What is life according to scriptures?

[Guest guest]

Namaskar all

 

how is the phenomenon of „Life " defined in the scriptures? I

mean life in the sense of animation. There are animated and unanimated

objects in the world: a human being is animated, a statue is not, a

corpse is not. Listening to revered Paramarthanandajis teaching I heard

him say that sharira trayam is inert in itself (just like a statue) but

becomes alive through Brahman/Atman.

 

As far as I understand, this can only be provisionally true, for the

sake of the teaching, because the unanimated statue or the corpse is as

much Brahman as the animated human being.

 

This made me wonder: What actually is life?

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sitara,

 

I read recently that some scientists are considering

that at some point in the future their definitions of

life might have to be revised. Some types of crystals

exhibit life-like characteristics. As we move into

space and exploration of other planets, who knows what

we may find, who knows what " life " may be in other

forms. What I'm sure of at the moment is that " life "

is purely definitional, and limited at present by our

definitions. And we, our ordinary, everyday selves

seem very limited. We tend to judge all by ourselves,

so it seems.

 

 

______________________________\

____

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total

Access, No Cost.

http://tc.deals./tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Guest guest]

hare krishna, namaskarams.

 

Sitara <smitali17 wrote:

As far as I understand, this can only be provisionally true, for the

sake of the teaching, because the unanimated statue or the corpse is as

much Brahman as the animated human being.

 

This made me wonder: What actually is life?

 

 

If one can see a corpse and an animated human as brahman one is truly

liberated. But analysing the statement literally is meaningless. Can one live

with a disintegrating corpse looking at it as brahman. We are in such a hurry to

consign it to flames with in hours. That is why we have what is Paramarthika

sathyam and Vyavaharika sathyam. The sentence has to be understood in it's

context in which it is said.

Life is living true to ones nature discarding all external influences and

impressions and become as pure like a new born baby.

 

may lord krishna bless us all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BASKARAN.C.S

 

 

 

Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Click

here.

 

 

[Guest guest]

According to the Kaushitaki Upanishad 3.3, the underlying principle

of life is consciousness, which is the real self:

 

But then, in truth, life in itself

is consciousness, the real self --

which holds this body all around

and causes it to rise, alive.

 

In the Prashna Upanishad 3.3, it is said that life is born from self

through the activity of mind, which thus extends into the body:

 

It is from self that life is born.

But as, on consciousness, there's a

reflected play of light and shade;

so too, on self, there is this [play

of life] that get's extended out.

Through the activity of mind,

it comes to be in body here.

 

In the Bhagavad-gita 9.8-10, Krishna speaks of true self as a

motiveless consciousness -- whose witnessing inspires nature from

within, to motivate all actions in the world:

 

Just from my own established nature,

I give rise, time after time,

to this entire multitude

of beings: motiveless itself.

All motivation is from nature.

 

Actions thus arise, but they

do not restrict me, Arjuna.

While present in the midst of actions,

I am present there apart:

in that same unaffected state

where I am always unattached.

 

As I look on, it's by this

witnessing that nature urges forth

what's made to move or stay in place.

That witnessing, Arjuna, is

the motivating cause by which

the changing world goes turning round.

 

In the Sankhya-karika, consciousness is described as a subjective

inner principle, for whose sake nature acts. And nature's acts are

thus described as ultimately objectless. They are inspired naturally

from within, like milk from a mother's breast. They are not done for

any objects to be gained; but only for the liberation of an inmost

principle, which has to be realized completely free of all objective

entanglements:

 

Stanza 55

---------

The inner principle is consciousness.

But, in the world, it comes

to suffering: created by

degenerating change and death.

Where subtle body does not cease,

there suffering is natural.

 

Stanza 57

---------

As milk unknowingly performs

a function nourishing the growth

of a young child; so also

primal nature serves the liberation

of the inner principle.

 

Stanza 59

---------

Just as a dancer shows her dance

on stage, and then retires from it;

so also nature shows herself

before the inner principle,

and ceases then to manifest.

 

Stanza 60

---------

All qualities belong to nature,

as she acts in many ways:

not for the sake of objects gained,

but serving only for the sake

of that true inner principle

which has no qualities itself

and is not moved by any act.

 

As here described in the scriptures, the energy of nature does not

act mechanically, from one object to another. Instead, it arises

organically, from underlying consciousness. Through that subjective

arising, consciousness is found expressed, through all the order and

meaning and value that we perceive or think about or feel, in each of

our personalities and in the entire world.

 

Found thus expressing consciousness, all nature is alive. Its life is

just that energy which rises up from consciousness into all order and

meaning and value that we may experience in nature's phenomena.

 

In Sanskrit, that living energy is called 'prana'. In ancient Greek,

it was called 'energeia'. Nature was called 'phusis', which is

equivalent to the Sanskrit 'prakriti'. And consciousness was

called 'nous', which is equivalent to the Sanskrit 'purusha'.

 

That 'consciousness' or 'nous' was further described by Aristotle as

the 'unmoved mover'. He spoke of it as unmoved in itself, but as

providing all nature's motivation. And he went on to say that nature

is moved spontaneously from within, for love of the unmoved mover.

 

From this, you may see that essentially the same conception of life

is found in both Sanskrit and ancient European scriptures. So far as

I can make out, it is found elsewhere in the world as well. It's

found wherever science goes beyond a mechanical consideration of

objective interaction, so as to consider a living expression of

consciousness in any ordered or meaningful or valued activities.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sitara " smitali17 wrote:

< This made me wonder: What actually is life?

 

Hari Om,

 

Chandogyopanishad – Adhyaya VI – Khanda III – 2 nd Mantra

 

Please contemplate on Sri Sankaracharya’s bhashya on the above Mantra.

 

Regards

-- Durga Prasad

 

 

_______________

Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.

http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164 & ocid=T003MSN51N1653A

[Guest guest]

" Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

> how is the phenomenon of „Life " defined in the scriptures?

 

Dear Sitara:

 

I am not very well versed in the scriptures to refer to them in this

matter, but I can share with you what I understand about your

question/thought.

One of the main pointers that Advaita gives us to understand the

relationship between " us/me " and the world, and between us and

ourselves, is Adhyasa or Surimposition, the " apparent " reality of

things. This concept also applies in relation to the apparent " life "

or " inertness " of objects, including myself.

Is well known in science that our (as humans) means of " direct "

perception are quite limited, we can't perceive things that are either

too fast or too slow, too big or too small for our senses. If our

sensorial experience shifted or could experience to the subatomic

level, there will be no more statue or animated human to compare one

with the other, the " world " will look like a sea of " apparently

chaotic " particles interacting with each other, everything will be

" alive " . That proves that our definition of inert matter is just a

concept taking the name and form superimposed on the different objects

of perception.

Advaita meaning not-two or abscense of duality, signifies that there

cannot be a distinction between something that is " alive " and

something that is " dead " or inert, EXCEPT if we take the discussion to

a different level, to a relative level, where we will be dealing with

names and forms for transactional purposes. At the relative level

(vyavaharika), sentience would be the interaction of consciousness

( " I " ) with inert matter (body+mind+intellect).

Your answer was in the question when you stated that " the unanimated

statue or the corpse is as much Brahman as the animated human being " ,

because:

only Brahman = nondual = paramarthika,

statue OR corpse OR animated being OR even Brahman = different names

and forms = adhyasa = vyavaharika

 

So all depends on the angle of thought (or vision), eventually the All

is... the All.

 

Regards,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote:

>

> As here described in the scriptures, the energy of nature does not

> act mechanically, from one object to another. Instead, it arises

> organically, from underlying consciousness. Through that subjective

> arising, consciousness is found expressed, through all the order and

> meaning and value that we perceive or think about or feel, in each of

> our personalities and in the entire world.

>

> Found thus expressing consciousness, all nature is alive. Its life is

> just that energy which rises up from consciousness into all order and

> meaning and value that we may experience in nature's phenomena.

>

> In Sanskrit, that living energy is called 'prana'.

 

 

Ananda-ji,

 

Pranams

 

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge which clarifies how life

or prakriti comes about and acts and that prana is the enlivening

energy. So if prana is present in an object it is called alive – is

that correct?

 

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Mouna " <solracartist wrote:

>

> " Sitara " smitali17@ wrote:

> > how is the phenomenon of „Life " defined in the scriptures?

 

(...)

> Is well known in science that our (as humans) means of " direct "

> perception are quite limited, we can't perceive things that are either

> too fast or too slow, too big or too small for our senses. If our

> sensorial experience shifted or could experience to the subatomic

> level, there will be no more statue or animated human to compare one

> with the other, the " world " will look like a sea of " apparently

> chaotic " particles interacting with each other, everything will be

> " alive " .

(...)

> Advaita meaning not-two or abscense of duality, signifies that there

> cannot be a distinction between something that is " alive " and

> something that is " dead " or inert, EXCEPT if we take the discussion to

> a different level, to a relative level, where we will be dealing with

> names and forms for transactional purposes.

(...)

> only Brahman = nondual = paramarthika,

> statue OR corpse OR animated being OR even Brahman = different names

> and forms = adhyasa = vyavaharika

 

 

Dear Mouna,

 

The question was asked at vyavaharika level, because it was about life

as animated form, not about the nature of Brahman. (just a sideline:

including Brahman as form into vyavaharika seems to be a contradiction

in terms to me, except if you mean just the word " Brahman " ).

 

I liked your description how much the world depends on our senses. It

made it nicely obvious that in the end everything is alive – even

what we consider not being alive (like stone, plastic, corpse etc.).

 

 

Still, I wonder whether scriptures take that point of view. There was a

discussion lately about trees having life and I vaguely remember that it

was not so easy for everyone to agree on who actually can be considered

to be alive according to scriptures – stone, tree, let alone

corpses.

If I have understood rightly what Anandaji pointed out, it seems very

simple: With prana alive, without prana not alive. This seems to be the

answer I was looking for.

 

 

Om Shanti,Shanti,Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sitara, Namaskars,

 

" Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>(just a sideline:

> including Brahman as form into vyavaharika

> seems to be a contradiction

> in terms to me, except if you mean just the word " Brahman " ).

 

Yes, I meant the word and the " concept " Brahman that we use to

understand that which cannot be named or conceptualized, but helps us

understand what we are talking about in this forum.

 

 

> I liked your description how much the world

> depends on our senses. It made it nicely

> obvious that in the end everything is alive

 

It will " look like it " is alive... " apparently " alive (or apparently

dead).

 

 

 

> With prana alive, without prana not alive. This seems to be the

> answer I was looking for.

 

All's well that ends well...

 

 

Yours in All,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sitara,

 

You asked (message #40229, Apr 6): " ... if prana is present in an

object it is called alive – is that correct? "

 

Yes, but whether life is seen or not depends on *how* one looks. It

does not strictly depend on *where* one looks, upon which object one

is looking at.

 

For example, suppose I am looking at a human face. If I see it as a

mere arrangement of features, this merely outward seeing does not

show any life in it. In order to see a face as living, it must

express to me some feeling that I value, or some thought that I find

meaningful, or some form of perception or intention that I recognize.

And I understand this expression by reflecting back, into valued

feelings and meaningful thoughts and recognized perceptions or

intentions that I find expressed through my own personality.

 

So an inwardly reflective looking is essential, to find life

expressed in any object, even in a human face. But the reverse is

also true. Whatever object may be seen, one may look at it

reflectively -- so as to find some ordered functioning or

intelligible meaning or intuited value that is understood by

reflecting back, into the depth of one's own personality.

 

For example, suppose that I look at a rock -- a natural rock where no

human person, nor animal or even vegetable creature has interfered.

At first it seems that there's no life expressed in it. It has no

mind nor any perceiving or intending senses that we recognize as

human or animal or even vegetable in the most rudimentary way. So how

can this rock be seen to express any life that we find in our own

personalities?

 

Well, actually it can. Even a natural rock may be seen in two ways.

On the one hand, it may be pictured objectively, as a dead object in

some picture of an outside world. When some external picture is taken

for granted, and the rock is merely fitted into the external

picturing, then of course this rock is not seen as alive. It is here

only fitted in. It is not heard reflectively, for something that it

has to say, to someone who is listening.

 

But, on the other hand, even a rock may be reflected on, by a

scientist who wants to understand it better. There is then a change

of attitude, from picturing to listening. Instead of fitting things

into pictures that are taken for granted, there is a reflective

questioning -- which asks what nature has to say, in this rock that

has been manifested naturally.

 

Reflecting thus, a scientist has to ask fundamental questions --

about impersonal principles of purpose and meaning and value, which

may be found in nature's functioning. Such principles must be found

shared in common, at an impersonal depth of our different

personalities. All nature is there found alive: as it is manifested

personally in our microcosmic personalities, and as it is manifested

impersonally in the macrocosm of the world at large.

 

In our habitual view of the external world, we take it to be made of

objects that are pieces of matter. But, if this material picture is

more carefully examined, it turns out to be a mistaken appearance,

produced by our inaccurate senses. What seems to be a piece of matter

is not actually so.

 

If we examine objects more carefully, it turns out that they are more

accurately described as systems of activity, just like the senses

that perceive them. At first these senses seem to be material parts

of our bodies: like our eyes, our ears, our noses, tongues and skins.

But, if we consider our senses more carefully, it turns out that they

are systems of activity, which function in between our minds and the

objects of the world.

 

As perceived by these functioning senses, the objects of the world

are quite logically shown to be similar. Thus, objects which seem

pieces of matter are more accurately described as systems of

activity. This is so both in modern mechanical physics and in older

sciences.

 

In modern physics, objects are described as pieces of matter, at a

level that is described as 'Newtonian'. And this Newtonian

description has to be replaced by more accurate descriptions that are

made in quantum mechanics. Here, the description shifts from material

particles to quanta of energy, which raise and lower various levels

of activity in some quantum system (like an atom) that has to be

described and measured as an integrated whole.

 

But, in quantum mechanics, there is a curious double standard. On the

one hand, the theoretical description is systemic, through a subtle

field equation. But on the other hand, the measuring instruments are

left undescribed by this subtle description. They are constructed

materially, in a way that is admitted to be much cruder than what

they are measuring. Here, crudely material instruments are used to

measure far more subtle systems of activity. And hence the results of

measurement are uncertain and jerky.

 

In the older sciences, there is no such double standard. The

observing instruments are accepted to be our living faculties, and

what they observe are correspondingly accepted as systems of a living

activity. Thus, each seeming object is accepted to be made of that

living energy which is called 'prana'.

 

As seen organically, by the old sciences, the living energy called

prana is present everywhere, in each object that appears. To our

habitually crude and superficial view of the world, there may seem to

be material objects in which prana is not present. But, more subtly

and more deeply seen, prana is present everywhere -- expressing

consciousness throughout all our experiences, of personality and

world.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ananda,

 

thank you!

 

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti

Sitara

 

Ananda Wood <awood schrieb: Namaste Sri

Sitara,

you asked (message #40229, Apr 6): " ... if prana is present in an

object it is called alive – is that correct? "

(...)

in quantum mechanics, there is a curious double standard. On the

one hand, the theoretical description is systemic, through a subtle

field equation. But on the other hand, the measuring instruments are

left undescribed by this subtle description. They are constructed

materially, in a way that is admitted to be much cruder than what

they are measuring. Here, crudely material instruments are used to

measure far more subtle systems of activity. And hence the results of

measurement are uncertain and jerky.

In the older sciences, there is no such double standard. The

observing instruments are accepted to be our living faculties, and

what they observe are correspondingly accepted as systems of a living

activity. Thus, each seeming object is accepted to be made of that

living energy which is called 'prana'.

As seen organically, by the old sciences, the living energy called

prana is present everywhere, in each object that appears. To our

habitually crude and superficial view of the world, there may seem to

be material objects in which prana is not present. But, more subtly

and more deeply seen, prana is present everywhere -- expressing

consciousness throughout all our experiences, of personality and

world.

Ananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gesendet von Mail.

Der Lieblings-Mailbox der Welt.