Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Namaste, I have prepared some notes for the Gita satsangh I will attend tomorrow. I thought maybe some here would find them useful. I discuss these verses from an Advaitic point of view, using Swami Chinmayanda's commentary as a guide. Hari Om! Benjamin DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER XV, VERSES 7-8 Ch. XV is Yoga of the Supreme Spirit SANSKRIT VERSES: 7. Mamaivaamsho jeevaloke jeevabhootah sanaatanah; Manah shashthaaneendriyaani prakritisthaani karshati. 8. Shareeram yadavaapnoti yacchaapy utkraamateeshwarah; Griheetwaitaani samyaati vaayur gandhaan ivaashayaat. SIVANANDA/CHINMAYANANDA TRANSLATION: 7. An eternal portion of Myself, having become a living soul in the world of life and abiding in Prakriti draws (to itself) the (five) senses, with mind as the sixth. 8. When the Lord obtains a body, and when He leaves it, He takes these and goes (with them) as the wind takes the scents from their seats (the flowers). RAMANAND PRASAD TRANSLATION (FOR COMPARISON): 7. The individual soul (Jiva, Jivatma) in the body of living beings is the integral part of the universal Spirit, or consciousness. The individual soul associates with the six sensory faculties _ including the mind _ of perception and activates them. 8. Just as the air takes aroma away from the flower; similarly, the individual soul takes the six sensory faculties from the physical body it casts off during death to the new physical body it acquires in reincarnation. IMPORTANCE OF THIS CHAPTER: "For the beauty and brevity of the stanzas in this chapter, no other portion of the Geeta can stand even a favorable comparison with it. In India, from the ancient days onwards, this chapter has been recited before taking food as a prayer by the Brahmins." Swami Chinmayananda "This is a very mystical chapter." Swami Dheerananda THEME OF THESE TWO VERSES: Krishna explains to Arjuna how he (a.k.a. Brahman or God) manifests as individual souls or jivas in the realm of maya (or illusion), and how it keeps the subtle body of senses and mind as it passes from body to body during reincarnation. AN ETERNAL PORTION OF MYSELF, HAVING BECOME A LIVING SOUL IN THE WORLD OF LIFE... As Swami Chinmayananda says: 'The Infinite has no parts.' Brahman is nondual Consciousness, without a second, and there is no other reality. This view is essential to the Advaita philosophy, so it would seem that there is a conflict between this verse and the philosophy that Swamiji holds to be the highest. How could the nondual, indivisible Brahman be 'broken' into portions? Swamiji gives the example of the moon shining in a bucket of water. The water may be ruffled by a breeze, and the image of the moon may be broken into hundreds of quivering, glinting pieces, but the moon itself remains whole and undisturbed. The moon stands for the Supreme Consciousness, and the glints in the water are the jivas reflecting this consciousness. One may object that in this case, there is a duality, between the original moon in the sky and the reflections in the water. Does this not contradict the nonduality of Brahman? My answer is that this analogy should not be taken too literally. A clear indication of this is that Consciousness is the Seer, which certainly cannot be seen, yet the moon is seen in the analogy. The correct way to understand this analogy is to realize that Consciousness is the 'eye of the eye', as we read in the second verse of the Kena Upanishad. It is because of the miracle of consciousness that we see anything, including the reflections in the water. The moon is none other than consciousness itself, the light that lights whatever is seen. The light that is seen glinting on the water is itself a derivative secondary kind of light. It is consciousness that is the true illuminator of even the light that is seen. This was also expressed in the very 'mystical' sounding Verse 6: "6. Neither doth the sun illumine there, nor the moon, nor the fire; having gone thither they return not; that is My supreme abode." which is but an echo of a similar verse in the Katha Upanishad: "The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings - not to speak of this fire. He shining, everything shines after Him. By His light all this is lighted." Again, the point is that the Seer or Consciousness cannot be seen, yet it is the reason anything can be seen. At the ultimate Advaitic level, there is in fact no difference between seer and seen. There is just the nondual Brahman. But as long as we conceptually distinguish between seer and seen, then we must admit that the seer cannot be seen. All of this occurs in the dualistic conceptual mind, which is the source of maya, of the apparent world of objects. This maya is the illusion that objects are something other than consciousness. This is our ordinary sate of mind. The illusion is not that we see objects but that we see them as other than our consciousness, than our self. After realization, the jnana does not become blind. Ramana Maharshi still saw a world and people, but he did not see them as something other than his consciousness. So when the Gita speaks of a 'portion' of the Infinite Consciousness becoming a jiva, it should not be taken literally, as though a loaf of bread is being sliced up. Brahman or Consciousness is incapable of division. Rather, it appears to be divided into different jivas. As always, the dream analogy is very helpful. In a dream, there may appear to be many 'people', of which the dreamer is just one. There seems to be an entire world. Yet upon awakening, it is realized that it was all nothing more than a spectacle in the consciousness of the dreamer. There was no multiplicity of any kind, no people and things existing by themselves; there was only the appearance of multiplicity in the single unitary consciousness of the dreamer. What we call the waking world is the dream of Brahman, until we too awake and realize our true nature. Upon awakening, we cease to be hypnotized by the delusion that we are merely discrete and hence finite beings and become aware of our nature as divine and infinite. .... AND ABIDING IN PRAKRITI DRAWS (TO ITSELF) THE (FIVE) SENSES, WITH MIND AS THE SIXTH. Continuing in the same vein, we must not imagine that Prakriti (or Matter or Nature) is distinct from the consciousness. Again, this dualism is merely part of the dream. What produces the illusion of finite discrete objects and beings is identification with the senses (and through them the apparent body). This includes the five gross senses and the sixth subtle sense of the mind. It is the same as when the dreamer identifies with one portion of the illusion within his dream, which he takes for himself, while he is dreaming. He also thinks the rest of the illusion is other than himself, again while he is dreaming. Upon awakening, he realizes that the entire dream was himself, being merely a play of shapes and colors in his consciousness. There were no discrete things, only the appearance thereof. Yet, as we saw in Chapter 13, the Gita does use the dualistic language of seer and seen, or knower-of-the-field and field. This is because the Gita tries to express the ultimate truth of Advaita or nonduality, as found in the Upanishads, in terms of the more common-sense dualistic language of the Samkhya philosophy, with its purusha and prakriti and three gunas. As many scholars have commented, the Gita is not entirely consistent from a rigorous philosophical point of view, as it does combine nondualism and dualism. However, it does this very artfully, in order to make the esoteric wisdom of the Upanishads accessible to ordinary understanding, which believes in a world of distinct egos and objects. Indeed by becoming devoted to Krishna, by seeing Krishna in everything, and by realizing that Krishna is none other than Consciousness, all of which is repeated often in the Gita, we can access the esoteric nondual realm of the Upanishads though the vehicle of devotion. In devotion, one starts out believing in a common-sense distinction between devotee and object of devotion, namely Krishna. Gradually one comes to realize that all is Krishna including oneself. This realization expresses itself through love, which is the manifestation in emotion of the nondual unity of our true nature. For those whose limited wisdom cannot cope directly with the esoteric nondual doctrine, the same can be achieved through love of Krishna combined with the realization that Krishna is the source and sustainer of the world, and ultimately identical with it, as demonstrated in the dramatic Chapter 11, the Vision of the Cosmic Form. So the descent of Consciousness into the Prakriti or Nature is not to be taken literally as some kind of a nebulous ghost entering a corpse of flesh. This may be how it appears to us, but we have seen that all appearances occur within consciousness, so that the mind and body have only an illusory existence. The entire Prakriti is as illusory as the world seen in a dream. But due to the vivid nature of the Prakriti and of the senses in which it manifests, the mind is easily deceived into thinking of the body as a separate, self-sustaining entity, distinct from the Supreme Consciousness. This leads to ego and identification with the body, as it is not possible to identify with the body until we first think it is real in itself. If we are thoroughly convinced that it is an illusion in consciousness, then we can no longer take it so seriously, we no longer identify with it, and the ego-sense no longer arises with all its problems. We then dwell in Pure Consciousness alone, realizing our identity with the infinite, and merely use the instrument of an illusory body in order to play along with the rest of the dream. WHEN THE LORD OBTAINS A BODY, AND WHEN HE LEAVES IT, HE TAKES THESE AND GOES (WITH THEM) AS THE WIND TAKES THE SCENTS FROM THEIR SEATS (THE FLOWERS). Again, this separation of subtle and gross bodies occurs entirely within consciousness. The subtle and gross bodies are both part of the dream of maya and equally unreal. The gross body of flesh is more deeply embedded in the illusion, insofar as it seems so solid and real. That is why we tend to identify primarily with it. But a little reflection shows that the apparent solidity of the body is only a feeling and a perception, and feelings and perceptions are clearly in consciousness. We may push against a wall in a dream, and the wall may feel very solid and resist our push, but it is still only an insubstantial dream, as we realize upon awakening. So Krishna is simply telling us how the dream changes when we go though the process we think of as dying. In fact, there is no dying. There is only the succession of one dream by another. The gross dream of the body is replaced by a more subtle dream of subtle body, in which some kind of perception remains, but not the perception of gross flesh. There is in fact a lot of interesting material on the internet about near death experiences. Many people who have nearly died due to accident, injury or surgery have reported amazing visions of floating above their bodies, seeing tunnels of light, feeling indescribable bliss, and perhaps communicating with a vision of their favorite deity. Of course, some of it may be fraudulent, but I cannot believe all of it is. What is not fraud may still be innocent delusion of some sort, but there are too many uncanny stories that sound credible enough, such as reports of seeing things during the operation that the patient could not have known unless somehow awake, even though he was in fact under anesthesia. Besides, there are many reports of gurus leaving their gross bodies and having experiences in the subtle body, such as in the autobiography of Yogananda. On the one hand, the scientist in me wants to stay sufficiently cautious and skeptical, but on the other hand that same scientist feels that it cannot all be fraud. Not all humans are dishonest. There is probably some truth to it in some cases. The main point is that we do not disappear when the body dies, as would be the case if the materialistic philosophy were true. This dreadful materialistic philosophy is quite popular today among educated people; it says that only matter exists and our so-called consciousness is only some curious ephemeral effect of our brain chemicals. It is partly because of this dreary view that I became interested in philosophy in the first place, particularly in Indian philosophy. Actually, it does not take too much reflection to realize that pure materialism is absurd by its own tenets. On the one hand it maintains that unconscious matter is the only reality, yet it also blithely assumes that somehow consciousness can emanate from or reside in the unconscious matter. This is utterly self-contradictory and untenable. The only reasonable philosophy that gives some fundamental reality to matter is dualism, in which both matter and consciousness are separate and equally real in their own way. But this too raises insurmountable difficulties as to how such utterly disparate modes of reality could interact. Ultimately, the most philosophically satisfying view is simply to realize that matter is an illusion within consciousness, like a dream. In this way, the obvious and incontrovertible reality of consciousness is maintained without introducing the awkward and ultimately insoluble problems of dualism. The 'scents' taken along by the subtle body after death are the vasanas or internal impressions and tendencies which determine our future reincarnation in a body. I have long believed that some form of karma and reincarnation must happen, if life has any kind of meaning. Otherwise life is but a cruel throw of the dice, and anything could follow from anything. In fact, the world, with all its problems, displays a remarkably rational behavior, with a strong evolutionary undercurrent. Just as apple trees come from apple seeds, so do good lives come from good deeds. A slow evolution of spirit from life to life makes much sense, and it is also in harmony with modern science, insofar as two major physical realms display an evolutionary trend: the universe since the Big Bang and life on earth since the primeval soup. It is as though the whole universe from stars to animals to jivas is slowly progressing from the darkness of unconsciousness to the light of pure consciousness. As the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in some very famous words: From the unreal, lead me to the real From darkness, lead me to the light From death lead me to Immortality Apparently the whole illusory spectacle of the universe is playing this evolutionary game, which spans innumerable so-called lifetimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > Namaste, > > I have prepared some notes for the Gita satsangh I will attend > tomorrow. I thought maybe some here would find them useful. I > discuss these verses from an Advaitic point of view, using Swami > Chinmayanda's commentary as a guide. > As many scholars have > commented, the Gita is not entirely consistent from a rigorous > philosophical point of view, as it does combine nondualism and > dualism. However, it does this very artfully, in order to make the > esoteric wisdom of the Upanishads accessible to ordinary > understanding, which believes in a world of distinct egos and objects. Namaste Ben-ji, Thank you for sharing your cogently presented notes on the Gita verses 15:7,8. The apparent philosophical inconsistencies found by scholars have not been so to those who have accessed the advaitic intuition through the long process of discipline required for such understanding. These 'antinomies', two contradictory principles equally supported by reason, do have a resolution. Some years back there was a series of postings on 5 such antinomies and their resolution, written by Prof. Ranade, a pre-eminent philosopher-mystic (1887-1957) from his book 'The Bhagavadgita as a Philosophy of Self-Realization'. There is a legend about the composition of Mahabharata by Vyasa. Vyasa requested Ganesha to be his scribe for this opus. Ganesha agreed to do it on condition that Vyasa would do the dictation without any interruption. Vyasa accepted it, but put a counter-condition that Ganesha would not write anything that he did not understand! Ganesha too agreed. Thus, whenever Vyasa wanted to pause for a breather, he would compose a verse like a riddle, that made Ganesha stop and think!! There are said to be about 3400 such riddles in the @100,000 verse of the Mahabharata. I have often wondered which some of these riddles may be in the Gita! Regards, Sunder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Namaste Sunderji, >The apparent philosophical inconsistencies found >by scholars have not been so to those who have >accessed the advaitic intuition through the long >process of discipline required for such >understanding. Thank you, Sunderji. I shall reference you and this message at satsangh tomorrow! Hari Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2004 Report Share Posted May 20, 2004 Ben-ji , Thank you for sharing these two verses from 'puroshattam yoga' from srimad bhagwat gita. i will try to grasp the finer nuances of this message later as my 'senses' ( eyes, mind, body etc) are tired from a rather heavy work day . after my mediatation this evening, my senses will be more receptive. This does look like a very scholarly presentation and looks like you have put your heart and soul into it!!! smiles!!! here , i would like to quote a verse from srivaishnavism ( sorry, dear advaitins) Sarvopanishado gaavaha dogdha gopaala nandanaha paartho vatsaha sudheerbhokta dugdham geethamrutam mahat. "All the upanishads took the form of cow. The cowherd is Sri Krishna HIMSELF. Arjuna represents the calf. We, the knowledge seekers are the one to enjoy the milk ie the necter called Srimad Bhagavad Gita." what can i say? my gopi heart always longs for Lord, the Cowherd! HARI AUM! advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > Namaste, > > I have prepared some notes for the Gita satsangh I will attend > tomorrow. I thought maybe some here would find them useful. I > discuss these verses from an Advaitic point of view, using Swami > Chinmayanda's commentary as a guide. > > Hari Om! > Benjamin > > > > > DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER XV, VERSES 7-8 > > Ch. XV is Yoga of the Supreme Spirit > > > SANSKRIT VERSES: > > 7. Mamaivaamsho jeevaloke jeevabhootah sanaatanah; > Manah shashthaaneendriyaani prakritisthaani karshati. > > 8. Shareeram yadavaapnoti yacchaapy utkraamateeshwarah; > Griheetwaitaani samyaati vaayur gandhaan ivaashayaat. > > > SIVANANDA/CHINMAYANANDA TRANSLATION: > > 7. An eternal portion of Myself, having become a living soul in the > world of life and abiding in Prakriti draws (to itself) the (five) > senses, with mind as the sixth. > > 8. When the Lord obtains a body, and when He leaves it, He takes > these and goes (with them) as the wind takes the scents from their > seats (the flowers). > > > RAMANAND PRASAD TRANSLATION (FOR COMPARISON): > > 7. The individual soul (Jiva, Jivatma) in the body of living beings > is the integral part of the universal Spirit, or consciousness. The > individual soul associates with the six sensory faculties _ including > the mind _ of perception and activates them. > > 8. Just as the air takes aroma away from the flower; similarly, the > individual soul takes the six sensory faculties from the physical > body it casts off during death to the new physical body it acquires > in reincarnation. > > > IMPORTANCE OF THIS CHAPTER: > > "For the beauty and brevity of the stanzas in this chapter, no other > portion of the Geeta can stand even a favorable comparison with it. > In India, from the ancient days onwards, this chapter has been > recited before taking food as a prayer by the Brahmins." Swami > Chinmayananda > > "This is a very mystical chapter." Swami Dheerananda > > > THEME OF THESE TWO VERSES: > > Krishna explains to Arjuna how he (a.k.a. Brahman or God) manifests > as individual souls or jivas in the realm of maya (or illusion), and > how it keeps the subtle body of senses and mind as it passes from > body to body during reincarnation. > > > AN ETERNAL PORTION OF MYSELF, HAVING BECOME A LIVING SOUL IN THE > WORLD OF LIFE... > > As Swami Chinmayananda says: 'The Infinite has no parts.' Brahman is > nondual Consciousness, without a second, and there is no other > reality. This view is essential to the Advaita philosophy, so it > would seem that there is a conflict between this verse and the > philosophy that Swamiji holds to be the highest. How could the > nondual, indivisible Brahman be 'broken' into portions? > > Swamiji gives the example of the moon shining in a bucket of water. > The water may be ruffled by a breeze, and the image of the moon may > be broken into hundreds of quivering, glinting pieces, but the moon > itself remains whole and undisturbed. The moon stands for the > Supreme Consciousness, and the glints in the water are the jivas > reflecting this consciousness. > > One may object that in this case, there is a duality, between the > original moon in the sky and the reflections in the water. Does this > not contradict the nonduality of Brahman? > > My answer is that this analogy should not be taken too literally. A > clear indication of this is that Consciousness is the Seer, which > certainly cannot be seen, yet the moon is seen in the analogy. The > correct way to understand this analogy is to realize that > Consciousness is the 'eye of the eye', as we read in the second verse > of the Kena Upanishad. It is because of the miracle of consciousness > that we see anything, including the reflections in the water. The > moon is none other than consciousness itself, the light that lights > whatever is seen. The light that is seen glinting on the water is > itself a derivative secondary kind of light. It is consciousness > that is the true illuminator of even the light that is seen. > > This was also expressed in the very 'mystical' sounding Verse 6: > > "6. Neither doth the sun illumine there, nor the moon, nor the fire; > having gone thither they return not; that is My supreme abode." > > which is but an echo of a similar verse in the Katha Upanishad: > > "The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these > lightnings - not to speak of this fire. He shining, everything shines > after Him. By His light all this is lighted." > > Again, the point is that the Seer or Consciousness cannot be seen, > yet it is the reason anything can be seen. > > At the ultimate Advaitic level, there is in fact no difference > between seer and seen. There is just the nondual Brahman. But as > long as we conceptually distinguish between seer and seen, then we > must admit that the seer cannot be seen. All of this occurs in the > dualistic conceptual mind, which is the source of maya, of the > apparent world of objects. This maya is the illusion that objects > are something other than consciousness. This is our ordinary sate of > mind. The illusion is not that we see objects but that we see them > as other than our consciousness, than our self. After realization, > the jnana does not become blind. Ramana Maharshi still saw a world > and people, but he did not see them as something other than his > consciousness. > > So when the Gita speaks of a 'portion' of the Infinite Consciousness > becoming a jiva, it should not be taken literally, as though a loaf > of bread is being sliced up. Brahman or Consciousness is incapable > of division. Rather, it appears to be divided into different jivas. > As always, the dream analogy is very helpful. In a dream, there may > appear to be many 'people', of which the dreamer is just one. There > seems to be an entire world. Yet upon awakening, it is realized that > it was all nothing more than a spectacle in the consciousness of the > dreamer. There was no multiplicity of any kind, no people and things > existing by themselves; there was only the appearance of multiplicity > in the single unitary consciousness of the dreamer. What we call the > waking world is the dream of Brahman, until we too awake and realize > our true nature. Upon awakening, we cease to be hypnotized by the > delusion that we are merely discrete and hence finite beings and > become aware of our nature as divine and infinite. > > > ... AND ABIDING IN PRAKRITI DRAWS (TO ITSELF) THE (FIVE) SENSES, WITH > MIND AS THE SIXTH. > > Continuing in the same vein, we must not imagine that Prakriti (or > Matter or Nature) is distinct from the consciousness. Again, this > dualism is merely part of the dream. What produces the illusion of > finite discrete objects and beings is identification with the senses > (and through them the apparent body). This includes the five gross > senses and the sixth subtle sense of the mind. It is the same as > when the dreamer identifies with one portion of the illusion within > his dream, which he takes for himself, while he is dreaming. He also > thinks the rest of the illusion is other than himself, again while he > is dreaming. Upon awakening, he realizes that the entire dream was > himself, being merely a play of shapes and colors in his > consciousness. There were no discrete things, only the appearance > thereof. > > Yet, as we saw in Chapter 13, the Gita does use the dualistic > language of seer and seen, or knower-of-the-field and field. This is > because the Gita tries to express the ultimate truth of Advaita or > nonduality, as found in the Upanishads, in terms of the more > common-sense dualistic language of the Samkhya philosophy, with its > purusha and prakriti and three gunas. As many scholars have > commented, the Gita is not entirely consistent from a rigorous > philosophical point of view, as it does combine nondualism and > dualism. However, it does this very artfully, in order to make the > esoteric wisdom of the Upanishads accessible to ordinary > understanding, which believes in a world of distinct egos and objects. > > Indeed by becoming devoted to Krishna, by seeing Krishna in > everything, and by realizing that Krishna is none other than > Consciousness, all of which is repeated often in the Gita, we can > access the esoteric nondual realm of the Upanishads though the > vehicle of devotion. In devotion, one starts out believing in a > common-sense distinction between devotee and object of devotion, > namely Krishna. Gradually one comes to realize that all is Krishna > including oneself. This realization expresses itself through love, > which is the manifestation in emotion of the nondual unity of our > true nature. For those whose limited wisdom cannot cope directly > with the esoteric nondual doctrine, the same can be achieved through > love of Krishna combined with the realization that Krishna is the > source and sustainer of the world, and ultimately identical with it, > as demonstrated in the dramatic Chapter 11, the Vision of the Cosmic > Form. > > So the descent of Consciousness into the Prakriti or Nature is not to > be taken literally as some kind of a nebulous ghost entering a corpse > of flesh. This may be how it appears to us, but we have seen that > all appearances occur within consciousness, so that the mind and body > have only an illusory existence. The entire Prakriti is as illusory > as the world seen in a dream. But due to the vivid nature of the > Prakriti and of the senses in which it manifests, the mind is easily > deceived into thinking of the body as a separate, self-sustaining > entity, distinct from the Supreme Consciousness. This leads to ego > and identification with the body, as it is not possible to identify > with the body until we first think it is real in itself. If we are > thoroughly convinced that it is an illusion in consciousness, then we > can no longer take it so seriously, we no longer identify with it, > and the ego-sense no longer arises with all its problems. We then > dwell in Pure Consciousness alone, realizing our identity with the > infinite, and merely use the instrument of an illusory body in order > to play along with the rest of the dream. > > > WHEN THE LORD OBTAINS A BODY, AND WHEN HE LEAVES IT, HE TAKES THESE > AND GOES (WITH THEM) AS THE WIND TAKES THE SCENTS FROM THEIR SEATS > (THE FLOWERS). > > Again, this separation of subtle and gross bodies occurs entirely > within consciousness. The subtle and gross bodies are both part of > the dream of maya and equally unreal. The gross body of flesh is > more deeply embedded in the illusion, insofar as it seems so solid > and real. That is why we tend to identify primarily with it. But a > little reflection shows that the apparent solidity of the body is > only a feeling and a perception, and feelings and perceptions are > clearly in consciousness. We may push against a wall in a dream, and > the wall may feel very solid and resist our push, but it is still > only an insubstantial dream, as we realize upon awakening. > > So Krishna is simply telling us how the dream changes when we go > though the process we think of as dying. In fact, there is no dying. > There is only the succession of one dream by another. The gross > dream of the body is replaced by a more subtle dream of subtle body, > in which some kind of perception remains, but not the perception of > gross flesh. > > There is in fact a lot of interesting material on the internet about > near death experiences. Many people who have nearly died due to > accident, injury or surgery have reported amazing visions of floating > above their bodies, seeing tunnels of light, feeling indescribable > bliss, and perhaps communicating with a vision of their favorite > deity. Of course, some of it may be fraudulent, but I cannot believe > all of it is. What is not fraud may still be innocent delusion of > some sort, but there are too many uncanny stories that sound credible > enough, such as reports of seeing things during the operation that > the patient could not have known unless somehow awake, even though he > was in fact under anesthesia. Besides, there are many reports of > gurus leaving their gross bodies and having experiences in the subtle > body, such as in the autobiography of Yogananda. On the one hand, > the scientist in me wants to stay sufficiently cautious and > skeptical, but on the other hand that same scientist feels that it > cannot all be fraud. Not all humans are dishonest. There is > probably some truth to it in some cases. > > The main point is that we do not disappear when the body dies, as > would be the case if the materialistic philosophy were true. This > dreadful materialistic philosophy is quite popular today among > educated people; it says that only matter exists and our so-called > consciousness is only some curious ephemeral effect of our brain > chemicals. It is partly because of this dreary view that I became > interested in philosophy in the first place, particularly in Indian > philosophy. > > Actually, it does not take too much reflection to realize that pure > materialism is absurd by its own tenets. On the one hand it > maintains that unconscious matter is the only reality, yet it also > blithely assumes that somehow consciousness can emanate from or > reside in the unconscious matter. This is utterly self- contradictory > and untenable. > > The only reasonable philosophy that gives some fundamental reality to > matter is dualism, in which both matter and consciousness are > separate and equally real in their own way. But this too raises > insurmountable difficulties as to how such utterly disparate modes of > reality could interact. Ultimately, the most philosophically > satisfying view is simply to realize that matter is an illusion > within consciousness, like a dream. In this way, the obvious and > incontrovertible reality of consciousness is maintained without > introducing the awkward and ultimately insoluble problems of dualism. > > The 'scents' taken along by the subtle body after death are the > vasanas or internal impressions and tendencies which determine our > future reincarnation in a body. I have long believed that some form > of karma and reincarnation must happen, if life has any kind of > meaning. Otherwise life is but a cruel throw of the dice, and > anything could follow from anything. In fact, the world, with all > its problems, displays a remarkably rational behavior, with a strong > evolutionary undercurrent. Just as apple trees come from apple > seeds, so do good lives come from good deeds. A slow evolution of > spirit from life to life makes much sense, and it is also in harmony > with modern science, insofar as two major physical realms display an > evolutionary trend: the universe since the Big Bang and life on earth > since the primeval soup. It is as though the whole universe from > stars to animals to jivas is slowly progressing from the darkness of > unconsciousness to the light of pure consciousness. As the > Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says in some very famous words: > > From the unreal, lead me to the real > From darkness, lead me to the light > From death lead me to Immortality > > Apparently the whole illusory spectacle of the universe is playing > this evolutionary game, which spans innumerable so-called lifetimes. 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.