Soul?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
When I said "Us" I meant me and my holy shit roll, not other people. Sorry for the confusion.
that you are the same as any other lunatic making claims about the nature of objective reality bereft of a process that anyone can follow to come to your said point of perceptionWhen I said "Us" I meant me and my holy shit roll, not other people. Sorry for the confusion.
that you are the same as any other lunatic making claims about the nature of objective reality bereft of a process that anyone can follow to come to your said point of perception
Bingo! For the first time you have objectively described the worlds bibles and the grandeurly deluded authors of them.
except of course that such scriptures, loaded with normative descriptions, give clues how to approach god
Im telling you "my toilet paper has that too!" and Im incredibally qualified to do so as I've been endowed by the fairies to be so.
so you have changed your mind?
“
Originally Posted by imaplanck.
I BELIEVE THERE are fairies at the bottom of my garden, Im going to write about it onarollof toilet paper, I will never produce evidence or will you or anyone else find any. You cant question me because Im a haloed prophet of the fairies.
My words as a prophet are often ambiguous. They shouldnt always betaken literally , I will tell you whenthey should be thus and sometimes change my mind over words that were previously meant to be taken literally.
1.Whether soul exists?
The fact that soul is rather a modern word should already give you a clue. It does not exist. The ancient greeks used some kind of definition of alive that people often confuse with soul, but it wasn't what we call soul.
2. Whether every living being, smaller or bigger has one soul?
Depends entirely on your definition of soul. Soul is a human concept. It doesn't necessarily mean anything.
3. If so, how one human with millions or trillions of living cells can
have one soul?
well, indeed. can they have a soul.
well get back to me when you are clear whether or not you have claim to objectivity (ie a process that will enable persons to directly perceive what appears at the moment to be purely subjective)
well get back to me when you are clear whether or not you have claim to objectivity (ie a process that will enable persons to directly perceive what appears at the moment to be purely subjective)
Why? Why should this prophet be different from your prophets ???????????????????????????????????????????????and why should my bog roll be different from your bible???????????????????????????????????????????????
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Lightgigantic: First you have establish the means (ie general principles outside of a mere theistic or non theisistic claim) that you utilize to determine what consctitutes reality - for instance is it sufficient for something to be real if enough people assert it to be real? or is something real if you see it withyour eyes? etc etc
Have you experienced Samadhi? Or are you simply assured of the experience based on text? How can you know for sure your teacher has experienced samadhi and isn't simply making that claim?
Pertaining to the question and remarks made by Godless and Superluminal, in Calcutta there is a sect or cult which worships the goddess Kali. In the process practised by initiates there are those who rise even higher in their insistence in the belief of Kali to the point where they can see Kali during meditation, they communicate with Kali etc.
When they reach this stage their guru abrubtly informs the person that Kali doesn't exist...and no this isn't a made-up myth its what they refer to as the 'mysteries'. Even for these hard-core religious or spiritual adherents there is an acknowledgement of the trap of arrogance for those whom profess to know absolutely. This is the aspect of hindu and buddhist tradition that Lightgigantic isn't yet privy or refuses to acknowledge. He accepts doctine ABSOLUTELY!
LG I would like to know what you think of such a process where one is set on a path of belief and then the moment they do are promptly shaken from this belief?
Also I would like to know how you would interpret the ending of the Mahabharata:
Arjuna climes the ladder towards heaven, when he arrives he finds his evil
Dhartarashtra cousins sitting around having a merry time in bliss-land and his good brothers suffering in hell. Its considered his last test. He decides that he wants to join his brothers in hell only to find it was heaven.
It seems to me that his last illusion is that of the reality of heaven and hell. What do you think?
Have you experienced Samadhi? Or are you simply assured of the experience based on text? How can you know for sure your teacher has experienced samadhi and isn't simply making that claim?
Pertaining to the question and remarks made by Godless and Superluminal, in Calcutta there is a sect or cult which worships the goddess Kali. In the process practised by initiates there are those who rise even higher in their insistence in the belief of Kali to the point where they can see Kali during meditation, they communicate with Kali etc.
When they reach this stage their guru abrubtly informs the person that Kali doesn't exist...and no this isn't a made-up myth its what they refer to as the 'mysteries'. Even for these hard-core religious or spiritual adherents there is an acknowledgement of the trap of arrogance for those whom profess to know absolutely. This is the aspect of hindu and buddhist tradition that Lightgigantic isn't yet privy or refuses to acknowledge. He accepts doctine ABSOLUTELY!
LG I would like to know what you think of such a process where one is set on a path of belief and then the moment they do are promptly shaken from this belief?
Also I would like to know how you would interpret the ending of the Mahabharata:
Arjuna climes the ladder towards heaven, when he arrives he finds his evil
Dhartarashtra cousins sitting around having a merry time in bliss-land and his good brothers suffering in hell. Its considered his last test. He decides that he wants to join his brothers in hell only to find it was heaven.
It seems to me that his last illusion is that of the reality of heaven and hell. What do you think?
because , as I have indicated several times, you lack a methodology
What???? But im using exactly the same methodology your bible employs!!!!!
Firstly can you firstly stop talking out of your ass?
Secondly can you not skirt around and answer my damn question of why i and my crap roll should be treated different?(Reminder- I said I was going to include the same methodology the bible employs) Or is it true to say "'you cant'"and there indeed is no difference?
If I answer "yes" how would you know whether I was lying?
If I answer "no" how would you know whether I was lying?
that is more less what I am addressing - how there is a basis for theistic claims that does not require automatic acceptance nor the similar alternative, automatic rejection.
Or to phrase it another way, how do you determine the credible qualification of claims (not just theistic ones, but any claim) beyond jurisdiction (if one's personal direct perception is everything you are left with a very limited perspective of reality)
and there are huge number of sects doing a huge array of things to prey upon the huge absence of knowledge that people have due to neglecting scripture. Scripture gives theoretical knowledge and methods of practical application - the rest is up to you.
there are many reasons, but lets just assume that a person is on a correct path when they get 'shaken' off it.
the most common is material desire
BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place.
Samadhi means "fixed mind." The Vedic dictionary, the Nirukti, says, samyag ādhīyate 'sminn ātma-tattva-yāthātmyam: "When the mind is fixed for understanding the self, it is said to be in samādhi. " Samadhi is never possible for persons interested in material sense enjoyment, nor for those who are bewildered by such temporary things. They are more or less condemned by the process of material energy.
if you read it, you will see that it was a test of the devas,by memory it was either yamaraj, the superintendant of reward and punishment, or indra - in either case it was just that - an illusory representation of the hellish planets.
it was a test to see whether arjuna had transcended the three modes of material nature
BG 14.22-25: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O son of Pāṇḍu, he who does not hate illumination, attachment and delusion when they are present or long for them when they disappear; who is unwavering and undisturbed through all these reactions of the material qualities, remaining neutral and transcendental, knowing that the modes alone are active; who is situated in the self and regards alike happiness and distress; who looks upon a lump of earth, a stone and a piece of gold with an equal eye; who is equal toward the desirable and the undesirable; who is steady, situated equally well in praise and blame, honor and dishonor; who treats alike both friend and enemy; and who has renounced all material activities — such a person is said to have transcended the modes of nature.
(actually arjuna, being an associate of the lord, is already transcendental, and his forrays into what are apparently ignorance are to illustrate teachings to our conditioned consciousness)
then why don'y you tell me what exactly your methodology is so we can determine if it is exactly the same.
Given that it wasn't until a few posts ago that you began thinking about the issue of having a methodology, it doesn't look too good for you.
What????? I have told you several times that my methodology is to demand you believe me without evidence ,as I am a devine prophet of the fairies . My words should not always be taken literally, I will tell you as and when and if the circumstances suit me to alter this. Why must I repeat the simplest of premises to you?when you make up your mind whether or not you have a methodology that enables direct perception let me know
Is 'methodology' a new buzzword you've heard from your pastors?when you make up your mind whether or not you have a methodology that enables direct perception let me know
I have always presented such to you. I have tried using logic and empirical methodology with you. I've tried using your standards of methodology(which is not as much a methoology as a 'my words must be obeyed without question, make-it-up as you go along' grandeur). Have you actually EVER looked up the word 'methodoogy' in the ditionary? because you dont appear to know what it actually means.
You cant and wont answer my questions, so your only resort left is to keep repeating the same impertinents over and over, like a spastic parrot.
Last edited by a moderator: