Tattva-viveka

"Cellular Memory "

Brahma Dasa - April 3, 2006 5:22 pm

"Cellular Memory " (Anyone have any thoughts on this?)

Sanga Question via website

Could you please help me with the Gaudiya understanding of this

article, that on transplanting of organs the recipient gets some of the

characterstics of the donar. and is donating organs right as per gaudiya or

vedic understanding?

Thanking you, *******

Transplanting Karmas

---------------------------------

Organ recipients get more than expected when their donor's

feelings, desires, memories and character traits manifest in their lives By

Mark Hawthorne, California When she awoke from a heart and double-lung

transplant operation at Yale-New Haven Hospital in Connecticut in 1988,

Claire Sylvia was not only happy to be alive--the 48-year-old dancer

craved beer, green peppers and fried chicken, foods she had given little

thought to prior to the transplant. It quickly became apparent to

Claire that she had developed more than just a fondness for new flavors. She

had also acquired some intriguing personality traits, including an

increased libido. In fact, she had the desires and boundless energy more

suited to an 18-year-old male than a woman approaching middle age. By age

50, she was backpacking around Europe, searching for she knew not what.

Claire's story, chronicled in her 1996 memoir, A Change of Heart,

gets even stranger when she begins having dreams in which she communicates

with a young man whose initials are T. L. She feels certain that "T.

L." had donated the heart now beating in her chest and the lungs she now

breathed with. In keeping with official policy, however, the staff at

Yale-New Haven Hospital had told Claire nothing about her organ donor,

except that he died in a motorcycle accident in Maine. But as time goes

by, and the intensity of Claire's dreams increases, she begins to put

clues together and discovers that the donor was an 18-year-old man named

Tim Lasalle. She soon sets up a meeting with Tim's parents, accompanied

by a friend and Jungian psychoanalyst named Robert Bosnak. Claire

learns from Tim's family that he had loved green peppers, beer, and

especially chicken nuggets.

Skeptics will naturally label these happenings a coincidence, but

Claire's experiences are not unique. In 2003 the Discovery Health Channel

explored this issue in Transplanting Memories. Among those featured in

the documentary is an eight-year-old girl who receives the heart of a

murdered 10-year-old girl; her ensueing nightmares, in which the heart

recipient sees the killer, help solve the crime. Viewers also meet

Debbie Vega, who received the liver of an 18-year-old named Howie. Howie

loved peanut M&Ms, cheese doodles and karate, and he seems to have passed

all these characteristics on to Debbie.

Looking for Scientific Answers

Yet, medical science is reluctant to admit that such post-transplant

experiences occur. In the face of overwhelming anecdotal evidence, most

doctors offer scientific explanations for these phenomena. Writing on

TransWeb.org, an organ transplant Web site, transplant surgeon Jeff

Punch, MD, states, "A transplant is a profound experience, and the human

mind is very suggestible. Medically speaking, there is no evidence that

these reports are anything more than fantasy."

Among the theories explaining how such experiences could occur,

"cellular memory " is one of the most popular. The term has come to refer to

the capacity of living tissue cells to memorize and recall

characteristics of the body from which they originated. While many in the

scientific community remain skeptical, Paul Pearsall, PhD., is convinced that

the heart has its own form of intelligence. Cells have memory and

communicate beyond time and space.

He believes the heart processes information about the body and the

outside world through an "info-energetic code " a complicated network of

cells and blood vessels that serves both as our circulatory system and

as a structure for gathering and distributing energy information.

Furthermore, he contends that the soul, at least in part, is a set of

cellular memories that is carried largely by our hearts. This view is, of

course, closely aligned with ayurveda, which regards the heart as not

merely a pump but also the seat of consciousness itself.

And then there's Dr. Candace Pert, a pharmacologist and professor at

Georgetown University who believes the mind resides throughout the

body, not just in the brain. Dr. Pert is well known for her work with

neuropeptides the molecular language that allows the mind, body, and

emotions to communicate. She writes in The Wisdom of the Receptors:

Neuropeptides, the Emotions, and BodyMind (1986), "The more we know about

neuropeptides, the harder it is to think in the traditional terms of a mind

and a body. It makes more and more sense to speak of a single integrated

entity, a body-mind."

Still, most Western doctors consider cellular memory the stuff of

science fiction. Indeed, the idea of a body part carrying "memories " to

another body is the basis of the 1920 sci-fi novel Les Mains d'Orlac

("The Hands of Orlac ") by Maurice Renard. It is the tale of a celebrated

pianist who loses his hands in a train wreck and is given the hands of

a murderer in a transplant operation. He then assumes the personality

of his appendages' psychopathic donor. Renard based his fictional

surgeon on Dr. Alexis Carrel (1873-1944), a French biologist and surgeon

whose experiments with transplants and grafting procedures earned him the

Nobel Prize in 1912.

Swami - April 3, 2006 7:00 pm

Such topics are of great interest in one sense becasue for the most part they ask us to cover new ground, as science and technology of today that was not available centuries ago enabale humanity to explore matter in greater depth. Here I am talking about such things as organ tansplants, stem cell research, bio engineering, genetic modification, and so on. All of these scientific and technological breakthroughs bring up ethical and spiritual questions for which there are no ready answers to reply with, no verses that perfectly fit to quote and thereby difinititvely answer the questions.

Perhaps the appropriate emphasis here is that humnaity must think deeply before tampering significantly with nature. Reverence of nature is important. It is not merely superstition. The systems of nature are unlimitedly complex and powerful, and we, either individually or collectively, are but a small part of nature. In the pursuit of short term advances, which are often only as far as one can see (especially those lacking a spiritual world view), the long term outcome can often be disasterous. Therefore is is important to detemine values. What kind of humanity is most desireble? Will our technological or scientific leap make people more compassionate, more kind?

If for example through genetics the way that we approach medicine is singnificantly altered in the furture, will it make for a kinder world? That is to say if we know from birth by the study of a child's genes that a he or she will be very likely to develop a life threatenng disease, how then will this alter the way in which society relates to the child. Will he or she be able to get health insurance? Will he or she be less desirous, or will the quality of his or her life—the sacredness of life—continue to be honored. It is disasterous if though technological advances we live longer but meaner lives.

After all, although evolutionary theory posits that the more complex an organism is the more advanced it is becasue it thereby has the power to dominate over others and survive, our human sensibilities seem to say that most advanced species is the kindest species, and that might does not make right.

I have often said that the only apocolyptic scenario that ever made much sense to me—that had the potential come ture—was an environmental one. The line between appropriately conductiing oneself as a steward of nature and playing God is a fine one. To the extent that we err on the side of the latter we stand to loose singnificantly.

Just a few thoughts in general before we dive into the question itself.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 3, 2006 7:34 pm

I'm quite sure that you won't find anything in writing about this topic from our predecessors. Modern medicine and surgical procedures are just that - modern. The basic understading from scripture is that the soul gets a particular type of body based on the samskaras that are carried along with it from birth to birth.

Obviously, the mainstream scientific community looks on stories like this with a high degree of skepticism. How many transplants have been performed? How many stories like this are being told?

From a purely empirical point of view it is true that an organ transplanted from one individual to another will bring with it a unique set of biomarkers based on it's genetics. Will these have an effect on the consciousness of the recipient? I think it's pretty clear that not enough is known to be able to give a good definitive answer to that question. It seems fairly obvious that a traumatic experience like an organ transplant will definitely have a profound effect on a person's concsiousness. Beyond that I would say without good data any of this type of thing will have to be filed away as speculative at best. It doesn't mean that such things are to be discounted out of hand, but that at least from an empirical point of view there isn't enough objective evidence to support this type of idea. If the person asking the question wants more information I suggest they investigate the idea by inquiring from doctors who work with transplant patients.

As to the question of transplants in general I don't personally know of any thing in the tradition that speaks for or against it. Blood transfusions have been going on for a long time which is similar in some regards and would warrant the same question. I would think the best answer is that human life is meant for spiritual pursuits and that extending a human life would be consistent with the idea that the human form of life is extremely valuable for this purpose.

From another angle it is certainly true that our consciousness makes an impact on our body and it's development. The whold nature/nuture phenomena is always going on the growth is always an interplay of our biology and our psychology. It is certainly clear that any organ is not an isolated entity, but rather part of an organic whole called the body. Since the brain is functioning to regulate the body in so many ways it is sending and recieving information from all areas within the body. Keeping that in mind the idea of some influence on the concsiousness of an organ transplant recipient will result from integrating a new organ into the body is not an outlandish idea. To me it seems quite unlikely that such effects on the consciousness would be of the type suggested by the article.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 3, 2006 8:08 pm

I'm not an evolutionary biologist so I can't really speak authoritatively about the field, but from what I do know about the field I don't think that the narrow idea of 'survival of the fittest' meaning might makes right or any such thing would be consistent with the basic idea.

The basic idea is that a species passes on traits over time that are advantageous to their survival. What those traits are will necessarily change with the environment. It speaks about the necessity of adaptation to the environment and has that as the core assumption of the theory. In fact it is not really an assumption, it is really an empircal fact. For example, if I place a population of bacteria in media with ampicillin, the only members that will survive will have some mechanism or resistance to it's deleterious effects. If no individual in the popluation has such a trait then growth will not occur and the population will go extinct. That is a very simple example, but it serves to illustrate the basic postulate in practice.

Swami - April 3, 2006 8:12 pm

An organ is a manifestation of that person's prarabdha karma. A devotee's body is a sadhaka-deha, a material body that is gradually becoming spiritualized and thus free from karma and under the influence of Krsna's svarupa-sakti. So should a devotee accept an organ from someone, especially someone who is not a devotee? Should a devotee donate his or her organs to others at death? Death is said to be the expiration of one's prarabhda, but in the case of a transplant the organ and the karma appears to live on and become part of someone elses' karma. Complicated, but may be interesting to think of it along these lines, as most of us are not scientists.

Swami - April 4, 2006 12:48 am

Here is an article with a twist on this topic: making new organs for patinets from their own cells.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/conditions/...gans/index.html

Gopisvara Dasa - April 4, 2006 2:13 am

I know from studying the field of health and healing that many have posited that emotional experiences(particularly negative or traumatic) are stored in the cells of the body,either in the area of injury or in the organ or gland that corresponds energetically or emotionally(for example;the liver is said to be the seat of anger).

There are whole modalities of healing involved with freeing the body of these stored memories.The approach is usually a combination of flooding the body with nutrients and the person lovingly and willingly (re)experiencing that which had become "frozen" in the body.Also involved are energetic meridian points.

I think therefore that there are mechanisms in the body you could call cellular memory.And since disease(or our increased vulnerability to it)has its source in the emotive realm,it can only be reversed by a change of heart(as well as giving the body the proper nutrition,exercise,etc).

The problem of ill health or unhealthy stored cellular memories came about because basically,that person "forgot to love".And therefore the memory of that is stored awaiting the time when they are ready to accept and reexperience what got supressed due to an unloving disposition.We are punished not so much for our sins but by them.

And love is the great healer,as well as destroyer of sins,for sin is only putting our will ahead of the will of god.

Therefore, the stored memories,organs,blood etc.of one person are personal and peculiar to that individual and have no business in another's body.The Vedic position on blood-transfusion is that it is a demoniac practice.To transplant another person's organ requires the recipient to be on immuno-suppressive drugs( a form of chemotherapy) for the rest of their life(which usually isn't too long since their immune system is being destroyed).The only "winner" here is the doctor who gets a new Lexus.

So the cellular memories or predispositions of one person in another person's body are something like the astral shells floating in the astral realm,that resemble the deceased and still may be generating something of that person's nature and which mediums contact to get information to deceive people.

To sum up:first and foremost is the will of god and departure from that causes a "heart disease" which manifests in the body.And the attempt of short-sighted (at best) medicine to suppress symptoms and replace parts is likewise a departure from god's will in that it supplies a quick fix to a problem which is a manifestation of wrong living and neccesitates reformation on the part of the inflicted.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 4, 2006 2:44 pm

All kinds of people get sick for all kinds of reasons. Organ transplantation isn't a 'quick fix' but rather a last resort to extend a persons life. Information, including all types of statistics regarding numbers of transplants and survivor rates, is readily available on the internet. The immunosuppresive drugs needed to keep a recepients body from rejecting a transplanted organ are just that - suppressive. If a person doesn't take the drugs their body will reject the organ and they will die. Without getting into the biology in any detail the reason for this is that each person has their own genetic makeup and those genes express proteins that are unique in many ways. The immune system is really incredible in that it recognizes 'self' - that being all the proteins expressed within a persons body - and doesn't attack a persons own proteins except in the case of auto-immune diseases which is another story - however foreign proteins become quick targets. Since an organ is expressing 'foreign proteins' it will quickly become a target of a person's immune system.

I would like to suggest that if there are some versus contained either in the sruti or smriti texts that speak about blood transfusion or organ transplantation that we reproduce them here on this thread and discuss them.

The idea that people get sick because they are sinful or living poorly has been expressed in human society for thousands of years and has always ostricized the sick and made people look down on them. It is connected to the jiva daya thread in the sense that this idea is that it is the persons 'fault' and if they had lived within God's laws and plan this wouldn't be happening to them. This orientation to disease finds fault with the afflicted and brings judgement to the heart and mind rather than compassion.

I suspect that anyone who holds such opinions from a 'distance' will feel quite differently if the need arises for an organ transplant within their own family or their own body.

Getting to the question of whether a devotee should be a recipient of an organ or become a donor should they leave their body - my feeling is that a devotee definitely should become a recipient should the need arise. Devotees are so rare and living a life of devotion so rare that keeping devotees here as long as possible is to everyone's benefit. I also feel in keeping with the idea of being a giver that it is definitely a good thing to be a donor. A person recieving an organ from a spiritualized body will benefit in more ways than one.

Swami - April 4, 2006 3:38 pm

I would like to suggest that if there are some versus contained either in the sruti or smriti texts that speak about blood transfusion or organ transplantation that we reproduce them here on this thread and discuss them.

There are all kinds of stories in the Puranas, such as Siva transplanting an elephant's head on his son, Ganesha.

Igor - April 4, 2006 5:17 pm

Very interesting topic. There is also example in Bhagavatam - Daksha was given new life - with goat head!

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 4, 2006 6:52 pm

The Vedic position on blood-transfusion is that it is a demoniac practice.

This is the comment that prompted my suggesting quoting sruti or smriti versus regarding blood transfusion or organ transplantation. So far the only examples we have seem to support the practice.

I also wanted to comment on the idea that the only winner in the process of transplantion is the doctor who gets a new lexus (I believe that was the comment). First off I tend to think that doctors are over compensated materially and that does bring individuals into the profession who are seeking riches more than they are wanting to help others. Having said that I also know that doctors are highly trained and dedicated professionals. When I started in college I thought I may want to be a doctor. I began to test my self by volunteering for handicapped student services. I reasoned that the first thing to do was to help others with difficulty and find out if it was truly something I would be good at and found rewarding. What I found out was that while I was good at helping others, I didn't really like being so involved in others problems on such a personal level. Basically what the experience did for me was convince me that while I did want to help others, as a profession this would not be a good fit for me. At any rate a lot of the students I associated with on campus were pre-med and are now practicing doctors. They all had their own reasons for wanting to work in the medical profession, but all of them that I knew had one thing in common - they all wanted to make a difference and help people. I believe that we all act in various ways for various reasons - it is never a simple single motivation that forces people to act. So while I acknowledge that practicing medicine does give one wealth beyond the average person in this country I do not for a second believe that it is the single motivating factor or even the prime motivating factor driving people to dedicate themselves to the profession.

Bhrigu - April 4, 2006 8:37 pm

The Vedic position on blood-transfusion is that it is a demoniac practice

Where is the pramana for this? I don't remember reading anything like it. As Audaryalila mentioned before, many stories describe organ transplantation in a positive light. Yes, getting a goat's head was very embarrassing for Daksa, but at least he had a head after that!

The story of Gandhari's one hundred sons also show that one body can be divided into many, all becoming infused with life.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 4, 2006 9:38 pm

All kinds of people get sick for all kinds of reasons. Organ transplantation isn't a 'quick fix' but rather a last resort to extend a persons life.(quote)

Yes,a last resort,like abortion.The solution to the necessity for abortions and organ transplants lies in not letting things get that far off track.It takes many years of wrong living to make an organ dysfunctional.Also there are many,many cases of so-called incurable diseases being cured by natural methods and re-instated right living.Disease and abortion can be prevented through education(nutritional,sexual and spiritual).

The immune system rejects someone else's organ or blood(the more transfusions a person has the harder it is for them to get another because the body is building more antibodies to the different bloods) because as you said, it is non-self and carries with it what is peculiar to another person's body/mind.

The wisdom of the body IS amazing and should be respected.To disregard the spiritual laws and laws of health and then try to override the wisdom of the body is certainly not a good idea.

(quote)The idea that people get sick because they are sinful or living poorly has been expressed in human society for thousands of years and has always ostricized the sick and made people look down on them. It is connected to the jiva daya thread in the sense that this idea is that it is the persons 'fault' and if they had lived within God's laws and plan this wouldn't be happening to them. This orientation to disease finds fault with the afflicted and brings judgement to the heart and mind rather than compassion.((quote)

When I made these statements,I was thinking more of my own case.For although I have sufferred for decades from ill health and could easily and quite reasonably have blamed the dentists who poisoned my body with mercury amalgams(documented),or the kids who beat me up and ridiculed me daily because I proffessed peace when they wanted violence(street gangs),or the unconscious people daily bombarding me with their barking dogs,I have come to realize something else.

That is this:one cannot become truly healed until they realize they did it to themselves.There are many situations and circumstances in our lifes as a result of what seeds we have sown in the past(lives).Those are the reactions to the activities(karma) we have performed. It is how we react to these that determines our future,as well as our present.

Having experienced disease and sufferring myself,I can tell you firsthand one of the greatest blessings that comes along with it is the development of compassion.Rather than a loveless judgement,I am offering the gift of the benefit of my experience and gently pointing out(IF someone is open and ready)where the eror lies and how to correct it.

The greatest healers have been those who have conquered their own diseases by these natural and spiritual methods.In contrast to those,who,out of desire to help people(without the benefit of their own healing) subscribe to the medical system of the day.One cannot become a true healer without healing oneself anymore than one can become a guru without first becoming self-realized."Physician heal thyself".

Furthermore,the orthodox(not really,it's less than 100 years old) medicine system is a big business controlled by the pharmaceutical companies.They are full of personal interest and have their own agenda. They dictate what is "truth" or quackery.And if you promote an inexpensive cure to a disease(that they can't patent) they will take away your license or run you out of the country or even have you killed.(there are many recorded cases of this)

The first thing one learns in medical school is:work hard,get good grades,and don't rock the boat.This is the same protocol every step of the way(establishing a practice etc.)I'm sure most doctors start out with good intentions.President Kennedy also had good intentions.You know what happenned to him.The name of the game within those systems is conform or perish.

Doctors for years have dismissed any connection between health and diet,or health and the mind,and are now just starting to recognize and admit that ther might be SOME connection.We know that diet and the mind have everything to do with health."As a man thinketh so is he".

Disease is a great opportunity to have a relationship with the Lord.The mechanistic and ultimately atheistic medical system is more concerned with allaying symptoms through drugs as if disease was caused by a deficiency of drugs.When the red light(or needle) on your dashboard comes on,alerting you that your car is overheating,should you disconnect the bulb or gauge,so you are not bothered by that annoying light?What caused it to overheat in the first place may have been neglect of proper maintenance(diet,water and exercise)but what REALLY exacerbated the problem was how you dealt with it.(ignored the symptoms)

You might be interested to know that the word pharmacy is in the bible,pharmakea,in the greek and it means sorcery and witchcraft.And the word pharmakon means poisoner.

Distress and disease are good opportunities to ask alot of questions,do soul-searching and reach out to god because they are symptoms that we are distant from Him.To eliminate the symptom without solving the problem is not a good idea.It is a valuable negative impetus.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 5, 2006 12:06 am

QUOTE

The Vedic position on blood-transfusion is that it is a demoniac practice(end quote)

(QUOTE)Where is the pramana for this? I don't remember reading anything like it. As Audaryalila mentioned before, many stories describe organ transplantation in a positive light. Yes, getting a goat's head was very embarrassing for Daksa, but at least he had a head after that!

The story of Gandhari's one hundred sons also show that one body can be divided into many, all becoming infused with life(END QUOTE).

I don't have a program or anything to search a quote but I'm pretty sure it's either in Prabhupada's purports,lectures or conversations somewhere.But really that is not even the point.The precedent is already set;Daksa getting the head of a goat.So shall we advocate head transplants? Admittedly,many could use an upgrade.And why stop at one head? Why not ten or a hundred?

Many things are going on in the lilas that don't apply here.Lord shiva drank poison.Shall we imitate him? I was just reading in the 5th canto how the sun-god's chariot is 28,800,000 miles long(and has only one wheel!)Does that justify me getting an suv as big as a house?Bhagavatam goes on to describe how there are 60,000 saintly persons,each the size of a thumb,in front of the sun-god offering him prayers.What can we draw from that?

By the way,I am happy to report that these descriptions don't upset my faith.But I must admit that my knowledge of how to understand them is incomplete.

My basic point is this:sarira avidya jal,the senses are a network of paths leading to death. In other words following our whims and disregarding spiritual laws,natural laws, dietary laws etc, keep us bound to this plane.And conversely,following god's plan leads to greater freedom and ultimate liberation.

All troubles that come our way are symptoms of things to be corrected.To bury the symptom by mechanical means is equivalent to burying ourselves in the grave of perpetual illusion.

One definition of a drug,which I like very much,is:anything that removes the effects of transgression without requiring obedience.The same applies to organ transplants.There are no incurable diseases for one who is willing to align themself with god's health plan,which includes proper diet,forgiveness,trust in god,etc.etc.

But most people after disregarding this program their whole lives want to beat the system with a mechanical intervention.But the problem is NOT mechanical.

As Winston Churchhill once said" Sometimes people stumble upon the truth,but most pick themselves up again as if nothing had ever happened.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 5, 2006 4:01 am

Brahma started this thread with a question posed to him and was seeking some answers to convey that may highlight where our tradtion stands with regard to karma, memories, etc. being transferred to a recipient of an organ donation. The question was also what the tradition has to say about the practice in general.

I tried to point out some of the obvious short comings with the idea of memories and likes/dislikes being transferred via an organ. The scientific method is based on objective observation, it is not witchcraft or wishful thinking. The point is basically that while there may be some connection to a change in consciousness of the organ recipient with his/her new organ - it is highly unlikely that the type of changes in consciousness that the article was speaking about could be scientifically verified. On the other hand there are literally thousands of transplants done annually so there is a large poplulation from which to do controlled studies. Maybe the questioner could write a grant proposal and get funding to study the premise?

Gopisvara, the reason I asked you to provide a quote backing up your statement about blood transfusions is because we represent a tradition that does value the statements of the scriptures and your bold statement about what the Vedas have to say on the subject must certainly be supported by sastric evidence otherwise it cannot be accepted as reliable. Remember that sastric evidence is a direct quote from the scriptural canon, not a purport or commentary. A commentary may serve to elucidate a point, but it is always presented with the sastra pramana.

I certainly don't share your disdain for modern medicine or your cynicism. I wonder how you would explain the huge increase in life expectancy and how it correlates with the advent of modern medicine? How about the elimination of polio? Low infant mortality rates? The list could go on and on - but I'm not a defender of any medical system. Natural healing techniques, herbs, minerals, diet, yoga - these all have their place. I saw a really interesting show on PBS years ago that covered chinese traditional medicine and modern medicine. The show went into incredible detail about survival rates, therapeutic outcomes etc. comparing and contrasting the two methodologies. For some disease states the traditional approach was superior, for others modern medicine did better. They highlighted a hospital that was taking the best of both traditions and blending them together in unique ways. They showed a brain surgery being done without the use of anasthesia (they used acupunture!) and I found that fascinating.

I have to say that having had a torn miniscus in my right knee that bothered me tremendously for several years and limited my phyical activity quite a bit would not have gotten better without the arthroscopic surgery I had done. I have regained full use of my knee and can engage in activities that wouldn't have been able to prior to the surgery.

I also disagree with your assertion about who is an appropriate and qualified healer. You know Sridhara Maharaja once challenged a doctor saying 'how can you practice medicine if you don't have full knowledge and can't cure all disease' (or something like that - look up the exact quote in Sri Guru and His Grace). Sridhara Maharaja mentioned this in the context of his evolution of thought regarding who is qualified to funciton as Guru. He said he realized that the calling is to help from whatever your position is - not that you wait to help until you are perfect (again I'm paraphrasing - but it's is a very important point and well worth the read for everyone).

BTW, for anyone who is reading this thread I'd like to pose this simple question as I think it would be a good one to explore in the context of some of the discussion thus far:

If disease is caused by sin as has been postulated by Gopisvara and also by thinkers throughout the ages then how can you explain the sores on Sanatana Goswami's body? How to explain Lord Chaitanya's embracing him and what he said to him regarding his body?

For that matter how shall we explain the various ailments and problems that manifest in the body of Srila Prabhupada?

Gopisvara Dasa - April 5, 2006 5:19 am

For that matter how shall we explain the various ailments and problems that manifest in the body of Srila Prabhupada?(QUOTE)

Lawmaker is also lawbreaker. Krishna can and does do things outside of laws made for our benefit. In fact everything He does is free of the limitations we experience. Sanatana Goswami and Prabhupada are also beyond the jurisdiction of karmic reactions.What happens to liberated souls is categorically different from what happens to us. By the will of god,for His own reasons,He creates these pasttimes.We may speculate that it is to teach us something or deepen our affection or whatever.

The senses are not a network of paths leading to death if they are engaged in Krishna's service.

I also disagree with your assertion about who is an appropriate and qualified healer(QUOTE)

Noone and nothing in this world is perfect. Healers and sadhakas are works in progress("We are students forever") My point is that to be a healer one must must differentiate between true healing and suppressing symptoms. That is the minimum requirement. A true sadhaka must be able to differentiate between an ego-effacing path and an ego-inflating one. Otherwise anyone can put on a dhoti(or sari)or a doctors coat.

Bhrigu - April 5, 2006 10:11 am

I fail to see the connection between organ transplants and abortions, Gopishvara. Yes, one could argue that many organ transplantations are caused by poor living habits of the patient (alcoholism, bad food, etc), but all illnesses and diseases are caused by our karma (except in the case of the siddhas, as you point out). All our sufferings are karmically caused and thus just, but does that mean that we should turn a cold shoulder towards people's suffering ("you earned it, dude")? Of course not. People make mistakes, and if we can give them another chance without hurting someone else, why shouldn't we?

And no, the point with bringing up Daksa is of course not to advocate head transplants per se, it was rather to show that transplanting organs does not seem to be directly forbidden in the shastras. In most cases, the body is treated just like a machine, where parts can be swapped and changed if need be.

The case of the Sadhaka-deha is somewhat different, as Swami already brought up.

Igor - April 5, 2006 2:37 pm

QUOTE

The Vedic position on blood-transfusion is that it is a demoniac practice(end quote)

(QUOTE)

What is demoniac? By definition something that is separate from God, that is demoniac. It is very relative. Like knife. Srilla Prabhupada once gave example - if you use knife to slice apple and offer to Lord you are making service, but some fool can use same knife and kill somebody! So, is knife good or bad? Or computers - we can read TV discussion or use it on some negative way. That depends on user! I am sure that blood transfusion and some similar practice saved some devotees live in past.

Personally, I have eyeball disorder - ceratoconus - and without lenses I am practically blind . But with lenses I am able to read and write here in TV . There are many shades of grey, not just white and black discrimination.

Swami - April 5, 2006 2:55 pm

Here is an excerpt from a conversation between Srila Prabhupada and his disciples and employees at a hospital in Australia.

Guest (2): Are blood transfusions permissible, Swami?

Paramahaàsa: He says, "Are blood transfusions permissible?" When one is in an accident or cut and he loses blood, they take another man's blood and put it it. He says...

Prabhupäda: Well, that is not bad. Because if one life is saved by transfusion admission... He is not dying. He is living. He is contributing his blood. So if he is contributing, you are saving some life, there is no harm.

Swami - April 5, 2006 3:06 pm

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 5, 2006 5:56 pm

Those are really interesting quotes from Srila Prabhupada. At the very least it appears that Srila Prabhupada wasn't against the practice of blood transfusions or organ transplantation.

One interesting point that Srila Prabhupada is making is that there is a certain duration for the soul to be emodied in any particular form and he is arguing that no medical practice can change that by adding onto the alotted time. We do know for sure that medicine and medical practices both allopathic and naturopathic do 'save' lifes and, at least from our matieral perspective, extend the duration of life. Without medical intervention so many people would have died so it appears that part of the argument then must become that the medical intervention was part of their karma and destined to take place so that they could serve their alotted 'sentence'. The large majority of transplant recipients would surely have died sooner without having received the replacement organ so in that sense it is not different than any other medical intervention that staves off the immediate threat of death.

Any healing science whether it be naturopathic or allopathic can be stated to be treating symptoms since none of them teach the patient how to act in devotional service and get free of the cycle of samsara. So if we talk about root causes of illness being actions in the karmic field there is no medical science that is treating at that level of causation. That is presumably why we are all here under the guidance of our Guru Maharaja - we all agree on that point.

Any person who is involved in healing will try to treat the root cause as they see it. Take the common cold versus strep throat as simple examples where we can look critically at allopathic medicine. In the case of viral diseases, even though the causative agent is well known, the methods of directly attacking the viruses that are available presently to allopathic medical practicioners also attack a persons own body in various ways. That being the case, antiviral agents are not used on viruses such as rhino viruses (the viruses causing 'cold') or influenza viruses. Instead allopathic medicine treats the sypmtoms to alleviate the suffering of the patient while the body fights and eliminates the infectious agent. In the case of strep throat we have a different picuture. The causative agent is a bacteria and antibacterials do not adversely affect humans (for the most part - some patients are allergic to various anti bacterial agents) so allopathic treatment goes after the cause in this case directly attacking the infectious agent.

I personally think it's rather myopic to pigeon hole allopathic medicine as being a tradition that can't differentiate between symptoms and root causes. Allopathic medicinal practices definitely have their short comings, but quite a few of the statements that Gopisvara has made here are just plane false misinformation and I can't see what purpose that would serve. To say that allopathic medicinal practices have failed to recognize the role of consciousness in the healing process would be fairly true, although not completely. It seems fairly obvious that over time, as more information is gathered, we will see allopathic medicine taking up more traditional naturopathic modalities of healing - especially as more rigorous science is applied to the methodologies. I'll just give a simple example of the type of statement from Gopisvara that I am talking about in terms of falsity. He said that all people who enroll themselves in universities to pursue degrees in allopthic medicine are trained to not question authority and to follow the established 'protocol' (of course I am paraphrasing his words but I think that this accurately represents his assertion). But quite the opposite is really what happens. Look at the rapid pace of medical science advancement. This isn't the result of training people not to think critically. Medical training and scientific training is based on rational thought. No doubt people don't always think critically and the anals of science are filled with breakthroughs that go completely against what was 'known' and accepted at the time. Why is that? First off, because a good scientist is always pushing the boundaries and doesn't simply accept something because someone said it or because it is accepted by a large number of people even if they happen to carry credentials. But really more importantly, scientific training leads a person to question everything and apply scientific methodology in their inquiries. A theory today which is based on certain observations will have to be adjusted tomorrow due to new information which requires an adjustment to the present theory. That is what progress in science is all about.

Regarding the answer to my query regarding disease in the body of Rupa Goswami and Srila Prabhupada I think we need to explore this a bit further. This type of answer may be acceptable to the faithful devotee, but it hardly will suffice to anyone outside the tradition. I have to go now, but I'll speak more about this in my next post

Babhru Das - April 5, 2006 6:44 pm

I think Srila Prabhupada's responses exemplify the kind of broad, progressive thinking he wants us all to use. For a long time I resisted being designated as a donor, worried as I probably was about karmic entanglement and the supposed need for having an intact body cremated and put in the Ganga. When my older daughter, Krishnamayi, got her driver's license, she designated herself as a donor. I asked her about it, and as we discussed the matter, two things became clear to me. One was that my destination didn't depend on the condition of the body I had just left behind. I concluded that it was a cultural consideration that may be considered relative, rather than absolute. The other was that being a donor was a small act of generosity (after all, I would have no further need for the eye, kidney, heart, or whatever may have been harvested). Since then, my driver's licenses have marked me as an organ donor. I know that many devotees may find this odd, but I've based my decision on careful deliberation.

With regard to the question of cellular memory, as a prospective recipient (although I'd certainly rather not, thanks), I figure I expose myself to so many influences during the course of a week. I've had many colleagues in my years of teaching, and over 6,000 students. I've read many books not directly connected with Krishna consciousness, and, unfortunately, watched television and movies, too. So it seems less than honest to be worried about what may have happened to the woman or man whose kidney or heart I may be carrying. And I have faith that the great deal of chanting and hearing I do each day have more power than this person's childhood trauma, or whatever. I'd probably worry more about the effects of the immunosuppresant drugs I'd have to take for the rest of my life. And as a donor, well, who knows? Perhaps some small impression from all that chanting, hearing, and prasadam may help the recipient. Krishna admits in Bhagavad-gita that it's hard to understand just how karma works. Perhaps we benefit most from focusing on essential knowledge and doing our best with the rest.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 5, 2006 8:08 pm

The most basic point here,relating to the original question about cellular memory,is this:the soul of one person does not transfer to the recipient of an organ.I think we are all in agreement on this.Something of the original person,in the form of cellular predispositions,may or may not come along for the ride.There are many theories to suggest that,but I doubt anyone on this forum can conclusively show one way or the other.

So if we talk about root causes of illness being actions in the karmic field there is no medical science that is treating at that level of causation(QUOTE)

That is an essential point.And to suppress symptoms which are signs that we need to make corrections is a disservice to a person and could justifiably be called demoniac(I can already feel the criticism for having said that). Bacteria don't cause disease.The germ theory is a sham perpetuated by the drug companies.Bacteria are the clean-up crew of diseased tissue that is there because of wrong diet,living,emoting,etc. Killing the bacteria removes the symptoms,while the disease remains chronic,lowering the vitality,immunity and clarity of the individual.

I recognize much of what I have said may seem parochial or narrow-minded to some of you,but it is only narrow in the sense that it is concerned with the essence or the root.

If you simply change one of the parts of your body, that will not help you prolong your life. That is impossible. The doctors think that by changing the heart they will increase the duration of life, but that is not possible.(PRABHUPADA QUOTE)

That is my point .Now also, Audarya Lila Prabhu seems to disagree with this because people HAVE lived longer with a transplanted organ.The essential point is you cannot change karma by mechanical means anymore than you can go to a higher planet by such means. I am saying that diseases are spiritual problems and addressing them as such is the only way to comprehensibly eradicate them.

A change of heart(characterised by devotional service) and forgiveness can extend our life by changing our karma."Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". What is karma,but bondage to certain limitations. Like criminals incarcerated in prison,they may be given greater freedom or even release when they reform.

The body IS treated like a machine by mechanistic thinkers who don't acknowledge that the body is only an extension of the mind which is an extension of the self.The body is a temple of god. Again, comparing Lila to karma is like apples and oranges.The human body will not accept something foreign without powerful immune-compromising drugs which,by the way, came out of World War II, as killing agents.Some "thoughtful"people of the time said "lets see if these drugs will kill cancer without killing the patient.They proved to kill the patient as well,but continue to use them for it is very profitable.

These drugs CAUSE cancer(doctors admit this) and destroy the immune system which is THE system in our body to protect us from all disease .Anger suppresses the immune system,as does resentment. A small amount of refined sugar will suppress the immune system for 6 hours.

When we transgress theses laws we get symptoms,which gives us a second chance,an opportunity to change. When we take mechanical intervention,to carry on without change,we are lost. I am just pointing out ther is a HUGE multi-billion dollar industry involved in exploiting that tendency. It is the union of the cheaters and the cheated.I think it is imperative for everyone to be aware of these facts ,if they want to protect themselves or even be relevant.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 5, 2006 9:08 pm

That is an essential point.And to suppress symptoms which are signs that we need to make corrections is a disservice to a person and could justifiably be called demoniac(I can already feel the criticism for having said that). Bacteria don't cause disease.The germ theory is a sham perpetuated by the drug companies.Bacteria are the clean-up crew of diseased tissue that is there because of wrong diet,living,emoting,etc. Killing the bacteria removes the symptoms,while the disease remains chronic,lowering the vitality,immunity and clarity of the individual.

That is my point .Now also, Audarya Lila Prabhu seems to disagree with this because people HAVE lived longer with a transplanted organ.The essential point is you cannot change karma by mechanical means anymore than you can go to a higher planet by such means. I am saying that diseases are spiritual problems and addressing them as such is the only way to comprehensibly eradicate them.

These drugs CAUSE cancer(doctors admit this) and destroy the immune system which is THE system in our body to protect us from all disease .Anger suppresses the immune system,as does resentment. A small amount of refined sugar will suppress the immune system for 6 hours.

Point 1 (response to paragraph 1 above)

You'll have to do better than to simply state that the germ theory is a sham in order to convince others that it is so - especially in light of the fact that diseases caused by bacteria are effectively treated with the administration of antibiotics. Another bit of information you'll have to contend with to bring some credibility to this statement is why immunizations are so effective at preventing disease. Humanity doesn't have to contend with polio any longer due to the efficacy of immunizations against the polio virus.

It is true that a healthy immune system is important to disease prevention and will enable people to avoid some illnesses but it is not true that this is the end of the story. The reason why people need vaccinations is because the immune system hasn't been exposed to the antigen on the infectious agent and therefore doesn't recognize it. In the case of an infectious agent like the polio virus the immune systems first line of defense is too slow without the person having been exposed to the infectious agent previously. Therefore, to give the immune system what is called a 'memory' children are vaccinated with attenuated viruses that are non infectious but that do have antigens that will elicit an immune response. Then, if a person is infected by an infectious viral particle their immune system will be 'charged' and be able to eliminate the pathogen. This isn't theory, it is established scientific fact. There are many other examples that could be cited but I think that is sufficient.

Point 2 (response to 2nd paragraph quoted above)

If you are suggesting eliminating all forms of medical practice and supplanting them with lessons in bhakti yoga I don't think that is a reasonable or well thought out proposition. We all agree that all material problems can only be resolved with spiritual solutions but that doesn't stop us from being practical and living and working in the material world. BTW, I am not arguing with the concept that one's karma can't be changed (except of course in the case of divine intervention)- I merely pointed out the obvious - that what we view as extending a person's life by medical intervention of any kind - whether it be applying pressure to stop a wound from bleeding or transplanting an organ - will have to be incorporated to the overall paradigm and explained as necessary parts of the persons karma.

Actually I'm not clear on what you are saying Gopisvara. On the one hand we agree that the solution to all our problems is devotional service. On the other hand you are promoting natural healing over allopathic medicine, neither of which are forms of bhakti. Our Guru Maharaja is pretty clear as to his thinking on these issues as far as I can tell. What I have gathered from various Sangas is that he recommends dealing with our material problems such as mental or physical health by consulting those who are trained to deal with those problems. That is very practical advice. On the other hand advising someone with bipolar disorder to simply chant and not seek medical help would not be very practical. Or to advice someone with a broken leg to chant and not seek medical attention would seem a bit foolish - don't you think?

Point 3 (response to 3rd paragraph quoted above)

What doctors admit is that immunosuppressive drugs do just that - they suppress the immune system. Our immune systems are constantly on guard against abberant events and for the most part they do a good job eliminating cells that have undergone tranformation into cancer. With a suppressed immune system they don't do as good a job and therefore the liklihood of developing cancer is increased. That is quite different than saying immuno suppressive drugs cause cancer. Chemicals are classified as mutagens or carcinogens based on their ability to cause genetic mutations and to transform normal cells into cancer cells respectively.

Now I wanted to get back to the question I raised and the answers that have been given. The answer that was given as to why the body of Sanatana Goswami and Srila Prabhupada were diseased was that for pure devotees it is lila, not due to karma - whereas for conditioned souls disease is a direct result of karma. I think that accurately represents what has been said.

What I would like to do is think a little bit outside of the box here and hope that no one will find it offensive. Our Guru Maharaja often points out that the material world is relative as is our response to it. The example he most often gives is that what one person feels as cold another may feel as hot, what one person senses as happy another person senses as sad. I would like to suggest that those of us (most of us) that are still conditioned souls are still acting and reacting under karmic laws have a different consciousness and therefore reaction to the material world than one who is free of karma does. The pure devotee,s body is purely spiritual because it is 100% engaged via the consciousness in Krsna's seva. That doesn't mean that the body is now free of the laws of nature. All the transformations that occur in the bodies of conditioned souls will still occur in the body of a pure devotee. When the pure devotee eats he/she will have to defacate. The body will require rest and good nutrition etc. otherwise it will be susceptable to disease as is any other body. If the body comes in contact with an infectious agent that it has no immunity to it will become diseased. In all of this, the pure devotee remains unaffected and unimplicated in the karmic cycle due to being 100% fixed in Krsna consciousness. Conditioned souls on the other hand will have a different experience and reaction to bodily transformations which are results of past actions and incur future reactions. Remember, the pure devotee sees Krsna everywhere while most of us don't. That isn't because Krsna isn't omnipresent - it's because we lack spiritual vision.

As far as the 'miracle' of Mahaprabhu's embrace and it's irradicating disease in the body of Sanatana Goswami goes - that again is accepted based on our faith as we have no direct experience of such events. I believe it, but I also know that I haven't seen any healers with that potency personally, either allopathic or naturopathic. I think it is Mahaprabhu's mercy on us fallen souls so that we may be of some service fumbling about as we do trying to help others. Disease for a condioned soul is also a powerful negative impetus to engage in bhakti.

I wonder about Sanatana Goswami's feeling of impurity and wanting to throw himself under the wheel of the Ratha cart. Could this be a part of the social conditioning that Bhaktivinoda Thakur talked about that may be seen in the writings of pure devotees? Is seeing infectious disease as an impurity and therefore those with such afflictions as untouchable something we will eventually see as an outdated idea based on superstitous thought?

Swami - April 5, 2006 9:11 pm

The body IS treated like a machine by mechanistic thinkers who don't acknowledge that the body is only an extension of the mind which is an extension of the self.The body is a temple of god.

When we transgress theses laws we get symptoms,which gives us a second chance,an opportunity to change.

The body is no doubt a temple of God, but that does not mean that it is not a machine or something similar like a building with parts that can be changed. The Gita says the soul is seated on a machine made of matter, yantra rudrani mayaya. Prabhupada often refers to it as such. Indeed he does so in several conversations regarding heart transplants when he says they have simple changed the part and not removed the soul.

As for treating the root of disease, bhakti is the only viable method. Why? Because desease is rooted in ignorance. It is karma, the root of which is avidya. Even transcendental knowledge cannot cure disease becasue it does not have the power to stop karma that is laready manifest (prarabdha). According to scripture, only bhakti has this power. So if we were to follow the reasoning that modern medicine does not treat the root, we would be led to the same conclusion with regard to naturopathic medicine. It also only treats the symptoms without getting to the root becasue it does not engage us in suddha bhakti. By this line of reasoning only hearing and chanting will cure disease. There is no doubt some truth in this, but we do not insist that no other approach to treating disease is worth entertaining.

While alternative medicine tends to move in the direction of consideration of cosnciousness and bhakti in some respects, it also often tends toward superstition and an "unscientific" if you will appraoches to God that are not even ego effacing.

Interesting discussion.

Bhrigu - April 5, 2006 9:23 pm

So if we were to follow the reasoning that modern medicine does not treat the root, we would be led to the same conclusion with regard to naturopathic medicine. It also only treats the symptoms without getting to the root becasue it does not engage us in suddha bhakti.

This is an extremely good point that many people miss. Just because homeopathy, reiki, naturopathy, etc is opposed to allopathy do not make them any more transcendental. Sometimes devotees get so stuck on the "Western Demoniac Civilization Must be Crushed" -- theme that anything that is even a little opposed to the general concensus somehow becomes "Vedic". Herbalife, pyramid schemes, flat-earth theory, you name it. I have heard you say, Guru Maharaja, perhaps jokingly, that you should write a new book called "Modern Wisdom for Ancient Ignorance". Have you given it any more thought?

Gopisvara Dasa - April 5, 2006 10:37 pm

So if we were to follow the reasoning that modern medicine does not treat the root, we would be led to the same conclusion with regard to naturopathic medicine.(QUOTE)

Absolutely,I'm saying disease is not caused by a deficiency of drugs or surgeries. Neither is it caused by a deficiency of herbs or alternative treatments. It is a symptom of what is in our heart.

Whether what we experience now is a reaction from a past life or a current transgression is a point to consider. Obviously,they are related,because if you continue to do what you've always done,you'll continue to be what you've always been.

Certainly,the first place to start is to correct what we are doing wrong now. That may resolve a present physical problem,it may not. But it will begin to address the root of the problem which is spiritual.

I am not advocating bypassing(like meateaters who clog their arteries and then bypass them) the heart of the matter in any way. And I'm not against taking SOME help from alternative healers(not the witch doctors and pyramid schemes though).

There may even be an occasion to use orthodox medicine,if in a life-threatening situation.But doctors are pretty life threatening.The 4th leading cause of death in this country is the drugs doctors give.

By the way,the health program I AM advocating is living simply in a natural setting with fresh air, sunshine,exercise,lots of pure water(80% of Americans are dehydrated),trust in god,gratitude,forgiveness,benevolence,temperance,etc. and also healthy diet, which can be a huge factor in health.And there are many unhealthy items in devotees' diets.

And if,when they have problem,they go to the drug doctors,then the problems really begin.Not just because of the innumerable(sometimes even deadly) side effects,but because every drug is a mind-altering drug.We have a prohibition against recreational drugs.Many prescription drugs are far worse and can affect one's consciosness in a negative way.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 5, 2006 11:36 pm

The pure devotee,s body is purely spiritual because it is 100% engaged via the consciousness in Krsna's seva. That doesn't mean that the body is now free of the laws of nature. All the transformations that occur in the bodies of conditioned souls will still occur in the body of a pure devotee. When the pure devotee eats he/she will have to defacate. The body will require rest and good nutrition etc. otherwise it will be susceptable to disease as is any other body. If the body comes in contact with an infectious agent that it has no immunity to it will become diseased. In all of this, the pure devotee remains unaffected and unimplicated in the karmic cycle due to being 100% fixed in Krsna consciousness(QUOTE)

Very nice,I find that very clear and acceptable.Especially,when you think of the sacrifices persons like Prabhupada made,doing without sleep etc. You might say that he broke some lesser laws(proper sleep,etc.) but was covered by adhering to a higher law,Bhakti.

But Prabhu, as far as vaccinations and germs and all that kind of stuff,I would like to refer you to a very nice web site that can educate you,or anyone else who is interested,in those matters,rather than turn this into an extended medical discussion.Vaccinations are neither effective nor safe.That is another sham.

Check out drday.com .Dr.Day is a well-respected orthopedic surgeon at San Francisco General of 15 years,who trained thousands of doctors in the information,she now rejects.She has never been on the fringes of medicine.She developed a huge breast cancer tumor(documented) and refused orthodox treatments because she knows what they do to you.She healed herself through what she calls god's health plan.

After this experience she began to speak out against the corruption and barbaric practices of medicine.She was then flooded with information and documents on many subjects medical,political,etc. from people who wanted to truth to get out but were too afraid.She is now sharing this information publicly at great risk to her life from those who would rather keep it hidden.I guess she felt god spared her life so she must dedicate it to helping others.

The beauty of her message is that all truth is related and inter-related.Like Guru maharaja has said "to be Krishna conscious means to be conscious of so mamy things.She has ammassed a huge amount of quite shocking information about what is going on in this world.But her purport is not negative, it is spiritual. She is a devout Christian,vegetarian since birth,a very incredible dynamic preacher.

I highly recommend any of her videos and even more so the cassette series called "Conquering Confusion".She is in her 60's and looks at least 20 years younger than that. A shining example of what she professes,bringing the teachings of Christ to life.She has much to offer devotees and of couse,vice versa.Bhaktivinoda said when he went to a place of worship of another"just see how they are worshiping my Lord with a different set of rituals.

Swami - April 6, 2006 12:48 am

There may even be an occasion to use orthodox medicine,if in a life-threatening situation.

Good point.

Swami - April 6, 2006 2:31 am

I wonder about Sanatana Goswami's feeling of impurity and wanting to throw himself under the wheel of the Ratha cart. Could this be a part of the social conditioning that Bhaktivinoda Thakur talked about that may be seen in the writings of pure devotees? Is seeing infectious disease as an impurity and therefore those with such afflictions as untouchable something we will eventually see as an outdated idea based on superstitous thought?

I think that Sanatana Goswami's feeling of impurity arose from his realization of the measure of Mahaprabhu's purity, in the presence of which he felt impure. The closer we get to the Infinite, the more we realize what it means to be infinitesimal. Something like that. Mahaprabhu had embraced him earlier, and feeling unqualified out of humility he did not want to present him with another opportunity to do so, especially given the condition of his body. Having an infectious disease did not necessarily render one a social outcaste. Haridasa was a social outcaset, but he never considered Vaisnava suicide.

Bhrigu - April 6, 2006 7:24 pm

Perhaps this thread has reached its end, but there is one thing that I think hasn't really been cleared up: that of the spiritualisation of the sadhaka-deha. Is there any pramana for preserving the physical integrity of the dead body of sadhakas (others than sannyasis and other saints who are not cremated)? Swami has mentioned the importance of this early in this thread, and also when answering a question on transplantations in Finland last summer. I admit that I don't really like the idea of someone cutting up my corpse and removing organs after my death, but that is probably just material attachment to the body...

Babhru Das - April 6, 2006 8:32 pm

Perhaps this thread has reached its end, but there is one thing that I think hasn't really been cleared up: that of the spiritualisation of the sadhaka-deha. Is there any pramana for preserving the physical integrity of the dead body of sadhakas (others than sannyasis and other saints who are not cremated)?

I'd like to see this discussed more fully, too, especially if my own understanding, which I mentioned earlier, can be shown to be mistaken. I brought it up not to argue for one position or another (although some may see an implied argument), but to share the understanding I had developed in hopes of further discussion.

Swami has mentioned the importance of this early in this thread, and also when answering a question on transplantations in Finland last summer.

It seemed to me as though he didn't make any assertion on the matter, but that he used this idea to raise some questions:

An organ is a manifestation of that person's prarabdha karma. A devotee's body is a sadhaka-deha, a material body that is gradually becoming spiritualized and thus free from karma and under the influence of Krsna's svarupa-sakti. So should a devotee accept an organ from someone, especially someone who is not a devotee? Should a devotee donate his or her organs to others at death? Death is said to be the expiration of one's prarabhda, but in the case of a transplant the organ and the karma appears to live on and become part of someone elses' karma. Complicated, but may be interesting to think of it along these lines, as most of us are not scientists.

Like you, I'm not sure whether we're done with these questions. At least we haven't covered them to my satisfaction.

Swami - April 8, 2006 5:44 pm

Here is what Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura says about the sadhaka-dheha in his Bhagavatam commentary 10.29.10.

"Other than a devotee surrendered to the Lord, no one, not the jnanin, nor the yogin, nor any other transcendentalist is actually completely free from the material qualities. This was stated by the Lord to Uddhava (BhP 11.25.26). One should understand this in the following way: the devotee’s body is considered to be nirguna because, on the order of his spiritual master, all of his senses are engaged in the transcendental service of the Lordhis ears in hearing about Krsna, his tongue in chanting the Lord’s names and glories, his mind in remembering Krsna, his entire body in prostrating himself in supplication to the Deity and his hands in various types of service. Thus, because all his senses are engaged in receiving transcendental materials connected with the Supreme Lord, they also become transcendental. On the other hand, as much as the senses receive non-spiritual data, they will be influenced by material qualities. As a result, from the beginning of the devotional process, the devotee’s body is partly material and partly spiritual. According to the indications of the Bhagavata verse (11.2.40) which compares advancement in devotional service to the satisfaction felt by a hungry man while eating, his gaining of strength and relief from the discomforts of hunger, one can understand that the process is progressive, for as much as one has eaten, that is the proportion to which he will feel these beneficial effects. Thus, as one progresses in spiritual life, the spiritualized portion of his body increases and the material portion is gradually reduced. When one reaches the stage of prema then his body is completely spiritualized and there is no mundane portion left. Thus the death of a devotee that is seen by all is to be known as nothing more than a kind of illusion and not at all real. The non-devotees consider that the devotee’s body must also die. This false doctrine is maintained by the Lord just to keep devotional service closed to atheistic and self-interested persons. An example of this is the so-called “Club Pastime” of the Lord in which he created the illusion of the demise of the Yadu dynasty. One should know that this too is non-factual. On some occasions, the Lord does not make such an illusory show but rather seeks to illustrate the glories of devotional service, as in the case of Dhruva. Dhruva went to Vaikuntha in the selfsame body, thus it is to be concluded that the apparent death of Narada was also an illusion created by the Lord."

Syamasundara - April 8, 2006 11:42 pm

Death of Narada?

Swami - April 9, 2006 1:26 am

Death of Narada?

Narada "dies" in the Bhagavata and immediately attains his svarupa. Sri Visvanatha is saying that his death is only an appearance, for as the Gita says, "For one who dies birth is certain." Narada did not take birth again. He attained prema. He of course is an exmaple of vaidhi bhakti and thus does not take birth in the lila either. Whereas raganuga bhaktas take birth in thematerial world in Krsna lila after attaining prema and there in association with nitya-siddha Vrajavasis they develop in terms of sneha, mana pranaya, etc. relative to their particualar spiritual sentiment. More on this later.

When a devotee attains prema and enters the eternal pastimes of the Lord and his body composed of the five elements “dies.” However, even mere memory of that body purifies those who meditate on it. Thus often a murti of that body is made and worhiped after the saint's departure. So his or her sadhaka-deha also attains immortality.

Caitanya-caritamrta says

"A devotee’s body should never be thought of as material. It is transcendental and made of spiritual substance. At the time of initiation, when the devotee offers himself up to the Lord, then the Lord makes him equal to himself. He (gradually) makes the devotee’s body spiritual like his own so that the devotee can engage in the service of his lotus feet." After all, without a spiritual body, how can one serve Krsna? "One cannot serve Krsna with material senses," atah sri krsna namadi na bhaved grahyam indriyaih . . .

Regarding the Cc verses cited above Mahaprabhu said to Sanatana Goswami, “Krsna made these pus-filled sores appear on Sanatana’s body just to test me. If I had not embraced him due to disgust at seeing them, I would have committed an offense and been punishable by the Lord.”

Thus we are taught that Krsna allows the appearance of death and diseases in a prema bhakta's body just to give justification to disbelievers, for he says in the Gita it is he who makes a person's faith strong regardless of what that person has faith in. Death and disease in the bodyof a prema bhakta should be considered a test of faith. This is the scriptural conclusion.

In the Brhad-Bhagavatamrta Mahadeva says to Narada,

"Oh Narada! I consider that wherever there are devotees, that is Vaikuntha. Even if they are in the material world, it is not to be considered inferior to Vaikuntha. This is my own realization from direct experience and I don't feel it necessary to offer proofs from scripture. My experience is sufficient evidence. Due to drinking the nectar of devotion to Krsna they have completely forgotten the material body and everything connected with it and thus that body becomes transformed into something other-worldly or spiritual."

Sanatana Goswami cites Dhruva as an example and comments that just as with the drinking of certain potions one's body becomes transformed, what to speak of a body that has been saturated in bhakti-rasa.

So the spiritualization of a devotee's body is something that occurs over time, beginning with initiation and ending with prema. Until a raganuga bhakta attains prema, he or she will continue to take birth.

Sri Visvanatha Cakravarti explains this in his commentary on the Ujjvala-nilamani as follows, “Persons practicing raganuga-bhakti are on different levels of advancement, such as nistha, ruci, asakti, and so on. If they should at any future lifetime attain prema, then they will become fully qualified to serve the Lord. It is only then that they will receive a body appropriate for rendering such service and will become actual associates of the Lord.”

The belssed acarya continues, “When such a practitioner of raganuga bhakti finally attains prema due to his dedicated sadhana and is completely absorbed in the anxiety of desire, even though he has not attained the higher stages of love of God, such as sneha, etc. (which are actually impossible to attain in a sadhaka-deha) then the Lord himself appears along with his eternal associates and gives a direct vision of himself as well as the opportunity to engage in direct service—even if only once in a dream. Then Krsna gives a spiritual body just in the way one was given to Narada Muni at the time of his death. After that, when the Lord makes his appearance in some material universe, his internal potency, Yogamaya, causes that spiritual body of his devotee to be born in the womb of some gopi in the Vrndavana of that world. Then in that body, the higher stages of prema are realizable by the devotee.”

So although I believe we have reached a conclusion as to the whether or not organ transplanting is an acceptable practice in general, we must now turn our attention to the following questions.

Should we donate the prema bhakta's organs to anyone? Should we donate any devotee's organs to anyone? Should a devotee accept donated organs from anyone? Your thoughts please. (Of course, questions on the recent posts on the status of a sahaka-deha etc. are more than welcome.)

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 9, 2006 8:25 am

Should we donate the prema bhakta's organs to anyone? Should we donate any devotee's organs to anyone? Should a devotee accept donated organs from anyone? Your thoughts please. (

Once the soul leaves the body it is really dead but out of respect for the previous inhabitant I would not defile the body by yanking parts out of it.

Morning Walk

June 12, 1974, Paris

Paramahaàsa: But people today have reasoned God is dead with their intelligence.

Prabhupäda: God is not dead. Your intelligence is dead. You have got a dead body, and you are proud of it. Eh? Decoration of the dead body. And you are decorating the dead body. The body’s dead. That’s a fact. Because as soon as you, soul, get out, it is dead body. But the body’s already there. That means I am occupying a dead body. So long I am there, it is working only. But the body’s dead. And you are decorating the dead body. You are so intelligent. You are interested with a dead body. And you have no intelligence to see that actually it is dead body. Because as soon as I will go away, it is dead body. The body is dead, but... Just like motor car. It is dead. If there is no petrol, it is dead. Similarly, your body is dead. Now try to understand. And if somebody decorates a dead body, is he very intelligent?

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 9, 2006 8:41 am

As far as accepting organs from another I probably would not.

Madangopal - April 9, 2006 12:58 pm

Should we donate the prema bhakta's organs to anyone? Should we donate any devotee's organs to anyone? Should a devotee accept donated organs from anyone?

Wow, that's a weird thought. Brings new meaning to the idea of maha-maha-prasadam...

I think there are two considerations here. First is the consideration of the followers, the worshippers of the pure devotee (and body). The other consideration is that of the prema-bhakta. That person may out of a giving mood, desire that his/her body be used for greater good when it is no longer usable. Who can check the will of such a pure soul? I would think the prema-bhakta would have to make the decision here, as to who would benefit the most; the devotees from worship of the sadhaka deha or the person receiving a possible extension of life.

I would want to hear and carry out the desires of the prema bhakta, but my instinct tells me that the pure devotees body should be respected in its traditional form and placed in the ground (or some other means of respectful disposal) for worship. After all, the service rendered by the jiva in that body is what spiritualized it.

Then again, it would seem characteristic of a pure devotee to be serving in death as well as life. Whose to say that such an act would not be worshipable? Attachment to the body would not be an issue for the prema-bhakta, so in one sense who cares what happens to it? The worship of the sadhaka deha can be performed in other ways also.

BUT, it may create disturbance in the mind of followers who do not have the higher vision...

I have thought about this before in relation to a Buddhist practice I saw in a movie. A lama passed away and the people chopped up the body to feed to the vultures. The idea was that even in death he is serving (vulture food).

Swami - April 9, 2006 1:09 pm

Gaure Kishore dasa babaji asked that his body be dragged through the streets and fed to the dogs, and some of his admirers argued in favor of that request. However, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura differed with them.

Some might also question the notion of "the greater good" from a metaphysical point of view. To live is one thing but what one lives for determines tha value of one's life.

Robertnewman - April 9, 2006 1:55 pm

My viewpoint is that organ transplantation, and many other current medical practices, are a form of ugra-karma, the practice of which is detrimental in the long run, regardless of apparent short-term benefits. Indeed, I would argue that such activities in the medical arena are the most harmful, as they most strongly reinforce the grossly materialistic attitude that creates hell on Earth. So I don't intend to bequeath my organs to the public in my will, and I would not accept an organ transplant to save my own life. However, while living, I might donate a kidney to a close relative, or dear friend, or guru; I think that in particular cases, love can legitimately override other considerations, however valid they might be in general. These factors would carry more weight with me than the spiritual status of the donor or recipient if I had to make such a decision for myself or on behalf of another person.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 9, 2006 3:20 pm

The acharya speaks and acts in exemplary ways - what he/she does common people follow. I still feel that in keeping with the overriding concept of giving to live that the acharya could set the example of organ donation. I don't see how donating an organ would be any more unsettling for a person's faith than burying the body. I also don't see how it would affect the worship of the acharya's transcendental body after his departure.

The explantion of the spritualization of the body leaves one with at least the impression that what is 'left behind' is not what is spiritual. In that consideration also I think that organ donation would be not only acceptable, but preferable.

I think it is a very good point that 'what one lives for determines the value of one's life'. I doubt that a person could specify that their organs should only go to a person who lives their life in service to God. On the other hand, human life affords one a great possibility of consciously choosing to serve and we have examples of the transformative power of making that choice even 'unconsiously' at the time of death (as the case of Ajamila attests) and the incredible outcome. So I think giving a person the continued possibility would be in keeping with our overall preaching thrust - after all that is why books are published and outreach goes on. No one can force anyone in matters of the heart. It appears that organ recipients are profoundly affected by the experience and I am sure that for some it is enough impetus to spark a change of heart and redirect their goals and what they consider meaningful in terms of life's pursuits.

As I said previously I also feel that a sadhaka who hasn't reached prema should accept an organ and continue to dedicate their every breath to service to Sri Guru and Gauranga.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 9, 2006 5:47 pm

Should we donate the prema bhakta's organs to anyone?

Thinking of organ transplant as of fruit tree grafting is very disturbing. What fruits will this graft bear? Will recipient of acarya’s kidney expect veneration just because he is hosting a prema bhakta's organ? What to do with the organ after recipient dies? Remove it to reunite with former owner? Create separate samadhi? What about acarya cloning? The clone will definitely have a different jiva though body will be identical to prema bhakta's body. What about it? Sounds like a total mess. I personally against giving or receiving organ transplants, especially receiving organ from prema bhakta. Feeding vultures has very shortsighted benefit, creating dham with samadhi would be much better to inspire devotee pilgrims.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 9, 2006 8:42 pm

Good point. If the fact that the body is trying unrelentlessly to reject the foreign organ doesn't raise red flags,what will. Natural healers have saved thousands of people( slated for surgery) from transplant surgeries by comprehensive health programs,cleansing and healing their organs.

Organ transplanting is barbaric and as Srila Prabhupada says,will not extend the life of a person.When your organ is so bad that you desire a replacement,the lesson here is to stop the abuse it is getting. If one isn't willing to make some major changes in their life,to save it,then they should just die in dignity.

The body isn't a machine,like a car,with removable parts.The human parts are affected by the person inside that body,by how he thinks,feels,acts,and what he ingests.If there is a problem, this is where to turn not to Dr. Frankenstein.

And to suggest that a sadhu's body part could impart some spiritual benefit on a person is equally misguided. Neglect the proper care of your own temple and then defile that of a sadhu instead of stepping up to the plate and doing the neccesary (health) work.

Brahma Dasa - April 9, 2006 10:53 pm

Acharya of Sree Chaitanya Gaudiya Math has blood transfusion.

Dear devotees Dandavat Pranams.

First we like to express our apology for delay in giving you updates about the health of Srila Gurudev (Bhakti Balabha Tirtha Maharaja). Devotees were anxious about the health of Srila Gurudev.

After coming to delhi, Srila Gurudev felt the problem of anemia. His

blood - Hemoglobin count reduced to a alerting level. Srila Guru

Maharaj was admitted to hospital for few days for blood transfusion.

Today Srila Gurudev came back from hospital. He is now feeling

better, medical results are also confirming it.

Although Srila Gurudev was unable to go physically to Chandigarh.

Yet, devotees celebrated the divine appearance day of Lord

Ramachandra and Srila Gurudev on a very large scale in chandigarh for

the pleasure of Srila Gurudev. Devotees who were present in Delhi

went to Hospital to get Srila Gurudev's divine darshan. To bless the

devotees, Srila Gurudev came to the auditorium of the hospital and

bless the devotees with nectarine katha of Lord Ramachandra.

At present His Divine Grace is in Delhi Math and recovering. Srila

Gurudev will stay in Delhi for some more time till his health become

more stable. After that he may go to Kolkata.

While in Delhi, Srila Gurudev may speak Harikatha on auspicious

occasions in Hindi. He may speak in English Video Conferences also on

weekends. We will confirm about that as soon as possible.

Sri Gurukripa-prarthi,

Hari Prasad Das

Sree Chaitanya Gaudiya Math

Swami - April 10, 2006 2:23 am

Ugra karma could include every technological development since the industrial revolution. So to pick and choose labling that which one dislikes as ugra karma while embracing other developments that could be labeled the same seems questionable. Who doesn't drive or ride in motorized vehicle? Even Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did. We live in an industrial world.

Let's not digress here. Even Gopisvara has seen fit to allow for modern medicine in life threatening circumstances, and this is for the most part what organ transplanting involves. Robert has also found room for this practice under certain cisrcumstances. Gopisvara's argument against this practice based upon the "fact" that the body rejects these organs requiring patinets to take drugs seems not that well researched from what I have read. For example, over the past decade scientists have made major inroads into regenerating damaged organs and tissues. They've successfully grown liver cells, skin, bone and cartilage, and now there are promising signs that bladders can be grown and transplanted without fear of rejection.

If I were to argue against it, I would need much more to go on to feel comfortable speaking against this medical practice to an educated audiance. People have the choice to receive organ transplants or to reject them; to donate them or not to donate them. Transplants have saved lives and they also may have a down side to them. But at this point the down side does not seem to outweigh the upside, when children born with defective organs are given new lives, etc. Where is the compelling evidence to disuade educated people from endorsing this practice? Furthermore now scientists are growing organs from would be recpients' own cells. So in the future organ transplanting from one person to another may be replaced with this practice. The filed is realtively new and will likely continue for a long time with less and less of an immediate downside. As for the long term, unless the practice ends up hurting people in the short term it will continue and be lauded as a great medical achievment. Why? Becasue it enables people who would have died to live, often children who have no long term to consider without it. Even if over time it is proven to causes death, one would still have to weigh that against how much time it allows one to live, one who would have died without it.

Although I remain interested in well thought out and truly compelling reasoning against this practice, I am not sure any of that is forthcoming. So in the meantime rather than continuing to discuss the correctness of organ transplanting in genreral, let's discuss it in relation to the lives and bodies of devotees since this presents unique circumstances most relevant to ourselves.

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 10, 2006 5:08 am

,[quote] let's discuss it in relation to the lives and bodies of devotees since this presents unique circumstances most relevant to ourselves.
[/quote]

When told that he would die in 7 days the great king accepted. We are to be transendentialists. At the time of death the self realized soul is not bewildered by such a change. So if the persons life is extended and one turns toward Krsna it would be worth the transplant, but extended life is debatiable. I think gopisvara dasa has it right, If one isn't willing to make some major changes in their life,to save it,then they should just die in dignity. Aren't we about change ?

The science of bringing forth life from dead bodies has been here for a very long time and if it is used in persuit of Krsna conciousness let it be so, ie the churning of the legs of the dead king to bring forth offspring to continue the dynasty. Cant remember the actual names.

Some types of individual soul are ready to take residence in almost any type of body, which then gives life to the matter it enters. "The living entity is covered by different degrees of lust." During the time His Divine Grace was here Barney Frank was given an artifical heart and He said that the soul stepped out while the heart was removed and the artifical one put in and then took up residence again. I think he commented that this was not such a great feat, but let them make one flower and we would pay them $75,000. Then they may have accomplished something, but Krsna makes innumberable universes and planets fully populated with living entities.

It seems that those pursuing this endevor are looking for the fountain of youth and want to live in their bodies for ever, but we know that this will never happen in the material world. We have the solution which is by grace only, "When one goes there, he never comes back. That is My supreme abode."

Guru, Sadhu, and Sanga.

Gopisvara Dasa - April 10, 2006 7:16 am

I won't belabor the point too much,but must add a few things.

1.In a previous post, Prabhupada was quoted saying that an organ transplant will not extend a person's life.He said it is not possible.Do we just dismiss this? Is this following sadhu,guru and sastra?

2.When one who has an illness, goes on a healing journey,this can be the most profound occurence in their life. It can be a huge impetus for purification and self-correction on many levels,what to speak of reaching out to god.Is there any other purpose for disease? To deny one of that opportunity through mechanical and drug therapies cheats a person out of that.

3.They are writing many post-dated checks in the form of promises and cures.Meanwhile they are perpetrating horrible acts. For example,in partial birth abortion,instead of pulling the baby out head first,they turn it around and pull it partly out feet first and then stick an instrument in the base of the skull and suck out its brains for stemcells and can get 50-100,000 dollars for the body parts for research,etc.

4.I can refer you to the senate document that called for the creation of the AIDS virus.

5.There are many,many more items such as these,that are documented for those who care to research these things.This is the plane of exploitation in Kali Yuga.We are good natured people living in scripture,and can't even imagine the agenda of the ruthless,unscrupulous,shameless wealthy elite delude by power.They control the propaganda.Ugra karma indeed!

I agree much research on these topics would be required before speaking to an educated audience.

Bhrigu - April 10, 2006 8:52 am

The question whether or not one can prolong one's life through naturepathy, organ transplants etc is an important one. On the one hand, we have the scriptural statements (though I can't remember where, right now) about the duration of one's life being fixed by karma at birth as a specific number of breaths. Then again, it seems obvious that if by my free will, I jump under a train, I will reduce that time. It is sometimes said that such a person will then have to live out the remainder of his or her allotted timespan as a ghost. At any rate, if one can by one's activities reduce the time of life, why couldn't one similarily increase it?

To me it seems that even if one ultimately couldn't, a devotee should try his or her best to try to live as long as possible in the service of Krishna, either to advance more or to help others. That's why devotees don't just stop eating and die. So if a young devotee, let's say after an accident, has the choice of accepting a transplant and perhaps living on or not and certainly dying, I would think that in most cases the first choice would be better.

Swami - April 10, 2006 4:20 pm

I won't belabor the point too much,but must add a few things.

1.In a previous post, Prabhupada was quoted saying that an organ transplant will not extend a person's life.He said it is not possible.Do we just dismiss this? Is this following sadhu,guru and sastra?

2.When one who has an illness, goes on a healing journey,this can be the most profound occurence in their life. It can be a huge impetus for purification and self-correction on many levels,what to speak of reaching out to god.Is there any other purpose for disease? To deny one of that opportunity through mechanical and drug therapies cheats a person out of that.

3.They are writing many post-dated checks in the form of promises and cures.Meanwhile they are perpetrating horrible acts. For example,in partial birth abortion,instead of pulling the baby out head first,they turn it around and pull it partly out feet first and then stick an instrument in the base of the skull and suck out its brains for stemcells and can get 50-100,000 dollars for the body parts for research,etc.

4.I can refer you to the senate document that called for the creation of the AIDS virus.

5.There are many,many more items such as these,that are documented for those who care to research these things.This is the plane of exploitation in Kali Yuga.We are good natured people living in scripture,and can't even imagine the agenda of the ruthless,unscrupulous,shameless wealthy elite delude by power.They control the propaganda.Ugra karma indeed!

I agree much research on these topics would be required before speaking to an educated audience.

1. This statement has little bearing on the the bio ethics of organ transplanting. Prabhupada is merely emphasising to his students that medical science cannot increase one's life (unlimitedly), at a time when it was hypothysized that heart transplants might lead one to believe they offered the potential to do so. The statement was made at a time when the very first heart transplants were begun. Note that organ transplants today are not aimed primarily at increasing some old foggey's life for a few years, someone who refuses to "die with dignity." They are often for children who will have little or no life without them. Will an organ transplant increase their life? Read back and you will see that Audarya-lila has already addressed this point, pointing out that, if not, the obvious conclusion has to be that it must be their karma to recieve one.

2. Organ transplants do not deny one the opportunity to go on a healing journey when childred born with defective organs need new one's to live at all. Furthemore, those in need of transplants are on a healing journey. They have merely selected a particular healing methodology that differes from yours. Surely many of them often pray before and after the transplant and undergoing such a medical porcedure requires them to be introspective about life, etc.

4. "THEY" can be a scary word. The world is full of corruption, yet it is also full of good intentions. Becasue medicine involves some practices that we would all disagree with, this does not make organ transplants equal to abortion.

5. Here is a different opinion urban myths. I have also seen a site that leads one to belive that the Hare Krsna's are a product of the CIA.

I ask, is there a categorical difference between blood trasfusions and organ transplants? Both Audarya-lila and Gopisvara, who are on opposite sides of ths discussion for the most part, agree that there is not.

Evidence has been cited to clearly demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada did not object to blood transfusions. Now we have evidence provided by Brahma dasa that a present day aracaya has accepted a blood trasnfusion.

Let's try to move beyond prejudices formed by our psychological make up and proceed with flexibility to discuss an area that, as I implied in my initial post, is for the most part uncharted from the Guadiya perspective.

Madangopal - April 10, 2006 8:55 pm

Gaure Kishore dasa babaji asked that his body be dragged through the streets and fed to the dogs, and some of his admirers argued in favor of that request. However, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura differed with them.

I have been thinking about this. One point it seems is that the babaji's mood was very renounced, even avadhuta. This appears to also be a test as demonstrated by Saraswati Thakur's subsequent claiming his right to his guru's body. He was after all the only disciple and was in touch with his guru's mood. Or even if his guru desired such, as a preacher he did what he knew was appropriate for the masses to understand the exhalted position of Gaura Kishore.

But how would we approach a situation in which our guru clearly desired to donate his/her organs and we were aware of the reasoning for it? It would seem that some choices would have to be made about who would step up and take the parampara forward with confidence to make decisions about what would best benefit the followers, honoring the desire or taking liberties for preaching purposes. Tough one.

Guru-nistha Das - April 10, 2006 9:07 pm

But how would we approach a situation in which our guru clearly desired to donate his/her organs and we were aware of the reasoning for it? It would seem that some choices would have to be made about who would step up and take the parampara forward with confidence to make decisions about what would best benefit the followers, honoring the desire or taking liberties for preaching purposes. Tough one.

As repulsive as it is to even talk about it, I would never let a knife touch Guru Maharaja's body, no matter what he would say.

Syamasundara - April 10, 2006 9:22 pm

I don't have an opinion yet, but two things come to mind.

Kinky surgery is not foreign to the Vedic world, as there are stories of horse heads put on human bodies, or that king (Vina?) from whose body the brahmanas got all sorts of things and beings. Then again, I haven't reread those stories recently and they could very well be allegorical, but I remember Srila Prabhupada making the point of how advanced they were.

Myself, I usually freak out when I use even a gamcha or a sleeping bag that used to belong to my Gurudeva. I'd carry everything on my head, but a sleeping bag turban can be quite uncomfortable. I can't imagine carrying a bit of his body in mine. At the same time, just like an old gamcha makes me think of my guru and my behavior, carrying one of his organs woud definitely keep me alert. A devotee once said we should always speak and behave as if our Gurudeva was right there, and we'll advance in no time. A thought that impacted me a lot, but I could never live up to. Having one of his organs might make me feel like he is there, like those who carry a sila on them.

At the same time, this could wear out in time, just like when I came back to the USA after 4 years and got a hold of my old belongings in SF I found all sorts of devotional clothes and prasada, but once at Audarya I would just grab any cadar or gamca and run to the bath house or to arati.

As far as deity worship with all its ups and downs, light and dark, used and unused, clean and dirty, offerable and unofferable, it would freak the mind of most to go to a samadhi mandir of a saint and know that that body lacks one kidney, the heart and the eyes. A broken deity cannot be worshiped, not because God is limited in any way, but more for how the mind of the worshiper would be impacted. I don't know.

At the same time deity worship in a broad sense is for kanistha devotees, who need a localized form. Our scriptures say back and forth that a pure devotee, or any soul for that matter, has nothing to do with his or her body. Discriminating whether a body is wholesome or incomplete would be the same as any other discrimination. Mahabrabhu made a samadhi for Haridasa Thakura who had a muslim body.

But here is the thing: the soul has nothing to do with the material body, but here we are talking of trancendentalized bodies. Haridasa Thakura's body was first "muslim" and then pure, whereas here we are talking of a body that is transcendental and that we want to chop and distribute.

I guess this is the conclusion: just like the bodies of pure devotees are not burnt as they are already pure, but rather preserved, they shouldn't be dismembered either, but maybe there can be some scope for organ swapping among commoners.

Syamasundara - April 10, 2006 9:45 pm

As repulsive as it is to even talk about it, I would never let a knife touch Guru Maharaja's body, no matter what he would say.

That's if he wants us to feed the dogs with it, but what if he says he wants his liver to be used to extend the life of his disciple so&so dasa/dasi, because he/she has really understood his mood and purpose?

After all for the sake of seva GM makes us use his laptop, car, or as SP said: "You can even step on my head."

Madangopal - April 11, 2006 1:35 am

I would never let a knife touch Guru Maharaja's body, no matter what he would say.

Apart from the philisophical discussion, I'm right there with you brother!

Swami - April 11, 2006 3:06 am

Feeding vultures has very shortsighted benefit, creating dham with samadhi would be much better to inspire devotee pilgrims.

I think there is something to be said for this point. Of course we are not considering feeding a devotee's body to vultures, but depriving it in part or entirely of its role in sacred ritual in the name of helping others materially or even acting compassinately towards others maybe short sighted. The traditions's emphasis on the repesct for a sadhaka-deha is considerable. Note that this is not only concerned with those who have perfected their sadhaka-deha. I believe the emphasis is on respect for devotees and ultimately for bhakti, which has the power to solve all the world's problems. This needs to be promoted in the world. To promote the body as a sacred temple of God, a vision brought to life by the serious practioner and backed by a weath of philosophy is important. The world needs this kind of vision, arguably more than it needs organs.

If I were to advocate this position, we would not necessarily be condemning the practice of organ transplants for people in general, but rather making a case for an exception based on religious grounds with an idea of promoting a higher good. We are not against welfare work in general, but we are busy with para upakara, transcendental welfare work. Of course only as much as we live a truly devotional life would people be moved by such an argument—only as much as we are truly a force in the world for change. To add to this I think devotees would also have to refuse to accept organ transplants.

Somehow the idea of using something that has been completely dedicated to Krsna's service for another purpose, even saving a life, is somewhat unsettling to me. Yet should a Vaisnava choose to act otherwise, and out of compassion for people in general and donate his or her organs, it would be hard to argue against such an act of mercy that that transcends justice. Vasudeva the uttama bhagavata leper allowed worms to feed on his body, and if they fell off, he would pick them up and put them back on. Who can argue with this?

As for blood transfusions, I think there is a subtle distinction between this practice and organ transplanting, in that blood is constantly regenerated.

No conlcusions here just more thoughts.

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 11, 2006 7:39 am

If I were to advocate this position, we would not necessarily be condemning the practice of organ transplants for people in general, but rather making a case for an exception based on religious grounds with an idea of promoting a higher good.

This is for sure how I would see the situation.

My daughter Vrndavani was born with 3 holes in her heart and hypertensive lung pressure. Prognosis of a transplant would be to give her 2 more years of life. Prognosis of her trysomy 18 mosaic was death by age 1 95%. The body can heal itself if given the right ingredients and she did. By age 2 there were no signs of the blood flowing between the chambers of the heart which were there at birth, so those 2 holes (ASD & VSD) closed but as far as the PDA we were told it had also disappeared and the only thing that remains is her hypertensive lung condition.

Krsna works in mysterious ways. We opted for Him not the knife and death of another to only add maybe 2 years of life at best. They split you from anise to throut and then sow you back up again. What terrible karma.

The delivery doctor also offered to take her and we could go home for the odds of her surviving were little to none and prior to that 5 different doctors tried to get Ksiro to abort her at each visit.

When you plan for the best you never know what Krsna has instore but she is worth everything He sent me and more.

Robertnewman - April 11, 2006 10:58 am

If I were to advocate this position, we would not necessarily be condemning the practice of organ transplants for people in general, but rather making a case for an exception based on religious grounds with an idea of promoting a higher good.

I think the position is sound, but its presentation would have radically different effects depending on the audience. Devotees, who accept as a matter of faith (if not realization) the spiritualization of the sadhaka-deha and of actions performed with it in service to Krsna, would appreciate and benefit from a discussion of organ transplantation from such a viewpoint; however, I believe that most educated non-devotees would be strongly alienated. The idea is too high and too contrary to the current scientific mindset to be of value in preaching to such people. Of course, if the issue were raised by such a person the answer could be given. But I wouldn't volunteer the topic before such an audience.

Swami - April 11, 2006 11:43 am

Krsna works in mysterious ways. We opted for Him not the knife and death of another to only add maybe 2 years of life at best. They split you from anise to throut and then sow you back up again. What terrible karma.

What is the death of another you are referring to?

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 11, 2006 5:18 pm

I believe Bijaya Kumara is referring to the fact that in order for his daughter to recieve a heart another child would have to die. The wording is poor because it leads one to think that murder is involved when in actuality getting such a heart would only occur in the case of another child dying, not being killed. The choice to sign his daughter up for a transplant or not has nothing to do with whether or not another child dies.

While many people wouldn't agree with the argument over the spirituality and sacredness of a particular body, I think the argument could be put forward intelligently such that anyone could understand it. The application of this idea would be difficult, however. How to judge how much a body has been transformed? We have already talked about the need to give in general and to identify with the suffering of others. We talked about this in the context of giving in general and not just that we only give in service to Krsna. The idea that we only serve Krsna and that we don't help a 'karmi' has already been discussed and shown to be a shallow conception that leads to hard heartedness.

Since matter is not being created, but rather transformed and recycled, it should be obvious that whatever matter is present in the devotional body will also be transformed. How spiritual are the bacteria, fungus, and other living entities that will feast on the remains of any body and tranform it? Why would having the body consumed by lower living entities be any more acceptable to a vaishnava than donating functional organs to help other humans?

The future of replacement organs is most likely going to be in generating them from pleuripotent cells, but that is quite a ways off as of yet. But it is fairly obvious that it would be much better to have organs that won't be rejected by the bodies immune system.

When I visited the Vatican with my wife last year there was a body of one of the previous popes on display. It didn't appear to have decayed even though it was there for hundreds of years. The catholics have similar beliefs to ours regarding the sacredness of the bodies of saints.

At any rate, in general, I don't think it is a bad argument to put forward the idea of the sacredness of any particular material object including a body used in exclusive service and to suggest that such 'spiritualization' should be honored and that the matter constituting such objects should not therefore be recycled for uses that are not sacred. We wouldn't dream of melting down a deity for use in ship building or any other material utilitarian purpose and we can put forward good arguments why. I think this is the same issue.

just adding a few thoughts.

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 11, 2006 6:29 pm

How spiritual are the bacteria, fungus, and other living entities that will feast on the remains of any body and tranform it? Why would having the body consumed by lower living entities be any more acceptable to a vaishnava than donating functional organs to help other humans?

Only cremation or in case of acarya burying him in rock salt are acceptable. In both cases there is no consumation by lower entities.

Swami - April 11, 2006 8:02 pm

It is one thing to say, "I am not this body," and another to say, "This body belongs to Guru and Guaranga." The first is Vedanta the second is Bhakti. So we Bhaktivedantas are not free to do with our bodies as we like, or as the world dictates. At least not without permission.

Audarya-lila Dasa - April 11, 2006 8:23 pm

Any method of preservation whether it be fomaldehyde, salts etc. is not perfect, nor is it permanent. Time marches on and affects change in all matter regardless of our attempts to stop the change process. Burning doesn't extinguish the matter, it merely transforms it into gases and ashes. Those gases are recycled as is the ash. They eventually end up in other bodies and the cycle continues....

I like your last point Guru Maharaja and as your sisya I will certainly follow whatever you instruct me to do now while I am present in the body and will do my best to arrange for the proper arrangement when I leave this body. For now I have listed myself as an organ donor for many years just like Babhru has with quite a lot of thought going into that designation. I am certainly willing to change that if you so instruct me.

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 12, 2006 7:58 am

What is the death of another you are referring to?

In order to have a heart and lung transplant the person giving must die to give it to the person recieving it along with the many peramaters of tissue matching etectra.

Madangopal - April 12, 2006 12:26 pm

Though not addressing the issue of organ transplant right now, I wanted to bring up a side point. What to do in a culture that mandates certain things done with the body despite our Gaudiya culture, even if we are flexible?

I have thought many times about the fact (I'm pretty sure its fact) that if you die anywhere in the U.S. an autopsy is required by law in order to rule out any foul play and to determine cause of death. I always thought this was disgusting because sometimes the body must sit overnight or some length of time before they get to it. I'm pretty sure that if you took a body right after death and buried it or burned it you would get into HUGE trouble. Should we just make sure we only die in India?

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 12, 2006 2:26 pm

an autopsy is required by law in order to rule out any foul play and to determine cause of death

When Is an Autopsy Required?

An autopsy is not performed as a part of every death investigation. Currently, autopsies are performed in only about 6 per cent of non-forensic hospital deaths, and even less among deaths in the community. In most cases, the determination of the need to perform an autopsy is a discretionary responsibility of the coroner or medical examiner. The issuance of a death certificate does not require an autopsy and only a death certificate is needed to qualify for most insurance and death benefit programs. The coroner or medical examiner may determine that no autopsy is required in any situation where there is sufficient evidence to make conclusive determinations on the cause and manner of death. An autopsy is not always necessary in a coroner/medical examiner’s case. Each case is evaluated independently to determine the cause and manner of death. If the coroner/medical examiner is unable to determine the cause and manner of death, the law may require an autopsy to establish the cause and manner of death. In this case, the family’s permission is not needed. If an autopsy is not ordered, the family always has the right to have one done at their own expense. For coroner-ordered autopsies, taxpayers pay for those services: these expenses are included in the coroner/medical examiners's annual budget.

Many coroners and medical examiners have limited the number of autopsies performed because of cost and time constraints. Fiscal pressures have increased as the number of death investigation cases has increased, particularly those involving violent deaths. The cases in which an autopsy is most likely to be omitted include those where there is a known and undisputed cause of death without suspicion of criminal activity.

Medical examiners or coroners investigate about 20% of deaths in the United States, although the percentage varies from state to state. Although these guidelines for which deaths to investigate also vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, most jurisdictions require that these deaths be investigated:

- Deaths due to homicide, suicide, or accidental causes such as motor vehicle crashes, falls, burns, or the ingestion of drugs or other chemical agents.

- Sudden or suspicious deaths, deaths from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and unattended deaths.

- Deaths caused by an agent or disease constituting a threat to public health.

- Deaths that occur in the workplace.

- Deaths of people who were in custody or confinement.

- Deaths of other people institutionalized for reasons other than organic disease.

- Deaths of people to be cremated.

- Unusual death or suspicion of injury, foul play, or violence

- Sudden, unexpected, unexplained death

- Admitted unconscious, or death within 24 hours after admission, to a hospital.

- Delayed effect of injury, e.g., pulmonary embolism after hip fracture, post-traumatic seizure

- Anesthesia, postanesthesia, postoperative.

- Death related to medical procedure

- Infant or fetal death due to any of above, or possible maternal drug abuse or unlawful abortion. Also, apparent stillbirth/infant death occurring outside of hospital.

The thoroughness of death investigations (and as a result the completeness of death investigation records) also varies from case to case. An autopsy is not always required--sometimes a postmortem examination may consist of only an external examination of the body or review of pertinent medical information. The record of a complete death investigation, however, would include the following:

- The initial report of the death made to the ME/C office (e.g., by a family member, police officer, or attending physician).

- A determination of circumstances surrounding the death. Findings of a scene investigation.

- Findings of a postmortem exam or autopsy.

- Results of laboratory tests to determine the presence of drugs, toxins, or infectious agents.

- Certification of the cause and manner of death.

The Setting of Death--Additional Considerations

Patients who die in a hospital--When the death is from natural causes in a hospital, the family must give permission for an autopsy to be performed. Some physicians will talk to the next of kin about an autopsy; others will not. In other cases, the deceased has made his/her wishes known through an advanced health care directive, or verbally to either his/her family or the family. The family of the deceased person can ask the hospital to perform an autopsy.

A hospital's pathologist may ask to perform an autopsy for the educational benefit of the medical staff. Autopsies performed by the hospital pathologist typically do not result in cost to the patient's estate; rather, the hospital and pathologist absorb the cost. Autopsies requested solely by family members may result in a cost. Hospital autopsies, or those performed for medical reasons, also fall under the confines of varying state laws.

Anticipated death outside a health care facility--Many people with terminal illnesses now choose to die at home in more familiar and peaceful surroundings with family and friends close by. If an anticipated death occurs outside a health care facility, the first step is to call the hospice organization or physician under whose care the individual was receiving medical treatment. The hospice nurse or physician would then release the deceased to the funeral home, cremation society or family. Also, the family of the deceased can request an autopsy.

Unanticipated death outside a health care facility--If a sudden death occurs outside of a health care facility, call 911 to dispatch local police to the scene. The police will then determine the appropriate steps to take depending upon the particular situation. In the case of a nonsuspicious death of an apparently healthy individual, the police may call the medical examiner/coroner and await instructions. If the death may be from unnatural causes - accident, suicide, homicide - then it must be reported to the local coroner or medical examiner who will decide whether an autopsy should be performed. This does not require family consent.

The Certificate of Religious Belief

Fortunately, some state legislators have moved toward restricting the power of the state to demand an autopsy. One statute which has been passed in at least five states (California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio) is the "Religious Objection to Autopsy." Simply, it gives people the right to prevent autopsy of their remains in most circumstances by signing a certificate declaring that autopsy is contrary to their "religious belief." (A person completing such a form is not required to state what his/her religion is.) The form have to be witnessed on the same date by two people who are neither relatives nor health care providers of any kind. Provide copies to your physician, next of kin, medical surrogate, etc. as needed. For CA you will be pursuant to Section 27491.43 of the Government Code of the State of California.

Krsangi Dasi - April 13, 2006 7:33 am

I can walk painlessly because of modern medicine. And I have a friend who was saved from almost certain death by modern medicine, when her feet and fingers went gangrenous due to blood poisoning. So when I hear people demonizing doctors and medical science my first thought is: Has this person ever had serious health problems? Of course it's great if you can cure yourself with alternative treatments and avoid for instance having to take addictive opiatic painkillers, but we couldn't. And it seems kind of hypocritical to condemn modern medicine in everyday life but to run to the doctors when something serious happens. If they know how to treat serious stuff, then why would they be so wrong about minor illnesses?

I feel that medicine and especially medical research should be more tightly regulated by legislation, and ethical questions like cloning should be widely discussed in the society. But at the same time I'm certain that it was my karma to get prosthetic feet, as it was my friend's karma not to die the day she got blood poisoning. The doctors were acting as karma's instruments.

And would it have been so different if it had been my kidneys, not feet that had to be replaced? I now have a body partly made of flesh and bone, and partly of plastic and carbon fibre. But it's a dead body anyway, brought to life only by the soul. So I don't really see such a big different between a prosthetic limb and an organ transplant, they're both just new parts to the soul's vehicle. And even if something subtle comes to the body along with a new organ, couldn't it also be something positive? Isn't it an act of unselfishness to give away your organs, to help others even after your own death? What if it's this humble attitude of giving that moves on to the new body?

When I was operated I knew that if anything went wrong and I started bleeding there would be suitable blood ready at the hospital. I felt grateful for the people who had donated their blood out of sheer unselfishness (you don't get paid for donating blood in Finland, you just get a sandwich and a cup of coffee). And even though I didn't need a blood transfusion I still feel kind of indebted to these complete strangers whose blood might have saved me.

But it's a bit difficult for me to understand what my sadhaka-deha is, as I consider my prosthetic feet a part of me now. I don't see a big difference between them and my "organic" hands. But on the other hand they're just aids like eyeglasses. In any case I've tried to learn to respect my body that's caused me so much trouble in the past and to see it as Krishna's and Guru Maharaja's property.

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 14, 2006 12:37 am

And would it have been so different if it had been my kidneys, not feet that had to be replaced? I now have a body partly made of flesh and bone, and partly of plastic and carbon fibre. But it's a dead body anyway, brought to life only by the soul. So I don't really see such a big different between a prosthetic limb and an organ transplant, they're both just new parts to the soul's vehicle.

Yes it is quite different because usually another person had to pass to give you the kidney but some times a relative can give 1 of theirs and still live which is more like what you are discribing.

Bhrigu - April 14, 2006 10:49 am

Getting back to the idea of the sadhaka-deha, this is what the CC says about it. The context is Sanatana Goswami visiting Puri and becoming ill on the way. His body is covered by disgusting pus-oozing wounds, and he can't stand the thought of Sri Caitanya embracing him as he had done before. Instead, Sanatana decides that he will end his life by throwing himself under the Ratha-yatra cart. Being omnicient, Sri Caitanya understands his intention and after some time says to him:

CC 3.4.76–78, 87–88

prabhu kahe,—“tomara deha mora nija-dhana

tumi more kariyacha atma-samarpana

Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, “Your body is My property. You have already surrendered unto Me. Therefore you no longer have any claim to your body.

parera dravya tumi kene caha vinasite?

dharmadharma vicara kiba na para karite?

“Why should you want to destroy another’s property? Can’t you consider what is right and wrong?

tomara sarira—mora pradhana ‘sadhana’

e sarire sadhimu ami bahu prayojana

“Your body is My principal instrument for executing many necessary functions. By your body I shall carry out many tasks.

---

haridase kahe prabhu,—“suna, haridasa

parera dravya inho cahena karite vinasa

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu then said to Haridasa Thakura, “My dear Haridasa, please hear Me. This gentleman wants to destroy another’s property.

parera sthapya dravya keha na khaya, vilaya

nisedhiha inhare,—yena na kare anyaya“

“One who is entrusted with another’s property does not distribute it or use it for his own purposes. Therefore, tell him not to do such an unlawful thing.”

---

That one should not "distribute" what is given by others might here perhaps be taken as a prohibition against organ donations that are not meant for a directly spiritual means (e.g. to save a Vaishnava).

However, the basic idea of the sadhaka-deha comes out better in the following passage, later in the same chapter.

---

CC 3.4.191–196

prabhu kahe,—“vaisnava-deha ‘prakrta’ kabhu naya

’aprakrta’ deha bhaktera ‘cid-ananda-maya’

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, “The body of a devotee is never material. It is considered to be transcendental, full of spiritual bliss.

diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana

sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama

“At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krishna accepts him to be as good as Himself.

sei deha kare tara cid-ananda-maya

aprakrta-dehe tanra carana bhajaya

“When the devotee’s body is thus transformed into spiritual existence, the devotee, in that transcendental body, renders service to the lotus feet of the Lord.

martyo yada tyakta-samasta-karma

niveditatma vicikirsito me

tadamrtatvam pratipadyamano

mayatma-bhuyaya ca kalpate vai

“‘The living entity who is subjected to birth and death attains immortality when he gives up all material activities, dedicates his life to the execution of My order, and acts according to My directions. In this way he becomes fit to enjoy the spiritual bliss derived from exchanging loving mellows with Me.’ (Bhag. 11.29.34)

sanatanera dehe krishna kandu upajana

ama pariksite ihan dila pathana

“Krishna somehow or other manifested these itching sores on the body of Sanatana Gosvami and sent him here to test Me.

ghrna kari’ alingana na karitama yabe

krishna-thani aparadha-danda paitama tabe

“If I had hated Sanatana Gosvami and had not embraced him, I would certainly have been chastised for offenses to Krishna.”

---

As I can see, there are two points here. 1) Since Lord Krishna cannot be approached by the senses (atah sri-krishna-namadi na bhaved grahyam indriyaih), at initiation Krishna makes the senses of a devotee spiritual so that the devotee will be able to worship Him. Notice that Mahaprabhu uses the words "Vaishnava" and "bhakta", he is speaking about all (initiated) devotees, not only the saints. Of course, as Guru Maharaja has explained, the more a devotee engages in Krishna-bhajana, the more his body will become spiritualised, but the basic idea is the same. Such a body is transcendental.

Just as one might use parts of a mundane book to repair a damaged scripture but hardly part of a scripture to repair a mundane book, it could be argued that a Vaishnava may accept an organ transplant but should not disrespect the sadhaka-body by (before or after death) giving away parts of it. The new organ would then be gradually spiritualised together with the rest of the body.

2) The body of a Vaishnava must always be respected and honoured, even if it appears infirm or even in some way disgusting.

---

The story of Haridas Thakura's passing (CC 3.11) is an example of Vaishnava burial. This is another important issue. Personally, I can't stand the thought of some guys cutting up my body after death, taking out organs and at the end just stuffing everything back without any consideration of right place, purity or religion. Fortunately, in Finland as well that is done only in about 10% of all cases. If I would die today, I would actually like the devotees here to take my body and cremate it somewhere on their own according to all the proper rules and regulations and then bring the ashes to the Yamuna. I guess I would have to leave them a pretty good sum in my will as well to take care of the hefty fines I guess they would have to pay! So maybe that is not so realistical.

However, what we at some point need to consider is what to do when Swami leaves for the nitya-lila. I think that Sripad Bhakti-tirtha Maharaja was cremated because of legal issues with burial at Gita-nagari. I would hate that to happen to Guru Maharaja's body. Is there any way to get a permit for a proper samadhi burial at Audarya? I do hope that we won't have to deal with this for many, many years, but I guess that there should be some kind of a plan just in case.

Madangopal - April 14, 2006 1:40 pm

I do hope that we won't have to deal with this for many, many years, but I guess that there should be some kind of a plan just in case.

This is difficult, but necessary to discuss. I remember around the Terry Schiavo case (in U.S.) there was a lot of discussion about the importance of having living wills and the like. Something to express one's desires about death, treatment of the body in case of death or coma, etc. Does Guru Maharaj have something like this on-going? Since we would all like to carry out his desires it would be good to have these things clearly stated. Then we can forget about it all by being absorbed in his mission while he is present among us. Work now, samadhi now!

Thank you for the references and good points Bhrigu.

Swami - April 14, 2006 3:56 pm

This is difficult, but necessary to discuss. I remember around the Terry Schiavo case (in U.S.) there was a lot of discussion about the importance of having living wills and the like. Something to express one's desires about death, treatment of the body in case of death or coma, etc. Does Guru Maharaj have something like this on-going? Since we would all like to carry out his desires it would be good to have these things clearly stated.

No. Some organ ization is required.

Bijaya Kumara Das - April 16, 2006 7:27 am

No. Some organ ization is required.

All that is necessary is an advanced directive. If You would like I could send a copy of mine for a start.

It is imperative to have a directive. When my father passed after 9 days on life support against his will and the doctor had the audacity to tell my mother on the 5th day that he would make it-- ha--this being his 3rd major heart attack, with the previous one he had lost 90% of his heart function was laughable. If I could have been there they would have put me in jail for attempting to remove him as he told me no life support just let me pass quitely at home. Each time he came out of the medication he would rip the leg straps off attempting to get out of the terrible state they put him in and again they would hit him with the morphine.