posted February 15, 2008 03:38 PM         

according to Linda Goodman ~

quote:

---

It’s worth noting that the percentage of carnivorous opposed to vegetarian fish closely matches the current percentage of carnivorous opposed to vegetarian humans. There are other meaningful reflections between animal and human habits, and the former imitate the latter, not the other way around…There are many examples in the fish and animal world proving that the carnivorous aspect of the “food chain,” so holy to biologists, is not a necessity for healthy survival. Jungle animals who eat the flesh of other animals? Regardless of what you learned in school about Darwin’s theory, men taught animals to be carnivorous. There was no blood shed in Eden, when this earth was an “Eden Heaven,” many millions of years before the Atlantean, Lemurian, and Paleolithic periods, about which more in chapter 9. If cows and calves, sheep and lambs, mama and papa and baby monkeys and gorillas, giraffes and hippos can survive in good health as vegetarians, there’s no reason why lions, tigers, leopards, and others can’t do the same, given enough time to restore their digestive organs back to their original state.

---

from her book Star Signs

posted February 16, 2008 03:56 AM         

here's what she says of modern science ~

quote:

---

“…modern science is to date, about as synonymous with the word unenlightened as you can get…”

“…To be precise, it’s not sunrise and sunset anyway. It’s earthrise and earthset. But science has so many things upside down and backwards, I suppose it’s to be expected that their terminology for the Earth’s trips around the Sun would be the same.”

---

also, some profound words of gentle wisdom and kindness ~

quote:

---

“As with Love Signs, Star Signs contains a number of controversial concepts of a moral, philosophical, and intellectual nature, in the areas of science and religion…They are presented here as truth, and will be recognized as such by many of you – just as they may be viewed as otherwise by some.

I’ve shared my personal discoveries of truth with you because I believe that any kind of search implies an obligation to exchange with others what has been found, in the interest of hastening the sunrise of harmony on Earth, the ultimate Peace.

However, I do not ask – nor do I even expect – any of you to regard my concepts as your truth, unless they should happen to agree with your own personal convictions.

Partial truth – the seed of wisdom – can be found in many places. In primal instinct may partial truth be found…in earthly law, in social custom, scientific research, philosophy and religious doctrine…But real Truth can be found in one place only – in every man’s and woman’s communion with an eternal Source of hidden Knowledge within – which each individual must seek and find for himself or herself.”

---

posted February 16, 2008 01:09 PM         

quote:

---

Partial truth – the seed of wisdom – can be found in many places. In primal instinct may partial truth be found…in earthly law, in social custom, scientific research, philosophy and religious doctrine…But real Truth can be found in one place only – in every man’s and woman’s communion with an eternal Source of hidden Knowledge within – which each individual must seek and find for himself or herself.”

---

posted February 16, 2008 02:05 PM         

Try to avoid turning Linda into some martyr for your own personal politics. What's next, the inquisition and killing in the name of Linda?

posted February 16, 2008 06:00 PM         

Linda Goodman made a conscientious statement about those who might not find truth in everything she says, and asked specifically that people seek the truth in their own hearts, and not the propaganda of the religious or scientific or any other new age creed. she was kind and gentle about that.

to give her words a thumbsdown, and rant about what a bad astrologer she is and call her ideas myth, is not affording her the same respect she does with her words. to do so on a site devoted to her ideas is disconcerting and unfair to her. it isn't the same as stating disagreement. neither is stating in absolutes the untruth of her words.

i don't agree with every single thing she wrote either, but i appreciate that she encouraged exactly that, in her own gentle way. why is it so necessary to be so rude and dogmatic about those here who do treasure what she taught?

if Mystic Melody is referring to me as the person making Linda Goodman into a martyr, saying snarky things about an inquisition and killing and insults about a balanced perspective, well, really what's the hysterical point, except that she loves a chance to insult those she despises when she sees a chance to pounce?

i quoted some Linda Goodman words here, as this being a site designed to promote her ideas in a positive way, i enjoy visiting this site and doing just that. and because i made a statement about how she encouraged us all to seek our truth, in a respectful way, it's martyrdom, personal politics, killing, inquisition and personal insults?

more likely it's simply personal, with a smoldering hate that Melody has and loves to stoke. is it so difficult to just state that you disagree with her ideas, and leave it at that?

why come to her website for the purpose of insulting those who find truth and wisdom in her work?

what's the point of dispersing such vehemence and hate? are you just bored?

posted February 16, 2008 06:12 PM         

You're the only person here I don't like and I hadn't fully decided that until just now. I think it's clear why.

posted February 16, 2008 06:39 PM         

and you're either a liar or know yourself very little by making the statement about disliking me. you yourself have made that very clear quite often.

posted February 16, 2008 07:01 PM         

let me draw your attention to a remarkable phenomenon. the second half of the nineteenth century saw the spectacular rise of a particular scientific trend, namely, the explanation of living nature linked with the name of Darwin. enthusiastic scholarly researchers and their enthusiastic pupils carried this trend forward throughout the latter decades of the nineteenth century. I may even here have mentioned the extraordinary development to which this led. as early as the 1860s a gigantic movement came into being under the leadership of Haeckel, a movement that strove to throw aside everything that was old and redesign the whole view of the world to fit in with Darwin's concepts. even today there are still those who stress how grand and important it would be if instead of having a wisdom-filled guidance for the universe we could have explained on the basis of Darwinism how everything has come into being...Oscar Hertwig is one of Haeckel's most important pupils...

at the end of his excellent and fine book, Oscar Hertwig states that a world view of the kind put forward by Darwin is more than merely a theoretical construct, for it affects the whole of people's lives right down into what they do, want, feel and think. He says:

interpretations of Darwin's theory, which is so ambiguous owing to its very vagueness, have made it applicable in a great variety of ways to other realms of economic, social and political life. as though from a Delphic oracle it has been possible to take whatever one wanted and make use of it with reference to social, political, health, medical and other questions by using the science of a Darwinistically reworked biology with its unalterable laws to back up one's claims. if, however, these presumed laws, are in fact no such thing, does this not mean that there could be social dangers in applying them so variously to other fields? do not believe that human society can spend half a century using such phrases as 'the inexorable struggle for existence', 'the survival of the fittest, of the most useful, of the most suitable', 'perfection through selective breeding' and so on as freely as eating it daily bread without finding its ideas becoming more deeply and more persistently influenced by them! it would not be hard to find many phenomena to prove that this is happening, and this is the very reason why judgement as to whether Darwinism is true or erroneous has implications far beyond the scope of the biological sciences.

posted February 16, 2008 07:04 PM         

I don't dislike many people. I dislike a lot of behavior, but I focus so much on the redeeming qualities of people that the behavior has to be unusually extreme to really earn my disapproval.

The only person I have ever come close to "spitting venom" at (in your words) is Mirandee and that's because I cared about her and she hurt me. The strong and angry words of disagreement (from our meeting over a year or so ago?) I used about the random person who attacked Steve because of his opinion of a website (that you attacked me for using) might qualify, but I have seen worse. I only spit venom at those I love. If I don't care about you or what you think, your attacks hurt, but I am able to see it as something I am meant to transmute. I don't take it personally.

posted February 16, 2008 07:20 PM         

I love much of what HSC says, and i disagree with him at times as well. funny how you describe yourself as 'disagreeing' and me as 'attacking'. in the one of many irrelevant, uninspiring and trivial incidents you mention, i was defending a person, not attacking you. your typical words of vehemence were there in order to dis those who threatened your territorial domain over HSC. i'm really so uninterested in that subject however, that i find quite a distaste in even acknowledging it.

you certainly seem to feel something personal and venomous in your initial post here though. if that isn't venomous then, yikes, what is venomous for you must be poisonous and detrimental in the extreme.

posted February 16, 2008 07:49 PM         

I think it's clear to anyone with reading comprehension skills who is doing the attacking and hating around here.

You can be happy now. I think you are quite repulsive. You also might want to consider your own delusions. This is what I wrote that is so venom and hate filled and warlike and pouncing and smoldering and vehement:

quote:

---

What? Is loving Linda some religion now with proper dogma to be followed?

Try to avoid turning Linda into some martyr for your own personal politics. What's next, the inquisition and killing in the name of Linda?

---

It may not have been surrounded by hearts and flowers but your are quite nuts if you think that it is in your words:

quote:

---

how sad to claw your way into this thread with insults and meanness just in order to satisfy your bloodthirst

---

I just didn't trust you and wasn't sure I liked you. (Looks like my intuition was right on.) And I didn't like how you treated me when we met. I think it's clear that you are the one here with the problem and unhappiness with people and life. Good luck with that.

Yeah and about talking crap about my love for Steve and calling me territorial and saying how you don't even care blah blah blah...
me thinks you dost protest too much and all that cool Shakespearian lingo.

Here we go again... what I always say... such venom this Libra has... I'm not fighting with you. If you want to keep fighting you will have to find someone else who likes to fight and go on and on and on and on to entertain yourself. Don't worry, I won't ever post on one of your threads again... oh wait, this wasn't your thread, it was a Great Quote by Linda thread. Talk about territorial. I just don't think we should pick apart what Linda says to further our own particular causes. Her main message is to love and teach each other and respect differences. That is what my first post was trying to say, and you have proved my point.

posted February 16, 2008 08:13 PM         

the hatred seeping from your enmity actually reeks of sulfur.

quote:

---

What? Is loving Linda some religion now with proper dogma to be followed?

Try to avoid turning Linda into some martyr for your own personal politics. What's next, the inquisition and killing in the name of Linda?

(This isn't referring to anyone with a balanced perspective in case that isn't clear.)

---

please refer to the entirety of what you posted. it was so way out of proportion in relation to what i posted about Linda's truth and having respect for others' truth, it's ludicrous. and your reaction continues to be explosive and out of proportion in the extreme. please re-read who is talking about not caring about people. not i -- but you. i said that i am quite uninterested in discussing the territorial ferocity you display over even the slightest mention of HSC. and you illustrate my point unbelievably well. lol.

i'm not fighting with you Mystic Melody, but your disillusions about your anger, hate and skewed perspectives have made this thread a travesty for no other reason than to express your suppressed hatred and bile.

how easy would it be to disagree without being insulting and rude and then let the discussion resume? apparently beyond your fraudulent claims to be the spiritual person you always so loudly trumpet.

posted February 16, 2008 08:25 PM         

many people have gleaned great insight from Linda Goodman's understanding of these notions, and learned that her causes are valid and worthwhile. to try to twist it around in the demeaning way that you have, simply for the purpose of slinging insults, superiority and hatred, by referring to it as someone else's personal politics, trivializes what Linda Goodman believed.

we are here to discuss what she believed and how it transformed our lives. does your hatred render you so blind and sad and full of ill will that you must find a way to destroy that for us, tarnishing Linda Goodman's name as well?? good god.

your post in this thread was in response to what i quoted Linda Goodman as teaching. therefore, it really isn't judicious or very intelligent sounding to refer to that as "territorial".

posted February 16, 2008 08:38 PM         

the following is the case for spiritual science, such as that disclosed by Linda Goodman, from a lecture given by Rudolf Steiner ~

let me draw your attention to a remarkable phenomenon. the second half of the nineteenth century saw the spectacular rise of a particular scientific trend, namely, the explanation of living nature linked with the name of Darwin. enthusiastic scholarly researchers and their enthusiastic pupils carried this trend forward throughout the latter decades of the nineteenth century. I may even here have mentioned the extraordinary development to which this led. as early as the 1860s a gigantic movement came into being under the leadership of Haeckel, a movement that strove to throw aside everything that was old and redesign the whole view of the world to fit in with Darwin's concepts. even today there are still those who stress how grand and important it would be if instead of having a wisdom-filled guidance for the universe we could have explained on the basis of Darwinism how everything has come into being...Oscar Hertwig is one of Haeckel's most important pupils...

at the end of his excellent and fine book, Oscar Hertwig states that a world view of the kind put forward by Darwin is more than merely a theoretical construct, for it affects the whole of people's lives right down into what they do, want, feel and think. He says:

interpretations of Darwin's theory, which is so ambiguous owing to its very vagueness, have made it applicable in a great variety of ways to other realms of economic, social and political life. as though from a Delphic oracle it has been possible to take whatever one wanted and make use of it with reference to social, political, health, medical and other questions by using the science of a Darwinistically reworked biology with its unalterable laws to back up one's claims. if, however, these presumed laws, are in fact no such thing, does this not mean that there could be social dangers in applying them so variously to other fields? do not believe that human society can spend half a century using such phrases as 'the inexorable struggle for existence', 'the survival of the fittest, of the most useful, of the most suitable', 'perfection through selective breeding' and so on as freely as eating it daily bread without finding its ideas becoming more deeply and more persistently influenced by them! it would not be hard to find many phenomena to prove that this is happening, and this is the very reason why judgement as to whether Darwinism is true or erroneous has implications far beyond the scope of the biological sciences.

posted February 16, 2008 08:49 PM         

Ok, I see why you are so ****** now. I thought it was bordering on insanity and obsession. I remember the girl who made the brownie comment (you) but if you used another name I wouldn't have known, but then it just took me time to remember your old name was niaid so it is probably just my air sign memory. I should have remembered that it was you when you first got mad at my actions on that thread and I didn't like what you said to me, though. That might not have made sense but I'm trying to say I am surprised I didn't remember that. I remember looking up your name and seeing that it meant water nymph and that I thought that was beautiful. I had some memory issues last fall so that might have contributed. All I can say is that in remembering the brownie moment, my heart filled with love for you.
And it is constantly obvious to me that my words are misunderstood and create hostility in people and I am genuinely trying to be kind and friendly almost all of the time. 90% of the time. There is 7% or so of selfish self interest and the other %3 divided into reactions of "what a bunch of b.s.!" and "are you kidding me!?" and plain out "grrrrrrr", but still, I am seriously surprised at things like this and how people view my words.
I am sad that only the "she was mean to me!" and "now she won't even talk to me" is what remained in my head and I forgot about the brownies. That really did add some love and healing to my heart and I am still grateful to you for that. It is sad that I didn't remember THAT and the hurt is what I held until we stopped speaking. You are right about that being un-spiritual, whatever that means. That is something I hope to work on. I'd like to always remember the love... because that is all that is true.

I'm glad we had this talk and I don't know how to help you not feel angry toward me, but I'll be remembering the brownies. Now I HOPE you aren't mean to me in the future because I probably WILL take it personally. hehe

My first post, so you know, was more of an attempt to mediate (got what I deserved ) while sharing what I felt was obvious and true, and the bottom comment about balance was not meant to be an insult, it was meant to be a disclaimer that I wasn't sure if my comment needed to be directed firmly to anyone, but if anyone was arguing to an extreme (instead of balanced) it would apply. I was surprised that you chose to add that to what I quoted as being an important part of illustrating how hate filled the comment appeared. That was my "if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply" disclaimer.

posted February 16, 2008 09:06 PM         

i don't mind that your perspective differs from mine. differing view points are good...they keep us sharp, eh? and i don't mind that you dislike me. it's really ok.

posted February 16, 2008 09:28 PM         

I give up

This is why I only try to get along with a few people. Most people are too much work. I try to be kind, I try to be fun, I try to appreciate other's efforts, I try to add to the happiness of others and help them look at the sun if they seem unhappy in the darkness. I can't spend all of my energy deflecting your anger and soothing your upset when you take my words whatever ****** up way you feel like taking them at the moment.

I'm exhausted and I have nothing left to give. Think whatever you want about me. I really don't care. You aren't the first to not see me and you won't be the last.

I'll tell you one thing though. I may not be some perfect spiritual princess that so many try to put off on me, but I TRY really hard to be kind and fair and peaceful. So, I don't think the problem is in me. I think it is in some people's dark perceptions. (And no, I'm not just talking about you or even MAINLY talking about you or anybody else reading this can't forget to say that!, not that I am in any way REQUIRED to explain that to save you from getting ****** off again.)

%&&*^%*(% !!!!!!!!!

posted February 20, 2008 02:38 PM         

the following is the case for spiritual science, such as that disclosed by Linda Goodman, from a lecture given by Rudolf Steiner ~

let me draw your attention to a remarkable phenomenon. the second half of the nineteenth century saw the spectacular rise of a particular scientific trend, namely, the explanation of living nature linked with the name of Darwin. enthusiastic scholarly researchers and their enthusiastic pupils carried this trend forward throughout the latter decades of the nineteenth century. I may even here have mentioned the extraordinary development to which this led. as early as the 1860s a gigantic movement came into being under the leadership of Haeckel, a movement that strove to throw aside everything that was old and redesign the whole view of the world to fit in with Darwin's concepts. even today there are still those who stress how grand and important it would be if instead of having a wisdom-filled guidance for the universe we could have explained on the basis of Darwinism how everything has come into being...Oscar Hertwig is one of Haeckel's most important pupils...

at the end of his excellent and fine book, Oscar Hertwig states that a world view of the kind put forward by Darwin is more than merely a theoretical construct, for it affects the whole of people's lives right down into what they do, want, feel and think. He says:

interpretations of Darwin's theory, which is so ambiguous owing to its very vagueness, have made it applicable in a great variety of ways to other realms of economic, social and political life. as though from a Delphic oracle it has been possible to take whatever one wanted and make use of it with reference to social, political, health, medical and other questions by using the science of a Darwinistically reworked biology with its unalterable laws to back up one's claims. if, however, these presumed laws, are in fact no such thing, does this not mean that there could be social dangers in applying them so variously to other fields? do not believe that human society can spend half a century using such phrases as 'the inexorable struggle for existence', 'the survival of the fittest, of the most useful, of the most suitable', 'perfection through selective breeding' and so on as freely as eating it daily bread without finding its ideas becoming more deeply and more persistently influenced by them! it would not be hard to find many phenomena to prove that this is happening, and this is the very reason why judgement as to whether Darwinism is true or erroneous has implications far beyond the scope of the biological sciences.

posted February 20, 2008 02:38 PM         

DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEBUNKED

Darwin's Theory of Evolution, as presented in his book "Origin of Species" has been widely accepted as fact, although it is based on Darwin's fallible speculations. His critics write, "If the theory of natural selection of Darwin is correct, why can't we see the intermediate forms of species, the connecting links?" Darwin did not have the answer nor the archeological evidence to back it up. Although there is ample evidence for many species, fossil records provide almost no evidence for the intermediate connecting links.

Later, scientists revised Darwin's theory with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" evolutionary theory, supposedly making evolution invisible in the fossil record. Yet this theory is not verifiable in any way and is highly speculative.

An interesting article appeared recently in Pravda, in Russia, which gives an excellent argument against Darwinism. The article follows:

Where Are All the Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?

BY: BABU G. RANGANATHAM

June 7, RUSSIA (PRAVDA) — Millions of people are taught that the fossil record furnishes proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved dinosaurs or other creatures?

The fossil record contains fossils of only complete and fully-formed species. There are no fossils of partially-evolved species to indicate that a gradual process of evolution ever occurred. Even among evolutionists there are diametrically different interpretations and reconstructions of the fossils used to support human evolution from a supposed ape-like ancestry.

Even if evolution takes millions and millions of years, we should still be able to see some stages of its process. But, we simply don't observe any partially-evolved fish, frogs, lizards, birds, dogs, cats among us. Every species of plant and animal is complete and fully-formed.

Another problem is how could partially-evolved plant and animal species survive over millions of years when their basic organs and tissues were still in the process of evolving? How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if there respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still evolving?

In fact, precisely because of this problem more and more modern evolutionists are adopting a new theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium which says that plant and animal species evolved suddenly from one kind to another and that is why we don't see evidence of partially-evolved species in the fossil record. Of course, we have to accept their word on blind faith because there is no way to prove or disprove what they are saying. These evolutionists claim that something like massive bombardment of radiation resulted in mega mutations in species which produced "instantaneous" changes from one life form to another. The nature and issue of mutations will be discussed later and the reader will see why such an argument is not viable.

The fact that animal and plant species are found fully formed and complete in the fossil record is powerful evidence (although not proof) for creation because it is evidence that they came into existence as fully formed and complete which is possible only by creation.

Evolutionists claim that the genetic and biological similarities between species is evidence of common ancestry. However, that is only one interpretation of the evidence. Another possibility is that the comparative similarities are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life. Neither position can be scientifically proved.

Although Darwin was partially correct by showing that natural selection occurs in nature, the problem is that natural selection itself is not a creative force. Natural selection can only work with those biological variations that are possible. The evidence from genetics supports only the possibility for horizontal evolution (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but not vertical evolution (i.e. from fish to human). Unless Nature has the ability to perform genetic engineering vertical evolution will not be possible.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body during this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

Modern science has shown that there are genetic limits to evolution or biological change in nature. Again, all biological variations, whether they are beneficial to survival or not, are possible only within the genetic potential and limits of a biological kind such as the varieties among dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.

Variations across biological kinds such as humans evolving from ape-like creatures and apes, in turn, evolving from dog-like creatures and so on, as Darwinian evolutionary theory teaches, are not possible unless Nature has the capability of performing genetic engineering.

Biological variations are determined by the DNA or genetic code of species. The DNA molecule is actually a molecular string of various nucleic acids which are arranged in a sequence just like the letters in a sentence. It is this sequence in DNA that tells cells in the body how to construct various tissues and organs.

The common belief among evolutionists is that random mutations in the genetic code over time will produce entirely new sequences for new traits and characteristics which natural selection can then act upon resulting in entirely new species. Evolutionists consider mutations to be a form of natural genetic engineering.

However, the very nature of mutations precludes such a possibility. Mutations are accidental changes in the sequential structure of the genetic code caused by various random environmental forces such as radiation and toxic chemicals.

Almost all true mutations are harmful, which is what one would normally expect from accidents. Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there will be thousands of harmful ones with the net result over time being disastrous for the species.

Most biological variations, however, are the result of new combinations of previously existing genes - not because of mutations.

Furthermore, mutations simply produce new varieties of already existing traits. For example, mutations in the gene for human hair may change the gene so that another type of human hair develops, but the mutations won't change the gene so that feathers or wings develop.

Sometimes mutations may trigger the duplication of already existing traits (i.e. an extra finger, toe, or even an entire head, even in another area of the body!). But mutations have no ability to produce entirely new traits or characteristics.

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties and races of people could have descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible teaches. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, our first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the varieties and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but Adam and Eve did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry the genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

What we believe about life's origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

The law of entropy in science shows that the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity. In other words, the universe cannot be eternal and requires a beginning.

It is only fair that school students be exposed to the scientific arguments and evidence on both sides of the creation/evolution issue.

REAL KNOWLEDGE

Vedic Literature
We suggest that a body of knowledge does exist which provides sufficient explanation of the nature and origin of the universe and the living organisms that inhabit it. We refer to the ancient sanskrit Vedic literatures of India, an internally and externally verifiable and consistent presentation of information. Herein we find profuse descriptions of an intelligent creator god and his creation.

Bhagavad Gita
Perhaps the most well known of these literatures, The Bhagavad-gita explains the nature of the conscious soul as an indweller in the bodies of various species and it's journey to other bodies after the death of it's present body according to the laws of karma. The living entity has free choice to act properly or improperly and receives the resultant good and bad reactions in terms of success and failure, happiness and distress.

Also encoded within this vast body of literature is a description of the process of bhakti-yoga, a process for obtaining enlightenment and rising beyond the ordinary platform of eating, sleeping, mating and defending. The essence of these teachings may be found in the Bhagavad-gita.