Jahnava Nitai Das

First off, you have copied a segment from a sanskrit-french dictionary. I really have no idea why you did that, but I would guess it probably reflects something about your sanskrit knowledge. Your view is that indragopa in english means "coccinelle", but of course that isn't even an english word. It's a french word. So I seriously doubt you have any academic experience as to what the word means or how it is used. 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. Otherwise we are left to choose between muralidhar and his opinion on the meaning of indragopam - backed up with a french dictionary entry he has copied from some website, or the traditional opinion as presented by Srila Prabhupaa. Add to muralidhara's evidence a "reference" from Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad that never actually existed, and it just adds up to bad scholarship filled with speculation. Everyone is free to choose which view makes more sense: Muralidhara's view: "I think the rishis probably were talking about little bugs like ladybugs when they talked about "indragopa" bugs." Prabhupada's view: "Beginning from the germ... There is a germ which is called indra-gopa. You know that among the living entities, the germs are in very minute forms. You cannot see even with your microscope. In a, in a space of one millimeter, you can find millions of germs. That is a scientific truth. Beginning from the germs up to the heavenly kingdom... The king of heaven is called Indra, and the smallest, minutest germ, it is also called indra-gopa in Sanskrit language. So in the Brahma-samhita it is said that "Beginning from this indra up to that Indra..." That means "Beginning from the germ which is known as indra-gopa up to the point of the king who is also known as Indra, all of them are bound up by the reaction of his own karma, or his own work." - Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavad Gita Lecture (August 3, 1966) "Now there are living entities of different grades. There is one living entity, it is very small, microscopic bacteria. It's name is indra. Don't think that bacteria was unknown in the past. The bacteria's also were known. In the Vedic literatures they were known. So there is one... They have got different names. Not that simply they say "bacteria." So one bacteria is called indra-gopa. It is very small. It is to be seen by microscope. So Brahma-samhita says that beginning from this indra, the indra-gopa bacteria, up to the Indra... Another Indra is, he is called the heavenly king. His name is also Indra. This bacteria is called indra-gopa, and the other Indra, who is king of the heaven, he is called Indra. So Brahma-samhita says beginning from this Indra up to that Indra... Beginning from that bacteria up to the king of heaven, yas tv indra-gopam athavendram aho sva-karma, everyone is enjoying or suffering according to his own activities." - Srila Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam Lecture (March 24, 1967) Let everyone decide for themselve's which view to believe.

The actual verse of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad simply says "yathendragopo yathāgnyarcir..." which means "he is like an indragopam, he is like a fire's flame...". It in no way says what an indragopam is. The translation you have used has an added commentary that an indragopam is a scarlet lady bug, but that is not stated in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. According to my acharya, Srila Prabhupada, an indragopam is a microscopic single celled organism: "Beginning from the germ... There is a germ which is called indra-gopa. You know that among the living entities, the germs are in very minute forms. You cannot see even with your microscope. In a, in a space of one millimeter, you can find millions of germs. That is a scientific truth. Beginning from the germs up to the heavenly kingdom... The king of heaven is called Indra, and the smallest, minutest germ, it is also called indra-gopa in Sanskrit language. So in the Brahma-samhita it is said that "Beginning from this indra up to that Indra..." That means "Beginning from the germ which is known as indra-gopa up to the point of the king who is also known as Indra, all of them are bound up by the reaction of his own karma, or his own work." - Srila Prabhupada, Bhagavad Gita Lecture (August 3, 1966) "Now there are living entities of different grades. There is one living entity, it is very small, microscopic bacteria. It's name is indra. Don't think that bacteria was unknown in the past. The bacteria's also were known. In the Vedic literatures they were known. So there is one... They have got different names. Not that simply they say "bacteria." So one bacteria is called indra-gopa. It is very small. It is to be seen by microscope. So Brahma-samhita says that beginning from this indra, the indra-gopa bacteria, up to the Indra... Another Indra is, he is called the heavenly king. His name is also Indra. This bacteria is called indra-gopa, and the other Indra, who is king of the heaven, he is called Indra. So Brahma-samhita says beginning from this Indra up to that Indra... Beginning from that bacteria up to the king of heaven, yas tv indra-gopam athavendram aho sva-karma, everyone is enjoying or suffering according to his own activities." - Srila Prabhupada, Srimad Bhagavatam Lecture (March 24, 1967) If you really think an indragopam is a laybug, then you must either think our ancient rishis were idiots or that they were completely blind. If the smallest life form you can locate is a lady bug, then you haven't tried very hard. There are plenty of tiny insects that almost require a microscope to see, but are just barely visible. Certainly our rishis weren't fools, and knew there were insects smaller than lady bugs. Here is a picture of a ladybug. This isn't the smallest life form in existence:

I haven't seen this statement, but in the Vishnu Sahasranama the "sri rama rama rameti" verse (usually recited at the end) is the one verse that equals the Vishnu Sahasranama.

To clear up your misconception, blood cells do not reproduce themselves by fission. They are produced in the bone marrow. Thus it is impossible that Prabhupada actually meant to say fission instead of fusion. My understanding of Srila Prabhupada's use of "fusion" (a word he has only used once in all his recorded works and conversations) is the mixing of ingredients and subsequent release of energy. My understanding may be incomplete or wrong, but fission certainly wasn't what he meant to say, as blood does not reproduce by fission.

Changing Prabhupada's words to fit your view is one way to find your answers. But I certainly see a difference between Srila Prabhupada saying "the activity of the blood, generating fusion" and your interpretation that Prabhupada actually was referring to cell fission and cell reproduction. The activity of the blood is not cell fission. Srila Prabhupada is obviously speaking of the bloods actual function or activity, carrying energy to other parts of the body. How you can read Srila Prabhupada's word and then replace it with the antonym is beyond me. Fission is the opposite of fusion. Either Srila Prabhupada knew what word he was using and it should be left as is, or he didn't know what word he wanted to use, in which case no one can know what he really meant to say. I will just accept Srila Prabhupada's statement as he said it and not replace his words with the opposite word just because it fits my opinion. Regardless, the fact that blood cells carry energy from the soul does not mean the cells are not alive. As already discussed, the one knower-soul (kshetra-jna) spreads his consciousness throughout the entire field (kshetra). This is the mechanics of how he does that. And to clear up your misconception, blood cells do not reproduce themselves by fission. They are produced in the bone marrow. Thus it is impossible that Prabhupada actually meant to say fission instead of fusion. But I hope you have at least come to accept a bacteria as possessing a soul, as well as trees and plants possessing souls. The rest is debatable, but those aren't.

These forums are really more for discussion, not for dissertations. Please keep the big long copy paste essays somewhere else.

Srila Prabhupada settles it pretty clearly, the individual bacteria has an individual soul:

Asexual reproduction occurs all over the place in nature (among plants, insects, fish, etc). To think that souls only exist where there is sexual reproduction is ridiculous and naive. And now that cloning has become prominent it is obvious that your definition for the soul's presence is inaccurate. Can you back up this speculation with any direct statement from our Acharya, Srila Prabhupada? Or do you only require evidence from others?

It is quite amazing that this discussion can move from whether cells in the body have souls, to people (vaishnavas) openly saying that trees have no souls, bacteria have no souls, potatos have no souls, etc. It is quite shocking to find that there are vaishnavas who after decades of studying our shastras would conclude that trees, bacteria or plants have no individual soul. It is just a step away from the Christians saying animals also don't have souls and can therefore be farmed for meat. Taking descriptions of the universal form to mean there are no individual souls in the world is another shocking thing. For those who respect the opinion of Srila Prabhupada, here are a few statements from him on these topics:

This verse does not say anything about whether or not other bodies (and souls) may be existing within our body. It speaks about the spreading of the soul's consciousness throughout the body. Just as the sun spreads its light throughout the universe, so in the same way the soul (kshetri - embodied) spreads its consciousness throughout the body (kshetra - field). In the universe there may still be other lights acting in their own limited domains, like the glow worms and flashlights, but the sun is the predominant source of light. Our body is the whole unit, and our consciousness spreads throughout the entire unit of the body. The individual cells and other organisms that may be building blocks of our body do not pervade our body with their consciousness. They pervade their own microscopic bodies with their consciousness. The same verse is equally true for them. Their one soul pervades their entire microscopic body with their individual consciousness, just as our one soul pervades our entire body with our individual consciousness. The word kshetra refers to a field of activity, not to a gross chunk of matter. Fields of activity may overlap with other fields of activity. The word kshetra must be connected with the "doer of activity". Deha (body) can be a living body, a dead body, a chunk of matter, etc. But kshetra is intimately tied together with the doer of actions or the "knower of the field" kshetra-jna. Thus a kshetra (body) specifically refers to that realm where the kshetra-jna (knower of the field of activities) pervades its consciousness. In this context the individual cells, though macrocosmic individual kshetras themselves, are not involved in the formula established in this verse, as they are not doers of action within the field of our body. For each soul the field of activity will be defined only by where he performs his actions. Thus for us the kshetra is the whole unit of the body, with no concern for the individual cell kshetras. As the sun pervades this entire universe, the "doer of action" (kshetri) pervades "the field of action" (kshetra) with his consciousness. For every "field of activity" there is only one consciousness that is directing the actions within that particular field of activity. Our consciousness is not directing the actions of the cells, and the cells' consciousness is not directing the actions of our body. But the physical realms of both fields of activity overlap each other and exist in necessary harmony with each other.

Is this the Gaura Gopal Dasa who was a disciple of Harikesh and then declared himself acharya? There was a thread on here years ago with a picture of him in an easy chair with a garland around his forehead.

Our bodies are made up of billions of other material bodies (cells). The cells are still made up of material energy, just as our body is made up of material energy. If one analyses the symptoms of life, then it can be seen that cells do possess life. They can even be seperated from the body and continue to live and function for some short duration of their life. As Theist stated earlier, Srila Prabhupada gives six symptoms that establish the presence of life. Reproduction would be the clearest evidence of life, and that is part of the definition for a cell ("a self replicating unit"). I think it is beyond question that cells are living (as we can obviously have living cells and dead cells) , but whether that living cell is independently living or just alive from the presence of our one soul is debatable. In the two cases where Srila Prabhupada was presented with this idea of each cell having a soul he said "yes", but that isn't an absolute indication. There are many cases of single cell living entities (such as bacterias), so a single cell can have a life of its own beyond doubt. What makes those cells any different from the cells of our bodies? They both perform the same basic actions. All cells can reproduce, take in raw material (food), build cell components, convert energy and release byproducts. These certainly come under Srila Prabhupada's six symptoms of life as mentioned in Bhagavad Gita As It Is.

All cells contain souls according to the following conversation with Srila Prabhupada. I just listened to the audio to see whether Prabhupada is saying "yes" to confirm the statement or whether he is saying "yes, go on with your question." It wasn't a super forceful yes (like he was absolutely stating it), but it was forceful enough to make it appear that Srila Prabhupada was agreeing with the statement. It isn't as authoritative as if Prabhupada had said the words himself, as he may not have heard the question or statement clearly (due to the sound of the ocean in the background), or he may not have understood the specific context that Bhakti Swarup Damodar Maharaj was trying to present. Still after reading the transcription and hearing the tape I would tend to think Prabhupada did agree with the statement. Also Bhakti Swarup Damodar's statement itself deserves serious consideration since he was (I believe) a molecular biologist. The fact that he considers cells to possess life would be enough for a nontechnical person like myself to accept his word that cells are living. I havent studied molecular biology, and I don't know all the intricacies of cell formation and cell functioning, but if someone who did study this presented to me that they are living, I would generally accept it, especially coming from a learned vaishnava. Svarupa Damodara: What is the condition of the soul, innumerable souls, within the body? Like the cells. All are living cells. These all contain individual souls. Prabhupada: Yes. Svarupa Damodara: So what these individual souls are doing to support the bigger soul? Prabhupada: No, they are living individually. Just like there are many germs in your stool. Because the stool is there, they are living. That is their perfect condition of living. That's all. But that germs has nothing to do with this individual soul, Mr. John. Just like I am living, you are living, but we are all independent different souls. They are living in their own condition, you are living in your own condition. But when you go to office to work, you find so many others are also working. But that does not mean they are dependent on your working or you are dependent on their work. But the condition is like that. This conversation (which occured in Los Angeles, Dec. 13th, 1973) was also made into a "Prabhupada Speaks Out" in Back to Godhead Magazine (a 1999 edition). I compared the two and it was pretty surprising how much it had been edited. I wasn't aware that the conversations were so edited in Back To Godhead magazine. Here is the same conversation from Prabhupada Speaks Out: Disciple: So, Srila Prabhupada, we can distinguish that the soul who goes away from the material body has nothing to do with the worms and germs that go on living in the body after death. But before the soul goes away from the material body, does he have something to do with the innumerable souls who live within the body’s cells? I think that in the past you’ve said each cell contains a distinct and individual soul. Srila Prabhupada: Yes, I said that. Disciple: So, during the time before the “main soul” goes away from the body, could we say that these other souls living in the cell structures are supporting that one particular soul? Srila Prabhupada: No. They are living their own individual lives, irrespective of that particular soul. For instance, there are many germs living in some person’s, say Mr. John’s, stool. Why are those germs living there? Simply because stool is their ideal place for living; that’s all. But those germs have nothing to do with that particular soul, Mr. John.

No one can post new threads in that forum, but you can post replies to threads already there. Good threads from other forums are brought over there from time to time to give them more visibility.

Sometimes the actions of God are perplexing, but there is a meaning and purpose behind each action. For example Krishna also ran from the battle field once, and the kings at the time thought it was due to fear. But later it became clear that it was the Lord's divine pastime to involve other devotees in the fight. Sometime's he pretends to run in fear, or sometimes he pretends to be killed by an arrow to his foot. We really can't understand the actions of Krishna with an external glancing.

There is also another species of beings that look like Narasimha. You can see them sometimes as gatekeepers in temples, especially in Nepal. It is possible that Lord Shiva killed one of these creatures, or it is possible the story is completely interpolated.

Yes, as far as I understand, they have no plans to build the big temple any more. Officially they just call the new design as the "big temple", but as you can see it isn't so big. The advantage they cite is that the new design can be completed in six years, so everyone will see it before they die, whereas the old temple needed 50+ years to complete. They spent $10 million dollars researching the plans for the big temple, and now they are not building it. In comparison, the ISKCON Bangalore temple cost $10 million to build, including its multimedia theatre, landscaping (8 acres of land), restaurants, etc.

At this years GBC meetings a new model for the "big temple" in Mayapur was released, one that would be around 1/10th the size of the old concept, and would be built in the present park area (near where the elephants used to stay). Below are pictures of the previous design and the present (new) design. Please vote for which one you prefer: Old Design New Design

Day Two of the G.B.C. Meetings http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1191/1/Day-Two-of-the-GBC-Meetings/

Day One of the G.B.C. Meetings http://www.hare-krishna.org/articles/1184/1/Day-One-of-the-GBC-Meetings/

Here you can compare the pictures of the ISKCON Bangalore temple and the ISKCON Tirupati temple. The Tirupati temple is around the size of the front gate of the Bangalore temple. There really is no comparison between the two in terms of size or design. Both are nice, but Bangalore is on a completely different level and scale. Aesthetically the shapes and design of the Bangalore temple are much more pleasing to the eyes, where as the Tirupati temple is kind of a square block. Both have their beauties, but Bangalore is the complete package.

Actually it is much smaller than Bangalore ISKCON temple. I don't have any exact statistics, but after seeing both I would say it is less than half the size of Bangalore temple. No idea why the newspaper referred to it as the largest ISKCON temple in the world. Sometimes the newspapers write whatever they want to write. It is still a nice looking temple though. And the location is nice, situated near the walking steps up to Tirumala. I believe the land is actually owned by the TTD, with a 99 year lease given to ISKCON. At least that was the situation back in 1993. I don't know if the land status has changed since then. I don't know whats supposed to happen to the temple when the 99 year lease expires.

Srila Prabhupada often stressed the goodness of milk, especially hot boiled milk. He said it helped develop fine brain tissues which would aid one in understanding spiritual subject matters.

http://www.hare-krishna.org/categories/Hare-Krishna-Books/