Theorizing is fun, more so when its contradicting others. Here are some experiments with truth of a mind growing spiritually and intellectually, but which still has a long way to go...
I agree with the ancient Hindu sages with respect to Creation of universe, Brahman (highest reality) being the only Truth with an inherent consciousness which when merges with Maya (lower order of reality) forms Iswara and starts the leela of Creation & Dissolution. Maya provides the matter manifestations (naam-roopas) and the original consciousness provides a kind of designing life force, kind of creative energy which is present in every living or non living thing.
This original consciousness can be reflected/projected/manifested using an instrument to limit & focus its power on a particular space & time of Maya. This instrument is the mind and the reflection is the changing consciousness or ego. Since the ‘ego’ is the actual ‘doer’ & the ‘I’ is just a witness, human beings mistake ‘I’ as the ‘doer’ and being one and same with ’ego’. The cause of mind limiting the consciousness of the beings is to avoid the chaos of witnessing every event of the universe at all times.
Hereafter I differ from the sages who believe that the ego along with mind is the birthless & deathless soul. I would rather theorize that the mind is also a manifestation of Maya and cannot exist without a physical body.
Whenever a new & ready physical body and mind is created, the original consciousness starts getting reflected in it by itself. It is like a new bulb which starts glowing when fitted in a socket on a network of electric lines. When the bulb dies out or gets damaged, the glow stops. In the same way, when the mind & body wears out and the brain stops working, then the original consciousness stops reflecting in it. That’s just it; no transmigration of mind & ego; no karmas needed. There is of course an undying self within all of us and which is all of us - the original consciousness or Brahman, but it cannot be called as transmigrating from one body to another as it is truly one and same in all.
So, in a way all the beings attain Moksha on death (videha mukta) without realizing it as their individual consciousness dies, but lucky are those who attain Moksha at life and can be called jeevan mukta. Since they consciously look beyond the veil of Maya to the true reality, they live a life without any regrets and with sense of complete fulfillment.
The diversity of living beings is not because of any karmas of jeevatmas but it is an inherent nature of Iswara impelling Maya to diversify naam-roopas. So all the physical & mental setups have to be different and evolving according to the creative force of Iswara. This is similar to a conscious being dreaming various random dreams but not having any conscious control over them, as it is an embedded nature of dreams to diversify.
The social world is totally a result of superimposition of free wills of the so-called conscious beings and comes under the subjective order of reality ( ie. 3rd order of reality, lower than that of Maya ) and hence should be independent of laws of Maya. Even enjoyment and suffering are also matters of subjective perception and emotion, hence even they fall under subjective reality. If there is a sense of partiality involved between a child born in rich family and that in poor family, then the Creators of this subjective reality (Human beings) should be blamed and not the Creator of empirical reality (Iswara). Like a man woken up does not concern himself with the matters of his dreams (since they are at different orders of reality) similarly the Iswara does not concern itself with the matters of society. Human beings can always try to unite and exert their free will to change the society to make it look impartial (so to say).
Of course all the above stuffs are just my theories and I am ready to give them up if I get better ones in future...
Monday, July 13, 2009
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Karma
It has become a fashion to use the word 'Karma', specially in West. I also got interested in it and at first glance 'Karma', the law of cause and effect sounded scientific enough for a logical mind to grasp, but more I dwelved in details the more I got confused.
Here's my 11 point confusion list on Theory of Karma as forwarded by the Advaitis -
1. The major argument raised in support of karma is the diversities of the living beings and their comparative advantages/disadvantages over one another with respect to the environment & the uncontrollable situations they get into. Without karma, it would seem as if the Creator is partial. But this can be negated saying that it is not partialness but randomness inherent to the Creator.
2. Partiality can come into play only when there is a goal & a winner. But neither are there for jeevatmas. Moksha cannot be considered as a goal as it is not a state or destination to be achieved but just a self-realization of true nature. So its not a race against others that partiality will play any role.
3. There is lot of diversity & randomness in the non-living material part of universe too. None of the galaxies or stars are same whether they affect jeevatmas or not. The fate of stars maybe black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, etc. Should that be also called as partiality towards the original consciousness inherent in these stars? This shows that randomness is an aspect of the universe and only its governing principles are constant (or impartial so to speak). This should apply in case of jeevatmas too.
4. Karmas are said to be without beginning so as to avoid the question of how the first jeevas were formed without any karmas. Now, that which has no beginning cannot have an neither have an end nor have any change as a whole. It can neither be created nor be destroyed. So how can any being increase or decrease its karma? Is it that he is just transferring his karma to other beings? In that case the liberation of one enlightened being should be adding load to thousands of others through no fault of theirs!
5. Karmas are referred as direct result of cause & effect cycle. But cause & effect can only exist when a concept of time exists. So when a creation gets dissolved, even the karmas should get dissolved as time itself becomes non-existent until the creation starts all over again.
6. The poonya paap aspects of karma sound a bit lame as good or bad, enjoyment or suffering is a matter of judgment & emotion and is extremely subjective. Also, what about the actions which are neither considered neither good nor bad or the results of which are neither enjoyed nor suffered? What about microbes which feel neither suffering nor enjoyment and can do neither good nor bad but only what it is supposed to do – will there be any addition to its karma?
7. How can the karmas result into being born in wealthy or poor families? Wealth is again a subjective term and the currency notes one have cannot be anyway get counted by the soul trying to find a family according to its karma. If any affluent family just after giving birth to a child (with good karmas) loses all its money (say because of the free will applied by the father incorrectly in business) and becomes poor, then how was the karmic calculation done? The soul of new baby found a rich house according to its punyas but got poor through no fault of his own. Either we have to say that this is partiality (which negates the argument for Karma) or we have to say that the soul with good karmas cannot be born in such a family which is going to be poor soon (this can only prove a fixed destiny which again negates the theory of karma & free will)
8. What exactly happens to the karma of the jnani at videha mukti? The karma is neither bears fruit (this will be negation of cause effect cycle) nor can it die away (since karmas are birthless).
9. Cause & effect are a continuous process without any break. For every action, reaction starts almost simultaneously. But for karmas to happen, the actions are hanging in for intervals of several lifetimes before getting a reaction.
10. If a person does minimal action and only enjoys or suffers all the situations of life, then his karma quota for this life (prarabdha) will get exhausted pretty soon and he will die soon. So, does action extend lifetime & enjoyment decreases lifetime?
11. Another argument for karma is said to be that the mind though conscious of consequences wills evil and though dissuaded continues to commit sinful deeds. This to me sounds more like an argument for free will rather than karma. Maya’s veiling power makes all beings unaware of their united true nature and they consider themselves only as limited individual consciousness. This is bound to create selfishness which is the root cause of all evils. A truly selfless man can never harm anyone. So, this argument can be negated as its more of misuse of free will owing to impulsion of Maya, than the compulsion of karma.
Here's my 11 point confusion list on Theory of Karma as forwarded by the Advaitis -
1. The major argument raised in support of karma is the diversities of the living beings and their comparative advantages/disadvantages over one another with respect to the environment & the uncontrollable situations they get into. Without karma, it would seem as if the Creator is partial. But this can be negated saying that it is not partialness but randomness inherent to the Creator.
2. Partiality can come into play only when there is a goal & a winner. But neither are there for jeevatmas. Moksha cannot be considered as a goal as it is not a state or destination to be achieved but just a self-realization of true nature. So its not a race against others that partiality will play any role.
3. There is lot of diversity & randomness in the non-living material part of universe too. None of the galaxies or stars are same whether they affect jeevatmas or not. The fate of stars maybe black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, etc. Should that be also called as partiality towards the original consciousness inherent in these stars? This shows that randomness is an aspect of the universe and only its governing principles are constant (or impartial so to speak). This should apply in case of jeevatmas too.
4. Karmas are said to be without beginning so as to avoid the question of how the first jeevas were formed without any karmas. Now, that which has no beginning cannot have an neither have an end nor have any change as a whole. It can neither be created nor be destroyed. So how can any being increase or decrease its karma? Is it that he is just transferring his karma to other beings? In that case the liberation of one enlightened being should be adding load to thousands of others through no fault of theirs!
5. Karmas are referred as direct result of cause & effect cycle. But cause & effect can only exist when a concept of time exists. So when a creation gets dissolved, even the karmas should get dissolved as time itself becomes non-existent until the creation starts all over again.
6. The poonya paap aspects of karma sound a bit lame as good or bad, enjoyment or suffering is a matter of judgment & emotion and is extremely subjective. Also, what about the actions which are neither considered neither good nor bad or the results of which are neither enjoyed nor suffered? What about microbes which feel neither suffering nor enjoyment and can do neither good nor bad but only what it is supposed to do – will there be any addition to its karma?
7. How can the karmas result into being born in wealthy or poor families? Wealth is again a subjective term and the currency notes one have cannot be anyway get counted by the soul trying to find a family according to its karma. If any affluent family just after giving birth to a child (with good karmas) loses all its money (say because of the free will applied by the father incorrectly in business) and becomes poor, then how was the karmic calculation done? The soul of new baby found a rich house according to its punyas but got poor through no fault of his own. Either we have to say that this is partiality (which negates the argument for Karma) or we have to say that the soul with good karmas cannot be born in such a family which is going to be poor soon (this can only prove a fixed destiny which again negates the theory of karma & free will)
8. What exactly happens to the karma of the jnani at videha mukti? The karma is neither bears fruit (this will be negation of cause effect cycle) nor can it die away (since karmas are birthless).
9. Cause & effect are a continuous process without any break. For every action, reaction starts almost simultaneously. But for karmas to happen, the actions are hanging in for intervals of several lifetimes before getting a reaction.
10. If a person does minimal action and only enjoys or suffers all the situations of life, then his karma quota for this life (prarabdha) will get exhausted pretty soon and he will die soon. So, does action extend lifetime & enjoyment decreases lifetime?
11. Another argument for karma is said to be that the mind though conscious of consequences wills evil and though dissuaded continues to commit sinful deeds. This to me sounds more like an argument for free will rather than karma. Maya’s veiling power makes all beings unaware of their united true nature and they consider themselves only as limited individual consciousness. This is bound to create selfishness which is the root cause of all evils. A truly selfless man can never harm anyone. So, this argument can be negated as its more of misuse of free will owing to impulsion of Maya, than the compulsion of karma.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Transmigration of Soul
I read the Advaita Vedanta authored by D Krishna Ayyar and found it quite enlightening. However I found that some of the stuffs weren't completely explained which planted seeds of doubts in my mind on even some of the very basic theories. One such topics is the transmigration of soul. I do not believe in outright denial of any theory just because my mind is not mature enough to grasp the truth but I do believe that questioning will lead to decrease the dark fog. So, here are my points on the theory of transmigration of soul which require clarifications -
- The Sukshma Sarira is said to contain the individual consciousness of the being along with the prana, indriyas, karmas and vasnas. But the individual consciousness is like a reflection/projection of the original Brahman consciousness which occurs when the original consciousness gets a suitable instrument for this projection (eg. mind). Now, when a person dies, we know that the original consciousness did not leave it since that is all pervading but the reflected consciousness is not present. So, cant we just say that since the mind has stopped functioning due to physical causes, so the instrument is dysfunctional & hence the reflected consciousness no more exists.(non-existence)
- If the reflected consciousness requires an instrument of reflection then how can it be said to leave the body.(non-migration)
A possible explanation for both the points can be that the whole ‘consciousness & reflection’ apparatus (karana & sukshma sarira) is totally devoid of physicality and can exist without a medium like a ghost consciousness which brings us to the other points -
- The concept of a constant conscious ‘I’ (original consciousness) which exists in the background whereas in the foreground is the changing ‘I’ (reflected consciousness or ego) is theorized by saying that though a person grows young to old or goes through the sleeping states, his sense of ‘I’ does not change (pratyabhinja). The same concept when extrapolated to the jeevatma changing bodies does not hold true as the sense of ‘I’ gets restarted. If the sukshma and karana sarira (deep sleep state or causal body) which are the changing & unchanging ‘I’ consciousness gets transferred in a new body then why doesn’t the new being have any perception of this changing state? Since the sthoola sarira ( Physical body) is not supposed to affect either the original or the reflected consciousness, & the karana sarira is basically same in all beings hence there is a possibility that the sukshma sarira has been changed/ reborn.
- At the time of videha mukti, both the sukshma & karana sarira of the jnani is said to disintegrate. But these sariras are said to be birthless (only physical body is subjected to birth & death cycle), so that which has no beginning cannot have an end. It follows that either there is no moksha for jnani (only good that will happen to him is the sense of fulfillment on jeevan mukti) or there is a birth-death cycle of the sukshma sarira ie. Moksha for all because of no transmigration.
- What is problem with the logic of simultaneous birth and death of sukshma & sthoola sarira considering that there is an undying constant consciousness in us anyway which can be considered as the soul. Also, why cant we consider only the karana sarira transmigrating?
- Isnt it a little absurd logic that in the sleep (deep) we are devoid of the ‘changing I’ whereas after death it continues to exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)