What is really death?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This thread is inspired by the comments of Shri.Raghy in another thread. I have the same curiosity as Shri. Raghy to really explore the concept of death. The questions are,

1) Is the present concept of death adequate?
2) What has our ancient knowledge to say about death?
3)will the concept of death change with the ever increasing advances in medical science?

As a believer in the existence of soul, my own idea of death is simple. We are dead once the soul disconnects itself from the body. At present the stopping of heart beat or the death of brain are taken as the indicators of death. Now the question that a believer of soul such as me, has to answer is which one indicates that the soul has departed from the body?

Before I come to that, let us address one perplexing question for the soul believers. With todays medical technology it is possible to have organ transplants. Even a heart transplant is possible. So if a soul is supposed to reside in the body or more specifically in the heart, what happens when a heart is transplanted? Does the soul leave then or does it still stay?

My own position is that a soul moves away from the body when the unity of the body breaks. A physical manifestation such as the heart by itself doesn't amount as much as the underlying energy that it represents. So as long as the energy is intact, the unity of the body is maintained.

So you may transplant the organs but if you are not disturbing the balance everything is fine. But it may not be possible to maintain the balance easily. This explains why a liver or a kidney for example that matches the body is very difficult to obtain.

In a related way let me say that cells in our body keep dying and are constantly being replaced by new ones. Does that make the body house a different soul every day or every minute? I think that is not the case.

Now, how can we accurately figure out when death has occurred? I would go by the scriptures that says that locus of the soul is the heart. So when heart irreversibly stops functioning we can say that death has occurred.

To answer the question whether our concept of death is adequate I think it is. We may delay death by advances in medicine but I think we know what death is. That is not likely to change.

 

[prasad1]

This thread is posted in the general discussion, my POV is purely legal and medical.

Mr. Sravna,

Now, how can we accurately figure out when death has occurred? I would go by the scriptures that says that locus of the soul is the heart. So when heart irreversibly stops functioning we can say that death has occurred.

That statement is DEAD ON ARRIVAL, it is a non-starter.
In the modern day of medical practice heart transplant is common and not a novelty.
Even during heart surgery doctors routinely stop the heart, and use heart lung machine to keep the patient alive.
At present time only when the brain stops functioning we can say that, the person has died.

Death definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

The uniform determination of death. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act. It states that: "An individual who has sustained either irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards." This definition was approved by the American Medical Association in 1980 and by the American Bar Association in 1981.

The Definition of Death (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

According to the whole-brain standard, human death is the irreversible cessation of functioning of the entire brain, including the brainstem. This standard is generally associated with an organismic definition of death (as explained below). Unlike the older cardiopulmonary standard, the whole-brain standard assigns significance to the difference between assisted and unassisted respiration. A mechanical respirator can enable breathing, and thereby circulation, in a “brain-dead” patient—a patient whose entire brain is irreversibly nonfunctional. But such a patient necessarily lacks the capacity for unassisted respiration. On the old view, such a patient counted as alive so long as respiration of any sort (assisted or unassisted) occurred. But on the whole-brain account, such a patient is dead. The present approach also maintains that someone in a permanent (irreversible) vegetative state is alive because a functioning brainstem enables spontaneous respiration and circulation as well as certain primitive reflexes.

death

Dr. K. Ganapathi,
Neurosurgeon, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai , India.

Today a conceptual crisis has arisen in modern medicine and biology. This crisis stems precisely from the realization that the definition if death – taken for granted by our ancestors requires re examination. Death from a biological angle necessarily has to be redefined. Many dictionaries define death as "the extinction or cessation" if life or as ceasing to be. Today death of the brain is considered to be the death of the individual and death of the brain stem, is accepted as death of the brain and therefore of the individual.


This is the current accepted practice.​ This definition too may change.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

"I-con" doesn't need any place in the body to reside, it is sarva vyapi.,

உறங்கு வதுபோலுஞ் சாக்காடு உறங்கி
விழிப்பது போலும் பிறப்பு.

Like sleep is death, like wake up is re-birth.

What happen to you in deep sleep? where you gone?

YOU are there always, but your buddhi didn't reflect YOU . Like the veiled mirror couldn't reflect the light. Your Buddhi is the mirror and YOU is the light.

you understand ?

 

[C RAVI]

"I-con" doesn't need any place in the body to reside, it is sarva vyapi.,

உறங்கு வதுபோலுஞ் சாக்காடு உறங்கி
விழிப்பது போலும் பிறப்பு.

Like sleep is death, like wake up is re-birth.

What happen to you in deep sleep? where you gone?

YOU are there always, but your buddhi didn't reflect YOU . Like the veiled mirror couldn't reflect the light. Your Buddhi is the mirror and YOU is the light.

you understand ?

YES!! I do understand...


I am of the same view. Soul is not a substance/entity occupying some space in our body. Its all pervading energy in and around our physical body.

When the time comes for the energy to leave the physical body, it just leaves and at that point of time the Brain ceases to function. Unlike the sleep mode that turns into "wake-up" mode, death mode leaves the apparatus called Brain, useless for ever.

However, the "I-Con" of the soul that was reflecting with the help of the active Brain, remains intact and eventually starts reflecting through other new Brain (new birth). Here the "I-Con" remains the same BUT with altered consciousness as the experiences/knowledge and Karma gained in the previous birth.

 

[prasad1]

Like sleep is death, like wake up is re-birth.

Can you please give me some reference, where that definition is legal? So I can avoid going there.

The states of consciousness mentioned by you... jagrit, swapna, sushupti or unconsciousness all relate to the body. after death of body nothing like jagrit, swapna, sushupti or unconsciousness exists. It can never be. It never is. All these states of consciousness directly relate to the body which is governed by the five senses and the mind and not to atman soul which is pure energy.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

Dear Ravi,

My in line reply in italics

YES!! I do understand...


I am of the same view. Soul is not a substance/entity occupying some space in our body.

Correct, just like to add soul = pure I-CON not mistaken I-CON OR i-CON connected with some energy a.k.a shakti.


Its all pervading energy in and around our physical body.

No not energy and not in and around,(sarva vyapi ) and pure i-con is sivam not shaKthi.

When the time comes for the energy to leave the physical body, it just leaves and at that point of time the Brain ceases to function. Unlike the sleep mode that turns into "wake-up" mode, death mode leaves the apparatus called Brain, useless for ever.

correct , please allow me to share some thought here, brain is more physical i.e manifest form, buddhi is more unmanifest form . hence at death brain the manifest cease to function, buddhi the unmanifest also cease to function but more subtler form of buddhi called the seed (just the ahankara, which is the buddhi not indentifying the PURE I-CON but indentifing the I-con with the vasanas of current and previous lives exist in sleep state - at the time of death.

Upon rebirth , seed gets manifested. the whole birth , death and re-birth is coz of false identification of I-CON .


However, the "I-Con" of the soul that was reflecting with the help of the active Brain, remains intact and eventually starts reflecting through other new Brain (new birth). Here the "I-Con" remains the same

correct

BUT with altered consciousness as the experiences/knowledge and Karma gained in the previous birth.

altered consciousness ? mmmmm if I - consciousness is correctly understood the alteration cannot take place. can i say mistaken consciousness with regards to self instead of altered consciousness.

..

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Ravi,

My in line reply in italics

altered consciousness ? mmmmm if I - consciousness is correctly understood the alteration cannot take place. can i say mistaken consciousness with regards to self instead of altered consciousness.




..

True!!

I said altered consciousness in the sense that, the concsiousness of the physical life/self is into continuous learning process. What not learned towards realization does have its significance too in relative realities, though it is considered as ignorance in spiritual level.

There is nothing wrong and nothing right, nothing present and nothing absent, nothing useless and nothing useful etc. It is all the inter related wholesome with the purest conscious of the Brahman, that the self strives to attain.

The altered conscious may be downwords or upwards in the learning and realization process, while holding a very limited BUT very powerful Free Will.

Thank you very much for sharing your views with me. I would love to have your opinions on the above.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

True!!

I said altered consciousness in the sense that, the concsiousness of the physical life/self is into continuous learning process. What not learned towards realization does have its significance too in relative realities, though it is considered as ignorance in spiritual level.

There is nothing wrong and nothing right, nothing present and nothing absent, nothing useless and nothing useful etc. It is all the inter related wholesome with the purest conscious of the Brahman, that the self strives to attain.

The altered conscious may be downwords or upwards in the learning and realization process, while holding a very limited BUT very powerful Free Will.

Thank you very much for sharing your views with me. I would love to have your opinions on the above.

Ravi Ji

I don't quite exactly get the picture of what you are trying to convey .

Only on the highlighted underlined portion , i would like to share some thoughts.

Buddhi needs to realize SELF correctly that's all. SELF doesn't need to attain any other SELF.

There is ONLY SELF, there is no second thing (advaita) and when all are SELF only where is the question of attaining some other thing by SELF ?. SELF is brahmam, (BRAHMAM = SARVAM)

There is no INDIVIDUAL SELF that is seperate from UNIVERSAL (Brahmam) SELF.

UNIVERSAL SELF reflects on Buddhi and we preceive mistakenly that buddhi is individual SELF and hence we see that we are limited, coz no matter how much our buddhi knows there are a lot of things our buddhi dont know and hence this feeling I'm alpa and I need to acheive my full potential which is poornatva. that's the reason you say that self need to attain and achieve pure brahman self state, correct?

 

[sravna]

Dear HRHK and Ravi,

When saying that soul resides in the heart one should go beyond the mundane meaning of residing in a place. The heart I would suspect represents the highest and the synergy of all the energies of a human body and one's soul is in sync with that energy. It is equivalent to the mundane interpretation that the soul resides in the heart.

Adi Sankara also says the same about where the soul resides in the human body.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

can i say soul also resides in heart as it is sarvavyapi.

 

[sravna]

Dear HRHK,

Heart represents the synergy, this is only my opinion, of all the energies in a body. So effectively it means the soul pervades though its locus is the heart.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear HRHK and Ravi,

When saying that soul resides in the heart one should go beyond the mundane meaning of residing in a place. The heart I would suspect represents the highest and the synergy of all the energies of a human body and one's soul is in sync with that energy. It is equivalent to the mundane interpretation that the soul resides in the heart.

Adi Sankara also says the same about where the soul resides in the human body.

Shri Sravna,

Agreed!!! Heart is the synergy of all the energies of a human body and the soul is in sync with that energy.

But, my question is, how then the soul can be in sync with the transplanted heart?

May be the KARMA comes to play here by which a person is subjected to heart ailment, made to undergo heart transplant surgery and could some how get the replacement of a compatible heart of a specific individual, who have the Karmic bondage with the needy? Such a way that the soul can be in synch. with that other perticular heart only?

Or is it just that the Soul as all pervading energy gets itself well synchronized with any heart as an aparatus, that is been designated for the soul, in a physical body, either with the original one or any substituted/transplanted one?

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

Agreed!!! Heart is the synergy of all the energies of a human body and the soul is in sync with that energy.

But, my question is, how then the soul can be in sync with the transplanted heart?

May be the KARMA comes to play here by which a person is subjected to heart ailment, made to undergo heart transplant surgery and could some how get the replacement of a compatible heart of a specific individual, who have the Karmic bondage with the needy? Such a way that the soul can be in synch. with that other perticular heart only?

Or is it just that the Soul as all pervading energy gets itself well synchronized with any heart as an aparatus, that is been designated for the soul, in a physical body, either with the original one or any substituted/transplanted one?

Dear Ravi,

It is my opinion that for the survival of the body heart can operate at a range of energies. For example as a person ages the unity of the body gets progressively compromised and the soul gets less and less in sync with the body. In the case of keeping a person alive with a life support system or doing a heart transplant, that range of energy is probably satisfied though the overall health of the body is still at a diminished state.

The need for compatibility of the transplanted organ suggests that the body acts as a unit. The better the compatibility of the heart the better the chances that the unity is maintained. This makes it possible for the soul to not disconnect from the body.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri.Prasad,

My last post on heart transplant is my answer to your question.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri.Prasad,

My last post on heart transplant is my answer to your question.

In your OP you said

stopping of heart beat

is death. In my post#2 I gave reasons as to why that can not be right.

 

[sravna]

In your OP you said is death. In my post#2 I gave reasons as to why that can not be right.

Dear Shri. Prasad,

Your reasons are based on current medical knowledge. I do not want to consider that as definitive.

 

[sravna]

Brain death may lead to actual death just as non functioning of liver or kidney will. But if there is still activity in the body such as the heartbeat after the brain death, does it not mean that death of the person has still not occurred?

 

[prasad1]

Brain death may lead to actual death just as non functioning of liver or kidney will. But if there is still activity in the body such as the heartbeat after the brain death, does it not mean that death of the person has still not occurred?

You can not have heartbeat after brain death, except by artificial means like a heart lung machine. Non functioning of liver or kidney is treatable, brain stem failure is non-treatable.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

Anugraha bhashanam by hh bharthitheertha swamigal is available in you tube please watch.

 

[sravna]

You can not have heartbeat after brain death, except by artificial means like a heart lung machine.

After going through some websites, I find the above statement inaccurate. I request a medical expert to comment on this.

Non functioning of liver or kidney is treatable, brain stem failure is non-treatable.

As I said this is based on current knowledge. This may change. To me irreversible cessation of heart activity, signals actual death.

 

[prasad1]

death


Dr. K. Ganapathi,
Neurosurgeon, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai , India.

Today a conceptual crisis has arisen in modern medicine and biology. This crisis stems precisely from the realization that the definition if death – taken for granted by our ancestors requires re examination. Death from a biological angle necessarily has to be redefined. Many dictionaries define death as "the extinction or cessation" if life or as ceasing to be. Today death of the brain is considered to be the death of the individual and death of the brain stem, is accepted as death of the brain and therefore of the individual.

Dr. Ganapathy is a medical expert.

 

[sravna]

death


Dr. K. Ganapathi,
Neurosurgeon, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai , India.


Dr. Ganapathy is a medical expert.

Dear Shri. Prasad,

The clarification I sought was on whether it is a fact that the heart doesn't beat after brain death.

 

[prasad1]

What Does Brain Death Mean?


By Peter Pressman, M.D.


There is more to a loss of consciousness than simply not being awake. States such as coma, persistent vegetative state and normal sleep all involve a loss of consciousness, and all have different degrees of severity. Even in cases as severe as persistent vegetative state, there are rare cases of people waking up. Recent research suggests that some may have a greater degree of retained consciousness than previously recognized.


Brain death is different. As the term suggests, in brain death there is no hope of recovery. Medically, brain death is death.


Unlike the other forms of lost consciousness, brain death involves a complete loss of brainstem functions as well. This means that the reticular activating system responsible for consciousness is irreparably damaged. It also means that the centers for breathing and the control of heart rate have also been destroyed.


Most families come to an understanding of the concept of brain death, but it is not easy. Instinctively, we associate death with a heart that has stopped beating. But the heart's electrical system is somewhat independent from the rest of the nervous system. In fact, the heart can continue to beat even when removed from the rest of the body. Of course, this does not mean that the rest of the body is alive. Similarly, it is possible for machines to pump blood through the body without the help of the heart, as is sometimes done in cardiac surgery. Simply put, there is more to life than a beating heart.


In an intensive care unit, the rest of the body can be kept alive without the brain for some period of time. Mechanical ventilators can provide oxygen and remove carbon dioxide. IV fluids and tube feedings can replace normal means of nutrition. Ultimately, though, the rest of the body will follow the brain in death.

Brain Death


Science is not necessarily bad our understanding of the world. Bad science is wrong.

 

[sravna]

From Wikipedia on Death:

"Historically, attempts to define the exact moment of a human's death have been problematic. Death was once defined as the cessation of heartbeat (cardiac arrest) and of breathing, but the development of CPR and prompt defibrillation have rendered that definition inadequate because breathing and heartbeat can sometimes be restarted. Events which were causally linked to death in the past no longer kill in all circumstances; without a functioning heart or lungs, life can sometimes be sustained with a combination of life support devices, organ transplants and artificial pacemakers.

Today, where a definition of the moment of death is required, doctors and coroners usually turn to "brain death" or "biological death" to define a person as being dead; people are considered dead when the electrical activity in their brain ceases. It is presumed that an end of electrical activity indicates the end of consciousness. However, suspension of consciousness must be permanent, and not transient, as occurs during certain sleep stages, and especially a coma. In the case of sleep, EEGs can easily tell the difference.

However, the category of "brain death" is seen by some scholars to be problematic. For instance, Dr. Franklin Miller, senior faculty member at the Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, notes: "By the late 1990s, however, the equation of brain death with death of the human being was increasingly challenged by scholars, based on evidence regarding the array of biological functioning displayed by patients correctly diagnosed as having this condition who were maintained on mechanical ventilation for substantial periods of time. These patients maintained the ability to sustain circulation and respiration, control temperature, excrete wastes, heal wounds, fight infections and, most dramatically, to gestate fetuses (in the case of pregnant "brain-dead" women)."[SUP][15][/SUP]


Those people maintaining that only the neo-cortex of the brain is necessary for consciousness sometimes argue that only electrical activity should be considered when defining death. Eventually it is possible that the criterion for death will be the permanent and irreversible loss of cognitive function, as evidenced by the death of the cerebral cortex. All hope of recovering human thought and personality is then gone given current and foreseeable medical technology. However, at present, in most places the more conservative definition of death – irreversible cessation of electrical activity in the whole brain, as opposed to just in the neo-cortex – has been adopted (for example the Uniform Determination Of Death Act in the United States). In 2005, the Terri Schiavo case brought the question of brain death and artificial sustenance to the front of American politics."



We see in the above, the words in bold that even brain dead persons can show signs of life. Who knows, with advances in technology they may be even revived. The words in italics show that the current medical knowledge is not definitive and may evolve.

But you don't have the reverse situation where a heart stopped functioning or its equivalent is not there but the brain works or there is sign of life.

 

[prasad1]

But you don't have the reverse situation where a heart stopped functioning or its equivalent is not there but the brain works or there is sign of life.

That is very misleading statement.
How long did the heart stop, starving the brain of the oxygenated blood is the criteria. As I have pointed out heart stoppes in so many cases, but the person is not dead. If stopping of heart was death, then there will be no need for pacemakers.

Some people's heart beat stops for several seconds, and they don't die. It is possible that the electrical system of the heart can not function properly and cause prolonged pauses in the conduction system of the heart. This is called Sick Sinus Syndrome. The person may feel very weak, fatigued, some may black out. They don't stop breathing. These people usually end up with a pacemaker!

People have been revived from things like cold water drowning after as much as an hour. You actually die when the brain is starved for oxygen long enough for it to begin the death process.


Look up "Clinical Death" and "Biological Death".