Gauracandra

Things you can do with absolutely nothing... Push your eyes for interesting light show: (Amusement Potential: 1-5 minutes) See a variety of blobs, stars and flashes. Try to make out things - is your subconscious trying to send you a message? Can you control what you see by pressing different areas with different forces? Would it be possible to somehow see the same effects on TV? Or for that matter, watch TV with your eyes shut doing this? See how long you can hold your breath: (Amusement Potential: 4-20 minutes) Not that much fun, but it sure passes the time. Play with a friend, or try to beat your own personal best. Some tips: hyperventilate before hand, and stay as still as possible. Try to not think about polar bears: (Amusement Potential: 1-5 minutes) This is especially hard, because by trying too much, you remember what you were trying to avoid thinking of. If you try too little, you end up thinking about polar bears anyway. Scratch yourself: (Amusement Potential: 1-3 minutes) Go ahead, scratch yourself now. Even if nothing itches, go ahead. Doesn't that feel pretty good? Hurt yourself: (Amusement Potential: 1-3 minutes) What is pain? Why is it unpleasant? There's nothing physical about it - it's all in your mind. Plus, after pinching yourself for awhile, boredom will seem nice next to being in pain. Look at something for awhile, shut eyes, study after image: (Amusement Potential: 2-5 minutes) Another great time waster. It takes about 30 seconds of staring to create an after image, and the image is then viewable for about the same length of time. Fun to combine this one with pushing on your eyes. Get yourself as nauseated as possible: (Amusement Potential: 5-10 minutes) Best achieved by looking straight up and spinning around. Try to be so dizzy you can't even stand up. This is also entertaining due to the "makes boredom seem a lot better" effect (see "Hurt Yourself"). Things you can do with very little: See what's in your neighbor's trash: (Amusement Potential: 20-30 minutes) You can learn a lot about people by what they throw out. You might uncover some dark secret about them. Plus, they might be throwing out something with value that still works, like a VCR. Watch TV, repeat everything said in Italian accent: (Amusement Potential: 5-10 minutes) Sort of entertaining. Fun to pretend the people on the screen are actually talking that way. Call up people who write editorials you disagree with: (Amusement Potential: 15-60 minutes) I'm surprised no one has thought of this before. Unleash your fury on the person who had the nerve to write a letter like that! I'm pretty sure it doesn't qualify as a prank phone call, too. Make prank phone calls: (Amusement Potential: 20-60 minutes) Very entertaining, but requires discipline. Remember - vulgarities don't make a call funny, but getting the other person to believe a ridiculous story will. Even more fun if you get a bunch of people on the line using a Wonderphone and take turns making the calls. One to get you started off: Call McDonald's, try to make reservations. Pretend all humans will die except for people in the room with you: (Amusement Potential: 10-20 minutes) What would you do if this really happened? Would the group stay together, or would there be factions? Who would join what group? Remember, there would only be power for a few days before the plants ran out of fuel or broke. To travel, you would always have to be near cars to siphon gas out of. Best to do with people you know. Step off a curb with eyes shut, imagine it's a cliff: (Amusement Potential: 2-5 minutes) To get any benefit out of this one, you have to have a good imagination. Don't step off immediately, build up to the jump. Study the ravine below. Feel the winds at that altitude. Step off and... AHHHHHH!!!!! Things you can do with another person: Have a water drinking contest: (Amusement Potential: 5-10 minutes) While the competition is fun, you probably won't feel too good afterward. To give your event an old western theme, slam the cups upside down on the tables after you have emptied them. Stare at the back of someone's head until they turn around: (Amusement Potential: 2-5 minutes) This works on the "I have the feeling I'm being watched" principle. Conduct an experiment--does this really work? Have a "Who is less competitive" competition: (Amusement Potential: 1-3 minutes) Trying to win at this will make you lose. Trying to lose makes you win which makes you lose. Not trying at all makes you lose which makes you win which makes you lose. Pick up a dog so it can see things from your point of view: (Amusement Potential: 3-5 minutes) Think about it: your dog has only seen the house from a viewpoint from 6" to 2' high (15 to 60 cm for all you metric fans). It's never seen the tops of counters, what you keep on your desk, the tops of shelves, etc. Try looking at things from its point of view, too. Pull out a hair, stick in someone's ear: (Amusement Potential: 1-5 minutes) Best done to sleeping people. Added challenge in having no one else around, because then you can't blame it on anyone else. Try to beat your record number of times before the person catches on. Pour water in hand, make sneeze noise, throw water on back of person's neck: (Amusement Potential: 5-15 minutes) Always a good gag. For an even bigger reaction out of the person, act like you're not sorry at all for what they think you did. Comment instead on how big that sneeze was or about how there was a lot of mucus in that one.

This Tara Devi Dasi is the best investigative journalist out there. She seems to be finding true outrages, and this is certainly one of them. This is ridiculous.

This weeks Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program was an irreverent (humorous) program on the nature of God (a continuation of a prior program). Text can’t fully capture the mood, voice inflection etc… of the humor, so I just wanted to mention this at the outset. This is spiritual life where the devotee loves God as his friend, master, father, lover. This is the spiritual world. So-called Christians have no information about this spiritual world. And if you ask them if they’d like to know they respond “No”. Why don’t you want to know more that you know? The answer is obvious, because they don’t want to give up their present life of being the enjoyer. They can use Jesus as a doormat to wipe off their sinful activities, thus being saved, so they can continue to enjoy life. They don’t want to know God as the Supreme Enjoyer. Because of this they refuse to recognize the representatives of God. Jesus says that if you actually wanted to do the will of God, then you would have recognized him as coming from God. You would be shown the truth in your heart. Instead, they want to have a distant relationship with God. To make God a mystery gives them an excuse not to love Him. How many Christians actually follow Jesus’ first commandment to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul? I saw this one pamphlet by some Christian preachers. On the front cover, it showed God sitting on a throne as a faceless entity, full of effulgence. A blank face, really heavy looking. Bigger than even Garuda Das [an audience member]. So this God has this very hard, cement throne. Certainly not comfortable. And this guy is so big, you don’t even realize it, but there are tiny, tiny people at His feet. Then there was an ocean of fire to His right and to His left. This dude was huge. Like “God that guy’s big.” [laughter] That’s how you know its God. So basically the pamphlet has God asking [in a booming voice] “IS YOUR NAME IN THE BOOK?” and another person says “No, sir, his name is not in the book.” Then God leans over and points to one tiny person and says “THEN GO TO HELL!!!!” I don’t remember the exact script. But, yeah, it was something like that. He may have said “ETERNAL FIRE OF DAMNATION”, I don’t remember exactly. And then you see all these people swimming in the eternal fires of damnation. So God spends eternity sitting on a throne and condemning people. He likes to see them burn. And not just for a little while, but forever. “Too bad. That’s its for eternity.” This faceless, bummer of a God says “Off to hell with you.” And then if you served Him, then by His mercy you can go to heaven. Its like the Godfather. The Godfather only offs the guys who displease him. But he can be very nice to those who favor him. Buys them homes, swimming pools. This is their idea of God. Jesus says to love God. But this is the most unlovable person imaginable. “But He is nice to the nice guys, so you be nice.” I’m not sure I can give my heart to such a God, He might eat it [laughter]. I can fear Him yes. I can kiss His ass yes. I can try to do what He wants me to do. But to ask me to love Him is not possible. How can I love such an unattractive person. One of the names of God is Krsna, which means ‘all attractive’. He is the most lovable, the most just, the most wise, the most kind, and compassionate. No one is His enemy, even if others make God their enemy. His relationship with everyone is on a foundation of love. There is no way a person can say that this picture painted by Christians is a lovable God. He condemns for eternity, which rules out educational purposes. It is for revenge. “You didn’t serve me, I’ll get you when the judgment day comes.” It is sadistic. And He is faceless. You are to fall in love with a faceless, effulgent, cement chair. Could you imagine trying to say “Hi” to such a person? “Could we be friends?” You wouldn’t even dare approach. They’d have to push you forward from the back. And when you are in front of this huge, monstrous God they’ll ask “Did he surrender?”, “No”. “Can I surrender now?” “Too late.” Too late buddy, that’s so merciful. This is not a lovable entity. If it is not this cruel picture then it is God as a mystery. Not friendly, not beautiful, not loving. Or maybe it is Michaelangelo’s old man with a beard. Since God is the oldest, he must have the longest, whitest beard. What is God like? “He’s a mystery” Is He a mystery like Sherlock Holmes, or the Hardy Boy novels? Or maybe He is a mystery like some vague cloud. When you say this everyone will have a different idea, so how are you to love this?

In Christianity there is a philosophical dispute among various lines about whether “faith” or “works” is what is needed for salvation. I think the same issue exists within the Krsna Consciousness community, though the shape may be different. I am unaware of any verses that describe this issue in Vaisnava texts, so as a jumping off point for the topic, allow me to quote from the Bible: James 2:14-18 “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.” I think the very last verse is very important. There is no way one can prove their devotion to God. But one can show physical proof of one’s actions. Showing your faith by your works. It is a question of words vs. deeds. Now this issue takes on different variations in Krsna Consciousness. One classic example is the “quality of the round” argument. Srila Prabhupada instructed his disciples to chant 16 rounds per day. Now many of us fail to do so, but atleast in failing to do so, there is an objective measurement of our failure. A subtle argument started to be put forth that it wasn’t the “number of rounds” that mattered but rather the “quality of rounds”. As such if a person did one “quality round” that was better than “16 poor rounds”. This is certainly true – quality is better than poor quantity. But quantity is objective, while quality cannot be proven. As such it can act as a convenient excuse to those who wish to use it. Perhaps one may lack faith in the Holy Names, and that some proof of faith would be to chant all 16 rounds, even if it is difficult. Faith that one day a real attraction would appear. As such the objective act of chanting all 16 rounds would be some proof of faith, though not definitive proof of faith. The issue also appears when we discuss whether the number of devotees matter, or the number of temples opened. It is certainly true that “bricks and mortar” is not the point of Krsna Consciousness. Nor do great numbers prove great devotion. But if you have great numbers, and good facilities, it may not prove devotion, but it is a proof on some level of the effort that was put forth. For instance, Caru Prabhu has constructed a beautiful temple. Its not proof he has devotion, but it certainly is proof that something (likely devotion) drove him to construct it. We may say that “numbers don’t matter”. But I would say that numbers certainly do matter. They are an objective measurement of our ability to move the culture in a direction we believe is worthy. Suppose for the moment that in 1000 years from now, the total number of Vaisnava devotees in the world is 100 people greater than it is now. Would we consider that a success? Or would we say that there must have been great mismanagement in the preaching mission to only have gained a net 100 people after 1000 years. Or suppose in the 25 years since Srila Prabhupada’s departure, that all Iskcon temples were reduced to 5 in the world. Would we say that “the number doesn’t matter, it’s the quality that counts.” The numbers certainly would matter. The drop in the number of temples would be an objective sign of something. The issue is a complicated one because there are saints that have not opened great temples (Srila Gour Kishore Das Babaji Maharaj) and there are saints who have (Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami). There are previous acharyas who wrote many books (Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur) and those who haven’t (Srila Gour Govinda Swami). So devotion cannot be proven by external works, and works are not necessarily proof that one has devotion. If an issue is in dispute I think works trump “faith” purely because of its objectiveness. I like the way the verse in the Bible phrases the response: “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” This verse opens my eyes on how little faith I have, given how little works I have produced. Any comments?

I'm not qualified to discuss the philosophy of Madhva vs. Ramanuja. But I was recently thinking of how many Sri Vaisnava temples I have seen the U.S. but I am unaware of even one expressly Madhva temple in the United States. I have heard that Madhva's tend to be very caste conscious, and so perhaps the idea of having temples in the U.S. or other western nations doesn't appeal to them. I think if this is the case, they will become more and more left behind in the world. How big is Madhvaism in India right now? Are they expanding, growing?

What is meditation? This is the question answered in this week’s Srila Siddhaswarupananda television program. Meditation means what your mind is focused on. In this sense meditation is neutral, it is not necessarily spiritual. A surfer meditates on the waves, a politician meditates on power, a businessman meditates on money. Some people think that meditation means sitting down in one spot with your eyes closed. I saw a cartoon once of a Buddhist, with a bald head and orange robes, sitting down. And in the cloud above his head, the thought bubble, there was a beautiful woman. Others think the point is to close your eyes, and get to the point where you are about to fall asleep, but then don’t fall asleep. In this case you are actually meditating on not falling asleep. Still others think meditation means thinking of nothing. How can you think of nothing? “Oh, I almost had it. But then I thought of not thinking of nothing.” The point is everyone has their consciousness on something, even if they are trying to think of nothing, that too is something. In one sense people want to take their minds off of worldly things. This is good, and is closer to the point of true meditation. They want to avoid material forms, names, questions, problems, and concerns. But they have nothing to put their mind on. They are looking for voidness. But this is not spiritual. What is real meditation? Meditation in the spiritual sense is meditation upon the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now the impersonalists who deny the existence of the transcendental form of God must struggle to meditate on blankness. This so called meditation is simply a farce. God is a person and you can keep your meditation upon Him. On His beauty, words, names, transcendental form, and pastimes. Real meditation means to remember God in a favorable manner. An atheist is also always remembering God. “There is no God, there is no God.” But this is not favorable. Now if a person wants to meditate on God, it isn’t something you do just by sitting down with your eyes closed. There is nothing wrong with this, but this is not the goal. Meditation means lovingly remembering God and your relationship with Him. Who are you? Who is God? And what is your relationship with Him. If you know that you are spirit, part and parcel of God, and you are trying to please Him, then your life will be a meditation upon God. A family man maybe is working many hours each day, into the evenings. But when he looks at the pictures of his wife and kids on his desk, then he gets the motivation to keep going. This shows how your life activities and your meditations motivate you. This man has centered his life on serving his family. If your life is centered on God then the same principle applies. In such a case your whole life will become a life of meditation upon God. This is how to dovetail your life with the Lord. At our center we teach Bhakti yoga. It has several different approaches. One is to dovetail your abilities in God’s service. A businessman tends to make money. He can, unlike many on Wall Street who endlessly make money for power and control, he can keep what is necessary for himself and his family. The rest, because he knows it doesn’t belong to him, he gives to God. This applies to any business. For tailors, for surfboard shops. Any business. Except a slaughterhouse and the like. But everything belongs to God. Then when a person sees money, it acts to instigate him to think of God. He doesn’t think of a big yacht, or power. In this sense, money, which is the root of all evil, helps him think of God. Instead of worshipping money, he worships God. A person’s whole life can be centered on God. A woman can have children, nurse her children, and raise children who love God. The point is to arrange your life in such a way as to remember your eternal relationship with the Lord. I can’t go into all the methods right now. But one method is so simple, sublime, and easy. Anyone can hear and chant the names of God. By doing so you can always remember God. Everything is contained in His holy names. So if you want to really meditate, then simply regularly hear and chant the holy names of the Lord. Thank you very much.

This comes from 'Mere Christianity' by C.S. Lewis. Its actually important to read from beginning to end, as he lays out step by step, like building blocks, his philosophy. But this is an interesting point to start - different conceptions of God.

Just thought I'd load up the picture from your attachment Livingentity.

Here is a posting on the Key as a Christian symbol: http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/hinduism/36993/3/collapsed/5/o/1

If you think about it, I think all (or most?) religion revolves around this idea. Whether you are speaking of Heaven as a place of perfection, or of becoming spiritually perfect. I was reading some C.S. Lewis a few days back, and he seemed to suggest (and I'm not sure I fully agree with him) that man has an innate understanding of what is good and bad. Religion then acts as a sort of reminder of what we know to be good, even though our will often wants to take short cuts for personal gain. He seemed to suggest that this idea that we know something is bad, stems from the fact that we have once experienced what is good (perfection). As such, (I think) he would support the "fall down" theory, that we once were in Heaven, and understood what is goodness, and now that we have fallen, we know what is right unconsciously, because of this. We know what is dark, because we have once seen the light. If all we've ever been exposed to was darkness, then there is no meaning to understanding the concept of light. I'm not doing his statements justice. Any comments? Perhaps I'll see if I can relocate his statements, though it was a bit of a random find.

This is nothing. Check out the Weekly World News for some cutting edge reporting /images/graemlins/smile.gif Also, very funny Theist. They think it is the reincarnation of a revered saint of theirs, and they still kill it /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I've always thought of how Srila Prabhupada instructed that no one within 10 miles in all directions of a temple should ever go hungry. I have on many occasions directed homeless people asking for some money for food, to visit a local temple for as much free food as they want. The Sunday feast is a great program in that usually wealthier individuals sponsor it, but anyone and everyone can take part. If you are poor, it doesn't matter. We all sit in the same line, and come together. Its a great way of spiritual redistribution of wealth.

Yes. This is seen in many ways, not just in philosophical understandings. Sometimes people think that creativity is the same as quirkiness (being different for the sake of being different). This stems from the same idea. On a philosophical level that if you do something different to stand out from the crowd, that you are a unique thinker, or unique artist. Very often you are just weird (not deep or creative).

- The first couple to be shown in bed together on prime time TV were Fred and Wilma Flintstone. - Every day more money is printed for Monopoly than the US Treasury. - Men can read smaller print than women can; women can hear better. - Coca-Cola was originally green. - It is impossible to lick your elbow. - The state with the highest percentage of people who walk to work: Alaska - The percentage of Africa that is wilderness: 28% (now get this...) - The percentage of North America that is wilderness: 38% - The cost of raising a medium-size dog to the age of eleven: $6,400 - The average number of people airborne over the US any given hour: 61,000 - Intelligent people have more zinc and copper in their hair. - The world's youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China in 1910. - The youngest pope was 11 years old. - The first novel ever written on a typewriter: Tom Sawyer. - Those San Francisco Cable cars are the only mobile National Monuments. - Each king in a deck of playing cards represents a great king from history: Spades - King David, Hearts - Charlemagne, Clubs -Alexander, the Great Diamonds - Julius Caesar - 111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 - If a statue in the park of a person on a horse has both front legs in the air, the person died in battle. If the horse has one front leg in the air the person died as a result of wounds received in battle. If the horse has all four legs on the ground, the person died of natural causes. - Only two people signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, John Hancock and Charles Thomson. Most of the rest signed on August 2, but the last signature wasn't added until 5 years later. - "I Am." is the shortest complete sentence in the English language. - Hershey's Kisses are called that because the machine that makes them looks like it's kissing the conveyor belt. Q. What occurs more often in December than any other month? A.Conception. Q. Half of all Americans live within 50 miles of what? A. Their birthplace Q. Most boat owners name their boats. What is the most popular boatname requested? A. Obsession Q. If you were to spell out numbers, how far would you have to go until you would find the letter "A"? A. One thousand Q. What do bulletproof vests, fire escapes, windshield wipers, and laser printers all have in common? A. All invented by women. Q. What is the only food that doesn't spoil? A. Honey Q. There are more collect calls on this day than any other day of the year? A. Father's Day Q. What trivia fact about Mel Blanc (voice of Bugs Bunny) is the most ironic? A. He was allergic to carrots. Q. What is an activity performed by 40% of all people at a party? A. Snoop in your medicine cabinet. In Shakespeare's time, mattresses were secured on bed frames by ropes. When you pulled on the ropes the mattress tightened, making the bed firmer to sleep on. Hence the phrase "goodnight, sleep tight". It was the accepted practice in Babylon 4,000 years ago that for a month after the wedding, the bride's father would supply his son-in-law with all the mead he could drink. Mead is a honey beer and because their calendar as lunar based, this period was called the honey month we know today as the honeymoon. In English pubs, ale is ordered by pints and quarts. So in old England, when customers got unruly, the bartender would yell at them mind their own pints and quarts and settle down. It's where we get the phrase mind your P's and Q's" Many years ago in England, pub frequenters had a whistle baked into the rim or handle of their ceramic cups. When they needed a refill, they used the whistle to get some service. "Wet your whistle" is the phrase inspired by this practice. In Scotland, a new game was invented. It was entitled Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden.... and thus the word GOLF entered into the English language. ~~~~~~~~~~~AND FINALLY~~~~~~~~~~~~ At least 75% of people who read this will try to lick their elbow.

Anthony’s newspaper, The Revolution, made this claim:

The American Baby Code Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies. To assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as non-profit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities. Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood. Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood. Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman's part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health. Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth. Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the states in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State…. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control….. Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

I'm so glad you mentioned this connection between the Eugenics movement and abortion. People don't know but Planned Parenthood was founded for the expressed purpose of killing black unborn children and other undesirables. This is a FACT. And this is the liberal left that supports this??? This abortion movement was born when people like Hitler were philosophizing about how to create a super race. The holocaust was Hitler's solution, abortion was the other side of it. I also believe there is a connection between Darwinian evolution, which came around the same time period, which helped give a base to such philosophies. Also, another point most feminists don't like to admit, but the founder of the women's movement in the U.S. Susan B. Anthony, was 100% pro-life. They hate it. Thats why there is relatively little mention of her. I'll see if I can find some of her statements about how abortion degrades women and allows irresponsible men to exploit women.

You know, I never used to like bitter melon. But one day I decided to give it another shot, and found that I actually rather enjoyed it. Now I don't have a problem with it.

I too have tried putting a nail in Coca-cola, and nothing happened.

It is unfortunate that cows aren't taken care of better in India. Part of the problem, in a general sense, is capitalism. I fully support capitalism as the best means of allocating resources, eliminating inefficiencies etc.... but the only way to have proper cow protection is to have inefficiencies. That is, in capitalism, it is easy to view cows like you do machinery, and try to squeeze as much out of them as possible. So you pump them full of hormones, put them in small areas, milk as much as possible, and then slaughter once they are no longer useful. The only solution is to create a market that consciously chooses not to be the most efficient. Perhaps something like the old airline regulations in the 1970s. Since deregulation prices for airlines have come down. But in the past, because of price controls, airlines could only get new customers by providing better service, since they couldn't lower prices to cutthroat rates. So perhaps set a price for milk that is suitable, and require all milk producers to sell at that rate. Then regulate the protection of cows. This way they can't just slash prices and drive competition away. True it isn't efficient, but it is humane.

make your club both religious and fun. That is, it should be a club. So religion can bring you together, but you can do things like Ski trips, camp outs, volleyball games etc.... You can have things that you do on a week to week basis that are religious, but also things that just develop friendships and fraternity.

in the White House. This procedure is truly hideous, if you see, even in schematic diagrams how it is done. Abortion may not be eliminated, but atleast they have said there are certain lines that are just too deplorable even for some Democrats to accept. Partial birth abortion is for the demons, and all who didn't support its abolishment should be removed from any position of political power. They have no morality and will only create a culture of death.

Senate OKs 'Partial-Birth' Abortion Ban Senate Votes Overwhelmingly to Ban 'Partial-Birth' Abortion; Bill Heads to the House The Associated Press WASHINGTON March 13 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to ban a procedure that critics call partial birth abortion, a triumph for President Bush and the Republicans who took control of Congress this year. The 64-33 vote sent the legislation to the GOP-controlled House, where passage is expected this spring. "Partial-birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that offends human dignity, and I commend the Senate for passing legislation to ban it," Bush said in a prepared statement. "Today's action is an important step toward building a culture of life in America." The lopsided roll call was a marked contrast to three days of emotionally-charged debate in which supporters of the bill attacked the controversial procedure as barbaric and opponents said the measure was unconstitutional and the opening salvo of a larger assault on abortion rights. "This is a heinous act. It is immoral. It is wrong. It is simply something a civilized society should not tolerate," Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said at a news conference after the vote. The bill's supporters turned back a series of challenges over three days of debate, losing only one skirmish. That was a non-binding vote in which the Senate went on record in favor of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established abortion rights. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., the leading supporters of the bill that passed, indicated that provision would be deleted from the final bill that goes to the White House for the president's signature. Abortion opponents have been working for eight years to put the ban into law, and with a sympathetic president in the White House, are likely to succeed within a matter of weeks or months. Abortion rights supporters have pledged a court challenge. "This bill is unconstitutional," argued Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., citing the lack of an exemption in cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy. The bill prohibits doctors from committing an "overt act" designed to kill a partially delivered fetus. Partial birth is described as a case in which the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the event of a breech delivery, if "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother." The legislation includes an exemption in cases in which the procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother. The debate over the measure reflected hardened political lines on abortion, an issue that Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said was dividing America as deeply as slavery did in the 19th century. The Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that women had the right to an abortion. For much of the time since, abortion rights supporters have had enough support in Congress or the White House to fend off most attempts to restrict the rights the court identified in its 1973 ruling. But beginning in 1995, abortion opponents have focused their efforts on the partial-birth procedure, putting their political foes on the defensive. Congress twice before passed legislation to impose a ban, but former President Clinton vetoed both measures. A third attempt was sidetracked in 2000 when the Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska state law that closely resembled the measure moving through the House and Senate. Yet a fourth attempt failed last year when Democrats, then in control of the Senate, refused to schedule a vote. Abortion rights advocates scored one victory on Wednesday when the Senate voted 52-46 in support of the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that gave women the right to end their pregnancies. It was the first referendum on the 30-year-old ruling since the new Congress convened in January, and nine of the 11 newcomers to the Senate signaled opposition to the 1973 ruling. That was a nonbinding vote, and on the legislative skirmishes that counted, abortion foes were in command. On a vote of 60-38, the Senate first killed a proposal to ban a range of late-term abortions with exceptions for the health of the mother, exceptions that critics said rendered the prohibition all but meaningless. Moments later, on a vote of 56-42, lawmakers rejected a call to have the bill rewritten in committee to address "constitutional issues raised by the Supreme Court" in a 2000 ruling. Later in the day, in a final triumph for abortion foes, the Senate rejected a second attempt to substitute a ban on abortions after the fetus is viable outside the mother. That proposal included exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and failed, 60-35. Durbin authored the proposal to ban a wider range of late-term abortions, but it drew opposition from abortion foes and abortion rights supporters as well. It would have prohibited abortions after the point that the fetus could survive outside the mother, tempered by an exception in cases that threaten a mother's life or "risk grievous injury to her physical health." "It doesn't ban abortion, which is what some people want. And it doesn't get the government out of the picture, which is what some other people want," he said. "Instead, it tries to draw a line, a good faith line of where we will allow abortions in late term pregnancies."