Introduction

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection. Althought this theory is being seriously challenged in all academic circles. Its widespread popularity created by legitimizing through the modern educational system has wreck havoc on the society. Here we try to understand its consequences on a social level.

Darwin indirectly legitimized violence by claiming that humans are, in essence, animals struggling for life. Most people think the theory of evolution was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and rests on scientific evidence, observations and experiments. However, in the same way that Darwin was not its originator neither does the theory rest on scientific proof. The theory consists of an adaptation to nature of an ancient dogma called materialist philosophy. Although it is backed up by no scientific evidence, the theory is blindly supported in the name of materialist philosophy.

This fanaticism has resulted in many disasters. That is because together with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the answer to the question ‘What is a human being?’ has changed. People who used to answer: ‘Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the morality He teaches’ have now begun to think that ‘Man came into being by chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival. ‘ There is a heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism, fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have all drawn strength from this deception.

This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems of our time.

The Darwinist Misconception: ‘Life is conflict’

Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: ‘The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion. ‘

According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”, encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the ‘fight for survival’ also applied between human races. According to that claim, ‘favored races’ were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin’s view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the ’struggle for survival’ entirely, and thus disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin’s theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin’s) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.

As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the ’struggle for survival’ began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as ‘evolutionary backward nations’ and looked to Darwinism for justification.

Darwin’s Source of Inspiration: Malthus’s Theory of Ruthlessness

Darwin was influenced by the social theories of Malthus, who defined ruthlessness as a law of nature.
Darwin’s source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus’s book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly when people were left to reproduce as they liked. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean ‘permanent war. ‘

In the 19th century, Malthus’s ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled ‘The Nazis’ Secret Scientific Agenda’, the importance that 19th-century Europe attached to Malthus’s views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered “Population problem” and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: “Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations,” and so forth and so on.

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called ‘oppression of the poor’ policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The ’struggle for survival’ demanded by Malthus’s theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the ’struggle for survival. ‘

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20th century.

The Role of Darwinism in Preparing the Ground for World War I

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 was a political effect of Darwinism.

In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time. For instance, the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his post-war memoirs:

Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind’s struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world. It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself.

The leaders of Europe on the eve of World War I were mislead by the Social Darwinist dogma. They thought that war was a biological necessity.

It is not hard to understand why Conrad, with that ideological foundation, should have encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Empire to declare war. Such ideas at the time were not limited to the military. Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914: ‘Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself. ‘
Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. “War” declared Bernhardi “is a biological necessity”; it “is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature”; it “gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things. ”

As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of ‘development’, and thought they were an unchanging ‘law of nature. ‘ The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin’s concepts of the ’struggle for survival’ and ‘favored races’.

World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.

The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also derived from Darwinism.

The Fruit of ‘The Law of the Jungle’: Fascism

As Darwinism fed racism in the 19th century, it formed the basis of an ideology that would develop and drown the world in blood in the middle 20th century: Nazism. Both the race theory and the war hysteria of the Nazis were inspired from Darwinism.

A strong Darwinist influence can be seen in Nazi ideologues. When one examines this theory, which was given shape by Adolf Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, one comes across such concepts as ‘natural selection’, ’selected mating’, and ‘the struggle for survival between the races’, which are repeated dozens of time in The Origin of Species. When calling his book Mein Kampf (”My Struggle”), Hitler was inspired by the Darwinist struggle for survival and the principle that victory went to the fittest. He particularly talks about the struggle between the races:

History would culminate in a new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial hierarchy ordained by nature herself.

In the 1933 Nuremberg party rally, Hitler proclaimed that “a higher race subjects to itself a lower race a right which we see in nature and which can be regarded as the sole conceivable right. ”

That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept. The historian Hickman describes Darwinism’s influence on Hitler as follows:

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.

Hitler, who emerged with these views, dragged the world to violence that had never before been seen. Many ethnic and political groups, and especially the Jews, were exposed to terrible cruelty and slaughter in the Nazi concentration camps. World War II, which began with the Nazi invasion, cost 55 million lives. What lay behind the greatest tragedy in world history was Darwinism’s concept of the ’struggle for survival’.

The Bloody Alliance: Darwinism and Communism

The dialectical materialism of Marx defined violence as a constructive force that helped human progress.
While fascists are found on the right wing of Social Darwinism, the left wing is occupied by communists. Communists have always been among the fiercest defenders of Darwin’s theory.

This relationship between Darwinism and communism goes right back to the founders of both these ‘isms. ‘ Marx and Engels, the founders of communism, read Darwin’s The Origin of Species as soon as it came out, and were amazed at is ‘dialectical materialist’ attitude. The correspondence between Marx and Engels showed that they saw Darwin’s theory as ‘containing the basis in natural history for communism’. In his book The Dialectics of Nature, which he wrote under the influence of Darwin, Engels was full of praise for Darwin, and tried to make his own contribution to the theory in the chapter ‘The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man. ‘

Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels, such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism, regarded marxism as ‘Darwinism in its application to social science’.

Trotsky said, ‘Darwin’s discovery is the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. ‘

‘Darwinist education’ had a major role in the formation of communist cadres. For instance, historians note the fact that Stalin was religious in his youth, but became an atheist because of Darwin’s books.

Mao, who established communist rule in China and killed millions of people, openly stated that ‘Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution. ‘

The Harvard University historian James Reeve Pusey goes into great detail regarding Darwinism’s effect on Mao and Chinese communism in his research book China and Charles Darwin.

In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. The theory claims that living things are the product of blind chance, and provides a so-called scientific support for atheism. Communism, an atheist ideology, is for that reason firmly tied to Darwinism. Moreover, the theory of evolution proposes that development in nature is possible thanks to conflict (in other words ‘the struggle for survival’) and supports the concept of ‘dialectics’ which is fundamental to communism.

If we think of the communist concept of ‘dialectical conflict’, which killed some 120 million people throughout the 20th century, as a ‘killing machine’ then we can better understand the dimension of the disaster that Darwinism visited on our planet.

Darwinism and Terrorism

As we have so far seen, Darwinism is at the root of various ideologies of violence that spelled disaster to mankind in the 20th century. However, as well as these ideologies, Darwinism also defines an ‘ethical understanding’ and ‘method’ that could influence various world views. The fundamental concept behind this understanding and method is ‘fighting those who are not one of us’.

We can explain this in the following way: There are different beliefs, worldviews and philosophies in the world. These can look at each other in one of two ways:

1. They can respect the existence of those who are not one of them and try to establish dialogue with them, employing a humane method.

1. They can choose to fight others, and to try to secure an advantage by damaging them, in other words, behave like a wild animal.

The horror we call terrorism is nothing other than a statement of the second view. The faith in the legitimacy of terror comes from materialist ideologies, not Theistic faiths.

When we consider the difference between these two approaches, we can see that the idea of “man as a fighting animal” which Darwinism has subconsciously imposed on people is particularly influential. Individuals and groups who choose the way of conflict may never have heard of Darwinism and the principles of that ideology. But in the final analysis, they agree with a view whose philosophical basis rests on Darwinism. What leads them to believe in the rightness of violence is such Darwinism-based slogans as:

In this world, only the strong survive.
Big fish swallow the little ones,
War is a virtue,
Man advances by waging war.

Take Darwinism away, and these are nothing but empty slogans.

Actually, when Darwinism is taken away, no philosophy of ‘conflict’ remains. The three monotheistic religions that most people in the world believe in, Islam, Christianity and Judaism, all oppose violence. All three religions wish to bring peace and harmony to the world, and oppose innocent people being killed and suffering cruelty and torture. Conflict and violence violate the morality that God has set out for man, and are abnormal and undesired concepts. However, Darwinism sees and portrays conflict and violence as natural, justified and correct concepts that have to exist.

For this reason, if some people commit terrorism using the concepts and symbols of Islam, Christianity and Judaism in the name of those religions, you can be sure that those people are not Muslims, Christians or Jews. They are in fact Social Darwinists. They hide under a cloak of religion, but they are not genuine believers. Even if they claim to be serving religion, they are actually enemies of religion and believers. That is because they are ruthlessly committing a crime that religion forbids, and in such a way as to blacken religion in peoples’ eyes.

For this reason, the root of the terrorism that plagues our world is not in any of the monotheistic religions, but is in atheism, and the expression of atheism in our times: ‘Darwinism’ and ‘materialism’.

Above article was authored by Suhotra Swami.

Modern Fallout of the theory

Recent School killings and Darwin

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that “stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing … faster than the intelligent, strong-minded” ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin’s work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a “Natural Selection” shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin’s writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.

Abortion and Darwin’s theory

As humans are just another species and killings are just a a natural phenomenon of Natural Selection. Killing a child in the womb is not a sin anymore, if it helps you adapt to the environment.

Vedic Observer

In modern times Charles Darwin is regarded as the scientist who formulated a theory of evolution by natural selection, but the concept of evolution was known long before Darwin. Srila Prabhupada as modern exponent of Vedic culture writes, “Although Westerners accept that Darwin first expounded the doctrine of evolution, the science of anthropology is not new. The development of the evolutionary process was known long before from the Bhagavatam, which was written five thousand years ago.” Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.29.29, Purport.

He continues “Although Vedas does conceptually accept evolution—but there’s a catch. According to the Srimad-Bhagavatam, one species does not evolve into another, but rather the soul evolves in consciousness as it transmigrates from lower to higher forms of existence in the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth. In the material realm the soul begins its journey in a human body. Material desires and subsequent actions result in the soul’s being born in a species that fits its mentality. If the soul falls to a lower species, it then takes successive births in species with higher and higher states of consciousness. This is the process of transmigration. As Srila Prabhupada said, “Darwin’s theory of evolution is but a partial explanation of the transmigration of the soul. Darwin has … no conception of the soul.”

References

• Darwin’s dark Legacy In modern context from Times magazine.
• Darwin’s deadly legacy TV documentary.

Edited by L Narasimhan Rao

Introduction

On October 14, the Indian Government’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) gave a green signal for the first commercial release of a genetically modified food crop (BT eggplant, brinjal), despite widespread disapproval from citizens, NGOs, farmer organizations and scientists. The decision has led to fury, protests and fasts in states across India on October 16, World Food day.

After having successfully reduced the fertility of the fertile soil making it poisonous with chemical fertilizers, cheating the innocent poor farmers by alluring them to buy terminated seeds and chemical fertilizers with false promise of increased yield, causing the death of many domestic animals by producing BT cotton, the BT (Biological Terrorism) scientists are now experimenting on food crops.

To know more about Genetically modified foods, their disastrous consequences on health etc, read the below article.

How are Genetically modified foods created?

Genes are found in every cell of all living organisms, determining the characteristics, structure, and growth of successive generations. To create genetically modified food, a gene is taken from one organism and forcibly inserted in the genetic code of another unrelated organism, giving it new traits. Overriding ethical and specie barriers, scientists have introduced genes from bacteria, viruses and animals like fish and scorpions into vegetables, and human genes into rice. (www. iamnolabrat. com).

In “a plate full of toxins” (9/11/09), an open letter to M. S. Swaminathan, the chairman of the National Commission on Farmers, agricultural activist Dr. Vandana Shiva writes: “Genetic engineering is a crude and blind technology of shooting genes into an organism through a “gene gun.” It’s like infecting the organism with cancer. It is not known if the transgene is introduced, and that is why antibiotic resistance markers have to be used. Nor is it known where in the genome the transgene gets introduced. This is not “accuracy”, it is literally shooting in the dark.”

Advocates of genetic modification claim that BT (Bacillus Thuringenesis) is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins lethal only to insect larvae. A brinjal with inbuilt BT toxin in every cell could kill unwanted pests (like the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer, Leucinodes orbonalis), and theoretically increase yields and reduce hunger, all without the external usage of pesticides. Raju Barwale, the managing director of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd, Mahyco (owned by multinational biotech giant Monsanto) argues that “insect-resistant BT brinjal has been in development for nine years and has been tested in full compliance with the guidelines and directives of the regulatory authorities to ensure its safety. It is the most rigorously tested vegetable, with 25 environmental biosafety studies supervised by independent and government agencies. It has the same nutritional value and is compositionally identical to non-BT brinjal, except for the additional BT protein which is specific in its action against the BFSB.”

Consequences at all levels

To this Vandana Shiva replies, “while it is true that the naturally-occurring BT (which is an endo toxin) becomes a toxin only in the gut of insect larvae, the genetically-engineered BT is a readymade toxin. Navdanya’s research in Vidarbha, Maharashtra, has shown that BT cotton is killing beneficial micro-organisms in the soil. Reports of deaths of animals grazing in BT cotton fields are also related to the fact that BT in plants is a broad spectrum, readymade toxin unlike the naturally occurring BT.”

According to Sangita Sharma, who leads My Right to Safe Food campaign in India, “genes that are inserted into GE crops transfer into the DNA of the bacteria inside your intestines and might turn it into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of your life. This means that long after you stop eating GE foods, your own gut bacteria might be producing these foreign proteins, which might be allergenic, toxic or carcinogenic.” (www. myrighttosafefood. blogspot. com). In addition, the antibiotic resistant marker gene (used to mark cells in the host organism that have successfully received the alien genes) can spread to other disease-causing organisms in the environment, making them immune to antibiotics as well.

A study conducted in January 2009 by Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor of molecular biology at the University of Caen in France, concluded that “BT brinjal cannot be considered as safe. The agreement for BT brinjal release into the environment, for food, feed or cultures, may present a serious risk for human and animal health and the release should be forbidden.” He also added that the tests conducted by Mahyco were simply not valid and raised serious health concerns.

Additional studies linked genetically modified food to stunted growth, impaired immune systems, potentially precancerous cell growth in the intestines, enlarged livers, pancreases and intestines, higher blood sugar and reduced fertility. These encouraged over 175 regions and 4,500 municipalities in Europe to declare themselves GM-free zones and oppose genetically modified exports from the US, which grows 57 percent of the world’s transgenic crops.

In India, poor farmers are promised higher yields by converting from traditional seed saving to BT cotton. However, often times they are not told that BT cotton also requires costly artificial inputs, like irrigation and industrial pesticides, which only a few of them can afford. Although the exact figures and circumstances are subject to much debate between civil and scientific organizations, the fact remains that in the last decade thousands of farmers in the BT cotton belt of Punjab, Vidarbha, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka committed suicide due to repeatedly failing crops and increasing debts.

In the light of such unfulfilled promises, why would anyone support and grow genetically modified crops? Well, huge amounts of money are at stake. The global market in 2000 was worth over two-thousand billion dollars a year, with Monsanto producing 90 percent of the world’s genetically modified crops. Genetic modification provides companies like Monsatno exclusive rights to biotechnology patents under the title of “intellectual property”, allowing them to extract high prices from farmers, either through increasingly expensive research products
(e. g. Round-up herbicide, “Golden Rice”, and sterile “Terminator” seeds) or lawsuits.

The genetic engineering industry is a well-organized system of collaboration between scientific educational facilities, government legislative support, and industry-dependent agricultural subsidies that encourage developing countries to compete over trade instead of meeting their food requirements locally. As Sreedhara Bhasin wrote for the Tribune in “Caution! GM foods may be on the way” (10/11/2009): “Days after the government announced introduction of genetically modified food crops in the country, Hillary Clinton who happened to be on her first visit as the US Secretary of State, which included a trip to India’s leading agriculture institute (PUSA), heartily supported transferring ‘cutting-edge technology’ to raise crop yields. Like many proponents of GM industry, Hillary Clinton mouthed the shibboleths - world hunger and high yielding crops . . . GM research and production are costly ventures and the biotech companies expect to make substantial profits on their investment. Many GM technology, plants and seeds are already patented by the leading GM companies, and it would be childish to believe that the ex-gratia support of the US government is for the future of a hunger-free India.” Besides, do profits really justify the patenting of living organisms and claiming false proprietorship over life?

Gene pollution does not end with eggplants. In India, at least 56 genetically modified crops are undergoing various stages of research and trials, of which 41 are food crops. These include corn, cauliflower, chickpea, peanut, mustard, okra, potato, papaya, tomato, rice, and cabbage. Once genetically modified food is released into the environment, it cannot be contained or recalled. Since the genetic integrity of the species is harmed, there is an increased chance for transgenic contamination of other natural organisms, either by cross pollination in plants or digestion by animals and humans. Furthermore, genetically modified plants are designed to look exactly like the originals, depriving consumers of their right to make informed choices in regard to what they eat, especially in the unlabeled Indian market.

Conclusion

Man’s unnecessary interference in the working of God made nature has always created havoc to ecology, human society and other beings. The modern day demoniac attempts to manipulate nature will only worsen the already bad situation.

Food is a gift of nature to nourish our body so that we can work towards spiritual emancipation. Nature in itself is perfect. All we need to do is to simply live parallel to nature, retain it without polluting. Then all our needs are fulfilled by nature.

Instead of wasting time and the tax payers money in disrupting the nature’s natural way of working, the human society would to do better to accept the nutritious food provided by Mother Nature and utilize the remaining time in spiritual cultivation.

Authored by Madhur Gauranga Dasa

Introduction

There are all kinds of frequencies and vibrations all around us. There are frequencies we see (such as light waves), hear (sound waves), or feel, and others that are beyond our ability to sense, such as gamma rays, infrared, or radio and television frequencies. In fact, the ancient Vedic texts of India explain, in summary, that this whole universe is the production or manifestation from particular vibrations that cause a change from the spiritual energy into the material energy. And all these frequencies effect us in many ways. For example, we may hear music that can be soothing and peaceful, or that is abrasive and irritating. Or there may be frequencies that we have to deal with on a more regular basis, like the noise we hear when working in a factory, or the sounds of downtown traffic.

Walk through a factory. The noise and vibrational level of the frequencies that you hear and feel are not attractive. In fact, they may be damaging to your hearing and necessitate the need for wearing ear plugs. Being around that kind of noise, which are lower vibrations of themselves, can make you restless or agitated in due time, tend to pull your consciousness down in a way that makes you think in very basic terms. They can make your mind become absorbed in the lower modes of thinking, like simply desiring to satisfy your senses, wanting to go to the bar after work to drown your thoughts, or thinking of whatever will give you the easiest thrill. In other words, exposure to low vibrations tends to produce low consciousness simply by your exposure to them. Let’s explain this a little more.

The Power of sound vibration

The science of vibrations and frequencies and how they effect people is something that has been around for thousands of years. We can still find evidence of this in the ancient Vedic texts of India. These explain not only the results of using the frequencies of words and mantras, but also supply instructions in some cases. The sages of ancient India used it to produce various results in the rituals they performed, and from the mantras they would recite. If the mantras were recited in particular ways, certain amazing results would take place, including changing the weather, producing certain types of living beings, or even palaces. Others used it to produce weapons, like the brahmashtra weapon, which was equal to the modern nuclear bombs. Specific mantras could be attached to arrows, with the sound causing powerful explosions when the arrow reached its target. Others used the science of vibrations to bring their consciousness to higher levels of perception, or to enter spiritual reality.

We can see the results of exposure to certain frequencies in other ways as well. Even now there has been research that has provided discoveries on the use of frequencies. They have worked with plants, exposing them to various kinds of music. Plants would thrive when exposed to classical music, while they would languish or wither when around heavy rock music. However, considering the nature of the mostly unenlightened society in which we live, some of these discoveries have not been for the benefit of the world and are quite scary to think of the results that may happen.

Nicola Tesla, the Croatian born inventor, had performed experiments at the turn of the century that revealed that air, at its ordinary pressure, is a conductor for large amounts of electrical energy over great distances without wires. This meant a few things: That electrical use for the purposes of man would be available at any place on the globe. And that electricity traveling through the air shows how frequencies and waves of powerful energy do not need wires to be generated at one place and received in another. Furthermore, it is of the opinion of some that the mathematics that provide the underpinning for Tesla’s work also provides the basis for understanding telepathy. This suggests the openings of vast potentials for the human mind.

We could go on to suggest that this signifies that the whole universe is a vibrational generator, in some ways, in order for it to not only produce, send and receive energy at various points around the globe, but to also maintain such energy at all. Let’s present some additional information in this regard.

Tesla proved the wireless transmission of electric power back in February of 1900. He sent signals of a very low hertz frequency by creating a conducting path between the ionosphere and the earth. Tesla found that the earth’s surface could be used for a long circuit for very low frequencies. Thus, electrical energy could be transmitted world-wide from earth by going through the ground and using the ionosphere as a return path. The ionosphere is an electrical conducting spherical shell of ions and free electrons that surround the earth in the upper atmosphere between 50 to 200 miles high. It is important in radio transmissions in serving as a reflector of radio waves over a range of frequencies that permit transmissions beyond lines of sight and around the earth by successive reflections. This means that electricity and frequencies could be beamed to users and receivers without the need of power lines anywhere in the world.

However, it is understood that the effects these oscillations could produce in the ionosphere may not always be beneficial. For example, it was reported among the U. S. Intelligence that the U. S. S. R. had been engaged in large scale efforts for developing wireless radio transmissions that could effect the behavioral patterns of whole populations. The Canadian Department of Communications reported high powered, low frequency communication coming from the Soviet Union. Independent researchers verified the existence of these coming from varying sites within the Soviet Union. Among Intelligence circles, the radio waves became known as “Woodpecker” because they had a distinctive tapping sound over the airwaves.

There has been proved to be a psycho-physiological sensitivity in animals and humans to magnetic and electrical fields in extremely low frequencies (ELF) corresponding to brain waves. These ELF, which can penetrate anything, have made it possible for the military to have a world-wide communication system with its submarines, which can be situated in any part of the world.

However, in the late 1970s, there was widespread cattle deaths in Oregon. It was determined by research that the cattle had been killed by adverse ELF radio frequency transmissions from the Russians. It seems that man is a bio-cosmic transducer, a transmitter and receiver as well, and that somehow our brain waves can lock on and modulate with the earth’s electromagnetic field, the Universal Magnetic Field (UMF), as Tesla called it. Research has shown that altering these electro magnetic fields can influence the brain waves of cats and monkeys. Humans are also affected.

Anything above eleven hertz produces a general range of agitation and discontent. High voltage power lines throw off 50 to 60 hertz, and there’s been concern about what they can do to people who live near them. Some feel that such lines, or even the use of such items as electric blankets, can cause cancer because of the unnatural magnetic field to which the body is exposed. Researchers have concluded that humans are electrical people. For example, our hearts can start or stop due to appropriate electrical impulses. The use of pacemakers is an example of helping maintain a steady heartbeat. Thus, electro magnetic radiation could be the most harmful pollutant in our society. There is strong evidence that cancer and other diseases can be triggered by electromagnetic waves.

Some ELF broadcasts from the Russians were thought to cause depression in humans. When the Russians first started transmitting in 1976, they emitted an eleven hertz signal through the earth. This ELF wave was so powerful that it upset radio communications around the world, resulting in many nations lodging protest. The U. S. Air Force identified five different frequencies the Russians were emitting in a wild ELF cocktail. They never broadcast anything below eleven hertz, or anything that would be beneficial. They had more sinister things in mind. ELF penetrates anything and everything. Nothing stops or weakens them. At the right frequencies and durations, whole populations could be controlled by ELF, or even killed. Once the killing range of these frequencies is perfected, it could make nuclear bombs obsolete. It could kill almost immediately with powerful adverse frequencies. Whole populations could be killed indiscriminately from radio frequencies transmitted from the other side of the globe without damaging anything else. A conquering army could simply take over the land and buildings without a battle.

Thankfully, these potential weapons do not seem to have been perfected as yet, or such research is cloaked in the highest levels of secrecy. Appropriately, Tesla once said that peace can only come as a natural consequence of universal enlightenment.

In light of this point, on the plus side, there are machines that use frequencies for beneficial use. There is a medical device called a Multiple Wave Oscillator, first developed by a French researcher and improved by solid state electronics. It used a miniature Tesla system consisting of two copper coils. When activated, a magnetic field is generated between the two coils and the frequencies can be adjusted for the electricity that flowed from one coil to the other. The result is multiple waves of inherently good frequencies to help heal various parts of the body. Sore knees or torn muscles can be placed inside the magnetic fields for a few minutes at a time, helping it to heal much faster than with conventional methods.

Researchers have found that frequencies under seven hertz create a general feeling of relaxation and well being, known as the alpha state. The most beneficial frequency on earth is said to be the 6.8 hertz frequency. Interestingly, the Pyramid at Giza has a constant frequency of 6.8 hertz running through it. Although researchers have studied it, they don’t know where it comes from or why in such an ancient structure.

Sound for Self Realization

This points to the idea that the ancients knew the importance of frequencies and how to use them in order to provide an atmosphere for attaining a peaceful state of mind for entering higher states of consciousness and perception of spiritual reality. The use of yoga has utilized this principle for as long as it had been known–many hundreds of years. Concentrating on the steady breathing, as in hatha-yoga, is a means of leveling and harmonizing the electrical impulses of the body and the beating of the heart. Invoking the alpha state by a natural means allows one to also reach a vibrational state in which the consciousness can enter higher levels of being and perception. The body is not only conducting the more balanced frequencies, but it begins to generate them as well. It is as if the body and mind are creating its own atmosphere in which it can further its more spiritual development, with or without the proper atmosphere around it. Building structures, like the pyramids and pyramid-like temples, which are common in such places as India and Central America, may provide the assistance for doing that, along with the physical exercises of yoga and the use of prayers, mantras, or rituals. By implementing such things on a regular basis in one’s life, it would increase one’s peaceful existence, bring about a higher state of consciousness, and insights into a level of reality beyond ordinary sense perception. In other words, it would naturally take one closer to the Truth of our existence. It would, as Tesla was hoping, bring the peace that would come from a natural consequence of universal enlightenment

A key point in this regard is the ancient use of mantras, as already mentioned earlier. Not only could certain results be attained by the proper use of vibrations in sounds, but even today the use of particular mantras are known for calming the mind, lowering blood pressure, relieving one from unnecessary anxieties by changing one’s focus in life, and so on. It is also understood that certain mantras and prayers, such as the chanting of the spiritual names of God, bring to one the transcendental vibration of the spiritual world from where it comes. This means it is like a conductor, bringing the spiritual energy and frequencies that come from the transcendental strata. One of the classic mantras for this use is the Hare Krishna mantra (Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare / Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare). Experiments have already been performed that show the changes in those who regularly use this mantra. Plus, sages of India have used this mantra successfully for centuries in order to reach spiritual states of being.

What we can do?

Thus, by absorbing one’s consciousness in the sound vibration of these names of God, it will do several things, such as alter and improve the electrical impulses that are generated by the body, and help defend oneself from the negative impulses that one may encounter. In this way, it helps create a peaceful attitude within the individual and a healthier disposition. It also prepares one’s consciousness for perceiving higher levels of reality, opens one up to the spiritual world, gradually reveals one’s true spiritual identity, which would also allow one to see the unity between all people. It also harmonizes one’s existence with nature, and even begins to rekindle one’s real relationship with the Supreme Soul, God. Once the higher vibration of the spiritual realm is invoked on a regular basis in this way, and is opened for its use among the people in general, the chances for world change become enormous.

Naturally, this may not happen immediately. One needs to be able to concentrate on those spiritual sounds appropriately. This means to rid oneself of the clutter in one’s mind. Only by purely focusing on the sound of the holy names can one truly feel its power, and open its potential. This is why there is a need for living a simple and honest life, and developing sincerity and devotion. It makes such a difference in being able to focus on the chanting of these spiritual prayers and mantras with feeling. Then one gives up that clutter which gets in the way of truly hearing the sounds and allows them to have a deep affect on one’s life. That is when the deep changes and insights can begin to take place. When the general masses of people begin to participate in this process, that is when the collective vibrations around the world can begin to bring social changes that will help lead all people to a higher and more peaceful state of being. The general frequencies that we generate and receive will then naturally be of a harmonious and spiritual nature.

by Stephen Knapp

Understanding Nature

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world or material world. “Nature” refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.

Man’s appreciation of nature and the quest to understand her is well known. Beauty in nature has long been a common theme in life and in art, and books emphasizing beauty in nature fill large sections of libraries and bookstores. Some fields of science see nature as matter in motion, obeying certain laws of nature which science seeks to understand.

Imitating Nature

True to the quote of the famous poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow “The counterfeit and counterpart of Nature is reproduced in art” we find several noteworthy accomplishments in the fields of science and technology that in the past have made and in future promises to make a positive impact to the lifestyle of modern man.
To note a few examples,

• The modern aviation industry is a result of multiple attempts of several individuals to mimic the ability to fly as birds;
• One of the combat techniques used in war, the ability to remain unseen by enemies through camouflaging, is a result of studying similar defense mechanism exhibited by certain species of the animal kingdom;
• One of the recent discovery in the domain of nanotechnology is to create adhesive power that aims to recreate the remarkable ability of the Gecko lizard to climb effortlessly across any vertical surface;
• Daniel Nocera, Professor of Energy, MIT predicts water plus light would be the future oil, proposing to mimic photosynthesis to store high-energy bonds of light for later use;

And trying to control it

Besides these positive outcomes of understanding nature one must also admit the negative impact of trying to tame nature. Although humans comprise only a miniscule proportion of the total living biomass on Earth, the human effect on nature is disproportionately large. There exists a highly complex feedback-loop between the use of advanced technology and changes to the environment that are only slowly becoming understood. Man made threats to the Earth’s natural environment include pollution, deforestation, and disasters such as oil spills.

Could the man-made disasters and natural catastrophes that continue to periodically strike the world and wipe out the lives of several thousand be a response of nature to bring man to the understanding of being subordinate?
It could well be so, especially when we consider the age old wisdom of living in harmony with nature being a proven ideology. This should not, however, be misunderstood as being conservative at exploring the possibilities of tapping the resources of nature. Rather it is based on acceptance of reality of man being a tiny part of an orderly creation, meant to utilize the facilities provided by nature to achieve a higher dimension of existence. Vedic texts, especially the Bhagavad-Gita, acknowledge the innate inquisitiveness of a human and advices channeling the same towards questioning higher truths of existence.

Francis Bacon, British painter, says “We cannot command nature except by obeying her”. Instead of

• Trying to control hurricanes, as attempted by the ‘giant- tub proposal’ funded by Bill Gates, which the critics say as akin to placing pennies on a railroad track and hoping to stop a freight train or
• Shoot dust into threatening clouds as planned for the 2008 Olympics, an endeavor that had several meteorologists and weather modifiers of the world chuckle or
• Build dams like the ‘Three Gorges’ on Yangtze river whose disastrous environmental/social impact is well documented,

man would do well to lead a life of humility, gratefully acknowledging the gifts of nature and utilizing it towards enabling one to attain higher dimensions of blissful existence that have so often been alluded to in several ancient texts of the world, especially the Vedas.

Else, nature would have to continue to brutally remind man of his foolhardy attempts to dominate.
Nature… She pardons no mistakes. Her yea is yea, and her nay, nay. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Vedic Observer

Man prides himself on being a creature of reason, above the lowly beasts. Yet it seems that when he applies his reason to unlocking the secrets of nature for his benefit, he sinks deeper and deeper into a quagmire of intractable problems. The internal combustion engine gets us where we’re going faster, but also results in choking air pollution, the greenhouse effect, and a dangerous dependence on oil. Harnessing the atom gives us cheap energy, but also leads to weapons of mass destruction, Chernobyl, and a rising tide of dangerous radioactive waste. Modern agribusiness produces a dizzying variety and abundance of food at the supermarket, but also results in the death of the family farm, the pollution of ground water, the loss of precious topsoil, and many other problems.

It’s clear we’re missing something in our attempts to harness the laws of nature for our own purposes. What is that “something”? We find out in the very first mantra of the Isoupanishad the foremost of ancient India’s books of wisdom known as the Upanisads: “Everything in this creation is owned and controlled by the Lord. One should therefore accept only those things necessary for himself, which are set aside as his quota, and one should not accept other things, knowing well to whom they belong.”

In nature we see this principle at work. Nature’s arrangement, set up by the Lord, maintains the birds and beasts: the elephant eats his fifty kilos per day, the ant his few grains. If man doesn’t interfere, the natural balance sustains all creatures.
Any agriculturalist will tell you the earth can produce enough food to feed ten times the present human population. Yet political intrigues and wars, unfair distribution of land, the production of cash crops like tobacco, tea, and coffee instead of food, and erosion due to misuse ensure that millions go hungry, even in wealthy countries like the United States.
We must understand the laws of nature from the viewpoint of the Supreme Lord, who has created these laws. In His eyes all the earth’s inhabitants—whether creatures of the land, water, or air—are His sons and daughters. Yet we, the human inhabitants, the “most advanced” of His creatures, treat these sons and daughters with great cruelty, from the practice of animal slaughter to destruction of the rain forests. Is it any wonder that we suffer an unending series of natural disasters, wars, epidemics, famines, and the like?

Peace Formula

The source of our problem is the desire for sense gratification beyond the consideration of anyone else’s rights. These rights are the rights of the child in relation to the father. Every child has the right to share the wealth of his father. So creating a brotherhood of all creatures on earth depends on understanding the universal fatherhood of God. This is the peace formula.

Suggested Reading

1. “Laws of Nature” by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami.

Written by Kaushik Balasubramanian.

How it Interacts With but is Separate from the Body

Introduction

Very often scientists have a desire to do something that determines or proves the philosophy they use. Rather than simply basing their philosophy on the facts alone, they may tend to base their viewpoints or interpret their experiments on what they desire. In this way, they may use the idea that life comes from chemicals because if it is true, there are then so many things science can do. With science we could build a better human machine, a better brain, or create immortality. But if it is not true, then science cannot recreate life, or build machines as good as humans, or overcome death. Therefore, science does not want to face that. Instead they may choose to take an idea and follow it as far as it will go by using many taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to investigate many useless and unnecessary things.

One very famous physicist stated that if there is such a thing as the conscious self, a nonmaterial particle that possesses consciousness which does not come about from chemicals, then scientists might as well retire and become truck drivers. This is an example of the bias in science and the motivation behind rejecting any nonmechanistic idea, and in clinging stubbornly to mechanistic and physical explanations of life. Only in this way can they become like God, with their hopes of creating life and doing so many wonderful things, and denying any need to recognize a Supreme Being.

Today, scientists hardly talk about the mind. They just talk about the brain. There are over a billion neurons in the brain and each of these little brain cells discharge electrical impulses which send out particular kinds of signals. So the scientists are conceiving of mapping which parts of the brain control cognitive functions, like thinking, memory, motor responses, sensory impressions, etc. Then they hope to stimulate artificially the activity of specific neuron cells with chemicals or electrical shock to negate those neurons that affect one’s feelings of anxiety or depression, or similar unwanted feelings. In this way, one could simply take a chemical in order to feel a particular feeling. This is based on the Western concept that the mind is the self and is not separate from the brain, but is a part of it.

The basis of this kind of modern research of the mind was set by the British biologist T. H. Huxley more than a century ago. He said that all states of consciousness are caused by molecular changes of the brain. In other words, this is all that causes our changes of mood or the way we feel when experiencing good or bad events in our life. On the basis of this theory, the mind is merely a by-product of a properly functioning brain, and the mind can be controlled simply by adjusting the brain in various ways.

There are, however, a few who do not agree with this. The Australian neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate, Sir John Eccles, thinks that mind or consciousness is separate from the brain. While performing experiments on the cerebral cortex, which controls movements in our bodies by sending appropriate signals to various muscles, he has noted that before any voluntary act is performed, the 50 million or so neurons of the supplementary motor area (SMA) within the cortex begin to act. Thus, the SMA acts before the cerebral cortex sends the necessary signals to the muscles needed to perform the desired activity. Eccles concludes that conscious will, separate from the brain, must first be there before the chain of neurological events begin. Therefore, the mind controls matter rather than matter (the brain) controlling the mind. In this way, we can begin to understand that, as Sir Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, describes, the mind and brain exist in two separate realities. The brain is a functioning material organ of the body, and the mind or consciousness is the immaterial symptom of the living entity or soul which motivates the body. Thus, as explained in the Vedic literature, the two work together like a driver seated in a car.

Problems with Scientific theory of Consciousness

The current idea that the mind is part of the brain is held not only by many biologists, neurologists, etc., but by others in all branches of science, including physical sciences, computer science, and psychology. We might, however, point out a number of problems with this current thinking. Let us suggest that it is just as reasonable to consider an alternative view, and that the Vedic concept is actually more consistent and does not have as many problems as their concept has.

For example, does a person have the same experience in seeing a sunset as a machine programed to say “I see a red light,” when it registers a sunset taking place? In other words, is merely recognizing light waves all there is to consciousness? If the mind works simply in a mechanistic way, as science tends to propound, then simply registering that we see a sunset would be all there is to consciousness. It would be exactly like a mechanical reflex to a particular stimuli. The point is that we could say a tape recorder hears music, but does it actually hear or enjoy it? Does it get goose bumps or inspiration from listening to it?

The experiences of enjoying something cannot be measured or broken down into a simple mathematical equation. Therefore, in an eliminative or reductionary philosophy, which science uses, it is believed that if something cannot be broken down into a measurable and simple equation, then it is not real and leaves no room for discussion. With this viewpoint, reductionary scientists can begin throwing out a word like “consciousness” because it does not have any meaning or reality. It does not fit into an equation. You can break the movement of brain cells down to a mathematical formula, but not consciousness. And since the word “mind” also does not fit into an equation, we can throw that out as well. And, of course, the concept of a soul has been given up long ago. After all, everything is seen as an extension of the mechanical workings of the brain. So the idea is that we should only use vocabulary which is related to physical, identifiable, and quantifiable formulas.

By understanding these examples of a machine responding to a red sunset, or a tape recorder hearing music, we can know that there is something in consciousness far beyond the ability of any machine giving simple reactions to external stimuli. Machine reactions are similar to our senses sending electrical messages to the brain. But, obviously, we experience more than a simple sensual or physical stimulus. A machine cannot describe the experience of hearing a Beethoven symphony and cannot recognize one piece of music from another. A machine has no emotions, so how can it describe the experience? Therefore, scientists who just try to show that our own responses are a mechanical reaction to sensory stimuli are simply trying to negate the idea of consciousness or the existence of the soul. But, if there is a conscious particle, then they cannot make something else conscious, or create life, or be a Dr. Frankenstein without first creating that conscious particle or soul, which they cannot do.

From the Vedic literature, we learn that there is a conscious self that is separate from the machine or body. Obviously, we are conscious of every single impulse that the senses of our body/machine deals with. There is perfect interaction. So science will question how the self can interact so well with the machine if it is not part of the machine. And why is consciousness affected when changes are made to the brain? If the self is separate, then consciousness should not be affected. These are the arguments of science, and the Vedic literature offers some very interesting answers. If these arguments are answered, then why not consider an alternative viewpoint, as described in the Vedic literature?

The idea that consciousness is changed by changes of the body or machine can be understood more clearly if we use the example of a person driving a car. Obviously, the driver is separate from the car, but if the driver gets in his car and is hit by another car, he will immediately say, “You hit me.” It is not that the driver was hit, it was the car that was hit, but the driver identifies with the car as if he were a part of it. So the driver is affected by changes in the machine. Similarly, when the self depends on the body and strongly identifies with it, he will think he is the body and will be disturbed if there is some problem with it, although he is actually separate from it.

Another example is that there have been carefully controlled and documented experiments done with epileptic patients. In these experiments, the patients have been treated with electric shock to certain parts of the brain in order to respond in a particular way. The findings of these experiments have shown, however, that in almost every case the patient would respond to a certain stimuli stating that he was not doing it, but that the doctor, by controlling the electrical impulses, was making the patient’s body respond in a certain way. Thus, the mind’s inclination was different or separate from the response of the body. So simply by applying electric shock to parts of the brain for certain responses does not give any adequate explanations of what is the mind.

In considering the mind, we also have to consider the will. If all that the patients did was respond to stimuli, then, according to the mechanistic theory, that is all that would be expected of being conscious. But the patients were protesting that it was not they who were voluntarily reacting. It was against their will. So if there was no such thing as a separate self with an individual will, there would have been no protest, like a robot programmed to act in a certain way. So these experiments that showed that the mind had an identity and will separate from the brain were startling in neurological circles. The reason was because it brought up the old argument that there is something separate between the mind and the brain–it is not all one.

Another example of this is in the field of near-death experience. There have been top scientists at such places as the University of Virginia using the strictest standards for documenting and researching particular phenomena. They have been able to demonstrate conclusive findings in over hundreds of test cases with patients who were, according to all known laws of physics, technically in a state of unconsciousness, or in a coma due to a heart attack or accident. The patients, after being brought back to consciousness, explained in detail what procedures had been performed to revive them. They described themselves as floating out of their body, up into the room, looking down and watching the medical procedures the doctors were performing on them. There was no possibility that they could have dreamed this as subsequent tests have shown. This shows that there is a difference between the brain and the mind, and that the mind or consciousness can continue working even though the brain is impaired and hardly functioning at all, as in a comatose state.

Vedic Information about Soul

In the near-death experience we have the description of what happened to the individuals when they were revived, but what if they had not re-entered their body? What if the patients could not be revived? If they had died, where would they have gone? Or is death simply the end of everything? When someone dies, the relatives may cry and exclaim, “Oh, he is gone, he has left us.” But what is gone? He is lying there, or at least the body is. So if he is gone, then it is that part you have not seen that is gone. So what is it?

As we have shown in the last several pages, philosophers and scientists have all questioned this and have arrived at no final conclusion. But the Vedic literature gives detailed descriptions of the self. The Chandogya Upanishad (6.10.3) begins explaining that the subtle essence in all that exists is the self. It is the true and thou art it.

In the Twelfth and Thirteenth Khandas of the Chandogya Upanishad, it gives further examples in which it states that a tall tree has its essence, the self, originally in the small seed from which it grew. Yet to break a seed open will reveal no such potency for it to grow into such a huge plant. But the power is there. Likewise, to take salt and mix it with water renders the salt invisible; yet, by tasting the water, we can know the salt is there. Similarly, in the material body, the self exists, though we do not directly perceive it. However, Bhagavad-gita (13.34) explains: “O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.” Therefore, just as we cannot perceive the salt mixed in the water except by taste, we also cannot see the soul in the body except by recognizing the symptom, which is consciousness.

Consciousness can be recognized easily by performing a small experiment. Pinch part of your body and you will feel pain. This is a sign of consciousness, not only in humans but also in cats, dogs, or other animals. In any type of species of life, there are two types of bodies; the body which is alive, and the body which is dead and deteriorating. The live body is pervaded and illuminated by the consciousness of the self. The Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.9) says: “The soul is atomic in size and can be perceived by perfect intelligence. This atomic soul is floating in the five kinds of air (prana, apana, vyana, samana, and udana), is situated within the heart, and spreads its influence all over the body of the embodied living entities. When the soul is purified from the contamination of the five kinds of material air, its spiritual influence is exhibited.”

Thus, the self is the motivating factor within the body, and when it leaves, the body breaks down and slowly disintegrates. Therefore, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.3-5) points out that whomever is dear to us, whether it be our wives, husbands, sons, daughters, teachers, guardians, etc., they are dear to us only due to the presence of the self within the body, who in reality is what is dear to us. Once the self leaves the body, the body becomes unattractive to us because it rapidly gets cold, stiff, and begins to decompose. Therefore, the body is not our real identity, but we are the self within.

Conclusion

The “soul” is defined as a non-material, eternal spiritual entity present within any living being. The symptom of the presence of the soul within a body is consciousness. The soul continues to exist after the destruction of the body and it existed prior to the creation of the body. The material body develops, changes and produces by-products [offspring] because of the presence of the soul within. The material body deteriorates in due cause of time and when it is no longer a suitable residence for the soul it is forced to leave the body. This we call death.

An excerpt from The Secret Teachings of the Vedas By Stephen Knapp

Did man go to the moon?

Introduction

As students, we have grown up falling in love with science as an excellent means to understand the world around us. Specially we, Indians, feel so fascinated when modern science presents evidence and reasoning establishing the existence of the soul For example[1] . We feel so proud of our heritage. But when we come to know that, according to the Vedic scriptures, man could not have gone to the moon, we become immensely disturbed. Landing on the moon is globally considered the crowning jewel of all the accomplishments of modern science. To have that conquest declared as a fake is not easy to take. We hate the unpleasant choice that confronts us: choose either science or scripture. “Can’t there be a reconciliation of both?” we wonder. Perhaps only when our most cherished assumptions are challenged do we strive for a higher understanding.

Different scales of observation

According to Vedas, we could not have gone to the moon because it is a higher planet. Without doing good karma, one cannot go there, just as without proper immigration clearance, one cannot go to America. This logic itself reveals a fundamental difference in the Vedic and modern world views and that difference holds the key to a reconciliation of the two.

Modern science sees the moon as a lifeless satellite, whereas Vedic science sees it as Chandraloka, a higher-dimensional planet inhabited by higher beings. Imagine two transparent glass beakers, one containing white chalk powder and the other, black charcoal powder. If we mix the two powders, we will get a grey mixture. But if we see the same mixture under a microscope, the grey particles will disappear; we will see only white and black particles. Which is the reality? Not sure ?  May be both !!!  

What we see varies with our scale of observation. What is a grey powder to the naked eye is a mixture of black and white particles to the microscopic eye. Similarly, what is a lifeless planet at the human scale of observation is a higher-dimensional planet filled with higher beings at a divine scale of observation. Hence the seeming contradiction.

The Vedic texts themselves contain descriptions of cosmology based on both scales of observation. There are two main sources of cosmological information in the Vedic literatures – the Puranas and the Jyotisha-shastras. The Puranas describe cosmology from a divine perspective and they mention many features of the cosmos that are inaccessible to human observation. On the other hand, the Jyotisha-shastras describe cosmology largely from a human perspective. Among the Jyotisha-shastras are works on mathematical astronomy known as astronomical siddhantas. The siddhantic cosmology contains information similar to the information obtained from modern cosmology. For example, the Surya Siddhanta, one of the most important siddhanta-shastras, states:

1. The distance between the earth and the moon as 253,000 miles, compared to modern measurements of 252,710 miles.
2. The Earth’s diameter is 7,840 miles, compared to the modern measurements of 7,926.7 miles.

The very fact that cosmic distances were measured with such precision in Vedic culture long before the dawn of modern cosmology is itself remarkable. It suggests that Vedic cosmology deserves to be studied with due respect, not dismissed summarily as unscientific due to some of its features being currently incomprehensible to us.

Three possibilities

We can’t say for sure what actually happened with the moon flights. Authoritative mathematics textbooks state that three plus three is six. If somebody says, according to his calculations, it’s not six, we know for sure he’s wrong. But we can’t know for sure what answer he got. Similarly, the Vedic scriptures authoritatively state that Chandraloka is a higher-dimensional planet with higher living beings. So if astronauts claiming to have gone there did not encounter any life there, we can know for sure that they have not accessed Chandraloka. But we can’t know for sure where they went.

Still, based on Srila Prabhupada’s[2] statements, we can envision at least three possibilities,” Firstly, let’s understand the concept of a higher dimensional object being projected to a lower dimension. A three-dimensional office address in Mumbai (given by avenue, street and floor) can have a two-dimensional projection (given by avenue and street). Similarly, the higher-dimensional Chandraloka can have a three-dimensional projection, the moon visible to us with the naked eye. No matter how hi-tech our spacecrafts, they cannot take us beyond the three-dimensional reality that our sensory apparatus limits us to. On a map of India, which is a two-dimensional projection of the multi-dimensional reality, India, if I move my finger from Pune to Mumbai, I cannot experience Mumbai – its people, its skyscrapers. Similarly, the astronauts may travel in three-dimensional space to the three-dimensional projection of Chandraloka, but not experience its higher-dimensional reality – Somadeva and the other residents, the heavenly opulences.

Srila Prabhupada said that the astronauts may have been subjected to a hi-tech diversion by the demigods. Consequently, they imagined they had landed on the moon, but had been grounded on some other relatively (relative to Chandraloka) lower planet like Rahu, which is ordinarily invisible to us due to its existing in a dimension higher than ours.

Or the third possibility is that the moon flights may have been hoaxed; the astronauts may never have gone out of the atmosphere of the earth. For example, regarding the first American Apollo flights, there are dozens of books and scores of websites devoted to the moon conspiracy theory with its proponents and opponents both vigorously presenting arguments and counter-arguments. Given the money, prestige, security and technology involved, ascertaining the truth in such projects will be difficult and possibly dangerous.

Where modern cosmology falls short

But if everything depends on the scale of observation, then doesn’t that make everything relative and subjective? Isn’t there a reality? Aren’t scientific theories real? After all, scientific technology works – If we look at the cellphones, the internet, the airplanes. Yes, That’s true. But, doesn’t spiritual technology also work? There are so many researches establishing Mantra meditation helps one to control anger, decrease stress level; spiritually fulfilled people live longer and less prone to diseases and so  many similar facts. So, if what works is the standard to decide what’s real, then even spiritual principles should be considered real.

Different things work at different levels. If our goal is to improve our external comforts and control, to increase our ability to manipulate the world around us, scientific technology works. If our goal is to improve our internal life, to increase our self-mastery, spiritual technology works. Modern science is fabulously successful in controlling a tiny slice of reality, but does it give a satisfactory explanation of the totality of reality?

A quote from Noble Laureate physicist Erwin Schrodinger unequivocally admits the incompleteness of the scientific worldview: ‘I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’

What to speak of explaining the existence of life on other planets, modern science cannot explain the existence of life on our own planet. We obviously know that life exists here because we exist here. But modern, reductionist science claims that life is a result of chemical combination, but it cannot demonstrate or explain how life arises from chemicals.

Not only can reductionistic science not explain how life arises, it also cannot explain why life arises. It offers no explanation about what the purpose of our existence is or what the values guiding our existence should be. That’s why eminent Indian scientist Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, in his book Ignited Minds, quotes Albert Einstein recalling Werner Heisenberg’s words to him: ‘You know in the West we have built a large, beautiful ship. It has all the comforts in it, but one thing is missing: it has no compass and does not know where to go.’

Toward a more complete cosmology

To gain a more holistic understanding of the cosmos, we have to free ourselves from the rigid constructs of Euclidean and Cartesian three-dimensional geometry, which forms the basis of the modern scientific worldview. An important quote in this regard from a remarkable book Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy by the late Dr Richard L Thompson who pioneered the postulation of a new cosmology that integrated scientific and Vedic insights: ‘Radical extensions of our theoretical perspective have taken place repeatedly in the history of science. A striking example of this is provided by the revolution in the science of physics that occurred in the twenties and thirties of this century. At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists were almost universally convinced that classical physics provided a final and complete theory of nature. However, a few years later, classical physics was replaced by a new theory, called quantum mechanics, which is based on fundamentally different principles. The most interesting feature of this development is that classical physics turns out to be compatible with quantum mechanics in the domain of observation in which it was originally applied. The differences between the two theories become significant only in the new atomic domain opened up by the quantum theory. Likewise, our proposed new cosmology would agree with existing theories in its predictions of gross sensory observations, but it would open an entirely new world of higher-dimensional travel.

Higher Dimensional cosmology

At one level, Vedic cosmology is compatible with modern cosmology, as seen from the above agreement in astronomical measurements. At another level, Vedic cosmology is more complete than modern cosmology, because of its ability to account for higher-dimensional cosmic realms, higher living beings and ultimately the higher purpose of life.

Vedic cosmology is innately theistic and spiritual. It is based on the understanding that that we are souls, spiritual beings, temporarily residing in our material bodies. We are all astronauts on a long multi-life cosmic journey through many, many bodies in many different parts of the cosmos. We are the beloved children of the Supreme Being, originally residing in loving harmony with Him in His abode. When we desired to enjoy separate from Him, we were sent to this material cosmos for experimentation and rectification.

The cosmos, the Vedas explain, is created and controlled by God, with the help of numerous assistants called demigods. The demigods are beings much more powerful than us, who reside in the higher regions of the cosmos. Soma, the presiding deity of the moon, is one of the demigods.

The principle of humility is vital in approaching the magnificent works of God like the cosmos. We cannot expect to conquer the cosmos with our intellect and dominate it for our ends. Such an attitude implies that we are trying to become all-knowing and usurp God. This vain attitude will lead only to bafflement, as has happened to many scholars who had a non-devotional approach in their study of Vedic cosmology. A good example of a devotional attitude to cosmic research is the following quote of Johannes Kepler: I have endeavored to gain for human reason, aided by geometrical calculation, an insight into His way of creation; may the Creator of the heavens themselves, the father of all reason, to whom our mortal senses owe their existence, may He who is Himself immortal… keep me in His grace and guard me from reporting anything about His work which cannot be justified before His magnificence or which may misguide our powers of reason, and may He cause us to aspire to the perfection of His works of creation by the dedication of our lives.

The Ultimate cosmic flight

Vedic culture is not against cosmic travel, in fact, the perfection of life, according to the Vedic scriptures, is the ultimate cosmic flight; Vedic culture trains us to become transcendental cosmonauts and fly beyond the moon, beyond the sun, beyond the entire material universe, to the spiritual world, which is our eternal home.

References

1. Near Death Experience, Out of Body Experience, Reincarnation etc
2. A noted vedic scholar and authority in 20th century.

Compiled by Rahul Mishra from the original article by Chaitanya Charan Das.

Imitators of Life

Synopsis

The dream of creating life is hard to resist. For many years, artificial intelligence seemed a sure way to this goal. Researchers at universities like MIT would regularly claim that within ten years computers would surpass humans in intelligence. But decades passed, and by the 1980’s researchers widely conceded that these claims were a bit premature.

Then came artificial life. In 1987 a young scientist named Chris Langton, from Los Alamos National Laboratories, put together in Santa Fe, New Mexico, the first conference on artificial life. The essence of life, he said, is organization transforming by rules, so we can study life effectively through computer simulations. Conference speakers offered studies of computer-simulated “organisms” and “ecosystems.” By the widely publicized second conference, in 1990, this new field of scientific study had lots of players.

Their idea was to aim for realistic goals and not have to backpedal like their colleagues in artificial intelligence. As artificial life advocate John Nagle put it, “We need to start low. Where do we get off trying for human-level capabilities when we can’t even build an ant?”2 Of course, ants are formidably complicated. As Nagle admitted, “We just don’t know how ants work.”3

Yet despite the humble start, artificial lifers seem confident that life will one day be embodied in silicon and freed from the constraints of carbon-based bodies. Then evolution will speed along, and human beings will have to confront their evolutionary successors.

At the second artificial life conference some speakers gleefully projected that this might occur within a hundred years. We should accept the inevitable, they said, and give up pride in our ephemeral human body. Others expressed reluctance, or even fear. The reasons for celebrating the replacement of human beings by machines, said conferee Michael Rosenberg, “need to be examined.”4

Yantra - Machines

The idea that humans may be replaced by superintelligent machines is an old one. So instead of trying to analyze the prospects for artificial life, let me relate some stories from past history. For this I turn to a treatise on machines in ancient India written by a Sanskritist named V. Raghavan.5

In Sanskrit a machine is called a yantra. As defined by the Samarangana Sutradhara of King Bhoja, in the twelfth century, a yantra is a device that “controls and directs, according to a plan, the motions of things that act each according to its own nature.”6 This is close to Langton’s definition of life. And in ancient and medieval India mechanical imitations of life were something craftsmen in fact came up with.

Some of their automate were used for amusement in royal pleasure palaces. These included birds that sang and danced, a dancing elephant, elaborate chronometers with moving ivory figures, and the gola, an astronomical instrument with moving planets. The machines were built from common materials in a readily understandable way: “Male and female figures are designed for various kinds of automatic service. Each part of these figures is made and fitted separately, with holes and pins, so that thighs, eyes, neck, hand, wrist, forearm, and fingers can act according to need. The material used is mainly wood, but a leather cover is given to complete the impression of a human being. The movements are managed by a system of poles, pins, and strings attached to rods controlling each limb. Looking into a mirror, playing a flute, and stretching out the hand to touch, give pan, sprinkle water, and make obeisance are the acts done by these figures.”7

This all sounds quite believable, but other machines described may seem less so. These include robots capable of complex independent action.

Many stories in Indian literature tell of a yantra- purusha, or machine man, that can behave just like a human being. In the Buddhistic Bhaishajya-vastu, for example, a painter goes to the Yavana country and visits the home of a yantracarya, or teacher of mechanical engineering. There he meets a machine girl who washes his feet and seems human, until he finds that she cannot speak.8 In another account, a robot palace guard stands at the gate with a sword, ready to “quickly and quietly kill thieves who break into the palace at night.”9 We even hear of a complete city of mechanical people, presided over by a human king who manipulates them from a control center in his palace.10

These stories sound like mere products of the imagination, and quite likely this is just what they are. Once one sees a mechanical figure that imitates some human functions, it’s easy to imagine robots with human or even superhuman capabilities. This is what modern advocates of artificial life or artificial intelligence are doing. But unlike the old Indian yantracharyas, they are seriously intent on convincing people that human beings are simply machines, awaiting replacement by superhuman machines in the future.

How are they different

Ancient Indian thinkers compared the body to a machine. But they understood that a completely nonmaterial entity within the body—the jivatma—animates the body, endowing it with sentient behavior. The link between the jivatma and the body was understood to be the Paramatma, a portion of the Supreme that stays with each living being. Thus in Bhagavad-gita (18.61) Krishna says, “The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone’s heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities. They are seated in the body as on a machine [yantra], made of the material energy.”

This differentiates the approach of Vedic technicians they were always aware that the body is a machine controlled by the soul which is non material. We can’t resist mentioning that Raghavan, the authority on Indian yantras, finds the metaphor used in this verse regrettable. He laments that in other countries machines led to a materially focused civilization but in India they only reinforced the idea of God and spirit. Thus, “Even writers who actually dealt with the yantras, like Somadeva and Bhoja, saw in the machine operated by an agent an appropriate analogy for the mundane body and senses presided over by the soul.” Or an alternative analogy: “the wonderful mechanism of the universe, with its constituent elements and planetary systems, requiring a divine master to keep it in constant revolution.”11

Sentient Robots

In ancient India, people entertained ideas about advanced mechanical control systems quite different from our modern computerized devices. Let us examine some of these ideas to see if they have any relevance for modern technological thought.

It may come as no surprise that control systems in ancient India were used in military applications, better known as vimana. In the battle between Krishna and Salva, for example, Salva’s airplane, flown by Danava soldiers, suddenly became invisible. The technique for invisibility seems not to have blocked the transmission of sound, for the soldiers could still be heard screaming taunts and insults.

Krishna then dealt with them as follows: “I quickly laid on an arrow, which killed by seeking out sound, to kill them, and the screeching subsided. All the Danavas who had been screeching lay dead, killed by the blazing sunlike arrows that were triggered by sound.”12

These arrows seem similar to modern missiles with infrared sensors and onboard microcomputers that seek out the heat of a jet engine. How did they work?

We can get some idea by considering the weapons used by Arjuna. He got these weapons from various devas, so they were known as celestial weapons. They worked through the action of subtly embodied living beings whom Arjuna could directly order from within his mind. Here is a description of how Arjuna prepared himself to use these weapons: “And seated on that excellent car with face turned to the east, the mighty-armed hero, purifying his body and concentrating his soul, recalled to his mind all his weapons. And all the weapons came, and addressing the royal son of Partha, said, ‘We are here, O illustrious one. We are thy servants, O son of Indra.’ And bowing unto them, Partha received them into his hands and replied unto them, saying, ‘Dwell ye all in my memory.’ ”13

This suggests how the sound-seeking arrows could have worked. They could have been guided by sentient living beings linked to controllable mechanisms built into the arrows. This would mean that the arrows would be examples of artificial life. They would in effect be cyborgs, cybernetic organisms—a fusing of living organisms and machines. But unlike today’s hypothetical cyborgs, they would have used features of life that go beyond the realm of gross matter.

Another good example that illustrates this point of fusing a living organism over the yantras comes from Ramayana, In the battle Indrajit’s Naga Pasha the mystic snake arrow renderes Lord Rama and Lakshmana unconscious. But they were relieved of this state on the arrival of Garuda the carrier of Lord Vishnu. Here Valmiki Ramayana gives an explanation like this, The Naga Pasha were actually snakes fused on to the arrows by the Ravana’s son Indrajit’s yoga siddhi, but as soon as Garuda came to the place they ran away in fear of Garuda and hence Lord Rama and Lakshmana regained their consciousness. 14

The operator

According to Bhagavad-gita, the body of a living being consists of two components: the gross body, made of earth, water, fire, air, and ether, and the subtle body, made of mind, intelligence, and false ego. The three components of the subtle body are material elements finer than the gross matter we perceive with our ordinary senses. The jivatma interacts directly with the subtle body through the agency of the Paramatma. The subtle body in turn interacts with the gross body through ether, the finest of the gross elements.

If this is true, it should be possible to create a technology of artificial life that directly takes advantage of the properties of the subtle body and the jivatma. We suggest that this is the kind of technology used in the celestial weapons of Krishna and Arjuna. Just as modern computers make cam-and-gearwheel devices old-fashioned, this Vedic technology would leave silicon chips in the dust. Once developed, it would render gross physical technology—with its imagined super-human robots—obsolete.

Conclusion

Although today’s robots might have capacity to do some complex tasks it can’t do imitate the complex thoughts and physical and physiological traits of humans. Robots will stay robots and so will the humans. The current science is far from creating artificial life. It can take some cue from vedic scriptures. But the vedic tools and techniques requires complex supernatural traits like yoga siddhi and mantra siddhi which involves sense control and austerity. That will be difficult for scientist, so they would negate such possibilities.

References

1. Christopher Langton, “Interview,” Omni, Oct., 1991, p. 134.
2. John Nagle, “Animation, Artificial Life, and Artificial Intelligence from the Bottom, or Some Things to Do with 100 to 1000 MIPS,” submitted to the Second Conference on Artificial Life, Feb., 1990, p. 4.
3. Ibid.
4. Michael Rosenberg, “Future Imbalance between Man and Machine,” submitted to the Second Conference on Artificial Life, Feb., 1990, abstract.
5. Raghavan, V., 1956, “Yantras or Mechanical Contrivances in Ancient India,” Transaction No. 10, Bangalore: The Indian Institute of Culture.
6. Ibid., p. 21.
7. Ibid., p. 25.
8. Ibid., p. 5.
9. Ibid., p. 26.
10. Ibid., p. 19.
11. Ibid., p. 32.
12. van Buitenen, J.A.B., trans., 1975, The Mahabharata, Books 2 and 3, Chicago: The Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 264.
13. Ganguli, K.M., trans., 1976, The Mahabharata, Vol. IV, New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., p. 78.
14. Valmiki Ramayana Yuddha Kanda.

Originally adapted from Mechanistic and Non Mechanistic Science, Richard L. Thompson with some ideas by L Narasimha Rao

Beginnings

The theory of life coming from matter started when Wohler first converted the inorganic molecule ammonium cyanate into the ‘organic’ molecule urea. And this synthesis led him to throw out the notion that certain molecules, termed ‘organic,’ can be made only by ‘vital forces.’

And much later, Miller and Urey showed that amino acids and even some building blocks of the ‘life’ molecule DNA are made by sparking electricity and radiation in a closed glass bulb containing water, ammonia and carbon dioxide.

Dead or lifeless

Commenting on this, a reader noted, correctly, that molecules — be they urea or DNA — are by themselves dead or lifeless.

One may say: “You can’t rejoice that the ‘notion’ of ‘vital forces’ has been thrown out while synthesizing urea and next wonder when ‘life itself’ will be made in the lab. You have to decide whether a molecule of urea is alive, and if not, nothing at all, yet, has been thrown out.

This brings us to the very definition of life itself. In order to call something alive, it needs to do two things.

One is, it should be capable of making more of itself, namely reproduction. And the second is that it should be able to engage in exchange of energy and materials with the environment surrounding it.

These two properties, namely reproduction and metabolism are necessary and sufficient to define a living organism. The operative phrase is ‘necessary and sufficient.’ It is this phrase that disallows the inclusion of viruses into the world of life.

A virus has the information contained within itself for reproduction, in the form of DNA or RNA. But it cannot, by itself, metabolize; it needs a ‘host’ cell for making more of itself. It has to use the machinery of the cell that it attaches itself to. And that cell better be a living one, actively transacting with the environment. Thus a virus is non-living.

Likewise are certain cells that we house and use in our living bodies. Red blood cells are an excellent example. Unlike their neighbours, the white blood cells, they do not have the capacity for reproduction. RBCs do not have the DNA molecule that is necessary for reproduction.

They are thus non-living. Just as a virus is an inert flask that contains the molecular tape necessary for reproduction, red blood cells are inert bags that contain the molecules with which energy exchange or metabolism with the surrounding environment can occur.

First step

Let us now ask: What if we inject DNA from a virus into a red blood cells, will we now have life? The answer is “not yet.” What we have is more like a motor car, which has the engine and the fuel, but one which is parked in the garage. Just as a car engine needs to be started, the DNA-injected red cell too needs to get started.

And how to do so is the million dollar question. It is this challenge that Dr. Craig Venter is attempting to win with his laboratory-made DNA genome of the microbe M. genitalia. He says “It is this ‘kick start’ that we are yet to know how to do. And the one who finds a way to do so will have ‘started’ life. Once this cell is made alive, hopefully it would go on by itself with no further help from the scientist who ‘created’ it.”

Even if they ever manage to do that, did the scientist infuse “vital force” into the dead system? A tentative answer would be: no, he simply repeated what natural forces would have done over 3.5 billion years ago on earth, when radiation or UV light or ionic currents disturbed what is described as ‘the primordial soup’ which contained material akin to the DNA-injected bag of metabolites. The question remains who consciously did it?

Matters become more complex and engaging when we extrapolate such experiments to higher organisms. Bacteria and plants are fine. They do not have brains or a central nervous system; so they do not ‘think’ but are hard-wired to act and respond in defined ways, however complex, creative or even wily these may be. For centuries, we have been creating new plants by grafting and even cloning. Bonsai plants are looked at with artistic appreciation.

But when we turn to animals, which have a central nervous system and an active brain, we enter the realm of learning, decision making, self-awareness, and consciousness. So Life will ever remain an mysterious subject for scientist. At the least some people are assured get their pay packages every month.

Vedic Observer

In the 1980 conference of “Science and Spirituality” one vedic scientist Dr T.D.Singh asked if I give you all the chemicals can the Scientist make life. There was a marked silence in the audience of scientists. Some would have answered may be, but the fact still remains unchallenged that we can’t make life in the laboratory without a participating living entity.

The Vedic literature has a conclusive science of origin of life. In Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna says “aham bija pradah pitah” Iam the seed giving father. And even for rationalist the Book Human devolution is a great challenge. It gives credibility to the idea of “Life indeed comes from Life”. The author of the book Dr. Micheal A. Cremo says “We for that matter any life did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit,” . He bases his response on modern science and the world’s great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that before we ask the question, “Where did human beings come from? we should first contemplate, “What is a human being?” Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit).

Ecological cost of Googling

Two Google searches produce same CO2 as boiling a kettle. Making two internet searches through Google produces about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle, it has been estimated. Googling has a very definite environmental impact according to research conducted by a physicist from Harvard University. A typical search through the online giant’s website is thought to generate about 7g of carbon dioxide. Boiling a kettle produces about 15g. The emissions are caused both by the electricity required to power a user’s computer and send their request to servers around the world.

The discovery comes amid increasing warnings about the little-known environmental impact of computer and internet use. According to Gartner, an American research firm, IT now causes about two per cent of global CO² emissions and its carbon footprint exceeded that of the world’s aviation industry for the first time in 2007.

Dr Alex Wissner-Gross, a physicist from Harvard University who is leading research into the subject, has estimated that browsing a basic website generates about 0.02g of CO² for every second it is viewed. Websites with complex video can be responsible for up to 0.2 g per second, he believes. On his website, [http:\\co2stats.com CO²stats.com], Dr Wissner-Gross wrote: Websites are provided by servers and are viewed by visitors’ computers that are connected via networks. These servers, clients and networks all require electricity in order to run, electricity that is largely generated by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. When fossil fuels are burned, carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, which contribute to climate change.

Dr Wissner-Gross believes that Google’s unique structure - which sees it send searches to multiple servers around the world and give which ever response is returned quickest - causes its searches to produce more emissions than some other sites. He told a newspaper: Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power.

More Statistics

“A Google search has a definite environmental impact. Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy. A separate analysis by John Buckley, of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental website, put the CO² emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g. Chris Goodall, the author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, said that assuming the user spends 15 minutes on their computer, the carbon emission of a Google is between 7g and 10g. Google claimed that the number was many times too high and one Google search is equivalent to about 0.2 grams of CO².

Vedic Observer

This is age Kali Yuga is called as iron age, it signifies not only the degraded nature of the people who inhabit but also the technologies used. Science and its cousin the technology has provided umpteen comforts to human civilization, absolutely beyond any doubt..but at what cost? Technology when combined with capitalistic consumerism is having a almost irreversible changes to our ecology.

All these technologies that we have invented after the Renaissance era although had given a perceivable change in the life style and comfort of people but has definitely made the world an increasingly dangerous place to live in. Mainly because these technologies are not what the nature gave us but are what we thought would make our life comfortable and hence they are not sustainable and leads to increased complex amendments in our life style.

For example a typical farmer in a Indian village would have had his farm a 100 m away from his farmhouse and he used to get everything he required within his self sufficient village. But an average citizen of a metropolitan city needs his cereals imported from half way across the globe and has to travel 50 km’s to his work place. Is this sustainable? All these artificial necessities facilitated by needs facilitated by this technological advancement has resulted in more negative effects like pollution, dissappearing greenery and a list of health ailments and addictions.

In the previous ages of Vedic times people had technologies many times advanced than the present civilization, like the Pushpaka vimana which can fly to any destination directed by the mind. The basis of the technolgy were more on the finer faculties of human capabilities like the mind and mantra which can manipulate the force of the material nature to do the desired task as compared the soot and smoke of modern technology. These technologies have become inacessible because people of Kali Yuga have lost the intellectual power and purity to harness those techniques.

So the conclusion is that we should minimize our dependence on these technologies which are making us more dependent on them, rather we should promote usage of natural technology using natural forces and lead a less complicated life.

The intellectual community fails to even consider the validity of evidence of reincarnation.
I recently read one of the latest books by Ian Stevenson, entitled European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Dr. Stevenson is a research professor of psychiatry at the University of Virginia, and he has been doing research on the subject of reincarnation for more than thirty years. Over this period, he has accumulated several hundred accounts of young children who consciously remember details of past lives, exhibit birthmarks or phobias connected with a former person’s death, or even speak fluently in languages with which they have had no prior contact.

Stevenson and his team have rigorously investigated and verified many of these accounts through interviews, historical record searches, and visits to the often-remote areas described by these children. And yet few people are familiar with his work, and even fewer scholars in conventional academic circles address it seriously. Why such indifference? What is it about the intellectual community that prevents it from embracing Stevenson’s research and the idea of reincarnation?

I’m a graduate of the Science, Technology and Society program at Stanford University, and this is not the first time I have thought about the nature of the modern scientific establishment and its relationship with mainstream culture. Among the public there is a perception that scientific inquiry is a dispassionate endeavor that uncovers value-neutral truths about reality. As a result, people are expected to regard scientific knowledge as belonging in a different category than knowledge from other sources, such as opinion, intuition, or scripture. This is justified on the grounds that science is supposedly free from the bias, prejudice, and blind faith that may characterize these other sources.

But this distinction is artificial. Science is far from the objective arbiter of truth it is commonly perceived to be; rather, it is routinely affected by all manner of subjective considerations. Not only these more general mundane influences, but a more profound spiritual one as well, have played a part in the low esteem with which scientists hold Stevenson’s body of work and the concept of reincarnation.

Tainted Perception

The effect of irrational factors on empirical scientific research has been discussed, most notably by Thomas S. Kuhn in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Among the issues he highlights that I view as bearing on reincarnation are the theory-laden nature of perception, the role of paradigms in scientific research, and the social nature of such research.

The first influence refers to the unconscious effect of existing attitudes and worldviews on what someone perceives. A popular notion is that scientists collect hard facts and then process them in a straightforward, rational way to come up with a theory. Stevenson points out, however, that “prior beliefs influence judgments about evidence; and they influence even more the primary observations that furnish the evidence.” A researcher’s underlying system of values unwittingly shapes the conclusions he or she comes to. What’s more, even the original facts themselves are subjective in that they may mean different things to different people. In this light, the image of the open-minded scientist transparently studying the world to extract an objective truth rings false. What a researcher believes before beginning an investigation necessarily affects what he or she ultimately discovers.

Kuhn cites an interesting psychology experiment as an example of this phenomenon of perceptual bias. In it, the experimenters asked their subjects to identify a series of playing cards that were shown to them in increasingly lengthy exposures. Mixed in with the normal deck, however, were some anomalous cards, such as a red six of spades and a black four of hearts. When the cards were shown in short flashes, almost all of the subjects correctly identified the normal cards but, without hesitation, misidentified the anomalous ones (i.e., they would identify a black four of hearts conventionally as either a black four of spades or a red four of hearts). As the exposure time increased, the subjects started to hesitate in identifying these anomalous cards, until, often quite suddenly, they were able to identify them correctly without difficulty. At first, the subjects fit the strange cards into one of the normal conceptual categories they had derived from experience. Only with an extremely exaggerated exposure time, perhaps forty times as long as that required to identify normal cards, were they able to correctly identify the anomalous cards. One is almost forced to conclude that, until the end, many of the subjects were actually “seeing” something different than what was actually before their eyes.

In terms of reincarnation, this selectivity of perception has affected the way scientists and scientifically minded people have reacted to the same evidence that convinced Stevenson. What to speak of the specific case studies he catalogues, there must be legions of other similar incidents and individuals. Why haven’t these garnered more widespread notice and study? The answer is likely the predisposition in mainstream Western society, even if unconscious, against a belief in transmigration of the soul. Even though some individuals and groups may be found who accept the concept, two views are predominant: either a strictly secular disbelief in the very existence of a soul, or at most a religious belief that accepts only one earthly lifetime. The educational and cultural norms of Western society simply don’t prepare people to be receptive to the idea of reincarnation. Those who do accept it do so in spite of, rather than because of, the underlying biases of their upbringing. Thus, most people, be they scientist or layperson, are predisposed to overlook evidence suggestive of reincarnation, whereas Stevenson, due to his own idiosyncratic background and experiences, was more open-minded and paid heed to such evidence.

Entrenched Paradigms

A second common source of subjectivity in the practice of modern science is the function of paradigms. Kuhn writes that paradigms are fundamental to the practice of normal science. A paradigm is a way of viewing the world and its study shared by a scientific community and connected to a set of generally accepted assumptions, rules, methods, and instruments. A paradigm aids detailed and precise study because those working within it don’t have to build their argument from scratch in every investigation but can proceed from a common base of accepted fundamentals. Rather than splaying out their efforts in sundry directions, they can focus on specific areas of new research consistent with the paradigm and develop elaborate tools and techniques appropriate to these areas.

The problem with paradigms is that, because they are so useful, they become firmly entrenched and are displaced only with great difficulty. The same implicit beliefs and specialized methods that make research efficient and make certain types of progress possible become hindrances to the acceptance of novel beliefs, the development of new techniques, and the achievement of a grander type of progress. Thus, problems and phenomena that don’t fall within the parameters of the dominant paradigm are usually rejected, Kuhn writes, as “metaphysical, as the concern of another discipline, or sometimes as just too problematic to be worth the time.”

This obstinate resistance to change reminds me of a book I read as an undergraduate that compared the modern scientific enterprise to the mythical Jewish golem. This zombielike creature, fabricated from clay, was completely subservient to its creator, with no mind of its own. The point made by the authors was that one can no more expect the scientific establishment to be genuinely flexible and responsive to new information than one could expect the dull, lumbering golem to perform a ballet; both have so much unconscious momentum behind their bulk that they tend to simply roll over anything in their way.

The work of Ian Stevenson has been marginalized precisely because it is not in line with most contemporary paradigms. Despite his volumes of convincing evidence, the idea of reincarnation is anathema to traditional disciplines, and Stevenson’s case studies are explained away on other grounds or rejected outright as unscientific. The logic or elegance of reincarnation as an explanation of many of his observations is irrelevant. There is simply no room in the worldviews or approaches of established scientific communities for disembodied living beings who migrate from one body to another. Thus, only a shift in paradigms is likely to raise Stevenson’s studies to greater prominence.

Self-Preservation

A third influence that colors the practice of science is the social nature of research. Academics are reluctant to embrace ideas that stray too far from established laws and principles because their reputations, and possibly their careers, depend on their credibility and the respect of their peers. At an informal level, scientists usually don’t want to risk being ridiculed or minimized by presenting unconventional theories. At a formal level, researchers may hold prestigious positions or may have been honored with distinctive awards based on work they’ve done related to a particular theory. As a result, they are unlikely to welcome new discoveries that undermine their work.

The temptation to suppress such information by reassigning the “renegade researchers,” cutting their funding, or simply firing them is often too strong to resist. Dr. Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo refer to the effect of this sort of strongly vested interest in maintaining the status quo as a “knowledge filter.” Their work on archaeological anomalies cites several cases in which up and coming scientists were permanently stigmatized for presenting findings that deviated too far from the conventional wisdom (e.g., dating certain types of fossils tens or even hundreds of thousands of years further into the past than was generally accepted at the time).

The scenario is somewhat reminiscent of Hans Christian Anderson’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” There was once a vain emperor whose only fondness was for extravagant and refined clothing. A couple of clever scoundrels decided to take advantage of this weakness by making a proposal: for a small fortune, they would weave an outfit for the emperor out of a revolutionary new cloth so fine that it appeared invisible to those too foolish to perceive it. The emperor agreed, and the rascals took advantage of his gullibility by dressing him in nothing at all. When he paraded his new “outfit” before his subjects, however, no one was willing to admit that the emperor was actually naked for fear of appearing too foolish to be able to see the cloth. Finally, a simple child pointed out the obvious, and the crowd took up the cry, leaving the emperor in the ridiculous position of having to finish the procession with a straight face, knowing he was indeed naked.

The response of the intellectual community to Ian Stevenson’s findings is not unlike the response of the crowd to the emperor’s new clothes. Even if some individuals agree with some of his ideas or find some of his evidence persuasive, they are loath to publicly or professionally acknowledge their sympathy for fear of censure from their colleagues. Practically everyone is aware of the weaknesses and limitations of standard explanations for the evidence Stevenson presents, but they think it better to play along and preserve their status than to risk deviating from the norm and being labeled irrational.

Scientific Hubris

The three factors delineated above—the effect of preconceptions on perception, the entrenchment of paradigms in modern science, and the social nature of research—are among the problems, as pointed out by Kuhn and others, associated with a strictly objective and rational image of science. I have indicated how all three probably play a role in keeping professional research communities from appreciating the pioneering work of Ian Stevenson on the subject of reincarnation. I believe another dynamic is at work, however, perhaps more significant and certainly subtler and less well understood: the hubris of modern science.

The goal of scientific research as it exists today is to understand, manipulate, and ultimately master matter. Physicists even speak of a desire to develop a grand uniform theory that would take the form of a few equations (or even a single one) that could be printed on a T-shirt. In their search for truth, scientists tend to rely solely on their own intellect and innate abilities in making new discoveries. “Man is the measure of all things” is their motto, and the infinite potential of the human intellect is their creed. Even those who believe in God relegate him to the background, as at most the initiator of a universe now completely mechanistic and rational. Indeed, scientific inquiry is predicated on the belief that the universe is a riddle answerable through human endeavor. The privileged position in society of science as a whole, and of scientists as individuals, rests on this belief.

Higher Sources of Information

Phenomena such as reincarnation that indicate a reality beyond the reach of the microscope and telescope remind scientists too poignantly that their collective sense of mastery is only illusory and threaten their high status. The fact is that empiric research, such as that of Ian Stevenson, can take us only so far in understanding the transmigration of a nonmaterial soul. Even if they accepted his work, researchers of reincarnation would be forced to turn to other sources of information, such as scripture, to more fully understand it. To do this they would have to admit their dependence on an authority higher than themselves. Such submission is anathema to the very spirit of contemporary scientific inquiry, however, and so it ends up being much easier to reject reincarnation altogether.

If only scientists were able to accept a more humble stance, they could take fruitful advantage of the Vedic literature of India, which represents a coherent source of information on reincarnation and other topics not addressed by mainstream science. The Vedic literature explains that the true nature of the universe is in fact inconceivable to ordinary human perception, and information about it must ultimately descend from God through his messengers and revealed scriptures. Among such scriptures is the Bhagavad-gita, which informs us that we are all eternal spirit souls who belong in the spiritual sky with the Supreme Lord. There we are all immortal and full of complete knowledge and uninterrupted happiness. Due to a desire to enjoy separately from the Lord, however, we have been forced to descend to this material world and endure the cycle of repeated birth and death. Here we must reincarnate through various species of life until we again accept the supremacy of God, or Krishna, and are allowed to re-enter his realm. Until then, the actions of our current life determine what our next material body will be.

Significantly, the Vedic understanding of reincarnation doesn’t preclude its systematic study and experimental investigation. That is to say, scientific research could go on, but simply in a different spirit (and perhaps with some different theories and tools). Rather than approaching the study of nature as the lords of all they survey and pretending that scientific research as currently practiced is a completely reliable source of objective truth, the intellectual community would have to acknowledge its limitations, some of which have been described in this article, and adopt a more appropriate humility.

In this mood, scientists could begin to embrace reincarnation based on Stevenson’s work, and then turn to the Vedic scriptures for further guidance and information. The texts themselves guarantee that such a sincere cultivation of knowledge will result in genuine realization and verifiable truth. Backed by a robust and well-grounded understanding of reincarnation, scientists could offer society answers to some of its most pressing questions: Why do some people suffer and some people prosper in their present lives? They are simply experiencing the results of actions taken in their past lives. Why should people be moral and avoid sinful activities? By doing so, they ensure a better next life.

Of course, the ultimate understanding of reincarnation enunciated by the Vedic scriptures is that we should try to break free from the cycle of repeated birth and death by reconciling ourselves with God. As soon as we surrender unto him, he promises us in the Bhagavad-gita, he’ll fill our hearts with complete knowledge of everything to be known. And we’ll get to live with him in eternal bliss to boot. What more could any scientist hope for?

By Navin Jani