Mechanical and organic

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vaibhav,

 

In message #37912 (8 Nov), you ask:

 

" ... a lot has been written in scriptures as well as the works of

various enlightened sages about the effect of karma, its acting as a

cause for next birth and resolving it all to get out of the life-

death cycle. But, what is the 'mechanism' of this rebirth? Since the

subtle body is still in the realm of matter, there has to be

a 'physical' mechanism for this process. "

 

As you point out, this question is from a vyavahara standpoint, of

transaction in the world. But in the theory of karma, the transaction

is not rightly described as 'mechanical'. It is instead 'organic'.

The body is not here described mechanically, as a machine that is

made up of interacting parts. Instead, the body is considered

organically, as a working system of activity that is essentially

alive.

 

In a mechanical description, energy acts grossly, from one object to

another, as for example when a piston drives a crankshaft in the

engine of a car. But in an organic description, the action of energy

is subtle. It does not act from any objects of perception, thought

and feeling in the world.

 

Strictly speaking, an organic energy must rise essentially from

underlying consciousness, beneath all changes we perceive and think

and feel in our minds. That consciousness stays present always, while

appearances get changed. It is a changeless background that stays

knowing through all change, completely unaffected by whatever comes

and goes.

 

As mechanically described, what's known is a structured world, made

up from objects that act upon each other. This structured world does

not appear by itself. It does not show itself to us. It only shows

when our minds turn attention to its objects, through living

faculties of sense that we locate in our bodies.

 

As organically described, what's known is more inclusive. It is not

just a structured world, made up of objects that must be perceived

through our bodies. What's known is instead a realm that includes all

changing activities: including all activities of mind and sense,

along with all activities of body and of objects seen through body in

the world.

 

That total realm of all activity is known by the English

word 'nature'. In Sanskrit, it is called 'prakriti'. And the

unchanging consciousness that knows all nature is called 'purusha'.

Accordingly we have a duality of nature and consciousness, or

prakriti and purusha.

 

In this conception, nature is self-manifesting. It shows itself to

us, through all perceived and thought and felt appearances that come

and go in each of our minds. And all this changing show is known by

an unchanging consciousness, whose very being is to know.

 

That consciousness is actionless. It does not know through any act

that changes it in any way. Its knowing is no changing act, but only

what it always is. It knows itself as its own light, by which all

nature's acts get lit.

 

Illuminated by that light, all nature's acts are done for it. They

all arise from its self-shining presence, at the changeless

background of all changing appearances which come and go in mind.

From there, beneath all changing show, each act arises naturally.

 

And that arising is completely spontaneous. It is not forced from

outside, by any attraction or repulsion exerted by some bodily or

sensual or mental object. Instead, it is inspired from within, for

the sake of a purely knowing consciousness, which gets thereby

expressed.

 

As time continues in each mind, a changing stream of felt and thought

and perceived appearances arise, quite naturally expressing a

continued consciousness. The energy of that expression is alive, as

it expresses living purposes and meanings and values in our bodies

and our senses and our minds.

 

In Sanskrit, that energy is called 'prana'. It is that energy which

enables us to act purposefully, to convey and interpret meaning, to

judge value and thereby discern what's true and right from what is

false and wrong.

 

At every moment in each mind, that living energy is found expressed,

in some appearance that has risen up from underlying consciousness.

And as this moment passes by, its appearance is then taken in --

reflecting back to consciousness, where the appearance is absorbed.

 

Driven thus, by living energy, a cycle of expression and reflection

keeps on taking place, in the process of each mind. It's only through

this process that we are able to learn from experience -- as our

minds keep mediating out and in, between their underlying

consciousness and the apparent world that they conceive.

 

Within each mind, appearances of outside world appear in time alone.

Within the mind there is no structure, made of interacting parts.

There's only process, made of states that each replace preceding

states and get replaced in turn.

 

The living energy of mind does not act 'horizontally': from earlier

to later states, along the stream of passing time. That living energy

is always 'vertical'. Its action always rises up: from timeless

knowing underneath, through mental states that pass in time, to

interacting objects in a world of space-time happenings.

 

For an organic view of world, this 'vertical' arising is essential.

But how can it be understood? It can't be understood merely

objectively, by building structured pictures from the bits and pieces

of perception that we call 'objects'. It has to be understood

subjectively, by reflecting back through mind into the ground beneath

the built-up picturing.

 

In a mechanical approach, objective elements are specified

theoretically, as the foundations of a structured picturing. The

pictures thus constructed are then used to calculate predictions, to

see how far they are correct. The theories and the pictures are

accordingly adjusted, so as to improve their predictions and their

practical effectiveness in achieving desired objects. As the

improvement progresses, it is tested and applied through mechanical

instruments, which get fabricated and developed along with the

conceptual picturing.

 

But an organic approach must work quite differently. Its instruments

of application are not fabricated and developed mechanically, as

objects in external space. Instead they are evolved and cultivated

organically, as living faculties that we experience in our

microcosmic perceptions, thoughts and feelings of a macrocosmic

universe.

 

For either of these two approaches to be scientific, their

instruments have to be standardized, so that different scientists can

use them in common. Mechanical instruments are standardized

externally: by specifying their manufacture and their testing in

institutions that are organized industrially, commercially and

politically in the world. But our organic faculties have to be

standardized internally: through a reflective education back into a

subjective ground of knowing that we share in common, beneath our

many differences of personality.

 

The theory of karma is essentially organic. Its testing and its

application have to work reflectively, through a repeated turning

back into a changeless consciousness that underlies our changing

minds. Whatever happenings appear in world or personality, all of

these happenings have to be seen as varying expressions of a living

energy that rises up from an unvaried consciousness.

 

In this theory, all causation is originated from that consciousness.

All samskaras manifest from there alone. All happenings made manifest

return back there, dissolved into their causal origin. And there they

continue unmanifest, utterly unchanging and undifferentiated,

completely at one with the self-knowing reality of consciousness.

 

All effects are thus caused by just that same self-shining reality.

No direct cause-and-effect relationship takes place in space or time.

No object acts directly on any other object, across any intervening

difference of space. No earlier event acts directly on some later

event, across any interval of passing time.

 

All objects and events are connected only by the consciousness that

knows them, from beneath their differing appearances. It is the sole

carrier of all apparent cause and effect between objects and events.

And similarly, it is the sole carrier of all communication between

different personalities.

 

The theory of karma is not quite rightly meant to calculate

predictions, from previously observed causes to anticipated effects.

Through any calculations that this theory may make, its proper use is

ultimately to keep on reflecting mind's investigation back: from

changing happenings in time, to changeless consciousness beneath.

 

It's by repeating this reflection that our living faculties are

gradually improved and clarified -- on the way to freeing them,

eventually, from their habitual mistakes.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Dennisji,

Firstly, thank you for addressing my question. I would also like to thank

Shastriji and Paramhansa for replying earlier. I could not reply in that thread

since I was out of town last couple of days.

 

Anyway, I will comment on the general distribution of processes as 'mechanical'

and 'organic' and then specifically about karma and rebirth.

 

Firstly, I completely agree with the division of descriptions as mechanical and

organic. The workings of something like planets and stars or of physical

entities can be described as mechanical, whereas most phenomena which scientists

classify as " metaphysical " are organic in nature. The concepts of karma, rebirth

etc. would fall in the later category.

 

However, if we observe closely, this distinction is really only apparent, and

there is nothing fundamentally different between the two types of processes. In

other words, if one says point out a characteristic X of the process, which,

when present makes a process as organic and when absent, makes it material;

there really is no such characteristic(s).

 

It is true that one unchanged consciousness manifests through prakriti, by

means of prANa. But neither prakriti not prANa are confined to what is described

as a 'human body' or a 'living organism' in general. There really is no

differentiation between 'internal' and 'external' prANA, just as there is no

distinction between an individual mind and a universal mind (Mahat). Just like

water present in a wave is not really different from the ocean, but " appears " to

be so, an individual's prANA, and his mind are not different from their

universal counterparts.

 

This leaves us with two options, either treat ALL the nature as mechanical, or

ALL of it as organic. The first view would imply there is no consciousness, and

it is all mechanical. This is the view of Buddhists (shunya-vada), and has been

logically shown to be false at numerous places.

 

So really the picture which emerges is that of consciousness, acting on one

single prakriti and one single prANa, each of which appears confined temporarily

in a 'living organism' and when it is so confined the physical body is said to

be 'alive'. In other words, all processes are only organic, there is ALWAYS a

SINGLE consciousness which acts/manifests throughout the universe and remains

unchanged inspite of it. The consciousness or the Subject or the Adhyaksha

(Witness) of the Nasadiya Sukta is the Brahman, and the entire Universe is its

manifestation.

 

I hope I am right in the analysis so far.

 

Now, turning to the question of karma/rebirth, it is verily an organic

process. Thus, being in the realm of Maya, it is still unreal from the

paramarthika viewpoint, but real as per the vyavaharika viewpoint. Thus, like

anything else under the realm of Maya, it is subject to time/space/causation.

When one says that the process is 'subtle' or that mind is 'subtle' with respect

to the gross body, it only means that mind is finer in composition w.r.t. the

gross body.

 

Thus, even though the process is organic there has to be a mechanism by which

one's karma is stored in the antahkarana, transferred when the gross body is

changed (or during rebirth) and fructified in the next birth. The first part of

it can be explained by using tanmatras, i.e. the tanmatras which form the mind

get arranged and rearranged as per the person's karma, and like a ripple in the

ocean, after entering the ocean, is propagated back, the 'ripple' of karma, in

the ocean of mind, bounces back as one's prArabdha. Although the process sounds

mechanical here, it is impossible to take place without an 'actor' or 'subject',

which is the Consciousness, which makes it organic.

 

So my original question was, how is this whole process of rebirth described

from this point of view of the antahkarana. This has been described to some

extent in Br. Upanishad as Sastriji pointed out on his website at this link (

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedamigration.html). I think the terms 'aspect

of the eye' etc. refer to the tanmatras corresponding to light and so on. It

says that these organs are withdrawn at death, and taken to a new body, which is

prepared for the jiva to enter.

 

This is good so far, but the question is, how dies a mind/antahkarana migrate

from one place to other. Just like there is need for any other object to

move/act, there has to be an impetus/force for the change in the location/state

in which the antahkarana is in.. In addition, assuming one's karma is stored

in the antahkarana (either in the form of tanmatras or in some other form), how

is it kept intact during transmigration? I wasnt able to find answers to these

question in the Sutra Bhasya as quoted by Paramhamsaji as well.

 

It would be really helpful if you and other members could shed more light on

these questions. If I have misunderstood any point, or said something wrong,

please point it out too.

 

Thanks again, Hari OM!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> So my original question was, how is this whole process of rebirth

described from this point of view of the antahkarana. This has been

described to some extent in Br. Upanishad as Sastriji pointed out on

his website at this link (

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedamigration.html). I think the

terms 'aspect of the eye' etc. refer to the tanmatras corresponding

to light and so on. It says that these organs are withdrawn at death,

and taken to a new body, which is prepared for the jiva to enter.

>

> This is good so far, but the question is, how dies a

mind/antahkarana migrate from one place to other.

 

> It would be really helpful if you and other members could shed

more light on these questions. If I have misunderstood any point, or

said something wrong, please point it out too.

 

Namaste,

 

The short answer to the question is given in Gita 15:7-10 -

 

mamaivaa.nsho jiivaloke jiivabhuutaH sanaatanaH .

manaHShaShThaaniindriyaaNi prakR^itisthaani karShati .. 15\-7..

shariira.n yadavaapnoti yachchaapyutkraamatiishvaraH .

gR^ihiitvaitaani sa.nyaati vaayurgandhaanivaashayaat.h .. 15\-8..

shrotra.n chakShuH sparshana.n cha rasanaM ghraaNameva cha .

adhiShThaaya manashchaayaM viShayaanupasevate .. 15\-9..

utkraamantaM sthitaM vaapi bhu~njaanaM vaa guNaanvitam.h .

vimuuDhaa naanupashyanti pashyanti GYaanachakShuShaH .. 15\-10..

yatanto yoginashchainaM pashyantyaatmanyavasthitam.h .

yatanto.apyakR^itaatmaano nainaM pashyantyachetasaH .. 15\-11..

 

7. It is verily a part of Mine which, becoming the eternal individual

soul in the region of living beings, draws (to itself) the organs

which have the mind as their sixth, and which abide in Nature.

 

It is eva, verily amsah, a part, portion, limb, fragment-these are

all synonymous; mama, of mine, of the supreme Self; [Here Ast.

adds 'narayanasya, of Narayana':-Tr.] which, jiva-bhutah sanatanah,

becoming the eternal individual soul, will known as the enjoyer and

agent; jiva-loke, in the region of living beings, (i.e.) in the world-

..

As the sun (reflected) in water is a part of the (actual) sun, and

goes to the sun itself and does not return when the water, the cause

of the reflection, is removed, so also even this part becomes

similarly united with that very Self; or, as space enclosed in a pot

etc., delimited by such adjuncts as the pot etc., being a part of

Space does not return after being united with Space when the cause

(of limitation), viz pot etc., is destroyed. This being so, it has

been rightly stated, 'by reaching which they do not return.'

 

Objection: How can the partless supreme Self have any limb, fragment

or part? If it has limbs, then there arises the contingency of Its

becoming destroyed through the dismemberment of the limbs!

 

Reply: This fault does not arise, since Its fragment, which is

delimited by an adjunct arising out of ignorance, is imagined to be a

part, as it were. And this idea has been fully explained in the

chapter (13) dealing with the 'field'.

 

How that individual soul, imagined as a part of Mine, enters into the

world and leaves the body are being stated: Karsati, it draws to

itself; indriyani, the (sense-) organs-ear etc.; manah-sasthani,

which have the mind as their sixth; and prakrti-sthani, which abide

in Nature, which are located in their respective spheres such as the

orifice of the ear etc.

 

When (does it draw the organs)?

 

8. When the master leaves it and even when he assumes a body, he

departs taking these, as wind (carries away) odours from their

receptacles.

 

Yat, when; isvarah, the master of the aggregate of the body etc., the

individual soul; utkramati, leaves the body, then he draws. Thus,

the second quarter of the verse is treated first for the sake of

consistency. [When the soul leaves the body, then it draws the organs

(see previous verses) from that body. In this way, the second

quarter of the present verse is treated first, because going to

another body follows the leaving of the earlier one.-M.S.]

 

Ca api, and even; yat, when; it avapnoti, assumes a body other than

the earlier one; then, grahitva, taking; etani, these, the organs

with the mind as their sixth; samyati, he leaves, goes away totally

[samyak, totally-without returning in any way to the earlier body.-

M.S.] Like what? In reply the Lord says: iva, as; vayuh, the wind

(carries away); gandhan, odours; asayat, from their receptacles-

flowers etc.

 

Which, again, are those (organs)?

 

9. This one enjoys the objects by presiding over the ear, eyes, skin

and tongue as also the nose and the mind.

 

Seated in the body, it upasevate, enjoys; visayan, the objects-sound

etc.; adhisthaya, by presiding over; srotram, the ear; caksuh, eyes;

sparsanam, skin, the organ of touch; rasanam, tongue; eva ca, as

also; the ghranam, nose; and manah, the mind, the sixth-(presiding

over) each one of them along with its (corresponding) organ.

 

10. Persons who are diversely deluded do not see it even when it is

leaving or residing (in this body), or experiencing, or in

association with the qualities. Those with the eye of knowledge see.

 

Thus, the embodied soul, utkramantam, when it is leaving the body-the

body that was assumed earlier; or sthitam, while residing in the

(present) body; or bhunjanam, experiencing sound etc.; or guna-

anvitam, in association with, i.e. identified with, the qualities

called happiness, sorrow and delusion-even when, under such

conditions, this one comes very much within the range of cognition;

vimudhah, the persons who are diversely deluded as a result of their

hearts being forcibly attracted by the enjoyments of seen and unseen

objects; na, do not; anu-pasyanti, see. And the Lord regrets this

saying, 'Alas! How sorrowful this is!'

 

Those others, again, jnana-caksusah, who have the eye of knowledge,

[Jnana-caksuh means the scriptures supported by reasoning, which are

the means of knowledge.] who have the insight of under-standing which

has arisen from the valid means of knowledge, i.e., those having a

clear vision; pasyanti, see this one.

 

 

The long answer is in the Garbha Upanishad -

 

 

http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/garbha.html

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/doc_upanishhat.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Vaibhav,

 

This refers to your message #38022 (Nov 14). As you say, it isn't

really phenomena that may be distinguished as mechanical or organic.

Instead, the distinction is one of perspective. The same phenomena

may be viewed mechanically or organically, depending on how one looks.

 

In a mechanical perspective, what's known is taken as a manifested

world of differentiated structure, made up of interacting objects.

The method of description here is structural. It builds up structured

pictures of the world, by relating smaller parts that are differently

located in external space.

 

In an organic perspective, what's known is taken as a manifesting

process of nature, whose changing activities produce all the

perceived and thought and felt appearances that anyone experiences in

world or personality. The method of description here is essentially

reflective. It turns attention back from the built-up structure of

perceived appearances. Reflecting thus, consideration turns back

down, through a subjective questioning of purposes and meanings and

values that may be found expressed from an underlying background of

continued consciousness.

 

Such a reflection goes back down through our living faculties -- the

same faculties through which all structured pictures of the world are

found expressed. The pictured world is thereby found to express an

unpictured background of changeless and actionless consciousness --

from which all changing acts arise, throughout all nature's

manifesting process.

 

Accordingly, from an organic perspective, all nature must be found

essentially alive, throughout all show of happenings that nature

manifests to its own underlying consciousness, in anyone's experience.

 

In general, therefore, we agree upon an organic perspective where

nature everywhere expresses consciousness and is thus everywhere

alive. And in this general context, you are asking me a specific

question, as to how a mind may be conceived to migrate from one body

located in one part of space and time to another body located

elsewhere.

 

Well, I would say that the migration is not rightly mechanical. By

its very nature, no mind can ever move directly from one moment to

another in time, nor from one place to another in space. The mind can

only move back and forth -- between its changing surface where

differing objects appear and its underlying depth of unchanging

consciousness.

 

So, when some person's body dies, that person's mind is taken in to

the background consciousness that is timelessly and spacelessly

present always and everywhere. At the body's death, the mind's

samskaras are absorbed into that consciousness alone. So, when this

mind is later on reborn in a new body, the rebirth is a renewed

arising from exactly the same timeless and spaceless presence of

consciousness, into which the transmigrating mind has been absorbed.

 

From the mechanical perspective of a structured world, it appears

that the transmigrating mind has mysteriously travelled through space

and time. But from the organic perspective of a mediating mind, there

is no 'horizontal' movement of this mind and its samskaras, along any

path of travel in some mechanically woven fabric of space and time.

 

Instead of moving 'horizontally', along some continued path of events

in space-time happening, the transmigrating mind moves

only 'vertically' down and up. It just reflects completely down,

*beneath* all space and time, into its knowing background. And from

that background underneath, this transmigrating mind and its

samskaras are later on seen to arise, *up* into the birth of another

body, at some other place and time.

 

As a mind thus transmigrates, its samskaras must appear to have

travelled through the structured course of space and time. And this

apparent travel makes us ask for some mechanical causation that

carries it along, through the structured geometry of space-time

happening.

 

But I would say that samskaras are better described organically. In

particular, they may be described as causal seeds, which keep on

getting planted in the underlying background. As nature's happenings

arise into appearance from that background, these appearances are

each perceived and interpreted and thereby absorbed back into it.

Each such absorption leaves behind a seed of causal potency, which

carries on beneath the changes of apparent happening.

 

Thus planted as a causal seed, each samskara may stay dormant for a

while. But it has the potential to sprout forth into manifested

happenings that come into appearance later on. As time goes by, there

comes to be an accumulation of samskaras or seed potencies, which

subtly condition our personalities and their environment.

 

This old and traditional description is of course somewhat

metaphorical. It's not a mechanical description that is meant to

calculate predictions in the world. Instead, it is an organic

metaphor that's meant to clarify our thinking -- by a reflective

questioning of what this thinking rightly means.

 

Where samskaras are thus metaphorically described, as causal seeds,

how do they continue in the underlying background where they have

been planted? They aren't like vegetable seeds, which stay different

from the soil in which they may grow. Instead, as our samskaras are

planted, they are completely dissolved in their unchanging and

undifferentiated ground. No difference can there remain, for them to

maintain any separate or distinct identity.

 

So no samskaras actually travel anywhere, through space and time.

They can't be carried here and there, like vegetable seeds are

carried by mechanical transport from their mother plants to market or

to new plantation grounds.

 

Each samskara is essentially a mental after-effect, which has no

differentiated existence in the background consciousness where it

resides and from where it arises into manifested happening. This

arising cannot be described mechanically, as forced or driven by any

impetus outside itself. It can only be understood organically,

through a sympathetic reflection back through one's own living

faculties.

 

When such a reflection goes back down to underlying consciousness, a

clearer understanding is expressed spontaneously from there. That is

the scientific basis of any organic description, like the theory of

karma. Such a description works essentially through a reflective

clarification of our living faculties, not through a theoretical

definition of any mechanism, nor through any fabrication of

mechanical instruments for testing and applying theories.

 

If you want a more detailed account of this view of karma, you will

find it in a book called 'Ways to Truth: A View of Hindu Tradition'

The relevant portion of the book is 'Part 2 -- Authority and Power',

second section called 'Rebirth and Dissolution'. The book may be

downloaded from the following URL:

<http://www.advaitin.net/Ananda/WaysToTruth.pdf>

 

For the purpose of Advaita enquiry, the theory of rebirth may be

treated as a pointer to what happens at each moment in our lives. At

every present moment, what one was in the past is now dead and gone.

The present person has just now been reborn, and is about to die.

Then, as this moment passes by, it passes back into continued

consciousness, from which another moment will be born again.

 

Rebirth and dying thus keep taking place, without much fuss and in

the main unnoticed by most of us. The only thing that truly lives is

consciousness that knows itself in identity. There, no duality is

found, between what knows and what is known.

 

At every moment, what appears arises from that non-duality, found at

the background of all change. And the appearance passes on to its

absorption back into that same non-dual reality, which each

appearance truly shows.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

=============================================================

=============================================================

 

Dear Vaibhav ji,

 

In my opinion, Storing of Karma in antaHkaraNa is only a metaphorical

pronouncing. Karma is simply a law that establishes the Cause-Effect

relationship.

The " I-ness " is the doer and hence it has to experience the results of

its deeds. As long as there is " I-ness " , the individuality exists.

This individuality or jIvatva is anAdi, says SrI Sankara. It has had

no beginning. No jIva ever had a beginning. SrI Sankara asks us to

imagine it to be in a " cyclic " manner.

 

Further, at the beginning of every kalpa, the Supreme Lord along with

his adjunct, mAyA, projects the jIvas and jagat out of Himself. At the

time of pralaya, the jIvahood is not destroyed. Everything goes into

avyakta(unmanifested state) wherein the jIvas sleep without any

consciousness of their real nature.

 

The jIvahood gets destroyed only on AtmasAkSAtkAra.

 

## Now, there is really no point in saying that the " I-ness " is made

up of tanmAtrAs. This explanation is more realistic. Since we have

superimposed matter on Brahman, we try to explain the composition of

" I-ness " using the same realistic view of tanmAtrAs.

 

Firstly the question is, " Can we ever see our own antaHkaraNa? "

 

Swami Vivekananda says as below:

{{{{{{

The mind cannot be analysed by any external machine. Supposing you

could look into my brain while I am thinking, you would only see

certain molecules interchanged. You could not see thought,

consciousness, ideas, images. You would simply see the mass of

vibrations — chemical and physical changes. From this example we see

that this sort of analysis would not do.

 

Is there any other method by which the mind can be analysed as mind?

If there is, then the real science of religion is possible. The

science of Raja-Yoga claims there is such a possibility. We can all

attempt it and succeed to a certain degree. There is this great

difficulty: In external sciences the object is [comparatively easy to

observe]. The instruments of analysis are rigid; and both are

external. But in the analysis of the mind the object and the

instruments of analysis are the same thing. . . . The subject and the

object become one. . . .

 

External analysis will go to the brain and find physical and chemical

changes. It would never succeed [in answering the questions]: What is

the consciousness? What is your imagination? Where does this vast mass

of ideas you have come from, and where do they go? We cannot deny

them. They are facts. I never saw my own brain. I have to take for

granted I have one. But man can never deny his own conscious

imagination. .

 

The great problem is ourselves. Am I the long chain I do not see — one

piece following the other in rapid succession but quite unconnected?

Am I such a state of consciousness [for ever in a flux]? Or am I

something more than that — a substance, an entity, what we call the

soul? In other words, has man a soul or not? Is he a bundle of states

of consciousness without any connection, or is he a unified substance?

That is the great controversy. If we are merely bundles of

consciousness, . . . such a question as immortality would be merely

delusion. . . . On the other hand, if there is something in me which

is a unit, a substance, then of course I am immortal. The unit cannot

be destroyed or broken into pieces. Only compounds can be broken up. . . .

 

All religions except Buddhism believe and struggle in some way or

other to reach such a substance. Buddhism denies the substance and is

quite satisfied with that. It says, this business about God, the soul,

immortality, and all that — do not vex yourselves with such questions.

But all the other religions of the world cling to this substance. They

all believe that the soul is the substance in man in spite of all the

changes, that God is the substance which is in the universe. They all

believe in the immortality of the soul. These are speculations. Who is

to decide the controversy between the Buddhists and the Christians?

Christianity says there is a substance that will live for ever. The

Christian says, " My Bible says so. " The Buddhist says, " I do not

believe in your book. " . . .

 

The question is: Are we the substance [the soul] or this subtle

matter, the changing, billowing mind? . . . Our minds are constantly

changing. Where is the substance within? We do not find it. I am now

this and now that. I will believe in the substance if for a moment you

can stop these changes. . . .

}}}}}}

 

 

## Just as we describe the whole world as to be made up of Matter,

similarly we describe the Mind to be consisting of Matter.

 

We have never seen our own Mind but we simply speculate its nature by

observing others' mind which appears to us only in the form of Matter.

 

If we know something as real in this world, that is this " I-ness "

alone, for no person exists bereft of " I-ness " . This I-ness is the

source of all thoughts. This I-ness is the doer and is itself the one

who experiences the results of its deeds.

 

Now, we see that death is a mere change in material body. What has it

to do with the ahamkAra(I-ness)?

This I-ness exists without any change even after death. Since we never

see the grosser manifestations of thoughts(in the form of deeds or

expressions) of the deceased, we think that their Mind dies along with

their body.

 

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

 

 

> ==========================================================

> Thus, even though the process is organic there has to be a

mechanism by which one's karma is stored in the antahkarana,

transferred when the gross body is changed (or during rebirth) and

fructified in the next birth. The first part of it can be explained by

using tanmatras, i.e. the tanmatras which form the mind get arranged

and rearranged as per the person's karma, and like a ripple in the

ocean, after entering the ocean, is propagated back, the 'ripple' of

karma, in the ocean of mind, bounces back as one's prArabdha. Although

the process sounds mechanical here, it is impossible to take place

without an 'actor' or 'subject', which is the Consciousness, which

makes it organic.

>

> So my original question was, how is this whole process of rebirth

described from this point of view of the antahkarana. This has been

described to some extent in Br. Upanishad as Sastriji pointed out on

his website at this link (

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedamigration.html). I think the

terms 'aspect of the eye' etc. refer to the tanmatras corresponding to

light and so on. It says that these organs are withdrawn at death, and

taken to a new body, which is prepared for the jiva to enter.

>

> This is good so far, but the question is, how dies a

mind/antahkarana migrate from one place to other. Just like there is

need for any other object to move/act, there has to be an

impetus/force for the change in the location/state in which the

antahkarana is in.. In addition, assuming one's karma is stored in

the antahkarana (either in the form of tanmatras or in some other

form), how is it kept intact during transmigration? I wasnt able to

find answers to these question in the Sutra Bhasya as quoted by

Paramhamsaji as well.

>

> It would be really helpful if you and other members could shed

more light on these questions. If I have misunderstood any point, or

said something wrong, please point it out too.

>

> Thanks again, Hari OM!

> ~Vaibhav.

>

>

>

> Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online.

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sunderji,

 

Thank you for your response. I read both the Gita

verses, as well as the Upanishad which you quoted.

 

You quoted:

The short answer to the question is given in Gita

15:7-10 -

 

7. It is verily a part of Mine which, becoming the

eternal individual soul in the region of living

beings, draws (to itself) the organs which have the

mind as their sixth, and which abide in Nature.

 

8. When the master leaves it and even when he assumes

a body, he departs taking these, as wind (carries

away) odours from their receptacles.

 

9. This one enjoys the objects by presiding over the

ear, eyes, skin and tongue as also the nose and the

mind.

 

10. Persons who are diversely deluded do not see it

even when it is leaving or residing (in this body), or

experiencing, or in association with the qualities.

Those with the eye of knowledge see.

 

{unquote}

 

The kind of explanation I was looking for is

definitely on these lines. The description given here

gives a process which is followed during birth. But

perhaps it is because I am verily 'diversely deluded',

I still have doubts.

 

Sri Krishna says that while leaving the body, the

Master (which is definitely the jiva/atman) takes with

him the various organs, including mind, and then

resides in a new body. My question was to know more

about the 'details' of this transfer. Since the

jiva/atman is not a 'material' entity, and is said to

be timeless, Infinite, how does the change of location

of the organs and mind brought about?

 

I would think the only proof at this point of time of

any such explanation would have to be Apta-vAkya, or

the testimony of a jnAni, since clearly I do not have

the 'eye of knowledge'. Hence, my asking of references

from the scriptures.

 

The Garbha Upanishad surely goes into little more

detail, describing the process of rebirth.

From the Upanishad:

 

10. In the eighth month, in conjunction with the five

vital airs the Jiva gets the capacity to know its past

affairs (of past births), conceives of the

imperishable Atman as Om, through perfect knowledge

and meditation. Having known Om he sees in the body

the eight Prakritis derived from it the five elements,

mind, intellect and ego and the sixteen changes [see

Prasnopanishad].

 

11. The body becomes complete in the ninth month and

remembers the past birth. Actions done and not done

flash to him and he recognises the good and bad nature

of Karma.

 

(unquote)

 

The similar questions I mentioned here arise again.

How does the jiva get knowledge of the past births in

the womb? How does it know the past actions?

 

My understanding of the concept of 'mind' or chitta is

that it has a storage of memory as one of its aspects.

But, in addition to it, mind still comes in the realm

of 'matter' and hence is bound by laws of causation.

Thus, for every effect on the mind(such as the mind

knowing its past births while in the womb or it moving

from one place to another) there should have a cause.

And I am asking for the causes, or rather the

functioning of the mind during transmigration, perhaps

in more detail than explained in the Gita or the

Upanishad above. (I will reply to Anandaji's response

to the question in the next email to avoid confusion).

 

If there is a hidden message, or a different

understanding than what I have mentioned above of the

passages you quoted, or a different interpretation of

the same is possible which answers the questions,

please let me know. I will really appreciate that.

 

Thanks again for taking the time,

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

5, 50, 500, 5000 - Store N number of mails in your inbox. Go to

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html

[Guest guest]

Anandaji,

 

Thank you for your enlightening post. I really enjoyed

it (as well a couple of your other works I read

today).

 

You said:

Accordingly, from an organic perspective, all nature

must be found essentially alive, throughout all show

of happenings that nature manifests to its own

underlying consciousness, in anyone's experience.

 

In general, therefore, we agree upon an organic

perspective where nature everywhere expresses

consciousness and is thus everywhere alive.

 

(unquote)

 

Yes, I agree we can take this point as a matter of

agreement for further discussions. If I am not wrong

the 'Consciousness' you mention here (and in the book

you linked to) is verily the 'Purusha' of the Samkhya,

and nature is 'Prakriti'.

 

So, coming to your explanation:

 

So, when some person's body dies, that person's mind

is taken in to the background consciousness that is

timelessly and spacelessly present always and

everywhere. At the body's death, the mind's

samskaras are absorbed into that consciousness alone.

So, when this mind is later on reborn in a new body,

the rebirth is a renewed arising from exactly the same

timeless and spaceless presence of consciousness, into

which the transmigrating mind has been absorbed.

 

From the mechanical perspective of a structured world,

it appears that the transmigrating mind has

mysteriously travelled through space and time. But

from the organic perspective of a mediating mind,

there

is no 'horizontal' movement of this mind and its

samskaras, along any path of travel in some

mechanically woven fabric of space and time.

 

(unquote)

 

While, from a completely holistic point of view, this

explanation is valid, there are still some questions

which arise. Firstly, and this has been stressed in

various places and can be experienced by anyone who is

trying to do any mental activity while hungry or sick;

the mind is only a finer form of the gross body. The

mind and the physical body are not essentially two

distinct entities, but are very much linked to each

other. What happens in a physical body, has an effect

on mind and vice versa. The difference in the two is

of a degree, and not of kind.

 

If that is so, then how is it that different laws

should apply to mind and body? Specifically, for a

physical body, clearly, a 'horizontal' motion is

possible, i.e. it can move or can respond to an

impetus. So why should such a motion, albeit on a

finer scale, not be possible for the mind?

 

Secondly, as you rightly stated later in your post,

the samskaras are only mental-effect. We say the

orange is round in shape. Here 'round' is a quality,

and not an entity. Similarly, the samskara is kind of

a quality of each mind. Hence the question of how

samskaras travel through space and time is absurd. The

right question is how the entity, mind travels,

keeping its qualities, samskaras intact.

 

Coming to my last point: Hopefully I will tie up your

point of view here with what kind of answer I am

seeking:

 

As I said in the first point I raised above, what you

said about mind, if true, has to be extendible to

every process in the universe. If a mind, after death

merges into the Infinite Consciousness, only to

reemerge back in the material plane, every other

object, for motion has to merge into Consciousness and

so on. All events can only be described in this

manner.

 

This is a completely acceptable and valid view of

life, and perhaps the only one which can answer all

questions physicists are trying to answer. However,

this leaves very little room for any investigation

since the law of causation has to break down. In other

words, we have indeed crossed over (atleast partially)

to the Paramarthika point of view, where the 'cause'

of every event is merged into the Infinite

Consciousness. An extension of the same line of

reasoning will show that indeed the event in itself is

false, and the only truth is Consciousness.

 

But I am asking for something short of that. Let me

try to explain with an example:

A person sees an apple falling from the tree. The

simple but remarkably useful explanation of the event

is that the earth's gravity pulled the apple. A deeper

and more detailed explanation is that the gravity of

the earth curved the space-time around it, and created

a path for the apple to follow. An even deeper, and

more accurate explanation the person comes up with is

that there is an exchange of particles called

gravitons between the apple and earth, which leads to

both moving closer to each other, apple much much more

than the earth and so on.

 

The last possible explanation for the person is to

realize, that he himself is the subject of the entire

process, there is only one Consciousness between him,

earth and the apple and it all occurring as an

interaction of the Consciousness with the entire

Universe. He realizes the Advaita between the three.

 

The explanation you give is of the last kind, which is

dictated by the principle of Advaita/non-dualism.

Atleast as far as I am concerned, or my understanding

goes, the explanation Sunderji gave is the first or

the second kind (Perhaps there is a deeper meaning in

the passages he quoted, but I cannot decipher it).

 

The explanation I am seeking is perhaps in between the

two, or importantly, how the simple explanation of

" the Master taking the mind and organs to a new body "

extends to the one where it is a play of Purusha and

Prakriti. Perhaps it is mechanical to begin with, but

merges into organic. But I feel it is important to the

understanding of the process.

 

It is definitely conceivable that just like we can

write laws about gross object (although not 'real' but

atleast ones which explain MOST facts), we can write

laws for the subtle objects. As I mentioned in one of

the previous messages, the theory of matter made up of

subtle Tanmatras should shed more light on the whole

functioning of the subtle mind. Just like, although a

gross object cannot pass through a wall, but the

subtle vibrations of sound or light can, the subtle

body should be able to cross through physical objects,

without us noticing it. One needs a very subtle

instrument viz. mind himself to experience these

processes. However, an intellectual understanding

should still be possible.

 

Hopefully, I made my points clear. I am eagerly

looking forward for more explanation in this regard.

 

Thanks again,

Hari Om,

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/

[Guest guest]

--- paramahamsavivekananda

<paramahamsavivekananda wrote:

 

Dear Paramhamsa ji,

-->Storing of Karma in antaHkaraNa is only a

metaphorical

pronouncing. Karma is simply a law that establishes

the Cause-Effect relationship.

{unquote)

 

Yes, storing of karma is a metaphorical pronouncing,

but the entire karma process is not. That is, there is

a definite way in which every thought, action and word

of a person affects the subtle mind (or again

metaphorically creates a ripple in the mind), and

again there is a definite way in which the effect of

that storage is produced. Normally, since the entire

process is very complex and continuous, there is no

direct relation seen between the action and its

reaction. But for a yogi with a very subtle perceptive

mind, it is possible to know these effects. For e.g.

Ramakrishna Paramhamsa used to know the framework of a

person by just looking at or touching him/her.

 

 

Secondly, I agree that it is perhaps not possible for

mere mortals who have not progressed much beyond

intellectualization to experience the processes of the

mind, but it surely is possible for the jnanis, and I

am sure some of the explanations given by such

advanced souls are available. It might not be possible

for us to entirely project the mind on itself as

Swamiji asks us to do, but someone who has done that

might have answers. It is those I seek.

 

The process is understandable from the Paramarthika

point of view, one can argue that there is no duality,

hence no mind and karma and so on. I was asking from a

vyavaharika point of view specifically.

 

Sorry for the multiple posts one after the other. But

since all the three had presented different points of

view, I decided to reply separately to avoid

confusion.

 

Thanks for the great posts everyone.

Hari Om.

~Vaibhav.

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

 

> Before descrbingwhat ch. up. says on this point, one may be

tempted to

> ask why the upanishad talks about such things when its object is to

impart

> knowledge of brahman. Sankara himself puts this question and answers

it. He

> says that all this is described only to create detachment in us.By

pointing

> out that we will go on endlessly in this samsAra unless we attain

> Self-knowledge, the upanishad seeks to turn our attention away from

worldly

> pleasures which are transitory and accompanied by sorrow.

 

Dear Shastri-ji,

 

I have a question here. Just like the gross matter of the stUla

sharIra is the subtle matter of the sUkshma sharira is interchangeable

with the elements/tanmAtras outside of it? Is there any references for

this question in the upanishads/bhAshya?

 

Though this question is not related with the self-knowledge, if it is

true, it would be one more pointer to show us that, there is nothing

called 'mine'. :-)

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> Namaste Shri Vaibhav,

>

> So, when some person's body dies, that person's mind is taken in to

> the background consciousness that is timelessly and spacelessly

> present always and everywhere. At the body's death, the mind's

> samskaras are absorbed into that consciousness alone. So, when this

> mind is later on reborn in a new body, the rebirth is a renewed

> arising from exactly the same timeless and spaceless presence of

> consciousness, into which the transmigrating mind has been absorbed.

>

 

Sri Ananda Ji,

 

Thanks for your lucid post, as always. Reading your post has helped

to clear some more.

 

I am thinking loudly here.

 

I imagine the existence and manifestation is something like a Quantum

Jitter with infinite vibrations which appear like stings to an

observer (??)(more in the model of String Theory). Each vibration has

three vectors - three Gunas. The length of each vector is different

for different vibrations - i.e. amount of each guna. Based on these

vibrations a force field (EMF??) is formed around the vibrating

strand. This force field is what looks like the manifestation - body -

mind etc. This force field also exhibits qualities like Ego, anger,

love so on.

 

The goal of the manifestation is to reduce the vectors called tamo

and rajo and keep sattwa. As the proportion of these vectors change,

the nature of the force field also changes and one such change, at

some threshold value, is " Death " of body and mind. However the string

is vibrating still with the vectors and the force field is still

there thus forming a new body and mind which appears like a new birth

for an observer. The efforts in the previous " birth " (force field)

result in the length of the each vector and extent of vibration in

each of the vector which are seeds for the next force field. These

length and extent of vibration is called " Karma " which define the

next force field - " birth " .

 

Each of these vibrations can be in multiple quantum planes. Each of

the quantum plane has certain range for the vibrations. Due to

organic nature of the vibrations no vector can remain long with out

forming another of the two. When only " Sattwa " vector is remained

then that Quantum plane is called " Brahma Loka " . Like wise we may

have heaven and various " Lokas " which form various quantum planes -

in the line of multiverse theory of quantum physics. Since these

vibrations can not remain in these planes for long so they return

from " Brahma loka " plane to the default plane (say our universe) to

keep vibrating. Only when all the vibrations are removed the locus of

vibration becomes the substratum (its true nature) and this is " Aham

Brahma " that is - I am just a vibrating string on the frame of

substratum.

 

Like I said, this just my thinking loudly and has no real scientific

and scriptural backing. But this line of thinking helps me in

reconciling science and Advaitam - I my self see many gaps in my

thinking with respect to Evolution etc - though evolution can still

be explained as the extent of vibration. What I can't explain with

the above thinking is the role of free will - if at all it exists.

 

Anyway, I am reading this thread very carefully and silently. Thought

I will post my thinking here so that great minds in the group can

trash it or throw some more light.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Sudesh

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Dear Vaibhav ji,

 

You wrote:

The process is understandable from the Paramarthika

point of view, one can argue that there is no duality,

hence no mind and karma and so on. I was asking from a

vyavaharika point of view specifically.

 

Reply: We cannot definitely say that Mind is made up of subtle

elements. The " I " doesn't really know what it is made up of.

In Brahma sUtra bhashya, AchArya takes up the question of the self

same soul awaking from sushupti where he says one important point as

quoted below:

 

{{

Moreover, what is called individual soul is not really different from

the highest Self, so that it might be distinguished from the latter in

the same way as a drop of water from the mass of water; but as we have

explained repeatedly, Brahman itself is on account of its connexion

with limiting adjuncts metaphorically called individual soul. Hence

the phenomenal existence of one soul lasts as long as it continues to

be bound by one set of adjuncts, and the phenomenal existence of

another soul again lasts as long as it continues to be bound by

another set of adjuncts. Each set of adjuncts continues through the

states of sleep as well as of waking; in the former it is like a seed,

in the latter like the fully developed plant. Hence the proper

inference is that the same soul awakes from sleep. }}

 

## So, we need not get confused about the *set of adjuncts* of each

soul. You are Brahman and you are the jIva. You have one set of

adjuncts. Out of ignorance, you see the world and hence the notion of

creation arises there by.

 

Firstly, the waking state of a jIva itself is due to his past karma.

And what he cognizes in this waking state is purely borne out of the

ignorance which makes him superimpose matter on Brahman. Even at

vyavaharika level, the I-ness is ever unknown. It is not mere

tanmAtras. It is avidyA(= adhyAsa) itself which is anAdi.

 

I-ness denotes the self-revealing nature of Atman. But preponderated

by nescience, it thinks itself as a karta and bhOkta thus it suffers

the effects of the deeds it thinks it does.

 

Now, even if we observe a change in the tanmAtric composition of

subtle body after death, it in would in no way affect the content of

I-ness. By the way, as I have already quoted, SrI Sankara clearly says

that the jIva goes with ALL THE TANMATRAS to a new gross body. He

refutes the view of pUrvapakshin who said that the tanmAtras are

easily available anywhere and hence the *same* tanmAtras need not be

carried by the jIva to next birth.

 

And the jIva doesn't accrue any new karma after death while he passes

through other planes of existence because, his sixteen organs are

withdrawn. Earthly plane alone is called as " karma bhUmi " since it is

here alone that a jIva performs karma.

 

References:--

 

The Process of Death from The BrihadAraNyaka Upanishad, IV,iii

 

Yajnavalkya said:

 

Just as a heavily loaded cart moves along, creaking, even so the self

identified with the body, being presided over by the Self, which is

all consciousness (the Supreme Self), moves along, groaning, when

breathing becomes difficult (at the approach of death). 35.

 

When this body becomes thin - is emaciated through old age or disease-

then, as a mango or a fig or a fruit of the peepul tree becomes

detached from its stalk, so does this infinite being (the self),

completely detaching himself from the parts of the body, again move

on, in the same way that he came, to another body for the

remanifestation (unfoldment ) of his vital force. 36.

[Note: 'Parts of the body ', Such as the eye, nose etc. In deep sleep,

the gross body and organs, though left by the subtle body, are

preserved by the prana (vital force). But this does not happen at the

time of death, when the subtle body, together with the prana, leaves

the gross body.]

 

Now when that self becomes weak and unconscious, as it were, the

organs gather around it. Having wholly seized these particles of

light, the self comes to the heart. When the presiding deity of the

eye turns back from all sides, the dying man fails to notice colour. IV,1.

[Note: ' Presiding Deity ' The sun in its microcosmic aspect is the

presiding or controlling deity of the eye. This deity helps the eye to

function as long as a person lives, as determined by his past actions.

At the time of death the deity stops his help and goes back to the

sun. He again returns to the eye when the man takes another body.]

 

The eye becomes united with the subtle body; then people say: 'He does

not see'. The nose becomes united with the subtle body; then they

say:'He does not smell'. The tongue becomes united with the subtle

body; then they say:'He does not taste'. The vocal organ becomes

united with the subtle body; then they say; 'He does not speak'. The

ear becomes united with the subtle body; then they say: 'He does not

hear'. The skin becomes united with the subtle body; then they say:

'He does not touch (feel)'. The mind becomes united with the subtle

body; then they say: 'He does not think'.

The intellect becomes united with the subtle body; then they say: 'He

does not know '.

 

The upper end of the heart lights up, and by that light, the self

departs, either through the eye, or through the head or through any

other part (aperture) of the body.

 

And when the self departs, the vital force follows, and when the vital

force departs, all the organs follow.

 

Then the self becomes endowed with a particular consciousness and

passes on to the body to be attained by that consciousness.

 

It is followed by Knowledge, work and past experience. IV,2.

 

 

!! SrI Adi SankarArpaNamastu !!

 

====================================

=====================================

> The process is understandable from the Paramarthika

> point of view, one can argue that there is no duality,

> hence no mind and karma and so on. I was asking from a

> vyavaharika point of view specifically.

>

> Sorry for the multiple posts one after the other. But

> since all the three had presented different points of

> view, I decided to reply separately to avoid

> confusion.

>

> Thanks for the great posts everyone.

> Hari Om.

> ~Vaibhav.

>

>

> Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help./l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

>

> Sunderji,

>

> If there is a hidden message, or a different

> understanding than what I have mentioned above of the

> passages you quoted, or a different interpretation of

> the same is possible which answers the questions,

> please let me know. I will really appreciate that.

 

 

Namaste Vaibhav-ji,

 

If there is a hidden message, I am not aware of it. Jnana-

chakshu (eye of wisdom) alone can reveal the secret answer to your

question! Maturity and ripeness in Sadhana-chatushtaya alone can give

that insight. Jnana-chakshu alone can reveal 'Atma-svarUpa', and when

that is available, the question will lose its significance.

 

Any answer that satisfies the intellect will necessarily

be of a temporary nature, as doubts about the 'objectivity' will

never disappear. The 'Pranic' energy that enlivens life itself, and

the motions even of the sub-atomic particles, can never be described,

but we know that it can never be destroyed either.

 

For other thoughts on this subject, these references may be

useful:

 

http://www.srichinmoylibrary.com/soul-process-reincarnation/toc.html

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/rebirthscience.pdf

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder