Transplants and Transfusions

[Guest guest]

Transplants and Transfusions

 

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

 

"Even transcendental knowledge (jnana) cannot cure disease because it

does not have the power to stop karma that is already manifesting

(prarabdha-karma). Scripture says that only bhakti has this power."

 

Q. Some religions believe that blood transfusions and organ transplants

are contrary to the laws of God. What are the teachings of Gaudiya

Vaisnavism in regard to these and other modern breakthroughs in

biotechnology and medical science?

 

A. Today's scientific and medical breakthroughs, such as organ

transplants, stem cell research, bioengineering, and genetic

modification, are of great interest because they force Gaudiya

Vaisnavism to cover new ground, as the science and technology that make

them possible today was not readily available centuries ago when the

Gaudiya scriptures were written. Thus they bring up ethical and

spiritual questions that Gaudiya Vaisnavism has no pat answers for, as

there are no scriptural verses that devotees can refer to that would

definitively answer all the questions that many of these medical

breakthroughs pose.

 

Perhaps the appropriate emphasis here is that humanity must think

deeply before tampering significantly with nature. Reverence for 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 for those lacking a spiritual worldview), the long-term

outcome can often be disastrous. Therefore it is important to determine

values. What kind of humanity is most desirable? Will our technological

or scientific leaps make people more kind and compassionate?

 

For example, if through genetics the way that we approach medicine is

significantly altered in the future, will it make for a kinder world?

That is to say that if we know from birth by the study of a child's

genes that he or she will be likely to develop a life threatening

disease, then how will this alter the way in which society relates to

that 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 would be disastrous if

through 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 because it thereby has the power to

dominate over others and survive, our human sensibilities seem to say

that the most advanced species would be the kindest species, and that

might does not always make right. I have often said that the only

apocalyptic scenario that made much sense to me--that had the most

potential to come true--was an environmental one. The line between

appropriately conducting 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 lose significantly.

 

Q. Did Srila Prabhupada take any position on blood transfusions and

organ transplants?

 

A. The Bhagavad-gita says that the soul is seated on a machine made of

matter, yantra rudrani mayaya. Srila Prabhupada often refers to it as

such. When necessary certain parts of that machine may be replaced.

Indeed, in several conversations about heart transplants Srila

Prabhupada said that changing a part of the body has no effect on the

soul. In one such conversation Dr. Singh asked, "We know that the

spirit soul is within the heart. What happens (in the case of a heart

transplant) to the spirit soul in each heart?"

 

Srila Prabhupada replied, "The Vedas describe the heart as a sitting

place for the soul. So when they transplant hearts, they simply change

the soul's seat. The same soul remains.Changing hearts is just a change

of material bodily organs. The heart is not the real source of life

therefore changing the heart does not prolong the duration of life. The

soul is destined to live in a particular body for a certain number of

years. You may change whatever part of the body you like, but you

cannot change the duration of the life of that body."

 

When specifically asked about blood transfusions Srila Prabhupada

replied, "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."

 

Q. Srila Prabhupada said that an organ transplant would not change the

duration of one's life. Can you explain this?

 

A. Ayurveda or Vedic "life science" (ayuh = life + veda = science) and

traditional yoga practice have much to do with pranayama or the

regulation of the breath. When Srila Prabhupada says that one cannot

change the duration of life in a particular body, he is referring to

the yogic worldview, which teaches that one's lifespan is determined by

the number of breaths a person is allotted by their karma. Apparently

it may be possible to increase one's duration of life by regulating

breathing and changing lifestyle, but the ability to do so is still

within the realm of karma. The yoga tradition teaches that with one's

final exhalation the soul leaves the body through the mouth, taking its

next birth in the situation that corresponds to one's karmic destiny.

 

Thus Srila Prabhupada is merely emphasizing to his students that

longevity is determined more by one's karmic destiny than by medical

science and that in spite of all its prospects, medical science will

never be able to increase one's life unlimitedly. His statement was

made more than thirty years ago when the very first heart transplants

were being performed and some hypothesized that organ transplants

offered the potential for eternal life. Today organ transplants are not

primarily aimed at increasing an elderly person's life for a few years.

More often they are for those who are still young but will have little

or no life without them. Can an organ transplant increase the duration

of one's life? Obviously a transplant may allow one to exist longer in

a particular body, if of course it is that person's karma to receive

and survive the operation.

 

Q. A life-threatening illness can be a huge impetus for a healing

journey of purification and self-correction on many levels, what to

speak of offering an opportunity to reach out to God. Why should a

person be cheated out of such an opportunity through unnatural and

artificial means such as drug therapies and organ transplants performed

by members of a corrupt medical establishment that kills millions of

babies every year through abortion?

 

A. Organ transplants do not deny one the opportunity to go on a healing

journey. Transplant patients have merely selected a particular healing

methodology that differs from one that you would have chosen. Surely

many of them pray before and after the transplant, and undergoing such

a medical procedure requires one to be just as introspective about

spiritual life as does any other life-threatening situation.

Furthermore, sometimes babies are born with defective organs, and

transplants are their only chance to survive to the point where their

mental faculties are developed enough to allow them to "reach out to

God."

 

Otherwise, we acknowledge that the world is full of corruption, but

whatever corruption exists in the medical establishment does not make

organ transplantation equal to abortion. Modern medicine is also full

of good intentions and organ transplantation is lauded by almost

everyone as a great achievement. 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. Scientists are also growing

organs from would-be recipients' own cells. In the future transplanting

organs grown from one's own cells may be a common practice.

 

In any case, one has the choice to receive or reject the procedure-to

donate organs or not to donate them, so why should anyone try to

dissuade educated people from endorsing this practice? Although I

remain open to well-considered and truly compelling reasoning against

organ transplantation, that is not to be found in your statement. The

only argument you offer against the practice is that it is unnatural

and thus against God's law. The same argument could be used against

every technological development since the industrial revolution. To

label scientific breakthroughs that one dislikes as unnatural while

embracing other developments seems questionable. Who doesn't drive or

ride in a motorized vehicle? Our param guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Saraswati Thakura did so at a time when religious protocol for a

sannyasi dictated otherwise. His message was to use everything that the

new technological world has to offer in Krsna's service.

 

Q. Doesn't Gaudiya Vaisnavism favor naturopathic and other types of

alternative medicine that deal with the root cause of disease, rather

than so-called modern medicine, which more or less treats only

symptoms?

 

A. As for treating the root cause of disease, bhakti is the only viable

method. Why? Because according to scripture disease is caused by karma,

which in the ultimate issue is rooted in ignorance of the soul

(avidya). Even transcendental knowledge (jnana) cannot cure disease

because it does not have the power to stop karma that is already

manifesting (prarabdha-karma). Scripture says that 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, homeopathic medicine, acupuncture,

chiropractic, or whatever-that they only treat the symptoms without

getting to the root because they do not engage people in suddha-bhakti.

By this line of reasoning hearing and chanting Krsna nama is the only

real cure for disease. There is no doubt some truth in this, but we do

not insist that no other approach to treating disease is worth

entertaining.

 

Q. Should devotees donate their organs to others at death? Should they

accept donated organs?

 

A. Interestingly, there are a number of stories in the Puranas about

organ transplantation. In one Siva is said to have transplanted an

elephant's head onto his son Ganesa. Srila Prabhupada was not against

blood transfusion and organ transplantation. It has also been brought

to my attention that a respected present-day Gaudiya acarya has just

received a blood transfusion. So overall we can conclude that there is

no prohibition in Gaudiya Vaisnavism against these two medical

procedures, although I feel that there may be a subtle distinction

between blood transfusions and organ transplantation, in that blood is

constantly regenerated.

 

All considered, your question brings up an issue that is as complicated

as it is interesting. Not complicated from the secular or scientific

point of view, but complicated from the devotional point of view.

Devotees believe that an organ is a manifestation of a person's

prarabdha karma and that a devotee's body (sadhaka-deha) is special

because it is a material body that is gradually becoming spiritualized

and free from karma through the influence of Krsna's internal energy

(svarupa-sakti). Death is said to be the expiration of one's

prarabdha-karma, but in the case of a transplant, the organ and the

karma appears to live on and become part of someone else's karma.

 

So it is one thing to say, "I am not this body," and another to say,

"This body belongs to Guru and Krsna." The first is Vedanta--the second

is bhakti. We bhakti-Vedantins are not free to do with our bodies as we

like, or as the secular world dictates, because the tradition's

emphasis on respect for a sadhaka-deha is considerable. This respect is

not just for those who have perfected their sadhaka-deha, but for all

devotees and ultimately for bhakti. We see the body as a sacred temple

of God, a vision brought to life by the serious practitioner and backed

by a wealth of philosophy. Thus the idea of dissecting and dismembering

a body that has been completely dedicated to Krsna's service in order

to donate its organs may be somewhat unsettling to most devotees, and

rightly so. Yet should a Vaisnava out of compassion for people in

general choose to donate his or her organs, it would be hard to argue

against such an act of mercy. Out of compassion, 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?

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum

http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org.

 

Moderator: sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org

 

Friday, July, 14, 2006, Vol. VIII, No. 7

Readership: 11,797

 

Back issue archive: http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/SangaArchive.html

 

Sanga website: http://www.swami.org/sanga

 

Audarya Bookstore: http://www.swami.org/store/

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[shuvo 0]

 

Transplants and Transfusions

 

Q & A with Swami B. V. Tripurari

 

"Even transcendental knowledge (jnana) cannot cure disease because it

does not have the power to stop karma that is already manifesting

(prarabdha-karma). Scripture says that only bhakti has this power."

 

Q. Some religions believe that blood transfusions and organ transplants

are contrary to the laws of God. What are the teachings of Gaudiya

Vaisnavism in regard to these and other modern breakthroughs in

biotechnology and medical science?

 

A. Today's scientific and medical breakthroughs, such as organ

transplants, stem cell research, bioengineering, and genetic

modification, are of great interest because they force Gaudiya

Vaisnavism to cover new ground, as the science and technology that make

them possible today was not readily available centuries ago when the

Gaudiya scriptures were written. Thus they bring up ethical and

spiritual questions that Gaudiya Vaisnavism has no pat answers for, as

there are no scriptural verses that devotees can refer to that would

definitively answer all the questions that many of these medical

breakthroughs pose.

 

Perhaps the appropriate emphasis here is that humanity must think

deeply before tampering significantly with nature. Reverence for 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 for those lacking a spiritual worldview), the long-term

outcome can often be disastrous. Therefore it is important to determine

values. What kind of humanity is most desirable? Will our technological

or scientific leaps make people more kind and compassionate?

 

For example, if through genetics the way that we approach medicine is

significantly altered in the future, will it make for a kinder world?

That is to say that if we know from birth by the study of a child's

genes that he or she will be likely to develop a life threatening

disease, then how will this alter the way in which society relates to

that 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 would be disastrous if

through 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 because it thereby has the power to

dominate over others and survive, our human sensibilities seem to say

that the most advanced species would be the kindest species, and that

might does not always make right. I have often said that the only

apocalyptic scenario that made much sense to me--that had the most

potential to come true--was an environmental one. The line between

appropriately conducting 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 lose significantly.

 

Q. Did Srila Prabhupada take any position on blood transfusions and

organ transplants?

 

A. The Bhagavad-gita says that the soul is seated on a machine made of

matter, yantra rudrani mayaya. Srila Prabhupada often refers to it as

such. When necessary certain parts of that machine may be replaced.

Indeed, in several conversations about heart transplants Srila

Prabhupada said that changing a part of the body has no effect on the

soul. In one such conversation Dr. Singh asked, "We know that the

spirit soul is within the heart. What happens (in the case of a heart

transplant) to the spirit soul in each heart?"

 

Srila Prabhupada replied, "The Vedas describe the heart as a sitting

place for the soul. So when they transplant hearts, they simply change

the soul's seat. The same soul remains.Changing hearts is just a change

of material bodily organs. The heart is not the real source of life

therefore changing the heart does not prolong the duration of life. The

soul is destined to live in a particular body for a certain number of

years. You may change whatever part of the body you like, but you

cannot change the duration of the life of that body."

 

When specifically asked about blood transfusions Srila Prabhupada

replied, "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."

 

Q. Srila Prabhupada said that an organ transplant would not change the

duration of one's life. Can you explain this?

 

A. Ayurveda or Vedic "life science" (ayuh = life + veda = science) and

traditional yoga practice have much to do with pranayama or the

regulation of the breath. When Srila Prabhupada says that one cannot

change the duration of life in a particular body, he is referring to

the yogic worldview, which teaches that one's lifespan is determined by

the number of breaths a person is allotted by their karma. Apparently

it may be possible to increase one's duration of life by regulating

breathing and changing lifestyle, but the ability to do so is still

within the realm of karma. The yoga tradition teaches that with one's

final exhalation the soul leaves the body through the mouth, taking its

next birth in the situation that corresponds to one's karmic destiny.

 

Thus Srila Prabhupada is merely emphasizing to his students that

longevity is determined more by one's karmic destiny than by medical

science and that in spite of all its prospects, medical science will

never be able to increase one's life unlimitedly. His statement was

made more than thirty years ago when the very first heart transplants

were being performed and some hypothesized that organ transplants

offered the potential for eternal life. Today organ transplants are not

primarily aimed at increasing an elderly person's life for a few years.

More often they are for those who are still young but will have little

or no life without them. Can an organ transplant increase the duration

of one's life? Obviously a transplant may allow one to exist longer in

a particular body, if of course it is that person's karma to receive

and survive the operation.

 

Q. A life-threatening illness can be a huge impetus for a healing

journey of purification and self-correction on many levels, what to

speak of offering an opportunity to reach out to God. Why should a

person be cheated out of such an opportunity through unnatural and

artificial means such as drug therapies and organ transplants performed

by members of a corrupt medical establishment that kills millions of

babies every year through abortion?

 

A. Organ transplants do not deny one the opportunity to go on a healing

journey. Transplant patients have merely selected a particular healing

methodology that differs from one that you would have chosen. Surely

many of them pray before and after the transplant, and undergoing such

a medical procedure requires one to be just as introspective about

spiritual life as does any other life-threatening situation.

Furthermore, sometimes babies are born with defective organs, and

transplants are their only chance to survive to the point where their

mental faculties are developed enough to allow them to "reach out to

God."

 

Otherwise, we acknowledge that the world is full of corruption, but

whatever corruption exists in the medical establishment does not make

organ transplantation equal to abortion. Modern medicine is also full

of good intentions and organ transplantation is lauded by almost

everyone as a great achievement. 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. Scientists are also growing

organs from would-be recipients' own cells. In the future transplanting

organs grown from one's own cells may be a common practice.

 

In any case, one has the choice to receive or reject the procedure-to

donate organs or not to donate them, so why should anyone try to

dissuade educated people from endorsing this practice? Although I

remain open to well-considered and truly compelling reasoning against

organ transplantation, that is not to be found in your statement. The

only argument you offer against the practice is that it is unnatural

and thus against God's law. The same argument could be used against

every technological development since the industrial revolution. To

label scientific breakthroughs that one dislikes as unnatural while

embracing other developments seems questionable. Who doesn't drive or

ride in a motorized vehicle? Our param guru Srila Bhaktisiddhanta

Saraswati Thakura did so at a time when religious protocol for a

sannyasi dictated otherwise. His message was to use everything that the

new technological world has to offer in Krsna's service.

 

Q. Doesn't Gaudiya Vaisnavism favor naturopathic and other types of

alternative medicine that deal with the root cause of disease, rather

than so-called modern medicine, which more or less treats only

symptoms?

 

A. As for treating the root cause of disease, bhakti is the only viable

method. Why? Because according to scripture disease is caused by karma,

which in the ultimate issue is rooted in ignorance of the soul

(avidya). Even transcendental knowledge (jnana) cannot cure disease

because it does not have the power to stop karma that is already

manifesting (prarabdha-karma). Scripture says that 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, homeopathic medicine, acupuncture,

chiropractic, or whatever-that they only treat the symptoms without

getting to the root because they do not engage people in suddha-bhakti.

By this line of reasoning hearing and chanting Krsna nama is the only

real cure for disease. There is no doubt some truth in this, but we do

not insist that no other approach to treating disease is worth

entertaining.

 

Q. Should devotees donate their organs to others at death? Should they

accept donated organs?

 

A. Interestingly, there are a number of stories in the Puranas about

organ transplantation. In one Siva is said to have transplanted an

elephant's head onto his son Ganesa. Srila Prabhupada was not against

blood transfusion and organ transplantation. It has also been brought

to my attention that a respected present-day Gaudiya acarya has just

received a blood transfusion. So overall we can conclude that there is

no prohibition in Gaudiya Vaisnavism against these two medical

procedures, although I feel that there may be a subtle distinction

between blood transfusions and organ transplantation, in that blood is

constantly regenerated.

 

All considered, your question brings up an issue that is as complicated

as it is interesting. Not complicated from the secular or scientific

point of view, but complicated from the devotional point of view.

Devotees believe that an organ is a manifestation of a person's

prarabdha karma and that a devotee's body (sadhaka-deha) is special

because it is a material body that is gradually becoming spiritualized

and free from karma through the influence of Krsna's internal energy

(svarupa-sakti). Death is said to be the expiration of one's

prarabdha-karma, but in the case of a transplant, the organ and the

karma appears to live on and become part of someone else's karma.

 

So it is one thing to say, "I am not this body," and another to say,

"This body belongs to Guru and Krsna." The first is Vedanta--the second

is bhakti. We bhakti-Vedantins are not free to do with our bodies as we

like, or as the secular world dictates, because the tradition's

emphasis on respect for a sadhaka-deha is considerable. This respect is

not just for those who have perfected their sadhaka-deha, but for all

devotees and ultimately for bhakti. We see the body as a sacred temple

of God, a vision brought to life by the serious practitioner and backed

by a wealth of philosophy. Thus the idea of dissecting and dismembering

a body that has been completely dedicated to Krsna's service in order

to donate its organs may be somewhat unsettling to most devotees, and

rightly so. Yet should a Vaisnava out of compassion for people in

general choose to donate his or her organs, it would be hard to argue

against such an act of mercy. Out of compassion, 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?

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Questions or comments may be submitted at the Q&A Forum

http://www.swami.org/sanga/ or email sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org.

 

Moderator: sangaeditor (AT) swami (DOT) org

 

Friday, July, 14, 2006, Vol. VIII, No. 7

Readership: 11,797

 

Back issue archive: http://www.swami.org/sanga/archives/pages/SangaArchive.html

 

Sanga website: http://www.swami.org/sanga

 

Audarya Bookstore: http://www.swami.org/store/

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

This is a newsletter which http://www.swami.org/sanga sends when we subsribe there. I am subcribed over there, and I too got this message. It is a good one:)