Did we enter the body at conception or we were already in the sperm before?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Srila Prabhupada has never said that every cell of the body has an individual soul. It's just not there no matter how hard you try to say he did.

...

Nobody can ever produce a statement where Srila Prabhupada says that every cell of the body has a soul.

 

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.

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

Even in my stool there are thousands of living entities.

 

Obviously, he was talking about germs and worms again.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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]

 

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.

 

Why does Srila Prabhupada always start talking about worms, germs and bugs when these guy are trying to talk about tissue cells?

 

If he was talking about cells then why does he always change the subject to worms and germs.

I don't see why germs and worms should enter the discussion when someone is talking about tissue cells.

 

To me, this shows something less than a definitive answer because Srila Prabhupada always ends up talking about germs and worms.

 

To me this just confuses the issue when devotees are trying to get straight answers on tissue cells and then Srila Prabhupada changes the topic to worms and germs.

[Guruvani]

The Vedic version is that ONE soul spreads it's influnece over the whole body.

If there is a soul in every cell then this would mean that the soul in the heart is not spreading it's infuence all over the body.

 

I don't see why the Vedic version has to be changed now to satisfy some ISKCON scientists.

 

 

In the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (3.1.9) the measurement of the atomic spirit soul is further explained:

 

 

eṣo 'ṇur ātmā cetasā veditavyo

yasmin prāṇaḥ pañcadhā saḿviveśa

prāṇaiś cittaḿ sarvam otaḿ prajānāḿ

yasmin viśuddhe vibhavaty eṣa ātmā

 

"The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prāṇa, apāna, vyāna, samāna and udāna), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited."

The Vedic version is that ONE soul is spreading influence over the whole body.

[Guruvani]

my point is that what Srila Prabhupada said to pacify his "scientist" disciples might just be an attempt to keep things simple so as not to disturb them with all kinds of Vedic stuff about goddesses of diseases, maya-shakti etc.

 

What Srila Prabhupada told ONE scientist disciple is not to be found anywhere in his books.

So, to me that doesn't have to be absolute and all-encompassing for every disciple to accept.

 

I have seen other things that Srila Prabhupada watered down to help people struggling with a conception.

 

to pacify the scientist types he said one thing.

To instruct the mystic type devotees he might have said something else.

 

this whole effort to validate the Vedic version with "science" is to me a ludicrous attempt and most usally results in butchering the Vedic philosophy.

 

I don't think that devotees should be trying to prove the Vedic knowledge with mundane science.

I think it is a very bad combination of the spiritual and most base material mentality.

 

I like the real Vedic version, not this mixed-up modern mess of trying to validate Vedic knowledge with mundane science.

[Guruvani]

nobody will ever convince me that a human tissue cell is a species of life no matter how many quotes they can produce in letters to disciples that were struggling with their attachment to "science".

 

If anybody can show proof that a human tissue cell is considered a species of life according to Vedic knowledge then I would be glad to see it.

[muralidhar_das]

Well, what can I say.

 

Lots of quotes from Srila Prabhupada saying that the different cells in a body are different living beings.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj was quite clear, saying there is one soul in a living human body.

 

I guess this is like the situation where you have lots of quotes where Srila Prabhupada says that souls fall down from Vaikuntha.

 

Adios, amigos.

[Guruvani]

What the half-baked scientists of ISKCON didn't tell Srila Prabhupada was that human tissue was cultured in a lab by injecting fetal calf serum.

Human tissue doesn't just grow in a petri dish by itself.

It grows when the mad scientists inject the cells with fetal calf serum.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue Culture

The rapidly growing CMP cell line (obtained

from Dr. D. Rounds, Pasadena Foundation for

Medical Research, Pasadena, California) has been

used in most initial studies. The cell line derives from

a human adcnocarcinoma and has been propagated

in our laboratory on Eagle's minimum essential

medium (MEM), supplemented with 20% calf

serum or 30% fetal calf serum. In more recent studies,

the cell line ME-180, derived from a metastatic

carcinoma of the cervix, was employed. This cell

line was established in our laboratory and is being

propagated on Eagle's MEM supplemented with

30% fetal calf serum. The antibiotics streptomycin

sulfate and neomycin were added to nutrient media

in the following concentrations: streptomycin sulfate,

25 rag/liter; neomycin, I00 mg/liter. Cultures

processed for radioautography were labeled with

mcthyl-thymidinc-H g (100 /~Ci/ml medium, specific

activity 10 Ci/mmole, Schwarz Bio Research

Inc., Orangeburg, N.Y.) for 3 hr at 37°C. All cultures

were grown in T-flasks.

So, obviously it takes a lot of tampering and corruption of the human tissue cells to get them to grow in a petri dish.

Considering all the demonic intervention required to get human cells to grow in a petri dish, I think the proposal that they are being grown by injecting them with living souls is laughable and quite pathetic.

 

Frankensteins in the labs tampering with nature is no proof that there is a soul in every cell of the human body.

[theist]

 

Well, what can I say.

 

Lots of quotes from Srila Prabhupada saying that the different cells in a body are different living beings.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj was quite clear, saying there is one soul in a living human body.

 

I guess this is like the situation where you have lots of quotes where Srila Prabhupada says that souls fall down from Vaikuntha.

Adios, amigos.

 

Another little snide remark. I doubt you even understood Sridhar Maharaja in context and you dare to take a jab a Srila Prabhupada? Another nail in the coffin hombre.

[AncientMariner]

As much as I hate to admit it I gotta go with Guruvani on this one. My understanding of Vedic literature is that the soul is in the heart.

[theist]

The cells have their version of heart also, as do plants. The presence of a human shaped heart is not a prerequisite (sp?) for the atma to enter matter. Jiva's can have fire bodies also and live as flames. How close is that to the human model? Not very.

[Vigraha]

The biological human body is a garment provided by Maha-Vishnu that is made up of billions of other embodied jiva-bhutah's each at different stages of evolving from a single cell through to complex organs on their path of evolving back to the biological human form.

 

All jivas that enter the lower species of life have previously fallen from the human biological body or vessel. Before that they enjoyed in their celestial body or ethereal form in the heavenly planets. When that form falls to the middle planetary system it is further covered by the human biological body. It is due to sinful and lusty activity that one falls further to the lower species and ethereal hellish real of the three aspects of creation in the mahat-tattva. Human biological existence on the middle planetary systems is not possible without the complex existence of lower life forms.

 

Biological life can only be sustained within the mahat-tattva under Krishna’s arrangement by having to 'feed' off other biological bodies or vessels that house the soul. In this way every cell is the vessel of a trapped jiva soul or nitya-baddha consciousness which is the inferior or the secondary characteristic of the marginal living entity. The superior portion of the marginal living entity is ones genuine identity, personality and body which is called nitya siddha. This body is eternally protected in eternal time and is always present in Vaikuntha even when the inferior nitya-baddha consciousness is trapped within 8,400.000 containments within the mahat-tattva in ethereal aand biological dressing.

 

The presents of life in the mahat-tattva means the presents of the jiva, be it a demigod, a human, a ghost, an elephant, a cold virus or a cancer cell etc If one is too attached to material existence they can go through all life forms until they get frustrated with ‘existing’ and then seek out the shelter of the Impersonal Brahman or tatastha where ones consciousness is within a ‘non-dream’ state. This is also temporary and one falls out of ‘tatastha only to start their existence from a single cell creature and after billions of years and births again reach the human platform. The decaying fossilizes bodies the embodied jiva vacates is the foundation of atmosphere and the oceans on this planet as will be explained in Chapter 14 In this way ALL matter comes from life.

 

68/10/14 Seatle, Bhagavad-gita 2.20-25 -

Srila Prabhupada - "Vedic literature gives us information that in the fire there is germ also. Just like in water there is germ; in the earth there is germ; in the air there is germ, living entities. Similarly in the fire there is also. And here it is said it cannot be burned. Even it is in the fire, there is no possibility of being burned. So why not in the fire? It requires a different type of body only".

 

Within the celestial heavenly realm in the he mahat-tattva, ones thoughts and dreams are as real as ones actions however, on our middle earthly planet, it is not like that due to the gross biological containment, which is a further layer of energy, generated by the jiva-bhutah consciousness within the maha-tattva, that covers the ethereal (subtle body) vessel and suppresses ones ability to manifest thoughts or dreams as actions.

 

The subtle body is the original encasement of the jiva-bhutah 'dreaming' consciousness when they first enter the maha-tattva or material universe.

The ethereal body only subsists within the heavenly and lower hellish planetary systems (Explained in more detail on page 236) within the maha-tattva. Both bodies are shekels covering the jiva-bhutah consciousness, which is originally transmitted from ones innovative position and individual body after rejecting Krishna Lila (on the perpetual Spiritual planets) We are always in the position of ‘marginal’ and very few understand that ones marginal identity has a two-fold feature – nitya-siddha and nitya-baddha.

 

In this way of thinking, the material universe is the invented figment of the non-Krishna Conscious self that is transmitted as thoughts of selfish dreams to the maha-tattva (inferior energies or the place where lifeless matter exists) when one's consciousness is no longer Krishna Conscious, or aware of their own Krishna Conscious nitya-siddha body.

 

Srila Prabhupada – “Spiritual life and material life is that when you want to enjoy, when we want to be lord of these material resources, that is material life. And when you want to become servant of God, that is spiritual life. They..., there is not much difference between the activities of material life and spiritual life. Only the consciousness has to be changed. When my consciousness is to lord it over the material nature, that is material life, and when my consciousness is to serve Krsna, the Supreme Lord, here, Krsna consciousness, that is spiritual life. So as there are rules and regulations for accelerating your material possession, material life, similarly, there are rules and regulation for spiritual life also”. Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.354-356 New York, December 28, 1966

[Guruvani]

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.18 purport,

 

As sunlight maintains the entire universe, so the light of the soul maintains this material body. As soon as the spirit soul is out of this material body, the body begins to decompose; therefore it is the spirit soul which maintains this body.

 

that is singular.... soul..... not souls....

[muralidhar_das]

 

First off, you have copied a segment from a sanskrit-french dictionary. I really have no idea why you did that, but I would guess it probably reflects something about your sanskrit knowledge. Your view is that indragopa in english means "coccinelle", but of course that isn't even an english word. It's a french word. So I seriously doubt you have any academic experience as to what the word means or how it is used.

 

In fact I am very well aquainted with cochineal and coccinelle for several years given the fact that coccinelle is a red colouring used in sweets. I regularly check packets of sweets my children want to eat to see if the red sweets contain coccinelle.

 

Yes I did a quick copy and paste from a dictionary. Please excuse my sloppy scholarship.

 

Perhaps I should be more scholarly and more submissive to the authority you think I should follow. But in fact I feel it is proper service to Srila Prabhupada if I give up being a blind-faith swallower of "vedabase data" and instead make an effort to try and find out the Truth. But then there are some people who think it is best if everyone blindly accepts every bit of data in the database, and every statement spoken by the various sages of the past. Such as the proposition that people who are keeping long hairs are rejected as disciples by a true Guru.

 

Anyway, this is a digression. Here is the indragopa again from another source:

Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary

 

<dl> <dt>⋙ indragopa </dt><dd>○gopa or ā mfn. Ved. having Indra as one's protector RV. viii, 46, 32 </dd><dd>• m. the insect cochineal of various kinds </dd><dd>• a fire-fly (in this sense also indra-gopaka)

</dd> </dl> I hope Monier Williams is pukka enough for you.

 

Q: What does the word “indragopa” mean.

A: It is an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra. That is, an insect that appears after heavy rain.

Flying quickly to meet their longed-for cloud, a jubilant row of herons looks like a long garland of white lotus flowers adorning the sky. With its new grass sprinkled with new-born red indragopa insects, the earth looks charming like a woman with a green blanket speckled with red conchineal wrapped tightly around her waist.

-Ramayana, Kishkindha-Kanda, chapter 1

(Sugriva Detects the Presence of Rama)

Q: What colour is the indragopa insect?

A: Scarlet red.

 

 

Q: How can it be said that the indragopa is red? If an indragopa is microscopic or the size of a bacteria or a single human cell then they are too small to see. But as the Ramayana says, these red bugs on the green grass that were seen in South India by the Rishi look like a green blanket speckled with red cochineal.

 

 

 

 

Sri Garga-samhita, Canto Three, Chapter One

Text 3

atha megha-gaëäù kruddhä

dhvanantaç citra-varëinaù

kåñëäbhäù pétabhäù kecit

kecic ca harita-prabhäù

atha—then; megha-gaëäù—the clouds; kruddhä—angry; dhvanantaç—thundering; citra-varëinaù—wonderfully colored; kåñëäbhäù—black; pétabhäù—yellow; kecit—some; kecic—some; ca—and; harita-prabhäù—green.

The clouds thundered with anger. They were many wonderful colors, some black, some yellow, some green, . . .

Text 4

indragopa-nibhäù kecit

kecit karpüravat-prabhäù

nänä-vidhäç ca ye meghä

néla-paìkaja-su-prabhäù

indragopa-nibhäù—the color of an indrgopa insect; kecit—some; kecit—some; karpüravat-prabhäù—the color of camphor; nänä—various; vidhäù—kinds; ca—and; ye—which; meghä—clouds; néla-paìkaja-su-prabhäù—the color of a blue lotus.

. . . some the color of an indragopa insect, some the color of camphor, and some the color of blue lotuses.

In regard to your statements about how the Veda Rishis would have observed smaller creatures than ladybugs, so why would they say that ladybugs are the smallest creatures...

My answer is that the Vedas are poetry and they were using ladybugs as a poetic symbol of small insects generally.

 

[muralidhar_das]

 

 

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.18 purport,

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> As sunlight maintains the entire universe, so the light of the soul maintains this material body. As soon as the spirit soul is out of this material body, the body begins to decompose; therefore it is the spirit soul which maintains this body. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

that is singular.... soul..... not souls....

 

 

Yes.

[Guruvani]

 

Since Gītopaniṣad is largely based on the principles of the Upaniṣads, it is not surprising to also find this passage in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad (1.2.7):

 

 

śravaṇayāpi bahubhir yo na labhyaḥ

śṛṇvanto 'pi bahavo yaḿ na vidyuḥ

āścaryo vaktā kuśalo 'sya labdhā

āścaryo 'sya jñātā kuśalānuśiṣṭaḥ

 

 

The fact that the atomic soul is within the body of a gigantic animal, in the body of a gigantic banyan tree, and also in the microbic germs, millions and billions of which occupy only an inch of space, is certainly very amazing.

Even science will tell you that the tissue cells are not germ cells. They are classified as somatic cells and they do not geminate.

The authentic version of Srila Prabhupada before it got tampered with by the half-baked scientists of ISKCON was that the smallest form of life was a germ.

Human tissue is not made of germs.

This purport would have been a good time for Srila Prabhupada to say that every cell of the body had a soul.

He didn't.

In fact, nowhere in any of his books has he ever said that every cell of the body had a soul.

That crackpot theory didn't come up till the so-called scientists of ISKCON postulated their theory.

 

Again, human tissue cells are NOT germs.

[Guruvani]

Teachings of Lord Kapila, Srila Prabhupada

 

 

This is the position of Lord Brahma and the ant as well. Yas tv

indragopam athavendram aho sva-karma. From Lord Indra to indragopa, an

insignificant insect, everyone is reaping the consequences of his karma.

In this statement Srila Prabhupada is refering to the Indragopa as an insect, not a microbe.

[Guruvani]

In Srimad Bhagavatam the body is described as "corpse-like" and composed of mucus, bile and air.

Corpse-like hardly sounds like it is teaming with jivas in every cell.

 

 

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.84.13

 

yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke

sva-dhīḥ kalatrādiṣu bhauma ijya-dhīḥ

yat-tīrtha-buddhiḥ salile na karhicij

janeṣv abhijñeṣu sa eva go-kharaḥ

 

SYNONYMS

yasya — whose; ātma — as his self; buddhiḥ — idea; kuṇape — in a corpselike body; tri-dhātuke — made of three basic elements; sva — as his own; dhīḥ — idea; kalatra-ādiṣu — in wife and so on; bhaume — in earth; ijya — as worshipable; dhīḥ — idea; yat — whose; tīrtha — as a place of pilgrimage; buddhiḥ — idea; salile — in water; na karhicit — never; janeṣu — in men; abhijñeṣu — wise; saḥ — he; eva — indeed; gaḥ — a cow; kharaḥ — or an ass.

 

TRANSLATION

One who identifies his self as the inert body composed of mucus, bile and air, who assumes his wife and family are permanently his own, who thinks an earthen image or the land of his birth is worshipable, or who sees a place of pilgrimage as merely the water there, but who never identifies himself with, feels kinship with, worships or even visits those who are wise in spiritual truth — such a person is no better than a cow or an ass.

 

[theist]

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Guruvani

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 2.18 purport,

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> As sunlight maintains the entire universe, so the light of the soul maintains this material body. As soon as the spirit soul is out of this material body, the body begins to decompose; therefore it is the spirit soul which maintains this body. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

that is singular.... soul..... not souls....

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

Yes.

To consider the Sun globe the only illuminating object in the universe and to think that is what this verse says is absurd. When the sun sets at night I turn on my lamps. Not to illumine the universe but just my room. And billions of others do the same around the world every night. Some light fires for illumination and heat.

 

Astonishingly some individuals here have apparently never noticed that fact even though they no doubt do it themselves. I don't know maybe they shut their eyes when the sun goes down or sometthing. LOL :D

[theist]

I should mention to guruvani that I have placed him on my ignore list which means all his posts are blanked out to me and I can't even read them. I mention this to save him from wasting his time trying to disturb my mind by his obnoxious trolling style. Of course he can insult me personally but that is no problem. This will save me from my low class need to respond to such attacks on myself and others and get caught up in his Tar Baby like posts.

 

This is a really good function I never knew we had to use until yesterday when I we to cp to try and block his nasty PM's to me and found out by placing him on the ignore list I could jetison him from my Audarya-lila experience.

 

If anyone would like to block my posts it is very easy. Go to cp and write theist in the column for ignoring posts and Walla!... Presto chango I will disappear before you eyes. No need to call Criss Angle we all have the power.

 

[Guruvani]

 

I should mention to guruvani that I have placed him on my ignore list which means all his posts are blanked out to me and I can't even read them. I mention this to save him from wasting his time trying to disturb my mind by his obnoxious trolling style. Of course he can insult me personally but that is no problem. This will save me from my low class need to respond to such attacks on myself and others and get caught up in his Tar Baby like posts.

 

This is a really good function I never knew we had to use until yesterday when I we to cp to try and block his nasty PM's to me and found out by placing him on the ignore list I could jetison him from my Audarya-lila experience.

 

If anyone would like to block my posts it is very easy. Go to cp and write theist in the column for ignoring posts and Walla!... Presto chango I will disappear before you eyes. No need to call Criss Angle we all have the power.

 

 

great..... now I don't have to listen to your whining and crying about Jesus.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

In fact I am very well aquainted with cochineal and coccinelle for several years given the fact that coccinelle is a red colouring used in sweets. I regularly check packets of sweets my children want to eat to see if the red sweets contain coccinelle.

 

Yes I did a quick copy and paste from a dictionary. Please excuse my sloppy scholarship.

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:

 

 

But as the Ramayana says... (Ramayana, Kishkindha-Kanda, chapter 1)

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.

 

 

⋙ indragopa <dl><dd>○gopa or ā mfn. Ved. having Indra as one's protector RV. viii, 46, 32</dd></dl>A: It is an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra. That is, an insect that appears after heavy rain.

 

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:

 

 

According to the Brahma Samhita the smallest form of life is an indragopa creature; and in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad it states that the indragopa is a scarlet insect - not a single cell organism. Below is a picture of an indragopa - a ladybug or coccinelle

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:

 

 

My answer is that the Vedas are poetry and they were using ladybugs as a poetic symbol of small insects generally.

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.