--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stu, > > There's tons we agree on. Maybe even everything. > > Thank God! ;-)
No kidding. I unfortunately am in agreement on your points below. Sorry I couldn't find discord. I will leave comments as I give it a second read. > > Let me make another attempt -- If the below is not resonant with you, > then I would say it indicates merely an incongruence in our spiritual > educations -- not a cognitive dissonance between precise axioms. (I'm > going to ramble, be a poet, as usual, but hopefully I'll get my points > across.) > > First let me say that the "soul" is not "the ultimate" to me, and that > the ego is another notch less substantial than soul and is a merely a > "ray" or "partial expression" of the "soul's spectrum of light." > > To me the soul is all the processes of body/mind....and nothing more. Isn't confusing to use a personal definition of a word? Good communication requires us to agree on a common meaning for a word. Main Entry:1soul [Listen to the pronunciation of 1soul] Pronunciation: \Ësol\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English soule, from Old English sawol; akin to Old High German seula soulDate:before 12th century 1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life2 a: the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe bcapitalized Christian Science : god <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god> 1b3: a person's total self4 a: an active or essential part b: a moving spirit : leader <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leader> 5 a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings b: the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c: spiritual or moral force : fervor <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fervor> 6: person <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person> <not a soul in sight>7: personification <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personification> <she is the soul of integrity>8 a: a strong positive feeling (as of intense sensitivity and emotional fervor) conveyed especially by black American performers b: negritude <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negritude> c: soul music <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul+music> d: soul food <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul+food> e: soul brother <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul+brother> > > > It is not eternal. > > TM says this too if you examine what Unity must be -- the death of > ego, the death of individuality, the death of, erp, soul (as a > worshiper,) and Unity is as if God suddenly is taking over the > body/mind and the history of that body/mind is obviated. Which sounds > creepy, eh? (Ocean to river: "Who cares about your tiny stream!") > > To Advaita, "soul" is still relative, but its "pure form" is also > given the elevated status of "amness" -- that's if the ego is > quiescent. The ego can can't help itself from identifying with > personality, but it's really stretching things for it to try to > identify with amness -- that buzz of being, that ground state of > existence, the gunas balanced. > > It takes a couple decades in a Zen ashram to train the ego to even be > able to clearly see its "basic buzz." If done perfectly, then ego has > learned to surrender to the spontaneous manifestations of amness, and > one is a saint (unenlightened but perfectly life supporting) who is > capable of always living at the ritam level. Or so the theory goes. > > But when that saint dies, he/she dies. Any heavens imagined, any > karmic debts thought owed, any anys of anything, must exist solely > within that saint's body/mind, and they too will die. > > It took me years of studying Advaita before it finally, intellectually > only, "popped" for me that ego is not my identity and that even soul, > for all its perfection, is not a primal, cosmic identity; it's merely > another symbol, but one which is as close as existence can get to a > manifestation of the absolute. Your're saying we are not our self or our body. I am with you so far... > > I don't think personality survives death. This includes ego. This > includes soul. Personality, ego, soul -- these are THINGS. This > includes amness's symbolic presence as a process in a nervous system. > At death, a light goes out; personal amness processes are turned off. So much for the Mormon conception. > > But I do think that "that" from which, well let's not be shy, > EVERYTHING has emerged is eternal, and that, if one wishes to do so, > one can train the ego to stop being a pest long enough for this "that" > to stand out clearly. This "that" is not merely "universe" and > includes "non-universe" too -- see Godel for details. > > During training, at first, amness's buzz will beguile because its > qualities are seemingly divine and more than merely a powerful symbol > of silence, but, if another notch lower state of excitation is > achieved, identification is allowed a chance to abandon the > body/mind/amness and glom onto "pure silence," "void," "absolute" and > find that identity is "finally real" when it resides in silence beyond > conceptions. Yes. I agree. But the above paragraph does not need that pesky word divine. Unless you are talking about the John Water's character. > > Struggling here with words. If I could write about this easily, I'd > be a guru speaking from the heart, but, nope, only running with my > intellect here, so I have to build up my abstractions from axioms, and > I only had two cups of coffee, so, whew!...hard work. This is why I emphasize choosing words wisely. Start sinking into iron age superstitious nonsense and you end up hiding behind magic and unicorns. > > You wrote, "The very usage of soul is skewed. The very idea that > anyone HAS a soul is obscene. What kind of possession is a soul?" > > I say, that the soul possesses ego not the other way around. And like > that, equally, soul is "within" the absolute -- which of course has no > "inside" or "outside." A few paragraphs before you said, body/mind/amness and glom onto "pure silence," "void," "absolute". You assert the idea of a perfect silence a void. As soon as it is disturbed it is no longer silent and absolute. Soul is going to have to be on the bus or off it. I am suggesting its an illusion. A concept irrelevant to anyone who understands the brain as a thinking entity. > > Sigh. > > Absolute is the source of consciousness, consciousness is the source > of ego, ego is the source of personality, and if the body/mind trains > itself well, a person can, until death, meld all these identities into > one spiritual wad, but after death, only the absolute will "remain." I do not think absolute has the attribute of cause and effect. It can not be the source of anything. As soon as absolute is disturbed it ceases to be absolute. > > I don't believe in re-incarnation, but I believe in crystallization of > identity. > > Ego is a temporary delusion -- a merely local precipitation out of > soul/consciousness, but typically if along comes another body/mind > that is similar to a previous, known, personality, say, what Abraham > Lincoln's was historically reported to be, it's no wonder that the ego > will jump on the chance of espousing that a transferance from > history's Abe has occurred. > > But in fact, when Captain Kirk is beamed up, his body/mind on the > planet below is destroyed and another "exact" copy is created by > Scotty's machinery aboard the Enterprise. There's no transference, > but identification with "a locality" will instantly crystallize in the > "new Kirk." The new Kirk will insist that he is the old Kirk, but > DON'T MISS THAT Scotty machine's abilities -- yes I'm revealing a > Star Trek Secret of Secrets -- presumably enabled Scotty to leave the > old Kirk-body on the planet "undissolved," and so, I say, let's get > these two Kirks to debate about WHO OWNS KIRK! Yes. To me this is exactly how the transporter works. To an existentialist Kirk has died and a new Kirk is made. To a behaviorist nothing has changed. I am an existentialist. > > Like this, souls don't transfer, but minds find it convenient to think > they do. I know of no instances where a baby is born and speaks a > language from another country and wants a good cigar. The Dali Lama > bit where they find kids who "remember toys," is soooooo unconvincing > to me. Yet, if the priests find a kid who they like, well, why not > just pretend it's true? The kid'll be raised properly to become a new > Kirk with no one complaining how he drives a starship. > > We're all, it turns out, God who has been beamed everywhere by Scotty > but without dissolving of any of the God-copies. Sure, but by god in the above statement you are referring to an impersonal property of nature - silence. Not really god, but absence of everything including god. > > Gotta go. Hope you can help me see if I've been inconsistent in my > application of concepts. This could be a definitive discussion if I > can keep my focus. > > Edg Its interesting. I think its possible to understand non-dualism without resorting to fantasy items and old world linear forms. s.
