looking for teh soul/religion

[Xebsball]

if you were searchign for proof of the soul, things beyond the flesh
where would you begin to look for?

[shaolin kungfu]

Well first try to define the soul. What exactly is it? thats a good first step.

After that your on your own. I don't think anybodies found proof that the soul exists

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.. it merely changes form.. If that which is "us" changes form at death, what is the new form? "Soul/Spirit", a cohesive unit of conscious, self-aware energy, of which a particular aspect vibrates at frequencies that manifest form, shape and mass (flesh).. or so it seems..

Be well...

[dwid]

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.. it merely changes form.. If that which is "us" changes form at death, what is the new form? "Soul/Spirit", a cohesive unit of conscious, self-aware energy, of which a particular aspect vibrates at frequencies that manifest form, shape and mass (flesh).. or so it seems..

Actually, I think the law of thermodynamics you're referring to states that matter is not created or destroyed. Using this to back up the idea of a soul that goes on forever still brings us back to the same dilemma of proving that the soul has substance to begin with, and is not a byproduct of the chemical reactions going on in our bodies.

[bodhitree]

soul
how you feel, is it there? Do you feel?

[ZIM]

Xebby: I keep telling you, look behind the couch, dam mit!

OK, how about.... the ole soybean that, you could prove the existence of an afterlife/God/soul by dint of logic alone ONLY if an afterlife/God/soul does NOT exist?

[Former castleva]

Yeah.Start by answering SK´s question.
This is a probable intellectual dead-end though.

In modern thought,"soul" is fairly safe to associate with "mind".If that´s the one I´m following.


if you were searchign for proof of the soul, things beyond the flesh

Applying this reasoning to alleged immaterial is rather difficult.
First,we need to be able to falsify the "soul".And of course,first define it.
If impossible,it comes down to old good faith=no proof.

Right...go ahead.

[ZIM]

Okey- doke.

Going by the thread title first, 'religion' is a non-goer, because it exists, no problems there.

Soul, however, is a problem. Differing cultures regard what we call a soul, well, differently. For instance, certain native american cultures would regard a seperable soul as kind of idiotic and against nature. Others view the soul as non-unitary, so the body would have a part, the mind another, the spirit[maybe thats what we would label 'soul'] goes beyond to join the ancestors, or what-have-you.

Athiests might or might not believe in a soul, depending on how defined. If one were to say 'life force' without any attending belief in a life-after-death, then who's to say? Certainly we live, yes? Is that a soul? <-this speaks to bodhi's initial definition, I believe.

Now, I'm going to go by the bare minimum here- the above 'atheist' definition of a 'life force'. We can argue over life-after-death later, ok?

Proof I think is hard to come by and not a thing we could show on a paltry forum. ;) BUT, because FC will find that horribly unsporting, I'll tender this suggestion:

Technically, we cannot see light. What we see are things that light reflects from or sources of light, but not light itself. Thats a fine line, hair-splitting notion, yes.

I think this notion might be used as a metaphor. We cannot see soul, but perhaps we can see what its effects are. And with that, I return to bodhi's statement:
how you feel, is it there? Do you feel? My question is, is that an effect of soul? Or is it something deeper?

Your serve! :)

[Former castleva]

Technically, we cannot see light. What we see are things that light reflects from or sources of light, but not light itself. Thats a fine line, hair-splitting notion, yes.
I think this notion might be used as a metaphor. We cannot see soul, but perhaps we can see what its effects are. And with that, I return to bodhi's statement:


That´s interesting,but what are the effects of the soul?
Maybe it appears frustrating to follow these standards on this issue,but as for soul´s effects,is soul reducible to something like that?
If you know what I mean.


Now, I'm going to go by the bare minimum here- the above 'atheist' definition of a 'life force'.

OK.How does that definition go? He,he.
There´s a danger of stepping on a trap here.


Athiests might or might not believe in a soul, depending on how defined. If one were to say 'life force' without any attending belief in a life-after-death, then who's to say? Certainly we live, yes? Is that a soul? <-this speaks to bodhi's initial definition, I believe.

OK...So,for you "afterlife"&soul are connected,yes?
Soul can be considered rather mortal in these terms,an idea that some thinkers may entertain (see signature for example.).


Soul, however, is a problem. Differing cultures regard what we call a soul, well, differently. For instance, certain native american cultures would regard a seperable soul as kind of idiotic and against nature. Others view the soul as non-unitary, so the body would have a part, the mind another, the spirit[maybe thats what we would label 'soul'] goes beyond to join the ancestors, or what-have-you.

Excellent,relevant points.

[ZIM]

That´s interesting,but what are the effects of the soul?Maybe it appears frustrating to follow these standards on this issue,but as for soul´s effects,is soul reducible to something like that?
If you know what I mean. I do know what you mean. But, if we are to discuss, we likely have to assume there is an effect. Per my example, I believe that we can't just hand over a soul to examine under a microscope, so... look for effects. It's possible that 'the soul' is not reducible to such effects, but then we'd have nothing to discuss. See my first post above regarding that dilemma...


OK...So,for you "afterlife"&soul are connected,yes? Not necessarily. I'm not dead, last I checked. I cannot be certain. But for many, it is a connected concept... I'm simply trying to eliminate confounding factors. If this approach is not to your liking, that's fine. Do another.
Excellent,relevant points. Thanks.

Lets look at some other possible 'soul effects', ok? How about movement or self-awareness? Thought? Last I checked, thinking always entailed activation of the motor cortex at the same time, hinting that movement is the underlying key to uh... life, I guess.

But since movement can be explained by brain activity, what to do with that? Is there something behind that? If we held to the beliefs of some early Christians, we might say 'God'. A Diety orders us about, like puppets on strings. While we have a soul, none of us can initiate change without god's permission. Um...no, I can't say I agree. So, for me at any rate, the concept is related to an intervening later, if you will, between Diety and Man.

But I'm open to other suggestions... I mean, hey, plants don't have brains, but they move and live....

Regarding self-awareness: Sometimes I wonder if my cat really knows that she has a tail. She just kind of looks at it and -boom!- jumps on it, right? I don't know many humans that go 'hey, I got a left hand! where the heck did that come from?'

I think these are related to the way a particular brain is mapped out, rather than an effect of 'soul'... but the example is needed to eliminate the possibilty. Agreed or no?

And no, I'm not actually trying for straw men, here. ;)

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Too often our socio-religious indoctrinations attach values and concepts to the "soul/spirit" that cloud rational thought.. aside from the usual soul/spirit concept, there must be some conscious, self-aware energy/force that animates the otherwise inert pile of chemicals, compounds and elements that make up our physical body..

My own experience brings me to believe that the spirit/soul is like an architect or designer, it organizes and assembles otherwise inert "stuff" into a functioning being.. it builds itself a vessel (body) through which it can manifest the physical experience.. i sense that the soul/spirit is a cohesive unit of energy, a collection of memory patterns from accumalated experiences.. these experiences having been gained from multitudes of differing aspects that "energy" can be expressed as.. what some refer to as "past lives".. personally, i sense that all experience is collectively residing in the "memory" of the "whole" and the spirit/soul is a direct connect to that "cosmic consciousness".. it can access any memory, any experience of anything (with proper training).. In constructing the physical vessel, the spirit/soul also recognized that there would necessarily be a veil between the physical and spiritual, a difficulty to exist fully aware in both aspects.. so an interface was designed, the brain/mind.. The brain/mind transfers experiences between the physical/spiritual aspects of our totality... yet, as we overcome the addiction of physical experience and begin to pierce the veil between physical and spiritual aspects, there is the possibility that we can live in a balance of spiritual/physical existence.. a few have done it well..

We are like snowflakes, unique patterns of exactly the same stuff.. energy/spirit.. "God"... the names are not so important as the realization..

So gather all the necessary chemicals, compounds, and such.. assemble the brightest minds.. beg them to animate a sentient being.. no such effort has been successful.. the missing part is the "life-force, energy, Chi, spirit, etc..." (again, the name is unimportant).. that is the basis of my belief that there is some greater aspect of our existence, some surviving cohesive unit or pattern of energy that is defined by the body of its experiences.. and capable of accessing the "whole" body of experiences resident in the collective consciousness of the cosmos......

Whew!! i guess i have painted a good-sized target on myself, i will probably suffer much criticism regarding "new-age hippy" stuff.. but, these same concepts are evident in 5000 year old belief systems...

Be well....

[Nexus]

Since the season are changing, you're reference to souls being like snowflakes was quite cool! (That's a pun by the way)

Always a pleasure to read your mind TaiChiBob (hah, im on a roll).

You're friend,

Nexus

[ZIM]

Whew!! i guess i have painted a good-sized target on myself, i will probably suffer much criticism regarding "new-age hippy" stuff.. but, these same concepts are evident in 5000 year old belief systems...

Nah, not from me. I thought it was a good post about a simple/difficult subject. :)

[backbreaker]

TaichiBob- good answer

[woliveri]

Good post Bob. My only comment is the following are non-equal.

Energy, Chi, Life force <> Spirit or soul.

life-force, energy, Chi, spirit

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Spirit/soul may only be values we assign to the simple underlying force/energy that governs our physical manifestation.. I sense that "energy" is the fabric of the universe and "forces" are the patterns that shape energy into its myriad of manifestations.. Spirit/soul may simply be the name we assign to our particular individual patterns.. it seems that there is a unique dichotomy, here.. we are both individual in our awareness of self and complete in our inclusion with the whole..

The physical being has an inherent "knowing" that there is some greater aspect of itself, something beyond the simple collection of bio-chemical reactions that sustain the physical machine.. there must be some organizing force/energy, some pattern that is unique to each being, that defines "who we are".. that "knowing" is the basis of religion, it is what drives mankind to search for its origin.. to seek a reconnection with the "One" from which it came..

Now, to tie this abstract concept to the Arts, we can see the effort we go through to move our bodies in uniform flowing motions, to function as a single unit.. i sense that it is necessary to reconcile our Body, Mind, Spirit relationship before we can truly act as a being expressing itself as a single, fluid, seamless movement of Tai Chi.. Not only do the differing parts of the body need to move in fluid harmony, the mind and spirit that directs the movements must equally be aligned in a complete harmony.. In the Tai Chi symbol (yin/yang) the light and dark swirl about each other in a dynamic dance that forms the "whole".. there are three symbolic parts, light, dark and whole (body, mind and spirit).. I sense that the "spirit" is represented as the whole in the Tai Chi symbol, it is the "force or pattern" that binds or organizes the body/mind into a sentient being.. The true benefits of Tai Chi, by my experience, are only available when the three become one, neglect any single aspect and the whole becomes fragmented, losing its harmony........

Yikes, why do you guys let me go on like this.. sorry for the rambling.. Be well, all..

[woliveri]

Some quick thoughts.

If I'm reading you right you're saying we are a energy "ball" which we identify individualism during life and at death will dissipate back into the great void with all loss of whatever individualism we manifested here on earth. If I'm not correct, sorry.

I do not subscribe to this line of thought. There must be something more. As a spirit, to raise our vibrational level so the spirit is the leader of the body rather than vise versa.

Religion is a poor reflection of the original truth. It is a stagnent "thing" for lack of a better word which does more to blind the follower than enlighten them.

A rock has qi, energy but no soul.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings, Bill...

Well, no.. i sense that the individual aspect of the spirit is defined by the "pattern" of our "cohesive unit of energy", the collective memories of this unit organized as a pattern that exists as a continuum and occasionally manifested in the physical aspect of its field of possibilities.. I sense that when the physical body no longer functions, the energy that animates it maintains its memory patterns of experiences but loses some or most of its identity related to "physical matters".. the basic individual qualities of the spirit are related to virtues and intentions, kind of like a "direction" that the spirit is likely to pursue.. this basic direction is most easily defined in terms of Yin/Yang.. the spirit maintains a generally positive or negative "charge" which powers intentions and deeds, its memories of the physical existence imparts virtues or the lack thereof and together with its general "charge" shapes a "spiritual identity".. the identity that shapes the "direction" of intentions, intentions which may be adjusted according to the spirit's ability to negotiate a particular physical existence.. it seems to me that through physical existence the spirit has the oportunity to express its intentions and alter its "charge" through interaction with other manifestations of other spirits.. so, through countless manifestations (lifes/lives)) the spirit shapes itself and refines its "nature"... What we must realize is that it is necessary to have both pos/neg for a dynamic interaction to occur, that there is an inherent "balance" necessary to maintain "life"..

Regarding the rock, i am not so eager to seperate a rock from its soul simply due to my own limited perceptions.. it is too easy to see the universe from the Human perspective and discount that which we don't understand.. in the grand scheme of things, our current physical existence is quite limited and short-term.. it is our basic frame of reference.. now, the Rock, whose life-span exceeds ours by exponential proportions, may be as active and dynamic as us but, in a case of "relativity", we simply aren't around long enough to observe its activity.. similarly, the rock may see us, individually, as we see a single raindrop.. it may witness the passing of entire civilazations the way we see the passing of a rain shower.. but, this is simply speculation, a sense that ALL things are expressions of "The One", the Tao, God, etc.. and as such, are somehow connected and equal in spirit.. its all just a matter of perception....

I agree that religion is not the answer, it is mankind's atempt to assign a "personality" to that which cannot be fully understood from the physical perspective.. it is mankind's inability to accept responsibility for its own actions, preferring to have some cosmic puppeteer take ultimate responsibility.. to have a redeemer forgive him for the actions he considers to be contrary to his "nature".. Religions are merely differing cultural perspectives of simple spiritual awareness, an awareness that has been assigned values consistent with mankind's varying ability to comprehend the nature of its existence.. Most of today's religions are devoted to maintaining social order, maintaining their survivability, and perpetuating the agendas of man.. very little is done to promote spiritual development.. worse, there is a deluded effort to hold to ancient concepts even as mankind evolves spiritually.. an effort to reject what mankind is beginning to comprehend as its higher spiritual self.. for religion to survive it must be in control, the authority.. it cannot let mankind accept its birthright as free independent expressions of "the One"...

Ooops, i guess i rambled again.. sorry..
Be well...

[ZIM]

I have no problems with your view on 'how it all works', but it [most unfortunately] begs the question regarding proof/evidence.

You are saying, if I may paraphrase, that the soul is an organizing principle and that it 'assembles' the inert chemicals that make up life and provides the animation/personality/etc. for that. That assumes an a priori existence for the soul which may not exist for our scientifically-based friends.

Difficulties!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I appreciate the desire for tangible "proof" of concepts such as "soul/spirit", yet.. i wonder why there is so little questioning of so many "scientific" concepts built on the "if/then" principle..
What one chooses to hold as "true" is really only a choice, a choice of standards and preference.. I am certain that, upon close examination, even the most constrained "scientist" would demonstrate certain beliefs that lack verifiable principles..

My assertion of my beliefs is that the soul/spirit is a cohesive unit of energy, conscious and self-aware.. this unit of energy, while independent by its self-aware nature, is still inextricably part of the whole.. The spirit/soul is not primarily an organizing principle, but the organizing principle is inherent to its function.. Okay, i will shoot myself in the foot and explain my belief on this issue..

Within the "great Void" there is only One thing ("in the beginning there was God".. Tao, Great Spirit, etc..).. that One thing, name it what you choose, has no feedback, no mirror, no "playmates".. its only thought is "I AM", but it doesn't "what it is"..so, in a great act of selflessness it divides itsef so it can experience itself, so it can know "what it is".. (the One became two..).. recognizing the value of experience, of interaction, The One (even as two aspects of the One) exploded into the unlimited aspects we know as the universe.. i think we call that "explosion" the Big Bang.. the single purpose, without judgment or constraints, is to have experiences, is to help the One know itself.. its wisdom was to retain in each aspect the inherent knowledge that it was once One thing and the subtle guiding principle is that each aspect has a "homing instinct" to return to the One, to reassemble itself and bask in the knowledge of "what it is".. that "homing instinct" is equally evident as science or religion.. the search for Origin..

Now, returning to the "purpose", the One was quite wise to offer the universe unrestricted experience potential, it knew that to only examine "favorable" experiences would not tell it who/what it really was, it would be unbalanced (hence the multitude of varying experiences/personalities).. the desire for pleasurable or favored experience while rejecting unfavorable experiences is a symptom of the "homing instinct" (organizing principle) that over the life of this current universe will bring the parts back to the Whole so it can forget and do it again (cycles of universes.. the breath of the living Tao, etc..)..

It is not necessary, for me personally, to have the scientific community validate what i "know" or believe.. no more than i need a thermometer to know that fire burns my flesh, the experience is sufficient.. as in your previous post, the "difficulties" are only for those that require measurement to validate experience.. for me, the experience is complete, the measurement is optional and merely a matter of convenience.. I can meet my scientific friends and we may sit down for coffee or a brew and one may favor one brand over another, yet.. we seem to move along without discecting such subjective experiences into statistical tables for verifiable analysis.. we simply accept our uniqueness and move on.. That science cannot "verify" the soul/spirit experience, does not invalidate it.. it simply means that for some people the standards they have chosen remain unsatisfied... (note: one can change choices and life will continue to unfold before them, unconcerned with their "choice")..

Be well..

[ZIM]

You, sir, sound like an emanationist. ;) Which is entirely great- the One cannot help but create... perhaps the only 'thought' is I AM, but the nature of the One is creative.

... and I agree, scientists may very well have beliefs that are not verifiable- nature of the human beast, maybe.

This entire thread, by the way, reminded me of Ananda's search [from the buddhist literature] as found in the surangama sutra. (http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/Shurangama/locations.htm) I am not an expert on it by any means, but it may be of interest to some.

I've noticed that some are sitting this out currently, yet were active at the start- have any of you anything to say or add? Any means or ways of looking at the question we've not done yet?

[Christopher M]

TaiChiBob - From your account, I would suggest

1) What happened between there being one and there being two wasn't division; there is still one.

2) The process of the one, then two, and so on is on a different axis than the process of the big bang.

3) The soul/spirit isn't inherently self-aware; something has to happen to it for this to be.

[Nexus]

Christopher & TaichiBob and others,

I see that we are now witnessing the true complexity of making clarity of the concepts of soul, self, awareness, enlightenment, truth and whatsayou with our common tongue/linguistic skills. The Tao Te Ching makes note of this, in its most truly paradoxical way, in implying that even the Finest of Words cannot express the Tao itself.

I will not try to explain what that means now for the next several paragraphs.

I will say this though: I truly respect and thank each of you for your contribution and willingness to share your insights and experiences so that myself and others can learn from them. It is this sharing and community that true satisfaction in these arts is experienced for me, and for that I again thank you.

- Nexus

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


1) What happened between there being one and there being two wasn't division; there is still one.

I agree completely, it is still One.. and yet, it is individual aspects of the One, divine dichotomy..


2) The process of the one, then two, and so on is on a different axis than the process of the big bang.

Well, i sense that it is differing cultural perspectives of the same "creation event".. better viewed as an analogy..


3) The soul/spirit isn't inherently self-aware; something has to happen to it for this to be.

As a energy condenses into a cohesive unit, self-awareness is a by-product of that process.. now, what causes that event, i don't know.. i speculate that it is the One further experiencing itself, expanding its range of experiences.. but, i am equally content to remain in awe of the whole process and just focus of the unfolding experience.. Regardless of how it is manifested, its value remains in my ability to be fully present during the experience..

Thanks for the dialogue.. and, thanks to Nexus for the unprejudiced support.. <humble bows to ALL>..

Be Well..