Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

personally i think, without any sastric foundation, that its ok to donate or receive organs - specially if it enables you or somebody else to perform devotional service with the stitched-up body.

id make sure, though, that the donated organs arent bought from third-world countries, or coming from pigs, etc.

eagerly waiting for VEDAs input on this ...

ys phani.

VEDA is like a sharp arrow.

VEDA: you are going to be the honorific member of this forum if you continue like this, <mishra rumbles with dissimulated envy>

My pleasure to serve you all.

I read the link posted and did not say anything about organ donation, only blood transfusion, which is clear enough.
I heard that if you do donate organs, your ghost could be chained for a specific time or something...

your ghost? which ghost? my ghost?

i mean you (the donor) as a ghost or in your ghost body

..dont see why not , cant do much service if your dead ( of course you are not really dead )

I wonder if you get some karma by getting organs from other person.

I could be wrong, but the way I see it, the donated organ is a gift. Therefore, it brings good karma to the donor, even if he led a horrible life, and doesnt reflect at all on the recipient.

If your car was stalled and a karmi offered you a jump start, wouldnt you take it? I dont think our bodies are so terribly different- theyre just vehicles to get around with here in the material world.

Ultimately, we are all devotees of Krsna. We are supposed to be Krsnas servants. If our master takes away an organ why should we try to get another one by artificial means? Instead of giving/receiving an organ, wouldnt it be better to give/receive the Holy name?

I see this as an artificial way of prolonging life. Even if the devotee is doing a huge preaching service, then his higher consciousness will dictate that as an opportunity to prepare to go gracefully and peacefully.
Maharaj Pariksit could try to avoid his death, instead you know what he did.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Regarding to that devotee that is accepting an organ from another devotee.

Would the receiving devotee prepared to do same thing for another devotee?
Or then he will produce some arguments or just dismiss the whole thing as "his/her karma"?[/quote]

Are you talking specifically about Shyamasundara1967 P.?

If one takes such a service, he should be ready to do the same, if possible.

[quote]Is it right to cause suffering to another devotee to prolong my life span, is the donor devotee lesser and thus "spendable?"
(do not think that surgery will be like changing lollies from a pocket to another) It will cause a big amount of suffering and some impairment in the lifes donor, could even cause death.)[/quote]

Obviously it must be 100% voluntary.

[quote]Why the receiving devotee is prepared to accept suffering of another devotee for conservation of his crippled body?[/quote]

Reasons may vary, like an important service to finish or fulfilling some obligations.

[quote]What is the wonderful service this devotee is doing apart from the "glory" of being an earlier Prabhupada disciple? Is he preaching vigorously every day, is he making devotees in a steady way?[/quote]

Thats a matter of specific case evaluation.

[quote]Is it not a symptom of advanced devotee to take opportunity to go from this world in a glorious manner?[/quote]

Yes. But can every devotee be on such a level? In case of Shyamasundara1967 there was reported a huge positive feedback, which surprised the doctor and staff. Imho, this is a great preaching opportunity since this case will be probably recorded in medical journals, etc.

[quote]Is it OK trying to avoid death at any cost and in the way cause suffering to another devotee?[/quote]

See above.

Regarding to that devotee that is accepting an organ from another devotee.

My assumption is:

Artificial prolongation of life is demoniac.
Taking care of your health for Krishnas service is OK.
Not the same thing.

My questions are:

Would the receiving devotee prepared to do same thing for another devotee?
Or then he will produce some arguments or just dismiss the whole thing as "his/her karma"?

Is it right to cause suffering to another devotee to prolong my life span, is the donor devotee lesser and thus "spendable?"

(do not think that surgery will be like changing lollies from a pocket to another) It will cause a big amount of suffering and some impairment in the lifes donor, could even cause death.)

Why the receiving devotee is prepared to accept suffering of another devotee for conservation of his crippled body?

What is the wonderful service this devotee is doing apart from the "glory" of being an earlier Prabhupada disciple? Is he preaching vigorously every day, is he making devotees in a steady way?

Is it not a symptom of advanced devotee to take opportunity to go from this world in a glorious manner?

Is it OK trying to avoid death at any cost and in the way cause suffering to another devotee?

I remember how many times a new devotee has given up all his/her assets in favor of temple and then being dumped. Will that be the same thing? Taking advantage of a very pious person but doing the wrong thing, not being prepared to receive such charity ? It is on the "advanced" senior devotees judgment not to do that, but how "advanced" they are?
Is appearing on medical journals more important than to avoid suffering from just one devotee? Besides, who reads them? Not the general mass of people for sure.
Who said to please the scientific establishment (or the ones faithful to them) is one of our goals? No.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]I remember how many times a new devotee has given up all his/her assets in favor of temple and then being dumped. Will that be the same thing?[/quote]

It shouldnt.

[quote]Taking advantage of a very pious person but doing the wrong thing, not being prepared to receive such charity ? It is on the "advanced" senior devotees judgment not to do that, but how "advanced" they are?[/quote]

That can be only said by those more advanced than them, imho.

[quote]Is appearing on medical journals more important than to avoid suffering from just one devotee? Besides, who reads them? Not the general mass of people for sure.
Who said to please the scientific establishment (or the ones faithful to them) is one of our goals? No.[/quote]

That is an example of promoting Sri Caitanyas message to the scientific community, one of Srila Prabhupadas high priorities.

With all respect, it seems to me a very strange concatenation:
*devotee donating organs to another - > recorded in medical journals -> augmenting our prestige in the medical community -> promoting Lord Caitanya message to the scientific community.

Do you really think we are going to spread Lord Caitanyas message by appearing as organ donors? Will that be even recorded "a Hare Krishna donated to another Hare Krishna". What strange preaching strategy anyway. New it is.

And the fact remains that we are not after pleasing scientists, so they can accept Lord Caitanyas message.
So many horrible thinks have occurred in the name of preaching and pleasing the public.

Regarding your point "That can be only said by those more advanced than them", although shastric statement, it is sadly used as an argument to just dismiss any judgement to the up echelon. If we take the meaning of "advanced" by some socially accepted parameters according to status, hierarchy echelon, etc., we are losing the point and become just what Lord Caitanya came to demolish: caste Brahmanism.

The medical community was surprised so many donors were willing to donate. How will that get written up in medical journals and be preaching? That seems VERY farfetched and silly.

I dont say this should become a strategy but when it occured, its certainly an opportunity, no? I just gave one possible example. Now we cant see what the result of this will be.

By advanced I mean really advanced, not institutionally labelled as advanced. Clearly that wont help.

I find one article about it in the Newsletter of ISKCON Health and Welfare Ministry 2006/12, also find in web
http://www.loaj.com/articles/ayurveda_philosophy.html#uk

"Organ transplantation is but one of the medical procedures that unquestionably fall in the category that Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura has labeled '93extraordinary endeavors to keep body and soul together.'94 Not only do they constitute bhukti (attachment to and gratification of the physical and subtle bodies), but also should be avoided as ugra karma, a term defined as '93difficult action with limited rewards.'94 ....
WAW!!!

period. :)

Dr. Singh: Srila Prabhupada, what about heart transplants? We know that the spirit soul is within the heart. But nowadays doctors can replace an old heart with a new one. What happens to the spirit soul in each heart? Does the person who receives a new heart also get a new personality?

Srila Prabhupada: No.

Dr. Singh: Why not?

Srila Prabhupada: Suppose I get up from one chair and go sit in another chair. Does my personality change? I may change my seat, but does that mean I have changed?

Dr. Singh: But the heart is changed, and the heart contains the spirit soul.

Srila Prabhupada: The Vedas describe the heart as a sitting place for the soul. So when they transplant hearts, they simply change the souls seat. The same soul remains. If they could prove that by changing the heart they have increased the patients duration of life, then that would prove theyve caught the spirit soul. But they cannot increase the duration of life, because people have acquired their bodies by a superior arrangement. You have this body, and you must live within it for a certain period. If you simply change one of the parts of your body, that will not help you prolong your life. That is impossible. The doctors think that by changing the heart they will increase the duration of life, BUT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Dr. Singh: So a heart transplant is a kind of artificial transmigration of the soul from an old heart to a new one?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes, it is something like that. Krishna explains in the Bhagavad-gita (2.13):

dehino smin yatha dehe
kaumaram yauvanam jara
tatha dehantara-praptir
dhiras tatra na muhyati

"As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change."

Changing hearts is just a change of material bodily organs. THE HEART IS NOT THE REAL SOURCE OF LIFE, and therefore changing the heart does not prolong the duration of life.

"Life comes from life"

Hold on, I dont understand this argument.

With people who have had heart strokes, other chronic cardio-vascular conditions, the case is moot. In those cases, it is indeed a mere speculation whether a new heart would enable the person to live longer than with the old one - as we cannot prove either way.

But there is another group of people who receive transplants. Namely those who have suffered fatal injury to their vital organs, and after those organs have been replaced, those people have lived on for many years. Without those transplants, they would have died within hours/days.
I am pointing here at cases where a person gets shot in the heart or has their chest crushed in a car accident, and such, and the heart (or liver) is destroyed, on the spot, and the person (if brought to the hospital soon enough) is kept alive by machines, until they receive a transplant.

In such cases, transplants could fit in Srila Prabhupadas answer here:

Guest (2): Are blood transfusions permissible, Swami?

Paramahamsa: He says, "Are blood transfusions permissible?" When one is in an accident or cut and he loses blood, they take another mans blood and put it it. He says...

Prabhupada: Well, that is not bad. Because if one life is saved by transfusion admission... He is not dying. He is living. He is contributing his blood. So if he is contributing, you are saving some life, there is no harm. (Room Conversation with Alcohol and Drug Hospital People -- May 16, 1975, Perth)

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/issues.htm#6

I heard of a case in Sweden where one devotee got a blood transfusion and then wanted to eat meat and didnt want to worship Krsna. It was like a possession of sorts. Dont know how long it lasted.

I heard from a Buddhist teacher that people who have received organ transplants sometimes get new personality traits and new memories - as if they had inherited those from the donor, along with the organ.

This phenomenon is mentioned in relation to cellular/body memory.

What exactly does "to prolong the duration of life" mean?

When a Western doctor says "With a new heart, you could probably live 20 years longer than with this one that has a chronic condition and will likely fail within a year or two, long before you are 40 years old",
or when a yoga teacher or nutritionist say "With the proper diet and exercise, you can live longer"
- Where exactly are they making the mistake?

The argument can be made that a car accident or being shot in the chest, as well as receiving advanced medical technology services are part of karma anyway, which sets the duration of life.
If you get shot in the chest, so that it physcially tears your heart apart, that is your karma; if then you are brought soon enough to the hospital, kept alive by machines and receive a new heart - this is still your karma, and so the actual duration of your life has not been influenced by the operation.

Is the crux of the issue here that some people think that by activity (material activity, like eating, exercising, or medical procedures) they can overcome karma?
Like trying to use karma to make an end to karma, to outwit karma?

Like saying "I am going to use my abilities and my resources (which are mine, and God has nothing to do with them), to outwit and outperform Gods plan and power" -?

This would certainly be a mistake.