After this body - What happens? Or After death of the body - what next

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

What happens at the point of death?


As the physical forces wane, all the gross and subtle energy goes into
the mental and emotional astral body. If the person was prepared for
death, sudden or otherwise, his mental and emotional astral body
would have already been well schooled in readiness.

Sudden death to such a soul is a boon and a blessing. At death, the soul slowly becomes totally aware in its astral/mental bodies, and it predominantly
lives through those bodies in the astral dimension. The soul functions
with complete continuity in its astral/mental bodies. It is with these
sensitive vehicles that we experience dream or “astral” worlds during
sleep every night.


When the physical body dies, this automatically severs the subtle
silver cord that connects the astral and physical bodies. This cord
is an astral-pranic thread that connects the astral body through the
navel to the physical body. It is a little like an umbilical cord. During
out-of-the-body experiences, this silver cord is often seen as a cord of
light connecting the physical, astral and spiritual bodies. When the
cord is cut at the death of the physical body, the process of reincarnation and rebirth begins.

The Vedas say, “When a person comes to weakness, be it through old age or disease, he frees himself from these
limbs just as a mango, a fig or a berry releases itself from its stalk.”
It is painful to the astral body to have the physical body cut or disturbed seriously within seventy-two hours after death.

The soul can see and feel this, and it detains him from going on. As soon as you tamper with his physical body, he gets attached, becomes aware that
he has two bodies, and this becomes a problem. Ideally when you die,
your physical body goes up in flames, and immediately you know it’s
gone. You now know that the astral body is your body, and you can effortlessly release the physical body.

But if you keep the old body around, then you keep the person around, and he is aware that he has two bodies. He becomes earthbound, tied into the Pretaloka, and confused.


answers compiled from dancing with siva: hinduism’s contemporary catechism and merging with siva: hinduism’s
contemporary metaphysics, by satguru sivaya subramuniyaswami, published by himalayan academy, 107 kaholalele road, kapaa, hawaii 96746 usa. tel: 808–240–3108; fax:
808–822–4351; Minimela.com, The Himalayan Academy eStore

 

[renuka]

Dear Ravi,

This is where I had read before that scientists are trained in the astral loka.
I managed to find that link.Read what I highlighted in blue.

What Is the Nature of the Subtle Plane?

SLOKA 43​

The subtle plane, or Antarloka, is the mental-emotional sphere that we function in through thought and feeling and reside in fully during sleep and after death. It is the astral world that exists within the physical plane. Aum.

Startled by the vividness of a dream, a man sits up in bed and finds the dream continuing in his waking state. In this astral vision, Siva holds a pouch of gold coins, which He showers down. Will the vision bring worldly riches or spiritual wealth?​

BHASHYA​

The astral plane is for the most part exactly duplicated in the physical plane, though it is of a more intense rate of vibration. Beings in the higher Antarloka are trained in technology, the arts and increments of culture to take up bodies in the Bhuloka, to improve and enhance conditions within it. It is in this more advanced realm that new inventions are invented, new species created, ideas unfolded, futures envisioned, environments balanced, scientists trained and artists taught finesse. We function constantly, though perhaps not consciously, in this subtle plane by our every thought and emotion. Here, during sleep and after death, we meet others who are sleeping or who have died. We attend inner-plane schools, there to advance our knowledge. The Antarloka spans the spectrum of consciousness from the hellish Naraka regions beginning at the patala chakra within the feet, to the heavenly realm of divine love in the vishuddha chakra within the throat. The Vedas recount, "Now, there are, of a truth, three worlds: the world of men, the world of the fathers, and the world of the Gods. The world of the Gods is verily the best of worlds." Aum Namah Sivaya.


http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/dws/dws_mandala-09.html

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

You have very nicely brought out After this body - What happens?
At the end of a person's life in a family, brings relatives, friends and community even the neighbours/
passersby to a much powerful human emotion, if the person happens to be a honest, possessing good
conduct/highly moral features. We also see unfortunate/astonishing incidents of persons seeking
death as the last and only one solution. We are all aware that every minute, some one dies on this
earth. We express great sorrow for them and also for the victims like the unfortunate ones too.

For atheist or agnostic beliefs, their main philosophy is to enjoy the life to the utmost now and here
itself. In spite of this fact, everyone is given a chance without fail to learn the actual way of life
and opportunity to overcome the Sin that they accumulate or commit.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

This is where I had read before that scientists are trained in the astral loka.
I managed to find that link.Read what I highlighted in blue.

What Is the Nature of the Subtle Plane?

SLOKA 43​

The subtle plane, or Antarloka, is the mental-emotional sphere that we function in through thought and feeling and reside in fully during sleep and after death. It is the astral world that exists within the physical plane. Aum.

Startled by the vividness of a dream, a man sits up in bed and finds the dream continuing in his waking state. In this astral vision, Siva holds a pouch of gold coins, which He showers down. Will the vision bring worldly riches or spiritual wealth?​

BHASHYA​

The astral plane is for the most part exactly duplicated in the physical plane, though it is of a more intense rate of vibration. Beings in the higher Antarloka are trained in technology, the arts and increments of culture to take up bodies in the Bhuloka, to improve and enhance conditions within it. It is in this more advanced realm that new inventions are invented, new species created, ideas unfolded, futures envisioned, environments balanced, scientists trained and artists taught finesse. We function constantly, though perhaps not consciously, in this subtle plane by our every thought and emotion. Here, during sleep and after death, we meet others who are sleeping or who have died. We attend inner-plane schools, there to advance our knowledge. The Antarloka spans the spectrum of consciousness from the hellish Naraka regions beginning at the patala chakra within the feet, to the heavenly realm of divine love in the vishuddha chakra within the throat. The Vedas recount, "Now, there are, of a truth, three worlds: the world of men, the world of the fathers, and the world of the Gods. The world of the Gods is verily the best of worlds." Aum Namah Sivaya.


Dancing with Siva, Mandala 9: The Three Worlds

Dear Renuka,

Thank you a lot for all the wonderful links and highlights....

In your post #20 when you said - "even scientists are made in heaven!!LOL", I was well knowing that you mean it.

Having participated in couple of discourses around 18 years before, I got to know and roughly remember the same. The basic and simple concept that I could grasp is that, a great philosopher, a great musician, a great scientists, a great artists, a great thinker, a great social reformer etc..etc..is a make up of a soul in the astral plane, much before the soul gets into a physical body in the physical plane. It is just that the time when these inborn talents gets revealed/fructified in each soul would be differing. The reason behind the differentiation is, the karmic limitations that the soul has to bear.

 

[nannilam_balasubramanian]

Mr C Ravi Very Good input and educative followed by Renukaji clear presentation.
We normally just talk Bhuloka (Earth World); Antarloka (Subtle Plane) and Siva Loka
(Karana loka) during some rituals at home.
Incidentally, we happen to remember the story of King Trishanku . King Trishanku
because of his Tapas and Rituals, going up towards Heaven. Alarmed Devas, on
noticing an unnatural occurrence of mortal body entering into the Heaven had not
permitted King Trishanku with the able support of Lord Indra, who used HIS powers
to make the King fall on the earth. The Sage Vishwamitra, absolutely furious, not
willing to agree his defeat at the hands of Lord Indra, utilizing his powers stopped
him midway. The King Trishanku was virtually floating in the mid air in a state of
instability. The King prayed the Sage for a succour. The story proceeds. The Sage
comes to a compromise with Lord Indra and Devas not to have a parallel heaven
and so on. Sometimes, in fun, when somebody is in problems, we call it as Trishanku
Sorgam.

Balasubramanian
Ambattur

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

An interesting thread that is developing well. To Prasad's question in the OP:
"So is there a period between one body and next, if so why?"

Govinda finds answers that suit a vishiShTAdvaitin, quoting mostly from the GItA; Prasad would like to stick to the Advaitin's pov and find answers that suit it; Renuka raises important points about different kinds of karmas to be worked out in different planes and about the three granthis that act as firewalls against the memory of past births; and Sarma tries to reconcile the different views with some striking explanations.

Here is more fuel to the fire of discussions:

• What about the sUtrAtman which plays a unique role in the cycle of rebirth?
The concept of sUtrAtman is perhaps first seen in sadAnanda's vedAntasAra (verse 91). I learn that bRuhadAraNyaka upaniShad describes the vAyu or prANa as the sUtrAtman, which is usually described as the string on which the beads are strung, or the fragrance of a flower.

Since in the Hindu spirituality and philosophy, the universal substrates and manifests as individual beings (jaDa and chaitanya--insentient and sentient), it is logical that every jIva has its own sUtrAtman that acts like its unique signature until its final liberation. To this sUtrAtman are strung as beads, the birth-death-rebirth cycles of the individual jIvan, which is why one disembodied soul cannot be born in the body meant for another.

• Hindu metaphysics also teaches us about the five different koshas--sheaths and the different sharIras--bodies associated with them, of which only one is the sthUla-sharIra--gross body.

• It's logical then that on death of the physical body the soul lives in the astral world in its astral body; on death of the astral body, it moves on to the heavens to live in its remaining subtle bodies, although some souls due to their karmic imbalances do return sooner than later, to have another birth in another physical body.

• Different sampradAyas--religious traditions--have different views about how life in the subtle worlds is lived. Theosophy has long held a paradigm of what happens after death and until rebirth, which can be read in Annie Besant's book Death - And After? here: Theosophy : Death and After by Annie Besant

It may be found from the link to the Himalayan Academy website given by Renuka that the Thesophical view is derived from the Hindu view presented therein.

• This physical earth of ours, through various combinations of its five gross elements, has spawned innuerable objects from the atom to the silicon chip. All these objects in one sense are only the name and form of the earth, because they have no independent existence beyond the earth.

• The earth not only substrates and manifests as the innumerable different objects, but also keeps them bound to it using its gravitation force. This force is supposed to originate at the centre of the earth. What is at the centre? Is it just a point, and if so, how does that single point manage to keep so much of a huge mass of objects under its control?

• Scientifically, that one central point replicates itself as the central point of gravitation of every object (like the points in an yantra). What sustains the central point and gives it this power? My guess is that it is the universal consciousness of Brahman.

If our physical universe has thus a central point that substrates it and manifests as every other point, why can't Brahman, in the world of metaphysics and sentient beings, substrate and manifest as different individual sUtrAtmas, with their own individual points of consciousness, all of which is bound to the universal consciousness of Brahman?

 

[renuka]

• Scientifically, that one central point replicates itself as the central point of gravitation of every object (like the points in an yantra). What sustains the central point and gives it this power? My guess is that it is the universal consciousness of Brahman.

If our physical universe has thus a central point that substrates it and manifests as every other point, why can't Brahman, in the world of metaphysics and sentient beings, substrate and manifest as different individual sUtrAtmas, with their own individual points of consciousness, all of which is bound to the universal consciousness of Brahman?

Dear Saidevo Ji,

Thank you for a detail explanation which was very enlightening.

In your above post it goes to show that at a microcosmic level Brahman is the epicentre of Consciousness.

Your post echoes the Aitareya Upanishad..

"Brahman is that which is Absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything, from the creator down to the lowest of matter. It, being everywhere, is also in each and every individual. This is the meaning of Prajnanam Brahma occurring in the Aitareya Upanishad"

Discrimination of the Mahavakyas - The Philosophy of the Panchadasi - Chapter 5

 

[RS_Raman]

Sir,
If everything is happening due to previous karma, A has to kill B in this priavi, then Why A is being punished in the current janmam or next (why that is treated as pabam?).

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI RS.Raman.

With reference to your post #33:

That A has to kill B in this birth, could mean that
A died in the hands of B in a previous birth due to:
1. murder by B
2. killing by B in a war
3. killing by B in an accident
4. killing by B in a professional situation (such as a surgery) and so on.

On what of the above occasions is A justified to kill B in this birth? Who is to cause this justification?

In Hindu philosophy, karma does not work like 'an eye for an eye': that is, there is no repayment in the same kind. Karma usually results in side effects in the following births, as Swami Sivananda explains in his book Karmas and Diseases here:
Karmas and Diseases

This could mean that 'everything is happening due to previous karma', but not necessarily with results of the same kind. But one thing is sure, I think. Every person is destined to have a natural death, so any akAla maraNam--abnormal death--could cause accretion of bad karma for all the people involved in it.

 

[prasad1]

I have doubts, because of contradictions. I feel that Karma's is the result of association with the results of action, not the action or the results of action. The only thing in the control of the jiva is the association, everything else is beyond the power of jiva.

namaste shrI RS.Raman.

With reference to your post #33:

That A has to kill B in this birth, could mean that
A died in the hands of B in a previous birth due to:
1. murder by B
2. killing by B in a war
3. killing by B in an accident
4. killing by B in a professional situation (such as a surgery) and so on.

On what of the above occasions is A justified to kill B in this birth? Who is to cause this justification?

In Hindu philosophy, karma does not work like 'an eye for an eye': that is, there is no repayment in the same kind. Karma usually results in side effects in the following births, as Swami Sivananda explains in his book Karmas and Diseases here:

Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized
TEXT 27

jatasya hi dhruvo mrtyur
dhruvam janma mrtasya ca
tasmad apariharye 'rthe
na tvam socitum arhasi

TRANSLATION

For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.
PURPORT

One has to take birth according to one's activities of life. And, after finishing one term of activities, one has to die to take birth for the next. In this way the cycle of birth and death is revolving, one after the other without liberation. This cycle of birth and death does not, however, support unnecessary murder, slaughter and war. But at the same time, violence and war are inevitable factors in human society for keeping law and order.
The Battle of Kuruksetra, being the will of the Supreme, was an inevitable event, and to fight for the right cause is the duty of a ksatriya. Why should he be afraid of or aggrieved at the death of his relatives since he was discharging his proper duty? He did not deserve to break the law, thereby becoming subjected to the reactions of sinful acts, of which he was so afraid. By avoiding the discharge of his proper duty, he would not be able to stop the death of his relatives, and he would be degraded due to his selection of the wrong path of action.

In this context my karma is only by association. If my motives were pure, and selfless then I do not accumulate any Karma as there was no Vasana.

Secondly how can I be the originator of any action, all happens in brahaman and due to Brahman alone.

This could mean that 'everything is happening due to previous karma', but not necessarily with results of the same kind. But one thing is sure, I think. Every person is destined to have a natural death, so any akAla maraNam--abnormal death--could cause accretion of bad karma for all the people involved in it.

Given that everything happens in brahman according to brahman's plan how can there be an abnormal death. That seems to be a contradiction.

 

[sarma-61]

I am not an authority or even a very well-read and knowledgeable person, to comment on topics like Atma, re-birth, karma, etc. But I have been lucky to listen to the pravacanams of great and learned panditas (not the currently popular ones). Also I read some of the publications on spiritual topics.

Based on such (second-hand) knowledge, I feel the contradiction which Shri Prasad sir and Shri R.S. Raman sir point out, arise because we are making a fundamental assumption that it is the Jeeva which experiences the results of karmas, and that, to me appears erroneous. The Jeeva is untainted just as the Supreme nirguna brahman is; it is the kAraNa sareera or the living physical body which feels and, therefore, experiences the pleasures and pains and hence the results of karmas.

The concept of "sUtrAtman" can be justified only if it is regarded as a string of beads representing past births of the same jeeva in association with one karma sareera or another; deprived of the latter, the jeeva is as pure and unattached as the Nirguna Brahman. If this were not so, then all the mahAvAkyas like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahmAsmi", etc., will become falsehoods.

Though our medieval AcAryas might have explained matters based on their knowledge and the worldly things around them in those days, it appears that some of the current gurujis are bringing some fresh, out-of-the-box thinking into such spiritual matters. As an example, I reproduce below excerpts from Acharya Shri Shri Ravi Shankar's views:

Me is lost in “mine”. Nirvana is getting back to “me” from “mine”. Instead of “mine”, “mine”, you go back to me, who am I?, and when Buddha went to find “Who am I?”, He found nothing. He said I could not find an atma, I could not find a soul. It is all nothing, there is no self, no soul, there is nothing but the one who is experiencing this nothing is me. I experience nothing, I experience Moksha. Who should the nirvana happen to, it’s me. It is not the ego me but the “me” as a consciousness which is everywhere.

So the “me” is not an individual person but “me” is a field of consciousness.

This is exactly what Vedanta says. Atma is not an entity, it is a field. The being
without impression is mukti, liberation.

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

Ref: Rishimukh Magazine, Jan 2012 Issue Page 15

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sarma and others.

This is with reference to your post #36:
The concept of "sUtrAtman" can be justified only if it is regarded as a string of beads representing past births of the same jeeva in association with one karma sareera or another; deprived of the latter, the jeeva is as pure and unattached as the Nirguna Brahman. If this were not so, then all the mahAvAkyas like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahmAsmi", etc., will become falsehoods.

There is no doubt that the jIva is pure and unattached and is essentially nirguNa brahman. However, you would note that the mahAvAkya tat tvam asi recognizes the jIva in its present state in binding to the different koshas and sharIras of its current birth, and therefore urges the jIva to identify itself with its core essence.

• In fact, except for two statements, and the ekam sat declaration of the Rig Veda, all the mahAvAkyas speak from the POV of duality. For further details on how this is so, please check this post:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-3.html#post41630

• Shankara's famous statement brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH includes all the three factors--paramAtman, jIvAtman and the jagat--and defines their real nature.

• It seems to me that just like air trapped in water raises bubbles, Brahman, the universal conscousness trapped in the mAyAvic matter raises individual units of consciousness, which are the jIvAtmas.

• When the One wished to multiply, it invariably had to descend on a downward curve, creating the seven worlds, and their seven orders of matter. In ensouling the units of matter in all these seven worlds, the One had to hide its consciousness deeper as the order of matter varied from the subtlest to the grossest.

• This means that the universal consciousness trapped in matter as the sentient and insentient beings is also on a simultaneously upward, evolutionary path back to its home. In this cycle of evolution, even a piece of rock has a chance and the legacy to be born in better circumstances as higher order of conscious beings.

Still waters reflect only one image of the sun above. Moving and agitated water reflects the same sun in tiny images, several of which are distorted and broken. Until the waters become still, the images will continue to have their virtual life cycles, which are coded in threads of the sUtrAtman.

 

[prasad1]

Saidevoji I like your explanation, thanks. Mr. Sharma's contention threw me of balance. But his explanation seemed so plausible.
I understand my position a little better. The Jiva is pure Brahman, but enveloped in Maya does not recognize its true nature and goes through these births and deaths, once it recognizes its true nature there is no more birth and deaths.

 

[sarma-61]

namaste shrI Sarma and others.

This is with reference to your post #36:

Respected Shri Saidevoji,

I have seen that you are perhaps the best read person of our scriptures and possess a real treasure of philosophic jnAnam. It would have been appropriate for me to say that I cannot (in the sense that I am unqualified) to discuss such topics with you; it will be like an idiot trying to argue and best, say, Adi Sankara!

Still, I write below what I feel, more in order to learn from you and not to counter you. If anything seems disrespectful or hurtful, kindly point out and I will remove those portions.

The concept of "sUtrAtman" can be justified only if it is regarded as a string of beads representing past births of the same jeeva in association with one karma sareera or another; deprived of the latter, the jeeva is as pure and unattached as the Nirguna Brahman. If this were not so, then all the mahAvAkyas like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahmAsmi", etc., will become falsehoods.

There is no doubt that the jIva is pure and unattached and is essentially nirguNa brahman. However, you would note that the mahAvAkya tat tvam asi recognizes the jIva in its present state in binding to the different koshas and sharIras of its current birth, and therefore urges the jIva to identify itself with its core essence.

I am not sure whether we have any authoritative statement in support of the fact that the JeevAtma becomes any different in nature because of its association with the physical body, mind and hence, through the media of the mind and intellect, with the different koshas? Even the famous "dwA suparNA..." verse is interpreted as the jeevAtma and the ego and the "I" ness as per advaita, I think, though dwaitins hold a different view.

Will it not, therefore, be more appropriate to say that the JeevAtma is like a power supply which makes the human being machine work in accordance with the programme written down for it in accordance with karmas and vAsanas? If this is agreed upon, and we also take not of the fact that in the Supreme Brahman, there can be no differentiation of its constituent parts, and so it may not be possible to identify any particular jeevAtma as a separate entity like the arils in a pomegranate. It will be more like taking a spoonful of water from the ocean - you will not get the same water again.

Tat tvam asi is, in my view, to be taken as the effort being made to urge the conscious mind or "I"ness to look within and experience the witnessing jeevAtma.

Please let me know if there is any flaw in the above as perscriptures.

• In fact, except for two statements, and the ekam sat declaration of the Rig Veda, all the mahAvAkyas speak from the POV of duality. For further details on how this is so, please check this post:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/literature/3803-atman-its-adjectives-3.html#post41630

I agree that the mahAvAkyas can be seen as postulating duality or dwaita philosophy. But I, being an advaitin and having heard elders, interpret these mahAvAkyas as attempts to break through the mind and intellect which uphold the "I" ness, and perceive or experience the true nature of the jeeva (which is the same as that of the Brahman), the duality is not between jeeva and bahman, but, to put it loosely, between our conscious I-feeling mind and the jeevAtma.

Hope this does not contradict any scriptural commands or assertions.

• Shankara's famous statement brahma satyam jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH includes all the three factors--paramAtman, jIvAtman and the jagat--and defines their real nature.

As you know, Sankar's assertion "jaganmithyA" has been one very troublesome point for the advaitins to establish, especially in the face of the strong objections from non-advaitins and that the concept of "adhyAsa" has, of late, created schisms within the advaitins also (Holenarsipur followers, I mean.).

Rest tomorrow pl.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Prasad.

Your statement in post #38 summarizes the entire discussion so far in this thread:
The Jiva is pure Brahman, but enveloped in Maya does not recognize its true nature and goes through these births and deaths, once it recognizes its true nature there is no more birth and deaths.

Earlier in post #35, you talked about karma being "the result of association with the results of the action".

• Our essential nature as NirguNa Brahman is indelibly and undeniably embedded in our consciousness as the sense of 'I-ness'. All our actions are described in transitive and intransitive verbs. When I say, "I ran", I should actually have said, "My legs ran", but due to the overwhelming sense of I-ness, I involuntarily--albeit mistakenly--associate this 'I' of mine with my body so I say, "I ran".

• With sufficient knowledge of the difference between 'I and my', I should be able to feel, 'my legs ran' although I might still prefer 'I ran' in speech and writing. This is like saying, "The sun rises in the east", which is only a subjective perception and not an objective truth.

• It is even more difficult to extricate the 'I' In my transitive actions, from its association with our bodies, instruments and senses, because such actions involve an object that eventually becomes 'mine', binding me even more to it. How many of us can truly feel--though unable to say it--that 'my mind thinks', instead of 'I think'? Nevertheless, we often say, "if my memory serves me right..." and mean it.

• It would be a challenge to practice extricating the 'I' from our thoughts, speech and action. Here is a lighthearted attempt of such a wish:
Practice of Advaita: advaita-abhyAsaH
Practice of Advaita: advaita-abhyAsaH - Hindu Dharma Forums

• Shringeri jagadguru shrI AbhinavavidyAtIrtha MahASvAmigaL offers an excellent advice for such sAdhana, which is posted here:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philosophy-traditions/3842-advaita-practical-life.html#post41721

We cannot avoid actions resulting in good and bad karma. Even good karma limits us to the heavens and does not liberate. This is the reason, IMHO, that shrI KRShNa exhorts us to surrender the fruits of our action (since we cannot avoid the action itself) to him, so that we might eventually be liberated.

 

[Govinda]

Post # 31,

namaste everyone.

An interesting thread that is developing well. To Prasad's question in the OP:
"So is there a period between one body and next, if so why?"

Govinda finds answers that suit a vishiShTAdvaitin, quoting mostly from the GItA; Prasad would like to stick to the Advaitin's pov and find answers that suit it;

Nice analysis. Seems like you overlooked the ref. that I have cited from the Upa. for the main ideas of Gita. Should the later thoughts/philosophies suit the Gita or vice versa?

Gita is the essence of the srutis (Veda/Upanishads). They are the basic source texts of Vedanta Philosophy. They are set forth in logic (nyaya) and order in Brahma Sutra of Badarayana/Vyasa. Brahma/Vedanta Sutra is the first aphoristic (maha-vAkya) manual. These three are the basic authority (PrasthAna Trayam) for the later philosophical schools. Sankara et al have written Bhasyam based on the 3. Then, how did Gita became the 'single' reference for only one school (vishishta-advaita)?

Also, the philosophy of the Srutis is by itself Advaita ( 'ekam-Eva advitiyam', declaring that there is no second to that Brahman) but not that of Sankara Advaita. How did Sankara own those Vedic strutis/Riks or the Upanishadic aphorisms??

 

[Govinda]

post #31,

• What about the sUtrAtman which plays a unique role in the cycle of rebirth?
The concept of sUtrAtman is perhaps first seen in sadAnanda's vedAntasAra (verse 91). I learn that bRuhadAraNyaka upaniShad describes the vAyu or prANa as the sUtrAtman, which is usually described as the string on which the beads are strung, or the fragrance of a flower.

Since in the Hindu spirituality and philosophy, the universal substrates and manifests as individual beings (jaDa and chaitanya--insentient and sentient), it is logical that every jIva has its own sUtrAtman that acts like its unique signature until its final liberation. To this sUtrAtman are strung as beads, the birth-death-rebirth cycles of the individual jIvan, which is why one disembodied soul cannot be born in the body meant for another.

Looks like, you didn't like the message of Krishna, "There is nothing higher than Myself, O Arjuna, The lower prakriti (matter), the higher prakriti (jivas) are strung on Me, as rows of gems on a thread." 7.6,7

Prana(breath) is the essential element for all life(body). Prana/air is the source of all. It cannot be unique for an individual JIva. The same upanishad declares that Supreme Atma(Lord) is the self of that PrAna (prAnasya Prana - Kena Upa II.2) and that of Sun(aditya-hrdaya). So, in that vere, Prana refers to the Lord and hence He is the string of all creation. As PrAna is common air , it cannot be cause of the individual Karma, only Jivas are the sole owners of its own mind/karma. Also, as Prana is not an intelligent principle, it cannot be the Atman (of that sUtra/vedic message).

vAyu or prANa as the sUtrAtman, which is usually described as the string on which the beads are strung, or the fragrance of a flower.

Is the fragrance of the flower, property of the flower or that of air/breeze? Thus, is the karma/cit properties of the Jiva or that of PrAna? Then, if Prana is the fragrance, why are some flowers not fragrant?

• Scientifically, that one central point replicates itself as the central point of gravitation of every object (like the points in an yantra). What sustains the central point and gives it this power? My guess is that it is the universal consciousness of Brahman.

Are you defying your own statement, that 'PrAna is the sutrAman, that strings all'. How did Brahman become the Central Point?

 

[Govinda]

post #53

I have doubts, because of contradictions. I feel that Karma's is the result of association with the results of action, not the action or the results of action. The only thing in the control of the jiva is the association, everything else is beyond the power of jiva.

In the previous post, saidevo, made it clear, that the actions needn't be relational. Acc. to dharma shAstrAs, one died in Dharmic War, is bound to enjoy heaven and served by the dEvAs. Any freewill of a jIva is granted by the Lord acc. to one's own and others karma. He is impartial to both. In such cases, there won't be obstacles.

There are cases where one plans to injure/deceive another, but the other one can be saved. As for the Law/Dharma ShAstrAs, any action (irrespective of the association or result) is punishable, thus also bound by karma. By not retaliating or being harmful to others, through sAttvika/disciplined mind, one's "other" bad karmas may also be eliminated as reward (by the Lord). But one who wouldn't fight adharma, will incur bad karma too. But, unrightful actions and in-action ensue bad-karma. Thus, Krishna encourages ONLY right(ful) action! The vedantic view of karma is opposed to pessimism/fatalism (in-action) and attempts to un-rightful actions based on pre-determinism and also in-determinism (that things happened by chance).

 

[Govinda]

The Jeeva is untainted just as the Supreme nirguna brahman is; it is the kAraNa sareera or the living physical body which feels and, therefore, experiences the pleasures and pains and hence the results of karmas.

You consider Jeeva similar to that of Nirguna Brahman, which is un-advaitic. For Sankara, Jeeva is non-different from (same as) Brahman.

If this were not so, then all the mahAvAkyas like "tat tvam asi", "aham brahmAsmi", etc., will become falsehoods.

Even otherwise, MahAvAlkyas are falsified. If the Jiva is same as Brahman, those aphorisms would have been 'Aham Brahma'. Whereas asi/asmi, are similes. Aham Brahma asmi, I am (jIva) is of the nature of Brahman.
But still, they are two different beings.

'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating'. Mu. 3.1.

Different from this self that consists of vignyAna-mAya, is the inner-self that consists of bliss' - Tai II.5

 

[saidevo]

namaste Govinda.

Owing to paucity of in-depth familiarity with either the GItA or the UpaniShads or any other Hindu text, I have no answers to your questions in post #41. I would be happy to hear your answers.

With reference to your post #42, yes, you are right. GItA is the first source of reference to the universal sUtrAtman.

• Although prANa is not intelligent, it is this vital force that packs the karma and memories of a person at death, which is why we commonly say, 'prANan poyviTTadhu--prANa is gone' when a person dies. I can imagine prANa's packs as beads or knots in a string, so it is logical IMO to call prANa the sUtrAtma of an individual jIva, using an Ahupeyar--transferred epithet.

• Yes, fragrance is the property of the flower, but only the air/breeze wafts it around; in the same way, the karma vAsanas are spread around by prANa, which has earlier strung them into beads for each jIva.

• Saying that prANa is the sUtrAtman through which string Brahman manifests as individual jIvas is an analog expression, while perceiving Brahman as the central point that in manifestation replicates itself by reflection is a digital expression, there is no contradiction here.

 

[sarma-61]

Originally Posted by sarma-61 View Post

The Jeeva is untainted just as the Supreme nirguna brahman is; it is the kAraNa sareera or the living physical body which feels and, therefore, experiences the pleasures and pains and hence the results of karmas.

You consider Jeeva similar to that of Nirguna Brahman, which is un-advaitic. For Sankara, Jeeva is non-different from (same as) Brahman.

Shri Govinda sir,

Some confusion; you say that "jeeva is similar to Nirguna Brahman" is un-advaitic, whereas according to Sankara Jeeva is non-different from Brahman. Are these not the same?

Even otherwise, MahAvAlkyas are falsified. If the Jiva is same as Brahman, those aphorisms would have been 'Aham Brahma'. Whereas asi/asmi, are similes. Aham Brahma asmi, I am (jIva) is of the nature of Brahman.
But still, they are two different beings.

'Two birds, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, the other looks on without eating'. Mu. 3.1.

Different from this self that consists of vignyAna-mAya, is the inner-self that consists of bliss' - Tai II.5

I understand that from the viSiShTAdvaita or dwaita pov, the mahAvAkyas will look falsified and this is one more (the most important being mAyA, adhyAsa or adhyArOpa) bone of contention, if I may say so with all due respect to the learned scholars, between advaitins and the viSiShTAdvaitins.

"asmi" to my limited sanskrit knowledge is the predicate "am", so I wonder how it becomes a simile; will you kindly elucidate?

"Different from this self that consists of vignyAna-mAya, is the inner-self that consists of bliss' "

If the reference is here to the vijnAnamaya kOSa, I have been under the impression that it is an outer sheath covering the AnandamayakOSa with the jeeva inside. So the relevance of this to the dvAsuparnA verse is not clear to me, sir.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sarmaji and others.

I suggest we drop the 'ji' in addressing each other, since we often address BhagavAn himself by just a name name without any title.

As I have said in my post #45 addressed to Govinda, I have no in-depth familiarity with our scriptures, and barely literate in Sanskrit. Besides, I belong to the sampradAya--tradition--of Shankara-smArta-advaita. I have no problems at all with being countered, since we both and most others here are seekers, not scholars, and most of the time we voice only our own free thoughts, irrespective of what the scriptures say.

• Nevertheless, I also believe in the validity of the dvaita and vishiShTAdvaita and other Hindu siddhAntas. Since advaita is the apex, these other traditions can be reconciled to form a hierarchy below the apex, inasmuch as such a hierarchy exists from the nirguNa brahman through the saguNa brahman, devas and other subtle beings, to JIvas and Jagat.

• Thus, IMHO, all the three interpretations of statements in the vedas and upaniShads have their own truth under the given circumstances, not necessarily contradicting one another.

• It seems to me that the apparent duality of the dvA suparNa as two birds is understood better by the PanchAdashI explanation of Brahman as the chaitanya and jIvAtman as the chidAbhAsa. I have attempted a compilation of some essential terms in this post:
Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - Practical Advaita

• In this connection, I would be grateful if you--or any other member--could explain what Kanchi ParamachArya has said of this verse in the KaThopaniShad,

angushTa mAtraH purushaH jyotirivaadhUmakaH |
IshAno bhutabhavyasya sa evAdya sa u shvaH

in this post:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...paramacharya-devotees-who-sought-jnana-3.html

As regards your observation in post #39:
Will it not, therefore, be more appropriate to say that the JeevAtma is like a power supply which makes the human being machine work in accordance with the programme written down for it in accordance with karmas and vAsanas? If this is agreed upon, and we also take not of the fact that in the Supreme Brahman, there can be no differentiation of its constituent parts, and so it may not be possible to identify any particular jeevAtma as a separate entity like the arils in a pomegranate. It will be more like taking a spoonful of water from the ocean - you will not get the same water again.

Tat tvam asi is, in my view, to be taken as the effort being made to urge the conscious mind or "I"ness to look within and experience the witnessing jeevAtma.

• I have no problem with the concept that Brahman and Jiva are essentially the same, whether we seek to illustrate it by the example of a power supply, or the I-ness of Jiva being in the field of universal consciousness of Brahman. Differences arise only with the nature of the reality of the apparent limitations of material adjuncts like the body and mind.

• Surely, JIvas are not like the arils in a pomogranate (a good example)--specially when they are the reflected consciousness of brahman--but the limitations of arils do exist in manifest creation, though as a conditional/pracital reality. This I think is due to the play of mAyA--that which (apparently) measures out the brahma chaitanya.

• It seems to me that Jiva is permanently different from Brahman due to its material adjuncts in dvaita, integrated into the divine body of Brahman on liberation in vishiShTAdvaita and irretrievably lost into Brahman as a spoon of water from the ocean in advaita. Please correct me where I am wrong.

• The spoon of water from the ocean analogy has this problem: that you don't get the same water again when you dip the spoon into the ocean a second time might well be true on the ultimate liberation of the Jiva, but it may not be not the case with the rebirth cycles of a Jiva.

I don't think that bodies of different karmic models are ready beforehand for any Jiva to enter any body (so in this sense one need not be worried about bad karma he/she generates in this life). If the spoon of water example is true at all times, we also ask the question, "Does the same soul returns to the body after deep sleep?"

 

[renuka]

• Although prANa is not intelligent, it is this vital force that packs the karma and memories of a person at death, which is why we commonly say, 'prANan poyviTTadhu--prANa is gone' when a person dies. I can imagine prANa's packs as beads or knots in a string, so it is logical IMO to call prANa the sUtrAtma of an individual jIva, using an Ahupeyar--transferred epithet.

Dear Saidevo Ji,

There is a different school of thought that says that Prana is inherently intelligent and suffused with Chaitanya.

Paramahansa Yogananda has coined the word Lifetrons for the English equivalent of Prana.

Lifetrons can be further resolved or traced to their origin that is the "Thoughtrons of God"

 

[saidevo]

namaste smt.Renuka and others.

You are right. I looked it up in the 'Autobiography' and found this footnote:

43.2: Sri Yukteswar used the word prana; I have translated it as lifetrons. The Hindu scriptures refer not only to the anu, "atom," and to the paramanu, "beyond the atom," finer electronic energies; but also to prana, "creative lifetronic force." Atoms and electrons are blind forces; prana is inherently intelligent. The pranic lifetrons in the spermatozoa and ova, for instance, guide the embryonic development according to a karmic design.

• The infused intelligence of 'lifetrons' can be understood from how Yogananda describes in that chapter that the astral world is made of lifetrons that can be aggregated instantly into living forms by mere will. Unless the lifetrons have embedded intelligence, this is not possible in the time of an instant. Obviously, this kind is programmable intelligence, with no presence of free will to make it indepedent.

• Yogananda, quoting his master Yukteswar, says:
"The astral body is an exact counterpart of the last physical form. Astral beings retain the same appearance which they possessed in youth in their previous earthly sojourn; occasionally an astral being chooses, like myself, to retain his old age appearance."

What about the name? Anyone has any idea about what our scriptures say about the name of a disembodied soul? Datta Swami in this link says that a soul "retains no memory of who his parents, spouse or children were in the past birth", and quotes an example from MahAbhArata:
Universal-Spirituality

• Although I loved it when I first read it, now with some familiarity of what is taught by our scriptures, Yogananda's astral world description in the book today reads to me more like a fantasy than a possible reality. What would an orthodox SI brahmin or a Hindu woman steeped in bhakti do in these circumstances of no karma--work and all enjoyment? More interesting would be what a group of Tambrams with strong attachment to their views do in such a place!

• There are some glaring incongruities too:
"No one is born of woman; offspring are materialized by astral beings through the help of their cosmic will into specially patterned, astrally condensed forms.

What is the necessity of astral children?! How would the children and their parent feel when it is time for the parent to return to earth? Would these astral children die only astrally?

• When desires can be materialized instantly in the astral and causal worlds, won't this lead to more and more desires, many of which could be gross or emotional?

• I have some reservations too about Yukteswar and Yogananda diluting the sophisticated Hindu philosophy of the UpaniShads and mixing it with the western religious texts to suit their western followers.

I believe that a person on death does NOT lose his character or identity (religious, cultural, national, even social) on death. They continue to haunt the person until he/she willingly and eventually renounces them.

 

[renuka]

• Although I loved it when I first read it, now with some familiarity of what is taught by our scriptures, Yogananda's astral world description in the book today reads to me more like a fantasy than a possible reality. What would an orthodox SI brahmin or a Hindu woman steeped in bhakti do in these circumstances of no karma--work and all enjoyment? More interesting would be what a group of Tambrams with strong attachment to their views do in such a place!

Dear Saidevo Ji,

I think you already answered this question yourself in this paragraph you wrote:

I believe that a person on death does NOT lose his character or identity (religious, cultural, national, even social) on death. They continue to haunt the person until he/she willingly and eventually renounces them.​

You also wrote More interesting would be what a group of Tambrams with strong attachment to their views do in such a place!

Yes the word is Attachment..even Sattva Guna is still an attachment and still binds.

Arent we all supposed to give up all forms of identification/attachment eventually?

Aham Nirvikalpo Nirakaara Roopah
Vibhur Vyapya Sarvatra Sarvendriyanaam
Sada Me Samatvam Na Mukthir Na Bandhah
Chidananda Rupah Shivoham Shivoham

I am formless and devoid of all dualities
I exist everywhere and pervade all senses
Always I am the same,
I am neither free nor bonded
I am pure knowledge and supreme bliss, I am Shiva(auspiciousness)
I am all auspiciousness, I am Shiva(auspiciousness)