Mechanical and Organic

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sampath,

Thanks for your note.

I understood Br. Vinayaka's question as – Do the tanmatras in the subtle

body change during one particular life-time of an individual?. I got this

impression because he gave the analogy of the physical body in which the

cells go on changing all the time during one lifetime. So I said that there

is nothing in the upanishads on this point.

Even if we now take the question as relating to the whole period of

existence of a paricular subtle body till it ceases to exist on the dawn of

knowledge, we can say that tthere is nothing in the upanishads to say tthat

the tammatras go on changing. Even on death, according to Sankara the subtle

body goes along with the same subtle elements which were there.and will have

the same elements in the next birth.

Questions of this type seem to have no importance from the Vedantic point

of view. But Br. Vinayaka's hunger for knowledge is so great that he does

not leave out anything. One day he will be a Sannyasi and will write

authoritative books and translations as the Swamijis of the RK Mission have

always been doing. May God bless him.

 

I suppose what I have said above is correct. If there is any mistake, please

point out. You have studied the bhAshyas thoroughly. I may have forgotten

some thing because of old age.

namaskAram SrI SAstri gAru,

 

mahASaya, doesn't SrI Sankara seem to refute the view of pUrvapakshin

that the tanmAtras are easily available anywhere and hence the organs

alone depart to take next birth wherein new tanmAtras are taken up by

these departed organs?

 

SrI Sankara in his brahma sUtra bhAshya seems to anticipate the

possible objections from pUrvapakshin. In the same way, he himself

says that such an argument of pUrvapakshin to say that all the subtle

elements do not go with the organs is unfounded.

 

In spite of that, if we say that the tanmAtras change all the time, we

would find *no reason* in denying the thesis(of pUrvapakshin) that the

organs alone go with the departed soul and that these organs can take

up the new subtle elements when they take up a new gross body. Thus we

would be contradicting Sri Sankara directly who refuted such a view!

If the respected members here show some other possibility of

establishing SrI Sankara's thesis along side of accepting a continuous

change in tanmAtras, I would be highly delighted to know it.

 

Nonetheless, if we say that the tanmAtras of a subtle body keep

changing continuously, such an exchange doesn't bring any change in

the ahamkAra as we never experience such a change in I-ness. But we

experience such a change in the gross body as it is obvious that we

observe its growth and decay. And still we are the same body we think,

because of the unchanging ahamkAra. This ahamkAra reincarnates as long

as it doesn't attain brahmavidyA.

 

One may argue that even our personality is changing everyday. And yes,

it is here that we need to recognize the I-ness that is even behind

our personality. Just asking ourselves, " Whose personality is

changing? " would reveal to us the unchanging " I " . There is absolutely

no change/gradation in ahamkAra since it demonstrates the

self-revealing nature of Atman.

 

Further, no one thinks that he is made up of matter with respect to

the subtle body. Only the I-sense is felt by us and is someone ready

to dare to say that ahamkAra ultimately is made up of subtle elements??

 

Kindly correct my mistakes if any.

 

Yours,

Sampath

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shrimaan Shastriji writes :

 

(I suppose what I have said above is correct. If there is any

mistake, please point out. You have studied the bhAshyas

thoroughly. I may have forgotten some thing because of old age.)

 

Oh ! Oh ! Shastriji ! You are verily the 'Veda Vyasa ' Of the

Advaitin group and we all look up to you for right

understanding /right knowledge! I wish i could be like you when i

reach your age , if i live up to that age ! Shastriji , the

following lines from Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra come to

mind when i read your post:

 

" Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra, 1606:

 

" cannot wither her, nor custom stale

Her infinite variety: "

 

Although this was said of Cleopatra , this is true of knowledgeble

persons like you , Sadaji , Anandaji , Sunderji etc etc who are

way younger)... Did you know that Swami Dayanandaji of AVG knows all

the 700 sl;okas of Srimad Bhagvad gita by heart ? Such is the stuff

swamijis ARE MADE OF - their knowledge and wisdom ( maa Saraswati)

is on their tongue not on their laptops!

 

in my eyes , you are not only the fountain of knowledge but also

fountain of 'youvannam' ( for Youth is not just physical age but

also reprsentative of Energy /enthusiasm and the way in which you

respond to all questions with so much vigor and energy , you will

put youngsters in this group to shame ! )

 

with warmest regards and all the love in my heart!

[Guest guest]

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

 

SrI Sastri gAru,

sAshTAnga danDa praNAmaH !

 

Thanks a ton for your clarification.(vide. " Even on death, according

to Sankara the subtle body goes along with the same subtle elements

which were there.and will have the same elements in the next birth).

 

You wrote: I suppose what I have said above is correct. If there is

any mistake, please

> point out. You have studied the bhAshyas thoroughly. I may have

forgotten

> some thing because of old age.

 

My Reply: mahASaya, as a beginner, I have been understanding many of

the concepts of vEdAnta after reading the translations and

explanations of vedantic texts as given by you and Prof.Krishnamurthy

garu in your own websites. I am surprised and delighted a lot to find

you both here. I never expected that I would talk to you directly.

 

Apart from Swami Vivekananda's works, that which has inspired me a lot

in the vedantic quest is Nirvana Shatkam. It was your lucid and

beautiful translation of it that made me fond of Shankara's advaita.

 

Thanks a lot!

 

Yours,

SAMPATH.

 

 

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

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

> Dear Shri Sampath,

> Thanks for your note.

> I understood Br. Vinayaka's question as – Do the tanmatras in the subtle

> body change during one particular life-time of an individual?. I got

this

> impression because he gave the analogy of the physical body in which the

> cells go on changing all the time during one lifetime. So I said

that there

> is nothing in the upanishads on this point.

> Even if we now take the question as relating to the whole period of

> existence of a paricular subtle body till it ceases to exist on the

dawn of

> knowledge, we can say that tthere is nothing in the upanishads to

say tthat

> the tammatras go on changing. Even on death, according to Sankara

the subtle

> body goes along with the same subtle elements which were there.and

will have

> the same elements in the next birth.

> Questions of this type seem to have no importance from the Vedantic

point

> of view. But Br. Vinayaka's hunger for knowledge is so great that he

does

> not leave out anything. One day he will be a Sannyasi and will write

> authoritative books and translations as the Swamijis of the RK

Mission have

> always been doing. May God bless him.

>

> I suppose what I have said above is correct. If there is any

mistake, please

> point out. You have studied the bhAshyas thoroughly. I may have

forgotten

> some thing because of old age.

[Guest guest]

Sastriji and Paramhansaji,

 

You both seem to agree with the following view:

 

" Even if we now take the question as relating to the whole period of existence

of a paricular subtle body till it ceases to exist on the dawn of knowledge, we

can say that tthere is nothing in the upanishads to say tthat the tammatras go

on changing. Even on death, according to Sankara the subtle body goes along with

the same subtle elements which were there.and will have the same elements in the

next birth. "

 

(unquote).

 

So, in a nutshell, you seem to say that the subtle body does not undergo any

change as far as its composition is concerned, during life or during its

transmigration.

 

While I have hardly any sound knowledge of the bhasyas, how do you then explain

the process of karma? In other words, the chitta is the store-house of one's

karma, memory etc. The chitta, again, is made up of tanmatras or the subtle

elements. I hope so far everything is well-accepted.

 

Now, if the tanmatras stay the same throughout the life of subtle body, how does

it store the person's karma? Also, it has been well-accepted I hope that the

subtle body has keen interactions with the gross body, as quoted by someone with

Svetaketu's example earlier in this thread. The gross body changes continuously,

then what stops the subtle body from changing? Gross forces change the gross

body; subtle forces then change the subtle body! Such subtle forces are indeed

present in the nature, right?

 

The only remaining question is of whether the subtle body changes during

transmigration. Again, if we see the examples given in this thread from the

Sruti, we can see it does. For e.g. a jiva goes to another loka and uses all of

its good karma, and returns to earth to suffer for its bad karma. If the

tanmatras, the compositions of the subtle body do not change, how can the person

get rid of his good karma? Plus, it only makes sense that since the gross body

is only like a cloth, whatever happens to the inner subtle body while wearing

the cloth can also happens when it is not being worn.

 

Please let me know if there are any mistakes in the above arguments.

 

Finally, it has been stated multiple times by the authors of Sruti, as well as

other enlightened souls that the only thing unchanging is the Brahman. In such a

case, saying that the subtle body doesnt undergo any change would not be

correct, right?

 

Hari Om!

~Vaibhav.

 

 

 

 

Flying to Bangalore or Bhopal? Search for tickets here.

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> I think you are using grosser laws to the subtle

> matter. In the Ch. Up. Uddalaka gives an exercise to

> his son -Svetaketu - to stop eating for 15days. The

> subtle body, besides the gross body becomes week since

> the subtle body is preserved by subtle food extracted

> from the gross food (gross has subtle elements due to

> panceekaraNa).

 

Dear Sada-ji,

 

praNAms,

 

Thanks for the apt quote. If we agree and scriptures say that the

subtle body is replenished by food, then, the tanmAtrAs should change.

Since you have a scientific background, you will be in a better

position to appreciate such issues. My friend Sri vaibhav also gives

many interesting pointers on such issues.

 

What sUtra bhAshya says is in the context of death. That is perfectly

alright. The concept of transmigration and mukti depends on the nature

of the soul as explained in different darshanAs.

 

AchAryAs question is:

 

" Here the question arises whether the soul when going to the new body

is enveloped or not by subtle parts of the elements constituting the

seeds of the body. "

 

The obvious answer is yes. But this does not rule out the changes in

the tanmAtrAs that might take place in the subtle body.

 

And secondly, I have a question for shastri-ji and other members here.

In the sUtra bhAshya shankara says that:

 

" The subtle parts of the elements can moreover easily be procured

anywhere; for wherever a 'new body' is to be originated they are

present, and the soul's taking them with itself would, therefore, be

useless. Hence we conclude that the soul when going is not enveloped

by them.

 

To this the teacher replies, 'in obtaining another it goes enveloped.'

That means: we must understand that the soul when passing from one

body to another is enveloped by the subtle parts of the elements which

are the seeds of the 'new body'.--How do we know this? "

 

He is repeatedly telling the seeds of the 'new body'. Obviously, there

is no need for the 'new subtle body'. Then, he is talking about the

new gross body which jiva takes up, isn't it?

 

I had seen this passage before in a small but a wonderful treatise

entitled " vEdAntArtha sAra samgraha " by Sri SSS. He raises this

issue(in the context of death) and says that he will not discuss it at

length since it is no way connected with the

self-knowledge.(bhaskar-ji, help required. Please give your inputs.:-))

 

Further clarifications by other members on this issue will be

appreciated. And it can be left also since it has got nothing to do

with liberation. :-))

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka writes

 

( I had seen this passage before in a small but a wonderful treatise

entitled " vEdAntArtha sAra samgraha " by Sri SSS. He raises this

issue(in the context of death) and says that he will not discuss it at

length since it is no way connected with the

self-knowledge.(bhaskar-ji, help required. Please give your inputs.:-))

 

Further clarifications by other members on this issue will be

appreciated. And it can be left also since it has got nothing to do

with liberation. :-))

 

Vinayaka - it is very interesting , you should mention 'Liberation'

 

Sri Lakshmi , the Ashrama cow , got liberation at the hands of Sri

Ramana ! Sri Lakshmi has not read the Brahma sutra bhasyas BUT BY

sheer association with a learned sage , the Bovine creature attained

Mukti or liberation ! This is all due to purva janama phalam !

 

Vinayaka , in Hindu Samskriti , Gow Mata ( THE COW) is regarded as

very Divine and holy !

 

Our most beloved Nairji commented in one of his posts that a jnAni

does not feed a cow, etc.To which our most learned Shastriji replied

" I suppose what you are conveying by this is that he has no

identification with the body and no sense of agency. in what his body

does. One biographer, who obviously is ignorant of the nuances of

advaita, has written that Ramana Maharshi had a favourite cow which

he used to feed.himself. " Shastriji , Sri Ramana did not offer Sri

Lakshmi ordinary 'fodder' , the sage gave Jnana Biiksha to the

Ashrama cow !

 

Similarly , when Sri Rama killed the deer ( demon Mricha) , the deer

was liberated - Maricha , the demon , never read the bhasyas!

 

The point that is being conveyed is by Sadhu Sangati even 'animals'

get liberated - they need not read Bhasyas !

 

Shastriji also made another valuable point about the study of

Upanishads etc in one of his posts

 

Shastriji said in response to Sr Ramachandran's comments

 

" Honestly speaking, one can be a Hindu and can deny

reincarnation and religious belief is nothing to do one's acceptance

or denial of reincarnation "

 

shastriji's respons :

 

" if you are referring to person who, though born a Hindu, does not

accept Hinduism or the upanishads at all, what you say is correct. But

if a person accepts Hinduism as his religion, then should he not

accept the upanishads also?. The upanishads clearly speak of

reincarnation repeatedly, e.g.: Katha, 2.2.7- 'yonimanye---', ch.up.

5.10.6, Gita, 5.41 and 6.42. There are many other places where it is

said that a person is born again according to his karma or his conduct

or his desires. So how can rebirth be denied? "

 

So , folks , if mem,bers ( in this case moderators) raise doubts about

The holy cow ( gow mata) and concepts like Karma and Reincarnation (

twin pillars of Hindusism) HOW IS Irrelevent ' about writing about the

divinity of Gow mata and quoting the Brihadaranyaka upanishad about

the sacredness of our scriptures which compare the vedas to a Cow ?

How is that a lighthearted 'diversion ' in a serious discussion ? All

tis i find very amusing to say the least . Dennisji talks about the

possibility of Alzchemier's affecting a jnani ....

 

well, moderators , please make the rules and regulations by all means

butremem,ber there is a fine line between 'irrelevance ' and

irreverance ' In a hinduism forum, we cannot simply disrepect the Gow

Mata and the tenets of Upanishads !

 

take care , dear all !

ps - to the hindus , the cow is a Holy Mother ! The vedas are also

considered MAA SHRUTHI !

[Guest guest]

advaitin , vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

 

Dear Vaibhav ji,

 

You wrote:

> While I have hardly any sound knowledge of the bhasyas, how do you

then explain the process of karma? In other words, the chitta is the

store-house of one's karma, memory etc. The chitta, again, is made up

of tanmatras or the subtle elements. I hope so far everything is

well-accepted.

 

My Reply: I think we should not attempt a description of these

tanmAtras. If we do so, we would either end up saying that the theory

of tanmAtras is unfounded based on scientific facts or that it is

truly a subtle concept beyond mere scientific speculations.

 

As you know I have written about this in Orkut recently, I shall make

a separate post here to reproduce the same.

-------------------------------

 

You Wrote:

 

> Now, if the tanmatras stay the same throughout the life of subtle

body, how does it store the person's karma?

 

My Reply: Kindly remember that Karma is not a material thing to be

stored. It is only a figurative usage of the storage of karma phala.

It simply denotes that a jIva is bound by his actions.

 

It is not in the exact sense as a gross body stores substances like

solids, fluids and chemicals. Karma is not something made up of

matter(tanmAtras). It is simply a " Law " that binds jIva. Hence it need

not bring any change in the tanmAtras.

----------------------------

 

You Wrote:

 

Also, it has been well-accepted I hope that the subtle body has keen

interactions with the gross body, as quoted by someone with

Svetaketu's example earlier in this thread. The gross body changes

continuously, then what stops the subtle body from changing? Gross

forces change the gross body; subtle forces then change the subtle

body! Such subtle forces are indeed present in the nature, right?

 

My Reply: This again depends on how we describe tanmAtras. Let us talk

about this after re-quoting my views from Orkut on tanmAtras in a

separate post.

-------------------------

You Wrote:

 

> The only remaining question is of whether the subtle body changes

during transmigration. Again, if we see the examples given in this

thread from the Sruti, we can see it does. For e.g. a jiva goes to

another loka and uses all of its good karma, and returns to earth to

suffer for its bad karma. If the tanmatras, the compositions of the

subtle body do not change, how can the person get rid of his good karma?

 

My Reply: This is answered by the acceptance of other kinds of bodies

like that made up of Water etc. taking up which the jIva either enjoys

in heavens or suffers in hells. Further, except earthly plane, no

other plane is considered as karma bhUmi hence the jIva doesn't

acquire any new karma in its journey after death. dEvAs are not bound

by the law of karma in the sense that for whatever karma they do, they

are not bound by its results. Their existence in that particular body

is only for the purpose of enjoyment and when the karma which was

responsible for their dEva form gets exhausted, they take birth on

earth again with a remnant of either good or evil karma according to

which they get their births on earth.

 

For all this to happen, there need not occur any change in the subtle

body, for it remains the same taking up or shedding the bodies.

-

 

You wrote:

 

Plus, it only makes sense that since the gross body is only like a

cloth, whatever happens to the inner subtle body while wearing the

cloth can also happens when it is not being worn.

 

My Reply:

 

This sort of argument is unfounded because, the functioning of subtle

body is based upon its connexion with the gross body though the power

to function is only of the subtle body.

SrI vasudeva yati gives a wonderful example to elucidate this point.

He says:

" Fire burns only when there is firewood. Burning is the power of Fire

alone and not of firewood but it requires firewood to express its power. "

------

 

You Wrote:

 

> Please let me know if there are any mistakes in the above arguments.

>

> Finally, it has been stated multiple times by the authors of Sruti,

as well as other enlightened souls that the only thing unchanging is

the Brahman. In such a case, saying that the subtle body doesnt

undergo any change would not be correct, right?

 

My Reply:

 

Brahman is trikAlAbhAdita satyam. It has no change either subjectively

or objectively. It is neither a Subject nor an Object; Neither a Karta

nor a bhOkta. Subtle body undergoes changes in terms of subjective

dispositions.

Now,

Whose subjective dispositions keep on changing? -- Of the individual

soul who says, " I " . It is the conditioned Atman, vijnAnamaya Atman.

 

Does Buddhism propose such an entity? -- NO !!

>

>

> Flying to Bangalore or Bhopal? Search for tickets here.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear sister Bhagini:

 

First let me wish you a Bon Voyage for your trip to India. I still

remember my recent six months stay in Mysore while visiting India as

Fulbright Teaching Fellow. I am quite sure that you will have a

great time living in India and visiting your relatives and friends.

 

In this post, you have raised your doubts regarding the wisdom of the

moderators on their objection to injecting 'irrelevant materials' in

the middle of a serious vedantic discussion. I fell very much

obligated to clear your doubts since I admire your knowledge on

Hinduism and related literature that are available in the Internet.

When some member asks some doubts on subject matter, you always

volunteer to clear them with available information from the

homepages. This is a very admirable quality and I feel very much

obliged to clear your doubts.

 

Please refer Sri Sastriji's post #38050 with subject title:

What's in a name, anyway!

 

His discussion was pertain to the nature of a Jivanmukta and he was

reinforcing the point raised by Nairji. He wanted to emphasize the

fact that the jnani's actions including that of feeding a cow are

detached from body, mind and intellect.

 

Now in your reply to Sastriji's post # 38051 you changed the title

to: What's in a name, anyway! Holy Cow!

 

Your discussion was not a continuation of Sastri's discussion on a

serious subject matter describing the nature of Jivanmukta. Instead,

you have added materials that are relevant on the subject matter of

Holy Cow (Acutally you have provided everything that one wants to

know about the Holy Cow)

 

As for as I know, that the moderators have no problem in your

discussion of " Holy Cow " but their objection was on the relevance of

those materials to Sastriji's post #38050. Your post could have been

justifed if you had stopped your message right after the second

paragraph.

 

Normally, I wouldn't like to answer doubts raised by members

regarding moderators' comments through posting on the list. But you

have been asking for an explanation in several of your recent posts

and consequently I am obligated to do so. We the moderators have the

responsibility to make the list discussions highly focused on the

subject matter of Advaita. That may explain why we are forced to

respond at appropriate times.

 

We are humans and at times we do make mistakes and if you believe

that a mistake is done, please communicate with us through private

emails instead of posting your objections to the list. The list

guidelines clear indicate members to send their

criticism/suggestions/reactions through private emails to

advaitins instead of sending to the list.

 

With my warm regards and let me once again wish you a Bon Voyage,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " bhagini_niveditaa "

<bhagini_niveditaa wrote:

>

>

> So , folks , if mem,bers ( in this case moderators) raise doubts

about

> The holy cow ( gow mata) and concepts like Karma and Reincarnation

(

> twin pillars of Hindusism) HOW IS Irrelevent ' about writing about

the

> divinity of Gow mata and quoting the Brihadaranyaka upanishad about

> the sacredness of our scriptures which compare the vedas to a Cow ?

> How is that a lighthearted 'diversion ' in a serious discussion ?

All

> tis i find very amusing to say the least . Dennisji talks about

the

> possibility of Alzchemier's affecting a jnani ....

>

> well, moderators , please make the rules and regulations by all

means

> butremem,ber there is a fine line between 'irrelevance ' and

> irreverance ' In a hinduism forum, we cannot simply disrepect the

Gow

> Mata and the tenets of Upanishads !

>

> take care , dear all !

> ps - to the hindus , the cow is a Holy Mother ! The vedas are also

> considered MAA SHRUTHI !