amniotic sac or stool urine and worms?

[theist]

SB 3.31.5: Deriving its nutrition from the food and drink taken by the mother, the fetus grows and remains in that abominable residence of stools and urine, which is the breeding place of all kinds of worms.

SB 3.31.6: Bitten again and again all over the body by the hungry worms in the abdomen itself, the child suffers terrible agony because of his tenderness. He thus becomes unconscious moment after moment because of the terrible condition.

 

 

From the American Pregnncy Association

 

What is the amniotic sac and what does it do?

 

The amniotic sac is filled with the amniotic fluid. This sac is your baby's home, gymnasium, and protection from outside knocks, bumps, and other external pressures. The amniotic sac allows the fetus ample room to swim and move around which helps build muscle tone. To keep the baby cozy, the amniotic sac and fluid maintain a slightly higher temperature than the mother's body, usually 99.7 F.

At week 10, there is around 30 ml of fluid present. The amniotic fluid will reach it's peak around weeks 34-36 at about 1 liter. When your water breaks, it is this sac that ruptures and this fluid that leaves the body. Your baby's life is still being supported by the umbilical cord, and you should be meeting your baby soon!

 

 

 

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

[Guest guest]

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

 

Bhagavatam is a book meant for devotees. I take these verses as an expression of a particular sentiment, not scientific knowledge. In some cases it is possible that this is how a particular jiva might perceive their stay in the womb.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

So, from the APA description, we are to assume that the womb is a nice, cozy country club of an environment, replete with margaritas by the pool?

 

From news articles I've seen over the recent years, what we've scientifically assumed about the placental barrier between the baby and the mother and the protection it affords isn't all true.

 

See this link for an example regarding mercury:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nm73j500063t5125/

 

 

Abstract Organ distribution of mercury after in utero mercury vapor exposure was investigated in neonatal guinea pigs. Mother guinea pigs in late gestation were exposed to 0.2–0.3 mg/m³ mercury vapor 2 h per day until giving birth.Mercury concentrations in neonatal brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, plasma and erythrocytes were much lower than those of maternal organs and tissues. Neonatal liver, however, showed a mercury concentration twice as high as maternal liver. Mercury concentration ratios of erythrocytes to plasma in offspring were quite different from those of mothers, being 0.2–0.4 for offspring, and 1.3–3.0 for mothers.

 

These results suggested that mercury vapor metabolism in fetuses was quite different from that in their mothers. This may be due to the different blood circulation, as mercury vapor transferred through the placental barrier would be rapidly oxidized into ionic mercury in fetal liver and accumulated in the organ.

 

The different mercury vapor metabolism may prevent fetal brain, which is rapidly developing, and thus vulnerable, from being exposed to excessive mercury vapor.

[Guruvani]

Maybe theist needs a few more trips through the amniotic sac to refresh his memory of what it is like?

 

It appears that he thinks that the amniotic sac is quite the cozy situation.

 

Compared to dancing with Krishna on the banks of the Yamuna, being in an amniotic sac is not a very desirable place to be.

 

I have seen some babies come out of the womb and they definitely look like they have been under some severe stress when they come out.

 

You can see that coming out of the womb is a big relief for them.

 

I was there when all three of my kids were delivered.

 

They were glad to get the hell out of that womb. It was quite easy to see that.

 

when my son was born, they put him on my wifes stomach and then he looked straight at me with a look like 'Oh, hi daddy, it's good to see you".

 

He appeared to recognize me and looked at me with comfort and relief.

 

When my daughers were born at home the midwives delivered them and handed them straight into my arms.

I could see that being in the womb was a very stressful situation and that they were certainly glad to be out of there.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Being bitten by worms seems like a minor annoyance when compared with Minamata Disease (caused by mercury poisoning):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

 

 

 

Minamata disease (水俣病, Minamata-byō^?), sometimes referred to as Chisso-Minamata disease (窒素水俣病, Chisso-Minamata-byō^?), is a neurological syndrome caused by severe mercury poisoning. Symptoms include ataxia, numbness in the hands and feet, general muscle weakness, narrowing of the field of vision and damage to hearing and speech. In extreme cases, insanity, paralysis, coma and death follow within weeks of the onset of symptoms. A congenital form of the disease can also affect fetuses in the womb

[theist]

 

So, from the APA description, we are to assume that the womb is a nice, cozy country club of an environment, replete with margaritas by the pool?

 

From news articles I've seen over the recent years, what we've scientifically assumed about the placental barrier between the baby and the mother and the protection it affords isn't all true.

 

See this link for an example regarding mercury:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/nm73j500063t5125/

 

You totally sidestepped the question Murali Mohan prabhu. Please take it up and then add more information.

[theist]

 

Being bitten by worms seems like a minor annoyance when compared with Minamata Disease (caused by mercury poisoning):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

 

 

Yes birth and death are miserable. But that is not the question. Please answer the question.

[Guest guest]

Yes, for the one who has faith in Bhagavatam.

 

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?

[theist]

amniotic sac or stool urine and worms?

Try to concentrate just on this. Is there an amniotic sac keeping the fetus from being sloshed around in stool and urine or not.

[theist]

 

Yes, for the one who has faith in Bhagavatam.

 

And how effective will be your preaching be denying the existence of the amniotic sac to a doctor or for that matter anyone who has had a baby and experience the water breaking?

 

Why don't stool urine and worms come out before birth instead of amniotic fluid?

[Guruvani]

 

And how effective will be your preaching be denying the existence of the amniotic sac to a doctor or for that matter anyone who has had a baby and experience the water breaking?

 

Why don't stool urine and worms come out before birth instead of amniotic fluid?

Theist, there is an umbilical cord attached to the baby in the womb and supplying nutrition to the fetus.

The fetus thus must discharge an amount of urine and stool as the umbilical cord is supplying blood and nutrients to the fetus.

 

The fetus thus discharges small amounts of stool and urine from within the womb, even if just from the pores of the skin waste products are discharged from the fetus.

 

The fetus cannot live 9 months in the womb without some sort of by-products or discharge.

 

Now, quit pretending to know more than the Vedic sages and pray to Jesus to give you some common sense.

[Hari Bhakta dasa]

 

And how effective will be your preaching be denying the existence of the amniotic sac to a doctor or for that matter anyone who has had a baby and experience the water breaking?

 

Why don't stool urine and worms come out before birth instead of amniotic fluid?

 

If we have faith in Srimad Bhagavatam, we will not concern ourselves with the "supposed" contradictions between this ancient book of nectar and knowledge and the "theories" of scientists who are just conditioned souls trapped by maya like the rest of us. Scientific theories constantly change. Rember the earth was once flat and the scientists were adamant about that fact.

 

It is a waste of time and this time would be better spent developing our Krishna Consciousness.

 

So...how do you know there are not microscopic worms and stool bacteria in the water of the pregnant woman? After witnessing, this in my wife, I can tell you the water that comes out is not crystal clear nor is it the same consistency as the water from your faucet, lake or river. However, don't expect to see earth worms and chunks of feces!

[theist]

 

If we have faith in Srimad Bhagavatam, we will not concern ourselves with the "supposed" contradictions between this ancient book of nectar and knowledge and the "theories" of scientists who are just conditioned souls trapped by maya like the rest of us. Scientific theories constantly change. Rember the earth was once flat and the scientists were adamant about that fact.

 

It is a waste of time and this time would be better spent developing our Krishna Consciousness.

 

So...how do you know there are not microscopic worms and stool bacteria in the water of the pregnant woman? After witnessing, this in my wife, I can tell you the water that comes out is not crystal clear nor is it the same consistency as the water from your faucet, lake or river. However, don't expect to see earth worms and chunks of feces!

 

If you consider this question such a waste of time why are you responding?

 

Stool and urine from the fetus is not what the Bhagavatam was speaking of and you know it.

 

I am not challenging the Bhagavatam,I am challenging blind faith. My faith in the Bhagavatam is not affected in the least by these sorts of things. I am only interested in the essence.

 

How deep does your faith run? At some near surface level your faith must suffer when scientific knowledge proves more reliable that what is in these texts. Do you not know that these errors in the Bhagavatam have no relevance to the transcendental knowledge provided in the Bhagavatam? Transcendental knowledge is what this is all about and not the amnibiotic sac...or the distance of the moon etc.

[Hari Bhakta dasa]

Yes, I agree, it is a waste of time responding to you. Guruvani's advice is to you is the best so far.

 

Good luck in your spiritual quest.

[Guruvani]

 

 

I am not challenging the Bhagavatam,I am challenging blind faith.

 

You are challenging blind faith in shastra but not blind faith in science.

You are quite secure to have blind faith in science and the Bible, but you are very quick to challenge blind faith in the Bhagavatam.

 

This selective blind faith that you promote is a scam.

 

If you are going to challenge blind faith, then why don't you challenge blind faith in the mundane instead of blind faith in the inconceivable?

 

Your attack on blind faith has an agenda and is not unbiased and objective.

 

You only challenge blind faith where blind faith is the only thing we have.

 

You encourage blind faith in mundane science and mundane religion.

 

So, it's quite obvious that you have a prejudice and an agenda that is not objective.

[theist]

Guruvani you are such fool I have no desire to respond to you. I have never even read the Bible and grew up an atheist . You know nothing of me.

[Guest guest]

 

SB 3.31.5 Deriving its nutrition from the food and drink taken by the mother, the fetus grows and remains in that abominable residence of stools and urine, which is the breeding place of all kinds of worms.

SB 3.31.6: Bitten again and again all over the body by the hungry worms in the abdomen itself, the child suffers terrible agony because of his tenderness. He thus becomes unconscious moment after moment because of the terrible condition.

 

 

Here is a different translation:

 

SB 3.31.(5) From the nutrition taken from the mother, the body of the fetus grows staying in that impossible hollow, whereabout stool and urine form a breedingplace for germs. (6) All the time aching for food, it is, being so tender, affected by infestations and so suffers with all its body a great deal residing there, moment after moment falling into unconsciousness.

from: srimadbhagavatam.org/canto3/chapter31.html#Text%201

[Guest guest]

Since the verdict of SB on this topic may not be acceptable to some people, of all topics in the SB, why would I choose this topic to preach?

 

Just like a student in the lower grades cannot understand that you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number, similarly those with weak faith cannot understand this. They must be preached about topics that they can understand in the SB and when their intelligence is developed, you may reveal facts about the wob to them.

 

 

And how effective will be your preaching be denying the existence of the amniotic sac to a doctor or for that matter anyone who has had a baby and experience the water breaking?

 

Why don't stool urine and worms come out before birth instead of amniotic fluid?

[theist]

 

Guruvani you are such fool I have no desire to respond to you. I have never even read the Bible and grew up an atheist . You know nothing of me.

 

Would the moderators when feeling the need to edit my posts kindly leave a signature stating that they had done so? Seems like common net courtesy afterall. I just hate it when someone appoints themselves censor over my speech. As moderators it is your job but don't make it sound like it is coming from me.

 

For the record my response was MUCH sharper.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

 

Yes birth and death are miserable. But that is not the question. Please answer the question.

I'm not one to side-step questions, Theist-ji, as you know. I agree with others that the question is a silly one.

 

The answer was in my reply--if not explicitly stated. You simply need to do make some simple inferrence, just as we must read shastra using our God-given intelligence and hope to draw out some of the inner meaning as possible due to our sukriti (spiritual merit).

 

The point of those two verses is not to give a lesson in anatomy. If the author of those verses cared to touch dead bodies, no doubt, a mother who had died in childbirth could have been found and examined post-mortem. The anatomy involved could have easily been examined without any advanced scientific instruments.

 

Soooooooo...the point of those verses is to indicate that life in utero is not always pleasant (well-established), and that the time in the womb serves to condition the spirit soul.

 

While the verse mentions nothing of the amniotic sac (it certainly does not *deny* the existence), it certainly *is* true that the fetus and the intenstines share the same body cavity regardless of any boundaries between them.

 

Not having researched the topic exhaustively, I'm unwilling to assert that it's impossible for worms to attack a fetus in utero in the same way the scientists working for the Chisso Corporation in Japan asserted that the mercury they were dumping onto Minamata Bay was harmless.

 

Sufficient answer, Prabhu?

[theist]

 

Here is a different translation:

 

SB 3.31.(5) From the nutrition taken from the mother, the body of the fetus grows staying in that impossible hollow, whereabout stool and urine form a breedingplace for germs. (6) All the time aching for food, it is, being so tender, affected by infestations and so suffers with all its body a great deal residing there, moment after moment falling into unconsciousness.

from: srimadbhagavatam.org/canto3/chapter31.html#Text%201

Yes different wording but the same meaning. The fact is the writers of the Bhagavatam did not know about the amnibiotic sac I don't see thius as a big thing at all but most here seem to. Most of you it seems think that the vedic sages knew every little detail about everything material as well as spiritual. And you progate that misconception to the point that many devotees lost faith and stopped chanting over the moon controversy in the 70's. I consider that tragic. But just as tragic is the fact that so few learned anything from the experience.

 

Vedic sages are considered vedic sages because of their knowledge of VEDANTA or transcendental knowledge and not because of their knowledge of astro-physics, cellular biology and medical science, martial arts etc. They offered up their best understanding at the time but when proven incorrect in some detail we can acknowledge that and move on without our faith being injured. Unless of course we have bought in to the ridiculous proposition that guru is omniscient like Krsna is omnisient.

 

The question raised in this thread only goes to show how blind faith leaves one blind. It is simple observation that when a woman "breaks her water" before childbirth that what comes out is amniotic fluid and not piles of the mothers stool filled with worms and slooshing around in the mothers urine.

Seems the creator had a better idea on how to arrange fetal development than that.

[theist]

 

Since the verdict of SB on this topic may not be acceptable to some people, of all topics in the SB, why would I choose this topic to preach?

 

It is common for most Hare Krsna devotees to see their mission in terms of challenging the scientists for not conforming to the Bhagavatam's version of material as well as spiritual reality. You (generic you) are throwing down the gantlet at the feet of modern knowledge but yet you cannot handle such a simple thing as knowledge of the amnibiotic sac.

 

Considering this what scientist is going to take you seriously about the truly important matters in the SB concerning ranscendence?

 

The case in point is when the question of the six billion bodyguards of Ugrasena was brought up to Srila Prabhupada. Srila Prabhupada's senior preachers like Revetananda Swami and others also stated they had been questioned on these points while preaching at universities and they had no answer.

 

You still do not have an answer even though the answer is obvious. Ugrasena did not have six billion bodyguards protecting him at Mathura. Literary license allows for exaggeration to make a point. Ugrasena was well protected but the 6 billion number is a fantasy.

 

And Kaplila, or the author writing as Kaplila, had no knowledge of the amniotic sac, but was trying to stress the truly important point that entering the womb (and thus the gross material field) is a thoughly miserable experience.

 

 

 

Just like a student in the lower grades cannot understand that you can subtract a larger number from a smaller number, similarly those with weak faith cannot understand this. They must be preached about topics that they can understand in the SB and when their intelligence is developed, you may reveal facts about the wob to them.

 

So advanced students will come to understand that there really is no such thing as the amnibiotic sac!?!?

 

Are you sure you want to stick to that DVD prabhu? C'mon...

[theist]

 

I'm not one to side-step questions, Theist-ji, as you know. I agree with others that the question is a silly one.

I disagree. Side stepping these questions when they come and holding on to blind faith that every little word in the Bhagavatam, "because it is the spotless Purana" is what is silly. The bhagavatam is spotless because of the presence of Krsna-lila.

 

You say it is silly not realizing the further implications that this question is a prelude to.

 

 

The answer was in my reply--if not explicitly stated.

The question calls for an explict answer but thank you for taking the time to readdress it.

 

 

 

You simply need to do make some simple inferrence, just as we must read shastra using our God-given intelligence and hope to draw out some of the inner meaning as possible due to our sukriti (spiritual merit).

Yes

 

 

The point of those two verses is not to give a lesson in anatomy. If the author of those verses cared to touch dead bodies, no doubt, a mother who had died in childbirth could have been found and examined post-mortem. The anatomy involved could have easily been examined without any advanced scientific instruments.

Yes

 

 

Soooooooo...the point of those verses is to indicate that life in utero is not always pleasant (well-established), and that the time in the womb serves to condition the spirit soul.

Thank you

 

 

While the verse mentions nothing of the amniotic sac (it certainly does not *deny* the existence), it certainly *is* true that the fetus and the intenstines share the same body cavity regardless of any boundaries between them.

Yes it does deny it's existence directly bevause the nature and purpose of the amnibiotic sac is to protect the fetus from the very thing the Bhagvatam says it experiences. That cannot be sidestepped.

 

The Bhagavatam is wrong but the point on which the error occurs is not important in terms of the objective of the bhagavatam's intended message.

 

 

Not having researched the topic exhaustively, I'm unwilling to assert that it's impossible for worms to attack a fetus in utero in the same way the scientists working for the Chisso Corporation in Japan asserted that the mercury they were dumping onto Minamata Bay was harmless.

 

Sufficient answer, Prabhu?

Yes, thank you again. But on your closing point the picture explictly given in the Bhagavatam is of a merciless on-going attack by worms causing the fetus to go unconscious again and again. Not of some worm somehow occasionally slipping in and taking a peck at the fetus. BTW do worms have teeth? joke :-)

[Guest guest]

 

Yes different wording but the same meaning. The fact is the writers of the Bhagavatam did not know about the amnibiotic sac I don't see thius as a big thing at all but most here seem to. Most of you it seems think that the vedic sages knew every little detail about everything material as well as spiritual. And you progate that misconception to the point that many devotees lost faith and stopped chanting over the moon controversy in the 70's. I consider that tragic. But just as tragic is the fact that so few learned anything from the experience.

 

First of all, these two translations have important differences in details altough the main theme (suffering in the womb is the same).

 

Second, I never said or believed that the speakers or writers of Bhagavatam knew every detail of material existence - but yes, there are many devotees who believe just that.

 

Third, the moon controversy was initiated by Srila Prabhupada, for better or worse, and I personally disagree with his opinion on that matter (Moon further than the Sun), but again - as a movement - we dont have the courage and honesty to address this issue in public and the controversy and ridicule persists.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I missed one of your apparent misconceptions the first time I read this.

 

You read the verse as saying that the fetus if falling unconscious and regaining consciousness due to the misery of being in the womb (which, no doubt *is* true--fetuses sleep too).

 

I read it as saying that the material discomfort conditions the soul and causes her to fall unconscious of her true constitutional position as an eternal-conscious-blissful servant of the Supreme Lord.

 

 

SB 3.31.5: Deriving its nutrition from the food and drink taken by the mother, the fetus grows and remains in that abominable residence of stools and urine, which is the breeding place of all kinds of worms.

SB 3.31.6: Bitten again and again all over the body by the hungry worms in the abdomen itself, the child suffers terrible agony because of his tenderness. He thus becomes unconscious moment after moment because of the terrible condition.

 

 

From the American Pregnncy Association

 

What is the amniotic sac and what does it do?

 

The amniotic sac is filled with the amniotic fluid. This sac is your baby's home, gymnasium, and protection from outside knocks, bumps, and other external pressures. The amniotic sac allows the fetus ample room to swim and move around which helps build muscle tone. To keep the baby cozy, the amniotic sac and fluid maintain a slightly higher temperature than the mother's body, usually 99.7 F.

At week 10, there is around 30 ml of fluid present. The amniotic fluid will reach it's peak around weeks 34-36 at about 1 liter. When your water breaks, it is this sac that ruptures and this fluid that leaves the body. Your baby's life is still being supported by the umbilical cord, and you should be meeting your baby soon!

 

 

 

 

Are devotees comfortable using the Bhagavatam's quotes about the fetus living in stool and urine and being bitten by worms and going in and out of consciousness in light of modern medical knowledge?