Guest guest Posted January 28, 2000 Report Share Posted January 28, 2000 this is in reply to shri.gummuluru's original message in this thread:: i have thought somewhat on the points you mention ,i put them below:: well absolutely speaking the atman=brahman and there is no coming and going for it. so what comes and what goes??---absolutely nothing comes and goes... but the jiva--i.e., brahman under apparent illusion feels that it is eating,sleeping,enjoying,dying,dead,living,alive........... even when it has "left" the body absolutely speaking it is everywhere-only IT IS--but under illusion it feels it has left the body--taken a new body...etc..etc i await your comments on these thoughts--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2000 Report Share Posted January 29, 2000 On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Devendra Vyas wrote: > "Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > > this is in reply to shri.gummuluru's original message in this thread:: > > > i have thought somewhat on the points you mention ,i put them below:: > > well absolutely speaking the atman=brahman and there is no coming and going > for it. > > so what comes and what goes??---absolutely nothing comes and goes... > but the jiva--i.e., brahman under apparent illusion feels that it is > eating,sleeping,enjoying,dying,dead,living,alive........... > even when it has "left" the body absolutely speaking it is everywhere-only > IT IS--but under illusion it feels it has left the body--taken a new > body...etc..etc > > i await your comments on these thoughts--devendra > > namaste. I agree with your analysis fully. The thing I was trying to stress in my original post is to contrast between the two following ways of looking at. (a) The soul has left the body. [implying that the soul has gone to places which we do not know, and we are left with the corpse. Here, the latter emphasis will be on the body. OR (b) the soul has discarded the body. [implying that the discarded body is of no interest to us]. The soul, with which we rightly need to be concerned with, will still be our focus of interest in this case. We will be correctly interested in the progress of this soul, and the discarded body will get the interest it deserves, namely, nothing I was trying to say that (b) is a preferrable way to look at than (a). In one of the brahma sutras (I do not have them in front of me, but can quote the actual sutra, if there is interest), it has been pointed out that the soul is atomic in size, because, when the soul leaves the body (at the time of death), it is not seen by anyone around. If we look at that the body has been discarded, the soul which pervades everything (as Brahman) is always there, and hence the size question does not arise. In the quote above, to be literally correct (I hope I am correct here, if not, please correct me), you are saying > but the **jiva**--i.e., brahman under apparent illusion feels that it is > eating,sleeping,enjoying,dying,dead,living,alive........... > **even when it has "left" the body** absolutely speaking it is > everywhere-only > IT IS--but under illusion it feels it has left the body--taken a new > body...etc..etc > (my emphasis on **jiva** and **even when it has "left" the body** above) My understanding of the jeeva and the soul is: jeeva: jeeva has to have a gross body for it to have that ignorance of individuality. Without a gross body, the jeeva would not be there. So, at death, when the gross body is discarded, the *individuality* is no longer there. The essense of this jeeva, the ignorance and the karmas, are with the soul. Until the soul takes up another gross body, it would not be a jeeva. Please correct me if I am wrong in this. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2000 Report Share Posted January 29, 2000 >I was trying to say that (b) is a preferrable way to look at than (a). yes b) is preferrable to a) > >My understanding of the jeeva and the soul is: > >jeeva: jeeva has to have a gross body for it to have that ignorance of > individuality. Without a gross body, the jeeva would not be there. > So, at death, when the gross body is discarded, the *individuality* > is no longer there. The essense of this jeeva, the ignorance and > the karmas, are with the soul. > Until the soul takes up another gross body, it would not be a > jeeva. > >Please correct me if I am wrong in this. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >--- here i disagree----the gross body does not sustain jivahood---jivahood is sustained by ignorance..maya---whatever you may call it. jiva has 3 bodies--gross,subtle,causal and 5 sheaths---gross is discarded --the sum total of the tendencies (i.e., primarily the subtle body--the causal body is just the primal ignorance)then determine which "slot" the jiva is to occupy and they manufacture such a body which will help in fulfilling it's unspent desires/tendencies.. i am just a novice---the senior sadhus on this list will be better able to throw light on this imp. topic.pl. write if my analysis is flawed--rgds--devendra --- > > > > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2000 Report Share Posted January 29, 2000 one more thing----even as the body is being discarded--the next one is being taken up----just as a leech while leaving a blade of grass starts taking up another one simultaneously---there is such a shloka in one of the upanishads --i don't remember exactly which--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2000 Report Share Posted January 31, 2000 namaste, The mantra is in Brihadaranyaka IV:iv:3: tadyathaa tR^uNajalaayukaa tR^iNasyaanta.n gatvaanyamaakramamaakramya aatmaanamupasa.nharati evamevaayamaatmed.n shariira.n nihatya -----avidyaa.n gamayitvaa-- anyamaakramamaakramyaatmaanamupasa.nharati .. Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of another support and contracts itself, so does the self throw this body aside--make it senseless--take hold of another support, and contract itself. Regards, S. ----Original Message Follows---- "Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 advaitin advaitin Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:17:26 GMT one more thing----even as the body is being discarded--the next one is being taken up----just as a leech while leaving a blade of grass starts taking up another one simultaneously---there is such a shloka in one of the upanishads --i don't remember exactly which--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2000 Report Share Posted February 2, 2000 ----Original Message Follows---- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin advaitin Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? Wed, 2 Feb 2000 15:33:00 -0330 (NST) Now, my question: How instantaneous is this entering of the new body after leaving the old body? Is it instaneous (in terms of human time)? Or, Is there a gap of time when these impressions are in a suspended state without a physical body? That (long gap of time) seems unlikely because according to karma theory (as I undeerstand), karma cannot be in a suspended state except at the time of praLaya. Therefore, I would assume that the transfer of the soul from the old body to the new body should be instantaneous. Is there any place (in brahma sutras or upanishads?) where the time duration aspect is discussed? But who does this ignorance belong to? [aside: shri shankara says in BSB that it belongs to the person who asks this question.] Obviously, it has to be ascribed to a jeeva. Does the jeeva have an existence or definition without a gross body? What is said above is correct (re the manufacture of a new body which will help fulfill its unspent desires/tendencies), but then, that sum-total knowledge- karma-impression of experience is transferred to the new jeeva with the new body. The subtle body carries these impressions from one jeeva (in one physical form) to the next jeeva (in another physical form) so that the next jeeva inherits this ignorance. It is alright to say that the ignorance is the soul's, only during the transition stage. Then it belongs to the jeeva with a physical form (please remember jeeva is physical body + the soul). This thinking is justified (I think) because: the soul without a physical body cannot expend or gain (change the balance) in the karma account. As I understand, it has to have a physical body to change the balance (of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should be instantaneous. Any comments/improvements in understanding or references are appreciated. *** Namaste, The subject is dealt with in Brahma Sutra Bhashya IV:ii:1-21, and IV:iii:1-16. (with cross references to shrutis. These should be studied under the guidance of a realised Guru only. Gita has many references to the passage of the 'soul'(actually li~Nga-shariira), which can be taken up for discussion when the list gets there. Regards, S. ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2000 Report Share Posted February 2, 2000 On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote: > "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh > > namaste, > > The mantra is in Brihadaranyaka IV:iv:3: > > tadyathaa tR^uNajalaayukaa tR^iNasyaanta.n gatvaanyamaakramamaakramya > aatmaanamupasa.nharati evamevaayamaatmed.n shariira.n nihatya > -----avidyaa.n gamayitvaa-- anyamaakramamaakramyaatmaanamupasa.nharati .. > > Just as a leech supported on a straw goes to the end of it, takes hold of > another support and contracts itself, so does the self throw this body > aside--make it senseless--take hold of another support, and contract itself. > > > Regards, > > S. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > "Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > advaitin > advaitin > Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? > Sun, 30 Jan 2000 06:17:26 GMT > > one more thing----even as the body is being discarded--the next one is being > taken up----just as a leech while leaving a blade of grass starts taking up > another one simultaneously---there is such a shloka in one of the upanishads > --i don't remember exactly which--devendra namaste. BR^ihadAraNyaka upanishad IV.iv deals with journey of the soul after death of the body. I give below a small summary from Swami Madhavananda's translation of shri shankara's bhAShya on IV.iv.2. Then I have a question. The departing soul goes, loaded with materials, making noises like a loaded cart. It goes along with the baggage of knowledge of all sorts, work and past experiences or impressions of experiences. These (knowledge, work and impressions of past experiences) determine the nature of the other body to be attained. Now, the various scenarios: When the soul (loaded with this knowledge etc) is about to go to another body, 1. does it (the soul) leave the old body and go to another, like a bird going to another tree? or 2. is it carried by another body serving as a vehicle to the place where, according to its past work, it is to be born? or 3. does it stay here, while its organs become all-pervading and function as such? or 4. is it that so long as it remains in the body, its organs are contracted to the limits of that body, but when the body dies, they become all-pervading - like the light of a lamp when the (enclosing) jar is broken - and contract again when a new body is made? or 5. does only the mind go to the place where the new body is to be made? Of the above, swami Madhavananda characterizes (1) Jain thinking, (2) devatAdvaitins (the upholders of the theory of angel-guides, (3) SAmkhya, (4) upanishadic view, (5) of VaisheShika view respectively. The organs fold into the soul before the soul departs from the weakened body. However, the organs are all-comprising and infinite. Their limitation with reference to the body and the elements is due to the work, knowledge and past impressions. Therefore, though the organs are naturally all-pervading and infinite, since the new body is made in accordance with the past impressions, work and knowledge, the functions of the organs also contract (or expand) accordingly. (refer Br. u. I.iii.22 and I.v.13). He who meditates on one, becomes exactly what one meditates on. Therefore, the impressions called past experience, under the control of the person's knowledge and work, stretch out, like a leeach, from the body, and build another body in accordance with his past work; they leave their seat, the old body, when a new body is made. Now, my question: How instantaneous is this entering of the new body after leaving the old body? Is it instaneous (in terms of human time)? Or, Is there a gap of time when these impressions are in a suspended state without a physical body? That (long gap of time) seems unlikely because according to karma theory (as I undeerstand), karma cannot be in a suspended state except at the time of praLaya. Therefore, I would assume that the transfer of the soul from the old body to the new body should be instantaneous. Is there any place (in brahma sutras or upanishads?) where the time duration aspect is discussed? The answer to this question has bearing also on what shri devendra vyas was saying in an earlier post. > Gummuluru Murthy wrote earlier in the same thread > My understanding of the jeeva and the soul is: > > jeeva: jeeva has to have a gross body for it to have that > ignorance of individuality. Without a gross body, the jeeva > would not be there. So, at death, when the gross body is > discarded, the *individuality* is no longer there. The essense > of this jeeva, the ignorance and the karmas, are with the soul. > Until the soul takes up another gross body, it would not be a > jeeva. > >Please correct me if I am wrong in this. > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy >--- * for which shri devendra vyas responded * here i disagree----the gross body does not sustain jivahood--- * jivahood is sustained by ignorance..maya---whatever you may call it. * jiva has 3 bodies--gross,subtle,causal and 5 sheaths---gross is * discarded --the sum total of the tendencies (i.e., primarily the * subtle body--the causal body is just the primal ignorance)then * determine which "slot" the jiva is to occupy and they manufacture such * a body which will help in fulfilling it's unspent desires/tendencies. * i am just a novice---the senior sadhus on this list will be better able * to throw light on this imp. topic.pl. write if my analysis is flawed * --rgds--devendra But who does this ignorance belong to? [aside: shri shankara says in BSB that it belongs to the person who asks this question.] Obviously, it has to be ascribed to a jeeva. Does the jeeva have an existence or definition without a gross body? What is said above is correct (re the manufacture of a new body which will help fulfill its unspent desires/tendencies), but then, that sum-total knowledge- karma-impression of experience is transferred to the new jeeva with the new body. The subtle body carries these impressions from one jeeva (in one physical form) to the next jeeva (in another physical form) so that the next jeeva inherits this ignorance. It is alright to say that the ignorance is the soul's, only during the transition stage. Then it belongs to the jeeva with a physical form (please remember jeeva is physical body + the soul). This thinking is justified (I think) because: the soul without a physical body cannot expend or gain (change the balance) in the karma account. As I understand, it has to have a physical body to change the balance (of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should be instantaneous. Any comments/improvements in understanding or references are appreciated. Regards Gummuluru Murthy -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2000 Report Share Posted February 2, 2000 >Now, my question: > >How instantaneous is this entering of the new body after >leaving the old body? taking up of physical body may or may not be instantaneous--after all our scriptures speak of other regions where the soul dwells. even the gita says in 6-41 something to that effect. Is it instaneous (in terms of human >time)? Or, Is there a gap of time when these impressions >are in a suspended state without a physical body? same as above That >(long gap of time) seems unlikely because according to >karma theory (as I undeerstand), karma cannot be in a >suspended state except at the time of praLaya. Therefore, >I would assume that the transfer of the soul from the old >body to the new body should be instantaneous. Is there any >place (in brahma sutras or upanishads?) where the time >duration aspect is discussed? how do you know karma remains suspended??why are you limiting the only only field of action to the one we see??the lord says there are innumerable worlds... > >But who does this ignorance belong to? [aside: shri shankara says in >BSB that it belongs to the person who asks this question.] Obviously, >it has to be ascribed to a jeeva. Does the jeeva have an existence >or definition without a gross body? are we moving into the individual and collective aspects of ignorance??i have seen something to this effect in the vedanta-sara--i am weak in that..:-) of course it has---i have to repeat myself----gross body is one of 3 bodies that make up the jiva What is said above is correct >(re the manufacture of a new body which will help fulfill its >unspent desires/tendencies), but then, that sum-total knowledge- >karma-impression of experience is transferred to the new jeeva >with the new body. there is no "new" jiva there is a "new" gross body for the same jiva The subtle body carries these impressions from >one jeeva (in one physical form) to the next jeeva (in another >physical form) so that the next jeeva inherits this ignorance. i fail to understand ...sir why are you thinking in terms of 2 jivas?? >It is alright to say that the ignorance is the soul's, only during >the transition stage. Then it belongs to the jeeva with a physical >form (please remember jeeva is physical body + the soul). the jiva is the absolute under the apparent limitation of the 3 bodies--5 sheaths...it is not physical body +soul... This >thinking is justified (I think) because: the soul without a physical >body cannot expend or gain (change the balance) in the karma account. >As I understand, it has to have a physical body to change the balance >(of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in >terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should >be instantaneous. why so?? the jiva continues it's journey---with or without a physical body---also the only body is not the physical body--there is the all important subtle body too along with the causal Any comments/improvements in understanding or >references are appreciated. these are sticky matters and we all are babies............imho..,you cannot have hindu eschatology without taking into account the subtle body---on which stands the entire theory of reincarnation. rgds--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 Namaste, This may be the root of the 'misunderstanding', if any. The subtle body has a form no different than the dream-bodies. Physical body is NOT a requirement for further progress, as I understand the references. Regards, S. ----Original Message Follows---- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin advaitin Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:58:14 -0330 (NST) But, I am saying, in addition, the vehicle, the physical body is required. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 namaste, Yes. Gita has verses to that effect [ 14:14 & 18; 8:5,8,13, 24,25] to cite a few. 18:12 - Birth in the human body is the 'mishra phala'. 9:20, 21. kshiiNe puNye martyaloka.n vishanti . After exhausting the fruits of their merits they re-enter the mortal world. 15: 8-11. Regards, S. ----Original Message Follows---- Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy advaitin advaitin Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:43:19 -0330 (NST) namaste. Let me give a hypothetical case. Let us say X has died (in the colloquial sense) without full realization and without knowledge of the identity with Atman. Can that subtle body (or the essence of the past experiences) which has left this physical body, can that subtle body realize the SELF by itself without association with a physical body? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Madhava K Turumella wrote: > "Madhava K Turumella" <madhava > > > (of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in > > terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should > > be instantaneous. Any comments/improvements in understanding or > > references are appreciated. > Pranams Gummalurugi: > > I would like to know: you used the words "in terms of time", what exactly > you meant by time? Answer to this will further enable me to understand your > point. Thank you. > > Pranams, > Madhava > namaste. What I mean by the time is the following: It was earlier mentioned in the posts (based on BR^ihadAraNyaka upanishad) that, like a caterpillar contracts and then leaves one grass leaf and goes on to the next leaf, the soul (the li.nga shareera) also gathers all the senses and moves from one physical body to the next physical body. BR^ihadAraNyaka upanishad may be emphasizing the contraction here (like, all the senses converge on to the vital force at the time of death) in this simile. My question concerns the time interval in which the caterpillar (the soul, the li.nga shareera) moves from one leaf (one physical body) to the next. Will it stay in the old physical body until the next physical body gets ready and then immediately enter the new physical body? OR Will it leave the old physical body, be in a suspended state, and then enter the new physical body when there is a new physical body that satisfies the karmic conditions of the li.nga shareera? We see in some writings (may not be authoritative?) that the souls stay in a suspended state for some time. We also have folklore that an X that died many years ago has reincarnated as Y some time later. Is there any justification or shruti basis for this time gap? I already mentioned in my earlier post why (I think) time gap may not be there. That is what I meant by time. Shri Sunder gave some Brahma sUtra references. I will look into them. Any other ideas or views are much appreciated. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ----- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Devendra Vyas wrote: > "Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > > > > > >Now, my question: > > > >How instantaneous is this entering of the new body after > >leaving the old body? > taking up of physical body may or may not be instantaneous--after all our > scriptures speak of other regions where the soul dwells. > > even the gita says in 6-41 something to that effect. > > Is it instaneous (in terms of human > >time)? Or, Is there a gap of time when these impressions > >are in a suspended state without a physical body? > same as above > > That > >(long gap of time) seems unlikely because according to > >karma theory (as I undeerstand), karma cannot be in a > >suspended state except at the time of praLaya. Therefore, > >I would assume that the transfer of the soul from the old > >body to the new body should be instantaneous. Is there any > >place (in brahma sutras or upanishads?) where the time > >duration aspect is discussed? > > how do you know karma remains suspended??why are you limiting the only only > field of action to the one we see??the lord says there are innumerable > worlds... > > namaste. I am not limiting to only one field of action. In whichever field the soul is in, either in bhUloka, swarga loka, or wherever, the soul takes up a new body. Without a new physical body, karma balance cannot be changed. If karma can be expended (or changed) in li.nga shareera, then what purpose is any life, and particularly the human life? This leads to our earlier discussion (sometime ago) that advaita thinks and regards that jivanmukta as essential for moksha. > > > >But who does this ignorance belong to? [aside: shri shankara says in > >BSB that it belongs to the person who asks this question.] Obviously, > >it has to be ascribed to a jeeva. Does the jeeva have an existence > >or definition without a gross body? > > are we moving into the individual and collective aspects of ignorance??i > have seen something to this effect in the vedanta-sara--i am weak in > that..:-) > of course it has---i have to repeat myself----gross body is one of 3 bodies > that make up the jiva > > > > What is said above is correct > >(re the manufacture of a new body which will help fulfill its > >unspent desires/tendencies), but then, that sum-total knowledge- > >karma-impression of experience is transferred to the new jeeva > >with the new body. > > there is no "new" jiva there is a "new" gross body for the same jiva > > The subtle body carries these impressions from > >one jeeva (in one physical form) to the next jeeva (in another > >physical form) so that the next jeeva inherits this ignorance. > > i fail to understand ...sir why are you thinking in terms of 2 jivas?? > > > > >It is alright to say that the ignorance is the soul's, only during > >the transition stage. Then it belongs to the jeeva with a physical > >form (please remember jeeva is physical body + the soul). > > the jiva is the absolute under the apparent limitation of the 3 bodies--5 > sheaths...it is not physical body +soul... > > > > This > >thinking is justified (I think) because: the soul without a physical > >body cannot expend or gain (change the balance) in the karma account. > >As I understand, it has to have a physical body to change the balance > >(of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in > >terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should > >be instantaneous. > why so?? the jiva continues it's journey---with or without a physical > body---also the only body is not the physical body--there is the all > important subtle body too along with the causal > I think this is a question of terminology and semantics. Our understanding of the terms jeeva and the soul seem to be different. Let me clarify the terminology that I am using. soul: This is the same as li.nga shareera. This is the essence of the jeeva, i.e. the essence of the gross, the subtle and the causal bodies. At the time of death of the physical body, it is the li.nga shareera, the soul, that carries forward (or is going forward as) the essence of the past impressions takes up a new body and re-incarnates as the next jeeva. Let me give an example: Let us say X and Y are two humans, i.e. two jeevas. X has died and reincarnated as Z. The li.nga shareera of X and Z are the same. But X and Z are two different jeevas. They were not there in physical bodies at the same time, but it does not matter. Y sees them as two different jeevas X and Z. Z sees him/herself to be a different jeeva from X. Of course X, Y and Z are the same Atman. But our discussion is in the vyavahArika (ignorance, but intellectual discussion, but still ignorance of Atman) is on reincarnation. Reincarnation is still in the plane of ignorance. Shri Devendra may be using a different terminology. But it does not matter as long as our final understanding is the same. > >Any comments/improvements in understanding or > >references are appreciated. > > these are sticky matters and we all are babies............imho..,you cannot > have hindu eschatology without taking into account the subtle body---on > which stands the entire theory of reincarnation. > > rgds--devendra > I agree we are all babies. But I do not think I have disregarded the subtle body in the discussion at all. On the other hand, I have given it the maximum importance as the essence of the jeeva. But, I am saying, in addition, the vehicle, the physical body is required. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > >namaste. > >Let me give a hypothetical case. > >Let us say X has died (in the colloquial sense) without full >realization and without knowledge of the identity with Atman. >Can that subtle body (or the essence of the past experiences) >which has left this physical body, can that subtle body >realize the SELF by itself without association with a >physical body? > >Regards >Gummuluru Murthy I think Br.U describes the various lokas. AFAIK, based on one's karmas here, one either goes to the world of fathers or to that of the celestials (devas). However, once these are exhausted, one comes right back here. However, saguna upaasana can also take one to Brahmaloka where one resides in the presence of Ishwar. From there, there is no return and at the end of the lifespan of this Brahma, one becomes "dissolved" into Brahman. any corrections welcome. ashish ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Sunder Hattangadi wrote: > "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh > > Namaste, > > This may be the root of the 'misunderstanding', if any. The subtle body has > a form no different than the dream-bodies. Physical body is NOT a > requirement for further progress, as I understand the references. > > Regards, > > S. > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > advaitin > advaitin > Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? > Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:58:14 -0330 (NST) > > > But, I am saying, > in addition, the vehicle, the physical body is required. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------ > namaste. Let me give a hypothetical case. Let us say X has died (in the colloquial sense) without full realization and without knowledge of the identity with Atman. Can that subtle body (or the essence of the past experiences) which has left this physical body, can that subtle body realize the SELF by itself without association with a physical body? Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 > (of karma account). This also points to a strong possibility that in > terms of time, the transition from one physical body to the next should > be instantaneous. Any comments/improvements in understanding or > references are appreciated. Pranams Gummalurugi: I would like to know: you used the words "in terms of time", what exactly you meant by time? Answer to this will further enable me to understand your point. Thank you. Pranams, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 yes-- i would agree that the br.up shloka points to instantaneousness---but if we take it as material for the next "slot"--then maybe it can be reconciled----i.e., even as the jiva is giving up this "slot" it has got a hold on the next slot---may be of this loka or any other---not necessarily requiring a physical body..... have you read "autobiography of a yogi"--by paramhansa yogananda in it many astral,causal realms like hiranyagarbha are described where highly evolved "jivas"-souls stay-----we cannot say that physical body is required for karmic calculation---otherwise why are there other lokas?--the other worlds-------the jiva continues it's journey thru' all worlds--adding/expending karma till it gets self realization. but there is one hitch---if we say jivahood is defined by 3 bodies--then while it is without a physical body is the jiva a jiva??--because it does not satisfy our defn. of it or is our defn. wrong??or should we say that the basic entity causing jivahood is ignorance --the causal body--which lasts up to the causal worlds--the gate to the absolute,,,and that in diff. lokas jivahood is defined differently--on ours as 3 bodies--on astral planes as 2 bodies on causal planes as 1 body....pl. comment rgds--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 Namaste All those who wish to read the chapter referred to by Sri Devendra in the 'Autobiography of a Yogi', can access this page: http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap43/chap43.html > > Devendra Vyas [sMTP:dev_vyas74] > Friday, February 04, 2000 11:52 AM > advaitin > Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? > > "Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 > > yes-- i would agree that the br.up shloka points to > instantaneousness---but > if we take it as material for the next "slot"--then maybe it can be > reconciled----i.e., even as the jiva is giving up this "slot" it has got a > > hold on the next slot---may be of this loka or any other---not necessarily > > requiring a physical body..... > have you read "autobiography of a yogi"--by paramhansa yogananda > in it many astral,causal realms like hiranyagarbha are described where > highly evolved "jivas"-souls stay-----we cannot say that physical body is > required for karmic calculation---otherwise why are there other > lokas?--the > other worlds-------the jiva continues it's journey thru' all > worlds--adding/expending karma till it gets self realization. > but there is one hitch---if we say jivahood is defined by 3 bodies--then > while it is without a physical body is the jiva a jiva??--because it does > not satisfy our defn. of it or is our defn. wrong??or should we say that > the > basic entity causing jivahood is ignorance --the causal body--which lasts > up > to the causal worlds--the gate to the absolute,,,and that in diff. lokas > jivahood is defined differently--on ours as 3 bodies--on astral planes as > 2 > bodies on causal planes as 1 body....pl. comment > rgds--devendra > > ____ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > eGroups' Valentine's Day Gift Guide - Shop Here Now: > <a href=" http://clickme./ad/SparksValentine4 ">Click Here</a> > > ------ > > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. Searchable List Archives > are available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ Contact Email > Address: advaitins > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2000 Report Share Posted February 3, 2000 Namaste, Gita: 15:10 utkraamanta.n sthita.n vaapi bhu~njaana.n vaa guNaanvitam.h . vimuuDhaa naanupashyanti pashyanti j~naanachakshushhaH .. ""When He departs or stays or experiences, in contact with the modes(gunas), the deluded do not see(the indwelling soul) but they who have the eye of wisdom (or whose eye is wisdom) see." Regards, S. >K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan >advaitin >advaitin >RE: death--is it the soul leaving the body? >Fri, 4 Feb 2000 12:22:34 +0800 > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 Namste, There is a conversation in either Talks with Ramana Maharshi or Day by Day (I cant recall which) in which one devotee asks Sri Bhagavan about an instance wherein someone he knows remembers his previous life. Now the question asked was this person who remembers his previous life was supposed to have died in his previous birth after he was born in the present life. (Ex;- he dies in 1946 but was born again in 1942) . Bhagavan says this is certainly possible becuase time is of course not a reality but a function of the mind. For instance in the dream , we may experience months of activity whereas we have slept only a few hours according to our waking state. Therefore the concept of a soul leaving a subtle body and taking up a new body is not a correct view. I would say there is a continuos ignorance in which you reside either in waking , deep sleep or dream. Death is similar to deep sleep only on waking your past memory is erased. Regards, Anand A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 >>I would say there is a continuos ignorance in which you reside either in >>waking , deep sleep or dream. Death is similar to deep sleep only on >>waking your past memory is erased. > > yes i too have heard this view---comparing our relative journey to a dream--death to deep sleep ..etc.......it is also a very strong explanation in it's place.rgds--devendra ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 4, 2000 Report Share Posted February 4, 2000 namaste, The reference to Ramana Maharshi's view that Devendraji had made in a previous post is in the book: Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (publ. Tiruvannamali Ashrama, 1972- 3 vols. in 1; page 114.) where he also mentions the story of Lila in Yoga Vasishtha. Regards, S. >"Devendra Vyas" <dev_vyas74 >advaitin >advaitin >Re: death--is it the soul leaving the body? >Sat, 05 Feb 2000 04:28:51 GMT > > > > > >>I would say there is a continuos ignorance in which you reside either in > >>waking , deep sleep or dream. Death is similar to deep sleep only on > >>waking your past memory is erased. > > > > >yes i too have heard this view---comparing our relative journey to a >dream--death to deep sleep ..etc.......it is also a very strong explanation >in it's place.rgds--devendra > >____ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.