raja-vidya – King of Education
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Sushen Krishna das
Nov 30, 2009, 12:02:37 PM11/30/09
to Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga
Dear Anshul Singh:
Thank you for sharing with us a scientific argument on definition of
life. We appreciate posting of scientific articles in the e-group on
fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin of Life’ and ‘Origin of
Universe’. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
found in html format at: http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-education
.)
raja-vidya – King of Education
by
Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
Bhaktivedanta Institute
How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the beginning
of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
science but the query “What is Life?” is still incessantly forcing
many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency is
creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
Linus Pauling said, “In connection with the origin of life, I should
like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
define it” [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, “Rather than trying to
define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
understanding of life by studying living things” [7]. A very prudent
question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order to
understand life? [8]
In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
inherent in those views.
What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so called
the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
“The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
through changes originating internally.”
The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as “An open system
of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
enzymes which are themselves products of the system.”
A few definitions based on movement against a force (like, locomotion
or, in the case of most plants, growth against gravitational force)
can be found in [10] and [14]. According to science, metabolism can be
identified as a process of consumption of some raw material and the
excretion of waste materials [8]. This transfer of matter is also an
often used criterion in science to define life [11] and [15].
The Views of Scientists Concerning the Drawbacks of Existing
Definitions of Life
Scientists have argued that the aforementioned definitions of life
have their own drawbacks and they can be described as falling into
three different cases, (i) A few living entities do not exhibit all
the classical properties of life (growth, reproduction, metabolism,
motion, and response), (ii) Sometimes matter exhibits a few of the
classical properties of life, and (iii) There are cases with jarring
characteristics and thereby they repel cases (i) and (ii.)
The most popular example found in modern science for case (i) is a non-
reproducing mule. Many seeds, spores and insects are found to lie
dormant for long periods of time (years together) and exist without
exhibiting any symptom of the so-called classical properties of life.
Even though following some of the above definitions may lead one to
infer that a mule, many seeds, spores and insects are dead matter, we
all know that they have life [8].
Similarly, scientists have cited the example of a forest fire to
satisfy case (ii.) Scientists have argued that fire also grows, moves,
metabolizes (consumes, transforms, and excretes matter), reproduces
and responds to stimuli (example, wind.) Scientists have also cited
the example of crystals in a saturated solution that grow and
reproduce more of their kind [8].
Virus is a popularly cited example in scientific literature satisfying
the case (iii.) Following one definition we have to accept that a
virus is dead matter and on the other hand, following some other
definition we have to accept a virus as a living entity. For example,
since a virus has to use the metabolic machinery of the cells of the
host body to reproduce, it is reported that, “Viruses are not living
organisms since they are incapable of independent existence” [5]. In
contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, “It seems unreasonable to deny
that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.”
As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control of
energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
appalling veracity that modern science doesn’t have any solid
definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
confusion in the studies on life [8].
Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
question “How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?” cited in the 125th
anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life and
what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
detail.
The Most Confidential Knowledge
All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
activities which are absent in matter. We witness that life exhibits
distinctive qualities such as free will, thinking, acting,
intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness,
truthfulness, self-control and calmness, pleasure and pain, birth,
death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction,
austerity, charity, fame and infamy. Moreover, we also notice that
life exhibits some supernatural (beyond the laws of physics and
chemistry) activities that we do not find in matter. The cow eats the
grass and transforms it into milk, a mother has spontaneous love for
her child. Bats, birds, and especially insects, easily use extremely
sophisticated aerodynamic mechanisms for generating the forces
necessary for flight; the small seed of banyan tree has the
intelligence within to transform itself into a huge banyan tree and
many such examples. A detailed scientific discussion of these issues
can be found in Life, Matter and their Interactions [17].
Science develops certain theories, which they use to calculate
different parameters such as forces. Scientists not only measure some
features to get the results, but they plug those features into an
equation. They feed certain suitable numbers to the parameters in the
equation to get certain desired output. This is the general practice
science has adapted to explain the entire reality.
This very approach is quite questionable. How we can use this method
to equate the qualities that a living being exhibits such as free
will, thinking, acting, intelligence, knowledge, pleasure and pain.
When we talk about qualities such as beauty, motherhood, friendship
and so forth we can’t insert any numbers into an equation to explain
them. But we all know that such things exist, we experience them
everyday in our own life and there is no need for a scientist to break
his head to come up with an exciting theory to educate us that such
things exists. Scientists have to think seriously that whether the
limited approach based on numbers feeding to an equation will help us
to know the full extent of reality. Thus a question that genuinely
comes to one’s mind is, why so many scientists who posses a high level
of intellect have continuously failed to understand the difference
between life and matter?
In Srimad Bhagavad Gita [18] (here after BG.) 9.2, it is mentioned
that 'raja-vidya raja-guhyam pavitram idam uttamam'. The meaning is
that, the knowledge about the difference between matter and life is
the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. The declaration
“most secret of all secrets” is incredibly momentous. The apparent and
open scientific evidence or the practical example of this deep
revelation from the BG is modern science itself.
In the splendid record of modern science, many great intellects and
stalwart scientists have made incessantly failed attempts for last 200
years to comprehend the disparity between life and matter. Leaving
aside the knowledge of higher realities of life, the research of 200
years with the expense of billions of dollars could not even help
modern science reach a position where it could assertively confer us
the lucid definitions for matter and life. Since modern science is in
darkness, hence it is palpable that it cannot edify the society with
this most clandestine knowledge about the difference between matter
and life. According to the BG this education is the king of education.
Hence, modern science has to school itself first with this most
confidential knowledge to reach a position to educate the society with
the same.
[1] Phalguni, Banerjee and P. Suresh, Kumar. Life and its deeper
reality. Science and Scientist – Inquiring into the Origin of Matter
and Life. Newsletter, Bhaktivedanta Institute, October, 2007
(www.scienceandscientist.org).
[2] Ref: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226
[3] Ref: http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html
[4] Linus, Pauling. The Origin of Life on Earth. A. I. Oparin, ed. New
York: MacMillan, 1938.
[5] Orians, Gordon H. The Study of Life: An Introduction to Biology.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.
[6] Simpson, George and William S. Beck. Life: An Introduction to
Biology. New York: Harcourt, 1965.
[7] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.
[8] Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html
[9] The Random House College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1984.
[10] "Life." Collier's Encyclopedia. New York: MacMillan, 1982.
[11] "Life." Encyclopedia Americana. Dlnbury: Grolier, 1983.
[12] MacIver, Robert. Life: Its Dimensions and Bounds. New York:
Harper, 1960.
[13] "Life." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.
[14] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.
[15] "Biology." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.
[16] Feinberg, Gerald and Robert Shapiro. Life Beyond Earth. New York:
Morrow, 1980.
[17] T. D. Singh, Life, Matter and their Interactions. 2006 (http://
www.binstitute.org/index.%20php?pr=Book_Store).
[18] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Prabhupada. Bhagavd-gita As It Is.
1972 (www.asitis.com).
------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
We request the group members to share more details on the topic.
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
On Nov 28, 1:23 am, Anshul Singh <anshul.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir Sushen Krishna das,
>
> There are problems with your definition of life.
>
> You say:
>
> " DNA is a dead matter and is not life. The dead matter
> follows the laws of physics and chemistry which modern science has
> figured out"
>
> "whether it is possible to
> produce life (which is transcendental to the laws of physics and
> chemistry) from a dead matter "
>
> Now think of any simplest so-called living thing e.g. consider a
> single cell now it is just a collection of molecules undergoing
> chemical reaction and their dynamics is well governed by the laws of
> mechanics. Now you can say that a molecule is not a living thing
> but a collection of molecules is a living system.
>
> You also said:
> "it is possible to
> accurately predict the projectile motion of a dead bird by utilizing
> the laws of mechanics, but we have no way to predict the motion of a
> living bird by any mathematical law."
>
> Now to predict motion of a system we need initial conditions.
> Consider an aeroplane whose flight controls are programmed in a
> microcontroller and we dont know the software.
> We can throw the plane and we cannot predict its motion. The reason
> being vague knowledge of initial condition. Here the initial
> condition means the knowledge of electrical properties of the
> microcontroller and its charge profile ( charge profile => the
> software).
>
> In case of bird we dont know the charge profile of the neurons of the
> bird and also the neural network physical properties, hence we should
> not blame the physical laws since they require complete initial
> condition.
>
> Thanking You
>
> Your Sincerely
> Anshul
Thank you for sharing with us a scientific argument on definition of
life. We appreciate posting of scientific articles in the e-group on
fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin of Life’ and ‘Origin of
Universe’. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
found in html format at: http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-education
.)
raja-vidya – King of Education
by
Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
Bhaktivedanta Institute
How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the beginning
of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
science but the query “What is Life?” is still incessantly forcing
many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency is
creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
Linus Pauling said, “In connection with the origin of life, I should
like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
define it” [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, “Rather than trying to
define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
understanding of life by studying living things” [7]. A very prudent
question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order to
understand life? [8]
In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
inherent in those views.
What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so called
the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
“The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
through changes originating internally.”
The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as “An open system
of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
enzymes which are themselves products of the system.”
A few definitions based on movement against a force (like, locomotion
or, in the case of most plants, growth against gravitational force)
can be found in [10] and [14]. According to science, metabolism can be
identified as a process of consumption of some raw material and the
excretion of waste materials [8]. This transfer of matter is also an
often used criterion in science to define life [11] and [15].
The Views of Scientists Concerning the Drawbacks of Existing
Definitions of Life
Scientists have argued that the aforementioned definitions of life
have their own drawbacks and they can be described as falling into
three different cases, (i) A few living entities do not exhibit all
the classical properties of life (growth, reproduction, metabolism,
motion, and response), (ii) Sometimes matter exhibits a few of the
classical properties of life, and (iii) There are cases with jarring
characteristics and thereby they repel cases (i) and (ii.)
The most popular example found in modern science for case (i) is a non-
reproducing mule. Many seeds, spores and insects are found to lie
dormant for long periods of time (years together) and exist without
exhibiting any symptom of the so-called classical properties of life.
Even though following some of the above definitions may lead one to
infer that a mule, many seeds, spores and insects are dead matter, we
all know that they have life [8].
Similarly, scientists have cited the example of a forest fire to
satisfy case (ii.) Scientists have argued that fire also grows, moves,
metabolizes (consumes, transforms, and excretes matter), reproduces
and responds to stimuli (example, wind.) Scientists have also cited
the example of crystals in a saturated solution that grow and
reproduce more of their kind [8].
Virus is a popularly cited example in scientific literature satisfying
the case (iii.) Following one definition we have to accept that a
virus is dead matter and on the other hand, following some other
definition we have to accept a virus as a living entity. For example,
since a virus has to use the metabolic machinery of the cells of the
host body to reproduce, it is reported that, “Viruses are not living
organisms since they are incapable of independent existence” [5]. In
contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, “It seems unreasonable to deny
that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.”
As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control of
energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
appalling veracity that modern science doesn’t have any solid
definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
confusion in the studies on life [8].
Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
question “How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?” cited in the 125th
anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life and
what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
detail.
The Most Confidential Knowledge
All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
activities which are absent in matter. We witness that life exhibits
distinctive qualities such as free will, thinking, acting,
intelligence, knowledge, freedom from doubt and delusion, forgiveness,
truthfulness, self-control and calmness, pleasure and pain, birth,
death, fear, fearlessness, nonviolence, equanimity, satisfaction,
austerity, charity, fame and infamy. Moreover, we also notice that
life exhibits some supernatural (beyond the laws of physics and
chemistry) activities that we do not find in matter. The cow eats the
grass and transforms it into milk, a mother has spontaneous love for
her child. Bats, birds, and especially insects, easily use extremely
sophisticated aerodynamic mechanisms for generating the forces
necessary for flight; the small seed of banyan tree has the
intelligence within to transform itself into a huge banyan tree and
many such examples. A detailed scientific discussion of these issues
can be found in Life, Matter and their Interactions [17].
Science develops certain theories, which they use to calculate
different parameters such as forces. Scientists not only measure some
features to get the results, but they plug those features into an
equation. They feed certain suitable numbers to the parameters in the
equation to get certain desired output. This is the general practice
science has adapted to explain the entire reality.
This very approach is quite questionable. How we can use this method
to equate the qualities that a living being exhibits such as free
will, thinking, acting, intelligence, knowledge, pleasure and pain.
When we talk about qualities such as beauty, motherhood, friendship
and so forth we can’t insert any numbers into an equation to explain
them. But we all know that such things exist, we experience them
everyday in our own life and there is no need for a scientist to break
his head to come up with an exciting theory to educate us that such
things exists. Scientists have to think seriously that whether the
limited approach based on numbers feeding to an equation will help us
to know the full extent of reality. Thus a question that genuinely
comes to one’s mind is, why so many scientists who posses a high level
of intellect have continuously failed to understand the difference
between life and matter?
In Srimad Bhagavad Gita [18] (here after BG.) 9.2, it is mentioned
that 'raja-vidya raja-guhyam pavitram idam uttamam'. The meaning is
that, the knowledge about the difference between matter and life is
the king of education, the most secret of all secrets. The declaration
“most secret of all secrets” is incredibly momentous. The apparent and
open scientific evidence or the practical example of this deep
revelation from the BG is modern science itself.
In the splendid record of modern science, many great intellects and
stalwart scientists have made incessantly failed attempts for last 200
years to comprehend the disparity between life and matter. Leaving
aside the knowledge of higher realities of life, the research of 200
years with the expense of billions of dollars could not even help
modern science reach a position where it could assertively confer us
the lucid definitions for matter and life. Since modern science is in
darkness, hence it is palpable that it cannot edify the society with
this most clandestine knowledge about the difference between matter
and life. According to the BG this education is the king of education.
Hence, modern science has to school itself first with this most
confidential knowledge to reach a position to educate the society with
the same.
[1] Phalguni, Banerjee and P. Suresh, Kumar. Life and its deeper
reality. Science and Scientist – Inquiring into the Origin of Matter
and Life. Newsletter, Bhaktivedanta Institute, October, 2007
(www.scienceandscientist.org).
[2] Ref: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226
[3] Ref: http://www.nbi.dk/~emmeche/cePubl/97e.defLife.v3f.html
[4] Linus, Pauling. The Origin of Life on Earth. A. I. Oparin, ed. New
York: MacMillan, 1938.
[5] Orians, Gordon H. The Study of Life: An Introduction to Biology.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1969.
[6] Simpson, George and William S. Beck. Life: An Introduction to
Biology. New York: Harcourt, 1965.
[7] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.
[8] Ref: http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/potter_life.html
[9] The Random House College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1984.
[10] "Life." Collier's Encyclopedia. New York: MacMillan, 1982.
[11] "Life." Encyclopedia Americana. Dlnbury: Grolier, 1983.
[12] MacIver, Robert. Life: Its Dimensions and Bounds. New York:
Harper, 1960.
[13] "Life." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.
[14] "Life." World Book Encyclopedia. Chicago: World Book, 1983.
[15] "Biology." Encyclopaedia Britanica. Chicago: Benton, 1968.
[16] Feinberg, Gerald and Robert Shapiro. Life Beyond Earth. New York:
Morrow, 1980.
[17] T. D. Singh, Life, Matter and their Interactions. 2006 (http://
www.binstitute.org/index.%20php?pr=Book_Store).
[18] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Prabhupada. Bhagavd-gita As It Is.
1972 (www.asitis.com).
------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
We request the group members to share more details on the topic.
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
On Nov 28, 1:23 am, Anshul Singh <anshul.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir Sushen Krishna das,
>
> There are problems with your definition of life.
>
> You say:
>
> " DNA is a dead matter and is not life. The dead matter
> follows the laws of physics and chemistry which modern science has
> figured out"
>
> "whether it is possible to
> produce life (which is transcendental to the laws of physics and
> chemistry) from a dead matter "
>
> Now think of any simplest so-called living thing e.g. consider a
> single cell now it is just a collection of molecules undergoing
> chemical reaction and their dynamics is well governed by the laws of
> mechanics. Now you can say that a molecule is not a living thing
> but a collection of molecules is a living system.
>
> You also said:
> "it is possible to
> accurately predict the projectile motion of a dead bird by utilizing
> the laws of mechanics, but we have no way to predict the motion of a
> living bird by any mathematical law."
>
> Now to predict motion of a system we need initial conditions.
> Consider an aeroplane whose flight controls are programmed in a
> microcontroller and we dont know the software.
> We can throw the plane and we cannot predict its motion. The reason
> being vague knowledge of initial condition. Here the initial
> condition means the knowledge of electrical properties of the
> microcontroller and its charge profile ( charge profile => the
> software).
>
> In case of bird we dont know the charge profile of the neurons of the
> bird and also the neural network physical properties, hence we should
> not blame the physical laws since they require complete initial
> condition.
>
> Thanking You
>
> Your Sincerely
> Anshul
Anshul Singh
Nov 30, 2009, 1:52:20 PM11/30/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sir,
The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern science to:
(A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
characteristics).
(B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
the time evolution of our universe.
Now the problem is not that our modern laws are unable to show that.
The problem is that we are unable to perform time evolution of our universe.
Why we are unable to do such a simulation?
the reason is that our computing power is not even capable to do time
evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a simple
force.
This is the reason why we use approximate theory (like fluid mechanics
or statistical mechanics e.t.c) to do approximate predictions.
So at present it is difficult to say that modern science failed.
I think we need to wait to prove that the modern science fails.
Yes if the Vedas of similar texts proves the existence then it is
worth reading them if we can find a genuine copy of them.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Transcendental
> Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group.
> To post to this e-group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this e-group, send email to
> Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To submit your manuscript for review and publication visit:
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
> For more options, visit this e-group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga?hl=en
The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern science to:
(A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
characteristics).
(B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
the time evolution of our universe.
Now the problem is not that our modern laws are unable to show that.
The problem is that we are unable to perform time evolution of our universe.
Why we are unable to do such a simulation?
the reason is that our computing power is not even capable to do time
evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a simple
force.
This is the reason why we use approximate theory (like fluid mechanics
or statistical mechanics e.t.c) to do approximate predictions.
So at present it is difficult to say that modern science failed.
I think we need to wait to prove that the modern science fails.
Yes if the Vedas of similar texts proves the existence then it is
worth reading them if we can find a genuine copy of them.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Transcendental
> Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group.
> To post to this e-group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this e-group, send email to
> Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> To submit your manuscript for review and publication visit:
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
> For more options, visit this e-group at
> http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga?hl=en
amal ghosh
Dec 9, 2009, 10:16:26 AM12/9/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Respected Dr Sushen Krishna Das,
Pranam. Thanks for sending mails of different thoughts which is unique to think. At present I am not in a position to share and send my opnion due to various reasons. Sorry for this inconvenience. But do not forget to send this valuable topics. Looking forward to share and exchange the views shortly. With Pronam and Harekrishna.
Dr AmalKr Ghosh. Kaikhali
--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Dr. Sushen Krishna das <jaga....@gmail.com> wrote: From: Dr. Sushen Krishna das <jaga....@gmail.com> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] raja-vidya – King of Education To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> Date: Monday, 30 November, 2009, 10:32 PM |
|
|
|
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
Dr. Sushen Krishna das
Dec 14, 2009, 7:58:32 AM12/14/09
to Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga
Dear Anshul Singh:
Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
You said “The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
process. The act of simulating something generally entails
representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
History says: “Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in an
empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
That’s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes beginning
with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
mammal)?”[2]
Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
for his/her comfort. That doesn’t mean that they produce or become a
living personality.
Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
Subjective Evolution of Consciousness that “How can we know beforehand
that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen – two gases – will
produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
the gross has originated. … It is not that a lower thing can produce a
higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
lower. This is not difficult to understand.
The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
have to inquire about that process – how the soul can produce stone.
But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
gradually producing soul – we are very fond of investigating in that
line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
gross.” [3]
Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says “… they (Scientists)
must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
potency, acintya-sakti.”[4]
You have also mentioned that “Why we are unable to do such a
life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
of Vedic teachings: ‘life comes from life’ and ‘matter comes from
life’ should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
understanding on ‘origin of matter’ and ‘origin of life.’
I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
scientific explanation about ‘What is Time?’. Is there any existing
scientific theories that explain ‘What is Time’?
Literature Cited
[1] Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
[2] Refer: http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?how_does_a_fertilized_egg_become_a_human
[3] Sridhar, B. R. (1989) Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.
Published by Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Kolerganj, P.O. Box
Nabadwip, Dist. Nadia, W. Bengal Pin 741302, India (see page 20 in
www.scsmath.com/books/Subjective_Evolution.pdf.)
[4] Bhaktivedanta, A. C. (1979) Life Comes From Life. Published by the
BBT press, Los Angeles, Ca.
[5] Vedanta-sutra 1.1.2
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
> ...
>
> read more »
Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
You said “The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
science to:
(A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
characteristics).
(B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
the time evolution of our universe.”
(A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
characteristics).
(B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
process. The act of simulating something generally entails
representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
History says: “Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in an
empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
That’s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes beginning
with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
mammal)?”[2]
Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
for his/her comfort. That doesn’t mean that they produce or become a
living personality.
Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
Subjective Evolution of Consciousness that “How can we know beforehand
that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen – two gases – will
produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
the gross has originated. … It is not that a lower thing can produce a
higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
lower. This is not difficult to understand.
The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
have to inquire about that process – how the soul can produce stone.
But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
gradually producing soul – we are very fond of investigating in that
line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
gross.” [3]
Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says “… they (Scientists)
must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
potency, acintya-sakti.”[4]
You have also mentioned that “Why we are unable to do such a
simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
simple force.” Time evolution has nothing to do with generation of
to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
of Vedic teachings: ‘life comes from life’ and ‘matter comes from
life’ should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
understanding on ‘origin of matter’ and ‘origin of life.’
I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
scientific explanation about ‘What is Time?’. Is there any existing
scientific theories that explain ‘What is Time’?
Literature Cited
[1] Refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
[2] Refer: http://www.socialtext.net/wired-mag/index.cgi?how_does_a_fertilized_egg_become_a_human
[3] Sridhar, B. R. (1989) Subjective Evolution of Consciousness.
Published by Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Kolerganj, P.O. Box
Nabadwip, Dist. Nadia, W. Bengal Pin 741302, India (see page 20 in
www.scsmath.com/books/Subjective_Evolution.pdf.)
[4] Bhaktivedanta, A. C. (1979) Life Comes From Life. Published by the
BBT press, Los Angeles, Ca.
[5] Vedanta-sutra 1.1.2
Thanking you.
Sincerely,
Sushen Krishna das
On Nov 30, 11:52 pm, Anshul Singh <anshul.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern science to:
>
> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
> characteristics).
> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>
> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
> the time evolution of our universe.
>
> Now the problem is not that our modern laws are unable to show that.
> The problem is that we are unable to perform time evolution of our universe.
>
> Why we are unable to do such a simulation?
>
> the reason is that our computing power is not even capable to do time
> evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a simple
> force.
> This is the reason why we use approximate theory (like fluid mechanics
> or statistical mechanics e.t.c) to do approximate predictions.
>
> So at present it is difficult to say that modern science failed.
> I think we need to wait to prove that the modern science fails.
>
> Yes if the Vedas of similar texts proves the existence then it is
> worth reading them if we can find a genuine copy of them.
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern science to:
>
> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
> characteristics).
> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>
> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
> the time evolution of our universe.
>
> Now the problem is not that our modern laws are unable to show that.
> The problem is that we are unable to perform time evolution of our universe.
>
> Why we are unable to do such a simulation?
>
> the reason is that our computing power is not even capable to do time
> evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a simple
> force.
> This is the reason why we use approximate theory (like fluid mechanics
> or statistical mechanics e.t.c) to do approximate predictions.
>
> So at present it is difficult to say that modern science failed.
> I think we need to wait to prove that the modern science fails.
>
> Yes if the Vedas of similar texts proves the existence then it is
> worth reading them if we can find a genuine copy of them.
>
> On 11/30/09, Dr. Sushen Krishna das <jaga.sur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Anshul Singh:
>
> > Thank you for sharing with us a scientific argument on definition of
> > life. We appreciate posting of scientific articles in the e-group on
> > fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin of Life’ and ‘Origin of
> > Universe’. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
> > found in html format at:
> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>
> > Dear Anshul Singh:
>
> > Thank you for sharing with us a scientific argument on definition of
> > life. We appreciate posting of scientific articles in the e-group on
> > fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin of Life’ and ‘Origin of
> > Universe’. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
> > found in html format at:
>
> read more »
S.C.Panigrahi
Dec 14, 2009, 11:09:06 PM12/14/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Once we recognise the presence of GOD in everything at all times and space
the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as well.
There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of GOD
creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of GOD.
So there is no scope of confusion.
S.C.Panigrahi
> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
>
> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
>
> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>> > fundamental topics in science such as �Origin of Life� and �Origin of
>> > Universe�. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
>> > host body to reproduce, it is reported that, �Viruses are not living
>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to deny
>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
> http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/members_invite
> Subscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/boxsubscribe
> To unsubscribe send email to
> Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> Submit manuscript for review and publication:
> http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
>
> {To join our online meetings (every Sunday at 6:30 PM India Time = Sunday
> at 8.00 AM NYT [November-March] & 9.00 AM NYT [March-October]) you should
> have Skype (www.skype.com) in your PC. Once you login to your account in
> Skype please add our ID sushen_das & stay online in Skype during the
> meeting. We will connect you to the conference call.}
>
the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as well.
There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of GOD
creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of GOD.
So there is no scope of confusion.
S.C.Panigrahi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 6:28 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya � King of Education
> Dear Anshul Singh:
>
> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
> You said �The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya � King of Education
> Dear Anshul Singh:
>
> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
> science to:
>
> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
> characteristics).
>
> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>
> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
> the time evolution of our universe.�
>
> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
> characteristics).
>
> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>
> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>
> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
> History says: �Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in an
> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
> empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>
> That�s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes beginning
> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>
> with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
> mammal)?�[2]
> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>
> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
> for his/her comfort. That doesn�t mean that they produce or become a
> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
> living personality.
>
> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
> Subjective Evolution of Consciousness that �How can we know beforehand
>
> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
> produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
> the gross has originated. � It is not that a lower thing can produce a
> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
> higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>
> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
> have to inquire about that process � how the soul can produce stone.
> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>
> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
> But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
> gradually producing soul � we are very fond of investigating in that
> line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
> gross.� [3]
>
> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
> must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
> potency, acintya-sakti.�[4]
> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>
> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
> simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
> simple force.� Time evolution has nothing to do with generation of
> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
> life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
> of Vedic teachings: �life comes from life� and �matter comes from
> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
>
> I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
> scientific explanation about �What is Time?�. Is there any existing
> I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>> > Universe�. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can be
>> > found in html format at:
>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>> > .)
>>
>> > raja-vidya � King of Education
>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>> > .)
>>
>>
>> > by
>>
>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>
>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the beginning
>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>
>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>> > science but the query �What is Life?� is still incessantly forcing
>> > by
>>
>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>
>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the beginning
>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>
>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>> > many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency is
>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>> > Linus Pauling said, �In connection with the origin of life, I should
>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency is
>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>> > like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
>> > define it� [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
>> > life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>> > mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, �Rather than trying to
>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>> > define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
>> > understanding of life by studying living things� [7]. A very prudent
>> > question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order to
>> > understand life? [8]
>>
>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>> > inherent in those views.
>>
>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>
>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so called
>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>> > �The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order to
>> > understand life? [8]
>>
>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>> > inherent in those views.
>>
>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>
>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so called
>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>> > objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>> > through changes originating internally.�
>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>
>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>> > Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as �An open system
>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>> > enzymes which are themselves products of the system.�
>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to deny
>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
>>
>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control of
>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>> > appalling veracity that modern science doesn�t have any solid
>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control of
>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>> > definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>
>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>> > question �How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?� cited in the 125th
>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>
>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>> > anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life and
>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>
>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>> > detail.
>>
>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>
>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more �
>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life and
>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>
>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>> > detail.
>>
>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>
>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>
>> ...
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group.
>
> To post to this e-group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> Invite people to join this e-group:
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga" e-group.
>
> To post to this e-group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/members_invite
> Subscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/boxsubscribe
> To unsubscribe send email to
> Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
> Submit manuscript for review and publication:
> http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
> For more options, visit this e-group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga
>
> {To join our online meetings (every Sunday at 6:30 PM India Time = Sunday
> at 8.00 AM NYT [November-March] & 9.00 AM NYT [March-October]) you should
> have Skype (www.skype.com) in your PC. Once you login to your account in
> Skype please add our ID sushen_das & stay online in Skype during the
> meeting. We will connect you to the conference call.}
>
pras...@iitg.ernet.in
Dec 14, 2009, 11:41:56 PM12/14/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Prof. S C Panigrahi
Thank you for your comments. One way of leading life is like this. Other way is to have conflict and confusion so that we seek some answers. Please expand on the concept of GOD, divinity and religion. I request the answers due to utter confusions and conflicts I have about all these.
sincerely
prasanna
> Once we recognise the presence of GOD in everything at all times and
> space
> the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as
> well.
> There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
> the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
> scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of
> GOD
> creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of
> GOD.
> So there is no scope of confusion.
> S.C.Panigrahi
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
> To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya – King of Education
>
>
>> Dear Anshul Singh:
>>
>> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
>> You said “The core
problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
>> science to:
>>
>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>> characteristics).
>>
>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>
>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>> the time evolution of our universe.”
>>
>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>>
History says: “Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in
an
>> empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>
>>
That’s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes
beginning
>> with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>> mammal)?”[2]
>>
>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>> for his/her comfort.
That doesn’t mean that they produce or become a
>> living personality.
>>
>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>> Subjective
Evolution of Consciousness that “How can we know beforehand
>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen – two gases – will
>> produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>> the gross has originated. … It is not that a lower thing
can produce a
>> higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>
>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>> have to inquire
about that process – how the soul can produce stone.
>> But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
>> gradually producing soul – we are very fond of
investigating in that
>> line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
>> gross.” [3]
>>
>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says “… they (Scientists)
>> must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>> potency, acintya-sakti.”[4]
>>
>> You have also mentioned that “Why we are unable to do such a
>> simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>> simple
force.” Time evolution has nothing to do with generation of
>> life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>> understanding on ‘origin of matter’ and ‘origin of life.’
>>
>> scientific theories that explain ‘What is Time’?
>>> be
>>> > found in html format at:
>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>> > .)
>>>
>>> > raja-vidya
– King of Education
>>>
>>> > by
>>>
>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>
>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>> beginning
>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>
>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>> > science but the
query “What is Life?” is still incessantly forcing
>>> > many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>> is
>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>> > Linus Pauling said, “In connection with the
origin of life, I should
>>> > like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
>>> > define
it” [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
>>> > life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>> >
mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, “Rather than trying to
>>> > define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
>>> > understanding of life by studying
living things” [7]. A very prudent
>>> > question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>> to
>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>
>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>
>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>
>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>> called
>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>> > “The condition
that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
>>> > objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>> > through changes originating
internally.”
>>>
>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>> > Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as
“An open
>>> system
>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>> > enzymes which are themselves products of the
system.”>>> > host body
to reproduce, it is reported that, “Viruses are not living
>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence” [5]. In
>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, “It seems unreasonable to
>>> deny
>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.”
>>>
>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>> of
>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>> > appalling
veracity that modern science doesn’t have any solid
>>> > definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>
>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>> > question “How and Where Did
Life on Earth Arise?” cited in the 125th
>>> > anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>> and
>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>
>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>> > detail.
>>>
>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>
>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> read more »--
Dr.S.R. Mahadeva Prasanna
Associate Professor
Dept. of Electronics and Communication Engg.
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Assam, India
Tel: +91-361-258 2513 (O)
Mobile: +91-99540-08138
Fax: +91-361-258 2542
Email: pras...@iitg.ernet.in
Thank you for your comments. One way of leading life is like this. Other way is to have conflict and confusion so that we seek some answers. Please expand on the concept of GOD, divinity and religion. I request the answers due to utter confusions and conflicts I have about all these.
sincerely
prasanna
> Once we recognise the presence of GOD in everything at all times and
> space
> the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as
> well.
> There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
> the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
> scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of
> GOD
> creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of
> GOD.
> So there is no scope of confusion.
> S.C.Panigrahi
> ----- Original Message -----
>
From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
> To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya – King of Education
>
>
>> Dear Anshul Singh:
>>
>> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
>> science to:
>>
>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>> characteristics).
>>
>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>
>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>>
>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>> empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>
>> with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>>
>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>> living personality.
>>
>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen – two gases – will
>> produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>> higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>
>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>> But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
>> line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
>>
>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says “… they (Scientists)
>> must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>>
>> You have also mentioned that “Why we are unable to do such a
>> simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>> life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>> of Vedic teachings: ‘life comes from life’ and
‘matter comes from
>> life’ should be studied
scientifically to develop a proper>> understanding on ‘origin of matter’ and ‘origin of life.’
>>
>> I also take this opportunity to request group
members to share some
>> scientific explanation about
‘What is Time?’. Is there any existing>> scientific theories that explain ‘What is Time’?
>>> > fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin of
Life’ and ‘Origin of
>>> > Universe’.
Our response to your questions is as below (the same can>>> be
>>> > found in html format at:
>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>> > .)
>>>
>>>
>>> > by
>>>
>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>
>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>> beginning
>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>
>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>> > many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>> is
>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>> > like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
>>> > life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>> > define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
>>> > question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>> to
>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>
>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>
>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>
>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>> called
>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>> > objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>>
>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>> system
>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence” [5]. In
>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, “It seems unreasonable to
>>> deny
>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.”
>>>
>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>> of
>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>> > definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>
>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>> > anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>> and
>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>
>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>> > detail.
>>>
>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>
>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
Dr.S.R. Mahadeva Prasanna
Associate Professor
Dept. of Electronics and Communication Engg.
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
Assam, India
Tel: +91-361-258 2513 (O)
Mobile: +91-99540-08138
Fax: +91-361-258 2542
Email: pras...@iitg.ernet.in
G Kumaravel
Dec 15, 2009, 1:10:58 AM12/15/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
But, the basic problem arises when people don't understand the presence of
God in his true form. Every one has his own understanding of presence of
God in every thing and which conflicts with other's understanding; It
causes confusion again and in fact it is the major confusion in the world
for the known history of the human being.
>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
>>
>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
>>
>> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
>> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
>> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
>> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>>> > fundamental topics in science such as �Origin of Life� and �Origin of
>>> > Universe�. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can
>>> > host body to reproduce, it is reported that, �Viruses are not living
>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to
>>> deny
>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
****************************
with regards,
G Kumaravel
God in his true form. Every one has his own understanding of presence of
God in every thing and which conflicts with other's understanding; It
causes confusion again and in fact it is the major confusion in the world
for the known history of the human being.
> Once we recognise the presence of GOD in everything at all times and
> space
> the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as
> well.
> There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
> the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
> scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of
> GOD
> creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of
> GOD.
> So there is no scope of confusion.
> S.C.Panigrahi
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
> To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya � King of Education
>
>
>> Dear Anshul Singh:
>>
>> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
>> You said �The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
> space
> the conflict will vanish. HE is in the living things and nonliving as
> well.
> There is nothing beyond or besides HIM so where is the confusion. Even if
> the scientists feel they can create life from matter, it is still the
> scientist who is a part of GOD taking help of matter which is a part of
> GOD
> creates or feels that he creates life which is again a manifestation of
> GOD.
> So there is no scope of confusion.
> S.C.Panigrahi
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dr. Sushen Krishna das" <jaga....@gmail.com>
> To: "Transcendental Nectar of Sadhu-Sanga"
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 6:28 PM
> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya � King of Education
>
>
>> Dear Anshul Singh:
>>
>> Thank you for sharing with us some interesting scientific comments.
>> science to:
>>
>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>> characteristics).
>>
>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>
>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>> the time evolution of our universe.�
>>
>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>> characteristics).
>>
>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>
>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>>
>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>> History says: �Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in an
>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>> empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>
>> That�s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes beginning
>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>
>> with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>> mammal)?�[2]
>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>>
>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>> for his/her comfort. That doesn�t mean that they produce or become a
>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>> living personality.
>>
>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>> Subjective Evolution of Consciousness that �How can we know beforehand
>>
>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
>> produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>> the gross has originated. � It is not that a lower thing can produce a
>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>> higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>
>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>> have to inquire about that process � how the soul can produce stone.
>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>
>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>> But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
>> gradually producing soul � we are very fond of investigating in that
>> line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
>> gross.� [3]
>>
>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
>> must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>> potency, acintya-sakti.�[4]
>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>>
>> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
>> simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>> simple force.� Time evolution has nothing to do with generation of
>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>> life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>> of Vedic teachings: �life comes from life� and �matter comes from
>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
>> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
>>
>> I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
>> scientific explanation about �What is Time?�. Is there any existing
>> I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
>> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>>> > Universe�. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can
>>> be
>>> > found in html format at:
>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>> > .)
>>>
>>> > raja-vidya � King of Education
>>> > found in html format at:
>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>> > .)
>>>
>>>
>>> > by
>>>
>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>
>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>> beginning
>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>
>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>> > science but the query �What is Life?� is still incessantly forcing
>>> > by
>>>
>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>
>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>> beginning
>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>
>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>> > many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>> is
>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>> > Linus Pauling said, �In connection with the origin of life, I should
>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>> is
>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>> > like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
>>> > define it� [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
>>> > life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>> > mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, �Rather than trying to
>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>> > define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
>>> > understanding of life by studying living things� [7]. A very prudent
>>> > question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>> to
>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>
>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>
>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>
>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>> called
>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>> > �The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>> to
>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>
>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>
>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>
>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>> called
>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>> > objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>> > through changes originating internally.�
>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>>
>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>> > Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as �An open
>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>> system
>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>> > enzymes which are themselves products of the system.�
>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to
>>> deny
>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
>>>
>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>> of
>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>> > appalling veracity that modern science doesn�t have any solid
>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>> of
>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>> > definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>
>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>> > question �How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?� cited in the 125th
>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>
>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>> > anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>> and
>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>
>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>> > detail.
>>>
>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>
>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> read more �
>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>> and
>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>
>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>> > detail.
>>>
>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>
>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
with regards,
G Kumaravel
Amaresh Chandra Das
Dec 15, 2009, 1:25:27 AM12/15/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your devo notes..
Can anybody will guide me as "if god is one then why so many forms ? and so many gurus"
As per my vision, God is omnipresent , every ppl can see god and realise it , if they are depth into HIM.
Forgive me if i am wrong , as i am less knowledge into it.
Thanks & Regards,
Amaresh Chandra Das
www.eodissa.com
------------------------------------------------
"Walk with the Lord in your heart....you will never walk alone"
Can anybody will guide me as "if god is one then why so many forms ? and so many gurus"
As per my vision, God is omnipresent , every ppl can see god and realise it , if they are depth into HIM.
Forgive me if i am wrong , as i am less knowledge into it.
Thanks & Regards,
Amaresh Chandra Das
www.eodissa.com
------------------------------------------------
"Walk with the Lord in your heart....you will never walk alone"
Veejendra K. Yadav
Dec 15, 2009, 1:53:27 AM12/15/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
God is a great businessman and He runs His business through us. In return,
He gives us food to fill the stomach, shelter to sleep and means of
entertainment to grin. We bother about Him because our well being is in
His well being. It is eventually to us how we wish to perceive and feel
Him. It is better left to individuals. The confusion is over, is it not?
We have Gods, presented to us with various names and in different forms.
Talking of human Gods, let there be no controversy. Talking of God that
has no name and form and Whose presence we all feel about in our daily
lives, let there trickle no confusion.
Veejendra Yadav
IITK
Professor Veejendra K. Yadav
Department of Chemistry
Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur 208 016, India
Phone:Int. code-91-512-2597439(o)
Alternate e-mail address: vky...@gmail.com
URL:http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vijendra
"Kuch nazaaroun ko hum miss karate hain aur kuch nazzaare hum ko"
He gives us food to fill the stomach, shelter to sleep and means of
entertainment to grin. We bother about Him because our well being is in
His well being. It is eventually to us how we wish to perceive and feel
Him. It is better left to individuals. The confusion is over, is it not?
We have Gods, presented to us with various names and in different forms.
Talking of human Gods, let there be no controversy. Talking of God that
has no name and form and Whose presence we all feel about in our daily
lives, let there trickle no confusion.
Veejendra Yadav
IITK
Department of Chemistry
Indian Institute of Technology
Kanpur 208 016, India
Phone:Int. code-91-512-2597439(o)
Alternate e-mail address: vky...@gmail.com
URL:http://home.iitk.ac.in/~vijendra
"Kuch nazaaroun ko hum miss karate hain aur kuch nazzaare hum ko"
S.C.Panigrahi
Dec 15, 2009, 1:43:22 AM12/15/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
The following which is an extract from a discourse by Br Prabodh Chaitanya
on Dec 2007 on Chatushloki Bhagavatam explains some concepts. With my
shallow depth of knowledge I donot feel qualified to answer the questions
raised.
s.c.panigrahi
Chatushloki Bhagavatam
In only four short verses, the Lord explained to Brahmaji about the nature
of Brahman, Maya, this created world � Jagat, and the duty of the jiva.
These four verses contain the essence of entire Bhagavatam of over 18000
shlokas!
The first verse of the Chatushloki Bhagavatam begins and ends with the word
Aham. This is the changeless Self that is beyond the gross, subtle or causal
bodies. The Lord says that in the beginning He alone was, as existence
alone. There was nothing else, either manifest or unmanifest. After
creation came to be, whatever we see is also Him. Creation is nothing but
an appearance.
The second verse describes the nature of Maya. Maya is that which appears
to be there without it actually being there. Maya makes the unreal appear,
and the real difficult to perceive. The Lord states that Maya takes place
in Him, and He uses Maya as his power, but He is beyond Maya and is
untouched by it. Maya is thus the creative power of the Lord. Due to Maya
the supreme changeless reality itself appears as the world, but it does not
actually become the world. Maya is beyond the grasp of the mind or
intellect.
Acharya Prabodhji described Maya through the use of three different
perspectives � Shruti (Scriptures), Yukti (logic) and Anubhuti (experience).
According to Vedanta, in order to establish the identity of an object or
principle, these three perspectives are used. When all three are in
agreement in ascertaining an object or principle, it is established as being
valid. The perplexing quality of Maya is that all these three perspectives
come up with different answers � they contradict each other. According to
the Scriptures, there is no Maya. Using Yukti, there is no logical
explanation for Maya. And if one were to go by experience alone, Maya seems
to be very real. This complex entity is Maya.
The Lord states that the way to overcome Maya is to surrender to the Him
completely. According to the Scriptures, from the point of view of Brahman,
there is no Maya.
What is this earth, Jagat? The third verse deals with this topic. The five
great elements � space, air, fire, water and earth seem to have entered all
beings and at the same time not entered them too. Similarly, the Supreme
Reality seems to be in all beings, yet not in them too. This apparently
contradictory statement can be explained through the example of clay in a
clay pot. The clay, which existed before the pot was made, has only assumed
a different form and is now known as a pot. Similarly, before creation,
Reality existed and it is this Reality that appears as the world now. The
world of names and forms is in the Lord; He has not pervaded it after it was
created!
The final verse explains the duty of the jiva. The only true calling of the
seeker is to realize through the technique of Anvaya (presence) and
Vyatireka (absence) that it is the Self alone that exists everywhere at all
times. The Lord is trying to focus our attention on the awareness that it
is consciousness that exists during the three states of existence � waking,
dream and deep sleep. The three stages do not co-exist at the same time.
But consciousness is aware of the presence of all these states. There is the
anvaya of the Self
while there is vyatireka of the three states as they negate each other.
This method will show us how to focus on our true identity and not get
carried away by our actions in the three states of existence.
The Lord gave this teaching to Brahmaji and told him that abidance in the
Self will ensure that he would not get deluded in the different cycles of
creation � Kalpa and Vikalpa. This is how Brahmaji got the knowledge of how
to create this world. In other words, with knowledge and devotion, karma
will not bind one.
>>> You said �The core problem seams to be the in-ability of modern
>>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
>>>
>>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
>>>
>>> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
>>> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>>>> > host body to reproduce, it is reported that, �Viruses are not living
>>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to
>>>> deny
>>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
on Dec 2007 on Chatushloki Bhagavatam explains some concepts. With my
shallow depth of knowledge I donot feel qualified to answer the questions
raised.
s.c.panigrahi
Chatushloki Bhagavatam
In only four short verses, the Lord explained to Brahmaji about the nature
of Brahman, Maya, this created world � Jagat, and the duty of the jiva.
These four verses contain the essence of entire Bhagavatam of over 18000
shlokas!
The first verse of the Chatushloki Bhagavatam begins and ends with the word
Aham. This is the changeless Self that is beyond the gross, subtle or causal
bodies. The Lord says that in the beginning He alone was, as existence
alone. There was nothing else, either manifest or unmanifest. After
creation came to be, whatever we see is also Him. Creation is nothing but
an appearance.
The second verse describes the nature of Maya. Maya is that which appears
to be there without it actually being there. Maya makes the unreal appear,
and the real difficult to perceive. The Lord states that Maya takes place
in Him, and He uses Maya as his power, but He is beyond Maya and is
untouched by it. Maya is thus the creative power of the Lord. Due to Maya
the supreme changeless reality itself appears as the world, but it does not
actually become the world. Maya is beyond the grasp of the mind or
intellect.
Acharya Prabodhji described Maya through the use of three different
perspectives � Shruti (Scriptures), Yukti (logic) and Anubhuti (experience).
According to Vedanta, in order to establish the identity of an object or
principle, these three perspectives are used. When all three are in
agreement in ascertaining an object or principle, it is established as being
valid. The perplexing quality of Maya is that all these three perspectives
come up with different answers � they contradict each other. According to
the Scriptures, there is no Maya. Using Yukti, there is no logical
explanation for Maya. And if one were to go by experience alone, Maya seems
to be very real. This complex entity is Maya.
The Lord states that the way to overcome Maya is to surrender to the Him
completely. According to the Scriptures, from the point of view of Brahman,
there is no Maya.
What is this earth, Jagat? The third verse deals with this topic. The five
great elements � space, air, fire, water and earth seem to have entered all
beings and at the same time not entered them too. Similarly, the Supreme
Reality seems to be in all beings, yet not in them too. This apparently
contradictory statement can be explained through the example of clay in a
clay pot. The clay, which existed before the pot was made, has only assumed
a different form and is now known as a pot. Similarly, before creation,
Reality existed and it is this Reality that appears as the world now. The
world of names and forms is in the Lord; He has not pervaded it after it was
created!
The final verse explains the duty of the jiva. The only true calling of the
seeker is to realize through the technique of Anvaya (presence) and
Vyatireka (absence) that it is the Self alone that exists everywhere at all
times. The Lord is trying to focus our attention on the awareness that it
is consciousness that exists during the three states of existence � waking,
dream and deep sleep. The three stages do not co-exist at the same time.
But consciousness is aware of the presence of all these states. There is the
anvaya of the Self
while there is vyatireka of the three states as they negate each other.
This method will show us how to focus on our true identity and not get
carried away by our actions in the three states of existence.
The Lord gave this teaching to Brahmaji and told him that abidance in the
Self will ensure that he would not get deluded in the different cycles of
creation � Kalpa and Vikalpa. This is how Brahmaji got the knowledge of how
to create this world. In other words, with knowledge and devotion, karma
will not bind one.
>>> science to:
>>>
>>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>>> characteristics).
>>>
>>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>>
>>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>>> the time evolution of our universe.�
>>>
>>> (A) To prove the origin of living entities (Characterized by certain
>>> characteristics).
>>>
>>> (B) To prove the dynamics of living entities.
>>>
>>> Now to prove this we need to show the creation of life by simulating
>>>
>>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>>> History says: �Imagine that you place a 1-inch-wide black cube in an
>>> Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or
>>> process. The act of simulating something generally entails
>>> representing certain key characteristics or behaviours of a selected
>>> physical or abstract system.[1] Steve Olson, author of Mapping Human
>>> empty field. Suddenly the cube makes copies of itself - two, four,
>>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>>
>>> That�s basically the process a fertilized cell undergoes beginning
>>> eight, 16. The proliferating cubes begin to form structures -
>>> enclosures, arches, walls, tubes. Some of the tubes turn into wires,
>>> PVC pipes, structural steel, wooden studs. Sheets of cubes become
>>> wallboard and wood paneling, carpet and plate-glass windows. The wires
>>> begin connecting themselves into a network of immense complexity.
>>> Eventually, a 100-story skyscraper stands in the field.
>>>
>>> with the moment of conception. How did that cube know how to make a
>>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>>> mammal)?�[2]
>>> skyscraper? How does a cell know how to make a human (or any other
>>>
>>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>>> for his/her comfort. That doesn�t mean that they produce or become a
>>> Some one can show by computer simulation that from a 1-inch-wide black
>>> cube 100-story skyscraper emerged but in reality we know what is
>>> needed to come up with a 100-story skyscraper. Similarly it may be
>>> possible to show some computer simulation results on creation of life
>>> in future, but can be expect by that we can create life. Actually a
>>> 100-story skyscraper was in the mind of an architect and what we see
>>> in reality is a manifestation of the thought of that architect as a
>>> 100-story skyscraper. Calculators and computers are nothing but an
>>> abstraction of the thoughts of the personality who manufactured them
>>> living personality.
>>>
>>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>>> Subjective Evolution of Consciousness that �How can we know beforehand
>>>
>>> Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja mentioned in the book
>>> that in a laboratory, combining hydrogen and oxygen � two gases � will
>>> produce water? Only when one comes to a particular stage of scientific
>>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>>> the gross has originated. � It is not that a lower thing can produce a
>>> knowledge can he know that a more subtle thing like gas can produce a
>>> tangible material thing like water. In that way, when you have an idea
>>> of the higher substance, then you can understand how from the subtle,
>>> higher thing, but it is easy for a higher thing to produce something
>>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>>
>>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>>> have to inquire about that process � how the soul can produce stone.
>>> lower. This is not difficult to understand.
>>>
>>> The modern scientific position is saying basically that stone can
>>> produce soul; but why not consider that soul can produce stone? We
>>> But we have done away with that and instead we say that stone is
>>> gradually producing soul � we are very fond of investigating in that
>>> line. Why? The subtle should be given more importance than the
>>> gross.� [3]
>>>
>>> Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada says �� they (Scientists)
>>> must explain the origin of the chemicals. Anyone can see that an
>>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>>> potency, acintya-sakti.�[4]
>>> ordinary tree is producing many chemicals. But how does it produce
>>> them? Since the scientists cannot answer this, they must accept that
>>> the living force has mystic power. I cannot even explain how my
>>> fingernail is growing out of my finger; it is beyond the power of my
>>> brain. In other words, my fingernail is growing by inconceivable
>>>
>>> You have also mentioned that �Why we are unable to do such a
>>> simulation? the reason is that our computing power is not even capable
>>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>>> simple force.� Time evolution has nothing to do with generation of
>>> to do time evolution of even a couple of particles interacting with a
>>> life from matter. Can we expect in billions of years chemicals/dead-
>>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>>> matter become a living entity? No, they remain chemicals/dead-matter.
>>> But when soul is present within a fertilized cell then it can become a
>>> particular living specie only within a few days/weeks. The origin of
>>> everything is conscious being (janmadyasya yatah).[5] The conclusion
>>> of Vedic teachings: �life comes from life� and �matter comes from
>>> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
>>> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
>>>
>>> life� should be studied scientifically to develop a proper
>>> understanding on �origin of matter� and �origin of life.�
>>>
>>> I also take this opportunity to request group members to share some
>>> scientific explanation about �What is Time?�. Is there any existing
>>> scientific theories that explain �What is Time�?
>>>> > fundamental topics in science such as �Origin of Life� and �Origin of
>>>> > Universe�. Our response to your questions is as below (the same can
>>>> be
>>>> > found in html format at:
>>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>>> > .)
>>>>
>>>> > raja-vidya � King of Education
>>>> > found in html format at:
>>>> >http://groups.google.co.in/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/king-of-educa...
>>>> > .)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > by
>>>>
>>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>>
>>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>>> beginning
>>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>>
>>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>>> > science but the query �What is Life?� is still incessantly forcing
>>>> > by
>>>>
>>>> > Sushen Krishna Das, Ph.D.
>>>> > Bhaktivedanta Institute
>>>>
>>>> > How life originated is a critical question that has engaged the
>>>> > greatest minds in science, philosophy and religion since the
>>>> beginning
>>>> > of civilization. Yet, despite this long history of human inquiry,
>>>> > modern science has failed to provide us with any significant and
>>>> > conclusive answer. The 125th anniversary issue of Science (2005)
>>>> > identified 125 questions that modern science has still to answer.
>>>> > Prominent among these is, "How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?" A
>>>> > discussion of this topic can be found in Banerjee and Kumar [1]. In
>>>> > addition to this, modern science has been unable to give a clear
>>>> > definition of what life, itself, is ([2] and [3].)
>>>>
>>>> > Two hundreds years have passed in the celebrated history of modern
>>>> > many a great scientist to spend sleepless nights. Modern science is
>>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>>> is
>>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>>> > Linus Pauling said, �In connection with the origin of life, I should
>>>> > careworn in finding a clear definition for life and this deficiency
>>>> is
>>>> > creating great perplexity in scientific studies on life and its
>>>> > origin. Defining life and developing a scientific understanding of it
>>>> > has always eluded science. The problem is not amenable to a simple
>>>> > solution like mixing a few chemicals to produce a new by-product.
>>>> > like to say that it is sometimes easier to study a subject than to
>>>> > define it� [4]. More poignantly, two famous college texts books on
>>>> > life, The Study of Life [5] and Life- An Introduction to Biology [6]
>>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>>> > mentioned in World Book Encyclopedia that, �Rather than trying to
>>>> > do not provide any definition for "life" to its readers. It is openly
>>>> > define life precisely, biologists concentrate on deepening their
>>>> > understanding of life by studying living things� [7]. A very prudent
>>>> > question then arises that if scientists do not know clearly what is
>>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>>> to
>>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>>
>>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>>
>>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>>
>>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>>> called
>>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>>> > �The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic
>>>> > the definition of life then how do they know what to study in order
>>>> to
>>>> > understand life? [8]
>>>>
>>>> > In this article we wish to give a brief analysis of the various views
>>>> > on life presented by modern science, and critique the problems
>>>> > inherent in those views.
>>>>
>>>> > What Scientists Think About the Definition of Life?
>>>>
>>>> > There were many attempts in the past to define life based on so
>>>> called
>>>> > the classical properties of life such as growth, reproduction,
>>>> > metabolism, motion, and response. One such example can be found in
>>>> > 1984 Random House College Dictionary [9], where life is defined as:
>>>> > objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through
>>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>>> > through changes originating internally.�
>>>> > metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment
>>>>
>>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>>> > Encyclopaedia Britanica [13], where life is defined as �An open
>>>> > The power of adaptation or the ability or tendency of an organism or
>>>> > cell to maintain internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological
>>>> > processes is also known as homeostasis. In some definitions,
>>>> > homeostasis is considered to be equivalent to responsiveness or a
>>>> > response to stimuli [10], [11] and [12]. It may be noted that
>>>> > homeostasis is a different phenomenon than that of species evolution.
>>>> > Species evolution as described by Darwin is a process of natural
>>>> > selection by which species respond to the environmental changes. A
>>>> > metabolism based biochemical definition of life can be found in
>>>> system
>>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>>> > enzymes which are themselves products of the system.�
>>>> > of linked organic reactions catalyzed at low temperatures by specific
>>>> > organisms since they are incapable of independent existence� [5]. In
>>>> > contrast, in [16] it is mentioned that, �It seems unreasonable to
>>>> deny
>>>> > that viruses are living just because they need help to do so.�
>>>>
>>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>>> of
>>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>>> > appalling veracity that modern science doesn�t have any solid
>>>> > As discussed above, modern science is very much baffled as far as the
>>>> > understanding of life is concerned. Over the years modern science has
>>>> > been reduced to relentlessly making futile attempts to reveal a
>>>> > concrete definition of life by accumulating more and more rudiments
>>>> > such as evolvability, information content and transfer, and control
>>>> of
>>>> > energy flow, to the so called classical properties of life. It is an
>>>> > definitions for both matter and life. This is leading to a great
>>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>>
>>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>>> > question �How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?� cited in the 125th
>>>> > confusion in the studies on life [8].
>>>>
>>>> > Hence it is a bold fact to acknowledge that without developing a
>>>> > proper understanding about life, modern science can never succeed in
>>>> > giving us any satisfactory answer about the origin of life. Thus the
>>>> > anniversary issue of journal Science, will keep on forcing many
>>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>>> and
>>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>>
>>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>>> > detail.
>>>>
>>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>>
>>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> read more �
>>>> > scientists to spend sleepless nights. Without knowing what is life
>>>> and
>>>> > what is matter, the juvenile claims of modern science such as 'life
>>>> > can be produced from some chemical reactions', 'life originated by a
>>>> > chance combination of chemicals', 'there is no existence of life in
>>>> > moon and some other planets', 'artificial consciousness (conscious
>>>> > machine)', 'artificial life', 'monkeys are the ancestors of human
>>>> > beings' and many other similar claims are not trust worthy.
>>>>
>>>> > Any intelligent person will certainly not accept any claim that is
>>>> > based on the statements of a blind person or men in the dark. Before
>>>> > making any noteworthy claims on the topics related to life and its
>>>> > origin, modern science must develop clear eyes, i.e., solid
>>>> > definitions for matter and life. Once we have clear definitions for
>>>> > matter and life in our hands then by utilizing those definitions we
>>>> > can analyze the topics related to life and its origin in greater
>>>> > detail.
>>>>
>>>> > The Most Confidential Knowledge
>>>>
>>>> > All of us witness the presence of living entities and matter in our
>>>> > own life, and we notice that living entities perform certain
>>>> > activities which are absent in matter. We
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
Abhishek Garg
Dec 17, 2009, 10:14:36 AM12/17/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
| Hi Veejendra, Here is when the confusion starts for me. Why is it that we are subservient to God? I mean, what makes you think that God is "definitely" our master? One reason that I have seen many people give is - chant his name and serve him and we'll be happy. But, isn't this happiness controlled by him? Hence, isn't it entirely possible that just to make us believe that we are his servants and that we can be happy only by serving him, he is "controlling" the flow to happiness only to his devotees and not to others, just like a politician would do who wants votes of one group of people and not the others? By "vote" here, i am referring to "the act of serving God", which as i believe is the thing God loves the most in his devotees. regards, Abhishek. --- On Tue, 12/15/09, Veejendra K. Yadav <vije...@iitk.ac.in> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ptirtha .
Dec 18, 2009, 12:15:23 PM12/18/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Abhishek:
Please accept my namaskar.
I would like to share an incident to you about a meeting of Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja with the well know Indian Scientist Dr. C.V. Raman. Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja went to Dr. C. V. Raman to invite him as a Chief Guest in a spiritual meeting that he was organizing. Dr. C.V. Raman told to Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja that he can go to any spiritual meeting only if Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja can show him God now. Then Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja in reply said to Dr. C. V. Raman that can you give now itself the Ph.D. degree to your students who are working under you. Dr. C. V. Raman replied that they have to finish some courses and they have to undergo a proper process then only they will be qualified to get the degree. Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja replied then why you think that to know/see God you don't have to undergo a proper process and get qualified to know these higher topics.
If there is an eye then there is a world of beauty, if there is an ear then there is a world of sound, similarly if there is faith then only there is God. For a blind man the beauty has no value, for deaf man the sound world has no value. Similarly for a faithless person there is no God. That doesn't mean that beauty is not there, sound is not there and God is not there. So science of faith must be studied and understood to know God.
With our ordinary eye we may not be able to see the fine things. For example Viruses can be seen with electron microscopes. They are too small to be seen with ordinary eyes. In microscope there are some powerful lenses and they are helping us to see the finer details. Similarly a bonafide spiritual master or guide can show us the higher reality when we properly submit to them. Even it is applicable in the ordinary education that we under go. We go to a teacher and join a school/college/university to get our Engineering or Doctor degrees. Then why we try to understand the higher topics such as God by our speculations. Let us follow a proper process as suggested to us in the authentic scriptures. In Bhagavad-Gita it is written that:
tad viddhi pranipatena
pariprasnena sevaya
upadeksyanti te jnanam
jnaninas tattva-darsinah
Translation: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth.
- Bhagavad-gita 4.34
First we have to study the basic topics such as why we are suffering from birth, death, old age and disease. Who am I? What is the process to come out these sufferings? If we become a sincere student in a spiritual school then only gradually we can able to come to a Ph.D. stage where we can discuss and understand topics such as God.
'ke ami', 'kene amaya jare tapa-traya'
iha nahi jani — 'kemane hita haya'
Translation: "Who am I? Why do the threefold miseries always give me trouble? If I do not know this, how can I be benefited?
- Sri Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 20.102
Thanking you.
B. P. Tirtha
To unsubscribe send email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Submit manuscript for review and publication: http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/submit-manuscript
For more options, visit this e-group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga
To join our online meetings every Sunday at 8.00 AM NYT you must download and install Skype (www.skype.com) on your computer. Once you login to your account in Skype please add our ID sushen_das and turn on your Skype during the meeting time above. Then we will connect you to the conference call.
Abhishek Garg
Dec 18, 2009, 1:10:15 PM12/18/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com, pti...@sify.com
| Dear Mr. Tirtha, Thanks a lot for your wonderful and kind response. I do have faith that God exists. And as you said, one should acquire the knowledge from a Guru. Although I do not have a Guru yet, I would love to aspire for it. But again, just like as with a Guru, even for getting a PhD one must make sure that Guru follows the right parampara and more than that he is very careful and acute in his focus for the truth, just like Arjuna was with his arrows, then and only then should one accept him. Shouldn't he? Well, as per my query earlier, which pertains to God's actions in this world and the suffering such actions have caused over millenniums, and accentuated them even more during past 100 yrs, that it seems unlikely to me that God is a compassionate person. Do you think if you or I would have been given a power similar to God, would we perpetuate the torture/suffering on human beings of this planet? I won't. But more importantly, I would pull the crime-doers out of the society and throw them in jail. But today we see that by God's grace, the crime-doers are sitting atop every hill and have risen to big political, scientific, familial, and even spiritual posts. Who is to blame for all this but god? And if i do not want to live in a society like today's, then why doesn't god atleast pull me away from here. Best Regards, Abhishek garg. Mumbai. --- On Fri, 12/18/09, ptirtha . <pti...@sify.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Campbell
Dec 18, 2009, 3:55:46 PM12/18/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com, abhig...@yahoo.com
Brother Abhishek,
"And if i do not want to live in a society like today's, then why doesn't god atleast pull me away from here."
God isn't Santa Claus. You don't get from God anything you want. God does not exist to serve you. If anything, you exist to serve God. But even that is not known for sure by you, is it?
One thing is known for sure: You are here. You apparently had no say in coming here, of if you did, you can't recall it, so you cannot assume that you did. The only inference that is derivable from this fact is that you have no say in remaining or not. A madman with a gun could kill you tomorrow in the name of his religion or politics or just because he doesn't like you or wants the
2 sq. ft. of space you occupy to call his own. You have no say at all in your fate and if you think you do it is a self-deluding lie.
"Sunk costs are sunk" is the modern economist's way of saying what wise men have said for millenia now: There is only the now. Nothing is known to happen for sure in future and the past is past and out of your influence. You have only NOW. "This is your life, and it is ending one minute at a time." YOU decide what to do with it, what it is for, and only you. No one else. Serve some concept of God? Fine. Live for others? Fine. Live only for yourself? Fine. [Is that last approach "enlightened"? Maybe not. But that's your judgment to make, no one else's.] And if you believe in God, as your creator and thus master of the
cause of your existence, He has as I said no obligation to fulfill your wishes. But if you believe He created you and has such power of creation and destruction over you, you are obliged by force of Divine will to remain here - but leaving no further guidance, it is up to you to make of it as you determine.
Nothing else to say.
From: Abhishek Garg <abhig...@yahoo.com>
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com; pti...@sify.com
Sent: Fri, December 18, 2009 1:10:15 PM
Chandru, Vijay
Dec 18, 2009, 10:20:35 PM12/18/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Sri Tirtha
Thank you for sharing this interesting anecdote. What was the outcome though? Did Sir Raman attend the spiritual meeting as chief guest, i.e., did the reasoning by analogy convince him? This would be an important story in the history of Indian science to record.
Kind regards,
Chandru
an...@iimahd.ernet.in
Dec 18, 2009, 10:41:45 PM12/18/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
I think a beautiful opportunity was missed
God could indeed have been shown then and there
The question should have been, dr Raman
Have you ever felt the urge to do good to others not just human, without any comprehensible reason
If yes
Then that is a proof of god
I don't know if others agree
I Can feel HIs presence in this way every moment and every where
Anil
God could indeed have been shown then and there
The question should have been, dr Raman
Have you ever felt the urge to do good to others not just human, without any comprehensible reason
If yes
Then that is a proof of god
I don't know if others agree
I Can feel HIs presence in this way every moment and every where
Anil
Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel
From: "Chandru, Vijay" <cha...@strandls.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:20:35 -0500
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: raja-vidya – King of Educati
on
ptirtha .
Dec 21, 2009, 12:36:26 PM12/21/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Abhishek Garg:
Please accept my namaskar.
I am happy to see your reply. I am even happier to see that you have faith on God and His confidential servitor Sri Guru. According to my life’s experience I can tell you that if we are sincere and serious for advancement in understanding the science of God then God will send His representative as He did for Dhruva Maharaja and many others. You can read the book Sri Guru and His Grace by His Divine Grace Swami B.R. Sridhar at http://scsmathnj.com/media/CSM_PDF/sriguruand.pdf for details. yadrsi bhavana yasya siddhir bhavati tadrsi – we shall get the results according to our motives.
We first have to know, Who am I? Why are we suffering? and, How we can come out of this suffering? First we have to study these topics.
Who am I?
jivera 'svarupa' haya -- krishnera 'nitya-dasa'
krishnera 'tatastha-sakti' 'bhedabheda-prakasa'
suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya
svabhavika krishnera tina-prakara 'sakti' haya
Translation: "It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krishna because he is the marginal energy of Krishna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krishna has three varieties of energy.
Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.108-109
Why are we suffering?
krishna bhuli' sei jiva anadi-bahirmukha
ataeva maya tare deya samsara-duhkha
Translation: "Forgetting Krishna, the living entity has been attracted by the external feature from time immemorial. Therefore the illusory energy [maya] gives him all kinds of misery in his material existence.
Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Madhya 20.117
How we can come out of this suffering?
tat te 'nukampam su-samiksamano
bhunjana evatma-krtam vipakam
hrd-vag-vapurbhir vidadhan namas te
jiveta yo mukti-pade sa daya-bhak
Translation: My dear Lord, one who earnestly waits for You to bestow Your causeless mercy upon him, all the while patiently suffering the reactions of his past misdeeds and offering You respectful obeisances with his heart, words and body, is surely eligible for liberation, for it has become his rightful claim.
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.14.8
His Divine Grace Swami B.R. Sridhar says "First of all we are to understand that there are three planes of life: the plane of mundane enjoyment, the plane of renunciation, and the plane of dedication." You can read this subject in detail in the book Home Comfort - An Introduction to Inner Fulfilment: by His Divine Grace Swami B.R. Sridhar at http://scsmathnj.com/media/CSM_PDF/homecomfort.pdf .
Thanking you.
- B. P. Tirtha
ptirtha .
Dec 21, 2009, 12:43:42 PM12/21/09
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vijay Chandru:
Please accept my Namaskar.
I am happy that you want to know the influence of Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja's arguments on Dr. C V. Raman. Dr. C. V. Raman became silent after hearing this argument by Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja and then humbly told that dear Sir I am not feeling myself qualified to attend such spiritual meeting as a Chief Guest. You can invite other qualified person who is really qualified in this subject matter. I don't know much about Krishna. The meeting was called on the occasion of Sri Krishna Janmastami (the birth day of Lord Sri Krishna). This story is also printed in the Biography of Srila B. D. Madhava Maharaja.
Thanking you.
- B. P. Tirtha
2009/12/19 Chandru, Vijay <cha...@strandls.com>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages