[Advaita-l] Concept of soul

[Anbu sivam2]

One more thing I forgot to add.  These two entities - PraaNa and mind
(kaarana sareeram) are the two branches of 'Maya' and Bhagavan Ramana says
in Upadesa saaram: "chitthavaayavascitkriyaayuthaa: saakhayOrdvayee
sakthimoolakaa|

Regards,
Anbu

On 8/25/07, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pranaams to all.
>
> We all have three bodies - sthoola sareeram,  sookshma sareeram and
> kaaraNa sareeram.  In waking state all the three are experienced.  In dream
> state the sthoola sareeram is absent from our experience.  In deep sleep
> both sthoola sareeram and sookshma sareeram are not experienced.  All these
> three bodies even as we say are 'alive' are inert for they are driven by
> praaNa which is an inert entity.
>
> A chicken with its head cut off still jumps around for a little while just
> as a person waking from a nightmare experiences it for a little while in his
> waking state.  So much so there is a lingering 'life' in the blood
> extracted.  This is merely the case of vaasana.
>
> Sthoola sareeram cannot exist without the other two sareerams.  Sookshma
> sareeram can exist without sthoola sareeram but cannot exist without kaaraNa
> sareeram.  KaaraNa sareeram can exist without sookshma sareeram but needs
> praana to sustain it.  KaaraNa sareeram is the ignorant entity, the mind,
> which manifests avidya and vidya (yet ignorant only). It is the  praaNa
> that  enters and leaves the 'body'  where the 'body' is understood as the
> sthoola sareeram.  As it leaves the body, PraaNa takes the sookshma sareeram
> (along with the kaaraNa sareeram as sthoola sareeram cannot exist without
> the kaaraNa sareeram) and as it enters another sthoola sareeram it does so
> with the sookshma sareeram (and the kaaraNa sareeram).  So it is right to
> say that it is the sookshma sareeram that transmigrates. This transmigrating
> 'soul' in vaachyaartham is really unreal! In Lakshyaartham it is the Aathma
> the one without the second.
>
> In advaita our understanding is that there is nothing apart from the
> sentient entity called Aathman.  Somehow I get the feeling that there is lot
> of hairsplitting arguments going on in this discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Anbu
>
>
>
> On 8/24/07, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Pranams Mahesh-ji
> >
> >   When you say "something that can grow and reproduce" is life, it is
> > one way of looking at it, but it is not simple as that. There are many cells
> > in the body - some neurons in your brain for example, which never grow
> > either in size or structure, and which never reproduce. They of course can
> > easily disintegrate and "die". Mere osmosis can make even a dead cell "grow"
> > and not every "living cell" has a capacity to reproduce - a female egg for
> > example - the very origin of species - patiently waits every cycle for an
> > impregantion, failing which it simply disintergates and dies.
> >
> >   The point is "life" relates to a "living entity".
> >   When I cut my finger, a million white blood corpuscles fall to the
> > floor. Now, upto the point that these WBCs lying on the floor "die" they can
> > be said to be "alive" - in fact many of these cells will interact in forming
> > the fibrin gel that will eventually result in that drop of blood clotting -
> > But - can we say "there is a life" in either that drop of blood or in each
> > individual blood cell.
> >   By the same token if you enucleate a cell, and provide certain
> > conditions to the nucleus to survive, it may for some time continue to
> > "live". Now is this nucleus "alive"? And so on...
> >
> >   Same thing with your cells in a petridish. Yes - they are said to be
> > "alive" till they die, but do they constitute life.
> >   "Life" pertains to an individual entity that is alive.
> >
> >   In that sense our white blood cells are not separate living beings. On
> > the other hand the trillions and trillions of flora in our colon are all
> > vitally important to our digestive function but each one of these gazillion
> > bacteria can be construed as one "living entity" - if you try to kill them
> > they will attempt to mutate and develop certain characteristics that build
> > in them resistance to the medicine you are using. They fight wars and
> > vanquish certain pathogenic bacterial colonies that may try to invade your
> > gut. Similarly on our skin, there are trillions and trillions of skin flora
> > - again vitally important for the functioning of the skin - but they are not
> > you and you are not them. Each one of these bacteria is a living entity.
> >
> >   There is a "you" that pervades your gross body and stops pervading it
> > when certain cells leave your body. When one kidney is transplanted from one
> > body to the other - it does not take with it a part of the original "living
> > entity" - that whole "living entity" continues to be whole. And again, if
> > instead of putting the kidney in another body, you put it in a preservative
> > container, yes the kidney is being kept alive, but does "it" have "life" ??
> > - this is the difficulty defining life, in the absence of first defining
> > what a living entity is. Same thing is true with a "nerve-muscle"
> > preparation - I can take a nerve cell attached to a muscle and keep it alive
> > and conduct experiments with it - i can even get the muscle to contract, to
> > fatigue, etc by manipulating their environment - these cells are certainly
> > not "dead" but do they constitute a living thing or a living entity?
> >
> >   Vedanta first defines the living entity - the jiva, and then this jiva
> > takes on gross bodies based on its karmic load.
> >
> >   Lastly, the issue of sensationalism has nothing to do with the quality
> > of the researchers - but a default process that the press resorts to - if
> > you read the article carefully, you realize these guys, undoubtedly
> > brilliant, are eons away from coming close to creating a living cell, and
> > yet the headliner would make it appear as if they pretty much have
> > everything figured out. I would hope that this was not the intention these
> > researchers meant to convey when they were interviewed - there is this small
> > thing called scientific integrity, and that includes refraining from making
> > tall claims wihen the ground realities are starkly contrary.
> >
> >   Again, I doubt you will find any answers in the spiritual realm that
> > would satisfy you from a scientific perspective AND vice vera - the sum
> > total of all of the scientic knowledge in the world is infinitesmally
> > infinitesmal to what is "scientifically" unknown.
> >
> >   yad yad vibhUtimat sattvam srImad Urjitam eva vA
> >   tad tad evAvagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam
> >
> >   Know that All Magnificence, All Glory, and All Opulence in this
> > Universe springs from but a spark of My splendor alone.
> >
> >   Anything that gets "created" - be it a swiss clock, a spacecraft or a
> > human cell - will always be His Splendour and His Sport alone - it is simply
> > recycling of what is manifest.
> >
> >   My prayers and salutations to Him who is beyond what is manifest and
> > what is unmanifest - ananta devesa jagan-nivAsA tvam aksaram sad-asat tat
> > param yat!
> >
> >   Hari OM
> >   Shri Gurubhyoh namah
> >   Shyam
> >
> >
> >
> > Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >   Pranams Shyam-ji:
> >
> > First off, let me address some of your concerns about "sensationalizing
> > that
> > research". I was afraid of the same and so I had already done some basic
> > spadework. One of the scientists mentioned in my article link, Jack
> > Szostak,
> > is associated with Harvard Medical School - a reputed institution. The
> > other, Mark Bedau, has considerable publications in an area called
> > Artificial Life - something we are talking about here (
> > http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/bib/nf/b/markabed.htm ).
> >
> > As per your very pertinent question as to what is life, I agree that is
> > hard
> > to answer. I have been thinking along the same lines too. I came up with
> > a
> > working definition "something that can grow and reproduce ( i.e. create
> > more
> > of its kind)" is life. The cell that is being created falls into this
> > category.
> >
> > Lastly, like you, I agree that Vedanta is supremely elegant, fullfilling
> > and
> > profound (otherwise I wouldn't be on this list). I also agree that it
> > does
> > not have a quarrel with science or for that matter any other discipline.
> > The
> > orignal post was to resolve certain holes that arise in Vedantic (or for
> > that matter any religious) thought when we attempt to define the concept
> > of
> > the soul. The whole point was to remove my doubts by sharing this
> > information with the more knowledable members on this list.
> >
> > Thanks, Mahesh
> >
> >
> > On 8/24/07, Shyam wrote:
> > >
> > > Pranams Mahesh-ji
> > > Sadananda-ji has already provided some very insightful and meaningful
> > > thoughts in answering this.
> > > I would like to add a few thoughts.
> > >
> > > First of all, as anyone who has had to talk to reporters about his or
> > her
> > > research findings will tell you, the reporter is interested not in
> > your
> > > research but in "sensationalizing" that research to draw eyeballs -
> > hence
> > > ridiculous headlines such as this one.
> > >
> > > Now, if any scientist were to actually claim "I can create life within
> > 10
> > > years" our very simple question to them would be "Respected Sir, It is
> > > wonderful that you have such fervored optimism, now, pray, please tell
> > me
> > > what IS life?"
> > >
> > > The plain honest answer which any scientist will give you is "I do not
> > > know".
> > >
> > > If Science does not even know "what" life is, is it not perhaps a
> > little
> > > premature to claim to actually "create" life?
> > >
> > > From a scientic perspective, we somewhat know what is sentiency, we
> > have
> > > some idea of what is conscious and what is consciousness, - but what
> > exactly
> > > is life>is there a thing we point to and say "this particular thing
> > here is
> > > what is life" - absolutely not.
> > >
> > > We know life when we see it. We know a person is alive or dead (well,
> > most
> > > of the time) We know a cell is alive or dead.
> > > But what is life? We only know life it by its absence, when we fail to
> > > detect its presence, but we have no idea what it actually is to begin
> > with.
> > > It seems "self"-evident, but hard to define.
> > >
> > > Take a live person. He is a conglomeration of trillions and trillions
> > of
> > > cells - all of which "die" and "get replaced". Let us say i coated all
> > his
> > > cells with a colour blue. Some period of time later in this live
> > person, i
> > > may not find a single blue cell as they have all been replaced. So the
> > > person was more than the sum total of all his cells put together. Then
> > who
> > > was the "person". Who do you say is "alive" - and - how do you say he
> > is
> > > "alive" - is he alive because his heart is beating - well i can always
> > pace
> > > his heart - his brain - science can invent a brain pacemaker in
> > another 100
> > > years - maybe less - but does any of that answer the question who is
> > this he
> > > who is alive?
> > > Now take one cell of this person.
> > > Give it some food in a petridish and you can say it is "alive" - why -
> > its
> > > metabolism continues.
> > > But "what" is it that is alive? The protoplasm, the nucleus, the Golgi
> > > bodies??
> > > Let us say we take the nucleus and culture that and say the nucleus is
> > > still alive.
> > > Well "what" in the nucleus is alive? the strands of dna?? take them
> > apart?
> > > nucleotides, and so on....
> > > Take the case of a prion - it is a strand of protein that not only is
> > > "alive" - but can cause a debilitating incurable disease such as
> > Creutzfield
> > > Jacob. So it is alive, but has no cell wall, no protoplasm, no nothing
> > -
> > > just one strand of protein!
> > >
> > > This way if we go on analyzing subcomponents of what appears to be a
> > > "whole" live entity such as cell, we finally reach a stage where we
> > are
> > > dealing with nano-particles and chemical bonds, and so on in infinite
> > > regress.
> > >
> > > We basically arrive at that frontier of science which by default
> > cannot be
> > > broken - the barrier of infinity.
> > > And it is precisely at this barrier that Vedanta starts and ends.
> > >
> > > Vedanta is not opposed to science - but is not related to science. The
> > two
> > > work in different non-overlapping domains - the secular and the
> > spiritual.
> > > Yet, you will find a disproportionate number of vedantic students are
> > "men
> > > of science" - so-called intellectuals, physicists, mathematicians,
> > > logicians, physicians, astronomers, microbiologists, engineers, etc.
> > Why?
> > > Because Vedanta is extremely scientific in its approach. As one
> > progresses
> > > in any scientific discipline one feels drawn to the factual underlying
> > unity
> > > that Vedanta asserts.
> > >
> > > And that brings me to the main point. Vedanta deals with a fact, not a
> >
> > > theory. It is a fact about one's own self-identity. It cannot be
> > proven by
> > > any scientific enquiry. It cannot be disproven by any scientific
> > enquiry.
> > >
> > > A study of vedanta is not menat for armchair leisure reading - it is a
> >
> > > serious pursuit meant to understand my self. What is an essential and
> > > indispensible requirement is shraddha in the Shruti - so when the
> > Shruti
> > > talks about samsara, rebirth, punya-papa, - we accept it as a fact,
> > not as a
> > > theory. If it is a mere theory, then yes, every other headline in the
> > Daily
> > > Mirror talking about life being created or a magic potion for
> > immortaility
> > > etc etc will seemingly have us vaccilating in our own convictions -
> > "if
> > > Bhagwan Krishna is wrong about vaasamsi jeernani yatha vihaya, then
> > why
> > > should i believe anything he says about kshetra-kshejna?"
> > >
> > > Which again brings us back to the whole issue of blind faith and
> > shraddha
> > > and the subtle but crucial difference between the two - which is a
> > whole
> > > topic by itself.
> > >
> > > If man and science get to the point where they align matter to enable
> > it
> > > to be an appropriate upadhi to manifest consiousness, which is
> > > all-pervasive, they would have precisely succeeded in doing what a
> > mother
> > > hen already does, which is create a mass of protein called an egg,
> > incubate
> > > it, and wait for life to get "created" - only thing is you wont be
> > hearing
> > > the hen crowing about its wondrous accomplishment of "creating life."
> > >
> > > My humble pranams,
> > > Hari OM
> > > Shri Gurubhyoh namah,
> > > Shyam
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> > > The theory that, after the death of a human being, there exists an
> > entity
> > > called the soul that persists and continues to take a new birth. If we
> > > create life using chemicals in a laboratory, it appears that the human
> >
> > > being
> > > is nothing but matter and after death the result is "ashes to ashes,
> > dust
> > > to
> > > dust".
> > >
> > > On 8/23/07, Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 23/08/07, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If we manage to create life from scratch, does that debunk the
> > soul
> > > > theory?
> > > > > See below:
> > > > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ** And what is the "soul theory"?
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > > >
> > > > For assistance, contact:
> > > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on
> > Yahoo!
> > > TV.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Building a website is a piece of cake.
> > Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>