Indragopa

[muralidhar_das]

Monier-Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary:

<!-- 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"> <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></td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> According to Rig Veda, an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra.

 

A red insect that appears after heavy rain:

<!-- 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"> 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.

-Valmiki Ramayana, Kishkindha-Kanda, chapter 1

(Sugriva Detects the Presence of Rama) </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

According to sage Valmiki, here in the Ramayana, the indragopa is a red bug that is big enough to be seen on the green grass that grows after monsoon rains began.

 

It is not a microscopic bacteria - a thing that can only be seen with the aid of a microscope.

[theist]

So?? And this relates to spiritual discussions how?

[Admin5]

We will forward your post to jndas as he is not often online. The other thread was 13 pages long, going in circles over not a very important or talked about point. It does not seem a new thread is needed on it.

[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.

[muralidhar_das]

 

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.

 

 

The indragopa bug is something that can be seen.

 

Your idea that the indragopa, the smallest form of life, is microscopic is not supported by any scripture. Where in the Vedas is there any reference to cells, bacteria, or microscopic organisms?

 

The idea that living bodies are composed of cells and that such things as bacteria exist is a discovery of European science.

 

European science deals with physical nature; the Vedic scriptures are dealing with spirituality. Two different topics.

[Guruvani]

ultimately, I don't judge a devotee on whether he thinks there is a soul in every cell or not.

I don't agree with the idea, but they have some evidence to think like that.

 

It's hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

 

After 32 years of one way of thinking that was derived from several years in ISKCON during the Prabhupada-era, I am not likely to change.

 

I don't want the issue to come between devotees.

 

It appears to be a subject that is fraught with controversy.

 

I know that there are many original disciples of Srila Prabhupada who don't believe that there is a soul in every cell of the human body.

 

I am not the lone stranger in this understanding.

 

I don't think that any of the seniormost Gaudiyas think that there is a soul in every cell of the body.

 

It appears to have been a product of the so-called scientists of ISKCON who rejected science on this issue.

 

If these "ISKCON scientists" were real "scientists" they wouldn't be saying that a jiva soul is what is causing cells to multiply in a petri dish.

 

A real scientist would think that these ISKCON scientists are crackpots.

I think they probably are as far as science goes.

 

As such, the attempt to validate Vedic knowledge with science is definitly a failure in their theories that there is a soul in every cell.

 

That is not science.

It is superstition.

[muralidhar_das]

JNDas my Guru Maharaj said there is one sun in each solar system, each brahmanda. You may think a brahmanda is a "universe". You may think there is one sun in the universe. You may believe that to remain faithful to your Prabhupada you have to believe there is only one sun in the universe. As you wish, so it will be.

 

You many believe a woman's brain is half the size of a man's or a thousand other things that have nothing to do with spirituality. Think whatever you want, since the jiva has free will.

 

But for my part I like to think that a great missionary of Gaudiya Vaishnavism such as Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada came to the west through the power and grace of Sri Krishna Chaitanyadeva so that the Sri Krishna Sankirtana could spread to every town and villge. He didn't come to teach medicine or science.

[Guruvani]

Well, if Srila Prabhuapda would have come to west preaching that bacteria and germs are actually part of the body of ghastly tamasic deities, then that would have made the movement more of a cult than it already is.

 

Time, place and circumstance...

 

preaching is adjusted for different societies based upon what they can accept in installments.

 

Ultimately, I accept the Vedic version that diseases are forms of goddess kali and her legion.

The Vedic version is that the Indragopa is a bug.

sickness and disease are persons...

that is the Vedic version...

 

If Srila Prabhupada let people think that there is a soul in every germ or bacteria then what is the harm?

 

If he told us all that germs and bacteria were part of the body of inauspicious deities what would we have thought?

 

Lord Sankarsana is holding up all the planets on his hoods, but can we see him?

No..

there are many things we can't see that are very subtle...

[Guest guest]

The Jain religion knew about microbacteria thousands of years ago. Thats why they wear a mask over their mouths (so they don't kill bacteria).

 

groups . google . comvedicmicrobiology/web/history-of-vedic-microbiology

 

www . vedicmicrobiology . com

 

Jainism -- B. S??n Vanaspatik: S??n means common. In such plant life many souls occupy the same body making this type of plant life multi-organic. Therefore, such plant life is called s䤨䲡n vanaspatik乡. Such plant lives have an infinite number of souls in one body are called "Anantk乡". Roots such as potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic, beats, etc. belong to this category.

[muralidhar_das]

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.20.11

 

 

haritā haribhiḥ śaṣpair

indragopaiś ca lohitā

ucchilīndhra-kṛta-cchāyā

nṛṇāḿ śrīr iva bhūr abhūt

 

 

SYNONYMS

haritāḥ — greenish; haribhiḥ — which is green; śaṣpaiḥ — because of the newly grown grass; indragopaiḥ — because of the indragopa insects; ca — and; lohitā — reddish; ucchilīndhra — by the mushrooms; kṛta — afforded; chāyā — shelter; nṛṇām — of men; śrīḥ — the opulence; iva — just as; bhūḥ — the earth; abhūt — became.

 

 

TRANSLATION

The newly grown grass made the earth emerald green, the indragopa insects added a reddish hue, and white mushrooms added further color and circles of shade. Thus the earth appeared like a person who has suddenly become rich.

 

 

PURPORT

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī comments that the word nṛṇām indicates men of the royal order. Thus the colorful display of dark green fields decorated with bright red insects and white mushroom umbrellas can be compared to a royal parade displaying the military strength of a king.

 

 

==========

Insects that are big enough to see.

 

I guess this settles the matter once and for all JNDas.

[Guruvani]

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.14 purport,

 

As the sun exists diffusing its unlimited rays, so does the Supersoul, or Supreme Personality of Godhead. He exists in His all-pervading form, and in Him exist all the individual living entities, beginning from the first great teacher, Brahmā, down to the small ants.

 

In this statement Srila Prabhupada refers to the smallest life forms as ants.

[muralidhar_das]

Yes ants are smaller than ladybugs and the Veda rishis would certainly have observed this.

 

Perhaps when they were talking about indragopa it is just a generic name like "bugs". There is no doubt, however, that people can see an indragopa bug because the Bhagavatam verse above and the earlier Ramayana verse both describe how these red bugs were visible on the grass after monsoon rains.

 

JNDas lives in a part of India where this does not occur. Maybe he should move on from the place he is at now, but somehow I think he is very fixated on remaining in his present state.

[Guruvani]

 

The Jain religion knew about microbacteria thousands of years ago. Thats why they wear a mask over their mouths (so they don't kill bacteria).

 

groups . google . comvedicmicrobiology/web/history-of-vedic-microbiology

 

www . vedicmicrobiology . com

 

Jainism -- B. S??n Vanaspatik: S??n means common. In such plant life many souls occupy the same body making this type of plant life multi-organic. Therefore, such plant life is called s䤨䲡n vanaspatik乡. Such plant lives have an infinite number of souls in one body are called "Anantk乡". Roots such as potatoes, carrots, onions, garlic, beats, etc. belong to this category.

Actually, that is a false conception.

Originally, the Jains wore the muhapatti cloth over the mouth to prevent saliva from their mouths from spitting on the sacred texts as they chanted the hymns.

Actually, that is a great idea.

 

The idea that they were worried about killing bacteria is a myth with no truth in the tradition.

[muralidhar_das]

 

 

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 act as if you have given a proper analysis and refutation of the things I was saying. Twice, I asked you to show me evidence that a bacteria has the qualities of a soul, a person, but you didn't do that. You neglect the major issue, or maybe you ducked it. And your reply message was simply oozing with the obvious feeling of antipathy that you feel for me. I can live with that. No problem. But I don't like people to misrepresent what I am saying.

 

Let me say, in my own words, what I have been aguing all along.

 

A soul is a conscious, individual entity. A soul has the capacity of thinking, feeling and willing. As far as I can see, bacteria don't appear to be people. They are not thinking, feeling people with free will. Little bugs such as ladybugs and glowworms and the indragopa are individual souls. But I don't believe bacteria are.

[Guruvani]

 

A mask over your mouth will not stop you inhaling microbacteria.

 

Jains where masks so they don't breathe in any bugs.

 

read my post above.

I got it from here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Beliefs_and_practices

[Guruvani]

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.22 purport,

 

 

Under the influence of material desire, the entity is born sometimes as a demigod, sometimes as a man, sometimes as a beast, as a bird, as a worm, as an aquatic, as a saintly man, as a bug.

 

no mention of any bacteria here.

looks like a bug is the lowest species of life.

 

According to this statement, there is "BIRTH" that must take place.

 

Binary fission is not "birth" the last time I checked with the scientists.

[Guruvani]

Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 13.35,purport

 

 

One can understand that this body is matter; it can be analyzed with its twenty-four elements. The body is the gross manifestation. And the subtle manifestation is the mind and psychological effects.

 

The body is made of 24 material elements.

My body is made of 24 MATERIAL elements.

No jivas in here except me and the worms and germs.

[muralidhar_das]

 

Just like the word timingila is translated today as "shark" (when it actually referred to gigantic fish that could swallow ships), so in the same way the microscopic indragopa is today reffered to as a ladybug.

 

From traditional usage the word never referred to lady bugs, but in modern indic languages ladybugs are called indragopa, just as today sharks are called timingila.

 

You have already stated that you think this ladybug is the smallest visible insect in the world, but anyone with eyes knows the size of a lady bug. They are around half a centimeter in length. If we take a simple insect like lice, which has been universally known about throughout the world for thousands of years, we can easily see that lady bugs would not have been the smallest known insect in ancient India. Your speculation that indragopa refers to some other tiny bug is just something off the top of your head. Either you should accept the dictionary definition you have provided (a ladybug), or you should show some traditional usage that identifies indragopa with your speculation.

Will you admit now that this statement of yours is wrong?

 

Srimad Bhagavatam use the word indragopa to describe a reddish insect that can see with your eyes. An indragopa is not a microscopic creature that can only be seen with a microscope.

 

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 10.20.11

 

 

haritā haribhiḥ śaṣpair

indragopaiś ca lohitā

ucchilīndhra-kṛta-cchāyā

nṛṇāḿ śrīr iva bhūr abhūt

 

 

SYNONYMS

haritāḥ — greenish; haribhiḥ — which is green; śaṣpaiḥ — because of the newly grown grass; indragopaiḥ — because of the indragopa insects; ca — and; lohitā — reddish; ucchilīndhra — by the mushrooms; kṛta — afforded; chāyā — shelter; nṛṇām — of men; śrīḥ — the opulence; iva — just as; bhūḥ — the earth; abhūt — became.

 

 

TRANSLATION

The newly grown grass made the earth emerald green, the indragopa insects added a reddish hue, and white mushrooms added further color and circles of shade. Thus the earth appeared like a person who has suddenly become rich.

 

 

PURPORT

Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī comments that the word nṛṇām indicates men of the royal order. Thus the colorful display of dark green fields decorated with bright red insects and white mushroom umbrellas can be compared to a royal parade displaying the military strength of a king.

 

 

[mahak]

Ask them, they are very happy to be out of the demoniac influence of their residence. There were only five, but the host's head was taking up all the living space. Thats what happens when you leave your southern border unprotected.

[Guest guest]

On the strength of the above referenced quotes it is safe to assume that tha word indragopa has various meanings, both in the vedic literature and now. The common theread in these meanings seems to be the red color and small (relative) size.

[Guruvani]

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 2.96 purport,

 

 

The living beings covered by the illusory energy evolve in different species of life, with bodies ranging from that of an insignificant ant to that of Brahmā, the constructor of the cosmos.

 

Many times we see Srila Prabhupada refer to the lowest life form as an ant.

It is a quantum leap from "ant" to bacteria.

They aren't even close to the same thing.

[Guest guest]

"The soul, the individual soul, is within the elephant, and the individual soul is within the bacteria. Bacteria you cannot find with your open eyes. You have to see with a microscope. It has got the same soul. As the elephant has got the same soul, similarly, the bacteria has also got the same soul." -ACBSP

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

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:

 

"According to the Brahma Samhita the smallest form of life is an indragopa creature"

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:

 

 

According to Rig Veda, an insect that is herded (gopa) by Indra.

 

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:

 

 

I think the rishis probably were talking about little bugs like ladybugs when they talked about "indragopa" bugs.

 

They were mentioning little bugs like these because those bugs were the smallest living things they knew about.

 

then to:

 

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

 

and then you changed it further to:

 

Perhaps when they were talking about indragopa it is just a generic name like "bugs".

 

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.

 

 

You act as if you have given a proper analysis and refutation of the things I was saying.

 

Twice, I asked you to show me evidence that a bacteria has the qualities of a soul, a person, but you didn't do that. You neglect the major issue, or maybe you ducked it. And your reply message was simply oozing with the obvious feeling of antipathy that you feel for me. I can live with that. No problem. But I don't like people to misrepresent what I am saying.

 

Let me say, in my own words, what I have been aguing all along.

 

A soul is a conscious, individual entity. A soul has the capacity of thinking, feeling and willing. As far as I can see, bacteria don't appear to be people. They are not thinking, feeling people with free will. Little bugs such as ladybugs and glowworms and the indragopa are individual souls. But I don't believe bacteria are.

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.

[Guest guest]

I'm amazed that people like JN Das have the time to write up such long posts just to defeat someone else's point of view. Amazing.

[Guest guest]

 

I'm amazed that people like JN Das have the time to write up such long posts just to defeat someone else's point of view. Amazing.

 

Thank God for that. If no one has time to spare to defend the proper way of looking at the vedic scriptures and our tradition we will quickly succumb to whimsical interpretations of everything and anything we stand for.