Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seven8s · 02-06-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

seven8s,

You can know in concept that the soul is pure, but if you think that you have actually created souls then your knowledge is not practical realization. Your knowledge of the soul is thus partial. At some point it is compromised by false ego.

A soul is not created from sexual intercourse. You engage your body with one of the opposite sex and in doing so produce an offspring body, which a soul indwells, but you did not create that soul.

Well now let’s see............................you acknowledge that I know in concept that the soul is pure, well of course you do because I proved to you with your own words that I’m right. But, you state that if I think that I created souls then my knowledge is not practical realization....................hmm, sounds like a bunch of words jumbled together because you can’t present an alternative to my assertion, I can create souls. Let’s sort it out anyway.

Practical, adjective

1. Of or concerned with practice rather then theory.

Yep I just went in an pinched my son, then just to be sure my practice at creating souls was adequate, I pinched my other son........

2. Likely to be effective in real circumstances.

Yep, I must have did it right, effectively they both hollered, “What the hell you doing?�? No dead bodies around here, there goes theory.

3. Suitable for a particular purpose.

Humanity continues, I continue. And as well I adore them, that’s why I had them, and because I do, they adore me as well. Besides I need someone to take the trash out.

4. Realistic in approach.

No mystery about it (the creation of souls that is). Sperm meets egg. Also, why take the trash out when you can get, create someone else to do it.

5. Skilled at manual tasks.

Yep, sperm and egg unite from their once, here to for, separate energies, and a new energy is born, created, hence qualifies under your very definition. But as it ends up they are not very good at taking the trash out, that’s why I pinched them.

6. So nearly the case it can be considered to be so, virtual.

Yep, when I gave up that egg and my husband gave up that sperm, we lost possession and they are now their own soul. Such is life and it is good.

Noun. 1. An examination or lesson involving the practical application and procedure.

Did you learn anything, or do you just skim read?

Realization: verb 1. Become fully aware of as a fact; understand clearly. 2. Cause (something desired or anticipated) to happen; fulfill. 3 give actual or physical form (my particular favorite) 4. Sell or make a profit of.

I am fully aware that my son's exist, I understand clearly that my egg and my husbands sperm caused them to happen. We gave actual physical form, and it, they are fulfilled to preform in the manner of likeness.

I considered selling them a time or two when they were little but they were just so darn cute I couldn’t bring myself to do it. I figure paybacks are a bummer; lets see if they can create something that takes the trash out.

edited seven8s added bold wording

KrishnadasaAnudasa · 02-07-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seven8s

Well now lets see, the ignorance I was dis-spelling was the myth your post presents concerning menstruation.

And the soul is pure, not ignorant, and yes, I can create a soul..................did so 5 times. Now another gift I have is to renew consciousness, but then again I can equally destroy it, so it seems to me that both are within my power. It’s a matter of choice. Perhaps that’s what upsets you. Is it that you not only want your power, you want mine as well? Sorry, I’m not ignorant, you can’t have it, but you are free to give yours away if you want to.

ignorance of the soul

there is no creation , that is a projection

KrishnadasaAnudasa · 02-07-2005, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Evidence: Bhagavad-Gita

Bhagavad-gīt�? As It Is 2.12

Quote:

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

PURPORT

In the Vedas, in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvet�?śvatara Upaniṣad, it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mod note: Posting copyright material is not permitted. Cutting & pasting large sections from other sites is strongly discouraged. Post a link and a brief excerpt and explain why it is relevant to the issue you are addressing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

KrishnadasaAnudasa · 02-07-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bright Life

If you have some evidence for your assertions, then present them. Thinly veiled insults are neither evidentiary or permissible posts.

Bright Life
GRD Moderator

Bhagavad-gīt�? As It Is 2.20

Quote:

TRANSLATION

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

PURPORT

Qualitatively, the small atomic fragmental part of the Supreme Spirit is one with the Supreme. He undergoes no changes like the body. Sometimes the soul is called the steady, or kūṭa-stha. The body is subject to six kinds of transformations. It takes its birth from the womb of the mother's body, remains for some time, grows, produces some effects, gradually dwindles, and at last vanishes into oblivion. The soul, however, does not go through such changes. The soul is not born, but, because he takes on a material body, the body takes its birth.

Bhagavad-gīt�? As It Is 2.22

Quote:

TRANSLATION

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

PURPORT

Change of body by the atomic individual soul is an accepted fact. Even the modern scientists who do not believe in the existence of the soul, but at the same time cannot explain the source of energy from the heart, have to accept continuous changes of body which appear from childhood to boyhood and from boyhood to youth and again from youth to old age. From old age, the change is transferred to another body. This has already been explained in a previous verse (2.13).

Bhagavad-gīt�? As It Is 2.23

Quote:

TRANSLATION

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

PURPORT

All kinds of weapons — swords, flame weapons, rain weapons, tornado weapons, etc. — are unable to kill the spirit soul.

Bhagavad-gīt�? As It Is 2.24

Quote:

TRANSLATION

This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

PURPORT

All these qualifications of the atomic soul definitely prove that the individual soul is eternally the atomic particle of the spirit whole, and he remains the same atom eternally, without change. The theory of monism is very difficult to apply in this case, because the individual soul is never expected to become one homogeneously. After liberation from material contamination, the atomic soul may prefer to remain as a spiritual spark in the effulgent rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but the intelligent souls enter into the spiritual planets to associate with the Personality of Godhead.

Bright Life · 02-07-2005, 02:40 PM

You just don't get it, do you? To be valid evidence, the discussion participants must agree that the source of the evidence is reliable. As I have pointed out, "sacred writings" are NOT reliable sources of evidence.

radagast · 02-08-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hinduwoman

BUDDHISM ...: impure.

Uhhh, no.

There may be Buddhist sects that consider this so, I would look to the prevailing culture as the root of that belief. This is fairly outside the areas of Buddhist inquiry and you will find no consensus among sects over this.

I haven't even heard of one (which only means I'm not familiar with all sects) that considers this impure or unclean.

Since it has nothing to do with the pursuit of self-realization, I can't see this as important.

Glenn

seven8s · 02-08-2005, 07:51 AM

Quote:

TRANSLATION
For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

PURPORT

Qualitatively, the small atomic fragmental part of the Supreme Spirit is one with the Supreme. He undergoes no changes like the body. Sometimes the soul is called the steady, or kūuṭ?a-stha. The body is subject to six kinds of transformations. It takes its birth from the womb of the mother's body, remains for some time, grows, produces some effects, gradually dwindles, and at last vanishes into oblivion. The soul, however, does not go through such changes. The soul is not born, but, because he takes on a material body, the body takes its birth.

First, your translation and proportion contradict one another. The contradiction is as follows:

‘He (soul) does not come into being’. & ‘The soul is not born, but, because he (soul) takes on a material body, the body takes it’s birth’.

Translation: If a soul takes a body, it has in and of that act come into being. The soul took something, that is action. It is something that can be seen by both it’s physical characteristics and it’s actions Be-ing = noun/action. It can be said that being is both an action and a noun, hence it can also be said that the noun is recognized, defined by it’s action.

Let us start backwards from ‘me’ a material being to my manifestation (body) or what is called cause (action).

Your whole concept is based on the concept that:

1. The soul is not changeable, not transformed, because.
2. The soul is not born, because.
3. The soul always was, end of cause, hence no effect. It ceased to be cause. It has no cause, therefore it cannot be.

It has killed itself right from the beginning when it ceased to be cause. It has no effect, therefore, it is not.

Remembering that to add ‘be’ to ‘cause’ is to add both an action and a noun.

So it would seem to me that this cause that you speak of has no effect from it’s very beginning. Then why am I here. A projection? Under your analysis a soul has no effect. It killed itself right from the beginning. There is nothing to project, therefore nothing to be born, therefore nothing to change transform.

Nothing in and of itself is a oxymoron. It is too words strung together that make no sense = no thing. Well I can not only see things, I can hear things, I can taste things, I can touch things, I can smell things, and the illusive 6th sense...................therefore I be.

In that I experience all that I see, hear, smell, taste, touch, different then that which was before me, I am a transformation of that which was before me.

Every time a child is born it is another chance to get it right. Of course if you want to project onto that child perceptions, that are birthed from your experiences, you potentially kill that which the child potentially kill the change, transformation that the child has come to be.

Paraprakrti · 02-09-2005, 03:17 PM

I don't know what version of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is Krishnadas is referring to. In the original, 1972 complete edition the verse states:

For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. (Bg. 2.20)

That verse and it's entire purport can be viewed at:
http://www.asitis.com/2/20.html

"Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be" is another way of saying, "that which is beginningless is also endless". The soul doesn't "come into being" because the soul is eternally and transcendentally being.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-07-2005, 02:40 PM	#45
Bright Life Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 8,345	You just don't get it, do you? To be valid evidence, the discussion participants must agree that the source of the evidence is reliable. As I have pointed out, "sacred writings" are NOT reliable sources of evidence.

02-09-2005, 03:17 PM	#48
Paraprakrti Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cali Posts: 131	I don't know what version of Bhagavad-Gita As It Is Krishnadas is referring to. In the original, 1972 complete edition the verse states: For the soul there is never birth nor death. Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. (Bg. 2.20) That verse and it's entire purport can be viewed at: http://www.asitis.com/2/20.html "Nor, having once been, does he ever cease to be" is another way of saying, "that which is beginningless is also endless". The soul doesn't "come into being" because the soul is eternally and transcendentally being.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.