Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crocodile deathroll · 01-04-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Understood...

But why? What has caused this One to become many ignorant parts? I assume that this One is constitutionally full in knowledge, but that after dividing it became ignorant of Itself. I often hear two different sides of reasoning from others I have encountered with a similar philosophy. On one hand they will say that the many are ignorant because they are divided from the One, while on the other hand they will say that the one divided due to ignorance. Of course, this is circular reasoning. Would it not be more reconciling to accept that One and many exist simultaneously? Acintya bhedabheda tattva: Inconceivably one and many (or different), simultaneously. That is the philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. It is actually very reconciling in these matters, not to mention that it is authorized by one of the most ancient Scriptures known to earth, the Vedas.

Here is a fine example of circular reasoning
Student:
Do you believe in reincarnation?
Professor:
Of course not, it's a load of BS
Student:
How do you come to that conclusion?
Professor:
I have it from good authority in this book. Read it and see.
Student:
Who is the author?
Professor:
I am.

But the most commonly encountered argument is good old "invincible ignorance"
Like you regardless of your argument it is answered with this same reply "'you only live one life and when you are dead it's game over"
The are not going bother to entering into any arguments "who or what wrote the rules of this "game"? or why just stop at one? They think that their invincible ignorance will be the easy way out. It posits the simple premise that my argument is right so therefore your's must be wrong.

CDR

Paraprakrti · 01-05-2005, 10:22 AM

Ok...

What has caused this One to become many ignorant parts? And why?

What is your position on this?

crocodile deathroll · 01-05-2005, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paraprakrti

Ok...

What has caused this One to become many ignorant parts? And why?

What is your position on this?

IMO this "soul" is even ignorant of even the most of the data with the brain at any one time. Like you only use the data for the task at hand like reading this, and data you require for the task of driving a car or swimming is not required to be accessed until the real conditions for any of those tasks arrives. So this switching off most of the data eliminates distractions on order to gain maximum survival advantage.

j-ogenes · 01-05-2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holly

I once believed in reincarnation. My response to this question was that new souls are created as the population increases. In other words, all the souls that exist today have not always existed but new ones are continually being created.

My understanding of at least the Buddhist notion of reincarnation is that all life has existed infinitely. It includes Hell realms, etc.--all the souls go somewhere.

Yeshi · 01-07-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bhagavad Gita

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.

This is also position of Buddhism; additionally, it could be said that Atman (soul) never separated from Brahman (Dharmakaya) but the individual got carried away into (own) illusion. So 'it' does not recognize its own Nature which is Dharmakaya and not different from the Nature of Enlightened Beings.

premjan · 01-07-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeshi

This is also position of Buddhism; additionally, it could be said that Atman (soul) never separated from Brahman (Dharmakaya) but the individual got carried away into (own) illusion. So 'it' does not recognize its own Nature which is Dharmakaya and not different from the Nature of Enlightened Beings.

This is the Advaitist position also: the Atman is the Brahman, separated only by avidya (ignorance).

Shven · 01-08-2005, 03:38 AM

In response to the original question...

Why must we presume that souls are constrained by time in the same way that we are?

But · 01-09-2005, 12:22 PM

Why should "souls" be discrete entities at all?

Is there a reason why they shouldn't merge, split, dissolve, condense, etc.?

An interesting speculative idea I had once is that the brain, as it works, creates an excitation / wave in a sort of multi-dimensional membrane, a kind of abstract mathematical state space, which gives rise to consciousness. As the brain dies, the excitation continues until it finally fades out and can choose to move about in this space, interfere with other waves, or just sit there and get weaker until it disappears, which could be what is described as nirvana, a blank slate, the natural state of mind.

What do y'all think about this?

Paraprakrti · 01-09-2005, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarm Clock Pizza

Why should "souls" be discrete entities at all?

Is there a reason why they shouldn't merge, split, dissolve, condense, etc.?

An interesting speculative idea I had once is that the brain, as it works, creates an excitation / wave in a sort of multi-dimensional membrane, a kind of abstract mathematical state space, which gives rise to consciousness. As the brain dies, the excitation continues until it finally fades out and can choose to move about in this space, interfere with other waves, or just sit there and get weaker until it disappears, which could be what is described as nirvana, a blank slate, the natural state of mind.

What do y'all think about this?

Your premise is that the gross produces the subtle, whereas mine is that the subtle produces the gross. I do not believe that the brain produces the consciousness. I follow that the consciousness is the symptom of the transcendental soul. I also follow that the soul is constitutionally an individual. The monist idea that the soul's constitutional position is to be homogenously merged with the whole is out of ignorance. They say that it is ignorance that separates the soul, but whose ignorance? If the soul lacked the individual capacity, then who was it that became ignorant, God? That makes no sense. One of God's characteristic properties is that He doesn't fall into ignorance. If individuality is false then we have no use in knowing that it is false. We have no use in knowing much at all.

premjan · 01-10-2005, 12:25 AM

The problem with the "subtle" as an agent is that there is basically no evidence for the independent existence of subtle things (e.g. souls). Perhaps they are so subtle that trying to measure them would disturb them sufficiently to make them vanish. In that case what use are they exactly?

01-10-2005, 12:25 AM	#30
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	causes and effects The problem with the "subtle" as an agent is that there is basically no evidence for the independent existence of subtle things (e.g. souls). Perhaps they are so subtle that trying to measure them would disturb them sufficiently to make them vanish. In that case what use are they exactly?

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

01-05-2005, 10:22 AM	#22
Paraprakrti Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Cali Posts: 131	Ok... What has caused this One to become many ignorant parts? And why? What is your position on this?

01-08-2005, 03:38 AM	#27
Shven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: England Posts: 911	In response to the original question... Why must we presume that souls are constrained by time in the same way that we are?

01-09-2005, 12:22 PM	#28
But Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 702	Why should "souls" be discrete entities at all? Is there a reason why they shouldn't merge, split, dissolve, condense, etc.? An interesting speculative idea I had once is that the brain, as it works, creates an excitation / wave in a sort of multi-dimensional membrane, a kind of abstract mathematical state space, which gives rise to consciousness. As the brain dies, the excitation continues until it finally fades out and can choose to move about in this space, interfere with other waves, or just sit there and get weaker until it disappears, which could be what is described as nirvana, a blank slate, the natural state of mind. What do y'all think about this?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.