalatma Prabhu has pointed out. The fact that Kaunteya has purposely manipulated quotations of other writers (as Krishna Kirti Prabhu has pointed out) to give meanings that they never intended is revealing. If Urmila dd, who endorsed this book, and the pro-FDG camp actually had strong, solid arguments they would not have to resort to such chicanery. That they do indicates that they cannot be trusted in giving us the truth because they consider their dearly held beliefs to be subservient to the truth.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 11.03.2013 @ 07:40
Next she says: ‚ÄúThe baggy eyes illustrate deep memory and facility to grasp facts.‚ÄĚ
Considering the medical fact that old people tend to lose their memory and many Alzheimer patients have baggy eyes this is another meaningless statement. One need only google images ‚ÄúAlzheimer patients‚ÄĚ to see what I mean.
She then wrote: ‚ÄúHis thick and long eyebrows show deep thinking and an enormous capacity to love.‚ÄĚ
As all men age it is common for their eyebrows to get bushy as well as development of hair in the ears and more hair in the nostrils. http://tinyurl.com/cpmz952
And while Samudrika sastra is a bona fide Vedic science ‚ÄúPhrenology‚ÄĚ is bogus.
It would be needlessly tiresome to pick through everything she wrote. In essence this article is meaningless, if it is meant to glorify Srila Prabhupada then IMHO it has not and I have demonstrated why. There are better ways to glorify Srila Prabhupada. One should at least be an expert in a subject like physiognomy or astrology before trying to apply it to Srila Prabhupada.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 04.12.2012 @ 14:59
Reply to Abhya Mudra Devi Dasi‚Äôs ‚ÄúPhysiognomy of a Pure Devotee‚ÄĚ
Dear Vaisnavas and lovers of Srila Prabhupada,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
We all love and adore Srila Prabhupada. But as Srila Prabhupada once said to some devotees in Sweden who wanted to make a magazine to debunk science that ‚Äúunless you are expert in it you will become the laughing stock.‚ÄĚ
This text by Abhaya Mudra dd has many problems first of all the author gives practically no citations to support anything she says we are just expected to believe everything she says because if we don‚Äôt we will be offensive to Srila Prabhupada. To illustrate she says:
‚ÄúShrila Prabhupada had a small build like many powerful military leaders including Napoleon.‚ÄĚ
In actuality Napoleon was 170cm tall (5ft 7in), average height for his period. It was the British propaganda machine that depicted him as short. See for more on this point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Image
The author, Abhya Mudra dd, no where proves that it is a distinct feature that great military leaders are generally short in stature. Napoleon was average in height, Alexander the Great was short, while Julius Caesar was quite tall (according to Suetonius), George Washington was 188 cm, and Eisenhower 179 cm. These are just a few examples showing that great generals can be any height.
Then she writes: ‚ÄúShrila Prabhupada‚Äôs eyes were warm and beautiful, with protruding skin all around them.‚ÄĚ
Having skin protruding around the eyes is a common sign of aging in old people, hardly unique.
She says: ‚ÄúHis brown eyes show warmth and a refined writing ability. ‚Äú
Considering that brown is the dominant eye color in the world and only eye color in some countries like India and China renders her statement meaningless.
‚ÄúDark brown eyes are dominant in humans and in many parts of the world, it is nearly the only iris color present. Dark pigment of brown eyes is most common in East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, West Asia, Oceania, Africa, Americas, etc. as well as parts of Eastern Europe and Southern Europe. The majority of people in the world overall have dark brown eyes.‚ÄĚ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color#Brown
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 04.12.2012 @ 14:58
Abhirama das wrote:
Antardwipa Prabhu, I find no reason to respect an article that quotes only those shlokas that support the view of an author and conveniently ignores all tropical definitions of the Zodiac given in the various shastras. Shyamasundara Prabhu did the same in his articles. We all can do this. It is easy.
If you had actually read Antardvipa‚Äôs article he already admits that both Suryasiddhanta and Srimad Bhagavatam talk about the tropical zodiac and states in various places that since Vrajakishore has already quoted passages about tropical usage there is no need for him to quote them again. So your complaint suggests that you never actually read what he wrote otherwise why such a complaint?
Neither Antardvipa nor Shyamasundara Prabhus deny that the sastras refer to the tropical zodiac, but they are saying that the sastras also refer to the sidereal zodiac something that both you and Varaja Kishore religiously deny despite references that both Antadvipa and Shyamasundara provided from various sources.
Vraja Kishore even went to the extent of saying:
‚ÄúTherefore where is the ‚Äúguru‚ÄĚ who has the bile to say that it is ‚ÄúVedic‚ÄĚ to use a sidereal zodiac.‚ÄĚ
So Antardvipa has shown that the sastras do in fact explicitly mention the sidereal zodiac and what it is used for. Specifically it is used for locating the position of the planets. Thus sidereal system is to be used in astrology. Tropical zodiac has other uses not related to astrology.
In Shyamasundara Prabhu‚Äôs two articles he just specifically responding to the claims of the antagonist article he is refuting and does an excellent job of demolishing and reducing it to atomic particles and ultimately demonstrating that Tropical system of astrology is absurd by its own definition.
In your comment #6 at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=10661#comment-16233 you imply that only you and Vrajakishore are ‚Äúscientific‚ÄĚ and that those who disagree with you are ‚Äúreligious fanatics.‚ÄĚ But it seems that even after so much proof is given you still deny the reality and cling to your religious beliefs that Vedic culture only uses tropical zodiac and that there is no place for sidereal zodiac. So who is actually scientific and who is not?
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 18.11.2012 @ 12:18
In #16 Vraja Kishore wrote:
All things considered, I beg to remain thoroughly unimpressed by the opposing view. I am openly inviting you to impress and educate me. I beg you to do it in an intellectual and rational manner.
You may want to consider this verse of Manu
“Unless one be asked, one must not explain (anything) to anybody, nor (must one answer) a person who asks improperly; let a wise man, though he knows (the answer), behave among men as (if he were) an idiot”. Manu Samhita 2.110
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 20.09.2012 @ 03:14
I am really amazed by your ability, superior intellect and perspicacious understanding in matters astrological. Your mastery of the subject is un-paralleled. All this time for thousands of yugas we have been in ignorance about the true position of the tropical zodiac and none of the great Vedic personalities or acaryas could understand it. Neither great stalwart Vedic astronomer-mathematicians like Arya Bhatta, Brahma Gupta, or Baskara Acarya who spent their lives studying the subject could fathom this secret. Even our Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Saravati Thakura, who was a walking encyclopedia, and a mathematical and astronomical genius who published the translations and commentaries of numerous Vedic astronomical texts could not uncover the secrets you are now disclosing to us. It is all the more wonder since you have not studied mathematics or astronomy and have only studied jyotish for 3-4 years and that without a teacher. Simply amazing that with practically no qualifications you have been able to dive deep into the heart of such arcane mysteries and over turn thousands of years of traditional knowledge and show it to be ignorance. Kudos to you. Your guru must be proud to have a disciple who is superior to all preceding Vedic astronomers and who puts Bhakti Siddhanta to shame.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 09.07.2012 @ 05:40
If my memory serves me right I believe I recall HH Bhaktivikasa praised “Food For All” as a good example. I don’t have access to the MP3s or a transcript of it now but I am pretty sure that if it were checked we will find that he didn’t criticize “Food For All.”
Could someone with access to the material do the needful. I’m traveling and don’t have access.
Comment Posted By Atmavidya Dasa On 20.11.2011 @ 13:19