Living and non-living as per scriptures

[Avinash 0]

Modern science has some criteria for deciding if something is living or non-living. But it is not a must that the criteria used in Hindu scriptures be the same. As per scriptures, a living being has soul. But it is not a must that everything that has soul must pass the criteria of modern science to be termed as 'living'. So, it is a possibility that there might be some things which are living according to modern science but non-living according to scriptures, and vice-versa.

 

According to scriptures, are tress living? Or, in other words, do they have soul?

[abhi_the_great 0]

So we are transmigrating from one body to another. There is evolution.

 

jalaja nava-laksani

sthavara laksa-vimsati

krmayo rudra-sankhyakah

paksinam dasa-laksanam

 

Because in the beginning the whole planet was covered in water. The water is drying up and gradually land is coming out. So therefore in the beginning the

aquatics, jalaja nava-laksani. So the aquatic animals, they are 900,000 species. Jalaja nava..., sthavara laksa-vimsati. Then trees and plants and herbs and

grasses and so many, they are 2,000,000 forms. Then krmayo rudra-sankhyakah. Then insect life, reptile life, 1,100,000. Then paksinam dasa-laksanam, then birds,

varieties of birds, 1,000,000. Then pasu, four-legged animals, 3,000,000 types. Then manusah catur-laksani. Then human form of life, uncivilized and civilized,

that human form of life 400,000. So in comparison to the lower species of life, we are very small quantity. Together there are 8,400,000 species of life, living

entities. The evolution process is from one body to another, another, another. In this way, when you come to the human form of life, it should be utilized for

full knowledge about our eternal life. That is the opportunity. And if we don't take this opportunity, if we live like other animals--eating, sleeping, sex, and

fearfulness, ahara-nidra-bhayam--but we do not care to understand what we are, what is God, what is our relationship with God, then we are missing the point.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

According to scriptures, are tress living?

I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what a tress was, but then I finally concluded it must be trees mispelled.

 

The above quote of Srila Prabhupada's answers this. sthavara laksa-vimsati, there are 2 million species of non-moving living entities, which include the trees, plants, some stones, etc.

 

I believe stones are a good example of where science differs from scripture as to what is living. Not all stones have life, but the scriptures do speak of certain types of stones that are living and have souls within them.

[Avinash 0]

I spent a few minutes trying to figure out what a tress was, but then I finally concluded it must be trees mispelled.

 

Oops, shame on me. How could I do this?

 

 

[bhaktajoy 0]

Science is blind it cannot see God.In fact the whole universe is living because supersoul is everywhere!

[Rati 0]

I remember seeing somewhere once the explanation that the 8.4 million species refers to levels of consciousness rather than distinct forms.

 

Modern science has been constantly refining the definition of what is living. There have always been new gray areas, such as viruses and prions. The Vaishnava siddhAnta is that the paramAtmA resides in every atom, so based on that there is no question of actual inanimate matter, just certain objects that do no qualify as living organisms (in this sense organisms being single or multi-celled life forms of either the plant or animal kingdon). Is my keyboard that I am typing on a living being? Is the moss growing out on the tree in the back yard? It is not really that problematic, when you really think about it.

I doubt you are going to be able to come up with any examples of living things mentioned in any scriptures (other than supernatural beings like gandhArvas, bhUtas, pretas, or pizAcas) that would be considered non-living by any modern scientists. An interesting question, however.

 

The knowledge written down by ancient persons is not always easy to reconcile with what is more recent, especially when it comes to scientific discoveries and theories. What one tends to find, however, is that certain truths emerge that speak to us across the ages and do not lose their relevance over time. If that were not true, then the philosophical writings of Aristotle and Plato would no longer be read and discussed, and there would be no continuity of any religious faith, just new ones being invented with each new generation.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Rati (edited 04-26-2002).]

[sha 0]

Originally posted by Avinash:

Modern science has some criteria for deciding if something is living or non-living. But it is not a must that the criteria used in Hindu scriptures be the same. As per scriptures, a living being has soul. But it is not a must that everything that has soul must pass the criteria of modern science to be termed as 'living'. So, it is a possibility that there might be some things which are living according to modern science but non-living according to scriptures, and vice-versa.

 

According to scriptures, are tress living? Or, in other words, do they have soul?

Don't you recall from Bhagavatam Lord Krishna liberating the 'two souls' trapped in rather cursed to become the twin Arjuna trees?

 

 

[This message has been edited by sha (edited 04-26-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Mountains are another entity stated to be alive in the scriptures.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

....and rivers, and the earth itself...

[Avinash 0]

Do you remember the lecture on 1000 names of Ganga in Bangalore? In that it was mentioned that the Himvan whom gods came to meet was not the mountain Himvan but a king who had kingdom in that mountain. So, when we say that mountains are living, what does it mean?

 

1. Mountains as we see them are living.

2. There is some living being (god, gandharva etc.) in the mountain.

3. Both of these.

4. None of these.

 

The same question can be asked about Earth.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Certain rivers, mountains, and planets have three features, namely the adhyatmika, adhibhautika, and adhidaivika features. Thus Bhumi devi has features as a planet, as a cow, and as a divinity.

 

But that is in regards to higher personalities. Even ordinary mountains are said to possess life. But where does the division exist between one life form and the next, for example the mountain and the greater earth? It is the same case for our own bodies and the cells that make up our body.

[sha 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Mountains are another entity stated to be alive in the scriptures.

How about a simple stone- Gautama Patni, sati Ahalya in Ramayana!

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Isn't what is considered living based on a few factors like whether it goes through a process of creation, growth, and decay? For some reason I recall this, and so I think I have heard that stalagmites, and stalagtites are considered living according to the Vedic conception. I'm not positive about this.

[Avinash 0]

But where does the division exist between one life form and the next, for example the mountain and the greater earth?

 

If a mountain is considered to be living, there could be two meanings to this. One, the mountain as we see it is the body of the living mountain. Two, there is some deity in mountain and what we see it is a covering of his body, as my clothes cover my body. If we apply the second alternative for both Earth and mountain, then it is highly possible that the body of Earth goddess and that of the deity in mountain are seprated. But, if we consider the first alternative, then the body of mountain is inside the body of Earth, just as the bodies of various bacteria are inside my body.

[Guest guest]

www.answersingenesis.com has the answers you are seeking.