8.4 million species and those born of sweat

[Guest guest]

Our scriptures talk of 8.4 different types of species in mrityalok (this world)

 

2.1 million - born of a womb

2.1 million - born of eggs

2.1 million - born from seeds

2.1 million - born of sweat

 

'2.1 million - born of sweat' - i am trying to figure out any species that are born of sweat as per our scriptures. Does anyone know of any?

 

Jay Shri Ram

[theist]

Born in sweat maybe. Sounds like the old idea that scorpions were born from rice because that is where the mother laid her eggs and the people only say the part where the scorpions came out from the rice.

[Guest guest]

 

Our scriptures talk of 8.4 different types of species in mrityalok (this world)

 

2.1 million - born of a womb

2.1 million - born of eggs

2.1 million - born from seeds

2.1 million - born of sweat

 

'2.1 million - born of sweat' - i am trying to figure out any species that are born of sweat as per our scriptures. Does anyone know of any?

 

 

"sweat" is not the right translation of the sanskrit phrase. it relates to multiplication by division, such as is prevalent in the lower forms of life (fungi, protozoans, bacterias, etc.)

[Guest guest]

Svedaja refers to "birth by excretion". Sweat is an excretion of mammals and this word has nothing to do with the birth process of lower species. These lower forms simply "excrete" their progeny, or "divide" themselves

[Guest guest]

The literal meaning of Svedaja is born of sweat.

[Guest guest]

 

The literal meaning of Svedaja is born of sweat.

 

Yes, and that so called "literal meaning" makes absolutely no sense...

 

sveda means "perspiration", and svedaja means "born in a perspiration like fashion" not that "one living entity is born out of perspiration of another living entity". There is an important difference there.

 

When a living entity is born out of a womb, it is born out of the womb of the same type of form - tiger womb does not give birth to a human. When a living entity is born out of an egg, it is born out of an egg of the same type of form. Pelican egg does not give birth to a turtle. The same applies to perspiration.

 

In order to translate something properly you have to understand the subject matter. Only an ignorant person thinks some living entities are born out of his sweat.

[theist]

 

In order to translate something properly you have to understand the subject matter. Only an ignorant person thinks some living entities are born out of his sweat.

 

 

Not necessarily. It could be translated correctly and the writer just got it wrong.

 

Of course that would entail an acceptance that the vedas contain mistakes on some material facts and most here could never make such an admission.

[Guest guest]

 

Not necessarily. It could be translated correctly and the writer just got it wrong.

 

Have you ever worked on translating a complex text from a complex language? Even mechanical (software) translating of simple texts can produce completely wrong message.

 

You have to understand the text you are translating in order to properly render it's meaning. I have been translating texts for some 30 years and this is my conclusion.

[Guest guest]

 

Our scriptures talk of 8.4 different types of species in mrityalok (this world)

 

2.1 million - born of a womb

2.1 million - born of eggs

2.1 million - born from seeds

2.1 million - born of sweat

 

'2.1 million - born of sweat' - i am trying to figure out any species that are born of sweat as per our scriptures. Does anyone know of any?

 

Jay Shri Ram

 

it is an analogy. bacteria/germs are in sweat. it is referring to microbiology organisms. 8.4 million is a little shady. Lot more species (form for consciousness) than that it really seems in Maya.

 

not an outdated inferior (like it seems like for a few or seems like people allude to) science but rather the opposite.

[theist]

 

Have you ever worked on translating a complex text from a complex language? Even mechanical (software) translating of simple texts can produce completely wrong message.

 

You have to understand the text you are translating in order to properly render it's meaning. I have been translating texts for some 30 years and this is my conclusion.

 

I understand that but it doesn't rule out the fact that the original conception was in error. The possibility exists in principle. Rather it exists in fact is irrelevant to the possibility.

[Guest guest]

 

I understand that but it doesn't rule out the fact that the original conception was in error. The possibility exists in principle. Rather it exists in fact is irrelevant to the possibility.

 

Which original conception are you talking about? To me it just looks like the term svedaja was mis-translated. I have found quite a few of such mistranslations in our books. Given the speed (haste) with which these books were translated that is not very surprising.

[rrr]

Andhaka was supposed to have been born from the sweat or perspiration flowing from the Godess Parvati's hands when she playfully covered all three eyes (including the fiery third eye) of her Lord Shiva.

[Guest guest]

"2.1 million - born from seeds"

 

was that was an accident too?

 

what else?!?

[Guest guest]

 

I understand that but it doesn't rule out the fact that the original conception was in error. The possibility exists in principle. Rather it exists in fact is irrelevant to the possibility.

 

I think you mean it 'was in error to the writer'.

U know that that applies to many ancient scientific truths (only a couple hundred yrs. old or a little more). To philosophy and to religion. Right enough of times you can get credit for being right on all of it. Common logical sense.

[Guest guest]

 

I think you mean it 'was in error to the writer'.

U know that that applies to many ancient scientific truths (only a couple hundred yrs. old or a little more). To philosophy and to religion. Right enough of times you can get credit for being right on all of it. Common logical sense.

 

'was in error to the writer' ----------> 'was in error from the writer without him/her knowing it'.

[theist]

 

Which original conception are you talking about? To me it just looks like the term svedaja was mis-translated. I have found quite a few of such mistranslations in our books. Given the speed (haste) with which these books were translated that is not very surprising.

 

The writers conception.

 

But others here have stated it wasn't mistranslated.

[Guest guest]

 

Andhaka was supposed to have been born from the sweat or perspiration flowing from the Godess Parvati's hands when she playfully covered all three eyes (including the fiery third eye) of her Lord Shiva.

 

that was a leela, not a typical way to be born for a quarter of all species of living entities existing in this world.

[theist]

 

'was in error to the writer' ----------> 'was in error from the writer without him/her knowing it'.

 

Yes meaning the conception held by the writer when he wrote it or spoke it.

 

But I don't care for these mistakes or misstatements or mistranslations. It is the transcendental conclusion that is important.

[Guest guest]

 

The writers conception.

 

But others here have stated it wasn't mistranslated.

 

Anybody who seriously thinks that one quarter of all species of life in the Universe is born out of someone else's perspiration should quit pretending that he or she can speak on any subject related to empirical knowledge. I dont blame Vyasa for that kind of simplicity. To me it is a matter of a mechanical translation error and I showed the rationale for the correct understanding.

 

Pretending that indeed fully one quarter of all species of life is born out of someone else's perspiration is truly sad for a 21st century person. This is not "flames on the moon" stuff - this is a matter of simple observation, right under your nose (or armpit, for that matter).

 

What living entities were born out of your sweat today, baba?

 

How do fungi reproduce? Do they lay eggs, make seeds, or come from the womb? Or maybe pigs sweat them out on a hot summer day? How about bacteria? How about amebas or the malaria plasmodium? They clearly fall in the fourth category and multiply by division.

 

If people cant use their heads to figure out such simple stuff all around us they probably cant figure out much about spiritual things either.

[Guest guest]

No need to blame or mistake or misunderstand.

 

Transcendental conclusions are reached through all truths (material/spiritual). They are reached in the beginning through our material bodies etc...

 

Why would in any place except hell would anyone (WYASA e.g.) want to make up stuff so we reach a transcendental conclusion. That person better tell us what that person did at some point or it's pretty offensive.

 

Ok i don't have much more to say now.

[Guest guest]

 

Anybody who seriously thinks that one quarter of all species of life in the Universe is born out of someone else's perspiration should quit pretending that he or she can speak on any subject related to empirical knowledge. I dont blame Vyasa for that kind of simplicity. To me it is a matter of a mechanical translation error and I showed the rationale for the correct understanding.

 

Pretending that indeed fully one quarter of all species of life is born out of someone else's perspiration is truly sad for a 21st century person. This is not "flames on the moon" stuff - this is a matter of simple observation, right under your nose (or armpit, for that matter).

 

What living entities were born out of your sweat today, baba?

 

How do fungi reproduce? Do they lay eggs, make seeds, or come from the womb? Or maybe pigs sweat them out on a hot summer day? How about bacteria? How about amebas or the malaria plasmodium? They clearly fall in the fourth category and multiply by division.

 

If people cant use their heads to figure out such simple stuff all around us they probably cant figure out much about spiritual things either.

 

 

"Anybody who seriously thinks that one quarter of all species of life in the Universe is born out of someone else's perspiration should quit pretending that he or she can speak on any subject related to empirical knowledge. I dont blame Vyasa for that kind of simplicity. "

 

That was quite condescending towards that Divine personality.

Do you have any evidence first of all that is his own writing. Firstly, we don't have any evidence whatsoever this guy wrote the Vedas. A very tall blackish-blue bearded guy which no woman wants in bed even though he is extremely good looking. Next of all, we don't know what is interpolated in these books. Second of all, I don't even trust him on religious matters (b/c some of what he writes sounds completely ridiculous but i will trust him on philosophy any day). Now do you want to bash him for not doing serious scientific work? The guy just composed what 300,000+ of spiritual lines. Probably was tired after that? Where is he pretending on empirical knowledge? No need to answer if you don't want to. Obviously, he didn't write any scientific works b/c that is not for him to do in the worlds rta (sanskrit).

[gHari]

Arrogance can sometimes result when one becomes expert in his little corner of the universe - the great hockey player, the great lawn bowler, the great earth biologist. Look into the night sky, and humble out; that is the factor missing in the equation.

[Vikram Ramsundar]

I think it is great time that Gaudiya Vaisnavas stop wasting their energy taking these speculative figures seriously. The followers of Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya, for example, see no conflict between Vaisnavism and modern science because they, rightly, disregard these unrealistic truth claims such 8.4 million yonis etc. The Bhagavatam was written in about the 7th to 8th century CE in South India, and even though much of the basic Puranic material was already present in the subcontinent thousands of years prior to that, almost all of the Puranas available today, or at least the existing recensions of them, date from a few centuries before the composition of the Bhagavata to as late as the 1300s, which is the scholarly accepted time frame for the Brahma-vaivarta. There was no scientific knowledge as we know it in our own time back then. The pre-scientific poet/s who was/were the authors of the Bhagavatam often let their unbridled imagination run wild. For instance, it is mentioned that Ugrasena had four billion bodyguards. Elsewhere, we find absolutely astronomical numbers of horses (90 million) and servants (9 billion) being given by King Nagnajit on the occasion of the wedding of his daughter to Lord Vasudeva. No one in his right mind would even think of defending the veracity of these ludicrous instances of poetic license.

 

Let us instead focus on the essence of vaisnava-dharma and thereby advance in our sadhana. The scriptures available to us, no matter how imperfect, are here principally to guide and throw light on our chosen paths. Let us therefore heed the wise words of Srila Saccidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura and try to become Saragrahi Vaisnavas. In other words, we should sift through received wisdom and sort the important and necessary bits from the less essential content. Whether one believes that there are 8,400,000 or 9,131,562 species is not germane to the practice of dharma and attainment of moksa in reality. If one is sincerely engaged and puts in the required effort in the right mental frame, the desired results are certain to follow. Sri Sri Radha-Krsna want our humble, loving devotion, not fanatical commitment to negligible elements of sastra.

 

Radhe Radhe

[gHari]

"Ludicrous ... humble"? Is this the only planet in the universe? There is no humility here.

[Vikram Ramsundar]

 

"Ludicrous ... humble"? Is this the only planet in the universe? There is no humility here.

 

By the way, I ought to correct my own previous statement regarding the numbers found in sastra on the question of Ugrasena's bodyguards. It is not 4 billion, but 30 trillion rather! WOW! Any takers for a literal acceptance of that? I opt out right away - it's okay to take some flak from the fundamentalists, I suppose. At least, I'm not running around oxygen-starved like some. For me, harmony IS possible between traditional spirituality and modern academic scholarship, provided everyone opts to act reasonably and refrains from assailing the character and integrity of proponents of viewpoints slightly different from those which they have been indoctrinated with. THIS is the position which the two greatest Gaudiya Vaisnava reformers of recent times, Bhaktivinoda Thakura and Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, had embraced. Since I draw my knowledge of Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sri Krsna from the Bhaktivinoda Parivara, I consider following in the footsteps of these two great souls the natural and right route to adopt. After all, the Thakura did not write Sri Krsna-samhita for nothing. He did intend his parampara descendents to read his literary legacy, and apply the teachings contained therein. Shukavak Dasa's excellent book "Hindu Encounter With Modernity" is also a very laudable work on this whole subject matter, and a truly recommendable one.

 

Choosing a mystical path does not mean that we give up functioning rationally and succumb to all sorts of prejudices, even those that a thoughtful but inexperienced ten or twelve-year-old can see for being what they are, namely fanciful exaggerations. Eventually, divine revelation comes down to perfected practitioners/sadhana-siddhas and THAT is a transcendental feeling filled with mystery and wonder. But until then, progressing on the path of Krsna-bhakti should be the priority. If believing in the literalism of the Bhagavata helps an individual devotee inch forward toward that goal, good for him or her. But, at the very least, a kanistha dogmatism to the effect that anyone who doesn't to the same interpretation/s is lowly and fallen needs to be avoided at all costs.

 

Radhe Radhe