I would just like to get some clarification on this stuff. I was getting myself confused (probably unnecessarily) when reading a few things:
(i) In Bhagavad-Gita 2.17, the jiva, which I've always thought of as purely spiritual, receives a fairly physical explanation by Srila Prabhupada when he speaks about the size of this spiritual "atom" as "one ten-thousandth the size of the upper portion of the hair". I know in other verses the jiva is described as "indivisible" and unable to be altered in any way. I'm confused here?
(ii) In the past, I've heard Swami refer to the jiva as a "unit of consciousness", and say things like, "the jiva 'knows'". Could someone unpack this a little bit for me? Is consciousness something the jiva has, or is it something that happens as a result of the presence of the jiva in otherwise inert matter?
Thanks!
I'm working on a response paper to this:
Philosopher of Mind and UC Berkeley professor, John Searle, thinks the mind is a function of the brain and consciousness is just one of many types of mental states/phenomena the mind exhibits. He argues that consciousness is both a purely subjective mental state (nobody can ever know exactly what it’s like to be you), and it is a phenomenal experience which occurs as the result of physical brain processes (synapses and neuron firings, etc.)
His argument goes something like this:
(i) low-level neurobiological activities of the brain give rise to high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(ii) mental states/phenomena are high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(iii) therefore, mental phenomena are caused by low-level activities of the brain (i, ii).
(iv) consciousness is a particular type of mental state/phenomenon.
(v) as a mental phenomena, consciousness is high-level activity of the brain (ii, iv).
(vi) high-level activities arise from low-level activities (i).
(vii) consciousness is therefore causally reducible to low-level activities of the brain.
(viii) consciousness is a byproduct of the flow of neurobiological activities of the brain.
I would just like to get some clarification on this stuff. I was getting myself confused (probably unnecessarily) when reading a few things:
(i) In Bhagavad-Gita 2.17, the jiva, which I've always thought of as purely spiritual, receives a fairly physical explanation by Srila Prabhupada when he speaks about the size of this spiritual "atom" as "one ten-thousandth the size of the upper portion of the hair". I know in other verses the jiva is described as "indivisible" and unable to be altered in any way. I'm confused here?
(ii) In the past, I've heard Swami refer to the jiva as a "unit of consciousness", and say things like, "the jiva 'knows'". Could someone unpack this a little bit for me? Is consciousness something the jiva has, or is it something that happens as a result of the presence of the jiva in otherwise inert matter?
Thanks!
I'm working on a response paper to this:
Philosopher of Mind and UC Berkeley professor, John Searle, thinks the mind is a function of the brain and consciousness is just one of many types of mental states/phenomena the mind exhibits. He argues that consciousness is both a purely subjective mental state (nobody can ever know exactly what it’s like to be you), and it is a phenomenal experience which occurs as the result of physical brain processes (synapses and neuron firings, etc.)
His argument goes something like this:
(i) low-level neurobiological activities of the brain give rise to high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(ii) mental states/phenomena are high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(iii) therefore, mental phenomena are caused by low-level activities of the brain (i, ii).
(iv) consciousness is a particular type of mental state/phenomenon.
(v) as a mental phenomena, consciousness is high-level activity of the brain (ii, iv).
(vi) high-level activities arise from low-level activities (i).
(vii) consciousness is therefore causally reducible to low-level activities of the brain.
(viii) consciousness is a byproduct of the flow of neurobiological activities of the brain.
I don't know if the soul is a physical substance which is the size described by you, given that it is more subtle than the mind and intelligence.
There are two types of consciousness: jiva's atomic consciousness which is confined to the body that it is in and the consciousness that belongs to the paramatama and its agents including maya. So in one sense there is consciousness acting behind even inert things. The sruti describes how supersoul is present in every atom, even though the atom is inert. The movement of material nature has consciousness behind it (demigods directly behind and supersoul indirectly behind). To feel consciousness acting in every atom or inert matter is an advanced stage for a soul, but even to feel one's own individual consciousness is a difficult task given the amount of correspondence between the mental activities and the regions in the brain. Perhaps GM can comment on my comments above!
GM had sent me an article from Henry Stapp, professor at UC berkeley again!
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/StappEditedNew.pdf
It may be helpful for you. Also ask Nitai about a website which has talks from neurosurgeons that talk about consciousness.
I don't know if the soul is a physical substance which is the size described by you, given that it is more subtle than the mind and intelligence.
There are two types of consciousness: jiva's atomic consciousness which is confined to the body that it is in and the consciousness that belongs to the paramatama and its agents including maya. So in one sense there is consciousness acting behind even inert things. The sruti describes how supersoul is present in every atom, even though the atom is inert. The movement of material nature has consciousness behind it (demigods directly behind and supersoul indirectly behind). To feel consciousness acting in every atom or inert matter is an advanced stage for a soul, but even to feel one's own individual consciousness is a difficult task given the amount of correspondence between the mental activities and the regions in the brain. Perhaps GM can comment on my comments above!
GM had sent me an article from Henry Stapp, professor at UC berkeley again!
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/StappEditedNew.pdf
It may be helpful for you. Also ask Nitai about a website which has talks from neurosurgeons that talk about consciousness.
[/quote
1/10,000 the tip of a hair means immeasurable. Consciousness maybe compared to a lamp, which is itself luminous and at the same time lights other things. So the atma is consciousness (luminous) and at the same time has consciousness/awareness (the ability to light other things and thus perceive, for example, the functions of the body it has identified with).
1/10,000 the tip of a hair means immeasurable. Consciousness maybe compared to a lamp, which is itself luminous and at the same time lights other things. So the atma is consciousness (luminous) and at the same time has consciousness/awareness (the ability to light other things and thus perceive, for example, the functions of the body it has identified with).
Thank you for your explanation. One question I had was about the devotee's experience of Krsna and his pastimes. Pure consciousness experience (turiya) is there in the soul by itself, but is the mind (which is cleansed after the process of ceto-darpanam and the descent of svarapu sakti) the vehicle that is used to perceive the pastimes of Krsna? As it said that when one's eyes are anointed by the pure love of Krsna, one can see the transcendental form of Krsna. Seems like the same material mind and senses are used to perceive Krsna and his pastimes after descent of svarupa sakti. Soul by itself is consciousness and it needs senses and the mind to conceive of the experience of the other (Krsna). Am I going in right direction?
1/10,000 the tip of a hair means immeasurable. Consciousness maybe compared to a lamp, which is itself luminous and at the same time lights other things. So the atma is consciousness (luminous) and at the same time has consciousness/awareness (the ability to light other things and thus perceive, for example, the functions of the body it has identified with).Thank you for your explanation. One question I had was about the devotee's experience of Krsna and his pastimes. Pure consciousness experience (turiya) is there in the soul by itself, but is the mind (which is cleansed after the process of ceto-darpanam and the descent of svarapu sakti) the vehicle that is used to perceive the pastimes of Krsna? As it said that when one's eyes are anointed by the pure love of Krsna, one can see the transcendental form of Krsna. Seems like the same material mind and senses are used to perceive Krsna and his pastimes after descent of svarupa sakti. Soul by itself is consciousness and it needs senses and the mind to conceive of the experience of the other (Krsna). Am I going in right direction?
Krsna cannot be preceived with material senses,
atah sri krsna-namadi
na bhaved grahyam indriyaih
sevonmukhe hi jihvadau
svayam eva sphuraty adah
Krsna cannot be preceived with material senses,
atah sri krsna-namadi
na bhaved grahyam indriyaih
sevonmukhe hi jihvadau
svayam eva sphuraty adah
What I meant was whether the senses and the mind are spiritualized by the descent of svarupa sakti thus enabling one to use the transformed (spiritualized) senses to perceive Krsna?
What I meant was whether the senses and the mind are spiritualized by the descent of svarupa sakti thus enabling one to use the transformed (spiritualized) senses to perceive Krsna?
yes
Consciousness maybe compared to a lamp, which is itself luminous and at the same time lights other things. So the atma is consciousness (luminous) and at the same time has consciousness/awareness (the ability to light other things and thus perceive, for example, the functions of the body it has identified with).
Thanks Maharaja. I appreciate this is/has distinction. So, it seems that one need not view the content of Searle's argument as contradictory to a more spiritual understanding of the nature of consciousness, it may just not be the full picture.
When he concludes, 'consciousness is a high-level mental state which occurs as a byproduct of neurobiological processes in the brain', he is simply speaking of consciousness as the extended, 'illuminative' attribute that the atma has. He's talking about consciousness akin to the light a lamp has and subsequently gives off. When the atma radiates consciousness, so to speak, it might very well be the case that those 'rays' interact with, or get mixed up with, "neurobiological processes" to some extent. The scientist would be incorrectly assuming consciousness originates from those physical processes.
Rather, the Vaishnava might argue about this limited scope of the nature of consciousness. It still fails to recognize the source. Since the atma also is a unit of consciousness, from which comes the illuminating effect of consciousness, which allows individuals to perceive things and have subjective experiences, stopping at the conclusion above is partial. This aspect of consciousness is what scientists have no access to since the jiva is imperceptible to the material senses.
Is this correct?
Thanks Maharaja. I appreciate this is/has distinction. So, it seems that one need not view the content of Searle's argument as contradictory to a more spiritual understanding of the nature of consciousness, it may just not be the full picture.
When he concludes, 'consciousness is a high-level mental state which occurs as a byproduct of neurobiological processes in the brain', he is simply speaking of consciousness as the extended, 'illuminative' attribute that the atma has. He's talking about consciousness akin to the light a lamp has and subsequently gives off. When the atma radiates consciousness, so to speak, it might very well be the case that those 'rays' interact with, or get mixed up with, "neurobiological processes" to some extent. The scientist would be incorrectly assuming consciousness originates from those physical processes.
Rather, the Vaishnava might argue about this limited scope of the nature of consciousness. It still fails to recognize the source. Since the atma also is a unit of consciousness, from which comes the illuminating effect of consciousness, which allows individuals to perceive things and have subjective experiences, stopping at the conclusion above is partial. This aspect of consciousness is what scientists have no access to since the jiva is imperceptible to the material senses.
Is this correct?
Yes, sounds pretty good.
I would just like to get some clarification on this stuff. I was getting myself confused (probably unnecessarily) when reading a few things:
(i) In Bhagavad-Gita 2.17, the jiva, which I've always thought of as purely spiritual, receives a fairly physical explanation by Srila Prabhupada when he speaks about the size of this spiritual "atom" as "one ten-thousandth the size of the upper portion of the hair". I know in other verses the jiva is described as "indivisible" and unable to be altered in any way. I'm confused here?
(ii) In the past, I've heard Swami refer to the jiva as a "unit of consciousness", and say things like, "the jiva 'knows'". Could someone unpack this a little bit for me? Is consciousness something the jiva has, or is it something that happens as a result of the presence of the jiva in otherwise inert matter?
Thanks!
I'm working on a response paper to this:
Philosopher of Mind and UC Berkeley professor, John Searle, thinks the mind is a function of the brain and consciousness is just one of many types of mental states/phenomena the mind exhibits. He argues that consciousness is both a purely subjective mental state (nobody can ever know exactly what it’s like to be you), and it is a phenomenal experience which occurs as the result of physical brain processes (synapses and neuron firings, etc.)
His argument goes something like this:
(i) low-level neurobiological activities of the brain give rise to high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(ii) mental states/phenomena are high-level neurobiological activities of the brain.
(iii) therefore, mental phenomena are caused by low-level activities of the brain (i, ii).
(iv) consciousness is a particular type of mental state/phenomenon.
(v) as a mental phenomena, consciousness is high-level activity of the brain (ii, iv).
(vi) high-level activities arise from low-level activities (i).
(vii) consciousness is therefore causally reducible to low-level activities of the brain.
(viii) consciousness is a byproduct of the flow of neurobiological activities of the brain.
He can speculate all he wants but the Gita clearly states that the 5 material elements combined with the 3 subtle material elements (the mind, the ego ,the intelligence also descirbed by His Divine grace as the false ego, the intelligence, the unmanifested BG Ch 13 text 6-7) make 8 and the soul or jiva and the supersoul paramatma comprise the body. The body is called ksetra, and within it dwells the owner of the body and the Supreme Lord who knows both the body and the owner of the body. The field of activities
If all of the above were true, then as I rubbed Vrndavani's feet on the ride to the hospital which gave rise to an electrical charge showing a heart beat, the material body would have taken over and she would have again become part of this world. Each time they did compressions on the dead body a heart beat would appear but when any activity of a Jiva on the dead body stopped the heart beat would also. They also used chemicals to induce a heart beat but it would only last for a few seconds. His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta was asked, when is the soul no longer in the body, He said, "when the heart beat stops" and this was the case for Vrndavani before we left our house. We were able to get her to take a few more breaths on her own with CPR, but because the heart beat was no longer there, on its own the body refused to function. We told this to the paramedics when they arrived, but they said, sir just let us do our job, which was useless at that point and the the instruments used to monitor the body showed that she had no heartbeat unless induced by a jiva. They were able to keep her machine going for a few more hours but it became a useless endeavor as each of the systems dependent on the soul such down. She had passed a few minutes before they arrived.
Bijaya,
About two months ago I watched my father "die" twice. In both cases I wondered, as you have, to what extent he was conscious and at what point his soul left his body.
The first time, we heard his Cheyne-Stokes breathing after an unknown amount of time without oxygen due to cardiac arrest. He was not responsive when we found him but his body was going through the process of death (release of urine, perspiration, pale blue skin). Despite CPR, the paramedics confirmed that his heart was stopped and it stopped again after they revived him on the way to the hospital. So he was revived twice.
The paramedics and hospital staff implemented a hypothermic treatment where they cool the body down to reduce the risk of brain injury due to lack of oxygen. To keep the body from shivering, they also administered a medication which paralyzes the body. He was also intubated and on a ventilator to aid his breathing. Before the hypothermic treatment and paralytic were fully active, my wife witnessed some minor involuntary movement (seizure).
After 24 hours, his body was warmed and the paralytics removed and he exhibited myoclonus (seizure). The seizures were so strong the doctors has a hard time controlling them through medication. These symptoms all pointed to severe brain injury to to lack of oxygen (anoxic brain injury). He was hooked up to an EEG for 24 hours during which his brain only exhibited persistent seizure activity: status epilepticus.
We removed him from life support and he died again within 20 minutes. His breathing stopped first, then his heart.
As a result of witnessing all this, I wondered the following:
* Is it possible for the soul to leave the body but still be "around" and brought back into the body through medical procedures (i.e., karma)?
* What is the relationship between the breath and the soul?
* For someone on life support, whose heart is beating but breathing is supported by a ventilator, is it possible that the soul is experiencing great suffering though we would not be able to know because of our inability to measure it?
* When brain injury occurs and a person is unresponsive but still "alive," is it similar to being intoxicated?
My father was not pious by any means so I'm resigned to the fact that he probably suffered greatly through this whole process. He took prasadam several times in his life, I was able to chant Krsna in his ear while he was on life support and I'm confident he derived some benefit through my connection to GM so I think his soul has some sukriti (the involuntary kind).
Bijaya,
About two months ago I watched my father "die" twice. In both cases I wondered, as you have, to what extent he was conscious and at what point his soul left his body.
The first time, we heard his Cheyne-Stokes breathing after an unknown amount of time without oxygen due to cardiac arrest. He was not responsive when we found him but his body was going through the process of death (release of urine, perspiration, pale blue skin). Despite CPR, the paramedics confirmed that his heart was stopped and it stopped again after they revived him on the way to the hospital. So he was revived twice.
The paramedics and hospital staff implemented a hypothermic treatment where they cool the body down to reduce the risk of brain injury due to lack of oxygen. To keep the body from shivering, they also administered a medication which paralyzes the body. He was also intubated and on a ventilator to aid his breathing. Before the hypothermic treatment and paralytic were fully active, my wife witnessed some minor involuntary movement (seizure).
After 24 hours, his body was warmed and the paralytics removed and he exhibited myoclonus (seizure). The seizures were so strong the doctors has a hard time controlling them through medication. These symptoms all pointed to severe brain injury to to lack of oxygen (anoxic brain injury). He was hooked up to an EEG for 24 hours during which his brain only exhibited persistent seizure activity: status epilepticus.
We removed him from life support and he died again within 20 minutes. His breathing stopped first, then his heart.
As a result of witnessing all this, I wondered the following:
* Is it possible for the soul to leave the body but still be "around" and brought back into the body through medical procedures (i.e., karma)?
* What is the relationship between the breath and the soul?
* For someone on life support, whose heart is beating but breathing is supported by a ventilator, is it possible that the soul is experiencing great suffering though we would not be able to know because of our inability to measure it?
* When brain injury occurs and a person is unresponsive but still "alive," is it similar to being intoxicated?
My father was not pious by any means so I'm resigned to the fact that he probably suffered greatly through this whole process. He took prasadam several times in his life, I was able to chant Krsna in his ear while he was on life support and I'm confident he derived some benefit through my connection to GM so I think his soul has some sukriti (the involuntary kind).
Wow
I am not so proficent at these things as I would like to think I am. The only thing I can go on is what was actually experienced, which I had stated.
So he was revived twice I was in the ambulance and a witness to what took place in our case, were you able to actually see the revival ? It may have been what was chemically or physically induce on the body as was the case with Vrndavani. They can keep a body working but is there a soul there ? I would tend to doubt it, in most cases. We are a bag of chemicals operated by the jiva and supervised by the paramatma (not a hair on our heads move with out His sanction). As there is no soul in the body it begins to decay as you mentioned the release of urine, perspiration, pale blue skin, some were seen by myself, also. Your father may not have been present for the abuse the body got and my experience for this is as a young child having to slaughter animals on the farm and we could make them do things by electric shock or other means of manipulation and we surely witness chickens running for some time after their heads were cut off. His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta stated that the soul is placed in a particular body so I would assume that at the time of death it is again placed in another body (spiritual or material).
1) still be "around" I think this is the case for when His Divine Grace was asked about the heart transplant process he responded something like, the soul waited some where and then came back.
2) relationship between the breath and the soul? the breath is the pran and controlled by the the soul as the driver of a car, but the soul is controlled by Krsna, I think it is Ksetra and Ksetrayugya
3) though we would not be able to know because of our inability to measure it? I would tend to agree, but in your fathers case I pray that he suffered little or left before it took place.
4) a person is unresponsive but still "alive I would tend to think it more like a vehicle with a broken part but still able to do some tasks
I am sure that your efforts were of help to your father. Especially becoming a devotee as you have will be a great benefit
I was in the ambulance and a witness to what took place in our case, were you able to actually see the revival?
No, I did not witness the resuscitations. My opinion about the matter would probably be different if I had.
It may have been what was chemically or physically induce on the body as was the case with Vrndavani. They can keep a body working but is there a soul there ? I would tend to doubt it, in most cases. We are a bag of chemicals operated by the jiva and supervised by the paramatma (not a hair on our heads move with out His sanction).
So it may be possible that a body is kept "alive" by technology but there is no soul present? My thinking was that the soul was still present with very limited awareness, like a plant or like intoxication. If the body is inanimate without the soul then it must still be present but without sense perception or the ability to control the body. Also, if the soul's attachment to the body is still strong I would imagine that there is some suffering experienced due to the force of involuntary detachment and confusion if, for example, only the sense of hearing were active.
As there is no soul in the body it begins to decay as you mentioned the release of urine, perspiration, pale blue skin, some were seen by myself, also. Your father may not have been present for the abuse the body got and my experience for this is as a young child having to slaughter animals on the farm and we could make them do things by electric shock or other means of manipulation and we surely witness chickens running for some time after their heads were cut off. His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta stated that the soul is placed in a particular body so I would assume that at the time of death it is again placed in another body (spiritual or material).
I wonder if the transmigration of the soul is immediate or if, due to karma, the soul must experience the pain of bodily death of the pain of forced detachment, that all previous material efforts are pointless.
I wonder if the transmigration of the soul is immediate or if, due to karma, the soul must experience the pain of bodily death of the pain of forced detachment, that all previous material efforts are pointless.
I believe this is the subject of the 5th canto and His Divine Grace A C Bhaktivedanta seemed to say that it can happen in a second (transmigration), What ever you think of at the time of death oh Arjuna that form you shall become beyond a doubt.
Bijaya,
About two months ago I watched my father "die" twice. In both cases I wondered, as you have, to what extent he was conscious and at what point his soul left his body.
The first time, we heard his Cheyne-Stokes breathing after an unknown amount of time without oxygen due to cardiac arrest. He was not responsive when we found him but his body was going through the process of death (release of urine, perspiration, pale blue skin). Despite CPR, the paramedics confirmed that his heart was stopped and it stopped again after they revived him on the way to the hospital. So he was revived twice.
The paramedics and hospital staff implemented a hypothermic treatment where they cool the body down to reduce the risk of brain injury due to lack of oxygen. To keep the body from shivering, they also administered a medication which paralyzes the body. He was also intubated and on a ventilator to aid his breathing. Before the hypothermic treatment and paralytic were fully active, my wife witnessed some minor involuntary movement (seizure).
After 24 hours, his body was warmed and the paralytics removed and he exhibited myoclonus (seizure). The seizures were so strong the doctors has a hard time controlling them through medication. These symptoms all pointed to severe brain injury to to lack of oxygen (anoxic brain injury). He was hooked up to an EEG for 24 hours during which his brain only exhibited persistent seizure activity: status epilepticus.
We removed him from life support and he died again within 20 minutes. His breathing stopped first, then his heart.
As a result of witnessing all this, I wondered the following:
* Is it possible for the soul to leave the body but still be "around" and brought back into the body through medical procedures (i.e., karma)?
* What is the relationship between the breath and the soul?
* For someone on life support, whose heart is beating but breathing is supported by a ventilator, is it possible that the soul is experiencing great suffering though we would not be able to know because of our inability to measure it?
* When brain injury occurs and a person is unresponsive but still "alive," is it similar to being intoxicated?
My father was not pious by any means so I'm resigned to the fact that he probably suffered greatly through this whole process. He took prasadam several times in his life, I was able to chant Krsna in his ear while he was on life support and I'm confident he derived some benefit through my connection to GM so I think his soul has some sukriti (the involuntary kind).
Obviously, these are modern challenges to the concept of the soul, that have not been completely thought of before. For example, does each cell have a soul or only a unicellular organism like bacteria has a soul? All these questions can be speculated about but sastra is silent on it. Another thing is does how are souls distributed in grass? Do souls just conglomerate together as there is no unique particle of grass. Consciousness is spread all through. Only with animals and humans, it is easy to say that there is a soul located in the body (that too if u don't consider billions of cells and micro-organisms inside the body as separate souls). Christians have speculated that souls enter human bodies after a long period of evolution. Buddhism does not exactly have a concept of a static soul but there is a term they use for the individual who passes through various state, though the individual itself is fluid. So the concept of one atomic static soul in a human body is easier to explain that atomic souls in grass particles or individual cells. I maybe wrong but the ancients do not seem to know that much about bacteria or cellular structure as far as their writings go.
I would think the soul is present as long as the body is not starting to decompose. Otherwise why is it not possible to preserve the body for ever by using machines and chemicals? But I also think it is sometimes possible that some other soul may enter the body during the revival.
Many years ago I broke one leaf of one of my plants. The leaf fell on the other plant that was growing below. I did not care to remove it and after few weeks I noticed amazing thing- the leaf was still green and fresh. Then I realized it attached itself to the plant it fell on and was growing as "parasite" (they were totally different plants). Apparently some soul inhabited it and it lived several months longer.
Pardon the speculation, but I think this has more to do with karma and desire than a hard rule about where/when consciousness enters/exits a body. Depending on an individual soul's karma and desire, a particular subjective experience is facilitated by Paramatma. Due to the complexity of karma, a unique subjective experience is had by the soul, either "good" or "bad". I think this allows for a multitude of experiences in our present body, between bodies, etc., that we can't imagine but which are very possible due to Lord's potency.
Obviously, these are modern challenges to the concept of the soul, that have not been completely thought of before. For example, does each cell have a soul or only a unicellular organism like bacteria has a soul? All these questions can be speculated about but sastra is silent on it. Another thing is does how are souls distributed in grass? Do souls just conglomerate together as there is no unique particle of grass. Consciousness is spread all through. Only with animals and humans, it is easy to say that there is a soul located in the body (that too if u don't consider billions of cells and micro-organisms inside the body as separate souls).