A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya wrote:

So the mind suffers. What does it matter? The mind will die with the body. The soul never suffered. So what is the problem if the temporary body of the immortal soul suffers a little because of it's temporary mind? What is the big deal? Why is such a big deal made of the suffering of the temporary body, when the real soul is untouched by it?

The problem is that only elite groups who have the time and expertise to know Brahman can feel the real soul. Apart from those few who spontaneously have the mystical experience, the rest of us have to endure the suffering of the temporary body.

I am not a Christian, but Christianity supports the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, the diseased and the poor, the criminals and the mentally frail, and is not confined to a mystically-enlightened elite.

[sthitapragya]

If the soul has not conquered material desires and lamentation. In otherwords, still has material desire. Then she must accept a new material body and is still covered by the same mind. So the soul is covered by two material bodies. The gross physical body (made of earth, water, fire, air and ether) and the subtle mental body ( comprised the subtle material elements of mind, intelligence and false ego), Death just simply means taking off the gross physical body. But Nature provides a new material body to attempt to carry out her material desires. In order to be liberated a person must overcome material desires. This is a long subject.

How is that possible? The soul is immutable. It cannot be changed. It is eternal. How can the soul have any desires if it is unchangeable? If the soul has unfulfilled desires and then fulfills them, it would change. However, it cannot change. It is immutable. So it cannot have desires. The soul is eternal, all pervading. How can it not have conquered material desires? How can it have material desires in the first place, when it is imperturbable?

[Terrapin Station]

Souls don't exist, so there goes that line of inquiry.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya wrote:

How is that possible? The soul is immutable. It cannot be changed. It is eternal. How can the soul have any desires if it is unchangeable? If the soul has unfulfilled desires and then fulfills them, it would change. However, it cannot change. It is immutable. So it cannot have desires. The soul is eternal, all pervading. How can it not have conquered material desires? How can it have material desires in the first place, when it is imperturbable?

For information, please, Sthitapragya.

Are souls differentiated one from another? If so who or what differentiates them one from another? If souls are not and cannot be differentiated one from another, is this why and how atman is Brahman?

If Atman is Brahman, is Brahman also no more and no less than the total number of atmans?

I also would like to know, are souls confined to human beings and not inclusive of other sentient beings? This question alone gets us into the maze of western ontology.

Is a soul more or less powerful or valuable according to the individual to whom the soul pertains?

Is it possible for someone who is completely aware of their soul, their atman, to live their life as a separate person who often, in order to remain alive, must contend with other people and with nature? If so is being enlightened as to atman a mood or perspective which alternates with the everyday mood or perspective?

[Walker]

If there's no reason or need to believe that p, then why would you believe that p? Just per whim?

If there's something we can observe that would provide support for believing that there is "body memory" which is distinct from regular old (brain) memory or concept formation, etc., that would be a reason to believe it, by the way. It would provide an empirical reason. So what do we observe? "Body memory"? How do we observe that?

Likewise, how would we observe that perceptions "not cognized can be 're-cognized'" with respect to some "other" type of consciousness?

Re the questions comment, you must not be very familiar with philosophy if you think that questions have nothing to do with it. And I suppose you've never read Plato.

Getting it narrowed down.

No philosophy. Just trying to cram what you don't know into what you do know via a bunch of questions.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19226&p=272268&hili ... od#p272268

[Terrapin Station]

No philosophy. Just trying to cram what you don't know into what you do know via a bunch of questions.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19226&p=272268&hili ... od#p272268

It seems more like you're avoiding questions about what you don't know.

[Walker]

No philosophy. Just trying to cram what you don't know into what you do know via a bunch of questions.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19226&p=272268&hili ... od#p272268

It seems more like you're avoiding questions about what you don't know.

Your questions about the material display no comprehension of the material. You're in your own world, I see no reason, need, or cause of belief to join you there in your world of belief.

[Terrapin Station]

No philosophy. Just trying to cram what you don't know into what you do know via a bunch of questions.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19226&p=272268&hili ... od#p272268

It seems more like you're avoiding questions about what you don't know.

Your questions about the material display no comprehension of the material. You're in your own world, I see no reason, need, or cause of belief to join you there in your world of belief.

The reason I'm asking questions in the first place is that your comments make no sense and display no understanding of the issues.

[ypc]

Sthitapragya wrote:

So the mind suffers. What does it matter? The mind will die with the body. The soul never suffered. So what is the problem if the temporary body of the immortal soul suffers a little because of it's temporary mind? What is the big deal? Why is such a big deal made of the suffering of the temporary body, when the real soul is untouched by it?

The problem is that only elite groups who have the time and expertise to know Brahman can feel the real soul. Apart from those few who spontaneously have the mystical experience, the rest of us have to endure the suffering of the temporary body.

I am not a Christian, but Christianity supports the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, the diseased and the poor, the criminals and the mentally frail, and is not confined to a mystically-enlightened elite.

No, I didn't say anything about mystically enlightened elite. Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita "Abanadon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me, I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction, do not fear". Ch.18 verse 66
Actually only recognition that I am weak and powerless and the. Taking shelter of God is required. He then carries what you lack and takes charge of you. Furthermore the reccomended means for self realisation by the Vedas in this age is the simple hearing and repeating of Gods names. Anyone can do it, not just the elite

[ypc]

Souls don't exist, so there goes that line of inquiry.

If you really believe that there is only matter and that there is no one in the body, and all there is is matter. Then why do you try to communicate this idea to "others"? The matter that makes up your desk is essentially the same that makes up other bodies. There is no difference, for example between a desk proton neutron and electron than the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up other bodies, yet you don't try to convince your desk of your argument do you? Therefore even tho you philosophically deny the existence of the soul, by trying to communicate to others you accept that there is someone there. And they are distinct from simply matter. basically you have your philosophy, and then you have your real life which is contradictory to what you preach

[sthitapragya]

Sthitapragya wrote:

How is that possible? The soul is immutable. It cannot be changed. It is eternal. How can the soul have any desires if it is unchangeable? If the soul has unfulfilled desires and then fulfills them, it would change. However, it cannot change. It is immutable. So it cannot have desires. The soul is eternal, all pervading. How can it not have conquered material desires? How can it have material desires in the first place, when it is imperturbable?

For information, please, Sthitapragya.

Are souls differentiated one from another? If so who or what differentiates them one from another? If souls are not and cannot be differentiated one from another, is this why and how atman is Brahman?

Belinda, according to the Bhagwad Gita, they are not. That is where Shankaracharya seems to have derived its concept. So yes, the atman and the Brahman are one and the mind is supposed to understand that to be liberated from suffering.

If Atman is Brahman, is Brahman also no more and no less than the total number of atmans?

Well, not exactly. There is a shloka in the Isha Upnishad, which starts with the description of the brahman which roughly translates to " That is Complete, this is Complete. From the Complete comes the Complete. If Complete is taken from the Complete what remains is Complete. " Basically the atman is complete in itself as is the Brahman. When the atman is taken from the Brahman what remains is the Brahman in both cases.

I also would like to know, are souls confined to human beings and not inclusive of other sentient beings? This question alone gets us into the maze of western ontology.

Not according to the Hindus. Everything, living and non-living has a soul.

Is a soul more or less powerful or valuable according to the individual to whom the soul pertains?

The value of the soul is a construct of the individual mind. To the soul itself, the individual body has not value. That is the essence of the whole thing. The body and mind must start identifying itself with the soul instead of the body. That is when one understands that the body and mind are not you. The soul is.

Is it possible for someone who is completely aware of their soul, their atman, to live their life as a separate person who often, in order to remain alive, must contend with other people and with nature? If so is being enlightened as to atman a mood or perspective which alternates with the everyday mood or perspective?

Again, according to the Gita, yes. And no, being enlightened as to the atman is just an independent realization which is supposed to make you "sthitapragya" which basically means completely detached and in total control of your emotions. You can then go about your daily activities in a more efficient manner without being affected by moods while retaining a perspective.

Personally, I don't believe in the soul but I like the concept of 'sthitapragya' and I think it is a state of mind worth attempting to acquire.

There is another shloka by Shankaracharya which I really like. It translates roughly to " discussions lead to disinterest in discussions. Disinterest in discussions lead to disinterest in material things. Disinterest in material things leads to a tranquil mind ( here tranquil translates to sthitapragya) and a tranquil mind leads to liberation from life. Here liberation from life does not mean death but more like liberation from being affected by the vicissitudes of life.

[sthitapragya]

Souls don't exist, so there goes that line of inquiry.

If you really believe that there is only matter and that there is no one in the body, and all there is is matter. Then why do you try to communicate this idea to "others"? The matter that makes up your desk is essentially the same that makes up other bodies. There is no difference, for example between a desk proton neutron and electron than the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up other bodies, yet you don't try to convince your desk of your argument do you? Therefore even tho you philosophically deny the existence of the soul, by trying to communicate to others you accept that there is someone there. And they are distinct from simply matter. basically you have your philosophy, and then you have your real life which is contradictory to what you preach

That is just wrong. Trying to communicate with others is a requirement of life. Man is a social animal. He needs to live in a cooperative society. Life has nothing to do with the soul. Even if you believe you have a soul, what good does it do to you? The soul is impersonal, does not care about the body it is in or the mind the body has. The most you can believe is that since life cannot be explained by itself it requires magic and that is where the soul comes in. It simply gives life to the body and explains why life is to you. We, on the other hand, can consider that life is a spontaneous phenomena and does not need a soul to sustain itself.

You are the one obsessed with getting rid of the suffering of life. I wonder why. Consider this. Your soul is immortal and always in a state of bliss. It has had an opportunity to experience suffering for a very short time. Suffering is a change of scenery for the soul. It is like a very very very short vacation in its eternal lifetime of bliss where it gets to experience something new. So I find it foolish to take that away from the soul. If you care for your soul, you would revel in your suffering to give the soul its money's worth to make the experience full and rich. The soul is tired of bliss, I am sure. So instead of trying to be rid of suffering, suffer more instead. I am sure your soul will be more grateful for the experience.

[Terrapin Station]

If you really believe that there is only matter

Yes, I really believe that. Because it's really the case.

and that there is no one in the body, and all there is is matter

There is no one "in the body"--that is, where they're something aside from their body, which they're then inhabiting. But there is certainly someone as a body, that is, where they are identical to their body.

Then why do you try to communicate this idea to "others"?

I certainly do communicate this to others whenever the topic comes up.

The matter that makes up your desk is essentially the same that makes up other bodies.

In that it's matter, sure. But it's not the same matter comprising everything, not the same structures or the same processes, either. There's a reason that you can't very well employ an active lava flow or a gamma ray burst as a desk.

There is no difference, for example between a desk proton neutron and electron than the electrons, protons and neutrons that make up other bodies,

Actually, no protons, neutrons etc. are identical (I'm a nominalist), but even supposing they are identical, structures and processes matter. Again, that's why you can't use an active lava flow as a desk. You don't believe the reason for that is that one is material and the other isn't. (Well, or maybe you do, in which case is it the desk or lava flow that you believe is not matter?) Rather, different materials have very different properties.

Is the reason that you'd eat a banana but not cyanide that you believe one isn't matter?

Therefore even tho you philosophically deny the existence of the soul,

It's really the world that denies the existence of the soul. I'm just a reporter.

by trying to communicate to others you accept that there is someone there.

Yes, of course. Consciousness, selves, etc. are a property of the materials that comprise brains, in particular structures in the brain, when they're undergoing particular processes. Again, different materials have different properties. This is why we don't attempt to make automobile tires out of mercury. Though we do make them for Mercuries.

And they are distinct from simply matter.

Nothing exists that's distinct from simply matter.

basically you have your philosophy, and then you have your real life which is contradictory to what you preach

Put that mirror down for a moment.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya wrote:

Again, according to the Gita, yes. And no, being enlightened as to the atman is just an independent realization which is supposed to make you "sthitapragya" which basically means completely detached and in total control of your emotions. You can then go about your daily activities in a more efficient manner without being affected by moods while retaining a perspective.

Personally, I don't believe in the soul but I like the concept of 'sthitapragya' and I think it is a state of mind worth attempting to acquire.

There is another shloka by Shankaracharya which I really like. It translates roughly to " discussions lead to disinterest in discussions. Disinterest in discussions lead to disinterest in material things. Disinterest in material things leads to a tranquil mind ( here tranquil translates to sthitapragya) and a tranquil mind leads to liberation from life. Here liberation from life does not mean death but more like liberation from being affected by the vicissitudes of life.

Thank you very much for the whole of your careful replies to my questions.
I understand and hope to remember all of them except for this : while I do understand tranquility to be good and I once felt that disinterested tranquility as a spontaneous and very brief event , I nevertheless do wonder if that tranquility is available only to an elite who have the time and opportunity to do exercises of some sort in order to attain it. I cannot see how it's possible to experience a mood simply because one believes the blessed mood of tranquility to be a good thing.

[sthitapragya]

I understand and hope to remember all of them except for this : while I do understand tranquility to be good and I once felt that disinterested tranquility as a spontaneous and very brief event , I nevertheless do wonder if that tranquility is available only to an elite who have the time and opportunity to do exercises of some sort in order to attain it. I cannot see how it's possible to experience a mood simply because one believes the blessed mood of tranquility to be a good thing.

There is a difference between disinterested and detached when the word is used in Sanskrit. Detached is something like separated, not disinterested. I believe it is possible to achieve that state more through introspection than by exercises. Observing our own anger, fear, frustrations, how our bodies feel when we are actually in that state, observing how we come to certain conclusions, things like that help in understanding ourselves and therefore understanding others. At least that is the line I am adopting, since I don't believe in any higher consciousness or soul or any such thing. Let us see how it goes. I don't know if it will work, but there is no harm in trying and I do see certain encouraging changes in myself and my emotional state since the last few years.