Indian Philosophy (sarva darshana saamkathya)

07-01-2004, 08:40 PM

Sorry no URL. Found it in my archives..
---------------------------------------------

Meaning Of Shiva

"Shiva means auspicious, not Eeshwara. God has innumerable names. There is no difference at all between Hari and Hara." Sai Baba, SS, 4/92, p. 63

"Sivam (or Shivam) means auspiciousness. It calls for eschewing of egoism. Those who know Telugu can see how the letter 'Sa' becomes 'Si' by the shortening of the mark at the end of the letter 'Sa'. The elimination of the ego makes all the difference between 'Sivam' (auspiciousness) and 'Savam (or Shavam), (which means a corpse)." Sai Baba, SS, 4/97. p. 90

"The Upanishads refer to the attributes of the Divine as 'Satyam (truth), Shivam (goodness), Sundram (beauty)'. Plato regarded truth, goodness and beauty as the attributes of the Divine. 'Shivam' represents the principle of auspiciousness. It is associated with truth on the one side and beauty on the other." Sai Baba, SS, 4/97, p. 87

"The cosmic process of creation (Srishti), sustenance (Sthiti) and dissolution (Layam) goes on in every human being. Creation is the outcome of thought (Sankalpa). 'Sthiti' (sustenance) is protection of creation. 'Layam' is the merger of creation in its source. Srishti, Sthiti and Layam are also identified with the three qualities- Satva, Rajas and Tamas. Man is embodiment of the three Gunas. The three Gunas represent the Trinity (Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshwara). The Trinity represents the three worlds (Trilokas). The three worlds and Trinity are present in every human being. The three are to be regarded as one and worshipped as 'Shivam'. What is 'Shivam'? It is the embodiment of auspiciousness. When man recognises the unified form of the Trinity, his humanness acquires auspiciousness." Sai Baba, SS, 3/96, pp. 64 & 65

Shiva's Idealism

"Today is Shivaratri. Take the ideal of Shiva. When the devastating Halahala poison emerged from the ocean, the life on earth was threatened with immediate and total destruction. Shiva offered to drink the poison and save the world. His throat is blue ever since, for the poison has pervaded (he area. Be eager to serve, to come to the rescue of others." Sai Baba SSS. Vol. VI. p. 22

Symbolism Of Shiva's Form

'The secret of creation is evident from the description of the form of Shiva. The crescent moon on Shiva's head symbolizes the consciousness in human beings, the Ganga symbolizes the Life Force and the snakes on Shiva's body represent the myriads of living beings He resides on a silver mountain. His dearest friend is Kubera, the Lord of Wealth. Despite being endowed with all these, why was he obliged to carry the begging bowl? To demonstrate to the world that every kind of wealth is a hindrance to spiritual advancement, Shiva renounced everything. It is through renunciation, Shiva became the eternal embodiment of supreme bliss." Sai Baba. SS, 4/90. p. 85

Sunder · 07-07-2004, 02:41 AM

I have a question, for anyone who may be able to enlighten me.

 Preface: According to Jainas, the size of the soul spans the entire body. But the Brahma Sutra (in chapter 2), refutes this concept by asking what would happen if a mosquito dies and becomes an elephant, (as it would be unable to fill an elephant's body. Or when an elephant dies and is born as a mosquito (there by unable to fit the body of a mosquito.)

The Brahma sutra goes on to say that the jeeva is subtle (sookshma), and is somewhere in the region of the heart.

Question: We know that when we cut up an earthworm (or a starfish), each divided piece grows back into a full-blown organism. The same is seen with plants also (Rose cutting.) Does each earthworm piece have a separate "ego" (or "I" ness) and a different Jeeva? The more I think of it, using any equation, I am unable to figure it out..

Any help would be great. I am not looking for "semetic" justifications like "It's God's will", or Vedantic explanation like 'It's all maya'.. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

PS: Did not know where else to post this.

07-07-2004, 09:44 AM

Sunder Saar,

I will try to rephrase your question for my understanding. If the following is not what you meant to ask, let them be questions in themselves which our esteemed members (including yourself) can answer.

"An earth worm has an jeeva. So, when you split an earthworm into two, is the single jeeva divided into two? Going by the logic of each living being as having an atma there should be two atmas. Where does the second atma come from?

a)Is it that the orginal atma leaves and two new atmas takes its place (or)

b)The existing atma is retained by one of the split earthworms, while the other one gets a new atma? (or)

c)Both the earthworms share a single atma

Another related question: I heard that even parvatas (mountains?) have life. Do they have an atma associated with them. When does a parvata die?

Thanks in advance

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 07-07-2004, 10:28 AM by Sunder.)

Well put Sridhar garu. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> While earthworms are only an example, this could relate to any "base-forms" of life, including the Single celled organisms (like Amoeba.)

Instead of ATMA (which is pure consciousness, and is indivisible), I would also like to use the term "JEEVA and EGO" Combination. Along with Jeeva/Ego combination coms Bhayam (Fear), and Abhinivesha (will to live.) Abhinivesham is seen in ALL forms of life. (e.g. even a worm will run away from danger to save it's life.)

Also, when both the "parts" of the original life form (earthworm etc) cross path, will they recognize that they were one and the same being?? Will they compete with each other and try to annihilate each other (specially in higher species.) This is now the case, where the life forms now existing (which sprung from a common origin), are trying to annihilate each other, not knowing of their original state.

QUOTEb)The existing atma is retained by one of the split earthworms, while the other one gets a new atma?

If this is assumed to be true, the question will arise as to WHICH part will retain the original ego, and which one will develop a new one (and will that be instantaneous.) Thus this assumption may be refuted..

PS: Thus far, all I have been able to do is realize that the ATMA is PURE-Consciousness, and that it inherently tries to identify itself with inert matter. Consciousness, which is imperishable, and unchangeable, tries to think it is perishable, and is ephemeral...<!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

07-08-2004, 03:49 AM

Sunder,

Please take the following with a pinch of salt.

The vedantic view, as I am sure you are aware of, is that there is a SINGLE SELF in the whole of universe. And that self is same as the all pervading Brahman, which can be described as sat-chit-ananda.

The problems come in the sense of separate 'I' that so many beings possess. This sense of separate 'I' or ego is not the true self, but a supposed self. At any given time we identify with so many different things. If someone abuses my county I feel hurt because I identify with my country. These identifications range from, body, mind, possessions, personality, family, nation, caste, species, and even preferred football teams! But none of these are necessary for the real self. Body can be cut part by part but still the sense of self remains. A person may go mad, so that his personality is shattered, but he still maintains a sense of self.

If someone pinches my finger I say 'I am hurt'. But if the same finger is cut off in an accident, my sense of 'I' doesn't go away with that finger. But at some point of bodily damage our identification with the body becomes implausible. That is the moment of physical death. That is when our identification with the body doesn't remain valid anymore.

Now coming to the question of earthworms and egos etc, lets remember that according to Tattiriya upanishad, the human being is organized in five sheaths (kosha).

1. Annamaya Kosha : physical body
2. Pranamaya kosha : body of vital energy
3. manomaya kosha : body of mind
4: vjnanamaya kosha : body of higher knowledge
5: Anandamaya kosha : body of bliss

Minerals and crystals also show organized structure, but they possess the physical body only. Plants possess physical and vital (anna+prana) bodies. Plants don't have nervous system, so they don't have any mental or higher bodies. Animals possess physical, vital and mental (anna+prana+mana) bodies.

At the time of the death of a human, the physical body is the first to die. The vital (prana) and manomaya bodies may still linger for some time. Vital (pranamaya) body dies next as it cannot sustain itself due to lack of nourishment coming through physical body. Manaomaya (mental) body disintegrates next. This is the reason why people do not retain physical/vital traits or mental memories of past lives. But people with very strong vital or mental constitutions may retain some of that body before the rebirth and they may retain traits or memories of previous birth.

The most important lessons of a lifetime are kept in the karana-sharira which is made of the bodies higher than the mental. This karana-sharira is what transmigrates from birth to birth. In that sense that body is the 'soul' or 'Jiva'. This 'soul' or 'jiva' is individual, in the sense that it is separate for each person. But this'soul' or 'jiva' is a spark of the divine, and its seat in the body is supposed to be centered in the heart region. In the upanishads it is called the 'hiranmaya purusha' or tha 'angushtha-matra' purusha. Heart region consists of two major chakras. It is a dual chakra. The superficial chakra is the seat of 'emotion'. But much deeper is the real center of 'jiva' and 'soul'.

That 'soul' is much closer to the real unique self (Atma) of the universe.

All this may sound like much of mumbo-jumbo to many people. But what I have described is what many yogis say, including Sri Aurobindo.

A worm has physical+vital bodies mainly. Its nervous system is distributed without any strong center. So even though it may have a mental body, it is highly undeveloped. It is debatable whether a worm posseses the higher bodies, and if yes how developed they are.

For a human to be reborn as a worm, means a frightful descendence into the hell of ignorance. Into a level where the mental body is just a rudiment of what used to be and the 'soul' or 'jiva' or the karana-sharira is as good as non existent.

When a a plant is cut and replanted, it may grow as a separate plant. A worm when cut may survive as two separate worms. So it appears that at the level of physical (anna) and vital (prana), the beings are capable of dividing. All this can also be seen at the level of individual cells. Cells keep on proliferating, but would we say that each one of them need a separate 'soul'?

Physicists know that fundamental particles come in two flavours, bosons and fermions. Multiple bosons can occupy the same state, but no two fermions can be in the same state. An electron (a fermion) while interacting with photons that are bosons ( electromagnetic field), may emit of absorb a large number of such bosons. But the number of fermions is much more strictly preserved. A electron remains a single electron, while emitting and absorbing all those photons. Electron is much longer living although in a rare case of meeting an anti-electron/positron, it can be annihilated (there are other annihilation mechanisms for electrons too).

Life in general and cells in particular appear more boson like. The 'soul' or 'jiva' appears more fermion like. Bosons can live by themselves. But an electron (fermion) is always surrounded by a bosonic cloud. So purely physical/vital life forms are possible without a soul or central self/I/ego. Humans do appear to have that 'bosonic cloud' of living cells as their physical/vital (annamaya-pranamay and possibly manomaya) bodies. But inside they perhaps have something fermionic too. That fermionic part is like the 'soul' or karana-sharira in us. Fermions also get annihilated. In that sense, soul/karana-sharira is not the ultimate self. The only real self is the Atman of upanishda/vedanta. And that Atman is same as Brhaman or the universal self/reality.

Just a lot of my rambling thoughts ! <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Sunder · 07-08-2004, 04:38 AM

Absolutely not rambling... Thanks a million Ashok. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

Your flow of thoughts, and also the points raised has set me thinking. I still have a long way to go before I can sit back and smile like Gaudapada when such a question is raised. The mystery of life, though it's so simple, is also the most elusive. I have to reflect on what you said, and I shall meditate upon it tonite. But before that, I would like to clarify a few things (and get things clarified)..

QUOTEBut at some point of bodily damage our identification with the body becomes implausible. That is the moment of physical death. That is when our identification with the body doesn't remain valid anymore.

There are three other states where our identification with the physical body does not remain valid. They are, Swapna (Dream), Sushupthi (Deep Sleep), and Thuriyam or Chathurtham (The fourth state.) The Brahma Sutra also talks about "swooning" as half-dead state, where a person is not in sushupti, nor is he in the states of Vishva (Jagrut) or Taijasa (Swapna'avasta.) Thus, lack of identity with the body alone does not distinguish beteween life and death.

QUOTEAt the time of the death of a human, the physical body is the first to die. The vital (prana) and manomaya bodies may still linger for some time. Vital (pranamaya) body dies next as it cannot sustain itself due to lack of nourishment coming through physical body. Manaomaya (mental) body disintegrates next. This is the reason why people do not retain physical/vital traits or mental memories of past lives.

The Prana cannot "die", it will only stop functioning with respect to a particular body. IIRC, according to Brahma Sutra, Sri Shankara mentiones that on "death", the functions of the sense organs (indriyas) merge into the prana. The Prana merges into the manas(?) (mind), and the mind into the Jeeva. The jeeva snaps it's bonds with the body and leaves for it's next destination. (Usually Chandraloka for yogis and Brahmaloka for Gnanis.)

QUOTEIn the upanishads it is called the 'hiranmaya purusha' or tha 'angushtha-matra' purusha.
The flame in the heart is more like a neevara-suka fiber from a rice-paddy. The Narayana-sukta has an excellent-excellent description of the jeeva.


Brilliant like a streak of lightning set in the midst of the blue rain-bearing clouds, slender like the awn of a paddy grain, yellow (like gold) in colour, in subtlety comparable to the minute atom, (this Tongue of Fire) glows splendid.

In the Middle of That Flame, the Supreme Self dwells. This (Self) is Brahma (the Creator), Siva (the Destroyer), Hari (the Protector), Indra (the Ruler, the Imperishable, the absolute, the Autonomous Being.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/invoc/in_nar.html


This jeeva, as it is limited, identifies itself with the mind/body/intellect owing to the upadhis (limtations.)

QUOTEHeart region consists of two major chakras. It is a dual chakra. The superficial chakra is the seat of 'emotion'.
I did not know the heart had TWO chakras. I am aware of the Anahatha chakra. What is the other one? Is it a minor chakra? Or is it the one Sri Ramana Maharshi mentions, the one on the right side of the physical heart?

QUOTEFor a human to be reborn as a worm, means a frightful descendence into the hell of ignorance.
Now-a-days, even being born as a CPI-M or RJD mantri also means the same, or worse.

QUOTEIn that sense, soul/karana-sharira is not the ultimate self. The only real self is the Atman of upanishda/vedanta. And that Atman is same as Brhaman or the universal self/reality.
Yes, the Karana sharira (Ananda maya kosha) is not permanent. It is still a sheath. Avaduthas and Durvasa (literally, one who cannot be clothed), are called so because he cannot be clothed even by the five sheaths.

07-08-2004, 06:11 AM

Sunder,

From a scientific viewpoint, we understand the chemical reactions of life. But whether we understand the 'life' per se is still open to question. There seems to be orders of magnitude of difference in complexity and organization from an amino acid to even the simplest living cell. Mind and consciousness are equally shrouded in mystery as far as science is concerned. Most hard core scientists just talk about neuronal functioning while on the topic of the mind. But the gap between consciousness and neuronal mechanisms is a very wide one. Many scientists take a cheap route and deny that there is anything called consciousness. I call it cheap, because it is very easy to get rid of a problem by insisting/pretending that it doesn't exist.

So these are great problems still untackled by science. Although many Yogis have gone much further and gathered important guidelines to help people. But we being humans, also want to entertain our minds by trying to find a 'rational' scientific explanation. Hence in India philosphical systems go together with yogic realizaions. With the success of science in physical realm, we want to have scientific explanations as well. Not only personal realizations or philosophies, but scientific explanations.

When I was writing my first response , I felt a very strong dichotomy and unease. I knew what I was saying flies in the face of science. And yet there is enough evidence from yogis and limited personal experiences to actually give such ideas due weightage. In your case, you have had much more stronger personal evidence. So you perhaps don't feel this unease. I guess until I get similar personal realizations, I will continue to feel this way.

Agree with you regarding swapna and sushupti. Turiya is of course a very different kind of state. It is said that 'pour turiya like oil into all the three states of wakefulness, dream and sushupti to remain in the self-awareness all the time'.

Prana and anna both follow their own conservation laws such as conservation of mass/energy etc. By the 'death' of pranamaya kosha I meant that the pranamaya body doesn't remain functional anymore. Prana is just a kind of vital energy. Even during meditation yogis are supposed to merge indriyas into prana then into manas etc. In such cases the anna-prana-mana bodies just become dormant. But right after death they actually start disintegrating.

Your description of the 'flame in the heart' is very good. Most mahayogis/paramahamsas emphasize the importance of heart center. Coming face to face with one's own soul is usually a momentous event in a yogi's life. Normally they see it like a flame in the heart with which they merge. It may also take a form of some divine figure such as Sri Krishna.

Sri Aurobindo strongly emphasizes that according to his experience heart center is a dual center. He says it is behind the Anahata chakra. He says that while meditating on the second heart center, one gets a feeling of progressively sinking deeper and deeper until the golden 'hiranmaya purusha' is seen. Also most of the descriptions of Anahata Chakra of the Kundalini yoga, don't exactly match with the description of the 'angustha matra hiranmaya purusha'. Maharshi Ramana also emphasized the heart center and he made a curious observation that in his opinion heart center and sahasrara are directly connected.

People imagine hell as some sort o torture chamber. But just imagine what one will go through if one were given the senses and mind of a worm. To get a sense of the feeling let someone tie his arms and legs together. Cover the ears a with thick pads, and eyes with hazy glasses. drug himself so that the mind barely functions and then bury himself inside moist mud and try to have a life while eating mud! <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Of course worms don't mind such existence. So we should be little bit understanding if a mahatma, who has taken a human birth for some purpose, says that we must strive to gain knowledge and freedom (jnana and mukti). Even though we may be happy at our level of knowledge and freedom, the Mahatma perhaps knows how much more is possible. For such a great soul, human condition may be like the life of worm to us.

07-08-2004, 09:22 AM

AKji,

Great post.

Sunder sir,

I will give some different perspective, from my Guru. But i may not be faithfully reproducing what he said.

Apart from the 7 chakras in Patanjali there are some more chakras in the body.

Hara nilai- the first 7 chakras from (from Muladharam to Duriyam),

Hari nilai 1
a)Maspatha - 2 inches below navel
b)Ayutha - navel
c)Hrithomitha (3 to 4 inches above navel. The intersection of the lowest of the two chest bones (sorry forgot my biology) - This according to him is the seat of Narayana.
d)Sushma (behind anadhaka Chakra)
e)amitha
f)ethi (agnai)
g)dhiyomath (Duriyam)

Hari -nilai 2
sang- Above mooladharam
Ung - navel
aing - Middle of spinal cord
iym- The back of the neck )
Kleem (heart - the seat of the purusha)
Aum (agnai)
Sau (duriyam)

The location of the first four chakras i will confirm later. The colours of the chakras
corresponds to the seven colours (VIBGYOR).

Apart from the there are two chakras behind the skull (one is half white in colour and the other black). These are the chakra's which gives the ego ( or the I). After death, these two chakras accompany the jiva and carries the information about the previous birth.

Sunder · 07-08-2004, 11:00 AM

Ashok, thank you once again for the post.. While these posts are catalysts, I thank you again for the step in the right direction. (Like I said, I will have to meditate on this one.) I shall remain silent on this earthworm subject now, but keep working on it.

Regarding your comment about Science and Yoga (or Dharma), I say that Modern Science and Sanathana Dharma have a common goal. They both seek to find Truth and exlore the limits of Knowledge.

All Darshanas (View points) in Sanathana Dharma have something called PRAMANAs (i.e. source of Valid knowledge.) For example, Gautama Nyaya accepts Pratyaksha (sense perception), Anumana (Inference), Upamana (examples), and Shabdha (testimonies of experienced ppl.) to be Valid source of Knowledge... Yoga on the other hand accpets only Pratyaksha, Anumana, and Agama as Pramana.

Science will accept only Pratyaksha (Verifiable and reproducible proofs) and Anumana (mathematically provable inferences) as valid sources of knowledge. They have not yet advanced to take Shabdham into consideration.. Every Vaidika knows that he/she is a a follower of Vaidika Dharma BECAUSE of Science and not IN SPITE of it...

The more I understand science, the more I respect "Hinduism", and the more I understand "Hinduism" (specially the Prasthana trayam), I respect Science..

--------

Quick note: Check out Mandukya Upanishad (Shloka 7) for a beautiful and appropriate description of Thuriyam.. I am so impressed by this shloka that I sometimes repeat it even in my dreams.. (the only one that beats this is Avadhutha Geetha - Truthiyam cha Katham, Turiyam cha katham.)

**Hauma Hamiddha** · (This post was last modified: 07-09-2004, 10:07 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jul 7 2004, 07:41 PM) Many scientists take a cheap route and deny that there is anything called consciousness.Â I call it cheap, because it is very easy to get rid of a problem by insisting/pretending that it doesn't exist.Â

That is correct- I accept that some of the more triumphalists Western philosophers like Dan Dennett deny that there is anything like consciousness in the sense of first person experience. The biochemical process of signal reception and recording he and his supports says *is* the first person experience. However, one can have all the signal reception/recording without any need to have that "I experience" effect. This indeed is basic hard problem of conciousness.

The archaic Hindus clearly recognized this and went beyond, where western philosophers are just reaching. The Hindus speculated that there were two possibilities: 1) bhUta chaitanya vAda 2)sAttvIka chaitanya vAda. In the former school of thought, mainly pioneered by the lokAyatas and some branches vaiSheshika and nirIshvara sAMkhya argued that chaitanya entirely arose from the interaction of the fundamental bhUtas. The latter school that dominated Advaitic thought and the theistic lineages sAMkhyas and nyAya-vaiSheshikas argued that chaitanya was independent of the emenations of bhUtAdi and existed as a fundamental entity that interacted with the former. Depending on the organization of the tanmAtra sensing structures there may a greater reflection of the structure of bhUtAdi on the pure chaitanya giving rise to experience.

This Hindu viewpoint can entirely be accomodated with the modern scientific framework by postulating that consciousness (chaitanya) is an independent axiom of existence just like mass-energy, charge or spin. However, there are some laws (perhaps undiscovered) that cause a correlation between the entropic information content of matter and the organization of conciousness. This would mean that computers and other structures too may have consciousness of their own but it may not comparable to that of animals due to this information content-organization of consciousness relationship.

One can still argue again this viewpoint with various counterpoint, shifting the old Hindu arguments to the modern context.

07-09-2004, 03:21 AM

Sridhar, Thanks a lot.

Sunder,

I was a sceptic nastika teenager. But kept on reading the texts. When I first understood Vedanta (well to a degree which satisfied me), I was so thankful for having born in India. That gratitude has only increased over the years. There is so much that our ancestors achieved and left for us!

Regarding Mandukya-upanishad, isn't it amazing how much influence this tiny upanishad of 12 shlokas has had? I also like the fragment of the last 12th shloka/mantra:

"Atmaiva saMvishati Atmanaa Atmaanam"

Please let us know results of your meditations.

Hauma,

Nihilists/shunyavaadis also fall in the cheap category. If you can prove that a problem doesn't exist, you don't have to solve it! Although Nagarjuna was a master of dialectics. His arguments in the favor of shunyavada are very strong. People say that Gaudapada and Shankaracharya himself were influenced by his ideas. But Gaudapada, in his Mandukya-karika, laid the foundation of advaita vedanta of Shankara, by positing the exact opposite of shunyavada. That the ultimate is not sunya/voi but a pure existence sat-chit-ananda. Same as the upanishads. For having taken many arguments from Bauddhas (Nagarjuna in particular), Shankara was even called 'prachhnna baudhha' or hiden buddhist by his detractors! But shunya and saccidananda are very different things! Shankara used dilaectics to show the shunyata of Maya, but not of ultimate self/brahman. Nagarjuna and bauddhas made everything shunya.

Regarding Bhuta-chaitanyavada of Lokayatas and Sattvika-chaitanya of Sankhya-Yoga-Vedanta, isn't it amazing how contemporray their disputations sound! People are still debating taking the same old two polar positions as was done in India thousands of years ago! Thanks for bringing the theory of 'Bhuta chaitanya vada' to our attention. Most of us grow up only reading about the Samkhya-Yoga-Vedanta side of the story.

07-09-2004, 04:32 AM

QUOTE . Mind and consciousness are equally shrouded in mystery as far as science is concerned. Most hard core scientists just talk about neuronal functioning while on the topic of the mind. But the gap between consciousness and neuronal mechanisms is a very wide one. Many scientists take a cheap route and deny that there is anything called consciousness. I call it cheap, because it is very easy to get rid of a problem by insisting/pretending that it doesn't exist. 

In this context, some readers may find these lectures by one of the celebrated neuroscientists of our time interesting reading :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml

1. Phantoms in the Brain

2. Synapses and the Self

3. The Artful Brain

4. Purple Numbers and Sharp Cheese

5. Neuroscience - the New Philosophy

BTW, here is one of my favorite quotes for all occasions --

Even though its common knowledge these days, it never ceases to amaze me that all the richness of our mental life -- all our feelings, our emotions, our thoughts, our ambitions, our love life, our religious sentiments and even what each of us regards us his own intimate private self -- is simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in your head, in your brain. There is nothing else.

~ Vilayanur Ramachandran

Sunder · 07-09-2004, 05:39 AM

http://sps.k12.ar.us/massengale/earthworm%....htm#regenerate

Q. Can earthworms regenerate themselves?
A. Yes, but only the front or head end of the earthworm will survive and the amputated tail portion will die. This remaining front portion must also be long enough to contain the clitellum and at least 10 segments behind the clitellum. This makes up about half the length of the worm. The new posterior segments grown will be slightly smaller in diameter than the original segments and sometimes a bit lighter in color.

Interesting <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

07-09-2004, 09:14 AM

Sunder, earthworm may not be a correct example. I have seen something that splits into two equal life forms. In tamil , is it pooran, maravattai?

Sunder · 07-09-2004, 09:42 AM

QUOTE(sridhar k @ Jul 9 2004, 09:14 AM) Sunder, earthworm may not be a correct example. I have seen something that splits into two equal life forms. In tamil , is it pooran, maravattai? 
Sridhar, Earthworm is not the right example, but starfish, amoeba etc are. Pooran (Centipede), and maravattai (millipede) do wiggle after they are split, but I am not sure if they regenerate and proliferate. I was under the impression thus far that earthworms do proliferate that way -- quite some search on google got me the link I posted <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> But the question itself remains to be answered. i.e. how Consciousness manifests itself thru matter and proliferates itself (specially in basic life forms.)

Ashok, I will let you know once I hit upon something.

07-10-2004, 11:21 PM

Folks,

Souls, jeevas or atmas ( consciousness encapsulated by anava and karma) do not take animal birth. Souls Only take human birth. There is nothing in the vedas and agamas that supports souls taking animal births (other than cries of bakti saints of 'even if I were to take an animal birth').

Sorry to butt in. Regards.

Pathma

Sunder · 07-11-2004, 12:34 AM

QUOTE(Pathmarajah @ Jul 10 2004, 11:21 PM) Folks,

Souls, jeevas or atmas ( consciousness encapsulated by anava and karma) do not take animal birth. Souls Only take human birth. There is nothing in the vedas and agamas that supports souls taking animal births (other than cries of bakti saints of 'even if I were to take an animal birth').

Sorry to butt in. Regards.

Pathma 
Pathmarajah Sar, one of the readily available examples to state the transition of souls from Manushya-yoni to other Janthu yoni would be the Viveka Chudamani.

http://mailerindia.com/hindu/viveka/part1.php
QUOTEHuman nature is the hardest of creaturely states to obtain, even more so that of manhood. Brahminhood is rarer still, and beyond that dedication to the path of Vedic religion. Beyond even that there is discrimination between self and non-self, but liberation by persistence in the state of the unity of God and self is not to be achieved except by the meritorious deeds of hundreds of thousands of lives. 2

These three things are hard to achieve, and are attained only by the grace of God - human nature, the desire for liberation, and finding refuge with a great sage. 3

He is a suicide who has somehow achieved human birth and even manhood and full knowledge of the scriptures but does not strive for self-liberation, for he destroys himself by clinging to the unreal. 4

Who could be more foolish than the man who has achieved the difficult attainment of a human body and even manhood but still neglects his true good? 5


The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad has a mention that Janaka's Elephant was once a Brahmana, that was born as an Elephant.

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/...V-14a.html
QUOTEThis is a peculiar anecdote here. It appears, there was a sage called Budila Asvatarasvi. Perhaps, he was a reciter of the Gayatri Mantra. He became an elephant in his next birth by the chant of the Gayatri. Janaka was riding that elephant, and due to Purvavasand the elephant could speak. It said that it was a reciter of the Gayatri Mantra. Janaka says: 'You say you are a meditator on Gayatri. How have you become an elephant upon which I am sitting and riding?' What is the secret? How can a Gayatri Upasaka become an elephant in the next birth? The elephant said: 'King, I did not know the faith of Gayatri. I made a mistake in the chant. I did not know some aspect of it. I knew everything except something. That something has brought me to an elephant's birth'. 'I see', said Janaka. 'This is the case'. 'Fire is her mouth. This you did not understand', says Janaka. Here fire can mean anything; one does not know what actually the Upanishad intends. Perhaps it isÂ to be identified with the Sun himself. He is symbolic of the fire-principle. Also in the ritual of the chant of the Gayatri there are certain Nyasas, as they are called, placements which invoke Agni and other deities as the various limbs of the conceived body of the deity of Gayatri.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 07-11-2004, 12:49 AM

Let it be known that there is nothing special about manuShyas. manuShya is just another pashu differing in no significant way from them. The hierarchy of manuShya being at the top of some kind of ladder is also completely meaningless.

07-11-2004, 08:54 AM

Yeah, the pre-eminence accorded to man in the scheme of things is wholly baseless. I think this kind of thinking has been a bane to philosophy and has biased the minds of many otherwise rational thinkers. Allied to this is the attitude which placed the Earth at the center of the Universe. Fortunately, astronomy has helped us realize the insignificance of the Earth. Perhaps, some day, what Astronomy did to lower the exalted status of the Earth, the behavioral sciences would do dispel our "anthropo-centric" attitude. As we understand better the ways of chimps bonobos, and gorillas, as we refine the phylogenies of primates long gone by, we may soon learn to see ourselves thru the same prism.

But the position which man accords himself is a much more fundamental dogma than the shape of the Earth! For, man's ego always comes in the way and biases things. Ideally, we need to view ourselves with the same objectivity that a biologist from outer space would have while making a catalogue of the species on Earth.

One pitfall of the man-centric attitude is the notion of progress in evolution. (I suspect that the great Dobzhansky himself might have subtly contributed to this kind of thinking. I wonder what Darwin's view on this was). We are somehow inclined to believe that things get better; that things tend towards perfection. When we look at the various life-forms so well adapted to their environs and so well engineered in form, it gives an impression that natural selection is progressive. But true objective science must eshew any biases towards teleology : explanations of what "something" is for, don't imply that they are there in order to achieve a certain end or result. It is sufficient to say that they are the result of selection.

This sticky point requires some explanation. As philosophers, when we, in our awe, ask "how and why" we may fall prey to a very subtle trap due to teleology. Here is a wonderful example I came across :

" In science, teleology is a way of modelling a system's behaviour by referring to its end-state (or goal). It is an answer to a question about function and purpose. Why do vertebrates have hearts? In order to pump blood around the body to distribute oxygen and nutrients etc. Now, this is a functional explanation. The function of the heart is to pump blood. In evolution, the question 'why do organisms exhibit adaptation?' is not answered teleologically with 'in order to survive', but historically - 'because those that were less adaptive didn't survive'.

Thus, when we are forming a world-view, I guess we need to be careful as to where we use teleology and where we use "hindsight" or "history" to explain things.

On the other hand, a philosophical extension of this teleological (goal seeking)thinking is a utopian belief that tomorrow the world would be a better place to live in; that man would tomorrow attain a sublime perfection.

I think in the context of phylogenies, the word "tree" is a bit of a misnomer.

"Evolution is a bush, not a tree. "

~ Stephen Jay Gould

Coming back to the "manuShya-centric" thinking, the karma theory in Hindu philosophy is a case in point. It is amazing how deep-rooted this dogma is in the Hindu mind. I think the whole karma doctrine has serious cracks. Now, one of the fundamentals of Vedanta is there is only Brahman. But, despite the fact that everything in the universe is pervaded by Brahman, the karma theory posits the pashu at a lower rung than man. How can this be so when there is only Brahman? Moreover, Brahman is absolute and impersonal, whereas karma induces a moral edge to things. A common notion in the philosophic texts was that Indra and other devas had attained their lofty stations by means of their karma. Now, there is no denying that effort and sacrifices will get you to the top, but when you extened the argument by saying that sin and dereliction will throw you back to animalhood, it becomes a bit far-fetched. These things may be true on in a allegorical sense, but I believe the ancients implied them in a very literal sense. They believed that the soul would actually be reborn as something else -- a human birth being the result of accreted "merits" and suffering in life being the result of accreted "sins".

07-11-2004, 10:29 AM

QUOTE(Sridatta @ Jul 11 2004, 08:54 AM)


Sridatta, good post. Due to my own contemplations and education I am in agreement with some of what you say...

>>When we look at the various life-forms so well adapted to their environs and so well engineered in form, it gives an impression that natural selection is progressive.<<

I guess if you have studied the evolutionary theory you must have come across what is known as the fundamental theorem of natural selection. It is a mathematical consequence of basic theory of biology and states that fitness always increases. I believe that in that sense there is a certain directionality of increasing fitness- that is you cannot go through a decreased fitness in the fitness landscape even if there it were to reach of peak of fitness elsewhere. Hence, what we perceive as progress is not the course taken by evolution, but merely ever-increasing fitness.

>>I think in the context of phylogenies, the word "tree" is a bit of a misnomer.
"Evolution is a bush, not a tree. "
~ Stephen Jay Gould <<

This is what I hate about SJG- I think he did more harm than good in his attempts to popularize evolution- he is such a glib semanticist. In the mind of students of evolution there really no difference between the "tree" and the "bush". At the heart of it is the topology of the evolutionary relationships matter not whether you call it a tree or a bush. This statement of Gould really makes little or no sense (are there not trees with a bush like branching?) .

>>They believed that the soul would actually be reborn as something else -- a human birth being the result of accreted "merits" and suffering in life being the result of accreted "sins".<<

I wonder in this context how the Buddha's numerous animal births have to be interpretted. Is for example the birth as the noble ruler of the monkeys worse than the birth as Angulimala the man?

I suspect the Hindus did not uniformly consider animal births worse than human births. By the ordinance of Hindu law in the Vasistha Dharmasutra (IIRC) the penance for killing vertebrates is similar to killing of humans. Though I think killing invertebrates results in lesser penance.

So I suspect some Hindus may have seen a hierarchical chain, while others may have seen a more flat existence. In think the old Indo-European lifestyle was so animal dependent that it accord great respect for (at least some) animals.

I remember our forum mod HHji telling me some years ago that he would like to be born as an ameba or some bacterium <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> Anyways I fear we are rambling far away from itihasa-purana <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /> ?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?