A soul is often thought of as being the "real" person that survives the death of the physical body, that may or may not be a hologram of that person's latest physical form. The essence of the idea is that identity and memory pass from the body to heaven or from the body to a new body. Sentience remains within this invisible electromagnetic form.

And this is an Eastern philosophy learned in Tibet by one Yeshua of Galilee who took the philosophy home with him and eventually got hung by Roman soldiers for his efforts.

They tell us that a body cannot be sentient without receiving a soul from wherever. I'm interpreting this rather broadly, most of these philosophies talk about the souls coming from some invisible realms where the people may have forms analogous to physical bodies, or not as the case may be.

Then they tell us that the soul is more important than the body, and that its needs come first. Isn't this exactly like the actions of a parasite? Without regards to its host a parasite consumes what it needs, grows and eventually leaves the host when the host dies. It may or may not reproduce within that host, and it may or may not be able to survive the death of its host and infect another.

It has occured to me more than once that the relationship can be either parasitic or symbiotic. A parasite takes without giving back. A symbiote provides something that the host needs while the host provides it with room and board. Since the soul is allegedly the seat of human sentience, a parasitic soul might be thought of as the kind of soul that continually makes decisions that are bad for the body. Two versions of this have been popular. One is drinking, smoking, and having sex for pleasure, which I think feeds the soul just as well as the other, which is "mortifying the body" in some way or the other that satisfies religious requirements. There is the idea in a parasitic relationship that the parasite actually has to cause harm to operate.

The lines are never that clear. If a parasitic soul contains any sort of sentience, it would be advantageous to the survival of the host. A soul that is too self-sacrificing might even unconsciously work against the interests of the host by not having enough of itself involved in the current reality that it can help the host to survive.

And maybe this all just consists of what the person has learned as he or she grows up. Even so, the learning and the self-image that a person has been taught can be parasitic or symbiotic or some mix.

who knows

I think the point you are missing is that an entity can survive without a parasite - if you take away the soul,your corporeal self quickly degenerates into dull matter - the body is a covering from the soul, just like a shirt is the covering for the body - are you are a parasite of your shirt?

Bhagavad-gita 2.22 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.

I think that there is a false soul and a true soul.

What distinguishes the false ego from the real ego?

Yeah, but you said it yourself..
"A soul is often thought of as being the "real" person that survives the death of the physical body"

So the soul is the ME that thinks (Cognito ergo sum or whatever), so this body I'M riding is my shirt. So it's not like we have parasites, we ARE the parasites. Technically. But the life-giving properties change the contex somehow. If without a soul, matter is just dead matter, then we are parasiting a dustpan, that would not have any meaning without us. Although I think the term parasite somehow would demand that we would be an addition to an already existing form of life, so we couldn't practically be parasites. It's not two lifeforms competing, it's a single lifeform and some stuff it needs to exist.

Of course, if the question is the soul parasiting itself (if soul would consist of ideas, and if the ideas conflicted, would it be possible that the soul splits, at least partially?) by doing something that hurts itself... Well, isn't that excatly whats happening all over the globe?

First I'd like to say that that would be great if we had a soul that came from some foreign realm, and life was a secondary objective. Also, my one cousin and I do do obstacle courses that we made up on a few sets of oil tankers behind the projects he lives in. We always jump upward, so we land with our arms, not with our feet. Everytime I get ready to do certain jumps, a nervous feeling comes over me, and I don't want to do it. Then it's like I get pissed off with myself and it's almost like a duality. It's always the same thought: "I can't stop myself, if I run any jump, I have to do it, or fall 20ft. into a rusted pipe." Because of that, I believe that the soul has duality, if it even exists. It could just be my sub-conscious holding me back. If anything, our bodies are parasites to our souls.

Well....
First of all, souls come here for a reason, so just dying propably isn't a good idea. I'd think we'd have some primary objective IN life, and life would be necessary to achive it.
And then again, if we come here willingly, I suppose our bodies wouldn't really hurt us in order to survive? Rather we gave them something they need, and we get what we need. And further, if we assume life cannot exist without souls, it wouldn't be interaction between two lifeforms. (addressing the necessity to call this existence parasitic..)

And second, nothing says that your one soul cannot disagree with itself. It's like democracy; some people say do this, some other people say do that. Then they have to compromise what they didn't REALLY want to do, while maintaining to what they really DID want to do; and in the end they do only the stuff their supposed to do, and don't goof off some stupid thing no one really wanted but it sounded neat.

Yeah, but you said it yourself..
"A soul is often thought of as being the "real" person that survives the death of the physical body"

So the soul is the ME that thinks (Cognito ergo sum or whatever), so this body I'M riding is my shirt. So it's not like we have parasites, we ARE the parasites. Technically. But the life-giving properties change the contex somehow. If without a soul, matter is just dead matter, then we are parasiting a dustpan, that would not have any meaning without us. Although I think the term parasite somehow would demand that we would be an addition to an already existing form of life, so we couldn't practically be parasites. It's not two lifeforms competing, it's a single lifeform and some stuff it needs to exist.

Of course, if the question is the soul parasiting itself (if soul would consist of ideas, and if the ideas conflicted, would it be possible that the soul splits, at least partially?) by doing something that hurts itself... Well, isn't that excatly whats happening all over the globe?

Well, these questions have a lot of branches. A very common idea is that a body can be alive without a soul but it's missing a soul. Another common idea is that a new soul can grow with a new brain. The new soul might be the "animal soul" and in some theologies that soul isn't considered to be sentient. The reincarnated soul may be an interloper.

There is also the idea that the "soul" that people are looking for is like an overlay of the real person, a persona forced on the victim to make that person seem more acceptable to society. Control freaks abound and they aren't comfortable with something that just growed, they gots to make it even though they haven't a clue how. This persona takes on its own reality.

What are we going to think of as the soul that was handed to a person by God, according to Christians, who seem to think that when a person doesn't have exactly that soul, he ain't right? Some sects of Christianity and Judaism make a distinction between God and Nature, so that what is natural for animals isn't natural for humans. Humans are of God, animals are of Nature, and I have listened to strange people behind a public preach to the congregation that Satan rules over the Earth because that's his assigned theater of operations. If they think that your soul "just growed" then you are in a heap of trouble. (All dialect deliberate)

Some people think that thought patterns make up a soul and thought patterns can definitely be parasitic. A soul that is a "real soul" that is imposed from without almost has to be a parasite. The soul that belongs there can be tought to act as a parasite, draining the body without replenishing it, and it would act as a parasite if its education prevented its natural healing powers (presuming it has some) from working, or if its education taught it to always hate the body.

The question of the soul parisitizing itself is closest to what I am asking.

A soul is often thought of as being the "real" person that survives the death of the physical body, that may or may not be a hologram of that person's latest physical form. The essence of the idea is that identity and memory pass from the body to heaven or from the body to a new body. Sentience remains within this invisible electromagnetic form.

And this is an Eastern philosophy learned in Tibet by one Yeshua of Galilee who took the philosophy home with him and eventually got hung by Roman soldiers for his efforts.

They tell us that a body cannot be sentient without receiving a soul from wherever. I'm interpreting this rather broadly, most of these philosophies talk about the souls coming from some invisible realms where the people may have forms analogous to physical bodies, or not as the case may be.

Then they tell us that the soul is more important than the body, and that its needs come first. Isn't this exactly like the actions of a parasite? Without regards to its host a parasite consumes what it needs, grows and eventually leaves the host when the host dies. It may or may not reproduce within that host, and it may or may not be able to survive the death of its host and infect another.

It has occured to me more than once that the relationship can be either parasitic or symbiotic. A parasite takes without giving back. A symbiote provides something that the host needs while the host provides it with room and board. Since the soul is allegedly the seat of human sentience, a parasitic soul might be thought of as the kind of soul that continually makes decisions that are bad for the body. Two versions of this have been popular. One is drinking, smoking, and having sex for pleasure, which I think feeds the soul just as well as the other, which is "mortifying the body" in some way or the other that satisfies religious requirements. There is the idea in a parasitic relationship that the parasite actually has to cause harm to operate.

The lines are never that clear. If a parasitic soul contains any sort of sentience, it would be advantageous to the survival of the host. A soul that is too self-sacrificing might even unconsciously work against the interests of the host by not having enough of itself involved in the current reality that it can help the host to survive.

And maybe this all just consists of what the person has learned as he or she grows up. Even so, the learning and the self-image that a person has been taught can be parasitic or symbiotic or some mix.

If you want to sell your soul it's not difficult. In fact some people are waiting to steal your soul from you and tell you how to think, what to feel, etc.

If you want to sell your soul it's not difficult. In fact some people are waiting to steal your soul from you and tell you how to think, what to feel, etc.

They will also cheat me on the price, not only quoted but they will also contrive ways to pay less than they promised and receive more than I agreed to give.

I have begun to suspect that the body is a sort of cocoon for the soul. That the purpose of life as we experience it is to mature a soul.

Children have more soul than adults.

---- Ron.

That is a commonly held Native American belief. does life experience slowly kill our souls?

Trying to do it without the hemming and hawing:

I was taught by Christians that the soul was an add-on to the human body and that animals don't have souls. This sounds like someone goes in and adds something that is not natural. It's like the body is the horse and the soul more or less controls the body, the way a rider rides a horse.

In Jane Robert's "Seth" books, she talks about wars, pestilence, and criminality being things that a soul just has to experience. It's like the riders don't respect the horses and ride them to death. There is a lot of talk of wars being "inspired by God" as, presumably, communicated to us through our souls.

Maybe it's how you look at it, but these "souls" seem a lot like puppet-master type parasites who don't like themselves or each other very much. Oh, I'm sure that in the multi-dimensional reality/unreality/surreality of the soul, this stuff is all pretty minor and somehow legitimate, but dammit. Animals have feelings. They even seem to me to be ensouled. I feel like there is a reality to material beings that must be treated with respect and compassion. Respecting ourselves and this reality means we do not treat everything as if it is there for us to rearrange according to our worst mental problems.

That is a commonly held Native American belief. does life experience slowly kill our souls?

I wonder about that. Does an old soul simply get old? This is a shame.

the soul is unchanging, interminable, atman = brahman

if you understand this, you can understand that everyone lives in their own personal universe or reality,

if you understand that, you can understand that there is no individual, nor non-individual

if you understand that, you can understand that all that exists is "neither this, nor that"

But the individual is a process within this atman. It has a life of its own, able to animate matter to make flesh. This is a very complex and delicate thing that is deserving of respect from the very highest of brahma.

I don't know for absolutely certain, but I would like to believe that the disrespect is a mistaken projection upon the almighty by a dysfunctional humanity and that the dysfunctionality is not ordained by God, but is part of our development that "just happens" according to physical laws. I personally resent a sentient being, however omni-everything, screwing my life around just to see what will happen. I much prefer to think of it as impersonal or at least neutral to a given person.

God does things to people because people have their iniquities, their incomprehensions, their inability to balance their checkbooks, but He does it because He expresses Himself through the laws of physics, totally impersonally. There may be a lot of validity to the idea that someone can project positive or negative thoughtforms into the continuum and get positive or negative results. This is also impersonal and entirely up to the individual or groups of individuals involved.

But the individual is a process within this atman. It has a life of its own, able to animate matter to make flesh. This is a very complex and delicate thing that is deserving of respect from the very highest of brahma.

I don't know for absolutely certain, but I would like to believe that the disrespect is a mistaken projection upon the almighty by a dysfunctional humanity and that the dysfunctionality is not ordained by God, but is part of our development that "just happens" according to physical laws. I personally resent a sentient being, however omni-everything, screwing my life around just to see what will happen. I much prefer to think of it as impersonal or at least neutral to a given person.

God does things to people because people have their iniquities, their incomprehensions, their inability to balance their checkbooks, but He does it because He expresses Himself through the laws of physics, totally impersonally. There may be a lot of validity to the idea that someone can project positive or negative thoughtforms into the continuum and get positive or negative results. This is also impersonal and entirely up to the individual or groups of individuals involved.
The individual is created by false ego or the sense of self. There really is no individual

God does not really do anything to you, rather it is you, consciously or unconsciously that have caused things to happen to you. If you monitor your thoughts and bodily feelings this is evident. Also, God is you, your inner self.

The individual is created by false ego or the sense of self. There really is no individual

God does not really do anything to you, rather it is you, consciously or unconsciously that have caused things to happen to you. If you monitor your thoughts and bodily feelings this is evident. Also, God is you, your inner self.


If there is ultimately no individuality in existence, where did it come from?
Inother words - how did individuality manifest from something that has no individuality?

Curse Xenu and his Body Thetans!

If there is ultimately no individuality in existence, where did it come from?
Inother words - how did individuality manifest from something that has no individuality?
From ignorance. Our material mind's perception creates the idea of individuality. There are many minds, but they as well as everything else in reality exist in you, your inner self called atman. You are acting through them, they are in you, this is your personal universe or reality.

It is similar to how only an eternal instant exists, but due to our memory we create the ideas of the past, present, and future.

From ignorance. Our material mind's perception creates the idea of individuality. There are many minds, but they as well as everything else in reality exist in you, your inner self called atman. You are acting through them, they are in you, this is your personal universe or reality.

It is similar to how only an eternal instant exists, but due to our memory we create the ideas of the past, present, and future.

If we are the absolute in our original state then how did ignorance affect the absolute truth?

In otherwords if ignorance can bear an effect on the absolute, that must make ignorance absolute since it is stronger than atman (as you call it)

VitalOne,
"this is your personal universe or reality."

It's funny when you say that to someone else. Wouldn't THIS be YOUR personal universe? Why not mine? How come people can disagree with each other without anyone else (since their just figments of your imagination)? Or rather, not know about someone, or what someone thinks? And please define individuality...

MetaKron,
Ah, some misconceptions, I should read more closely... (I assumed parasitic was a general trait in all souls..)
So, you ask wether a soul can be parasitic instead of being symbiotic (to the body)? And assume soul is an addon.. I suppose so. But if, as you say, we assume the body lives independent of a soul, then the body should think as well. And, "person doesn't have exactly that soul, he ain't right?", then it would stand to reason that the body is rather more parasitic than the soul. By those definitions. If soul is sent by god, how can it err? (And I do agree that god acts through the laws of physics.)

And perplexity,
"Children have more soul than adults." Not all adults, that is to say not all adults seem to "lose soul". Hence I think it's more like the souls own fault for running in the highway (if we assume again that the soul is the seat of all thought). The world moves; Get in it's way and get hammered. It's like a room with hundreds of fast moving, heavy things. Act stupid and it'll hurt. Stay smart and you might have enough time to get smarter. Ultimately you'll no longer get hit.

perplexity

To "make sense" we reject information. To perceive, to interpret, we filter the sensory input.
To make sense we reject nonsense. To misperceive and to misinterpret is to filter input.

Meditate for instance upon the following aphorisms of William Ross Ashby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ross_Ashby) :

"All wisdom is wisdom after the event."
If our absolute state was tuly supremely absolute, wouldn't we have absolute wisdom?

"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information."
Then how was the information of our supremely absolute state thrown away?

"Any device that can lose information can generalize."
How did we lose information if our absolute state is supreme?

"Man adapts by conquering the reducible; the irreducible is impregnable."
If man truly has an absolute irreducable state that is supreme, how did it get reduced?

"No man knows what to do against the really new."
Seems to indicate that we are not absolute then

"A System is a set of variables sufficiently isolated to stay discussable while we discuss it."
Then how did variables emmanate from something that has no variables?

heh
the fog
scary
ashby is easy to critique

"All wisdom is wisdom after the event."

hindsight? nothing but a simple recollection of a sequence. quite undeserving of such a grandiose attribute

how about predications based on either logic or experience? more like wisdom, ja?

"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information."

mindlessly ambiguous. easy to agree with and equally easy to disagree with

"Any device that can lose information can generalize."

hmm. butts and broomsticks?

"Man adapts by conquering the reducible; the irreducible is impregnable."

such self importance. absolutism is the province of fools.

"No man knows what to do against the really new."

heh. as opposed the just new? or new? or new new? oh! newer than new. newest of the new? hmm kinda stoned

"A System is a set of variables sufficiently isolated to stay discussable while we discuss it."

bitch slaps ashby

ps: new is old. in with the new and out with the old. unnew is young

VitalOne,
"this is your personal universe or reality."

It's funny when you say that to someone else. Wouldn't THIS be YOUR personal universe? Why not mine? How come people can disagree with each other without anyone else (since their just figments of your imagination)? Or rather, not know about someone, or what someone thinks? And please define individuality...

When people disagree with each other they are really arguing with a part of their own self, their own doubt, insecurity, etc...

You can know what others think, the reason you don't is because of ignorance

And thats just the point, "this is your personal universe or reality", there is no individual, get it? This is my personal universe, this is your personal universe, etc....get it?

If we are the absolute in our original state then how did ignorance affect the absolute truth?

In otherwords if ignorance can bear an effect on the absolute, that must make ignorance absolute since it is stronger than atman (as you call it)
Ignorance does not affect the absolute truth. The absolute truth remains unchanged, unaffected, at all times. Ignorance is just like a veil, an illusion, a covering.

If I believe lies it won't change the absolute truth. Believing in lies or false information is ignorance. It doesn't in anyway affect the absolute truth

You are atman whether you realize it or not. Conditioning yourself towards ignorance makes you believe that you are not, so you are like a dreaming person who believes a nightmare is real, when its not, you are the source of the nightmare in all respects whether you realize it or not. Just as a dreaming person upon realizing that its just a dream is freed from all suffering, similarly when a person realizes that they truly are atman, they too are freed from all suffering.

What happens to the soul if the body is comatose, perhaps from brain damage?

If a person loses most of his body and his head is left over kept alive in a jar, where does the soul go?

If the soul is 100% immaterial and the body is 100% material, what mechanism bridges the two in order for the soul to interact with the body?

VitalOne,
"this is your personal universe or reality."

It's funny when you say that to someone else. Wouldn't THIS be YOUR personal universe? Why not mine? How come people can disagree with each other without anyone else (since their just figments of your imagination)? Or rather, not know about someone, or what someone thinks? And please define individuality...

MetaKron,
Ah, some misconceptions, I should read more closely... (I assumed parasitic was a general trait in all souls..)
So, you ask wether a soul can be parasitic instead of being symbiotic (to the body)? And assume soul is an addon.. I suppose so. But if, as you say, we assume the body lives independent of a soul, then the body should think as well. And, "person doesn't have exactly that soul, he ain't right?", then it would stand to reason that the body is rather more parasitic than the soul. By those definitions. If soul is sent by god, how can it err? (And I do agree that god acts through the laws of physics.)

And perplexity,
"Children have more soul than adults." Not all adults, that is to say not all adults seem to "lose soul". Hence I think it's more like the souls own fault for running in the highway (if we assume again that the soul is the seat of all thought). The world moves; Get in it's way and get hammered. It's like a room with hundreds of fast moving, heavy things. Act stupid and it'll hurt. Stay smart and you might have enough time to get smarter. Ultimately you'll no longer get hit.

Even trying to ask the question is perplexing. I tried to keep the complexity of the original question down so that I could sound at all coherent. What is "the soul" anyway? The Christians paint a very clear picture that tells you almost nothing. It's a point to start from.

More than one religion considers only a limited range of "types" of souls to be valid. The "right" kind of soul "comes from God" and the other kind comes from the devil, supposedly. Then people act as if those labels are meaningful. Then they act as if they know what that means. We've become familiar with the results, I think.

They do tell us that the soul is an add-on. If the body does live independent of this soul, then I think it proves the parasitism theory.

If we get into different kinds of souls that work on the same body at different levels, then the question gets a lot more complicated. You might have souls that are perfectly adequate for the functioning of body and intelligence that aren't this "add-on." This is the possibility that I find most interesting and which might explain a lot of irrational behavior in humans that you don't see in animals. Of course, we also have the fact of life forms known to microbiology that parasitized and became symbiotes and became integral parts of every genome on the planet.

I suspect that there is naturally an incarnate soul that does not require a reincarnated soul to function correctly. The reincarnated soul may even be less functional than what might develop without it. Many philosophers presume otherwise but does the evidence truly support this? Could we be becoming more confused and increasingly neurotic because of the burden of memories and emotional trauma?

If the soul is 100% immaterial and the body is 100% material, what mechanism bridges the two in order for the soul to interact with the body?

The interactions between brain matter and the electromagnetic fields that are part of the soul form the bridge. The brain is a lot like a very complex interface between body and soul.

Has anyone felt that they have to change their physical shape in some manner in order to think?

What happens to the soul if the body is comatose, perhaps from brain damage?

If a person loses most of his body and his head is left over kept alive in a jar, where does the soul go?

What happens to the soul if the body is comatose, perhaps from brain damage?

If a person loses most of his body and his head is left over kept alive in a jar, where does the soul go?


In Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic philosophy, we see a dual definition of the soul:
one, which is the corporal or individual soul, also defined as the self;
second, which is the celestial or supreme soul, also defined as the impersonal consciousness.

According to Islamic philosophy, the rational soul (nafs) requires a body for definition until it separates from matter and reaches a state of purity.

In Hindu philosophy, the jiva (or individual soul) is limited from complete freedom by the three bonds of ego, action and illusion (so may be said to need a body for definition, as well).

In Buddhism, the atman (soul) is described as a mundane impermanent ego (attachment to which must be overcome) in order to attain Nirvana (or the pure blissful Self of the Buddha).

In all cases, the individual soul may be said to require a body for definition.


PS *lightgigantic, perplexity, pls correct any errors*

If the soul is 100% immaterial and the body is 100% material, what mechanism bridges the two in order for the soul to interact with the body?

The same thing that makes a person scream "SNAKE!!" when they see a rope that happens to look like a snake.

Illusion

samcdkey

In Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic philosophy, we see a dual definition of the soul:
one, which is the corporal or individual soul, also defined as the self;
second, which is the celestial or supreme soul, also defined as the impersonal consciousness

At least as far as vedic analysis goes there are three aspects of the absolute truth (inother words three aspects of god) - (to use the xample of the sun) the impersonal is one (the sunshine, ie homogenous), the localised is another (seeing the sun disc in the sky, ie recognising the locality from which the sunshine emmanates) and the personality of god (equivelant to taking a side to enter the sun planet, minus the burning up of course)

Distinct from God is the living entity, sometimes also refered to as atma - three definitions for atma - body, mind and soul - just like if you take a coconut from a tree it is called a coconut, if you take off the husk of the coconut you still call it coconut (ie take away the body), and if you break open the shell it is still called cocout (ie take away the mind) - in other words the essence and value of a coconut is the white flesh inside, similarly, body and mind are coverings of the soul, and it is the presence of the soul that gives any value to the mind or body.

In otherwords we have false ego and real ego - false ego is identifying with the body and mind and real ego is identifying with the soul - when one becomes sufficiently qualified by identifying with the soul, distinct from body and mind, one is qualified to enter the spiritual world, which ..... is a whole different subject again


In Hindu philosophy, the jiva (or individual soul) is limited from complete freedom by the three bonds of ego, action and illusion (so may be said to need a body for definition, as well).

The self does not require a material body, but material life covers the self in a material body - just like we don't actually require a shirt to be living in this world, but most people are seen to be wearing one. (in other words there is a distinction between our body and the clothes we wear, the clothes are never really merged with our body because they are lifeless coverings - the same of the mind and body)



In all cases, the individual soul may be said to require a body for definition.


PS *lightgigantic, perplexity, pls correct any errors*

I guess I am just a stickler for details :o

But to get to Q's original query about a living person bereft of their body, the fact that a person is living indicates tat the soul hasn't left the premises of the body - th emoment a person is dead is the moment that the soul has left, and no amount of material restoration will bring it back.

Did you know that Walt Disney's Head is in some deep freezer somewhere in the states because he wanted in his will that his head be frozen so that science could revive him sometime in the future - the poor guy - he has probably been reincarnated as some Mickey Mouse by now

I think that a person becomes advanced when he sees that there is just as much enlightenment to be found while shovelling out a barn as there is in the highest centers of learning. "Purity" is bullshit. It forces mind into attenuated physical forms that do not function right. What does "purity" even mean? Do we try to reach "essence" that is so pure that it does not even contain information encoded in the form of De Broglie waves? Do we view all of the lessons of life as "contamination" and try to wash that contamination away to become pure? If so, what for? If the exposure to the dirty lower realms does something for the soul, let the soul respect this reality and love it. It isn't like hating to take out the trash. It's like hating to have to try, or to think, or to replace the energy that is naturally lost to the surroundings.

Just about anything that I could see a soul being composed of would require some sort of association with physical events to replenish it. I have a firm belief that there is some sort of electromagnetic phenomenon, a set of more or less stable standing waves, that are more physical than some would like to admit, that makes up the "soul." Little packets of energy gathered over a physical lifetime are food for the soul. It has to process that energy using the body as the intermediary. The form is important if the soul wants to be anything but an undifferentiated blob that doesn't know anything.

Still, I think that for the soul to be worth having, it has to bring something to the table.

Coming from an area where it is considered OK to sexually penetrate a 9 year old girl when she is married to you, what the H does "defilement" even mean?

No, what do they mean by defilement?

No, what do they mean by defilement?

I think defilement would mean an attachment to desire.

In Indian philosophy, desire is believed to be the cause of all strife; whether it is desire for land, power or women (which are three of the worst forms of desire and the causes of war).

So the ability to reach a state of consciousness where you neither love nor hate, but are detached from all desire, that is a state of purity.

No, what do they mean by defilement?

The google (http://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&as_epq=&as_qdr=all&num=48&as_q=defilement&btnG=+Google+++Search+&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=accesstoinsight.org&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ft=i&safe=images) link I supplied comes up with 157 hits to explain that.

Should keep you going for a while!

You could also try these:

http://www.virtuescience.com/defilements.html

http://www.ordinarymind.net/Feature/feature1_jan2003.htm

It is like a hobby, identifying the various difilements.

--- Ron.

The interactions between brain matter and the electromagnetic fields that are part of the soul form the bridge. The brain is a lot like a very complex interface between body and soul.

Then, the soul is NOT 100% immaterial, it is in fact material, hence we should be able to detect it, especially if there are electromagnetic fields. Yet, nothing, nada, ziltch.

The same thing that makes a person scream "SNAKE!!" when they see a rope that happens to look like a snake.

Illusion

That explains nothing. If an illusion, then it is material and can be detected, yet, nothing has been detected.

A fair definition would be anything at all to be harmfully attached to.

It could just as well be an attachment to an aversion.

--- Ron.

But if you are attached to an aversion, is that not a twisted form of desire?

In Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic philosophy, we see a dual definition of the soul:
one, which is the corporal or individual soul, also defined as the self;
second, which is the celestial or supreme soul, also defined as the impersonal consciousness.

According to Islamic philosophy, the rational soul (nafs) requires a body for definition until it separates from matter and reaches a state of purity.

In Hindu philosophy, the jiva (or individual soul) is limited from complete freedom by the three bonds of ego, action and illusion (so may be said to need a body for definition, as well).

In Buddhism, the atman (soul) is described as a mundane impermanent ego (attachment to which must be overcome) in order to attain Nirvana (or the pure blissful Self of the Buddha).

In all cases, the individual soul may be said to require a body for definition.


PS *lightgigantic, perplexity, pls correct any errors*

That's all vey nice, sam, and I think those have been brought up before, but they don't answer my questions.

What if you define the soul as that which detects?

You are like a dog who wants to see how fast it has to run to bite its tail off.

--- Ron.

Even detectors can be detected.

But to get to Q's original query about a living person bereft of their body, the fact that a person is living indicates tat the soul hasn't left the premises of the body - th emoment a person is dead is the moment that the soul has left, and no amount of material restoration will bring it back.

The body is long since gone and only the head remains. Does the head therefore contain the soul?

Then, the soul is NOT 100% immaterial, it is in fact material, hence we should be able to detect it, especially if there are electromagnetic fields. Yet, nothing, nada, ziltch.

you're right I wouldn't call it the soul though, its just like The Buddha says there is no soul that is the thinker of our thoughts, etc...that is the mind which is spiritual (as opposed to physical).

The true soul is unchanging, interminable, always remaining the same.

In the future consciousness or the soul will become a fact. Consciousness is made up of an ether-substance it uses the brain as a tool.

It is material, and will one day explain how the brain gains consciousness etc.....

Just give it a few 100 years

Then, the soul is NOT 100% immaterial, it is in fact material, hence we should be able to detect it, especially if there are electromagnetic fields. Yet, nothing, nada, ziltch.

I take it you know where the experiments were done.

I take it you know where the experiments were done.

I'm not sure if there were experiments, however, magnetic resonance imaging should be able to detect those electromagnetic fields. Again, nothing, nada, ziltch.

The true soul is unchanging, interminable, always remaining the same.

So, it's material? Why can't it be detected?

In the future consciousness or the soul will become a fact. Consciousness is made up of an ether-substance it uses the brain as a tool.

I think consciousness has already been shown to be a fact, the soul has not been shown at all.

What ether-substance do you refer, exactly?

It is material, and will one day explain how the brain gains consciousness etc.....

Again, if material, we would have already detected it or its effects.

I'm not sure if there were experiments, however, magnetic resonance imaging should be able to detect those electromagnetic fields. Again, nothing, nada, ziltch.

You're using too many negatives to be believed, Q. Not many people can dis a subject the way you do without revealing themselves that way. You're not one of them. I shall consider this contribution to be an uninformed guess.

So, it's material? Why can't it be detected?



I think consciousness has already been shown to be a fact, the soul has not been shown at all.

What ether-substance do you refer, exactly?



Again, if material, we would have already detected it or its effects.
It can and will be detected. The reason it hasn't is because science hasn't fully developed yet, there's lots of things we're unaware of, believe it or not.

The ether-substance is kind of electromagnetic but not really, its more like a scalar wave or longituditional wave that Nikola Tesla spoke of (as opposed to a Hertzian wave). It is like thought-energy. The physical brain reacts to the energy giving it ideas, images, etc....the better physical brain you have the more you can get out of it.

Those dreams you have aren't spontaneous like science says, when ideas pop into your head it also isn't spontaneous like science says.

You're using too many negatives to be believed, Q. Not many people can dis a subject the way you do without revealing themselves that way. You're not one of them. I shall consider this contribution to be an uninformed guess.

Hehe, that's rich. Of course, you don't have to believe me at all, I could care less. Have you taken the time to find out for yourself? There is over 20 years of experimental evidence.

It can and will be detected. The reason it hasn't is because science hasn't fully developed yet, there's lots of things we're unaware of, believe it or not.

Believe it or not. How about not?

The ether-substance is kind of electromagnetic but not really, its more like a scalar wave or longituditional wave that Nikola Tesla spoke of (as opposed to a Hertzian wave). It is like thought-energy. The physical brain reacts to the energy giving it ideas, images, etc....the better physical brain you have the more you can get out of it.

Sounds like a lot of gibberish. I think Tom Bearden, kook extraordinaire, proposed scalar waves as a "new kind of electromagnetic wave" - one that of course hasn't yet been detected.

Those dreams you have aren't spontaneous like science says, when ideas pop into your head it also isn't spontaneous like science says.

Okey-dokey.

Hehe, that's rich. Of course, you don't have to believe me at all, I could care less. Have you taken the time to find out for yourself? There is over 20 years of experimental evidence.

And when I provide you with that evidence, you the one who acts like he knows that there is no evidence, will say that you already knew about such and such and it doesn't prove anything. Your definition of zero, zilch, and nada is different from mine. It is also inferior to mine.

we can't see it, but we can see it's effects.

What happens to the soul if the body is comatose, perhaps from brain damage?

if the body does not function, the soul can't express itself through the body.

If a person loses most of his body and his head is left over kept alive in a jar, where does the soul go?

if the head is alive, then that person should be conscious, so the soul does not go anywhere.

If the soul is 100% immaterial and the body is 100% material, what mechanism bridges the two in order for the soul to interact with the body?

everything in the universe is made of the same kind of substance. you can call it spiritual or material.

the reason we can't detect everything with scientific tools is because the tools are yet primitive. with our mind (metaphysical tool) we can detect more ethereal things like mental waves.

when our senses evolve, we'll be able to see things we can't see now. for example, we'll be able to see through matter.

we see through things now too. we don't see air.

And when I provide you with that evidence, you the one who acts like he knows that there is no evidence, will say that you already knew about such and such and it doesn't prove anything. Your definition of zero, zilch, and nada is different from mine. It is also inferior to mine.

Ok, provide the evidence that souls exist. MRI's haven't found it, based on the assertion of electromagnetic fields.

Ok, provide the evidence that souls exist. MRI's haven't found it, based on the assertion of electromagnetic fields.

Why don't you provide the evidence that you have declared to be zero, zilch, and nada?

Why don't you provide the evidence that you have declared to be zero, zilch, and nada?

So, you're asking me to provide evidence that doesn't exist? :rolleyes:

So, you're asking me to provide evidence that doesn't exist? :rolleyes:

I know that there is a body of evidence that you are aware of that you have dismissed and that you pretend does not exist.

Believe it or not. How about not?

So you really believe that science is fully developed and knows everything there is to know? There's lots of missing gaps in science, if you believe science knows everything there is to know you're really mistaken


Sounds like a lot of gibberish. I think Tom Bearden, kook extraordinaire, proposed scalar waves as a "new kind of electromagnetic wave" - one that of course hasn't yet been detected.

Yeah I admit it sounds like a lot of gibberish, I bet if I described zero-point energy before it was confirmed in science you would also say gibberish. Or how about if I stated some quantum concepts before they were confirmed in science, gibberish right?

I know that there is a body of evidence that you are aware of that you have dismissed and that you pretend does not exist.

Yet, your not willing to share that body of evidence?

Yet, your not willing to share that body of evidence?

I know that there is a body of evidence that you are aware of and have dismissed and you pretend it doesn't exist. Share that.

So you really believe that science is fully developed and knows everything there is to know? There's lots of missing gaps in science, if you believe science knows everything there is to know you're really mistaken

I never said that. But you appear to be claiming of something that is unaware to everyone else, yet will become aware of it, someday. How are YOU aware of it?

Yeah I admit it sounds like a lot of gibberish, I bet if I described zero-point energy before it was confirmed in science you would also say gibberish. Or how about if I stated some quantum concepts before they were confirmed in science, gibberish right?

Did you describe or state something that was confirmed by science? Can you show us a picture of your Nobel Prize?

I know that there is a body of evidence that you are aware of and have dismissed and you pretend it doesn't exist. Share that.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Mind-reading is still in it's infancy. :p

I have no idea what you're talking about. Mind-reading is still in it's infancy. :p

Bull dookey.

Dull bookey.

Buck Fush.

This conversation is too intellectual for me. :)

It's too intellectual for Bush, too.

I wonder what that says about the country he leads as an elected representative. :D

metakron, why don't you like bush?

I wonder what that says about the country he leads as an elected representative. :D

Do I even want to go there? Not in this thread, it was just something to say while we were rambling. If we want a Bush-bashing thread, the board makes new ones free of charge.

When observers assume that karma presumes a soul of some sort a Buddhist will usually avoid the issue, proposing "no self", notwithstanding "self" as a persistent practical theme of the Dhammapada (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.12.than.html) and sundry original Sutras.

It appears to be a logical flaw but they are nevertheless remarkably attached to the paradox.
--- Ron.

What appears at first to be a paradox, is, IME, a realization of choice.

Christianity is big on the concept of Free Will, Indian theology is heavily based on Free Choice; namely, the freedom to choose the scope with which you view the universe. By changing either your spatial or temporal field of view, you can both exist (as the thinker), and not exist (your effects becoming inconsequential given a large or long enough viewing area).

A duality, not a paradox.




Indeed, there is much to Buddhism that was already current when the Buddha Gotama turned up, including the principle of karma which, surprisingly, scarcely crops up in the original texts.
--- Ron.
That is because Buddhism grew up in Hindu society. We in the west only see it as Buddhism because Buddhism came to prominence here before Hinduism did. That which is Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophical method to achieve Hindu enlightenment.


You could say so.
It is fun to argue with a Buddhist about their desire for Nirvana.

I had a hard time with this question for years. It seems quite the problem, doesn't it? Until you read translations that are more academic, and do a better job of clarifying ambiguous word->word translations.
Desire is not the problem; Upādāna does not mean desire. Desire is a natural occurrence, and just like everything else, can be acknowledged, and let go. Suffering comes when we refuse to let go of that which we desire; clinging. That is Upādāna, the root cause of much of life's Dukkha, suffering.

Edit: proof-reading

Q,
What about EKG or whatever? Doesn't pick up electric fields? Isn't the whole thing based on that?

Besides, why would the soul be ELECTRIC FIELDS, of all things? If it was, it would be based on some type of physical material, and it would have to fight for space with our body? Is soul some type of organ?

Soul is immaterial, and as such it can barely be thought to possess abilities assosociated with matter. Such as gravity, electromagnetism etc etc.

But if soul is built of immaterial particles, it would have abilities NOT like physical ones. It would also be nary impossible to prove without having scanners made of spiritual particles. Which we wouldn't be able to see or hold, heh.

So what if the soul is on read-only? It reads brainwaves on our head (scanning magnetic fields through some Unified Field Theory thingie), and haves a fit. Maybe it would change some currents in our head, changing the way our neural cells emit electricity, to create feedback (inducing IDEAs). Assuming, of course, it has the ability to manipulate material fields through some meansm but if can't, it coudn't sync with the material anyway, and WE wouldn't have souls. They'd just be some floating spirits we can't touch.

VitalOne,
"there is no individual, get it?"

So everyone is in their own reality, but there is no me, hence it's a general universe. wow. Back to square one.

I think you're using useless metafores which are just confusing people. I think the world was originally Chaos, a complete disorder where all energy was in its smallest possible form, the indivisible. And the world is CLIMIBING towards unity. Wholeness of one. That's where eastern philosophy differs from the western. Eastern philosophies tend to think that at first everything was united, and if we could just return to that state oh how wonderful it would be.

I think "go forward". Not one step back. The big boom separated all things and now it has to attain unity again. The universe is infinitely separate, and ego is just a self-image of there being "one" me. It can be split into millions of parts. That's what "there is no me" means. Not deviation from unity.

Oh and Metakron,
"The Christians paint a very clear picture that tells you almost nothing."
If were going to talk about talk about how cultures define it..

The concept was invented to explain a phenomenon. The phenomenon was "matter having life", or "what makes a dog diffrent from a statue of dog, or a corpse of dog". So they invented this funny concept of soul. But what they really where chasing was personality, neural network and the crazy stuff that makes people live, or makes them die.

But since personality and neural networks have been explained, I thought we could just skip past the whole "what makes me me?". but...

"The "right" kind of soul "comes from God""
I think they mean by this diffrent patterns of behaviour. That is to say, ideal models for behaviour. And the "other kinds of souls" are behaviour patterns we don't want in others, like "selfish" or "lying". Soul in this case would be a pattern of memories, that paint a kind of "point of view", against which we mirror everything.

"They do tell us that the soul is an add-on."
Supports the pattern-thinking. Body can exist without personality, personality can't exist really without a body.

"lot of irrational behavior in humans that you don't see in animals."
I think people act diffrently from animals because we can disqualify what we experience, remove our attention from what is at hand and imagine. This creates behaviournal patterns no animal can have (apart from cats :3).

So, having rudely debunked all your arguments, I agree everything does not match. You are (I think) thinking that some knowledge just seems to come from somewhere, some things that just seem impossible to know beforehand? That death has not really been explained? That other phenomenon have not been explained? I agree. Hence my theories.

But we have to separate subjects that are about psychology and those about parapsychology (psyche means soul in ancient greece or latin, I think. Just to make some sense..). But since this is your thread, I'll play your game..

"I suspect that there is naturally an incarnate soul that does not require a reincarnated soul to function correctly."
So, the body has a mind (the brain), but is connected to an etheric memory-bank, that can assimilate souls or information floating in the ether (or wherever the souls hang out when they are not in our body...); Then souls, or parcels of information, is sent by god, and received in the soul, and this tries to communicate with the body. As detailed above, this is not easy. Hence, to err is HUMAN, while the divine truth is in us. But from this point of view, the "soul being parasitic" thing becomes a rather strange subject... I'd still think the body was responsible for its own actions, and the soul just being a part of it. If we assume god sends us pure souls, then it cannot err (pure=perfect, just in case). Hence the evolved soul (or the psychological mind of the body) CAN err, but the perfect soul sent from above cannot.

Also, it can be deviced that other souls, souls of the dead or natural souls of trees or animals or even planets, might also send us information, which would be unpure (or inperfect, I just use pure cause it's shorter), and lead to error.

Hence IF we assume god is perfect and sends us perfect souls, error occurs when information (or misinformation) is received through mortal means. These souls would then be parasetic. But as stated, I don't think there is any ulterior being that is perfect and is sending us perfect data. Whatever useful tidbits that flow into our mind, one way or the other, is just randomly more perfect than other data around us. Life keeps creating patterns randomly (like evolution), and sometimes it hits true. Humans have added capacity of creating random patterns, which explains erratic behaviour and diffrence from animals. Animals don't throw something that works away and makes something random up just to see what happens (unlike humans, and cats :3).

I do not know of any reason that patterns cannot exist without a body. We think of electromagnetic forces as being either static entities bound to matter or radiation moving at the speed of light. Just because we know of two types of manifestations does not mean that there are not many others. We don't really know what a magnetic force line "is" in a big way.

VitalOne,
"there is no individual, get it?"

So everyone is in their own reality, but there is no me, hence it's a general universe. wow. Back to square one.

I think you're using useless metafores which are just confusing people. I think the world was originally Chaos, a complete disorder where all energy was in its smallest possible form, the indivisible. And the world is CLIMIBING towards unity. Wholeness of one. That's where eastern philosophy differs from the western. Eastern philosophies tend to think that at first everything was united, and if we could just return to that state oh how wonderful it would be.

I think "go forward". Not one step back. The big boom separated all things and now it has to attain unity again. The universe is infinitely separate, and ego is just a self-image of there being "one" me. It can be split into millions of parts. That's what "there is no me" means. Not deviation from unity.

First of all, there was never a time when things weren't united. You are living in your own personal reality, all your experiences are relative to you, this is your reality alone, this is your personal universe, your personal dream. You, as true self act as all the people you meet, all the things you see, and all your personal experiences, always trying to tell yourself something.

Through ignorance you believe that you are separated from the all-that-is, the origin of existence, the absolute truth, the neither this, nor that, the uncreate, unborn, the one without a second, and because you separate yourself you create your own suffering.

You do this intentionally, like Sri Ram once said about a dog eating a dry bone just to see the blood from its own mouth seep out to gain happiness. In the same way we intentionally create our own suffering by telling ourself we need this external thing to happen to be happy, even though the happiness we seek comes from our own selves and no where else...the irony

It was you that chose to exist this way, I'm sure if I asked you if you wanted everything to be happy and great a part of you would say no, a part of you enjoys suffering existing, and thats why it exists

A Supreme Being that consists of everything that exists and does not exist can be an undifferentiated sort of nothingness or it can realize its full potential by differentiating and living interesting and fulfilling lives. We really have nice little minds and bodies and they are fit for that universal consciousness.

VitalOne,
Why would we create our own pain? For what reason? What would drive us to do such thing? If there is no reason, why does it happen? Why would I choose suffering?

This is a very complex and delicate thing that is deserving of respect from the very highest of brahma.
Very good postings MetaKron. I liked it.

I think body is more important.

Soul is like a sound (ohm) that produce vibration in small particles (bodies). Same sound can create different patterns of vibration to particles. Similarly Almighty gave the same sound (vibration) to all particle but the way each particle adopt it and behave is different. Sometimes being in vicinity certain particles show common patterns. Some times you can also see a wave of patterns repeating at regular intervals as well.

Imagine the increase in complexity if each particle had a brain of it’s own and decide it's course of action?

I think this is the reason why Almighty gave the right to action to humans and kept the results part with him :)