Do We Need a Better Definitive Words For Soul Vs Self?

[YmirGF]

If you insist on making up your own definitions for words then we have no common ground for discussion. Sorry, but I haven't got the time or energy to learn your personal language and jargon.

Do give the WindyOne a bit more slack, @Rick O'Shez ... he is a complex creature that provides high quality information. Sometimes it does take time to distill the meaning, but it is almost always worth the effort. I seem to recall my initial interactions with @Windwalker were similar to your own. We all have different perspectives, some are obviously better than others depending upon both experience and insight.

 

[Windwalker]

he is a complex creature that provides high quality information. Sometimes it does take time to distill the meaning, but it is almost always worth the effort.

Thank you. I've had numerous people say my posts require a bit of unpacking. But saying it's jaron filled nonsense says more about the person saying it than anything substantial about the content. I get tired of people taking the lazy approach. Losing some patience with it. My words are very particular in how I use them, and it doesn't violate anything, other than deliberately push the boundaries of someone's currently held perspectives, which many times they are more interested in defending than testing. I'm always stretching where things go. It's a very large balloon.

I seem to recall my initial interactions with @Windwalker were similar to your own. We all have different perspectives, some are obviously better than others depending upon both experience and insight.

I try not to just talk out of my ***, but have at least some reasonable basis of experience to speak from. I'm not too keen on brazen speculation, nor of just quoting others as authoritative final words. I don't view anyone as an oracle of God, but I do believe those who spend time in thought and push the boundaries of ideas, and speak from experience, have something to say. I prefer to have some foundation of experience that I'm speaking from. That's not to say other perspectives aren't valid and worth learning from.

 

[wizanda]

I can assure you that he did.

If you'd like to post it, by all means; yet after reading the conversation between Buddha and Vacchagotta; not found any conclusive proof either way....

Instead Buddha answered as a master, and said if he sides one way or another, he would be encompassed in that school of thought.

Anatta is a central doctrine in Buddhist teaching

Which is why questioning the whole roots of the language barrier in this thread, as Anatman should mean selfless, not soulless; as i know Buddha's soul from Heaven, and he clearly got this.

Sorry didn't specifically include in the OP, that Buddhist instead use the term Santana (flow), to define that which remains between lifes....i.e a soul, yet not in the misinterpreted sense.

"Soul" is a religious belief, and "ego" is a psychological term.

There is no belief needed to have a soul, we just wouldn't exist without one.... Ego is Ahamkara which isn't only psychology, it is our inner/outer reflection with the material world.

more confusion than what already exists.

There is a knot in all the religions, as the OP relates, we've confused ourselves by our languages, which all happen to be the same.

We don't get more confusion from undoing a knot; we find resolve if we're patient enough to untie it, and don't let our ego get in the way.

If we have a soul, some permanent self-preserver, why do so many people live out the last years of their lives with no knowledge of their self?

What trying to put is that soul isn't the self, our idea of self comes from trying to identify what we are.

Lots of people have a sense of self from only their brain, which explains why people can lose their self.

Yet then there is a more metaphysical aspect, that some people do store things on their soul, which is then infinite.

This whole thread is questioning, if the language of implying that soul, self, and life are all the same, has messed up our understanding globally.

Like when we die we still know who we are.

Well this is why appealing to anyone with first hand experience, and all of us have said we did know who we were within our experiences.

Are you brand new or have you been around 5 or 5000 times by now?

I've had flash backs of previous lifes, going back thousands of years.

If you insist on making up your own definitions

a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Nice cop out. It's not my personal jargon. I'm using what others speak of. If you want to restrict understanding to your own, then knock yourself out. I hope that gives you what you hope for.

But it IS your personal jargon, that's the whole problem, it's egocentric, you make up your own language and expect the rest of us to learn it. No thanks.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If you'd like to post it, by all means; yet after reading the conversation between Buddha and Vacchagotta; not found any conclusive proof either way....

By all means create your own syncretic fantasy, just do not expect Buddhists to agree with it. Or anyone else for that matter.
What's the point? By all means make up your own religion, but why drag everyone else into it?

 

[Windwalker]

But it IS your personal jargon, that's the whole problem, it's egocentric, you make up your own language and expect the rest of us to learn it. No thanks.

Not it is not. Give me an example. Would you like me to just start dismissing you as quoting others blindly without having any thoughts of your own? Is that how you like to conduct discussions? You need to give me a little more credit than your insults are showing.

BTW, to judge me as being egocentric? Again, this says way more about you, and your ego. Pride hurting?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not it is not. Give me an example.

Ego.

 

[Windwalker]

Ego.

How so? What do you know of me? I'd say this sort of reply speaks more of your ego feeling uneasy about something. But who I am to judge. Who are you?

 

[YmirGF]

Within multiple cultures, we used a terminology for soul, self, our life, that comes from the root of breath, Atman (Sanskrit), Nephesh (Hebrew), Psyche (Greek)... Please add anymore cultures you're aware of to this list.

Though because of this we've identified the soul, as being the self; thus we've then had Buddhism, and other religious authors remove the self (Anatman).

Yeshua says to hate our psyche, not to save our psyche, not to love our psyche...

Which clearly is all just a mess of presenting a clear understanding.

Some Buddhist believe they're soulless, as Buddha didn't give a definitive answer...

Clearly we all have a soul in this physical body, we have some form of self identification, which can be interlinked with our ego.

When we're dead, we still have a sense of self, even when in Heaven.

Symbol laden twaddle aside, I can only state my distaste for the term "soul" due to the ludicrous religious baggage it has accrued over the generations. So many people, who knew nothing, have pontificated on the topic for so long that the word is now almost useless, unless one is referring to a music genre.
Is it any wonder there is confusion about soul, self and ego? The problem is that so many believe what they have been told by those who had little understanding of the topics they were in no position to comment on. It is my opinion that those who were in a position to offer reasonable explanations have either been misquoted (in order to sustain an alternate narrative) or flat out misunderstood. I'd suggest there was a very good reason why Buddha refused to answer the question and it is likely because those around him would not have understood his answer and would have, quite naturally, misunderstood his answer. He was wise to remain silent.

@Eliab ben Benjamin Could you please help share what you remember from your NDE as well, and anyone else who has had first hand experience of Heaven, please share, as we could do with finding a definitive answer between us.

The sense of self is stronger in Hell though; which makes me question how much it has been linked to our ego through life.

Heaven is Oneness, like we still have a sense of self; yet our focus is all about the source, thus we're one with the consciousness of all.

While I've not had a NDE in the technical sense, I've had literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of out-of-body experiences. It just seems to be a foible of my consciousness this makes this relatively easy to explore. I must stress, though I have seen, first hand, alternate planes of activity, that could be described as paradisiacal or heavenly, there was never any area that is the Christian Heaven. It does not exist outside of the mind of the beholder. (Stress on the last part.) Likewise, there is simply no Hell or any hell world scenarios... outside the mind of the beholder. There are an innumerable number of separate states of consciousness however, all of which are immensely enjoyable and filled with intrigue. Oneness isn't and end point. It's a starting point and not at all what it seems to be at first.

Within us understanding this better, we can help people on the road to enlightenment; as we've all got a soul, which is like a dynamic spark of energy, a flow, a musical melody, a tapestry of colours, etc.

I could not disagree more. If you have ever taken a counseling course, one of the first things they will cover is that if you are setting out to "help" people you are in for a world of pain, disappointment and sorrow because you cannot help them. You can only nurture their resolve to help themselves. You can only offer them tips that to ease their pain. You can only offer solace and inspire them to carry on - to establish realistic goals - goals, that are within their grasp. More often than not, you can only sit and listen and lend a shoulder for them to cry on. Though it doesn't sound like much, most of the time you can only be there for them, to be a calm refuge in the whirlwind that is their lives.

Our sense of self isn't from God/Brahman having a self, as it has no self; we can say it is the only self existing being in reality; yet it doesn't have self orientated thinking, it is completely selfless, else it would make more point of being seen and understood.

Our self isn't a bad thing, though we find many selfish, self orientated people in Hell; it is due to not recognizing that life is here to learn Oneness, and thus being selfless.

Oy vey. It is thinking like this that is a very large part of the problem. It's thinking that is based on a misapprehension of self and a limited vision of being based on fundamentally flawed assumptions about the nature of reality. News flash: The books are wrong. Throw them out. Forget Brahman, forget all you have read about God. Slowly, eventually, a new unadulterated vision of personality and self will begin to shine of its own accord - if one let's it.

Think self is our souls identification process, we recognize our soul as we have a sense of self....

Then we can recognize our soul as having a sense of selflessness...

In other words to put it into binary we see our sense of self as 1, without a self as 0; yet both are an identification of existing in someway.

How about a more refreshing idea that self exists in many different areas simultaneously in a far larger version of personality than most currently can imagine. Self is much more than this simplistic binary drivel and includes more dimensions than there are grains of sand on an average beach. It is a misapprehension of the true nature of multidimensional being that gives rise to these silly ideas of selflessness. Though identity is never lost the multidimensional experience tends to blur our sense of self to the point where it no longer matters who we are. It becomes almost like a mood thing. What matters is what we are.

@Windwalker @Rick O'Shez

 

[wizanda]

It's not my personal jargon.

Agreed, and why posted the definition from Google...Think we've got to appeal to evidence (like a dictionary), when rational discourse isn't working.

Also we should check in Pali, if Buddha used the term ego, as it exists within Hinduism, thus Buddha clearly would define it.

 

[YmirGF]

That's not to say other perspectives aren't valid and worth learning from.

Hehe. For me, most day, it's more a case of noting how I never want to sound, LOL.

 

[wizanda]

I'll answer from my own experience with an NDE without sharing all the details of it here.

Thank you for explaining your experiences, and thought you gave a clear explanation of complex subjects to understand.

 

[viole]

Yeshua says to hate our psyche, not to save our psyche, not to love our psyche...

Yeshua forgot, among other things, that hating our psyche is also part of our psyche. Should I hate to hate my psyche?

Clearly we all have a soul in this physical body, we have some form of self identification, which can be interlinked with our ego.

That is not clear at all. I actually think that we are what a machine inside a more or less spherical container computes.

When we're dead, we still have a sense of self, even when in Heaven.

Are you positive about that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[wizanda]

You have no idea

Which is where i said lets look it up.

P.s you do realize twit isn't swearing.

Are you positive about that?

As far as i know, i still knew me as a separate self; yet within Heaven we're part of the whole selflessness.

 

[Erebus]

I'm not sure concepts like souls really can (or should) be rigidly defined. I would argue that trying to do so misses the point somewhat.

Personally, I view the soul in one of two ways. The first is a handy metaphor for a person's sense of self worth, dignity and integrity. A musician who sacrifices the meaning and passion of their music in return for mass appeal has effectively sold their soul for example.

The second view is kind of complicated. I view the soul as something akin to a Man o' war jellyfish. It's not you exactly, rather it's multiple versions of you. Everything you are, have been, could be, won't be and should be along with every conceivable twist of fate and choice you could make. Basically, it probably isn't something that could or should be given a few lines in a dictionary definition, but that's only my take on the matter

 

[Windwalker]

Yeah, lovely, stop being a twat, use plain English and cut the pretentious jargon.

Aside from the fact this a forum rules violation, which I'm going to let slide... why don't you step up the plate and deal with what I've said? It's not pretentious jargon at all, and the only example you gave when I asked you for it was to say I have a big ego. Wow. I think it's obvious who has nothing to say here. Shadow material? Yes, that's jargon, but it's valid jargon. Shadow material is what I see you attacking here, an image of yourself you project onto others. Your disowned self. The egotist you see is yourself, not the other person. You want to go after me the way you are, I'll deal with what I'm seeing, and this is it.

 

[lovemuffin]

and the only example you gave when I asked you for it was to say I have a big ego.

FWIW, I think "ego" was supposed to be an example of you making up definitions of words:

But it IS your personal jargon, that's the whole problem

Not it is not. Give me an example.

Ego.

 

[YmirGF]

Aside from the fact this a forum rules violation, which I'm going to let slide... why don't you step up the plate and deal with what I've said? It's not pretension jargon at all, and the only example you gave when I asked you for it was to say I have a big ego. Wow. I think it's obvious who has nothing to say here. Shadow material? Yes, that's jargon, but it's valid jargon. Shadow material is what I see you attacking here, an image of yourself you project onto others. Your disowned self. The egotist you see is yourself, not the other person. You want to go after me the way you are, I'll deal with what I'm seeing, and this is it.

I have two industrial grade 100 foot garden hoses, at the ready, if you two want to spend some quality time here in LotusLand. (There's lots of room to run around in the yard, just watch out for the numerous raised beds.) I'll even throw in a free dinner!

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, lovely, stop being a twat, use plain English and cut the pretentious jargon.

10,000 posts and you still haven't learned the forum TOS against personal attacks??????

 

[wizanda]

Now this is getting silly, ego stems from the Greek meaning 'self' or 'I'... It originally had nothing to do with psychology.

My own understanding is that our ego is the inner/outer reflection with reality....Sorry should've defined it as such in the OP, to avoid confusion of its meaning.