Pankaja_Dasa

You need to see why His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is using the word Demi-god. Please read the following- When there is no Jiva-tattva qualified enough to accept the post of Shankara, at that time Vishnu takes role of Shankara [here Maharaja says Vishnu means Sada-shiva]. Sada-shiva Himself comes here who is Vishnu-tattva and He plays the part of Shankara. Otherwise Jiva-tattva who is qualified enough he takes the part of Shankara. So it is not at all advisable to equate Shankara and Lord, Shankara is always dedicated devotee of Lord Shiva. Gaura-premanande Hari-Haribol. -From a Video Lecture by Narayana Maharaja, Translated from Hindi, Typed out by me for this purpose. Sankara-tattva is extremely complex. Brahma-tattva is not so complicated; he is always jiva-tattva. And sometimes, when there is no qualified jiva, Lord Visnu himself comes as Brahma. But Sankara is not like this. He is not jiva-tattva. Where does he live? Beyond Brahmaloka. After passing through the eight kinds of material coverings, after crossing the Viraja, Muktidhama, Mahakalapuram, and then Brahmaloka, there is the planet of Sankara. There he is known as Sadasiva, and he is Visnu-tattva. For any reason, if something sour is put into milk, it becomes yogurt. Yogurt is nothing but milk. It has all the potencies that are in milk, like ghee and so forth, but it is not milk. Milk can become yogurt, but yogurt cannot become milk. Sankara is like that. He is not an ordinary jiva. Sometimes, but very rarely, there may be a reason that Sadasiva cannot come to this world – if he is engaged in his destruction of the universe, or anything like that. In that case a qualified jiva can work as Siva; temporarily, but not permanently. So you should always try to honor Lord Sankara. -Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja in a Lecture about Siva-tattva So Santana Sada-shiva is in Sada-shiva-loka [eternal abode] who is Vishnu-tattva, and He Himself becomes Shambu [neither Jiva nor Vishnu-tattva- Demi-God] So Prabhupada is reffering to this Shambu. Now in the offences to the Holy Names it says- 3. To consider the names of demi-gods such as Brahma or Shiva to be one with or different from the Holy Names of Lord Vishnu. The above is reffering to Shambu [neither Jiva nor Vishnu-tattva or the Jiva who can take the form of Shiva for temp purposes]. Sada-shiva is expansion of Lord Baladeva [sri Balarama]. So you can sence Sada-shiva nature is to be a Vaishnava, and Supreme God. Although looking at the Tattva, He is always dependent on Vishnu.

The real definition of Faith is Sraddha. WHich is spiritual. That's what devotees say, makes you think what this Faith actually is. I see that I have faith in many things, Scientists have Faith In science. But that's not what vedas say is Faith. It's actually speculations. So the thing is about it, I would rather have Faith in something which makes a little bit of sence than, speculations. I was in an Athiest room for 30 mins in paltalk messanger, they were saying all the same old. Big bang, Evolution, Dinosaurs, giving me sites. You see this is the kind of thing that tests your faith for me. When I was there I was just a tiny bit laughing at them. It is like they have stopped thinking [they acuse us of the same]. And just believe. [Faith]. I didn't get anything tangible from it. Something concrete. Which makes me think YES, they are right. I would be fooling myself if I said I did. The thing is even Scientists never stop 'searching' for the Secrets of the Universe [remember the message they supposodly put on the moo, to aliens]. SO we all seacrhing, I guess in that way I can harmonize it in my little ity head. All seekers of the Truth. But knowledge is just not enough. Like George harisson said, 'all you need is love', so what is the source of love. !

When a person dies he has no more consciousness. It's gone from his body, so where has this consciousness gone? That was in his body for so long? ANother point is, when a person is dead you cannot revive him by any means, because for some reason something is missing. I am to understand Consciousness never dies, a person never dies. Talking from the standpoint of a non-devotee, how this Consciousness is transferred into another being, [re-incarnation if you will] is a great mystery. The only real conclution you can come to is, it happens by chance. From a devotee standpoint it is meant to happen by the agency of material nature etc. I cannot deny I am a conscious being, but where is this consciousness coming from? My heart? When I think like this then I admit I have no clue whatsoever. Neither do I feel the Scientists have any clue [otherwise why cannot they revive the dead?]. So considering that, what they say is based on speculations. Only thing I can do it accept the fact I am a soul or consciousness, with some faith, UNTIL i realize 'I' am a soul. Pheww. haribol thx Ps. Please choose a nick [call urself Joe bloggs or anything because I want to avoid arguments with anon guests]

Tell you the truth I don't know anything about Lord Shiva because His tattva is very complex. SO until I study it with devotees, I doubt I will somehow figure it out myself. I believe only Vaishnavas know this truth. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Preaching to the ignorant and demonic is the need of the hour. __ Yes thru the Gita you are doing this. Well done, that's all I can say. dandavats

That's actually my nick. I read something interesting about Lord Nrisimhadeva. I cannot remember the details, something like Varaha-Nrisumha incarnation, somewhere in India. Only once every year or so, this form is manifested. The rest is regular Nrisimhadeva. And about Varaha deva, there is so many of these incarnations. But I cannot remember, i have to pdf book. Maybe I paste later on.

I believe this is reffering to the Guna-avatara Shiva., but I cannot be sure. The reason I say this is because in the Purport below it says, Shambu is a Saktyavesa-avatara. Then I saw the below Translation by Gurudeva, it says: 'Lord Çiva [sadäçiva].'. So this is reffering us that Lord Shiva is expanded from Sada-shiva, I hope thats right understanding! TRANSLATION O King, when that uncontrollable poison was forcefully spreading up and down in all directions, all the demigods, along with the Lord Himself, approached Lord Çiva [sadäçiva]. Feeling unsheltered and very much afraid, they sought shelter of him. SB.8.7.19 TRANSLATION The prajäpatis said: O greatest of all demigods, Mahädeva, Supersoul of all living entities and cause of their happiness and prosperity, we have come to the shelter of your lotus feet. Now please save us from this fiery poison, which is spreading all over the three worlds. PURPORT Since Lord Çiva is in charge of annihilation, why should he be approached for protection, which is given by Lord Viñëu? Lord Brahmä creates, and Lord Çiva annihilates, but both Lord Brahmä and Lord Çiva are incarnations of Lord Viñëu and are known as çaktyäveça-avatäras. They are endowed with a special power like that of Lord Viñëu, who is actually all-pervading in their activities. Therefore whenever prayers for protection are offered to Lord Çiva, actually Lord Viñëu is indicated, for otherwise Lord Çiva is meant for destruction. Lord Çiva is one of the éçvaras, or the controllers known as çaktyäveça-avatäras. Therefore he can be addressed as having the qualities of Lord Viñëu. SB.8.7.21

If I kicked you in your leg really hard that could knock you out. Or your back or neck, or [another part which i need not mention /images/graemlins/grin.gif] Consciousness therefore is prevaded thoughout the body, not only in the brain. I don't have a clue what point you were trying to make.

TRANSLATION My dear Lord Sambhu, who within this material world but you can surpass My illusory energy? People are generally attached to sense enjoyment and conquered by its influence. Indeed, the influence of material nature is very difficult for them to surmount. PURPORT Of the three chief demigods -- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesvara -- all but Vishnu are under the influence of maya. In Caitanya-caritamrita, they are described as mayi, which means "under maya's influence." But even though Lord Siva associates with maya, he is not influenced . The living entities are affected by maya, but although Lord Siva apparently associates with maya, he is not affected. In other words, all living entities within this material world except for Lord Siva are swayed by maya. Lord Siva is therefore neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva. He is between the two. http://srimadbhagavatam.com/8/12/39/en1

Hare Krishna, I always wondered how about this, so am posting. [The answer] TRANSLATION My dear Lord Sambhu, who within this material world but you can surpass My illusory energy? People are generally attached to sense enjoyment and conquered by its influence. Indeed, the influence of material nature is very difficult for them to surmount. PURPORT Of the three chief demigods -- Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesvara -- all but Vishnu are under the influence of maya. In Caitanya-caritamrita, they are described as mayi, which means "under maya's influence." But even though Lord Siva associates with maya, he is not influenced . The living entities are affected by maya, but although Lord Siva apparently associates with maya, he is not affected. In other words, all living entities within this material world except for Lord Siva are swayed by maya. Lord Siva is therefore neither vishnu-tattva nor jiva-tattva. He is between the two. http://srimadbhagavatam.com/8/12/39/en1

Not read it fully yet... i'm readin from the pdf.!

One in quality, different in quantity. God is absolute. We are obsolete. Ever read Ispanishad? Perfect parts of perfect etc. We are perfect machines, but maya is covereing us. Take Maya off, then we become perfect again. As perfect parts of the perfect whole. [KRsna.]

It's talking about protein cells, just imagine, in a million years when humans turn into uber-humans. We will be able to fly in the sky.

Scientists are gambling with speculations. Those odds don't look so good to me. Evolution- from Worms to Humans. I wonder if we become Worms again.? Then it all starts again. Evolution I mean. But since evoluion doesm't have an intelligent desinger in next phase you might have a donkeys head and a camels [i'm not even gonna say it]

Basically what this is saying is, there is some proteins that each person has, all different. And Animals have it also. And we are made of these, but animals have different ones to humans. So for the protein cell to evolve it needs somehow to evolve to human. It's not so simple it says, it need the exact match, from: containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.

I read bits of it, makes you think if Science will finally bury the Scienitists. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif http://www.arn.org/ This Post is By Shiva from a theead in audarya. also In 1997 two scientists, John Walker of the UK and Paul Boyer of the USA, won a joint Nobel Prize for the discovery of a tiny motor whirring away in every cell of all plants and animals. The motor is found in the enzyme ATP-synthase and rotates at a speed of about one hundred revolutions per second (6,000 rpm.) This tiny motor is 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead. Every cell in your body, and those of all living things, has hundreds if not thousands of these motors. A human body is estimated to contain over 10,000,000,000,000,000 of them (that's ten quadrillion.) The ATP-synthase motor's job is making energy for living cells. It does so by making the molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP) from adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and phosphoric acid, a synthesis which requires an input of energy. The ATP produced breaks down to ADP again, giving up the energy by coupling itself to another chemical process within the cell which requires the energy in order to react. Energy is directed and all the products of the process are then recycled. ATP supplies the energy for the functioning of the brain, the beating of the heart and contraction of all muscles. Dr. Walker say, "We require our body weight in ATP every day. We are turning over that amount of ATP to keep ourselves thinking and walking around." On a lazy day we might use only half our body weight, but during hard work up to a ton of ATP could be recycled in a day. It was Dr. Walker who in 1994 provided the first detailed picture of how the motor works. He used X-rays and an electron microscope to take an ‘atomic snapshot'. In 1997, M. Yoshida attached a tiny fluorescent filament so that the motor can be seen spinning under the microscope. Every cell contains power packs known as mitochondria (chloroplasts in plant cells). Embedded in the membrane of each mitochondrion are the rotating disks of the ATP-synthase enzymes. The disk (think of it as the armature of the motor) consists of so-called C protein sub-units, the exact atomic structure of which are yet to be resolved - this may take another decade of research. Projecting from the armature or disk and rotating with it is a bent shaft called the gamma protein sub-unit. The free end of the shaft engages with a "hat" - a ring of six protein sub-units - three alpha and three beta units, which do not rotate but are attached to the membrane. The motor disk is driven by the flow of hydrogen ions through the membrane of the mitochondrion. An ADP molecule and a phosphate ion enter each of the beta sub-units of the ‘hat' (which is shaped to facilitate the combination.) The bent axle turns eccentrically, squeezing each beta sub-unit in turn, expelling the newly formed ATP molecules. Three ATP molecules are formed with each revolution of the motor. At about 100 revolutions per second these motors recycle roughly ones body weight daily, however as demand for energy increases, the flow of hydrogen ions through the mitochondrial membrane increases the speed of the motor to meet the demand for more energy. All this to keep our bodies and brains functioning, thus making life possible - no wonder ATP-synthase is called ‘the motor of life'. As Dr. Walker comments, "It is incredible to think of these motors of life spinning around in our bodies!" Of course, the same amazing, ultra-miniature motors are spinning away in all living things, including plants, fungi and bacteria. Did this motor evolve? The fact that the enzyme is the same in single-celled bacteria and in man, as well as all other forms of life, indicates that it was in perfect working order from the beginning of life on Earth. The ATP-synthase motor is very complex. Could natural selection have perfected this enzyme in the first ‘proto-cells', as evolutionists must believe? Either the motor works or it doesn't work. (Its malfunction is the cause of one form of heart disease, where the motor runs in reverse and breaks down ATP.) If the motor does not work, ATP is not made, and there is no source of energy for the cell. The motor could not have gradually grown. It is composed of many proteins that are precisely shaped and with chemically active sites exactly where they have to be. Take away just one protein and the motor is useless, it had to be perfect from the outset. The membrane of the mitochondrion that holds the motors had to as well be perfectly formed to house the motors, otherwise the cell could not live. So who designed this motor? Chance processes stumbling along making billions of little motors that failed repeatedly along the path of blind natural selection, or an intelligent being? Information Theory tells us that information is corrupted by chance processes. Information only derives from an intelligent source. The plan for this irreducibly complex motor is coded for by information on genes. The genetic information is translated and the motor is manufactured and assembled by a series of mechanisms which are, in total, even more irreducibly complex than the motor itself. ----------------------- some christian scientists, interesting science http://evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm ----------------- another good book is http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html this guy writes great books, although his bang bang theory is outdated, his other stuff is great. Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His doctorate is in the Earth Sciences and Nuclear Physics. Dr. Schroeder's yeshiva studies were guided by Rabbi Chaim Brovender at ITRI, and before that by the late Rabbi Herman Pollack. He is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang, the Discovery of Harmony between Modern Science and the Torah, published by Bantam Doubleday (now in six languages). His second book, The Science of G-d, published by Free Press of Simon & Schuster, was on the Barnes & Noble bestseller list for three months. He lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author Barbara Sofer) and their five children. Professor Schroeder served in the IDF, as do his two sons, who are officers. -------------------------- here is a sample on the topic of this thread Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness At the basis of the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution lie two basic assumptions: That changes in morphologies are induced by random mutations on the genome; and, that these changes in the morphology of plant or animal make the life form either more or less successful in the competition to survive. It is by the aspect of nature's selection that evolutionists claim to remove the theory of evolution from that of a random process. The selection is in no way random. It is a function of the environment. The randomness however remains as the basic driving force that produces the varied morphologies behind the selection. Can random mutations produce the evolution of life? That is the question addressed herein. Because evolution is primarily a study of the history of life, statistical analyses of evolution are plagued by having to assume the many conditions that were extant during those long gone eras. Rates of mutations, the contents of the "original DNA, " the environmental conditions, all effect the rate and direction of the changes in morphology and are all unknowns. One must never ask what the likelihood is that a specific set of mutations will occur to produce a specific animal. This would imply a direction to evolution and basic to all Darwinian theories of evolution is the assumption that evolution has no direction. The induced changes, and hence the new morphologies, are totally random, regardless of the challenges presented by the environment. With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At the Cambrian explosion of animal life, 530 million years ago, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Only 30 to 34 survived. The rest perished. Since then no new phyla have evolved. It is no wonder that Scientific American asked whether the mechanism of evolution has changed in a way that prohibits all other body phyla. It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed. It is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change, change to fit the data presented by the fossil record. To use the word of Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, it appears that the flow of life is "channeled" along these 34 basic directions. Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes. Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x10 to power of 12) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable. Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times. But this impossibility of randomness producing order is not different from the attempt to produce Shakespeare or any meaningful string of letters more than a few words in length by a random letter generator. Gibberish is always the result. This is simply because the number of meaningless letter combinations vastly exceeds the number of meaningful combinations. With life it was and is lethal gibberish. Nature, molecular biology and the Cambrian explosion of animal life have given us the opportunity to study rigorously the potential for randomness as a source of development in evolution. If the fossil record is an accurate description of the flow of life, then the34 basic body plans that burst into being at the Cambrian, 530 million years ago, comprise all of animal life till today. The tree of life which envisioned a gradual progression of phyla from simple forms such as sponges, on to more complex life such as worms and then on to shelled creatures such as mollusks has been replaced by the bush of life in which sponges and worms and mollusks and all the other of the 34 phyla appeared simultaneously. Each of these bush lines then developed (evolved) a myriad of variations, but the variations always remained within the basic body plan. Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity. How such complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. The abrupt appearance in the fossil record of new species is so common that the journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: no. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. We may have to change our concept of evolution to accommodate a reality that the development of life has within it something exotic at work, some process totally unexpected that produces these sudden developments. The change in paradigm would be similar to the era in physics when classical logical Newtonian physics was modified by the totally illogical (illogical by human standards of logic) phenomena observed in quantum physics, including the quantized, stepwise changes in the emission of radiation by a body even as the temperature of the body increases smoothly. With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and the visual systems in worms. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly, will cause a wing to appear on the fly. This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated. The eye gene has 130 sites. That means there are 20 to the power of 130 possible combinations of amino acids along those 130 sites. Somehow nature has selected the same combination of amino acids for all visual systems in all animals. That fidelity could not have happened by chance. It must have been pre-programmed in lower forms of life. But those lower forms of life, one-celled, did not have eyes. These data have confounded the classic theory of random, independent evolution producing these convergent structures. So totally unsuspected by classical theories of evolution is this similarity that the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the Untied States, Science, reported: "The hypothesis that the eye of the cephalopod [mollusk] has evolved by convergence with vertebrate [human] eye is challenged by our recent findings of the Pax-6 [gene] ... The concept that the eyes of invertebrates have evolved completely independently from the vertebrate eye has to be reexamined." The significance of this statement must not be lost. We are being asked to reexamine the idea that evolution is a free agent. The convergence, the similarity of these genes, is so great that it could not, it did not, happen by chance random reactions. The British Natural History Museum in London has an entire wing devoted to the evolution of species. And what evolution do they demonstrate? Pink daisies evolving into blue daisies; small dogs evolving into big dogs; a few species of cichlid fish evolving in a mere few thousand years into a dozen species of cichlid fish. Very impressive. Until you realize that the daisies remained daisies, the dogs remained dogs and the cichlid fish remained cichlid. It is called micro-evolution. This magnificent museum, with all its resources, could not produce a single example of one phylum evolving into another. It is the mechanisms of macro-evolution, the change of one phylum or class of animal into another that has been called into question by these data. The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking., fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price. At this point we must ask the question, what has produced the wonders of life that surround us? The answer may be implied by those very surroundings. In that case the medium would be the message!

I posted only for you, because your nice person on this site,

I don't have a clue, I only posted that articile taken from the site. By the way you can to those via the site, i did and was surprized to recieve it in me mail box. What a Christmas gift @!

Read this its to do with this- Going beyond vaikuntha Narayana Maharaja- Brahma-loka consists of two sections: the upper part is called sadasiva-loka, and the lower part is Siddha-loka, which is the destination given to the demons who are personally killed by Bhagavan. The nirvisesa-vadis also attain this destination after meditating on the formless light for millions of years. That is called sayujya-mukti. This lower part is also called Maha-kala-puram or Sayujya-loka by the sages. This mahakala-puram is where Krsna took Arjuna to retrieve the son of the brahmana. __ Mahakalapuram is another name for Brahmajyoti and this is where mayavadis merge with. Nirvisesa-vadis are going to the same destination as well as those who are killed by Bhagavan directly. __

have any names. You can't see the soul because it is invisible on account of it being spiritual. You cannot exactly see something spiritual with material eyes, what sence would that make? You can take it on faith that there is something called the soul, and there is a way to spiritulize yourself to find out. In bygone ere of yore [satya-yuga] People didn't have to be told to meditate and realize Paramatma [Realize Paramatama you automat realize yourself sittin beside Him]. They 'just did it'. Not 'oh we cannot see the soul so I dunno believe your stupid stories'. So yes most are like APes, still though it's devotees duty to preach message of Sri Krishna. SO people can understand all this. Instead of drowing themselves in yesterdays puke infested alcohol. Gaura!

The above word, the soul is never in Maya. It is the body and subtle mind/intlligence/ego. So we are never actually in Maya, the word used is 'covered by igornace'. Thx Something cannot be created from nothing, there is no proof of this, even here in this world. I cannot make a sandwitch from cheese and use no bread. This is just a material example. People will believe anything, that this entire world was created from nothing. There is no such instance in this world. Only unitelligent people with no brains say this. WHY? Because they do not want to believe that God exsists. For them God is dead. WHY? Because they want to 'enjoy'. WHY? Because they think they are great/ WHY! ? Then the final thing is I AM GOD. This is the final complete violation, when Maya completely deludes the living entity. [poor soul]

We are small Jivas. So we are always likely to be covered by something, whether it be material [yr body] subtle [yr subtle body]. Actually the soul [yr soul] is never covered by Maya, is it these other coverings which cover it. Under all this you feel great, [ego]. And you go about daily duties, [eating meat, having sex, gambling, getting pissed]. Basically enjoying yourself. [Yr body]. Because yr soul is aloof from all this business. Many because of these sinful acitivies [sinful because they cover the soul eternally]. So you think how can I be coevered? Because you want it, you need it. You want to become God in yr own right. [don't you feel great when you go against god?] That feeling is what brought us here. You want something you will eventually get it. So what is the confuction? The confucion is I am not God. I am actually very small. Humble. When anybody [whoever they are] starts thinking they are sarvan idam brahman, or aham brahmasmi or any other bogus sanskirt verses, then Maya-devi [you have to avoid Her] attacks you in her most venomoius way [she luvs it really]. To think YOU are God. You are actually a stool eating hog, [hogs-aham brahmasi]. This is Maya personified. Please continue reading Prabhupada Books.

www.purebhakti.com [downloads/books]

www.krsnaconsciousness.org/Gauranga/Downloadpage-Links.htm There u go

See what becomes of me:( I have to post something I read recently to you: Lord Vishnu sapeakin to Gopa-kumara in Going Beyond Vaikunthaloka-