What will it be like?

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

The question asked is " What happens when the body dies? " .

Extracts from Br. up and the bhAshya thereon on this point are given on my

website

www.geocities.com/snsastri

under the heading 'Terms and Concepts in Vedanta', sub-heading

'Transmigration'..

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

I appreciate that these are simply ideas playing in the mind but I would be

interested to know of any references where they are discussed. (And it goes

without saying that I would be interested in the thoughts of members, too!)

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I don't know much about transmigration of soul etc. Neither do I

have any scriptural references relating to such matters in my

possession.

 

The straight answer to what happens when the body dies is that it

decays or is burnt and becomes one with the soil. LOL. But, the

person who has aksed the question seems to acknowledge that he is not

the body. That is why he has asked what happens to the body. He is

not worried about himself. So, he needs a serious answer.

 

The following is my understanding from the point of view of simple

vedanta.

 

Sleep is flanked by wakefulness on either side. Sleep is remembered

by the waker as " I slept " . Sleep is an experience of not

experiencing recalled in waking.

 

Death is not flanked by wakefulness like sleep. Death is not

remembered as " I died " . Death is never an experience recalled.

 

There is therefore no comparison between sleep and death.

 

`X' thinks that he is going to die one day just because he

sees " Y " , " Z " et al dying. But, `X''s death, if at all it occurs, is

not going to be `X''s experience. `X' might `see' `Y''s death. But,

that is another person's death – an experience of `seeing' another

person die. Experience-wise, `X', therefore, does not die. He only

infers that he has to die one day like others and lives in fear of

that anticipated tragedy which he is never going to experience!

 

The thing that is inferred to die is the body. We can't even say

that the mind also dies unless we fastidiously attach it to the brain.

 

I have a body. For how long during a day of twenty-four hours am I

really aware of it? The truth is that I am never *totally* aware of

my body. When I am busy doing my daily chores, the body is not

remembered at all. When a pain or irritation occurs on the body,

only the affected part is remembered. I am never aware of my body in

totality. I am aware of my body in one piece only in thought. Then

that thought is only an image visualized.

 

The anticipated death of our body, therefore, is the death of a

visualized image!

 

Do we now have to ask the question: What happens in death? The fact

is that, subjectively, there is no such thing called death. There is

only the fear of an imagined monster lurking out there to pounce on

us.

 

We all live as awareness. However, we get tragically anchored on or

pinned down to certain moorings and miserably imagine that we are

limited by birth and death – two events which are not our experience.

 

On this very pleasant sunny Deepawali morn on this part of the globe

where I am, I am blessed with an opportunity to pen these thoughts.

I never asked for this opportunity. It just came and blossomed in

front of me and my heart just began pouring out. I didn't even

remember that my fingers, which are a part of my so-called body,

moved on the keyboard! What is next? I don't know. Yet, I know that

something has to blossom in front of me again and the blooming will

continue unabated. Why worry about an end to it? There is no end to

it because we all are an endlessness that is purely awareness! For

God's sake, let us not moor it anywhere and moan in vain.

 

During the process of writing this, I died to my body countless

times. Yet, the awareness that I am continued. Having learnt

Vedanta, I can't tie that awareness down to a mass of cells called

the brain or a subtler something which goes by the name of sharIra.

 

Mug me if you may. Tick I will do. Ticking is my nature.

 

I am always here, there, everywhere, at all ages. I can be in

Victorian England and next in DwApara Yuga. I can bounce between my

elementary school classroom at age six and my `future' death-bed at

ripe old age. The choice (which moment or scene should shine) is

left to awareness and, as awareness, there is nothing there to limit

me to time and space in my endless sojourn.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

What happens when the body dies? Another way of re-phrasing the

question could be: what happened before the body was born? From a

point of view, it shouldn't be much different, it didn't seem to be a

problem then, why it should be a problem after?

 

But the person asking the question wanted to re-phrase it differently,

as I understood, he/she is equating non-awareness (like in deep sleep)

with nothingness, or in other words, the disappearance of the

hallucination called ahamkara with a sort of void. And behind the

question there is flavor of disappointment...

 

Bowing to All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Rishi,

In the analysis that you presented, you treat the subtle and gross bodies as

being apart from each other, but in reality they are very much inter-related.

Effects in the gross body such as an injury affect the mind and a blow to the

mind can in turn cause health problems to the physical body. So during what is

termed as " life " , one's awareness extends over one continuous body, some parts

of which are gross and other are subtle. After " death " , it extends only to the

subtle parts. Although the gross senses of the gross body are no more after

death, the subtle parts of senses, as well as chitta, ego etc. stay between

births and are the " carriers " of karma.

 

 

On a more general note, I understand there are various treatments possible for

describing rebirth, and philosophically it definitely makes sense. But it still

begs the question as to how it is carried forward. Once it is accepted that the

subtle body is indeed " material, transient and continuous across births after

pancheekaranam " , there has to be a mechanism by which it links between

consequent births.

 

From Shastriji's website:

" The answer is: the presiding deity of the eye, who is an aspect of the

sun, being directed by the individual’s past actions, goes on helping

the functioning of the eye, but withdraws this help and becomes merged

in the sun when the person is about to die. Br.up.3.2.13 says that the

vocal organ merges in fire, the vital force in air, the eye in the sun,

and so on, at the time of death. These organs again take up their

respective places when the individual takes another body. "

 

The mind is said to be composed of tanmatras, which are the subtle elements.

Each of the 5 tanmatras, namely shabda, rupa, gandha, rasa and sparsha signify

an aspect of sensory organs. I think what the passage above from Br. U. means

is, at death, these principles, which exist in the subtle body during life merge

into the universal principles corresponding to each tanmatra, namely fire, air

and so on, and take them back again when new gross body is taken up.

 

 

However, there has to be more to the analysis I tried to explain above to the

process of rebirth. As a result, any more thoughts along the lines which

elucidate the mechanism of the same will be really great.

 

Also, I perhaps have typed more than I know about the entire process, hence if

there are any errors in it, please let me know.

 

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Bollywood, fun, friendship, sports and more. You name it, we have it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

The various replies so far were interesting, as always, but have all missed

the point of my question. (This was my fault really for quoting the question

and answer which triggered my thoughts.)

 

 

 

I am not interested in the various advaitic explanations for reincarnation,

karma, saMskAra, or the stories about heaven and gods etc. These are all

teaching devices, part of adhyAropa - apavAda. The crux of my question lay

in the penultimate paragraph, reproduced below. Essentially, this boils down

to: 'What is the point of seeking enlightenment other than to bring peace of

mind for the remainder of this life?' i.e. the notion 'to escape saMsAra' is

not meaningful from the standpoint of paramArtha.

 

 

 

<<On the face of it, the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in the

remainder of this life. There is only ever brahman in reality and, from this

pAramArthika standpoint, no one is ever born or dies. This understanding is

given to one who is self-realized but is the truth whether or not the

understanding is there. Who-I-really-am was never born and is not going to

be reborn whether or not that knowledge is realized in a particular mind.

Conversely, brahman is going to continue to appear as names and forms

presumably, assuming that there are mind-forms to perceive them as separate.

Accordingly, one might ask why one should pursue enlightenment if, although

the 'false' I will not be reborn, the real 'I' will continue to appear as

deluded jIva-s.>>

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji:

 

Since the quoted question had no head or tail and consequently, it

triggered many explanations from different angle. Unlike other

religions (Christianity, Islam, Vaishnavam, etc.,) Vedanta doesn't

focus on 'after death,' instead it rightly focuses on how to lead our

life. If we know how to live, we don't need to worry about the

inevitable death. Vedanta provides the means to lead a life without

the 'BAGGAGE' The one who mastered his/her living without any baggage

gets enlightened! In appearance, it seems that we pursue for

enlightenment, but in essence we learn to live without the baggage.

This fine tuning of one's life is YOGA and the entire Bhagavad Gita

provides menu for living without the baggage! The question of 'death'

arises with accumulation of baggage, more the baggage, more questions

regarding death and - what happens to one's baggage after one's death?

arises. The new born child cries to live and came to live without

baggage.

 

In conclusion this religious question - What happens after one's death?

implies that the enquirer has doubts on the answers that are provided

by the religious scriptures or heads of religions. Those with strong

faith accepts answers which include - good soul goes to heaven, bad

soul goes to hell, souls with baggages take rebirth, etc., etc.,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> The various replies so far were interesting, as always, but have

> all missed the point of my question. (This was my fault really for

> quoting the question and answer which triggered my thoughts.)

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

I have inserted my comments in .

_______________________

 

> <<On the face of it, the only benefit of self-knowledge must be in

the

> remainder of this life.

 

[There is no remainder of life. When you realize that you are

deathlessness, then where is life and a remainder? Life derives its

miserable meaning from death.]

_____________________________

 

> There is only ever brahman in reality and, from this

> pAramArthika standpoint, no one is ever born or dies. This

understanding is

> given to one who is self-realized but is the truth whether or not

the

> understanding is there. Who-I-really-am was never born and is not

going to

> be reborn whether or not that knowledge is realized in a particular

mind.

 

[You are absolutely right.]

_____________________

 

 

> Conversely, brahman is going to continue to appear as names and

forms

> presumably, assuming that there are mind-forms to perceive them as

separate.

 

[Yes. The deluded will perceive duality and suffer from it.]

_______________________

 

 

> Accordingly, one might ask why one should pursue enlightenment if,

although

> the 'false' I will not be reborn, the real 'I' will continue to

appear as

> deluded jIva-s.>>

 

[You are mixing two points of view and being inadvaitic. As far as

the realized one is concerned, there is only one point of view,i.e.

the point of view of the realized which cannot brook a duality of non-

realized les miserables. There are no more any deluded jIvAs after

my self-realization. If there are, advaita is wrong. After my

realization, the point of view of the deluded is alien to me. I

can't return to it. Nor can I appreciate it. The reality of the rope

having been established, how can the snake raise its hood and hiss?]

 

[You might ask why then a realized Shankara laboured to teach the non-

realized. There are two answers to this. The first one is blunt.

Ask him. I am sure only a deluded one would do that; not a realized

one. The second answer is that you are seeing Shankara from the realm

of the deluded and he appears to you there showing the light. The

snake is still hissing. That is a duality of Shankara and you, as the

guide and the guided. That is not relevant to the realized, who is

already Shankara.]

 

[Having known that I am deathlessness, Dennis-ji, you can't expect me

to write an obituary for death. Neither can I do that for life.

This is what I meant in my previus post on this thread. Tailpiece:

Having said all this, I don't think I am realized!]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

 

 

You say: " There is no remainder of life. When you realize that you are

deathlessness, then where is life and a remainder? Life derives its

miserable meaning from death. "

 

 

 

After realization, the body-mind continues to live out its life to exhaust

prArabdha karma. The body-mind still has death to look forward to, even

though this has now completely lost its sting.

 

 

 

I'm afraid I disagree when you go on to say: " There are no more any deluded

jIvAs after my self-realization. If there are, advaita is wrong. After my

realization, the point of view of the deluded is alien to me. I can't return

to it. Nor can I appreciate it. The reality of the rope having been

established, how can the snake raise its hood and hiss? "

 

 

 

Realization is an event in time in the mind of a jIva. When it occurs, that

jIva understands that there is only brahman and that there are no jIva-s *in

reality* but the appearance of other jIva-s continue as before. It is like

the sun rising metaphor. It is now known that there are not really any

separate jIva-s but this knowledge does not prevent their appearance. And

ignorance still appears in the minds of those other jIva-s, necessitating

self-knowledge to remove it.

 

 

 

The point surely is that enlightenment does not make any difference to the

way things *really* are; it only makes a difference to the way I *think*

things are. As I said before, brahman is the non-dual reality irrespective

of whether I know this or not.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

I look at it this way. Kindly see within .

 

_______________

 

> After realization, the body-mind continues to live out its life to

exhaust

> prArabdha karma. The body-mind still has death to look forward to,

even

> though this has now completely lost its sting.

 

[About the body, yes. Like a rocket-shell after the fuel has burnt

off. It is subject to gravitational pull and has to fall. But,

there is no more any identification with it. So, there is nobody

looking forward to its 'death'. Now about the mind. It has gone

Universal. It can no more afford to preoccupy itself with the

crashing shell. It won't even know when the shell has crashed and

gone.]

_________________

 

> Realization is an event in time in the mind of a jIva.

 

[Yes. *In the mind of jIva*. For the mind that has *gone*

Universal, it is not an event because it has always been Universal.]

__________________

 

>When it occurs, that

> jIva understands that there is only brahman and that there are no

jIva-s *in

> reality* but the appearance of other jIva-s continue as before. It

is like

> the sun rising metaphor. It is now known that there are not really

any

> separate jIva-s but this knowledge does not prevent their

appearance. And

> ignorance still appears in the minds of those other jIva-s,

necessitating

> self-knowledge to remove it.

 

[i can't conjecture if there would be other jIvAs struggling around

after my self-realization because that would be like imagining the

existence of limited minds in the presence of the Universal like the

impossibility of dark patches existing right in front of the

brilliant Sun. For other limited minds to spring up, the Universal

has to split again. Is self-realization, revocable or reversible?

Besides, if we take recourse to ajAtavAda, the split that has created

so many deluded individual minds itself is a non-existent scenario.

How can such a truly non-existent split still hold sway on the mind

that has *gone* Universal?]

 

[We discuss these things. We understand Advaita. But, our minds

have not *gone* Universal. There are, therefore, invidual miserable

minds including ours groping in darkness. Self-realization should,

therefore, be something much beyond our academic understanding and

intellect-shining. I am not belittling what we have gained. Only

pointing out that we have a long way to go.]

 

[We teach or debate for the sake of sharing and improving ourselves.

Sometimes, even for showing off. We say the realized one teaches out

of compassion for the deluded jIvAs. That is the point of view of

the jIvA. The realized one doesn't actually have to *be

compassionate*. *To be compassionate* smacks of duality. The

realized one is Compassion. Compassion just manifests. And that is

what we see around us in the form of so many self-less souls.

Shankara included. All our scriputres and holy books also included.

We call it Providence. To my mind, even imagining that such souls

still see a multitude of jIvAs around them is like belittling their

greatness and doing disservice to vedanta.]

 

PraNAms and best wishes.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

 

 

> After realization, the body-mind continues to live out its life to

exhaust

> prArabdha karma. The body-mind still has death to look forward to,

even

> though this has now completely lost its sting.

>

>

>

> I'm afraid I disagree when you go on to say: " There are no more

any deluded

> jIvAs after my self-realization. If there are, advaita is wrong.

After my

> realization, the point of view of the deluded is alien to me. I

can't return

> to it. Nor can I appreciate it. The reality of the rope having been

> established, how can the snake raise its hood and hiss? "

>

>

>

> Realization is an event in time in the mind of a jIva. When it

occurs, that

> jIva understands that there is only brahman and that there are no

jIva-s *in

> reality* but the appearance of other jIva-s continue as before. It

is like

> the sun rising metaphor. It is now known that there are not really

any

> separate jIva-s but this knowledge does not prevent their

appearance. And

> ignorance still appears in the minds of those other jIva-s,

necessitating

> self-knowledge to remove it.

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

This is what Sri SSS has to say about this issue(Hope this is a

relevant passage for your question):

 

" This pathetic realistic description of one who has realized the

truth betrays a woeful disregard of the two standpoints of view

which a student of the upanishads has constantly to bear in mind.

For, from the transcendental point since all distinctions are

nought, the only reality being brahman, or Atman. From the empirical

view, the jnAni is only one among the other egos, while he is a

miracle in the eyes of the seekers of knowledge. **The experience of

the sthitaprajna described in the gItA can never be exactly defined

in empirical terms**. From the transcendental point of view, there

is no question of the jnAni leaving behind him the body or an

independent objective world, for it never existed for him. The idea

that he deals with other egos and that the world goes on even after

his departure is true enough empirically, but it can never affect

reality as it is. "

 

Culled from the book " How to Recognize the Method of VedAnta. "

 

We have to remember that the jnAni is one with the reality **as it

is.**

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Therefore the question remains: is there any benefit

in attaining

enlightenment other than for that jIva for the rest of

its embodiment?

 

If you say " yes " , you're wrong. If you say " no "

your're wrong. This is no different from a Zen koan!

 

Because if there is one to perceive benefit then it is

certainly not Brahman and since nothing but Brahman

exists then there is no one to attain enlightenment.

The whole substratum of this thread is rooted in a

primary dualism...and of course, how could it not

be!!!!???? The primary dualism is jIva/brahman.

The language we use is dualistic to the core and if it

were not it would not be language. Language MUST be

dualistic otherwise it would be meaningless, it could

not posit distinctions and we'd all be walking around

like blithering idiots.

 

Dennis, there is no answer to your question because

the primes of the question is basically the same as

the question " Can God create a weight heavier than he

can lift? "

 

Define benefit. You can't do it because that's a

relative term and the referent of this whole thread is

toward the absolute. Can the absolute benefit?

 

" The rest of the embodiment " --Well, I'm not sure I am

embodied! Am I embodied when I sleep? I don't know! If

I have 25 years of " embodiment " left, subtracting

sleep time--where I don't know IF I'm embodied--how

much " actual " embodiment time do I really have? So

that's relative. Not to mention the time while I'm

" awake " where I'm not aware of embodiment...someone

else had mentioned that, I think. Again, absolutely

relative. Ha! Did you see that-- " absolutely

relative " ...talk about juxtaposing the opposites!

Horns of a hare.

 

Well, anyway... I hope the above is clear. These

matters just don't clarify very well because of our

dualistic language and, therefore, thought.

 

Best I can come up with is that I've got nothing

better to do than to seek enlightenment because cars,

houses, circumstances, fine Belgium ales, the latest

thriller novel, travel to exotic places, " attaining "

something...none of that has much appeal anymore,

except, maybe, for the fine Belium ales!

 

One guy's opinion only!

Yours in relative brotherhood and a bit of humor, I

hope,

Absolutely Steve

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dennisji,

" Is there any benefit in attaining enlightenment other than for that jIva for

the rest of its embodiment? "

 

Well one way to look at this is, " does the jIva have a choice? " It is inevitable

for a jIva to get enlightened, plus birth-death are mere transitions for it. So,

just like every drop falling from the sky eventually has to land in the sea,

every jIva has to get enlightened.

 

 

Although it was not Dennisji meant to ask, I would still appreciate if members

could give their views on my question earlier, namely the mechanism of rebirth

vis-a-vis sukshma sharira.

 

Thanks,

Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Flying to Bangalore or Bhopal? Search for tickets here.