Evolution

[Angrboda]

So the life in matter is hidden or obscured, yet at the same time it's "obvious" and self evident.  You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Your own testimony was that the consciousness in base matter wasn't evident.  As usual, you're just being stupid and inconsistent.
It can't be both hidden and obvious.

As the vision of the sun can be obscured by clouds at the same time is obvious that the sun exist also pure matter can be obscured by her own lack of awareness that she is pure consciousness.
There is no contradiction among the two.

As we can not see the sun when is cloudy we also can not see life in matter when matter is matter.
We however can see consciousness in animals and humans because their consciousness has reached higher level of consciousness.

And you repeat that we cannot see life in matter in the same post when you say:

We can not see life in it but life is there OBVIOUSLY otherwise that kind of matter wouldn't be there in the first place. [emphasis added]

If we can't see life in matter but only in things that aren't base matter, we can't infer anything about whether life exists in matter on the basis of what is in things that are obviously alive and possess consciousness.  That would be like concluding that because I am in America, I am also therefore in France.  It doesn't follow.  As a strict matter, if all we've ever seen in a particular thing are clouds, then we would be totally ignorant about the sun in those cases.  Perhaps the light comes from something behind the clouds, perhaps it does not.  Regardless, as pointed out in the post you said I wrote a book in, I pointed out that the light filtering through the clouds in the case of vibrations points away from the idea that there is the 'sun' of life behind them.  In matter there is essentially no light peeking through the clouds.  It is night, and vibrations provide no evidence of any life. Anyway, you misrepresent my point here, as the only thing I was demonstrating is that we do not have direct evidence of life in vibrations if such life is indeed obscured by clouds, so you were contradicting yourself by saying that the life in vibrations was both obvious and hidden / obscured. So yes, you were contradicting yourself (and any good list of antonyms will prove that point).  As such, you have to rely upon inferences based upon the existence of light filtering through the clouds, since the sun itself is not directly evident.  Have you provided any valid inferences toward that end?  I don't think so.

You are the queen of hypocrite as well.
You say that you believe in science but science contradict the idea that life can come from non life.

Yet more bullshit about how I supposedly contradict science.  The last time you made this claim I challenged you to show one post where I contradicted science.  As usual, you shut your ignorant, lying yap and didn't respond.  The following entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica shows once again that you know fuckall about what you're talking about.

You bring evidence that life can come from non life and LR will cover you in pure gold. (24 carat)  
Organic compounds are NOT non life.
Remember that you FOOL.

We can not see life in it but life is there OBVIOUSLY otherwise that kind of matter wouldn't be there in the first place.
Where there is matter there is life.
Einstein and other scientists already established that.
ARE YOU MORE INTELLIGENT THAT TOP SCIENTISTS or you are just a little smart ass that pretend to know more than intelligent people?

I presume you're here referring to the Einstein quote that, "Everything in life is vibration."  In that, you are misrepresenting him.  In this quote, Einstein is either saying that everything we encounter in life is vibrations, meaning that all are vibrations, or he is saying that in living matter, all is vibrations.  In neither case is he saying that vibrations are alive, nor is he addressing the origins of life.  That subject, abiogenesis, is totally outside his bailiwick.  So, once again, you're just telling lies.  If you have any actual science showing that life can only come from life, then bring it.  Until you do, your claim that "Einstein and other scientists already established that" is nothing but bullshit, and your claim that I contradict science is likewise.

Abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from nonlife more than 3.5 billion years ago on Earth. Abiogenesis proposes that the first life-forms generated were very simple and through a gradual process became increasingly complex. Biogenesis, in which life is derived from the reproduction of other life, was presumably preceded by abiogenesis, which became impossible once Earth’s atmosphere assumed its present composition.

Although many equate abiogenesis with the archaic theory of spontaneous generation, the two ideas are quite different. According to the latter, complex life (e.g., a maggot or mouse) was thought to arise spontaneously and continually from nonliving matter. While the hypothetical process of spontaneous generation was disproved as early as the 17th century and decisively rejected in the 19th century, abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved.

Encyclopedia Britannica || Abiogenesis

As you can see this report say.........abiogenesis has been neither proved nor disproved............further more it does not bring any concrete evidence that life pop up from non life as has never been proved that organic compound are void of life.  

Since that was my point, that science has neither proved nor disproved abiogenesis, thus refuting your claim that I was contradicting science, I don't see your point here.  It's neither my goal here to prove that life came from non-life, nor do I need to do so to refute your position.  You have claimed that life necessarily comes from life and therefore it must be turtles all the way down, that vibrations are alive.  Since you haven't shown that life necessarily comes from life, and neither has science, your 'therefore' necessarily fails and you are left once again without reasons or evidence for believing that vibrations are alive.

Maybe if you hadn't spent so much time with your head stuck up Sarkar's ass, you'd know something about science.  But instead, you wasted your life following a bunch of bullshit based on religious dogma.

1) How can you mention religion when in reality you do not know the difference between religion and spirituality?

You repeatedly confuse 'do' with 'can'.  The fact is I understand what you believe concerning the relationship between spirituality and religion, what I don't do is agree with you on the subject.  Your view on the matter is little more than more Ananda Marga dogma and doesn't reflect reality.  The difference is not as you say.  Your view is neither meaningful nor valid.  However, I have no interest in confronting you over your delusions concerning the matter, nor do I intend to condone your error.  If you feel the need to substute the word "spirituality" where I say "religion," then by all means do.  Disregarding your pecadillo in this area I will continue to refer to what you do as religious, and continue to refer to you as belonging to a religion.  In short, fuck off with your stupid and wrong dogmas about spirituality, religion, and where you fit in that picture.

2) So far all Sarkar predictions have proved correct.
Until the time in which one of Sarkar will be proven wrong your idea that Sarkar teach dogma is your usual fantasy.  

A promise made is not a promise kept.  As usual, you have things ass backwards, Sarkar's claims that you yourself believe without reason or evidence are dogma regardless of what may or may not be true about his opinion on other matters.  This is the case even if he is correct and has adequate support, though you yourself are ignorant of such.  Dogma is about what you do, not about what Sarkar has otherwise done.   As an observer has noted, "Baba had always resisted any pressure to make specific predictions of any sort," so it is little justification to say that his predictions have proved prescient; you cannot win if you do not play.  I could charitably interpret you as making an inductive argument here, but you would be basing that on an insufficiently large sample.  

Regardless, Sarkar has made numerous assertions about how the system works, including claims that necessarily rely upon the claim that vibrations are alive, as well as nonsense like microvita, which is unlikely to pan out (see "Can quantum theory be improved?" for the reasons why microvita are not likely to provide any increase in our understanding of reality and are therefore no different than metaphysical speculation).

Anyway, since you've yet to provide justification for believing vibrations are alive, it remains dogma regardless of what Sarkar may have been correct about otherwise.  That would be like saying that because science has been so successful at explaining other things, science will eventually show that life comes from non-life.  You wouldn't accept such an argument on behalf of science, so you expecting me to accept it on behalf of Sarkar is irrational.

I haven't made a claim in the matter.  You on the other hand have made a claim, namely that vibrations are alive.  So far you've yet to provide any evidence or good reasons for your belief....

Oh, is that true that you haven't make a claim?  
That is bizarre yog.  
You even bring report after report that life come from non life and then you have the audacity to say that you do not make claims?

More lies!  I haven't brought a single report of such, so this is nothing more than a base lie.  Do you think your incessant lying is helping your case?
You on the other hand have repeatedly made the claim that life can only come from life, something for which you've yet to provide any actual support.