[Advaita-l] athma is mere function of the brain [was: concept of soul]
anbesivam2 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 16 16:20:41 CDT 2007
What we are talking about in the common parlance is that the 'inert' things
are 'matter' and the 'sentient' one is 'athma'. In this understanding the
first sin of the 'materialists' is that they forget the characteristic of
intert thing viz. its inertia, i.e. if it moves then it would keep moving
until some other objects stops it and if it is static it will remain static
until something else moves it. What is 'inertia' therefore in our parlance
is the 'Shakthi'. This Shakthi is understood both as the static and the
dynamic or matter and energy.
For those who would contend that the matter produces consciousness, my
question would be who set it off into this grand production? If the answer
is: no one, then it would mean that the matter by itself did produce! This
answer that is made to deny the role of the prime mover would contradict the
characteristic of the matter - that it is inert.
The conclusion is therefore that the visible motion was caused by the
invisible Chaithanya the Sentience. This would also hilite the fact that
the matter is physically verifiable while the Chaithanyam could only be
Some people by their ignorace equate Chaithanyam with energy. Chaithanyam
is anirvachaneeya - undefineable - while the energy is defineable.
When you see what we call an inert matter then we conclude that there is no
consciousness in it. This is the way we have defined in our knowledge what
is matter and what is consciousness. Have not Vedantins asserted that there
is nothing apart from consciousness? Then what of this so called matter?
If we indeed take the Vedantins for their word then matter is consciousness
Those who contend that 'matter' produces consciousness should think deeply.
On 10/16/07, latha vidyaranya <lathavidya at yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> hari om
> i found an interesting sentence here.
> "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> Why does it matter? A rock or piece of metal is as much Brahman as you or
> I except it lacks consciousness so it cannot know this.
> to say that it lacks consciousness may not be correct. i think it is the
> limited perception of our human sensory apparatus that does not perceive
> consciousness in inanimate objects and not that they do not have
> If perchance it
> could develop consciousness and understand non-duality then it could
> achieve moksha just like you or I.
> very true. and one who achieves moksha is the sole knower of that fact and
> no outsider can ever perceive if the knower knows or not.
> Forgot the famous last words? Access your message archive online. Click
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list