THE CONCEPT OF SOUL – A LIVELY DISCUSSION AT THE ADVAITA LIST.

Mahesh Ursekar:

Pranams!

If we manage to create life from scratch, does that debunk the soul theory?

See below:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

Your valuable views would be appreciated,

Thanks, Mahesh

Ramesh Krishnamurthy:

And what is the "soul theory"?

Mahesh Ursekar:

The theory that, after the death of a human being, there exists an entity called the soul that persists and continues to take a new birth. If we create life using chemicals in a laboratory, it appears that the human being is nothing but matter and after death the result is "ashes to ashes, dust to dust".

kuntimaddi sadananda:

PraNAms

What is normally called 'soul' in advaita is the presence of subtle body which is conducive for the
illumination or reflection of the all pervading consciousness. When the physical matter is conducive (with proper DNAs and RNA etc)and properly assembled for the subtle body to enter and manifest its karma, then we can say the consciousness get reflected through that subtle body to the physical body – which can now respond to the external stimulus. We now say that matter is living.

When the subtle body leaves that matter due to unfavorable circumstances (say heated up to high degree etc) then composite (assembled or otherwise) we say it is dead.

Consciousness is all pervading - it cannot be created or annihilated. But whether it can express as life or not depending on the upaadhis. What science can do is assemble the matter imitating the existing living structure and see if subtle body, which makes the gross matter to respond to stimulus, can enter in that assembled matter.

The law is wherever and whenever the upaadhis – both gross and subtle are capable of reflecting the consciousness, they will.

Scientists do not create life.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Mahesh Ursekar:

Pranams!

Ok. That is a viable theory. But consider its consequences -

If you believe in the evolutionary theory, then the first "living" organism was a prokaryote cell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology) This includes organisms like bacteria & archaea. Scientists believe that it was most likely that a phagocyte engulfed a prokaryote cell, resulting in the creation of eukaryote cells. Our body parts are composed largely of eukaryote cells. (This para is to the best of my understanding)

Now my question to you is - both prokaryote and eukaryote cells are living entities. Our body contains millions of cells of both categories. Now according to your theory, the enlivining force of all living entities are subtle bodies. Does that mean that I, as a human being, am host to other
subtle bodies too? That doesn't sound right. Or do subtle bodies somehow differentiate between the two aforementioned "living" cells and hence we can say bacteria have subtle bodies but skin cells don't?

Thanks, Mahesh

Sundaresan, Vidyasankar:

"The theory that, after the death of a human being, there exists an entity called the soul that persists and continues to take a new birth. If we create life using chemicals in a laboratory, it appears that the human being is nothing but matter and after death the result is "ashes to ashes, dust to dust".

The "if" is a tall order, indeed. Creating life using chemicals in a laboratory means that a scientist will have to

A. synthesize every single DNA/RNA molecule, including every nucleotide that goes into DNA/RNA,a

B. synthesize every single enzyme needed for DNA/RNA function, including every amino acid that goes into each enzyme,

C. create every single molecule of the cell contents (sugars, fats, antibodies, chromatin, collagen etc.) chemically,

D. create the entire cell wall and membrane chemically,

E. put all these together and make a viable cell,

F. cause this entirely artifically synthesized cell to multiply,

G. cause the resultant mass of cells to properly differentiate,

H. develop these into an organism in vitro

All these major steps and all intermediate steps involved should be done in test tubes, not inside another living organism. For example, a denucleated cell from an organism cannot be used, nor can DNA extracted from an organism be used. And enzymes extracted directly from organisms or expressed in bacterial cultures cannot be used. Only if all these conditions are met and the resultant organism grows into a functioning adult can life be said to have been created using chemicals in a laboratory.

None of the current scientific techniques for cloning, parthenogenesis, in-vitro fertilization, etc. qualify for being seen as creating life in a laboratory using chemicals. They all rely on previously existing life. The theoretical possibility of creating life has always existed, no matter what the state of scientific knowledge has been. After all, there was a time when people thought insects spontaneously appeared from trash. It is well accepted now that nobody can succeed in creating new matter without recycling old matter and nobody can succeed in creating new energy without redistributing existing energy. However, when it comes to life, there is a suspicion that somehow, some day, someone will create new life from something that is not life. It is not borne out by the scientific evidence so far, leave alone philosophical considerations. Suffice it to say, we do not understand life and consciousness well at all.

Regards,

Vidyasankar

kuntimaddi sadananda:

Mahesh - PraNAms

I do not see any problem.

Your subtle body - pervades your whole body - that is why it subtle means- the sense of touch that your have in your remote skin is part manifestation of your pancha praaNaas. All cells are synchronized or organized as one organism to respond to that subtle body that pervades the whole body. When you die, you collect all your pancha praaNaas and sense faculties along with your anthaHkaraNa – and depart to experience next set of vaasanaas that cannot be experienced in this physical body. That is the death. The next body you take, if you have not realized in this life, depends on the nature of your vaasanas and it will find a suitable gross body that is conducive to express those vaasanaas. We have millions of bacteria that die and are looking for suitable bodies to express themselves. If a scientist can make one grass body, and if it is conducive they thank him and live happily there until that apartment is no more suitable. It is as simple as that.

If some cells in our body do not behave in accordance with the total organism, we call them as cancer cells - they are living cells but do not integrate with the rest of the body. Similarly the other bacteria and the virus - each have their own subtle bodies that differ from you hence they can consume you unless you can get rid of them.

Evolution is only at anatomical level - the evolution of jiiva is different from the evolution of the body structure. Each jiiva finds a suitable anatomical structure that is conducive to express its vaasanaas.

Advaita Vedanta has no problem with the evolution theory or any other theory - in fact more science progress more closure to advaitic doctrine.

In reality, you are, of course, consciousness that is all pervading. You are never born or die. The death of subtle body occurs only ones that is when you realize who you are.

The birth and death of gross bodies is nothing but integration of gross and subtle bodies which reflect the total consciousness depending the capabilities of the stubtle and gross equipments.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Mahesh Ursekar:

Pranams Kuntimaddi!

Thanks for your explanation but I don't think you have addressed my concern adequately.

1. What happens when some cells are extraced from your body as a tissue culture or suitably preserved while outside you. The individual cells of this culture continue to exhibit the same behavior as when they were in your body. They are living without the enlivining principle of your subtle body. According to your explanation, how is that possible?

2. Why do you differentiate between bacteria (prokaryote) and other cells in your body (eurkaryote). They are both living. Why does one have its own subtle body while the other not?

Thanks, Mahesh

Mahesh Ursekar:

Pranams!

I reproduce from my link, the steps and challanges that scientists forsee in this quest which I think (at least partially) address your points:

Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:

a) A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.

b) A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.

c) A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy.

One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School, predicts that within the next six months, scientists will report evidence that the first step — creating a cell membrane — is "not a big problem." Scientists are using fatty acids in that effort.

Szostak is also optimistic about the next step — getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system. His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over.

The difference, as I see, in the above technique (from previous methods like IVF, cloning, etc) is that they are building the cell ground up. All other techniques aimed to create life from (some form of) life while this method starts from matter alone. Another point I wish to make is that this claim is made by scientists from Harvard Medical (among others) and hence can be taken seriously.

Thanks, Mahesh

kuntimaddi sadananda:

Maheshji - PraNAms

Here is my understanding.

--- Mahesh Ursekar wrote:

"1. What happens when some cells are extraced from your body as a tissue culture or suitably preserved while outside you. The individual cells of this culture continue to exhibit the same behavior as when they were in your body. They are living without the enlivining principle of your subtle body. According to your explanation, how is that possible?"

First, when the cells are extracted, they are no more my cells - They were part of me as one organism when they are integrated as one - that is the reason I mentioned about the cancer cells. These cancer cells or the tissue cells that are extracted are taken over by another subtle bodies that is of unicelluar nature since they function and reproduce. Life is pulsating there in each of these cells as an entity. That life or life forms are differnt from mine. When you prick them, I do not feel the pain since their subtle bodies are differnt from mine. They grow and multiply accoding to their capabilities - but they are not me. In fact you may be able to use them to clone anther multi cell organism and that organism is differnt from me with their own vaasanas and subtle body to go through their life. Cloning process is exactly that. Why even when the conception occurs, two cells joinging as one and growing - it grows as separate individual. In the unicellular experiement you mentioned, the culture cells can also eat one another since each wants to survive at the expense of others if there is no other source of food. Each has mind of their own!Organism is one as long as they are integrated as oneand that integrated oneness is due to subtle body that is pervading as one. If there are many organisms in my body, each organism behaves differently competing with each other - since each is organized as separate entities and behave as separate entities. Therefore they have minds of their own that differ from mine. And they live at the expense of the host and can destroy the host for their survival. I have to leave that body and find another one that is more conducive or join the adviatin list to transcend my subtle body!

The point is the life pulsates or enlivens wherever and whenever the uppadhis or equipments are conducive to express that all pervading light of consciousness.

"2. Why do you differentiate between bacteria (prokaryote) and other cells in your body (eurkaryote). They are both living. Why does one have its own subtle body while the other not?"

No, I am not differentiating them - they have their own subtle bodies compare to mine. Like we have big apartment where I am living but some intruders also come and live - unless I get rid of them they may occupy the whole place and kick me out. The cells that are integrated as one organism are governed by one subtle body. Those cells that disintegrate and behave not as integral unit as one organism but behave like different organisms, since their organization differs from mine. The difference arrises since they show that they have mind of their own - and that mind iswhat we call their subtle bodies.

Anyway that is how I understand as life. It is the expression of consciousness in the subtle and gross bodies depending on their capabilities to reflect. Scientist as Vidya is pointing is only trying assemble (not create) from nature what he sees are physical requirements for consciousness to express. A scientist does not creat a life - life is the expression of all pervading consciousness in the matter that is suitable to express.

In the gross body - it expresses as just existence. In the more sophisticated cells, it can express as life, if the physiological functions can take place due to subtle body.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Shyam:

Pranams Mahesh-ji

Sadananda-ji has already provided some very insightful and meaningful thoughts in answering this.

I would like to add a few thoughts.

First of all, as anyone who has had to talk to reporters about his or her research findings will tell you, the reporter is interested not in your research but in "sensationalizing" that research to draw eyeballs - hence ridiculous headlines such as this one.

Now, if any scientist were to actually claim "I can create life within 10 years" our very simple question to them would be "Respected Sir, It is wonderful that you have such fervored optimism, now, pray, please tell me what IS life?"

The plain honest answer which any scientist will give you is "I do not know".

If Science does not even know "what" life is, is it not perhaps a little premature to claim to actually "create" life?

From a scientic perspective, we somewhat know what is sentiency, we have some idea of what is conscious and what is consciousness, - but what exactly is life>is there a thing we point to and say "this particular thing here is what is life" - absolutely not.

We know life when we see it. We know a person is alive or dead (well, most of the time) We know a cell is alive or dead.

But what is life? We only know life it by its absence, when we fail to detect its presence, but we have no idea what it actually is to begin with. It seems "self"-evident, but hard to define.

Take a live person. He is a conglomeration of trillions and trillions of cells - all of which "die" and "get replaced". Let us say i coated all his cells with a colour blue. Some period of time later in this live person, i may not find a single blue cell as they have all been replaced. So the person was more than the sum total of all his cells put together. Then who was the "person". Who do you say is "alive" - and - how do you say he is "alive" - is he alive because his heart is beating - well i can always pace his heart - his brain - science can invent a brain pacemaker in another 100 years - maybe less - but does any of that answer the question who is this he who is alive?

Now take one cell of this person.

Give it some food in a petridish and you can say it is "alive" - why - its metabolism continues.

But "what" is it that is alive? The protoplasm, the nucleus, the Golgi bodies??

Let us say we take the nucleus and culture that and say the nucleus is still alive.

Well "what" in the nucleus is alive? the strands of dna?? take them apart? nucleotides, and so on....

Take the case of a prion - it is a strand of protein that not only is "alive" - but can cause a debilitating incurable disease such as Creutzfield Jacob. So it is alive, but has no cell wall, no protoplasm, no nothing - just one strand of protein!

This way if we go on analyzing subcomponents of what appears to be a "whole" live entity such as cell, we finally reach a stage where we are dealing with nano-particles and chemical bonds, and so on in infinite regress.

We basically arrive at that frontier of science which by default cannot be broken - the barrier of infinity.

And it is precisely at this barrier that Vedanta starts and ends.

Vedanta is not opposed to science - but is not related to science. The two work in different non-overlapping domains - the secular and the spiritual. Yet, you will find a disproportionate number of vedantic students are "men of science" - so-called intellectuals, physicists, mathematicians, logicians, physicians, astronomers, microbiologists, engineers, etc. Why? Because Vedanta is extremely scientific in its approach. As one progresses in any scientific discipline one feels drawn to the factual underlying unity that Vedanta asserts.

And that brings me to the main point. Vedanta deals with a fact, not a theory. It is a fact about one's own self-identity. It cannot be proven by any scientific enquiry. It cannot be disproven by any scientific enquiry.

A study of vedanta is not menat for armchair leisure reading - it is a serious pursuit meant to understand my self. What is an essential and indispensible requirement is shraddha in the Shruti - so when the Shruti talks about samsara, rebirth, punya-papa, - we accept it as a fact, not as a theory. If it is a mere theory, then yes, every other headline in the Daily Mirror talking about life being created or a magic potion for immortaility etc etc will seemingly have us vaccilating in our own convictions - "if Bhagwan Krishna is wrong about vaasamsi jeernani yatha vihaya, then why should i believe anything he says about kshetra-kshejna?"

Which again brings us back to the whole issue of blind faith and shraddha and the subtle but crucial difference between the two - which is a whole topic by itself.

If man and science get to the point where they align matter to enable it to be an appropriate upadhi to manifest consiousness, which is all-pervasive, they would have precisely succeeded in doing what a mother hen already does, which is create a mass of protein called an egg, incubate it, and wait for life to get "created" - only thing is you wont be hearing the hen crowing about its wondrous accomplishment of "creating life."

My humble pranams,

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah,

Shyam

Ravisankar Mayavaram:

I think it is the other way around. A jivA can identify itself withany material body, even if that does not show any sign of "life" suchas growth, activity, decay, etc. And then suffer the consequences of such an identification.

Think of this, ahalya was cursed to become stone and remain as suchtill Sri rAma liberated her. Would you say that stone had life? Thendoes all stones have life? But the jIva called ahalya suffered thatstate of grossness of stone and she was bound to it. So are otherinstances, where other beings were bound trees etc.

When a man and woman mate to produce a baby, are they producing a jIva? No at the point of conception, a jIva based on its karma and the will of God identifies itself with that embryo, suffers the consequences thereafter.

I may be totally wrong, but I believe that a soul/jiva can be made to identify itself with any material body and suffer based on its karma.

So if God ordains that jIvA has to cling on whatever these scientists create and suffer, then it will have a soul - otherwise it will not.

Sri rAma did walk a lot on stones, there was but one ahalya.

SrImAtre namaH

Ravi