[Advaita-l] athma is mere function of the brain [was: concept of soul]

[Anbu sivam2]

In the first paragraph of my above email the words 'inert' has been
mispelled as 'intert'.  This typographical error is regretted.

Also Shakthi as we speak, is of the manifestion and each such manifestation
is describable.  However if you bring in the word Maya then we are treading
into far greater topic and as we all know that Maya is anirvachaneeya.

Anbu

On 10/16/07, Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> What we are talking about in the common parlance is that the 'inert'
> things are 'matter' and the 'sentient' one is 'athma'.  In this
> understanding the first sin of the 'materialists' is that they forget the
> characteristic of intert thing viz. its inertia, i.e. if it moves then it
> would keep moving until some other objects stops it and if it is static it
> will remain static until something else moves it.  What is 'inertia'
> therefore in our parlance is the 'Shakthi'. This Shakthi is understood both
> as the static and the dynamic or matter and energy.
>
> For those who would contend that the matter produces consciousness, my
> question would be who set it off into this grand production? If the answer
> is: no one, then it would mean that the matter by itself did produce!  This
> answer that is made to deny the role of the prime mover would contradict the
> characteristic of the matter - that it is inert.
>
> The conclusion is therefore that the visible motion was caused by the
> invisible Chaithanya the Sentience.  This would also hilite the fact that
> the matter is physically verifiable while the Chaithanyam could only be
> inferred.
>
> Some people by their ignorace equate Chaithanyam with energy.  Chaithanyam
> is anirvachaneeya - undefineable - while the energy is defineable.
>
> When you see what we call an inert matter then we conclude that there is
> no consciousness in it.  This is the way we have defined in our knowledge
> what is matter and what is consciousness.  Have not Vedantins asserted that
> there is nothing apart from consciousness?  Then what of this so called
> matter?  If we indeed take the Vedantins for their word then matter is
> consciousness only!
>
> Those who contend that 'matter' produces consciousness should think
> deeply.
>
> Anbu
>
> On 10/16/07, latha vidyaranya < lathavidya at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >
> > hari om
> >   namaste
> >
> >   i found an interesting sentence here.
> >
> > "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why does it matter? A rock or piece of metal is as much Brahman as you
> > or I except it lacks consciousness so it cannot know this.
> >
> >   to say that it lacks consciousness may not be correct. i think it is
> > the limited perception of our human sensory apparatus that does not perceive
> > consciousness in inanimate objects and not that they do not have
> > consciousness.
> >
> >
> >   If perchance it
> > could develop consciousness and understand non-duality then it could
> > achieve moksha just like you or I.
> >
> > very true. and one who achieves moksha is the sole knower of that fact
> > and no outsider can ever perceive if the knower knows or not.
> >
> >   namaste
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online. Click
> > here.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>