How can one know they have a soul or spirit?

[Blastcat]

It means that to be able to understand what @George-ananda is talking about takes much more than a few minutes of considering.

I was thinking about responding but i am not familiar with the terms he uses, i am more western oriented in the way that i think.
This means a lot of defining of terms which can be rather exhausting on a message board.

Well, I hope that you don't mind that I don't just think that he has PROVED his points before he actually proves them.
IF he makes an extraordinary claim that he wants me to pay any attention to, too bad for him, he now has to prove that.

Otherwise.. claim ignored.. move along.

 

[allfoak]

Well, I hope that you don't mind that I don't just think that he has PROVED his points before he actually proves them.
IF he makes an extraordinary claim that he wants me to pay any attention to, too bad for him, he now has to prove that.

Otherwise.. claim ignored.. move along.

People like @George-ananda and myself tend to make what seem to some to be extraordinary claims because they are claims based upon experience not data.

What is never understood by those who criticize these claims, is that they do the same thing that people who deny valid science do, which is to claim something to be false without considering the evidence.

These extraordinary claims can be substantiated by anyone who is willing to do what is necessary to have the same experiences as those who claim to have had them.

In other words, walk a mile in my shoes and then reconsider the things i say or stop criticizing things you know nothing about, it makes you look foolish.

 

[George-ananda]

Your "to me" kind of evidence is totally UNCONVINCING to anyone else.

It's more than just me.

Do you have any evidence that your peers might be able to verify?

Most paranormal evidence is spontaneous and not predictable in advance so it doesn't lend itself to controlled laboratory verification tests. What we do is consider the evidence and look for quantity, quality and consistency along with existing theories. We can learn about the universe through methods other than the hard sciences.

 

[Blastcat]

It's more than just me.

Then you have also convinced them. Congrats.

Most paranormal evidence is spontaneous and not predictable in advance so it doesn't lend itself to controlled laboratory verification tests. What we do is consider the evidence and look for quantity, quality and consistency along with existing theories. We can learn about the universe through methods other than the hard sciences.

Sorry that you can't verify your claims.
Did you have another point to make?

 

[Blastcat]

I just learned that this site only accepts posts with LESS than 1200 words.

So.. we should try for more conciseness. If I don’t address all of your points, it’s because of that.

I am new here.. learning the ropes.


Sorry if it causes frustration.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"What method would you use to challenge the ideas of any believer without seeing their views as meanless but more for learning and seeing from their perspective rather than your own? [/QUOTE]


It’s not that I “see” their ideas as meaningless. It’s that I can’t get any MEANING from what some people say. Just because they use a lovely WORD doesn’t mean that I know what they MEAN by it.


Blastcat said: ↑


It's always the people who do harm. However, I am not here to discuss people who do harm. We should agree that they are wrong. But I am in here to discuss the ideas that might LEAD someone to hold a gun. Religions are one of those reasons.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Religions are not, though. That is a generalization. Its the other way around. I (my intention etc) is the one that motivates or leads me to use the gun not the gun itself. [/QUOTE]


A BELIEF might motivate someone, like an ISIS member, for example to use a gun. I think some of THEM are religiously motivated. At least, that’s what they CLAIM.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"How would you challenge the ideas that lead people from the religions that may be in general dangerous to others? (rephrasing your point) [/QUOTE]


Bad THINKING that leads to religious beliefs is the problem. I am attacking bad thinking. Any problem with that?


Blastcat said: ↑


The ONLY problem with religion is that there are HUGE problems with religion. Let's not pretend otherwise.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"What is wrong with the religion? [/QUOTE]


VIOLENCE comes to mind. IGNORANCE is another. SUPERSTITION is another Bad Thinking is another… the suppression of WOMEN is another.. the list goes on and on. I would NEVER waste my time with these silly beliefs if they didn’t cause HUGE problems for humanity.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Inaccurances, contradictions, and invisible angels harm no one. Thats like saying there is a prolem with a childrens fantasy book. Focus on the people who use the religion, if you like. People will still use religion in a bad way even if it only says "God is love' and thats it. [/QUOTE]


Beliefs can MOTIVATE PEOPLE …false beliefs do TO.. false beliefs can be dangerous.

So, in a debate about BELIEFS.. I focus on the BELIEFS.. I don’t attack the PEOPLE.


I am not on the battle front against ISIS having to defend people against these people. I am debating people about their beliefs IN SAFETY.


Blastcat said: ↑


1. If we are to be reasonable, the common denominator should be GOOD reasoning.


2. If we are to care about reality, our common denominator should be reality, and not fantasy.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"What definition of good and reality that both parties can agree on so that when you address your point, the other party understands even if they disagree? [/QUOTE]


We have to find out. If we cannot agree at all, then the conversation is completely USELESS and devoid of MEANING. Clear definitions have MEANING.


Blastcat said: ↑


Why do we need to protect their bad thinking? I say we need to EXPOSE their bad thinking, and help them think better. That they are too attached to their beliefs is THE PROBLEM.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"How would you productively do that without steping on their beliefs (good intent or not) in the process? [/QUOTE]


Yeah, too bad, huh?


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Sometimes there isnt a nice way to take a gun. However, if someone isnt using the gun, how would you take it without their immediate reaction or defending themselves in the process? [/QUOTE]


Yeah, too bad, huh?


Blastcat said: ↑


It's true that most people are seldom interested in abandoning their cherished beliefs. They don't usually concern themselves if the beliefs are true.. but if they seem to be LIKELY true to them. It's just bad reasoning motivated by emotion and habit.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Having beliefs (rather than facts) based on emotion and habit is not wrong. [/QUOTE]


At times, maybe not. But I think that GOOD thinking is always preferable to BAD thinking.

I think that it's WRONG to not think WELL.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"What is wrong is how people use these beliefs against others. [/QUOTE]


Agreed. That’s why I bother with these silly beliefs at all. But they still do not form their false belied using good thinking.

I believe in good thinking, don't you?


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Instead of attacking the beliefs, attack (or challenge) how they are using those beliefs. [/QUOTE]


And let them be wrong? Why would I do that?

I respect people too much to let them be wrong. I try to help when I can.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"Do it in a way that doesnt offend them. If it still does, leave it alone. Maybe you wont understand it; and, there isnt a religious police authority who can monitor whose beliefs are wrong unless it causes people to go against the law of their societies. [/QUOTE]


I think the world would be better off if we all thought well.


It’s their problem if they get OFFENDED that I challenge their cherished beliefs. They can run away and hide if they like. But they have NO RIGHT to attack me personally for asking tough questions. TOO BAD for them if they come to preach and get asked to prove it. It’s just TOO BAD.


They can go preach somewhere ELSE than a place with DISCUSSION as a goal if they don’t want an honest discussion. I don’t have to pay attention to DISHONEST people. I don’t have to respect dishonesty.


[QUOTE="Carlita, post: 4661268, member: 55631"I see no reason nor benefit of challenging a persons beliefs in order to proove them false. If anything, it may boomer rang, have them feeling with no hope, and they kill more people then they did 2,000 years ago. [/QUOTE]


My intention isn't to prove them wrong. My intention is to help them them better. They might be right, after all. Maybe I can learn something. I love learning.


I agree about the boomerang effect. Yes, I am very aware of that. Too bad for them. I can’t help what they believe or how, that’s their choice. ALL I can do , is to try to help them out of their bad thinking. The rest is up to them.

However, we should never forget the silent audience…


I might not convince X but .. maybe the very silent Y…..

I was once a very silent Y person.


NOW look at me!


I cut off the rest due to length.. we should try to get shorter posts in….

Sorry, but the parts that I don’t include really really really proved you WRONG………



Really.

 

[George-ananda]

Did you have another point to make?

Yes, that you are not really interested in the body of evidence and argumentation that I was willing to intelligently discuss. Also, that you are just wasting my time now.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Have you considered the soul as an ever-growing impermanent entity that lasts for many lifetimes. The only thing unceasing and unchanging is the Self/Brahman the One (not individual).

I would consider it with evidence. Note: not conjecture.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yeah. I write long posts and usually get into that downfall of limited replies. I usually read all replies but I can only cut and paste ones I find relevant to the conversation even though a lot of times it misses context especially to those who jump in the conversation.

Bad THINKING that leads to religious beliefs is the problem. I am attacking bad thinking. Any problem with that?

Thats what I said earlier. Why challenge the belief system itself? It does nothing of itself. Challenge how people use the belief.

When you do, how would you do so?

VIOLENCE comes to mind. IGNORANCE is another. SUPERSTITION is another Bad Thinking is another… the suppression of WOMEN is another.. the list goes on and on. I would NEVER waste my time with these silly beliefs if they didn’t cause HUGE problems for humanity.

Its a generalization. I havent read in scripture I am supposed to be ignorant to my ex-faith. It doesnt tell me to do violence to others because of my ex-faith if anything, it tells me the opposite. I always believed in what people call superstition; and, though illogical to some its not to most; just depends on if it is used dangerously or is it a community or personal belief that does not need to be challenged.

For the X amount of people who are using their religions to promote violence, supression, descriminations, etc...how would you challenge them to change their way of thinking?

Beliefs can MOTIVATE PEOPLE …false beliefs do TO.. false beliefs can be dangerous.

So, in a debate about BELIEFS.. I focus on the BELIEFS.. I don’t attack the PEOPLE.

Beliefs are just that beliefs. Many are not facts. They arent dangerous in and of themselves. Without us existing, they wouldnt exist.

If you want to help others in their belief systems, you have to challenge it. Challenging their beliefs because it is person will sound like an attack on that person. But I still dont see how youd go about helping them build good beliefs when its not their beliefs thats the problem is how they use it.

If we are to be reasonable, the common denominator should be GOOD reasoning.

Based on whose good?

Why do we need to protect their bad thinking? I say we need to EXPOSE their bad thinking, and help them think better. That they are too attached to their beliefs is THE PROBLEM.

Agreed. That’s why I bother with these silly beliefs at all. But they still do not form their false belied using good thinking.

I believe in good thinking, don't you?

I do. My basis for good thining is different than yours and the next person beside me. As long as our beliefs and values dont cause ourselves to harm others, self, and environment I am good. I know religions like christianity seem like guns but they really arent. Take down all what you think is christianity and just see it for waht it is: gratitude, sacrifice, charity, for the greater good for others and higher power and not for self. I dont see anything dangerous in this line of thinking.

I think its with the people not the beliefs. How would you challenge people so they understand their beliefs are false (according to who?) when to them it is true? What method?

And let them be wrong? Why would I do that?

If they didnt interpret their beliefs to do violence, then by all means I see your point. Since religion is not about violence, how would you challenge them to see otherwise?

It’s their problem if they
get OFFENDED that I challenge their cherished beliefs. They can run away and hide if they like. But they have NO RIGHT to attack me personally for asking tough questions. TOO BAD for them if they come to preach and get asked to prove it. It’s just TOO BAD.

This sounds like experience or anger or something behind your motive to help people. If you want to help people turn from what you call silly beliefs so they dont do crimes, and they turn away, why would you Not continue to challenge them? If it means that much?

My intention isn't to prove them wrong. My intention is to help them them better. They might be right, after all. Maybe I can learn something. I love learning.

I agree about the boomerang effect. Yes, I am very aware of that. Too bad for them. I can’t help what they believe or how, that’s their choice. ALL I can do , is to try to help them out of their bad thinking. The rest is up to them.

In order to help them, you have to prove their beliefs are wrong. When you do that, you challenge their thinking and you proove them wrong. Learning is one thing, but its a whole nother thing to challenge them out of what you feel is bad thinking.

Beliefs can MOTIVATE PEOPLE …false beliefs do TO.. false beliefs can be dangerous.

So, in a debate about BELIEFS.. I focus on the BELIEFS.. I don’t attack the PEOPLE.

I am not on the battle front against ISIS having to defend people against these people. I am debating people about their beliefs IN SAFETY.

False based on who? Even "true" beliefs can motivate people to do bad. It depends on the person (like using a butter knife for murder rather than for bread) or the other way around using a gun for protecting self and family and not to intentionally kill others.

Its not the beliefs (guns and knife) its how people use them. How would you challenge their "bad" thinking? Example?

If we are to be reasonable, the common denominator should be GOOD reasoning.

2. If we are to care about reality, our common denominator should be reality, and not fantasy.

Whose good?
Whose reality?

I cant see reality without my family and spirits. A christian cant see reality without Christ and god. Yet, both of us can use these beliefs (not good or bad in and of themselves) for good--relationship, charity, helping oneself, and so forth or use them like a gun, getting false messages from spirits or to a christian mirroring rather than learning from the exampe of the OT god.

If this is mis matched, its because I presed the post reply to early and quotes got tall mixed around. Let me know if you cant follow.

 

[George-ananda]

I would consider it with evidence. Note: not conjecture.

The evidence of human experience and alleged knowledge of that which lies beyond the physical by seers and advanced spiritual teachers is there for consideration. No one thinks we should conjecture without evidence. I would never have conjectured what I now believe.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The evidence of human experience and alleged knowledge of that which lies beyond the physical by seers and advanced spiritual teachers is there for consideration. No one thinks we should conjecture without evidence. I would never have conjectured what I now believe.

Yet to take the word of 'spiritual teachers' and people who experience 'NDEs' on no empirical evidence equals little more than conjecture in my mind.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

One can conjecture endlessly about all kinds of things with no evidence, but IMO its little more than pretty words.

 

[atanu]

That is what I'm saying. If it were not so, nothing would ever change, which would give an idea of a unchanging, unceasing self. The opposite is true. If one were going to posit an unchanging, unceasing self- is the people we are now, or the people we will be twenty years from now the true example of this 'self'? If we look closely at what comprises both, we can conclude the sense of being may be there, but it is not an independent thing that simply exists of itself. This is what soul concepts presume- that the sense of self somehow just exists, and would exist apart from the factors that agitate it.

But what is the sense of self when one experiences void? What is the sense of self when one experiences forms? What is sense of self when one knows/experiences the famous Heart Sutra 'Form is formlessness and formless is form'?

 

[atanu]

One can conjecture endlessly about all kinds of things with no evidence, but IMO its little more than pretty words.

That is very correct and applies equally to everyone.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

But what is the sense of self when one experiences void? What is the sense of self when one experiences forms? What is sense of self when one knows/experiences the famous Heart Sutra 'Form is formlessness and formless is form'?

Its whatever the factors that hit the brain generate at the time I would think, since the premise of Buddhism is that existence is moment to moment. The sense of being is moment produced, built on succeeding moments, and not the same as say the self ten years ago. I think this makes a good deal of sense.

 

[atanu]

Its whatever the factors that hit the brain generate at the time I would think, since the premise of Buddhism is that existence is moment to moment. The sense of being is moment produced, built on succeeding moments, and not the same as say the self ten years ago. I think this makes a good deal of sense.

So the one that experiences 'form is formless and formless is form' is not the one that sees only the forms? Or the one who experienced the Heart Sutra and then spoke about the experience to a gathering are different beings? Moment to moment the experiencer changes?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The point of the Heart Sutra is to remove all obstruction. To get one to the point that such conjectures don't matter. That is why the Heart Sutra says there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, etc. There is no attainment whatsoever. The Bodhisattva relying on Prajnaparamita has no obstruction, and so knows ultimate liberation. I associate this with just the freedom to live. Let it all go. Its profound, yet its simple.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aren't you a believer in atman? How do you make a distinction between atman and soul?

The word 'atman' is understood in Hinduism in two ways. Restrictive - 'me', and expansive - 'This all', 'Brahman' (Please note 'Brahma' means universe, and Brahman its constituting substrate. Though we also have the creator God of Hindu trinity, BrahmA, but the word is pronounced differently). In my 'advaitist' (non-dual) view, 'atman' is only in the expansive sense. I do not have a personal soul. Nice discussion.

Change: Something new which was not happening before. Now the sub-atomic particles perpetually vibrate, gravity changes time and space pepetually - obviously, it is not a change. Change will be if they stop doing this. That is why 'Brahman', in Hinduism, is termed as changeless. That makes creation, birth, death, judgment, punishment, reward, heaven, hell, salvation - all redundant. That is why there are a lot of sayings in Hindu scriptures which mean like "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman, the whole) or "Tat twam asi " (poetically translated as 'Thou art that').

 

[atanu]

Its whatever the factors that hit the brain generate at the time I would think, since the premise of Buddhism is that existence is moment to moment. The sense of being is moment produced, built on succeeding moments, and not the same as say the self ten years ago.

So moment to moment whatever the brain generates (as per its whims or as per its own processes) makes a person? What is mindfulness then? Who is mindful of the monkey dance of the mind -- from moment to moment?

I think this makes a good deal of sense.

What objective sense can be expected from the Being that is dependent moment to moment on blind processes of brain?
.......

 

[Willamena]

You can know that "soul" is precisely a spirit.

 

[atanu]

The point of the Heart Sutra is to remove all obstruction. To get one to the point that such conjectures don't matter. That is why the Heart Sutra says there is no truth of suffering, of the cause of suffering, etc. There is no attainment whatsoever. The Bodhisattva relying on Prajnaparamita has no obstruction, and so knows ultimate liberation. I associate this with just the freedom to live. Let it all go. Its profound, yet its simple.

You are vague.

Tell me whether the experiencer of sunyata and teacher of sunyata are different persons or the same Avalokitesvara?

Or what was your own essential nature at the time you experienced the sunyata?