Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the soul?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 165 (306378)
04-25-2006 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by lfen
04-24-2006 10:34 PM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
So what part of the process of a human being is being referred to by the word "soul"?
What you say the "thing model" refers to, the "Who am I" part, the part that says "I," the part that thinks and feels and knows and is going to live forever. Of course you've defined this part out of existence by disqualifying the "thing model" and leaving yourself with nothing but an impersonal "What am I" and an impersonal "functioning" and "an [impersonal] appreciation of the universe as a higly complexly interacting system of mutually interdependent processes" without persons, minds, or souls in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by lfen, posted 04-24-2006 10:34 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 12:49 AM Faith has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 77 of 165 (306381)
04-25-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
04-25-2006 12:02 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
"an [impersonal] appreciation of the universe as a higly complexly interacting system of mutually interdependent processes" without persons, minds, or souls in it.
True but in addition to what Is, there is the appearance of persons, minds, or souls. That's where the suffering lies though.
The interesting part is the source. It's perhaps impossible or near impossible for ego focused consciousness to recall what lies beyond relative concerns but whether it's characterized as impersonal or transcendent it is so much richer.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 12:02 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 1:06 AM lfen has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 78 of 165 (306383)
04-25-2006 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by lfen
04-25-2006 12:49 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
True but in addition to what Is, there is the appearance of persons, minds, or souls. That's where the suffering lies though.
Yabbut, in getting rid of the suffering by getting rid of the sentient self, the mind, the soul, you get rid of the joy and happiness too.
What good is an "appearance" of anything?
Oh joy, I say, that the God of the Bible deals with us as real individual personal selves who will live forever in the kind of happiness that selves were made for.
The interesting part is the source. It's perhaps impossible or near impossible for ego focused consciousness to recall what lies beyond relative concerns but whether it's characterized as impersonal or transcendent it is so much richer.
How can it be "richer" without personalities? How can a purely impersonal phenomenal world or universe in any sense be "richer" than the world of beings, the possibility of connection between mind and mind, soul and soul?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 12:49 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 2:39 AM Faith has replied
 Message 80 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 3:42 AM Faith has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 79 of 165 (306390)
04-25-2006 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
04-25-2006 1:06 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
How can it be "richer" without personalities? How can a purely impersonal phenomenal world or universe in any sense be "richer" than the world of beings, the possibility of connection between mind and mind, soul and soul?
I didn't say it was impersonal, especially I didn't say it was purely impersonal. What I said was "whether it's characterized as impersonal or transcendent". I was groping to find a way to indicate something that language by its very structure doesn't model accurately at all. I would say there is personality but no longer the perception that there is a discrete entity or person.
As to "What good is an "appearance" of anything?" Well, what good is a sunset? The scent of a rose? Holding a sleeping baby in your arms? The sweep of the milky way seen in the mountains far from any city lights?
Bernadette Roberts accounts for it in this passage:
We have only to look at nature to see that the trees, the clouds, and animals do not have a self and yet are the very essence of uniqueness, variety and differentiation. Self does not constitute true individuality because this essential uniquenss remains when self is gone.
It is the underlying core of the affective system that gives rise to the subtle feeling, "my being, my life, my individuality" and so on; but without a self there are no such feelings of self possession or mistaken identity. Once we see what Is we realize: that which is different is also that which is the same. And as for the fear of losing the distinctiveness of empirical form, it takes but a single glimpse of what lies beyond this form to see that an even more unique, moving, dynamic life is but a step away.
Bernadette Roberts The Experience of No-Self pp194

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 1:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 10:47 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 80 of 165 (306398)
04-25-2006 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
04-25-2006 1:06 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
Franklin Merrell-Wolff is another westerner who gives an account of existence beyond the self. I have misplaced my copy of Pathways Through to Space but I did find some excerpts on the net. Here is a rather recent account (mid 20th century) of the experience of a westerner who has written several books on the subject.
At once, I dropped expectation of having anything happen. Then, with eyes open and no sense stopped in functioning---hence no trance---I abstracted the subjective moment---the "I AM" or "Atman" element---from the totality of the objective consciousness manifold. Upon this I focused. Naturally, I found what, from the relative point of view, is Darkness and Emptiness. But I Realized It as Absolute Light and Fullness and that I was That. Of course, I cannot tell what IT was in Its own nature. The relative forms of consciousness inevitably distort nonrelative consciousness.
Presently I felt the Ambrosia-quality in the breath with the purifying benediction that it casts over the whole personality, even including the physical body. I found myself above the universe, not in the sense of leaving the physical body and being taken out in space, but in the sense of being above space, time, and causality. My karma seemed to drop away from me as an individual responsibility. I felt intangibly, yet wonderfully, free. I sustained the universe and was not bound by it. Desires and ambitions grew perceptibly more and more shadowy. All worldly honors were without power to exalt me. Physical life seemed undesirable.
...
The personality rested in a gentle glow of happiness, but while it was very gentle, yet it was so potent as to dull the keenest sensuous delight. Likewise the sense of world-pain was absorbed. I looked, as it were, over the world, asking: "what is there of interest here? What is there worth doing?
http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/read/
published_collections/pathways.shtml
The excerpt breaks off at this point but as I recall the only thing Franklin discovered worth doing was to free others from their sorrows so that might experience what he had recognized.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 1:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 165 (306455)
04-25-2006 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2006 4:47 PM


Re: "Soul" is the best word I think
What a bold assertion to claim knowledge of the non-existance of something. You can't know that something doesn't exist.
Oh, I think there are some things that we can say do not exist. For example, that which contradicts itself cannot exist. Round squares don't exist.
I agree that we have mind and matter but I think we have a soul too. IMHO, when we die the mind and matter die but the soul moves on, its an immaterial component of our existance that is connected to the matter via the mind.
How bold of you. Any particular reason that you believe in this soul which is neither mind nor matter but some mysterious other entity? Do you believe it on a whim? You just feel like believing it?
We, human beings, walk around all day with this aura of incorporeality which we call the "mind" or "consciousness." That's how we came up with this notion of "mentality." Some will tell us that what causes this sensation, or rather lack of sensation, is the fact that the brain has no feelers. You can, I am told, stick a needle through the brain and we wouldn't feel a thing.
By that as it may, that's how we got the idea of the mental. Then there's these other things lying about out there in the world that appear to be purely physical. They are not the least bit, on the face of it, incorporeal. That's how we came up with the idea of matter.
Some people say that everything is matter--that this aura of incorporeality is an illusion. We have, according to these folks, who are called materialists, no minds, only brains.
But you are introducing yet a third type of reality called "soul."
Any justification for that?
My justification for saying there are two types of entities, or at least apparently so, are these experiences I noted above.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-25-2006 08:26 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-25-2006 08:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2006 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 165 (306472)
04-25-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by lfen
04-25-2006 2:39 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
Now you are denying that your vision is impersonal but I was using your own terms, calling it a "what" and a "function" as opposed to a "who" etc. Just a language problem?
I just can't imagine a personality without there being a perception of a discrete entity or person. I can't even imagine that YOU can imagine this. I guess I'm just a hopeless literalist.
Perhaps some of it is just language. Jesus tells us to die to self, but what that means is to die to pride and selfishness, to love others AS self, making no distinction.
But I never believed Bernadette Roberts when she talked about having no self and I still don't know what it is or why it matters.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2006 10:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 2:39 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 12:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 84 by JavaMan, posted 04-25-2006 12:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 83 of 165 (306499)
04-25-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
04-25-2006 10:47 AM


Re: What's so ultimate about processes anyway?
"self" is a long standing and powerful component of human culture. It is perhaps the fundamental basis of human culture. I'm not sure but it certainly one of the key definers of it.
I don't think you created or chose to believe the concept so you can't give it up or choose to unbelieve it.
One thing that is significant to me is this phenomena is reported by individuals from a variety of cultures from 2500 years ago in India (Buddha) to the present in America (Wayne Liquorman) or Bernadette Roberts. That is the personal aspect and by that I am referring to the awakening of an individual.
Another aspect that may not come from individual awaking at all is the systems theory aspect which we see in such things as ecology and quantum mechanics, general semantics, or Wittgenstein's philosophy. These are modern intellectual approaches to a variety of scientific and philosophical problems.
As I get ready to leave I'll just put out my definition of the soul which not surprisingly is that the soul is one word people use to refer to their illusionary sense of being seperate entities.
lfen
edit typo: approachers to approaches
This message has been edited by lfen, 04-25-2006 11:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 10:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 84 of 165 (306503)
04-25-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
04-25-2006 10:47 AM


The illusion of selflessness
I just can't imagine a personality without there being a perception of a discrete entity or person. I can't even imagine that YOU can imagine this. I guess I'm just a hopeless literalist.
I tend to agree with you here, Faith. I think the mystical notion that you can lose your self and become one with some universal Self is an illusion arising from the tendency to conflate the consciousness with the entire self (i.e. the self including all unconscious mental processes).
Our conscious mental processes are just a tiny, tiny part of what is going on in our brains. When we still those conscious processes through meditation, or prayer, the rest of our perceptual processing is still going on regardless. Because the conscious processing has been reduced our perception of the world seems richer and we seem to respond to things much more immediately.
The conclusion that's drawn by mystics (because they're not aware of the immense complexity of the brain) is that in this state we are closer to or even a part of some universal thing that isn't the individual self.
So maybe the final illusion that a Buddhist should overcome is this one. Maybe the ultimate truth is that Nirvana is Samsara. (Oh, I think that is a Buddhist idea!)

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-25-2006 10:47 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 2:52 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 87 by BMG, posted 04-25-2006 4:12 PM JavaMan has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 85 of 165 (306522)
04-25-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by JavaMan
04-25-2006 12:44 PM


Re: The illusion of selflessness
I think the mystical notion that you can lose your self and become one with some universal Self is an illusion arising from the tendency to conflate the consciousness with the entire self (i.e. the self including all unconscious mental processes).
I think what you are calling the self I would call the organism. The true nondualist in Buddhism or Advaita would never assert you lose your self or become one with anything. That goes against the fundamental perception of the teaching.
You could lose the illusion of being a self. One analogy the Shankacharya gives its mistaking a length of rope in shadow for a snake. You don't ask what happened to the snake when you finally recognize the rope.
The assertion is that it is whole. You can't make it whole, you can't make it one. It already is one! It's the separateness that is the illusion.
I don't have time this morning to go into much detail. Roberts and others quite clearly are aware of the sensory processing and distinguish it from the conceptual processing that is the bases for the sense of self.
You have focused on the crucial area though and that is consciousness. Our scientific understanding of consciousness is just beginning and it may challenge or confirm aspects discovered phenomenologically by Buddha and others who have undergone a transformation in the way they experience.
I think this is on topic as it is this phenomena that the notion of a soul was offerred as an explanation. I would caution that popular notions of what Buddha taught etc. are not in fact what Buddha taught and are oversimplifications or misunderstandings.
To begin with I suggest it's important to grasp that boundaries are human conceptual impositions on phenomenal reality. Can a river exist without clouds and rain? A description of lungs and their function take place within an implicit atmosphere and that atmosphere includes the complex ecology of the earth, plants, and ultimately the sun light providing energy for plants and so on. I've been offering the model that the universe is one large complex process of multiple interacting and interdependent processes. Nowhere is there a thing or entity. Thing is an artifact of our brain function.
Gotta run.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by JavaMan, posted 04-25-2006 12:44 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by JavaMan, posted 04-25-2006 3:55 PM lfen has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 86 of 165 (306540)
04-25-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by lfen
04-25-2006 2:52 PM


Re: The illusion of selflessness
To begin with I suggest it's important to grasp that boundaries are human conceptual impositions on phenomenal reality. Can a river exist without clouds and rain? A description of lungs and their function take place within an implicit atmosphere and that atmosphere includes the complex ecology of the earth, plants, and ultimately the sun light providing energy for plants and so on. I've been offering the model that the universe is one large complex process of multiple interacting and interdependent processes. Nowhere is there a thing or entity. Thing is an artifact of our brain function.
And I would say that your model of interacting processes is just another conceptualization imposed on the reality itself. Don't you think there is a wonderful mystery about the notion that we are surrounded by things that exist independently of how we think of them?
My feeling, both from my own experience, and from reading around the latest neuroscience research, is that the human experience of the world has many levels, many layers. We are pre-eminent amongst animals in being able to generalise and abstract from our perceptions - to such an extent that we very often don't even notice things that are obvious to any animal (a piece of card flapping from a pole is a major distraction to my dog; I don't even notice it). But our experience of the world isn't just this abstraction - that's just a part of what we experience. The whole visual and aural world is flowing through our eyes and ears.
To adjust to the reality of the world seems a worthy ambition. To ignore the reality that separateness is a permanent state for humans seems to me a fatal illusion.

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 2:52 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 10:23 PM JavaMan has replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 87 of 165 (306543)
04-25-2006 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by JavaMan
04-25-2006 12:44 PM


Re: The illusion of selflessness
Hi Javaman.
You and lfen are having a conversation, but if I may but in for just a sec..
I'm a little confused by what you mean with this:
Maybe the ultimate truth is that Nirvana is samsara.
Nirvana is the endless cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth?
I don't mean this as a challenge, just trying to better understand the statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by JavaMan, posted 04-25-2006 12:44 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by lfen, posted 04-25-2006 10:58 PM BMG has not replied
 Message 90 by JavaMan, posted 04-26-2006 7:21 AM BMG has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 88 of 165 (306598)
04-25-2006 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by JavaMan
04-25-2006 3:55 PM


Re: The illusion of selflessness
And I would say that your model of interacting processes is just another conceptualization imposed on the reality itself.
I certainly agree it's a conceptualization. Not sure what you are getting at by "imposed" but it's likely I would agree with that also.
Don't you think there is a wonderful mystery about the notion that we are surrounded by things that exist independently of how we think of them?
I think mystery and wonder are central. I would say that what Is exists independently of how we think of it.
To ignore the reality that separateness is a permanent state for humans seems to me a fatal illusion.
What is "separateness"? And how do you mean permanent state, do you mean it's eternal? Fatal means it kills. What does this fatal illusion kill?
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by JavaMan, posted 04-25-2006 3:55 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by JavaMan, posted 04-26-2006 7:57 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 89 of 165 (306602)
04-25-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by BMG
04-25-2006 4:12 PM


Samsara not other than nirvana
Hi Infixion, you are quite welcome to join in. This isn't a great debate thread and the board is for participation.
Samsara refers to the the phenomena of birth, death, and rebirth. It is a key concept in Hinduism as well as Buddhism and will take a range of meanings. But it refers to the temporal, to the conditioned to things arising and falling away and hence the sorrow or pain or discomfort of our lives.
Nirvana refers to an extinguishing that results in freedom from samsara and the attaining of peace. In Buddhism beingsbecomes aware that they are suffering as they pursue goals and pleasures around and around. Desire leading to achievement leading to fullfilment but then maybe failure, or ennui. Seeking nirvana is seeking a way out from all this.
In order to clarify the realization of prajna, Nagarjuna teaches the identity of samsara and nirvana by means of a dual negation:
Samsara is without any distinction from nirvana;
Nirvana is also without any distinction from samsara.
(Madhyamaka-karika, xxv, 19)
Here, samsara and nirvana (form and emptiness) are brought into a relationship of nonduality through the negation of each side. The Prajnaparamita formulation of “Samsara is nirvana””the identity of opposites”is also “neither samsara nor nirvana.” The world of nondiscriminative wisdom is and is not samsara, it is and is not nirvana.
404 Not Found
I'm a bit tired after work and I am not seeing just how to tie this into the discussion on the soul. It does apply but I'm a bit brain tired tonight. Nonetheless, the formula "samsare is none other than nirvana, nirvana none other than samsara" is a core Buddhist teaching of non duality.
The Hindu concept of the soul was the atman. At the time of the Buddha it appears the atman was conceived of as some sort of permanent object. The Buddha introspectively examined his stream of consciousness looking for the atman. Failing to find any permanent self lead to or was his awakening. He declared all the elements that make up a human to be empty of self. That he was able to found a compassionate religion based on this difficult to understand profound insight is something that still amazes me.
Well, that's all for now.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by BMG, posted 04-25-2006 4:12 PM BMG has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2318 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 90 of 165 (306654)
04-26-2006 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by BMG
04-25-2006 4:12 PM


Re: The illusion of selflessness
Hi Javaman.
You and lfen are having a conversation, but if I may but in for just a sec..
Well, I butted into a conversation between Faith and Ifen, so I guess you're entitled to do the same .
I'm a little confused by what you mean with this:
Maybe the ultimate truth is that Nirvana is samsara.
Ifen has already given you an answer from the Buddhist perspective. What I'd like to add is that, if you think about the process of enlightenment as a psychological process rather than a metaphysical one, then only you are changing, not the reality around you. The world is the same when you end your journey as when you started it. Only now, your experience of that reality is different.
This process is summed up by a phrase that was very popular amongst hippies in the sixties:
First there was a mountain
Then there was no mountain
Then there was a mountain
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 04-26-2006 07:40 AM

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by BMG, posted 04-25-2006 4:12 PM BMG has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024