Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Gauracandra

When does the soul enter the body?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

dubeyrakesh: More simply, what is the difference between a dead body and a live one that makes the dead non-functional?

 

Satyaraj: According to medical point of view a dead cell is the one that had its enzymatic mechanism damaged forever. As this mechanism is the essence of the life, there is no life without this biochemical activity. As the nervous system is considered by the modern medicine as the site of the intelligence, memory, conscience and bodily control, a body is considered dead when the cells of the brain have no more biochemical activities.

 

The medical science does not have any intention to attribute the presence of life to the presence of a soul. This is considered religion's, or philosophy's affairs, and not medicine's. This is the concept of medicine in West. In other words, medicine is a lay science.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jndas:

A secondary question would be what causes certain cells to cease reproducing, and thereby "refreshing" the body.

This is an interesting question.Perhaps Satyaraja can speak to it.I know one of the latest findings on aging is that everytime the cells divide the ends of the DNA[forgot the name]suffer some damage.This results in a slow but steady deterioration systemicaly throughout the body.

 

I wonder if they just weaken to the point where they start to die off.Hmmmm....anyone?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the idea of soul very strange. But, strangeness of an idea is not the proof of its falsehood. After all, scientists believe in many things which I find as far stranger than the idea of soul. Let me write down just a few of them: -

 

1. The mass of a particle can be negative

2. The mass of a particle can be imaginary

3. The number of space dimensions can be more than three

 

There are many more.

 

Any scientific theory is a model. One model can resemble reality closer than another model, but it is not the same as reality itself. In mathematics, we come across terms like “under-determined problem”, “over-determined problem, and exactly-determined problem”. In under-determined problem, the amount of information is not sufficient to find out the values of all the unknowns in which we are interested. In over-determined problem, the amount of information is more than required; whatever solution we think of will satisfy a part of the information but contradict the remaining part and, therefore, we try to find out the best possible solution. In exactly determined problem, the information is just sufficient to allow us to get a unique solution.

 

If we try to know anything about the physical world, then, strictly speaking, the problem is under-determined, because the no. of factors that can affect the solution is enormous. But the problem is turned into an exactly determined and, sometimes, even over-determined by making lots of simplifying assumptions. Sometimes scientists make some assumptions knowing fully well that the assumptions are wrong, because they know that the error they will get because of those assumptions will be negligible for that purpose. As an example, in kinetic theory of gases, molecules are treated as elastic spheres, but this assumption is not made in Quantum Mechanics. Sometimes, it is not known that the assumptions are wrong. In future, a newer theory is developed which shows the limitations of the earlier theory and, then only, it is realized that some wrong assumptions had been made in the earlier theory. Any theory is developed on some premises (or axioms) which are not proven by the theory but are assumed by it. These premises may be proved by some other theories, but then, those theories are themselves based on some premises. Einstein’s special theory of relativity is based on two postulates, viz., the homogeneity of space and time, and the speed of light in vacuum being independent of the frame of reference. These two postulates are not proved by the theory; rather these are foundation pillars of the theory. The details of a theory can never be truer than the premises on which it is developed.

 

So, we must keep in mind that any theory is a model to reality and not the reality itself. So, it is not correct for scientists to laugh over an idea just because it does not conform with the model in which they believe. But, at the same time, it is not correct for those who are fully convinced of the infallibility of some scriptures to expect scientists to agree with them. Just because they are convinced that their way of thinking is correct does not mean that everybody should agree with them. If people of a particular faith expect scientists to accept the truth of their faith, then don’t people of other faiths have right to expect scientists to believe in their faiths? Once, in this forum, jndas ji posted the contents of an email sent by Rev. Ron (I forgot his complete name) to him. In the email, Rev. Ron had written that Jesus was the only true God and that Krishna was not God; therefore, those who believed that Krishna was God were doomed. Many participants on this forum (including myself) protested against the contents of the email. A few protested against jndas ji making the content public. Jndas ji wrote that he was against Rev. Ron way of thinking that everybody should blindly accept what he was saying. I agreed. But wasn’t Rev. Ron convinced that his way of thinking was correct? Of course, he was. Even then, if it was wrong on his part to expect everyone to agree with him, then why is it correct on the part of some participants on this forum to expect scientists to agree with them?

 

Very often scientists are called as materialists. I agree that they want material happiness. But, it is wrong to think that laymen do not enjoy material happiness. They do not try to find out different means of material happiness as much as scientists try, but they do enjoy material happiness. Even those who call scientists as materialists enjoy material happiness (All the participants on this forum are enjoying the benefits of Internet which is a marvel of technology). Some people claim that material happiness is not important because this world is not our true home. But we do have material needs so long we are living in this world. And, I do not believe that scientists are always after material pleasure. More than the desire for material pleasure, it is the curiosity that drives them. Curiosity is important for gaining any kind of knowledge including knowledge related to spirituality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maitreya ji: I can find something to respect in them as they are searching for knowledge.But their approach is ackward and limited.Better to hear from the self realized.

 

What do you think should be the correct approach. Just now one question came to my mind. I can think of two meanings of the term "self realized": -

1. Who has realized his "self".

2. Who has realized the truth oneself.

 

Which of these two is true or, is there some third meaning?

 

Maitreya ji: To remain forever undecided is to remain forever in ignorance.

 

I disagree. Let us assume that I make a statement. Then I say that I am fully convinced that the statement is correct and nothing can make me disbelieve in it. Will I be praiseworthy?

 

Maitreya ji: Do you deny that knowledge can actually be realized?

 

I accept that knowledge can be realized. But I do not believe that a day will come when there will be nothing more to know. At least, I can not foresee that day. Imagine that there is a statue whose one half is made of gold and the other half is made of silver. I am facing the half which is made of gold. It is quite possible for me to think that the whole statue is made of gold. If I say that the whole statue is made of gold, then it will not be true. But, if fortunately, the possibility that the other half may not be made of gold enters into my mind, then I will say, "The part of statue that I am facing is made of gold." This statement will be true, but it is not complete knowledge, because I still do not know what the other half is made of.

 

But why do you give more weight to the mundane scientist?They have no proof to offer.Why not be at least as sceptical towards them?

 

Scientists do give more proof of their statements than spiritualists. But I will not consider this as a proof of falsehood of the statements made by spiritualists, because the knowledge related to spirituality can not, to a large extent be realized in the material world. If a statement is not falsifiable, then, according to Karl Popper, it is not scientific. But, it does not mean that it is wrong. As I wrote above, scientists do give proofs. But, I accept that these proofs are not conclusive. So, it is possible that some day, a theory will be proposed which will be better than current theory. So, one should definitely be sceptical towards scientific theories. But, according to the same logic, one should be sceptical towards spiritualists too. So, it is a matter of personal choice whom one believes. If a statement can neither be proved nor be disproved, then it is possible for it to be true. But then, it is possible for it to be false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

dubeyrakesh:That does not address my query. Let me rephrase the words: what causes the cells of the brain have no more biochemical activities?

 

Satyaraj: According to medical viewpoint this interruption of biochemical activities may be caused by heat, poison, infection, trauma, anoxia, etc; that's to say any physical, chemical, biological or mixed cause. This biochemical arrangement has a very delicate equilibrium and when it is damaged, the brain cells die.

 

Medical science is not worried with the cause of the cause, or the supreme cause of all causes. This is religion's or philosophy's scope.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Jndas: A secondary question would be what causes certain cells to cease reproducing, and thereby "refreshing" the body.

 

Satyaraj: According to medical science when the DNA chain is damage or too much reformed it looses its regeneration's capacity. This is called old age. Some cells may remain 'young' but the whole organism will be gradually affected by that DNA degeneration.

 

Medical science is now trying to make babies 'in vitro.' That is not really a new fashion. The old and dark Sri Krsna Dvapayana Vyasa has done that before. Duryodana and his 99 brothers were generated by this method by Vedavyasa. He has fragmented an embryo mass into one hundred pieces and put these pieces into a pot of clay with ghee (or a nutritional solution) and after some time the embryonic cells had developed the demoniac babies.

 

One may argue: "Men are creating life by this method?" Not really, they are simply making a visarga, or a secondary creation meant to follow Hari's desires. Not even Brahmaji himself can create life 'sensu strictu.'

 

Hari Himself is life, as nothing is different than Hari. As Hari is pervading everything, even the atoms, everything is alife, even 'dead' bodies. Tell me something that is dead, that's to say, something that Hari is not there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. Hari means life. Wherever Hari is, life is.

Like this famous film "Tom Dick and Harry."

So because Hari is there, then Tom and Dick have life.

Sans Hari/Harry, Tom remains Tamas, tamogun lifeless.

And as for Dick, well, we all know his role in rajogun.

But sans Hari/Harry fertilization is impossible.

Even invitro.

Ergo, Veda provides us that agnihotra-yajna diksa zloka:

apavitrah pavitro vA yah smaret pundarikAxam zucih zri viSNu zri viSNu zri viSNu

"Whether invitro or vitro, liquified or purified, or having gone through all sorts of testtube births, one should always recall pundarikAxam the Loyus Eyed-One Hari/Harry."

HarryHarryBowl

ps - Soul enters body during rainy season.

Ergo Ascetic Andy Williams chants famous Vedik mantra every Christmas season:

"Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Satyaraja Dasa,

 

Do you mean to say that the "delicate equlibrium" is not exactly defined in medical science? I think it should be. Like :

If any of the components x, y or z falls below a quantity of a, b or c respectively, the equilibrium is disturbed and biochemical activities stop resulting in death.

 

May be all this this forms a complete branch of medical science itself that is out of your domain.

 

Thanks,

Rakesh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

dubeyrakesh: Do you mean to say that the "delicate equlibrium" is not exactly defined in medical science?

 

Satyaraj: There are many complex bio-physic-chemical formulas to explain the colloidal (mixture of water and proteins) arrangement of the cells. This 'delicate equilibrium' can be measured by these math's formulas in some extension. It is defined or termed in medical science as cell's homeostasis, and it is a complex field of study.

 

Even if medical science may reach to the perfect understanding of all the stages of these biochemical reactions and their complex arrangements in this colloidal mixture, and even if it could be able to reproduce all the phenomena 'in vitro', is this real life?

 

Life is an absolute principle that cannot be changed, it is always present and therefore is eternal. This principle is part and parcel of the Absolute Truth, that is the perfect arrangement of all the absolute principles like that of life.

 

If one makes this biological phenomena 'in vitro' he is not creating the primordial principle of life, as this principle may also be present in other kind of colloidal mixtures, non-colloidal mixtures, and all sort of substances. This primordial principle is very subtle and cannot be understood by medical science as the former is out of the scope of the later.

 

If one feels himself alive he should think: tat tvam asi - "You are yourself part of this universal principle of life."

 

This principle can be placed in any kind of bodies or arrangements made by prakrti. Men, demons, devatas, nagas, and so on may make all sort of manipulation over prakrti to establish new places suitable to incorporate

the primordial principle of life. But only Hari Himself is the supreme cause of this primordial principle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

Is the supreme cause of this primordial principle of life, the life's life, a bluish baby who plays at Yasoda's lap? Is He the young hermit who was seen in the forest by Atri Muni in that way?

 

Do you think that medical science can resolve these questions of a doctor?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SD,

 

The answer to that question will be no. A bluish child of Yashoda cannot be the cause of life which was in existence before the child was born. 3 whole yugas had passed by then.

 

In fact, bluish itself is impossible as you yourself will agree with, as a doctor. Krishna means dark, which means dark brown wrt to the color of a person, in this context.

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shvuji: In fact, bluish itself is impossible as you yourself will agree with, as a doctor.

Satyaraj: As a doctor I can tell you that there is a condition named cyanosis that may be present specially in small children. These children are bluish. That is not against medical science at all. If you say that Krsna means dark, I also had seen many back children in my life. But Yasoda has seen the whole brahmanda in the mouth of her bluish children. I've seen many baby's moth including some cyanotic and black ones, but never I could see the brahmanda therein.

 

As I am very influenced by books, I think that the origin of life is the one that Atri Muni saw in the past, whose color was like the one of a peacock's neck and who was dressed like a hermit.

 

Actually I am very disturbed with the origin of life, as no medical book deals with this issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shvu,

 

You said:

To cry out sincerely to the Lord, one has to be sure that there is a Lord. According to you belief is necessary to know the truth, but for belief itself, one has to know the truth. It is a chicken_and_egg situation.

 

My response:

Any action you take requires that you have some 'belief' in what you are doing. You go to school and listen to the instructor because you have some 'belief' that he/she has some knowledge that will be of some benefit to you. Even the simple act of walking requires that you have some 'belief' that the ground will not give or that your leg will be able to support you. We are brought into this world with no knowledge and no remembrance of any experience. We learn by experience and by listening to those who have experience. You have a very naive attitude toward religion and religious pursuit (in my opinion). You state that all religious institutions exist for exploitation of foolish people by cheaters. This is not a very well thought out thesis.

Surely you are aware of the many spiritual leaders that teach by their own example and live a life of complete surrender and dedication themselves.

 

Getting back to the issue of consciousness - this is really the important point. You are conscious and will admit that your conscious experience is limited to your experiences in life and the situations you have passed through. No doubt you have 'experienced' sorrow, pain, anguish, joy, lust, love, hate, envy and a myriad of other conscious states of being. You will also admit that your experiences are limited and that you have unlimited possibilities to learn and expand your awareness and experiencial potential. You will also admit that others have different experiences and thus have access to different states of consciousness than you have. You state out of hand that you don't believe that anyone has experienced transcendence and has any realized knowledge of divinity. Of course, neither you or I can prove anyone elses experience and state of consciousness is transcendent or not. Previously Jnana dasa pointed out to you the texts in the Bhagavad-gita that describe the attributes that you will be able to objectifiably see in a realized soul. This is our only real measuring stick. Besides that, those who are open to experiences outside of their historical ones and who are humble will 'feel' the spirituality of those who are experiencing a higher state of consciousness. This is the meaning of divya jnana - knowledge that is given by the guru. He can impart knowledge onto you. This doesn't refer to book knowledge. It refers to experience of transcendence.

 

Ultimately religion is about love and devotion. As a human being you can relate to this in that you experience these in relation to other humans. What love you can experience through devotion and dedication for instance to your parents or your wife is but a small sample of the infinite feelings and experience gained by love and dedication to God.

 

I know this is off the topic of this thread, but it is relevant in that it touches on the life of the soul and the peak of human potential which is a life of love.

 

Your servant,

Audarya lila dasa

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ALD:I know this is off the topic of this thread, but it is relevant in that it touches on the life of the soul and the peak of human potential which is a life of love

 

This thread started with "when does the soul ..." and now we all find ourselves looking for evidences to prove its existence. So its already out of way I suppose. No posts from Mr Gaurachndra suggets that Posted Image

 

Tarun's post would suit the "Good Clean Jokes" department too.

 

Thanks,

Rakesh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

Actually I am very disturbed with the origin of life, as no medical book deals with this issue.

The Doctor's Disturbance is not Booked In.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by talasiga (edited 07-23-2001).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Actually I'm very disturbed with the Origin of Life, as no medical book deals with this issue."

SatyarAj: Exactly. So don't be disturbed.

How can a medical book deal with this issue (except Ayurveda)?

Sans a living father and mother, no issue can be dealt.

And what to speak of disturbed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The soul enters the human body when the baby takes the first breath. However, it hovers around the female body after conception. "Prana" and breathing go with each other. Even astrology starts at the exact time of your birth. It is not based on conception. The soul's present karma is based on its past karma, which is determined at the time of its birth, and the circumstances of its birth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First breath? That is the arguement that people who say they believe in a soul use to justify abortion, usually liberal Christians

 

How do explain the formation of the body in the womb up to that point?

 

When the soul enters the symptoms of metabolism are seen. When the soul leaves(death) metabolism stops?

 

The standard retort is the body just starts to grow under the influence of the mothers body.

 

Take your choice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even astrology starts at the exact time of your birth. It is not based on conception.

 

 

There are three schools of Vedic astrology. One school calculates the time of conception, one the time the head comes out, and the other the time the feet come out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The soul remains in the body, till it can enjoy the material world through the senses. As soon as the body, due to destruction of the sensory organs or due to diseases, becomes useless for enjoyment, the soul leaves the body immediately. Apparently, the bullet does not seem to be doing a lot of damage outwardly, however, it destroys every system it enters inside, making the body functioning impossible. While the material body is bleeding profusely inside, how can the soul enjoy in such a body? Therefore, there is an instant death of the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...