> When body dies, why is it necessarily a *MUST* for Atma to take new physical body? Is it a must? But for what? If my body dies today, Atma continues to be present anyway. Atma is anyway nitya, sarvagatha.
> When my shirt is worn out, no doubt I *can* change to a new shirt, but that is *not a must* for me. I may or may not go for a new dress. I still exists even without going for a new shirt. Right?
> Another example given is: when light falls on the hand, light is not part of the hand. Light has an
independent existence. So, light never cares whether hand is there or not. Light doesn't go after a "new"/"another" hand, when this hand goes away. Right?
> So, why Atma *has to* take up new body?
> Looking from different perspective, Atma is one and bodies are many. So Atma already exists in so many other bodies too, and number of worn-out bodies are neglegible in comparison, at any point in time.
> Is there any specifications/requirement in nature's law that - at any point in time, Atma has to be in N number of bodies? Something like that? (Sorry for my silly, gross assumptions)
(Sorry for lengthy question. It is just to ensure the completeness of question and to avoid confusions, that may lead to multiple interactions of posts.
Appreciate your thoughts. Hari Om!
I am fairly new to Vedanta.Here are my thoughts on this:
There is one aspect of us which is responsible to think and take decisions and perform actions. I guess I don't know the exact term in Vedanta which refers to this aspect. Maybe sukshma shareera or let's call it our lower self. This lower self has a karmic account associated with it which has debits and credits going into it. As long as the balance of this account is non zero, the lower self must remain in this world.
So, it's not the atma which is moving from one body to other, it's the lower self which takes another body. The Atma just enlivens that new body as it does with everything else. It is present always and everywhere and it's the same for all
Very well explained. Sukshma shareera is the term.
Hi Avinash, Thank you. Your clear explanation cleared my confusion. Thanks a lot.