From: bkannan@ha10.eng.ua.edu (Balaji Kannan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: For HINDU eyes only ...
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:09:37 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat) writes:

>Ravi Prasanth writes:
>>I will take evidence/proof to mean scientific evidence/proof.
>>The law of Karma (rebirth/reincarnation) is not a demonstrable
>>theory and in many branches of Hindu philosophy, especially
>>Advaitha, it has the status of mere fiction. That a theory is
>>not demonstrable doesnot necessarily imply that it is false.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Therefore, "cats and dogs havent told me that they were human
>>once" doesnot disprove the law of Karma.


>Nor does it say anything about its veracity. Scientists usually refer
                                     ^^^^^^^
       He never claimed that. [read 'status of mere fiction']

>to the Occam's razor while dealing with crackpot theories when
>easier ones are around. You cannot arbitrarily formulate something
>called "law of Karma" on the basis of just faith. Else, floodgates
      
       So what do you suggest?? None ever claimed [not even virendra
       :-)] that the Karmic theory is holeless. Look, you make the 
       same mistake of finding common ground between religion/philosophy
       and science again and again in terms of observational tools
       and its 'predictable' consistency. Would your arguments stop
       if you were told that all this is a matter of convenience/choice 
       for the religious? [When pushed to the brink, even the most
       accomplished scientist will throw his hands up, in explaining 
       the existence of this Universe. This boundary (at which people
       throw up their hands) is IMO different for different people,
       which pretty much depends on one's societal/religious/conditioning,
       how lucky one has been in life  to peek into the mysteries
       from a Scientific persp., plus so many other factors. U have a
       peoblem with that?]
      

>open on all sorts of chimerical and more importantly, needless
>hypotheses.


>>The law of Karma does provide a plausible explanation (probably
>>not very scientific) to some observable phenomena, namely the
>>great miseries that some children undergo while others dont, etc.


>How about replacing the law of karma with the Abian law (sci.physics
>nemesis) : "Everything acts in such a way as to increase the feeling
>of security" ? I'll bet it will do as well, if not better than, as
>your law of karma in explaining anything at all.


With all due respect :-) :-) [Just in case :)]
--------------------------------------------

           Hey, have any Godforsaken theory you want!
           What is your problem with Ravi/peepuls faith in one such?
           He never claimed that the Law of Karma gives *the* best
           possible explanation to observable phenomena. No one will
           object to your holding dear, your own pet law [Law of Turtles?]
           as long as it is a matter of faith. Now, stop getting
           converts to your religion :-) with ur razor sharp [occam's?]
           (ir)rationality :-) and pl. leave the fidels [go after the 
           Castros :-)] of all faiths in peace.
           

>>I dont believe in Gods taking birth.

>I don't believe in God. Na rahega baans, na bajegi baansuri :)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     So?? ; rather Can that be helped???? 

>FFT

 bk