mike..this is a good post with much food for thought..thank you..merle Merle,
You've got that completely backwards. You're the one saying you know we have a soul. I'm saying I see absolutely no evidence in reality that points to a soul. And I gave you personal examples. All you've done is point to google and dead philosophers. And you say we're lazy!! Ok, I'll try your methods. Please read this and come back to us: ""There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other -- of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity." Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change." Dealing with this question of soul Prof. James says -- "The soul-theory is a complete superfluity, so far as accounting for the actually verified facts of conscious experience goes. So far no one can be compelled to subscribe to it for definite scientific reasons." In concluding his interesting chapter on the soul he says: "And in this book the provisional solution which we have reached must be the final word: the thoughts themselves are the thinkers." Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head. Even today a man holding a public position dare not question it." The Buddha anticipated these facts some 2500 years ago. According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process. Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul. It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning. Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Merle Lester <[email protected]>; To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Subject: Re: [Zen] merle's definition of soul Sent: Wed, Apr 10, 2013 12:33:48 AM mike...you can stand at ease..no need to work yourself up just cos you think you know and you think i do not know... whatever...merle Merle, A figment of your imagination is not required for me to shed a tear and my heart beat with pride when I hear the Welsh National Anthem (Not very Zen, but you'd have to be Welsh to understand!). Or to be stunned into silence and awe when looking at the view after scaling a mountain. Or cry tears of gratitude at the generosity and self-sacrifice of others. Or feel the pain of separation from my loved ones. And the joy of reuniting with them again. Please don't try to lessen my experiences because I don't share your religious *belief* in a soul. Remember, what's invisible and what doesn't exist aren't necessarily the same thing. Mike Sent from Yahoo! Mail for iPhone ________________________________ From: Merle Lester <[email protected]>; To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Subject: [Zen] merle's definition of soul Sent: Tue, Apr 9, 2013 11:27:59 PM jesus joe...if you don't know and can't feel the soul...try again..listen to some fine jazz and loosen your mind break open your heart and let your "soul " sing...lighten up joe and mike... the soul is the centre of your very being, your inner core...merle Mike, Don't bother. Google or wiki won't say what makes Merle think she has a soul ...unless she made some edits to the wiki article. Which she can do, of course. --Joe > uerusuboyo@... wrote: > > Merle, > >I'd prefer the old fashioned means of communicating ideas to each other >directly, but I'll take a look.
