01-29-2005, 06:37 AM
Thanks sunder & gangajal.
I think when we get into too much detail about koshas etc, we move away from the philosophically stronger aspects of vedanta to somewhat weaker aspects. When discussing the koshas etc we get into low level nitty gritty of the actual construction of a human being. Many more assumptions need to be introduced such as there are exactly five koshas not six, etc. In such a case one starts feeling as if he/she is stating an article of faith rather than arguing about a philosophical system. Construction of human being is also an active area of study of many branches of science. So the disputes are likely to be numerous as well as substantial.
I would rather keep the philosophy of advaita away from such nitty gritty. Entering into such detail opens up the system to many more avenues of attack. The disadvantage is that questions raised based on such cases can be used to level unfair criticism on the whole edifice of advaita.
Advaita is primarily a theory of 'being' and 'consciouness'. Converting it into a science of human being's construction takes us away from the main force and scope of advaita.
Actually one can separate out many distinct and rather disjoint sections that are usually bundled together:
1. The elementary categories (brahman, maya, appearances, conscious self, subration etc.), unity of self and brahman, the proces of subration and different heirarchies of percieved realities, nirguna brahman as the final reality that can't be subrated, etc.
2. theory of karma and reincarnation: Note this theory is completely independent of the theoretical structure of (1).
3. Koshas, bodies, panchikaranam, etc. : The way koshas are organized or how many they are etc, do not affect the philosophical structure or impot of (1).
I think it is a good idea to keep in mind as well as remind , that vedanta consists of many of these sections that are philosophically speaking rather independent from each other. And that Adi Shankara's greatest contribution is in (1).
I think when we get into too much detail about koshas etc, we move away from the philosophically stronger aspects of vedanta to somewhat weaker aspects. When discussing the koshas etc we get into low level nitty gritty of the actual construction of a human being. Many more assumptions need to be introduced such as there are exactly five koshas not six, etc. In such a case one starts feeling as if he/she is stating an article of faith rather than arguing about a philosophical system. Construction of human being is also an active area of study of many branches of science. So the disputes are likely to be numerous as well as substantial.
I would rather keep the philosophy of advaita away from such nitty gritty. Entering into such detail opens up the system to many more avenues of attack. The disadvantage is that questions raised based on such cases can be used to level unfair criticism on the whole edifice of advaita.
Advaita is primarily a theory of 'being' and 'consciouness'. Converting it into a science of human being's construction takes us away from the main force and scope of advaita.
Actually one can separate out many distinct and rather disjoint sections that are usually bundled together:
1. The elementary categories (brahman, maya, appearances, conscious self, subration etc.), unity of self and brahman, the proces of subration and different heirarchies of percieved realities, nirguna brahman as the final reality that can't be subrated, etc.
2. theory of karma and reincarnation: Note this theory is completely independent of the theoretical structure of (1).
3. Koshas, bodies, panchikaranam, etc. : The way koshas are organized or how many they are etc, do not affect the philosophical structure or impot of (1).
I think it is a good idea to keep in mind as well as remind , that vedanta consists of many of these sections that are philosophically speaking rather independent from each other. And that Adi Shankara's greatest contribution is in (1).