III CONSCIOUSNESS AND ATOMIC STRUCTURES OF THE EARTH AND PLANETS
Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself – omne
vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified
law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious. And,
consciousness, which is fundamental, manifests itself in the gradational
forms of all sentient and insentient nature. In contrast to the idea of
objective evolution of bodies, as envisioned by Darwin and followers,
Vedānta advocates the idea of subjective evolution of consciousness as the
developing principle of the world. In this paper, an attempt has been made
to highlight a few relevant developments supporting a sentient view of life
in scientific research, which has caused a paradigm shift in our
understanding of life and its origin.
Following a reductionist approach, there is a general consensus among
biologists that the body of an animal is being held up by muscles, bones,
tendons, and so on. However, despite the presence of these anatomical
parts, without consciousness, the body will collapse on the ground. Hence,
consciousness is a force within the body and only when it is conscious it
will stand up and perform its usual activities. The moment consciousness
leaves, the body collapses. The concept of awareness (an activity of
consciousness) is of major interest for anaesthesiologists, and in this
branch of science, it is believed that unconsciousness brings the
forgetfulness of pain. However, when patients undergo deep ether
anesthesia, on recovery, some could not recall their surgery or the
discussion, but some develop new psychological symptoms. In a while, after
full recovery and under hypnosis, it is found that some patients recall the
spoken word, identify speech, and interpret meaning. {KR CONSCIOUSNESS
WORKS EVEN WHEN UNCONSCIOUS}
“As scientists attempt to understand a living system, they move down
from dimension to dimension, from one level of complexity to the next lower
level. I followed this course in my own studies. I went from anatomy to the
study of tissues, then to electron microscopy and chemistry, and finally to
quantum mechanics. This downward journey through the scale of dimensions
has its irony, for in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with
atoms and electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line
life has run out through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing
my steps, trying to fight my way back.” {Albert Szent-Györgyi (Nobel Prize
in physiology or medicine in 1937. Quote from The Living State ch. 1 pg. 7)}
Traditionally, in both eastern and western philosophy, life is
understood as a cognitive or sentient principle. Sentience cannot be
manufactured artificially by any noble mechanical and chemical arrangement
of dead atoms and molecules. In the ancient eastern philosophy based on the
Vedāntic or Bhagavat paradigm, for example, the invocation of *Śrī
Īśopanisad* provides the concept of ‘Organic Wholism’:
“oḿ pūrnam adah pūrnam idaḿ pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate pūrnasya pūrnam
ādāya pūrnam evāvaśisyate – The ‘Organic Whole’ produces ‘organic wholes’.
An ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That
process can only produce inorganic, mechanical or chemical processes, not
living organisms.”
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पूर्णमुदच्यते । पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय
पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥ Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam
Puurnnaat-Puurnnam-Udacyate | Puurnnasya Puurnnam-Aadaaya
Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih || Meaning:
1: Om, That (Outer World) is Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); This
(Inner World) is also Purna (Full with Divine Consciousness); From Purna is
manifested Purna (From the Fullness of Divine Consciousness the World is
manifested),
2: Taking Purna from Purna, Purna indeed remains (Because Divine
Consciousness is Non-Dual and Infinite),
3: Om, Peace, Peace, Peace.
Quoting Vedānta, *Schrödinger was mainly trying* to explain that
consciousness is only one, singular, identifiable with its universal source
(Brahman) and he believed that the perceived spatial and temporal plurality
of consciousness is merely an appearance or illusion (māyā). However, it is
a common misconception that is found among the monists (Sripad Adi
Shankaracharya's Kevala Advaita or Māyāvādā philosophy) in Indian Vedāntic
tradition.
The verse 2.12, 30, 31 from Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta completely refutes
the idea of singularity of consciousness, where Bhagavān Sri Krishna says
to Arjuna: “na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ na tvaḿ neme janādhipāh na caiva na
bhaviṣyāmah sarve vayam atah param – Never was there a time when you, I or
all these kings did not exist, just as we exist in the present, so have we
existed in the past, so shall we continue to exist in the future.”
न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः । न चैव नभविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतः
परम् ॥ १२ ॥2
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param 2 12 B G
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Therefore, according to the Vedāntic view, the plurality of individuals
is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed in other Vedic sources (Kaṭha
Upaniṣad 2.2.13 says: nityo nityānāḿ cetanaś cetanānām – We are eternal, we
are many, and Supreme Absolute is also eternal, but He is one)
नित्योऽनित्यानां चेतनश्चेतनानामेको बहूनां यो विदधाति कामान् ।तमात्मस्थं
येऽनुपश्यन्ति धीरास्तेषां शान्तिः शाश्वतीनेतरेषाम् ॥ १३ ॥nityo'nityānāṃ
cetanaścetanānāmeko bahūnāṃ yo vidadhāti kāmān |tamātmasthaṃ ye'nupaśyanti
dhīrāsteṣāṃ śāntiḥ śāśvatīnetareṣām || 13 ||2.2
13. Eternal among the ephemeral, conscious among the conscious, who, being
one, dispenses desired objects to many, the intelligent who see him seated
in their selves, to them, eternal peace, not to others.
and by authentic teachers like Sripad Ramanuja Acharya and other
Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas. NPR also reported in 2010, “there are 10 times more
microbial cells on and in our bodies than there are human cells. That means
that we're 90 percent microbial and 10 percent human…” Apart from our own
individuality, we must also accept the individualities of all those
microbes on and in our bodies. We cannot deny the individuality of all
those microbes, by stating that their individuality is mere illusion
(māyā). In the healthy body of a multicellular organism, every individual
cell, despite having its own individuality, is meant to work for the
welfare of the whole body. Similarly, Vedānta advocates that we are living
in an ‘Organic Whole’ and every individual unit of this whole is meant to
dedicate itself for the satisfaction of the Center – the ādi-puruṣa or
primeval personal Absolute*. In contrast to Darwinism, symbio-genesis
proclaims that life did not take over the globe by competition, but by
cooperation*. In the body of an organism, there are different organs like
heart, kidneys, lungs and so on, which perform different tasks to serve the
function of the body as a whole. One organ does not try to become another.
In the similar manner, different living entities and also their environment
are related to each other like an organic whole. Evidence in symbiotic
exchanges confirms that the sphere of life is like a net, with the
different species representing the nodes of that net (network). If changes
occur in the network as a whole, then the various nodes (species) change
accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the network of life. This viewpoint
is completely ignored by many modern evolutionists.
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
In his book, Evolution: A View from the 21st Century,33 James A. Shapiro,
Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the
University of Chicago, provided ample examples where molecular biology has
recognized cell cognition from cell sensing, information transfer,
decision-making processes. In this book Shapiro, thoroughly dismisses the
traditional Neo-Darwinian evolution theory that is widely accepted by
biologists. In Darwinism, organisms are often assumed as optimally designed
machines blindly engineered by natural selection. However, based on cell
cognition, Shapiro challenges that view:
“Given the exemplary status of biological evolution, we can anticipate that
a paradigm shift in our understanding of that subject will have
repercussions far outside the life sciences. A shift from thinking about
gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome
restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems is a major
conceptual change. It replaces the “invisible hands” of geological time and
natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for
self-modification. The emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and
information-based rather than stochastic.” (Page 145 in).33
In recent time Neo-Darwinian evolution theory is facing several challenges
from various corners and hence, it is the right time to find the proper
alternative explanation for biological evolution, based on cognitive
principles.
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Even though 21st century biology has established that from humans to the
smallest cells (bacteria without brain organ), all living organisms are
conscious entities, several enthusiastic propositions in the field of
Artificial Intelligence (AI) claim that by simulating the neuronal network
in the brain, we can produce conscious machines. *Often referred to as the
Turing test*, an imitation game proposed by Alan Turing in 1950, is taken
as the litmus test of machine intelligence in Strong AI. In this test, an
interrogator asks questions to a human being and a machine, and if the
interrogator fails to distinguish between human and machine, then the
machine is declared as intelligent. Searle used the Chinese Room argument
to establish that the Turing test is not the proper means to assess machine
intelligence In a Chinese room, a man who does not understand Chinese
language can translate the incoming and outgoing messages in Chinese by
simply executing pattern replacements following the rules. Chinese
observers outside the room may feel that whatever is in the room passes the
Turing test by communicating in Chinese, but in reality, the man in the
room has no real understanding about the meaning of that conversation. In
this way Searle explained that a machine may pass the Turing test but this
does not guarantee that it has developed thinking, understanding or the
ability to grasp meaning. On the other hand, certain living organisms have
the ability to grasp meaning and such ability cannot be produced in
machines by any computer program.
With the ample empirical evidence and emphasis of the halting problem
(is there a program which determines whether any given algorithm halts for
a given input?), Sir Roger Penrose (a mathematician and physicist at Oxford
University) has also explained the non-algorithmic nature of mind, in his
book The Emperor's New Mind. In his book, he continually highlights that mental
processes are intrinsically more potent than computational processes. Penrose
asks “Can an algorithm discover theorems like Turing's and Gödel's?” *Our
minds may come up with solutions to different questions for which there is
no general algorithm. Therefore, we must know what algorithms cannot do.*
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
The “identity theory” explains that the states and processes of the
mind are alike states and processes of the brain. Therefore, scientists and
philosophers following the concept of identity theory believe that the
brain secretes thought like the liver secretes bile.39 However, despite all
their knowledge on the brain scientists still do not know how the neural
correlates coalesce to produce subjective experiences.
Like geneticists, neurologists also presume that there is a “neural
code” that represents the mind of the organism and helps the brain managing
synaptic modulation over wide areas of the cortex. However, neurologists do
not know whether coding is performed by individual neurons or by nervous
system. They believe that the complex brain function is as simple as the
operation of a man-made machine – robot – and therefore they hope that in
the future, they will be able to control living organisms just like robots
In the brain, coding occurs in context and hence, the meaning aspect
should be considered strictly in the context of the subject's behavior. An
individual living entity selects according to its behavior only those
aspects of neural firing that make sense for its behavior. Different
qualitative and quantitative stimulus attributes of sentient living
organisms are represented by different neural codes – and therefore,
unlimitedly, many neural codes are necessary. Apart from the behavior of
organism whose brain is under study, interpretations of neural action are
also very much influenced by the brain states of the *neuroscientists.
Eggermont* explains this difficulty:
“The information encoded in a train of neural action potentials is
interpreted by higher order neurons and it is also interpreted by the
neuroscientist who designed and performed the experiments. There need not
be any correspondence between these two interpretations. The interpretation
by the neuroscientist, however, may be influenced by the ruling paradigm in
the particular field of research”.
Therefore, it is not clear whether any neural code exists in reality, or
whether it is only in the minds of neurologists. As Erlich stated:
“Extensive investigation of the brain's synaptic connectivity, the presumed
material basis of cognition, has failed to explain how the brain thinks.
Further, the neural code that purportedly allows the brain to coordinate
synaptic modulation over wide areas of cortex has yet to be found and may
not exist.”
Code, by its meaning, is a predetermined representation of information
that is independent of the sender, receiver, and mechanisms of
transmission.45 Influenced by the concept of neural coding and decoding,
neurologists think the brain as an information processing system. Tononi
has tried to explain consciousness with a theoretical framework, the “
Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness (IITC).” Tononi thought that
the human brain integrates information, and that is why it produces
conscious behavior. The foundation of Tononi's IITC is based on 2 thought
experiments: (1) the generation of information and (2) the integration with
previous memories (integrated information). The main point that Tononi
emphasized in his first thought experiment is that the explanations of
experience necessitate a situation where they distinguish between several
possible choices; in other words, they must generate information. In his
second thought experiment, Tononi explains that information alone is not
enough for conscious experience. It is possible to increase the capacity of
artificial smell detectors, where they can distinguish between smells much
more than humans (>10,000). However, the mere producing of more information
than that of a human nose cannot provide the artificial smell detectors the
ability to experience the smell the way humans do. Tononi explained that
the major difference between artificial detector and human experience is
that in the case of the artificial detector, each aroma is detected in
seclusion of every other aroma. Even if the entries of other aromas (except
the one detected) are deleted from the database of the machine, we will
find exactly the same response by the artificial detector. The human nose
has different neurons which are specifically equipped to sense particular
smells. It may be possible that by selective damage of certain olfactory
receptors an individual may lose the ability to smell a particular aroma.
In the case of human subjects, even though the process of detection of a
particular aroma is not itself integrated, the experience of smell is
thoroughly integrated concerning the type of information it records in
response. When someone smells a particular aroma, the effect that it has on
a subject's brain is integrated across many aspects of his/her memory and
it is impossible for a neurosurgeon to eliminate the memory of that
experience without affecting anything else. The reductionistic view of
consciousness finds its limits here, because the changes in the memory
caused by the subject's experience are not localized on any one part of
his/her brain. Computation is reversible but cognition is not, and that is
why Maguire et al.stated.
“[A] form of magic is going on in the brain, which is beyond computational
modeling.”
Conscious behavior is an outcome of integrated information in the mind, and
those conscious responses cannot be decomposed or disintegrated into a set
of causally independent parts. The failure to create machines that can
produce integrated information is the reason why scientists in this field
believe that machines can never develop the ability to have subjective
experience. Consciousness is a fundamental property of animated objects –
‘living organisms’ – which distinguishes them from inanimate objects –
‘matter’.
“The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular
activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from
being solved.”
Even primitive cellular life requires a certain minimum number of
systems, like (1) the means to transmit heredity (RNA, DNA, or something
similar), (2) a mechanism to obtain energy to generate work (metabolic
system), (3) an enclosure to hold and protect these components from the
environment (cell membrane), and finally, (4) a unique principle to connect
all of these components together (sentience). Can self-organization theory
address all these requirements?
The main problem is that a physical analysis can only elucidate
the structure and function of a system as characterized from an external
viewpoint. However, living organisms are conscious systems and their
subjective experiences are within. Therefore, even though it is named as
self-organization, this reductionistic concept has no ‘self’ at all. For
the last 9 years under the guidance of our Siksha Gurudev Sripad Bhakti
Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. (Serving Director, Bhakti Vedanta Institute:
www.bviscs.org and Founder of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute:
www.scsiscs.org), we are trying to spread the Vedāntic concept of Life
among the scientists via university outreach, seminars, conferences,
publications and online discussions. One of his statements is very much
relevant in the present context of self-organization:
“From the reader's perspective, a book is composed of alphabetical
letters; but the book itself did not originate from these letters.
Ultimately it is from the ideas of the author that the letters of the book
come to be. In the same way, the molecules of a biological organism are the
result, not the origin of life. This is the difference between the order in
which we come to know things (ordo cognoscendi) and the order in which
something comes to be (ordo essendi).”
Differences Between Organisms and Artifacts: Living Organisms are Beyond
Design
German philosopher Immanuel Kant explained the concept of “natural
teleology” or “natural purpose” or “natural end” (Naturzweck). To
distinguish the living organisms from artifacts, Kant explained that for
both the cases, 2 different necessary conditions are satisfied for ends.
The condition applicable for ends is that “the parts. [be] possible only
through their relation to the whole” or each part exists “for the sake of
the others and of the whole.” In the designer's concept of the whole, this
condition is satisfied in the case of artifacts by a linear causality. The
legs and the seat of a chair or balance wheel, hairspring, gear system and
so on in a watch, can exist only in virtue of designer's concept of the
whole. In other words, the legs of the chair or the hairspring of the watch
exist only in order that the chair or watch as a whole exist. In the case
of the living organisms (Naturzweck) this condition is satisfied in the
form of a circular causality of the organic whole: “the parts [must]
combine themselves into the unity of a whole by being reciprocally the
cause and effect of one another's form.” External forces are the unifying
principle in an artifact, but, in the case of a living organism, the
unifying principle is sentience. Even though in both artifacts and living
organisms, the ends are determined by purpose (a cognitive act), the
difference is that in the case of artifacts, the purpose (designer) is
outside the system (external teleology), and in the case of a living
organism, the purpose is within (internal teleology). Following a linear
logic in the case of artifacts, parts are produced and combined into a
whole by the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic, the
body of the living organism appears from another living organism by a
developmental process (cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of
parts – design.
Even though the attempt toward mechanization of nature served as an
important driving force behind the scientific revolution, it also created
an image of a clockwork universe set in motion by an intelligent first
cause. Such machine analogy is also applied to living organisms. However,
the view that a supernatural being, God, is external to living organisms
and that He imposes form on matter from the outside (intelligent design) is
also reductionistic, and shows a logical fallacy. The logic of
extrinsically purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to
intrinsically purposive systems (living organisms). The Vedāntic view
offers a scientific alternative: “‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic
wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be
mechanically assembled. The process of externally assembling parts can only
produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical processes, not living
organisms.”5 Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a
living cell and there is no single evidence that shows a case where a
living cell appears from the external assembly/accumulation of
biomolecules. The Vedāntic alternative is that an immanent subjective
process within a *single cell zygote* produces varieties of cells that are
necessary for different functions in the body of a particular species.
Vedānta advocates that different forms originate from the ādi-puruṣa or
primeval personal Absolute, and in the reflected material sphere, the
various species of life are subject to a developing principle of evolution
of consciousness.
Life (Naturzweck) also has a fundamental “formative force” (bildende
Kraft) that is responsible for an organism's self-causing character. It is
impossible for a designer to produce an artifact with the 2 fundamental
characters (Naturzweck and bildende Kraft) that life has. As Kant
explained, “one wheel in the watch does not produce another, and still less
does one watch produce other watches.” In a living organism, the complex
biomolecules are not just there for the sake of each other, but they also
produce each other, maintain each other, and are dedicating units of an
organic whole. Therefore, unlike machines, the generation, properties, and
functions of the parts of an organism cannot be understood independently
from the organism as a whole. The empirical evidence in frontier biology
also confirms Immanuel Kant's statement: “there will never be a Newton of
the blade of grass, because human science will never be able to explain how
a living being can originate from inanimate matter.” For confirmation, in
his book This is Biology, 20th century's leading evolutionary biologist Ernst
Mayr wrote:
“It is a little difficult to understand why the machine concept of organism
could have had such long-lasting popularity. After all, no machine has ever
built itself, replicated itself, programmed itself, or been able to procure
its own energy. The similarity between an organism and a machine is
exceedingly superficial.”
Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution explain that the first life came
from the accumulation of inert matter and that biodiversity is a result of
random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionary theory and the
principles in biology are applied directly to behavior, and they avoid
psychological or cognitive level analysis. Both abiogenesis and evolution
theory are outcomes of mechanistic or reductionistic thinking and that is
why they cannot explain how organisms have cognitive features like
thinking, feeling and willing. These concepts also do not explain how
matter developed the 2 fundamental characteristics that life has
(Naturzweck and bildende Kraft). Therefore, both the origin and evolution
of life must be rewritten on the basis of sentience.
The first aphorism of Vedānta-sūtra Brahma sutra, states that under
the guidance of a spiritually realized being, we must inquire into our true
nature as spirit *(athāto brahma jijñāsā).* The second aphorism of
Vedānta-sūtra provides the initial indication of how to begin this inquiry
(janmādy asya yatah). Janma means birth, asya refers to everything (entire
cosmos which includes both matter and life) and yatah means ‘from whom’.
Therefore, to begin the inquiry into our true nature, we must first inquire
into the original source of everything. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is considered as
a natural supplementary commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. The first verse of
Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam elaborated the commentary of the second aphorism of
Vedānta-sūtra (janmādy yato ńvayād itarataś cārthesv abhijñah svarāt).
“Janmādy asya yatah” – the origin of everything is “abhijñah svarāt” – the
unitary Supreme Cognizant Being.
*This Vedāntic explanation that unitary Supreme Cognizant Being is the
source of everything is founded on 2 scientifically verifiable axiomatic
facts: (1) Life comes from Life, and (2) Matter comes from Life.
Consciousness arises from consciousness, or life comes from life.* Where
there is life there is consciousness. Consciousness does not originate from
that which is unconscious or impersonal, and life is not a product of
insentient matter. The conception that life comes from life (biogenesis) is
the only scientific idea that has ever been verified by experiment and
observation. The second axiomatic fact ‘Matter comes from Life’ is
apparently observable in nature. Every species produces their own chemicals
necessary within their bodies. ‘Life comes from Life’, and ‘Matter comes
from Life’ are 2 scientifically observable deductions from Vedānta. On the
other hand, materialism (life originates from matter) is an unverified
ideological presupposition that has no scientific or observation-based
evidence to support it.
Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā (BG) is one of the most important books in Indian
philosophy and religion. BG in a capsule form describes the entire Vedāntic
philosophy right from the understanding of the soul (ātman) to the
understanding of the ultimate purpose of life. In BG 30,31 13.34 it is
written: “yathā prakāśayaty ekah krtsnaḿ lokam imaḿ ravih ksetraḿ ksetrī
tathā krtsnaḿ prakāśayati bhārata – O son of Bharata, as the sun alone
illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the
body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness.” Therefore, according to
BG, consciousness is the inferential proof or symptom of existence of the
soul (ātman) or the living entity. Consciousness is absolutely necessary
for the living body to be what it is and to function as it does. We can all
experience consciousness and according to BG the soul (ātman) is the seat
or the origin of consciousness. According to Vedānta, there are 2 types of
consciousness (finite and infinite consciousness) that co-exist in the body
of a living organism. We can witness voluntary functions (the action that
are apparently under the control of our mind) and involuntary functions in
the living organisms. The things that we appear to control are due to our
consciousness coming from our soul (ātman) and that which are not in our
control (involuntary functions: complex cellular functions, heart beats,
autonomous signals, and so on) are controlled by higher consciousness
coming from Paramātma (super soul). Hence, Paramātma (source of infinite
consciousness) is also known as the ground or sustainer of the ātman
(finite consciousness).
* There are terms in science that we cannot perceive directly by our
senses. We cannot taste, smell, touch, see and hear entities like force,
energy, electron, quarks, and so on. Scientists explain to us many such
terms using inference and we *accept them as scientific proof. When an
apple falls down from a tree, we infer that there is a gravitational force
that pulled the apple down. We never ask for a direct observation of the
gravitational force itself. Similarly, although scientists cannot sensually
perceive the soul (ātman), still they can infer its existence just from the
presence of consciousness in all biological systems. As the presence of the
sun can be inferred from the sunlight, similarly existence of the soul
(ātman) can also be understood from the presence of the different varieties
of consciousness in various living organisms. Doctors can keep patients
survive on ventilators and even they can replace the heart with an
artificial heart running with a battery. Sometimes, it is possible to keep
an organism functioning by electrical equipment outside the body, but the
organism is unconscious – showing no EEG activity, in a vegetative state.
Remove the equipment and the organism cannot maintain even that function.
Then, what is supplying the organism's energy for functioning when the
machines are disconnected and it has to function independently? Vedāntic
scriptures explain it is the soul (ātman) that does all the work of the
machines in maintaining the organism's functioning, plus supplying the
order and sentient awareness within the body. We can supply the energy by
some machines to maintain the body but we cannot make a body conscious with
those machines.
K RAJARAM IRS PART2 TO BE CONTD 24824 25824
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoriWueg2SjDU_rPsNqOOPL12N_z5k2ttV2qwQK-2yuKfg%40mail.gmail.com.
