Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 `"But what," they (scientists) ask, "is the use of saying that that experience belongs to the soul? Why not say it belongs to the body, and the body alone? Why not say it is hereditary transmission?" ... This question is very nice, and we admit some part of this hereditary transmission. How far? As far as furnishing the material. We, by our past actions, conform ourselves to a certain birth in a certain body, and the only suitable material for that body comes from the parents who have made themselves fit to have that soul as their offspring. > > The simple hereditary theory takes for granted the most astonishing proposition without any proof, that mental experience can be recorded in matters, that mental experience can be involved in matter. ... We understand a physical impression remaining in the body. But what proof is there for assuming that the mental impression can remain in the body, since the body goes to pieces? What carries it? Even granting it were possible for each mental impression to remain in the body, that every impression, beginning from the first man down to my father, was in my father's body, how could it be transmitted to me? Through the bioplasmic cell? How could that be? Because the father's body does not come to the child in toto. The same parents may have a number of children...'(Microcosm, Jnana Yoga)> > I believe the principle of which Swami Vivekananda talks is true, i.e material cell could not carry mental impressions, but to this it could be replied from the position of modern descoveries of genetics (which were not found in Swami Vivekananda's time) that every mental impression as also the diferences between children of the same parents are due to various combinations of DNA molecules. I would be glad if anybody could say what will be reply to this question from the standpoint of Vedanta. > Regards> Milena Dear Milena This is a wonderful question. I have been mulling over this for a long time. Is our personality contained in complex genes or is there a 'non-physical' element to our being? When I do sessions on reincarnation, I suggest the following:- The hardware continues to evolve through Darwin's theory of evolution - evolution of physical mould is essential for us to continue to evolve. The software (which is mental) that operates on this hardware continues to move forward through reincarnation. Let me offer some supporting evidence. We are born with fixed DNA code that stays unchanged with us till we die but in one lifetime our mental mode would have undergone dramatic changes (these are not accompanied by any DNA changes) - so the software is something that is different and more fluid than mere genetic coding -- It is this inner make up we create for ourselves we call our character that transmigrates from one life to another through reincarnation. If I were to give a computer analogy. I would say: Just as computer companies produce more sophisticated hardware for more complex software to work on, the bodily evolution (though mutations of genes) allows more sophisticated mental modes to jump into and operate. I have been challenging the paradigm of materialism. This fixation of reducing everything to matter and its attributes, including reducing us to the property of a complex molecule called DNA is something that needs to be challenged else Richard Dawkins is right. regards jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Thank you for this Ms Kiriakova, since the fact is known that Genetics plays a huge part in the make up of a child from the genes of the two parents, I would like you to think about the fact that even from the same two parents, no two children are alike, and if think that everything is hereditory which it is not, then all the children should have the same intelligence, the same tenacity, the same ambition, but it is not so, some children are more successful materially than others from the same family, while others are more spiritual while some other children are born with ailments or with certain defects. Thus we can saferly say that hereditary transmission is only at a limited level. What is that other that makes every child unique we in the indian tradition term as karma combined with the atma's level of spiritual depth. Perhaps you would care to comment, I assure you I am not one to stop debate on such things. TMPrashanthBabu--- On Thu, 23/4/09, milena1kiriakova <milena1kiriakova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.