Hi
I am pretty novice at yoga’s philosophical teachings and I seem to keep reading contradictory teachings on how many bodies a person has, with some teachers saying 3, some 7 and some as many as 10. So can anyone with authoritative knowledge please lend some clarity, how many bodies does a human being actually have, according to yoga’s traditional teachings, and please explain a little what is the breakdown of them, thx. 
[QUOTE=KosmoLeo;67992]Hi
I am pretty novice at yoga’s philosophical teachings and I seem to keep reading contradictory teachings on how many bodies a person has, with some teachers saying 3, some 7 and some as many as 10. So can anyone with authoritative knowledge please lend some clarity, how many bodies does a human being actually have, according to yoga’s traditional teachings, and please explain a little what is the breakdown of them, thx. [/QUOTE]
Basically in all books of yoga I have seen three bodies: physical, astral, and causal. I. e. body, mind, and soul.
Not so hard.
Physical body is easy to know. (The visible organs of action, blood, liquids in the body, the skin, the flesh etc belong to the physical body.)
What happens to it on death? Some invisible thing goes away that was making the body ‘live’. We can call it astral body and for the sake of simplicity, imagine that it resides “inside” the physical. (The mind, thoughts, words etc belong to this body)
But mind doesn’t act on its own. Thoughts are ‘known’. So, there is something else inside the astral body that drives it. Call it the Causal body. (The desires, basic instincts, ability to judge etc belong to this body.)
Are these bodies distinct from each other? like envelopes? No. Astral body is in the physical body like water is inside ice as a part and parcle. Or like a physical “cell” is composed of “molecules”. Same way, Causal body is inside the astral, like vapor in water in ice! Or like an atom integral to a molecule that is integral to a cell.
Some sources use the term ‘body’ interchangeably with ‘kosha’ or sheath and generally name five: Annamaya, Pranamaya, Manomaya, Vijnanamaya and Anandamaya…which is probably not much help to a novice but will give you another facet of yoga to explore.
So much to learn and so little time in which to do it.
The koshas are not bodies, but different levels of being. Astral and causal bodies are modern interpretations of something, I’m not sure what. You don’t see any mention of them in the Yoga Sutras. The Samkhya literature contains a theory of a subtle body, subtle meaning not perceivable by the senses. According to this theory it is an actual body that survives the death of the physical body and may be incarnated in another physical body. Relating this to koshas, all of the koshas except Annamaya (physical) would be included.
Samkhya infers the existence of the subtle body from the experience of pleasure or pain. For example, the physical senses function to perceive sights and sounds, hot, and cold, etc. It is the subtle body that experiences them as pleasurable or painful. Some of the commentators interpret a third body, but for the life of me, I don’t see it.
[QUOTE=KosmoLeo;67992]Hi
So can anyone with authoritative knowledge please lend some clarity, how many bodies does a human being actually have, according to yoga’s traditional teachings, and please explain a little what is the breakdown of them, thx. [/QUOTE]
Why spare you the work ? It is clear that you are ready to believe authoritative figures, and not give it a serious thought. The question is, what makes you think you will find such authoritative figures here, worthy of trust ? And will an answer given in under 10000 characters really bring you more understanding ?
What makes you think that there are any other bodies, than the physical organism as natural sciences know it ? I mean, sure everyone talks about subtle bodies here and in other places as today esoteric information is cheap. But do you really believe anything you hear ?
PS. Clarity is not lent, it is acquired.
The unique contribution of Samkhya is that it attempted to take these theories out of the realm of belief and into the realm of reason. Notice that I used the word ‘infers’, implying that the concept is derived from a process of reasoning. So the question becomes, is this a valid inference, as opposed to do you believe it?
There are other explanations as to why some things are pleasurable and others are painful. Certain sounds have mathematical relationships that produce what we call harmony. So we can see a connection between order and disorder and our experience of pleasure and pain. But though we can make the connection, I’m not sure that explains our experience.
Suhas Tambe also used logic in his explanation, describing the life of the body that leaves at death as the astral body. But why do we call it a body? Maybe we need to start by defining what is a body. In any event these things aren’t testable or provable in any scientific way, and reason alone isn’t sufficient to establish a fact. So the idea of subtle bodies remains in the realm of philosophy, and it is the nature of philosophy to ponder these sorts of things.
I like all the interpretations, however there is only one body in which there are many planes - including those of the astral, physical, and causal. If by body, you mean the ‘self’ or the space you occupy in the universe.
I think a body is more than something that takes up space. A rock takes up space, but it’s not a body. It doesn’t grow or heal or die. I think a body is a vessel of life. By that definition, a plant is a body, as is the physical structure of an animal or a human being.
Suhas Tambe defined the astral body as the life of the body that leaves at the time of death, but why is it called a body? In Christianity, it is called the soul, and it is not considered to be a body.
It might be useful to consider the various types of physical bodies that we know. The mobile versus the immobile, and the furry or feathery beasts as opposed to the naked ape. We might think of our bodies as a type of clothing. It is not so far-fetched to think of all of the levels of being as layers of clothing that can be changed or removed or added to.
@ Asuri
Yes, I agree. But the poster asked “how many bodies do we have?” By we, I take it to mean you, us, me - individually. And ‘space’ is more than physical occupation, it’s the area I - me, myself, and I - use.
My sense is that “I” have one body. If my physical body dies, the matter is re-integrated and re-used. Perhaps this happens with the other ‘stuff’ that made Me - the soul, astral(ity) etc.
The question was really about what are the real traditional teachings of yoga on the matter. I would say its not really a yoga teaching at all. The teaching of koshas is a traditional teaching, but it comes from the Upanishads. That’s Vedanta, not yoga. There’s the teaching the subtle body from Samkhya philosophy. Again, a traditional teaching, but not yoga. Then there’s the teaching of the astral body, which as far as I know is not a traditional teaching. If it is, I hope someone will correct me and tell me where it comes from.
Looks strange that how many bodies one can have , one can have only one body. Soul is not body that is soul which is unseen, untouched,unknown.
There are various chakara’s in Yoga and, if you work hard in meditation techniques then all the chakaras will become active. There are seven chakaras in human body(this is believed).
Once all 7 are in active position then some one qualifies for Moksha a state after that someone get rid of cycle of repeated death and reincarnation or rebirth.
I agree that Yoga Sutra do not speak of “3 bodies” or “astral and causal bodies” but there is abundant reference to parallel terms.
In Book I/ sutra 45/ sūkṣma-viṣayatvaṁ cāliṇga-pary-avasānam /which translates as, ?the gross leads into the subtle and the subtle leads in progressive stages to that state of spiritual being called Pradhāna?.
The progressive stages of gross to subtle correspond with the guna dynamics, the involutionary stages of consciousness and the bodies/ koshas version. In Book II/ sutra19/ viśeṣāviśeṣa-liṇgamātrāliṇgāni guṇa-parvāṇi/ which means ?the states of the guṇa are experienced on all three planes and beyond.?
Any experiencing needs a body as the medium. The experiencing of ?vishesh? where all three gunas are present, but tamas (inertia) dominates is a state experienced by the physical body. The second, ?avishesha? experiencing is where rajas (excitement) dominates at the level of astral body that is progressively more subtle. The third, ?lingmatra? experiencing is with sattva (revealing) is dominant and almost by itself, in the causal body that is extremely subtle. Alinga, where all three gunas are in equilibrium, is the fourth state of pure consciousness and no experiencing.
Use of the word body is only to convey that they are not the Soul, otherwise astral and causal are subtle states of consciousness. Upon the physical death, rest of the package survives in the astral body waiting to be re-born if karma necessitates. If not, there is a death of the astral body leaving causal body behind and when even that dies arrives the fourth state of pure consciousness.
So you essentially admit that you will not find any use of the words astral or causal in any traditional yoga text. I think the translations you’ve given for these two sutras are greatly over simplified and maybe a little self-serving, but I understand you need to justify your use of these terms, which I view as little more than pop culture.
Asuri,
Correction. It is almost standard in Vedic scripts to use sthul shareer (physical body), sukshma shareer (astral body) and karan shareer (causal body). I wrote that ‘Yoga Sutra does not specifically use these terms’; but it does imply such terms or concepts unquestionably. (Examples of implied concepts are reincarnation, evolution etc. Also see the table below.)
It will be more valuable for you to point out which part of my interpretation is extraneous than to reach a hasty and easy conclusion of their self-serving nature or pop culture. I know Sanskrit and have read most of the standard interpretations. It is my opinion that some writers have chosen a literal translation of many sutras. Such literal translations present incomplete jigsaw puzzles which appeal to some writers eager to discover a mystique of Eastern philosophy. Yoga Sutra is intended to be a hardcore guidebook for a seeker and not a philosophy book for an academician. Simplicity is therefore intended, not superimposed by me.
Let me give one classic example. Book 1, sutras 21 & 22:
[B]Original Sanskrit/[/B] Tivra = intense, samvega = urge, asannah = quite near
[B]Commonly used Literal Translation/[/B] Those who have an intense urge attain (Samadhi) very soon
[B]A simplified yet authentic translation/[/B] Attainment of (spiritual consciousness) is rapid for one who seeks it wholeheartedly with an intense urge
[B]Original Sanskrit/[/B] mrudu = mild, madhyama = medium, adhimatra = extremely strong, tvat = due to,
[B]Commonly used Literal Translation/[/B] With the intensity of urge rising through the mild, medium and strong conditions, Samadhi can be achieved sooner.
[B]A simplified yet authentic translation/[/B] How rapid depends on whether the practice is intense, moderate or gentle …
22 (continued…)
[B]Original Sanskrit/[/B] tato api = also, more than that, visesh = special, peculiar
[B]Commonly used Literal Translation/[/B] (Above translations ignore these 2 inconvenient words, “tato api” and “visesh” since they can’t place them. Instead they add ‘samadhi can be achieved sooner’ borrowing it from sutra 21. Patanjali’s precise words never get repeated. )
[B]A simplified yet authentic translation/[/B] … yet, more than that, there is another special way.
Patanjali is simply giving a pointer to another known reference in Bhagvdgeeta that instead of intense urge and practice, one can be born with Bhakti, a total devotion to Ishvara. That is another concept implied in Yoga Sutra.
I’m not going to engage in academic discussions of the sutras and how they should be translated. I will say only that every occurrence of the word suksma that I have seen has been consistently translated as ‘subtle’, not astral, so I’m not buying the correction. You want to talk about writers eager to discover a mystique about Eastern philosophy, I think using words like astral body and causal body falls into that category.
The reason that different literature mentions a different number of ‘bodies’ is because they classify the bodies differently, but they are aiming at the same concept: reality is multidimensional. This means every body in reality whether it be the human being, an insect, a plant or a rock exists across a spectrum of reality spanning many dimensions. It has a counterpart on every level/dimension. Each level is a higher vibrational density than the other. According to classical Samkhya there are 7*7 or 49 levels of vibrational density of original matter. Of these 49 levels there are 7 distinct planes of reality, where matter behaves in a coherent and predictable way.
Classical Samkhya does not go into detail on what those 7 planes of reality are, but more details can be found in Vedanta and Puranic literature. In Vedanta the emphasis is more on the human body and it is broken down into 5 main dimensions. In other words there really is no such thing as many bodies, there is only one body but that body has many dimensions. They are:
The physical or space and time dimension
The energy or quantum dimension
The mental or information dimension
The intellectual or process dimensiom
The bliss or consciousness dimension
These 5 dimensions are classified in Vedanta according to 3 states of consciousness and 3 states of matter: waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep and gross, subtle and causal.
From what I have read there are 7 major chakras in the body. There are smaller ones in various other parts through out the body. I have found a profound difference in my life when I work to keep the 7 major chakras clear. I think this practice can be an important part of our health.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;68239]The reason that different literature mentions a different number of ‘bodies’ is because they classify the bodies differently, but they are aiming at the same concept: reality is multidimensional. This means every body in reality whether it be the human being, an insect, a plant or a rock exists across a spectrum of reality spanning many dimensions. It has a counterpart on every level/dimension. Each level is a higher vibrational density than the other. According to classical Samkhya there are 7*7 or 49 levels of vibrational density of original matter. Of these 49 levels there are 7 distinct planes of reality, where matter behaves in a coherent and predictable way.
Classical Samkhya does not go into detail on what those 7 planes of reality are, but more details can be found in Vedanta and Puranic literature. In Vedanta the emphasis is more on the human body and it is broken down into 5 main dimensions. In other words there really is no such thing as many bodies, there is only one body but that body has many dimensions. They are:
The physical or space and time dimension
The energy or quantum dimension
The mental or information dimension
The intellectual or process dimensiom
The bliss or consciousness dimension
These 5 dimensions are classified in Vedanta according to 3 states of consciousness and 3 states of matter: waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep and gross, subtle and causal.[/QUOTE]
Although I have not read any of the texts cited, this is my sense of the body. Each dimension can be subdivided infinitely, I am sure.
Wouldn’t it be a bummer, though, if all this great thinking was for naught and all we really are is a bag of flesh, blood and bone and an overactive imagination? :-o 
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;68239] According to classical Samkhya there are 7*7 or 49 levels of vibrational density of original matter. Of these 49 levels there are 7 distinct planes of reality, where matter behaves in a coherent and predictable way.
[/QUOTE]
Talk about wanting to create a mystique about Eastern philosphy, this is complete and utter fiction. It does however show the influence of Samkhya. Every crackpot idea claims to be Samkhya, in order to try to establish some credibility, because it was so widely accepted in the ancient world.