Souls are infinite?

[Cambo]

For me, there's only one true Soul, and we are all a part of it. It is indeed infinite, and it was never created nor could it be destroyed. Our individual "souls," the colllection of our self-ness made up of all our genes, environment and experience, are finite in that after death there will be nothing left of them- nothing to call itself Cameron. But Cameron was never the whole story anyway.

[Menolly]

For me, there's only one true Soul, and we are all a part of it. It is indeed infinite, and it was never created nor could it be destroyed. Our individual "souls," the colllection of our self-ness made up of all our genes, environment and experience, are finite in that after death there will be nothing left of them- nothing to call itself Cameron. But Cameron was never the whole story anyway.

...Panentheism!!!

[Avatar]

But as an avowed egotist, I'm fond of the idea of individuality.

Here is distinct difference between our viewpoints. For me the endeavour is to reduce ego at every step.

I'm me. I'm the only me I have, and I'm the only me that there is. No ego=no me. Which is the same as being dead. If you can't perceive yourself as a discrete individual, then you're not.

And if you're not, you're dead. Or as close to not existing at all as makes no difference.

"Souls" or "energy" may last forever, but if there is no "me" to know that it has, it's the same as if it didn't, as far as "I" am concerned.

--A

[danlo]

Well, we didn't want you hanging around in our ether anyway

[Cambo]

But as an avowed egotist, I'm fond of the idea of individuality.

Here is distinct difference between our viewpoints. For me the endeavour is to reduce ego at every step.

I'm me. I'm the only me I have, and I'm the only me that there is. No ego=no me. Which is the same as being dead. If you can't perceive yourself as a discrete individual, then you're not.

And if you're not, you're dead. Or as close to not existing at all as makes no difference.

"Souls" or "energy" may last forever, but if there is no "me" to know that it has, it's the same as if it didn't, as far as "I" am concerned.

--A

Everything you say here is accurate...as far as egos go. Oblivion and panentheism are exactly the same to the ego. I'll not disparage the ego; I think our self-ness is a beautiful thing. The ego is that which chooses and acts, and as you say, makes a difference. For me, spiritual practice is about making peace with and moving beyond the ego, rather than subduing or eliminating it.

[rusmeister]

The only way we could know the truth about souls is to accept an authority higher than us that we find reliable, truth-telling.

Having rejected authority that could tell us, we are left to speculate wildly with no hope of knowing. You can hope that the ignorance won't prove to be fatal...

[ussusimiel]

Here is distinct difference between our viewpoints. For me the endeavour is to reduce ego at every step.

I'm me. I'm the only me I have, and I'm the only me that there is. No ego=no me. Which is the same as being dead. If you can't perceive yourself as a discrete individual, then you're not.

And if you're not, you're dead. Or as close to not existing at all as makes no difference.

"Souls" or "energy" may last forever, but if there is no "me" to know that it has, it's the same as if it didn't, as far as "I" am concerned.

--A

Everything you say here is accurate...as far as egos go. Oblivion and panentheism are exactly the same to the ego. I'll not disparage the ego; I think our self-ness is a beautiful thing. The ego is that which chooses and acts, and as you say, makes a difference. For me, spiritual practice is about making peace with and moving beyond the ego, rather than subduing or eliminating it.

I also do not disparage the ego. It is what initially brings us into the awareness of the light. Trying to subdue or eliminate the ego is a futile endeavour because that the ego's supreme skill is defense. I agree with Cambo that coming to terms with it and moving beyond it are the goals of spiritual discipline. This doesn't at all imply that I am as good as 'dead', it does, however mean that the 'I' that was mistakenly equated with myself gradually becomes less and less relevant.

This, for me, is where the spirit comes in. The spirit has an 'awareness' that is totally different from the 'consciousness' of the ego. So, when my ego dissolves being continues. The result is not death, and rather than non-existence, the movement is towards an experience of existence that is total.

The only way we could know the truth about souls is to accept an authority higher than us that we find reliable, truth-telling.

It may seem paradoxical but I agree with rus about this. The only difference is that I do not give up my independence to any authority mediated by other people.

I am constantly humbled in the face of the unimaginable richness of life. And also baffled, confounded and amazed. I have been led, drawn, cajoled and forced to where I am now. I did not choose to be here and I could never have imagined that I would end up here. Yet here is where I am obviously meant to be. In the face of this I acknowledge that the authority of life is supreme.

u.

[rusmeister]

The only way we could know the truth about souls is to accept an authority higher than us that we find reliable, truth-telling.

It may seem paradoxical but I agree with rus about this. The only difference is that I do not give up my independence to any authority mediated by other people.

I am constantly humbled in the face of the unimaginable richness of life. And also baffled, confounded and amazed. I have been led, drawn, cajoled and forced to where I am now. I did not choose to be here and I could never have imagined that I would end up here. Yet here is where I am obviously meant to be. In the face of this I acknowledge that the authority of life is supreme.
u.

Thanks, u,
If I may offer a thought, we ALL accept authority mediated by others, from our parents when we are young, to teachers that we respect and consider that they DO know things that we don't. So I don't think you can put it that way. Even I "have the right" to walk away from my Church at any time. Nothing holds me there but my own convictions that the Church does teach truth, and has things to teach me that I have yet to learn.

I don't really know what you mean by "the authority of life". That doesn't seem very clear to me.

[danlo]

I've never accepted authority, even from my parents---maybe that's why I'm currently unemployed-LOL Lady Tam is the only one who can kick my butt-

It's obvious, rus, that many things don't seem clear to you--don't bother responding, 'cause you know I won't-have a nice day!

[Orlion]

The only way we could know the truth about souls is to accept an authority higher than us that we find reliable, truth-telling.

It may seem paradoxical but I agree with rus about this. The only difference is that I do not give up my independence to any authority mediated by other people.

I am constantly humbled in the face of the unimaginable richness of life. And also baffled, confounded and amazed. I have been led, drawn, cajoled and forced to where I am now. I did not choose to be here and I could never have imagined that I would end up here. Yet here is where I am obviously meant to be. In the face of this I acknowledge that the authority of life is supreme.
u.

Thanks, u,
If I may offer a thought, we ALL accept authority mediated by others, from our parents when we are young, to teachers that we respect and consider that they DO know things that we don't. So I don't think you can put it that way. Even I "have the right" to walk away from my Church at any time. Nothing holds me there but my own convictions that the Church does teach truth, and has things to teach me that I have yet to learn.

I don't really know what you mean by "the authority of life". That doesn't seem very clear to me.

Authority does not equal right or truth. Authority simply means control by some intelligent entity. I'm willing to accept that some in authority know what I don't, namely how to sleep at night when they willingly destroy precious individual lives for their own damnable egos.

If we accept authority without skepticism, we could be in a bad place... you might find yourself a follower of evil men or demon and not of any benign being. As an example relating to me, up thread some loser science populizer was mentioned. I am more disposed to accept his 'authority' on things regarding physics due to his expertise. However, as I have demonstrated, I think he also spouts a lot of garbage. I don't accept everything he says just because he has a PhD in physics. If something doesn't jive, I'll argue the point. I think we do have reasonable explanations of why the night sky is dark. I also think his idea that quantum mechanics proves free will exists is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of quantum mechanical theory.

[rusmeister]

It may seem paradoxical but I agree with rus about this. The only difference is that I do not give up my independence to any authority mediated by other people.

I am constantly humbled in the face of the unimaginable richness of life. And also baffled, confounded and amazed. I have been led, drawn, cajoled and forced to where I am now. I did not choose to be here and I could never have imagined that I would end up here. Yet here is where I am obviously meant to be. In the face of this I acknowledge that the authority of life is supreme.
u.

Thanks, u,
If I may offer a thought, we ALL accept authority mediated by others, from our parents when we are young, to teachers that we respect and consider that they DO know things that we don't. So I don't think you can put it that way. Even I "have the right" to walk away from my Church at any time. Nothing holds me there but my own convictions that the Church does teach truth, and has things to teach me that I have yet to learn.

I don't really know what you mean by "the authority of life". That doesn't seem very clear to me.

Authority does not equal right or truth. Authority simply means control by some intelligent entity. I'm willing to accept that some in authority know what I don't, namely how to sleep at night when they willingly destroy precious individual lives for their own damnable egos.

If we accept authority without skepticism, we could be in a bad place... you might find yourself a follower of evil men or demon and not of any benign being. As an example relating to me, up thread some loser science populizer was mentioned. I am more disposed to accept his 'authority' on things regarding physics due to his expertise. However, as I have demonstrated, I think he also spouts a lot of garbage. I don't accept everything he says just because he has a PhD in physics. If something doesn't jive, I'll argue the point. I think we do have reasonable explanations of why the night sky is dark. I also think his idea that quantum mechanics proves free will exists is founded on a fundamental misunderstanding of the structure of quantum mechanical theory.

I feel like this phrase of mine got missed and people started interpreting it as mindless acceptance again:

that we find reliable, truth-telling.

I did say that in the first place.

[Orlion]

I feel like this phrase of mine got missed and people started interpreting it as mindless acceptance again:

that we find reliable, truth-telling.

I did say that in the first place.

Fair enough. That said, I think that such an authority would be a) impossible or b) pointless.

First, reliable is a possible characteristic of such sources. We can find sources that are consistent or follow strict guidelines. But that doesn't mean that they possess truth. Science is limited by capabilities in the performance of experiments and religion... well, they're a dime a dozen (million). Any discussion of what constitutes truth quickly decays into an acknowledgement that a meaningful definition does not exist or is based on individual preferences. That later is often the main reason why there is no meaningful definition. A couple examples:

1) Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream. This is absolutely true for me, but can only be said to be true for me. It hardly counts as a universal truth.
2) Murder is bad. Wellll.... not always... if some psycho is about to burn down a school full of children, puppies, and kitties, it's all right to kill/murder the psycho.

Pretty soon, we find that there are always 'exceptions' to the 'rules'. Do not deny Christ, but Peter, you ought to do so in the next twenty four hours... do it three times just to be sure (this interpretation from someone who has studied hebrew, greek, coptic, sumerian, middle-east and jewish studies his entire life)

Which brings the point of interpretation: The previous interpretation and that of Christ prophesying are both valid... and both would result in the broken-hearted Peter we find the next morning... so who's right? Does it matter? Maybe like the painting in that Mark Twain first story (the one with the mirror) anything important reflects what there is in us. One interpretation reflects a desire to obey no matter what and the other a realization of the cost of true discipleship.

It'd be nice if there was some point of authority (a God, if you want) that can be appealed to to settle all disputes... but that does not exist. Note that I did not say God doesn't exist, merely that it is not an authority we can appeal to, because it's not gonna answer us in any way useful that everyone can see.

[ussusimiel]

Hi Rus,

I am glad to finally meet you. I have read many of your posts and I find the consistency and firmness with which you articulate your position refreshing and challenging (without necessarily agreeing with everything you say). I appreciate the way you insist on the value of tradition. This is a necessary corrective to what you might term the conventional wisdom of today. Thousands of years of wisdom should not be discarded because it makes us feel uncomfortable in our current lives. The forthright manner in which you put your position challenges me to examine the premises of my own beliefs and ensures that my thinking and argumentation are rigorous and disciplined.

I don't really know what you mean by "the authority of life". That doesn't seem very clear to me.

This is a good example of what I mean. By the authority of life I mean that in spite of the best efforts of my ego/will I have absolutely no control over aspects of my life such as love, health, loss and grief. In the face of these relatively ordinary forces in my life I am helpless. The only thing I can do is practice acceptance. Acceptance is not an act of ego/will, it is an act of letting go of ego/will. The reason that I call this 'authority' is that what I learn from my experience of these forces is always reliable and is always the truth. It may be bitter and it often is humiliating, but once I've picked myself up afterwards I find that I have always learned something that I couldn't have guessed beforehand and that what I have learned is unmistakeably true.

If I may offer a thought, we ALL accept authority mediated by others, from our parents when we are young, to teachers that we respect and consider that they DO know things that we don't. So I don't think you can put it that way. Even I "have the right" to walk away from my Church at any time. Nothing holds me there but my own convictions that the Church does teach truth, and has things to teach me that I have yet to learn.

Again you are correct. Of course lots of what I learn comes from teachers that I trust (with the way my parents live their lives being my original and best teacher). I suppose what I was trying to get at is that what I learn from my current teachers is how to handle experience. A lot of what I have learned has to do with listening to and trusting the body. As I move into a deeper level of trust of my own body (and spirit) instead of my ego then to know how to handle different experiences all I need do is listen in humility to the wonderous gifts and resources I (and every other human being) have been blessed with.

u.

[Avatar]

Everything you say here is accurate...as far as egos go. Oblivion and panentheism are exactly the same to the ego. I'll not disparage the ego; I think our self-ness is a beautiful thing. The ego is that which chooses and acts, and as you say, makes a difference. For me, spiritual practice is about making peace with and moving beyond the ego, rather than subduing or eliminating it.

I also do not disparage the ego. It is what initially brings us into the awareness of the light. Trying to subdue or eliminate the ego is a futile endeavour because that the ego's supreme skill is defense. I agree with Cambo that coming to terms with it and moving beyond it are the goals of spiritual discipline. This doesn't at all imply that I am as good as 'dead', it does, however mean that the 'I' that was mistakenly equated with myself gradually becomes less and less relevant.

This, for me, is where the spirit comes in. The spirit has an 'awareness' that is totally different from the 'consciousness' of the ego. So, when my ego dissolves being continues. The result is not death, and rather than non-existence, the movement is towards an experience of existence that is total.

Consciousness is all I'm aware of. No consciousness, no me. It's no good existing in a spiritual form (or any other) if you don't have the self-awareness to experience, appreciate or enjoy it. In my opinion of course.

--A

[rusmeister]

Hi Rus,

I am glad to finally meet you. I have read many of your posts and I find the consistency and firmness with which you articulate your position refreshing and challenging (without necessarily agreeing with everything you say). I appreciate the way you insist on the value of tradition. This is a necessary corrective to what you might term the conventional wisdom of today. Thousands of years of wisdom should not be discarded because it makes us feel uncomfortable in our current lives. The forthright manner in which you put your position challenges me to examine the premises of my own beliefs and ensures that my thinking and argumentation are rigorous and disciplined.

I don't really know what you mean by "the authority of life". That doesn't seem very clear to me.

This is a good example of what I mean. By the authority of life I mean that in spite of the best efforts of my ego/will I have absolutely no control over aspects of my life such as love, health, loss and grief. In the face of these relatively ordinary forces in my life I am helpless. The only thing I can do is practice acceptance. Acceptance is not an act of ego/will, it is an act of letting go of ego/will. The reason that I call this 'authority' is that what I learn from my experience of these forces is always reliable and is always the truth. It may be bitter and it often is humiliating, but once I've picked myself up afterwards I find that I have always learned something that I couldn't have guessed beforehand and that what I have learned is unmistakeably true.

If I may offer a thought, we ALL accept authority mediated by others, from our parents when we are young, to teachers that we respect and consider that they DO know things that we don't. So I don't think you can put it that way. Even I "have the right" to walk away from my Church at any time. Nothing holds me there but my own convictions that the Church does teach truth, and has things to teach me that I have yet to learn.

Again you are correct. Of course lots of what I learn comes from teachers that I trust (with the way my parents live their lives being my original and best teacher). I suppose what I was trying to get at is that what I learn from my current teachers is how to handle experience. A lot of what I have learned has to do with listening to and trusting the body. As I move into a deeper level of trust of my own body (and spirit) instead of my ego then to know how to handle different experiences all I need do is listen in humility to the wonderous gifts and resources I (and every other human being) have been blessed with.

u.

Overall, a great post, and thanks! (It just occurred to me - I'm slow on these things) that Tom Hanks in abbreviation is T.Hanks. )

I suppose I differ on trusting the body - something I find that must betray us sooner or later, from deceit of our senses to the failures of age and illness, but on the whole, I agree thoroughly with everything else there and hold the same general attitude towards learning and experience.

[rusmeister]

I feel like this phrase of mine got missed and people started interpreting it as mindless acceptance again:

that we find reliable, truth-telling.

I did say that in the first place.

Fair enough. That said, I think that such an authority would be a) impossible or b) pointless.

First, reliable is a possible characteristic of such sources. We can find sources that are consistent or follow strict guidelines. But that doesn't mean that they possess truth. Science is limited by capabilities in the performance of experiments and religion... well, they're a dime a dozen (million). Any discussion of what constitutes truth quickly decays into an acknowledgement that a meaningful definition does not exist or is based on individual preferences. That later is often the main reason why there is no meaningful definition. A couple examples:

1) Vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream. This is absolutely true for me, but can only be said to be true for me. It hardly counts as a universal truth.
2) Murder is bad. Wellll.... not always... if some psycho is about to burn down a school full of children, puppies, and kitties, it's all right to kill/murder the psycho.

Pretty soon, we find that there are always 'exceptions' to the 'rules'. Do not deny Christ, but Peter, you ought to do so in the next twenty four hours... do it three times just to be sure (this interpretation from someone who has studied hebrew, greek, coptic, sumerian, middle-east and jewish studies his entire life)

Which brings the point of interpretation: The previous interpretation and that of Christ prophesying are both valid... and both would result in the broken-hearted Peter we find the next morning... so who's right? Does it matter? Maybe like the painting in that Mark Twain first story (the one with the mirror) anything important reflects what there is in us. One interpretation reflects a desire to obey no matter what and the other a realization of the cost of true discipleship.

It'd be nice if there was some point of authority (a God, if you want) that can be appealed to to settle all disputes... but that does not exist. Note that I did not say God doesn't exist, merely that it is not an authority we can appeal to, because it's not gonna answer us in any way useful that everyone can see.

I've already said that I'm not really willing to debate now.

I'll just say that, as children, we do not generally find our parents to be either impossible or pointless, yet we wisely accept their authority to tell us the truth. (I'm sure someone could speak of an exception - a parent who grossly misleads/abuses, etc, and I would say it is an exception.)

Your examples don't work for me. The first because it is a statement about personal taste, and the second because "murder" becomes confused with "kill" - they are not the same thing. A soldier in battle does not murder another soldier who is also armed against him - although if the same enemy were helpless and had surrendered then it would be.

Christ did not tell Peter to deny Him; He foretold that he would do so - a stark difference. An interpretation that suggests that Christ told Peter he "ought to deny Christ" comes out of nowhere - with no support either from the texts themselves or from the Tradition that spawned and canonized them. Sure, we can invent speculative meanings on our own, but doing so is baseless, except as an effort to deny the Tradition - which indicates unreasonable bias.

[ussusimiel]

This, for me, is where the spirit comes in. The spirit has an 'awareness' that is totally different from the 'consciousness' of the ego. So, when my ego dissolves being continues. The result is not death, and rather than non-existence, the movement is towards an experience of existence that is total.

Consciousness is all I'm aware of. No consciousness, no me. It's no good existing in a spiritual form (or any other) if you don't have the self-awareness to experience, appreciate or enjoy it. In my opinion of course.

This is perfectly true. We are getting close to the limit of what language can communicate here, as will always happen when this outer edge is approached. I will try and communicate what I mean by giving an example: I sometimes experience intense joy when I am in the presence of my family or friends. While I am in this state I am only 'conscious' of joy. Yet over the years there has risen up a capacity to be able to step back from the feeling of joy as it is happening and see it in another way. This is what can be called 'awareness'. The experience comes with a sense of calm and care. And I might best express it as follows: 'awareness' is the experience of calmly enfolding 'me' in care.

(Even as I wrote this I was careful to use 'I' and 'me' as little as possible. Knowledge of 'awareness' is very difficult to express in language as unlike 'consciousness' it is not born of language.)

Thanks, Avatar, for your post. Even if my reply has little new to offer you, the experience of writing it has been very valuable for me.

u.

[Avatar]

We teach best what we most need to learn."

And yet you used "I" 7 times. We are inseparable from ourselves. If we ever do manage that separation, we cease to be ourselves.

--A

[ussusimiel]

And yet you used "I" 7 times. We are inseparable from ourselves. If we ever do manage that separation, we cease to be ourselves.

--A

While I am in this state I am only 'conscious' of joy. Yet over the years there has risen up a capacity to be able to step back from the feeling of joy as it is happening and see it in another way. This is what can be called 'awareness'. The experience comes with a sense of calm and care. And I might best express it as follows: 'awareness' is the experience of calmly enfolding 'me' in care.

Mostly meant this part (only used 3, I took out lots more )

We teach best what we most need to learn."

Granted. Lots to do yet.

We are inseparable from ourselves. If we ever do manage that separation, we cease to be ourselves.

This is true and, to repeat myself, for some this is the goal. It is not the same as death. It instead can be seen as an expanded experience of being where the 'I'/ego/self is seen as part of being instead of the totality.

u.

BTW, I like the new hair colour

[danlo]

If we ever do manage that separation, we cease to be ourselves.

I think you just pissed off a lot of butterflies with that post!