Jahnava Nitai Das

This is faulty analysis. Srila Prabhupada did not create a myth when he instituted daily worship of himself in the form of guru puja. Worshipping the lotus feet of a pure devotee is the most potent form of devotional service, and Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu confirms this when he stated that "taking dust from the feet of a devotee, taking water that has washed the devotees feet, and taking mahaprasadam eaten by a pure devotee" are the three most potent forms of devotional service. Srila Prabhupada, being a pure devotee of the Lord, was not establishing a myth when he told disciples to worship his lotus feet - just as Lord Krishna did not establish a myth when he told everyone to surrender unto His own lotus feet. The surrender to the lotus feet of the Lord and the pure devotees is an established fact in the authorized process of devotional service given by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. So what is the myth you are complaining about? The real myth was that after Srila Prabhupada's departure unqualified conditioned souls pretended to be pure devotees. And that myth has nothing to do with Srila Prabhupada. I personally see it as offensive to try and pass off this myth as Srila Prabhupada's false creation. But then that is just my opinion.

Or they may be speaking from intimate knowledge of current ISKCON upper management, which isn't visible to the casual Ratha Yatra/Sunday feast visitors. It could be either way. The Ratha Yatra is probably going according to Srila Prabhupada's divine plan. ISKCON on the other hand is highly debatable. There are different layers of ISKCON, and at different layers you will find different levels of sincerity. Some layers are going according to Srila Prabhupada's plan, other layers are deviated from his plan.

God is simultaneously personal and impersonal. It is only natural that both aspects will be described in the scriptures. It isn't infiltration, but the reality of the Lord's three features.

Everyone in this world is suffering in various ways under the influence of the three modes of nature. Whether they are suffering from black magic, or they are suffering from past karmic reactions, it is ultimately the same. The only solution for the suffering living entities is to take complete shelter at the lotus feet of Lord Krishna and depend on him for deliverence. Read the Bhagavad Gita (18th chapter verses 65 and 66) for the complete solutions to all suffering in this world. By surrendering to Lord Krishna one can be freed from all sufferings, what to speak of some little black magic. The demons run in fear when they hear the name of Krishna: sthane hrishikesa tava prakirtya jagat prahrishyaty anurajyate ca rakshamsi bhitani disho dravanti sarve namasyanti ca siddha-sanghah

Dattaswami, you are reposting articles you have written more than a year ago, pretending that they are replies to a discussion here. Either discuss as a person, or your posts will all disappear shortly. These forums are for active discussions, not for posting prewritten articles.

The sadhus generally refer to those we associate with physically (adau sraddha tatha sadhu sanga...). "First one develops faith, and then one begins to associate with the sadhus and receives instructions in devotional activities (bhajana kriya)."

om namah shivaya "I bow to Lord Shiva (the auspicious one)." Om is a bija mantra (seed letter) for addressing the divine, and has no direct translation. Om represents God, the entire creation, and all living entities. It is the impersonal name of the formless aspect of God. Namah means to offer respects. Shivaya means "to Shiva", and the name Shiva means one who is auspicious. There are a few other names of Lord shiva in your mantra as well, such as "Shankara", "Shambhu", "Girijaa Shankara", "Arunachala Shiva".

These forums are for back and forth personal discussions, not for copying and pasting past articles you have written. Please desist from posting ready made material, and also do not revive ancient threads that are years old.

This thread is quite speculative, and I don't have time to analyze each point (especially since it is not backed up by scriptural quotation). But two points I would like to quickly mention: In the fourth chapter of Bhgavad Gita Lord Krishna states very clearly that no karma can touch him (Gita 4.14): na mam karmani limpanti na me karma-phale sprha iti mam yo 'bhijanati karmabhir na sa badhyate "There is no karma that affects Me; nor do I aspire for the fruits of karma. One who understands this truth about Me also does not become entangled in the fruitive reactions of karma." Thus not only is Krishna completely free from the influence of any karmic reactions, but even one who understands this about him also becomes free. The reactions are not just postponed, but burnt to ashes - destroyed completely (Gita 4.37): yathaidhamsi samiddho 'gnir bhasmasat kurute 'rjuna jnanagnih sarva-karmani bhasmasat kurute tatha As the blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge burn to ashes all reactions to material activities.

In addition to what Kulapavana said, anyone can attend the classes for free. Most Hare Krishna temples hold a morning and evening program with classes, chanting, etc. There are also weekly programs held every Sunday for a larger crowd, since most people are unable to attend a temple every day. The best way to find out what its like is to visit a temple and see for yourself. If you prefer being unnoticed, then the Sunday program would be best, as there will be a larger number of visitors.

Srila Prabhupada learned sanskrit as a child, which isn't uncommon even today. For example in Orissa sanskrit is taught in most schools, up until a certain age. Srila Prabhupada was also able to converse in sanskrit, which is less common amongst scholars today.

I don't want to increase the controversy or argument here, but I am curious what everyone's opinion is about Muhammad: Do you accept this as truth or a preaching strategy?

Unfortunately the moderators won't have enough time for contacting the authors for every single post that is removed. There are on average 30 or 40 posts each day removed mostly due to people fighting back and forth. All of the moderators work at full time jobs and do this moderation in their free time, so they won't have time to write 30 or 40 letters every single day explaining why a post was removed. All posts are only removed from public view, but they are still accessible. So if you urgently need a copy of one of your removed posts, you can send a PM to Admin5 and one of the moderators will be able to send you a copy of the message. Hopefully removing guest posters will reduce a lot of the need for moderation. If moderation becomes too much of a problem and our volunteer moderators are no longer willing to do this service, then the alternative will be to make the forums read only and close down further discussions.

Upon request from participants, and to make it easier for the moderators, the guest feature has been disabled. All users must register if they would like to post or reply to a topic.

aNor-aNIyAn mahato mahIyAn AtmA guhAyAM nihito’sya jantoH / tamakratuH pashyati vIta-shoko dhAtuprasAdAn-mahimAnam-IshaM // (Mahanarayana U. 12.1; Also Katha U. I.2.20)

anor aniyan mahato mahiyan....

I agree with your last point, but still there are differences between each form of life. We see all living entities "equally" because the paramatma is situated in all of their hearts, not because we falsely think a dog is a learned brahmana. The Gita's message (vidya vinaya sampane, brahmane gavi hastini...) isn't that we should take philosophical lessons from the cow and then try to milk the brahmana. Seeing the oneness of all living entities is to see the paramatma and the atma, who is the true living entity in the body. When we see so many cars driving on the highway, true knowledge means to know that there are individual human drivers in each car - not to think that each car is a seperate living being. When we see a big truck, do we think that it must be a big driver and when we see a small car do we think it must be a small driver? No. We understand that the living entity (driver) is different from the car. Thus the knowledge Krishna is telling us to cultivate in the Gita is not blind foolishness (thinking the cow to be a brahmana), but complete understanding of what is the atma and the paramatma in the heart of all living entities. This paramatma and atma are the same in all forms of life. Seeing that is true knowledge, or equal vision (panditah sama darshanah). As with the cow and the brahmana, we still must interact with their bodies differently even though we see the soul equally within both. We milk the cow and we learn spiritual topics from the brahmanas. So when dealing with all forms of life, each life form is dealt with according to its acquired body. Ideally no living life should be killed (ahimsa), but the shastra says all life lives at the expense of another's life. Even if you are vegetarian, you must take the life of so many plants to sustain your body. Would you consider taking the life of the potato to be equal to taking the life of a small child? Obvious there is a difference and anyone can understand it by introspection. According to the development of consciousness, pain is experienced by different forms of life differently. It is more sinful to harm those life forms that have developed higher conscious awareness, as their suffering will be greater. According to the scriptures, plants have the lowest conscious awareness, and therefore it is much less sinful to take the life of a plant over a human (or cow, dog, chicken, etc.). Still sin will be involved, but the harm caused is much less than the harm caused to a fully conscious living entity. The scriptures also state that cows have the highest conscious awareness of all life forms prior to the human species. Thus of all animals it is the most sinful to hurt a cow. In addition to this, cows and bulls are given special status as they are considered our mother and father. If your mother or father was killed, it would not be unreasonable for you to protest it.

You may get sunburned if you stand in the sun too long. Krishna (Balaji) is present everywhere, so you can sacrifice your hair to him from a barbershop if necessary. Krishna doesn't want your hair physically. Hair is unclean and can't be offered to God. What you are offering is yourself to god, in full humility, giving up all vanity. Shaving the head is more about surrendering to God, than it is about physically giving him your hair. According to time, place an circumstances you do whatever is available. Do not worry about the technicalities of it. The offering is coming from within your heart. It isn't necessary to shave it with a razor later. The close buzz will be sufficient.

There is a series of articles called "The Tree of Vedic Literature" that explains each category of scriptures. It is located here: http://www.indiadivine.org/hinduism/articles/58/1/The-Tree-of-Vedic-Literature There was also a chart showing how all the scriptures are interconnected, but I don't have a scan of it.

Here we have an interesting instance of half hen logic. Muralidhar originally brought up the topic of Indragopam to prove that cells cannot contain life. He based his assertion on two "facts": 1) Indragopas are the smallest form of life in existence. 2) Indragopas are ladybugs. What makes this half hen logic? The fact that point one is based solely on the authority of Srila Prabhupada. On what ground does Muralidhar know indragopas are the smallest form of life in existence? It is only from the statetments of Srila Prabhupada. The Brahma Samhita does not state that indragopas are the smallest form of life. It simply says "from Indra down to the indragopa..." No indication of absolute size is given to either of these in the Brahma Samhita. Thus Muralidhar's entire argument is based on accepting Prabhupada's statement as self-authoritative. But he arbitrarily chooses to accept only half of Srila Prabhupada's statement as authoritative. For Srila Prabhupada always said that it was the single-celled indragopam bacteria that was the smallest form of life, not a lady bug. Muralidhar goes on to accept the first statement, that the indragopam is the smallest form of life, but then he rejects Srila Prabhupada's definition of what an indragopam is. Now what this does is it creates an intellectual absurdity. Because in order for Srila Prabhupada's statement to make any sense, it must be referring to a tiny form of life that could at least in theory be considered the smallest form of life. A lady bug most certainly cannot be the smallest form of life, as we all experience many smaller life forms such as lice, ants, spiders, etc., which are much smaller in size than lady bugs. Thus we have a situation that is a classic depiction of half hen logic. Someone doesn't like the head of the chicken, because it needs to be fed. So he cuts off the head and keeps only the valuable egg-laying part of the chicken. Muralidhar starts with a thesis presented by Srila Prabhupada, that indragopams are the smallest form of life. Now Muralidhar cannot substantiate this statement from anyone except Srila Prabhupada. There is no scripture that he can cite that states indragopams are the smallest form of life. Still he uses this statement as self evident to prove that there can be no soul present in bacteria, as they are smaller than muralidhar's "indragopam". On what ground has he established indragopam as the smallest form of life in existence? Solely on the words of Srila Prabhupada. But he likes only half of the words that Srila Prabhupada speaks, because the other half is not in agreement with his own views. Thus he arbitrarily chooses which half of the statement of Prabhupada's is self-evident (the half that support his own position) and rejects the other half of the statement that does not support his view. A perfect case of half hen logic. Now after picking and choosing which of Prabhupada's statements he will take to be self-evident, he tries to create a logical formula to prove his position that no life can exist in bacteria. Why? Because they are smaller than the "indragopam", which he defines as a ladybug. His position, being based on half-hen logic is impossible to defend, as anyone can point out a number of living entities that are smaller than the ladybug, immediately refuting his logical claim that "his" indragopam is the smallest form of life. Muralidhar brought up the topic of indragopams with the following statement: Of course as mentioned above the Brahma Samhita does not say any such thing. It is Srila Prabhupada who says this. So for Muralidhar to use half a statement of Srila Prabhupada at his convenience (when it can support his view) but reject the second half of the statement when it goes against his view is intellectually dishonest. Now for Muralidhar to prove his original claim, he would first need to establish that indragopams as he defines them are indeed the smallest form of life - seperately from the statements of Srila Prabhupada. Because Srila Prabhupada's statement involves defining indragopam as a bacteria, not a ladybug. Muralidhar believes that Srila Prabhupada was a fool and didn't know sanskrit. Why? Because when he searched in google for indragopam a french dictionary page came up that said it referred to ladybugs. I have shown from the beginning that Muralidhar himself has no idea of what the word means, as he has changed his definition in every single post he has made. At first he defined it as follows: It was then shown that the Rig Veda use of indragopam didn't refer to insects at all, but to the demigods who are protected by Indra. At another time Muralidhar has said it refers to a Cochineal, which is impossible since that insect is native only to South America. And yet another time he said it referred to a ladybug, which was nothing but a mistranslation of Cochineal into french as coccinelle. A word has a meaning based on its context. And the word indragopam can mean many things based on how it is used. Srila Prabhupada was not a fool, and understood the definition of this word, more than you will understand it by doing a google search. When the word is used in connection to the heavens it refers to the demigods who are protected by indra, not to an insect or a bacteria. When it is used in connection to the effulgent atma, it is refering to a firefly (as in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad: yathendragopo yathāgnyarcir...", "he is like an indragopam, he is like a fire's flame..."). And when the word is used in connection with the smallest form of life, it refers to a tiny bacteria. Taking verses that speak about the demigods as indragopams and comparing them to the Brahma Samhita speaking about indragopams is a lack of comprehension. Whereas you see Srila Prabhupada's translation as a sign of foolishness, I see it as a sign of perfect comprehension. Foolishness is actually the opposite: to take a verse from Rig Veda speaking about the demigods and to say it speaks about insects that are "herded by Indra". As to whether indragopa refers to a giant elephant or a bacteria, it is irrelevant in regards to your argument. You brought it up to prove that there can be no life in bacteria, as to you the smallest form of life are indragopams (as you say, "ladybugs"). Even if indragopam was translated as a huge elephant, it still would not prove that there are not smaller forms of life. Because both in the case of ladybugs and in the case of elephants, we have experience of thousands of life forms much smaller in size. Furthermore you cannot find a verse of authority in existence that says "ladybugs" are the smallest form of life according to the Vedas. Your entire argument is not based on anything in scripture, but just on your opinion that "the ladybug is the smallest form of life known to the Vedic Rishis". This was such a ridiculous statement that you quickly changed your stance to say: then to: and then you changed it further to: So you started your definition as a ladybug, then changed it to cochineal, then changed it to "one herded by indra", then changed it to "poetry", and finally concluded it probably referred to just general small bugs. Why was all that change necessary? Because your entire argument was based on half-hen logic, based on half a statement from Srila Prabhupada while disregarding the definitions of the words that made up his statement. I am sure you probably still don't see the logical fallacy in your entire argument, so there isn't much else I can say. But in summary the presence or nonpresence of indragopams (as anything, be it a bacteria, ladybug, or elephant) in no way establishes that there is not life present in bacteria or other small lifeforms. This was the entire crux of your argument, and the very reason you brought up indragopas and the Brahma Samhita in the first place. From the beginning of your argument there was no logical consistency. This has been answered many times throughout the last thread, but perhaps you didn't identify it as an answer because I did not quote your statement. As Theist mentioned in the beginning of the thread, and I have mentioned several times, where ever there are the six symptoms of life, we know there is a soul present. I do not define life by whether they appear to be people-ish or not. People-ish isn't a very defined word. And even the presence of thinking, feeling and willing is not definable. These three functions are the inner functions of the mind, not something you can measure with your sight. But the six changes of matter (when life is present) are perceivable and measurable. One may ask you which of the following are people-ish to you. Trees? Potatos? Slugs? Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when describing the immeasurable position of the Vaishnavas begain his explanation by first dividing all life forms into the moving and non-moving. So even though the non-moving living entities may not appear people-ish, they are living entities according to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

You are mixing up two unrelated insects "cochineal" (the latin name for a small red insect used in dies) and "coccinelle" (the french name for common ladybugs, not used in dyes). Just because they sound similar does not mean they have any connection at all. The lady bug is a family of beetles, and the cochineal is a family of soft scale insects (true bugs). Basically you have no idea what indragopa means. You start by finding a french dictionary entry for indragopa, which identifies it as "coccinelle" - a lady bug. Without realizing you were using a french word, you then tried to pretend you knew that the english meaning of the indragopa was coccinelle. When it was pointed out that this is not even an english word, you assumed "coccinelle" must be the french version of "cochineal", a common food coloring insect used in the west. But the french word has absolutely no connection to cochineal. These two insects (ladybugs and cochineal) do not even belong to the same family groups, and their names are in no way related. Both names come from the latin word for scarlet, and since both insects are red their names sound similar. Now what that tells me is you really don't know the meaning of any of these words beyond a google search you may have tried, and certainly you have no understanding of what an indragopa may or may not be. Second you need to decide which definition you wish to take for indragopam: Coccinellidae - a lady bug. (from your french-sanskrit dictionary) Cochineal - a red insect used in food coloring (from monier-williams sanskrit-english dictionary). Unfortunately you are using both words interchangably as though they are the same. One second you say it is a lady bug, and the second moment you say it is a Cochineal. Lack of precision betrays lack of knowledge. What is interesting, though, is that your french-sanskrit dictionary incorrectly translates the word as lady bug, where as monier williams sanskrit-english dictionary translates the word as Cochineal, the red insect used in dies. The cochineal insect is native only to South America - it does not exist in Asia. So it is impossible for indragopa to refer to the cochineal insect. Now your french sanskrit dictionary started with monier-williams' already incorrect definition "cochineal", and assumed it was the english form for "coccinelle" (i.e. lady bug in french). In other words they made the same mistake you just made based on similarly sounding words. So you have basically taken a mistaken translation (cochineal) which has then been mistakenly translated into another language (as ladybug), and with that you want to pretend you have the definition for indragopa, while not realizing you were writing in french. If you doubt my words, you can look up details of the two insects here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccinellidae Regardless, let me address some of your other points: A "quotation" from the Ramayana without sanskrit, identified only as "chapter one" is about as meaningless as a blank sheet of paper. Your last quotation from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad proved nonexistant, so I will not waste time on another quotation that can't even cite a verse number or provide the sanskrit text. You magically take "having indra as one's protector" - a statement from Rig Veda not referring to insects of any kind - and you ferment it in your mind and decide that the indragopa insect is one that is "herded by indra". What bizarre nonsensical blabber is that? On what gamatical basis did you derive that definition from? The indra-gopa refferenced as "having indra as one's protector" has no connection with the insect indragopam. If you had referred to Rig Veda 8.46.32 (as mentioned in the Monier-Williams dictionary passage you cited) you would have known that: Rig Veda 8.46.32, "A hundred has the sage received, Dāsa Balbūtha's and Tarukṣa's gifts. These are thy people, Vāyu, who rejoice with Indra for their guard, rejoice with Gods for guards." Now you mistakenly think that "being guarded by Indra" is the definition for the insect indragopa, and based on that you extrapolate some nonsense that "guard" actually refers to "herd". Thus you make up a nonexistent definition that indragopa actually means "an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra. That is, an insect that appears after heavy rain." It is really a remarkable extrapolation based on countless layers of misunderstanding. The indragopa referred to in Rig Veda is not an insect at all. And the insect indragopa is not guarded by indra at all. You are mixing two completely different definitions. For the sake of argument, let us overlook this absurdity. Having spent the last 14 years living in India I can assure you that there are no red ladybugs flying around after the heavy rains. Indra doesn't "herd" any red ladybugs or any other red bugs as you have described. The name indragopa has nothing to do with indra herding anything, nor with the heavy rains. Now in summary let us look at why you even brought up the topic of indragopa in the first place: Your reason for bringing up the indragopa was to show that since it was the smallest kown form of life, therefore it was impossible for the ancient Rishis to know of smaller life forms such as bacteria. Now in conclusion you defeat your own argument by admiting that there are actually smaller forms of life than the lady bug, and actually you see the reference to indragopa as a "poetic" tool: So your argument went like this: Yesterday: 1) Indragopa is the smallest form of life accepted in the scriptures. 2) Indragopa refers to a lady bug. 3) Therefore bacteria cannot be lifeforms, as they are smaller than the lady bug (which was the smallest form of life accepted). Today: 1) Actually there are many smaller forms of life than the lady bug. 2) The use of ladybug was poetic. 3) Therefore the argument you made yesterday is invalid. Conclusion: You have defeated your own position, therefore there is nothing left for me to prove. The only reason you brought up indragopa was to prove that bacteria could not be lifeforms since they are "smaller" than the indragopa (which is the smallest lifeform). But now that you have accepted there are many life forms smaller than indragopa and that it was all just poetry, your argument is self defeated. Hare Krishna.

You are mixing up two unrelated insects "cochineal" (the latin name for a small red insect used in dies) and "coccinelle" (the french name for common ladybugs, not used in dyes). Just because they sound similar does not mean they have any connection at all. The lady bug is a family of beetles, and the cochineal is a family of soft scale insects (true bugs). Basically you have no idea what indragopa means. You start by finding a french dictionary entry for indragopa, which identifies it as "coccinelle" - a lady bug. Without realizing you were using a french word, you then tried to pretend you knew that the english meaning of the indragopa was coccinelle. When it was pointed out that this is not even an english word, you assumed "coccinelle" must be the french version of "cochineal", a common food coloring insect used in the west. But the french word has absolutely no connection to cochineal. These two insects (ladybugs and cochineal) do not even belong to the same family groups, and their names are in no way related. Both names come from the latin word for scarlet, and since both insects are red their names sound similar. Now what that tells me is you really don't know the meaning of any of these words beyond a google search you may have tried, and certainly you have no understanding of what an indragopa may or may not be. Second you need to decide which definition you wish to take for indragopam: Coccinellidae - a lady bug. (from your french-sanskrit dictionary) Cochineal - a red insect used in food coloring (from monier-williams sanskrit-english dictionary). Unfortunately you are using both words interchangably as though they are the same. One second you say it is a lady bug, and the second moment you say it is a Cochineal. Lack of precision betrays lack of knowledge. What is interesting, though, is that your french-sanskrit dictionary incorrectly translates the word as lady bug, where as monier williams sanskrit-english dictionary translates the word as Cochineal, the red insect used in dies. The cochineal insect is native only to South America - it does not exist in Asia. So it is impossible for indragopa to refer to the cochineal insect. Now your french sanskrit dictionary started with monier-williams' already incorrect definition "cochineal", and assumed it was the english form for "coccinelle" (i.e. lady bug in french). In other words they made the same mistake you just made based on similarly sounding words. So you have basically taken a mistaken translation (cochineal) which has then been mistakenly translated into another language (as ladybug), and with that you want to pretend you have the definition for indragopa, while not realizing you were writing in french. If you doubt my words, you can look up details of the two insects here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochineal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccinellidae Regardless, let me address some of your other points: A "quotation" from the Ramayana without sanskrit, identified only as "chapter one" is about as meaningless as a blank sheet of paper. Your last quotation from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad proved nonexistant, so I will not waste time on another quotation that can't even cite a verse number or provide the sanskrit text. You magically take "having indra as one's protector" - a statement from Rig Veda not referring to insects of any kind - and you ferment it in your mind and decide that the indragopa insect is one that is "herded by indra". What bizarre nonsensical blabber is that? On what gamatical basis did you derive that definition from? The indra-gopa refferenced as "having indra as one's protector" has no connection with the insect indragopam. If you had referred to Rig Veda 8.46.32 (as mentioned in the Monier-Williams dictionary passage you cited) you would have known that: Rig Veda 8.46.32, "A hundred has the sage received, Dāsa Balbūtha's and Tarukṣa's gifts. These are thy people, Vāyu, who rejoice with Indra for their guard, rejoice with Gods for guards." Now you mistakenly think that "being guarded by Indra" is the definition for the insect indragopa, and based on that you extrapolate some nonsense that "guard" actually refers to "herd". Thus you make up a nonexistent definition that indragopa actually means "an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra. That is, an insect that appears after heavy rain." It is really a remarkable extrapolation based on countless layers of misunderstanding. The indragopa referred to in Rig Veda is not an insect at all. And the insect indragopa is not guarded by indra at all. You are mixing two completely different definitions. For the sake of argument, let us overlook this absurdity. Having spent the last 14 years living in India I can assure you that there are no red ladybugs flying around after the heavy rains. Indra doesn't "herd" any red ladybugs or any other red bugs as you have described. The name indragopa has nothing to do with indra herding anything, nor with the heavy rains. Now in summary let us look at why you even brought up the topic of indragopa in the first place: Your reason for bringing up the indragopa was to show that since it was the smallest kown form of life, therefore it was impossible for the ancient Rishis to know of smaller life forms such as bacteria. Now in conclusion you defeat your own argument by admiting that there are actually smaller forms of life than the lady bug, and actually you see the reference to indragopa as a "poetic" tool: So your argument went like this: Yesterday: 1) Indragopa is the smallest form of life accepted in the scriptures. 2) Indragopa refers to a lady bug. 3) Therefore bacteria cannot be lifeforms, as they are smaller than the lady bug (which was the smallest form of life accepted). Today: 1) Actually there are many smaller forms of life than the lady bug. 2) The use of ladybug was poetic. 3) Therefore the argument you made yesterday is invalid. Conclusion: You have defeated your own position, therefore there is nothing left for me to prove. The only reason you brought up indragopa was to prove that bacteria could not be lifeforms since they are "smaller" than the indragopa (which is the smallest lifeform). But now that you have accepted there are many life forms smaller than indragopa and that it was all just poetry, your argument is self defeated. Hare Krishna.

Amazing that you won't take Srila Prabhupada's words as they are. He says clearly "the jiva within the cells", and "there are also jivas within the cells". You conclude that when Srila Prabhupada says there are jivas within the cells he is referring to worms in the body. I think you must be playing a game with all of us, just to watch us run around in circles. Whatever the case may be, I offer my humble obeisances to you because you are a nice devotee. No point for us to argue over this small insignificant point forever. I still believe Srila Prabhupada's letter answers this matter clearly, but everyone is free to disagree: Prabhupada: Regarding your question about the jiva soul in the heart and the jiva soul within the cells, they are separate. Both are jiva atmas, but a particular jiva belongs to a particular body. There is the jiva in this body, but there are also jivas within the cells.

Guruvani says no one could ever produce a statement from Srila Prabhupada saying cells contain individual living entities. I hope the following letter can satisfy him: Letter to: Svarupa Damoara Los Angeles -- 23 June, 1975 My Dear Svarupa Damodara dasa: Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter dated June 20, 1975 with enclosures, and I thank you very much for it. ... Regarding your question about the jiva soul in the heart and the jiva soul within the cells, they are separate. Both are jiva atmas, but a particular jiva belongs to a particular body. There is the jiva in this body, but there are also jivas within the cells. Just like I am living within this apartment, but does it mean that no other living entity can live here. There are so many ants, flies, bugs, they are also living within the apartment. Even in my stool there are thousands of living entities. ... I hope this meets you in good health. Your ever well-wisher, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami This letter by Srila Prabhupada is direct and should settle this matter for his disciples and followers. I also came across a relevant question and answer in Back to Godhead magazine by Sadaputa Das on this topic: BTG #32-01 1988 Question from Charu Lata Pandey: I have yet another question, which bugs me constantly. Biologists say that cells are living things. If that is the case, we should have trillions of souls in our body, one in every cell. How do you explain this? SADAPUTA DASA REPLIES: Yes, there are trillions of souls in our body. These are souls of individual cells, but there is only one soul of the body as a whole. That soul is linked in consciousness to the bodily senses (eyes, ears, etc.), and the souls of individual cells are linked to the senses of those cells (chemical receptors, etc.). So in summary we have Bhakti Swarupa Damodara Swami (a highly educated molecular biologist) saying the cells are living and each contains an individual soul. We also have Sadaputa Das (another learned scientist from Bhaktivedanta Institute) saying the same thing. And lastly we have a direct letter from Srila Prabhupada saying each cell contains an individual jiva soul. If we analyze this from a logical perspective, we can see that the cells contain independent life. Many cells of the human body can be isolated seperately from the body and made to reproduce indefintely. It is not a matter of residual energy left over from the body. The cells can reproduce and multiply indefintely under the right circumstances. As Theist mentioned in the beginning of this thread, we need to learn to intellectually apply Srila Prabhupada's teachings to events around us. Srila Prabhupada taught the six symptoms of life in his Bhagavad Gita purports. If we can perceive these six transformations of matter, then we can know that life is present. We do not need a direct letter or statement from Srila Prabhupada to understand this. This is utilizing the spiritual knowledge we have learned and applying it with our intelligence. But since Srila Prabhupada's letter is there, we can avoid controversy and settle this matter with authoritative shadba.

The modern biological definition of the term species is irrelevant in connection to Srila Prabhupada's statement. If you want to accept the academic biological definition, then humans are classified as animals. But Srila Prabhupada says humans are a seperate category of living entities numbering 400,000 species. It requires everyone to excercise their intelligence when reading the writings of the acharyas. Just because the word species is used does not mean we need to take out our 10th grade biology text book to look it up. Srila Prabhupada based his statement on the following verse from the Padma Purana: jalaja nava-lakshani sthavara laksha-vimsati krimayo rudra-sankhyakah pakshinam dasa-lakshanam trimsal-lakshani pasavah catur-lakshani manushah There are 900,000 categories of fish (jala-ja: those born in water). There are 2,000,000 categories of trees and plants (sthavara: those who cannot move). There are 1,100,000 categories of insects (krimi: worms, spiders or insects). There are 1,000,000 categories of birds (pakshi: birds and flying animals). There are 3,000,000 categories of animals (pashu: beasts, animals, etc.). There are 400,000 categories of humans (manushya). Bacteria has traditionally been classified as an "insect" in India, not as per the modern biological definition of insect, but as a "krimi". And that is why you will see Srila Prabhupada refer to indragopam sometimes as a "tiny insect" and other times as a microscopic bacteria.