Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga

Bhaktivinoda Thakur writes in his Tattva Viveka:

Commentary by Srilla Bhaktivinoda Thäkura

  Logic that comes from the soul’s own natural knowledge is pure and faultless. The philosophy that comes from such logic is the actual truth. Separated from that natural knowledge, true logic has no power to stand. However, logic that comes from material knowledge, the logic that is seen everywhere in this world, is always mixed and impure. Philosophies that come from such mixed logic are always faulty and lacking. Such philosophies are never good at describing God. Mixed logic is not the proper tool to describe the Supreme Truth. Pure logic which takes shelter of the soul’s natural knowledge is the proper tool to describe the Supreme Truth. Here someone may ask, “What is this natural knowledge of which you speak?” The answer is: The soul is spiritual, and therefore naturally full of spiritual knowledge. That original knowledge possessed by the soul is called here “natural knowledge”. That natural knowledge is eternally present in the soul. It is not created by perceiving the contents of he material world. The activities of that natural knowledge are called pure logic. That natural knowledge was known by the soul before the soul ever had any knowledge of the material world.

  That knowledge is: (1) I am. (2) I continue to be. (3) I am happy. (4) My happiness comes from a certain place. a shelter, a reservoir of happiness. (5) It is natural for me to take shelter of that reservoir of happiness. (6) I am eternally a follower of that reservoir of happiness. (7) That reservoir of happiness is very beautiful. (8) I have no power to abandon that reservoir of happiness. (9) My present condition is lamentable. (10) Abandoning that lamentable condition I should take shelter of that reservoir of happiness. (11) This material world is not my eternal home. (12) By becoming elevated in this mateerial world I do not become elevated eternally.

 If logic does not takle shelter of this natural knowledge, logic remains mixed with matter. Then logic is only a babbler of nonsense. Even in ordinary material science, first some axioms must be accepted. In mathematics, astronomy, or other sciences, one cannot make progress if one does not first accept the axioms. In the science of understanding the Supreme Truth one must also first accept some axioms, the axioms given by natural knowledge. Those axioms are the root from which the tree of spiritual knowledge grows.

Gauranga Premananda das says: Could you please elaborate or explain this perfect logic? these 12 steps. Are there other pure logics proving God?

 

Ko addha veda ka ih pra vocatkut ajata kut iyam vishrishtih
Arvagdeva asya visarjanenatha ko veda yat ababhuva [6]

 

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows, then, whence it first came into being.

Dear Devotees and Friends:

 

Please accept our humble dandavats.

 

Hare Krsna.

 

–Satsanga MP3– Satsanga, August 17, 2008 is now uploaded.

 

In the Satsanga a scientific discussion is presented on ”Rg veda”.

 

 

According to Srimad bhagavad gita, 3.27,

 

prakrteh kriyamanani  gunaih karmani sarvasah
ahankara-vimudhatma  kartaham iti manyate

 

The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature.

 

Based upon this verse, a question was asked by a devotee, “If I move my hand, if the soul doesn’t move it, how does the three modes do these actions or is it done by the demigods?”

 

Devotee: Maharaja in past you have said, that actually it is due to acintya sakti, by thinking our hand is moving. May be we cannot know that.

 

HH Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaj (BMP): Yes. It is very difficult to understand, how movement occurs actually. How we move. Just like your hair is growing out from your head. How is it happening? Are you growing your hairs on your head? The finger nails are growing out. Constantly growing out and you have to cut them. Can you have your hair stop and have no haircut anymore. We are not doing it. Somehow it is happening. Even breathing, we are not in charge of that. That is the autonomic nervous system. Your autonomic nervous system is going on. Your heart is beating. Blood pressure is being maintained. All these things are done automatically. Like that, so many things are happening in the body. We are eating food and it is digesting very nicely in most cases, unless we have some illness. We are not in charge of that. Then how does it happen? If you had to figure it out how the stomach digests the food, then it would be a very complicated process to digest a meal. So, somehow all those complicated things are going on by the inherent autonomic (autonomic means automatic systems) of the body controlling them. That is what the scientists are saying. So Veda says that it is done by the modes of material nature - the trigunas: sattva, rajas and tamas. They are causing the permutations, combinations and the movements. Someone thinks that they are composed of bodily activities, but are actually they are all composed of those three modes. Bodily substance and activities are controlled by the modes of material nature. How to understand that will require some philosophical understanding of what the modes of material nature are. How that is working will determine how the activities are going on. They are actually not controlled by us. We desire and God fulfills that desire. This is also told in the Bhagavad gita - ye yatha mam prapadyante, the Lord is fulfilling the desires of the living entity, according to what way they relate to him. How much they surrender to him, how much they relate to him in whatever way, he gives them and fulfills their needs.

 

Devotee: Maharaja is it the function of paramatma aspect’s activity.

 

Maharaja: No, material energy is Krishna’s energy, mayadhyaksena prakrti. So, material energy is one of Krishna’s energy - His external energy. He does not directly manage these things. They are controlled by the material energy. Material nature is doing all these things. Of course, material energy is Krishna’s energy. But it is like an indirect energy of his. It is not His direct energy, that he is directly concerned with it. Just like, we not directly concerned with our breathing. Breathing directly concerns us but we are not in charge of that, we don’t have to do that. It is going on automatically. Like we have said, it is done by the autonomic system. So Krishna also has an automatic system, His material energy. It works according to certain rules. It is going on by the automatic rules of material energy - Krishna’s automatic system. Material system is doing all those things. It is just like we have an autonomic system. Directly we are not involved with it, but nonetheless it is going on within our own body. In the same way Krishna has His own material energy and it is going on automatically and that He has no need to pay any attention to that. That is doing the activities of the body. When of course the living entity turns directly to Krishna and concentrates his focus on Krishna, His personal form, then by His mercy He maintains His direct interest in what the devotee wants, what the devotee is saying to Him. That is a different platform. When the devotee has direct connection with Krishna, with the internal energy, through devotional service, through surrender, through the officiating devotee, or a devotee who is connected with Krishna, when one comes in touch with that potency, internal potency through the devotee of the Lord, then he comes to a different platform of action. That is the transcendental platform. But without surrender and without service, he remains in contact with only the external energy. And that is going on according to the laws of material nature, according to the arrangement of the Lord.

 

So to understand this thing in detail is a great science. But in a general way, by reading the Bhagavad-gita, we can understand the scheme, the basic scheme that is in place. Our purpose is not to simply engage in material consciousness only. By material consciousness, unsurrendered state of consciousness, simply trying to explore and exploit the resources of the material energy, will put us under the control of the modes of material nature, tri-gunas. And we have to work according to the actions of those three modes. The devotee therefore takes complete shelter at the lotus feet of the Lord’s devotees. Complete surrender, learns how to come in touch with the antaranga shakti, the internal potency of the Lord, the transcendental energy of the Lord, by the grace of guru, by the grace of sadhu, grace of vaisnava. Gradually he comes under the influence of the transcendental energy of the Lord. That is also there. It has to be approached in a proper way. And then even approach is also not a proper word. We can only submit ourselves to that energy and then be under the influence of that energy by their grace, the higher world. We are always under the influence of something. Those in the material world think that they are independent, but in actuality they are under the influence of the maha maya, the external energy of the Lord. Therefore by changing our attitude from exploitation to dedication, service to the Lord’s devotees, we can come under the influence of the internal energy of the Lord, the Hladini shakti. It is possible. One who engages in unselfish, devotional service, sacrificial service to the Lord, he will come under the influence of that world. Unknowingly he will be placed in that world, and under the influence of that world, his whole life will be transformed.

 

 

Today we wanted to discuss the Nasadiya sutra of the Rg veda. Long time ago, Shri Sanjay Tignath Prabhu sent these slokas from the Rg veda, about the creation of the universe. We never got to finish that. We only did one or two slokas. So I wanted to continue that today, if you all will allow me. The list of slokas is as follows:

 

Nasadiya Sukta, Rigveda, Canto 10, Hymn 129

English rendering by Ralph T.H. Griffith, 1889

 

Nasadasinno sadaseettadanim naseedrajo no vyoma paro yat
Kimahvariva kuh kasya sharmannambhah kimaseedgaahanam gabhiram [1]

Then there was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it

What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

 

Na mrityuraseedamritam na tarhi na ratrya anha aseetpraketah
Aneedavatam svadhayatadekam tasmadhchanyanna parah kim canas [2]

 

Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day’s and night’s divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

 

Tam aseet tamsa gooldhamagre apraketam salilam sarvama idam
Tuchyenabhvapihitam yadaseet tapasastanmahinajayataikam [3]

 

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness, this all was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and formless: by great power of warmth was born that Unit.

 

Kamastadagre samavartatadhi manaso retah prathamam yadaseet
Sato bandhumsati nirvindanhridi pratishya kavayo manisha [4]

 

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire the primal seed and germ of spirit.

Sages who searched with their heart’s thought discovered the existent’s kinship in the non-existent.

 

Tirishcino vitato rashmireshamdhah svidaseedupari svidaseet
Retodha asan mahiman asan tsvadha avastat prayatih parastat [5]

 

Transversely was there severing line extended: what was above it then, and what was below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy of yonder.

 

Ko addha veda ka ih pra vocatkut ajata kut iyam vishrishtih
Arvagdeva asya visarjanenatha ko veda yat ababhuva [6]

 

 

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?

The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows, then, whence it first came into being.

 

Iyam vishrishtiryat ababhuva yadi va dadhe yadi va na
Yo asya adhyakshah parame vyoman tso anga veda yadi va na veda [7]

 

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it. Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, He verily knows it or perhaps He knows it not.

 

Maharaja: Quoting from (2) above,

 

“Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day’s and night’s divider.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.”

 

This is very obscure language, what he is saying. So mortal means the finite, limited. Whatever is finite has limit. For example, a stone is a finite thing, because there is a place where the stone does not exist. It only goes to a certain extent and then there is nothing. The stone is there, held in your hand. It has certain boundary, it has certain size. If you determine that size, then you come to a place where there is no stone. So in that sense we can say that is where the stone is dead. Beyond a certain limit, the stone dies and becomes air. Air is outside the limit of stone, and where it is outside the limit of stone, we call it the death of the stone. There stone does not exist anymore. So the stone has a certain place where it exists and a certain place where it does not exist. Therefore we call it finite. But what exists without limit, does not have any boundary, what does not cease to exist, that is called infinite. What does not cease to exist, we can also call that immortal. So anyhow, this sloka is saying there was no death - that means there was nothing finite, and neither was there anything infinite. So this is the stage of complete loss of all determination. Nothing there was to be determined. This is something like the impersonal Brahman. There was nothing there to talk about. And this is again reinforced by the next sentence.

 

No sign was there. Day and night were not there. What is meant by sign? Sign means there must be something to signify - the idea of signifying. The action of signifying implies sign and signified. So what he is saying here is that there is no sign and there is nothing signified. Day also signifies that there is light, the sun is out. So in that situation, where there is no sign, there is no day and there is no night, there is nothing to signify, nothing to distinguish one thing from another. So that state of complete indetermination or complete indifference - that is Brahman, impersonal Brahman. Where there is no differentiation, no duality of any kind. That is the way the impersonalists understand Brahman. Of course, Vaisnavas understand a little differently. It does not mean that for vaisnavas.

 

Brahman does not mean that there is no distinction. That means that no distinction has been made. No consciousness is active there. Just remaining in the sleeping stage. Just like in this world some people are not making proper discrimination about things. They are sleeping in this world - have a sleeping consciousness. What is the soul, what is the body, they don’t make any distinction there. Everything is body for them. They make no distinction between body, mind and soul, and acting like animals. Animals also have no distinction at that level. So it does not mean distinction is not there. Distinction in there, the soul is there, mind is there, but some people are not making distinction of those things, they have no knowledge of that. No awareness or consciousness of that. So just because they have no consciousness of it, it is not that it is not there. It is there, but they are not taking any note of it. They do not notice it due to their absorption in particular ways of living, particular stage of awareness. So when awareness is not there, then you may be in a stage of indetermination as regards the higher things that are there. And only by coming in touch with those who make that distinction, then we may become aware of it. It is already there, but it is not known to the sleeping consciousness, but is known by the awakened sage.

 

You can hear this Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga at http://www.mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/17_August_2008_HH_BMPS_BI_Weekly_Satsanga_1.m3u

 

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

You can browse year/month wise Streaming Satsanga MP3s at: http://mahaprabhu. net/satsanga/ .

 

 

Timing of weekly Satsanga: 6:00 PM India time, Every Sunday.  

 

 

You may visit http://mahaprabhu. net/satsanga/ about/ to know the details about joining process for the online “Weekly Satsangas”.

 

 

 

 

All Glories all Sadhus, Guru and Vaisnavas.

 

 

 

Thanking you.

 

 

Your humble servants

Purushottama Jagannatha Das &

Sushen Das 

 

 

 

Dear Devotees and Friends:

 

Please accept our humble dandavats.

 

Hare Krsna.

 

–Satsanga MP3– Satsanga, August 10, 2008 is now uploaded.

 

In the Satsanga a scientific discussion is presented about ”Identity and personality”.

 

 

During the satsanga, the most important topic of Identity was discussed. Some of the points that were raised during the preliminary discussions, were, what is identity for a person? What is personality? Wherever there is a person, or a personality, what must be there? When a person says, ‘I’, then what is the necessary corollary? What is that, which is necessary to co-exist along with the ‘I’? What is that power that must be in order to say ‘I’? What is that is necessary in more experiential terms to say, I am a person?

 

Descartes said, ‘Cogito ergo sum.’ Cogito has something to do with cognition. Cognition means consciousness must be there. Cognition is a certain kind of consciousness and is something less than consciousness. Cognition means knowing. Knowing is a particular form of consciousness. We can be knowing, we can be feeling, we can be willing. So there are different kinds of activities within consciousness. And knowing is one of the activities within consciousness. This is very important because knowing is also like consciousness. Knowing is very broad, and it includes when we are willing something, when we are feeling something, we are also knowing. So knowing has a broad meaning like consciousness, and is of course very close to consciousness. Consciousness is of course broader, but knowing also somehow or the other comes along with the other forms of consciousness. Anyhow, consciousness and knowing are very closely related.

 

For knowing, what is the necessary fact required. Not only to know that an object is there but also what the object is, its determination, its particular details or determinations of a thing are. And what does that require. And to know the details of what an object is requires thought or thinking, the thinking part of consciousness. Thinking within consciousness, or the thinking aspect of the consciousness is a very important part of personality, the person. In order to be a person, there must be consciousness. But more significantly, when we say, ‘I’, what are we doing, we are thinking. I is a thought, ego. What is ego? It is actually a self thought, self realization, self actualization. When consciousness contemplates its own self, tries to determine itself, that is called ‘I’. ‘I’ becomes the subject and object of itself. One thing is in two forms. ‘I’ becomes the subject and ‘I’ becomes the object. This is called self-consciousness or ‘I’. In a very limited sense, in an abstract sense, in a provincial sense, when ‘I’ of the false self, the false ego becomes I, ‘I’ is not complete, then self thinking is not complete. Just like the universal, in the sense that we discussed last time, the ‘I’, exists in all the instances, circumstances, or arrangements of my body. I call myself ‘I’, whether I am sitting, standing, eating, running, thinking, whatever. Whatever the body is doing, ‘I’ remains the same. Body may be young body, old body, or middle-aged body like that. Body changes. Situations of the body changes, but ‘I’ remains the same. Just like river Ganges, sometimes it overfloods, sometimes it changes its course, sometimes it has less water sometimes more water, but the water is always moving, changing, still it is always identified as Ganges. Ganges is something universal. Whereas the particular shape that it takes, that is something particular. Body is particular, the mental state is particular, like sometimes we are happy, and sometimes we are unhappy. Mind is changing, the body is changing, but the ‘I’ remains. So ‘I’ is of a different categorical nature than the situations that the ‘I’ identifies with. Then we categorize ‘I’ as universal entity, that’s how we categorize it. However the ‘I’ is also not infinitely universal. In other words I can know what is going on with my ‘I’, but not what is going on with yours. So the universality of my ‘I’ is limited. I is universal, but it is a limited universal. It is the provincial universal. The unusual idea that the universal, which is generally thought infinite, is limited infinite. We are infinite no doubt, but proper term would be infinitesimal, as our infinity is limited. Compared to the finite, we are infinite. But compared to Krishna, the true infinite, we are limited. Therefore we call it infinitesimal, or unlimitedly small. We are unlimited, but small. Larger universal and smaller universal. Anyhow self-thinking or cogito ergo sum. That is whenever, I think is there, that means a person. Wherever there is person, there is thinking. Wherever there is thinking, there must be person. Because when thinking meditates about itself, when thinks about itself, then immediately ‘I’ arises. That is what we mean by identity. Thinking takes the form of subject and object. What is doing the thinking, and what is thought about, has the same nature of thought. Therefore there is identity between them. Identity means comparison. In order to say identity, there must be two things. Generally identity means numerical unity. Just like identical twins. Identical particles, like two electrons are considered identical, because there is no distinction, or any differentiation between them. So thus identity means two things. And in the case of self, there is the subject ‘I’ and the object ‘I’. They are different in their conception, but identical in their content. This is a very deep conception. Simple idea is that wherever there is thinking, there must be a person, and wherever there is a person, there must be thinking.

 

You can hear this Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga at http://www.mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/10_August_2008_HH_BMPS_BI_Weekly_Satsanga.m3u

 

 

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

You can browse year/month wise Streaming Satsanga MP3s at: http://mahaprabhu. net/satsanga/ .

 

 

Timing of weekly Satsanga: 6:00 PM India time, Every Sunday.  

 

 

You may visit http://mahaprabhu. net/satsanga/ about/ to know the details about joining process for the online “Weekly Satsangas”.

 

 

 

 

All Glories all Sadhus, Guru and Vaisnavas.

 

 

 

Thanking you.

 

 

Your humble servants

Purushottama Jagannatha Das &

Sushen Das 

 

Sir Isaac Newton

Newton ’s three laws of motion are well known in scientific literature. The first one is called the law of inertia. According to the first law an object at rest tends to remain at rest and an object in motion tends to remain in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force.

The second law is the one most people are familiar with in the science courses and is know as law of force. According to the second law, the acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of that force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object. The same can be expressed as a = F/m.

Constant velocity is called speed but acceleration is the change in speed or change in the velocity of an object. So if the velocity is described with the symbol ‘v’ then acceleration is the change in ‘v’ with respect to time ‘t’. In calculus it is described by ‘d’ differentiation, i.e., differential symbol ‘dv’ over ‘dt’ and we can express the acceleration as a = dv/dt. This indicates that acceleration is the change in velocity per unit change in time. When we drop something from a building — say a penny, the penny is at rest (v= 0) when we are holding it in our hand but when we drop it, it immediately begins to accelerate due to the force of gravity acting upon it. As it continues to move downward (increasing x) it will move at increasingly higher velocity. If that penny should hit someone on the head it may kill him/her depending on what velocity it has reached. Normally, if we drop a penny on someone’s head it won’t cause any damage. But if we drop it from a high distance and it falls on the head that same penny can crack the skull and kill the person. Thus it is to be concluded that it is not the penny which is responsible for killing the person, rather it is the velocity.

The third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to Newton ’s third law, whenever two objects interact with each other both of them apply forces upon each other. The interaction can be possible when, the objects are in physical contact with each other or they are physically separated. Thus forces in general are classified as contact forces and action-at-a-distance forces. Frictional/resistance force, tensional force and normal force are the contact forces and on the other hand, gravitational force, electrical force and magnetic force are the action-at-a-distance forces.

A devotee asked a question to His Holiness Bhakti Madhava Puri Swami (BMP), Ph.D. of Bhaktivedanta Institute, in the weekly Satsanga on 3^rd of August, 2008: “What is the purpose of Newton ’s first law? Is it not true that first law is just a natural conclusion of second law? The second law states that F=ma. According to the second law, if the force ‘F’ is zero then the acceleration ‘a’ is zero, and if the acceleration ‘a’ is zero then the force ‘F’ is zero. Thus can we accept that the first law is a special case of second law and there is no need to mention it separately?” BMP explained the various details in answering this question and said that Newton ’s first law is more than just a special case of the second law. The first law describes a negative force and thus is a negative law. According to first law if we don’t apply enough force to a body, it won’t move. The first law is not merely applicable to zero force but it includes forces which are not sufficient to generate change in the speed/rest of a body. The first law tells us what force is needed to change the speed of a body, or what resistance has to be overcome. If the mass is too big as compared to the applied force then the force will be negated and thus can be called a negative law since it explains the negation of force. For example a small meteor can hit the earth with appreciable force but it may have no effect on the speed of the earth.

It is also sometimes explained in the scientific literature that that Newton ’s first law establishes the inertial frame by which we measure acceleration. That becomes important when we talk about, say, movement inside an airplane. If we drop a ball from our hand sitting in an airplane, and if the airplane is accelerating, the ball won’t drop. It will move backwards at first, i.e. it will move horizontally. Hence, apparently it is violating Newton ’s law of gravity. Thus we must know what the inertial frame of reference is, since without that Newton ’s law may not be properly applied.

Hence the first law is essential and can’t be replaced as a special case of second law. First we must know the inertial frame of reference and then we can know about the accelerating frame of reference. We know from Einstein’s general theory of relativity that Newton ’s laws are not valid at very high velocities approaching the speed of light, or for very massive bodies. This is because of the Lorentz transformation SQRT(1 – v²/c²)^-1 that becomes very important when v à c, where c is the speed of light. Thus Newton ’s laws have to be replaced by Einstein’s equations.

The devotee further asked the question, “Does the concept of inertia create the notion of will that a body posses? Materialists argue that the sense of ‘I’ and instinct of survival are nothing but the manifestation of inertia, a simple property of a body of matter.” BMP explained that organic matter is a spontaneously acting dynamic system. Matter is considered inert and doesn’t spontaneously move. What is causing matter to come to a state of spontaneous dynamic equilibrium? In other wards a living body is violating the inertial laws by moving and maintaining its ‘self’ against the environment. It is violating the law of inert matter. That is why we don’t expect that matter would give rise to life. The living body is not only a dynamic system but it is exchanging matter with the environment – taking matter in through a boundary and similarly eliminating matter. Inert matter is not expected to exhibit this type of spontaneous dynamic behavior.

We don’t know how we could interpret the dynamic equilibrium of living organisms with inertia. Inertia refers to the property of matter to remain in an unmoving state, or even if it is moving how it can establish any dynamic equilibrium without assistance. Sometimes it is argued that a living organism wants to continue living, so life has also a conservation principle similar to matter. It is the property of matter to conserve itself, so life has also the property of conservation.

We also agree with that. The conservation principle of life is known as sat in Vedic literature. But that would mean that the living organism will not die. Then, how can scientists explain the conservation of life at the death of a living organism?

Big Bang Model

We know the conservation law of matter – matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Of course applying Einstein’s theory in the case of matter we can transform matter into energy and energy into matter, i.e., E=MC^2. So conservation of matter means it can’t be created or destroyed but it can be transformed. Thus the destruction of both energy and matter can’t happen at the same time. Here is a big problem. Where does this energy and matter come from if it can’t be created? The Big Bang will be in trouble if we show that the matter and energy are somehow created. Thus it seems to violate some very fundamental principle of physics – conservation of matter and energy.

But as we mentioned, for life, if the conservation principle holds there, then how can scientists explain death. And how can they explain the creation of life? How can they explain that from non-life, life comes and again from life, non-life comes? This seems to violate any law of conservation or inertia that materialists may invoke. We accept that life is a separate principle (atma) from matter and thus can be conserved. But modern science has not yet advanced to this point.