Hare krishna

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 04 Jan 2009 satsanga. Please click here.

Servant of Servants.

Hare krishna

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 28 Dec 2008 satsanga. Please click here.

Servant of Servants.

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 21 Dec 2008 satsanga. Please click here.

Servant of Servants.

Today on the appearence day of His Divine Grace Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Dev-Goswami Maharaj, Bhakti Madhav puri Maharaj discussed about the past time of Srila Bhakti Sundar Govinda Mahraj. 

Autobiography

http://scsmath.org/trove2/boundbyaffctn.html

Please  click here to listen.  

Servant of Servants

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 07 Dec 2008 satsanga. Please click here.

Watch video

Part-1

 

Part-2

 
Part-3

Part-4

 

Servant of Servants

Today on Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Gosvami Maharaja’s Vyasa Puja, Bhakti Madhav Puri Maharaj discussed about the past time of Srila Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Gosvami Maharaja. 

Part 1

Part2

Part3

Part4

Part5

Part6

Part7

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 30 Nov 2008 satsanga. Please click bellow links

Part -1

Part -2

Servant of Servants

Dandvat pranams..

Here is the recording of 23 Nov 2008 satsanga. Please click here to listen.

Servant of Servants

Dandvat pranams..

I am sorry for the delay in uploading satsanga..

Please click here to listen 16 Nov 2008 satsanga. Link

Servant of Servants

Please click here to listen.

It seems that recently Dawkins has, to some degree, backpeddled in his thinking about the existence of God and purpose in the universe, admitting to the possibility of deism or an extra terrestrial origin of life. Dawkins was incredulous when he learned that the Natural History Museum in which the debate was held, was built for the glorification of God through science, by those who saw the study of Zoology, Geology, etc. as a means to further Man’s appreciation of the wonderful creation of its Creator.

We read and discuss the article found on the internet at http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

The MP3 for the Satsanga can be accessed at http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/wp-content//uploads/2008/10/26_Oct_2008_HH_BMPS_BI_Weekly_Satsanga.m3u

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?

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 Krishna.

We pray to Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga-Gandharvika-Madanmohan Jiu that the New Year may bring all auspiciousness to everyone. We pray that by their mercy and grace all of us can progress joyfully in our spiritual journey - to Go Back Home Back to Godhead.

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

In this Satsanga a scientific discussion is presented on understanding how one can come to the transcendental platform. A verse from “Rg Veda” is also discussed.

In one of the past Satsangas, His Holiness Bhakti Madhava Puri Swami, Ph.D. (Puri Maharaj) of Bhaktivedanta Institute, explained that actually it is due to the acintya sakti of Supreme Personality of Godhead Lord Sri Krishna. Just by thinking about it, our hand moves, so we can say it is due to the acintya sakti of Lord Sri Krishna, and thus we cannot understand it.

In the Satsanga Puri Maharaj answered that actually it is very difficult to understand how movement occurs. Just like our hair is growing out from our head. How is it happening? Are we in control of growing our hairs on our head? The finger nails are also growing out. They are constantly growing out so we have to cut them. Similarly, can we stop the growth of our hairs so that we don’t have to have haircut anymore? We are not in control of many such activities of our own body and yet somehow they are happening. Even breathing - ordinarily we are not in charge of that. It is being regulated by what is called the autonomic nervous system. Our heart is beating; blood pressure is being maintained. All these things are all being done automatically.

Many things are happening in the body like that. 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 we had to figure out how to make the stomach digest food everytime we ate, then it would be a very complicated process indeed. So, somehow all those complicated things are going on and the automatic systems of the body are controlling them. That is what the scientists explain.

But Vedantic science (or Samkhya) says that it is done by the modes of material nature - the trigunas: sattva, raja and tama. They are causing the permutations, combinations and movements of the things that are made up of those three modes occurring in this world. Bodily substance and activities are actually composed of and controlled by the modes of material nature. How to understand this? For that we require some philosophical understanding about modes of material nature. How they are working will determine how the activities of this world are going on. They are actually not controlled by us.

Srila Prabhupada explained that we desire and God fulfills that desire. This idea is also given in the Bhagavad-gita - ye yatha mam prapadyante, the Lord is fulfilling the desires of the living entities, according to what way they relate to Him, depending on how much they surrender to Him. How they relate to Him in whatever way, He fulfills their needs.

It is also not a function of Paramatma, or the localized aspect of Krishna. Material energy is one of Krishna’s energies, mayadhyaksena prakrti (Bg 9.10).  It is His external energy (bahiranga shakti). Thus He does not directly manage the affairs of the material world. Even though material energy is Krishna’s energy it is, nonetheless, His indirect energy. It is not His direct or internal energy (antaranga shakti) and thus He is not directly concerned with it., just as we are not directly concerned with our breathing. Breathing directly concerns us but we are only indirectly concerned with it, we don’t have to consciously do it. It is going on automatically. As we have mentioned previously, it is controlled by the autonomic nervous system. So Krishna also has an automatic system, His material energy.

The material energy works according to certain mechanical rules, and is going on under the control of those laws like a machine (Bg. 18.61 yantra arudhani mayaya). In that way Krishna’s automatic system is working so that He has no need to pay any attention to that. Thus the external material energy is performing all the actions and reactions of the body.

When a living entity turns directly to Krishna and focuses his attention on His personal form, then by His mercy Krishna establishes direct guidance through guru and vaisanava who act under His internal energy. In this way He shows concern for what a devotee wants, what a devotee is saying to Him, etc. That is a platform transcendental to the external workings of the material world. Only a very fortunate soul can come to that divine platform of action when he gets a connection with a pure devotee, by surrendering to and serving that authentic devotee (i.e. a devotee who is likewise surrendered to Krishna through His devotee. The first such devotee in our parampara line is Brahma). One who can do that achieves the transcendental platform. But without surrender and without service under the guidance of a vaisnava, he remains in contact only with the external energy. Everything in that unsurrendered state is going on according to the laws of material nature, according to the mundane administrative arrangement of the Lord.

To understand these things in detail may be difficult for the conditioned soul because it is a great science. Still, in a general way we can understand the basics as explained in the Bhagavad-gita. Our purpose is not to simply continue in the material consciousness of life. Material consciousness is an unsurrendered stage of existence - a stage where we are rather tying to lord it over and exploit the resources of the material nature. That attitude is putting us under the control of the modes of material nature or the three gunas. For that reason we will have to work according to the actions and reactions of those modes.

A devotee, therefore, wants to take complete shelter at the lotus feet of the Lord’s devotees, and wants to learn how to come under the control of the antaranga sakti, which is the internal energy or Will of the Lord, the transcendental energy of the Lord. By the grace of Guru, by the grace of sadhu, by the grace of vaisnava we can gradually come under the control of that internal energy by accepting their guidance. Their influence can take us to the stage where we can come under the full control of the antaranga sakti, the transcendental energy of the Lord. Hence one has to approach a devotee in the proper mood of humility. And even then ‘approach’ means to humbly submit ourselves to the divine will that descends through Krishna’s devotee and in that way come under the influence of the internal energy by their grace. In that way we can enter the higher world, the service world, where all are serving, dedicating units.

We are always under the influence of something. We think that in this material world we are independent, but actually we are under the influence of maya sakti, the external energy of the Lord. By changing our attitude from that of exploitation to dedication it is possible for us to come under the influence of the internal energy of the Lord.  One who engages in unselfish devotional service, sacrificing everything for the service to the Lord, will gradually be allowed to enter the divine world. Under the influence of that world his whole life will be magically transformed.

Pure devotees exist in this world to help us in our journey back to Godhead, so we must always remember that Gurudeva is not an ordinary person. Guru actually serves as a function of the Supreme Lord. Guru is the Supreme Lord’s function of gathering up the conditioned souls and taking them back to Godhead. Guru takes them back to the lotus feet of the Lord. That is the real meaning of Guru – one who can direct us in that way. And wherever that function is found we should bow our head there and try to serve so that we can assume our spiritual position in the world of service. It is foolish and suicidal to give resistance to the manifest form of such divine mercy.

Our proper position, constitutional position, is that we are the eternal servants of the Supreme Lord. What we are is very important to understand, and we should not minimize the scientific process given in the scriptures for achieving our constitutional vocation. We may be very careful not to minimize that by taking this process cheaply, i.e. approaching guru while retaining some mundane purposes. Rather we want to cooperate fully with the agents of the Lord and thus attain our true position as spiritual beings, endeavoring our utmost to go back home, back to Godhead.

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

H.H. Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaj also discussed the second sloka of the Nasadiya sutras from the Rg veda. [Nasadiya Sukta, Rigveda, Canto 10, Hymn 129. (English rendering by Ralph T.H. Griffith, 1889)]

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.

Maharaja’s commentary.

It is mentioned here in an obscure language that temporality or time is absent by invoking the absence of death. Without time there is no space or anything occupying space, and no movement. The word death or mortal also refers to that which is finite. Whatever is finite has limit in time and space. For example, a stone is a finite thing, because there is a space in which the stone exists and then at its limit there is a space where it does not exist. It only goes on to a certain extent and then it ceases to be. The stone is there, held in your hand. It has certain boundary. It has certain size. If we determine its size, then you know there exists a place where there is no stone – the boundary. So in that sense we can say that that is where the stone is dead or dies. Beyond a certain limit, the stone dies and becomes air. Air is outside the limit of stone, and what is outside or beyond the limit of stone, we can call it the death of the stone where the stone does not exist anymore. So the stone has a certain space where it exists and a certain space where it does not exist. Therefore we call it finite.

But that which exists without limit, does not have any boundary. That which does not cease to exist in space is called infinite. And that which does not cease to exist in time, we can call that immortal. This sloka is saying there was no death - meaning there was nothing finite or temporal, and neither was there anything infinite or immortal. So this represents a stage of complete lack of all determination. Nothing was there to be determined. This explains something like the impersonal conception of Brahman, which is the indeterminate or undifferentiated aspect of Brahman. There was nothing there to which a reference could be made. And this idea is again reinforced by the next sentence which says that no sign was there. Even the distinction between day and night was not there. This again indicates the lack of any determination.

What is meant by sign? The word ‘sign’ implies representation. A sign indicates that there must be something there to signify or represent. So the idea of signifying or representing is implied by the word sign. Thus three things are present since the action of signifying implies that a signifier, sign and thing signified must exist. Therefore, what it is being presented here is that if there is no sign then there is nothing to be signified. For example, ‘day’ signifies that there is light – or that the sun is out. Where there is no sign, there is also nothing to signify, and therefore nothing to distinguish as one thing being different from another. That state of complete indetermination or complete indifference we call that the impersonal conception of Brahman - where there is no differentiation, no duality of any kind. That is the way the impersonalists understand Brahman. Of course, Vaisnavas understand Brahman differently. Brahman does not carry the same undifferentiated meaning for Vaisnavas who accept the indeterminate universality of Brahman as only an abstract moment of the intrinsically dynamic differentiation within Brahman.

For the Vaisnavas, Brahman does not mean that there is no distinction. Rather Brahman implies that no distinction has been made. No consciousness is active there or it is simply remaining in a deep sleeping stage. Just as in this world some people are not making proper discrimination about things. We can say they are sleeping in this world – or they have a sleeping consciousness. For instance, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant called his unconsciousness of the real meaning of causality,  “dogmatic slumber.”

What is the soul and what is the body? Those who don’t make any distinction between body and soul consider that everything is merely the physical body. They make no distinction between body, mind and soul. However, that does not mean that the distinction is not there.  Animals also make no such distinction, so at that level they are like the animals. But distinction is there - the soul is there, mind is there, even if some people are not making a distinction of those things. They have no knowledge of that distinction, and thus no awareness or consciousness of that fact. This merging of what is actually distinct into indeterminate oneness is similar to the impersonal conception of Brahman.

If individuals have no consciousness of something then for them it appears as if it is not there. However it may actually be there, but they are not taking any note of it. They do not notice it due to their absorption in particular ways of living, or thinking or their particular stage of awareness. So when awareness is not awakened, then one may be in at a stage of making no distinctions and consider things to be indeterminate. The finer determination of things is there but only by coming in contact with those who have knowledge of that distinction, then we may also learn from them how to become aware of it. What is already there is not known to the sleeping consciousness, but is known to the awakened sage.

You can hear this Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga at 

1. http://www.mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/17_August_2008_HH_BMPS_BI_Weekly_Satsanga_1.m3u 
2. http://www.mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/17_August_2008_HH_BMPS_BI_Weekly_Satsanga_2.m3u 

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

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” and thus a platform is proposed to help distinguish the human being from that of other form of living beings exist in the universe.  

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/MirrorMirrorEvidence.htm 

—————————————————————————

     Thinking is an activity. Knowing is an activity. That means consciousness is also an activity. Hegel said that the “I” is pure restlessness, pure activity, or pure negativity. Activity means change. And whatever changes must negate its present situation in order to change or appear in another situation. For a flying arrow its present position in space must be negated in order to move to a further position in space. The tensed bowstring imparts the force to the arrow for its movement or its negation of place to take occur. But in the case of thinking, what is the force that is activating it? According to Aristotle, thinking moves itself. It is self active or spontaneous. For him, thought thinking itself is God. This must not be misconceived as our thought or finite thought, but the Infinite or Pure Thought of the Absolute, from which all other finite movement comes.

When thought reflects upon itself, i.e. when thinking thinks about thinking, this self-reflection is what is called I. So we can understand why Aristotle called this God. The “I” also means identity. When I ask what is my real identity, I am asking, “who am I?” When someone wants to establish your identity, they want to know who you are.

      Identity is generally thought to refer to a numerical unity or one. However, that is not the case, because identity is a comparative term. In other words two things are required. Identical twins refer to two bodies. Even self-identity requires thought as subject, dealing with itself, its own thought, as object. So it apprehends itself by dividing itself. Or it reflects upon itself, i.e. makes itself object to itself as subject. In this way we say “I.”

     Consciousness is subjective and has an object of consciousness. But consciousness can also be conscious of itself. In that case it is called self-consciousness or Ego. Consciousness can also take different forms or shapes, such as knowing, thinking, feeling or willing. In that case it is called Mind. It can also take the form of a sensuous object. In that case it is called sentient. Behind or implicit to all these different forms, however, is thinking, although it may not be explicit to the consciousness when it is in its different forms.

     Depending on the different forms of consciousness an individual may not be able to access all the other forms of consciousness. Some may not be able to access their mathematical intelligence, or others their literary intelligence, or linguistic intelligence, etc. Some may not be able to access their artistic ability, and different forms of life, such as animals, are not able to access their thinking capacity. They are able to feel, and usually have strong feelings, and senses, but thinking is not accessible to them, even though it is there implicitly even in animals. Thus Man is called a rational animal. He is distinguished by his ability to think, and not merely act instinctively.

     For knowing, what is the necessary requirement? Knowing that an object is there is one requirement, but it is also required to know what the object is. These are not the same thing. Knowing that something is there refers to its being, but knowing what is there requires a determination of its being or determinate being. And what does that require? Determination requires thought or the explicit thinking aspect of consciousness, which we have explained is constituent of consciousness. Thinking, or the content of thinking, is what constitutes our personality, or the person. In order to be a person, there must be consciousness, but more significantly, when we say, ‘I,’ we must be thinking, as Descartes claimed.

     When the true knowledge or consciousness of the self or ‘I’ and our relationship with God are unknown or we are unconscious of that, then the individual in ignorance identifies with a limited or vitiated form of consciousness, and that is called the false ego.

     We can understand that there is a restricted (or conditioned) and unrestricted (or liberated) sense of self. In the unrestricted or universal sense, 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. The body may be young, old, or middle-aged. The body keeps on changing - the situations of the body keep on changing, but ‘I’ remains the same. Just like the river Ganges, sometimes it overflows, sometimes it even changes its course, sometimes it has less water, sometimes more water. The water is always moving, changing, but still the flowing river is always identified as the Ganges. This means that the Ganges is something universal, i.e. it is an idea that is not associated merely with some particular sensuous experience. Similarly, the body is particular, the mental state is particular: sometimes we are happy, and sometimes we are unhappy. The mind is changing, the body is changing, but the ‘I’ remains the same.

     So the ‘I’ is of a different categorical nature than the situations that the ‘I’ identifies with. Thus we can categorize ‘I’ as a universal entity that is, moreover, not an entity or thing, but pure activity, as we explained before. However the ‘I’ is also not infinitely universal. Mathematicians know that there are different types of infinity, some larger than others. In other words, I can know from a first person perspective what is going on with my body, but not what is going on with yours. So the universality of my ‘I’ is limited. ‘I’ is a universal, but it is a limited universal. So the proper term would be infinitesimal, as our infinity is limited.

     Human beings are special among all the creators of the universe, because they have developed thinking to a very high degree of abstraction, and due to that they can understand a concept like ‘I’. Non human creators can’t say ‘I’, because their thinking is not so exclusively developed. Thus it is not possible for them to think: “Why am I suffering?” They must simply suffer their fate, unhappily, no doubt.

     What is the influence of the negative activity or the activity of thinking on the positive activity of the body and vise versa? We can’t say “positive” if there is no negative. There is relation; one can’t exist without the other. They are related although they are totally opposite. In electricity we have negative and positive charges, and in a magnet north pole and south pole, but they are complete opposites. Thinking can’t be detected by the senses. But if what we think about is a sensuous object then it has a positive significance to us. We call the experience of the sensuous or empirical field positivity. But we also experience thinking, and since it is not sensuous experience we can call it negativity.

     The negative is always related to the positive, and positive is always related to the negative. For example an object, say, a dog is here and a cow is there. From a sense point of view the dog and cow can be felt, seen, smelled and so on. But thinking or making the judgment that, here is the dog, there is the cow is not a sense activity. The determination that what is in front of me is a cow is not a sense determination, it is a judgment. I see some black, some white, some long, some big, some different qualities. I am seeing, but the judgment of what that I am seeing, that is coming from another place and not from the senses.

     There are so many things in this world that are black, white, small and long. However, this information is not enough to say that, that thing is a cow. Senses can only detect the qualities of the thing like color, the shape, the weight, the hardness and the softness. But to determine what that thing is, requires another principle that is a non sensuous principle. Thus it is above the senses.

     The word cow, the idea cow doesn’t come from the senses. It comes from the mind or the thinking. That is called judgment. To say ‘this is’ and then give it a name means to judge what this is. When we say ‘this’, we utter an ‘indexical’ or referential word - an abstract thing. ‘This’ refers to everything and thus ‘this’ is indeterminate. To determine what ‘this’ is requires a judgment or determination. Determining of ‘this’ means thinking is involved. To think what ‘this’ is, to give some definition to this, is called determination or thought.

     So from where does the thought of cow come? The word or idea is coming from thought. From where the thought of cow is coming we don’t actually know. That may not be the word cow, it may me ‘go’ in Sanskrit. ‘go’ and cow are the same word actually, they sound the same, they come from the same word. The original word was ‘go’ and in English it came down to cow. But from where the original word ‘go’ came from we can’t say.

        From all of this, I hope we can see that identity is a very important idea. Scientists don’t know much about it. They use it, but like “cow” and so many other words, they don’t know much about what they are saying or what they are doing. Still, identity is a very fundamental concept for them. For example, scientists think only in terms of atoms and molecules. For them identity means the atom. The atom, in chemistry, generally retains its identity regardless of whatever situation it is in. For scientists the atom or molecule is the basic principle of identity. They are the things that maintain their identity throughout time and throughout different circumstances or situations.

     The identity of the carbon atom remains throughout all its occurrences in chemistry. Of course in physics, from the nuclear principle it is different. Carbon can be broken down into neutron, proton, electron and all those subatomic particles become the principle identities. But otherwise, the carbon atom is the same in a rose and a caterpillar. How can we distinguish the carbon which is present in both rose and caterpillar? Scientists can’t speak about what distinguishes the carbon in a rose and a caterpillar, because their focus for identity is based upon atoms and molecules only. This is foolishness. They are not realizing that they are invoking the category of identity at a very low level, or one specific level. But the idea of identity exists at the grass level, at the caterpillar level, at the cow level, at the man level, at the level of a planet and earth. We can find identities at all levels, and they cannot all be encompassed at the level of the identity of atoms.

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

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.

You can download this Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga at

You can listen this Transcendental Nectar of Satsanga at

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